How do you discern metaphysical truth?
 

A lot of people, including those on this forum, seem to feel very certain about the truth or falsehood of any number of metaphysical claims.

My question is, how do you discern what is true from what is false when it comes to metaphysics?

For example, some people believe in any number of different creator deities and argue about which one is really the supreme one. Others deny the existence of any deity of this sort. Some believe in a "source". Some believe in affirmative prayer or law of attraction. Some believe in an afterlife, others do not. Some seem to stitch a bunch of different beliefs together to make many of them true.

What methods, if any, do you use to discern whether beliefs you have or would like to have are true or false? How much emphasis do you put on the truthfulness of your beliefs relative to how useful or agreeable they are to you?

Really good question! I think people use experience. They consider a belief system different to their own, and then life throws up events which confirm that belief system to be compatible in some sense with reality.

The problem is that just about any belief-system can offer up its own validations because our minds interpret things according to the maps we learn about - not the other way around. So for example, when i first read about communism and the idea of oppression of the working class, suddenly i started finding evidence of it everywhere. The same goes for every type of belief-system, including metaphysical ones.

Talking about metaphysical "truth" is a bit of play on words for me. And yeh, i do believe it is more important - the usefulness of the belief-system for you - than the evidence itself. Perhaps when defending "the evidence" it actually means defending the usefulness of paradigm.

In this way metaphysical truth might be decided by that which gives comfort or hope or happiness or satisfaction of emotions, or courage to do something etc. A tool.

Hmm... in a lot of cases I think flexibility is helpful. In some things I am flexible, and in some things I have direct experience which makes it more difficult to fully release an understanding about metaphysical notions. I know that may seem rigid, but others who have direct experience of something may understand what I mean here.

For example, I've had conversations with the sort of "originating" energy for our realm (or, if you prefer, my own reality of Earth), and it has verified my previous thinking that all the various labels for it are okay with it and point to the same thing, that energy. And it really doesn't care what we call it, frankly. (Nor does it care if we call it anything, or there is not any negative-sounding consequence from it if we don't.) If I had not had that direct conversation it might be easier for me to accept an idea that there is only one "right" or "true" thing there. (And that energy is also entirely content with being seen as us, as an aspect of ourselves that doesn't quite fit into our physical forms. I would say that understanding is also accurate according to a oneness/nondual view. It is probably entirely content with being the Void/wholeness/emptiness too but it becomes practically beneficial for me to be able to communicate with it, so it humors my preference to consider it a sentience I can speak with, since its structures can be organized and manifested in so many ways.)

To evaluate the personal truth or falseness, I usually discern how it feels to experience the belief as true. Does it generate feelings of being right (for me, based on my existing alignment) or does it generate feelings of distortion and interference? I mean how it feels for the heart, not the mind. I have a range of beliefs and not all of them are rosy and perfect but they still feel accurate.

Not sure about the usefulness or agreeableness... since these methods of evaluation basically bypass mind (the Western notion of individual mind I mean) it is hard for me to evaluate a belief based on what mind wants to be true - though I am sure there are a few beliefs in my head that are based on that. When it comes to new ideas, I evaluate how the vibration/energy signature of that belief meshes with my own and I don't take it on for myself if it doesn't feel right. But I engage those who choose it anyway, if they wish to engage me, and don't expect them to take on my understanding of things.

And most of this applies to my own path. I don't like the idea of assuming my understanding is the only right one when there are so many others here. Some of the things I have come to understand about metaphysics... well, as unpopular as it may be to say this, it is more than just belief. It feels more like knowing, because of the direct experience. But I do my best not to come across with that attitude and it only applies to certain things - even then, it is only "knowing" as far as my personal understanding of the universe is concerned. Of course even with those things I could be wrong about it, but the experiential aspect makes that feel less likely even though it is possible.

I started a thread on discernment here a while back, you might find some interesting answers there as well.

Oh, and my own understanding is about love. I am sure there are folks who would not be interested in an uplifting understanding of metaphysics, but in my experience most folks are not as likely to find a problem with understanding that boils down to love - if they engage metaphysics at all.

p.s. Logic is not without its place. Many of these ideas that end up feeling right have a kind of logical consistency to them as well (though others applying their own standards about it might not agree). However, I suppose I evaluate beliefs on a relatively new idea I have accepted that says - as far as my own path is concerned - I am closer to where I need to be using the right hemisphere, not the left one. Since I spent a lot of time using the left one it can come into play when, for example, I evaluate something that sounds far-fetched to me (like sungazing). But I still try to focus on believing anything is possible, because I experience more of the everyday miracles that way - and those are fun :)

Someone I read recently (though I can't remember who--I've done alot of reading in my time) said, "you'll know the Truth when you hear it."

