Guest guest Posted August 11, 2003 Report Share Posted August 11, 2003 Nisargadatta , " Bill Rishel " <plexus@x> wrote: > All objectivity, as such, is unreal - except in that, being integral in > consciousness, it must be a derivative of reality therein. > > It follows that all subjectivity, as such, is real - except when, being > envisaged and so becoming a concept, it is thereby an object, and so - > unreal, which is the process of identification, which produces the > supposition of an ego. > > -Wei Wu Wei No, this doesn't make sense, nor is it experientially valid. Subjectivity is an object, otherwise it couldn't be spoken about. Any quality, any sense of consciousness is an object, otherwise it couldn't be referred to. Experience itself is object, hence we can remember and discuss experience, within which all related objects appear, including the relationship of subject and object. With no object whatsoever, no subject nor subjectivity, no experience being had, no knower, no known, and nothing to speak of. Although verbally it sounds like negation, that's only because it has nothing to do with words, concepts, or something to be communicated -- there's no negation involved. Peace, Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 11, 2003 Report Share Posted August 11, 2003 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " Bill Rishel " <plexus@x> wrote: > > All objectivity, as such, is unreal - except in that, being > integral in > > consciousness, it must be a derivative of reality therein. > > > > It follows that all subjectivity, as such, is real - except when, > being > > envisaged and so becoming a concept, it is thereby an object, and > so - > > unreal, which is the process of identification, which produces the > > supposition of an ego. > > > > -Wei Wu Wei > > No, this doesn't make sense, nor is it experientially valid. > > Subjectivity is an object, otherwise it couldn't be > spoken about. > > Any quality, any sense of consciousness is an object, > otherwise it couldn't be referred to. > > Experience itself is object, hence we can remember and > discuss experience, within which all related objects > appear, including the relationship of subject and object. > > With no object whatsoever, no subject nor subjectivity, > no experience being had, no knower, no known, > and nothing to speak of. > > Although verbally it sounds like negation, that's only because > it has nothing to do with words, concepts, or something > to be communicated -- there's no negation involved. > > Peace, > Dan 'Subjectivity', as a word, or a thought, is an object. Using it is creating an object in order to describe that which is not an object. 'Subjectivity' should never be thought of as any thing. If it is thought of it should be regarded simply as the resolution of the duality subject-object, & be left nameless. The resolution of every duality is nameless, & is that. For no non-duality can be a thing or an object. Once understood, it (subjectivity) should not be thought of at all, nor sought, nor 'looked' at, for it is that We which we, as we, can never see. As a word it is only a pointing finger, rather the pointing of a finger. We must not let it mean anything whatever, but just produce a stimulus, an impulse, pull a trigger, touch off a charge, release an energy in the essential direction. Let us rather call it 'Chih', for the literal meaning of that we may not know.' - Wei Wu Wei 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.