The Truth

[UnbornTao]

@Carl-Richard

Instead of taking it for granted, distinguish between what's intellectual and what's experiential. Also, what is belief and believed?

Concepts must must be set aside, and the guidance is towards newly adopted ideals. The "goal" is just what's true now.

"Have I experienced God? Have I experienced no-god?" Then everything that I claim to understand about this matter is belief.

It sounds to me that you're talking about a state or an unusual experience. Your mind may have made stuff up in relation to the presumed breakthrough which isn't a sign of clarity.

What might have driven committed individuals in the past, before having taken up any form of hearsay on faith? Wouldn't there be a simple want to know what's true underlying such pursuit?

On 26/03/2024 at 10:29 PM, Carl-Richard said:

Rather work with what you've got and acknowledge the limitations of your tools.

Here the main instruction is: intent to grasp your nature now.

You focus on that until you make a breakthrough. Then all of this will become meaningless mental masturbation.

Edited March 30 by UnbornTao

[zurew]

Whats the difference between experience and direct experience?

[UnbornTao]

On 27/03/2024 at 5:04 PM, zurew said:

Whats the difference between experience and direct experience?

Direct experience is a misnomer as it isn't an experience. It's a sudden leap in consciousness into what something is, like becoming the object being contemplated. Experience is a process, hence indirect, generated and mediated by biological inventions. Seeing, touching, smelling an object.

For example, a color-blind person experiences sight differently than you do, and she can directly experience what perception itself is.

Edited March 28 by UnbornTao

[Carl-Richard]

On 27.3.2024 at 0:46 AM, TheSelf said:

Let's make it simpler,

Lets define spirituality as just "a direct experience of what the truth is", whatever it might be, No dogma's, no worshiping system, no God etc. very pure, very dry.

Well, firstly, there is already a word for that: "the mystical experience", which is the goal of mysticism. Secondly, what about the New Agers who don't identify themselves with mysticism (i.e. the crystal healing astrology people)? Are they just religious then? But New Agers don't like being called religious, you should know that  

The problem is that you'll fall short of describing a large chunk of people who call themselves spiritual. Your definition no longer becomes an attempt to describe the behavior of people at large, but rather a way to satisfy your own biases ("spirituality = mysticism"), which is not scientific. Maybe you don't care about being scientific, but I'm just telling you that is what it is.

 

On 27.3.2024 at 0:46 AM, TheSelf said:

How this can be seen in future as a system of faith or religion? In what sense?

Well, firstly, as I explained in another post above, mysticism is in 99.999% of cases practiced with tools that are not themselves direct experience. Deciding which meditation style to use (or deciding to meditate at all), deciding which position to sit in, how many minutes to sit, etc., are all based in conceptual ideas that are not themselves direct experience.

Secondly, you did smuggle a lot of individualistic cultural assumptions into your previous answer, which also affects how your mysticism is practiced. For example, you'll probably be inclined to meditate alone in your room, without following elaborate techniques that have been developed over millennia in various mystical traditions (but rather some basic technique that you learned online), and of course without having a well-established community that you can go to for wisdom and guidance.

I think this is actually a sad and scary thing, that spirituality (and mysticism) has largely been conceived as an DIY activity. Because when you're cast out into the spiritual wilderness and you experience your sense of reality collapsing before your very eyes, you might have an averse reaction that needs immediate help, but of course, you have nobody to go to (except internet forums of course, which are not exactly a fount of wisdom). A lot of unnecessary trauma is created from this cultural misappropriation of mysticism (I'm talking from experience).

 

On 27.3.2024 at 0:46 AM, TheSelf said:

Btw about this definition of relegion, simply a religious person doesn't search or seek, they just believe the system, they do, either because of the fear or the rewards or both promised in the relegion or faith community, 

In what system you saw a religious person in a state of seeking or searching?

This definition doesn't really apply to many relegions specialy the world relegions.

Do Buddhists not seek Enlightenment/Nirvana? Do Hindus not seek Moksha? Do Christians not seek Salvation?

I'm curious, how many religious people have you talked to that you respect as thinkers or otherwise? You might want to try that.

