retrofuturist wrote:Greetings,
I'm not convinced that it's apt to regard "eye & forms" as a subject-object duality. I would have thought "subject" implies a being ~ an entity, a puggala, an atman, a satta, or at least the perception thereof... thus, in this sense the subject would be asmi-mana (i.e. the "I am" conceit).Sylvester wrote:subject-object duality...
Taking my definition (which you're welcome to disagree with), the arahant does transcend the subject-object duality through the eradication of asmi-mana.
Metta,
Retro.
Don't worry Retro. It's just a definitional issue. Hamilton defines subject-object in a way that acknowledge your concerns. How she defines the dichotomy, if I understand her correctly, is that there is the object and there is the experience of it, ie the Aggregates. It's an unbridgeable divide.
On the other hand, I'm not too convinced that this duality is such that it does not allow some form of knowledge that is accurate and useful enough for liberation. She has a heavy-duty analysis of DN 15's analysis of the 2 types of contact (like your fav Ven Nanavira and Ven Nanananda) but does not deal with the "sphere of wisdom" promised by that sutta in relation to "designation contact". I wonder why?
It's interesting that Spiny raises Ven T's not-self strategy. Hamilton is also an advocate of such a reading, even going to the extent of challenging Norman's translation of MN 22 on a key term that is traditionally cited as proof that the Buddha did teach No-Self. My Pali is not good enough to comment if her critique is valid.