Dave, Don't be silly, there is the conventional (static) self, the small self. I'm sure that is what the Dalai Lama was suggesting. Non-self, as I understand it, means no independent, autonomous self; no inherently existing self. I've made that clear many times.
And I doubt that I was "pissed off". Marsha On Jul 18, 2011, at 4:15 PM, David Thomas wrote: > On 7/18/11 2:22 PM, "Ham Priday" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Eastern mysticism seems to be more about >> psychology and the art of self-control through meditation than about >> philosophy or metaphysics. >> >> Pirsig allegedly got his inspiration for the MoQ from Zen Buddhism. But >> when he and Marsha (who also studies Orientalism) conclude that there is no >> self, I begin to despair that there is any hope left for Western Philosophy.. > > Dave > Or, oh horror, the real current Dalai Lama on the Today show, today, talking > about the US debt limit debacle saying, "No matter what, Americans must not > lose their SELF-confidence." > > I once paraphrased to Marsha that I saw him in a TV clip snap at a > questioner who asked him some question about the Buddhist principle of > "no-self."I said, because I did not have access to the clip, He said > something like (and this really pissed her off), "If you have no self, who > is it that is going to change?" > > Apostasically your, > Dave > > > 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 ___ 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
