For Atheist Mystics

[Typist]

Where the term surrender comes in I think is it seems to have its roots in Christian symbolism, but the action is pretty much the same in all religions, that of letting go of the small self.

Yes, love and mediation boil down to the same thing, surrender.

Meditation addresses thought, the heart of the human condition, most directly. We are thought, so when we surrender thought, we surrender ourselves.

Love is less direct, but it has the benefit of some built-in BS detectors that aren't as evident within the meditation realm.

The Christian approach at it's best is continually testing love with service. We're volunteering at the homeless shelter, or we're out on the golf course, we can't be both places at once. Thus, it's harder to lie to ourselves about what our relationship with surrender really is.

As example, we might bring this conversation to a Catholic priest, one of the better ones.

He might listen patiently to everything we have to day above, and reply that this is all very interesting, but oops, it's time to serve lunch at the homeless shelter so we'd best go attend to that.

And then there'd be some other human need which he would point us to, and another, and another, and another.

If the clever priest has his way, we'll never make it back to this conversation, which the priest knows is really all about making ourselves bigger, not surrendering.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

We transcend the ego, only in the sense of it is no longer the seat of our self-identification as the body was when we were young children. Surrender is simply "letting go" of that stage of growth of the self into the next stage of growing up. Entering into mystical states simply exposes us to it. It's what we do in daily life with it that either makes the mystical a pleasant day trip to escape life, or the key to transforming us into its image, to becoming who we truly are beyond the egoic self.

I find that altered states of consciousness have a strong sense of spaciousness, there is a larger perspective where the ego fades, sort of.

 

[Windwalker]

I find that altered states of consciousness have a strong sense of spaciousness, there is a larger perspective where the ego fades, sort of.

Yes, that is one of the various stages of it. To move into that, one has to let go of what we are currently identifying with. I'll put it this way. The entire affair, the condition of the ego-mind is one of self-contraction. That right there is the key. The separate self is a condition of self-contraction. When one releases that self-contraction, or opens it, or lets it go, or surrenders holding onto it, that is when you move into these spaces of vast spaciousness. That is when love is allowed to just "be" within you. That is when you a freed of fear. That is when there is Peace.

A quick note on the thing about fear that ties straight back into previous discussions within this thread. What the sense of fear is you may encounter in meditation, can be perceived of as a fear of the unknown, and it certainly can be felt as that, but to think of it a little more deeply, what it is is you are seeing the self-contraction itself in the face of that Freedom, in the face of that Light. The self-contraction is a state of fear itself. It is the condition of separation. It is the state of being alone, isolated, apart from, and a long list of senses that are inherently fearful in the face of the Infinite above it, outside of it. So what happens is as we begin to face the Infinite through entering into its very Presence in meditation, is we see ourselves in our self-contraction in the light of its Radiance. And what we fear is not that Light, but we are experiencing is the condition of self-contraction which is a condition of fear. Rather than it being repressed, it is exposed. Then we surrender it, and let it go, and move beyond the state of fear in the state of self-contraction, into that vast, luminous spaciousness you describe.

The ego fades, yes. But it is only us no longer self-identifying exclusively as that. We have moved beyond the self-contraction, the separation, the radical duality, into Union with Self. There is no fear in Unity, because there is no separation, no self-contraction. But then we move into the nondual where the Infinite is fully self-aware in the finite, and it is not a self-contraction, but a fully opened individual, complete with the fully developed, healthy, ego mind. We do not get rid of the ego, we make it whole, we free it from self-contraction. We have to, must, work on not only waking up, freeing ourselves from self-contraction, but we also must grow up, making whole the body and mind, which includes ego, and infuse it with the Light of that Freedom. Otherwise, it's just escape, and not completion.

To be "egotistical" is not a state of a mature mind and healthy ego. We must get rid of trying to "puff ourselves us", and instead we work to "grow ourselves up". A very healthy, and necessary thing to become a fully present, spiritual human in the world. "You are the light of the world", only when you have not only wakened up, but grown up.

 

[YmirGF]

Yes, that is one of the various stages of it. To move into that, one has to let go of what we are currently identifying with. I'll put it this way. The entire affair, the condition of the ego-mind is one of self-contraction. That right there is the key. The separate self is a condition of self-contraction. When one releases that self-contraction, or opens it, or lets it go, or surrenders holding onto it, that is when you move into these spaces of vast spaciousness. That is when love is allowed to just "be" within you. That is when you a freed of fear. That is when there is Peace.

