The Mystics' Rede
-
The Veil of Paroketh is like a tremendous mirror. The pre-Adept looks towards the divine, only to see themselves; i.e. their Ego selves, or, more specifically, the knowledge to which that is attached. This is why the passing of the veil or barrier is accomplished in silent concentration. By "silent" is not meant silence of speech, but also silence of the thoughts, beliefs, feelings, ideas, etc. working their way through the mind.
Utterly bereft of expectation the aspirant must make of themselves an offering of silent concentration. This is not the result, it is the method. Another name for the Veil of P. is Conditioning, that of body and mind.
-
A mystic is anyone who meditates to experience the altered states of awareness that come about by suppressing the attention of the mind to a single thing, until the outgoing tendencies of that mind desist and there is left only the awareness of pure being, experiencing itself alone; time, space and causality are placed back into their folder of Conveniences For Linear Mental Comprehension. There is a graduation of degrees to the mind's silence, which culminate in its complete silence wherein even silence is and is no more.¹ The least of these degrees is responsible for the peace and calm of the dabbler in meditation. The mind is what the mystic needs to discipline and focus, and the mind is their only tool for doing this, and the mind is their only instrument which can gauge the results; mind is tester, lab and conclusion in one when it comes to meditation. The human being is a mind harboring a particular collection of concepts and identified with a body. In dreams we identify with a body that is not our waking one (unless one resorts to Nightmare on Elm Street logic), yet the mind is right at home. Dreams? Waking sensory perception? What really is the nature of the continuity of a person?
One of the grandest milestones for any serious meditator is the "attainment" of samadhi, where all partite identity is extirpated. As a result of that samadhi comes to the ordinary awareness the lasting realization that the universe which is experienced is but the great toy of the mind. Neuroscience (and I would suspect all fields of cognitive study in general) is shedding light on this very same conclusion, though perhaps from a more outside (material) vantage looking in.
The flaw of nearly every mystic is that upon realizing that the world of the senses is but a cognitive construct, they exercise this prerogative by "casting off the mantle of the earth" and denouncing their "base," material nature as a base illusion. They are to an extent correct in their thinking, so far as duality is the origin of ills (you can't spell "illusion" without "ill"), but their final judgment is wrong. They fail to see that to ignore any aspect of one's whole is to invite the very division so abhorred by them. The mystic who prides themselves on the overcoming of the "blindness" of the physical/mental sensorium only becomes trapped in fascination to the blindness of bliss, not realizing that even that bliss is "something's" perception and so the union is imperfect. Understanding, partial or of mastery, comes only through the consonance of all pertinent conditions.
I propose that there are three categories of experience: subjectivity, internal objectivity and external objectivity. What I would call external objectivity is what most people call objectivity, where a given phenomenon can be observed--as it is of its own accord--without interference, communication or interpretation of any kind by one party to another. That much is pretty basic. Now, to argue for the necessity of adding a second form of objectivity to the classifications of experience, termed by me "internal objectivity," it must be understood first what is meant by subjectivity. Subjectivity is simply point of view.² What most people call "subjective" is in fact external to the point of view. The mind is not subjective because it is experienced or perceived. For instance, when one is angry they do not become anger but rather perceive the sensations associated with it and identify with those sensations. What is it that is angry? That which acknowledges that there is anger is the subject, the point of view. But that point of view is not angry. It is because there is attachment (born of the mind) to perception that the point of view mistakenly believes that the mental phenomenon called anger is its own experience and is not just a passive observation. All ideas, feelings, perceptions, memories, etc., are outside and aloof from the subject of experience, and it is these things which I would name as internally objective.
Moving on, any beginner in serious meditation will undergo an awakening of sorts from the delusion that they are identical to that dialogue of thoughts reacting to perceptions called "the mind," especially when they try to exert even the tiniest bit of control over it. Try to make the mind rest on a single item to the exclusion of all else for just one minute. The mind will not listen for more than a few seconds, it does what it wants. Control? The overwhelming majority of people just take for granted the caprice of the mind and identify with it anyway, going along with its superficial behavior and imagining to themselves that the handful of parlor tricks that they've taught it to do on command (through their goaded persistence and/or enthusiasm) for a short amount of time represent "control." Students and professionals who can concentrate on their study or their work for extended amounts of time represent the pinnacle of control for the average person. However, even then the mind is very seldom in perfect, or even ideal, obeisance. I digress.
Footnotes
-
"Is and is no more" is not me being funny or trying to sound mysterious or occult. It is a serious reflection of how the mind functions upon its re-arising from the state of its cessation in samadhi. Samadhi, for that matter, is the first-person union and subsequent destruction of opposites. Each of us (i.e. our mind) is God or Center of our own perceptual universe, and when we are unable to perceive this universe because of sleep, coma, death, etc., then this universe that we experience is no more. Every perspective is unique and infinite. There is an "afterglow" or overlap between samadhi and the ordinary dualistic way of perceiving. During this period one can perceive duality or the difference between all various concepts and persons, places and things, even though one is also completely aware of the underlying unity of all things, and this contradiction is understood as no contradiction at all, but a harmony. This seeming paradox of logic defies attempts at rational explanation. It can only be understood through direct experience. Dozens (possibly hundreds) of my posts on this forum show that I've tried my hardest to express the results of mysticism so as to be palatable to ratiocination. I can only fail in that endeavor. 'Tis like trying to start a fire with snow. Pure subjectivity is impervious to objectification.
