Mystics. Take my word for it.

a reply to: Aphorism

It seems like you totally missed what mysticism is about. It sure isn't cooking up a doctrine to follow or a body of knowledge that everyone can follow as you remarked. Mysticism is beyond knowledge, and yes, I know, as a westerner, you have difficulties wrapping your mind around it since mind is knowledge.

Mysticism is about understanding and accepting your own being. By exhibiting compassion and love towards your own being the unraveling of existence begins. Sorrily, anyone who can describe what they experience will go wrong or be understood wrongly by ones that have not experienced. The undescribable CANNOT be put into words, call me a mystic if you like. I am happy with that.

originally posted by: Aphorism
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.

Most humans 'see' with the mind as you say, 'seeing with the mind is imagination'!! Is it possible for you to 'see' without the mind popping up a thought about what is seen? Can you see with the eyes and hear with the ears and not have a running commentary about what is happening occurring? Speech mind is often not noticed.
Can you be aware that the 'speech mind' is happening? Do you see/hear the 'speech mind' occurring? Can you stop it from speaking and telling you about what you see and hear? Do you believe what it is telling you?

'Seeing with the mind is imagination' - if the veil of imagination is lifted the glory of god shall be revealed.

a reply to: Itisnowagain

Sorry for the thread drift.

I like your posts where ever I see them. Too bad, the majority seems to miss the point you are trying to convey most of the time especially in the metaphysics or religion topics. On the other hand, I understand completely what you are saying (at least so far). Couldn't agree more with what you posted also this time. Peace, bro or sis.

a reply to: TatTvamAsi
The seeker will always be seeking 'the point' - so yes the seeker will miss the point otherwise it will no longer be seeking. When there is seeking there will appear to be a seeker 'who' cannot find what they are looking for, that gets frustrated and suffers. 'When' it is found there is no other time than now, 'where' else will there be but here? Here is where it all arises and subsides and no one is doing it and that is that.
The point is that there is nowhere to go and nothing to do yet it all gets done so beautifully. Only when there is a belief that there is someone who can do something will there be suffering.

a reply to: TatTvamAsi
Thank you very much for your kind words.

The word 'mystic' to me means that one has realized or 'seen' the mystery.
It brings to mind the first chapter of the tao te ching translated by S. Mitchell.

The tao that can be told
is not the eternal Tao
The name that can be named
is not the eternal Name.

The unnamable is the eternally real.
Naming is the origin
of all particular things.

Free from desire, you realize the mystery.
Caught in desire, you see only the manifestations.

Yet mystery and manifestations
arise from the same source.
This source is called darkness.

Darkness within darkness.
The gateway to all understanding.

acc6.its.brooklyn.cuny.edu...
The 'mystery' cannot be told to anyone.

a reply to: Itisnowagain

I remember reading that same passage a long time ago. Brings back a lot of memories from the times I used to stumble in the dark and read all the 'scrolls' I could get my hands on, and at the same time, getting just more confused and frustrated on what the written records were supposed to convey. Even led me to believe that the whole mystical experience is a hoax at one point. Someone must had made it up to stand out of the crowd as something special to glorify themselves. What a laugh I had when I discovered it is what is the most ordinary and mundane, 'nothing special' as one mystic proclaimed when asked about the experience.

Agreed, mysticism is a hard 'art' for one who has not 'seen'...

a reply to: Aphorism

Why he wishes to convince others of his subjective experience is unclear, but in order to do so he relies too heavily on the pathos of classic rhetoric.

As you've no doubt noticed by my use of sci-fi and fantasy literature, I can use classic myth or modern myth to make the same points about mysticism. That's what myth is really for.

Although myth transforms over time, it still serves the mystic well, even the secular myths of the space-age. Under the masks are the same archetypes of the collective unconscious, and it is these patterns that tie world religion and myth into a single unit.

The trials and tribulations of Luke Skywalker, Clark Kent, Bilbo Baggins, Buck Rogers, Spider-Man, Swamp-Thing, they all conote the psychological process of mystical initiation.

