XPost: alt.buddha.short.fat.guy
From: tanghuyen@gmail.com
On 8/14/2015 3:26 PM, brian mitchell wrote:
> I'm interested to know exactly where you place this
> dividing line between subjective and objective.
> Which side is consciousness on?
>
[snip]
>
> If we're going to refrain from judging whether a thing
> is real or unreal, we can only speak in terms of
> appearances; that which consciousness mediates. What
> are the marks of objectivity or subjectivity within
> appearance?
<>
<>
<>
The last passage might be emended: "it is impossible to
know absence of self as such (namely, as absence of self)
because to do so would require being outside, or other
than, oneself, which happens to be just then absent." In
act, the absence of self cannot be aware of itself as
such, namely as absence of self, but later, in
self-reflection, one can recognise that one was in a state
where the self is absent (ditto with: the compositions
are absent, mental proliferation is absent), and one can
reveal such a state to others, if they want to duplicate
it. However, I say so based on repetition, not on direct
personal knowledge of any kind. I speak strictly on self,
the compositions, mental proliferation, all of which being
present in me. What I say is a fabrication, an artifice, a
cognitive mechanism, a synthetic/analytic convenience,
learnt by rote, fragmented, deprived of any wholeness.
With such a qualification, I would emend "in wholeness of
attention, there is only that" to: in wholeness of
attention, there is attention to the field of experience,
uncarved and intact, but what it is, one does not know
and only cognises in the raw. Contrariwise, if one was to
know, one would only know by pieces, as in the normal,
divided state. Dividing lines would come in here.
Tang Huyen
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
