Observer vs Observed

Back to the topic of this thread: Observer vs. Observed.

Observer - Subject
Observed - Object
Purpose of the relationship - Experience

So the Unmanifest Subject manifests as the many objects and for the purpose of experience.

Since all is One (applies to observer and observed) it seems to me that is the purpose and meaning of what we label physical reality.

Observer in the sense of the ego self is in and of itself an object too. A form, if you will. There are many.

Furthermore no object has inherent existence, but only borrow their existence for a time from the Source (Existence, Consciousness, Bliss). Only the Source has inherent existence.

This is the meaning behind Real and unreal. Existence, Consciousness, Bliss is real and all else is a transient manifestation possessing no independent existence other than that borrowed from the Source.

[MikeS80]

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

Back to the topic of this thread: Observer vs. Observed.

Observer - Subject
Observed - Object
Purpose of the relationship - Experience

So the Unmanifest Subject manifests the many objects and for the purpose of experience.

Since all is One (applies to observer and observed) it seems to me that is the purpose and meaning of what we label physical reality.

Observer in the sense of the ego self is in and of itself an object too. A form, if you will. There are many.

Furthermore no object has inherent existence, but only borrow their existence for a time from the Source (Existence, Consciousness, Bliss). Only the Source has inherent existence.

This is the meaning behind Real and unreal. Existence, Consciousness, Bliss is real and all else is a transient manifestation possessing no independent existence other than that borrowed from the Source.

I get all that. All you said above is a concept/mental construct. Concepts/mental constructs are part of the definition of subject 3a: a department of knowledge or learning
b: MOTIVE, CAUSE
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/subject

Concepts/mental constructs are subjective, so, in a way you are right that the subject, which you think is subjective, is subjective to you because the subject, which you think is subjective is a concept or mental construct.

In other words, you confuse the subjective subject, which is a subjective concept/mental construct with truth all in your mind. You also think the said subjective concept/mental construct is real and everything else is unreal/an illusion. This is subjective, all in the mind only non-duality because concepts/ mental constructs are not real/have anything to do with reality. Real is even in the word reality.

In a way, it all boils down to all the in the mind subjective against reality. Reality or brahman is everything-the seen (the observed/occupied space), the unseen (unoccupied space, but you can see unoccupied space ), and the observer. Thus reality or brahman is not just a concept or mental construct, reality or brahman is real and truth. You are just not seeing reality thus truth and brahman in that way, because of the concepts/mental constructs I stated above.

[davidsun]

Originally Posted by MikeS80

You mean just perseveratively repeatpeatpeating myself, like you do all the time from your treatise? You made it sound like you think self realization is delusional in a few of your forum posts and replies to me. Am I going to have to search for them?

No, you don't have to search for them or anything else anyone may have shared in 'the past'. Just meaningfully 'listen' (i.e. 'register') and relationally engage with what people say to you and.or others in the context of whatever is being discussed in 'the present'.

I did not 'make' anything sound like anything. I said what I said. Own your own response-ability for whatever interpretations you make. If unsure of what I or anyone else means (which would of course require you to 'humbly' 'admit' that you can't/don't 'see' everything! ), ask for clarification.

Here is a link to a post in which I quoted a caveat (a 'warning') about the delusionality of assuming that one's past 'enlightenment' experiences and derivative thoughts and feelings were 'absolutely' complete or final: http://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/sh...#p ost1898984

[MikeS80]

Originally Posted by davidsun

No, you don't have to search for them or anything else anyone may have shared in 'the past'. Just meaningfully 'listen' (i.e. 'register') and relationally engage with what people say to you and.or others in the context of whatever is being discussed in 'the present'.

I did not 'make' anything sound like anything. I said what I said. Own your own response-ability for whatever interpretations you make. If unsure of what I or anyone else means (which would of course require you to 'humbly' 'admit' that you can't/don't 'see' everything! ), ask for clarification.

I can't and do not see everything but I do see people's inner contradictions, just to argue on this forum.

[davidsun]

Originally Posted by MikeS80

I can't and do not see everything but I do see people's inner contradictions, just to argue on this forum.

There's 'open-minded' argument in which one genuinely considers and responsively relates to what others say so as to get to mutual understanding, and then there's what you generally do.

