Re: [Zen] Re: Id, ego and super-ego - keeping the mind in balance
joe..did freud die of cancer? jung was not all goodness and light either...merle Edgar, Merle, I think Freud was a bit fetishistic about cigars, tho'. Well, he and Bill Clinton. ;-) And Philip Morris? --Joe PS Edgar, did Freud collect only artifacts (vs. antiquities?) of Primitive cultures, or was he an across-the-board collector, or, etc.? Maybe I'm thinking of Jung... . I don't remember much of either of the Good Doctors' biographies (but I remember *liking* Jung's MEMORIES, DREAMS, REFLECTIONS (1961), for its riveting conversational style, captured and conveyed by his Recordist, Auditor, and Editor, Aniela Jaffe). Edgar Owen edgarowen@... wrote: Merle and Joe, Dr. Freud was an avid antiquities collector so he couldn't have been all bad... :-)
Re: [Zen] Re: Id, ego and super-ego - keeping the mind in balance
joe..are you free of self? merle Merle, quoting: when we discard 'self' and stand naked as 'non self' are we liberated? are we free? Yes. We are free. When there is no self, Wisdom and Compassion arise spontaneously, in EXACT accord with real circumstances and events. We are also then FREE to take on the self or face that is most helpful to others. This is called Compassion. And use of Skilful Means. Not having the habitual self (the self forced by residue of accumulated Karma), allows freedom to act in accord with what is REAL. But Merle, it happens not quite as you say: One does not discard a self. That is impossible. A self dissolves only by effective Practice. It is not dropped or discarded. It simply falls. It dissolves. Gone! This is the meaning of the Buddhist phrase: Gate, gate, paragate, parasamgate; Bodhi, Svaha! Gone, gone, gone beyond, gone completely beyond! Buddha-Wisdom, Hail! For this to happen, one needs to PRACTICE with a teacher and a sangha, and have regular contact with them over a long period of time. --Joe Merle Lester merlewiitpom@... wrote: why do must i disagree?... self...is it such an ugly concept?.. after all are we not the self of all selves including the greater self which some of us see as god..? when we discard self and stand naked as non self are we liberated? are we free?
Re: [Zen] Re: Id, ego and super-ego - keeping the mind in balance
Bill,
Everyone that has ever existed has been a Buddha. Yes, even you though I
sometimes have my doubts!
Whether they realize their Buddhahood or not is what counts..
Edgar
On May 22, 2013, at 11:37 PM, Bill! wrote:
Merle,
Buddhism teaches there have been many, many Buddhas:
Theoretically, the number of Buddhas having existed is enormous and they are
often collectively known under the name of Thousand Buddhas. Each was
responsible for a life cycle. According to some Buddhist traditions,
Dīpankara (also Dīpamkara) was a Buddha who reached enlightenment eons prior
to Gautama, the historical Buddha.
Generally, Buddhists believe that there has been a succession of many Buddhas
in the distant past and that many more will appear in the future; Dīpankara,
then, would be one of numerous previous Buddhas, while Gautama was the most
recent, and Maitreya will be the next Buddha in the future.
- Source: wikipedia.com
But these are just the 'Buddhas', those who have been totally enlightened.
There are presumably almost numberless people that have experienced Buddha
Nature because of the teachings of these Buddhas. Just where you draw the
lines between 'experienced Buddha Nature' ('kensho' in Japanese), a strong
enlightenment experience ('satori' in Japanese), a Bodhisattva and a 'fully
enlightened Buddha' I don't know.
Again, all the above is my understanding of Buddhist dogma, doctrine and
teachings, and not really pertinent to the zen I practice.
...Bill!
--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, uerusuboyo@... wrote:
Merle,br/br/There have no doubt been many who have wiped the dust from
their eyes since, and before, the historical Buddha. The important thing is
that just like Sidharta Guatama, you too can awaken in this very lifetime;
this very moment. br/br/Mikebr/br/br/Sent from Yahoo! Mail for
iPad
[Zen] Re: Id, ego and super-ego - keeping the mind in balance
Merle, I can pick up the one I need in an instant. Free of it when I want to be; and then, free to wear the one best able to function in the exact circumstances that arise. It's quite a good benefit that our Zen or Zen Buddhist practice gives us, if we practice it as we are taught, with a teacher and a group, and practice with them regularly so we can first awaken. Then we need to continue practice without let-up. Buddhas and Ancestors have not lied to us! Merle, are you bound by feeling that there is an immutable self in you, AS you? (it's my turn to ask a question). --Joe Merle Lester merlewiitpom@... wrote: joe..are you free of self? merle Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: zen_forum-dig...@yahoogroups.com zen_forum-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: zen_forum-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [Zen] Re: Id, ego and super-ego - keeping the mind in balance
bill..thank you..merle Merle, According to Tolle...the ego is only the ego if it is unrecognized. When it is recognized it is just a set of behavior patterns that you can continue, change or stop. These behavior patters have what he calls a 'momentum' so changing or stopping them is not something easily or quickly done. If you slip back into these patterns without being aware of it then the ego reappears. ASSUMING Tolle's term 'ego' is the same as the Buddhist/zen term 'self'... According to zen (IMO)...the self is illusory. Until it's recognized as illusory it is the anchor for attachments, and attachments are the cause of suffering. When the self is recognized as illusory (experiencing Buddha Nature, 'kensho' in Japanese) the process of dissolving attachments (zen practice) begins. But just like Tolle says that is not an instantaneous thing. It takes work and that work is what I call 'zen practice'. When I hear or read accounts of people attaining COMPLETE enlightenment or SUDDEN enlightenment I ASSUME what this means is they have completely and permanently dissolved their attachments to illusions such as the self. This doesn't mean they no longer have illusions, this just means they now recognize them as illusions and do not form attachments to them. These are my thoughts on this video and the term 'ego'...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Merle Lester merlewiitpom@... wrote: having listened to tolle this morning.. i am brushing up on the word ego... it appears ego has a negativity attached to it.. when in reality it is all part and parcel of the mind.. what i gather it is important to keep the mind in balance... any thoughts on this group?..merle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Id,_ego_and_super-ego
Re: [Zen] Re: Id, ego and super-ego - keeping the mind in balance
joe... why do must i disagree?... self...is it such an ugly concept?.. after all are we not the self of all selves including the greater self which some of us see as god..? when we discard self and stand naked as non self are we liberated? are we free? merle Merle, Huh? No, Dr. Freud first used the word ego; I think he scrounged it from the Latin, to fill in for something in his model of the small mind as he studied neurotic Jewish ladies in his neighborhood who came to him for what he called analysis. Freud had it right for himself and his theories; but the buck stops THERE. It's of no value in Buddhadharma. Self has always been the operative word, there. So far so good. Do you disagree somehow? --Joe Merle Lester merlewiitpom@... wrote: joe.. can you direct me to some relevant web info on this... so are you saying that dr. freud got it all wrong? are we not all buddhas and demons and mixtures of both? so why are you suggesting dr. Freud is a demon and a fraud?
