[FONT="]Mysticism & Truth: Is Mysticism spooky and occult or is it the next step in mental evolution?[/FONT]
[FONT="]I wouldn't like to use the term 'mysticism' as it brings to the mind of many 'spooky and occult.' I would like to describe it as 'experiential reality' which ANYONE can experience and as 'repeatable' as a scientific phenomenon. I am not talking about 'visions' and supernatural things here. I have experienced it myself. It is a state in which 'the knower knows the knowing.' It is a state of peace, inner-smiling and knowing. Knowing What? That is the hardest part to describe. But if you put your mind to knowing that, it is within the reach of Everyone! [/FONT]
[FONT="]A good summary is in the following page:[/FONT]
[FONT="]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mysticism[/FONT]
[FONT="]For those who are sceptical, I have taken some excerpts from the page, which I am posting below:[/FONT]
[FONT="]The emphasis that is placed on subjective direct experience of the "divine and otherworldly transcendent goal of unity", makes it highly controversial to individuals who place a greater emphasis on empirical verification of knowledge and truth (such as scientists for example).[/FONT]
[FONT="]Mysticism is sometimes taken by skeptics or mainstream adherents as mere obfuscation, though mystics suggest they are offering clarity of a different order or kind. [/FONT]
[FONT="]There is nothing spooky or occult about this.[/FONT]
[FONT="]The mystic interprets the world through a different lens than is present in ordinary experience, which can prove to be a significant obstacle to those who research mystical teachings and paths. [/FONT]
[FONT="]Much like poetry, the words of mystics are often idiosyncratic and esoteric, can seem confusing and opaque, simultaneously over-simplified and full of subtle meanings hidden from the unenlightened. To the mystic, however, they are pragmatic statements, without subtext or weight; simple obvious truths of experience. [/FONT]
[FONT="]The contemplative traditions are based upon a series of experiments in awareness: what if you pursue this Witness to its source? What if you inquire within, pushing deeper and deeper into the source of awareness itself? What do you find?[/FONT]
[FONT="]As a repeatable, reproducible experiment in awareness? [/FONT]
[FONT="]There is a subtle essence that pervades all reality. It is the reality of all that is, and the foundation of all that is. That essence is all. That essence is the real. And thou, thou art that. In other words, the observing self eventually discloses its own source, which is Spirit itself, Emptiness itself... and the stages of transpersonal growth and development are basically the stages of following this observing self to its ultimate abode[/FONT]
[FONT="] we have transcendence itself as our biological imperative:[/FONT]
[FONT="]that only 'beingness' has ontological reality [/FONT]
[FONT="] mystics, by contrast take the step beyond to "being" and describe the peace or bliss that derives from their final active connection to 'the Real'. [/FONT]
[FONT="] Christian mystics would assert that "the Kingdom of Heaven is within" references the same approach[/FONT]
[FONT="]Deep intrinsic connection to ultimate reality (Satori in Mahayana Buddhism, Te in Taoism) [/FONT]
[FONT="]a participation of the Divine Nature (in Catholic Christianity and Eastern Orthodoxy) [/FONT]
[FONT="]Innate Knowledge (Sahaja and Svabhava in Hinduism; Irfan and Sufism in Islam) [/FONT]
[FONT="]meditation, the process of union with the nondual nature, in Tibetan Buddhism [/FONT]
[FONT="]the experiences of divine consciousness[/FONT]
[FONT="]available to everyone [/FONT]
[FONT="] the mystical approach to be seen as a divine science, because of the direct, replicable elevation of consciousness the mystical approach can offer to anyone, regardless of previous spiritual or religious training.[/FONT]
[FONT="]Vivekananda in Vedanta, for instance, is noted for his assertions that all religions are one. [/FONT]
[FONT="]mystic, who focuses on the inner realms: mind-breath, non-thinking awareness, and so on. Mystics are not too concerned with the opinions or the religious tools of their more conservative religious compatriots.[/FONT]
[FONT="]One key to enigmatic expressions lies in the perspective that "the world" of appearances reflects only learned beliefs - based on the limitations of time, culture and relationships - and that unquestioned faith in those misperceptions limits one's return to the divine state. [/FONT]
[FONT="]God is Love [/FONT]
[FONT="]koans, riddles, and metaphysical contradictions [/FONT]
[FONT="]irresolvable tasks or lines of thought designed to direct one away from intellectualism and effort towards direct experience. [/FONT]
[FONT="] the point being that excessive effort in contemplating the impossible leads the initiate to give up the ego pursuit of doing/getting as opposed to the unity experience of being/having. [/FONT]
[FONT="]The evocative Taoist phrase - To yield is to be preserved whole, to be bent is to become straight, to be empty is to be full, to have little is to possess - is another example of a metaphysical contradiction describing the path of emptying of the learned self. [/FONT]
[FONT="]the Garden of Eden story of Adam and Eve being cast out in shame - has lost its metaphorical meaning over time[/FONT]
[FONT="]Christ is well-known for his use of parables, consistently using them to teach compassion and inclusion, while many contain hidden metaphorical content for "those who have ears to hear." [/FONT]
[FONT="]In one of the most enigmatic stories from the Gospel of Thomas, he describes the Kingdom of Heaven as like an old woman returning home after a long journey, carrying all she values - a bag full of grain - on her back. A tear allows the grain to escape during the journey and she arrives home to discover it empty. Very Buddhist in tone, each word of the story has significance in describing the return path to the divine through a gradual emptying of earthbound value concepts and subtle internal conflicts. [/FONT]
[FONT="] The use of the term, old woman, is a common metaphor related to the mind's incapacity to create, when controlled by embedded defensive ego values. [/FONT]
[FONT="] The rift between mysticism and the modern sciences derives mainly from elements of scientism in the latter: certain branches of the natural sciences, sometimes disavow subjective experience as meaningless[/FONT]
[FONT="]subjective experience of existence in Existentialism[/FONT]
[FONT="] points directly toward a potential unity between physics and psychology that does not at present exist[/FONT]
[FONT="]every mystical path has necessarily as its ontological purpose, the discernment between truth and illusion, and many approaches emphasize the total discarding of beliefs as the prerequisite to knowledge in the phenomenological sense[/FONT]
[FONT="]The mystic is opposed to the philosopher by the fact that he begins from within, whereas the philosopher begins from without[/FONT]
[FONT="]But nothing of this is communicable except the assertions that we have to accept on his word; consequently he is unable to convince.[/FONT]
[FONT="]"...Spiritual transcendence and religion have little in common. In fact, if we look closely, we can see that these two have been the fundamental antagonists in our history, splitting our mind into warring camps. Neither our violence nor our transcendence is a moral or ethical matter of religion, but rather an issue of biology. We actually contain a built-in ability to rise above restriction, incapacity, or limitation and, as a result of this ability, possess a vital adaptive spirit that we have not yet fully accessed."[/FONT]
[FONT="]while we refer to transcendence in rather mystical, ethereal terms, to the intelligence of life, transcendence may be simply the next intelligent move to make."[/FONT]
[FONT="]Happy Transcendence,[/FONT]
[FONT="]Satish[/FONT]
:help::clap
