RE: virus: "the self"

Wright, James 7929 (
Mon, 28 Apr 97 09:40:00 EDT

Mark eventually wrote:
>Did you ever think that you're over-analyzing it? Language is at best
>imperfect and imprecise tool we use to describe what we see (or think we
>see) around us - the term "I" is no exception, but I think it does it's
>passably well. It is just a pronoun used to denote the person speaking
>to let us know you are speaking of you, rather than me or that guy over
>there. It is language, nothing more. If there were no one else other
>you, pronouns would be irrelevant, as would all language.<

The language you use colors your reactions to the world around you - we
could still communicate about common dangers, outside phenomena, and so
forth, without the concepts of "I" and "you". Language would not become
irrelevant, only different.

>I know there's the approach that perhaps there is no distinct "I" apart
>from the rest of the world, that we are merely parts of the whole
>ourselves into thinking we are discrete, sentient beings, but I think
>idea is (to be flip) a bit loopy. I revert back to my original question
>if I punch you in the nose, who feels the pain? To me, it's "you." To
>you, it would be "I". If there isn't anyone around to punch you in the
>nose, go slam your hand in the door, then ask whose hand is in pain.
>That's the "I" you're looking for.<

Remove "I" from language. Remove "you" as well, both language and
concept. Why would one part of the universal body want to injure another
part of the universal body? This point is why most Buddhists are
pacifists. To approach it from another direction - is it any less loopy
to go and cause another human suffering for money, material goods, power
over them or any other reason?
The existence of suffering is not relieved by enlightenment - but the
loneliness of suffering alone is.

>thanks (and this is sort of fun, no?)<

I enjoy refining my understanding through hearing others' understandings.