无央之界论坛

Boundless Space
现在的时间是 2018年 11月 15日 周四 12:13 am

当前时区为 UTC + 8 小时




发表新帖 回复这个主题  [ 2 篇帖子 ] 
作者 内容
帖子发表于 : 2009年 5月 17日 周日 7:29 am 
离线
版主
头像

注册: 2007年 4月 22日 周日 1:56 pm
帖子: 76
I. Time and Space
WE TEND TO misunderstand the nature, and exaggerate
the importance, of 'time' and 'space'.
There are no such 'things' (they do not exist in their
own right): these come into apparent existence, i.e., they
'function' only as a mechanism whereby events, extended
spatially and sequentially, may become cognisable. They
accompany events and render their development realisable.
In themselves they have no existence whatever. They are
appearances, and their apparent existence is deduced from
the events they accompany and render perceptible. They are
hypothetical, like the 'ether', symbols, like algebra, psychic
inferences to aid in the cognisance of the universe we
objectify, and they neither pre-exist, nor survive apart from,
the events they accompany, but are utilised in function of
each such event as it occurs.
Where there is no event there is no need of 'time' or
of 'space'—and in their absence we are no longer in bondage
—for there is no one to believe that he is bound.
Time is only an inference, devised in an effort to
explain growth, development, extension and change, which
constitute a further direction of measurement beyond the
three that we know and at right angles to volume; and 'past',
'present' and 'future' are inferences derived from this
temporal interpretation of the further dimension in which
extension appears to occur. All forms of temporality, therefore,
are conceptual and imagined.
Thus prophecy or precognition is perception from a
further direction of measurement, beyond that of time, a
fourth right angle, wherefrom—as in the case of each superior
dimension—the inferior ones are perceived as a whole, so
that the 'effects' of 'causes' are as evident in what we call
the future as they are in what we call the past.
The event only occurs in the mind of the perceiver
of it, singular or plural as the case may be, and no event
could be anything but a memory when we know it. No event
is anything but a psychic experience. Events, or memories
of events, are objectivisations in consciousness.
2. The Pseudo-Problem of 'Suffering'
WHO IS there to suffer?
Only an object could suffer.
I am not an object (no object could be I), and there
is no I-object nor I-subject, both of which would then be
objects.
Therefore I cannot suffer.
But there appears to be suffering, and its opposite,
both pleasure and pain. They are appearances, but they are
experienced. By whom, by what, are they experienced?
They are apparently experienced, and by means of
an identification of what I am with what I am not, or, if you
prefer, by what we are not, illusorily identified with what
we are.
What we are does not know pain or pleasure, what
we are does not, as such, know anything, for in neither case
is there an objective entity to suffer experience.
Whatever intensity sensations may appear to have,
in the dream of manifestation they are effects of causes in a
time-sequence, and apart from the time-sequence in which
they develop they are not either as cause or as effect.
There is no one to suffer. We appear to suffer as a
result of our illusory identification with a phenomenal object.
Let us at least understand.
What we are is invulnerable and cannot be bound.
3. The Will-Inference
i
THE MECHANISM of living seems to be based on the
notion that what sentient beings do is due to an act of
volition on the part of each such phenomenal object.
It is obvious, however, that they react rather than
act, and that their living is conditioned by instinct, habit,
fashion, and propaganda. Their way of life is primarily a
series of reflexes, which leaves a limited scope for deliberate
and considered action; that is, purposeful action which,
superficially considered, might appear to be the result of
volition, or what is called an act of will.
Nevertheless 'volition' is only an inference, for, search
as we may, we can find no entity to exercise it. All we can
find is an impulse which appears to be an expression of the
notion of 'I'. It would seem to be unjustifiable to assume that
such an impulse could be capable of affecting the inexorable
chain of causation or, alternatively, the process of manifestation
which produces apparent events, unless itself it were
an element of one or of the other.
II
Volition
VOLITION, then, would seem to be an illusory inference,
a mere demonstration on the part of an energised
I-concept, resulting either in frustration or fulfilment and
thereby being the source and explanation of the notion of
karma. Sentient beings are entirely 'lived' as such, as has
often been noted by philosophers and endorsed by metaphysicians,
and the psycho-somatic phenomenon is inexorably
subject to causation. That is why sentient beings as such, as
the Buddha is credited with stating and re-stating in the
Diamond Sutra, are not as entities. That, also, is why, since
as phenomena they are not, noumenally—though they cannot
be as entities or as anything objective—nevertheless, they
are as noumenon.
OPEN SECRET
And noumenon, by definition being integrally devoid
of any trace-element of objectivity, is not, cannot be, in any
sense whatever—since all forms of being must necessarily
be objective. Here language fails us and must be left behind
like the raft that has carried us across the river. All we can
say is something such as 'this, which is all that sentient
beings are, itself is not'.
If this is not understood it will appear unsatisfying
but, understood, it will appear luminous and revelatory, and
for the obvious reason that the understanding is 'itself this
noumenon which we are.
