Guest guest Posted April 8, 2002 Report Share Posted April 8, 2002 Dear Bobby, thank you for explaining your thoughts so clearly. I believe I have understood your meaning now, but in case I haven't, please let me know. If I understand you correctly, you seem to say that God or the Self cannot be an observer, because if He were an observer, then by knowing about His observing He would cease to be subject and become object. And you concluded from this that any observer would consequently have to be unreal. I think there is a misunderstanding here. According to the scriptures, "observing" can, basically, happen in two different ways. One is the ordinary observation process effectuated through the senses, or through certain shaktis or energies, or through thought processes. This might be referred to as observation "from without" - gaining knowledge about phenomena by means of other phenomena. But there is also another kind of "observing", independent of sense perceptions or thought processes. God does not have eyes or a brain; but if He did not observe and remember what is going on in the worlds He created, He would be a very ignorant God! "He that planted the ear, shall He not hear? He that formed the eye, shall He not see? ...He that teacheth man knowledge, shall not He know?" (94th Psalm) In the scriptures, the way God and God-realized Masters "observe" is described as the direct realization of the Knower, the Knowing, and the Known being One - a state which is said to be beyond ordinary human understanding. No instruments of knowledge are required for such observation "from within". One of the Upanishads illustrates this direct observation in the following allegoric way: "The blind man finds the pearl, the armless threads it, and the neckless wears it." Sri Ramana was once asked about some other worlds as described in the scriptures; "do they really exist?" He replied, "Certainly. You can rest assured that they all exist... If one realizes the Self, one can see all these worlds within one's Self." This is the "observation from within" referred to above - the omniscient knowledge a God-realized Master possesses, or IS, because he is one with the Great Dreamer Himself. Kindest regards, Michael > -----Ursprungliche Nachricht----- > Von: texasbg2000 [bigbobgraham] > Gesendet: Sunday, April 07, 2002 04:07 > An: > Betreff: Re: Zero and Nonexistence in Philosophical > Argument > > > Hi Michael > > It is good to hear from you. I read your post about taking a weekend > so I knew you were busy. I am glad to be able to clarify what I meant > when I wrote that the idea of "unreality" or "non-existence" being > dismissed as untrue goes counter to many wise teachings. > > , MikeSuesserott@t... wrote: > > Dear Bobby, > > > > it's been a while since you wrote, and I apologize for the late > reply. I > > have been away for a few days of skiing with the family. > > > > You are quite right about this discussion going deeper than logic. > In fact, > > I am fully convinced that all phenomena whatsoever point to > something deeper > > (or higher) than logic, namely, to God or, if you prefer, to the > Self. > > > > However, I have never read anything written by Sri Ramana or Swami > Shankara > > or any other true Master that did not also completely satisfy the > > requirements of logic. To my knowledge, and I have tried to look > closely, > > they never introduced any circular or inconsistent arguments in any > of their > > writings or sayings. > > > > As far as we know, the universe seems to be subject to the > structures of > > mathematics and logic everywhere. "As above, so below - as below, > so above." > > "Scaling" in chaos theory. > > > That's what Hermes Trismegistos taught. In fact, in the Bhagavad- > Gita the > > Lord declares, "In abstract reasoning, I am discriminative logic > (vadah > > pravadatam aham)." > > > > The teachings of the great Masters as also the sayings you quoted > do indeed > > bear witness to that. Logical clarity is, to me, one of the > hallmarks of Sri > > Ramana's teachings. However, I am not aware of Sri Ramana ever > having said > > to anyone, "you are unreal," nor, to the best of my knowledge, did > he teach > > that the observer is unreal (which would also be logically > questionable). > > What Ramana says below is that we are considering what is unreal as > real. You must believe he is not referring to the observer in this > but I do not know why. > > > Instead, he told his devotees to relinquish their mistaken identity > with the > > ego and to find out who they truly were, to discover their (or the > > observer's) true identity with the Self. Which is not only deep > wisdom but > > also impeccable logically. > > > > I will try to be logical here and where I fail I hope you can help. > When the observer knows it is an observer it becomes an object. In > real time, the subject of an observation cannot be the object of that > observation. An eye cannot see itself. One hand cannot clap. The > object must be unreal by comparison, that is, it must be an idea > about the real Self or a memory of an idea about it instead of 'it'. > > Consciousness itself or Brahman cannot be viewed, as its nature is > only to be, and is hence always subject. While not strictly a > viewer, Consciousness provides the reality which the ego mirrors, the > mirror itself, and the mirroring. > > Knowing the Real Self is simply