Beyond Self-Realization: A Non-Sectarian Path to Enlightenment

By Paul Breer

In his previous book on philosophy (The Spontaneous Self), the author argued that the concept of free will is an illusion while detailing what it might imply for our thoughts, feelings, and behavior to dispel that belief. The present volume takes the argument further. With equal emphasis on theory and practice, it illustrates how giving up one's

• Language: English
• Publisher: Paul Breer
• Release date: Dec 11, 2021
• ISBN: 9781956161731

Book preview

Beyond Self-Realization

Copyright © 2021 by Paul Breer

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted in any form or by any means, including photocopying, recording, or other electronic or mechanical methods, without the prior written permission of the author, except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical reviews and certain other non-commercial uses permitted by copyright law.

Cover painting (Metamorphosis) is by Varouj Hairabedian

With the exception of the teacher,

all characters in the book are fictitious.

ISBN

978-1-956161-74-8 (Paperback)

978-1-956161-73-1 (eBook)

Because we don’t know who we really are, our lives remain mired in quiet desperation. We have been given the priceless gift of consciousness only to squander it on an illusion. That illusion is the self.

DEDICATION

This book is dedicated to the two women who kept me alive and alert throughout two years of incarceration.

Julie Breer: my daughter who sent me food, books, money, letters and postcards…and made sure my lawyer did what he was supposed to do. And she came to see me often, all the way from Santa Fe, New Mexico. Although these material things were much appreciated, what touched me most were the tears she shed when we met at the visitation room in prison…and again when we said goodbye. I find those same tears welling up in me now as I write this dedication…no words…just an unarticulated flood of emotion…as if the tears were saying Thank you, I love you, I will never stop loving you.

AND

Debra Hanson: my upbeat, next-door neighbor who also came to see me (with her husband Ralph)…and fed my cat (Kwatz) daily while I was gone. With the power of attorney in hand, she paid all my bills, kept meticulous records and answered my correspondence …all while tending to her own family. She is a woman of remarkable ability and executive know-how…gifted enough to have made a good governor or CEO of IBM.

PREFACE

I once again want to express my profound gratitude to Tom Clark for the many astute recommendations he made in the manuscript, almost all of which I followed. Tom also played a major role in the writing of

The Spontaneous Self, a book that can be considered a prelude to the present volume. In the years since that book was published we have gone on to explore different aspects of the philosophy of determinism. Now, 25 years later, despite some theoretical differences, we remain not only good friends but partners in the search for a deeper understanding of consciousness.

My landlady, Lana Trettin, who is both an exceptionally tolerant woman and an avid reader of all things intellectual, offered to read the original manuscript. If the published version is at all readable, it owes much to her insistence on my being clearer about my concepts and more reader-friendly in my language. For both her skill and her generosity I will be forever in her debt.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of Contents

THE SELF

1. The Class

2. Apotheosis Of The Self

3. How The Self Causes Suffering

4. The Self As Illusion

5. Can We Function Without A Self?

6. Toward A Life Of No-Self

7. Implications For Society

METHODS FOR SHRINKING THE SELF

8. The Experiment

9. Changing The Language

10. Meditation

11. Contemplation

12. Targeting Signs Of Self

SIGNS OF SELF

I

13. Bragging

14. Defensiveness

15. Talking About Yourself

16. Selfishness

17. Guilt

II

18. Judging

19. Emotions

20. Beliefs

21. Blaming Others

22. Desire

III

23. Complaining

24. Jealousy

25. Ambition

26. Resistance

27. Responsibility

28. Straining

IV

29. Self-Pity

30. Self-Righteousness

31. Identification

32. Self-Image

33. Self-Mockery

34. Summary

THE ENLIGHTENED WAY OF LIFE

35. Parting Of The Veil

36. A World No Longer Divided

37. The End Of Suffering

38. When Desire Yields To Compassion

39. Acceptance Made Natural

A THEORY OF ENLIGHTENMENT

40. How Paradise Gets Lost

41. Sorting Out Sensations

42. Constructing A Perceptual Field

43. Naming And Evaluating

44. How Paradise Gets Regained

45. The Word Is Not The Thing

46. Destroying Object Distinctions

47. Penetrating Sensations

48. Alternative Strategies

THE QUEST FOR MEANING

49. Enlightenment And The Cosmos

50. Do Our Lives Have A Purpose?

51. Are We Evolving Toward Enlightenment?

52. Guided Meditation

THE SELF

1.

THE CLASS

A notice in the local library announces a course called Beyond Self-Realization with the subtitle of A Non-sectarian Path to Enlightenment. According to the notice, the course is to be given by Richard Stresemann, a retired college professor. On the appointed evening eight people show up for the initial session. Once everyone is seated, the teacher introduces himself.