Re: [Zen] Re: Id, ego and super-ego - keeping the mind in balance
Merle and Joe, Dr. Freud was an avid antiquities collector so he couldn't have been all bad... :-) Edgar On May 21, 2013, at 8:33 PM, Merle Lester wrote: joe... no i do not disagree however you are sweeping his work away with a very large brush.. and labelling him judging him to be unfit.. can you point to me where freud deviates from the self of buddhadharma merle Merle, Huh? No, Dr. Freud first used the word ego; I think he scrounged it from the Latin, to fill in for something in his model of the small mind as he studied neurotic Jewish ladies in his neighborhood who came to him for what he called analysis. Freud had it right for himself and his theories; but the buck stops THERE. It's of no value in Buddhadharma. Self has always been the operative word, there. So far so good. Do you disagree somehow? --Joe Merle Lester merlewiitpom@... wrote: joe.. can you direct me to some relevant web info on this... so are you saying that dr. freud got it all wrong? are we not all buddhas and demons and mixtures of both? so why are you suggesting dr. Freud is a demon and a fraud?
Re: [Zen] Re: Id, ego and super-ego - keeping the mind in balance
Mike, and Bill, Rinpoche's use of the word ego correctly describes Bill's incredibly egoistic belief that the world of forms is a creation of his personal mind, of Bill's solipsism... Bill needs to understand what Rinpoche is saying here... Edgar On May 21, 2013, at 9:06 PM, uerusub...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: Merle, The only thing the Freudian concept of 'ego' shares with the Buddhist concept of the same is the name. They're quite different concepts. Check this out from www.luminousbuddha.com: The Latin term ego was first used in a translation of Freud’s work to refer to his idea of the “I” or the reality principle within the dynamic forces of the psyche. He suggests the functions of the “I” include reasoning, a sense of self-capacity and the mediator between the polarized demands of instinctual drives and societal expectations. While he considered the “I” a mechanism of the self, he did not use the term ego. Nevertheless the word ego entered the mainstream in professional conversations of the analytic understanding of the human being as it began with Freud’s thought. As psychology became popularized the word ego entered the common vernacular to describe attitudes and behaviors considered selfish or inflated. The slang use of ego is generally a derogatory term for behaviors considered out of the range of social acceptance. Slang borrows from the inflated side of the psychodynamic description of the unhealthy manifestations of ego yet lacks a deeper understanding of its causes. In the 1970’s Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche, a Tibetan lama, began utilizing the term ego to describe a neurotic process based on the ignorance of our actual situation (Trungpa, 1978) resulting in a solidified sense of self that is separate and self-referential and as such is the cause of suffering. He saw the projections of the ego as an incorrect understanding of the interdependent nature of reality and the primary obstruction to clear seeing and compassion. He borrowed aspects of the term from both psychology and modern vernacular usage. Buddhists around the world have embraced this usage of the term ego and use it regularly to describe the common illusion of a static separate self that emphasizes it’s self-importance in relation to the world. This Buddhist definition can now be understood as a unique understanding of the word ego as well. The field of transpersonal psychology has borrowed from the Buddhist usage of the term ego in the psychological and spiritual mapping of human development. The confusion that has arisen from the different usages of the term ego is significant to those in the field of psychology as well as Buddhist practitioners who have an incomplete understanding of the word in its several contexts. The general public would also benefit from a further understanding of the factors relating to the formation of an aggrandized sense of self to which the slang usage of ego refers. Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPad From: Merle Lester merlewiit...@yahoo.com; To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com; Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: Id, ego and super-ego - keeping the mind in balance Sent: Wed, May 22, 2013 12:33:42 AM joe... no i do not disagree however you are sweeping his work away with a very large brush.. and labelling him judging him to be unfit.. can you point to me where freud deviates from the self of buddhadharma merle Merle, Huh? No, Dr. Freud first used the word ego; I think he scrounged it from the Latin, to fill in for something in his model of the small mind as he studied neurotic Jewish ladies in his neighborhood who came to him for what he called analysis. Freud had it right for himself and his theories; but the buck stops THERE. It's of no value in Buddhadharma. Self has always been the operative word, there. So far so good. Do you disagree somehow? --Joe Merle Lester merlewiitpom@... wrote: joe.. can you direct me to some relevant web info on this... so are you saying that dr. freud got it all wrong? are we not all buddhas and demons and mixtures of both? so why are you suggesting dr. Freud is a demon and a fraud?
[Zen] Re: Id, ego and super-ego - keeping the mind in balance
Edgar, Your reference to me in the last sentence below is a good example of what I was talking about when I said you at best misinterpret and more likely purposefully misrepresent what I say. I have always said the self (Rinpoche's term 'ego') is illusory and is the 'anchor' for all attachments which cause suffering. Why do you insinuate I do not understand that? ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen edgarowen@... wrote: Mike, and Bill, Rinpoche's use of the word ego correctly describes Bill's incredibly egoistic belief that the world of forms is a creation of his personal mind, of Bill's solipsism... Bill needs to understand what Rinpoche is saying here... Edgar On May 21, 2013, at 9:06 PM, uerusuboyo@... wrote: Merle, The only thing the Freudian concept of 'ego' shares with the Buddhist concept of the same is the name. They're quite different concepts. Check this out from www.luminousbuddha.com: The Latin term ego was first used in a translation of Freud's work to refer to his idea of the I or the reality principle within the dynamic forces of the psyche. He suggests the functions of the I include reasoning, a sense of self-capacity and the mediator between the polarized demands of instinctual drives and societal expectations. While he considered the I a mechanism of the self, he did not use the term ego. Nevertheless the word ego entered the mainstream in professional conversations of the analytic understanding of the human being as it began with Freud's thought. As psychology became popularized the word ego entered the common vernacular to describe attitudes and behaviors considered selfish or inflated. The slang use of ego is generally a derogatory term for behaviors considered out of the range of social acceptance. Slang borrows from the inflated side of the psychodynamic description of the unhealthy manifestations of ego yet lacks a deeper understanding of its causes. In the 1970's Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche, a Tibetan lama, began utilizing the term ego to describe a neurotic process based on the ignorance of our actual situation (Trungpa, 1978) resulting in a solidified sense of self that is separate and self-referential and as such is the cause of suffering. He saw the projections of the ego as an incorrect understanding of the interdependent nature of reality and the primary obstruction to clear seeing and compassion. He borrowed aspects of the term from both psychology and modern vernacular usage. Buddhists around the world have embraced this usage of the term ego and use it regularly to describe the common illusion of a static separate self that emphasizes it's self-importance in relation to the world. This Buddhist definition can now be understood as a unique understanding of the word ego as well. The field of transpersonal psychology has borrowed from the Buddhist usage of the term ego in the psychological and spiritual mapping of human development. The confusion that has arisen from the different usages of the term ego is significant to those in the field of psychology as well as Buddhist practitioners who have an incomplete understanding of the word in its several contexts. The general public would also benefit from a further understanding of the factors relating to the formation of an aggrandized sense of self to which the slang usage of ego refers. Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPad From: Merle Lester merlewiitpom@...; To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com; Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: Id, ego and super-ego - keeping the mind in balance Sent: Wed, May 22, 2013 12:33:42 AM joe... no i do not disagree however you are sweeping his work away with a very large brush.. and labelling him judging him to be unfit.. can you point to me where freud deviates from the self of buddhadharma merle Merle, Huh? No, Dr. Freud first used the word ego; I think he scrounged it from the Latin, to fill in for something in his model of the small mind as he studied neurotic Jewish ladies in his neighborhood who came to him for what he called analysis. Freud had it right for himself and his theories; but the buck stops THERE. It's of no value in Buddhadharma. Self has always been the operative word, there. So far so good. Do you disagree somehow? --Joe Merle Lester merlewiitpom@ wrote: joe.. can you direct me to some relevant web info on this... so are you saying that dr. freud got it all wrong? are we not all buddhas and demons and mixtures of both? so why are you suggesting dr. Freud is a demon and a fraud? Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit
Re: [Zen] Re: Id, ego and super-ego - keeping the mind in balance
Bill, Well you obviously do not understand what I said because you are referring to something else... Edgar On May 22, 2013, at 7:22 AM, Bill! wrote: Edgar, Your reference to me in the last sentence below is a good example of what I was talking about when I said you at best misinterpret and more likely purposefully misrepresent what I say. I have always said the self (Rinpoche's term 'ego') is illusory and is the 'anchor' for all attachments which cause suffering. Why do you insinuate I do not understand that? ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen edgarowen@... wrote: Mike, and Bill, Rinpoche's use of the word ego correctly describes Bill's incredibly egoistic belief that the world of forms is a creation of his personal mind, of Bill's solipsism... Bill needs to understand what Rinpoche is saying here... Edgar On May 21, 2013, at 9:06 PM, uerusuboyo@... wrote: Merle, The only thing the Freudian concept of 'ego' shares with the Buddhist concept of the same is the name. They're quite different concepts. Check this out from www.luminousbuddha.com: The Latin term ego was first used in a translation of Freud's work to refer to his idea of the I or the reality principle within the dynamic forces of the psyche. He suggests the functions of the I include reasoning, a sense of self-capacity and the mediator between the polarized demands of instinctual drives and societal expectations. While he considered the I a mechanism of the self, he did not use the term ego. Nevertheless the word ego entered the mainstream in professional conversations of the analytic understanding of the human being as it began with Freud's thought. As psychology became popularized the word ego entered the common vernacular to describe attitudes and behaviors considered selfish or inflated. The slang use of ego is generally a derogatory term for behaviors considered out of the range of social acceptance. Slang borrows from the inflated side of the psychodynamic description of the unhealthy manifestations of ego yet lacks a deeper understanding of its causes. In the 1970's Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche, a Tibetan lama, began utilizing the term ego to describe a neurotic process based on the ignorance of our actual situation (Trungpa, 1978) resulting in a solidified sense of self that is separate and self-referential and as such is the cause of suffering. He saw the projections of the ego as an incorrect understanding of the interdependent nature of reality and the primary obstruction to clear seeing and compassion. He borrowed aspects of the term from both psychology and modern vernacular usage. Buddhists around the world have embraced this usage of the term ego and use it regularly to describe the common illusion of a static separate self that emphasizes it's self-importance in relation to the world. This Buddhist definition can now be understood as a unique understanding of the word ego as well. The field of transpersonal psychology has borrowed from the Buddhist usage of the term ego in the psychological and spiritual mapping of human development. The confusion that has arisen from the different usages of the term ego is significant to those in the field of psychology as well as Buddhist practitioners who have an incomplete understanding of the word in its several contexts. The general public would also benefit from a further understanding of the factors relating to the formation of an aggrandized sense of self to which the slang usage of ego refers. Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPad From: Merle Lester merlewiitpom@...; To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com; Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: Id, ego and super-ego - keeping the mind in balance Sent: Wed, May 22, 2013 12:33:42 AM joe... no i do not disagree however you are sweeping his work away with a very large brush.. and labelling him judging him to be unfit.. can you point to me where freud deviates from the self of buddhadharma merle Merle, Huh? No, Dr. Freud first used the word ego; I think he scrounged it from the Latin, to fill in for something in his model of the small mind as he studied neurotic Jewish ladies in his neighborhood who came to him for what he called analysis. Freud had it right for himself and his theories; but the buck stops THERE. It's of no value in Buddhadharma. Self has always been the operative word, there. So far so good. Do you disagree somehow? --Joe Merle Lester merlewiitpom@ wrote: joe.. can you direct me to some relevant web info on this... so are you saying that dr. freud got it all wrong? are we not all buddhas and demons
[Zen] Re: Id, ego and super-ego - keeping the mind in balance
Edgar, If when you wrote, Bill needs to understand what Rinpoche is saying here... you were not referring to what Rinpoche was saying here, to what were you referring? ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen edgarowen@... wrote: Bill, Well you obviously do not understand what I said because you are referring to something else... Edgar On May 22, 2013, at 7:22 AM, Bill! wrote: Edgar, Your reference to me in the last sentence below is a good example of what I was talking about when I said you at best misinterpret and more likely purposefully misrepresent what I say. I have always said the self (Rinpoche's term 'ego') is illusory and is the 'anchor' for all attachments which cause suffering. Why do you insinuate I do not understand that? ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen edgarowen@ wrote: Mike, and Bill, Rinpoche's use of the word ego correctly describes Bill's incredibly egoistic belief that the world of forms is a creation of his personal mind, of Bill's solipsism... Bill needs to understand what Rinpoche is saying here... Edgar On May 21, 2013, at 9:06 PM, uerusuboyo@ wrote: Merle, The only thing the Freudian concept of 'ego' shares with the Buddhist concept of the same is the name. They're quite different concepts. Check this out from www.luminousbuddha.com: The Latin term ego was first used in a translation of Freud's work to refer to his idea of the I or the reality principle within the dynamic forces of the psyche. He suggests the functions of the I include reasoning, a sense of self-capacity and the mediator between the polarized demands of instinctual drives and societal expectations. While he considered the I a mechanism of the self, he did not use the term ego. Nevertheless the word ego entered the mainstream in professional conversations of the analytic understanding of the human being as it began with Freud's thought. As psychology became popularized the word ego entered the common vernacular to describe attitudes and behaviors considered selfish or inflated. The slang use of ego is generally a derogatory term for behaviors considered out of the range of social acceptance. Slang borrows from the inflated side of the psychodynamic description of the unhealthy manifestations of ego yet lacks a deeper