What is objective?

[godnotgod]

Sure, it is certainly more effective to be able to look at reality objectively (impersonally) in order to find an intelligent solution.

.

That which is looking is reality itself.

An illusory agent of looking called 'I' is concocted, thinking itself to be real, where no such agent actually exists. There is only the act of looking itself, wihout a 'look-er'.
Do you see that?

Rational man, having made the world and others an 'object' of his intellect, has been attempting this method as an 'intelligent solution' for centuries with disastrous results. This touted 'objectivity' has separated man from the very nature that sustains him, in a way which makes him think he is in control, but instead has brought him literally to the brink of his own destruction, in so many ways.

 

[crossfire]

That which is looking is reality itself. Do you see that?

No.

 

[godnotgod]

No.

What part of you imagines itself to be a separate observer from reality?

If that which is looking is not reality, as you claim, then how can it be 'objective'?

 

[crossfire]

That which is looking is reality itself.

What part of you imagines itself to be a separate observer from reality?

If that which is looking is not reality, as you claim, then how can it be 'objective'?

The subjective mind (through which all of our sensory input is processed) creates a representation--a map, if you will--of what it senses. The map is not the territory, just as the mapmaker is not the territory.

To go to the extreme generalization of "the universe" when the subject is about discernment, not generalization, is counterproductive to discernment. ("The unborn" is the means by which the "born" can be discerned.)

 

[crossfire]

The subjective mind (through which all of our sensory input is processed) creates a representation--a map, if you will--of what it senses. The map is not the territory, just as the mapmaker is not the territory.

To go to the extreme generalization of "the universe" when the subject is about discernment, not generalization, is counterproductive to discernment. ("The unborn" is the means by which the "born" can be discerned.)

You made these claims equating the universe is filled with the abiding part of our consciousness:

There is no such agent of consciousness; there is only consciousness itself, permeating all of existence through and through. The consciousness with which you view the external physical world is not the consciousness of 'I'; it is universal consciousness sculpted to appear as 'I'. It is this sculpted consciousness that thinks itself a separate observer of the observation. I meant it when I said that there is a universal consciousness at the base of existence. It is the fundamental reality. Only the sculpted consciousness we call 'I' and 'thou' is illusory. IOW, there is no 'experiencer of the experience'; there is only the experience itself.

Certainly you are familiar with the Heart Sutra, which says that:

'all phenomena, including ourselves, are empty of inherent self-nature'.

and...

"form is emptiness;
emptiness if form"

What part of you imagines itself to be a separate observer from reality?

If that which is looking is not reality, as you claim, then how can it be 'objective'?

If this was true, then there would be nothing in the universe that was outside our ability to perceive.

Of course, this is entirely untestable, since we wouldn't be able to perceive that which is outside our range of perception. Even attempting to set a range for our perception would not have any objective basis.

 

[godnotgod]

You made these claims equating the universe is filled with the abiding part of our consciousness:

If this was true, then there would be nothing in the universe that was outside our ability to perceive.

Of course, this is entirely untestable, since we wouldn't be able to perceive that which is outside our range of perception. Even attempting to set a range for our perception would not have any objective basis.

There are no 'things' IN the Universe; what we call 'things' are what make up the Universe itself, which includes what we call 'space'.

There is nothing outside of consciousness. The illusory 'I' only supposes 'this' as compared to 'that'. Show me where your consciousness leaves off and the Universe begins.

The 'abiding part of our consciousness' is 'I', which 'I' am only using in the conventional sense. In reality, it is only consciousness itself that either creates the idea of a perceiver of the perceived, or sees things as they are directly, without such an agent of consciousness.

Where is the 'whirler' of the whirling water in a 'whirlpool'?

 

[godnotgod]

The subjective mind (through which all of our sensory input is processed) creates a representation--a map, if you will--of what it senses. The map is not the territory, just as the mapmaker is not the territory.

To go to the extreme generalization of "the universe" when the subject is about discernment, not generalization, is counterproductive to discernment. ("The unborn" is the means by which the "born" can be discerned.)

....and consciousness is the means by which a 'discerner' of that which is discerned is created.

The subjective mind self-creates the notion of a 'senser'; a 'perceiver of the perceived', where no such 'perceiver' actually exists.

