Hi ****
Posts from the internet (page one)
Mystical Balance
Cultivating mystical efficacy with drugs and other devices
Faith not works
Bewilderment
Not always trusting what a mystic tells
you
The self interest' of compassion
Wu: nothing/no
Drugs and mystical practice
Gardening with "fairies"
Enough to be content
Worshipping gods
Double view, one and not one
Rong: The all-embracing
God and apple pie
Connecting through the divine dynamic
"Truth"
Beyond genetic potential
Effort and effortlessness
A vegetative state?
The "Mind Only" idea
Hi ****
re: "There's a fine balance between functioning adequately in the "real" world and functioning well in the spiritual world. As residents of both worlds, it's a balance I think we have to find and maintain as much as possible."
I agree that balance is the individual mystic's goal. And I would like to bring up another related topic. By the way, the following is not intended to refute what you have said, I am off onto another theme.
On the macro-dynamic scale, the temptation to impose balance is more problematic. For example, when we focus on preserving our own nation's environment, the focus of this effort for balance can easily result in our ignoring our continuing swift destruction of the world at large. When we try to balance our national economy, the result is a quicker and more effective destruction of world resources. I think it is good to take the idea of technological/economic progress with a grain of salt. Will an improvement, executed in the name of balance, actually be used to enhance life in the long run, or will it end all life?
Perhaps an objective autopsy of the death of earth someday in the future will point the finger back to the development of antibiotics, the result of which was a massive growth in an unsustainable population growth. A massive imbalance.
There is a wonderful book called "the Illusion of Technique." The theme is that human beings are unduly confident that they can improve the world on a macro-level.
This does not mean one can make a decision one way or another on the application of any particular aspect of science and technology. It does I think mean having a bit of humility, and perhaps focusing on more self-evidently valid actions such as individual acts of compassion.
At the far end of the spectrum of those who think the world can and urgently needs to have improved balance are those like our friend Chantelle. These folks say that instead of technology, God ("Himself") is going to come and fix things by destroying most of what humans have done thus far. Imo, this is another example, (although not "scientific,") of the illusion of technique. By one fell swoop of intervention everything will be made pure.
Many such folks in the history of man have ultimately decided that God is acting through them, and thus we see many holy wars, the holocausts that date back to at least the time of our Western Biblical hero Joshua. Here was a man that took up the mission of macro-balance.
Joshua was told by the Lord God of Israel that "There is an accursed thing in the midst of thee." (King James Bible: Joshua 8) Joshua solemnly accepted his sacred mission and with the other people of Israel took Achan, his sons, daughters and live-stock to the valley of Achor where they "burned them with fire after they had stoned them with stones."
It may be useful for the mystic to doubt that anything can be known for sure, and that therefore one is best to focus on micro-level behaviors like compassion.
Raymond
Cultivating mystical efficacy with drugs and other devices
There is information at a Buddhist oriented site on the net ( http://www.cuke.com/excerpts-articles/dc%20articles/psychoactivism.html ) which suggests the use of drugs for the cultivation of mystical ability. I find the topic interesting, and one reason is that periodically I hear from people who say that they purely cultivated 'an empty mind' for many years and did not get any satisfactory results from exclusively using this practice.
To start with some background, my view is that the cultivation of mystical efficacy consists of obtaining optimal performance from the human psyche, a body/mind entity which processes and responds to its perceptions. This psyche is located at a nexus of awareness within the body/mind. Awareness of the field of perception is a bimodal dynamic. One mode of awareness is an undifferentiated view of the entire perceptual field, (a field found both within and outside the skin.) The other mode of awareness, called differentiated mentation, consists of a focus on specific aspects of the field. ('Mentation' is the perception, processing, and generation of responses to the perceptual field.)
Both modes of mentation operate simultaneously, but one mode can become dominant to such a degree that the other mode becomes effectively non-functional. To give some examples of the two modes: when the psyche is deeply involved in the articulation of conceptual constructs, e. g. reading a map, the differentiated mode is dominant. When one clears articulated thoughts, for example, by gazing at the fullness of a landscape, the non-differentiated mode is dominant.
The infant body/mind operates under the dominance of the undifferentiated mode. As the human ages, typically the differentiated mode of mentation becomes dominant. The mystic attempts to counter this tendency by purposefully renewing undifferentiated dominance. (Hence we see the concept of 'returning,' 'fan' and 'gui,' so often mentioned by the daoist mystic Lao Zi) By maintaining the psychic dominance of the undifferentiated mode, mystical efficacy is enhanced.
The cultivation of the undifferentiated mode is typically carried out by various 'mind-emptying' practices. These practices do not actually empty the psyche, but rather reduce the amount of articulated (differentiated) mentation that is occurring within the psyche. As articulated thoughts decrease, the undifferentiated mode spontaneously becomes dominant.
This brings us to the question of using drugs to strengthen the dominance of the undifferentiated mode. Drugs seem to be able to generate an intense experience of undifferentiated mentation. This intense experience, organically akin to a spiritual epiphany, apparently makes a deep psychic imprint, and this imprint can be recalled to awareness and utilized long after the experience. Hence it appears that a drug-induced experience can be effective in the future cultivation and operation of undifferentiated mentation.
There are alternative methods of greatly enhancing the function of the undifferentiated mode. These methods typically utilize the self-induced acceleration of emotional feelings. One example is emotionally vehement chanting which may be directed to the thought or visualization of a deity. Another, rather obscure but effective example, is utilizing yelling during a petition directed to an imagined or unknown entity (that may actually be the cultivator's own inner inclinations.) Other methods use physical exercise in combination with self-induced accelerated emotional states.
These emotionally charged practices may be theoretically related to neurological structures within the mind/body. For example, the brain's amygdala is thought to register emotional memories. Perhaps by imprinting a memory where undifferentiated thought is associated with intense emotionally positive experiences, this mode of mentation can be more easily recalled and placed at one's disposal for use.
By the way, the idea of mystical behavior being linked to the natural emotions, drugs, or to brain function, does not 'explain it away.' Mystical practice is intended to permit us to become more intimate and effectively responsive to the world around us, a world whose fundamental basis, origin, and purpose remain complete mysteries to us, (and will probably remain as such for a very long time.)
I personally recommend using non-drug methods, they are legal, and such methods allow one many useful opportunities to reflect on what is being cultivated, and to better incorporate the growing dominance of the undifferentiated mode into one's daily life.
Criticism is cordially welcomed.
Raymond
In mystical practice this means that the result
(deliverance) depends on
one's psycho/visceral disposition (state of grace) and not on
the
total amount of foot-pounds exerted on a task. It does not mean
one
does not work. When work is rooted in the state of grace, mountains
are moved with minimal effort.
Deliverance brings both sovereign contentment
(no untoward spiritual
effects result from material events) and increased effectiveness
in material
affairs.
In classical daoism the act of faith is called
"wu wei" (literally:
not doing); working without faith is called "wei" (literally:
doing)
Hi ****
Thanks for the opportunity for a dialogue. We may disagree on a number of things, but this I think adds to the richness of a message board. I am truly pleased that you are writing here.
You commented on: As for the statement : "Lord, increase me in bewilderment in you...".......... Your comment: (This) "Is totally DAFT , yet shows the 'Mystical power' of Allah's ability to 'confound those who are not sincere', in declaring there true inner intentions for obscurity in Allah. So that is what they get."
My comment is that the comment on increasing bewilderment of Ibn Arabi represents what can be called the apophatic approach to mysticism. Your comment indicates that you take a gnostic (knowing) approach. Which is to say that you believe the fundamental and singular Truth can be fixed and known for sure. Since I have an apophatic view, I of course favor the idea that bewilderment provides the most effective encounter with the ground of our being. And being an apophatic, I respect your belief, would never call it daft, for my knowledge is limited to direct experience, and therefore you may have learned something from a place that I have not yet traveled.
Thanks for the chance to exchange ideas.
Raymond
Not always trusting what a mystic tells you
Hi ***
Thanks for sharing your dramatic experiences. My assumption is that the voices you heard amounted to an authentic encounter with the divine.
We might disagree regarding the true intent of the voices, i.e., what they attempted to say to you. I don't believe that one can always trust the way a mystical practitioner characterizes her/his authentic experience, and I include myself.
If the divine took on a "material form" one morning and told me it was a frog, and gave me good advice, I would provisionally assume that it was a frog. And I would remain open that it was not really a frog, but perhaps rather a rabbit, bird, or snake.
R
the self interest' of compassion
Hi ****
re the self interest' of compassion. Compassion in the ancient daoist sense (ci) means realizing the validity of the desire for all things to be content, and having an empathetic appreciation of that understanding.
Such a reverence and fondness pervades the entire psyche, and includes the desire for the self to be content. The difficult part of compassion to understand is that sometimes the most effective/authentic thing to do may involve injuring other beings, beings who you realize have as much "right" to be content as yourself.
One learns it is self-beneficial to be as kind as possible to every being that one is helping and also to every being that one is injuring. It is said that the ancient Samuri code disallowed killing an enemy warrior if you had any dislike of him. (First the Samuri needed to go home and try to eliminate this dangerous karma) Indeed a subtle mystery, one that does not make sense to many folks.
There are rare, but amazing police officers who practice the epitome of compassion. They will arrest and even shoot a dangerous law-breaker, but once captured, they treat such persons with the utmost respect and care.
Raymond
Hi ****
When the daoist says "wu" (no/nothing) (as in "wu xin" no thinking) she does not mean to entirely eliminate all memories and concepts. She just means push everything (the current and past perceptual fields) into "undifferentiated awareness". The memories and concepts are still available, but are only one source of the multitude of data that allows her to generate an integrated response at the exact time and place of efficacy: the trigger of the dao.
Raymond
Hi ****
Laozi said "The one with no baggage can get into the place that has no openings."
It's the pop psychology thing about "have no buttons that others can push." If someone gets no (emotional) reaction from pushing where they thought a button was, it completely throws off their own defense system. They often "open up."
R
Hi *******
"Mystical experiences" and "enlightenment"
mean different things
to different people. If you want to work with some provisional
definitions, perhaps we can have a meaningful discussion. The
apophatic perspective views mystical experince as an encounter
of
reality that occurs while the mind has greatly suppressed (not
necessarily eliminated) conscious differentiated thinking.
Apophatically, enlightenment simply indicates one has discovered
how
to best work with reality (whatever it is). Please feel free to
offer other definitions.
Given these provisional definitions one can
see how some drug
induced experiences may result in a temporary "mystical experience"
and temporary "enlightenment." The advantage of cultivating
a
mystical practice which does not depend on drugs is that it can
be
enduring, it is potentially a constant condition.
On the other hand drugs might reveal the unique
perspective/condition
which is the "mystical state," and which the mind/body
might
therefore "remember" and then be able to duplicate this
disposition
on subsequent occasions, returning to the mystical state without
drugs.
A useful substitute for drugs is the practice
of expressing intense
emotional devotion toward a real or imagined outside force (usually
a
god or God). This practice alters the psyche (mind/body) in a
manner
which can also result in the ability to maintain an enduring mystical
state.
R
Hi ****
That makes sense to me. I know a woman who
has an extraodinary talent for gardening. She says that the plants
and the "fairies" tell her how to garden. On a
phenomenological level, perhaps she is hearing something deeply
from within
the ground of her being. Perhaps the plants are "telling"
her how to cultivate the same life force that is at the center
of both she and the plants. Clearing (wu) her mind of socially
programmed "reality" perhaps she "gains effective"
(wei yong) knowledge.
R
Hi ***
Regarding: "Non-being may be the goal"
The goal of daoism is an interesting subject, there are many different ideas on this. One is the statement of Lao Zi: "Zhi zu." This might be translated as
"Realizing that one always has enough to be content."
A simple but also quite profound realization.
R
Hi *****
RE: "It's all just a tool, really. It's reality is neither here nor there, but it works."
This is especially true when we realize "reality" is a most likely a myth created by the human mind. We humans so desperately want to pretend there is something "out there" we can depend on.
I am glad to see you have taken a pragmatic view, i.e. "it works." Who cares if there are gods or not, if by praying to one I obtain my goal.
Amazingly enough, there have even been a few Christians who, like the Tibetan Buddhists, have discovered the utility of pragmatism. Here is Frederic W. H. Myers:
"Prayer is the general name for that attitude of open and sincere expectancy. If we then ask to whom to pray, the answer (strangely enough) must be that that does not much matter. The prayer is not indeed a purely subjective thing; -- it means a real increase in intensity of absorption of spiritual power or grace; -- but we do not know enough of what takes place in the spiritual world to know how the prayer operates; -- who is cognizant of it, or through what channel the grace is given."
I don't think this man's ideas suited the "reality" of his contemporary Christians, but it did not seem to bother him.
Raymond
Hi *****
Re: "is it not right that after the ego is dissolved there
is no difference between the student and the master, both are
of the tao, and they are one???"
Imo: The "me" here (Raymond) is a nexus of conscious perception. Its perception is not the same as that perceived by the nexus that is "you." There is obviously a functional/perceptual difference between this "me" and "you." To deny that difference is sophistry.
The "you" that is your nexus may not see the glass of chocolate in front of "me." But if it is enlightened it realizes that its "you" is entirely dependent on its limited view of the one unlimited perceptual field, a field that is a unified whole, although it is seen differently from different points of view. Realizing the wholeness of the perceptual field is called the "da fang" by Zhuang Zi. (great perspective)
Zhuang Zi dealt with this "different view of the same unity" paradox with the concept of "liang jian". (double view). He realized that the sage perceived her world from both the individual human nexus (ren) and simultaneously realized the single unified field view (tian). Tian is the undifferentiated oneness of being.
Zhuang Zi said that the sage does not allow either view (ren or tian) to obfuscate the other. His views may be inconsistent with Buddhism, or perhaps his emphasis may be slightly different.
Raymond
rong:
Hi ****
RE: "Maybe it is that true Mysticism is simply Peace or simply having a good heart"
Imo this is accurate. When everything else is swept out as a consequence of mystical practice, the only thing that remains is a phenomenon called "rong" (the all-embracing) Rong is the deep appreciation for all beings, all conditions, in other words all of being. Rong manifests as unshakable peace and a spontaneous and unconditional fondness for existence.
Raymond
Hi ***
Thanks for sharing your insights.
RE: "You are assuming that there is no God to substantiate His own claim to exist."
I will try to clarify my position. I do not assume there is no God, and I do not assume there is one. And I do not assume that you have not experienced God substantiating his existence to you.
What works for me is most probably different from you. I find that for me the "divine experience" is more intense and effective if I do not delimit what it is. If I assumed there was a God, or assumed there was none, that would needlessly limit my experinece of the divine.
Also if I concluded that you were wrong, and that I was right, that conclusion would also limit my experience of the open-ended creativity of the divine experience.
I don't know if your mother's pie exists in any metaphysical sense, but I am pretty sure your experience of its taste does exist. I celebrate your exquiste experience of Mom's apple pie.
ciao,
Raymond
Connecting through the divine dynamic
Hi *****
From my perspective the "divine" is an experience. (It may or may not be a "Being.") The mystical experience of "unified harmony" or "oneness" is greatly intensified when I allow my conceptual box to be completely opened up and thereby achieve a relatively unlimited experience of the unlimited (the divine).
I experience the unlimited power of the divine when I place no limits on my ideas of the divine. A practical example arises when I am speaking with a person who is suicidal, (we might say this amounts to a potentially catastrophic metaphysical crisis.)
In this situation I find that when I completely empty my mind of concepts (examples of possible limiting conceptual contents: "suicide is bad," "suicide is sometimes justified," "suicide is never justified" "there is a God and She does not like suicide," "there is no God and nothing matters," "I must help save this person's life," etc.)
then I am better able to connect with the person who is suicidal. My highest focus is on this communion, not the "final outcome." Paradoxically, because my exclusive aim is intimately connecting with this person by means of the divine dynamic, and is not consciously focused on the outcome of the encounter, (nor whether a divine being may like or dislike the outcome), the person becomes less suicidal (in my experience.)
Perhaps this method is effective because the person in this situation feels that I have less of an agenda, and am simply interested in understanding their immediate experience. And perhaps that is tantamount to their also now becoming able to participate in the "divine experience." They are perhaps opened up by being experienced as valued for what they are, not what they have done nor what they are going to do. That evaluation is called the divine value, it is a "truth that can set one free."
For me the experience of unconditionally accepting another person, and the subsequent reaction of that other person, is a divine experience. Thus like Eckhart, I "pray to God to forget about God."
Ciao,
Hi ****
I think that when I finally no longer believed
in the plausibility of any fixed metaphysical truth, I became
better able to work in the "now" that **** reminds us
about. And so for me the terms daoguan, ren
guan, gravity, god, the speed of light, dao,
ziran, dharma, etc, are only metaphors that provisionally
help me arrange, and respond effectively to, my perceptual field.
To take everything as only metaphor, to be able to accept anything
as possible, is what I think helps keep me flexible.
(Paradocically, to remain flexible, I must also be open to the
possibility that everthing is fixed, but I just have not realized
it yet.)
Not knowing anything for sure is the "bu zhi" of Zhuangzi. To paraphrase a Christian saying, it is "a truth that sets one free."
**** recently gave us an excerpt from Tolle that presented the benefit that comes from having no thoughts of a future. To believe in any fixed truth is, I think, to think in terms of a future. I think to leave the "now" is to leave what Zhuang Zi calls "chu", the beginning. He like Tolle, advocates "fan chu" return to the beginning. (chu: the moment that is right now giving birth to everything)
The beginning (chu) is this moment at hand. It gives us what Zhuangzi is the ability to "make a springtime of every circumstance." I hope to stay here at the beginning as much as possible.
Thanks for encouraging me to reflect on these thoughts.
P.S. I was implying, but best now specifically say, flexibility is for me the same metaphor as free will. I provisionally think it is a valuable idea for me to apply. I think I am free to the extent that I am fully in the moment.
Hi ****
Thanks for your further thoughts, this makes full circle back to the thought on free will that **** posed at the beginning of this thread.
"And i wonder if we cannot go beyond what our genes dictate to our personality."
I don't know the answer, but I think we can. This may be an illusion, but it is one that I enjoy. And if I learn to enjoy myself no matter what happens, it would seem that my happiness will no longer depend on genes or any other material quantity. That would be spiritual liberation, despite the limits of the physical realm. The ancient daoists called it "zile", sovereign contentment.
Raymond
Hi ****
”No effort is needed to remain as the Self.”
The question of effort and effortlessness comes up often in discussions. I have made a satisfactory degree toward becoming effortless, and have made this progress by putting in a lot of effort.
The trick seems to be discovering the time/place in the psyche to push effort, and the place where everything needs to be let go of. All and all, I do not find spiritual growth easy, but that is merely my opinion. I do find it very interesting and rewarding, both the joy and the pain.
R
Hi ****
"Sounds more like a vegetative state to me, no offence intended, Raymond. Some people prefer that to the reality they see, like closing your eyes while you are having a traumatic car accident."
No offence taken ****. As you know from your spiritual practice there is no usefulness nor reason for becoming upset by others' stating their beliefs. And your opinions are logical in this case, so even less reason for me to complain. In my answer to "Two" I will describe what is a dynamic, not a vegetative state. By the way, thanks for the continuing dialogue.
Hi "Two"
"And the more I think, the more the confusion sets in."
This realization places you in an excellent posture to move in what is called the "apophatic" direction. The apophatics are those who practice emptying/opening of the mind. When this practice is done with complete openness and radical dedication the mystical dynamic is set into motion. Whatever the force is that animates this world of phenomena, it has placed within each of us the ability to autonomously discover its deepest secrets. We can refer to the treasure we find as the "divine dynamic." And it matters not at all, whether we believe in a God or not. In fact it is important to neither believe nor disbelieve.
The ancient Chinese mystic Zhuangzi called this process "zihua". It means self-directed transformation. It does not mean you have all the knowledge within yourself, but that you possess a guidance system that will tell you which of your perceptions are useful and which are not.
For example you may read in a "Holy Book" something like this: "Joshua followed the guidance of God and went into the valley and killed all of their men, women, children and animals." Your own guidance system will tell you this is BS. You may still find use in the book, but you will realize you are able to separate the useful words from the useless ones.
With the divine dynamic you will realize "zile". This is sovereign contentment. This gives you the ability to free yourself emotionally from the material world. You will still be physically subject to it, but its gains and losses will no longer affect your happiness.
Raymond
Hi guys
RE: The "Encyclopedia of Eastern Religion
and Philosophy" says:
"According to the central notion of the Yogachara. everything
experiencable is 'mind only'; things exist only as process of
knowing, not as
'objects'; outside the knowing process they have no reality."
I think ZZ's double walk, (ren guan and dao guan; ) anticipates and goes beyond the "mind only" model. (you and wu you in Laozi) Zhuangzi's Butterfly story demonstrates that he understood the "mind only" model. But I think he used the story to open up awareness of possibility, not to make definitive claim for "mind only."
Zhangzi valued flexibility (ruo) as a means to creative power (de), thus would not rule out either "mind only" nor "independent existence of phenomena." It was important for him to leave all questions open. He was primarily interested in efficacy, and wrote off "fundamental truth" as an unknowable quantity. Wanted to know how things worked best, not what they "really" were.
Chapter 11:
"But if you try to know it, you have already departed from it." (Watson)
Chapter 25:
“Realizers of dao (du dao zhi ren) don’t try to follow phenomena beyond their point of disappearance, nor seek to find their fundamental causation. Analysis stops at those points.”
Raymond