Hans Åkerman:
I might think that Singer has too strong of an identification with the observer. It creates a dichotomy
AC:
I was thinking something similar. Like there’s a very strong sense of self vs everything else. His message seems to be focused on recognizing that thoughts and feelings are also “not self”
Or to put it another way, instead of seeing the idea of self as an illusion, he just thinks we’re wrong about what the self is, and if we have the right understanding of self as being the observer, then we’ll have it figured out
Hans Åkerman:
Yes, I agree. One example is being the observer. It is being able to reflect on “stuff,” the world, and yourself. It is being able to distance yourself and see the “shape” of the process instead of being the process.
It is not a hiding place. And I don’t think it is our “seat”. It might be. But it’s concepts and putting labels on things : D We can label “us”.. Hm.. This is a beer topic : D
AC:
Yes : D
Hans Åkerman:
Everything we know we have a relationship with, and what relationship we “own”. We are creating the thing and the relation with the thing. So that “other” self and others are a part of us. The MAP is a part of us. And we own that map. The map and the thought are not “the others”.
We see a thing. Whether we love it or hate the thing, we still have a relationship with it. It is maybe through knowledge and attitude that we map that.
That is why the sages called it gunas. They did not map the universe but our mind.
Sattva, latency, ownership
Rajas, fire, and creativity
And sattva that was neutral
Just riffing : )
If we create a SELF in ANY form. We have created the others.
Or if we dissolve that self to everything we have created brahman. But how do we even point to ourselves? HHAHA
IT IS IMPOSSIBLE THIS GAME OF LANGUAGE
AC:
Haha, it can’t be said
Hans Åkerman:
True, because I think it is thing-less : )
Well well. I need to work. Bah.
AC:
Yes, but is it really you who is working, or are you observing a psyche that thinks it is working? ; D
Hans Åkerman:
: O