Desire and Emptiness: Rethinking Fantasy Through the Diamond Sutra and Lacanian Psychoanalysis

Abstract

The Diamond Sutra and Lacanian psychoanalytic theory, though grounded in distinct traditions, converge in their critique of the substantial “self,” revealing it as a fantasy produced by symbolic or conceptual structures. The Sutra dismantles attachment to “name-and-form,” asserting that realizing emptiness (śūnyatā) entails realizing non-self (anātman). Lacan, through the mirror stage, the Symbolic Order, and the Real, exposes the subject’s alienation within language, where desire continually circles around a constitutive lack. Both disclose that symbolic systems simultaneously generate and obscure reality. Practically, the Diamond Sutra prescribes the letting-go of all attachments—“letting the mind function without abiding anywhere”—while Lacan’s ethics of “traversing the fantasy” calls for confronting one’s fundamental lack and assuming responsibility for desire. By juxtaposing their approaches to the deconstruction of ego-fantasy, critique of symbolic mediation, and transcendence of illusion, this paper illuminates a shared insight into the interrelation of desire, language, and the real.

1. Introduction

Despite significant cultural heterogeneity between Buddhist philosophy and Lacanian psychoanalysis, both converge in their critique of the illusion of self-identity, questioning the occlusion of the real by symbolic systems or representational structures, and attempting to guide individuals beyond this structural fantasy. The Mahayana Buddhist scripture, the Diamond Sutra (Vajracchedikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra), posits that “all phenomena (appearances/forms) are illusory” and systematically deconstructs various attachments, such as the notions of a self, a person, a sentient being, and a life span [1]. In Jacques Lacan’s psychoanalytic theory, his discussions on the mirror stage, the Symbolic, and the Real aim to reveal the subject’s alienation and misrecognition within the structures of language and desire. These distinct philosophical traditions coincide on the issue of the “illusory nature of reality” and propose solutions with similar orientations: the Diamond Sutra’s injunction to “not abide in the notions of a self, a person, a sentient being, or a life span” [2] (p. 13), and Lacan’s ethical imperative of “traversing the fantasy” [3] (p. 273) and “identifying with the symptom.” This constitutes the basis and entry point for a comparative study. Nevertheless, their theoretical paths and practical aims remain significantly different: Buddhism, through “breaking through appearances to reveal nature”, points directly to emptiness (Śūnyatā), attempting to dissolve all attachment to concepts and appearances, ultimately leading to the transcendent state of nirvanic quiescence. Lacan, however, emphasizes the subject’s structural predicament within the symbolic order; “traversing the fantasy” does not aim to negate the Symbolic entirely but, through acknowledging the impossibility of desire, involves reframing the symptom as the sinthome and assuming responsibility for existence. Yet, in their critique of the illusory nature of self-identity and their revelation of how language and symbols obscure the real, they can still form a productive space for dialogue. This paper, through this mutual referencing of the Diamond Sutra and Lacanian psychoanalysis, seeks to deepen the philosophical and psychological understanding of the nature of the “self,” “desire,” and “symbolic representation.” This tentative comparative study can provide perspectives from different intellectual traditions for understanding the universal dilemmas of humanity in self-cognition and the structure of desires.

2. The Diamond Sutra’s “Non-Self” and Lacan’s “Split Subject”

Before comparing the thought of “emptiness” in the Diamond Sutra with Lacanian psychoanalytic theory, it is essential to understand their core concepts and philosophical foundations. Although originating from vastly different cultural traditions and spatiotemporal contexts, both offer fundamental reflections on the “self.” A key similarity in their critical contributions lies in revealing, from different angles, the constructed and unstable nature of the seemingly solid concept of the “self.” Despite completely different starting points, both expose the illusory and constructed nature of the “ego,” thereby providing unique perspectives for understanding the human inner predicament.

