When skepticism begins beinig a problem

[sleep]

Whenever I watch leo's content, or consume any kind of spiritual/philosophical material, I always get the impression that the people making the material don't really know what they are talking about. Especially leo, I always get the impression he is full of shit in his videos. I don't only doubt other people, though, I also doubt myself. Even if I get the impression of finding some kind of deep truth within myself, the doubt of why I should trust my subjective experience always ends up kind of nullifying it. I get this with statements about the external world (science) but not as much, because at least I somewhat trust its evidence-based approach.

I'm stuck in this limbo where every time I see someone else make any statement I get the feeling they are full of shit but also can't trust my own subjective assesments about my experience because I don't see why I should, and I don't know how to move forward.

[WelcometoReality]

@sleep If you see a red car and the person next to you say that it's green, do you believe the person or do you trust your own experience of it being red?

[sleep]

5 minutes ago, WelcometoReality said:

@sleep If you see a red car and the person next to you say that it's green, do you believe the person or do you trust your own experience of it being red?

I trust my own perception more but I don't fully trust either.

[WelcometoReality]

5 hours ago, sleep said:

I trust my own perception more but I don't fully trust either.

But if you're experiencing red then your experiencing red. Whatever your mind tells you to doubt that experience is an after thought.

[Blackbeat]

6 hours ago, sleep said:

 

I'm stuck in this limbo where every time I see someone else make any statement I get the feeling they are full of shit but also can't trust my own subjective assessments about my experience because I don't see why I should, and I don't know how to move forward.

I know this feel, if not full of shit, I feel from my intuition telling me, this doesn't sound right, or the source of info is hypocritical for example and I get a stress in my head. Thanks for coming out with this post.

[sleep]

7 hours ago, WelcometoReality said:

But if you're experiencing red then your experiencing red. Whatever your mind tells you to doubt that experience is an after thought.

I understand that but I don't understand why I should take my own subjective experience as above other kinds of experience. To say that subjective experience is true over other kinds you still inevitably need an extra layer of analysis. 

[Moksha]

Experience based on relative reality, even if it is your own experience, cannot be validated. How could it be, when it changes based on who is doing the perceiving? Maybe this what your intuition is recognizing.

The only reliable experience is direct experience with ultimate reality. When your eyes open, and you directly realize who You are, there is no doubt. How could there be, when there are no thoughts? There is only pure Awareness.

[sleep]

5 minutes ago, Moksha said:

Experience based on relative reality, even if it is your own experience, cannot be validated. How could it be, when it changes based on who is doing the perceiving? Maybe this what your intuition is recognizing.

The only reliable experience is direct experience with ultimate reality. When your eyes open, and you directly realize who You are, there is no doubt. How could there be, when there are no thoughts? There is only pure Awareness.

This sounds really enticing, but I find it hard to believe there really is a state one can achieve with no reasonable doubt, or whether such a state is desirable, as I can see it being dogma hidden as absolute truth. 

In any case, if that state is real, and doesn't feed you lies, then I hope I can achieve it one day.

[Moksha]

13 minutes ago, sleep said:

This sounds really enticing, but I find it hard to believe there really is a state one can achieve with no reasonable doubt, or whether such a state is desirable, as I can see it being dogma hidden as absolute truth. 

In any case, if that state is real, and doesn't feed you lies, then I hope I can achieve it one day.

You are wise to distinguish between the identity of enlightenment, and actual enlightenment. The ego is nefariously sneaky, and will strike the grandiose pose of someone who is enlightened, and take offense at anyone who doesn't agree.

Enlightenment isn't an identity, nor is it an achievement. It doesn't make someone better than another person. If you find yourself looking down on "less enlightened" individuals, there is good reason to doubt your own enlightenment.

In the moment of awakening, there is no doubt. However, the ego doesn't die just because you woke up. It will come through the back door, when you aren't looking, and pull you back into the centrifuge of your conditioned mind. For most people, this is an ongoing process, and it takes dedicated effort and meditation to catch the ego in its act. It can be done, but it requires long term vigilance and commitment.

[sleep]

6 minutes ago, Moksha said:

You are wise to distinguish between the identity of enlightenment, and actual enlightenment. The ego is nefariously sneaky, and will strike the grandiose pose of someone who is enlightened, and take offense at anyone who doesn't agree.

Enlightenment isn't an identity, nor is it an achievement. It doesn't make someone better than another person. If you find yourself looking down on "less enlightened" individuals, there is good reason to doubt your own enlightenment.

In the moment of awakening, there is no doubt. However, the ego doesn't die just because you woke up. It will come through the back door, when you aren't looking, and pull you back into the centrifuge of your conditioned mind. For most people, this is an ongoing process, and it takes dedicated effort and meditation to catch the ego in its act. It can be done, but it requires long term vigilance and commitment.

Does "catching the ego" imply stopping doubt from arising? I don't know if it's a function of my ego or something, but I don't think doubt should be supressed in any case. 

Recently I watched Leo's video on scepticism and it struck a cord with me, but I don't know how that vision of "always doubting" or "always being open minded" is compatible with an enlightenment that has absolute certainity at its core.

[Moksha]

3 minutes ago, sleep said:

Does "catching the ego" imply stopping doubt from arising? I don't know if it's a function of my ego or something, but I don't think doubt should be supressed in any case. 

Recently I watched Leo's video on scepticism and it struck a cord with me, but I don't know how that vision of "always doubting" or "always being open minded" is compatible with an enlightenment that has absolute certainity at its core.

It depends. Skepticism and constant questioning are generally healthy traits to foster. Any experience that can't withstand scrutiny is unlikely to be authentic.

