DefinitelyNotARobot

How can we trust our direct experience?

61 posts in this topic

There is a problem I've been thinking of as of lately.

There is an emphasis on direct experience in spiritual circles. Scientific minded people shake their hands at this. They believe in an objective, external world outside of our subjective bubbles.

How can these two be so sure?

Nobody has ever perceived an external world. Like ever. The thing we call "objective" really is nothing more than people agreeing with each other.

Why do the USA exist? Because people agree on it. If nobody agreed, on there being a country called the USA, it wouldn't exist. Or let's say I am the only person that doesn't agree on this. I simply believe that there is no such thing as the USA. Others would think that I am crazy!

The opposite of this: People believing that there is no such thing, as an objective world, and that everything is truly subjective.

The only thing we have EVER perceived is a subjective world. How else could people disagree on stuff if it was truly objective? The only objective thing we know (at least for me) is the fact that there is SOMETHING that exists, whatever that something is.

The only thing that I objectively know, is that there IS an experience of something. I don't know if there is anyone experiencing it, or what is being experienced. I just know that there is an experience. Everything I see might be a hallucination, but even the hallucination has to take place somewhere. So there is something, perceiving something. It could be A perceiving B or it could be A perceiving A. I don't know. All I do know is the perceiving itself.

Which brings me to my question: How can we ever be sure about ANY of this?

Nobody can proof that there is a objective world "out" there. But nobody can proof that there is no such thing as an objective world (I can't at least, sorry for making assumptions about you :|)

That is what confuses me: How can you trust your direct experience? Yes it could be the only thing with any value. But what if the scientific minded people were right all along? What if there IS an objective world out there, and what if your direct experience is flawed and can't be trusted? What would that mean about spirituality? (if true)

I honestly don't know. From my point of view, both could be wrong and both could be right.

Obviously there is the non-dual way of seeing things, but I haven't had any direct experiences of full non-duality, so I can't really talk on that one.

 

Keep in mind that I am siding with neither one here: I am simply open to both possibilities. I see a lot of flaws with the scientific way of looking at things, but I also see some flaws with the,experiential way.

That's why I want to hear your thoughts on this! How can you trust what you experience? For example: In my direct  experience, there is nobody experiencing any of this! There is just the experience itself! But what if my direct experience was actually wrong? What if there are brains and there is an objective world out there and my mind is the one experiencing all of it? What if the science guys were right all along?

TL;TR: What the heck is any of this?

Edited by DefinitelyNotARobot
Oh no...

beep boop

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, DefinitelyNotARobot said:

But what if the scientific minded people were right all along? What if there IS an objective world out there, and what if your direct experience is flawed and can't be trusted? What would that mean about spirituality? (if true)

Haha!

You can become conscious that "the objective world" is something you are imagining.

Look! You are imagining it!

There it is in your imagination! But you keep overlooking the obvious and imagining a world. You are so stuck in imagination you cannot stop doing it.

Quote

I honestly don't know. From my point of view, both could be wrong and both could be right.

Yes, but your POV isn't Absolute Consciousness yet.

Quote

Obviously there is the non-dual way of seeing things, but I haven't had any direct experiences of full non-duality, so I can't really talk on that one.

That is the whole problem.

Awakening is the only solution. Talking about it will never be enough.

You can become so conscious that you will obviously realize that all of science is a hallucination. It's so obvious. You just haven't gotten it yet. One day you will.

When you awaken deep enough you will realize that direct experience is Absolute Truth. Until then you will be lost in your imagination, imagining things beyond direct experience without realizing that is all still direct experience.

There is no alternative to direct experience. It's the only game in town. If you deny it, you might as well eat your own tail.


You are God. You are Truth. You are Love. You are Infinity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the problem with our culture today... were so dissociated we dont even believe in direct experience, we live in our monkey minds more than in our actual enviroment. 

"Look, an elephant! So majestic and beautiful" 

"But how do you know its actually there, what if your brain is fooling you, according to Dr. Thinkalot there is only atoms and quarks"

"But... elephant? Beautiful?:|"

Edited by Rilles

Dont look at me! Look inside!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Rilles said:

we live in our monkey minds more than in our actual enviroment.

Agree on this one. I know this too well from my own experience. There is a question though: How do we know that our environment is the same as the perception of our environment? That is what I was wondering. If Leo was right and the only way to know is to awaken, then it is no wonder that people believe their monkey minds more than their experience, since it's pretty damn hard for a person to awaken (I think so, I mean I am not awake so how would I know?)

