This is a response from a site on LinkedIn.

By Gordon Paterson:

How nice for us (your readers) to once again have a great posting from you.

As you know, I'm not a Yogi, but have devoted years to the study ofJnana, in an attempt to understand Advaita, in both its Vedantic as well as Buddhic Traditions. And, in the course of study, one comes across similar concepts in all.

For me, one area of intellectual bewilderment is the notion that what we are ultimately is "Light." I asked a question about this to my Guru, Sri Nisargadatta, many years ago.

In Jnana (and in ZEN), particularly in Advaita, True Subject (of objects) cannot know itself, for when the attempt is made, one is confronted with Voidness, the famous "Emptiness" of Buddhism and ZEN.

The conclusion derived is that Subject is NOT an object, nor an entity, and furthermore has no attributes of its own, save, Being/Non-Being, Awareness, witnessing, observing---- Functionings, about which it is unaware until contrasted with an object, like Consciousness.

While this contrast produces "identity," revealing that "Subject/Awareness" appears as an "Absence" to the positivity of its contrasting object, how can it also be considered "Light?

"As an accomplished Yogi, can you spread more light on this confusion of mine? (smiling) Nirguna

In Jnana (and in ZEN), particularly in Advaita, True Subject (of objects) cannot know itself, for when the attempt is made, one is confronted with Voidness, the famous "Emptiness" of Buddhism and ZEN.

The conclusion derived is that Subject is NOT an object, nor an entity, and furthermore has no attributes of its own, save, Being/Non-Being, Awareness, witnessing, observing---- Functionings, about which it is unaware until contrasted with an object, like Consciousness.

MiBeloved's Reply:

What you wrote is valid because it is experienced honestly and truthfully by some ascetics, even ones as great Buddha.

However, it is based on the assumption that each person is exactly the same in constitution and hence the experience of one witness is the experience of every other one. This is an assumption and no solid proof was presented about it. It is like when someone dreams where he cannot prove what happened in the dream but since dreams of dreamers are similar, others can deduce that the dream was an illusion and has no significance to the physical life.

Every so often however someone dreams and what he dreamt of happens in the physical world where it cannot be said that it was just an illusion when referenced to physical events. That makes it so we have to admit that there was at least one incidence where a dream was not illusion.

What should be the conclusion then? Or should there be a footnote that there is a probability against the odds, and therefore out of every one million dreams one may be substantial?

When a True Subject cannot know itself, and it is confronted with Voidness, the "Emptiness" of Buddhism and ZEN. The conclusion derived is that since it cannot objectify itself because it is unaware of any other reference besides itself and transcendence space it is an object of self-awareness but it lacks the ability to reference itself to anything else.

For this lack of reference, it has to meditate more to reach a level where its awareness has the ability to evaluate itself. An example is sexual maturity, where a child cannot experience itself as nothing but a neuter person. But if the child does not draw a hasty conclusion, if the child just waits for time to progress, it will find itself to be a particular gender.

Why should people in a country of blind men, form the conclusion that there is no color anywhere?