|
Post by earnest on May 11, 2015 14:08:21 GMT -5
Apparently, according to my interpretations of my discussions with earnest, satchitananda, and a number of other Advaita(and it's off-springs Non-Duality and Self Realization) devotees\practitioners over the years, they all seem to be saying i am missing something regarding Direct Experience, that i am not comprehending it. Whenever i have discussions with such people, i am confident i understand what they are describing, and my responses to their questions or 'direct experience' tests are accurate. But they all end up saying i just don't get it. So, to simplify it so i can grasp the basics, if anyone is interested, can we please keep away from experiencing complex things like the self or some intricate situation. A spoon. Please describe to me your 'direct experience' of a spoon and then describe to me a 'non-direct experience' of a spoon, so i can gather info from the comparison. The more details you provide, the better the potential that i will be able to understand this phenomena. ------------------------------------------------------------------ (for those of you that only desire to once again state i am trolling, I have not forgotten you, i have a thread in mind that i will post, entitled, 'theories of human nature' where one of the posts will be about the phenomena of labeling people as trolls. So i will not be responding to any troll comments in this thread if they should arise. I think you're kind of maybe unintentionally trolling, or at least getting people to spend a bunch of time explaining something just so you can tell them all your ideas. How about you describe the difference with the spoon example and we can go from there. Sound ok?
|
|
|
Post by silver on May 11, 2015 14:31:20 GMT -5
People can say things that sound snarky, but still be sincere. fwiw
I've been perpetually confused about that sort of thing, also.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 11, 2015 14:39:42 GMT -5
People can say things that sound snarky, but still be sincere. fwiw I've been perpetually confused about that sort of thing, also. 2) You are a beautiful human being!
|
|
|
Post by andrew on May 11, 2015 15:00:14 GMT -5
Apparently, according to my interpretations of my discussions with earnest, satchitananda, and a number of other Advaita(and it's off-springs Non-Duality and Self Realization) devotees\practitioners over the years, they all seem to be saying i am missing something regarding Direct Experience, that i am not comprehending it. Whenever i have discussions with such people, i am confident i understand what they are describing, and my responses to their questions or 'direct experience' tests are accurate. But they all end up saying i just don't get it. So, to simplify it so i can grasp the basics, if anyone is interested, can we please keep away from experiencing complex things like the self or some intricate situation. A spoon. Please describe to me your 'direct experience' of a spoon and then describe to me a 'non-direct experience' of a spoon, so i can gather info from the comparison. The more details you provide, the better the potential that i will be able to understand this phenomena. ------------------------------------------------------------------ (for those of you that only desire to once again state i am trolling, I have not forgotten you, i have a thread in mind that i will post, entitled, 'theories of human nature' where one of the posts will be about the phenomena of labeling people as trolls. So i will not be responding to any troll comments in this thread if they should arise. Great thread title and question, though not one I find personally easy to answer specifically in terms of 'the spoon', and that's because in direct experience I experience a shiny silver round headed thing with a longish tail, just as I do in indirect experience. However, in indirect experience I experience the quality of 'objectness' quite strongly, whereas in direct experience, the quality of 'objectness' is far less distinct, and is replaced with something that isn't easy to describe. I will attempt to though. I could say that I experience the 'energy' of the spoon more distinctly, I could perhaps say that I experience the 'spirit' of the spoon more distinctly, or the 'isness' more distinctly. I'm not quite satisfied with any of these labels, but I can't find one that I am totally happy with. I can perhaps describe 'objectness' though. 'Objectness' is the sense of something existing separately from other things. It's the sense that 'the spoon' has its own isolated existence, that it exists in and of itself, that it is disconnected from anything else, that it is a single fragmented 'piece' of life. Also in the experience of 'objectness', our attention is very much placed outside of ourselves, thus the objects of the world (and the world itself) takes up a lot of space in our conscious awareness. In direct experience, our attention is more balanced between what's happening outside and also what's happening inside, and this creates a sense of space in our conscious awareness. There is more that could be said on what I mean by 'inside', but I've worked pretty hard on this, so I'll let it be.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 11, 2015 15:11:33 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on May 11, 2015 15:25:07 GMT -5
Please describe to me your 'direct experience' of a spoon
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 11, 2015 15:42:56 GMT -5
