[ordinaryguy]

(I haven't figured out yet how to put a quoted reply in those neat little boxes so this will have to do).

Click on the blue "quote user" button at the bottom of the post. The window that opens up shows the quote tags at beginning and end, and you can break up the quoted post by inserting more tags as necessary (the little "quote bubble" icon at the top of the window makes this easy). By clicking the "preview" button at the bottom of the composition window you can see how your post will actually appear before you submit it.

The Relaxation Response is identical to TM and CP (without the religion) and uses the word "one" as its mantra, although any word will do. If this, as you say, is a detachment of mystical practices from their broader religious and cultural traditions, I say, so what? Isn't it a good thing to bring an effective practice to many people where the benefits can be shared? Personal growth and self-help are surely good things. This is not to say the TM or the CP people cannot continue with their ways. If they couch it in their own religious traditions, I see nothing wrong with that. I don't have what seems to be your disdain for syncretism. Certainly I don't consider it a kind of violence to older traditions. We always learn from and build upon what has gone before.

I tend to agree with you here. For scholarly purposes, the tradition and historical context that various practices arise from are important, I suppose, but for those of us whose interest runs more toward practical applications, I'm not sure it matters much.

[Athos]

By all means, jump right in.


I might quibble a little bit with your characterization that all these sources "describe a technique of meditation". The Cloud of Unknowing is the only one of these that I'm familiar with, but my reading of it is that the author is first and foremost concerned with motives, and only secondarily with methods. He does, of course, offer suggestions about how to proceed, but again and again he returns to caution the reader against any motive but Love for undertaking this work. Whether they all have a common textual source, I'm happy to leave to scholars, but it doesn't strain my credibility at all to think that they are all inspired by the same spiritual reality.


That one word, and the diametrically opposite meanings attached to it by East and West is probably responsible for more misunderstandings and arguments between them than any other. It's a shame really, because the Reality that they both aspire to is the same, I think.


And not without reason, I'd say. Historically, seers, prophets and mystics are almost always disruptive of ecclesiastical order and tend to cause all kinds of problems for the authoritarian hierarchy. As I'm sure you can tell, my sympathies are with the mystics in that struggle.

You make a very good point aboutThe Cloud. The book really is much more than just a technique and is well worth reading. However, TM and CP are simply techniques and they both acknowledge that. Hesychasm also is more than a technique. I was pointing out the strong similarities among them trying to indicate a common source. But Hesychasm does gather much about prayer around itself.

All techniques, for that matter, are designed for purposes beyond mere technique. My point, in the later post to Akoue, indicates just that. So I agree that the Reality aspired to is the same.

The word "self" having diametrically different meanings in East and West is not immediately clear to me - what you are saying. I'm also not clear why the notion is responsible for misunderstandings and arguments between East and West. Would you write a little more about why you feel this way?

Yes, some mystics have been seen as a threat to established authority, but Akoue wrote a nice corrective, or at least a modification, to the original comment.

[Athos]

I think the three of us posted at more or less the same time and, at least for me, the continuity became somewhat disrupted. Probably unavoidable on this kind of forum. I did go back and read all that was posted and I think I'm up to speed now on what was written.

Can we agree that techniques, as important as they are, are not the heart of the matter? What, then, is the heart of the matter - the meat, as someone said? When I used the phrase "ultimate reality", it was a term of convenience rather than a perfect description of what lies at the root of this discussion.

I suspect, Akoue, that we're not as far apart as you indicate and that our differences will probably fade as understanding of the other's position increases. To that end, I will try to be more concise and not ramble.

Ordinary guy, your post about the "self" continues to intrigue me and I hope you will further describe what you understand to be the conflict between East and West re self.

[Akoue]

I think the three of us posted at more or less the same time and, at least for me, the continuity became somewhat disrupted. Probably unavoidable on this kind of forum. I did go back and read all that was posted and I think I'm up to speed now on what was written.

