Observer vs Observed

[Arunaugustine97]

Definition of duality
The compound in which both the terms of the whole state or the two terms are the same and when adding both the terms, 'and', 'or', 'or', 'and', etc. the adder is lost, it is called the compound duality. like:
Examples of duality
Grain-water: Grain and water
Apna-Alien: Apna and Alien
Raja-Ranka: Raja and Ranka
As we know it is important to have head of both the posts for duality to happen and the additive symbol should be lost on forming a compound. Now we look at the examples given above. Having seen in the examples given above, words like grain water, apna estranged, king rank combined together to make food and water, apna and alien and king and rank. When these words got compounded, the additive symbol was lost.
Food and water will be the compound deity of this entire land. As we can see that the additive is disappearing and both terms are dominant. So these examples will fall under duality.

Country and abroad: country and abroad
Night and day: night and day
Good and bad: good and bad
Small-big: small and big
As we can see in the examples given above, both the terms are predominant in the words country-abroad, night-day, good-bad, small-big, etc. and when these two terms meet, the 'and' adder disappears. .

These characteristics are of duality, so these examples will come under duality. Flour and lentils: flour and lentils Sin-virtue: Sin and virtue Country and abroad: country and abroad Lotta-Dori: Lotta and Dori Sita-Rama: Sita and Rama In some of the above examples, as we can see, in the problems of flour-dal, sin-virtue, country-abroad, lota-dori, both the positions are predominant and on joining the two terms the 'and' adder disappears. . The same characteristics occur in duality. So these examples will fall under duality.

High-low: high and low Candid and moldy: candid and moldy Rupee-Money: Rupee and Money Hitting: beating and beating Parents: Mother and Father Milk and yogurt: milk and yogurt As we can see in some of the examples above, both the positions are prominent in the problems of high-pitched, candid-khota, rupee-paisa, mar-peet, parents, milk-curd, etc. and when both terms are added Then the 'and' adder disappears from the middle.

Some other examples of duality: Error or omission: mistake or omission Happiness-sorrow: happiness or sorrow Gaurishankar: Gauri and Shankar As you can see in the above examples here, words like mistake, omission, happiness and sorrow and Gaurishankar are making mistakes or omissions, happiness or sorrow and Gauri and Shankar when they are getting mixed up. On concatenation, the additive signs between them are omitted.

Radha-Krishna: Radha and Krishna King-subjects: Kings and subjects Merits and demerits: merits and demerits Male-Female: Male and Female As you have seen in the above examples, the words Radha-Krishna, Raja-praja, Guna-dosha, Nar-Nari etc. were formed when the words Radha and Krishna, Raja and Praja, Guna and Dosh and male and female, etc. came to an end. When they were finished, we saw that when the words are finished and the additive symbol is lost. In these words, no position is dominant.

Duality symmetry also has exactly the same characteristics in which both terms are dominant and adders disappear. So these examples will come under duality. Heel-braid: heel-braid Transaction: Transactions and Transactions Good and bad: good and bad Birth and death: birth and death Sin-virtue: Sin and virtue Sesame-rice: Sesame and rice Siblings: Brother and Behen Noon-oil: Noon and oil
As you can see in all the examples given above, when the words like heel peak, birth and death, the additive sign is lost. In these words, no position is dominant. Duality symmetry also has exactly the same characteristics in which both terms are dominant and adders disappear. So these examples will come under duality.

[MikeS80]

Originally Posted by Still_Waters

Although I am very outgoing and most people consider me to be an extrovert, I am actually a very pronounced introvert as psychological studies (Meyer Briggs personality test, for example) confirm. For me, an introvert in the true sense of the word has nothing to do with being outgoing or not. One online definition with which I agree is that "People who are introverted tend to be inward turning, or focused more on internal thoughts, feelings and moods rather than seeking out external stimulation." As an introvert, I am aware of what is transpiring around me and am very outgoing. However, I reflect internally when it's time to make a decision. Extroverts seem to involve everyone in the decision-making process.

Based on that definition, I agree completely that introverts would indeed be more inclined towards self-inquiry than other practices. Unlike you, my mind was not always still but, as part of the investigative "Know Yourself" process, I realized that the personal gestalt of mental activity was obscuring the clear vision and hence I proceeded to calm and still the mind in order to see clearly.

On the other hand, most extroverts seem to focus on external stimulation and hence would seem to be more inclined to devotional practices (the "external God") or karma yoga (activity-oriented service to others). This is an interesting point that I had not previously considered much.

As for the Hare Krishnas, I actually met the founder of the Hare Krishna movement, Prabhupada, in NYC many years ago. He is obviously a bhakti (devotional person with devotion directed towards Krishna). I am a self-inquiry jnani-type. We had a classic disagreement on the purport of the Bhagavad Gita because, although the Gita talks about different ways to approach Godhead (self-inquiry, devotion, selfless karma yoga service), his "purport" consistently pointed out that bhakti (specifically devotion to Krishna) was the best way and that didn't work for me. If he had said that it was the best way for him personally, then we would have connected better.