Ask yourself what purpose is being served by the doubt. Does it disable, depress, and demotivate you? Or does it drive you deeper inward, toward the Truth that you are?

The ancient gurus questioned everything. Neti Neti, not this, not that, until only Awareness remained at the core. Don't take their word for it. Do the work yourself, and see what you discover.

[sleep]

7 minutes ago, Moksha said:

It depends. Skepticism and constant questioning are generally healthy traits to foster. Any experience that can't withstand scrutiny is unlikely to be authentic.

Ask yourself what purpose is being served by the doubt. Does it disable, depress, and demotivate you? Or does it drive you deeper inward, toward the Truth that you are?

The ancient gurus questioned everything. Neti Neti, not this, not that, until only Awareness remained at the core. Don't take their word for it. Do the work yourself, and see what you discover.

Thank you for your insightful answers. I would like to give one myself but I feel as though I can't until I know the state you're talking about. Until then my replies are only guesses.

That being said, I think the most "advanced" state of consciousness for me is not one that takes itself for certain.

[WelcometoReality]

1 hour ago, sleep said:

I understand that but I don't understand why I should take my own subjective experience as above other kinds of experience. To say that subjective experience is true over other kinds you still inevitably need an extra layer of analysis. 

I see your point. If we continue with the red car analogy can you explain your reasoning why you shouldn't trust that you are experiencing a red car?

[Moksha]

@sleep ? Integrity, courage, and commitment will take you a long way. You may be farther along than you think. Learning not to take anything too seriously is one of the deepest realizations "one" can have 

[sleep]

3 minutes ago, WelcometoReality said:

I see your point. If we continue with the red car analogy can you explain your reasoning why you shouldn't trust that you are experiencing a red car?

I'll clarify a little, I think I didn't explain it well enough. I don't doubt my experience is that of a red car. I doubt that this experience is true outside myself. I don't see why my own subjective experience about something should take priority over other forms of knowing.

[WelcometoReality]

3 minutes ago, sleep said:

I'll clarify a little, I think I didn't explain it well enough. I don't doubt my experience is that of a red car. I doubt that this experience is true outside myself. I don't see why my own subjective experience about something should take priority over other forms of knowing.

Thanks for the clarification. ?

Yeah that's something to contemplate.

What if you experience it as red and 100 others say it's green?  Does that mean that it's green and that your experience is wrong? ?

[sleep]

1 hour ago, WelcometoReality said:

Thanks for the clarification. ?

Yeah that's something to contemplate.

What if you experience it as red and 100 others say it's green?  Does that mean that it's green and that your experience is wrong? ?

I'm not sure how to answer that question. I guess first I'd want to know "wrong" relative to what? I think I could say I'm wrong, relative to most of humanity's experience. But I'm not wrong in regards to my own experience. 

[Nahm]

@sleep

You can tell a human is bullshitting by the moving lips.  

But the duality of language is all we have to communicate, at least linguistics wise, to conversationally point to that there is a truth. The truth literally can not be spoken, no one can tell you who or what you really are.

(Imo) Thought is for communicating and choosing, exercising preferences (creating). Trusting what someone else says would be misuse of thought, which would feel off. Trust is not a proper lens for thought to begin with. 

Contemplation, proposing a question and receiving insight directly from our source is direct, and strengthens intuition. Noting that, always listen to your own intuition, which is not a thought, and is not dual like thought. 

It might be helpful to view conversations as ‘the middle’ or ‘where we meet’, existential or otherwise, as Epistemology which is essentially the philosophy of knowledge, all of which is an illusory appearance, or duality. But again, linguistic communication wise, that’s what we have to work with.   For some, it is a passion, an art, and imo quite beautiful, and there is an large spectrum of helpfulness when it comes to pointing. There is also the relativity, or ‘where you’re at’ to consider, and at times one ‘pointer / teacher’ is better than others, yet things can go full circle, and a ‘pointer / teacher’ which didn’t resonate before can suddenly strongly resonate, or help things ‘click’ into place. 

Skepticism is scrutinizing or doubting knowledge, healthy (imo). Cynicism is one’s own attitude of distrust of others based on their motives and intentions, and (imo) can be healthy and unhealthy. I would then default to your intuition.

Every human which speaks, also eats, and no human will ever be perfect, because reality is already the truth, perfection. What you might be looking for, what might resonate is Brahmavihara. 

To really inspect, it is most helpful imo to recognize one can not think perception, nor perceive thought. Awareness is directly aware of thought, and of perception. 

Self doubt (again imo) is never justifiable, or appropriate, because it is self referential thinking (thinking about yourself, when your self is already the awareness of thoughts) and it is always ‘off’ in terms of feeling, but one must decipher between thought-doubt, and self-doubt. Again, default to intuition, and or contemplate a question with source.  Feeling on the other hand, never fails, and is never wrong - yet is the most misunderstood misinterpreted subject matter on earth, apparently imo. 

A great habit whenever you are experiencing a ‘problem’, is to flip your own script. Say ‘this is not a problem because_____’ and let the ‘problem perspective go’, and source will fill in that blank from goodness. That positions the mind, or yourself, to be the benefactor of the deepest teaching of the best teacher, life, and suffering. 

At ‘the end of the day’, you are the authority. 

[sleep]

@Nahm I love your posts, dude. At least they make me reconsider some of my positions. 

But why should I trust my intuition? What makes it more trust-worthy than reason?

[Carl-Richard]

8 minutes ago, sleep said:

But why should I trust my intuition? What makes it more trust-worthy than reason?

Trusting your intuition feels so good.