• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Are Makyo Ever Real?

Kirran

Premium Member
I'm not sure what your reasoning is, Kirran. Could you elaborate, please?

Well, if we are to say that the keyboard I'm typing on is real, then it seems to me we can say that a vision seen in meditation, for example, is real (or what you see after taking peyote, or whatever else), and the inverse. They're both just observed phenomena.
 

beenherebeforeagain

Rogue Animist
Premium Member
I've had instances of premonitions, precognitions, deja vu, simultaneous dreams, apparent mind-reading, simultaneous perception of visual and/or audible phenomena...things that I 'foreseen' and later experienced, things that I was (or at the same time) able to verify the other's experience, and things that two or more of us perceive and immediately are able to discuss.

And when I hear others' recounting of their experiences, it often resonates with me. Not everything always, but lots of it.

Now, is any/all of that illusion or delusion? Quite possibly. But is the experience in and of itself a problem? Or is it a problem because it can serve as a distraction from the individual's development? I would think that one would have to assume a purpose to existence, assume that we are to try to achieve the particular state of advancement during this life or the ongoing cycle of rebirth/redeath/eventual enlightenment.

Personally, I'm not sure that there is such a purpose. I guess that would be because I am not a follower of a dharmic path.
 

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
Well, if we are to say that the keyboard I'm typing on is real, then it seems to me we can say that a vision seen in meditation, for example, is real (or what you see after taking peyote, or whatever else), and the inverse. They're both just observed phenomena.


I'm not seeing how what you seem to mean by "real" comports with the definition of "real" as given in the OP.
 

crossfire

LHP Mercuræn Feminist Heretic ☿
Premium Member
The word "siddhis" would better fit the definition you have given than "makyo." Siddhis would refer to development of the mind, which would include the examples you gave.
 

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
Well, I guess I find it a rather shaky definition :p

Are you seriously proposing that your personal preferences for how to define "real" should be mine? I cannot believe you'd be such an "imperialist", so to speak! :D If so, why stop at "real"? Why not redefine the meaning of all the words in the OP so that instead of asking "Are makyo ever real" using the definitions of "makyo" and "real" that I provided, you use your own definitions, and so come up with your very own meaning for the sentence "Are makyo ever real?" Let's see, you could say, "Yes, makyo are real, and by 'makyo are real', I mean what you, Sunstone, might mean when you say, 'I love ice cream'." Seriously, Kirran, what's your logic in redefining the terms used in the OP in order to fit your own notion of what they "ought" to mean? Mind you, I'm finding your attitude genuinely amusing -- but also genuinely perplexing!

To be sure, words have no fixed or proper meanings -- contra the world's 1800s schoolmams who taught that they did. So you are perfectly within your rights to define your terms any which way you wish, just as I am within my rights to do the same thing. I am not trying to say otherwise here. But I am politely asking you and everyone else to answer a question, "Are makyo ever real", using the definitions of "makyo" and "real" that I have provided. If you must, call it silly of me -- hell, call me a dolt -- to want an answer to that question, and not to the question of whether someone likes ice cream! But whatever names you call me, please be so kind as to answer my question and to NOT answer your own question instead! :D
 

Kirran

Premium Member
Are you seriously proposing that your personal preferences for how to define "real" should be mine? I cannot believe you'd be such an "imperialist", so to speak! :D If so, why stop at "real"? Why not redefine the meaning of all the words in the OP so that instead of asking "Are makyo ever real" using the definitions of "makyo" and "real" that I provided, you use your own definitions, and so come up with your very own meaning for the sentence "Are makyo ever real?" Let's see, you could say, "Yes, makyo are real, and by 'makyo are real', I mean what you, Sunstone, might mean when you say, 'I love ice cream'." Seriously, Kirran, what's your logic in redefining the terms used in the OP in order to fit your own notion of what they "ought" to mean? Mind you, I'm finding your attitude genuinely amusing -- but also genuinely perplexing!