I use introvert in the definition you gave. Most people are a mix of introversion and extroversion, then there are people like me, who is on the extreme side of either. Extreme extroverts see/perceive things that are outside/exernal of themselves in the physical universe while extreme introverts see/perceive things that are inside/internal of themselves. So it it reasonal to believe that both extreme introverts and extreme extroverts create extreme obstacles or problems for themselves with their false, limited, and incomplete introverted/extroverted thoughts, beliefs, knowledge etc etc, in the right here and right now present moment. Oh, by the way, you and I use the term without or not thinking the correct way. When you are thinking, you are searching your memory for an answer or to come to a conclusion or to assume or presume something. So when someone says I think, it means that someone went through the thinking proccess of searching his/her memory for the answer or conclusion or that someone made an assumption/presumption based on his/her false, incomplete and limited memory, knowlege, beliefs and etc.

How did the meeting with the young people, you told me about, go yesterday?

[Still_Waters]

Originally Posted by MikeS80

Jiddu Krishnmurti had a few dialogs with David Bohm in written and video form.

The dialogues between Krishnamurti and David Bohm are indeed quite illuminating. While I haven't seen the videos, I do have a book which records some of those dialogues.

I too like to reconcile "spirituality" with quantum physics, psychology, etc. to ensure that my paradigm of Reality is consistent with all that I know.

[Still_Waters]

Originally Posted by MikeS80

I use introvert in the definition you gave. Most people are a mix of introversion and extroversion, then there are people like me, who is on the extreme side of either. Extreme extroverts see/perceive things that are outside/exernal of themselves in the physical universe while extreme introverts see/perceive things that are inside/internal of themselves. So it it reasonal to believe that both extreme introverts and extreme extroverts create extreme obstacles or problems for themselves with their false, limited, and incomplete introverted/extroverted thoughts, beliefs, knowledge etc etc, in the right here and right now present moment. Oh, by the way, you and I use the term without or not thinking the correct way. When you are thinking, you are searching your memory for an answer or to come to a conclusion or to assume or presume something. So when someone says I think, it means that someone went through the thinking proccess of searching his/her memory for the answer or conclusion or that someone made an assumption/presumption based on his/her false, incomplete and limited memory, knowlege, beliefs and etc.

How did the meeting with the young people, you told me about, go yesterday?

Your post is consistent with the "Middle Path" of the Buddha with which I agree --- neither one extreme nor the other. I agree with your statement that " both extreme introverts and extreme extroverts create extreme obstacles or problems for themselves with their false, limited, and incomplete introverted/extroverted thoughts, beliefs, knowledge etc etc, in the right here and right now present moment".

My favorite definition of meditation comes from Nisargadatta Maharaj: "Meditation is the art of shifting attention to subtler and subtler levels of consciousness WITHOUT LOSING A GRIP ON THOSE LEVELS LEFT BEHIND". One should be able to function on all levels in order to relate well to whatever manifests in one's life. A parallel similarly applies to the middle path between introversion and extroversion. Over the course of time, I feel that I have managed to sustain that balanced middle way as most people consider me to be an extrovert and are somewhat shocked to discover that my psychological personality profile shows a heavy inclination towards introversion.

The meeting with the young people was interesting last night as it's sometimes difficult to shake people from intellectual positions and towards the direction of DIRECT EXPERIENCES. (I know that for a fact because I was an intellectual Phi Beta Kappa and it required tremendous skill for my spiritual mentor to get me to part with my intellectual "security blanket" and go beyond thoughts.) I loved your statement about "thinking" being a search of one's memory banks. When startling words started to flow from me "without thinking" , it was a major breakthrough and now I do surrender to the "higher power" (expanded consciousness of non-duality) when acting in situations that manifest in my life. Similarly, last night's group was predictably intellectual with virtually no direct experiences .... as are most self-inquiry types INITIALLY ... so it was a very spirited meeting as I challenged them regarding REALLY "knowing yourself".

After the meeting, I received a text message on my way home from arguably the most intellectually-oriented one in the group. "I'd like to suggest the topic of tapasya for our next meeting. What it means to purify the body/mind. And the steps you take." There was an immediate thumbs up from another member of the group. Apparently, the spirited dialogue made an impression and this seems headed in the right direction.

I responded:"I LOVE that topic. As your message implied, defining what it means to purify the body/mind is the first step. It will be interesting to hear what everyone thinks that means." I know what I mean by "purity of heart" but that doesn't necessarily mean that everyone "thinks" the same way and is talking about going beyond thoughts.

