But eating a mushroom might. :cool:

I could get into the experiences I have had on mushrooms, but critics may devalue them as hallucinations caused by the drug.

I made this point some time back, but the two central protagonists on this thread enjoy discussing philosophical perspectives of mystical experiences that are, themselves, better understood by actual practitioners.

Ok, I take your point. I have been trying to have the discourse I have been having with Metaphysician Undercover on this forum for a number of years now. So now that it is happening I will continue, but I am happy to also discuss more directly mystical experience. Although, I cannot really comment on Zen, as I haven't practiced it, I would have liked to but the opportunity never arose.
My experience is with Hindu puja practiced in ashrams and in India and Raja yoga which I practiced at the Theosophical society in London. Although at the time, this was the early 90's, I was so on fire as an aspirant that I would try anything that I could get my hands on. So also Christian worship and prayer, the full range of New Age stuff and practice, even the Ashtar tapes of channelled extra terrestrials.

I have had many mystical experiences of varying type, although nothing so transformative as some of the New Age practitioners I met. For me it was more a truth seeking endeavour rather than a transformative one. Do you have a kind of experience, or practice in mind, as a starter?

I could get into the experiences I have had on mushrooms, but critics may devalue them as hallucinations caused by the drug. — Punshhh

Huxley wrote a book called "The Island" about the doomed utopia of Pala, a technologically limited but socially advanced society. Mushrooms played a key role in the awakening of the citizenry, quite extensively explored.

What I think and I described earlier, is that one cannot adequately understand the significance of such an experience on one's own. — Metaphysician Undercover

That may very well be true. If one sees experience as a means to the end of understanding, then that could be a problem. If one sees experience as having it's own value independent of anything else, then not understanding the significance isn't such a problem.

So to experience, just for the sake of the experience itself, without any discussion or explanation, leaves the experience completely meaningless. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes. If we're lucky, completely meaningless. That is, a full immersion in the real, undistracted by the symbolic.

But, that's pretty ambitious, especially for we over thinking philosopher types. A more common and realistic scenario for us is that we will instinctively create some meaning story or another. And then the question is, what is our relationship with that story? If we take the story really seriously that could be a problem, probably an ego hijacking operation. But if we just watch the meanings we create float by like clouds in the sky, not such a problem. Here it comes, there it is, now it's gone.

But eating a mushroom might. — jgill

Mushrooms? Oh dear, that's so over. :-) Well, maybe you're like me and you just can't stop playing those old Allman Brothers records.

I ain't no saint, sure as hell ain't no savior...
Every other Christmas I would practice good behavior...
That was then.
This is now.
Don't ask me to be Mr. Clean...
Cause baby I don't know how... — Gregg Allman

If we're going to get serious about this ladder climbing business what we need is a good DMT thread!

I could get into the experiences I have had on mushrooms, but critics may devalue them as hallucinations caused by the drug. — Punshhh

A reply to the critics. Dear critic, is that post you just wrote while high on caffeine also a hallucination we shouldn't take seriously?

Well, maybe you're like me and you just can't stop playing those old Allman Brothers records. — Nuke

That's downright mystical of you! :smile: Gregg was a distant cousin of mine.

That may very well be true. If one sees experience as a means to the end of understanding, then that could be a problem. If one sees experience as having it's own value independent of anything else, then not understanding the significance isn't such a problem. — Nuke

I don't think this would be any form of mysticism though, to value experience independently of everything else. Wouldn't this be some sort of extreme selfishness?

It's impossible for me to be an atheist while on a psychedelic. It's a mystical God though. Anyone who says they can prove there is a God are not talking about the true God because it's no longer mystical. Be mystical or be an atheist i say. Otherwise you're a nerd

But this opens up the question of what have we done to deserve incarnation, the incarnated state being an inferior state. So we have mystical teaching about Satan and the fallen angels. Satan, I believe was created by God as the archangel. But in seeing his great power he believed himself to be God, or equivalent to God, and therefore was exiled by God.

