Recovery aa - Skeptical mysticism

Author

Skeptical mysticism

Michael H.

2006-05-23, 11:00 am

Skeptical mysticism

It takes faith to believe, and it takes courage not to, and who is to say
which is the deeper and more truthful.
--Herbert Weisinger

You often hear about believers who have a crisis of faith, but what of the
skeptics among us who have a crisis of doubt? For years we skeptics have
decisively refuted the metaphysical claims of the great religions and
scoffed at the pretensions of newfangled spiritual fashions. But then our
doubt is suddenly shaken by an unbidden mystical experience. The power of
this direct cognition of ultimate reality, beyond word or image, is
undeniable. But does it prove the existence of God? If you remain skeptical
you find yourself in a difficult state. You now seriously doubt your doubt
and yet have no abiding faith to replace it. How do you proceed? You can no
longer be atheistic because you've communed with the divine. You can't be
religious because the existence of God is still in question; what's more,
religious representations of God now get in the way of your direct mystical
experience. Nor can you be agnostic because you're far from neutral on the
subject. You must become a skeptical mystic. As you cut your own singular
path to the great whatever, you must now treat your own experiences with the
relentless skepticism you once reserved for the claims of others.
I am One with a God I do not believe in.

http://www.dailyafflictions.com/

Peace
mgh

--
My peers, lately, have found companionship through means of intoxication -
it makes them sociable. I, however, cannot force myself to use drugs to
cheat on my loneliness - it is all that I have - and when the drugs and
alcohol dissipate, will be all that my peers have as well.
Franz Kafka

F. H.

2006-05-23, 11:00 am

Michael H. wrote:
> Skeptical mysticism
>
> It takes faith to believe, and it takes courage not to, and who is to say
> which is the deeper and more truthful.
> --Herbert Weisinger

Ultimately, which is "the deeper and more truthful" may be the wrong
question. The believer has the benefit of belief *with* conviction.
The non believer, whether "courageous" or curious or stubborn, or just
angry, acting out of some distant trauma seemingly has already rejected
the consensus of "deeper and more truthful" as in the eye of the naive
beholder.

Seems woe often befalls the skeptic when he turns his back on the
answers to the timeless questions handed down by his predecessors.
When the best the collective unconscious of millions of thinkers over
thousands of years doesn't pass muster, finding "deeper and more
truthful" can quickly become a frustrating ride on a train ride to your
original destination.

Heh, problem solving starting with a blank page.

Then again, if one views life as a short walk between two dark
eternity's why bother with the "deeper and more truthful" at all?

> You often hear about believers who have a crisis of faith, but what of the
> skeptics among us who have a crisis of doubt? For years we skeptics have
> decisively refuted the metaphysical claims of the great religions and
> scoffed at the pretensions of newfangled spiritual fashions. But then our
> doubt is suddenly shaken by an unbidden mystical experience. The power of
> this direct cognition of ultimate reality, beyond word or image, is
> undeniable.

Aha, the "peak experience." A favorite of mine.

> But does it prove the existence of God?

No, but it can inspire awe, humility, curiosity *and* a *sense* of the
"spiritual."

> If you remain skeptical you find yourself in a difficult state. You now
> seriously doubt your doubt and yet have no abiding faith to replace it.

Faith with conviction is hard even for "believers." ;)

> How do you proceed?

Skeptically. ;)

> You can no longer be atheistic because you've communed with the divine.

Time to redefine "the divine?"

> You can't be religious because the existence of God is still in question;
> what's more, religious representations of God now get in the way of your
> direct mystical experience.

Not necessarily.

> Nor can you be agnostic because you're far from neutral on the subject. You
> must become a skeptical mystic.

Cool.

> As you cut your own singular path to the great whatever, you must now treat
> your own experiences with the relentless skepticism you once reserved for
> the claims of others.

The "path" needn't be "singular" nor the skepticism "relentless."

> I am One with a God I do not believe in.

As time passes, one becomes increasingly aware of moving along on a
"path to the great whatever." ;) Anticipating *that* is one of the many
things that gave meaning to the aforementioned "unbidden mystical
experiences" of our predecessors.

As a dedicated "Doubting Thomas," who sometimes hears the breathing of
father time just over my shoulder as I move along "the path" I find
myself more and more interested in what AA described as "knowing peace"
than I do in provable "truths."

Respecting others "truths" it seems, is vital element in that. I've
found that I can remain a skeptic and do that.

A pitfall of non-belief it turns out (for me) is that the skepticism
tends to reach out and touch far too many *other* things. I wonder,
could that be a clue that my skepticism is really something else?
Ghosts of traumas past?

So..., how can I *ever* "know peace" if my inner world is in a perpetual
state of skepticism, endless conflict with the beliefs, perceptions and
practices of others?

