As a Mystic, do You View the Ego as the Main Impediment to Enlightenment?

[Willamena]

I would point the finger at realism as the main impediment. We assign a truth value to things we find infallible, like that separate self. Clinging is a consequence: distinction makes things pretty.

 

[Vouthon]

Perhaps. "One" is the ultimate conceptual word, though, no? Perhaps I'm developing an aversion (hindrance) to it.

Well, that is of course the fundamental paradox of mysticism. You have to use language and concepts to express something that lies beyond both language and concepts. The mystic is incapable of expressing the truth in its totality due to the limitations of language, which naturally means that any positive words used to explain it are approximations at best and at worst 'false' compared with the whole truth as experienced intuitively by the mystic.

Hence why St. Catherine of Genoa (apologies for going all Catholic-mystical-quoting on you today but that is my religious tradition and so my frame of reference, so to speak) stated:

"...I no longer see union, for I know nothing more and can see nothing more than Him alone without me. I do not know where the I is, nor do I seek it, nor do I wish to know or be cognizant of it. I am so plunged and submerged in the source of his infinite love, as if I were quite under water in the sea and could not touch, see, feel anything on any side except water...
I see without eyes, and I hear without ears. I feel without feeling and taste without tasting. I know neither form nor measure; for without seeing I yet behold an operation so divine that the words I first used, perfection, purity, and the like, seem to me now mere lies in the presence of truth. . . . Nor can I any longer say, “My God, my all.” Everything is mine, for all that is God’s seem to be wholly mine. I am mute and lost in God...So long as any one can speak of divine things, enjoy and understand them, remember and desire them, he has not yet arrived in port; yet there are ways and means to guide him thither. ...This is the beatitude that the blessed might have, and yet they have it not, except in so far as they are dead to themselves and absorbed in God. They have it not in so far as they remain in themselves and can say: `I am blessed.' Words are wholly inadequate to express my meaning, and I reproach myself for using them. I would that every one could understand me, and I am sure that if I could breathe on creatures, the fire of love burning within me would inflame them all with divine desire. O thing most marvelous!"

- Saint Catherine of Genoa (1447-1510), Italian Catholic mystic (Life, 50)

​

So she agrees with you that the language of "union" or "oneness" is no longer adequate to explain her mystical awareness. But you have to use "some" kind of language.

 

[Sunstone]

Well, that is of course the fundamental paradox of mysticism. You have to use language and concepts to express something that lies beyond both language and concepts. The mystic is incapable of expressing the truth in its totality due to the limitations of language, which naturally means that any positive words used to explain it are approximations at best and at worst 'false' compared with the whole truth as experienced intuitively by the mystic.

Hence why St. Catherine of Genoa (apologies for going all Catholic-mystical-quoting on you today but that is my religious tradition and so my frame of reference, so to speak) stated:

"...I no longer see union, for I know nothing more and can see nothing more than Him alone without me. I do not know where the I is, nor do I seek it, nor do I wish to know or be cognizant of it. I am so plunged and submerged in the source of his infinite love, as if I were quite under water in the sea and could not touch, see, feel anything on any side except water...
I see without eyes, and I hear without ears. I feel without feeling and taste without tasting. I know neither form nor measure; for without seeing I yet behold an operation so divine that the words I first used, perfection, purity, and the like, seem to me now mere lies in the presence of truth. . . . Nor can I any longer say, “My God, my all.” Everything is mine, for all that is God’s seem to be wholly mine. I am mute and lost in God...So long as any one can speak of divine things, enjoy and understand them, remember and desire them, he has not yet arrived in port; yet there are ways and means to guide him thither. ...This is the beatitude that the blessed might have, and yet they have it not, except in so far as they are dead to themselves and absorbed in God. They have it not in so far as they remain in themselves and can say: `I am blessed.' Words are wholly inadequate to express my meaning, and I reproach myself for using them. I would that every one could understand me, and I am sure that if I could breathe on creatures, the fire of love burning within me would inflame them all with divine desire. O thing most marvelous!"