A quick note on the thing about fear that ties straight back into previous discussions within this thread. What the sense of fear is you may encounter in meditation, can be perceived of as a fear of the unknown, and it certainly can be felt as that, but to think of it a little more deeply, what it is is you are seeing the self-contraction itself in the face of that Freedom, in the face of that Light. The self-contraction is a state of fear itself. It is the condition of separation. It is the state of being alone, isolated, apart from, and a long list of senses that are inherently fearful in the face of the Infinite above it, outside of it. So what happens is as we begin to face the Infinite through entering into its very Presence in meditation, is we see ourselves in our self-contraction in the light of its Radiance. And what we fear is not that Light, but we are experiencing is the condition of self-contraction which is a condition of fear. Rather than it being repressed, it is exposed. Then we surrender it, and let it go, and move beyond the state of fear in the state of self-contraction, into that vast, luminous spaciousness you describe.

The ego fades, yes. But it is only us no longer self-identifying exclusively as that. We have moved beyond the self-contraction, the separation, the radical duality, into Union with Self. There is no fear in Unity, because there is no separation, no self-contraction. But then we move into the nondual where the Infinite is fully self-aware in the finite, and it is not a self-contraction, but a fully opened individual, complete with the fully developed, healthy, ego mind. We do not get rid of the ego, we make it whole, we free it from self-contraction. We have to, must, work on not only waking up, freeing ourselves from self-contraction, but we also must grow up, making whole the body and mind, which includes ego, and infuse it with the Light of that Freedom. Otherwise, it's just escape, and not completion.

To be "egotistical" is not a state of a mature mind and healthy ego. We must get rid of trying to "puff ourselves us", and instead we work to "grow ourselves up". A very healthy, and necessary thing to become a fully present, spiritual human in the world. "You are the light of the world", only when you have not only wakened up, but grown up.

Quite simply put, a wonderful explanation. That is what I am meaning by "it is a necessary integral part of the whole self." The idea is that in the healthy, whole self, the ego knows its place and understands that it is not threatened with extinction. It therefore does not mind one bit to step into the background allowing other aspects of self to come to the foreground.

Do you see how your entire post is the selling of your "advanced" status? That's what I'm talking about, without the explanations, none of that is possible. Which is why you and our friend Windy are both pushing back the way you are. The self identity "expert" pose both of you appear to cherish is under threat, and you don't like that one little bit.

This is why I'm claiming that much of what you and Windy are talking about is really little more than an intelligent and articulate form of self delusion. And again, my posts really aren't intended to be about you personally, but about the millions of people who are getting sucked in to these same delusions. The mass New Age delusion is that we are liberating ourselves from ourselves, when the truth is we've just found yet another way to obsess about ourselves.

Don't take my word for it dear reader, go to any New Age type forum or thread, and observe for yourself that it's all about "me, me, me, me", my status, my situation, my progress, my advancement, my enlightenment or whatever other phoney baloney phrase might be popular at the moment.

If I challenge an atheist ideologue, they will likely get all snotty and fire back in anger. If I challenge a New Age ideologue, they will likely get all snotty and fire back in anger too. There is no meaningful difference, except that that New Age ideologue perhaps has a more complicated defense mechanism, as they desperately attempt to both win the debate, and pretend they are above it at the same time.

I'm not above any of this, and am playing all the same games myself. Thus, converting to my philosophies, replacing your explanations with mine, won't accomplish anything except perhaps make you a better debater.

That's because all the philosophies, ideologies and explanations are all made of the same thing, thought, and thus inherit the inherently divisive properties of thought. Thus, discussions and debates about mystic explanations are essentially pointless, because no matter what explanation we might settle on we wind up at the same place, a place which is not mysticism.

Yes, I'm a novice. And so are you. So are we all. None of us know what we're talking about.
The whole notion of "novice" is built upon a misguided delusion of progress, advancement towards some glorious goal, a process of becoming, which in turn is built upon....

A rejection of what we already are.

Some of us don't like who we think we are, so we invent a glamorous new story to replace the old sad story. This strategy only works so long as we isolate ourselves in tiny communities where everyone else will agree to support our fantasy in exchange for us supporting theirs. But once the story teller emerges in to the real world, it's only a matter of time until some bombastic butthead rips their story to shreds.

There's no need for any of the stories. It's ok to be a small inconsequential imperfect flawed human being. Once we stop rejecting being normal and ordinary, the need to advance will melt away, the towering pile of esoteric explanations will tumble to the ground, and there will less junk to surrender the next time we want to go mystical.

Okie dokie, Pokie. Whatever you say. It is fascinating that you chose to fixate on that one line, while deftly ignoring my other comments that wither your own narrative. Most instructive. Have a nice day.

 

[YmirGF]

Do you see how your entire post is the selling of your "advanced" status? That's what I'm talking about, without the explanations, none of that is possible. Which is why you and our friend Windy are both pushing back the way you are. The self identity "expert" pose both of you appear to cherish is under threat, and you don't like that one little bit.

