On May 28, 2011, at 11:38 AM, david buchanan wrote:
> dmb says:
> Again, I'll remind you that you repeatedly cited an enthusiastic William
> James fan to dispute William James. The quotes you post as evidence for your
> notion of reification do not support that notion at all.
Marsha:
Please note Alan Wallace in the first quote states that reification is a
central issue in Buddhism:
"There are different domains of relativity ... Such truths are contingent upon
perspective. This routes us back to a central issue of Buddhism: reification.
Reification is taking something that is true relative to ourselves and
believing it to be true independently of ourselves."
(Wallace, B. Alan, Buddhism with an Attitude, p.138)
"Even when the mind is settled in meditative stabilization without human
conceptual constructs, it is not considered by Buddhist contemplatives to be
entirely free of all traces of conceptualization. One's inborn sense of a
reified self as the observer and the reified sense of the duality between
subject and object are still present, even though they may be dormant while in
meditation; and when one emerges from this nonconceptual state, the mind may
still grasp onto all phenomena, including consciousness itself, as being real,
inherently existing entities. To penetrate to the fundamental nature of
appearances and their relation to consciousness, it is said that one must go
beyond meditative stabilization and engage in training for the cultivation of
contemplative insight."
(Wallace, B. Alan, 'The Taboo of Subjectivity: Towards a New Science of
Consciousness', p.112)
___
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org/md/archives.html
