Identifying With Awareness

[Forestluv]

Many years ago, I began to be an observer of my thoughts during meditation. I identified with this "observer". It felt more like the "real me". I considered this space as "awareness" or "mindfulness". This concept generally went over well during discussions in my Buddhist groups. I might say something like "My ego hinders me from expressing my true nature". It seemed fairly normal to talk of the ego / self as a distinct entity from the observer.

Recently, this view of consciousness doesn't seem right. This weekend I was hiking solo and at times it seemed I was in the awareness space. Yet, it felt odd to identify awareness as the observer. . .  It's like 20 years ago during meditation, I realized I was not the actor in the movie. I was the observer of the movie.  But recently, that observer seems like part of the movie. I became aware that the movie is actually about a person watching a movie.  I was observing this spectator watching the movie. Then, there was awareness that the movie is actually about a person watching a person watching a person watching a movie. Then, more and more levels arose into infinity. Then, the concept disappeared into nothing and I am left with not knowing. . . Is this observer also an illusion? Conceptually, I have this thought/belief that "there needs to be an observer for observation". How can there be awareness without "something" or "someone" being aware of it? Is "awareness" just the sensory input and processing without the need of an observer? Yet, how can it exist without an observer?

So now, phrases like "My ego hinders me from expressing my true nature" don't make sense. Who is the "me" and the "my"? It used to be the observer in my mind, yet now the observer seems like an illusion. So now many blogs, posts and videos on "spirituality" don't make sense to me. I recently heard someone say something like "You need to delete you to find yourself". Yet, who is the "you" and the "yourself"? I.e. who is the "you" trying to find "yourself"? And who is the "yourself" this "you" is trying to find"?

I have thoughts that "this is just semantics. Don't get all philosophical about it". Yet sometimes I am uncertain about what people are referring to when they write about consciousness.

 

 

 

Edited September 18, 2017 by Serotoninluv
Corrected typos

[Truth]

@Serotoninluv This is good, you’re starting to see what you ACTUALLY FACTUALLY are.

But there needs to be an important distinction made, thoughts, ideas, me, you, observer, person, movie, these are all CONCEPTS. These all occupy the space from which you are not. You’re like an open space that notices something within your awareness (feelings, sensations, emotions, colors, visuals) each and every time you posit a concept or idea of what or how you are, you’ve failed. No matter how accurate it is, it will ALWAYS, EVERYTIME, NEVER be the truth. It’s confusing the map for the territory, and when the map get’s so good that you start to confuse it for the territory, you’re lost even deeper. Awareness hasn’t changed since you last saw it, only your perception and positing of it has, and you’re trying to use more words and definitions to describe something that is ultimately, literally not describable, cannot be made “clear” and cannot be “understood”, because anything you or I say it is, it is not. You can’t use words to see yourself, you have to be yourself to see yourself, It’s actually BEING the truth, instead of having an idea of the truth.

Edited September 18, 2017 by Truth

[AleksM]

@Serotoninluv

This is the observer ego trap.

When one is in the observers ego trap, it is passively observing everything. One can fall in this trap when one does mindfullness practice for a lot of time and  can stay stuck in it forever.

You can be in a state where no thoughts (mental sounds) are present and still be in this ego observation trap, you can watch the thoughts, emotions and not identify with them and still stay stuck in the observer trap.

When You becomes able to consciosly annahilate the ego (by devine Will, not free Will), this shows you a better sign that your enlightened. Being the observer ego is childs play compared to that.

For the observing to happen, there must be an observer. Observing -> observer.

Everything has already been observed. Be an active "observer" not a passive one by using Devine Will. This is what gives you True freedom.

When you can do this, this manifests in the physical as you being able to effectively switch brainwaves and not get stuck in one particular brainwave range (study brainwaves).

When one is being awareness, there is not a question of change but of exchange.

Thank you for the question.

 

[Forestluv]

Thank you Truth. This gets at "it".

