by Sirona 131 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
Joshu asked the teacher Nansen, "What is the true Way?"
Nansen answered, "Everyday way is the true Way."
Joshu asked, "Can I study it?"
Nansen answered, "The more you study, the further from the Way."
Joshu asked, "If I don't study it, how can I know it?"
Nansen answered, "The Way does not belong to things seen, nor to things unseen. It does not belong to things known, nor to things unknown. Do not seek it, study it, or name it. To find yourself on it, open yourself as wide as the sky."
Hi Simon
Sirona. I could tiptoe all around it but it comes down to someone being an idiot and it isn't me.
Well since you say so, that must be true.
For the record, I didn't call you an idiot, but you seem to want to call me an idiot.
Whatever makes you feel better.
I can see your point regarding the quotation. I didn't see it as "you're a fool because you don't believe in mystical things" I saw it as "if you refuse to *try* a method to produce a mystical experience, how can you say they don't exist?". He simply said that he, as someone who believes he has had mystical experiences, would be willing to tell others what methods he used. If someone says his methods would not work (to induce such an experience) he was challenging them to follow the method for themselves before concluding it all doesn't exist.
Sirona
Gill
Thanks for the book reference. I've been looking for something else to read (apart from parenting books!). I will order it.
Your experiences highlight something important. We have extra-sensory capabilities and there must be a scientific explanation for such things.
I've mentioned before on this forum studies which have been done which show a *significant* result for communication over long distances - by the mind. Participants are several miles apart, both in sealed rooms, with no known method of communication with each other. They still produce results which show that they are somehow communicating and the results are beyond mere chance.
Of course people keep ignoring these experimental results because this sort of thing disrupts their worldview.
Mystical experiences also must have a scientific explanation and in particular I refer to not just altered states of awareness but these other "communication" type experiences.
We already know that particles can communicate on a quantum level no matter what the distance between them. How is it so difficult for the scientists on here to grasp that ESP or "consciousness" communication can exist?
Sirona
Journey-on: I assert that many times you confuse "not real" with "unseen".
You can actually determine this? How?
I say something can be real and unseen at the same time and NOT be imaginary.
Context, my dear Watson! Context!
Not every unseen "thing", however. If we stay in the context of the Topic (a novel idea!) we are talking about MYSTICAL "things". I answered specifically according to the Topic. I can only assume you meant to do the same.
Therefore, your assertion is wrong. (In the Mystical context).
I am well aware of the anatomy of olfaction. ( Aromatherapy is a deep interest of mine .)
Aromatherapy? What exactly are you asserting about Aroma "therapy"?
What I am saying is that the quintessence of a flower is intangible, yet real and not imaginary. It transcends scent and interacts in a "spiritual dimension" and then its essence....not its physical scent...can literally transform some aspect of our being if used properly. There is a spiritual power behind the ESSENCE of all things living and in my experience, this power is REAL....it is not IMAGINARY...and it is the quintessential substance of existence itself.
The "quintessence of a flower? The fifth essence of a flower? This is real and not imaginary?
I don't want to sound like I am heaping ridicule upon you. I'm not. I just want to point out that you've entered the discussion about Mystical things with wonderful examples of what I was pointing out about vocabulary words. The use of vocabulary to evoke emotional responses INSTEAD OF scientific measurements is the dividing point between knowledge and fanciful imagination.
"Transcends scent" is an interesting phrase.
"Spiritual dimension" is also.
"transform some aspect of our being..." another example.
These phrases seem to be saying something actual--yet--they don't! They are poetic and aesthetic art rather than actual statements of fact.
Human responses to smells from a flower are connected to their associations psychologically.
An example will illustrate:
The value of spending time in my great-grandmother's kitchen is connected psychologically to the apricot fried pies she used to bake for me. Consequently, the strong emotional response I have to the smell of apricot has more to do with the ASSOCIATION than with the smell per se. You see?
This is what subjective is all about. MY experience and not yours. The aroma itself is not the "essence" of anything (but the apricot!)
The transcendance is illusory unless you are imprecisely referring to my great-grandmother. Her relationship with me is the catalyst and not the apricot scent. It is a signifier. Like the statement: Clouds mean rain. Clouds don't mean anything. Clouds (through our association with rain) indicate rain. See the difference?
It may flow from the real world, but much of it begins in the fantasy world of imagination and make-believe.
No, not really. The "imagination" is not any different from a blank sheet of paper we sketch upon trying to come up with a workable idea. Would anybody attribute great inventions to the existence of the blank sheet of paper? No. Our imagination is where we are able to "try out" ideas BEFORE we test them in the practical real world. The imagination is not something mystical or transcendant. It is a process of thinking which allows sythesis between various ideas. Some ideas are practical and others are nonsensical. The distinguishing factor is the ability of of an idea to work in the practical world in actual form (quantifiable, definable and concrete).
To me there is an experientialist alternative to that which motivates both subjectivism and objectivism.
