• 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!

The seer and and the seen

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
That is, denying and avoiding my questions, or making new excuses.
Recall, I was happy you were showing an effort by asking that list of questions? I happily spent a good deal of time carefully answering every point. Your response however didn't ask for any clarification, but instead just launched into all this nonsensical rhetoic about me not understanding language, obscuring meanings, blah, blah, blah.

So, I'm not avoiding questions whatsoever. You haven't dealt with my response to the ones I already provided. If you care to pull yourself up to the table and addresses those, while not insulting me calling my thoughts "woo woo" or such other mindless prattlings in lieu of actual substance, I'm all game. As I said before, "you first."
 

atanu

Member
Premium Member
I might suggest you both look at this video on consciousness. ...
The illusion of consciousness
...

All conscious thoughts, including mental declarations, are illusionary. .

First you declare 'Consciousness is illusion'. Then you say "Conscious thoughts are illusion". Do you not know the difference between 'conscious subject' and 'thoughts of a conscious subject'?

To declare that 'consciousness' is an illusion, a conscious subject is required. To declare that thoughts are illusions, a conscious subject is required. Dennet is under delusion himself. He confounds the subject with the object. Conscious subject cognises a thought. Even if the thought is illusion, the conscious subject is not. The very nature of the subject is consciousness -- ability to discern.

The very nature of 'you' is awareness. If you declare 'consciousness is illusion', you are simply proving that you are making a discernment (wrongly though) and this ability of discernment proves that you are a conscious subject, which cannot ever be denied. The conscious subject cannot be denied or brushed away as an illusion by the conscious subject himself/herself.

Dennet is mistaken that thought is consciousness. The ability to see and know a thought arising is consciousness and that is no illusion.

...
 
Last edited:

Truly Enlightened

Well-Known Member
Recall, I was happy you were showing an effort by asking that list of questions? I happily spent a good deal of time carefully answering every point. Your response however didn't ask for any clarification, but instead just launched into all this nonsensical rhetoic about me not understanding language, obscuring meanings, blah, blah, blah.

So, I'm not avoiding questions whatsoever. You haven't dealt with my response to the ones I already provided. If you care to pull yourself up to the table and addresses those, while not insulting me calling my thoughts "woo woo" or such other mindless prattlings in lieu of actual substance, I'm all game. As I said before, "you first."


Anyone can simply provide answers to any questions. It is the answers that you deposit that is what's important and germane. So if I don't understand the answers, what should I do? Acceptance through ignorance? I never called YOUR thoughts woo-woo. Please again re-read the term "woo-woo" in the context that it was written in. These are the type of explanations that I'm always subjected, or referred to,

"Your beliefs become your thoughts.
Your thoughts become your words.
Your words become your actions.
Your actions become your habits.
Your habits become your values.
Your values become your destiny
."
What is culture, if not a shared non-material reality of agreed about mental objects from individuals? That intersubjective reality, has real substance and objective existence. It is shared mental spaces, which have actual, substantive, and to a great degree an actual independent existence because it is greater than the sum of the parts. None of it, has material form, until it moves from the mental into the physical, such as created infrastructures of society supporting the very real cultural reality.
when we can strip away all these narrative structures that we tie our self-sense into, we find, as I said elsewhere before, "We have thoughts, but we are not those thoughts", and that what instead is left is such "being" itself. I have a personality and a history, but is that the whole of my existent "self"? The answer to that is no. That is not what is experienced when you strip away the egoic self. What is experienced is "no-self", or Self, with a capital S, which has no beginning or end. Self, without the egoic self.

Are these the cryptic, obfuscated, hyperbolic, obtuse, obscure, and esoteric answers, that you claim to have "spent a good deal of time carefully answering every point"? Where is the substance, the evidence, the relevance, or the supportive logic? Nowhere, just more obfuscations, unsupported assertions, referrals to Google U., insults and excuses.

If this is ONLY your belief, then so be it. But before you substitute your alternative explanations about the mind, self, consciousness, brain and body relationships, maybe you should at least demonstrate/define the limitations regarding our current understanding. Rather than only a one-sided exposé. Maybe you could even provide a rational argument that includes clearly defined terms, rather than simply asserting what is true, and what isn't? An easy way to prompt this perspective, is before you make any assertions, just ask yourself "how do I know?".
 

Truly Enlightened

Well-Known Member
First you declare 'Consciousness is illusion'. Then you say "Conscious thoughts are illusion". Do you not know the difference between 'conscious subject' and 'thoughts of a conscious subject'?

To declare that 'consciousness' is an illusion, a conscious subject is required. To declare that thoughts are illusions, a conscious subject is required. Dennet is under delusion himself. He confounds the subject with the object. Conscious subject cognises a thought. Even if the thought is illusion, the conscious subject is not. The very nature of the subject is consciousness -- ability to discern.

The very nature of 'you' is awareness. If you declare 'consciousness is illusion', you are simply proving that you are making a discernment (wrongly though) and this ability of discernment proves that you are a conscious subject, which cannot ever be denied. The conscious subject cannot be denied or brushed away as an illusion by the conscious subject himself/herself.

Dennet is mistaken that thought is consciousness. The ability to see and know a thought arising is consciousness and that is no illusion.

...


Are you equating the conscious subject with the conscious thought? This is redundant since all thoughts are conscious, and the subject must always be conscious to conceive thought. Consciousness is the state of awareness of thought. Essentially they are both the same. Both are zero dimensional illusions, and conceptual states of being. Let me try to give you my understanding of the mind(soul)/body duality.

I define consciousness as the process of the brain creating multiple feedback loops, to create a model of yourself in space and time, with regards to others in space and time, in order to satisfy certain goals. I believe that there are three stages in the development of consciousness. Even you would agree that newborns do not have the same consciousness as an adult? I also believe that consciousness is NOT completely deterministic, because of the illusion of free will. Of course you would have to define what free-will is in a biological system. The brain also has no CPU, Pentium chips, sub-routines, operating systems, and no software, therefore it is not a digital computer. It is just a very sophisticated neural network, and a biophysical learning machine. The brain is the "wet-ware" that runs the software called the mind. Eventually we will be able to map all the neural connections in the brain. It is called a "Collectome", similar to the Genome.

Level one stage of consciousness is modelled from the development of the reptilian part of our brain(Alligators, crocodiles, etc.), during our infant and toddler stage of development. This is the part of the brain that gives us our sense of balance, hunger, thirst, territory, instincts, position in space, primal needs, and fear. Level 2 stage of consciousness("monkey brain stage") is modelled from the development of the central parts of the brain during our early adolescence. This is the part of the brain that gives us an understanding of social hierarchy, politeness, social etiquette, reading body language, emotions, sex drive, and determining friend from foe. Level 3 stage of consciousness is modelled from the development of the prefrontal cortex(front part of the brain), during adulthood. This is the part that differentiates us from the rest of the animals. Only humans have level 3 consciousness. Other than just our higher cognizant abilities, we can understand the concept of what tomorrow means. We daydream, plan, and can save-off immediate rewards until some other time in the future. No other animal can do this, consciously.

Many physicists and neuroscientists feel that consciousness can be quantified, and measured. Temperature seems to be the fundamental unit that can be used to count the number of neural feedback loops.
 

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Anyone can simply provide answers to any questions.
You said I was avoiding answering questions. I proved you wrong. All this is just you backpedaling and trying to justify your false statement about me you made by trying to deflect it to being something about me instead, somehow.

So if I don't understand the answers, what should I do? Acceptance through ignorance?
No. You should first respect that I am not an idiot and not treat me as if I were one. That's the first and correct response. Then secondly, you ask for clarification rather than slamming the content that you can't follow as me using, "cryptic, obfuscated, hyperbolic, obtuse, obscure, and esoteric answers, that you claim to have 'spent a good deal of time carefully answering every point' "

A mature, and intellectually honest response would be to respectfully inquire further, and not instead level all these brash, rhetoric ladened responses in lieu of actual substance. Once you can pull up to the table and act the adult, then I will spend some time further explaining.
 
Last edited:

atanu

Member
Premium Member
Are you equating the conscious subject with the conscious thought? This is redundant since all thoughts are conscious, ...

All thoughts are conscious? Thoughts are conscious?

If we do not discriminate between "I" (the conscious subject) and "This" (unconscious objects of consciousness, including body-mind-intellect), then this ridiculous thing happens. We think body is conscious. We think thoughts are conscious.

Bye. I will take leave now. I will however continue posting matter relevant to this thread for other readers.
 

atanu

Member
Premium Member
Our universe can be categorised into two: The seer and the seen.

The study of the seen is the field of science. Enquiry into the nature of seer comes under the domain of spiritualism. Then, how is the enquiry into the nature of the seer delusional or fantasy? How can one say that "I have completely understood the seen", if one has not known the seer?

...

Let us come back to the subject.

