What is true self?

To ask what the Self is seems a somewhat rhetorical question. Many may think the obvious answer is that the Self is simply a combination of the physical body and sense of consciousness provided by the brain. However when this apparently simple question is more deeply investigated, this seemingly clear answer becomes more opaque. Adding to the difficulty of this inquiry, the conventions of language make discussions of concepts such as the Self and reality difficult. This is especially evident in the English language since the inherent subject-object structure is dualistic in nature the ‘I’ is inherently perceived as separate. Adding to the difficulty of using standard verbiage to describe the Self, the explanations presented often transgress logic and reason. As a result, attempted elucidation often must resort to seemingly paradoxical statements, especially when using pronouns like “I” and “we” as representing potentially non-existing entities, confusion can easily arise. To answer this query, the philosophies of the Upanishads, Buddhism, Sankhya-Yoga and Advaita Vedanta each developed their own conclusions as to the definition of the true Self and that realizing this true Self, and the Self’s relation to everything else, can lead to emancipation of suffering.

The sages of the Upanishads of the Vedanta explored the nature of the Self through a systematic investigation of the 'I'. These Upanishadic seekers of truth asked themselves “What am I, in my deepest existence” [i] as they focused their search for the nature of the Self inward to the mind instead of outward to the external world. Instead of a static core, the sages found the Self consisting of differing components such as the ego, emotions, the intellect and the will, each in a constant state of flux creating an individual personality, also changing over time. They could not find a specific entity called the “I.” Investigating still deeper into the foundations of the inner self, progressing through the levels of physical matter, of the sensing being and the intellectual activity of the mind, they arrived at an ineffable experience consisting of pure awareness. The sages found the Self did not consist solely of any one of these individual layers and determined that the “I” seemed an amalgamation of all these aspects; an emergent pattern of interactional experiences, its essence being the ultimate subject that knows. They discovered that during intense meditation, a state arises where the sense of a separate ego disappears, consciousness withdraws from the mind and the physical body transforms to a state of being of pure awareness…an experience beyond verbal concepts, beyond space and time, feeling a certainty of unity and connection with the source of being. They called this core of consciousness Atman. The Self transcends ordinary knowledge as it exists beyond the senses, beyond the intellect and beyond words so must be referred to with metaphor and paradox. Even if it were to be said that the Self is known, the next question could be, known by who? Their answer may be that the Self is a knowing subject. Subjects can only know objects. Subjects cannot know subjects. Hence the ultimate Self cannot be objectified or comprehended sensually or intellectually, it must be realized in the sense of intimate immediate experience, absent of any categorical preconceptions. Although the primordial Self cannot be known, it can be experienced within self-awareness much more certainly than any external object of knowledge.

The Buddha found explanations presented by the followers of the Upanishads to be inadequate and developed “new ways of faith that challenged the established Vedic religion” [ii]  which included an alternate perspective of the Self. In contrast with the idea of the absolute Self as Atman, one with Brahman, the Buddhists established that nothing is absolute, including the Self, consequently everything is impermanent and ephemeral. Buddhists propose that the Self is a false belief, a phantom,  a mental projection of an accumulation of memories and a ‘catch all’ construct for our cognitive experiences. The Buddhists determined the Self to be composed of interdependent, physical and conditioned mental states of what they called five aggregates. These include the physical processes and the processes of sensation, perception, volition and consciousness and nothing more. During a flux of momentary arising and disappearing  the concept of Self emerges, arising from the five aggregates which constantly interact and change forming our experiences. There is no unmoving mover behind movement, there is only the moving. Any attempt to cling or maintain attachment to these impermanent entities including the Self results in suffering. Suffering exists but there is no sufferer.

