although none of that takes into consideration the question of consciousness
posed to itself. If consciousness even is a self or "perceiver", or just a
view viewed that is unreflective of "the viewing". "The viewing" because can
"a viewer" view itself if it is what is viewing? Can "a perceiver" be
disembodied and objectless? And can we say a perceiver if a perceiver can't
perceive itself and therefore can't know itself or have any experience of
itself? Yet it would seem problematic not to pose a perceiver, but it is
also problematic to pose one, since such can't be perceived, especially of
course as an object of perception. And does anything of what was just said
have any meaning? (honestly and sincerely)

Yet one writer tackles this question by asserting: "Consciousness implies
limitations and qualifications; something to be conscious of, and someone to
be conscious of it. But Absolute Consciousness contains the cognizer, the
thing cognized and the cognition, all three in itself and all three *one."

*Presumably, from the writers standpoint, whatever she is talking about, if
anything, is arrived at or realized through some form of "meditation" as
something to be experienced. Cannot verify having no basis in such an
alleged and possibly possible experience

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at

Reply via email to