But this opens up the question of what have we done to deserve incarnation, the incarnated state being an inferior state. So we have mystical teaching about Satan and the fallen angels. Satan, I believe was created by God as the archangel. But in seeing his great power he believed himself to be God, or equivalent to God, and therefore was exiled by God.

I am not familiar with the theology around Satan. The analogy I use is the fall, the mystery of the tree of knowledge of good and evil and how humanity in gaining intellectual knowledge lost its way. Because that knowledge enabled people to disregard their instinctive evolutionary behaviour which kept them within their evolutionary niche and in balance with the ecosystem. Once this balance was lost, at some point the people would have to manage their own position in the ecosystem to prevent destroying it. I see this as one of the important human initiations being undergone at this time (this instantiation of humanity), that humanity's task on this world in this epoch is to learn how to maintain and control its balanced position in a functioning ecosystem past the point of inevitable crisis. Each of us can play our individual role in this endeavour, but might experience powerlessness due to the poor state of human affairs at this time. It's a rocky road ahead.

Why have we been thus saddled? We have been given this less than perfect conditioned, burdened with the deprivations of matter. We cannot rise to the higher trinity which you describe, to obtain freedom, unless we come to understand how we are chained to the weight of matter, and release the bonds which hold us.

like I said it is a point of crisis for life, humanity in this epoch, the purpose of which, as we have already discussed is not known. Other than the wisdom of natural cycles of life and evolutionary development. In regards of the higher trinity, there would be Mystics undergoing initiations into the higher trinity within the population, their initiations playing out within the crisis conditions, but the goal of the whole of humanity attaining that goal is a long way off, eons away. They have first to learn to keep their house in order within a healthy ecosystem.

The mystic might apprehend that the experience is significant, and meaningful, but the meaning itself, or significance, will not be understood unless that person relates the experience to something else, and this is best done through explanations, descriptions, and comparisons with others.

Yes, I agree, although as I said before the intellectual understanding of the mystic of her development of her being is not a necessity, this development is happening in her being and body regardless as a natural process. Although the mystic can attempt to understand what is going on, but is not required to orchestrate it, for it to happen.

I would point out a mystical perspective on the development of the self. That the self, it's being, it's body is far more complex and sophisticated than the embryonic development of the conscious self and agency in the individual concerned. I notice you have already agreed on this point, when you referenced the complexity of the role and purposes of the individual cell in the body. So the mystic who thinks they are somehow orchestrating their mystical development is mistaken and should apply some humility, which would help and enable them to move forward.

But eating a mushroom might. :cool:

I could get into the experiences I have had on mushrooms, but critics may devalue them as hallucinations caused by the drug.

I made this point some time back, but the two central protagonists on this thread enjoy discussing philosophical perspectives of mystical experiences that are, themselves, better understood by actual practitioners.

Ok, I take your point. I have been trying to have the discourse I have been having with Metaphysician Undercover on this forum for a number of years now. So now that it is happening I will continue, but I am happy to also discuss more directly mystical experience. Although, I cannot really comment on Zen, as I haven't practiced it, I would have liked to but the opportunity never arose.
My experience is with Hindu puja practiced in ashrams and in India and Raja yoga which I practiced at the Theosophical society in London. Although at the time, this was the early 90's, I was so on fire as an aspirant that I would try anything that I could get my hands on. So also Christian worship and prayer, the full range of New Age stuff and practice, even the Ashtar tapes of channelled extra terrestrials.

I have had many mystical experiences of varying type, although nothing so transformative as some of the New Age practitioners I met. For me it was more a truth seeking endeavour rather than a transformative one. Do you have a kind of experience, or practice in mind, as a starter?

I just thought I would share. I find that the works of great thinkers are invariably sprinkled with aphoristic gems that are like little bubbles of clarity. I like to think of them as "core concepts" that transcend and bridge the larger philosophical contexts of dispute.....

Yes, such jewels of wisdom really can leapfrog a lifetimes teaching. I find now that if I read some passages in the bible, where Jesus speaks, his words are this profound, they can cut through the chitta chatta and tear the curtains in the temple from top to bottom. Or likewise mystical books I read decades ago.

Imho, it is widely regarded as woo for the same reason religion is so often regarded as woo, because of all the ego becoming trips etc which are so often layered on top of it.