I am not familiar with the theology around Satan. The analogy I use is the fall, the mystery of the tree of knowledge of good and evil and how humanity in gaining intellectual knowledge lost its way. Because that knowledge enabled people to disregard their instinctive evolutionary behaviour which kept them within their evolutionary niche and in balance with the ecosystem. Once this balance was lost, at some point the people would have to manage their own position in the ecosystem to prevent destroying it. I see this as one of the important human initiations being undergone at this time (this instantiation of humanity), that humanity's task on this world in this epoch is to learn how to maintain and control its balanced position in a functioning ecosystem past the point of inevitable crisis. Each of us can play our individual role in this endeavour, but might experience powerlessness due to the poor state of human affairs at this time. It's a rocky road ahead.

Why have we been thus saddled? We have been given this less than perfect conditioned, burdened with the deprivations of matter. We cannot rise to the higher trinity which you describe, to obtain freedom, unless we come to understand how we are chained to the weight of matter, and release the bonds which hold us.

like I said it is a point of crisis for life, humanity in this epoch, the purpose of which, as we have already discussed is not known. Other than the wisdom of natural cycles of life and evolutionary development. In regards of the higher trinity, there would be Mystics undergoing initiations into the higher trinity within the population, their initiations playing out within the crisis conditions, but the goal of the whole of humanity attaining that goal is a long way off, eons away. They have first to learn to keep their house in order within a healthy ecosystem.

The mystic might apprehend that the experience is significant, and meaningful, but the meaning itself, or significance, will not be understood unless that person relates the experience to something else, and this is best done through explanations, descriptions, and comparisons with others.

Yes, I agree, although as I said before the intellectual understanding of the mystic of her development of her being is not a necessity, this development is happening in her being and body regardless as a natural process. Although the mystic can attempt to understand what is going on, but is not required to orchestrate it, for it to happen.

I would point out a mystical perspective on the development of the self. That the self, it's being, it's body is far more complex and sophisticated than the embryonic development of the conscious self and agency in the individual concerned. I notice you have already agreed on this point, when you referenced the complexity of the role and purposes of the individual cell in the body. So the mystic who thinks they are somehow orchestrating their mystical development is mistaken and should apply some humility, which would help and enable them to move forward.

Interesting, yes I think hallucinogens found in the environment have been made use of by shamans in human society for a very long time. They may have been responsible for the invention of religions etc.

That's downright mystical of you! :smile: Gregg was a distant cousin of mine. — jgill

Hey, that's cool, you're a brother. I went to the same high school as the brothers, but five years or so behind, so I'm just a wannabe brother. Never knew them personally, but used to see them play around town in all the local garage bands they had before making it big. They've been part of my life since I was 12 so it feels weird that they are no longer with us. But I assume they're setting up their equipment at the next gig and I'll be there again in the audience soon enough.

I don't think this would be any form of mysticism though, to value experience independently of everything else. — Metaphysician Undercover

I just meant the experience has it's own value which isn't dependent on any explanations.

From my perspective, mysticism is a focus on the real. Explanations aren't real, they're symbols which point to the real in a highly imperfect manner. Example, my photo on Facebook is not me. The photo can be useful, but shouldn't be confused with that which it points to.

Part of the implicit condition of modernity is the sense of oneself as an intelligent, separate subject in a domain of objects (and other subjects), whereas in the pre-modern world, the world was experienced as, or realised as, an intrinsically alive presence with which one had a relationship beyond the merely adaptive. Having fallen out of that, it is impossible to recall or imagine what has been lost or forgotten. — Wayfarer

I hate to state the obvious but if something is impossible to recall or imagine then how can you recall or imagine it? You just described it as the world “experienced as, or realised as, an intrinsically alive presence with which one had a relationship beyond the merely adaptive.” What is so outlandish about that?

I am not familiar with the theology around Satan. The analogy I use is the fall, the mystery of the tree of knowledge of good and evil and how humanity in gaining intellectual knowledge lost its way. Because that knowledge enabled people to disregard their instinctive evolutionary behaviour which kept them within their evolutionary niche and in balance with the ecosystem. Once this balance was lost, at some point the people would have to manage their own position in the ecosystem to prevent destroying it. I see this as one of the important human initiations being undergone at this time (this instantiation of humanity), that humanity's task on this world in this epoch is to learn how to maintain and control its balanced position in a functioning ecosystem past the point of inevitable crisis. Each of us can play our individual role in this endeavour, but might experience powerlessness due to the poor state of human affairs at this time. It's a rocky road ahead. — Punshhh

The instinctive behaviour is a double edged sword. Because human beings, by their very nature, have a material body, they have a natural, instinctual inclination towards sin. It is the needs of the material body which lead us in temptation. On the other hand there is an instinctual, spiritual tendency, toward good and breaking the temptation, The so-called balance is a bit of a deception because the original fall is what forced us into a material body as a sort of punishment. The punishment of having the soul incarnate with a body is to make us know our place, as lower than God. But the same thing, which reminds us of that worst sin, (the sin of the fallen angel), the punishment which is to be chained to a material body, also inclines us to turn away from God and wallow in our sins. This is why punishment in itself, is that double edged sword. It may incline one towards respect for the authority, or it may incline one to disrespect the authority, depending on the circumstances. You might call this a balance, but I think that the two extremes tend to negate each other rather than balancing,. Being at the extremities they don't have the required support. This leaves those in the middle, neither vengeful of the punishment nor subdued by it, as the ones who must maintain the balance you refer to.

like I said it is a point of crisis for life, humanity in this epoch, the purpose of which, as we have already discussed is not known. Other than the wisdom of natural cycles of life and evolutionary development. In regards of the higher trinity, there would be Mystics undergoing initiations into the higher trinity within the population, their initiations playing out within the crisis conditions, but the goal of the whole of humanity attaining that goal is a long way off, eons away. They have first to learn to keep their house in order within a healthy ecosystem. — Punshhh

I look at the ecosystem here as the material body. To have a healthy spirit requires a healthy body.

So the mystic who thinks they are somehow orchestrating their mystical development is mistaken and should apply some humility, which would help and enable them to move forward. — Punshhh

I think this is an important point which needs to be stressed. If we could characterize mysticism as a journey into the unknown, then it would be evident that the mystic requires some guidance. The trip is into the unknown, so the mystic must have faith, or trust in whatever it is that is doing the guiding. Let's say that the mystic is guided by signs. In order that the sign can give any sort of guidance, it needs to be interpreted, and the interpretation is an explanation of the meaning of the sign. This is why I can't accept what says about removing explanation from the experience.

Let's suppose that a person enters this trip without any specific purpose, or any specific direction in mind. A sign appears, and the person must decide whether the sign says go left, go right, go straight ahead, or whatever. The person could make up anything, saying that for me, the sign means go straight ahead, so I'm going straight ahead. But that person is really just lost within one's own imagination, perhaps falling into some sort of mental illness or something. The real mystic would want to know the real meaning of the sign, to know the real direction to go, and therefore would seek help to interpret the sign.

I hate to state the obvious but if something is impossible to recall or imagine then how can you recall or imagine it? You just described it as the world “experienced as, or realised as, an intrinsically alive presence with which one had a relationship beyond the merely adaptive.” What is so outlandish about that? — praxis

Philosophers wonder at that which most deem obvious.

Obviously.

I guess that if you addressed the question at all you would be arguing against yourself.

Maybe @Punshhh is braver than you?

The real mystic would want to know the real meaning of the sign, to know the real direction to go, and therefore would seek help to interpret the sign — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, indeed, but from fellow, more experienced mystics, not from philosophers who love to speculate, being unfamiliar with the internal adventures.

I wrote a whole free 40-50+ page ebook teaching beginner-level and basic teachings, using my understanding of Hermeticism. I don't know how many people are being taught the "real" thing through mentor-apprentice like the old days, but happy to share tiny portions of what I know and what I am being taught. Discern and cognize for yourself. Start thinking for yourself. Happy to post if people want it.

but if something is impossible to recall or imagine then how can you recall or imagine it?

I don't want to speak for Wayfarer here, but the way I see it is that it is a situation where one can't see the wood for the trees. It is "impossible" to remember what was lost because all you can see is the world as it is now. There may be a better way to put it, I know what he means because I have experienced what was lost in the way he puts it while spending time with people living in remote areas of the Himalaya.

The instinctive behaviour is a double edged sword.

The point is, once the instinctive behaviour is lost it is lost forever, it is permanent, there is no way back. Hence it is a fall, a fall into an abyss.
This is so important IMHO I will reiterate it, the moment humanity took control of its own destiny, learnt the intelligence to supersede its natural instinctive behaviour in the ecosystem, it metaphorically left the Garden of Eden, with no way back, it was shut out, metaphorically was left to wonder in the wilderness forevermore and would now have to find its own way forward, or perish*.

This is the meaning of the Story of the fall and in a sense the New Testament, with the story of Jesus depicts God's attempt to give humanity a helping hand to get up after it fell and stand up as an individual in heaven**.

Let's suppose that a person enters this trip without any specific purpose, or any specific direction in mind. A sign appears, and the person must decide whether the sign says go left, go right, go straight ahead, or whatever. The person could make up anything, saying that for me, the sign means go straight ahead, so I'm going straight ahead. But that person is really just lost within one's own imagination, perhaps falling into some sort of mental illness or something. The real mystic would want to know the real meaning of the sign, to know the real direction to go, and therefore would seek help to interpret the sign.

I will agree with this for now, although I would say it is more complicated than this and we could go into far more depth on this issue. My point was that the mystic should cultivate a reasonable sense of humility and realise that they are not personally required to work it all out in order to proceed. On the understanding that there is far more going on in their lives and the world around them than they are aware of. So they should seek guidance of some sort, externally through a fellow mystic, or teacher, or via the intuition.

*I accept that what I say here may be controversial and can be argued and cross examined at length from numerous angles, but that may derail the thread, so I accept that it is an oversimplification.

**As above this may be controversial, it is only my own way of seeing it.

Yes, indeed, but from fellow, more experienced mystics, not from philosophers who love to speculate, being unfamiliar with the internal adventures. — jgill

So far in this thread, there have been no principles established which would distinguish a mystic from a philosopher. It appears like the mystic is a type of philosopher, so your statement is rather pointless.

Consider my example. The sign needs to be interpreted for the mystic to proceed, so an appeal is made to "more experienced mystics". Don't you think that the more experienced mystics would need to engage in some degree of speculation in their interpretation? As a journey into the unknown, each sign is a novel and unique occurrence, therefore speculation is required.

So if speculation is a defining feature of philosophers, you have only made some mystics into philosophers, those who are capable of reliable speculation, the more experienced mystics. If the less experienced mystics were to speculate, their speculations would be misguided. This is very evident in philosophy, and on this forum; when undisciplined philosophers speculate, their speculations are misleading. But open, or public speculation really ought to be confined to experienced philosophers, those who have taken the time to learn the basics, just like it ought to be confined to experienced mystics. We do this by ignoring, (or on this forum, criticizing) the inexperienced speculations.

So far in this thread, there have been no principles established which would distinguish a mystic from a philosopher. — Metaphysician Undercover

Such principles have been suggested above. You apparently don't agree with those principles, which is ok of course, but the distinction has been made.

The sign needs to be interpreted for the mystic to proceed — Metaphysician Undercover

It can be argued that mystics neither interpret nor proceed.

It may be helpful here to revisit the concepts of being and becoming. For the sake of brevity the following simple formulas may help.

Mystic = being
Philosopher = becoming
Mystic ≠ philosopher

The philosopher is trying to travel down some road towards some desired destination, a process of becoming. The mystic sits down on the side of the road and enjoys spending the day there, an act of being. The philosopher is on the move, the mystic is still.

Being is often a difficult topic for we Westerners given that our entire culture is so thoroughly based in becoming.

The mystic is attempting to go nowhere while realising that she has not as yet arrived there. She knows where she is going (nowhere) but realises that she is not there at the moment. Also that she is already there now and that going somewhere, or at another time, was always a distraction, although it (going somewhere) might help her recognise where she is going and help her to reach her destination.

I don't want to speak for Wayfarer — Punshhh

I wouldn't worry about it. His position is so tenuous that he's rendered himself speechless.

I see it is that it is a situation where one can't see the wood for the trees. — Punshhh

Funny you should put it that way because I was thinking that emersion in nature could be like experiencing the forest, for example, as "an intrinsically alive presence with which one had a relationship beyond the merely adaptive." Unfortunately, being a modern person I cannot validate such an experience for myself, having unshackled myself from the great chain of being and the all-to-human authorities that reign supreme in that divine domain, I stand alone in a nihilistic wasteland.

I have experienced what was lost in the way he puts it while spending time with people living in remote areas of the Himalaya. — Punshhh

And did these remote Himalayaians validate your experience?

And did these remote Himalayaians validate your experience?

Yes they did, although it was as a series of small glimpses of how reality was for them, rather than one intense experience. The way I saw it was in the way they all believed in a divine presence, or magic continually at play in their world. This was normality for them and I doubt they realised it could be any other way. It also enabled me to put into some kind of focus how my society at home had lost this. This is not to say that there weren't people at home who realised this, or who had faith, but rather the society as a whole had lost this and it relied on everyone, or at least most of the people for it to be, to be real. Also curiously, at this time, I realised that in my society hypocrisy was widespread and endemic. That what I had found problematic my whole life in the way people behaved was as a result of this. It was like in my society no one really said what they believed, they mostly said something contradictory, or different for some cultural reason. Often their body language said something else again, or told me the truth they were for some reason not communicating, or denying.

By this point, I felt at home with these people in the Himalayas, there was none of this hypocrisy, or disingenuous behaviour, people dwelt and communicated freely, honestly and with conviction, in tune with their environment. It was not an idyl, there were many problems and difficulties experienced by these people, but they had not lost this reality, some kind of living presence between them.

And did these remote Himalayaians validate your experience?
– praxis

Yes they did — Punshhh

Did you need them to?

The way I saw it was in the way they all believed in a divine presence — Punshhh

And you experienced this divine presence, as something separate from yourself?

It also enabled me to put into some kind of focus how my society at home had lost this. This is not to say that there weren't people at home who realised this, or who had faith, but rather the society as a whole had lost this and it relied on everyone, or at least most of the people for it to be, to be real. — Punshhh

It's a curious thought that a majority is required to make something real. Very disturbing in that it invalidates minorities. Some don't like to talk about tribalism when romanticizing the past. It seems that some things are never forgotten and impossible to imagine.

The punishment of having the soul incarnate with a body is to make us know our place, as lower than God.

I don't wholly disagree with your thoughts about human instinct. But rather I view how we got into this predicament differently. In your comment that incarnation is to make us know our place as lower than God, I accept that it can be seen that way, but rather I see it as we are learning to know our place, God doesn't really come into the equation. We find ourselves in a highly structured and rigid physical framework entombed in a body through which we have to learn to behave in a way developed through an evolution in this material. It is the nature of this behaviour which is being learned. How could it be anything other than this? We are learning the lessons of the tree of knowledge as experienced by physical animals which have evolved in this environment. This includes being subject to the hormones and enzymes and disease of such bodies. The emotions, the psychology, the psychosis which are a result of such evolution. Now most people just get on with it and are conditioned by the society around them, but a few step outside and take a broader perspective, or even look to be of service to those around them. Some manage to subjugate the negative and confining aspects of their bodies and develop more divine, or gracious qualities. Indeed the society often elevates such people to a position of cultural importance, prophets, or shamans perhaps. And what do these people say with their wise words, well pretty much what is notionally required for the human race to prosper and reach a balanced and constructive position within the ecosystem. In the knowledge that any other course will end in their destruction, or at least a serious collapse in civilisation. Something which has happened many times before.

It's a curious thought that a majority is required to make something real.

Well this is what I observed, I may have been mistaken in assuming that everyone had to be in on it for it to be real. It just was, and appeared not to be at home, that's all.

And you experienced this divine presence, as something separate from yourself?

yes, it was like a kind of electricity between them, almost telepathic, words fail me. A magic, like pixy dust, which made things happen.

It's a curious thought that a majority is required to make something real.
– praxis

Well this is what I observed, I may have been mistaken in assuming that everyone had to be in on it for it to be real. It just was, and appeared not to be at home, that's all. — Punshhh

It makes sense, it just initially struck me as odd, then I recalled how religion can tightly bind a community, and, necessarily exclude all outsiders. You were there of course and partook, as anyone who follows the narrative can, until they don't.