Buddhism and psychology - similarities

Buddhism analyzes the sense-of-self into sets of impersonal mental and physical processes, whose interaction creates the illusion of self-consciousness ... The death-repression emphasized by existential psychology transforms the Oedipal complex into what Norman Brown calls an Oedipal project: the attempt to become father of oneself, that is, one's own origin. ... It is the quest to deny one's groundlessness by becoming one's own ground: the ground (socially conditioned yet nonetheless illusory) I "know" as being an independent self.

The ego-self is this never-ending project to realize oneself by objectifying oneself, something consciousness can no more do than a hand can grasp itself, or an eye see itself.

The consequence of this perpetual failure is that the sense-of-self is shadowed by a sense-of-lack, which it always tries to escape. The return of the repressed in the distorted form of a symptom shows us how to link this basic yet hopeless project with the symbolic ways we try to make ourselves real in the world. We experience this deep sense of lack as the feeling that "there is something wrong with me", but that feeling manifests, and we respond to it, in many different ways. In its "purer" form lack appears as what might be called an ontological guilt or anxiety that gnaws on one's very core. For that reason ontological guilt tends to become guilt for something, because then we know how to atone for it; and anxiety is eager to objectify into fear of something, because we know how to defend ourselves against particular feared things.

The problem with all objectifications, however, is that no object can ever satisfy us if it is not really an object that we want.

David Loy, A Buddhist History of the West

I was focussing on some sentences and pick this one out: "the ego-self is the never ending project to realize oneself"

To see what ego exactly is; should here be a never ending proces? This looks strange.
What "self can realize" what is meant with Buddhism? What kind of project is never ending?
I am not sure I understand what is meant but I hope the absolute truth- purity is not seen as a self in concepts what is never ending.

To realize nature is to see the joke there is no thing existing on own power which is always the same and independent and which we need to fight for and fill our life to please it with outer things and other beings which are on themselves solid as well.

To realize one who "created" all and a "me" on own power can use some more investigation. Then Buddhism can be compared by science.

Also I think the problem is that one who didn't tast without words, without explanations what we Buddhists mean, will always express it based on elaborations which are not what is meant.
Scientist, specially in Philosophy knows as well that our conceptualization is a wonderful magician, an artist. And the work of that artist is dependent on many factors.
I saw an enormous book on a travel, but wasn't able to take it with me. It was all about that magical world of our concepts. Lots of phylosophers in history all over the world had their expression about it.
Psychology is very needful anyway. Not everyone in this world is "looking" beyond own inside builded TV station to dwell in calm abiding by the path of wisdom. :namaste:

muni wrote:
I am not sure I understand what is meant but I hope the absolute truth- purity is not seen as a self in concepts what is never ending.

I think he means that the project of finally establishing the ego as substantial is doomed to never be finished, because the ego can never be established.

Yes friend Karma. It is always interesting to dive in a discussion with Psychologists. It is even making own view vaster. As to know intelligence has its limits. This was from Freud (oedipal). He saw in many problems a sexual background is me said. So that itself is limited. :namaste:

Karma Dondrup Tashi wrote:

muni wrote:
I am not sure I understand what is meant but I hope the absolute truth- purity is not seen as a self in concepts what is never ending.

I think he means that the project of finally establishing the ego as substantial is doomed to never be finished, because the ego can never be established.

I think you're right.

An interesting related link...

Definitions of Various Self Constructs



And a very thought provoking article by Seymour Epstein, in the American Psychologist, which discusses the idea of self as system, and the possibility that the self as a singular entity may not actually exist...

The Self Concept Revisited (American Psychologist, 1973) pdf download