What Am I - What Are You?

A place for anything that doesn't fit into the existing forums

Re: What Am I - What Are You?

Postby gen6 » Tue Nov 09, 2010 7:07 pm

I hope we can maintain civility in this discussion, thanks.


Have I written something that made you think we can't :)



gen6 wrote:You claim to have experienced awareness through direct experience? Is that right?


It is what I am, of course.


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....

gen6 wrote:ince you are human, your direct experience can be done only with the senses you have and with nothing else


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.


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.

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;


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...?

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.


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.
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?


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).


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?



gen6 wrote:It seems illogical only from your point of view


Logic is unbiased, it doesn't care about my 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.


gen6 wrote:Splitting up awareness into parts and placing it inside the body does not present a single problem.


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.


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.

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).


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.
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


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.


Read just above this quote, I've proven it.

gen6 wrote: that's an illusion you have created in your brain from there spring many other assumptions in your theory


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.


I have absolutely demonstared how your theory contains assumption.
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


If this is true, then you have not experienced any negative action or thought in your entire life. Which is false.


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.

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.


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.


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.


gen6 wrote: it does only according to your theory and the way you explain how things are


And my theory is in accord with direct experience and reasoning, so it can be tested and validly applied.


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.


gen6 wrote:There is no Self to conflate with something, where do you find this Self


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.


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.

gen6 wrote: Bodily identification, this just does not exist, it's an illusion.


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.


You say it bodily identification exists because you superimpose on awareness, awareness cannot be conflated with anything. I've proved that above.
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.


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'.


But that's the thing, there is no Self. I've proved that above.


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 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.


I supported them now.

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?


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;


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.


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.


I've addressed this to my answer to Kutso.

gen6 wrote:Whatever I say, it doesn't mean bodily identification, as I explained above 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.


I already explainedy why there is no such thing as bodily identification.

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?


'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).


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]


gen6 wrote:I can say the same think about myself, same experience different explanations.


And I have been refuting your explanations for your experience thus they are not reasonable.


I have just done the same with yours.

gen6 wrote:You are sure that I will suffer in future because of my current belief system?


Everybody has suffered, is suffering, or will suffer. Erroneous beliefs can limit one's potential and add to suffering.

Do you include yourself when you say everybody will suffer?
Erroneous beliefs can limit one's potential and add to suffering.
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.

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


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.


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.

P.s.
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 :lol: 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.
Last edited by gen6 on Tue Nov 09, 2010 8:29 pm, edited 7 times in total.
Live as if nothing and everything matters at the same time.
User avatar
gen6
 
Posts: 380
Joined: Mon Jan 11, 2010 4:22 pm
Location: Europe

Re: What Am I - What Are You?

Postby karmarider » Tue Nov 09, 2010 7:15 pm

garuda wrote:
karmarider wrote: .....if there is openness to it, and that is simply that the power of these theories does not come from what is behind the theories, but rather from the ego's will to survive.

Karma, I’m not certain that I understand your meaning here. But strictly in terms of the ego-aspect — doesn’t this depend on the ego’s innermost motive? So hopefully, it’s trying to implement some deeper insight by examining carefully what the theory is pointing to, and to a lesser degree on what the theory is based upon (invoking its own ego-gratifying trickery). In other words, if the ego gratification or survival is the primary and dominate innermost motive (and not buffered by some clarity of Consciousness) for pursuing the theories, then of course you may be correct in assuming it’s another ego strategy. But not everybody falls for that ego trick.

Granted, it’s difficult to escape the ego entirely in the beginning and middle stages, because we are using the ego itself to see through the falsity of that same ego (until pure awareness-Consciousness if experienced directly). So it’s tricky in a certain sense. But as WW points out, we hopefully utilize the aspects for which the theory was intended, to cut through the layers of delusion and distortions in our understanding. Hence our clarity increases and identification with ego tendencies decreases.

Once we see the ego for what it truly is, then its power is subverted by the clarity of formless Consciousness. Then we can use certain aspects of what some would consider the ego, in productive ways — and without the old raging ego dominating us. Some might call this ego dissolution, while others may call this positive use of a subverted, subordinate ego. For the average person, I think this hinges on whether one identifies with the formless Consciousness and uses thoughts (and ego aspects) as a tool, or whether one identifies more strongly with ego and uses “un-awakened sense consciousness” as an unconscious tool to negotiate with his everyday world of forms.


Right. All of what you say. I say it more simply and directly: The power of theorizing does not come from Truth, it comes from ego-juice. The ego lives on in the righteousness and cleverness.
karmarider
 
Posts: 2141
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 8:00 pm
Location: Florida

Re: What Am I - What Are You?

Postby Webwanderer » Tue Nov 09, 2010 7:40 pm

Karmarider, I think your dismissal of Kutso is unfair. He makes valid points that warrant addressing.
karmarider wrote:
Kutso wrote:

karmarider wrote:It's certainly fun for the mind to accumulate, debate, prove and vanquish. But that's not experience.


Not experience? Kindly explain.

It's not the direct experience of looking.

Does one not experience accumulating, debating, proving and vanquishing? And can one not look directly at those experiences? Can one not look through those experiences?


karmarider wrote:
Kutso wrote:
karmarider wrote:You're trying to be diplomatic and I appreciate that, but there cannot be openness if there's a theory. There can't be honesty or direct experience or openness or evolution if there is accumulated knowledge.


Why is that? Isn't what you are saying here a theory of your own that totally contradict itself?


That's very clever. But mental gymnastics have nothing to do with actual looking.


I don't see the mental gymastics in Kutso inquiry. He asks a fair question. The underlined appears to be a theory at best.

karmarider wrote:Again, you're trying for clever mental gymnastics.

Let me just completely concede here and say that you win! Your mental gymnastics are clever, articulate, logical, unassailable and impressive.


Again, your dismissal of Kutso's points seem more a matter of avoidance. If you wish to maintain your vision of the nature of being, you are certainly free to do so. But if your going to present them as fact in an open forum, you must be prepared for honest examination of their roots.

WW
User avatar
Webwanderer
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 6309
Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 12:03 am

Re: What Am I - What Are You?

Postby Kutso » Tue Nov 09, 2010 8:33 pm

Webwanderer wrote:text


Thanks WW. Pretty much what I was going to write. :)

As to the discussion between gen6 and Ananda, I will let them sort it out. There will be way to much text otherwise, since those two seem to enjoy writing a lot. :D (It's very good stuff though :) )
Not that. Not that. Not that. Not that. Not that. Not that. Not that. Not that.
User avatar
Kutso
 
Posts: 884
Joined: Tue Oct 30, 2007 6:27 pm
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden

Re: What Am I - What Are You?

Postby Ananda » Tue Nov 09, 2010 8:44 pm

Have I written something that made you think we can't


Not yet, but I find that my conversations, or debates, usually go downhill due to stamina requirements. :lol:

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....


I am awareness, I have experience of myself as awareness during samadhi where all objects are negated and I alone exist without any division or duality. I don't experience myself as an object, but as the subject by which objects are known. It would rightly be illogical if I were to experience myself as an object, as that would present an infinite regression of seers or selves, but it's not the case.

Since you are not omniscient you cannot prove that there is the subject(awareness)


The subject is self-evident, it can neither be accepted nor rejected as its existence is first required in order to make any statement regarding the existence or non existence of anything, even the subject. Knowledge and lack of knowledge also require a subject in order to be objectified and known, therefore omniscience is not required to prove the existence of the subject.

since it's 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.


Again, the subject is self-evident, there can be no knowledge regarding anything without the subject, it is logically impossible, therefore the statement 'the subject is only in your brain' is a contradiction. I can demonstrate briefly how the subject is always necessary even using your quote;

it's just an idea generated solely by you, since I don't have this idea in my brain


'I don't have this idea' refers to the knowledge that there is no thought or idea pertaining to a subject, this is what is known. How is it known? Because it is not an idea contained within the mind or the brain. How is mind known? By thoughts. How are thoughts known? By consciousness, awareness. Awareness is synonymous with the subject, with you, therefore the concept 'subject' refers to something other than itself and it is more than an idea that is present or absent in the brain.

You can not know if a thought is present or absent without awareness. You can not know what ideas are generated by the brain without awareness. You cannot make any statement regarding what is known or not known without awareness. Therefore, that awareness exists is self-evident and cannot be disproven by any means- since it is the substrate by which all means of knowledge are illuminated and known.

You are awareness, this is self-evident, it can never be disproven- you can try but you will fail, as you must first exist in order to have knowledge regarding the existence or non existence of any object. Any statement regarding the non existence of the subject is a contradiction in terms because there can be no knowledge without a subject to objectify it.

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...?


Haven't you yourself claimed to have direct experience of the Self? Or is this false now? You've contradicted yourself several times now.

Your question assumes that awareness is experienced by a means of knowledge, an instrument or tool. I've already said that this is not possible. That by which instruments of knowledge, such as the senses, or the intellect, or memory etc, are known and can operate is awareness. It shines of itself, by itself, it does not need any other thing to illuminate it.

Awareness illuminates all objects, makes all objects known - no object illuminates awareness. No object makes awareness aware- it is the opposite, all things are known by and through awareness, the subject. No object is conscious or has consciousness, all objects are known through and by consciousness. Negating all objects of knowledge, including the instruments and means of knowing such as senses mind etc reveals the self-evident and self-shining pure awareness that is directly identical to what one is. This can be tested and experienced right here, right now.

You have demonstrated that awareness is logically self-evident only when using your conceptual system


Again, logic is unbiased. If something is logical it is likely to be true no matter who says it, or what system of thought it appears in. Test what I say, you can test it in your immediate experience. How do you know anything? How is anything known? How is a cup known? By the senses and the intellect - how are these known? By the mind? How is mind known? Keep investigating these- keep negating objects in your immediate experience and you will come to the subject Knower by which everything else is known.

Awareness is logically self-evident regardless of my conceptual system, you need to also negate concepts in order to know yourself as that awareness- so do so, inquire deeply into your immediate experience and find out by what it is known.

you created things/concepts that cannot be proven, combined them and then you logically formed awareness


Awareness must exist a priori to the combination, creation of and logical debate of concepts, therefore your claim is false.

In my logical and conceptual system this cannot exist


It is not 'my logic' and 'your logic', please understand how it is unbiased. Something is either logical, consistent, reasonable etc, or it isn't, It doesn't matter who says it, or for what purpose it is used.

Furthermore, you must exist in order to have and/or know a conceptual system, therefore the subject (awareness) does exist regardless of your claim.

So you define this awareness as the witness to which all objects are evident.


Yes, this is the subject.

If that's your definition of it, that's the awareness you have in your brain.


Awareness is not an object of my knowledge or possesion, it is directly equivalent to what I am. The brain is an object of my knowledge, I know the brain, it does not know me. When you try to place awareness somewhere in space, you immediately objectify it, but awareness is not an object. I have already explained the problems with this in my previous posts.

unfortunately you cannot experience this anyhow


:lol: All of my explanations and ideas are based on the direct experience of myself as awareness. There is absolutely nothing that I say that cannot be explored by you in your own direct experience, there's nothing stopping you.

I still think that this cannot be experienced


Then I'd suggest all of your previous claims regarding direct experience are false and you were either lying or confused. You can experience exactly what I am talking about through self-enquiry, it is open to anyone- no mental gymnastics or logical debate is needed to experience the Self. Really.

You cannot speak for something telling me that it exists and that you have experienced it if you don't believe in it.


A belief is accepting the existence of something without having first hand experience of it. If there is a cup in front of you, you do not need to believe in its existence, since you are having a first hand experience of it. Experience supplants belief. A direct experience of the Self removes the necessity to believe in its existence, because direct experience is knowledge, not belief. I know the Self exists therefore I do not believe it exists, belief is not necessary in order to know the Self, indeed, thought and ideas must also be transcended or negated in order know the Self as pure awareness.

This is only an illusion that you don't believe in it . It's logical fallacy, isn't it?


I would be lying if I said I believed in awareness, to me it would be an absurd statement.

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


The brain generates symbols, letters, words and the word 'awareness' ; I am aware of all this, I objectify this because it is other than I, am the seer of it, the subject, and yes, the awareness in and by which the word 'awareness' is known. That I know there is an idea in my head is sufficient in itself to prove that I am the awareness, or subject, to which the idea appears as an object.

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?


Two words; Self- Knowledge. It is myself that I know as awareness, and I know this by my own awareness, I do not know any object as awareness, nor do I know myself by any other awareness. There is nothing illogical about it.

:)

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.


Not really. If something is illusory it's not likely to be logical in the first place- illusions don't stand up to logical scrutiny but appear valid for as long as they remain unquestioned or unlooked at. If something is logical it is more likely to be true, ie not an illusion. First you must prove how a concept is an illusion, or how what the concept refers to is an illusion. You cannot claim that something is false simply because it is an illusion; since this is actually two claims, you first need to demonstrate how it is an illusion in order for your claim of falseness to have any truth about it and something that is logical, and reasonable, and can be confirmed and tested is not likely to be an illusion.

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.


I gave evidence why it poses a problem, again you haven't actually adressed my evidence in any way, either pretended it's not there or now say 'it cannot be proven therefore it cannot be proven' which is circular reasoning.

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.
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?


No, it's not right. I've refuted your claim that omniscience is necessary in order to prove the existence of awareness, because by its very nature awareness is first necessary in order to be aware of anything, be it complete ignorance or complete knowledge (omniscience), so your 'proof' is a contradiction in terms.

Read just above this quote, I've proven it.


Nope, your 'proof' is based on an unproven (and refuted) argument on the existence of the subject, an assumption.

