First of all, thank you for your well thought out response. I do appreciate it and I find value in a lot of what you say.
However, I'm not sure how one could have, as you said, " an authentic understanding of the nature of the human mind.", when all of our (scientifically based) efforts to understand consciousness have fallen far short of proving anything substantial.
As far as I can tell, what exactly consciousness is, and everything that it entails (the where, what, when, why, and hows?), is a big unknown for now and the foreseeable future. In other words, psychology is mostly speculation at this point, with a few seemingly useful theories when it comes to "dealing with" various types/ degrees of neurosis.
I fear that our current model of human psychology is akin to the pre-Galileo model of our solar system. It might seem to work, based on the limited ways that we can test it, but it's not outside of reason to expect that our very limited amount of tools and ways to test our hypothesis would render a model that falls short of capturing what it really is.
And, if we can admit this, then I'm not convinced that it can be proven one way or the other whether we all aren't just mindless drones, running on complex mind programs. Most, in the Western world, at least, seem to have this idea that the subconscious mind makes most of the decisions (something like 95%, IIRC) and that the conscious mind has control insofar as it has the power to "will" new programs into the subconscious, making it possible to will change.
But I'm not convinced that the evidence has been too substantiative on that model (the conscious programs the subconscious model, that is). It could just as easily be that the subconscious mind gives the illusion of having this separate "conscious mind", with it's apparent ability to will change (in the subconscious programming), or to make decisions in the moment. Any "progress" that appears to happen (let's say that a "self-hypnosis" therapy seems to render a positive transformation) might have already been planned out in the unconscious mind years ago. The problem and the urge to break free and all the suffering and struggling to make progress and the eventual transformation; all of it could very well be stored in the unconscious as a series of events to play out in a specific order, like a movie playing within the conscious portion of awareness, without the least chance that any little part of that story plays out of order.
Who am I to say whether or not that is the case? Who is anybody to stand up for, or against, such a claim? Who knows what's really going on with life, here?
Like I said to start off my first comment, this is a matter for philosophical debate. There's no "Truth" to be found here, only speculation.
"all of our (scientifically based) efforts to understand consciousness have fallen far short of proving anything substantial" - yes, true. However, my experience is not based on Western science - which has an extremely narrow-minded perspective on all things spiritual. My experience comes from putting in practice theory that comes from ancient Oriental cultures (yoga, Kashmirian Shaivism and such).
I'm not a ''believer'' - I question everything and accept what can be experienced. I don't care for speculation - it leads you nowhere; it merely wastes your time while allowing the mind to drown in an ocean of self-satisfaction (lol) - "Look at me construing theories all day long!"
I understand your point of view - naturally, I respect it.
It's just that, for me, it's like somebody telling me I can't fly, because they haven't seen any planes, while I already know it's possible, because I have flown quite a lot.
It's simply a matter of experience.
I have spent countless hours in meditation (questioning everything), countless more hours listening to Jiddu Krishnamurti, and many more hours reading over the words of R. Maharshi and Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj, so I'm more than familiar with the "mode" of knowledge/ understanding that you speak of, and I do respect this approach....
....and I might be wrong here, maybe I'm just not as "advanced" as you are in the "self-knowledge" approach to know enough to speak at your level of confidence...
...but, I've come to the conclusion that it's all just an ego game in the end, both the knowledge by external observation method and self-knowledge approach, and, because the latter is so "close" to the senses (the "center", or "self"), I feel that it can lead to an over-confident perspective on matters, regarding this question of what is true and what is not.
In meditation I can get very "close" to the "root of my intuition" and become very sensitive to what I can only refer to as the experience of discovering seemingly self-evident facts about the nature of my consciousness, many of which come to me as surprises - I guess most people would call them "insights". All this is good and well, but I still see no proof there. My mind could still be tricking me.
I may go very "deep" and have many insights, but there's no way for me to know how far I've gone compared to how much is there. I'd like to think that I've "reached into my unconscious mind and exposed the full reality of my consciousness", but, for all I know, I might have never even left the relatively small bubble of conscious awareness and still have infinitely further to go to reach the unconscious limits, if they even exist.
There's no sign posts there, no ways to gauge if what's unveiled is a look into my true nature or an elaborate story that's made on the spot (presumably from the creative depths of my own unconscious) which only satisfy my senses in that moment as being true. How to tell?
As I see it, either approach (Western Science or Eastern "Self-Enquiry") requires some level of faith. Science works on the basis that matter is "real", and Self-Enquiry can only operate on the basis that intuition is accurate at discerning the real from the imagined.
Where does an honest "truth-seeker" begin? I suppose it requires faith.
"An honest truth- seeker" begins with questions and doubts - like you, me, and the rest of the bunch :))) I think we all go through a process of trial and error until we find something that works for us and it's also objective.
And again, your description shows you haven't gone too far with your introspection. Had I been you, I would have stuck to tangible proofs as well. (Besides, what works for me doesn't have to work for you - who knows in which way you'll find the answers you seek. Good luck with that!)
Our experiences don't contradict each other, they happen on different levels and are necessary steps in our evolution.
I am truly enjoying our mind encounter, I hope this will happen again sometime :)