January 26, 2010
- Kalu Rinpoche on Concepts -
“It is said that someone who tries to meditate without a conceptual understanding of what he or she is doing is like a blind person trying to find the way in open country; such a person can only wander about, with no idea how to choose one direction over another.”
(from a, as far as I’m concerned, literally mindblowing article on Buddhism, psychology, and no-self)
It is not ego, in the Freudian sense, that is the actual target of the Buddhist insight. It is, rather, the self-concept, the representational component of the ego, the actual internal experience of one’s self that is targeted.
Fuuuuuck… WHY AM I ONLY FINDING OUT ABOUT THIS NOW?
Comment by Ian — January 26, 2010 @ 12:07 pm
Rather than adopting an attitude of nonjudgmental awareness, these meditators are so concerned with letting it go that they never experience the actual insubstantiality of their own feelings.
Comment by Ian — January 26, 2010 @ 12:10 pm
It is not that the ego disappears, but that the belief in the ego’s solidity, the identification with ego’s representations, is abandoned in the realization of egolessness.
(emphasis mine)
Comment by Ian — January 26, 2010 @ 12:14 pm
So its not that the self doesn’t exist, just that the best self to have is the one that has no definition. As soon as you define it, you’ve limited it. As soon as you worry about whether you’re defining it, you’re limiting it. As soon as it’s an “it”, you’ve limited it. But the thing is, in all these cases, IT ACTUALLY ISN’T LIMITED.
Comment by Ian — January 26, 2010 @ 12:18 pm
Love the article and your thoughts, Ian.
Comment by Jaimin — January 26, 2010 @ 2:51 pm
Thanks Jaimin. I didn’t expect it to speak to me quite so much when I started it, but by the end…
Comment by Ian — January 26, 2010 @ 3:03 pm
‘The Dalai Lama once compared realization of emptiness to someone knowing that he or she is wearing sunglasses: the very appearance of the distorted color serves as a reminder that it is not true.’
I like the Dalai Lama :)
I’m not a big one for long Biblical quotes, but this springs to mind:
‘For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.
But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.
When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known. ‘
Comment by speedbird — January 27, 2010 @ 5:28 am
I like the Dalai Lama as well, he’s a lot deeper than he lets on, I think.
And the biblical quote is right on. I just don’t want to wait until “then”…
Comment by Ian — January 27, 2010 @ 11:37 am
@Speedbird: Probably my favorite section from Paul’s first set of epistles to the Corinthians. To top it off, “…through a glass, darkly” inspired the title for an amazing Bergman film.
@Ian & @Speedbird: That Tenzin Gyatso, he’s one sneaky man. I definitely agree there’s more to him than he reveals. Sadly, I think Jesus and the Bible is a lot deeper than the Church and its more zealous advocates let on too.
From the Gospel of Luke:
But Jesus called the children to him and said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. I tell you the truth, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it.”
As a believer during my youth, I encountered this passage multiple times and in every instance, it was studied and disseminated under the constricting, suffocating, and singular lens of traditional dogma. Jesus makes multiple references to children in his short career and I’d like to believe there’s more to his references than just the innocence of children, or at least more to them than the limited contexts and connotations with which we people usually associate childhood innocence.
The idea of the child before he develops such a strong concept of *the* self, though many selves may float within the mind… Is it possible Jesus was referencing not only the moral purity and innocence associated with children, but the egolessness which provide them the ease with which they act, think, and speak? Oddly, Freudians and western psychologists tend to think of children as all or mostly ego, but I think that perspective is limited by how they define the ego. To me, children seem extremely unconcerned with the *concept* of the self, which provides them with a much greater sense of freedom to do what they want. For those of us who have “grown up”, that freedom and the resulting behavior seem evidence children are self-obsessed, self-oriented, and self-gratifying and… full of ego.
Comment by Jaimin — January 27, 2010 @ 3:03 pm
Jaimin:
Ha, Gyatso! I always like being reminded that that’s his name. It reminds me of this.
