Watching the watcher is HS

[Hotaka]

There is no watching the watcher, there is no watcher, there is no one. Who can stand outside of their experience and somehow watch themselves doing this while watching themselves doing this onwards forever to infinite regress. Be yourself, then you are, and the action is you, it is you who is watching, and you are fully focused, with no one watching, no one is looking. And you are you and I am still I somehow in this strange world, with nothing to see or figure out by analysing myself, or trying to also attend to the I, or me, which is already an assumption, to determine it's nature, that is silly, it is impossible for a letter to do anything.

[Sahil Pandit]

@Hotaka

[Salvijus]

8 hours ago, Hotaka said:

There is no watching the watcher, there is no watcher, there is no one. Who can stand outside of their experience and somehow watch themselves doing this while watching themselves doing this onwards forever to infinite regress. Be yourself, then you are, and the action is you, it is you who is watching, and you are fully focused, with no one watching, no one is looking. And you are you and I am still I somehow in this strange world, with nothing to see or figure out by analysing myself, or trying to also attend to the I, or me, which is already an assumption, to determine it's nature, that is silly, it is impossible for a letter to do anything.

Don't be like that... Stay a little silence.. hold onto that question can the seer be seen. It's not a mental question. If you say "but how can this be known? It's impossible" then your seeing is only mental. You're still on the mental plane.

Stay silent. And hold that question. Let that question burn everything including the questioner.

I wish you strengh on this path and patience ?

 

[Hotaka]

@Salvijus Thanks friend, I appreciate your support, I guess Mooji for me is too based on sharing a NOW like space experience that ends when you leave the room. Also it seems it is him that is watching the watcher and not you, so watching the watcher for yourself is of no use.

[Guest Quanty]

One can watch the watcher  Go deeper, is spectacular.

[Erlend K]

I always found anthropomorphisms like "The watcher" to be unhelpful and unneccesary obfuscations. Even tho they are meant as methaphors our minds are too easily confused by metaphors (Anyone read Sapolsky's book "Behave"? It includes a facinating review of the research on how metaphors can confuse our minds). I find it more fruitful to talk about mental mechanisms in non-metaphoric and non-anthropomorphic terms like "conciousness" "focus" and "awareness".

Some form of subject-object duality seems reasonable to me, even tho it's anathema on this forum. I don't, however, believe in a Subject with capital S (a personified "Self"). I view consciousness as simply a bunch of overlapping information-streams with various phenomenological representations combined with the faculties of awareness and focus. Once a stream falls outside the awareness-spotlight it ceases being conscious.

In conventional language: "I know I am thinking". I can think without consciously knowing that "I am thinking" (daydreaming) - I can breathe without consciously knowing that "I am breathing". The "I that knows" is clearly not the same mental mechanism as the thought. The idea that the first "I" in "I know I am thinking" is a different "I" than the second I is just lingustic confusion. There is a "thought" and there is "awareness of the thought": Object and Subject. These are just two parallell mental mechanisms. For me the term "I that knows" seems like just a confusing synonyme for awareness.

The faculty of awareness can be aplied on itself: "I am aware that I am aware". Again, there is no subect observing another subject - no one "watching the watcher". There is just a conscious state charachterized by phenomena, awereness of phenomena and awareness of awareness of phenomena.

[molosku]

@Erlend K Objective language breaks down when it tries to describe the non-objective. When the teacher points to the moon, the student looks at the finger. The knots of language drive the seeker crazy, and sometimes it's necessary so one can finally give up and REALLY look what is there. That seems to be the point of self-inquiry: to make you face the fact that you cant grasp or "get" it, you can only fool yourself by forcing old paradigms into the practice.

Edited July 6, 2018 by molosku

[who chit]

Image: witness(Self) - ego - mind objects


Objectless Awareness/Self or true witness > to the "I ego watcher" > that is watching/observing thoughts and or objects.


In the image above,false-self/I ego, can "play" the character of being witness/observer of mind/thoughts/objects.  
It is, itself, an object.
A thought object,taking on the character of observer to other objects/thoughts.

The timeless,objectless,aware Self/true "I", is the true witness/observer, that cannot, itself, be observed. The unobservable observer.
You can only rest in or Be, the timeless,empty,purely aware, true"I", that is beyond all phenomena external to it.(mind,thoughts,concepts beliefs,feelings,body, sensations,perceptions etc.).


This can be a bit confusing. Prior to some sort of an "awakening",or experiential self realization,it will most likely only be conceptualized/imagined mentally. The initial shift or awakening of "dropping" into the timeless absolute,(even if it's only for a moment), has to be made. For it is that shift where the "I"/ego is finally (in it's totality), perceived/seen for what it truly is. Just an illusory phantom with no substance or reality to it. Totally non-existent.

Edited July 6, 2018 by who chit

[Erlend K]

On 6.7.2018 at 8:40 AM, molosku said:

@Erlend K Objective language breaks down when it tries to describe the non-objective. When the teacher points to the moon, the student looks at the finger. The knots of language drive the seeker crazy, and sometimes it's necessary so one can finally give up and REALLY look what is there. That seems to be the point of self-inquiry: to make you face the fact that you cant grasp or "get" it, you can only fool yourself by forcing old paradigms into the practice.

By "non-objective" you mean subjective? If so: Yes, language is obviously unable to perfectly capture a subjective experience. That is pretty mutch a tautology.

However, this dosn't render our choise of words arbitrary. Certain formulations surpass their rivals in serving as pointers to the ineffable.

I recognize the significance of the problem with getting caught up in the proverbial finger. This is exactly what I allude to. The words selected for directing someones gaze towards the moon affects the odds of them actually raising their gaze, figuring out what is pointed at. My oppinion is that certain anthropomorphised platitudes like "The Watcher" tends to obfuscate what is pointed at.

Edited July 9, 2018 by Erlend K

[molosku]

14 hours ago, Erlend K said:

By "non-objective" you mean subjective? If so: Yes, language is obviously unable to perfectly capture a subjective experience. That is pretty mutch a tautology.

By non-objective I mean that which an appearance of an object (matter) appears in, but that itself is not knowable as an object.

Hand can't know the fingers, fingers cant know that which is knowing the fingers. 

 

[Erlend K]

7 hours ago, molosku said:

By non-objective I mean that which an appearance of an object (matter) appears in, but that itself is not knowable as an object.

Care to expand upon this?

Wouldn't you agree that the only place the phenomenological representation of this object can appear is in awareness, and that awareness itself is knowable (as meta-cognitive awarness)?

[Hotaka]

This object can only appear in awareness. Absolutely.

The potential for this object to appear is only a logical derivation, so no hands are needed for these fingers, it is only if the salience of this concept is a determinant cause to my understanding of what you are saying.

The really looking is blind sight.

if you talk to humans to teach them blind sight (the most clear of them all) you are foolish

The person standing up without awareness is the watcher awareness is there throughout

The only watcher alive is the one forever dead, long lost in the past and an unreachable frontier in the future, constantly elusive, it is always what you are not, so if you are not the watcher someone else is, that's just how it works, but when I say you I don't mean in your brain. I say you are the watcher in some way because I wish to not have identities of this kind in my energy field, so to say. Delete what I just said, cause it is what your brain is saying all the time, it is circular and has no use, talking about consciousness and how it works, stirring up the water to try and make it talk about waves, it can't not be the waves, so the waves? Who is talking about them?

No one needs to talk about waves. Consciousness, it is a wave, so you can understand it, otherwise you wouldn't be in time, you would be beyond it, next level, no trade and currency here, current is relative, so are waves, so is consciousness in it's conceptual form.