Isn't the witness another thought as well?

[Farnaby]

Hey everyone!

Most self-realization texts, videos and so on say things like "be aware of awareness itself", "you are that which is aware" and so on. Aren't those still constructs of the mind? 

Who is the one that can be aware? As far as I understand it, there is only awareness itself, not someone or something that can be aware of it. 

Hope this makes sense lol.

Would appreciate any input that helps me clarify this, thanks!

[Mu_]

32 minutes ago, Farnaby said:

Hey everyone!

Most self-realization texts, videos and so on say things like "be aware of awareness itself", "you are that which is aware" and so on. Aren't those still constructs of the mind? 

Who is the one that can be aware? As far as I understand it, there is only awareness itself, not someone or something that can be aware of it. 

Hope this makes sense lol.

Would appreciate any input that helps me clarify this, thanks!

Truely waking up to awareness/god, is what is generally called enlightenment.  Its not "someone" walking up to awareness, its awaking to what is, being awareness aware of itself (not a believed someone, learning to call itself awareness).  It may at first feel like being a someone focusing on something other, or becoming aware of something other, but then some how you trip through the gateless gate and it realize that was never really true, lol.

You could say the saying "you are that which is aware" is the construct of the mind/language/symbol which is pointing to an actual fact, but isn't the fact itself.

 

[Gesundheit]

I also think one important question here is that can thought constructs be true? Or are all thoughts false?

[Osaid]

The goal is to become aware of that without thoughts

"Aware of being aware" is just another way of saying you should become aware of the fact that you (ego) do not exist

1 hour ago, Farnaby said:

there is only awareness itself

Yes there is only awareness itself and it is only aware of itself, so it perpetuates itself. There is no "you" behind any of it. A "you" is not necessary for awareness to be. That is what is being pointed to.

[Consilience]

56 minutes ago, Gesundheit said:

I also think one important question here is that can thought constructs be true? Or are all thoughts false?

From my pov, trying to label thoughts true or false is actually to label thoughts to thoughts. Thoughts can be true only relative to other thoughts, or false relative to other thoughts. In philosophy these are called axioms. The actuality, the “is’ness”, the being of thoughts, cannot be false. It is just what is.

 

@Farnaby There seems to be a difference between trying to witness “the witness” and then the witnessing which is always taking place. “The witness” I find to be a thought, the actuality of witnessing is just... what is haha. 

[Farnaby]

Thank you all for your replies  

 I agree with all of you. It seems like putting it into words inevitably creates the duality of a seeker and what is sought. 

Would you say the experience is perceived when "you" completely surrender to what is?

What seems paradoxical is that we can direct our attention to that awareness and keep bringing it back there, but at the same time the one that is able to do it is also just a thought appearing in that awareness. 

I guess the mistake is trying to understand/grasp it lol.

[arlin]

17 minutes ago, Farnaby said:

Would you say the experience is perceived when "you" completely surrender to what is?

No, there is no one who can surrender.

 

17 minutes ago, Farnaby said:

What seems paradoxical is that we can direct our attention to that awareness and keep bringing it back there, but at the same time the one that is able to do it is also just a thought appearing in that awareness. 

Yes but this implies that there is someone with free will who chooses to do that. 

Edited September 9, 2020 by arlin

[Tim R]

2 hours ago, Farnaby said:

Hey everyone!

Most self-realization texts, videos and so on say things like "be aware of awareness itself", "you are that which is aware" and so on. Aren't those still constructs of the mind? 

Who is the one that can be aware? As far as I understand it, there is only awareness itself, not someone or something that can be aware of it. 

Hope this makes sense lol.

Would appreciate any input that helps me clarify this, thanks!

Yup, true. There can't be anyone apart from awareness who in turn is aware of awareness.

That is why awareness is nothing and you don't exist - so nobody is aware of nothing. That's the point.

[Gesundheit]

7 hours ago, Consilience said:

From my pov, trying to label thoughts true or false is actually to label thoughts to thoughts. Thoughts can be true only relative to other thoughts, or false relative to other thoughts. In philosophy these are called axioms. The actuality, the “is’ness”, the being of thoughts, cannot be false. It is just what is.

I see. But also don't you think that maybe that's what spirituality teaches? That it's just one perspective? And that it's not whole?

Let's break it down a little bit.

7 hours ago, Consilience said:

From my pov, trying to label thoughts true or false is actually to label thoughts to thoughts.

Here, we're initially assuming that labelling/thoughts are of no value. And yet, we're still labelling thoughts as thoughts.

7 hours ago, Consilience said:

Thoughts can be true only relative to other thoughts, or false relative to other thoughts. In philosophy these are called axioms.

