Ask Sunstone Anything About His Views On Mysticism

[Willamena]

Your comment here surprised me Sunstone since Seyorni put forward this as "hallmark" for mysticism and you have been writing about subject/object and egolessness.

*psst* I think he was referring to "pharmaceuticals".

 

[Magic Man]

Thanks, Sey! Drug use isn't an area of which I feel I have much knowledge.

Here is the real quote, Auto. I don't know why you decided to change "drug use" to "This", but if you had left it as is, you'd have already seen what Willamena said.

 

[Sunstone]

Your comment here surprised me Sunstone since Seyorni put forward this as "hallmark" for mysticism and you have been writing about subject/object and egolessness. (Or were you referring only to the 'drug' part?)

I'm sorry for the confusion, Robert. I was referring only to the drug part of Seyorni's statement and I have now edited my response in that post to make that clearer.

What is your view on the key to the type of mystical experience to which you refer in this thread - the change in who we think we are (in self-identity) or the subject/object merger that you have put forward?

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "key", Robert. But of the many kinds of mystical experiences, the one I've focused on in this thread is marked by someone experiencing a cessation in subject/object perception. There might be other characteristics of that experience that mark it, but I've focused on cessation because I believe doing so is the most fruitful approach.

Incidentally, related to this key, you had on your web site some time ago that you believed all such mystics had an interpretation of the experience that was incorrect and you implied that mystics are not what they conclude about self-identity - i.e., one. Q - Is this still your view?

Could you tell me the title and date of the article, please?

...There are those rare individuals, though, that live with an expanded awareness 24/7, whose perception and understanding of the world makes our own compared to that of a flatworm seem practically indistinguishable. These are also mystics, though perhaps not in the usual sense of the word.

Q- My experience and readings are consistent with this and wish to ask what are your views on this, Sunstone?

It is no criticism of Sey himself, Robert, to point out that his statement is mainly poetry. If taken literally, it is almost as problematic as taking the Genesis account of creation literally. As poetry, it makes some sense. But as fact, it misses the mark in more than one way.

 

[Sunstone]

Here is the real quote, Auto. I don't know why you decided to change "drug use" to "This", but if you had left it as is, you'd have already seen what Willamena said.

Matt, Robert accurately quoted me. I edited my post after he quoted me. Sorry for the confusion that caused.

 

[Sunstone]

Feel you have expressed much wisdom too, Sunstone...

Is wisdom found in words, Robert?

 

[Sunstone]

Is mysticism buddhism for the western mind ?

It seems to me that if one takes your statement as a witty joke, then there's some truth to be found in it, Stephen.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

What role, if any, does music play in mysticism?

 

[Sunstone]

How, then, does one distinguish mystical experience from schizophrenia, for example?

Joseph Campbell somewhere writes that both the saint and the schizophrenic are in the same ocean, but the saint knows how to swim while the schizophrenic does not. There's a lot of truth in that, Storm. From a functional standpoint, schizophrenics tend to be quite dysfunctional while mystics tend to be much less dysfunctional.

For instance, a mystic might come back from an experience with the view that unconditional love is much superior to hatred. A schizophrenic -- or at least a psychotic -- might come back from an attack of his illness with the view that eating shellfish is an abomination unto the Lord, or that the bacteria on his teeth are controlling his mind. Regardless of whether one agrees with the mystic or not, her view is potentially more functional than the schizophrenics.

Yet, we need not stick to functionality to answer your question, Storm. So far as I can tell, schizophrenic experiences typically do not involve a cessation in subject/object awareness. I might be wrong about that, but that's my understanding at this time. On the other hand, the very mark of the kind of mystical experience I've been talking about in this thread is a cessation in subject/object awareness.

Last, I strongly suspect that as scientific techniques advance, it will one day be possible to generate brain scans that show some significant difference between the activity in a schizophrenics brain compared to the activity in a mystics brain.

 

[Magic Man]

Matt, Robert accurately quoted me. I edited my post after he quoted me. Sorry for the confusion that caused.

Woops. Sorry about that. My apologies, Robert. :bow:

 

[sandandfoam]

It seems to me that if one takes your statement as a witty joke, then there's some truth to be found in it, Stephen.

Unfortunately for me the wit was unintended. When I say I'm totally ignorant about mysticism I'm not joking. Still, if it was funny all the better !

 

[autonomous1one1]

Is wisdom found in words, Robert?

Perhaps the wisdom of words is only in the eyes of the beholder. (ha, ha - since the beholder would be me, you know that I am just kidding.) Seriously, a discussion with you on wisdom found, or not found, in words would teach me much, Sunstone, but wouldn't my views on wisdom be astray from this thread on your views on mysticism?

