Why Can't You Just Be The Amalgamation Of What Is Stable In Your Skandhas, Including The Judger

[Anirban657]

@Joseph Maynor ï@Joseph Maynor

[Anirban657]

@Joseph Maynor To save you from few more moments of suffering I will tell you my story.

I was equally angry as you one day. I felt like everyone hates me. I hit my dad because he was not able to understand me. I tried to find the answers to my questions outside in the world. They my neurosis created a rift in my head. I just sat down with my journal. I was in hell on earth. No one loved me. One day I started reading Tony Robbins' Awaken The Gaint book at chapter-questions .. It said that all the things in the world was created by a question. So that day I opened my journal and sat there in my room in silence alone and started writing questions. I asked "How is my ego creating my suffering?" And I started masterminding answers. I am now happy.

[Telepresent]

@Joseph Maynor

Ahoy!  Your final paragraph, and the Descart reference, seem to me to be pointing towards the same thing: there must be an object doing the experiencing.  Paragraph five is following the thinking of “judgement is happening in a moment, therefore something is judging that moment”.  That “something” is what you refer to in your final question, “what is arriving at that conclusion?”

So, it’s coming back to the question of whether or not awareness requires an object to create awareness.  Your position is that you are the object.  My position is that there may not need to be an object in the first place.

There’s a word in the final paragraph which is very important: you ask “what is deliberating about and judging my question here?  Is such an act taking place in your awareness?”  The use of ‘your’ here is very important: it implies that awareness is owned or within an object (the ‘you’ of ‘your’).  But the important thing I need to consider is that every point of reference I have to my ‘your’ being an object, exists inside awareness already.  So I hit a chicken-and-egg problem: I am trying to find an object that houses awareness, by creating an object from the sensations found within awareness.

Now, awareness is undeniable.  Absolutely.  And if you want to label it ‘I’, I see no problem with that.  But there’s a leap from saying “awareness is arriving at that conclusion”, to saying “an object outside of my experience, which houses awareness, is arriving at that conclusion”, when actually, truthfully, I actually have no evidence pointing towards this object.  I just don’t.  It’s the brain-in-a-vat problem magnified to its ultimate level.

Which can seem really frustrating – it can seem like a cop-out.  Until you start tying it up to other avenues of enquiry.  Research is really important here, and as much as people speak against it here, I think knowledge is too.  The more I learn, the more I realise I don’t know.  The more I learn, the less certain I become in my contextual map.  Particularly when it comes to the whys and wherefores of the universe.  But this learning also has to be brought back to experience, every time – the asking of what I know to be true.  What I can factually prove is definitely true.  Which is becoming less and less all the time…

Edited June 22, 2017 by Telepresent

[harisankartj]

People,you are looking at the text that different users are writing and deriving meaning.Now try looking at the empty space that is containing the text that is being written in this forum.Is there a judgement? No.Is there a judge-er? Is there enlightenment? No.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The above empty space explains itself more than any mind's rationalizing.There cannot be anything there in the end. Quiet non-existent space which allows everything which forms the groundless ground of all existence.Logic of "since and therefore" won't get you to a place where you already are.

                                                                                          

                                                                

                                                                                                     

 

[Emerald]

6 hours ago, Joseph Maynor said:

I'm not stirring-the-coop merely to goose the hens

I'm so adding this saying to my mental rolodex. It's a good one.

[Emerald]

16 hours ago, Joseph Maynor said:

(1) For example, yes your body changes as you age, but not by much.  If I cut one of your fingers off, it will stay cut-off for the rest of your life.  And yes your personality changes, but not by much.  And your ideas change, but many do not.  And your memories, even those seem to have a certain quasi-fixed pattern to them, do they not?  Doesn't there seem to be a core of you-ness there even if we get rid of the idea that you are an unchanging-thing?  

