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 [email protected], 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: [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?
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >
>




------------------------------------

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:
    [email protected] 
    [email protected]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    [email protected]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Reply via email to