Is the World Self or Non-self?

[Guest guest]

Hello Ananda,

 

Thanks for your stimulating response. I'd say that we

both share a respect for the power of enquiry both

discursive and single pointed. I offer a few general

points not as opposed to anything you have been saying

but as part of the general dialectic which might be

fruitful.

 

To attempt a natural history of the object it must

first be noted that the pair subject/object are

relative terms. One implies the other. Shankara does

seem to accept the object as normally understood. He

distinguishes clearly between confusion, dreams and

perception. He does not exactly say what an object is

but that it is. His extremely concise treatment of

perception in B.S.B.II.ii.29 is aimed at showing the

inadequacy of subjective idealism. However there are

remarks that may be built on. "an object and its

knowledge differ" he says. He gives many examples of

concepts and experiences, memories etc. all evoked by

an actual object.

 

Could we say that an object is an open ended thing?

All of our present consciousness is brought to our

awareness of the object in the moment. This would be

the meaning of the saying 'for him who wears shoes the

world is covered in leather'. Complexity/Chaos theory

implies that everything is affecting everything else in

an inter related nexus. The subject/object dyad as

part of the growth of the cosmos can never comprehend

itself fully. The consciousness that would try to

comprehend it is doomed to fail.

 

There is a still point and serious enquiry is a way but

if as the great ones say we are already there an

element of irony must be present.

 

Best Wishes, Michael.