Cyracuz,
If there is no experiencer there is no observer, no taster, smeller, doer, etc. There is nothing seeing these words. (If the seeing of these words had a seer the seer would block the view.) Seeing-consciousness is 100% transparent, i.e. there`s nothing here looking. Consciousness as such is non-phenomenal, non-mental observing, which is the basic defining aspect of nondualism, or is nondualism. In the subject-object, or experiencer-experienced dyad it is the observing-subject which is void ( resulting in the object also being void). If there is nothing here looking there is no distinction between these words and a looker. There is just void looking.
And even though there is no experiencers or observing-selves, there is THIS or as JLNobody states, 'Tat tvam asi'......Thou are That. We say consciousness some say That or Suchness, etc. which are words-concepts that attempt to point out (or to) this empty awakeness. But how can it be pointed to if it is one with everything, is everything? It cannot. But attempts are made from language , from duality.
And the understatement is; most of us most of the time overlook this Suchness. Yet if there is no us, we, self or others etc. then it must be that that which is being over looked is that which is doing the over looking. Or that which is over looking is that which is overlooked. Either way this impersonal observing is only ever one.
It can't be expressed more clearly.
I really like "There is just void looking." Effective meditation is based on the understanding of this phrase.
I understand twyvel. These thoughts are similar to my own, but you express them beautifully. Omm, ergo sum... :wink:
I have lately entertained the notion that everything is Omm, and infracturable. Whenever we see dualism we are in reality sub-dividing. (Sub-dividing is a musical term, it means to count more beats than there really is, than you are playing, in order to achieve more steady time.)
Cyracuz, I like your analogy between musical subdividing and epistemological dualism. But musically speaking, for me, in addition to the function of "subdividing" you identify, subdividing is also a device serving to help keep the count in immediately pending passages? at least that's what I use it for.
Your comment also reminds me that I (unconscioiusly) cognitively fracture my experiences into organized divisions (i.e., dualism), but the experiences are themselves, in their immediacy, non-dualistic Omm. But as soon as we think about them, make "sense" of them, we behave dualistically in a fractured world. I guess what I'm saying is that thinking (cooked experience) is dualistic but the sensorium of life (raw experience) is non-dualistic.
JL wrote:
Quote:I guess what I'm saying is that thinking (cooked experience) is dualistic but the sensorium of life (raw experience) is non-dualistic.
Well put. I think this is the very point. It is the inner conflict, evolution within us. Who's to say what will come of it? We were never really in control of anything...
Yes, as Twyvel might remind us, there's nothing to control and no-one to control it.
