Why do some people "see" things and others don't?

[Jack of Spades]

Originally Posted by HereAndNow

Or if someone knows then his knowledge is probably inexpressible in words.

Yep.

Originally Posted by HereAndNow

I think it's sometimes much more important what the real-life consequences of one's explanations and theories are, and not what these theories are as such.

Agreed to a certain degree. I'd like to add a sidenote, though:

I think if I focus on practical consequences of some explanation like that, then it's not my belief, but rather it's a source of inspiration and food for contemplation. If that is the case, I should refer to it as a source of inspiration, rather than as an explanation. For example, I am personally very much inspired and guided by the idea that everything comes as a God's gift and this seems to be in the line with my own experience. However, I find so many intellectual problems in accepting it as a fact, that it's not really my honest belief on the matter. Therefore it would be dishonest - or at least inconsistent - to claim it to be so, let alone offer it to someone else as an explanation.

I hope this doesn't sound like semantic nitpicking, for me this difference between "belief/truth" and "source of inspiration" or "thought of practical value" is a very important one. I find it important to make a distinction between what I claim to be true, and what is a mere source of inspiration, or used only for practical value.

Thinking of my young self, who was seeking the advice of others, I would have personally felt (and have felt) cheated if someone offered me an explanation as the truth on the matter, only to later on admit that it's not what they actually believe, but only find such line of thinking to be good for practical purposes.

[Rayden_Greywolf]

Originally Posted by Jack of Spades

Yep.



Agreed to a certain degree. I'd like to add a sidenote, though:

I think if I focus on practical consequences of some explanation like that, then it's not my belief, but rather it's a source of inspiration and food for contemplation. If that is the case, I should refer to it as a source of inspiration, rather than as an explanation. For example, I am personally very much inspired and guided by the idea that everything comes as a God's gift and this seems to be in the line with my own experience. However, I find so many intellectual problems in accepting it as a fact, that it's not really my honest belief on the matter. Therefore it would be dishonest - or at least inconsistent - to claim it to be so, let alone offer it to someone else as an explanation.

I hope this doesn't sound like semantic nitpicking, for me this difference between "belief/truth" and "source of inspiration" or "thought of practical value" is a very important one. I find it important to make a distinction between what I claim to be true, and what is a mere source of inspiration, or used only for practical value.

Thinking of my young self, who was seeking the advice of others, I would have personally felt (and have felt) cheated if someone offered me an explanation as the truth on the matter, only to later on admit that it's not what they actually believe, but only find such line of thinking to be good for practical purposes.

Exactly. I take inspiration from different pagan practices, but there's so little that I've actually experienced. Its like I have to choose between believing in what feels good and right or using my logical mind.

[HereAndNow]

Originally Posted by Jack of Spades

I'd like to add a sidenote, though

Totally makes sense.
What you said.

Regarding beliefs and truths and just inspiration ... I don't know ... i guess this distinction you made makes more sense if someone thinks that it's possible to know THE truth. In general or about something particular. Which would be one's belief then, yes? And if one is not sure then it would be just something that inspires or is useful.

I personally have never seen this distinction as very important because I have never thought that any truths in the absolute sense exist. At least not on the level of our human understanding. To me everything is an opinion or explanation or theory ... just some of these we take more seriously. Like the fact for example that the Sun is a burning star out there ... so and so many millions of kilometers from Earth. But well, how can I really know? If I had been travelling there and back then I could be more sure. But still ... maybe I'm dreaming it all .. this world around me ... and when I wake up then I discover that none of this was real. So I see all opinions or theories as just possibilities ... some of them I am of course also more passionate about than some others ... but they are still just opinions. So for me "belief" as "this is certainly so" just doesn't make much sense :) Or please correct me if that's not what you meant by "belief".

[Jack of Spades]

Originally Posted by HereAndNow

Totally makes sense.
What you said.

Regarding beliefs and truths and just inspiration ... I don't know ... i guess this distinction you made makes more sense if someone thinks that it's possible to know THE truth. In general or about something particular. Which would be one's belief then, yes? And if one is not sure then it would be just something that inspires or is useful.

