For Atheist Mystics

[beenherebeforeagain]

Just an observation: even living exclusively in the here-and-now, being in the moment, humans apparently have--and I would argue need to have--thoughts for the future, as well as memory of the past, be it just the plan for getting food on the table tomorrow, investing for retirement, or discovering whether or not there's a new physics by smashing protons together at unimaginably high speeds sometime in June. That's an assumption that I make, so I'm not surprised that people want to relive the past, find things in the future, someplace else, seek happiness in material possessions, etc.

Earlier, Typist, you noted something about mystical experiences/the esoteric being impractical. But unless I'm misunderstanding what you're advocating, is truly being-in-the-moment any more realistic? It certainly seems to me that most humans are not living in the moment, but are either ruminating about the past, or considering what might happen in the future, etc. How is getting them to live in the moment any more realistic than the experience(s) this DIR is about?

 

[Typist]

Earlier, Typist, you noted something about mystical experiences/the esoteric being impractical.

Mystical experiences are practical, explanations of mystical experiences are unnecessary. We can pick up a piece of fruit and eat it and be fed, without knowing the name of the fruit we just ate.

But unless I'm misunderstanding what you're advocating, is truly being-in-the-moment any more realistic?

It's not realistic to be in the moment every minute of our lives just as eating an apple every moment of our lives is not realistic.

When we're physically hungry, eat an apple.

When we're psychically hungry, eat some silence.

We don't need to know the name of the fruit or the name of the silence, they will feed us in any case. The silence doesn't need to be mystical, or religious, or spiritual, or anything else. It's perfectly fine all by itself, no help from us required.

It's the simplest thing, there's no need to make it complicated.

When hungry, eat.

Three words!

 

[Typist]

I'll be hurtfully truthful here.

What's happening is that you've created a glamorous hero story for yourself, and I'm taking away what the story is made of, the philosophies, the explanations, and so on.

If the problem we are discussing does not arise from the content of thought, then there is no way for you to play the role of sage, expert, guru etc, which is perhaps an unacceptable outcome. Perhaps you need that story, and I am a rude fool in trying to take it away, that could be.

If the problem we are discussing arises instead from the nature of thought, then all philosophies including mine will lead to the same place, more division and conflict etc.

If what we've been calling the "mystical experience" is defined as being the absence of thought then all philosophies, which are all made of thought, are actually a movement not towards the experience, but away from it. It doesn't matter what explanation one prefers.

If a reader thinks this post has more value than the mystical experience, keep reading.

If the reader thinks the mystical experience has more value than this post, why are you still reading??

See?

Simple. Simple, simple, simple.

And that's what you hate about it. Simple leaves no place for you at the center of the hero story.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

My bad for sloppy writing in giving you that impression.

I'm suggesting instead that whatever the something important might be, it's likely found in the real world, not the symbolic world. A religious person might ask, do we want God, or the word "God"?

Say we are sitting across the table from our friend. In our lap we have a book about our friend. To the degree we have our nose in the book, we are ignoring the real living friend who is right there. And so I'm suggesting, put the book away. Simple, right?

Thought isn't the path to whatever the something important might be, it's the obstacle. If that's seen, then all the fancy philosophies lose their importance, and it's not really my fault if all the fancy philosophers hate this prospect.

If beliefs aren't important, if they're only symbols and never the real thing, why bother examining them? Why not examine the real world instead, isn't that where you feel the something important might be?

Why read this post, why look in a book, when the real world is all around you everywhere you go every minute of your life? It couldn't possibly be more available, right?

Yes, because of your experiences. It's the eating of the apple that is nourishing you, not the word "apple" or a book about apples. The apple would nourish you just as well if you didn't know what to call it.

What is clarity? It is a symbol in our heads which we hope accurately represents the real world. But no symbol can do that.

We think the human condition we are trying to deal with arises from the content of thought, and thus we try to address it on that level by finding the correct explanation, the best philosophy, clarity etc.

As we see here in this thread, this quest to find the correct thoughts leads to endless centuries of conflict which never resolves anything.

The reason all this effort never resolves anything is that the problem does not arise from the content of thought, but from something deeper, the nature of thought.

