Friday, February 5, 2010


In buddhist circles it is usually said that we are trapped by our notions about ourselves.
Sometimes I think not-self is as dangerous as the self, we end up trapped by that notion too, almost making a thing of the ego, a devil to be fight and conquered, the subject of struggle, confussion and worry (because we deny to admit that we don't understand).
Whatever we make of the ego, it is not by creating more concepts that we awake or get liberated, but by abandoning completely concept creations. Can we do that? Or is it too much for our egos?

Let the ancient master speak:
Cast off completely your head and skin. Thoroughly withdraw from distinctions of light and shadow. Where the ten thousand changes do not reach is the foundation that even a thousand sages cannot transmit. Simply by yourself illuminate and deeply experience it with intimate accord. The original light flashes through confusion. True illumination reflects into the distance. Deliberations about being and nonbeing are entirely abandoned. The wonder appears before you, its benefit transferred out for kalpas. Immediately you follow conditions and accord with awakening without obstruction from any defilements. The mind does not attach to things, and your footsteps are not visible on the road. The you are called to continue the family business. Even if you thoroughly understand, still practice until it is familiar. (Hongzhi Zhengjue, 1091-1157)


  1. "Can we do that? Or is it too much for our egos?"

    Hi, Do Jhana.

    It seems to me that any action relative to, or in reference to, our 'ego' is inherently egoistic.

    What is described by 'ego' is an activity we engage in. Freedom from it is stopping that activity; when we stop it the comparison to doing it stops, the 'relativeness' of doing it to not doing it stops, and truly doing 'stopping it' is unhindered by the egoistic perspective of somebody wanting to stop it. And so the Old Master thinks nothing of saying:

    "Simply **by yourself** illuminate and deeply experience it with intimate accord."

    Master Dogen expresses the nature of the realised/realising self with:

    "Buddhas alone, together with Buddhas, can perfectly realise that all Dharmas are real form."



  2. Ok, I think I didn't understand a word of what Harry said (my fault, I'm still not used to the zen code language :P).

    I still don't understand what my "ego" is, or if it is something, or whatever. I just know that the thing I call "Pablo" (my personality, I guess) is not constant, and that seemingly it has no "essence" (I have my tendencies, but nothing that can't or won't be changed). But that's only the point of the iceberg. As Hongzhi said: "Still practice until it is familiar".

    PS: I read Harry's comment again and I think I understood it, and I agree with it.