If we weren't experience itself, nothing could possibly exist?

Mateeah

I was writing in my journal, which is very much like meditation for me, asking myself "Who am I". . .I recognize I am just experience itself. . .and then I thought. . . if we weren't experience itself, literally nothing could possibly exist, because there would be nothing to perceive it.

This is interesting, I just wanted to share it and hear any thoughts about it

lobster

Your journal is meditation. Right concentration.
Go a little deeper, find the thinker independent of thought. In a sense, ask what is asking, 'who am I' :thumbsup:

taiyaki

Here is a fun question.

Where does awareness and perception split?

sova

misecmisc1

if we weren't experience itself, literally nothing could possibly exist, because there would be nothing to perceive it

i would say - if there is nothing to perceive experience, instead of saying that literally nothing could possibly exist, it shall be better to say that there are sensations empty of any inherent existence. saying nothing could possible exist - shows that - things are first determined to existence and then said to be non-existing.

Patr

@mateeah,

Read up Cittamatra, the 'Mind Only' doctrine.

Hope this helps.

Tosh

Patr said:

@mateeah,

Read up Cittamatra, the 'Mind Only' doctrine.

Hope this helps.

I formally studied the Two Truths from the point of view of four different schools of Buddhism; one of them being the Cittamatrin's.

You know what I remember about it?

Zilch.

John_Spencer

Mateeah said:

I was writing in my journal, which is very much like meditation for me, asking myself "Who am I". . .I recognize I am just experience itself. . .and then I thought. . . if we weren't experience itself, literally nothing could possibly exist, because there would be nothing to perceive it.

This is interesting, I just wanted to share it and hear any thoughts about it

Mateeah - your experience reminds me of what quantum physicists say about reality only condensing down from a range of possibilities to a specific reality when it is perceived. Sounds like quite a deep insight to me.

Nirvana

I'd prefer "field of experience" over just experience. For me, to say that I exist is to say that I am not confined by my physical being, but that my being consists of that bodily presence being thrust out of myself into a world that is other than I and that completes me. Indeed, to say that I exist is to say that I "am" (esse: to be) outside (ex ) myself.

You are right, we are (as is everything) experience itself, for we are made up of energy which is continuously rediscovering or experiencing itself in the context of other energy fields around it.

However, I never did get Bishop Berkeley's super-idealism. If a tree falls in a forest and there's nobody there to hear it, does it make a noise? Not interesting enough for me to consider, frankly.

So, my answer would be: It all depends on your definition of "We." If you mean just sentient life or something even narrower, I'd say Berkeley's argument was being resurrected (which to me is a pointless, fruitless path). But if by "we" you include all conglomerations of energies that have some form of consciousness or even coherence, I'm with you there 100%.

DairyLama

taiyaki said:

Here is a fun question.

Where does awareness and perception split?

Please tell us!

Jason

Mateeah said:

I was writing in my journal, which is very much like meditation for me, asking myself "Who am I". . .I recognize I am just experience itself. . .and then I thought. . . if we weren't experience itself, literally nothing could possibly exist, because there would be nothing to perceive it.

This is interesting, I just wanted to share it and hear any thoughts about it

It's an interesting idea that's reminiscent of the solipsism of Yogacara in the East and George Berkeley in the West. The only objection I have is that, since we (and organic life in general) appear to be relatively new on the scene in terms of the universe's evolution, which seems to have formed just fine without anyone there to perceive its expansion and evolution, then things can potentially exist without anyone to perceive it, i.e., their existence may be independent of consciousness, and have an objective, material reality. There are multiple counters to this objection, however, such as the existence of God (the ultimate perceiver), the ultimate unity of mind/consciousness and matter, the existence of life in other, non-material forms during the Big Bang, etc. Either way, I strongly encourage you to have such thoughts often, think them over, and discuss them with others.

taiyaki

PedanticPorpoise said:

taiyaki said:

Here is a fun question.

Where does awareness and perception split?

Please tell us!

They are distinct only by name.

In lived experience they occur at the same time. The very perception itself is the awareness or knowing of.

Mirrors meeting mirrors. Empty phenomena rolling on and on endlessly without ever moving.

Lol sorry its not a satisfying answer.

taiyaki

Typically we view the world through the seer seeing the seen view, which is imprinted into our perception of the world.

But we can actually step back and recognize that the Seer is just a point designated either behind the eyes, behind the heart, etc. We can relax that and just experience the activity of seeing. Seeing the process is interesting because IN the seeing there is only the seen. We cannot have a seen without a seeing. They are the same thing. And what is the seen? Colors meeting colors which makes shapes. Light hitting shapes making forms. Forms in contrast with negative space making the illusion of depth and space. Attention bouncing back from object to subject making the illusion of space and time.

But if we just step back and kind of defocus we can see that everything is in the vision. And we can just stop the object making process. Its all just a field of color or visual awareness.

Then we can close our eyes and then there is nothing. The condition of eye sense organ is required for the appearance of eye consciousness. Not only that we need some kind of mental attention.

Notice how the attention works too. The intention to actually pay attention. Notice that. Notice what the eyes are directed towards and how the eyes moves around. What is assumed in the process of attention? Are we not giving the thingness to the objects.



And this is just exploring visual sense consciousness.

The tactile dimension is totally separate.

The link is an assumption of thought, an idea, which too are distinct and have nothing to do with the forms, unless the assumption is made.

But this is just my rambling. Good day.

taiyaki

Its also interesting to note that we give a lot to experience.

Experience itself says absolutely nothing about itself.

So we give thingness, thus we can affirm the ideas of existence, non-existence, both, or neither.

But we have to step back and recognize that experience never advocates any kind of mode of existence or non. We give that to experience.

So really this experience which is exactly the awareness is mysterious. And our moot points of existence or non existence don't matter.

The Buddha taught the middle way from the extremes of self and no self. Thus we can conclude that self and no self are just views, conventions with nothing truly established. What we are negating is the assumptions that we affirm, without setting up a new affirmation. A non-affirming negation.

Its subtle but its very profound. Anyways I'm off.

Jeffrey

The only experience is.. experience. You can posit a material world, but it has nothing to do with alleviating suffering.

Zero

Mateeah said:

asking myself "Who am I". . .I recognize I am just experience itself. . .

if we weren't experience itself, literally nothing could possibly exist, because there would be nothing to perceive it.

This is interesting, I just wanted to share it and hear any thoughts about it

The response to the enquiry resonates.

The extension to me says, 'If the response were untrue, there could be no subjective or objective existence because there could be no subjective existence'?

I think also the concepts 'we' and 'nothing' could rapidly spiral into chaos.

Very interesting thoughts - thanks for sharing.