Thought is inherently divisive in nature, that's how it works. Thus, anything made of thought will be inherently divisive. You and I are made of thought, that's why we experience reality as being divided between "me" and "everything else", the source of most personal and social problems.

Make all the philosophies and explanations you want, you'll never find the right one, because every philosophy is made of thought, the very thing causing the problem we are trying to solve.

Yes, yes, I see what you are saying: we must stop thinking and just experience instead. Then why are you in here, thinking and talking then? Why aren't YOU out experiencing, and forget about all these other silly people?

You have a different definition of clarity than me: it is not an idea in my head, clarity is clarity of experience. Yes, most of the time, I experience reality "as being divided be "me" and "everything else."" But sometimes, I have experienced life as nonduality (much as I hate that word, I dislike "oneness" or "unity" even more). But whatever the word, that is not the experience. Having had that "mystical" experience that we can't really describe but can only allude to, has given me a different perspective on my experience of my daily life. My perception is that I am more open, more aware, have more clarity, more of the time than I once did, because I have worked on how to better experience my life.

I'm not sure about how YOU go about experiencing the world, the map of reality I create for myself is based mostly on experience and very little on words or symbols. I am much more about experience than I was 10 years ago, and have made a continuous and conscious effort to make my map of reality based on experience and not so much on thoughts.

Why not examine the real world? I do. The real world includes people who have thoughts--that may inherently have similar structure, but may have widely varying symbolic content--and humans are social beings, who like to interact with each other. So part of my experience of the world is to examine my experiences with other human beings, which includes the use of those pesky symbols we HAVE to use if we are going to communicate in any moderately sophisticated manner. I also enjoy food and sex and other pleasurable experiences, and avoid pain whenever possible, and minimize it when I can't avoid it.

Why examine it? Why seek clarity? Why seek knowledge? Why seek thoughts? Because I am human. These are things that humans do. At least that's my map of reality.

I do not agree that "We think the human condition we are trying to deal with arises from the content of thought." Yes, thought is or may be problematic I'm not sure if it is even important if we conceive of the problem being the underlying structure of thought (which we can reasonably presume is based on evolutionary needs and not on the needs of speech and reason), or the content (which consists of symbols that attempt to map portions of our environment--some of course better than others--that mostly appear to be learned rather than inherent).

What I see as the problem is that too many people deny individual experience--their own and everyone else's--and try to impose maps of reality not based on experience, but instead based on elaborate logical constructs that may or may not have any practical validity. I don't know of any humans, save significantly handicapped individuals, who could be said to not think, and to not make maps of their environment based on their experiences. Studies of all sorts of animals has shown that anything with a brain of even a few cells create maps of their environments. It is natural for humans to think, and to make maps both experiential and in words and other symbols. Therefore I'm going to continue to think, thank you very much, recognizing that either the structure or content of my thoughts might not be really great matches to reality, and to seek clarity in both my experiences and in the mental/experiential maps I create.

Uhhh...remind me, what is the problem we are trying to solve?

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Mystical experiences are practical, explanations of mystical experiences are unnecessary. We can pick up a piece of fruit and eat it and be fed, without knowing the name of the fruit we just ate.



It's not realistic to be in the moment every minute of our lives just as eating an apple every moment of our lives is not realistic.

When we're physically hungry, eat an apple.

When we're psychically hungry, eat some silence.

We don't need to know the name of the fruit or the name of the silence, they will feed us in any case. The silence doesn't need to be mystical, or religious, or spiritual, or anything else. It's perfectly fine all by itself, no help from us required.

It's the simplest thing, there's no need to make it complicated.

When hungry, eat.

Three words!

When curious, experiment. When feeling social, communicate. When angry, kill things or break things. When feeling empathetic, do something caring. When hungry for a thrilling experience, bungee off a cliff. When interested in there being more apples, cultivate trees...oh wait, that requires some kind of thought and planning. as does bungeeing off a cliff. No, you don't need to know the name, but it does help if you want to communicate with other humans to have some sort of symbols in common. And while some things are truly simple, others are not so much.

Silence may not need to be mystical. I certainly have experienced silence that is not. But I have also experienced silence that is mystical. And, I've experienced mystical in otherwise noisy "normal" states--although once the "mystical" experience begins, it is not "normal" any more. But it's mystical because it's a different experience than most of the time being in silence, or most of the time being in day-to-day living/conscious mode.

