Superseded by: — DrOlsnesLea
Yes, although, as I was saying, I don't think it's unique it might have happened a few times before on earth and many times in the cosmos. Quite predictable I think. — Punshhh
I know, I am thinking more about humanity living in harmony with the ecosystem (and themselves) long term. — Punshhh
What I was thinking of though is divinity subtly changing the course of events through happenstance. Rather than any grand intervention. — Punshhh
I don't see how you could support this idea logically. Suffering was in existence long before there was thinking human beings, and a person's thought is very often directed towards ending suffering which is already there. — Metaphysician Undercover
This doesn't provide the needed support. Suffering existed prior to human beings, as we see that other animals suffer. — Metaphysician Undercover
There's nothing to rip to shreds here. You have a belief which appears to me as very unreasonable, which you have provided no logical support for. All I need to do is show that your believe has no support. — Metaphysician Undercover
Yes, physical suffering goes back to the dawn of nervous systems. I was attempting to refer to psychological suffering, which I tried to indicate. — Nuke
Yes, thought is very often directed at the attempt to end psychological suffering. — Nuke
Let's say I'm physically hungry, my stomach is empty. Thought is useful in identifying where I could find food. That's good! But I have to actually eat the food to fill my belly and satisfy the hunger. — Nuke
Mysticism is like that, except that it addresses the mind instead of the stomach. Someone could write a book suggesting I meditate, and that suggestion could very well be helpful. But I have to actually meditate to receive the benefit. Just reading the book about meditation won't get the job done. — Nuke
If you wish to, please specifically identify which belief of mine you are referring to, and I'll attempt to provide the support. — Nuke
Well I can easily distinguish between conversations I have with other people and those I have with myself, my inner narrative. Mystical practice can involve a number of different techniques in which one develops a space for communion, or for yogic practices. Practices which can develop aspects of the self not normally used. This can include developing the intuition through meditation and work with the chakras, so as to begin to open the crown chakra. The communion with the higher self, as I see it doesn't include thinking, a dialogue, or any kind of chitta chatta. It is more like an osmosis, an imbuing, a merging, through the aura. A growing together. The mental activity manifests more in the way one playfully and creatively contemplates ones own motives, desires and those of the higher self and looks to them becoming the same, in alignment ( there is a great deal that can be said about this, I am barely scratching the surface here).Can I ask, how do you distinguish the chitta chatta from the communion with the soul? The communion with the soul must consist of some sort of mental activity, how do you know that it's not just more chitta chatta?
They are complementary, indeed once you are in alignment, they literally are the same thing. It is a useful discipline to be able to make time, to attend to your exercises, as part of a balanced life.Why do you think that communion with the higher self is a better goal than organizing the activities which you need to do?
I don't disagree with the points you raise, but we have evidence of the control over the ecosystem exercised by humanity. For example we have instigated a mass extinction event, one which is entirely of our own making. I know that the ecosystem will outlive us and may destroy us through a pandemic for example. But the point I am making is that for a large population of humans to live sustainably on the planet, it will require a healthy functioning ecosystem. Something which we are putting in jepardy right now by our stupidity.I don't agree with this. I think it's somewhat egotistical to think that human beings have the capacity to control the ecosystem.
Well I can easily distinguish between conversations I have with other people and those I have with myself, my inner narrative. Mystical practice can involve a number of different techniques in which one develops a space for communion, or for yogic practices. Practices which can develop aspects of the self not normally used. This can include developing the intuition through meditation and work with the chakras, so as to begin to open the crown chakra. — Punshhh
The communion with the higher self, as I see it doesn't include thinking, a dialogue, or any kind of chitta chatta. It is more like an osmosis, an imbuing, a merging, through the aura. A growing together. The mental activity manifests more in the way one playfully and creatively contemplates ones own motives, desires and those of the higher self and looks to them becoming the same, in alignment ( there is a great deal that can be said about this, I am barely scratching the surface here). — Punshhh
I don't disagree with the points you raise, but we have evidence of the control over the ecosystem exercised by humanity. For example we have instigated a mass extinction event, one which is entirely of our own making. — Punshhh
But the point I am making is that for a large population of humans to live sustainably on the planet, it will require a healthy functioning ecosystem. Something which we are putting in jepardy right now by our stupidity. — Punshhh
What I mean by chitta chatta is all dialogue with other people, or with one's self and all conscious thinking. Also all unconscious thinking which emerges into the consciousness. Indeed all mental activity which is involved in and with the sense of self. Alternatively, If you practice meditation for a few hundred hours until you are able to still the mind, what you have stilled is the chitta chatta. The mental activity involved in communion with the higher self does involve some of this*, but is largely that which supports a growing together as an organism. Rather like the grafting of a plant, or a joining together of two plants at the graft. So that after the graft, the two plants merge and become, after some time, indistinguishable.OK, I just wanted to get clear on what you meant by chitta chatta. I assume from this post, that it is conversations with others. But don't you distinguish between small talk and important talk?
