something to think about

[David Jamieson]

The term "ego".

It's Freudian. Sigmund Freud being the one who brought the term into being with his description of the major aspects of the human psyche.

How did this term come into relationship with buddhism?
A religion and philosophy that was practiced for more than 2000 yrs before Freud existed.

furthermore, where did the term come into play regarding the martial arts? As in lose your ego. Many believe the term maps across to "empty your cup". I personally think that the term "empty your cup" is broader than just saying "lose the ego".
But that's another thought...

My only guess so far is that Buddhist thinking has descriptives of "mind". Buddha mind, various states of mind eg:Bodhicitta, etc.

Where and when did this western definition "fit" with the eastern concept?

What is the descriptive for "ego" that existed before the freudian concept? or what is the "mind" associated with "ego" in buddhist teachings.

And, how did the martial arts masters of old know that to achieve a higher level in martial arts, the preclusion of ego was required?

food for thought.
comments?

peace

[wushu chik]

Look in the mirror. You have ego, because you think it's cool to shut stuff down that we are discussing. FLAME THAT.

[Paul]

Ok grasshopper. Any relation to David Carradine?

[logic]

Lets then talk about attitude

Many on board here have this thing called Attitude.
Claiming there style is better than that style.

What ever. -- (zen)
I always believed it was up to the indvidual and their dedication to their training.
www.clas.ufl.edu/users/gthursby/fonda/bodpaper.html

various stages of the mind.

I know that meditation helps me cope with Anger and realizing I'm not the only one with these same thoughts because the Human BRAIN is actually built on one Blueprint.

It's Saturday night and this is getting to deep and I had a few drinks.So

Later
:D :D ;)

[Fen]

Freud is DEAD...get over it. Like I said before, KUNG FU LOUSY. Hmmmmmmmm

[Stacey]

hush now, seperation is a lie. cob webs over the eys, there is no you or me. hush now, it will all be.

[logic]

Lets all join Steven Seagals New Cult;) ;) :D

[Sharky]

I actually think this is a good topic.

[Sharky]

What the hell!?! I can post from home?! I thought it didn't work?!

Ah, my life is complete.

[David Jamieson]

hmmmn.

wu shu chick-

we all have ego. we will all always have ego by definition of it. at least until we die.
as for the threads I closed, I posted why they were closed.

Paul-
No realtion to carradine. Not sure where that connection was made, but, no.

Logic-

"attitude" , another word. I presume you mean "bad attitude" or "snotty attitude" or "ignorant attitude".
Related to ego I guess, but not the primary manifestation of it.

Tao of Wu shu-
I didn't "get it" the first time. Can you go deeper with that?

Sharky, what do you think about it?

peace

[Xebsball]

"we will all always have ego by definition of it"

Not really, there is a thing called enlightment you know what i mean.

[Cody]

My first thought would be to consult the UNABRIDGED Oxford English Dictionary. It could be a beginning. The write-ups are very detailed.

It's my understanding that Ego is derived from Latin word for "I". So, while Freud made a technical term of it, maybe there is more to "ego" than Freud. I don't know. Too bad Joseph Cambell isn't alive; he could have been a good resource for you. Re Buddhism. Well, you've been reading translations, I assume. What was the orginal word(s) used for what is read as "ego" in the translated texts? And, even if there were to be some overlapping in the definitions in both cases..., it could be possible. Both are about analysis of the self and it's function, according to the aims of each of course.

imo, masters of old knew because they quite possibly stumbled on states of consciousness during their work, which bypassed the mundane functional/thinking mind. I don't think it is so much willfully precluding or shutting out this mind as it is to focus differently. Part of the human potential which is stronger in some than in others. When it is found in the self and focussed on, developed, and purposefully directed, there you have it. my opinion.

I see you are interested in tracing a complex history here. It seems to me that this must have been done before. Hope your search is fruitful.

Cody

[David Jamieson]

cody, i hear ya.

Yep done a lot of reading.
And yes, I expect to find some surprising things in the pursuit of this.

I have read Campbells work(his published work). He deals more with the interpretations of cultural myths and the foundations of the myths and how they relate to cultural ideoms in given eras. He does get into specifics in relation to religious schools of thought and how those principles vary from human condition and environment to other human conditions and environments. Particularly in context to Christianity. Good stuff.

xebsball, what is enlightenment? And of the 6 billion or so people on this planet, how many are "enlightened"? It's subjective.
Also many descriptions of the path to enlightenment involve intense focus and study on ones interpretation of reality and a sense of self which by the way is the oxford def of ego.

How does dettachment from self esteem make one a better martial artist? How did the idea of ego being quashed become the path?

What is the Asian equivalent of the concept of the Latin or "western" - "I"-?


peace

[Paul]

How does dettachment from self esteem make one a better martial artist? How did the idea of ego being quashed become the path?

The harder the training the less ego you will tend to see. it's not an idea of ego being quashed I think this is just the way it is. I don't take it personally when I get beat down in class, and if you allow yourself to you won't get very far now will you.

[TenTigers]

"How does the detachment of self esteem make one a better martial artist? How did the idea of ego being quashed become the path?"
I always found this to be a contradiction; don't you ned a strong sense of self and ego to excell, to push yourself beyond the norm to the extreme? funny.

[fightfan]

Old Chinese proverb:
"go bed wid itchy bung... wake up wid smelly finga":D

[David Jamieson]

This is a piece of the point.
A drive to succeed precedes a great martial artist.
the drive is derived from the sense of self vis a vis commitment to the art.

