The observer cannot be observed

Is the mind the same as the body? What is consciousness? Can machines have it?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 8932
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm

Re: The observer cannot be observed

Post by Dontaskme »

IC wrote:

No, no...that's no good. That's a contradictory explanation.

You've already denied that such things can exist. All is thought, remember? So there's no real "brain," just "the thought of there being a brain," which means that the brain can't literally be the cause of anything.

So what's the real explanation?
Explaining an idea is dualism which is an appearance that comes and goes. Dualism is the error of using language in the attempt to know thyself. Beingness requires NO KNOWLEDGE in order to BE. Self simply IS whole in every instance.

The “known self “ appears in conjunction with a thought. That conceptualised self is Known by no separate self, it’s known by the only knowing there is which happens to be prior to any conceptualised thought. Knowing is simply pure infinite Awareness that pervades every thought that arises in it...otherwise no “thought” would ever be known or recognised.

When “ Descartes” said “I think therefore I am” a quote you yourself believe is valid .. this quote says nothing, the quote does not explain anything, something you yourself are asking for.

This conceptual pointing cannot be explained, it can only be realised. Words are only pointing to that realisation.

It’s plainly obvious this cannot be explained otherwise you yourself would not be debating or arguing or disagreeing this with anyone, you’d already know, and that would be the end of it.

There are no contradictions in nondual nature. Contradictories are artificial mental constructions upon what is fundamentally always this essential non dual beingness prior to any artificial conceptual overlay.


.
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 8932
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm

Re: The observer cannot be observed

Post by Dontaskme »

Nonduality does not DENY the existence of a world “out there”

It’s simply pointing to the empty imageless screen on which the Illusory movie of life is playing upon, namely, the observer.

The illusory movie is real enough, but only as the known concept dictates in this apparent conception no thing ever conceived. That contradiction is an appearance within the effect of language, and so it seems there are only effects here. No causer is ever seen, a causer is only known within the effects in association with ...although on closer inspection via self inquiry all things are seen to be completely empty of any apparent separation.

.
Belinda
Posts: 4318
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: The observer cannot be observed

Post by Belinda »

Dontaskme wrote: Fri Oct 16, 2020 7:17 am Nonduality does not DENY the existence of a world “out there”

It’s simply pointing to the empty imageless screen on which the Illusory movie of life is playing upon, namely, the observer.

The illusory movie is real enough, but only as the known concept dictates in this apparent conception no thing ever conceived. That contradiction is an appearance within the effect of language, and so it seems there are only effects here. No causer is ever seen, a causer is only known within the effects in association with ...although on closer inspection via self inquiry all things are seen to be completely empty of any apparent separation.

.
8)
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 9358
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Re: The observer cannot be observed

Post by henry quirk »

AlexW wrote: Fri Oct 16, 2020 4:25 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Oct 16, 2020 3:52 am
AlexW wrote: Fri Oct 16, 2020 3:49 am
Haha... yeah, seems like it.
Lets jump off the carousel and go to the pub ;-)
First round on me.
Now you're talking :D
g & t, bit of lime: I'm good to go

or beer...lots of beer

let's go, gentlemen
Dimebag
Posts: 272
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 2:12 am

Re: The observer cannot be observed

Post by Dimebag »

henry quirk wrote: Fri Oct 16, 2020 3:51 pm
AlexW wrote: Fri Oct 16, 2020 4:25 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Oct 16, 2020 3:52 am
First round on me.
Now you're talking :D
g & t, bit of lime: I'm good to go

or beer...lots of beer

let's go, gentlemen
Well that’s one way to lose your self :wink:
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 9358
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Re: The observer cannot be observed

Post by henry quirk »

Dimebag wrote: Fri Oct 16, 2020 10:17 pm
henry quirk wrote: Fri Oct 16, 2020 3:51 pm
AlexW wrote: Fri Oct 16, 2020 4:25 am
Now you're talking :D
g & t, bit of lime: I'm good to go

or beer...lots of beer

let's go, gentlemen
Well that’s one way to lose your self :wink:
only durin' the blackouts
jayjacobus
Posts: 965
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

Re: The observer cannot be observed

Post by jayjacobus »

We don't know the observer and here is why:


There are different wave lengths to light but the wave lengths only become colors when they are processed by the brain. This means that light has no colors until the brain transforms them.

