[MD] Being-Aware

[Ham Priday]

Dear Marsha --


> It is my understanding that Buddhists accept that self
> exists by the power of conceptual and/or verbal designation.
> It exists conventionally.

What does it mean to exist "conventionally"?  In another post (to Lord 
Arioch), you said that "Ham's self is a small self ... a conventional self." 
Does conventional mean "ordinary" or "usual" in this context, or something 
else?

> Long before I came to his forum I understood the body to have six tools: 
> sight, hearing, touch, smell, taste and mind.   My reading of the 
> Buddhist's point-of-view has strengthened my understanding.

What we call "mind" is more than a tool, Marsha.  Think of it this way: 
Suppose an engineer builds an electro-mechanical robot that can receive 
visual images, respond to touch, and even detect flavors and aromas.  Would 
you say that this humanoid is consciously aware of the stimuli that it 
detects?   No, because electro-mechanical detection is not consciousness. 
The robot has no mind, and no amount of computer chip technology or data 
processing capability enables Science to create awareness.

Mind is a "sense" only in the sense that it is the sense of self.  The mind 
is not a thing or an existent.  As a being-aware it is the Knower of all 
things relating to its being.

> Again, I apologize for my rudeness.

You owe me no apology... only the willingness to consider this premise.

Essentially yours,
Ham