I really liked this quote "Its the kind of thing that rips your head off."
and to me it is true. I also agree with John's point about subtlety and have
no question in my mind that by the very fact that it came on the radar as a
mystic expereince that it was.
There is no objective definition of a mystic expereince. Mystic experiences
are beyond objectivity or truth. They can be waved away as a kooky
religions, halucinations, temporary insanity, dehydration, extreme
exhaustion or even drug trips but nonetheless they have a profound effect.
The fact that they can be so far outside of normal expereinces that normal
expereince become simply a small subclass of experience definately "rips
your head off". Especially if you're a firm believer that dharmakaya light
does not exist, you're in for a shocker. There's a lot more out there that
you'll notice if you throw away your filters. Prepare to have your eyes
peeled open.
Rob
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk
[mailto:owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk]On Behalf Of John Beasley
Sent: March 6, 2002 5:33 PM
To: moq_discuss@moq.org
Subject: Re: MD Seeing the Light
David, Rod, Angus, (Platt)
I have been reflecting on your statement , David, "that if you ever had a
mystical experience, you would certainly know it. There would be no doubt in
your mind. There's nothing subtle about it. Its not about moonlit scenes or
long walks on the
beach. Its the kind of thing that rips your head off."
While I acknowledge that such experiences do occur, and am guilty myself of
characterizing the 'mystic' as "experiences that are not explicable in terms
of the generally accepted scientific worldview", I want to challenge this
view of mysticism, because it can so easily pollute a more general
appreciation of mysticism. You say "Without any kind of personal mystical
experience... well, the MOQ won't exactly sing for you." I suspect this is
true. If, though, we confine our understanding of personal mystical
experience to "the kind of thing that rips your head off", as you put it,
then we have missed the point. The core of mysticism, as is evident from the
remarks of so many mystics, is the loss of the boundary that normally occurs
in early development, between the self and the world, through a
reintegration with what is. Hameed Ali points out that normal creativity and
spontaneity, and even our capacity for enjoyment, are a limited overcoming
of this boundary which occurs to most of us from time to time. He says "The
capacity for enjoyment, creativity, spontaneity and transcendence comes from
the self's spiritual nature, its essential presence, for it is this presence
that is totally free and intrinsically spontaneous, and transcendence is
nothing but fully experiencing this fact." (The Point of Existence, p503)
You say mystic experience is "nothing subtle". In my experience this is
exactly the reverse of the truth. The path to transcendence is all about
subtlety, and the word 'subtle' is constantly used in the mystic literature.
Of course some experiences are far from subtle, and in some traditions
(particularly some of the Indian ones) these are given some prominance,
though as I read them they are seen as indicators of having reached certain
stages and not as essential to the ultimate goal of non-dual experience. The
path to self-realization may include dramatic experiences, but it
fundamentally is a via negativa, an undoing of the egoic self that formed in
childhood, and while this process may be painful or exhilarating at times,
the ultimate goal is a state that is totally ordinary, as was recognised by
some of the founders of Zen.
Chasing after non-ordinary experience is a distraction from
self-realization. We see where it can lead in the stupidity of TM claiming
its devotees can levitate, and photographs of them bumping around a room on
beach balls claiming they are flying has reduced what was otherwise, I
gather, an effective transformative path into a laughing-stock.
With reference to your general post on the 'light' you said, "Eyes were
involved, but I'm pretty sure they were not the cause or the reason for it.
To think otherwise is merely materialistic reductionism." I totally agree
with you here. But when you say "Sure, one can overdo the dynamic. Mystics
who remained in a mystical state too long would simply die", I would ask for
your evidence. Please read "The Dazzling Dark" by John Wren-Lewis, available
on the internet, before making such preposterous statements.
Thanks Rod, for your comments. I was interested in your statement that
"there is
an element of processing in the brain which seems to be bypassed, allowing
you to see things as they are..." This seems to me very much in tune with
what I regard as the undoing of boundaries created in childhood. The mystic
view seems to be that the seeing of things as they are is blocked by memory
and self constructs created from memory, plus various forms of fantasy (used
in its technical sense) and consequently for most of us 'just seeing'
becomes incredibly hard. Artists are often better at accessing what is, and
Ali says "genuine creative artists ... are in touch with a source in the
self that is not a result of personal history. This source can only be the
essential core of the self, which is free from experiences of the past.
There is no ideal here leading the painter; the activity is an expression of
the dynamism of Essence, and is not emanating from ego-activity, the
psychological activity of the centre of the conventional self. When
creativity reaches this degree of genuineness, it is not a product of the
psychological activity of the bipolar self, but rather the expression of
essential experience." (The Point of Existence, p 511) Thus genuine artistic
creativity is a participation in the mystic's way of being. (Platt might be
interested in this perspective.) As a sculptor myself, I find this agrees
with my experience.
You say, Rod, "Having had these experiences once, it is possible to let
yourself go and see things new anytime I like, my brain allows me to turn
off the categorising it normally does, and explore things as if seen for the
first time, very
important to me as I am a photographer by trade..." This is precisely what
does not happen for me after an experience such as I described in the
moonlight. What is intriguing, and annoying, to me, is that the veil
returns, and no amount of sitting on the hill in the moonlight has brought
back the intensity of that experience of seeing which I once experienced
there. However in my normal creative work I certainly share with you an
ability to attend to what is with a sense of freshness or newness, though I
find it comes and goes, and is not so directly under my control as you
describe.
Angus, I was intrigued by your analysis of the importance of being
distracted by an argument being significant in setting up the possibility of
seeing things differently and more directly. You say "You need to catch
yourself in PERSONA and then TURN to the thing that your persona thinks is
wretched and "make love" to that." I am not sure I can follow this advice,
but it seems worth experimenting with.
Regards,
John B
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
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 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:01:57 BST