Conference hydra::dejavu

Re .0 (Ellen):

A "practicing mystic" is a mystic that keeps trying until he or she gets it
right. :-)

Actually, mysticism is generally trying to achieve union with, or solve,
underlying principles of existence through medsitation, contemplation, etc.
Some consider it a linkage to, or manifestation of, religious mysteries or
truths.  

In that context, being a "practicing mystic" is to be one who actively 
uses mysticism.

One problem is that sometimes definitions get sloppy; just as "sorcerer"
technically means "one who performs supernatural acts through the agency
of evil spirits," and popularly means "one who can perform real magic," so
to some "mystic," as defined above, can also mean, "a person who routinely
performs occult practices."  ["Occult" is not synonymous with "evil," as
some have accused it of being; it's more like "paranormal.]

So you might want to check the context to see how the word's being used.

Steve Kallis, Jr.

    re: Mystic (as a noun) ...
    
    The standard meaning in Western tradition is a person who seeks to obtain 
    union with God by spiritual contemplation and self-surrender.
    
    Someone who actively seeks this union is practicing mysticism.
    There are a number of forms of mystical practice of widely varying
    kinds.
    
    I think I recall that as a philosophy, mysticism is also 
    characterized as the belief in transcendant qualities or essences 
    (beyond the senses), usually also including personal experience of those 
    things.  Sometimes 'semi-mysticism' (I think that's the term) is 
    differentiated from mysticism as the belief in transcendent qualities or 
    essences without actual personal experience of them.
    
    I'd say that most practicing magicians and witches could probably also be
    technically considered mystics.  Someone who believes that union with
    God is not possible or not a desireable state, or who believes
    that there is no transcendental reality beyond the senses would not be a 
    mystic, as far as I know.
    
    								todd

    Todd
    
    Could you elaborate a little more on the various forms of mystical
    practice?
    
    Thanks,
    
    Ellen

As has been alluded to already, a mystic is one who experiences the
immediate presence of God or the Absolute.

There are mystics in every religion.  Sometimes mysticism dominates
a particular segment of a faith.  For example, in Christianity there
are the Quakers, among Buddhists there are the Zen Buddhists.  There
are Jewish and Moslem mystics.

It is possible to have a mystical experience without being a believer
and under quite ordinary circumstances.  But probably the most frequent
ways to facilitate such experiences are through meditation, contemplation,
and/or prayer.

Peace,
Richard

    You might want to check out Topic 39, Mysticism, in the
    CHRISTIAN-PERSPECTIVE notes file.
    
    You may add it to your notebook by pressing KP7 or
    by typing
    
    ADD ENTRY LGP30::CHRISTIAN-PERSPECTIVE
    
    at the prompt.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

    re: .3,
    	Right, as Richard mentioned, mysticism is a big category.
    	Most if not all of the major religions have mystical practices,
    	in specialized sects or in past practice if not in their current
    	mainstream practice.   If you can narrow down the search,
    	it might help someone supply more detailed and specific information 
    	about particular practices, like Christian mysticism, shamanism,
    	ceremonial magic, and so on.
    
    	Here's some more information, paraphrased from Peter Angeles,
    	a well known scholar of religion and philosophy ...
    
    	Mysticism is the belief that the ultimate truth about reality 
    	can be obtained neither by ordinary experience nor by
    	intellect but only by _mystical_experience_, or by a nonrational
    	_mystical_intuition_.  It is also the nonrational, nonordinary 
    	experience of all-inclusive reality (often transcendent) whereby
    	the separateness of the self is merged with thaty reality
    	usually regarded as the  source or ground for the existence
    	of all things.
    
    	Mysticism believes that rational knowledge stresses
    	differentiation and separation; and therefore distorts reality and
    	is illusory.
    
    	Angeles makes a distinction between complete and partial 
    	absorption in mysticism. Complete absorption is the experience
    	of *total identification* or union with a higher or all-inclusive 
    	reality (no subject/object separation).  Partial absorption is
    	the experience of oneness of all things, but with a distinction
    	between the self and the experience, not complete identification
    	with it.  I interpret complete absorption as the experience of 
    	*being* God/Goddess/All-there-is, and partial absorption as the
    	experience of *perceiving* God/Goddess/All-there-is, yet as distinct
    	from ourself.  
    
