Why Can't You Just Be The Amalgamation Of What Is Stable In Your Skandhas, Including The Judger

[Emerald]

Just now, Joseph Maynor said:

@WelcometoReality wrote "On 6/21/2017 at 5:07 PM, Joseph Maynor said: This goes back to Descartes.  Judgment is happening in a moment, therefore something is judging in that moment.  In the moment of judgment, something is judging, no?  Think about it.  Descartes was a wise dude.

Judgements are thought aren't they?

So you are assuming that there is a thinker when there is a thought.

A: There is a thought.

B: There is a thinker.

Your assumption is A -> B

So test if it is true. Search for that thinker. Don't give up until you find it!"

Joseph Maynor's Response

Hi WelcometoReality.  Let me delve into your claims.  You propose that judgments are thoughts.

(1) Initial Argument -- Coming at it from one direction

• Can you consider the meaning of a proposition without taking judgment on it?  
• Let's consider the proposition "Sandra is 50 pounds overweight" .
• Let's say you know Sandra.
• Is it possible for you to understand the meaning of this proposition -- thought -- inner sounds -- however you want to define a statement epistemologically.  That's neither here nor there.
• But, the question is, could you understand the meaning of this claim without taking judgment on it?
• If, so, I have just proven to you that claims are not judgments.

(2) Final argument -- Coming at from the other direction.

• Lets say I give you the sentence "globisg hsgdg sghsgfs."
• Now, is it clear that this sentence doesn't connote any thought directly in the sense that no meaning is manifested by the hearing or seeing of the words alone?  It's total garbage right?
• But can't you still judge this sentence and it's incomprehensible?  You throw it out right?  Like a baby spitting out food.  You can reject it.  Isn't that a mental act, a judgment on this purported claim?  
• So, I have just proven that all judgments are not thoughts, as you have claimed.

Philosophy will not get you any closer to enlightenment, if that's what you're after. And you won't be able to figure this out using any kind of logical form of reasoning. Logic is based upon the illusion of reality and takes its premises in the content of the world as understood in an external objective manner. So, we assume that reality is something that many others are experiencing that works in generally predictable way as observed by science and practicality. However, if you're looking for a non-dual experience of reality, this assumption of how the world works will only hinder your ability to experience this. You have to be able to set beliefs aside and simply experience what is there. So, trying to understand reality through the lens of logic or science or ideas will not work because the premise is interpretive and dualistic and the experience you're seeking is about being and non-duality. So, the finite non-dual interpretations that serve as the measuring tools of the human mechanism cannot fathom of or measure the non-dual and understand it because they are not compatible with one another, like trying to load Microsoft Word into a toaster. The reality has to be experienced. So, don't worry about proving or dis-proving the "no selfness". Just perceive whatever you perceive.

[Natasha]

1 hour ago, Prabhaker said:

I am afraid , he is an intellectual.

It's one thing to use thought processes as a tool, it's another thing to identify with them. I think Leo is the former, not the latter.

[Ananta]

On 6/21/2017 at 8:07 PM, Joseph Maynor said:

Just because you are not an unchanging-thing, do we need to throw-the-baby-out-with-the-bathwater and assume there is no you-ness to you at all?  And what is coming to that conclusion?  You!  

Here's my take, "you" are unchanging, because, you are awareness,  but you're currently "identified" as a body/mind which is an appearance within you, instead of merely being "associated" with it. So, what do I mean by that? The awareness in which you are, believes it is Joseph (do to the ego's conditioning), therefore all the thoughts and/or thinking, that arise within the mind (subtle body),  becomes "your" thoughts. You assume they belong to you, because you've taken "ownership" of them.

You are aware "of" Joseph, as he exists, you can experience him, but he's always changing, therefore is not ultimately "real". Real being that which never changes and is always present.

Even after the realization and assimilation of Self knowledge you will remain "associated" with the body/mind until the death of the body. Still having thoughts, feelings, emotions, sensations, acting you "role" in the apparent world...the difference is there's a shift in "identification", from being Joseph who is aware, to being awareness associated with Joseph. Joseph is essentially an object, with in awareness itself.

 

Edited June 23, 2017 by Anna1

[Prabhaker]

2 minutes ago, Natasha said:

It's one thing to use thought processes as a tool, it's another thing to identify with them. I think Leo is the former, not the latter.

I am not criticizing him, when Buddha began his journey , he was a civilized and well educated person, he was an intellectual, that's why he became such a great master, but It is simple to renounce riches, but very difficult to renounce knowledge.

