[Buddha-l] Re: Emptiness

[Richard Hayes]

On Tuesday 23 October 2007 11:04, Dante Rosati wrote:

> "mind" and "body" are both concepts, designations. but there is
> something that does the designating,  (and a presence remaining when
> designations have ceased) call it "mind" or something more exotic.
> wouldn't this something be prior?

What does the designating? Perhaps the body acting in ways that we choose to 
call mental. There is no compelling reason to rule that out. By calling the 
instument of designating and naming "mind", one is already showing one's 
prejudices.

For various reasons I am drawn to monistic views of mind-body whereby what we 
call "mind" and what we call "body" are as intimately related as what we 
call "matter" and what we call "energy." Matter can be seen as a state of 
energy and vice versa, and to call either one as primary and the other 
secondary does not make a great deal of sense. Similarly, to speak of "mind" 
and "body" as two essentially different kinds of thing that are mysteriously 
related does not seem very promising. Equally unpromising is to say that one 
end of the mind-body continuum is primary. To have a preference for one over 
the other seems to me like bad science and bad philosophy and even worse 
Buddhism.

-- 
Richard P. Hayes
Department of Philosophy
University of New Mexico
http://www.unm.edu/~rhayes