The observer cannot be observed

[Dontaskme]

Then you should be able to answer it.

And the answer is...?

The question “who” can only arise to the sense of a separate self.

No, you invoked the word "observe." I did not. You implied a "who," because you chose the word "observe." That's an active verb, which means somebody has to do it, or it's not being done.

But now you want to play coy games, and say that nobody's doing it. Well, to put it bluntly, "nobody's" never been able to do anything. Therefore, there is not only no "observer," but no "observation" either.

How silly. I can be bothered with this no more.

Apparently, according to you, nobody's speaking anyway, and thus nothing is being spoken. So no-you has no-point.

Just to be clear on the point you made in regard to using the word OBSERVE..yes of course choosing to use that word implies a “something” observing ..I mean how else can “empty looking”be pointed to without using words? That’s all this thread is about..it’s about WHAT OR WHO is looking out of every eyeball....its about this EMPTY LOOKING

And that is another reason why KNOWLEDGE aka human language made out of conceptual words can only point to the illusory nature of reality.

So of course there are accusations going to be thrown around about playing silly word games, it’s unavoidable isn’t it?

Your in a nonduality thread, what did you expect?

[Immanuel Can]

It doesn't seem you detect a difference between the senses (see, touch, taste, and so on) and the "observer," the entity "behind the eyes," so to speak, who is making sense out of the external stimuli.

Yes, in a way.
Have you ever found (and with this I mean: directly perceived/experienced) this "entity "behind the eyes"?

Yes, I would say we all have, especially if we understand "observe" not to simply mean "see visually," but to mean "experienced."

If not, could it be that it is not more than an idea? Simply a thought that arises and states "Hey, I see this apple over there!"
Could it be that this thought is not an "observer" but rather a simple commentary issued by ... no one?

"...a commentary issued by no one?"

Now, there's an idea of which I can make no sense. It seems to me that it's easier to speak of a man lifting himself up by his bootstraps than to speak of a commentary that's real, but has never been issued by anyone.

I do see a problem there. A rudimentary sensor, a mechanical device, can be created to indicate a difference in things like colour or texture. So in the senses sense, the sensor can "detect" the difference. But it is utterly devoid of potential to interpret, categorize, relate or process the difference it detects. It is not an observer.

Agree

Okay, good. Well, if that's true, then it's not enough to say that a sensor is an observer. If a human being, then, is all externality, he/she is just a kind of sensor, but not an observer at all. But you and I, right now, are not only observing our observer status, and speaking about it at length, but even contemplating it, discussing it, and trying to arrive at an understanding of it.

This, a mere sensor can never do.

So if experience is no more than the externals of taste, touch, feel, and so on, then experience is what a rudimentary sensor is having. But I don't think anybody reasonable wants to say that's what the sensor is having.

Well... direct experience is not limited to sensory input, but also consists of thought.
Thought provides the interpretation - and this is very helpful in many ways.
But it also "invents" certain entities that are not based on (or derived from) what is directly experienced via these "sensors" - for example: it invents an observer, or a separate ego-self, which no matter how much one looks, will never be found (via the senses), but can only be thought of...
This is an interesting realisation... and one can either ignore it or dig deeper (and see what else is actually only imagined).

I think we have to recognize a distinction between "experience" and mere "sensing" in the way a rudimentary sensor picks up colour or texture. The rudimentary sensor actually has no "thought" function. It "knows" nothing about what it touches...it merely registers it in the way a stick dragged along a rough surface registers data in the hand of the man who holds it: that is, it passes-along vibrations...no more. The stick is not a "knower," far less an "experiencer."

To "experience" something, the vibrations must be registered in a mind, one capable of processing the data and making interpretations from it. So already, when we even employ the word "experience," we've jumped beyond mere sensor-type stuff, and are in the realm of cognition. And that's why you feel it necessary to invoke words like "thought" and "experience" immediately, I surmise. But when you do, you've already assumed and observer. For where there is a "thought", as Descartes argued, there, too, is a "thinker" whose existence can no longer be doubted.

And that's what I mean when I say I find the idea of an observation without and observer as incoherent as the idea of a man lifting himself by pulling on his own bootstraps.

But I'm curious...you say that thought "invents" the self. What convinces you that the self is not real, and is only an imaginative "invention" of thought?

