|
Post by tzujanli on May 12, 2015 5:21:34 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). It is not impossible to describe a direct experience, we do it all the time.. the issue is to be aware that the description is not the experience, like the menu is not the meal..
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on May 12, 2015 5:26:16 GMT -5
Now please describe to me your 'non-direct experience' of a spoon I was eating some soup the other day, the fork didn't work too well, neither did the knife.. there was another utensil there, metal, with a four inch handle and a concave oval structure about an inch and a quarter along the major axis and 3/4 of an inch along the semi-major axis that worked quite nicely.. the soup was really good, too..
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 12, 2015 11:59:43 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. Mind thinks there is something confusing about looking at a spoon in this moment, because it can't stand presence. But you don't have to follow the thought like a puppy dog and believe it, because it's not actually true. Nothing is confusing about this moment if your attention is present and the mind is quiescent. Which means it isn't thinking about what's happening: labeling, naming, comparing, judging, remembering, adding to, complaining, imagining.... And along with the quiescent mind and presence of attention, there is the awareness of You which is at the back of it all. The still empty space in which Life is simply allowed to unfold as it will. It's that simple.
|
|
|
Post by silver on May 12, 2015 12:03:02 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. Mind thinks there is something confusing about looking at a spoon in this moment, because it can't stand presence. But you don't have to follow the thought like a puppy dog and believe it, because it's not actually true. Nothing is confusing about this moment if your attention is present and the mind is quiescent. Which means it isn't thinking about what's happening: labeling, naming, comparing, judging, remembering, adding to, complaining, imagining.... And along with the quiescent mind and presence of attention, there is the awareness of You which is at the back of it all. The still empty space in which Life is simply allowed to unfold as it will. It's that simple. I guess when it gets talked about for years literally, I've gotten the distinct idea that it's far more complicated than this. It's senseless to me, to talk about something so simple -- I'm not sure how the issue gets clouded. Too much yacking, I suppose.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 12, 2015 12:09:32 GMT -5
Mind thinks there is something confusing about looking at a spoon in this moment, because it can't stand presence. But you don't have to follow the thought like a puppy dog and believe it, because it's not actually true. Nothing is confusing about this moment if your attention is present and the mind is quiescent. Which means it isn't thinking about what's happening: labeling, naming, comparing, judging, remembering, adding to, complaining, imagining.... And along with the quiescent mind and presence of attention, there is the awareness of You which is at the back of it all. The still empty space in which Life is simply allowed to unfold as it will. It's that simple. I guess when it gets talked about for years literally, I've gotten the distinct idea that it's far more complicated than this. It's senseless to me, to talk about something so simple -- I'm not sure how the issue gets clouded. Too much yacking, I suppose. Yes, yacking, thinking, feelings and emotions are all powerful pulls on the attention/awareness, but you only have to be present for just a moment, that's all it takes to get a taste. Even once a week or once a month is enough. The yacking won't let you be present for very long anyway, but you will be slowly turning the tables on it, becoming the boss.