IOW, there is only discernment and perception themselves, without agents of discernment or perception known as 'I', or 'the observer'. There exists no such 'experiencer of the experience'. There is only the experience itself, and you are it.

 

[godnotgod]

The Heart Sutra tells us that 'all phenomena are empty of inherent self-nature'. IOW, a 'rock' has no inherent or abiding 'rock nature', since it is interconnected with all other 'things' in the Universe, and co-arises with them. This is the Law of Dependent Origination. Discernment of 'this' vs 'that' misleads the mind into thinking there exist separate 'things', when, in fact, we are responding to FORM, and thereby confusing the two.

'Form' is emptiness;
emptiness is form'

A wave-form on the ocean's surface is not, via discernment, a separate 'thing' called 'wave'. It is none other than the ocean itself. In the same sense, 'you', as 'separate observer' , are not separate from the Universe you are observing. You are the Universe itself, looking at itself through your eyes.

Just as a wave is a total action of the ocean, you are a total action of the Universe at this very moment, falsely thinking yourself to be a separate 'observer of the observation'.

 

[crossfire]

There are no 'things' IN the Universe; what we call 'things' are what make up the Universe itself, which includes what we call 'space'.

Compounded aggregates.

There is nothing outside of consciousness.

I don't presume to make this assertion.

The illusory 'I' only supposes 'this' as compared to 'that'. Show me where your consciousness leaves off and the Universe begins.

You can't, because you are asking to describe what is beyond range of consciousness. I don't know what goes on in your mind. My consciousness leaves off there. We disagree, therefore we are not one. I'm ok with that, are you?

The 'abiding part of our consciousness' is 'I', which 'I' am only using in the conventional sense. In reality, it is only consciousness itself that either creates the idea of a perceiver of the perceived, or sees things as they are directly, without such an agent of consciousness.

I don't make this presumption, either.

Where is the 'whirler' of the whirling water in a 'whirlpool'?

Where is your argument if you drop the "I" concept entirely, as you suggest? Does your argument fall apart when you remove the support of the "I" concept which you claim does not exist?

 

[godnotgod]

Compounded aggregates.


I don't presume to make this assertion.

You can't, because you are asking to describe what is beyond range of consciousness. I don't know what goes on in your mind. My consciousness leaves off there. We disagree, therefore we are not one. I'm ok with that, are you?

I am OK with it only insofar as it is OK with you, but it is OK with you because the consciousness you describe that 'leaves off there' is a personal view, which goes against the Heart Sutra, which says that all phenomena, including ourselves, has no inherent self-nature (ie; 'self'; 'I', etc.). If that is the case, then consciousness must be of the not-self, which is none other than Universal Self. You and I have the same Universal Consciousness, but differing personal views, which is UC that has been sculpted into self-view. All snowflake FORMS are different and unique, but are composed of the same underlying FORMLESS substance: water. Therefore, if there is no self to limit consciousness, then there can be nothing outside of it. IOW, Everything is contained within consciousness, but it's not YOUR consciousness.

Do you agree with the Heart Sutra as regards 'inherent self-nature'?

I don't make this presumption, either.

You either see things as they are, or as they are not. There is no other choice. If such an agent of consciousness called 'I' exists, can you tell me where you see this agent to exist?

Where is your argument if you drop the "I" concept entirely, as you suggest? Does your argument fall apart when you remove the support of the "I" concept which you claim does not exist?

When the 'I' is seen as illusory, only consciousness without 'I', which sees things as they are, remains. 'I' is not supporting consciousness; consciousness is supporting 'I'. I am only asking where this 'I' exists which thinks it sees things as they are. It is an unnecessary addition to the description of the experience. There is no 'I' that is experiencing the experience; there is only the experience itself. There is only whirling water, without a 'whirler' of whirling water. So contrary to what you are suggesting, my argument is strengthened by the absence of the illusory 'I'.

 

[godnotgod]

Rene Descartes' famous cogito ergo sum:

'I think, therefore I exist'

is nicely dismantled by the Danish philosopher Søren Kierkegaard:

Søren Kierkegaard's critique

The Danish philosopher Søren Kierkegaard provided a critical response to the cogito. Kierkegaard argues that the cogito already presupposes the existence of "I", and therefore concluding with existence is logically trivial. Kierkegaard's argument can be made clearer if one extracts the premise "I think" into two further premises:

• "x" thinks
• I am that "x"
• Therefore I think
• Therefore I am

Where "x" is used as a placeholder in order to disambiguate the "I" from the thinking thing.