giving up the belief the observer is > anything but an idea or thought. More specifically it is the first > thought, Aham Vritti, which all other thoughts hinge on. There is not > another "thing" or "self" to recognize or know is there. The Real > Self both exists because it is 'isness', and doesn't exist because > it can't be known. > > > Kindest regards, > > > > Michael > > I believe there are two discussions going on here. There is the > discussion of logic and what is real in the relative sense which is > about interactions. And there is the discussion about what is real > in the absolute sense, that is, the truth concerning the Real Self. > > Even the phrase 'Real Self' indicates that something ordinarily > considered as real is not. It is only in discussions about the Real > Self that the idea of the observer being unreal is locical. In the > relative sense it is not logical to consider oneself as unreal. That > certainly flies in the face of logic. > > Raja Yoga teaches not to confound these two arenas. Otherwise we have > the circular arguments you were writing about. > > Much Love, > Bobby G. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 9, 2002 Report Share Posted April 9, 2002 hi Michael: We are really just where we started. Let me just respond to your thoughts because this discussion is something I would like to see go to the next level. , MikeSuesserott@t... wrote: > Dear Bobby, > > thank you for explaining your thoughts so clearly. I believe I have > understood your meaning now, but in case I haven't, please let me know. > > If I understand you correctly, you seem to say that God or the Self cannot > be an observer, because if He were an observer, then by knowing about His > observing He would cease to be subject and become object. What I meant to convey is that the Self is always the subject. It cannot be object. That is why it cannot be cognized. It doesn't go unknown because it is 'knowing' itself. The Self is consciousness (Aitareya Upanisad) whose nature is that of the subject because there is nothing that would cognize the Self and thus make it an object. I would refer you to "Drik, Drisya, Viveka" translated by Ramana, but a few moments reflection might assure you this is so because it can be realized directly. And you concluded > from this that any observer would consequently have to be unreal. I think > there is a misunderstanding here. The conclusion is that an observer that can be seen is not the Self. Ramana said that the reason this person or thinker seems so real is because it is the first thought (aham vritti), and because of this close proximity to the Self it especially feels real. I have to believe that is what he is referring to in that quote below about how we must stop considering what is unreal as real. > > According to the scriptures, "observing" can, basically, happen in two > different ways. One is the ordinary observation process effectuated through > the senses, or through certain shaktis or energies, or through thought > processes. This might be referred to as observation "from without" - gaining > knowledge about phenomena by means of other phenomena. > > But there is also another kind of "observing", independent of sense > perceptions or thought processes. God does not have eyes or a brain; but if > He did not observe and remember what is going on in the worlds He created, > He would be a very ignorant God! "He that planted the ear, shall He not > hear? He that formed the eye, shall He not see? ...He that teacheth man > knowledge, shall not He know?" (94th Psalm) > > In the scriptures, the way God and God-realized Masters "observe" is > described as the direct realization of the Knower, the Knowing, and the > Known being One - a state which is said to be beyond ordinary human > understanding. No instruments of knowledge are required for such observation > "from within". One of the Upanishads illustrates this direct observation in > the following allegoric way: "The blind man finds the pearl, the armless > threads it, and the neckless wears it." When you live in the present that is exactly the way you perceive, just as you have described in these quotes. The real Self is always in the present but when the attention of the mind follows the actions of an idea the beingness of the Self is obscured. The Real Self is Real and not somewhere else. The feeling of being an observer completely independent of the observed ~must~ be erroneous perception, because that would be making the universe into two things and logic tells us it is not. Why else would we call it Non-dualism? You are not out of the universe while observing this thing. You are included. The feeling must be a false assumption. The only accurate peception must be that you are the observed as much as you are the observing and the observer. The real Self is everything so I have to stop separating myself by pretending to be an only an observer. We can rationally arrive at this conclusion. Then if we accept this premise each time the thought of I comes up, we see it as an illusion and go about our business. Sooner or later it melts away. This is a Self realized person. You just drop the belief in the "I". Looked at in this way many non-dualist writings are easily understood. I would refer you to the last chapter of Ken Wilber's "No Boundary" on unity consciousness. He describes this very well. This second way of