    	To clarify the key terms, _mystical_intuition_, when used as
    	different from _mystical_experience_ is a faculty of our mind
    	by which (and only which) knowledge of higher reality is
    	perceived or revealed.  _Mystical_Experience_ is a non-ordinary 
    	experience with certain kinds of characteristics :
    
    	Joyousness, ecstasy.  Indescribable intensity.  Momentous
    	significance.  Lasting effect on one's life.  Transformation
    	of moral nature, values, intuitions.  Transient experience which
    	reveals the eternal.  Passive experience.  Encounter with unusual
    	interconnected reality, not normally experienced.  Identification
    	with extraordinary reality.  Sense of knowledge gained not
    	obtainable by other means.  Inability to describe, except in terms
    	of metaphors, analogies, paradoxes, poetic imagery, intended
    	not to communicate the quality of the experience but to evoke
    	a sense of its possibility, its latency in all people.
    	
    					hope this helps,
    
    					todd

I find that my own experience agrees with what Todd says. However:

> Joyousness, ecstasy.  Indescribable intensity.  Momentous
> significance.  Lasting effect on one's life.  Transformation
> of moral nature, values, intuitions.  Transient experience which
> reveals the eternal.

This sort of description, while it may reflect some truth, accomplishes
something opposite to what it should. That is, it titillates the
reader, and entices him/her to seek something opposite to mystical experience.

In my opinion, mystical experience can be described as understanding
the extraordinary nature of apparently "ordinary" experience.
Understanding that "ordinary" life is actually infinitely and
indescribably extraordinary. Mystical experience doesn't involve
nirvana, ecstasy, inner peace, joy, or any other extraordinary
sensation (or "altered state"). Rather, it involves the experience of
ordinary experiences and sensations as being divine or fragments of
divinity, or fragments of "the unified all-there-is" or whatever you
prefer to call it.

To put it another way: If you experience perfect bliss, that's not it.
If you experience profound insight, that's not it. If you experience
inner peace, that's not it. If you experience blinding revelation,
that's not it. If you seek to experience any of these things, you can
find them in non-mystical, earthly experience. You will not find
mystical experience in this direction. A more likely approach would be
to forget all that BS, and try to get done what needs to get done,
stopping to sit in silence every now and then to catch your emotional breath.

    Hello Ellen,
    
    One of the books considered by many to be the most comprehensive on
    this subject is _Mysticism_, by Evelyn Underhill.  It was researched
    and written earlier in this century.
    
    Another highly regarded work is by William James entitled _Varieties
    of Religious Experience_, also written much earlier in this century.
    
    More current writings that turned my attention toward mysticism are
    many of the books by Matthew Fox, Dominican priest; my personal
    favorites being:  _Original Blessing_ and particularly, _The Coming of
    the Cosmic Christ_.
    
    And believe it or not, there is a collection by Ken Wilber called
    _Quantum Questions_ that explores the more "mystical" writings of some
    of the world's greates physicists.  It's a little more challenging
    reading, but very inspiring, imo.
    
    I do feel that every person carries the spark of the mystic within
    them, just waiting for the day to be ignited.
    
    Karen

    re: .7, Mike,
    	I agree with you that the descriptions do cry out for some balance or
    	at least further interpretation.  They were not intended as an
    	advertisement, but a way to recognize the unique nature of mystical
    	experience. I tend to be very skeptical about the 'transcendence'
    	significance of mystical experience, although it can obviously be of 
    	great personal value.
    
    re: .8, Kb,
    	I agree with you, there's a spark of the mystical latent (if not 
    	active) in everyone.
    
    							todd

    Ellen .0,
    
    Your note inspired me to look into the chapter on mysticism in _The 
    coming of the Cosmic Christ_ again.  Fox offers 21 "running 
    definitions" of mysticism which, (for the sake of brevity) I've 
    extracted but a few below. 
    
    Etymologically, mysticism comes from the Greek "mystikos," which seems 
    to have two basic meanings:  to "shut one's senses" and to "enter the 
    mysteries."  Fox asserts that at its core mysticism is:
    
    1. Experience. The first meaning of mysticism is experience itself.  As 
    Kabir, the great creation mystic of India said in the fifteenth 
    century, "Experience, O Seeker, is the essence of all things."  The 
    mystic is keen on experience of the Divine and will not settle for 
    theory alone or knowing _about_ the Divine.
    
    2. Nondualism.  Our mystical experiences are unitive experiences.  They 
    may occur on a dark night with sparkling stars in the sky; in the 
    mountains or fields; with family and friends; in lovemaking, in music 
    and dance and arts of all kinds; in ideas, in work;  in suffering and 
    in letting go.
    
    3. Compassion.  Compassion is another word for the unitive experience.  
    It is the awareness of the interdependence of all living things.
    
    4. Connection making.  Mysticism is about making connections where 
    connections have been lost, forgotten or covered up.  We connect by 
    stories, myths, symbols, music and colors, form and ritual -- with one 
    another's deep and often unspoken experiences of life's mysteries.
    
    5. Radical amazement. Abraham Heschel describes mysticism as "radical 
    amazement."  "Awe is the beginning of wisdom."  Human's exist for awe's 
    sake--to be radically amazed and to draw radical amazement from each 
    other.  That is our task and it demands we overcome the temptation to 
    take our existence for granted.
    
    6. Affirmation of the world as a whole. The mystic is neither neutral, 
    nor bitter, or cynical toward the world.  The mystic has taken in 
    enough of the blessing of the world to be 'radically amazed' by it and, 
    therefore, to affirm it, as a whole.  
    
    Andrew Weil, M.D. says that the paranoid and the mystic share much in 
    common: paranoid persons believe there is a conspiracy in the universe 
    against them, mystics believe there is a conspiracy in the universe on 
    their behalf.
    
    7. Self-critical.  Mysticism is always self-critical.  Mystics learn to 
    see the dualism in themselves as well as others.  One must seek to let 
    go of internalized oppression, projections onto others, and dare to see 
    oneself as an image of God, an original blessing and co-creator with 
    divinity.  Self-knowledge is often heralded by mystics like Teresa of 
    Avila and Catherine of Siena as the "foundation," "basement," or "cell" 
    of the spiritual journey.
    
    8. Heart knowledge. The mystic trusts the experience of the heart. The 
    mystic gradually learns how to awaken the heart, strengthening it, 
    expanding it, watering it, and enabling it to reach its full, cosmic 
    potential for joy.  The mystic never enters into heart knowledge at the 
    expense of head knowledge - these two aspects should never be at odds.  
    Thomas Aquinas asserted that the divinity one finds by reason does not 
    differ from the divinity one finds by faith.
    
    9. A return to the source.  Mysticism demands a return to our origins.  
    Kabir says, "O seekers, remember, all distances are traversed by those 
    who yearn to be near the source of their being."  If you have ever 
    yearned to be "near the source of your being," you have had mystical 
    yearnings.
    
    Hope this is helpful.
    
    Kb

    Mike .7
    
    >I find that my own experience agrees with what Todd says. However:
    
    >> Joyousness, ecstasy.  Indescribable intensity.  Momentous
    >> significance.  Lasting effect on one's life.  Transformation
    >> of moral nature, values, intuitions.  Transient experience which
    >> reveals the eternal.
    
    >This sort of description, while it may reflect some truth, 
    >accomplishes something opposite to what it should. That is, it 
    >titillates the reader, and entices him/her to seek something opposite 
    >to mystical experience.
    
    >In my opinion, mystical experience can be described as understanding
    >the extraordinary nature of apparently "ordinary" experience.
    >Understanding that "ordinary" life is actually infinitely and
    >indescribably extraordinary. Mystical experience doesn't involve
    >nirvana, ecstasy, inner peace, joy, or any other extraordinary
    >sensation (or "altered state"). Rather, it involves the experience of
    >ordinary experiences and sensations as being divine or fragments of
    >divinity, or fragments of "the unified all-there-is" or whatever you
    >prefer to call it.
    
    I think I understand your cautionary.  Glamorizing such experiences 
    is oftentimes seductive, encouraging one to trivialize the experience 
    and embark on superficial searches for the same effect. I feel that 
    what Todd described above are some possible *responses* to the mystical 
    experience, which imo, are accurate and valid, rather than intending to 
    glamorizing, if I'm understanding you correctly.  
    
    The one quality that seems to be at the heart of mystical experience, 
    which you eluded to, is ineffability.  The fullness of these 
    experiences which defy rational explanations oftentimes leave one with 
    an aftermath of sensations that s/he tries to somehow articulate or 
    reflect upon.  The qualities of joy and ecstasy are very much 
    interwoven in the writings of some of the most recognized mystics such 
    as Meister Eckart, Hildegard of Bingen, Teresa of Avila and Mechtild of 
    Magdeburg.  Playfulness is another response commonly seen in some of 
    these writings.  I forget who it was, but I think it was Mechtild who 
    wrote, "I, God, am your playmate!  I will lead the Child in you in 
    wonderful ways for I have choosen you."  Such a sense of delight!
    
    On the other hand, mystics such as William Blake, Rainer Maria Rilke 
    and St John of the Cross, tended to write more "soberly" of their 
    experiences.  And there was an author I read about a year ago who gave 
    me a chuckle.  He argued that if one is a stinker before one has a 
    mystical experience, chances are s/he will still be a stinker 
    afterwards. :-)  In other words, the mystical experience, as it were, 
    doesn't guarantee anything, particularly an instantaneous 
    transformation into an enlightened being.  The effect of a mystical 
    experience, (or any experience for that matter) in a person's life 
    depends upon the person's overall psychological nature, including one's 
    willingness and openess to change, because mystical experineces 
    oftentimes challenge the ego's beliefs and defense mechanisms it's had 
    in place for years.  And most of us know these walls rarely come down 
    with a smile.
    