Originally Posted by MikeS80

I get all that. All you said above is a concept/mental construct. Concepts/mental constructs are part of the definition of subject 3a: a department of knowledge or learning
b: MOTIVE, CAUSE
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/subject

Concepts/mental constructs are subjective, so, in a way you are right that the subject, which you think is subjective, is subjective to you because the subject, which you think is subjective is a concept or mental construct.

In other words, you confuse the subjective subject, which is a subjective concept/mental construct with truth all in your mind. You also think the said subjective concept/mental construct is real and everything else is unreal/an illusion. This is subjective, all in the mind only non-duality because concepts/ mental constructs are not real/have anything to do with reality. Real is even in the word reality.

In a way, it all boils down to all the in the mind subjective against reality. Reality or brahman is everything-the seen (the observed/occupied space), the unseen (unoccupied space, but you can see unoccupied space ), and the observer. Thus reality or brahman is not just a concept or mental construct, reality or brahman is real and truth. You are just not seeing reality thus truth and brahman in that way, because of the concepts/mental constructs I stated above.

This is the Advaita view of reality. In other words the strict non-dualist view.

Part 1 https://www.advaita-vision.org/can-y...-12/#more-1349

Part 2 https://www.advaita-vision.org/can-y...-is-mithya-22/

An excerpt from Part 1, however the entire article is well worth reading for a better comprehension. Very subtle but important distinctions are explained.

"Three levels of reality

Thus, according to Vedānta’s definition of reality – i.e that which is eternal, not an object of perception, independent – nothing in this universe can be absolutely real! Not even our bodies or minds or feelings! Hang on, says Vedānta, the teaching will not go against experience: of course things exist, but they are not absolutely existent, they are ‘as though’ existent. What you take to be real is not absolutely real at all – it borrows its status of existence from something else, just as a colourless crystal borrows redness from the hibiscus flower near it. And because you take an imposter for reality, you end up in all sorts of trouble. There is, however, something that is really real.

As one would expect of the incisive Vedic thinkers, they don’t crudely divide the universe into real unreal. They postulate three levels of reality.

Vyāvahārika satyam, relative, transactional reality, is what we experience in the waking state. As it is perceptible to others it is said to be objectively real.

Prātibhāsika satyam is the universe we experience in the dream state. Since I alone can experience it within the mind, it is called subjective reality.

Both the above levels of reality are dependent, ‘as though’, mithyā.

‘Real reality’ alone is independent, eternal, absolutely real: it is called absolute reality, pāramārtika satyam."


I admit I conflate subjective reality with absolute reality and in one way it makes some sense. That is Prātibhāsika satyam is subjective reality of the many and it's individual, whereas pāramārtika satyam is the reality of the One which can also be thought of as the one and only Subject of all experience.

I will concede the point though that subjective reality is not absolute reality as neither is objective reality. At the foundation there is only absolute reality (pāramārtika satyam or Sat-chit-ananda take your pick) and it's ineffable.

[HITESH SHAH]

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

This is the Advaita view of reality. In other words the strict non-dualist view.

Part 1 https://www.advaita-vision.org/can-y...-12/#more-1349

Part 2 https://www.advaita-vision.org/can-y...-is-mithya-22/

An excerpt from Part 1, however the entire article is well worth reading for a better comprehension. Very subtle but important distinctions are explained.

"Three levels of reality

Thus, according to Vedānta’s definition of reality – i.e that which is eternal, not an object of perception, independent – nothing in this universe can be absolutely real! Not even our bodies or minds or feelings! Hang on, says Vedānta, the teaching will not go against experience: of course things exist, but they are not absolutely existent, they are ‘as though’ existent. What you take to be real is not absolutely real at all – it borrows its status of existence from something else, just as a colourless crystal borrows redness from the hibiscus flower near it. And because you take an imposter for reality, you end up in all sorts of trouble. There is, however, something that is really real.

As one would expect of the incisive Vedic thinkers, they don’t crudely divide the universe into real unreal. They postulate three levels of reality.

Vyāvahārika satyam, relative, transactional reality, is what we experience in the waking state. As it is perceptible to others it is said to be objectively real.