Well, I see a problem. It's the one above. If the five senses are all that are necessary to constitute an "experience," then there is no need for an observer. But if an observer exists, then something different from Materialism is true. And something more than the five senses is required for an "experience" to happen.

I tend to stick with what I can experience directly. I see, hear, taste, smell and feel (sense of touch) - and then there is conceptual thought.
If the conceptual interpretation of the experience comes up with an entity that I have, so far, never experienced (eg: this observer), then I would put it into the "imaginary"-box.

Well, okay..."I would put it into the imaginary box," you write, "if I couldn't experience it." But I think I have experienced it...and more, I would say, that not only do I experience it, but all experience comes to me through this observer. So he literally mediates everything for me. That's my most compelling conviction about that.

So I'm surprised that you feel confident to say you have not experienced any observer. I don't deny that that is what you believe, of course; I'm not calling you disingenuous. But if it were so, then I can account for it only two ways: one, that you are of a different kind of humanity than I am, or two, that you are perhaps do experience the same as I do, but for some reason are not as aware of it as I happen to be.

Which it is, I cannot say for sure, of course.

It's not merely a difference of quantity, though, but a difference of quality. No matter how "complex" the stimuli picked up by the five senses are, they don't even constitute an "experience" without an observer processing them and making them into something. An experience is qualitatively different from sensors being stimulated. It's actually a different thing.

I am well aware that in the physical sense, there is a certain process of conversion happening - maybe a bit like an analog to digital conversion in a computer system and then there is a certain program/algorithm interpreting this converted data.

I never really like the analogy between human cognition and computer. I think it's deceptive. For computers do not actually think. What they do instead is, under instructions from an intelligence, process outputs that are so superficially similar to human cognition that we are often fooled. But no computer has ever "understood" a single thing. It is neither an observer nor a thinker. It actually has more in common with a (very sophisticated) dead stick being dragged across a rough surface than it has with a human being. What fools us is the mere complexity of the computer's sensing -- not the profundity of its insight.

But where is this separate observer?

As I say, I think I experience him all the time. I'm still mystified that you say you don't.

This still doesnt mean that there are two "observers of exactly the same object" - in direct experience there are neither objects nor observers.

Then, I would say, neither is there any "experience." For mere sensors do not experience. They merely transmit.

You can think of an apple, but you cannot experience "apple" directly.

This is true.

Great! I agree! So if you cannot experience "apple", then you cannot experience any object, right?

Well, it depends on what you mean by "experience." The thing I (the observer) perceive is not the object-in-itself, it's true; but it is a sensory transmission occasioned BY the object, in the sense that if the object did not exist I would not be experiencing it.

So, for example, if I bite into an apple, I do not actually sense the apple-in-itself: rather, I experience a wash of bitterness or sweetness over my tongue, plus some other sensations. But if there were no real apple, there would be no occasion or cause of such a sensation. So, like the stick held in a walker's hand, my tongue passes along the vibrations to my brain, and thus to my observer. But without the observer, there is nothing to receive that sensation of bitterness or sweetness, and nothing to interpret the object as an apple.

Is the observer an object? If yes, then you cannot experience it... If no... then what is it?

Well, what is meant here by "object"? Do you mean a Material object? Then clearly no, it's not that. But do you mean something that really exists in distinction from a predicator...something we can observe, talk about, debate, etc., something immaterial but real, in other words? I think that's what we could say...it's an "object" in that second sense. But no, it's not a material construct of some kind.

I guess I could sort of agree with this, if I was sure I understood what you mean by "made up."

With "made up" I mean thought into objective existence. As you said: One cannot directly experience "apple" - yet we believe that this separate object "apple" exists in its own right. While this is handy thing for communication (and many other areas of daily life) its actually "made up" - not directly experienced.

Okay...so "made up" means an interpretation of assembled data. In that sense, I could agree. We don't have direct and unmediated contact with reality. But we also don't have a totally imaginary or invented contact with reality, in that our experience is "disciplined" or "dictated" by something "out there," i.e. by the real world.

We don't just invent the apple, after all.

Kant said there were two real things in play: one was the external world, of which we have no absolutely correct experience, and the experience that is occasioned by the external world, but is really the observer's processed version of the impressions from the senses. So we have a sort of relatively correct experience that we get from reality. But even Kant did not separate the external world entirely from the internal observer; after all, with no external world, there would be no internal experience. And the internal experience is largely stimulated by the actual activities of the outside world.

