From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Sun Nov 10 2002 - 23:31:25 GMT
Sam and all:
Sam said:
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'm glad you raised the issue again because I left some things unsaid. The
"set and setting" aspect is not what first came to with respect to
"tradition". As I said before, the comtemporary forms of tradition tend to
frown on mysticism and some even see it as evil. But if we go back far
enough, before the Inquistions and the Christianization of Europe, there
were various kinds of Pagan mystery religions. They had a highly developed
"technology" to induce powerful experiences. Evidence of this kind of thing
can be seen in the neolithic architechture in Sicily, Crete, Malta, Scotland
and other places. And there's a world-wide shamanic tradition that reaches
way back tens of thousands of years into pre-historic times. The religions
in our culture ignore and/or reject all that. And, as you can see, all that
goes way beyond "set and setting".
Sam said:
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?
DMB says:
It seems to be the origin of religion for two reasons, either one of which
is not quite enough to make the claim. The first is the extremely ancient
tradition I sketched above. It would be too much to claim a cause and effect
relationship. The long history of the use of entheogenics within the
evolving religious traditions could be explained as mere concomitance or
concurrance. But the second reason suppliments the first and comes from
experience. This gets at the noetic AND ineffable qualities at the same
time. It feels like I know it more certainly than I know anything else, but
I can't say how or why I came to this knowledge. It just seemed suddenlyly
plain. It was an "Oh! Of course!" kind of thing. These two reason roll
together into one and suddenly the sayings of the mystics and saints make
sense. Sure there are differences, but the vast majority of that is
attributable to the cultural differences of the one describing their
experience.
The other question is partly answered by this same cultural effect, only
more so. A mystic of the East is bound to be more advanced than we
Westerners. Where saints and sages are the exception in the West, the East
has continued to develop a "technology" of consciousness within its
religious traditions. (Don't get me wrong. The Eastern tradition has its
share of fundamentalists and such.) Still, just as in comparative mythology
and comparative religion, we can see past the outer cultural garments and
find the common traits. They began the journey as a shamanic culture too.
That's one thing all cultures seem to have in common, witch doctors. Maybe
this is unremarkable to you, but I discovered fairly recently and find it to
be pretty damn astonishing.
Thanks.
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 - 23:31:12 GMT