UnbornTao

Depends on what you mean by spirituality and what your goals are. Essentially, I'd say that its ultimate purpose is becoming conscious of the absolute truth, aka "awakening." Another purpose could be to become increasingly honest with oneself - aligned with what's true on every level.

Iced tea.

Of course. this is a joke

Not sure I've experienced something similar, but I appreciate the sentiment. Sensitivity can be very powerful.

You MONSTER! Leave the tree alone!

It has to be authentic, though - it has to come from a personal insight instead of a theory. Important principle.

Can't prove a belief system. Go after what's true regarding what you are.

You take for granted what self, life, and you are. Why not start there?

Although his group eventually turned into a cult and he engaged in some controversial behavior, he was also profoundly "awakened" - arguably the closest thing to a modern-day Ramana. If you're not familiar with this kind of "spiritual" content, the whole thing might understandably give off some weird vibes. In any case, you can give it a listen.

What are those things before you knew them as such - beyond their relationship to you? What are they prior to logic - even prior to your perception of them? Perhaps there were no "things" there to begin with, and what you're calling this may be nothing but an activity. How could you even begin to approach that, coming from the taken-for-granted world we live in?

Did you make a breakthrough? Did you have a new experience - see something you hadn't seen before? Are you personally and undeniably conscious of the nature of experience? It might be that what you call direct is, in fact, indirect. No answer or conclusion will do it - hence the recurring mu koan joke. What do you expect an answer to give you?

Don't worry, on this thread it's about the questioning itself. Thanks for your answers!

Truth as what is. Like Archimedes and his "eureka" moment - not a conclusion but a personal consciousness of the truth. Thank you.

@Anton Rogachevski It’s been a fruitful interchange. Yes, the goal was simply to open up a bit and contemplate experience. Is there more to be found? Yes, the truth - maybe a breakthrough, or an insight into what experience is. But as we can see, that’s not readily available. It's a matter of personal effort. I skimmed your article. It looks like it took a lot of work, and it’s a smart analysis. It seems to point toward a more “bare” experience of the present moment, which is probably a move in a positive direction. But of course, reading and logical understanding are only the first step.

@theleelajoker Thanks for your input! Now, what would you say experience is? We can look into that.

Not me But it happens. I think the videos use "/articles."

https://www.actualized.org/insights/wrong-state

Of experience? It's an idea.

She created language as a context in her experience.

"Experience" is what we conventionally regard as coming after perception, though we typically make no distinction between the two - 'I perceive this pencil, therefore I’m experiencing it.' Direct experience, however, would be the apprehension of being prior to perception - getting to the being of the object, whatever that may be. The former is a process, a function of interpretation and meaning-making; the latter, a function of consciousness - an encounter with the thing-itself.

Are you a self? There you go.

Yep, thanks! You brought up the perception called “oneself,” and how it isn’t found anywhere. I made a distinction between the self as an activity and what one is, existentially. Do we experience ourselves? But that was a side point. It doesn't. That part relates to the self we take ourselves to be - a result of activity, such as identification, history, programming, education, and so on. It’s in this domain that we recognize ourselves in the conventional sense. The question is meant to be contemplated rather than answered. It’s not an enlightenment question. It's a good start to grasp the entity who is asking - because, again, regardless of belief or hearsay, nearly everyone experiences themselves as someone. Anyway - experience! Let's leave the self alone for the moment. Hey, you're trying to be more ambitious than I am here. The original question was “What is experience?” Out of that, we encounter, basically, thoughts about something and lived experience - dictated, perhaps, by our degree of participation in the encounter. The goal is to clarify that difference, and then more powerfully ask what experience is - especially what direct experience is. Perhaps a better way to approach this topic is to ask: What in one's experience isn't conceptual?

Not only the definition but the way it is experienced. I think this overlooks the invention itself. What has to happen in one's experience, for something to be created out of nothing? "Some one was drawing water and my teacher placed my hand under the spout. As the cool stream gushed over one hand she spelled into the other the word water, first slowly, then rapidly. I stood still, my whole attention fixed upon the motions of her fingers. Suddenly I felt a misty consciousness as of something forgotten–a thrill of returning thought; and somehow the mystery of language was revealed to me. I knew then that "w-a-t-e-r" meant the wonderful cool something that was flowing over my hand. That living word awakened my soul, gave it light, hope, joy, set it free!" - Helen Keller.

@Anton Rogachevski We should have stuck with the mu answer from the very beginning I suggested there's the self, and being. The former is what you take yourself to be; the latter is what you actually are, prior to activity. The "who" question isn't about enlightenment but about getting the person doing the asking. You likely experience yourself right now as someone, so who is that someone? If I were to ask you to hand me that pencil over there, you'd grab the object and give it to me. You wouldn't give me your idea of the pencil. This is another simplistic example but I think it gets the point across. So, you're saying that concept is the same as experience, not just that it can be experienced. Okay. Again, experientially - without stories or resorting to intellect - you can see that they're not exactly the same, can't you? That's the basic point.