Mystics. Take my word for it.

a reply to: BlueMule

I may be wrong, but I suspect you've just proven Aphorism's thesis quite thoroughly. Defend mysticism using mysticism. Like defending Santa Claus by calling the Easter bunny as witness regarding the Toothfairy's relationship with Jack Frost.

Someone called?

I'm a firm believer that when one places themselves below a master, gruru or messiah they give up their own personal power.

Everyone and anyone has the ability to be more than what they currently are. There is no "right" or "wrong" path when dealing with spirituality or mysticism. The path that makes the best sense for the individual is the best path, and will bear far more fruit.

If anyone tells you that their way is the "right way" alarm bells should go off in your head. There's nothing wrong with absorbing other's viewpoints and ideas and holding them against your own. Your truth is your own, no one else's. My truths are just that as well -- my own.

We learn and grow by examining and asking questions of the world around us. Blindly following another stunts our ability to expand our awareness. I believe everyone and everything around us is capable of teaching us something. The trick, however, is learning how to listen.

"But, you don't have to take my word for it" - LeVar Burton

EDIT TO ADD: Oh, and far to many "mystics" tend to take themselves to seriously. If one has ever met a legitimate indigenous shaman, they tend to have very exuberant and quirky senses of humor.

a reply to: MystikMushroom

I'm a firm believer that when one places themselves below a master, gruru or messiah they give up their own personal power.

Can't miss what you've never used.

a reply to: Aphorism

OK, moving on to your second batch of quotes.

"Mysticism in the widest sense is every guidance to the immediate consciousness of that to which neither perception nor conception, thus in general no knowledge extends. The mystic is thus opposed to the philosopher by the fact that he begins from within, while the philosopher begins from without. The mystic starts from his inner, positive, individual experience, in which he finds himself to be the eternal and only being, &c. But nothing of this is communicable except the assertions which one has to accept upon his word; consequently he cannot convince. The philosopher, on the other hand, starts from what is common to all, from the objective phenomenon which lies before all, and from the facts of consciousness as they are present in all."

-Arthur Schopenhauer, The World as Will and Representation

It is not always true that a mystic starts from within with an individual experience. In my case, I started from without, in a group experience. I started as a philosopher, and then became a witness, and then became a mystic.

It's not always true that a philosopher starts from the facts of consciousness as they are present in all. There are facts of consciousness and then there are damned facts.

"A procession of the damned.
By the damned, I mean the excluded.
We shall have a procession of data that Science has excluded."

-Charles Fort, opening lines of The Book of the Damned

Sometimes it turns out that a philosopher is not privvy to the damned facts. They are too excluded by social mechanisms, such as taboo. Then you get a philosopher who starts with an imbalance.

A philosopher searching for a philosophy betrays his search by how he excludes facts at the start, or by how facts are excluded for him.

As for the Ayn Rand quote, she is getting mystics and bureaucrats confused.

a reply to: Aphorism

Study reveals gene expression changes with meditation

With evidence growing that meditation can have beneficial health effects, scientists have sought to understand how these practices physically affect the body. A new study reports the first evidence of specific molecular changes in the body following a period of mindfulness meditation.

The study investigated the effects of a day of intensive mindfulness practice in a group of experienced meditators, compared to a group of untrained control subjects who engaged in quiet non-meditative activities. After eight hours of mindfulness practice, the meditators showed a range of genetic and molecular differences, including altered levels of gene-regulating machinery and reduced levels of pro-inflammatory genes, which in turn correlated with faster physical recovery from a stressful situation.

We are only beginning to scientifically discover the range of benefits meditation has. But, for some strange reason, we aren't supposed to connect the dots between the benefits modern practitioners get from meditation and the benefits our ancient shamanic ancestors got from it?

"I am well aware, however, of the danger of tying spiritual belief to any scientific system. . . . This is not to say that I consider things like the oracle and the ability of monks to survive nights spent out in freezing condition to be evidence of magical powers.

