Arcadia Discussion Zone

Forums dedicated to history's mysteries, Rennes-le-Château and beyond…

Read the Arcadia Forum House Rules

It is currently 20 Nov 2017 9:02 pm

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 4 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: 14 Jun 2014 11:31 am 
Offline
Grand Master

Joined: 19 Oct 2006 3:21 pm
Posts: 268
Asks our old mate British author Dan Green;

http://blog.world-mysteries.com/science ... e-mistake/


:?:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 02 Jul 2014 10:39 pm 
Offline
Grand Master

Joined: 06 Jun 2012 3:54 pm
Posts: 686
OK, I am going to pick up and run with this topic, as nobody else has said anything.

Dismissing a genuine mystic experience as a "Quirk of neurology" is as absurd as those who describe love as "Hyper aesthesia". From the outside looking in we will try to explain what has apparently happened in terms of what we ourselves know and are comfortable with. So we can objectify it in terms of quasi-medical or psychological terms. In reality this is what a human at a low level of understanding and experience does, in order to try to make sense of a so-called "Mystic" experience.

In this sense, many so-called mystics say this objectification process is as absurd as questioning whether the sun shines. To those who experience it, it works without question or argument. The sun shines and so does the radiance of life shine and give insights.

So where is the gulf in understanding? Can the pupa ever understand the caterpillar or the caterpillar ever understand the butterfly? Could the pupa or caterpillar ever recognise their own future states as resulting in the butterfly? What has a butterfly to do with us? What nonsense, a butterfly is nothing like we are.

Firstly, there are many charlatans in the world, false mystics who feed on the gullibility of others. How they can do this is fairly simple and in itself an interesting topic. So we all learn, and probably rightly so, to be skeptical.

Naturally we are all born with a protective ego that we build up as we grow and experience. It was, and in certain spheres of human life still is, necessary for our protection and survival and skepticism is a useful tool when assessing all kinds of things, including mystic experience.

But many common ego traits outlive their human usefulness and in fact hold us back and are destructive. An enlightened teacher can diagnose these traits and devise exercises to combat these destructive tendencies. Yet how many people are prepared to accept and make the journey, which will probably involve you discarding everything you thought was important and dear to you?

Secondly, whatever many people think and say they seek in religious or mystical terms, it often boils down to a desire for security and entertainment. Many religions cater for these needs with offers of salvation, pardon and promises of eternal life for their security needs and rousing songs, dance, ritual and regalia in awesome environments for their entertainment needs.

Job done. But is is? It's a circus. Fine, if it is understood for what it is, just comfort and entertainment, but frequently it causes members of one group to alienate the non-believers or any of the other factions offering the same things in a different way. This tendency is so strong that sometimes cultures will go to war over it.

Many of the world's religions are now so ancient that they mostly argue the proof that they are right through:

1] Playing the numbers game: "If it was all nonsense, how come we have so many members in our religion?"
2] Playing the longevity game: "If it was all nonsense, how come we are still going strong after all these years?"

Thirdly I would add the problem that it is not possible using the words available in most languages to describe the experiences a mystic has. There simply aren't the words there. Coupled with this is the problem that most words we might pick to describe the experiences are already loaded with connotations. God? Angels? Spirits? Guides? Revelations? Beingness? Oneness? Unity? Already we are arguing with loaded words. It's hard to define the basic terms in an objective way because all the appropriate words have been done to death before.

It cannot be explained in words that which is beyond words. You cannot say what this mystic "thing" is, exactly, and dog knows many people have tried, but you can say what it is a bit like, convey a bit of the taste perhaps. You will find that what you say that this experience is like will be picked over and criticised, by academics especially, and your nearest and dearest, the popular press, anyone who cares to consider it, to the point of despair. So it is mainly for these reasons that those working in these realms simply decline to explain and thus seem to outsiders as secretive and aloof.

Personally I have never met an enlightened person who will not eagerly and willingly share her or his insight with me when asked a sensible question. Now the person might well ask me a few casual test questions in conversation, to find out where I am coming from. Am I in fact one of the people seeking personal comfort or entertainment with no intention of making any personal effort whatsoever? Or are my intentions honest, humble and stemming for a genuine desire for personal progress? There is a recognition of capacity and understanding between people in operation.

The act of me stating the above will make me sound pompous and self-righteous. Who am I to say what any of this is about?

To get back to the topic, it is a useful question to ask whether womankind or mankind has physical organs that are to do with higher perception and a divine reception system of some sort. My answer is yes, it does.

The endocrine glandular system, our nervous systems, our DNA, messenger RNA and synapses are very much to do with awareness and activation of higher neural circuits. It isn't really new news if you follow any kind of Chinese medicine and its meridian system or similar systems found in other cultures such as the chakras.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 28 Jul 2014 9:30 am 
Offline
Queen Bee
User avatar

Joined: 02 Dec 2006 3:44 pm
Posts: 7750
Whoop wrote:

To get back to the topic, it is a useful question to ask whether womankind or mankind has physical organs that are to do with higher perception and a divine reception system of some sort. My answer is yes, it does.


Image

_________________
Image
CROMLECK DE RENNES is here.
It's the SUN


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 28 Sep 2014 9:37 pm 
Offline
Queen Bee
User avatar

Joined: 13 Jan 2009 3:29 am
Posts: 8932
Location: Texas
roscoe wrote:
Whoop wrote:

To get back to the topic, it is a useful question to ask whether womankind or mankind has physical organs that are to do with higher perception and a divine reception system of some sort. My answer is yes, it does.


Image


I like it Roscoe 8)

_________________
Everything is Connected and there are no
coincidences


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 4 posts ] 

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group