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: 6
17
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 11 2014 @ 09:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: Aphorism
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.



The metaphorical use of mythology is bounded by the literal use of mythology on one side, and the neglect of mythology on the other.

If I was using mythology literally, I would be a fundamentalist who condemns you for your failure to conform to the dominant myth of our culture.

If I was neglecting myth, I would be living the one-dimensional life of a stuffed shirt.

But since I use it metaphorically, I feel no need to damn you, to burn-witches, or to live for money.

Humanity can't live without myth, just as we can't live without dreaming.

"Myths are public dreams, dreams are private myths" -Joseph Campbell

Humanity is stuck with myth. They come naturally, just like dreams. We can either use it literally, or metaphorically.

The literal use chains you to the dominant myth of your culture. The metaphorical use frees you to chose how you want to use it, if at all.


edit on 657FridayuAmerica/ChicagoJuluFridayAmerica/Chicago by BlueMule because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 11 2014 @ 09:46 AM
link   
a reply to: Itisnowagain




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!!


I should look at what is presently arising? I always do. But I'd also like to enjoy my other faculties as well.



posted on Jul, 11 2014 @ 09:47 AM
link   
a reply to: Ophiuchus 13




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.


I agree. One is unable to doubt another's experience. But the interpretation of said is experience is up to the beholder.



posted on Jul, 11 2014 @ 09:48 AM
link   
a reply to: BlueMule




The literal use chains you to the dominant myth of your culture. The metaphorical use frees you to chose how you want to use it, if at all.


I agree with you. But like you said, it is an old tale. We need a new one.



posted on Jul, 11 2014 @ 10:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: Aphorism
a reply to: BlueMule




The literal use chains you to the dominant myth of your culture. The metaphorical use frees you to chose how you want to use it, if at all.


I agree with you. But like you said, it is an old tale. We need a new one.



We do have a new one already. It's right under your nose. You are free to use it, ignore it, or take it literally. Last time I checked, there were no Jedi going door-to-door converting people and trying to influence politics. But there is one taking you on in a debate, so to speak.

Science, the sci-fi and fantasy genre, comic books are our new mythology. Inside them are the elements of the old mythology, because they both come from a part of us that we don't usually think of as a part of us. The roots of sci-fi and the roots of classic myth are one and the same, and the roots are paranormal.

Here is some of the evidence to support that claim.

www.amazon.com...


edit on 683Friday000000America/ChicagoJul000000FridayAmerica/Chicago by BlueMule because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 11 2014 @ 11:06 AM
link   
a reply to: BlueMule

Like I've said earlier, it is all lore. I do not disagree with you on this point. Whether it is a valid source of knowledge is up to the reader. The roots, however, is human creativity. Myself, I avoid any mythology that treats the world and the body as the enemy.




posted on Jul, 11 2014 @ 11:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: Aphorism
a reply to: BlueMule

Like I've said earlier, it is all lore. I do not disagree with you on this point. Whether it is a valid source of knowledge is up to the reader. The roots, however, is human creativity. Myself, I avoid any mythology that treats the world and the body as the enemy.





But then, why aren't you advocating any mythology that treats the world and the body as a friend and teacher? An advanced mystic feels thoroughly comfortable with the body and does not see it as an enemy or as a source of shame or embarrassment. An advanced mystic is amoral, not moral or immoral. An advanced mystic is not bound to the rules of society, which are ephemeral. He may chose to play the game of following social norms, or he may play the game of challenging them. He may chose to indulge in palaces of pleasure, or he may chose asceticism. He is in the liminal zone between shame and shamelessness. All is the play of Brahman.


edit on 739FridayuAmerica/ChicagoJuluFridayAmerica/Chicago by BlueMule because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 11 2014 @ 11:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: Aphorism
a reply to: Itisnowagain




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!!

I should look at what is presently arising? I always do. But I'd also like to enjoy my other faculties as well.

Yes - nothing other than the present is arising - it is all that can be known.
What other faculties do you believe you have which you can enjoy?



posted on Jul, 11 2014 @ 11:58 AM
link   
a reply to: BlueMule




But then, why aren't you advocating any mythology that treats the world and the body as a friend and teacher?


Do you know of any? I wouldn't mind reading it.

Out of brahmanism and the Vedas came the caste system and the laws of Manu.



posted on Jul, 11 2014 @ 12:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aphorism
a reply to: BlueMule




But then, why aren't you advocating any mythology that treats the world and the body as a friend and teacher?


Do you know of any? I wouldn't mind reading it.


Well, there is Shakespeare's mysticism of the theatre. And there is the mythology of the Wasteland. And of course the life-affirming, Death Star destroying sci-fi mythos.


This calamity, in Wolfram's meaning, was symbolic of the dissociation within Christendom of spirit from nature; the denial of nature as corrupt, the imposition of what was supposed to be an authority supernaturally endowed, and the actual demolishment of both nature and truth in consequence. The healing of the maimed king, therefore, could be accomplished only by an uncorrupted youth naturally endowed, who would merit the supreme crown through his own authentic life work and experience, motivated by a spirit of unflinching noble love, enduring loyalty, and spontaneous compassion. Such a one was Parzival.


www.mythicjourneys.org...


Out of brahmanism and the Vedas came the caste system and the laws of Manu.


Out of every mythology comes a social function, a cosmological function, and a psychological function. These all change as culture and science evolve, and they can't be easily transplanted from one culture to another. Each culture has to find it's own way, with regard to those functions in light of their environmental and technological constraints.

