Discussion of the claim that "Only the experience exists"

[davecraw]

9 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

You will never get it using this logic.

Could you point out the flaws (or at least some) in the logic?

[Princess Arabia]

Reading this thread so far has got my brain doing cartwheels and my mind seeing pupalicks in the ceiling. I am experiencing that.?

[Breakingthewall]

20 hours ago, davecraw said:

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?

 

all depends on the perspective you take. From a linear perspective, reality is a temporary passing of events, and it exists outside. your cancer started with some cells that were increasing, one day you found out, etc.

from a "depth" perspective (perceiving the now in depth, not in wide), only now exists, and it has no limits. Appearances are emerging that do not have a cause/effect meaning, time does not exist and outside does not exist. everything is a fluctuating construction that happens now.

which one is true? the one you adopt. choose. the ideal is to adopt the linear for survival, and abandon it completely when it is not strictly necessary. reason? you will surprise yourself smiling with joy every moment

 

Edited May 26, 2023 by Breakingthewall

[WeCome1]

Quote

"Only the experience exists."

@davecraw

The wording of this statement is vague, it can be interpreted in three completely different ways:

1) Only this/my experience exists; there is nothing beyond this "bubble of perception". A.k.a. solipsism that is trending here lately.

2) Only the experience itself exists; the appearance is the ultimate reality, it is amechanic, there is nothing hidden underneath.

3) Only the experience itself exists; there is no one experiencing it, it is "self-experienced". A.k.a. non-duality. Also, it kind of goes hand-in-hand with option 2), but I put it separately just in case.

So, before we can even discuss anything, could you please clarify which one did you have in mind when you opened the topic? 1, 2, 3, 2+3 or perhaps something else entirely that I didn't think of?

Edited May 26, 2023 by WeCome1

[Carl-Richard]

It's depends on your epistemic criteria. If you take what is immediately known as the only valid epistemic criteria, you'll be more likely to conclude that there is nothing else than that. If you on the other hand take include the soundness of observations and logical inferences like you do, you'll conclude that there is probably something else than what is immediately known. The problem the "immediate experientialists" have is that we don't use daily language that way, which is why they end up sounding insane when they have to deny basic things like the existence of other people, or a past and a future, at the same time as they're saying things like "you will understand this once you awaken", which contains the very concepts that they're trying to deny. This is made even more confusing when people disagree about what the immediate experience actually entails (how it functions), or how to talk about it, but of course, the most confusing thing is when these people don't acknowledge that they've merely chosen an arbitrary epistemic criteria while claiming that they're absolutely correct in all cases. This is like you say obviously not true, because what about including the criteria about things you don't immediately experience (the unknown)? This is why it's important to qualify your truth claims by stating your starting assumptions, unless you like coming off like a closeminded fundamentalist.

Edited May 26, 2023 by Carl-Richard

[Leo Gura]

12 hours ago, davecraw said:

Could you point out the flaws (or at least some) in the logic?

I have in the past. You keep repeating yourself like a broken record. It's time to take seriously what I told you before.

[Dioxide2533]

@davecraw
I wouldn't say "Only the experience exists" is exactly the conclusion. It's more something like "Only experience remains".

We are trying to find what is true. So for example the link you mentioned about brains and vision, or what other people say about their experience. How do you know these things are true? They could be lying, you could be misunderstanding it, you could be dreaming it... you are trusting yourself and those sources a lot. You are assuming a lot too, for example that you know the meaning of all the words in the explanation of how a brain works. And when you look up the definition of those words, you would have to check all the words that compose those definitions too. Everything you assume you have to question.

We have to be 100% skeptical of everything if we want to find what is true. Try being 100% skeptical and see what remains. You can be skeptical of experience too, and still, take a look at what remains.

[davecraw]

3 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

I have in the past. You keep repeating yourself like a broken record. It's time to take seriously what I told you before.

To be clear you actually haven't.
In this thread you attacked the logic but never explained what's wrong with it: 

Our conversation:

Leo: "@davecraw You got very poor logic. No Awakening for you."

Davecraw: "Can you explain the errors in my logic? I don't want to carry broken logic and would appreciate your analysis. Thank you."

Leo: "@davecraw The only thing you have is your experience. The end."

Davecraw: "And I know you are experiencing too. So since it's known that you and I are both experiencing that leads me to the question of whether your experience is different than mine."

