-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Is there an observer?
- Thread starter Chisti
- Start date
DreadFish
Cosmic Vagabond
Besides the whole post, this line especially warrants merit. Very well put.
AnEternalNow
Member
There is no observer. Check out Awakening to Reality: Thusness/PasserBy's Seven Stages of Enlightenment (you have to google search, I can't post links before 15 posts)
EndlessArising
Member
I second that recommendation... Awakening to Reality is a great site. If EternalNow is really the writer of that site, then he is one of the most enlightened people around right now...
Hello AnEternalNow,
The problem with this statement is that knowledge of the presence or absence of something presupposes observation of the presence or the absence. When you say 'there is no observer' you do so as the observer of that particular absence, so the very assertion is self-refuting. You cannot make any statement of knowledge which does not pre-suppose a self-revealing observer (knower) of it; in the very denial of the observer its existence is affirmed. Moreover, the observer is not itself an object of its own knowledge (observation), nor can it ever be, since the observer is the Subject of every perception and cognition, and never the Object- which means that it is logically impossible to assert the absence of the observing subject.
There have been various ways given of explaining away the observer in this thread, such as the cessation of the observer upon his observation (this process too pre-supposes a further observer!) and that the observer is nothing over and above a mental category superimposed over experience (this is putting the cart before the horse, since the mind itself is an observed phenomena), but it is my opinion that the existence of the observer is inescapable, as it is the very nature of the one which seeks to deny it.
The problem with this statement is that knowledge of the presence or absence of something presupposes observation of the presence or the absence. When you say 'there is no observer' you do so as the observer of that particular absence, so the very assertion is self-refuting. You cannot make any statement of knowledge which does not pre-suppose a self-revealing observer (knower) of it; in the very denial of the observer its existence is affirmed. Moreover, the observer is not itself an object of its own knowledge (observation), nor can it ever be, since the observer is the Subject of every perception and cognition, and never the Object- which means that it is logically impossible to assert the absence of the observing subject.
There have been various ways given of explaining away the observer in this thread, such as the cessation of the observer upon his observation (this process too pre-supposes a further observer!) and that the observer is nothing over and above a mental category superimposed over experience (this is putting the cart before the horse, since the mind itself is an observed phenomena), but it is my opinion that the existence of the observer is inescapable, as it is the very nature of the one which seeks to deny it.
apophenia
Well-Known Member
I agree with this. We are seeing the error of exaggeration.
Not only is there the self-refuting aspect of observing that there is no observer, but also the irony of such complex conceptualisation about non-conceptuality.
Perhaps the issue with 'Is there an observer ?' is the word 'an' .
We could spend many fruitless hours attempting to get the syntax, semiotics and semantics 'right'.
There is observation.
DreadFish
Cosmic Vagabond
I think jg22 and apophenia put good points in. We do tend to objectify the subject, which in turn takes attention away from the actual subject. Very paradoxical. Maybe an ego defense mechanism. "'Im' the problem? Oh yes, 'I' is a terrible thing, 'I' doesnt actually exist! Let's go get 'I' and reveal it for what it really is!" Ramana Maharshi described such a thing as the thief posing as a police officer to catch himself.
A way I read it explained once was "self aware awareness," or something along those lines.
A way I read it explained once was "self aware awareness," or something along those lines.
apophenia
Well-Known Member
Very funny. Thanks for that, there's nothing better than starting the day with a good laugh.
This is such a crazy subject. There is definitely something to realise and experience, and meditators almost all have a shot at expressing it in words, but it is much easier to nail jelly to a tree, ( and certainly more fun trying ...)
AnEternalNow
Member
This is a wrong inference. At one point, a realization arises that there is no need for a observer to know. The transience itself rolls and knows, no knower is needed (or exists). For example, seeing is just the experience of sight - the shapes, colours, forms, vividly appearing without a seer. Hearing is just sound without hearer... etc.
As Padmasambhava puts it:
Since there is only this pure observing, there will be found a lucid clarity without anyone being there who is the observer;
only a naked manifest awareness is present.