If you look at reality without the concept of past or future or the concept of science. So, you're just looking at your experience of reality as it is, without any belief of continuity.... just the reality of the present moment. You find that no experience is exactly the same as the experience of one moment before. You shift your eyes slightly and the entirety of your visual reality changes in an instant. The sounds are constantly changing. The smells and tastes don't even remain constant. Feelings and sensations are also always changing. Everything is always moving. Every moment is a brand new reality that's never before been experienced.

16 hours ago, Joseph Maynor said:

(2) And what about the judger?  Doesn't that seem to be the same for you over time?  And what assesses and determines what you are in a moment?  A judger, a you.  Aha!  The elephant in the room.  And what is considering non-duality and the reasonableness of that theory?  A judger.  Oops, again, a you!  You can't evade the judger.  It's always there, unless you are asleep or dead.  Of course, you can turn the judger off in a moment, you know that, but you can't keep it turned-off forever.  Eventually you have to arrive at conclusions, you have to determine the reasonableness of propositions.  That's part of your life too, is it not?

Just because you are not an unchanging-thing, do we need to throw-the-baby-out-with-the-bathwater and assume there is no you-ness to you at all?  And what is coming to that conclusion?  You!  Damn!  See how I did that!  You see, I'm not engaging in mere logic-chopping here.  

The judger is an illusion based on identification with the thought process. So, judgmental thoughts spring into your awareness and become a source of identification. So, we think "I'm judging this or that." But the reality is simply that judgmental thoughts are being experienced, identified with, and believed. But do not assume that there's no "You." See for yourself that there's just the interpretation of a "You." But there is an awareness that experiences all things. But notice how it is not any of the things that are experienced.

16 hours ago, Joseph Maynor said:

You are determining/judging that there is no you!  Do you see the contradiction here?  Your judgment that there is no you is not determined by empirical observation or even awareness alone.  There is a judgment, a deliberative act, on a thought in a moment: the thought that you do not exist.  And that implies a something that is judging, some form of you-ness.  And judgment is an act in a moment.  You deliberate and then determine whether a proposition is reasonable to accept or not.  Am I wrong?  What is doing that?  Is this some kind of illusion?  Ok, well, what is arriving at the conclusion that that proposition -- that the judger and/or judgment is an illusion -- is reasonable to accept?  Aha!  Do you see the slippery slope here?  Something is arriving at that conclusion too.  Judgment is taking place even there, is it not?  Even when we consider the proposition that "everything is Maya", a judgment is taking place -- an act of deliberation and judgment is being arrived at by something.

This goes back to Descartes.  Judgment is happening in a moment, therefore something is judging in that moment.  In the moment of judgment, something is judging, no?  Think about it.  Descartes was a wise dude.

There are simply judgments coming up. The belief that there is a "You" making those judgments is a belief based only in your interpretation of reality. If you set aside all beliefs and observe reality as it is, you will find that there is no "You" to be observed. But this is not supposed to be a judgment or determination that you make. It's supposed to be an observed reality. Also, Descartes may have been very intellignet, but was mistaken when he made the statement "I think, therefore I am." He made the mistake of conflating the self with thought. But there is no self to be observed in the thoughts. There are only thoughts to be observed.

16 hours ago, Joseph Maynor said:

(3) Just because you are not an unchanging-thing, doesn't imply there is no you.  That would commit the false-choice fallacy.  You could be something other than a non-changing thing.  Consider that possibility.  And you would have to ultimately make a judgment upon which one of these theories you believe (or have faith in believing) you are!  Something is judging, and that doesn't come in via any empirical portal.  Judgment is an act.  A deliberative act.  If you advance a proposition, you are asking something to consider it and ultimately judge it!

That's true. The changingness of something doesn't prove that there's no self. The fact that there's no self to be observed indicates that there's no self. However, looking at the fact that reality is constantly in flux can aide you in observing the truth of no self.

