Is it possible to be a Mystic Atheist?

[Valjean]

My understanding is that the mystic experience is one of expanded consciousness. A-Man's link to Flatland is apt. The two dimensional beings in Flatland couldn't comprehend a third dimension, and impingements through it into their plane mystified them.
In the same way, the ten or eleven-D consciousness of mystical states is incomprehensible and ineffable to us.

There are levels of consciousness beyond the three we experience. I can understand those experiencing 4th or 5th-state focusing on some sort of divine personage, as a convenience, but the more expanded awareness of higher states generally transcends notions of individual divinities.

 

[Sunstone]

I am no expert....

It's good to know that. Frankly, the only expert I have met on god and mysticism in my life is an unfortunate man just about my age whose ideas I find invaluable only for the insights they might offer us into some of the more bizarre consequences of early onset senility. Personally, I think it was the years of intense drugs abuse that brought about both his early senility and his expertise on god and mysticism. So I am glad you are no expert. But I digress.

Mystics follow the path that connects and strengthens their bonds with the divine plane. This is the essence of what they follow, in practice some variations occur depending on their situation.

What I instantly like most about your remark there is what it does not say. You have not said mystics follow this or that teacher. This or that guru. This or that ideology. This or that theology. This or that tradition. This or that expert.

What I like second most about your remark there is that it says mystics follow something that is not only beyond any teacher, tradition, or ideology, but is also beyond their own stupid, projected egos. That is, I believe your words imply the test or key factor in determining which way a mystic goes is -- not teacher, tradition, ideology, or projected ego -- but that he or she chooses whatever course best "connects and strengthens their bonds with the divine plane". Assuming this divine plane is not merely some projection of their egos, then they are following something beyond their petty selves.

(2) Read Flatland: A romance of many dimensions.

By coincidence, Seyorni has recommended that book to me! Of course, Seyorni is someone who is always annoying me by saying things that teach me things I have never before suspected could be the case, or that support strange ideas I have been wondering about. In short, he is the sort of obnoxious person that demands of me that I think. An awful, awful man! I cannot recommend his company.

(Seriously though, I feel this question is beyond my scope).

Mine too.

 

[Sunstone]

My understanding is that the mystic experience is one of expanded consciousness. A-Man's link to Flatland is apt. The two dimensional beings in Flatland couldn't comprehend a third dimension, and impingements through it into their plane mystified them.
In the same way, the ten or eleven-D consciousness of mystical states is incomprehensible and ineffable to us.

Ooops! I did not know you were online and was just now talking about you. No need for you to check out what I said, however. It was in glowing praise of you as a person. Nothing in the least derogatory. Please do not read it!!!!!!

 

[Sunstone]

My understanding is that the mystic experience is one of expanded consciousness. A-Man's link to Flatland is apt. The two dimensional beings in Flatland couldn't comprehend a third dimension, and impingements through it into their plane mystified them.
In the same way, the ten or eleven-D consciousness of mystical states is incomprehensible and ineffable to us.

Ever since you mentioned that analogy to me some time ago, Sey, I have found it among the most intriguing ideas in all of religion. Well, at least, in all of the religious ideas I myself know of. Which are mostly notions I have gotten from reading that alarmingly brilliant Doppelgänger's daughter's essays prior to stealing her ideas from her. Children are valuable resources, you know, and stealing their ideas teaches them the virtues of self-sacrifice.

There are levels of consciousness beyond the three we experience.

I agree, although -- and this is merely a stylistic difference between us, I think -- I prefer not to call those levels "consciousnesses". I reserve that word, "consciousness" for only normal perception -- that is, what I sometimes call subject / object perception. For other states, I use the word "awareness" -- as in, "other states of awareness".

But all of that is just word preference. To each his own.

I can understand those experiencing 4th or 5th-state focusing on some sort of divine personage, as a convenience, but the more expanded awareness of higher states generally transcends notions of individual divinities.

If there are many higher states, then it would make a great deal of sense to me that they come without individual divinities.

 

[atanu]

But the experience is simply that. An experience.

Hello Luis

Being what i am, i rush in where angels fear to tread. But that is since i am fearless.

Dissolution of subject-object separation is not an experience since there is no experiencer. As has been stated by Sunstone in his inimitable style, the experience is known only later, when the ego raises its head again. This can also be known if you can answer whether you experience deep sleep in deep sleep or not?

This 'so-called' experience is necessary to comprehend Buddha's teaching that there is duHkha but no duHki. Or Shri Krishn'a teaching " Know Arjuna that you are not the doer".

This 'so called' plane of consciousness is, was, and will be and it is said that on a fraction of bliss of this the universe continues to exist.

But again the proof of the pudding is in the eating.

...

 

[LuisDantas]

As is usual with you, Luis, you make what strikes me as a brilliant observation regarding the core concepts of many of the world's religions. Unfortunately, I haven't thought nearly as much as you seem to have about transcendence, but I think you've shared a very stimulating idea here.