Richard (88, tall, slender, receding white hair, steel-rimmed glasses, bears a resemblance to the author): Good evening. Thank you all for coming. Before telling you a little about the course and what subjects we’ll be covering, I want to introduce myself. My name is Richard Stresemann. (pause) That’s my name, but it doesn’t tell you much about who I really am. And it doesn’t tell you anything at all about what I really am. I say my name is Richard Stresemann because that’s the name I go by in this movie called life. And it’s useful to have some kind of name. If someone came into the room right now and asked if Richard Stresemann were here, I would say yes, I’m over here. But as I said, that’s not what I really am.

What I really am cannot be described with words---other than to say what it is not. The physical form before you may be what you see, but it is not what I really am. Within this old, wrinkled body, I have no form of any kind. Neither do I have any boundaries nor can I be located in time or space. And I never change, like the ocean depths that remain unperturbed no matter what happens on the surface.

If you find this strange, think again. I may be talking about myself, but I could say the same thing about each of you. Behind our surface differences in appearance, we are all exactly the same. It doesn’t matter how old you are---or how intelligent or good-looking you might be; underneath these surface differences, we are all the same. But discovering that deeper, formless nature is no easy task; given the joy that such a discovery unlocks, if it were easy, we’d all have done it long ago. Once discovered, however, it is guaranteed to turn your life upside down---or, more accurately, to turn it downside up. By that I mean it will turn a life of what Henry Thoreau called quiet desperation into one graced with peace, joy and love. That may not be apparent to you right now, but it is the purpose of this course to open your eyes to that truth.

Now, how about telling us who you are and what you hope to get from the course?

Stephanie (29, grad student in clinical psychology): I’m a Zen Buddhist and have been working on the koan Mu for the last five years. I still haven’t broken through. I’ve felt some reduction in anxiety but not much to show for all my effort. I’m getting frustrated and bored---hope to get some help from this course.

Brian (28, Stephanie’s boyfriend): I’m just the driver---was going to wait outside in the car but the heater doesn’t work. So Steph says I should come in and wait here. (pause) I can wait outside if you want.

Richard: You might as well stay where you are. Who knows? You might become enlightened.

Laughter

Helen (53, stooped shoulders, short gray hair, muted voice that matches her posture): I lost my husband three months ago---actually three months and four days (trembling). I can’t sleep knowing he’s not beside me. A friend suggested I come here---maybe your course can help me (pause). I still don’t understand how an enlightened person deals with the loss of a loved one. Do you grieve like the rest of us---or do you just let it go? Does it affect you at all?

Richard: A good question---one which we’ll get to later in the course.

Sally (21, chubby and freckled with lank hair falling to her shoulders). I’m taking a course in Eastern Philosophy at the local college. The instructor recommended your course---said that his own course would be mainly academic and that it might be wise to supplement that approach with a more experiential approach, you know, something we’re not going to get in his course.

Tom (44, balding, steel-rimmed glasses, hawk-like visage): leans forward---I’m curious---have spent most of my life immersed in a dualistic philosophy, but have been having doubts lately---thought I might get some clarification here. I don’t know---I may be in the wrong place.

Richard: You might get some intellectual clarification, but the thrust of the course goes beyond the intellect. What we’re going for here is direct consciousness of our true nature---that is, a consciousness unmediated by language.

Tom: Hmm. That sounds rather strange. After all, our mind is the most precious thing we have. If we can’t apprehend something with the intellect, it’s fair to say it doesn’t exist.

Richard: Not sure about that, but we’ll definitely be getting into the subject later.

Peter (38, soft, shaky voice): For me, it’s more of an emotional thing. I’ve been anxious ever since I made a fool of myself while giving a talk at church some 20 years ago. Still can’t shake it. It could be a lack of self-confidence, but I feel pretty sure of myself---at least in situations where I know what I’m talking about. I’ve tried psychotherapy, but the only benefit was that I learned to admit my anxiety instead of hiding it. It helps a little but I’m tired of telling people I’m anxious. I just want to get rid of it. From what little I’ve read in Buddhism, I get the sense that the answer lies in letting go of the self---you know, my ego---and that’s why I’ve come here.

Richard: Yes, it’s particularly hard to let go of something that’s not real.

Peter (alarmed): What’s that?

Richard: That particular subject will take center stage throughout the first half of the course. We’ll have ample time to discuss it then.

Michelle (41, tall, slender, relaxed, penetrating eyes): I’ve been meditating for years now and have been fortunate enough to experience several breakthroughs, each of which has brought me greater peace and joy. For the past few years I’ve been living near a Zen Center in Rochester, New York, but have had to move here to take care of my daughter who is suffering from inoperable cancer. I need my practice even more now and that’s why I’ve come.

Jake (27, short, squat, scruffy beard, speaks in a loud voice): Well, to tell you the truth, I thought this was the AA meeting I was supposed to go to. You know. I just got out of the slammer and AA was supposed to be part of my probation.

Richard: Well, looks like you got the wrong floor. The AA meeting is upstairs.

