Home (theory of the ego death and rebirth experience)
'Mystic State Irrelevant' Fallacy - Diminishment by Denying the Value of the Mystic State Itself
Contents
Insulting the
satori/regeneration/peak cognitive state
Enlightenment Techniques. Disparaging Mystic State of Unity
Consciousness as Irrelevant
Enlightenment
is easy to understand, by studying systematizations of it, and is easy to
experience, using entheogens. Is it
easy to live from the enlightened perspective?
What would it mean, to "live from the enlightened
perspective"? Here everything
becomes hazy and speculative and completely debatable, reeking of late 20th
Century invented spirituality -- a spirituality that was invented specifically
in opposition to the awakening that was caused by pot and acid around the
1960s.
The
biggest empty cliche is that satori is transient but that the real goal is to
live an ongoing spiritual life. The
idea of living an ongoing spiritual life is brand new, lacks a historical basis,
is purely speculative and an arbitrary value-based definition of what religion
and enlightenment are about, contradicts the Traditional idea that the goal of
life is peak experience, is based on a false and distorted history of religion,
and is practically a moralistic Puritanism updated for the late 20th Century.
The notion
of "living from an enlightened perspective", that conception of what
the ongoing spiritual life would be, is a hazy fantasy, an arbitrary artificial
construct. There is nothing there; it's
baseless conjecture, imagined notions of what spiritual enlightenment would,
could, or should be about.
It has
become standard to disparage and slander the state of satori or peak
experiencing -- 'blasphemy' can only refer to this diminishment of the holy
spirit, the intense mystic altered state.
It's now standard to put down the mystic state, and elevate instead the
idea of "living from the enlightened perspective", a view that stands
in disagreement with mystics in general, who talk of a spiritual path leading
up to peak experience, rather than talking about mundane self-improvement and
elevation of day-to-day life.
Is this
hazy, novel, and conjectural construction, "living from an enlightened
perspective", more worthwhile and valuable than that which makes it
possible -- the intense mystic altered state, satori, and the peak window
during which ego is struck by lightning?
Debatable indeed.
Blasphemy
against the Son is a pardonable sin, but blasphemy against the holy spirit is
unpardonable, warranting the death penalty: when one has been struck down and
set straight by the intense mystic seizure about who's not in charge of whom,
it becomes much more difficult to suppose the greatness and loftiness of
"living from an enlightened perspective".
Can
"living from an enlightened perspective" be of greater value than the
satori experience that produces enlightenment?
Late 20th
Century notions of spirituality are intent on diminishing the worth of actual
satori and peak experience, striving to instead enthrone the enhancement of
everyday life, labelling that enhancement as "spirituality" and
"transcendence" and "enlightenment".
People
ought to emphatically honor, and recognize and seek the grandeur of the real
thing: the intense mystic altered state, which is the source, origin,
fountainhead, basis, foundation, and wellspring of religion, not to be mistaken
for the mundane sentimental, moralistic, ethical, conjectural, vague imposter
of "living from the perspective of the enlightenment perspective".
Is it
possible to not insult peak experiencing, and not insult the elevation of day
to day life? A full life must have both
-- the timeless eternal peak experience, and the day to day life, one shining a
perspective onto the other. A classic
metaphor is that before satori or regeneration, all of one's actions are sinful
and generate bad karma, while after full satori and rengeneration, all of one's
actions are blessed and escape the round of reincarnation. This then puts all focus and value on the
moment of satori and regeneration, rather than on the content of one's life
afterwards.
>In Jed
McKenna's book "Spiritual Enlightenment: The Damnedest Thing,"
Spiritual
Enlightenment: The Damnedest Thing
Jed
McKenna
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0971435235
>McKenna
makes an emphatic distinction between enlightenment and unity-consciousness or
cosmic consciousness,
A series
of entheogenic unity-consciousness mystic altered state sessions, when combined
with systematic study of transcendent knowledge concepts, eventually leads to
enlightenment. Wilber differentiates
between 'altered states' (unity consciousness) and 'altered traits'
(enlightenment); my equivalent terms to make this distinction are 'loose
cognition' and 'the transcendent mental worldmodel'.
