5. Direct or Actual Experience
If the singularity “I Am” and the awareness or consciousness underlying it is assumed to be a given, it is natural to then assume that “direct experience”, “actual experience” or similar is necessarily how spiritual awakening must proceed, because it involves (and even highlights) the sense of such a singularity. One description of “direct experience” is where all that is happening is temporarily deconstructed into thoughts and sensations, the building blocks of experience, and along with that is what seems to be an accompanying sense of presence, aliveness or being, which is experienced as consciousness or awareness that is conscious or aware of those thoughts and sensations.
“Direct” experience is therefore almost entirely non-symbolic, in that neither words, sounds, images nor anything else is perceived, much less taken to be something in particular. However, since in this temporary state the sense of aliveness, awareness, consciousness and beingness continues, there is still the sign or symbol that “I Am”. Thus, by deconstructing what is happening into thoughts and sensations, the sense of presence, aliveness or being can be enhanced, and thus the sense that “I Am” as well. If so, it can (literally) become a self-fulfilling prophecy, where the outcome “I Am” becomes real or true by virtue of having been predicted or expected, and by choosing a methodology such as “direct experience” that supports and leads to that outcome.
There can also be a tendency to predetermine that direct experience is “more real” or truer knowledge when compared to the doorways and walls of daily life. For example, it may be assumed that direct experience is experience of the absolute Truth, a matter of knowing how reality is, and how it is we will experience everything once awake. If so, consistently being “in” direct experience might be considered part of or indicative of awakening and enlightenment, or otherwise a valid and even necessary means to awaken. In this artificial and deconstructed state, a non-localized or de-personalized awareness or consciousness that is labelled “me” or “I Am” is naturally present, while thoughts and sensations might seem like “the play of consciousness” or similar. As a result, one might conclude that all else is unreal, while “I” alone is real.
And yet, this is the opposite of the actual “endpoint” of awakening, where everything else continues in whatever way doorways and walls are naturally seen as interpretations or representations, while all sense of awareness or consciousness, and thus “me” or “I”, disappears forever. It’s not that doorways and walls are real or unreal, which dichotomy falls away: they just aren’t the doorways and walls we once thought they were. In other words, when suffering ceases, daily life is still interpretive: it’s just that we no longer have any delusions or even curiosity about “what” a doorway or wall actually is or isn’t. It’s just recognized as a “doorway” if and when we need one.
In the Buddhist tradition, direct experience is described as empty, signless and aimless. In this state, experience is empty of the fabricated or interpretive content of daily life, nothing occurring in sensory experience is considered a symbol, sign or indicator of anything whatsoever, and there is no aim or intention to populate experience with such fabrications or interpretations. Even if the illusion of a separate “self” is in place, this can be a quite stable and comfortable abiding, which some may assume is what awakened or enlightened experience will be like. I can attest that while it is a very pleasant and even fascinating state, it doesn’t necessarily lead to any insights about whether or not “I” exist. After many years of such experiences, I realized that such direct experience isn’t what is “actually happening”, but simply what remains after what is actually happening is artificially deconstructed.
Accessing such temporary states can clearly be of value, provided they are seen as means rather than ends in and of themselves. Once fully awake, we can effortlessly access direct experience if and when we choose, as it tends to be a more pleasant and quiet “place” than daily life. However, just because we are able to deconstruct what is happening in this way doesn’t necessarily mean that we should do so, or that doing so renders what is happening more real or true. It might only be when the sense of “I Am” is gone, and daily life simply consists of whatever interpretive experiences that occur, that “direct experience” is seen as artificial.
In terms of the fetters approach, once the seventh fetter is gone, all that remains is (the) “I Am”, while all else is clearly an interpretation or “conventional reality”. Having spent approximately 18 months at that juncture, I can attest that there was a prevailing sense of bliss, happiness and wellbeing that I had not experienced previously. It was also quite straightforward to deconstruct the representations and interpretations required for daily life, and “simply be”, where all that was happening was what felt like an omnipresent sense of being and awareness that “I Am”. And yet, I knew that there was more to do, and that the notion or sense that “I Am” was the next illusion to evaporate.
“Direct” experience is therefore almost entirely non-symbolic, in that neither words, sounds, images nor anything else is perceived, much less taken to be something in particular. However, since in this temporary state the sense of aliveness, awareness, consciousness and beingness continues, there is still the sign or symbol that “I Am”. Thus, by deconstructing what is happening into thoughts and sensations, the sense of presence, aliveness or being can be enhanced, and thus the sense that “I Am” as well. If so, it can (literally) become a self-fulfilling prophecy, where the outcome “I Am” becomes real or true by virtue of having been predicted or expected, and by choosing a methodology such as “direct experience” that supports and leads to that outcome.
There can also be a tendency to predetermine that direct experience is “more real” or truer knowledge when compared to the doorways and walls of daily life. For example, it may be assumed that direct experience is experience of the absolute Truth, a matter of knowing how reality is, and how it is we will experience everything once awake. If so, consistently being “in” direct experience might be considered part of or indicative of awakening and enlightenment, or otherwise a valid and even necessary means to awaken. In this artificial and deconstructed state, a non-localized or de-personalized awareness or consciousness that is labelled “me” or “I Am” is naturally present, while thoughts and sensations might seem like “the play of consciousness” or similar. As a result, one might conclude that all else is unreal, while “I” alone is real.
And yet, this is the opposite of the actual “endpoint” of awakening, where everything else continues in whatever way doorways and walls are naturally seen as interpretations or representations, while all sense of awareness or consciousness, and thus “me” or “I”, disappears forever. It’s not that doorways and walls are real or unreal, which dichotomy falls away: they just aren’t the doorways and walls we once thought they were. In other words, when suffering ceases, daily life is still interpretive: it’s just that we no longer have any delusions or even curiosity about “what” a doorway or wall actually is or isn’t. It’s just recognized as a “doorway” if and when we need one.
In the Buddhist tradition, direct experience is described as empty, signless and aimless. In this state, experience is empty of the fabricated or interpretive content of daily life, nothing occurring in sensory experience is considered a symbol, sign or indicator of anything whatsoever, and there is no aim or intention to populate experience with such fabrications or interpretations. Even if the illusion of a separate “self” is in place, this can be a quite stable and comfortable abiding, which some may assume is what awakened or enlightened experience will be like. I can attest that while it is a very pleasant and even fascinating state, it doesn’t necessarily lead to any insights about whether or not “I” exist. After many years of such experiences, I realized that such direct experience isn’t what is “actually happening”, but simply what remains after what is actually happening is artificially deconstructed.
Accessing such temporary states can clearly be of value, provided they are seen as means rather than ends in and of themselves. Once fully awake, we can effortlessly access direct experience if and when we choose, as it tends to be a more pleasant and quiet “place” than daily life. However, just because we are able to deconstruct what is happening in this way doesn’t necessarily mean that we should do so, or that doing so renders what is happening more real or true. It might only be when the sense of “I Am” is gone, and daily life simply consists of whatever interpretive experiences that occur, that “direct experience” is seen as artificial.
In terms of the fetters approach, once the seventh fetter is gone, all that remains is (the) “I Am”, while all else is clearly an interpretation or “conventional reality”. Having spent approximately 18 months at that juncture, I can attest that there was a prevailing sense of bliss, happiness and wellbeing that I had not experienced previously. It was also quite straightforward to deconstruct the representations and interpretations required for daily life, and “simply be”, where all that was happening was what felt like an omnipresent sense of being and awareness that “I Am”. And yet, I knew that there was more to do, and that the notion or sense that “I Am” was the next illusion to evaporate.