After finishing Owen Flanagan's The Bodhisattva's Brain, it left me with a newfound respect for Buddhism. Although the woo or magic aspect seems somewhat overreaching, it seems harmless. Whether from a structuralist, functionalist, or rationalist explanation, I can see the want (or need) to try and communicate the ineffable.
Further, I found the idea of atman (self) and anatman (no-self) fascinating. What is the self, exactly? Statements like "he's not himself today," or "I lost myself (my self?) in that song" seem to make sense.
We can always keep searching, but if the answer doesn't come after much Socratic self-examination, one can always rely on Van Morrison to take us somewhere--even if the lyrics are a bit mystifying. Then again, maybe that's the whole idea.
We were born before the wind
Also younger than the sun
Every bonnie boat was one
As we sailed into the mystic
I like that you pointed out certain colloquialisms that involve "the self" and somehow losing it or being "different" from it. That's something that we don't really think about when we say these types of things during our everyday lives. What self have we lost? How is this seemingly different state NOT part of our "self" and, furthermore, how do we evaluate this?
ReplyDeleteImportant questions, indeed.
Van Morrison's my favorite pop-musical mystic, but the tune I can't shake this morning has a rasta beat. "Don't worry 'bout a thing..."
ReplyDelete