More time spent on selfless priorities rather than loss of concept of self? Makes some sense...
1. Flyboy THANKS,for coming along at JUST the right moment and adding some clarity about what we are attempting to do!
Very good timing FB!!
2. As for your question Charli, about leave out the "self"
concept - I think it is not only Buddhist in nature, but IS
somewhat universal in spiritual ideals of all kinds, colors,
types, varieties and so on.
3. Jackie - THANKS - you nailed the concept on the head
so well. Very well put.
4. Midnight - yes, you've got the general idea, but as to "is
this the ideal state" - that would be a matter of speculation.
GREAT DISCUSSION!
Great discussion concerning the concept and the use or no of "I"! No large ideas to add - just wanted you to know how much your responses are enjoyed. Interesting, thought provoking! My thanks to you! :-) - Charli[/color]
jackie wrote:No, midnight- and roger,
Not to lose the concept of self, but to have greater selfless priorities MORE OF THE TIME.
Is that too "high-sounding"?
Happy 'green beer' and holiday to all.
that doesn't seem too "high-sounding" to me. . . it makes sense. . . I was thinking more of the loosing the concept of self and that seemed kind of unrealistic and odd because without self where would one even begin to perceive the world
D'Artagnon my DEAR person, Yes yes indeed! All that is ego
driven is consistently fraught with the peril of being so totally
consumed with the self ... that then, this leads to a continual
condition of "looking hither, thither and yon, and all around
TO OTHERS; in order to MIRROR THE SELF.
Searching for;
acceptable enough? well dressed? well spoken enough?
attractive? intelligent? articulate enough? well educated?
perceptive? thoughtful? mindful? successful enough?
and on, on, on ad nauseum!
Old buddhist concept;
"Because it lacks consciousness, I must admit that a word
cannot praise me. Undoubtedly, the cause of my delight is
that ANOTHER is delighted with me. But what does it matter
to me whether another's delight is in me, or in someone else?
His alone is the pleasure of that delight. Not a trifling bit of
it is mine"
Not being CERTAIN that the estimate made that ALL spiritual
paths begin at, lead up to, or work towards - the removal
of all preoccupation with self - what is the group consensus
on THIS particular point in the discussion?
Rather than LOSING the concept of 'self', Babsatamelia- one faith, the Christian teaching, BEGINS there- sort of.
Eight times in the Bible we are told to love our neighbor -- one of the Bible's most repeated commands.
....love your neighbor as yourself... (Matthew 19- NT Holy Bible)
Resonably, we will LOVE ourselves before we know how to love our 'neighbor'.
A SHARED concept.... no???
I
I know a man who consistently referred to himself in the third person. Instead of "I would like to do that" he said "Thomas [or "this person"] would like to do that". His purpose in this practice, he told me, was to eventually lose his ego, his "self"-centered view of his life. Eventually he acknowledged that every time he omitted "I" or "me" or "mine", replacing them with their third person equivalents, he FELT as if (was was reminded that) he WAS a "self" hiding his self. The trick, according to Buddhism, as I understand it, is not to suppress or deny the self, but to "see through" it, to know it for what it is. To see its purely fictional or artificial (yet functional) nature. A zen master once told me that he also experiences ego, a sense of self but instead of experiencing it in the center (and he put his index finger and thumb in a circle directly in front of and between his eyes) it exists at the side of his perceptual field (putting the circle off to the side of his vision). He also said that one could look at it another way. The ego (in front of him) is not substantial such that it colors everything he experiences when seen through the ego; it is transparent and thus has minimal effect on his experiences. It has minimal effect because he "sees through" it (it doesn't fool him).
I once received a "private message" from a a2ker expressing hostility over this notion of not having a solid self. It can be threatening. I have no more to say on the subject.
On a related note, a form of English developed about forty years ago... Eprime, which eliminated use of the verb, to be. Very difficult to achieve.
http://www.generalsemantics.org/Education/WEPrime.htm
As to not using "I" in conversation... while necessary to explain what an individual thinks, the frequent use of "I" can be off-putting. At least the individual verbally takes responsibility for his/her actions, even if the conversation ends up appearing ego-driven.
Jln;
I am beginning to understand your "panther";
it is NOT all "I"s !
i
This fellow I was referring to stopped using the third person in reference to himself. So I don't think THIS was a sign of schizophrenia, but there are OTHER indications that he might be--perhaps "borderline."
loss of "self" while perhaps valued in some esoteric circles, denotes disassociation rather than integration with "other."
Yes, athletes are notorious for referring to themselves in the third person, e.g, "If Reggie Jackson can hit the ball as hard as he's capable of doing, we can win the next three games." Of course, in this case, it betokens egotism rather than an ego-less state...
GOOD POINTS . . .
Good points made by D'artagnan, dyslexia, JLNobody and others! Now, I'm beginning to wonder if the omission of "I" in conversation or writing is more bad than good. I didn't look at any of the sites for those names in the list above - one site concerned each one of the names. They were obtained through the search engine "Ask Jeeves." My question: "What author referred to himself in the third person?" Many, many sites came up. I didn't notice if this search engine gives the number of sites like Google does. Next time, I'll look. Anyway, my take is that the "I usage" bears rethinking! :-) :-) :-) - Charli [/color]
aside; when i write stories that are historical events from my life i use another name and write in the third person, it helps me to have a more objective narrative view.
ABSOLUTELY!
Absolutely, dyslexia - unless the stories are written only for family and close friends as personal communication. Even then, they might find a different perspective refreshing, too. Best-selling authors can make "I, I, I" boring.
Want to say, "How about that snow!" Thirty-one and a half inches in Denver ... 82+ in one of the mountain areas. ("Home" is in southeastern Colorado.) We had a bit on the East Coast this year: a mere 24 inches one snowfall outside my window. (Pikers!) Good wishes! :-) - Charli [/color]
Yes, Jackie - "sort of" DOES about sum it up.
Buddhism wasn't injected in order to make
this conversation about anything spiritual or
religious in nature, just a passing thought.
The use of THE WE, on the other hand - now
THIS - is indeed a very promising alteration.
WE, as a group, far surpass what would result
from the addition of each one of the members,
one by one. THE WE exceeds the sum of all the
individual parts and potential that could be
added up.
For example, with numbers, if you were to take
one plus one - this equals two. Right? But this
is not the same with THE WE. When it comes to
THE WE, one plus one equals far more than the
sum of its parts. Now, if you do agree with this
concept, why not share your reasoning, and if
you do not agree, share with us all your thinking
all the same, and if you are clueless, what does
it matter, we can simply go on talking without a
single " I " for as long as is humanly possible.
