Objections To Spirituality Mega-Thread

[Anton Rogachevski]

@Leo Gura

1. How can you take an entheogen and say that the truth shown to you is absolute? Isn't the experience (or no-experience) relative to the entheogen and the temporary state? We say that if something is changing it can't be the absolute.

2. If I reach a state where the mind isn't perceiving objects (no-mind), is it correct then to assume that they aren't real?

3. Isn't non duality a confusion of the subjective for the objective, and a basic assumption that one can reach truth via subjective experience? (Of course in a non-dual state the duality of the subjective-objective collapses, but is that state dependent collapse reliable?)

Edited November 11, 2019 by Anton Rogachevski

[Forrest Adkins]

I follow and practice spirituality for years (no mystical experiences yet sadly), and really the only question that never gets resolved is how can we differentiate enlightenment/absolute truth from psychotic states?

The only answer ive gotten from @Leo Gura is "You just know absolute truth when it happens to you" but I cant do anything with that. I have exactly the same amount of evidence for materialism as I have for idealism, extactly zero. I dont believe in anything and how can I ever ? You can always be in states of pure delusion.

Wether the brain exists or not - thats another question - but I'm 100% sure within this reality you can make some very specific cuts with a scalpel on a brain and that person will wake up thinking he is enlightened, met god, and will talk like the buddha. So you can not be sure of anybody - not big news - but how can you ever be sure that you yourself are not this person?

Edited November 11, 2019 by Forrest Adkins

[petar8p]

5 hours ago, Anton Rogachevski said:

3. Isn't non duality a confusion of the subjective for the objective, and a basic assumption that one can reach truth via subjective experience? (Of course in a non-dual state the duality of the subjective-objective collapses, but is that state dependent collapse reliable?)

Give us one example of the truth not reached through subjective experience. Is it possible? Who would discover it then?

[Skanzi]

4 hours ago, Forrest Adkins said:

I follow and practice spirituality for years (no mystical experiences yet sadly), and really the only question that never gets resolved is how can we differentiate enlightenment/absolute truth from psychotic states?

The only answer ive gotten from @Leo Gura is "You just know absolute truth when it happens to you" but I cant do anything with that. I have exactly the same amount of evidence for materialism as I have for idealism, extactly zero. I dont believe in anything and how can I ever ? You can always be in states of pure delusion.

Wether the brain exists or not - thats another question - but I'm 100% sure within this reality you can make some very specific cuts with a scalpel on a brain and that person will wake up thinking he is enlightened, met god, and will talk like the buddha. So you can not be sure of anybody - not big news - but how can you ever be sure that you yourself are not this person?

@Forrest Adkins Truth is not an idea, but the falling away of your ideas, and then what is left is the Truth.

How do I (intellectually) know that this is true? I don't. I simply speak. I simply speak because I have exhausted questioning and doubting.

If you question enough, at some point you start to get to fed up with all the questions. The energy for your constant doubting and questioning will disappear, because it have proven to be so futile and exhausting, and it has given you nothing positive. You may have broken down a lot of the negative mental patterns, but it has not been replaced by something positive. Really, it has taken you from bias to confusion. It did for me, at least.

So when you get fed up with questioning and doubting itself, that's the turning point from Yellow to Turquoise (referring to the spiral dynamics model).

And the strange thing is that instead of continuing to be in an state of absolute ignorance, not being able to make any assertion for the rest of your life whatsoever for the fact that you think you've come to the ultimate truth that "I know that I know nothing", you start to see that even that statement you don't know for sure (even disregarding the fact that the very statement itself is paradoxical), as you start to act and speak from a place that is not based on your past logic and philosophies. For how do we know what "knowing" really means?

As I myself am entering Turquoise territory now, I more and more often start to make statements that I don't provide logical backup for —whether it's inner contemplation or outer explanation. I simply speak, and it feels right to say or write it, so I state it.

Forget your need for it to be logically supported. I don't really care about that anymore. It's not making philosophies; It's making music. Almost exactly the same as making music. There's no right or wrong in making music. You just make music, and people may like it or may not like it, but nobody argues whether this music is "false" or "true". That whole discussion would be ridiculous. There's nothing false or true about music. It just is. Whether people like it or not is a different matter, but it just is.