Those who have experienced these states of the nondual realize that they are not "normal," and that the only way to make any kind of sense is to speak of them in way that sounds to those who have not as "mystical" or "philosophical" or "religious" or "spiritual." They are not normal experiences; we do not discard them because they are not. Therefore, a curious human seeks to understand, seeks clarity about the experience, and about the map they inevitably make of the experience.

You would have those who experience this nondual state deny our experiences because...why? The experiences are breaking from the dualistic language and symbols of thought that you abhor. And then, in order to talk about it, we have to use dualistic language, and you blame us for that, even when we openly state that the language doesn't even begin to reflect the experience. You accuse us of being fancy philosophers, without understanding what we have experienced and the difficulties of trying to construct a mental model of the experience that might be understandable to others.

Consider an experience: riding a roller coaster. Suppose you have, and I have not. Can you, using language, describe it in such a way that I will understand what the experience of riding a roller coaster is--that I will EXPERIENCE it through your words? Of course not. The only way I can experience riding a roller coaster is to ride a roller coaster. Will I be any better at describing or explaining the experience once I have? Probably not. Does that mean we shouldn't try? I don't see why we shouldn't. Humans talk about their experiences, even if we sometimes don't understand each other.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

What's happening is that you've created a glamorous hero story for yourself, and I'm taking away what the story is made of, the philosophies, the explanations, and so on.

If the problem we are discussing does not arise from the content of thought, then there is no way for you to play the role of sage, expert, guru etc, which is perhaps an unacceptable outcome. Perhaps you need that story, and I am a rude fool in trying to take it away, that could be.

If the problem we are discussing arises instead from the nature of thought, then all philosophies including mine will lead to the same place, more division and conflict etc.

If what we've been calling the "mystical experience" is defined as being the absence of thought then all philosophies, which are all made of thought, are actually a movement not towards the experience, but away from it. It doesn't matter what explanation one prefers.

If a reader thinks this post has more value than the mystical experience, keep reading.

If the reader thinks the mystical experience has more value than this post, why are you still reading??

See?

Simple. Simple, simple, simple.

And that's what you hate about it. Simple leaves no place for you at the center of the hero story.

First of all, what we've been calling the "mystical experience" may or may not occur without thought, but is not simply the absence of thought. The mystical experience, which I have experienced both with and without thought, is a state of consciousness that Windwalker describes as being nonduality, others say is oneness or unity, and I call connectedness, sometimes. None of the words are exactly accurate. But because we've all apparently experienced very similar states, it allows us to recognize what the other is talking about.

See what? That you can't accept that some people have different experiences than you? That you have decided that YOUR answer to everything should be EVERYONE's to everything. And, you're so ANGRY about it; get over it, man.

I just don't see how everyone living in the moment--eat when hungry, etc.,--is going to work. Actually, I'm not sure that that isn't what most people are doing anyway (with the possible exception of people on RF).. Except by denying our human propensity to be social, think and talk.

 

[YmirGF]

First of all, what we've been calling the "mystical experience" may or may not occur without thought, but is not simply the absence of thought. The mystical experience, which I have experienced both with and without thought, is a state of consciousness that Windwalker describes as being nonduality, others say is oneness or unity, and I call connectedness, sometimes. None of the words are exactly accurate. But because we've all apparently experienced very similar states, it allows us to recognize what the other is talking about

In reality, it narrows the range of experiences possible. I've opined that one can have a mystical experience while sniffing a cup of coffee or taking out the trash. I prefer my world of no limitations and few expectations as it is far more interesting.

I just don't see how everyone living in the moment--eat when hungry, etc.,--is going to work. Actually, I'm not sure that that isn't what most people are doing anyway (with the possible exception of people on RF).. Except by denying our human propensity to be social, think and talk.

I am very much given to living in the moment, but at the same time, I have a defined past and a potential future. Likewise, communication is the greatest treasure of our species and to suggest that silence is the cure is a sign that the individual is not really aware of the nature of the game they are within. Then, of course, one discovers that the silence is far from silent.... the rolling thunder that emerges from that silence is much like riding on the crest of a tidal wave - joyous and triumphant... It is very hard to articulate that experience.