Again I am open to both possibilities. I have to admit that I simply do not know. I hope to find out one day. But right now it just confuses me tbh.

Edited by DefinitelyNotARobot

beep boop

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, DefinitelyNotARobot said:

 There is a question though: How do we know that our environment is the same as the perception of our environment? That is what I was wondering.

You don't.

Perceptive faculties are limited and lead to the construction of an image which is all one knows and is convincing. In terms of vision, whatever exists in the environment (if anything) is reflecting the light which "falls" upon it which then enters the eyes, is processed in the brain to produce the image which is projected. Looking at it "the other way", whatever is seen is appreciated through the "limits" inherent in the visual apparatus hence cannot help but to impress objective limitations upon what's seen.

Another example- the sniffer dog can smell the traces of heroin on the carpet and you cannot. Whose perception is ultimately and comprehensively "right"? The honest answer would have to be neither.

Whatever is out there/present without objective limitations imposed by perceptive apparatus would not be apart from consciousness. So is Not A Thing.

A direct experience answers all the questions in a way that an intellectual approach cannot and IME shows the fundamental primary nature of consciousness appearing in multiple forms in a strange-loop arrangement.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Corpus said:

You don't.

Perceptive faculties are limited and lead to the construction of an image which is all one knows and is convincing. In terms of vision, whatever exists in the environment (if anything) is reflecting the light which "falls" upon it which then enters the eyes, is processed in the brain to produce the image which is projected. Looking at it "the other way", whatever is seen is appreciated through the "limits" inherent in the visual apparatus hence cannot help but to impress objective limitations upon what's seen.

Another example- the sniffer dog can smell the traces of heroin on the carpet and you cannot. Whose perception is ultimately and comprehensively "right"? The honest answer would have to be neither.

Whatever is out there/present without objective limitations imposed by perceptive apparatus would not be apart from consciousness. So is Not A Thing.

A direct experience answers all the questions in a way that an intellectual approach cannot and IME shows the fundamental primary nature of consciousness appearing in multiple forms in a strange-loop arrangement.

 

So Your logic is based on this conviction: "All perception is done by sense "organs", which limit and then construct an image of the external world, in other words, one never sees the external world for what it is in actuality.

But here is the catch, what if one can sense the external world NOT through sense organs of any kind, but directly from one`s Being?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, WHO IS said:

 

But here is the catch, what if one can sense the external world NOT through sense organs of any kind, but directly from one`s Being?

Direct Consciousness ie realizing Being dispels any notion of an "external" world altogether, IME.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The devious trick here is that there really is no such thing a perception or experience. The ego-mind mis-takes Truth as biological perception or experience because that's how it constructs a self. Ego is literally co-opting Absolute Truth and thinking of it as "my perception".

Without a self, what we normally think of a biological perception becomes recontextualized as Absolute Truth.

Ego goes a lot deeper than you can possibly imagine. It goes so deep that is creates the notion of "perception", "experience", and "biology". None of those are actually what is happening when you see a coffee table. But the ego-mind demands that when a coffee table is seen that you think it is an object appearing in "your" "perception".

Without this core self-deception God could not forget it is God, and therefore humans could not exist.

God has to fool itself completely that it is a human. Otherwise awakening is impossible.


You are God. You are Truth. You are Love. You are Infinity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

The devious trick here is that there really is no such thing a perception or experience. The ego-mind mis-takes Truth as biological perception or experience because that's how it constructs a self. Ego is literally co-opting Absolute Truth and thinking of it as "my perception".

Without a self, what we normally think of a biological perception becomes recontextualized as Absolute Truth.

 

I agree- Absolute Truth is revealed when the self goes. External (and internal) world is shown to be a limiting idea. Psychedelics are unsurpassed in this aspect of the work.

A recent 1p LSD experience (100mcg only) provided such an insight. The key was to spend the time from 30 minutes post-ingestion to 3 hours with eyes closed, alone and in silence. It was instructive watching how thoughts are like a centrifugal force, always moving outwards but with disinvolved observation they settle, absent themselves and then things "happen".....  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, DefinitelyNotARobot said:

There is a problem I've been thinking of as of lately.

There is an emphasis on direct experience in spiritual circles. Scientific minded people shake their hands at this. They believe in an objective, external world outside of our subjective bubbles.

How can these two be so sure?

Nobody has ever perceived an external world. Like ever. The thing we call "objective" really is nothing more than people agreeing with each other.

