Chapter 4 Where is this?

Where is this?


Ten Zen Questions is just out. I’m really pleased with how the book looks, and hope you readers are too. There’s a fun review in the Guardian, and I’ll post others as they come in at reviews.

Now to the fourth question. You will recall that I ended the previous question, Who is Asking the Question? with no satisfactory answer. Yet the process of asking such a self-referential and difficult question led to some wonderful experiences – polishing a set of bells with no sense of anyone polishing was something special, but … the question was still there.

By contrast, question 4 looks a little easier. Where is this?


I suggest that you take a little time to sit and calm your mind, and then have a go at the question yourself. What ‘this’ will you choose? Isn’t the answer obvious? When you’ve had a go the question, read chapter 4 and see what you think of my attempts.

I’m really enjoying the discussion that is going on here, so I look forward to more comments.

33 Responses to “Chapter 4 Where is this?”

  1. yoshizen Says:

    It is a beautiful script, I could even smell cool misty air.

    Though, for this, Buddha would have given even a word
    in stead he would pick up the flower and smile to Susan.
    —-as it was written in the “Pick a flower and smile-Mantra”
    (Nenge Misho-Kyo in Japanese)

    The teaching there was, To see the existence (also called
    Dharma) as its entity and not in the dissect elements or
    in an interpretation, not even by the name its carries.
    Since, the viewer’s vision, its perception, even the very
    existence of the viewer himself may not be certain.

    My left and right eye sees slightly different colour.
    I know it, since I used be a photographer who need to
    check the deviation of the colour in the different lens
    or different batch of the same film.
    So, how can I tell, the other person is seeing the colour same as me (One of my friend is even a colour blind)

    The knowledge of such as why all the spring flower
    has either yellow or blue colour because it has the
    maximum visual appeal to the vision of spring insects,
    is a fun. —–though is it the matter to a rayman who is
    struggling in their life ? ———

    Yet still, it is the pleasure to see the beautiful flowers.
    Smile please.

  2. yoshizen Says:

    The notion or even the perception of It is there,
    and its side effect— the alienation of self and the
    objective existence of Self has been started when our
    brain power was increased and gained the 3D imagination.

    To have 3D imagination, the separation of the view point is escential.
    Once the view point is separated from one’s eye point
    then it is possible to see even the self, objectively.

    In my observation, a person who got good 3D vision
    is also good to handle the things in rational manner.
    (In contrast, a person who can not read even a map
    is hard to convince——you may know someone)

    Zen is the technique (or people like to say, way of the life)
    to overcome aforesaid alienation and to fuse the self
    to the object. (Nishin ichijo / fuse two heart in one)
    Like, not a sword and the Samurai but Samurai himself
    is the sword.
    This is not a strange idea. To do skiing, when the ski
    become a part of the body then he can ski instinctively.

  3. tenzenbookblog Says:

    As it happens I am skiing today: mindful fear in deep, steep white stuff.

  4. yoshizen Says:

    Once a gymnast I met before said, when she was doing
    such as a parallel bar, the fear made her hand not stretched enough and failed to catch the bar——
    Skiing has the same tendency, when I had fear, my body
    declined to the back, causing the front of the ski board
    to have less pressure and loosing the grip (then fall)

    After left Japan and had a drifter like life, pilgrimed the
    J S Bach’s organ music while clicking the camera 2 years
    I went back Japan in a winter. Then taking the occasion,
    my old mates of our Uni’s Alpine club organized a ski
    On that time, my be I have had gained the contemplation
    of life and the death, I could throw my body to the front
    of the ski board without fear thus freeing the tail to
    move freely while keeping enough grip of the snow.
    I’ve amazed, “Oh, I didn’t know I was such a good skier”.

    Life is the paradox itself, when we overzealously try to
    gain something with a greed, we fail.
    In stead, when we live a life just doing the task next by
    next in its best wile following the flow, strangely (!)
    a help or “What a good coincidence” kind, happens.
    (I wouldn’t use the word “It will”)—–I’ve only observed
    as it happened also to others ——it might be really the coincidence.
    Yet still, repeated coincidence made me to suspect
    M m m—- something there behind)

  5. yoshizen Says:

    When I have typed above two blogs I made some mistakes,
    “Buddha would have given a word” is obviously
    Buddha wouldn’t have given—–.
    “—-. my be gained—-” is may be gained , among the other
    But when I was typing, I had the script in my mind and
    as I was unconsciouly imposing this memory over the actual letter appeared on the screen, I couldn’t even
    see the mistake.

