Which is Wiser?

[mystic64]

He asks the question, "is the impulse to arrive at a definitive or certain interpretation of these experiences as wise as, say, being hesitant to arrive at certainty? Why or why not?". I hear the question asking is it wiser to take into consideration other possible understandings of one's own mystical experience, rather than landing on a "I know this way of understanding is right!", conclusion. My post explained how the latter is a limited, more absolutistic way of thinking, and the rest of the post was explaining why.

Windwalker post #13
"So since it is wiser in general to have more sophisticated frameworks of interpretation,"
Sir, the above seems to be an absolutist statement, a "certainty". So? Why is it wiser to have more sophisticated frameworks of interpretation? You seem to be saying that "certainty" is more valid as long as it is your more sophisticated version of "certainty"? Why can't a sophisticated framework of interpretation be just as invalid as a non sophisticated black and white version of interpretation? After all "certainty" is "certainty" when it comes to attempting to explain the unexplainable. All true mystics reach a point where they understand that what they are experiencing is beyond the relm of language. And that understanding comes from experiencing it without attempting to understand it. Sophisticated frameworks of interpretation is just a mind game that one is playing with themself and others. The analytical mind has to be has to be quieted and abandoned before one can enter into and experience the advanced states of the mystic experience. Sophisticated frameworks of interpretation are just as invalid as black and white interpretations are because both create "certainty" or are attempting to create "certainty" as an absolute understanding in a linguistic way.

 

[Windwalker]

Windwalker post #13
"So since it is wiser in general to have more sophisticated frameworks of interpretation,"
Sir, the above seems to be an absolutist statement, a "certainty". So? Why is it wiser to have more sophisticated frameworks of interpretation? You seem to be saying that "certainty" is more valid as long as it is your more sophisticated version of "certainty"?

You seem quite certain this is what I am saying. You shouldn't be because you are wrong. I don't make absolutist statements in the first case, but more than that it is not absolutist to say one thing is wiser than another. It's not absolutist to say something which is more inclusive and careful in judgement is "better" than hasty generalization and snap judgments. The truth of that is born out in practice.

I think I was pretty clear in saying that holding your ideas and beliefs with an open hand, with "uncertainty" is in fact wiser than the former. Have a larger, more sophisticated framework allows that to be more likely. As the saying goes, "The more you know, the more you realize you don't know". That's a larger framework, and what wisdom emerges from it as a result.

Why can't a sophisticated framework of interpretation be just as invalid as a non sophisticated black and white version of interpretation? After all "certainty" is "certainty" when it comes to attempting to explain the unexplainable.

Again, I think "certainty" begins to be considerable less so when you realize the complexities of the questions. So your argument is sort of moot here.

All true mystics reach a point where they understand that what they are experiencing is beyond the relm of language. And that understanding comes from experiencing it without attempting to understand it.

Well, though I'm all for the fact that we are immersed in experience, any understanding of it whatsoever in the things we tell ourselves about it after the fact of the experience itself is going to fall into world of word-signs. This is true of any experience. It is perceived and experienced in nonverbal ways, but then when we commit it to memory we are interpreting it in the signs available to us and it changes its nature. My point is that the more sophisticated frameworks of interpretation you have available to you, the more subtle and nuanced the descriptions and the ways in which we hold them. Subtlety and nuance does not exactly exist at the level of black and white, concrete-literal frameworks of interpretation. Metaphor escapes the literalist mind. It doesn't understand the nature of symbolism.

Sophisticated frameworks of interpretation is just a mind game that one is playing with themself and others.

Nonsense. Support that statement if you are able?

The analytical mind has to be has to be quieted and abandoned before one can enter into and experience the advanced states of the mystic experience.

Mysticism 101.

Sophisticated frameworks of interpretation are just as invalid as black and white interpretations are because both create "certainty" or are attempting to create "certainty" as an absolute understanding in a linguistic way.

Well, this is just false.

 

[Windwalker]

I think what may help is if I lay out the differences between states and stages. Stages of growth or development are structural. Every human being alive living in the world uses some structural system in order to translate the world lived through their own experiences. Those structures grow and develop over time and move from simple to more complex. A mythic structure for instance is more complex, more sophisticated than a magic structure. A rational or modernist structure is more complex, more sophisticated than a mythic structure and its frameworks it uses to translate the world with. A postmodernist framework is more complex and sophisticated than a modernist framework. And so forth.

