Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site dciem.UUCP
Path: utzoo!dciem!abgrady
From: abgrady@dciem.UUCP (Brian Grady)
Newsgroups: net.sci
Subject: Re: zen and the art of behaviourism
Message-ID: <980@dciem.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 9-Jul-84 13:04:16 EDT
Article-I.D.: dciem.980
Posted: Mon Jul  9 13:04:16 1984
Date-Received: Mon, 9-Jul-84 16:15:49 EDT
References: <959@dciem.UUCP>, <188@mit-athena.ARPA>
Organization: D.C.I.E.M., Toronto, Canada
Lines: 13


I suppose that the Buddhists would call 'it' conciousness, which
they define as a sense organ. Mind they tend to link with the
idea that westerners would find akin to the 'soul' concept.
That is, an abiding, unchanging essence that is the core of the person.
The Buddhist 'conciousness' is a conditioned thing, constantly in flux,
depending on the environment and past actions. It is not the
core of the person, as we might tend to think the western mind is --
cogito ergo sum. The buddhists would not agree with Descartes:
"I think therefore I think" would probably be about as far as they
would go with the logic.

Brian G.