Why take your "self" so seriously? From the world's perspective, your “self” doesn't exist

At the end of the day, the only thing that we really “know” is based on what we can experience, or more precisely what we can perceive - that is, what we can confirm from the interactions with the world, as told through our own senses. We know that a honeycrisp apple is real because we perceive it by feeling its weight in our hand, seeing its bright red, golden and green hues, and enjoying its juicy and sweet, slightly tart taste. We know that the sun is real because we feel the pleasant heat of its rays on our arms and face. We know that bills are real because they come to our door demanding to be paid - either in paper or pixel form. We know that our friends and family are real from the hugs we give them or receive, and our conversations with them.

If we apply this idea that perception is what grants the quality to some thing of being real, then it follows that from the perspective of the world around us, the concept of a “self” is not real.

The remainder of this essay dives deeper into this concept of the “self” not actually existing, but before that, please note that this essay is attempting to accomplish something far more important than winning the self does not exist argument. That’s merely a facetious pursuit, that is wholly besides the true point and entirely just for fun.

“The real point of this essay is, as the title suggests, to convince you to not take yourself so seriously.”

Tongue in cheek humor aside, the reality really is that your “self” doesn’t actually exist. I will consider this essay a smashing success if it chisels even the tiniest crack into your precept that A) the self exists and/or B) the self must be fed and defended at all costs. There does not exist a concept of “self” who is separate from your experiences of the world. Our attempts to constantly draw and redraw boundary lines in the sand around this imaginary entity of a self that is separate from our minds and bodies is the greatest illusion that has pervaded and plagued human society for millennia.

So read on, and if the tiniest doubt opens up in this principle of self for you, then perhaps it will open the door to walking yourself back from the fool’s arms race, the eternal hamster wheel, the - insert other analogy here - and you can learn to stop feeding the illusion of self, and start going with the flow of life. For, if you can learn to not take your “self” too seriously, then you will find that you are washed over by peace of mind and will actually find you can enjoy your life, no matter what happens.

Now, then, this concept of “self” that I’m referring to also goes by the Freudian name, “Ego,” and is made up of a stream of thoughts that follow or behave in a particular pattern. As if creating a kind body of thoughts, the self or ego grows, holds a pattern or shape, and evolves over the course of our lives. Unlike some thoughts, such as deductive reasoning, the thoughts that arise from the concept of self are not something we consciously summon, but rather something that happens to us. The self pattern is something that seems to stand apart from our worldly interactions, our summoned thoughts, and our emotions (although it is acutely and closely interlinked with emotions). The thoughts of the self or ego only serve to harangue us with commentary on what happens in our lives, judging and labeling what happens as “good” or “bad,” urging us to avoid “bad” and pursue “good,” and summoning unbidden emotional reactions to serve its will.

The world can confirm the existence of our body through the interactions of our bodily form with the form of the world (e.g. colliding molecules). The world confirms that we exist when our body moves and creates equal and opposite physical reactions with the world around us, such as when we speak, type on a laptop keyboard, drink coffee, or step on the gas pedal of our cars. However, the world cannot likewise confirm the reality of our concept of a “self,” no matter how real the “self” feels to us.

“I think, therefore I am” was the famous phrase used by René Descartes to prove that the self exists. Yet again, what proof is there for the world, or for that matter other humans, to validate that the concept of a self called René Descartes, which conjectured this thought, exists?

How did the world not know that the vocal chords of René Descartes weren’t spontaneously moved to speak those words, without the direction of a self? What if it was some other being, system, or influence that was connected to René Descartes’s vocal chords and produced those sounds, and all along we only mistook the self of René Descartes for this other influence? Do monkeys, dogs, or ants have concepts of selves? How would we know? All we - and the world - know is what we perceive, and so “I think therefore I am,” is merely gibberish noises; it means not one iota of substance to the world.

So if the world cannot verify through perception of interactions that a self exists as the body exists, then can this claim to exist as a self separate from the body, which arises from a concept that is itself unsubstantiated, lead to any non-circular and tangible truth?

No. Something that can only be proven to exist to itself cannot be proven to exist in the wider context; it is a moot point for the self to claim that it exists.

That said, memories, thoughts, and emotions, may be said to “exist” indirectly, because they can indirectly be perceived by the world as what corresponds to certain neural firings and connections. That indirect proof stops before the idea of a self, though. As revealed in research from Why Buddhism is True, there are no precise and consistent regions or even combinations of regions in the brain which science has revealed to correspond to the self. Science can point to the neurons that hold the memory of your childhood home, but cannot point to your self or ego.