Not minding getting beaten down in order to learn is different from getting yup and doing it again until you succeed which is where it's at in order to get good at anything.

Yin and Yang... Martial Arts practice has it's share of contradictions, but it also has it's share of truths.

Anybody else got insight? beyond "itchy" remarks, thanks fightfan, you reputation as an intellectual precedes you from now on with that previous remark. :D

peace

[Chinwoo-er]

Kung Lek.

You are using the Freudian term "ego" in the wrong way.

The common notion of "ego" is a combination of pride, arrogence, self esteem and confidence.

Freud's original definition is a kind of "executive" between our inner irrational desires and our moral self. A mediator between the two.

off topic ? Yeah, i know. But you know me, I am always talking about something which is quite irrelevent.

Still, my ego is satisfied.

Chinwoo-er

[guohuen]

People are discussing a point of phycology coined by a cigar smoking, cocaine using pedophile? With the exeption of his development chart which has some validity (and is simply common sense and observation) Freud was a blithering idiot. I can't believe people still buy into that subconcience BS. Freudian ideas gave license to institutionalization and eventualy the murder of people with mental illness and developemental disability in germany. This preceeded the genocide of the slavs, jews and romany peoples. This thinking set genuine therapy back in the states 60 years. We now have a lower recovery rate than we did 90 years ago. Read the works of Wolfey Wolfenburg, he was there. Only B. F. Skinner could possibly be a bigger idiot than Freud. (think a clockwork orange)

[Chinwoo-er]

To be honest, I don't think anyone would take paychoanalysis as far as the freud's time does. Not only in the cross-cultural incompatibility, but also inefficiency. Hell, it takes YEARS to get things done in psychoanalysis which could be accomplished in a matter of weeks for cognitive-behavioural approach.

Still, I won't disregard Freud entirely. He IS the father of modern psychology ( or so they say ) after all. Give him some credit for that. He was the first the break off psychology with philosophy and he was one of the first who actually had the guts to talk about s*x in a really conservative society.

True, I think that half of what he says is a load of ~beep~. But he does have some useful if not valid points.

[David Jamieson]

My question is not involving Freud per se.
He is a sideline to the original question.

Which is, How does the quashing of ego make you a better martial artist?
How did the term "ego" come into play with Buddhism and martial arts as the western description of the eastern concept?
And finally how can you progress without the ego?

I do not think the pride is such a bad thing either. It is good to be proud of you accomplishments or the accomplishments of someone close to you.

Arrogance is not so much ego as it is ignorance which is simply a lack of understanding withy perhaps a touch of realistic perception involved vis a vis ones ego. IE: A twisted view of the reality at hand which in turn is the impetus to the manifestation of arrogance in the individual.

"Foolish pride" is also based in ignorance in this sense.

Anyway, keep em coming, some good insights so far.

Thanks and Peace

[Braden]

KL - There is the idea of shallow self-concept and deep self-concept. The former is something that must be abandoned to achieve the latter. The former is something that has wants. The latter is something that only 'is.' The former has the idea of picking yourself up from humiliating defeat to try harder because of passion for a certain goal. The latter no longer has the concepts of victory and defeat; what would seem externally to be hard work is only a reflection of doing the things which are an intrinsic part of the self. This can be adapted to many levels. On a technical level, many martial arts work on the shallow level. There is the idea of wanting to execute a technique, such as wanting to strike someone. And from wanting there is trying. And from trying these is either success or failure. This creates a punctuated rythm to combat: you strike, it is blocked, he strikes, you block it, you strike, it succeeds! On the deep level things work differently; you are on longer training from these ideas; you are training simply to be - to adapt and accept what occurs. This is philosophy, but it has very unsophisticated technical analogs: any block of your technique can instantly become a point to fold over, or a connection to their root, for example. We have heard popularly the idea of being 'like water.' This is what is meant by the expression. You simply move, and adapt to things in the path of your movement; gaps in the opponent's structure are like passages for the water to pass through; in this sense, gaps can also mean tension or resistance. Accessing the deep self-concept level is a miraculous thing, as it makes 'being healthy' which includes training hard, to be an easy thing. The idea of applying willpower to do something momentarily distastefull in order to achieve a longterm goal becomes defunct. The difference between shallow self-concept and deep self-concept is the difference between standing at attention and being driven mad by an itch in your leg, and finally being released and scratching it; and being engrossed in a deep work of fiction and your hand reaches down without you even knowing it to scratch an itch on your leg.

Oh god. Please read the caption under my name before you reply to this. ;)

[Sharky]

I don't know kung lek. I am sure there was most probably a word for "ego" in other languages before Freud. He did not invent ego per se, he just coined the word/phrase. English wasn't exactly the first language invented.

I had other, more useful points to make, but i forgot them.

Cheers.

[fightfan]

KL, just trying to make a funny. No offense to your intellect was intended.

[Cody]

the scratch the leg bit. My attention had already been taken. Yes, just to be. That is the purpose to be completely one's self. Not to succeed or work for this or that goal, though there can be secondary goals, defending the helpless, but to express your own becoming. Depending on the person, it might involve making your own rules or adhering to a belief system, or a mix.