So from the Turquoise perspective, statements are just music. Turquoise people don't care about being logically correct or incorrect. Their statements are just music, coming from somewhere unknowable.

How do you or I know that what I've just written is true from the perspective of Yellow or the mind? We don't. How can we know? Maybe what I've just written has been absolutely untrue. But then again: Can Truth be contained in words in the first place?

So as Leo said, can you know absolute Truth when it happens to you? From the Yellow (or the stages below that) perspective or the perspective of the mind, you can't. There's just no way.

But from the Turquoise perspective, you can and do know it. But this statement will make no sense to you if you start THINKING about it, you see? What I am stating here is just music, not something that my mind can know whether this is true or not. I can say that maybe I am deceiving myself here by correlating no-mind and direct experience with Truth, but this once again is the mind talking, you see?

So do I know Truth? I don't, but I do. But I don't... But I do.

Do you see my difficulty ?. There's still some yellow fears and attachments in me and that's why I find it difficult to say that "I do know the Truth" and just be done with it.

Edited November 11, 2019 by Skanzi

[bejapuskas]

@Forrest Adkins  The knowing of Truth is Truth itself. Truth cannot be grasped, it is Infinite, Eternal, One, anything that has ever happened is it.

[Leo Gura]

14 hours ago, Forrest Adkins said:

I follow and practice spirituality for years (no mystical experiences yet sadly), and really the only question that never gets resolved is how can we differentiate enlightenment/absolute truth from psychotic states?

The only answer ive gotten from @Leo Gura is "You just know absolute truth when it happens to you" but I cant do anything with that. I have exactly the same amount of evidence for materialism as I have for idealism, extactly zero. I dont believe in anything and how can I ever ? You can always be in states of pure delusion.

Wether the brain exists or not - thats another question - but I'm 100% sure within this reality you can make some very specific cuts with a scalpel on a brain and that person will wake up thinking he is enlightened, met god, and will talk like the buddha. So you can not be sure of anybody - not big news - but how can you ever be sure that you yourself are not this person?

Psychotic states are no different really than "normal" states. Consciousness can take on an infinite number of states. All states are part of the Absolute.

The only way to access the Absolute is through direct self-realization. It is not even a process. There is no method. Either you are conscious of yourself as God or you are not.

The Absolute is not a belief. It's happening right now.

The point is not to enter some one true state. The point is to go meta and instantly realize the nature of all possible states, penetrating through them all.

The mistake you're making is thinking of awakening as some kind of special state or position, when it is the transcendence of all states and positions. Once you transcend everything, there can no longer be a question about delusion or psychosis or "Is this real?" or "But how can I be sure?" or "But what if I'm wrong?"

No! All of that junk is transcended. Not in theory but actually.

It is in fact insane to believe there is a difference between reality and psychosis.

[Nak Khid]

16 hours ago, Forrest Adkins said:

I follow and practice spirituality for years

 

How do you do it?

 

[petar8p]

On 12. 11. 2019. at 11:22 AM, Nak Khid said:

How do you do it?

 

There's not much ways to do it except meditation, self-inquiry, yoga, fasting, psychedelics and listening to other enlightened masters.

[TheAlchemist]

Why should we trust our subjective experiences and our senses to be a good source of what's true? Our senses are not adapted to see reality as it is, they are adapted for survival and gettting our genes forward as efficiently as possible. Also, our senses fool us all the time.

[Leo Gura]

7 hours ago, TheAlchemist said:

Our senses are not adapted to see reality as it is, they are adapted for survival and gettting our genes forward as efficiently as possible. Also, our senses fool us all the time.

Who said they are actually your senses? What if that's an interpretation, not a fact?

Do not take a notion like "sensation" or "perception" for granted. There is zero evidence that colors and sounds are senses.

[TheAlchemist]

On 15.11.2019 at 6:02 AM, Leo Gura said:

 

On 15.11.2019 at 6:02 AM, Leo Gura said:

Who said they are actually your senses? What if that's an interpretation, not a fact?

Do not take a notion like "sensation" or "perception" for granted. There is zero evidence that colors and sounds are senses.

If all our senses were to be just interpretations, how could we derive any truth at all from the world? Isn't everything you know based on your experience regardless of if you trust your senses or not? Wouldn't every interpretation be just as valid? Wouldn't there be an infinite amount of truths, thus no consensus truth at all?