There is a separation between them as a consequence of incarnation. So a human being is a complex organism in which there are membranes, regions, organs, divisions between parts performing different functions. Naturally such division into parts occurs in the mind and being. So parts of the being which are subject to/immersed during, incarnation are separated by natural divisions, or membranes.I'm trying to get a feel for what the higher self is like for you. If there is no proper communication between yourself and the higher self, then is there really any separation between these two at all?
Yes, where there is a part, or aspect of the being which is enthralled, or captured in, incarnated into a world. A world different in some way from the world where the other part is.Would it be ok to say that these two are really one and the same being?
Yes, the word I would use rather than transformation, is transfigured. The lower self seeks to develop a relation, connection, communion with the higher self and via natural processes, including intuition, grow to be a reflection, expression of the higher self.And could I look at this as a transformation, in which the self is being transformed into a higher self?
Both are present in the past and will be in the future, I see it more an issue of the present. The higher self could be viewed as eternal, or to have a higher higher self itself which is eternal. Or overshadowed by an eternal aspect of the being, such as the atman. So in a sense a being can be viewed as having layers like an onion with the lowest layers on the surface and the divine/eternal in the innermost layers.The lower self being the past self and the higher self being the future self.
Sounds good. To start with one puts one's house in order.You are already a part of the laws.
Perhaps this thread demonstrates not that one doesn't care about mysticism, but rather there is little interest in the philosophy of mysticism. — jgill
Perhaps this thread demonstrates not that one doesn't care about mysticism, but rather there is little interest in the philosophy of mysticism. I.e., one may care about mysticism, but have low tolerance for the philosophy. Except for a few posters. Just a thought. — jgill
I have tried to find the significance of this quote for the philosophy of mysticism. All I can come up with is that people who discuss the philosophy of mysticism while not themselves a mystic fall foul of it. But when a mystic discusses the philosophy of mysticism with another mystic, or non mystic, the quote doesn't apply.What you are not, you cannot perceive to understand; it cannot communicate itself to you-AH Maslow
Is there an implication that the mystic would not discuss the philosophy of mysticism, but instead do mysticism? — Punshhh
Nice, but one must remain aware of the mystique employed by false prophets and religious leaders who seek to control the populous, generate wealth, or recruit followers. — Punshhh
And traditionally those who had an affinity would gravitate to the monastery.Or at least be able to make such distinctions (of subjective experiences) through experience itself and/or intuition.
Yes, the most mystical person I have met, was, at the right moment, the most humble person I have met.And great point about those having an affinity for the mystical . That humility of sorts speaks to another irony in life...
What I mean by chitta chatta is all dialogue with other people, or with one's self and all conscious thinking. Also all unconscious thinking which emerges into the consciousness. Indeed all mental activity which is involved in and with the sense of self. Alternatively, If you practice meditation for a few hundred hours until you are able to still the mind, what you have stilled is the chitta chatta. The mental activity involved in communion with the higher self does involve some of this*, but is largely that which supports a growing together as an organism. Rather like the grafting of a plant, or a joining together of two plants at the graft. So that after the graft, the two plants merge and become, after some time, indistinguishable. — Punshhh
With pests adapting to our efforts to eradicate them and becoming super bugs, which can only be kept in check by using more powerful interventions with chemicals, or biological controls. Another is flea Beatle, which is controlled by neonicotinoids (which is now banned in the EU). — Punshhh
Yes, that sounds good for me. As I said, I am happy to accommodate a recognised metaphysics as I don't want to get into the mysticism of physical material.I think this chitta chatta is what I called mental habits.
Yes I would agree with this, but that it came about due to the nature of the manifestion we find ourselves in. This nature inevitably being a reflection of divinity. So metaphysics in attempting to apply its logic to the natural world is inevitably going to mirror in some way a mystical understanding.I believe that metaphysics derives its principles from mysticism, through a sort of logical analysis of mystical practises and myths.