Once the "person watching the person watching the person. . . " concept went to infinity and disappeared, there was no movie, no spectator. I held the original "observer" concept for many years and had been thinking about it for the previous10 minutes, then poof - it was gone. I was stunned for a moment and there was nothing. Then I thought the old concept doesn't work anymore and there were thoughts trying to form a new concept: "maybe awareness is just being. But then a rock is just being, does it have awareness? Maybe awareness is. . . ". And like you said, each concept and set of words failed. None of it could describe that moment. I teach cellular biology and much of my mental processing is about forming concepts and teaching students. And my mind wants to develop a new concept it can "rest on" for a while.

So what you write means that words and concepts would fail for everyone (not just me). And I won't understand "it" by seeking someone more advanced to explain "it" to me. So are my efforts to understand by conceptualizing with my thoughts and other's thoughts a waste of time? Or could forming a concept which later blows up into nothing lead to "ah-ha" indescribable moments of clarity?

[Forestluv]

13 minutes ago, AleksM said:

@Serotoninluv

This is the observer ego trap.

Thanks. There is an awareness of the "passive observer" and that's not "it". I now a sense of "active observing", yet the sense is unclear. I have no sense of Devine Will at this point.

[WelcometoReality]

3 hours ago, Serotoninluv said:

"My ego hinders me from expressing my true nature"

This is ego separating itself from parts of itself. 

Is the observing state a "doing"?

Is there something favoring this observing state from any other state?

[WelcometoReality]

3 hours ago, Serotoninluv said:

Is this observer also an illusion?

Is there seem any distance between the observer and the observed?

Edited September 18, 2017 by WelcometoReality

[Forestluv]

16 minutes ago, WelcometoReality said:

Is there seem any distance between the observer and the observed?

There was a moment where it seemed like the observer was observing reality - this seemed separate entity and makes conceptual sense to me. Yet, there was also a moment of just the reality with no observer. Almost as if it was observing itself? (I'm not sure if I am making up a concept here).

33 minutes ago, WelcometoReality said:

This is ego separating itself from parts of itself. 

Is the observing state a "doing"?

Is there something favoring this observing state from any other state?

When there was an observer, it was passive. Like a person watching a movie. And then there was a person watching a person watching a movie. New levels appeared rapidly and then the concept disappeared from my mind.

I don't know if something favors this observing state. When I tried to form a new concept, I got stuck on "there needs to be an observer if something is observed".

[Nahm]

4 hours ago, Serotoninluv said:

Many years ago, I began to be an observer of my thoughts during meditation. I identified with this "observer". It felt more like the "real me". I considered this space as "awareness" or "mindfulness". This concept generally went over well during discussions in my Buddhist groups. I might say something like "My ego hinders me from expressing my true nature". It seemed fairly normal to talk of the ego / self as a distinct entity from the observer.

Recently, this view of consciousness doesn't seem right. This weekend I was hiking solo and at times it seemed I was in the awareness space. Yet, it felt odd to identify awareness as the observer. . .  It's like 20 years ago during meditation, I realized I was not the actor in the movie. I was the observer of the movie.  But recently, that observer seems like part of the movie. I became aware that the movie is actually about a person watching a movie.  I was observing this spectator watching the movie. Then, there was awareness that the movie is actually about a person watching a person watching a person watching a movie. Then, more and more levels arose into infinity. Then, the concept disappeared into nothing and I am left with not knowing. . . Is this observer also an illusion? Conceptually, I have this thought/belief that "there needs to be an observer for observation". How can there be awareness without "something" or "someone" being aware of it? Is "awareness" just the sensory input and processing without the need of an observer? Yet, how can it exist without an observer?

So now, phrases like "My ego hinders me from expressing my true nature" don't make sense. Who is the "me" and the "my"? It used to be the observer in my mind, yet now the observer seems like an illusion. So now many blogs, posts and videos on "spirituality" don't make sense to me. I recently heard someone say something like "You need to delete you to find yourself". Yet, who is the "you" and the "yourself"? I.e. who is the "you" trying to find "yourself"? And who is the "yourself" this "you" is trying to find"?

