| | Tarin, I think you're on the right track. In context of this write-up, try to think about each piece of linguistic representation as a "form" or as a concept. So "fruition" is a concept, a form, and represented by language. Can the no-experience blink-out of fruition "contain" form? Negative. If you can conceptualize it, give it names, speak of it, it cannot be the no-experience (pure emptiness). Saying that "pure emptiness" is irrelevant is a very relevant thought-- it implies that everything must be form. If everything is form, including the subject (a language representation, thus a form), then you have seen through duality.
What is the subject or awareness? It is also a compounded entity, completely empty, causal and ephemeral. Pay close attention to the actual "sound" of a sound (not the thought-echo), the thought-echo of the sound (representation of the "raw" sound) and the implied space that permeates the investigation. These are key in creating a "subject," but they are all "object."
And although you are a crazy, it's not because you think form contains infinite possibilities ;].
Jackson, interesting, isnt it! I basically ignored fruition for a long time because I had no conceptual framework to work from; I had no idea what it was! And since the damn thing literally is indicative of "nothing," it was hard to infer much without the reference! Makes me marvel how maps originally evolved and how the Buddha and his buddies realized the gravity of all these experiences. |