Ask Sunstone Anything About His Views On Mysticism

[Sunstone]

...if the experience that trascends subject & object is an experience of reality would it indicate anything about who/what we really are?

I think the experience can reveal a great deal about who or what we are, Robert. For instance, it can reveal that at the very least we are not merely or only our conscious awareness. By "conscious awareness" I mean consciousness, the self, the ego, the "I", or whatever else you might call it.

Yet, whatever conscious knowledge we get out of a mystical experience entirely depends on our skills at observation and analysis, along with whatever conscious knowledge we have to build an analysis on. In other words, gaining conscious knowledge from a mystical experience is little different than gaining conscious knowledge from a non-mystical experience. It is possible for Jones to be a better observer than Smith. It is possible for Smith to have better analytic skills than Jones. And it is possible for both Jones and Smith to lack the knowledge base of Klein. Observation, analysis, and conscious knowledge determine whatever new conscious knowledge we get from a mystical experience.

A closely related issue is how a mystical experience might transform us. Here, it is important to understand that we need not be consciously aware of our having learned anything from a mystical experience for us to have indeed learned something -- even have learned a great deal.

At first, that might seem counter-intuitive, but please consider the million or so things you know about this world that you are not consciously aware of knowing, and probably did not consciously learn. To take a simple case of something we did not consciously learn: Most of us can tell the difference between a fake smile and a genuine one even though we most likely didn't consciously learn the difference.

The main transformative effects of a mystical experience, then, are most likely based on what the experience unconsciously teaches us. And, after such an experience, we might find we have all sorts of intuitions about ourselves, others, and the world that we did not seem to possess prior to the experience. Whether we listen to those intuitions is, of course, another matter.

 

[methylatedghosts]

Are we all mystics?
Do we all accomplish what mysticism tries to achieve?
What does mysticism try to achieve for that matter?

 

[methylatedghosts]

What state would the world be in if we all were mystics?

 

[Sunstone]

Are we all mystics?

In the ways in which I've been using the word "mystics" in this thread, not all of us are mystics.

In this thread, I've given the word "mystic" at least three different meanings:

1) Mystics are those people who have at one time or another experienced an end to subject/object perception while the continuum of experiencing remained.

2) Mystics are those people who have not had such an experience but wish to have such an experience.

3) Mystics are those people who call themselves mystics.

In other words, Luke, I haven't much bothered to keep a tight rein on my use of the word "mystic", and yet not everyone is a mystic by the definitions I've given the word.

 

[Sunstone]

What does mysticism try to achieve for that matter?

The answer to your question, Luke, depends on who you ask. Some mystics try to achieve one thing, others another. For instance: Some mystics wish to end dukkha; some mystics wish to discover Ultimate Reality; some mystics wish to better understand themselves; some mystics even wish to become better artists or businessmen; and so on. Perhaps there are as many motivations as there are mystics.

In my opinion -- and perhaps only in my opinion -- the best motivation for someone trying to study mystical awareness is idle curiosity. That is, the dispassionate curiosity that a scientist might have about his field of study.

I call that the best motivation because it seems to me the one most likely to produce relatively unbiased results. If you can study mysticism like a scientist might study beetles -- with energy and enthusiasm, but nevertheless dispassionately -- then perhaps whatever you discover will not be colored by too much bias nor be a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Having said all that, I should point out that many -- perhaps most -- mystics are drafted into mysticism, rather than voluntarily enlist. That is, one day, more or less out of nowhere, they had a mystical experience of one sort or another. They were not asking for it, and perhaps they did not even believe such things could happen to people, but suddenly there it was.

Getting whopped up side the head by a cosmic 2x4 can be attention getting. That is, one sometimes becomes curious when reality as he knows it alters before his eyes.

 

[sandandfoam]

Is there an overlap between mysticism and shamanism ?

 

[yossarian22]

Too many profound questions, not enough inanity for my taste.

Do you feel that mysticism is compatible with a strictly materialistic world view?