I do not believe in dissolution of self, but I do believe that our relation to ourselves and to that outside of self can be sensed, felt, and lead to action on what might appear to be a different plane. There is a hefty, though sometimes subtle difference (cause people lie ) between egocentricity, arrogance, etc., and the self that does without doing. which is the expression of self, for instance in MA, in a different state of consciousness, imo. Indeed, it would seem to me that arrogance or other vices do not prevent these higher abilities from developing and even increasing in potency. It's a matter of experience and belief on my part. It might be that there is a mystery here. hehe. wow, I just hit the wall. like a little answer to a little question. I love when this happens. so very clear, like looking into a fishes eyes as it surfaces to look at you in a safe pond in a garden.

I don't wish to challenge another's views. As long as we work cooperatively, it is more important that the heart is compassionate and the mind functions with fewer inner boundaries. Yet, what you believe can shape your search, help, or detour into lip service and oblivion, lead elsewhere..... don't know.

Pretty much stayed away from psychoanalysis studies in school. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Don't have the energy to go back and connect those theories with what I am working on. Prefer a more independent mindset anyhow.

Cody

[Braden]

Cody - of course the leg scratching is a bit contrived, but contrived examples are all we have. It's like trying to explain to someone what non-linguistic thought is like.

I don't believe in the dissolution of self either. Which is why I use terms like 'deep' and 'shallow' self, rather than self and no-self which are more commonly used in these concepts. The term 'true intention' as opposed to simply 'intention' is allready in wide use in the internal arts, in a germaine way to this discussion: in the same way that 'deep self' lacks many of the qualities which we assume are fundamental to 'shallow self'; 'true intention' lacks the qualities fundamental to 'intention', yet we don't call it 'no intention' (even though in many ways this would be more accurate); it's the same sense I am trying to get at here.

Hrmm... nevermind, even _I_ couldn't follow that.

[prana]

I am full of ego,


here is an axe, help me smash it !

[Cody]

prana, I appreciate your sincerity.

Braden,
Hi. I try for more simplicity. I mean, intention is intention. When one honestly faces one's intention(s), there is only one in my view except in the cases where there is unresolved inner conflict. Yet, one's intention is indicated by the acts one completes. A mixed mind can show one intention, for instance to show by body position the intention to strike (and one is weighing whether to do this), but the act of actually letting it go with Intent to make contact or not is the litmus test here. Now, this might not be so clear to an observer, and it might not be to the person acting. But, it could be. I think maybe that might lead to the formulation of different kinds of intention. Intention evolves. um, are we talking about the same thing?

Don't worry about seeming to lose track. Writing like this, we are exploring into areas where language ceases to be, imo. We're translating.

For me, the only term that makes sense along these lines is "No-Mind." It was when I started reading (in English) some Japanese texts, that I got started. I didn't strive for it. Read a couple of sentences and internalized (into subconscious) their message, and something happened. I believe that when people experience this in terms of their individual backgrounds, expectations and beliefs or lack of belief, it might be defined in any one of a number of ways. one of which is a sense of dissolution of self. I'm guessing here.

off topic. Even without beliefs, you can get the stuffing shook out of you by some of those koans. I was looking at a Bushido book once, nothing technical, one of those books on sale at Walden's. I don't even remember what I was thinking, but I know I changed in myself on some fundamental level having to do with my feminity Very fast. I felt Movement in my mind. It was a positive thing. I am very careful what I read.

This discussion has been very helpful to me.

Cody

[nospam]

The term "ego".

furthermore, where did the term come into play regarding the martial arts? As in lose your ego. Many believe the term maps across to "empty your cup". I personally think that the term "empty your cup" is broader than just saying "lose the ego".
But that's another thought...

My only guess so far is that Buddhist thinking has descriptives of "mind". Buddha mind, various states of mind eg:Bodhicitta, etc.

Philosophically speaking, the I is one element of Being that consciously enables the person to think, feel, and act. In MA's, the training is first individual, where we begin the journey of undoing what has been done, thus requiring the I to be repatterned. To learn, one must enable new thinking, feeling, that eventually leads to new action.

Where and when did this western definition "fit" with the eastern concept? I would guess it began contextual meaning within 1-2 generations after occidentals studied eastern philosophy/religion.

What is the descriptive for "ego" that existed before the freudian concept? or what is the "mind" associated with "ego" in buddhist teachings. Enabling change. Through Mind will we open doors. Because of Mind will we be able to walk through. Of Mind, will doors need not exist. Nirvana? A state of Being that can only be achieved through balance of Mind and Body.

Interestingly enough, my Nirvana will differ from yours. For psychoanalytically, I am unique. And yet, is that not egotism by definition? Looking at everyone and everything only as it effects...Me. I am allowed my personal morals that will guide me. To achieve Nirvana, I must first fathom my moral code as opposed to adopting a moral code. An experience, IMO, that merley defines the I. Therefore, the Mind as associated to Ego can not be seperated nor ever find conclusion or an 'end'- be it Nirvana, Heaven or some other dreamland.

What can be achieved is simply personal balance. Tao. Natural. I shall travel my way. You, yours. My Nirvana does not exist to you. Is my Heaven the same as yours? Probably not. And yet, possibly so.

And, how did the martial arts masters of old know that to achieve a higher level in martial arts, the preclusion of ego was required?