16 hours ago, Joseph Maynor said:

(4) Now, let's say you retort -- Joseph, you're stuck in the rationalist paradigm dude!  Ok, so you're asking something to judge that proposition now.  Let's define the proposition P = Joseph is stuck in the rationalist paradigm.  So, you're asking something  to deliberate on P and come to a conclusion whether or not P is reasonable to accept.  See that?  You're petitioning that a conclusion be drawn, a judgment be made, an action be taken.  What takes that action in a moment?   This is something above and beyond mere awareness (including but not limited to empirical awareness).  Am I wrong

Mere awareness is not in any way mere. Awareness is greater than the small conception of self that we have. However, when someone says "Joseph is stuck in the rationalist paradigm." they are using rationality and the assumption of a separate "you" called Joseph to base this statement off of. This is because language and concepts are inherently incapable of fathoming of Truth, but they are necessary tools for getting along in the word. So, we have to use approximations in order that we might make our point more tangible from the perspective of duality. Truth and reality often seem to be at odds with one another in terms of functionality.

16 hours ago, Joseph Maynor said:

(5) Finally, what is deliberating about and judging my question here?  Is such an act taking place in your awareness?  An act of deliberation or judging?  Is this phenomenon mere awareness of a happening, like you are merely some kind of a fly-on-the-wall merely observing judging taking place?  Ok, well, what is arriving at that conclusion then?  See!

There are just thoughts coming up and interacting with one another, and there's another thought that identifies with the entire process. There's a thought when I read this post that "Joseph is mistaken" with which I mistakenly identify with a self doing the thinking. However, I did not will the thought. There are just thoughts upon thoughts upon thoughts that spring up into my awareness. To pre-suppose a "me" that's doing the thinking overlooks the fact that I have no control over the thoughts that spring up and that there's no one thing that I can point at in reality that's actually doing the thinking. It's just a process.

[Joseph Maynor]

@Emerald Haha.  I love writing.  

[Joseph Maynor]

@electroBeam Ok electroBeam.  Let's discuss this point of yours: 

"18 hours ago, Joseph Maynor said:

Judging is observed mentally, it doesn't come thru any empirical portal.

electroBeam responded: how thick are you? Of course it comes through an empirical portal. All you are aware of is a thought appearing out of no where in awareness. I.e. an empirical portal. Again, you're acting like logic's little side kick. Stop looking at logic for answers and start looking at what's around you. It sounds like a religious fundamentalist who keeps bringing up the quote of god making the earth in 7 days. I don't believe in that silly book, and I don't believe in logic rules."

Joseph Maynor's Response:  

Let's do this step by step.  You were a math major, so I'm gonna try and make my points very clean and clear.

(1) Introduction and Overview of My Argument

• You have 5 senses, right?  Sight, Smell, Taste, Touch, Hearing.  Ok.  So, where does judgment fit into any of those categories?  It doesn't right?  
• However, you perceive a judging right?  If I tell you that you are a woman, you could consider that claim and then judge it to not untrue, would you not?
• So, what's happening there?  You are aware of a judgment, but it doesn't come in through any of the 5 senses.
• Now, as a point of contrast.  Let's say you're in Vegas and you hear Frank Sinatra playing somewhere on the Strip.  Now, which sense portal does that input come through.  Sound, right?  External sound.
• So, I've given you an example of a non-sensory input (a judgment on a proposition that you are a woman), and a sensory input (hearing the Frank Sinatra song).
• What is confusing about this?  Judgments do not come through empirical portals.  Can we agree on this premise?

(2) Delving Into More Specifics Now

• Now, let's examine what kind of phenomenon judgments are.  When you hear the sounds "you are a woman", what happens?  Well, first you grasp the meaning of the proposition, do you not?  
• Then something happens, which you can perceive in your awareness (a layman would say consciousness).  You have some perception of disagreement.  Let's keep it linguistically neutral, and just say you have a feeling of opposition arise in you.
• Then, you say in your mind or vocally, "No. I am not a woman."  Right?
• Now, do you see that that judgment is an act?  A conclusion.  An arriving-at that is done, but you don't perceive it through any of your sense portals.  It isn't a sight, smell, taste, touch, hearing, right?  It's none of those, right?
• Now you may argue that the words "No. I am not a woman." are either a thought or an internal sound, right, depending on your Epistemology (Epistemology is the theory of knowledge, including the source and contents of knowledge).  Let's take the conservative approach and assume that thought is nothing more than inner sounds.  I think this is Leo's approach. 

