Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Gary Hassig's avatar

Thank you so much, Sadhvi. 🙏🏼❤️💐 This post is a gold mine. You revealed the crux of the issue: "The Dao that can be told is not the eternal Dao. The name that can be named is not the eternal name." The self that can be named, defined, revealed, is not the true self. “Maybe there's no fixed self to find.”

As I’ve been seeing somewhat dimly for at least a couple years now, the true self is like water—transparent, formless, constantly changing, ever flowing, ever new, ever life-giving. You can’t package it, you can’t put it in a box or in your pocket, you can’t name it and claim it. You don’t and can’t own it, because it’s a piece of God in you.

So it’s like trying to define God. Pseudo-Dionysius had it right: He’s not this, he’s not that, he’s not even a he. So, every time we try to define exactly who and what we are, we find we can’t, except for the costume-party efforts of the false or fake self; we can only say it’s not this, it’s not that, not this costume or that mask or this vocation or that passion; it’s not even “my true self” because it doesn’t belong to us and is “true” in ways that reveal as incredibly shallow and flat whatever else we call true.

And because we define the “self” based mostly on the masks and games of the false self, it’s not even really a self, at least not in the sense of being a counterpart to the false self. It’s Dao: unnamable, undefinable, unknowable.

For me, this post is huge. It’s the answer—a non-answer, a wu wei answer—to a question I’ve been asking for over twenty years.

Expand full comment
Jeff Hill's avatar

Well said, and a great reminder this morning not to strive to "solve the puzzle" of myself. Thank you!

Expand full comment

No posts