Ask Sunstone Anything About His Views On Mysticism

[Sunstone]

Instead of "being born again" as an historical event in one's narrative, can one engage in the process of continual re-birth?

My friend, Arun, and I were discussing this subject the other day, Brendan. He brought up the case of a physicist who is well known in his field for his creative approaches and problem solving. Someone thought to interview this physicist about why he was so creative. His response was along these lines: Once he has published a paper with his current conclusions about some aspect of physics, he almost immediately sets for himself the task of tearing down everything he just published. He spends two to three years in the process, but at the end of it, he has caused himself to genuinely doubt everything he published. And that, the physicist feels, prepares the way for his next breakthrough.

So far as I can see, many -- perhaps most -- people who have had mystical experiences are not at all like that physicist. Instead of setting themselves to the task of tearing down the conclusions they've arrived at following their experiences, they set themselves to the opposing task of building a superstructure on the foundations of their experience. That is, they consciously elaborate on and expand upon their experience, looking for more and more certainty. I believe that hinders or prevents them from further experiences -- from further rebirths.

So far as I know, Zen monks, among many others, have demonstrated that continual rebirth is possible. In other words, one can realize satori, and not just kensho.

 

[Sunstone]

Is that necessary, or can one remain in a state of self/no-self having a conscious awareness, but at the same time not vesting it with a "absolute" reality and thereby remaining attuned to hear the many notes in the song of life - letting them drift into and out of one's conscious awareness as one listens to a symphony?

I have come to believe that during the mystical experience itself, conscious awareness ceases. However, it reasserts itself during what I've called the "aftertaste."

Now, by almost all accounts the mystical experience is in many ways radically transformative. And one of the many ways in which it is radically transformative often seems to involve how a person regards their self before and after such an experience. Typically (but not always) a person's notion of who they are is centered on their conscious awareness before a mystical experience. And typically (but not always) it is no longer centered on their conscious awareness after a mystical experience.

Perhaps the transition can be illustrated by the Hindu metaphor of the monkey and the elephant. As you might recall, the tiny monkey is perched atop a huge elephant. The monkey constantly comments on what the elephant is doing, and even goes so far as to give the elephant advice and directions. But the elephant simply ignores the monkey to go about doing what it would do anyway. That's to say, the monkey is quite deluded to believe it is the master of the elephant, or that it is the true self.

At the risk of giving the metaphor a superficial twist, let's assume the monkey is conscious awareness and the elephant is mystical awareness. If we take that somewhat misleading interpretation, then I would suggest the unintegrated person most likely thinks of the monkey as their self. Or, more rarely, thinks of the elephant as their self. While the integrated person most likely thinks of both the monkey and the elephant as aspects of their self.

Put differently, Brendan, I suspect that an integrated person is aware of both the monkey and the elephant and -- more importantly -- of the ways in which they interact. So, yes, I think an integrated person would have a conscious awareness that was something like a monkey who had realized that he was not the master of the elephant. What would such a monkey do? I suspect he would quiet down and begin to closely observe the elephant. That's my hunch.

 

[Sunstone]

Is mysticism buddhism for the western mind ?

Buddhism is mysticism under cultivation. Western mysticism is by comparison a wild growth. How's that for a metaphor, Stephen?

 

[Sunstone]

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

Are you suggesting that skepticism about someone's interpretation of their experience is not warranted? If ten people witness an automobile accident, you are likely to get eleven different and contradictory accounts of what happened. Humans are notoriously poor observers. I have no reason to believe they are any less poor observers when observing mystical experiences (or at least observing the aftertaste of such experiences) than when observing non-mystical experiences. Hence, I think a certain amount of skepticism is required of us. At least, that's how I see it.

 

[Magic Man]

Here's a question: Do you think that people's religious affiliations affect their mystical experiences? For instance, someone who "sees God", could their mind be automatically interpretting the event as God, even though, in all ways, it's the same exact event I have that has nothing to do with "God"?