 

[Sunstone]

Do you feel that mysticism is compatible with a strictly materialistic world view?

There are at least a few mystics who are strict materialists.

 

[yossarian22]

There are at least a few mystics who are strict materialists.

Heh, I should have been more specific.
Is your view on Mysticism compatible with materialism?

 

[Sunstone]

Heh, I should have been more specific.
Is your view on Mysticism compatible with materialism?

I have more than one view of mysticism, Yoss. Materialism is compatible with some of my views.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Phil,

I've just been enjoying reading and digesting all the contributions here by our members and by you and your views. This is an outstanding thread, and I'm so grateful you've dedicated yourself to answering some heavy-duty questions. There's a lot here to chew on.

A couple of things I was wondering: You had mentioned earlier that you see some mystics who seek to keep the ego "on a short leash" instead of annihilating it altogether, and that some mystics feel it necessary to forgo this world entirely and live as hermits/monks/recluse/etc.......is there a correlation between the intent regarding the ego and the motivation(s) for how the mystic wishes to relate to other sentient beings? Also, is it possible to be completely selfless, walk the path of the mystic, and to remain in samsara as a bodhisattva? Or is the bodhisattva concept foreign to the mystical path?

Also, I read a bias from you (and I could very well be wrong, so I apologize for any misunderstandings) and from others here in the West regarding the whole "East vs. West" debate on who produces the "better" mystics in this world. Where do you believe this attitude comes from? I admit my own bias here in favor of Eastern mysticism, but it is also manifest in my wish to practice Eastern methods as well as my experience in practicing Eastern methods.

Hmmmm - I guess I'm simply curious where your own bias comes from. Personal experience? Cultural conditioning? Is it just because you want to be a part of the cool crowd? I do. :trampo:




Peace,
Mystic

 

[sandandfoam]

Is mysticism a state of mind or is it an experience ?
Or both ?

 

[methylatedghosts]

The answer to your question, Luke, depends on who you ask. Some mystics try to achieve one thing, others another. For instance: Some mystics wish to end dukkha; some mystics wish to discover Ultimate Reality; some mystics wish to better understand themselves; some mystics even wish to become better artists or businessmen; and so on. Perhaps there are as many motivations as there are mystics.

Have you considered if these are all part of one gigantic mystical experience?
Could they all be the same thing?
Maybe all mystics will have at some point - or will at some point - experience all these?
Couldn't ending dukkha be the same as discovering Ultimate Reality be the same as truly understanding oneself?

Getting whopped up side the head by a cosmic 2x4 can be attention getting. That is, one sometimes becomes curious when reality as he knows it alters before his eyes.

Is this kind of "awakening" self-instigated? Or does the responsibility of it happening rest soley with the outside world and all its stimuli? Or is it both? Is it how one chooses to act in response to that stimuli that results in them mystic experience?

 

[Sunstone]

Is mysticism a state of mind or is it an experience ? Or both ?

Loosely speaking, it's both, Stephen -- assuming that I've properly understood your question. That is, a "state of mind" is presumably the required basis for an experience; and if that's true, then you can't have the one without having the other.

Yet, that raises an interesting question, doesn't it? Are there actual "states of mind"?

Please allow me to suggest that the mind can be thought of as a process, rather than as a state. If so, then what we think of as "states of mind" would be our memory of our mind at a given moment.

In a way, our memory of our mind at a given moment would be like taking a snapshot of a child. The snapshot freezes the child in time and place -- creating the illusion of a state. But in actuality, the child is always on the run, so to speak -- changing, growing, developing. So too, the mind always seems to be on the run, doesn't it? Never so much stopping as merely pausing. Much more a process than a state.

Like any process, the mind can be interrupted. And mystics claim to have empirically discovered that when the mind is interrupted, the content of experience changes radically. So radically, in fact, that it is beyond the ability of words to adequately express what is then experienced. That, then, is the mystical experience.

