What’s in a Name? Labeling the Mystic

“What is a mystic anyway, besides an eccentric weirdo who fits in nowhere and in no place, someone who is seen by most Christians as too esoteric for the faith, and by the New Age movement as a dinosaur of a bygone era–the age of Pieces, anyone?–best left buried?….”

Indigo Onyx

“I’m a Mystic,” I told them. They’d known me for years but I’d never come clean about it before, because I knew they wouldn’t like it very much.

“You’re a what?” Alice asked. “Is that like a witch?” Her eyes got all big as if she thought I was about to cast a spell on her.

“Isn’t that a sin?” Kendra said from across the table in a low whisper.

I took a deep breath and tried to explain myself…

cf5a8d2416ee41db05ecc8d5ec4c654fPinterest 

What is a mystic anyway, besides an eccentric weirdo who fits in nowhere and in no place, someone who is seen by most Christians as too esoteric for the faith, and by the New Age movement as a dinosaur of a bygone era–the age of Pieces, anyone?–best left buried?

Merriam-Webster defines mystic as:

Of or relating to mysteries or esoteric rites

Relating to mysticism or mystics

Mysterious

Obscure

View original post 872 more words

Advertisements

MANY ARE CALLED, BUT FEW ARE CHOSEN

This blog post by lewislafontaine is from Carl Jung Depth Psychology

The words “many are called, but few are chosen” are singularly appropriate here, for the development of personality from the germ-state to full consciousness is at once a charisma and a curse, because its first fruit is the conscious and unavoidable segregation of the single mi individual from the undifferentiated and unconscious herd.

This means isolation, and there is no more comforting word for it. Neither family nor society nor position can save him from this fate, nor yet the most successful adaptation to his environment, however smoothly he fits in.

The development of personality is a favor that must be paid for dearly. But the people who talk most loudly about developing their personalities are the very ones who are least mindful of the results, which are such as to frighten away all weaker spirits.

Yet the development of personality means more than just hatching forth monsters, or of isolation. It also means fidelity to the law of one’s own being.

For the word “fidelity” I should prefer, in this context, the Greek word used in the New Testament, nioris, which is erroneously translated “faith.” It really means “trust,” “trustful loyalty.”

Fidelity to the law of one’s own being is a trust in this law, a loyal perseverance and a confident hope; in short, an attitude such as a religious man should have towards God.

It can now be seen how portentous is the dilemma that emerges from behind our problem: personality can never develop unless the individual chooses his own way, consciously and with moral deliberation.

Not only the casual motive – necessity – but conscious moral decision must lend its strength to the process of building the personality.

If the first is lacking, then the alleged development is a mere acrobatics of the will: If the second, it will get stuck in unconscious automatism.

But a a man can make a conscious decision to go his own way only if he holds that way to be the best. If any other way were held to be better, then he would live and develop that other personality instead of his own.

The other ways are conventionalities of a moral, social, political, philosophical, or religious nature.

The fact that the conventions always flourish in one form or another only proves that the vast majority of mankind do not choose their own way, but convention, and consequently develop not themselves but a method and a mode of life at the cost of their own wholeness. ~Carl Jung; The Development of Personality.

COMMENT BY mysticexperiences.net

Does this apply to the mystic state?

SELF-HELP GURUS?

 

Oh boy! This reblog could be contentious.

It’s somewhat bigoted and prejudiced in my view. I cannot accept whopping generalisations, though in this case the author does provide some light provenance for his assertions.

As the article is a needed heads-up on the subject though, it’s re-posted here for you to decide:


SELF-HELP GURUS

by Zeno The Stoic April 12, 2018

Self help gurus are guaranteed fakes. So are all other self anointed gurus. Avoid them – run for your life and keep your purse locked.

I have parked this article under the category “health”, since I find self help gurus the most insidious but you will find this species of pariah in every walk of life and every area of commerce.

I first noticed them in finance: such people are a huge danger to your wealth. They promise you will make millions in up and down markets by buying their absurd courses. It is likely they have never traded in the financial markets and that if they have the exercise was a failure.

It is all about money: getting yours.