Well... this might sound a bit unusual, but... according to direct experience there is no inside or outside, there is no external world - there is just the experience.

No, that doesn't sound plausible to me. Nor does it square with what I believe I am experiencing. Were that so, then our cognitions would be undisciplined by the external world. For example, somebody would pass me an apple, I'd bite into it, and it would taste like a rock, or an emu, or the colour purple...in other words, experience would be random, unpredictable in any sense, and wildly idiosyncratic.

But it's not. I often experience what I have never before experienced, what I don't expect to experience, what I don't even want to experience, perhaps. Reality surprises me often. That means I'm not in control of the process. Something "out there" is really dictating what sorts of experience I can have, under a given stimulus.

What I'm saying is that the truth is a bit of a tightrope walk between two incorrect beliefs. On one side is the falsehood that we observers see the world as it actually is, in all cases; on the other is the error that nothing we see is real, and reality itself is entirely a matter of interpretation.

To me, everything that is directly experienced is real,

But you have already said that you cannot "directly experience" anything. So how does that work?

Interesting thoughts, if a little perplexing. We seem to have a slightly different experience of experiencing.

[Immanuel Can]

its about this EMPTY LOOKING...

That's simple nonsense. With nothing looking, no looking is being done. End of story, there.

[henry quirk]

amazin' to me : all these pure droplets of god-consciousness, each and every one lookin' down their ethereal noses at we poor, limited chimp-folks who insist on bein' real

[Belinda]

amazin' to me : all these pure droplets of god-consciousness, each and every one lookin' down their ethereal noses at we poor, limited chimp-folks who insist on bein' real

What is reality?
https://www.google.com/search?q=optical ... e&ie=UTF-8

[henry quirk]

What is reality?

a big box with a lil bit of stuff inside

[AlexW]

But you have already said that you cannot "directly experience" anything. So how does that work?

I said "you cannot experience any object directly".
There is a small, but also very profound difference between "anything" and "any thing"
And, as far as I remember, you agreed with that... right?

I would say we all have, especially if we understand "observe" not to simply mean "see visually," but to mean "experienced."

The way I define direct experience, it simply means: "see visually", and not imagine something and then believe that I have actually experienced this something.
Its like saying "I see an apple" - the direct experience is simply: a range of colours. There is no object present in this field of color. To say "I see an apple" one has to process this diverse field of color, this pattern, extract a certain part (which is not really a separate part, if seen from direct experience itself), label it and then state: "I see an apple!"
This is also fine and well, but, even we might believe we experience "apple", in reality we actually don't, we only see color... If you look at this in more detail you will find that there is no difference between color and seeing. The two are actually one and the same... Color=Seeing... Thus we could also state: "I see seeing." Does it make sense? No... but it points one into the direction of: every object is just color, which is simply seeing itself...

Now, there's an idea of which I can make no sense. It seems to me that it's easier to speak of a man lifting himself up by his bootstraps than to speak of a commentary that's real, but has never been issued by anyone.

Well... if there is no observer, and also no thinker of thought... then who is issuing a comment? No one - the comment/thought simply arises and vanishes. Thats all.

I think we have to recognize a distinction between "experience" and mere "sensing" in the way a rudimentary sensor picks up colour or texture. The rudimentary sensor actually has no "thought" function. It "knows" nothing about what it touches...it merely registers it in the way a stick dragged along a rough surface registers data in the hand of the man who holds it: that is, it passes-along vibrations...no more. The stick is not a "knower," far less an "experiencer."

Agree, the "stick is not a "knower," far less an "experiencer."
But the same is true for thought, for the voice "in your head". Thought is not an experiencer or knower - it is being known. The only paradox is, that it is known by no one. Why? Because it is "made of" knowing... There is no separate knower required, as knowing/experiencing is the "nature/fabric" of reality.
Its a bit like a dream being known as a whole - there is no entity within the dream who knows the contents/objects of the dream - its much rather that the dream itself is pure knowing (aka: pure consciousness) itself.

But I'm curious...you say that thought "invents" the self. What convinces you that the self is not real, and is only an imaginative "invention" of thought?

