By Leandro Castelluccio
In this essay, I will explore and defend the concept of the person and the notion of identity, in contrast to the Buddhist perspective of “no self.” While Buddhist philosophy offers a unique and profound insight into the nature of existence, its idea of “no self” can create confusion and challenges to our conventional understanding of who we are. Through critical analysis, I aim to reconcile these apparent contradictions, arguing in favor of preserving and valuing the person and identity within the context of this Buddhist teaching.
Mindfulness practice has gained significant popularity in the West over recent decades, adopted by a wide range of people, from corporate executives to students and teachers. This is partly due to its proven effectiveness in reducing stress and anxiety, as well as improving emotional and mental well-being. Additionally, increasing studies support its benefits for both physical and mental health.
It is now common to see mindfulness programs implemented in educational and workplace settings, where it is claimed that the practice also promotes concentration, creativity, and problem-solving, as well as fostering empathy and positive interpersonal relationships. This growing popularity reflects a rising awareness of the importance of mental health care and the need for effective ways to manage daily stress.
At the same time, it has also gained traction as a spiritual practice for a growing group of people who have not found their place in other religions.
In its most profound and refined form, mindfulness practice is deeply connected to the Buddhist notion of “no self” and finds its fullest expression in the teachings of Dzogchen. At the heart of this connection is the understanding that experience has no fixed or permanent center; instead, it is fluid, ever-changing, and lacks a solid self to control it.
In the Buddhist context, the notion of “no self,” or “anatta” in Pali, holds that there is no permanent entity or identity that can be identified as the “self” within experience. This teaching challenges the common conception of a solid and stable self, independent of the ever-changing conditions of life. Instead, it proposes that experience is interdependent and constantly in flux, without a fixed core or essence.
As explained by the Buddhist philosopher Thich Nhat Hanh, “no self” does not mean that we do not exist, but rather that we are not a separate and independent entity. Hanh argues that “the notion of a separate self is an illusion,” and that all existence is interdependent. This interdependence is part of what the scientist and philosopher Francisco Varela refers to as “autopoiesis,” a process in which living beings produce and maintain themselves in relation to their environment, thereby breaking down the notion of a fixed, centralized self. Additionally, psychologist and neuroscientist Evan Thompson, in his work Mind in Life, emphasizes that the mind and conscious experience are not static entities, but dynamic and constantly changing processes, aligning with the Buddhist teachings of no self.
When we apply this understanding to mindfulness, we see that the practice invites us to observe experience without clinging to the idea of a separate self that experiences it. Instead of identifying with our thoughts, emotions, or bodily sensations, we learn to see them as transient mental events that arise and pass away in consciousness.
Dzogchen-style mindfulness deepens this understanding by focusing on the very nature of the mind. In Dzogchen, the mind itself is taught to be intrinsically empty and luminous, without any solid center or substance. Rather than trying to control or manipulate the mind, the practice involves resting in bare awareness, without interfering with its spacious and open nature.
Instead of a focal point, consciousness unfolds as a vast field of ever-changing phenomena. Dzogchen, with its emphasis on the primordial nature of the mind, invites practitioners to immerse themselves in the direct experience of the present moment, without clinging to concepts or identifications. This transcendental understanding unleashes a liberation from the suffering rooted in the illusion of the ego. By stripping the mind of the quest for a center, a profound serenity and clarity are discovered.
Meditative practice thus becomes a journey of radical self-exploration, where the fundamental truth of existence is revealed: the absence of a “self” separate from the flow of reality. In this recognition of non-duality, a deep peace blossoms, along with a sense of connection to all that is.
When practicing Dzogchen-style mindfulness, the goal is to cultivate an attitude of openness and receptivity towards experience as it is, without trying to change or improve it. This involves letting go of the habitual tendency to control or manipulate our experience to fit our expectations or desires. Instead, we open ourselves to the entirety of experience, allowing it to arise and unfold without interference.
This attitude of openness and acceptance is directly related to the Buddhist notion of non-attachment. By releasing our identification with the experience and allowing it to arise and pass freely, we cultivate a sense of inner freedom and mental peace. We realize that there is nothing to seek or cling to in experience, as everything is transient and ever-changing.
At the same time, Dzogchen mindfulness invites us to recognize the luminous and clear nature of the mind itself. Through direct observation of consciousness, we discover that the mind is not constrained by the changing conditions of experience, but is inherently free and boundless. This understanding frees us from identifying with our thoughts and emotions, allowing us to rest in awareness itself as our true being.
