Have I written something that made you think we can'tI hope we can maintain civility in this discussion, thanks.
gen6 wrote:You claim to have experienced awareness through direct experience? Is that right?
So you are awareness or you have experienced awareness, or you are awareness and at the same time experienced awareness, which would mean that you have experienced yourself. This is logical fallacy. Please explain....It is what I am, of course.
gen6 wrote:ince you are human, your direct experience can be done only with the senses you have and with nothing else
Okay, I'll disprove this logically. Since you are not omniscient you cannot prove that there is the subject(awareness), since its existence cannot be proven this means that there is nothing to conflate the body with, this means that this subject(awareness) is only in your brain and it's just an idea generated solely by you, since I don't have this idea in my brain.I have already showed that it is a fallacy to conflate the subject (awareness) with an object (the body). First you have to disprove this logically before you can then assert 'since you are a human' etc.
So you have a direct experience of this subject(awareness), but you didn't have this direct experience with your senses? Can you tell me how exactly did you experience awareness and through what or using what, or I don't know...?Human is obviously referring to the body and I have already said that the Self is not arrived at through any object of knowledge. The senses are also an object of knowledge, therefore I did not experience awareness through the senses. Read the bottom of the quote you replied to;
You have demonstrated that awareness is logically self-evident only when using your conceptual system, you created things/concepts that cannot be proven, combined them and then you logically formed awareness. In my logical and conceptual system this cannot exist, regarding the direct experience, I hope you can answer the question above.Please understand here, I don't 'believe' in awareness, nor even an idea of awareness. The word 'awareness' refers to something that is not an idea, and as I have previously demonstrated is logically self-evident and also proven through direct experience. It cannot be accurately defined as an idea because it's not an idea, nor any object arrived at through a means of knowledge (such as sense perception and intellect etc), that it does exist, however, is self-evident, as it is the witness, or subject, to which all objects are evident.
So you define this awareness as the witness to which all objects are evident. That's only part of your definition for awareness, and that part is the same as in mine definition, that's the awareness you have in your brain, however about the other things you say about awareness, I cannot agree.
gen6 wrote:If you don't believe in awareness nor even an idea of awareness, how come do you manage to speak for it, to write posts that include awareness as a word , as a concept, to try to make me have a direct experience of this awareness?
You cannot speak for something telling me that it exists and that you have experienced it if you don't believe in it. This is only an illusion that you don't believe in it . It's logical fallacy, isn't it? The bare fact that your brain generates symbols, letters, words and they form the word awareness, means that you have it as an idea in your head, is that right ? That's obvious, isn't it? Moreover you claim that you have experienced awareness, that you are awareness and you want to tell me you don't believe in it? Do you find any logical fallacy here?Because the existence of awareness is available for direct confirmation outside of any concept or belief in it, therefore we use words to go beyond words (pointers).
gen6 wrote:It seems illogical only from your point of view
Oh it does...the basic process of logic 1+1 equals 2 is unbiased yes. But the big picture is a bit more complex. When you create a concept that's an illusion and when you create another concept that's an illusion, you can combine them and make third concept that an illusion, and the combination is absolutely logical of course, but this doesn't mean that the combination isn't illusion, am I right? It's logical illusion, as simple as that.Logic is unbiased, it doesn't care about my point of view.
gen6 wrote:Splitting up awareness into parts and placing it inside the body does not present a single problem.
Only thing I can prove is that it cannot be proven that it poses a problem and I think that's pretty much enough for this case.Okay, prove this. Also address my point where I explain how it does pose a problem. You've just side stepped my response and then said 'Nope, no problem at all'. Ignoring a problem doesn't make it go away.
You think it poses a problem because the result is usually identification with the body and/or mind. Using your definitions this would mean that - bodily/mind identification means conflating the subject, or Self, with the body/mind.Splitting up awareness into parts and/or placing it inside the body presents numerous problems and isn't logical. The result of doing this is usually identification with the body and/or mind. An analogy for this is an iron ball surrounded by fire- the iron ball becomes consumed with fire due to its proximity with it, and for those who lack discernment they may then conflate the iron ball with the fire, or the fire with the iron ball- thus confusing the attributes of the one and superimposing them with the other. In the analogy, the iron ball represents the body, the fire awareness. When you say 'I just cannot connect these two' then I'd suggest that you have a discernment about awareness that many, if not most, simply don't have. It's exceedingly common, even normal, to equate awareness (the subject) with its content (objects).