This is why I'm claiming that much of what you and Windy are talking about is really little more than an intelligent and articulate form of self delusion. And again, my posts really aren't intended to be about you personally, but about the millions of people who are getting sucked in to these same delusions. The mass New Age delusion is that we are liberating ourselves from ourselves, when the truth is we've just found yet another way to obsess about ourselves.

Don't take my word for it dear reader, go to any New Age type forum or thread, and observe for yourself that it's all about "me, me, me, me", my status, my situation, my progress, my advancement, my enlightenment or whatever other phoney baloney phrase might be popular at the moment.

If I challenge an atheist ideologue, they will likely get all snotty and fire back in anger. If I challenge a New Age ideologue, they will likely get all snotty and fire back in anger too. There is no meaningful difference, except that that New Age ideologue perhaps has a more complicated defense mechanism, as they desperately attempt to both win the debate, and pretend they are above it at the same time.

I'm not above any of this, and am playing all the same games myself. Thus, converting to my philosophies, replacing your explanations with mine, won't accomplish anything except perhaps make you a better debater.

That's because all the philosophies, ideologies and explanations are all made of the same thing, thought, and thus inherit the inherently divisive properties of thought. Thus, discussions and debates about mystic explanations are essentially pointless, because no matter what explanation we might settle on we wind up at the same place, a place which is not mysticism.

Yes, I'm a novice. And so are you. So are we all. None of us know what we're talking about.
The whole notion of "novice" is built upon a misguided delusion of progress, advancement towards some glorious goal, a process of becoming, which in turn is built upon....

A rejection of what we already are.

Some of us don't like who we think we are, so we invent a glamorous new story to replace the old sad story. This strategy only works so long as we isolate ourselves in tiny communities where everyone else will agree to support our fantasy in exchange for us supporting theirs. But once the story teller emerges in to the real world, it's only a matter of time until some bombastic butthead rips their story to shreds.

There's no need for any of the stories. It's ok to be a small inconsequential imperfect flawed human being. Once we stop rejecting being normal and ordinary, the need to advance will melt away, the towering pile of esoteric explanations will tumble to the ground, and there will less junk to surrender the next time we want to go mystical.

Something else just came to mind, Pokie. You see, what you do not know about me is that, quite literally, for decades, I did exactly as you suggest. I did not offer any of my insight. I would not comment on anything of this nature. Then, one day, I decided that it might be fun to write my autobiography. You see, I had kept extensive notes from my wild early years when the flames were burning rather brightly and as I sat there reviewing these meticulous notes I was suddenly stunned by a thought. That thought was, "What if I am right?"

That one thought caused a huge catharsis in my tiny brain and after so many years, those flames from the early years flared more brightly that I think I had ever felt before. That led me to decide to take a chance at the considerable risk of making myself look like a fool by speaking out publicly about my unkempt delusional thoughts. From my side, I felt I had to. I owed it to other people, if for no other reason than to show them that they are not alone and that there is at least one other, thinking, feeling, breathing human animal who sees what they see, who is experiencing things that no one seems to know about. It was and still is a gamble, but with each word I write, the payoff seems to be greater. My words do connect with other thinking, feeling, breathing human animals and they do seem to understand. That makes the risk worth it. Likewise, I now know that I am not alone in my thinking and experience.

So, I ask you, in all sincerity, would you have me keep my secrets to myself and quietly feed my passing wild deer their beloved apple tidbits and say nothing or would you rather I tried to make sense of something that is so very hard to articulate. Help me out. Silence or speak my mind?

 

[Windwalker]

Hmm....

I have an opinion....

And so do you....

And that makes me a fundamentalist...

No, an opinion is not what makes someone a fundamentalist. Not being able to adequately take the perspective of another, an inability to see or hear another opinion other than their own, to speak in absolutist terms, and see everyone else as of the devil, charlatans, etc, etc, is the earmark of an immature mind. That is what the hallmark of fundamentalism is. It's black and white thinking, that is incapable, not doesn't want to, but is incapable of reasoned discussion. That is the fundamentalist mind. Not simply having a difference of opinion, but how they hold their opinions.