However, there is a danger in incorporating this practice when viewed through the lens of our conceptual world. The risk is that we may develop a mistaken belief about reality, the idea that we have no identity or that there is nothing that refers to being “me.” This can create a negative view of existence, where the human being is seen as an impersonal collection of events and mental processes happening passively, without intention, will, or personal agency.
From a psychological perspective, the sense of depersonalization described by some meditation practitioners has been studied by researchers like Willoughby Britton, who has noted that intensive meditation practices can lead to what is known as the “dark night,” a state in which practitioners experience disorientation or a loss of personal identity. Britton emphasizes the importance of proper guidance in meditative practice, as without adequate understanding, ego detachment can be misinterpreted as the loss of the person, potentially triggering severe emotional distress. These observations align with the warnings of philosopher Alan Watts, who pointed out that “depersonalization” should not be confused with the annihilation of the self, but rather seen as an opportunity to transcend superficial identifications of the ego.
Therefore, while the understanding of “no self” in mindfulness practice can be deeply liberating, it can also be misinterpreted, leading to a nihilistic or depersonalized view of existence. Furthermore, some theorize and develop the belief that the person does not truly exist, and that we are merely an impersonal collection of processes passively occurring without any control based on free will.
In contrast, I argue that the person and identity do indeed exist, and that we are agents with intention and free will. I believe that the practice of mindfulness, including Dzogchen, is positive and liberating as long as we understand that it is not a battle against our identity or sense of self.
In this type of meditative practice, where we attend to the absence of a center in experience, some individuals may experience feelings of depersonalization. When confronted with this shift in perspective and the new sense of ego absence, some may feel that something is wrong, which can lead to emotional discomfort and imbalance.
Non-dual meditation represents one of the most profound meditative practices, offering significant experiential benefits by helping us detach from the labels we assign to ourselves and realize that those labels are not who we truly are. As a result, this is not a practice to be avoided—in fact, quite the opposite. Nonetheless, it is wise to keep this aspect in mind.
So, what is happening here? Sometimes, people who practice meditation and experience the sensation of losing something important, like the ego, interpret this as an inappropriate experience. They may feel that, even for a moment, they are no longer the same person they once were. In other words, the problem is not with the experience itself but with how we interpret and evaluate it.
This phenomenon touches on the very core of what meditative practice seeks to illuminate: when we become immersed in conceptual thinking, we distance ourselves from the real experience, failing to realize that we have always existed without this ego or center. It is thought itself that leads to suffering through these conceptual constructions.
People often believe they must “transcend” the ego, turning it into an urgent pursuit that suggests they are not making genuine progress toward enlightenment within the context of meditation. However, the key is to understand that there is no ego to transcend in the first place, but rather to recognize that there is no central core in experience. What we consider to be the self or personal identity is actually based on an interdependent state of elements, none of which individually explains the essence of the self. We will never find anything within the contents of consciousness that captures our essence, as those contents are ever-changing and fleeting, and we are a collection of interdependent processes.
Even so, there is something that we are, albeit something that also exists interdependently. The idea that there is an identity we can claim comes from the notion of self-awareness.
Self-awareness can be described as a dual perception: the ability to see ourselves as unique individuals, separate from others, and the ability to reflect on our own existence and experience. Through this reflection, we become observers of ourselves, capable of evaluating our actions in light of our values and beliefs.
Supporting this view, philosopher Thomas Metzinger, in his work The Ego Tunnel, argues that what we call “the self” is actually a mental representation generated by consciousness, but this representation does not mean that there isn’t something experiencing that consciousness. According to Metzinger, while there is no solid or fixed self, there is a “construction” of identity that arises from conscious experience itself, implying a form of self-awareness that unfolds over time. Similarly, neuroscientist Antonio Damasio, in his book The Feeling of What Happens, argues that the “self” can be understood as an entity that emerges from the interaction between brain processes and sensory experiences. Damasio suggests that there is a neurobiological basis for self-awareness, reinforcing the idea that, although there is no fixed ego, there is a functional identity—consciousness in action.
More deeply, self-awareness is a unique manifestation of the human mind, unfolding across multiple levels of complexity. From a philosophical and phenomenological perspective, it implies the understanding that there is an identity that perceives and comprehends its own existence. This identity is not confined simply to the idea of a separate “self,” but extends to a broader, deeper awareness of our essence as conscious beings.
In exploring self-awareness, we encounter the notion that we are consciousness itself, that our identity is not limited to the labels society gives us or the roles we play in our daily interactions. In essence, we are the experience of being conscious, which transcends any superficial categorization.