Each one is more sophisticated than what came before it because it develops on top of the structure preceding it. It's like another layer to the onion, including but transcending the layer before it. A structure containing 10 layers is more inclusive, more sophisticated than a structure containing two. These are the structures through which we understand and translate the world through. The more sophisticated it is, the more points of view it is able to embrace and look through.

Contrast this with state experiences. Anyone, at any stage has full access to all of these states. They are temporary states of consciousness that people normally go through, or may be developed through training. These would be things like waking, dreaming, and deep sleep states. The higher, mystical states would be generally speaking the psychic, subtle, causal, and nondual states. Again anyone with any stage of development, mythic, rational, pluralistic, integral, etc, can have the same mystical experiences in the higher states, including the causal and the nondual. They are not something someone grows into, but are fully available at any stage of development.

So tying these two together, someone having a subtle-level state experience, HAS TO translate that, just the same way they translate any experience they have. They will in fact translate it using the same structural frameworks they do any other experience they have. If it's a mythical framework, they will translate the mystical experience in the mythical framework. If it's a rational framework, they will translate the same experience, the same state of consciousness that the mythical thinker had in a different, more sophisticated framework. And so forth, to postmodern, to integral, etc. Each is the exact same experience, not higher, not lower, not better, not lesser. But each understanding is, and will in fact be either more or less sophisticated.

Does that help?

 

[mystic64]

I think what may help is if I lay out the differences between states and stages. Stages of growth or development are structural. Every human being alive living in the world uses some structural system in order to translate the world lived through their own experiences. Those structures grow and develop over time and move from simple to more complex. A mythic structure for instance is more complex, more sophisticated than a magic structure. A rational or modernist structure is more complex, more sophisticated than a mythic structure and its frameworks it uses to translate the world with. A postmodernist framework is more complex and sophisticated than a modernist framework. And so forth.

Each one is more sophisticated than what came before it because it develops on top of the structure preceding it. It's like another layer to the onion, including but transcending the layer before it. A structure containing 10 layers is more inclusive, more sophisticated than a structure containing two. These are the structures through which we understand and translate the world through. The more sophisticated it is, the more points of view it is able to embrace and look through.

Contrast this with state experiences. Anyone, at any stage has full access to all of these states. They are temporary states of consciousness that people normally go through, or may be developed through training. These would be things like waking, dreaming, and deep sleep states. The higher, mystical states would be generally speaking the psychic, subtle, causal, and nondual states. Again anyone with any stage of development, mythic, rational, pluralistic, integral, etc, can have the same mystical experiences in the higher states, including the causal and the nondual. They are not something someone grows into, but are fully available at any stage of development.

So tying these two together, someone having a subtle-level state experience, HAS TO translate that, just the same way they translate any experience they have. They will in fact translate it using the same structural frameworks they do any other experience they have. If it's a mythical framework, they will translate the mystical experience in the mythical framework. If it's a rational framework, they will translate the same experience, the same state of consciousness that the mythical thinker had in a different, more sophisticated framework. And so forth, to postmodern, to integral, etc. Each is the exact same experience, not higher, not lower, not better, not lesser. But each understanding is, and will in fact be either more or less sophisticated.

Does that help?

First of all sir, I would like to thank you for your patience with me. It is appreciated . "Does that help?" Sure, what we are doing here is defining terms. I am looking foreward to a long future of discussing things with you, so understanding how you define the words and phrases that explain your mind reality is very helpful!

Mystic64
"Sophisticated frameworks of interpretation is just a mind game that one is playing with themself and others."
Windwalker
"Nonsense. Support that statement if you are able?"

Mystic64
"The analytical mind has to be has to be quieted and abandoned before one can enter into and experience the advanced states of the mystic experience."
Windwalker
"Mysticism 101. "

Windwalker sir, "Mysticism 101 " as a premise supports my statement."

Windwalker
The more sophisticated it is, the more points of view it is able to embrace and look through.

Windwalker sir, "Mysticism 101 " as a premise would seem to indicate that the above statement is false? Unless of course "sophisticated" means that you have shut down the "analyitical mind"?

 

[Jedster]

All else being equal, which is the wiser course to take towards any and all interpretations of mystical experiences: Certainty, or Uncertainty? Put differently, is the impulse to arrive at a definitive or certain interpretation of these experiences as wise as, say, being hesitant to arrive at certainty? Why or why not?