The core teaching of the Diamond Sutra revolves around “Prajñāpāramitā,” the “Perfection of Wisdom” that reaches the “other shore.” Its essence lies in realizing “Śūnyatā” (emptiness). Breaking through attachment to the notion of a “self” (ātma-saṃjñā), i.e., “anatman” (non-self), is the crucial entry point and requirement for penetrating emptiness. The Diamond Sutra establishes its critical stance from the outset: “All phenomena (appearances/forms) are illusory. If one sees that phenomena are not [inherent, substantial] phenomena, then one sees the Tathagata” [2] (p. 4). Here, the term Tathagata in the cited phrase, ‘If one sees that appearances are not [inherent, substantial] appearances, then one sees the Tathagata,’ is one of the epithets of the Buddha. Its literal meaning encompasses both ‘thus gone’ (i.e., one who has thus gone to Nirvana) and ‘thus come’ (i.e., one who has come along the path of Suchness). It does not refer to an external, personalized deity, but symbolizes the ultimate reality or Dharma Body that transcends all names, forms, and concepts, abiding in Suchness without moving.” And the “phenomena” refer to all appearances, concepts, names, forms, encompassing both the external world we perceive and the self-image constructed internally. They are not independent, eternal, substantially existent entities but temporary manifestations dependent on causes and conditions, ultimately “empty” in nature. Clinging to these illusory “phenomena,” especially to a permanent, unchanging “self,” is the root cause of sentient beings’ suffering and cyclic existence. The Buddha repeatedly emphasizes that a true bodhisattva, an awakened being, should be “without the notion of a self, without the notion of a person, without the notion of a sentient being, without the notion of a life span.” These four notions represent different aspects of the “self” concept: “notion of a self” signifies attachment to an independent, autonomous individual ego; “notion of a person” refers to attachment to the dichotomy between “self” and “other”; “notion of a sentient being” reflects attachment to life forms and categorical distinctions; “notion of a life span” indicates attachment to the continuity of life through time (lifespan, eternity).

Transcending these four notions means realizing that there is no inherent, unified, autonomous, permanent “self” serving as the subject or master of experience. The so-called “self” is merely a temporary, flowing process of the aggregation of the five skandhas (form, feeling, perception, mental formations, consciousness) under specific conditions, within which there is no unchanging controller–hence, “all dharmas are without self.” The famous “raft simile” in the Diamond Sutra also implies that even the concept of “non-self” is ultimately a provisional conceptual tool that must be relinquished.

In the Diamond Sutra, attachment to the notion of a “self” (ātma-grāha) is the breeding ground for all afflictions like greed, hatred, and delusion. It gives rise to dualistic thinking (self/other, gain/loss, honor/disgrace), triggering endless pursuit, anxiety, and suffering. Only by thoroughly recognizing the illusory nature of the “self,” understanding that “the mind of the past is ungraspable, the mind of the present is ungraspable, the mind of the future is ungraspable” [2] (p. 22), can one be liberated from this fundamental attachment, attaining the state of “non-abiding”.

In Lacanian psychoanalysis, Lacan introduced structuralist linguistics into the study of the unconscious, altering the traditional psychological view of the “ego.” For Lacan, the “ego” is not the core of the psychic structure but an imaginary product constructed through misrecognition, functioning to conceal the subject’s fundamental split and lack. The subject is essentially constituted by language and desire, and is continuously shaped and alienated by the symbolic order [4]. A key starting point for this theory is the “mirror stage,” which occurs in the Imaginary register. The mirror stage occurs between 6 and 18 months of age. The infant sees a unified, coordinated body image in the mirror, which contrasts sharply with its internal experience of fragmentation and incoordination. The infant misrecognizes this unified image as itself, thus forming the prototype of the “ego.” Although this ideal image lays the imaginary foundation for ego-identity, it is fundamentally a fantasy devised to overcome the sense of fragmentation. Therefore, the “ego,” from its inception, is a defensive misrecognition aimed at filling a lack. In the Real, when the subject enters the symbolic order, it is forcibly separated from “jouissance”—the blissful experience of fusion with the mother. This marks the beginning of the primordial lack—that sense of wholeness is forever lost, becoming the origin that desire perpetually seeks. The embodiment of this irrecoverable lack is what Lacan terms the object petit a (objet petit a), the true cause of desire, which also marks the most fundamental lack that cannot be symbolized [5].