In other words, they're groundless. Doesn't say anything about trueness or falsehood though.

7 hours ago, Consilience said:

The actuality, the “is’ness”, the being of thoughts, cannot be false. It is just what is.

Sure. But here I was specifically implying the content of the thoughts. Are thoughts completely useless in deriving truths? That is the question.

[Gesundheit]

7 hours ago, Farnaby said:

What seems paradoxical is that we can direct our attention to that awareness and keep bringing it back there, but at the same time the one that is able to do it is also just a thought appearing in that awareness. 

I guess the mistake is trying to understand/grasp it lol.

What you exactly mean by "the one that is able to do it" is actually desire not a thought. In this particular case, the person is not a thought. It is a desire, which may or may not be based on thoughts.

[VeganAwake]

10 hours ago, Farnaby said:

Hey everyone!

Most self-realization texts, videos and so on say things like "be aware of awareness itself", "you are that which is aware" and so on. Aren't those still constructs of the mind? 

Who is the one that can be aware? As far as I understand it, there is only awareness itself, not someone or something that can be aware of it. 

Hope this makes sense lol.

Would appreciate any input that helps me clarify this, thanks!

Nice inquiry ?

Yes and if the one that is apparently aware of awareness turns out to be a thought, where does that leave us?

 

[Consilience]

1 hour ago, Gesundheit said:

I see. But also don't you think that maybe that's what spirituality teaches? That it's just one perspective? And that it's not whole?

Let's break it down a little bit.

Here, we're initially assuming that labelling/thoughts are of no value. And yet, we're still labelling thoughts as thoughts.

In other words, they're groundless. Doesn't say anything about trueness or falsehood though.

Sure. But here I was specifically implying the content of the thoughts. Are thoughts completely useless in deriving truths? That is the question.

Thoughts are quite literally true and false simultaneously. This is what is observed in my experience. I'm speaking about the concept of "Anekantavada" in Jainism which Leo brings up in his Relativity part 1 video. (Where is part 2??) Essentially, yes some thoughts can be more or less true than others, but only relative to a certain context of axioms. I don't know how to point this out in your experience other than to say quite definitively that it is there, while also acknowledging that this is a false statement as well. Why what I'm saying is false is because again, all thoughts can only be true relative to a context of meaning. This is incredibly complex, strange loopy, and paradoxical by all sense of the word. 

All I can say is we're both communicating about equally true and false aspects of reality. 

Edited September 10, 2020 by Consilience

[purerogue]

Awareness is just construct,tool and it is simplified term of lot more that is going on in process.

[Gesundheit]

2 hours ago, Consilience said:

Thoughts are quite literally true and false simultaneously. This is what is observed in my experience. I'm speaking about the concept of "Anekantavada" in Jainism which Leo brings up in his Relativity part 1 video. (Where is part 2??) Essentially, yes some thoughts can be more or less true than others, but only relative to a certain context of axioms. I don't know how to point this out in your experience other than to say quite definitively that it is there, while also acknowledging that this is a false statement as well. Why what I'm saying is false is because again, all thoughts can only be true relative to a context of meaning. This is incredibly complex, strange loopy, and paradoxical by all sense of the word. 

All I can say is we're both communicating about equally true and false aspects of reality. 

Yeah I know that and I agree, but only when we are talking in abstract terms where there's no one context but infinite number of different contexts.

Here we are talking about reality, and reality is not context-less. Reality has a certain unique context. This one context is what we can derive conceptual truths from. So how can they be false, even relatively?

Edited September 10, 2020 by Gesundheit

[nistake]

Check out this one:

It nicely addresses this very question.

[SoonHei]

@Farnaby Isn't the witness another thought as well?

 

it becomes a thought when it's thought about

or talked about

 

yet, prior to that thought or talking about it - there's awareness of whatever is happening. the one who is aware is the witness.

when there's the thought about the witness being a thought, that too is witnessed/watched/seen, is it not?

same with talking about it.

 

to talk/think about it, reduces it to an object, but it is ever-and-always the ultimate subject.

 

like a flashlight which is on. if the flashlight uses its light to look for itself, it will never succeed. it just needs to know it is what's looking out of itself, and is already itself. you cannot see the see-er, because the see-er is the all seeing and unseeable. that which sees cannot be seen because it is outside of the realm where objects are seen, in the very same way characters in a book cannot look at the reader, the reader is outside of the book.

[raphaelbaumann]

@Farnaby  There is actually no duality between Awareness and its apparent objects. The observer is observed / the witness is the witnessed. There is nothing seperate away from a thought witnessing the thought. The thought is Awareness itself.