It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Mystics. Take my word for it.

page: 4
17
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 03:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Aphorism


In the end, it is all lore, or as you say, mythology, within which not just religion and myth are its sole contents, but all literature, mathematics, science, art, law etc as well. I agree with you on this point. When we say we are discussing mysticism or say “science”, this literature, or myth, is all we are really discussing. We must wade through this mess of words and doctrines to decide not only what is intuitive, but also what reasonable and sensible, so that we can apply them towards our art of a meaningful existence.


It's not a mess of words and doctrines. It's a mess of clues. And there is harmony under the mess. You can see it sometimes, like when you look at one of those 3-D images hidden in the surface chaos. You just need the right Gestalt shift.

"Myths are clues to the spiritual potentialities of the human life." -Joseph Campbell


edit on 894Wednesday000000America/ChicagoJul000000WednesdayAmerica/Chicago by BlueMule because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 04:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: midicon
a reply to: AfterInfinity

The mystic or psychic will never admit that their experiences are subjective. Perhaps they should remind themselves of those old spiritual pearls...look within...or that all true spiritual paths lead back to oneself. They have too much to lose...one way or another.


Yes, they lead there and back again, eh? As old Bilbo would say. But did the old Bilbo ever really return to the Shire? Didn't the old Bilbo undergo a kind of rebirth, a kind of death and resurrection? It's not a circle, it's a spiral.

His journey was both subjective and objective, just as the spiritual journey is. It's omnijective.

When one's spiritual journey leads them to the inner fire, then one knows what Tolkien really meant when Gandalf said he is a servant of the secret fire.

I can say this because I have seen and felt that fire. I serve it to the best of my ability. Kundalini, Chi, The Holy Spirit, life-force, Divine Spark. The names, like the road, go on and on.


edit on 941WednesdayuAmerica/ChicagoJuluWednesdayAmerica/Chicago by BlueMule because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 05:17 PM
link   
a reply to: BlueMule


Mysticism is about seeing beneath the mask and backstage, not falling for a disguise.


We could battle with metaphors until the cows come home. Humanity has been engaging in metaphysics (not in the pejorative sense) for thousands of years in an attempt to properly articulate the nature of reality. There is a wide variety of people claiming they understand the nature of reality, and thus, there is a wide variety of interpretations of it. Is any one of them privy to any sort of “truth”? Well no, they aren’t. It is about building a body of knowledge everyone can use, refine and apply to life.

But if we were to use all our faculties of discernment, we can see simply by watching the meditating mystic, that he is in fact seeing nothing but the back of his eyelids. Seeing is a sensual activity. “Seeing” with the mind is imagination. Nothing is really seen, it is thought of. I could think of an infinite amount of possible realities, but it doesn’t mean I am seeing them.

What I am interested in is not what the mystic alleges, or “sees” (for we know he is seeing the back of his eyelids, or through some other glass darkly, i.e. narcotics), but how he uses his visualizations towards the progress of himself and his fellow beings. I have yet to find any mystic who has accomplished anything beyond his search for the next mystical experience, or money. Where are the fruits and accomplishments of his mysticism?

When I spent time in India and Sri Lanka, there was no shortage of godmen, fakirs, gurus, tantriks and yogis. Maybe they did something strange with their body, or maybe they sold wisdom, but it seems that their accomplishments amounted to no more than begging for change, parlour tricks, and repeating mantras and mudras. People revere them nonetheless…but for what? This disturbed me. Only now is India beginning to awaken to it, but there is still firm denial, even in the face of facts. Blasphemy is a real crime there, and anyone who speaks out about religious deception, risks jail-time.


Indian Miracle-Buster stuck in Finland





There is a variety of ways to sharpen your brain. But if you want to peek backstage, you have to intend to peek backstage and you have to use certain equipment. Intellectual pursuit isn't going to get you backstage, but it will help your mind stay sharp.