Not that hard to fathom, really. The student attends the teacher to learn what has been learned or experienced. To be a student, one must accept change. To accept change, elements of the person must be reordered. The easiest part of which is physical - of the Body. The most complicated part...the Mind. Is it hard to understand that in days of yore, teachers assessed the Mind through tests of the Body?

nospam.
:cool:

[Braden]

Cody - I'm not sure if you're talking about intention as it's used in the internal arts or not. In this sense there's certainly two kinds of intention though. You can 'mentally try' so hard to do something internally that you give yourself a migraine, but nothing happens. This is 'intention' or what I called 'shallow self.' Then one day when you're training and not even thinking about it because your mind was somewhere else and you just started training by reflex (but you're still training hard of course) it starts happening almost all on it's own. Kind of like scratching an itch on your leg when you're really engrossed in a book, and you don't even notice you're doing it until it's done. This is what I would call 'true intention' or 'deep self.' I suppose that with practice, you can access this way of doing things more naturally and easily. The taoism that we see mixed in with internal arts philosophies historically had alot of inter-polination with Chan (Zen) Buddhism, and I find that some of the latter's ideas about no-mind (I'm thinking specifically about stuff by Takuan now) seem either identical or at least highly complementary.

[HuangKaiVun]

If you don't THINK you can succeed, you won't.

[Braden]

Takuan:

"In terms of the art of war, when you see an opponent's sword slashing at you, if you think to parry it then and there, your mind fixes on the sword. Then your action falters and you get cut by your adversary. This is called fixation or lingering.

If you don't set your mind on the striking sword even as you see it, and don't keep any thoughts in your mind, and meet the oncoming sword directly as you see it, without fixing your mind on it at all, you can take away the sword intended to kill you, and have it turn into a sword to kill your opponent."

"If your mind stops on the sword your opponent is swinging at you, a gap opens up; and in that gap your action falters.

If there is no gap between your opponent's striking sword and your action, the sword of the adversary will become your sword.

...It is wrong to understand this in terms of speed. It means you shouldn't let the mind linger on things, that you shouldn't set the mind on anything, even speed."

"If you don't put your mind anywhere, it will pervade your body fully, spreading through your whole being, so that when you need hands it works your hands, when you need feet it works your feet... If you fix the mind in one place, it will be taken up by that place..."

[Braden]

But anyway, I'm just trying to illustrate a position; although it does happen to be the one I am fond of. There are obviously lots of thoughs on the issue. Although, on so obtuse an issue as this, it's remarkable that there are any!

[Braden]

Wai Lun Choi:

"If your opponent moves, your foot must immediately move... But how to [move] fast? First you must understand single-weight and the mind not focussing." My teacher appends "How fast you can walk or how quickly you can move has nothing to do with the speed he is referring to!"

Together, it's almost a perfect analog to the middle quote of Takuan's written above! Reading over it just reminded me...

[prana]

The Blessed One said, "Gain arises for an uninstructed run-of-the-mill person. He does not reflect, 'Gain has arisen for me. It is inconstant, stressful, & subject to change.' He does not discern it as it actually is.

"Loss arises... Status arises... Disgrace arises... Censure arises... Praise arises... Pleasure arises...

"Pain arises. He does not reflect, 'Pain has arisen for me. It is inconstant, stressful, & subject to change.' He does not discern it as it actually is.

"His mind remains consumed with the gain. His mind remains consumed with the loss... with the status... the disgrace... the censure... the praise... the pleasure. His mind remains consumed with the pain.

"He welcomes the arisen gain and rebels against the arisen loss. He welcomes the arisen status and rebels against the arisen disgrace. He welcomes the arisen praise and rebels against the arisen censure. He welcomes the arisen pleasure and rebels against the arisen pain. As he is thus engaged in welcoming & rebelling, he is not released from birth, aging, or death; from sorrows, lamentations, pains, distresses, or despairs. He is not released, I tell you, from suffering & stress.

"Now, gain arises for a well-instructed disciple of the noble ones. He reflects, 'Gain has arisen for me. It is inconstant, stressful, & subject to change.' He discerns it as it actually is.

"Loss arises... Status arises... Disgrace arises... Censure arises... Praise arises... Pleasure arises...

"Pain arises. He reflects, 'Pain has arisen for me. It is inconstant, stressful, & subject to change.' He discerns it as it actually is.

"His mind does not remain consumed with the gain. His mind does not remain consumed with the loss... with the status... the disgrace... the censure... the praise... the pleasure. His mind does not remain consumed with the pain.

"He does not welcome the arisen gain, or rebel against the arisen loss. He does not welcome the arisen status, or rebel against the arisen disgrace. He does not welcome the arisen praise, or rebel against the arisen censure. He does not welcome the arisen pleasure, or rebel against the arisen pain. As he thus abandons welcoming & rebelling, he is released from birth, aging, & death; from sorrows, lamentations, pains, distresses, & despairs. He is released, I tell you, from suffering & stress.

"This is the difference, this the distinction, this the distinguishing factor between the well-instructed disciple of the noble ones and the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person."

Gain/loss,
status/disgrace,
censure/praise,
pleasure/pain:
these conditions among human beings
are inconstant,
impermanent,
subject to change.
Knowing this, the wise person, mindful,
ponders these changing conditions.
Desirable things don't charm the mind,
undesirable ones bring no resistance.

His welcoming
& rebelling are scattered,
gone to their end,
do not exist.
Knowing the dustless, sorrowless state,
he discerns rightly,
has gone, beyond becoming,
to the Further Shore.

[Tae Li]

wow!:)

Tae Li;)

[prana]

"If one is asked, 'From what requisite condition does consciousness come?' one should say, 'Consciousness comes from name-and-form as its requisite condition.'

"Thus, Ananda, from name-and-form as a requisite condition comes consciousness. From consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-and-form. From name-and-form as a requisite condition comes contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling. From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving. From craving as a requisite condition comes clinging. From clinging as a requisite condition comes becoming. From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth. From birth as a requisite condition, aging, death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, and despair come into play. Such is the origination of this entire mass of stress.

