Sum Ergo Sum

The mistake of not knowing one is right

Cogito, Ergo René Descartes

Ultimate Reality 1596-1650



11 responses to “The mistake of not knowing one is right

  1. Hariod Brawn 2014/11/07 at 15:57

    The man who put Descartes before de horse.

    • Niklas 2014/11/07 at 16:42

      Had to look that expression up. And yeah, the mistake of assuming a piori a subject that does the thinking when the thinking is what “makes up” the subject. Hopefully I got that right, haha.
      If you’d care I’m curios about the not meeting each other. I’m not that concerned about right/wrong since I’ve given that idea up pretty much, but since I’m ending up communicating what cannot be properly communicated, I might as well make an effort to do it best I can. I have a lot to learn “subjectively” when it comes to wording and being clear about my current point. Even if arguing/discussing is always within subjectivity, I appearently find it both interesting and fun and I very much appreciate your feedback. Feel totally at ease with knocking me over the head for being vague, incoherent or in any way a dunce. My so called wisdom is laughed at on a regular basis. It happens every time I refrain from talking and keep to simply responding the call of reality.
      Btw, others have expressed this in such beautiful ways before so oftentimes I just shut up an nod in their direction.
      The sufi poet Rumi is one of them, another is Ama Samy whos book Zen Heart, Zen Mind is, to me, probably all that has to be said. Whatever this mind produces is just variations on that theme. If I’m ever to mindfully sit down and carefully write about this, that might become something of actual value. For now, I just let whatever pops up come out unedited.
      I sincerely which not to have responded crude or disrespectful to your inquerys. If I’m not agreed with, that is totally ok. If I misinterpret questions, that is totally ok, but never ever do I want to put people of by being aggressive. The little I’ve read on your site really resonates with something here and that’s why I did put effort in responding.
      We are waves of the same ocean. Nowhere to be found, but definitely here. There is just moving water.
      Let’s enjoy the precence.
      Allt good.

  2. Hariod Brawn 2014/11/08 at 15:36

    Hi Niklas,

    Apologies if my little joke was a bit obscure, though you got the meaning spot on. I think this business of ‘minds meeting’ in any discussion of Nondualism is, as you suggest, not so much one of any degree of correctness, rather is it perhaps more akin to how two people might describe to each other, say, their reaction to an abstract painting which they both appreciate. There is neither a right or wrong way of talking about the painting, and just as with abstract art in particular, being present with the painting is of itself the only satisfactory mode of apprehending; which is to say, a silent knowing that is obvious and prior to conceptualisation.

    When non-duality first actualised ‘for me’, it was immediate, irrefutable, obvious and yet at the same time held a familiar ordinariness. As this was going on, the mind leapt in and sought to make sense of it – both literally and figuratively. There was an attempt within the mind to ‘understand’ what was in any case immediately obvious. The mind thought something like ‘this is it, but what is it?’ At the same time, it saw the redundancy and absurdity of this question and so laughed. After this first actualisation, and when the self-entity coalesced once again, there remained an attempt to conceptualise that experience.

    Now, here I think, it’s possible that many people tend to formulate their words about non-duality in a similar framework to that which first did so. So for example, as I reflected initially upon the actualisation, the construction of words that hit home, or seemed closest to the experience, were something akin to “the world and consciousness both exist and are identical”. The meaning here is of course paradoxical, because as you suggested previously, to say that they “both exist” is also to say that they cannot be identical. So let’s go into that into terms of subjectivity and objectivity:

    In common with the great many spiritual seekers, there was in me the notion that within my dualistic apprehending of the world, and which I sought to transcend as a seeker, the idea that ‘I’ as a subject would absorb into an ontological object of knowledge, or that ‘I’ as a subject would acquire and possess this ontological object of knowledge. In other words, the monistic conception was either a pure objectivity or a pure subjectivity – there seemed to be no third option. When non-duality actualised though, a third option appeared: the paradox that the mind cannot conceive of, which is to say, an awareness or vision that sees subjectivity and objectivity solely as its own (mind’s own) constructs – the undermining of its own belief system and what it unquestioningly assumes to be its raison d’être.