 

[Windwalker]

What's happening is that you've created a glamorous hero story for yourself, and I'm taking away what the story is made of, the philosophies, the explanations, and so on.

If the problem we are discussing does not arise from the content of thought, then there is no way for you to play the role of sage, expert, guru etc, which is perhaps an unacceptable outcome. Perhaps you need that story, and I am a rude fool in trying to take it away, that could be.

If the problem we are discussing arises instead from the nature of thought, then all philosophies including mine will lead to the same place, more division and conflict etc.

If what we've been calling the "mystical experience" is defined as being the absence of thought then all philosophies, which are all made of thought, are actually a movement not towards the experience, but away from it. It doesn't matter what explanation one prefers.

If a reader thinks this post has more value than the mystical experience, keep reading.

If the reader thinks the mystical experience has more value than this post, why are you still reading??

See?

Simple. Simple, simple, simple.

And that's what you hate about it. Simple leaves no place for you at the center of the hero story.

Again, no substance and wild swings at personal attacks in lieu of that. I stand behind everything I've said. When you have multiple reasonable, balanced people saying you have a tail, it might behoove you to look. This is unfortunate. I thought you had insights, but what you do is kind of overpowered with all your other issues. I have nothing to prove to you. You can carry on with your vision of truth as you have found it for the world on your own crusade. I wish you well on your path with yourself at the helm. I had hoped for more from you. Sad.

It would have been neat if you had actually responded to my points, rather than trying to defame me personally. It says everything that you could not. It says this is your ego. Which was obvious early on.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

In reality, it narrows the range of experiences possible. I've opined that one can have a mystical experience while sniffing a cup of coffee or taking out the trash. I prefer my world of no limitations and few expectations as it is far more interesting.

lol, very close to the situation for one of my experiences, which I certainly was not seeking at that moment; The universe imposed on me, rather than me going to it, as it were. Silence I think helps. At the very least, it helps to balance me, so I can experience without undue emotional involvement.

I am very much given to living in the moment, but at the same time, I have a defined past and a potential future. Likewise, communication is the greatest treasure of our species and to suggest that silence is the cure is a sign that the individual is not really aware of the nature of the game they are within. Then, of course, one discovers that the silence is far from silent.... the rolling thunder that emerges from that silence is much like riding on the crest of a tidal wave - joyous and triumphant... It is very hard to articulate that experience.

I haven't gotten to that point yet, although one experience--less pleasant, well terrifying, in fact--I was a small spark inside a flimsy room in the midst of what seemed like a hurricane, all while feeling/seeing myself, the room, and the maelstrom outside the room.... Took years before I could get past that.

 

[Orbit]

As the OP, I just noticed that this thread got revived. I've been enjoying the conversation among those with mystic leanings, and particularly respect Windwalker's calm wisdom. Thanks.

 

[mystic64]

I would definitely say my intuitive sense is considerably more a part of my lived reality now, sort of like having an extra functional limb. The thing that one has to be mindful of is to not use it as weapon against another. That it provides insights is useful, but it should be towards doing good, not for selfish reason, like hurting those who hurt you. It's like using a developed intellect as a weapon. The minute you start operating out of ego, is the minute you lose it.

Windwalker I have waited years for the opportunity to interact with you on a one to one bases and I would like to say that I will never disagree with you. I consider any input that you might give me a treasure and a valuable gift. And anything that I might present to you now and in the future is just for the purpose of comparing notes to create an educational experience for me personally.

Ok now with that said, there is a part of me that is a twin to Typist. It is just that he/she and I are on opposite sides of the game in this topic. And for better or worse to us it is a game. And again now, what is interesting is that because we are in a mystic DIR non mystics are by the rules not allowed to be disruptive so that mystics are free to share their experience with each other without the turbulance that non mystics can and do create. But, what is interesting with this topic is that Orbit has created a loophole . Non mystics are welcome in "this" topic and they are welcome to create turbulance . And Windwalker you are right about, "The minute you start operating out of ego, is the minute that you loose it." Which is basically because of the fears that are involved that create ego. One does not have ego if one does not have fear.

