251
Many folk of skeptical disposition ask for proof that the Teachings of The Great Perfection are ‘true’ – in other words, proof that there is there something sacred, changeless, timeless and immediate. They ask for proof that Awareness is fundamental and inescapable. They ask for proof while being the very proof they seek.
Being a contrary creature by disposition, rather than requesting proof for That which is so obvious and in-your-face, I have a different question:
Does anyone claim to have scientific proof that anything has solid, permanent and ‘real’ existence – from quantum particles to cosmic galaxies – apart from the technologies of perception within the Awareness of sentient creatures? Speak out loud.
~
echoes from emptiness 
Love this! I so enjoy the way your mind words. Have quoted you once in my blog already, but this one will probably find its way there too. Delightful!
Thank you karmiceraser and welcome!
Your blog *the sane curriculum* is full of interesting content – thank you for all that you share.
~ miriam louisa
I really like this. That’s unusual for me considering that the internet is filled with what I like to call “teenage poetry”, but you actually have talent, and the words are well crafted and thought about; you have a real poetic sense. Although, I disagree with you philosophically (I am a skeptic), I really like your work.
“Does anyone claim to have scientific proof that anything has solid, permanent and ‘real’ existence – from quantum particles to cosmic galaxies – apart from the technologies of perception within the Awareness of sentient creatures? Speak out loud.”
No, science does not claim anything that it cannot know. That is what skepticism is, essentially. It’s not that we completely dismiss anything metaphysical, it’s just that we don’t assert things we cannot know. On the matter of existence in general, we can only assert that things exist as far as our senses and technologies, which are mostly extensions of our senses, can observe. Science makes no claims about the metaphysical, other than the fact that we can have evidence of absence of certain traits attributed to metaphysical creators and beings, ie. evolution is evidence of the absence of a creator who created us as we are now.
Anyway, I just wanted to try to answer that question for you. Keep up the good work, your writing is beautiful. =]
Great comment – thank you! Your feedback re my writing is appreciated.
I’ve been over to your blog and return the compliment – good stuff, keep it up.
You have made it surprisingly clear to me that at heart I must be a skeptic.
I too cannot claim anything I don’t know.
I don’t know anything about metaphysical creators and beings.
I can’t vouch that my observations of – anything, thoughts included – are other than creations of this (unknowable) knowingness that knows, and I cannot separate this knowingness (awareness) from what it knows.
And since this is all I can say I *know*, at the bottom-line, I must dismiss apparent “evolution” as evidence for or against anything. But it’s a great story- beautiful, poetic, awesome!
The writing on this blog consists of morning notes written over the period of a year – following the free-fall into *emptiness* – nb not nihilism – when I was coming to terms with “nonpersonal nondual nothingness/everythingness.” Howzat for a mouthful!
What is the only thing you can claim to know for sure, for YOU?
~ miriam louisa
PS “Truth is the truth even if no one believes it, and a lie is a lie even if everyone believes it.” Excellent!
We share a book list. I like that. Have you read Stanley Sobottka? (Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of Virginia.)
http://faculty.virginia.edu/consciousness/
Thank you, for the compliment. I would like to ask a question: How exactly would you define ‘awareness’?
And about your question. “What is the only thing you can claim to know for sure, for YOU?” This is a very loaded question, I think I’ll answer it on my next post. To my initial reaction, it seems it may be too lengthy to answer in a comment.
PS No, I have not read this, but I went to the link and downloaded the PDF. I will definitely read it. Although, just at first glance, it kind of looks like one of those New Age things that use scientific jargon incorrectly to make their pseudoscience look more official, but I could be wrong, that’s just my initial reaction. I can’t guarantee I’ll like it, but I will definitely read it and get back to you. Thank you. =]
Sorry, I accidentally left a question out: On what grounds do you dismiss evolution? It’s not an attack, I promise, I’m simply curious. =]
From the perspective of Awareness, which is the only thing happening here or anywhere, evolution is just another story. I don’t dismiss the story at all, just the claim that it’s true, or any truer than any other story thought can come up with. All of them arising within, and inseparable from, changeless Awareness. Wondrous!
Which pretty much sums up the way I’d define Awareness, since you asked.
My question isn’t a loaded one. It’s the simplest of the simple. But you need to dump the belief-ballast to get into it. Including the belief that there’s a knowable answer.
Is it necessary to “like” what you read? Or is it more interesting to observe how one habitually rises to “like” or “dislike” and look into that movement?
~ ml
I disagree, you are asserting things that are completely subjective. If you want to get into existence, you have to look at objective reality or else you get lost in unknowable possibilities. Such as, we may all be programs running on a hyper-advanced computer running in the future to reexamine history, or even code in a single program; we could be the personification of ideas within the dreams of another being. All in all, none of this is helpful or even knowable on any level, so we must start with a basic assumption that objective reality is what we sense with sensory organs or you have no basis to even begin building experience on. Asserting subjective ideas about other conscious beings is futile. There is no way to move forward beyond hypothesis, and you definitely shouldn’t assert these ideas as objective fact because truth is often times the opposite of the subjective.
Again, I think I need to reiterate, because it’s hard to give tone through typing, that I am not debating you in an angry fashion. I genuinely enjoy conversing with intelligent people, which I think you are. =]
PS Do you have a Facebook or something to IM with? You seem very interesting and I would like to have a more active discussion about this. It may just be that the comment back and forth is a little slow for me, I may just be impatient…
Yep. Awareness is ultimate subjectivity. One, without a second. It couldn’t care less whether it’s agreed with or not. It knows no inside or outside or objects therein. Objects are Awareness as Awareness. Anyone can find this out for themselves – it just depends where their interest lies. Most folk are more interested in experience, and that’s perfectly ok – Awareness is playing the experience game.
Awareness is unhelpful and unknowable. It couldn’t care less what the stories are shouting on about. It makes no difference whatsoever. This doesn’t mean that help isn’t given, and knowledge – and experience – is avoided. Au contraire! Awareness is the full embrace, the fully monty.
I only share what I have found to be true here. I respect your views and have zero interest in changing them. Perhaps this is just crazy crone talk. Beaming out of “another being.” So what? Timeless, changeless, Awareingness is utterly affected.
~ ml