One quick example. You have an opinion about the need to quite the discursive mind. I agree with you opinion. But you have an opinion that that is all you need and nothing more. I disagree with that opinion, but you conflate that 2nd opinion of yours with the 1st opinion, and assume I am rejecting your 1st opinion. You cannot differentiate that there are in fact two opinions you are offering, and when I reject your 2nd opinion you take it is absolutist terms. You think I don't agree with the 1st opinion. And despite all reasoned explanations by not just myself, but by everyone else in this thread, you see it as a rejection of your primary belief, and so you set off casting us as puffed up holy men, ego-delusional, New Age, and on and on, the very same sort of replies I have encountered from the fundamentalist mind I've dealt with in thousands of discussions with them. Regardless of what they believe in, they believe with the same fundamentalist mentality. You can have fundamentalist Christian, Buddhists, Hindus, Atheists, or whatever you adopt as your new truth you believe in.

So my point I was making is that state experiences, a satori experience, can be had by anyone, including fundamentalist. It's not the experience that set us apart, but how we are using our minds, how we view and hold our opinions, and how we subsequently live our lives.

 

[mystic64]

Well guys, as a person that is researching the psycho-social dynamics of a successful message board this topic has everything in it. Asolutely everything .

And Typist you are playing the role of the anti-christ type person, which in all fairness is the easyest role to play.

Now as a mystic, that is "not" a novice , I enjoy hanging out in the mystic DIR to have a look at what other mystics are experiencing as a mystic. Now generally all discussions pertaining to self realization/God realization from a mystic stand point or otherwise ultimately end up with folks telling other folks that these other folks just have not gone far enough or they would understand. But, so far that is not happening in this topic, which is way too cool!

What is important in my opinion is, "The discussiong of the mystic experience." Who is right and who is wrong does not really matter because we as serious mystics will ultimately all in up in the same place anyway and from there go on to do what we do. What matters is the discussion of what we are experiencing and the conclusions that we have come to at any given point in time. Why? Because true mystics are rare and having some advanced mystics, which all of you but Typist are, together in one place discussing the mystic experience is a rare gift to those that are curious about the mystic experience and to those that, new or otherwise, are exploring the mystic experience. This along with Typist and those like him as "flavor" , if "flavor" is just understood to be "flavor" (controlled confict sells newspapers and this message board is an eletronic magazine with a viewing audience), can be very productive. On one hand we get to intertain the audience and on the other hand we get to share the mystic experience with the interested curious.

 

[lovemuffin]

Hello all, I hadn't entirely been keeping up with this thread, but I just re-read through the last 4 or 5 pages and I wanted to comment on a couple things:

About the value of philosophy and reflection on experience

As for helping others, what is the primary obstacle to such experience? It's thought. Not incorrect thoughts. Any thoughts.

What to do about the explanations? Just skip them, they do more harm than good. The value is in the experience.

I think that Windwalker (echoed by beenherebeforeagain) has already given the kind of response to this that I would give, i.e here:

Beliefs and ideas, philosophies and sciences, models and maps, are all useful when understood as structural supports. Structural supports are in fact necessary in order to be able to integrate what one is exposed to in Spirit.

You have to integrate what you are exposed to in these luminous moments encountered in silence! You aren't living outside of the world, but within it. You have to have a some frameworks of understanding of the world in order to translate these experiences.

Why examine it? Why seek clarity? Why seek knowledge? Why seek thoughts? Because I am human. These are things that humans do.

What I want to add is that I think there are reasons why it is that integration of experience is a problem which, in the context of modern western culture, requires a certain amount of intellectual reflection. So, Typist, I think everyone who has responded agrees with you at least in part, about the value of silence, or that ultimately the interpretation and conceptualization of experience is of less value than experience.

But the counter-argument is that in order to recognize the value of silence you have to have some view of the world which allows it to have value. You have obviously already found it, and so you have no further need of philosophical reflection. You don't question the value of the experience because it is already part of your background worldview, is already taken as unquestionable, so to speak.

But the last few hundred years of western civilization could be described pretty accurately, I think, as a process of demythicization, the deconstruction of the traditional views of the world. The modern western worldview does not easily grant that mystical experience has value. See for example: this post and thread

So over against the philosophical developments of the last few hundred years, the enlightenment, rationalism, the progress of science and a naturalistic worldview, it does seem to me that there is value in philosophical reflection on how mysticism can be integrated with the other ways of seeing the world which we mostly take for granted. In some sense, I think that is the original topic of this thread.

What you are saying is that everyone should just take for granted all the things you take for granted, but I don't think that's how human questioning works. Inasmuch as beenherebeforeagain says he seeks because he is human, so is it also human to question, and once something is questioned, it is not as simple as pretending the question didn't arise. We can't honestly pretend not to question. Perhaps we must also find a silence of the question, and in a sense that is the wisdom of the Buddha, but if you believe the world would be better if more people discovered the value of this experience or of mysticism, then it is also necessary that people be able to integrate that experience into the rest of their experiences of the world. Even if, at the end, the effort that goes into such philosophizing is a raft that should be left behind, once the other shore is reached.


