retrofuturist wrote:Greetings Sylvester,Sylvester wrote:This assumes that subject-object modes of perception are inherently misleading.
They are, because they inherently entail an artificial dissection of the two. What there is, is what is present. No need to extrapolate beyond that.
Well, the problem in all these accusations of extrapolation is yours. You foist this on us, like those evangelists who insist that we live in sin, so that they can peddle their soteriological meme. I do not see anyone in here extrapolating anything into the Aggregates beyond the fact that they exist and can be observed as existent, coming to be and passing away. As you put it "What there is, is what is present.".
Sylvester wrote:Nor does the subject-object dichotomy itself get criticised on the grounds that one's contemplation of "arising", "cessation" and "change" in the object are untrustworthy.
It is present experience that changes etc., not the change of "object" observed separately by (an unchanging atta) "subject".
You thinking the suttas teach or promote subject-object modes of perception is your assumption. I do not share it.
And where has any of the naughty svabhavadins in here postulated "an unchanging atta" doing the observation? What you see in the mirror may frighten you, but there's no need to project your ghouls on the rest of the sane.
It's the same silliness peddled by pious Mahayanists that, if they found an antidote to Sarvastivadin "svabhava", the rest of the Buddhist world MUST be labouring under the same error. I suggest you get off your pedestal and come down to the real grunt of praxis, instead of tying yourself up in polemics that do not concern the Theravada.