About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Forward one pageLast Page


Post 20

Wednesday, October 24, 2007 - 11:41pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Although I'm a huge Ayn Rand fan, I cannot call myself an Objectivist because I do not agree with her existential, reductive (or "fish bowl") metaphysics. I am an unrepentant mystic deeply into Advaita Vedanta, Kashmir Shaivism, and Dzogchen. Although Christian mysticism is not my first spiritual love, I've delved deeply into it, and in my opinion, anyone into reading the superficial pablum of Joel Osteen should compare and contrast his teachings to those of true Christians: the great Christians mystics. With this in mind, here is my list of recommended Christian and Jewish spiritual books.  

Highly Recommended
Meditations on the Tarot—Valentin Tomberg (An astonishing journey into Christian Hermeticism.)
Meister Eckhart—("The Complete Mystical Work of Meister Eckhart" is the recommended book to get—but it costs $75. "Meister Eckhart," (tr. Raymond B. Blakney) is fine compilation of Eckhart's sermons, and goes for about $15. Scholarly types will want to supplement either of the aforementioned books with "The Mystical Thought of Meister Eckhart," by Bernard McGinn.
Recommended
Inner Christianity—Richard Smoley (A clear and thoughtful guide to the esoteric Christian Tradition.)
Jewish Meditation—Aryeh Kaplan
Open Mind, Open Heart—Thomas Keating (A classic, best-selling text on the contemplative dimension of the Gospel.)
The Mystic Christ—Ethan Walker (Excellent book for Christians.)
The Secret Book of John—Steven Davies (translator)
The Sermon on the Mount According to Vedanta—Swami Prabhavananda
The Work of the Kabbalist—S'ev Shimon Halevi
(Note: Scholarly types into Western Christian mysticism will love the fine texts by Prof. Bernard McGinn. Check out McGinn's The Presence of God: A History of Western Mysticism series. This four-volume series includes The Foundations of Mysticism, The Growth of Mysticism The Flowering of Mysticism, and The Crisis of Mysticism. Beyond this series, McGinn has also graced us with The Essential Writings of Christian Mysticism, an immensely rich anthology of the greatest Christian mystical literature. Selections in this volume include writings from such great mystics as Origen, Augustine, Dionysius the Areopagite, St. John of the Cross, Bernard of Clairvaux, Meister Eckhart, Nicholas of Cusa, John Ruusbroec, Thomas Merton, and many more. Relative to a scholarly consideration of Jewish Mysticism, I highly recommend Gershom Scholem's Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism. Not only is this text the canonical modern work on the nature and history of Jewish mysticism, it's also one of the most thoughtful and incisive academic considerations of mysticism in general.
 


Post 21

Thursday, October 25, 2007 - 1:23pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Mysticism is not inherently world-denying. Yes, the exclusive (Neoplatonic) mystics seek to escape from finite, or conditional, reality, but the higher, inclusive mystics are characterized by a love and appreciation of  created  reality. Although these inclusive mystics regularly experience  ecstatic spiritual states of  unity-consciousness, or oneness with the Unmeasurable and Unknowable,  they still remain postitively occupied with the measurable, or sensible and intelligible, universe.

Joel Osteen has essentially "psychologized" conventional, or "outer" Christianity, turning it into a NewAge-type self-improvement program. But the higher, inclusive mystics do not merely advocate self-evolvement, they also point individuals to real spiritual practice, which leads to self-transcendence: the realization that consciousness without content is not a contradiction in terms, but the very means for allowing consciousness to reveal its underlying, irreducible nature as palpable, even visceral and violent, radiant power that literally outshines the arising mental modification pattern that is mind. The mind is not spirit. The mind merely modifies spirit, which is the inherently blissful and luminous energy of consciouness itself.

The "Baptist Fire" or "Blood of Jesus" are equivalent to what Hindu yogis call kundlalini shakti. These terms denote a living reality, a radical living spiritual force that literally, by its very nature, bestows blessing power, or grace, upon its recipients. This spiritual reality--which Rand never had a clue about --cannot be grasped; in fact, it can only be experienced when all mental grasping ceases for a time. Higher mysticism has nothing to with faith or belief; it is simply the radical practice of directly and immediately inhering in, and coinciding with, spiritual reality.


Post 22

Thursday, October 25, 2007 - 6:44pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I have always found the idea of mysticism revolting. I can't see giving away my love so lightly. :)

Michael

Post 23

Thursday, October 25, 2007 - 8:09pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Michael, you obviously have not heard Joel Osteen speak.

Post 24

Thursday, October 25, 2007 - 8:56pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Erik,

There is a American Negro spiritual, This Little Light of Mine, all alone in my room I gonna let it shine. And at the temple of Apollo at Delphi there is "Know thyself" caved in the entrance hall.

I hold those two things fundamental to my being. Are you saying that if I listen to Osteen, I am going to give those up to supplicate a mystical force?

hahahahha, priorities, priorities. :)

Michael
(Edited by Newberry on 10/25, 8:57pm)


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 25

Friday, October 26, 2007 - 12:20amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ronald, you wrote,
But the higher, inclusive mystics do not merely advocate self-evolvement, they also point individuals to real spiritual practice, which leads to self-transcendence: the realization that consciousness without content is not a contradiction in terms, but the very means for allowing consciousness to reveal its underlying, irreducible nature as palpable, even visceral and violent, radiant power that literally outshines the arising mental modification pattern that is mind. The mind is not spirit. The mind merely modifies spirit, which is the inherently blissful and luminous energy of consciousness itself.
I haven't the faintest idea what all of this is supposed to mean. You say that consciousness without content is not a contradiction in terms, but the very means for allowing consciousness to reveal its underlying, irreducible nature as (blah, blah, blah). . ." In fact, consciousness without content is a contradiction in terms. In order to be aware, you have to be aware of something; if you're not aware of anything, then you're not conscious.

Then you say that the mind is not spirit, but merely modifies spirit, etc. What is the difference between mind and spirit in this context? You need to be more specific and to give us some concrete examples of what you're talking about -- one's that we can relate to -- otherwise what you're saying comes off as just so many floating abstractions.

- Bill

Sanction: 7, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 7, No Sanction: 0
Post 26

Friday, October 26, 2007 - 3:35pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Bill, ordinary dualistic consciousness involves the act of placing one's attention on objects. This is true for perception and conception. But the highest form of "meditation" transcends the subject-object dichotomy of ordinary cognition. This is so because the highest form of "meditation" is itself the very transcendence of the act attention, which binds (or reduces and contracts) consciousness by implicating it in successive states of dualistic consciousness. In radical (or "gone-to-the- root ""meditation") the habitual act of focusing attention on objects is transcended, and consciousness stands free, explicated from the contraction generated by incessant mental grasping. Ordinary cognition is like a fist clenching in the midst of boundless space; radical meditation is like opening the fist. There are no "floating abstraction" in radical meditation simply because there is no abstracting going on. Because non-dualistic (inherently spiritual) consciousness is an irreducible primary, an all-subsuming reality that is always already the case, it defies analysis and definition and can only be self-ostensibly demonstrated or realized. It is simply a self-evident, self-existing, self-radiant, perfectly "Subjective" conditition that is prior to and beyond ordinary subject-object cognition. You can't "know" It; you can only be It. It is not a state of consciousness; it is the assumption of the prior position of free awareness that always already transcends (by spiritually or energetically "outshining") the concepts,or mental modifications, that arise in its field. The mind is a modification, or permutation, pattern superimposed on  awareness. When awareness is utterly free of the tyranny of incessant mental grasping and the feeling of relatedness and limitation that it engenders, then transcendental awareness, or consciousness itself, reveals itself as ones'own fundamental, ineffable, Divine spiritual nature or being.   

Self-realization is Spiritual Enlightenment. One's True Self is not the mind; it's Transcendental Consciousness Itself--and the True Nature of  Transcendenal, or Absolute,Consciousness, is Radiant,En-Lightening (or Spiritual) Energy.

Rand didn't know about radical spiritual consciousness because she was guilty of, ahem, context-dropping. She, like other un-en-Lightened individuals, had dropped the full context of radiant, connected being-consciousness and contracted into the separate-self-sensation position. From this spiritually un-Enlightened point of view, she developed her remarkable, but flawed philosophy.


Post 27

Friday, October 26, 2007 - 4:58pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Bill to Ronald:
I haven't the faintest idea what all of this is supposed to mean.
 Ronald to Bill:
When awareness is utterly free of the tyranny of incessant mental grasping and the feeling of relatedness and limitation that it engenders, then transcendental awareness, or consciousness itself, reveals itself as ones'own fundamental, ineffable, Divine spiritual nature or being. 
Bill, you reach that state when you sleep and dream. Well, maybe not. :-)



Post 28

Friday, October 26, 2007 - 7:20pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Basically - it is crap.