-
In this way subjectivity is omnipresent because all points represent a perspective, and all perspectives possess the potential for infinite inclusion. Every point of view is unique yet simultaneously the same as every other. It depends on the development of unfolding awareness which is experiencing phenomena from a given point. A good analogy for this is pi. Pi is infinite but we can utilize pi in limited form for our practical convenience or apply its ideal, infinite form to our theoretical computations and discussions. The mind is the inhibiting veil to the simple, unalloyed, all-penetrating awareness of subjectivity.
-
-
I found, the sound of the Rede "to be" delightful
Until :
@seekinghga said
"A mystic is anyone who meditates to experience the altered states of awareness that come about by suppressing the attention of the mind to a single thing, until the outgoing tendencies of that mind desist and there is left only the awareness of pure being, experiencing itself alone; time, space and causality are placed back into their folder of Conveniences For Linear Mental Comprehension"
This arrested me.
Planted doubt - is this all a lie ?That is an issue, I perceive, regarding Mysticism.
Moment you go Prose-Ey , the rose becomes a Pose-Ey!@seekinghga said
" The mind is what the mystic needs to discipline and focus, and the mind is their only tool for doing this, and the mind is their only instrument which can gauge the results; mind is tester, lab and conclusion in one when it comes to meditation."
At some point 'The Mystic' should absolve the Mind,
"Pure Conciousness" ; the problem, being :
Language is a disease of the MIND
To speak of it entails placing it in a construct,
I would argue that is not the "nature state" -
The Mystics' Rede (of I)
four-square, mystic,
I am a Nigh-hil-is-tic!
Who can know nothing,
there : being, no
thing to knowThough I dare
O, my god !
I DO, DARE : TO WILL
To feel, to think, to be-leafWhen, said:
"This is THAT,"
I recoils, horrified
At the denial of my validity
Sanctity of my solemn-I-ty
Accepting, Respecting
Beliefs
Best I can do as a fellow Me
to YouTOOT, TOOT
HOOT, HOOT -
@Uni_Verse said
"
@seekinghga said
"A mystic is anyone who meditates to experience the altered states of awareness that come about by suppressing the attention of the mind to a single thing, until the outgoing tendencies of that mind desist and there is left only the awareness of pure being, experiencing itself alone; time, space and causality are placed back into their folder of Conveniences For Linear Mental Comprehension"
This arrested me.
Planted doubt - is this all a lie ?That is an issue, I perceive, regarding Mysticism.
Moment you go Prose-Ey , the rose becomes a Pose-Ey!"What's your issue? It's simply a brief explanation of dharana and dhyana.
"
@seekinghga said
" The mind is what the mystic needs to discipline and focus, and the mind is their only tool for doing this, and the mind is their only instrument which can gauge the results; mind is tester, lab and conclusion in one when it comes to meditation."At some point 'The Mystic' should absolve the Mind,
"Pure Conciousness" ; the problem, being :
Language is a disease of the MIND
To speak of it entails placing it in a construct,
I would argue that is not the "nature state""Can you rephrase that? I'm talking from the standpoint of extensive firsthand experience with this stuff. In Yoga the mind MUST be disciplined and the mind MUST be focused. Yet the mind is THE ONLY way to gauge the development of both of those things, basing its premise on the actual progress of one's meditation. And this is done primarily for the sake of the record. Again this is very basic Yoga, man. Cheers.
-
NOTE: I did not realize part of your post was cut off until I was in the middle of responding. I am just going to leave this here and create a separate post.
@seekinghga said
"What's your issue? It's simply a brief explanation of dharana and dhyana."
Oh, I have MORE than one , and one, and one....
Limiting my self to one, for the moment, it would be the "run-on" nature of the sentence.
I feel it touches those things, but does not explain them well.
With the added context and further thought it could be a matter of stylistic choices.... -
I thought it amusing, that originally your response included the term "reph"
Confused, I was lead to an image and the following article :www.theringer.com/2018/12/12/18137221/far-right-occult-symbol
I have not read the article, though I plan to.
-
@Uni_Verse said
"
Oh, I have MORE than one , and one, and one....
Limiting my self to one, for the moment, it would be the "run-on" nature of the sentence."I write the way that I write because I can. The bottom line: if you don't like it then don't read it.
"I feel it touches those things, but does not explain them well."
It explains them perfectly, though it's lacking in detail because it was only a brief summary which was my intention in including it before moving on.
" thought it amusing, that originally your response included the term "reph""
I've never used that term in my life. So it seems you've moved from nonsense to outright lying?
You used to post on the old occultforum.org. I was Luke Saint there. I remember you Uni_Verse, and after over ten years it seems you still feel the need to frame your words in pseudo-mystical babble. Whereas I can say what I want to say in very concise and very clear language that anyone of average intelligence with an above-average vocabulary can comprehend. Though, I will admit that I've probably sent more than a few people to the Merriam-Webster trauma ward...