- Saint Catherine of Genoa (1447-1510), Italian Catholic mystic (Life, 50)

​

So she agrees with you that the language of "union" or "oneness" is no longer adequate to explain her mystical awareness. But you have to use "some" kind of language.

As Jiddu Krishnamurti used to say when referring to words, "See the truths in the falsehoods and the falsehoods in the truths."

 

[crossfire]

Well, that is of course the fundamental paradox of mysticism. You have to use language and concepts to express something that lies beyond both language and concepts. The mystic is incapable of expressing the truth in its totality due to the limitations of language, which naturally means that any positive words used to explain it are approximations at best and at worst 'false' compared with the whole truth as experienced intuitively by the mystic.

Hence the apophatic approach that so many mystics employ.

So she agrees with you that the language of "union" or "oneness" is no longer adequate to explain her mystical awareness. But you have to use "some" kind of language.

Agreed. There can be a fine line between intelligible communication and babble when language breaks down.

 

[Windwalker]

Fascinating point! Do you think, like say, J. Krishnamurti, that the desire to become one can hinder becoming one?

I think another way to say this is that seeking enlightenment hinders one from realizing enlightenment. Think of it in terms of seeking to find one's own eyes you are already looking out of. Or think of it like seeking to attain your lungs. You already are enlightened, it is your nature, and to seek for something you already are means you not seeing nor will find what you already have. The seeking we need to do, is to seek to not-seek.

 

[crossfire]

Fascinating point! Do you think, like say, J. Krishnamurti, that the desire to become one can hinder becoming one?

I think another way to say this is that seeking enlightenment hinders one from realizing enlightenment. Think of it in terms of seeking to find one's own eyes you are already looking out of. Or think of it like seeking to attain your lungs. You already are enlightened, it is your nature, and to seek for something you already are means you not seeing nor will find what you already have. The seeking we need to do, is to seek to not-seek.

If you are desiring it, how can you be sure that you are free from confirmation bias at best or perhaps delusion at worst? This is Dark Night of the Soul type stuff, imo.

 

[Windwalker]

If you are desiring it, how can you be sure that you are free from confirmation bias at best or perhaps delusion at worst? This is Dark Night of the Soul type stuff, imo.

I think desire is a tricky word. Obviously if someone engages in a daily meditation practice to help one overcome the obstacles that hinder themselves in order to realize enlightenment, they have to have a desire for that! Becoming utterly apathetic and just drinking beer and watching football all day long is going to result in little to no freedom whatsoever. Not seeking in the case of the lazy is not the same as not seeking in the case of the aspirant. Same thing with desire. It's the type of desire that we are talking about.

If you desire for self-gain, to seek enlightenment the way you would seek to get a good score in golf or in business, is guaranteed to fail. The focus is pointing in the wrong direction. Your eyes are on ego-needs, i.e., "I want to be happy, I want to find peace, I need this"... etc.. The eyes are not looking beyond the ego-self needs. But if your desire is to emptying yourself of all seeking desires, to give those up, then you find what you have already had all along. It's this very fine, hairs-breath line that moves one between these two directions.

When the eyes are facing on deficiencies, the seeking is for the self. When the eyes are towards the abundance beyond oneself, then the desire is on becoming that. The desire moves from filling a lack, to becoming abundance. You seek to overcome the desire to seek for self. You seek love for love's sake, not for what it can do for you. You seek to become love. And when we do that, when we release self-seeking this way, we realize that abundance within us and become who we already fully are. You have to get rid of the mental image of what you imagine that looks like, and simply seek to "let it be". You release expectation. Meditation practice is the discipline of learning how to allow, rather than to seek an image of what we think things look like. It manifests itself as is through us, and then we know ourselves.

 

[mystic64]

Humm? Well guys as an advanced mystic interacting with other advanced mystics that are participating in this topic, true understanding begins to happen when you break/step through the third Dharma Seal and one enters into a non conceptual working mind state. From there one becomes functional in both a non conceptual workings mind state and in a conceptual workings mind state. Or they just wander off, it can go both ways.

