This all makes sense to me, but I don't see the specific need for seven, instead of five or nine or something like that. And since you don't lay out the distinction or boundary between each, it appears sort of random to me. For instance, I can somewhat see the need for the higher and lower mental body, but this could really be divided into numerous distinctions, because the boundary between the two seems quite vague, and could afford the imposition of more boundaries. Then the "three more subtle bodies" are even less well defined. Are all these parts meant to be "bodies", or is that just figurative? Referring to "bodies" seems to be an attempt to objectify the subjective.

Yes these are all valid concerns. What I am describing is a structured mystical teaching developed within Hinduism.Which just so happens to be the structure which I find most beneficial for my own use. Likewise Wayfarer references Bhuddist sources, something which I am not so familiar with, but which I expect works for him. There are other structures or systems, a seeker will try them out and find the one which speaks to them.

As I said a few posts back is that what I am presenting is this teaching as a means of talking about mysticism. The practice itself is more ineffable and less structured and would be virtually impossible to convey in this kind of linear intellectual communication. There are ways of conveying less linear kinds of understanding where relations can be conveyed in a poetical, as proverbs, or axiomatic structure. For example I can converse in a triadic form in which everypoint can be seen through a kind of trinity of understanding. Also there is a kind of numerology which I find useful. For example if we go back to the seven levels I describe. It can be seen as two trinity's, a higher and a lower, with a pivotal layer, or point between them. This pivotal point can be considered as a kind of overlap between the two trinity 's, such that it can relate to either, act as a bridge. For example an average human can be seen as having 4 levels with the pivotal one associated with the lower trinity with the focus of their life being in the lower trinity. Whereas a more spiritual person could be seen to have their life focus in the higher trinity with the pivotal level associated with this trinity. So the normal person has a division of 4 and 3 (4 below the pivotal and 3 above) and a more spiritual person a division of 3 and 4 (3 below and 4 above) of the aforementioned 7 layers. Also at some stage the spiritual person would shed the bottom layer (the physical) and attain and new layer at the top (the monadic). Thus becoming 2 and 5.

I hear what you say about the grey area, but as I say, I am describing a structured mystical teaching. The decisions and separations as described in this structure do relate to aspects of the real nature of people. The use of black and white and grey are to convey understanding of aspects of people, being and self which cannot be easily distinguished within oneself without some kind of structure. But they must not be confused with the personal understanding, or nature of the individual mystic, which as I say is ineffable and not easily communicated, if at all.

So that is how I see this supposed distinction between conscious and subconscious, as a grey area. The mind is always active, both conscious and subconscious, and the activities are constantly going back and forth, crossing through the grey area. So to make a divide between the conscious and the subconscious is to make such an artificial separation, an analysis not based in reality, which one might later try to bridge in an intellectual practise of synthesis. But that bridge would not be representative of the natural, existing bridge.

So are you reducing the sentient thinking person to a agglomeration of numerous subconscious levels, with the illusion of choice? And if so, what about the ego, where does that fit in?

Part of the implicit condition of modernity is the sense of oneself as an intelligent, separate subject in a domain of objects (and other subjects), whereas in the pre-modern world, the world was experienced as, or realised as, an intrinsically alive presence with which one had a relationship beyond the merely adaptive. Having fallen out of that, it is impossible to recall or imagine what has been lost or forgotten.

Nicely put, I keep coming up against this like a brick wall when trying raise this issue.

It is probably going to be quite complicated to interpret different parts of the self into a more philosophical interpretation. I can categorise these more formally later, but to refer to them briefly if you imagine a human as layered like an onion (not literally) with the more refined layers towards the middle. So the physical body is the outer layer, the emotional body next, with the mental body next which is divided into two ( lower and higher) inside that. Then three more subtle bodies inside that, the soul (for want of a better word), a spiritual body, culminating in the Atman as I said earlier as number seven. Each layer is separated in a unique way from the others due to the nature of the evolution we have become expressed in and mystical practice in one way or another breaks down or bridges these seperations.

Going back to the mind, I have been referring to the thinking mind, by which I mean the sentient thinking being, I think, therefore I am. As distinct to the subconscious levels of the mind, or intuitive levels. These other levels are largely unconscious, or at least not deliberated on and directed by the thinking mind (ego/personality).

You seem to describe an experience of observation, "baring witness", and an experience of growth, "the fully awakened mind emerges from the bud", without anything to reconcile the difference between these two, or unite the two. One is to be passive, the other to be active.[/quote]

It is the being who bares witness, the thinking mind is only a faculty of the being, exercised when reasoning is carried out. It is the being which grows and its expression, the body adjusts accordingly inline with the growth.

If I take the active perspective, you say that what you are doing is culturing a relationship between two parts of yourself. Since you actually say between yourself and another part of yourself, I would say that the other part is the passive intuitive part, and yourself, being active in growing the relation, is the active part.

It is not that simple, the inactive part is and never was inactive in my description. But that it was merely inactive in respect of the mystical process itself, which is an endeavour of the active part, or self. But really to try and analyse such things in this way is overly reductive and I can see leading to confusion. I am happy to try, but I find myself trying to fit a square peg into a round hole.

What I was hoping you would recognize is how much intuition enters into the active part, by influencing decision making. So I don't believe we can separate the passive "baring witness" from the activity of growing the mind in such a straight forward way.

By baring witness, I mean observing an experience as a direct result of having it, while not engaging the mind in its interpretation, or developing narratives. At that time of the experience. My cat bears witness of my drawing of a Jabberwoky, she does not use her mind to interpret what she sees. But she has most certainly experienced a drawing of a jabberwoky. Likewise I might have experienced my being outside conventional, or normal time and not used my mind to interpret it, at the time. This does not preclude me from thinking about it later, but I focus on the act of witness of a real event.

And, since the active and passive seem to be thoroughly blended throughout all the aspect of living beings, while you are describing them as separate, I think that what you are really doing is culturing a separation between these two rather than a relation between them. If you are not dividing the other part of yourself from yourself, for the purpose of analysis, or some other philosophical goal, then what is the purpose of this?

I view myself as having seven parts, like layers on an onion, so I am seven beings in a sense, cooperating as a unity, but with some barriers of some kind between them.

As for intuition and communion, I am working on an assumption that my personality and parts of my mind are separated from my higher being (soul) due to evolutionary conditions and that the intuition and practice of communion are employed in bridging this divide. As I said, I am only concerned with this internal bridging in my practice, not anything else in my life. I do contemplate these other things etc, but I separate the activities.