There are many indications for that. First, look at very young children, they do not have a separate self at all, they don't recognise themselves in a mirror etc etc... the conceptual structure that we call "I/self" is acquired over the years, it changes, it grows as conceptual knowledge grows.
If you wipe all personal memories out your brain, are you still yourself? No, of course not. You are an empty, yet sensory experiencing husk...
Why did the conceptual self come to be at all? I don't know... maybe its an evolutionary leap, providing some sort of advantage to the species (and maybe it did - humans "control", but are also in the process of destroying the planet...)
Anyway... its still not more than a conceptual structure, and, like with all concepts, there is no reality in them. They are like a mirage, an optical illusion, that one can take for real, but when looking at it close up... its not even there.

As I say, I think I experience him all the time. I'm still mystified that you say you don't.

You are exactly on target: You THINK you experience him all the time.
What you actually experience is not "him", but only a thought.

[Immanuel Can]

But you have already said that you cannot "directly experience" anything. So how does that work?

I said "you cannot experience any object directly".
There is a small, but also very profound difference between "anything" and "any thing"

Yes, I agree.

And I think that takes us to our point of agreement AND our point of difference, if I may summarize so far.

We agree that the "observer," whatever that is, does not experience "things" directly. Rather, we have only our sensory impressions, though those are not simply idiosyncratic or personal, but are really produced in us by the external reality. So far, so good.

Where we disagree is on the receptor of those impressions. If I understand you aright, you think there's a "thought" without a thinker. And I am convinced that's wrong. I think the idea of a "thought" arising without a thinker is no more coherent than the idea of a voice with no speaker. I would suggest that the existence of an observation, or the existence of a thought, or the existence of an experience, is very compelling evidence for the existence of an observer, a thinker and an experiencer respectively.

Moreover, I think the default belief, whenever there is a voice heard, or a thought expressed, or an observation made, is that we look around to see who said that, who expressed that thought, or whose observation it was. So the burden of proof is a responsibility heavily upon the shoulders of anyone who says there's no such thing as any of those.

And I see nothing so far sufficient to meet that burden. In fact, it seems to me those things are absolute slam-dunk evidence for that. Descartes, of course, agreed with me. How you can suppose a thought to exist without a thinker seems to me utterly implausible. So on that, we're differing at present. And there we stand.

But I think we can even get at the "observer" concept another way. And that is, through metacognition..."thinking about thinking," if you will. For you and I, right now, are thinking about the meaning of our thinking. The discussion we're having is not arising from external stimuli, but from internal cognitions we're having. Heck, we're not even in the same room, and aren't typing at the same time, and cannot possibly be experiencing the same external stimuli.

Yet here, on screen in front of us, is evidence of your cognition and mine...and more, of our metacognition and meta-meta-cognition, now. There is a thinker on my terminal, and an observer in my room. Unless you're a bot, there is also one in yours.

Now, I know one can pseudo-subvert this evidence simply by arguing that the computer is, itself, nothing but an external stimulus Alex is having, and bears no content of thought from another thinker. But to me, that sort of attempt to explain away is a bridge too far. It comes to look like gratuitous obscurantism, refusal of obvious evidence...which is always possible, for even the most physical and obvious evidence. But at some point, an expression like "C'mon, dude," applies, I think.

So I'm going to say that I'm not at all persuaded by the idea that there is no observer. I both know that I am one, and that I am observing that fact. And I think it's a mistake to suppose that since a thought is a dynamic action, it implies there is no one performing the dynamic action. I see no reason at all the such a conclusion is implied, and plenty of reason it's not. After all, to "leap" is a dynamic action, too; but without a "leaper," there is no truth to saying, "Here is a leap." Just so, there is no truth to saying, "There is a thought...but no thinker."

That seems very manifest to me. I can't actually imagine how one justifies the other view.

So we have an agreement and a difference. There's a point I can concede, and something I can't. Where do we go from here? Do we just agree to partly agree? Or do you suppose there's more to say?

[AlexW]

We agree that the "observer," whatever that is, does not experience "things" directly. Rather, we have only our sensory impressions, though those are not simply idiosyncratic or personal, but are really produced in us by the external reality. So far, so good.

