curiousbear, I'm sorry if I wasn't clear on something. Feel free to ask directed questions about what I've written. Was there anything you did understand, or was it all unclear?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by *Nikki*
I am very confused about what happens when we die. I am a person who likes a definite answer to things.
|
Welcome to the club. I doubt anyone has a definite answer to this. Perhaps what I have to say below will help explain that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by roachboy
how does that follow from a statement that thinking---an embodied process---precedes the "i" (in any particular configuration, any particular situation) ---that "the mind is eternal"?
|
I don't think "I" can precede embodiment. It is our very molecular existence which gives us the perspective of "I."
It's difficult for me to think about this outside of the Buddhist framework, as this is how I've formulated my thoughts on this. In Buddhist thought, "I" is an illusion. We trick ourselves into thinking that "I" is a concrete thing, all the while we are transient beings. How can there be "I" when "I" is in a constant state of flux? We cling to this idea as though we are separate entities from the universe. Buddhists don't believe this is possible; they believe we are all "inter-are."
"I" is an illusion because you cannot isolate "I" and place it in a box; what we think of is "I" is actually a composite. Clinging to this idea of "I," then, can only lead us to delusion and misery, as we begin to fret over and fear such things as sickness, pain, and death. If we understood that we are actually inter-are, we would not fear death; we would accept it.
Quote:
|
i ask because it just as easily points to a range of processes that underpin cognition--which you might think of as the pushing of sense-data through the grid of language structures. so a statement like "i see x..." is a result, not a description of the actions implied by it (see what i mean? i can try to be clearer when i have a minute, which i don't now...)
|
"i see x..." is a formula with an open variable and is therefore a poor example of how this works. We'd need to take this on an case-by-case basis. If I were to say, "I see the words I am now typing on the screen," it would different from my stating the example, "I see a horse..." (when, in fact, I don't). The thing about Buddhism is that observation and empirical truth is paramount to the path to enlightenment. When you bring language into the picture, I think Buddhists would be preoccupied with
the signified rather than the signifier or the sign as a whole, as they may see the latter elements as misleading or filled with preconceptions or misconceptions.
So if you can rid yourself of this idea of "I" (or "you" or the personal pronoun "them"), you take on a profound perspective on the process of life and death and you see it as a natural process. When materialism or fear creep into the picture, Buddhists would claim it's because you have taken on delusive views. Moreover, they believe that this is a common thing for humans to do. Our natural base state is misery (which is related to all of this), and we have this problem of karma, but that would bring us into a whole other topic of conversation.