Jake: Yeah, well, I really don’t want to go. If I got a drinking problem, that’s my business and nobody else’s. You know, when you go to those meetings, you’re supposed to stand up and tell everybody you’re a drunk and then they all clap like you just won some kinda prize.

Tom: So, why are you staying here? If you don’t want to go to the AA meeting, why don’t you just go home?

Jake (squinting): You trying to get rid a me? What’s it to you if I want stay. I like the name of the course---you know, getting enlightened and all that. Maybe that’s what I been looking for all my life.

Richard: It looks like we have a variety of motivations at work here

---and that’s good. It’ll allow us to look at the theory and practice of enlightenment from different angles. For myself, I got into Zen in my 30’s, took it very seriously for five years---then pushed it aside to focus on family and career. While I never gave up the hope of enlightenment, I contented myself with occasional meditation and reading. All of that changed a few years ago when I was arrested and sent to prison for two years. The only way I could make sense of the nightmare was to see it as an opportunity to do what I could not do at home, namely to give myself over completely to the pursuit of enlightenment. By meditating in my cell for hours every day, I finally had a minor breakthrough---one which deepened in the years to follow. In the process I became aware of just how difficult it is to gain access to one’s deepest nature; it has to become the top priority in your life. Unless you’re willing to make that commitment, it’s not going to happen. There are exceptions, of course; E.M. Bucke, the Canadian doctor who wrote Cosmic Consciousness, comes to mind. More recently, there’s Eckhart Tolle who, like Bucke, awoke to an enlightened state without any preparation or, for that matter, any knowledge of what the experience meant.

For the rest of us, a lot of effort is required. That effort can be fueled by suffering in one of its many forms or by an inchoate sense that there is more to life than meets the eye. Both kinds of motivation are represented here today. Both are legitimate and powerful enough to give you the energy you need to discover who you really are.

The course will be divided into two parts---think of them as stages on the path to enlightenment. In the first stage we’ll concentrate on the illusion of self (the entity we have in mind when we use the pronoun I); we’ll try to understand how and why we develop the notion that we are separate entities who are fated to struggle and suffer---or as some would have it, to be born in sin and die in pain. Loosening the hold of an illusory identity will prepare us to discover who we really are in the second half of the course; our end game there will be no less than enlightenment itself. But let’s not kid ourselves; we have a steep mountain to climb. Very few of us will make it all the way to the top. One Indian sage estimated that no more than one person in a million ever reaches true enlightenment. This is a wild guess, of course, based on a tiny sample of the world’s population that he either knows or has read about, but uncertain as that estimate is, it points to how difficult it is to awaken to our most fundamental nature.

And yet it is possible. It has been done many times by people like you. Even if you never go all the way, simple changes in the way you view yourself can improve your life dramatically. And for those who manage to dispel the self-illusion completely, suffering gives way to a joy far deeper than any mere happiness you might have known as a separate ego. Worries about love, approval, money, property, health and reputation yield to a kind of peace that is unknowable in a world where as Henry Thoreau put it, Most men lead lives of quiet desperation.

You can think of it this way: there’s bad news and good news. The bad news is that you are not the person you think you are. Here I’m referring to something far deeper than a shift in self-image. I’m referring to the fact that the person you identify with (the inner I) does not even exist. I grant that it feels real but it is only an illusion, no more real than the apparent flatness of the earth. While the physical body may be real, the self thought to inhabit that body is not. It is only a concept, a linguistic fiction, an identity foisted upon us by the culture in which we live. And it is that identity that lies at the heart of our problems. Learning how to let go of it will receive the bulk of our attention in the first half of the course.

Peter: This does sound strange. Are you saying that we have to let go of the false idea of who we are---you know, the one we all have right now---in order to wake up to what you say is our deeper nature?

Richard: Yes. It is as if you were lost in a dream where all the people you meet are thought to harbor an inner puppeteer that moves their arms and legs and tells them what to feel and think. You are convinced that such a master controller is operating inside of you as well. Such dreams can be pleasant, even inspiring, particularly if they portray you in a favorable light. Unfortunately, if that same inner agent (the illusory you) is rejected, falsely accused, or abandoned by family and friends, the dream can drag you through the torments of hell. Life is made up of such dreams. Just about everyone you meet is in a similar position; they don’t know they are dreaming anymore than you do. It is a nearly universal dream, one that brings with it fear, worry, frustration and in extreme cases, depression and self-loathing.

The answer is to wake up, to recognize that what seems normal is just an illusion. Seek the truth, namely that there is no inner I inside your body or anyone else’s. That truth has to be experienced directly---not just read about or thought about, but actually felt. Once felt, it will change your life forever. (pause) If you’ve ever had a persistent migraine headache that suddenly disappeared leaving you completely free of pain, you might know what I mean.

