Stages of Identification
Much confusion surrounds the idea of “identification.” In an attempt to demystify the situation, I’ll try to sketch out a “map” of the waypoints on the journey through the “stages” (for lack of a better word) of the spiritual seeking journey. This is a companion essay to the one I’ve titled “Identification with Thought” (found here). Although the themes in the essays are closely interrelated, it’s simpler to present the ideas in separate posts. Some of the body text is copied between them in case someone reads just one. Apologies for the repetition to those that read both.
Although what follows is described in terms of sequential stages, this should not be taken too literally. It just so happens that this sequence is the way in which it unfolded for me, but that doesn’t mean that’s the only or “correct” way for things to go. The sequential conception is simple and therefore easy to write about. But it’s quite possible for someone early on in the journey to start trying to untangle the riddle of the final stage. It’s entirely possible to succeed! And if one does, then that can make clearing up the confusion of the earlier stages unspeakably easier than would otherwise be the case.
Identification is a natural activity of the conceptual thinking mind. Regardless of one’s degree of “realization” there will be some manner of identification that takes place. The fully-realized individual has a sense of identity as anyone does. But someone in that position just has a light and flexible sense of identity compared to those still seeking (or who have not even started seeking yet). In essence the realized yogi has a sense of identity, but knows it’s not “fundamentally true.”
To sketch this map, let’s say there is an “anchor” (that is the foundational sense) of identity. This anchor-of-identification must be placed — and it will be placed — on a concept (or an amalgamation of multiple concepts). The “placing” of that “anchor” on concepts is what most spiritual teachers refer to as “identifying.”
The so-called “stages” along the seeking journey can be characterized by the different “locations” in conceptual thinking where that anchor of identity gets placed. So the first important (and hopefully non-controversial) point: the anchor of the sense of identity can and does move. But it only moves rarely. More importantly, it never moves without us being aware of it moving. So you will know it when it happens. Also worth noting: there are only so many places it can reside. Good news! That means this post can’t be too long-winded.
The "first position" or “stage” for the anchor is the "beginner" case. The anchor of identity is thought itself. If you think it, somehow you feel you are it. A lot of suffering can result from this situation. That is often what launches people on their seeking journeys.
But with a modicum of mindfulness meditation practice (and/or perhaps therapy) it's common for a person to gain some "distance" from thought. That is they no longer “identify with thought” in general. One begins to see thoughts as merely thoughts. Hence you often hear “you are not your thoughts1.”
When that realization “sinks in,” this leads to the "second position" or “stage” of the anchor-of-identity’s movement. Someone is no longer a "beginner" when they cease to identify with thought-in-general. In this next stage the anchor of identity moves from thinking-in-general to the mental self-image, in particular. This is the famous "the illusion of the self." We have a mental self-image2, and we mistakenly believe that our self-image is what we are.
It is very much possible to "see through the illusion of the self" as many teachers or seekers use the phrase. This happens when one realizes they are not their mere self-image. It’s a very specific case of “you are not your thoughts.” This recognition is often precipitated by a prior realization: that the self-image itself is nothing more than a collection of thoughts. Earlier practice and experience on the journey can teach one the nature of thoughts. Thoughts are immaterial and ephemeral. They come from nothing, are made of nothing, and return to nothing. They have no bearing on the physical world.3
When this “seeing through the illusion of the self” occurs definitively, the anchor of identity shifts again to the third position/stage. The challenge in this stage is that when one jettisons their old, erroneous self-image (the isolated, human-person they took themselves to be), then one usually adopts a more “spiritual” — often rarefied — self-image: I am “awareness,” or I am “Love,” or I am “God,” etc.
The third stage is basically an exotic/esoteric recapitulation of of the second stage. Instead of having to “see through” the deluded belief that you are separate, isolated, agent, human-person, you have to “see through” the mistaken belief that it’s even possible to conceive of what you are.
This stage pivots on what Ramana Maharshi called the I-Thought. The I-Thought is the belief that you actually are what you think you are. But whatever-you-think-you-are is a conceptual model and nothing more. As Alan Watts often said, you are not a concept! You are what creates concepts. Therefore, no conceptual model will ever be able to define you. In the same way no map can contain the actual territory it represents.
