-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Ask Sunstone Anything About His Views On Mysticism
- Thread starter Sunstone
- Start date
sandandfoam
Veteran Member
In the mystic view is there an objective reality ?
That's an important question!
The notion of an objective reality has some utility, doesn't it? At best, it's an assumption we make because making it in many ways helps us to navigate our day to day world. But we really have no means or method of demonstrating that an objective reality exists, do we?
It seems the assumption might come with a price, though. In an emotional -- or perhaps a spiritual sense -- we do not get to assume there is an objective reality for free.
Sometimes, with the thought there is an objective reality comes the notion of permanence. And sometimes with that notion comes emotional and psychological attachment to things. And those attachments can cause emotional and psychological suffering because -- whether there is an objective reality or not -- a fundamental nature of our experience of this world and all that is in it is impermanence.
Some things exist independent of myself and somethings do not exist independent of myself.
Suppose I drew an accurate map of my backyard. Suppose on that map I placed an "X" and labeled the "X": "Here lies buried treasure." Yet when you dug at that spot, you found no buried treasure.
Now if you think of the map as representing myself, and my back yard as representing something independent of myself, you can pretty clearly see that not everything which exists on the map (i.e. which exists dependent on myself) exists in my backyard (i.e. exists independent of myself).
Scarlett Wampus
psychonaut
What useful roles can/do you see mystics playing in the modern world?
John_672
Omnitheist
I've been thinking lately of writing an article about mysticism without superstition, and I'd like your take on it. Can mysticism be without any manner of superstition, or is it superstition implicit in being a mystic?
I personally believe that superstition is something completely different from mysticism, but then again, there is something to be said about how we choose to define superstition. It's a tricky subject, but I look forward to your views.
I personally believe that superstition is something completely different from mysticism, but then again, there is something to be said about how we choose to define superstition. It's a tricky subject, but I look forward to your views.
Mike182
Flaming Queer
to extend the .lava's questions, would you say that Jewish, Islamic and Hindu mysticism is just mysticism based in the different assumptions about objective reality that you talked about being advantageous in your 2nd post?
So far as I know, Storm, there are two basic kinds of awareness: Mystical Awareness and Conscious Awareness (or consciousness).
If that is true, then despite that, subjectively speaking, humans spend most of their lives consciously aware of what they are experiencing, rather than mystically aware of what they are experiencing, it most likely (I think) is not conscious awareness, but mystical awareness that arose first in evolution.
Now, in order to answer your question, we need to ask how the advantages of each kind of awareness led to its evolution through natural selection. That, however, is an extraordinarily complex question and not one that I am competent to do more than guess at. So, here are my guesses:
Biologists tell us that our senses evolved to find food and mates, and to avoid predation and other dangers to the organism. Now, when we compare mystical awareness to conscious awareness, we see that conscious awareness is an "additional step" in the processing of information that begins with a sensory input and frequently ends with the organism responding in some manner to that sensory input. Hence, we can say that mystical awareness is simpler than conscious awareness and thus probably evolved first.
One possible advantage of mystical awareness, then, is that an organism mystically aware of its environment can (all else being equal) respond quicker to its environment than an organism consciously aware of its environment. I suspect that's because mystical awareness takes fewer steps to complete than conscious awareness.
One possible advantage of conscious awareness, however, is that an organism consciously aware of its environment can (all else being equal) respond more flexibly to its environment than an organism mystically aware of its environment. The "additional step" of consciousness seems to somehow allow an organism to reflect on what action it will take and in some sense to choose between various options. (The act of reflection is most likely a matter of making more or new associations between bits of information, while the act of consciously choosing is most likely a matter of inhibiting certain behaviors.) So, conscious awareness can add considerable flexibility to an organism's behavior.
So, Storm, my guess as to how we evolved mystical awareness is to answer that mystical awareness evolved before any other kind of awareness and that it was selected for because it benefited the organism in finding food or mates, and in avoiding or dealing with dangers. And my guess as to how we evolved conscious awareness is to answer that conscious awareness evolved after mystical awareness and that it was selected for because it benefited the organism by expanding the ways in which the organism could go about finding food or mates, and avoiding or dealing with dangers.
I think to answer your question, Scarlett, it is best we begin by reflecting on the fact mystical experiences can be (and frequently are) transformative experiences. By "transformative" I mean two things here. First, they can and very often do radically change our notions of who we are and what is real. Second, and perhaps more important in this context, they can and very often do radically change our values. The repeated emphasis is on the word "radical" here because these changes can be unimaginable to someone who has not gone through them -- no matter how much effort is put into describing or explaining what's happened.
Now before proceeding, I should qualify what I mean by "values". Most often, when you ask someone what their values are, they will tell you what they believe ought to be their ideals. For instance, Smith might say that she values domestic harmony, meaning she considers domestic harmony ideal. But when I use the word "values" here I mean something quite different from an ideal. I use the word merely to describe, in a general way, someone's behavior with the implication that behavior will continue indefinitely. For instance, if I say, "Smith values domestic harmony", I mean she actually does some things (and perhaps refrains from doing some other things) to bring about domestic harmony -- and that she will probably continue doing so. Put differently, by "values" I am not necessarily talking about what people think they should do (i.e. their ideals), but rather about what they actually do, and apparently seek to do.
So, when I say, "Mystical experiences can bring about a radical change in values", I mean such experiences can bring about a radical change in what people actually do and apparently seek to do.
Having said all that, it should now be more than a little clear mystical experiences can change people's behavior. And when they do change someone's behavior, it seems the most profound changes are not always immediate but start out slight and build over time.