understanding of its causes. In the 1970's Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche, a Tibetan lama, began utilizing the term ego to describe a neurotic process based on the ignorance of our actual situation (Trungpa, 1978) resulting in a solidified sense of self that is separate and self-referential and as such is the cause of suffering. He saw the projections of the ego as an incorrect understanding of the interdependent nature of reality and the primary obstruction to clear seeing and compassion. He borrowed aspects of the term from both psychology and modern vernacular usage. Buddhists around the world have embraced this usage of the term ego and use it regularly to describe the common illusion of a static separate self that emphasizes it's self-importance in relation to the world. This Buddhist definition can now be understood as a unique understanding of the word ego as well. The field of transpersonal psychology has borrowed from the Buddhist usage of the term ego in the psychological and spiritual mapping of human development. The confusion that has arisen from the different usages of the term ego is significant to those in the field of psychology as well as Buddhist practitioners who have an incomplete understanding of the word in its several contexts. The general public would also benefit from a further understanding of the factors relating to the formation of an aggrandized sense of self to which the slang usage of ego refers. Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPad From: Merle Lester merlewiitpom@; To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com; Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: Id, ego and super-ego - keeping the mind in balance Sent: Wed, May 22, 2013 12:33:42 AM joe... no i do not disagree however you are sweeping his work away with a very large brush.. and labelling him judging him to be unfit.. can you point to me where freud deviates from the self of buddhadharma merle Merle, Huh? No, Dr. Freud first used the word ego; I think he scrounged it from the Latin, to fill in for something in his model of the small mind as he studied neurotic Jewish ladies in his neighborhood who came to him for what he called analysis. Freud had it right for himself and his theories; but the buck stops
Re: [Zen] Re: Id, ego and super-ego - keeping the mind in balance
Bill, What Rinpoche was ACTUALLY saying, not your interpretation of what he was saying... You claim that there is no self, but then you claim that your self is where all the forms arise... This is contradictory because the self is a complex of forms itself.. Edgar On May 22, 2013, at 8:03 AM, Bill! wrote: Edgar, If when you wrote, Bill needs to understand what Rinpoche is saying here... you were not referring to what Rinpoche was saying here, to what were you referring? ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen edgarowen@... wrote: Bill, Well you obviously do not understand what I said because you are referring to something else... Edgar On May 22, 2013, at 7:22 AM, Bill! wrote: Edgar, Your reference to me in the last sentence below is a good example of what I was talking about when I said you at best misinterpret and more likely purposefully misrepresent what I say. I have always said the self (Rinpoche's term 'ego') is illusory and is the 'anchor' for all attachments which cause suffering. Why do you insinuate I do not understand that? ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen edgarowen@ wrote: Mike, and Bill, Rinpoche's use of the word ego correctly describes Bill's incredibly egoistic belief that the world of forms is a creation of his personal mind, of Bill's solipsism... Bill needs to understand what Rinpoche is saying here... Edgar On May 21, 2013, at 9:06 PM, uerusuboyo@ wrote: Merle, The only thing the Freudian concept of 'ego' shares with the Buddhist concept of the same is the name. They're quite different concepts. Check this out from www.luminousbuddha.com: The Latin term ego was first used in a translation of Freud's work to refer to his idea of the I or the reality principle within the dynamic forces of the psyche. He suggests the functions of the I include reasoning, a sense of self-capacity and the mediator between the polarized demands of instinctual drives and societal expectations. While he considered the I a mechanism of the self, he did not use the term ego. Nevertheless the word ego entered the mainstream in professional conversations of the analytic understanding of the human being as it began with Freud's thought. As psychology became popularized the word ego entered the common vernacular to describe attitudes and behaviors considered selfish or inflated. The slang use of ego is generally a derogatory term for behaviors considered out of the range of social acceptance. Slang borrows from the inflated side of the psychodynamic description of the unhealthy manifestations of ego yet lacks a deeper understanding of its causes. In the 1970's Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche, a Tibetan lama, began utilizing the term ego to describe a neurotic process based on the ignorance of our actual situation (Trungpa, 1978) resulting in a solidified sense of self that is separate and self-referential and as such is the cause of suffering. He saw the projections of the ego as an incorrect understanding of the interdependent nature of reality and the primary obstruction to clear seeing and compassion. He borrowed aspects of the term from both psychology and modern vernacular usage. Buddhists around the world have embraced this usage of the term ego and use it regularly to describe the common illusion of a static separate self that emphasizes it's self-importance in relation to the world. This Buddhist definition can now be understood as a unique understanding of the word ego as well. The field of transpersonal psychology has borrowed from the Buddhist usage of the term ego in the psychological and spiritual mapping of human development. The confusion that has arisen from the different usages of the term ego is significant to those in the field of psychology as well as Buddhist practitioners who have an incomplete understanding of the word in its several contexts. The general public would also benefit from a further understanding of the factors relating to the formation of an aggrandized sense of self to which the slang usage of ego refers. Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPad From: Merle Lester merlewiitpom@; To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com; Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: Id, ego and super-ego - keeping the mind in balance Sent: Wed, May 22, 2013 12:33:42 AM joe... no i do not disagree however you are sweeping his work away with a very large brush.. and labelling him judging him to be unfit.. can you point
[Zen] Re: Id, ego and super-ego - keeping the mind in balance
Edgar, I have consistently said the self is a product of our intellect. The intellect is the source of our illusions of dualism. The example I always give is the dualistic set of self/other. I use this to contrast with Buddha Nature which is holistic (non-dualistic) and not a product of our intellect but an experience of our senses. All forms are also a product of our intellect and therefore are conceptual or what I call illusory. To sum up I did not say our illusory self is the source of all illusions. I do say our intellect is the source of the illusion of dualism of which self/other and all forms are examples. What you might have remembered is that I have said that I believe the illusion of self/other is the most pernicious of all illusions because IMO the illusory self serves as the anchor for attachments. Forms, although illusory, do not have attachments as far as I can tell. Our illusory self however certainly can have, and in your case most certainly has, attachments to the illusions of form. I don't think Rinpoche went into that much detail about ego, at least not in ...what he is saying here. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen edgarowen@... wrote: Bill, What Rinpoche was ACTUALLY saying, not your interpretation of what he was saying... You claim that there is no self, but then you claim that your self is where all the forms arise... This is contradictory because the self is a complex of forms itself.. Edgar On May 22, 2013, at 8:03 AM, Bill! wrote: Edgar, If when you wrote, Bill needs to understand what Rinpoche is saying here... you were not referring to what Rinpoche was saying here, to what were you referring? ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen edgarowen@ wrote: Bill, Well you obviously do not understand what I said because you are referring to something else... Edgar On May 22, 2013, at 7:22 AM, Bill! wrote: Edgar, Your reference to me in the last sentence below is a good example of what I was talking about when I said you at best misinterpret and more likely purposefully misrepresent what I say. I have always said the self (Rinpoche's term 'ego') is illusory and is the 'anchor' for all attachments which cause suffering. Why do you insinuate I do not understand that? ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen edgarowen@ wrote: Mike, and Bill, Rinpoche's use of the word ego correctly describes Bill's incredibly egoistic belief that the world of forms is a creation of his personal mind, of Bill's solipsism... Bill needs to understand what Rinpoche is saying here... Edgar On May 21, 2013, at 9:06 PM, uerusuboyo@ wrote: Merle, The only thing the Freudian concept of 'ego' shares with the Buddhist concept of the same is the name. They're quite different concepts. Check this out from www.luminousbuddha.com: The Latin term ego was first used in a translation of Freud's work to refer to his idea of the I or the reality principle within the dynamic forces of the psyche. He suggests the functions of the I include reasoning, a sense of self-capacity and the mediator between the polarized demands of instinctual drives and societal expectations. While he considered the I a mechanism of the self, he did not use the term ego. Nevertheless the word ego entered the mainstream in professional conversations of the analytic understanding of the human being as it began with Freud's thought. As psychology became popularized the word ego entered the common vernacular to describe attitudes and behaviors considered selfish or inflated. The slang use of ego is generally a derogatory term for behaviors considered out of the range of social acceptance. Slang borrows from the inflated side of the psychodynamic description of the unhealthy manifestations of ego yet lacks a deeper understanding of its causes. In the 1970's Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche, a Tibetan lama, began utilizing the term ego to describe a neurotic process based on the ignorance of our actual situation (Trungpa, 1978) resulting in a solidified sense of self that is separate and self-referential and as such is the cause of suffering. He saw the projections of the ego as an incorrect understanding of the interdependent nature of reality and the primary obstruction to clear seeing and compassion. He borrowed aspects of the term from both psychology and modern vernacular usage. Buddhists around the world have embraced this usage of the term ego and use it regularly to describe the common illusion of a static
Re: [Zen] Re: Id, ego and super-ego - keeping the mind in balance
Bill, You continually tell us that all illusions are products of your mind and that all forms are illusions and that thus all forms are products of your mind. But you also tell us that your mind as a part of your self does not exist. Therefore your whole core belief falls apart I'm surprised you can't see this basic very simple error... Edgar On May 22, 2013, at 8:50 AM, Bill! wrote: Edgar, I have consistently said the self is a product of our intellect. The intellect is the source of our illusions of dualism. The example I always give is the dualistic set of self/other. I use this to contrast with Buddha Nature which is holistic (non-dualistic) and not a product of our intellect but an experience of our senses. All forms are also a product of our intellect and therefore are conceptual or what I call illusory. To sum up I did not say our illusory self is the source of all illusions. I do say our intellect is the source of the illusion of dualism of which self/other and all forms are examples. What you might have remembered is that I have said that I believe the illusion of self/other is the most pernicious of all illusions because IMO the illusory self serves as the anchor for attachments. Forms, although illusory, do not have attachments as far as I can tell. Our illusory self however certainly can have, and in your case most certainly has, attachments to the illusions of form. I don't think Rinpoche went into that much detail about ego, at least not in ...what he is saying here. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen edgarowen@... wrote: Bill, What Rinpoche was ACTUALLY saying, not your interpretation of what he was saying... You claim that there is no self, but then you claim that your self is where all the forms arise... This is contradictory because the self is a complex of forms itself.. Edgar On May 22, 2013, at 8:03 AM, Bill! wrote: Edgar, If when you wrote, Bill needs to understand what Rinpoche is saying here... you were not referring to what Rinpoche was saying here, to what were you referring? ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen edgarowen@ wrote: Bill, Well you obviously do not understand what I said because you are referring to something else... Edgar On May 22, 2013, at 7:22 AM, Bill! wrote: Edgar, Your reference to me in the last sentence below is a good example of what I was talking about when I said you at best misinterpret and more likely purposefully misrepresent what I say. I have always said the self (Rinpoche's term 'ego') is illusory and is the 'anchor' for all attachments which cause suffering. Why do you insinuate I do not understand that? ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen edgarowen@ wrote: Mike, and Bill, Rinpoche's use of the word ego correctly describes Bill's incredibly egoistic belief that the world of forms is a creation of his personal mind, of Bill's solipsism... Bill needs to understand what Rinpoche is saying here... Edgar On May 21, 2013, at 9:06 PM, uerusuboyo@ wrote: Merle, The only thing the Freudian concept of 'ego' shares with the Buddhist concept of the same is the name. They're quite different concepts. Check this out from www.luminousbuddha.com: The Latin term ego was first used in a translation of Freud's work to refer to his idea of the I or the reality principle within the dynamic forces of the psyche. He suggests the functions of the I include reasoning, a sense of self-capacity and the mediator between the polarized demands of instinctual drives and societal expectations. While he considered the I a mechanism of the self, he did not use the term ego. Nevertheless the word ego entered the mainstream in professional conversations of the analytic understanding of the human being as it began with Freud's thought. As psychology became popularized the word ego entered the common vernacular to describe attitudes and behaviors considered selfish or inflated. The slang use of ego is generally a derogatory term for behaviors considered out of the range of social acceptance. Slang borrows from the inflated side of the psychodynamic description of the unhealthy manifestations of ego yet lacks a deeper understanding of its causes. In the 1970's Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche, a Tibetan lama, began utilizing the term ego to describe a neurotic process based on the ignorance of our actual situation (Trungpa, 1978) resulting in a solidified sense of self that is separate and self-referential and as such is the cause of suffering. He saw the projections of the ego as an incorrect understanding of the interdependent nature of reality and the primary obstruction to clear seeing and compassion. He borrowed aspects of the term from both psychology and modern vernacular usage. Buddhists around the
[Zen] Re: Id, ego and super-ego - keeping the mind in balance
