Guest guest Posted March 6, 2000 Report Share Posted March 6, 2000 > Roger: > <How can you be what you observe? If you can > observe it, you can not be it, because by definition there is separation > between the observer and the object under observation. > >Moller: > ~~This is the classical beginning to the so-called Neti-Neti (not this-not > that) line of argument found in Hinduism. It seems very seductive because > (not unlike Descartes style of argument) when everything 'observable' has > been removed, this is supposed to prove that there is an ultimate observer, > consciousness, awareness which must have made all the objects possible by > existing prior to the act of observation. > > However, a) This 'not this-not that' process is just a series of thoughts. > One cannot actually PHYSICALLY remove ALL appearance (body and all other > forms of arising and still remain intact 'oneself' to end with enough left > to be able to make the statement 'Therefore I am consciousness, the witness > etc. This whole process is a delusion in thought and based on a kind of > pseudo logic. Factually only a human being can say "I am the witness". If > nothing is left, where will be the consciousness which is suppose to remain? > What will be left to notice it? And will this then not again have the > supposed consciousness as its content? Again two? roger: There are a number of paths, "neti-neti", "not this, not this", the discriminative approach, is only one way. Moller suggests pitfalls of this method: a) if the mind is trying to "prove" anything including the presence of an ultimate observer.... well that's NOT it, how can the mind prove something that's outside it's domain? b) if "not this...not this" is just a series of thoughts or pseudo-logic, well that's NOT it, because the mind is staying at the level of thought. c) if the mind is trying to "remove all appearances"... well that's NOT it, the world is still there despite the forceful attempts by the mind to remove it. "not this" does NOT succeed when it's just theory or entertainment. For those people who have an innate skill at this approach, "not this" can still the mind, and in deep stillness Grace descends. The outward movement of the mind into thought & emotion is the thing that keeps us from realization. Therefore, in this very moment, if one sees attachment to a thought or emotion, this effortless act of discrimination interrupts the attachment. "not this" is successful when after the effortless distinction "not this", there is stillness or a movement towards stillness. Paul Brunton says something to the effect that your thinking about some truth is successful when thinking ceases. > moller: > b) So, instead of starting with the 'observed', such as body, sense > 'perception' and so on, I then started my investigation into the nature and > reality of the apparent observer. That sense we all seem to have that we > have something 'inside' of us called consciousness which is passively > waiting for objects to appear in its field for it to reflect it. Something > like an inner mirror. Unstained and unmoved in itself, but filled with > images of momentary appearance. Roger: You seem to be using "Who am I?" spontaneously? "Who am I?" has never really been interesting to me personally, but I expect for others it's ideal. At best I just stay vigilent watching, someone says "just like a hungry cat watching a mouse hole", when the mind moves into identification with body, emotion, thought; if the identification is seen it can evaporate into stillness. There is no need to ask "who am I?" directly because in the stillness after "not this", the indescribable is revealed more & more. Moller: > After becoming as sensitive to these matters as I possibly could during > periods of intense meditation, it became clear that this inner observer > could not be found. All that was real was a particular appearance (sound, > taste, thought,sensations, emotions etc) with no-one or nothing making these > appearances possible. It became clear that the one thing I had always > belived to be the final, most primary aspect of my being ie > consciousness-as-observer, was absent. Things simply appeared by themselves > and all one could do was paying attention to them. > > It was at this point that it also became clear that it is this very act of > paying attention which has deluded me into thinking that I am the observer. > Not being sensitive to this prior to a state of meditative clarity, my > thought simply assumed that because I can pay attention, I am separate from > appearance - and so deduced from that , that I (as final witness, > consciousness, conscious observer,) actually exist. Outside of thought this > is not true. Such a thought would be integrally part of what I have > referred to in another posting on Intellectualism. Thought projects > /logically deduces an 'I' and then experiences this 'I' , consciousness, > observer, awareness, as though it has objective reality. This may be > considered to be the most fundamental form of delusion and illusion. I like what you're saying. "not this" can also break down the projection of thought which claims to be a limited individual personality. But, there are a number of different approaches or paths. Every approach has pitfalls. "Not this" works probably for only a limited percentage of seekers. > This clarity is still working its way in me, and is still the basis of much > of my own feeling myself into the sense of non-duality. All the work is not > done, but through direct experience, instead of using the intellect where it > has no place, much clarity may come. > > Love, > > Moller The highest use of the intellect is to distinguish "not this" which opens the way for direct experience. Thanks Moller, Roger Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 6, 2000 Report Share Posted March 6, 2000 "Roger Isaacs" <RIsaacs > geovani > Yes I will try. There is nothing that sees through! > There is not an observer looking. There is not an awareness > being aware. Thoughs, trees, rivers, stars, are all self existent. > the understanding of this simple fact ......is the way out the basic duality > of man. Events, things, arrise in a non-dimensional field > in a incomprehensible manner...like fire cracks....and fall back > to nothingness. The smarter scientist is just a kid without understanding > this. The content of perceptions ARE the perception itself. > > See you monday, then... > > -geo- Is this experience or speculation? Roger geovani> It is not speculation, Roger. It is a fact. But even speculating it is obvious that in the very precise moment that you posit a separate observer, a separate awarenes, the former becomes observed, and the later object of awarenes. ------ MAXIMIZE YOUR CARD, MINIMIZE YOUR RATE! Get a NextCard Visa, in 30 seconds! Get rates as low as 0.0% Intro or 9.9% Fixed APR and no hidden fees. Apply NOW! http://click./1/2122/3/_/520931/_/952386103/ ------ // All paths go somewhere. No path goes nowhere. Paths, places, sights, perceptions, and indeed all experiences arise from and exist in and subside back into the Space of Awareness. Like waves rising are not different than the ocean, all things arising from Awareness are of the nature of Awareness. Awareness does not come and go but is always Present. It is Home. Home is where the Heart Is. Jnanis know the Heart to be the Finality of Eternal Being. A true devotee relishes in the Truth of Self-Knowledge, spontaneously arising from within into It Self. Welcome all to a. To from this list, go to the ONElist web site, at www., and select the User Center link from the menu bar on the left. This menu will also let you change your subscription between digest and normal mode. 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.