Hi sprocket. Thanks for the response. I think there is a subtle but important difference between what we are saying. Of course that doesn't mean there is a difference in our practices or unsayable beliefs :) But in the interest of ferreting out my own illusions, I hope you'll forgive me for trying to remove your mote first.
> The reason so many people fast is to prove to > themselves that they don't need food for emotional > survival. I see. (I was speaking generally about food as an example for everything else, of course. Because a "eating less" story was a tool useful for me, I drone on about it on this Forum. I suppose people think I'm a glutton ;> * Get IN my BELLLLLY!!! * > A man from my Sangha pointed out that there's nothing > wrong with having a high-paying job, or having nice > things, so long as you recognize that they are not the > least bit important. I see. I often have the same discussion with friends who want to leave the stresful corporate life to be a beach-bum/bartender etc. I remind them that if they just had the beach-bum attitude at work, they could draw a great salary until the company fired them -- true beach bum fashion. I also believe they would do "better" at work with a more relaxed attitude so this advice is handy. > I think self-control is very important, especially if > your ultimate goal is to get rid of your concept of > self. Otherwise, you just obey all your whims, and > ultimately become self-indulgent. This is > counter-productive to your original ego-shedding goal. > (I mean ego in the Freudian sense). > > It is wrong to instinctually deny or appease your > whims on general principle. Managing them > objectively is the best way to rid yourself of your > ego. Make your judgments outside of yourself, and > you'll be able to see both sides of the issue, and > decide which course of action will best serve the > common good. If I can paraphrase to be sure I understand you: "self-control" is a useful tool along the way to get rid of the concept of self (and self-control isn't necessarily valuable in itself as an ends). Without self-control, one wouldn't have the follow-through to meditate, follow rules, eat less, etc. Further, once self-control and other methods have properly "quieted" the rampant ego/self one will be able to make judgements properly/objectively weighing the self vs. others for the good of all beings. Is that a fair recapitulation? The exception I take -- is that self-control is a dangerous way to let the self "settle". It is merely splitting the self into intellect and selfishness. A freuidan Ego and Id in viscious struggle. For me, all the rules my ego used to keep the id at bay were chains yanking a dog. Even if they kept the dog on the spot best for the common good (as decided by the ego), each yank made the dog more rabid -- until through will power I chained the beast into near immobility. A very unstable equilibrium. This is better than letting the dog on a single leash wrap itself around a distant tree -- and thus I was encouraged that wisely and sparingly placing chains would train the dog into good behavior without forcing it to go rabid. Whew, what an effort to get the dog to behave! It resulted in an anxious, but well-behaved dog (that would go a little ape-shit if ever let off the leashes for a run) and an uptight dog-trainer who couldn't take his eyes off the beast. Rather than adding control, I now try to release each chain I can find. (It is likely best to do this slowly, or the poor overexcited free dog/buddha nature would run itself to death -- but this happens anyway for me -- who'd of thought that even the master, blinding with age, can't remember where all the chains are!). The irony is that it is in the dog's nature to settle down and stay very near the "desired" spot anyway! Because the master wants it, the dog also wants it because master and dog arise from the same place, a harmonious pair. One trying to control the other is pushing the river. Thus the idea: >Managing (whims) objectively is the best way to rid yourself of your ego. wrongly assumes one can use the intellect to be objective! Adding a chain to oneself, even temporarily, is never a good pratice. It is of course wise to remove chains in an order than prevents the excited, newly released dog from wrapping around a distant tree. Also, one finds that it isn't inner nature that pulls the dog towards the chicken coop, but actually a long-forgotten rope shrinking in the rain -- or another camaflouged rope which keeps the starving dog from the food laid out freely to it. Don't add a chain, instead cut the rope. The whole point of the dog training is not to get the dog to sit anywhere one chooses (even for the intellecutally evaluated common good) but to release the chains. Trusting the result (or letting go the mistrust/worry) is faith. This chain-releasing direction is the 'practice'. The beauty is seeing that the practice serves the common good! All my best, Rod ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Would you Help a Child in need? It�s easier than you think. Click Here to meet a Child you can help. http://us.click.yahoo.com/kx_54C/I_qJAA/i1hLAA/S27xlB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Noble Eightfold Path: Right View, Right Intention, Right Speech, Right Action, Right Effort, Right Mindfulness, Right Concentration, Right Livelihood Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ZenForum/ <*> 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/