The dualistic Sankhya school of Yoga philosophy took a different approach to the Self. In their view, instead of reality being either all one thing or illusive, it was divided into two kinds of existence. There is the physical realm, an empirical material world of physical objects and there is the mental realm, a nonphysical reality of pure consciousness. The essence of the  physical realm is composed of what Sankhya terms the gunas of prakiti, the “primordial matter from which everything evolves.” [iii] The other principal reality described by Sankhya, distinct from prakiti, is the substrate of the mental world, which consists solely of purusha, translated as pure consciousness. Until the truth is realized through the techniques of Yoga, the “embodied consciousness mistakes itself for the ultimate Self of purusha,” [iv]  under the illusion that it is simply a mortal physical being consisting solely of the gunas of prakiti. In actuality, the Self as pure purusha is the witness, the observer of prakiti. The goal of Sankhya yoga is to loosen and break this bondage to the wrong view of Self, an ignorance that prevents this realization of the ultimate Self as pure purusha.

Shankara, the founder of the Advaita school of Vedanta,  does not separate reality into two realms as Sankhya does. Shankara’s nondualism sees all as one in Brahman, an unchanging independent reality with no separation between anything, including the Self. Shankara claims that “Brahman alone is real, the world being mere appearance.” [v]  Perhaps unintuitively, this perspective does not challenge our sensual perception that everything we observe changes in form because within the non-dualistic reality of Shankara, form has no independent reality of its own. It is not that ephemeral objects of the empirical world do not exist, it’s that they exist as an illusion, as the contents of a dream, hidden under the veil of maya. Since most of us are unknowingly also part of the dream, this world of appearances is perceived as actual reality to us. Although maya is illusory, we exist as Atman within the illusion so maya appears real to us, however, appears as illusory from the perspective of Brahman. Shankara realizes the Atman within the veil of maya as the ultimate Self and that ultimate Self as Atman is identical with Brahman. Within Brahman, the source of being that underlies all appearances, subject and object merge into one absolute and independent reality.

The path to realization of the truth of the Self, the journey to seeing the reality of things as they are, is the experience of Nirvana. Nirvana is the emancipation of suffering in which the forces which create the illusive reality are calmed. As one becomes free of the confusion, mental complexes and worries that torment others’ dissipate. Free from anxiety, peaceful and serene, one exists fully in the present. As the mind becomes liberated from thought, venturing beyond logic and reason, identification with thought forms dissolves. When thought stops, truth appears and the Self resolves to everything as in Vedanta, dissolves into nothing as in Buddhism and is realized as pure consciousness as in Sankyha…all leading to the same realization your Self as the timeless essence of the entire universe. That which knows is unknowable, so one doesn’t know. One is. That thou art.

All the investigations of the Self mentioned in this essay conclude that Brahman can simply not be defined by literal or literary means. The answer to these question lies beyond human comprehension. Similar to the philosophical Mysterian view of consciousness, reality/Brahman is inherently mysterious and impossible to explain. In accordance, Vedanta provides no attempt at justification. Any venture to do so would be pointless as Brahman is beyond our capacity to understand. In contrast, the Advaita school makes an attempt to provide a framework, a methodology, to support this view. Each of these two views agree that the Self as Atman is Brahman.

The Upanishads, Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta all see the Sankyha dualistic perception of reality as an illusion although arriving at differing conclusions. Within the Vedic Upanishads there is much more of the Self than people presume, in fact it is everything. Within Buddhism there is much less of the Self then people presume, in fact it is nonexistent. Within all, the Self as we commonly perceive it, is not a mortal physical being, but something much more…or much less.

Works Cited

[i] Kohler, John M. “Vedas and Upanishads.” Asian Philosophies, Routledge, 2018, pp. 24.

[ii] Kohler, John M. “Buddhism.” Asian Philosophies, Routledge, 2018, pp. 46.

[iii] Kohler, John M. “Self and the World.” Asian Philosophies, Routledge, 2018, pp. 124.

[iv] Kohler, John M. “Self and the World.” Asian Philosophies, Routledge, 2018, pp. 130.

[v] Kohler, John M. “Self and Reality.” Asian Philosophies, Routledge, 2018, pp. 150.