"As a mystic do you view the "Ego" as the main impediment to enlightenment?" In my experience the only impediment to enlightenment through the mystic experience is one's fear of the "unknown". If one can step out into the "unknown" as a child without fear, then the whole experience become like going to class and something teaches you new and wonderful things. Otherwise you step into something that is really big, black, dark (in an evil way), and terrifying. One's personality programming which includes what is generally considered the ego tells one that change is to be feared (set pattern is safe) and that stepping out into the "unknown (God only knows what that set pattern is, so to speak)" will kill you or at least it is very dangerous and to be feared. Folks that do not have a lot of fear in their personality programming do not have a problem with the mystic experience and if enlightenment is an interest to them they just drift into enlightenment without any problems. It is the rest of us that have the problems . And when this mystic says this and that mystic says that, what they are attempting to explain are just different levels of experience and each level seems to be the ultimate experience. When you get out there far enough you begin to realize that it all is just a continous series of cognitive leaps with each leap being bigger than the last one. And each cognitive leap is preceded by some level of fear because one, you have been stepped into the "unknown" and two, because each cognitive leap changes you automatically. After a while, you just hunker down knowing that if you can pass through the fear, that the cognitive leap that comes after it will be a wonderment !

I stated out seeking enlightenment for the power of it all that the knowledge gives you, but over time that was all kicked out of me by the knowledge accumulated through the mystic experience. Now it is all just an automated experience with fear then wonderment and fear then wonderment, and it is just something that I do because I do not want to turn is off and no other reason. Yes I am wandering out of the realm of other people, but I have started an automated process that is leading to interested things. "Ego" and "Seeking" can lead to enlightenment through the mystic experience if you can handle the fear envolved with the experience.

 

[Orbit]

As a mystic, do you view the ego as the main impediment to enlightenment? Why or why not?

By "ego", I mean here the psychological self. That is, the sense we have of being an "I", of being a "me"; separate and distinct from the rest of the world. Please note well: I do not mean the fact we are separate and distinct from the rest of the world, but rather the sense or feeling that we are.

It seems to me this psychological self is at odds with the sense of oneness, or the experience of the One, that lies at the heart of mysticism.

To me, mysticism is more about direct connection to the divine. I don't really think about it in terms of the ego, or my own psychology. I just observe the thoughts, acknowledge them, let go of them, let them float by, and wait to connect.

 

[Windwalker]

Words are wholly inadequate to express my meaning, and I reproach myself for using them. I would that every one could understand me, and I am sure that if I could breathe on creatures, the fire of love burning within me would inflame them all with divine desire. O thing most marvelous!"

- Saint Catherine of Genoa (1447-1510), Italian Catholic mystic (Life, 50)​

This is how I feel when I read Meister Eckhart. Logically his words elude reason, yet every word he speaks is like an expression of my own. The meaning resonates from the pages, while the rational mind cannot fathom the meaning. You have to taste the referent to understand the pointers.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

To me, mysticism is more about direct connection to the divine. I don't really think about it in terms of the ego, or my own psychology. I just observe the thoughts, acknowledge them, let go of them, let them float by, and wait to connect.

I get the bit about letting go of thoughts, but can you say how you experience the "connection".

 

[Rick O'Shez]

This is how I feel when I read Meister Eckhart. Logically his words elude reason, yet every word he speaks is like an expression of my own. The meaning resonates from the pages, while the rational mind cannot fathom the meaning. You have to taste the referent to understand the pointers.

I found Meister Eckhart intriguing but couldn't make any sense of what he was saying - is that usual?

 

[Vouthon]

I found Meister Eckhart intriguing but couldn't make any sense of what he was saying - is that usual?

He is a very difficult and complex thinker, although it is interesting to note that he preached to the common people of his parish in their native German tongue, rather than interesting the classical Latin that was the lingua franca of medieval intellectuals.

To students of German literature, therefore, the Sermons of Meister Eckhart are of incredible importance: he is one of the first people to write in the vernacular and thus beginning the process of edifying the German language.