Sidenote: It's reasonable to infer that you're conscious because of the consciousness involved in typing this. If this consciosuness is yours then obviously you're conscious. If it's not yours then there's evidence you're conscious because of your demonstrated understanding of the posts in your responses.

Leo: "You don't know that."

As I just pointed out your claim isn't true.

Then I asked the following question to determine if you know what I know by asking if you know whether I am experiencing or not to which you never replied. Of course this person knows whether it is experiencing by experiencing its own experience.

Davecraw: "Do you know whether I am experiencing or not? If yes, then do you know whether your experience and mine are different or not?"

 

 

With all this in mind it should be clear you never disproved my logic let alone even gave an explantion as to what's wrong with it. You seem to be continuously making untrue claims unfortuantely.

 

Edited May 26, 2023 by davecraw

[Girzo]

30 minutes ago, davecraw said:

Davecraw: "And I know you are experiencing too. So since it's known that you and I are both experiencing that leads me to the question of whether your experience is different than mine."

Sidenote: It's possible to infer that you're conscious because of the consciousness invovled in typing this. If this consciosuness is yours then obviosuly you're conscious. If it's not yours then you're clearly conscious because of your demonstrated understanding of the posts.

Leo: "You don't know that."

Dave, you are wrong in this. You in fact don't know this. Knowledge is something certain. You not only don't know if Leo is a conscious separate being, you also have no way of knowing it.

Scientists sometimes use the word knowledge in a more relativistic manner, not meaning something that is certain, but something as to which you have very good reasons to assume it is so, you have done your homework diligently so to speak. But it only makes sense when discussing practical questions. Otherwise you should hold a more strict notion of knowledge.

If you insist to disagree, then define what you mean by "knowing". It must be clearly that you hold this concept in a different manner than either me or Leo.

[davecraw]

58 minutes ago, Girzo said:

Dave, you are wrong in this. You in fact don't know this. Knowledge is something certain. You not only don't know if Leo is a conscious separate being, you also have no way of knowing it.

Scientists sometimes use the word knowledge in a more relativistic manner, not meaning something that is certain, but something as to which you have very good reasons to assume it is so, you have done your homework diligently so to speak. But it only makes sense when discussing practical questions. Otherwise you should hold a more strict notion of knowledge.

If you insist to disagree, then define what you mean by "knowing". It must be clearly that you hold this concept in a different manner than either me or Leo.

You make a good point. However, someone may be "certain" they are right and still wrong. So more importantly than whether I know or not or whether I'm certain or not is the evidence being presented. 

Isn't there evidence that this is created by a conscious source? After all how else is your post understood? 

Isn't there evidence that Leo's posts are written by a conscious source? After all doesn't he demonstrate his understanding of the posts in his responses?

Now the topic of this thread is about people's identification with experience.

Isn't there evidence that this post is typed out and that the experience doesn't type this?

Isn't that evidence that there is a difference between the source of this post and the experience of this post?

Isn't that evidence that people's identification with their experience is actually a misidentification? 

Or do you not consider any of that evidence to be convincing? If not why?

 

 

 

[Breakingthewall]

22 minutes ago, davecraw said:

Isn't there evidence that Leo's posts are written by a conscious source? After all doesn't he demonstrate his understanding of the posts in his responses?

It could all be a hallucination that you're having and you're talking to yourself 

[OldManCorcoran]

Ego death is so rare lmao. Even to a materialist neuroscientist, it is known that the sense of self is produced by the brain. No ego death = no chance of understanding, probably lol.

[davecraw]

35 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

It could all be a hallucination that you're having and you're talking to yourself 

In that case he's conscious.

[Girzo]

13 hours ago, davecraw said:

In that case he's conscious.

But you are not, because you don't exist in that case.

14 hours ago, davecraw said:

Or do you not consider any of that evidence to be convincing? If not why?

Your presented evidence is not warranting a claim to know something. It only opens a question, is a point to start thinking about the topic.

I think I can shutdown this questioning.

14 hours ago, davecraw said:

Isn't there evidence that this is created by a conscious source? After all how else is your post understood? 

This is only evidence if you assume a priori that consciousness is required for understanding and replying to a forum post.

14 hours ago, davecraw said:

Isn't there evidence that Leo's posts are written by a conscious source? After all doesn't he demonstrate his understanding of the posts in his responses?

Against, only true after assuming there is indeed such independent being as Leo and responding to your posts by this being requires consciousness. Those are assumptions.

14 hours ago, davecraw said:

Isn't there evidence that this post is typed out and that the experience doesn't type this?