So of what use in the modern world are experiences that transform how people behave? That would depend on precisely how they transform behavior, wouldn't it? If mystical experiences caused people to become homicidal maniacs, then their use in the modern world would be quite different from if they caused people to become more loving and compassionate.
It does seem, however, that mystical experiences are very strongly biased towards more often causing people to become loving and compassionate than towards their becoming homicidal maniacs.
If all of the above is true, then one useful role people who have had mystical experiences might play in the modern world is somewhat obvious: They can go about their lives being good to themselves and others. And, in fact, that seems to be what most mystics pretty much do.
There are other things mystics can do that are useful in the modern world, Scarlett. But I think I will write about those things in a separate post both because this post is getting to be a long one and because I want a chance to think out the best way of approaching a discussion of those things.
methylatedghosts
Can't brain. Has dumb.
What do you consider to be the central thing that all mystics relate to, and what do you consider to be the central theme. If there was a slogan for mysticism - what do think it'd be?
Hopefully that'll keep you busy for a little while
Hopefully that'll keep you busy for a little while
1) Do you consider the Universe to Really Real (really...), or as maya, an essential (or possibly non-essential?) illusion?
2) What is your position on Duality? If opposites exist, who or what created them and why?
3) What does "Transcendence" mean?
4) Are things experienced with the five known senses real? If not, then what are they? If so, in what other postulated sense are they "real"?
5) Can two things occupy the same space? (For example, a material and an immaterial substance).
6) Can an atheist (like you) be taken as a definitive authority on mysticism? If so, how?
7) Is death "the end" of thought, form, consciousness and perception, or is it just transformation?
8) What do the words/concepts of "Becoming" and "Belonging" mean in a mystical context?
9) Do you believe in the existence of an immaterial Soul or psyche?
10) Are you a Determinist, a Compatibalist or an Indeterminist?
Sorry Phil, if I've asked too many questions. If you don't want to answer them all, I understand, just choose the one that interests you most.
2) What is your position on Duality? If opposites exist, who or what created them and why?
3) What does "Transcendence" mean?
4) Are things experienced with the five known senses real? If not, then what are they? If so, in what other postulated sense are they "real"?
5) Can two things occupy the same space? (For example, a material and an immaterial substance).
6) Can an atheist (like you) be taken as a definitive authority on mysticism? If so, how?
7) Is death "the end" of thought, form, consciousness and perception, or is it just transformation?
8) What do the words/concepts of "Becoming" and "Belonging" mean in a mystical context?
9) Do you believe in the existence of an immaterial Soul or psyche?
10) Are you a Determinist, a Compatibalist or an Indeterminist?
Sorry Phil, if I've asked too many questions. If you don't want to answer them all, I understand, just choose the one that interests you most.
No, I haven't had the pleasure yet of reading Abbott. What's the book about, Sey?
Troublemane
Well-Known Member
Do you think the presence we mystics encounter called God may be the intelligence governing the entire cosmos, or just planet earth, or just a personal angel perhaps? In other words, how big is the guiding intellect encountered in mysticism: is there a scale?
Other people will define mysticism much differently than me, Lava, but to me mysticism is about the mystical experience with all its implications and consequences.
The mystical experience occurs when there is a sudden end to subject/object perception while the continuum of experiencing yet remains.
That's a very good question. The relationship between mysticism and religion is complex.
Historically, each has influenced the other. Some mystics, such as the Buddha, founded whole religions. Other mystics have had varying influences on religions, from slight to profound. In turn, many mystics have borrowed the language and ideas of this or that religion in their attempts to describe and explain the mystical experience or it's consequence and implications. That is, it is common for a person who has had a mystical experience to use the language and concepts of the religion he or she was brought up in or studied to describe what happened to him or her and what it might mean.
The mystical experience itself, however, transcends any and all religions, and is not contained by them.
So far as I know, John, mysticism can be without any superstition and superstition is not implicit in it. The mystical experience can be described as "an end to subject/object perception" and there is nothing in someone's experience of an end to subject/object perception that necessarily creates or promotes superstitions.
Having said that, however, I should be careful to point out that I suspect there are some sources of superstition closely associated with mysticism. In my opinion, the first and most common of those is the tendency of people who have had a mystical experience to borrow language and concepts from religion in order to describe their experience. So, for instance, someone living in a culture that routinely ascribes mystical experiences to Dionysus might be heavily inclined to ascribe their own experience to Dionysus. Or someone living in a Christian culture might ascribe their experience to God the Father, Jesus Christ, the Holy Ghost, or even Satan. Or someone living in second century Rome, when the cult of Isis was gaining popularity, might ascribe their experience to Isis. And so on and so forth.
The mystical experience is beyond all categories and labels. It is only after the actual experience itself that someone might begin labeling and conceptualizing it. If they begin labeling and conceptualizing it immediately, within seconds of the experience, then they have a very strong tendency to borrow "memes" from their culture -- especially their religious culture -- with which to define, describe or explain it.
A second source of superstition (or actually, two sources) is what Zen Buddhists call "Makyo". Makyo is sometimes translated as "devil illusions". According to the Zen Buddhists, there are two kinds of Makyo: Simple hallucinations and true paranormal experiences.
In my opinion -- and in the opinion of most Zen Buddhists -- Makyo can be and often are impediments to satori or enlightenment. I believe that's in part because Makyo are not radically transformative experiences in the same way the mystical experience is radically transformative, and in part because they tend to misdirect people. That is, if you "see angels", "experience ghosts", and so on, you might become emotionally and psychologically attached to that experience -- and any such attachment seems to become an obstacle to the mystical experience, which is the experience that -- so far as I can guess -- leads to satori or enlightenment.
I hope this gives you something to go on for your article.