Here, the cogito has already assumed the "I"'s existence as that which thinks. For Kierkegaard, Descartes is merely "developing the content of a concept", namely that the "I", which already exists, thinks.

Kierkegaard argues that the value of the cogito is not its logical argument, but its psychological appeal: a thought must have something that exists to think the thought. It is psychologically difficult to think "I do not exist". But as Kierkegaard argues, the proper logical flow of argument is that existence is already assumed or presupposed in order for thinking to occur, not that existence is concluded from that thinking.

Cogito ergo sum - Wikipedia

 

[crossfire]

I am OK with it only insofar as it is OK with you, but it is OK with you because the consciousness you describe that 'leaves off there' is a personal view, which goes against the Heart Sutra, which says that all phenomena, including ourselves, has no inherent self-nature (ie; 'self'; 'I', etc.). If that is the case, then consciousness must be of the not-self, which is none other than Universal Self. You and I have the same Universal Consciousness, but differing personal views, which is UC that has been sculpted into self-view. All snowflake FORMS are different and unique, but are composed of the same underlying FORMLESS substance: water. Therefore, if there is no self to limit consciousness, then there can be nothing outside of it. IOW, Everything is contained within consciousness, but it's not YOUR consciousness.

Do you agree with the Heart Sutra as regards 'inherent self-nature'?

Anatta-lakkhana Sutta:

"Consciousness, O monks, is not-self; if consciousness were self, then consciousness would not lead to affliction and it should obtain regarding consciousness: 'May my consciousness be thus, may my consciousness not be thus'; and indeed, O monks, since consciousness is not-self, therefore, consciousness leads to affliction and it does not obtain regarding consciousness: 'May my consciousness be thus, may my consciousness not be thus.'

"What do you think of this, O monks? Is consciousness permanent or impermanent?"

"Impermanent, O Lord."

"Now, that which is impermanent, is it unsatisfactory or satisfactory?"

"Unsatisfactory, O Lord."

"Now, that which is impermanent, unsatisfactory, subject to change, is it proper to regard that as: 'This is mine, this I am, this is my self'?"

"Indeed, not that, O Lord."


​

You either see things as they are, or as they are not. There is no other choice. If such an agent of consciousness called 'I' exists, can you tell me where you see this agent to exist?

When the 'I' is seen as illusory, only consciousness without 'I', which sees things as they are, remains. 'I' is not supporting consciousness; consciousness is supporting 'I'. I am only asking where this 'I' exists which thinks it sees things as they are. It is an unnecessary addition to the description of the experience. There is no 'I' that is experiencing the experience; there is only the experience itself. There is only whirling water, without a 'whirler' of whirling water. So contrary to what you are suggesting, my argument is strengthened by the absence of the illusory 'I'.

Why the obsession with the "I?" Apparently, your argument cannot stand without the "I" concept..

 

[crossfire]

Rene Descartes' famous cogito ergo sum:

'I think, therefore I exist'

is nicely dismantled by the Danish philosopher Søren Kierkegaard:

Søren Kierkegaard's critique

The Danish philosopher Søren Kierkegaard provided a critical response to the cogito. Kierkegaard argues that the cogito already presupposes the existence of "I", and therefore concluding with existence is logically trivial. Kierkegaard's argument can be made clearer if one extracts the premise "I think" into two further premises:

• "x" thinks
• I am that "x"
• Therefore I think
• Therefore I am

Where "x" is used as a placeholder in order to disambiguate the "I" from the thinking thing.

Here, the cogito has already assumed the "I"'s existence as that which thinks. For Kierkegaard, Descartes is merely "developing the content of a concept", namely that the "I", which already exists, thinks.

Kierkegaard argues that the value of the cogito is not its logical argument, but its psychological appeal: a thought must have something that exists to think the thought. It is psychologically difficult to think "I do not exist". But as Kierkegaard argues, the proper logical flow of argument is that existence is already assumed or presupposed in order for thinking to occur, not that existence is concluded from that thinking.