The advent of language is a crucial step in subject formation. The individual must accept the symbolic system of the “big Other”—the pre-existing order of language and culture—to become a speaking subject. In the process of being cut, named, and categorized by language, part of the primal experience and desire is repressed, that which cannot be symbolized, leading to the split of the subject: on one hand, the subject is constituted by language and expresses itself through signifiers; on the other hand, the excluded primal real constitutes the realm of the unconscious, manifesting as the “barred subject” ($). Lacan’s proposition that “the unconscious is structured like a language” refers precisely to the unconscious operating through mechanisms of metaphor and metonymy, its content being the symbolic traces of repressed desire [6]. Desire, for Lacan, does not stem from biological need but is the desire of the Other’s desire; it always points towards the object petit a—the fantasized object believed to fill the lack and restore wholeness. But the object petit a is actually a screen veiling the gap in the Real. Because the Real is a fissure that cannot be articulated by the linguistic system and can never be truly filled, fantasies constantly arise to cover this gap. In Lacanian psychoanalysis, the ultimate aim of treatment is precisely to “traverse the fantasy”: to cease viewing object a as a real object capable of satisfying desire, to acknowledge the irredeemability of the lack, to accept the subject’s fundamental split state, and thereby to relate to one’s desire differently. Only by traversing the fantasy can the subject free itself from the blind pursuit of the Other’s desire and move towards ethical awakening and symbolic rebirth.

Thus, we can see that although the Diamond Sutra and Lacanian psychoanalysis are grounded in vastly different premises, they point to the same core insight: the so-called “self” is not a permanent, unchanging substance but a temporary construct arising from the interplay of causes/conditions, language, and desire. Buddhism reveals the self as a phantom of the five aggregates, while Lacan explains the ego as a fictional product of mirror-stage misrecognition and the symbolic order. The consensus is that attachment to or fixation on this illusory self is the deep root of human suffering (duḥkha) and predicament. From this perspective, both the Diamond Sutra’s advocated “non-abiding” and the Lacanian “traversing of the fantasy” do not negate lived experience itself but point towards a more profound self-understanding—an attitude that acknowledges the fictional and transcends attachment.

3. The Diamond Sutra’s Deconstruction of Name-and-Form and Lacan’s Analysis of the Symbolic Order

After the Diamond Sutra’s wisdom of “non-self” and Lacan’s theory of the “split subject” jointly dismantle the seemingly solid cornerstone of the “self,” the core dilemma they next confront is: how are humans captured and obscured by the symbolic systems they themselves create? Both direct their critique towards the vast structure constituted by language, concepts, and networks of meaning. The Diamond Sutra calls this attachment to “name-and-form” (nāma-saṃjñā), while Lacan terms it the “Symbolic Order.” They fundamentally reveal the dual nature of symbolic representation: it is both an indispensable tool for humans to understand the world and construct meaning, and the fundamental cause for building cognitive prisons and obscuring the reality of existence.

A central task of the Diamond Sutra is to break sentient beings’ attachment to “name-and-form” (nāma-saṃjñā). The Buddha explicitly declares: “All phenomena (appearances/forms) are illusory. If one sees that phenomena are not [inherent, substantial] phenomena, then one sees the Tathagata” [2] (p. 4). Here, “phenomena” refers not only to external material phenomena but also to internal concepts, names, categories, thoughts—i.e., “name-and-form.” The conceptual world constructed by language and thought is the basis for human understanding, grasping, and communication. However, the Diamond Sutra sharply points out that the greatest error of sentient beings lies precisely in equating concepts (name-and-form) with the real things they denote and developing attachment to them.

The Buddha repeatedly emphasizes: “The Tathagata speaks of a ‘world,’ it is not a [substantial, independent] ‘world,’ that is [merely] called a ‘world’” [2] (p. 13). The true reality itself is beyond words and forms, and cannot be anchored by language. Any “phenomenon” that can be named, conceptualized, or grasped by thought (such as the notions of a self, person, sentient being, life span, and even the notions of Dharma or Buddha) is already a product of mental discrimination and linguistic construction, a “false” phenomenon, not reality itself. Attachment to these name-and-form is like mistaking the finger pointing at the moon for the moon itself. This kind of attachment (dharma-attachment) is a deeper, more hidden cognitive obstacle than “self-attachment.” It reinforces the dualistic mode of thinking, forcibly fitting the fluid, selfless existence into rigid conceptual frameworks, thereby obscuring the vivid reality perceived by prajñā (wisdom) intuition.