(Name-and-form)
"'From consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-and-form.' Thus it has been said. And this is the way to understand how from consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-and-form. If consciousness were not to descend into the mother's womb, would name-and-form take shape in the womb?"

"No, lord."

"If, after descending into the womb, consciousness were to depart, would name-and-form be produced for this world?"

"No, lord."

"If the consciousness of the young boy or girl were to be cut off, would name-and-form ripen, grow, and reach maturity?"

"No, lord."

"Thus this is a cause, this is a reason, this is an origination, this is a requisite condition for name-and-form, i.e., consciousness."





(Consciousness)
"'From name-and-form as a requisite condition comes consciousness.' Thus it has been said. And this is the way to understand how from name-and-form as a requisite condition comes consciousness. If consciousness were not to gain a foothold in name-and-form, would a coming-into-play of the origination of birth, aging, death, and stress in the future be discerned?

"No, lord."

"Thus this is a cause, this is a reason, this is an origination, this is a requisite condition for consciousness, i.e., name-and-form.

"This is the extent to which there is birth, aging, death, passing away, and re-arising. This is the extent to which there are means of designation, expression, and delineation. This is the extent to which the sphere of discernment extends, the extent to which the cycle revolves for the manifesting (discernibility) of this world -- i.e., name-and-form together with consciousness.





(Delineations of a Self)
"To what extent, Ananda, does one delineate when delineating a self? Either delineating a self possessed of form and finite, one delineates that 'My self is possessed of form and finite.' Or, delineating a self possessed of form and infinite, one delineates that 'My self is possessed of form and infinite.' Or, delineating a self formless and finite, one delineates that 'My self is formless and finite.' Or, delineating a self formless and infinite, one delineates that 'My self is formless and infinite.'

"Now, the one who, when delineating a self, delineates it as possessed of form and finite, either delineates it as possessed of form and finite in the present, or of such a nature that it will [naturally] become possessed of form and finite [in the future/after death], or he believes that 'Although it is not yet that way, I will convert it into being that way.' This being the case, it is proper to say that a fixed view of a self possessed of form and finite lies latent [within that person].

"The one who, when delineating a self, delineates it as possessed of form and infinite, either delineates it as possessed of form and infinite in the present, or of such a nature that it will [naturally] become possessed of form and infinite [in the future/after death], or he believes that 'Although it is not yet that way, I will convert it into being that way.' This being the case, it is proper to say that a fixed view of a self possessed of form and infinite lies latent [within that person].

"The one who, when delineating a self, delineates it as formless and finite, either delineates it as formless and finite in the present, or of such a nature that it will [naturally] become formless and finite [in the future/after death], or he believes that 'Although it is not yet that way, I will convert it into being that way.' This being the case, it is proper to say that a fixed view of a self formless and finite lies latent [within that person].

"The one who, when delineating a self, delineates it as formless and infinite, either delineates it as formless and infinite in the present, or of such a nature that it will [naturally] become formless and infinite [in the future/after death], or he believes that 'Although it is not yet that way, I will convert it into being that way.' This being the case, it is proper to say that a fixed view of a self formless and infinite lies latent [within that person].





(Non-Delineations of a Self)
"To what extent, Ananda, does one not delineate when not delineating a self? Either not delineating a self possessed of form and finite, one does not delineate that 'My self is possessed of form and finite.' Or, not delineating a self possessed of form and infinite, one does not delineate that 'My self is possessed of form and infinite.' Or, not delineating a self formless and finite, one does not delineate that 'My self is formless and finite.' Or, not delineating a self formless and infinite, one does not delineate that 'My self is formless and infinite.'

"Now, the one who, when not delineating a self, does not delineate it as possessed of form and finite, does not delineate it as possessed of form and finite in the present, nor does he delineate it as of such a nature that it will [naturally] become possessed of form and finite [in the future/after death], nor does he believe that 'Although it is not yet that way, I will convert it into being that way.' This being the case, it is proper to say that a fixed view of a self possessed of form and finite does not lie latent [within that person].

"The one who, when not delineating a self, does not delineate it as possessed of form and infinite, does not delineate it as possessed of form and infinite in the present, nor does he delineate it as of such a nature that it will [naturally] become possessed of form and infinite [in the future/after death], nor does he believe that 'Although it is not yet that way, I will convert it into being that way.' This being the case, it is proper to say that a fixed view of a self possessed of form and infinite does not lie latent [within that person].

"The one who, when not delineating a self, does not delineate it as formless and finite, does not delineate it as formless and finite in the present, nor does he delineate it as of such a nature that it will [naturally] become formless and finite [in the future/after death], nor does he believe that 'Although it is not yet that way, I will convert it into being that way.' This being the case, it is proper to say that a fixed view of a self formless and finite does not lie latent [within that person].

"The one who, when not delineating a self, does not delineate it as formless and infinite, does not delineate it as formless and infinite in the present, nor does he delineate it as of such a nature that it will [naturally] become formless and infinite [in the future/after death], nor does he believe that 'Although it is not yet that way, I will convert it into being that way.' This being the case, it is proper to say that a fixed view of a self formless and infinite does not lie latent [within that person].





(Assumptions of a Self)
"To what extent, Ananda, does one assume when assuming a self? Assuming feeling to be the self, one assumes that 'Feeling is my self' [or] 'Feeling is not my self: My self is oblivious [to feeling]' [or] 'Neither is feeling my self, nor is my self oblivious to feeling, but rather my self feels, in that my self is subject to feeling.'

