Grasping the mystery of ultimate reality

[harsi]

Dear Hari,

I called the title of this discussion and question to you "Grasping the mystery of ultimate reality". First I wanted to name it "Defining mysticism" or a mystic but than I thought maybe that would sound to exclusionary or that what could be called or seen as (religious) exclusivism.

In my nature I am an eternal seeker and whenever I read or come about something I don't understand I become curious to search for its deeper meaning or a better way of expressing what it could really mean. Unfortunately I am somehow limited in my mind when it comes to formulate and give some better meaning to something I want to know or search for, therefore I like it to read what other people are writing in relation to certain subjects I am interested in. In this way I came across on the Internet on the article called "Western Theology and Indian Mysticism" where one can read:

"Western theology has always been opposed to the mystical traditions of the world. That is why foremost mystics of the Western world including Jesus of Nazareth himself were misunderstood, persecuted, or crucified in their lifetime.

Theology is dualistic and doctrinaire; mysticism is non-dualistic and experiential. Theology is dogmatic and creedal mysticism aims at the unfathomable mystery beyond all dogmas and creeds. Theology is the rational articulation of absolute faith; mysticism encourages transition from faith to personal realization. Theology interposes an organized administrative hierarchy to mediate between the layman and God; mysticism affirms the spiritual equality of all men and their potential for direct union with the Divine. Since mysticism is recognized in India as the very quintessence of religious consciousness and the ultimate goal of man's spiritual aspiration, it has been the target of criticism of even some of the most universally minded and sincere Western theologians"

Than there one can read a book online related to the "Sacrificial Mysticism of the Vedic times" where it is stated that:

"The assumption of the mysterious omnipotence of sacrifices, performed by following the authoritative injunctions of the Vedas independently of reason or logical and discursive thought, forms the chief trait of the mysticism of the Vedic type. There is nothing here of feeling or even of intellect, but a blind submission, not to a person but to an impersonal authority which holds within it an unalterable and inscrutable law, the secret of all powers which we may want to wield in our favor. The next step in the development of this type of mysticism consists in the growth of a school of thought which sought to intellectualize the material sacrifices. It encouraged the belief that it was quite unnecessary actually to perform the sacrifices requiring the expenditure of enormous sums of money for the collection of materials and for labor. The same results might be as well obtained through certain kinds of meditation or reflection"

As you may know the chanting of the Hare Krishna mantra was also understood as a kind of "mystical" experience which would give rise to a certain realization. I guess what I would like to know is what your understanding related to all this is and if one can say that there is a certain goal or reason to be engaged in or experience spiritual mysticism? Is it a way of grasping the mystery of ultimate reality or God?

You said also in the lecture you gave in St. Petersburg entitled "Desire to Experience" that: "As far as I see it the soul is experience. It is not that the soul has experience. And if you understand this distinction, you understand spiritual mysticism." What do you mean by saying that I, the spiritual being, would be experience? I know that I may gain or gather in the due course of time some experience, after all "one learns by experience" or speaks from experience? But to be the experience itself I never thought about it in this way or do you mean that I may enter or create any experience I want out of my free will without having to act in a certain (prescribed or defined) way in order to get to know and feel something?

[Hari]

Hmmm, I would have rather that you called the text "Defining Mysticism," as this is closer to the theme of your post as I read it. "Grasping the mystery," hmmm, can you grasp mystery? And if you do grasp it, it is a mystery? Is mysticism synonymous or intimately related to mystery? Does it even matter?

You also wrote, "...of ultimate reality." Ultimate reality? Does such a thing exist, or is it just reality? It seems to me that your choice of a title reflects the remnants of the exclusive theology you wished to avoid! That is not bad. I am just having fun here...

I am curious why you felt that the words mysticism and mystic imply religious exclusivism? After all, why would you think these words fall into this category when you accept the ideals of the article about theology and mysticism you quoted? The red text you highlighted declares that the two are quite different.

I am not personally concerned with your word choice. I leave you to ponder it.

The issue that seems to be significant here is defining mysticism and thus the mystic. Your questions are directed towards this definition.

I do not contemplate ultimate reality. I am concerned with what is. I cannot use words like "ultimate," because I see reality as ever shifting and molding according to the consciousness of those perceiving it. I realize this sounds very quantum physics like, but to me reality is a word we use to describe what we believe to be true. We throw this word around in a variety of ways. Religionists use it to describe their view that God and God's Kingdom are the only reality and all else is illusion. Thus, the words, "ultimate reality," have great meaning and import to them. This ultimate is their goal, their mission, their life's destination and all that has meaning in their world.