 

[Sunstone]

Here's a question: Do you think that people's religious affiliations affect their mystical experiences? For instance, someone who "sees God", could their mind be automatically interpretting the event as God, even though, in all ways, it's the same exact event I have that has nothing to do with "God"?

So far as I can figure it out, Matt, it is not only possible, but very likely.

 

[Halcyon]

Do you feel the sense of "oneness" is over-emphasised in mysticism?

Does the denial of the individual self actually make sense even from a mystical perspective?

 

[Willamena]

Phil, a two-part question. When I first came to this forum many of the self-professed mystics seemed incredibly egostistical, as if they held a truth no one could touch, but since they seem to have humbled. Is this phenomena somehow inherent in mysticism?

Also, is it really egotistical to hold belief in the truth of a thing?

 

[+Xausted]

do you agree with Ekharts theory of the "apex of the soul", in that all men can possess it?

 

[sandandfoam]

I think I had a moment of insight this afternoon.
It occurred to me that in seeking understanding I am looking for fireworks when what's there is a drizzling Sunday afternoon. The wonder is in the mundaneness that's right in front of me.
From the mystics point of view what do you think ?

 

[autonomous1one1]

Greetings Sunstone. You are doing an amazing job of keeping up with all of us. It prompts me to ask more.:angel2:

Are you suggesting that skepticism about someone's interpretation of their experience is not warranted? ....

Not suggesting anything from my views, Sunstone, merely trying to stick to the subject of understanding yours.

How do you view yourself. In your terms, are you consciousness awareness, mystical awareness, or the integrated monkey and elephant?

On a different subject, hypothetically, if the experience that trascends subject & object is an experience of reality would it indicate anything about who/what we really are? What is your view of why it is so transformative?

 

[Sunstone]

Do you feel the sense of "oneness" is over-emphasised in mysticism?

The emphasis any particular mystic places on oneness belongs to their interpretation of their experience. So far as I can discern, Paul, the mystical experience itself does not come packaged with a sense, feeling, or perception that any particular aspect of it is more or less important than any other aspect of it. So, in that specific sense, to emphasize any aspect of the experience, including oneness, as more important than any other aspects of the experience is potentially misleading.

What a particular mystic emphasizes or places importance on seems to have a great deal to do with the culture and society he or she comes from. However, the experience itself is ubiquitous and there is a great deal of agreement between mystics of all times and places as to its nature, even though some choose to emphasize some aspects of it, while others choose to emphasize other aspects of it.

 

[Sunstone]

do you agree with Ekharts theory of the "apex of the soul", in that all men can possess it?

I don't know of a method for resolving the question of whether all people have an apex of the soul. If we look at what people experience, then we pretty quickly see that some people have one or more mystical experiences while many people have none. Does that mean only some, but not others, have an apex of the soul? Maybe someday there will be a means of answering that question.

 

[Sunstone]

I think I had a moment of insight this afternoon.

It occurred to me that in seeking understanding I am looking for fireworks when what's there is a drizzling Sunday afternoon. The wonder is in the mundaneness that's right in front of me.

From the mystics point of view what do you think ?

That strikes me as a remarkable insight, Stephen.

Several things can happen when there is a cessation of subject/object awareness. And, it seems that among other things, there is often an end to any sense, feeling, or perception that anything is more or less important than anything else. The frog in your field of vision is no more important than the mud it sits on or the drizzle that wets its back. All things become vivid. Details leap out. The profane becomes sacred. And it seems there is quite often a childlike sense of wonder at even the most commonplace things, which now seem new, even strange to you.

 

[doppelganger]

Two quick ones for you, Phil:

First, is there a meaningful difference between an experience of "Oneness" and an experience of the "cessation of the subject/object divide"? If there is no subject and no object there is both Oneness AND Nothingness, isn't there? For that matter, "Oneness" is also necessarily "Nothingness," isn't it?