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


Oh, you mean like your previous 'proof' that awareness does not exist because it cannot be proven? :wink:

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 ignorance of the facts does not mean that my theory is full of assumptions, it means you are ignorant. The fact is that awareness is self-evident, it must exist even in order to prove that it exists. You haven't inquired into this but blame me for assuming too much. :lol:

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.


Facts are facts, they are not illusory for you, you are just ignorant of them. I have and will continue to demonstrate how awareness is already proven by lieu of its self-evident nature. It is the only thing that is self-evident, all else depends upon it to be evident or known. Your conclusion 'it's all illusions that's what I found out' rests on the a priori self-evident awareness itself- any statement of knowledge regarding things existing or non existing always presupposes the existence of awareness by which knowledge is objectified.

You found illusions, therefore illusions are objects of knowledge, therefore you are the knower of objects, therefore you are awareness itself, therefore awareness is self-evident. You can never refute this, it is impossible.

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.


The notion of doership is both a thought and an illusion :)

I have demonstrated how this Self is just an idea that you think conflate with objects.


Sadly not. Try harder ;)

You reasoning is based on illusions which you have created and they exist only in your brain which I have already proven


Nope, you haven't proven anything, except perhaps your fantastic ability to argue in a circle. The statement regarding the validity of my experience and reasoning still stands.

I know that the awareness is self evident, I have it in my brain, I know that.


This statement is perhaps implying a contradiction. Awareness is self-evident by its own light, not by any other object is it known. You don't know awareness because it is in your brain, you know your brain because you are awareness. Objects are not aware of you, you are aware of them. Furthermore, you have contradicted yourself directly because you have previously said that awareness is either an idea (something known) or completely non existent, and now you say 'I know that awareness is self-evident'.'

But that same awareness cannot conflate with anything.


That's right, but the mind does all of the conflating when it supposes that awareness is some object of knowledge, inside the body, equivalent to the body, the identity of the body, the doer of the body, the thinker of thoughts, fat, thin, old etc etc etc etc.

We just have different definitions of awareness and I think that your definition and superimposing on the awareness cannot be proven.


The mind superimposes objects onto awareness, mixes them up. Awareness does not superimpose anything as it has no parts or intellect with which to superimpose anything onto anything else.

You say it bodily identification exists because you superimpose on awareness, awareness cannot be conflated with anything. I've proved that above.


Bodily identification is still evident regardless of whether or not awareness can truly be mixed up with anything. Ignorance makes this mixing up seem very reasonable and possible, such as I have already explained.

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?


Yes it does. 'My leg' is identifying the subject I as the body or owner of the body because the leg is a part of the body. The leg and the hand are objects and so are not identical to or equivalent to the subject which is awareness, therefore the statement 'this guy's hand is not my leg' is indirectly implying the identity of the subject and the object (leg), thence arises the distinction between 'this guy' and 'me', thus individuality, thus ego.

I also do see them because of my awareness


Awareness is not an object of possesion, it is the very I which sees.

But that's the thing, there is no Self. I've proved that above.


The existence of the Self is impossible to refute nor can its non-existence ever be proven. See above. You also contradict yourself again because you just said "I know that the awareness is self evident, I have it in my brain, I know that." and now you say there is no Self. Big contradiction.

I supported them now.


Not very well, though I admire your effort in replying coherently.

Please check my answer to Kutso, there I explain about this


I refuted your answer to Kutso. Check out page 4.


I already explainedy why there is no such thing as bodily identification.


I have refuted your further explanations.

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?


I did answer this question. The body/larynx is not the subject I that is being referred to in the statement 'I am thin' as the body/larynx are objects of knowledge to the conscious subject and not the other way round.

I have just done the same with yours.


Claims based on a faulty premise don't make for good refutation.

Do you include yourself when you say everybody will suffer?


I have suffered, therefore I too fall under the category of 'sufferer'. Whether or not I will suffer in the future remains to be seen, but I can't rule it out.

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


You haven't actually successfully proven how any of my statements are fallacious, you assumed that based on a faulty premise (that the Self cannot be proven and/or does not exist). Therefore your beliefs are still erroneous because my 'conceptual system' has not been proven faulty.

Yes, my experience is the same like yours, we agree on that


I'm not so sure about that anymore, since you have said that a)the Self does not exist, b)the Self can not be proven and c) you do not understand how the Self can be experienced without the aid of instruments of knowledge.

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.


You haven't done this, despite your claims. I've already showed how much of your views are inherently illogical even though you attempt to rationalize this by saying that they are only illogical according to my own illogical conceptual system- which is basically just a cop out and a way of ignoring the validity of what I've said.

