Hi Mark, It is still speculation and under investigation, but I cannot find anything INHERENTLY existing. Nada. And I'm not sure what face of Buddha you think I am aiming for. What do you think of the witnessing experience?
Marsha On Jul 26, 2011, at 5:50 PM, 118 wrote: > Hi Marsha, > This witnessing capacity would fly straight in the face of Buddhism, > since it would require an inherent arrising of the witness. Your > thoughts? > Mark > > On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 12:49 AM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> Hello again Ham, >> >> If you will forgive me for quoting from Miri Albahari's book, here's the >> crux of the issue: "... Awareness purports to exist as a witnessing >> presence that is unified, unbroken and yet elusive to direct observation. >> As something whose phenomenology purports to be unborrowed from objects of >> consciousness, awareness, if it exists, must exist as _completely >> unconstructed_ by the content of any perspectivally ownable objects such as >> thoughts, emotions or perceptions. If _apparent_ awareness, perhaps by >> virtue of one or more of its defining features (that form part of its >> content or 'aboutness'), turned out to owe its existence to such >> object-content rather than to (unconstructed) _awareness itself_, then that >> would render awareness constructed and illusory and hence laking in >> independent reality..." >> >> There! >> >> I have mentioned before that I can identify with some of your statements >> about 'self', mainly because of this witnessing capacity. To me, freedom, >> too, is in this kind of presence: witnessing/mindfulness. I cannot >> identify the flow of "thoughts, emotions or perceptions" with an independent >> self, but what of this witnessing experience? What of this intimate >> awareness? - But this book is dense and complex, with lots to think about, >> and I will need to read it again, but it seems to be on the right trail. >> >> I hope you are well. >> >> >> Marsha >> >> >> >> >> >> On Jul 21, 2011, at 2:22 AM, MarshaV wrote: >> >>> >>> Hi Ham, >>> >>> This is the most interesting topic. It's a constant question, but I have >>> not found an answer. >>> >>> >>> On Jul 21, 2011, at 12:28 AM, Ham Priday wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> Dear Marsha -- >>>> >>>> On Tuesday, July 19, you said to Joe: >>>> >>>>> I have been puzzling over the experience of subjective >>>>> consciousness - awareness. It is experience but I cannot >>>>> observe it, like an eye cannot see itself. It seems not to >>>>> be permanent and seems to control nothing. It witnesses. >>>>> On investigation this is NOT an autonomous self. But >>>>> it is experience and yet not an object of knowledge. >>>> >>>> Did you not read Dave Thomas's post recounting a recent TV appearance of >>>> the Dalai Lama? >>>> >>>> [David on 7/18]: >>>>> I once paraphrased to Marsha that I saw him in a TV clip snap >>>>> at a questioner who asked him some question about the Buddhist >>>>> principle of "no-self."I said, because I did not have access to the >>>>> clip, He said something like (and this really pissed her off), >>>>> "If you have no self, who is it that is going to change?" >>>> >>>> Ham: >>>> You don't observe "the experience of subjective awareness" because it's >>>> what you ARE. >>> >>> Marsha: >>> The question is am I an 'autonomous' self. There certainly is experience >>> of awareness, but that seems to be just a pattern that occasionally occurs >>> within consciousness awareness. >>> >>> >>>> Ham: >>>> Like it or not, you are a conscious subject, and subjects can't observe or >>>> "witness" themselves as objects. >>> >>> Marsha: >>> There is conscious awareness, and there sometimes is a 'sense of self' that >>> occurs, but that is not proof that the 'sense of self' is a real >>> 'autonomous self.' As you admit there is not way the witnessing becomes >>> the object of observation. >>> >>> >>>> Ham: >>>> The subjective self and its conscious stream of passing experiences is >>>> "permanent" only as long as the being of that self is alive. >>> >>> Marsha: >>> There is no way to know what goes on before birth or after death. And >>> there are plenty of times when I am not aware of a 'sense of self'. In >>> what way can it be permanent when it often isn't there. This 'sense of >>> self 'seems more a pattern that sometimes occur within consciousness. >>> >>> >>>> Ham: >>>> Now, you can say that your self is not "real" or is only "interconnected >>>> patterns", does not "exist" in the sense that objects exist, and cannot be >>>> directly observed in the sense that objects are observed. Nonetheless, if >>>> Marsha's self were removed, Marsha and her reality would disappear. >>> >>> Marsha: >>> I am questioning your use of "autonomous" self, and you are begging the >>> question here by assuming "Marsha's self" exists to be removed or disappear. >>> >>> >>>> Ham: >>>> I'm curious as to what "investigation" has convinced you that your self is >>>> not autonomous. How does one go about investigating herself? Brain >>>> scanning? Hypnosis? Psychotherapy? And if, as the Dalai Lama >>>> suggested, you have no self, who or what is it that makes Marsha's choices >>>> and preferences? Quality patterns? DQ? Collective consciiousness? >>> >>> Marsha: >>> Meditation and mindfulness are the tools I use to investigate >>> mind/consciousness. My experiences are co-dependent on many conditions >>> (patterns), conscious awareness may be one of those conditions. I do not >>> have the exact quote or context for the Dalai Lama statements, so I cannot >>> guess what he meant. But everyone, even the Dalai Lama accepts the >>> conventional use of the term self. The question is what is behind that >>> convention? That's my interest. And your assumptions are not evidence. >>> >>> >>>> Ham: >>>> Do you really believe yourself to be subservient to the reality you >>>> create, Marsha? >>> >>> Marsha: >>> No. I would use the word interconnected rather than subservient. >>> >>> >>> >>>> Ham: >>>> Or are you still puzzling it out? I would like to believe you KNOW you >>>> are a real person with a personna and a self of your own, just like the >>>> rest of us. But your proclaimed "self-denial" has me confused. >>> >>> Marsha: >>> I am a conventionally real person. I have never denied this conventional >>> 'sense of self.' But isn't metaphysics a search beyond the conventional? >>> >>> You have not answered either of my questions, and I do not find any >>> evidence of an autonomous self. >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> Please restore my confidence, Marsha. >>>> >>>> Best wishes, >>>> Ham >>>> >>> >>> >>> Thank you. >>> >>> >>> Marsha >> >> >> ___ >> >> >> Moq_Discuss mailing list >> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. >> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org >> Archives: >> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ >> http://moq.org/md/archives.html >> > Moq_Discuss mailing list > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > Archives: > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > http://moq.org/md/archives.html ___ Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org/md/archives.html