    I think it can be safely said that mystical experiences range the gamut 
    of emotional responses, and imo, the mystical in our lives is not very 
    difficult to discover.  The universe oozes with it.  Imo, there is 
    something inherent in our consciousness that is tuned to it 24 hours a 
    day.  But amidst the din and clamor that life also offers, this 
    mystical awarness can easily be obscured, ignored, or denied.  Life 
    becomes a mystical adventure when one opens up to the mystery of 
    beingness, when one seeks to integrate head knowledge with heart 
    knowledge, and realize the value of the darkness as well as the 
    light.  (Imo)
    
    >To put it another way: If you experience perfect bliss, that's not it.
    >If you experience profound insight, that's not it. If you experience
    >inner peace, that's not it. If you experience blinding revelation,
    >that's not it. If you seek to experience any of these things, you can
    >find them in non-mystical, earthly experience. You will not find
    >mystical experience in this direction. A more likely approach would be
    >to forget all that BS, and try to get done what needs to get done,
    >stopping to sit in silence every now and then to catch your emotional 
    >breath.
    
    Mike, help me here.  Do you feel these experiences have absolutely no 
    relationship to mysticism, or that they should not be considered the 
    essence of "mysticism," in and of themselves? 
    
    Thanks,
    Kb

Karen, you've understood my note practically perfectly.

>> If you experience profound insight, that's not it. ...

> Do you feel these experiences have absolutely no
> relationship to mysticism, or that they should not be considered the
> essence of "mysticism,"

These sensations can indeed be directly caused by mystical experience.
They can also be caused by, for example, drugs, episodes of high
emotion, etc. The intense sensation of mystical experience is an
ordinary-world response to the "contact" -- a shadow of it, not the
experience itself.

So the problem is: what does a person do after such an experience? If
your reaction is "wow, I felt it!", and you then charge off trying to
figure out how you did it so that you can get it again, you're heading
in exactly the wrong direction. For most of us, the only useful course
of action after such a sensation is "oh well, time to get on with life
...". Any other "search" might yield an intense sensation, but not the
core mystical experience.

As you and Todd said, even though the description might have elements
of truth, it has the undesirable side effect of "advertising" or
"glamorizing" the experience, leading the reader *away* from activity
which could lead to more mystical experience, and instead, toward
"searches for mystical experience".

    Gotcha Mike.  
    
    Thanks for the clarification.  
    
    Kb

    re: .12,
    	So the 'sensation' becomes an end unto itself, rather than
    	a perception of Ground or Divinity.  Is that what you meant ?
    
    		todd (who doesn't catch on as fast as Karen :-) )

> So the 'sensation' becomes an end unto itself, rather than
> a perception of Ground or Divinity.  Is that what you meant ?

Yes, exactly.

Sorry to have been a bit more wordy than that :-).

Does it make any sense? Or does it feel wrong?

                 
From: "The Essence of Self-Realization - Sayings of Yogananda", by D. Walters

Self-Realization

"Your teachings clarify marvelously the writingts of the great Christian 
mystics," exclaimed a student of those writings.

The truth is ever simple," replied the Master, "even though in its very 
simplicity, it is not often easy fo the human mind to assimilate.  The 
bird that is born in a cage cannot easily believe that its true nature 
is to soar freely over brooks and meadows.  Even so, the human mind 
finds it difficult to imagine its native freedom in omnipresence.

It is a misnomer, however, to call those great souls, 'mystics.'  Divine 
truth is not mystical!  People think of the material world as reality, 
and of that inner realm as vague and indistinct.  They are mistaken.  
The real mystery is why so many people remain content with this 
illusionary world, and devote so little energy to seeking the Truth 
behind it.

The real vagueness lies in people's own perception of truth.  Worldly 
people then, not the saints, are the real 'mystics'!

Mysticism is a misnomer also because it encourages vagueness in people's 
spiritual endeavors.  It becomes easy, once the mind accepts vagueness 
as an acceptable approach to truth, to wander about in the misty world 
of subconscious imagination instead of exerting the will power and 
concentration necessary to enter superconsciousness."

Could you elaborate? In what way is it different?

    
    Oh dear...you're making me think!  9;^)
    
    To me, it appears to flip the table over and say that mystical isn't
    really 'mystical', but that it is Real and repeatable...even more so
    than the physical environment (illusion) we are currently in.
    
    Cindy

Ah yes, now I see! You're right. I like it.

Of course, it's sort of a play on words, using "mystical" to mean
"mysterious", "unknown", and even "vague", but it does make a good point.

Thanks for entering that.

    Thanks Cindy,
    
    I agree with Yogananda's thoughts in .16.  It's interesting to note that 
    in many so-called "primitive" cultures, the mystical is oftentimes a most 
    ordinary and natural part of life, seamlessly woven throughout daily 
    activities.  It is primarily western civilization that has "mystified the 
    mystical," a side-effect of over-emphasizing Newton's mechanistic view of 
    the universe and adopting the notion that unlimited material progress is 
    a good thing.  Also, the institutionalism of the Judea-Christian religion 
    over the last 2000 years has helped to drive the mystic underground. 
    