To me, my farts aren't so bad. To everybody else, they are distasteful. You see? The subjectivity is the key and not the fart. There is no transcendant essence to my own fart. Trust me on this.
Why should a "mystic" want them to be "real"?
Unless the Mystic can at least pretend their pronouncements are in some way practical (i.e. real) nobody would care what they said!
The mumbo and the jumbo are only dangerous when people who are at risk select the mystical medicine instead of the scientifically tested one.
Take certain religious practices as an example. Nobody ever died from saying a rosary or attending a Mass or going door to door. But, these activities replace other possible more practical activities.
In the end of life, we spent our time doing this and that. What it adds up to proves whether our actions amounted to a hill of real beans or magic ones.
Well then.
I am a believer in Science AND SPIRIT. Words work for some of parts of these things, and not for others.
I tell you from my own experience, yes, his words are fitting, and no, there is no way to describe mystical experiences. And apparently I'm not afraid to be called "an idiot" by the majority posting on this thread.
Love,
Baba.
no way to describe mystical experiences.
Your sentence contains the word "experiences".
An experience is something only YOU can feel. It is, by nature, PERSONAL.
Your toothache hurts you. My toothache hurts me. I can empathize with your pain without feeling it. I can never experience your toothache.
The ability or inability to describe YOUR PERSONAL experiences has nothing whatever to do with whether the EXPERIENCES THEMSELVES are real. OF COURSE THEY ARE REAL.
The Topic Heading isn't talking about experiences. It is talking about ALL THINGS MYSTICAL and asking if these THINGS are real or not.
Mystical "things" don't exist as ostensible referents objectively available to OTHERS in the way REAL things do.
The question is "why?"
The answer is "Because there is no "there" there.
Your Mystical Experience is merely an experience which you cannot explain and, therefore (because you cannot understand it or explain it) you label it MYSTICAL.
If I didn't know what a wet dream was or what caused it, I damned sure would think it was Mystical!
But, once you know what causes an experience you can throw away the "mystical" label and insert a more accurate causation.
And that's the whole point.
Terry, we are like two people who speak different languages. You can ALMOST get what they are saying, but it's like
there is no word in your language for the word or phrase trying to be expressed. It doesn't translate well so both misunderstand
the other. Those who speak my language know exactly what I'm talking about and those who speak yours know exactly what
you are talking about.
I could waste time explaning what I mean by quintessence, aromatherapy, spiritual dimension, transcendence, and attempt
to show you examples, but you don't speak my language, so you would resort back to your language which has no words
for the thing I wish to convey. I understand the quanitifiable concrete science, the physical causes, the psychological associations,
etc. of which you speak, so please don't attempt to make me appear the fool. As I said, there's a problem between the languages.
I could waste time explaning what I mean by quintessence, aromatherapy, spiritual dimension, transcendence, and attempt
to show you examples, but you don't speak my language, so you would resort back to your language which has no words
for the thing I wish to convey. I understand the quanitifiable concrete science, the physical causes, the psychological associations,
etc. of which you speak, so please don't attempt to make me appear the fool. As I said, there's a problem between the languages.
Gee, it looks like English!
Are you sure you mean "language"? Or, do you really mean something else?
The only difference between the language I'm using and the language you are using is that of precision in the expression of clarity.
If I owed you a hundred bucks and I wrote a check in payment for $10.00 instead, could I tell the court (when you took me to small claims to collect the other $90.00)...
"Your Honor, I don't owe the money. I simply use numbers differently than he does!"
??????
Now, why do you imagine I couldn't get away with that?
The answer you come up with with tell you my response to the check you've just written me in your above response.
You see, this is a DISCUSSION FORUM.
Think about that.
I could waste time explaning what I mean....
You see how that doesn't wash in the context of a DISCUSSION FORUM??
It makes you look like you are cornered in our debate and have no actual reply and are now trying a diversion tactic.
I don't think you are. But, it does take on that appearance.
So.....
when you get the time....
explain, please, the best you can. (Preferably using English. Or, at least name the "language" you are using.)
Thanks!
I didn't see it as "you're a fool because you don't believe in mystical things" I saw it as "if you refuse to *try* a method to produce a mystical experience, how can you say they don't exist?". He simply said that he, as someone who believes he has had mystical experiences, would be willing to tell others what methods he used. If someone says his methods would not work (to induce such an experience) he was challenging them to follow the method for themselves before concluding it all doesn't exist.
Ok, if I claim that I have a 'method' to experience something mystical then can I claim that I am right and challenge averyone else to follow it if they are to disprove me? (BTW: following my 'method' involves buying my book ... please make cheques payable to "this sure beats working for a living" and sign it "gullible").
I can already conclude that it doesn't exist based on existing proven science and the established laws of physics and nature.
It's up to him to try and prove something (which of course, like all of the other mystics, he cannot do).
For me, it's case-closed. What annoys me is that these people effectively pray on often vulnerable people, the same as religions tend to do. It's all quackers IMO.