...And with regard to this, the observer and the process of observing are not two different things.
When you look and observe, seeking the one who is looking and observing,
since you search for this observer and do not find him,
At that time your view is exhausted and overthrown.
Thus, even though it is the end of your view, this is the beginning with respect to yourself.
I used to write things like this when I was at the I AM phase.
Then I come to realize as Zen priest Alex Weith wrote,
Awakening to Reality: A Zen Exploration of the Bahiya Sutta
When the self/Self is seen as an illusion, awareness is also revealed as a quality of phenomena. In other words, there is no Awareness out there aware of phenomena. Phenomena are themselves self-aware, empty and luminous.
Lastly, do take a look at Awakening to Reality: Thusness/PasserBy's Seven Stages of Enlightenment
Is it that point now? Who is now observing that jg22 has inferred wrongly?
(In fullness, Self that is existence, knowledge, and bliss, knows no outer and inner, because of lack of any contrast. That does not mean that there is no observer when an observation takes palce. One who has gone into the fullness and lost the "I" and then again witnessed the birth of "I", is the Seer. Beneath the Seer, the undifferentiated Self, wherein the Seer, Seeing, and the Seen lose disctinction. Yet this whole is the Seer when seeing).
Huh? So, a ghost is speaking? Someone, you say, was in "I Am" phase and is not in "I Am" now. But you say that someone is not anyone as below:
Thus what you say must be the root illusion, since no one is saying it.
Last edited:
Hello AnEternalNow,
This is not an inference, it is a self-evident fact. All subjectivity is divided in to the category of Subject and Object; the former is the knower, the latter is the known. All statements of knowledge regarding the presence or absence of objects arise through the relationship between the Subject and the Object. It is the Subject which knows the presence or absence of all the objects, all the phenomena. When you see a ball (Object), the ball does not see (or know) itself, you (Subject) see it, and you are different from it; this requires no inference, it is a simple matter of experience.
By objectifying the arising of the realization you have already proven the presence of an observer (distinct from the realization which sees the arising of the realization) which existed prior to, during, and after the realization.
This is logically impossible. A transient thing cannot know its own arising or cessation, since knowledge of itself cannot exist in its own absence. A second entity (distinct from the phenomena arising and ceasing) must be admitted to exist outside of the transient series by which the series is objectified, or known. Knowledge is inherent in the knower, not in anything known. When you say something has arisen, it is not the arisen object which knows its own arising, but rather a subject which has witnessed the arising of something else (distinct from itself). If we say the subject is 'I' and the object is 'this', all phenomena which arise and cease fall under the category of 'this' and 'this' is always known by 'I'.
The experience of shapes and forms appearing is an object of your knowledge. The shapes, forms, colours etc which are characteristics of physical sight are being referred to here as 'this' (Objects), ie as other than oneself. If there is no distinct Subject then the experience of sight would be knowing itself and would not therefore refer to itself as 'this' but 'I'. If you close your eyes the experience of form etc ceases, but the knowledge by which both experiences are connected and objectified continues in the form of the witness which is distinct from those experiences, but knows them. The witness, or Subject, is distinct from physical sight but knows it, including its condition (whether the eyes are open, closed, blind etc).
The Seer cannot be seen, since it is the Subject and never an Object. If the Seer can be seen then it ceases to be the Seer, which is contrary to nature. Just because the Subject can never be an object of its own knowledge does not therefore mean there is no Subject- on the contrary, the existence of the Subject is self-evident as the content of the word 'I' and the underlying substratum of all transient, phenomenal experiences.
Your words betray you. Who was at the I AM phase if there is no subject? Who has existed now and in the past in order to pass through phases of understanding and realization? Who connects the latter phase of understanding with the current phase if there is no independent entity which outlives the cessation of one phase and survives the arrival of another? Who has come to realize if there is no knower of any realizations, but just the realizations themselves? You cannot escape the self-evident existence of yourself. Every time you deny your own existence you re-assert it, for existence and knowledge is the very nature of the one making the denial. As I have said, the presence or absence of objects is known; the Subject itself is the knower and never an object of its own knowledge- therefore, you cannot say that there is no seer, or no knower, or no 'I', because it is the very entity which knows 'there is' and 'there is not' with regards to phenomena.