Still, I've been enjoying the back and forth. :)

-Edited
Last edited by Ananda on Tue Nov 09, 2010 10:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Ananda
 
Posts: 949
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 10:35 am
Location: Manchester, England

Re: What Am I - What Are You?

Postby karmarider » Tue Nov 09, 2010 8:51 pm

It's not dismissal of Kutso--sorry it came off that way.

This is a meta-discussion, a discussion about theorizing. It's theorizing about theorizing, so if we allow it, we can get caught up in circular discussions.

So, yes, what I say about about other people's theories applies to my theories as well.

But I'm not trying to present a theory here.

My view is simple. And, yes, it's a viewpoint.

My view is that theorizing is fine if that's what you want to do but it has nothing to do with awakening.

If you look at enlightenment in the same say that Consumer Reports would, and ask the basic question, what has the most success rate, theorizing would fall pretty low. Clearly, there are no statistics, so this is conjecture. I would say in the order of success rate, it might go something like Direct looking, then perhaps the direct teachings of enlightened teachers like Tolle and Adyashanti and so on, and then maybe non-dual stuff, and Zen Buddhism. If there is a more direct way than these, it hasn't been discovered yet. I'm sure other people have differing opinions. This is my view.

Clearly, there is overlap and ambiguity. These lines are are not distinct. There will be concepts--it's the only way we have to communicate.
karmarider
 
Posts: 2141
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 8:00 pm
Location: Florida

Re: What Am I - What Are You?

Postby garuda » Tue Nov 09, 2010 8:57 pm

garuda wrote: .....etc, etc.....

karmarider wrote: Right. All of what you say. I say it more simply and directly: The power of theorizing does not come from Truth, it comes from ego-juice. The ego lives on in the righteousness and cleverness.

So then Karma, you admit that you agree with me.... in which case you must also agree with WW (by default, since I stated my agreement with WW). So what's the rub? That we only disagree on the length.... long-version verses short-version.

Do you recall reading my previous post regarding the risk we all take of misunderstanding each others’ meaning in the wording we use in our posts? We generally mean the same thing, but use different words and phrases. And technically, is it not your ego dramatizing your argument on theory that you are positing here? Who knows, you might be preaching to the choir on this thread? Hmmm..... I wish I could sing in the choir; but every time I sing, I have to re-tile my shower walls.

Uhh-ooohhh..... this thread is getting too long..... my brain is over-heating again.....I’m going to take another nap now.

Don’t get upset Karma, I’m just messing with ya’ on this last post here. :mrgreen:
Recognize present awareness......... rest in that awareness..........don’t become distracted.
garuda
 
Posts: 367
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 8:44 pm
Location: USA

Re: What Am I - What Are You?

Postby gen6 » Tue Nov 09, 2010 9:09 pm

Ananda, I just read your post and I was like - You have to be kidding me.
I'll explain the faulty mechanism you are using to avoid everything I say. I fear that you have encapsulated yourself in your conceptual system and there may not be a way out...ever... but it's not a big thing, since it doesn't influence you anyhow in experiencing what you experience, it can even be considered useful for you, and may be useful for other people, but it's not logically valid and proven.
I'll respond tomorrow due to lack of stamina.
Live as if nothing and everything matters at the same time.
User avatar
gen6
 
Posts: 380
Joined: Mon Jan 11, 2010 4:22 pm
Location: Europe

Re: What Am I - What Are You?

Postby Ananda » Tue Nov 09, 2010 9:14 pm

I've responded to everything you've said, and avoided nothing. I can't say the same for you so far.

I'm not trapped in a conceptual system, I use words to explain what I already know through direct experience and can only be confirmed through direct experience. My views are entirely consistent with my experience and explain it clearly and logically. You might like to think that what I say is a self-contained conceptual loop but at the end of the day if you don't apply or test what I say to your own experience then of course it's going to look like that.

Direct experience without conceptual explanation is fine. Conceptual explanation without direct experience is utterly a waste; and judging from what you've said earlier and later regarding your own direct experience I wouldn't really be surprised if you have very little direct experience at all, which would also confirm your faulty views about my own experience and inability to logically respond to my arguments.

Anyway, I look forward to your attempt tomorrow. :)
User avatar
Ananda
 
Posts: 949
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 10:35 am
Location: Manchester, England

Re: What Am I - What Are You?

Postby Kutso » Tue Nov 09, 2010 10:10 pm

I agree with Ananda. He has very much indeed responded to anything you've thrown at him, gen6. But you have not shown how your claims are true. You say "I" is generated by the brain, but the very fact is that the brain is dependent on "I" to be perceived. "I" can perceive the brain, but the brain cannot perceive "I".
Not that. Not that. Not that. Not that. Not that. Not that. Not that. Not that.
User avatar
Kutso
 
Posts: 884
Joined: Tue Oct 30, 2007 6:27 pm
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden

Re: What Am I - What Are You?