Can we agree that techniques, as important as they are, are not the heart of the matter? What, then, is the heart of the matter - the meat, as someone said? When I used the phrase "ultimate reality", it was a term of convenience rather than a perfect description of what lies at the root of this discussion.

I suspect, Akoue, that we're not as far apart as you indicate and that our differences will probably fade as understanding of the other's position increases. To that end, I will try to be more concise and not ramble.

Ordinary guy, your post about the "self" continues to intrigue me and I hope you will further describe what you understand to be the conflict between East and West re self.

Your reply to ordinaryguy went a long way toward clearing up what was, I think, a misunderstanding on my part of what you were getting at with your earlier post. So, yes, I now see that you and I are in substantial agreement. Always nice when that happens.

And I too will make an effort at concision as well. Sadly, I have a long-standing habit of verbosity and my attempts to get the better of it (over many years) have so far ended mostly in abject failure. As a rule, though, I tend to prefer precision over concision--if a choice between the two has to be made.

With that in mind, and since I have no concise--let alone precise--answer to your question regarding "the meat", I am off to ponder.

[ordinaryguy]

The word "self" having diametrically different meanings in East and West is not immediately clear to me - what you are saying. I'm also not clear why the notion is responsible for misunderstandings and arguments between East and West. Would you write a little more about why you feel this way?

As I understand it, in the Eastern traditions, Self--with a capital S--is often equated with Atman, God, or whatever term of art is associated with ultimate reality, and self--the individual human person--is deemed to be a part of that larger whole, whose destiny is to return to it and merge with it.

In Western Christianity, at least (I don't know enough about Islam and Judaism to know how they see it), there is no Self, only self, which is depraved, prideful, and the source of all sorts of evil mischief, and therefore must be at least subjugated, if not destroyed entirely before one is worthy to approach God.

Is this characterization too crude, do you think?

[arcura]

ordinaryguy,
Yes I do believe that your characterization of western self is somewhat crude.
Our human self is indeed full of "prideful, and the source of all sorts of evil mischief"
But there is a certain amount of good in almost all of us and that good needs to be preserved while the evilness needs to be purged from our self.
In other words we need to be cleaned so that only the good remains.
Peace and kindness,
Fred.

[ordinaryguy]

Our human self is indeed full of "prideful, and the source of all sorts of evil mischief". But there is a certain amount of good in almost all of us and that good needs to be preserved while the evilness needs to be purged from our self.
In other words we need to be cleaned so that only the good remains.

OK, so the personal self is not wholly evil, but it isn't part of God, and even after being purged of its evilness, it still remains separate and distinct, something other than God, is that the Catholic view?

[Athos]

As I understand it, in the Eastern traditions, Self--with a capital S--is often equated with Atman, God, or whatever term of art is associated with ultimate reality, and self--the individual human person--is deemed to be a part of that larger whole, whose destiny is to return to it and merge with it.

In Western Christianity, at least (I don't know enough about Islam and Judaism to know how they see it), there is no Self, only self, which is depraved, prideful, and the source of all sorts of evil mischief, and therefore must be at least subjugated, if not destroyed entirely before one is worthy to approach God.

This is my understanding also of the "self" as used in the East.

In the West, I haven't come across the "self" as you describe, especially in the mystical literature. Your post to Arcura is how I understand it - as essentially distinct from God.

I was primarily interested in how the different understandings have led too much argument. My own experience is that both sides simply accept the other's definition. However, you may be more aware than I am re arguments over this.

[ordinaryguy]

It is intriguing to me that you associate, or appear to associate (please correct me if I've jumped to unwarranted conclusions) the "inner" with the "above" and the "spiritual" and the "outer" with the "below" and the "material". I like what you say about the derivative nature of these distinctions. This makes a good deal more sense to me than what one sometimes finds, namely the idea that the "outer"-"below"-"material" is somehow fictive. I hope we can return to this in time, since I am interested to learn more about the ways in which this plays itself out in spiritual practice. (You've already said some interesting things about this below, but it's such a rich a topic that it would be fun to mine it further.)