Yes, there is a lot of New Age dross around making a serious enquiry difficult without having to waste a lot of time wading through it. The problem as I see it is that we live in an age, a society which is drawing back from religion (except for some sections in the US) and anyhow Christian mysticism was on the wane already. So it has fallen from the zeitgeist, only to be picked by New Ager's.

Can we just dump the explanations? Most of the time, probably not. We're human so explanations are probably going to happen, especially if one has a philosophical nature. But we don't have to take the explanations too seriously, especially given that doing so is usually an act of taking ourselves too seriously.

Personally one can dump the explanations, provided you are able to plot your own course. Its when discourse is contemplated, or engaged in that the explanations become relevant. I agree that we really don't have to take the explanations to seriously. This is what this thread is about, can we enter into meaningful discourse about something which is an intensely personal experience? Well I think we can, because I hold the discourse within my self with myself, albeit that I already have shared the experience with the other part of myself, prior to the discourse. This does still leave out the experiences which I can't even hold a discourse with myself about. These can be discussed under the heading epiphanies.

I don't think the discourse should be taken as a replacement for the genuine mystical experience.

↪Chester But you like authority and order. Why are you complaining about rules being enforced on you? Fall in line.

Chester is a working class Tory, an oxymoron, but real, there are lots of them in the UK, they helped to get the Brexit vote through. I tried to explain to him that he is allying himself with the self serving wealthy privelidged classes, but he couldn't see it, he obviously hasn't met any of them. The contortions these people get themselves into are remarkable.

He was a good example of where England is going wrong.

I think the problem is your surrealist turn of phrase. It can catch people out and they think it's something else.

He hid in a bunker and is demonising anti-fascists.

Sound familiar?

So you had to have that one last pint before closing time. Now your going to spill out onto the pavement and waddle all the way home.

If the median position, spirit, is different depending on which direction the action is going, we'd have six partitions, two distinct parts of each of the fundamental three, depending on which direction the activity is proceeding. How would I derive the seventh? Do these two distinct trinities, being distinct

I am not familiar with Plato's description, but I can say where 6 becomes 7 in The Hindu traditions,

We have two trinities the lower (physical body, the emotional body, the lower mind) and the higher ( higher mind, soul, spirit). This is the incarnate human, but there is also that present, which is not incarnate, or is prior than incarnation. This level is the level which is expressed in the six levels of incarnation, I Refer to monad here it could be seen as God or Brahman.

So the expression manifests as 6, but that which is expressed is also present in its unexpressed form, making 7.

There are numerous different classifications of the levels in a human, it may depend on the school one is referring to, or the particular subject one is addressing. My preference is for the Theosophical system, particularly that of Alice Bailey, thus;

You could view a human as the three inviolable principles;
Spirit......Atman
Soul.......egoic body
Mind......manas

Which becomes prostrate on the cross of incarnation as;
Lower mind
Personality
Emotional body
Physical body

Mind, or manas is separated into the the upper and lower. The lower mind is a product of the incarnation into a body, so the true seat of mind is in the higher trinity. Also physical material is not treated as a principle, but more as a substrate which is not used when the person becomes resident in the higher trinity. Also during transfiguration, the emotional body merges into the egoic body and the personality into Atman. A new level becomes present above the higher three, the monadic, so we then have the higher cross of the heavens.

Monad............God
Atman.............spirit
Egoic body......soul
Manas.............mind

I agree, but I don't see why we can't do both. Religion, which is a formalised version of mysticism, is treated academically, indeed theology is taught alongside philosophy. I don't see why mysticism can't be treated academically. There has been a trend of Western people taking an interest in Eastern mysticism over the last hundred and forty years or so. But it is still relegated to the New Age shops and widely regarded as woo. I know there are actually a handful of colleges where Eastern religions are treated seriously, so there may be some attention given to Eastern mysticism there too, I don't know.

Postal voting should be only for the disabled and armed forces members that are serving abroad...everyone else can get off their fat arses or not vote, the choice is theirs.

You really don't know what you're talking about. You're just that loudmouth shouting in the pub after one to many drinks. 180 proof summed you up.

You really don't know what the real problem with voting in this country is do you? It's certainly not husbands beating their wives.

Benkei is right. It was embarrassing to watch the Tory party pulling their own hair out and scrapping like cats in a sack over what they want out of Brexit, what sort of Brexit they want, or how to get out of the hole they had dug for themselves. At every turn in their indecision they lost more and more negotiating cards until they are now in the position of having to beg for some scraps to cobble together some kind of deal.

