[MD] Being-Aware

[MarshaV]

Greetings Ham,

At 10:16 PM 9/29/2008, you wrote:

>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?

Yes, by 'conventionally' it is meant in accordance with the way we 
normally speak:  I am this, I am that,  I did this, I did that.  A 
self that has independent existence.



>>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.

Huh?  As far as I know, the West does not have a precise definition 
or understanding of consciousness.  And stating that consciousness is 
not electro-mechanical detection is not stating anything.


>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.

Mind can be defined a number of different ways.  There are a number 
of books published documenting the meetings of the Dalai Lama with 
Western scientists. You might find them interesting to 
read.  Buddhism is often referred to as a Science/Philosophy of Mind.




>>Again, I apologize for my rudeness.
>
>You owe me no apology... only the willingness to consider this premise.


Oh.  You mentioned it, so I thought I had upset you.


Marsha





.
.

Shoot for the moon.  Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars.........
.
.