(3) Final Part and Salvo

• But besides the inner sounds, "No, I am not a woman".  Isn't there also a mental action there too?   
• There's a judgment.  There's an assertive act.  There's a mental act.  There's a considering and adjudication over the merits of the proposition that is perceived in your consciousness -- a mental action.
• You then say in inner or outer sound "No. I am not a woman" concurrently with this mental judgment action, do you not?
• Now, what is that mental act, that judgment?  Is it perceivable through the 5 senses?  Nope.
• So let's go back to my original proposition that you opposed: Judging is observed mentally, it doesn't come thru any empirical portal.
• What is confusing about this?  Did I clarify?
• Pick apart what I'm saying here and give me a more reasonable view than what I've proposed here.  That would be a constructive thing that I would appreciate from you now.

 

Edited June 23, 2017 by Joseph Maynor

[Prabhaker]

7 hours ago, Joseph Maynor said:

Haha.  I love writing.

Intellectuals are the farthest removed from existence.

[Joseph Maynor]

@Prabhaker Would you call Leo an intellectual?

[Prabhaker]

Just now, Joseph Maynor said:

Would you call Leo an intellectual?

I am afraid , he is an intellectual.

[Joseph Maynor]

@Prabhaker Dude.  I love your honesty!  It is refreshing!

[Joseph Maynor]

@Fidelio Fidelio wrote " 3 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said: @Prabhaker Dude.  I love your honesty!  It is refreshing!

The irony here is thicker than lead soup on Pluto."

Fidelio!  Care to elaborate on your conclusory statement that lacks any reasons in support?  Let's discuss your claim.  Gotta give me some grounds to attack first, or what you say is purely rhetorical.  It's like name-calling.  Give us some reasons for your conclusion, please.  I don't know what you are trying to say by what you wrote, frankly.

Edited June 23, 2017 by Joseph Maynor

[Emerald]

31 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

@electroBeam

(1) Introduction and Overview of My Argument

• You have 5 senses, right?  Sight, Smell, Taste, Touch, Hearing.  Ok.  So, where does judgment fit into any of those categories?  It doesn't right?  
• However, you perceive a judging right?  If I tell you that you are a woman, you could consider that claim and then judge it to not untrue, would you not?
• So, what's happening there?  You are aware of a judgment, but it doesn't come in through any of the 5 senses.
• Now, as a point of contrast.  Let's say you're in Vegas and you hear Frank Sinatra playing somewhere on the Strip.  Now, which sense portal does that input come through.  Sound, right?  External sound.
• So, I've given you an example of a non-sensory input (a judgment over a proposition that you are a woman), and a sensory input (hearing the Frank Sinatra song).
• What is confusing about this?  Judgments do not come through empirical portals.  Can we agree on this premises?

You have six modes of experience: Sight, Smell, Taste, Touch, Hearing, and THOUGHT. Judgment comes in the form of a thought. The thought itself is an empirical part of reality. The content of the thought is not empirical though. The content of the thought is an illusion. The thought itself is not an illusion. And thoughts come up at random. You don't will them or control them. You just have become identified with this process through an assumption that thought = self or that thoughts come from a self. But there is nothing in reality that actually confirms this to be more than a belief. So, it would be the same thing to identify yourself with any other natural process that we identify as being external to us, like a thunderstorm. Imagine how crazy it would make you to identify with a thunderstorm and feel like the rain was happening wrong. It's the same idea with identification with the thought creation process. The trick is to experience reality without laying beliefs, interpretations, and assumptions over it. 