I personally have never seen this distinction as very important because I have never thought that any truths in the absolute sense exist. At least not on the level of our human understanding. To me everything is an opinion or explanation or theory ... just some of these we take more seriously. Like the fact for example that the Sun is a burning star out there ... so and so many millions of kilometers from Earth. But well, how can I really know? If I had been travelling there and back then I could be more sure. But still ... maybe I'm dreaming it all .. this world around me ... and when I wake up then I discover that none of this was real. So I see all opinions or theories as just possibilities ... some of them I am of course also more passionate about than some others ... but they are still just opinions. So for me "belief" as "this is certainly so" just doesn't make much sense :) Or please correct me if that's not what you meant by "belief".

In philoshopical sense, I guess what is regarded as knowledge, comes down to a level of confidence. I can't imagine any serious philosopher equating knowledge with absolute, final, unshakable certainty. In human experience knowledge is rather a state of reasonable confidence, with some shades of grey rather than a clear-cut line where knowledge begins and non-knowledge ends.

But without getting too dragged down the rabbit hole of essence of knowledge itself, I was talking about a rather limited, practical point of view; Thinking of a situation where I have conflicting beliefs, or credible reasons to suspect that I might not be right. I think fiction makes a good example of one extreme end; I have no reason to suspect that Rocky movies are true in literal sense, yet those movies used to inspire me as a teenager to practice boxing. The same is likely true for many people who saw sports movies as kids. I would consider it dishonest for adults to claim those movies to be true, with the intention that believing so would have a positive impact on the kids watching them. In this case the difference should be clear enough to be an easy example case.

Now, back to what this could mean for spiritual life, there is always a line in the sand. When thinking of extremes it's kinda easy to cast the confidence vote one way or the other, but in real life cases there is always some grey area.

I think we are more or less seeing the same coin from the different sides.

[r6r6]

Originally Posted by Rayden_Greywolf

Some people have had visions, seen entities, communicate with spirits, etc. all of their lives.

People born blind have to take a lot on faith i.e.belief in what those who see can tell them they see. Ex color differrentiation.

Why should blind people believe people who can see? Because most people can see and agree for the most part on what they see.

Then there are people who have their wires crossed and when the smell the taste and when they taste the smell. Synesthesia.

It is strange world but then there is also the people who are pulling-cons on others for nothing else other than to get attention their specical way.

Universe is a mysterious place and so is the human brain.

[shivatar]

My understanding, including both science and faith, is that the brain will manufacture experiences required to keep a person alive. Near death experiences can come from self-death too. I mean if a person really committs to killing their self, to the point that the sub-conscious and unconscious both recognize it as a threat, the mind will fabricate experiences that are exactly what a person needs to begin enjoying life again.

Once upon a time I wanted death. Seconds later I was granted a vision, a supernatural experience with a universal entity (Maybe God, maybe not), and many other gifts that made me want to live again. The stronger my will to live became, the weaker the supernatural influence became.

These days I can't even think about dying. I've seen too much and I know that life has treasures waiting for me. The worst I get is depressed and I lose my energy.

--

There is a price to be paid if one wants to circumvent the test of faith. Once you've paid it you will probably begin to wish you didn't. I wanted to avoid believing so much that I spent years deluding myself and convincing myself that I'm insane and what I've experienced is not real.

There is a pressure and pain that comes with what you're asking. It's a responsibility much like having a child. The pain of not believing is like abandoning that child.

I think a part of you deeply wants to avoid the faith barrier. I also think that part of you is too naive to understand what you are asking for. I suggest that you begin trying, desperately trying, like a dedicated practice for years on end.

lets pretend you did get what you want. What if it's so horrible, like my experience, that you spend years trying to forget. What then?

--

Also it's possible you're still third eye blind. For some people the third eye opens rapidly and completely. for some people, like me, it opens slowly and in varying degrees. I was using my third eye for a long time before I realized what it was and what I was doing. to this day my third eye is still not fully opened. I've come to accept that it's not a part of my spiritual path right now and not very necessary. it seems like who I am on the spiritual level is akin to a blind person, all my other senses are heightened to the point that I can function well, but I lack the ability to see well. i guess I'm half blind lol. My third eye sees with a haze and in shadows, or sees flashes and glimpses, nothing sustainable yet.