The Dalai Lama doesn’t need to peddle books, nor does the Archbishop of Canterbury. They may be worth listening to, they may not. But at least they are not looking for you to finance their expensive lifestyles. Much the same can be said for qualified doctors or therapists. At least they have (usually!) had a rigorous training in a recognised discipline.

The real con artists are those who sell books, courses and seminars telling YOU how to achieve happiness and contentment when THEY have singularly failed to achieve any measure of well being and are as far removed from nirvana as it is possible to be.

READ MORE

Reblogged on Mysticexperiences.net

THE DOORS OF PERCEPTION

Another great reblog of mystical validation from zenothestoic.com:


Is it so strange that a deep interest in science should be combined with an equally deep desire for mysticism and transcendance?

I think not; the two can be seen as two sides of the same coin. Reality seen both from the intellect and from the senses. A yearning for transcendance. Some would say a desire to escape from the base reality. Which is all that is accessible to most of us in a “normal” state of mind.

READ ORIGINAL POST

A TIME TO LIVE – Weltanschauung

 

This reblog from the blog of a Follower of Mystic Experiences has come to a crossroads in his life – to live secondhand, or at last to experience, feel his own, real, individual, personal reactions, instincts, thoughts and senses, know his own authentic voice …

As usual, the layout and illustration accompanying this posting glide potently into his writing.

A highly recommended reading experience:

A TIME TO LIVE – Weltanschauung

Don’t live by examples, but seek your own path

Seekers having relinquished religions and other spiritual dead ends might find a great deal of solace in this reblog.

It emphasises the reality of the individual attested to by mystics.

This, in a world still confounded by the failed ways of communalism, communism, socialism, liberalism, progressivism and all the other artificial human isms that veil us from ourselves and our place in Ultimate Reality, is perhaps part of a reawakening to the fundamental values and original purpose of individuality:

Adventures of a Reluctant Mystic

From The Red Book by C.G. Jung:

“Believe me: It is no teaching and no instruction that I give you. On what basis should I presume to teach you? I give you news of the way of this man, but not of your own way. My path is not your path, therefore I cannot teach you. The way is within us, but not in Gods, nor in teachings, nor in laws. Within us is the way, the truth, and the life.

Woe betide those who live by way of examples! Life is not with them. If you live according to an example, you thus live the life of that example, but who should live your own life if not yourself? So live yourselves.

The signposts have fallen, unblazed trails lie before us. Do not be greedy to gobble up the fruits of foreign fields. Do you not know that you…

View original post 259 more words

EASY DOES IT – bad teachers?

Easy Does It

This essay so agrees with my prejudices on the subject of spontaneous mystical experiences of Reality (MER) I just have to draw your attention to it.

My only caveat is the constant use of the word ‘God’. My experiences taught me there’s no such thing if this is a reference to the god of human religions.

I prefer the phrase “Ultimate Reality” or “Reality” with a capital R.

The human word GOD is too small to come anywhere near to describing the Reality mystics experience. The word is tainted with insistent human values and dangerously limited spiritual experience.

Apart from that, this article is an essential foray into real spiritual meaning, in my experience.

Marc replied:

Thank you, Keith, for visiting our site and for reblogging the piece of spiritual writing published on this page.

I have read the caveat you noted down at your website, and I have no problems with it, to wit:

My only caveat is the constant use of the word ‘God’. My experiences taught me there’s no such thing if this is a reference to the god of human religions.

My use of the term “God” is a only a matter of familiar linguistic convenience and grammatical facilitation, to enable the communication of my message to others (readers in this case). In no way does my use of the word refer to the typical “god” (or “God”) of any human religion. You are right in that regard.

The truly ineffable is beyond the label and definition of words or word constructs. It is, also, beyond mental conceptualization and comprehension by the intellectual functionality of the human mind. One can readily substitute the word “God” in the article with, say, your preferred use of “Ultimate Reality” or “Reality” with a capital R. I would not have any problem with that.

