Progress in consciousness?

Rex, it is true, I think, that phenomena (essences) are not real in the sense that they are not given. They are the characteristics (raw sensations) that the world, in collusion with our nervous sytems, create. They are "conditioned" and therefore illusions. But like mirages they are real illusions. Their sheer appearance is their reality. Existence, as a bald reality (a "that" not a "what") is unconditioned; it has a deeper but totally mysterious ontological status. It is, I suspect, what theoretical physics studies. They do not just try to explain phenomena; they attempt to go behind it, to see naked reality rather than the reality which our cultures clothe.
Our confusion lies partly in our different conceptions of the term, "essence." You seem to mean by it the essential or absolute character of something; I simply mean by it the existentialist's reference to the constructed meaning of something. I appreciate Alikimr's very existentialist statement that he is an existentialist "whose Essence has not yet been determined." We define the world in the sense that we confer meaning to it. We do not live in a world so much as we live in a world of definitons of the situations we encounter. Alikimr is acknowledging the fact, as we should all do, that he has not finished defining himself. He has not yet completely ascribed essence to his existence. He is, as it were, a work in process. Isn't that what we should be saying about our world itself?

It's the nature of the entire Universe, not just the world.
But I suppose if mankind began to see itself as something that could change for the better (not just technological), we'd have a better (changing for the better) world.

By "World" I mean everything, not just our planet.

We create our world, it does not create us.... WE are the power that creates the stars ..... yes ..... once created, they create so that we perpetuate .... Dante's world flows outward as well as in.
Creation is a blessed curse ..... once wrought it cannot be abandoned. One cannot exist without the other and ego cannot deny it's own existence.
That once thought cannot be un-thought.

Gel. Well put.

Yes GelisgestiJLNobody, Gelisgesti, ReX, stuh505, alikimr, twyvel etc. etc., as bodies, (as ego's) have to be observed to exist. There is nothing >out there< and no one out there. Family, parents, friends, (self) don't exist, unless observed; they have no independent existence. Essence = nothing (observable).

That's the awakening of no one, the shock of ages, the grand joke on no one.






Chuang Tzu

Obliterating Unity…………………….beautiful isn't it,

JLN & twyvel:
You say that Bodies ,(as ego's) have to be observed to exist. You also said earlier that
ego is a pseudo character to an "unobserved observer".
How then can an unobserved observer exist?

Alikimr, I'll let Twyvel answser that, but remember that it is not ego that observes; it's all of nature, at least all those aspects of nature that generate your experience. It's not "you."

Thanks JLNobody,


Alikimr, as JLNobody said, it's not ego that observes. The ego, or that which we take our comprehensive self to be is an observed object. In fact it's not even that. It is an ever changing group of sensorial and mental observations, bodily sensations etc., being observed by something else, but not some'thing'. And if the observed cannot observe (Huang Po) then this so called self, as an object of observation, doesn't observe anything.


This unobserved observer by definition doesn't exist as anything observable, though its presence is evident; no presence no existence. I.e. The essence of the unobservable subject or observer is 'nothing', from which all existence depends.

In my understanding, for what it's worth, that the Observer (some people call it the Witness) is indeed nothing, in the sense that it is no-thing. It is more like every-thing, the World of forces that generate all our sensations/experiences/observations," including our egos and other thoughts and impressions.

At the bottom of the pile lies the 'observance' .... a phenomena that requires not only an observer, but also an intepreter which in turn requires a 'quantifier' for all knowledge, once known, requires weight and volume.

One begins to develop an appreciation of infinity.

twyvel:
I disagree that I, (ego), do not observe. I
(ego) , can and do consciously observe another person, (another ego), and in that sense my ego,(as you put it, 'my comprehensive self') ,can be, and is, an observed object.
To say that a particular state of my"ever
changing group of sensorial and mental observations....etc.," cannot be observed by something or someone else, at any particular time
is not a comprehensible argument .
I cannot understand how you can conclude
"that the observed cannot observe", without the use
of a mystical rationale. If that is the necessary adjunct, would you please confirm .If not, what do you find erroneous in my above stated position.

Alikimr, ego is not an actual agent; ego is a construct, an idea, an orientation. Therefore it cannot really observe anything; it is an "object" of perception. You say "I cannot understand how [Tywvel] can conclude 'that the observed cannot observe', without the use of a mystical rationale." That's just it; it IS a mystical rationale.

twyvel:
You say "thoughts are observed"......"body
sensations are observed"......."percepts are observed"......... well I do not agree with you. What is observed are the actions resulting from these thoughts, body sensations, and precepts.
Whatever we take ourselves to be is not an object of observation. Only our actions , what we do and say, are objects of observation Is this not as readily apparent?
I think that fron a nondual perspective
which you refer to as "unity consciousness" nearly anything is possible, particularly the so-called self-
awareness of objects......which somehow casts a
wee bit of a mystic glow on the whole argument.
And then again, JLN has allready told me
that a mystic ratinale is inherent in the overall understanding of the involvement of the Ego,which
is a construct....not an existing conglameration of
self-aware realizations.

I'll do something I shouldn't, which is, try and clarify this. For those who are reading (and not posting) and my own sake. Since everybody here is agreeing (except alikimir, whom (when DO you use that? They never taught me that ) is questioning) I'll do it anyway.



Yet, I remeber JLN/Gelisgesti/twyvel saying that there is no oberver, only observing.
But I suppose, that's putting it too simple.

(I was ranting on* about 3paragrahs long and was going to write two more, could feel that coming, but then I got it. So never mind

*Examples I was using:
Tree falling in the woods, does happen. Because if you wander in the forest, you see fallen trees. (That's just plain oversimplified of what I was writing).
The zen story about the monk that said to his teacher: 'I think I'm the only one who exists - I think therefor I am, I suppose he argued :p - and you're just my imagination. His teacher took his staff and beat his pupil on the head with it. 'Why did you do that?' he asked. 'I didn't, you did' his teacher replied. (To beat this specific philosophy out of his mind, but let buddhism enter, which is equally 'stupid' the layman would argue)
The vast majority of the universe isn't being observed, yet it 'exists'(not as an absolute, but it does nonetheless).


But we're all on the same page, so never mind

alikimr

I think you have to reflect more on the issue at hand.

ReX

You got it!….


Maybe you could explain it to alikimr,

He understands where we're going with it (The -Then again- part). He just wants to accept it and be certain of it. He wants to be able to prove it, for others and himself. So that there's undeniably. Do you want to be sure? Absolutely sure? To be so certain that there's nothing anyone can say that'll make you believe something else?

Go outside, take a walk in nature. Look around, experience it. Enjoy it. Don't think. For that one moment, that one, small, fracture of a moment you don't think about it and just experience: You are.

If you want to settle it with just talking about it, I'm afraid you're going to have to let go of words too.

That would be true progress in consciousness.

Disclaimer: If you say I can't know that, because I'm not you. Then how can you know I don't know, because...You are not me. (© Zen, since before the beginning of time)

And I didn't walk, I was just thinking while writing the previous post and stopped for a second. Some vague almost thoughts entered my mind and quickly I understood that I understood, but that's all I understood. Not enough? Read buddhist material on what IS enough