Art, Ego , and Buddhism … 2 comments
When I was younger I went to art school, twice. Once to an obscure school in the backwoods of Pittsburgh and the other was a four year university in the backwoods of the Bay Area. In any case, besides studying art and photography, I studied languages, African dance and drumming and started my lifelong studies of Buddhism.
One of the main teachings one experiences as an art student is the strengthening of the ego. Art school is fond of ego building and self-centeredness. I am is everything.
One of the main teachings one experiences as a student of buddhism is the diminishment of ego. Buddhism is fond of the elimination of ego and self-centeredness. You are is everything.
This has been a big source of conflict for me as an adult person who is constantly in the state of reorganizing and merging my art and spritual life. There have been times where I have felt very strongly about not budging on my ego. I am everything. The best. The brightest. The whatever. But fortunately I’ve had a lot of conversations with myself on this subject and have very slowly been able to let go of a lot of the I am.
The difficult thing about this is to deal with people who are either artists not on the path, so therefore they are still the best of eveything, or people who expect either me to be a certain way because of the artist stereotype, or my work to be a certain way because of the spiritual stereotype.
2 Responses to 'Art, Ego , and Buddhism …'
Subscribe to comments with RSS or TrackBack to 'Art, Ego , and Buddhism …'.
-
How did you write that and not get confused?!
>> The “I am not” that’s important is, superficially, “I am not who I think I am by definition.”
Yes, this is true. In art school the “I am” is very clearly defined by the time a student graduates – this also means that the “I am not” is clearly defined, even if by default, as well.
And it takes a really long time to realize that defining oneself by the “I am” and the “I am not” is very limiting and not what one is at all. We are all much more than either of those things.
Saying/thinking “I am” and/or “I am not” are both defining self.
(I think I still have Mipham’s hip-hop video running through my brain [What About Me?] It’s posted on here somewhere…)
I think we’re on the same page … maybe.
Actually, you have the wrong dichotomy. In Buddhism, it isn’t that “you are” is more important than “I am” but rather that “I am not” and “you are not” are more important than “I am” and “you are.” And not even every “I am not,” but only a very specific “I am not,” and not every “you are not,” but only a specific “you are not.”
The “I am not” that’s important is, superficially, “I am not who I think I am by definition.” Meaning that while you may seem to be a certain way at any given moment of observation, you are free – you are not eternally the way you are at the moment, and who you are even at the moment is a dependent arising, not a thing that exists independently.
Which all sounds like a lot of intellectual hooey, but it’s hugely important if you can figure out a way to walk into it.