[Buddha-l] (no subject)

[Jackhat1 at aol.com]

In a message dated 11/29/2010 11:30:11 A.M. SA Western Standard Time,  
jehms at xs4all.nl writes:

>  Understanding anatta conceptually is hard to understand.  Experientially
> it's not so hard. Most people that have gone on a  retreat realize it 
however
> briefly. During meditation, thoughts and  sensations arise and pass away
> without  our being able to discern  the "I" that directs them. After 
sitting
> meditation we  stand up  to go into walking meditation. This very complex 
action
> happens  by  itself without an "I" to direct it.
>
> I think anyone  who plays a sport or a musical instrument experiences the
> same thing.  Serving a tennis ball or playing a violin well involves 
getting
>  out  of the way to let it happen.
I don't agree with this. One can  feel things which don't exist and the 
other way around. The word 'I' is a  grammatical form and since no 
substantially existing she or we can be  found, why would this be the 
case with I? Now the Upanișads talk about an  ātman who is knowable and 
knowing, Christians would call this a soul.  Buddhists generally deny 
that such an object-subject  exists
==

The purpose of realizing the 3 Marks, anatta, anicca and dukkha, is to  
transform our relationship with the world. This transformation doesn't depend 
on  words.
jack
=====
 
Kant came with a distinction between an empirical ego that can become  
sick, sad or happy and a transcendental one. The first one exists  
conventionally, like the Buddha-l. No matter how hard you look, you  
cannot tell where it is, but you can talk about it as if it exists  
somewhere and you can give it a therapy or a birthday present. This is  
also the one which you can loose (Nāgārjuna would protest: if something  
really belongs to you, you cannot loose it; if something does not belong  
to you, you cannot loose it either).
The other one exists logically. I  may not be aware of it, but the I who 
writes this answer has to be the same  as the one who has read the post 
in the first place. Kant thought this ego  to be continuous and the same 
and not subject to circumstances. It is  somewhat similar to the concept 
of karma. An interesting question would be  whether this transcendental 
ego exists conventionally or  metaphysically.

erik