|
Post by laughter on May 12, 2015 16:34:55 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.A non-obvious distinction, yes. Spoon, space, and the perceiver of each, all mutually define one another, and any description of that definition, is not the definition referred to.
|
|
|
Post by earnest on May 12, 2015 16:58:54 GMT -5
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. What term would you prefer, i'll use whatever your comfortable with that describes your relationship to the philosophy.? I am not defining 'non-direct'. i have no definition of the term. There are dictionary definitions of 'non', 'direct' and 'experience', but i have no definitions of 'direct or non-direct experience'. I am embarking on a discussion journey to find out what they both are, because DEists(<-- how's that?) are convinced it is a real phenomena, and i deduce there must also be a non-direct one. For if they say there is another way to relate to existence, and it's called Direct Experience, then they must have been experiencing existence in another way besides direct experience, and because their's is called direct, i deduce the previous way must have been non-direct. RE:underlined. If there is only two ways, 'experiencing a spoon or not experiencing a spoon, then why has ' direct experience' been invented. Why is there now three - experiencing , 'not experiencing' , 'direct experiencing' And because there is now 'direct experience', a 4th has been hypomathematically uncovered\created, 'non-direct experience.' But from my response to wholla, and his observations, i could quite easily classify 'no experience' and 'non-direct experience' as the same thing. But i will not at this time because the journey still continues for DEists to describe both direct and non-direct experience of a spoon. Because 'direct and (possibly)non-direct experience' are within the domain of Advaita, and they may not have the same definitions as used in the dictionary or other disciplines. I’m kind of at a loss as to what it is you are actually trying to understand. In my own experience I can either know something through the direct experience of it,. or know it as thoughts/ideas/theories etc,. and I gave specific examples re the spoon. I’ve got nothing against the theoretical knowledge of a thing, but I have a larger interest in the direct experience of it. Way up at the start of this topic you said “..according to my interpretations of discussions with earnest … seem to be saying that I am missing something regarding direct experience, that I am not comprehending it” I’m not saying you were missing anything, and I only speculated that you didn’t understand the question. When I asked you about what your direct experience of the question the LU people asked (who am I?), I was interested in what did you experience – what sensations arose, what feelings, the visceral impact. I wasn’t interested in your *thoughts* about the question, I wanted to know how you knew the answer as a gnosis knowing, not a episteme knowing. To use a different example, say we went out to dinner (let’s go Thai, I love Thai!) , and I ordered an incredibly spicy dish. After dinner, you asked me if my meal was spicy. I could answer lots of different ways,. but two could be 1) Yes it was spicy, in the menu it said “caution : this dish is catastrophic spicy”, then chef came out and said “Yo Earnest! You sure you want to eat the spiciest thing on the menu!?!?!?”, and in my book on Thai cooking it says this dish is the spiciest of all possible dishes. So of course it was spicy. 2) Yes it was spicy, my eyes have been watering for the last 30 minutes, my mouth is incredibly painful and hot, sweat is pouring down my face,. And that fart was actually not a fart,.. I just spot-welded myself to the chair. All I wanted to know was what was your number 2 experience when the LU people asked you the question. All of your answers were the number 1 type.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 12, 2015 17:03:39 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. Sure, like gopal most folks the mind looks for answers to it's questions. Then those answers produce more questions and more answers and more questions. It's a never ending habitual cycle. But there is another way to live. A way that's not about getting answers to the minds questions. A way that breaks the habit of attending to the constant thinking of the mind. It's about Living Life where it is unfolding, in the moment, and not in conditioned thought. Yes, there is a practical side to yacking and so when the practicalities are taken care of, you can return to the present moment. We trap ourselves and are slaves to the conditioned patterns of our mind, but that is not who we are.
