If appearance is an echo of itself, which should I focus on: the appearance or its echo? In pondering this conundrum, it occurred to me that the notion of something being an echo of itself has a similar feel to another TSK image: of “space projecting space into space” (KTS 242). In both cases, an ungraspable is seeding an ungraspable. I think I find the image of space projecting space into space less intimidating, because it can be resolved (perhaps to the detriment of a deeper understanding) if the mind accepts that everything is space. Since I don’t live at that kind of depth, this is a somewhat facile acceptance, but it’s an open kind of idea: spaciousness is not only everywhere, but no manifestation can be set-up except through this very spaciousness.
The perception that “there are only the echoes of the Field Communique” (DTS 18) feels more mysterious. Where can the echoes of the Field communique take place except within the Field communique? Is this image suggesting that Knowledge is projecting Knowledge into Knowledge? It certainly seems that space and knowledge are akin in this way: Projection feels related to both space and knowledge. Both space and knowledge propogate in the medium of themselves, a quality that life itself also seems to have. Time feels a bit different in this respect. Time is just present, the dynamic facilitator about which TSK makes an equally radical assertion: that time itself does not have momentum.
To answer Jack’s questions–the only evidence I have that pondering such ideas about space has an effect is that I feel less hemmed in by circumstance, take more pleasure in having a life to live, and greet the arising of appearance with greater interest. While space projects space into space, the knowledge and energy of the past seems to project the present into the future–effortlessly, as if time is equally at home in memory, experience and the window of the future.