"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.
The point is that the entire ego is not transcended; the self-representation
is revealed as lacking concrete existence. It is not the case of something
real being eliminated, but of the essential groundlessness being revealed for
what has always been." (p. 98)
Just a thought...
Molly Freeman
Tane Akamatsu wrote:
> Hard to answer. Not being a Buddhist scholar, I don't want to go on any
> kind of official record about this. But my folk-understanding is that we
> are individual souls but simultaneously part of a greater one-ness. This
> is where karma comes in. We build karma in our daily lives because of
> what we do/think/feel toward others. So in this sense there is a highly
> individualistic bent toward the soul and where karma ends up.
>
> (BTW, contrary to how I hear it used in popular parlance, karma is like
> "negative points"; you work off your karma but you don't get "good karma"
> -- that's a contradiction in terms)
>
> I can't think where there's anything particularly social about it.
> Obviously, whole societies that practice both Mahayana and Hinayana
> Buddhism exist, and there is a tendency to define the individual as much
> by him/herself as by the social standing/circles of the individual, but I
> think that's a cultural rather than religious phenomenon. In other words,
> you may be defined by your social class, caste, relations, etc., but
> ultimately, you are responsible for your soul, and only you can achieve
> enlightenment; no one can do it for you, although your friends can do
> stuff "with" you. Like you can meditate in the same room, but one
> person's achievement of enlightenment doesn't sort of pull the others
> along, except in a general way. Like if that person became a teacher, he
> or she could encourage the others....
>
> Any other Buddhists out there who can help me out? I don't think it
> matter which wheel....Maybe I'm thinking along the wrong lines.
>
> Tane Akamatsu
>
> Rachel Heckert wrote:
>
> > Tane, what's the Mahayana take on this? Is there an "antinomy?"
>
> >
> >
> > Nate wrote:
> >
> >>
> >
> > >Wetsch sees Burke as offering some important insights in avoiding the
> > >individual/ social antinomy.
> >
> > Rachel
> >
> > _____________________________________________________________________
> > You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
> > Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
> > Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]