>stating
that while unity consciousness is certainly a profoundly wonderful experience,
perhaps indeed THE most wonderful experience of all, it is not enlightenment
and has nothing to do with enlightenment.
How many
people agree that unity consciousness has no relationship to enlightenment and
can shine no light on enlightenment?
That is the logical end-state of the Buddhist rejection of entheogens in
favor of meditation.
To
strategically and dishonestly defend meditation, which generally fails to
deliver unity consciousness and the mystic altered state, while entheogens
obviously produce these in spades straightforwardly, anti-entheogen Buddhists
have taken to condemning and disparaging and belittling not only entheogens,
but the mystic altered state in general.
They have
kidnapped religion and now claim that the real goal of religion is to enhance
ordinary, nonmystical daily life.
McKenna and others are wrong on this point, to an evil degree. Unity consciousness is the source, origin,
heart, and soul of enlightenment.
Without the experience of unity consciousness, there would be no
enlightenment; enlightenment is and was discovered and revealed directly because
of unity consciousness.
Any other
enlightenment is a "man-made" "mortal" invention, an
artificial version of enlightenment that might be good but is certainly not the
classic enlightenment. There is only
one type of enlightenment that has a rightful claim to the word 'enlightenment'
as in religious, spiritual, or metaphysical enlightenment, and that is the
classic enlightenment, which is characteristically revealed by unity
consciousness.
Other
sorts of enlightenments deserve to be relegated to the glorious realm of
life-enhancement and self-help, or personal development.
>He
also states that it is an exceedingly common delusion that enlightenment and
unity consciousness have something to do with each other...
He asserts
that people draw a strong connection between the two. I hold that there is a very strong connection between these two
things, and these are two distinct things, not the same thing.
>that
most people believe enlightenment is like a permanent blissed-out unity
consciousness state, and that this is flatly wrong.
I agree
with McKenna that people should stop conflating enlightenment and unity
consciousness. Enlightenment is not a
permanent blissed-out unity consciousness state. Such a state is provided neither by the classic religious method,
which is entheogens, nor by alternative upstart inefficient approaches such as
meditation.
>...
you exalt the unity-consciousness experience, as brought about by entheogens
The
unity-consciousness experience, as brought about by entheogens is a profound
state bringing profound insights and experiences, and after a series, combined
with study, provides transcendent transformation of the mental worldmodel.
>you
... reject the idea that one can abide in this state and still function in
everyday life
Yes. There are no grounds for believing that
entheogens or alternative methods produce a permanent altered state, in the
standard careful definition of 'altered state'.
>you
assert that the best one can do is modify one's understanding, thus removing
some but perhaps not all of the "meta-level" anxiety of believing
oneself to be an ego trapped in time.
>(According
to your definition, if I understand it correctly, I'm enlightened now.)
It is
safest or surest to define enlightenment as requiring a good grasp of the
system of concepts I've pulled together, interspersed with a series of intense
mystic altered state sessions. If you
have explored this state and this conceptual system together thoroughly enough
to have a good grasp of it, then you are enlightened, as defined in this
system. I can't currently assess the
extent of your familiarity with the mystic altered state of loose cognition, or
your grasp of the system of concepts (or systematic model).
>[that
view may be] an expression of subtle cynicism, resignation and despair,
Einstein's
speed-of-light may also be considered cynicism, resignation, and despair, if
you insist on being uncharitable in your characterization. I'm more straightforward: the world has
various limits. There are limits to how
tranquil or coherent one's mind can be after enlightenment. I take an Xer stance here: better to accept
limits than to hold up excessive, unwarranted hopes and then be disappointed
when the hopes turn out to be unrealistic wishes.
There
might be some kind of enlightenment beyond that of discovering the fascinating
limits of the egoic control system, but that ventures into the highly
speculative and tentative realm. The
sure and classic kind of enlightenment, the universally recognized kind of
enlightenment that transcends cultures and value systems, is about the limits
of the egoic control system and the experience of control breakdown-and-reset.
