Can you clarify what you mean by “renunciation of the self”?
In David Chapman’s writing, I think he makes the claim that selves do not exist, and he’s a Tantra practitioner. (My perspective is that he has a different definition of “exist” than me, but that we’re pointing at the same observations.) He doesn’t believe in, and Tantra doesn’t preach, a renunciate lifestyle—they think it’s okay to eat meat, have sex, earn money, and so on.
I would not say that selves don’t exist (although it’s possible that I have done so somewhere, sloppily).
Rather, that selves are both nebulous and patterned (“empty forms,” in Tantric terminology).
Probably the clearest summary of that I’ve written so far is “Selfness,” which is supposed to be the introduction to a chapter of the Meaningness book that does not yet otherwise exist.
Renouncing the self is characteristic of Sutrayana.
Can you clarify what you mean by “renunciation of the self”?
In David Chapman’s writing, I think he makes the claim that selves do not exist, and he’s a Tantra practitioner. (My perspective is that he has a different definition of “exist” than me, but that we’re pointing at the same observations.) He doesn’t believe in, and Tantra doesn’t preach, a renunciate lifestyle—they think it’s okay to eat meat, have sex, earn money, and so on.
I would not say that selves don’t exist (although it’s possible that I have done so somewhere, sloppily).
Rather, that selves are both nebulous and patterned (“empty forms,” in Tantric terminology).
Probably the clearest summary of that I’ve written so far is “Selfness,” which is supposed to be the introduction to a chapter of the Meaningness book that does not yet otherwise exist.
Renouncing the self is characteristic of Sutrayana.