These "at one with" (mystical/peak experience's), I've found, come in a
variety of intensities and surroundings. I like the idea of "opening
up," of being as *receptible* as possible to as *many* as possible and
that means leaving the defining of the God part, the "deeper" or "more
truthful" part to others.

Frank

Thanks Michael, for raising the bar.

"If you wish to see God, look into the eyes of a child."
Buddha

Virtualoso

2006-05-23, 11:00 am

In article <EsFbg.2689$qn2.504@trnddc04>, Michael H.
<mgh111@hotmail.com> wrote:

> ... who is to say
> which is the deeper and more truthful.
> --Herbert Weisinger

We all pretty much make our own call on that kind of thing.

> ... The power of
> this direct cognition of ultimate reality, beyond word or image, is
> undeniable. But does it prove the existence of God? If you remain skeptical
> you find yourself in a difficult state. You now seriously doubt your doubt
> and yet have no abiding faith to replace it. How do you proceed? You can no
> longer be atheistic because you've communed with the divine. You can't be
> religious because the existence of God is still in question...

Uh, what IS "God"? Especially if anyone is supposing "it" is anything
other than "ultimate reality", which they reportedly just experienced
directly?

--
-

Virtualoso

2006-05-23, 11:00 am

In article <nQHbg.618$oA6.510@trnddc06>, F. H. <connectu2@verizon.net>
wrote:

> As a dedicated "Doubting Thomas," who sometimes hears the breathing of
> father time just over my shoulder as I move along "the path" I find
> myself more and more interested in what AA described as "knowing peace"
> than I do in provable "truths."

"Interpretation" woes, for instance:

"The peace that passeth understanding."

Now does that mean peace that relays understanding, or peace that
doesn't bother with understand, as in passes by it?

--
-

Virtualoso

2006-05-23, 11:00 am

In article <nQHbg.618$oA6.510@trnddc06>, F. H. <connectu2@verizon.net>
wrote:

> "If you wish to see God, look into the eyes of a child."
> Buddha

Drat. ANOTHER "spiritual" guy fixated on kids, eh?

That must be a counterfeit quote, though, Frank. Buddha was notorious
for not saying anything at all about "God" and refusing to address it
no matter how much pressed.

--
-

Kai R

2006-05-23, 11:00 am

Virtualoso kirjoitti:
> Buddha was notorious
> for not saying anything at all about "God" and refusing to address it
> no matter how much pressed.
>

You're a Buddha!

--
Kai Ruuska

F. H.

2006-05-23, 11:00 am

Virtualoso wrote:
> In article <nQHbg.618$oA6.510@trnddc06>, F. H. <connectu2@verizon.net>
> wrote:
>
>
> "Interpretation" woes, for instance:
>
> "The peace that passeth understanding."
>
> Now does that mean peace that relays understanding, or peace that
> doesn't bother with understand, as in passes by it?

LOL, I noticed you lurking about. Figured you'd throw it high and
tight. ;) As time passes I become more and more familiar with "my
limitations." Then there's my resume with its record of attempted
shortcuts to nirvana.

Nietzsche's observation seems curiously relevant:

"As refined fare serves a hungry man as well as, and no better than,
coarser food, the more pretentious artist will not dream of inviting the
hungry man to his meal."

Right now it looks like this old horse player will be opting for the
"peace that passeth" *for* "understanding."

F. H.

2006-05-23, 11:00 am

Virtualoso wrote:
> F. H. <connectu2@verizon.net wrote:

[vbcol=seagreen]
> That must be a counterfeit quote, though, Frank. Buddha was notorious
> for not saying anything at all about "God" and refusing to address it
> no matter how much pressed.

I was going from memory (not a good idea lately). Did a quick scan of
my PC before posting it (it's here somewhere). I'm notorious for saving
stuff with unwise titles.

Michael H.

2006-05-23, 11:00 am

"Virtualoso" <nothanks@any.com> wrote in message
news:200520061008425394%nothanks@any.com...
> In article <EsFbg.2689$qn2.504@trnddc04>, Michael H.
> <mgh111@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> We all pretty much make our own call on that kind of thing.
>
>
>
> Uh, what IS "God"? Especially if anyone is supposing "it" is anything
> other than "ultimate reality", which they reportedly just experienced
> directly?
>

We are symbols, and inhabit symbols.
Ralph Waldo Emerson

The intention to express a personal metaphysical experience in symbols for
another to grasp is always a challenge.

That's why / how poetry rocks!

And the challenge of sharing that *it* even poses another solution.
Rather than to try to transmit a symbol to generate an experience, ignore
the concept of transmission as *separate" from the experience and engage in
the dance of being with others from a place of wellness or peace now and
here.