About "new age" egotism and the need for sages

If the problem we are discussing does not arise from the content of thought, then there is no way for you to play the role of sage, expert, guru etc, which is perhaps an unacceptable outcome.

I hosted a forum for years full to the rafters with folks who were building their personal "me" story stronger and stronger and stronger via these "I'm transcending my ego" type stories.

Don't take my word for it dear reader, go to any New Age type forum or thread, and observe for yourself that it's all about "me, me, me, me", my status, my situation, my progress, my advancement, my enlightenment or whatever other phoney baloney phrase might be popular at the moment.

I have observed cases where I think people fall into the kind of trap you are talking about here. In fact, I would say it's the most common pitfall of the kind of spiritual path that is associated with mysticism. You said earlier in the thread that there is no danger in spirituality, but I think here you are highlighting one.

However, I think it's a mistake to associate the danger of "spiritual" egotism with any attempt to integrate experience with intellectual life, or with any attempt to usefully describe these things to others, or to "teach" or provide a witness to the experience. Almost every spiritual tradition on earth will say that spiritual masters are necessary, that teachers are needed. There is a danger of pride and egotism involved with thinking too much of ourselves, or of wanting to be a "guru" for the sake of being a guru, but I think you're being unfair to cast Windwalker or others here in that light, simply because they seek to understand their experiences and communicate them. As Windwalker said, silence is humility, and every word we speak should flow out of that silence and back into it. But I think your mistake is to reject the real reasons why the breaking of silence is valuable. Why it is also that we speak.

 

[Windwalker]

As Windwalker said, silence is humility, and every word we speak should flow out of that silence and back into it. But I think your mistake is to reject the real reasons why the breaking of silence is valuable. Why it is also that we speak.

There are many great insights in your post but I wanted to share this that lept out at me reading this. It brought to mind the two books written by the Zen master who brought Zen to the West. His first book was aptly titled, Returning to Silence. And then, in perfect keeping with the intent of this thread, his second book, which at glance sounds like a contradiction, is titled, You Have to Say Something. It's both that are necessary. And in the case of the latter, as you say perfectly, it must flow from that silence. But it has to flow into something in order to see it, to communicate it, and share it. It needs structures and patterns to be seen and experienced by others.

Where Typist is making his mistake, and projecting onto us the error of his thoughts, is that we are trying to find Truth in these models, in these philosophies, trying to build our sense of self in them. That can certainly be true in what a lot of people do, but it is not for me. The reason it is not is because I rest in that Silence. Now I have to "say something". How do we speak to others? How do we relate it to the questions of the day? It has to speak to the way people think in the West, particularly, in rational, yet spiritual terms. It's not a rationalist, intellectualism, but simply knowing, understanding, and mastering that language in order to be able to take what comes from Silence and allow it to grow us as humans in the world. We are permeated by these philosophies, and they are that invisible backdrop that defines our reality, whether we are consciously aware of them or not, as you said. We are already thinking in these terms. All these models do is help to communicate the Timeless Reality to the reality of the worldspace we live in.

One quick story to make this point about how I approach these things. I understood a great deal of these scientific points of view. I understood a lot coming from postmodernist thought. And there are some really wonderful understandings out there about the way things work in the world, from science and systems theory, to religious studies, to culture studies, to language studies, to psychology, biology, neuroscience, and on and on and on. I have a fairly solid handle on these from an integral perspective. This was years ago, where I was quite taken by the level of knowledge and insights I was gaining. And then I started practicing meditation.

Almost instantly, right out of the gate, like a duck finally finding that body of water he was born from for the first time, I went straight in deep and fast. I had come home. And the first thing that occurred to me that blew me away, I remarked on with the wonder and amazement of a child of the city seeing the countryside for his first time, "It's like I've just put a second brain on top of my other brain! It's like everything I know from all of this study and investigation I've done over the years, pales against this! It's like all these models are just two-dimensional stick figures against this vast, multi-dimensional reality" Those were my words at the time to my partner, and I've come to see that that is not meant to diminish these "two-dimensional stick models" at all, but that they play an integral role as structures in order for us to hang the ornaments of spirit upon, in order to see them, value them, speak of them, and marvel in them. It's like the branches of a tree, and Spirit is the leaves, and flowers. The models are models of the mind, but we experience Spirit in the world with the mind, as well as Spirit in Silence, with spirit.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

There's no need for any of the stories. It's ok to be a small inconsequential imperfect flawed human being. Once we stop rejecting being normal and ordinary, the need to advance will melt away, the towering pile of esoteric explanations will tumble to the ground, and there will less junk to surrender the next time we want to go mystical.