The injunction “let the mind function without abiding anywhere” proposed in the Diamond Sutra [2] (p. 9) encapsulates the core spirit of “breaking attachment to name-and-form.” It requires the practitioner not only to refrain from attaching to the “self” but also to avoid attaching to any dharma, including concepts, teachings, states, or attainments. Even concepts like “emptiness,” “non-phenomena,” or “non-abiding” should not become new objects of attachment, as illustrated by the “raft simile”: “The Dharma must be relinquished, how much more so non-Dharma?” [2] (p. 5). Only by thoroughly transcending the shackles of conceptual thought, reaching the state of “detached from all phenomena” [2] (p. 13), can the mind become unobstructed like space, truly reflecting the emptiness and vitality inherent in all dharmas.

From the Lacanian psychoanalytic perspective, the subject does not pre-exist language but is constructed, cut, and alienated by the symbolic order. The symbolic order, the network of signifiers (the signifying chain) constituted by language, law, cultural customs, kinship relations, etc., is represented and carried by the “big Other.” When the infant enters the language system, it is summoned by the big Other—being named, assigned an identity, and integrated into family and social structures—its originally chaotic existence is forcibly incorporated into the grid of symbols. Language (signifiers) does not transparently express a pre-existing “I”; rather, it cuts, shapes, and determines what the “I” can be. This process has two key consequences: First, the alienation and lack of being. When the subject uses language to speak of itself (“I am X”), there is always a part of its real lived experience that cannot be fully captured by the symbol. This part is repressed and excluded by the symbolic order, becoming a perpetual lack, constituting the core of the unconscious, the “barred subject” ($). The subject can never fully realize or express itself in the symbolic; its core is void. Second, the alienation of desire. The subject’s desire does not originate from some innate, internal need but is mediated and shaped by the symbolic order. Lacan asserts: “man’s desire is the desire of the Other.” The individual constructs its own desire by identifying with the object desired by the big Other. It is crucial to understand Lacan’s famous formulation precisely: “man’s desire is the desire of the Other.” Here, the “Other” is not a unified entity, but rather a structural function that varies depending on its position within the Imaginary, the Symbolic, and the Real. Once this is clear, we can see desire is not directed towards a real, attainable object but revolves around a lack that can never be filled. It is in this sense that the object petit a (objet petit a) plays a central role; as the cause rather than the aim of desire, it is the fantasized object the subject mistakenly believes can compensate for the lack and restore wholeness. Desire constantly slides and metonymically shifts along the signifying chain, sustained precisely by the call of the object petit a, yet never truly satisfied. Thus, while the symbolic order endows the subject with identity, position, and a sense of understandable reality, it simultaneously constitutes a cage, obscuring the Real—that traumatic core which resists symbolization and cannot be integrated into the symbolic order. The impact of the Real manifests as trauma, symptoms, and repetitive failures, constantly reminding the subject that the symbolically constructed reality is not all, and that at its core, there remains a gap inaccessible to the symbol.

The symbolic order is like a vast network of meaning existing before the individual, granting identity, position, and a sense of understandable reality, but it is also a cage. It obscures the Real—that traumatic kernel which resists symbolization and remains unintegrated into the symbolic order. The Real, in its complete heterogeneity, constantly impinges on the boundaries of the symbolic order, manifesting as trauma, symptoms, and repetitive failure, incessantly reminding the subject that the symbolically constructed reality is not the whole story, and its core is a lack that symbols cannot reach.

The Diamond Sutra’s critique of “attachment to name-and-form” and Lacan’s revelation of the “occluding” and “alienating” nature of the symbolic order both point to the recognition that the linguistic-conceptual system does not reflect true reality but instead constitutes a veil of obscuration or a distorting prism. Attachment to name-and-form or complete identification with the symbolic order means living in a fantasy woven by symbols, distant from the truth of existence. The Diamond Sutra posits that attachment to name-and-form inevitably leads to dualistic thought patterns, the source of suffering. For Lacan, the symbolic order constructs meaning through the differential relations of signifiers; the subject is cut and alienated by the symbol, its desire alienated by the Other’s desire, leading to the subject’s split and a perpetual sense of lack. Both point towards the alienation brought about by the symbolic system. Simultaneously, both emphasize the need to transcend fixation on the symbolic system. The Diamond Sutra requires the abandonment of dharma-attachment to directly perceive reality, while Lacan requires the subject to “traverse the fantasy”—to recognize the falsity of the core fantasy supporting one’s desire, to confront the lack in one’s being, and to assume responsibility for one’s own desire.