Note: In this context, "mystical experiences" can refer to any or all of the dozen odd experiences that are at least sometimes referred to as "mystical" -- from out of body experiences to "seeing god".

In hindsight, I'd have to say Uncertainty.
When I first started to recognise that I was having 'different' experiences. I was eager to know what they were and so allowed myself to be influenced by others who had explanations and things I had read.
For a while this was ok as I was in the acceptance stage of integrating my experiences; however after a while I had put a box(of thoughts) around these experiences. I call the box beliefs. The box became the all-important thing and the experience forgotten.
That feeling of certainty is adorable and addictive; but letting go of the box proved very hard but not impossible.
De-constructing the box takes applying one's own wisdom.

 

[Sunstone]

In hindsight, I'd have to say Uncertainty.
When I first started to recognise that I was having 'different' experiences. I was eager to know what they were and so allowed myself to be influenced by others who had explanations and things I had read.
For a while this was ok as I was in the acceptance stage of integrating my experiences; however after a while I had put a box(of thoughts) around these experiences. I call the box beliefs. The box became the all-important thing and the experience forgotten.
That feeling of certainty is adorable and addictive; but letting go of the box proved very hard but not impossible.
De-constructing the box takes applying one's own wisdom.

Beautifully said!

 

[Windwalker]

Mystic64
"The analytical mind has to be has to be quieted and abandoned before one can enter into and experience the advanced states of the mystic experience."
Windwalker
"Mysticism 101. "

Windwalker sir, "Mysticism 101 " as a premise supports my statement."

Windwalker
The more sophisticated it is, the more points of view it is able to embrace and look through.

Windwalker sir, "Mysticism 101 " as a premise would seem to indicate that the above statement is false? Unless of course "sophisticated" means that you have shut down the "analyitical mind"?

The answer is in my post before this one where I spoke of states versus stages. States are simply shifts in states of consciousness: waking, dreaming, deep sleep, psychic, subtle, causal, and nondual. These are not what I am referring to as "more sophisticated". They are not growth stages. Anyone can move in and out of them at anytime, and at and stage of development. When I say something is more sophisticated I am NOT referring to those.

When I refer to something being more sophisticated it is our stages of growth or development. Those are without dispute more or less sophisticated. For instance, the sophistication of the interpretive frameworks of a five year old cannot compare to someone who is in their 50s. The 50 year old has a considerably more sophisticated way of looking at and interpreting the world than a five year old does. The sophistication is developmental. It has nothing to do with mysticism.

Now here's the trick. The mystical state is simple a state, non-verbal, non-linguistic in nature. There is no sophistication going on, as it is the access of raw, naked, simplicity itself. However, someone experiencing these states have to after-the-fact interpret them! How they interpret them will in fact be dependent upon their developed stages of growth and sophistication. The mystical experience is not sophisticated. The interpretation of it is.

Make sense now?

 

[mystic64]

In hindsight, I'd have to say Uncertainty.
When I first started to recognise that I was having 'different' experiences. I was eager to know what they were and so allowed myself to be influenced by others who had explanations and things I had read.
For a while this was ok as I was in the acceptance stage of integrating my experiences; however after a while I had put a box(of thoughts) around these experiences. I call the box beliefs. The box became the all-important thing and the experience forgotten.
That feeling of certainty is adorable and addictive; but letting go of the box proved very hard but not impossible.
De-constructing the box takes applying one's own wisdom.

I agree with Sunstone , "That was beautifully said!"

 

[mystic64]

The answer is in my post before this one where I spoke of states versus stages. States are simply shifts in states of consciousness: waking, dreaming, deep sleep, psychic, subtle, causal, and nondual. These are not what I am referring to as "more sophisticated". They are not growth stages. Anyone can move in and out of them at anytime, and at and stage of development. When I say something is more sophisticated I am NOT referring to those.

When I refer to something being more sophisticated it is our stages of growth or development. Those are without dispute more or less sophisticated. For instance, the sophistication of the interpretive frameworks of a five year old cannot compare to someone who is in their 50s. The 50 year old has a considerably more sophisticated way of looking at and interpreting the world than a five year old does. The sophistication is developmental. It has nothing to do with mysticism.

