From: Scott R (jse885@spinn.net)
Date: Sun May 04 2003 - 17:41:07 BST
DMB and Sam,
I just read a book that seems to me to have some relevance to this debate.
It's "Journey of Insight Meditation: A Personal Experience of the Buddha's
Way" by Eric Lerner. The book as a whole is a non-atypical account of an
ex-hippie's spiritual adventures during the 70's (and was published in the
late '70's), but the part that is
relevant here comes near the end. He (the author) has spent about six months
in India, Burma, and Sri Lanka, and after experiencing some neat stuff
(seeing the Light, moments of complete mental silence) in Sri Lanka has gone
back to his teachers in Burma to tell them about it. He gets slapped down
(verbally) for having taken his eye off the ball, for having become attached
to his achievements, rather than staying focused on impermanence.
But I'm not sure what side in this debate can take confort. It is clearly an
example of tradition keeping the seeker on the straight and narrow, that
mystical experience in itself is not the desideratum. And it is a much
subtler case than that of the Yorkshire Ripper.
On the other hand, that tradition is more than tradition in the Western
sense, since the teachers knew what the problem was because they had gone
through the same thing. There is, of course, a Western mystical tradition,
but it seems to me that this level of teaching ability is pretty rare, and
what there is is still pretty much a side-show.
On the third hand, we live in the age of "The Heretical Imperative" (book by
Peter Berger, which I recommend). Who's to say which tradition is best (for
those who have spent a long time without any)? Maybe Eric Lerner could have
overcome his attachment to his mystical powers in some other way on his own,
and come up with new insights entirely. Or he might have become a
manipulative guru.
- Scott
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Buchanan" <DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Saturday, May 03, 2003 1:15 PM
Subject: RE: MD FW: 'unmediated experience' #2
> Sam and all:
>
> Sam said:
> I don't think that tradition is the only way to get at mystical
experience;
> but then, I think the tradition is more important.... :-) I think DQ on
its
> own is useless and pointless. It makes you feel good, but so does getting
> drunk.
>
> dmb says:
> An encounter with the divine is no different than getting drunk?! To quote
a
> certain tennis star, "You CANNOT be serious!". Based on this assertion, I
> can only conclude that (a) You've never been drunk or (b) You've never had
a
> mystical experience. To quote one of our own stars, I've known both states
> and am here to tell you that they have about as much in common as "a
blowjob
> and bamboo under the fingernails". Mystical experiences are often quite
> unpleasant and overwhelming, can be marked by dread and terror and is
> otherwise quite the opposite of feeling good.
>
> Sam said:
> I'm not convinced that the language and vocabulary of modernism,
especially
> of psychotherapy, is an improvement on the traditional language of the
> different faiths. I also think that some important insights are
irreducibly
> mythological - they resist translation. To say that 'it is not as
ineffable
> as it once was' is a variant of what I am arguing for, ie that we have
> accumulated insights that help you get there. Perhaps this is the kernel
of
> agreement between us?
>
> dmb says:
> I'd very much like to see an example of what insights you think
mythological
> tradition offers. I'd agree that "Modernism" has little to say about
> mysticism other than rejecting it. But I don't know of anyone who is
saying
> otherwise. We both agree that scientific materialism or SOM fails on this
> score, but certainly we are talking about intellect in a broader sense, in
> an MOQ sense. I mean, I think its safe to say that SOM is not compatible
> with a mystical metaphysics.
>
> SAM said:
> I agree that religious ideas are only really understood when they become
> transparent. I disagree that this was not the case with those who
> transmitted the tradition. Who are you thinking of? For example, in the
> Christian tradition the major transmitters in the West are Augustine and
> Aquinas. In what way were the religious ideas *not* transparent to them?
>
> dmb says:
> Who was I thinking of? Well, certainly not Augustine or Aquinas. I was
> referring to the churches and preachers of my childhood, which included
> nearly every Christian denomination as well as Judaism. The only religious
> thinkers I ever encountered that were NOT literalists, were those I
> encountered later in life through books and conferences and such. As far
as
> I can recall, I've never heard anything that seemed true while inside a
> church. That's what I was thinking of.
>
> Sam said:
> That is not what she is saying. I'd recommend reading the book (seems
> bizarre to be debating how to interpret Jantzen when you haven't read
her).
> For her, the 'mystical' approach is that approach to scripture and liturgy
> etc which allows right discernment of its meaning. There is not a separate
> 'mystical experience' apart from that experience of scripture and liturgy:
>
> "...in the trial of Eckhart, the presence or absence of unusual states of
> consciousness was not what the inquisitors sought to determine, but rather
> the orthodoxy or unorthodoxy of Eckhart's life and teaching. It is only
> latterly that the term 'mystical' began to be applicable to 'experience'
at
> all: in earlier times, one might speak of a 'mystical interpretation' or
of
> the 'mystical body of Christ', but not of a 'mystical experience'.
> Similarly, 'the mystics' were not those who had particular states of
> consciousness, but those who were able to elucidate the spiritual
> interpretation of a passage of scripture..." (Jantzen, p332).
>
> dmb says:
> I know. It IS kind of odd, but I think you've misread her yet again. Here
> she refutes the idea of mysticism as an experience only in terms of "what
> the Inquisitors sought to determine" or rather vaguely "in earlier times".
> Please tell me that you and the Anglican church are not defending the
> Inquisitors!!! If you want to to believe Jantzen rejects such experiences
in
> favor of scripture or tradition, you'll have to find a better quote than
> this. (Not that I would reject Pirsig, Wilber, Campbell or my own
experience
> because of any single assertion.)
>
> Sam said:
> How do you tell the difference? (between a fun ride and the spiritual
path?)
>
> dmb says:
> Seriously? OK. Think about the scene in the bar with drinking and dancing.
> That's a fun ride. Now think about the scene in the teepee. That's
> spiritual. I think the contrast is so bloody stark and obvious that I
hardly
> know what else to say. If we can't make simple qualitative distinctions
like
> this, then all is lost.
>
> Sam said:
> That is your view which you are reading into the Jantzen quote. It runs
> strongly against the overall argument that she makes.
>
> dmb says:
> In that case, I'd welcome a more accurate and representative quote.
>
> Sam said:
> I don't have a problem with the peyote trip (which was undertaken in the
> context of native american tradition and ritual of course). My point was a
> more philosophical one. If an EXPERIENCE is the goal of all the religious
> traditions, and that EXPERIENCE can be gained from chemical sources, why
> can't we do away with religious tradition and just have the drug? If there
> is something wrong with that, then then, logically, EXPERIENCE isn't the
> sole goal of a religious tradition. Seems like a pretty clear deduction to
> me. What's wrong with my logic?
>
> dmb says:
> I'm putting the emphasis on one's personal encounter with the divine, on
the
> mystical experience itself. You seem to insist that the emphasis is on
> drugs. Since this is very far away from what I've been saying, I can only
> conclude that you're trying to demonize religious experiences. I think
this
> is not only incorrect, but also dishonest and offensive. Logically
speaking,
> this is not logical. It like saying that because some people get home on a
> bus, then the bus is their home. The means of transportation are only
> relevant in terms of whether of not they really get you there. Take a
bike,
> a plane, a car or walk there on your own two feet. It doesn't really
matter
> as long as we don't take to worshipping the bus.
>
> As Wilber puts it:
> It is only when religion emphasizes its heart and soul and essence -
namely
> direct mystical experience and transcendental consciousness, which is
> disclosed not by the eye of the flesh (give that to science) nor by the
eye
> of the mind (give that to philosophy) but rather by the eye of
contemplation
> - that religion can both stand up to modernity and offer something for
which
> modernity has desperate need: a genuine, verifiable, repeatable injunction
> to bring forth the spiritual domain.
> Religion in the modern and postmodern world will rest on its unique
> strength-
> namely contemplation- or it will serve merely to support a premodern,
> predifferentiated level of development in its own adherents; not an engine
> of growth and transformation, but a regressive, antiliberal, reactionary
> force of lesser engagements.
>
> Thanks for your time,
> DMB
>
>
>
> MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
> Mail Archives:
> Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> Nov '02 Onward -
http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
> MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
>
> To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
> http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
>
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
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 May 04 2003 - 17:42:03 BST