It would seem to be in the spirit of mysticism to look at it as simply, and perhaps humbly, as possible. So for example, instead of seeing mysticism as a ladder one climbs to some higher position, it might be seen as an act of routine maintenance of one of the body's mechanical processes.

I agree with this, humility and the realisation that you are in a sense already where you wish to be, if you could but see it. There is also the path of the mystic, which some may choose to tread, if one wishes to help in the enterprise of human development.

The left loves locking society down it seems.

Your going to get what you want now. Cummings and Johnson have trashed the lockdown now anyway. Although not through careful strategy, but rather a Laurel and Hardy sketch.

Cummings (Laurel) inadvertently spills a can of yellow paint, that was balanced on the top of a door, over Hardy's ( Johnson's) head and then Hardy pulls Laurels trouser front and pours a jug of piranha fish down them. And they both stand there looking like a shambles with a satisfied look on their faces.

Genius!

Isn’t Johnson a conservative?

I think in political terms it’s less left and right as it is authoritarian vs libertarian.

Chester just blames everything on the left, you know the commies. It's like when someone blames everything on the Democrats.

Don't we have to first discuss mysticism before we can discuss the discussion. Or, are your ground rules personal conditions for such a discussion?

I'm not trying to impose something here, but rather refine the discussion to be about what actually concerns a mystic who has progressed past the initial stage of emerging from the conditioned personality. This is because prior to having reached this point the mystic can be accused of, or depicted as an ordinary person with some egotistical axe to grind, a fantasist, someone dogged by insecurities, the mentally ill, etc etc. You can be discussing some mystic process and before you know it your interlocutor draws the discussion down one of these paths, disrailing the discussion, or making it muddled to the point of being irretrievable.

By working on the assumption that the subject, the mystic is past all that stuff, one can actually discuss something of value to the mystic, or the person who has a serious interest.

I think intuition is very important in all aspects of decision making, but one's intuitive skills vary depending on the aspect of the judgement. So in relation to the two aspects I mentioned, distinguishing possible from impossible, and distinguishing better from worse, a person would need to develop one's intuition in both of these aspects.

Yes, I see what you mean, however personally this is all either far in the past, or an irrelevance. Because in intuition, I don't make any judgement unless it is absolutely necessary, which very rarely happens. Rather, I witness the experience and any light shone on it intuitively. So I am baring witness, not determining an intellectual assessment of the experience. Also when it comes to what is possible and impossible, likewise, the question doesn't come up because I don't want in the course of my practice to do anything, other than the simple natural, or normal activities that a rounded person would do. Or to view it from another angle, I am not doing anything other than growing a communion between myself and another part of myself. So the question of the possible never comes up. As regarding the question of whether enlightenment, or nirvana or something like that is possible, again it doesn't come up, because I am of the opinion that the development of my being like that of a plant (lotus for example) determines what is going to happen. A lotus only flowers when the plant has grown to the point of developing a bud ready to open through entirely natural processes. Again, the mind in the human is not what brings the flower to bud, the fully awakened mind emerges from the bud.

Now here's a question you might be able to help me with. From the perspective of a mystic, what is intuition, and where does it come from? Is it a property of the soul itself?

I see it as a mental faculty which evolved prior to the development of the thinking mind of the modern human. Like an instinct, an unconscious means of determining the right course of action. Something that in animals increases the chances of survival significantly. Crucially, it is independent of the thinking, or rational mind.

I see where you're going, but I don't quite agree. I think that the stages, or rules, points, or whatever you want to call your numbered items, cannot be accepted or agreed to beforehand as a precondition, because the precise nature of these stages is determined by the process, and what is revealed to the mystic through the process.

We are not talking about the practice, or the mystical experience, but how to talk about it, or at least I am. So the points are preconditions for a discussion of mysticism. Which was my point on joining the thread and also was the inspiration for the thread.

So if we were to imagine a mystic, in our minds eye, who had passed through the 10 stages I have outlined and what would concern this person, what they would do next, what sort of experiences they would have. Then we would be discussing what is involved in mysticism, rather than continually going back to everyday human psychology, and/or getting bogged down in discussions about the first 6 points and not actually reach a point of discussing mysticism at all.

This notional mystic would be at the level of your average guru, saint, or prophet.

we need to include something concerning learning the capacity to adapt to the circumstances. This is what reveals one's frailty

Yes, perhaps this would be between 3 and 4, with a corollary somewhere between 5 and 7, where it is acted upon and progress made.

The next step for the mystic, I think, the third stage would be to determine the difference between better and worse,

Yes,

Therefore I would move this whole section (7-10) further up the ladder, making it a fourth section, and insert a new third section which involves distinguishing bad from good.

Yes, perhaps you can make a suggestion for this section.

I had not focussed in on these capacities, seeing them more as associated with the development of intuition and not so much a stage, but a capability developed throughout the process. But now I see it's relevance here.

The divinity, as some unknowable, untouchable, ineffable Being cannot support such a devotion, and the will power required at this stage of development. So we need some ideas of natural good and purpose to support this will power. Not only does the person need to develop a strong sense of what is possible, but also an equally strong sense of what is good. Believing in what is good, and adhering to it is what defines devotion. We touched on grounding the hierarchy of good in the divinity earlier in the thread.

I see what you are saying here, personally I posit an intermediary between the self and the divinity here, namely the soul, or an aspect of the self/being, which is very real, but which is not tarnished by incarnation in the way that the personality is, rather a higher self so to speak. This soul/higher self is what one is actually forging a connection with, rather than the divinity, the divinity being near absolute. So via the development of intuition the mystic develops a communion with their higherself, which bestows a grace upon the mystic. Or in other words, the purposes, desires, motivations of the mystic become aligned, reoriented in alignment with those of that higher self*.As this link becomes developed, the sense, of right from wrong, better from worse etc, improves. Until in a later stage becomes a revelation in action of good, grace and wisdom.

*In Hinduism this is described as the development of the sushumna between the 5th and 6th chakra.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nadi_(yoga)

But Chester is using his common sense, this is the new government policy. The common sense thing to do like what Dominic Cummings did is to bend the rules to suit your own situation. All those people who did what they were told and stayed at home are morons. Cummings is now telling them by example to break the rules.

I went to Southend today, I was surrounded by morons, using their common sense, it was scary.

I have had numerous mystical experiences, but we are trying to find a way of talking about mysticism with philosophers in this thread. I too am a little frustrated at how little ground has been covered, but it does seem to be making progress, so I will continue until an impasse is reached.

