The Catholic priest Anthony De Mello wrote a book called Awareness (Fount, London, 1997) that became a runaway success. Many retreat centres based on his ideas sprung up. The book is basically about self-help and has some similarities with pop psychology.
The central theme of Awareness is that much human suffering arises from attachment to desires, expectations, and misconceptions. De Mello suggests that happiness is not something to be sought outside ourselves but is intrinsic to our being. Awareness—understanding and seeing clearly the thoughts and emotions that create unnecessary suffering—allows this happiness to emerge naturally.
De Mello presents the idea of “right” selfishness, which is the pursuit of happiness that comes from awareness rather than attachment to external rewards or validation. He distinguishes three kinds of selfishness:
Selfishness focused on personal pleasure.
Selfishness in which one finds satisfaction in helping or pleasing others.
Selfishness driven by guilt or fear of disapproval.
He emphasizes that the second kind, rooted in conscious awareness and genuine care, can be healthy. The third type, motivated by guilt, does not constitute true love or ethical action because it is conditional and external.
He says the first type is neutral but can be refined through awareness. Really? If we are capable of being unselfish, should we really start, "Oh I will not help the starving babies unless I can feel good about it. It is only about the buzz."
His use of the word selfish is misleading. He surely knew he should use self-interest, for that is not the same thing. Selfish is being prepared to hurt another for your own gain. Self-interest, while probably masking that motive subconsciously and always threatening to turn into active selfishness, is treating yourself well but not to the exclusion of others.
Be sure: when somebody is using the “wrong” word, maybe it is the right word after all. He may be trying to smuggle something in.
Using the word selfish, when it can normalise harming others, is harmful—especially when you try to dress the word as something else. Words have psychological impact.
Back to the third type. It has you doing good to others to avoid feeling bad if you don’t (page 25). He dismisses you if you say you do it because you hate hurting others. He says you love it, especially when somebody else is hurting somebody you don’t like, for it is safe for yourself. They do the dirty work.
It is possible to let others walk over you because you hate hurting them. However, he says the third type is not love because it is driven by guilt.
De Mello distinguishes between conditional happiness, which depends on external factors like possessions, relationships, or status, and intrinsic happiness, which arises from clarity, acceptance, and detachment from illusions. He notes that people often pursue external things thinking they will lead to happiness, not realizing that true fulfilment is already present within themselves. Becoming aware of this can transform how we approach life. There is no mention of how this might only work for the few who try it! If it is too few, then there is something wrong with his doctrine. It would be strange if it worked for anybody at all. Telling a person that all they need to do is turn off some switches and they will be happy is dismissive.
A key claim is that your preconceived notions about another person influence your love for them (page 8). He says you love them but also your perceptions of them—so you do not know them fully and are filling in the gaps. Awareness offers to help us recognize the difference between our projections and reality, improving the quality of our relationships and emotional responses.
Arguably, your love for Jesus or God, whom you do not actually know, is virtually a complete projection. He does not go as far as to say that you never love God but only your image of God or your assessment of God. That would be betraying the truth that the vast majority of the religionists are just promoting God out of manipulation and prideful deception. Trust is not a compliment to God at all. It is praising yourself for judging him right. The Bible asks us to trust in God. It is telling how De Mello does not give it much attention.
To sum up, De Mello talks about perceptions shaping our feelings, not reducing all love or trust to narcissistic self-validation. But he is clearly claiming that there is an element of narcissism there.
He correctly observes that when I feel that something is the case, it isn’t necessarily the case (page 79).
He correctly observes that conditional happiness is when you think you need your father or mother or wife or God, and if you don’t get them the way you want them you will refuse to be happy (page 10). He blames this on the conditioning we have got from society. He says that when somebody dies, we should not grieve for them or for those who grieve. Grief is just feeling sorry for yourself, not them (page 53). To grieve for those who grieve is silly, for it is feeling sorry for those who feel sorry for themselves.
He says that most of those who go to a psychologist or psychiatrist want relief but don’t want to be cured of their mental problem (page 12). When they hit rock bottom, they become sick of their sickness, and that is when they start to work on healing themselves. This approach would imply that therapists should focus on making their patients feel as bad as possible. They won’t, but that does not make the implication go away.
