[Opinion] Certainty in spiritual world

[Morell]

When it comes to conviction in physical world, we can be convinced about something and it can be true, but it also happens that we are convinced of something that is not true. In physical realm however we can use comparing with other people, exact sciences and other tools to find out if we are right or not.

However beyond physical world this certainty is far less sure thing. True, we can still compare the notes with other people, but there it ends. As I see it, once we get to spiritual reality, the potential of crystal clear certainty of physical disappears and we have to rely more and more on our own internal integrity.

What do you think? Am I right?

 

[deci belle]

Spiritual in my book is nonpsychological, which is not relative to the person, so such knowledge is immediate, non-discursive.

Integral; the realm of inconceivability: such constitutes complete reality. Seeing just this, what doubt would one entertain?

 

[Robert Ramsay]

Pretty much. In non-physical reality, a feeling of certainty does not necessarily correspond to a thing being true for anyone else other than you. As long as it doesn't contradict physical reality, you are, as you say, on your own.

 

[ashlesha]

I agree when it comes to super-sense perceptions and individual visions, but I think there is an underlying consistency to certain forms within the astral/spiritual world. Spirits can serve as the best example of this, and since planetary spirits usually have the most familiarity & consistency to them in terms of basic influence, we can use them as an even more specific example. If you and another person were to invoke a spirit of Saturn, your sense perceptions may vary widely, but the overall influence of Saturn as an influence would be consistent. Depression, introspection, introversion, etc would all follow. If we wanted more confirmation, we would need to take someone who wasn't familiar with the archetypical themes, and someone who was, and then have them both invoke Saturn and see if they witness the same effect.

This only works when we're trying to root the spiritual influence into our material world. If we're using solely spiritual cause & effect, we run into another issue of bias. We can claim that a very spiritually attained person would be able to witness the effects of spiritual engagement and translate it for us, and this loops back into your point on personal integrity and the individual clarity of that person

 

[Keldan]

I agree. The issue is that even if you and I evoke the same spirit, our experiences can be completely different. Their influence can also be very different from person to person, something a lot of people don’t notice. So even when we’re working with the exact same spirit, our notes can look like night and day. That doesn’t mean either of us is wrong. Still, people may doubt either account because the differences are so dramatic.

I’ve also realized there are more theorists than actual practitioners with lived experience. So it’s important to use discernment with spiritual experiences people share, to separate lived experience from theories. Once I filter that, I can take note of what’s intriguing.

 

[BMicic]

Many books have been written by people who have no actual experience. Then they repeat the same mistake, add something of their own, and create an even bigger misinformation.

 

[Morell]

Many books have been written by people who have no actual experience. Then they repeat the same mistake, add something of their own, and create an even bigger misinformation.

That is ture. Unfortunate, but true, because where there is interest, there is money, so seekers are falling for it and buy a lot of books that do not really deserve it.

 

[FireBorn]

Cool topic!

We live in a shared physical reality. Step off a cliff and gravity applies regardless of belief, culture, psyche, or framework. That part isn't negotiable. But why we stepped off the cliff, what we believe about it, and what story we tell ourselves during the fall, that's where it gets messy. Spirituality is no different.

Here's what I find interesting. We know human memory is deeply flawed. Reconstructed, filtered through emotions, shaped by every experience that came before it. Yet we make life altering decisions based on memories without a second thought. We build entire identities on "what happened to us" knowing full well the memory isn't clean. Nobody calls that too intangible or too strange to act on.

But report a spiritual experience and suddenly shit changes. Now it needs to be verifiable, comparable, defensible in a safe way. The same person who'll organize their entire life around a childhood memory they can't verify, or recall with much accuracy compared to the actual event(s), will dismiss a spiritual encounter as too uncertain to take seriously. Like wtf?

That double standard is worth sitting with, especially since it can be uncomfortable as hell.

I'm not arguing we should treat every subtle spiritual encounter as gospel. But the inconsistencies in how we apply skepticism, are generous with memory, and brutal with spiritual experience, says more about our conditioning than it does about the validity of either.

