Brilliant rendition of the paradoxes inherent in how we typically think of ourselves.
Saunsea really shows the problems inherent in any form of answer to the question “Who am I?” that involves an answer.
I liked his use of the word contemplation and his exposition of it “Contemplation means to see through thoughts themselves into a reality which lies beneath or perhaps more accurately – beyond the thoughts themselves. It is as though thoughts act as a fog in the mind and contemplation is a Way in which we see through the fog and discover a place of clarity.”
The only qualm I have is on the idea of seeing the unseen. – This is of course a doctrinal qualm and seeing as my beliefs are in a constant state of flux I will say that this qualm arises in relation to my current perspective. – First I think this is falling into the trap of seeking for something beyond phenomenal reality.
Now in a way i do believe that we do not see reality as it is but this is necessary and any expression of reality would have this problem. To express itself it must appear to a perceiver and thus go outside of itself – so to speak. But I believe that the phenomenal reality is the perfect expression of it.
Now to see the unseen is a mystical term and is overly obtuse. All experience is mystical. That is to say all experience no matter how mundane is incommunicable. To prove this try describing the visual qualia (color and shape) of a piece of poo to a blind man. This also means that any experience – no matter how profound – has the same problems in relating to things-in-themselves as any other phenomena. I mean if you see the unseen and are calling this your true self then who is seeing the unseen true self?
Also loved the expression of self-inquiry. My opinion on the answer to “Who am I?” Is that there is no possible answer and that that is a very good thing. If there were an answer then in a very real sense we would be trapped by that answer.