Dear Mr. Möller,
I have been reading your posts since Spiritual Humanism group was open.
There is something with which I do not agree. As far as I understand, you tend
to deny. You deny for example, the possibility (for me the reality) of
Consciousness as sustained by itself. And you deny the possibility of eastern
phylosophies and practices as still valid tools for the enquiry on the reality of
the Self or Existance (of ourselves).
By my first hand experience I may say that you deny things that cannot be
denied. I feel you may question them untill you can, by your own observation
or experience, decide the impossibility or non reality of these. But while there
is a minimum possibility, it is not fair to deny anything.
I base what I say in some things as the following.
"So when you try to "invert' consciousness upon itself
and experience it as 'pure consciousness', you are back to the observer
and the observed. You may use the words 'and let consciousness
experience its own being', but if you observe yourself carefully, you will
soon discover that the 'consciousness' which is presumably experiencing
its 'own' being , is nothing other than your ordinary separate self-sense
doing its normal thing of observer and observed. No wonder you could
not get it right. By trying to do this, you discovered something very
important: consciousness cannot be its own object. Try as you may, you
will never separate consciousness out from any living moment as pure
consciousness. Consciousness and content go together. They are always a
joint phenomenon. There is no consciousness without content, and no
content without consciousness."
I say content is impermanent...Consciousness is permanent (eternally
present). Content appears, is sutained for a while and then disappears.
Consciousness is that from which content arises and that which sustains it.
Content is of time and space...Consiousness is out of time, out of space.
And some more things about this subject, but I find this enough by now.
Maybe I am not understanding correctly what you mean, so I hope you may
answer this for my better understanding. You have worked hard, and your
book looks impressioning, so I would prefer to be mis understanding rather to
think that you are placing incomplete truths on the way of the seekers.