Samsara

[Jeff]

1 hour ago, neti neti said:

 

If that was your intention, mission accomplished Jeff. If not, the questions which force you to reevaluate your position still stand.

 

My intention was a discussion related to your post. Just following up on another members point and the logic of it. If there are some questions that you feel still stand that I have not responded to, you are welcome to restate them and I will directly respond. But, if you feel that the tree has already fallen and no one has heard it, I am happy to depart from your thread.

[dwai]

14 hours ago, neti neti said:

 

You're just complicating things. There is no circular logic. The seen simply does not exist without a seer, thus they share the same existence/nature/reality.

 

I'm with you on this. There is no seen without a seer. And as you well know, there can be Awareness without objects, or Pure Consciousness. So, the necessity of object and subject mutually co-arising is moot, imho. What rise and fall are the objects in Consciousness. 

 

Edited March 16, 2018 by dwai
grammar check :)

[dwai]

17 hours ago, Jeff said:

 

Your dreamer analogy has the exact same circular logic trap.  A dream exists in the mind and not part of what we could call outside/objective reality.  Your analogy is like saying... Assume you live inside of a video game, and hence, everything you "see" is inside of the video game.

 

The seer and the seen do not necessarily have the same reality.  I can see an object in a video game, but that does not mean that I live in the same reality as the object does in the video game. 

 

Also, seeing itself does not need to be of the same nature as the seer and the seen object.  Seeing itself can just be an aspect of the seer.  Similar to a sonar pulse sent out that reflect upon "separate objects".

I don't think there is a circular logic here. There is nothing apart from Awareness. No "thing" has independent existence. Why? Because they don't exist without a consciousness to experience them. 

 

Objects can exist in both space and time or only time. If the object exists in space and time, it is considered a physical object. If it exists in time only, it is considered a mental object. But really, all objects are mental objects, as space and time a result of the movements of the mind.

 

The Seer, seeing and seen are all non-separate. In mundane existence, we don't know that the Seer and seen are non-separate, and therefore ascribe "reality" to the seen, and the seer. The seeing is just a process.

 

 When we dig a little deeper, we find that the seen appears in the seer, and doesn't have an independent existence.

 

Dig a bit farther, we see that the personality who we mistake as being the seer, is also an appearance, a process in something else. That we call the "Witness".

 

Eventually, it becomes apparent that the seer, seen and seeing are non-separate, as they all rise and subside in Awareness.

Edited March 16, 2018 by dwai
update part about space and time

[neti neti]

1 hour ago, Jeff said:

 

My intention was a discussion related to your post. Just following up on another members point and the logic of it. If there are some questions that you feel still stand that I have not responded to, you are welcome to restate them and I will directly respond. But, if you feel that the tree has already fallen and no one has heard it, I am happy to depart from your thread.

 

You know where the questions are, and I'm sure numbering them one by one for you would be another exercise in futility. Do as you wish.

 

There was never even a tree. Regards.

[dwai]

11 hours ago, s1va said:

Per Vishishtadvaita there is Jiva-Atman in every living being (which can be thought of as Brahman in each) and then there is the Param-Atman or the universal Brahman.  In mukthi, one comes to understand that the Jiva-Atman (local) and Param-Atman (universal) are one and the same.  This may be more in line with the more than one Brahman concept.

In Kevala Advaita Vedanta, both the Jivātman and paramātman arise and subside in awareness. This awareness is parābrahman. There can be neither duality, nor non-duality. In fact, there never were these separate entities, and their existence was merely a result of avidya. 

[dwai]

11 hours ago, neti neti said:

 

Oh no by all means please continue if you are so led. Your insights are quite welcome as always.

 

It just seems counterintuitive how some members engage in discussion by basically just saying, "no you're wrong." It also becomes frustrating when they shamelessly ignore any and all pointed questions once their own have been answered. 

I have found that Jeff does not ask these questions for disruptive reasons, but really out of genuine curiosity and desire to engage in discussion. 

[neti neti]

2 minutes ago, dwai said:

I have found that Jeff does not ask these questions for disruptive reasons, but really out of genuine curiosity and desire to engage in discussion. 

 

Ok thanks dwai. I feel it would help if he realized though, that directly opposing established doctrines and refusing to answer questions isn't a very profitable approach for a meaningful discussion.

[Jonesboy]

2 minutes ago, neti neti said:

 

Ok thanks dwai. I feel it would help if he realized though, that directly opposing established doctrines and refusing to answer questions isn't a very profitable approach for a meaningful discussion.

 

Then one would need to clearly establish they are only wanting to talk one view point out of the many hindu doctrines.

 

I am sure you would disagree with the view of One like Siva.. compared to all there is, is Brahman.

 

 

[Jeff]

29 minutes ago, dwai said:

I don't think there is a circular logic here. There is nothing apart from Awareness. No "thing" has independent existence. Why? Because they don't exist without a consciousness to experience them. 

 

Objects can exist in both space and time or only time. If the object exists in space and time, it is considered a physical object. If it exists in time only, it is considered a mental object. But really, all objects are mental objects, as space and time a result of the movements of the mind.