Also with mysticism there is that thing you get with the enlightened, if someone says they are enlightened everyone assumes they aren't, or they wouldn't have said that. It's the same with mysticism. I have spent 40 years practicing something, I have concluded that it is mysticism, but it might not be, it might be spirituality, insecurities not dealt with, as some people have said. Who knows. But if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck... it's probably a duck.

Please have a little patience, I think we might be getting somewhere soon.

P.s. Oh and I too didn't think that the divine is required for many years, but know it's more that is is largely irrelevant, rather than not required. But it becomes problematic to discuss on a forum like this if it is not referenced, initially at least.

Interesting, I don't have time today to reply, I will tomorrow.

I agree with all of what you say here. I would tweak this though.

So there's only one ground rule then, and this is respect for the divinity, what you called subduing the ego. That's what I described as a need, which manifests as the desire for spiritual development.

What I was referring to when I said ground rules is as set of stages, or accepted conditions, undergone, or accepted by the aspirant. Prior to any real moving forward on the path. So if I put them as points.
1:A natural spiritual need. The human propensity to look to a divine agency.

2:A personal desire to get involved in some real way. The idea of some kind of spiritual service, or development.

3:A calling, this can take many forms, either a revelation of divinity, or a concerted choice, or determination in the aspirant.

I would make a seperation here between the preconditions above and the development of practice below. What the aspirant does next after satisfying the preconditions.

4: The action of seeking out some guidance, some direction, or study and to become involved in this study.

5: A recognition of one's frailty and the preparedness to address it as part of the study and practice.(there are subdivisions to this point which could be added later), but to simplify, a desire to tackle trauma and conditioning in the self, so as to become a reborn person free of these impediments.

6: A preparedness to leave the social group and act independently, this would vary greatly depending on the circumstances. In the modern world, it might just be a preparedness to become independent of the general atheism, or creationism in the society, for example.

I would make a seperation here between the first steps above and what is encountered along the path below.

7: the test of devotion, or a tenacity to proceed even when in doubt of the truth of the divinity.

8: the subjugation of the ego, the taming of the ego, it's control, its tying to the post of the will.

9: the offering up of personal autonomy.

10: the agreement not to deviate from the chosen course, not to use any gained freedoms for ill, evil, of personal gain in the world. This would be done on the acceptance that if the agreement were to be broken it would seriously jeopardise, or finish any prospect of proceeding on the path.

The next points would be more advanced stages, so I will leave it at that for now.

Well if I had to sing from the Johnson government hymn sheet, I expect I would be impatient and bored.

That's why I disagree with your claim that the mystic needs to follow ground rules. Rules, and particular practises are the elements of specific religions, but all religions have aspects of mysticism. So the various rues of practise are unique to the various religions, while mysticism pervades all religions as an aspect of spirituality. Therefore we ought not say that any particular rules are necessary for mysticism.

The ground rules (this is my phrase and may not describe what I am referring to very well), could be viewed as a set of preconditions before spiritual development may occur. Indeed you do agree with the only ground rule I provided in your post, which I have bolded.

Would you agree that a being is a composition of body and mind, so the "growth" referred to here is a growth of both body and mind? Or maybe it's an improvement of the relationship between these two.

Both, this covers a large area of study, so would require a lot of teasing out.

I can see how it would be useful to adhere to a specific practise, if one was trying to "break free" from another practise. This would be like taking up a new practise in order to break free from an old habit, but if the person is not currently involved in any type of spiritual practise, then on might be already free to dabble in many different religious practises while maintaining a strong spiritual inclination.

Yes and this is the course I followed, but eventually I would always go back to the same source because it worked well for me, became a suitable template, structure to work with.

The point is that you are describing one such path, which is not the only path. And you talk about this path as if it is the genuine path.

This is your interpretation, I am talking of what I know, as each path is unique, how could I talk about another.

However, I believe that the most important aspect of mysticism is that there is not one particular path or process which one must follow. Each individual is different, and may forge the link between self and divinity in one's own way.

Yes, however I am trying to focus on universal traits within mysticism, traits, or processes entailed in all the routes due to the nature of the human body and humanity. There are certain processes which the mystic will inevitably go through involving body and mind as they grow. These are the ground rules I refer to, without them happening the mystic remains an observer rather than an actor.

I disagree with this. God must act, or else the presence of God, to the mystic, is simply made up, imaginary. In order that the God apprehended by the mystic is the real living God, this God must act, and it is through this activity that the mystic know the true actual God has been encountered.

Again, this is complicated a subtle relationship which requires a lot of teasing out. I a man simply saying that the divinity with which one is forging a link is already at the required stage of development, whereas the mystic is not and has to change herself to improve the connection, the divinity does not change to accommodate the mystic. Or if it does necessitate this, the divinity which changes is not actually changing, but appears to be to the mystic.

It was ignored because you pulled this from a premise which I disagree with. So I argued the premise, and not what was derived from it.

But you do agree with it, in this post (bolded).

I really don't see what ego has to do with this. I think you throw this in as a ruse. I believe that the mystic must offer up freely one's autonomy as a condition before even entering into mysticism. That's why I persisted so long in questioning the reasons why one might enter into a mystic course. So what you call subduing the ego is a necessary condition prior to becoming any sort of mystic at all. One might enter into a course of religious training for any of a variety of reasons, but this does not make the person a mystic. What makes the person a mystic is the reasons for entering into religious studies.

well I would say that where the line is between who is a mystic and who isnt is debatable and each commentator will draw their own view.

Perhaps it is this condition which separates the mystic from someone who is simply engaged in religious activities.

As a rule of thumb perhaps, although I think there are many people who engage in religious activities who are practicing mysticism, but who don't see it in that way, they might only see themselves as living a humble and caring life. I would say that are more appropriate definition is one who wishes to connect in some way with nature, or divinity, to develop an interactive relationship, so I a sense every human is a mystic as you said in the beginning.

In mathematics it's easy to find examples of a passage of time with no change, as well as a change at an instant. Is that possible in the physical world? :chin:

I sometimes think of time along with space (extension) present in an ooze, generating its own reality as it extrudes.

Will you have a quarantine procedures for rest of our lives? Will Iceland and New Zealand basically abolish tourism? I don't think so.

They may require a mandatory test to see if you have any virus. This might even involve a quarantine period while the test is being processed.

OK, if I understand, you are saying that the physical body is an expression of the underlying being. So if the physical body is more complex, so is the being which expresses it. We call that learning about the cause through the effect.

Yes.

