Mysticism

[Loki]

So what is your theory on what it is? Lately I have experienced what I could only describe as mystic states of consciousness, and I'll try to explain what I think they signify.

Mystic states of consciousness are simply the result of the brain and it's neurons producing an abnormal quantity of thought simultaneously, which leads to a particular quality of consciousness.

Normal consciousness has a particular emphasis. We need to survive in time, so the emphasis is on working memory, where past events are linked to a present event, creating a chain in time. There is a certain simplicity, dullness and practicality to our normal consciousness. If normal consciousness is to become complex, it is usually only to juggle a lot of variables related to practical problems. We need to keep track of our environments, events and our relationship to them, for evolutionary reasons. With mystic consciousness, working-sequential memory is no longer the emphasis, and somehow one particular moment of consciousness, a flash of thought, becomes incredibly rich, nuanced, vast, and varied - as if many thoughts, like pixels, are all coming together simultaneously, moving fluidly and artistically as a unified whole. It is almost as if thought is mirroring nature in an artistic kind of way.

Kevin Solway quoted something in his book:

"You might cover your ears with your hands and blindfold your eyes, but you can't escape the sun sailing in the sky, the leaves of trees swaying in the breeze, the waves crashing against the shore, and the vast depths of space."

I think in mystic states, thought mirrors and patterns itself after nature with abnormal detail, and this is combined with a proclivity toward metaphor and symbol.

Also, ones concept of other people becomes quite a bit more complex. Since ones own psychology no longer seems so simple, neither does the psychology of other people. Everyone, including oneself, seems quite a bit more complicated and deep. One realizes that all one ever does is project. If we feel dull and simple, we tend to look at others as dull and simple. When we feel vast, complex and loving, we are more tempted to look at others this way as well. This lends one to realize that all we ever know are ourselves, within. We only know our own mind. To judge others is only to judge our own projections. An aversion toward judging people naturally arises, and a sense of compassion toward the human condition is augmented. Love no longer becomes emotional, but rather, one wishes to treat ones fellow human being like one would examine an easily spooked dear. Watch the animal quietly - deadly silently. Let their brain come out of hiding.

Other realizations include the non material nature of consciousness, where inner reflection has no location in space or time, and that we never really know anything other than our minds, and that the emphasis on the material, the physical, chasing after sex, position, scientific models, and particular places is entirely foolish, since the mind creates everything and within us is a wealth beyond anything outside. After all, there is no outside. The inner and outer are a unity. The inner is the root of the outer. Nature in all it's glory and beauty is within you and it is more beautiful than anything we can deludedly chase on the so called "outside." Ones appreciation of nature becomes almost mathematical yet psychedelic, or the mathematical becomes psychedelic.

Finally, in these states, there seems to be no limit to where thought can go. There is sense of vast and endless transformation, order, flux and most importantly, creation. Nothing is lacking, there is only a fullness. The mind is fertile and blooming.

Being a realist, I know my brain will gradually wear out and if not soon, the last years of my life will almost surely be an experience of bareness and dullness as my brain will not work like this forever. As a flower blooms and reaches it's height, so too all things must decay, including ones personal enlightenment.

But from our peaks of consciousness, we can emerge with values and principles to encourage this flowering of consciousness in others. They too can experience this "kingdom" of thought.

The word "spiritual" seems entirely appropriate for atheists. We humans like to tether ourselves to "worlds." Whether it is to our country, our sports team, our family, our religion, our counter culture ideolgies, our idols, our favorite message boards, our communities... we like to cut off the infinite and make our homes in these finite worlds, fabricated by the mind. Spirit goes beyond all worlds, and any new worlds that this spirit creates gets destroyed to make room for more. It is an ever open worldlessnses, a sense of no horizons or boundaries, created by a mind that has no material substance.

[jupiviv]

This kind of consciousness is classified as the "god" realms, and the "form" and "formless" realms in Buddhism(see the Buddhist "realms of existence"), because of the associated feelings of happiness and power. But this is infinitely away from the peak of consciousness. These are considered part of delusion, which is poetically called "life and death".

Also, I don't think this state of mind has to necessarily be artistic or mystical. It could be scientific, philosophical and practical too. A great god realm being can produce such a state of mind easily, even when in acute physical pain or immersed in some mundane activity. Essentially, it is an unperturbed, but incomplete, consciousness. Due to this consciousness, one can use parts of one's brain which would otherwise get used for other things, or wouldn't be used at all, for a single thing.

From my experience, these states of mind are associated with a tingling, almost orgasmic sensation in the brain. The emotion common to all of them(for me) is the kind of way we used to feel when we were children, and in the company of someone or something we liked, or when we saw rain for the first time, i.e, the feeling that we've everything we want and nothing could go wrong. That is why the "form" and "formless" realms are also called "the realms without desire", because the ache of desire isn't felt in them.

[cousinbasil]

An interesting topic and two intriguing posts.

Jupiviv, let me highlight some things from your post above:

This kind of consciousness is classified as the "god" realms, and the "form" and "formless" realms in Buddhism... But this is infinitely away from the peak of consciousness. These are considered part of delusion

I don't think this state of mind has to necessarily be artistic or mystical. It could be scientific, philosophical and practical too.

You go on to add:

That is why the "form" and "formless" realms are also called "the realms without desire", because the ache of desire isn't felt in them.

You note as well that these states of consciousness are incomplete, which I agree with, since all states of consciousness are incomplete.

My question to you concerns your classification of these states as "delusional." There is necessarily a negative connotation to this term, yet if these states can be put to practical use as you have observed, and one does not read more into them than one can practically realize from them, are they necessarily delusional? Can an aspect of anything be practical and delusional at once?

Delusion is most often marked by "the ache of desire." It seems to me if this ache is absent, to that extent delusion must be absent as well?

[Homer]

Mystic states of consciousness are simply the result of the brain and it's neurons producing an abnormal quantity of thought simultaneously, which leads to a particular quality of consciousness.

If anything, the presence of thought implies the state of mind is not a mystic one.

Unfortunately, I cannot offer a definition of my own. Whenever I attempt to do so, I find myself speaking nonsense. We (or I) have no language to describe the mind state, and no images to picture it. Fear, anger, sadness, etc. are mind state easily recognized by external signs... not so with mystic mind states.

I think in mystic states, thought mirrors and patterns itself after nature with abnormal detail, and this is combined with a proclivity toward metaphor and symbol.

Detail, the proclivity for metaphor and symbol are common to poets, writers, scientists, and philosophers even in their "normal states of mind".

Finally, in these states, there seems to be no limit to where thought can go.

People with ADD, or schizophrenia also have no limits to where their thoughts can go.

They too can experience this "kingdom" of thought.

I rather dwell in the kingdom of silence (mental silence).

The word "spiritual" seems entirely appropriate for atheists.

The word spiritual seems appropriate for he who seeks higher understanding of ones' self. Such a label should not be assigned to a group of people, but rather earned on individual basis. Some of the most ignorant, illiterate, hateful, and racist people I've met have been atheists.

[cousinbasil]

The word "spiritual" seems entirely appropriate for atheists.

Certainly I have heard more atheists use the term than anyone else. It is almost always used as an adjective, the noun form "spirit" less common. It often makes me curious as to what is actually being described, as though the one's spirit is not any kind of real entity, yet what then might be meant by "spirituality" should not be in question. If one is enlivened by one's spirit, where does it dwell? Is it not the spark of life itself? I have come to view the human animal as a series of shells or bodies, one inside the other, as it were. From the outside in, there is the physical body, leading toward the soul, then inward to the spirit itself. Certainly, one's corpse exists every bit as much as one's physical body exists when one is living. The difference is that the inner shells are no longer tethered to it, wrapped up in its DNA coils - they have gone elsewhere. But can one be sure they have ceased to exist as something apart from the memories of those left behind? One can remember a deceased pet, for example. Are the deceased pet and the deceased human no longer different?

[jupiviv]

...all states of consciousness are incomplete.

If that is true, then how can you be sure of it? According to you, your consciousness would not be complete at the time you say that all states of consciousness are incomplete, so you may be wrong.

if these states can be put to practical use as you have observed, and one does not read more into them than one can practically realize from them, are they necessarily delusional?

Yes, if the purpose for which one uses them is rational. But I don't think an enlightened person will need those states of mind, because he understands that they are illusions.

Delusion is most often marked by "the ache of desire." It seems to me if this ache is absent, to that extent delusion must be absent as well?

A person may think that he no longer has desire, because he thinks he currently has what he wants. But desire does not go away unless one has overcome the attachments that lead to desire in the first place. The blissful states of mind create the illusion that one has what one wants, which is precisely the delusion that leads to desire. Desire and fulfillment of desire are the same delusion, and follow each other as surely as night and day. A Buddha does not experience desire, and for that very reason, he also doesn't experience the fulfillment of desire. This realisation is, as you can imagine, the last and greatest hurdle that stands in the way of a deluded person and genuine enlightenment. Hakuin called it the Great Death.

[cousinbasil]

cousinbasil: ...all states of consciousness are incomplete.
jupiviv: If that is true, then how can you be sure of it? According to you, your consciousness would not be complete at the time you say that all states of consciousness are incomplete, so you may be wrong.

If it were wrong, then there would be a state of consciousness from which I could unequivocally state so. That is, there would be a state of consciousness in which one was certain there could be no more complete state. Certainly, from such a state, one could remember having been in "lesser," incomplete states. But how would one be able to ascertain there is none more complete? All one would know would be that one has never been in a more complete state. One could not be sure such a state was impossible - therefore that state could not be complete. By extension, all states are then incomplete in at least this sense.

[Bobo]

A Buddha does not experience desire, and for that very reason, he also doesn't experience the fulfillment of desire.

What do you mean? Doesn't a buddha eat, for example, because he desires to?

[jupiviv]

But how would one be able to ascertain there is none(state of consciousness) more complete?

When there are no more delusions. But this is admittedly quite hard, because the "ghosts" of delusions sometimes haunt our minds after the delusions themselves have been dismantled. This is because the root of all delusions is hard to identify and keep in mind at all times. A person who identifies the root delusion can be said to have complete consciousness. And in that case, the consciousness wouldn't be a "state" of consciousness, but simply consciousness.

[cousinbasil]

When there are no more delusions.

But thinking there could be a state in which delusions have been rooted out could also be a delusion. I see why you are saying it is quite hard!

[jupiviv]

But thinking there could be a state in which delusions have been rooted out could also be a delusion. I see why you are saying it is quite hard!

That would depend on your definition of delusion. I.E, whether your definition of delusion is itself deluded or not!

[cousinbasil]

But thinking there could be a state in which delusions have been rooted out could also be a delusion. I see why you are saying it is quite hard!

That would depend on your definition of delusion. I.E, whether your definition of delusion is itself deluded or not!

I think we agree on the definition, yet that definition hinges upon the idea of truth in an absolute sense. Philosophically it has been given here that an example of an absolute truth would be the statement that there are no married bachelors.

My point is that you seem to imply delusions are related somehow, that there is "the" root delusion which can be plucked out, and all the rest will follow. I think it may be more random than that, like weeds that keep cropping up in your plot of ground. They can be big or small. But a delusion is nothing more than believing a thing to be true when it is not. In this case, "believing" means "accepting" or not challenging. For instance, it is pointless to challenge the assertion that there are no married bachelors as long as one understands that one is not speaking of a Bachelor of Science. It is not a "belief" in a religious sense, one is talking about a logical necessity.

But how many things are logical necessities? As school children, we are rewarded for accepting what is taught to us, and learning it, for the most part. Do we verify every single fact presented to us? It would be impossible. I, for one, have had the unnerving experience that a long-held notion - however minor - becomes overturned at some later point. Depending on what logical extensions have been connected to such a notion, the removal of the "delusion" - the tacit acceptance of the factuality of the untrue thing - can be quite unsettling. Just recently I was watching TV news with my sister-in-law about the U.S. sending a certain number of troops somewhere. She started to say something, and suddenly a puzzled expression came upon her face, like something had just hit her for the first time. Sure enough, she asked me how many soldiers were in a troop. While a troop can be a group of soldiers, she thought it meant for example the same thing as a company or battalion. Therefore, all her life when she heard the U.S. was deploying troops, her idea of what that meant was vastly incorrect. Thirty thousand troops, in other words, is not three million soldiers, it is 30,000 soldiers.

I think we all have things like that within us, and there is no way we can "root out" all of them by ourselves, let alone trust ourselves to recognize a state in which all false beliefs or assumptions have been dismantled. If one survives an earthquake, how does one know the series of aftershocks have passed? Can one truly be sure the "ground" is now solid?

A corollary to what I am saying is that I do not think all delusions are born out of desire.

[jupiviv]

What words you use to describe delusions - roots, weeds, crops - doesn't really matter. What matters is that you know what a delusion is. The moment a person truly understands that, he is a Buddha. But no one except that person himself can be sure whether he does understand it or not.

The problem is that people can say words without knowing what they mean, and they seek affirmation from others. They may even reason about those words to an extent, but that reasoning would be superficial. Academic philosophers, mystics and other intellectuals perfect the art of reasoning like that, which is why people often think they are enlightened.

[paco]

This kind of consciousness is classified as the "god" realms, and the "form" and "formless" realms in Buddhism(see the Buddhist "realms of existence"), because of the associated feelings of happiness and power. But this is infinitely away from the peak of consciousness. These are considered part of delusion, which is poetically called "life and death".

Also, I don't think this state of mind has to necessarily be artistic or mystical. It could be scientific, philosophical and practical too. A great god realm being can produce such a state of mind easily, even when in acute physical pain or immersed in some mundane activity. Essentially, it is an unperturbed, but incomplete, consciousness. Due to this consciousness, one can use parts of one's brain which would otherwise get used for other things, or wouldn't be used at all, for a single thing.

From my experience, these states of mind are associated with a tingling, almost orgasmic sensation in the brain. The emotion common to all of them(for me) is the kind of way we used to feel when we were children, and in the company of someone or something we liked, or when we saw rain for the first time, i.e, the feeling that we've everything we want and nothing could go wrong. That is why the "form" and "formless" realms are also called "the realms without desire", because the ache of desire isn't felt in them.

Good one.
Jupiviv