>combined
with an egoic desire to carve something solid upon which you can stake a claim,
You
speculate about my personal motives.
You have little basis for such speculation. How can you tell what my motivations are? Your evidence is totally debatable. You can imagine, but you should doubt your
assessment -- as you do. Hold up a
mirror: are you projecting your mode of motivation onto me?
Say, I
think you are motivated by an egoic desire to carve something solid upon which
you can stake a claim. Why are you
being so defensive? You are obviously
motivated by ego, whereas my motives are pure and transcendent -- who can
argue, and on what basis? Such
speculation is dirt cheap and worth as much.
Do you have anything more sure and substantial to contribute?
>something
which has the added value, from the ego's point of view, of giving you an
"establishment" against which you can dramatically do battle.
There is a
dominant mainstream view on four points: meditation is better than entheogens,
freewill moral agency is to be promoted, religious founder figures are
historically literally real, and enlightenment is difficult, slow, and
rationally incomprehensible. This is
the exact establishment that I'm refuting.
Your hypothesis sounds vague and general, but I am totally specific.
Have you
no comment on the concrete specifics, only on floating abstractions? If not, you are merely a psychologist, and I
have little respect for the Psychology paradigm.
>THE
TRUTH IS IMPOSSIBLE TO DESCRIBE.
Generally
and overall, the transcendent truth is easy to directly, straightforwardly
describe, requiring reasonably sophisticated mastery of semantics and language
and vocabulary about mystic-state insights and experiences. I side with those who assert that the truth
is rationally comprehensible.
>This
is not a vague, wishy-washy cop-out; it is what enlightened people have said,
That's
what some supposedly enlightened people have said. Others may disagree. The
latter are correct, the former are incorrect.
They mistake their poor use of the mind for the incomprehensibility of
transcendent knowledge. I'm glad to be
seemingly the only person in world history to maintain the simple rational
comprehensibility of transcendent truth.
Full basic
enlightenment is no big deal and the power of the mind and of systematic model
construction should not be underestimated, and the complexity of enlightenment
should not be overestimated.
>in one
way or another, since time immemorial. This is because words create the false
impression of "things" that have shape and form and can be
apprehended by the mind.
If you use
words poorly, you buy into such false impressions. Word-matrixes and mental constructs are dangerous and powerful,
use them skillfully.
>"Enlightenment
is truth-realization," says McKenna. When one sees and tells the truth
with one's whole being, one becomes speechless.
On whose
authority? When the skilled mind
comprehends truth, the mind can potentially systematically model that truth
efficiently. McKenna and every
like-minded theorist in the universe are wrong on this point. Which authority will you follow -- McKenna's
authority, or mine? When you comprehend
truth, are you speechless, even after studying my explanations of classic full
basic enlightenment? What conception of
'truth-realization' and explanatory ability, or explainability, do you
hold?
What
conception of systematic model-construction do you hold? It's up to you to decide; consider my views
that conflict with the other authorities such as McKenna. They all say enlightenment is hard to grasp,
complicated, subtle, difficult, unattainable, mind-baffling -- but I and
like-minded investigators put forth a conflicting report. How can you decide which story to believe --
popular vote? But the popular view is
deluded.
Enough
talk about McKenna; when you attain truth-realization (by your definition of
'truth-realization'), are you speechless (by your definition of
'speechless')? You own your own ideas
about what it's all about. A million
authorities can only provide suggestions and conjectures and assertions. I suggest considering the simplicity and
rational comprehensibility of truth-realization.
My theory
is particularly valuable *because* it tells a story that conflicts with
seemingly everyone. I would never have
picked up the pen if I hadn't thought that all the previous available
authorities are full of nonsense -- that every last one of them is wrong on
this point. Religious theory is filled
with disagreement among the authorities on such points. The votes of the authorities are worth only
so much; they always may all be wrong.
There are
advantages to being the only theorist to combine certain ideas and assertions a
certain way. I learned to embrace and
value my disagreement even while seeking agreement.