But here the eternal reminder is necessary: phenomena
which, as the term asserts, we appear to be, are nothing
but noumenon, and noumenon, which is all that we are,
though as such itself is not, is as phenomena (as its appearance).
'Volition', therefore, though it is not—is only an
appearance phenomenally—is noumenally and may be
regarded as an objcctivisation of noumenality. As such we
know it as buddhi or prajnd, as intuitional inseeing and,
knowing it, it is ourselves, all that we are, which—in the
knowing of it—we are knowing, for this which we are is this
knowing of it.
All very simple, evidently, until you try to objectify
it in words.
in
Definition of Volition
PERHAPS THE question of volition may be most readily
understood just by asking who there is to exercise volition
and who there is to experience the results of it.
Phenomenally there is an apparent cause, which can
be called ego-volition, and a psychic effect, which may be
fulfilment or which may be frustration.
The effect of conditioned 'volition' is the result of
causes of which the volition is a mediate effect-cause, and
an apparent psycho-somatic apparatus experiences that
effect.
WILL-INTERFERENCE
And as regards that 'volition' which is non-volition,
wu wei or bodhi, the ultimate effect is integration.
In order that there might be volition and the result
of volition there would need to be an entity to exercise the
one and to suffer the other. If it is found that there are no
such entities then no such thing as volition can exist other
than as a concept.
Noumenally there is no volition—because there is
no I.
Phenomenally spontaneity alone is non-volitional.
But by understanding what volition is not, the way
may be found to be open whereby that 'volition' which is
non-volition may liberate us, as apparent objects, from the
bondage which is due to that identification with an objectivisation,
which we have never been, are not, and never
could be.
IV
Observations
LIVING non-volitionally is a contradiction in terms
(unless it implies being 'lived').
Not reacting to events as a result of understanding
this is living non-volitionally (or being 'lived').
Intellectual understanding is a conditioned cause.
Intuitional understanding might be a non-mediate cause.
For cause and effect are divided in Time, but Intemporally
they are one.
4. Saying it Simply
i
ONLY AN OBJECT can suffer, but phenomenally subject
and object, being one whole, spin like a coin so that the
intervals between pile et face (heads and tails) are imperceptible.
Consequently pain, or pleasure, appear to be continual.
Noumenally, on the contrary, there is no object to
suffer pain or pleasure. Noumenon is invulnerable, and
cannot be otherwise. Noumenon is the unmanifested aspect
of what we, sentient beings, are: Phenomenon is our manifestation.
Therefore, manifested, we must suffer pain and
pleasure; unmanifested, we cannot experience either. Both
aspects are permanent and coeval, the one subject to time
(which accompanies all manifestation, rendering the extension
of events perceptible), the other—timeless.
Noumenon—timeless, spaceless, imperceptible being
—is what we are: phenomena—temporal, finite, sensorially
perceptible—are what we appear to be as separate objects.
Phenomena, subject to time, are impermanent, illusory
figments in consciousness, but they are nothing but noumenon
in manifestation, in a dream context (one of several dream
contexts—psychic conditions due to sleep, drugs, asphyxiation,
etc.). Similarly noumenon is nothing; factually, demonstrably,
cognisably (and therefore objectively) is nothing,
that is, no thing, but—apart from—its manifestation as
phenomena.
That is the meaning of the 'mysterious' contradictions
enunciated by the Sages: 'Form is nothing but void, void
is nothing but form', 'Samsara is Nirvana, Nirvana is
Samsara', 'Phenomena and Noumenon are one', etc., etc.
That is why Huang-po can say:
'People neglect the reality of the "illusory" world.'
—Wan Ling Record, p. 106
'On no account make a distinction between the
Absolute and the sentient world.' —p. 130
'Whatever Mind is, so also are phenomena—both are
equally real and partake equally of the Dharma-Nature. He
who receives an intuition of this truth has become a Buddha
and attained to the Dharma.' —p. 111
'All the visible universe is the Buddha.' —p. 107
But quoting Hui-neng he can also say, and often in
the same context:
'There's never been a single thing,
Then where's defiling dust to cling?'
'Full understanding of this must come before they
can enter the way.' —p. m
'Finally remember that from first to last not even
the smallest grain of anything perceptible (graspable, attainable,
tangible) has ever existed or ever will exist.' —p. 127
And lastly:
'On seeing one thing, you see ALL.' (That is, all
perceiving is Buddha-mind, the living-dream is itself
Buddha-mind.) —p. 108
'Hold fast to one principle and all the others are
identical.' —p. 108
What, then, is this one principle?
'Once more, ALL phenomena are basically without
existence, though you cannot now say that they are nonexistent.
. . . Moreover, Mind is not Mind. . . . Form,
too, is not really form. So if I now state that there are no
phenomena and no Original Mind, you will begin to understand
something of the intuitive Dharma silently conveyed
to Mind with Mind. Since phenomena and no-phenomena
are one, there is neither phenomena nor no-phenomena,
and the only possible transmission is to Mind with Mind.'
—p. 106
'Moreover, in thus contemplating the totality, of
phenomena, you are contemplating the totality of Mind.
All these phenomena are intrinsically void and yet this Mind
with which they are identical is no mere nothingness.'
—p. 108
