Is There an Experiencer?

[Joseph Polanik]

Rajasekhar Goteti wrote:

>SANKHYA PHILOSOPHY explains that the language is the base of
>intellectual games we play with ourselves. It is responsible for the
>division of SEER - SEEN which is an egocentric ideology. This virtual
>reality is the cause and its effect of illusion.

>Are we not dreaming sir, it may be either dreaming in sleep or in
>waking state

the foundational question is whether there is an experiencing I, an
experiencer, that experiences the experience (whether that experience is
a dream, illusion, waking state perception or whatever).

Joe

--

Nothing Unreal is Self-Aware

@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
http://what-am-i.net
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@

[mec...@sbcglobal.net]

Rajasekhar Goteti wrote:

>>SANKHYA PHILOSOPHY explains that the language is the base of
>>intellectual games we play with ourselves.

Of course. Of course.

>>It is responsible for the
>>division of SEER - SEEN which is an egocentric ideology.

Yes. Although this division expressed by language is merely the
intensification of the original dualistic 'template' resulting from the
'movement' of self-reflection.

>>This virtual reality is the cause and its effect of illusion.

Yes. Both the cause and the effect; demonstrating that, at this level, time
goes both backwards and forwards (something which is anathema to most of
Western science and philosophy).

>>Are we not dreaming sir, it may be either dreaming in sleep or in
>>waking state

>the foundational question is whether there is an experiencing I, an
>experiencer, that experiences the experience (whether that experience is
>a dream, illusion, waking state perception or whatever).

>Joe

From my perspective, the existence of the "experiencing I" is not the
foundational question at all. Rather, "What is the specific *nature* of that
"experiencing I"?" is the foundational question. Is the "experiencing I"
nothing more than a 'waking dream' which, in fact, collapses when one stops
'thinking'? Is 'waking up' from the 'waking dream' of the "experiencing I"
merely what is referred to as "psychosis"?

Just as the "self" has 'self-reflected' itself into existence with the
'movement' of self-reflection(and collapses into itself when it is *not*
self-reflecting); so, too, the 'thinker' has thought itself into existence
by simply postulating or 'thinking', out of nowhere and out of nothing, the
thought of the 'thinker'. And, once that 'thinker' *stops* 'thinking', that
illusory dimension or 'waking dream' of the "experiencing I" collapses into
psychosis, as demonstrated by the opening passages of the Second Meditation
of Descartes.

Michael Cecil