| | Hi Minnie, I wouldn't say that Buddhist practice aims at deconstructing the ego. Superficially it may seem so, of course, but I find the term "separate self" more useful than "ego" (which could be taken to mean anything from a Freudian Ego to consciousness to pride etc.) The sense of self arises from sensations, can't arise independent from them, and thus is not "separate" or "sovereign". Similarly, in Christianity, the Fall, Sin and all that is very much connected to the idea of separation from God, rebellion (declaring independence...) Same theme, in my opinion: in Buddhism, it's called "not-self".
The Eucharist, commemorating Christ's self-sacrifice and suffering, shares the theme of compassion and suffering with Buddhism. Presence of Christ can again be understood to be congruent with Buddhist concepts like the "knower of the world" - who is it that knows, recognizes, acknowledges what's going on around us? The larger "observer", etc.
Whether you prefer the personification like in theist religion, or the stark impersonal framework of Theravada, is a matter of taste, I think. I tend to associate a position in space and time with personal conceptions of God (and thus implicitly, god-free places and times), which is not useful to me. But then, I have a hard time with devotional practices, too, metta practice being the closest I can get.
Finally, the catholic church's strange relationship to mystics: the eastern orthodox churches seem to be much more relaxed in that respect.
Have you read Daniel's essay (chapter of his book) on "not-self vs true self"?
http://tinyurl.com/lps7ch
Cheers, Florian |