A response to Maria Tonella on the Facebook page associated with Ngawang Chodron, Friday, August 25th, 2023.
Well if the minds of “others” are not known, then it is possible that there is an externalization/projection of”our” idea of “we” outward that assumes the characteristic and behaviors of “others” included in “we” (this is in part the whole argument behind n-liberation [e.g., women’s liberation]).
This is called externalization in sociological literature, and projection in psychological literature. It may then lead to objectivation in sociological literature, and schema formation in psychological literature. This then proceeds to internalization in both sociological and psychological literature. What was once externalized as “we are”, becomes productized1 in language’s signs, icons, and indexes (i.e., semiotics) and “develops a life of its own” (which is quite a stretch, but is good enough to get the point across).
Unfortunately this might tokenize individuals that do not have a voice to say, “it’s not self, it’s not mine”. It might tokenize through thinking buddha dhamma doesn’t apply to situations where “it’s us, it’s ours” has become the soup de jour because the language of the prior turning didn’t say that (e.g., the dark times). Yet in the next turning it had been explained so, because dominant forms (e.g., culture, groups) tokenizing the remainder left one thing out—the token did not become realized, but evaporated the remainder of extension to self-view, permanence-view, and its prompting to attachment, and aversion by seeing the exponentiation of self-view, and permanence-view in its permutation to selves-view, and permanences-view. And thus the noble search will, is, and had continued—”until they themselves know”.
When observing and analyzing with direct perception, it is apparent, not to I, nor you, nor we, nor they, that knowing (i.e., the characteristic of the 4 heaps sans first), is already liberated. The ideology externalized, objectivated, and subject to internalization that it is not liberated, is grounded in perception (the third heap) mischaracterizing this as “my” knowing, and by extension “our” knowing. It’s just knowing, and there, like Ngawang mentions in another video is just effluence, a mere re-emittance of the incense stick while the smoke drifts away on the breeze. Its emittance is merely the remainder flavored by the order of its accumulations and order of its uprooting of various defilements. What remains is as a hologram, of what once, was. Yet this too is subject to potential “we-ing”, and “I-ing”, and that is the work of realizing that vehicles of dense regions of samsara, are too, not self, not ours, not them, not theirs, and most certainly not a brand’s.
In final form, “nobody knows,” is a discussion about the non-existence of things, and this is covered by limitless buddhas. The topic of existence or non-existence of things is unsuitable for discussion. Therefore this curious “we-ing” language that has obscured the dhamma is nothing more than a curious excuse for “I-ing” language that has obscured the dhamma, and that is nothing more than a curious excuse for… and each turning resolves the language (of perception, the third heap), in its evolution through either insight or language contact.
That said, when really piercing this reality, it suddenly demonstrates an atemporality, and aspatiality of [redacted].
For the benefit of limitless beings, and liberation from the bondage of fixed-view(s), and the volition effluent in its wake—there is samsara, and it is not mine, it is not ours—it is beyond ownership—spontaneously liberated.
Notes
1 It has become apparent that objectivation (see Berger & Luckmann, 1966) is simply a matter of the central limit theorem and law of large numbers.
References
Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1966). The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. Anchor Books.