Is this a change in the underlying being, mentioned above. Can a being itself change in this way, or can you explain why you call this a metamorphosis rather than an understanding, or a revelation? Being a relation between the self and the divinity, I would call anything which result form this relation a revelation rather than a metamorphosis.

It is distinct from a revelation in that it is a growth, through stages. Also, by describing it I am referring to bodily processes rather than intellectual, or things being revealed to the mind. I agree in that there is some overlap between this growth and revelation, where the growth involves the mind.

This is where we start to go our separate ways. I don't see why the mystic needs to take up an organized, structured practise. If the focus is on a relationship between the self and the divinity, and one already has an inclination in this direction as described by #1, what is the purpose of such human rites? These rites are just a ceremony, creating the illusion of importance, when what is really important is the relationship between the self and the divinity. And the path to the divinity is through the inner self not through some pompous ceremony.

There is a stage of trying to break out of, or free of one's conditioning and establishing an outpost, or free place, free of conditioning, in the self. Where one can retreat from the world, one's conditioning. This has to be more than simply an intellectual exercise, it requires a psychological change, in which the person fashions something new in them selves and grows into it sufficiently that it can become an alternative dwelling place in the self. I used to call this questing, the aspirant is trying to break free and some kind of schooling within a tradition is useful, because at this stage the aspirant, as a novice does not really know what they are doing.

I accept that we may go our separate ways here as you don't recognise what I am talking about. Your depiction of these processes is incorrect in saying pompous ceremony etc. And yes the path is through the inner self. I am talking of the processes involved in forging that link from the self to the divinity.

The relationship is between the individual and God, and any rules involved are produced by this relationship

Precisely, now perhaps we can stop going round the houses.

The idea is to get the message directly from God, not through the medium of some human sacrament.

It is more complicated than that because, the God, or divinity is not acting in this endeavour, it is the mystic. So how does the mystic know what to do? Praying on its own won't cut the mustard. When I say ground rules, it is a clumsy phraseology, because there is not much terminology around for this and what there is tends to fall within different religious traditions. What I am referring to in reality is natural processes in the human psyche and body which occur as this process develops. This is what I mean by initiation. A point where a threashold is reached and broken through, after which the narrative used before the breakthrough is insufficient and a new one is developed. This might be done through revelation and/or contemplation, or simply an adjustment in their daily lives, if they dont understand what happened. It is unique to the individual.

Is this the point where you can drop the sanctimonious nonsense of rule following? To me, such rule following is to participate in a religion, but the mystic doesn't necessarily adhere to any particular religion

Are you bored, or don't you like my tone? Yes I agree about not adhering to a religion, the mystic operates alone, in terms of their own development.

Let me point out one of these rules (for use of a better word), I have already pointed this out, but it was ignored. The mystic reaches a threashold where to continue without offering up freely their autonomy, they risk inflating the ego and becoming an arbiter in their own performance. The ego must be subdued and used as a tool, or mechanism, not given control of the self. If it is the mystic will not progress past this point and will diverge into a fantasy of their own creation.

So as to avoid inflating the ego, humility and offering up of autonomy is exercised. Once this point, or threashold is passed the ego falls into line, does not become inflated and the mystic can move forward.

Yes, those dastardly Eastern Europeans stealing our jobs and benefits at the same time.

Nice U turn though, Johnson had no choice, it wasn't a change of heart. When he announced it he used exactly the same language as he used yesterday when he said that the levy was vital to maintain the funding for the NHS.

About the care home debacle, Therese Coffey blamed the scientists the other day, then she was slapped down from Downing St the next day. The classic Trumpian sleight of hand. Which ever way the dice falls on that one they can claim they made the right call.

It's like shouting heads and tails when the coin is tossed so you called the right side when it lands.

Even Yesterday in parliament it's remarkable how people can still appear to take anything the government says seriously. It's engrained I think.

Clarity and leadership.

Common sense.

Yes, so the point is why does one choose this action. What is the purpose?

The purpose or reason for why a mystic chooses to follow the mystical path are unique to the individual. Generally they have a calling of some kind. Although I agree some may follow this path out of a desire to understand things.

You are doing the same thing now, which you accused me of earlier. You are basing your hierarchy on material characteristics. I presented you with a hierarchy based in something immaterial, purpose, and you come back with a hierarchy based on observed complexities of material organisms.

I am illustrating that different beings have different expressions when they incarnate in physical material. These expressions are like a surface layer upon a subtle being, their complexity is dictated by the nature of the being. So by highlighting the differences in expression I am illustrating the difference, or from a perspective, the complexity of the being. I am talking about beings again, as I repeat physical material is a tool, of expression of the beings.

The rest of your post is in reference to the person who falls into my first and to degree the second category of, stage of the development of, a mystic*. The other categories are concerned with mystical practice which is an internal practice within the individual and comes after the point where the mystic has thought rationally about their philosophy and reached a personal philosophical grounding which works for them. The practice itself is not any more philosophy it is a practice of internal metamorphosis, where the only two points of focus are the self and the divinity (I leave this undefined as it is unique to the individual).

I have been talking about this practice and keep repeating this, but you just want to go around the houses and talk about purpose, need, desire etc in ordinary life. The mystic chooses to do something else, an endeavour of rebuilding themselves. It operates under different processes because the mystic develops along a path of initiation.


*1: I agree an interest in the mysterious is a good start, a desire to understand reality somewhat. Or what is often the case, the individual has a calling of some sort through some kind of revelation. Giving them a motivation, or desire to delve into these matters.

2: When it comes to mystical practice, the individual would have read, or been taught about mysticism in religious practice. So would be motivated to get involved in some kind of practice.

3: When it comes to what is necessary to carry out this practice, the individual will follow a path of discovery perhaps of what is entailed. This is where some ground rules come into play as I mentioned in the beginning.

4: Then there are more advanced levels of practice and involvement, which can be evidenced in the lives of the saints, or bodhisattvas and deities. This might entail yogic practices, or practices with the goal of reaching enlightenment, or nirvana, or union with God, for example.

Stay alert! If anyone tries to get more than 2m away from you, chase them to a crowded beach!

It's ok, they were following their common sense. The new policy of the government.

So if they die, it's their fault because they didn't use their common sense.

This was Southend beach in the UK today, it barely made the news today and now that the government has absolved responsibility the lockdown is crumbling.

Not only are you hypocritical, you're topsy turvy.
"Modern nationalism is intensely democratic"
That's actually the opposite of the reality. You really have fallen for the populism hook line and sinker.

Do you think that hoodwinking the population to vote for a hidden agenda against their interests is democratic? I suppose Trumpism is incredibly democratic too!