Edgar, You keep misstating what I just said. I will try to type it more slowly... M y m i n d ( i n t e l l e c t ) i s n o t p a r t o f m y i l l u s o r y s e l f . M y i l l u s o r y s e l f i s a p r o d u c t o f m y m i n d ( i n t e l l e c t ) , a s w e l l a s a r e f o r m s a n d a l l o t h e r c o n c e p t s a n d t h o u g h t s . I hope that helps. I don't expect you suddenly go Aha! and say, Oh! Now I see!, but I would appreciate it if you wouldn't try to restate what I say in your own words because you seem to always misrepresent my declarations. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen edgarowen@... wrote: Bill, You continually tell us that all illusions are products of your mind and that all forms are illusions and that thus all forms are products of your mind. But you also tell us that your mind as a part of your self does not exist. Therefore your whole core belief falls apart I'm surprised you can't see this basic very simple error... Edgar On May 22, 2013, at 8:50 AM, Bill! wrote: Edgar, I have consistently said the self is a product of our intellect. The intellect is the source of our illusions of dualism. The example I always give is the dualistic set of self/other. I use this to contrast with Buddha Nature which is holistic (non-dualistic) and not a product of our intellect but an experience of our senses. All forms are also a product of our intellect and therefore are conceptual or what I call illusory. To sum up I did not say our illusory self is the source of all illusions. I do say our intellect is the source of the illusion of dualism of which self/other and all forms are examples. What you might have remembered is that I have said that I believe the illusion of self/other is the most pernicious of all illusions because IMO the illusory self serves as the anchor for attachments. Forms, although illusory, do not have attachments as far as I can tell. Our illusory self however certainly can have, and in your case most certainly has, attachments to the illusions of form. I don't think Rinpoche went into that much detail about ego, at least not in ...what he is saying here. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen edgarowen@ wrote: Bill, What Rinpoche was ACTUALLY saying, not your interpretation of what he was saying... You claim that there is no self, but then you claim that your self is where all the forms arise... This is contradictory because the self is a complex of forms itself.. Edgar On May 22, 2013, at 8:03 AM, Bill! wrote: Edgar, If when you wrote, Bill needs to understand what Rinpoche is saying here... you were not referring to what Rinpoche was saying here, to what were you referring? ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen edgarowen@ wrote: Bill, Well you obviously do not understand what I said because you are referring to something else... Edgar On May 22, 2013, at 7:22 AM, Bill! wrote: Edgar, Your reference to me in the last sentence below is a good example of what I was talking about when I said you at best misinterpret and more likely purposefully misrepresent what I say. I have always said the self (Rinpoche's term 'ego') is illusory and is the 'anchor' for all attachments which cause suffering. Why do you insinuate I do not understand that? ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen edgarowen@ wrote: Mike, and Bill, Rinpoche's use of the word ego correctly describes Bill's incredibly egoistic belief that the world of forms is a creation of his personal mind, of Bill's solipsism... Bill needs to understand what Rinpoche is saying here... Edgar On May 21, 2013, at 9:06 PM, uerusuboyo@ wrote: Merle, The only thing the Freudian concept of 'ego' shares with the Buddhist concept of the same is the name. They're quite different concepts. Check this out from www.luminousbuddha.com: The Latin term ego was first used in a translation of Freud's work to refer to his idea of the I or the reality principle within the dynamic forces of the psyche. He suggests the functions of the I include reasoning, a sense of self-capacity and the mediator between the polarized demands of instinctual drives and societal expectations. While he considered the I a mechanism of the self, he did not use the term ego. Nevertheless the word ego entered the mainstream in professional conversations of the analytic understanding of the human being as it began with Freud's thought. As psychology became popularized the word ego entered the common vernacular to describe attitudes and behaviors considered selfish or inflated. The slang use of ego is generally a
[Zen] Re: Id, ego and super-ego - keeping the mind in balance
Edgar, Well,that didn't work very well. I tried to put 1 space between each letter (that worked) and 3 spaces between each word, but when I posted the 3 spaces were compressed to one. So, what I wanted to say was: My mind (intellect) is not part of my illusory self. My illusory self is a product of my mind (intellect), as well as are forms and all other concepts and thoughts. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Bill! BillSmart@... wrote: Edgar, You keep misstating what I just said. I will try to type it more slowly... M y m i n d ( i n t e l l e c t ) i s n o t p a r t o f m y i l l u s o r y s e l f . M y i l l u s o r y s e l f i s a p r o d u c t o f m y m i n d ( i n t e l l e c t ) , a s w e l l a s a r e f o r m s a n d a l l o t h e r c o n c e p t s a n d t h o u g h t s . I hope that helps. I don't expect you suddenly go Aha! and say, Oh! Now I see!, but I would appreciate it if you wouldn't try to restate what I say in your own words because you seem to always misrepresent my declarations. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen edgarowen@ wrote: Bill, You continually tell us that all illusions are products of your mind and that all forms are illusions and that thus all forms are products of your mind. But you also tell us that your mind as a part of your self does not exist. Therefore your whole core belief falls apart I'm surprised you can't see this basic very simple error... Edgar On May 22, 2013, at 8:50 AM, Bill! wrote: Edgar, I have consistently said the self is a product of our intellect. The intellect is the source of our illusions of dualism. The example I always give is the dualistic set of self/other. I use this to contrast with Buddha Nature which is holistic (non-dualistic) and not a product of our intellect but an experience of our senses. All forms are also a product of our intellect and therefore are conceptual or what I call illusory. To sum up I did not say our illusory self is the source of all illusions. I do say our intellect is the source of the illusion of dualism of which self/other and all forms are examples. What you might have remembered is that I have said that I believe the illusion of self/other is the most pernicious of all illusions because IMO the illusory self serves as the anchor for attachments. Forms, although illusory, do not have attachments as far as I can tell. Our illusory self however certainly can have, and in your case most certainly has, attachments to the illusions of form. I don't think Rinpoche went into that much detail about ego, at least not in ...what he is saying here. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen edgarowen@ wrote: Bill, What Rinpoche was ACTUALLY saying, not your interpretation of what he was saying... You claim that there is no self, but then you claim that your self is where all the forms arise... This is contradictory because the self is a complex of forms itself.. Edgar On May 22, 2013, at 8:03 AM, Bill! wrote: Edgar, If when you wrote, Bill needs to understand what Rinpoche is saying here... you were not referring to what Rinpoche was saying here, to what were you referring? ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen edgarowen@ wrote: Bill, Well you obviously do not understand what I said because you are referring to something else... Edgar On May 22, 2013, at 7:22 AM, Bill! wrote: Edgar, Your reference to me in the last sentence below is a good example of what I was talking about when I said you at best misinterpret and more likely purposefully misrepresent what I say. I have always said the self (Rinpoche's term 'ego') is illusory and is the 'anchor' for all attachments which cause suffering. Why do you insinuate I do not understand that? ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen edgarowen@ wrote: Mike, and Bill, Rinpoche's use of the word ego correctly describes Bill's incredibly egoistic belief that the world of forms is a creation of his personal mind, of Bill's solipsism... Bill needs to understand what Rinpoche is saying here... Edgar On May 21, 2013, at 9:06 PM, uerusuboyo@ wrote: Merle, The only thing the Freudian concept of 'ego' shares with the Buddhist concept of the same is the name. They're quite different concepts. Check this out from www.luminousbuddha.com: The Latin term ego was first used in a translation of Freud's work to refer to his idea of the I or the reality principle within the dynamic forces of the psyche. He suggests the functions
Re: [Zen] Re: Id, ego and super-ego - keeping the mind in balance