[MikeS80]

I will clear up any misunderstanding/confusion/conflict, by asking Justasimpleguy a simple question, a question, I should of had asked him a long time ago:

Justasimpleguy, Is the observer the same as consciousness? The answer is no. Is counsiousness able to be conscious of the observer, which is the ego? The answer is yes. In order for your ego to know the whole/oneness/unity personally as a fact, you must learn to be conscious of your ego with the consciousnes that is behind your eyes. You can not learn about your ego on the deepest of levels with/inside your ego.

[MikeS80]

Originally Posted by Still_Waters

Your post is consistent with the "Middle Path" of the Buddha with which I agree --- neither one extreme nor the other. I agree with your statement that " both extreme introverts and extreme extroverts create extreme obstacles or problems for themselves with their false, limited, and incomplete introverted/extroverted thoughts, beliefs, knowledge etc etc, in the right here and right now present moment".

My favorite definition of meditation comes from Nisargadatta Maharaj: "Meditation is the art of shifting attention to subtler and subtler levels of consciousness WITHOUT LOSING A GRIP ON THOSE LEVELS LEFT BEHIND". One should be able to function on all levels in order to relate well to whatever manifests in one's life. A parallel similarly applies to the middle path between introversion and extroversion. Over the course of time, I feel that I have managed to sustain that balanced middle way as most people consider me to be an extrovert and are somewhat shocked to discover that my psychological personality profile shows a heavy inclination towards introversion.

The meeting with the young people was interesting last night as it's sometimes difficult to shake people from intellectual positions and towards the direction of DIRECT EXPERIENCES. (I know that for a fact because I was an intellectual Phi Beta Kappa and it required tremendous skill for my spiritual mentor to get me to part with my intellectual "security blanket" and go beyond thoughts.) I loved your statement about "thinking" being a search of one's memory banks. When startling words started to flow from me "without thinking" , it was a major breakthrough and now I do surrender to the "higher power" (expanded consciousness of non-duality) when acting in situations that manifest in my life. Similarly, last night's group was predictably intellectual with virtually no direct experiences .... as are most self-inquiry types INITIALLY ... so it was a very spirited meeting as I challenged them regarding REALLY "knowing yourself".

After the meeting, I received a text message on my way home from arguably the most intellectually-oriented one in the group. "I'd like to suggest the topic of tapasya for our next meeting. What it means to purify the body/mind. And the steps you take." There was an immediate thumbs up from another member of the group. Apparently, the spirited dialogue made an impression and this seems headed in the right direction.

I responded:"I LOVE that topic. As your message implied, defining what it means to purify the body/mind is the first step. It will be interesting to hear what everyone thinks that means." I know what I mean by "purity of heart" but that doesn't necessarily mean that everyone "thinks" the same way and is talking about going beyond thoughts.

At least the meeting was satisfactory for you.

[Still_Waters]

Originally Posted by MikeS80

At least the meeting was satisfactory for you.

I go with the flow, and can find something positive in virtually anything that manifests. However, I won't take the initiative in setting up a follow-up meeting though I will most likely attend if some one else coordinates a meeting time acceptable to all.

[MikeS80]

Originally Posted by Still_Waters

I go with the flow, and can find something positive in virtually anything that manifests. However, I won't take the initiative in setting up a follow-up meeting though I will most likely attend if some one else coordinates a meeting time acceptable to all.

Okay, I see.

[MikeS80]

Is the ego really the observer? Or does it just seem like the ego is the observer because of the consciousness that is inside us,-do we mistake the/our ego as being the observer/conscious because of the consciousness that is inside of us? That is the million dollar question. The ego is the observer and the observer is the experiencer, the experiencer has consciousness (you could and would not experience anything, if that was not the case) but the experiencer is not aware of this consciousness because the experiencer is only aware of the experience (this experience comes mostly from memory, This memory includes all the knowledge, beliefs, etc etc that the experiencer has accumulated in the past, this memory also creates all mental ego duality this includes everything the experiencer thinks is good/bad-possitive/negative-right/wrong morality and thinks I love/hate this or that and I like or I do not like this or that, thinking this way is what causes us to have attachments to things and separates, divides and conquers and creates all the fear, suffering, sorrow and etc etc this experiencer has) this causes the experiencer to be too busy to be conscious of the consciousness that makes them the experiencer in the first place. I think the observer is not any different than consciousness but it just seems like it is because the observer/experiencer created all the beliefs, fears, incomplete and limited knowledge from everything the experiencer observed and experienced in the past, which caused all the thoughts, confusion, conflict, fear etc etc that person has. You can say the observer/experiencer is consciousness that individualized/separated itself to experience and to enjoy the physical universe it created. We are able to balance our observer/experiencer out with consciousness to make our observer/experiencer one or whole with consciousness

I'll throw a spanner in the works here,lol.I am aware of my own ego,especially at quiet times when I'm not thinking about anything.