People look at the denotation, instead of the connotation. That is the root problem behind fundamentalism. People are reading myth wrong. It's a picture-language, a code, a clue from a non-ego part of us. The collective unconscious.

Take UFO phenomena for example. I don't know where you stand on that issue, but if you're like most people you accept the possibility of life on other planets, without necessarily acceptiing the legitimacy of UFOs. In so doing, you would be mis-reading a modern mythology. ET is the denotation, not the connotation. ET symbolizes a non-ego part of us, a part alien to the ego. We are projecting it outward in symbolic form and co-creating myth, which in turn co-creates us.

Ancient shamans were UFO contactees. Modern contactees are shamans. The only difference is the mythological context. UFOs are the same today as they were eons ago. They have been a part of every religion, but their costumes vary. Only the cultural concepts and symbols have changed.

When I beame a contactee, I was initiated into my own little hero journey. It took me across the country on an outward journey that mirrored my inward journey. It was the most difficult thing I've ever done. It almost cost me my life, my sanity, my family. But it didn't. It paid off. I learned things you can't get from books. And I wasn't alone in my body or my mind. The archetypes of the collective unconscious were there, and activated.

It's an old story.

a reply to: TatTvamAsi

It seems like you totally missed what mysticism is about. It sure isn't cooking up a doctrine to follow or a body of knowledge that everyone can follow as you remarked. Mysticism is beyond knowledge, and yes, I know, as a westerner, you have difficulties wrapping your mind around it since mind is knowledge.

Mysticism is about understanding and accepting your own being. By exhibiting compassion and love towards your own being the unraveling of existence begins. Sorrily, anyone who can describe what they experience will go wrong or be understood wrongly by ones that have not experienced. The undescribable CANNOT be put into words, call me a mystic if you like. I am happy with that.

I don't believe in minds.

I'm sorry but you have not described mysticism. I wouldn't call you a mystic.

a reply to: Itisnowagain

I don't believe in minds.

a reply to: Aphorism
Do words arise where you are? Internal words (without mouth moving) is thought - are you saying you do not have thoughts?

a reply to: BlueMule

It's an old story.

The metaphorical use of mythology knows no bounds. But it's more a Michael Bay instead of a Kubrick.

a reply to: Itisnowagain

Do words arise where you are? Internal words (without mouth moving) is thought - are you saying you do not have thoughts?

I don't have thoughts; I think.

a reply to: Aphorism

originally posted by: Aphorism
“Seeing” with the mind is imagination.

If you do not believe in 'minds' then why did you say this?

a reply to: Itisnowagain

"Mind" is a word, yes. I am free to use it.

originally posted by: Aphorism
a reply to: Itisnowagain

Do words arise where you are? Internal words (without mouth moving) is thought - are you saying you do not have thoughts?

I don't have thoughts; I think.

When I speak of mind it is thoughts arising presently - there is no mind as such, there is only ever what is presently arising.

a reply to: Itisnowagain

When I speak of mind it is thoughts arising presently - there is no mind as such, there is only ever what is presently arising.

Arising out of and in to what?

originally posted by: Aphorism
a reply to: Itisnowagain

When I speak of mind it is thoughts arising presently - there is no mind as such, there is only ever what is presently arising.

Arising out of and in to what?

Why are you asking me??? Would you believe me?
Why ask me when you can look yourself and know for sure and then you will not have to believe or disbelieve again!!

Some of the data of mystics may not be verifiable for those who doubt them until the experiences they have shared are experienced by the doubters. Depending on the intent of said mystic if they relayed a message of support that helps the doubters experience then ultimately the extended hand of help is appreciated by the doubter.
However 1 is not sure the mystic who are true, seek appreciation / recognition more so then to alert aware those unaware...
For the real mystic knows "the cake is a lie" and possibly doesn't operate to achieve recognition or cake but to assist... So 1 doesn't deny them all, just those who seem to use the skill for financial gain 1 questions.

a reply to: scratchmane

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.

Focusing on a set of words is a form of superstition. I know who I am by virtue of the fact that I am he.