The post that you are quoting from is my attempt to define the game that I am playing because what is the fun of it, be one win or loose, if what they are attempting to do is not definesd. Windwalker you do not play games, which is perfectly ok and a valid approach to things. Typist and I play games we are gamers. I do not play games when someother is not playing a game, but I do play games when someother is playing a game. And sometimes I follow their rules and sometimes I do not, but mostly I do.

Windwalker, I have nothing but respect for you and always have and your wisdom and experience is a gift to all of us that are paying attention.

 

[mystic64]

I'm content to be simply offering an alternative, but only if I can do so with melodramatic typoholic language infused with bombastic fantasy superiority. I can be silly too you know.

I don't think what you other fellows are discussing is all completely wrong, but I do think you're talking about some tiny tiny fragment of the human experience, in order to make yourselves feel special.

It's not evil or anything, but it's impractical in the extreme, because the vast majority of human beings are never going to get what you're discussing, and by making it all sound so very esoteric, you're making it even less likely that they will.

Where does the problem lie?

If we think the fundamental human problem lies in the content of thought, then it's logical to create all kinds of philosophies in the search for the correct thought content. That's what's happening here, and in most of religion.

If we see that the problem arises not from the content of thought, but from the inherently divisive nature of thought itself, the door is opened to something much simpler.

There's no longer much point to an endless philosophical investigation, because whatever philosophy we come up with will be made of the same inherently divisive medium as any other philosophy. That's why all ideologies lead to conflict, as they are all made of the same inherently divisive medium.

So what then?

The philosopher's overheated mind starts searching for some sublime, complex, sophisticated solution, and thus misses the wonderous simplicity of this.

We can't get rid of thought. All we can do is manage it.

This is the very same situation as we face with all the other processes of the human body!

We can't end hunger, we can only eat one meal at a time as needed. It's not sagely to run off looking for a permanent solution to hunger. It's wiser to eat the next meal and enjoy it, and make peace with the need to eat.

It's become heresy to say this in New Age type conversations, but teaching simple meditation exercises has the power to help far more people than any esoteric sermon ever can, mine included.

If our goal is to help heal human wounds, and not just inflate our own self importance, simple, simple, simple is the "one true way".

Typist, you are treating me with respect and you are being honest. And that does complicate things abit . And as I read down through this topic I am noticing that you are intuitively adapting to changing situations . Typist I like you you are really good at what you can do.

If we see that the problem arises not from the content of thought, but from the inherently nature of thought itself, the door is open to something simpler." Humm ? The foundation for your statement is just all whopperjawed Typist ! Thought has no "inherent nature". Thought as you are defining it is an artificial creation that is created by the ignorance of the human mind.

Now Typist, your sermon is the promoting of "simple". And the definiton of "simple"that you are promoting would lead us all back to the stone age which is not possible because there are way to many humans occuping this earth. Your logic is flawed Typist and it is made up of smoke and mirrors. The true mystic experience creates possibilities that will facilitate all of us living together in harmany on this planet. What you are promoting does not do this. And thought as you are defining it does not exist as a part of the true mystic experience, it only exists in the reality that is artifically created by the human mind. And yes simple meditation exercises could be very productive, but what are these simple meditations that you are presenting as a solution? One would have to have a look at them and experience them to see if you are reality oriented or not.

Maybe ?

 

[Baladas]

When I was a Christian, I was a very liberal, nondogmatic mystic with a New-Age God concept. I had several mystical experiences, which centered on union with God. I still think those experiences are valid and valuable. I also had one mind blowing experience that was not theistic at all that had to do with pure perception of consciousness and a trip through the universe. So, I'm now, and have always been a mystic at heart. I did not then, and do not now, have any use for dogma of any kind.

Here is the crossroads: I am now an atheist with pantheist leanings who finds Eastern mysticism appealing. I do non-theistic meditation, which is one way to reach mystic states. So in that sense, my basic spiritual makeup is unaltered: I'm still chasing mystic states. It has been recently pointed out to me that the "God" concept and related religious symbols and imageries are just that--imagery to be transcended; convenient shorthand for the indescribable; masks of the ineffable.

As I incorporate those ideas into my practice, I wonder if I can leave the God-baggage behind and truly be free of, or rather transcend theism in my efforts at mystical union.