Bill, It was a good exercise though, trying to read it ;-) I remember once, I just came out of a retreat, and on the way home, it took a while to make out words I saw on the billboards. When I looked at them, they were merely letters lining up. Siska -Original Message- From: Bill! billsm...@hhs1963.org Sender: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Wed, 22 May 2013 14:25:43 To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Reply-To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Subject: [Zen] Re: Id, ego and super-ego - keeping the mind in balance Edgar, Well,that didn't work very well. I tried to put 1 space between each letter (that worked) and 3 spaces between each word, but when I posted the 3 spaces were compressed to one. So, what I wanted to say was: My mind (intellect) is not part of my illusory self. My illusory self is a product of my mind (intellect), as well as are forms and all other concepts and thoughts. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Bill! BillSmart@... wrote: Edgar, You keep misstating what I just said. I will try to type it more slowly... M y m i n d ( i n t e l l e c t ) i s n o t p a r t o f m y i l l u s o r y s e l f . M y i l l u s o r y s e l f i s a p r o d u c t o f m y m i n d ( i n t e l l e c t ) , a s w e l l a s a r e f o r m s a n d a l l o t h e r c o n c e p t s a n d t h o u g h t s . I hope that helps. I don't expect you suddenly go Aha! and say, Oh! Now I see!, but I would appreciate it if you wouldn't try to restate what I say in your own words because you seem to always misrepresent my declarations. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen edgarowen@ wrote: Bill, You continually tell us that all illusions are products of your mind and that all forms are illusions and that thus all forms are products of your mind. But you also tell us that your mind as a part of your self does not exist. Therefore your whole core belief falls apart I'm surprised you can't see this basic very simple error... Edgar On May 22, 2013, at 8:50 AM, Bill! wrote: Edgar, I have consistently said the self is a product of our intellect. The intellect is the source of our illusions of dualism. The example I always give is the dualistic set of self/other. I use this to contrast with Buddha Nature which is holistic (non-dualistic) and not a product of our intellect but an experience of our senses. All forms are also a product of our intellect and therefore are conceptual or what I call illusory. To sum up I did not say our illusory self is the source of all illusions. I do say our intellect is the source of the illusion of dualism of which self/other and all forms are examples. What you might have remembered is that I have said that I believe the illusion of self/other is the most pernicious of all illusions because IMO the illusory self serves as the anchor for attachments. Forms, although illusory, do not have attachments as far as I can tell. Our illusory self however certainly can have, and in your case most certainly has, attachments to the illusions of form. I don't think Rinpoche went into that much detail about ego, at least not in ...what he is saying here. ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen edgarowen@ wrote: Bill, What Rinpoche was ACTUALLY saying, not your interpretation of what he was saying... You claim that there is no self, but then you claim that your self is where all the forms arise... This is contradictory because the self is a complex of forms itself.. Edgar On May 22, 2013, at 8:03 AM, Bill! wrote: Edgar, If when you wrote, Bill needs to understand what Rinpoche is saying here... you were not referring to what Rinpoche was saying here, to what were you referring? ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen edgarowen@ wrote: Bill, Well you obviously do not understand what I said because you are referring to something else... Edgar On May 22, 2013, at 7:22 AM, Bill! wrote: Edgar, Your reference to me in the last sentence below is a good example of what I was talking about when I said you at best misinterpret and more likely purposefully misrepresent what I say. I have always said the self (Rinpoche's term 'ego') is illusory and is the 'anchor' for all attachments which cause suffering. Why do you insinuate I do not understand that? ...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen edgarowen@ wrote: Mike, and Bill, Rinpoche's use of the word ego correctly describes Bill's incredibly egoistic belief that the world of forms is a creation of his personal mind, of Bill's solipsism... Bill needs to understand
[Zen] Re: Id, ego and super-ego - keeping the mind in balance
Merle, quoting: when we discard 'self' and stand naked as 'non self' are we liberated? are we free? Yes. We are free. When there is no self, Wisdom and Compassion arise spontaneously, in EXACT accord with real circumstances and events. We are also then FREE to take on the self or face that is most helpful to others. This is called Compassion. And use of Skilful Means. Not having the habitual self (the self forced by residue of accumulated Karma), allows freedom to act in accord with what is REAL. But Merle, it happens not quite as you say: One does not discard a self. That is impossible. A self dissolves only by effective Practice. It is not dropped or discarded. It simply falls. It dissolves. Gone! This is the meaning of the Buddhist phrase: Gate, gate, paragate, parasamgate; Bodhi, Svaha! Gone, gone, gone beyond, gone completely beyond! Buddha-Wisdom, Hail! For this to happen, one needs to PRACTICE with a teacher and a sangha, and have regular contact with them over a long period of time. --Joe Merle Lester merlewiitpom@... wrote: why do must i disagree?... self...is it such an ugly concept?.. after all are we not the self of all selves including the greater self which some of us see as god..? when we discard self and stand naked as non self are we liberated? are we free? Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: zen_forum-dig...@yahoogroups.com zen_forum-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: zen_forum-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[Zen] Re: Id, ego and super-ego - keeping the mind in balance
Edgar, Merle, I think Freud was a bit fetishistic about cigars, tho'. Well, he and Bill Clinton. ;-) And Philip Morris? --Joe PS Edgar, did Freud collect only artifacts (vs. antiquities?) of Primitive cultures, or was he an across-the-board collector, or, etc.? Maybe I'm thinking of Jung... . I don't remember much of either of the Good Doctors' biographies (but I remember *liking* Jung's MEMORIES, DREAMS, REFLECTIONS (1961), for its riveting conversational style, captured and conveyed by his Recordist, Auditor, and Editor, Aniela Jaffe). Edgar Owen edgarowen@... wrote: Merle and Joe, Dr. Freud was an avid antiquities collector so he couldn't have been all bad... :-) Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: zen_forum-dig...@yahoogroups.com zen_forum-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: zen_forum-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [Zen] Re: Id, ego and super-ego - keeping the mind in balance
Merle,br/br/There have no doubt been many who have wiped the dust from their eyes since, and before, the historical Buddha. The important thing is that just like Sidharta Guatama, you too can awaken in this very lifetime; this very moment. br/br/Mikebr/br/br/Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPad
[Zen] Re: Id, ego and super-ego - keeping the mind in balance
Merle,
Buddhism teaches there have been many, many Buddhas:
Theoretically, the number of Buddhas having existed is enormous and they are
often collectively known under the name of Thousand Buddhas. Each was
responsible for a life cycle. According to some Buddhist traditions,
D#299;pankara (also D#299;pamkara) was a Buddha who reached enlightenment
eons prior to Gautama, the historical Buddha.
Generally, Buddhists believe that there has been a succession of many Buddhas
in the distant past and that many more will appear in the future;
D#299;pankara, then, would be one of numerous previous Buddhas, while Gautama
was the most recent, and Maitreya will be the next Buddha in the future.
- Source: wikipedia.com
But these are just the 'Buddhas', those who have been totally enlightened.
There are presumably almost numberless people that have experienced Buddha
Nature because of the teachings of these Buddhas. Just where you draw the
lines between 'experienced Buddha Nature' ('kensho' in Japanese), a strong
enlightenment experience ('satori' in Japanese), a Bodhisattva and a 'fully
enlightened Buddha' I don't know.
Again, all the above is my understanding of Buddhist dogma, doctrine and
teachings, and not really pertinent to the zen I practice.
...Bill!
