The seer and and the seen

[Truly Enlightened]

Studying the brain will not help anybody explain experiencing pain or love, personhood, or anything regarded as spiritual.

Methodological naturalism will get you an endless amount of facts, but never any explanation of the experience of consciousness.

I see no need to bring science into the spiritual realm because it can not exist there.

Science and spirituality are entirely separate conversations. Two realities that have no relation or grasp on each other.

The spiritual is known by subjective discovery. Science forever remains outside of that.

Its like trying to explain the value of a dollar bill by exploring the ink and paper.

Without looking into a reflection, how do you know that you have hair on your head? Or, that your ears, eyes, back, or head still exist on your body? It is called proprioception, not spiritual. It is our sense of awareness, of the position of any part of our body in space, without the need of our senses. Just think of any part of your body, and you will feel where it is. Most animals have a higher sense of proprioception than humans, for obvious reasons.

Spirituality has 7.7 Billon explanations. Therefore, it is undefined for any practical discussions. There are no spiritual realities, that do not require the existence of a physically functioning brain. Science is limited to explaining the physical universe, from a four dimensional perspective. If spirituality is a subjective discovery, then how can you possibly know that spirituality itself is subjective?

Science can certainly explain love, empathy, well-being, emotions, compassion, self-sacrifice, from a biological perspective. I see no difference in a spiritual illusion, a drug induced illusion, and a cognitive or organic-based illusion. They are all illusions, that you have simply provided an arbitrary label to define it.

Since you have not defined spirituality(objectively), then it can mean anything that you want it to mean. You are right this imaginary conceptual construct, only exists in a zero-dimensional mind, not in a 4 dimensional reality. You are also correct, the physical reality, and spiritual reality are both separate. One exist physically, and the other is imaginary. However, no matter what spiritual experience your mind can experience, your body belongs to the physical reality.

Both the ink, paper, and value of a dollar are real. Therefore your analogy is flawed.

​

 

[paarsurrey]

Without looking into a reflection, how do you know that you have hair on your head? Or, that your ears, eyes, back, or head still exist on your body? It is called proprioception, not spiritual. It is our sense of awareness, of the position of any part of our body in space, without the need of our senses. Just think of any part of your body, and you will feel where it is. Most animals have a higher sense of proprioception than humans, for obvious reasons.

Spirituality has 7.7 Billon explanations. Therefore, it is undefined for any practical discussions. There are no spiritual realities, that do not require the existence of a physically functioning brain. Science is limited to explaining the physical universe, from a four dimensional perspective. If spirituality is a subjective discovery, then how can you possibly know that spirituality itself is subjective?

Science can certainly explain love, empathy, well-being, emotions, compassion, self-sacrifice, from a biological perspective. I see no difference in a spiritual illusion, a drug induced illusion, and a cognitive or organic-based illusion. They are all illusions, that you have simply provided an arbitrary label to define it.

Since you have not defined spirituality(objectively), then it can mean anything that you want it to mean. You are right this imaginary conceptual construct, only exists in a zero-dimensional mind, not in a 4 dimensional reality. You are also correct, the physical reality, and spiritual reality are both separate. One exist physically, and the other is imaginary. However, no matter what spiritual experience your mind can experience, your body belongs to the physical reality.

Both the ink, paper, and value of a dollar are real. Therefore your analogy is flawed.
​

"Spirituality has 7.7 Billon explanations. Therefore, it is undefined for any practical discussions. There are no spiritual realities, that do not require the existence of a physically functioning brain."

Unless it is from Word revealed of the truthful Religion, then it is a spiritual reality, please. Word Revealed is another dimension of reality, please.

Regards

 

[night912]

The "seer" is simple but complex when explaining it. The closests and simplest word that can be use to explain it is, "thoughts," our thoughts. People are just making it more complicated than it really is. Some only see it as a "special" physical effect of functions of the brain, while others only see it as a "special" nonpysical effect of one's self. But it all comes down to the same thing, which is our "thoughts."

We all think and use words differently. That's the problem with language. The truth is that we see, hear and recognize a word and interpret it as what it's supposed to mean and not what it's meant to mean.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

"Spirituality has 7.7 Billon explanations. Therefore, it is undefined for any practical discussions. There are no spiritual realities, that do not require the existence of a physically functioning brain."

Unless it is from Word revealed of the truthful Religion, then it is a spiritual reality, please. Word Revealed is another dimension of reality, please.