I strongly disagree: to tell stories is what makes us human. To advocate that we stop telling stories, because some or all of them are factually wrong or unknowable misses the point of most stories, which is to give us some idea of who we are, where we came from, what we do, and why and how we do it.

I base this on my experience, and yes, some thought, including the thoughts of others. I would argue that humans may not be able to do as you suggest--but being aware of our being "small inconsequential imperfect flawed beings" can (and in my case, certainly is) part of the story I tell to myself. I'm just not polemic and angry about it.

 

[Typist]

That led me to decide to take a chance at the considerable risk of making myself look like a fool by speaking out publicly about my unkempt delusional thoughts.

The issue of you looking like a fool or not is not a considerable risk, or a risk at all, as you are just one little person in a sea of billions. It doesn't really matter whether you look like a fool or not.

This isn't an important point, but perhaps you will indulge my hopelessly ineffective habit of reminding my new age friends that the universe does not revolve around them and their personal situations, a point usually received as the highest form of heresy.

QUOTE="YmirGF, post: 4274023, member: 4540"]So, I ask you, in all sincerity, would you have me keep my secrets to myself and quietly feed my passing wild deer their beloved apple tidbits and say nothing or would you rather I tried to make sense of something that is so very hard to articulate. Help me out. Silence or speak my mind?[/QUOTE]

My argument is that by focusing so much on explanations (not just by you, but an entire industry) readers will naturally assume that what they are looking for is to be found somewhere in the pile of explanations.

Is that true?

And so millions of seekers buy book after book after book, attend lecture after lecture after lecture, read thread after thread after thread in search of the answer.

And of course this process then tends to become a business, with some holy men charging big fees with which they build their empires, when they could instead simply give a free lecture on YouTube every so often to accomplish the same communication.

It's the same old corruption story, as the businessmen and politicians in a new era hijack the mystic experience and try to stamp their brands on it for ego and financial profit.

Rant complete, to address your question...

Do what you want of course, I'm just trying to put options on the table to hopefully add something to the thread. Readers have to decide for themselves how useful the contributions are.

If you wish to share, you certainly can do so without reinforcing the delusion that what we're looking for lies somewhere in the pile of explanations.

You could do what I'm doing and challenge the pile of explanations and those selling them.

But, perhaps you're not enough of an ornery typoholic butthead jerk for such a job, so there's always teaching basic meditation skills, which most people still don't have, so there's plenty of work left to be done there.

It really depends on how sincerely see the problem which folks are trying to address.

If you sincerely believe the problem lies in incorrect thoughts, then the path of explanations is probably for you.

If you should conclude that the problem lies deeper than thought content, in the nature of thought itself, that suggests another road.

 

[Typist]

I strongly disagree: to tell stories is what makes us human. To advocate that we stop telling stories, because some or all of them are factually wrong or unknowable misses the point of most stories, which is to give us some idea of who we are, where we came from, what we do, and why and how we do it..

Yes, but what you describe is philosophy, art, religion, science....

And not mysticism.

 

[Typist]

So, Typist, I think everyone who has responded agrees with you at least in part, about the value of silence, or that ultimately the interpretation and conceptualization of experience is of less value than experience.

But the counter-argument is that in order to recognize the value of silence you have to have some view of the world which allows it to have value.

I agree it's a worthwhile conversation to have, and that both sides deserve a hearing. This is after all the timeless conversation between mysticism and religion, which will continue for even more endless centuries after we're gone.

My argument is simply that the mystic experience does not require explanations to have value any more than food, sleep or sex require explanations.

I met an old black man once at a park I frequent. He seemed very uneducated and highly inarticulate, and it looked like all of his worldly possessions were contained in the back of his fifty dollar little pickup truck. A humble fellow indeed.

But he could stand perfectly still at the edge of the lake holding his fishing pole....

All....

day....

long.

Have you ever tried that? Standing still all day long? Much easier to say than do!

I watched him with great respect for hours from a distance as he became just another reed along the shoreline, gently rocking back and forth in the breeze in tune with all the other plants along the edge of the lake.

This fellow surely had not the slightest clue what the word mysticism might be about.

And it didn't matter a bit. Because he'd found that place with a ten dollar fishing pole.

There are 7 billion human beings on this planet, and relatively few of them are philosophically inclined. If mysticism required fancy explanations, it would be essentially worthless as seen from the larger human perspective.

If a reader simply must have explanations, join a religion!

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Yes, but what you describe is philosophy, art, religion, science....

And not mysticism.