So begins the process of being at peace in all circumstances as a result of
personal experience and allowing the peace to be shared as a moment of now
rather than as a conversation about the possible future.I think that's
something Frank just said too. Right? LOL! The idea of being who you've
become while allowing all that happens to be there. Growing down and James
would say.

I'm beginning to see life a little like this, that the moments of amazing
feeling or awareness or communion with the profound whateverness I get, seem
to bring me to a sense of calm and natural *love* for others and is threaded
through with a desire to share that, or better, to be in it with another.
Like seeing my children and knowing, as Gibran says, that they are Life's
children and not mine, but yet I get to be with them as we live these
moments together. So I try more to have a calm presence in the moments I'm
given to be with them so that we can experience peace together. This might
even transmit the ability to them by creating peace as a way of being for
them. Then we even see that possibility of them being themselves from that
place with others...and on and on.

Or like being in love. Laying with someone and holding them. Knowing they
love you. Nothing else really matters then. We face the common *void*
together...

Sumptin like that in all of life.

I do like how the steps seem to parallel and support that process for me
when I use them as a tool to achieve a beginning rather than holding them as
the ultimate end.
As the BB says: "...we are building an arch through which we shall walk a
free man at last."

Sapere aude!

Peace
mgh

Good to "see" you both. And listen...don't XXXX with my peace OK?
Nitpicking the shit apart and looking for flaws, or trying to get me to act
otherwise. Shit lets just get it outa the way now!
I'm happy and peacefull and contribute to others and if you question that I
can allways kick your XXX! Right? hahahahaha!
Oh wait...the love and tollerence deal...om. OK I'm better now.

Humor is reason gone mad.
Groucho Marx

GaryE

2006-05-23, 11:00 am

On Sat, 20 May 2006 14:11:48 GMT, "Michael H." <mgh111@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>
>http://www.dailyafflictions.com/

An interesting site. It didn't tug much on me, but I like it when
people try to turn things in different ways. Not spin, but turn.

Most of the time, though not all, I don't think life has any simple
'answers', nor especially relevant questions from inhabitants who
represent the ultimate smallness in what seems to be the ultimate
largeness. I think therefore I wanna be.

I've ignored death most of my life or denied it, and as I see more of
it and it's get's close in terms of friends, relatives and yes, even
pets, then it's fact has acquired some new kind of standing. I
think the fact of death underpins most deep thought, particularly in
religion, as if one could accuse religion of deep thought, Bear with
it.

And I think that many folks who understand and admit to denial as
part of their lives (due to alcohol, if nothing else), understand that
denial is not limited in its scope. Outside of suicide bombers and
others of that particular ilk who think that death is a gateway to
paradise, it is reasonable that death is inevitable and as far as we
factually know, final, so why talk about it. It just spoils a party.

Yet it is so huge an event, isn't it? What we know is no more.
Likely who we are is no more. If the ego (the large and ultimately
subjective I) has a tough time with such triviality as alcoholism,
extrapolate. (Sam Harris, whom I posted the other day thinks the I
can be eliminated by meditation, proving that it is an anomaly, which
really doesn't exist is reality).

I think that we create our own illusions and/or delusions of the fact
of life because we cannot fathom it all. It is, not available unless
you just accept that existence is a spark of light that moves swiftly
to non existence. That no matter how much we think we think or know,
we don't really. If there is more, then, by now, we should really
know it more than just some leap of wishing faith, is that fair?

I also think that 'not accepting' as a way of life almost always has
to turn into 'always rejecting'. The upshot? I don't know. I guess
if one or the other approach is useful to the person, then that is its
value. For that moment the light emits from a particle of darkness
until it returns back to one.

I feel a darkness more. Inevitable. And I think PT Barnum got it
right.

There are levels in which our human significance is meaningless. We
just need to stay away from them or they will scare us to death. Or
maybe we should use the time we have in ways which give us peace, like
in helping others...humans, animals, life.