I have thoughts that "this is just semantics. Don't get all philosophical about it". Yet sometimes I am uncertain about what people are referring to when they write about consciousness.

 

 

 

It's like asking someone in your dream what they really are. They are the dreamer. 

[Forestluv]

1 minute ago, Nahm said:

It's like asking someone in your dream what they really are. They are the dreamer. 

Whoa, that threw me for a loop.

[Truth]

3 hours ago, Serotoninluv said:

So are my efforts to understand by conceptualizing with my thoughts and other's thoughts a waste of time? Or could forming a concept which later blows up into nothing lead to "ah-ha" indescribable moments of clarity?

@Serotoninluv No it's not a waste of time, you can start making greater distinctions within awareness, even help communicate this idea with others, but just always recognize that it's not it, its always a concept used to point at the truth.

Clarity is here right now, but are you aware of it? All distinctions collapse into unity or into a paradox, or being, or nothing, because this emptiness is always being occupied by the begging question of "what and why is that?" and then you're stuck in that, and it's infinite.

[Joseph Maynor]

@Serotoninluv Keep going.  Here's what I'll say.  Don't over-intellectualize this.

You are Being.  Does that make sense?  What is Being?  Look at that.  You are Being.  That's what you are.  This is not some kind of abstract statement.  This is very specific.  

Edited September 19, 2017 by Joseph Maynor

[WelcometoReality]

7 hours ago, Serotoninluv said:

Yet, there was also a moment of just the reality with no observer. Almost as if it was observing itself? (I'm not sure if I am making up a concept here).

You're not making up a concept. That's the real deal.

7 hours ago, Serotoninluv said:

I don't know if something favors this observing state. When I tried to form a new concept, I got stuck on "there needs to be an observer if something is observed".

Something observing something else is separation. Reality has no boundries, it is one, so if there is experience of separation that is still not the truth.

[Thomas Razzeto]

@Serotoninluv

[All of this is just my opinion and I celebrate the fact that everyOne gets to choose what they want to believe and how they want to live their life. Hooray for that!]

Regarding “the person watching the person watching the person.”

Well, here is how I would describe it. I am aware of all the objects in the world from the perspective of the person that I seem to be. As I reflect on this with my mind, I become aware of the thought that I am aware. But this is not really “the person watching the person.” Instead, it is the person reflecting on being aware via the powers of the mind. I do not perceive two persons. Now I can then think about the fact that I am thinking about this, and that can be repeated for as many layers as I want. So I am making a distinction between perceiving a thought and perceiving a person.

But to backup a bit to a bigger picture, I often talk about the idea that you exist fundamentally as pure awareness. Sure, it seems like you exist fundamentally as a person, but that is just a deceptive experience. There is a person, of course, but it is not fundamental who or what you are, although it is part of what you are in a nonfundamental way. In a nonfundamental way, you are the totality of created reality.

I have essays on my website that go into all of this in more detail. Here are links to two of them:

The Loving Heart of Enlightenment
A summary overview of spiritual awakening in simple, clear English
https://www.infinitelymystical.com/essays/the-loving-heart-of-enlightenment.html
3-pages

Anatta – “Not Self” Rather Than “No Self”
https://www.infinitelymystical.com/essays/anatta.html
3-pages

Perhaps these will be of interest to you.

In truth, I honor your divine nature

Thomas Razzeto

Edited September 22, 2017 by Thomas Razzeto

[Forestluv]

On ‎9‎/‎22‎/‎2017 at 8:58 AM, Thomas Razzeto said:

@Serotoninluv

 

But to backup a bit to a bigger picture, I often talk about the idea that you exist fundamentally as pure awareness. Sure, it seems like you exist fundamentally as a person, but that is just a deceptive experience. There is a person, of course, but it is not fundamental who or what you are, although it is part of what you are in a nonfundamental way. In a nonfundamental way, you are the totality of created reality.