"Now, one who says, 'Feeling is my self,' should be addressed as follows: 'There are these three feelings, my friend -- feelings of pleasure, feelings of pain, and feelings of neither pleasure nor pain. Which of these three feelings do you assume to be the self?' At a moment when a feeling of pleasure is sensed, no feeling of pain or of neither pleasure nor pain is sensed. Only a feeling of pleasure is sensed at that moment. At a moment when a feeling of pain is sensed, no feeling of pleasure or of neither pleasure nor pain is sensed. Only a feeling of pain is sensed at that moment. At a moment when a feeling of neither pleasure nor pain is sensed, no feeling of pleasure or of pain is sensed. Only a feeling of neither pleasure nor pain is sensed at that moment.

[prana]

"Now, a feeling of pleasure is inconstant, fabricated, dependent on conditions, subject to passing away, dissolution, fading, and cessation. A feeling of pain is inconstant, fabricated, dependent on conditions, subject to passing away, dissolution, fading, and cessation. A feeling of neither pleasure nor pain is inconstant, fabricated, dependent on conditions, subject to passing away, dissolution, fading, and cessation. Having sensed a feeling of pleasure as 'my self,' then with the cessation of one's very own feeling of pleasure, 'my self' has perished. Having sensed a feeling of pain as 'my self,' then with the cessation of one's very own feeling of pain, 'my self' has perished. Having sensed a feeling of neither pleasure nor pain as 'my self,' then with the cessation of one's very own feeling of neither pleasure nor pain, 'my self' has perished.

"Thus he assumes, assuming in the immediate present a self inconstant, entangled in pleasure and pain, subject to arising and passing away, he who says, 'Feeling is my self.' Thus in this manner, Ananda, one does not see fit to assume feeling to be the self.

"As for the person who says, 'Feeling is not the self: My self is oblivious [to feeling],' he should be addressed as follows: 'My friend, where nothing whatsoever is sensed (experienced) at all, would there be the thought, "I am"?'"

"No, lord."

"Thus in this manner, Ananda, one does not see fit to assume that 'Feeling is not my self: My self is oblivious [to feeling].'

"As for the person who says, 'Neither is feeling my self, nor is my self oblivious [to feeling], but rather my self feels, in that my self is subject to feeling,' he should be addressed as follows: 'My friend, should feelings altogether and every way stop without remainder, then with feeling completely not existing, owing to the cessation of feeling, would there be the thought, "I am"?'"

"No, lord."

"Thus in this manner, Ananda, one does not see fit to assume that 'Neither is feeling my self, nor is my self oblivious [to feeling], but rather my self feels, in that my self is subject to feeling.'

"Now, Ananda, in as far as a monk does not assume feeling to be the self, nor the self as oblivious, nor that 'My self feels, in that my self is subject to feeling,' then, not assuming in this way, he is not sustained by anything (does not cling to anything) in the world. Unsustained, he is not agitated. Unagitated, he is totally unbound right within. He discerns that 'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.'

"If anyone were to say with regard to a monk whose mind is thus released that 'The Tathagata exists after death,' is his view, that would be mistaken; that 'The Tathagata does not exist after death'... that 'The Tathagata both exists and does not exist after death'... that 'The Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist after death' is his view, that would be mistaken. Why? Having directly known the extent of designation and the extent of the objects of designation, the extent of expression and the extent of the objects of expression, the extent of description and the extent of the objects of description, the extent of discernment and the extent of the objects of discernment, the extent to which the cycle revolves: Having directly known that, the monk is released. [To say that,] 'The monk released, having directly known that, does not see, does not know is his opinion,' that would be mistaken. [1]

(Seven Stations of Consciousness)
"Ananda, there are these seven stations of consciousness and two spheres. Which seven?

"There are beings with diversity of body and diversity of perception, such as human beings, some devas, and some beings in the lower realms. This is the first station of consciousness.

"There are beings with diversity of body and singularity of perception, such as the devas of the Brahma hosts generated by the first [jhana]. This is the second station of consciousness.

"There are beings with singularity of body and diversity of perception, such as the Radiant Devas. This is the third station of consciousness.

"There are beings with singularity of body and singularity of perception, such as the Beautifully Lustrous Devas. This is the fourth station of consciousness.

"There are beings who,with the complete transcending of perceptions of [physical] form, with the disappearance of perceptions of resistance, and not heeding perceptions of diversity, thinking, 'Infinite space,' arrive at the dimension of the infinitude of space. This is the fifth station of consciousness.

"There are beings who, with the complete transcending of the dimension of the infinitude of space, thinking, 'Infinite consciousness,' arrive at the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness. This is the sixth station of consciousness.

"There are beings who, with the complete transcending of the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness, thinking, 'There is nothing,' arrive at the dimension of nothingness. This is the seventh station of consciousness.

"The dimension of non-percipient beings and, second, the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception. [These are the two spheres.]

"Now, as for the first station of consciousness -- beings with diversity of body and diversity of perception, such as human beings, some devas, and some beings in the lower realms: If one discerns that [station of consciousness], discerns its origination, discerns its passing away, discerns its allure, discerns its drawbacks, discerns the escape from it, would it be proper, by means of that [discernment] to take delight there?"

"No, lord."

(Similarly with each of the remaining stations of consciousness and two spheres.)