Now here's the trick. The mystical state is simple a state, non-verbal, non-linguistic in nature. There is no sophistication going on, as it is the access of raw, naked, simplicity itself. However, someone experiencing these states have to after-the-fact interpret them! How they interpret them will in fact be dependent upon their developed stages of growth and sophistication. The mystical experience is not sophisticated. The interpretation of it is.

Make sense now?

"However, someone experiencing these states have to after-the-fact interpret them!" Sir, that statement is what creates the flaw in your argument if one is seeking the advanced mystic experience or the stable mystic experience. "Sophistication" as you are defining it is "Philosophy" and like you said, "It has nothing to do with mysticism." We are in the Mysticism DIR and you are promoting "Philosophy" as a necessary part of the mystic experience. Introspection can be and usually is a necessary part of the mystic experience, but that is an understanding of self because of the limitations that self can create and not an attempt to quantify and qualify the mystic experience. Sir what you seem to be saying is that "The Box" that Jester is talking about and the understanding of that box is a necessary part of the mystic experience. Most everybody else would agree with Jester that "The Box" has to go. I started out as a mystic at five years old and I am now sixty-six years old with thousands of hours of meditation experience. So I know how a five year old mind developes into a sophisticated (university educated in science and psychology and well read) sixy-six year old mind and the difficulty and the stumbling block that sophistication creates if one is truly seeking the advanced mystic experience. Sir, the unfettered five year old mind is the perfect mind for exploring the mystic experience!

Windwalker sir, you gave Jester a "like", but do you actually understand what it was that Jester was saying? Jester is saying the samething that I and other experienced mystics are saying. It is not about being more "sophisticated" in understanding the "box", it is about dumping the "box".

 

[Mindmaster]

All else being equal, which is the wiser course to take towards any and all interpretations of mystical experiences: Certainty, or Uncertainty? Put differently, is the impulse to arrive at a definitive or certain interpretation of these experiences as wise as, say, being hesitant to arrive at certainty? Why or why not?

Note: In this context, "mystical experiences" can refer to any or all of the dozen odd experiences that are at least sometimes referred to as "mystical" -- from out of body experiences to "seeing god".

While the mundane folks probably are all going to answer uncertainty to some degree it is exactly that self-doubt which inhibits or precludes true mystical experiences, and however you determine that statement to be of value should judge how you proceed.

Can you sacrifice everything you have to experience the unthinkable? It's sort of chicken-egg problem in that you are never going to have these types of altered states without being able to at least temporarily fully commit to them. The powerplant of the mystic experience is the emotional/spiritual core of one's being. We must reach deep within, and trust it -- or we doubt ourselves. This doubt blinds us to our nature.

Admittedly, on occasion the information I personally receive is occasionally meaningless to me. So I guess, I am content to receive and trust what comes.. But, I am also OK if it is relatively meaningless to me at the moment?

 

[mystic64]

"Sophistication" leads to "certainty" and being trapped in the "box", "uncertainty" leads to dumping the "

 

[mystic64]

While the mundane folks probably are all going to answer uncertainty to some degree it is exactly that self-doubt which inhibits or precludes true mystical experiences, and however you determine that statement to be of value should judge how you proceed.

Can you sacrifice everything you have to experience the unthinkable? It's sort of chicken-egg problem in that you are never going to have these types of altered states without being able to at least temporarily fully commit to them. The powerplant of the mystic experience is the emotional/spiritual core of one's being. We must reach deep within, and trust it -- or we doubt ourselves. This doubt blinds us to our nature.

Admittedly, on occasion the information I personally receive is occasionally meaningless to me. So I guess, I am content to receive and trust what comes.. But, I am also OK if it is relatively meaningless to me at the moment?

I guess that I am "mundane" , darn !

 

[Windwalker]

We are in the Mysticism DIR and you are promoting "Philosophy" as a necessary part of the mystic experience.

Show me one place I said philosophy is necessary for mystical experience. You cannot. It is NOT a necessary part of it. Period.

You do not understand what I am saying. A mystical experience is a mystical experience. Like dreaming, or waking, it is a state experience. None of those have anything to do with philosophy either. However, when you start to think about it after the fact, when you think about your dream state, for instance, the interpretive lenses you use to think about it in fact play a factor. It is unavoidable. It is simply reality.