    We see the things as what we want to see or what it
    should be.
    So that if the one has been deluded, even see an illusion.

    When we are having such unreliable perception,
    try to define something “there” ( may not be there in
    the first place) is very difficult, especially as we are
    relying on the words supposed to have the same
    meaning with others (the communication theory said
    If the definition overlapping more than 60% it is
    possible to comminucate—— so we are presuming it
    on the 40% different picture)

    Still, the flower or flag stone is there, regardless what
    the one or others thinking or arguing, so that if the
    flower is the matter, just see the flower as its entirety.
    This is what the teaching of “See yourself don’t rely
    on the intellectual means” meant.
    ——though, to see the flower in its entirety, we need
    to vacate all of imposing thought in the brain. (It may
    needs to practice many years——-Ha, Hie—-)

    Argument of “there here who me” had been discussed
    in the Abhidahrma, the most painful task to under take
    in the Buddhism learning. After 2000 years, we are still
    non the wiser. ——Ha, Hie, Ha, Hie 😀

  6. tenzenbookblog Says:

    I have been skiing for nearly 50 years – from long wooden skis with cable bindings and leather lace-up boots, to short carvers and plastic. If it weren’t for the fear I wouldn’t have bothered. That morning I was up with my son, above the clouds, launching ourselves into fields of virgin snow deeper than my ski sticks. We all do different things for different reasons but the Zen point is to do so mindfully.

  7. yoshizen Says:

    Wao! I remember there was one such wooden ski in our
    club house, said to be used by our old boy of our Alpine
    Club (of Japan).

    After real sward fight, the skiing must be one of the best sports to be in the state of mindfulness. (other may be
    sailing on the open sea and the hung gliding)

    In the overwhelming landscape and surrounded by the absolute power of the nature, it forces us to be in the
    state of mindfulness.
    Any shortcoming, misjudgement hit back us instantly,
    and end up even in fatality.

    We used the ski mainly for the approach of the rock
    climbing in the winter time.
    I remember the moment, standing on the snow, over looking the horizon where we were going to ski down
    ( with sigh of relief, goodness climbing has finished)
    The trouble was, we were still carrying more than
    30 kg of back-pack. —–not very ideal to enjoy nice

  8. yoshizen Says:

    On previous blog I used a word “mindfulness” just by
    guessing (may be 60 % would be correct) still, I’m
    wondering where this expression came from.

    In Japan with the common knowledge of the Zen, even
    a man on the street often use the word “Mushin” (void or
    non-existent of the mind), when they are absorbed to do
    So that, you believe or not, when they play notorious “Pachinko” (Japanese pin ball—–largest money
    spinner among the industry—-not Toyota), they says
    “To play Pachinko, I can just absorbed by it. This is the
    moment I can enjoy in Mushin”—— and it is not too far from the Zen practice, in deed.

    Most common misunderstanding of the Zen in the west,
    is that people think it is the way to concentrate.
    Far from it, there is no such high-pressured psyche in
    the Zen, at all.
    Simply, there is nothing else but the Pachinko machine
    exist. Therefore noting else bother him.
    When only that Pachnko machine exist in the world he
    has no choice but just play it.

    Zen is the master of seeing, and in the same time, the master of absolutely not seeing anything else.
    Just like closing a program in the computer or delete
    a file. So that the computer just ignore the input or
    stop to respond.
    Zen is only asking to deal with one thing at the time
    and the thing on front. Any thought not related to that
    thing is the Zatsunen ( bothering thought)

    In the mind of the Sward master, he only see the
    movement of the sward of the opponent. Who he is
    the out of the scope, therefore no Zatsunen, no fear.

    As the Zen evolved in China, the notion of Mu (Japanese)
    or Wu (in Chinese)—-Void or Nothing is entwined in
    the Zen teaching.

    In my observation, the psychological state of the mind
    is, just leaving the control to the subconsciousness.
    With out interference of any intellectual thought, the
    body can carries out the task——therefore “Mushin”

  9. yoshizen Says:

    Most plain and yet most fundamental question is, that
    those “looks quite high blow intellectual argument” is
    what Buddha had ever intended ?
    Was that anything to do with the people he wanted to
    save from their sufferings ?