Whenever you hear the Truth, something resonates in your very being, and you are highly attracted to it, because it's Who You Are.

That's my own observation, anyway.

Doh... resonance as a response would have been much more concise than my novella ^_^

Any "metaphysical truth" has certain implications for the world, an application-side. Those of my way simply adopt the metaphysical truth, apply it, and measure the results. Ultaimtely, results determine the "truth" or "falsehood".

Its just one way of going about it.

In short, ultimately, in the mind, all things are true. Its effectiveness and utility that determines "truth" as I think you mean it.

I agree that this is very true. Just about everyone organizes new information into their existing framework of understanding and it can be exceedingly difficult to break out of such a pattern.

I guess I just don't see how one can jump from "this belief gives me happiness and satisfaction" to "this belief is factually accurate in relation to what is true about the universe".

I can see how people make various logical arguments for why something is true or false, or explain how they have experienced something and therefore decide that certain things are true or false, but I have difficulty understanding how someone can make the above jump in logic.

What is your view about people that have direct experience in things that contradict?

For example, I've heard personal experience claims from people that say they've had experiences where they go to hell and find out that god really does send people to hell based on what religion they are. But then on the other side of the spectrum, I've heard personal experience claims from people that say they've had experiences where they find out that in the afterlife, it doesn't matter what religion you are.

How does one go about reconciling contradicting beliefs? Either one or both is mistaken or at least seriously seeing less of the picture than the other.

A common modern theme is to believe that you get to experience what you want to believe. So, someone who believes in heaven gets to experience heaven upon death, while someone who believes they are going to hell experience that. People that believe in pure materialism cease to exist upon death, until they believe something different.

But the problem is even this viewpoint is in itself an objective claim- a claim that subjective experience is true and possible. Other metaphysical frameworks might argue that this is not the case.

I am hesitant to trust personal experiences, either of myself or by others, as a good method for determining metaphysical truth. Partially because of the above-mentioned conflicting/contradictory problem, but because of others.

First, I can attest that the only experience I've had that can be considered spiritual was the one time I used marijuana (and a lot of it). I experienced what I believed to be oneness at the time. It made me a more spiritual person for a while. But after months, I went back to where I was before. One thing that sticks out to me about the experience is how strongly a simple chemical can affect my brain. Something so mundane can cause me to perceive something that appears to me to be spiritual. That gives me serious doubts about the spiritual truth of others experiences- not that I doubt they had their experiences and that they believe them to be true, but that their experiences were indeed reflections of something supernatural instead of mere effects of our powerful and highly influential physical mind.

Secondly, I've learned of studies where other mundane things can cause certain seemingly metaphysical perceptions. Buddhist monks and Catholic nuns were studied, and were shown to be able to generate the same effect. During normal state and during intense meditation or prayer, their brains were scanned, and were shown to go through physical electrical changes. Certain parts of the brain change- especially parts that concern spatial and temporal awareness (so people feel a sense of oneness, lack of separateness, and sometimes a lack of time flow). Even more interestingly, the study showed that this effect can be re-created by sending signals of certain frequencies into the brain, and the nuns and monks verified that the induced experiences were indeed subjectively like the ones they can generate themselves.

Third, I remember watching a clip from mentalist Darren Brown where he was able to generate false subjective spiritual experiences in a group of atheists and agnostics. He's a hypnotist that does tons of amazing stuff, and in this scenario he interviewed some people about their beliefs or lackthereof, and was able to convince several of them to believe in something supernatural with hypnosis. He just talked to them in a big room, and was able to do things like make people fall over and feel a presence and higher truth, and then at the end deconverted all of them by telling them he doesn't necessarily believe in that stuff and that it was all an exercise. He of course didn't want to permanently alter someone's lifeview based on a trick.

How is this addressed by those with experiences?

Well, I do not have any personal experience that would suggest hell is any objectively real place. That word wasn't even intended as such when the biblical texts were recorded. But the mind is powerful, it can create powerful things for itself - especially if it is channeling fear.

But it remains, all the souls I have been helping cross over to the beyond, rather than go to some kind of fiery place upon death, ended up stuck where they were instead... to me, based on my own experience, that is the closest anyone gets to experiencing hell. But then again, a powerful mind can create what it expects. That is one reason the originating energy I spoke of before has issues with these types of dogmatic beliefs. It does not see the purpose for validating punishment for eternity, it feels frustrated that this idea was canonized. It is about love.

Anyway, I am aware that is probably not the direction you wanted in a response, but that originating energy wanted to say that anyway. It wants to say more on it but I would like to respect the chosen boundaries for the conversation.

I do not think the contradictions mean there is a need for invalidation. We are each here to have certain experiences and those may not all be the same. Are you saying there is not room for contradicting beliefs to coexist? I think we each create what we want for our path, or what our essence has asked for to learn - this would also apply to a materialist, though said materialist might argue that I have no right to say it. Even so, I could still visit the Akashic records of that person which says they do have something like a soul even if their surface self would rather not acknowledge it. And they are not at all required to acknowledge it either.

I guess you are suggesting that there must be some overarching continuity that allows for ultimate consistency... I think from the span of the cosmos, that exists, but from the span of individual beliefs from the view of the human mind, it is not necessarily apparent to us. Do you agree or disagree? Would you explain more about your apparent thinking that any inconsistency means something about the entire system? Or would you address the inaccuracy of that idea if I misinterpreted you?

I've had experiences, and know a few others who have had experiences that I can relate to.

I would say, first, that whatever experiences one has, that they determine whether or not they are genuinely metaphysical. Some time ago, (when I was exploring religion), I watched a man on television relate a vivid dream he had of hell, as God Himself had shown it to him. I took it seriously, at the time, but realized later that a dream fails to qualify (at least in my world) as metaphysical. Also, after a number of years under the influence of drugs, I recognize now that anything experienced in such a state cannot be relied upon to be authentically metaphysical.

Second, whatever experiences you may hear of, the only one that matters is your own, if you are sincerely looking for what you hold to be True. The "Kingdom of God," if such can be used as a barometer of Truth, "is within." You really can't trust anyone's related experience any more than your own.

Responding to the whole post, btw.

What do you have to lose by considering these things as possible? Not considering them as definitely true, just a place of neutral openness? What do you have to gain by keeping your existing perspective?

I think studies showing how certain regions of the brain can produce spiritual-like experiences doesn't negate the potential for authentic spiritual experience. It could be the intangible/metaphysical is reflected in the physical through those parts lighting up.

Then again, I also think the subtle signs of metaphysical experience are no less real just because they are not often as loud as the density of the physical. And I don't think they are any less real just because existing instruments don't tend to measure them very well or at all. I just have never really felt like I was being my best self when I adopted that type of attitude, it was not a good fit for me. But for some, for what they have chosen to experience here, it is perfect for them. Maybe this is exactly the attitude you have chosen for yourself.

I prefer to be allowing about this sort of thing... if you are hoping to hear convincing arguments, I may not be the best person for that as I do not feel like I have a job to convince people about these things... I just share what I have come to understand about it.

Oh, and yeah I have had experiences - in waking consciousness, without drugs in my system. I had what might qualify as an experience earlier in this discussion when I happened to start sharing information that did not originate in my own individual mind. That energy wanted me to continue but I wanted to respect your chosen focus here. I did that in an entirely sane state of being, though, and not under hypnosis (I don't even go into a trance to communicate or have things communicated through me). And most of the experiences that happen in waking life, without drugs, are only subjectively meaningful... it is often not a booming voice in the sky that everyone else hears too. The vibrations involved seem to be finer, so it seems to be less about booming voices.

I do sometimes notice how a more right-brained approach seems to make these things easier. It is like the right hemisphere is naturally more inclined to notice connection. And the left hemisphere seems more naturally prone to create disconnection.

I agree with Jaiysun4's mention of some compatibility with reality and the aspect of resonance by Solipsist. Both take into account the immediate sense of reality in terms of the operational and effectual respectively and with minimal tampering.

Also, let us not forget that metaphysical apart from the rudimentary "above+physical" also relates to the preternatural or supernatural. As is usually the case in the expansion of definitions so doth attributions of a shall we say, serviceable character? :)

Be present in the moment of Now, rather than be carried away by your mind, your ego. I think this is one of the best way.

I'm a big fan of direct, personal experience, and being encouraged into my internal exploration when I hear/read other's words. I guess these days I feel that either everything is spiritual/metaphysical or nothing is, either way I want to be as present in life as much as possible.

Throughout the years I've found myself variously attracted to certain concepts based on what my clarity/conflict has been. Here's what I've discovered about discovering the truth for myself:

If I can gain some wisdom and not just intellectual understanding, then I'll keep diving and exploring with it.

If I can feel some internal knowing with a concept/understanding, then I'll marinate in it with curiosity to see what happens, then try to practically apply it. If I can't practically apply something, it's not helpful.

I'm not looking for an outside answer as much as how to keep diving into layers of awareness and watching the questions and answers change.

If a concept challenges who I know myself to be, rubs up against my own version of reality, helps me to die in each moment - then I'm curious.

Valkryie - I can't say that I have an answer for you about ascertaining truth. I feel like that's a deeply personal experience that may change throughout our lives. I do feel that it's vitally important to embody what is truth for us - and I wish you the very best on your journey. What I can offer you is questions, because it's the questions of my life that help me to find my truth beyond intellectual understanding. Having said that, I ask myself questions like:

• How can I be more present, more accepting right now?
• How can this truth be practically applied in my life?
• Is this a truth for me, or just for someone else?
• If it's a truth for someone else, how can I honor that person's experience instead of trying to disprove it?
• Am I self-validating, or just trying to be right/loved/approved/accepted by others? How do I know this in my body?
• Do I trust my own experience? What is my experience?
• When I know the truth of something, how will I let myself feel that I'm not allowing right now?
• How can I see the truth in what someone else is saying?
• What truth is trying to be expressed in someone else?
• Am I being truthful?
• What is my visceral, body experience with something? Contraction? Expansion? Where do I feel it? Do I try to not feel it?
• What is my body experience when I know the truth of something? Deeper breath, relaxed face, energy flowing more?
• Am I conflicted about something and just looking for a validation about it?
• Am I truly asking a question to have an experience, or just looking for an excuse to give my answer?
• How is my truth different right now based on my experience?

Thank you for asking!

By asking myself what I knew for sure. Repeatedly. For 15 years.

I have had a variety of interesting experiences that would seem to “prove” the reality of any number of metaphysical belief systems. They were all fascinating. And in the end, I couldn’t rest until the source of all experiences, natural and supernatural alike, was made clear.

But wouldn't that approach get people stuck in half-truths? So many people think they have the truth simply because they have heard it and it agrees with them. That's how fundamentalist Muslims, Christians, Hindus, or whatever operate. They think they already have just about all the facts but from an outside perspective, their views often look childish, incorrect, and at least lack completeness.

To clarify, the point is not that all people must be on some external substance to have an experience. My point is merely that in some cases something so mundane as a chemical or hypnosis can give someone a powerful experience that they believe is spiritual.

As some of my examples show, one does not need an external substance all the time. Some Buddhist monks and Catholic nuns in the study could practice and create such feelings on demand, internally, but those feelings were ultimately involved with brain chemistry and were measurable. The other example demonstrated that a person with a set of mentalist abilities can convince a room full of atheists that something divine is in the room and that they can feel it.

People that can develop such emotional highs are enviable in my opinion, but my point is to showcase the awesome power of the mind and that since it has such power to give some of us extraordinary experiences in very mundane ways, I don’t see how it’s possible to conclude with any degree of certainty or near-certainty that an experience was actually supernatural.

I mean, to put it in context, if I would have had my marijuana experience happen to me without marijuana, I would have likely continued to believe that it was indeed supernatural and that I now have information regarding certain aspects of the metaphysical universe, when indeed such an experience is directly possible by mundane brain chemicals. If this hypothetical situation were to occur, what I view as factual could easily be wrong. I’m a left-brain individual myself, so apparently I require some sort of external substance to have this sort of experience, but some others apparently do not.

I see how such exercises are useful for people that are prone to having so many distractions, but I don't see how they are beneficial to everyone.

What is so special about this moment right now? It seems mundane to me. If I focus on the moment right now, I simply notice how mundane it is, which seems unhelpful.

So you seem to be in agreement that, as you put it, from the span of the cosmos, there is overarching continuity that allows for ultimate consistency.

The problem is, many different metaphysical viewpoints exist that each contend to be the overarching continuity. You make a number of such points yourself in your post, either directly or indirectly. Some of them are:
-It is about love.
-There is an originating energy that apparently has some sort of consciousness and you believe it can talk to yourself and others.
-Hell is not an objectively real place.
-Eternal punishment is unnecessary.
-The universe is not strictly materialistic.
-We are each here to have certain experiences.

A Muslim or a Christian may have a set of different beliefs that they also feel are that overarching continuity and not a mere individual impression.
-There is a god. Sometimes he gets jealous or angry or happy.
-If you don't believe in the right religion, you'll find yourself in hell.
-You live one life, and one life only, and then are "judged" by this external deity figure.
-The Qur'an is the literal and most important word of God.
-One must believe in the divinity and sacrifice of Jesus for salvation.
-Jesus is not divine and to believe that he is is blasphemous to Allah.
(these last few conflict, Christian/Muslim)
-There exists a devil that is in rebellion to god and he does bad things.
-The type of work you seem to do, like channeling spirits and such, is actually work from the demons and evil and is bad.

A Hindu or Buddhist may have a set of even different beliefs.
-Each person lives multiple lives, and Karma determines what they get based on what they have done.
-There is atman, ie each person is a soul that slips on different bodies like clothing.
-There is anatman, no true self. (these two conflict, Buddhist/Hindu)
-The ultimate end is to escape from the cycle of death and rebirth, either union with god (Hindu) or complete nirvana (buddhist)

A materialist may have a set of different observations.
-Studies of prayer have shown it to have no observable effect on reality.
-Looking through some of the above mentioned scriptures, many current beliefs are taken out of intended context, and religions build on one another over time. (Like Gehenna, Hades, Sheol, and grave all being translated as "hell", as you indirectly referenced in an earlier post.)
-Several deities have been believed in and then later forgotten about for the most part.
-The consciousness seems to be located wholly in the physical brain. Brain damage can erase memories. A stroke can utterly change someone's personality. The brain determines how intelligent someone is (brain damage can reduce intelligence, thought, ability to reason, etc.). If this is the case, it could be argued that a soul is irrelevant as all of our functions are already accounted for- intelligence, memories, personality, etc.

Given all of the above positions, and of course many more that are not listed, some of these statements are objectively false, and others may be objectively true. How does one determine which, is my question.

But my question doesn’t just pertain to the highest levels of truth, the overarching continuity. Even some of the smaller things I call into question and ask how we can determine something to be true or not- like whether a given seemingly supernatural experience is indeed supernatural or brought on strictly by brain chemistry.

“Are you saying there is not room for contradicting beliefs to coexist?”
“Would you explain more about your apparent thinking that any inconsistency means something about the entire system?”

It depends on the given belief or inconsistency.
If person A says, “all people live only one time and are judged” and person b says “all people live multiple times until they escape samsara”, then one or both is mistaken, either partially or completely.

If person A says, “all people that do not believe in religion ABC are punished by the creator deity, he told me this himself”, and person b says, “I talked to the creator deity also, and he says he doesn’t care what religion you are”, then one or both is mistaken, either partially or completely.

If person A says, “there is only material, nothing supernatural, and this is true for all people regardless of what they think is true in their heads” and person B says, “people that realize certain things have the ability to create what they want, have supernatural experiences, and so forth”, then one or both is mistaken, either partially or completely.

If even the simple building blocks of whatever the overarching continuity of the universe is cannot be objectively understood to be true or false, how can one come to understand for certain that overarching continuity? My question is how does one discern, objectively, the truth or falsehood of a given metaphysical claim.

I don't mind the thread being diverted a bit if you feel that what you have to say is useful information.

I’m not sure how you’ve concluded that my existing perspective is that no spiritual experience is authentic. That’s not what I’m asserting here. I am indeed open to the possibility of something supernatural existing. The fact that some mundane things can produce what can be seen as supernatural experiences does not negate the possibility that some of them are indeed real.

The point of the thread is simply to bring up the question of how a given metaphysical claim can be validated or rejected. The fact that SOME spiritual-like experiences can come from mundane origins begs the question of how, if someone happens to have a supernatural-like experience, can that person determine whether it was from a mundane origin or a supernatural one?

As earlier mentioned, you can add a tangent to the thread if you wish to. If you think there is something important to say then go ahead. Not everything has to be a direct answer to the OP question.

If you are conscious of the Now, you won't find it mundane. The reason you see it mundane is because you believe the past or the future is better. It means you are still your ego, trapped in the mind, looking for something better, something more exciting. You are in the state of waiting, eager to go somewhere, to go to the future, which never arrives.

Google Eckhart Tolle. He is a great inspiration.

I don't agree that that is why I find things mundane. The past or future could be better, worse, or equal to the present moment, and I view it as mundane.

For example, I've tried to focus on the now when I'm eating, as that's commonly cited as a good exercise. (Eating, gardening, etc.)

So I sit there and eat an apple. I focus on everything- how the apple looks, how it tastes on my tongue, what the texture is like, any thoughts that pop into my head, and so forth, and the summation of the event is that eating an apple is just not particularly worth focusing on. It doesn't exactly provide sensory inputs worth caring about.

Focusing on the now makes sense if you're doing something for which the sensory inputs are pleasurable, but I don't see how the it makes sense if the sensory inputs of the current event are lackluster.

I've heard of him.

Oh, this is a chair. Oh, this is an apple, it tastes alright. Oh, I need to observe the taste, the taste. Oh, it's sweet. The colour, the colour. Oh, it's red. What's next? Quick, I need to be in the Now. What's next? Oh, the smell. Oh, it smells the same. Oh well.

The idea is not about sensory inputs.

It's about the state of being.

The state of being is boredom in such a case.

Yes. But why is there boredom?

Did you observe the voice in the mind asking what's next?

No, I observe the voice in the mind focusing on the here and now and finding it not worth focusing on, at least in most activities like eating or gardening and such.

Even if there is nothing next, that doesn't change the fact that the present activity of eating an apple is boring.

And even if a thought comes up like "what next", the point is simply to observe it and let it go, right?

Without interesting sensory inputs, I don't see a reason to really focus on what I'm doing. Without interesting thoughts, I don't see a reason to focus on what I'm thinking. If I simply am "being", how is that valuable, and how is focusing on "being" going to lead one to discern metaphysical truth?

I mean, look, Zen observation has its uses. As previously mentioned, I do see how it's useful for people that are really busy and want to clear their mind. Doing something simple and focusing on it can be useful. It's also useful if you have a variety of simple pleasures in your day, as focusing on them can make them better instead of skipping over them and not really realizing them.

But I don't see how focusing on being, or focusing on an uninteresting activity, is worthwhile.

If I'm doing something for which the sensory inputs are highly pleasurable, or the thoughts in my head are currently very interesting, then I can see how such an activity is useful.

If you find it boring, it means that there is some kind of resistance. When you are fully in the Now - when you, and not your mind, are, there is acceptance.

Acceptance is also the knowingness that whatever you know at this moment is all that you need to know. Your mind, but not the fully conscious you, is uncomfortable with not knowing.

I just did an intuitive reading for someone, so I am not really up for continuing the debate right now. I am probably still adjusting to how it is to be back here without all those extra frequencies that happen to feel lovely when they are connected.

If you also reject direct experience then you may not leave much left... and that is your choice.

There may not be a way to validate or reject these things that would satisfy everyone. I try to stay away from the generalization language such as using the word "all" but I may not have been totally successful with that here. And, I do happen to think we all have a soul (though there are different names for it) because I have visited the soul records for a skeptical friend I have who does not believe in soul. A materialist would not believe this, though, and I am not trying to force anyone to believe it. I just share from my perspective, it seems that aspect of self exists independent of the belief of the personality. Do you not think there might be more than the personality?

I do not have such strict criteria as you have, and I find my life flows well. If you listen to your heart instead of your mind it will probably tell you whether a specific metaphysical idea is for you or not.

Oh, and earlier in the thread that was Source (aka whatever label) that wanted to keep talking. Source probably doesn't care whether the audience believes it is actually Source, but I'm not in the same place right now so I would rather leave Source's feelings about the distortion of the message for another time.