Prātibhāsika satyam is the universe we experience in the dream state. Since I alone can experience it within the mind, it is called subjective reality.

Both the above levels of reality are dependent, ‘as though’, mithyā.

‘Real reality’ alone is independent, eternal, absolutely real: it is called absolute reality, pāramārtika satyam."


I admit I conflate subjective reality with absolute reality and in one way it makes some sense. That is Prātibhāsika satyam is subjective reality of the many and it's individual, whereas pāramārtika satyam is the reality of the One which can also be thought of as the one and only Subject of all experience.

I will concede the point though that subjective reality is not absolute reality as neither is objective reality. At the foundation there is only absolute reality (pāramārtika satyam or Sat-chit-ananda take your pick) and it's ineffable.

Very good explanation of levels of truth. You have also made clear that non-duality is real concept in the sense that its practitioner really feels and not an imaginary one . We can see this from real world examples like

1. Good feeling non-duality with us in all our state (sleep/dream& awake) . We feeling non-dual with God in our sleep / meditation and feeling dual when awake /in dream. And overall experience is dual & non-dual with non-dual being final , powerful and lasting .

2. Mothers feeling non-dual with their small kids

3. People getting engrossed in their professions becoming non-dual leading them to success . The success of not-so-highly-educated like bill gates / Mark Zckerberg / steve jobs illustrates the power of passion driven non-duality .

4. Scientist becoming non-dual with their subject and being able to reveal and uncover the secrets of God .

5. Lovers in their intense love relationships feel non-dual.

So non-duality is not a mere theory or concept . It is a reality experience which leads us to wonderful experiences .

[davidsun]

Originally Posted by HITESH SHAH

So non-duality is not a mere theory or concept . It is a reality experience which leads us to wonderful experiences .

Concepts, concepts, concepts - which one's are the most meaningful and creatively useful/functional?

Each to his own inclination/preference in this regard, I suppose.

To me non-dual just means 'single' - I think Jesus's saying, "For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also. The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light." relates to this.

I one the other hand prefer the concept/notion/idea of 'alignment' - being aligned' with 'The Flow' of 'Life", as in 'surfing' a wave in the 'direction' it/its energy is going. One can be 'oneself', i.e. dual - 'the surfer' and not 'the wave' - and be functionally 'one' with, and thereby experience Unity/Union with, THAT which is ever-creatively-ongoing even though 'one' is 'limited' and 'temporary'. One doesn't have to delusionally IMO (i.e. 'pretentiously'. ostensibly 'selflessly') imagine that only One really exists and that any notion of being 'one' in relation to It is just a delusional 'figment' of one's imagination - presumably being imagined by the One since there is no 'one' else? - in that case.

Let me suggest that, as an experiment, you try seeking/aiming to truly align 'yourself' with 'The Flow' of 'Life' instead of vainly attempting to POOF 'yourself' into 'non-duality, i.e. into not being 'yourself', and see what your 'trip' then looks and feels like.

You can always revert back to dissociating into having no personal 'i'dentity' in relation to and with others if that is what you still prefer and so wish.

[davidsun]

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

If we turn our backs on what is required morally and ethically and disengage from action in the world (i.e. refrain from doing that which is the right thing to do), one might think that is no action and hence no Karma however the exact opposite is true. And that was Krishna's lesson to Arjuna concerning his despair over fulfilling his worldly obligations. So no, a true interpretation and understanding of Advaita Vedanta is not nihilism. Nothing can be further from the truth. It's my opinion that particular problem is a potential product of Neo-Advaita, though I'm sure many will disagree.

I don't disagree - as a matter of fact, I think your analysis in this regard is right on, Guy!

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

No object has inherent existence, but only borrow their existence for a time from the Source (Existence, Consciousness, Bliss). Only the Source has inherent existence.

This is the meaning behind Real and unreal. Existence, Consciousness, Bliss is real and all else is a transient manifestation possessing no independent existence other than that borrowed from the Source.