Regards

How do we objectively determine WHAT is a "truthful Religion"? Spirituality, or a spiritual reality may indeed exist, but you have so far not demonstrated that it does. Also, if the spiritual reality is revealed by the Words of the truthful religion, then the spiritual reality must be objective. This seems to be in clear contradiction with, "The spiritual is known by subjective discovery.". Again I ask, "If spirituality is a subjective discovery, then how can you possibly know that spirituality itself is subjective?".

 

[Truly Enlightened]

The "seer" is simple but complex when explaining it. The closests and simplest word that can be use to explain it is, "thoughts," our thoughts. People are just making it more complicated than it really is. Some only see it as a "special" physical effect of functions of the brain, while others only see it as a "special" nonpysical effect of one's self. But it all comes down to the same thing, which is our "thoughts."

We all think and use words differently. That's the problem with language. The truth is that we see, hear and recognize a word and interpret it as what it's supposed to mean and not what it's meant to mean.

The "seer" is not just our thoughts. It is specifically the supernatural insight of our thoughts. Every imaginary composite of our thoughts is an illusion. Our thoughts have zero-dimensions, therefore they can't exist in any reality. Can you give me an example of a "special non-physical effect of oneself"?

I sure we have all had many unexplainable experiences. But how do we discern between faulty senses, ignorance, and a spiritual encounter?

 

[atanu]

Seer is that linking consciousness, which sees waking and dream state objects and is also aware of object-less deep sleep. If one contemplates one will intuit that the seer is the objectless ground of all subtle-mental objects of dream and the gross-sensual objects of waking. When mind-senses do not operate, the seer abides as the Seer -- homogeneous, unlimited, blissful.

 

[night912]

The "seer" is not just our thoughts. It is specifically the supernatural insight of our thoughts. Every imaginary composite of our thoughts is an illusion. Our thoughts have zero-dimensions, therefore they can't exist in any reality.
I agree that our thoughts can't exist in reality. But what you consider as "supernatural insight," is nothing more than our thoughts. Some may be capable of thinking deeper than others and perhaps have a better understading of things, but it's still just our thoughts. There's nothing supernatural about it.

Can you give me an example of a "special non-physical effect of oneself"?
All the things that you said are examples, such as experience, knowing pain, knowing oneself exist, etc. If it's something supernatural, then it would be an outside source or object, in which we wouldn't be consider as the "seer."

I sure we have all had many unexplainable experiences. But how do we discern between faulty senses, ignorance, and a spiritual encounter?
By thinking deeper and have a better understanding of what had taken place.

Having insights of things that we would normally wouldn't think of, is just part of our thoughts or thought process that changed from how it was in the past. We don't know something because there was no reference in our mind to compare it to. But once we experienced it, there's a better understanding because of having some reference.

 

[night912]

Seer is that linking consciousness which is are of waking state and dream state objects and also aware of object-less deep sleep. If one contemplates one will intuit that the seer is the objectless ground of all subtle-mental objects of dream and the gross-sensual objects of waking. When mind-senses do not operate, the seer abides as the Seer -- homogeneous, unlimited, blissful.

One can have conscious and subconscious thoughts. The subconscious thoughts does not mean that the mind-senses weren't operating. There isn't any evidence of there being something in between the state of being unconscious and conscious.

When someone has a dream that is so real and cannot tell if they are asleep or awake, the mind is thinking consciously. That's why the idea or process of decision making is present.

 

[Milton Platt]

Our universe can be categorised into two: The seer and the seen.

The study of the seen is the field of science. Enquiry into the nature of seer comes under the domain of spiritualism. Then, how is the enquiry into the nature of the seer delusional or fantasy? How can one say that "I have completely understood the seen", if one has not known the seer?

...

What is spiritualism?

 

[atanu]

What is spiritualism?

I mean spiritualism from philosophical perspective in general. This is suggested in the OP itself.

...

 

[atanu]

One can have conscious and subconscious thoughts. The subconscious thoughts does not mean that the mind-senses weren't operating. There isn't any evidence of there being something in between the state of being unconscious and conscious.

When someone has a dream that is so real and cannot tell if they are asleep or awake, the mind is thinking consciously. That's why the idea or process of decision making is present.

In waking, both the mind and senses work. In dream, senses are shut off. In sleep, intellect is shut off. But as per Vedanta, the seer does not slumber.

