How to know what truth is?

[Farnaby]

Hi!

Lately, I've been consuming a lot of material on awareness, self-inquiry and so on. I've also been able to stay as awareness (for a lack of a better description) and go back to that neutral consciousness without any effort. In that state, anxieties, worries, emotions, come and go pretty quickly.

But now I'm asking myself if this direct experience isn't just something I've tricked myself into. 

How can you trust your direct experience? When I'm identified with my worries, my direct experience can be a feeling of anxiety. When I detach from those thoughts, my direct experience is calmness. Why is it generally accepted that the second state is the true one if both can be directly experienced?

It seems like giving up this skepticism would make me an easy target to believe something without seeing if it's really true. For instance, people like Mooji teach you to put aside all doubts so you can discover truth. Isn't that similar to what religions do: "there's a God in heaven, just believe me and put aside every doubt".

Thanks a lot!

[Gesundheit]

The truth is infinite nothing, or everything, without distinctions. All dualities are inside of truth but not it. Anxiety, calmness, love, fear, etc... are not truth, they're simply different parts of it.

The focus on the positives is purely marketing imo.

[Farnaby]

@Gesundheit hmm and how can you be sure that's the truth?

[Gesundheit]

1 minute ago, Farnaby said:

@Gesundheit hmm and how can you be sure that's the truth?

What else could it be?

[Farnaby]

@Gesundheit I don't know. I actually resonate with that definition of truth. But what if it's just another paradigm? Like, before getting into meditation, self inquiry and so on, my paradigm was a bit different. What makes this new definition of truth more accurate than the previous one? 

[Gesundheit]

Just now, Farnaby said:

@Gesundheit I don't know. I actually resonate with that definition of truth. But what if it's just another paradigm? Like, before getting into meditation, self inquiry and so on, my paradigm was a bit different. What makes this new definition of truth more accurate than the previous one? 

You tell me, what does the word "truth" mean to you?

[Farnaby]

@Gesundheit good question. Maybe the most accurate description of who we are, what reality is and so on. 

[Gesundheit]

Just now, Farnaby said:

@Gesundheit good question. Maybe the most accurate description of who we are, what reality is and so on. 

Most accurate is still not quite accurate though 

[Gesundheit]

3 minutes ago, Farnaby said:

@Gesundheit good question. Maybe the most accurate description of who we are, what reality is and so on. 

Also, here you're specifically talking about the conceptual truth, which should mirror something that is the actual truth. This actual truth is the truth lol.

[The0Self]

That there is no self is the self. That there is no truth is the truth.

[Osaid]

Leo has 2 whole videos on this topic

[Nahm]

On 9/11/2020 at 1:45 PM, Farnaby said:

Hi!

Lately, I've been consuming a lot of material on awareness, self-inquiry and so on. I've also been able to stay as awareness (for a lack of a better description) and go back to that neutral consciousness without any effort. In that state, anxieties, worries, emotions, come and go pretty quickly.

But now I'm asking myself if this direct experience isn't just something I've tricked myself into. 

It is. You’re bamboozling yourself into & out of the discord & alignment. Watch it happen, scrutinize what you were thinking about & how you were thinking. Think of the activities of your life like categories, and feel the discord or alignment as you think of them anytime. Generally, the discord reveals perspectives rooted in separation, and alignment from perspectives of unification, or unity. Many live their entire life with discord in categories like time, money, relationships, self, etc, never realizing the discord is with the perspective... or, between the bulb & light beam if you will, rather than between the bulb & the light on the wall (which seems separate). 

Quote

How can you trust your direct experience? When I'm identified with my worries, my direct experience can be a feeling of anxiety. When I detach from those thoughts, my direct experience is calmness. Why is it generally accepted that the second state is the true one if both can be directly experienced?

If trust is a consideration of direct experience, scrutinize who is trusting (or not), and who or what is being trusted (or not). Also, scrutinize the sensation as well, in regard to how it relates to trust. Listen to the sensation directly, rather than labeling it. You might think of that sensation as a hot coal, and then there is for you to notice which perspectives are the touching of the coal, and why. You might also think about who, in your life and or past, was and or is always touching their coal, and why / how they learned to, and why they keep doing so.

Quote

It seems like giving up this skepticism would make me an easy target to believe something without seeing if it's really true. For instance, people like Mooji teach you to put aside all doubts so you can discover truth. Isn't that similar to what religions do: "there's a God in heaven, just believe me and put aside every doubt".