Cogito ergo sum - Wikipedia

Can you have an effect without a cause?

 

[godnotgod]

Anatta-lakkhana Sutta:

"Consciousness, O monks, is not-self; if consciousness were self, then consciousness would not lead to affliction and it should obtain regarding consciousness: 'May my consciousness be thus, may my consciousness not be thus'; and indeed, O monks, since consciousness is not-self, therefore, consciousness leads to affliction and it does not obtain regarding consciousness: 'May my consciousness be thus, may my consciousness not be thus.'

"What do you think of this, O monks? Is consciousness permanent or impermanent?"

"Impermanent, O Lord."

"Now, that which is impermanent, is it unsatisfactory or satisfactory?"

"Unsatisfactory, O Lord."

"Now, that which is impermanent, unsatisfactory, subject to change, is it proper to regard that as: 'This is mine, this I am, this is my self'?"

"Indeed, not that, O Lord."


​

Why the obsession with the "I?" Apparently, your argument cannot stand without the "I" concept..

The sutta you posted says that consciousness is not the self. If it is not the self, then it must, by definition, be the not-self, as the Buddha is telling us, that is to say, universal in nature. Self is the limiting factor; universality is unlimited.

Before things can be seen as they actually are, 'I' must not be the agent of insight. It must be gotten out of the way so that seeing directly into the nature of Reality can occur. Seeing directly into the nature of Reality means that there is no longer a subject/iobject split as maintained by 'I'. There is not the observer over here, and the universe over there. The 'observer' is none other than the Universe itself.

 

[godnotgod]

Can you have an effect without a cause?

If you are dreaming that you are the cause of the effect, upon awakening, where is there any such cause or effect? On the dream level, cause and effect are reality to you, but in the awakened state, they are illusory.

 

[crossfire]

If you are dreaming that you are the cause of the effect, upon awakening, where is there any such cause or effect? On the dream level, cause and effect are reality to you, but in the awakened state, they are illusory.

Dreams are often symbolic of processes within the unconscious mind.

 

[crossfire]

The sutta you posted says that consciousness is not the self. If it is not the self, then it must, by definition, be the not-self, as the Buddha is telling us, that is to say, universal in nature. Self is the limiting factor; universality is unlimited.

Before things can be seen as they actually are, 'I' must not be the agent of insight. It must be gotten out of the way so that seeing directly into the nature of Reality can occur. Seeing directly into the nature of Reality means that there is no longer a subject/iobject split as maintained by 'I'. There is not the observer over here, and the universe over there. The 'observer' is none other than the Universe itself.

Three marks of existence: Anicca: Impermanence, Unsatisfactoriness: Dukkha, and Not-self: Anatta. These are the properties of existence/universe. I can agree with with you with that which observes is impermanent, unsatisfactory, and not-self.

 

[godnotgod]

Three marks of existence: Anicca: Impermanence, Unsatisfactoriness: Dukkha, and Not-self: Anatta. These are the properties of existence/universe. I can agree with with you with that which observes is impermanent, unsatisfactory, and not-self.

It is impermanent and unsatisfactory because it is not-self (ie; 'emptiness') thinking it to be 'self'. The awakening to these 3 conditions must therefore be that which is permanent. What is that by which one awakens?

 

[crossfire]

It is impermanent and unsatisfactory because it is not-self (ie; 'emptiness') thinking it to be 'self'. The awakening to these 3 conditions must therefore be that which is permanent. What is that by which one awakens?

I'm more in the Taoist "change is the only constant" camp.

 

[godnotgod]

I'm more in the Taoist "change is the only constant" camp.

That's fine, but via what kind of conscious awareness do you know that? And once you've addressed that question, the other question becomes against what background is this 'change' understood as change? And if you are really brave of heart, can you tell me what, if anything, is it that is changing?

In dreams, we 'experience' things and events that are changing, but upon awakening, realize that all such 'change' was but a dream. The Buddha experienced a higher awakening from the everyday consciousness of the ordinary man, in which he saw this world as 'empty' of self-nature. If that is the case, then what is it that is changing if, as the 3rd Zen Patriarch stated: "From the very beginning, not a single thing exists"?, that is to say, that nothing possesses an inherent self-nature?