Philosophia Perennis

Accueil > Tradition tibétaine > Guenther : Being

Kindly Bent to Ease Us

Guenther : Being

Part One : Mind

mardi 20 février 2018, par Cardoso de Castro

honnêteté
honestidade
honesty
honneur
honra
honradez
honor
honour
retitude
retidão

The primary aim of the experience in the Developing and Fulfillment Stages is to pave the way Tao
Dao
la Voie
The Way
for insight into Being Seiende
Seiendes
Seienden
l'étant
étants
ente
entes
sendo
beings
being
as it comes as ’thereness’. This Being is not something and, by implication, also not nothing Nichts
néant
nada
nothing
VOIRE vide
, hence also it is nowhere else than in its ’thereness’. We may note that the word Wort
mot
palavra
palabra
word
Worte
rema
parole
mot
mots
vāk
vāc
’in’ here does not mean that its ’Being’ is in [169] something other than itself, like water eau
água
water
hydro
in a jug, which would turn Being into something. The inadequacy of every language Sprache
língua
langue
lengua
linguagem
language
langage
lenguaje
is most conspicuous in this case.

The most innocuous way Weg
chemin
caminho
way
camino
to point to Being is to speak of it as an ’open dimension’ or ’openness’ (stong-pa). That something ’is there’ (snang-ba) cannot be said to be its fault for ever having come into existence Existenz
existence
exister
existentia
existência
existencia
bios
. ’Thereness’ has never come into existence but just is, and as such is a ’no comment’ fact. The indivisibility of ’openness’ and ’thereness’ lies in their fact of Being, not in the seemingly being-so-and-so of the one L'Un
hen
hén
Uno
the One
or the other. What is there as ’this or that’ certainly has come or is coming into existence in functional correlation, and also goes out of existence, and very much can be said about this. But while things, in their relativity to each other in their being so-and-so and this-or-that, are transitory and relative to each other, their Being is not affected by this their ’being so-and-so’ and ’being this-or-that’. Hence, the fact that all that is is relative to each other, is not itself relative to the fact or absoluteness Absolu
Absoluto
Absolute
Absoluteness
Bhairava
Paramaśiva
of their Being—relativity and absoluteness mean the same.

There has always been the tendency tendance
tendência
tendency
qualité
qualidade
calidad
quality
attribut
atributo
atribute
guna
gunas
to ’absolutize’ Being (as if its ’absoluteness’, its very facticity, needed some ’proof Beweis
démonstration
prova
proof
’ or rationalization). This tendency has always, and inevitably, resulted in the ’relativization’ of Being as being something ’beyond’ or ’behind’ the phenomena which then are ’explained’ as deriving from it, like gastric juice from the stomach. Absolutization, as well as its relativization effect, belong to speculative thought that postulates an ’absolute’, be this a self Selbst
soi-même
Soi
si mesmo
Self
si mismo
A non-personal, all-inclusive awareness.
, or the Self, God Gott
Dieu
Deus
God
Dios
theos
, Spirit esprit
espírito
spirit
mente
mind
manas
mental
or any other invention.

The absoluteness of Being (not its absolutization as something) is identical with the thereness of Being (not of some ’sort’ of being that is either so-and-so or this-and-that), and in this its ’thereness’ it exposes itself to possible judgments (comments, propositions) about itself. Strictly speaking, this self-exposure (thereness) is both self-objectification and self-encounter. The latter is possible only through the former, [170] but ’object sujet
objet
sujeito
objeto
subject
object
Subjekt
Objekt
’ is not the same as ’subject’. How can it be possible for Being to encounter itself, in view of the fact that there is no other ’Being’ that it might encounter, and in view of the fact that encounter is always with some ’other’ ? In other words, ’direct’ self-encounter is impossible, there can only be an ’indirect’ self-encounter, and this at once poses the question Frage
fragen
question
questão
questionner
questionar
pergunta
perguntar
pregunta
preguntar
of what kind is this ’other’ or ’object’ that it can serve as the vehicle of Being’s encounter with itself ? The image image
imagem
imagen
imaginação
imagination
kalpanā
of the mirror comes in handy. Thereness is the mirror in which Being ’mirrors’ itself, and this means richesse
abondance
riqueza
abundância
wealth
prospérité
Artha
moyens
means
meios
—and cannot mean anything else—that the ’mirror’ is not something alien to Being but is, so to say, of its own making so as to serve as a means of presenting itself to itself and, in so doing, ’judging’ (commenting upon, making propositions about) itself.

Any judgment presupposes ’cognitiveness’, which is not something added to Being, but already implied by it. Being, which as Being is said to be utterly open, is, as cognitiveness, termed ’Mind-as-such’ (sems-nyid). Its ’judging’ is termed ’mind’ (sems) which, as should be clear from all that has been said, is not so much an entity but an intentional operation. In this judging process, thereness (snang-ba) is turned into an ’object’ (snang-ba’i yul), an apprehendable something (gzung) to whose solicitation a response (’dzin) in the form of a subjective demand comes forth, first selectively, then discursively. This procedure marks our customary subject-object division discordance
discordância
desagreement
discordancia
inharmonie
desarmonia
divisão
separação
division
séparation
división
separación
esprit-divisé
split-mind
mente-dividida
eu-separado
conflit
conflito
conflict
neikos
impureté
souillure
mala
, which is a way of acting that, because of its subject-object character, is necessarily an ego ego
egoísmo
egoism
egoisme
le moi
le mien
« Je »
-activity. Subject and object are merely poles in a coherent structure Struktur
structure
estrutura
struktural
structural
estrutural
, not independent elements éléments
elementos
elements
stoicheion
stoicheia
or entities that have to be related to each other by devious means.

In one sense, this intentional operation which is termed ’mind’ (sems) is a ’going astray’, a ’getting progressively lost’ in the maze of the fictions of its own making (’khrul-pa). In another sense, it is a loss of or decline (ma-rig-pa) in the lucidity and lucency of the pure cognitiveness (rig-pa) that is ’Mind-as-such’ (sems-nyid). Thus, Mind-as-such is ’cognitive’ [171] in an undimmed light Licht
lumière
luz
light
phos
prakāśa
prakasha
, and operates as ’pristine cognition intellection
intelecção
intelección
cognição
cognición
cognition
mentation
’ (ye-shes) that deals with thereness (snang-ba) as ’pure’ thereness (dag-snang). But ’mind’ is a loss of this lucency and, quite literally, a ’groping in the dark’ (gti-mug), fancying ’what is there’ to be something that it is not—an ’object’ with which it as ’subject’ has to cope—thereby turning ’pure’ thereness into ’impure’ thereness (ma-dag-pai Père
Pai
Padre
Father
Abba
snang-ba).

If we understand verstehen
entendre
comprendre
entender
compreender
comprender
understand
’cognitiveness’ as the operationally of Being—an operationality which is in no way different from the ’openness’ of Being—we can understand the loss and decline in the lucency of cognitiveness as a malfunctioning of the operation of cognitiveness as pristine cognition.


Voir en ligne : KINDLY BENT TO EASE US - I

Un message, un commentaire ?

Qui êtes-vous ?
Votre message

Pour créer des paragraphes, laissez simplement des lignes vides.