This, chapter 37 of the Wan Ling Record, is probably
the clearest and most valuable statement of the ultimate
OPEN SECRET
truth that we possess. In this he states, as quoted, that in
seeing one thing you see ALL. What is this one thing, and
have we seen it? It surely is just that phenomenon and
noumenon are one. In differentiating between Appearance
and its source, neither of which exist other than conceptually,
we must never forget this 'one thing'—which is that they
are one.
However, if we see this one thing as 'one', we have
not seen it, we have missed it. It is not 'one thing', for a
thing is an object. In fact we can never 'see' it, for here,
this is the seeing that is non-seeing, in which no 'one' is
seeing and no 'thing' is seen as such.
Have we not understood? Can we not perceive
intuitively what this must be? An eye cannot see itself.
That which is sought is the seeker, the looked-for is the
looker, who is not an object. 'One' is a concept, objective
therefore, and 'it' is 'devoid of any trace of objectivity'.
—Huang-po, p. 35
We cannot see (find, grasp, attain, touch) it, because
'we' are not at all objects, nor is 'it' an object, and whatever
'we' are noumenally is what 'it' is noumenally. Thus we are
one—and there is no such object as 'one' in noumenon,
since, as we have just read, there is no such thing (object)
as noumenon either.
This is the non-seeing, by non-seeing which you see
ALL, the one principle with which all others are identical,
the one problem which, solved, solves all others at once,
the centre of centres from which all can be perceived.
11
But phenomenal objects, noumenon in manifestation,
although they are nothing but noumenon, and can know
that, even realise it via their phenomenal psychic mechanism
called 'intelligence' etc., cannot 'live' it in their individual,
space-time, conceptual existence, which is subject to the
temporal and illusory process of causation. Although it is all
that they are—and despite the fact that in it, therefore, they
have nothing to attain, grasp or possess—in order that they
may 'live' it in any sense apart from having objective under-
SAYING IT SIMPLY
standing of what it is, that is, of what they are, they must
de-phenomenalise themselves, disobjectify themselves, disidentify
their subjectivity from its projected phenomenal
selfhood, which is dominated by a concept of 'I'.
This adjustment has been given many names but is
nevertheless not an event or an experience—for, except as
an appearance, there is no object to which such can occur;
it is a metanoesis whereby a figmentary attachment or
identification is found not to exist, nor ever to have existed—
since it is a figment. This displacement of subjectivity is
from apparent object to ultimate subject in which it inheres,
from phenomenon to noumenon, from illusory periphery to
illusory centre (for infinity can have no centre), from supposed
individual to universal Absolute.
This is awakening from the phenomenal dream of
'living', confined within the limits of sensorial perception
and suppositional 'volition', into the impersonal infinitude
of noumenality in which every possible problem of phenomenal
'life' is found to have vanished without leaving
a trace.
5. Geometrically regarded
FROM EACH FURTHER dimension all antecedent dimensions
can be perceived as a whole; for example, cubic space
or volume contains within itself length and breadth (i.e.,
plane surface) and height. Does it not follow that we must
necessarily be seeing volume from a further, a fourth, direction
of measurement, and consequently, that in order to
perceive that, we would need to observe from a fifth?
So we observe the universe of phenomena, which
appears to us in three directions of measurement—length,
width and height—from a fourth direction, which might be
what we know as duration but whose geometrical character
we may only be able to perceive when we develop the
ability to observe from a further direction at right-angles to
those with which we are already familiar.
Phenomenal seeing, then, is normally in three dimensions
observed from a fourth. That is the perceiving of
appearance as volume. It is likely, however, that some
sentient beings only perceive in two dimensions—length and
breadth, or plane surfaces, horizontally or vertically—and
that the third, volume, is an inference of which they are not
conscious, although it is from that that they are looking.
If phenomenality may be equated with tri-dimensional
perception, then may we not assume that the essential
characteristic of noumenality is perception from a further
direction? Should that be so, then—geometrically regarded
—what we term 'Awakening' is waking up to a further field
of vision, that what we term 'Liberation' is freedom from
the limitation of the cubic vision within which we have been
confined, and 'Enlightenment' is the sudden brightness of
a further 'universe' encompassing the three in the limited
darkness of which we have been groping; i.e., that these are
three terms for the displacement of the subject to a centre
from which he can perceive objects in a further, richer, and
more complete perspective.
If this should be so, then those who are 'awakened',
perceiving a further dimension—that one from which we
normally observe and which therefore is ours—are themselves
GEOMETRICALLY REGARDED
perceiving from a still further direction, from a fifth. If,
then, there were any entity to perceive the 'awakened', such
entity would perceive the fifth dimension from a centre in
the sixth.
Here metaphysics may intervene in order to point
out the illusory futility of the purely theoretical notion of a
perpetual regression. There could be no entity, there is only
a perceiv-ing anyhow, and the whole process is phenomenal