...

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Seer is that linking consciousness, which sees waking and dream state objects and is also aware of object-less deep sleep. If one contemplates one will intuit that the seer is the objectless ground of all subtle-mental objects of dream and the gross-sensual objects of waking. When mind-senses do not operate, the seer abides as the Seer -- homogeneous, unlimited, blissful.

I don't know where to begin to address all of the equivocation and reification errors, abstractions, conceptions, and unrelated terms. The conscious(waking) state and subconscious(dream) state, are two separate states of conscious awareness, and how the brain processes information. The function of your subconscious mind is to store and retrieve data. Your subconscious mind is subjective. It does not think or reason independently. It is not a "seer", or any other label you wish to choose. It is merely a biological process, that obeys the commands that it receives from the conscious mind. Objects in a dream are not physical or occupy space. They are zero-dimensional illusions, representing the brain accessing the subconscious mind. That's it.

Sorry, regarding consciousness, we know where it is, what it is, and its pathways. We have mapped the neural pathways from specific areas of the forebrain, the midbrain, and the brain stem, that we subjective interpret as consciousness. There are still many mysteries about how the brain functions, but I'm confident that the solutions to these mysteries, will be based on our physical laws, not on any metaphysical laws.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Having insights of things that we would normally wouldn't think of, is just part of our thoughts or thought process that changed from how it was in the past. We don't know something because there was no reference in our mind to compare it to. But once we experienced it, there's a better understanding because of having some reference.

Sorry, I didn't understand this. If you are saying that our subjective insights, are always evolving through our subjective experiences, then I agree. This is how the mind learns new skills, and evolves cognitively. If you are saying that our thoughts and dreams, are a gateway into the spiritual and metaphysical world, then I disagree. The evidence of this is clearly demonstrated whenever the brain is damaged.

If consciousness were extended beyond the physical and perceptual world, then consciousness would no longer be subjective. No matter what we are mentally able to conceive as real, it will always be an illusion. The next time you have a dream of being wealthy, try to hold onto that bar of gold, until you wake up. The next time you are flying around the world in your dream, don't try it when you wake up.

I simply don't see the utility of a "seer", except to create a philosophical exercise in the validity of metaphysical experiences. Again, I have no problems with this.

 

[night912]

Sorry, I didn't understand this. If you are saying that our subjective insights, are always evolving through our subjective experiences, then I agree. This is how the mind learns new skills, and evolves cognitively. If you are saying that our thoughts and dreams, are a gateway into the spiritual and metaphysical world, then I disagree. The evidence of this is clearly demonstrated whenever the brain is damaged.

If consciousness were extended beyond the physical and perceptual world, then consciousness would no longer be subjective. No matter what we are mentally able to conceive as real, it will always be an illusion. The next time you have a dream of being wealthy, try to hold onto that bar of gold, until you wake up. The next time you are flying around the world in your dream, don't try it when you wake up.

I simply don't see the utility of a "seer", except to create a philosophical exercise in the validity of metaphysical experiences. Again, I have no problems with this.

Sorry for the confusion. Yes, what I'm saying is that our mind or way of thinking is evolving with each experience we have, nothing more. We are not tapping into any spiritual or supernatural thing.

 

[night912]

In waking, both the mind and senses work. In dream, senses are shut off. In sleep, intellect is shut off. But as per Vedanta, the seer does not slumber.

...

No, our senses do not shut off during sleep. It may be less "sensitive" than normal, but it's still active. If it was shut off, then we wouldn't be able to hear the alarm clock going off. If you are saying that the "seer" is doing the hearing, then how can we differentiate that from our normal sense of hearing?

 

[Truly Enlightened]

No, our senses do not shut off during sleep. It may be less "sensitive" than normal, but it's still active. If it was shut off, then we wouldn't be able to hear the alarm clock going off. If you are saying that the "seer" is doing the hearing, then how can we differentiate that from our normal sense of hearing?

Thank you for clarifying this. I understand now.

 

[atanu]

No, our senses do not shut off during sleep. It may be less "sensitive" than normal, but it's still active. If it was shut off, then we wouldn't be able to hear the alarm clock going off. If you are saying that the "seer" is doing the hearing, then how can we differentiate that from our normal sense of hearing?

I do not disagree since what you say supports that consciousness is alive and kicking while mind-senses sleep.