Experiencer or No Expereincer?

[WokeBloke]

@Tim R

 

What if I say this...

You are an experience generator. You are generating an experience for me.

[Tim R]

@WokeBloke What I'm trying to show you is that all distinctions are not actually there, no matter how real or solid they seem.

Illusions can be very persistent and convincing. Even such as the distinction between a human body and a computer. 

1 minute ago, WokeBloke said:

4 minutes ago, Tim R said:

No boundary = Identity 

Can you please elaborate?

"Two things" are defined by the boundary that separates them from each other right? Like the inside and outside of this box:

The inside of this box is defined by the boundary and the outside is also defined by the same boundary, right? Right.

So, "inside" and "outside" are different (aka "not identical") because of the boundary.

What would happend with "inside" and "outside" when the boundary dissolves? They'd become identical!

No boundary = identity

 

This is a very obvious and simply example. But the exact same principle applies to the black and white field. When there is no boundary, then there is no difference. There only seems to be a difference between the black and white field. 

Can you point your finger at the dividing line is between "each color"? Or can you see that the "difference between them" is actually just a beautiful illusion? 

If you understand what I'm trying to communicate here, chances are that you'll also start to consider that maybe there is in fact no difference between a human and a computer. Or anything else, for that matter. 

[WokeBloke]

@Tim R

I agree the boundary defines the thing. If the boundary could be dissolved then indeed there would be no difference.

Unfortunately the boundary between body and computer can't be dissolved since they are two distinct things with very specific parameters.

 

The second picture you show is called a continuum.  Boundaries could be made but they would be arbitrarily created. However if I separated the colors into red, orange, yellow, green, etc. by putting lines then you would be able to see there are at least 10 different colors. Infinite lines could be created in a continuum meaning infinite possibilities.

To say the continuum is an illusion is mental reductionism.

Its like reducing hot to cold. 

Or blue to yellow.

150 degrees is different than -50 degrees. 

Edited October 19, 2021 by WokeBloke

[Tim R]

1 minute ago, WokeBloke said:

Boundaries could be made but they would be arbitrarily created

There you go. 

[WokeBloke]

1 minute ago, Tim R said:

There you go. 

Doesn't mean they don't refer to real distinctions lol. Where one draws the boundaries is self created. The reason you say hot and cold is because you are referring to two different experiences.

[Ry4n]

7 hours ago, WokeBloke said:

Doesn't mean they don't refer to real distinctions lol. Where one draws the boundaries is self created. The reason you say hot and cold is because you are referring to two different experiences.

Even in scientific terms when two distinct things are broken down you're just left with basic elements to the point where you can't distinguish between the elements of one thing as opposed to the other that was so obvious previously. So yes these distinctions have some validity on the surface but at the deepest levels possible there is just consciousness and nothing but, anything masquerading as something else is merely occurring within it. A wave on the surface is seperate, beneath the surface there is just water. 

This is basically the doctrine of 2 truths in Buddhism. What I eat does not make you shit, and yet the consciousness that allows for both experiences is of the same substance, or at least this is what awakening reveals experientially, taking it on as a doctrine however will only lead to confusion. 

The unity is underlying the seeming seperate-ness, hence the phrase "the ground of all being".

The reason the consciousness part is ultimately more true than the seperate forms is because without consciousness those forms cannot exist, but without the forms consciousness can still exist (ie cessation). The water of an ocean can exist without waves. 

Edited October 20, 2021 by Ry4n
slight fix up for details

[VeganAwake]

Whether it's infinite reality or infinite illusion, there is still no where to land, no way to truly confirm anything.

Paradoxically the freedom is in not knowing which is already the case.

❤

[The0Self]

Experience is the connection between what is already not separate. It's an illusion. The experiencer on the other hand isn't really even an illusion -- it's just not there period lol -- go ahead, try to find it. The appearance (not separate from the body) apparently functions, and (in the story) when those functions are appropriated by experience, there can seem to be an experiencer, but that's really just an extrapolation; an empty assumption; an illusory sense.

Trying to change what appears to be, isn't actually happening -- it's just the artificial appropriation of organic body functioning as "my" "own" "actions."

You could say experience is all there is, but that would be rather misleading, as there is no knowing. Experience and knowing seem to be the same thing. "There's only knowing, but there is no knowing" -- while that's relatively true, it is on the other hand just as close and perhaps less confusing to say "there's only what appears to be." Everything is no-thing and no-thing is everything appearing -- each hides ingeniously by actually being the other.

When there isn't a reality in reality, there's automatically nothing outside of nor inside of reality -- only what appears to be, without any fixed and knowable reality or context to it or in it.

Edited October 20, 2021 by The0Self

[OneHandClap]

28 minutes ago, The0Self said:

Experience is the connection between what is already not separate. It's an illusion. The experiencer on the other hand isn't really even an illusion -- it's just not there period lol -- go ahead, try to find it. The appearance (not separate from the body) apparently functions, and (in the story) when those functions are appropriated by experience, there can seem to be an experiencer, but that's really just an extrapolation; an empty assumption; an illusory sense.

Trying to change what appears to be, isn't actually happening -- it's just the artificial appropriation of organic body functioning as "my" "own" "actions."

You could say experience is all there is, but that would be rather misleading, as there is no knowing. Experience and knowing seem to be the same thing. "There's only knowing, but there is no knowing" -- while that's relatively true, it is on the other hand just as close and perhaps less confusing to say "there's only what appears to be." Everything is no-thing and no-thing is everything appearing -- each hides ingeniously by actually being the other.

When there isn't a reality in reality, there's automatically nothing outside of nor inside of reality -- only what appears to be, without any fixed and knowable reality or context to it or in it.

I agree with all of this, though I do feel the "illusion" part (at least in the context I use it) is to illustrate that agenthood certainly appears real when we are in dualistic consciousness. Once seen through, yes, the whole artifice collapses. But until that point, there are few metaphors that can be used to point out how an experiencer isn't there, despite all the evidence seemingly affirming it due to ignorance. 

[BipolarGrowth]

The appearance of an experiencer is false. The appearance of no experiencer is false. The present moment experience is experienced. Experience is occurring. A subject or no subject within experience is not the point and improvable. 

[Chris365]

2 hours ago, The0Self said:

Experience is the connection between what is already not separate.

Mind = blown

[Fearless_Bum]

No experience, no experiencer.