Because as I said before, no other country will accommodate the UK until they have sorted out their relationship with the EU first. At every stage the UK will have to go back to Barnier on their knees.

What an unholy mess.

Oh, it's all Banier's fault, or it's those lefties over there.

Who knows.

Precisely.

It was an example of why postal votes are not a good option...it's a lot harder to force someone to vote in a particular way at a polling station...that's why they were created dumb-ass.

And what about the voters who can't get to the polling station, or are away from home etc?

I am a polling officer and I see plenty of couples where one person tells the other where to put their cross in the polling booth, or writes it for them.

You've just been duped by the Brexit party.

Oh, but a polling officer wouldn't know anything about polling would they? You will say.

How many husbands are beating their wives into voting differently then?

I don't see the need for such multiple divisions in a mystical perspective. In the west the tradition is one division, the distinction is between the body and the soul. Then each has properties, mind is proper to the soul, and desires and emotions are derived from the body.

Whatever works for you.

The problem I have with creating structure for understanding these differences is that the entire living being is a system, or systems of activity, and each activity crosses any proposed divisions.

I dont see a problem here, The system I refer to is a tool, of use from time, the use a botanist makes of the biological classification and scientific understanding of plants.

Further, from my conscious observation point, I seem to be able to manipulate these two distinctly sourced activities. In the process of thinking, contemplation, I can divert the activities, making them go around and around, or opposing them to each other, preventing the externally sourced activities from going deeper and changing my mind, and also preventing the internally sourced activities from causing me to actually get up and do something, changing the external world.

I agree with all of that.

So I think the black, white, and grey is actually a very good analogy.

I agree, also I can work with that because it lends itself to the triadic axiomatic system (for want of better words) I use.
So the dark aspect I would equate with the father, God, will power. The lighter aspect with the mother, the Holy Spirit, nature(physical material) The grey area with the son of the father and mother, the Christ, the human mind. So I can draw a correspondence as follows.

1, first aspect............the dark,....father,.....God.....soul.......will
2, second aspect.......the light....mother.....Spirit....Body....Intelligence
3, third aspect............the grey....son..........Christ...Mind....agency

Although I prefer to swap 3 for 2 here in the trinity so we have father, (dark) and mother (light) at either side/side end and son (grey) in the middle.

So father is will, the creator, purpose.
Mother is the universe, the bearer of life, wisdom.
Son is humanity, the creation, mind, or agency.

I don't believe in this form of "ineffable" though

I only meant ineffable in terms of trying to understand the mystical experience of another mystic, something not easy to convey.

So the mystic doesn't really deal with the ineffable,

I don't think you can say what this, that is a restriction in itself and may inadvertently elevate the limited, frail human mind onto a pedestal of importance. I have had mystical experiences which I cannot express in words, or thoughts. Never mind convey to another person. I am not saying such things are ineffable in nature, but rather from our limited perspective.

The problem is that only a very small portion of activity which is going on within a human being is evident to the conscious mind.

Agreed, the distinction I continuously make is between the conscious mind in the sense of what is orchestrated by the conscious, sentient being of the self, and other unconscious activities of the mind.

I should point out at this stage that when I describe the mind as split into two categories, I include all that we are talking of here in the lower division and only the highest manifestation of intuition, or the activity of the soul, or the like in the upper division.

I will not comment about the ego, only to say that I am not familiar with Freudian terminology, and this term is too ambiguous, used in too many other ways, for me to say anything useful.

Agreed, I will refer to it as the emotions, the emotional aspect of the personality, or body. The emotional body, as opposed to the physical, or the mental.

Let's say that a common sense idea is that postal voting is easy to manipulate , easy to corrupt. To attempt to destroy that concept leftists say not having postal votes is racist... but in no way address the point of postal voting corruption.

That's a Brexit party meme, it's weird the way they convinced themselves that democracy in the UK is under threat from bullying husbands.
So Faridge sold you out to the moderate Tory's, now you've got that buffoon in Downing st, your precious Brexit is going to be chaos and economic ruin. And guess who will get the blame? The Brexit party and UKIP, Johnson will dodge the blame and pin it on Faridge.

Happy days.

Quite.
The precious.

If you'd like to expand on this further I would read with interest. How does the mystic facilitate human development in your view?

Through pursuing some kind of service, this could be doing good works and/or offering oneself as a vessel to convey divinity of some kind for acts of service.

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.