"Ananda, when knowing -- as they actually are -- the origination, passing away, allure, drawbacks of -- and escape from -- these seven stations of consciousness and two spheres, a monk is release through lack of clinging, he is said to be a monk released through discernment.





(Eight Emancipations)
"Ananda, there are these eight emancipations. Which eight?

"Possessed of form, one sees forms. This is the first emancipation.

"Not percipient of form internally, one sees forms externally. This is the second emancipation.

"One is intent only on the beautiful. This is the third emancipation.

"With the complete transcending of perceptions of [physical] form, with the disappearance of perceptions of resistance, and not heeding perceptions of diversity, thinking, 'Infinite space,' one enters and remains in the dimension of the infinitude of space. This is the fourth emancipation.

"With the complete transcending of the dimension of the infinitude of space, thinking, 'Infinite consciousness,' one enters and remains in the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness. This is the fifth emancipation.

"With the complete transcending of the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness, thinking, 'There is nothing,' one enters and remains in the dimension of nothingness. This is the sixth emancipation.

"With the complete transcending of the dimension of nothingness, one enters and remains in the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception. This is the seventh emancipation.

"With the complete transcending of the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception, one enters and remains in the cessation of perception and feeling. This is the eighth emancipation.

"Now, when a monk attains these eight emancipations in forward order, in reverse order, in forward and reverse order, when he attains them and emerges from them wherever he wants, however he wants, and for as long as he wants, when through the ending of the mental fermentations he enters and remains in the fermentation-free release of awareness and release of discernment, having directly known it and realized it in the here and now, he is said to be a monk released in both ways. And as for another release in both ways, higher or more sublime than this, there is none."

That is what the Blessed One said. Gratified, Ven. Ananda delighted in the Blessed One's words.

[guohuen]

Sort of like learn as much as you can so that you can unlearn everything.

[apoweyn]

i think the implications of ego might be different today than at other points in martial arts' evolution.

if, as people are keen on pointing out here, martial arts are first and foremost MARTIAL, the implication is that they began out of a necessity for combat. yeah? that doesn't necessarily mean that they came out of the military. they could have been civic defense arts (as was the case with okinawan kobudo, capoeira, and (in the sense that the monks were not technically soldiers) shaolin. but even in those cases, there was a common theme. regardless of the nature, organization, dogma, etc. of these fighting forces, they were just that. they were fighting forces. fighting for a cause bigger than themselves, whether that cause was the furthering of an empire or simply the defense of their own fields.

in any event, it involved the potential sacrifice of one's own life for the 'greater good.' that plugs into the idea of ego, to my limited understanding. ego directly pertains to a sense of self, while the original use of fighting arts pertained to the sublimation of the self for the behalf of the bigger entity.

but somewhere along the line, martial arts ceased to be the way in which battles were effectively fought. swordsmanship, archery, horsemanship, etc. were eventually replaced by gunpowder, rifles, artillery, guided missiles, and so on. at that point, almost nobody was using martial arts as a way to possibly sacrifice themselves for the greater good. instead, they came to be used for self protection, self perfection, self expression, etc. nowadays, i'd venture to guess that the vast majority of us are practicing for strictly personal reasons. nothing wrong with that, but it is a difference, i think.

as much as we tell ourselves that we're doing it to honour our ancestors or keep our families safe, we're still making a choice. based on what we value, what we enjoy, what we fear losing, etc. it's not a question of 'our village being kept safe' or 'our emperor needing our services.' that sort of thing is someone else's domain in most instances. (the military's, in many cases)

the loss of ego sort of hinges, to my mind, on the loss of attachments. it's an idea that comes up in fighting and (perhaps partially as a result) in several spiritual traditions. soldiers had (have) to free themselves from attachment to the consequences of actions. "when i run out onto that battlefield and start wading through other human beings with my polearm or sword, what does that mean? will i kill? will i die?" doesn't matter. that person is a soldier. that's what soldiers do. regardless of how their self perceives the actions, the consequences, the risks, etc.

in the baghavad gita, arjuna is advised by krishna to wage war on his own relatives without regard to the idea of killing his own flesh and blood. arjuna's not supposed to fret this because it's simply his role in a larger drama. it has nothing to do with his sense of self. he's a soldier. on a battlefield. and the larger drama is that life ends, conflicts play out, etc.

to my understanding, this is where the ideas of bushido (for example) came from. it was an idealistic framework designed to reconcile the human response to the idea of killing and dying. take the focus off of yourself and your feelings on the matter, and concentrate on the bigger idea. same with other idealistic traditions ("women and children first", for instance).

and what happens when soldiers are unable to distance their selves from their actions? well, i'm not a soldier. and i hesitate to guess at what they must feel. but consider the guy that dropped the bomb on either nagasaki or hiroshima. (i can't remember the specifics, but i believe he killed himself later, yeah?) technically, in his role as a soldier, he was successful. he killed an extraordinary number of the 'enemy' (civilian targets, i know) and perhaps hastened the end of the war. but unable to sublimate that sense of self, he felt personally responsible (perhaps rightly) for the death of innocents.

others at various points along the line noted that this sort of detachment can bring some peace of mind to the rest of us too. while a soldier needs to be detached from the consequences of his actions (particularly when his actions involve ramming a sword into someone's gut, for example; or worse yet, being on the receiving end), if the rest of us could detach ourselves from consequences and actions as well (give up personal attachments and commit all actions out of devotion to something bigger than ourselves), then we could find some increased peace of mind.

so i guess that's the big question, to my mind. how many of us truly sublimate the self in favour of something, anything, bigger? how much are we willing to surrender of ourselves (money, family, life itself) in the name of that bigger thing? monks give up the first two. soldiers the last. what about the rest of us?


stuart b.

