« Arousal and quiescence in the mystical brain | Main | Embracing God in my brain »

October 24, 2007

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Subject is forever an object to whatever perceives it. What we are can't be known because if we say we are subject, this subject is thereby an object of another subject and this goes on ad infinitum. You could say, "I am consciousness", but who, what, where is this 'I' that perceives itself as consciousness? Can that endless reflection of an idea be what we are? So what we are isn't. At least it can't be known by any 'one' as an object. Yet this doesn't make any sense to most people because obviously, to them, we are. Anyone can say "Iam". But this "I" can never be found outside of subject-object conceptuality.

I have no way of explaining further what we are because in doing so I am only describing what we aren't, because only an object, which we aren't, can be described. It can't be resolved to anyone's intellectual satisfaction. If I say, "We are, but we are not.", the only person that statement will have any meaning to is someone who experiences that for themselves.

Nisargadatta said:

"You see yourself in the world while I see the world in myself. To you, you get born and die, while to me, the world appears and disappears."

Do the beings we perceive have any experiential self awareness independent of our perceiving of them and what they say or do? Is it all a dream of the One that isn't?

Tucson: Do the beings we perceive have any experiential self awareness independent of our perceiving of them and what they say or do?

Do 'you' have any experiential self awareness independent of how 'you' are perceived by the beings? :)
( I am not sure what I am try to get at here but I like the reversal ...)

"Do 'you' have any experiential self awareness independent of how 'you' are perceived by the beings? :)"

Yes, I have self awareness as perceived by the object I perceive as me, but that object is conceptual only, as are 'others'. As what I really am, I am not except as what is reflected in mind as phenomena (the universe of universes).

"Which is primary, external reality or subjective awareness?"

Thinking creates all sorts of distinctions. This is good, that's bad. This is beautiful, that's ugly. This is object, that's subject. This is external reality, that's subjective awareness.

After the distinction has been made by thinking, we can ponder infinitely which is primary, because in fact, both sides of the duality arise together, being dependent on each other.

That one thing that's truly primary is what's already appeared in this moment, BEFORE thinking makes these distinctions. What are you doing right now?

Stuart
New blog! See:
http://stuart-randomthoughts.blogspot.com/

But Stuart, is the distinction you make between thinking and non-thinking itself produced by thinking?
How can you dissociate thinking from the moment? Is thinking constitutive of the moment as well as anything else (abstractly speaking): one and whole reality. The way you express yourself gives the impression that thinking is 'outside' reality, or the moment. Knowing, thinking, matter, the blue sky, the green grass, etc are essentially and fundamentally one and without real distinction. Why do make one? Why you do isolate thinking from the moment as it unfolds - 'thinking' is intregally constitutive of experience as everything else. Unless you 'think' that is not ... Again I am not sure why you feel compel to isolate and reject 'thinking' from reality unfolding (abstractly speaking) as 'moments'?
A thought, or any knowing, is itself being whether it knows itself as such or not - why do you reject it as such. Moreover, thinking and knowing do not necessary entail seperation or duality - you may yourself believe so but this is only you ...

Hello. Since the "answers" to the questions posed cannot be reduced to words, please let me say this: An honest and deep search in the writings of the Saints all describe higher levels of being and reality. Amazingly, these renditions in words are, for the most part, in harmony - that is, they match! I believe we can have complete access to these regions and that we are, indeed, perfect replicas of the macrocosm. I, for one, am very interested in the highest and most adventurous journey known. It is also the most difficult. "Anything rare is as good as it is difficult." Thoreau

albert wrote:
> please let me say this: An honest and deep
> search in the writings of the Saints all
> describe higher levels of being and
> reality.

Imbedded in such a statement are a number of ideas and opinions, which may be fine if that's what you like, but it's hardly necessary to create the type of complications you're making here.

First of all, why make "Saints"? That requires all sorts of needless judgments and distinctions. Why not just relate to whomever appears in front of you each moment, rather than clinging to ideas like "He's a saint, but she's a non-saint"?

Similarly, why in the world would I want to believe in "higher levels of being and reality"?? Why not just attend to my just-now situation, without fogging it up with these ideas of higher and lower?

> Amazingly, these renditions in words are,
> for the most part, in harmony - that is,
> they match!

Hardly! When Zen Master Un Mun was asked about the supreme reality, he replied, "Dry shit on a stick." Is that really in harmony with what your "saints" say?

Stuart
http://stuart-randomthoughts.blogspot.com/

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

Welcome


  • Welcome to the Church of the Churchless. If this is your first visit, click on "About this site--start here" in the Categories section below.
  • HinesSight
    Visit my other weblog, HinesSight, for a broader view of what's happening in the world of your Church unpastor, his wife, and dog.
  • BrianHines.com
    Take a look at my web site, which contains information about a subject of great interest to me: me.
  • Twitter with me
    Join Twitter and follow my tweets about whatever.
  • I Hate Church of the Churchless
    Can't stand this blog? Believe the guy behind it is an idiot? Rant away on our anti-site.