 

[autonomous1one1]

... Incidentally, related to this key, you had on your web site some time ago that you believed all such mystics had an interpretation of the experience that was incorrect and you implied that mystics are not what they conclude about self-identity...

....Could you tell me the title and date of the article, please?....

Greetings. This quote from the Nov 18, 2007 'Of The Guru's Firm World and Dancing With Fire' is close to what is remembered and is the only one a search could turn up:

"I suppose it’s possible that “seeing god” somehow leaves a person with absolute convictions about god, the self, and the universe.
But if I had to bet on that, I’d bet those absolute convictions are simple, fundamental misinterpretations of what he or she experienced. I’d bet what they really experienced was just as uncertain as dancing with fire."

You have other statements on the site that for you the significance of the mystical experience was still open and that one must consider the experience separate from the interpretation of the experience. So, let me refresh my question about your view (you said ask anything, right?):

Q - Are you coming at reading, understanding, and writing of the mystical experience with a deep-seated disbelief in what the 'mystic' (for lack of a better identifyer) says about the experience?

If so, it would explain why you choose the transcendence of the subject/object, self/world perspective for the defining characteristic rather than the key of 'oneness' which every 'mystic' puts forward. One that 'has realized' does not go around presenting as the most important highlight, 'the subject /object perspective is transcended' (it is put forward to aid understanding); but rather, one would offer 'oneness with the Source is realized' or something similar. Check Seyorni's post above, "subject-object merger or mind expansion to a 'universal consciousness' is the hallmark of profound mysticism." Seyorni, by his own posts, comes with the perspective of Satori and does not leave 'subject-object merger' alone without 'mind expansion to a universal consciousness.' (Please feel free to correct anything in my posts, Seyorni.)

Do not take my question in any negative way, Sunstone. Such interpretation would mar the admiration and respect that are felt when reading this thread, your approach, and your views.

 

[Sunstone]

Perhaps the wisdom of words is only in the eyes of the beholder.

I think Nietzsche somewhere says that in the end we get out of a book only what we bring to it in the first place.

...wouldn't my views on wisdom be astray from this thread on your views on mysticism?

Of course. But I think you should consider starting your own thread on the subject. The more views on this Forum, the merrier.

 

[Sunstone]

Are you coming at reading, understanding, and writing of the mystical experience with a deep-seated disbelief in what the 'mystic' (for lack of a better identifyer) says about the experience?

Nope. If I actually had a "deep-seated disbelief" in what mystics say about their experiences, Robert, I cannot imagine I would be interested in what they say.

If so, it would explain why you choose the transcendence of the subject/object, self/world perspective for the defining characteristic rather than the key of 'oneness' which every 'mystic' puts forward.

I believe you are factually mistaken to assert that every every mystic puts forward "Oneness" as a characteristic of their experiences, Robert. So far as I know, there are many kinds of experiences which people call "mystical", and some involve a sense of Oneness while others do not.

In this thread, I have focused on one -- and only one -- kind of experience.

I have furthermore defined that experience by this test: Is there a cessation of subject/object perception? If there is a such a cessation, then we are talking about that particular kind of experience. If there is not a cessation of subject/object perception, then we are not talking about that peculiar kind of experience.

One that 'has realized' does not go around presenting as the most important highlight, 'the subject /object perspective is transcended' (it is put forward to aid understanding); but rather, one would offer 'oneness with the Source is realized' or something similar.

Is it possible to make many different kinds of maps of the same terrain, Robert? For instance, if you took a 40 mile stretch of North America, could you not make a map showing the roads in that stretch? And then could you not make another map showing the underlying rock strata in that stretch? And a third map showing the political boundaries in that stretch?

Suppose you did all that Robert. What would you do, then, if someone came along and said, "Only your road map is the one true map"? Would that not show on their part some confusion about what you were doing?

I have chosen to look at a certain kind of mystical experience in a way that it is not usually looked at. That choice seems to have caused some confusion along the lines of "Why aren't you mapping this terrain in a way I am familiar with -- why are you talking about rock strata, rather than roads?" How would you yourself answer such a question, Robert?

 

[Sunstone]

What role, if any, does music play in mysticism?

That's a fascinating question, Mike. I think it would make a great topic for a post-graduate dissertation. Unfortunately, I have never much looked into the subject.

 

[Sunstone]

I was out on my bike this morning, the sun was shining, the morning had a bit of warmth about it, not much traffic and everything just 'clicked', riding along and just being there in the most vivid way, it was wonderful.
What differentiates such an experience from a mystical one ?

