Hi Ham, On Jul 27, 2011, at 12:27 PM, Ham Priday wrote:
> > Dear Marsha -- > > > When you posted this at noon yesterday, I was recovering from a short illness > and did not feel up to commenting on this Buddhist instruction. I'm much > better today, so I'll give it a try. I am happy to hear you are feeling better, and sorry you were ill. > >> Hello again Ham, >> >> If you will forgive me for quoting from Miri Albahari's book, here's >> the crux of the issue: "... Awareness purports to exist as a witnessing >> presence that is unified, unbroken and yet elusive to direct observation. >> As something whose phenomenology purports to be unborrowed from >> objects of consciousness, awareness, if it exists, must exist as _ >> completely unconstructed_ by the content of any perspectivally ownable >> objects such as thoughts, emotions or perceptions. If _apparent_ >> awareness, perhaps by virtue of one or more of its defining features >> (that form part of its content or 'aboutness'), turned out to owe its >> existence to such object-content rather than to (unconstructed) _ >> awareness itself_, then that would render awareness constructed and >> illusory and hence lacking in independent reality..." >> (Albahari, Miri, 'The Two-tiered Illusion of Self', P.162) >> >> >> There! > > Ham: > "There!", as in take that? Marsha: No, no, no. I meant there as in "There! This is the definition/investigation I wanted to share." It was then fresh in my mind. > Ham: > Just what am I to make of this analysis, Marsha, starting with "Awareness > purports to exist" -- "something whose phenomenology purports to be > unborrowed from objects"? > I would say first that awareness doesn't "purport" anything; it makes no > claim or intention on objective being and has no need to be "constructed". > It's your intellect that does the constructing and demands "object-content". > What Albahari seems to be saying in his conclusion is that awareness IS an > independent reality BECAUSE it's not formed or constructed from objective > beingness. Marsha: Not constructed, so not illusion. But not bounded as an inherently existing self either. > Ham: > So there! Marsha: Aaaaw. And I was thinking maybe this was something we could share as common ground. >> Marsha: >> I have mentioned before that I can identify with some of your statements >> about 'self', mainly because of this witnessing capacity. To me, freedom, >> too, is in this kind of presence: witnessing/mindfulness. I cannot identify >> the >> flow of "thoughts, emotions or perceptions" with an independent self, but >> what of this witnessing experience? What of this intimate awareness? - >> But this book is dense and complex, with lots to think about, and I will >> need to read it again, but it seems to be on the right trail. > > Ham: > The notion that there is no self is an artificially-contrived theory that > serves two purposes: > > 1) For the objective empiricist, it supports the view that the conscious > mind is a product of biological evolution and is entirely accounted for by > electro-chemical changes in the brain and nervous system. > > 2) For the Zen mystic (or pantheist) who is persuaded that reality can have > no other form that Oneness, it avoids the paradox of "otherness" that a > subjective agent creates. > > Quite frankly, Marsha, it is my opinion that you have adopted this principle > from one or both of the above arguments, and that you have lately come to > suspect that a universe with no sensible agent is meaningless. If, I'm > right, you are beginning to think for yourself, which will ultimately resolve > your quandary. Marsha: No, I have not adopted a theory. More like I'm looking for a way to make sense and explain of my experience. On investigation I can find no autonomous self. I experience only a broken stream of pattern pieces. My 'sense of self' seems but a pattern too, not real. But what of this awareness. This is a little more tricky. - The book is difficult, and I will need to give it a second reading to make better sense of it and how it might fit within the MoQ. >> I hope you are well. > > This concern for my health was prescient ...or maybe you're clairvoyent! In > fact, I was suffering abdominal pain and shortness of breath on Sunday > morning. When the common remedies didn't work, and my condition grew worse, > my wife drove me to the local hospital ER where after submitting to x-rays, > cardiac scans, and other tests, I was diagnosed with an impacted colon. They > registered me in a hospital room where I spent a sleepless night attached to > an IV and saturated with Miralax while vainly trying to find a comfortable > position. Only after consuming some solid food (oatmeal) Monday morning did > the symptoms ease enough to allow me to breathe more freely, and with Rose's > help (she volunteers at this hospital) I was able to negotiate a discharge > that afternoon. > > Anyway, thanks for your concern, Marsha. I hope I've put the Self in a more > sensible framework than your author did. I missed you Ham. > > Best wishes, > Ham Marsha ___ Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org/md/archives.html