Postby garuda » Tue Nov 09, 2010 10:24 pm

gen6 wrote:Ananda, I just read your post and I was like - You have to be kidding me.
I'll explain the faulty mechanism you are using to avoid everything I say. I fear that you have encapsulated yourself in your conceptual system and there may not be a way out...ever... but it's not a big thing, since it doesn't influence you anyhow in experiencing what you experience, it can even be considered useful for you, and may be useful for other people, but it's not logically valid and proven.

I'll respond tomorrow due to lack of stamina.

Hmmm……Engage, then side-step. Engage, then side-step. This “cornering” tactic has a familiar ring to it.....

And engaging someone with masterful skill in logic and repartee. Dare we be foolish enough to mount that horse more than once?
Recognize present awareness......... rest in that awareness..........don’t become distracted.
garuda
 
Posts: 367
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 8:44 pm
Location: USA

Re: What Am I - What Are You?

Postby gen6 » Tue Nov 09, 2010 10:41 pm

I'll just post a small clarifying post trying to clear things out ( i.e. what are we arguing about) and few questions.

gen6 wrote:Since you are not omniscient you cannot prove that there is the subject(awareness)


The subject is self-evident, it can neither be accepted nor rejected as its existence is first required in order to make any statement regarding the existence or non existence of anything, even the subject. Knowledge and lack of knowledge also require a subject in order to be objectified and known, therefore omniscience is not required to prove the existence of the subject.


I'm not sure if my explanations could adequately be called 'assumptions', since they do after all confirm to both direct experience and logic/reasoning. It is something that works and is sound, even if not proven 100% (one would have to be omniscient to do this)


The bold texts looks to me like a huge contradiction. Do you mind to explain, so I don’t get the wrong impression? I don't think I've pulled anything out of context.

Regarding the first quote - Of course that the subject is self-evident, I’m not even arguing, I am the subject and I observe everything around me. How come it cannot be accepted, do you mind to explain? I do accept that I am the subject which observes everything. I don’t reject that. I agree that there has to be the subject( In this case, I, I am the subject in order anything to be made, stated, said , observed, whatever). Please note that this is out of topic. We are not arguing about this.

I want to clarify something. We are not in agreement about whether the awareness is generated by the brain and there are many of it or it’s one common shared by all people, right? I say that it’s not self-evident that the awareness is one common, it cannot be proven anyhow, the only one who can claim this , is you, that’s the most important thing here, I’m trying to prove you that you cannot prove that awareness is one common for everybody. Do we agree about that?

I also do say that we cannot yet prove that the awareness is generated by the brain, but it’s not in any way illogical, nor it can be proven that the awareness is one common for everybody. Both still cannot be proven. That’s what I support. However since there are many logical fallacies in the idea that awareness is one common for everybody, that’s why I incline more to the other idea, i.e. generated by the brain. I’m also trying to point you out the illogical fallacies of your idea.

What you say however is that it’s illogical that the awareness is generated by the brain and it’s 100% valid and proven that the awareness is one common for everybody and that it’s self-evident .
That’s what we are arguing about right? Did I understand your point of view correctly?

gen6 wrote: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....


I am awareness, I have experience of myself as awareness during samadhi where all objects are negated and I alone exist without any division or duality. I don't experience myself as an object, but as the subject by which objects are known. It would rightly be illogical if I were to experience myself as an object, as that would present an infinite regression of seers or selves, but it's not the case.


How come you are awareness and you have experience of yourself as awareness ?
I am awareness, I have experience of myself as awareness.

If we rightfully substitute the I in the second sentence with awareness ( since you are awareness) the sentence will look like I awareness have experience of myself as awareness.
Please explain why does this not make any sense to me? Does it make any sense to you?

I don't experience myself as an object, but as the subject by which objects are known.

So there is separation, you and the objects? You observe them, they are not you? There is difference between the object and you? You are different from the object? This is following the logic of what you say, am I right?


Kutso wrote:I agree with Ananda. He has very much indeed responded to anything you've thrown at him, gen6. But you have not shown how your claims are true. You say "I" is generated by the brain, but the very fact is that the brain is dependent on "I" to be perceived. "I" can perceive the brain, but the brain cannot perceive "I".