And yet, the experience of mysticism, just the same as any other experience (because they are also not the stories we tell), can, do, and should, inform the stories we tell in philosophy, art, religion, science, etc. That some of our stories get far away from actual experience can of course be taken as a negative--but they are stories. We can always replace them with simpler stories. But just being in the moment does not tell a story, and humans need stories--they are part of the human experience, and being in the here-and-now while a skilled storyteller tells a story is a sublime experience, just as being in the moment while eating, or having sex or being silent is. Should talented storytellers stop telling stories because they use dualistic language? Absurd. We are humans, we use language, and we use language to tell ourselves and each other stories. Should we take all stories seriously? Probably not. I certainly don't. But I do take storytelling seriously...because it is part of being human. As is experiencing be-here-now and mystical states.

Just being in the moment, while it can be and is very satisfying in many ways, is not by itself a mystical experience. Nor is practicing silence necessarily of by itself a mystical experience. Thinking, which you accurately describe as being dual, is not in itself a mystical experience, but one can have a mystical experience while thinking, while not being silent. The mystical experience is the experience of the nondual in a way that goes beyond mere be-here-now or silence.

It is clear that you do not accept this description of the mystic experience, and this leads me to believe that you have not had that kind of experience, or that if you have, you are intentionally denying the implications of that experience. Yes, there are implications, at least for a living, breathing, experiencing, questioning, thinking, storytelling being such as myself. If you just want to be living and breathing and experiencing, without the rest that comes with being human, I have no problem with that. You have made your point, at least some of us will continue to consider your words (dividing things that they are)...but in respect to the mystical experience, I don't believe you know what you are talking about, and you are certainly not listening to those who do.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

I agree it's a worthwhile conversation to have, and that both sides deserve a hearing. This is after all the timeless conversation between mysticism and religion, which will continue for even more endless centuries after we're gone.

My argument is simply that the mystic experience does not require explanations to have value any more than food, sleep or sex require explanations.

I met an old black man once at a park I frequent. He seemed very uneducated and highly inarticulate, and it looked like all of his worldly possessions were contained in the back of his fifty dollar little pickup truck. A humble fellow indeed.

But he could stand perfectly still at the edge of the lake holding his fishing pole....

All....

day....

long.

Have you ever tried that? Standing still all day long? Much easier to say than do!

I watched him with great respect for hours from a distance as he became just another reed along the shoreline, gently rocking back and forth in the breeze in tune with all the other plants along the edge of the lake.

This fellow surely had not the slightest clue what the word mysticism might be about.

And it didn't matter a bit. Because he'd found that place with a ten dollar fishing pole.

There are 7 billion human beings on this planet, and relatively few of them are philosophically inclined. If mysticism required fancy explanations, it would be essentially worthless as seen from the larger human perspective.

If a reader simply must have explanations, join a religion!

See, you just told a story.

How do you know the individual was having a mystical experience? To me, it sounds like he was being-here-now, and that by itself is not necessarily a mystical experience. Because you don't accept my (or anyone else's) explanation of what is and is not a mystical experience, you have made an unwarranted assumption about that man's experience.

Thing is, he could have been having a true mystical experience, and perhaps he has had thousands of them all during his life. Maybe even continuously. It might be because of those experiences, and what he learned from them, that he was living very simply. It could also be that he was very religious. Or an atheist. Or a millionaire businessman. You don't know, because you didn't ask him (or if you did, you found those details unimportant to the story you were telling, in an effort to manipulate your readers...).

Philosophy, by the way, is not only for the educated. Philosophy also does not necessarily have any connection to the discussion of mystical experiences.

Really? If one must have an explanation, join a religion? That's all you can suggest? How about, become a scientist? Or a psychologist? Or an artist? Or be creative, and make up your own explanation, your own story? Why limit it to religion? Religion is only one kind of explanation; I suggest trying others to see if they work for you.

 

[lovemuffin]

My argument is simply that the mystic experience does not require explanations to have value any more than food, sleep or sex require explanations.

The analogy to food, sleep, and sex is to activities which are absolutely universal, partly as a matter of physical necessity (leaving aside religiously motivated celibacy), and therefore universally appreciated. Although it's probably worth considering that different cultures certainly experience food and sex differently. In any case, while mystical experience is nearly universal across cultures and times, it is not so fundamental and basic in every culture as to need no explanation within each culture.

I linked a thread in which various posters suggested that they could see no value in mysticism. You will never find a thread where people claim that food or sleep have no value. The very fact that these threads are contentious already makes the analogy untenable as an argument. If it were so, you wouldn't have to tell us. It goes back to what I said in that post. I believe that for you, mysticism and silence have become values so obvious that they are analogous to food and sleep. I can appreciate that. But that is not already a universal. If anything, the trend of western culture is away from a recognition of this value, rather than towards it, which is an observation that's important to the argument in favor of philosophical reflection that I am making.