You know phenomena, phenomena do not know themselves (this object is not the knower, I am the knower of this object). (I dare you to say, 'no I don't! I'm not the knower, there is no knower!').
I'll have a look at your site, thanks. (FYI, I do not believe enlightenment comes in stages).
This is not an inference, it is a self-evident fact. All subjectivity is divided in to the category of Subject and Object; the former is the knower, the latter is the known. All statements of knowledge regarding the presence or absence of objects arise through the relationship between the Subject and the Object. It is the Subject which knows the presence or absence of all the objects, all the phenomena. When you see a ball (Object), the ball does not see (or know) itself, you (Subject) see it, and you are different from it; this requires no inference, it is a simple matter of experience.
By objectifying the arising of the realization you have already proven the presence of an observer (distinct from the realization which sees the arising of the realization) which existed prior to, during, and after the realization.
This is logically impossible. A transient thing cannot know its own arising or cessation, since knowledge of itself cannot exist in its own absence. A second entity (distinct from the phenomena arising and ceasing) must be admitted to exist outside of the transient series by which the series is objectified, or known. Knowledge is inherent in the knower, not in anything known. When you say something has arisen, it is not the arisen object which knows its own arising, but rather a subject which has witnessed the arising of something else (distinct from itself). If we say the subject is 'I' and the object is 'this', all phenomena which arise and cease fall under the category of 'this' and 'this' is always known by 'I'.
The experience of shapes and forms appearing is an object of your knowledge. The shapes, forms, colours etc which are characteristics of physical sight are being referred to here as 'this' (Objects), ie as other than oneself. If there is no distinct Subject then the experience of sight would be knowing itself and would not therefore refer to itself as 'this' but 'I'. If you close your eyes the experience of form etc ceases, but the knowledge by which both experiences are connected and objectified continues in the form of the witness which is distinct from those experiences, but knows them. The witness, or Subject, is distinct from physical sight but knows it, including its condition (whether the eyes are open, closed, blind etc).
The Seer cannot be seen, since it is the Subject and never an Object. If the Seer can be seen then it ceases to be the Seer, which is contrary to nature. Just because the Subject can never be an object of its own knowledge does not therefore mean there is no Subject- on the contrary, the existence of the Subject is self-evident as the content of the word 'I' and the underlying substratum of all transient, phenomenal experiences.
Your words betray you. Who was at the I AM phase if there is no subject? Who has existed now and in the past in order to pass through phases of understanding and realization? Who connects the latter phase of understanding with the current phase if there is no independent entity which outlives the cessation of one phase and survives the arrival of another? Who has come to realize if there is no knower of any realizations, but just the realizations themselves? You cannot escape the self-evident existence of yourself. Every time you deny your own existence you re-assert it, for existence and knowledge is the very nature of the one making the denial. As I have said, the presence or absence of objects is known; the Subject itself is the knower and never an object of its own knowledge- therefore, you cannot say that there is no seer, or no knower, or no 'I', because it is the very entity which knows 'there is' and 'there is not' with regards to phenomena.
You know phenomena, phenomena do not know themselves (this object is not the knower, I am the knower of this object). (I dare you to say, 'no I don't! I'm not the knower, there is no knower!').
I'll have a look at your site, thanks. (FYI, I do not believe enlightenment comes in stages).
AnEternalNow
Member
'Who' is the wrong question to be asked. 'Who am I' leads to Self-Realization of I AM (which is definitely an effective and direct method to self-realization, and I have dedicated a large chapter to discussing this contemplation in my e-book 'Who am I?' - http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2010/12/my-e-booke-journal.html ), then when the objectivity and duality is deconstructed, even the Witness collapses into One Mind (where the Seer, Seeing, and the Seen loses distinction, the World itself is Brahman). Nonetheless this is not yet the realization of anatta.
In the realization of anatta, it is seen that there is no truly existing 'Awareness' or 'Mind' apart from the process of seeing/seen, hearing/heard, and so on. It is not denial of awareness, it is the rejection of the view that there must be an inherent essence (independent, unchanging, etc) to Awareness. Therefore the old masters say, 'keep the experience, refine the view'. Effectively, there is just the self-luminous process that rolls and knows without a knower or agent. When knowing rolls on without a knower, 'who' no longer applies. It is seen to be a wrong question. The correct question should be 'how does manifestation appear?' or 'how does observation arise?' The answer to that is dependent origination.
Here is how the Buddha replies such questions:
Phagguna Sutta: To Phagguna
"Who, O Lord, feels?"
"The question is not correct," said the Exalted One. "I do not say that 'he feels.' Had I said so, then the question 'Who feels?' would be appropriate. But since I did not speak thus, the correct way to ask the question will be 'What is the condition of feeling?' And to that the correct reply is: 'sense-impression is the condition of feeling; and feeling is the condition of craving.'"
Last edited:
AnEternalNow
Member
Something I wrote quite long ago but still relevant now:
First of all let it be clear that I am not dismissing the clear experience and insight of that I AM Presence which you realized. It's impossible. It's undoubtable. That sense of pure Beingness, Presence, I AMness, is the most real 'thing' that sense Presence, Beingness, Pure Knowingness is undeniably present, cognizant, alive and is your very fact of presence-existence-consciousness itself, with such vividness and realness such that everything else including thoughts pales in comparison and is seen as merely like a dream or an illusion (though no longer the case in non-dual realisation when these phenomena themselves reveal as Presence as you will see later). And yes, You can't run away from You, for that attempt to run away is simply a thought arising in the clear presence of You. Even if one wants to doubt that I AM Presence, that I AM Presence is present as that to which the doubting arises, and that is undeniable, so the doubt is without basis, and one who realises it feels that he/she has touched his innermost core of being, the most undeniable or undoubtable and inescapable fact of existence itself.
So if I am not dismissing this clear experience and insight of I AMness then what am I talking about? I'm saying that, to quote from Thusness, that there is no foregoing of this I AMness but "...it is rather a deepening of insight to include the non-dual, groundlessness and interconnectedness of our luminous nature. Like what Rob said, "keep the experience but refine the views"." -- so again, similar Presence as I AMness, only that one sees through the notion of center-ness, the notion of being a permanent agent, seeing the non-dual nature (not non-dual as I AM but non-dual with all phenomena), etc.
And by that: I mean, originally the I AMness feels centered, not in the sense of being located somewhere in phenomena or the body-mind, but centered in a sense that there is still some separation between this I AMness and phenomena. You feel that this I AMness not AS those phenomena, but as behind all those passing phenomena, and it appears as the Witness.
However there will come a time, resting in I AMness, if you then look at, say, a mountain, you might begin to notice that the sensation of the I AM or Pure Being and the sensation of the mountain are the same sensation. When you "feel" your pure Self and you "feel" the mountain, they are absolutely the same feeling. (see Some Writings on Non-duality by Ken Wilber - Do read this) And when this realisation arise, you cannot deny this as well, the non-dual Presence revealing As everything cannot be denied just as you cannot deny the I AMness. The I AM-Presence is no more I AM, no more real, non-dual, and vivid than the non-dual Mountain-Presence, so to speak, and there is no trace of separation between you and that Mountain-Presence just as you do not feel separate from the I AM Presence. Just pure mountain-presence, bird chirping-presence, without a hearer, feeler, seer, etc.
As Thusness wrote in his Stage 4:
Awakening to Reality: Thusness/PasserBy's Seven Stages of Enlightenment
I was meditating the above stanza deeply about its meaning until one day, suddenly I heard tongss , it was so clear, there was nothing else, just the sound and nothing else! And tongs resounding . It was so clear, so vivid!
That experience is so familiar, so real and so clear. It is the same experience of I AM .it is without thought, without concepts, without intermediary, without anyone there, without any in-between What is it? IT is Presence! But this time it is not I AM, it is not asking who am I, it is not the pure sense of I AM, it is TONGSss ., the pure Sound
Then come Taste, just the Taste and nothing else .
The heart beats ..
the Scenery
So this time, it is still the same non-dual self-knowing presence as I AM, except that its nonseparation is the non-separation of you and mountain. There is no sense of being an outside observer apart from the mountain. No sense of standing back from the mountain. No sense of distance at all from 'you' and 'mountain', 0 distance, just as you feel 0 distance with the I AM Presence. When you see this (when there is no 'you' to see this), then any sense of subtle localization at all, whether somewhere in your body-mind, somewhere in your head, completely dissolves, and you no longer feel you are looking out from yourself through your eyes at the mountain, and there is Just mountain itself, self-aware, self-felt. Just non-localized Presence pervading and not separate from all phenomena. This is the meaning of 'body-mind drop off'. So there is sound, taste, touch, but no sense of a separate hearer, taster, feeler, etc. You enter (well not exactly 'enter' since it is not a stage, but rather to realised it as always already so) the mode of being/seeing where there is just mountain self-aware of itself. So again it is the same self-aware Presence as I AM, but except this time it is self-aware PresenceAS Sound, Taste, Touch, Smells, Sight, even Thought. Everything reveals itself as Pure Non-Dual Presence. And I emphasize again, that this must arise as an Insight into the nature of reality, and is not an altered state of experience or a meditative state, just as the I AMness is not something induced by meditation but is something that is very fundamental as the nature of reality itself, already always so.
The sense of The Center dissolves and Presence turns out to be everything -- everything is a center, a point of luminous clarity, a manifestation of buddha-nature.
This is what is meant by the analogy given by Thusness:
The first 'I-ness' stage of experiencing awareness face to face is like a point on a sphere which you called it the center. You marked it.
Then later you realized that when you marked other points on the surface of a sphere, they have the same characteristics. This is the initial experience of non-dual. Once the insight of No-Self is stabilized, you just freely point to any point on the surface of the sphere -- all points are a center, hence there is no 'the' center. 'The' center does not exist: all points are a center.
After then practice move from 'concentrative' to 'effortlessness'. That said, after this initial non-dual insight, 'background' will still surface occasionally for another few years due to latent tendencies.
So at this point, since there is no more sense of The Center, it is as Dan Berkow says:
Awakening to Reality: This Is It: An Interview with Dan Berkow
What has happened to the awareness previously situated as "the observer"? Now, awareness and perception are unsplit. For example, if a tree is perceived, the "observer" is "every leaf of the tree". There is no observer/awareness apart from things,
nor are there any things apart from awareness. What dawns is: "this is it". All the pontifications, pointings, wise sayings, implications of "special knowledge", fearless quests for truth, paradoxically clever insights -- all of these are seen to be unnecessary and beside the point. "This", exactly as is, is "It". There is no need to add to "This" with anything further, in fact there is no "further" - nor is there any "thing" to hold on to, or to do away with.
....
Not using "I AM", and instead referring to "pure awareness", is a way to say the awareness isn't focused on an "I" nor is it concerned with distinguishing being from not-being regarding
itself. It isn't viewing itself in any sort of objectifying way, so wouldn't have concepts about states it is in -- "I AM" only fits as opposed to "something else is", or "I am not". With no "something else" and no "not-I", there can't be an "I AM" awareness. "Pure awareness" can be criticized in a similar way - is there "impure" awareness, is there something other than awareness? So the terms "pure awareness, or just "awareness" are simply used to interact through dialogue, with recognition that words always imply dualistic contrasts.
Even the notion of 'Consciousness' as I mentioned earlier as something granduer, something more ultimate than transient manifestation, eventually the notion is dropped (it is already naturally implicit in/as everything without needing to make it an ultimate reality), as Greg Goode puts it:
once experience doesn't seem divided and once it doesn't seem like there is anything other than consciousness, then the notion of consciousness itself will gently and peacefully dissolve.
And then, even if this non-dual is clearly seen through, not to mistake that this is the end of the path. This is just Stage 4. There are further insights, which do not in any way deny the vividness and clarity of Presence but provides clearer insight into the nature of that Presence (i.e. the insights of anatta, emptiness, interdependent origination, etc)
AnEternalNow
Member
It will not be easy to understand or be convinced about non-duality, let alone anatta and emptiness, until you have a real taste, glimpse, and hopefully a 'decisive realisation' beyond mere glimpses that will make this as clear as cloudless sunlit sky, just as once you had a clear taste of I AMness it is not going to be something that can be doubted. Eventually the clinging to Pure Subjectivity dissolves when the last trace of it being more ultimate than something else dissolves, and it happens on its own accord when the insight manifests.
Thusness have talked about this many years ago:
Buddha Nature is NOT "I Am"
Thoughts, feelings and perceptions come and go; they are not ‘me’; they are transient in nature. Isn’t it clear that if I am aware of these passing thoughts, feelings and perceptions, then it proves some entity is immutable and unchanging? This is a logical conclusion rather than experiential truth. The formless reality seems real and unchanging because of propensities (conditioning) and the power to recall a previous experience. (See The Spell of Karmic Propensities)
There is also another experience, this experience does not discard or disown the transients -- forms, thoughts, feelings and perceptions. It is the experience that thought thinks and sound hears. Thought knows not because there is a separate knower but because it is that which is known. It knows because it's it. It gives rise to the insight that isness never exists in an undifferentiated state but as transient manifestation; each moment of manifestation is an entirely new reality, complete in its own.
There isn't "seeing" and "objects which are seen", the objects are the seeing. Colors and shape implies seeing, you never, ever, ever at any time experience unseen colors or shapes... they are one process... one appearance. The 'external' field of objects IS vision and is therefore your own display. You are looking at your own state. Awareness reflecting itself to itself in it's totality... timelessly.
Therefore there is no such object as 'sight' - 'sight' implies and is none other than 'seeing', and 'seeing' is none other than awareness. Investigating in this way, the realization of One Mind will arise. Incidentally, Greg Goode wrote a book on the Direct Path based on the teachings of Advaita teacher Sri Atmananda which focus a lot on this form of contemplative exercises, it is quite well written on this subject.
I highly recommend this very well written article: Awakening to Reality: A Sun That Never Sets
This however is not realized at the I AM phase and whatever you described is still the I AM insight.
No, it is inferred by you that an observer is necessary for observation. In actual fact, there is just the process of observing/observation without an observer. In seeing just the experience of sight which is self-luminous without seer.
Any form of knowledge that perceives dualistically is deluded knowledge, mere dualistic perception and construct, it is not the true knowing that is devoid of a subject and object.
Thusness have talked about this many years ago:
Buddha Nature is NOT "I Am"
Thoughts, feelings and perceptions come and go; they are not ‘me’; they are transient in nature. Isn’t it clear that if I am aware of these passing thoughts, feelings and perceptions, then it proves some entity is immutable and unchanging? This is a logical conclusion rather than experiential truth. The formless reality seems real and unchanging because of propensities (conditioning) and the power to recall a previous experience. (See The Spell of Karmic Propensities)
There is also another experience, this experience does not discard or disown the transients -- forms, thoughts, feelings and perceptions. It is the experience that thought thinks and sound hears. Thought knows not because there is a separate knower but because it is that which is known. It knows because it's it. It gives rise to the insight that isness never exists in an undifferentiated state but as transient manifestation; each moment of manifestation is an entirely new reality, complete in its own.
The very framework of a subject and object is a dualistic framework, it is not truth. It is a framework disguising as truth. A better way would be to say "there are no objects, everything is simply my own display, everything is only awareness", but an even more accurate view than that would be to say "there is no subject, just the breathe, the scent, the sight".
Again this is an inference, if you proceed from I AM to One Mind you will realize that there is in fact no objects, all display is none other than oneself. But even One Mind must later give way to insights of Anatta and Shunyata.
In actual fact, it is the case that 'sight' is the knowing itself (there is no such thing as an unseen, objective, or insentient sight), and it is a non-referential awareness without refering to itself as 'this' or 'I'. Just pure awareness. This can be directly discovered and realized experientially.
