Inflate or destroy self?

@IRFRANK,

Superficial status tends to imply superficial unity, presence, and control.

@fresco,

In my epiphenomenon that was a perfect example of gratuitous superficial opinion ! Laughing

@Olivier5,

Olivier, part of the problem here is your notion of the "classic definition of mystic" by non-mystics. The "mystics" with whom I am familiar do not think dualistically of "souls" (or selves) moving to merge with a transcendent and separate spiritual entity: that's dualistic theism if you ask me, a dualism that bifurcates the world into "this-worldly material reality" and an "other- worldly spiritual reality"). Mystics (which are non-dualistic by definition) do not achieve unity with something separate and grander; they have realized that they were never separate from anything from the beginning. Beyond one and beyond two.

2 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Oh yes ? You presumably have not noticed how the lexical content chosen by "the fresco" is controlling the lexical choice of "the Olivier" and "the Fil Alburquerque". "The Frank" as we know, has even less choice, but uses the thumbs up as a substitute !

3 Replies

@JLNobody,

JLNobody wrote:

Mystics (which are non-dualistic by definition) do not achieve unity with something separate and grander; they have realized that they were never separate from anything from the beginning. Beyond one and beyond two.

I cannot find a definition online that agrees with this. You are offering your preferred superstition, not a consensus definition of mystic. Furthermore, "classic" religious dualism is expressed by the belief that the world is ruled by a spirit of either good or evil, and a belief that humans have two basic natures (or "sides to the coin"), one physical and the other spiritual.

Why do you people always make up your own definitions for words? Igm does that bullshit, too. I wish people like you and igm had the honesty to admit that you are promoting your belief set, your superstition, rather than writing as though you were revealing profound truths.

3 Replies

In the rough and tumble of political threads, people often point out to their interlocutors that they get to have their own opinions, but they don't get to have their own facts. That applies in language, too. You get to have your own ideas, but you don't get to have your own definitions. If people don't have a consensus on the definitions of words, language as communication begins to break down, and eventually all communication ceases.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta, I agree the term "mysticism" has been historically used both dualistically aand non-dualistically.

But if you read JLNs post he starts off referring to those mystics he is familiar with.He then proceeds to a point about "mystics which are non-dualistic by definition", which I think he might have better phrased as "Those mystics to whom I refer who consider mysticism to be exclusively non-dualistic..."

Now of course you are free to classify my response as part of a JLN+fresco double act. That is your choice (or indeed is it ? ...which is a point I have suggested elsewhere).

Finally I note now you have refered to "political" threads which this ostensibly is not. Indeed, it is a thread where the medium of linguistic exchange has been deemed to be unable to do justice to some of the counter-intuitive ideas being suggested. The point was made earlier that the mystic non-dualistic has no requirement to communicate..he and the receiver are one and the same.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Sorry Set, but this is not something I can bother to take seriously. I see that the point(s) I was trying to make are lost on you. I hope Fresco's qualification will help you here.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

First time I agree with you... I'll open up a bottle of champagne. Smile

0 Replies

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

A meaningless question from one who has a vested interest in the maintenance of a "self " that is hooked on dichotomous labels like "right" versus "wrong" and "know" versus "guess". Your persistent attempted application of such labelling is equivalent to the attempted application of the soccer "offside rule" to golf.

So you are saying there is no guessing involved. You KNOW there is no self.

I love ya, Fresco. You amuse me.

0 Replies

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

"The Frank" as we know, has even less choice, but uses the thumbs up as a substitute !

I have no idea of what you were getting at here, Fresco, but I have NEVER given a thumbs up or thumbs down to any post.

2 Replies

@JLNobody,

Quote:

Olivier, part of the problem here is your notion of the "classic definition of mystic" by non-mystics.

No. That "classic definition" was from mystics themselves, like the sufi. The Kabalists and the Christian mystics would probably agree with it, too.

Quote:

The "mystics" with whom I am familiar do not think dualistically of "souls" (or selves) moving to merge with a transcendent and separate spiritual entity

Well, they must be from some new brand of new-age mysticism I am not familiar with.

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

My mistake then I retract that bit. You have even less choice than I thought !

2 Replies

@fresco,

And just how does that change a dot on what I just said ? Wink

0 Replies

@fresco,

Quote:

You presumably have not noticed how the lexical content chosen by "the fresco" is controlling the lexical choice of "the Olivier" and "the Fil Alburquerque".

We're just serving you your own medecine. Don't confuse parody with imitation.

1 Reply

@fresco,

Considering your talks are one and the same since I arrived at this site you haven't got much choice either... Laughing

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

I agree that "higher self" was a dualistic move within the ontological bifurcation I mentioned earlier, and that monotheistic mystics were looking for some sort of mergence with "God". But this does not detract from the common starting point of the superficiality of "everyday selves".

2 Replies

@Olivier5,

Do you think the "medicine" worked ? And if so, on whom ? Wink

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

O.K., Olivier. I see that my focus has been on MY preference for Buddhist mystics. I see in Aldous Huxley's The Perennial Philosophy that he includes Sufi and Christian mystics (like Eckart). Let me squirm a bit here and suggest what I have always felt to be the case, i.e., that Christian and Sufi mystics use dualistic and highly personal language (e.g., the Bhakti yoga) to put a metaphorical note of LOVE into their relationship with Ultimate Reality. But I still think that a deeper understanding of their expressions shows them to be essentially one (no pun intended) with that of the non-dual Buddhist.

2 Replies

@fresco,

Quote:

this does not detract from the common starting point of the superficiality of "everyday selves

Talk for your self. My everyday self is very deep...

0 Replies

Inflate or destroy self?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know