Yet I cannot agree with our Chinese Brothers and sisters, who hold that Tibetan acceptance of these phenomena is evidence of our backwardness and barbarity. Even from the most rigorous scientific viewpoint, this is not an objective attitude. At the same time, even if a principle is accepted, it does not mean that everything connected with it is valid. . . . . Great vigilance must be maintained at all times when dealing in areas about which we do not have great understanding.

This, of course, is where science can help. After all, we consider things to be mysterious only when we do not understand them. . . . . Through mental training, we have developed techniques to do things which science cannot yet adequately explain. This, then, is the basis of the supposed ‘magic and mystery’ of Tibetan Buddhism."

-Dalai Lama

So just to wrap it up. The main thrust of the OPs argument is in the thread title and the opening paragraph. We are not in a "take my word for it" scenario, and so his main thrust is wrong. Science and scholarship can tell the difference between a mystic and a phony. So that takes care of most of the OP.

The OP is a smart guy. He knows more about mysticism than your average bear. But he is not privvy to all the facts, and he is not trained to read mystical literature. Common sense and logic are not enough by themselves. A degree of imaginitive participation is required. He is making understandable mistakes that I see time and time again.

Science shows that there is a set of experiences BEHIND the mystical literature of the world. That means we must acknowledge the obvious, and start there.

"Yet if we acknowledge what is to me obvious, that there is a mystical process or set of experiences ‘behind’ what we read, this makes our work as scholars considerably more difficult. If everything is merely “text,” well then we need only play with it or analyze it as text. A nod is as good as a wink to a blind horse. But it quickly becomes clear to those with eyes to see that when we look at the field of esotericism, we are dealing with very complex currents of thought and kinds of experiences that do not always conform at all to contemporary perspectives. What are we to make of Böhme’s immensely complex and often circular expression of a visionary cosmology deeply indebted to alchemy and astrology? What are we to make of Pordage’s visionary journeys into spiritual realms, or of Fowler-Wolff’s accounts of absolute transcendence? Here I would answer: as much as possible, we should seek to avoid making much of their accounts, and instead concentrate on seeking to imaginatively understand them on their own terms.

Here I’m arguing that in the study of esotericism more generally, and specifically in the field of mysticism, it is essential for scholars to engage at minimum in a process of imaginative participation. Sympathetic empiricism represents a middle ground between historiographic objectification on the one hand, and phenomenological subjectification on the other. Sympathetic empiricism means that one seeks, as much as possible, to enter into and understand the phenomenon one is studying from the inside out. The further removed historically that one is from such a religious phenomenon, the more valuable historiography is in recreating context, but without a sympathetic approach, in the field of esotericism, misunderstanding and reductionism become inevitable."

-Arthur Versluis

I fear that my worthy foe has failed in his approach, and as a result has fallen into inevitable misunderstanding and reductionism.

a reply to: BlueMule

Science and scholarship can tell the difference between a mystic and a phony. So that takes care of most of the OP.

I don't think that takes care of anything, because according to most science, mysticism is phony.

a reply to: AfterInfinity

Can you provide an example?

originally posted by: BlueMule
a reply to: AfterInfinity

Can you provide an example?

I don't have to. Provide yourself a live demonstration, walk up to any university and tell a physics professor that you are psychic. Record yourself doing it, if you wish. Tell them that you are psychic and that you want to prove it to them. Let's see how quickly they find an opening in their schedule.

a reply to: AfterInfinity

OK , I see what you're saying. It's true that sooner or later, a mystic will probably become aware of a psychic function. That's not the same as being a psychic that claims to produce psi on demand. And a psychic making that claim need not be a mystic.

The fear of an immoral use of psi is a very obvious surface fear; the fear of pride is a subtler level of fear. In the Indian subcontinent and amongst the Tibetan people it is considered wrong to pay any special attention to psi. Manifesting psychic abilities is thought to have detrimental effects on one’s spiritual development.

