Mystics Only: Extended Discussion

[Willamena]

In order to understand mechanism I have mentioned introspection is the key, always with reference to the mind trap, the logical impossibility of being at once, observer and observed.

You had said, "Isn't it the case that gradations are present within this for any individual and they are unaware?" and that "'gradations' here in terms of mechanism."

Can you explain at least that bit? Then perhaps I can explain the "logical impossibility" you present.

 

[Ozzie]

I have no significant disagreement with that, except that I would assign "interpretation" as the process of breaking down and ordering bits.

Yes that is what interpretation is IMO.

 

[Willamena]

Or come to Brad Chat and we can butt heads about it. I have a few hours.

*Offers a tentative head butt*

 

[Ozzie]

You had said, "Isn't it the case that gradations are present within this for any individual and they are unaware?" and that "'gradations' here in terms of mechanism."

Can you explain at least that bit? Then perhaps I can explain the "logical impossibility" you present.

I might wait to see if someone else can pick up here on the observer/observed paradox which has been visited before on this forum though I can't say where exactly now. I will post again on the gradation and mechanism argument otherwise.

Feel free to explain if you have some explanation though

 

[Ozzie]

Or come to Brad Chat and we can butt heads about it. I have a few hours.

*Offers a tentative head butt*

I'd love too but my mother is due from upstate and my place is a mess. Give me a PM to organise another time for Brad if you like.

Cheers

 

[Willamena]

I'd love too but my mother is due from upstate and my place is a mess. Give me a PM to organise another time for Brad if you like.

Cheers

Mums take precedence; go and clean.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

I always thought that the better ending to the story would be to find that waking from the Matrix just puts you into another level of Matrix meant to hold those who "awaken" from the first level.

Isn't that what happened, though?

 

[Guitar's Cry]

IMO there are worlds beyond language, that of imagery for example.

Imagery is still a form of language, though, isn't it? Language is symbolic, and symbols are associations. Can one produce an image without association?

 

[Willamena]

Isn't that what happened, though?

Well, not till the end of the second movie.

 

[doppelganger]

Isn't that what happened, though?

When Neo seemed to have super powers even outside the Matrix at the end of the second one, I thought for sure that's where they'd go. By the end of the third one, I was so bored I didn't really care anymore. Frankly, I don't recall how it all ends - which pretty much says it all.

 

[autonomous1one1]

.... it is arrogance to tell others that what you, or anyone, have experienced in totality is something they must also experience in order to be more total. In that, you throw "reality" across the divide and assign it to objective reality.

Greetings. This seems reasonable, Willamena, especially when you put it that way - "must... to be more total." Would you agree that Mystics by definition have had an extraordinary experience that they deem worthy (an understatement) for others if others wish to pursue it for themselves? Is it reasonable for the Mystic who deems such to have a drive to share the experience in an unobtrusive way that 'others' may pursue if they wish? Of course, pursuit is strictly up to each individual.

Sharing the experience at the 'other persons' interest and option can be part of the Mystic's challenge. That is why I thought YmirGF was on to such a significant point in the following post whether or not it indicates a difference from revelation:

.... Realization should be, imho, transferable so that others with differing viewpoints can independently verify what is "realized" or made real. I could be wrong, but to me that is an important difference.

I hope we can come back on this point and understand more about what he has in mind.
Regards,
a..1

 

[methylatedghosts]

Wow this thread is moving VERY fast!

Wait up!! lol

Did anyone answer my post back on page 5 or so?

 

[autonomous1one1]

Wow this thread is moving VERY fast!

Wait up!! lol

Did anyone answer my post back on page 5 or so?

Greetings methylatedghosts. Yes, moving very fast. Had to travel 300 miles Friday by car and found that over a page was added for each hundred miles while I was traveling. Difficult to catch up on this deep stuff.

Were you referring to the paragraph on the following?

..... It is their own projection that many people will see.

Seems like a good point and very commonly the case. One most often interprets out of what they are and have been. Would you agree that there is an experience (experiences) that is such a paradigm shift that one must come at it in a very open minded fashion, without prior prejudices, and with preparation just to have it, and thus erroneous projection is minimized?

Or were you referring to the following?