>Thereafter
one can only point; truth can be told only in poetry. UNTRUTH can be told; we
can talk about what the truth is NOT all day and night.
>... to
be enlightened is to be radically free from anxiety. (_Anguish_ is actually the
better word.)
A hallmark
of mystic experiencing is anguish, which may be worked through over the course
of sessions leading to 'sainthood' or enlightenment, reconciling one's new
mental worldmodel with the insights and experiences found in the
loose-cognition state.
>as a
Zen student you had tried for years to get rid of anxiety and had given up in
frustration.
That is a
mischaracterization. I tried to get rid
of anxiety, I satisfyingly concluded that some anxiety is inherent in
self-controllership, and I satisfyingly came across a coherent model of
enlightenment along the way, like the story of Paul who tried to adhere to a system
of conduct, but became enlightened when he discovered that self-control is
inherently problematic.
I agree
with Watts on this point. Ego
inherently includes anxiety, and ego remains, in many respects, after
enlightenment, resulting in a transformed and no longer meta-anxious ego.
>I
don't think the key is to get _rid_ of anguish; I think rather the key is to be
able to _be with_ it; to experience it as fully as possible, to savor it. It
thus ceases to be the bogey-man, allowing one to drop ever-further towards the
center of one's Being; toward no-thing-ness.
We agree
on this point.
>The
central nervous system obviously doesn't want us to do this. It says "go
away from anguish, go toward happiness."
In the
intense mystic state, the mind seeks to lock-on focus onto a new coherent way
of thinking or modelling self and world.
This is a fascinating attractive beautiful force that also is dangerous
and destabilizing and frightening; one must proceed as crossing a razor blade
to get to the other side, with only one's delusion falling into the pit
below.
To reach
happiness, one must throw one's little deluded self overboard -- this happens
over the course of a series of mystic state sessions, alternating with
conceptual development and study.
>This
is the most basic instruction of the CNS; the "carrot-and-stick" it
uses to get us to serve its meat-brain agenda. It forms the subjective arrow of
time. Ultimately, it forms the ego -- which is ironic, since it is this very
instruction we follow as we strive toward enlightenment. This is one of the
reasons the road to enlightenment is littered with dead bodies -- the very
impulse that makes us strive for It is the thing that keeps us pointed away
from It.
>...At
the core is what I call the "Primary Demon" -- the big scary
Bogey-Man of anguish that forms the lynch-pin of the ego ... To behold this
Bogey-Man is to kill him; therefore he is protected from being looked at by a
variety of subroutines and Stupidity Fields all of which say "don't look
this way! Look at something else!"
There are
times in the mystic state when the mind is drawn to look upon principles and
mental dynamics that shock and destroy aspects of the accustomed mental
worldmodel. Then the advancing initiate
prays for the return of the stupidity field, striving to 'reject God' and 'turn
away' and 'not look back at that fearsome terrible beautiful gorgon lest one be
destroyed and turn to stone'. Later,
the way forward is to burn away the remaining stupidity field and gain
transcendent, 'divine' thinking.
>(When
I beheld my Primary Demon, there were two bigger demons right behind him --Fear
of Going Crazy and Fear of Annihilation. These were also difficult to behold,
of course. But once the Primary Demon had been dealt with, I felt I could deal
with anything.)
>My
Recipe For Enlightenment:
>
>1.
Decide that enlightenment is your only goal, and that you will sacrifice
_anything_ in order to attain It. Become single-minded.
Would you
sacrifice self-control, self-command? I
consider the "crucified king" to be an efficient and direct symbol of
that sacrifice, which one can affirm and comprehend. The Cross is first of all a symbol of the initiate's sacrifice of
his illusion of sovereign self-control agency, to gain enlightenment and mental
coherence. The perfected/mature mind is
that which has managed to be willing to sacrifice the most centrally valued
thing of the egoic mind: self-control; freewill sovereign moral agency.
>2.