The world is not a stage. No metaphor can change reality, only how we speak of it. Reality is indifferent to our intentions, and only the individual can act in accordance with them. Consequently, there is no backstage, only different ways of experiencing the exact same world.


Ah. So when The Dalai Lama choses to consult an Oracle, is it his intellect, his logic, his analytic rational, or his skepticism that he employs?


His curiosity.

How about this, BlueMule. I will entertain your ideas and imagine them to be true. What sort of advancements has mysticism made, and of what benefit is the mystic to the beings he interacts with? What can we do with this "backstage"?

Psychic Energy Martial Arts

edit on 9-7-2014 by Aphorism because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 05:25 PM
link   
a reply to: BlueMule

Bilbo is just a character in a story. You spend too much time reading.

It is you that must change Blue Mule...The play, the costume and the drama are all about you.

The only thing you serve is yourself. You are the source but you project it outward.

You are the whole thing...is that not enough for you?

What a wonderful thing you are...just as you are.



posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 05:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aphorism
Where are the fruits and accomplishments of his mysticism?

His own happiness and satisfaction with his perception.


originally posted by: Aphorism
Maybe they did something strange with their body, or maybe they sold wisdom, but it seems that their accomplishments amounted to no more than begging for change, parlour tricks, and repeating mantras and mudras.

Did she seem to care whether you thought much of her accomplishments?


originally posted by: Aphorism
The world is not a stage. No metaphor can change reality, only how we speak of it. Reality is indifferent to our intentions, and only the individual can act in accordance with them. Consequently, there is no backstage, only different ways of experiencing the exact same world.

Imagination is the backstage. We know imagination and reality are connected via "us" but not the same platform. Otherwise we wouldn't have to act, only imagine. I know nothing of what goes on in your backstage except that which you use to alter reality... and there is no guarantee my perception of your changes has any relationship to your backstage as you are quite capable of deception during the translation.


originally posted by: Aphorism
How about this, BlueMule. I will entertain your ideas and imagine them to be true. What sort of advancements has mysticism made, and of what benefit is the mystic to the beings he interacts with?

In order to see more blue some red must be lost?


originally posted by: Aphorism
What can we do with this "backstage"?

Eureka!



posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 05:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Aphorism

originally posted by: Aphorism
a reply to: BlueMule

Remember, the experiment was performed on Tibetan Buddhist monks, who greatly esteem reason and skepticism, which is also apparent in the Dalai lama himself. They are also analytic, rational, and employ logic and debate as forms of meditation. They employ the intellect where the mystic chooses not to. Naturally, their “big brains” are also a result of this sort of intellectual practice, simply another form of meditation, and it would lead us to believe that “science” (too loose a use of word for my liking) shows that the skeptic’s brain is bigger than the non-skeptics brain (although the experiment says nothing of brain size, but I will play along), and also, that of the mystic’s, who rarely employs the intellect in tandem with his instinctive and intuitive sensations.


True. I have been presenting some Buddhist ideas on this forum here and there since it seems to be slightly lacking (possibly due to Buddhism dealing more with application than experience- here and here are two recent posts).

Insight (the act of analyzing what has been experienced in order to understand the true nature of things) in Buddhism is called Vipassana - it's counterpart is the calming meditation of emptiness called Samatha. While Samatha can produce many 'Mystical' experiences, but these must be investigated with Vipannana otherwise they can lead to delusion.



posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 06:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aphorism
a reply to: BlueMule


Mysticism is about seeing beneath the mask and backstage, not falling for a disguise.


We could battle with metaphors until the cows come home.


I like to streamline my metaphors, so I will say until the Hobbits come home. Er, was that part of the battle?


Humanity has been engaging in metaphysics (not in the pejorative sense) for thousands of years in an attempt to properly articulate the nature of reality.


Metaphysics is the foundation of philosophy. The degree to which our metaphysical worldview is correct is the degree to which we can comprehend the world.


