[5] Vague speculation : a belief without sound basis

This would be my most accurate, classical definition of mysticism. As a pantheist, I believe that everything in the observable universe is our to observe. The word "supernatural" is a misnomer... there is nothing beyond God's nature.

I do some meditation but a bit haphazardly. I may go out and find a group when life begins again, because most things have been closed throughout the time I have use this site.

I have just been reading a book which I think is relevant to the thread: ' Perennial Philosophy, ' by Arthur Versluis. The author suggests that,
' Perennial philosophy points to individual spiritual experiences; and Platonism, Vedanta and Buddhism are based on direct individual realisations, on the experiential transformation and illumination of the individual.'

I think that the mystical experience can often be understood within such a framework.

I think that the mystical experience can often be understood within such a framework. — Jack Cummins

I think you and I are on the same page.

I did read and enjoy several books by Carlos Castaneda in my youth, although I never saw the experiences described as relevant to my life. — T Clark

A little peyote goes a long way....

A little peyote goes a long way.... — Valentinus

I'm a coffee in the morning, wine in the evening kind of guy.

One important area is raised by an author Zaehner, in, 'Sacred and Profane Mysticism', is to what extent should the mystical states arrived at naturally, especially in a religious context, be distinguished from those achieved through the use of hallucinogenics? Can they be viewed as having a similar or completely different nature? The complexity of this is the way in which certain states have a chemical basis, but as Zaehner points out, the context is so different, with 'the profane' one occurring artificially, as opposed to naturally.

I think there is a similarity but hallucinogenics are a kind of visa rather than a citizenship in one's existence. My encounter with them was long ago and far away.

Ditto. :up:

I think that the question is really how genuine the ones on hallucinogenics are? But, I am not sure that there are any absolute answers. However, in reading on the topic of mysticism, it does seem that the two contexts are different. One writer who explored this whole area was Aldous Huxley, especially in, 'The Doors of Perception/ Heaven and Hell'. However, his writings do lead to interesting questions about consciousness. He drew upon Bergson's idea of the brain being a 'reducing valve'. From that perspective, the mystic is able to see beyond the ordinary world, into the infinite. In shamanic cultures, this was often seen as voyages to the lower and upper worlds, as part of the quest for healing wisdom.

Apropos of this thread generally, just discovered a Wiki thread https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholarly_approaches_to_mysticism

I think that the question is really how genuine the ones on hallucinogenics are? — Jack Cummins

They can be utterly genuine, but not sustainable and not repeatable. But they can part the curtain, give a glimpse which otherwise in this mortal life you may never get a chance to glimpse. Huxley, I seem to recall, only ever took mescaline twice, once on the celebrated occasion which gave rise to Doors of Perception, and once on death's door.

Incidentally in Zaehner's book there's some pretty harsh polemic meted out to what he categorised as the nature mystics. I seem to recall him saying that the slaughter of such heretics was pious work somewhere in that book, although it is decades since I read it.

It is a while since I read Zaehner's book. However, I think it raises the question of whether one should seek certain states of consciousness, and how. It is also about potential dangers. Even though he was not writing about drugs specifically, Rudolf Steiner said, 'He who imagines that he can violently and forcibly climb into the higher worlds is greatly mistaken.' I also remember reading in Castaneda' s writings, the suggestion that the voyages to otherworlds come with potential dangers, especially of becoming lost, and unable to return to the ordinary world.

...the mystic is able to see beyond the ordinary world, into the infinite. — Jack Cummins

Maybe my notion of 'mysticism' is too mundane or prosaic for this new(er) age?

Perhaps 'mysticism' is waiting for sudden revelations as a way of life. — 180 Proof

Y'know, I suppose now, the everyday dao (wu wei) or that it is (Witty) or musical jubilation (Freddy) aren't "mystical" enough it seems. IIRC, hallucinogens – entheogens too – are just revolving "doors" through which you bring back out only what you've brought in, just stranger now – or less familiar – if you're paying attention. "Derangement of the senses"? Yeah, okay. But "the real trip" estranges the familiar and your everyday (a little or a lot depending upon dosage, purity, setting & mindset) and greets "faces" who "come out of the rain" ... Shamanism, you mentioned, only seems needed where sleepwalking is a chronic sickness & superstitions run rampant, that is, where folks have learned too well (due to religious indoctrination / prohibitions, social or political taboos, lack of courage, etc) to become completely inattentive to their moment-to-moment lives. So, are you experienced? not necessarily stoned ... :fire:

It is better to travel well than it is to arrive. — Buddha

:flower:

I just feel drawn to these areas of thought, and mainly read about them. I think that it is best to avoid using hallucinogenics, as far as possible. I have known people who have become extremely unwell mentally as a result of doing so. I read a lot about shamanism and mostly find that music is about the safest way of conjuring altered states of consciousness. I do believe that meditation is important too, and read writers, such as Gopi Krishna, on kundalini awakenings.

I find the whole exploration of the unfamiliar to be fascinating as part of the quest for creativity and healing. I keep an open mind towards all the many explorations of others, ranging from those of the religious mystics to those from diverse cultures, such as the vision quests of the North American Indians.

I think that the question is really how genuine the ones on hallucinogenics are? — Jack Cummins

I try not to be judgmental about this sort of thing. Use of drugs to change awareness can be part of a disciplined mystical practice. Who am I, as a very undisciplined mystical practitioner, to say.

