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 [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/