In somewhat the same way an engine transforms fuel into motion. Without the engine, fuel would not cause motion.

Engines are well understood but the brain mechanism that changes light waves into colors is not. Not only that but the form of colors in the brain has not been determined. While the mind perceives colors, it is not understood what colors are made of nor what the mind is made of.

Neuroscientists have followed the matter and energy paths in the brain but the when they get close to the end they don't know if the mind is made of energy, matter or something else (spirit?)

We might be able to observe the observer but science has not reached that point yet. But it may someday reach that point.

Ghost might be a starting point. If computer vision "sees" the ghost, then the ghost is creating light waves. If the computer doesn't see the ghost, then we are "seeing" the ghost with our minds.
User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5559
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis

Re: The observer cannot be observed

Post by SpheresOfBalance »

Dontaskme wrote: Fri Oct 09, 2020 8:59 am
The solitary confined are proof that the observer must observe itself as it observes, else it's labelled insane
On the absolute level of understanding...We’re all in solitary confinement in every moment right here and now because there’s only one of us here. And 1 is the loneliest number.

On the human level. We’re also all suffering from a degenerate mental terminal illness, because we have knowledge that we are going to die.

ONLY The sane person that lets go of the desire to KNOW lives out the rest of eternity shining 🌞🌞🌞🌞🌞

Don’t feel sorry for yourself, you do not have to be a beggar in your own kingdom.
You're totally missing it, but I appreciate your reference to the 3 dogs. ;-)

I'm talking of absolutely no contact with any other person, totally alone, totally isolated. The study was done and it's findings conclusive. Those utterly alone, with absolutely no human contact, no communication with anyone but themselves, relatively, go insane. They no longer know how to act around others.

Another study was done concerning the Romanian Orphans, that had absolutely no physical touch, no sweet loving whispers, no close loving, no reassurance, which grew up cold and distant, treating others as things, they would easily kill you without any opposing consideration whatsoever. They were, relatively machines.

The studies were done, the evidence is clear, the observers are constantly observing others, thus themselves, else they know not how to assimilate, not how to mix, not how to be one of the rest, they loose sight of self identity as it is included in society.

You are a female, right? Have you ever had a baby, a child, an infant? Have you ever paid very close attention to the way they learns through mimicry? To know they have succeeded they must know themselves else one cannot know they have succeeded; (The observer observing themselves).

The above is clear evidence that the observer observes others, and in so doing observes itself, as it creates itself from those observations, that's what learning is, to ensure one mimics through constant monitoring so as to be accepted, included, else relative to the whole of society it's deemed insane, it's unaccepted and shunned.

Everyone wants to be included in one group or another. No one here has known such isolation, else relatively they'd speak total and utter gibberish.

The observer observes itself in a way that is covert, that is relatively unknown to those not capable of admitting to themselves, often more in a state of denial relative to others. Those that have studied psychology are more apt to understand this truth.

Before one can talk of the human mind, they must have studied the human mind and come to know it well. The actual facts of the matter.
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 8932
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm

Re: The observer cannot be observed

Post by Dontaskme »

SpheresOfBalance wrote: Tue Oct 20, 2020 1:18 pm
Dontaskme wrote: Fri Oct 09, 2020 8:59 am
The solitary confined are proof that the observer must observe itself as it observes, else it's labelled insane
On the absolute level of understanding...We’re all in solitary confinement in every moment right here and now because there’s only one of us here. And 1 is the loneliest number.

On the human level. We’re also all suffering from a degenerate mental terminal illness, because we have knowledge that we are going to die.

ONLY The sane person that lets go of the desire to KNOW lives out the rest of eternity shining 🌞🌞🌞🌞🌞

Don’t feel sorry for yourself, you do not have to be a beggar in your own kingdom.
You're totally missing it, but I appreciate your reference to the 3 dogs. ;-)

I'm talking of absolutely no contact with any other person, totally alone, totally isolated. The study was done and it's findings conclusive. Those utterly alone, with absolutely no human contact, no communication with anyone but themselves, relatively, go insane. They no longer know how to act around others.

Another study was done concerning the Romanian Orphans, that had absolutely no physical touch, no sweet loving whispers, no close loving, no reassurance, which grew up cold and distant, treating others as things, they would easily kill you without any opposing consideration whatsoever. They were, relatively machines.

