From: farris@ruhets.rutgers.edu (Lorenzo Farris)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
Subject: Re: Mystical Cannons
Keywords: Mystical Cannons
Date: 21 Jan 93 17:57:55 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

In article <1993Jan20.172702.11242@linus.mitre.org>, tucker@maestro.mitre.org (William Tucker) writes:
:
:Hello Lorenzo, you ole rattlesnake you.
:

Who, me?

Anyway, I find myself getting caught in an interesting position here.
Between those that want to prove the mystical experience, whatever
that means, and those with the heavy materialistic bias.

I have read a great many of the works you cited, and indeed, they all
point to the same experience, viewed from a variety of cultural
presets. No argument there.

The point I was making was: there are those that have the idea that
once could somehow scientifically prove that the mystical experience
is something other than neurochemicals run amok. My premise is that
while it is indeed possible for any individual who wants it to
replicate the experience, it is not amenable to scientific study right
now. 

The variety of writing from very diverse culture indeeds point to the
fact that something is going on which has a common basis across almost
all of humanity. There is a commonality in how that experience tends
to affect people. 

The issue I am trying to address is this. To someone who has not had
the experience, all these writings may indeed be inspirational, may
'prove' to someone that there is such an experience, that it is worth
having, and that there is something beyond the material universe and
logic on which to base one's decisions.

However, imho, such a person does not *understand* what is going on
unless they have it. There is a big difference between accepting an
idea intellectually, and having your actions and attitude be affected
by that knowledge. There is a big difference between talking the talk
and walking the walk.

To paraphrase an idea from zen, all these wonderful statements which
are based on mystical experiences are the finger pointing at the moon.
The scholarly investigator tends to stare at the finger.

The mystic bashers don't care who has written what about mysticism, if
you can't measure the depth one disappears into samadhi on a
psi-meter, and nothing but samadhi shows up on it. If someone is
inclined in the other direction, the best thing to do is find out how
to have the experience and start *doing*.  There is more proof in one
experience of samadhi than in all the books ever written about it
stacked up.

As an aside, it is quite possible to experience samadhi as a result of
intense intellectual focus on such questions. But it's got to be
pretty damn intense, and you got to want to understand it pretty bad.
This would be to understand that the finger is pointing, and to
actually look in that direction and see the moon.

I never thought I'd find myself quibbling with the pro-mystical types
on this newsgroup.	;-)

				Lorenzo
-- 
Happiness is just a                     ******************************
remembrance away.                       *  Lorenzo Farris            *
                                        *  farris@ruhets.rutgers.edu *
                                        ******************************