|
|
|
Post by silver on May 12, 2015 17:19:43 GMT -5
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. Sure, like gopal most folks the mind looks for answers to it's questions. Then those answers produce more questions and more answers and more questions. It's a never ending habitual cycle. But there is another way to live. A way that's not about getting answers to the minds questions. A way that breaks the habit of attending to the constant thinking of the mind. It's about Living Life where it is unfolding, in the moment, and not in conditioned thought. Yes, there is a practical side to yacking and so when the practicalities are taken care of, you can return to the present moment. We trap ourselves and are slaves to the conditioned patterns of our mind, but that is not who we are. I realize you take this seriously more so than an everyday jill like me - gal off the street - I only asked, initially because I wondered if there was something 'there' besides the obvious, just in case I may have been missing something 'special' - if you know what I mean. I've never been over-wrought about it - only after some would get incredibly wound up over it for various reasons.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 12, 2015 17:57:44 GMT -5
Sure, like gopal most folks the mind looks for answers to it's questions. Then those answers produce more questions and more answers and more questions. It's a never ending habitual cycle. But there is another way to live. A way that's not about getting answers to the minds questions. A way that breaks the habit of attending to the constant thinking of the mind. It's about Living Life where it is unfolding, in the moment, and not in conditioned thought. Yes, there is a practical side to yacking and so when the practicalities are taken care of, you can return to the present moment. We trap ourselves and are slaves to the conditioned patterns of our mind, but that is not who we are. I realize you take this seriously more so than an everyday jill like me - gal off the street - I only asked, initially because I wondered if there was something 'there' besides the obvious, just in case I may have been missing something 'special' - if you know what I mean. I've never been over-wrought about it - only after some would get incredibly wound up over it for various reasons. The present moment can make a jill - gal off the street like yourself rich; meaning to have enough and to feel the fullness of Life within. You can look for something special if the thought arises, but you wont' be using the thought as a means to an end. Outer life will be a playground for you when you are truly free from the conditioning of your past.
|
|
|
Post by silver on May 12, 2015 18:30:11 GMT -5
Glad to hear you're able to get something out of this, Jay. Nothing need go to waste.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 12, 2015 20:31:24 GMT -5
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. But to me, none of those examples has a person saying "I" to anything. That is a person saying 'they are hungry'. Not that the person is saying 'I am hunger', but, 'I am aware of my body's sensations that is termed 'hunger'. They are self aware, they sense their body's state of being, their stomach is growling, that sensation is comprised of a ton of signals transmitted between cells from numerous locations in the body and the brain, alerting self that the body is low on energy. ( putting aside pleasure eating signals) Seems to me the processor of all those signals is the brain, and the "boss" that has the final say and decides to make some food, is the conscious aware self...of which i classify this 'conscious aware self' is the mind. Evidenced by I do not uncontrollably go make some food just because I feel hungry. I can easily choose to not eat when my body is signaling low energy via hunger pangs, and I have subsequent thoughts that I am hungry and I have feelings towards a certain type of food I would love to eat. I have thoughts and feelings, but i do not perceive they are the boss of me, the controller of my behavior. They are my responses to stimuli, and i then contemplate that info with my mind, and choose an action. Sure, i can easily perceive if a person lacks self control via self knowledge, they will be subservient to their thoughts, feelings, impulsive actions, and they might reason\conclude that their thoughts, feelings and impulses are the boss of themself. source used the word boss, I was piggybacking on that. Your post (underlined) shows your (understanding of the) use of the word I. The underlined negates the need to have asked the question. Saying I means saying I. I is whatever you say I to. "I" is usually the "boss" for most people. Most probably would not apply to many people here on ST's, which would be a good thing.
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on May 12, 2015 20:56:58 GMT -5
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.. Thus the only difference i can interpret so far between justlikeyou's 'direct experience'... ...and your's, is, and i have to assume because justlikeyou has not explained his meaning of the pic... that 'direct experience' of a spoon is observation\awareness of a spoon, without any thoughts about the spoon... ...and your 'non-direct experience' of a spoon is you also have observed\are aware of the spoon, but you then have thoughts about the spoon and reasoned that it would serve your purpose of eating soup. That 'direct experience' is 'no thought' awareness of a spoon and 'non-direct experience' is identical except you produce thoughts about the spoon. Is this a correct interpretation, clarify any discrepancies please. No.. the direct experience can result in thoughts, those thoughts are informed by clarity.. non-direct experience is not informed by clarity, it is informed by the influences of imaginings, ideologies, beliefs, preferences, mind-play.. the importance of direct experiences is that the mind/intellect arranges and understands information that most closely represents what is actually happening..
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 13, 2015 0:22:10 GMT -5
If you look at a spoon without any other thought appearing in the mind, this is the direct seeing of spoon. As soon as a thought appears, you have actually stopped looking at the spoon momentarily as far as the mind is concerned, although the image of the spoon is still providing sensory input to the retina. When that thought disappears attention may go back to the spoon and that is once again direct seeing. But all along the mind has constructed the idea that you were always looking at the spoon even though other thoughts intruded. The mind has an ability to connect the dots and portray a seemingly smooth movement of experience even though there are gaps in perception.
|
|
|
Post by tenka on May 13, 2015 1:40:04 GMT -5
Could be as simples as what you are experiencing what you are directly .
