No-ego taoism

[deci belle]

[Harmonious Emptiness]

Yes, I agree. Though not so philosophically stated as in Buddhist scriptures, Taoist masters absolutely had to transcend "the self" in order to achieve their heights of mastery.

 

A person can't sit in a cave and successfully meditate for 3 months straight without going through an ego crisis of "Why is this happening to me?!!" unless they have managed to transcend "the self" and see the illusionary nature of this "dependently originated void of inherited existence" or whuchamacallit.

[Marblehead]

[Apech]

Why did you put this in articles and not discussion? Anyway its up to you no problem if you prefer it here.

 

I think the point is this. We all talk around certain subjects and issues with reference to 'the ego'. In doing this we are influenced by Buddhism and modern psychology who both use this term. However in Taoism, as far as I know - and I stand to be corrected - there is no equivalent term. I can't think of anything in TTC or ZZ which suggests that the 'problem' is that you have an ego. Why is this? It cannot be that what we are all talking about is a non-issue because the problems are real ones. So the point must be that there are other ways of understanding what we experience and what is really important to us, than by talking about the ego and attendant issues and problems.

 

Maybe, rather than say, I cling to my ego therefore I am stupid and confused, its ok to just say, I am stupid and confused. We are not sages and we have a lot to learn (and unlearn). There is the way to be in accordance with the Tao and there is the way we habitually are. The two are not the same? Why? Do we have to say ... oh its because I have an ego! Or can we just say I need to understand how this Tao is, by looking at the way nature is, then I will be different. Do you see what I mean?

[deci belle]

Edited August 29, 2011 by deci belle

[Marblehead]

Do you see what I mean?

 

Yeah, I see what you mean. But I don't consider myself stupid and confused. (Sorry, I am too much of an optimist to accept something like that.) Hehehe.

[Harmonious Emptiness]

 

Maybe, rather than say, I cling to my ego therefore I am stupid and confused, its ok to just say, I am stupid and confused. We are not sages and we have a lot to learn (and unlearn). There is the way to be in accordance with the Tao and there is the way we habitually are. The two are not the same? Why? Do we have to say ... oh its because I have an ego! Or can we just say I need to understand how this Tao is, by looking at the way nature is, then I will be different. Do you see what I mean?

 

You mean like focusing on the solution rather than the problem, but it's the same problem?

 

Taoism does speak a lot about desire and selfishness and thinking too much about right and wrong. These are all manifestations of ego so you could say that Taoism does talk about uprooting the causes of ego grasping.

[Marblehead]

Hi Apech! I did post this in discussions originally. I waited a week before "archiving" it here.❤

 

Well, it finally did gain my attention. Don't know why I didn't see when you posted it originally.

[Marblehead]

Taoism does speak a lot about desire and selfishness and thinking too much about right and wrong. These are all manifestations of ego so you could say that Taoism does talk about uprooting the causes of ego grasping.

 

Agreed. I was trying to make that point in my earlier post.

[deci belle]

Dang! my reply is waaay up there!!

[Marblehead]

People do not live by bread alone.

 

True. We need to have our peanut butter too.

[Apech]

You mean like focusing on the solution rather than the problem, but it's the same problem?

 

Taoism does speak a lot about desire and selfishness and thinking too much about right and wrong. These are all manifestations of ego so you could say that Taoism does talk about uprooting the causes of ego grasping.

 

My bold. Where does Taoism say this?

 

It does say this:

 

The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao.

The name that can be named is not the eternal name.

The nameless is the beginning of heaven and Earth.

The named is the mother of the ten thousand things.

Ever desireless, one can see the mystery.

Ever desiring, one sees the manifestations.

These two spring from the same source but differ in name; this appears as darkness.

Darkness within darkness.

The gate to all mystery.

 

Does it say ... desire arises form ego clinging and is bad?

 

What does it mean then? (I know what I think - I wonder what you think )

[Apech]

Decibelle,

 

I agree with a lot of what you say but I still think that in order to become one with the Tao you first need to understand it. I am not saying understanding and the state of being one with it are the same but I am saying understanding or wisdom if you like is part of it.

 

What I was trying to get at - and failing I think - is that the term 'ego' is being used as a sort of bogey man or perhaps scapegoat ... so lets try to express this whole thing without resorting to using this term. I think its interesting. Try it maybe you will too.

 

A.

[Apech]

Yeah, I see what you mean. But I don't consider myself stupid and confused. (Sorry, I am too much of an optimist to accept something like that.) Hehehe.

 

You could try seeing yourself as others see you :lol:

[deci belle]

[deci belle]

You could try seeing yourself as others see you :lol:

hhaahhahahhaaa!!❤❤

[Marblehead]

You could try seeing yourself as others see you :lol:

Would you believe that I really don't care too much about how others see me?

 

[Apech]

Would you believe that I really don't care too much about how others see me?

 

 

Oh I believe it.

[Apech]

I never understood a single thing ever, but I eventually got the hang of the cycles of yin convergence. It's working the cycles of transformation in everyday ordinary situations. Therein is recognition of the naturally occurring arising of killing energy. It is precisely within this:

 

 

I call that a form of understanding.

[Harmonious Emptiness]

 

Harmonious Emptiness, on 29 August 2011 - 05:38 PM, said:

 

You mean like focusing on the solution rather than the problem, but it's the same problem?

 

Taoism does speak a lot about desire and selfishness and thinking too much about right and wrong. These are all manifestations of ego so you could say that Taoism does talk about uprooting the causes of ego grasping.

 

My bold. Where does Taoism say this?

 

It does say this:

 

The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao.

The name that can be named is not the eternal name.

The nameless is the beginning of heaven and Earth.

The named is the mother of the ten thousand things.

Ever desireless, one can see the mystery.

Ever desiring, one sees the manifestations.

These two spring from the same source but differ in name; this appears as darkness.

Darkness within darkness.

The gate to all mystery.

 

Does it say ... desire arises form ego clinging and is bad?

 

What does it mean then? (I know what I think - I wonder what you think )

 

Well, what I was saying is that, though Taoism doesn't necessarily speak about the Ego/Self/Atman, but it does prescribe many things that serve to detach from clinging to it; such as loosing selfishness, serving others, being one with the Tao and releasing desires that make us cling to the ordinary world (ordinary world being my own term, I'm sure you know what I mean by it).

 

High level Taoists also practice extreme fasting in various forms which serves to allow them to release the "I need" impulse (which is often described as the root of the Ego in Buddhist writing).

 

When someone is one with the Tao they don't have "hey, what about me" thoughts, so I think even at a more "stream entry" level there is a basic relinquishing of the ego.

 

Now, the other side of this is that Buddhists don't just lose their attachment to the Ego, they also objectively deny it's inherent existence. Taoists might not have used this vehicle, but when you get to the shore you leave the boat behind anyway

 

In regards to Chapter 1 above:

 

"Darkness within darkness"

 

The emptiness of Emptiness. What is emptiness? Emptiness is nothing, but "The named is the mother of the ten thousand things." so when Emptiness is named it is also form.

 

Right now I desire to give an answer to this, so I give it form, but it is not the form that is the answer. If one desires only form then they will only know "the name that can be named." When they don't desire, they can know "the mystery." To desire is to see 10,000 lyrical descriptions, definitions, and fixed perceptions all of which themselves still leave the full mystery ungrasped.

 

Thanks for the question.. mmm, that was tasty

[Birch]

"Taoism doesn't necessarily speak about the Ego/Self/Atman"

 

Are you putting all of those in the same boat? I was under the impression they were not the same "pointers".

I was going to say 'comparable' but then I realised the trouble that might get me into. Because they've been compared (and therefore said to exist as separate thingamajigs) over and over again. In fact, whole religions attend to separating them and then explaining why (or not) they ought to be that way.

 

 

Yep, I reckon the Taoist stuff doesn't bother imposing distinctions on the human form, although it does seem to clearly make distinctions between "human" and "earth" and "heaven". But then it mentions they all follow each other and that there's 'microcosm' and 'macrocosm' so really, no escaping huh?

[Harmonious Emptiness]

"Taoism doesn't necessarily speak about the Ego/Self/Atman"

 

Are you putting all of those in the same boat?

 

Not sure if they are all the same thing, but they are usually used to mean the same thing in Buddhism.

 

I don't know too much about the Atman. It could be much more than just the self or Ego. The Ego is another term that is used loosely in most instances, as mentioned back in "mistranslating super-ego as ego," so it's hard to say whether it's the same as "the self" that appears in Buddhist translations. Either way, the terms are still on the "name that can be named" side, so they're usage is purely utilitarian value, imo. When the screw has been turned, the butter knife is put away(?)..

[Apech]

Not sure if they are all the same thing, but they are usually used to mean the same thing in Buddhism.

 

I don't know too much about the Atman. It could be much more than just the self or Ego. The Ego is another term that is used loosely in most instances, as mentioned back in "mistranslating super-ego as ego," so it's hard to say whether it's the same as "the self" that appears in Buddhist translations. Either way, the terms are still on the "name that can be named" side, so they're usage is purely utilitarian value, imo. When the screw has been turned, the butter knife is put away(?)..

 

In Advaita vedanta (non-dualist hindu) the Atman is the Self which is not different to Brahman which is the Absolute. So Atman does not = ego from this school of thinking. Buddhists do not allow a higher self or such and so refute the Atman=Brahman.

 

Of course 'ego' is just Greek for 'self' ... so some people would say Ego (higher self) = Atman = Brahman. But when we say ego we usually mean the ordinary self based on an accumulation of experiences, thoughts, feeling and so on - which cause us all a load of problems.

 

Taoism does have different souls (hung, po) and so on which are parts of being. From my studies on Ancient Egypt I know that they also had different 'souls' or parts of personality (ka, ba, akh, shade and so on) ... so both ways of thinking saw the individual as being made up of different aspects or possibly entities interacting. The two systems are in someways surprisingly similar given their geographical distance. But neither (as far as I know) used the idea of an ego in the way we do. This led me to think that it is possible to analyse the relation between me as an individual being and the absolute (Tao) without using the term ego. When I did this I found I was being more honest about myself, my weaknesses and stupidity etc. but also more positive in someways about my better qualities.

 

Just a thought ... and an interesting exercise I think ..

[Marblehead]

 

Yep, I reckon the Taoist stuff doesn't bother imposing distinctions on the human form, although it does seem to clearly make distinctions between "human" and "earth" and "heaven". But then it mentions they all follow each other and that there's 'microcosm' and 'macrocosm' so really, no escaping huh?

 

Yes, one "is supposed to" folow the other.

 

Tzujan - Tao - Heaven - Earth - Humans.

 

Seems we humans screw it up now and again.

[Marblehead]

When the screw has been turned, the butter knife is put away(?)..

 

What are you doing screwing with a butter knife?

 

Wouldn't a screwdriver be better?