Best,
GaryE

Tim and Lisa

2006-05-23, 11:00 am

"GaryE" <garyexxxxxx@swbell.net> wrote in message
news:ratu629jajt274rn85j5dnjfo78mm4l6e8@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 20 May 2006 14:11:48 GMT, "Michael H." <mgh111@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> An interesting site. It didn't tug much on me, but I like it when
> people try to turn things in different ways. Not spin, but turn.
>
> Most of the time, though not all, I don't think life has any simple
> 'answers', nor especially relevant questions from inhabitants who
> represent the ultimate smallness in what seems to be the ultimate
> largeness. I think therefore I wanna be.
>
> I've ignored death most of my life or denied it, and as I see more of
> it and it's get's close in terms of friends, relatives and yes, even
> pets, then it's fact has acquired some new kind of standing. I
> think the fact of death underpins most deep thought, particularly in
> religion, as if one could accuse religion of deep thought, Bear with
> it.
>
> And I think that many folks who understand and admit to denial as
> part of their lives (due to alcohol, if nothing else), understand that
> denial is not limited in its scope. Outside of suicide bombers and
> others of that particular ilk who think that death is a gateway to
> paradise, it is reasonable that death is inevitable and as far as we
> factually know, final, so why talk about it. It just spoils a party.
>
> Yet it is so huge an event, isn't it? What we know is no more.
> Likely who we are is no more. If the ego (the large and ultimately
> subjective I) has a tough time with such triviality as alcoholism,
> extrapolate. (Sam Harris, whom I posted the other day thinks the I
> can be eliminated by meditation, proving that it is an anomaly, which
> really doesn't exist is reality).
>
> I think that we create our own illusions and/or delusions of the fact
> of life because we cannot fathom it all. It is, not available unless
> you just accept that existence is a spark of light that moves swiftly
> to non existence. That no matter how much we think we think or know,
> we don't really. If there is more, then, by now, we should really
> know it more than just some leap of wishing faith, is that fair?
>
> I also think that 'not accepting' as a way of life almost always has
> to turn into 'always rejecting'. The upshot? I don't know. I guess
> if one or the other approach is useful to the person, then that is its
> value. For that moment the light emits from a particle of darkness
> until it returns back to one.
>
> I feel a darkness more. Inevitable. And I think PT Barnum got it
> right.
>
> There are levels in which our human significance is meaningless. We
> just need to stay away from them or they will scare us to death. Or
> maybe we should use the time we have in ways which give us peace, like
> in helping others...humans, animals, life.
>

>"Or maybe we should use the time we have in ways which give us peace, like
>in helping others...humans, animals, life."

Works for me!! ;o)

Virtualoso

2006-05-26, 11:05 am

In article <ySIbg.1202$oa3.254@trnddc08>, F. H. <connectu2@verizon.net>
wrote:

> Virtualoso wrote:
>
> LOL, I noticed you lurking about. Figured you'd throw it high and
> tight. ;) As time passes I become more and more familiar with "my
> limitations." Then there's my resume with its record of attempted
> shortcuts to nirvana.
>
> Nietzsche's observation seems curiously relevant:
>
> "As refined fare serves a hungry man as well as, and no better than,
> coarser food, the more pretentious artist will not dream of inviting the
> hungry man to his meal."
>
> Right now it looks like this old horse player will be opting for the
> "peace that passeth" *for* "understanding."

Good luck with that. Personally, I often relish profoundity through
obscurity. WITH catchup.

--
-

Virtualoso

2006-05-26, 11:05 am

In article <4d9263F197fa9U2@individual.net>, Kai R <me@privacy.net>
wrote:

> Virtualoso kirjoitti:
>
> You're a Buddha!

Now we have to kai you.

--
-

Virtualoso

2006-05-26, 11:06 am

In article <w7Jbg.2442$Ar6.1210@trnddc02>, F. H.
<connectu2@verizon.net> wrote:

> Virtualoso wrote:
>
>
>
> I was going from memory (not a good idea lately). Did a quick scan of
> my PC before posting it (it's here somewhere). I'm notorious for saving
> stuff with unwise titles.

So what's the prob, Frank... you already forgot to tell us the results
of the scan right after writing that? Sheesh.

--
-

F. H.

2006-05-26, 11:06 am

Virtualoso wrote:
> In article <w7Jbg.2442$Ar6.1210@trnddc02>, F. H.
> <connectu2@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
> So what's the prob, Frank... you already forgot to tell us the results
> of the scan right after writing that? Sheesh.

"It's here somewhere" means I didn't find it. Why bother when a noted
authority such as yourself has cast doubt. I'm pretty sure Campbell
shared that bit but I found he was seriously hoodwinked on another bit
so I now know he's only *close* to infallible. ;)

Virtualoso

2006-05-26, 11:06 am

In article <WmScg.11353$oA6.10936@trnddc06>, F. H.
<connectu2@verizon.net> wrote:

> Virtualoso wrote:
>
> "It's here somewhere" means I didn't find it. Why bother when a noted
> authority such as yourself has cast doubt. I'm pretty sure Campbell
> shared that bit but I found he was seriously hoodwinked on another bit
> so I now know he's only *close* to infallible. ;)

Gosh, what would Buddha say about that? If anyone remembers correctly,
that is.

Like most such things, it's controversial, naturally. But he generally
was noted for his absence of mentioning "God" and simply not responding
to even direct questions about that.

Bear in mind, his own background was as an intense vedic/yogic monk for
years and years. And that stuff is rife with "God" deals.

--
-