Explanation comes from the reasoning processes in the mind. You can't reason with experience, until that experience is verified through means not reliant upon the subjective mind.
I totally agree Epiphany. And you cannot reason it when the subjective mind only denies it.
You can maybe however, notice the 'difference' it has made, separate to the experience and pretty much permanent afterwards. There's a quote I don't know who originally said it - change is the violence that throws us headlong into our future.
If there is no experience outside of our self selected safe and expected experiences there is no 'change', everything stays the same.
Violence in this statement merely means the energy in motion touching on a thing or person or situation with force, and likely not awarely or willingly called to oneself - the 'surprises' of life that shift us.
The nature of consciousness is more objective than I think many people on here give it credit for.
It's funny because even though I thoroughly agree with this I am the absolutely wrong person to agree with this and suggest that you do not need an nde or such to know this - purely because I cannot objectively go back to prior to my experience and really, honestly, truthfully know if I was aware of it 'prior', or could have been as aware of it 'without' the experience.
I know that I can experience objective consciousness while not in any other experience but this awake, blood & bones, one now, and I applaud anyone who does, however they come to it.
I just cannot let my experience, my imagination, dictate my assumptions about the nature of such a deeply mysterious and complex entity as consciousness.
I live for experience, but I don't trust the subjective mind to explain my experiences with any accuracy.
Bravo!!!! Me too
For me it can only definitively point to elements of what it is 'not', not totally what 'is'.
If one does objectively - awarely, capably, willingly objectively recognise their perspective of experience as a perspective of experience and allow others to pull on the strings of their (if they are aware, capable, willing) subjective perspective objectively the strings unravel the ball of wool that represents the 'experience'.
I might point to the difference now of Dr Eben Alexander in his awareness on reflection about how he used to think he was being scientific and compassionate in the way he would dismiss those of his patients who tried to talk to him about altered consciousness awareness experiences under his knife. He totally thought he was being scientific and now realises he was being completely the opposite. He totally thought he was being compassionate and helpful dismissing their accounts - whatever it was an account of --- he was not at all being helpful, he can only realise this now in hindsight and in experience as others are saying they are being scientific while dismissing his queries.
Even he can't fully explain that to others. Me, I could only --- somewhat compassionately ----- chuckle.
Knots fall out, unconnected strands fall out, a thing with no root withers and dies ..... and still we are only subjectively perceiving unravelling an experience objectively through the subjective filters.
None of this defines the totality of the experience of consciousness or consciousness itself. It can however let go of what is not relevant in and of the experience.
So for me, it helps to unravel and let go that which is not, knowingly, even knowing that it still doesn't define what is, except that it subjectively appears to me that it is equilibrium of all that is and is not. The one thing that does not unravel under inspection or not, or ever, is the totality of it all. - whatever label you want to put on that, or not
Even funnier - my nearly 3 year old grand daughter has taken to explaining 'complex' stuff with 'cos' as in why or why not this .... 'Cos'.
I was musing on it after she answered a question from me with 'Cos'.
Two things arose, one that in the situation she was reluctant to share what she was feeling, she may be beginning to realise that a particular answer without all the 'isness okayness' would skew the experience or information - so by not saying what she does know that she feels/knows she's avoiding shame for self and/or other when it is not her intention to shame anyone, even herself because she knows on some level that her perspective is not the all of it.
If we 'force' her to define her answer she will have to pick a strand, and she is uncomfortable in doing so.
I was musing on it and realised 'cos' is the same answer as 'it just is what it is'.
So really, all I have to do is translate for my daughter that the little one's 'Cos.' is just 'It is what it is' from a nearly 3 year old's perspective.
Not sure that she's gonna appreciate that