Second, doesn't it seem like people are confusing the interpretation for the experience when they tend to emphasize approved or preferred metaphors? Something like "the cessation of the subject/object divide" is a nice metaphor, but how can there be an "experience" without a subject to experience it? How can there be Oneness/Nothingness without a something to reflect on it and relate to it?

It's only Oneness/Nothingness/Cessation of S-O because it's reflected upon as such in the mode of being not Oneness/Nothingness/Cessations of S-O, or did I pick the wrong week to stop sniffing paint?

 

[Sunstone]

Phil, a two-part question. When I first came to this forum many of the self-professed mystics seemed incredibly egostistical, as if they held a truth no one could touch, but since they seem to have humbled. Is this phenomena somehow inherent in mysticism?

Some long time ago, Patty, I knew a man who took extraordinary pride in having once been to Santa Fe, New Mexico. For years, he went about his small town repeating the story to anyone who would listen, and he seemed to imagine he should be revered for his travels. He even had a way of giving an impression to many people that he looked down on them, who had not also been to Santa Fe.

It is interesting how the ego aggrandizes itself. Anything and everything is grist to it. Sometimes the results are obvious, as with the man who once traveled to Santa Fe, and sometimes the results are more subtle. I think we usually call only the most obvious egotism "egotism", but it seems the process of ego aggrandizement is essentially the same, regardless of whether it is obvious or subtle.

Because the ego will readily use anything and everything to aggrandize itself, there is really no need for the mystical experience to have anything special about it for the experience to lend itself to egotism. Nevertheless, the mystical experience does indeed have at least a couple of attributes that seem almost designed to encourage egotism.

By most accounts the experience tends to leave someone with the impression all their former notions of themselves and of the world were flawed. The implication, of course, is that whatever other people who have not had such an experience might think of themselves and the world is just as flawed as the mystic's former notions are flawed. As Paul says, "When I was a child, I played with the things of a child, but when I became a man, I put away childish things." This is fertile grounds for egotism.

Another attribute of the mystical experience that lends itself to egotism is the overwhelming sense, feeling, or perception that one is experiencing things in a way that is primal -- e.g. more real or truer than how one normally experiences things. The notion one has "seen the truth" is, once again, fertile grounds for egotism.

So the mystical experience -- or at least it's aftertaste -- does not come without challenges. It is of course up to the individual how they deal with those challenges.

To qualify all that I've said here, most people rightfully point out how mystical experiences most often tend to ameliorate egotism. That, however, was not your question: So, I haven't addressed it here.

 

[Sunstone]

...is it really egotistical to hold belief in the truth of a thing?

It seems to me aggrandizement of the ego can be -- and often is -- a motive for suppressing any honest doubts about a thing and instead claiming certainty.

There might be other reasons for doing that too -- reasons which have little enough to do with the ego. For instance: A politician who wants to get votes is sometimes well advised to profess more confidence in his ideas and notions than would any reasonable man. But such instances seem to me less often the case than claiming certainty for the sake of the ego.

 

[Sunstone]

First, is there a meaningful difference between an experience of "Oneness" and an experience of the "cessation of the subject/object divide"? If there is no subject and no object there is both Oneness AND Nothingness, isn't there? For that matter, "Oneness" is also necessarily "Nothingness," isn't it?

As usual, Brendan, your habit of chewing on various toxic plastics has produced some remarkable insights. Whenever there is a cessation of the subject/object divide, the self also ceases. Some people refer to that self as the subject, the "I", the ego, the individual self, consciousness, or they call it by other names. Whatever one wants to call it, the self ceases along with the subject/object divide.

That is counter-intuitive to many people, especially people who think of the self as some sort of entity. The self, however, is a process -- and like any process it can be interrupted. Interrupting the self is the aim of some kinds of meditation.

