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.
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.
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.
Mysticism is about seeing beneath the mask and backstage, not falling for a disguise.
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.
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?
originally posted by: Aphorism
Where are the fruits and accomplishments of his mysticism?
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.
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.
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?
originally posted by: Aphorism
What can we do with this "backstage"?
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.
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.
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?
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"?
originally posted by: midicon
a reply to: BlueMule
Bilbo is just a character in a story. You spend too much time reading.
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.
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".
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?
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.
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."
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.