An understanding of the Neoplatonic tradition in Christian thought would be useful in approaching his Sermons and other works.

Eckhart is so hard for many to understand because he often speaks from the perspective of the person undergoing a mystical experience, as opposed to from the outside looking in.

His disciple Johannes Tauler said of him:

"...Our loving Master [Eckhart] taught you and told you about these matters and you did not understand him. He spoke from the point of view of eternity, and you understood him from the point of view of time..."

- Johannes Tauler (c.1300-1361), Catholic mystic & Dominican priest

​

One of his other prominent disciples, Blessed Henry Suso, stated likewise (speaking of both himself and his Master Eckhart):

"...You and [Eckhart] do not meet on one branch or in one place. You make your way along one path and [we] along another. Your questions arise from human thinking, and [we] respond from a knowledge that is far beyond all human comprehension. You must give up human understanding if you want to reach the goal, because the truth is known by not knowing...This is the highest goal and the 'where' beyond boundaries. In this the spirituality of all spirits ends. Here to lose oneself forever is eternal happiness. In this wild mountain region of the 'where' beyond God there is an abyss full of play and feeling for all pure spirits...

Eternity is life that is beyond time but includes within itself all time but without a before or after. And whoever is taken into the Eternal Nothing possesses all in all and has no 'before or after'. Indeed a person taken within today would not have been there for a shorter period from the point of view of eternity than someone who had been taken within a thousand years ago...Now these people who are taken within, because of their boundless immanent oneness with God, see themselves as always and eternally existing...

No one can explain this to another just with words. One knows it by experiencing it..."

- Blessed Henry Suso (c. 1296-1366), German Catholic mystic & Dominican priest ​

 

[Windwalker]

Eckhart is so hard for many to understand because he often speaks from the perspective of the person undergoing a mystical experience, as opposed to from the outside looking in.

His disciple Johannes Tauler said of him:

"...Our loving Master [Eckhart] taught you and told you about these matters and you did not understand him. He spoke from the point of view of eternity, and you understood him from the point of view of time..."

- Johannes Tauler (c.1300-1361), Catholic mystic & Dominican priest​

I think this precisely describes why these things are not understood by those trying to understand with the mind. It's a matter of contexts. If someone lacks the context of being "taken" into the timeless, inside of the ineffable, seeing from within that perspective, the words become puzzles hard for the mind to understand as it grapples to make sense of them. But from those that have shared the context from which they are spoken, the words glisten with meaning and the referents are understood.

I very much believe this dilemma is what you have in most of the teachings of Jesus. They are words spoken from a mystical understanding, from the experience of direct contact with the divine. Those who lack a similar frame of reference themselves grapple at the words and attempt to understand them putting them within the only frames of reference they can. The words of the mystic or the words of the Realizer, are taken as "codes" to understanding this magical realm they imagine the mystical to be.

The referents are not understood by the heart, because the heart has not yet been opened to that eternal present that is everywhere and nowhere. So the mind fills in what the heart does not yet realize. The result of taking words spoken from a mystical context and trying to understand them in a much more concrete and material context is to gut them of their meaning, to reduce them to "facts". Eternal truths become caricatures in a mythic-literal storybook, rather than seen and known as archetypal images of the Ineffable itself.

 

[Windwalker]

I found Meister Eckhart intriguing but couldn't make any sense of what he was saying - is that usual?

I think part of it may also have to do with one's own exposure to Christian language. How he uses it to point to these things makes a great deal of sense to those who have tasted the divine this way. He takes typical theological ideas and applies them in such ways that the "authorities" as he constantly calls them are upset by them. What he points to goes beyond theological ideas of what defines the divine. And they coincide with what other realizers from other religions say using their own symbolic language.

Take for example this quote from one of the sermons of Eckart. You can see how the literal theological understanding of these symbols could take these claims as blasphemous:

The hearing of God’s Word requires complete self-surrender. He who hears and that which is heard are identical constituents of the eternal Word. What the eternal Father teaches is his own Being, Nature, and Godhead – which he is always revealing through his only begotten Son. He teaches that we are to be identical with him.