May I take this a step further than the scope of your question? You see, we can ask a simple question here. Who or what does the experiencing when the mind is interrupted and the mystical experience occurs? For normally, when our mind is at work, we tend to think it (i.e. our mind, our conscious awareness, our consciousness, our self, our ego, our "I") experiences the world. But when the mind ceases, then who or what does the experiencing?

Of course, one answer is the organism, the individual, the body, the senses and the brain, are still experiencing even though the mind has ceased and is no longer experiencing. Put differently, mystics discovered what might be called "pre-conscious thought or awareness" long before Freud and others invented the subconscious. The subconscious mind of psychoanalysis, however, absolutely pales when compared to the mystical experience or awareness that mystics the world over have encountered and reported.

I would submit here that mystics long ago empirically demonstrated human awareness encompasses far more than conscious awareness or consciousness -- what we typically call "the mind".

 

[Sunstone]

Is there an overlap between mysticism and shamanism ?

It seems to me that most, even perhaps all shamans, are in one way or another mystics.

 

[doppelganger]

It seems to me that most, even perhaps all shamans, are in one way or another mystics.

Can you elaborate on this idea, please?

 

[sandandfoam]

Loosely speaking, it's both, Stephen -- assuming that I've properly understood your question.

You understood it perfectly. That is one of the best answers I've ever got to any question I've asked.
The manner in which you tied in pre-conscious awareness seems very, very insightful.
I will be reading this answer again.
Thank you, I appreciate the thought that went into this response.

 

[Sunstone]

I've just been enjoying reading and digesting all the contributions here by our members and by you and your views. This is an outstanding thread, and I'm so grateful you've dedicated yourself to answering some heavy-duty questions. There's a lot here to chew on.

Thank you for your horrifying praise. :faint:

A couple of things I was wondering: You had mentioned earlier that you see some mystics who seek to keep the ego "on a short leash" instead of annihilating it altogether, and that some mystics feel it necessary to forgo this world entirely and live as hermits/monks/recluse/etc.......is there a correlation between the intent regarding the ego and the motivation(s) for how the mystic wishes to relate to other sentient beings?

I think so, Heather. But I'm only going on my hunch in saying it. For me, the stumbling block here are the words "intent" and "motivation". To understand someone's intent and motivation are surprisingly difficult at times, and that can be especially true of mystics.

For instance: Why did the Buddha decide to teach? It is easy to simply state, "out of compassion", but that is very likely a superficial answer, isn't it? Can we really understand what compassion is to a buddha? It is hard enough at times to understand what compassion is to Jones or Smith. A six year old is transparent to us. We are transparent to a bodhisattva. But an adult is not transparent to a six year old, and neither is a bodhisattva, or a buddha -- or most any full blown mystic -- transparent to us.

Having said all that, I think that anyone who wants to "remain in the world" uninsulated from the challenges of a "normal life" by, say, a squadron of guardian monks, will find some degree of conscious awareness very useful indeed. After all, it's extraordinarily difficult to balance a check book in a state of mystical awareness. Consciousness is a tool suited to many daily uses.

Also, is it possible to be completely selfless, walk the path of the mystic, and to remain in samsara as a bodhisattva? Or is the bodhisattva concept foreign to the mystical path?

In the way I'm using the word "mystic" in this thread, bohisattva's are mystics. So far as I can guess, bodhisattva's have an integrated conscious and mystical awareness. So, I suspect, as consciousness is the self, they are not entirely selfless. But since they are integrated, they would appear to us as completely selfless. At one time or another in my younger years I would speculate that, since the self is the ultimate source of dukkha, and since a bodhisattva's sensitivity to dukkha is no doubt extraordinary, one can only imagine the intensity of their suffering.

Also, I read a bias from you (and I could very well be wrong, so I apologize for any misunderstandings) and from others here in the West regarding the whole "East vs. West" debate on who produces the "better" mystics in this world. Where do you believe this attitude comes from? I admit my own bias here in favor of Eastern mysticism, but it is also manifest in my wish to practice Eastern methods as well as my experience in practicing Eastern methods.