To pass through this stage the thinking mind must relinquish it’s beliefs that 1.) you-are-what-you-think-you-are and 2.) it’s possible to conceive of what you are at all. That is how the thinking mind will fully abandon the I-Thought. A pointer that may help at this juncture: “If you can think it, then you are not that!” Or in Hindu traditions they have the wonderful phrase: “Neti, neti…” Not this, not that…
This is the hardest hurdle to clear for a few reasons:
Lofty-sounding, admirable, spiritual notions are inherently appealing to the conceptual, thinking mind.
These notions/concepts can be endlessly recombined/altered (and the thinking mind utterly delights in that sort of activity)
One is free to change their concept of what they think they are at any time
It's our failing to see reality-prior-to-concepts that is THE very problem in the first place! In other words we are adept a self-delusion. If overcoming the I-Thought were easy, we’d already have solved all of our problems right out of the gate.
The key to this “third stage” riddle while still stuck there is recognizing that regardless of how much #3 above changes, the belief that you are #3 never changes. It is the belief itself that is the I-Thought. And that belief (which is is just another thought) is erroneous and must be dropped. A further challenge: realizing that the belief itself is a mere concept at its core is beyond challenging. It is a very, very, very subtle concept. And it’s wrapped in layers of automatic emotional response. Untangling this knot requires more than a little bit of sensitivity.
Again, solving this riddle is exactly the same as seeing through the illusion of the self, but "writ large." The vast majority of spiritual teachers (both historical and contemporary) were/are stuck at this stage. Be wary!
If one manages to escape the trap of the I-Thought, there can be a fourth position for the anchor of identity (if it fails to find the “home port” of the fifth position). We could call that anchor position "The Agnostic Position." It's genuinely possible to both be sure of what you are not, and be sure you do not even have an inkling of what you are. To know you are not any concept you have conceived of, but to still be entirely uncertain about what you might be. I spent many years there!
If one becomes "unstuck" from the fourth position (or bypasses it altogether when leaving the third) one lands in the fifth and final position: Realizing what you are. This becomes clear with the realization that “what-it-is” is what you were already; always have been, always will be. Once the anchor of identity is hung on the “Fundamental Nature” (the “thing” that isn’t a thing, that can't be apprehended directly, nor adequately expressed), it cannot be moved because there is nowhere else for it to go! You’ve hit “bedrock” and you will know it.
When this happens it constitutes the end of the seeking journey. Life, of course, continues the same as it always has. I’ve said: “The seeking can have a final resolution, but life itself never resolves.”
To help clarify the above, I will attempt to address one last point of confusion.
All too often teachers make the erroneous assumption that the mere presence of “selfing thoughts” means you are identified with them. That is utterly false. Those thought can (and usually do) appear whether you identify with them or not. Much more detail can be found in the companion essay “Identification with Thought” linked above.
If one actually wants to silence that selfing mental chatter, one is free to adopt a practice that moves in that direction. “Season to taste” I like to say. But it's not required to do that to enter the fourth or fifth positions of identification. All that’s required (and this is much easier said than done) is to simply recognize 1.) the fundamental falsity of conceptual thinking and 2.) the undeniable activity of the Fundamental Nature.
This is not as nuanced a view as is needed later in the journey. But it can be very helpful in the early parts of the path. Something to “kick” a beginner out of the “ruts” of incessant thinking. Eventually one will reach a more accurate and nuanced view: your thoughts are a part of you, and often an important part. But only a part. Your thoughts cannot define you. They cannot constrain your being; they can’t hem-in your Fundamental Nature.
This self-image is comprised of our personal history, our identity, our social roles, etc. In early stages of the seeking journey things like proclivities, preferences, personality, and goals may seem to be part of the self-image. Yes, they can be subsumed or co-opted by the self-image. But they exist apart from the self-image. Once the illusion of self is seen through definitively, the proclivities, preferences, personalities, and goals will still exist, although they may concordantly change.
The self-image is the only thing that could be reasonably referred to as “ego.” There is no “ego” apart from this that can exist. But very important to note: the self-image (aka ego) has no motivations, it can’t makes decisions, it can’t carry out actions, it can’t think, and it can’t feel or experience anything at all. Therefore it doesn’t fit most people’s notion of “ego.” Hence I’m inclined to often say “There’s no such thing as an ego.” What most people — including most teachers — think of as “ego” (which will have some connection to Freud’s out-to-lunch hypotheses) is an utter fantasy, just like the Tooth Fairy or Santa Claus.
The preceding two sentences are oversimplifications. But for rhetorical purposes, hopefully the point is well-taken by the reader.