I was referring to the provided example of the cinema where the people in the seats can’t tell if the dark screen is a projected dark image or just the result of the projector being turned off while those in the booth can be sure either way. I take it you are saying that both cases are possible and that a regular mind is capable of knowing this and no extraordinary “other” mind is needed. I take it @Green is arguing that an extraordinary “other” mind is needed?
Either way, what’s being posited is a self-knower I think? A mind capable of knowing its own existence and also capable of knowing its own cessation into non-existence. At least, that’s what I think the two of you are referring to? I could be mistaken and may have misunderstood either one of you or both of you. If I have made an error in understanding what you’re saying, then I apologize.
A self-knower is a mind capable of directly perceiving itself and/or capable of directly perceiving its own cessation into non-existence. It is comparable in my mind to a knife which can cut itself. Or a fingertip which can touch itself. A fire that can burn itself. It is a generalized problem of self-referential statements and involves paradox. This is the contradiction that I thought you were setting up above or something akin to it.
I’m not sure. I thought you were putting forward something like the following conundrum to answer the question, “How can nibbana be directly known and confirmed?”
Theorem: With regard to knowing Nibbana, there are only two possibilities.
- A mind that is distinct/other from nibbana can know nibbana
- A mind that is itself nibbana can know itself
And then I thought you were pointing out the problem with both of these options. However, based on your recent example of the cinema I’m guessing that you accept #1 or #2 and claim that it is just a regular mind that is capable of this. And I guess @green is also accepting #1 or #2 but just differs with you that it can be a regular mind that is capable of this? It could be that I’m just very confused about what the two of you are communicating though so feel free to ignore.