    So, coming back now to descriptions and discussions on the subject of Nondualism, I tend to couch my phrasing broadly in-line with what I have stated above and which first formulated on an initial actualisation. One might ask why this phrasing isn’t reformulated over time, and I think the answer is only that to do so would be rather pointless, because any and all formulations are but pale shadows of that which they attempt to describe. Whilst understanding integrates over time, none of this helps render any conceptualisation any clearer. It is still just an opaque representation as are the representations of the two who attempt to discuss the abstract painting – all they convey is an echo of an echo.

    As a closing note Niklas, then you have no need to apologise for appearing “crude or disrespectful” nor “aggressive”, as you did not in the least. And I can only hope that you did not perceive that my own attempts at engaging you in discussion were in some similar way disrespectful of your position, which most certainly is far from being so.

    With warm regards, gratitude and respect.


    • Niklas 2014/11/08 at 16:41

      Thank you Hariod, it is indeed a good point that subject/object are minds own constructs. That is a tricky version of “as soon as we think/speak there is dualism” which in itself, by the same default, is another mind constructs, hehe.
      There is no way out and no way in.
      How wonderful then that there is no inside or outside. It’s good that everything is various paintings and art lovers. At least in this minds current concept.
      Your remark is a helpful reminder which I appreciate. I know Seeing have brought it up once but I do think I missed it then.

  3. seeingwhatis 2014/11/08 at 16:19

    “the paradox that the mind cannot conceive of, which is to say, an awareness or vision that sees subjectivity and objectivity solely as its own (mind’s own) constructs –the undermining of its own belief system and what it unquestioningly assumes to be its raison d’être.”


    The belief separateness IS ITSELF the ego. But Only a believer believes in ego or enlightenment (aka the End of belief)
    Belief may be strong or weak.
    Or not existing.
    Subjectivity as you N call it, is not neseccary för argueing to happen. Its Only argueing to the interpretor.
    Take Care guys.

    • Niklas 2014/11/08 at 17:29

      Who is it that believes that only a believer believes in ego?
      Minds games are so funny.
      All good.

      • seeingwhatis 2014/11/08 at 18:31

        He he. Don’t you get it? A believer also believes his own words. There is absolutely noone here. It is Brahman. Actually all the responses I give you is you talking to yourself.

      • Niklas 2014/11/08 at 18:57

        Yes indeed it is. Just like that. Existence sounding. But it appears that there is a difference in our sounding. Like oak leafs differ from birch leafs. I’ve seem to have that bodhisattva itch while you sound more arahat-ish. I think that is wonderful and something to appreciate. Like these hands appreciate these feet. Why would I which it to be different and to what use would it be to resist reality? Then again, who could resist resisting.
        Endless mentation. Now playing scrabble and drink wine.
        Life is good.

      • seeingwhatis 2014/11/08 at 19:19

        Who knows? The one who knows knows. But what is knowing if not believing? Everyone can see. Seeing is just one aspect of beeing. We think knowing is morevaluable than sensing. But is it? We are obsessed with questioning, which means inventing purpose. There is no point with scrabble and quizzes. Only in wine is veritas.
        Ps. This is you talking again. Don’t answer, because that would be me talking and I am a quiet arahat.
        Brahman seems to be talking to itself today.
        The chinaman left his feet by the railroad station called “is”.

  4. seeingwhatis 2014/11/08 at 16:24

    The belief IN separateness…

  5. seeingwhatis 2014/11/08 at 18:34

    There is no need for a subject, in order to argue. Ahman is everything and does itso well. Why do you lieve there is a need of an ego? Ego is a mindbug with no power at all. Ego is the wind in the trees.

Let me put it this way:

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: