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