Now what's left following the cessation of the self is sometimes called "Oneness". It is also sometimes called "Nothingness", "God", "The Tao", "Unconditional love", "Universal Consciousness", and so on and so forth. These are all just names for the nameless. But when people use those names, they most often seem to me to be referring to the aftertaste of a mystical experience rather than to the content of one.

 

[Sunstone]

Does the denial of the individual self actually make sense even from a mystical perspective?

There's more than one way to address your question, Paul. For instance, self denial or asceticism is a technique used by many people to bring about mystical experiences. As a technique, it seems to be about as effective as any other. (But that's a guess, since there are no compelling studies that I know of on the efficacy of the various techniques.) So, in that limited sense, self denial does make sense to some mystics.

Now, let's look at your question in another way. There are some mystics who are dismissive of the self, and sometimes even downright contemptuous of it. Keeping them in mind, one might ask whether their attitude makes any sense. And, ultimately, of course, whether it does or doesn't make sense is a value judgment.

To understand the attitude of those mystics, one should remember that "the self" and "the ego" are simply two names for the same thing. Furthermore, the self or ego is a troublesome little rascal that causes a number of mischiefs. For instance: It is through the self or ego that we become attached to things, and it is through attachment that we experience dukkha. Dukkha, as you know, can be translated in many ways, including: suffering, pain, sorrow, affliction, anxiety, dissatisfaction, discomfort, anguish, stress, misery, and frustration. Given how much trouble the rascally self can cause, it should not surprise us that some mystics seek to permanently transcend or annihilate it. This seems especially true of Eastern mystics.

On the other hand, not all mystics seek to transcend or annihilate the self. Some mystics would prefer to keep it around, but on a short leash and under close watch, as it were. This seems especially true of Western mystics. Outside of the Western ascetic traditions, the goal seems to be to make the self socially and even worldly responsible, rather than to destroy it.

So which road to go by? That is ultimately a value judgment. If you do not wish to live as a hermit or a monk, but want to live in the world rather than apart from it, then I believe you will find that you need some kind of self or ego.

 

[Sunstone]

[D]oesn't it seem like people are confusing the interpretation for the experience when they tend to emphasize approved or preferred metaphors? Something like "the cessation of the subject/object divide" is a nice metaphor, but how can there be an "experience" without a subject to experience it? How can there be Oneness/Nothingness without a something to reflect on it and relate to it?

Your questions admirably point out the weakness of language in dealing with mystical experiences. For instance, the English language does not allow us to have an experience without a subject to experience it. That's unfortunate because it seems that during a mystical experience there is no subject doing the experiencing. The subject -- the self or "I" -- has evaporated.

Yet, of course, there is still a human sitting beside the lake, watching the sunlight dancing on the waves. That human has no psychological self remaining, she is not an "I", but her brain is still working and in some sense she is still experiencing. It is, however, nearly impossible to describe in English what is going on with her.

In this thread, I have stayed away -- as much as possible -- from describing the content of mystical experiences. For the most part, I have only said that the kind of mystical experience focused on in this thread occurs when there is a sudden end to subject/object perception while the continuum of experiencing remains. In other words, I've offered that as a test for the kind of experience I wish to focus on.

So far as I know, there are many kinds of mystical experiences and not all of them involve a cessation in subject/object perception. Some of those experiences might actually produce very similar results to the one I've focused on here. The problem is, I don't feel qualified to discuss them.

For instance: I once spent the better part of a summer collecting accounts of predictive dreams and visions from people -- dreams and visions that predict future experiences. Yet, despite my best effort to analyze several accounts of predictive dreams and visions, I was left with more questions than answers. Hence, predictive dreams and visions might be legitimate mystical experiences, but I do not think myself qualified to say much about them.

Another, and perhaps more important reason I have chosen to focus on just one kind of mystical experience is because if I took on all kinds of mystical experiences, then there would be very little -- if anything -- that could be generally stated about them. By limiting myself to focusing on only one kind of mystical experience, I hope to be able to make at least some general statements about that experience.