Only light...another view!

[Guest guest]

Regarding " light " , if science and one's (my) own personal experience is

to be belived, light is invisible. In fact, I have never ever seen

light. Now lest you think that I am blind, let me assure you that I see

quite well. This morning, in San Diego, as I look out the window, I see

green trees, a blue sky, brownish-grey aged fence, etc. Yet I also

assure you, I see no light whatsoever. Then what is it I do see, you

might ask.

 

I see interference patterns, not light itself. I see what *appears* when

light strikes an object. For example, take a flash light and turn it on.

Hold it at right angles at arms length so that the " beam of light "

shines horizontally in front of you from right to left or vice versa.

Ask yourself, " Can I see the light shining? " My experience is " No " .

However, if I put my hand in front of the beam to " obstruct " it, then I

see a reflection, an interference pattern showing up. I never ever see

the light itself.

 

Another example, tonight (or any other night), walk outside when it

completely dark. While looking at the moon, recall that the sun (source

of light) is behind you on the other side of the earth and that its

shining is what makes the moon " light up " . Also, that all around the

moon it's " dark " but that this darkness is filled with " light " yet the

light is invisible.

 

I also suggest that awareness is invisible for the same reason. *It*

(awareness) has never been seen, experienced, perceived, observed, etc.

It is invisible (to itself). Therefore, it could be argued that perhaps

it doesn't exist at all...at least not as a *thing* (object of

perception). With this, I agree. *Awareness* is not a " thing " . It (so to

speak) is no-thing. It is invisible to itself simply because it is that

which is looking, perceiving. Being a no-thing, it is *that* (space)

within which, as a modification of which, and to which all *things*

appear, move, and have their beingness. And these apparent *things* are

truly not *things* at all in the sense of existing independently and

separately unto themselves. Furthermore, awareness (no-thing) and its

apparitional content (things/objectifications) *merge*, *collapse*, or

*dissolve* upon the realization that the perceiver and perceived,

experiencer and experienced, observer and observed, viewer and viewed,

awareness and content, etc have never been two to begin with...except in

imagination!

 

Michael

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " Adamson " <adamson wrote:

>

>

> Regarding " light " , if science and one's (my) own personal

experience is

> to be belived, light is invisible. In fact, I have never ever seen

> light. Now lest you think that I am blind, let me assure you that I

see

> quite well. This morning, in San Diego, as I look out the window, I

see

> green trees, a blue sky, brownish-grey aged fence, etc. Yet I also

> assure you, I see no light whatsoever. Then what is it I do see,

you

> might ask.

>

> I see interference patterns, not light itself. I see what *appears*

when

> light strikes an object. For example, take a flash light and turn

it on.

> Hold it at right angles at arms length so that the " beam of light "

> shines horizontally in front of you from right to left or vice

versa.

> Ask yourself, " Can I see the light shining? " My experience is " No " .

> However, if I put my hand in front of the beam to " obstruct " it,

then I

> see a reflection, an interference pattern showing up. I never ever

see

> the light itself.

>

> Another example, tonight (or any other night), walk outside when it

> completely dark. While looking at the moon, recall that the sun

(source

> of light) is behind you on the other side of the earth and that its

> shining is what makes the moon " light up " . Also, that all around

the

> moon it's " dark " but that this darkness is filled with " light " yet

the

> light is invisible.

>

> I also suggest that awareness is invisible for the same reason.

*It*

> (awareness) has never been seen, experienced, perceived, observed,

etc.

> It is invisible (to itself). Therefore, it could be argued that

perhaps

> it doesn't exist at all...at least not as a *thing* (object of

> perception). With this, I agree. *Awareness* is not a " thing " . It

(so to

> speak) is no-thing. It is invisible to itself simply because it is

that

> which is looking, perceiving. Being a no-thing, it is *that*

(space)

> within which, as a modification of which, and to which all *things*

> appear, move, and have their beingness. And these apparent *things*

are

> truly not *things* at all in the sense of existing independently

and

> separately unto themselves. Furthermore, awareness (no-thing) and

its

> apparitional content (things/objectifications) *merge*, *collapse*,

or

> *dissolve* upon the realization that the perceiver and perceived,

> experiencer and experienced, observer and observed, viewer and

viewed,

> awareness and content, etc have never been two to begin

with...except in

> imagination!

>

> Michael

>

Michael from your post I believe you may enjoy the following:

 

http://forums.hypography.com/philosophy-science/5090-physics-observer-

advaita-s-non-doer.html

 

and this next one, right click and 'save target as'..its a pdf file.

 

http://www.philosophy.ru/library/pdf/134262.pdf

 

let us know your thoughts re:

existentialism/nonduality/zen/advaita/physics and their relative and

final similarities. I think there is srong affinity in these sites

and papers with what you are saying here. Hpoefully you will enjoy

the thoughts.

......bob

 

P.S. .... fom Jean-Paul Sartre: Consciousness is that which it is

not,

and is not that which it is. "

 

(bn)