---In [email protected], <mjackson74@...> wrote :
I'll be damned if I know what to do with them myself. Its an interesting concept. I might meditate on it later. From: Duveyoung <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2014 11:22 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] How does one decide if a person's testimony is valid? What can I do to test these statements? Nisargadatta "The scriptures say so, but I know nothing about it. I know myself as I am; as I appeared or will appear is not within my experience. It is not that I do not remember. In fact there is nothing to remember. Reincarnation implies a reincarnating self. There is no such thing. The bundle of memories and hopes, called the 'I', imagines itself existing everlastingly and creates time to accommodate its false eternity: To be, I need no past or future. C: So far so good. This seems to match Sam Harris' view of the self. I can find nothing in my experience to contradict it. I like the idea of my self being a bundle of memories and hopes. I've got some good stuff on both sides of that timeline. N: All experience is born of imagination; I do not imagine, so no birth or death happens to me. Only those who think themselves born can think themselves re-born. You are accusing me of having been born -- I plead not guilty!" C: Not feeling this one. He seems to be making a claim for specialness that I can't even relate to. He is using imagination as a pejorative which seems wack to me. He seems to be making a case that his internal experience is arranged differently from other people and that his is better. More enlightenedy. I am not a fan of such claims. For one thing, who cares how he has arraigned his internal experience? If he says something amazing that I don't have access to mentally I might become interested. But that is what he needs to lead with for me. Not a claim about how great it is in there, but a demonstration of something fascinating that would lead me to think it has a value beyond him thinking of himself in an elevated way. I find such claims to be indistinguishable to: "I am a fancy pants, and you are not." N: "By its very nature the mind is outward turned; it always tends to seek for the source of things among the things themselves; to be told to look for the source within, is, in a way, the beginning of a new life. C: This ship sailed pretty early in our cognitive development. I am not sure what he is claiming about the "source of things" but our minds turned inward away from our senses to ponder things from the beginning. My cat does this. Of course I know that there is a metaphysical claim behind this but I am taking each phrase on its own first. N: Awareness takes the place of consciousness; in consciousness there is the 'I', who is conscious while awareness is undivided; awareness is aware of itself. C: I am not sure about this distinction. There seems to be a lot of ways to use these terms and the use is often driven by assumptions about reality. I don't believe I have a meaningful distinction in my experience between these terms. If I sit in meditation and the silent aspect of my mind becomes dominant, I still don't make ontological claims about it as being more than an aspect of my own consciousness. But as an analysis of what we experience in a silent mind state this might make sense. I guess it depends on what assumptions he loads into this distinction. N: The 'I am' is a thought, while awareness is not a thought, there is no 'I am aware' in awareness. C: I am not sure I would say that my "I am" is a thought. It seems to be more than that. It seems to be closer to what he said before, memories and hopes. It also seems to be a focus of attention on my present experience. I am also not sure that the phrase "there is not 'I am aware' in awareness" is the best match for my experience of my own awareness. There seems to be an assumption that this reflexivity is a bad thing, and that awareness without it is purer or better. I am not convinced. Awareness without a me to experience it seems like an odd goal. I am not at war with any aspect of my self. N: Consciousness is an attribute while awareness is not; one can be aware of being conscious, but not conscious of awareness. C: He is making distinctions that don't seem meaningful to me or I don't understand what he is getting at. There are a lot of presuppositions in these statements and I would have to examine each one to evaluate the meaning here. N: God is the totality of consciousness, but awareness is beyond all -- being as well as not-being." C: Here I thank the old man for the conversation and step on to my bus As I take my window seat, I see him on the bench muttering to himself. As my bus pulls away a young mother and child sit down next to him and the mother reflexively draws her son closer to herself, away from him.