I wonder, though, whether I would emphasize transcendence as much in this context as you seem to do? I'm going to need to think more about that. At any rate, thanks for teaching me something fascinating tonight. I might otherwise have spent the evening merely starring at my walls.

Gee, thanks. You're way too generous with me.

We seem to be on nearly the same wavelength here. My hunch, too, is that the experience is simply an experience.

However, that's my hunch. I don't really know for sure whether the experience is simply an experience, or whether it is an experience of something that exists apart from the experiencer. I have yet to figure out how to decide the issue.

Wouldn't that be what is usually called ''gnosis'', btw?

And maybe I never will, but -- if it's worth anything to know this -- I tend to come down on the side of atheism when I bother with the question, "does god exist?"

Same here, even if I have concluded that my main reason for being an atheist is that the word "god" is essentially meaningless due to having been abused and used without clear contexts and definitions for so long.

I find that I must agree with you here. Assuming, of course, that by "entity" you mean something that has existence in and of itself. That is, something that has being apart from any observer.

That is one possibility. Another is that those mystical para-entities have some other, possibly more complex and likely transcendental relationship to the observers. Such as being a sort of seed that manifests itself by way of its own observer.

I am always a left a bit confused by what someone means when they capitalize "God" -- are they referring to some particular God, such as the God of the deists? The God of the Christians? I never know.

''Usually'' people talk about God because that is a convenient way of saying "I don't know" while feeling like they know something.

The real danger, however, is when they believe they know what God is like. Way too often they are attributing petty, deplorable qualities to him. It is sad, it really is.

But I believe you and I are again in substantial, if possibly not complete agreement. We would be in complete agreement provided that you, like me, accept there are indeed people who have experienced sans perceiving a division between subject and object. I am convinced there are such people. But not everyone is.

It seems to me, from various sources and my personal (albeit incredibly rare) experience, that this is indeed the case. It is a sort of dissociative experience that is both blissful and disturbing, and somewhat destined to fall apart in a matter of hours or at most a few days. At one time agonizing and hopeful. In a way, letting go of it is both involuntary (it is not really possible to ''want'' to let go of it) and a personal sacrifice to the limited, stinky nature of this world of confusion.

You know, I am beggining to suspect that I may be a gnostic at heart after all. What I am describing sure reminds me of what I know of that belief.

So, may I ask whether you yourself think some people, at least, have experienced the world without perceiving a division between the experiencer and the experienced? That is, without perceiving a division between subject and object?

Sure. It is not necessarily clear what, if anything, those experiences mean. There are probably more than a single kind of same, and I don't believe all are necessarily healthy. Some may well be plain neurological disturbances, somewhat autistic in nature. Then again, I don't think Autism is quite a disease either...

By the way, where in hell are my frubals for taking the time to discuss this issue with you? Do you think I bother to write about this nonsense because I am enthralled to writing about nonsense? Goodies! I need goodies!

Wait, you mean you aren't? Fooled me square.

 

[LuisDantas]

Hello Luis

Being what i am, i rush in where angels fear to tread. But that is since i am fearless.

I commend you for that, Atanu. To dwell in the places where angels feel uncertain is to expand the frontiers of paradise.

Dissolution of subject-object separation is not an experience since there is no experiencer.

That may well be true (although I have no idea how one can really know for sure).

But it is also demonstrably not true. We are only talking about those situations because people experienced them and reported them in some way, after all.

Yes, it is a paradox. Doesn't mean it is not completely true.

As already has been stated by Sunstone in his initable style, the experience is known only later when the ego raises its head again. This can also be known if you can answer whether you experience deep sleep in deep sleep or not?

I don't really trust my own memories of those experiences, including deep sleep. My memory is way too easy to confuse. For all I really know, people are fully aware of the experience while it is happening, even if they would consider the idea of "being someone" way too limiting to be worth considering. In fact, that is my current hypothesis on the matter.

However, it is obviously very difficult indeed to keep such a mental state while also interacting with other people verbally and socially. I don't think it is quite impossible, mind you, but it is sort of like swiming against the flow of water, because most of our interactions relies on rote learning and conditioned meanings which are essentially forgotten about when one transcends the separation between object and subject. That may well be related to the idea of silent transmission.

This so-called experience is necessary to comprehend Buddha's teaching that there is duHkha but no duHki. Or Shri Krishn'a teaching " Know Arjuna that you are not the doer".

This so called plane of consciousness is, was, and will be and it is said that on a fraction of bliss of this the universe continues to exist.

But again the proof of the pudding is in the eating.

...

I'm not familiar with the word duHki. What does it mean? Something like "origin of suffering"?

 

[atanu]

I'm not familiar with the word duHki. What does it mean? Something like "origin of suffering"?