Indirect existence is not what we call a particularly strong support, but has precedence in other accepted concepts in the world. Consider that a shadow is only seen or “exists” as the space where there is not light; but there is no coordinate in space which you can point to, touch, and say: “this is shadow.” So, too, can you not point to some place in the brain, touch it, and say “this is thought,” in the way you can say “this is a neurotransmitter and this is an electron,” which again are not in and of themselves thought; however, we can allow that memories, thought, and sensations, as well as the concept of time indirectly exist in the association of world-confirmed phenomena.

Self, however, is two levels removed from even an existence substantiated by indirect worldly perception. Therefore, self remains too far gone a concept to be acknowledged to exist.

So, then let us consider: if the concept of “self” does not exist, would it be possible to live if the concept of self disappeared?

Yes. In fact, you’ve already experienced moments of life in the absence of self, and even thought, many times. Living without an active self happens in the state of mind commonly referred to as the “flow state,” and also in situations of immediate, instinctive reactions, wherein your body simply interacts with the world unpossessed by your self.

You exist without the self when your vocal chords produce the sounds of words to a friend, acquaintance, or auditorium full of people without guidance from your self. When your body flexes and produces the action of swimming, or mountain climbing, without waiting for the self master. When your fingers type words onto a screen or write words onto paper without interruption of egoic thoughts. Your heart beats, you breathe, you digest, you eat, your cells divide, all without needing the go-ahead of your self or thoughts. You can and do exist fully in the present moment without the constant thread known as self running, and - what a shock - your body doesn’t go limp and shut down. Yes: your body doesn’t die or shut down just because your self does; in fact, as the flow state proves, your body arguably becomes far more alive when it is unencumbered by the drain of maintaining the self and can just “be.”

Somewhere along the way, understanding all of this got tricky for “you.” After all, the self cannot grasp the concept of there not being a self, or Anattā in Sanskrit/Buddhism, because the concept of not-self it is incompatible with the self itself. The self cannot grasp a concept which invalidates its own existence. That makes logical sense, too - if it could, then the self would instantly disappear, in some crazy cosmic space-time continuum warping implosion, right? Well, maybe, maybe not. That imagined implosion is a made-up idea, too.

Finally, let us contemplate how time, which itself is an intangible and imagined concept of thought, also cannot be proven to exist, only existing indirectly like thought. Time only exists in the mind as an imagined future or remembered past. Yet, there is never an interaction of the concept of time with the wider world. The Earth rotates, but when does the Earth tangibly interact with the concept of a “day?” There is no point at which anything other than the present moment is proven to exist. When an apple is falling in the air towards the ground, it is doing so in the present moment; we may say that in the past the ball had been in a different position and in the future will be still in a different position, but where is the proof that this was or will be the case other than in our minds? Who is even to say that animals agree with the concept of time? Do bears have their own equivalent concept of time, which looks completely different from our idea of past and future? Bear hibernation may happen once in our definition of a year based on the changing of the seasons, but when did yesterday or last winter ever actually intercept reality other than in our minds, as memories tied to neurons? When will tomorrow ever actually become now? Can you yourself prove that time exists? Even our strongest evidence for the existence of the concept of time in memory, always happens in the present moment. When you remember an event in the past or imagine some future fantasy, you activate neurons right here and now, not in the concept of a “past” or “future.” Who’s to say that those neurons aren’t just making up some vision of a “past,” say, based on some other concept of what “feels right,” for the present experience that the neuron was called upon to support? Ever had déjà vu? Even if we were able to teleport to the past or future, wouldn’t it still be the present moment for you?

Going back to the concept of a flow state, in this state of mind we lose track of the imagined concept of time just as we lose track of the imagined concept of self. When we start thinking of the concept of self and time again, it is often surprising that minutes or even hours have suddenly “passed in the blink of an eye.” This is because time, which is only “real” when the “self” is active does not exist in this entirely present-based flow state.

If this intrigues you, continue your curiosity journey through one of the following authors, and stay tuned for more mindful musings.

Explore the scientific side of Anattā or self does not exist in Robert Wright’s book, “Why Buddhism is True.”

Explore the practical side of Anattā or self does not exist in Eckhart Tolle’s “The Power of Now.”

Explore the philosophical side of Anattā or self does not exist in the works of Alan Watts - in particular his “The Wisdom of Insecurity.”