So metaphysics in attempting to apply its logic to the natural world is inevitably going to mirror in some way a mystical understanding. — Punshhh
Although I would also point out that there seems to be a variation in understanding in metaphysics from philosopher to philosopher. A kind of sectarianism, this also happens within mysticism, although for the mystic these differences in teaching don't matter much because the primary focus of mysticism is not a philosophy, but a practice and relation to the natural world via the body (as opposed to the mind) and being — Punshhh
Whereas in metaphysics the only means of refining the ideas is via the application of logic, reason. — Punshhh
There is no direction from the natural world, although it is to some degree an expression of the divine, it is only a presentation of parts and complex systems of material, which is probably beyond our capacity to understand at this time. — Punshhh
I was saying that metaphysicians apply logic to the mystical revelations. — Metaphysician Undercover
Metaphysicians really apply mystical principles to logic — Metaphysician Undercover
Ok, that's of interest, you realise now don't you that I will provide a revelation for discussion.This is not quite what I was saying. I was saying that metaphysicians apply logic to the mystical revelations. This is why metaphysics is so different from the natural sciences which have little if any regard for mysticism, only applying logic to observations of the natural world, metaphysics will apply logic to the observations of mysticism.
Yes this correlates to mystical contemplation, but surely the metaphysician is building an ivory tower from which to survey the world. The tower stands if the foundations are inviolable. I see how it is a good discipline, or exercise. The mystic also realises that any of these towers are an impediment to putting one foot in front of the other on the path, so always leaves the door open in humility.Consistency is produced by conforming habituation to logic. But in the essence of human nature there is no necessity to conform, conformity must be willed.
Yes, but inevitably every pointer, every hint derived from the natural world, be it for a mystic, a metaphysician, a scientist, a flat earther even, is a reflection of the divine, of eternity. The mystic works with such axioms of thought, along with revelation and stills the chitta chatta some more. Continually dwelling in the pure experience of nature. Imbibes the liquid of the gifts provided by incarnation. From where is a metaphysician drawing her sustenance?I think I disagree with this statement. The metaphysician has to derive principles from somewhere. and as mentioned above, I think that the principles are derived from mysticism, and mysticism takes direction from the natural world. This is a completely different type of direction from the direction that natural sciences get from the natural world.
I would be interested in an example here. My first thoughts are that when one delves into an analysis of mystical experiences (revelations), the external world evaporates as the nature of being becomes the focus. That nature being what is referenced in spiritual cosmology. One is transcending the spheres and learning ones way around, guided on a need to know basis through the unfurling of ones being. The alignment of the chackras.Metaphysicians really apply mystical principles to logic, such that the laws and rules of logic are formulated to be applicable to the natural world as understood through mystic practises.
Were I to have an ineffable mystical revelation, how would a metaphysician go about applying logic? — jgill
Or a fellow mystic. — jgill
The tower stands if the foundations are inviolable. — Punshhh
Yes, but inevitably every pointer, every hint derived from the natural world, be it for a mystic, a metaphysician, a scientist, a flat earther even, is a reflection of the divine, of eternity. — Punshhh
From where is a metaphysician drawing her sustenance? — Punshhh
I would be interested in an example here. My first thoughts are that when one delves into an analysis of mystical experiences (revelations), the external world evaporates as the nature of being becomes the focus. That nature being what is referenced in spiritual cosmology. One is transcending the spheres and learning ones way around, guided on a need to know basis through the unfurling of ones being. The alignment of the chackras.
So if I were to imagine myself as a metaphysician considering this cosmogony. I would find myself documenting an organism, like a plant, and the particular geometrical relation between the petals. Like a naturalist in exploring in the jungle. Perhaps when I return to my study I might try and apply some rational thought to this, but I would have to realise eventually that all I am doing is documenting the natural shape of a flower which I have come across (by incarnating into it). Nowhere am I advancing knowledge of the origins, or principles of existence. — Punshhh
All we can glean of the divine realms is a faint memory of a grain of dust on the floor of the divine realm. To know more than this requires personal experience via revelation, in particular that kind of revelation in which one is lifted up and hosted in the body of a divine being, that temporarily one is transfigured by experiencing through their eyes, their mind, what life is like for them. And when one comes back down to earth how does one apply logic? — Punshhh
I will give the example I have cited before, of a dream I had in which I was taken up by the Christ and as I looked back down to where I was sleeping I saw time layer out like a series of rooms with no roofs, so I could see my past and future laid out before me. It reminded me of the experience of my life flashing before me when I was on the point of drowning (someone pulled me out thankfully). A sequence of experiences in which I travelled through time at a different rate and was transcending time, free to move either way, in a sense.
Now what can a metaphysician say about this? — Punshhh
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.