[Buddha-l] Re: Emptiness

[Timothy Smith]

   Isn't the question of who am I at least partially 'what' am I?  I  
can't imagine even asking the question without a body, or speaking of  
perception, direct or indirect without a body, can you?  Further, I  
don't see any reductionism in Richard's post, but I do get the sense  
there's another straw man (is his body real?) here since I can't see  
anyone trying to provide 'the' answer, but merely another part of the  
ongoing question.


Timothy Smith
Wheelwright Associates

www.wheelwrightassoc.com


Curt wrote:
>
> The body can never be perceived directly - so what you are  
> describing amounts to believing in ghosts - and, worse yet,  
> believing that ghosts cause everything! I think this is the  
> fundamental reason why western scientism has to be rejected as a  
> valid "take" on Buddhism: because it insists on a crude and  
> unexamined reductionism that is nothing but an unsupported  
> metaphysical supposition masquerading as the incarnation of reason.  
> The answer to the question "who am I?" has many possible  
> interesting answers, but "this body" is not one of them.
>
> Curt Steinmetz
> _______________________________________________
> buddha-l mailing list
> buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com
> http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l
>