Actually, I don't have the time or energy tonight to discuss the Christian Scientists. A full day at work, followed by Monday night zazen, followed by our "informal dialogue." The conversation this week wasn't about consciousness (even though that's what I really wanted to talk about, and had a head full of ideas on the topic that all wanted to be expressed). We talked about different schools of Buddhist thought, sort of comparative Buddhology, and the value of choosing one path and sticking with it.
Okay, I'll say this much about the Christian Scientists - they seem to accept as a given that they themselves are real, but disease is only something imagined. Imagine something different, and the disease goes away. But if they doubt the external, why are they so sure of the internal?
(I know I probably don't have that right, and can already anticipate the emails and comments I'll be getting from irate Christ Scientists.)
Buddhism is just the opposite. The Buddha's First Noble Truth is the existence of suffering, specifically sickness, old age and death, among other things. You can't wish away the First Noble Truth, or just imagine a different Noble Truth. Although Buddhists may accept the existence of suffering as a given, they aren't at all that confident about their own existence. Or at least they will acknowledge that what is called the "self" is only limited by what the mind chooses. I can just as easily assume that this "self," this "I," is something more, or something less, than this body/mind.
Okay, I'll say this much about the Christian Scientists - they seem to accept as a given that they themselves are real, but disease is only something imagined. Imagine something different, and the disease goes away. But if they doubt the external, why are they so sure of the internal?
(I know I probably don't have that right, and can already anticipate the emails and comments I'll be getting from irate Christ Scientists.)
Buddhism is just the opposite. The Buddha's First Noble Truth is the existence of suffering, specifically sickness, old age and death, among other things. You can't wish away the First Noble Truth, or just imagine a different Noble Truth. Although Buddhists may accept the existence of suffering as a given, they aren't at all that confident about their own existence. Or at least they will acknowledge that what is called the "self" is only limited by what the mind chooses. I can just as easily assume that this "self," this "I," is something more, or something less, than this body/mind.
Is memory part of the self, or something that is possessed? Are perceptions the self, and if so, then are the objects that are perceived self or other? You choose (that's not an offer, but an observation).
Discuss among yourselves. I'm going to eat some ice cream and then go to bed.
1 comment:
Being able to say of some preference or urge or apetite that has been describe to you: "But that is just not me. I would not do that" is almost purely a feat of memory.
and it is also exactly what you know of who you are and for many us a deeply held and big part of identity and what some call their soul...I think it comes just as close to accuracy to ask if self is part of memory. Neither is entirely satisfactory
"But if they doubt the external, why are they so sure of the internal?... You get no irate response from this lapsed CS. I fell away from it long before I was sophisticated enough to ask such a question. It is entirely fair to ask.
Post a Comment