Maybe my notion of 'mysticism' is too mundane or prosaic for this new(er) age? — 180 Proof

Me too. As I've said, my take on mysticism is very meat and potatoes. I'm always thinking - what's all the excitement about. I do like Brussels sprouts though.

:up:

I'll roll with #3. BTDT, but it's ineffable, so further this affiant sayeth naught.

and once on death's door. — Wayfarer

That was LSD

@WayfarerI feel "hallucinogenics" is a loaded term and immediately discredits and devalues a person's experience with, what I prefer to call, psychotropics. We maybe ignoring, at great risk, a deeply significant side to consciousness when we, as we usually do, discount our mental experiences with such substances.

Plus, to open up a new channel for discussion, I'm just not comfortable with mind-altering substances present in plants; most such chemicals seem to be plant-based. Do plants "know" something we don't? They were here long before animal brains evolved. Puzzling...conscious plants.

'He who imagines that he can violently and forcibly climb into the higher worlds is greatly mistaken.' — Jack Cummins

And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force. — Matt 11.12

I feel "hallucinogenics" is a loaded term and immediately discredits and devalues a person's experience with, what I prefer to call, psychotropics. — TheMadFool

Fair enough. I rather like 'entheogens' but nobody knows what it means. I'm always impressed that Albert Hoffman, who sythesized it, lived until 104. (I've written an instrumental track in his memory called Bicycle Day. I think, regrettably, that Leary was a rascal, though. )

:up: Beautiful. The amazing things you can find on Youtube.....

Do plants "know" something we don't? — TheMadFool

I'm sure not. It was mentioned in passing, one of Prince Phillips gaffes memorable quips was how at least Edward had the good sense not to talk to plants (the implication being that Charles did not.)

Fair enough. I rather like 'entheogens' but nobody knows what it means. I'm always impressed that Albert Hoffman, who sythesized it, lived until 104. (I've written an instrumental track in his memory called Bicycle Day. I think, regrettably, that Leary was a rascal, though. ) — Wayfarer

Biblical Entheogen Hypothesis (Benny Shanon)

My second-ever book, I think, was Politics of Esctacy. Don't think it has stood the test of time well, but it's got some scintillating ideas in it.

(Although based on that Wiki page, Leary was tame by comparison! :yikes:

My second-ever book, I think, was Politics of Esctacy. Don't think it has stood the test of time well, but it's got some scintillating ideas in it.

(Although based on that Wiki page, Leary was tame by comparison — Wayfarer

What bothers me is how entheogen-induced mental states have been lumped in with hallucinations as the other word "hallucinogenic" suggests. This smacks of a materialism bias; perhaps not, I'm unsure but it definitely and greatly diminishes the epistemic worth of such experiences. The consensus in the scientific community and by extension the popular view of these mental states is that they're episodes characterized not as a catching glimpses of a different facet of reality but as instances of losing touch with reality. I prefer the former interpretation but, for the moment, can't think of a good reason why? Being as open-minded as possible in this case feels like the right thing to do.

The consensus in the scientific community and by extension the popular view of these mental states is that they're episodes characterized not as a catching glimpses of a different facet of reality but as instances of losing touch with reality — TheMadFool

I agree. But it’s a naturally contentious subject, better to steer clear of it IMO.

Don't you think great, powerful, master works of art afford "glimpses of a different facet of reality" by, like intense orgiastic sex or deep prolonged meditation or, in fact, psychoactive trips, loosening – even weakening – the duality-grip of everyday reality on each of us?

ecstasy - ex outside of; stasis - ‘business as usual’.

Don't you think great, powerful, master works of art afford "glimpses of a different facet of reality" by, like intense orgiastic sex or deep prolonged meditation or, in fact, psychotropic trips, loosening – even weakening – the grip of everyday reality on us? — 180 Proof

To my reckoning, what we usually mean by "reality" is simply that "facet of [ALL] reality" in which we can get hurt and die. Remove those pesky factors (injury and death) - not possible as of now - and I'm sure we'll all have a different opinion about what real is.

ecstasy - ex outside of; stasis - ‘business as usual’. — Wayfarer

I found it in internet and you are right! I never thought ecstasy meant this. The Greek word which appears is έκ-στασις and then means "to be or stand outside oneself, a removal to elsewhere"
Everyday we can learn something new and thanks to you I now know what is the meaning of a drug :sweat:

ecstasy - ex outside of; stasis - ‘business as usual’. — Wayfarer

I wonder, given what we know or more accurately what we think we know, if there are "silent" genes in plants, much like the letter "h" in honest that, that code for neural tissue and even arms and legs - "animal" bodies to be exact? Conversely, what if some of our genes, those so-called junk DNA, code for plant parts? That would be interesting, don't you think?

ecstasy - ex outside of; stasis - ‘business as usual’. — Wayfarer

:fire:

My preferred - idiosyncratic - notion is 'ecstasy' rather than 'mysticism'; ecstatic practices - what Iris Murdoch calls unselfings - rather than mystical, or spiritual, exercises (i.e. union with (some) 'transcendent' X); ego-suspending via everyday living (i.e. encounters (à la Buber) - sleep, play, prayer, meditation, or contemplation via [ ... ] and/or hallucinogens) rather than ego-killing via ritualized ascetics (e.g. monasticism, militarism, etc). Not religious, not spiritual, not mystical - but I am (an) ecstatic. — 180 Proof