So, I throw this open to the wisdom of the boards: Have you had a mystical experience? How do you incorporate that into your post-Christian worldview? General thoughts?

I am also an ex-Christian, but I was far from liberal. I firmly rooted myself in the Christian scriptures and I was very serious about my personal relationship with Christ (as understood by my brand of Christianity).
I had many mystic experiences though, which involved a union with God, and I always considered these to be more important than the scriptures.

In my post-Christian life, I have experienced similar mystic states to before, as well as moments of sharp clarity regarding the oneness of all things.

I think that theism is ultimately symbolic, and that it can be transcended if it is understood in this way.

I hope that makes sense...I need to go eat lunch though, my blood-sugar is low.

 

[YmirGF]

And Windwalker you are right about, "The minute you start operating out of ego, is the minute that you loose it." Which is basically because of the fears that are involved that create ego. One does not have ego if one does not have fear.

From my perspective, this last nugget about fear creating ego is perhaps one of the most absurd things I've read in a very long while.

 

[Orbit]

From my perspective, this last nugget about fear creating ego is perhaps one of the most absurd things I've read in a very long while.

In the sense that our fear of having our ego-image disrupted makes us react negatively, it makes sense.

 

[YmirGF]

In the sense that our fear of having our ego-image disrupted makes us react negatively, it makes sense.

I suppose, Orbit, but I get very annoyed when people even appear to disparage the ego as it demonstrates a clear lack of understanding of and appreciation of the unique nature of the ego. I would suggest using the term egotistical as that is actually a very different thing. Those who claim the ego-less dogma are in for more than a few rather profound shocks. Then again... stop the presses -- maybe it is peoples warped understanding of ego and personality that bring about these "dark nights of the soul". In other words, it's not the ego that is at fault OR the problem, rather, it is peoples warped understanding that is at fault and is the cause of their difficulties... Hmmmm....

 

[Typist]

Again, no substance...

I very specifically pointed to the personal "me" reinforcing story that is being built from all these explanations.

If it was just you, I'd be polite and not mention it. I am actually complimenting you by using you as the example, on the assumption you can handle it.

What you're engaged in represents a process literally millions of people are involved in, so I feel it merits mention. I hosted a forum for years full to the rafters with folks who were building their personal "me" story stronger and stronger and stronger via these "I'm transcending my ego" type stories.

Everybody will now assume I'm talking about somebody else, not them of course, because they've transcended all that, they've evolved, they've seen the light, they're enlightened, advanced, holy, god-like, they can stop thought at will, and so on ad naseum.

As soon as we get in to this explanation business, we create food for our egos to hijack. It's a process filled with addictive self delusions, and the fuel that keeps the whole ego circus going is thought in the form of mystical explanations.

That's what's happening in this thread, and so many others like it. It's like an ego circle jerk where each of us help the others get off, and if anybody interrupts the jerking, they must be ignored, resisted, ejected, the self inflation show must go on!

It doesn't help to switch from this explanation to that explanation, from this philosophy to that philosophy, from this religion to that religion, because they're all made of thought. Anything made of thought, including my posts, will be subject to the same division based problems.

Once we see that it's the nature of thought and not the content of thought that is the issue, our interest in explanations naturally starts to fade.

Mystical explanations are not necessary. They create more problems than they solve. Every mystical explanation is really a claim that the experience itself just isn't enough, which simply isn't true.

Self appointed holy men of every religion hate this fact, because it means they are unnecessary too.

 

[Typist]

Typist I like you you are really good at what you can do.

So you thought you'd inflate my ego EVEN LARGER than it already is?? I'll get you for this!

Thought has no "inherent nature". Thought as you are defining it is an artificial creation that is created by the ignorance of the human mind.

I'm sorry, but thought is an electro-chemical process in the human brain, an element of nature, and thus it has properties.

My argument is that thought operates through division. It observes a single unified reality, and breaks it up in to separate conceptual objects. That's what thought does, that's how it works. Thus for instance, we get the foundation of language the noun, whose function is to divide one part of reality from another.

Obviously, this division process is very powerful and the key to our physical survival. So we can't just dump it, just as a bird can't dump it's wings.