I disagree with this. In my view, all beings (i.e. 'forms' of being) really exist as such, even though they exist as such only temporarily. However, the truth also is that the spiritual soul within said 'forms' is both authentically itself and potentially eternally ongoing (as in Jesus's reference to 'everlasting' Life as well as the Gita Ch.2 reference: "There was never a time when I was not, nor thou, nor these princes were not; there will never be a time when we shall cease to be. ...That which is not, shall never be; that which is, shall never cease to be."

What I see as being 'wrong' (meaning dysfunctional) about the Advaita view of our spirits/souls just being 'borrowed' and not authentically eternally 'our own' is that such emphasis on 'temporality' just leads people to subscribe to the spiritual equivalent of the "Eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die" philosophy of mortality-believing materalists, only in their case what they spirit-thumb-suckingly 'eat' and 'drink' and are 'merry' about is the experience of no-seat-, no-worry 'detachment' and immediate experience of (what they think of as especially 'divine') 'bliss'. They tend to only do the 'work' required by 'bhakti' and 'karma', that is when they do it -- they have no heart-felt 'reason' to do so, since they think everything, both 'good' and 'bad' will eventually just 'evaporate' anyway! -- as obligatory 'duty'.

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

I will concede the point though that subjective reality is not absolute reality as neither is objective reality. At the foundation there is only absolute reality (pāramārtika satyam or Sat-chit-ananda take your pick) and it's ineffable.

That may be true (given our inability to completely know anything!), but what I am talking about is quite 'effable', Guy! Based on my research (sources provided on request), though our present 'forms' won't last more than a few years, the fact is that (as implied by the above Gita quote) our spirits/souls will go one for eons and eons, beyond even the framework of our presently in-its-death-throes planetary ecosystem - there are a whole host of Love an Joy expressive, post-incarnational 'careers'* for us to choose from and soul-self fulfillingly (becomingly?) grow into.

* There are Atlantean souls NOW functioning as 'guardian angels', 'spirit guides' and 'muses' in relation to us here-now 'incarnated' beings, for minor examples!

[HITESH SHAH]

Originally Posted by davidsun

Concepts, concepts, concepts - which one's are the most meaningful and creatively useful/functional?

Each to his own inclination/preference in this regard, I suppose.

To me non-dual just means 'single' - I think Jesus's saying, "For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also. The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light." relates to this.

I one the other hand prefer the concept/notion/idea of 'alignment' - being aligned' with 'The Flow' of 'Life", as in 'surfing' a wave in the 'direction' it/its energy is going. One can be 'oneself', i.e. dual - 'the surfer' and not 'the wave' - and be functionally 'one' with, and thereby experience Unity/Union with, THAT which is ever-creatively-ongoing even though 'one' is 'limited' and 'temporary'. One doesn't have to delusionally IMO (i.e. 'pretentiously'. ostensibly 'selflessly') imagine that only One really exists and that any notion of being 'one' in relation to It is just a delusional 'figment' of one's imagination - presumably being imagined by the One since there is no 'one' else? - in that case.

Let me suggest that, as an experiment, you try seeking/aiming to truly align 'yourself' with 'The Flow' of 'Life' instead of vainly attempting to POOF 'yourself' into 'non-duality, i.e. into not being 'yourself', and see what your 'trip' then looks and feels like.

You can always revert back to dissociating into having no personal 'i'dentity' in relation to and with others if that is what you still prefer and so wish.

In terms of experience , singularity and non-duality can give same experience of oneness who feels it. I gave examples of real life to describe non-duality intentionally to explain how close is spirituality to us and not a figment of someone's imagination. It is not something from Mars or Jupiter. This examples shows how being one with something good and greater intensely gives amazing experience. Being engrossed in something good intensively for longer period is a very good spiritual quality.

Of course not all examples carry the same spiritual value and definitely may not be 'interesting and relevant' to many (including you ) . You should pardon me as kinder garden kid trying to take baby steps in the providence of God. My every word and step may not be at the level of highly spiritual ones like u.

As the examples shows , as the word 'non-duality' shows (it includes duality) and as non-duality psychologically means - duality is and will definitely be part of the experience always throughout everybody's life and how the 'alignment' (as you refer for duality in terms of orientation& intensity) can help one deal with duality successfully and one can not be non-dual with God without being aligned with God. Being aligned with God is pre-condition to being one with God .