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. — Punshhh
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. — Punshhh
1:A natural spiritual need. The human propensity to look to a divine agency. — Punshhh
Are either of you serious mystics? — jgill
his definition is more inclusive than one positing some aspect of the divine. Have either of you had such a "mystical experience"? If so, please describe them. How did you enter into the mental states that led to revelations beyond normal sensory or introspective means? Did you meditate? Was there an epiphany at some point, an astounding and memorable moment? — jgill
Please have a little patience, I think we might be getting somewhere soon. — Punshhh
You are familiar with mathematics. By what principle would you say 10 is "higher", meaning a greater value, than 2? — Metaphysician Undercover
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.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.
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.we need to include something concerning learning the capacity to adapt to the circumstances. This is what reveals one's frailty
Yes,The next step for the mystic, I think, the third stage would be to determine the difference between better and worse,
Yes, perhaps you can make a suggestion for this section.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.
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.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.
Personally speaking, the promise of knowledge of ultimate reality by means other than the slogging through the tedium of comprehending endless pages of logical argumentation is quite appealing to my nature and perhaps many others. — themadfool
However, as I argued already, some degree of intellectualising is required to make any progress in mysticism, because the mystical experience is completely meaningless unless understood to some degree. — Metaphysician Undercover
I have had numerous mystical experiences, but we are trying to find a way of talking about mysticism with philosophers in this thread. — Punshhh
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. — Punshhh
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. — Punshhh
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. — Punshhh
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.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?
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.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.
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 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.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.
Is being = soul? The conversation has turned philosophical. — jgill
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. — Punshhh
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. — Punshhh
Crucially, it is independent of the thinking, or rational mind. — Punshhh
In secular lingo mysticism might be described as an act of transcending the division distortions generated by the nature of thought. Once we are not looking through a lens whose purpose is to create divisions, the unity of all things is easier to see and experience. — Nuke
So the question is, how can the conscious mind commune with the soul itself, without utilizing such a division. — Metaphysician Undercover
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.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.
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.
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.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?
By turning down the volume of that which is generating the division. Thought.
If you're talking with a friend and you can't stay focused on what they're saying because the TV is blaring in the background, you turn the TV down or off. — Nuke
Is it true that thought operates by dividing reality in to conceptual objects? For example, the noun. — Nuke
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. — Punshhh
My cat bears witness of my drawing of a Jabberwoky, she does not use her mind to interpret what she sees. — Punshhh
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. — Punshhh
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. — Punshhh
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. — Punshhh
Perhaps much of the confusion about mysticism can be resolved by changing "knowledge of ultimate reality" to "experience of ultimate reality"? However, the terms "ultimate reality" imply a kind of knowledge. So we could just dump those words if we wish. And we are left with experience. — Nuke
In Buddhism, we distinguish between spiritual experiences and spiritual realizations. Spiritual experiences are usually more vivid and intense than realizations because they are generally accompanied by physiological and psychological changes. Realizations, on the other hand, may be felt, but the experience is less pronounced. Realization is about acquiring insight. Therefore, while realizations arise out of our spiritual experiences, they are not identical to them. Spiritual realizations are considered vastly more important because they cannot fluctuate.
The distinction between spiritual experiences and realizations is continually emphasized in Buddhist thought. If we avoid excessively fixating on our experiences, we will be under less stress in our practice. Without that stress, we will be better able to cope with whatever arises, the possibility of suffering from psychic disturbances will be greatly reduced, and we will notice a significant shift in the fundamental texture of our experience.
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.