No, but it’s not “understanding the seer” or however you want to word it either so that’s not really relevant in any way here.
How do you know it's not related? On what basis do you say it's not? Do you understand what the Seer is? Of course it's relevant. That's why I brought it up. Why do you dismiss this out of hand without justification?
As soon as it’s “with thoughts”, we have some form of something we could call study.
I said "without thoughts", but I assume you typo'd. Again, as is the point of the OP, you cannot "study" the Seer. In order to do that, you would have to make is an object, which is not possible. The Seer is the Subject. You can only apprehend the reality of it subjectively, with your being, not your intellect which objectifies the world. After the fact, then you can try to use words to describe it, but it's not something outside of the person you're talking to that they can go find somewhere. That is the point of this thread.
I think both forms of the word are problematic due to the obvious religious baggage they carry. I think a better technical term t cover what you seem to be trying to describe would be “abstract”.
I agree about the baggage of these words, despite my desire to use them despite that. Abstract, I don't agree with. Abstract implies some conceptual thing. It's not conceptual, nor if it were would it be considered abstract either for that matter. It is a simple as smelling a flower. Just that. Any child can smell a flower without abstract thought. Just breathe. It's just this.
No. I asked the OP a direct question about one of their claims and you answered that is was subjective. A subjective answer to my question would be meaningless.
You asked this question, "You’d need to explain precisely what characteristics of “seers” render them fundamentally inaccessible to science." I think he corrected your misunderstanding he's not talking about "seers", but the Seer, singular. And to answer that in light of your question in quotes here, I responded that it (the Seer) is subjective. That is the answer as to why it is "inaccessible to science". Science studies objective truths, not subjective realities.
Unless you wish to call mysticism a science? I could go along with that, but understood that means science in the broadest of terms, meaning it follows a methodology of injunction, apprehension, and verification. Mysticism does follow that, but because what it sees can't be measured using the tools of the empiric-analytic sciences which studies the material domain (versus the mental or spiritual domains), wannabe logical positivists of course balk. "Fuzzy stuff" ain't science, according to them.
Or how about you’re wrong and I’m right, you’re clearly just not awake enough to understand my deeper understanding of the subject.
That makes for a ridiculously circular “debate”.
I would never reduce it to such nonsense, as you desire to. You are asking someone to verify that they have experienced the taste of an orange. To which they say, "I have. I can describe it to you, but if you have not yourself tasted one, then how can you say I haven't? Plenty of others who have tasted the orange all describe it the same way." In light of that, yes, I am right. I have tasted an orange. If you say I have not, on what basis do you make this claim? Do you believe you can tell someone what an orange tastes like, having never tasted one?
And as far as being "awake enough", I never said that. You are injecting all sorts of meaning into my words by adding to them the word "enough". This is the reality of it. Anyone who has experienced this all describe it in similar terms, that it is very much like the difference between the dream state at night and the waking state of the day. Except that when you Awaken, you realize the whole time you thought you were awake, you were asleep. You can insert whatever you want to in there as an attack on your ego. That is not what I am saying. I am saying that is how it is experienced, not that you're
dumb, or something ridiculous like that. I don't think it terms of "better than you", childishness.
But again, that doesn’t apply just to “the self”.
Point of clarification. The "self", lower case refers to the egoic persona that is developed from childhood on. The Self, is not your personality. The Self is not developed. It is one's true nature and identity, before and beyond the masks of the small "self". It is Reality itself, without mistaking the words we use to describe reality, including our image of ourselves, with Reality itself.
We can’t truly understand anything, we’re really just guessing based on perceived patterns and images.
Exactly! Then how is it you propose science can tell us anything ultimately true about reality, as opposed to functional models that when taken as "fact", actually limit reality?
My point is that there is no magical dividing line between things this problem applies to and things it doesn’t. Everything can be both “seer” and “seen”.
Well, that is true, but I the way in which I understand that will doubtless differ. The dividing line between God and reality is an illusion of the mind. That which sees, is also that which is seen. But this is mystical realization where the self dissolves into the Self. This is what it means to say, "
The world is illusionary. Brahman alone is real. Brahman is the world". Do you mean it in this sense? Do you Realize "God"? Are you speaking in terms of nonduality?
I’m not the one claiming to know what is real or not. I’m saying we only have one route by which we create our own image of reality.
And I will add we have only one route to get rid of our images of reality. Let go of seeking with the mind. Open it wide, open the eyes, breathe, and fall back into the Ocean. Then there is no image creation. And what image creation is done, is seen as an artifact of the mind, not the reality of what is.
It doesn’t really matter what you call it, whether you say it is science or science is only part of it. It remains a singular thing though, however many imaginary lines you might choose to draw across yours.
Don't get me wrong, I have and use various maps to try to talk about this, but I understand that they are not reality. They are, as the Buddhists say, "Fingers pointing to the moon". They aren't the moon itself.
Everything we know is an experience though. Picking up a cup and thinking about picking up a cup both boil down to electrical impulses within our brains so we can study both cups in that context.
That my computer screen emits lights to show the words I am reading right now, is not the source of the words.
