"Self-preservation instincs" is an idea that in order to be maintained, requires a particular ontology.Alex123 wrote:You could be correct in the above. I think that it is addition to what I've said. Why not both? Self preservation instincts + more intense perception.
Namely, that there is a self, and this self is of such a kind that the weather, physical force, fire, water etc. can damage or extinguish it.
Someone who maintains that that which is subject to aging, illness and death is not fit to be considered "the self"; that that which is impermanent and unsatisfactory is not fit to be considered "the self" - such a person cannot have notions of "self-preservation". Such a person may only have notions of "how to preserve the false ego" or "how to preserve the illusion of self." Self, if there is such a thing, need not attempted to be preserved, because it has an unassailable existence on it own.
If you posit that "biological givens" as understood by modern Western science are more basic and override any specific religious or particular notions, and that all people are essentially the same, regardless of their religion or their spiritual advancement - then you're simply elevating modern Western science to your utmost authority. In which case, why bother with Buddhism.