Some Thoughts On Ego Psychology And No-Self

I have a friend who is training to become a social worker. We're currently having a discussion about integrating spirituality and clinical work. I think of this as one of the last taboos, in a way. I guess there is much to say and none of it is all that helpful.

But I'll point at the moon.

On the one hand, there is clearly no conflict between mindfulness practice and cognitive restructuring techniques or stress reduction. Very few psychologists would object to integrating the techniques of basic meditation and awareness training.

I think the "problem" arises at a deeper level; namely, the ego. Contemporary Western clinical practices are dependent on the theoretical existence of this "thing" called the ego. The therapist approaches the client as a secular independent unit. The assumption is that the client's ego has basic reality testing, judgment, impulse control, defensive functions, and thought processes. Basically, the client has an identity. That identity is unique and irreducibly individual.

In many spiritual practices (certainly in Zen) one never has a true relationship with the ego because it's not really there! At the center of your being is nothing, an absence, a void. No self. This emptiness is infinite and transpersonal. Your potential--for happiness, among other things--is limitless because there is literally no duality between you and the universe. This is always and already so. Our task is to awaken to this.

Buddhism is uncompromising on this point. Any progress along the spiritual path ultimately has to deal with the question: "Who Am I?" If one meditates for long enough, invariably, everybody sees the same thing, basically: "I'm not there!" Ironically, when people "get it" they tend to become well adjusted and compassionate.

So integrating these two approaches to the self is a challenge as the therapist would have to reevaluate all their assumptions--starting with the idea that there are two independent people in a clinical setting. Maybe there aren't. What if the other person, quite literally, is you? This completely decenters the implied power relationship between therapist and client. In this way, there is only intimacy. What does this do to clinical etiquette and transference?

And then there's "ego identity." What to do with it? Strengthen it or collapse it? Acknowledge that it's a useful fiction when there's awareness? Or show how it's a delusion which stands in the client's way?

Obviously, the therapist can use a multi-modal approach which incorporates some techniques for mindfulness. But, in the end, if the jumping off point is still ego-based, I think it's difficult to work with the client beyond developing greater self-understanding and coping skills (which is no small thing!).

So an "egoless psychology" seems to be a final frontier of sorts. Many beautiful minds are exploring this now. Here are a few: Barry Magid, David Loy, Jack Kornfield, Ken Wilbur, Stanislav Grof, Daniel Goleman, and, of course, Thich Nhat Hahn.