    If the Buddha wanted to become a philosopher, he could
    have chosen to have the life of a Brahman high priest.
    But that was the very idea what the Buddha rejected.

    The most of the people who follow the Buddha may
    not even be a literate.

    The logical argument such as in the Abhidarma-cosa
    contributed the development of the Indian philosophy.
    But its own existence in the ivory tower drive the
    Buddhism to the Hina-yana.

  10. yoshizen Says:

    Ups, it was Mahayana not Hinayana.
    Any how the pretence of the “highly learned Arakhan”
    caused the split of the Buddhism.
    (though, the practice kept in the southern Buddhism
    tradition, walk round round round, looked to me
    the closest to the origin of the Buddha’s teaching.)

    Remember the story? Buddha told a man who has learning
    difficulty to sweep the ground of the Deer garden,
    and the man Chuli Pantac (Shuri Bantoku, in Japanese)
    said to have attained the Enlightenment after
    doing it 10 years.
    Buddhism, especially the Zen, the matter is Doing
    no thinking.

  11. Chris B. Says:

    > What ‘this’ will you choose?

    I chose this blog post…

    Is it located on my monitor?
    Is it in my computer?
    Is it in my brain, as an internal representation of what’s on my monitor?
    Is it elsewhere in my brain, as a conceptual interpretation of that representation?
    Is it on the server which hosts your blog?
    Is it in your brain, in the past, prior to you submitting this post?
    Is it also in the minds of other readers, past present and future, of your blog?
    Is it somehow smeared out across time and space, in that it’s “location” comprises all of the above?
    Is it maybe “located” in some sort of Popperian noosphere or abstract Platonic world of forms?

    > Isn’t the answer obvious?

    I’m not sure how one would even begin to address the philosophical aspects of contemporary memetics in a Zen-like fashion.

  12. yoshizen Says:

    Many years ago I worked for a well known editor of a magazine, and I noticed, he is also a pretty enlightened
    Zen Buddhist.
    During a chat, when I used a word IF , he shouted back me
    ” There is no IF in the life”.
    This words almost enlightened me like a lightning.

    Before he left to Japan he gave me an advice “Offer
    helping hand or advice to whoever the person you met
    unconditionally . This is the Buddhist duty. Because of
    you to encounter this person is the crossing point of
    the two Karmas. It was not just a coincidence.
    Though, the help should be only once.
    The Buddha said have given three times, but small
    man like us can do it only once.

    When the advice didn’t work, it is the sign of that the
    person has born to go through different path way.
    So that, even if the person seemed to be in suffering
    he may needs to suffer for his Karma.
    The repeating words are only the nuisance to him.
    And in deed, it is the interference to the person who
    has been created to be an unique entity, and you
    have to pay respect to this.
    You can’t interfere the Buddha’s work as he created
    that person intentionally.”

    I followed this since.

    * * *

    It was the encounter as one of my friend gave me a
    as any encounter I have to do at my best
    as my duty. And my duty here is complete.

  13. yoshizen Says:

    This site seems removing the words in the bracket
    In the above blog , in the last paragraph,
    ——-gave me a inter net link of this And
    is missing may be because it was in the bracket.
    Or the ploy to make it looks silly.

  14. banoffi Says:

    This is here, and that is there. That cat over there is here in this street, and that star over there is here in this galaxy. Maybe we need some words for things which are between here and there, and aren’t quite this or that.

  15. banoffi Says:

    If God is omnipresent, how does (s)he know here (s)he is?

  16. jdssmith Says:

    Where is this indeed.

    If someone were to approach you on the street and ask you “Where is this?” how would you respond? You would probably tell them the name of the street and the town. You may well ask them what they actually meant. You would probably assume they were not from this country, for “Where is this?” is not a question any native would ask (except to be provocative). The question has no context, and no meaning, even if you only ask it of yourself.

    But that is probably the point in Zen, ask yourself meaningless questions in the hope of gaining some understanding or insight. Whether or not it is worth doing this is a value judgement.

    Round and round and round, the same old phrases, the same subjective values implied or spoken in so many sentences both in the chapter and in the posts.

    Descriptions of reality are only descriptions, not the reality they describe. No matter how complex a description, it is always incomplete.

    Information stored in a human brain is categorised in many ways. Lack of storage space means that it is also simplified.

    Asking Zen questions may be advantageous for a human mind as it tends to highlight what is not known, what is not understood, what is assumed, what is taken for granted. Comprehension of how little you know influences the things you say, and to a lesser extent, the things you do.

