You are hereForums / Responsibility / Worth talking about, But you can’t really say anything

Worth talking about, But you can’t really say anything

5 replies [Last post]
RichardMiller's picture
User offline. Last seen 2 days 19 hours ago. Offline
Joined: 09/20/2009

Some things you can’t talk about, because the moment you say silence, or stillness, you have already broken the silence or stillness.

1. We do know that there are perceptions that really exist, because we experience them every waking moment.  We also know through instrumentation that our perceptions are very limited to a certain window of frequencies and temperatures, and that there appears to be a vast existence outside of that window, which we could call “secondary perceptions” sensed through instruments.

Even our own vehicle (body) lives much outside of our window of perception. We have discovered through secondary perceptions some of its inner workings.  For example, we discovered the germ theory of medicine.  But still our daily life unfolds for the most part confined to our perceptive window.  That makes us grounded, in that we don’t need an instrument to navigate.  (Sometimes we wear glasses.)  For the most part, individual life unfolds as a valuable experience, just through this “human” window of perception.

2. I’ll launch this example: We can perceive thoughts.  We can perceive language.  We also perceive emotions, and memories.  We probably can perceive relationships between these four, some of which could start as assumptions but which we test to see if they are consistent.  Let’s state some relationships:

  • Muddled language causes muddled thoughts.
  • Visa versa, clear use of language creates clear thinking.  
  • (I’m not saying that this automatically means clear thinking is tied to our concept of reality.)
  • We can notice that fearful thoughts cause anxiety, and confident thoughts create contentment.
  • We can notice that memory is the mother of all human change.
  • If there was no memory, every experience would be brand new, and life would continuously recycle the same experiences over and over again. (Ameba eat food, ameba divide and multiply, ameba die.)

Still on the same example, some people like to ascribe all of these functions to an overlord that they call the Mind.  Mind is then a collective noun, meaning all of the above observable phenomena.  But the existence of mind is not a perception, it is a conjecture, or an assumption.  Mind is a secondary reality, or no reality at all.

Maybe collective nouns are useful, especially if the collection exhibits a lot of uniform behaviour.  A “school of fish” swirls around the reef.  But what are the properties of a “Mind”, that are often elucidated, but again all through conjecture?  If you create a concept entity, and give it concept properties, the danger is that your creation can depart very widely from perceptive reality.  In fact it can go anywhere that thoughts, language, emotions and memory can imagine.

3. The commonly stated belief is that a human is body, mind and soul. Body is the only one with objective reality.  Mind and Soul are non-objective concepts.  Mind we do like to characterise, but Soul is one we say we can’t be put it into words.  Of course we can’t, it doesn’t objectively exist.

Spiritual speak is full of references to the EGO.  One might define it as: the part of the thinking that mediates between the conscious and the unconscious and is responsible for reality testing and a sense of personal identity.  It creates self-esteem, self-importance, self-worth, self-respect, self-image, self-confidence, or the lack thereof.

We are talking about a collection of tendencies, thoughts, language, emotion and memory that come into observable behaviours and exhibit observable emotions (and anxiety levels) as this is our self. There is really no ego-thing there to track or ascribe properties to.  Wouldn’t serve better to look at the links relating TLE&M and learn directly from those discoveries?

In short, EGO doesn’t exist and neither are its properties close to true.  Another one of those things you can’t talk about, (so why do it)?

4.  It is self evident that I am here, and I can utilise my human tools.  Do I need to create a collective concept to group all of that together?  If I recognise something, I am conscious of it.  If I don’t, I am unconscious of it.  Do we need an umbrella word to put recognition and non-recognition under?  Why not just say aliveness, with which everybody is completely familiar, but instead we come up with Consciousness?

Consciousness is another one that we can’t say anything about, because it doesn’t exist.  So instead of ascribing properties to it, we ascribe properties to what it is not.  Let’s investigate consciousness a little bit.

