<p>Depersonalisation as a psychiatric disorder is something traumatic.</p>

<p>Depersonalisation as enlightenment is calming, blissful &amp; liberating; based in the wisdom of seeing the stress &amp; abandoning of attachment &amp; aversion.</p>

<p>It follows the depersonalised enlightened person can act, behave or interact harmoniously in the world. </p>

<p>The depersonalisation of the enlightened person can be a “secret” only know to them. An external person may never ever suspect or know the enlightened person is depersonalised; let alone enlightened. </p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-06-19T09:29:40.987Z
So you "can act harmoniously" and "depersonalisation is a secret". Is it true, are you sure, that the "world" (i.e. other people) will view them as acting harmoniously? I ask because I thought that the world might expect them to (continue to) do a bunch of things, to have a bunch of things, to fulfil social roles and obligations -- the rat-race -- which they may be no longer be inclined to pursue?
ChrisW
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-06-19T11:31:17.607Z
So the Buddha did not act harmoniously, ye of little faith?
Dhamma Dhatu
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-06-19T11:54:30.197Z
Since you ask, I suppose his parents and wife were distressed at the time. I guess I'm asking because I have some slight experience with a "psychiatric disorder" type of depersonalisation, and I guess I wasn't sure that the other type can be distinguished by its being harmonious and secret -- would "secret" mean "not even evident"? I might think of other ways to try to distinguish a psychiatric disorder from enlightenment. And perhaps I agree with you, e.g. I've thought that "enlightenment" is all very well but maybe shouldn't to be a "disability" -- I wondered if you could clarify that a bit.
ChrisW
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-06-19T08:03:42.883Z
2019-06-19T11:37:36.067Z
2019-06-19T11:37:36.067Z
Dhamma Dhatu
<p>In modern days, 'de-personalization' is seen as negative and in some cases, a symptom of an emotional disorder.</p>

<p>In Buddhism, seeing through no-self/identity view is the minimum criteria to attain the first level of enlightenment.</p>

<p>These two concepts, seemingly similar; fundamentally, they could be different.</p>

<p>Question:</p>

<ol>
<li><p>Are these two the same or not? Shall they be separated or mutually embraced in our daily lives?</p></li>
<li><p>As a layman Buddhist, how can we approach this ?</p></li>
</ol>

<theravada><mahayana>
What is the difference between approaching the idea 'no-self' and the act to 'depersonalize'?
# What is the difference between approaching the idea 'no-self' and the act to 'depersonalize'?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2019-06-19)

In modern days, 'de-personalization' is seen as negative and in some cases, a symptom of an emotional disorder.

In Buddhism, seeing through no-self/identity view is the minimum criteria to attain the first level of enlightenment.

These two concepts, seemingly similar; fundamentally, they could be different.

Question:

1. Are these two the same or not? Shall they be separated or mutually embraced in our daily lives?
2. As a layman Buddhist, how can we approach this ?

**Tags:** theravada, mahayana


---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_1 on 2019-06-19. Score: 2

Depersonalisation as a psychiatric disorder is something traumatic.

Depersonalisation as enlightenment is calming, blissful & liberating; based in the wisdom of seeing the stress & abandoning of attachment & aversion.

It follows the depersonalised enlightened person can act, behave or interact harmoniously in the world.

The depersonalisation of the enlightened person can be a “secret” only know to them. An external person may never ever suspect or know the enlightened person is depersonalised; let alone enlightened.

> **Comments:**
> **username_2**: So you "can act harmoniously" and "depersonalisation is a secret". Is it true, are you sure, that the "world" (i.e. other people) will view them as acting harmoniously? I ask because I thought that the world might expect them to (continue to) do a bunch of things, to have a bunch of things, to fulfil social roles and obligations -- the rat-race -- which they may be no longer be inclined to pursue?  
> **username_1**: So the Buddha did not act harmoniously, ye of little faith?  
> **username_2**: Since you ask, I suppose his parents and wife were distressed at the time. I guess I'm asking because I have some slight experience with a "psychiatric disorder" type of depersonalisation, and I guess I wasn't sure that the other type can be distinguished by its being harmonious and secret -- would "secret" mean "not even evident"? I might think of other ways to try to distinguish a psychiatric disorder from enlightenment. And perhaps I agree with you, e.g. I've thought that "enlightenment" is all very well but maybe shouldn't to be a "disability" -- I wondered if you could clarify that a bit.  

---

