The Two Truths

[seattlegal]

Only the relative is 'wobbly'.

This is where we disagree.

Your own words:

Also, the ideal is always relative to the real, it is impractical exactly because it is the product of imagination.

Your idea of absolute includes the notion of stability.
I say stability of void is possible only with timelessness. (We prolly have threads relating to this around here somewhere.)

Find out the observer of the wobble, is there any instability in that?

Am I merely an observer?

It will only seem so if you label the attention as the observer, but I mean the source of attention, the very base of awareness. Look into this, whatsoever you can point at is an object, what is the real subject?

Observation is a process that can be broken down to include subject and object--or in other words--subject and object are each participants in a larger interactive process. Trying to define an observer within the context of the interactive process, then trying to isolate/remove the observer from the process would then void the criteria for observer.

 

[AdvaitaZen]

Your idea of absolute includes the notion of stability.
I say stability of void is possible only with timelessness. (We prolly have threads relating to this around here somewhere.)

Indeed, what I speak of observes time, thus is timeless, eternal.

Am I merely an observer?

Well, no, what you are observes this I, the I is merely a set of identifications you have accepted represent you, and worse they are what you have decided to uphold. The I notion is the single most imprisoning thought which arises in the mind, yet it is the cause of all other thoughts.

Observation is a process that can be broken down to include subject and object--or in other words--subject and object are each participants in a larger interactive process. Trying to define an observer within the context of the interactive process, then trying to isolate/remove the observer from the process would then void the criteria for observer.

Subject and object appear for what I reference as observer. It is why I have said that even something you can label as the observer is an object, it is because to highlight something there is something distinct highlighting it.

I feel like you are mistaking the perceived intimacy of the subject for what I am calling the observer, but this is a wrong understanding. All that arises within and without the body are all objects in consciousness.

 

[seattlegal]

Indeed, what I speak of observes time, thus is timeless, eternal.

I thought we just went through nonduality of subject/object?
How can it be separate from temporality if it observes it?

Well, no, what you are observes this I, the I is merely a set of identifications you have accepted represent you, and worse they are what you have decided to uphold. The I notion is the single most imprisoning thought which arises in the mind, yet it is the cause of all other thoughts.

Any empirical or scriptural evidence/testimony for "I notion" being the cause of all other thoughts?

Subject and object appear for what I reference as observer. It is why I have said that even something you can label as the observer is an object, it is because to highlight something there is something distinct highlighting it.

Hence, I focus on the processes instead of the objects.

I feel like you are mistaking the perceived intimacy of the subject for what I am calling the observer, but this is a wrong understanding. All that arises within and without the body are all objects in consciousness.

Again, I focus on the processes over objects. Can you say the same?

 

[iBrian]

How can it be separate from temporality if it observes it?

I observe myself; I see all that I am.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Since I am influenced by philosophy of Sankara, I accept two truths, Parmarthika and Vyavaharika. Sankara also has a third, Pratibhasika, but IMV, that is not as important.

 

[seattlegal]

I observe myself; I see all that I am.

Truth is often likened to a mirror.

 

[radarmark]

Parmarthika is the transcendent, primordial, ideal?

Vyavaharika is the empirical, contingent, relative?

Pratibhasika is the reflected, illusion?

If these identities are correct, let me add the following.

The timeless, the eternal, the primordial is Parmarthika, the beyond. However, if this beyond includes all or at least all experience-consciousness, then it is not fixed and must be fluid or wobbly. Something not capable of change and evolution cannot be eternal or primordial unless one is talking very abstract "eternal events" like the unmoved mover. Once one accepts that these meta-events can be particularized (moved from abstract to concrete), they must be in flux.

That which always depends on or is defined as a function of other things or interrelationships would then be Vyavaharika, the empirical that is always here and now... which is so very, very fuzzy.

Our memories (if neuroscience is correct and we can actually change its content) and our wishes about the future (the next now) are for nought, and thus Pratibhasika.

I believe that there must be a fourth kind of truth or jiva... the teleological or future perfect state towards which the D-vine guides us. Perhaps the moksha?

 

[AdvaitaZen]

I thought we just went through nonduality of subject/object?
How can it be separate from temporality if it observes it?

Exactly because it observes the movement of time, and sees the flexibility of the perception of time. When time isn't paid attention to, it speeds up, when it is paid attention to it slows down. Noting this changeability, something must be there unchanged by time.

Any empirical or scriptural evidence/testimony for "I notion" being the cause of all other thoughts?

Um, the whole of the Vedas, Ramana Maharshi spoke most directly on this in recent history.

Hence, I focus on the processes instead of the objects.

Are you in the processes, or do you only observe the?

Again, I focus on the processes over objects. Can you say the same?

There is no difference, you have combined only an apparent duality, but subject and object both are appearing in consciousness, find out who is aware of consciousness.

 

[AdvaitaZen]

I observe myself; I see all that I am.

If you observe it, it is other than you.

This is valid for internal, as well as external phenomenon.

 

[AdvaitaZen]

Neti neti, not this, not that.

Only through negation can Truth be arrived at.

Yet, when you arrive at the zero point, you experience this nothingness comprises all things.

 

[seattlegal]

Exactly because it observes the movement of time, and sees the flexibility of the perception of time. When time isn't paid attention to, it speeds up, when it is paid attention to it slows down.

Any empirical evidence for this? Sure, time is relative to motion, but I haven't heard of time being affected by observation. I'd be interested in seeing any evidence for this.

Noting this changeability, something must be there unchanged by time.

Observation changes the observer.

Um, the whole of the Vedas, Ramana Maharshi spoke most directly on this in recent history.

Then a quote or two shouldn't be too difficult to dig up then? Thanks.

Are you in the processes, or do you only observe the?

Observing is a process.

There is no difference, you have combined only an apparent duality, but subject and object both are appearing in consciousness, find out who is aware of consciousness.

Why? Let my cite your earlier post:

Also, the ideal is always relative to the real, it is impractical exactly because it is the product of imagination. The mind is such that it is never satisfied, and thus man perpetuates his own suffering. If we can drop our idle imaginings, we come to see all is already perfect. Yet, this certainly isn't practical either, thus we are taught to be dissatisfied so that we are useful to the society. This in turn causes more suffering, so we must choose whether to accept we must be of some use or see through the whole thing.

The mind won't like the result, but the mind is the perpetuation of samsara, I have just described a couple of instances of how it keeps turning. The trick is seeing you are only the observer, only the empty center making all movements of the wheel possible.

There is danger in becoming attached to unattachment.

 

[AdvaitaZen]

Any empirical evidence for this? Sure, time is relative to motion, but I haven't heard of time being affected by observation. I'd be interested in seeing any evidence for this.

"Time flies when you're having fun" is a direct reference which everyone I've ever talked to has observed. Are you actually saying you're the first this isn't true for?

Observation changes the observer.

No, observation affects the observed, the observer is unchanging, timeless.

Then a quote or two shouldn't be too difficult to dig up then? Thanks.

Here is a few examples. There is also the very nature of Buddhas concept of anatta, and countless other statements from enlightened ones. Few have spoken as directly and succinctly on the topic though.

Observing is a process.

Yes, but is the observer a process?

Why? Let my cite your earlier post:

All that we are aware of is an object in consciousness, find out what is actually conscious - noting that the very assertion 'me' or 'I' are more objects appearing in it.

There is danger in becoming attached to unattachment.

Certainly, if it is ego pursuing detachement, the result will be a coldness, indifference. It is only a device, once you understand this the very idea of detachment must also be dropped, you must simply be that.

A great Zen master has highlighted the three directions of egoic experiencing, which goes beyond Buddhas Middle Way: aversion, attachment and indifference. I say it goes beyond the Middle Way because ordinarily we see indifference as the prescription of it, this is not true. What is constantly referenced as compassion is simply to be utterly present with whatever arises, if you are totally there, there is no possibility of ego coming in.

Yet, still, in Buddhist circles, the most highlighted tool is the knowing of the essential emptiness of all things. Nothing has any individual reality, all is the result of something else. It is all the result of the mind processing stimulus, but what is the nature of the Mind?

 

[AdvaitaZen]

The observer is that for which consciousness arises.

The observer is not something in consciousness.

What you are saying is the observing process, I am calling attention. The observer is aware of this, and is the source of it. This I call pure awareness, where what we are aware of all occurs in what I call consciousness. Simply look at your current experience to see this, there is no special trick to see it, just a direct seeing of what is actually the case.

As an eye cannot see itself, so awareness cannot know itself, it can only understand by seeing what it is not. Once this is known, we can only simply BE that. Yet, we always were, it is only illusion and habit which pulls us away.

 

[AdvaitaZen]

Another great modern teacher is Nisargadatta Maharaj, here are some quotes by him.

Both Ramana and Nasargadatta have many more insightful statements though, I would recommend reading both in depth. Others who are even more contemporary include Gangaji, Mooji, and Adyashanti, I would recommend them all.

 

[AdvaitaZen]

To acknowledge something as a process, there must be a start and finish, thus you are still in duality even if you think you are seeing oneness. The key to this is acknowledging it is the mind which labels it a process, awareness is what Buddha calls the Mind, where ego or self are mind.

