The Indisputable Self
Premise: I am not what I am aware of; those are objects of awareness. Rather, I am awareness itself.
Lets unpack that. Of what am I aware? Of physical sensations (sight, sound, smell, touch, taste) along with emotions and thoughts. Seven types of sensations: five related to the (purported) external world, and the emotions and thoughts that constitute our inner world.
Sensations are objects of awarenessthey are what we are aware of. More importantly, that is all we are directly aware of. I can be 100% certain I see a color or feel a pain. I can be 100% I have the sensation of seeing water. Those sensations may occur when Im awake or when Im dreaming. The sensations exist; the purported matter behind them may or may not.
We are only directly and certainly aware of sensations. Thus, matter is a theoretical construct. Matter is an idea I use to understand sensation. What we call a coffee mug, for instance, is a bundle of visual and tactile sensations. If I hold the (purported) coffee mug, I feel tactile sensations. And thats all I directly and certainly experience. The coffee mug existing as a material thing is an idea. If I dream that Im drinking a cup of coffee, all the sensations exist, but the material object we call a cup does not. Similarly, in the normal waking state, all the sensations are there, but the material object we call a cup may or may not exist. Representative realism says the cup exists externally as a material object. Berkeleys idealism says only the sensations exist. I say maybe the cup exists externally; maybe not. I dont know. I know it exists as an idea which explains my sensation. Beyond that, I cannot say.
Although the argument and conclusion may seem shocking, it occurs regularly in philosophy. Descartes evil demon; the brain in a vat; the Matrix movie; the universe as a computer simulation; the holographic universeall question or deny an external world consisting of matter.
As an aside, Ill point out that the argument remains essentially unchanged even if we add sensations (intuition or ESP, for example) or subdivide a sensation (for example, divide thought into creative thought, as when writing a novel, and logical insight, as when following a mathematical proof).
But suppose the external world of matter does exist, just as we think of it does when not reflecting philosophically. Its a world of people, buildings, trees, and highways. Which is a world of molecules, which, in turn, is a world of atoms, etc. We currently reach bottom when we get to the General Theory of Relativity and the Standard Model. Even the purported external material world, when we look deeply enough, seems to evaporate in a mist of mathematical abstraction.
Where is that nice, solid external material world? That world that seems so real and stable until we think about it a bit? Row, row, row your boat, gently down the stream. Merrily, merrily, merrily, life is but a dream. Nursery rhyme? Or deep philosophical insight? Or a bit of both?
All I can be certain about is my awareness and my physical, emotional, and mental sensations. The external world is probably there. For day-to-day purposes, I assume that is it. But awareness and sensation are all that I know with certainty exist. To paraphrase Descartes: I am aware of sensation; therefore, I know I exist.
But sensations constantly change. My thoughts and emotions can change in a few minutes. My body changes more slowly, but changes nonetheless. It appears that Imy deepest enduring I, the I that has always been here, my indisputable selfis awareness.
I can speak of my sensations as something I possess; the phrases my body, my feelings, my thoughts make sense. The phrase my awareness does not make sense, because awareness is not something I have. Its not a possession. Rather, its what I am. It is me and I am it. I usually think of myself as a body existing in an external world of matter. Which is fine in the day-to-day world. It works. Theres a moving bus, and Id better not step in front of it or my body may be injured. I may be injured. But in a stricter sense, if we require the I to be enduring, then it appears awareness, consciousness, is the only possible candidate. The body is something I possess; not something I am. More exactly, the body is an idea which represents certain of my physical sensations. The sensations exist; the body is an idea which makes sense of them.
That is the case for the premise I am not what I am aware of; those are objects of awareness. Rather, I am awareness itself. But even if its true, so what?
The answer depends on the reader. One person may find the argument silly or irreverent and dismiss it from mind. I find reflecting on it somehow peaceful and reassuring. Now and then theres a hint of fullness, of the present moment being complete and adequate. Doubts and worries fade. At its height, theres the paradoxical feeling of Ive never felt better about living coupled with If I was going to die the next minute, it wouldnt matter one bit. Fullness. Not a static fulness. Rather, an effervescent fullness. Existence somehow feels like its humming or ringing, like its being continually renewed and recreated, like a water fountains spray is continually recreated moment to moment by the waters movement.
