Guest guest Posted May 21, 2002 Report Share Posted May 21, 2002 In India this great question did not find its solution in very ancient times, because we have seen that the assumption of a substance which is behind the qualities, and which is not the qualities, can never be substantiated; nay, even the argument from self-identity, from memory, that I am the I of yesterday because I remember it, and therefore I have been a continuous something cannot be substantiated. The other quibble that is generally put forward is a mere delusion of words. For instance, a man may take a long series of such sentences as " I do " , " I go " , " I dream " , " I sleep " , " I move " , and here you will find it claimed that the doing, going, dreaming etc., have been changing, but what remained constant was that " I " . As such they conclude that the " I " is something which is constant and an individual in itself, but all these changes belong to the body. This, though apparently very convincing and clear, is based upon the mere play on words, The " I " and the doing, going, and dreaming may be separate in black and white, but no one can separate them in his mind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.