As you know, I am in complete agreement with you on this, and I think its a shame that more of that sort of Jesus isn’t available. Actually, I’m in agreement with everything you say here. So much of what “childhood innocence” symbolizes is completely foreign to actual childhood, and I think what’s actually important is what you mention here:
The balancing between that greater freedom to do what you want and the fact that other people want stuff too seems to be a key aspect of life. The mediation of the self and the other, until the two can be joined as one in your awareness.
Comment by Ian — January 27, 2010 @ 3:55 pm
LOL @ the Thompson and Gyatso pictures side by side.
While my friend and I were traveling through Vietnam, we used to refer to Ho Chi Minh as Colonel Sanders as a secretive way of talking about the beloved leader. Put a picture of the two side-by-side, and I think you’ll find an uncanny resemblance in their appearances and even what they wear!
Comment by Jaimin — January 27, 2010 @ 4:16 pm
Awesome.
Comment by Ian — January 27, 2010 @ 4:25 pm
>> I just don’t want to wait until “then”…
Isn’t it part of the Christian Mystery that ‘then’ is also ‘now’…?
Love the KFC link. :D
Comment by speedbird — January 27, 2010 @ 4:58 pm
In the absolute, all things are possible…
Comment by Ian — January 27, 2010 @ 5:14 pm
“For most Christian traditions the Eucharist is itself a mystery. It is experienced as a way of making Christ present now as a spiritual reality with which we can have communion”
“We have to acknowledge that church, scripture, sacrament and person are all instruments that the divine can use. The technical expression in theological language is mediating instrument … They are instruments through which the sound of the voice comes but they are not the person who is making the sound. … In our churches we should have a proper kind of reverence for our mediating instruments but avoid idolatrizing them or worshipping them.”
– Richard Holloway, Bishop of Edinburgh, in ‘Churches and How to Survive Them’, Harper Collins 1994.
Comment by speedbird — January 30, 2010 @ 2:55 pm
Heh. “Mediating instruments”.
That’s great speedbird, thanks for sharing. I’m getting more and more interested in Christian mysticism as something that did exist and should be looked into again. I mean, I have all this Christianity floating around in my subconscious, would be nice to actually make some use of it.
I read something recently by Reggie Ray on the different ways the concept of lineage is used in Buddhism. I know I referenced it recently, but can’t remember if it was here. Anyway, it’s totally relevant to what you’re talking about, so I’ll add it in here as well.
And for “avoid idolatrizing them or worshipping them.” didn’t Moses have something to say about creating false idols? :)
Is it worth reading the whole book? I can get it real cheap on Amazon…
I love the description:
‘Churches and How to Survive Them’ takes as its starting point the hypothesis that most people have a problem with the Church.
Ha!
Comment by Ian — January 30, 2010 @ 5:44 pm
There’s nothing like a straight-talking priest! Basically the book is a set of transcripts of conversations between a bishop and a psychiatrist, both being straight-down-the-line about how they see religion and what it does. I believe it came into existence out of a thing we have in the UK called ‘Radio 4′, which is sponsored by the Government to provide serious talk-radio to the nation. Sounds dull until you realise that this is the kind of craziness they get up to on Radio 4.
Thing is, most people only experience priests when they’re either preaching or being all pastoral. Getting them out in the open as ordinary people… gold dust. Like ‘hey, so you’ve devoted your life to this Christianity thing as … a /career/ … what’s that all about then?’ I get the feeling that for a lot of the Eastern religions, straight-talk and preaching tend to blend into each other, which I think gives them a certain appeal.
First straight-talking priest I ever met was at University, chap called Brendan Clover. Used to wear shades and pale linen suits, very cool. Opened my eyes somewhat.
Comment by speedbird — January 30, 2010 @ 7:25 pm
I’m sold. Just picked it up now. Sounds really interesting.
Though what you said reminds of Gurdjieff’s saying “if you want to lose your faith, makes friends with a priest!” :)
Comment by Ian — January 30, 2010 @ 7:58 pm