I proved to you that this awareness you speak of cannot be proven(since you are not omniscient) and it doesn't no exist until you prove it(until you become omniscient, and that would be never, right?), since there is no such Self, awareness that you speak of, this bodily/mind identification does not exist (at least the way it's known and defined in your conceptual system), isn't that right?
This identification with the body or the mind, just does not exist the way you think it exists
Read just above this quote, I've proven it.Okay, this is your assertion, now prove how this is true using logic and reasoning. Saying it is so does not make it so unless you can make a case for it. You also have to demonstrate how my view of it is false, saying it is false does not make it false.
gen6 wrote: that's an illusion you have created in your brain from there spring many other assumptions in your theory
I have absolutely demonstared how your theory contains assumption.This is nebulous, and is not a reasonable argument. You haven't demonstrated how any of my 'theory' contains assumptions yet, you've asserted it but not given any evidence. Everything I say can be tested reasonably, so test it, don't just say it's false because it contains assumptions, that is fallacious reasoning.
In logic an assumption is a proposition that is taken for granted, as if it were true based upon presupposition without preponderance of the facts.[/b]
You have the facts only for you, how do I get these facts? Since it awareness cannot be proven, I cannot have the facts thus your theory is full of assumptions.
Your ,,facts,, are illusion for me and you cannot prove me otherwise then telling me find it by yourself, well I tried, but it's all illusions that's what I found out.
gen6 wrote: Well it doesn't work for me, it doesn't bring any negativism and lead towards any negative action or thought for me
Of course I have experienced many negative thoughts and actions in my life. All of these were not provoked by the doership thing I can assure you, they are provoked by other factors, thought, illusions etc.If this is true, then you have not experienced any negative action or thought in your entire life. Which is false.
gen6 wrote: Everything you suggest comes from the idea that we identify something that is called the Self as the body. That's an illusion.
I did demonstrate couple of times, just read above. I have demonstrated how this Self is just an idea that you think conflate with objects.Demonstrate how it is an illusion. Address my view in the same way I address yours- using proper reasoning and critical thinking. I have already demonstrated how it is very obvious that the Self is constantly conflated with objects, now prove this wrong before simply concluding that it is false.
gen6 wrote: it does only according to your theory and the way you explain how things are
You reasoning is based on illusions which you have created and they exist only in your brain which I have already proven. Regarding the direct experience I have posed some questions at the begging.And my theory is in accord with direct experience and reasoning, so it can be tested and validly applied.
gen6 wrote:There is no Self to conflate with something, where do you find this Self
I know that the awareness is self evident, I have it in my brain, I know that. But that same awareness cannot conflate with anything. We just have different definitions of awareness and I think that your definition and superimposing on the awareness cannot be proven.The Self is the awareness in and by which all objects are known. It is your essential identity, it cannot be non-existent, as a subject is necessary to know things both existing and non-existing. You cannot possibly refute the Self, as I have demonstrated time and time again on this forum, it is self-evident and can never be denied. If you want to have a look where I have discussed this previously, then have a look at my post history.
gen6 wrote: Bodily identification, this just does not exist, it's an illusion.
You say it bodily identification exists because you superimpose on awareness, awareness cannot be conflated with anything. I've proved that above.You have yourself proven it exists when you said 'this guy's hand is not my leg', and also when you denied that such statements as 'I am thin' etc relate to bodily identification and I refuted you. I've also demonstrated how it exists again and again in this thread, and others.
This guy's hand is not my leg, doesn't have anything to do with awareness conflating with objects. Yes the hand and the leg are objects. What's wrong with that? I also do see them because of my awareness, what's wrong with that? (Wiki- awareness is the state or ability to perceive, to feel, or to be conscious of events, objects or sensory patterns. In this level of consciousness, sense data can be confirmed by an observer without necessarily implying understanding. )
gen6 wrote: Come on, you know it's just language, right? What should I say, no body on this planet instead of no person on this planet? Or no flesh and bones with larynx attached on this planet will say etc etc. ? That's funny.
But that's the thing, there is no Self. I've proved that above.I said the convention of saying he/she can be overlooked as it is necessary when communicating with (assumed) others. However, when you explicity say that you don't know of any others who would say he/she is the body then you are already implying that the Self is the body, otherwise there is no ground for saying 'I don't know of any others who would say he/she is the body'.
gen6 wrote: This whole thing about the bodily identification, it only exists in your conceptual system in order to be able to explain some things, your conceptual system cannot exist without the bodily , mind identifications.