OMG. That is the crux. There is sorrow but there is no experiecer of it. The sense of experiencer is the ignorance.

However, it is obviously very difficult indeed to keep such a mental state while also interacting with other people verbally and socially.

Sure. But if it was impossible then Buddha would be a liar to have taught "-- there is no duHki (no sad person)".

That one teaching is sufficient.

...

 

[LuisDantas]

OMG. That is the crux. There is sorrow but there is no experiecer of it. The sense of experiencer is the ignorance.

You mean there is a more literal meaning for that word, then? "Sad person" or something like it, from your last sentence?

I assume you agree that at that level of abstraction there is not much of a concept of lie anymore? That is the domain of inspiration, not literal truth (or falsehood).

 

[atanu]

You mean there is a more literal meaning for that word, then? "Sad person" or something like it, from your last sentence?

I assume you agree that at that level of abstraction there is not much of a concept of lie anymore? That is the domain of inspiration, not literal truth (or falsehood).

There is no duHkhi means there is no experiencer of sorrow. It is literal as well as inspiration. A falsehood can never be true inspiration.

The notion of being the oppressed person can also be examined with a query like "Who is suffering?". If the query is followed through earnestly, a person will not be found.

A question may arise: then who does the querying? Ego only does it, just as ego follows all teachings of Buddha with all earnestness.

...

 

[LuisDantas]

There is no duHkhi means there is no experiencer of sorrow.

Except that of course there is. I kinda see what you mean, but the wording is tricky and the meaning a bit fleeting.

It is literal as well as inspiration. A falsehood can never be true inspiration.

Isn't it more like the other way around? True inspirational sayings end up being beyond simple classifications of "truth" and "falsehood"?

The notion of being the oppressed person can also be examined with a query like "Who is suffering?". If the query is followed through earnestly, a person will not be found.

Or maybe it will be found, but not really in a meaningful way.

A question may arise: then who does the querying? Ego only does it, just as ego follows all teachings of Buddha with all earnestness.

...

Of course, Ego is often capable of doing a pretty good impersonation of "I"...

 

[Guitar's Cry]

For what it might be worth to you, GC, I happen in this instance to agree with Doppelgänger that the experience of wonder and awe is either a necessary or at least an all but necessary consequence of having an ego. In the absence of the ego, there is no experience of wonder and awe.

I want to say I agree, but I cannot be sure. I can imagine it possible that a person with an ego could go through life unaffected by wonder and awe. At least, it seems that if it is experienced, it has no affect sometimes.

That is, during the actual mystical experience, when there is no ego present, there is almost certainly no wonder and awe. Yet, in the ending of the mystical experience, as the ego is reborn, it seems to be quite common for folks to experience especially intense feelings of wonder and awe.

If the mystical experience is the breakdown of the subject/object duality, is it possible to still experience? I've heard that this is a goal of the mystical experience, but I doubt it. I think we can come close--for instance upon waking suddenly in a new place when all you really experience is that nagging insistence of "I." Or, during meditation when you get that sudden sensation of being "put back" into your body.

But if the subject/object perception is gone, and the ego disappeared, what is doing the experiencing, and what is experienced? I think we can come close, but not quite.

Of course, the real reason I happen to agree with Doppelgänger here is that I am absolutely certain such a brilliant insight could not have arisen from the fetid soil of his mind, but must instead have been stolen by him from one of his extraordinary daughter's many renown essays on the subject. I myself can only be dismayed by his shameless exploitation of her young mind.

The parents these days!

Plagiarism? And by a lawyer no less!

 

[atanu]

Of course, Ego is often capable of doing a pretty good impersonation of "I"...

Not often, IMO. Always.

...

 

[blackout]

Mysticism is more of a way of experiencing life/reality,
and not a belief system, as such.
(more a way of being)

So no, I see no reason why a mystic cannot also be an athiest.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

I suspect that most people have mystical experiences, which often come in the form of being caught in the wonder of a moment.

I never did

 

[notthedalaidrama]

when stripped away of all desires, wants, needs, wishes, fantasies, beliefs and whatever else we are suffocated by; is it then that the mystical happening occurs? anyone can have a mystical happening, atheists are not excluded, and why should they be! religion suffocates the individual, takes them further away from what they actually are. People who are not affiliated to any particular religion, in my opinion have purer experiences of the mystical because their is less intereference.

Namaste,
Lenny
my shoes taste nice, made from strawberries!

 

[Intrigued]

Mysticism is when you are or have once been in contact with a divine being...

Atheism is the lack of belief in a God, although you can be an atheist and believe the world is flat, believe that the moon is a spaceship, believe that there is an afterlife or that there are ghosts, etc. or even all of the above! It is just a lack of belief in a God by definition.

SO... do you think it is possible?

I don't think so, but I asked anyway because I thought it may bring an interesting subject.

I think its possible, but probably less likely compared to someone who accepts divination.