I'll make a prediction for you...the jocks will not vote to leave the UK in my lifetime...they are all talk and bluster. I hope they do leave but I'm afraid that they are too dependent on us (they benefit from the UK tax system at the expense of the English, we're by far their biggest export market and the rest of the UK supplies 90% of Scottish tourism)...most of them also know how useless the SNP is. It's a shame, but there you go.

Here's your hypocrisy again. You assume the Scott's won't fall in behind nationalism, while people like you and most Brexiters did just that and you won't reconsider even while your country is going down the plug hole. They will do the same especially when a Johnson keeps sticking it up to them.

How likely is that in the meantime? I haven't been paying much attention to that for awhile now.

Yes it has gone quiet, I expect the SNP are giving all their time to the Covid crisis and biding their time regarding Brexit. In the knowledge that Johnson and Co are so incompetent that it will be a bad Brexit, which will fuel calls for Scottish independence. Johnson almost daily insults the Scotts and discriminates against them.

To me it looks more likely by the day.

The issue is whether we ought to try and understand as best as we can. If yes, the vicar stays. If no, the vicar wanders off and does any random thing.

Rather tenuous and not a requirement. The mystic is free to work out, learn, take an interest in an understanding of anything they like. This understanding though, does not constitute the route to mystical practice, although It may help the individual adjust to it.

It is too much to ask. If the person has no desire to do this, there is no point in asking one to do it.

The mystic has already freely chosen this course of action.

This is where a revelation could play a roll.

Yes, this is commonly called a calling.

The cell, on the other hand is involved in very important actions, and because you do not fully apprehend these acts with your conscious mind, you dismiss them as insignificant in relation to your conscious acts.

You have misunderstood what I am saying and portrayed me in this light.

Going back to the hierarchy of being, there is a progression in being from a small expression to a larger expression. This involves an evolution of complexity in what is apprehended by the individual being in that hierarchy. So the cell, if it is apprehending anything, it is something to do with its interaction with the surrounding cells, the enzymes etc in circulation and its own processes of life. Whereas the person running for the train will have whole libraries of information on the shelves at home, interact with complex situations with numerous organisms and their constructions, and has developed things like personality and ego for example to process all this apprehension. Likewise further up the hierarchy of being the being of the biosphere, Gaia, there is likely to be a larger step up in complexity of apprehension, the likes of which we really couldn't imagine. As the the importance of actions of beings, then we would need to refer to the being at the top of the hierarchy whose purposes we are acting out, somehow Idoubt we would understand if she told us.

I still can't see the relevance of your example. You are mixing up intentional acts with unintentional acts (accidents) If it were revealed to you, that for some reason you needed to cut your finger off, to make some sort of statement or something, and you felt very strongly about this, then you would proceed with this act.

My example was to show how performing acts which go against our animal instincts, human frailty, is difficult, causes personal trauma and risks the task not being carried out. Why go through all that when if it is carried out on a need to know basis, none of that comes into play. Also you seem to think that we can determine if an act in our life is of importance, necessary. We don't know if my injury was as necessary, or not, as was the crucifixion of Jesus.
A mystic can't become the arbiter of what is of importance in regards to the purposes of being, this is an elementary realisation.

We really do not understand purpose to a very significant degree at all, but the mystic has developed some special incite, allowing a clearer capacity for good ideas

Yes, but as I say the insights which the mystic develops are a side issue, because the practice is concerned with procedure. Although there is a psychological aspect to this and a healthy philosophical mind is advantageous for that.

I've been trying to get at these general terms, but you don't agree. All the features of western mysticism which I bring up, you want to exclude from mysticism in general, because you seem to think that only features of eastern mysticism qualify as genuine features of mysticism. Perhaps we can start with a most general definition. I propose, interest in the mysterious, what is beyond human understanding. Feel free to change or adapt that to your liking.

Do you remember that I suggested this at the start and you said it would be better to go round the houses first. I was saying what it means to me, what it means and entails will be different for each individual, so it is probably a case of agreeing on some common principles and referring to relevant schools, or teachings to cross reference.

I agree an interest in the mysterious is a good start, a desire to understand reality somewhat. Or what is often the case, the individual has a calling of some sort through some kind of revelation. Giving them a motivation, or desire to delve into these matters.

When it comes to mystical practice, the individual would have read, or been taught about mysticism in religious practice. So would be motivated to get involved in some kind of practice.

When it comes to what is necessary to carry out this practice, the individual will follow a path of discovery perhaps of what is entailed. This is where some ground rules come into play as I mentioned in the beginning.

Then there are more advanced levels of practice and involvement, which can be evidenced in the lives of the saints, or bodhisattvas and deities. This might entail yogic practices, or practices with the goal of reaching enlightenment, or nirvana, or union with God, for example.

Times like this happened after the referendum. And all those immigrants who came here before the end of Jan 2020 from Europe will be able to stay and have free movement and privelidges throughout Europe. They will have the best of both worlds. It's only the British who will be denied freedom of movement throughout Europe.

Although it will prevent EU nationals who are not already here, moving here, if they earn less than £25,600, they still retain their freedom of movement around Europe. And now there are going to be exceptions for nurses, care home workers farm labourers, the list gets longer and longer. Alongside more people coming in from the rest of the world, there will probably be about the same number coming in anyway and we will be stuck here with them.

Well when Scotland leaves, at least I won't be stuck, I will be rejoining the EU.

Yesterday Priti Patel said in reference to the immigration bill,
"It will end free movement and open up global Britain".

Today Mat Hancock said the second time,
"We put a protective ring around care homes".

Priti Patel in one swoop ended our privelidge of free movement around Europe and made anyone who earns less than £25,600 per annum a second class citizen. Interestingly Polish builders who are allowed to stay here are more privelidged than us, they will get a British passport and retain full privelidges throughout Europe.

More evidence that Brexit is an act of self harm. Most of our privelidged access to the European market will thrown under the bus in the next few months to be replaced with a begging bowl to hold out for Trump to throw some scraps into.

Mat Hancock has now fallen from grace in uttering those words in the house.

You seem to think that the so-called pawn we were talking about, could continuously carry our one's task without apprehending the need or purpose for this task. This would be like a machine, carrying out its activity by the necessity of the forces of physics, rather than a living being which acts according to some perceived need. Without perceiving the need for the task, the living being would wander off and start to do something else.

So let's say we have a devout vicar who is interested in mysticism as part of his service. If he didn't know, or understand what God is upto, Gods purpose as expressed through his ministry. He might feel like a mindless mechanistic pawn and wander of and do something else instead? This is stretching the point rather.