One more thing I'd like to add - with our discussions - as you probably will have experienced with others also - is that our seemingly collective PoV requires some sort of language philosophy - in the process of defining meaning by symbols to others

Interesting idea but not sure it is possible for us, but maybe we should attempt to have some commonality. One area that I always struggle with is description to others with the perspective before realization (in common everyday English if you will permit me to say) versus the perspective after realization in language which hardly exists that is consistent with the realization. Few understand the latter but the former often cannot be made consistent with the realization. Does this make any sense to you?
Regards
a..1

 

[YmirGF]

Grasp this: The totality of reality that we each experience is the totality of reality.

This point is one that I simply disagree with. It almost seems circular in logical terms. I know the totality of my experience has distinct limits, however I am also quite aware of aspects of reality that are not a part of my direct experience. For example, if the multimedia age did not exist I would be quite unaware of the wars taking place around the globe. I might chuckle and laugh the idea off or wonder why someone was trying to convince me that people like me would possibly want to hurt each other. THAT is not an aspect of my direct experience, but it is an aspect of the totality of en masse experience of the world at large. So, to my thinking, this sentence is patently untrue. In MY terms, "reality" is FAR larger than my infitesimal experience of my personal viewpoint/experience of reality.

Beyond that, there is nothing; there is nothing beyond that.

Again, unless I am just not getting what you are trying to say I would deem this to be patently untrue. IF you are meaning that it is not a part of ones experience then I would agree, otherwise it is almost a preposterous statement to make. Aside this the simple nature of experience itself, as a growth mechanism would seem to fly in the face of the thought, as we are always adding to our experience then it would only be reasonable to conclude there is much beyond the limits of our current experience.

It is not arrogance to think so --on the contrary, it is arrogance to tell others that what you, or anyone, have experienced in totality is something they must also experience in order to be more total. In that, you throw "reality" across the divide and assign it to objective reality.

Actually, it is not arrogance in the slightest, however I can understand how it might be interrpreted as such. It is more meant as a simple statement of fact. You do not have to discover reality as seen from my viewpoint, heaven forbid really. The reality is that when the observer unravels reality, they will by default mirror much of what I am trying to say.

For example, to fully understand my thinking, the reader MUST have had the experience of Oneness. If they have not directly experienced this they will not grasp exactly what I am talking about. It is just a statement of fact. I am NOT saying that ALL those who HAVE had the experience of Oneness will understand or even agree with me, but rather they WILL have at least an idea of what I am trying to say, based on THEIR own DIRECT experience. Got it? It isn't all about me. From from it really.

I guess all I am implying is based on my observations about the various states of consciousness. One of the KEY ELEMENTS of each successive state of consciousness is that they SEEM to be like "the end of the road", at least at first. That is how I looked at each successive state. To somewhat support what you are saying, I could not comprehend ANYTHING beyond each of those states, UNTIL I began to become familiar with them. After rinsing and repeating this process for decades now, I NO LONGER put limitations on my experience by making the assumption that nothing exists beyond my tiny, somewhat insignificant, inner explorations.

THAT is why I said that such thinking is arrogant. It is a viewpoint that is based on inexperience at least when looked at from my own SIMILAR experience, lol. In no way was I implying you, Willamena, were arrogant. That is hardly the case and I hope my clumsy words did not convey that meaning.

 

[Willamena]

That is not unexpected Willamena. Reality is indeed what we each fully experience however it would be somewhat arrogant and misleading to think that we grasp the totality of what reality is. There is always something beyond our expereince in physical terms, let alone in non-physical terms. All I am trying to get people to understand is that reality is far larger a construct that they presently perceive.
Originally Posted by Willamena
Grasp this: The totality of reality that we each experience is the totality of reality. Beyond that, there is nothing; there is nothing beyond that. It is not arrogance to think so --on the contrary, it is arrogance to tell others that what you, or anyone, have experienced in totality is something they must also experience in order to be more total. In that, you throw "reality" across the divide and assign it to objective reality.

Ok, think of me as being especially thick on this point. Would you care to explain this further?

Here's me. There's you. You are a part of reality to me, one of the discrete bits that make up the picture of the world from my perspective. You also have a picture with which to work, and it contains different bits than mine. The bits that are not included in my picture are, for me, nothing until and unless they become a part of my picture as I acquire bits.

