Saturday, June 17, 2006

Mysticism and Mindworld

The fact that not all mystics believe exactly the same microscopic details about this Love demonstrates only how free are mystics not to conform. Each mystic must explain the Way to herself in a way that makes sense to her. Each teaches it in a way that can make sense to her listeners. We mystics do not believe in conformity at all. If a mystic receives a "ppersonal revelation" that says that Mind is the One, that becomes her matrix for expansion, belief, and teaching. If she chooses instead to believe that Mind is the "first emanation," that is also quite fine. We believe in a great deal of latitude and elasticity of interpretation. But we all do agree that Mind is the vessel/vehicle for the expression of God. (We might even differ slightly regarding our point of emphasis in even God-definition. For example, my mystical brothers, the Mahayanists, are regarded as non-theistic. But I would not dream of trying to change them.:)

Just as some mystics emphasize the theistic and others the non-theistic, so some emphasize mental participation in the cosmos, and others have differing emphases. But simply because sunyata [the Buddhist Mind-potential] is not interpreted to be a mental epiphemenon does not imply that Mahayana [larger Buddhist school] traditions are non-mental. For Mind is a very important aspect of all mysticism.

Buddhism itself is largely a system of mystical psychology, and the Buddha spent much timenergy in discussing "Mind" and many details of mental processes. So, we must not generalize about a form of mysticism based upon only a single teaching.

Ultimately, in the final analysis, mysticism is about the entire cosmos. So, it is impossible literally to hold that anything is "left out" of any form of true mysticism. It is true that points of emphasis can vary widely. In describing galaxies, you can emphasize stars or nebulas, but these are not describing different things-- just different parts of a larger whole. But a truly mystical theory must include the cosmos, out of which you can leave nothing.

This "Mind," then, must have creative functions that directly relate It to the material world. It is both cosmogenic and cosmomorphic.

Yes, I have come to believe, after studying long, intently, and sincerely, that there is nothing in the entire cosmos that is, or can exist, "separate" from the one Mind. This is, in fact, how I define mystical monism.

The concept that anything can ever, or does, exist "outside" of that Mind is "dualism."

This is what was represented by the taking of the "tree of good and evil," in the Genesis-allegory. It was positing an "evil" that was just as real as the good that got the human mind ejected from the "paradise of Pleasure" in the heart. ("Eden" means "pleasure.") So, the only way "back to paradise" (bliss) is the undoing of that assumption. This means, at a cosmic level, learning to throw away the label-maker. It means, further, not only the rejection of all terms that imply absolute evil, but, on a positive note, it means to learn to define all things as absolutely good-- even those which, in the short term, are definitely evil.

Inanimate things also share this Origin in Godmind [Brahman]. They can thus perhaps be said to have a certain, but minimal, sacredness. But living things, containing the principle of life, are much, much more sacred. Even here, however, there are graduated levels of sacredness. For mosquitoes, bacteria, and even cancer-cells are also "alive."

The level of sacredness tends to parallel the evolutionary development (brain-progress) of a creature, for that is related to its/her possession of Mind. Thus, dogs and cats are more sacred than flies, but not as much as human beings. Bacteria are very low on the scale of nature, while very sentient beings (elephants, whales, dolphins, higher primates) are very high on that same scale. Arguably, with their higher brain-functions, these creatures should be given rights. (In Thailand, elephants already enjoy rights.)

No comments: