Is there an observer?

[EndlessArising]

The phenomena... "are experienced elements of existence."

Are these phenomena discrete ? Or is there one continuous phenomenon ?

Well, we have to be careful here. If we say they are discrete, then that means they are individually separate, which would suggest inherent existence. But since all phenomena are impermanent and not self-caused, they cannot be discrete. The same with being one continuous phenomenon. If all phenomena were actually one phenomenon, this would mean that there is some underlying self-caused essence. This goes against Buddhist logic. Well, maybe Buddhist logic is wrong then, but no such essence can be found through direct experience, so there's no reason to assume it exists.

Is your view that phenomena are themselves aware ? That these discrete phenomena experience themselves ? What is the scriptural description of these phenomena?

There is no awareness to be found outside of phenomena, and no phenomena to be found outside of awareness. I know it's counter-intuitive and perhaps paradoxical, but the Right View is a methodology to break conceptual views in order to directly experience non-conceptually.

Padmasambhava:

As for this sparkling awareness, which is called "mind,"
Even though one says that it exists, it does not actually exist.
(On the other hand) as a source, it is the origin of the diversity of all the bliss of Nirvana and all of the sorrow of Samsara.


He is saying without mind (existence) there can be no experience, yet when we look for mind, it cannot be found. Only through experience can we truly know mind.

There exist no phenomena other than what arises from the mind.
Other than the meditation that occurs, where is the one who is meditating?
There exist no phenomena other than what arises from the mind.
Other than the behavior that occurs, where is the one who is behaving?
There exist no phenomena other than what arises from the mind.
Other than the samaya vow that occurs, where is the one who is guarding it?
There exist no phenomena other than what arises from the mind.
Other than the fruition that occurs, where is the one who is realizing (the fruit)?
You should look at your own mind, observing it again and again.

Even though intrinsic awareness, which is self-originated primal awareness, appears to you, it is but a manifestation of mind.
Even though (the experience) of remaining in a state of one-pointed concentration without any discursive thoughts appears to you, it is but a manifestation of mind.
Even though the colors that are the characteristics of things appear to you, they are but manifestations of mind.
Even though a state without characteristics and without conceptual elaborations appears to you, it is but a manifestation of mind.
Even though the non-duality of the one and the many appears to you, it is but a manifestation of mind.


So you see clearly that mind (existence or awareness) is not denied at all. Yet if we were to look for mind as something truly existent, separate from phenomena, it cannot be found anywhere. Everything is mind, and yet there is no mind.

 

[apophenia]

This is incorrect. Emptiness is the true nature of the dharmas or phenomena, not something beyond the dharmas. Emptiness is another way of saying dependent origination or dependent arising, which is a description of the interconnection of all phenomena.

On the basis of the Buddha's view that all experienced phenomena (dharma) are "dependently arisen" (pratitya-samutpanna), Nagarjuna insisted that such phenomena are empty (sunya). This did not mean that they are not experienced and, therefore, non-existent; only that they are devoid of a permanent and eternal substance (svabhava). Since they are experienced elements of existence, they are not mere names (prjnapti).

The phenomena... "are experienced elements of existence."

Are these phenomena discrete ? Or is there one continuous phenomenon ?

Is your view that phenomena are themselves aware ? That these discrete phenomena experience themselves ?

What is the scriptural description of these phenomena ? Are they material ? Mental ? Discrete ?

OK. I have dusted the sofa and finished chores. Now. opcorn:

Show time.

I hope we get an answer to this, then we can get a little further into it ...Since it was ignored, I decided to post it again.

 

[EndlessArising]

I agree with what you say in the underlined sentences, but as regards to separating this from the Dharmakaya, I dont agree, though right now my mind is too tired to really engage in a good discussion, im sorry

Most simple way I can try to explain it is this.... the formless all pervading essence termed Self is an experience. Dharmakaya is not an experience. It is the nature of all experiences, both form and formless. One does not experience Dharmakaya.

 

[gnostic]

The idea is that the idea of "I" is only an idea and there is not actually an "I".

You mean "I" am not "me"? Then who am "I"?

 

[atanu]

Most simple way I can try to explain it is this.... the formless all pervading essence termed Self is an experience. Dharmakaya is not an experience. It is the nature of all experiences, both form and formless. One does not experience Dharmakaya.

IMO, You should write all these asserions with an IMO prefix. As per Vedanta, Self is not an object of experience.

I feel shocked as to how post after post you pass of your opinion as the fact.

 

[atanu]

The phenomena... "are experienced elements of existence."

Are these phenomena discrete ? Or is there one continuous phenomenon ?

Is your view that phenomena are themselves aware ? That these discrete phenomena experience themselves ?

What is the scriptural description of these phenomena ? Are they material ? Mental ? Discrete ?

I hope we get an answer to this, then we can get a little further into it ...Since it was ignored, I decided to post it again.

Best wishes. I do not think you will ever get any answer. At best you will get only unprovable assertions.

 

[EndlessArising]

IMO, You should write all these asserions with an IMO prefix. As per Vedanta, Self is not an object of experience.

I feel shocked as to how post after post you pass of your opinion as the fact.

I didn't say Self is an object of experience. I said Self is an experience. It has certain characteristics which are well established in the Upanisads.

I hope we get an answer to this, then we can get a little further into it ...Since it was ignored, I decided to post it again.

I answered above

 

[atanu]

I didn't say Self is an object of experience. I said Self is an experience. It has certain characteristics which are well established in the Upanisads.[/quore]

Experience of what? Do you experience deep sleep? You have no comprehension really. You are just going on repeating your concepts.

 

[atanu]

That which can be experienced is not the Self.

 

[atanu]

Best wishes. I do not think you will ever get any answer. At best you will get only unprovable assertions.

I answered above

See. I told you.

 

[EndlessArising]

Experience of what? Do you experience deep sleep? You have no comprehension really. You are just going on repeating your concepts.

Yes, deep sleep can be experienced. You can read UG Krishnamurti's account here. He describes anatta quite well

Mystique of Enlightenment: Part 2

Perhaps I can give you the 'feel' of this. I sleep four hours at night, no matter what time I go to bed. Then I lie in bed until morning fully awake. I don't know what is lying there in the bed; I don't know whether I'm lying on my left side or my right side -- for hours and hours I lie like this. If there is any noise outside -- a bird or something -- it just echoes in me.

That which can be experienced is not the Self.

Again, I did not say Self is what is experienced. I said Self is an experience. This experience has characteristics, which I am sure you are acquainted with.
As Ramana Maharshi once said "Consciousness is the screen on which all the pictures come and go. The screen is real, the pictures are mere shadows on it." This is what I am referring to. Self is an experience of being the blank screen.

 

[apophenia]

So you see clearly that mind (existence or awareness) is not denied at all. Yet if we were to look for mind as something truly existent, separate from phenomena, it cannot be found anywhere. Everything is mind, and yet there is no mind.

So by asserting that mind is not separate from phenomena, you are in fact asserting that there is mind and observer , you are simply calling them phenomena instead of mind.

You have an each-way bet going on here - "Everything is mind, and yet there is no mind"

Perhaps you should tell us, in your own words, why this immaculate paradox is of any value, and to whom.

I am asking you to use your own words because so far there is no sign of a human being here, just quotes and standard interpretations.

I know perfectly well that mind displays as phenomena BTW. I know it by observing it. 'I and it' are like 'up and down' ! There is of course no inherent up ! But I can still get down ! LOL

 

[EndlessArising]

So by asserting that mind is not separate from phenomena, you are in fact asserting that there is mind and observer , you are simply calling them phenomena instead of mind.

If there was an observer, this would mean that mind exists separately from phenomena. This is a dualistic view. No observer can be found. It is merely a habit based on an assumption.

To be hoenst, I'm not even sure if what you said even makes sense. Asserting that mind is not separate from phenomena means that an mind (awareness) cannot be found outside of what is awared (phenomena). How does this lead you to say that there must be an observer?

 

[atanu]

Yes, deep sleep can be experienced. You can read UG Krishnamurti's account here. He describes anatta quite well

Mystique of Enlightenment: Part 2

No comments. I do not know of anyone that experiences deep sleep in deep sleep.

Again, I did not say Self is what is experienced. I said Self is an experience. This experience has characteristics, which I am sure you are acquainted with.

That is not correct, of course. Whether you say or not.

Self is not an experience. The apparatus of experience - the antahkArana (brain) and the indriyAs (senses) and the functions rest upon Self and not the other way around.

That is the problem with initiates. They confuse the concepts as the truths.

 

[EndlessArising]

No comments. I do not know of anyone that experiences deep sleep in deep sleep.

It's common among advanced meditators.

Self is not an experience. The apparatus of experience - the antahkArana (brain) and the indriyAs (senses) and the functions rest upon Self and not the other way around.

So you have not experienced the Self then? I am curious - why cling so much to a concept you've never experienced and can never experience? What justifies your belief?

 

[atanu]

It's common among advanced meditators.

You fool. Then it is not deep sleep.

So you have not experienced the Self then? I am curious - why cling so much to a concept you've never experienced and can never experience? What justifies your belief?

Yes I have not.

 

[AnEternalNow]

For Record: "I Am" is of Hiranygarbha stage. It is not the Turiya, which is the goal and which is not a stage.

Different scripture and person has diferrent explanation of the term. "I Am" means the Self for Ramana Maharshi and myself, not mind or ego. It is seen as Turiya.

Turiya = I AM/the Witness. It is seen as the unchanging background behind three states. Then comes Turiyatita, when even the Witness collapses when objectivity is deconstructed. This is One Mind.

 

[atanu]

I had earlier shown this:

Kena Upanishad

II-3. It is known to him to whom It is unknown; he to whom It is known does not know It.

 

[atanu]

It's common among advanced meditators.

Repeat:

Then that is not deep sleep. No one experiences deep sleep in deep sleep.

So you have not experienced the Self then? I am curious - why cling so much to a concept you've never experienced and can never experience? What justifies your belief?

No I have not. I had shown the scripture earlier.

Kena Upanishad

II-3. It is known to him to whom It is unknown; he to whom It is known does not know It.

But I am not saying merely from scripture. It is easy to comprehend that the Seer cannot be Seen. The experiencer cannot be experienced. And also it is pointless to mentally argue whether there is a Seer or not? It is easier to just be the seer.

 

[EndlessArising]

You fool. Then it is not deep sleep.

Even Advaita practitioners experience constant awareness during awake, dreaming, and deep sleep. It's not unique to Buddhists.

Repeat:

Then that is not deep sleep. No one experiences deep sleep in deep sleep.

No need to repeat. Please don't spam.

Anyway, no 'one' experiences deep sleep is true, but there is still experience/awareness.