The studies were done, the evidence is clear, the observers are constantly observing others, thus themselves, else they know not how to assimilate, not how to mix, not how to be one of the rest, they loose sight of self identity as it is included in society.

You are a female, right? Have you ever had a baby, a child, an infant? Have you ever paid very close attention to the way they learns through mimicry? To know they have succeeded they must know themselves else one cannot know they have succeeded; (The observer observing themselves).

The above is clear evidence that the observer observes others, and in so doing observes itself, as it creates itself from those observations, that's what learning is, to ensure one mimics through constant monitoring so as to be accepted, included, else relative to the whole of society it's deemed insane, it's unaccepted and shunned.

Everyone wants to be included in one group or another. No one here has known such isolation, else relatively they'd speak total and utter gibberish.

The observer observes itself in a way that is covert, that is relatively unknown to those not capable of admitting to themselves, often more in a state of denial relative to others. Those that have studied psychology are more apt to understand this truth.

Before one can talk of the human mind, they must have studied the human mind and come to know it well. The actual facts of the matter.
Yes, I guess I’m totally missing it, since I see we are talking about two completely different things. And I’m not sure how our discussion has diverged so far away from the original intention of the OP ...but talking about the wrong “I” is often unavoidable. 🤷‍♀️

But in reference to what you are talking about here in above comments ...I understand what you are saying and concur with the basic principle.

.
User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5559
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis

Re: The observer cannot be observed

Post by SpheresOfBalance »

Dontaskme wrote: Tue Oct 20, 2020 6:35 pm
SpheresOfBalance wrote: Tue Oct 20, 2020 1:18 pm
Dontaskme wrote: Fri Oct 09, 2020 8:59 am

On the absolute level of understanding...We’re all in solitary confinement in every moment right here and now because there’s only one of us here. And 1 is the loneliest number.

On the human level. We’re also all suffering from a degenerate mental terminal illness, because we have knowledge that we are going to die.

ONLY The sane person that lets go of the desire to KNOW lives out the rest of eternity shining 🌞🌞🌞🌞🌞

Don’t feel sorry for yourself, you do not have to be a beggar in your own kingdom.
You're totally missing it, but I appreciate your reference to the 3 dogs. ;-)

I'm talking of absolutely no contact with any other person, totally alone, totally isolated. The study was done and it's findings conclusive. Those utterly alone, with absolutely no human contact, no communication with anyone but themselves, relatively, go insane. They no longer know how to act around others.

Another study was done concerning the Romanian Orphans, that had absolutely no physical touch, no sweet loving whispers, no close loving, no reassurance, which grew up cold and distant, treating others as things, they would easily kill you without any opposing consideration whatsoever. They were, relatively machines.

The studies were done, the evidence is clear, the observers are constantly observing others, thus themselves, else they know not how to assimilate, not how to mix, not how to be one of the rest, they loose sight of self identity as it is included in society.

You are a female, right? Have you ever had a baby, a child, an infant? Have you ever paid very close attention to the way they learns through mimicry? To know they have succeeded they must know themselves else one cannot know they have succeeded; (The observer observing themselves).

The above is clear evidence that the observer observes others, and in so doing observes itself, as it creates itself from those observations, that's what learning is, to ensure one mimics through constant monitoring so as to be accepted, included, else relative to the whole of society it's deemed insane, it's unaccepted and shunned.

Everyone wants to be included in one group or another. No one here has known such isolation, else relatively they'd speak total and utter gibberish.

The observer observes itself in a way that is covert, that is relatively unknown to those not capable of admitting to themselves, often more in a state of denial relative to others. Those that have studied psychology are more apt to understand this truth.

Before one can talk of the human mind, they must have studied the human mind and come to know it well. The actual facts of the matter.
Yes, I guess I’m totally missing it, since I see we are talking about two completely different things. And I’m not sure how our discussion has diverged so far away from the original intention of the OP ...but talking about the wrong “I” is often unavoidable. 🤷‍♀️
There is no other I, one that believes so, is in denial. They search for things not there, often for many different types of gains, usually selfish in nature, though not always. The only I is the Id/Ego/Self/Psyche, It is the conglomeration of all it has been recording, added together, often in what ever order it deems necessary, unfortunately dependant upon what it decides serves it best. Yes It can lie to itself, not understanding why it lies, which is the reason its consciousness cannot access it's unconsciousness/subconsciousness. There as a safety measure so as to not allow the truth to collide with the lies, else it ends up in a viscous circle of internal conflict, relatively quite insane. The ones we see in the news, that kill others, the ones whose conscious and unconsciousness/subconsciousness minds have collided, often with no understanding of such a collision, certainly not understanding the truth/facts of things. They've become that thing that all humans fear because they had selfish agendas, ignorant of the truth/facts.