When Vedānta inquires ‘Who am I?’, one has no doubt at all that one is the body. When further probed, ‘Is the body inert or sentient?’ We say ‘sentient’. We are not even aware that there are two separate entities of opposite nature – the sentient Self and the inert body. The Seer and the seen seem to have become one in the body. The Seer is not known since the seen is taken for the Seer. Therefore, inquiry is essential. if a person thinks that he is the reflection in a mirror and suffers due to it, the only solution is proper discrimination between the actual person and the reflected image. Due to ignorance we think we are the body and suffer. We are the seer of the body.

A vedanta text called Dṛg Dṛśya Viveka, which means ‘the discrimination between the Seer and the seen’ raises the fundamental questions and analyses them beautifully. The first verse of the text itself summarises the issue at hand.

"The eye is the seer and form (and color) the seen. That (eye) is the seen and mind is (its) seer. The Witness alone is the seer of thoughts in the mind and never the seen."

There are some fundamental differences between seer on one hand and seen on the other.One can first analyse that the principles are valid and then use the principles ti drill down to the ultimate seer. The principles are enumerated below.

a) The Seer and the seen are different from each other; b) The Seer can never become the seen; c) The Seer cannot see itself and the seen cannot see itself; d) One and the same thing cannot become both the Seer and the seen; and e) The Seer is aware and the seen is inert.

The first five verses are reproduced below (Translation Swami Tejomayananda of Chinmaya Mission):

1. The eye is the seer and form (and color) the seen. That (eye) is the seen and mind is (its) seer. The Witness alone is the seer of thoughts in the mind and never the seen.
2. The forms are many and varied on account of differences like blue, yellow, gross, subtle, short, long, etc. The eye remaining the same sees (them) all.
3. The mind, remaining the same, knows the different characteristics of the eye such as blindness, dullness and sharpness. This also applies in case of ears, skin etc.
4. Consciousness remaining the same, illumines the thoughts of desire, willingness, doubt, belief, disbelief, fortitude, and its lack thereof, modesty, understanding, fear and such others.
5. This (Consciousness) does not rise (is unborn) and does not set (is immortal). It does not increase or decay (is immutable). It shines by Itself and It illumines others without any aid.
...

I include a link for those who may wish to further study.

https://www.chinfo.org/images/userupload/Reflections/13_Drig-Drishya_Viveka.pdf





 

Truly Enlightened

Well-Known Member
All thoughts are conscious? Thoughts are conscious?

If we do not discriminate between "I" (the conscious subject) and "This" (unconscious objects of consciousness, including body-mind-intellect), then this ridiculous thing happens. We think body is conscious. We think thoughts are conscious.

Bye. I will take leave now. I will however continue posting matter relevant to this thread for other readers.

All thoughts are conscious? Thoughts are conscious?

Did you think that I meant that our thoughts were conscious of themselves? This could have been worded better. What I meant to say in the simplest terms, was that a physical mentally working human being, must be conscious of the fact that he/she is having a thought. If he/she was unconscious, he/she would have no thoughts at all. Both thoughts and our conscious awareness of thoughts, represents the brain's ability to freely-associate. Nothing more and nothing less. There is an obvious difference between the observer(I, subject) and the observed(object). But this has little to do with conceptualized thought. This has truly has been an education for me, and I won't waste any more of your time.
 

Truly Enlightened

Well-Known Member
You said I was avoiding answering questions. I proved you wrong. All this is just you backpedaling and trying to justify your false statement about me you made by trying to deflect it to being something about me instead, somehow.


No. You should first respect that I am not an idiot and not treat me as if I were one. That's the first and correct response. Then secondly, you ask for clarification rather than slamming the content that you can't follow as me using, "cryptic, obfuscated, hyperbolic, obtuse, obscure, and esoteric answers, that you claim to have 'spent a good deal of time carefully answering every point' "

A mature, and intellectually honest response would be to respectfully inquire further, and not instead level all these brash, rhetoric ladened responses in lieu of actual substance. Once you can pull up to the table and act the adult, then I will spend some time further explaining.

In spite of your "huff and bluff" distractions, this has never been about you personally. You HAVE avoided my questions, because you have no falsifiable answers to deposit. You have no option but to obfuscate which tend to give your claims at least the perception of being intelligent or mystic. Of course, if you did make a verifiable claim, science would quickly debunk it as being just plain silly. Had you spent the time in explaining and defining your basic terms and comments in the first place, we would still be discussing the original topic. Instead we are reduced to whinging and whining about personal abuse. And, your outlining what the acceptable behavior is, that I must adhere to, for any further discourse to continue. I think a very quiet swan song would've been much more respectable.
 

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
In spite of your "huff and bluff" distractions, this has never been about you personally. You HAVE avoided my questions, because you have no falsifiable answers to deposit. You have no option but to obfuscate which tend to give your claims at least the perception of being intelligent or mystic. Of course, if you did make a verifiable claim, science would quickly debunk it as being just plain silly. Had you spent the time in explaining and defining your basic terms and comments in the first place, we would still be discussing the original topic. Instead we are reduced to whinging and whining about personal abuse. And, your outlining what the acceptable behavior is, that I must adhere to, for any further discourse to continue. I think a very quiet swan song would've been much more respectable.
Trying to ascribe motives to me all the time, is personal. Which of course only shows how weak your positions are. You have absolutely no clue about what motivates me personally. It's boring and frustrating, and I choose not to engage. By way of contrast, please review how this other member shows respect to others in the way he asks sincere questions, rather than distracting with strings of non-stop rhetoric-ladened non-thought cast at me and others, like a monkey flinging poo at visitors from his cage. I will gladly take my time to respond to him, because it's about ideas discussed between two adults respecting each others perspectives: Share your mystical experiences

As I said, if you can pull up to the table and talk, like the gentlemen in the example above, and just discuss the actual points without all this rhetoric, then I'll continue. But that is not happening, despite my many invitations to you. Debate is not debate when it's not talking actual points.
 
Last edited:

Truly Enlightened

Well-Known Member
Trying to ascribe motives to me all the time, is personal. Which of course only shows how weak your positions are. You have absolutely no clue about what motivates me personally. It's boring and frustrating, and I choose not to engage. By way of contrast, please review how this other member shows respect to others in the way he asks sincere questions, rather than distracting with strings of non-stop rhetoric-ladened non-thought cast at me and others, like a monkey flinging poo at visitors from his cage. I will gladly take my time to respond to him, because it's about ideas discussed between two adults respecting each others perspectives: Share your mystical experiences

As I said, if you can pull up to the table and talk, like the gentlemen in the example above, and just discuss the actual points without all this rhetoric, then I'll continue. But that is not happening, despite my many invitations to you. Debate is not debate when it's not talking actual points.

If I were a monkey stuck in a cage, I would definitely sling poo at the visitors. As I have said before, this was never about you personally, and If you want to paint yourself as the victim of my literary abuse, I don't care. I have no interest in what motivates you, or even your level of expertise. Also, had you have taken your time to provide any of the information that I was continually asking for, we wouldn't be having this discussion. I can be a bit abrupt and terse when my patience wears thin, but confidence in your position and patience should have allowed you to cope.

Are you trying to shame me into behaving? How disrespectful is that to another adult? You said before that you didn't want to treated as an idiot, so don't treat me the same way. Since you refuse to define any of your more obfuscating terms, it is clear that you are just another false sophist, hiding behind the veil of un-falsifiability. And, then trying to use the meaning of ordinary words, to give your ideas the appearance of complexity and mysticism. If you do decide to bring your A game, to promote an intellectually honest fallacy-free plausible argument, then I will listen. If not, you and your mate can continue to inspire the ignorant.
 

atanu

Member
Premium Member
Difference between the witnessing subject (the consciousness) and the objects is explained nicely by Swami sarvapriyananda.

 

atanu

Member
Premium Member
Some monists such as @Willamena have objection that it is artificial and unnecessary to create a duality when the reality is non dual. That is what is my understanding of Willamena's position. She may of course correct me.

To this I will say that the Seer-Seen discrimination is the basic discrimination process taught by Advaita school of Vedanta. As per advaita, the seer is non dual and all pervasive. Mind-bodies are many. But there is no real "I" with those mind-bodies. To even intuit that the mind-body is not the sentient "I", the true seer needs to be identified in one's consciousness after screening out all that we perceive and grasp. Seer is not graspable or cannot be pointed "This is the seer". In experience of objectless consciousness alone, the seer can be realised.

'I' is the formless non dual seer. But the notion in our minds is that "I am this body". Advaita teaches that as my shirt is an object of my perception, the body is also an object of perception. Difference is that the body has is delimited with nerve endings which make it appear that "I sense myself on skin on this body and hence this body must be me".

As per advaita, this confusion of conflating the seer with the seen must go before monism can be intellectually appreciated and experientially realised.
 

stvdv

Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
Our universe can be categorised into two: The seer and the seen.

The study of the seen is the field of science. Enquiry into the nature of seer comes under the domain of spiritualism. Then, how is the enquiry into the nature of the seer delusional or fantasy? How can one say that "I have completely understood the seen", if one has not known the seer?
..
I don't expect a seer to say such a thing
A delusional might say such a thing

If unenlightened one sees not the seer
If arrogant one might say
that
 

stvdv

Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
Our universe can be categorised into two: The seer and the seen.

The study of the seen is the field of science. Enquiry into the nature of seer comes under the domain of spiritualism. Then, how is the enquiry into the nature of the seer delusional or fantasy? How can one say that "I have completely understood the seen", if one has not known the seer?

...

I don't expect a seer to say such a thing
A delusional might say such a thing

If unenlightened one sees not the seer
If arrogant one might say
that

I do not understand what you mean.:)
I can understand you did not understand. I was on my mobile, and then I try to minimize characters and use colors, so that I don't need copy/paste
Probably that's why the confusion. Now I have the keyboard, and give it another try:). I hope more successful this time
Or I must have completely misunderstood your questions of course (let me know)

Our universe can be categorised into two: The seer and the seen.
Agreed

The study of the seen is the field of science.
Agreed

Enquiry into the nature of seer comes under the domain of spiritualism.
Agreed

Then, how is the enquiry into the nature of the seer delusional or fantasy?
It is not delusional IMO.
Hence my reply: I don't expect a seer to say such a thing
Hence my reply: A delusional might say such a thing

How can one say that "I have completely understood the seen", if one has not known the seer?
B) if one has not known the seer? (I put the last part first)
This means one is not enlightened yet
Hence my reply: If unenlightened one sees not the seer (sees = knows)

A) How can one say that "I have completely understood the seen" (first part last)
I guess a seer could say this
But because you ended with "if one has not known the seer"?
So that means one is not a seer, not wise, not enlightened etc
And if one still claims "I have completely understood the seen" I would call that arrogant due to ignorance (or something similar)
Hence my reply: If arrogant one might say that
 

Willamena

Just me
Premium Member
Some monists such as @Willamena have objection that it is artificial and unnecessary to create a duality when the reality is non dual. That is what is my understanding of Willamena's position. She may of course correct me.

To this I will say that the Seer-Seen discrimination is the basic discrimination process taught by Advaita school of Vedanta. As per advaita, the seer is non dual and all pervasive. Mind-bodies are many. But there is no real "I" with those mind-bodies. To even intuit that the mind-body is not the sentient "I", the true seer needs to be identified in one's consciousness after screening out all that we perceive and grasp. Seer is not graspable or cannot be pointed "This is the seer". In experience of objectless consciousness alone, the seer can be realised.

'I' is the formless non dual seer. But the notion in our minds is that "I am this body". Advaita teaches that as my shirt is an object of my perception, the body is also an object of perception. Difference is that the body has is delimited with nerve endings which make it appear that "I sense myself on skin on this body and hence this body must be me".

As per advaita, this confusion of conflating the seer with the seen must go before monism can be intellectually appreciated and experientially realised.
Well said.



Note: I haven't read back, but don't think I said that duality is unnecessary. It just is; neither necessary or unnecessary. (In the same way, it is unnecessary to refer to me as monist. I'm just me.)
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
Dennet is mistaken that thought is consciousness. The ability to see and know a thought arising is consciousness and that is no illusion.
...
I disagree here. The thought (or sensation, or emotion) is ultimately what consciousness is made from. Consciousness is the sum total of our thoughts, sensations, and emotions. So, to be able to have a thought is to be conscious. There is no requirement that the thought be 'known', only that it is there.
 

Willamena

Just me
Premium Member
I disagree here. The thought (or sensation, or emotion) is ultimately what consciousness is made from. Consciousness is the sum total of our thoughts, sensations, and emotions. So, to be able to have a thought is to be conscious. There is no requirement that the thought be 'known', only that it is there.
A small note: consciousness, in normal parlance, isn't made up of things, it's a state of things. We refer to ourselves as conscious when we have (picture ourselves in) relation to thought, and unconscious when we don't. I haven't read Dennet, so this isn't a comment on his work, but it's not a stretch to imagine that we don't cease to exist just because we have become unconscious of thought.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
A small note: consciousness, in normal parlance, isn't made up of things, it's a state of things. We refer to ourselves as conscious when we have (picture ourselves in) relation to thought, and unconscious when we don't. I haven't read Dennet, so this isn't a comment on his work, but it's not a stretch to imagine that we don't cease to exist just because we have become unconscious of thought.

But what if we have no thoughts, emotions, sensations, ideas, etc, AT ALL? Does it make sense to say something is conscious if it has none of those?
 
Top