[David Jamieson]

Excellent responses and input.

Prana, thanks for the input, that is some nutshell stuff there. :D

son of owen :D that's some good food for thought.

peace

[apoweyn]

thank you sir. :)

stuart of clan oweyn

[Merryprankster]

Stuart, stop talking sense.

[apoweyn]

and then i said, "hang on! that's not my ear!!"

how's that?


stuart

[Roc Doc]

dear wushu chick,

you are cool!!!!!

hmmmmm.... ah ha ha ha ha ha....ah ha ha ha ha ha....ah ha ha hmmmmm.... ha ha ha ha ha ha. hmmmmm.... ah ha ha ha ha ha....ah ha ha ha ha ha....ah ha ha ha ha haa ha ha....ah ha ha ha ha ha....ah ha ha ha ha ha....hmmmmm.... ha ha ha ha ha ha. hmmmmm...mmmmm.... ha ha ha ha ha ha. hmmmmm.... ah ha ha ha ha ha....ah ha ha ha ha ha....ah ha ha ha h....hmmmmm.... ha ha ha ha ha ha. hmmmmm.... ah ha ha ha ha ha....ah ha ha ha ha ha....ah ha ha ha ha ha....hmmmmm.... ha ha ha ha ha ha. hmmmmm.... ah ha ha ha ha ha....ah ha ha ha ha ha....ah ha ha ha ha ha....hmmmmm.... ha ha ha. hmmmmm.... ah ha ha ha ha ha....ah ha ha ha ha ha....ah ha ha ha ha ha....hmmmmm.... ha ha ha ha ha ha. hmmmmm.... ah ha ha ha ha ha....ah ha ha ha ha ha....ah ha ha ha ha ha....hmmmmm.... ha ha ha ha ha ha. hmmmmm.... ah ha ha ha ha ha....ah ha ha ha ha ha....ah ha ha ha ha ha....hmmmmm.... ha ha ha ha ha ha. SO YA THINK YOUR KUNG FU IS PRETTY GOOD HUH????BUT STILL.......TODAY YOU'ARE GONNA DIE.....
HA HA HA HA AH HA HA HA!!!!!HA HA HA HA AH HA HA HA!!!!!HA HA HA HA AH HA HA HA!!!!!HA HA HA HA AH HA HA HA!!!!!HA HA HA HA AH HA HA HA!!!!!HA HA HA HA AH HA HA HA!!!!!HA HA HA HA AH HA HA HA!!!!!HA HA HA HA AH HA HA HA!!!!!HA HA H AH HA HA HA!!!!!HA HA HA HA AH HA HA HA!!!!!HA HA HA HA AH HA HA HA!!!!!

love and jazz, peace and beads, insence and pachouli....
mr. marshall ahrt

[red5angel]

Ego is an interesting subject in and of itself, but as it pertains to martial arts?
Well, in my opinion, the loss of ego, (roughly self importance and immodest idea of skills) is important because ego has no ground with which to stand on. Your ego wil hold you back. A fine example of this is the guy we all know, who took a few classes, maybe even stuck with it for a year or two, and now wanders around calling himself sifu and starting his own schools claiming direct lineage to this person or that person. Some of these guys even believe that they really "get it" and that they are some sort of wunderkind. They will never advance because there will always be an excuse as to why they may not have performed up to par, in a challenge of thier skill. Most wouldnt stoop to taking lessons from someone else because they themselves have already mastered it all.
Ego is an obstruction to be surmounted and passed on. It holds us like dead weight to the present and doesnt allow us to advance.

[dedalus]

There's a fantastic book by an American psychologist named Robyn Dawes (Prof at Carnegie-Mellon and one-time board member of the American Psychological Association) called "House of Cards". He basically spends 300 pages outlining the many ways in which clinical psychology has abused psychological research to create a massive psychotherapeutic industry in the USA especially. One of his key points when he wrote this book (back in 1994) was that self-esteem is a particularly vacuous (but easily exploited) concept - it makes very little difference whether you've got it or not, so WTF is everyone raving about? His case is *very* well referenced and more research has been published over the past couple of years to back him up.

Just for those of you who are interested in such things :)

[shaolinboxer]

I believe that the destruction of the ego through buddhism was originally a utilitarian process (meaning to be used for practical purposes).

In the case of the samurai, many fighters observed that zen/buddhist monks were able to maintain a keen sense of focus and determination under extreme conditions.

In order to better serve their lords, the samurai studied the methods of the monks inorder to use that particular state of mind to escape the fear of death.

Once the ego, or mind, or sense of self, is eliminated there are no decisions to make concerning your safety. That is why the vast majority of sword duels ended in mutual slaying.

When the samurai were no longer needed and Japan united, many of these fighters used the practice of meditation, combined with the techniques they had learned for killing, and formalized the predecessors to many of the martial arts we find today.

So really, the zen mind was just another tool to bring about the death of the enemy to further the will of your lord. For more info, I suggest the lengthly and academic "Secrets of the Samurai" by Oscar and Oratti.

Times of peace (if there is such a thing) allow us to try to find new ways to give this kind of training meaning relevant to our lives.

So, detachment from self makes us better martial artsits because it eliminates fear, helps us to see clearly, and opens our hearts to compassion. However, total loss of self turns us into killers, cultists, and indecipherable isolationists.