Experiencer or No Expereincer?

[WokeBloke]

So some Buddhists say there is no experiencer/self. I'm curious to hear my opinions on this.

[OneHandClap]

15 minutes ago, WokeBloke said:

So some Buddhists say there is no experiencer/self. I'm curious to hear my opinions on this.

There isn't one. Experiences are "knowing" themselves. The reason there is no experiencer/self is because it requires separation from the objects being perceived. I.e. a witnessing self would have to be distinct from phenomena. But as anybody can find out, it is one seamless whole. There is no duality in being. 

Btw, if you are interested in this, you can look into cessation. Hot topic around here, but essentially, once the self and dualistic perception fades, lights out. Collapse the witness, and you collapse the whole show. 

Edited October 19, 2021 by OneHandClap

[Terell Kirby]

There is an experiencer, but it is invisible..not bound by form.

It's also who you are.

Edited October 19, 2021 by Terell Kirby

[WokeBloke]

28 minutes ago, OneHandClap said:

There isn't one. Experiences are "knowing" themselves. The reason there is no experiencer/self is because it requires separation from the objects being perceived. I.e. a witnessing self would have to be distinct from phenomena. But as anybody can find out, it is one seamless whole. There is no duality in being. 

Btw, if you are interested in this, you can look into cessation. Hot topic around here, but essentially, once the self and dualistic perception fades, lights out. Collapse the witness, and you collapse the whole show. 

How can one find it is a seamless whole if there is no experiencer to find out?

What if the experiencer is the object? In other words the body is the experiencer. And there are objects within the experiencer that are not experiencing such as a pencil. 

No one has achieved cessation because if I did there would be no one to talk about it lol. 

 

Edited October 19, 2021 by WokeBloke

[OneHandClap]

10 minutes ago, WokeBloke said:

How can one find it is a seamless whole if there is no experiencer to find out?

What if the experiencer is the object? In other words the body is the experiencer. And there are objects within the experiencer that are not experiencing such as a pencil. 

No one has achieved cessation because if I did there would be no one to talk about it lol. 

 

Your last line says it all. There is no experiencer in cessation. There is also no experiencer in daily life, but we are ignorant of that truth. 

The fact that you believe there is a self/experiencer is, in Buddhist thought, the root of your ignorance, and what binds sentient beings to rebirth. Get rid of the delusion of self, and there is nobody to suffer. Nobody to undergo samsara. 

[WokeBloke]

10 minutes ago, OneHandClap said:

Your last line says it all. There is no experiencer in cessation. There is also no experiencer in daily life, but we are ignorant of that truth. 

The fact that you believe there is a self/experiencer is, in Buddhist thought, the root of your ignorance, and what binds sentient beings to rebirth. Get rid of the delusion of self, and there is nobody to suffer. Nobody to undergo samsara. 

To that I would say whose ignorance is it? If I am not experiencing then how can I remove my ignorance? 

One could say the experiencer is not a belief. It is ever present. Every experience proves there is an experiencer. 

 

Also is there is no experiencer in cessation then there is no actual cessation because it is impossible to experience cessation.

[OneHandClap]

9 minutes ago, WokeBloke said:

To that I would say whose ignorance is it? If I am not experiencing then how can I remove my ignorance? 

One could say the experiencer is not a belief. It is ever present. Every experience proves there is an experiencer. 

 

Also is there is no experiencer in cessation then there is no actual cessation because it is impossible to experience cessation.

No, every experience does not prove there is an experiencer. Again, this is the very delusion that Buddhism (which you mentioned) is speaking to. Look up the Bahiya sutra. "In the seen, there is only the seen." AKA, no "see-r." There is only experience occurring. Delusion arises when we say "I am seeing." In reality, there is just seeing. "I" is a thought. You are adding the element of selfhood to a process without self or agency. 

Also, if you have not gone far enough in meditation to speak about cessation, there's no point in debating it. I can describe the taste of sugar to you all day, but you will not know what sweetness is without a bite

Edit: In reference to your question about "whose ignorance is it," the answer is obvious. When selflessness is fully realized, ignorance is gone, because there is no longer a self to be ignorant. 

Edited October 19, 2021 by OneHandClap

[Carl-Richard]

"Find the experiencer" can be used as a pointer towards awareness, but it contains an implicit duality that can be deconstructed (experiencer/experienced). This is nevertheless a problem with all pointers, because pointing is communication, and communication is dualistic. Truth is existential.

[OneHandClap]

1 minute ago, Carl-Richard said:

"Find the experiencer" can be used as a pointer towards awareness, but it contains an implicit duality that can be deconstructed (experiencer/experienced). This is nevertheless a problem with all pointers, because pointing is communication, and communication is dualistic. Truth is existential.

Well said! Via negativa. Continue peeling back the layers until we find the (no) core

[WokeBloke]

22 minutes ago, OneHandClap said:

No, every experience does not prove there is an experiencer. Again, this is the very delusion that Buddhism (which you mentioned) is speaking to. Look up the Bahiya sutra. "In the seen, there is only the seen." AKA, no "see-r." There is only experience occurring. Delusion arises when we say "I am seeing." In reality, there is just seeing. "I" is a thought. You are adding the element of selfhood to a process without self or agency. 

Also, if you have not gone far enough in meditation to speak about cessation, there's no point in debating it. I can describe the taste of sugar to you all day, but you will not know what sweetness is without a bite

Edit: In reference to your question about "whose ignorance is it," the answer is obvious. When selflessness is fully realized, ignorance is gone, because there is no longer a self to be ignorant. 

My opinion if you care is there is one experiencer. You are simply not taking claim of all experiences and thus creating a separation between you and me when there is none. You see my seeing is actually your seeing. You are trying to get rid of yourself which is impossible. I am trying to take complete responsibility for everything. Also yes the experiencer is adding the idea of being the experiencer in order to tell itself that it is the experiencer.

Edited October 19, 2021 by WokeBloke

[OneHandClap]

4 minutes ago, WokeBloke said:

My opinion if you care is there is one experiencer. You are simply not taking claim of all experiences and thus creating a separation between you and me when there is none. You see my seeing is actually your seeing. You are trying to get rid of yourself which is impossible. I am trying to take complete responsibility for everything. Also yes the experiencer is adding the idea of being the experiencer in order to tell itself that it is the experiencer.

For somebody who is so sure of everything, you sure do make a lot of threads asking questions. Just my two cents. 

[Tim R]

@WokeBloke

There is neither an "experiencer" nor "something which is "experienced" by the experiencer. There is only experience - although even that is saying too much, because "experience" can only be know by contrast of non-experience - which also doesn't exist (Nonduality). 

let me try to illustrate this, but it's crucial that you read the explanation afterwards, otherwise this might seem rather abstract.

Imagine a sphere, the inside of which is covered with mirror substance, so that it is completely self-reflecting within itself. Now imagine this mirror would also be self-illuminating so that you could now see something inside of this mirror sphere. Now imagine that the mirror is conscious (it is aware of what is going on inside of itself). Now imagine this mirror would not only be a smooth sphere anymore, but shape itself (on this inside) into the forms of this world. 

Of what would the mirror be conscious, other than "of its own consciousness"? Nothing of course!

The "reflection" of the mirror (experience) is identical with the "mirroring of" itself (the experiencer).

There is no experiencer apart from that which is experienced. There is literally only ONE self-illuminating, self-knowing consciousness. 

 

Sight is, but nobody who sees.

Sound is, but nobody who hears. 

The conception of an "experiencer" is nothing but a grammatical convention:

For example: "I hear sounds."

I - the experiencer

hear - the connection between experiencer and the experienced

sounds - that which is experienced

Now I want you to notice, that either both "I" and "sounds" or "I and "hear" are completely unnecessary for describing the experience. 

"Hearing sounds". This is a completely redundant expression, because OF COURSE you would "hear" sounds. Are the sounds which are not heard? 

You could say "I hear" or "there are sounds", because both describe the exact same thing. 

Or you could even say "hearing" or "sounds". Which again, will describe the exact same thing. 

"I experience experiences." Again, completely redundant. There is only experience, and it is 100% independent of any "experiencer", making the notion of "something being experienced by" entirely redundant as well. 

Consciousness is not conscious "of" anything. Consciousness is everything. The mirror and the reflection are identical. 

[OneHandClap]

Just now, Tim R said:

@WokeBloke

There is neither an "experiencer" nor "something which is "experienced" by the experiencer. There is only experience - although even that is saying too much, because "experience" can only be know by contrast of non-experience - which also doesn't exist (Nonduality). 

let me try to illustrate this, but it's crucial that you read the explanation afterwards, otherwise this might seem rather abstract.

Imagine a sphere, the inside of which is covered with mirror substance, so that it is completely self-reflecting within itself. Now imagine this mirror would also be self-illuminating so that you could now see something inside of this mirror sphere. Now imagine that the mirror is conscious. Now imagine this mirror would not only be a smooth sphere anymore, but shape itself (on this inside) into the forms of this world. 

Of what would the mirror be conscious, other than "of its own consciousness"? Nothing of course!

The "reflection" of the mirror (experience) is identical with the "mirroring of" itself (the experiencer).

There is no experiencer apart from that which is experienced. There is literally only ONE self-illuminating, self-knowing consciousness. 

 

Sight is, but nobody who sees.

Sound is, but nobody who hears. 

The conception of an "experiencer" is nothing but a grammatical convention:

For example: "I hear sounds."

I - the experiencer

hear - the connection between experiencer and the experienced

sounds - that which is experienced

Now I want you to notice, that either both "I" and "sounds" or "I and "hear" are completely unnecessary for describing the experience. 

"Hearing sounds". This is a completely redundant expression, because OF COURSE you would "hear" sounds. Are the sounds which are not heard? 

You could say "I hear" or "there are sounds", because both describe the exact same thing. 

Or you could even say "hearing" or "sounds". Which again, will describe the exact same thing. 

"I experience experiences." Again, completely redundant. There is only experience, and it is 100% independent of any "experiencer", making the notion of "something being experienced by" entirely redundant as well. 

Consciousness is not conscious "of" anything. Consciousness is everything. The mirror and the reflection are identical. 

Beautiful, Tim! You've explained it with more rigor (and patience) than I can.

[WokeBloke]

23 minutes ago, OneHandClap said:

For somebody who is so sure of everything, you sure do make a lot of threads asking questions. Just my two cents. 

Its good to ask questions. It deepens understanding. I want to understand your viewpoint. When you touch a hot stove why do you remove your hand?

[OneHandClap]

2 minutes ago, WokeBloke said:

Its good to ask questions. It deepens understanding. I want to understand your viewpoint. When you touch a hot stove why do you remove your hand?

I am just pointing out that standing on a "solid" ground of "knowledge" is a barrier to understanding ultimate reality. Believing that things must have an experiencer because there is experience is a barrier. It's like looking at an optical illusion and seeing something that isn't really there. Selfhood is one such illusion. It looks stable and real enough, but if you investigate sufficiently, it will drop away. 

[WokeBloke]

@Tim R

So in a way you are saying there is only experiencer.  

There is only experience and there is only experiencer. There is only I. There is only God. There is only consciousness experiencing itself.

Am I summing up your understanding correctly?

 

Now I would like to add...

You say nobody is seeing yet this body (which is God/consciousness) is seeing. The only way I could respond to your post is if I can actually see your post.

How do you reconcile that?

 

 

 

 

[WokeBloke]

4 minutes ago, OneHandClap said:

I am just pointing out that standing on a "solid" ground of "knowledge" is a barrier to understanding ultimate reality. Believing that things must have an experiencer because there is experience is a barrier. It's like looking at an optical illusion and seeing something that isn't really there. Selfhood is one such illusion. It looks stable and real enough, but if you investigate sufficiently, it will drop away. 

I am not believing I am investigating the question. The question that is being investigated is whether there is an experiencer or not.

Can you answer my question of why you remove your hand when touch a hot stove?

[OneHandClap]

2 minutes ago, WokeBloke said:

I am not believing I am investigating the question. The question that is being investigated is whether there is an experiencer or not.

Can you answer my question of why you remove your hand when touch a hot stove?

Because there is a sensory signal that is translated as "pain," and then a very complex series of neural actions cause your hand to move away. In fact, the hot-stove-hand example is great proof that there is no self, nor a need for one. Every biological creature moves away from pain and toward pleasure. There is no "choice" involved in the matter. Nobody deciding anything. And by the same token, no subject to experience objects. 

[WokeBloke]

6 minutes ago, OneHandClap said:

Because there is a sensory signal that is translated as "pain," and then a very complex series of neural actions cause your hand to move away. In fact, the hot-stove-hand example is great proof that there is no self, nor a need for one. Every biological creature moves away from pain and toward pleasure. There is no "choice" involved in the matter. Nobody deciding anything. And by the same token, no subject to experience objects. 

And who feels the pain or pleasure? And who attempts to move towards pleasure and not pain?

Edited October 19, 2021 by WokeBloke

[OneHandClap]

3 minutes ago, WokeBloke said:

And who feels the pain or pleasure? And who attempts to move towards pleasure and not pain?

That's the joke... nobody. There is pain, there is heat, there is movement... that's it.

Tell me, where is the experiencer located? What are its qualities?