It is stressed that having attained Enlightenment, one is no longer disturbed spiritually by attainment of psychic abilities, whereas, for unenlightened people, psychic abilities are seen as very tricky indeed, associated with deception, with glamour and with pride.

His Holiness, the Dalai Lama, in his book “Freedom in Exile” (2002), expresses a wish for Western science to explore Tibetan psychic traditions. However, when I met Geshe Samten (2005), the director of Sarnath Institute, he told me that, whilst Tibet has a rich tradition of psychic abilities, even those with a reputation of psychic awareness would deny their abilities. He stated that it is taboo to say that you are psychic or to “show off” your abilities.

There must be a genuine purpose for doing the psychic practice. Even to say one has reached a certain level of meditation is considered an obstruction on the path to enlightenment. Humility is considered essential for one’s spiritual development. For example, the Dalai Lama repeatedly says that he is a simple monk and is not clairvoyant.

www.psi-researchcentre.co.uk...

Besides, there is no conflict between physics and mysticism or physics and psi. There is only a conflict between perception and reality.



weilerpsiblog.wordpress.com...

St. Padre Pio.
Sr. Josefa Menendez
St. Francis of Assisi
St. Teresa of Avila
St. Faustina.

I enjoy reading the works by those well known mystic saints.

Gotta' keep in mind that just because someone is having a mystical experience, it doesn't mean that it's brought to them by the 'light'. It can be delusions from their own mind or it can be from the 'dark' that is posing as 'light'. Gotta' be careful with mysticism. You never know who is knocking at the door of your soul. IMHO.

originally posted by: AfterInfinity
I don't think that takes care of anything, because according to most science, mysticism is phony.

Mysticism is phony? Or people who claim to be psychics are phony? Or both?
There's a difference.

Psychic has to do with a natural ability toward telepathy or clairvoyance. Some think it can be cultivated because it's a natural sense that has gone unrecognized. Others think it's an anomaly, or perhaps a natural variant in the senses.

Mysticism is belief that union with or absorption into the Deity or the absolute, or the spiritual apprehension of knowledge inaccessible to the intellect, may be attained through contemplation and self-surrender.

Both can (allegedly) touch on the multiverse/dimensional ... and science does tend towards the thought that there are multiverses (last I read, I think they said 11 of them).

originally posted by: FlyersFan

Gotta' keep in mind that just because someone is having a mystical experience, it doesn't mean that it's brought to them by the 'light'. It can be delusions from their own mind or it can be from the 'dark' that is posing as 'light'. Gotta' be careful with mysticism. You never know who is knocking at the door of your soul. IMHO.

That's a good point, thanks for bringing it up. Since I'm waiting for round three, I'll take this opportunity to address it.

"I am really terrified by what passes among us in these days. Anyone who has barely begun to meditate, if he becomes conscious of words of this kind during his self-recollection, pronounces them forthwith to be the work of God; and, convinced that they are so, goes about proclaiming ‘God has told me this,’ or ‘I have had that answer from God.’ But all is illusion and fancy; such an one has only been speaking to himself. Besides, the desire for these words, and the attention they give to them, end by persuading men that all the observations which they address to themselves are the responses of God.”

-John of the Cross

Ideally, visions and voices and other "delusions" are considered as pictures, poems, and musical compositions instead of as calls to zealotry or insanity. They are the artistic expressions and creative results of thought, of intuition, of direct perception. There is a constant and involuntary work of translation going on, by which reality is interpreted in terms of appearance.

So we can try to figure out for ourselves who is at the door before we let them in. Or we can let everyone in. Or we can let no one in. Trying to figure it out for ourselves is not as easy as leaning on the orthodoxy of the day.

'This being human is a guest house.
Every morning a new arrival.

A joy, a depression, a meanness,
some momentary awareness comes
as an unexpected visitor.