So thought is very powerful and necessary, but it comes with a big price tag, an illusion of division which infects everything it touches.

Because this illusion arises from the nature of thought itself, it doesn't help much to change around the thought content, because any idea we come up with will still be made of thought, still subject to the inherent properties of thought, still subject to the illusion of division.

Religion has a place, moral codes, advice on how to live etc. I'm not against religion unless it becomes violent, an attitude I've shared all over the forum.

But it's stupid to try to turn mysticism in to a religion. Just let the experience be. Respect it, allow it to be what it is. It doesn't need your help.

Now Typist, your sermon is the promoting of "simple". And the definiton of "simple"that you are promoting would lead us all back to the stone age

You've misunderstood my remarks, perhaps due to poor writing on my part. I never said everybody should stop thinking every minute of the day.

Your logic is flawed Typist and it is made up of smoke and mirrors.

No, that's wrong, completely wrong. My logic is made up of typoholic arrogant pontificating bombastic flatulent burpings. Get it right!

The true mystic experience creates possibilities that will facilitate all of us living together in harmany on this planet. What you are promoting does not do this.

A key source of conflict for endless centuries has been mystical experiences, that well meaning dumb people then tried to convert in to explanations, which were different than somebody else's explanations, so let's have a war about it. Just like we're doing in this thread.

And yes simple meditation exercises could be very productive, but what are these simple meditations that you are presenting as a solution?

If our mind is exhausted from over use, we can give it a rest. Only philosophers would take this and try to turn it in to something really complicated.

I'm assuming participants of this thread don't need me to teach the simple meditation exercises because after all, they are so advanced and so on.

 

[Windwalker]

As soon as we get in to this explanation business, we create food for our egos to hijack.

And everyone in the world is doing what you do. You are in fact projecting onto others your own shadow. I said to someone privately who was offended by your unwarranted and unjustifiable insults to me, that it simply brought to mind for me the story of the Buddha where someone who didn't like what he had to say came up and spit on his face. The story goes,

He is new, a stranger. He must have heard from people something about me, that this man is an atheist, a dangerous man who is throwing people off their track, a revolutionary, a corrupter. And he may have formed some idea, a notion of me. He has not spit on me, he has spit on his notion. He has spit on his idea of me because he does not know me at all, so how can he spit on me?

“If you think on it deeply,” Buddha said, “he has spit on his own mind. I am not part of it, and I can see that this poor man must have something else to say because this is a way of saying something. Spitting is a way of saying something.
​

What I hear from you is an image of your own mind, not who I am. And what's more, it's not who the people in this thread are. I have made assumptions about people, knee-jerk reacted to what I thought I heard them saying. And this too for over a decade of being a forum moderator, so used to certain "types", that I assumed just a few key words, "trigger words" what sort of person they are. But the difference here is that when they point out they are not saying what I am assuming they are, I correct myself and learn from it. So far, you don't actually read the content of what I am saying, not giving the benefit of doubt, not trying to listen or understand that I understand quite clearly the basic truths you know (and basic they are), and what I am talking about is in fact not some metaphysical New Age nonsense. But you persist. And not just that, you insult me. You spit on all of us.

I am absolutely more than open to criticisms. It's how I learn. It's how I grow. I hold all my views with an open hand, not a dogmatic closed fist. What I hear from you in really what I more than accustomed to hearing from ex-fundamentalist Christians who have now found the "real" truth. It's the same "I have the Answers now, and all of you are wrong". Tell me you don't think like this. You know better than all the rest of us who have been on our own paths.

What I am, and have been talking about is not metaphysics. I have been talking about actual Western scientifically researched developmental studies. I've been tapping into semiotics, cultural studies, and a long list of investigations into psychology as well as comparative religious studies, East and West. The reasons for understanding these thing is very simple. You have to integrate what you are exposed to in these luminous moments encountered in silence! You aren't living outside of the world, but within it. You have to have a some frameworks of understanding of the world in order to translate these experiences.

It is not necessary to know Integral Philosophy, in order to find truth and fulfillment in life. But for those of us, like me, who are interesting in not just spiritual, mystical exploration, but an exploration of the human condition, societies, cultures, religions, ecology, politics, science, and on and on, that is in fact not found on the meditation mat! Give me a break. It's not necessary to know this stuff. But you are assuming I am saying it is! That is entirely your own fantasy.