If we go to a dentist we get a local anaesthetic, and he shuts off the feeling of pain to part of our jaw.  That tooth is rendered unconscious.

If we play with recreational drugs we shut of the signals from certain parts of our body.  We can still send signals and move about, but (for instance) no signals come back to say, oh, slow down, your knees are sore, oh watch out for that back-ache.  In that condition we might dance all night at the party, and not feel any tiredness.

If we shut off thought with the successful practice of mediation we have freed up attention to have other dreams, thoughts memories or feelings.  We don’t really get out of our mediation posture, so I don’t think we can say we are navigating a different reality.  We are visualising it, (with or without the use of sight).  These are all different realms of consciousness, attained by manipulating the bodily nervous system.

Finally if we go into surgery we are administered a general anaesthetic.  Through the numbing of our nervous system our feeling is quieted, our vision and hearing shut off, and all our senses closed down.  With no sensory input our consciousness shuts off.  Enough feeling is left to keep breathing and circulating blood.

There is no consciousness that receives an injection of anaesthetic.  It is all in the body where consciousness can be shut off or reopened, by monitoring the level of anaesthetic circulating in the blood.  So where is consciousness?  We cannot create consciousness out of nothing, without the natural process of conception and birth, but we can manipulate it.

What is the usefulness in life of often referring to something that doesn’t exist?  By doing so we limit the time we are focused on things which do objectively exist.  Maybe that is our goal?

Is there a more effective use of our time that will accomplish the same perceived advantages to our life?

Your rating: None
angryidiot's picture
User offline. Last seen 36 weeks 6 days ago. Offline
Joined: 01/21/2011
the words that there are

the words that there are 'things which do objectively exist' --point to consciousness.

knowing that they do is one facet of consciousness( called chit).
aliveness is its another facet (called sat or existence).

That it is not something out- there (but we ourselves are it therefore when we look for it we don't find it and say it doesn't exist), and the pure joy in it(in being it) is another facet( called anand)


what do we mean that consciousness must be talked about?

only that it need to be demystified ---not belittled!!!

RichardMiller's picture
User offline. Last seen 2 days 19 hours ago. Offline
Joined: 09/20/2009
a teaching must be judged by its effect on the student

Let’s say that a person devotes some time to what we could call an “inner search”.  Maybe they discover a state that feels very good to them.  We could describe it as the absence of troubling feelings, but I say that it is a also feeling in itself.  What is there to comment about?  I have nothing to say about that person, and nothing to add or detract about their perceived subjective state. 

Let’s say that person has a certain charisma, and others hang around to see what happens.  Judging by appearances the person is engaged in silent pursuits.  If they start talking, perhaps they don’t have much experience with phrasing words.  If they had a teacher and think they are in a “lineage”, perhaps they use the same words quoting their teacher.

Once they are sharing these thoughts, it becomes a “teaching”, designed to influence the other.  Regardless if their words are based on their authentic experience or not, any teaching must be judged only by the effect it has on the student.  It is possible that a completely authentic experience becomes a totally ineffective and confusing teaching.  So let’s look at the teaching of sat-chit-anand.

You said that we could demystify it . . . or are you mystifying it more?

§ sat - aliveness or existence is part of consciousness.  Every living thing already knows it is alive, with or without this teaching.  Confusing to say you need it.

§ chit - things do objectively exist.  This helps us because this awareness points to consciousness.  IT DOES NOT.  That things exist is an open-source phenomena, available to every living being.  It has nothing to do with the adoption of a word, “Consciousness”.  Confusing.

§ anand - if we look for something we’ll never find it, because we’re it.  When we accept that we are on this search, and that we cannot succeed, life becomes bliss.

This last of-course is the most damaging to the student.  What if here there is nothing perceived as bliss?  What if I have never known bliss?  I must be doing it wrong.  Now I must struggle to become conscious (done correctly).  I have to struggle to become conscious, when the truth is I cannot be not-conscious, no matter how hard I try.  And being always conscious is completely free to every living being.  What a completely false residue of an perfectly inept teaching.

