Frank wrote:
Quote: "I cannot observe the awareness I am, others have said they cannot observe the awareness they are and I think it's logical to say, "Neither can anyone". "
COMMENT: Well, it may seem logical to you -- but in the strict sense of logic -- it isn't.
Think of it this way: I cannot understand Einstein's Theory of Relativity; others, many others, have said they cannot understand Einstein's Theory of Relativity -- and I think it is logical to say that nobody can understand Einstein's Theory of Relativity.
You are correct, my statement was rather loose and is not defendable.
Though I'll say that observation is not the same as understanding. But I agree that anyone can come up with a observed pink elephant example.
It's about the nature of awareness and if I am the only one that states I cannot observe awareness, it doesn't change the fact that I cannot observe it.
There were times and it still may be the case today in some instances where mystics with profound insights into the nature of reality would go off by themselves and remain silent. Telling others what they know, i.e. that there is no physical world or self etc. would only attract scorn and declarations of insanity.
There are truths that one learns about ones self that apply to everyone, or at least all humans.
Quote: But then Twyvel takes all this a step beyond:
"Therefore there is nobody to do the observing."
COMMENT:
Wow!
And this is something that I am supposed to accept as being knowledge and experience?
I think not.
I am skeptical.
The statement
"Therefore there is nobody to do the observing."
is derived from, "Awareness cannot be observed"
If I am the awareness and awareness cannot be found in the world of observable things (and thoughts) then there is no observable 'self' in the world of observable things.
As such perceptions such as seeing appear to have no basis, they appear to come out of nowhere or nothing. That is to say seeing
does come out of nothing (observable), i.e. the awareness. (or more correctly IS the awareness)
So the world appears to arise from nothing because the awareness of it cannot be observed. There's no one (observable) behind my eyes looking out.
Yet this awareness IS me hence I appear to be nothing, or emptiness, or void, since I am nowhere (to be found), no thing and no one. The spot I occupy is empty, so to speak.
When I say there is nobody to do the observing, or when others talk about no-self this is what is meant, that there is only 'observing', meaning the 'self' is not a noun, not a thing, not an observer, nor a somebody etc.
So "nobody is observing", is an observation.
Now if you say, "That doesn't mean there isn't a self that cannot be observed but is an observer"....it misses the point because it is a transformation of the idea of 'self' that is the issue.
As such the nature of the 'self' would be far different then what most of us think, i.e not an isolated individual self, but a collective self which is everyone's 'self', i.e. you are all your percepts, I am all mine etc.
And we start heading into nondualism..........
... Made of pillage.