Edited March 28 by Carl-Richard

[TheSelf]

2 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

Well, firstly, there is already a word for that: "the mystical experience", which is the goal of mysticism. Secondly, what about the New Agers who don't identify themselves with mysticism (i.e. the crystal healing astrology people)? Are they just religious then? But New Agers don't like being called religious, you should know this 

I see your point here,

Obviously those group people who you mentioned also call themselves spiritual, but are they really??

Well, I'd say the answer is probably no.

If I say to me spirituality is just this or that you come and say hey then what about these people? And you're right,

I agree with you on this that a large chunk of today's so called spiritual people will be seen as relegious in future, but that doesn't mean spirituality = religion.

2 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

Well, firstly, as I explained in another post above, mysticism is in 99.999% of cases practiced with tools that are not themselves direct experience. Deciding which meditation style to use (or deciding to meditate at all), deciding which position to sit in, how many minutes to sit, etc., are all based in conceptual ideas that are not themselves direct experience.

Forget about the word "mysticism" or "direct experience", lets go to the core of what spirituality is,

If you know that you don't know anything at all, like if we look at our hand we don't know what it is in nature, and it's actually true, we have ideas, thoughts about what it might be, but its all just concepts being poured into our minds by others, society, but we actually don't know what it is in it's nature.

A true genuine seeker knows he doesn't know anything, and this is all he knows, this is not something he believes in, this is not a desire to go to heaven or nirvana, this is not worshiping etc.

This is spirituality.

You're spiritual when you know that you absolutely know nothing about anything including yourself and seek to know.

If you say this is not scientific definition, then it isn't, if you say then what about a large portion of people who call themselves spiritual that cant be put in this definition, then maybe they're not spiritual, I don't know and that's not my business to categorize them.

2 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

Do Buddhists not seek enlightenment/Nirvana? Do Hindus not seek Moksha? Do Christians not seek salvation?

I'm curious, how many religious people have you talked to that you respect as thinkers or otherwise? You might want to try that.

You said "search for sacred" 

If you are in a state of searching or seeking you are not a believer, a believer have faith that believing the system or religion he believes in will get him rewarded at the end (redemption, nirvana, etc).

Someone who searches, means he doesn't know, and doesn't believe in anything (cause he is searching right? ) and want to know by searching, exploring everything.

 

 

 

Edited March 28 by TheSelf

[Breakingthewall]

4 minutes ago, TheSelf said:

Someone who searches, means he doesn't know, and doesn't believe in anything and want to know by searching, exploring everything.

The problem is that mostly are searching something. Someone said that at the end there was God, or nirvana, or infinity, and they are specifically looking for that. few completely empty their minds and are open to not knowing anything

[TheSelf]

7 hours ago, Breakingthewall said:

The problem is that mostly are searching something. Someone said that at the end there was God, or nirvana, or infinity, and they are specifically looking for that. 

If you are searching, If you are a seeker, are you spiritual or relegious?

[Breakingthewall]

14 minutes ago, TheSelf said:

If you are searching, If you are a seeker, are you spiritual or relegious?

If you know what you are looking for before finding it, bit religious too. But I think that it's unavoidable 

[TheSelf]

34 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

If you know what you are looking for before finding it, bit religious too.

True,

But you are not "searching" as a relegious individual like spiritual one.

The definitions needs to be more precise, a relegious person is not in a state of seeking or searching the same he defind spiritual the same way "search for sacred".

Edited March 28 by TheSelf

[Breakingthewall]

14 minutes ago, TheSelf said:

True,

But you are not "searching" as a relegious individual like spiritual one.

The definitions needs to be more precise, a relegious person is not in a state of seeking or searching the same he defind spiritual the same way "search for sacred".

Yes the religious person thinks that they already found because someone told them the truth 

[Carl-Richard]

16 hours ago, TheSelf said:

I agree with you on this that a large chunk of today's so called spiritual people will be seen as relegious in future

Your mystical type of New Age is not exempt from that, just like mystical types of traditional religion weren't exempt from that.