4. The Diamond Sutra’s “Non-Abiding” and Lacan’s “Traversing the Fantasy”

In the Diamond Sutra, “non-self” and “breaking name-and-form” are not merely abstract philosophical propositions; they point more directly to the concrete requirements of practice: the practitioner must continuously let go of attachments, not only to the self but also to reliance on concepts. Lacan’s theory, though arising from a completely different context, poses a similar challenge along another path. He reveals that the subject cannot be fully identical with itself, is always split and disciplined by the symbolic order. Thus, both traditions, on different levels, touch upon the same predicament: the “core fantasy” upon which the individual relies for existence is unreliable. The difference lies in the fact that the Diamond Sutra turns this towards the practice of “emptiness” (Śūnyatā) and “non-self” (anātman), promising a world beyond, whereas Lacan demands that the subject assume responsibility for coexisting with lack. The differences between the two may be difficult to fully reconcile, but precisely within this divergence, both point towards a transformation. This is the point of convergence between the “non-abiding” advocated by the Diamond Sutra and the ethics of “traversing the fantasy” pursued in Lacanian psychoanalytic practice.

The core practical method of the Diamond Sutra is embodied in the dictum from the tenth section: “let the mind function without abiding anywhere” [2] (p. 9). The essence of “non-abiding” is detachment from all phenomena. “Abiding” means attachment, clinging, stagnation. As elaborated previously, “phenomena” encompass all names, concepts, and forms. From the perspective of practice, “non-abiding” is not merely an abstract idea but a concrete requirement for the practitioner to transcend reliance on certainty and stability, including dependence on concepts such as “emptiness,” “Buddha,” or “nirvana.” As the Buddha emphasizes: “Detached from all phenomena, they are called buddhas” [2] (p. 13). This “detachment from phenomena” is the practical transcendence of the “ego-fantasy” and “name-and-form cage” revealed in the previous parts. It means completely letting go of the attachment to a “real” self and the superstition of “a conceptual system capable of fully grasping truth.”

However, what “non-abiding” negates is only the mind’s dependence and stagnation, not the suspension of action itself. “Let the mind function” emphasizes that, based on detachment from all phenomena, one should give rise to a dynamic, vivid, unobstructed awakened mind. This mind is not trapped by fantasy; thus, it can perceive truly (prajñā wisdom); it does not cling to self-other distinctions; thus, it can give rise to unconditional great compassion and empathy. This is also why the sutra can declare that “innumerable, countless, infinite beings have been liberated, yet in reality no beings have been liberated” [2] (p. 2). The point is not to enumerate forms of suffering but to dissolve the very predicates as “beings,” “self,” “life span”, through which suffering becomes nameable in the first place. When a bodhisattva practices the six perfections like giving and patience, this awareness allows them to act without being bound by the giver, receiver, or the gift given. This is a state of acting while transcending the actor, the action, and the object of action—a state of effortless freedom.

Furthermore, the Diamond Sutra states in the eighteenth section: “The mind of the past is ungraspable, the mind of the present is ungraspable, the mind of the future is ungraspable” [2] (p. 22). This does not deny temporal continuity but reveals that recollections of the past, grasping at the present, and anticipations of the future, if accompanied by attachment, are all forms of “abiding in phenomena,” manifestations of the mind lost in the fantasy of time. True “non-abiding” requires the mind to settle in the clear awareness of present causes and conditions, not drowning in the phantoms of the past, not anxious about the dreams of the future, and not even attached to the frozen semblance of the present moment. This direct facing of the “reality of the present moment” (whose nature is also the flowing emptiness) is key to traversing the fantasy of temporality.

The result of traversing the “ego-fantasy” and “name-and-form cage” is the “selfless benefit of others” of the bodhisattva path. When the individual no longer clings to a “small self” that needs to be satisfied, protected, and pulled by desire, its energy and wisdom naturally turn towards the care and salvation of all beings. This compassionate action, because it stems from the realization of “emptiness” and “non-self,” transcends the giver’s arrogance, the receiver’s inferiority, and the utility of the action, becoming a pure, non-abiding, naturally flowing ethical expression. The bodhisattva “liberates all sentient beings, yet truly no sentient beings are liberated” [2] (p. 3)—this is the posture manifested after traversing the fantasy, where the ego-centricity of the actor is completely dissolved in the action.