Now, the good news. When I say that you are far more than you think you are, I am referring to a vast, empty, formless state of consciousness that is not a thing and therefore cannot be defined, other than to say what it is not. It has no boundaries, no beginning and no end, nor can it be located in either time or space. Unlike the everyday world we inhabit, it is unchanging and imperturbable, fathomless like the ocean depths. As in the ocean, beneath the waves above, peace abounds---an unshakeable peace that is always there no matter how turbulent life on the surface becomes. If we have to call it something, Pure Consciousness is probably the most apt. But the name is not important; what counts is seeing (with the inner eye) that this is what you really are.

A mistake that people often make when trying to imagine what such a state of consciousness might be like is to see it as another identity, simply different in breadth from the way you identify yourself in the world of form. Typically, we use the term identity to distinguish persons from each other by name or number. There are no such distinctions in the world of Pure Consciousness, thus no you distinguishable from anyone else. Here you are no longer an individual, separate from all others. You are Pure Consciousness itself rather than an individuated entity who happens to be conscious. In other words, you are no longer a separate self; you’re the whole enchilada. Only on the surface (what Buddhists call the world of form) do you remain an individual body-mind, but even there enlightenment brings dramatic changes. As an awakened body-mind, you’re in a position to draw on the energy of your underlying nature, expressing Pure Consciousness in everything you think, feel or do. That means you no longer have to suffer the fears and anxieties common to life as an individual still ignorant of its true nature. The peace you feel when you awaken to this deeper reality is like the Rock of Gibraltar, imperturbable in the face of even the most calamitous happenings.

And then there’s the joy that descends upon you. In The Book of Not Knowing, Peter Ralston distinguishes between joy and happiness, the latter referring to those fleeting pleasures we feel when things are going our way. Joy is deeper; it is constant, always there beneath the storms that may be raging on the surface. It means that no matter how bad things get, you still glow with an inner warmth that makes any loss much easier to bear.

Finally, there’s love. Like peace and joy, life in the enlightened state is suffused with love. When your existence revolves around the self, much of your energy is spent on promoting and defending who you think you are. After all, that self is the most precious possession you have. Let’s face it: you are in love with yourself and will do just about anything to preserve it. So, what happens to all that self-serving energy when you wake up to the fact that it is nothing but a concept? It goes out into the world---to other people and the myriad forms of nature. You give, not because you should, not because it is your duty, not because your religion demands it, but because you want to give. This is agape---altruistic love---love without anything in it for you other than the joy of giving. The Buddhists call it compassion. And it is all spontaneous; it arises in you as a byproduct of your enlightenment.

Peace, joy and love---these are the hallmarks of a life freed from the straight-jacket of a self that sets its own preservation above all else. Some would call it heaven on earth; others call it paradise. Anyway you put it, it is the Holy Grail of human existence, that state of being that towers above any ordinary attainment, whether that be power, prestige, security, romance or friendship. That blissful state is available to you at this very moment; it remains unknown because it is concealed behind a false identity, namely that self you love so much.

Keep in mind that the enlightened state is not something out there that has to be pursued, conquered and made your personal possession. It exists within you right now---just a step away---and can be accessed with a variety of measures we’re going to be talking about. The primary barrier to discovering your real nature is, of course, your insistence on identifying with an inner self. The way to remove that barrier is to let go of who you think you are. Furthering that process will be the focus of the first half of the course. (pause) Now, any questions?

Stephanie: What about reading? I know this isn’t a college-type course, but I’m wondering if there are any books you want us to read.

Richard: There are several books you should check out, two by Eckhart Tolle (The Power of Now and The New Earth), and one by Peter Ralston (The Book of Not Knowing). These are the most helpful books on the subject of consciousness and enlightenment I’ve read. If you don’t mind the occasional theistic language, you should also take a look at both David Hawkins’ Dissolving the Ego, Realizing the Self and Bernadette Roberts’ The Experience of No-Self. You might find two of Sam Harris’s books (Free-Will and Waking Up) interesting as well. While all these draw on the basic principles of Buddhism and Hinduism, they anchor their arguments in modern philosophy and psychology, thereby avoiding the pitfalls of religious sectarianism. The same is true of J. Krishinamurti’s The Ways of the Self. Then, if you’re really desperate for something to read, take a look at Paul Breer’s 1989 book The Spontaneous Self which explores the psychological implications of dispelling the free-will illusion---a critical step on the path to enlightenment. We’ll be referring to all these books at different points along the way.

Before we go, I want to read you a selection from Bernadette Robert’s book The Experience of No-Self. It is both a warning and an invitation.

This journey then, is nothing more, yet nothing less, than a period of acclimating to a new way of seeing: a time of transition and revelation as it gradually comes upon that which remains when there is no self. This is not a journey for those who expect love and bliss; rather it is for the hardy who have been tried in fire and have come to rest in the tough, immovable trust in that which lies beyond the known, beyond the self, beyond union, and even beyond love and trust itself.¹

O.K.?---see you all next week.