Isn't that evidence that there is a difference between the source of this post and the experience of this post?

Isn't that evidence that people's identification with their experience is actually a misidentification? 

It's only under assumption that you are a limited being doing something and experiencing something. This is what you assume, so this is not an evidence of anything. I can assume on equal grounds that consciousness just is and experiences itself, in whatever form it is, for example typing. I can propose many other alternative models of interpreting this situation. So as you can see your line of reasoning can't even beat post-modern, relativistic arguments. That means it doesn't constitute knowledge.

The way you reason would fly if we were discussing some practical matter and tried to be pragmatic. But pragmatists don't care about what is ultimately true, and here we are discussing ultimate nature of reality. Pragmatic knowledge =/= metaphysical knowledge.

[davecraw]

@Girzo @Girzo

8 hours ago, Girzo said:

But you are not, because you don't exist in that case.

How is that? If he is I and he's conscious then I am also conscious.

8 hours ago, Girzo said:

Your presented evidence is not warranting a claim to know something. It only opens a question, is a point to start thinking about the topic.

No disagreement but it might warrent discarding some of the claims made like "The experience creates itself."

8 hours ago, Girzo said:

23 hours ago, davecraw said:

Isn't there evidence that this is created by a conscious source? After all how else is your post understood? 

This is only evidence if you assume a priori that consciousness is required for understanding and replying to a forum post.

Do you agree the post is understood? Doesn't understanding involve consciousness by definition? If you don't think it's understood why do you claim so? How do you define understand? 

8 hours ago, Girzo said:

23 hours ago, davecraw said:

Isn't there evidence that Leo's posts are written by a conscious source? After all doesn't he demonstrate his understanding of the posts in his responses?

Against, only true after assuming there is indeed such independent being as Leo and responding to your posts by this being requires consciousness. Those are assumptions.

The reason it's important for you to define understand is because it's defined on Google as "perceive the intended meaning of (words, a language, or a speaker)" Perceive is defined as "become aware or conscious of (something)". By those definieitons understanding involves consciousness. In other words it's not possible to understand without being conscious. This seems to undermine your argument.

8 hours ago, Girzo said:

23 hours ago, davecraw said:

Isn't there evidence that this post is typed out and that the experience doesn't type this?

Isn't that evidence that there is a difference between the source of this post and the experience of this post?

Isn't that evidence that people's identification with their experience is actually a misidentification? 

It's only under assumption that you are a limited being doing something and experiencing something. This is what you assume, so this is not an evidence of anything. I can assume on equal grounds that consciousness just is and experiences itself, in whatever form it is, for example typing. I can propose many other alternative models of interpreting this situation. So as you can see your line of reasoning can't even beat post-modern, relativistic arguments. That means it doesn't constitute knowledge.

The way you reason would fly if we were discussing some practical matter and tried to be pragmatic. But pragmatists don't care about what is ultimately true, and here we are discussing ultimate nature of reality. Pragmatic knowledge =/= metaphysical knowledge.

Isn't there an experience being experienced of typing? If that's not evidence of the existence of consciosuness then what is?

[Girzo]

40 minutes ago, davecraw said:

The reason it's important for you to define understand is because it's defined on Google as "perceive the intended meaning of (words, a language, or a speaker)" Perceive is defined as "become aware or conscious of (something)". By those definieitons understanding involves consciousness. In other words it's not possible to understand without being conscious. This seems to undermine your argument

Dictionary is not the Buddha. What else can be said? Some mainstream concepts are faulty when it comes to metaphysics. Would you really expect a random lexicographer to understand the deepest mysteries of the Universe? Nothing to take from them, they are great guys. Just not the best option to consult when you are trying to refine your understanding of ultimate reality.

Leo’s work builds upon classic non-duality and only then discards it. I think it would do you good if you studied non-duality for a little bit more. Rupert Spira for example or whoever you vibe with. 

We wouldn’t be having this discussion if you had done your homework. It’s also the reason why Leo dismissed this thread in the beginning, in my opinion.

[davecraw]

2 minutes ago, Girzo said:

Dictionary is not the Buddha. What else can be said? Some mainstream concepts are faulty when it comes to metaphysics. Would you really expect a random lexicographer to understand the deepest mysteries of the Universe? Nothing to take from them, they are great guys. Just not the best option to consult when you are trying to refine your understanding of ultimate reality.

Leo’s work builds upon classic non-duality and only then discards it. I think it would do you good if you studied non-duality for a little bit more. Rupert Spira for example or whoever you vibe with. 

We wouldn’t be having this discussion if you had done your homework. It’s also the reason why Leo dismissed this thread in the beginning, in my opinion.

How then do you define understanding? Do you agree your post is understood at some level? And if so how and by what? 

[Girzo]

6 minutes ago, davecraw said:

How then do you define understanding? Do you agree your post is understood at some level? And if so how and by what? 

I can take the definition you posted, it’s okay. I don’t need to craft any custom one.  The problem is with you trying to use it to prove whatever it is you are trying to prove. I, THE consciousness, can be aware of myself. You are just a product of my imagination in this line of reasoning. Your understanding is not the same as my understanding, because you are not real and not really understanding. And this is as valid reasoning as what you are trying to reason into. So you need something much stronger than those verbal games to settle this question for yourself.

For me personally, this discussion of no benefit. It is about your approach towards this work. It would do you good to go explore more, practice more.

[Water by the River]

Hi Davecraw,

in the humble experience of yours truly, you can not rule out with logic if something else besides experience exists until certain Awakened States are realized that show the infinite and limitless nature of the Visual Field, and any other possible field/dimension (like the dimensionless opening/dimension in which subtle objects like thoughts arise).

But: One can (and should) use logic to get to an agnostic level: NOTHING prooves that there is a material, external, self-existing world beyond the bubble of the visual field, beyond experiences. You can neither proove nor disproove that with logic. 

That is a fine point, because arguing WITH logic that only experience exists is one bridge too far. Can't be done. One would need to twist logic to proove that. Although certain very active gentlemens are giving it very extended tries at the moment. 

 

Prooving that only experience exists (and no self-existing external material world) can only be done with Awakened States that show the following properties of an Awakened Field of Awareness (below, the goal/outcome of Yoga of one Taste, stage 3 Mahamudra. One Taste = Nondual Union with the Infinite Field)

• any felt separation between "you" and the "external world" appearing in the visual field is vividly felt first as arising object of subject-object separation, a felt sensation, that then gradually disappears. Including all localization in the body (tension head, body-feelings that cause localization, and so on). Yoga of Illusory Body for example, there are discrete energetic practices to dissolve these contractions/localizations. Or just wait long enough in empty states.... so, union,"nondual" with the field.
• any "boundary" to anything limiting that visual field (or any other field) can only be an arising, an appearance. Not the boundless limitless infinite Nothingness.
• time, past and future is seen as mere concepts/ideas/arisings in the timeless Always Here Mind of Infinite Awakened Awareness/Infinite Consciousness.
• everything in the visual field is just appearance, "hovering" as pretty lucid display in mere Nothingness. -> mere apperance
• these states bring a lot of bliss and love

It happens approximately in that order progressively with good meditation practice. Or, if you are lucky, all by itself (Karma,state).

• But then good luck telling anybody of the structure of the path to get there that one didn't even notice the path while one passed it, because they flew over it.
  • Or: Ramana and all the other Wunderkinder/prodigies probably won't be able to tell you much details about the turns, wrong exits and scenic views on the road to Awakening, because they took the 747 to the destination.
    • and the Zen and Theravada path tend also tend to not give a very detailed map (at least in the opinion of yours truly), but just a compass and say: go/meditate west, to the west is California & the Ocean. Mahamudra gives you a quite detailed map: Death Valley is here, you wanna go there, don't take the wrong exit, don't camp here, here are the gentlemen with bows&arrows, and so on...

So, to get these states: (good efficient) meditation, or psychedelics.

Then, counting together the awakenings above in bold letters, it becomes what is called in Mahamudra "boundless limitless timeless nondual loving Awakened Awareness".

And THEN you can talk about "there is only experience, anywhere, everywhere", without needing to fool yourself with logic in the nature of your experience.

And btw., that is not theory or wishful thinking, but my actual experience with a meditation system of Mahamudra (Tibetan Buddhism, "companion"-system  of Dzogchen) described best in Pointing Out the Great Way, Daniel Brown , developing over quite some years. All of the above is the of and up to Yoga of One Taste (3. Stage Mahamdura).

Ken Wilbers Diary Book has the titel "One Taste". The same One Taste of that practice, refering to it.

• One Taste: Daily Reflections on Integral Spirituality, Wilber.

The outcome of Yoga of One Taste (3. Stage Mahamdura) gives one a shot (or many many, since many many are neede) to dissolve the last separate self-arisings remnants (the Yoga of Nonmeditation stage 4 Mahamudra), which then brings Full/Complete Enlightenment, in Leos terms God-Realization (although i find that term a bit bombastic, although technically precise if God is Ultimate EMPTY IMPERSONAL Infinite Reality) .

• Yoga of Nonmeditation dissolves the last remnants of a separate self moving in oneself/Infinite Reality, like awareness of being, awareness of self, any self-reflective arising of being anything. (hint: of= subject object, not full nondual. Still self-reflective thinking/identity creation). What remains is: Reality. The Totality. And zero separation, real Nonduality. Empty. Impersonal. Pure Infinite Consciousness. Staying as "always eternally here" Infinite Impersonal Nothingness. With Awareness as its essence.
• Yoga of Nonmeditation does this in that any meditation is so fully automized that there are no more separate self arisings doing the meditation to generate and stabilize the Awakened States of Yoga of One Taste, 3. Stage Mahamudra. Not that actually an illusion separate-self claims "Oh I am doing this nondual meditation so great". Would be a funny contradiction of Nothingness would be really pure impersonal Infinite Consciousness if something like that arises, hm?
• And that takes also a lot of time. Don't fry your brains too much trying to these maybe 500h-1000h+ with 5 MeO (depending of course on ones Karma/brain and body), because yours truly has never read/heard about a credible case where that has been done. Although they could exist.
  • Volunteers for the fried brains, anybody?  Joke: How do you spot a pioneer? Got a few fried brain cells arrows in the back. Just kidding. We do need that tested out. And how Psychedelic Paths combined with meditation systems above... Pure Mahamudra is too slow to have larger impact. Allthough still the best system (in the opinion of yours truly) of all of them,
• and then, good morning after waking up, game over, welcome home! And be nice to "enlighened persons",

 

What is mostly being done with meditation and especially psychedelics, is dabbling around up to and around stage 3, Nonduality (Yoga of One Taste), with are more or less empty subject, up to a very empty witness already in union with then Nondual Infinite Field. "Having" Awakenings. With any kind of content: This World, Aliens, the management & staff running this Universe, other Dimensions, whatever ones heart delights in. An Infinity (literally) of stuff to explore...

What is not so often talked about is the "suicide" of stage 4, Nonmeditation Yoga, Full Enlightenment.

• Getting fully Impersonal with transcending/killing each and every separate-self arising having all these lovely nondual experiences/awakenings. No Aliens required, but still possibly quite a bit scary for sure. But looks only scary from before the Gateless Gate.
• Any separate self arising (the enlightened or awake "person"  having these awakenings, n+1) raising its ugly head, are seen as just more separate-self-contractions buzzing in Ones True Self. Another annoying little headache-bug to laugh about. Another moskito buzzing around in the Infinite Reality that one then realizes onself to be and ever having been, to squatt/Trekchö. One more contraction to let go and transcend.
• and one lucky day, one just wakes up.

But death is death, transcendence is death, even if its only the death of an Illusion. And Maya needs her tools, like the Wizard of Oz, else everbody would just say bye bye to the game. [Disclaimer: In nearly all cases, real suicide is about the most stupid thing one can do. Back to square 1, more Karma added on top. Or how to continue the dream, dodging out ones Karma of this life, with additional Karma on top from hitting the reset-button. But no soul gets lost, just do 3rd grade again, with a headache-hangover from the last try. Finally, every soul graduates college. But some like school so much that they don't listen to most teachers, and do some classes over and over again].

So, have fun on the trip, don't fry your brains, keep your humor (Wilber, Transcendence restors humor), squatt all separate self bugs,  and Bon Voyage! 

Selling Water by the River

 

Ken Wilber wrote: “TRANSCENDENCE RESTORES HUMOR. Spirit restores humor. Suddenly smiling returns. Too many representatives of too many movements – even many very good movements, such as feminism, environmentalism, meditation, spiritual studies – seem to lack humor altogether. In other words, they lack lightness, they lack a distance from themselves, a distance from the ego and its grim game of forcing others to conform to its contours... They should all trade two pounds of ego for one ounce of laughter”(Ken Wilber. 1999. One Taste: The Journals of Ken Wilber. December 7).

 

PS: And for all other beings/perspectives of Indras Net, see:

and if you don't already have an overkill, and better go for nice walk or so...  Some more for the Aficionados of conceptual overkill:

And now, really better go fishing or something...

“frog pond plop”