[cirkussmile]

@Joseph Maynor

You know how to write but on this side of the screen it all appears as more noise. 

Stillness and silence will always be the answer no matter how many questions you have. Stillness were there long before you started to question and silence will be there long after you stop asking questions. 

Question less and start to practice love. I know you are curious but that will only lead to more samsara. 

<3 

[Ananta]

10 minutes ago, cirkussmile said:

Stillness and silence will always be the answer no matter how many questions you have.

I absolutely disagree with this. How can you resolve doubts that arise within the mind, so it will be quite, if you don't ask questions? Of course, in the Vedantic tradition you ask your doubts to a qualified teacher, but a forum will do, I suppose, except there are so many opposing views.

Also, Self inquiry requires the mind (logic and reasoning), specifically the intellect. Self realization happens within the intellect.

[cirkussmile]

51 minutes ago, Anna1 said:

I absolutely disagree with this. How can you resolve doubts that arise within the mind, so it will be quite, if you don't ask questions? Of course, in the Vedantic tradition you ask your doubts to a qualified teacher, but a forum will do, I suppose, except there are so many opposing views.

Also, Self inquiry requires the mind (logic and reasoning), specifically the intellect. Self realization happens within the intellect.

@Anna1

I said that the answer will always be silence. 

[Markus]

9 hours ago, Joseph Maynor said:

@Markus wrote "The theory of non-duality doesn't exist for the purpose of debating it.  It exists as a pointer to help you become conscious of what is true"

Markus.  This claim is expressed rather dogmatically.  You haven't provided any reasons to support this claim.  Care to elaborate on this?  I cannot consider a claim unless it is expressed fully.  You can't sail half a sailboat.

Do you assume truth and reality are synonymous?  

Absolute truth and reality are synonymous, yes.

[WelcometoReality]

10 hours ago, Joseph Maynor said:

 

Joseph Maynor's Response

Hi WelcometoReality.  Let me delve into your claims.  You propose that judgments are thoughts.

(1) Coming at it from one direction

• Can you consider the meaning of a proposition without taking judgment on it?  
• Let's consider the proposition "Sandra is 50 pounds overweight".
• Let's say you know Sandra.
• Is it possible for you to understand the meaning of this proposition, thought, inner sounds, however you want to define a statement epistemologically.  
• Ok, the question is, could you understand the meaning of this claim that "Sandra is 50 pounds overweight" without taking judgment on it?
• If so, I have just proven to you that propositions alone do not necessary equate to judgments.

(2) Coming at from the other direction.

• Now, lets say I give you the sentence "globisg hsgdg sghsgfs."
• Now, is it clear that this sentence doesn't connote any thought directly in the sense that no meaning is manifested by the hearing or seeing of the words alone?  It's total garbage right?
• But can't you still judge this sentence and it's incomprehensible meaning?  You can throw it out right?  Like a baby spitting-out food -- you can reject it.  You dismiss it.  You mentally throw it away.  Isn't that rejection a mental act, a judgment, on this purported claim?  
• So, I have just proven that judgments alone do not necessarily equate to thoughts, as you assumed.

Pick apart what I'm saying here and give me a more reasonable view than what I've proposed here.  That would be a constructive thing that I would appreciate from you now.

 

 

As I am reading your response there is thought of my own voice reading this.

As I am reading the statement "Sandra is 50 pounds overweight" the knowledge of what you mean is there. 

As I am reading "globisg hsgdg sghsgfs" the knowledge of what you mean is not there. There seem to be no discarding of it whatsoever. It's just no knowledge there. If I would have had the thought "It's total garbage" that thought would have been a judging thought. But is it really garbage? Or is that sentence what it is without any value attached to it? And what is it that puts values on things?

The point of my last post was is there a thinker, is there a judger?

The answer is there in your own experience. You can logically conclude answers but it will only empty knowledge until you anchor that knowledge in you own experience. And what does your experience consist of? 

[ajasatya]

@Joseph Maynor drop your intellect for a few minutes. give up completely and experience the grace of humility for once.

how does it feel deeply in your heart? how does not needing to be right feel? we're going to die eventually. join us.