There isn't "seeing" and "objects which are seen", the objects are the seeing. Colors and shape implies seeing, you never, ever, ever at any time experience unseen colors or shapes... they are one process... one appearance. The 'external' field of objects IS vision and is therefore your own display. You are looking at your own state. Awareness reflecting itself to itself in it's totality... timelessly.
Therefore there is no such object as 'sight' - 'sight' implies and is none other than 'seeing', and 'seeing' is none other than awareness. Investigating in this way, the realization of One Mind will arise. Incidentally, Greg Goode wrote a book on the Direct Path based on the teachings of Advaita teacher Sri Atmananda which focus a lot on this form of contemplative exercises, it is quite well written on this subject.
I highly recommend this very well written article: Awakening to Reality: A Sun That Never Sets
Same as what I said above - the Presence is undeniable, but the view is to be refined.
As said above - 'Who' no longer applies when the dualistic and inherent framework is overcome. There is no knower, but there is knowing. Luminous awareness is not denied, but self-view is not required.
It is not 'I'm not the knower', it is that there is no knower. All phenomena is self-luminous mind/knowing, and mind itself is empty of self-entity or identity.
This however is not realized at the I AM phase and whatever you described is still the I AM insight.
Last edited:
Very theoretical. In case of Buddha that you cite, the question "Who?" is inappropriate. But not in the case when some one says "I used to write things like this when I was at the I AM phase."
AnEternalNow
Member
To summarize: the I AM Presence you discovered is non-inferential - it is directly discoverable and is undeniable and undoubtable. However, the framework that there is separation from objects, that there exists objects separate from awareness, and is other than awareness, and that in fact there is an Awareness that exists separate from objective perceptions are all false frameworks that will be overcome when insights and realization deepen with proper investigation.
Here is a pointer: there is no ball apart from sight (and other sense experience like tactile sensations, etc), and no sight except as apparent shapes and colours, and in fact no solid shape or form apart from shades of colours, and in fact no shades of colours apart from seeing (there is no such thing as an unseen colour), and no seeing apart from awareness. Everything is simply the display of oneself, everything is pure awareness. This is not an intellectual game - it needs to be directly experienced and realized.
And even after this, the sense of an inherent 'Awareness' can be further deconstructed. But what I have said is simply to show you that the subject-object framework you currently hold is merely a constructed framework and view - it is not an accurate portrayal of reality. The I AM Presence does not itself tell you separation, it is your framework and lack of insight into further aspects like non-duality which leads to the very convincing view that you are the ultimate Subject or Eternal Witness behind all objects. Eventually everything including even a sight, a sound, a thought, is revealed as Presence-Awareness. And then there are still further insights to unfold.
AnEternalNow
Member
I was merely using conventional parlance.
Teacher of the Devas
Would an arahant say "I" or "mine"?
Other devas had more sophisticated queries. One deva, for example, asked the Buddha if an arahant could use words that refer to a self:
"Consummate with taints destroyed,
One who bears his final body,
Would he still say 'I speak'?
And would he say 'They speak to me'?"
This deva realized that arahantship means the end of rebirth and suffering by uprooting mental defilements; he knew that arahants have no belief in any self or soul. But he was puzzled to hear monks reputed to be arahants continuing to use such self-referential expressions.
The Buddha replied that an arahant might say "I" always aware of the merely pragmatic value of common terms:
"Skillful, knowing the world's parlance,
He uses such terms as mere expressions."
The deva, trying to grasp the Buddha's meaning, asked whether an arahant would use such expressions because he is still prone to conceit. The Buddha made it clear that the arahant has no delusions about his true nature. He has uprooted all notions of self and removed all traces of pride and conceit:
"No knots exist for one with conceit cast off;
For him all knots of conceit are consumed.
When the wise one has transcended the conceived
He might still say 'I speak,'
And he might say 'They speak to me.'
Skillful, knowing the world's parlance,
He uses such terms as mere expressions." (KS I, 21-22; SN 1:25)
What you mean by self? What you mean by Self?