Ah, I see. I'm sorry, I thought the object was ego, but if it's thought in that abstract form, then that was my misunderstanding of your explanation.
Indeed, you are correct in that analogy, to that extent.
Being nothing is not the goal here. By being nothing, with no thoughts or motion, we would be dead!
The point here is Understanding that we are nothing, to make it easier to let go of the material world, or to let go of any pains that befall us. In this way we have calmness, and gain wisdom.
As for your analogy, that our thoughts and selves are an object in motion, which we must curb to reach a desirable point in space: the reality is, there is no object.
Not only is this Zen Buddhism, but this is actually all Buddhism, in its ultimate form.
Letting go of yourself, and saying I am nothing, quite literally means that. We are nothing, simply mounds of flesh and bone. Even our thoughts, and our minds, are not a self. There is no such thing as free thought, no thinker behind the thoughts. All feeling and sensation, touch smell, taste; they all have an origin in the physical realm. Thoughts and ideas are the same, and they have an origin in the mental and physical realm. No idea is an idea floating by itself. They all originate from somewhere, like the sensation of touch or smell. Like, this conversation we're having. The ideas we both put forward have been taught to us, either by books, teachers, or our environments. They cannot be without cause.
An idea: The sun is bright. Why is the sun bright? Because the accepted lexicon of 'bright' is associated with a tingling, slightly painful feeling in the eyes. Why did I say the sun is bright? Because I needed an example in order to explain my words better. Why do examples explain words better? Because I've read words with examples, and felt I had understood more because of them, and so on. See? Where in thinking is there free thought? No where. Then, if we are neither thought nor sensation, what are we?
The pain and frustration we feel from life come from trying to fight with this, trying to see ourselves as a self; a self that has wants and needs that Must be fulfilled. We've become so accustomed to this idea of 'self' that we even shelter it, and protect it. We create elaborate explanations and excuses in order to protect this idea of self, when instead, it should be let go.
By letting go of oneself, you see this person realistically, and in an unbiased way. Pain or circumstance that befalls this person is simply as it is, neither good nor bad; it simply is. We then can improve this person: we are able to see these flaws and these unskillful actions objectively and clearly. Once these are seen, they can be easily changed, since there is no I or me, but a person. Unmetaphorically, and unequivocally, that is what is meant by 'I am nothing' and how it should be used.
* A man publishes a watchdog paper on corruption in the police department.
* He has inside sources in the police department that he has on file; sources whose lives are at risk if their identity is revealed.
The point is, we can both construct hypothetical situations in which this law can protect the just and villainous alike.
However, these made up occurrences only distract from the situation at hand, and do nothing to add or subtract from the argument.
My original point still stands: The police were breaking the rules set upon them in accordance with the penal code; thus, this break in and seizure was unlawful, and Gizmodo is well in their rights, whatever decision they make.
According to California state law, it states that you are not allowed to issue warrants, or abjudge items owned by anyone working for news organizations.
The fact that the police literally broke into his home is ridiculous, and a violation of that penal code.