WokeBloke

My post has nothing to with whether you are God or not. It's about whether you or I exist. What would you say to the people that claim you don't exist whatsoever?

@The Lucid Dreamer What error do you think I am making in my post?

How do I convince myself that the subject or experiencer of creation is the creator? I have been thinking about the possibility of the subject being controlled by a SEPERATE evil demon (much like Descartes proposed years ago). I propose the idea that the evil demon is generating the subject's experience and forcing the subject to experience what it is experiencing. In this setup the subject is simply witnessing the creation but is not responsible for the creation whatsoever. The subject has no will of its own and no ability to defend itself from the devil. The idea is the whole world is just a trick the devil made in order to torture the so-called subject. Now you might say this is just your imagination but then I could say the devil could be forcing the subject to imagine and experience this.

Two camps: 1. You are the experience that is happening. This is equivalent to saying sounds hear, books read themselves, and colors see colors. In other words experiences are you. 2. You are not the experiences that you are experiencing. In this case it is unknown what you are but you not an experience. Thus you can't be experienced but you have the ability to experience. In other words experiences are yours but not you. I lean towards camp 2 since all experiences are creations/manifestations and I think the source of creation must be uncreated which would rule out all creations as being the source of creation. Thoughts?

@Kksd74628 sense of self is an experience and consequently not I. I refers to no experience so you won't find any perceiver in the experience. You can only be I. I is that which has and experiences a sense of self but is not the sense of self or feeling of existing. I refers to that which actually exists. Only that which exists can sense its own existence.

@Kksd74628 If you think there is one thing then what is the issue with using the word I? The supposed one thing refers to itself using the word I. Subject and object are just referring to two different aspects of this indivisible being. The manifested or uncreated aspect and the created/manifested aspect. The permanent and the impermanent happening simultaneously. And it is said that this "being" for lack of a better word exists, is aware or is alive and is experiencing its creation. One uncreated creator experiencing its creation.

You've just replaced the word "experience" with the word "movie". All movies could be classified as long experiences.

@Kksd74628 you've just replaced I with "universe". Universe sees or I see. If the so-called universe is watching the movie then the universe is the subject. I don't understand why you think there is no subject.

@Kksd74628 Then what sees and responds to this post?

The subject is not an experience. You won't find yourself in your experience. I refers to no experience. What sees this post? The post does not see the post for it has no eyes to see. Yet this post is seen otherwise you couldn't respond. So that which reads this post is the perceiving subject which is not its perception. The subject is present for every moment of its existence.

that phrase makes no sense if you aren't alive to begin with.

@Kksd74628 Obviously the word I is not experiencing. It is a reference to that which is experiencing. The user of the word I exists otherwise it wouldn't be able to say I.

The only limit is you. Between these three axioms your operate: 1. You are free to desire whatever you want to. 2. You are free to do whatever you are capable of. 3. You can't do that which you can't do even if you want to.

How can you be sure that the subject's experience is your experience? A higher power could be completely deceiving the subject.

the very issue is I can't prove the subject's being is my being. How to prove a devil is not forcing the subject to go through this and think this?

I meant separate subject not source by the way! I didn't correct it quick enough. The subject's mom could be a trick created by the devil to make the subject think that its mom created it.

Indeed. Could that source create a separate subject? And if not why?

You can blame things that are non-entities. Ex. The crops died because there was no rain. And you can also blame the creator of auto-correct. There would be no blame without a source of blame and also no blame without something to blame.

If you are saying the ability to respond belongs to the subject I could simply say the devil designed the subject's experience such that it seems like it is responsible from its own perspective but in reality isn't.

Well traditionally one thinks the blame comes from the subject. I'm just trying to prove that.

The subject's seemingly independent ability to respond and its responses could also be forced by the devil in order to trick the subject.

How do I prove to myself that the subject's reality is the creator's reality?

That's not a solution. The devil may be forcing the subject to stop thinking.

And how do I see through my own trick?

@Nahm I is a reference to yourself by you.