Pillsbury Reduced Sugar Frosting

6.5 Release 6.4 Nature and subjectivity

not clarified the materiality of the top 20 principles should also dwell on the principles thinner, intellect, sense of self and mind. The mind (manas) in Indian philosophy indicates the internal sense, that by which we take such pleasure or pain. In Sankhya, in particular, has an ambivalent status, but is also a right action, right in the sense that coordination of action, acting as a conduit for the intellect. All this means that the Purusha, while pure consciousness (or rather, precisely because of this) literally does not think in the sense of producing thoughts. He is, come già detto, intrinsecamente in quiete e quindi non produce nuovi pensieri, è invece coscienza limpida, testimone (sākṣin) di quanto accade in prakṛti, nel suo aspetto psichico e fisico. La pluralità dei puruṣa non corrisponde perciò a un loro essere soggettivamente diversi. Ciascuno dei puruṣa non è che pura coscienza. Quindi, tutto quanto noi generalmente leghiamo alla soggettività e all'attività cosciente è invece, secondo il Sāṅkhya, parte di prakṛti. Ricordo in proposito che la caratteristica di prakṛti èl'attività e la generatività; è prodotto di prakṛti, quindi, anche la generazione di nuovi pensieri. Di conseguenza, il discernment (adhyavasāya) is just the most subtle of principles, Buddhi, in which there is still a subjectivism. This acts as a (false) notion of an ego (abhimāna) in the step immediately following that of ahankara. Then comes the coordination of sensory data, typical of manas. How can however be aware of the Purusha experiences that can be enjoyed with Prakriti? Although not the same as on Prakriti, the dilemma is the relationship between simileall'impasse Cartesian mind and body. If there is no link between puruṣae buddhi / ahankara / manas, what is conscious Purusha? SK 21 is not the answer sufficient, because in fact the Purusha is not only lame, it is also blind and has to borrow from Prakriti the eyes to see the world. His is only the ability to be conscious of what he sees. In contemporary terms, Prakriti provides sensitive data already processed from the external senses, by manas and buddhi, like a computer that would transform the image of a vase of flowers in the corresponding neuronal electrical stimulation. But only a conscious subject can then be conscious to know that information, so the physical structure of the brain alone is not sufficient to explain the flowering of consciousness. Texts sankhya after Yuktidīpikā (which however is already aware of issue) describes the relationship between Purusha and cognitive faculties through the metaphor of a mirror. Purusha is the mirror of consciousness as developed by Buddha. It is not therefore participate in the activity of acquiring and processing of sensitive data. But it can receive, being itself a mirror that is more than an ordinary mirror, aware of how self-reflection.