Investigating Direct Experience & Self-Realization, Awakening, Enlightenment.

[Alexander]

7 hours ago, Orb said:

Yes. 

 

Yesterday my mom told me that someone in our family died of drug overdose. Grief and shock came up, we were experiencing that together.

 

Then at the end of our grieving I said to my mom if only he accepted christ into his heart he wouldn't have done that. And she said "I can't believe it now he's gonna be in hell forever!" and I had to use everything in me to not burst out laughing.

So what you think it happened for him after his death?

[Orb]

2 hours ago, Alexander said:

So what you think it happened for him after his death?

I don't know 🤷. 

 

Definitely not burning in hell for eternity though.

[Alexander]

37 minutes ago, Orb said:

I don't know 🤷. 

 

Definitely not burning in hell for eternity though.

Yeah that's too harsh of a punishment.If he OD he was experiencing nirvana before his death that's for sure.

[Phil]

It terms of direct experience it can always be readily and easily ‘verified’ there is no God, states, etc, without any need for theism, monism, agnosticism, nihilism or solipsism. Simply allow it to be noticed, whatever that may seem to be, a thought, perception, sensation, perhaps a trip or spiritual ego following… whatever it is or rather seems to be, simply notice, you are the awareness aware of it, as it were, whatever it is. 

 

[Alexander]

@Phil What is this self that thinks that occupies the body?

Important note I can't feel other people's bodily sensations or I can hear their thoughts.I can feel only sensations of this body and think thoughts of my brain.So self that think it occupies this body of mine is pretty legit.

[Jonas Long]

6 minutes ago, Alexander said:

@Phil What is this self that thinks that occupies the body?

Important note I can't feel other people's bodily sensations or I can hear their thoughts.I can feel only sensations of this body and think thoughts of my brain.So self that think it occupies this body of mine is pretty legit.

Are you aware of everything that's happening in "your" body right now? 

Edited November 5, 2023 by Jonas Long

[Phil]

1 hour ago, Alexander said:

@Phil What is this self that thinks that occupies the body?

That would be a ‘second’ or ‘separate’ “self”. The ‘thinker’, and or maybe ‘soul’.

 

In accordance with direct experience, thinker and soul are thoughts. Verifiable by attempting to point to a thinker or soul in perception (seeing & hearing), and or attempting to find where sensation ends and the thinker or soul begins.

 

It might be clarifying to consider what the thought sensation points to is the actual, direct, and only experience of - ‘a body’. (‘Body’ acknowledged as a thought)

 

Deeper still, in accordance with direct experience, ‘perception’ and ‘sensation’ are thoughts as well and could be noted rightfully therein as conditions.

 

1 hour ago, Alexander said:

Important note I can't feel other people's bodily sensations or I can hear their thoughts.I can feel only sensations of this body and think thoughts of my brain.So self that think it occupies this body of mine is pretty legit.

You actually most definitely do feel ‘other people’s bodies’.

What (all so to speak) you might not be doing, is acknowledging that’s a thought, and like any other thought if you will, that thought is felt. 

 

Notice the implication of there being two, in accordance with thought… is in conflict with direct experience.

 

As in, there is the thought ‘body’s sensations’, yet sensation is not only direct (not ‘of a body’, or ‘a body’s’)… sensation is also without an edge or definitive border, without an actual distinct beginning or ending. Thus, sensation is not plural in accordance with direct experience. This would be like saying “happinesses”, or “consciousnesses”. 

 

Likewise, there is no brain, and for that matter, no face, no eyes, no ears - in accordance with direct experience. 

 

More so, maybe most relevantly… as direct experience is overlooked - thought, emotion, sensation, perception are, via interpretation, skewed.

 

Yet, awareness is nothing if not adaptable, and in this adaptation of overlooking the fundamental truth of direct experience, diagnoses are handed out via the ignore-ance and delusion that ensues of the overlooking, as readily as candy on Halloween or presents at Christmas. 

 

But you remain, nonetheless, as always, absolutely innocence. Trust in direct experience, not the mind / thoughts / others. 

[Someone here]

19 hours ago, Phil said:

there is no God,

Where did the universe come from? 

[Phil]

1 hour ago, Someone here said:

Where did the universe come from? 

For there to seem to be a universe requires two; a universe, and a finite separate self, a ‘knower’, which knows there is, a universe. 

 

For there to seem to be experience for an infinite being, being infinite, an infinite being must be a ‘somewhere’ experience seems to transpire, and ‘someway’ the ‘somewhere’ seems to be experienced. 

 

As a seemingly finite echo of the overlooking of the truth of direct experience, as if a reconciliation of the very overlooking, there seems to be a ‘dreamer’ which ‘dreams’ ‘at night’. Each presumptively separate nightly dream has two overlooked aspects; that there is somewhere the dream is transpiring, and someone in the dream, experiencing, somewhere. 

 

Yet, upon awakening, or, upon no longer overlooking the truth of direct experience, there is & was neither somewhere nor someway, but simply being, or as a seeming knower might say, dreaming.

 

With respect to a presumed finite knower, it might be more advantageous to ask something akin to ‘where did the left hand come from, relative to the right’. 

Then there is only to notice the a priori presumption of separation in the question is not in accordance with direct experience. 

 

Another approach might be to notice the assumption there is ‘somewhere else’, other than this, from which this somewhere came, and to notice this is in accordance with thought, yet is not in accordance with direct experience. In so far as This is ‘somewhere’, a ‘somewhere else’ has never been and is not, actually experienced, as infinite can not actually know finite. 

[Someone here]

32 minutes ago, Phil said:

For there to seem to be a universe requires two; a universe, and a finite separate self, a ‘knower’, which knows there is, a universe. 

Sure . There is indeed a universe and a separate finite self . And they both appear distinct from each other on the macro level . Only when you zoom into them and you find that no mathematical clear boundary can be drawn between any two objects is when you can say there is no separation.  In other words ..separation is illusory only relatively speaking. Not absolutely speaking (from all possible perspectives).

35 minutes ago, Phil said:

there seems to be a ‘dreamer’ which ‘dreams’ ‘at night’. Each presumptively separate nightly dream has two overlooked aspects; that there is somewhere the dream is transpiring, and someone in the dream, experiencing, somewhere. 

 

Yet, upon awakening, or, upon no longer overlooking the truth of direct experience, there is & was neither somewhere nor someway, but simply being, or as a seeming knower might say, dreaming.

You said it yourself..upon awakening. So as long as you are not awake everything seems separate.  There seems to be twoness.  You have two separate balls between your legs . And if you are having a dream ..it also appears to be separation.  Only when you wake up you discover that the reality underneath the appearances was just dream stuff.  So again ...separation is neither real or unreal .it is both .

39 minutes ago, Phil said:

Another approach might be to notice the assumption there is ‘somewhere else’, other than this, from which this somewhere came, and to notice this is in accordance with thought, yet is not in accordance with direct experience. In so far as This is ‘somewhere’, a ‘somewhere else’ has never been and is not, actually experienced, as infinite can not actually know finite

False . Its In  accordance to direct experience.  Right now I'm sitting in my living room..I can see the balcony's door wide open ..so there seems to be two separate places simultaneously in direct experience. 

Now ..you probably will argue that they are not really separate.  To which I will say it's not separate if we remove the thought of separation. But as long as there are thoughts that divides reality into slices ..there will always be separation..even if its only apparent. Because apparence =reality. 

[Phil]

1 hour ago, Someone here said:

Sure . There is indeed a universe and a separate finite self . And they both appear distinct from each other on the macro level . Only when you zoom into them and you find that no mathematical clear boundary can be drawn between any two objects is when you can say there is no separation.  In other words ..separation is illusory only relatively speaking. Not absolutely speaking (from all possible perspectives).