Welcome and entertain them all!
Even if they are a crowd of sorrows,
who violently sweep your house
empty of its furniture,
still, treat each guest honorably.
He may be clearing you out
for some new delight.

The dark thought, the shame, the malice.
meet them at the door laughing and invite them in.

Be grateful for whatever comes.
because each has been sent
as a guide from beyond.'

- Jelaluddin Rumi

Easier said than done!

originally posted by: FlyersFan

originally posted by: AfterInfinity
I don't think that takes care of anything, because according to most science, mysticism is phony.

Mysticism is phony? Or people who claim to be psychics are phony? Or both?
There's a difference.

Psychic has to do with a natural ability toward telepathy or clairvoyance. Some think it can be cultivated because it's a natural sense that has gone unrecognized. Others think it's an anomaly, or perhaps a natural variant in the senses.

Mysticism is belief that union with or absorption into the Deity or the absolute, or the spiritual apprehension of knowledge inaccessible to the intellect, may be attained through contemplation and self-surrender.

Both can (allegedly) touch on the multiverse/dimensional ... and science does tend towards the thought that there are multiverses (last I read, I think they said 11 of them).

And yet, still no science. Just whimsy and speculation.

originally posted by: AfterInfinity

And yet, still no science. Just whimsy and speculation.

The science clearly shows that there is a set of experiences behind the mystical literature. It also clearly shows there is something spectacular going on in the brain during psychic experiences.

So I don't see where you get your justification from.

originally posted by: BlueMule

originally posted by: AfterInfinity

And yet, still no science. Just whimsy and speculation.

The science clearly shows that there is a set of experiences behind the mystical literature. It also clearly shows there is something going on in the brain during psychic experiences.

So I don't see where you get your justification from.

From the fact that supposedly, a scientifically verifiable process occurred and all you or anyone else can tell me is "something happened". Let's wait for science to catch up and unlock that door whose keyhole you keep peeking through.

a reply to: AfterInfinity

If everyone waited for science, there would be no pioneers to blaze a trail. "You can recognize a pioneer by the arrows in his back." -Beverly Rubik

Maybe it's not science that needs to catch up. Maybe it's culture. Heck, culture hasn't even caught up to quantum mechanics. People still live in a Newtonian world, with Newtonian common sense.

originally posted by: BlueMule
a reply to: AfterInfinity

If everyone waited for science, there would be no pioneers to blaze a trail. "You can recognize a pioneer by the arrows in his back." -Beverly Rubik

Maybe it's not science that needs to catch up. Maybe it's culture. Heck, culture hasn't even caught up to quantum mechanics. People still live in a Newtonian world, with Newtonian common sense.

There are those who wait until they find the right piece before filling an empty space in the puzzle. Then there are those who pick a piece that looks right to them and they cram it in until it either "fits" or they've deduced that the puzzle is broken and must be redesigned.

Likewise, there are pioneers and then there are people who just paint a sign saying "Ye Olde Shoppe" and pretend to be a legitimate establishment until they've milked the half pences from every hapless traveler that runs across them.

originally posted by: AfterInfinity

There are those who wait until they find the right piece before filling an empty space in the puzzle. Then there are those who pick a piece that looks right to them and they cram it in until it either "fits" or they've deduced that the puzzle is broken and must be redesigned.

Starring in this role would be reason?

Likewise, there are pioneers and then there are people who just paint a sign saying "Ye Olde Shoppe" and pretend to be a legitimate establishment until they've milked the half pences from every hapless traveler that runs across them.

Starring in this role would be faith?

"The cultural wars and debates out there between what’s usually called science and religion are again, I think simplistic to the extreme. The religion side is often parodied as the kind of most literalistic and intolerant forms of fundamentalism and the scientific side is often parodied as the most materialistic and intolerant forms of scientism. So you have pure faith on one side and pure reason on the other and we’re supposed to believe, somehow, that these two things don’t meet in the middle. I find that completely unconvincing.”

-Jeffrey Kripal