Importance of direct experience

[allislove]

While jogging today for half an hour I was pondering about the importance of direct experience. Feedback is welcome. Sorry if you don't understand me. Sometimes it's hard to express yourself, sometimes I just don't understand deeply enough to communicate properly, sometimes it's just my poor English, but really it's everything together.

What is a direct experience? Direct experience is everything. Everything that exists now for you. What do I mean? I mean feeling your ass on a computer chair or thinking about the direct experience is the direct experience; so, these things exist. Probably you don't have the direct experience of the moon, so it does not exist for you at the moment. Direct experience is what you experience by your sensors. Sensors like ears, eyes, mouth, body sensations, mind thinking. Experience is what you recognized by your sensors.

Thinking about direct experience is direct experience. But there's a huge difference between thinking about direct experience and the direct experience.
Let's have a small example to make it crystal clear: fucking a hot girl and thinking that you are fucking a hot girl. Do you see the difference? You say, yes, sure, it's easy. Yeah, it's easy in this particular example, but when you read something and then blindly believe that what's written is the truth, which happens to so many people, I suppose. So, what can we do? Do not read? That's a different side of the coin. When you just do something, when you think you are always right. The right thing is to find your own balance. Read something, check it by yourself, then read different source on the same issue, then check it again by your own direct experience. It's a continuous process. Don't stop. There is no perfect map for the territory. I mean, your map  (aka your interpretation) will never be the territory (aka the experience itself). But to have the map as ideal as possible you have to find the balance between a direct experience (aka practice) and hearsay (aka theory) and never stop to improve your map (or your understanding of something). There is no depth in understanding, understanding is infinite. Have love.

If you feel you don't understand what I wanted to say, don't worry − me too. I could post it somewhere else and this is not really a question, but to hit more page views...

[Forestluv]

Direct experience is a way of being, learning and becoming. It is a key to both personal growth and personal transcendence. Yet experience can also become a thought story that the mind and body becomes attached to. The ego loves to take ownership of an experience and personalize it. “Wow, I just had an amazing no dual experience. I am making great progress. I am at a higher level than that person now. This is what my mystical experience means. . . What my friend needs is a nondual experience like mine to help wake him up. My experience was more mystical than his experience.” . . . And on and on and on. . . 

I would say attachments / identification to personal experience is deeper than attachment / identification to impersonal theories. Yet they are inter-related.

[allislove]

Quote

I would say attachments / identification to personal experience is deeper than attachment / identification to impersonal theories. Yet they are inter-related.  

You raised interesting observation, thank you. I think so too. So, what you are proposing is to be more critical to personal experience? Let the interpretation of the personal experience go? Yet the personal experience is the key to growth.

[Truth Addict]

@dimitri

Thank you, that is a great explanation of the concept "direct experience".

I'd also like to add that direct experience is not very different from belief. In fact, direct experience vs. belief is a duality, and ultimately it has to go away.

What I mean by that, is that instead of seeking knowledge and wisdom and understanding by directly experiencing stuff (because that requires a lot of time and effort and dedication), we can instead learn from other people's experiences and take them for granted, and it will probably produce very similar results.

Of course, the present moment is the common ground.

[allislove]

@Truth Addict thank you.

Interesting, I haven't thought about "personal experience vs. impersonal theories" duality. They should be transcended, but maybe this topic is too deep for this post.

I can learn how electrons were discovered, I don't want to repeat the same experiment with a vacuum tube. But to read reports on psychedelics and have own experience of psychedelics is a completely different story. I can't grasp the essence of experience just by reading reports.

Edited May 19, 2019 by dimitri

[Forestluv]

13 minutes ago, dimitri said:

You raised interesting observation, thank you. I think so too. So, what you are proposing is to be more critical to personal experience? Let the interpretation of the personal experience go? Yet the personal experience is the key to growth.

This gets into a nuanced area, imo. 

Direct experience is profoundly insightful. It can be more expansive than the personal story and interpretation. Yet human minds contextualize their experience, that’s what human minds do  - it’s part of the human experience. No other living organism on earth contemplates and contextualizes their experience. It can be beautiful. Yet any contextualization of experience is a condensation of the enormity of the experience.

Imagine visiting the Grand Canyon. The first time you see it, you are awestruck. Speechless. You lose all sense of self and time. Completely immersed’ present and aware of the expansive enormity of what IS. . . Then the habitual mind returns to contextualize this profundity as a personal experience. It may wonder about evolution, hod and how it was created. It may wonder about all the beings that have visited this place for thousands of years. It may imagine how the Grand Canyon is a metaphor for life, it may compare the beauty of the GC to other beauties it’s seen in it’s life, it may sit and try to express it’s magnificence in a poem, it may ponder how this experience has changed their life. . . That’s just what human minds do. A donkey in the Grand Canyon won’t do this kinda stuff. 