[bejapuskas]

@TheAlchemist  How do you know you and your experience are two different things?  

[legendary]

The thing that frustrates me is when teachers say, "There is is no process to become enlightened since it isn't a destination, but the Truth of who you already are. Grasp it, Now!" 

And then many of them turn around and criticize anyone who advocates the use of psychedelics to explore altered states of consciousness.

Well, what am I supposed to do then? I'm damned if I do and damned if I don't.

[Azrael]

@Leo Gura Objection 1: How can one be sure that one's consciousness is even able to experience the ground of being. If there is limitation in conscious awareness, there can be "more" out there, that one could never grasp. If there is limitation in consciousness, the ground of being one may discover, is still bound by a limitation.

Objection 2: How can you be sure that the ground of being is one "thing" and not a collection of things. If it is a collection of "things", how do you know when you discovered the entire list? Is it finite? How would even know?

[Mada_]

If reality was that way, then society would already know about it.

[Leo Gura]

21 hours ago, TheAlchemist said:

If all our senses were to be just interpretations, how could we derive any truth at all from the world? Isn't everything you know based on your experience regardless of if you trust your senses or not? Wouldn't every interpretation be just as valid? Wouldn't there be an infinite amount of truths, thus no consensus truth at all?

See my video: What Is Perception?

Sensation minus ego = Absolute Truth

15 hours ago, legendary said:

The thing that frustrates me is when teachers say, "There is is no process to become enlightened since it isn't a destination, but the Truth of who you already are. Grasp it, Now!" 

And then many of them turn around and criticize anyone who advocates the use of psychedelics to explore altered states of consciousness.

Well, what am I supposed to do then? I'm damned if I do and damned if I don't.

Just do the practices and experience the results.

Why are you listening to a teacher talk about psychedelics when you can take a psychedelic and feel it for yourself? Why are you giving more credance to hearsay vs direct experience?

14 hours ago, Azrael said:

@Leo Gura Objection 1: How can one be sure that one's consciousness is even able to experience the ground of being. If there is limitation in conscious awareness, there can be "more" out there, that one could never grasp. If there is limitation in consciousness, the ground of being one may discover, is still bound by a limitation.

You can't be sure until you acheive Absolute Infinite Consciousness.

Once you are conscious of what Infinity is, there cannot be anything more or other.

If you think there can be anything beyond Absolute Infinity, you don't understand Absolute Infinity.

Quote

Objection 2: How can you be sure that the ground of being is one "thing" and not a collection of things. If it is a collection of "things", how do you know when you discovered the entire list? Is it finite? How would even know?

One/many is a distinction. All distinctions are imagined by consciousness. There is no difference between one thing and many things.

The list is endless, making it ONE.

You know via infinite consciousness. You are it. You are the one endless list. A list of all possible lists.

[remember]

there is only one question to ask: chance or choice? but all choice is chance.

[AleksM]

@Leo Gura

Are you denying the existence of individual souls? Are you telling us that everybody is the same God and there is no such thing as an individual Soul? 

If everybody is God, then how can God, that is perfect, be submissive to illusion? If the soul equals to God, then how can the individual Soul find itself subject to the limiting effects of illusion? Doesn't that lead to the conclusion that illusion is superior to God because it has the power to put God under illusion?

[hundreth]

How much of a mystical experience is primed by cultural reference? During a near death experience, a Christian sees christian theological memes, whereas someone from a different culture will see completely different imagery and themes. They aren't even pointing in the same direction.

You mention how psychedelic use won't bring you to a full awakening without studying and having a framework beforehand. How do you address this chicken and egg situation? You can't reach the truth without direct experience, but you also can't reach the truth without a theoretical framework. 

Is our perception of awakening completely dependent upon our pre-existing neural networks? Even If our cognitive filter is off (ego), what's left is still what was already there.

I'm not saying I completely stand behind this objection, but it's something I wrestle with from time to time.

[Nak Khid]

On 11/22/2019 at 0:21 PM, legendary said:

The thing that frustrates me is when teachers say, "There is is no process to become enlightened since it isn't a destination, but the Truth of who you already are. Grasp it, Now!" 

And then many of them turn around and criticize anyone who advocates the use of psychedelics to explore altered states of consciousness.

 

these are opposites?

and which spiritual teachers are you referring to?