There is a wide variety of people claiming they understand the nature of reality, and thus, there is a wide variety of interpretations of it. Is any one of them privy to any sort of “truth”? Well no, they aren’t. It is about building a body of knowledge everyone can use, refine and apply to life.


I understand that the nature of reality is consciousness, not matter. That is not to say that I understand everything about consciousness or matter.


But if we were to use all our faculties of discernment, we can see simply by watching the meditating mystic, that he is in fact seeing nothing but the back of his eyelids. Seeing is a sensual activity. “Seeing” with the mind is imagination. Nothing is really seen, it is thought of. I could think of an infinite amount of possible realities, but it doesn’t mean I am seeing them.


No, you can't see that he is seeing nothing but the back of his eyelids. You can imagine it. :p

And you can use science to compare the brain of your meditating mystic to the brains of a group of, oh, say Soccer fans sitting there looking at the back of their eyelids. Do you think science would detect a difference between them?


What I am interested in is not what the mystic alleges, or “sees” (for we know he is seeing the back of his eyelids, or through some other glass darkly, i.e. narcotics), but how he uses his visualizations towards the progress of himself and his fellow beings. I have yet to find any mystic who has accomplished anything beyond his search for the next mystical experience, or money. Where are the fruits and accomplishments of his mysticism?


The fruits of mysticism is union with reality. Is reality itself a good accomplishment?


The world is not a stage. No metaphor can change reality, only how we speak of it. Reality is indifferent to our intentions, and only the individual can act in accordance with them. Consequently, there is no backstage, only different ways of experiencing the exact same world.


That is a metaphysical claim about reality you are making. If reality is indifferent to our intentions, then we shouldn't be able to alter probablity itself, to any degree, by intention alone. But according to evidence it seems we can.



Ah. So when The Dalai Lama choses to consult an Oracle, is it his intellect, his logic, his analytic rational, or his skepticism that he employs?


His curiosity.


All of the above.


How about this, BlueMule. I will entertain your ideas and imagine them to be true. What sort of advancements has mysticism made, and of what benefit is the mystic to the beings he interacts with? What can we do with this "backstage"?


We can realize our transpersonal identity with it. Then you are one with the stage, with the actors, and with the audience too. Then when you play your part on stage, you see through the fourth wall, through the masks, the props, the plot. You contain every human face within your own. It adds a spice to life.

But that isn't a role for everyone. The show couldn't go on if everyone played the same role. So even if I could, I wouldn't force you or anyone to believe as I do, or as anyone else does.


edit on 098WednesdayuAmerica/ChicagoJuluWednesdayAmerica/Chicago by BlueMule because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 06:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: midicon
a reply to: BlueMule

Bilbo is just a character in a story. You spend too much time reading.


That's one way of looking at it. But I think Bilbo is a metaphor for the individuation process, or mystical journey. The archetypes of the collective unconscious are strong in Middle-Earth.


The only thing you serve is yourself. You are the source but you project it outward.


That's sort of like saying to Clark Kent, 'you are the source of Superman, but you project it outward'.


You are the whole thing...is that not enough for you?


Nothing short of everything will really do... and of course that includes hollow pursuits.


What a wonderful thing you are...just as you are.


I've never claimed otherwise. :p



posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 08:35 PM
link   
a reply to: BlueMule

Just chiming in with the obvious.
Agian.
:p
Biblo is an example of "the Hero's Journey".



posted on Jul, 10 2014 @ 07:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: HarbingerOfShadows
a reply to: BlueMule

Just chiming in with the obvious.
Agian.
:p
Biblo is an example of "the Hero's Journey".


Yes, thanks. Tolkien tapped into something larger than himself, and the archetypal Hero Journey came pouring out as he wrote LoTR.

"The Lord of the Rings is itself an example of this. Tolkien started out just to write a sequel to The Hobbit. However, as Ursula LeGuin says, the story often comes from places within that the writer did not even know existed until he or she sat down to write.

