Ptahotep said:placidharbor7:
Ptahotep, truth seeker, WHO IS THIS "IDENTIFYING" THEMSELVES?
WHAT is a "witness" in terms of its actual substance?
Isn't the "witness of thought" just... THOUGHT itself?
And isn't the "I am" feeling just the same thing as the "THINKER"?
------------------------------------------
1. Identification is pure ignorance; nobody actually identifies with anything.
2. You can't even ask a valid question about the witness, because the witness isn't an object—it's the subject. And we shouldn't even talk about "substance," because the subject (Consciousness) isn't a substance. Substance is just a byproduct of Consciousness exerting itself, much like any other objective phenomenon you see in the world.
3. The witness of thought is NOT thought, but the *idea* of a "witness" IS thought. That "I am" feeling appears to someone or something, but that "someone" is not merely an idea.
4. It's the same deal with you. That "I am" feeling is an action performed by the thinker, the witness, the consciousness—whatever you want to call the one performing the act—but the thinker is NOT the "I am" feeling. Why? Because the thinker is a continuity, whereas every single feeling and every bit of knowledge is temporary, just like the "I am" feeling. What is always here, right now, is that continuity—the "unknown"—which is the SUBJECT. It’s unknown because it has no boundaries. Anything objective is fleeting; that’s the OBJECT, and it’s unreal because it has a boundary that allows you to be aware of it. Objectivity is relative, while subjectivity is absolute. A circle can't exist without a center, and a center can't exist without a circle. When the circle enters the center, both the center and the circle vanish. What remains is reality, and in that sense, it is UNKNOWN. You are that which you do not know or recognize. The things you *do* know? That isn't you. For example, you aren't a master, because only students ever strive to be masters. 😉
So you say, "it's not even you sleeping, but that person you identified with," truth seeker.
And then you follow up with—"Identification is ignorance, nobody identifies."
So what are you actually getting at here: is it the first thing, or the second?
Or maybe it's something else entirely that this placidharbor7 hasn't quite grasped yet?
Before things get clarified, let me ask you if this works:
THE ONE WHO DOESN'T KNOW DOES NOT IDENTIFY, truth seeker.
For HIMSELF, such a person is always simply what "is."
It goes from one moment to the next.
In that state, subject and object bleed into one another.
What you mean is that someone who "identifies" can't even realize they are identifying.
So your statement "nobody identifies" comes across as accurate, even if you're being a bit vague with it.
THE ONE WHO KNOWS also DOES NOT IDENTIFY.
Not because they couldn't, if they wanted to.
But because the SUBJECT has vanished forever.
Basically—as long as there is a SUBJECT, there is IDENTIFICATION.
UNCONSCIOUS IDENTIFICATION, truth seeker.
"Conscious" identification is impossible anyway.
.....................................
You claim—"You can't even ask a valid question about the witness, because the witness isn't an object—it's the subject."
How exactly is this "WITNESS" of yours a "subject"?
Is it perhaps because of DIRECT PERCEPTION?
But if "perception" is direct, then the OBSERVER is "UNCONSCIOUS."
UNCONSCIOUS OF HIMSELF.
What kind of "subject" is UNCONSCIOUS OF HIMSELF, truth seeker?
On the flip side—what kind of "subject" can actually be "conscious" of itself?
The moment that "consciousness" happens, every "subject" becomes an "object."
Your very being splits into the OBSERVER and the OBSERVED.
That supposed "subject" is now nothing more than an object.
THE BOTTOM LINE: the "SUBJECT" is unachievable, no matter how you look at it.
.................................................. .......................
And you also say that "we shouldn't even talk about substance, because the subject (Consciousness) isn't a substance."
So, does this mean that CONSCIOUSNESS is actually something else entirely, regardless of what we think it is?
If it isn’t some kind of "substance," then what on earth is it?
Before placidharbor7 jumps in to ask if we can just frame it like this:
CONSCIOUSNESS DOESN'T EVEN EXIST, truth seeker.
.................................................. ........
You’re claiming that the "observer of thought" ISN'T thought itself, but rather the idea of an "observer" IS thought. You're saying the feeling of "I am" pops up within someone or something, but that "someone" isn't just an idea.
But being the witness to anything is simply THOUGHT.
In fact, being the witness to YOUR OWN SELF is nothing more than THOUGHT.
How are you even supposed to direct yourself toward an OBJECT if there is no SUBJECT to do the directing?
But we already established that the SUBJECT is "unachievable"!
That whole "feeling of I AM" is just the residue of a past THOUGHT, truth seeker.
Direct OBSERVATION tells you absolutely nothing about this "I AM" of yours.
.................................................. ..............
And then you argue that the "thinker" isn't the "I am" feeling because the thinker represents continuity, whereas every feeling and every bit of knowledge is temporary—just like the "I am" feeling. You're suggesting that what stays here forever is that continuity, that "unknown," which you call the SUBJECT.
What kind of "continuity" are we talking about, truth seeker?
"Continuity" is just TIME. Once you bring TIME into the equation, you've basically lost the game before it even started!
And if you try to play the game using an IMPOSSIBLE SUBJECT? Well, you might as well give up now.
Until you actually sit down in a classroom at the GREAT ACADEMY OF ENLIGHTENMENT, truth seeker.👋
P.S. placidharbor7 kindly suggests moving this conversation over to the GREAT ACADEMY OF ENLIGHTENMENT.
The crowd there is much larger, though they tend to be a bit more low-key.