How do you think that the mystic could wander into mystical practise and remain in that practise without any purpose?

The purpose of the mystic is to offer service for the betterment of humanity, or nature, or the biosphere. That is an end in its self.

It is implicit in the choices entailed in this enterprise (the enterprise of mysticism) that the mystic may be called on to express some higher purpose, which may be unknown during their practice, or life. This is not to much to ask is it?

In this analogy, you are assigning importance in a completely disproportionate way.

The point of the analogy is that it is obvious that the cell in my body is not aware of the bigger picture. That I really want to catch the train. Also that it is plain to see that the cell does not need to know about this in order to carry outs role in the body. It's that simple.

Now look at the activity of the cell, and the information which it has with genetics and DNA. That cell could very well know more about the reason why you are running for the train, than your conscious mind knows.

Yes, it might be better tuned in the purposes of the biosphere. But one thing is for certain, it doesn't know that I am running the catch the 11.15 from Paddington station. Which is what the organism embodying the cellular colony of which it is a part is doing.

Now we need to know what you mean by "the duties it has signed up to", when you are talking about the cell.

The duties of the cell are those entailed in being a particular part of a healthy multicellular organism. Any more than that is labouring the point, and the cell is not likely to go of in a huff and join another body, or go fishing, or something like that.

I still don't see the relevance here. Jesus sacrificed himself willingly, so this was a strong showing of will power. He decided what needed to be done and he did it at the cost of personal pain and suffering. The revelation to Jesus was that this sacrifice had to be carried out. His death was planned. There was no matter of fight or flight, just will power and determination to carry out what he believed needed to be done, as revealed to him.

You don't know this and on the assumption that it is on a need to know basis, Jesus does not need to know the specifics of what is going to happen until the point where he shouts out God why have you forsaken me, when the whole reality of the situation is laid bare. Also I consider that that laying bare was required for the specific initiation that Jesus, the Christ, was undergoing.

Let me give you another example one which did actually happen to me so was very real. A number of years ago I lost the end of a finger in an accident at work. Of course I didn't have any idea it was going to happen and from the moment it happened, my body went into shock protecting my psyche from the horror of what happened, I was in a delirious state of shock, I felt no pain and psychologically I was in a dream like state, which enabled me to get through the trauma unharmed psychologically.

Now let's consider that I knew this was going to happen beforehand, a day or two beforehand. Imagine the psychological impact and the state of mind as the event approached, or even the urge to place my hand somewhere else at the last moment so that the accident didn't happen. I would have to fully consciously place my hand into the machine knowing what trauma was about to happen. It would have been a Herculean task and I don't think I would have recovered psychologically from such trauma. When in reality it was not traumatic at all, there was no pain, just Some shock and ruffled feathers and I was over it in a few days with no psychological trauma. This was done on a need to know basis and I wouldn't have it any other way.

How could there be any degree of certainty, higher than a 50/50 chance, that the mystic would turn right, unless the mystic perceived some purpose for turning right?

Happenstance, the butterfly effect. The mystic has developed a means of receiving direction from a guide of some kind, a nudge process.

Really this is basic stuff and we will end up chasing our tails. Perhaps it is time to actually lay out what mysticism entails and look at it in more general terms.

Its about time he got back in his turdis, lol.

What you are saying about the intellectual understanding of the consequences of the mystic's action (during practice) makes sense, but from my position is largely irrelevant. Because the mystic may not have the capacity to understand, or conceive of any meaning, or purposes. Also such understanding would be an impediment unless it was some endeavour initiated by the mystic for the purposes of doing one thing for another in her small world.

As per my analogy what business does a cell in my body have in understanding that I am running to catch a train which leaves any minute now and I'm still a hundred yards away from the station? It is irrelevant, the cell simply carries out the duties which it has signed up to in being a part of the colony of cells. The situation is the same for the mystic, but on a more complex level. Any curiosity, interpretation, vision, or need is irrelevant and it is the choice of the mystic whether to forgo any such impediments as identified.

Regarding revelation, my lottery number analogy is relevant. Let me give another equivalent example. Let's take the crucifixion of Jesus. Now I have always thought that he did not know exactly what was going to happen and at what moment, because if for example he knew the horror and pain that he was imminently to endure. There would be a fight or flight response in him due to his human frailty, or survival instinct to take avasive action. If it had been revealed to him what was about to happen, which it may, it would have taken tremendous powers of self control for him not to take evasive action. Whereas if it had not been revealed he would have not needed these powers of self control, or only some of them. When he shouts out "God why have you forsaken me" (my words), presumably he did at that moment behold the true nature of the event, initiation, he was involved in. By that point he was powerless to take evasive action and so that knowledge was not an impediment.

Or another example, let's say a mystic where given the powers to move objects at a distance, or to make them disappear and appear somewhere else. Likewise human frailty would become exposed again.

For reasons like this, presumably, it would operate on a need to know basis only.

What you say about drawing a distinction between what is happening inside the mystic and what is external is important here. Namely most of what the mystic does in their practice is internal. What is external is nothing more than good neighbourly relations and some kind acts, consciously at least. What is going on unconsciously, or behind the scenes could be anything and is of little concern to the mystic. For example the sole act in a Mystics life which is of value might be to turn right instead of left at a crossroads at a certain point, on a certain date. It is the role of the mystic to be impressionable enough to the hierarchy of being, or some guide so as to somehow impell, or guide them to that place and that time and to cause them to turn right, when they might have turned left. This might require a lifetime of preparation within the mystic to reach that level of impressionability. Also there is an issue with mental illness, I would think though that were this to occur then the mystic would fail to carry out anything meaningful and would follow a path often followed by people in general.

I don't see how a lower being could get to the point of understanding the procedures which one is involved in, without conceiving the purpose of the higher being who directs the procedures. You could be a pawn simply following orders, a cog in the wheel, carrying out your activity in a perfect fashion, but you need to understand what the wheel is doing in order to truly know what you are doing.

I don't see the requirement for the lower being to truly know what they are doing. Provided this being is happy to and able to, carry it out there is no requirement for this. Aren't we all pawns anyway, with a little bit of freedom thrown in?