Why do the USA exist? Because people agree on it. If nobody agreed, on there being a country called the USA, it wouldn't exist. Or let's say I am the only person that doesn't agree on this. I simply believe that there is no such thing as the USA. Others would think that I am crazy!

The opposite of this: People believing that there is no such thing, as an objective world, and that everything is truly subjective.

The only thing we have EVER perceived is a subjective world. How else could people disagree on stuff if it was truly objective? The only objective thing we know (at least for me) is the fact that there is SOMETHING that exists, whatever that something is.

The only thing that I objectively know, is that there IS an experience of something. I don't know if there is anyone experiencing it, or what is being experienced. I just know that there is an experience. Everything I see might be a hallucination, but even the hallucination has to take place somewhere. So there is something, perceiving something. It could be A perceiving B or it could be A perceiving A. I don't know. All I do know is the perceiving itself.

Which brings me to my question: How can we ever be sure about ANY of this?

Nobody can proof that there is a objective world "out" there. But nobody can proof that there is no such thing as an objective world (I can't at least, sorry for making assumptions about you :|)

That is what confuses me: How can you trust your direct experience? Yes it could be the only thing with any value. But what if the scientific minded people were right all along? What if there IS an objective world out there, and what if your direct experience is flawed and can't be trusted? What would that mean about spirituality? (if true)

I honestly don't know. From my point of view, both could be wrong and both could be right.

Obviously there is the non-dual way of seeing things, but I haven't had any direct experiences of full non-duality, so I can't really talk on that one.

 

Keep in mind that I am siding with neither one here: I am simply open to both possibilities. I see a lot of flaws with the scientific way of looking at things, but I also see some flaws with the,experiential way.

That's why I want to hear your thoughts on this! How can you trust what you experience? For example: In my direct  experience, there is nobody experiencing any of this! There is just the experience itself! But what if my direct experience was actually wrong? What if there are brains and there is an objective world out there and my mind is the one experiencing all of it? What if the science guys were right all along?

TL;TR: What the heck is any of this?

here's the thing,both are incomplete pieces of the whole story

psychonauts traditionaly think that ''counscuousness is a buble that expands to the infinite'' that itself is a assumption that is based on the traditional materialism paradigm,the actual case is that counsciousness transcends itself to a trans-human counsciousness,

all new discoveries a pshychonault could make alone its already backed-up in pre-concepts of the mind about what that thing could be or not be,

the explanation for all this (that is denied by both idealists and materialists and teached in old religions and esoteric traditions such as esoterical budhism),is that forces from outside of the mind (spirits you may say),time to time come down to earth and influences and shifts human counsciousness


spiritual case.jpg

that's what tibetean budhism pratices is all about ,they investigate the mind via meditation and techniques,and then they learn what the transcendental masters have been teaching during thousands of years ,then they mix the inside with the outside,they do alchemy,and finnaly then they get enlightened and can do several ''paranormal'' things 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@DefinitelyNotARobot

People at tier one have a high tendency to find themselves trapped within a particular paradigm and not be able to view things outside of it. This gives rise to all sorts of problems in understanding, one of which is the one you're addressing. The mind always wants to control the narrative. The mind will say: "this" is "that" and alike phrases to keep itself running. It's the number one most favourite habit of the mind to create pointers. However, when the pointers get too many, they overwhelm the mind, and so it ends up being confused.

With enough meditation to slow the pace of the thoughts, one can clearly see that there is no "subjective" nor "objective". One can see that there is no "direct experience" nor "proof". All of these terms are pointers that are heavily loaded with meanings. And for an untrained awareness/mind, it's easy to get lost and confused by all that.

To begin the process of deconstruction, one must ask questions. What is "subjective"? What is "objective"? What do these terms refer to in reality?

You've got a nice definition of "objective"; which is: consensus. This definition is not what "objective" actually is. This definition is fit for the paradigm from which you're approaching the question; The paradigm of direct experience; The original raw form of the scientific paradigm. Paradigms create the ground necessary for asking questions, and they colour and shape the answers. Paradigms control the input and output of the mind. Without a paradigm, you can't ask nor answer any questions whatsoever. The mind requires a framework to operate from, and without that framework, it will get dismantled, and there will be nonsense. In other words, as long as you're trying to make sense of reality by trying answer existential questions, you're stuck in a prison of your own creation; Creating a problem and then trying to solve it from the same source that created it in the first place. So, you'll be running around in circles.

Just stop! Take a deep breath. The answers to no-questions are beyond the mind.