People (other than me, that is) talk about "shared reality." It's one of their bits, one that makes little sense to me. In my view, only the pictures each of us paint, for each of us, are relevant to define reality. I don't share what I experience with anyone else; rather, I share my pictures with them, described in words, actions, notions, etc. That is what is "shared," not reality and not the experience.

The totality of reality is the sum of the bits in the picture that each of us paints for ourselves through our experience of being. Beyond the bits we have there is nothing --nothing of relevance, nothing important, until it becomes a piece of that picture. Only then it can be important. Only once it becomes something can it be relevant to someone.

"Shared reality" is a term used to suggest that the pictures each of us paint added together form a larger picture --and they do, but that's not a picture that is real. That "out there" isn't reality (the "full experience" that each of us have) but rather a picture painted of the words each of us contribute to bring it to life.

Many people will (as I once did, and still do, but now knowingly) assign that larger picture "reality," and place our trust in it. We make it objectively real, but it still resides within the picture that we paint with our experiences. I'm always careful, now, to refer to it as objective reality.

Your words, in this thread and others, have painted for me an experience that you had, but for me it's just a painting made of words. It's not real unless and until I experience something like it myself, and even then all I can do is compare what I've experienced to the picture of your words in order to conclude if we've had the same experience. "Fullness" or totality is a complete picture. The picture painted with other's words is not complete; only the picture I paint with my experiences is complete.

Hopes this helps.

 

[autonomous1one1]

....For example, to fully understand my thinking, the reader MUST have had the experience of Oneness. If they have not directly experienced this they will not grasp exactly what I am talking about. It is just a statement of fact. I am NOT saying that ALL those who HAVE had the experience of Oneness will understand or even agree with me, but rather they WILL have at least an idea of what I am trying to say, based on THEIR own DIRECT experience. Got it? It isn't all about me....

Greetings YmirGF. Believe we have two symbols so far, YmirGF, that we can use similarly - Oneness and Realization. Keep talking. You do a better job of writing consistent with the state of Oneness (from above) than most of us who write in more conventional symbols (from below). Both ways present problems for the un-so-experienced to understand.

...Your words, in this thread and others, have painted for me an experience that you had, but for me it's just a painting made of words. It's not real unless and until I experience something like it myself, and even then all I can do is compare what I've experienced to the picture of your words in order to conclude if we've had the same experience. "Fullness" or totality is a complete picture. The picture painted with other's words is not complete; only the picture I paint with my experiences is complete.

Hopes this helps.

Greetings Willamena. Your post here does help understand your points. Will admit that I was struggling a bit with your bits. The point above in particular is in total agreement with my thinking - and I bet YmirGF will say so too (although I always get into trouble when projecting thoughts from another ). We will see. When we write of 'sharing' an experience we are only referring to providing symbols, methodologies, etc that may help another being to have the experience themselves if they wish it. In my opinion, for example, the experience of Oneness that YmirGF writes of can only be understood if it is experienced directly.
Best Wishes,
a..1

 

[Willamena]

Greetings. This seems reasonable, Willamena, especially when you put it that way - "must... to be more total." Would you agree that Mystics by definition have had an extraordinary experience that they deem worthy (an understatement) for others if others wish to pursue it for themselves? Is it reasonable for the Mystic who deems such to have a drive to share the experience in an unobtrusive way that 'others' may pursue if they wish? Of course, pursuit is strictly up to each individual.

I have no opinion on the worth of anyone's experience for others.

It's reasonable to want to share the experience, yes.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

And now for my fashionably late arrival.........

Despite the fact that it's been difficult keeping up with the pace of the thread - and BTW, thanks Paul for the invite :hug: - I can completely appreciate the posts made already by all who have contributed. It's fascinating reading the depth and insight that so many of you have concerning the subject of mysticism in all it's colors.

On the topic of "realization", it's important to continue to remain skeptical of how such realizations are interpreted and what we attribute to them. Plus, what is the point of these experiences? The mystic's job becomes paramount to investigate the nuts and bolts of these experiences with discipline and humility. How? How does it happen? And why? Question religious authority with compassion and fearlessness. And then once we have a working foundation of the "how" and the "why", the question becomes "now what?" One desires to remain divorced from an evangelical approach...........the my-way-or-the-highway one...........but one also desires to share the experience as a source of inspiration for others to have faith in their own individual journeys.