All the senses that pick up external data from the universe connect to the one thing that trys to make sense of it all, the brain/mind, which is the only I/"eye" there is, the ONE thing that tries to sum up all the data. The senses do not decide, they simply relay. The mind tries to add it all together but for the differences between us often it only gleans partial understanding of the data, either purposeful to serve its self serving agendas or honestly due to ignorance of understandings yet to be understood.

For those purposeful of omission, the division between consciousness and subconsciousness stands in the way of insanity. For those of the ignorance crowd, the division slows the exactness of understanding, such that the truth very slowly unfolds. There are two. Those quick to jump to half baked, self serving conclusions and those willing to wait as the truth becomes apparent as all data is considered, devoid of self serving considerations. True philosophers and subsequently scientists care not what the truth/facts is/are they only care that they serve the truth/facts whatever they be. They're not fearful to face themselves in the mirror of understanding, because they know it'll always set them free. Only to be revisionist in nature is the only way one can be truthful/honest, in accordance with the facts. To be anything less is to be a fool!

In accordance with the Truth/Facts of the universe is the only way to be anything that is real; Anything that is truly studious; Anything that actually understands; Anything that shall live on to the end of our time; Anything that is the model with which all others must be compared!

The only I is the totality of each one of us, we are human, and we either get it or we don't, however long it may take, either way, until we implode or explode, we are both our folly and our understanding in truth. The ratio of which should weigh in favor of understanding, so as to be the most complete/honest/clear of what it is to be human or what ever we may call ourselves when such is true.


But in reference to what you are talking about here in above comments ...I understand what you are saying and concur with the basic principle.

Actually I see it as the very same to which you refer. Sometimes the splitting of hairs are not necessary, instead they are actually redundant, not required.

The senses do not observe, the CNS observes, as it observes it can only observe itself because that is where the observer is contained. If you are concerned with that which it reports about itself, it does not mean it's not aware of all the rest. What it knows and what it reports are often two different things, purposely!
User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5559
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis

Re: The observer cannot be observed

Post by SpheresOfBalance »

Dontaskme wrote: Fri Oct 16, 2020 6:58 am
IC wrote:

No, no...that's no good. That's a contradictory explanation.

You've already denied that such things can exist. All is thought, remember? So there's no real "brain," just "the thought of there being a brain," which means that the brain can't literally be the cause of anything.

So what's the real explanation?
Explaining an idea is dualism
No it's not, explaining is the only thing one has to inform self or others.
which is an appearance that comes and goes. Dualism is the error of using language in the attempt to know thyself.
There is no such thing as dualism, you are the culmination of everything you've learned. There is only one in that cranium of yours. You've lost the time that it took for you to be you. You're trying to de-evolve/de-construct it, but you can't as it started long before you were born, all that you currently are came into being at the same time over millennia.

You cannot know of the simplest form of being as it only existed billions of years ago. You are far to far removed!

Also, my lady, know that you are now using language to speak of being, could it be in error as you have said above? Anyone that questions language, must question their argument that has used language in an attempt to convey.


Beingness requires NO KNOWLEDGE in order to BE. Self simply IS whole in every instance.
Your sense of beingness is a construct of that which you are today, all things necessarily inclusive, such that you're incapable of the differentiation between then and now.

The “known self “ appears in conjunction with a thought.
No, it's much simpler than that, the known self is simply being, in that first instant that anything can understand that it is.

That conceptualised self is Known by no separate self, it’s known by the only knowing there is which happens to be prior to any conceptualised thought.
To be is a concept. Awareness is to know. Sensing is to know. To be is to know.

