Seems to me that many of the accounts are of a sudden awareness. Sometimes the individuals concerned were already enrolled in some form of training. In the case of Hui Neng, subject of the Platform Sutra, he was an illiterate rice farmer (China has many of those) who overheard a recitation of a passage from the Diamond Sutra and just completely 'got it' straight away without any further thought or deliberation.

I wonder if there is a price to pay for all that suddenness. — Tom Storm

I've been following the activities of a current Rinzai teacher, Meido Roshi, who has established a center in Wisconsin (not far from where my son now lives, so I've actually visited there, https://www.korinji.org/).

Meido Roshi says that Rinzai Zen recognises that an initial satori (insight) is not that uncommon amongst Zen aspirants, but that it is still very difficult to bring that insight to fruition, requiring many years of immersion in the discipline generally under supervision.

Do you have a view as to why this facility is (for want of a better term) hard to reach? There's a sense from some commentators that there is a hierarchy of sorts at play too, isn't there? Some people being not ready yet? Or perhaps never ready?

Very difficult question. In my youth I had the missapprehension that the 'enlightenment experience' was within reach - I did have momentary but profound epiphanies, and some insights from those do remain. (Some of them arose through lysergines but I don't discount them.) But if you look, for instance, at the 'beat zen' generation, many of them, like Jack Kerouac, wrote about it, but patently failed to 'walk the talk.' Much easier to talk about it than do it. And, as I was to find out, life is what happens when you're busy making other plans.

In day to day life, Buddhism in Japan is blessings, ceremonies, and social religion - 'Temple Buddhism'. There are very few for whom the 'path of Zen' is taken, and it's a very hard path - I think much harder than many Western enthusiasts recognise. It is the 'path of sages'. The popular Buddhism is Pureland, which relies on the vow of Amida Buddha rather than Zen's 'self-effort'. (It's like Christianity in some respects, although the belief system is completely different. And also, intriguingly, there are Pureland-Zen crossover schools.)

My guess is that the Zen system in Japan would be a very hierarchical structure. I would also guess that there are more and less compassionate roshis (head teachers) - some fierce disciplinarians and extremely harsh, others sympathetic and insightful. And the Japanese national character is very prone to disciplinarianism and repression of individuality, which I'm sure would be a major factor in Zen. Harold Stewart, an Australian poet and spiritual seeker who lived the last half of his life in Kyoto, wrote an eye opening account of Zen.

Looking at it from my own idiosyncratic hermenuetic, I genuinely believe that spiritual enlightenment or illumination is real. That's why I majored in comparative religion. There's a massive literature on it, from all cultures and all periods of history. I think you have to have an innate predisposition towards it - something very like what used to be known as a calling. But realising a genuine path can be very difficult indeed. I've never really belonged to any movement or sect, although the one I still feel the greatest affinity with is Sōtō Zen - if for instance I lived in SF, I'd probably be a regular at SFZC - in fact I stayed there one night in 2009 (and sat Zazen there that morning).

Thank you for that very nuanced and insightful response. I struggle with the harsher forms of Zen (and I think I do understand the basis for the approach) and wonder about this notion of having a calling - I think that is a good term. It seems somehow more apropos than to call it a predisposition.

Do you think that a Westerner holding an Eastern contemplative approach comes with additional cultural challenges to overcome or, in fact, are there some advantages? I used to think that spiritual truth is not restricted or contained by culture - if that makes sense.

Would there be uncontroversial views on a successful way to make a deeper pathway more 'Western friendly' without diluting or distorting?

Oh, I'm sure. There's so much going on this space. Sure, some of it is bogus, and there are some very impressive fakes, but as I said before, 'there would be no fools gold if there were no gold'.

Both 'Eastern' and 'Western' (bearing in mind they're generalisations) mind-sets have their strengths and weaknesses. The 'Eastern' weakness is conformity, unwillingness to question, blind obedience - just the kind of qualities that Christian preachers look for! The 'Western' weakness is self-centredness and lack of self-discipline (traits I know too well) and also 'spiritual shopping' - 'I'll take mindfulness, but leave re-birth out of it thanks!'

