Re: A more

Chris Lees (
Wed, 07 Apr 1999 06:19:01 +0100

Date: Wed, 07 Apr 1999 06:19:01 +0100
From: Chris Lees <>
Subject: Re: A more

Joe Dees wrote:

> The claim in contention is that the belief that there is a "self" is a delusion.
> However, delusion cannot exist in the absence of someone who is deluded.
> Either there is a self, or there is not. If there is a self, then there is no delusion.
> If there isn't a self, then there is no one to be deluded, so there is, once again, no
> delusion. Methinks that some fundamentalist Buddhists without an understanding
> of their own religious doctrines are nevertheless attempting to inject them into a
> scientific discussion. When Zen masters such as D. T. Suzuki and others such as
> Dogen and Hui-neng insist that the self is nothing, they mean it in the way that
> the existentialists mean it; as no-thing, i.e. not a static thing, like a rock, but as a
> dynamically recursive becoming.

I would take your remarks more seriously if you had used the word
As I understand 'delusion', it refers to pathology, as in
hallucinations, etc,
associated with mental disease, and is not synonymous with 'illusion'.

'Either there is a self, or there is not' is naive.

Suzuki, Dogen, and Hui-Neng take the same view as the existentialists ?
I think you are mistaken, both in that, and in your opinion re
"dynamically recursive becoming", whatever that is when it's at home.


This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)