To go from simple observation, to verifiable testimony, to rationalization, to the experiential, and finally to the attainment of a perfect awakened state. Is it fair to say that this is the general goal of the mystic? Regardless of any claim of religious affiliation?




Peace,
Mystic

 

[YmirGF]

And now for my fashionably late arrival.........

You're input is always appreciated MysticNin'ja and since it is always now, one can never truly be late. (Ok, your boss may not go for that, lol.)

I can completely appreciate the posts made already by all who have contributed. It's fascinating reading the depth and insight that so many of you have concerning the subject of mysticism in all it's colors.

Mmm. I have to admit that was my cunning plan all along and exactly why I didn't participate in my own thread until it was rocking along rather nicely. I do hope the original posters will return with further nuggets of their understanding.

On the topic of "realization", it's important to continue to remain skeptical of how such realizations are interpreted and what we attribute to them. Plus, what is the point of these experiences?

I agree wholeheartedly, Heather. My own view is that what some call revelation, or dipping in to a "larger" symbol set, or perhaps directly intuiting reality is a bold venture and one should NEVER assume they "got it right" right off the bat. I know in relentlessly reviewing and revisiting my own experiences I always come away with a bit clearer realization. Some might think that this is merely projecting accepted ideas ONTO previous experiences but I would suggest that it is more akin to taking another dip into the well. What I feel is necessary to remind folks is that they will feel compelled to share their inner visions, almost from the get go. THAT time is NOT the time TO discuss ones experiences, as there is a very low probablity that the observer will have grasped their experience fully. Beings like Buddha, the Christ and Krsna are exceptions to the rule as they are, imho, a different breed as it were. For the rest of us, we NEED to spend time quietly reflecting on what we perceive before taking our particular dog and pony show on the road.

The mystic's job becomes paramount to investigate the nuts and bolts of these experiences with discipline and humility. How? How does it happen? And why?

It will be no surprise but I do have a number of theories on these points, but I'll keep them in check lest others wish to respond first.

Question religious authority with compassion and fearlessness. And then once we have a working foundation of the "how" and the "why", the question becomes "now what?"

Precisely. The thing that I am stumbling over currently is the "now what" often includes things that others are not able to accept or comprehend because of their preconceived and often rigidly held beliefs about the nature of reality. Curiously many insist that reality conform to their understanding rather than having their understanding conform to reality but one must accept that as an inevitablity in a world that specializes in buffing up the egotistical sense of self.

One desires to remain divorced from an evangelical approach...........the my-way-or-the-highway one...........

I do try very hard to keep this approach and that is why I never claim to be right. It's also why I tell people to seek out that part of themselves that all the religions allude to even though most, if not all, now have little understanding of what that truly means. "Hail the Jewel in the Lotus" is not just a pretty expression. There is a very good reason for putting the idea, just that particular way. Om mani padme hum. :angel2:

but one also desires to share the experience as a source of inspiration for others to have faith in their own individual journeys.

That is what keeps me babbling here on RF. You should see some of the PM's I have received, lol. It is wonderful when people who are not confident enough to post, share their ideas with me... So I figure toss a lot of crap out there and some of it will stick, lol. If myself and others start saying, "hey... check this out!" My thinking is that eventually people will think, "hey ... that sounds pretty neat."

To go from simple observation, to verifiable testimony, to rationalization, to the experiential, and finally to the attainment of a perfect awakened state. Is it fair to say that this is the general goal of the mystic? Regardless of any claim of religious affiliation?

*Observes Heather clutching a Brass ring*
Thank you for mention precisely that order of events. It should be noted that one must first and foremost be an unattached observer when viewing "reality". It is only be doing so, just that way, without thoughts muddying the process, that the true lustre within illuminates the view OF the observer. The second task is to verify by duplicating the experience beyond verbal symbols. Once that is done, one is well on their way. After repeated episodes, the mind begins to "catch up" with the experience and thoughts begin to flow in harmony with the inner vision. In time, with further experience one learns how to duplicate the method that worked/works for them and IS ABLE to share that method with others. It's like a snow ball rolling down a rather large slope.