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on May 13, 2015 3:17:52 GMT -5
Direct experience usually just means raw, unfiltered perception, an absence of the process of objectifying, which means it is prior to intellect/mind. Perhaps you would like to have a crack at it, as wren could not or refused. What faculties are you using to determine you see a spoon, and that your experience of this spoon is exactly as the spoon is in existence? If you see a spoon, then you use the intellect. Without using the intellect, you wouldn't know what you are looking at.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 13, 2015 15:34:10 GMT -5
Could be as simples as what you are experiencing what you are directly . Yes, when you close your eyes after being aware of a spoon, the spoon disappears. But the awareness remains.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on May 13, 2015 16:16:42 GMT -5
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. Andrew, i find how you express yourself to be very easy to read and comprehend. I understand all you have said, and i see many similarities in both our journeys. Though one big difference is in the order of acquisitions. You acquired the ability or understanding of 'direct experience' and other specific spiritual practices, then continued your healing journey...i obtained full healing, then acquired the spiritual understanding and application of spiritual practices( even though i was unknowingly active in meditation and 'direct experience' for decades, but the occurrences were minimal and undisciplined due to being totally ignorant of knowledge\understanding of them and their benefits) I rez with your description of how it's simply a matter of where you focus your attention that determines how aware one can be of either the separate forms of the physical realm or the unified realm beyond that range. That is how it is for me, and i only asked the question i did because DEists express it in terms of two distinct actions of 'direct experience' and some other action (i assume)quite opposite of it, giving the impression there are two distinct 'states of being' to be in, or activate. But yes, simply moving our one and only focus\attention is all that is occurring. And with all you have said, i see some points i wish to examine. If 'direct and non-direct experience' are simply a moving of one's focus\attention, that there is no change to one's being, no addition or subtraction, or, activation or deactivation of some innate attribute of oneself... ...then does this mean that the separate physical aspects and the unified holistic aspects of existence are equally real, or equally important\valuable\significant? For you mentioned becoming aware you were out of balance, and the reason(s) why(bolded text), and in your 3rd paragraph you mentioned imbalance(see underlined), but then in the 5th paragragh(see underlined), that looks to me you are advocating imbalance. That you consider that using the part of your mind that 'comprehends\interprets'? the separate physical aspects of existence is unnatural. But i don't understand why you conclude this if the only difference between 'direct and non-direct' is the moving of one's focus \attention. I'm very pleased that my way of articulating this makes sense to you. Good. I also have very little difficulty understanding your vernacular. You are right that I experienced and understood 'direct experience' before the healing occurred. I suspect that it's partly because I was quite young (24), and at that point in my life, although I knew that direct experience was what I wanted, there was also a sense of having a lot to lose in terms of my relationships. I didn't make a conscious decision to take it slowly, but with hindsight, I feel there was a part of me that knew that the process would best unfold over a long period of time. I think I wanted to give those that I was closest to, time to adjust to my new way of relating and understanding. This continues to unfold. In answer to your question, it was the intense belief/faith that I had in the rational mind that I consider to be unnatural and out of balance. I think the rational mind itself is perfectly valid. These days the rational mind has its place in my experience and I fully respect its role, and what it offers to my experience. I experience the separate physical aspects to be as real and valid as the unified aspect, in fact, I would say that I have more respect, am more sensitive to, and have more reverence for the separate physical aspects these days than I did 15/20 years ago. I was never a particularly harmful guy, but these days, it would trouble me to hurt an insect or pluck a flower from the soil. Whereas intense 'objectness' has the effect of somewhat deadening the physical world, experiencing the unified aspect brings everything to life, and this does affect our behaviour, as I'm sure you can relate to.
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on May 13, 2015 21:09:01 GMT -5
No.. the direct experience can result in thoughts, those thoughts are informed by clarity.. non-direct experience is not informed by clarity, it is informed by the influences of imaginings, ideologies, beliefs, preferences, mind-play.. the importance of direct experiences is that the mind/intellect arranges and understands information that most closely represents what is actually happening.. I do not understand much of what you have said... - what is 'clarity' and how does it inform thoughts and what information is it sending to thoughts? - do thoughts have the ability to process information\being informed by 'clarity'? - what is 'non-direct experience' that it can receive information\be informed by "imaginings, ideologies, beliefs, preferences, mind-play"...what is non-direct experience receiving for these things that influences it? Underlined: - are you saying the ability to directly experience existence is a function of the mind\intellect? - if not, then what? If you like, and i an interested to hear, please clarify. Clarity is the still state of mind that allows the experience to inform the experiencer (all of the experiencer, including mind) without the interference of active thinking.. clarity is like a clean window, and beliefs, attachments, ideologies, etc.. are the dirt, smudges, and cobwebs that distort the experiencer's awareness of what is happening.. Thoughts display/reveal information acquired by experiences that the experiencer arranges and evaluates relative to what is happening, a fluid dynamism as long as the information is not distorted (clarity).. Non-direct experience is like accepting as valid information that someone told you is true without any direct experience of your own relative to that information.. non-direct experience is like looking at a homeless person and thinking that they are moochers living off the hard work of others, without knowing anything about that person.. Yes, the ability to directly experience existence is a function of the mind\intellect, but there several functions/factors that affect the ability to directly experience existence.. direct experience is symphony of interconnected interactive processes.. mind and intellect have to allow the opportunity for direct experience, they are the usual suspects when direct experience (clarity) is distorted.. If you're interested in a discussion, cool.. but, i lose interest if there's too many questions asked at one time.. let's try slow and easy, and really try to understand what were talking about..