I disagree. I see ultimate reality as an abstract. It is a concept that we choose to believe because we have heard it and trust our source of knowledge, we find it suits our situation, or simply because it offers us a way out of what we think are the difficulties of our existence. I do not write this as a denial of the spiritual realm or its power! I mean it as a description of an ideal that does not exist for us in our present experience.

Since this discussion is about mysticism, I shall confine my discussion of experience to the individual. I am aware that there is a greater existence beyond me, yet whether or not it exists separate from me is a state of mind more than an absolute principle. After all, I can choose to experience the oneness of being or not as I wish.

Existence is what is. What is, is all that is experienced by me. This is a timeless and placeless perception of existence as I, the being, am aware of it. Since my awareness is a constant, I do not need to say, "as I am aware of it right now or in the present moment." As far as I can experience it, all that exists, exists right now in the present moment. This is not a limitation. Rather, I am placing existence right back where it belongs, in the present and centered in me. I am the perceiver of existence. My perception is a constant as is my existence. Even though something may exist now that existed in the past, it is not the same now as it was in the past for all things change over time. That which might exist in the future does not exist now. An idea of its existence in the future does exist now in my mind. When I speak of experience, it is of the present. And experience can only be had by the experiencer.

According to my understanding, I, the conscious essence, am experiencing. Or, put in other words to assist understanding, I am aware, I experience, I perceive, I feel, I am. That which is within my consciousness forms my experience. This continual experience is ever present and ever existing. The sum of my experiences formulates my perception and suggests how the state of consciousness experiences in this moment. This summation also plays a significant role in the choices I make and the plans I create.

To directly address your question: at a certain point in one's development, one no longer needs goals or reasons. One is. That is enough. One then goes through life moment by moment, choosing to express oneself in the best way one can in the continuous process of upgrading what one is.

When one is aware of what is, one also feels or directly experiences oneself and that within which one exists. Thus one feels the presence and energy of the divine and reciprocates with the divine in that communion. At this point there is no need to have goals. One does not need to grasp anything for such awareness is our nature. You cannot grasp your nature, you can only be it, or more properly put, it is you.

That which is called mysticism is that which is of the essence of being. It is the essence of all that is. It is the conscious perception and experience of existence. One could speak about mysticism quantitatively, as in, one is deeper into it than another. The mystic has a goal or destination, and that is to be absorbed in what is. When one is so absorbed, one is in one's essence and thus has no need to go anywhere or do anything, yet one acts to experience in the moment. One who lives in this way is a mystic. How deeply one allows oneself to get into this mystical state depends on how one feels at the time. Even a great mystic may go in and out of such states at will and according to his or her desire. Only the mystic knows why. But since mysticism is experienced, the mystic may desire to shake up circumstances to brew a better batch of experiences.

Not everyone is living like this. Indeed, perhaps few do. Those who do not live this way live by rules or disciplines that assist the development of their spiritual awareness. When one is a mystic, one does not need anyone to agree or to confirm it. The very concept that one's existence requires others to agree or confirm is contradictory to the consciousness of a mystic. Real mystics, or rather, those who are experienced at their art, are not obvious according to how they look or manifest themselves. Since they have no need to act in a particular manner, they may find it advantageous to simply live amongst others unobtrusively. Perhaps mystics like their privacy?

A mystic may or may not act, speak, or care in the manner of others in society. Yet, the mystic, according to my definition, generally does not create situations wherein others may feel pain, discomfort, or anxiety for the pain of others is his or her pain. A mystic may, out of compassion, rattle the cage of one who he or she sees as stuck, even at the risk of causing them anxiety, but even though this is done idealistically, the mystic will still feel the reaction to this act. A mystic is an empath, meaning, he or she feels what others feel. This is in part due to naturally arising mystical sensitivity, and in part to the fact that there is indeed only one of us. Heightened awareness brings increased sensitivity, often at the price of not being able to have peace in this world. Those who are experienced in this heightened state learn to let things slide off their backs, not because they do not care, but because they care too much and need to survive the cruelty or wrong in this world.

How does one differentiate between the experience and the experiencer when one is in heightened awareness? This state of awareness is so highly attuned that the difference between the two dissolve proportionate to the degree one accepts the experience. When one is extremely capable, one feels and experiences on a degree that is vibrantly intense. It is for this reason I stated that the soul is experience, for the soul is most capable.