Let me give an example which for me was a profound example, once I realised it. Let's say my body is a colony of cells, which cooperate to form a whole which acts as a larger organism, a human. None of these cells are aware of the purposes exercised by that human organism. But they carry out their role in the cooperative and the fact of their not knowing why they are carrying out their role does not hinder their effectiveness in playing their part. Likewise I am a cell in the body of the biosphere and the biosphere is a cell in the body of the Sun, or the galaxy for example. The cell in my body is also carrying out a role in the body of the biosphere by carrying out its role in me and also its role in the body of the Sun and the galaxy. But in all of this the hierarchy of purpose means that the most senior purpose being carried out in this scenario is the purpose of the being whose body of expression is the galaxy. Now I know that the cell in my body I refer to couldn't understand this purpose and likewise, I could not understand it, it is to all encompassing from my perspective and I would have to know of the affairs of that larger being to have any conception of the purpose we are all engaged in, likewise for the cell in my body.

Having mystic minds, we want to see beyond the physical motions. Aren't those inclined toward mysticism already exceptional cases?

I don't know the answer to this, although there is a good reason which I have identified. These people inclined towards mysticism are human and subject to an extent to human nature, meaning that they are compromised by human frailty. I will give an extreme example, let's say that you or I were given a revelation of a greater purpose, or plan and inadvertently during this revelation, next weeks winning numbers for the state lottery were revealed. What would you, or I do on the run up to the lottery, would you buy a ticket and use those numbers? I would find it very difficult not to do that. Because I am embedded within the society and culture, which includes money worries, or with relations experiencing money problems. Or I could do with a bigger house, or better car etc. There are many other repercussions and problems caused by this unfortunate revelation and many other less extreme examples like this, where human frailty can become exposed.

I don't see how you can separate purpose from meaning in this way.

I only separate them because of the difficulty of imparting the purpose of the being at the top of the hierarchy as I have pointed out. Otherwise I don't disagree with what you are saying.

You might see forms of this in the type of mysticism you practise. You might learn a particular procedure, and get proficient at it. This indicates that you understand the first level of meaning in the instruction, you can proceed with the requested action. As you carry on and learn more procedures and grasp how they all fit together, you might look back at the first, and see that it now has a different meaning.

Yes, this could be a problem, better that the pawn doesn't know the purpose and meaning.
You do realise, presumably, that the mystic was aware of the requirement to forgo any knowledge of the purposes, or meanings that they are going to cooperate in before they follow that course. It is one of the preconditions for discussion, I was going to provide earlier. There are a number of preconditions like this which a budding mystic must offer to cooperate in before they are a suitable pawn for service in this fashion. There is no compunction for anyone to follow this path, it is the choice of the mystic.

And this is why you and I see exactly the same thing, though we come from completely different directions (east and west), and use completely different words and imagery to describe it. It's what's built into, inherent within living organisms. In seeing this we do not lose our autonomy we just facilitate our own decision making by relieving the stress of not knowing one's position in the world, and thereby being unsure in decision making.

Yes, I agree, but as I said earlier, I don't see any requirement for the mystic to be privy to the purposes they are to become involved in. Their actions could be directed intuitively, or unconsciously, thus avoiding the exposure of their human frailty.

it just means that the apparent good has become the same as the real good

Yes, this is the point I was making. However if it is going on within a person, it is more comprehensive and transformative.

It looks like the government is now descending into chaos. There are rows in cabinet around plans to unlock, some schools refuse to open and many distrust the government. A report has come out this morning that HS2 is becoming derailed, the costs are spiralling and the first stage won't be completed until the 2030's. The Brexit talks have gone no where fast this week as predicted, as it is becoming evident that the British negotiating stance is a sham, a concoction designed to skupper the talks and blame the EU for the chaos and the resulting economic hit to come.


I would have the governance of the EU anytime compared to the shower of chaos the UK is having to endure at the moment.

This is questionable. If a lower being can conceive the purpose of the next higher being in a hierarchy of being, then there would only be an inconceivable purpose if there was an infinite regress. But you've already assumed that there must be an initiator of the purpose, so there is no infinite regress.

I didn't say that the lower being can conceive of the purpose of a higher being (except in the exceptional circumstances I refer to in the second to last paragraph). No one is conceiving of the purposes except the one who initiates the purpose. Also infinite regress is a peculiarity of logical thinking in a limited mind. I don't use it, or find it of any value in these matters. Likewise I am not assuming there is a purpose, just allowing for there to be one.
I would point out also that getting to concerned with material initially is a distraction and likely to lead to dead ends. My primary concern is not with material, but being (I do consider being to be material in some form, along with the immaterial but not physical material).

Revelation is not really another subject. You described a significant aspect of mysticism as coming into contact with the higher power (God). In the west, this is called revelation.

Yes, but we were discussing purpose, I see purpose, even when acted out by a person on the lowest rung of the ladder of purpose, as something which is not revealed and not any kind of revelation. I mentioned it when responding about meaning, which is more commonly revealed.

However, for the person whom pondering meanings is for some reason important, this will be what that person is doing, finding doing other things as distracting from this.

Yes, I draw you back to what I was addressing when I pointed out what I meant when I say mysticism, "So when I use the word mysticism, I am referring to this process of refinement and development of the individual and through this the refinement and development of the being of the biosphere. This is necessarily a big subject". This refinement includes the alignment of the individual with the hierarchy of being, that the higher purpose be realised in some way. As such the motivations, purposes of the individual are the same as those of the hierarchy of being, there is no seperation. And as I also said earlier in my response to Javra, the individual hasn't lost any autonomy, or agency, or freedom in this, the purposes of the individual and the hierarchy of being just happen to be the same, hence " I and the father are one" John 10:30

Aristotle identified contemplation as the highest virtue.

He's wasn't a mystic, but a philosopher, I do agree that contemplation is the most important mental faculty of the individual.

Accepting "I don't know the meaning of this" can either inspire one in an attempt to determine the meaning, or turn one away in futility.

Yes, but as I say this has already been accepted and the person has already agreed within themselves that the action, or service is primary and their personal inquisitive interest is secondary and can be contemplated at leasure after the event, provided this doesn't become an impediment to the enterprise.

I don't disagree with what you say about the purposes of an individual as in the example you give. I should have been more precise, I am only referring now to purposes in the acts of practicing mysticism, or more accurately acts of service.

Also, Regarding the purposes of said higher power, I don't think we can come to any conclusions about the nature of their agency, or degree of awareness of what they are doing. Although I agree that processes of their living bodies, or vehicles will to a certain degree dictate what those purposes may be. I caution in this way because the lives of such beings may be inconceivable to us in multiple ways.

Also if one factors in that purposes are deferred up the hierarchy of being, then the being initiating the purpose would be uniquely inconceivable, even to exalted beings below them in the hierarchy.