 

[methylatedghosts]

Greetings methylatedghosts. Yes, moving very fast. Had to travel 300 miles Friday by car and found that over a page was added for each hundred miles while I was traveling. Difficult to catch up on this deep stuff.

Were you referring to the paragraph on the following?

..... It is their own projection that many people will see.

Seems like a good point and very commonly the case. One most often interprets out of what they are and have been. Would you agree that there is an experience (experiences) that is such a paradigm shift that one must come at it in a very open minded fashion, without prior prejudices, and with preparation just to have it, and thus erroneous projection is minimized?

I think so. I'm right now watching a movie called "The Forgotten" and this so far seems to be part of what I'm saying. At this point the main character is being told that all the memories she had of her son are made up and that the son never existed. Now this really seems to be a case of seeing one's own projections. She projects the existence of her son to the world, and from these projections she sees an alternate reality - one that does not exist.

Interesting idea but not sure it is possible for us, but maybe we should attempt to have some commonality. One area that I always struggle with is description to others with the perspective before realization (in common everyday English if you will permit me to say) versus the perspective after realization in language which hardly exists that is consistent with the realization. Few understand the latter but the former often cannot be made consistent with the realization. Does this make any sense to you?
Regards
a..1

It does. Every person does have their own preconcieved ideas of what symbols (in this case, words) represent. Especially when you or I may try to explain our world view to someone who does not have a similar view we can trip over conflicting representations of symbols. To one person a man on a cross is representative of a god-head figure, while to another it is representative of past perscution.

Eh.. I think I'm beginning to ramble and side-track myself.

I was wondering, however if anyone managed to glimpse this portion of my post before the thread sped on past.

Don't worry about it if it's off the current train of thought though. We can always come back to it later

So what I think I understand you to be saying is that most revelations aren't actually revealing anything, but that they can seem as though they are. And I can agree. I don't *trust* a revelation as much as a realisation in that - like I said in the "True to yourself" thread - messages from outside of yourself can get mumbled and jumbled on the way to you or indeed on the way to your understanding. Simply knowing in yourself, either by some kind of reasoning, deduction or meditation process an inner understanding follows and you understand fully all of the parts within that knowledge, thus making it much more powerful for you. And I'm like you Ymir, in that I have so much "stuff" in my mind - images, feelings, knowledge that I can't find the words to express it. And I think also that this is in part the key to letting other people know the same knowledge. You cannot always simply tell them what is and isn't as you understand them, but you can describe the process that they need to undergo and they then (as far as I am aware) should arrive at the same knowing, feeling, imagery as you do. They also may not be able to put that into words, and so you have much less "revealed" something to them, and given them a stronger sense of knowing and a much stronger more powerful feeling and you have in this way let them real-ise it themselves.

People (other than me, that is) talk about "shared reality." It's one of their bits, one that makes little sense to me. In my view, only the pictures each of us paint, for each of us, are relevant to define reality. I don't share what I experience with anyone else; rather, I share my pictures with them, described in words, actions, notions, etc. That is what is "shared," not reality and not the experience.

I think I understand you now, Willamena. We can only share symbols that we choose to represent our own reality.

"Shared reality" is a term used to suggest that the pictures each of us paint added together form a larger picture --and they do, but that's not a picture that is real. That "out there" isn't reality (the "full experience" that each of us have) but rather a picture painted of the words each of us contribute to bring it to life.

So: my reality is part of me, your reality is part of you. Our shared reality is those symbols we give each other to describe our respective realities.

In the same way we may be able to paint a picture of a sunset and show it to each other but your sunset is not my sunset and I could not feel the dying sun and the evening breeze that you did and you could not feel mine. Our best attempt is pictures and words. This is your "shared reality" no?

One desires to remain divorced from an evangelical approach...........the my-way-or-the-highway one...........but one also desires to share the experience as a source of inspiration for others to have faith in their own individual journeys.

Interesting, the way you worded that!

I feel the journey is the most exciting and most rewarding part of getting between here and the destination. So I think I'd have to go for the highway! Aside from that, the highway might give me better scenery