How you attain that state or how you choose to live your life is a question of great importance. There is no easy answer for each of us is unique and how we express as beings is only knowable to ourselves.

I am not sure if this answer will satisfy you. You are no doubt a great philosopher and your research is of such a caliber that I have given you your own forums to express in. Yet, I think you will need to stretch your boundary of what is acceptable to you to find the mystic in you. I think you need to do things that are not in your usual world. You might need to see things less in a straight line and more in curved space. Mystical experiences are not found in black and white, or the straight and square, they are found in the nuances of existence, the colors and flavors of the unexpected where life is ever fresh and new. But you will find this one day. And when you do, you will look back on these times and smile.

[harsi]

I am curious why you felt that the words mysticism and mystic imply religious exclusivism? After all, why would you think these words fall into this category when you accept the ideals of the article about theology and mysticism you quoted? The red text you highlighted declares that the two are quite different.

I come up with this definition under the impression of some discussions I had with various members of this forum. Hereby one could get the impression that there is a clear tendency by some followers and admirers of you from Russia to make oneself stand out or to contrast with those people who where choosing another path as that of the mystic and to make oneself a kind of unique and exclusive. Now I understand from what you wrote that this is not also your view and way of thinking.

In this regard I would like to quote Mikhail Gorbachew whose book "Memoirs" published in German in 1995 I am reading right now, and who writes in regard to his work of restructuring the former Soviet Union and its economic and political system as it was at the time of his presidency:

"It's in my nature, my predisposition that, I cannot judge or write about something as long as I didn't grasped the inner logic of the subject. My thinking is clearly coined methodically. Thus when I set myself to work I felled the need to begin at the beginning; I recur-ed conceptually to the first years of the Soviet power in order to penetrate (understand) deeper the developments (evolutions) of those days."

I could not have said it any better I am of the same nature and predisposition when it comes to understand a mystic or any other subject, and his way of thinking, writing and doing things.

Please bear with me and please tell me more. You write: "A mystic is an empath, meaning, he or she feels what others feel. This is in part due to naturally arising mystical sensitivity, and in part to the fact that there is indeed only one of us." Do you mean to say: the only one of its kind in the world? As saying you my one and only or what is the deeper meaning of your understanding of the world "Us"? We as being of the same spiritual, material or rather substantial nature? Or would you like to call into question ones inherent individuality altogether as being somehow illusionary?

[Hari]

Please bear with me and please tell me more. You write: "A mystic is an empath, meaning, he or she feels what others feel. This is in part due to naturally arising mystical sensitivity, and in part to the fact that there is indeed only one of us." Do you mean to say: the only one of its kind in the world? As saying you my one and only or what is the deeper meaning of your understanding of the world "Us"? We as being of the same spiritual, material or rather substantial nature?

I am unsure of why you are asking this question. First off, I have no followers. We are all individuals who make our own choices and do what we think is best. What would one follow anyway? I have not given any instructions to follow. I am not sure if you mean the word the way it sounds, but the way you use it sounds strange to me and makes me uneasy. To continue this point, if you have a problem with the way others in this forum have expressed themselves, why not just ask me directly, if this is your intention, "Hari, someone said you think like this or that this is the way it is. What do you think about that?" This would make my life easier and my answer would be directed towards your specific inquiry rather than a long winded treatise that might have little meaning to you. After all, it takes time to write these answers and time is not something I have tons of.

Is your problem the "There is only one of us," statement that is often used? Do I perceive a fear of the oneness hiding here in the background? If so, say it directly so we can address the primary issue instead of dancing around it.

I cannot imagine saying "the only one of its kind in the world." This statement is foreign to me. I am not into elitism or exclusivity; to the contrary, my idea is that what I say is accessible to all people as we all share the same fundamental essence that is Being.