Great question! Some people have called just such experiences "mystical". The sort of mystical experience I've focused on in this thread, however, involves a cessation of subject/object perception. If there was no cessation of subject/object perception in your experience, then that is what differentiates your experience from the kind of mystical experience I've focused on in this thread.

 

[autonomous1one1]

Greetings Sunstone. Thank you for your thoughtful responses above to my questions. You 'out-wise' me, causing brain strain, with maps, questions, and all but leave me still with a deep thirst for your views on two aspects of the mystical experience. The aspects relate to your view on the experiencer's interpretation and to your view of any other characteristics accompanying the subject/object merger. Please permit me to come at them in a different way.

Do the following words appear on your website and did you write them?

"I suppose it’s possible that “seeing god” somehow leaves a person with absolute convictions about god, the self, and the universe.
But if I had to bet on that, I’d bet those absolute convictions are simple, fundamental misinterpretations of what he or she experienced. I’d bet what they really experienced was just as uncertain as dancing with fire."

Do not these words indicate skepticism about the experiencer's own interpretation of the experience?

Secondly, concerning the type of experience you have addressed, involving subject/object merger (Seyorni words), is it your view that the experiencer does not always put forward a more important aspect in his/her view such as the experience of oneness?

Regards,
a..1

 

[Sunstone]

Do the following words appear on your website and did you write them?

"I suppose it’s possible that “seeing god” somehow leaves a person with absolute convictions about god, the self, and the universe.But if I had to bet on that, I’d bet those absolute convictions are simple, fundamental misinterpretations of what he or she experienced. I’d bet what they really experienced was just as uncertain as dancing with fire."

Do not these words indicate skepticism about the experiencer's own interpretation of the experience?

The passage is a bit vague, isn't it? Let me see if I can make it clearer.

The mystical experience seems to leave most people with a feeling of absolute certainty. In that passage, I am questioning whether those feelings of absolute certainty justify the interpretations people put on their experiences. In other words, is someone correct to think they saw god just because they feel absolutely certain they saw god?

I hope that makes the meaning of the passage clearer.

Secondly, concerning the type of experience you have addressed, involving subject/object merger (Seyorni words), is it your view that the experiencer does not always put forward a more important aspect in his/her view such as the experience of oneness?

I would be extremely hesitant to state that out of the presumably millions of people who have at one time or another experienced a cessation of subject/object perception, all of them to a person interpreted a sense, perception or feeling of Oneness as the most important aspect of their experience. The thought that all of those people all agree on what's most important about their experiences seems to me wildly speculative.

Besides, to lend differential importance to one or another aspects of the mystical experience is a function of conscious awareness, is it not? That is, it is part of the interpretation of the experience, rather than part of the experience itself, isn't it? During the experience itself, is anything any more or less important than anything else?

 

[Sunstone]

If I say human nature is "X" and you respond with "No, that's only our "conscious awareness", then wouldn't your opinion on it be that as well?

Victor, could you perhaps reword your question? I'm a bit confused about what you're asking.

 

[Sunstone]

Is feeling at one with nature when you forget yourself a mystical experience ?

I've often heard such experiences called "mystical".

By "forget yourself" do you mean to imply that one experiences a cessation in subject/object perception? If and when that happens, one is having a mystical experience of the kind I've focused on in this thread. Typically, such an experience seems to involve some form or species of forgetting oneself.

I imagine nearly everyone knows this experience. To rationalise that experience as theophany seems reasonable to me. I wonder is it not pretty common?

So far as I can figure out, Stephen, there are numerous kinds of experiences that people rationalize as theophanies of one sort or another. Not all of those experiences, of course, involve a cessation of subject/object perception.

It is quite common where I'm from for people to have non-mystical (non-mystical in the narrow definition I've been using) experiences that they interpret as experiences of deity. Someone might say, for instance, that they "felt the power of the Lord" during an especially emotional worship service. Yet, the same person might deny there was any cessation of subject/object perception involved in their experience.

So, to answer your question, I do think it is fairly common for people to interpret non-mystical experiences as theophanies of one sort or another. Yet, so far as I can tell, such non-mystical experiences are no where near as radically transformative as the sort of mystical experience I've focused on in this thread.

Just a side note: The notion of god appearing to us is somewhat problematic even in mystical experiences, since that interpretation seems to some great extent to be based on the cultural background of the person who has the mystical experience. For instance: Coming from a culture that more or less expects people to see god during a mystical experience, I would be much more likely to interpret a mystical experience as seeing god than perhaps would a person from Japan or China.