2.

APOTHEOSIS OF THE SELF

If we want to discover the state of Being that lies beyond self-realization, the obvious place to start is with the self. As I said last week, it is our identification with the self that bars the way to that discovery. While it is true that most of us take ourselves pretty seriously, that’s more apt to be the case in the Western world than in the East. In fact, the best known philosophical idea to come out of the Eastern world is the Buddhist notion of anatman---the idea that the individual self doesn’t really exist---that it’s only an illusion. And that’s a far cry from the nearly-sacred quality we give that same self in Europe and North America. But before proceeding any further, it is important to make clear what I mean by the self---and to say something about its place in human culture.

When I speak of the self I mean whatever it is that we are referring to when we use the pronouns I, me, my or mine. Sometimes we’re referring to the body, as when we say I’m 6’0 tall or I weigh 150 pounds. More often we’re referring to the I that exists inside the body, the I that has a body, that likes or dislikes its body.

Some would call that indwelling entity the soul or spirit, others call it the Atman, still others the ego. Whatever name we use, it is clearly seen as the very center of our being. It appears to exist somewhere inside our head or chest where it serves as a kind of puppeteer, observing the outside world, recording memories, making choices and rendering decisions. That inner I is what keeps us going; without its guidance, we would descend into utter chaos, unable to think straight, coordinate the movement of arms and legs, or fend off the slings and arrows coming from the rest of the world. We absolutely need a strong sense of self; more than that, we need to take pride in ourselves, even to love ourselves, not to the point of self-worship of course---but with a healthy dose of respect and confidence. (pause) At least this is what we think. Whether it is true or not is the subject of this course.

Stephanie: By equating ego with the inner I, aren’t you using the term differently from the way we use it in everyday speech---like when we say someone has a big ego or that someone is egotistical?

Richard: The two usages have a lot in common. When we say certain people have big egos, we mean they have an inflated image of themselves. Behaviorally this can be seen in their bragging about their accomplishments or in their defensiveness when criticized. They also talk about themselves a lot. All of that behavior is fueled by identifying with an inner I that is assumed to be the originator of their thoughts and actions---and is thus deserving of credit or blame, depending on the circumstances. It all starts with a belief about who we are; if we identify with an inner I that is responsible for making our thoughts and actions happen, bragging and defensiveness are the likely outcome. In that sense, having a big ego is the offspring of identifying with an inner I. The stronger that identity, the more we need to advance and protect it---thus, the more egotistical we are likely to be.

When we look around the world, we see that while the self (the inner I) plays a critical role in every language and every culture, there are important differences. In some societies the self reigns supreme, particularly in those that place a high value on individualism. In others the individual, while still important, plays second fiddle to some form of community (for example, the family or state). (pause) Let me read you a few lines from a well-known poem and see if you can guess what culture it comes from (reading):

In the fell clutch of Circumstance

I have not winced nor cried aloud.

Under the bludgeoning of Chance

My head is bloody, but unbowed…

I am the master of my fate:

I am the captain of my soul.

If you were to read this poem without being told anything about its author, you wouldn’t have any trouble guessing that it was written by someone from the Western world (in this case Wm. Henley from 19th century England). No writer from an Asian culture would ever place the individual ego on such a lofty pedestal and trumpet its invincibility like Henley does. This is true across the board in India, China and Japan, although important differences exist in language, particularly the way grammar gives shape to thought. In India, for example, people who write about spiritual matters typically emphasize broad, abstract concepts (universals) at the expense of particulars like the individual self. While important in its own right, the individual draws its ultimate value from participation in the Brahman.

Compare that with the Western world where the soul is conceived individually rather than as a part of the Divine; it may have been created by God but it never enters into union with Him. That poses a gulf between God and man, a gulf never to be crossed even when one is saved.a Because of that gulf, the self as embraced in the West can never be absorbed into the universal, whether that universal be conceptualized as Brahma, the Buddha-nature, God or simply as the One.

The contrast with Western values is equally striking in Japan (Zen) and China (Chan) where the Buddhist notion of no-self (anatman) took root after emigrating from India. That belief, still shared by much of the population, holds that one’s deepest nature lies not in the separate personality but in the undifferentiated Buddha-nature common to all sentient beings. In turn, it affects the position of the self in other aspects of the general culture. In Japan, for example, if a Haiku poem is meant to celebrate anything, it is more likely to be nature than the individual. The devaluing of individual values can be seen even more clearly in the widespread respect given to the practice of ritual suicide (seppuku). A willingness to sacrifice the individual shows up as well in the practice of ordering pilots to crash their planes into enemy battleships, which is exactly what the Japanese did in WWII when it became clear they were losing the war. It’s hard to imagine someone giving an order like that in the U.S. or Europe.