When I quote the phrase from Donald Walsh that there is only one of us, the us refers to exactly what the word usually refers to, a group of individuals. Us, as it is used in english and all languages, refers to an arbitrary group of individuals placed together into that group due to desire or circumstances, such as when five people are going to the theater together and they say, "We are going to have a good time. Good for us!" In the larger sense, the divine sense, we are all Beings. We are the sum total collective of all living energy. When we say there is only one of us, there are various implications. To start, it implies that we do not stand alone or separate. What we do or feel affects others. What we send out, returns to us. Our pain is others pain, there pain is our pain. We are in it together and we are all affected by what we create together. As an example, I suggest that the bad weather and multiple problematic events that seem to be increasing in a short time are connected with the mentality of fear and doom that is growing. Financial ruin is around the corner and people are buying into the idea that 2012 will create disaster. The latest movie is cementing this in their minds and any news broadcast amplifies this fear. Therefore, their incredible power of the billions of living minds and hearts that are filled with fear, anger and gloom is wrecking havoc with the weather and filling the Earth with dissonance. We are creating the weather and the future and unconsciously fulfilling the so called prophecy. It is a self fulfilling prophecy. Although we may not believe there is only one of us, we are being forced to see how this is so. At present, only those who are aware can see this, but it is increasingly becoming obvious to more and more people. Those who are aware have a responsibility to counter this direction if they can by permeating the atmosphere around them as wide and far as they can with positive and constructive energy.

This is the vision and work of the mystic. To see the enormous power in Being and to unleash it consciously for the good of all, for what is good for all is good for the individual. And therefore there is only one of Us.

[harsi]

This is the vision and work of the mystic. To see the enormous power in Being and to unleash it consciously for the good of all, for what is good for all is good for the individual. And therefore there is only one of Us.

I would like to agree, all is well that ends well. We have a destiny to create a state of consciousness that is Oneness with all that is. But the question would be how to do such a great task? Over time, spirituality has been alienated from mainstream activity. There is no doubt it should be the underlying fabric of our existence. Some say that the Oneness of all Being is the unlearning or dissolution of all conceptual walls that make us divisive human beings. You seem to disagree with this premise.

What this all amounts to is that "To see the enormous power in Being and to unleash it consciously" would be the vision and work of the mystic. You seem to understand and consider "the enormous power in Being" as a kind of surrogate for that what generally people understand to be only in the power of a Supreme Being or God and not only in ours.

Regarding my usage of the word "follower", I must admit that I felt myself a little uneasy if I should use it in regard to those who listen or read something from you. Therefore I added also the word "admirer" in the sense of being an attentive or warm admirer of that what you teach or has to say. I myself am a great admirer of that what you say and write, therefore I appreciate and value so much your opinion and perspective on certain subjects like this. One could say also an adherent of your point of view.

You write: "Is your problem the "There is only one of us," statement that is often used? Do I perceive a fear of the oneness hiding here in the background? If so, say it directly so we can address the primary issue instead of dancing around it."

I remember I was reading about this "One of Us" subject first in September 2005 in the comment by Gaura when he wrote:

"I wonder about this wonderful power that force as to forget that everything is connected. And we are too. I wonder how anything can be not Him. How we can divide into inside and outside world. If inside world we think is spiritual and real then this internet should be not Him. Then what is it? Then in the creation there is He and something else. Or more huge dilemma. How can be in the space He and We and the Space, where we exist together. Isn't it strange. I always new that there was and is only One, then who are We?"

I must admit that for one like me who was before "programmed" in the association of others alike to think that "Oneness" is all "maya" or ilusion and that only the difference is real to read that "I always new that there was and is only One" was somehow hard to comprehend.


The question of being and the author of being is for me indeed an essential one.


Today I am inclined to think and describe this "One-ness" as a Brotherhood or a group of people or animate beings united in a relationship and having some common interest, activity, purpose and concrete texture or substantial nature. Of course mystics may view this Brotherhood also as a common research interest. Do I have this right?

With what I indeed have some troubles to comprehend is the following vision of Oneness I was reading ones on the Web:

"Now, allow yourself to experience the feeling of oneness. Being one with all who are with you in light, remember that we are all a part of God (...) and with that awareness, feel your oneness with God, our Father, our Source. Feel His love extend through you to all the beings with which you have merged in oneness. Remember this feeling well and take it back with you to use each time you forget who you are; who we all are." >>

I mean who really wants to merge or fuse with someone or something, loose thus ones autonomy, in order to become One, regardless of whether such a thing would ever be or become possible. Than much rather become merged like in a relationship of husband and wife or a Union where all are equals.

In Wikipedia one can read:
"In Advaita Vedanta, Brahman is the abstract notion of "the Absolute" from which the universe takes its origin (maybe big bang), and at an ultimate level, all assertions of a distinction between Brahman, other gods and creation are meaningless." "Advaita" refers to the identity of the Self (Atman) and the Whole (Brahman)."