You do know that when Crowley was talking about The Fool of Aleph he didn't mean an actual jester? If that's what you want, however, there was a poster by the name of Asisa who left a treasure mine of the stuff. Veritable vainglorious veins upon veins of proud pyrite, and all yours for the taking, bub. Mazel tov!
<!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="http://heruraha.net/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=15240">viewtopic.php?f=3&t=15240</a><!-- l -->
<!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="http://heruraha.net/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=15236">viewtopic.php?f=3&t=15236</a><!-- l -->
<!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="http://heruraha.net/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=15128">viewtopic.php?f=20&t=15128</a><!-- l --> (a real good one!)
There's plenty more in the Magick section. -
@seekinghga said
" Whereas I can say what I want to say in very concise and very clear language that anyone of average intelligence with an above-average vocabulary can comprehend."
You go ahead and keep doing what you WANT,
I shall continue to do my WILL
-
@seekinghga said
"So it seems you've moved from nonsense to outright lying? "
This honestly bothered me...
Like... Really ?
If after 10 years you still doubt my sincerity,
You have been reading all my posts with a blind-fold.If this was just about YOU,
I would not have bothered responding.It is about the experience of each individual who reads them.
My poems, as I see it, are gifts from the Uni Verse
Through Me,
Offering my love and affection to whomever may stumble upon them.I am not such a fool to believe I could absolve people of their suffering...
Well, maybe... just a little -
There is a DIFFERENCE,
If you do not confound the space-marks.Of course, you would not know
Since you are not Me,
So let me tell You:I have been TRYING to compose prose -
Yet when I take the time to write as such
I get logged out.
Being lazy, I log back in.
Give you the CLIFF NOTES
Yeah, yeah, yeah
"I KNOW"
I should have learned by now
THINGS, take me a while
Then I bring them into my heart
For all the UNIVERSE
to experience
REALLY, HONESTLY, TRUELY :
If I could give these Reponses
AS I WILL -
THEY, would be SONGS
I sing to you...pew
pew pew
I shoot You
With my "Heart Cannon"
u ded
I kill you -
TIME ! TIME ! TIME !
I barely have the time to abstract a billion years of experience...
A Single Night of Fiery Truth -
Yet you expect prose ?
OH THAT BIG ASS & NOSEMe is but the scribe for the I who dictates the "one verse."
-
O!
HA ! HA!
Do you want to get married?
Say
"Yes," aloud, to
U N I V E R S E
and one day we might meet,
I will whisper something into your ear
We will make LOVE
And in the fire of our passion,
WE shall become as ashes
Carried by the Wind -
One thing, I think, to be clear:
I offer no guarantees ; only, possibilities
I am a RUNNER,
My Fathers Sun -
Nuptials?
Goodness, I’ve been away. I didn’t know we were to the proposals already.
-
@Uni_Verse said
"I found, the sound of the Rede "to be" delightful
Until :
@seekinghga said
"A mystic is anyone who meditates to experience the altered states of awareness that come about by suppressing the attention of the mind to a single thing, until the outgoing tendencies of that mind desist and there is left only the awareness of pure being, experiencing itself alone; time, space and causality are placed back into their folder of Conveniences For Linear Mental Comprehension"
This arrested me.
Planted doubt - is this all a lie ?That is an issue, I perceive, regarding Mysticism.
Moment you go Prose-Ey , the rose becomes a Pose-Ey!"“Is this all a lie?”
It certainly seems to hurt, and that’s probably more relevant than whether or not it’s “real.”
What do either of you make of it?
-
@Hermitas said
"Goodness, I’ve been away. I didn’t know we were to the proposals already."
A straight line , being infinite, can never be traversed.
Following brings you "Closer" or "Farther"
Yet never reaching, T(w)oThus:
We Zig, We Zag
Leap & Laugh !@Hermitas said
"It certainly seems to hurt, and that’s probably more relevant than whether or not it’s “real.”"
I would think so. In my experience it tends to represent resistance.
It can be an indication of a reaction to the words based on passed experiences,
or a 'Truth' you do not wish to see, so you distract yourself, quite easily....To be clear I shared my "search findings" because I felt the "image was really freaking cool."
Any pain or hurt was unintentional; rather than fight, and grow apart:
With an injection of MAGICK into MYSTICISM
Let us transmute it into LOVE & LIGHT !
-
I my self got a little triggered when my sincerity was questioned...
When I was younger I was quite the internet troll
I still, often, am labeled a Troll on "Social Media"
However on this Forum, and other such places that discuss similar topics
I have taken great pains to be sincere and avoid being antagonistic. -
I learned that you get "psychically" linked to an argument and its voices.. "Center of Pestilence"? Maybe.
Whatever that means, I got really tired of it.
-
@Hermitas said
"I learned that you get "psychically" linked to an argument and its voices."
Mystically speaking I would say such links should be severed.
"Buddhist non-attachment"
Magickally they can be a useful tool.
"Thelemic de-attachment"Where- in the Mind of the Magician
Tens, Hundreds, Thousands - iterations may occur
In the passing of a 'mortal second'