 

16 hours ago, TheSelf said:

but that doesn't mean spirituality = religion.

I was being clear that you can make the distinction, but it's not a substantial distinction. It's a bit like how you can make a distinction between a cigarette from the 1950s and cigarette from 2024. They're still the same substance of tobacco rolled into a thin paper tube.

 

16 hours ago, TheSelf said:

Forget about the word "mysticism" or "direct experience", lets go to the core of what spirituality is,

If you know that you don't know anything at all, like if we look at our hand we don't know what it is in nature, and it's actually true, we have ideas, thoughts about what it might be, but its all just concepts being poured into our minds by others, society, but we actually don't know what it is in it's nature.

A true genuine seeker knows he doesn't know anything, and this is all he knows, this is not something he believes in, this is not a desire to go to heaven or nirvana, this is not worshiping etc.

This is spirituality.

You're spiritual when you know that you absolutely know nothing about anything including yourself and seek to know.

If you say this is not scientific definition, then it isn't, if you say then what about a large portion of people who call themselves spiritual that cant be put in this definition, then maybe they're not spiritual, I don't know and that's not my business to categorize them.

This is not just about categorizing other people. It's about categorizing yourself. Your behavior is not reducible to "not-knowing". Your behavior follows very predictable lines of New Age religion. If not, tell me why you presumably 1. meditate, 2. meditate alone, 3. have zero or very few real life "spiritual" friends.

 

16 hours ago, TheSelf said:

You said "search for sacred" 

If you are in a state of searching or seeking you are not a believer, a believer have faith that believing the system or religion he believes in will get him rewarded at the end (redemption, nirvana, etc).

Someone who searches, means he doesn't know, and doesn't believe in anything (cause he is searching right? ) and want to know by searching, exploring everything.

Do you believe that you can achieve a state of not-knowing using meditation?

 

I'll also just leave this one here:

Quote

[...] Many of those groups and individuals who could analytically be categorised as part of the New Age reject the term New Age in reference to themselves. Some even express active hostility to the term. Rather than terming themselves New Agers, those involved in this milieu commonly describe themselves as spiritual "seekers", [...]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Age

Edited March 28 by Carl-Richard

[Carl-Richard]

On 27.3.2024 at 5:42 PM, UnbornTao said:

Here the main instruction is: intent to grasp your nature now.

You focus on that until you make a breakthrough. Then all of this will become meaningless mental masturbation.

But even then, intention is not necessary for direct experience (and intention is not direct experience). So you see, you never escape this conundrum of grasping the ingraspable, even when you try your best to strip it down to its bare essentials like you do. So when this realized, I'm saying that instead of half-assing a lack of grasping, learn how to grasp the best way you can and then pray that grace will take you there (to the lack of grasping). Grace and grasping are not really at odds. It's just that one is largely out of your control and the other is less so.

Edited March 28 by Carl-Richard

[TheSelf]

13 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

Your behavior is not reducible to "not-knowing". Your behavior follows very predictable lines of New Age religion. If not, tell me why you presumably 1. meditate, 2. meditate alone, 3. have zero or very few real life "spiritual" friends.

2 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

Your mystical type of New Age is not exempt from that, just like mystical types of traditional religion weren't exempt from that.

Why making so much assumtions about me when you don't know me at all?! 😃

Is the discussion about me???!!!

If you wanna keep doing this, I'm really no longer interested to continue the discussion.

If you have any personal questions about me, please just ask in another post and stop all these assumptions which almost all of them are wrong! I don't even meditate! And you keep talking about my mysticism, relegion, meditations etc 😃

[zurew]

On 2024. 03. 27. at 6:31 PM, UnbornTao said:

Direct experience is a misnomer as it isn't an experience. It's a sudden leap in consciousness into what something is, like becoming the object being contemplated, so to speak. Experience is a process, hence indirect, that is generated and mediated by biological inventions. Seeing, touching, smelling an object. For example, a color-blind person experiences sight differently than you and she can directly experience what perception itself is.

In any case, I'll have to look into these distinctions more deeply for clarification.