One of my concerns in this thread is to keep my answers as short and concise as I can. That has meant glossing over somethings and leaving out so much more (But few people wish to read one long essay after another.) So, I think some of the bias you see is more a matter of my style than a matter of what I really think. For instance, in recently speaking about Eastern and Western, I didn't think it well advised to list all the exceptions I know of to the generalizations I made. So, instead, I used the gloss, "Western mystics tend to be this way, and Eastern mystics tend to be that way".

That might account for some of the bias you see. As for the rest, I think my biases go by year. I think in some years of my life, I've had a bit of a bias towards the East. And in other years, towards the West. Recently, I've been looking to the West while mulling over some ideas about individualism. That might account for some of the bias you see today. But I am far from believing that one regional grouping of mystics is in any genuinely significant way superior to any other regional grouping of mystics.

My friend and therapist, Arun, who is from India, tells me that in an intellectual sense, I'm among the most cross-cultural people he's met. In return, I tell him he doesn't get out much.

 

[Sunstone]

You understood it perfectly. That is one of the best answers I've ever got to any question I've asked.
The manner in which you tied in pre-conscious awareness seems very, very insightful.
I will be reading this answer again.
Thank you, I appreciate the thought that went into this response.

Thank you so much for mentioning your appreciation. But you're still not getting anywhere near any of my credit cards.

 

[Sunstone]

Is this kind of "awakening" self-instigated?

There seems to be no consensus among mystics when it comes to how a mystical experience might be brought about, Luke. Broadly speaking, some mystics say there is a path, drug, or discipline that will bring about mystical experiences. Others just as firmly say there is no path, drug, or discipline that is guaranteed to bring about mystical experiences. Again, some say a god intervenes to produce mystical experiences, while others say the intervention of a deity is not necessary. Why all this disagreement?

The disagreement between mystics on this point is especially striking to me because mystics tend to agree on many aspects of the mystical experience itself. Yet, it seems there is markedly less agreement on how to bring about a mystical experience, than there is on what a mystical experience involves.

I think the lack of agreement on how to bring about a mystical experience reflects the fact that mystics are pretty much speculating about how to bring it about. On the other hand, when they describe a mystical experience, there is much more agreement between them because they are doing something more akin to reporting than to speculating.

I'm reminded of Skinner's pigeons here. In a famous experiment, B. F. Skinner set up a machine to at random moments reward pigeons with food. Now, there was no rhyme nor reason when the pigeons would get their food. The machine simply allocated the food randomly. But the pigeons, of course, seemed to think they'd done something to make the machine give them food. That's to say, a pigeon might notice that it had cocked its head a certain way just before the food appeared. So, it would go about trying to make more food appear by cocking its head that way again and again.

Well, at least some techniques for bringing about mystical experiences seem to me based on no more insight than those pigeons had into why they were getting food. For instance, one man spent several years rolling across India. At some point, he had a mystical experience. If I remember correctly, he concluded that it was the rolling which brought about his experience.

Alan Watts somewhere writes beautifully on this topic of what occasions mystical experiences. He likens the mystical experience to true love. And he points out there is no rhyme nor reason why true love comes to one person instead of another. One's age doesn't bring about true love -- nor wealth, nor success, nor status, nor power, nor wisdom, nor intelligence, nor kindness, nor decency, nor anything else we know of. So too, we really don't know what brings about a mystical experience.

So far as I can discern, Luke, the best anyone can do is remove the obstacles to a mystical experience. You cannot force one to come about, but -- I think this is very likely to be the case -- you can stack the cards in your favor of having one by removing the things that obstruct mystical experiences.

Just this evening a mystic (who does not frequent RF) wrote to me with his conviction that for a mystical experience "To be valid, the mystic experience must be repeatable and available to anyone so inclined." I think if that were true, there would be no valid mystical experiences.