Give up the idea that you know anything. At the very same time, give up reliance
on external authority or validation and determine to Think For Yourself.
This comes
naturally during the entheogenic intense mystic altered state of intense
solipsism, when other people are seen as your own mind's mental constructs, and
even yourself in the past and future is seen as your own mind's present mental
constructs, potentially dangling pointers without any actual referents. When no one else appears to exist, one can
only think for oneself.
>3.
Give up the idea that anything external is causing your anguish. Consider
deeply that You (whoever that is; who are You?) are the source of your anguish.
Savor your anguish. Learn to be very still and present with it. When it
disappears, continue to observe. See if there is another, more subtle layer of
anguish underneath the first, which the first was preventing you from seeing.
Incoherence
of the mind's worldmodel about self, time, control, agency, and world is the
cause of a key kind of 'anguish'.
Metaphysical enlightenment directly addresses and generally eliminates
this type of anguish. Skillful
self-help and a different kind of transcendence can address other kinds of
'anguish' or cognitive dissonance.
>4.
Note any behavior you perpetrate that is clearly done to relieve or distract
yourself from anxiety, or is done based on the belief that another person or
circumstance is causing your anxiety, and drop it.
Put
anxiety to the test with intense mystic altered state experiencing. Zero in on anxiety -- dance with the vortex,
be shocked, try to escape anxiety, get an experiential feel for mystic-state
anxiety, flirt with its dynamics, fall in love with it like a moth to the
flame. Where there is mystic anxiety,
there is enlightenment and profound transcendent humility.
Can the
egoic control system control the anxiety that is endemic in the egoic control
system? Ego is inherently susceptible
to anxiety, as part of its susceptibility to ego death and control
seizure. Ego is inherently anxiety, and
ego is necessary and practically useful in daily life and during a mystic-state
session.
>5.
Keep your eye on the ball. Enlightenment is truth-realization; anything else is
delusion. Who are you? What is true? Keep paring away the bullshit until you
know.
#1
candidate for 'bullshit' or 'hubris of the titans' -- I can control my anxiety
in the mystic altered state. I am a
controller and have the power to control what arises in my will. I am a controller and am in control of my
will. I can look upon truth and retain
the familiar, practical sense of control at the same time. I am not vulnerable to anxiety about
self-control.
>>I
don't consider myself enlightened yet, although I may very well be full of shit
about that, too.
If you
experience my systematic theoretical conceptions and theoretically comprehend
the intense mystic state experiences, then according to this theory, you are
enlightened, and any enlightenment beyond that is not the classic main
enlightenment or full basic enlightenment.
>I tend
to think an enlightened person would be unequivocal about whether he or she was
enlightened or not.
Most
religionists today disagree -- they assume that religious or metaphysical
humility must equate to loud and showy self-deprecation of all sorts,
particularly regarding whether one is saved, enlightened, sainted, or
extinguished. In contrast, the mystery
religions and gnostics held that there is no reason for the perfected or mature
or enlightened person to hide, deny, or downplay their state of being
enlightened.
Egoic
thinking is offended by the supposed elitism and supposed egoism of stating
that one is enlightened. A great
measure of whether one is enlightened is whether one is offended by a person
claiming to be enlightened. Contemporary
egoic thinking is offended by the actuality of anyone attaining enlightenment.
Egoic
thinking wants enlightenment to be a pursuit, not a possible attainment -- this
seems to confer legitimacy on the ineffective and unfulfilling path the egoic
minds find themselves committed to.
Egoic
reasoning goes "I'm committed to this path, that doesn't provide a certain
enlightenment and fulfillment and transformation. I want my path to be granted legitimacy, so I define legitimate
religion as that which doesn't provide a certain definite enlightenment and
fulfillment, but is instead a never-ending path of pursuing and never reaching
an ideal or definite transformation."
Distinguish between the egoic conception of humility and the
transcendent conception of humility.
>I'll
keep you posted.
There are
many similarities in our pursuits and paths.
I hope for updates regarding your definitions of goals and progress
toward them.
Home (theory of the ego death and rebirth experience)