Again, for to repeat, worldviews are not part of the mystical state, anymore than they are part of the dream state. But how we interpret the experience is. I am sorry if you do not want to accept that. And for the record everyone has a philosophy, and you too interpret your experiences the same as me, the same as everyone else alive. The only time you aren't interpreting is when you are in the state itself. The fact you have any thoughts at all about it, proves you are interpreting it. And that is what this thread is in fact about.

What I am saying is 100% on topic. If you don't agree, then report me to the mods for your belief what I am saying violates the rules. If we can't talk about how we understand or interpret mystical experiences, then you or anyone else posting anything at all in the mysticism DIR is a violation of your rules you are making up to fit your philosophy on the subject. I see this whole hostility on your part completely unnecessary and uncalled for. Please consider that.

Introspection can be and usually is a necessary part of the mystic experience, but that is an understanding of self because of the limitations that self can create and not an attempt to quantify and qualify the mystic experience. Sir what you seem to be saying is that "The Box" that Jester is talking about and the understanding of that box is a necessary part of the mystic experience.

It "seems". You're wrong. It is not "part of" the experience. It is however most certainly part of how you interpret it after the fact.

Most everybody else would agree with Jester that "The Box" has to go. I started out as a mystic at five years old and I am now sixty-six years old with thousands of hours of meditation experience.

That doesn't mean anything regarding anything I'm saying. You clearly are unaware of this. Not to forget, I too know what mystical experience is. And I know what I'm talking about regarding interpretive filters, whereas you clearly are not. Which is why I've been politely trying to help you understand. Sorry this is so upsetting to you.

So I know how a five year old mind developes into a sophisticated (university educated in science and psychology and well read) sixy-six year old mind and the difficulty and the stumbling block that sophistication creates if one is truly seeking the advanced mystic experience. Sir, the unfettered five year old mind is the perfect mind for exploring the mystic experience!

Absolutely! You really need to read what I actually wrote! It appears you are not reading my words, and instead are taking this course in this discussion for some unknown reason.

Windwalker sir, you gave Jester a "like", but do you actually understand what it was that Jester was saying? Jester is saying the samething that I and other experienced mystics are saying. It is not about being more "sophisticated" in understanding the "box", it is about dumping the "box".

How do you interpret your experiences after you've had them? Do you deny you interpret them? If so, how is that possible? Do you not understand the dualistic nature of words, and that any thoughts about your experience puts them into those linguistic frameworks? This is quite obvious.

 

[crossfire]

All else being equal, which is the wiser course to take towards any and all interpretations of mystical experiences: Certainty, or Uncertainty? Put differently, is the impulse to arrive at a definitive or certain interpretation of these experiences as wise as, say, being hesitant to arrive at certainty? Why or why not?

Note: In this context, "mystical experiences" can refer to any or all of the dozen odd experiences that are at least sometimes referred to as "mystical" -- from out of body experiences to "seeing god".

All things being equal--it's always wise to be on the lookout for Makyo.

 

[mystic64]

Show me one place I said philosophy is necessary for mystical experience. You cannot. It is NOT a necessary part of it. Period.

You do not understand what I am saying. A mystical experience is a mystical experience. Like dreaming, or waking, it is a state experience. None of those have anything to do with philosophy either. However, when you start to think about it after the fact, when you think about your dream state, for instance, the interpretive lenses you use to think about it in fact play a factor. It is unavoidable. It is simply reality.

Again, for to repeat, worldviews are not part of the mystical state, anymore than they are part of the dream state. But how we interpret the experience is. I am sorry if you do not want to accept that. And for the record everyone has a philosophy, and you too interpret your experiences the same as me, the same as everyone else alive. The only time you aren't interpreting is when you are in the state itself. The fact you have any thoughts at all about it, proves you are interpreting it. And that is what this thread is in fact about.

What I am saying is 100% on topic. If you don't agree, then report me to the mods for your belief what I am saying violates the rules. If we can't talk about how we understand or interpret mystical experiences, then you or anyone else posting anything at all in the mysticism DIR is a violation of your rules you are making up to fit your philosophy on the subject. I see this whole hostility on your part completely unnecessary and uncalled for. Please consider that.


It "seems". You're wrong. It is not "part of" the experience. It is however most certainly part of how you interpret it after the fact.