--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, uerusuboyo@... wrote:
Merle,br/br/There have no doubt been many who have wiped the dust from
their eyes since, and before, the historical Buddha. The important thing is
that just like Sidharta Guatama, you too can awaken in this very lifetime;
this very moment. br/br/Mikebr/br/br/Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPad
Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are
reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links
* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/
* Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
* To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
* To change settings via email:
zen_forum-dig...@yahoogroups.com
zen_forum-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com
* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
zen_forum-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com
* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[Zen] Re: Id, ego and super-ego - keeping the mind in balance
Merle, Ego is/was a term born of Dr. Freud's thought. Better that we don't use it, here. It's too modern, and too dopey. In Buddhadharma, one speaks of a self. That's a word with a history: 2600 years and counting. --Joe Merle Lester merlewiitpom@... wrote: having listened to tolle this morning.. i am brushing up on the word ego... it appears ego has a negativity attached to it.. when in reality it is all part and parcel of the mind.. what i gather it is important to keep the mind in balance... any thoughts on this group?..merle Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: zen_forum-dig...@yahoogroups.com zen_forum-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: zen_forum-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [Zen] Re: Id, ego and super-ego - keeping the mind in balance
joe.. can you direct me to some relevant web info on this... so are you saying that dr. freud got it all wrong? are we not all buddhas and demons and mixtures of both? so why are you suggesting dr. Freud is a demon and a fraud? merle Merle, Ego is/was a term born of Dr. Freud's thought. Better that we don't use it, here. It's too modern, and too dopey. In Buddhadharma, one speaks of a self. That's a word with a history: 2600 years and counting. --Joe Merle Lester merlewiitpom@... wrote: having listened to tolle this morning.. i am brushing up on the word ego... it appears ego has a negativity attached to it.. when in reality it is all part and parcel of the mind.. what i gather it is important to keep the mind in balance... any thoughts on this group?..merle
[Zen] Re: Id, ego and super-ego - keeping the mind in balance
Merle, Huh? No, Dr. Freud first used the word ego; I think he scrounged it from the Latin, to fill in for something in his model of the small mind as he studied neurotic Jewish ladies in his neighborhood who came to him for what he called analysis. Freud had it right for himself and his theories; but the buck stops THERE. It's of no value in Buddhadharma. Self has always been the operative word, there. So far so good. Do you disagree somehow? --Joe Merle Lester merlewiitpom@... wrote: joe.. can you direct me to some relevant web info on this... so are you saying that dr. freud got it all wrong? are we not all buddhas and demons and mixtures of both? so why are you suggesting dr. Freud is a demon and a fraud? Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: zen_forum-dig...@yahoogroups.com zen_forum-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: zen_forum-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [Zen] Re: Id, ego and super-ego - keeping the mind in balance
joe... no i do not disagree however you are sweeping his work away with a very large brush.. and labelling him judging him to be unfit.. can you point to me where freud deviates from the self of buddhadharma merle Merle, Huh? No, Dr. Freud first used the word ego; I think he scrounged it from the Latin, to fill in for something in his model of the small mind as he studied neurotic Jewish ladies in his neighborhood who came to him for what he called analysis. Freud had it right for himself and his theories; but the buck stops THERE. It's of no value in Buddhadharma. Self has always been the operative word, there. So far so good. Do you disagree somehow? --Joe Merle Lester merlewiitpom@... wrote: joe.. can you direct me to some relevant web info on this... so are you saying that dr. freud got it all wrong? are we not all buddhas and demons and mixtures of both? so why are you suggesting dr. Freud is a demon and a fraud?
[Zen] Re: Id, ego and super-ego - keeping the mind in balance
Merle, I do not sweep him away. I sweep instead to the forefront the word and concept always applied in Buddhadharma, which is self. Ego carries too much modern baggage: Leave it in the train station, Doc Freud. Doc himself did not insinuate it into religious discussion (say, into Buddhadharma). So let's leave him INNOCENT, shall we?, and leave the word to be used as he intended it, in psychoanalysis, and in not other realms undreamt of by the doctah. It does not enter Buddhism AT ALL. Q.E.D. Just consider self. It's just right. --Joe PS Self is very different from ego. Never mind. Merle Lester merlewiitpom@... wrote: joe... no i do not disagree however you are sweeping his work away with a very large brush.. and labelling him judging him to be unfit.. can you point to me where freud deviates from the self of buddhadharma Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: zen_forum-dig...@yahoogroups.com zen_forum-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: zen_forum-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [Zen] Re: Id, ego and super-ego - keeping the mind in balance
Merle,br/br/The only thing the Freudian concept of 'ego' shares with the Buddhist concept of the same is the name. They're quite different concepts. Check this out from www.luminousbuddha.com:br/br/The Latin term ego was first used in a translation of Freud’s work to refer to his idea of the “I” or the reality principle within the dynamic forces of the psyche. He suggests the functions of the “I” include reasoning, a sense of self-capacity and the mediator between the polarized demands of instinctual drives and societal expectations. While he considered the “I” a mechanism of the self, he did not use the term ego. Nevertheless the word ego entered the mainstream in professional conversations of the analytic understanding of the human being as it began with Freud’s thought.br/br/As psychology became popularized the word ego entered the common vernacular to describe attitudes and behaviors considered selfish or inflated. The slang use of ego is generally a derogatory term for behaviors considered out of the range of social acceptance. Slang borrows from the inflated side of the psychodynamic description of the unhealthy manifestations of ego yet lacks a deeper understanding of its causes. br/br/In the 1970’s Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche, a Tibetan lama, began utilizing the term ego to describe a neurotic process based on the ignorance of our actual situation (Trungpa, 1978) resulting in a solidified sense of self that is separate and self-referential and as such is the cause of suffering. He saw the projections of the ego as an incorrect understanding of the interdependent nature of reality and the primary obstruction to clear seeing and compassion. He borrowed aspects of the term from both psychology and modern vernacular usage. br/br/Buddhists around the world have embraced this usage of the term ego and use it regularly to describe the common illusion of a static separate self that emphasizes it’s self-importance in relation to the world. This Buddhist definition can now be understood as a unique understanding of the word ego as well. The field of transpersonal psychology has borrowed from the Buddhist usage of the term ego in the psychological and spiritual mapping of human development.br/br/The confusion that has arisen from the different usages of the term ego is significant to those in the field of psychology as well as Buddhist practitioners who have an incomplete understanding of the word in its several contexts. The general public would also benefit from a further understanding of the factors relating to the formation of an aggrandized sense of self to which the slang usage of ego refers.br/br/br/Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPad
[Zen] Re: Id, ego and super-ego - keeping the mind in balance
Merle, According to Tolle...the ego is only the ego if it is unrecognized. When it is recognized it is just a set of behavior patterns that you can continue, change or stop. These behavior patters have what he calls a 'momentum' so changing or stopping them is not something easily or quickly done. If you slip back into these patterns without being aware of it then the ego reappears. ASSUMING Tolle's term 'ego' is the same as the Buddhist/zen term 'self'... According to zen (IMO)...the self is illusory. Until it's recognized as illusory it is the anchor for attachments, and attachments are the cause of suffering. When the self is recognized as illusory (experiencing Buddha Nature, 'kensho' in Japanese) the process of dissolving attachments (zen practice) begins. But just like Tolle says that is not an instantaneous thing. It takes work and that work is what I call 'zen practice'. When I hear or read accounts of people attaining COMPLETE enlightenment or SUDDEN enlightenment I ASSUME what this means is they have completely and permanently dissolved their attachments to illusions such as the self. This doesn't mean they no longer have illusions, this just means they now recognize them as illusions and do not form attachments to them. These are my thoughts on this video and the term 'ego'...Bill! --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Merle Lester merlewiitpom@... wrote: having listened to tolle this morning.. i am brushing up on the word ego... it appears ego has a negativity attached to it.. when in reality it is all part and parcel of the mind.. what i gather it is important to keep the mind in balance... any thoughts on this group?..merle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Id,_ego_and_super-ego Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: zen_forum-dig...@yahoogroups.com zen_forum-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: zen_forum-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