Stop!

Observe.

Feel!

Edited by The observer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here’s a weird inquiry that arose, for anyone who thinks they understand objectivity / subjectivity....

If there’s no objective world, only illusion of “perception of” ...why did you create the corona virus? 

Why are you imagining it?

(Not the thought label “corona virus”)

 

 


MEDITATIONS TOOLS  ActualityOfBeing.com  GUIDANCE SESSIONS

NONDUALITY LOA  My Youtube Channel  THE TRUE NATURE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Nahm said:

Here’s a weird inquiry that arose, for anyone who thinks they understand objectivity / subjectivity....

If there’s no objective world, only illusion of “perception of” ...why did you create the corona virus? 

Why are you imagining it?

(Not the thought label “corona virus”)

 

 

maybe it makes for a good story... I like stories :) 


Check out my lucid dreaming anthology series, Stars of Clay  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Nahm said:

Here’s a weird inquiry that arose, for anyone who thinks they understand objectivity / subjectivity....

If there’s no objective world, only illusion of “perception of” ...why did you create the corona virus? 

Why are you imagining it?

(Not the thought label “corona virus”)

 

 

Coronation of a King.

Feeling Being as God complete end of self deception and "white robe". Non achievement. 

I feel Reality as God/LOVE not as Imagination. 

Edited by zeroISinfinity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, SoonHei said:

the answer to your question about direct experience will be received in your direct experience 

Yeah.... Lesson learned..... From smile tennis. (not ready for that guy's backhand..... Yet) 

Now=God

Edited by zeroISinfinity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because there´s nothing else, mate.

Accept that THIS moment is infinite, imaginary, full... there´s nothing else to do but to surrender, endlessly, to THIS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Nahm Need to consult with lightworkers first, sorry. 

May I just be this Love Being and just laugh?

(yes corona came in right time, met desired hippie chick, filled dreamboard like a pro, fully erased any form of personal thinking etc) 

Edited by zeroISinfinity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, SoonHei said:

the answer to your question about direct experience will be received in your direct experience 

That was kind of the problem. Let's say I look at a coin. I can only see one side of the coin at a time. Does that mean that the other side does not exist?

Of course it COULD be that it actually stops existing as long as it's not being observed, and that it starts existing as soon as I turn the coin around, but I couldn't know that (unless, like Leo said, I became very conscious I guess).

Same with objective reality, vs subjective reality. Just because I can only experience subjective reality, does that mean that objective reality is untrue?

 

25 minutes ago, Nahm said:

why did you create the corona virus? 

This actually gave me an idea: If everything truly is one, which it is (not even a scientist that didn't have a direct experience of oneness can deny that) that would mean that subject = object? Me = corona virus? Me = Body, Me = Mind, but also me = everything else? But who is the "me" then? Who is the subject? The mind, the body, and literally EVERYTHING that "I" can perceive is just another object, isn't it? Now, if you try to observe the "subject" all that you will find is more object. Actually I can't find a subject in my direct experience. There is no "observer" just the observed. This confuses me even more, plus it brings me back to my original question: How do I know that any of this is true? Just because I can't see the other side of the coin, does that mean it doesn't exist? I feel like I am walking in circles. :S

 

59 minutes ago, The observer said:

as long as you're trying to make sense of reality by trying answer existential questions, you're stuck in a prison of your own creation

Kind of reminds me of a small insight I had on shrooms. Even if I did understand 100% of EVERYTHING through contemplation (which obviously can't be done because this finite mind would have to understand an infinite amount of things) I would just end up back where I started. I would understand why I don't understand everything and why I am not meant to understand everything and I would understand why I suffer and where suffering comes from and why I am supposed to suffer and I would be back where I had started...  Meaning I would just understand why everything was the way it is and nothing would really change... So there is no point in understanding any of this.

 

But I can't help it!! My mind is just so thirsty for knowledge! I mean I can't blame it, knowledge is pretty damn tasty! :D

1 hour ago, Verdesbird said:

the explanation for all this (that is denied by both idealists and materialists and teached in old religions and esoteric traditions such as esoterical budhism),is that forces from outside of the mind (spirits you may say),time to time come down to earth and influences and shifts human counsciousness

Kind of reminds me of the Law of One and the 7 densities:42YhBOf.jpg

... even though this is some mumbo jumbo from my point of view. I guess it either is, or I have to awaken to some higher truth, but I'll find out somewhere in the future! (hopefully)


beep boop

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now