    Some say we have a crisis of meaning in western society.  I am one 
    of those who feels this is true.  I think the primary reason for this 
    crisis is that although the scientific era has produced many stunning 
    achievements, we've paid a price in that we've been estranged from our 
    mystical roots for so long.  The result is that behind the glitz of all 
    its technical wizadry and material progress, lies a culture that is, by 
    and large, spiritually emaciated.  
        
    Fortunately imo, there is a resurgent interest in mysticism, in the 
    broad sense, encompassing a range of philosophical perspectives, 
    experiences and paths.  And attempts to de-mystify it are having varying 
    degrees of success in a society whose behavior tends to be extreme in its 
    receptivity of such things.  There's the exploitive group on one hand, 
    the antagonists on another, and those that don't much give a damn in this 
    corner.  Then there are people who take it seriously, (not that the 
    others don't).  But borrowing a Quaker idiom, this latter group views the 
    essence of mysticism as "speaking to their condition," and like their 
    brothers and sisters in various indigenous cultures, it becomes a natural 
    and ordinary way of life for them, sans the glamour, much like Mike was 
    getting at earlier in this string. 
        
    In any event, without a healthy connection to our mystical roots, 
    without our hearts being able to drink deep the wisdom they have to 
    offer, in all honesty, I think we're as good as dead.  
        
    Karen 

    re: .20,
    	It's not clear to me that all of those references to the_mystical
    	are referring to the same thing.   I'm not convinced that
    	a population of mystics is neccessary to alleviate spiritual
    	emaciation, or even that it would accomplish that. 
    
    	No doubt, a return to a simpler lifestyle would help, but
    	to what extent is that possible with the current world
    	situation ?
    
    >in many so-called "primitive" cultures, the mystical is oftentimes a most 
>    ordinary and natural part of life, seamlessly woven throughout daily 
>    activities.  
    
    I believe that 'participation mystique', as some anthropologist once
    called the presumed state of mind of people in many such cultures,
    is not quite the same as mystical experience.
    In such a culture, the shaman-mystics are usually distinct, the entire 
    tribal group is not composed of shaman.   From one description
    I've heard, in fact, the shaman seem to often be found afflicted with 
    convulsions or other symptoms that make them stand out and initially 
    causes them to be treated differently from the rest of the tribe.
    This then leading to them to taking on the specialty of tribal medicine.
    
    							todd

> Fortunately imo, there is a resurgent interest in mysticism

I wonder if this is really true. There's certainly a surge of interest
in superficially mystical stuff -- you know, the trappings of
"mysticism" and "occult". For every 1000 people who seek truth by
adopting a new set of practises and philosophies, probably less than
one of these achieves any real progress.

How do you know if you've achieved any real progress? If you begin to
feel that your personal philosophy is evolving to some stability and
coherence, and that life is beginning to make sense ... YOU HAVEN'T GOT
IT!!! You're on the wrong track!!! Sound crazy? It's true!

               
    Re.22
    
    Mike,
    
    >life having some stability, etc...  then you haven't "GOT IT"
    
    Depends upon your perspective!  
    
    When I finally started to connect with Reality (beyond the physical 
    plane existence), then finally my life became far less chaotic and life
    in general made a lot more sense (looking at it from the Top down).  As
    Stephen Hawking found, there is Order in the Universe after all.
    
    However if you're speaking from the point of view that Alan Watts takes
    in his book "The Wisdom of Insecurity", then I concur.  Excellent book,
    by the way.
    
    Cindy

    	I assert that by its very definition, mystical experience is
    	*non-ordinary*.  It lends a sense of the sacred, which may or may
    	not correspond to someone else's preconceived notion of what
    	'should' be sacred.
    
    	I think this is true whether we are talking about small tribes 
    	living close to nature, or industrialized society.  The difference to 
    	me is that living close to nature provides more truth from direct
    	experience (rather than second-hand reports and inference) and a 
    	better ability to interpret mystical experience within a meaningful 
    	daily-life framework - rather than as something special.   A modern
    	mystic in an indistrialized setting can come away from mystical 
    	experience with almost any interpretation.   In a sense,
    	Son of Sam and other psychotics could be said to have have had
    	mystical experiences.
    	
    	Mystical experience is, I believe, qualitatively different 
    	from simple sensory experience of nature, although it may help to
    	organize the understanding of how nature is interconnected.  
    	
    								todd

> When I finally started to connect with Reality

How do you know that you've done this?

> then finally my life became far less chaotic and life
> in general made a lot more sense

Why do you feel that this indicates "connection with Reality"? Isn't it
possible that a feeling of order and making sense is not necessarily a
consequence of contact with Reality?