perceiving that you described happens all the time but is difficult to see because of the assumption of an "I" that leaps up. > > Sri Ramana was once asked about some other worlds as described in the > scriptures; "do they really exist?" He replied, "Certainly. You can rest > assured that they all exist... If one realizes the Self, one can see all > these worlds within one's Self." This is the "observation from within" > referred to above - the omniscient knowledge a God-realized Master > possesses, or IS, because he is one with the Great Dreamer Himself. > All worlds are available to one who realizes the Self and nothing is denied. > Kindest regards, > > Michael > I regret the pedantic way I have presented these ideas but I could not think of another way to say them. I love you, I hope you love me too. Bobby G. > > > -----Ursprungliche Nachricht----- > > Von: texasbg2000 [bigbobgraham@a...] > > Gesendet: Sunday, April 07, 2002 04:07 > > An: > > Betreff: Re: Zero and Nonexistence in Philosophical > > Argument > > > > > > Hi Michael > > > > It is good to hear from you. I read your post about taking a weekend > > so I knew you were busy. I am glad to be able to clarify what I meant > > when I wrote that the idea of "unreality" or "non-existence" being > > dismissed as untrue goes counter to many wise teachings. > > > > , MikeSuesserott@t... wrote: > > > Dear Bobby, > > > > > > it's been a while since you wrote, and I apologize for the late > > reply. I > > > have been away for a few days of skiing with the family. > > > > > > You are quite right about this discussion going deeper than logic. > > In fact, > > > I am fully convinced that all phenomena whatsoever point to > > something deeper > > > (or higher) than logic, namely, to God or, if you prefer, to the > > Self. > > > > > > However, I have never read anything written by Sri Ramana or Swami > > Shankara > > > or any other true Master that did not also completely satisfy the > > > requirements of logic. To my knowledge, and I have tried to look > > closely, > > > they never introduced any circular or inconsistent arguments in any > > of their > > > writings or sayings. > > > > > > As far as we know, the universe seems to be subject to the > > structures of > > > mathematics and logic everywhere. "As above, so below - as below, > > so above." > > > > "Scaling" in chaos theory. > > > > > That's what Hermes Trismegistos taught. In fact, in the Bhagavad- > > Gita the > > > Lord declares, "In abstract reasoning, I am discriminative logic > > (vadah > > > pravadatam aham)." > > > > > > The teachings of the great Masters as also the sayings you quoted > > do indeed > > > bear witness to that. Logical clarity is, to me, one of the > > hallmarks of Sri > > > Ramana's teachings. However, I am not aware of Sri Ramana ever > > having said > > > to anyone, "you are unreal," nor, to the best of my knowledge, did > > he teach > > > that the observer is unreal (which would also be logically > > questionable). > > > > What Ramana says below is that we are considering what is unreal as > > real. You must believe he is not referring to the observer in this > > but I do not know why. > > > > > Instead, he told his devotees to relinquish their mistaken identity > > with the > > > ego and to find out who they truly were, to discover their (or the > > > observer's) true identity with the Self. Which is not only deep > > wisdom but > > > also impeccable logically. > > > > > > > I will try to be logical here and where I fail I hope you can help. > > When the observer knows it is an observer it becomes an object. In > > real time, the subject of an observation cannot be the object of that > > observation. An eye cannot see itself. One hand cannot clap. The > > object must be unreal by comparison, that is, it must be an idea > > about the real Self or a memory of an idea about it instead of 'it'. > > > > Consciousness itself or Brahman cannot be viewed, as its nature is > > only to be, and is hence always subject. While not strictly a > > viewer, Consciousness provides the reality which the ego mirrors, the > > mirror itself, and the mirroring. > > > > Knowing the Real Self is simply giving up the belief the observer is > > anything but an idea or thought. More specifically it is the first > > thought, Aham Vritti, which all other thoughts hinge on. There is not > > another "thing" or "self" to recognize or know is there. The Real > > Self both exists because it is 'isness', and doesn't exist because > > it can't be known. > > > > > Kindest regards, > > > > > > Michael > > > > I believe there are two discussions going on here. There is the > > discussion of logic and what is real in the relative sense which is > > about interactions. And there is the discussion about what is real > > in the absolute sense, that is, the truth concerning the Real Self. > > > > Even the phrase 'Real Self' indicates that something ordinarily > > considered as real is not. It is only in discussions about the Real > > Self that the idea of the observer being unreal is locical. In the > > relative sense it is not logical to consider oneself as unreal. That > > certainly flies in the face of logic. > > > > Raja Yoga teaches not to confound these two arenas. Otherwise we have > > the circular arguments you were writing about. > > > > Much Love, > > Bobby G. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.