It certainly has two sides in language; the very word 'experience' stacks the deck in favour of a two-sided understanding, implying a thing and an experiencer of the thing.
Yes it does, which is why it can be very difficult to talk about these things in order to 'break them down' for the purpose of realising something.
But why shouldn't I notice that this condition (what I'm talking about when I'm talking about experience) is just what it is, on it's own.
You are implying that there is a real self that notices, or does not notice something.
Is there such a thing?
The experience that is here doesn't 'come into' anything at this side ... it seemingly gathers around nothingness at this side.
You've got it.
But do you find 'nothingness' at this side? 'Nothingness' would still be a 'thing' that you are implying experience comes into.
My questions to you is . . . whatever is assumed that experience comes into . . . can it only ever be an assumption? A belief or an idea?
That would include 'self' and 'I' as a separate 'thing' that is being assumed.
If I look into a mirror, I can see my eyes in the mirror, and I can see them being on this side from that side, but I still can't see them being at this side from this side
Yes. Whatever is in the mirror is 'what is seen'.
To suggest 'Those eyes are doing the seeing' is to imply that what is being seen is also doing the seeing.
I just mean to explain how even if I could find something which might be 'the self' in perceptions, it wouldn't be the same as finding it on the other side of perceptions
Yes. But if you DID make an assumption of what it was . . . could it ever be really true? Or ONLY an assumption - An idea - A belief.
Would it be 'just a belief' to hold that the 'thing' was something separate to everything else?!?!?
But isn't that admitting non-duality? That the experience-er and the experience-ed aren't separate?
You are referring to two things that are not seperate.
Non-duality would be the realisation that there are not two things.
You could say 'experiencer and experienced are not separate' as some-sort of simplicity for the purpose of understanding. That would be OK.
But if it were REALLY TRUE, you would be able to find these two things that you are referring to and find them 'not separate'.
Why does there have to be an experiencer anyway? It might suggest that there is still a clinging to the subject/object model. Still the belief that there is a real self but they are located somewhere else.
But choice and control are more confusing because I'm still not sure on what experiences make up the feeling of control or choice. I can't locate those thoughts. They don't seem to occur.
Are there thoughts about 'what made that choice' or 'what made the arm move' occurring afterwards?