Well... close but not exactly.
To be more precise, direct experience (DE) - sensory impressions minus all conceptual interpretations - is not "produced in us by the external reality".
The "in us" is already an interpretation, "external reality" is as well.
Its rather the case that the only "thing" that you can actually know directly is this very direct experience of here/now (which is actually not a "thing"/object).
All conceptual interpretations, while also known via/as thought, only point to identified patterns (so called objects) within eg the field of vision, they point to a part of reality, while the directly experienced reality itself has no parts at all (in DE there is no separation - eg the field of vision is always one whole, even you might identify a range of apparently separate objects within this field).

Where we disagree is on the receptor of those impressions. If I understand you aright, you think there's a "thought" without a thinker. And I am convinced that's wrong. I think the idea of a "thought" arising without a thinker is no more coherent than the idea of a voice with no speaker. I would suggest that the existence of an observation, or the existence of a thought, or the existence of an experience, is very compelling evidence for the existence of an observer, a thinker and an experiencer respectively.

Sure, its compelling evidence, and it works in the dualistic/conceptual world of thought. But in DE there is no such evidence at all... and as DE is primary, and all conceptual interpretations are derived from it (in one way or the other), the "mistake" can only be in the interpretation. Reality cannot be faulty, or wrong in any way... only an interpretation can be wrong.

Yet here, on screen in front of us, is evidence of your cognition and mine..

There is evidence for cognition, for thoughts arising and vanishing, yes, agree - but there is no direct evidence that there are two controlling entities in charge of these discussions (don't get me wrong, I am not saying that it doesn't make sense - conventionally speaking - that there is a you and a me having a discussion ... I am only pointing out that in this direct experience - which I call: reality - there is no such evidence at all).

So I'm going to say that I'm not at all persuaded by the idea that there is no observer.

I don't want to persuade you of the idea. I only want you to actually investigate yourself and then, honestly, make your own judgement... if you are ok to simply believe in entities like an observer or thinker without ever really experiencing them... well... thats also fine... most people do... the world revolves around egos, thinkers, doers and deciders...

there is no truth to saying, "There is a thought...but no thinker."

The proof/truth is in the pudding. You have to eat the pudding not just read the label and believe its true

Where do we go from here? Do we just agree to partly agree?

As you like. I am happy to leave it with that. Feels like we are repeating the same ideas only using different words...

[Immanuel Can]

We agree that the "observer," whatever that is, does not experience "things" directly. Rather, we have only our sensory impressions, though those are not simply idiosyncratic or personal, but are really produced in us by the external reality. So far, so good.

Well... close but not exactly. To be more precise, direct experience (DE) - sensory impressions minus all conceptual interpretations - is not "produced in us by the external reality".
The "in us" is already an interpretation, "external reality" is as well.

Yeah, okay...then we don't agree about that after all. My mistake.

Where we disagree is on the receptor of those impressions. If I understand you aright, you think there's a "thought" without a thinker. And I am convinced that's wrong. I think the idea of a "thought" arising without a thinker is no more coherent than the idea of a voice with no speaker. I would suggest that the existence of an observation, or the existence of a thought, or the existence of an experience, is very compelling evidence for the existence of an observer, a thinker and an experiencer respectively.

Sure, its compelling evidence, and it works in the dualistic/conceptual world of thought. But in DE there is no such evidence at all...

Yeah, that's what I meant when I said it was always possible to keep denying it. I just don't find it a bit plausible.

Reality cannot be faulty, or wrong in any way... only an interpretation can be wrong.

See, this is why I think even the view you're expressing can't be consistent with itself. If there is no external reality of an objective kind, then of course it cannot be faulty...but only in the sense that nothing that's already a delusion can be faulty. Its "fault" is inherent to it. And then, there's also no such thing as an "interpretation," because ALL things are an "interpretation," which is the same as to say that the term "interpretation" refers to nothing in particular.

I don't believe that. I find it utterly incoherent, in addition to being contrary to my experience. But if it can be believed, you do have a right to believe it if you want. I just don't know that a belief so devoid of criteria, so devoid of the possibility of falsification, can be believed.

So I'm going to say that I'm not at all persuaded by the idea that there is no observer.

I don't want to persuade you of the idea. I only want you to actually investigate yourself and then, honestly, make your own judgement...

I have thought about the idea. I must confess that I find it both implausible and rationally incoherent. So I suppose, speaking honestly, that's my judgment on it.

there is no truth to saying, "There is a thought...but no thinker."