 

The Seer, seeing and seen are all non-separate. In mundane existence, we don't know that the Seer and seen are non-separate, and therefore ascribe "reality" to the seen, and the seer. The seeing is just a process.

 

 When we dig a little deeper, we find that the seen appears in the seer, and doesn't have an independent existence.

 

Dig a bit farther, we see that the personality who we mistake as being the seer, is also an appearance, a process in something else. That we call the "Witness".

 

Eventually, it becomes apparent that the seer, seen and seeing are non-separate, as they all rise and subside in Awareness.

 

Dwai,

 

You start with... "There is nothing apart from Awareness"... but that is simply a view, and not a proven fact.  Like the sound in the forest analogy, just because your consciousness doesn't experience them, you don't know or have any proof that there is not independent existence. You "in your consciousness" simply believe it to be the case. But, I will completely agree that if you accept that assumption/theory as a fact, then everything that you and Neti Neti has stated is correct.  My point is that statements like...

 

There is nothing apart from Awareness.  And everything that is in awareness are all non-separate.

 

Are circular logic, because you have assumed the theory of there is nothing apart from Awareness in the first place. 

 

Best,

Jeff

[dwai]

28 minutes ago, Jeff said:

 

Dwai,

 

You start with... "There is nothing apart from Awareness"... but that is simply a view, and not a proven fact.  Like the sound in the forest analogy, just because your consciousness doesn't experience them, you don't know or have any proof that there is not independent existence. You "in your consciousness" simply believe it to be the case. But, I will completely agree that if you accept that assumption/theory as a fact, then everything that you and Neti Neti has stated is correct.  My point is that statements like...

 

There is nothing apart from Awareness.  And everything that is in awareness are all non-separate.

 

Are circular logic, because you have assumed the theory of there is nothing apart from Awareness in the first place. 

 

Best,

Jeff

That is a classical argument against this viewpoint. But I ask you, when have you known anything that you are not aware of?

You could say, things exist even if I am not aware of them all the time. But then I ask you, how do you know that they exist? 

 

Do you not assume things that you don't know about exist nonetheless? 

There are three ways of knowing. This is called pramāna (or evidence). 

 

• Direct Experience 
• Testimony of a reliable witness (someone's word, a book, etc)
• Intuition (you see smoke in the horizon and intuit that there is a fire that caused the smoke to rise).

All knowing, is predicated on awareness. One can never know anything outside of awareness/consciousness, no matter, how such knowing comes about (one of the three means mentioned above). 

 

Then one could argue, there are things that are known and there are those that are not known.  Those that are not known don't technically exist until they come into the domain of awareness. One might concede that "things might exist" without anyone being aware of them. But that is an assumption, not a fact. In fact, to make such a statement requires awareness. For, can something that is not aware be able to formulate such thoughts, and articulate them?

 

So, if that is the case, then how can anything be apart from awareness? 

Edited March 16, 2018 by dwai

[Jeff]

10 minutes ago, dwai said:

That is a classical argument against this viewpoint. But I ask you, when have you known anything that you are not aware of?

You could say, things exist even if I am not aware of them all the time. But then I ask you, how do you know that they exist? 

 

Do you not assume things that you don't know about exist nonetheless? 

There are three ways of knowing. This is called pramāna (or evidence). 

 

• Direct Experience 
• Testimony of a reliable witness (someone's word, a book, etc)
• Intuition (you see smoke in the horizon and intuit that there is a fire that caused the smoke to rise).

All knowing, is predicated on awareness. One can never know anything outside of awareness/consciousness, no matter, how such knowing comes about (one of the three means mentioned above). 

 

Then one could argue, there are things that are known and there are those that are not known.  Those that are not known don't technically exist until they come into the domain of awareness. One might concede that "things might exist" without anyone being aware of them. But that is an assumption, not a fact. In fact, to make such a statement requires awareness. For, can something that is not aware be able to formulate such thoughts, and articulate them?

 

So, if that is the case, then how can anything be apart from awareness? 

 

I totally agree with your above highlighted point. But, similarly you don't know that they don't exist.  Stating that they don't, is also an assumption and not a fact.  I am not fighting for the counter point, only stating that your view is not fact.

 

Also, your three ways of knowing is simply learning (in the mind), and it is not actually knowing.  Your "direct experience" could only be a limited view and you believe a simple rope to be a snake instead.  Your book or testimony could be from a completely clueless person. And, your intuition could be wrong/misled thinking some fog looked like smoke.

[dwai]

11 minutes ago, Jeff said:

 

I totally agree with your above highlighted point. But, similarly you don't know that they don't exist.  Stating that they don't, is also an assumption and not a fact.

I'd say that it's better to say "all things known are predicated on awareness". What is not known, is well not known, so it's pointless to bring them up. And this does not prove that they don't eventually arise in awareness or that they exist independently. 

Quote

 I am not fighting for the counter point, only stating that your view is not fact.

I know that of course. 

