Experience and its Dependence

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=whqll8v4F3g

experiences depend on the experiencer

state your opinion so before i tell you

whether that was right or wrong i want

some opinions

is experience dependent on the

experiencer raj is saying experiences

depend on the mediation of senses not on

experiencer yeah

so everything has become controversial

now nitin is saying one doesn't exist

without the other they both are together

i am happy with your nitin's answer you

have a little bit of understanding yes

shreyas she is saying both are

interdependent on each other and drawing

intertwined very good gram is saying

there is no experience without some

experience sir i mean i mean you are

right yes no experience without the

experiencer

we are talking about the dependence the

relation dependence assumes

that one follows the other right your

child is dependent on you let us say

social situation so you have an

independent existence without your child

and let us say the fire depends on the

fuel so fuel is already there then comes

the fire which is which cannot happen

without the petrol or oil whatever coal

is something like this happening

sewerage is saying yes experience the

essence of all experiences that is also

true that since comes out to be the

experiencer but we are not talking about

it what is the essence of the existence

can we have this kind of dependency

relation between the two everybody is

kind of saying that

they are

rajiv has a long answer though in

reality both are essentially one only

and the division itself is an act of

illusion

i agree with rajiv also

bharti is saying experience is watching

itself in the form of experiences and

ashwin is saying no they are one they

don't have any relation yes finally i am

happy with this answer the relation is

of oneness not our dependency

you know this is very subtle question i

know a very difficult question and many

people have this kind of

you can say opinion i'm not going to say

that it is wrong to call it like this

you can say dependency but then you

should have an understanding that the

world is not suitable like rajiv said no

the word hints towards a very peculiar

relation but it's not a relation

actually it takes two to relate it takes

two to relate if it is only one is is a

relation possible is dependency possible

like i gave you the example of fire the

fuel exists without fire also but the

experiencer does not is never seen

without experience amazing and the

experiences was

never seen without a body and so that is

the cause of the illusion i mean that's

the cause of the ignorance that the

experience depends on the body there

begins the materialism

and the root you can trace it to the

word dependency because the word

dependency was not understood by the

materialist

argument is the body comes first then

comes the experiencer of the body which

is dependent on the body is this

argument correct obviously totally

illogical

stupid argument the body was never seen

without the experiencer

so the idealist has a opposite

argument

like experiencer is the fundamental and

the body appears in it the body is

dependent on it and that is the you know

trademark of shaivism and some other

philosophies

but non

non-dualist knows in this whole universe

you know only non-dualist people know

others i don't have any good words for

them so

graham is saying we made up the terms in

p okay we divided existence 2 for

discussion teaching very good yeah

very convenient to talk in dual language

because that is what our intellect can

grasp

can the intellect grasp the non-duality

no

so it is very uh

natural for these kind of confusions to

be there what is depend on what because

you are

trapped in duality most of the time you

are discussing duality

i mean there is nothing to discuss in

non-duality it is silence