Mystical Thinking.

[crow]

Probably that is why I no longer bother with 'spirituality forums', finding them to be as far removed from spirituality as it is possible to get. Some of the very worst are so-called 'taoism forums'.

[Dylar]

The mystic experience isn't non-thought, it is thought in its least adulterated state, thought divorced from sensory input, thought untainted by discourse with others and their thoughts.  The tools of the mystic—isolation, asceticism, meditation, trance states etc.—aren't tools for emptying the mind of thought (even if they are presented as such), they are tools for clearing the mind of impediments to thought and the obligation to consciously shape thought or herd it in a particular direction.

[crow]

We are talking about two different things here.
What you say is true, up to the point where it is no longer true.
When I say 'no thought', that is exactly what I mean:
A state in which thought is utterly superfluous, and simply ceases to occur.
Indeed, as soon as a thought manifests, the no-thought state ceases, and the thinker returns to its accustomed state.
There is, for example, in the no-thought state, no hint of emotion, or identity; only one-ness with everything.
Thinking separates itself from everything else, in order to consider it.
Not-thinking removes that separation.

Ha. I had to repair the insane misspelling of that last 'separation' about nine times before it was right.

[Cargést]

Dylar, what is is beyond thought; a thought can be pointed out, but reality is the pointer - how can a knife cut itself?  The mystical experience, the experience of that reality (of one's own reality), is not primarily a thought-state, though, of course, thought might arise; even so, it is known, at that point, that one is not the thinker (it is no longer "my thought").  Shiva sits upon Kailash in the deepest of meditations, being only the Self; there is no thought, no feeling, no sensation, only existence.

[crow]

Anyway: so much for Mistickle Finkin.
It's so rare that it scarcely deserves a mention.
Call it a very obscure disease that has no known cure.

[Dylar]

We are talking about two different things here.
What you say is true, up to the point where it is no longer true.
When I say 'no thought', that is exactly what I mean:
A state in which thought is utterly superfluous, and simply ceases to occur.
Indeed, as soon as a thought manifests, the no-thought state ceases, and the thinker returns to its accustomed state.
There is, for example, in the no-thought state, no hint of emotion, or identity; only one-ness with everything.
Thinking separates itself from everything else, in order to consider it.
Not-thinking removes that separation.

Ha. I had to repair the insane misspelling of that last 'separation' about nine times before it was right.

That sense of "oneness"?  It's only in your head.  It is, as we like to call it in the parlance of my generation, a thought.

[Dylar]

Dylar, what is is beyond thought; a thought can be pointed out, but reality is the pointer - how can a knife cut itself?  The mystical experience, the experience of that reality (of one's own reality), is not primarily a thought-state, though, of course, thought might arise; even so, it is known, at that point, that one is not the thinker (it is no longer "my thought").  Shiva sits upon Kailash in the deepest of meditations, being only the Self; there is no thought, no feeling, no sensation, only existence.

Nonsense.  Mystical experiences, like any other thoughts, are ephemera conjured by the human mind, no more, no less.  The distinction is whether one imposes conscious control of the process.

[crow]

That sense of "oneness"?  It's only in your head.  It is, as we like to call it in the parlance of my generation, a thought.

Read that again. It's only in your head. Which is fine by me. If all you know is in your head, I have no problem with that. I am reporting that it doesn't necessarily have to be so confined.
I prefer being a bird than an egg.

[Cargést]

Nonsense.  Mystical experiences, like any other thoughts, are ephemera conjured by the human mind, no more, no less.  The distinction is whether one imposes conscious control of the process.

Perhaps the confusion is in calling it an "experience", when, in fact, it is what underlies experience.  An experience can be made out of it by reflecting the perceiver; for one, this is not a perception of the mind (there is no "sensation" to it, though sensation can be seen to be born from it - "The Kingdom of God comes with no signs by which to be seen"), and, secondly, it is still a step removed from reality.  The state to which one retreats (it is not an entry, but an exit), the "home state", is one of non-distinction.  Where is "thought" in the nondistinct?  By what indistinguishableness would you distinguish it?

Also, you ought clarify in your mind what constitutes a thought and what constitutes a feeling.  The feeling of oneness is, by definition, a feeling, not a thought.  It can be grasped by the mind, and so a concept of it can be formed (and transmitted), and in that process the feeling can even be lost, but the feeling itself is not a thoughtform.  Furthermore, that feeling is not the Truth of the mystical state (a better term for it?); the Truth of the mystical state is the self - the state allows the recognition of that Truth.  It is perfectly self-contained, in containing all, and thus comes not the "feeling of oneness", but the "knowing of oneness".

[crow]

Nice

[§Transcix]

Hold on, if a feeling can exist independently of thought like that, and if it's a very nice feeling to have, then is it purely a matter of hedonism? What makes a person choose between basking in "oneness" versus basking in "separatedness"? Why do you assume any such oneness even exists? Darker modalities for the human state of awareness do exist on the left-hand path (beyond superficial egocentrism), so I do believe a conscious choice, based on examination of the variables at play and the expression of personal character, is involved.

Surely there is oneness or there isn't, and the fact will remain constant regardless of what you 'feel' about it. Being one is much different than feeling one (and the latter could obviously result from the former). Of course you can never be a whole constituting a variety of parts beyond yourself, since you are by definition limited to yourself, which is why you often repeat that oneness involves loss of self. And yet simultaneously oneness involves not a surrender to pure feeling but quite the opposite a mechanical transformation of the self into a supposedly 'non-self'.

It seems to me the 'experience of oneness' is surely a self-contained experience of specific conventional stimuli, that may well be described as maintaining a state of awareness in a healthy way in full realization and acceptance of the real nature of the human condition and reality at large, but that should not be described as magically grasping reality at large precisely despite the human condition by transcending it as if it's a piece of litter to be tossed aside.

If you deny the human condition then your experience is a generic blob of undifferentiated oneness akin to the womb, without color, expression or individuality. I have long reviled this false path of weakness for the deception promoted by its supporters in the marketplace of ideas. It represents the most far-fetched, blindest faith as it declares that if it feels good then it must be good, that it is ineffable and therefore cannot be disputed and that it is boundless (without markers or points of reference, hence the ineffability) and therefore of a higher order. It's like being a drug addict and having no idea whatsoever that you're taking drugs or that it might be bad for you. It's the most comfortable escape possible, the most comforting lie.

[crow]

Strangely, I never concern myself with questions like that.
I function better because of it.
"It is what it is" covers most things.
Being functional and content doesn't seem to me to be hedonistic.

[§Transcix]

I was going to add that I look forward to passionate rebuttals invariably requiring their authors to step outside any solace of indifference. But your reply was quite reserved. Perhaps you are not explaining what you truly mean, or I am not interpreting your words as they were meant...

[crow]

You've got the wrong guy then.
I meant what I wrote.
I've had a high-speed, out-of-control computer for a mind.
But not for quite a while.

What I have discovered is this:
Most questions really do not need answers.
The questioner assumes there is an answer to the questions he asks.
Stop asking questions and very little changes.
It gets a lot quieter, though.

[WAAAAAAGH!]

Hold on, if a feeling can exist independently of thought like that, and if it's a very nice feeling to have, then is it purely a matter of hedonism? What makes a person choose between basking in "oneness" versus basking in "separatedness"? Why do you assume any such oneness even exists? Darker modalities for the human state of awareness do exist on the left-hand path (beyond superficial egocentrism), so I do believe a conscious choice, based on examination of the variables at play and the expression of personal character, is involved.

Surely there is oneness or there isn't, and the fact will remain constant regardless of what you 'feel' about it. Being one is much different than feeling one (and the latter could obviously result from the former). Of course you can never be a whole constituting a variety of parts beyond yourself, since you are by definition limited to yourself, which is why you often repeat that oneness involves loss of self. And yet simultaneously oneness involves not a surrender to pure feeling but quite the opposite a mechanical transformation of the self into a supposedly 'non-self'.

It seems to me the 'experience of oneness' is surely a self-contained experience of specific conventional stimuli, that may well be described as maintaining a state of awareness in a healthy way in full realization and acceptance of the real nature of the human condition and reality at large, but that should not be described as magically grasping reality at large precisely despite the human condition by transcending it as if it's a piece of litter to be tossed aside.

If you deny the human condition then your experience is a generic blob of undifferentiated oneness akin to the womb, without color, expression or individuality. I have long reviled this false path of weakness for the deception promoted by its supporters in the marketplace of ideas. It represents the most far-fetched, blindest faith as it declares that if it feels good then it must be good, that it is ineffable and therefore cannot be disputed and that it is boundless (without markers or points of reference, hence the ineffability) and therefore of a higher order. It's like being a drug addict and having no idea whatsoever that you're taking drugs or that it might be bad for you. It's the most comfortable escape possible, the most comforting lie.

Your feelings are important, only if you think them to be; align them properly.

Maybe that is too cryptic. Oneness merely constitutes a recognition that "i" am a component in the whole. Inseparable. Therefore "i" gives way to "I"

Na me so atta. In some sense.