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

[Vicente Gonzalez]

Michel wrote:

MC> Which raises the question: are you actually experiencing the absence  
MC> of your dog or are you experiencing the mental activity that is deciding that
MC> there is no dog in the immediate surroundings?

I think it's the same. When we experience the presence of the dog,
also we are experiencing the mental activity which decides that there
is a dog.
We establish what is real in dependence of satisfying our need to
experience what is real. I'm quite sure there are thousand of
scientific data about this.

MC> The  question, then, is whether the experience of the absence of
MC> suffering is an experience of an x (absently) "out there" or
MC> whether it is an  experience of a mental construct. And the
MC> experience of the absence of a self? My money is  on the
MC> mental construct.

I agree. There is a construct which is suffering, and it exist because
there another construct called -self which construct that. Then here,
we ask "It's possible the experience of the overcoming of suffering?".

Well, so it is the same case when a dog is present in the room but
later he is absent and this experience exists.
Problem is; Who sustain the experience of the absence of the -self if
there is not a -self to do that?.
But why the is need of such question if there is nobody to make
questions?. The experience exists and that's all. We cannot deny the
experience in the same way that we cannot say that all the things of
this world they will disappear after our death.
It is the same case. I think

MC> But then, I am just mentally constructifying . . .

I too.


best regards,