Dear Jack,<\/p>\n
Since much of the conversation\/dialogue in this forum centres on the word ‘self,’ please tell me what Rinpoche means by ‘self.’ To me, wherever I pick the thread of his thinking, he’s seems to be talking about a mental process or a group of mental process – in other words, a subset of the person or individual. I’m not sure we have agreement on what this ‘self’ is. Is it that process that some refer to when they say ‘ego’?<\/p>\n
For me, \u00c2\u00a0the word ‘self’ doesn’t have such negative or limited connotations, as it has in Rinpoche’s TSK writings. I practice some kind of non-problematic, functional use of ‘self,’ which use really means: ‘person,’ or perhaps, ‘individual.’<\/p>\n
Not to say that the word doesn’t get poisoned by my attachment to my ‘self,’ my person, my individuality, and to components of the person I am. I’m sure it does, regularly. But this, it seems to me, \u00c2\u00a0is the outcome of my lack of mindfulness and my lack of openness to unknowing, which ignorance imagines an ultimately-existing \u00c2\u00a0‘physical-space-time object’ which is the referent for the word. On the conventional level, the word ‘self’ is as neutral to me as ‘table.’ It’s as valid a designation, in respect of its referent, as table is for a certain other kind of experience or set of experiences.<\/p>\n
So, help me out, here – what does ‘self’ mean, to Rinpoche?<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Dear Jack, Since much of the conversation\/dialogue in this forum centres on the word ‘self,’ please tell me what Rinpoche means by ‘self.’ To me, wherever I pick the thread of his thinking, he’s seems to be talking about a … Continue reading