If the teaching does not approve of what I am conscious-of (my problems in my case), then it should say so.  It should then work with the content of my consciousness, by coaching me how to effectively use words.

angryidiot's picture
User offline. Last seen 36 weeks 6 days ago. Offline
Joined: 01/21/2011
I only told u as a response

I only told u as a response how it is for me.if you
Could be a bit more patient u would notice words like teaching..bliss...and
Meanings like u will not find etc do no where figure in what I posted.

I understand ur part if not majority u need a different content
In your site.and therefore u try and oppose all that u think is traditional...not different etc.

Part of it could also be u really think there should be no
Set frames.

I agree. But you only underestimate the intelligence in life.

I also find ur understanding of consciousness to be quite different
From mine.but that's not an issue.

But to discover (to use ur words) you got to stay on it not.
If we take the current post u said consciousness did not exist..i said it did and your reply just zoomed off from this issue and talks about everything else.dangerous to student...will not find it...etc. That is what I keep telling u friend...that without any focus what are u or me going to discover.

RichardMiller's picture
User offline. Last seen 2 days 19 hours ago. Offline
Joined: 09/20/2009
I agree that we don’t seem to get each other.

I think that I am able to kind of (for me) decode what you want to say. Probably less in the other direction.

Many times you do understand me though. For instance let me acknowledge that after many times of my asking you to post something you hold important, I think you have done it above.  You posted about Sat-Chit-Anand, which might be fundamental to you.  Or at least your last two words, “Not  Belittled” might be what’s important to you.  You also understood me, that my title “Worth Talking About” is only ironic, meaning that I believe the opposite.

1. I am not just trying to expand the content variety on this website.

I notice that thinking, talking and discussing goes on.  If a certain sequence is verified often enough and a certain end points are reached repeatedly, we all tend to believe that this must be the nature of reality.  What becomes obvious is that if we always start with the same assumptions, we always get to the same conclusions.  Then after all our fine discussion we still don’t really know a thing.  And our life goes off on that dead-end.

My attempt is to first look at the quality of our basic assumptions.  If they are shared raw perceptions only, then they have some solidity.  If they are shared manipulated interpretations and assumptions, then they are not to be trusted and must be used carefully or not at all.

Sometimes I write about a hierarchy of (the trustworthiness of) statements, that goes from Perception, to Assumption, to Value.  Value gets included because we are all trying to live good as we understand it.  That understanding comes from our expressed values.

2. An axiom is the assumed starting point of our investigations. In order to deepen understanding we have to deconstruct faulty (or possibly faulty) axioms. I would like to start with the one simplest axiom I can imagine.

“Something is here, and we can perceive something about it, some of the times, (if it is in our window of human perceptions).” 

Then I would leave aside constructed basics, like Mind, Soul, Ego, Consciousness, and a host of spiritual terms created in the Sanskrit language depicting levels of awakeness, compartmentalisation of reality and other subtleties.

Maybe by building a new reasoning out of simplified basics, you will come back to the concept of consciousness.  Then you could say that it has even more validity as an endpoint from various starting points.

Maybe you will find that the term consciousness is left far in the dust as an obsolete thought structure of certain old mind-sets.  I believe that you will find everything you need in order to live well, with no special assumptions to start with.

angryidiot's picture
User offline. Last seen 36 weeks 6 days ago. Offline
Joined: 01/21/2011
I get u too....nowLove

I get u!
Love it.


Part of the Action

We remain committed to be on the forefront of what will support life, both in your family and on planet earth. 


My interaction with you is an Experiment to further enable this vision to be true, and up to the rhythm that you are a part of the action.  


Please contribute to make this vision real.  

With Heart Felt Thanks, Richard Miller.



Who's online

There are currently 0 users and 5 guests online.