One east-west teacher I've been reading again recently is Shinzen Young https://www.shinzen.org/ . His site has become a bit overly glossy for my liking but on the whole he's a solid teacher. I also read the Buddhist blogs on patheos.com, James Ford and Dosho Port. I already mentioned Meido, whom I like a great deal, but to be honest, Rinzai Zen scares me! :gasp:

In Taoism, for example, the ineffable is related to our experience and that speaks to your preference for "meat and potatoes." But the Tao is also said to be the means to setting up everything on both sides of the gate separating our lives from whatever makes it possible. That encouraged a religious interpretation that was expressed in various ideas of immortality, some of them that are very "occult." — Valentinus

Yes. My understanding is that you're right. I was talking about philosophical Taoism. I don't know much about religious Taoism. What I've heard makes it sound like Biblical fundamentalism - taking words that are meant to be metaphorical as literal truth.

I think you are saying that I am over simplifying mysticism. You're not the only one to make that comment. I think you're right. I'm struggling to defend my vision of mysticism against the skepticism of "rational" thinkers. If we let the occult in, it's hard to defend. Maybe the solution is to find another word. instead of mysticism. How about T Clarkism. Valentinusism. Or maybe stop using the word altogether. I think that may be the correct solution.

Isn't this fascinating? Kafka... I really like this. — Tom Storm

I really love this. If you look, you'll find that I've used the same quote in a bunch of other threads. It says everything I want to say about reality. And it only had to be translated from German instead of than Chinese.

I think mystery is often used as a synonym for mysticism but for me this suggests it is a puzzle to solve rather than an experiential phenomenon....Sorry, perhaps I lack sufficient precision on this point. — Tom Storm

I haven't thought about this that much. The thing that comes to mind is "the mystery of woman," which I think is really demeaning. I think it's a good example of what I described earlier - men being unable to see things within that they have hidden from themselves.

I just thought of another. It's a wonderful song by a wonderful country musician - Iris DeMent.

Some say once you're gone you're gone forever
And some say you're gonna come back
Some say you rest in the arms of
The Saviour if in sinful ways you lack
Some say that they're comin' back in a
Garden, bunch of carrots and little sweet peas
I think I'll just let the mystery be

I think that there is a danger of trying to make mysticism into a neat and tidy term. For some people this may work, but the problem is that the mystical experiences of individuals vary so much as well as the attempts to understand them.Some of those who have experienced mystical states have been those who explored philosophies which are obscure. — Jack Cummins

I think you're right. See my response to @Tom Storm a few posts up. I've decided that "mysticism" is not a useful word. It carries too much baggage. The solution for me is not to use the word any more. I'm serious about that. Boy, this has been a really useful thread for me. I didn't expect it would go anywhere.

Or maybe stop using the word altogether. I think that may be the correct solution. — T Clark

I'm wary of not using particular words just because of the tensions. But I hear you.

As you may recall, I am not a practitioner of any contemplative traditions or follower of any spiritual practices (for want of a better term). I want to understand better what people are getting out of things like Tao, and if I should care. In the 1980's and 1990's, I spent most of my time in the company of Buddhists, theosophists, mystics, cranks, Gnostics, Jungians and various devotees of I Ching, seances and Gurdjieff movements. Weak and anecdotal, but I never saw anyone benefit from these interests. Since then, while I value the numinous and the ineffable to some extent, I have been unable to shake of a simple minded empiricism and reason based world-view. I am not required or driven to speculative pursuits or to 'go deeper' than the quotidian. But I am usually interested to hear from others, unless the voice is strident and unpleasantly dogmatic.

Ich-Du — 180 Proof

Is this the same as Cthulhu?

The curious thing about this is that there seems to be no direct way to communicate mysticism, we have to elude, circumscribe, reveal, retreat and then make manifest what was already there. — Manuel

As Lao Tzu wrote - The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao. The name that can be named is not the eternal name.

There's stuff we don't know anything about.