There is order in the universe, but there is also order and coherence
in play "realities". How does a person know which they're connected to
when there's no difference in the kind and intensity of the resulting emotions?

-------------

Re the meaning of "mystical", the Sufis use the term to mean "hidden"
in the sense of a lost object being hidden right under one's nose. The
object of the search is not unknown or strange or vague, but it is
hidden for all practical purposes.

    Mike .22,
    
    > I wonder if that's true.  There's certainly a surge of interest in 
    > superficially mystical stuff...
    
    True.  The question I find myself pondering is "What is the deeper 
    motivation that people are responding to today, even though some of 
    the searches may appear superficial?"  To me, pseudo-mystisicm is 
    being created by the same longing that creates authentic mysticism, 
    (the difference of which I think is nearly impossible to discern for 
    anyone else except for oneself).  I choose not to discount the possi- 
    bility that what I might call pseudo-mysticism is perhaps erroneous 
    on my part.  I'm not privy to know what wisdom the person is gaining 
    from the experience or practice.
    
    > For every 1000 people who seek truth by adopting a new set of 
    > practices and philosophies, probably less than one of these 
    > achieves any real progress.  
    
    Progress relative to what?  My definition?
    
    > If you begin to feel that your personal philosophy is evolving to 
    > some stability and coherence, and that life is beginning to make 
    > sense ... YOU HAVEN'T GOT IT!!  You're on the wrong track!!!  Sound 
    > crazy? It's true!
    
    With all due respect, that this is a reflection of your mystical 
    journey, if indeed it is, I *honor* that.  Mine would seem to differ,
    being more akin to the dynamics of yin/yang.  There are periods of 
    stability, coherence, crystal clarity, 'perfect' order;  then most, 
    (and sometimes all) of it seems to de-structure into utter chaos 
    and disorder, only to re-order and integrate itself again at a later 
    time.  Who knows how it'll manifest tomorrow, but these are the dynamics 
    it has displayed for years now.  Speaking from my own experience, I'd 
    say a person can be mystical and still lead a coherent life--at least 
    some of the time. :-)
    
    Karen

    re: "Mystical journey"
    
         From the recent flyer discribing the Lazaris Intensive entitled
    "Beyond the Threshold: The Force that can change your life" taking
    place in San Francisco Apr. 23-26 (and I will be there :-) ):
    
    ..."We have explored and continue to explore many journeys: the
    Spiritual Journey, the Magical Journey, the Journey of the
    Metaphysician and Magician, and the many journeys into our Unconscious
    Mind through the Underworld.  We have ventured upon the Sacred Journey
    which may include many of these other journeys.  Each continues.
    Never ending.
       "During these four very mystical, yet pragmatic, days, we will take
    you on a new journey, best called *The Hidden Journey.*  It involves
    your Higher Self's quest for God/Goddess/All-That-Is.  It involves
    your Higher Self's creation of and search for you.  It is powerful.
    It is poignant.  It will reveal to each of you the very particular
    force that can forever change your life."
    
       Mysticism, to me, is just one part of the very much larger and
    mostly not understood process.  Having already done a workshop with
    the Magician, I ascribe the word mystical at least in part to the
    energy of that archetype.  From ethers to solidity, from fantasia
    to actuality...lines quickly blur and neither can be grasped.
    
    
    Frederick
    

> > If you begin to feel that your personal philosophy is evolving to
> > some stability and coherence, and that life is beginning to make
> > sense ... YOU HAVEN'T GOT IT!!

> With all due respect, that this is a reflection of your mystical
> journey, if indeed it is, I *honor* that.

Actually, it's not mine. And I certainly can't claim credit for the
words. This description of what mystical experience is *not* can be
found in just about every writing on the subject. Check it out! Go back
and read the material quoted from the Tao Te Ching, the Sufis,
Gnostics, the Bible, etc, and see if they don't all say that Truth is
not to be found in worldly emotional experience. Peace, revelation,
joy, ecstasy ... these are kinds of ordinary experience. As satisfying
as they may be to experience, they're not it.

>    > I wonder if that's true.  There's certainly a surge of interest in 
>    > superficially mystical stuff...
>    
>    ... The question I find myself pondering is "What is the deeper 
>    motivation that people are responding to today, even though some of 
>    the searches may appear superficial?"  To me, pseudo-mystisicm is 
    
    	One possibility is that it is a similar response to that we've seen 
    	several times in recent history, a response of glamorizing the
    	superstitious and the primitive as a reaction to the perceived
    	coldness and spiritual paucity of modern life in many areas.
    