"When a person makes an assertion for which no rational grounds are given, his statement is -- epistemologically -- without cognitive content. It is as though nothing had been said."
Nathaniel Branden

(Edited by robert malcom on 10/26, 7:27pm)


Post 29

Friday, October 26, 2007 - 9:49pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Robert, the rational grounds are aplenty. Mystics throughout history, from different spiritual traditions (or no tradtion), with no contact with each other, have had this same radical Realization. In other words, the Realization is universal. That is why Aldous Huxley terms this mystical teaching the "Perennial Philosophy."

A=A, period. If you can, for a protracted period of time, remain effortlessly aware without becoming distracted by or grasping after your thought forms; If you can remain free of seeking for anything whatsoever, free of becoming, then your true spiritual nature, or Transcendental Identity, will spontaneously reveal Itself. It takes no effort to Be, but because your whole life revolves around effort, around constant clinging, craving, and grasping, around constant becoming (or successive changes of state), you are karmically contracted and incapable of realizing your own True (or Buddha) Nature.

You're no different than a brainwashed Jesus Freak. You're a "true believer" in Rand's and Peikoff's "rational," laughable, straw man assessment of mysticism. Rand and Peikoff worship a limited God, and it's called the "rational mind." The rational mind is a marvelous tool--but it has no way of "accessing" That which lies beyond concepts.

Spend a few months in a Zen monastery and then tell me there isn't a spiritual reality that supersedes and subsumes your your finite, conditional existence.      


Post 30

Saturday, October 27, 2007 - 2:02amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Been there, done that - learned better, moved on.....   you're the one sucked in delusionalism...[a true believer if there ever was one...]
(Edited by robert malcom on 10/27, 2:03am)


Post 31

Saturday, October 27, 2007 - 9:48amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ronald wrote,
You're no different than a brainwashed Jesus Freak. You're a "true believer" in Rand's and Peikoff's "rational," laughable, straw man assessment of mysticism. Rand and Peikoff worship a limited God, and it's called the "rational mind." The rational mind is a marvelous tool--but it has no way of "accessing" That which lies beyond concepts.

Spend a few months in a Zen monastery and then tell me there isn't a spiritual reality that supersedes and subsumes your your finite, conditional existence.
Ronald, I'm still not clear on your position. Are you saying that one's spirit or consciousness has an existence independent of the body -- that, like the Christian view of the soul, the spirit or consciousness survives death?

- Bill

Post 32

Saturday, October 27, 2007 - 12:07pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Robert, I love to call people like you on your shit. You haven't demonstrated even a modicum of  intellectual knowledge relative to Eastern philosophy. Why don't you state exactly what spiritual tradition or teacher you were involved with and exactly what your spiritual practice was. You remind me of a stock market "expert" who claims that no one can beat the market simply because he can't. Just because you were a "failed case" is hardly an indictment of spiritual practice.

Bill, I don't claim to be fully Enlightened, so I can't claim with absolute certainty that one's soul (or composite of psychic tendencies) survives death. However, based on my meditation experiences and the testimony of great sages throughout history, I do tend to believe that reincarnation is a reality. But even if it is a reality, it offers little consolation because individuals don't remember their past lives anyway. Belief systems independent of direct personal experience mean little to me, so I don't waste my time dwelling on the possible reality or implications of transmigration. According to the great sages, once the descending spiritual current (the Holy Spirit in Christianity) cuts the heart knot ( a non-physical locus associated with the sinoatrial node), the association of  awareness with the body is sundered, and the "I am the body " idea is permanently eradicated. Consequently, such Enlightened sages, naturally, effortlessly, and spontaneously rested in, and coincident with, the Transcendental Self (or Awareness), no longer fear physical death.   


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 33

Saturday, October 27, 2007 - 12:16pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ronald wrote:

You're no different than a brainwashed Jesus Freak. You're a "true believer" in Rand's and Peikoff's "rational," laughable, straw man assessment of mysticism. Rand and Peikoff worship a limited God, and it's called the "rational mind." The rational mind is a marvelous tool--but it has no way of "accessing" That which lies beyond concepts.

Spend a few months in a Zen monastery and then tell me there isn't a spiritual reality that supersedes and subsumes your your finite, conditional existence.


Ronald, your spiritual "teachings" belong in the Dissent forum as they clearly clash with Objectivism and its view of soul and body as fused and subject to a "finite, conditional" existence.


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 34

Saturday, October 27, 2007 - 12:23pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ronald,

What do these sages do for a living? Are they ethical in their means of physical survival? Can they actually support themselves? Do they integrated this "enlightened" state, with work and life?

What your offering appears to be compartmentalized, and a non-integrated view of living.

BTW, do you have fulfilling work?

Michael

Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 35

Saturday, October 27, 2007 - 12:46pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
The 'finite, conditional' existence is the give-away to your fraud - consciousness as an attempt at de-selfing the self [which is what all the eastern 'religions' crave] is a contradiction of conscious purpose, the bain of individualism precluding your kind, who prefers the cowardness of trying to evade the 'finite, conditional' existence, yet depending on those who do not so seek to evade for the continuance of your very existence - and to seek to cover this evading by claiming some 'higher' mode when in fact there is none, just the chimeria of your inner mindlessness run amoke, shared by your cohorts in the delusion to the point of being a 'true believer'....  in short - the 'emperor' of your holiness has no clothes.....

Post 36

Saturday, October 27, 2007 - 1:01pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ron vs. the rest :

It's pointless to continue the discussion. Ron is speaking one language and the rest of you another so neither can understand the other. The rational, logical, language oriented, left brain  vs. the holistic, introspective, visual right brain of Ron — both constrained to verbal communication.

Sam


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 37

Saturday, October 27, 2007 - 1:16pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ronald, you wrote,
Bill, I don't claim to be fully Enlightened, so I can't claim with absolute certainty that one's soul (or composite of psychic tendencies) survives death. However, based on my meditation experiences and the testimony of great sages throughout history, I do tend to believe that reincarnation is a reality. But even if it is a reality, it offers little consolation because individuals don't remember their past lives anyway. Belief systems independent of direct personal experience mean little to me, so I don't waste my time dwelling on the possible reality or implications of transmigration. According to the great sages, once the descending spiritual current (the Holy Spirit in Christianity) cuts the heart knot ( a non-physical locus associated with the sinoatrial node), the association of awareness with the body is sundered, and the "I am the body " idea is permanently eradicated. Consequently, such Enlightened sages, naturally, effortlessly, and spontaneously rested in, and coincident with, the Transcendental Self (or Awareness), no longer fear physical death.
Ronald, it is impossible for consciousness to exist independently of a living, functioning body and therefore, to survive death. The reason is very simple: One is conscious in a specific form and by a specific means, i.e., through organs of perception and cognition. Without a body, there would be no form of perception -- visual, auditory, tactile, olfactory, etc. -- because there would be no organs of perception through which it could exist. Nor, without a brain to store and process information, would there be any memory or cognition. So, the idea that a consciousness could survive death makes no sense, regardless of the "testimony of the great sages throughout history." No process of meditation, no matter how deep or profound, can offer evidence to the contrary. How could it? How could meditation prove the existence of a disembodied consciousness, when the idea itself makes no logical sense?

- Bill

Post 38

Saturday, October 27, 2007 - 1:31pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Sam: "It's pointless to continue the discussion. Ron is speaking one language and the rest of you another so neither can understand the other. The rational, logical, language oriented, left brain vs. the holistic, introspective, visual right brain of Ron — both constrained to verbal communication."

Seems like you are feeding a misconception.

Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 39

Saturday, October 27, 2007 - 1:51pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
The teachings of Osteen sound like a rehash of the Calvinist ethic which took hold in England and the United States during the industrial revolution and supported an alliance between Christianity and capitalism. It embraced the virtues of productivity and self-discipline and, in contrast to Lutheranism, gave its blessing to the amassing of individual wealth. Calvinism attributed business success to being preordained by God for eternal salvation, but it also put a premium on altruism, and held charity to the deserving poor as a major virtue. The alliance between capitalism and Christianity began to dissolve in the first half of the twentieth century when religious leaders saw their influence eroding and started placing less emphasis on supernatural ‘salvation.’ Faced with the growth of science and secularism, they based their social authority instead on an appeal to the virtues of altruism and self-sacrifice–and the result, of course, is the wonderful welfare state we see today.

It has long been recognized that the ingenuity of Christianity can be found in its practical formula of living it up for six days and repenting on the seventh. Fundamental premises inevitably win out. Paying lip service to earthly happiness while embracing a religion which exalts mysticism and self-sacrifice will yield the exact same result every time. These people are not our allies. Until and unless we irrevocably condemn the metaphysical and ethical underpinnings of Christianity and religion in general, we will continue to lose ground.

To the extent that we follow Robert’s advice and "encourage Osteen’s influence among already-committed Christians" and "encourage reform Muslims who reject fundamentalist, militant Islam," we will end up in exactly the same place we find ourselves today.


Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.