Why is experience limited?

Vikas, from the tenor of your remarks it was unclear to me whether you were permitting discussion or not. It felt to me that you didn’t want to discuss the matter, but I could not be sure that this feeling of mine was a fact - which is why I made myself (as the person who began the thread) available for discussion.

For sure, I feel that there is something to be discussed about experience, otherwise I wouldn’t have asked the question. And part of the discussion - as I made clear in my opening text - involves the nature of experience.

The headline question merely captured an aspect of what my question was about: I toyed with asking the more general question “What is experience?”, but I thought that might not target the specific aspect of it which brought it to my attention in the first place.

I don’t know if you saw the quotation that Huguette shared about K’s distinction between experience as a noun and experiencing as a verb (spoiler alert if you didn’t: they mean completely different things)?

This partly addressed my original question, because I was wondering what experiencing would mean in the absence of memory and thought (which may not be limited).

But it left open why K used the word experience in the way that he did, when the word memory (or previous knowledge) would suffice. So I asked if experience - as distinct from thought and memory - also involves our senses. And if you are aware of what K said about the senses during the 1980s, you will know that he proposed a manner of paying attention with all one’s senses - aka perceiving without a perceiver, or (in different words with, to me at least, the same meaning) experiencing without an experiencer

As the etymology of ‘experience’ makes plain, the word itself implies direct contact, observation, experiment, testing out - and K often talked about the need to test out what he was saying. So the fact that in K circles the word has come to mean purely memory did not (and still does not) make immediate sense to me.

But you are saying that it is obvious that experience is limited. So I was just asking you to explain what you mean by that word experience, because apparently you mean something slightly different from me.

That’s all.

Giving much attention to tenors might prevent one from “communicating harmoniously with each other”. In any case, i have no further interest in discussing this after having clarified so many times.

I have explained above.

It is limited because

Unless you are claiming to be omnipresent our experiences and understanding of the limited nature of experiences is obviously the same.

With this i am gonna have to stop and you might also have better fish to fry.

Best keep it vegan though, eh? :wink:

Whatever floats your boat.

Sorry - a silly joke. I’m vegan and you mentioned frying some fish.

Peace

In psychological world experience has no validity but in physical world experience is valuable. The psychological world includes human relationship .

1 Like

I think that our confusion is not about experience but it is about the word experiencing. We just don’t know what experiencing mean.

An update on the topic of experience.

Now what do we mean by experience? … There is the constant interplay between what is seen objectively and our reaction to it, and interplay between the conscious and the memories of the unconscious. According to my memories, I react to whatever I see, to whatever I feel. In this process of reacting to what I see, what I feel, what I know, what I believe, experience is taking place… [So] Reaction, response to something seen, is experience. When I see you, I react; the naming of that reaction is experience…

Then there is the projection of various desires. I desire to be protected, to have security inwardly; or I desire to have a Master, a guru, a teacher, a God; and I experience that which I have projected; that is, I have projected a desire which has taken a form, to which I have given a name; to that I react. It is my projection. It is my naming. That desire which gives me an experience makes me say: “I have experience”, “I have met the Master”, or "I have not met the Master”…

Is it possible for the mind, for the self, not to project, not to desire, not to experience? … One can see that the state of creation is not at all the experience of the self. Creation is when the self is not there, because creation is not intellectual, is not of the mind, is not self-projected, is something beyond all experiencing.

So is it possible for the mind to be quite still, in a state of non-recognition, or non-experiencing, to be in a state in which creation can take place, which means when the self is not there, when the self is absent? The problem is this, is it not? Any movement of the mind, positive or negative, is an experience which actually strengthens the ‘me’. Is it possible for the mind not to recognise? That can only take place when there is complete silence. (Chapter 9, The First and Last Freedom)