    Equally Zen can distract from attempts to comprehend, substituting the wisdom of not knowing for the hard work of wrestling with complexity. Asking many unanswerable questions in a short period of time is a particular Zen characteristic than tends to generate confusion, and the probable dismissal of Zen as being of much use to an individual. This can make it an exclusive rather than an inclusive discipline (as are most philosophical disciplines) attracting a relatively narrow band of like minds.

    So just for a change, here are some (provocative) answers.

    In evolutionary terms the human mind is a biomechanical Guess and Test Machine that either gives or fails to give the host genes an edge in terms of simple persistence. It does this by predicting outcomes, from the next few seconds to the far distant future. The success or failure of a prediction adds to or subtracts ‘weight’ from the mechanisms used in arriving at it.

    Thought Triggers Emotion
    Emotion Filters Thought

    ‘Zen’, ‘Self’, ‘Where’ and ‘Consciousness’ are words.
    Words are sounds.

    Concepts are patterns of words.
    Memories of concepts are patterns of words stored in a human brain.
    Memories of words are recalled using parts of the auditory system.
    Thoughts are memories of concepts heard again.
    Thoughts are ‘heard’ not ‘had’.

    In a typical human brain, memories are activated continuously.
    Memory storage is loose, New Ideas are corrupted memories.
    In a typical human brain, only one thought arises at a time.

    Concept memories, or thoughts, link to other thoughts. Which thought arises next is partly dependent on the one that came before.

    Emotions are chemical states in the brain of an organism. The Current Emotion corresponds to a particular chemical balance.

    Thoughts are more than their content, they are also emotion-coded.
    The coding has two principal values, ’emotional type’ and ‘intensity’
    Which thought arises next is partly dependent on the current emotional state.
    Emotion Filters Thought.

    The emotional coding of an arising memory alters the current emotional state.
    It will shift the prevailing emotion towards its own type.
    The degree of shift depends on the arising memory’s intensity coding, and the intensity of the prevailing emotion.
    Thought Triggers Emotion.

    Emotions are of two principal types, ‘Satisfying’ and ‘Unsatisfying’.
    The brain of an organism triggers and drives actions with the purpose of moving the emotional state from unsatisfied to satisfied. Zen meditation is an action.

    Human brains seem particularly unable to sustain a Satisfied state of mind for long.
    High levels of disatisfaction lead to high levels of activity.
    This is partly responsible for the current human evolutionary edge over other species.

    Without all the unsatisfying emotions there would have been no evolution of the human brain to its present form.
    Anger, Fear, Disgust, Disappointment, Jealousy, Annoyance, Frustration, Ugliness, Bitterness, Guilt … (the potential list seems long), have played as much of a role in the evolution of the species as Love, Joy, Wonder, Interest, Achievement, Beauty … (the potential list seems much shorter).

    There is no ‘good’ or ‘bad’ emotion, no intrinsically good or bad idea, no good or bad way forward. There is just a vast host of possible ways, each with subsequent consequences for the persistence of individuals, the genes that own them, and the concepts they promote.

    The mechanisms that sustain the human brain, with its particularly complex feedback loop of emotion and thought, plus the mechanisms that sustain the highly evolved human capacity for mimicry, have given rise to a system that was almost bound to lead to a deluded concept of consciousness.


    … Now there’s only one thought coming into attention
    Into attention at any one time
    Making out the patterns to predict the future
    Driven by the pressure to be a satisfied mind

    And a satisfied mind is always fleeting
    A satisfied mind is always going to move on
    In human kind, so much dissatisfaction
    Giving it the edge that it’s thriving on


    … Mix some simple emotions with memory
    And a false sense of self will arise


    Interest and Curiosity are emotions.

  17. tenzenbookblog Says:

    You are right that “where is this?” is not a question an ordinary Engish speaker would ask, and right to query the point of asking it, but I hope that my explorations give some sense of that point.
    Near the end of your comment you write “Now there’s only one thought coming into attention …”
    After asking these questions I can no longer think in those Cartesian materialist terms. Is there really a “now”? Not in experience when I looked hard for it. Is attention a container (or space, or stage, or spotlight) into which things can come? I think not.
    To discover this is, for me, the point of asking these questions.

