3 ms·
It's no different with private subjective experience - it's just that most people lack precise language to describe "transcendent" experiences. For example, th
by orasis 10y ago
It's no different with private subjective experience - it's just that most people lack precise language to describe "transcendent" experiences.
For example, there are mind states called "jhana" that can be reliably accessed by experienced meditators. The language used to describe them is along the lines of "as piti subsides and suka becomes more prevalent, you are entering the 2nd jhana".
We even have language to describe what it's like to experience without an experiencer:
In the seeing, only the seen. In the thinking, only the thought...
- M_Grey 10y agoNone of what you're saying addresses any of what I said, you've just sidestepped it with claims of inexpressibility as well as untestability.
- orasis 10y agoI agree with what you're saying about the scientific method being a useful tool for discovering repeatable cause and effect. I'm simply trying (and failing) to offer a perspective that possibly nothing occurs outside of personal sense experience. The experience of blue does not exist within the wavelengths of light, it exists as consciousness. A rock does not experience blue when those wavelengths hit it. If it is true that we only exist as our senses and consciousness then a transcendent spiritual experience is as real as anything else. If I haven't convinced you, then I am merely poor at describing what I'm getting at and for that I apologize.