From what I hear about other people their ability to see within their mind (to see from their minds eye, to see with their third eye) some people can see very clearly and have always seen very well. For others it's like they are looking at a wall of shadow. Their inner eyes are blocked or obscured or something like that.

It could be that your third eye is not opened.
It could be opened and you don't know how to use it. Meaning you don't recognize it for what it is, but you use it.
it could be that you don't have good astral vision/clear astral seeing.

it's not a bad thing, it's just a thing. like being born short or with one leg. A person who is short doesn't try to become tall, and a person with one leg doesn't try to grow another. They work within the constraints they are given and do the best they can with it. They don't compare their worth to others. They understand they can achieve greatness using what they have, they don't need other things.

Originally Posted by Rayden_Greywolf

I've never been good with having faith in things. For me, I have to see it to believe it. I can't force faith or belief. This struggle broke me and I was in a severe depression until somewhat recently when I believe I've seen my first sign via a series of numbers I keep seeing. That's what ultimately got me back into spirituality.

But....I don't understand.

Some people have had visions, seen entities, communicate with spirits, etc. all of their lives. I'm not saying they don't have challenges, they definitely do. But...why do these people get the ability to see these things while I don't? Why are the God(s) silent for me, but not others?

I just don't get it.

Sorry for getting angsty again here, just....I'm really frustrated right now.

[Jack of Spades]

Originally Posted by Rayden_Greywolf

Exactly. I take inspiration from different pagan practices, but there's so little that I've actually experienced. Its like I have to choose between believing in what feels good and right or using my logical mind.

Have you ever considered to think of that "feeling good and right" - experience as a spiritual experience in itself? Experiences of spiritual guidance and sense of direction in their early stages aren't often that distinguishable from mere random feelings. Sometimes with such feelings you just have to pull the thread (keep practicing what feels right) and see what comes of it. Maybe there is no need to try to take a leap into experiencing something otherworldly, but rather follow the hunch?

I don't claim to know this for sure, but I think it's something worth considering in your situation.

[HereAndNow]

Originally Posted by Jack of Spades

I think we are more or less seeing the same coin from the different sides.

Sure.
Just interesting to think about these things.
And to try to understand better others and oneself :)

[lemex]

Originally Posted by Jack of Spades

In philoshopical sense, I guess what is regarded as knowledge, comes down to a level of confidence. I can't imagine any serious philosopher equating knowledge with absolute, final, unshakable certainty. In human experience knowledge is rather a state of reasonable confidence, with some shades of grey rather than a clear-cut line where knowledge begins and non-knowledge ends.

I have had a paranormal experience that was 100% real that I imagine very very few will ever have. This would be of the entity type. So I wish to relay what it means to be confident. So I have knowledge that allows me to speak with confidence of that reality. In the philosophical sense I can't say why it happened only that it did. I can't say with certainty other then that. Now it happened only 1 time and is not recurring. Yet the 1 time altered my life so I can imagine the effect if it happened more so daily. I wish everyone could have at least 1 experience so they could know how it felt then a decision could be made in that moment. It may be the interpretation we give the event that is philosophical. I think it is the "I' in everyone that attaches as I cannot tell anyone why which is why I no longer make or engage in such attaching. I now treat it as so what........

The event is lost in the philosophical conversation of those who do not experience it. 100% certainty doesn't mean anything is known about the entity.

[FallingLeaves]

Originally Posted by HereAndNow

There's a man called UG Krishnamurti for example who claims to be enlightened, and also says that the more you work towards enlightenment the more your efforts become a hindrance. It happens when God's grace decides to give it to you.

I think working towards some goal considerabley increases the chances of it happening (the same UG Krishnamurti himself worked for years very hard to find enlightenment). But it doesn't guarantee it. Only grace can give it ... sometimes to someone who has worked hard, sometimes to someone who hasn't made any effort whatsoever.

grace is the easy way... if you can get it... wish god were that nice to me...

the problem is that the tools used to try to achieve goals are such that they interfere with achieving this particular goal. As you work toward the goal it becomes a matter of diminishing returns and eventually you get tired and give up to wait on grace.