[Joseph Maynor]

@Telepresent

Hi Telepresent:

I'll deal with the issue of what judgment is in this post.  Then later on I'll treat and defend my argument that the proposition "a judger exists" is reasonable to accept.  That will be kind of a Moorean argument, just to foreshadow it.  Are you familiar with G.E. Moore?  He wrote a famous essay called "A Defense of Common Sense".  You should read it.  Moore was very influential to me epistemologically.  That's mandatory reading for everyone by the way!  I posted a link to the essay below!  Moore had a huge influence on the later Wittgenstein.  They were friends and collaborated on each others ideas.  Moore basically attacked Kantian, Humean, and Cartesian epistemology.  You're not a grown-up epistemologically until you study Moore.  Kant's legacy in epistemology is disastrous, and similar to what a lot of non-dualists assume.  You got before Moore and after Moore in epistemology.  He's that important.  One dude.   Western Philosophy is important too, not just Eastern Philosophy.  Non-dual epistemology is very Kantian.  German philosophers were very cosmopolitan and worldy and had a long history of studying Indian Philosophy, because they had access to the books.  So, the question of whether Kant was influenced by Indian Philosophy is an open question.  Will Durant believed perhaps so.  There's a stark similarity between Kantian epistemology and non-dual epistemologies, or epistemologies that you see expressed in Indian Philosophy in general.  The idea that concept underlies everything and therefore produces maya and uncertain non-empirical judgments.  I wanted to give you a little bit of this background first.  Eastern Philosophy and Western Philosophy basically need to have a baby.  That's the future of Philosophy.  Integration between those two traditions, which have focused on different but complementary issues.  Like 2 sides of a coin.  Philosophy needs a synthesizer now more than ever.  A new Kant in a sense.  Kant synthesized the Empiricists and the Rationalists of his day.  But without the erroneous Kantian epistemological notions which have polluted good minds for way too long!  But I disgress.

http://selfpace.uconn.edu/class/ana/MooreDefense.pdf

So.  Ok.  Let's get started . . . 

Here are 3 of your points:

(1) "I would suggest that this idea -- judgment is happening, therefore there must be a judger -- can be debated."

(2) "To begin with, I have to wonder what judgment is."

(3) "[D]oes this process require a judger?  Well, maybe, but then whatever thing we point at and say "that's the judger" is just an object that is capable of going through this mechanism, right?"

I Propose Kind of a Meta Argument to You

• Let's get very practical and observational.  What is judging the above three quotes?  Now, whatever that judger is is judging right now.  This is not an abstraction.  This is right now.  You can simply take a look right now, you don't need to deduce the judger through analysis.  Just look!  I realize looking is gonna be kinda metaphorical because it's a mental looking I'm after.  
• I take the position that judgments are mental actions.  You're accepting (an act) or rejecting (an act) some proposition.  The meaning of the proposition is a separate and distinct issue from judgment.  (This is not the only kind of judgment we do, it's just a very important kind of judgment we do.)
• My contention is that judgment sits independently from any conceptual map or set of theories considered or accepted.  
• Now, observe how you judged the prior sentence!  Just look.  What is that?  You can determine judgment empirically by just looking inside.  You can observe it.  (We need to practice mindfulness of what judgment is by actually observing it in action. )
• I don't hold the Kantian view that there is a built in conceptual map that filters at some fundamental level.  
• Now, observe how you judged the prior sentence!  In your mind, what's happening?  Did you see an act of rejection there?  An act of pushing this claim away?  Like a full baby rejecting the feeding spoon by turning away?
• Not to belabor this point.  But I propose that instead of trying to discover what judgment is by doing analysis, we simply just look!  (Wittgenstein would often say this in teaching his anti-analytical theory of meaning.  He would say, Just look how the words are used!)
• I propose that we gotta get really common-sensical and empirical to discover the nature of judgment, looking rather than analyzing.  
• Now, observe how you judged the prior sentence!  In your mind, what's happening?  Did you see an act of rejection?  An act of pushing this claim away?  Or maybe you saw an act of acceptance, I doubt it though.

Pick apart what I'm saying here and give me a more reasonable view than what I've proposed here.  That would be a constructive thing that I would appreciate from you now.

Edited June 23, 2017 by Joseph Maynor

[Key Elements]

On 2017-6-23 at 8:06 AM, Prabhaker said:

I am not criticizing him, when Buddha began his journey , he was a civilized and well educated person, he was an intellectual, that's why he became such a great master, but It is simple to renounce riches, but very difficult to renounce knowledge.

Sounds interesting here...reminds me of the 10 Ox Herding Pics told by Shinzen Young. Riding the Ox Backwards is the full "enlightenment experience." Notice at the very end of the story, there is a teacher/monk called the Cloth Bag Monk who passes out gifts to anyone. He teaches by action, not lecturing. 

Have a look...

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

[Telepresent]

@Joseph Maynor  Thanks for the research suggestions.  I'll have a dwell on what you've posted and reply once I've processed