Neti-Neti & Nonduality Paradox

[Inno]

Diving straight in. 

When using the Neti-Neti buddhist approach, one realizes that anything that you can be conscious of is ultimately not "you".

I am aware of (my) body, thus I am NOT the body.
I am aware of sensation, thus I am NOT sensation. 
I am aware of (this) though, thus I am NOT (this) thought.
I am aware of *whatever*, thus I am NOT *whatever*. 

Following the approach, we arrive at the knower, that can not be known.
To the fire that can not burn itself. 
To the eye that can not see itself. 

However, and this is where my mind can't comprehend:

When checking direct experience, there is no real separation between Seer, Seeing & Seen.

No separation between Consciousness and the object of Consciousness. 

How can Consciousness (you)  be Conscious of and at the same time One with and not separate?
@Phil This sort of reminds me of you explanation of why Infinite can not know finite, however still a mindfuck.  

[Mandy]

👍Identification requires the concept of exclusion, "I am defined by what I am not." Existence is defined by nonexistence. "Exist" etymology 1600, from French exister (17c.), from Latin existere/exsistere "to step out, stand forth, emerge. Step out of what, emerge from what? The vase is defined by what is not a vase, the positive space is defined by the negative space. There is no exclusion. 

[Eothasian]

2 hours ago, Inno said:

Diving straight in. 

When using the Neti-Neti buddhist approach, one realizes that anything that you can be conscious of is ultimately not "you".
 

Why would that be that case?

 

2 hours ago, Inno said:

 

@Phil This sort of reminds me of you explanation of why Infinite can not know finite, however still a mindfuck.  

Why?

[Phil]

3 hours ago, Inno said:

How can Consciousness (you)  be Conscious of and at the same time One with and not separate?

https://www.actualityofbeing.com/what-are-the-spheres

3 hours ago, Inno said:

@Phil This sort of reminds me of you explanation of why Infinite can not know finite, however still a mindfuck.  

Indeed! 

 

If some ‘meat on the bone’ remains, maybe give this a read as well. 

https://www.actualityofbeing.com/spiritual-mis-leadership

[Inno]

@Mandy Interesting etymological reference.

 

It's strange that Awareness is aware of an object/its' contents/itself and at the same time not separate from them.

I can't seem to wrap my head around that. It sort of reminds me of the alchemical Ouroboros symbol, the snake eating its' tail. 

 

31 minutes ago, Eothasian said:

Why would that be that case?

Just my thought process here:

If I/Awareness is aware of an object, it implies that there is a subject (awareness) and an object (what awareness is aware of). 
Anything I perceive is not me in the ultimate sense, is the conclusion I arrive at.

 

Strangely enough, when checking in with direct experience, I literally can't  find any separation between subject and object. Between Perceiver, Perceiving and Perceived. Which kind of closes the strange loop and leaves it open at the same time if that makes sense :D 
 

40 minutes ago, Eothasian said:

Why?

I was not concise in my wording here. What I meant is more of an association with what I've seen Phil explain, not that I know "why" per se.

@Phil I'll read the article, thank you. Maybe you've already done your share explaining this:) 

[Eothasian]

15 minutes ago, Inno said:

@Mandy

 

Just my thought process here:

If I/Awareness is aware of an object, it implies that there is a subject (awareness) and an object (what awareness is aware of). 
Anything I perceive is not me in the ultimate sense, is the conclusion I arrive at.

Hm, all I can derive from here is, that the perception of subject and object is the not-you, not necessary perception of such itself. 

What if you are aware of yourself as a subject hence making yourself simultaniously the object?

Edited July 14, 2022 by Eothasian

[Forza21]

im in very similar place. For me its also the end of the inquiry. Is there a way to continue?

