Observer and observed

[Karas]

Can there be observer without the observed ?

[Karas]

✌️

[Zigzag Idiot]

Yes, The witness in non-conceptual awareness aka. Objectless awareness

[The0Self]

It’d be a story to answer this. Observer is the observed. Except that’s false from a particular perspective. There’s no such thing as a real perspective.

[The0Self]

Just now, Zigzag Idiot said:

Yes, The witness in non-conceptual awareness aka. Objectless awareness

However, the subject is actually a kind of object. The question isn’t definitively answerable.

[Zigzag Idiot]

@The0Self Is consciousness an object?

[The0Self]

1 hour ago, Zigzag Idiot said:

@The0Self Is consciousness an object?

A very special one — subjectivity. It’s not real though, so no it’s not really an object.

Edited May 25, 2021 by The0Self

[LastThursday]

I would say there's neither observer or observed, this is just a feature of (the English) language confusing the issue.

You're brainwashed by things like: Mary looks at John. The verb looking requires there to be a subject (observer) and object (observed). Something closer would be: Mary looks. The implication being that the act of looking (verb) is the same at what's being looked at (noun). But it's still not quite there.

The act of observing is in fact exactly that which is being observed. They're not different things.

Ask yourself, does the observer observe itself? How do you know you're an observer?

[RMQualtrough]

@Karas Great question.

I hope the answer is yes, because it is easier to contend with one fundamental thing than two simultaneously.

At T=0 everything exists instantly, but if we use a hypothetical "what came first", then one singular thing out of nothing (first and foremost) is a lot simpler...

A yes like infinite energy/potential perhaps? There would be no "observer" in that state, only infinite energy. It becomes an observer when it folds in on itself creating a multidimensional mass?

[Karas]

You are the knower and no  distinction can be made  I think

[The0Self]

Ultimately, there’s no observer, nor observed, nor even a process of observation. There’s only what appears, devoid of any value or need.

[Mason Riggle]

This is very similar to the chicken and egg (which came first?) conundrum (which isn't really a conundrum). 

Transcending the chicken and egg problem simply requires understanding that there is no separation between a chicken and an egg.. they are the same thing.  Isn't there a chicken inside the egg? Isn't an egg just a chicken, wrapped up in a shell? And egg IS a chicken... the same way babies and adults are the same thing... It's a continuous process, so to speak.  The 'chicken/egg' evolved to be what it is. Neither 'came first'. 

There is no separation between 'the observer' and 'the observed'.. they are the same thing. 

Like the chicken/egg problem, it's a mind fuck, until it isn't, and then it's obvious and simple. 

 

[Spaceofawareness]

The question is, how can the illusion of separation be broken or seen through? 

Self inquiry is a good option. Look for the observer. There only seems an observer when the “objects” are focussed on. Instead, when an object is observed, turn it around on itself, look for the one looking. 

If what is found has any properties, it is itself an object. Look for where you are looking from. Is there anything there? No. How about within the rest of the field of awareness? The observer is not to be found. There is just subjectless knowing. What does that say about this knowing? It has no location. It can be localised when a single thing is focussed on, but the reality is, it’s not at anywhere in particular.

[Kambido]

@Karas What does "matter" mean in this question? 

[Karas]

@Kambido matter is a concept  what are you asking ?

[snowyowl]

On 25/05/2021 at 3:28 AM, Karas said:

Can there be observer without the observed ?

I'd say not because if there's nothing to observe, then there's no need for an observer. In Buddhist language, it's a mutually arising pair. But in any case, they only exist as thought in the mind, so I guess if you want to think of reality as pure observer that's your freedom. 

It's a dualistic pair too, and one of my first awakenings was when the observer-observed distinction collapsed into a unified field of awareness or being. But my recent contemplation of duality insists there must be a third element - the relationship between the two. The observer (or subject) needs to be connected to the observed object to be able to see it. So I'm saying there's no such thing as a duality, it's actually a triality of three: observer, observed and relationship between. 

For example, when I look at a tree, there needs to be photons of light coming in from the sun, bouncing off the tree, entering my eyes, going into my brain neurons before being mysteriously converted into "seeing". But I'm actually seeing the sun, filtered through the atmosphere, and deflected off the tree, rather than the tree itself. Therefore, that connection between "me" and "the tree" is in fact the whole universe. Relationship implies the whole, it's the healing process to mend the apparent separation. When we create a distinction like this, we're also creating the connections between the parts, because existence can't really be split asunder. 

Edited June 4, 2021 by snowyowl
grammar