Subject – Object Dilemma

The question often arises ‘Who’ is seeing? ‘Who’ is hearing? ‘Who’ is tasting, touching, smelling?

We look around us only to see a variety of objects. Man made objects in the form of furniture, vehicles etc. Nature’s objects taking the appearance of trees, puddles and clouds. Then anything that can be pointed to is an object in relation to us – ‘we’ who are subject.

But now point to your own body. Try it. Point to your foot or leg. Hang on! Who is pointing at what? Who is perceiving this leg I’m presently pointing at? The senses of course. But are not our senses a part of the body? Can body observe body?

It is similar to saying can object observe object? Of course not. An object is an object simply because it is acted upon by a subject. But if our body is an object and not the subject, where is the origin of the awareness? For that is what we are indicating when we speak of the subject.

We are the subject. Our true nature is subject. I Am. From this subject arises the notion of object – but it is an object manifesting from the one subject – which ‘I am’; and that so termed one subject is only called a subject providing there is an object to give it validity. But if the object has no substance per se, without the subject, then it cannot be said to exist as an independent entity.

In reality there is no object, just as there is no subject – at least nothing we can conceive of with the mind. Then this would imply duality and as we are told: there is no duality in non duality.

So you see the problem – the conundrum. We can only speak about subject as an object i.e. in duality. What we are describing is a representation of the subject which is not ‘it’. We can only at most point to ‘it’. The rest is Knowing. Not ‘you’ or any body knowing. Who is there to know? It’s nearer to an ‘impersonal’ knowing. Though not impersonal in the way we normally conceive of it. This Knowing embraces all there is to know – personal and impersonal, which are after all mere opposites. Knowing rises above all distinctions, then as with all opposites they as they are seen to arise following the division brought about by so-called split-mind. Whereas as ‘knowing’ is whole Mind – undivided.

Which is what these words amount to. Split mind trying to get a handle on whole mind. It never will. Why? Because split-mind is the object of whole mind, which is subject. At which point, we’re back to the beginning.

This entry was posted in Sharing and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: 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