Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'non-self'.
Found 1 result
I have felt that the two were more similar than different, but lately I am seeing very great differences. I think that the goal of the two religions in meditation is the same. The Taoists in the Secret of the Golden Flower, say that the ego can remain after the body dies. I think, although I am not sure, that Taoism like Buddhism believes in ending the cycle of rebirths. This would have to be implicit in the Golden Flower otherwise the ego, as the Taoists call it, would simply be reincarnated, which I do not believe is implied in the SGF. But I am feeling that the darma or dhamma of Buddhism is a stricter and more explicitly laid out program. I do not read in Buddhism of the channels, e.g., the Governor, Imperial, or Central channels that have such prominence in Taoism. The Buddhists speak of anatta, non-self, when they describe the sensifacient phenomena of the body. In other words, these are merely material phenomena and not indicative of a "self." But one unanswered question I have is that the pattern and combinations of these material sense events are unique to one person. Therefore when we say Mr. X is prone to headaches while Ms, Y is not, the aggregate of sense events one person has would seem to define a "self". I have not cracked the idea of non-self, either that the world has no self or that the body has no self. This seems like a contradiction of the Taoists and maybe the Tibetan Buddhists both of whom hold that there is some sort of consciousness or "ego" that separates from the physical body and that can be reincarnated or not. Theravada ideas on non-self may contradict Tibetan ones. But if there were no self, soul, ego or conscious entity of some sort, then it would be impossible to escape the cycle of rebirth because there would be nothing that was escaping it. Whether I should regard myself as a self or not is a mystery to me. Any clarification would be appreciated.