Knowing is simply pure infinite Awareness that pervades every thought that arises in it...otherwise no “thought” would ever be known or recognised.
In the strictest meaning of the word, nothing can be said to be infinite with any degree of certainty, as no humans are infinite, (empiricism). Anything less than the strictest meaning of the word, it cannot mean, as anything less than infinite is not infinite.

When “ Descartes” said “I think therefore I am” a quote you yourself believe is valid .. this quote says nothing, the quote does not explain anything, something you yourself are asking for.
But it does by your standards. Seemingly for something to be, it must know it is. Is a lump of pure iron? Is it because it knows that it is? Is it because it doesn't know that it is? If it were the only thing/object/subject, is it? Of course there would be nothing to say it is. Would it (being) be real in such a case? Concept?

This conceptual pointing cannot be explained, it can only be realised. Words are only pointing to that realisation.

It’s plainly obvious this cannot be explained otherwise you yourself would not be debating or arguing or disagreeing this with anyone, you’d already know, and that would be the end of it.

There are no contradictions in nondual nature. Contradictories are artificial mental constructions upon what is fundamentally always this essential non dual beingness prior to any artificial conceptual overlay.
There is no dualism in nature. Contradictions are simply created by individuals of humankind that are ignorant of how to use language effectively.
.
Oh yeah, and the observer is always capable of observing itself.

Edit: typo, is to it
Last edited by SpheresOfBalance on Sat Nov 07, 2020 10:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Dimebag
Posts: 272
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 2:12 am

Re: The observer cannot be observed

Post by Dimebag »

It’s true that there is only one “I”, there is no other, but, the actual “I” or awareness, can merge, or can remain attached to its contents.

For that reason, this affects awareness’s own understanding of itself, or in other words, it’s identity.

But identity is like a tree like structure in the mind (not literally), but as a networked structure. It contains a “root”, and this root is connected to larger branch like “structures” which awareness can merge with, at any point.

One branch might contain your identity as your profession or work, another, as a carer such as father or mother. Another branch exists as man, or woman. This is sexual identity. All of these are branches. Some branches exist attached further from the root than others, and some branches branch from other branches, for example, the “man” branch is closer to the root than the “father” branch. The closer the branch is to the root, the more unchanging this aspect of identity is. But, further down this tree of identity, there are more fundamental aspects of identity, for instance, very close to the root, is the identity as the agent of all actions, thinker of thoughts, then, closely tied, is the identity as the body. You actually identify “as” the body.

Important to note is, awareness is always looking “through” this tree of identity, and “as” one of the branches. Whichever branch it looks “as” it identifies “as” that aspect of identity, plus all other branches leading towards the root. But all parts of the identity structure leading back towards the root, are essentially invisible to awareness, because it’s looking as, and through. These aspects are essentially unconsciously held, and “assumed” without awareness.

Notice throughout the day, the branches you identify as, changes. For instances, you might begin the day waking to your alarm, telling you to wake up and get ready for work. As such, you are identifying “as” your profession. Then, you might go see a friend later in the day, and you switch to the friend branch of this tree of identity.

Have you ever noticed, that your wife tells you, “you are a different person around your friends”? That’s because, you actually are. Your identity informs the way you act, what is appropriate and what’s not, things you can and can’t say. Even the way you speak, including accents, or nuances of speech. You have no control of this. It’s completely situational, unless of course, you notice it.

At the very base of this tree of identity is the sense “I am”. This can only be known once all other aspects of identity have been shed, by “detaching” or disidentifying.

Important to note is, once awareness knows, or sees an aspect of identity from outside that branch, it can then realise when it is “merged”, and thus, has an ability to detach, by becoming mindful.

The “I am”, is the last bastion of identity, once it’s been seen that one is awareness, there can still be this sense of “I am”, the non distinct sense of being here. This is what keeps awareness from knowing itself “as” itself, because awareness is actually not distinct from its contents. The contents “play” within awareness, like waves on the surface of a body of water.

The system of identity, also is the system which sorts self from other. If it’s seen that there is no self, by implication it is known that there is no other. This is why when the illusion of self is seen through, awareness knows it is the same as every other thing which appears in it, because it is that which appears in it.