The proof/truth is in the pudding. You have to eat the pudding not just read the label and believe its true

Well, the problem is that in order to eat the Relativistic "pudding," you have to abandon all criteria and defy rationality. And once you've done that, you've no longer got a test for truthfulness. So the delusion cannot be falsified any longer. So you're asking a person to take a blind leap into the abyss of confusion, with no reason, and with no prospect of being able to return.

If you'll forgive my saying so, I think that's not a sensible journey to take. There is, in fact, no reason at all to take it, so far as I can see. And if reasons can be adduced for it, then it would mean that it's also not true; for then, rationality would apply again.

As you like. I am happy to leave it with that. Feels like we are repeating the same ideas only using different words...

Perhaps so. Nevertheless, I thank you for sharing your perspective on that. It's not a trip I plan to take, but I'm grateful for the opportunity to hear your thoughts on it.

Best wishes. Thanks for all your sharing.

[AlexW]

I don't believe that. I find it utterly incoherent, in addition to being contrary to my experience. But if it can be believed, you do have a right to believe it if you want. I just don't know that a belief so devoid of criteria, so devoid of the possibility of falsification, can be believed.

Maybe thats exactly the point ... in DE there is nothing to believe, nothing to falsify. It simply "is".

Best wishes. Thanks for all your sharing.

Thank you. I enjoyed our discussion

[Dontaskme]

... in DE there is nothing to believe, nothing to falsify. It simply "is".

Direct experience is the collapse of belief into pure clarity.

Aka Simply Isness.

Thanks for all y/our clarity Alex.

[Dontaskme]

its about this EMPTY LOOKING...

That's simple nonsense. With nothing looking, no looking is being done. End of story, there.

There are many schools of Vedanta including the well propagated schools of Advaita Vedanta, Vishishtadvaita, and Dvaita. It is a Sanskrit word meaning “end of knowledge”, a compound of two words “Veda” meaning “Knowledge” and “ Anta” meaning “End”.

End of the story of the dontask me character.

But not the end of the real me in which the story of me appears and disappears. The real reality has no story, the real reality is the pure blank screen of nothingness before knowledge aka a projected image of me appears which is known instantly one with the knowing ...or put another way...”knowledge” to mean being lucid within the dream...Aware of being aware, aka an illusory separation.


But that’s just how this one here experiences her reality, I’m not saying what I’m experiencing is absolutely true for others, you can take it or leave it.

Your own unique understanding will be your only reality however you see it according to how it is appearing to you only based on your what your personal algorithm and conditioning is showing you.

While I’m simply showing mine how I see it.


.

[Dontaskme]

Another understanding of the term Vedanta (“the end of knowledge”), is that it ends all further search for knowledge, because the subject matter of Vedanta is Self Knowledge, raja vidya ('the king of knowledge'); knowing which nothing remains to be known or attained.

No need to eat those apples from the tree.

What you do know will always be far outweighed by what you don't know.

[Belinda]

its about this EMPTY LOOKING...

That's simple nonsense. With nothing looking, no looking is being done. End of story, there.

There are many schools of Vedanta including the well propagated schools of Advaita Vedanta, Vishishtadvaita, and Dvaita. It is a Sanskrit word meaning “end of knowledge”, a compound of two words “Veda” meaning “Knowledge” and “ Anta” meaning “End”.

End of the story of the dontask me character.

But not the end of the real me in which the story of me appears and disappears. The real reality has no story, the real reality is the pure blank screen of nothingness before knowledge aka a projected image of me appears which is known instantly one with the knowing ...or put another way...”knowledge” to mean being lucid within the dream...Aware of being aware, aka an illusory separation.


But that’s just how this one here experiences her reality, I’m not saying what I’m experiencing is absolutely true for others, you can take it or leave it.

Your own unique understanding will be your only reality however you see it according to how it is appearing to you only based on your what your personal algorithm and conditioning is showing you.

While I’m simply showing mine how I see it.


.

What DAM describes here causes me to picture something we have all actually experienced, and which I think is a suitable analogy for

the real me in which the story of me appears and disappears.

(DAM)

It is our experience of an out of focus picture that gradually focuses on separated entities.Thus "the story of me" alternates between focused awareness of 'me' and the unfocused picture where entities and events are melded.

Brahma is the creator of what we know as the individuated world we live in. His consort was knowledge.If we worship Brahma too much we lose touch with the god of gods who is Brahman.