In direct translation, Buddha calls ego atman and denies it by saying anatta. This is means self and no-self respectively, or more directly mind and no-mind. It is because mind is not real, just what we call the container of thoughts. Thinking can still arise, but gradually there are greater gaps, we cease to cling to the mind, it becomes again as it was intended, as a useful tool. The body is the same, it is our vehicle to navigate time and space, but it is not what we are.

What eventually happens is we come totally to the now, seeing it is the only true reality.

We are this moment, all else is false, an imagining of the mind.

 

[AdvaitaZen]

In Advaita Vedanta, the same as atman and anatta is said by asserting atman is Brahman.

The assertion is the same, atman has no existential reality, only Brahman is real... And Brahman is Sunyata of Buddhism, meaning void and emptiness respectively. The difference asserted between these is imagined though, reality is void of attributes, it is as an empty room, pure potentiality. What we call the world is only a manifestation of that potential.

The same is called as Tao, for if you give it attributes, it ceases to be the Tao. You must surrender all notions of separation and learn to flow with the Tao. Yet in flowing with it, mind is not there checking to see if the road is clear or making any commentary, you simple be the Tao, there is no other way to know it.

All speak of the same finding.

 

[AdvaitaZen]

Buddha-nature is only this unmodified awareness, this undeniable sense of presence.

 

[seattlegal]

"Time flies when you're having fun" is a direct reference which everyone I've ever talked to has observed. Are you actually saying you're the first this isn't true for?

Ahh, you're talking subjectly, rather than objectively. Gotcha.

Observation changes the observer.

No, observation affects the observed, the observer is unchanging, timeless.

Empirical evidence that observation affects the observer:
Mu wave - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mu waves, also known as mu rhythms, comb or wicket rhythms, arciform rhythms, or sensorimotor rhythms, are synchronized patterns of electrical activity involving large numbers of neurons, probably of the pyramidal type, in the part of the brain that controls voluntary movement.[1] These patterns as measured by electroencephalography (EEG), magnetoencephalography (MEG), or electrocorticography (ECoG) repeat at a frequency of 8–13 Hz and are most prominent when the body is physically at rest.[1] Unlike the alpha wave, which occurs at a similar frequency over the resting visual cortex at the back of the scalp, the mu wave is found over the motor cortex, in a band approximately from ear to ear. A person suppresses mu wave patterns when he or she performs a motor action or, with practice, when he or she visualizes performing a motor action. This suppression is called desynchronization of the wave because EEG wave forms are caused by large numbers of neurons firing in synchrony. The mu wave is even suppressed when one observes another person performing a motor action. Researchers such as V. S. Ramachandran and colleagues have suggested that this is a sign that the mirror neuron system is involved in mu wave suppression,[2][3] although others disagree.[4]
​

Whether you believe consciousness drives brain action, or brain action drives consciousness, consciousness is affected by observation.

Here is a few examples. There is also the very nature of Buddhas concept of anatta, and countless other statements from enlightened ones. Few have spoken as directly and succinctly on the topic though.

I'll get back to this

Yes, but is the observer a process?

part of several processes, imo

All that we are aware of is an object in consciousness, find out what is actually conscious - noting that the very assertion 'me' or 'I' are more objects appearing in it.

This sounds very much like you are mistaking alaya (storehouse) consciousness as the self. See Yogacara texts for more.

Certainly, if it is ego pursuing detachement, the result will be a coldness, indifference. It is only a device, once you understand this the very idea of detachment must also be dropped, you must simply be that.

I did say that it is dangerous to become attached to detachment.

A great Zen master has highlighted the three directions of egoic experiencing, which goes beyond Buddhas Middle Way: aversion, attachment and indifference. I say it goes beyond the Middle Way because ordinarily we see indifference as the prescription of it, this is not true. What is constantly referenced as compassion is simply to be utterly present with whatever arises, if you are totally there, there is no possibility of ego coming in.

Are you absolutely certain of that?

Yet, still, in Buddhist circles, the most highlighted tool is the knowing of the essential emptiness of all things. Nothing has any individual reality, all is the result of something else. It is all the result of the mind processing stimulus, but what is the nature of the Mind?