This is how one comes to know the “observer IS the observed”, as distinct from “the observer cannot be observed”, which means, everything you look at, is not you, because you are awareness. But awareness IS it’s contents, though this is not most people’s experience. The two distinctions reflect different progressions of experience.
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 8932
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm

Re: The observer cannot be observed

Post by Dontaskme »

SOB wrote:

Oh yeah, and the observer is always capable of observing itself.
NO, the observer cannot observe its self, because SELF only exists as an empty conceptual idea within the unitary action of observing.

In essence there is no literal SELF

This is a known fact that can be realised in direct experience.

OBSERVING..OBSERVER..OBSERVED.. are all ONE....there is no other, any apparent other is the LOOKED UPON not the looking.

Ps, I’m not going to respond to your other comments, or any future comments until you put my replies in proper quote boxes. Keeping your responses separate from mine. It’s quite a simple function to apply and makes it much easier to follow each point being raised.
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 8932
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm

Re: The observer cannot be observed

Post by Dontaskme »

Dimebag wrote: Wed Oct 21, 2020 6:41 am It’s true that there is only one “I”, there is no other, but, the actual “I” or awareness, can merge, or can remain attached to its contents.

For that reason, this affects awareness’s own understanding of itself, or in other words, it’s identity.

But identity is like a tree like structure in the mind (not literally), but as a networked structure. It contains a “root”, and this root is connected to larger branch like “structures” which awareness can merge with, at any point.

One branch might contain your identity as your profession or work, another, as a carer such as father or mother. Another branch exists as man, or woman. This is sexual identity. All of these are branches. Some branches exist attached further from the root than others, and some branches branch from other branches, for example, the “man” branch is closer to the root than the “father” branch. The closer the branch is to the root, the more unchanging this aspect of identity is. But, further down this tree of identity, there are more fundamental aspects of identity, for instance, very close to the root, is the identity as the agent of all actions, thinker of thoughts, then, closely tied, is the identity as the body. You actually identify “as” the body.

Important to note is, awareness is always looking “through” this tree of identity, and “as” one of the branches. Whichever branch it looks “as” it identifies “as” that aspect of identity, plus all other branches leading towards the root. But all parts of the identity structure leading back towards the root, are essentially invisible to awareness, because it’s looking as, and through. These aspects are essentially unconsciously held, and “assumed” without awareness.

Notice throughout the day, the branches you identify as, changes. For instances, you might begin the day waking to your alarm, telling you to wake up and get ready for work. As such, you are identifying “as” your profession. Then, you might go see a friend later in the day, and you switch to the friend branch of this tree of identity.

Have you ever noticed, that your wife tells you, “you are a different person around your friends”? That’s because, you actually are. Your identity informs the way you act, what is appropriate and what’s not, things you can and can’t say. Even the way you speak, including accents, or nuances of speech. You have no control of this. It’s completely situational, unless of course, you notice it.

At the very base of this tree of identity is the sense “I am”. This can only be known once all other aspects of identity have been shed, by “detaching” or disidentifying.

Important to note is, once awareness knows, or sees an aspect of identity from outside that branch, it can then realise when it is “merged”, and thus, has an ability to detach, by becoming mindful.

The “I am”, is the last bastion of identity, once it’s been seen that one is awareness, there can still be this sense of “I am”, the non distinct sense of being here. This is what keeps awareness from knowing itself “as” itself, because awareness is actually not distinct from its contents. The contents “play” within awareness, like waves on the surface of a body of water.

The system of identity, also is the system which sorts self from other. If it’s seen that there is no self, by implication it is known that there is no other. This is why when the illusion of self is seen through, awareness knows it is the same as every other thing which appears in it, because it is that which appears in it.

This is how one comes to know the “observer IS the observed”, as distinct from “the observer cannot be observed”, which means, everything you look at, is not you, because you are awareness. But awareness IS it’s contents, though this is not most people’s experience. The two distinctions reflect different progressions of experience.
Very good thank you for your well thought out thoughts on this matter.
Belinda
Posts: 4318
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: The observer cannot be observed

Post by Belinda »

Dimebag wrote:
Have you ever noticed, that your wife tells you, “you are a different person around your friends”? That’s because, you actually are. Your identity informs the way you act, what is appropriate and what’s not, things you can and can’t say. Even the way you speak, including accents, or nuances of speech. You have no control of this. It’s completely situational, unless of course, you notice it.
I appreciate your essay. The above paragraph raises the question for me 'How chameleon -like ought one to be?'
Post Reply