    	Perhaps people searching for meaning in life and feeling
    	understandably very challenged by industrial society,
    	aggravated by a faltering economy and seemingly hypocritical
    	political system, then choose to reject not only industrialization 
    	and material progress, but even reason itself (in some ways) in their 
    	frustration.   And then, once they reject reason, it is easy to fall 
    	prey to the superficial mysticism, or pseudo-mysticism, the cults, the 
    	fad spiritual groups, and so on, who then seem to have all the answers.
    
    							todd

    Mike,
    
    Regardless of how widely you've read, I somehow don't feel
    that you're qualified to judge Cindy's (or anyone else's)
    experience as valid or invalid ("it" or "not it")...  
    nor am I qualified to judge you. 
    but as you said, you're only quoting another's words...
    
    Besides, IMO, "it" is in the experience, not the words...
    
    /bruce

                                           
    Re.25
    
    Mike,
    
    >How do you know that you've done this?  (Connect with Reality)
    
    (;^)  <---this is an answer, btw
    
    
    >>life became far less chaotic and life in general made a lot more sense
    >Why do you feel that this indicates "connection with Reality??
    
    It doesn't indicate it.  It is as a result of it (my perspective).
    
    However, it too, is just a beginning...
    
    Cindy

    re: .30, /bruce,

>    Regardless of how widely you've read, I somehow don't feel
>    that you're qualified to judge Cindy's (or anyone else's)
>    experience as valid or invalid ("it" or "not it")...  
>    nor am I qualified to judge you. 

    On the contrary, I suggest that Mike is perfectly well qualified to read
    and interpret the literature on mysticism as well as anyone else,
    and to try to formulate criteria around it, as he has done.
    
    You (/bruce) seem to be using the shade of meaning of mystical
    experience that refers simply to great symbolic or spiritual
    significance.  That, obviously, is a personal matter that one
    person would find difficult to judge for another by any objective
    criteria.  
    
    On the other hand, there is a class of experience that is
    'indescribable' in some sense, yet has enough (consistent) unique 
    qualities from everyday perception that many writers in history have 
    attempted to capture it through certain criteria.  There is  certainly
    a *possibility* of discriminating this type of experience, just as
    we can discriminate sleep from waking (Gudjieff notwithstanding).
    
    							todd

    Todd .21,
    
    > I'm not convinced that a population of mystics is necessary to 
    > alleviate spiritual emaciation, or even that it would accomplish 
    > that.
    
    I don't blame for you for not being convinced.  Neither am I.  That 
    would be naive.  I am not suggesting that we become "a population of 
    mystics," in the traditional sense as I believe you're implying, but 
    I am suggesting a re-connection to our mystical roots, that spark, 
    which I feel dwells within each person which I referred to earlier in 
    this string.
    
    In the face of the global issues we face today, what are our choices? 
    Creating a simpler lifestyle - yes, I agree.  However, I wonder what 
    power in our lives will inspire us to change our behavior in the ways 
    necessary to accomplish this.  Common sense and reason doesn't seem to 
    have worked very well thus far.  For despite the mounting evidence of 
    degradation and destruction to the earth and resources that has sustained 
    life as we know it, we still continue destruction at alarming rates. 
    
    Perhaps I should clarify my thinking.  When I spoke about the 
    mystical or mystical roots, in .20, I was speaking of it in the broad 
    sense, consistent with what I felt was Yogananda's perspective in 
    .16.  To me the mystical is that place within us where wisdom can be 
    found - a wisdom that seeks to insure the well-being of the planet as 
    a whole, that is concerned more about the quality of life, rather 
    than the quantity, for present and future generations of people and 
    all other life forms.  Some might call this source of wisdom their 
    Higher Power, or Divine Mind, or Inner Light, or Christ 
    Consciousness.  In the Bible this wisdom is personified as Sophia.  
    These are all names which point to our mystical connections, that 
    which connects us to wisdom, and a perceived Source of our being.  
    I myself don't feel comfortable defining it much further than this,
    especially for others. 
    
    > I believe that 'participation mystique', as some anthropologist 
    > once called the presumed state of mind of people in many such 
    > cultures, is not quite the same as mystical experience.
    
    I think this anthrolopolgist was correct to qualify this term as a 
    "presumed" state of mind.  It behooves us to bear in mind that 
    behavior of other cultures has usually been measured against western 
    standards that have been considered the "norm" for all people, with 
    the result that up until recently, most behavior existing outside of 
    western cultural norms has tended to be viewed as flawed, primitive, 
    unsophisticated, or at worst - pathological.  No where is this more 
    apparent than in many of the writings on shamanism earlier in this 
    century.
    