|
|
|
Post by silver on May 12, 2015 12:36:14 GMT -5
I guess when it gets talked about for years literally, I've gotten the distinct idea that it's far more complicated than this. It's senseless to me, to talk about something so simple -- I'm not sure how the issue gets clouded. Too much yacking, I suppose. Yes, yacking, thinking, feelings and emotions are all powerful pulls on the attention/awareness, but you only have to be present for just a moment, that's all it takes to get a taste. Even once a week or once a month is enough. The yacking won't let you be present for very long anyway, but you will be slowly turning the tables on it, becoming the boss. I am talking about the 'explanations' etc. on the forum here. I don't talk about it much, but of course I end up with questions and it is so confusing and I should have just forgot about it because the talk is cheap I guess. It makes no sense, after all. I'm being specific here, not all the yacking is pointless. I'm unsure what you mean about becoming the boss.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 12, 2015 12:51:05 GMT -5
"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.".. What is the point you wish to make in regards to people telling others about 'direct and non-direct experience'? I didn't fully understand how the link left for you had no reference to direct experience and what is in the way of it. So I left a quote from that page.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 12, 2015 12:54:57 GMT -5
Yes, yacking, thinking, feelings and emotions are all powerful pulls on the attention/awareness, but you only have to be present for just a moment, that's all it takes to get a taste. Even once a week or once a month is enough. The yacking won't let you be present for very long anyway, but you will be slowly turning the tables on it, becoming the boss. I am talking about the 'explanations' etc. on the forum here. I don't talk about it much, but of course I end up with questions and it is so confusing and I should have just forgot about it because the talk is cheap I guess. It makes no sense, after all. I'm being specific here, not all the yacking is pointless. I'm unsure what you mean about becoming the boss.By boss he means that silver is constituted of thoughts, feelings/emotions, and bodily actions. IOW, we usually say "I" to our thoughts, feelings/emotions and bodily actions. The thoughts, feelings/emotions, bodily actions are in control, IOW, are the boss. The yacking is the "boss" in control (or feelings/emotions or bodily actions are the boss) these powerful pulls that take your attention/awareness. To turn the tables means to live through attention and/or awareness instead of through thoughts, feelings/emotions or bodily actions (and these in relation to exterior events and people). To get a taste of what this is like, go to the Who here is enlightened? thread and try my second post there. There is possible a shift in the sense of identity, a shift in who/what is the "boss".
|
|
|
Post by andrew on May 12, 2015 14:51:27 GMT -5
yep! Your interpretation works fine for me. Cool, so i conclude i do understand what you are saying. And i do experience that deeper connection you have described. I had always experienced such sensations, usually only in nature while on my own so as not to be engaged in thoughtful discussion with others..even as a child, before i had any defined sets of thoughts about existence. But since i left Christianity - that set of thoughts that defines what existence is, and i began my journey into Eastern thought, which explained these sensations i had always had, helped me understand and develop it, i regularly experience that deeper connection during many diverse events, alone and with others. So, onto the next part. And this is the part where all other discussions have stopped, and the devotees get frustrated or upset or whatever and accuse me of things and they give me up as a lost cause or a troll. And in the past i found that frustrating because my exploration journey to understand, of which i was just getting into, has been shut off, they no longer wished to provide info. What are you activating, or deactivating within yourself to perform both 'direct and non-direct experience'? For it seems logical\reasonable to me that if you perceive\experience differences when in 'direct and non-direct' mode, that must mean you are activating, or turning off, specific parts of yourself to produce a different result. I'll try and explain how it has worked for me, but its not easy for me to write in a short space. If something isn't clear, I have no problem with you asking for more explanation, hopefully I can write it in terms you can relate to. In answer to your question at the end there, it basically boils down to where attention or awareness is being placed. However, I don't have to think about it or choose to do it these days, the body and mind has been reconditioned over a long period in such way that direct experience happens naturally and habitually. When I first experienced direct experience, probably around 16 years ago now, I knew that I wanted more of that, and I felt that it would be possible to have it all the time. It became my mission, in a way. What I realized fairly early on, is that my previous conditioned habit had been to place a lot of faith, or belief, in the aspect of my mind that both rationalizes and objectifies, and this created an intense sense of 'objectness' in my experience (indirect experience). I speculated that the way