interpretation of noumenality. This, then, is within the
illusory science of phenomenality, and may only enable us
to understand the apparent mechanism whereby a phenomenal
object can come to know noumenality.
We know—from the words of the Masters, unless
from our own experience—that 'Awakening' is accompanied
by the immediate, if not simultaneous, abolition of all
phenomenal 'problems'. It is like knocking out the bottom
of a barrel, by which all the confused, and so 'impure',
contents of our phenomenal mind (phenomenal aspect or
reflection of Mind) vanish. Instead of solving problems one
by one, like striking off the heads of a Hydra, which grow
again, all disappear simultaneously and forever (as an effect),
like stabbing the Hydra herself to the heart.
But is not this the exact counterpart of what we have
sought to establish geometrically? We have suggested that a
displacement of the centre of the supposed entity (pseudocentre)
to a further, more profound centre will reveal a
further dimension wherefrom all inferior dimensions are
perceived in a greater perspective. Assuming that this is the
ultimate perspective, or even if it is not, even if there be
perspectives ad infinitum, is this not precisely a description
of the mechanism of what the term 'Awakening' connotes?
6. 'I am Not, but the Universe is my Self
—SHIH-T'OU, A.D. 700-790
Logical Analysis of this Intuition
OBJECTS ARE only known as the result of reactions
of the senses of sentient beings to a variety of stimuli.
These stimuli appear to derive from sources external
to the reagent apparatus, but there is no evidence of this
apart from the reagent apparatus itself.
Objects, therefore, are only a surmise, for they have
no demonstrable existence apart from the subject that
cognises them.
Since that subject itself is not sensorially cognisable
as an object, subject also is only a surmise.
Since the factual existence of neither subject nor
object can be demonstrated, existence is no more than a
conceptual assumption, which, metaphysically, is inacceptable.
There is, therefore, no valid evidence for the existence
of a world external to the consciousness of sentient beings,
which external world is therefore seen to be nothing but the
cognisers of it, that is—sentient beings themselves.
But there can be no factual evidence for the existence
of sentient beings, either as subject or as object, who therefore
are merely a conceptual assumption on the part of the
consciousness in which they are cognised.
It follows that 'consciousness' also can only be a
conceptual assumption without demonstrable existence.
What, then, can this assumption of consciousness
denote? This question can only be answered in metaphysical
terms, according to which consciousness may be regarded
as the manifested aspect of the unmanifested, which is
the nearest it seems possible to go towards expressing in a
concept that which by definition is inconceivable.
I AM NOT, BUT THE UNIVERSE IS MYSELF
Why should this be so? It must be so, because conceptually
cannot have conceptuality for source, but only the
non-conceptual, because that which objectively conceives
must necessarily spring from the objectively non-existent,
the manifested from non-manifestation, for conceptuality
cannot conceive or objectify itself—just as an eye cannot
see itself as an object.
Therefore consciousness can be described as pure
non-conceptuality, which is 'pure' because unstained either
by the conceptual or the non-conceptual, which implies that
there is a total absence of both positive and negative conceptuality.
Not existing as an object, even conceptual, there can
be no 'it', there is no 'thing' to bear a name, no subject is
possible where no object is, and total absence of being is
inevitably implied.
All we can do about this which we are, which to us
must be objectified as 'it' in order that we may speak of it
at all, is to regard 'it' as the noumenon of phenomena, but,
since neither of these exists objectively, phenomenally
regarded it may be understood as the ultimate absence from
which all presence comes to appear.
But consciousness, or 'Mind', does not 'project'—
the phenomenal universe: 'it' IS the phenomenal universe
which is manifested as its self.
Metaphysics, relying on intuition or direct perception,
says no more than this, and points out that no word, be
it the Absolute, the Logos, God, or Tao, can be other than
a concept which as such has no factual validity whatsoever.
This-Which-Is, then, which cannot be subject or
object, which cannot be named or thought, and the realisation
of which is the ultimate awakening, can only be indicated
in such a phrase as that quoted above:
I am not, but the apparent universe is my self.
7. Gone with the Mind
THE PAST IS gone. But the Present has become the
Past before we can know it, i.e. before the complicated
phenomenal processes of sense-perception, transmission
and conception have been completed. Therefore the Present
has gone too.
And the Future? We cannot know it until it has become
the Past—for it can never be known in the Present.
Then how can it be at all, for we cannot know the Past
(which has gone)? Surely we cannot: neither Future,
Present nor Past can we ever know.
How, then, do they exist—if existence they have?
And if any of them exist, which exists? Or do all of them
exist as a unity unextended in time and space, a time and
space which only come into apparent existence with them,
hypothetically, in order to render them cognisable?
Clearly none of them exists as a thing-in-itself, as
objective events in their own right, as phenomena separate
from the cognisers of them.
Future—Present—Past appear to be three illusory
aspects of a single subjective phenomenon known as 'cognition'.