To be sure, words have no fixed or proper meanings -- contra the world's 1800s schoolmams who taught that they did. So you are perfectly within your rights to define your terms any which way you wish, just as I am within my rights to do the same thing. I am not trying to say otherwise here. But I am politely asking you and everyone else to answer a question, "Are makyo ever real", using the definitions of "makyo" and "real" that I have provided. If you must, call it silly of me -- hell, call me a dolt -- to want an answer to that question, and not to the question of whether someone likes ice cream! But whatever names you call me, please be so kind as to answer my question and to NOT answer your own question instead! :D

Actually, no, that isn't at all what I intended to say. I'll be honest, I'm not totally sure how you read it in that way. But I must have been unclear for you to have done so, and for that I offer my apologies. And I'd also like to apologise for you thinking I intended at all to call you any names! In common with the vast majority of RF's established membership, I hold you in nothing but the highest regard.

Basically, what I'm saying is that I see no reason to think that any experience falling under your OP's definition of makyo need be called unreal, based again on your OP's definition of the word real, if we are to say that any experience we come across in everyday life (for example, I'm hearing the guy next door play his saxophone or something while I write this) need be called unreal. i.e. I don't think it'd be untenable to say that no experience represents a state of affairs independent of the mind. But, if we are to say that there are such experiences (for example, that independent of my mind there's a dude next door playing his saxophone or something) then yeah, I think makyo are as valid to include as anything else.
 

crossfire

LHP Mercuræn Feminist Heretic ☿
Premium Member
OK, I'm going to try to give you some information you are looking for. (Wish me luck!)
Please note: This is the Mysticism DIR.

Are makyo ever real?

I'm using the term "makyo" loosely here. In fact, I'm borrowing the word from Zen and somewhat re-defining it to mean any sort of mystical experience apart from the mystical experience, the experience of oneness or of a One.

Makyo would thus include mystical experiences of prophetic dreams and visions, remote viewing, telekinesis, levitation, and most other paranormal experiences, but would not include any experience of oneness or of a One.

Makyo usually refers to sensory (including the sensing of ideas) distortions that occur within one's own subjective mind, but one clings to in such a way that one mistakes the subjective (our private individual subjective reality) for the objective (our collective shared reality.) Mistaking the subjective for the objective is pretty much the definition of delusion. The dissolution of subject and object is very much a sensory distortion, and it would also qualify as makyo if you mistake this subjective observation for anything other than a subjective observation--mistaking it to be objective reality. {Remember, mistaking the subjective for the objective is pretty much the definition of delusion.} Once you recognize the nature of the subjective dissolution of subject and object as relating to your own subjective mind, then one can begin the realization of a unified subjective mind--clearing out all of the errors and such and putting the pieces back together into a unified whole.

By the way,. by "real" I mean that the experiences reference an actual state of affairs independent of one's own mind. So, for instance, if one had a vision of some woman, then two years later met her, that would be a "real" vision, it would "realized".

Now, online sources about makyo aren't very helpful -- at least not the ones I've seen. So I'm asking the question here: Are makyo ever real, and if so, what makes you think so?
You are looking for things that pertain outside of the subjective mind. Alright. In this case, one would have to consider the nature of the objective reality we share--this objective reality may or may not be larger than what we think. For instance, one might invoke Plato's World of Forms, the "fine material realms" of devas, asuras, frost giants, and whatnot, or even Carl Jung's Collective Unconscious. If "reality" does indeed include these expanded dimensions, and we can access them as individuals, then remote viewing, prophesy, and such can certainly be real if they involve accessing these portions of "super-reality" or whatever you want to call it, and be considered as real, as they are part of this "super-reality." (One would not be mistaking the subjective for the objective if this "super-reality" was established, in other words.)
 

Jumi

Well-Known Member
Some thoughts...

I wouldn't rule the "makyo" out directly or include the experience oneness as being true by default. In case of prophetic dreams, when something happens later that you've seen in a dream state, who is to say? And do we remember everything from the dreams correctly, or just the piece of it that happens by what is most likely coincidence.

From the perspective of progress I don't feel it's good to spend much time thinking about the makyo one may have experienced as they tend to lead people to be unstable or lead to formation of cults.
 
Top