I met an old black man once at a park I frequent. He seemed very uneducated and highly inarticulate, and it looked like all of his worldly possessions were contained in the back of his fifty dollar little pickup truck. A humble fellow indeed.

But he could stand perfectly still at the edge of the lake holding his fishing pole...

To be clear, it is not my contention that only philosophical reflection can lead to an appreciation for the value of silence, mindfulness, and the experience we're all talking about. My contention was only that philosophical reflection can be valuable in the context of modern western culture. It may help some people to be more open to the experience. It may be of some practical usage. When I mentioned the Buddhist parable of the raft, I was trying to be clear that this value of philosophy is not absolute.

 

[Windwalker]

Can someone please point to anyplace anyone anywhere in this thread has tried to "explain mysticism"? I'm a little confused where this complaint is coming from. Could someone link to a post please? I'd like to join in against that claim myself if we can find someone doing that in this thread!

 

[YmirGF]

The issue of you looking like a fool or not is not a considerable risk, or a risk at all, as you are just one little person in a sea of billions. It doesn't really matter whether you look like a fool or not.

This isn't an important point, but perhaps you will indulge my hopelessly ineffective habit of reminding my new age friends that the universe does not revolve around them and their personal situations, a point usually received as the highest form of heresy.

But I don't think the universe revolves around me, Windwalker, Mystic or Hillary, so this is just another strawman. For the record, I have considerable contempt for so-called "new age" thought, so it might be better to drop that stance when addressing me.

My argument is that by focusing so much on explanations (not just by you, but an entire industry) readers will naturally assume that what they are looking for is to be found somewhere in the pile of explanations.

Is that true?

The more superficial thinkers may well assume that but I am fairly clear that direct experience is a necessary requirement.

{Anti-authoritarian drivel snipped for brevity}

Do what you want of course, I'm just trying to put options on the table to hopefully add something to the thread. Readers have to decide for themselves how useful the contributions are.

If you wish to share, you certainly can do so without reinforcing the delusion that what we're looking for lies somewhere in the pile of explanations.

You could do what I'm doing and challenge the pile of explanations and those selling them.

And you haven't seen me directly challenging ideas in this very thread? Seriously?

 

[Windwalker]

But I don't think the universe revolves around me, Windwalker, Mystic or Hillary, so this is just another strawman. For the record, I have considerable contempt for so-called "new age" thought, so it might be better to drop that stance when addressing me.

I laugh when someone calls me New Age. It instantly betrays they are clueless and just lashing out at something they don't understand. It's something fundamentalists do all the time in this culture, whether Christian, atheist, or whatever flavor "I have the truth" of the day comes by. There is absolutely nothing "New Age" about you, or me. Don't bother asking not to be called that though. It's what's said when nothing of actual substance or depth can be offered in direct conversation, trying instead to simply get a reaction out of you. "Poke, poke, poke, poke, poke.... ah, you responded! It proves you're New Age! " It is amusing. I've seen it countless times. It's always the same dance.

The more superficial thinkers may well assume that but I am fairly clear that direct experience is a necessary requirement.

Does direct experience reading your New Age books count?

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Yes, they aren't "advanced" like you, how sad for them.

There's no need for the rejection, because being an ordinary, imperfect, flawed human being is a perfectly fine thing to be.

Reality is that some people are "more advanced" than others, in certain areas; for example, I've got a little music talent, but there is no way that I am as good as literally millions of other people. If I studied and practiced for the remainder of my life, I would only be a little better, compared to where I am now; I would never be a virtuoso. Some people are incredibly fast runners or swimmers. Some are amazing good at drawing, painting or sculpture. Others are very strong; or good at fishing, or hunting, or.... Incidentally, all at things that do not require language, words. Anyway, I would not presume to know enough to talk to anyone of those people who are masters of other areas where I know nothing and am not experienced. They really are MORE ADVANCED than me, and I would expect them to consider themselves above, beyond, higher, whatever, and talk down to me about their area of expertise were I to try to tell them what's what in their field. To expect otherwise is a sign of not being in reality. And to tell them that they should stop talking amongst themselves about it, to just stop thinking about, to just enjoy the experience because it's like all other experiences...

Yes we are all flawed human beings, you, me, as well as them. We're all just different. Some are ahead, or behind, or better or worse, or whatever relative terms you care to use. YOU are the only one who insists that other people are building themselves up unrealistically, and yet it's quite possible that some people REALLY ARE better, and getting better, than you or me. At something. But the implication of your position seems to be that we should be hiding our differences, trying to be equal, despite the fact that some people are better than others at some things, because we're all just flawed little creatures on a little planet in an plain galaxy in a very large universe.