It seems folks either welcome connection or generate disconnection - we all have a choice. And our conscious selves may not even know what is going on at the core... there is no requirement to communicate with our inner self. Certainly seems life is more enjoyable when there is a sense of being an ally with self, and not in conflict with part of self, but that does not mean any reflection or exploration of self is required.

It seems this conversation has shifted in its tone, so I don't know if I'll be back. Your heart, your connection to love, is a great source for truth. But you are free to pick truth on whatever criteria you like.

Why do you do any one thing that is uninteresting, after you label it as unteresting?

I don't know why everybody seemed to ignore this post, as I think it is probably the most profound and concise answer here (at least it seems so to me :)).

I would like to know more about what you've discovered at the end of this search. Are there any pointers to this truth? Or is it unexpressible?

Something else I've found especially profound is what Adyashanti states, that "every belief is false." That sort of clears out all the beliefs and concepts that our minds might be tempted to attach to. Don't have to figure out which one is true and which one is false -- they're all false!

That's ok. I'll just respond to what you've posted and you can come back if you feel like it another time, or not, it's up to you.

Well firstly as I mentioned earlier I'm not necessarily rejecting all experiences, simply asking how an experience can be verified.

And secondly it's not much of an issue anyway since I don't have spiritual experiences. I can be curious and read about others but that's never much fun and seeing as how they conflict, it leaves me little to go by.

I don't see how it can be more than personality (and memories). I mean I suppose it could but I don't see how it's useful.

If I die tomorrow, and say my memories are destroyed, my personality ceases to exist, and some sort of soul that doesn't contain either of those things is born in some completely other body with a different personality and no recollection of the memories that I have right now, or that soul arises to some sort of other realm, then I don't see that as any different from me simply ceasing to exist and an entirely new soul being created in that new being. Because from my perspective, for all intents and purposes, I'm dead, my series of conscious moments interrupted and stopped.

For this reason the present moment is important (to echo the current other conversation I'm having in this thread about focusing on the moment), as I have consciousness and can enjoy it if it's a good moment, but if I no longer have a personality due to death then I can't observe or enjoy any moments. Likewise, if I have a soul that lived past lives or in different realms but it had a different personality and I don't have those memories, then how is that different, than simply not having had a previous life at all?

Ok. Well I hope you feel better and you are welcome back if you want to come. Your posts are thoughtful and clear.

I mean honestly you've got me really curious now but if you don't want to say it that's ok. I'd like to hear it if/when you're ready.


I just kind of view it like, some people find something that works for them and seem to believe that it will also work for others. This might not always be the case.

Because I have to. I have to eat, even though eating is boring.

Some people really like food- they really enjoy the tastes. Focusing on the moment gives them pleasure. I'm not one of them. To me food just doesn't taste that good. Some foods taste bad and some foods taste neutral or kind of ok. I eat foods that are healthy and taste neutral or kind of ok.

90% of things are uninteresting. eating, sleeping, driving to work, working, cooking dinner, doing the laundry, etc. These things just don't provide much sensory pleasure in my opinion, in sensation or thought. They have to be done for maintenance, though. Why would I want to focus on them? Why would I want to be present, other than for practical reasons (ie driving safely or working intelligently)?

The other 10% or so, peak experiences, are worth focusing on. Adrenaline rushes from doing something exciting, sex, having a glass of wine and enjoying the warmth, seeing a really good movie or a really good piece of artwork, the one time I did cannabis, getting a massage, walking barefoot through grass or through waves on a beach, thinking of somethings really interesting and ingenious, etc. I can see how it's important to focus on and be present during those things, as there's somethings worth being present for.

Test it. If it's true, it'll eventually show to be true (that is, if you agree to empiricism; otherwise, I think you may be out of luck). If false, same deal. For those things that you can't really tell ever if it is true or false, just leave it at the unknown state, maybe act as though it were true if there's something to be gained from it, but not dwelling too much on the actuality of it (unless you really want to, of course, but typically it's not really all that worth it).

Methods that have, over time, proven to be useful. Depending on what value I place in certain output of operating based on a certain set of beliefs compared to other certain outputs, beliefs shift to accommodate (and generally, these beliefs shift more toward what has been tested to be 'true'). As for emphasis then, the truthfulness of my beliefs is directly correlated with how useful and/or agreeable it is to me, regardless of what the actual belief is. In any case, putting positive value in what is true rather than simply in how much you would like something to be true seems to have worked well thus far.