From: Elizaphanian (Elizaphanian@members.v21.co.uk)
Date: Sun Nov 10 2002 - 10:56:30 GMT
Hello David,
>From your 3/11 post (in response to which I renamed this thread):
Sam said:
My criticism of much contemporary writing about mysticism is broadly that it
mistakes the finger for the moon - the intense and dynamic experience of
growing from one stage to another becomes a search for intense and dynamic
experiences. To my way of thinking, it is only when the growth is embedded
in a tradition of understanding that it is possible to discriminate between
experiences which are exciting and experiences which actually foster
spiritual growth (ie growth in Quality).
dmb says:
The false dilemma appears here too, but beyond that there is the issue of
"tradition". I'd ask you to be more specific. Mainstream Western religion
frowns upon mysticism, to say the least. Some churches even associate it
with the devil. The experience bears far more fruit if it can be made to
last, to have a real effect on one's life and mind. On that I think we
agree. But I'm skeptical of your phrase, "embedded in a tradition of
understanding". Such traditions seem more likely to thwart and distort, than
to be of any help. That's why the bishops get so damn nervous when a Saint
walks in.
And from yesterday's post:
>
> dmb says:
> Scientific language? I think that's too generous. It was based on casual
> observation. My only point was that this need for "tradition", as you call
> it, was independantly confirmed even by neophytes.
Can I take it, then, that you accept the necessity for "tradition" (or an
equivalent alternative descriptor of your choice)? So you agree with me that
it is a necessary element in discriminating 'mystical experiences'?
> dmb says:
> I accept it for what it is, a list a commonly found features of the
mystical
> experience. It is useful and correct as far it goes. I've read James and
> would recommend him to friends, but he's also a bit of an antique and a
> Victorian. Not exactly my greatest hero. I don't know if I'd attatch
myself
> to anyone's framework in particular. I'd like to, but they won't have it.
> Just kidding. I do like Wilber's work quite a bit, but have learned
> something from everyone I've read on the topic, even if what I learned is
> that the author is full of hooey. Adding books to my own experience has
led
> me to a few conclusions about mysticism and the mystical experience. But
> this stuff is famous for being indescribable and anything I say will just
> sound like gobble-dee-gook, expecially if you've not had a mystical
> experience yourself. Anyway, I think the mystical experience is the origin
> of all mankind's religion. Its perfectly natural, healthy and even vital.
> Its an experience that exposes you knowledge that goes way beyond brains,
> facts and ideas. This noetic quality is what I find most compelling. Its
> like sticking your head into god's skin. Its like plugging into the main
> power station. All of creation is shot through with astonishing beauty.
> Every little thing seems so brilliant and wise, perfectly designed and
> flawlessly executed. I tend to think about the depressing things too, that
> isolation and loneliness that so many philosophers talk about becomes an
> acute sensation rather than an abstact idea. At the same time, as Pirsig
> mentions, the mind is drawn to the analysis of complex metaphyscial
> realities, consciousness expands to include all matter of sensation,
feeling
> and thought all at once in a sort of boundless awareness. Oh, so many ways
> to try and get at it, but none of them feel right. But one conclusion a
> person can walk away with is that the expansion of consciousness is what
the
> game is all about and that every little thing in the universe is a
> manifestation of consciousness, a small piece of the universal ground of
> being, which is like pure silent potential.
This is the sort of thing I was after, thank you, it should prove sufficient
for a developing discussion. At some point we'll have to broaden the
discussion and agree on someone who we would both accept as a 'mystic', but
that can wait.
To begin with, you say "this stuff is famous for being indescribable" - that
indeed is James' point about ineffability, which you clearly accept. I have
a question for you: on what grounds do you assert that "the mystical
experience is the origin of all mankind's religion"? Or, put slightly
differently, what grounds do you have for saying that a Buddhist 'mystical
experience' is the same as a Christian 'mystic experience' or a Hindu
'mystic experience'? If such experiences are 'beyond description' why do you
say that they are experiences of the same thing, or equivalent experiences?
BTW I'm enjoying our discussions, even if my tone sometimes becomes
intemperate :-) I hope you are too.
Sam
www.elizaphanian.v-2-1.net/home.html
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Nov 10 2002 - 10:53:29 GMT