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, [email protected] 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 <[email protected]>; > To: [email protected] <[email protected]>; > 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? > > > > >