It seems to me, according to the description of a mystic you gave that such a person is experiencing reality in a similar way, without that a creator deity (Parabrahman, Parapurusa) or God standing above us and this cosmic manifestation. On the contrary a mystic experiences reality on his own without any preconditions, standards, terms of reference or any spiritual or religious specifications.

Karl Marx is well-known for his statement: "It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being that determines their consciousness." But I guess both are important and intermingle in one way or another aside from the fact that Marx' understanding of being and that of a mystic or a spiritualist may not necessarily be the same.

In the article: Mysticism & Christianity a mystic is described as one who "tends to substitute his religious experience for the objective revelation of God recorded in the written Word, as the source from which he derives his knowledge of God, or at least to subordinate the expressly revealed Word as the less direct and convincing source of knowledge of God to his own religious experience. The result is that the external revelation is relatively depressed in value, if not totally set aside."

"Mysticism is the name which is given to the particular one of these structures, the predominant place in which is taken by the sensibility. It is characteristic of mysticism that it makes its appeal to the feelings as the sole, or at least as the normative, source of knowledge of divine things. That is to say, it is the religious sentiment which constitutes for it the source of religious knowledge. Of course mystics differ with one another in the consistency with which they apply their principle. And of course they differ with one another in the account they give of this religious sentiment to which they make their appeal. There are, therefore, many varieties of mystics, pure and impure, consistent and inconsistent, naturalistic and super-naturalistic, pantheistic and theistic — even Christian. What is common to them all, and what makes them all mystics, is that they all rest on the religious sentiment as the source of knowledge of divine things."

[harsi]

I must admit since I discovered yesterday this article on the Internet "Christianity & Mysticism I am riveted by the subject also because what is described therein it gives one a hint to various subjects I am preoccupied since a long time.

For example there it is written that:

"Evangelical Christianity interprets all religious experience by the normative revelation of God recorded for us in the Holy Scriptures, and guides, directs, and corrects it from these Scriptures, and thus molds it into harmony with what God in His revealed Word lays down as the normal Christian life."

This description of the practice of the interpretation of all religious experience in Evangelical Christianity is very similar to how it was and still is practice in various societies for example or the way one understood the Vaishnava religion to be.

The author of the article continues:

"The mystic, on the other hand, tends to substitute his religious experience for the objective revelation of God recorded in the written Word, as the source from which he derives his knowledge of God, or at least to subordinate the expressly revealed Word as the less direct and convincing source of knowledge of God to his own religious experience. The result is that the external revelation is relatively depressed in value, if not totally set aside."

Interesting is also the following although from another religious tradition:

"In the history of Christian thought mysticism appears accordingly as that tendency among professing Christians which looks within, that is, to the religious feelings, in its search for God. It supposes itself to contemplate within the soul the movements of the divine Spirit, and finds in them either the sole sources of trustworthy knowledge of God, or the most immediate and convincing sources of that knowledge, or, at least, a coordinate source of it alongside of the written Word."

"The characteristic of Christian mysticism, from the point of view of religious knowledge, is therefore its appeal to the "inner light," or "the internal word," either to the exclusion of the external or written Word, or as superior to it and normative for its interpretation, or at least as coordinate authority with it, this "inner light" or "internal word" being conceived not as the rational understanding but as the immediate deliverance of the religious sentiment."

[Prisni]

Maybe I should not mix in to a discussion between you like this, but I just have to make a comment.

When previous indian "vaisnavas" speak about the hare krishna mantra, they speak about the "mystic" realisation of the mantra. What is that?

It is something different than I ever experienced in ISKCON, or ever heard anyone speak about.
It is a major religious experience, and when the mantra gets "activated" like that, it stays activated with you and does not go away. The words go from just words, to an inner meaning to you. The mantra becomes like your inner guru, teaching you, speaking back to you, leading you spiritually.

It is an experience beyond the normal in this world, and therefore it is called "mystical" or "transcendental".
It is like opening a gate to another reality, and it overwhelmes you.

You don't come back the same again. And actually, didn't Prabhupada say "get high and stay high forever"? That's how it is. And slowly that mystic experience gives way to more and more mystic experiences, as you explore the new world you got entrance to.

In my own words, the mantra is like a pulse, a rythm, like the heartbeat of existence, or something. It is beyond thought and mental or intellectual understanding. By listening to that beat, existence is like whispering its secrets to you. And you want to listen, you want to hear more, know more.

A mystic explores that "transcendental" realm and goes further in it, explore it, dance with it.