Dhammapada 1:1-6

1. Mind precedes all mental states. Mind is their chief; they are all mind-wrought. If with an impure mind a person speaks or acts suffering follows him like the wheel that follows the foot of the ox.
2. Mind precedes all mental states. Mind is their chief; they are all mind-wrought. If with a pure mind a person speaks or acts happiness follows him like his never-departing shadow.
3. "He abused me, he struck me, he overpowered me, he robbed me." Those who harbor such thoughts do not still their hatred.
4. "He abused me, he struck me, he overpowered me, he robbed me." Those who do not harbor such thoughts still their hatred.
5. Hatred is never appeased by hatred in this world. By non-hatred alone is hatred appeased. This is a law eternal.
6. There are those who do not realize that one day we all must die. But those who do realize this settle their quarrels.

Pabhassara Sutta:

"Luminous, monks, is the mind.[1] And it is defiled by incoming defilements." {I,v,9}
"Luminous, monks, is the mind. And it is freed from incoming defilements." {I,v,10}
"Luminous, monks, is the mind. And it is defiled by incoming defilements. The uninstructed run-of-the-mill person doesn't discern that as it actually is present, which is why I tell you that — for the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person — there is no development of the mind." {I,vi,1}
"Luminous, monks, is the mind. And it is freed from incoming defilements. The well-instructed disciple of the noble ones discerns that as it actually is present, which is why I tell you that — for the well-instructed disciple of the noble ones — there is development of the mind." {I,vi,2}​

 

[Etu Malku]

Ahh, you're talking subjectly, rather than objectively. Gotcha.


Empirical evidence that observation affects the observer:
Mu wave - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mu waves, also known as mu rhythms, comb or wicket rhythms, arciform rhythms, or sensorimotor rhythms, are synchronized patterns of electrical activity involving large numbers of neurons, probably of the pyramidal type, in the part of the brain that controls voluntary movement.[1] These patterns as measured by electroencephalography (EEG), magnetoencephalography (MEG), or electrocorticography (ECoG) repeat at a frequency of 8–13 Hz and are most prominent when the body is physically at rest.[1] Unlike the alpha wave, which occurs at a similar frequency over the resting visual cortex at the back of the scalp, the mu wave is found over the motor cortex, in a band approximately from ear to ear. A person suppresses mu wave patterns when he or she performs a motor action or, with practice, when he or she visualizes performing a motor action. This suppression is called desynchronization of the wave because EEG wave forms are caused by large numbers of neurons firing in synchrony. The mu wave is even suppressed when one observes another person performing a motor action. Researchers such as V. S. Ramachandran and colleagues have suggested that this is a sign that the mirror neuron system is involved in mu wave suppression,[2][3] although others disagree.[4]
​

Whether you believe consciousness drives brain action, or brain action drives consciousness, consciousness is affected by observation.

I'll get back to this



part of several processes, imo



This sounds very much like you are mistaking alaya (storehouse) consciousness as the self. See Yogacara texts for more.



I did say that it is dangerous to become attached to detachment.

Are you absolutely certain of that?

Dhammapada 1:1-6

1. Mind precedes all mental states. Mind is their chief; they are all mind-wrought. If with an impure mind a person speaks or acts suffering follows him like the wheel that follows the foot of the ox.
2. Mind precedes all mental states. Mind is their chief; they are all mind-wrought. If with a pure mind a person speaks or acts happiness follows him like his never-departing shadow.
3. "He abused me, he struck me, he overpowered me, he robbed me." Those who harbor such thoughts do not still their hatred.
4. "He abused me, he struck me, he overpowered me, he robbed me." Those who do not harbor such thoughts still their hatred.
5. Hatred is never appeased by hatred in this world. By non-hatred alone is hatred appeased. This is a law eternal.
6. There are those who do not realize that one day we all must die. But those who do realize this settle their quarrels.

Pabhassara Sutta:

"Luminous, monks, is the mind.[1] And it is defiled by incoming defilements." {I,v,9}
"Luminous, monks, is the mind. And it is freed from incoming defilements." {I,v,10}
"Luminous, monks, is the mind. And it is defiled by incoming defilements. The uninstructed run-of-the-mill person doesn't discern that as it actually is present, which is why I tell you that — for the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person — there is no development of the mind." {I,vi,1}
"Luminous, monks, is the mind. And it is freed from incoming defilements. The well-instructed disciple of the noble ones discerns that as it actually is present, which is why I tell you that — for the well-instructed disciple of the noble ones — there is development of the mind." {I,vi,2}​

Ohhhh, so much Sound Alchemy info here!!! thank you!!1
oh, by the way 8-13Hz are the alpha brainwaves that entrain the brain when in meditation.

 

[seattlegal]

Ohhhh, so much Sound Alchemy info here!!! thank you!!1
oh, by the way 8-13Hz are the alpha brainwaves that entrain the brain when in meditation.

Any idea which range of musical notes that would correspond to?