Apparently, according to my interpretations of my discussions with earnest, satchitananda, and a number of other Advaita(and it's off-springs Non-Duality and Self Realization) devotees\practitioners over the years, they all seem to be saying i am missing something regarding Direct Experience, that i am not comprehending it. Whenever i have discussions with such people, i am confident i understand what they are describing, and my responses to their questions or 'direct experience' tests are accurate. But they all end up saying i just don't get it. So, to simplify it so i can grasp the basics, if anyone is interested, can we please keep away from experiencing complex things like the self or some intricate situation. A spoon. Please describe to me your 'direct experience' of a spoon and then describe to me a 'non-direct experience' of a spoon, so i can gather info from the comparison. The more details you provide, the better the potential that i will be able to understand this phenomena. ------------------------------------------------------------------ (for those of you that only desire to once again state i am trolling, I have not forgotten you, i have a thread in mind that i will post, entitled, 'theories of human nature' where one of the posts will be about the phenomena of labeling people as trolls. So i will not be responding to any troll comments in this thread if they should arise. The question posed by the OP (essentially the bold underlined) pretty-much describes the problem concerning what you are asking. If one does what you ask, then putting it into words automatically negates the request, IOW, it's impossible to describe a direct experience (the description is always at least once removed from the actuality). But going past that, it seems there is a requirement of how things must be in relating what occurs when one describes a direct experience, and if one doesn't precisely nail that description (keeping in mind the first paragraph), then it necessarily means one has not had this non-dual experience. This seems a somewhat awkward requirement, I have called it an artificial conceptual grid. (What else could it be?) Zen Buddhism has gotten around this problem (the two paragraphs above) by saying that transmission is (necessarily) outside any verbal description (scriptures). The "authority" for this is the silent sermon of the Buddha who held up a flower. The smile of the one disciple was just that transmission outside any verbal description. However, having said all that, in the beginning and probably for a long time, if there is any inner verbal mind-chattering stuff going on at the time of direct experience, then you can know it isn't/wasn't direct (non-dual) experience. (The "in the beginning and probably for a long time" means that this "rule" of no interior verbal "commentary" is not an absolute requirement, but you won't have any doubt as to its possibility should it ever happen, [it will be obligatorily extraordinarily significant]). And arguing over details is futile. Don't worry if there seems to be and 'us' and 'them' (one or the other or both, pulling down an artificial grid. Just go back to the first paragraph).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 11, 2015 15:46:40 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by earnest on May 11, 2015 15:52:35 GMT -5
I think you're kind of maybe unintentionally trolling, or at least getting people to spend a bunch of time explaining something just so you can tell them all your ideas.How about you describe the difference with the spoon example and we can go from there. Sound ok? Re:underlined: If that is what you perceive\conclude i am doing, then it seems logical to me you will not participate. Perhaps you do not like to hear my thoughts on matters that you already have your own on. Perhaps your definition of a conversation is you get to express your thoughts and the other is not meant to. It is not ok. Earnest, i just finished describing my experiences with many people and how they all seem confident i have no understanding\experiential knowledge of 'direct experience'. I then expressed how it will maybe('cus i dont' have access to the future)help me to increase understanding of this phenomena if people who do know 'direct experience' can provide details of both it and a 'non direct experience'... ...and you respond with, hey jay why don't you describe them both first...~facepalm~ ...you want me to describe an experience that many direct experiencer's are confident i have never experienced... ~second facepalm~ Earnest, i cannot help you with your suspicions about me. If you feel like i am constructing a set up, a trap, then by all means do not enter into it. It does not bother me if someone mistrusts me, i will simply continue being my open and honest self, and allow people to construct any image they desire or need to about me. Those that do trust me, logically, remain and develop a relationship, those that don't, end it or keep their distance. I am content with either type of response. I do not have to, nor desire to make an effort to convince people, to win them over. I simply just be myself and let others simply just be themselves and choose what they want to do with their relationship with me. No need to hit yourself in the face.. Sounds like you’ve already had these discussions with people before – many people from what you say – and none of them have helped you resolve the difference between *the* experience and thoughts etc *about* the experience. So rather than just go over the same ground again – which would be re-sieving the same dirt over and over and still expecting to find a precious gem – tell me about what your understanding of the difference is and we can go from there. The invitation is there, you can either accept or reject it.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on May 11, 2015 16:07:29 GMT -5