At a height beyond what Ive experienced lies an ecstasy which the mystics describe as supreme, surpassing anything imaginable. It shines with the brightness of 10,000 suns. Critics say the mystics ecstasies have a sexual element; some go so far as to describe the ecstasies as the result of suppressed sexuality. I believe theres a fundamental difference. Belief in material bodies existing in an external material world seems prerequisite for sexuality. In sexual experience, the body is experienced as real. Can the ecstasy of someone who clearly realizes that they consist of awareness, along with a constantly changing stream of physical, emotional, and mental sensations, be genuinely sexual? Perhaps not. Perhaps the ecstasy of the mystic can be described as sexual ecstasy without the sex. It sounds paradoxical. But much that the mystics say is paradoxical. Why? Critics say because the mystics are saying nonsense. Others say its because the mystics are trying to describe a reality for which words fail.
The above argument is my own thoughts, but it does owe a debt to Advaita Vedanta, as presented on YouTube by Swami Sarvapriyananda of the Vedanta Society of New York.
Lets unpack that. Of what am I aware? Of physical sensations (sight, sound, smell, touch, taste) along with emotions and thoughts. Seven types of sensations: five related to the (purported) external world, and the emotions and thoughts that constitute our inner world.
Sensations are objects of awarenessthey are what we are aware of. More importantly, that is all we are directly aware of. I can be 100% certain I see a color or feel a pain. I can be 100% I have the sensation of seeing water. Those sensations may occur when Im awake or when Im dreaming. The sensations exist; the purported matter behind them may or may not.
We are only directly and certainly aware of sensations. Thus, matter is a theoretical construct. Matter is an idea I use to understand sensation. What we call a coffee mug, for instance, is a bundle of visual and tactile sensations. If I hold the (purported) coffee mug, I feel tactile sensations. And thats all I directly and certainly experience. The coffee mug existing as a material thing is an idea. If I dream that Im drinking a cup of coffee, all the sensations exist, but the material object we call a cup does not. Similarly, in the normal waking state, all the sensations are there, but the material object we call a cup may or may not exist. Representative realism says the cup exists externally as a material object. Berkeleys idealism says only the sensations exist. I say maybe the cup exists externally; maybe not. I dont know. I know it exists as an idea which explains my sensation. Beyond that, I cannot say.
Although the argument and conclusion may seem shocking, it occurs regularly in philosophy. Descartes evil demon; the brain in a vat; the Matrix movie; the universe as a computer simulation; the holographic universeall question or deny an external world consisting of matter.
As an aside, Ill point out that the argument remains essentially unchanged even if we add sensations (intuition or ESP, for example) or subdivide a sensation (for example, divide thought into creative thought, as when writing a novel, and logical insight, as when following a mathematical proof).
But suppose the external world of matter does exist, just as we think of it does when not reflecting philosophically. Its a world of people, buildings, trees, and highways. Which is a world of molecules, which, in turn, is a world of atoms, etc. We currently reach bottom when we get to the General Theory of Relativity and the Standard Model. Even the purported external material world, when we look deeply enough, seems to evaporate in a mist of mathematical abstraction.
Where is that nice, solid external material world? That world that seems so real and stable until we think about it a bit? Row, row, row your boat, gently down the stream. Merrily, merrily, merrily, life is but a dream. Nursery rhyme? Or deep philosophical insight? Or a bit of both?
All I can be certain about is my awareness and my physical, emotional, and mental sensations. The external world is probably there. For day-to-day purposes, I assume that is it. But awareness and sensation are all that I know with certainty exist. To paraphrase Descartes: I am aware of sensation; therefore, I know I exist.
But sensations constantly change. My thoughts and emotions can change in a few minutes. My body changes more slowly, but changes nonetheless. It appears that Imy deepest enduring I, the I that has always been here, my indisputable selfis awareness.
I can speak of my sensations as something I possess; the phrases my body, my feelings, my thoughts make sense. The phrase my awareness does not make sense, because awareness is not something I have. Its not a possession. Rather, its what I am. It is me and I am it. I usually think of myself as a body existing in an external world of matter. Which is fine in the day-to-day world. It works. Theres a moving bus, and Id better not step in front of it or my body may be injured. I may be injured. But in a stricter sense, if we require the I to be enduring, then it appears awareness, consciousness, is the only possible candidate. The body is something I possess; not something I am. More exactly, the body is an idea which represents certain of my physical sensations. The sensations exist; the body is an idea which makes sense of them.
That is the case for the premise I am not what I am aware of; those are objects of awareness. Rather, I am awareness itself. But even if its true, so what?