Tolkien tells us in the Foreword to The Lord of the Rings that "the tale grew in the telling" into something much larger, darker, and complicated than his original intent. At the end of his first draft of Chapter III, Tolkien wrote to his publisher that the story "has taken an unpremeditated turn." By the time he was writing Chapter VII, he reported that "It is now flowing along, and getting out of hand . . . [it] progresses towards quite unforeseen goals."

When Faramir appeared, Tolkien reported to his son that "I am sure I did not invent him, I did not even want him . . . but there he came walking into the woods of Ithilien . . ." Later he said "Gollum continues to develop into a most intriguing character."

greenbooks.theonering.net...

The same thing happened to George Lucas. Sometimes an artist is swept away by the creative forces of the unconscious; just along for the ride as a deep part of the self takes hold.

"The biographies of great artists make it abundantly clear that the creative urge is often so imperious that it battens on their humanity and yokes everything to the service of the work, even at the cost of health and ordinary human happiness. The unborn work in the psyche of the artist is a force of nature that achieves its end either with tyrannical might or with the subtle cunning of nature herself, quite regardless of the personal fate of the man who is its vehicle." -Carl Jung



posted on Jul, 10 2014 @ 08:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: AfterInfinity
a reply to: BlueMule


There is a variety of ways to sharpen your brain. But if you want to peek backstage, you have to intend to peek backstage and you have to use certain equipment.


Is that where "suspending skepticism" comes in?


Perhaps it's more like balancing skepticism.

"It seems to me what is called for is an exquisite balance between two conflicting needs: the most skeptical scrutiny of all hypotheses that are served up to us and at the same time a great openness to new ideas … If you are only skeptical, then no new ideas make it through to you … On the other hand, if you are open to the point of gullibility and have not an ounce of skeptical sense in you, then you cannot distinguish the useful ideas from the worthless ones."

-Carl Sagan

Somone who decides beforehand that all they will find is a cache of fortune cookies is not going to bother to look, and so they are not balancing their skepticism with great openness.


edit on 601Thursday000000America/ChicagoJul000000ThursdayAmerica/Chicago by BlueMule because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 10 2014 @ 09:30 AM
link   
a reply to: Aphorism


When the mystic claims he is beyond the religions, he contradicts himself by applying the exact same methodology, rhetoric and ritualistic behaviour as priests of all denominations.


I want to tackle this bit of the OP using the New Testament according to Luke.


As Jesus and his disciples were on their way, he came to a village where a woman named Martha opened her home to him. She had a sister called Mary, who sat at the Lord's feet listening to what he said. But Martha was distracted by all the preparations that had to be made. She came to him and asked, "Lord, don't you care that my sister has left me to do the work by myself? Tell her to help me!" "Martha, Martha," the Lord answered, "you are worried and upset about many things, but only one thing is needed. Mary has chosen what is better, and it will not be taken away from her."


Here, Martha is in the role of a Church 'active'. Mary is in the role of a 'contemplative' or mystic. For Mary, it's not about being beyond the active life of Church involvement and maintenence. It's simply about Presence.

Martha is the one who speaks, acts, and loves. Mary is the one who listens and loves.

"And therefore let the voice of our Lord cry on these actives, as if He said thus now for us unto them, as He did then for Mary to Martha, “Martha, Martha!”—“Actives, actives! make you as busy as ye can in the first part and in the second, now in the one and now in the tother: and, if you list right well and feel you disposed, in both two bodily. And meddle you not of contemplatives. Ye wot not what them aileth: let them sit in their rest and in their play, with the third and the best part of Mary.”

www.sacred-texts.com...



posted on Jul, 10 2014 @ 09:36 AM
link   
a reply to: BlueMule

Thank you for the small debate, BlueMule. I'm glad we could share in a discussion.



posted on Jul, 10 2014 @ 09:42 AM
link   
a reply to: Aphorism

Thank YOU, worthy foe. Let me take this opportunity to apologize for hasty words and flared tempers in the past. As an Irish Aries it flares up from time to time, and I spoil for a fight. But I am always ready to have a beer at the pub afterwords.




edit on 663ThursdayuAmerica/ChicagoJuluThursdayAmerica/Chicago by BlueMule because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 10 2014 @ 09:53 AM
link   
a reply to: BlueMule

No apology needed – you're helping me pass the time when I should be working – but thanks.



posted on Jul, 10 2014 @ 05:14 PM
link   
You have proven time and time again that you simply have NO insight what a "mystical" experience is.

