2 ms·

> I am merely the observer of all these Perhaps there is a mere observer, but you are not it. If you were a mere observer, then how did that observation reach

> I am merely the observer of all these Perhaps there is a mere observer, but you are not it. If you were a mere observer, then how did that observation reach your hands? Things can exist without being fundamental components of reality. A Lego house is still a Lego house, even if it ceases to be when the bricks are separated, and has no identity separate from those bricks save for what we assign it. The identity, such that there truly is one (does “truly” even make sense here?), is partly in the arrangement, which is not a tangible thing.

qwerty456127 5y ago
> Perhaps there is a mere observer, but you are not it. Sure, because I am not anything. I told this all is a simplification. And yes, this contradicts the statement that I am the observer. Whatever I could express in words is doomed to be just a simplified and corrupted model which can just give a hint but not tell "the truth" as it is. In fact the observer also can be pointed to and has a word for it in the Buddhist languages but actually (rather than epistemologically) dissociating from it is a particularly advanced step. > A Lego house is still a Lego house This is Zen. Of course everything is what it is but to truly realize this you have to go through the weird place of "nothing is what it seems" first. I believe a Zen master described his experience this way and that is quoted somewhere in Alan Watts' "The Way of Zen", more close to the end of the book than to its beginning. Albeit not a Zen master, I can confirm from my own experience, this actually is a path worth going rather than a simple truism hardly worth even saying as it seems first.