Permitting me to make light of the matter, let me say that from a mystic’s perspective, I suppose it might boil down to adopting and using a favored “pet name” for the utterly transcendent Reality. Joel Goldsmith had his: the “Infinite Invisible.” Mystics, philosophers and theologians from various cultures and traditions down through the ages have resorted to fanciful expressions such as the Absolute, the First Cause, the Prime Mover, Spirit, Brahman, Purusha, the Self, the unutterable Nameless One or “Yahweh” in the Hebraic tradition for which the Jews had to concoct the name “Adonai” just so that they could have a representative name to legitimately pronounce (seems crazy and ridiculous but there was a reason behind the seeming madness), the Tao, Nirvana, Allah, and so on and so forth; and, of course, the much ballyhooed yet still in vogue everyman’s term in the English-speaking world — God.

It would seem that not even scientists can be spared from the tendency of customarily providing some reverential, awe-inspiring nomenclature for a phenomenon beyond the immediate purview of scientific reasoning and observation. Thus, we have terms such as the “Big Bang” (why not the Big Fart?), the “Zero Point Field,” the “Singularity,” the Higgs boson “God-Particle,” Consciousness, etc. all denoting “something that’s there but not quite out there.”

Aware of this very human foible, I exercised enough prudence to raise the potential issue or problematic matter at the very beginning of this site’s substantive discourse on the subject of contemporary mysticism. It sets the tone for the discussion and for the entire site as well.

By the way, my private “pet name” for God would be “The Truly Ineffable.” It reminds me of the divine paradox that “there is this thing that is not a thing at all” — a No-Thing.

Thanks again for appreciating the post, Keith.

Cheers.

 

Waking Up – Steve Taylor Ph.D.

Evolutionary_Mystic Post

Are spiritual experiences becoming more common?

What are spiritual experiences? I don’t think of them in religious terms. I see them as moments in which our awareness becomes more intense and more expansive than normal, so that the world around us becomes more real and alive, and we feel a strong sense of connection to nature and other human beings. We might feel a sense of joy or inner stillness, and feel that somehow the world around us is “in harmony” or has a meaning that we find difficult to express.

If a person from a religious background has such an experience, they may well interpret it in religious terms. They might see it as a gift from God, and believe that the aliveness and harmony they perceive is a glimpse of the divine, or of heaven. But if you’re not religious, there’s no reason to think in these terms…

View original post 774 more words

Physics and the Evidence for Non-Material Consciousness

Ruminations

selfie

There is an old story of the net and the fishermen. A net having a weave that lets any object smaller than 10 inches long slip through it. Fishermen cast the net in the lake and harvest fish always ten inches long or longer. The fishermen mistakenly conclude that there are no fish in the lake smaller than 10 inches. Philosophy 101 students easily recognize the fishermen’s mistake. If there were fish in the lake smaller than 10 inches they would slip through the net.

Now imagine that there is some constraint on these fishermen that prevents them from weaving nets any more finely than they have. Is there any other means by which they might acquire evidence of fish smaller than ten inches long? As it happens there is. They can take some of the larger fish, keep them alive in captivity, and mate them. If successful, they would…

View original post 2,557 more words

MYSTICISM: Defining Mysticism by Carl McColman

Despite reducing mysticism to the anthropormorphic mythomania of the existence of a God, this is a useful introduction to a subject much more profound than religions in general and Christianity in particular.

Mysticexperiences.net

The Value of Sparrows

From The Big Book of Christian Mysticism

For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
nor are your ways my ways, says the Lord.
(Isaiah 55:8)

What, then, is time? I know well enough what it is, provided that
nobody asks me; but if I am asked what it is and try to explain, I am baffled.
(Augustine)

Some people think mysticism means having powerful spiritual experiences, like seeing Heavenly visions, or hearing supernatural voices, or feeling a sense of communion with God, or undergoing profound shifts in consciousness.  Others see it as a spiritual dimension to (and beyond) religion, in which the cultural, ethical, and theological differences between religions are somehow resolved in a trans-verbal state of unity.  Still others dismiss it as the fuzzy, illogical, and irrational element that makes religion and spirituality so distasteful to those who prefer to conduct their lives according to science rather than faith…

View original post 3,672 more words