All you see is prejudice, assumptions and people who YOU think that are somehow above you. Maybe you should try to understand that there's more to life than what we see, hear and can experience with our limited senses.

Sigh. It's SUCH a bummer what this place has become. It used to be full of seekers, "mystics" and (above all) interesting people from all walks of life. Now we're just getting this all-piercing, knowitall materialism that literally kills all interesting speculation.

Disappointing.

EDIT: also, you try to summarize age old traditions and "altered states" (by god, you have no idea what you're talking about) in something that would be achieved by "drinking a bottle of whiskey". I actually feel kinda sorry for you.
edit on 10/7/2014 by Tryptych because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 10 2014 @ 05:50 PM
link   
a reply to: BlueMule

I don't think any author would have the story fully formed in their mind from start to finish when they start writing.



posted on Jul, 10 2014 @ 05:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: HarbingerOfShadows
a reply to: BlueMule

I don't think any author would have the story fully formed in their mind from start to finish when they start writing.


Yes, just as no woman would have a baby fully formed in their womb when they get knocked up.

In both cases, there is something with a life of its own.





edit on 000Thursday000000America/ChicagoJul000000ThursdayAmerica/Chicago by BlueMule because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 11 2014 @ 06:19 AM
link   
a reply to: Aphorism
They have had a mystical experience and made allegations. What they say however, is contradicted by the fact that they have not become God. We can confirm this by observation and experiment. This is the theme of my argument. This renders their assertions quite meaningless, if not dishonest. It would seem that this contradictory mentality and dishonesty is rampant within the mystic archetype.


Of course this begs the question, what is God?

I take it that for anyone who says they are God, they must have the ability to walk on water etc.? I would say the realization that I am God and any abilities are not de facto linked together.

I can point you in the way, but you must walk the path.

Focus on "I Am". Focus on it when you make your way to work, when you breathe, when you kiss your lover, let this thought permeate your life and you will know who you are.

From Nisargadatta:

"Maharaj: For meditation you should sit with identification with the knowledge "I am" only and have confirmed to yourself that you are not the body. You must dwell only in that knowledge "I am"--not merely the words "I am." The design of your body does not signify your identification. And also, the name which is given to you or to the body is not your correct identity. The name which is imposed on you, or the name which you have heard about you--you have accepted that name as yourself. Similarly, since you have seen your body, you think you are the body. So you have to give up both these identities. And the indwelling knowledge that you are, without words, that itself you are. In that identity, you must stabilize yourself. And then, whatever doubts you have, will be cleared by that very knowledge, and everything will be opened up in you.


My teacher told me to hold on to the sense 'I am' tenaciously and not to swerve from it even for a moment. I did my best to follow his advice and in a comparatively short time I realized within myself the truth of his teaching. All I did was to remember his teaching, his face, his words constantly. This brought an end to the mind; in the stillness of the mind I saw myself as I am -- unbound." From this site


Afaik, this is the most effective way.

So now that you have a way to confirm what many mystics say, will you?
edit on 11-7-2014 by scratchmane because: (no reason given)

edit on 11-7-2014 by scratchmane because: Link



posted on Jul, 11 2014 @ 07:11 AM
link   
a reply to: scratchmane

Forgive me for asking but have you tried this practice?

If so why the need to quote anything...just impart some wisdom of your own. I look forward to it.

If not then why promote it?



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join