That doesn't mean anything regarding anything I'm saying. You clearly are unaware of this. Not to forget, I too know what mystical experience is. And I know what I'm talking about regarding interpretive filters, whereas you clearly are not. Which is why I've been politely trying to help you understand. Sorry this is so upsetting to you.


Absolutely! You really need to read what I actually wrote! It appears you are not reading my words, and instead are taking this course in this discussion for some unknown reason.


How do you interpret your experiences after you've had them? Do you deny you interpret them? If so, how is that possible? Do you not understand the dualistic nature of words, and that any thoughts about your experience puts them into those linguistic frameworks? This is quite obvious.

Calm down Windwalker sir, I am not attacking you ! So ok, there are two different realities: The mystic experience reality and the interpretation of the mystic experience reality. And you seem to be saying that they are totally unrelated, which I agree with you. "Not to forget, I know what the mystical experience is." I know you do sir, I have been reading your posts on this and other message boards for a lot of years now. I know that you are a mystic, that is not the point. The point is:

"What I am saying is 100% on topic. If you don't agree, then report me to the mods for your belief what I am saying violates the rules. If we can't talk about how we understand or interpret mystical experiences, then you or anyone else posting anything at all in the mysticism DIR is a violation of your rules you are making up to fit your philosophy on the subject. I see this whole hostility on your part completely unnecessary and uncalled for. Please consider that.

Some of the above is a bit childish for a master of this stuff (which you are a master beyond a shadow of a doubt) and beneath you as a master. But the part where you say that "there would not be anything to post" if we can't talk about understanding and interpreting the mystical experiences, is sort of true, but also at the same time, is not exactly true . I remember the days when you use to say, "There are not any words." And that left nothing to post . So that part would be considered true.

The part about:
"However, when you start to think about it after the fact, when you think about your dream state, for instance, the interpretive lenses you use to think about it in fact play a factor. It is unavoidable. It is simply reality." is where we have a disagreement. It is not only unavoidable, but also the goal, and the hard part, is to quit doing it. Which you already know as a master of the mystic experience. So, the use of, "unavoidable. It is simply reality." is misleading to those who come to the Mystic DIR as seriously interested individuals. And if the truth were known, the reason why Sunstone created this topic and the original OP question as a subject for discussion. Which is wiser, certainty or uncertainty? A certainty that an action is necessary when in fact the goal of a mystic is that that action ceases to exist and is no longer a functional part of the non mystic experience, is an example of why "certainty" can be seen as non productive to a mystic. Because, it is promoting and giving validity to an action that one is attempting to cause to cease to exist.

In closing (this post ,)I would like to say that now that I know that what you posted in "post 13" was posted just so that you could have something to post, I apologize to you for the emotional disturbance that have I created in your "wa" (walk one of). And this is with the understanding that the ignorance of your intentions on my part is no excuse.

 

[Windwalker]

Calm down Windwalker sir, I am not attacking you !

Forgive me, but the tone you have been using has been anything but seeking an understanding first. And after so many times of repeating myself, even a Buddha will finally have enough. We are all human, you know. I'm happy to see you are taking a bit of a step back now after I had to become a bit more insistent.

But the part where you say that "there would not be anything to post" if we can't talk about understanding and interpreting the mystical experiences, is sort of true, but also at the same time, is not exactly true . I remember the days when you use to say, "There are not any words." And that left nothing to post . So that part would be considered true.

Actually, you are misremember. I know who said that and it was that person who was trolling all of us in the mysticism DIR and ended up getting removed from participation here. He had this philosophy that there was only one true way for the mystic, and attacked everyone with false accusations who didn't agree with him or whom he did not or could not understand, branding us as "New Age", and the like very much like an apologist for the True Faith does. I myself found that particular mix of some insights into mystical experience along with a fundamentalist mentality or framework of interpretation hard to take, personally. To me, they mix like oil and water.

But that actually comes right back to the OP. Here is an example of having a valid mystical experience, but taking it and fitting it into a fundamentalist black and white framework. Contrast that with the way I take my own mystical experience. I interpret them in not black and white frameworks. I do not hold them with "certainty", but with "uncertainty" or apprehension. The reason I do has nothing to do with the mystical experience itself. We both had that. However the manner in which one mind holds the experience, and the manner in which another mind holds the same experience differers. Do you see that now, given an example like this?