A similar downplaying of individual values can be seen in Chinese landscape paintings. Men and women, if they appear at all, play a minor role at best. And if they are included, whether in poetry or painting, it is their relationship with their surroundings that gives them significance.

Compared to the Far East where family (Japan) and state (China) reign supreme in the hierarchy of values, in the West it is the individual that claims that exalted position. Much of this is due to the pervasive influence of Christianity and its belief in the sanctity of the individual soul. But not all Christians believe the same thing. While Catholics look to the Church as keeper of the keys, Protestants encourage parishioners to seek God individually through prayer and reading of the Bible. Max Weber, the German sociologist, went further, claiming that the Protestant belief that worldly success signifies salvation led to the rise of that highly individualistic economic system known as capitalism.

Within the Western world there are further differences. The United States, for example, is more individually-oriented than Europe. While human rights (free speech, right of assembly and worship, etc.) are extolled both here and abroad, Americans are more apt than Europeans to feel responsible for exporting their individualistic values to other countries, particularly those seen as less evolved.

Probing further, American conservatives (Republicans and Libertarians) tend to be more extreme in their defense of individualism than are liberals. Most conservatives, for example, distrust big government, preferring to leave policy decisions to citizens at the state or local level. This can be seen clearly in their aversion to a single-payer (government-sponsored) healthcare system, something widely accepted by other industrialized nations. American distaste for anything smacking of collectivism can be seen as well in the distrust of unions (only 11% of workers in the U.S. belong to unions, compared with 50% or more in most European countries).

Another marker of attitudes regarding individual rights can be seen in the way people feel about private property. For the true conservative, an individual’s right to private property, including the land he owns, is no less than sacred. Liberals, on the other hand, are more willing to limit that right in the interest of shared community values. Environmentalists, for example, prefer to view land holders as temporary stewards of their land rather than owners with the right to do whatever they like with their property. (pause) Is any of this ringing a bell with you?

Stephanie: Of course. You could also include gun control---or the lack of it here in the States. And then there’s income inequality; it’s much greater here than in Europe---and appears to be growing.

Tom: What’s that got to do with individualism or the self?

Stephanie: Well, there’s less sharing, you know, through taxes or benefits for the poor. It’s more like everyone for himself.

Tom: Well, maybe---but most Americans don’t seem to mind the inequality, probably because they think they might be able to get rich themselves someday. As long as there’s a chance for upward mobility, they’re not going to protest.

Richard: In talking about values like individualism and collectivism, we shouldn’t forget that social structures change and that values can change along with them. No more than 150 years ago, for example, most Americans were farmers; millions of us worked alone or with other members of our family. Today most of us work in organizations like private corporations, hospitals or government agencies where individual values, while still honored, are subordinated to the ability to work harmoniously with others. A similar change has taken place in the professions: doctors and lawyers who used to have their own individual practices now work in medical clinics and law firms that employ dozens of people. Up and down the line the American workplace has changed---in a way that places less value on individual initiative and more on cooperating with others. In David Riesman’s words, structural changes in how and where we work have forced us to become more other-directed.

By itself that might have tilted the balance away from the individual and towards some form of community. At the same time, however, forces have been at work to weaken one of the most important of those communal forms---the family. For one thing, it’s easier to get divorced and live alone these days; unlike farm wives who depended on their husbands for income, women today have little trouble in finding jobs on their own. And with supermarkets filled with foods either already prepared or easy to prepare, men no longer need a wife to do the cooking. No wonder the divorce rate in the United States has climbed to over 50%.

On the other hand, some of the functions traditionally performed by the family have been taken over by outside entities---witness schools (vs. home tutoring), hospitals (vs. home care) and Social Security (vs. family savings). So, it works both ways---sometimes structural changes in how we make a living tip the balance away from individual values toward more collective ones; at the same time, other changes can undermine those collective values, tipping the balance back toward the individual self. The bottom line? Despite the changes in social structure over the last century and a half, Americans as a whole remain highly individualistic in their values.

Assuming that to be the case, let’s take a closer look at what that means. Behind the ideology of individualism lies a belief in the inviolability of the self. Whether we call it the ego, the soul or the person, the self is seen as the prime mover of our behavior, the generator of our thoughts and feelings, the repository of our deepest values. In Freud’s psychology, the self plays an executive role, coordinating impulse and obligation, testing reality, setting goals and sorting out competing priorities. Like Freud, most modern psychologists assume that it is impossible to navigate one’s way in this world without an inner guide (read self) at the helm.

It makes sense, then, that people all over the globe, even in those countries where community values are esteemed highly, should consider the self their most precious possession. As I mentioned earlier, it is commonly assumed that without an inner gyroscope to steer us through the maze of problems that confront us every day, our lives would be chaotic. Or so we think. Psychologists go so far as to base their definition of mental health on the need for a strong sense of self, that is, a positive but realistic personal identity. In determining the mental status of a possibly disturbed individual, psychiatrists are trained to ask the patient three questions: What time is it?, Where are you?, and Who are you? If you don’t know what time it is, no big deal. Not knowing where you are is a bit more serious, unless of course it is in the middle of the night and you have just awakened from a terrifying dream. Not knowing who you are, however, suggests a breakdown in normal consciousness, pointing perhaps to psychosis or an impairment in brain functioning. For both psychologists and psychiatrists, self-awareness constitutes a sina qua non of mental health---that without which a normal existence is impossible.

