written 1980 when I was 28

VI.D Who am "I" - Witness or Ego?

Let os look at the question: 'Who am "I" - Witness or Ego?' And let us as the theory of knowledge usually does, consider the single moment without having proven, that such a moment must exist. We therefor assume that it exists in time, and therefore also in reality.

The subject can be one of two — right now we do NOT look at 100% awareness — in the single moment:

  1. The Subject is un-aware
  2. The Subject is aware

ad 1.

No perception, no memory after the moment or time (the existence of time is also anticipated as 'a permanent never ending stream of moments.' The concept of transcendence is here 'infinite' and contains both time and non-time.
The error has already been committed, both accepting time, moment and infinity. They cannot all be contained in existence, but it is the attempt of mathematics to avoid the logic and at the same time claim that it should be understandable both in theory and reality.

ad 2.

Here there is no non-perception, but perception, which thinking concludes, that must have been in the past . In the very moment we cannot think this, because thinking requires time. Currently there is perception.

From 2 we can conclude that the subject exists, because at present it is perception. The object must also exist in Yin-Yang conditions in the very moment. The theoretical 'moment' is approximately because of the speed of light, but we set the time from the object to the subject so minimal, that the subject in time (ie. continuous moments) are just a single moment after the moment of the object. So this delay in time does not change the theory. The moment of the staggered subject yet, we call it cognitive for a moment. If later in ours theory shows that neither time nor moment actually exists, so get the speed of light does not affect the theory of cognition.

Deep sleep or "falling into the spells" would look like this in time:

,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1 etc.

We think that being awake is: ,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2 osv.

(presupposed that awake is being permanently aware)

Awake (I call it the mind) looks however like this:

1,1,2,1,2,1,1,2,1,1,2,1,2,2,1,1,1,2,2,1 osv.

If being awake was 2,2,2,2,2 etc., then we had to experience the object in Yin-Yang relation, and we don't. Already here we can see that the premise of moment and time must be wrong, or the premise of separation of awareness and non-awareness in the moment must be wrong. But if the premise of the moment is wrong, then there is no need to talk about awareness and non-awareness in the moment, if the moment does not exist.

But why don't we experience being awake (the mind) as 2,2,2,2,2, etc.? Why do we find ourselves separate from the object?

I mention and describe the state of mind as 1,2,1,1,2,1,1,2,1,1, etc. anyway, because it gives a picture in our normal way of experiencing and thinking, namely in dualities.

Now we can see, that starting with false assumptions, we come to the conclusion that the state of the awake state necessarily must be a meditative state.

Then there's the possibility that I'm switching between being aware and un-aware, and therefore I do not experience it as a Yin-Yang relationship, but as the subject is separated from object. I am both witnessing and not witnessing at the same time to the objects of the external reality. Then I must either witness the objects of the inner reality in the moments, where I am not witnessing the outer objects, or I must sleep in these moments or be unaware.

If I was witnessing for example thoughts I would witness anyway, and then I had to have a perception non-separation, but I usually do not. Then I have to either sleep or be identified with my thoughts. But I can't be my thoughts, because I can experience my thoughts. I can be in Yin-Yang relationship to my thoughts, but I can Don't be my thoughts and at the same time experience them outside of myself.

The state of 2,2,2,2,2, etc. would mean if we experienced it this way, we would either died from it, or I am only a witness. Within this theory 2,2,2,2,2, etc. must be our epistemological correct theory of, but the traditional theory of epistemology concludes from 'We do not die of this and experience it such (ie 2,2,2,2, etc.) '- NOT, that I must therefore be a witness - but that the subject must be the ego and the setup must be wrong. Because it doesn't know the difference between the experience of the ego's death and the physical death. And not even the physical death is the death of the witness.

An additional "proof" if you want - as this strangely enough within the sciences is not considered a proof, for this is an 'inner' experience, that one cannot share with others, as one can by showing them a physical object and say, 'Here you see, it actually exists, we have the same experience of it, ergo it must exist '- is that I and others have experienced this: 2,2,2, etc.

And this I have called the meditative state. Science's so-called truth criterion is the same experience of many people. If a few experience the so-called reality differently, they are excluded by saying to them, 'You must prove it, otherwise we don't believe you.' I can - in the medium of thinking - show, that it must be so, but I can't prove let alone persuade others, because I cannot involve others in my experience, since it is only my experience.

And even in time, I cannot involve others in my experience. Maybe I can give them good advice on how to experience it, but that means, that they are willing risk dying, because if one does not die as ego, one cannot experience it. And you don't die! The meditative state is peaceful, without excitement, time and thinking (you just don't experience thoughts, but images!).

next page: VI.D.1 Continuation of the discussion

© and translation 2019 by Michael