About mystics

[Bhaktajan II]

Andrew,

I presume you are describing my post as sarcastic.

There was NOT one iota of sacasism. Re-read the precisely my references.

BTW, [no sacasism] another Mystical thing I do is:

My heart beats and my lungs breathe and my digestive tract "work through-out the night while I sleep"

Maybe simply, you've conflated "sacasism" with "sardonic" humour?

Mystics can see how the material workings proceed and the mystic knows that the soul is aloof from it.

Siddhis may be mentioned ---but these are catagorised under the heading of "magic feats".

Past royal dynasties [think China] rebuffed the idea of mechanical contraptions as gross tomfoolery; inlieu of organic toil and a Mystic life as the status quo.

Now, there are many more sources of PATRONSHIPS to finance mega-factories ... and enough surplus populous to fill those factories.

"It is a cosmos of cheaters and cheated"

BTW, Andrew "I was a Vaishnava once" is not a progessive thing to say.

I too was a Vaishnava once ---and now [after so many have gone before/during and after me] ---I am a Vaishnava again.

A Vaishnava "re-gains" his composure and "re-links" with his 'sva-rupa' ---by being a Vaishnava. Being a Vaishnava means "Serving Vaishnavas".

Just as a Boddhisattva "re-gains" the Merit to rise above the floatsom ---a Boddhisattva then shares the mercy of Transcendence. The Boddhisattva does these things as a pastime of their own volition.

Whereas, the NON-Mystics engage in all sorts of ugra-karmic acts that will only deepen the souls entrenchment in the mire and peat of the bogs.

Some Vaishnavas serve Vaishnavas expertly;
and some Vaishnavas don't serve other Vaishnavas so well expertly.

Ironically, the only way a Vaishnava can serve other Vaishnavas expertly is through this trial and error path "on one's own re-cognisance".

Scouts Honor,
Bhaktajan #7.000.399.537.000*

[*yes, you guessed it the ID # is sacasism;
yet it sublimely infers that I am just an insignificant tiny cast member]

We are all Mystics ---Human Life is Mystical.

Mystics veer away from Mundane Stupidity, insipid and vapid lifestyles.

just as, "I think, therefore I am"

so too, "I mystic, therefore I am'

 

[taijasi]

Oh I'm with you ... I think. The only thing I might note, whether one is a Vaishnava, Saivite, Mystic or Occultist, is that we cannot abstain from action in order to attain to Nirvana, or become Jivanmukta. "Not so shall the soul gain her freedom," we are told. And suddenly, karma yoga makes perfect sense.

So you see, I respect the Bhakti way, I believe I have practiced it - many times, in many previous lives perhaps - and I believe it is a complement to the other Yoga paths ... Jnana, Karma, Raja, Hatha, Laya, Kriya, Ashtanga, etc. ... and Agni Yoga. It almost seemed for a second like you were suggesting we should sit on our hands and chant Hare Hare. And well ... I've done that.

I most certainly died ... but I also came *back*, didn't I? [Just in case you're wondering, I really do have this ... physical body thing again. And astral. And mental. And as far as I can tell, they're all fresh ~ brand new creations as of 40 years ago. Neat!]

 

[seattlegal]

Oh I'm with you ... I think. The only thing I might note, whether one is a Vaishnava, Saivite, Mystic or Occultist, is that we cannot abstain from action in order to attain to Nirvana, or become Jivanmukta. "Not so shall the soul gain her freedom," we are told. And suddenly, karma yoga makes perfect sense.

wei wu wei

 

[Thomas]

Truth is unknowable because the knower is no more there, only the known remains.
Find in yourself the known, it has only been forgotten but never lost.

That is what most seem to say, but Christianity transcends that.

The point is the Knower is greater than the known by an infinite degree. As long as you're in the known, you're in the world of forms and multiplicity.

Eckhart, amongst others, made this point, which you seem to have missed in its entirely.

God bless

Thomas

 

[Thomas]

We are all mystics by dint of 'I mystic therefore I am'

In the common sense, yes, in that everyone seeks the 'unique', the 'novel', the 'special' order of experience to validate their own self-worth.

That's not what the term really means at all.

The opposite of Mystic is gross materialistic hedonist ---living for the ego and sensual delight in an existential festival--- til death do we part.

D'you think so? Not all those who deny the mysteries are hedonists ...
I would say the opposite could well be the ascetic.

I can feel with my eyes closed. I can see where I am going too.

OK, but that's not even 'mysticism' in its common sense.

My mystic thoughts dwell on the endless un-quantifiable amount of mundane stupifying dullheaded and faux sufferring experienced by fellow souls sorjourning in samsara.

I can't see what renders those thought 'mystic'.

God bless,

Thomas

 

[radarmark]

Ah. Thomas, you are defining "Mystic" from within your tradition. So be it. And more to the point, you are using an Anti-Modernist basis. Again, so be it. We will be continuting this discussion (I feel) for quite some time. I am looking at it from the totally unstructured aspect of the Religious Society of Friends or an academic viewpoint (we Quakers are if nothing else quite pedantic about digging to the root).

The only thing I can add is that those you label "philosophers", if you read their writings closely, were practitioners of what they (and most people) call mysticism--a numinous experience, not accessible to intellect, sense perception, normal introspection, or any other somasensory modality. Is that the same as experimental knowledge of G!d through embrace of unitive love. In my experience, yes. But I do not claim divinity, a knowledge of every mystical experience (written down or not). So in general I would say that what you call religious, I call mystical. And what you call mystical I call (like you) intellectual masturbation.

 

[radarmark]

"But my point still stands, it is not proven that the mystic by their experience transcends the tradition."

You do not have to accept that Osho, or Huineng, or Ueshiba, or Matthew Fox, or Krishnamurti, or Yogananda, or al-Hallaj, or Gandhiji transcended their traditions. Or that every exemplar of the Buddha must. I would merely point out that there is ample evidence that, in general, when applied to non-Catholic-Orthodox-Oriental traditions, your assertion fits neither reality nor the evidence.

 

[Thomas]

Ah. Thomas, you are defining "Mystic" from within your tradition. So be it.

Well that is where the term originated. We inherited it from the Greeks.

And more to the point, you are using an Anti-Modernist basis.

My bias is towards the proper understanding of the term. The modern understanding is based in a misunderstanding.

I am looking at it from the totally unstructured aspect of the Religious Society of Friends or an academic viewpoint (we Quakers are if nothing else quite pedantic about digging to the root).

Well not as pedantic as me, it seems.

In both the Greek Mysteries, and in Christianity, a Mystery was not something unknown, as it is generally understood in the modern sense, but a revelation and an initiatic rite.

The only thing I can add is that those you label "philosophers", if you read their writings closely, were practitioners of what they (and most people) call mysticism

Depends who's applying what understanding of the term.

And what you call mystical I call (like you) intellectual masturbation.

I would agree when people pursue the 'mystical' by technique, who treat it as a commodity.

I think there's a huge area of discussion around the notion of 'mystical experience' as the by-product, or perhaps the better term is side effect, of that 'embrace of unitive love' of which you speak.

This can range from visions, voices and the 'expected' experiential phenomena, though to degrees of suffering which, in a Christin context, can lead to stigmata.

Then there are the disordered psychological states, and disordered mental states, and degrees in between and of overlap, epilepsy rears its head in Biblical Criticism when one looks at Ezekiel, for example, or St Paul.

But I would say that we are all in that embrace of unitive love all the time.

whether we know it, or realise it, or not.

So those silent and anonymous multitude whom many correspondents here dismiss without a moment's care or compassion — the ones who put their trust in God — might well be saints beyond their wildest imaginings ...

And with that, I, for one, shall withdraw.

God bless,

Thomas

 

[Lunitik]

That is what most seem to say, but Christianity transcends that.

The point is the Knower is greater than the known by an infinite degree. As long as you're in the known, you're in the world of forms and multiplicity.

Eckhart, amongst others, made this point, which you seem to have missed in its entirely.

I simply do not uphold God as a distinct being, this is our difference. I have experienced infinite and eternal consciousness, you are thus insisting there is something outside consciousness itself and calling this your God. You inadvertently call God unconscious, if this is the case how is he omniscient?

Humans cannot comprehend the highest reality with their feeble minds, it is experienced as a kind of blacking out. It is thus impossible for Eckhart or even Jesus while embodied on this earth to fathom it. This means it cannot be more than pure speculation, unless I am given awareness in that state - which no one ever has - I will not guess about it. Therefore, my God is consciousness itself, the supermind that all share because all are him in truth.

If God is outside the infinitude of consciousness, outside the eternal awareness, then he is not omnipresent. You continue to limit your God because you do not really know what God is, the problem arises because you think you do know - you have simply borrowed from others unquestioningly, I use others as authority for my own experience... this difference is huge.

If you say you have experienced God directly, then he cannot be outside consciousness. If you have not, then you do not know the reality. Transcendence causes direct contact, without this it is impossible to do anything but believe in God, and after it you know you are that - I will use Eckharts quotes about hearing with Gods ears and seeing with Gods eyes as a proof within Christian realms, as well as Jesus' statement that "I and my father are one", with "do not think it is I doing these things, but the father acting through me" for good measure.

I will say again that God exists, and as such cannot be outside existence - yet allow that non-existence is also valid, since like breath in the physical plain going in and out, existence and non-existence are the hallmark in that state yet consciousness is aware of both.

 

[radarmark]

Okay. We need a term for the Greek-Christian thread, call it "old mysticism" or "esoteric mysticism" because it is looking at something known but hidden. The other thread, Neo-platonist to Wilber, can then be called "new mysticism" or "numinous mysticism". We are then agreeing that there is a third thread that claims mysticism (but neither of us would give it that credit) which we can call "gnostic mysticism".

Gnostic mysticism is all about intellect and hidden truth and secret masters and that sort of stuff I consider irrelevent. Both esoteric and numinous mysticism "go beyond" intellect and (to some extent) try to translate it back into the tradition (Augustine and Laotzi). Some do not (Eckhart and Laotzi).

Now where we (I think) disagree. Not all Modern mystics are of the gnostic bent (you imply they are... I believe the English Romantic-New England Transendentalist thread bypasses that trap). And Unitive Love cannot be the only experience (I do not get that from Shiva Vigyama Upanishad nor Heart Sutra nor Platform Sutra nor Chungtzi) that, by defintion a mystic can experience. Yet I would consider Shivanism-Sudden School-Taoism as deep wellsprings of numinous mysticism. Finally, of the liturgical solemnity in an Oriental, Orthodox, or Catholic Tradition would be indicative of unitive love if it were true that those who participated displayed that. I am afraid the intercene bickering (it was even worse when the Oriental Churches were persecuted by the rest, or the Orthodox by the Catholic, or the Catholic by the Orthodox) and the 2,000 year old blood crimes (the Christian burden of the blood libel) kinda sorta tell me the unitive love never took hold. Jains and Quakers and Mennonites (except for very, very rare instances) have never indulged in such behavior.

 

[Lunitik]

Okay. We need a term for the Greek-Christian thread, call it "old mysticism" or "esoteric mysticism" because it is looking at something known but hidden. The other thread, Neo-platonist to Wilber, can then be called "new mysticism" or "numinous mysticism". We are then agreeing that there is a third thread that claims mysticism (but neither of us would give it that credit) which we can call "gnostic mysticism".

Gnostic mysticism is all about intellect and hidden truth and secret masters and that sort of stuff I consider irrelevent. Both esoteric and numinous mysticism "go beyond" intellect and (to some extent) try to translate it back into the tradition (Augustine and Laotzi). Some do not (Eckhart and Laotzi).

Now where we (I think) disagree. Not all Modern mystics are of the gnostic bent (you imply they are... I believe the English Romantic-New England Transendentalist thread bypasses that trap). And Unitive Love cannot be the only experience (I do not get that from Shiva Vigyama Upanishad nor Heart Sutra nor Platform Sutra nor Chungtzi) that, by defintion a mystic can experience. Yet I would consider Shivanism-Sudden School-Taoism as deep wellsprings of numinous mysticism. Finally, of the liturgical solemnity in an Oriental, Orthodox, or Catholic Tradition would be indicative of unitive love if it were true that those who participated displayed that. I am afraid the intercene bickering (it was even worse when the Oriental Churches were persecuted by the rest, or the Orthodox by the Catholic, or the Catholic by the Orthodox) and the 2,000 year old blood crimes (the Christian burden of the blood libel) kinda sorta tell me the unitive love never took hold. Jains and Quakers and Mennonites (except for very, very rare instances) have never indulged in such behavior.

I love that you have said Laotzi both returns to the tradition and does not - or at least my interpretation that this is what you say.

Anyway, it is the human mind that tries to segregate things into categories, and thus it becomes plain and clear that ego remains, and so the ultimate has not been experienced. Mysticism is the pursuit of the mysteries: Who am I? Why am I here? Certainly, the avenue this proceeds down cannot be restrictive - at least in scope, although morally certain things should be avoided.

The Christians do not even meditate in general, thus it becomes impossible to call it a mystery school. If you do not meditate you cannot go to the heights of reality because you lack the capacity to do so. Believing that the meditative state is divine grace is disastrous for any Christian because it means he will never try to grow in it - how can he if he isn't in control of it?

This is true for any religion that doesn't teach meditation.

 

[Bhaktajan II]

In the common sense, yes, in that everyone seeks the 'unique', the 'novel', the 'special' order of experience to validate their own self-worth.

Seeking "the 'special' order of experience", and subjects like alchemy [silver, gold, bronze, Iron & even stone & later, painting] was once the province of mystics just as the shaman's use of herbs & leaves.

Mechanical sciences are mysteries to the masses ---it is the provence of engineers. It is simply faith defined by insurance company premiums that conjure an illusion of comfort and self-actualisation.

That's not what the term really means at all.

I know. I am pointing out the sublime in the taken for granted basics of Life.

D'you think so? Not all those who deny the mysteries are hedonists ...
I would say the opposite could well be the ascetic.

I agree. "Same difference" as they say.

BHAKTAJAN:
My mystic thoughts dwell on the endless un-quantifiable amount of mundane stupifying dullheaded and faux sufferring experienced by fellow souls sorjourning in samsara.

I can't see what renders those thought 'mystic'.

God bless,

Thomas

To see how this is *"rendered" to be a mystic thought, one must simply remember
"The First Nobel Truth" of Buddha:

Life is sufferring.

[*the word "Render" brings to mind "Rendering Plants"]

BTW, when I stated the above ---in the back of my mind [other than Buddha's Instructions] I was ready to present the present stage of my statement above: I have a complete multi-DVD set of Documentaries about all wars in the last century [WW1, WWII etc etc etc] produced by the History Channel.

You see, after Karma-yoga is surpassed, Sankhya-Yoga must next be surpassed and the finally Bhakti-yoga is achieved.

The spiritual stepping stones along the way are: "Brahman-realisation" followed by "Param-atma" realisation finally followed by "Bhagavan-realisation"

So, with "Brahman-realisation" acheived one garners "Atma-rama (satisfaction of the Soul)"
---next comes "Param-atma" realisation ---this "Param-atma" realisation is the awareness of commonality of all souls as part and parcel of Bhagavan (God Almighty).

"Bhagavan-realisation" is only achieviable by Grace; it cannot be attained by piety nor penances.
But, Piety and penances qualifies one to be graced by the servant of the servants of God.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
ATTENTION Dudes & Dudettes:

Bhaktajan's Challenge Question
[yes, there is a bit of the trick question here]:

HOW LONG DID "World War Two (WWII) Last"?

Does any one think they really know that correct answer?????

 

[radarmark]

1918-1945 (it was merely a continuation of WWI with a large peacelike break), so 27 Years (26 and 1/2). Or 0, and WWI lasted 30 1/2.

Yep, the sanatana daharma (in all it's may forms), Jainism, Buddhism, Sikhism, Taoism are not mystical by Thomas' definition. So we have a choice... accept his definition and create a new term or... say "you definition is too Euro(specifically Greek)-centric".

Yes, he does quite accurately describe what the origion of the word was and how it would be applied in pre-Neoplatonic times. But we do not live in pre-Neoplatonic times.

In this it reminds me of mojobadshah's claim that "G!d is a culturally Aryan term". Fine they may both believe what they want. It does not make their beliefs true (just as these words do not make my rejection of them both true). It is a matter of what is probable or likely. It is probable that others besides the Aryans developed the concept of G!d (I know I did, I know the Native Americans did without contact with Aryans). It is likely that those outside of "traditional" Oriental-Orthodox-Catholic Christianity have numinous ("mysical") experiences (I know I have and know that Gandhiji did).

But when discussing with them one must take into account these cultural artifacts.

Lunitik.... it was a mistake (laotzi, but one that makes mystical sense, in a mythical sense).

 

[Lunitik]

Yep, the sanatana daharma (in all it's may forms), Jainism, Buddhism, Sikhism, Taoism are not mystical by Thomas' definition. So we have a choice... accept his definition and create a new term or... say "you definition is too Euro(specifically Greek)-centric".

Yes, he does quite accurately describe what the origion of the word was and how it would be applied in pre-Neoplatonic times. But we do not live in pre-Neoplatonic times.

It seems to me that the Greeks were very much familiar with mystery schools, for me, they are not different whatsoever to any other mystic - although perhaps a little too much in the mind still. It is difficult, I understand, to say truth you will look a hypocrite often because truth is a paradox, so you have to try to say things in a way that makes sense to those that don't understand but it becomes a lie, no more the whole truth. This, for me, is the problem with the Greeks.

Now, for me, Christianity is a conglomerate of all the ancient mysteries. There is absolutely nothing unique in it, and if we go into the Old Testament, again the myths are shared constantly elsewhere. The problem is, it has become exoteric, people accept it as a history book, they do not really look into the actuality as an experiential thing - just theories on theories, and anyone that has experienced is declared a heretic. There is no more truth in Christianity, although the Bible contains much. The tradition has killed Jesus again, it is the Jews all over again with new clothes. Now it is just some guy that died for our sins, thus ensuring our eternal life. It is disgusting because it is a delusion, you cannot be saved by another but these people believe they have been.

In this it reminds me of mojobadshah's claim that "G!d is a culturally Aryan term". Fine they may both believe what they want. It does not make their beliefs true (just as these words do not make my rejection of them both true). It is a matter of what is probable or likely. It is probable that others besides the Aryans developed the concept of G!d (I know I did, I know the Native Americans did without contact with Aryans). It is likely that those outside of "traditional" Oriental-Orthodox-Catholic Christianity have numinous ("mysical") experiences (I know I have and know that Gandhiji did).

I cannot imagine it possible that it is unique to the Aryans, but at the same time, the whole Hindu/Zarathustrian/Egyptian/Jewish/Sumerian/etc belief structures are clearly of a similar source. There is far too much similarity, when looked at rightly, between these and Pagan or Shamanistic traditions, to the point that it becomes impossible to separate them - perhaps just the nature of playing "phone" is the difference. Of course, man has tried to compete, tried to say this is more correct than that, but fundamentally they are all pointing to the same thing - their disagreements are solely on the basis of their ignorance, not anything else.

Theosophy has really been a gift in this direction, they have been dedicated to drawing the ties between the religions from an intellectual point of view. Now, once it is understood mentally the person can move to higher plains, it is a great service of reassurance and it is my hope that we eventually acknowledge it and come to a new more global understanding of the mystery of life - which is the true mystery.

 

[Bhaktajan II]

HOW LONG DID "World War Two (WWII) Last"?

1918-1945 (it was merely a continuation of WWI with a large peacelike break), so 27 Years (26 and 1/2). Or 0, and WWI lasted 30 1/2.

I aggree with your assessment. [don't you mean '1914-1945' = 31 years---???]

But ... WWI did have an official Historical End Date. No? 11/11/18 No?

Yet, the trick question part of my question was not acknowledge by your assessment ---I see WWI as done and ended in 1918 ---the Question of:

HOW LONG DID "World War Two (WWII) Last"?
The Answer does not involve WWI.
WWII did last longer than 4 years.
The clue to my trick question is, How WWII encompassed by many warring nations.

So, multi-national warring nations & their civilians simultaneously starting "experiencing" War, hence the term, "World-War".

HOW LONG DID "World War Two (WWII) Last"?

HOW LONG DID the "multi-national nations & their civilians & their simultaneously warring of WWII Last"?

Hint: It did not ONLY involve Western Europe.

mojobadshah's claim that "G!d is a culturally Aryan term".

Oy vey. "Aryan Term" what is an Aryan Term?

Firstly, Answer this: What is the ethmology of the word "Aryan"?

Secondly, What is the ethmology of the word "Aryan" in a language that DOES NOT have the word for 'Aryan'?

It's like asking What is the ethmology of the word "China" in a language that DOES NOT have the word for 'China'? [Ans. Just use the Chinese Term. BTW, it's "Lao Tsu"].

Thirdly, Ancient civilisations famously settled where ever they could, in un-claimed locales that where ideal for their societies' future.

India occupied the ideal Sub-Continent.
Italy occupied the only next available Peninsula in the Mediteraian sea
etc etc etc.

Why else would mass societies be located in 2nd tier real estate?

 

[radarmark]

Zhongguo -- "middle kingdom". Laozi is the more modern pinyin spelling (as defined by Chinese, not Western scholars).

Yes, but.... the odds are the roots of both Mediterainian and Indic early cultures came from the neighborhood of the Iranisn plateau. Kinda like both the Mexcian and Andean precolumbian cultures spread from Central America. Or the Greeks and Latins probably both can from the Hungarian steppes.

 

[radarmark]

Oh, 7 July 1937 to 2 Sept 1945... call it 8 years and some change (a lot shorter than either Vietnam or Afghanistan).

 

[taijasi]

Gnostic mysticism is all about intellect and hidden truth and secret masters and that sort of stuff I consider irrelevent. Both esoteric and numinous mysticism "go beyond" intellect and (to some extent) try to translate it back into the tradition (Augustine and Laotzi). Some do not (Eckhart and Laotzi).

Perhaps, radarmark, if you try "going beyond" intellect for yourself, you will realize what foolishness it is for you to "consider [hidden truth and secret masters and that sort of stuff] irrelevant." In short, I doubt seriously that the Masters consider YOU irrelevant, or that their hidden truth bears any less upon you than it does upon the rest of us.

In short, you can have your own brand of mental masturbation, with whichever flavor of KY you personally prefer ... but it changes things not one whit for those of us who have GONE BEYOND - even if rarely or on uncertain terms [and I claim neither, but I like to be inclusive]. There is a meaning to the appellation applied to the Buddha Shakyamuni: TATHAGATA. I recommend you study it. When you are done with the masturbation part, try practicing the Dharma. Later, at some point where ego is out of the way, and when you choose to cease this criticism of what you do not - CLEARLY do not - grasp, whatsoever ... *PERHAPS* then you'll find fresh interest in the true basis for all this rigamarole and tail-chasing. But in the meantime, enjoy it. Might as well, right?

Lol, irrelevant ... that's a good one!

Other suggestions would include: Try MEETING one of the "secret masters" you don't believe in, like most of the other folks here ... and THEN see how irrelevant They are. True, this won't likely occur for some time; or, it might already have, but you obviously are none the wiser - or else the visit [likely subjective, while you were asleep, or via Inspiration/Illumination] is still working out in all the right ways, but perhaps won't fully register in your *brain* for awhile yet. Either way, it's quite difficult to dismiss a white elephant in your living room, whether his name is Ganesh, Spaghetti Monster or Goofaloopus12.

The bottom line? What you don't know, in this case, isn't just not hurting you, it's actually making the greatest portion of THIS possible. I like to give credit for that, personally, and thanks, as best I'm able, where it's due [as best I realize, anyway]. Thus I will not toss your proverbial baby out the window, as you have mine ... but I will gladly let out the bathwater. As in, no such Jesus EVER existed as is portrayed in the heavily exaggerated, distorted and propagandized presentations within modern Churchianity. That Christ Jesus is one of those secret masters you have dismissed, I accept wholeheartedly. Therefore, in short & simple terms, the Jesus I know (of, at least) exists not at all in certain respects ... for anyone dismissing out of hand this FLUFF that you and others so gladly DEEM fluff, all because of your superior intellects, I take it? And other experience to the contrary, clearly making IMPOSSIBLE such things, ah yes?

Bulls**t. Bottom line, you have no clue what you've just said. All you know is that something about it all doesn't quite resonate, or add up. But I'll be the first to acknowledge that. And that's where I'll leave it. Wrong thread, and wrong occasion, for trying to demonstrate what errors you lot love to commit with such utterances and proclamations as these. I won't suggest for a heartbeat that you aren't inspired, influenced or otherwise affected by the Christ, or by Jesus, or all of these many saints that some traditions love to elevate (in their own esteem, often decades or centuries after the rest of us have long known the same) ... pretty much to keep the list of intercessors constantly growing. I do, as a matter of fact, try to avoid doing what has just been done. I try NOT to pretend I know better, when in fact, I know NOTHING - directly - about which of the Great Ones may be helping guide you, teach you, etc.

Perhaps you could do the same? Or at least consider, just for a moment, what doors you close in your own life, your own MIND, let alone heart, trans-Intellectual modes of Consciousness ... and etc. After all, THIS is where those of us who know [by ANY means] of the Masters, know Them, and where the secret fluff that does not matter to you, matters to us. It is not purely mental masturbation, even if we understand this metaphor quite well, personally enough, and cannot deny it any more than you can. What we WILL NOT DO, is deny that what you believe in has meaning for you, and likewise, we will try not to patronize you, suggesting that the REAL meaning ENDS THERE. Indeed, if you knew SQUARE ONE about secret masters, you'd never have said ... *what* you said. Nor Thomas, nor anyone else around here, who demonstrates a certain vacancy, with every such utterance.

Namaskar

 

[Lunitik]

Perhaps, radarmark, if you try "going beyond" intellect for yourself, you will realize what foolishness it is for you to "consider [hidden truth and secret masters and that sort of stuff] irrelevant." In short, I doubt seriously that the Masters consider YOU irrelevant, or that their hidden truth bears any less upon you than it does upon the rest of us.

In short, you can have your own brand of mental masturbation, with whichever flavor of KY you personally prefer ... but it changes things not one whit for those of us who have GONE BEYOND - even if rarely or on uncertain terms [and I claim neither, but I like to be inclusive]. There is a meaning to the appellation applied to the Buddha Shakyamuni: TATHAGATA. I recommend you study it. When you are done with the masturbation part, try practicing the Dharma. Later, at some point where ego is out of the way, and when you choose to cease this criticism of what you do not - CLEARLY do not - grasp, whatsoever ... *PERHAPS* then you'll find fresh interest in the true basis for all this rigamarole and tail-chasing. But in the meantime, enjoy it. Might as well, right?

Lol, irrelevant ... that's a good one!

Other suggestions would include: Try MEETING one of the "secret masters" you don't believe in, like most of the other folks here ... and THEN see how irrelevant They are. True, this won't likely occur for some time; or, it might already have, but you obviously are none the wiser - or else the visit [likely subjective, while you were asleep, or via Inspiration/Illumination] is still working out in all the right ways, but perhaps won't fully register in your *brain* for awhile yet. Either way, it's quite difficult to dismiss a white elephant in your living room, whether his name is Ganesh, Spaghetti Monster or Goofaloopus12.

The bottom line? What you don't know, in this case, isn't just not hurting you, it's actually making the greatest portion of THIS possible. I like to give credit for that, personally, and thanks, as best I'm able, where it's due [as best I realize, anyway]. Thus I will not toss your proverbial baby out the window, as you have mine ... but I will gladly let out the bathwater. As in, no such Jesus EVER existed as is portrayed in the heavily exaggerated, distorted and propagandized presentations within modern Churchianity. That Christ Jesus is one of those secret masters you have dismissed, I accept wholeheartedly. Therefore, in short & simple terms, the Jesus I know (of, at least) exists not at all in certain respects ... for anyone dismissing out of hand this FLUFF that you and others so gladly DEEM fluff, all because of your superior intellects, I take it? And other experience to the contrary, clearly making IMPOSSIBLE such things, ah yes?

Bulls**t. Bottom line, you have no clue what you've just said. All you know is that something about it all doesn't quite resonate, or add up. But I'll be the first to acknowledge that. And that's where I'll leave it. Wrong thread, and wrong occasion, for trying to demonstrate what errors you lot love to commit with such utterances and proclamations as these. I won't suggest for a heartbeat that you aren't inspired, influenced or otherwise affected by the Christ, or by Jesus, or all of these many saints that some traditions love to elevate (in their own esteem, often decades or centuries after the rest of us have long known the same) ... pretty much to keep the list of intercessors constantly growing. I do, as a matter of fact, try to avoid doing what has just been done. I try NOT to pretend I know better, when in fact, I know NOTHING - directly - about which of the Great Ones may be helping guide you, teach you, etc.

Perhaps you could do the same? Or at least consider, just for a moment, what doors you close in your own life, your own MIND, let alone heart, trans-Intellectual modes of Consciousness ... and etc. After all, THIS is where those of us who know [by ANY means] of the Masters, know Them, and where the secret fluff that does not matter to you, matters to us. It is not purely mental masturbation, even if we understand this metaphor quite well, personally enough, and cannot deny it any more than you can. What we WILL NOT DO, is deny that what you believe in has meaning for you, and likewise, we will try not to patronize you, suggesting that the REAL meaning ENDS THERE. Indeed, if you knew SQUARE ONE about secret masters, you'd never have said ... *what* you said. Nor Thomas, nor anyone else around here, who demonstrates a certain vacancy, with every such utterance.

Namaskar

You have said you remain in the Dark Night of the Soul, thus you have not merged with Consciousness. How, then, can anyone be sure of anything you say? You believe this stuff, you think it is helping, but your mind is simply distracting you. You have not turned inwardly and dropped the ego, the veil that masks the real. Whatsoever you have experienced, it seems you were still asleep for, since by comparison normal consciousness is asleep, dreaming.

It is difficult, you have clearly studied much, your ego is invested in this knowledge and you will have to drop it all to achieve the goalless goal. Can you honestly say it has transformed you though? I do not mean that you have changed your behavior because of this information, I mean has something inside you become new. The former is programming, it means you are more like a computer, the latter is death and resurrection, what you were is no more there. Knowledge AS SUCH cannot help, because the mind is the knower here. Only when the known and knower merge (when consciousness becomes aware of itself, turns on itself) is there absolute knowledge, wisdom.

Contemplate on the nature of oneness some, especially on whether outer and inner, subject and object are legitimate or illusion. Contemplate what exists when all opposite extremes are dropped, the exact center of existence without distinction. Eventually you will come to a point where you must drop even yourself, but what is its opposite? If you can permit this, something will happen, you will come out of the Dark Night. Then the task is to remain in this state, problem is it is difficult through contemplation now... you know the answer. Simply play with it, figure out what actually happened to cause this. It was simply dropping all conceptions, all knowledge, all you consider to be you. If you can reside in this state, if you can maintain it, constantly bringing it back when you miss - like a tight rope walkers stick balancing you on the thread - then you will grow in it.

Please see the pointlessness of study though, and the pointlessness of reserving your conceptions of self - what you truly are is the universal mind, and you are trying to understand particular fragments of it. What you truly are will not die, only the false self will experience death, but it wasn't even real in the first place.

 

[radarmark]

Gee, did I touch a nerve. I was speaking for myself and not refering to your beliefs or anyone else's. I have previously noted that I do not believe you need a guru or a master.

I think you have pretty much put your finger on YOUR problem, not mine. The idea is to go beyond, and this includes out frame of reference. I did not state that no one needs a master. I did not in any way say that Gnostics could not be mystics.

Only that I, in my experience, have found that the kind of "modern mysticism" that Thomas is refering to irrelevent. Not to everyone, to me. Not that it is false, just different from how I see things.

P.S. the mental masturbation thing was not about any particular school, just something I have discovered. Some "modern mystics" (whom I have the good taste not to mention by name, unlike some) just over intellectualize. That's okay, I do too when I try to relate "beyond" outside of the safety of my Metting of Friends.