When folk talk about that stuff, despite not knowing anything about it, they are being mystical.

Honest folk will remain quiet. — Banno

I think I'm honest. And, as you should know by now, I will never remain quiet.

Sure. I only would like for people who think of this stuff, not to be labeled as "wacky" or the like. I don't think it is. I have in mind people like Dawkins, for example. — Manuel

I would be interested in the essay. If you post it, I'll take a look.

Well, I mean, I think there's good actual evidence for this view. I could send you a very good essay about if you are interested. But, in either case, point taken. — Manuel

I think you're right. I've been struggling in this thread to find a way to address this. The only thing I've come up with so far is to stop using the word "mysticism."

Since then, while I value the numinous and the ineffable to some extent, I have been unable to shake of a simple minded empiricism and reason based world-view. — Tom Storm

I'm an engineer with a strong background in science and math. I was a strong materialist in my youth. I still believe strongly in what science can do and the kind of truth it can find. I find Taoism completely consistent with a scientific worldview. As I've said many times, for me it is meat and potatoes philosophy.

I know that you find Taoism useful, and think that mysticism can have too much baggage. However, don't you wish to go beyond a 'meat and potatoes' philosophy as you put it ? I am thinking about Maslow's highest stage on the hierarchy of needs, self actualization? I would say that it may be possible to cope without some of the lower needs being met, although there are limits, through some peak experiences. But, I do agree that the word mysticism can be problematic in some ways.

Thank you Jack. This website is one of the better interactive experiences if you ask me.

I would be interested in the essay. If you post it, I'll take a look. — T Clark

I can't find it online, save for it being pay-walled. I have it as a PDF, thus I can only send it through email. It's called "Mysteries of Nature: How Deeply Hidden?" by Chomsky.

As Lao Tzu wrote - The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao. The name that can be named is not the eternal name. — T Clark

Very much so. It would be interesting to discover if all these mystical teachers, philosophers, people, had in mind the same thing, or something slightly different. Alas, it's clear words can't do it justice.

:lol:

. Mysticism itself, by its very nature, is a contradiction, because it is not an ism. It is not a creed or dogma in which you can believe. You can be a mystic, but there is nothing like mysticism. And when one is a mystic the paradox deepens, it does not disappear. When one is a mystic there is no one left. There is a mystery, but with no center to it. It is like a cloud: translucent darkness, infinite darkness.

. One of the most important statements about mysticism in the Western hemisphere is the book called The Cloud of Unknowing. The name of the author is not known; it is good that we don’t know who wrote it. It indicates one thing: that before he wrote it he had disappeared into a cloud of unknowing. It is the only book in the Western world which comes close to the Upanishads, The Tao Te Ching, The Dhammapada. There is a rare insight in it.

. First he calls it a cloud. A cloud is vague, with no definable limits. It is constantly changing; it is not static – never, even for two consecutive moments, is it the same. It is a flux, it is pure change. And there is nothing substantial in it. If you hold it in your hand just mist will be left, nothing else. Maybe your hands will become wet, but you will not find any cloud in your fist.

. That’s what happens to the mystic: he becomes wet, really wet. Those countries where alcohol is prohibited they call dry, and those countries where alcohol is not prohibited they call wet. But the only wet person is the mystic. He is a real alcoholic! He cannot be helped by Alcoholics Anonymous. If a mystic enters there, they will all become alcoholics themselves!

. But for Dionysius it is even more a contradiction because he was a theologian. His whole book is written with a disguise, as if it is a treatise on theology; mysticism is just something by the side, secondary, not primary. Hence the name Theologia Mystica – as if mysticism is only a consequence of getting deep into the world of theology. Just the reverse is the case.

. The word “theology” means logic about God; theo means God. But there can be no logic about God. There is love about God, love for God, but no logic about God. There are no proofs possible. The only proof is the existence of the mystic. The presence of Dionysius, of Ramakrishna, of Bahauddin – the presence of these people is the proof that God exists, otherwise there is no proof. Because Buddhas have walked on the earth, there are a few footprints of God left behind on the shores of time.