The part about:
"However, when you start to think about it after the fact, when you think about your dream state, for instance, the interpretive lenses you use to think about it in fact play a factor. It is unavoidable. It is simply reality." is where we have a disagreement. It is not only unavoidable, but also the goal, and the hard part, is to quit doing it.

Yes! And that comes right to what I've been saying all along. The "quit doing it part" is work. It is part of development. It is changing how your mind thinks about these things. That is part of growth, and learning that is a more sophisticated development than black and white certainty! This is what I have been saying from my very first post. It appears you simply don't following the way I'm talking about it, but you most certainly demonstrate you agree with it from what you just said here.

I'm going to leave it at that, and hopefully you'll see what I am saying in fact agrees with what you just said about the "hard part". The "hard part" is growth. Those are "structures", as opposed to "states". Mystical experience is not "hard work", but growth and development is. There is a great saying to underscore this, "States are free, but stages are earned". Mysticism is free, how we grow to understand them is earned by "hard work", as you yourself acknowledge. I hope you see this now.

Peace

 

[mystic64]

Forgive me, but the tone you have been using has been anything but seeking an understanding first. And after so many times of repeating myself, even a Buddha will finally have enough. We are all human, you know. I'm happy to see you are taking a bit of a step back now after I had to become a bit more insistent.


Actually, you are misremember. I know who said that and it was that person who was trolling all of us in the mysticism DIR and ended up getting removed from participation here. He had this philosophy that there was only one true way for the mystic, and attacked everyone with false accusations who didn't agree with him or whom he did not or could not understand, branding us as "New Age", and the like very much like an apologist for the True Faith does. I myself found that particular mix of some insights into mystical experience along with a fundamentalist mentality or framework of interpretation hard to take, personally. To me, they mix like oil and water.

But that actually comes right back to the OP. Here is an example of having a valid mystical experience, but taking it and fitting it into a fundamentalist black and white framework. Contrast that with the way I take my own mystical experience. I interpret them in not black and white frameworks. I do not hold them with "certainty", but with "uncertainty" or apprehension. The reason I do has nothing to do with the mystical experience itself. We both had that. However the manner in which one mind holds the experience, and the manner in which another mind holds the same experience differers. Do you see that now, given an example like this?


Yes! And that comes right to what I've been saying all along. The "quit doing it part" is work. It is part of development. It is changing how your mind thinks about these things. That is part of growth, and learning that is a more sophisticated development than black and white certainty! This is what I have been saying from my very first post. It appears you simply don't following the way I'm talking about it, but you most certainly demonstrate you agree with it from what you just said here.

I'm going to leave it at that, and hopefully you'll see what I am saying in fact agrees with what you just said about the "hard part". The "hard part" is growth. Those are "structures", as opposed to "states". Mystical experience is not "hard work", but growth and development is. There is a great saying to underscore this, "States are free, but stages are earned". Mysticism is free, how we grow to understand them is earned by "hard work", as you yourself acknowledge. I hope you see this now.

Peace

Windwalker you have an interesting approach to attempting to put me on the defensive . And Sunstone is going to shut us down if I am not real careful here . Quote Windwalker: "We are all human, you know." What you have presented here sir, is another example of a "Certainty" that prevents one from achieving the advanced mystic experiences. Windwalker sir, I am not human . Advanced mystics are not human.

 

[Windwalker]

Windwalker you have an interesting approach to attempting to put me on the defensive .

We put ourselves on the defensive, not other people.

Quote Windwalker: "We are all human, you know." What you have presented here sir, is another example of a "Certainty" that prevents one from achieving the advanced mystic experiences

I would say saying I'm human can be said with 999.99999% certainty. It's a good thing we do have some certainties in life, otherwise me lifting my leg on a fire hydrant might get me into some trouble with my human neighbors!

But regarding mystical states, yes, of course we are more than just humans, but make no mistake we are 100% human. We are not 50% human, or some other figure. Again, nothing I am talking about has anything to do with that. I'm not sure why you continue to imagine it does? This all seems very, very odd to me you continue to do so.

*One thing that may help you is to think of this relationship of the human and the eternal in the Christian sense of the Incarnation. Jesus for instance is considered 100% God, and 100% human. That's how I see things, as a mystic. I see us as Incarnational. We are 100% human, and 100% God. Not everyone realizes that. Some see themselves as "only" human. And now it seems some seem to think we aren't human at all?