Thanks Tom, that's right along my stage of development. The existential context of your last paragraph particularly resonated with me. Yet, it seems that how you describe "you" here is not how 99.999% of people would use the term. I am unclear why people on the actualized path continue to use terms like "I", "me", "you" out of their classical context. Those terms are so ingrained in our culture to refer to the ego, the self. What those on the actualized path are saying is "no, that classic "you" image is just an illusion. The 'real "you" is something else". So why try to redefine terms like "me" and "you" that are so ingrained? It seems to cause confusion. Why not just come up with new words? Imagine telling someone that when we have a conversation the words "for", "it", and "that" will sometimes by used as their classical meaning. But other times, they will used to mean an existential truth that is abstract and can't be fully explained and it could mean a dozens of different things depending on who you talk to. Imagine how awkward that conversation would be. For example:  "Wait a second, when you just said "for" what meaning are you giving *it*?". The second person: "I'm not sure how to answer *that* because I don't know how you were using the term "it". First person: "Well, the answer to *that* would be dependent on how you just used the term "that"? Second person: "Well, you also used the term "that" in your question, did you use *it* in the classical sense to refer to my original question? Or did you use the term "that" as it's existential, hard to describe meaning?". First person: "Please tell me what you mean by "it".

This is actually a simple example, because all the terms are used in their classical meaning. It gets much more complicated when there is a mixture of classical and existential usages. I can comprehend "standard" conversations with 99.99% of the people because they are only using terms like "me" and "you" in their classical sense. Yet when I have conversations with Buddhists and people on the actualization path, I am often unclear because they alternate in their usage between classical and existential meanings (and their existential usage is often undefined). I find myself trying to figure out how they are using terms like "I" and "you". I find it makes conversations unclear and I wish we would just create new words. If the classical concept of "me" and "you" (the self) is an illusion and doesn't exist, why the heck are we still using the terms to describe something else? I'm a professor and if I wanted to create misunderstanding, confusion and frustration in communication  -  that's how I would do it.

Edited September 25, 2017 by Serotoninluv

[Thomas Razzeto]

@Serotoninluv You touched on a point that I am going to be a little picky about: (paraphrase) you said that if something is an illusion and doesn't exist, then why do we (etc). The correct definition of an illusion is something that exists in a deceptive way. I go into this (and much more) in the following recent post. The comments about correctly understanding what is meant by the word "illusion" is right in the beginning of the post:

Now let's get to the main point you make about using "I," and "you" and so forth. I think it is perfectly fine to speak conventionally most of the time. For example, if you want to know if someone went to the beach (or whatever), just ask with conventional pronouns. Now, when it comes to what you truly are (fundamentally), well, by that I mean pure awareness, the power of sentience. This is the One Divine Awareness and "it" is the Source of everything. This is why my mentor, Timothy Conway, and I call it Source-Awareness. (Very few people in the so called nondual community use this definition, but that is a different and long conversation. Ha, I think it is very, very, very few people that use the phrase Source-Awareness but I really like it since it reveals the two capacities of this transcendent Reality. I go into that in many essays but especially the one titled The Loving Heart of Enlightenment.)

Once you get the hang of it, you can easily tell from the context what is meant by the pronouns. Does a sentence make sense with the conventional understand? Yes? Then use the conventional understanding. So if you ask someone if they went to the beach today and they reply that they are the unborn formless Source-Awareness and can go nowhere, well, that is true in the larger sense but it is a dysfunctional reply since it does not address what was really being asked. I touch on the value of being able to use these pronouns and still hold the nondual perspective in the following essay, which I first wrote about two years ago but recently rewrote. Note the part where I talk about the sentence "I love you." Here is the link:

Why Do We Call It Nondual Wisdom?
https://infinitelymystical.com/essays/nonduality.html
4 pages

You might find that essay helpful. All my best. In truth, I honor your divine essence. - Thomas Razzeto