Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!nstn.ns.ca!news.cs.indiana.edu!samsung!sdd.hp.com!wuarchive!ukma!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!eagle!data.nas.nasa.gov!news
From: simmonds@demon.siemens.com (Tom Simmonds)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern
Subject: Re: Heart of the matter
Message-ID: <1991May23.203832.23550@nas.nasa.gov>
Date: 23 May 91 20:38:32 GMT
Sender: news@nas.nasa.gov
Organization: Siemens Corp.Res. Inc.,Princeton, NJ
Lines: 84
Approved: prabhu@amelia.nas.nasa.gov


>johnw@farside.eng.ready.com (John Wheeler)
>Subject: Heart of the matter...

>Now, in that interval with the four or five thoughts going by, I would
>like to ask you "Who are you?" In other words, who are you that is
>aware of those thoughts. If you say that you are those thoughts, that
>would be silly, since they all pass away in the next second (you obviously
>don't pass away, when the thoughts pass away).
>
>So there are the thoughts of which you are aware and there is you, who are
>aware of the thoughts. This is logical, right? Let us forget about the
>thoughts themselves. They are transient, fleeting, etc, perhaps even
>conditioned to some extent by memory etc.
>
>What I am interested to know is what is the nature of the one in you
>who knows the thoughts? If you say that he is himself just thought, I
>say, how can one thought be aware of another? Thoughts are objects
>perceived. How can one object perceive another? I say that what you
>are is not a thought at all. It is of an entirely different nature.

What makes you so sure that this "knower" thing that you're talking about
exists?  Have you ever seen, felt, or otherwise experienced it?  If you
say that you have, then was there a second "knower" who experienced the
first "knower" as an object - a thing "known"?  In other words, who or what
was it that "knew" the "knower"?  How many of these "knowers" are there?  Can
the "knower" ever be the "known"?  Can the subject ever become its own object?
If so, then is it really a subject or is it just another object?  If not,
then isn't the idea of a knower just a conceptual invention with no
identifiable reality corresponding to it? 

It seems to me that it's nothing more than a convenient idea that helps you
to explain away such qualities of experience as continuous transition (ie.
its "flowing" quality) and the raw, phenomenal presence that we call
"awareness" or "consciousness".

>Why do I say this?:
>
>1) Thoughts are many, you are singular

Thoughts and experiences flow one into another in a continuous stream, as
the rippling waters of a stream flow in continuous change, yet the stream is
nothing apart from its rippling waters.  Take away the rippling waters, and the
stream is gone.

>2) Thoughts are objects, you are the knower of the objects (subject)

>3) Thoughts are not conscious, but you are conscious

I think this subject/object division is a conceptual device that doesn't
accurately represent the reality of experience.  In all the flow of
experience, never has this mysterious "subject" of yours appeared.
The flowing, rippling waters ARE the stream.   Why must you postulate
a static identity "behind the scenes"?

If you think this subject exists, then show it to us.

Have you ever heard the Zen story of the student who asked his master
to quiet his mind?  The master said, "Show me your mind and I'll
pacify it."  The student responded, "I cannot find it."  The master
replied, "There, it is pacified!"

>4) Even when all thoughts subside (strange as it may seem) you
>   are still conscious of the absence of thoughts

If you ever have an idea that thoughts are absent, you are mistaken.  That
idea itself is a thought.  Thoughts are only one form of experience, one
kind of ripple in the stream.  If there is truly an absence of thoughts,
there may yet be other types of experience; the stream flows on.  If
experience ever stops completely, how can you say there is consciousness?
How could you ever possibly know that?  To know something is to be
conscious of something, to experience.  If experience stops, so does
knowing.  If there are no rippling waters, there is no stream.

>Does this interest you? Are you with me? So I ask what is the nature
>of the one in you that knows thought? What can you tell me about him (you)?

IMHO, he is a figment of your imagination.

--
 ((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((
  ))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))tom simmonds))))))))))))))))))))
 ((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((
  ))))))) "True beauty consists in purity of heart." - Mahatma Gandhi ))))))))