The answer depends on the reader. One person may find the argument silly or irreverent and dismiss it from mind. I find reflecting on it somehow peaceful and reassuring. Now and then theres a hint of fullness, of the present moment being complete and adequate. Doubts and worries fade. At its height, theres the paradoxical feeling of Ive never felt better about living coupled with If I was going to die the next minute, it wouldnt matter one bit. Fullness. Not a static fulness. Rather, an effervescent fullness. Existence somehow feels like its humming or ringing, like its being continually renewed and recreated, like a water fountains spray is continually recreated moment to moment by the waters movement.
At a height beyond what Ive experienced lies an ecstasy which the mystics describe as supreme, surpassing anything imaginable. It shines with the brightness of 10,000 suns. Critics say the mystics ecstasies have a sexual element; some go so far as to describe the ecstasies as the result of suppressed sexuality. I believe theres a fundamental difference. Belief in material bodies existing in an external material world seems prerequisite for sexuality. In sexual experience, the body is experienced as real. Can the ecstasy of someone who clearly realizes that they consist of awareness, along with a constantly changing stream of physical, emotional, and mental sensations, be genuinely sexual? Perhaps not. Perhaps the ecstasy of the mystic can be described as sexual ecstasy without the sex. It sounds paradoxical. But much that the mystics say is paradoxical. Why? Critics say because the mystics are saying nonsense. Others say its because the mystics are trying to describe a reality for which words fail.
The above argument is my own thoughts, but it does owe a debt to Advaita Vedanta, as presented on YouTube by Swami Sarvapriyananda of the Vedanta Society of New York.
Comments (44)
Quoting Art48This paragraph is a different topic, which I have no experience in, so I won't speculate.
It goes beyond what I've personally experience, too.
I'm of a very similar view, probably due to my youthful exposure to Advaita Vedanta and other schools of Asian philosophy. But over the many years since, I've come to realise that it can easily be a shimmering mirage, the proverbial pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. Why? Because in their original context such doctrines and teachings were part of an integrated spiritual culture. There were ways of approaching these teachings, through association with teachers and spiritual movements. Plus the all-important aspect of s?dhan?, spiritual discipline, which is how the transformative understanding of the nature of the psyche (mind or soul) is acquired. When elements of these traditions are extracted from that cultural milieu and presented in books or through talks, that context may not come across, and without it, they loose their meaning, or are easily misunderstood. They're also easily exploited, as the proverbial pot of gold is thought to be the solution to all life's problems, which the unscrupulous can (and often do) exploit to bilk the credulous.
None of this implies disrespect of the actual teachings nor of those who propogate them, just to point out that there's more to it than hearing the catch-phrases, 'I am That' or reading the philosophy. To penetrate the meaning of it, requires insight into the way the psyche is structured according to its conditioning and how it reflexively identifies with the objective and physical domain. That is why all such teachings were originally renunciate in nature, they were propagated by renunciate teachers who lived for the most part lives of extreme austerity. The well-known Vedantic sage Ramana Maharishi was so completely indifferent to his own body that he would have starved to death had not nearby villagers noticed him and started to provide him with nourishment.
I don't want to over-state that, I think it's quite possible to learn and benefit from Vedanta philosophy in modern culture, but reading about it or understanding on a verbal level is only one part of the picture - as I'm sure the Vedanta Society itself would say, if one were to attend their talks. Such teachings really are 'philosophy as a way of life'. Contemporary culture is generally lacking in that kind of understanding and has no way of making sense of its claims, but on the positive side, at least it provides a social framework within which they can be taught and practiced.
(Incidentally, thanks for the reminder about Vedanta Society. I knew they existed, but just now checked their site, and Swami Sarvapriyananda is indeed a wonderful speaker.)
Each person has a sleeping volcano of energy at the base of their spine.
To open it so it flows upward through the different aspects of our being (survival, sexual, social, compassion, wisdom, etc) is both possible and a mystery.
It is the flow of energy, thus will not be directly observable under a microscope or such.
This is within all, not just Hindus or meditators.
Dare we release the volcano and become pure energy?
I have the eclectic attitude that if something is true, then it's true regardless of context. If natives believe the bark of a certain tree can cure headaches and have folk beliefs about why the tree does so, that doesn't prevent scientists from extracting the active ingredient and synthesizing it as aspirin.
A human is so much more than that. Being aware is so passive.
