Sneaky! Isn’t this what Berkeley did, posit a God-observer to explain the continuity of existence?
So mind and existence seem to be kindred spirits.
Yes, kinfolk fer sure! But I still think whatever it is ‘existence’ points to might not require mind, whereas whatever it is ‘mind’ points to definitely requires existence. I.e. existence wins, it’s fundamentaler. (Not arguing my point, just singing my song, like a pseudo-philosophical blue jay.)
“A person is not a thing or a process, but an opening through which the absolute manifests.”
This is usually attributed to Heidegger, but might be Hegel, or a confabulation. A friend used it for years as his signature, and I always liked it. Is it ‘right?’ Who knows! But it resonates.
I like this. Which is why I think the conversation about the ‘quiet brain’ is relevant. A brain that is completely occupied cannot be truly open to whatever is ‘out there’ (the universe as a whole?) to manifest.
Surrender to the Mystery.
Surrender: stop resisting. The mystery: reality, what’s really going on.
Surrender to the mystery = Stop resisting reality, fighting it, escaping from it, spinning it.
Am I talking to my self? Will (can) that self listen?
I choose to surrender because I’m unable to prevail and I hope that my surrender will be met with mercy. I’m initiating a transaction, a quid pro quo. It’s all about me, negotiating, angling, settling for what I can get.That’s what “surrender” is.
I think a better metaphor for the awakening of intelligence is driving on the highway and, suddenly seeing that the road drops off a cliff, I slam on the brakes. It’s an unforseeable, uncalculated, choiceless act.
Not bad - but we need a metaphor that involves having 2 (or more) choices, realising that they all lead to the same place (back where we started), and thus accepting non-action/non-choice (psychological death or surrender etc)
I haven’t ever tried to surrender in this way, so I can’t talk from experience, but it seems likely to lead to delusion and suffering.
I’m talking about a surrendering in which you kind of let yourself be possessed by that to which you surrender, you let the wall between you and it dissolve, you become(are) it. I’ve experienced this type of surrendering often, though (so far) not to the mystery, I’m too frightened to let that happen!
Worldly dharmas
Buddhists use these worldly dharmas as a kind of touchstone:
How much do I hope for happiness / fear suffering ?
How much do I hope for fame / fear insignificance ?
How much do I hope for praise / fear blame ?
How much do I hope for gain / fear loss ?
The more you hope/fear, the more you’re stuck in delusion/suffering/samsara.
The dharma drama of samsara
Are we driven to “get IT” = see and experience the true nature of reality? Is it our birthright?
Curiosity is a thing. The desire for power and control also.
We’re driven to get what we can actually get, and this means finding the limit of what we can get. Here, we acknowledge that thought, the intellect, can get what K’s teachings are pointing to, but cannot make the brain awaken to IT.
According to K, we can’t “get” the actuality of what he was talking about until we lose what we have acquired in the hope and expectation of getting more.
Consciousness is that:
in which all experience appears,
with which all experience is known,
out of which all experience is made.
– Rupert Spira
Do you quote this because it is your insight as well as his, or because you like to think it’s insight?
Good question!
I find the metaphor of awareness/consciousness (Spira uses them interchangeably) as space elegant and useful for understanding. It resonates, feels right.
with which all experience is known,
This also feels right, because I know that by ‘experience’ Spira means pure sensation-qualia before thought steps in to hijack it.
out of which all experience is made.
This resonates weakly, it’s more far fetched than the others for me, a more distant metaphor.
I don’t believe any of the three literally.
It is diffucult to believe that you are all just figments of my imagination. If you were, surely you wouldn’t be badgering me so?
If someone has a special boat that will bring them to the promised land, and wants to tell us about their boat - should we tell them that the promised land doesn’t exist? Or that no boat can bring us there?
How do we know that something that we are not aware of, does not exist?
And if the boat is a special boat, should we not at least examine the boat fully?
Surely, if you can taste the salt in the sea breeze, that is the promised land?
The fact that you are part of my experience - doesn’t mean that you aren’t also experiencing some version of me.
It may be badgers all the way down.