I see this is going to be difficult within the context of, "if you disagree, it is simply ignorance due to your and lack of "mystical" experience". This assumption is the default position of every fanatic and every cult.
I didn't come to this subject with any label, other than someone searching for truth.
I too have known many self proclaimed mystics, yogis, messiahs and various assorted "wise ones". While obviously not without wisdom, sadly I have found, in every instance, a well meaning charlatan.
It is quite a paradox that a glimpse of such a thing can cause so many corruptions of it and stop such a search in the truest sense, yet leaving people wholly convinced otherwise.
I am also wondering when you met Buddha and personally asked him to elucidate the meaning of said event. So far I have seen an awful lot of explanations, each one conforming with the belief of the explainee...Go figure...
We can always be wrong. I am quite a bit. I could be wrong here also.
I guess you could believe this "soul", or "god", or anything you wish.
Though if this implies anything in the individual, meddling, religious sense of god, I guess I will have to just wait for explanation. That (IMO) would be such a corruption of unlimited beauty and intelligence as to make the whole thing seem a bit sad from my view and I begin to wonder if we are talking of anything remotely similar.
IMO science has far more chance to discover this underlying force/energy/principle one day, because it doesn't care so much about who said or believes what, who may or may not have been around a couple of thousand years ago, or for personal intepretation/testimony of truth. It is more interested in what it can find.
Originally posted by dominicus
So by your logic, a person who says that they have had mystical experiences and tells others that they don"t understand fully, unless they too experience these things, is a cult based fanatic?
Therein lies the ultimate paradox, take the label-less belief-less route there, see what you find, tell others, and they will all tell you that what you're describing is a label and belief.
I've met charlatans too, but I've also met genuine folks who have seen & experienced what have I.
That "Truth" is incorruptable and stands of its own accord regardless what anyone says of it. If you're saying language based descriptions of things, corrupt the actual "things" then all we have left is to not discuss or use any words at all.
The description of Buddha's supreme state and buddhahood, experientially, is the same as descriptions of the Tao, Nonduality, Union with God, Theosis, Deification, etc. On top of this, when I considered myself (way back when) of a certain stance, & came to these experiiences, upon further investigation, found that Buddhists, Yogi's, and fellow mystics that I would eventually meet, also got to these same experiences in other ways. Buddhism is misunderstood unless one experiences the states referred to therein.
Then in that case we can go so far to say nothing is right, everything could be wrong, including everything we currently know, subjectivity/objectivity are both wrong, there are no absolutes
Perhaps you misunderstand "ego". It's necessary to distinguish logically words to string together sentences for the sake of communication. However, in my case there is a separation & space between Awareness & Ego, &is easy to let go the latter when no longer required for certain tasks. The problem w/ online "forums" is that there's no seeable body language, essence, pronunciation, feeling, etc. So perhaps you've taken out of my discussions, "ego" and lack of "humility" ..however none of the Atheists, I discuss this to, in person, ever bring up "ego" or "humility". Context is vital.
Meister Eckhart also experienced these "things" & was locked up, labeled heretic, ex-communicated, etc ...yet he was right. Exotericism seems to exist in a safe self imposed bubble and anything outside itself is a threat, including the esoteric. I've had talks with Exoteric Westernized Fundamentalist Christians & been threatened
It seems not possible for you to comprehend, yet people who disagree with you might have had every bit as much experience, perhaps even the same experience.
I find there is some unfathomable component to our existence that can be experienced. You claim to have fathomed it, at least in part.
Soul, god, people walking on water...You have not gone close to substantiating this, beyond your personal belief and reference to religion, "esoteric" or otherwise. To claim you are right because others say so, is also a fallacy.
No, I am saying your notions (soul, god) about such a thing, seem to be additions based on your beliefs.
Beliefs about the truth, not the thing itself. You seem to have already denied some of the most basic observations we have to begin with, in favour of pure unfettered belief.
Unless you feel Christ was an ordinary man surrounded by myth. It appears the original custodians of which your faith seems a brake away sect, who were there at the time (as a people) disregard it.
Ever looked at the Toldot Yeshu? Oh, this is not really "esoteric"
I have doubts that denying the most basic obsevations we have about our world and the universe, in favour of unfounded belief, are a solid foundation for the search for truth.
"Supreme state and buddhahood"? Very impressive. I wonder what the man himself would have said.
It actually seems to get worse in "esoteric" circles, the distinction between phenomena and beliefs around it can be subtle and insidious, it can become very blurry.
Though this doesn't address the event in question in any way, it just infers that all who don't meet your esoteric criteria, don't understand. I wonder if any of them understood?
No. When we cannot conceive of the notion that we could be wrong, this is fanatical
Everything has the potential to be wrong. We should always be open to the possibility that with further knowledge, if we find good reason, we might need to refine or change our concepts.
IMO nothing exemplifies the sentiment and wisdom of honest humility (in this sense) more than that attributed to Socrates. "I know that I don't know anything, but the others don't even know that"
They could be however, to make such claims about souls and god as fact while it appears obvious you cannot substantiate it beyond "other people say so too" and "esoteric" religious concepts (ie. personal beliefs), doesn't seem wise.
Science already studies consciousness. It already acknowledges it is there, as we all do. We don't need mystics for that.
It will not necessarily be "non-local". IMO it cannot be. It might be all pervading and fundamental to existence.
The separateness is the illusion. There is no separateness to begin with.
Yet even if we could truly fathom this, I doubt it would make us that knowledgeable. Just another understanding, another piece of something that never ends. Another vantage point of something that seems infinite.
was surprised by ecstatic ego deaths
I am usually very careful to point out this is opinion and always leave room I could be wrong. Sometimes I am. I also realize that being personal experiences, no matter how right I think they are, can only lead me to personal beliefs. I don't claim it must be fact for this reason. When it appears for good reason that I am wrong, I accept it and move on.
This seems something not comprehendable to yourself, that someone who disagrees with you could do this, as so many pages have shown. Again, this is the default position of the fanatic.
No getting anything in a knot. No need to discuss logical fallacies. You have established your beliefs and the reasons for them, now if you could simply back your claims pertaining to your stated facts that would be better, thanks. I think you might have a little trouble, it is looking this way so far.
Socrates realized he was ignorant. Most "enlightened" people I know of curiously seem to bypass this as a starting point.
They don't need it, Buddha (or the like) tells them what they need to know.
They use the "blueprint" and is if by miracle find the "blueprint" is right
The explanation of the "Buddha" episode a while back was one of the worst I have ever heard, even people with no interest in the subject at all seem capable of better. Is it so hard to say "I don't know what it means"?
There is no wisdom in claiming facts you cannot back up. People also experience leprechauns and fairies and all sorts of other things "repeatably and experientially" and back them to the same level you have.
It seem you might be just another well meaning charlatan who has obeyed the rules and had the acceptable experiences, while becoming a little fanatical.
I am beginning to sense some of the unconditional Christian "lovin'" which usually seals the deal. Or perhaps some more "ego death" would be appropriate?
Am still waiting for you to back your claims. We haven't even got around to god yet...
The many competing ideas makes it less obvious they really found it. Even far less obvious you have.
Your claim that the only way to know is to look in the same way as you have done and therefore must find exactly the same things or be wrong, does have a few obvious flaws. It is a fallacy that overlooks a few things.
As do countless other "truths", many of them "mystical" and "esoteric". All with their associated circular logic to protect them
It overlooks that many use exactly your method and come up with different "truths". Including Buddha who you reinterpret for your own ends (and also seem to have a bit of a crush on, by the way).
It overlooks the fact that many of these "mystical esotericists" are delusional fanatics and is a term can be comfortably interchangeable with "nut job". In more severe instances they offer a glimpse into the truth of Narcissistic Personality Disorder, more so than the universe.
The "mystical" equivalent of "my dad's better than your dad".
Most intelligent Christians realize their religion is based on faith. Another range of the human experience that shouldn't be discounted. In this much I agree, without having this faith.
Some however, become fundamentalist and fanatical about it. Some even use the pretext of "mystical" or "esoteric" to excuse it. Religious fanaticism is quite a problem in this world today. The difference between this unrealistic stance and yours are......you claim yours are real.....just like they do.
I have no need to debate what would constitute substantiating your claims. Anyone with the slightest common sense will see the unlikelihood of that ever happening. Perhaps you should have considered that first? Hot air and "because I say so" or "because others say so" or "because I claim Buddha says so" etc. don't really do it. It is fascinating to see how you dance around it, however. The "mystical pride" that you don't have, seems to have other ideas, ones that preclude that one honest sentence from being uttered.
"The surest way to gauge a man's honesty, is to ask him about the afterlife."
Leprechauns, elves, pixies, fairies, elementals etc. belong to a certain mystical genre with a long historical tradition. With many references and different names, by different cultures. Reference to them goes back to antiquity. I know of one Professor of Science who studies them. There are pictures of fairies (whether you believe them real being another matter).
I certainly wonder about your methods, by the standards you request of others, you seem to be displaying complete hypocrisy.
Ever studied the teachings of any modern Christian "Gnostics"? Your new age pseudo mysticism and synthesising/corrupting of other systems to fall in with your belief, even the terms you use. Uncanny similarity. They are considered by many a negative mind control cult. Ever been influenced by such teachings?
ps. The Toledot Yeshu (while seemingly about as accurate as the new testament) is generally considered 4th-6th century. Think you might be talking of the oldest known manuscript.
Originally posted by dominicus
You said leprechauns and omitted elves, pixies, etc etc the first time around. Leprechauns are limited geographically and culturally so where's the hipocracy? If you would have included the other's first time around, then my point & rebuttal would have changed, yet your quick w/ your bias to start call people hipocrats making me even wonder just how old you are and what your educational level is.