I'm not saying mine are 100% true, I'm saying that his are not true also and that's evident :lol:
Of course that the brain is dependent on ,,I,, to be perceived :lol: You cannot perceive yourself without awareness. Can you tell me in what way this proves that the ,,I,, is not generated by the brain? Of course that the brain is dependent on it's own function to be perceived, if the brain didn't generate awareness, you wouldn't be able to perceive the brain. That's perfectly logical.
What do you mean by the brain cannot perceive the ,,I,, ,,awareness,, - the awareness is generated by the brain thus the brain perceives itself.
"I" can perceive the brain - Yes, indeed, the ,, I,, that is generated by the brain can perceive the brain, but it doesn't have a memory of its own, it's just a separate function, the brain perceives itself through awareness.Thanks to this function ,,I,, we perceive ourselves. The ,,I,, is just a function of the brain. That's perfectly alright, isn't it?

The brain has a function to know itself. What's wrong with that?
Live as if nothing and everything matters at the same time.
User avatar
gen6
 
Posts: 380
Joined: Mon Jan 11, 2010 4:22 pm
Location: Europe

Re: What Am I - What Are You?

Postby gen6 » Tue Nov 09, 2010 11:20 pm

garuda wrote:
gen6 wrote:Ananda, I just read your post and I was like - You have to be kidding me.
I'll explain the faulty mechanism you are using to avoid everything I say. I fear that you have encapsulated yourself in your conceptual system and there may not be a way out...ever... but it's not a big thing, since it doesn't influence you anyhow in experiencing what you experience, it can even be considered useful for you, and may be useful for other people, but it's not logically valid and proven.

I'll respond tomorrow due to lack of stamina.

Hmmm……Engage, then side-step. Engage, then side-step. This “cornering” tactic has a familiar ring to it.....

And engaging someone with masterful skill in logic and repartee. Dare we be foolish enough to mount that horse more than once?


Righttt and I guess I'm the witch and you should burn me, after chasing me through the village with forks. Burn the with, burn the witch, pure evil I tell ya. :lol:
I think you are on the right way, this is conspiracy and you have rightfully smelled it, keep going'...I heard FBI are recruiting...
Live as if nothing and everything matters at the same time.
User avatar
gen6
 
Posts: 380
Joined: Mon Jan 11, 2010 4:22 pm
Location: Europe

Re: What Am I - What Are You?

Postby Ananda » Tue Nov 09, 2010 11:23 pm

Hi gen6, thanks for clarifying on your points :)

The bold texts looks to me like a huge contradiction. Do you mind to explain, so I don’t get the wrong impression? I don't think I've pulled anything out of context.


Certainly, I apologise about that, I had a feeling it might cause some confusion.


I said;

The subject is self-evident, it can neither be accepted nor rejected as its existence is first required in order to make any statement regarding the existence or non existence of anything, even the subject. Knowledge and lack of knowledge also require a subject in order to be objectified and known, therefore omniscience is not required to prove the existence of the subject.


and also said;


I'm not sure if my explanations could adequately be called 'assumptions', since they do after all confirm to both direct experience and logic/reasoning. It is something that works and is sound, even if not proven 100% (one would have to be omniscient to do this)


The context of the first quote is regarding the existence of the subject. The context of my second quote is referring to how well my explanations adequately reflect the reality of what I'm trying to talk about. Since being omniscient means having all the facts, I couldn't possibly assert that my explanation for my direct experience is 100% proven , because I simply don't have all the facts.

However, it has nothing to do with whether or not the subject exists, as the subject is self-evident through knowledge of it during direct experience- the subject cannot be known via an explanation of it, ie an instrument of knowledge, which is why I keep asking you to inquire deeply into your own direct experience, that's where what I say will be confirmed to you. The subject doesn't require knowing all the facts to be proven, as it exists prior to and during the accumulation of facts anyway- and by which facts are known.

Of course that the subject is self-evident, I’m not even arguing, I am the subject and I observe everything around me


Oh this is a turn around isn't it. :)

How come it cannot be accepted, do you mind to explain?


What I meant by 'it cannot be accepted or rejected' is that it must first exist in order to accept or reject its existence- and also it does not come into existence through the acceptance of it, and nor does it cease to exist by rejecting it. It's the constant factor in life by which all knowledge is accumulated, and by which anything can be accepted or rejected in the first place. Hence why I say it is self-evident.

I do accept that I am the subject which observes everything. I don’t reject that. I agree that there has to be the subject( In this case, I, I am the subject in order anything to be made, stated, said , observed, whatever). Please note that this is out of topic. We are not arguing about this.


This subject I equate with I, the Self, the witness, the awareness, it is synonymous with all these. So if you say that awareness does not exist, or if you say the Self does not exist, or if you say that there is no subject/object division, or that objects are not superimposed onto the subject due to ignroance, then I have to call you out on it, even if you didn't intend to make such an argument.