The ultimate goal of Lacanian psychoanalytic practice is embodied in “traversing the fundamental fantasy,” which marks the end of analysis. However, unlike “reaching the other shore” in the Buddhist tradition, “traversing the fantasy” in psychoanalysis does not mean eliminating fantasy but requires the subject to recognize the fictional nature of the core fantasy framework that supports its desire and sense of reality, enabling a different relationship with its own lack and desire. The core of traversing the fantasy lies in confronting the lack at the very core of the subject’s existence—acknowledging that this lack is structural, ineradicable, a condition of existence itself, not a defect to be cured or a void to be filled. On this basis, the analysand realizes that desire is not its own active desire but the desire of the Other.

After traversing the fantasy, the subject no longer attempts, nor is it possible, to eliminate the symptom. Instead, the subject can attempt to “identify” with the sinthome, treating it as the core of its uniqueness, a unique way of anchoring its existence, connecting the Imaginary, Symbolic, and Real. In his 23rd Seminar, Lacan describes the “sinthome” thus:

“I haven’t managed to find it again, but I did read it there, sure enough, that my daughter, who is here today, put her finger on it and swore to me earlier that she would find the place again for me. A woman is not all but in the equivocal form that takes on its piquant from this language of ours, in the form of “but not that”, as when one says, “anything, but not that”. This was precisely Socrates’ position. The “but not that” is what, under this year’s title, I’m introducing as the “sinthome.” [7] (p. 6)

Here, through the everyday linguistic phenomenon of “anything, but not that,” Lacan reveals the core operational logic of the sinthome as the mechanism for the subject’s psychic equilibrium. It allows the subject, while acknowledging belonging to the Symbolic (“anything”), to tear open a gap in symbolization through the sudden negation of “but not that,” pointing to the leftover of desire in the Real. This “affirmation within negation” resonates with the philosophical proposition that “Woman is not-all” and continues Socrates’ stance of “continuously negating given answers” when questioning eros. Ultimately, it helps the subject, when the symbolic order fails, to anchor jouissance and maintain psychic existence in a manner “both within and without.” This is not succumbing to pathology but accepting the irreducible, unique fissure in one’s own being. After recognizing that desire is a distorted reflection of the Other’s desire, traversing the fantasy demands that the subject no longer attribute its desire to the Other but assumes responsibility for its desire. This means acknowledging “this is my desire,” even if its origins are obscure, and, under the acknowledgment of lack, learning to desire and act in a more lucid manner, less bound by fantasy. This is not indulging desire but a choice made after understanding the structure of desire.

“Non-abiding” and “traversing the fantasy” both point towards a requirement for the individual to relinquish the support of fantasy and comprehend what is termed “emptiness” or “lack” Although their paths differ radically, both, in demanding a profound turn from the individual—from fantasy towards truth, and from truth giving rise to new ethical possibilities—exhibit a strong structural homology.

5. Conclusions

The concept of “emptiness” in the Diamond Sutra and the core ideas of Lacanian psychoanalysis, despite originating from different cultural and historical backgrounds, demonstrate similarities in revealing the fundamental illusions of human existence. Both question the unity of the “self”—Buddhism deconstructs fixed self-identity through the notion of “non-self,” while Lacan argues for the split and instability of the subject through the “split subject.” They share a focus on the limitations of the symbolic system—Buddhism views “name-and-form” as merely provisional worldly constructs, while Lacan emphasizes the alienating effects produced by the symbolic order. This common theme points to the core proposition of both: the Buddhist breakthrough of symbolically constructed fantasies to face “emptiness,” or the Lacanian deconstruction of fantasy and assumption of responsibility. This breakthrough does not point towards nihilism but, through clear recognition and assumption of the lack in desire, prompts the individual towards a more authentic and responsible mode of existence. The Buddhist “selfless benefit of others” grounded in great compassion and the Lacanian conscious assumption of the subject’s desire, though stemming from different sources, converge on this point.

This dialogue not only provides a new perspective for philosophical comparison but also offers valuable insights for understanding the predicaments faced by modern individuals within the symbolic order and crises of meaning. Buddhist “emptiness” reminds the individual to let go of attachment to a fixed self, thereby achieving inner liberation, while Lacanian psychoanalysis, through the deconstruction of symbols and desire, helps the individual identify the roots of their desire and points towards a path of traversing fantasy. The combination of the two suggests that individual awakening and freedom depend on the reflection upon and critique of various illusions of certainty, ultimately enabling the individual to face the world and their own state of being in a freer manner.