Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 14, 2015 2:48:16 GMT -5
If you see a spoon, then you use the intellect. Without using the intellect, you wouldn't know what you are looking at. So everything perceived via 'direct experience' is via mind\intellect. All images and sensations experienced via 'direct experience', are constructs of the mind\intellect? Are you certain that you understand what they are saying? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 14, 2015 3:17:21 GMT -5
Are you certain that you understand what they are saying? I am self aware that i am observing and comprehending words and their meanings according to my stored knowledge and jaunts within the dictionary. I have no way of knowing if my interpretations of other's thoughts are as they intended. Any misunderstandings can potentially be resolved in future dialogues. Ok, the way I see it, is that it's immensely difficult to go into battle over a concept, and really the term direct experience is a concept.
So, you seem to be in a place that is asking what other people on the forum mean by the term. Though although it looks like that at first glance, that's not really what is happening. What you are trying to find out is whether you have healthily been directly experiencing your universe.
Please note that there is no need to bring anything to life in direct experiencing, as it is already alive. There is no need to animate, nor illuminate anything during direct experience, as it is all, the most perfect and brilliant animation already.
|
|
|
|
Post by tenka on May 14, 2015 3:33:46 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. From the perspective that there is only what we are then there can only be direct experience had . The so called filters / mind sets that house the illusory self or whatever is a direct experience of that perception . What it is that we are is directly in experience of the spoon, what it is that we are is in direct experience of no spoon . There are no middle men entertaining indirect experience of spoon, no spoon . |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 15, 2015 2:04:18 GMT -5
Ok, the way I see it, is that it's immensely difficult to go into battle over a concept, and really the term direct experience is a concept.
So, you seem to be in a place that is asking what other people on the forum mean by the term. Though although it looks like that at first glance, that's not really what is happening. What you are trying to find out is whether you have healthily been directly experiencing your universe.
Please note that there is no need to bring anything to life in direct experiencing, as it is already alive. There is no need to animate, nor illuminate anything during direct experience, as it is all, the most perfect and brilliant animation already.
1. If some people need or desire to fight others when verbally interacting, that is of no concern to me, other than if i perceive someone is wanting to defend or attack something in conversation with me, and they are relentlessly adamant, i will simply leave them be. 2. ~laughs~ I find your confidence in your interpretations of what i am doing or seeking, tickles my funny bone. Knowitallitis, though a harmful disorder of the psyche, can be quite amusing to see in action, as long as the damage is not life threatening or results in permanent severe damage. Not laughing at you, i just find your behavior delightfully silly. 3. Has nothing to do with with my OP or any of the productive convos i am enjoying with others here. You are not on the same page as me, wren. Neither page is right or wrong, they are simply not the same. I never have been. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 15, 2015 23:18:29 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. Missed this post...i am unsure of who you are addressing satitananda, is it me or are you just adding to the group convo? To anyone who might read it. Does it resonate with you. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on May 16, 2015 1:46:09 GMT -5
If you see a spoon, then you use the intellect. Without using the intellect, you wouldn't know what you are looking at. See wren, how simple is that ! So everything perceived via 'direct experience' is via mind\intellect?All images and sensations experienced via 'direct experience', are constructs of the mind\intellect? Direct experience usually just means raw, unfiltered perception, an absence of the process of objectifying, which means it is prior to intellect/mind. It sure looks to me that justlikeyou's 'direct experience' of a spoon is an object. How did you conclude that from what I've just said? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 16, 2015 1:51:09 GMT -5
I was struck by a change in your tone in this thread and felt like responding. Why don't we just leave it at that and move on with neither side being put in a position to defend anything.
|
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on May 16, 2015 1:53:54 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 16, 2015 1:56:31 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on May 16, 2015 8:14:24 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 16, 2015 19:39:25 GMT -5
I took my time and focused my attention on the smallest particles, .. And did those smallest particles ever disappear? |
|
|
|
Post by earnest on May 17, 2015 0:56:02 GMT -5
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. Jay are we still exploring or do you want to stop? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 17, 2015 1:25:42 GMT -5
And did those smallest particles ever disappear? It depends what the particles were a part of. If they were Depression particles, then they are no longer a part of my being. If the particle is part of my thinking process that i use to construct solutions, then the particle remains. Sorry, I really thought for a moment, that you'd got inside the sensations that make up your presence of existing and then the vanishing of the perceiver had happened. Forgive me for forgetting that it's all just smallest particle mental attachments running, alongside the adjacent idea that others are going faster. I did actually notice how quickly you mentioned them, though my eagle claws had gone in for the catch before I could correct it. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 17, 2015 1:50:07 GMT -5
Sorry, I really thought for a moment, that you'd got inside the sensations that make up your presence of existing and then the vanishing of the perceiver had happened. Forgive me for forgetting that it's all just smallest particle mental attachments running, alongside the adjacent idea that others are going faster. I did actually notice how quickly you mentioned them, though my eagle claws had gone in for the catch before I could correct it. You stated you were never on the same page as me, but surely you must see by now that i do not align myself with the philosophy that claims the individual self does not exist. I go deep within myself, inside my sensations. Compared to what i used to be like, i now have a high level of self awareness. I just have no need to perceive myself as non existent. The math of that philosophy just don't add up for me. For if that which perceives has vanishes, i sno more, then there can be no statement generates that the perceiver has disappeared, for there is no one to perceive they have disappeared.
If others find solace in that philosophy, may they do so. I have no use for it in my journey. The annihilation of self is not anything that the self could want. It is really not set up like that. The revelation of the transparency inherent inside all of existence, is not be taken lightly, nor really is it to be scoffed at by those that wish to continue their identification based dependencies at all costs. |
|
|
|
Post by earnest on May 17, 2015 2:45:28 GMT -5
Jay are we still exploring or do you want to stop? Sure, i am still exploring. Just keep the discussion simple and stick to the spoon as the test piece. Ok cool, were you going to answer my question? I'm trying to keep it ultra straightforward and direct. |
|