Yeah. Besides, I'm generally not all that impressed with human awareness. It's pretty hit and miss.
There are other factors involved in this case, and a bigger margin of error.
Saying that one can feel tactile sensations is a bit like saying that one can feel feelings or sense sensations. Its a kind of question-begging. It appears to be a common move among species of idealisms, for some reason.
It consists in erasing the object (the coffee mug), duplicating the verb or some other aspect of the subject, reifying it, disguising it with equivocation, and placing it into the object position. With this the idealist can avoid the perils of grammar which reveal he never has an object in his predicate.
It's not that clear to me what the OP is seeking. But I'll take this as my starting point: Quoting Art48
I choose the coffee mug I want from the several in the draw, I put it on the bench, make the coffee and then pour the coffee into the mug. I carry the mug out to my cahir, place it in the coffee table next to me. i wait for it's contents to cool somewhat, a preference acquired from teaching. Then I will hold it and sip, slowly. Later I will carry it out to the dish washer, place it on the middle shelf. After cleaning I return it to the draw.
While these steps involve sensation, it's clear that the coffee mug is different to the draw, to the saucepan in which I make the coffee, to the bench and the table, and to the dish washer. Further there is more to each than how they look and feel; there is a profound difference between what I do with each. Further still, that the mug is a mug and not a cup or a spoon or a glass concerns what is done with it. Consider the distinction between a drinking cup and a measuring cup.
What constitutes the mug is far more than just the associated visual and tactile sensations; "the mug" is far more complex than just that. We can take a similar view to the nature of the self. That's the attitude found in Psychology, where the notion of self has never quite been settled.
I'm not saying that Art's suggestion is wrong - of course the mug is a bundle of sensations*. But that is only part of the story.
Another thread in the OP is the ubiquitous notion that the only thing of which we can be certain are our sensations. I don't agree with that, and I'm confident that others will only agree with it,a s Art themselves suggests, while writing posts for TPF. Their certainty will return as they push the "Post Comment" button, setting aside any doubts they may have about the existence of their screen, the internet, and the many folk who will lap up their words of wisdom. Doubt only takes place against a background of certainty, it is part of a frame in which we are confident. And there is far more to this frame than just the things we sense.
My own meditative practices had a somewhat different outcome. I glimpsed the ecstasy of which Art speaks, and have no doubts of its attractiveness. This is presumably what draws those who continue to meditate in to the habit, a conviction that the meditative state allows access to a higher reality, or some such story. those who meditate see the experience as real. But what of those who do not continue with meditative practice? I found the experience more a removal from reality, similar to other experiences that were chemically induced. The salient point here is that our experiences are not always real - as idealists themselves are prone to point out. That the ecstasy is experienced as reality does not imply that it is indeed reality.
There's much more that could be said, and a literature of considerations that mitigate against the ubiquitous idealism of the philosophical novice. Unfortunately in these fora the arguments rarely get a start. It's good to keep in mind that despite their having differing opinions on almost everything, professional philosophers are overwhelmingly realist with regard to the existence of the world around us.
Of course, whatever gets you through the night, but this is a philosophy forum, and part of that is taking a critical eye to what is said here. While Art is welcome their view, I'll not appologies for critiquing it.
* Even that is not quite right. The sensations are also spoken of as of the cup, not as constituting it.
On the OP, who knows? This is just one of dozens of unresolvable threads asking what is really real and what an awareness of awareness is.
Not everyone is equally excited by such speculative ventures.
Is our role here to agree or identify an alternative? Or is it to find something more useful to do?
My comment was about the nature of awareness. I am a conscious creature (I think) I find consciousness or the self to be a fairly unremarkable experience, it is flawed and wavering, affected by everything from the weather to sleep patterns, fades with age and as felt by me, seems to be a physical process. As to whether awareness is separate (the way a radio might be separate to the network it broadcasts) who can say? Is this perhaps the result of confusions in language; how would we demonstrated it and how does it matter?
It seems to me that many people seize on the unresolvable question of what is really real because it still seems to offers them the kinds of gaps they need in which to locate their 'supernatural' beliefs. But the question remains, if idealism is true, who cares? It would make no difference to how I live, since the 'illusions' of physicality and realism place inviolable constraints on us all - whether you are Mick Jagger or the Dali Lama.
I just meant it sounded like you'd found a type of awareness that is more impressive than the human kind.