Edited June 23, 2017 by Emerald

[Joseph Maynor]

@Fidelio Fidelio wrote "8 hours ago, Emerald said: I'm so adding this saying to my mental rolodex. It's a good one. 

Yeah! And not the type of colloquialism one hears from a San Francisco dweller. Being as there are no ducks or chickens in the city save for some restaurants. He must have moved there from some rural location. That would explain it"

Fidelio -- You're gonna troll me now on here?  Ok, I will ignore you then.  I assumed you had something to say in response to this question.  Don't ruin this topic please, it's a good one.  I want to keep the discussion on point.  I have taken pains to do so, and others have too.  

Edited June 23, 2017 by Joseph Maynor

[Emerald]

1 minute ago, Fidelio said:

Thanks for explaining the "trick" to us, Emerald I take it this is how you experience reality, or you wouldn't be able to tell us the trick, right?

It is something that I can notice if I do nothing else but that and observe carefully. However, the noticing still takes a concerted effort for me because I still want to fathom of the experience and create a concept to go around it, so it isn't how I walk through life. However, it is something that can be noticed and the noticing can be practiced.

[electroBeam]

34 minutes ago, Prabhaker said:

Intellectuals are the farthest removed from existence.

you need Jnana yoga too!!

[Prabhaker]

3 minutes ago, electroBeam said:

you need Jnana yoga too!!

It is the most difficult path, requiring great strength of will and intellect. It is easy to become entangled in the constructs and thoughts of the mind and loose sight of the goal of jnana.

[Joseph Maynor]

@Markus wrote "The theory of non-duality doesn't exist for the purpose of debating it.  It exists as a pointer to help you become conscious of what is true"

Markus.  This claim is expressed rather dogmatically.  You haven't provided any reasons to support this claim.  Care to elaborate on this?  I cannot consider a claim unless it is expressed fully.  You can't sail half a sailboat.

Do you assume truth and reality are synonymous?  

Edited June 23, 2017 by Joseph Maynor

[Joseph Maynor]

@WelcometoReality wrote "On 6/21/2017 at 5:07 PM, Joseph Maynor said: This goes back to Descartes.  Judgment is happening in a moment, therefore something is judging in that moment.  In the moment of judgment, something is judging, no?  Think about it.  Descartes was a wise dude.

Judgements are thought aren't they?

So you are assuming that there is a thinker when there is a thought.

A: There is a thought.

B: There is a thinker.

Your assumption is A -> B

So test if it is true. Search for that thinker. Don't give up until you find it!"

Joseph Maynor's Response

Hi WelcometoReality.  Let me delve into your claims.  You propose that judgments are thoughts.

(1) Coming at it from one direction

• Can you consider the meaning of a proposition without taking judgment on it?  
• Let's consider the proposition "Sandra is 50 pounds overweight".
• Let's say you know Sandra.
• Is it possible for you to understand the meaning of this proposition, thought, inner sounds, however you want to define a statement epistemologically.  
• Ok, the question is, could you understand the meaning of this claim that "Sandra is 50 pounds overweight" without taking judgment on it?
• If so, I have just proven to you that propositions alone do not necessary equate to judgments.

(2) Coming at from the other direction.

• Now, lets say I give you the sentence "globisg hsgdg sghsgfs."
• Now, is it clear that this sentence doesn't connote any thought directly in the sense that no meaning is manifested by the hearing or seeing of the words alone?  It's total garbage right?
• But can't you still judge this sentence and it's incomprehensible meaning?  You can throw it out right?  Like a baby spitting-out food -- you can reject it.  You dismiss it.  You mentally throw it away.  Isn't that rejection a mental act, a judgment, on this purported claim?  
• So, I have just proven that judgments alone do not necessarily equate to thoughts, as you assumed.

Pick apart what I'm saying here and give me a more reasonable view than what I've proposed here.  That would be a constructive thing that I would appreciate from you now.

 

 

Edited June 23, 2017 by Joseph Maynor