Consistent with that conclusion, at least in the Western world, is the role that psychotherapy plays in resolving cognitive-emotional problems. The problems typically faced by psychotherapists center on the role of the self---identity problems, for example, problems with communication, confidence, self-image or the expression of feelings.

A typical client, for example, might come into therapy seeking help with values. In my abbreviated days as a therapist I often saw clients, all women, who had just gotten divorced and found themselves at sea about the simplest things in life, like the kind of food they prefer or the kind of clothes they should wear. After years of cooking and wearing whatever their husbands wanted, they had little or no idea what to cook or wear for themselves, now that they were living alone. Their inclination in therapy, of course, was to get the therapist to decide such things for them. When that didn’t work, they began in earnest the process of discovering for themselves what they wanted to eat and wear. In a word, they began fleshing out a personal identity.

Other clients, of course, came with more serious agendas. I am thinking of a man who could still hear his mother’s critical voice well into his middle age. Instead of standing up to her, he internalized her rebukes to such an extent that they continued tormenting him even after her death. In the years that followed, this inability to assert himself created problems in his marriage, even with his own children. At work he was denied promotion because of his extreme reticence. In desperation he turned to therapy where he felt safe in experimenting with different ways of dealing with criticism. Over time he grew in self-confidence, his progress accompanied by a sharp reduction in anxiety.

Another self-related issue that clients often bring to therapy is stage-fright, a problem usually treated by cognitive therapists who see the issue as one of distorted thinking. Clients who panic at the thought of giving a speech typically exaggerate the consequences of doing poorly, for example, being ridiculed or dismissed as a failure. The therapist’s role here is to get clients to be more realistic about the possible reactions to their effort. Once again, the basic issue is a strengthening of the self through the elimination of negative thoughts about how one is perceived by others.

And, of course, there is the case of the man who longs to be a musician, but is tied to the career his autocratic father has chosen for him---dentistry. Although everything else in his life (family, property, reputation etc.) might be satisfactory, he remains unfulfilled. He, of course, might be willing to live with that disjunct for the rest of his days, keeping his fear of his father to himself; alternately, his frequent bouts of depression might lead him into therapy where interaction with others could lead to a clarification of values and a willingness to stand up for what he wants.

Clients typically come to psychotherapy to gain a more robust sense of self. It is a rare bird who comes with hopes of letting go of his self. Perhaps in Japan and some other less individualistic culture that might happen, but not in the West where psychotherapy, in whatever form, is designed to build a healthier self, not tear it down. Here, clients come to gain self-confidence, to improve their self-image or to learn how to manage their lives (particularly their emotions) more effectively.

The supreme value we Americans place on the self can be seen most clearly in Abraham Maslow’s hierarchy of needs theory. Maslow says that our needs can be arranged along a ladder, starting with the basic need for food, clothing and shelter and continuing upward through a need for security, love, and esteem. Each need is activated only when substantial progress has been made in satisfying lower needs. Rung by rung we make our way up the ladder by learning how to get our more basic needs met, the ultimate prize (the top of the ladder) being what the author calls self-realization, a psychological state in which all major aspects of life have been brought into alignment with one’s core values. To reach that lofty place, we must first learn to satisfy our lower needs; we must learn, for example, to meet our physical survival needs, to make ourselves secure, to get others to love us, and to win their approval. It is only when we have had significant success at meeting these more basic needs that we can turn our attention to the goal of self-realization. Once that goal is realized, we have reached the pinnacle of mental health.

Sally: We read a little about Maslow in the class I’m taking at the college

---but there’s one thing I don’t get---well, maybe more than one---but is he saying that when you get to the top rung of the ladder, you don’t need things like love and approval anymore? I guess I find that hard to believe.

Richard: No---Maslow assumes that the desire for food and shelter, safety, love and approval never really go away; it’s only the obsessive need for them that disappears. Self-realized individuals remain as interested as ever in getting their needs met, whether that involves keeping the refrigerator full, locking doors, cultivating friendships, or winning recognition for their skills and accomplishments. They seem stronger and more independent to us, according to Maslow, not because they have lost interest in those goods, but because they are adept at getting what they want without any fuss. They are happy, successful human beings…

Stephanie: …but still dependent on others for their secure feelings?

Richard: Yes---and this is where I part company with Maslow. I think something important happens to self-realized people as they continue to develop, something which Maslow does not consider in his theory. Self-realization changes your priorities. As people continue to grow, the very things they fought to achieve on their way up the ladder become less important. Bringing their lives into closer alignment with their deepest values makes them less interested in what others think of them---or even what they may feel toward them.