Quote

 

Also, your three ways of knowing is simply learning (in the mind), and it is not actually knowing.  Your "direct experience" could only be a limited view and you believe a simple rope to be a snake instead.  Your book or testimony could be from a completely clueless person. And, your intuition could be wrong/misled thinking some fog looked like smoke.

Yes of course there is the possibility of making mistakes. The Rope can be mistaken to be a snake, fog for smoke, etc. But like you pointed out, the "knowing" you are referring to is different from knowing in the mundane sense.  

 

That's why we don't rely on the( local) mind beyond a point, as it is prone to mistakes and limited. Mind too is a process that arises in Awareness. But awareness is not the mind. 

Edited March 16, 2018 by dwai

[Jeff]

5 minutes ago, dwai said:

I'd say that it's better to say "all things known are predicated on awareness". What is not known, is well not known, so it's pointless to bring them up. And this does not prove that they don't eventually arise in awareness or that they exist independently. 

I know that of course. 

Yes of course there is the possibility of making mistakes. The Rope can be mistaken to be a snake, fog for smoke, etc. But like you pointed out, the "knowing" you are referring to is different from knowing in the mundane sense.  

 

That's why we don't rely on the( local) mind beyond a point, as it is prone to mistakes and limited. Mind too is a process that arises in Awareness. But awareness is not the mind. 

 

I believe that I can use your exact same logic to say that Awareness = (universal) Mind. Have you ever been aware of something that was not in your mind?  

[Stosh]

Testing if things can 'exist' outside of awareness ?, Very simple.

 (Presuming that inference is an allowed method of knowing , which was already /previously- included in the stuff called called - paramana ..... where one infers, fire from smoke ) , One may just go ahead and logically infer that things persist whether one is actively aware of them or not. 

Blindfolded , Tim tripped over a chair he was not aware of, 

If instead , Tim had fallen into a hole , he was not aware of , the condition which persisted,  is that of a hole and determined what Tims experience would be.

Tim doesn't fall down into a chair. 

So one infers that the condition is not reliant on awareness to determine its character. 

[dwai]

Just now, Jeff said:

 

I believe that I can use your exact same logic to say that Awareness = (universal) Mind.

 

Just now, Jeff said:

Have you ever been aware of something that was not in your mind?  

of course not

 

[dwai]

1 minute ago, Stosh said:

Testing if things can 'exist' outside of awareness ?, Very simple.

 (Presuming that inference is an allowed method of knowing , which was already /previously- included in the stuff called called - paramana ..... where one infers, fire from smoke ) , One may just go ahead and logically infer that things persist whether one is actively aware of them or not. 

Blindfolded , Tim tripped over a chair he was not aware of, 

If instead , Tim had fallen into a hole , he was not aware of , the condition which persisted,  is that of a hole and determined what Tims experience would be.

Tim doesn't fall down into a chair. 

So one infers that the condition is not reliant on awareness to determine its character. 

And yet, you needed awareness for this entire exercise

[Jeff]

Just now, dwai said:

 

of course not

 

 

Therefore I have just proved you were wrong above and Awareness = Mind.  

[dwai]

4 minutes ago, Jeff said:

 

Therefore I have just proved you were wrong above and Awareness = Mind.  

Mind rises in awareness. It is perfectly possible to be aware without a mind (no objects). 

In fact, if we look at one of your favorite subjects (KS), it is said the Shiva's awareness is Prakasha (light), and his quality is vimarsha (awareness of this light). So in this context, "Mind" is a result of vimarsha. Awareness is Prakasha.

 

http://www.nevernotpresent.com/satsangs/prakasha-and-vimarsha/

 

 

Edited March 16, 2018 by dwai

[Stosh]

6 minutes ago, dwai said:

And yet, you needed awareness for this entire exercise

True , but what matter is that?

[Jeff]

Just now, dwai said:

Mind rises in awareness. It is perfectly possible to be aware without a mind (no objects). 

 

How do you know or aware of that?  Did you directly experience it, read a book, or intuit it in some way?  Also, how do you know that the mind was not simply empty or quiet?

[dwai]

Just now, Stosh said:

True , but what matter is that?

without it, you cannot even presume to prove that something "exists" outside of awareness. So even that meta-concept (that something exists outside of awareness) is predicated on awareness.

[dwai]

1 minute ago, Jeff said:

 

How do you know or aware of that?  Did you directly experience it, read a book, or intuit it in some way?  Also, how do you know that the mind was not simply empty or quiet?

I define mind as a stream of objects/thoughts. When there is no thought, mind = Awareness. 

[Jeff]

Just now, dwai said:

without it, you cannot even presume to prove that something "exists" outside of awareness. So even that meta-concept (that something exists outside of awareness) is predicated on awareness.

 

No, that was your mind it was predicated on...  

[dwai]

1 minute ago, Jeff said:

 

No, that was your mind it was predicated on...  

And the mind arises in awareness. So it was predicated on awareness. 

[Jeff]

1 minute ago, dwai said:

I define mind as a stream of objects/thoughts. When there is no thought, mind = Awareness. 

 

Now new definitions... I thought that objects were not separate, is not an object/thought also awareness?