What, when I am reflecting, I call my self (but not my ego, for which refer to Appendix IV) is the something that on every occasion of change remains unchanged; but since on each occasion it is a different character that remains unchanged, my self is changing perpetually. At any given level of particularity (or down to such level; for the general is implicit in the particular) my self is permanent for an indefinite but not infinite period (in other words, it changes spasmodically or as a step-function); but there is no time when it is not changing at some level or other. It will be seen that consciousness at all levels is self-consciousness, that there is a tacit and transverse structural characteristic to be found in all conscious experience without exception.
My self or nature, at any given level, can be regarded as a kind of field (existing, not representational), and in particular as the field of all possible (or rather, as we shall see, probable) field-changes of the next lower order of generality. But a field-change is a change from one field to another, and this can only happen at the intersection of two fields, which two fields together define the field of next highest order. (Although a second field is the exact contrary of the first and in this is totally determined, there is an infinite number of ways in which the second field can be the exact contrary of the first. I am convinced that this is sugar in that jar on the table; I put some in my tea and taste it, and I become convinced that it is not sugar in the jar. Here the change is determined: if there is to be a change at this level it must be this change. But it is quite undetermined whether I shall eventually be convinced that it is salt, or arsenic, or chalk, or soda, or any other of a multitude of white substances all of which are equally not sugar, that is in the jar. Every change has an essential element of indeterminacy; but indeterminacy, as we shall see later, is essentially an equivocal phenomenon. Appendix VII refers.) Thus my nature, at any level, is a field of field-intersections of lower order (which lower-order fields are themselves fields of field-intersections of still lower order, and so on downwards, approaching but not reaching a limit). And, conversely, the intersection of any two fields of the same order defines my nature down to a certain level. If these fields each combine qualities in the province of the same sense they (at some level) indicate that sense (which at any time is the present orientation of that particular sensual world about the centre of reference 'this' -- 'The eye is that in the world whereby one is a perceiver and a conceiver of the world. The ear... The nose... The tongue... The body is that in the world whereby one is a perceiver and a conceiver of the world.' (Saláyatanasamyutta xii,3)); if these fields each combine qualities in the provinces of different senses they similarly indicate my mind ('The mind is that in the world whereby one is a perceiver and a conceiver of the world.' (Ibid.)). 'There are, friend, these five faculties with various provinces and various pastures, which do not enjoy one another's pasture and province; that is to say, eye-faculty, ear-faculty, nose-faculty, tongue-faculty, body-faculty. The meeting-place of these five faculties with various provinces and various pastures, which do not enjoy one another's pasture and province, is mind; and mind enjoys their pasture and province.' (Majjhimanikáya v,3) (A second illustration of the structure of a field, but on a different level, may be useful. I choose to live only in capital cities. I may stay in one most of the time, but if I leave it I always go direct to another one. Whichever I happen to be in I have the choice of all the others in the world, but I never go anywhere else. Any journey I make (i.e. the intersection of any two subordinate fields -- Madrid-Lisbon, Madrid-Delhi, Tokyo-Athens -- will equally well define the field 'living-in-capital-cities'.)
Back to Sketch - Contents
Back to Ñánavíra Thera Dhamma Page