Many people find it challenging to grasp the Buddhist concept of anatta, or non-self, which is understandable due to its complexity. The idea that no single “self” controls our thoughts and actions perplexes many, leading to various misconceptions and fears about losing control or the ability to make decisions.
The Buddha’s teaching on non-self is often misunderstood. When teachers say, “there’s no self,” they mean the self you believe exists—a singular, controlling entity—is just an illusion. We think this self pulls all our experiences into a cohesive whole and makes conscious decisions. However, this type of self doesn’t really exist, which means there’s nothing to “lose.”
What we truly have is an illusion of such a self, and this illusion can be burdensome. We often compare our ‘self’ to others, feeling inadequate when we find it lacking. This illusory self becomes a source of dissatisfaction and hinders happiness.
Interestingly, research from the 1980s by Ben Libet showed that “conscious” decisions actually occur unconsciously. More recent studies using fMRI technology can predict a person’s decision several seconds before they are aware of making it. This suggests that decisions are made outside of our conscious awareness, though we falsely believe we make them consciously.
Many mistake consciousness for the self or assume that the self is the controller. This delusion makes accepting the concept of non-self difficult, but once seen through, it offers clarity. “Direct pointing” in teaching can help people see beyond their illusions and understand what’s truly happening.
A useful model to understand non-self is likened to Stephen King’s “boys in the basement,” representing the unconscious forces that govern our actions without our direct awareness. We mistakenly believe there’s a conscious self directing these forces when, in reality, there’s a complex interplay of unconscious processes.
Picture a building with multiple rooms connected to a central empty atrium. These rooms house the “boys in the basement” or subcommittees with different viewpoints and agendas. Communication occurs both within and between rooms, sometimes consciously perceived in the atrium, but often not.
This model underlines that there’s no central conscious self making decisions. Consciousness is just an empty atrium through which some decisions pass. Decisions happen through debates and interactions among the different parts of the unconscious mind. Consequently, feelings like conflict and resolution result from these unconscious debates rather than a single conscious choice.
When faced with emotional conflict, for instance, various parts of the unconscious mind communicate and debate the best course of action. The conscious mind merely becomes aware of these debates and decisions after they happen.
This analogy further extends to explain common experiences like reacting in a conversation or making purchases swayed by advertising. We incorrectly believe these decisions are made consciously because of the retrospective sense of “I did that,” attributed to what is essentially an unconscious process.
Understanding that the self is an illusion helps dispel the myths around conscious decision-making and free will. Meditation and mindfulness can aid in recognizing these unconscious processes, leading to a more integrated and harmonious mental state.
Finally, spiritual growth involves training the mind, with parts of the unconscious (the wiser “boys”) learning to manage other, less skillful parts. This lifelong practice helps shift our default behaviors towards more constructive and compassionate actions, allowing for personal growth and happier, more ethical living.