|
|
|
Post by earnest on May 14, 2015 2:33:03 GMT -5
I’m kind of at a loss as to what it is you are actually trying to understand. In my own experience I can either know something through the direct experience of it,. or know it as thoughts/ideas/theories etc,. and I gave specific examples re the spoon. I’ve got nothing against the theoretical knowledge of a thing, but I have a larger interest in the direct experience of it. Way up at the start of this topic you said “..according to my interpretations of discussions with earnest … seem to be saying that I am missing something regarding direct experience, that I am not comprehending it”
I’m not saying you were missing anything, and I only speculated that you didn’t understand the question.When I asked you about what your direct experience of the question the LU people asked (who am I?), I was interested in what did you experience – what sensations arose, what feelings, the visceral impact. I wasn’t interested in your *thoughts* about the question, I wanted to know how you knew the answer as a gnosis knowing, not a episteme knowing.To use a different example, say we went out to dinner (let’s go Thai, I love Thai!) , and I ordered an incredibly spicy dish. After dinner, you asked me if my meal was spicy. I could answer lots of different ways,. but two could be 1) Yes it was spicy, in the menu it said “caution : this dish is catastrophic spicy”, then chef came out and said “Yo Earnest! You sure you want to eat the spiciest thing on the menu!?!?!?”, and in my book on Thai cooking it says this dish is the spiciest of all possible dishes. So of course it was spicy. 2) Yes it was spicy, my eyes have been watering for the last 30 minutes, my mouth is incredibly painful and hot, sweat is pouring down my face,. And that fart was actually not a fart,.. I just spot-welded myself to the chair. All I wanted to know was what was your number 2 experience when the LU people asked you the question. All of your answers were the number 1 type. Last underlined: Number 2 experience...haaaaa! The LiberationUnleashed people never asked me to describe who i am. Why would they do that when their whole agenda is to get people to believe the idea that a self does not exist. They instructed me to 'directly experience' myself and tell them what i see...and i told them i see a separate individual self, and they respond with claims i am not doing the 'direct experience' right, because they are so convinced that when you 'directly experience' your self, the correct observation is you see you do not exist(as a separate individual self) They then took the time to clearly explain how to 'directly experience', and i described what it was i was doing and then they were convinced i was 'directly experiencing', but they just could not handle that my answer remained the same...i see a separate individual self. Then that wannabe 'drill sergeant' Stepvhen, chimed in and started ranting abuse at me, far worse than Reefs, enigma and Envy Adams combined, claiming i was trolling, stuck in mind\ego, and a pathetic excuse for a human being. While listening to him rant and rave, i just reminisced and sang to myself The Avalanches song - Frontier Psychiatry, especially the line, "That boy needs therapy." Please don't bring those dingbats into the discussion, i as i think it will only interfere with it But back to our discussion. 1st underlined: Yeah, because when i describe my 'direct experience' and express that i see a separate individual self, you say i am not answering your question. 2nd-3rd underlined: Because you do not like my answer. You conclude my answer does not fulfill your criteria, while i am satisfied it does. 4th underlined: So you would be satisfied that when i 'directly experience' myself and i see a separate individual self, and i tell you i felt at peace, calm, alert and joyful during the experience? Bolded: You have never asked me that before. You only asked me how i knew. What do those two terms even mean? Last underlined. If you judge my responses were type 1 and not type 2, then that is how you perceive it. I don't. You asked me how i know, i transmitted a description of my experience to you via my thoughts, but you keep saying you don't want to hear my thoughts about the experience. Please explain to me how to transmit a description of any part of my experience to you without using thoughts? Let's slow it down and take one step at a time. Do you understand the difference between (1) and (2) in the Thai food example? If you do understand the difference, could you explain it in your own words using a difference example,.. Like sneezing or burping.
|
|