We exist within conscious experience, which is interdependent, formed by a multitude of interacting elements. Everything our senses inform us of becomes like brushstrokes on a canvas, shaping it—and we are that canvas.
This understanding challenges the traditional notion of an ego or self as a static center of experience. While we cannot point to a specific part of our conscious experience and say “here is the self,” we can recognize the presence of an underlying consciousness where the form and meaning of all our perceptions and experiences unfold. That consciousness is what we are.
Embracing this fundamental truth of our existence leads to a renewed sense of wholeness and authenticity. We free ourselves from self-imposed limitations and allow ourselves to live from a place of fullness and connection to our deepest essence.
In this sense, self-awareness implies there is an identity that knows it is perceiving things, that understands there is someone who is conscious. That someone is our identity, which is real and refers to consciousness itself. We are consciousness; there is something that we are, and it refers to this.
This idea resonates with the reflections of contemporary philosopher David Chalmers, who has postulated that consciousness is the “hard problem” in the philosophy of mind precisely because it cannot be reduced to mere brain processes. Chalmers suggests that consciousness itself is an irreducible aspect of reality, supporting the assertion that we are more than impersonal processes. Consciousness, then, is the core of who we are, and by integrating this understanding with meditative practice, we can recognize our identity as the conscious substrate that transcends the ever-changing flow of thoughts and sensations.
While there is no center in experience that we could associate with an ego or self—since, at the level of subjective experience, there is no separation between the knower and the known—there is still someone who knows. There is a consciousness that is, and this “being” manifests as the function of being aware. This consciousness is our true center, our identity.
The essence of meditation lies in its ability to transcend the confines of conceptualization and immerse us in the pure experience of being. By adopting this approach, we allow ourselves to merge with reality as it manifests in our consciousness, freeing ourselves from the limitations imposed by thought and interpretation.
Meditative practice, at its core, guides us toward a more objective perception of the world around us. It strips away the illusion that we are merely the product of our thoughts, revealing instead that our true identity lies in the underlying substrate of consciousness. By immersing ourselves in a non-conceptual state, we glimpse our most authentic essence and transcend the mere identification with the flow of thoughts.
In this sense, meditation offers a clearer perspective by challenging the notion that our existence is reduced to an impersonal amalgamation of mental processes. We come to realize that thought itself, including the belief in our nature being limited by it, is just another facet of human experience—it does not constitute the entirety of our essence. In essence, we are something much vaster and more fundamental: the consciousness that encompasses all aspects of our being. We are an infinite field of perception and experience that extends beyond the limits of thought.
Ultimately, meditation invites us to shed the chains of conceptual identification and embrace the fullness of our existence. As we delve into the essence of being, we find a deep sense of freedom and expansion. We become conscious witnesses to the eternal dance of the universe, recognizing our interconnectedness with everything that exists.
Thus, it becomes clear why it is important to maintain a non-conceptual level, which is the point of meditation: to be with what is and what manifests in consciousness.
Therefore, a more accurate way to view meditation is that it helps us see how the belief that we are an impersonal collection of processes is just that—a belief. Holding that belief does not define who we are, because we are not that belief, nor that thought; we are the “substance,” the consciousness that encompasses everything.
Meditation, then, helps us see the world more objectively. It teaches us that the view that we are our thoughts is mistaken—thoughts are not, in the end, what we truly are. Our deepest identity lies in the substrate of those thoughts, which is our consciousness. In this way, meditative practice through a non-conceptual approach helps us effectively visualize our true identity and understand that we are something.
Sources
Hanh, T. N. (2001). No death, no fear: Comforting wisdom for life. Riverhead Books.
Varela, F. J., Thompson, E., & Rosch, E. (1991). The embodied mind: Cognitive science and human experience. MIT Press.
Thompson, E. (2007). Mind in life: Biology, phenomenology, and the sciences of mind. Harvard University Press.
Britton, W. B. (2019). Can mindfulness be too much of a good thing? The value of a middle way. Current Opinion in Psychology, 28, 159-165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2018.12.011
Watts, A. W. (1973). The book: On the taboo against knowing who you are. Vintage Books.
Metzinger, T. (2009). The ego tunnel: The science of the mind and the myth of the self. Basic Books.
Damasio, A. (1999). The feeling of what happens: Body and emotion in the making of consciousness. Harcourt.
Chalmers, D. J. (1996). The conscious mind: In search of a fundamental theory. Oxford University Press.
Discover more from Sinapticas
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Sinapticas 