I agree with what you say in the last paragraph, but with the qualification that this is only one of numerous ways in which revelation becomes imparted. We are not here discussing revelation, that is another subject.

And that is the reason why meaning, as what was meant by written words for example, cannot be attributed to the purpose of the author of the words. The author doesn't even know one's own purpose. The purpose, as the inspiration for action, and therefore what was meant, and meaning, actually comes from an external source, the higher power. So our acts of discussion, between us is how we attempt to actually determine the meaning, and that's why people say meaning is something public. We cannot simply refer to what the author meant, because the true purpose is something outside the mind of the author, which inspired those acts.

I agree with what you say, it is like a relativism of purposes and meaning. Again I make the distinction with regard to mystical practice. The mystic realises that the purpose acted out, or contributed to by herself is necessarily unknown or unknowable for her in her practice, while the meaning may be revealed. The meaning might be revealed through revelation, or epiphany, in the orientation of a beholder looking upwards towards the higher power which may be represented as a form recognised by the mystic. Whereas the purpose of the same circumstances cannot be apprehended from below because the orientation is downward from above viewing the hierarchy from the exalted position wherein the purposes where conceived.
The conception of the purpose requiring the full cognition and consciousness of the exalted being to behold. Although I expect that the mystic can be taken up to behold the vision directly, which would require their mind to behold that level of cognition, this would be an exceptional event and would result in the mystic being transformed to the extent that she would become unusually exalted on earth, making social interaction problematic. There are examples of this in the lives of the saints etc.

Due to unnecessary complications like this (not to mention complications with the ego, or personality)it is more appropriate for the mystic to relinquish any concern for such matters and to simply follow the practice and service in humility. I have myself found myself in situations where if I were to ponder purposes, or meanings, I would become distracted in what I was doing ( when I say what I am doing, I am referring to practice, in which I have already accepted that I don't know the purposes, or meaning, or what is going on, not personal things that I am doing in my day to day life, which I do know about).

I hope you don't have it and if you do that it is mild. If you do need to contact the authorities you have to sharpen your elbows, I have heard stories of people with symptoms being ignored by Covid doctors until the symptoms are severe. Or people having to beg to be taken into hospital.

In the east, the tradition might be an effort to maintain with consistency over millennia of time, a similar practise.

It's more about continuing a lifestyle in which mysticism is to a degree a part of everyday life in the community and the mystics, the sadhus and gurus play an integrated and revered role within the community. I saw this first hand on many occasions in India. Indians are adept at adopting modern ways of doing things, but behind this there is always this deep connection with a living vibrant mystical tradition, going back unchanged for thousands of years. If you go the puja, the religious ceremony everyone present is open to and indeed expecting something magic, or the divine to play out before them. The congregation will naturally adopt this stance, equivalent to the exhalted mystical state of a sadhu.

Here in the west all this was lost millennia ago, although there are ocassional exceptions in places like Lourdes, or Ireland where something magical happens. Religion became corrupted by power and then distrusted by science.

I see an issue here with the question, "why?". What Plato assumed, or claimed, is that people have a fundamental curiosity, "wonder", and this is at the root of philosophy. So we can't simply dismiss the importance of "why?". If you commune with nature, as you say, you'll see that other animals possess this curiosity as well, they are often inclined to check things out. So there are some things which are a deep mystery, like matter, but it is natural for us to be curious. Now when you say that something is or is not important, this is relative to a person's individual perspective.

Yes, when I said purpose is not important it is my personal view, but not without good reason and others do agree on this point. Purpose for me is a curious thing, it can only be known by the agency whom for whatever reason adopted it and inline with the aspiration of the mystic of following the course of one's higher nature, or spiritual guide, for lack of a better word, that purpose is naturally deferred to a higher power. Indeed it scales up through the hierarchy of exalted beings to the very top. Meaning that the purpose of anything that happens in the world of the mystic, or indeed in the world of being is expressed for a higher purpose the nature of which is unfathomably profound( profound, only in the respect of being far reaching, beyond what a limited mind can comprehend).

So just like the mystic differs their agency to a higher purpose, also they defer their reason why, or the purposes for what they do, to a higher power. This both means that the mystic is not at all interested in why, or for what end they do what they are doing. But also and crucially, their purposes, their motivations, their wants and desires are aligned with this higher goal and don't differ from it. In the sense that in following the higher goal they are not foregoing any freedoms, rather they simply agree with the higher goal, because it equates to their own personal goals.

I see Nissan are suggesting that Renault should manufacture in the UK....it's fantastic that foreign businesses manufacture here in order to sell here.

Duh! You've just agreed with me, that car manufacturers need to manufacture in the market they need to sell into to be cost effective. Renault obviously wouldn't expect to sell many cars here which it manufactured in France because of tariffs, red tape etc. So they would contemplate building an expensive factory in the UK to do so.

Can't you think rationally, your arguments don't compute, you constantly contradict yourself.

No,acute...otherwise they'd be millions dead in the UK alone...

But only 220,000 people have been tested positive in the UK. Maybe if there were 50,000,000 infected there might be a million dead, but we're not there yet. The infection rate in the UK has been about 3,500 per day, it's not dropping, even in lockdown. As soon as the lockdown is relaxed that number will start to grow, in hotspots it will grow really fast.
Do you know that the experts told Johnson on 23rd of March that unless he locks the country down immediately there could be 500,000 deaths. Then suddenly he changed the policy and locked the country down the same day. Thank God he did, otherwise we would be at about 500,000 deaths by now. Along with economic chaos, social unrest and food shortages.

Thanks for your summary of western mysticism. I am familiar with most of it, but am not widely read, or formally trained. I have a copy of Timaeus, but haven't read if for over 30 years, so it's a bit rusty. I veered off in the direction of Bhuddism and Hinduism after that and use Hinduism for any structure I require.

I find with the western tradition it stems from attempts to understand existence through reason, hence the development of philosophy. This is not to diminish mysticism in the Christian church, but there is a seperation between this and reason/philosophy/science. Such that Christian mysticism seems to have been discarded by the later. I find the Eastern traditions far more of use.

So my mysticism is fashioned around the Hindu traditions. In which rather like what you describe in reference to Plato, material is a tool of expression and that the mystical path is concerned with a refinement of that expression specifically through the vehicle of the human body and mind. Any purposes in this, in relation to that body, or the wider world are (I noticed you referred to the purpose of matter) not important as they are a deep mystery, other than the natural processes of the personal development of the mystic.

So when I use the word mysticism, I am referring to this process of refinement and development of the individual and through this the refinement and development of the being of the biosphere. This is necessarily a big subject.