3 ms·
The main premise of the article seems to be that 'you are not your feelings' in mindfulness covertly introduces the idea of 'no self'. I don't find this compel
by scooble 7y ago
The main premise of the article seems to be that 'you are not your feelings' in mindfulness covertly introduces the idea of 'no self'.
I don't find this compelling. If anything 'you are not your feelings' reinforces the 'western' picture of a self that has (but is not identical to) feelings.
- Spearchucker 7y agoSo if we're not our body, and we're not our feelings (both are as transitory and regenerative as each other), then what are we? How do you define the self that is accountable for this body and these feelings?
- scooble 7y agoI don't have a definition to offer. But that doesn't seem relevant to the truth value of the author's claim. I can be ignorant of the nature of the self but still see that 'we are not our feelings' and 'there is no self' are not the same claim, or that the former implies the latter.