It's a process filled with addictive self delusions, and the fuel that keeps the whole ego circus going is thought in the form of mystical explanations.

Yes, and you assume a lot about me that is baseless if you think this is what I am doing. You have no idea of what I think or belief. I've not heard it repeated back to me yet. I am personally very well of where the pitfalls of my own ego lay. And it is not anywhere you have been stabbing at, as if it is your job to do so anyway. You don't know where those are in me. Like they say in AA, "Do your own damn inventory." You are not my guru. You are not qualified to be. You appear in that stage of someone who's have a special moment or two and now think they know where everyone else is off track. In other words, a very immature stage, with lots of shadows projecting on to others to avoid what in actual Reality would leave you a humble person, not a judge of others, such as you are with all of us.

Like it says in the Bible so perfectly, "By their fruits you shall know them". Indeed this is true.

That's what's happening in this thread, and so many others like it. It's like an ego circle jerk where each of us help the others get off, and if anybody interrupts the jerking, they must be ignored, resisted, ejected, the self inflation show must go on!

You should realize when I read comments like these I see you avoiding yourself?

It doesn't help to switch from this explanation to that explanation, from this philosophy to that philosophy, from this religion to that religion, because they're all made of thought. Anything made of thought, including my posts, will be subject to the same division based problems.

It sound's like you've created your own metaphysical theology here. You have it all keyed down to one problem alone, thought. Just stop that, and the rest magically is fixed. You have found the singular "Way, Truth and Life". Again, this sound very former Christian to me.

Once we see that it's the nature of thought and not the content of thought that is the issue, our interest in explanations naturally starts to fade.

Franky, this is like 1st grader understanding to me. You really don't know what you are talking about in what you imagine I think or believe, despite my best efforts to patient and respectful to you regardless of the fact you have been rude and insulting to others. I feel badly for you actually, like that man who spits on his own mind. I honestly do not believe you have found Peace. You've probably taken a freedom experience, and are now substituting your ideas about it, a theology about it as the path to that release again. And damned be anyone who says otherwise, as you lash out at the through your own frustration for not in fact being at Peace. You are angry is it lost to you.

This is not the path home for you.

Mystical explanations are not necessary.

Who in this thread has said they are? I haven't, and I don't. Once again, this is an image in your own mind you a spitting on, not the actual person before you.

They create more problems than they solve. Every mystical explanation is really a claim that the experience itself just isn't enough, which simply isn't true.

Again, who are you talking to? It's not me, or anyone else in this thread.

Self appointed holy men of every religion hate this fact, because it means they are unnecessary too.

Thank goodness you can wear the robes now!

Look, I'm honestly hoping that you maybe stop and pause, and listen. Methinks you think too much! You assume endlessly.

 

[YmirGF]

{drivel snip}

Once we see that it's the nature of thought and not the content of thought that is the issue, our interest in explanations naturally starts to fade.

That makes sense, the downside to this is missing the opportunity to revise your thinking on the above. Having no interest in further explanations can certainly lead to complacent stagnation. It is my heartfelt recommendation that you rethink this travesty of thinking. Psychologically speaking, this kind of belief could become quite debilitating and could impact on ones learning processes. Avoid inhaling.

Mystical explanations are not necessary.

While technically true, said explanations can save one years of wallowing. For example, Windwalker is a tremendous resource. His knowledge is encyclopaedic, but more importantly he is extremely honest and considerate. He is, dare I say it, a genuine RF treasure.

They create more problems than they solve.

It depends which explanations one decides to snort into their brain. Some very popular figures are not actually all that good and should be avoided like the plague. There are some real gems out there though that can minimize any problems one may encounter. That does not mean that one will not have to distill the information into their own terms of understanding. It's not a free ride.

Every mystical explanation is really a claim that the experience itself just isn't enough, which simply isn't true.

That's right, your statement is not true. Nice work.

Self appointed holy men of every religion hate this fact, because it means they are unnecessary too.

But they are unnecessary. That does not mean they cannot be helpful or harmful. Caveat emptor.