The Axiomatic Self

[Papoon]

And I am pointing to an observer of "I" (in whatever form the "I" may appear), its rise and its fall.

The observer is the 'I' NowhereMan is referring to I think. So you may be at crossed purposes.

As far as I can tell, the difference in view is that you consider the observer to be continuous and eternal, whereas NowhereMan considers the observer to arise and pass away.

Experientially, I am with NowhereMan.

I have no evidence that the witness is continuous, unborn and unceasing. That is conjecture. In my experience, 'I' disappears in deep sleep for example.

I know the theory of turiya permeating even dreamless sleep, but that is also conjecture, though some claim it as experience. Personally, I don't believe them. They just can't remember forgetting ! LOL

 

[atanu]

The observer is the 'I' NowhereMan is referring to I think. So you may be at crossed purposes.

As far as I can tell, the difference in view is that you consider the observer to be continuous and eternal, whereas NowhereMan considers the observer to arise and pass away.

Experientially, I am with NowhereMan.

I have no evidence that the witness is continuous, unborn and unceasing. That is conjecture. In my experience, 'I' disappears in deep sleep for example.

I know the theory of turiya permeating even dreamless sleep, but that is also conjecture, though some claim it as experience. Personally, I don't believe them. They just can't remember forgetting ! LOL

How does one know "I" disappearing? And "I" appearing?

 

[Papoon]

How does one know "I" disappearing? And "I" appearing?

Knowing IS that appearing. One and the same.

 

[atanu]

Knowing IS that appearing. One and the same.

We say "non dual seer, seen, seeing..."

 

[Papoon]

We say "non dual seer, seen, seeing..."

I have experienced that a few times out of the blue so to speak. Delightful, simple, easy.

What do I mean by that ? Example - during a sojourn alone in the wilderness. After a few weeks of silent solitude (apart from talking with birds and possums) there was a glorious morning...before 'I' woke up....leaves, sunlight...not even 'recognised' as such...seamless shanti with no sense of observer/observed.

Later, 'I' thought ...aaah, this is morning, those are leaves and clouds...

No suffering, no personality, no desire.

Lovely

 

[Twilight Hue]

Thank you for the insightful explanation.

My point, however, remains. There must exist a valid mode of knowing the rise and fall of 'I', or else, this claim remains an unsubstantiated claim.

Of course there is. Its just that it isn't going to last forever.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I think NowhereMan is saying that the I which knows the body (or the aggregates if you prefer) arises and passes away, but is not an entity.

Is that about right NM ?

It does fall in line with emptiness.

 

[atanu]

I have experienced that a few times out of the blue so to speak. Delightful, simple, easy.

What do I mean by that ? Example - during a sojourn alone in the wilderness. After a few weeks of silent solitude (apart from talking with birds and possums) there was a glorious morning...before 'I' woke up....leaves, sunlight...not even 'recognised' as such...seamless shanti with no sense of observer/observed.
Later, 'I' thought ...aaah, this is morning, those are leaves and clouds...
No suffering, no personality, no desire.
Lovely

Yeah, lovely. So, some call it 'Truth-Consciousness-Bliss' -- not three separate aspects but undifferentiated non dual bliss.

Some teachers also call that Natural state (Sahaja avastha) -- that is directly as Turiya that has no consciousness of inner or outer but that connects various states of consciousnesses.

To superimpose so-called knowledge of waking state on the Sahaja consciousness is not study of the 'Consciousness' in itself (taste of mango is not in the lighted brain areas observed by a third party).

 

[sayak83]

And I am pointing to an observer of "I" (in whatever form the "I" may appear), its rise and its fall.

I disagree. Its basically an inference. The I that rises again upon waking each morning infers its absence during deep sleep based on a lack of memory of that temporal span.

 

[atanu]

And I am pointing to an observer of "I" (in whatever form the "I" may appear), its rise and its fall.

I disagree.

That's curious. Did you or did you not know that you disagreed?

 

[sayak83]

That's curious. Did you or did you not know that you disagreed?

No idea what you are saying.

 

[Papoon]

I disagree. Its basically an inference. The I that rises again upon waking each morning infers its absence during deep sleep based on a lack of memory of that temporal span.

I defy any meditator to maintain any kind of awareness whatsoever during surgical anesthesia. Unless it is ketamine or propofol. I am a well practiced meditator, and can maintain continuous awareness under most conditions. However it is IMPOSSIBLE with some anesthetics. There is not even any sense that time has passed. I admit that I find that somewhat disturbing. That experience ended any attachment to the idea of an unborn unceasing spiritual self.

 

[atanu]

I defy any meditator to maintain any kind of awareness whatsoever during surgical anesthesia. Unless it is ketamine or propofol. I am a well practiced meditator, and can maintain continuous awareness under most conditions. However it is IMPOSSIBLE with some anesthetics. There is not even any sense that time has passed. I admit that I find that somewhat disturbing. That experience ended any attachment to the idea of an unborn unceasing spiritual self.

When you returned back from the unconscious state was it another person who returned?

And, btw, who meditates? The brain chemicals?

 

[atanu]

No idea what you are saying.

That is a convenient way.

 

[Aupmanyav]

and if the "non-self" is actually an "other self", or an extension of the "self", like when "you" are reading those words from "kueid" typed by "me", you are reading words from kueid or by me? or both? kueid and me are one or two?

also, when "I" look at my hand, I'm looking to "myself" or to "the hand"? I'm looking at myself AND the hand? my hand? kueid's hand? "myself", "the hand", "my hand" AND/OR "kueid's hand"?

stretching more.. maybe when "I" look at "you" or something else the same occur. I'm looking at you or to me? to you AND me? to you AND kueid? to you AND me AND kueid?

is this making sense?

Yes, it makes sense and all these are valid questions. There is no 'other self' in non-duality (Advaita). If my hand is amputed, is it my hand? It is what it was before amputation - the sole substrate of the universe and nothing else - Hindus term it as Brahman.

 

[1137]

That which brain does.

So you are assuming a conclusion then arguing for it? I've noticed this is very common in materialism.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Excellent. You have made my point eloquently.

@Papoon and @sayak83, you were both on one side, argument was not really necessary.

You guys are making my head hurt

That should have been apparent to you just by looking at the topic name. What else did you expect?

So you are assuming a conclusion then arguing for it?

If you call it conclusion, then necessarily, it was preceded by inquiry and contemplation.

As regards 'I' during sleep, one may not be aware, but the body is working as if the 'I' is present, the autonomous nervous system is continuously at work, not stopping even for a moment, the particular areas of brain, the heart, the lung and many other bodily organs. It tells you if your position is causing pain to muscles, and wakes you up (not completely) but then enough for you to change your position, it feels coldness and makes you draw up the quilt, hotness and it wipes some sweat with your palm. It does so many other things. From six or eight weeks after your conception, 'I' never leaves you till your death, not even in deep coma. One still breathes and the heart beats.

 

[First Baseman]

Axioms are what it is all about. The problem is that too many people decide on the wrong axioms to begin with.

 

[atanu]

So you are assuming a conclusion then arguing for it? I've noticed this is very common in materialism.

The implication of an assumption that one's intelligence is created by material interactions in brain, is that the intelligence of such a one is fully constrained by brain processes. In fact "I" is, in such a case a non-existent entity.

But what we see is that such folks assert most aggressively "I know the best".

 

[sayak83]

So you are assuming a conclusion then arguing for it? I've noticed this is very common in materialism.

You are free to provide your own definition based on your own conclusions. Then one can determine which definition corresponds to reality. That is where the argument is.