That all seems very odd to me, like it's the flip side of the radical dualism coin. Instead of saying we are not God because we are human, are you saying that because we are God we are not human? Isn't that just the same thing reversed? Isn't that just the flip-side of the same coin?

Windwalker sir, I am not human . Advanced mystics are not human.

I'm pretty sure I haven't been conversing with a lizard or a cat or some other non-human. Obviously you must consider yourself human to be participating on this site full of humans, right? If not, please explain to help me understand how you see yourself as not a human being. Explain how being an "advanced" mystic means you don't consider yourself human? I don't think I've ever heard any human mystic say we cease being human. I like what Hafiz said that, "To say I am God is the humblest thing a person can say". I agree. Humility is the most 'advanced' realization of our humanity.

To me, the Realization of the mystic is to in fact fully realize what being human actually means! The ego is set aside and we simply breathe God in ourselves. To me, prior to that, we truly don't know what being human is being wrapped up in our egos. Being Realized means being fully alive! We awaken as God Incarnate, God in human form. We don't cease to be human, we realize it in its Awakening. It's nonduality. Our full humanity is realized in our divinity.

 

[mystic64]

We put ourselves on the defensive, not other people.


I would say saying I'm human can be said with 999.99999% certainty. It's a good thing we do have some certainties in life, otherwise me lifting my leg on a fire hydrant might get me into some trouble with my human neighbors!

But regarding mystical states, yes, of course we are more than just humans, but make no mistake we are 100% human. We are not 50% human, or some other figure. Again, nothing I am talking about has anything to do with that. I'm not sure why you continue to imagine it does? This all seems very, very odd to me you continue to do so.

*One thing that may help you is to think of this relationship of the human and the eternal in the Christian sense of the Incarnation. Jesus for instance is considered 100% God, and 100% human. That's how I see things, as a mystic. I see us as Incarnational. We are 100% human, and 100% God. Not everyone realizes that. Some see themselves as "only" human. And now it seems some seem to think we aren't human at all?

That all seems very odd to me, like it's the flip side of the radical dualism coin. Instead of saying we are not God because we are human, are you saying that because we are God we are not human? Isn't that just the same thing reversed? Isn't that just the flip-side of the same coin?


I'm pretty sure I haven't been conversing with a lizard or a cat or some other non-human. Obviously you must consider yourself human to be participating on this site full of humans, right? If not, please explain to help me understand how you see yourself as not a human being. Explain how being an "advanced" mystic means you don't consider yourself human? I don't think I've ever heard any human mystic say we cease being human. I like what Hafiz said that, "To say I am God is the humblest thing a person can say". I agree. Humility is the most 'advanced' realization of our humanity.

To me, the Realization of the mystic is to in fact fully realize what being human actually means! The ego is set aside and we simply breathe God in ourselves. To me, prior to that, we truly don't know what being human is being wrapped up in our egos. Being Realized means being fully alive! We awaken as God Incarnate, God in human form. We don't cease to be human, we realize it in its Awakening. It's nonduality. Our full humanity is realized in our divinity.

http://www.religiousforums.com/threads/how-has-the-mystic-experience-changed-you.185179/

Sir, I have moved our conversation to the above topic. Sunstone has been very patience with us which I personally appreciate, but no matter how one looks at it , things are headed in a direction that is way off the OP of this topic. Sir, I have been wanting to kick things around with you for a lot of years now but the opportunity has never really come up for us to do this and the topic that I have started is my topic so things (you, I , and others) can go where ever they go (topic drift) because I do not care . As far as I am concerned it is an opportunity for us all to get some posting credits and have some intellectual mystical fun in the relm of words . And maybe to help Sunstone create some activity in the Mystic DIR.

 

[Orbit]

All else being equal, which is the wiser course to take towards any and all interpretations of mystical experiences: Certainty, or Uncertainty? Put differently, is the impulse to arrive at a definitive or certain interpretation of these experiences as wise as, say, being hesitant to arrive at certainty? Why or why not?

Note: In this context, "mystical experiences" can refer to any or all of the dozen odd experiences that are at least sometimes referred to as "mystical" -- from out of body experiences to "seeing god".

Certain or uncertain of what? That they exist? If you experienced it, it was real to you, and it's your job to make sense of what that means for you. That's all. No, people should not use mystic experiences as a basis to impose their views on others.