To deny one’s self is to be the only begotten Son of God and one who does so has for himself all the properties of that Son. All God’s acts are performed and his teachings conveyed through the Son, to the point that we should be his only begotten Son. And when this is accomplished in God’s sight, he is so fond of us and so fervent that he acts as if his divine Being might be shattered and he himself annihilated if the whole foundations of his Godhead were not revealed to us, together with his nature and being. God makes haste to do this, so that it may be ours as it is his. It is here that God finds joy and rapture in fulfillment and the person who is thus within God’s knowing and love becomes just what God himself is.​

When I first read that passage it lept off the pages as expressive of what my own experiences have shown, putting it into words using the Christian language. Christian language is my native tongue when it comes to symbols of the divine. But theological understandings attributed to the signs never fit well within the actual experience, as they were understandings interpreted by teachers from a context lacking direct experience. They were theoretical in nature, metaphysics without a referent. So to me, it's a combination of knowledge of the symbols and the language, and actual experience to elevate the symbols beyond an understanding of the ordinary projected upon the transcendent.

 

[Mindmaster]

I think we have no way of escaping what our ego defines as spiritual advancement -- we speak as though we are one thing, but really we are a choir of selves which like various ideas. For mystics, I would imagine the hard-line rational self as a tinier voice but still has input; that input will not negate the results one experiences. However, our brains like coherent understanding and rarely accept the input we don't desire.

Personally, I find the word enlightenment troubling... People assume they are enlightened because they've reached some sort of inner peace, but if it were only that easy... All of the criteria one could use to determine whether they have reached that state are merely subjective opinions at best. In essence, most people are merely pandering to their confirmation biases. So the real question is are they enlightened or do they just think they are?

 

[Sunstone]

I think we have no way of escaping what our ego defines as spiritual advancement -- we speak as though we are one thing, but really we are a choir of selves which like various ideas. For mystics, I would imagine the hard-line rational self as a tinier voice but still has input; that input will not negate the results one experiences. However, our brains like coherent understanding and rarely accept the input we don't desire.

Personally, I find the word enlightenment troubling... People assume they are enlightened because they've reached some sort of inner peace, but if it were only that easy... All of the criteria one could use to determine whether they have reached that state are merely subjective opinions at best. In essence, most people are merely pandering to their confirmation biases. So the real question is are they enlightened or do they just think they are?

This thread is in the mysticism DIR.

 

[Mindmaster]

This thread is in the mysticism DIR.

Yes, and very many people feel they are working with mysticism -- self included. What fits into my "path" is pretty eclectic since I'm non-traditional in every way. Good luck trying to find what DIR my posts belong in because even I couldn't tell you that.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Take for example this quote from one of the sermons of Eckart. You can see how the literal theological understanding of these symbols could take these claims as blasphemous:

The hearing of God’s Word requires complete self-surrender. He who hears and that which is heard are identical constituents of the eternal Word. What the eternal Father teaches is his own Being, Nature, and Godhead – which he is always revealing through his only begotten Son. He teaches that we are to be identical with him.
To deny one’s self is to be the only begotten Son of God and one who does so has for himself all the properties of that Son. All God’s acts are performed and his teachings conveyed through the Son, to the point that we should be his only begotten Son. And when this is accomplished in God’s sight, he is so fond of us and so fervent that he acts as if his divine Being might be shattered and he himself annihilated if the whole foundations of his Godhead were not revealed to us, together with his nature and being. God makes haste to do this, so that it may be ours as it is his. It is here that God finds joy and rapture in fulfillment and the person who is thus within God’s knowing and love becomes just what God himself is.​

Thanks, I hadn't see this one before. I can clearly see the theme of union here.

 

[Sunstone]

Yes, and very many people feel they are working with mysticism -- self included. What fits into my "path" is pretty eclectic since I'm non-traditional in every way. Good luck trying to find what DIR my posts belong in because even I couldn't tell you that.

Fair enough.