that I was placing attention/awareness was out of balance, and that although ignoring the rational/objectifying aspect of mind was not the way forward, it shouldn't be dominating my experience in the way it was. I was able to temporarily 'manufacture' direct experience through meditation practices, specifically, by placing attention on the breath and the internal primary sense of being/existence, but I wanted to be able to 'directly experience' without effort. What I did learn early on through this meditation practice, is that attention/awareness has to be balanced between the internal, and what is happening externally. So, I looked real closely at why there was this imbalance in my experience i.e why I was habitually placing so much belief/faith in the rational/objectifying aspect of my mind, and I discovered that it was basically a result of fear and shame, plus a deep unhealthy need for control and approval. In line with this, the strong belief/faith that I had in the rational/objectifying aspect of mind created a strong sense of a fragmented world in which 'things' have isolated existence. The prospect of letting go of this sense seemed like a leap into the unknown, which felt like I was facing, in a very strange way, the end of the world and even the end of my self, even though I logically knew that the body itself would be just fine if this letting go happened. The whole thing scared me, however, there was also something that felt right about it, and I was compelled to persist. So I basically decided the only practical way forward was to let go of the want for control and approval, and heal my fears and shame. Over a long period of time, as a I healed these fears and shame, and continued to meditate, the way that attention/awareness is placed has shifted more into balance. In a sense, I feel that the 'natural way' for humans is direct experience, but conditioning can create an unnatural way of placing attention/awareness i.e indirect experience. There have been lots of insights, epiphanies and realizations along the way, and these were important, but I still had to (and continue to have to) face a whole gamut of emotions and feelings very directly, to experience the 'dark' aspects of my personality, to forgive, to let go, to move on...and many other typical spiritual things. I still meditate at times, but it tends to happen if I'm out on a walk or if I just want to experience a fuller stillness. There's no big deal to it. Perhaps it's true in one way to say that there are 'degrees' of direct experience, but I seem to be at a point at which I am no longer striving for it.
|
|
|
Post by earnest on May 12, 2015 14:54:49 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 Well, this is one of the problems i come across when i converse with devotees. They talk so confidently about 'direct experience', and i do not condemn them for their confidence, but either can't do the same with 'non-direct', or they get upset with me when i inquire about it. It seems reasonable to me that if i know what something is, i can construct, factually or speculatively, what the opposite is. Anyways, thanks for your effort earnest. But it would help me if you could describe a 'non-direct experience' of the same spoon you are directly experiencing. As soon as numerous elements are used, it makes it difficult for me to process the vast amounts of data due to the interconnections of all these things. One spoon, one event. You in a room with one spoon on the table. Direct and non-direct experience that. Go ! Sorry,. I don’t know what you're asking for then. What are you defining as a non direct experience? To me you're either experiencing the spoon or you're not. Anything where you aren't either seeing hearing tasting touching or smelling is not the thing. Also I find the whole "devotees" thing tiring and disrespectful. I won't speak with you if keep using that word.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 12, 2015 15:25:08 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 12, 2015 15:35:25 GMT -5
Mind thinks there is something confusing about looking at a spoon in this moment, because it can't stand presence. But you don't have to follow the thought like a puppy dog and believe it, because it's not actually true. Nothing is confusing about this moment if your attention is present and the mind is quiescent. Which means it isn't thinking about what's happening: labeling, naming, comparing, judging, remembering, adding to, complaining, imagining....And along with the quiescent mind and presence of attention, there is the awareness of You which is at the back of it all. The still empty space in which Life is simply allowed to unfold as it will. It's that simple. 1st underlined. Who's mind are you speaking of, surely you are not referring to every mind that exists in every moment of everyone's lives? Who's mind are you aware of that is confused while conducting the spoon observation test\exercise\experience? 2nd underlined. Another viable explanation is a person was never mindfully confused and thus is mindfully able to choose to silently observe the spoon without having a bunch of troublesome thoughts about it. I think the trouble is, the spoon is too simple of an object to use for the example. I think it rather audacious that you've been labeled a troll, when all along, these proponents of _____ have been (imo) over-explaining a thing or two, and I don't think most of them mean to over-inflate the worth of their explanations or explorations of this stuff. I'm at a loss, and am willing to take the loss, at this point. I don't think it's a loss, though.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on May 12, 2015 16:02:45 GMT -5