We are not in agreement about whether the awareness is generated by the brain and there are many of it or it’s one common shared by all people, right?


Sure, but logically speaking, the subject cannot be made into an object. Anything existing within the boundary of space is an object, not the subject, so it cannot be inside of anything. In short, you are not what is seen, you are not what is known, you are always prior to both and as such cannot fall under the category by which the seen and the known fall (objects).

I say that it’s not self-evident that the awareness is one common, it cannot be proven anyhow, the only one who can claim this , is you, that’s the most important thing here, I’m trying to prove you that you cannot prove that awareness is one common for everybody.


It is self-evident that awareness is one common, because another awareness (or subject) can never be known due to the fact that awareness is never an object. It is the same for all, there is only ever one subject by which all objects are known. There is one awareness by which all bodies appear, by which all intellects appear- this is the experience that is always self-evident. We then create explanations of this and try to split awareness up into pieces, objectifying it as some aspect either equivalent to or an emergence of an individual body.

In samadhi there are no objects of knowledge, only the knower remains - the distinction of seen and seen ceases. Awareness remains, without parts or division, not one out of many, but one without another. This experience of the Self (awareness) is consistently reported by all self-realized teachers and is also confirmed via logic and reasoning (as regards to the subject being non-dual and never an object). We have to ignore logical reasoning in order to rest with the explanation that awareness is multiple and inside/as the body, and also deny our own experience of the Self. These things have to be accounted for and explained, not ignored, not rationalized away.

I also do say that we cannot yet prove that the awareness is generated by the brain, but it’s not in any way illogical


It is illogical because the body is an object of knowledge and the oneness of awareness is proven due to awareness not being an object of knowledge but the subject itself. We can never turn awareness into an object, in doing so we create the fallacy of infinite regression, and because awareness cannot be made into an object it does not share the finite qualities of objects such as a particular form or appearance, can not be limited to a location in space by which objects are defined one from anoter, nor split up into individual parts such as objects by space, therefore it cannot be inside of a body and nor can there be a multiplcitiy of awarenesses because to be many turns the subject into an object falsely.

However since there are many logical fallacies in the idea that awareness is one common for everybody


There aren't any really, just misunderstandings about it. I hope I've explained it to you as clearly as possible, to avoid misunderstanding.

Did I understand your point of view correctly?


Yes, but i'm not sure if you've properly understood the method I am using to explain it, both experientially and through reasoning.

How come you are awareness and you have experience of yourself as awareness ? Please explain why does this not make any sense to me? Does it make any sense to you?


I understand your confusion, words presuppose objects, never the subject. Even the word 'subject' implies some object called subject.

In Self awareness, or samadhi, the distinction between the seer and the seen ceases, there is no object apart from the subject- only the subject itself. Because the subject is of the nature of awareness it is illuminated by itself and knows itself as the subject. You know you are the subject because all objects appear to you and you are aware of them - that awareness is of the nature of the subject itself, which is why I keep saying it is self-evident and needs no object to know it.

I experience myself as awareness because I am the subject by which all experience happens- when I shine, all shines after me. I know my shining, my nature, because it's identical to what I am. It is self-knowledge, self-realization and self-awareness, knowing my own nature by my own nature.

So there is separation, you and the objects? You observe them, they are not you? There is difference between the object and you? You are different from the object? This is following the logic of what you say, am I right?


Relatively speaking, yes that's all correct. Absolutely speaking, objects have no independent existence from awareness, as objects are the form or appearance of the substance (awareness) itself. So the answer to your question is yes and no; relatively I am independent and seer of all objects seen or known, but absolutely speaking I alone exist as the non-dual homogenous cause and substance of everything- the Self alone is all that exists.

-Edited.
Last edited by Ananda on Wed Nov 10, 2010 12:11 am, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Ananda
 
Posts: 949
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 10:35 am
Location: Manchester, England

Re: What Am I - What Are You?

Postby Kutso » Tue Nov 09, 2010 11:42 pm

gen6 wrote:Can you tell me in what way this proves that the ,,I,, is not generated by the brain?


The "I" is that which all objects are known by, but is not an object itself. It is the subject. By saying that the "I" is generated by the brain you are making an object of the subject, which it is not. You are objectifying something that is not an object. Therefore this is a faulty premise.

gen wrote:What do you mean by the brain cannot perceive the ,,I,, ,,awareness,,


What I mean is that the brain is an object. An object can never be aware of the "I" which is the subject. It is always the other way around. The subject knows the objects.
Not that. Not that. Not that. Not that. Not that. Not that. Not that. Not that.
User avatar
Kutso
 
Posts: 884
Joined: Tue Oct 30, 2007 6:27 pm
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests