Greetings Goof,
Goofaholix wrote:For example someone may have a thought about what it must be like to be transgendered based on speculation and imagination and because of this decide it's not for him. If he has never experienced what it is like to be transgendered how can it be considered part of the all?
The thought might involve some mental images in one's mind's eye (which, depending on your definition of 'eye', could be mind-consciousness or eye-consciousness).
The thought might also give rise to the formation of psychosomatic vedana in the region of the skin, in the form of body-consciousness.
It's those fabricated consciousnesses that are actually experienced that fall within the all.
Goofaholix wrote:However skimming back through your posts it appears your definition of "the All" has changed from what has been experienced by the individual sentient being to what can be experienced by sentient beings in general, so perhaps the point is moot.
No, no... it's individual. My all is different to your all.
The above transgender example shows how you might experience certain phenomena within your all, without ever being transgendered.
Either way, I think you've got the idea. I might leave it there, lest I be advised I'm a lost cause, mired in philosophical papanca etc. because I'm not personally satisfied with noting "thinking, thinking", "seeing, seeing" as a method for dealing with sankharas. (I prefer the approach extracted from MN 10, above)
Metta,
Retro.
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."