It's a good mirror of how damn messy we actually are. I will be here all night

 

[rice candy]

Both are limited to one's senses and perception through the senses. In the case of the spiritual realm, it's unique to everyone as everyone lives in their own version of the universe. But then there's shared experiences, specific correspondences provided by spirits, and synchronicity that often bridges these universes together. Even the physical realm can be uncertain, such as accounts of the Mandela Effect.

 

[Accipeveldare]

When it comes to conviction in physical world, we can be convinced about something and it can be true, but it also happens that we are convinced of something that is not true. In physical realm however we can use comparing with other people, exact sciences and other tools to find out if we are right or not.

However beyond physical world this certainty is far less sure thing. True, we can still compare the notes with other people, but there it ends. As I see it, once we get to spiritual reality, the potential of crystal clear certainty of physical disappears and we have to rely more and more on our own internal integrity.

What do you think? Am I right?

I always do what Crowley recommended. Just approach it as if it is real if you arent sure. This way, you can have a certain level of detachment from the experience that can help with avoiding spiritual psychosis or uncertainty. Why be certain if it works?

 

[ElectricEgregore]

Maybe uncertainty is by design to test our belief, intuition and firmness of our will?

I think we tend to live in a world polluted by so much input in the forms of words, media, manipulation and all the mundane chaos of modern life.

If we begin to be very strict about what enters our mind and align our circumstances to the optimum we can realize - meaning moving to the place you really make home, where you are more with nature than with blinking lights and city scum - we may gain more clarity.

I'm not there yet, but thats essentially what I would assume.

I mean, of course many things in holy books are on another level and had to so with prolonged fasting, funky plants or other altered states -
they most certainly were very sure of their visions and just acted accordingly. No risk no fun lol.

But one could argue that minds were also very different back then, imagine all you knew were 3 books.
Many interesting theories, i mean in the vedic culture the vast writings that are too much to read in a lifetime in vedic science, and sanskrit is a very complex language that takes a long time to learn - to then realize it was a spoken language in a lived culture makes one think we have evolved backwards, in tune to the kali yuga.
May these texts be as high civilization as they get, the use of writing and creating books and scrolls were already percieved as a part of a downfall, as before that humans had all this knowledge inside their heads and just learned by being teached orally and, well gnosis.

There also is this book that has an interesting theory about the development of our mind in regards to the weight that was given to visions:

Julian Jaynes's 1976 book The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind proposes that human consciousness is not an innate trait but a learned cultural development that emerged approximately 3,000 years ago (around 1200 BCE). Jaynes argues that prior to this period, humans operated with a bicameral mind, a non-conscious state where the right cerebral hemisphere generated auditory hallucinations interpreted as commands from gods or ancestors, which the left hemisphere obeyed without introspection.

The theory posits that this mental state began to break down due to societal upheavals, mass migrations, and the rise of complex civilizations during the Bronze Age collapse, which overwhelmed the ability to rely on external divine voices for guidance. This breakdown forced humans to internalize these commands, leading to the development of metaphorical language, introspection, and the modern sense of self-awareness, a transition known as naratization.

Jaynes supports his hypothesis with evidence from:

• Literary analysis: The Iliad lacks introspective language, whereas the later Odyssey shows early signs of conscious reflection.
• Neuroscience: The model draws parallels between the bicameral mind and the hemispheric lateralization seen in schizophrenia patients who hear commanding voices.
• Archaeology: Ancient temples and oracles served as physical externalizations of the internal voices that once guided behavior.

The book suggests that modern phenomena like religion, schizophrenia, and hypnosis are vestiges of this bicameral past, while the invention of writing and complex social structures accelerated the shift toward subjective consciousness. Although controversial and criticized for its speculative timeline, the theory has influenced discussions in psychology, anthropology, and neuroscience regarding the evolution of human cognition.

So yeah, a very deep topic, I also think that Jung was not always right, or maybe he just was not really able to put his dream and vision symbol theory in words really. It's basically like trying to draw a four dimensional object with a crayon sometimes.