8. The Fasting of the Mind
PHENOMENAL life in an apparent universe is nothing
but objectivisation: all that we know as 'life' is only that
process.
Living, for the ordinary man, is a continual process
of objectifying. From morning till night, and from night
till morning, he never ceases to objectify except in dreamless
sleep. That is what manifestation is, and it is nothing but
that, for when objectifying ceases the objective universe is
no more—as in deep sleep.
But when Ch'an monks 'sit' they seek to empty their
minds, to practise a fasting of the mind, for while the mind
'fasts' there is no more conceptualisation; then no concept
arises, not even an I-concept, and in the absence of an
I-concept the mind is 'pure' (free of objects); then, and only
then, it is itself, what-it-is and as-it-is. When that is permanent
it is objectively called being enlightened, when it is
temporary it can be called samddhi.
In that state of fasting the mind is only 'blank' in so
far as there is a total absence of objects; itself it is not absent
but totally present, then and only then. Nor is 'objectivising'
replaced by 'subjectivising'; both counterparts are absent,
and the subject-object process (whereby subject, objectifying
itself as object, thereby becomes object, which object is
nothing but subject), the 'spinning of the mind', ceases to
operate and dies down. The mind ceases to 'do'; instead, it
'is'.
In the absence of objectivisation the apparent universe
is not, but we are; which is so because what we are is
what the apparent universe is, and what the apparent universe
is—is what we are; dual in presence, non-dual in
absence, sundered only in manifestation.
g. Aren't we all. . . ?
I
HAVE YOU noticed? How many of us, writing our
ideas about Buddhism, even the purest Ch'an, express our
thoughts in such a way that a sentient being is envisaged as
a medium, that is, by inference, having objective existence?
Is this still not so even when the very subject of our thesis is
the non-existence of a self? Indeed, how many of us are
there who do not do this? Let us even ask how many texts
are there in which this is not done or implied?
Yet many of us seem to know that it is not so, that
it cannot be so. Surely we have read the Diamond Sutra,
perhaps many times, in which the Buddha is credited with
having said again and again in varying contexts that there
is no such thing as a 'self, a separate 'individual', a 'being',
or a 'life'? If we have not seen for ourselves that this must
be so, why and how it must be so, would it not be reasonable
to expect that we would provisionally take it on trust from
the lips of the Buddha, and apply it?
Alas, no. It is too hard, too much to ask: conditioning
is too powerful. Yet without that understanding, that basic
understanding, that sine qua non, for what can we hope?
However much else we may have understood, have we in
fact even started on the way—the pathless way that leads
no body from no there to no here? We have no phenomenal
masters, no gurus; our masters, our gurus are immanent.
What a sad, sardonic smile they seem to wear when we look
within!
II
Who done It?
'WHAT did you say?' 'Who are they?', 'Who is writing
all this?' Well, who is reading it? Who is there to do, or
to appear to do, the one or the other? Really, really, what
a question! Who indeed! Why, no one, of course; who
could there be? Surely that is evident, axiomatic, elementary?
From the beginning there has never been a single 'who', as
AREN'T WE ALL
Hui-neng approximately said; 'who', utterly absent
noumenally, is ubiquitous phenomenally.
Whoever asks the question, that is 'who?'
He is the seeker who is the sought, the sought who
is the seeker.
He done it!
10. Utter Absence as Us
DESPITE appearances to the contrary, nothing that is
other than conceptual is done via a sentient being, for a
sentient being objectively is only a phantom, a dream-figure,
nor is anything done via a psycho-somatic apparatus, as
such, other than the production of illusory images and
interpretations, for that also has only an apparent, imagined
or dreamed, existence. All phenomenal 'existence' is
hypothetical. All the characteristics of sentient beings—
form, perceiving, conceiving, willing, knowing (the skandhd
or aggregates)—are figments of mind which 'itself, i.e. as
such, also is hypothetical only.
Each and every action, every movement of each, in the
extension and duration imagined so that they may be sensorially