I like what you say here a great deal. Personally, I find myself turned off by those who think of their spirituality in terms of heaven and hell. I don't begrudge them this, it's just that it's not what occurs to me when I think about these things. I suppose that this is due, in part at least, to the fact that--as you say--it is so often accompanied by the notion that the here-and-now is something to be denigrated or fled from or otherwise regarded with suspicion. And you've touched on another common theme in many mystical traditions, viz. the striving for harmony. Augustine, whose work has had the greatest impact on me, held that where there is disharmony there is disorder and so the absence of peace--this can be true of the self no less than the world or one's relation to others. Dis-integration leads to disintegration and dispersion. (This motivates the "integrationist" tendencies in my thinking which I mention at the end of this post.)

I'd like to hear more about imbuing matter with Spirit. I'm not sure I understand what you have in mind. But I certainly do agree with you that the broadly Gnostic attitude which sees matter as evil or as the source of evil is gravely mistaken. There is a tendency for people to suppose that our spiritual life is something purely and wholly inner, that we pray and worship only with our minds, as though we were nothing more than minds in a fleshy prison. I believe we are minded bodies or bodily minds, by which I just mean to say that it ought to be the whole person and not just some one faculty or other that is called upon in prayer and worship, etc. This is something acknowledged by many mystics when they call our attention to the importance of different bodily postures and the like. It isn't just the mind that prays. The body prays too because we are bodily.

This is a very interesting point, not to mention an interesting reading of the text. I can't tell you how very nice it is to find someone at this site refer to the "esoteric meaning". Too much supine literalism. That said, I'm afraid I don't quite understand what you mean by taking some "earth" with us to "heaven". I have the vague sense that I'm being thick-headed about this--which is to say that I suspect my faillure to understand is my fault and not yours. I'll give it more thought.

For the idea that the material life has spiritual value, I'm probably most indebted to The Urantia Book. Are you familiar with it? According to it, legions of perfect spiritual beings, of many different orders and types, are fascinated by material incarnation and yearn to know what it's like. Material embodiment is seen as a great privilege and opportunity, and they are eager to interact with and learn from those who have been through it. This transfer of knowledge and wisdom gained through material experience into spiritual dimensions is what I mean by taking some "earth" with us into "heaven". I think this is also what Jesus was talking about when he spoke of his mission to "raise it up at the last day". The phrase, "all that He has given me" refers to the entire material creation, not just conscious beings.

I agree with what you say about some of the more extreme forms of asceticism. And, as I say above, I think that this is in evidence outside of asceticism, in the view that it is the mind alone that is engaged in our spiritual life. Here I believe that what is required is integration of the whole person.

It is therefore interesting to me the way you put this in terms of alternation rather than in terms of integration. It would be nice if we could talk more about this some time (it certainly doesn't have to be now) since I tend to be more "integrationist" on this score.

I don't see any conflict between alternation and integration. In fact, I'd say that the alternation of awareness between inner and outer, above and below, is how integration is achieved. And I think as individuals achieve this unity within their own being, the resulting harmony extends "outward" from the individual person to include the material creation as well.

[ordinaryguy]

In the West, I haven't come across the "self" as you describe, especially in the mystical literature.

Are you kidding? The doctrine of original sin, and the preoccupation with sin in all its various types and forms is really the heart of it, it seems to me. And the mystics were no less concerned with it than the more literalist-minded theologians. The author of The Cloud, for example had this to say:

So you are to do with yourself. You must loathe and tire of all that goes on in your mind and your will unless it is God. For otherwise surely whatever it is is between you and God. No wonder you loathe and hate thinking about yourself when you always feel your sin to be a filthy and nauseating lump--you do not particularize--between you and God, and that lump is yourself. For you are to think of it as being identified with yourself: inseparable from you.

So crush all knowledge and all experience of all forms of created things, and of yourself above all.

I was primarily interested in how the different understandings have led too much argument. My own experience is that both sides simply accept the other's definition. However, you may be more aware than I am re arguments over this.

Well, maybe not arguments so much as just a complete failure to engage or understand one another on the subject because the underlying conception of the S/self is so radically different.

[arcura]

ordinaryguy,
From my Catholic understanding I am myself except when I partake of the Holy Eucharist.
It is then that I become one with Jesus and therefore with God.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

[twinkiedooter]

Over the years I have read many, many books about religion and the like. I do find that when the student is ready the teacher (or book) will appear. I find that old saying to be so true it's positively scary. I am an evolving person spiritually and probably will keep evolving up until the time I cease to exist on this plane of consciousness.

[arcura]

twinkiedooter,
That's an old Asian but often true saying.
Thanks for reminding me of it,
Fred

[Athos]

Are you kidding? The doctrine of original sin, and the preoccupation with sin in all its various types and forms is really the heart of it, it seems to me. And the mystics were no less concerned with it than the more literalist-minded theologians. The author of The Cloud, for example had this to say:



Well, maybe not arguments so much as just a complete failure to engage or understand one another on the subject because the underlying conception of the S/self is so radically different.

We're talking about two different ideas of the "self". I am referring to the self as the essential core of a person and its relation to the Absolute. Or, as a Buddhist might say, "Your original face before you were born".

Your reference is the aspect of self as human nature and its struggle to deal with that nature. Each is legitimate in the proper context. And your point about the language in The Cloud is a good one.

The self you refer to I have found emphasized in fundamentalist Christianity, also a part of mainstream Christianity although much less emphasized these days, and generally absent (noting your exception) in mystical Christianity.

I understand now where you are coming from re the term.

(PS - Thanks for the tip in your post #21).

[ordinaryguy]

We're talking about two different ideas of the "self". I am referring to the self as the essential core of a person and its relation to the Absolute. Or, as a Buddhist might say, "Your original face before you were born".

But isn't that exactly the point, that in Western Christianity, not only did we have no "face before we were born", but after, we still have no "essential core" that is worthy or able to relate to the Absolute, because the small-s "self" that we do have is corrupted by sin?

[Athos]

But isn't that exactly the point, that in Western Christianity, not only did we have no "face before we were born", but after, we still have no "essential core" that is worthy or able to relate to the Absolute, because the small-s "self" that we do have is corrupted by sin?

Christians, I think they would say, can overcome sin by the grace of God. But you're getting into theology here and I'm not a theologian - and am even less comfortable with Christian dogma.

The point about the Buddhist quote (really a Zen koan) is that the face before we were born is not so much to be answered but to be a way of making us think about our relation, in their terms, to "is-ness". In the West, we would say the Absolute. The Zen people like to use riddles which, after long meditation (Zen means meditate), bring sudden awareness.

The Western approach is quite different, but meditation (contemplation) is also a path to whatever we all seek.

This may be a good place to define the term "meditation". In the East, it refers to a non-discursive, non-analytical, (emptying) way. In the West, meditation usually means thinking about "something". To make sure East and West are talking about the same thing, "contemplation" is the accurate term to describe what the East means by meditation.

Btw, (on another topic), you mentioned in the original post your interest in tarot cards and astrology, and that you use astrology on an ongoing basis in your personal life. These are areas I am completely unfamiliar with and would welcome your saying a bit more about this.

[ordinaryguy]

This may be a good place to define the term "meditation". In the East, it refers to a non-discursive, non-analytical, (emptying) way. In the West, meditation usually means thinking about "something". To make sure East and West are talking about the same thing, "contemplation" is the accurate term to describe what the East means by meditation.

Good point. I have several times seen Christians bristle at the term "meditation".

Btw, (on another topic), you mentioned in the original post your interest in tarot cards and astrology, and that you use astrology on an ongoing basis in your personal life. These are areas I am completely unfamiliar with and would welcome your saying a bit more about this.

I'd be happy to. Thank you for your interest. I have tried on a few occasions to open such a discussion here on AMHD, with decidedly mixed results. You can have a look at this thread for an idea of how I approach the subject, as well as the kinds of reactions I tend to get.

The key misconceptions that I'm continually having to work around are:

• It's about predicting the future
• It's about dividing the world into twelve kinds of people
• It's about the influence (in a causative sense) of the "stars" on human personality and behavior

As I understand and practice it, it's not about any of those things. It's about a voluntary choice to make an ANALOGY between the symbolic elements of astrology and the elements of one's own personality and life circumstances.

I've got to run right now, but have a look and ask some questions and we can follow the discussion where it leads.

[Athos]

Good point. I have several times seen Christians bristle at the term "meditation".

I'd be happy to. Thank you for your interest. I have tried on a few occasions to open such a discussion here on AMHD, with decidedly mixed results. You can have a look at this thread for an idea of how I approach the subject, as well as the kinds of reactions I tend to get.

The key misconceptions that I'm continually having to work around are:

• It's about predicting the future
• It's about dividing the world into twelve kinds of people
• It's about the influence (in a causative sense) of the "stars" on human personality and behavior

As I understand and practice it, it's not about any of those things. It's about a voluntary choice to make an ANALOGY between the symbolic elements of astrology and the elements of one's own personality and life circumstances.

I've gotta run right now, but have a look and ask some questions and we can follow the discussion where it leads.

I read that thread you linked to and am not surprised that you got a good dose of disbelief. Astrology and tarot cards are clearly way off the beaten path.

My own approach to these things is to try to be open and listen to what is claimed/said. If the fruits are good, then, as far as I am concerned, more power to you.

My initial question would be how can Tarot cards (or astrology) be specific to the user? Turning over a card, it seems to be, must be random. Astrology, at least as presented in the newspapers, seems to be so ambiguous as to cover just about everybody.

In what sense do you make an analogy between astrology and the elements of your own personality? An example would help.

[ordinaryguy]

My own approach to these things is to try to be open and listen to what is claimed/said. If the fruits are good, then, as far as I am concerned, more power to you.

I appreciate that. The truth is, I'm finding it harder to express myself about these things than I would have thought. Maybe it's just an uncertainty about where to start. The more I have learned about what I like to call the "analogical sciences", the more I have come to realize what a fundamental difference there is in the bedrock assumptions they make. The problem in trying to use language to describe this difference is that these assumptions are several layers down from the level of mental abstraction that language occurs on. It's very hard to even be aware that we are making them, and even harder to imagine that other options exist and are within our field of choice.

My initial question would be how can Tarot cards (or astrology) be specific to the user?

First we need to distinguish between natal astrology (interpreting an individual birth chart) and horary astrology (interpreting the import of the present moment). Laying out a spread of cards for a Tarot reading, or throwing the coins to consult the I Ching, or opening the Bible at random and pointing to a text, are all (in my view equivalent) horary (i.e. "of the hour") techniques, and there are many, many others.

It's very straightforward to see how an individual birth chart is specific to that person, because it's just a diagram of the sky at the specific place and the particular moment when breath first fills the lungs.

They key to understanding why horary techniques work as they do is similarly individualistic, namely, that the asker agrees in advance to take the oracle's response as personally relevant and applicable to their query, no matter what it is.

This is why oracles speak gibberish when one attempts to test them "scientifically". The logical sciences assume that detached observation is possible and that it doesn't matter who the observer is. The analogical sciences assume that there are no observers, only participants, and that, "Who wants to know?" is the most important question there is.

Turning over a card, it seems to be, must be random.

The concept of randomness is based on those fundamental assumptions I mentioned earlier, and doesn't really transfer between paradigms. Have I made any headway at all in conveying why that's the case?

Astrology, at least as presented in the newspapers, seems to be so ambiguous as to cover just about everybody.

I notice they've started putting a "for entertainment purposes only" disclaimer on the daily horoscope columns. I welcome that. Truth in labeling.

In what sense do you make an analogy between astrology and the elements of your own personality? An example would help.

If you'll indulge my delay, I'll defer this until I have more time. I will get to it though.

[ordinaryguy]

Oops, brain fart. I'll try it again.