Does the Purusha will?

[Ferenc Ruzsa]

[in reply to Nanda Chandran]

Dear Nanda,

> Even when you say you're "thinking" about something, it's but a succession
> of thoughts about a particular subject and not one single thought about
the
> subject. This is the root, where the Bauddha concept of momentariness
> (ksAnikavAda), flowered from.
I thought that when the tathAgata said "sabbaM dukkhaM, sabbaM aniccaM" (or
"khaNikaM"), his premiss was the temporariness (or momentariness) of youth,
health and life. The doctrine of anattA and, as a consequence, the
momentariness of thought seem to be later refinements.


>I don't think the linkage of "state" to thought, can stand critical
>analysis. Unless, you state the moment of the thought itself is the state.
I am (and have been for a time) *in the state of* thinking, i.e.
entertaining the opinion, that you might be mistaken in this. - Clearly, a
state does not necessarily mean *eternal* state; sometimes it can be so
short that we can call it a momentary state.


Generally I have a feeling that some of our discussion is mainly lexical in
nature: focusing more on words than on the concepts underlying them. My
general position was that salvific knowledge - at least as understood in the
SK - seems to be propositional; and it seems to belong to the puruSa.

Yours,
Ferenc