Putting aside all doubts includes what anyone else says, as you can never know if what they say is true. If one is to see the truth it is because one looks for oneself beyond what is seen & heard. One can be plenty skeptical and amply scrutinize direct experience, without ever being cynical of individuals, by scrutinizing the direct experience of individuals. 

[Farnaby]

@Nahm Not sure if I understood you.

If I trust exclusively my sensations, bringing my attention back to awareness is what feels more peaceful and blissful. But does that mean that's the truth of who I am and so on? From that perspective, it almost feels like I'm some kind of emotionless being that can choose to identify (or not) with any feeling. 

On the other hand, if I trust my direct experience, it is constantly changing, sometimes there is anxiety, other times there is anger, sadness, peace, joy, and so on. Isn't that true as well, at least in that moment? I see how there's still a never changing part during those experiences, so I see how some may call that your true self. 

[Dodo]

On 11/09/2020 at 6:45 PM, Farnaby said:

Hi!

Lately, I've been consuming a lot of material on awareness, self-inquiry and so on. I've also been able to stay as awareness (for a lack of a better description) and go back to that neutral consciousness without any effort. In that state, anxieties, worries, emotions, come and go pretty quickly.

But now I'm asking myself if this direct experience isn't just something I've tricked myself into. 

How can you trust your direct experience? When I'm identified with my worries, my direct experience can be a feeling of anxiety. When I detach from those thoughts, my direct experience is calmness. Why is it generally accepted that the second state is the true one if both can be directly experienced?

It seems like giving up this skepticism would make me an easy target to believe something without seeing if it's really true. For instance, people like Mooji teach you to put aside all doubts so you can discover truth. Isn't that similar to what religions do: "there's a God in heaven, just believe me and put aside every doubt".

Thanks a lot!

Do we both agree that at this moment you either believe or do not believe that there is awareness?

Well, the only way you know about this belief or lack of belief is the awareness / knowing that allows you to know that.

There, you have proof of awareness, beyond belief. It is just the only way to know anything. Every thought, sound, sight, feeling and sensation appears in You. "Your experience" that you dont know whether to trust or not APPEARS IN YOU, otherwise you would not know about that "Direct experience that you cannot trust".  

 

[nitramadas]

It's whatever's left after you determine what it can't be.  

As others here have already pointed out:

Nothing.

You ask why, but it's the only thing that doesn't need any deeper explanation.  Nothing has to be the default assumption.  You'd have to have good reason to think that something is a better default assumption.  You'd have to explain that something.  Nothing is the only thing that doesn't require explanation.

Make sense now?

[Nahm]

13 hours ago, Farnaby said:

@Nahm Not sure if I understood you.

If I trust exclusively my sensations, bringing my attention back to awareness is what feels more peaceful and blissful. But does that mean that's the truth of who I am and so on? From that perspective, it almost feels like I'm some kind of emotionless being that can choose to identify (or not) with any feeling. 

It’s not possible for you to trust you, or anything else. It is also not possible to bring your attention to awareness. It is also not possible that there is a truth of who you are. It is also not possible to identify with a feeling. 

13 hours ago, Farnaby said:

On the other hand, if I trust my direct experience, it is constantly changing, sometimes there is anxiety, other times there is anger, sadness, peace, joy, and so on. Isn't that true as well, at least in that moment? I see how there's still a never changing part during those experiences, so I see how some may call that your true self. 

It is not possible to trust direct experience. A never changing part is not possible. Some calling anything your true self, is also not possible. 

[Javfly33]

Just read the Rumi famous quote:

"I've been knocking from the inside".

Since you are the truth, only can you know the truth. Nobody will deliver it to you.

You will be your own authority.

[Farnaby]

@Nahm Now I'm even more confused lol

Most spiritual teachers clearly point to our true nature as being something that's beyond any personal identity, thought, emotion, body and so on. They call it consciousness, awareness, God, oneness, it, and so on. 

What I'm skeptical about is if that's really our true nature or if it's a state we can reach thanks to how our brains are designed, just like there are other consciousness states.

[Nahm]

@Farnaby

Yes, beyond, prior to, etc...these are really just pointers that thinking will not do. There are no other consciousness states. There appears to be the thought that there are, but the thought “itself” is not even a consciousness state. 

[Farnaby]

@Nahm Ok, I get what you mean and see how that is "true" in a sense.

From a scientific POV I disagree though. There are different states of consciousness that are easily measurable with electrodes.