art Andrew Ostrovsky
'POSITIVE' is not positive without 'negative', and
'negative' is not negative without 'positive'. Therefore they
can only be two halves of one whole, two conceptual aspects
of one whole that as a whole cannot be conceived
—precisely because it is this which seeks to conceive.
'Being' cannot be without 'non-being', and 'non-
being' cannot not be without 'being'. Therefore they can
only be two conceptual aspects of one whole that as such
cannot be conceived—in which there is neither being nor
non-being as objective existences.
'Appearance' (form) cannot appear without 'void'
(voidness of appearance), and 'void' cannot be voidness of
appearance without 'appearance'. Therefore they must be
two conceptual aspects of what is objectively inconceivable
—as which their identity is absolute in non-objectivity.
'Subject' has no conceptual existence apart from
'object', nor 'object' apart from 'subject'. They, too, are twin
spinning aspects of the inconceivable in which they are
inevitably reunited in mutual negation.
Where there is neither positive nor negative, being
nor non-being, appearance nor void, subject nor object,
there must be identity. But identity cannot perceive itself,
and that is what we are. That is why only he who does not
know can speak, and why he who knows cannot speak
—for what-he-is cannot be an object of what-he-is, and so cannot
be perceived or described.
Positive and negative, being and non-being, appearance
and void, subject and object, can be conceived by us
because, as 'us', mind is divided into subject-conceiving and
object-conceived but, re-identified with what they are, we
are their total objective absence—which is thought of as
pure undivided mind.
No comments:
Post a Comment