The One Who Observes Cannot Be the Observed
El Que Observa No Puede Ser lo Observado
A question about the nature of self and the experiential inquiry into whether we are the body, the mind, or something prior to both.
The One Who Observes Cannot Be the Observed
A question about the nature of self and the experiential inquiry into whether we are the body, the mind, or something prior to both.
That's something new for me, another subtle deepening: the recognition that acceptance is always already there. That is a very deepening kind of acknowledgment.
The pointer behind observation
What you're taking in points to the same place as a more popular pointer, which is: notice that which is observing. In non-duality, there is a lot of pointing in this direction. If you are observing the body, you are not the body. That points to a kind of subjectivity. In Hinduism, they call it Parabrahman.
You just said that by noticing you are noticing the body, you realize that you are not the body.
Yes. It is something that points to the nature of self. If you observe and experience your body, can you be your body?
That sounds like a logical conclusion.
It is, for sure. But you can also do that exercise experientially.
Yes, and how?
From logic to direct inquiry
For example, if you look at what happens when you ask yourself a question: "Who am I?" or "What am I?" or "Where am I?" Any answer that explains the "I" or defines it in some way is a thought. This is something that could be explored for a very long time.
When you look at anything you can say after "I," it defines the "I" as an object, and it could be any kind of object. The object could be physical, such as the body. If it is not physical, it is usually some psychological construct. The body is one of the common definitions, but there is also a process called ego, a psychological entity. So you will experience yourself as, for example, a man.