Koji wrote: Astus wrote:
Koji wrote:I am just wondering, but how does one personally know "there is just experience"? Of course we all know that anyone can imagine such as state but what the imagination concocts doesn't mean it is either real or attainable.
If there is something that is not an experience you don't experience it, consequently you don't know anything about it. What is not an experience is nothing more than a presumption, a hypothesis, a fantasy, an idea.
When you said ealier: There is neither an experiencer nor an experienced, there is just experience, and even that is empty
, does this pertain to "a presumption, a hypothesis, a fantasy, an idea"?
Well, I'll answer this, with a frank "Yes."
"This" means the quote, "There is neither an experiencer nor an experienced, there is just experience, and even that is empty
" I assume, which you are asserting is a conceptual construct. As it must be, of course, as it's linguistic, and an attempt at communication. The Finger, not the moon, as it were.
Astus may say it is "a presumption, a hyopthesis, a fantasy, an idea"--but perhaps I will explain it a bit differently--how does one "explain" the taste of honey? No matter how one tries, one is left with an insufficient experience of honey until one directly experiences honey.
Ideas and descriptions of experiences may be more, or less, compelling, but they can never equal the actual experience itself. After one tastes honey, one KNOWS the taste of honey. Always and forever.
First person experiences of Wisdom, or Ordinary Mind, or Vidya, or whatnot, are of a different order than any attempts to analyze, conceptualize, or theorize.
This leads to the question: for those who feel they have "had an experience" or "experienced" Wisdom or Buddhamind or whatnot, and have somehow consequently conceptualized that experience as a sort of "Self," is that "experience" really the experience of Wisdom that is talked about in Sutra, Tantra, and Upadesha? Or is it a mistaken experience?