On Direct Experience

[fluidmonolith]

What is your personal outlook on the value of direct experience? How do you personally sort truth from illusion?

We are often encouraged to question everything and detemine the truth for ourselves rather than blindly accepting assertions from others – with the exception of the assertion that direct experience is the ultimate conveyor of truth. I argue that we should even challenge that assertion. Before accepting that what we directly experience is true, we need to ask ourselves "are our experiences true?"

Some people are hesitant to speak about insights and enlightenments they've had, with the argument that words are insufficient to describe some experiences, and can even cause confusion and mislead others. The process of translating an experience into language to share with others can introduce errors and assumptions, 'corrupting' the experience. One of the insights I've had is that our experiences aren't just translated to others - they are also translated to ourselves so that we can make sense of them. In other words, the moment the experience is over and we think back on what happened and what it means, that thought and that understanding, is also a translation. It is just as prone to error and assumption as if we were telling it to someone else.

Another consideration I challenge us to make is to carefully separate experience from interpretation. For example, if I see a blue car drive by, I can say "I see a blue car", but I might also be tempted to say "there is a blue car driving by". The former is true (after all, I did experience a car driving by). The latter is an interpretation and is possibly true, but not necessarily. Separating raw experience from interpretation is subtle but, I would argue, of the utmost importance to those of us in this community. The blue car example is a silly one, but as we pursue existentially meaningful experiences that can become more and more separated from the reality that we perceive on a day-to-day basis, separation of experience and interpretation becomes critical.

So that is brief summary of my outlook and experience. But I am curious as to how others arrive at their own conclusions on direct experience. How did you, personally, decide that direct experience is the source of truth? And if you haven't decided that, then how do you, personally, decide what is true and what isn't?

 

Thanks

[Forestluv]

I place a lot more truth value on the mind-body experience than the thought story that arises from the direct experience. At best, those stories can be a helpful expression of the direct experience - similar to how tears or laughter is an expression of the direct experience. 

However, I’ve found that thoughts tend to want to”run the show” and decide what is true and false and assign meaning. This often creates a twisted sense of being. For me, direct experience comes prior to the thought story about it. Yet my thinking mind does not like accepting this, because it’s role becomes diminished. Only about 1% of thoughts is sufficient, yet my thinking mind wants 90% of the action.

My optimal balance seems to be 99% direct experience, 1% thought. Yet it is very challenging for me to maintain that balance.

[Truth Addict]

@fluidmonolith  I'm with you on this. 

I don't prefer calling the subjective experience Truth, it's just experience.

But it's beneficial to make this distinction between thought and experience, although thought is also experienced.

Experience is illusion, and Truth cannot be experienced, that's why it's immune to doubt. (I don't know, but they say so).

So, the whole point of spirituality is to stop knowing, or to stop identifying with thought. Ideally one must end up exactly at where you are at right now, but that's not the end of the line I guess.

Soooo.. I'm waiting for some answers with you.

Thanks, it's a great thread!