  18. jacques79 Says:

    When you try hard to look deep into “this”, it always disappear, doesn’t it? No matter wheter “this” is a thought or emotion, mind or matter, it always disappears… Just try to find some concrete essence of thought or to fully explain what the flower is… But there’s also paradox which cannot be understood by logically – thinking mind… The substance is empty and full at the same time: form’s empty, emptiness is a form..

  19. mrealg Says:

    Hello Susan

    Ealg and myself have not had a chance to check here for a while

    This is an interesting question, however I wonder again if we are not being trapped by language rather than by things. I often think that language is far more important than people give it credit for (especially in the English speaking world where many people are monolingual).

    What does “where” or “here” mean? cartesian coordinates? “where” is the universe? “where” is the Internet, as Chris B. implies?

    I was also very interested to read your concentration on the yellow of the flower, questioning and worrying about its location and status, and how you were constantly aware of sounds, but accepted them as unproblematical. Where is the sound of the traffic, or the aeroplane? Also when? Presumably you registered the plane’s sound at some point but it would have been slowly growing for a while.

    This also reminds me of the old chestnut, if a tree falls in the desert island and there is no one to hear it, does it make a sound? It depends what you mean by a sound.

    I really think that perception of sound works in a very different way from perception of sight, and that critical comparison of the different world-views generated by each sense against the other can be a very productive investigation. Needless to say aural perception is almost entirely ignored by mainstream psychology and other sciences.

    Final answer – the Yellow is not a discrete thing and so cannot be said to have a discrete location in space-time. It has many aspects, some of which do have location – the pigment chemicals are in the surface of the petal, the neurons firing are in the optic nerve. Other aspects have no location – the etymology and grammar and spelling of the word “yellow”, the cultural associations of it (e.g. warning, wasps), these are abstractions and do not have independent physical existence in space-time.

  20. jacques79 Says:

    Mrealg – I think you are quite right. Words, words, words – so useful and yet so inconvenient and inadequate… It’s easy to get stuck in the words and not even realize that. Zen, as I see it, is the art of taking experiences and live directly without extra help from some intelectual tools or intermediary in your very head. Even coan system (far from being “intelectual” anyway) is seen to be something artifical and apart from Zen in its purity. And that’s the reason I’m sceptical about mixing Zen up with science. Whatever the outcome is, is it still Zen?
    As one roshi summed it up: “You must lose your mind and come to the senses. Then you may find sitting Budha there”. Or – at least – you will have one world less out of your head, which is kind of enlightement itself.
    Hmm.. Or maybe I’m wrong or just don’t feel it? Or maybe that’s the point – to “lose” the mind?

  21. tenzenbookblog Says:

    Ah words.
    I even wondered about a totally blank book – but that’s a silly idea, cutting down all those trees for nothing. Blank pages wouldn’t convey the wordless mind.
    I guess this is the point of all those Zen stories about pointing.
    Zen cannot be described; enlightenment cannot be described; Budha mind cannot be described. So why use words? Because they can point to something beyond words.

  22. Chris B. Says:

    At least compared to the time when Zen was invented there’s lots more words now (and lots more stuff to talk about). Probably ideas which were virtually inconceivable back then are more easily pointed to due to our better descriptive power.

    >I really think that perception of sound works in a very
    >different way from perception of sight, and that critical
    >comparison of the different world-views generated by
    >each sense against the other can be a very
    >productive investigation.

    How does the brain process data on the time axis that are neccessary for extrapolating frequency information? Presumably the mechanism by which our brain deals with raw pressure information from our ears is relevant to how our visual system extrapolates motion from the data from our eyes. Does the brain use some kind of data buffer or is it like a finite state machine with regard to handling sensory input?

    TBH my knowledge of how the brain works is pretty limited, but the “meta-physics” pertaining to our awareness of temporal phenomena is interesting to me – so I’m looking forward to when questions six and seven feature on the blog.

  23. jacques79 Says:

    Ok, so what’s the truth that words point?

  24. peeked Says:

    “Years pass.

    Am I conscious now? No I’m not.


    I realise for the first time that I can answer “No”. What if this slippery, difficult, not quite being really here, is not being conscious, and I should have been answering “no” all along? ”

    How can you be aware of anything, thought, sensation, environment, or even simply aware that you are asking yourself this question, and then answer “No, I’m not…” If you were not conscious in that moment, then how could you report this?

  25. tenzenbookblog Says:

    Because it’s all fallen apart.
    There is no me.

