In part due to the conflation of 自 and 我, whose different usages are not accounted for in most English language translations.
-
-
Replying to @inthisverylife
Most affirmative references in Zen to "Self" are based on the term 自, which usually modifies a verb, as in self-realization (自覺, which is not realization a Self). This is language that conforms to convention and thus remains compatible with 無我. 1/
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @NoaidiX
Fortunately, Chinese and Japanese preserve the distinction through use of two entirely different terms. Unfortunately, English translations, Sanskrit and Pāli aren't so clear about this. For instance, the Buddha uses atta to mean "oneself" without ever contradicting anattā. 2/
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @NoaidiX
Take the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra, "the eternal-unthinkable of the Tathāgatas is thatness realised by noble wisdom within themselves," which seems at first glance to cross into atmavāda territory. The Sanskrit even contains the term atmā, while the Chinese uses 自. 3/
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @NoaidiX
Namely, "realised by noble wisdom within themselves" is from pratyātmāryajñānādhig, 自覺聖智. This has nothing to do with atman as a metaphysical substance, but superficially can be read as such. 4/
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
As for "True Self," this is often a misleading and misinformed attempt at translating 主人公, which more straightforwardly refers to "master" or "mastery." A rough equivalent is the Pāli "vasin" and related forms "vasa" and "vasī." 5/5
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.