yep! Your interpretation works fine for me. Cool, so i conclude i do understand what you are saying. And i do experience that deeper connection you have described. I had always experienced such sensations, usually only in nature while on my own so as not to be engaged in thoughtful discussion with others..even as a child, before i had any defined sets of thoughts about existence. But since i left Christianity - that set of thoughts that defines what existence is, and i began my journey into Eastern thought, which explained these sensations i had always had, helped me understand and develop it, i regularly experience that deeper connection during many diverse events, alone and with others. So, onto the next part. And this is the part where all other discussions have stopped, and the devotees get frustrated or upset or whatever and accuse me of things and they give me up as a lost cause or a troll. And in the past i found that frustrating because my exploration journey to understand, of which i was just getting into, has been shut off, they no longer wished to provide info. What are you activating, or deactivating within yourself to perform both 'direct and non-direct experience'? For it seems logical\reasonable to me that if you perceive\experience differences when in 'direct and non-direct' mode, that must mean you are activating, or turning off, specific parts of yourself to produce a different result. Jay: I'd go along with what you and Andrew discussed here. For me, what we call "direct experience" is intimate and connective (the spoon and I are one), whereas indirect experience is to some degree distant and imaginative. Clearly, imagining a spoon as an object is a different way of experiencing a spoon (episteme) than directly attending what a spoon is through the senses (gnosis). When there is no intellectual reflection, the perceiver, as a separate entity, vanishes, and there is only the isness of "what is"--the cosmos unfolding however it unfolds. When reflection, interpretation, distinction, cognition, etc. is occurring, there is an artificial separation of isness into imaginary parts. As for activation/deactivation, it seems that where attention is directed determines whether there is direct or indirect experience. When there is direct experience, personal selfhood vanishes because the experiencer and that which is experienced become psychologically unified by the process of direct (unfiltered) sensory perception, whereas when there is indirect experience the imaginer and that which is imagined appear to be separate objects related to each other. The whole issue of direct and indirect experience, however, is only useful as a kind of teaching tool, or pointer, because after SR, none of this makes any difference. After SR, it no longer matters how the intellect is used or how attention is directed because the person who was imagined to be at the center of all activity has been discovered to have been imaginary. Whatever happens is then seen as a kind of logical unfolding of a unified field of being. The raising of a single finger is a movement of the entire cosmos. In the absence of thought there is only THIS, undivided.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 12, 2015 16:22:58 GMT -5
By boss he means that silver is constituted of thoughts, feelings/emotions, and bodily actions. IOW, we usually say "I" to our thoughts, feelings/emotions and bodily actions. The thoughts, feelings/emotions, bodily actions are in control, IOW, are the boss. The yacking is the "boss" in control (or feelings/emotions or bodily actions are the boss) these powerful pulls that take your attention/awareness. To turn the tables means to live through attention and/or awareness instead of through thoughts, feelings/emotions or bodily actions (and these in relation to exterior events and people). To get a taste of what this is like, go to the Who here is enlightened? thread and try my second post there. There is possible a shift in the sense of identity, a shift in who/what is the "boss". I do not understand. Can you provide an example of each of a person saying "I" to their thoughts, feelings physical actions. In an ordinary and simple sense, say you are hungry. You think, I am hungry. I would like a peanut butter and jelly sandwich. But I am out of bread. So I get in my car and go to the grocery store, and buy a loaf of bread. But on my way home there is a traffic accident, and I get annoyed at the delay. We attribute our sense of identity to this "boss". It's hard to get around this.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 12, 2015 16:34:25 GMT -5
I didn't fully understand how the link left for you had no reference to direct experience and what is in the way of it. So I left a quote from that page. The OP has one request\criteria, clearly defined, please describe both direct and non-direct experiences of a spoon. The web page does not fulfill that criteria. What is the point you are wishing to express, via that web page, about my request? The OP title doesn't ask for a description of direct and non-direct experiences. It is asking, in the personal, to be shown what isn't of the personal. The quote I left is the words of someone who eventually admitted to themselves that the personal was in their way. If this isn't sufficient enough a response, then so be it.
|
|