But the mystical function of myth is unique in that it is cross-cultural, because mystics of all cultures are tapping into the same set of experiences, regardless of their methodology. The set of experiences is just dressed in different metaphors, and given different emphasis. These differences can be penetrated. There is a cross-cultural harmony in the mystical function of world religion and myth that is not found in the social function.






edit on 848Friday000000America/ChicagoJul000000FridayAmerica/Chicago by BlueMule because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 11 2014 @ 10:54 PM
link   
a reply to: BlueMule

I like what you said there

It is all the play of Brahman

whatever path is chosen, however long drawn out it may be, or however direct we make it, it is there waiting to be brought out of the darkness and into the light through the giving of life

I myself prefer the Buddha's way, for it is the middle way... pretty direct, it does not concern itself with siddhis(powers) or knowledge of the hereafter

In Buddha's first sermon he says: "I teach one thing and one thing only; suffering and the end of suffering."

but what really is there to know and to concern oneself with other than what is here now?

and what do we have here now? the body, so one way is to learn all one can about the body and its functions, it is a form of meditation and deep contemplation


(post by Tryptych removed for a manners violation)

posted on Jul, 12 2014 @ 09:06 AM
link   
a reply to: Tryptych




POST REMOVED BY STAFF


I guess I'll just take your word for it. Because you get angry at what other people think does not make them wrong.
edit on Mon Jul 14 2014 by DontTreadOnMe because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 12 2014 @ 10:47 AM
link   
Thank you Aphorism for your thread. Even though you deliver a healthy dose of skepticism, you have opened doors to me that I did not know existed.

I've thouroughly enjoyed this. It led me to youtube for further research and I came upon Alan Watts, a foremost western authority on this subject matter.

I've gleaned the universal knowledge of the mystical experience. Having had the experience earlier this year, I learned so much more about the message I received through you and the many posters!

Perhaps one day God, the universe, the cosmos or the divine knocks you over the head with a real profound sense of your being. I'm mean that in a good way.


Thanks again.



posted on Jul, 12 2014 @ 11:28 AM
link   
a reply to: EmeraldBeam




I've thouroughly enjoyed this. It led me to youtube for further research and I came upon Alan Watts, a foremost western authority on this subject matter.


Anything I can do to impel you towards your own path. But don't just run to youtube. Here's some great reads on mysticism from other westerners, who do not possess a religious angle like Alan Watts:

The Varieties of Religious Experience – William James
Mysticism and Logic – Bertrand Russel
The Two Sources of Religion – Henri Bergson

All of these are pro or neutral towards mysticism, and good reads to boot.



posted on Jul, 12 2014 @ 12:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Aphorism

One interesting facet of my experience is that it allowed me to throw off the heavy religious guilt cloak. Its gone along with many other things and many other things gained. It truly was beyond anything I ever expected to happen to me. I'll never follow religion after this intense profundity. Thank you for the links.



posted on Jul, 12 2014 @ 01:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aphorism
a reply to: scratchmane


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.



I've been pondering what you mean by his for the last couple of days, and I must say I am unable to understand what you mean when you say it is a form of superstition. I would appreciate if you could clarify this for me.

If you have a pile of wood, and want to make fire, you can use a flintstone to make the fire. The flintstone is not the fire, but a tool to make fire. In the same way, focusing on "I Am" is a tool.

You say that you know who you are by the virtue of the fact "that I am he" Why do you so say 'he'? Is it the same as saying "I am him"?

edit on 12-7-2014 by scratchmane because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 12 2014 @ 02:14 PM
link   
a reply to: scratchmane




I've been pondering what you mean by his for the last couple of days, and I must say I am unable to understand what you mean when you say it is a form of superstition. I would appreciate if you could clarify this for me.


Focusing on a set of words, for instance "I am", is just that, focusing on a set of words. The words themselves inflict no change upon anything unless it has supernatural powers. Giving supernatural powers to words is superstition.



If you have a pile of wood, and want to make fire, you can use a flintstone to make the fire. The flintstone is not the fire, but a tool to make fire. In the same way, focusing on "I Am" is a tool.


"I am" is a clause, a set of words. The tool in question is thinking, and not a set of words. The words are the fire, and thinking the tool to make the words.



You say that you know who you are by the virtue of the fact "that I am he" Why do you so say 'he'? Is it the same as saying "I am him"?


They are the same, but "I am he" is better grammar.



posted on Jul, 12 2014 @ 10:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aphorism

Why then do the mystics even bother coming out of their caves?


Why do YOU bother coming here?

I guess there's some skeptic board somewhere.. oh yeah, it's not even skepticism, just prejudice and assumptions. Some "mystic" stole your girlfriend? Where does this hatred come from?

Oh yeah.. you can explain how to world looks to a blind man, but he still doesn't know. That's the difference between experience and interpretation.



posted on Jul, 13 2014 @ 09:33 AM
link   
a reply to: Tryptych




Why do YOU bother coming here?

I guess there's some skeptic board somewhere.. oh yeah, it's not even skepticism, just prejudice and assumptions. Some "mystic" stole your girlfriend? Where does this hatred come from?

Oh yeah.. you can explain how to world looks to a blind man, but he still doesn't know. That's the difference between experience and interpretation.


Why do you bother coming here? I'm sure there's a poor-sport board out there somewhere.

The only thing a mystic knows is that he had a mystical experience. That's it.

And oh yeah, playground insults do not make me wrong.



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join