Translation and Transformation

So then if we postulate that "self" as differentiated from our real being, that is to say personality or ego ( I hate to use the word ego, too many limiting concepts and connotations there) is an idea or perhaps more accurately a conglomeration of cultivated ideas through which we filter our everyday, every moment experience, that which we then call self can dissapear leaving us more in touch with "things as it is" as Suzuki would say?
Don't know. :p
Perhaps all of this contemplation of 'what is the self?' could ignite enough confusion within the self so as to transcend the limitations that clinging to the concept of self imposes? :confused:
I dunno....sounds like a koan to me.
I rather like Have Faith in Your Mind in this context.
Don't know. :p
Perhaps all of this contemplation of 'what is the self?' could ignite enough confusion within the self so as to transcend the limitations that clinging to the concept of self imposes? :confused:
I dunno....sounds like a koan to me.
I rather like Have Faith in Your Mind in this context.

I’m certainly in the Don’t Know Camp here too. The more terms and psychological constructs the worse it all gets! Do we all understand the same thing by these terms? Do these things really “exist” ? “real being”, “personality”, “ego”? If we’re going to use “ego” should we not also invite the id and the super-ego in? It all comes back to words are the only words that we’ve got but they aren’t enough (or they’re too much)…

Hi SG, Hi Snoopy,
What you say has merit, but I wonder sometimes if it isn't all a strategy to keep from facing what is and retreat into a safer construct. After all, aren't all of our words and conversations just staring at the masters finger?
I don't know about this "self" stuff either. By segregating the parts that make us whole persons , and perhaps overanalyzing each such part of us, then I believe we exacebate the very problems of separation that we are seeking to explain.

I always go back to some very primal myths. First there is Popeye who said over and over, "I yam what I yam".

Then there was that first mythical encounter between Moses and G-d, "I am that I am, that brings things into existence".

And of course there was the French guy that said, "I think therefore I am"

It's interesting that such a diverse set of characters were so obsessed with what makes us what we are, but the seeking of self is that razor's edge that all creative people must travel. Most of the rest of us plod along the linear roads of human life doing the same things over and over, freezing and beating our creative minds and spirits into a non-receptive mush..

Many of us never discover the non-linear joys to be found through the fortuitous blending of body, mind, and spirit into momentary episodes of wholeness which reflect truths of universal energies and thereby connect us to the divine. And if some of us reach such states of partnering in the enterprise of wholistic creation, we always must suffer for experiencing such truths. We are labeled "mystics", different from the "norm", manipulated and put in boxes so that what we are able to create might not come to disorder the established norms...true suffering.

It all may become a narcissistic hell to seek this wholeness of self, or it can become the ultimate loving experience, for if we do not come to accept and love ourselves in the realities of what we really are...we never ever will have the opportunities to experience the joys inherent in creating original portions of life for the long-term benefit of others.

Just my two cents.

Thank you Thomas! I'd heard of Pallis. Will ask my local library to obtain this book. Have you studied with him?-what a wonderful opportunity. Where do you study? For an example of 1 school's approach to combining zen and pureland there's Obaku Zen:

Self Power, Other Power

have a good one all, earl
Thomas, et al; Tariki's frequent discussions of Jodoshinshu Pureland Buddhism led me to further study of it such that I felt drawn to fully take the "other power" plunge-though like the above link to a piece notes I think ultimately that distinction is fuzzy to the point of irrelevance, though from a practice standpoint makes a great difference. Funny thing was though that as I attempted to do the traditional nembutsu, a naturally unorthodox version wanted to spring forward: "namu Jesu.":D I don't feel compelled to overthink it and will simply honor it. My "Christian theology" is pretty "Jodoshinshu-like." along those lines, here's an interesting piece from Protestant theologian, John Cobb, re his view that at more ultimate levels beyond semantics it might be that "Amida is Christ, Christ is Amida."

Amida and Christ:: Buddhism and Christianity

namu amida butusu/namu Jesu.;) earl
I think of myself as a multi-faceted, dynamic Self. I don't feel a separation between the SELF that's beaming into my north pole chakra and out my feet into the Mutha and the self that resides in my body and immediate energy fields. Big self, little self, self-self, no-self...pure self, impure self. I don't feel those distinctions. There are parts of my emotional and social programming that need a stiff squirt of Gumout, but I don't identify my Self with that trash.

I know that my thoughts don't originate inside my head. I feel them beaming in, scuttling about, and flitting out again. "Up there" some "where", where differentiation and individuation no longer matter my light beam of self just spreads out and dissipates into the greater light, or whatever you want to call it. But it's all me. It's got an individual self attached to it that goes along with my physical body, but it spreads out forever on both ends as though the earthly self is just a pinch point, or transistor in an unbroken circuit that runs through me, through the planet, and back around again.

See Chris, this is why you're so cool. The willingness to experience your own reality divorced from creeds and beliefs takes courage and brother you got it :)
Hey, hey Marky!

On the deconstruction thing; I've never been good at meditating. I like to look at things. Basically, deconstruction, well, the usable part of it, is about looking at things as if one is a total tourist with as close to zero exposure to the accumulated meaning of the thing as possible. One can hardly do such a thing, but the exercise serves to expose the content of one's built up meaning supplier programming. That's a valuable collection of tape looped, socio-emotional programming. I think that real purification of the self always begs the question: "why do I do that which I would not?" Or, "why do I act against my own best interest." It's the social, emotional programming; the fear and feel inadequate bone connected to the meaning supplier bone. I'm convinced that all ascetic disciplines are dedicated to coming to terms with this, quite limited and artificial "self." Sometimes it's called the Ego self, but that's not right. It should be called the snippy, heal biting, drop kick doggy named Sparky self.

I couldn't agree more Chris, this "artificial self" ( I will call it that because snippy-heel biting-drop kick doggy named sparky self is too long) is what the translation part is all about. Ten years ago I began twelve step meetings because of that self, and that self is still around but at least I'm aware of it:)

Ramm Dass talks about all his neuroses as still with him after all these years but now they are just little schmoos that hang around.:D
My mind is identical in nearly every physical way to my house. Without using mirrors... in my house.... how can I see myself? How can I differentiate me... from the house?

If a person can answer that, practice it, or realize it... then I think the rest is easy. I don't think it is a matter of denial, but of realization. With the realization there is a load to re-think... like when a light turns on there is lots to see. I see no charade... there are individuals in houses. When I walk down the street I only know the occupants by the outside of the house... unless I go interact with them.