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 [email protected], 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 [email protected], 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 [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/