2 hours ago, Phil said:

For there to seem to be a universe requires two; a universe, and a finite separate self, a ‘knower’, which knows there is, a universe. 

 

 

1 hour ago, Someone here said:

You said it yourself..upon awakening. So as long as you are not awake everything seems separate.  There seems to be twoness.  You have two separate balls between your legs . And if you are having a dream ..it also appears to be separation.  Only when you wake up you discover that the reality underneath the appearances was just dream stuff.  So again ...separation is neither real or unreal .it is both .

2 hours ago, Phil said:

upon awakening, or, upon no longer overlooking the truth of direct experience, there is & was neither somewhere nor someway, but simply being, or as a seeming knower might say, dreaming.

 

 

1 hour ago, Someone here said:

False . Its In  accordance to direct experience.  Right now I'm sitting in my living room..I can see the balcony's door wide open ..so there seems to be two separate places simultaneously in direct experience. 

Now ..you probably will argue that they are not really separate.  To which I will say it's not separate if we remove the thought of separation. But as long as there are thoughts that divides reality into slices ..there will always be separation..even if its only apparent. Because apparence =reality. 

2 hours ago, Phil said:

Another approach might be to notice the assumption there is ‘somewhere else’, other than this, from which this somewhere came, and to notice this is in accordance with thought, yet is not in accordance with direct experience.

 

[Orb]

An inquiry into the Nondual Nature of Sensation (warning: the mirror will break, and non-suffering is revealed)

 

Feel into your fingertip, feel deeply into the sensation, is there two of that sensation? 

 

Feel into any sensation and see if there is two of those sensation. 

 

Is Sensation two? Is there double Sensation? 

 

Most will overlook this inquiry "it's not complex enough, it doesn't sound cool enough, what I need is an experience!". 

 

But if you're lucky enough to be reading these black lines and give this inquiry a shot you're in for a real treat 🚫🪞

Edited November 9, 2023 by Orb

[Phil]

While not per se of direct experience, nonetheless, this ‘says something’ about direct experience…

 

In terms of scale, if the earth were a grain of sand, the sun would be the size of a golf ball.

The distance from the grain of sand to the golf ball is about 4 meters.

The next star, sticking to this scale, is 750 miles away. 

[Phil]

In accordance with direct experience, and in concession to that body is a thought…

The experience of this body is actually - direct.

The experience of other bodies is nothing like, the expereince of this body. 

Not even remotely close. 

There is no actual comparison. 

 

[Phil]

This self-illuminating screen… turn it off. 

Then back on.  

Then off. 

It’s actually that simple & self-evident.

 

That’s it.

 

Repeat as needed.
 

[Orb]

Sensation works without thinking! Like walking and talking and eating, it's unthinkable!

[Alexander]

4 minutes ago, Orb said:

Sensation works without thinking! Like walking and talking and eating, it's unthinkable!

Wow mind-blowing,big deal.It's all in your Mind if you are honest with direct experience.

[Orb]

1 hour ago, Alexander said:

Wow mind-blowing,big deal.It's all in your Mind if you are honest with direct experience.

You're still referencing the lens. I'm talking about sensation, which is beyond the lens. Although the clarity of the lens is fucking awesome. Technically, all is within mind/lens, since "everything" is a thought.

[Orb]

@Alexander feel your fingertip, is there 2 of that sensation?

[Alexander]

18 minutes ago, Orb said:

You're still referencing the lens. I'm talking about sensation, which is beyond the lens. Although the clarity of the lens is fucking awesome. Technically, all is within mind/lens, since "everything" is a thought.

Everything is consciousness.Everything is inside your Consciousness.You can directly see it.

 

20 minutes ago, Orb said:

@Alexander feel your fingertip, is there 2 of that sensation?

Yes sensations are made of Consciousness.All bodily sensations are.