Btw, don't let answers of any kind deter you from looking into the matter yourself!

So basically you use it as - becoming conscious of something.

 

@TheSelf

Do you think there is any relationship between a method (like praying or meditation or doing yoga or doing psychedelics or doing breathwork or anything else) and awakening? In other words, do you think that doing certain methods will elevate the chance of awakening or awakening is completely random and detached from all causal relations?

 

[Carl-Richard]

30 minutes ago, TheSelf said:

Why making so much assumtions about me when you don't know me at all?! 😃

Is the discussion about me???!!!

If you wanna keep doing this, I'm really no longer interested to continue the discussion.

If you have any personal questions about me, please just ask in another post and stop all these assumptions which almost all of them are wrong! I don't even meditate! And you keep talking about my mysticism, relegion, meditations etc 😃

That's why I said "presumably". And yes, the discussion is partially about you, because you call yourself spiritual, and we're talking about spirituality. Also, earlier you stated you don't really care about other people who call themselves spiritual, so the natural course of the discussion was to start talking about you. If you want to talk about spirituality but don't want to talk about people who call themselves spiritual (neither yourself nor other people), then that makes it really hard to have a discussion.

How do you practice your spirituality? Do you take psychedelics? 

[UnbornTao]

On 28/03/2024 at 8:33 PM, zurew said:

So basically you use it as - becoming conscious of something.

Yes and no. It is a form of becoming conscious, like an insight. Then you've got direct consciousness which is about realizing the absolute. But they could be used interchangeably when the word direct is put before the words experience or consciousness.

Edited March 29 by UnbornTao

[UnbornTao]

19 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

But even then, intention is not necessary for direct experience (and intention is not direct experience). So you see, you never escape this conundrum of grasping the ingraspable, even when you try your best to strip it down to its bare essentials like you do. So when this realized, I'm saying that instead of half-assing a lack of grasping, learn how to grasp the best way you can and then pray that grace will take you there (to the lack of grasping). Grace and grasping are not really at odds. It's just that one is largely out of your control and the other is less so.

We're talking nonsense. Belief systems are impediments to this goal. Become conscious of you and everything there is.

 

Edited March 29 by UnbornTao

[TheSelf]

2 hours ago, zurew said:

@TheSelf

Do you think there is any relationship between a method (like praying or meditation or doing yoga or doing psychedelics or doing breathwork or anything else) and awakening? In other words, do you think that doing certain methods will elevate the chance of awakening or awakening is completely random and detached from all causal relations?

No it's not random,

And a meditation technique won't directly produce an awakening, basically all the techniques is just to help control the wandering mind, once the mind is controled then the practices should be droped (cause as long as you are doing something the mind is in operative state and in order to see the reality behind the mind which is awakening, all doings should be droped), a real meditation begins here when you totally drop all the techniques to realize you are meditation in your nature, you see the light of awareness which is you behind all the experiences, you become conscious of your self for the first time ever and awakening as deep as this causes the structure of the ego-mind to collapse, you see something you've never seen before, your absolute true self as "The Reality", "Awarness", "Consciousness", "The Self".

Edited March 28 by TheSelf

[TheSelf]

3 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

That's why I said "presumably". And yes, the discussion is partially about you, because you call yourself spiritual, and we're talking about spirituality. Also, earlier you stated you don't really care about other people who call themselves spiritual, so the natural course of the discussion was to start talking about you. If you want to talk about spirituality but don't want to talk about people who call themselves spiritual (neither yourself nor other people), then that makes it really hard to have a discussion.

No it wasn't about me, not even partially lol, why would I want to have a discussion about myself?

Also I didn't say I'm spiritual, did I?

If you call me a spiritual individual then I'm not awake, If I'm awake then I must have broke through the bottle of spirituality to achieve that.

But the discussion was about your idea that in truth spirituality = relegion with just minor differences but the very same thing in the core which is totally wrong based on the precise definitions of spirituality and relegion.

Edited March 28 by TheSelf

[TheSelf]

2 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

How do you practice your spirituality? Do you take psychedelics?

I don't practice at all, why would I want to practice, to achieve what?