I supported them now.I have tested the idea of bodily identification with observation, direct experience, and logical reasoning and it checks out. I've also presented the idea using some of those methods in this thread. You need to disprove the idea in the same way in order to say that it is false and/or an illusion, otherwise you are just making unsupported claims.
gen6 wrote:Again, do you know a body with larynx attached on this planet, that will say, I am my mind or I am my body?
Please check my answer to Kutso, there I explain about this. And I think it's kind of insulting to say every single body I met..but oh well.. Let me walk my corpse to the restroom.Every single body I have ever personally met says this. Every single one. Not one mind have I ever known in person has ever not identified the subject with objects. If you reread my previous statement about this, and then observe anybody, you will find out that they all do it;
I've addressed this to my answer to Kutso.It is said either 'Yes, I am my body, this is me, it's who I am' or 'I am the attributes of my body, ie I am fat, thin, ugly, stupid, pregnant, old' etc. You'd have to be barking mad or extremely ignorant to deny that bodily identification is completely omnipresent in human society.
gen6 wrote:Whatever I say, it doesn't mean bodily identification, as I explained above there is no such thing as bodily identification
I already explainedy why there is no such thing as bodily identification.This is arguing in a circle. I have already proven how what you are saying does equate to bodily identification. You have not 'explained' how there is no such thing as bodily identification, you've either ignored what I've said or fallaciously 'explained' it away. Adress my responses logically or your claims go unsupported. Simply saying 'Whatever I say doesn't mean bodily identification' is ignoring how I've demonstrated that it does, you're just moving the goalpoasts and then fallaciously reasserting your premise.
gen6 wrote:And please, here we come again to this pesky little language - ,,I am thin,, ? What is wrong with that? When you hear a a body with larynx attached say - ,,I am thin,, , do you put this body with larynx attached into a category - bodily identified?
Again you didn't answer to my question - When go out in social environment and you hear a body with larynx attached say - ,,I am thin,, , do you put this body with larynx attached into a category - bodily identified?[/quote]'I' refers to the subject, the awareness, not to any object arrived at by a means of knowledge. The body is an object of knowledge, as are its attributes. To say 'I am thin' is confusing awareness with the contents of awareness, it is msitaking the independent subject with the objects of knowledge viz the body and its attributes (thinness etc).
gen6 wrote:I can say the same think about myself, same experience different explanations.
I have just done the same with yours.And I have been refuting your explanations for your experience thus they are not reasonable.
Everybody has suffered, is suffering, or will suffer. Erroneous beliefs can limit one's potential and add to suffering.gen6 wrote:You are sure that I will suffer in future because of my current belief system?
Do you include yourself when you say everybody will suffer?
sure they do, but not the ones we are discussing here, moreover I don't consider mine beliefs to be erroneous , they are only erroneous when they are filtered through your conceptual system and I have proven its logical fallacy.Erroneous beliefs can limit one's potential and add to suffering.
gen6 wrote:That's what I'm saying, despite my belief system, my false views (according to you), I'm getting the same experience as you do and I'm getting it constantly, this means that this false belief system of mine is not acting as a cloud the cover the sun. It doesn't influence me anyhow
Yes, my experience is the same like yours, we agree on that, however I cannot agree that my views are in dissonance with my experience, this is only according to your conceptual system and I have proven its logical fallacy. I can explain my experience and your experience in way that's very different from the way you explain it and it will still be logical, however there won't be any illusory concepts.It means your views are in dissonance with your experience. Your direct experience may be the same regardless of your views because if your experience is genuine then the mind may have ceased, therefore all views are temporarily removed. I'm not questioning the validity of your experience here, whatever that may be, I'm just questioning the way in which you interpret and explain your experience because your explanations aren't watertight. I think we can both agree that our views should agree with our direct experience and even come from or be informed by it- not come from conditioned or assumed ideas about who and what we are, because our assumptions tend to be illogical, overlooked and unquestioned.
I will answer your last post where you interject and elucidate where Kutso didn't later, when I have some brain power, I'm tired right now But basically the basics are the same(I don't know why but I like this sentence), all your arguments are held on illusory concepts as the Self(the way you describe it) and its conflation with body/mind etc. Since it doesn't exist the conflation also does not exist and you arguments are not valid, but I 'll look at the post and respond.