perceptible (that is, in a framework of space and time)
are dreamed or imagined by a dreamer that has no quality
of selfhood, of objective being—that is to say, by hypothetical
mind.
This hypothetical mind is the Perceiving, Discriminating
Division of mind in its subjective aspect phenomenally
conceived, and the Perceived, Discriminated Division in
its objective aspect, but the perceived is the perceiver, the
discriminated the discriminator, and the subjective and
objective aspects only appear as dual in manifestation. We
are the former: we appear to be the latter, but they are not
two unmanifested.
All that is cognisable is part of the phantasy of living,
all that we can think of as ourselves is an integral part of
this hypothetical universe; sentient beings are totally therein
and in no way or degree apart from it, as they often suppose
when they imagine themselves as instruments whereby the
objective universe is produced, for it is produced not by,
but with them as one of its manifestations.
This is more readily perceived in the case of a dream,
which we can consider when awake, whereas in the living
dream we are still asleep; i.e., 'ourselves' are the dreamed
figures, phenomenal objects of the dreaming subject in the
dream of living.
UTTER ABSENCE AS US
Our dreamed 'selves', autonomous in appearance, as
in life, can be seen in awakened retrospect to be puppets
totally devoid of volitional possibilities of their own. Nor
is the dream in any degree dependent on them except as
elements therein. They, who seem to think that they are
living and acting autonomously, are being dreamed in their
totality, they are being activated as completely and absolutely
as puppets are activated by their puppeteer. Such is our
apparent life, on this apparent earth, in this apparent
universe.
All this which is dreamed is a product of the dreaming
mind, of the subject-object process called 'causation', within
the consciousness in which it occurs; it is integral in consciousness,
it is consciousness itself, and there is nothing else
whatever that i s . But 'consciousness' is only a concept as
such: it is no thing, no object, has no subject therefore. It
can only be indicated as the Unmanifested, and even such
indication can only be a manifestation of the unmanifested.
But these elements in the dream, in either dream,
are not nothing in the sense of annihilation. Viewed 'noumenally'
they are 'something' indeed. They are whatever
their dreamer is, whatever This-Which-Dreams them is,
indeed everything in the dream is the dreamer thereof, and
that, as we have seen, is the subjective aspect of consciousness—
for object is subject, the subject which in-forms it,
which is subsistent to it. Therefore this 'something' which
they are is 'everything': objectively, phenomenally everything,
which, subjectively, noumenally is 'nothing', but
which as 'nothing' is still everything, total absence phenomenally,
which is total presence noumenally. Everything is
nothing, nothing is everything, for neither either is or is not,
and only is-ness is by neither being nor not-being.
It is as the subjective aspect of consciousness (not as the
objectivised aspect) which is all that they can be said to BE,
that sentient beings dream the universe by objectivising it.
11. Echoes— I
THE IDEA of a separate individual, an ego, self or
I-concept, is an object. I become an object—inevitably—
every time I think of my self. Also, every time I act as my
self it is an object that acts.
Once in a while, however, I act directly—but then
no 'I' acts.
'I' am not conscious of anything: never. 'Consciousness'
as such is all that I am.
The Positive Expression
Noumenon is the sub-stance of phenomena, whose
being it is, the being of Noumenon being the being of Being
as such—which is the absence of Non-being.
Void is the sub-stance of Form,
Form is the manifestation of Void.
Again
There is no cogniser apart from the 'thing' cognised;
there is no 'thing' cognised apart from the cogniser of it.
But the 'cogniser' is only an act of cognition (a cognising),
of which the 'thing' cognised is the counterpart.
Therefore the 'cogniser' and the 'cognised' are not
different, 'not two': they can only be the 'function of cognising',
the functional aspect of pure potentiality, which, as
such, has no phenomenal or objective existence apart from
its manifestation as cogniser-and-cognised.
The observer cannot observe the observer.