He says that if you renounce anything, you are really tying yourself to it (pages 15–16). He says you are giving it power. He means that if you renounce sex you are trapped by sex in the sense that you will fight it as long as you renounce it. You are succumbing to its power by creating a struggle. He says it is mistaken to renounce anything. Just see through what you should be rid of. See that it is an illusion and gives a promise of happiness that it won’t keep. See that this is all you have to do. All you have to do is become aware. But you might think that when you become aware you are renouncing unawareness! No—you are just getting rid of unawareness, but you are not renouncing it. Renouncing implies a struggle against an attraction that you can’t get rid of, and that is why he says renouncing continues to give the renounced thing power over you.
De Mello says you should not make demands on others, for demands imply that you will refuse to be happy if they are not met. To make demands on them, then, is to disrespect yourself, for you cannot love others if you don’t love yourself, and so it is not love. But God made demands on us in the Ten Commandments, and Jesus did as well in his own. When Jesus said that those who die outside his love will go to Hell forever, he was telling us to make ourselves unhappy if our demand for salvation was not met, for how could we be happy if it was not? The implication is that God does not love. People want belief in God so that they can make demands on him for a life after death and for consolation in this one, and make demands on other people, often through a priest or minister. If demanding is wrong, then so is serving God or emphasising him. Atheism would be a duty.
De Mello says that suffering can make you selfish or enhance selfishness. It can make you unable to help others or unwilling to (page 104). His answer is that you must practise awareness as he understands it.
He says suffering can—but does it? Do we let it? If there are exceptions, it could be effectively or virtually the case that it always increases selfishness. Maybe it is not enough to notice, but it will be there.
There can be no faith, only opinion, that sufferers are not harbouring an increase of selfishness.
This makes suffering completely useless and applies a stigma to suffering people who already have enough of that. Yet God created the power to suffer. He made the viruses, germs, and other natural evils. He must be either evil or non-existent.
If awareness is our salvation, then why do we need De Mello’s book to tell us that, and why can’t God make us learn these things by instinct like he makes us learn other things? For suffering to train us in the ways of God it would need to induce awareness, but this never happens unless the person has read De Mello’s book or something.
CONCLUSION SUMMARY
Strengths of De Mello’s Approach
Emphasizes awareness as a tool for reducing unnecessary suffering.
Highlights how projections and assumptions distort relationships.
Distinguishes between conditional and intrinsic forms of happiness.
Questions habitual emotional patterns (e.g., guilt-driven “love,” renunciation through struggle).
Conceptual/Terminological Issues
Uses the term selfishness in a way that deviates from its common moral meaning.
Risks normalizing behaviour that could be harmful if readers misinterpret the terminology.
Offers limited acknowledgment that his method may not be universally effective.
Philosophical and Theological Tensions
Some claims about love, demands, and happiness conflict with traditional religious doctrines.
Statements about grief, therapy, and suffering simplify complex human experiences.
Raises unresolved questions about divine goodness, moral obligation, and the purpose of suffering.
Overall Assessment
The book provides practical psychological insights but does not supply a fully coherent ethical or theological system.
Its ideas are most helpful when applied critically, with care taken to clarify terms and avoid overgeneralization.
APPENDIX
De Mello says we are already happy, but we put things in the way so we do not see it. We cannot help the happiness, for it is intrinsic.
This is very dismissive and blames us for our suffering and anger.
It is not, "The things we put in the way block the happiness so that we cannot experience it." No it is worse. At least that acknowledges that we are not happy.
God is evil for not miraculously multiplying copies of Awareness so that everybody on earth can read it and tell us that we are happy. The same would be true if we were not, but could be happy easily.
Do you want to believe that teaching people the principles similar to those in the book is as important as, or more important, than feeding them or binding up their wounds? The teaching only fuels the callousness that already exists in society.
De Mello reminds us of those who wonder if our spiritual or psychological wiring - makes us read pleasure as suffering or vice versa.