It would be trouble if that abstraction was unjustifiably taken to stand for the meaning of the experience in general. If so then the experience would be understood in reverse order: the abstraction taking priority over what has arisen. That is not to say such abstractions are illusory, they arise as well, but should not be accepted as standing for that broader thing from which they were abstracted from.Sam Vara wrote:If someone thinks that their experience is all there is, then abstractions from that experience would not trouble their basic axiom.
In terms of MN1: "From earth he has a percept of earth; having had from earth a percept of earth, he conceives (that to be) earth, he conceives (that to be) in earth, he conceives (that to be apart) from earth, he conceives earth to be ‘Mine’, he relishes earth. Why is that? He has not fully diagnosed it, I say."
...this abstraction seems to equate with conceiving, whereby that conceiving actually stands for percept it is regards to, i.e. not "diagnosed" as conceiving. He thinks that is how things are.
Just what came to mind. Good to see you posting again, Sam.