页首
 用户资料  
 
帖子发表于 : 2011年 7月 4日 周一 8:10 pm 
离线
初来乍到

注册: 2011年 7月 2日 周六 11:28 pm
帖子: 8
——觉悟者Terence Gray是一位爱尔兰贵族和学者,他于晚年(80年代)曾经游历喜玛拉雅地区,并用假名为无为出版了几本重要的着作。和拉玛虚的教导类似,为无为的书也强调深刻理解自由意志和"我"的不存在的重要性。拉玛虚说过他曾经反复阅读过为无为1970年出版的《公开的秘密Open Secret》不下100遍(参见拉玛虚1998年出版的《意识这样写到Consciousness Writes》)。本课程的作者认为,为无为的《公开的秘密》和他1968年出版的《死后的断章Posthumous Pieces》,都是极其精简有力的指向真理的纯粹哲学指示。

在意识课程中看到说拉玛虚曾读过为无为的《公开的秘密》不下100遍,所以很想看看这本书,但查找后发现目前还没有中文版。在这里看到有一部分节录,谢谢楼主的分享。感觉这里会英语的高手不少,不知能否有哪位仁兄愿意翻译一下呢。


页首
 用户资料  
 
显示帖子 :  排序  
发表新帖 回复这个主题  [ 2 篇帖子 ] 

当前时区为 UTC + 8 小时


在线用户

正在浏览此版面的用户:没有注册用户 和 16 位游客


不能 在这个版面发表主题
不能 在这个版面回复主题
不能 在这个版面编辑帖子
不能 在这个版面删除帖子
不能 在这个版面提交附件

查找:
前往 :  
cron
POWERED_BY
简体中文语系由 PHPBB中文翻译小组 维护制作