[Buddha-l] there he goes again (sam harris)

[Vicente Gonzalez]

Richard wrote:

RH> I would be happy to refer you to a gaggle of Buddhist epistemologists who
RH> would be glad to explain to you that absence can never be experienced. I
RH> think they are probably right. My intellect is convinced that there are
RH> several billion absences dancing around on my desktop, but I can't seem to
RH> experience any of them. 

we cannot experience any absent thing. However, we can experience
his absence. If we would be unable to experience his absence, then we
would be unable to say "my dog is absent". What we cannot experience
is the absence as if this would be an attribute of the object and
devoid of the same object.
In the same way, suffering is not an attribute of the reality but it
exists because there is a self. Of course, we cannot experience the
absence of suffering as an attribute of the -self and devoid of the
same -self. And from here, we think that in absence of the self, then
there is nobody able to experience nothing at all.

However, note that although there is not a self, it doesn't imply
that there is nothing at all. So it's possible saying "I overcome the
suffering" when the self it's not present. Because the absence of
-self it doesn't imply the talk should be finished. And in the same
way, it's possible the experience of the absence of suffering although
the -self is not present. 
Question would be: The experience of who?. However, it will be not
different of our common situation in where nobody doubt about his
tangibility. Because we can make the same question with our constant
experiences at any time, and we know all the things are working.
I mean; although  a self would not be here, still the dog would be
absent of this room and still a pair of eyes would be seeing this
fact. In the same way, what causes the suffering can be seen without
the existence of suffering.


RH> So I am inclined to suggest that the absence of self that you speak of is
RH> nothing more than a construct of the mind, a tired old dogma dressed up in
RH> the borrowed guise of a noble truth.

yes, all the things are a construct of the mind. But also who is
thinking that suffering cannot be overcome, also he is a construct in
a constant way.



best regards,