There’s nothing wrong with the contemplations, contextualizations etc. It is a beautiful part of the human experience. There is no meed to repress it or reject it. Just be aware of what the mind is doing and if the mind becomes attached and identified to the experience. As well, sometimes it’s nice to turn that stuff off and just admire and appreciate, without any editorializing and contextualization. To just Be. Yet be careful of trying to reach a “Just Being” state as some type of enlightened nirvana because all the contemplations and contextualizations are within Being as well. 

[allislove]

@Serotoninluv now I want to fly to the USA and see the Grand Canyon. 

Thank you for sharing, I feel a lot of wisdom in your words.

Quote

Just be aware of what the mind is doing and if the mind becomes attached and identified to the experience.

Just to make it crystal clear to me.

Quote

“Wow, I just had an amazing no dual experience. I am making great progress. I am at a higher level than that person now. This is what my mystical experience means. . . What my friend needs is a nondual experience like mine to help wake him up. My experience was more mystical than his experience.” . . . And on and on and on. . . 

Here you described what happens when the mind becomes attached and identified to the experience.

What is the other side of it? How a person behaves after a nondual experience when the mind didn't attach and didn't identify to it? 

Not sure if this question makes sense but felt like to ask. 

[Forestluv]

37 minutes ago, dimitri said:

@Serotoninluv What is the other side of it? How a person behaves after a nondual experience when the mind didn't attach and didn't identify to it? 

Not sure if this question makes sense but felt like to ask. 

It arises as “trans-personal”. There is no “person” to take ownership or to identify with what is arising. There is experience without an experiencer. There are thoughts of the experience without a thinker. It’s not “my” experience or “my” thoughts. There is no one to take ownership of it. It’s all floating around passing through the mind-body. 

One can observe attachment and identification in the mind and body - just like one can observe thirst and hunger in the mind-body. 

Imo, trying to repress attachment and identification to reach an imagined transcendental state will cause limitations. I prefer to observe it arise as another form of what IS without judgement. Then it can be massaged away if desired. 

Yesterday, I was in a cafe with a friend telling her about how I was developing an empathic sense to heighten my sensitivity and how I relate to nature and historical buildings - like a sixth sense. She told me enlightenment is not experience or paranormal abilities and that I would need to let go of this type of seeking and identification to become enlightened. She gave me the name of a buddhist monk that could help me with my issue. . . This is the perspective of a personality trying to reach an idea of what trans-personal enlightenment is like. An idea formed from a whole lotta conditioning of what enlightenment is supposed to be like. . . From an unidentified trans-personal perspective, learning to communicate with plants is a fun way to explore humanness. It’s a natural expression of humanness. My human mind-body is not going to fly in the sky singing bird songs. That’s not how humanness is expressed. 

[Truth Addict]

@dimitri

Of course, the actual experience is different from the thought of it (although thought can produce similar effects to the actual experience too!).

I was merely talking about the practical aspect of the direct experience vs. belief duality.

I mean what's the difference if I told you that God is real and you believed me, or if you experience God and then believe that It's real?

I mean the actual experience is true in the present moment, but when it's done, it's become a belief, even if it was experienced by you, it's become a memory.

So, people who prefer direct experience over belief, they're wrong, because direct experience has become nothing but a personal belief. Right?

(I'm talking about myself though, I'm very stubborn and I don't believe anything outside myself).

Edited May 19, 2019 by Truth Addict

[allislove]

@Serotoninluv thanks, the reply reminded me of Goenka's words from Vipassana retreat. Something like: everything is impermanent, just observe, without any attachments. Anicca, Anicca, Anicca 

 

[Nahm]

Direct the experience. 

[allislove]

Quote

So, people who prefer direct experience over belief, they're wrong, because direct experience has become nothing but a personal belief. Right?

@Truth Addict right. Now the whole picture became more clear to me, thanks.

Quote

I'm very stubborn and I don't believe anything outside myself

It's another belief. 

Edited May 19, 2019 by dimitri

[allislove]

15 minutes ago, Nahm said:

Direct the experience. 

To the "I Am"? 

[Truth Addict]

16 minutes ago, dimitri said:

 

It's another belief. 

Actually, it's also the truth. That's the catch! 

Edited May 19, 2019 by Truth Addict

[Nahm]

@dimitri You want an apple? Go to the store and buy one, and eat it. 

[allislove]

@Nahm ?❤️