  26. Chris B. Says:

    >How can you be aware of anything, thought, sensation,
    >environment, or even simply aware that you are asking
    >yourself this question, and then answer “No, I’m not…”
    >If you were not conscious in that moment, then how
    >could you report this?

    There is awareness and there is you – but it’s not necessarily “you” that is aware…

    Hm…your brain incorporates some kind of self-concept in it’s internal representation of reality – but just because there is awareness of that self-concept, it doesn’t follow that that self-concept (or your brain) is in itself self-aware?

    Uh…well…”you” have an idea of what you is…but is it YOU that’s aware of that idea? (“I’m” struggling to express my point here!)

    >There is no me.

    No. There is very definitely a “me”…my memories, my intentions, my regrets, my hopes, the consequences of my actions…all of these exist – but it’s maybe not “me” that’s aware of their existence…

    >There is no me.

    So what/who is aware of your brain’s internal conceptualization of reality? Someone/something must be, otherwise you wouldn’t be “here” discussing such matters…what exactly is that someone/something?

    >There is no me.

    So what is there? To what/who do you ascribe this awareness of “me”? There is very definitely awareness of “me”…what is the nature of that awareness?

  27. tenzenbookblog Says:

    You are talking about the ordinary awareness of “me” and I agree with much of what you say, but Peeked asked me how I could answer “No, I am not conscious now”.
    Sometimes everything falls apart and stuff goes on without anyone experiencing it – without anyone being there to say “Yes, I am conscious now”.
    How someone remembers it later I do not know, but this is what I was trying to describe.

  28. peeked Says:

    Okay. You blew my mind. I did not see that coming.
    So you have this as a temporary experience, or as a permanent change?
    In Buddhism they have at least a couple words for this. Nirodha (“ni” (without) + “rodha” (prison, confine, obstacle, wall, impediment) and Anatta (no-self or no soul).

    Some people (“I” included) see the end of the self sense as the most worthy outcome a human being can experience. With the end of the “I” comes the end of “Mine”, the source of all dukkha (my own informal translation- dukkha=everything that sucks about life). As George Harrison sang-

    All through the day, I me mine
    I me mine, I me mine
    All through the night, I me mine
    I me mine, I me mine
    Now they’re frightened of leaving it
    Everyone’s weaving it
    Coming on strong all the time
    All through the day I me mine

    I-I-me-me-mine, I-I-me-me-mine
    I-I-me-me-mine, I-I-me-me-mine


    I don’t see how “I” can imagine my life without an “I” at the center. But I try anyway. I think the “I” sense and the “mine” sense creates lots of unnecessary friction in one’s body and in one’s relationships. Without an “I” one would not collide with other people’s “I” sense. Without the “I” sense, one would have more fluidity, flexibility, and responsiveness. More zest for life.

    At the risk of sounding grandiose, I see the “I-I-me-me-mine” as the source of everything wrong in the world. I see it as a prison, (rodha) and I would rather live free. Reading this, I see the paradox or language trap in saying “I want this”. Sometimes I wonder if our language doesn’t completely create the “I” sense out of nothing.

    Anyway, I will definitely buy your TZQ book and read it. Thanks.

  29. jacques79 Says:

    Buddha mind is everyday mind. There is nothing else to look for outside the mind. Who would bother about the enlightement?

  30. tenzenbookblog Says:

    Temporary or permanent? asks Peeked.
    I am tempted to say temporary, but then in that temporariness it’s obvious that this is how everything is, all the time.

  31. Chris B. Says:

    >You are talking about the ordinary awareness of “me”
    >and I agree with much of what you say, but Peeked
    >asked me how I could answer “No, I am not conscious now”.

    FWIW I’m not sure that *I* agree with everything I said – I can’t easily assimilate the statement: “There is no me”, but then again I suppose such explorations of the concept are contrary to the praxis of Zen.

    I can see that there are times when self-awareness appears not to be present, but whatever awareness exists during those times seems to be awareness from the point of view of “my” unique perspective – so is it not fair to claim that awareness as mine, despite awareness of “me” not being contained within it?

  32. jacques79 Says:

    The “one” that sees cannot see itself, like an eye can see everything except itself. So everything what you see as “me” or sense of you… – is just like clouds flowing across the sky.

  33. thisica Says:

    After all, how is it possible for anyone to be totally self-aware of what happens around them?

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your 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: