Discussion of the claim that "Only the experience exists"

[davecraw]

As far as I can tell this conclusion is at the heart of many of the maters debated on this forum.

 

However I think there are massive issues with this idea.

1. Lack of Evidence

First consider the fact that the people making this claim are only experiencing their own experience. So anything that exists beyond their experience they are by definition not experiencing. So isn't the person making a claim about something they don't know about? After all if something else did exist they would have no experience of it.

 

2. The limitations of the experience

Human experiences (at least mine) are aparently too limited to bring themselves into existence. Thoughts, sounds, colors, and sensations all lack the apparently neccessary brain invovled in generating experiences. There is lots of evidence a brain is involved. For example, when people's occipital lobe is damaged they no longer see (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK560626/#:~:text=Cortical blindness is an important,proper management and improved outcome.) This is an indication that the source of human experiences exists beyond the experiences.

 

3. Other people's claims about their own experience

People claim they have a different experience than me. And I can tell you about my experience of typing this right now and seeing that it's 5:41 PM and you can know that your expereince is different than the one I'm describing.

 

For these reasons it seems appropriate to infer that something exists beyond the limited experience. More importantly though there is apparently no reason I'm aware of to conclude (and spread the idea) that nothing exists beyond the experience.

[Breakingthewall]

change the angle of reasoning.

1 this experience is the only thing that exists for you. this is true right? 

2 you are you, and you can never be someone else, because if you were to become someone else, you would still be you appearing as someone else. there is no doubt about this, right?

So, if you will always remain you, and for you this experience is obviously the only thing that exists, this results that this experience is the only thing that exists. and there is no more. and if now you think: well, but there are other experiences... that is only a thought that has arisen in your experience. you will never get out of it, in all eternity.  

So go deep in this experience. Be totally aware of this moment, remove any distractions, any ideas of "out." this moment is total reality. here, now, the absolute is.

Edited May 26, 2023 by Breakingthewall

[Hojo]

I am is universal

When you dream you dream you are things but you are always you. You might be dreaming you were a dog but you dont question whether you are a dog in your dream you just say I was doing this thing.  Life is an I am dream. Next time you dream question am I dog right now. You cant because you are a dog dogs dont question that shit they are too totally involved with the dream

This is a level above dream world in a sense and there is another world above this is what god means theres only one being in this world and its dreaming it and its not a human

 

Edited May 26, 2023 by Hojo

[davecraw]

42 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

change the angle of reasoning.

1 this experience is the only thing that exists for you. this is true right? 

2 you are you, and you can never be someone else, because if you were to become someone else, you would still be you appearing as someone else. there is no doubt about this, right?

So, if you will always remain you, and for you this experience is obviously the only thing that exists, this results that this experience is the only thing that exists. and there is no more. and if now you think: well, but there are other experiences... that is only a thought that has arisen in your experience. you will never get out of it, in all eternity.  

So go deep in this experience. Be totally aware of this moment, remove any distractions, any ideas of "out." this moment is total reality. here, now, the absolute is.

Consider a person with cancer that hasn't been diganosed. They don't know about their cancer but it exists inside them. Imagine such a person claiming "I don't have cancer because I'm not experiencing it."

How is your claim any less absurd then that?

Edited May 26, 2023 by davecraw

[OldManCorcoran]

Logical error due to belief in separate souls / my and your consciousness etc.

This is an ego trick.

Imagine if instead of your ego believing itself to be a character viewing 5:41 PM on the clock, you could shift the idea of "you" to the actual sight of the 5:41 PM clockface. If you literally are that clockface and not the person seeing it, does it matter if your body is the one in front of it or if your friend's is? Does your body even need to be alive? If you literally are the sight of that clockface, does it even matter if your body is dead as long as someone else's is there seeing that sight. If you literally ARE the sight then whichever body happens to be seeing the clockface you are present.

Because your identity is shifted away from the idea of a character who views things to being the actual viewed thing itself...

Then what if you were the clockface and also the color red, and also the sound of music, and the scent of vanilla or w.e. else. And what if you literally were every single existent phenomena.

It does not matter which person happens to be experiencing the world, if you are in fact the experienced world itself, and there isn't actually anybody at all who experiences any world... Where neither of us exist at all...

When egos do not exist you can comprehend that easily. As easily as you have no issue with the existence of Earth and Mars or two different States or many different countries... So you aren't the character which dies you are the world which remains. There are no conscious beings, things are themselves consciousness. Red ISSSSS consciousness, it isn't over there seen by a consciousness, it IS it. It literally IS it... There is no such thing as "your" experience and "my" experience, that is ego story crafted on the notion of separate selves / souls.

Edited May 26, 2023 by OldManCorcoran

[davecraw]

5 minutes ago, OldManCorcoran said:

Logical error due to belief in separate souls / my and your consciousness etc.

This is an ego trick.

Imagine if instead of your ego believing itself to be a character viewing 5:41 PM on the clock, you could shift the idea of "you" to the actual sight of the 5:41 PM clockface. If you literally are that clockface and not the person seeing it, does it matter if your body is the one in front of it or if your friend's is? Does your body even need to be alive? If you literally are the sight of that clockface, does it even matter if your body is dead as long as someone else's is there seeing that sight. If you literally ARE the sight then whichever body happens to be seeing the clockface you are present.

Because your identity is shifted away from the idea of a character who views things to being the actual viewed thing itself...

Then what if you were the clockface and also the color red, and also the sound of music, and the scent of vanilla or w.e. else. And what if you literally were every single existent phenomena.

It does not matter which person happens to be experiencing the world, if you are in fact the experienced world itself, and there isn't actually anybody at all who experiences any world... Where neither of us exist at all...

When egos do not exist you can comprehend that easily. As easily as you have no issue with the existence of Earth and Mars or two different States or many different countries.

If I am the color red then I'm not anything else like the music or the time on the clock. Another thing is this experience (7:05 PM now) ceases to exist. Now it's 7:06 PM but I still exist. That's an indication of a difference between the experience and I.

[OldManCorcoran]

1 minute ago, davecraw said:

If I am the color red then I'm not anything else like the music or the time on the clock. Another thing is this experience (7:05 PM now) ceases to exist. Now it's 7:06 PM but I still exist. That's an indication of a difference between the experience and I.

Dave you are still positioning yourself as being something existent additionally to the various things which appear. Whereby "I" see 7:05, "I" see 7:06. You are considering yourself to be an entity which views appearances.

It seems to you as you describe because of a functioning ego. It's not real to the situation.

If you walk past the Eiffel tower right now and I walk past it tomorrow, by your current conception you are imagining there is an I character you possess which sees the tower. Then the next day the I character I possess sees it, not you because you can confirm you are seeing your living room wall or computer screen or whatever you're doing!

Without ego, there is the existence of the appearance and nothing more. So not you seeing the tower one day, then me seeing the tower the next, just the existence of the appearance of the tower on both days. It is identical regardless of who sees it. Do you understand this?

[OldManCorcoran]

^ I am referring to 100% ego dissolution.

Ego dissolution happens to various degrees:

1. First is the normal sense of being our body with the world around us.

2. If you have ingested a serious psych like DMT, you might experience this intermediary. Where you start losing feeling of body parts, your sense of I shrinks, so where you feel you are your entire body, as you lose sensation the anchor for the I-ness shrinks until it's pinpointed in your head or some other bodily location.

3. When you lose all sense of your body, the ego function has nowhere to tether it's I-ness to and therefore loses boundary. This causes the I-ness to spread to every appearing phenomena within your field of experience. This is the experience of "being infinite" commonly brought about by a breakthrough dose of n,n-DMT.

4. Your ego function is actually shut off entirely. The "I" sense is absolutely non-existent. There exists only appearances without such a thing as an I... This is very alien to conceive of, and many people trying to intellectualize this, cannot help but mentally wrestle the I into the concept of it like "IT MUST BE THERE!!! IT COULDN'T POSSIBLY NOT BE THERE!!!" But no it is entirely absent, there is no I anymore at all. And all things are perfectly logical via this framework if you do understand what it entails.

.

There is a person online Steven Norquist who wrote about that sort of ego dissolution in a better way I think you will understand.

[davecraw]

@OldManCorcoran

The notion that the colors and text on a screen write and respond to these posts (hell let's include the thoughts, sounds and every other part of the limited experience) is just on the verge of insanity as far as I can tell. Your claims lack supporting evidence. You got to explain how this is typed out with just limited experiences.

Edited May 26, 2023 by davecraw

[OldManCorcoran]

10 minutes ago, davecraw said:

@OldManCorcoran

The notion that a bunch of colors and text on a screen write and respond to these posts is just on the verge of insanity as far as I can tell. Your argument is just not convincing. 

You don't understand what I'm saying.

Quote

Some teachers talk of the Witness, the ultimate passive mind that observes all things moment to moment. This implies some level of separation, a witness over here watching the universe over there. It’s not like this, there is only the experience, universe. There is no observer. Even if there were no manifestation the feeling would be the same. Once again let me make this clear: consciousness is not aware “of” the universe, consciousness is aware “as” the universe.

Now don’t mistake that last sentence. Don’t think, “Oh yeah Steve, I get it now, consciousness is not aware of the universe from a vantage point separate from it, like a disembodied soul, consciousness is instead aware of the universe as one of the billions of beings in it, like man, or dog, or fish.” No! Such thoughts are false. When I say consciousness is aware “as” the universe I mean the very act of existence is consciousness. A carrot is itself consciousness, is itself awareness. There is not carrot aware of itself as carrot nor disembodied invisible consciousness aware of carrot as carrot, there is only the experience “carrot” and that is consciousness and that is enlightenment. There is no observer.

Edited May 26, 2023 by OldManCorcoran

[nhoktinvt]

11 minutes ago, davecraw said:

You're argument is just not convincing. 

how about i put a gun to your head, pull the trigger and you wake up 
(hypothetically speaking)

Edited May 26, 2023 by nhoktinvt

[davecraw]

2 minutes ago, nhoktinvt said:

how about i put a gun to your head, pull the trigger and you wake up 

Where's the gun?

Edited May 26, 2023 by davecraw

[nhoktinvt]

1 minute ago, davecraw said:

Where's the gun?

you're the gun

[davecraw]

Just now, nhoktinvt said:

you're the gun

Alright then shoot me!

[davecraw]

6 minutes ago, OldManCorcoran said:

You don't understand what I'm saying.

How can I? After all this experience doens't have eyes to read your post.

Edited May 26, 2023 by davecraw

[OldManCorcoran]

15 minutes ago, davecraw said:

 

Your claims lack supporting evidence. You got to explain how this is typed out with just limited experiences.

If I knew how experienced you are with ego death and your current understanding of reality, it would be easier.

I am writing as if you have had experience with ego death before. If you are coming in like James Randi I would explain in a different manner.

I also don't understand "You got to explain how this is typed out with just limited experiences." If you can clarify this I can easily explain as requested.

[davecraw]

31 minutes ago, Benton said:

Where is the boundary to your experience? Have you ever really explored this? 
Note: All descriptions of experience are themselves experience. 

This is an important point. People make a distinction between experiences and non-experiences. Essentially it's up to the person to make a useful distinction. One construction is something is an experience if it's experienced. Now whether there is actually a difference between the state of experiencing something and the state of not experiencing something is key. What is the relationship between you and this post now? How about 10 minutes ago before you read this. Is there a difference? If so then perhaps that's a good reason to make a distinction between experiencing this and not experiencing this.

[davecraw]

8 minutes ago, OldManCorcoran said:

If I knew how experienced you are with ego death and your current understanding of reality, it would be easier.

I am writing as if you have had experience with ego death before. If you are coming in like James Randi I would explain in a different manner.

I also don't understand "You got to explain how this is typed out with just limited experiences." If you can clarify this I can easily explain as requested.

Well apparently this is typed out. The experience is the evidence of that. Seeing fingers move in a particular way. Seeing keys pressed in a certain order.

Put your finger over a key (like the "I" key). Now the "I" key isn't being expereinced. However, you can still press it (and witness the effect) even though it's not being experienced which is an indication it existed beyond the limited experience. I! The point is that apparently everything being expereinced is too limited to type this BUT nevertheless this is typed out. That's an indication that there is a difference between that which types this and this experience. Or do you doubt this is typed out?

[OldManCorcoran]

17 minutes ago, davecraw said:

Well apparently this is typed out. The experience is the evidence of that. Seeing fingers move in a particular way. Seeing keys pressed in a certain order.

Put your finger over a key (like the "I" key). Now the "I" key isn't being expereinced. However, you can still press it (and witness the effect) even though it's not being experienced which is an indication it existed beyond the limited experience. I! The point is that apparently everything being expereinced is too limited to type this BUT nevertheless this is typed out. That's an indication that there is a difference between that which types this and this experience. Or do you doubt this is typed out?

How advanced are you? It would really help people to address you appropriately, because for example if you were hardcore materialist, which would be a default human viewpoint, then first people would need to talk through that, and then through the next step etc. Have you ever had any level of ego dissolution?

Anyway: There are various experiences involved in the typing of this message, many many thoughts and also tactile experiences like the feeling of the keys against my fingers. All of these appearances are different in "shape" yet substantially the same... I said "shape" because I think origami is a perfect metaphor, because regardless of what animal you fold from the paper you can never ever find any portion of the result which is substantially something other than paper, despite there being many different shapes of fold to create an origami swan.

And further, the fact that each fold is itself paper. Sort of like how Norquist says, consciousness is not like a disembodied entity which experiences a carrot, it IS the experience of carrot. So like the swan beak shape literally is itself paper. It just all works metaphorically well.

The unifying factor you are possibly alluding to when discussing something beyond the limited experiences, is that paperness. This is what people call "consciousness". It is VASTLY different from human-centric or even life-centric ideas of consciousness which is an idea revolving around "experiencing". Often in that ego-centric framework of X individual viewing Y phenomena.

[Leo Gura]

You will never get it using this logic.