 

also it reminds me of:

 

„in the seen, only the seen,
in the heard, only the heard,
in the sensed, only the sensed,
in the cognized, only the cognized,
and you see that there is no thing here,
you will therefore see that
indeed there is no thing there.
As you see that there is no thing there,
you will see that
you are therefore located neither in the world of this,
nor in the world of that,
nor in any place
betwixt the two.
This alone is the end of suffering”

Edited July 14, 2022 by Forza21

[Inno]

21 minutes ago, Eothasian said:

Hm, all I can derive from here is, that the perception of subject and object is the not-you, not necessary perception of such itself. 

What if you are aware of yourself as a subject hence making yourself simultaniously the object?

 

Didn't quite grasp the first part, sorry:) 
Can you really be aware of yourself as a subject?
Once you are aware of something this automatically makes it the object. So any subject you are aware of is really an object of the subject/awareness. 
In that sense you are always the subject, which can't be an object of subject. The Knower that can not be known. 

 

Didn't meant that as a intellectual endeavor, but when I try to explain it I see how easy it is to get lost in thought and make is such, lol. 

 

@Forza21That's a beautiful poem right there. Tbh it looks like the end of inquiry for me as well. It feels like both are true. Kind of reminds me of the "Transcend and include" approach of Ken Wilber. Maybe one of the perspectives is nested in the other, dunno. 

 

[Eothasian]

12 minutes ago, Inno said:

Didn't quite grasp the first part, sorry:) 

Can you really be aware of yourself as a subject?
Once you are aware of something this automatically makes it the object. So any subject you are aware of is really an object of the subject/awareness. 
In that sense you are always the subject, which can't be an object of subject. The Knower that can not be known. 

 

 

That's what I was saying, but yeah can you not? Unless you are looking to be awareness without being aware? Because if you are not even self aware, since you don't allow the perception of an object to be you, and self awareness implies that you become object and subject in this case, if I got you right, then you cannot be awareness or an awareness without being aware, if awareness implies necessarily being aware of something ( if even aware of awareness itself ). Does it?

Edited July 14, 2022 by Eothasian

[Phil]

That second link might be helpful. 

https://www.actualityofbeing.com/spiritual-mis-leadership

 

A solipsistic aggrandizing of the separate self might be inadvertently influencing the inquiry. 

 

[Indisguise]

8 hours ago, Inno said:

How can Consciousness (you) be Conscious of and at the same time One with and not separate?

You're not "conscious of". That's just a linguistic description. Consciousness is being. Being is consciousness. 

You got it perfectly right, there is no see-er and nothing seen. There's just the experience - seeing - but no separation between experience and experiencer. 

 

Consicousness can hold everything "within itself" because consciousness is nothing. Nothing is everything, that's the key to why you seem to be "conscious of" and yet be one with whatever you're conscious of. 

 

Just like a mirror that has no color and can therefore contain all color.

The colorful reflection in the mirror IS the colorless mirror. 

[Phil]

@Indisguise

Was hoping to ‘draw out’ the being subject & object / no subject no object… but yes, very well said, nailed it. 

[Blessed2]

Oh!!!

 

It seems like there is 'subject and object', 'seer and seen', 'experiencer and experienced', but this is just the same thing appearing as 'two things', for the sake of fun and games! For the sake of being me!

 

This is the two spheres thing!

[Phil]

‘Not this, not that’, ‘Not me, not me’. 

No paradox. 

🙂

(Me)

[Eothasian]

21 hours ago, Phil said:

That second link might be helpful. 

https://www.actualityofbeing.com/spiritual-mis-leadership

 

A solipsistic aggrandizing of the separate self might be inadvertently influencing the inquiry. 

 

For me?

[Phil]

@Eothasian

Oh, no not at all, sorry if it seemed so. 

Generally, there seemed to be some influence of just some concepts ‘out there’ about awareness being ‘a thing’, or ‘the only thing that is aware’, which is sort of a hijacking of infinite consciousness by the nonexistent ‘separate self’ of things & objects, or, materialist paradigm. I certainly did not mean to come across as accusatory, but was more attempting to ‘fish out’ the realization.  

 

[Eothasian]

@Phil

 

Aah