. Philosophers have argued for centuries, but all their arguments are utterly futile and impotent; they have not come to a single conclusion.

. The mystic has to speak in contradictions because he is speaking about the whole, and the whole contains the contradictions. It contains the day and the night, both. If you call God the day, then it is only half the truth; if you call him the night, that too is only half the truth.

. Hence Dionysius calls God translucent darkness – as if the sun has risen in the night.

. The whole consists of both life and death. If you call God life, only life, then it is a half-statement. And remember a half-truth is far more dangerous than a complete lie because the complete lie is bound to be discovered sooner or later – just a little intelligence is needed. But the half-truth is very dangerous; even intelligent people, very intelligent people, may not be able to find that it is untrue. That is the danger of half-truths: they look like truths and they are not. They can keep you deceived for centuries.

. Mysticism is the whole truth; it has to be contradictory. Somewhere logic and love have to meet, because they both exist. Hence Theologia Mystica. Somewhere man and woman have to meet and merge and disappear into each other because they both exist and they are both halves of one whole. Hence the beauty and the bliss of a real meeting between a man and a woman: the orgasmic joy is possible only because two halves of a single whole have come together. Both were suffering, both were missing something. Suddenly, all that feeling of missing has disappeared. Of course, the meeting between a man and a woman can only be momentary. Again they are separate, and again the misery sets in, and again the desire to be united. Because the meeting is physical it cannot be very deep and it cannot be lasting either.

. But the meeting of the mystic with the whole is absolute; there is no coming back. He has gone beyond the point of no return. He has dissolved himself like a dew-drop slipping out of the lotus leaf into the lake. He has become the lake. Then whatsoever he says will be contradictory, because a part of it will be the vision of the dew-drop and a part of it will be the vision of the total lake, a part will be the standpoint of the part and a part will be the standpoint of the whole. Hence all mystics have spoken in contradictory terms.

. This is one of the reasons why intellectuals are against them, because the intellectual demands consistency and the mystics cannot be consistent. By the very nature of things that is not possible. He is helpless – he has to be contradictory. He has to say, “I am contradictory because I am vast enough to contain contradictions.”

. Logic is a small thing, love is infinity.

that's very a very beautiful meditation, thank you for sharing

I-Thou.

. The word “theology” means logic about God; theo means God. But there can be no logic about God. There is love about God, love for God, but no logic about God. There are no proofs possible. The only proof is the existence of the mystic. The presence of Dionysius, of Ramakrishna, of Bahauddin – the presence of these people is the proof that God exists, otherwise there is no proof. Because Buddhas have walked on the earth, there are a few footprints of God left behind on the shores of time. — Anand-Haqq

This is not true. The cosmological argument distinctly proves the need to assume a creator "God" to account for the reality of what we experience as the sensible world. Grasping the principles behind it, and the forcefulness of this argument is just as much a "revelation" as anything else.

Somewhere logic and love have to meet, because they both exist. — Anand-Haqq

When the need for "God" is grasped by logic it is undeniable, and this is where love and logic meet. Excluding the possibility of grasping God through logic is a mistake which will only prevent the union of love and logic, by feeding the whims of those atheists who insist God is illogical.

There's stuff we don't know anything about.

When folk talk about that stuff, despite not knowing anything about it, they are being mystical.

Honest folk will remain quiet. — Banno

This is just a statement of personal bias. What you really mean is "stuff I don't know anything about", and you fallaciously conclude that this means "stuff we don't know anything about", And when you accept this faulty proposition you can proceed to the deductive conclusion that those talking about it know nothing about it. See below:

"There are these two young fish swimming along and they happen to meet an older fish swimming the other way, who nods at them and says “Morning, boys. How’s the water?” And the two young fish swim on for a bit, and then eventually one of them looks over at the other and goes “What the hell is water?” — Manuel

Banno is one of those young fish. But Banno proceeds to the conclusion that since "we" don't know what the hell water is, the older fish who uses that term doesn't know either.