Quoting Banno
Ill go along with that, but it gets a bit tricky when we try to parse terms like real and exist. For instance, Is the existence of the world absolutely or only relatively real?
It follows that your emotions, thoughts, and inner world are not you.
The idea is to determine what about me is enduring (or, at least, relatively enduring). Thoughts and emotions change in a second. The body changes slower but changes nonetheless. Awareness seems to be the only possible candidate for an enduring, relatively unchanging self.
Good point. The only candidate for our permanent, enduring self is our awareness. But we also have a relative self. When someone says something about me, they usually refer to my thoughts, emotions, body, profession, family, nationality, etc.
The problem is, so far as science knows, awareness is dependent on the body. If the body dies it looses awareness of all kinds. Philosophically speaking the case has to be made that something about awareness transcends the physical body.
Incidentally it is just this claim of the changelessness of the self that is denied by the Buddha.
Your teeth, as I understand from a peripheral interest in Archaeology.
It is not clear that endurance is a suitable criteria for aspects of self. Why shouldn't self be ephemeral? That seems to fit the facts.
That is the Aristotelian view. The supposition of eternal agents in De Anima 3 is distinguished from memory that permits the activity of a person who endures through time for a bit to be experienced.
Ok. Is it the right view?
I think it is a helpful perspective but not a last word or the results of a complete system.
That might be painful.
:grin:
To which end, hereunder a recent lecture by Swami Sarvapriyananda, who is the current director of the Vedanta Society, mentioned in the OP. I find him a very charming lecturer, and he seems knowledgeable of philosophy both Eastern and Western (notice he quotes David Hume in the first couple of minutes of this lecture.)
Quoting Wayfarer
In the above lecture, this objection is answered at 38:00 (with explicit reference to 'the hard problem of consciousness').
The lecturer I had in Indian Philosophy used to say that in the West, when someone dies, we say 'he's given up the ghost'. In the East, when someone dies, they say 'he's given up the body'.
Thanks for sharing that. :smile:
Im still absorbing the first 20 minutes dont want to go too fast and get mental indigestion. :yum:
Awareness without emotions, thoughts, or inner world?
adheres to the notions of Moksha/Nirvana (in the sense of parinirvana, or nirvana without remainder).
The issue that I find is, according to such doctrines, to my understanding there is no I-ness (ego in this sense) involved in this state of pure, cosmic or else boundless, etc., awareness; I-ness requires a duality between awareness and that which it is aware ofsuch that this duality defines the Iand this duality is absent in the soteriological state of being just specified. As far as I can best currently discern, Hinduism considers this pure awareness the true self whereas Buddhism considers it non-self (which I find relative to how the term self gets understood) but both these expressions seem to me to address the same notion of a pure awareness devoid of I-ness in which samsura is done away with in full. Which, until the time Moksha/Nirvana (without remainder) is attained, remains a bounded subject of awareness, bounded to the objects of its awareness it is perpetually dualistically defined by as an I/ego/consciousness.
The main point being, even though it is deemed quintessential to the occurrence of I-ness/ego/consciousness (none can occur in the complete absence of awareness, of which pure awareness consists), the state of pure awareness that is deemed the highest goal does not define any one I/ego or any set of these (again, it is perfectly nonegoic and hence devoid of any I-ness).
Hence, statements such as that of I am pure awareness aregiven the aforementioned interpretationsfalse by default: an I can only be an awareness bounded in a dynamic duality to objects of awareness that are not-I and, hence, cannot ever be pure awareness (that is thereby devoid of motivating emotions, thoughts to contemplate, or else inner worlds which would otherwise pertain to itas well as help define the egoic self in total).
Or, in Kantian terms, the awareness of which any I is in part constituted can be aligned to the Kantian transcendental ego, whereas the I-ness which knows itself via its objects of awareness would be the empirical ego. Terms such as "ego" can be applied differently and so hold slightly different meanings. Still, the occurrence of the transcendental ego in the absence of empirical ego can be argued to transcend any sense of egoic being whatsoeverwhile yet here being hypothesized to be.
With a nod to @Art48 I get how slippery language can sometime be. I so far would find it preferable to state something along the lines of "my true self is awareness itself, or pure awareness" such that this true self pertains to the I which I am as the core aspect of my being, without which I can in no way be. However, while I might aspire to become my true self (or, else, "to stay true/aligned to my fundamental self"), the I which I am does not, and can never, equate to the true self of pure awareness on which its being as an ego is contingent. For the true self here addressed is egoless and, hence, devoid of I-ness. Well, all this being an interpretation from what I deem to be a Hindu-like perspective regarding the matter.
Quoting javra
I think if these principles are reduced to words, then there's a risk of them loosing their meaning. Indian philosophies are s?dhan?, spiritual disciplines, ways of being. There are parallels to that in the recent re-discovery of the practice of stocism and Pierre Hadot's 'philosophy as a way of life'. I don't want to come across all holier-than-thou, I have mainly failed to bring any form of s?dhan? to fruition, although at least I learned from the effort that there is more to it than words.
Not to be rude, but Im not yet clear on what you intended to convey through your post.
Are you, for example, suggesting that Ive reduced these philosophical principles to words by talking about them on a philosophy forum, thereby depriving them of meaning? Or that one should not converse about Indian principles in general? If all those who hold respect for these and similar principles were to cease talking about them, would this then not mainly leave these principles open to ridicule by those who hold no respect for them, thereby steadily eradicating the ways of life/being they however imperfectly or indirectly establish? All the same, I might cease all talk of these principles on this forum if that's what's being requested.
If however you feel my statements, including that quoted, are erroneous in so far as not being in keeping with these principles, I for one would like to better understand why - for I so far would not find agreement in this view.
No, not you, just a general observation. Your statements are not at all erroneous, they're very accurate. I'm commenting on general tendency to try and understand these kinds of philosophies through verbal abstractions, that's all.
[quote=Ananda Sutta; https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn44/sn44.010.than.html]Then the wanderer Vacchagotta went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, exchanged courteous greetings with him. After an exchange of friendly greetings & courtesies, he sat to one side. As he was sitting there he asked the Blessed One: "Now then, Venerable Gotama, is there a self?"
When this was said, the Blessed One was silent.
"Then is there no self?"
A second time, the Blessed One was silent.
Then Vacchagotta the wanderer got up from his seat and left.
Then, not long after Vacchagotta the wanderer had left, Ven. Ananda said to the Blessed One, "Why, lord, did the Blessed One not answer when asked a question by Vacchagotta the wanderer?"
"Ananda, if I being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is a self were to answer that there is a self, that would be conforming with those brahmans & contemplatives who are exponents of eternalism [the view that there is an eternal, unchanging soul]. If I being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is no self were to answer that there is no self, that would be conforming with those brahmans & contemplatives who are exponents of annihilationism [the view that death is the annihilation of consciousness]. If I being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is a self were to answer that there is a self, would that be in keeping with the arising of knowledge that all phenomena are not-self?"
"No, lord."
"And if I being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is no self were to answer that there is no self, the bewildered Vacchagotta would become even more bewildered: 'Does the self I used to have now not exist?'"[/quote]
Vachagotta is a character who appears in several of the Buddhist texts and who asks philosophical questions - whether the soul and body are one, whether the world began to exist, whether the Buddha continues to exist after death. Such questions are generally classed as unanswerable or inadmissible (this is where the 'no metaphysics' reputation of the Buddha comes from.) Vaccha represents philosophical perplexity. In the end, though, as described in another of the dialogues, his doubts are overcome and he takes refuge in the Sangha.
I interpret the refusal to answer the question with a straight-out yes or no as a recognition that there is something that Vacchagotta has to understand or gain insight into, that he doesn't yet see, such that either answer will be misleading to him. (This brief verse, by the way, is said by many to be the origin of the Madhyamaka philosophy of Buddhism.)
Got it. Thanks for the clarification. :pray:
Quoting Wayfarer
Quoting Wayfarer
To second you're later affirmation, to me its not so much the verbal abstractions which words conjure but the absence of adequate, preestablished meanings/abstractions in the languages of western cultures required to gain an accurate understanding of what these Indian philosophies in large part consist of. As Im sure youre aware of, the Indian notion of sunyata doesnt translate very well: that everything is nothingness/emptiness makes no sense to the typical western ear. As those English speakers who now understand what the word zeitgeist signifies may comprehend, mere word usage is often not sufficient to get the point across, often requiring a gestalt shift in perspectives before certain words can be accurately understood. But then, were more or less stuck with the use of words already commonly understood to convey meaning which, coming full circle, and as you state, explains why the Buddha answered via silence rather than via use of yes/no. :smile:
:100: That's all I was getting at. Sorry if I came off as self-righteous.