Great thread title and question, though not one I find personally easy to answer specifically in terms of 'the spoon', and that's because in direct experience I experience a shiny silver round headed thing with a longish tail, just as I do in indirect experience. However, in indirect experience I experience the quality of 'objectness' quite strongly, whereas in direct experience, the quality of 'objectness' is far less distinct, and is replaced with something that isn't easy to describe. I will attempt to though. I could say that I experience the 'energy' of the spoon more distinctly, I could perhaps say that I experience the 'spirit' of the spoon more distinctly, or the 'isness' more distinctly. I'm not quite satisfied with any of these labels, but I can't find one that I am totally happy with. I can perhaps describe 'objectness' though. 'Objectness' is the sense of something existing separately from other things. It's the sense that 'the spoon' has its own isolated existence, that it exists in and of itself, that it is disconnected from anything else, that it is a single fragmented 'piece' of life. Also in the experience of 'objectness', our attention is very much placed outside of ourselves, thus the objects of the world (and the world itself) takes up a lot of space in our conscious awareness. In direct experience, our attention is more balanced between what's happening outside and also what's happening inside, and this creates a sense of space in our conscious awareness. There is more that could be said on what I mean by 'inside', but I've worked pretty hard on this, so I'll let it be. Thanks for the informative response and ~thumbsup~ about the title, andrew. I was finalising the OP content, then started scanning my innards for a title, and the Star Wars reference very quickly came into view... i liked it so chose it. Clarify any discrepancies here in this response first ,then i can continue with the other things i wish to discuss of your post. I interpret you are saying, engaging in 'indirect experience' creates\produces focus on the 3D physical manifestation of existence. The spoon is a separate physical form of distinct qualities, separate from you, and even though you can connect with it by observing and touching it, you are aware of a distinct separation. Activating 'direct experience' creates\produces focus on the underlying energy field that the physical manifests from. And it is this underlying energy realm where you sense\see more connection to the spoon because the distinction of physical separate forms dissolves to reveal the energy of the spoon which is not separate, or not as separated from your energy. That the energy that manifests as the separate physical form of andrew is the same energy type that the spoon is made of. And this is why you express it as 'you experience\feel\sense the "spirit " of the spoon. 'Spirit' culturally associated with the soul of a thing, the heart, the essence, the inner or "true" nature that lies beyond the range of the 5 senses. And also culturally, it can be said the reason why a person can experience\see\sense\feel the inner being of a thing is due to them having a closer more intimate connection\relationship to it. The relationship deepens due to the connection goes deeper beyond the physical contact. yep! Your interpretation works fine for me.
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on May 11, 2015 16:25:07 GMT -5
It's the sense that 'the spoon' has its own isolated existence. I would say that if there were no such thing as "space" the spoon would have no existence whatsoever. In this regard, the spoon does not exist in isolation, but rather is existentially dependent upon "space" for its beingness. And it is not an equal existence either. The spoon requires space in order to exist, but space has no such requirement.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on May 11, 2015 16:36:38 GMT -5
It's the sense that 'the spoon' has its own isolated existence. I would say that if there were no such thing as "space" the spoon would have no existence whatsoever. In this regard, the spoon does not exist in isolation, but rather is existentially dependent upon "space" for its beingness. And it is not an equal existence either. The spoon requires space in order to exist, but space has no such requirement. yes. I don't tend to use the word 'space' in the way you are using it there, but it doesn't matter, I understand what you are saying.
|
|
|
Post by earnest on May 11, 2015 19:32:00 GMT -5
I can't help myself I'm not sure what an indirect experience of something is... direct experience examples - feeling the temperature of it when you pick it up - hearing the "tink tink tink" when you knock it on the edge of a cup after stirring - seeing the shape and colour of it not direct experience examples - thinking about a commemorative spoon your grandmother owned. - thinking about how spoons are made - Talking about spoons on a forum
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 11, 2015 22:46:07 GMT -5
There is nothing on that page that fulfills my criteria in the OP. "Then - when was it? 1992? I'm not sure - Douglas came out here to Australia and I attended a two-day workshop. Confirmation time. The-One-That-Sees-is Unsee-able. It was then that I mentioned that after reading his book, I couldn't ever believe again that I was a little someone on the inside looking out, but that I'd had 17 years of difficulties due to this. He said: "Yes, the little man doesn't give up easily." All that pain summed up so simply, but he was right! That's all it's been." ...
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on May 12, 2015 0:14:56 GMT -5
Normally, I would say "direct experience" would involve touching the object, such as holding the spoon, while "indirect experience" would be seeing or hearing the object at a distance. However, I just read "Conquest of Illusion", where they make a pretty good case that both touching and seeing something are only triggering nerves that are translating information to the brain, so there is no difference. Direct experience usually just means raw, unfiltered perception, an absence of the process of objectifying, which means it is prior to intellect/mind.
|
|