Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Question on Anatta...
johnathan
Canada Veteran
OK, so I was floating about the internet and was looking for things on ego death and came across an article (I know, its by OSHO but it seemed to be rational) http://deoxy.org/egofalse.htm
Its a bit long but it had me wondering if there truly is a difference between the concept of self... one being the societal creation of Self which would be EGO and a personal self, devoid of ego but more like the Taoist concept of Ziran?
Ziran is a two-character word that consists of
the characters zi and ran. A simple translation
would understand the word as a combination of
its single components. The dictionary (The New
Chinese-German Dictionary) translates the sign zi
with “self” and ran with “so”. Combining its single
components would thus render ziran: “self-so”.
This is quite a simple translation, and it does indicate
the original idea that informs the ziran concept.
In an expanded entry in the same dictionary,
we find under ziran: “nature, naturally, by itself,
to let something take its [natural] course”. Ziran
can simply be equated with nature, but it also indicates
the inner nature of all beings and things,
which are self-so.
If one studies the history of Chinese philosophy,
one finds the first usage of the concept of ziran
in Laozi, in Zhuangzi, in the mohistic canon, and
also in Xunzi (see also Röllike).
The concept of ziran was developed as an answer
to the question, ‘what is dao?’ In Laozi, verse 25
says, “Human beings follow the law of earth,
earth follows the law of heaven, heaven follows
the law of dao, and dao follows the law of ziran.”
Bauer explains: “the expression ziran literally means
“to be so by itself”. It is first used in the Daodejing
and refers to the structure of Tao, which cannot
be referred back to anything else.”
(Bauer, p. 202)
Within daoist tradition all of this implied that
through retreating back to nature, one could be
nearer to dao. In observing and imitating nature,
and through rejecting human culture, one could
perfect one’s own character. In the 2nd and 3rd
centuries AD these ideas changed. It was no longer
absolutely necessary to search for dao in nature,
but rather one’s own self became the mirror of dao.
Bauer says that, “it is the sole acknowledgement
of the own self in all expressions and activities
of life which is the decisive feature of ‘naturalness’
and ‘freedom’ , which can be found in nature and
dao as well as in the ideal/perfected human being.”
(Bauer, p. 203)
Is anatta a realization of there being no self in any form or more of a self without ego?
Its a bit long but it had me wondering if there truly is a difference between the concept of self... one being the societal creation of Self which would be EGO and a personal self, devoid of ego but more like the Taoist concept of Ziran?
Ziran is a two-character word that consists of
the characters zi and ran. A simple translation
would understand the word as a combination of
its single components. The dictionary (The New
Chinese-German Dictionary) translates the sign zi
with “self” and ran with “so”. Combining its single
components would thus render ziran: “self-so”.
This is quite a simple translation, and it does indicate
the original idea that informs the ziran concept.
In an expanded entry in the same dictionary,
we find under ziran: “nature, naturally, by itself,
to let something take its [natural] course”. Ziran
can simply be equated with nature, but it also indicates
the inner nature of all beings and things,
which are self-so.
If one studies the history of Chinese philosophy,
one finds the first usage of the concept of ziran
in Laozi, in Zhuangzi, in the mohistic canon, and
also in Xunzi (see also Röllike).
The concept of ziran was developed as an answer
to the question, ‘what is dao?’ In Laozi, verse 25
says, “Human beings follow the law of earth,
earth follows the law of heaven, heaven follows
the law of dao, and dao follows the law of ziran.”
Bauer explains: “the expression ziran literally means
“to be so by itself”. It is first used in the Daodejing
and refers to the structure of Tao, which cannot
be referred back to anything else.”
(Bauer, p. 202)
Within daoist tradition all of this implied that
through retreating back to nature, one could be
nearer to dao. In observing and imitating nature,
and through rejecting human culture, one could
perfect one’s own character. In the 2nd and 3rd
centuries AD these ideas changed. It was no longer
absolutely necessary to search for dao in nature,
but rather one’s own self became the mirror of dao.
Bauer says that, “it is the sole acknowledgement
of the own self in all expressions and activities
of life which is the decisive feature of ‘naturalness’
and ‘freedom’ , which can be found in nature and
dao as well as in the ideal/perfected human being.”
(Bauer, p. 203)
Is anatta a realization of there being no self in any form or more of a self without ego?
0
Comments
I would say that it's both of these states, in the sense of being two points on a continuum. I myself can only explain it from my own background, which is Vajrayana, but I'll give it my best shot.
My understanding of Vajrayana is that it presents examination of these "phenomena" as understood conventionally and as understood ultimately.
Speaking "ultimately", and using the Heart Sutra as a point of reference since it's known as a good explanation of non-duality, there is no self. I think it can be left at that. There is no self. As we come back down the continuum, we reach the concept of a self without ego, which is "conventionally" possible.
So anatta is, in fact a realization of there being no self in any form, but it can also be fairly said that it is a self without ego.
But you and I had to get up this morning and do whatever it is we do to wake up and be aware enough to turn on the computer and go to this site and write, so in the conventional sense there are Johnathan and Sherab Dorje doing these things and interacting. If we operate in the everyday world from an experiential frame of reference of a full experience of anatta, then we supposedly operate in the everyday world more comfortably because we have less of an experience of dukkha. So "conventionally" speaking, we have ego.
So from the Vajrayana point of view, experiencing anatta is a proper realization of emptiness of inherent existence, and a self without ego is a reasonable approximation of that.
So just IMHO it's both, by virtue of the fact that they're points on the same continuum. If we realize that there really is no self in any form, then we're much more liable to function as a self without ego and therefore have less of an experience of dukkha.
Are you the emotions that come and go?
Are you the thoughts that come and go?
Are you the body that comes and eventually goes as well?
Were you even born?
Who are you? What is this?
We have no idea don't we. No one here does right? So then what, what's this nothing? What is this? Right now? Where are you?
How can anything be other than it is? Just this unknown space. What is this?
Sorry for all the questions, just seems like you'd benefit from some simple questioning. Too much reading leaves little room for real practice; it just fills up the head with more illusion.