I spent most of my time in the company of Buddhists, theosophists, mystics, cranks, Gnostics, Jungians and various devotees of I Ching, seances and Gurdjieff movements. Weak and anecdotal, but I never saw anyone benefit from these interests. — Tom Storm

They musn't have been any good at it. :rofl:

Banno is one of those young fish. But Banno proceeds to the conclusion that since "we" don't know what the hell water is, the older fish who uses that term doesn't know either. — Metaphysician Undercover

:smirk:

But there can be no logic about God. — Anand-Haqq

Major premise: All M are P.Minor premise: All S are M.Conclusion: All S are P :

All men are mortal. (MaP)
All Greeks are men. (SaM)
All Greeks are mortal. (SaP)

A little more complicated:

Jesus existed in history.
God was known to exist in Jesus.
God existed in history.

There is love about God, love for God, but no logic about God. — Anand-Haqq

Love is not logical (transcends logic).
God is love
God is not logical (transcends logic).

Thoughts?

Banno is one of those young fish. But Banno proceeds to the conclusion that since "we" don't know what the hell water is, the older fish who uses that term doesn't know either. — Metaphysician Undercover

I'm not sure how I'm supposed to respond. You quoted me, but I'm not Banno. I'm sure said person will have something to say.

In the context of the speech, which is much longer than what I quoted, Wallace indicates that the older fish does know what water is. At least, it looks quite clear that that's what the author intended to say.

However, don't you wish to go beyond a 'meat and potatoes' philosophy as you put it ? I am thinking about Maslow's highest stage on the hierarchy of needs, self actualization? — Jack Cummins

I think if you look over my posts, you might classify me as a pragmatist. What works. Meat and potatoes. I am an engineer for a reason. I came to Taoism from that perspective and found that it fit right in with the way I see things. So, no. No aspirations beyond figuring out what works. Maslow's stages have always seemed unconvincing to me.

Very much so. It would be interesting to discover if all these mystical teachers, philosophers, people, had in mind the same thing, or something slightly different. Alas, it's clear words can't do it justice. — Manuel

I always say that there's only one world, we're all human, so when we find similarities between the ideas of people writing centuries, millennia, and 10,000 miles apart, there is no reason not to think they are talking about the same things.

Okay, so I probably come from a completely different perspective because I am particularly interested in peak experiences. I may start a thread on this, but I may wait a bit because it may not be too great if it was running at the same time as yours. But I am definitely not into pragmatism. I do not find that 'meat and potatoes' philosophy makes much sense to me.

One of the most important statements about mysticism in the Western hemisphere is the book called The Cloud of Unknowing. — Anand-Haqq

It's available at my library. I'll take a look. Thanks.

First he calls it a cloud. A cloud is vague, with no definable limits. It is constantly changing; it is not static – never, even for two consecutive moments, is it the same. It is a flux, it is pure change. And there is nothing substantial in it. If you hold it in your hand just mist will be left, nothing else. Maybe your hands will become wet, but you will not find any cloud in your fist. — Anand-Haqq

There is an image I use when I am contemplating the world, reality, the Tao. It's a cloud, lit from within. It contains everything - dogs, cats, electrons, love, potato chips - but they are all one, amorphous thing. I can focus in on one part of the cloud and deal with individual ideas, or I can see it all at once, undifferentiated.

But the meeting of the mystic with the whole is absolute; there is no coming back. He has gone beyond the point of no return. He has dissolved himself like a dew-drop slipping out of the lotus leaf into the lake. He has become the lake. Then whatsoever he says will be contradictory, because a part of it will be the vision of the dew-drop and a part of it will be the vision of the total lake, a part will be the standpoint of the part and a part will be the standpoint of the whole. Hence all mystics have spoken in contradictory terms. — Anand-Haqq

I have a more down-to-earth understanding of mysticism. For me, it's a way of knowing. Not the only way, but a really good, useful one. Thinking of it in high falutin terms undermines its credibility. That doesn't mean I disagree with you. I do recognize that contradiction and paradox is the only way we can fit the Tao into our conventional intellectual boxes.