Sally: You mean because they feel good about themselves?

Richard: Yes---because they love what they are doing; they love their surroundings, their work, their friends---they love how they live. And this makes them less dependent on others.

Stephanie: I can understand that, but are you saying that self-realized individuals end up losing their interest in being with others?

Richard: They may lose their need to be with others---but this doesn’t mean becoming indifferent to the pleasures of companionship, nor indifferent to the delights of hearing others say nice things about them. For the self-realized individual who continues to grow, both love and approval eventually become luxuries---things to be enjoyed when they are offered, but no longer goods to be sought.

Stephanie: It sounds like you’re saying there’s a step beyond what Maslow calls self-realization---maybe another rung to the ladder?

Richard: You could call it a rung if you want, but what’s important is that self-realization as Maslow defines it needn’t be the end of the line. For Maslow, to be self-realized implies that you are successful in getting your needs met---not that those needs vanish. I’m suggesting something different, namely that as the self-realized person continues to grow, his or her need for attention, love and approval will diminish to the point where those needs end up playing a minimal role in the individual’s life.

Sally: This whole idea of reaching the point where you’re no longer interested in getting people to love and approve of you sounds kinda weird to me. I can follow Maslow’s thinking as he takes us up each step of his ladder---with people figuring out how to meet one need after the other until they reach the top, but even after they’ve gotten to the top, don’t they still want to belong, to be loved and admired? Isn’t that part of being human?

Richard: I agree that the quest for love and respect...security in general

---makes up the heart of life for most people. That quest is the stuff out of which our hopes and dreams and daily conversations are made. You could even say that it forms the fabric out of which most of our best fiction, poetry and songs have been woven. To love and be loved in return by family and friends, to win recognition through skill and honest effort, to rest secure in one’s home safe from war, disease, and poverty---even to know the peace of an unquestioning faith in God and His purpose for mankind---is this not what most people want? Is this not the good life, the healthy life to which most of us, wretched and blessed alike, aspire?

Jake: (applauding) Yeah, Richard---too bad you don’t believe a word of it.

Richard: I believe that this is what life is like for most people---worldwide. What I don’t believe is that it has to be this way or that this is the best we can do. It may be part of our humanity to enjoy love and approval, but I don’t think it is built into our genes that we have to feel deprived if we don’t receive our due. It depends on where we are on Maslow’s ladder. At lower levels of growth, it’s true that our interpersonal needs are intense---to the point where we obsess if we don’t get those needs met. But the world of the self-actualized person is very different. Here you know who you are---as a person. You both accept and love what you feel inside. (pause) Are you still interested in respect, love, attention, and safety? Of course---but you no longer have to look outside yourself for those things. They are right there inside of you. You have learned to validate yourself.

Sally: I suppose that’s what makes self-actualized individuals so independent and detached.

Richard: Feeling content in yourself means not having to get your needs met in the outside world. You take your security out into the world with you---like a turtle that carries its house wherever it goes.

Peter: So, where does all this fit into the pursuit of enlightenment? Does this extra rung you’re talking about---the one where you start to lose interest in lower needs like esteem and love---bring you closer to enlightenment---or do you see is it as an alternative to enlightenment?

Richard: The level of self-realization Maslow had in mind as well as the extra rung I’m talking about might better be seen not as ends in themselves, but as stepping stones to a higher level of consciousness. The end point I have in mind is not the fulfilling of a personal identity, but waking up to that which lies beyond attachment to an inner self. Self-realization may in fact represent a step in the direction of enlightenment, but it is only a step. Paradoxically, the next step is to let go of the self altogether; there is no entering the state of Oneness without first giving up identification with the inner I. A secondary kind of identification with the body-mind may remain, but it is the inner self, the I that has a body and mind, that must go.

I think it is fair to say that individuals who have realized themselves in Maslow’s sense are in a better position to let go of the self and discover their true nature than those still stuck somewhere down the ladder. Until you feel good about yourself, you will be more interested in building a stronger, more confident self than in letting go of the self altogether. There are exceptions, of course, Eckhart Tolle being one of the best-known ones. From what he writes in The Power of Now, it is clear that he was far from self-realization when he had his life-changing experience. If anything, he was in the opposite place, an extremely painful, unhealthy state of self-loathing, a state so extreme that it bordered not on enlightenment but on suicide. For most of us, the opposite is likely to be true. It is when we feel okay (not necessarily ecstatic) about who we are that we can entertain the possibility, even the attractiveness, of forgetting about our ambitions, reputations, fears, worries and frustrations---i.e., forgetting about ourselves.

In terms of identity, letting go of the self implies becoming a nobody; the best way to do that is to become a somebody first. It is the self-realized person, i.e., the person who feels well-fed, secure, loved