    In the traditional sense of the word, mysticism is about the unitive 
    experience with the Divine.  There is much study being done today 
    into various levels of mystical experience.  Researchers are trying 
    to map levels of consciousness and perform comparitive studies 
    between various mystical states of being.  (re: Roger Walsh's book 
    _In the Spirit of Shamanism_)  
    
    My guess is that mystical experience probably ranges a spectrum of
    experience, from the person being very much aware of the connection 
    with the Divine, yet at the same time going about one's daily tasks.  
    This may be like a timed-release flow, perhaps similar to the quality 
    of mindfulness that is stressed in Buddhism.  Then you have those unitive 
    peak experiences where the intensity blows ones socks off.  (Sorry Mike, 
    I know you're eyes are probably rolling back in your head at that. ;-))  
    
    These are some of the attempts, I believe, that are intended to help 
    dy-mystify mysticism, though there is no doubt that they may produce 
    other unintended effects as well.
    
    Regarding your statement that you feel mysticism is essentially an 
    experience of "non-ordinary" reality.  I concur, from the context of 
    what we in the west consider "ordinary" and "non-ordinary."  For 
    example, the western world generally considers dreaming to be "non-
    ordinary" reality as well, yet some aboriginal cultures, consider the 
    dream world to be the primary reality, and the waking world is 
    considered "non-ordinary."   
    
    I think it's helpful to bear in mind that any definitions we might discuss,
    above and beyond a broad and general understanding of mysticism, may be 
    subject to validation only within the cultural context from whence they 
    come.  As Yogananda pointed out, what some might consider "mystical" 
    others consider "ordinary." 
    
    Karen

    Fredipity .27,
    
    > Mysticism, to me, is just one part of the very much larger and mostly
    > not understood process. Having already done a workshop with the
    > Magician, I ascribe the word mystical at least in part to the energy 
    > of that archetype.  From ethers to solidity, from fantasia to
    > actuality...lines quickly blur and neither can be grasped.
    
    That really sums up my feelings too, and eloquently at that!
    
    (This next intensive you spoke of sounds very interesting.)  
    
    Wishing you a happy and poignant journey,
    
    Kdipty

    re:            <<< Note 1657.32 by DWOVAX::STARK "Manifold destiny" >>>
                       -< Shades of meaning confused ? >-

�    On the contrary, I suggest that Mike is perfectly well qualified to read
�    and interpret the literature on mysticism as well as anyone else,
�    and to try to formulate criteria around it, as he has done.
    
    
    Todd,
    
    Anyone is free to read and interpret literature, and to use that
    input to evaluate their own experience.  I suggest, however,
    that it is presumptuous in the extreme to attempt to evaluate
    another's "internal" experience based on literature...
    
    /bruce

> I suggest, however,
> that it is presumptuous in the extreme to attempt to evaluate
> another's "internal" experience based on literature...

Based on literature, certainly. How about based on some other source of
understanding? Perhaps Cindy and I have performed a little drama, which
was planned by us telepathically.

In fact, that's not what happened, but who can know, aside from Cindy
and myself, what the truth is? Would it not be presumptuous of anyone
else to make any statement at all about what either of us know, or why
we've written what we have?

    Mike,
    
    I based my statements on what I read of what you wrote.
    
    /bruce

    re: Mike,
    	Isn't that a teensy-weensy bit contrived ?  :-)
    
    re: /bruce
    
    	I certainly agree with that, /bruce, that we can't possibly know
    	or meaningfully judge the particular [spiritual needs] of another 
    	person in general.  I didn't mean to imply otherwise.   I do think that
    	it is potentially useful to make certain judgements regarding religious
    	practices, however.  Probably not worth belaboring further without
    	specifics.
    
    	Thanks for clarifying.
    						todd

Let's consider the effects of statements like "if you feel
peace/revelation/ecstasy/... you haven't got it".

If a reader (Cindy, for example) knows genuine mystical experience,
then they aren't perturbed in the least by my words. Their experience
is made no less genuine by my words, and they know it. On the other
hand, if they're not sure what kind of experience they've had, and my
statements cause some discomfort, then they've been mistaking intense
emotional experience for progress. Even if they don't believe me, they
will now remember "if you feel X, that isn't it" at times of intense
emotion, with the result that they will become aware of these emotions.
My words have had the intended effect, even if they weren't believed.

Now I ask: why are people concerned with the motives, rather than the results?

 >   I believe that 'participation mystique', as some anthropologist once
 >   called the presumed state of mind of people in many such cultures,
 >   is not quite the same as mystical experience.
 >   In such a culture, the shaman-mystics are usually distinct, the entire 
 >   tribal group is not composed of shaman.   From one description
 >   I've heard, in fact, the shaman seem to often be found afflicted with 
 >   convulsions or other symptoms that make them stand out and initially 
 >   causes them to be treated differently from the rest of the tribe.
 >   This then leading to them to taking on the specialty of tribal medicine.

It is true that many of the Shamans were distinct. There would be the 
"shamanistic death" that one had to go thru, the convulsions, the near death 
experience. The literature on Shamananism is filled with the descriptions of 
these "initiation rites". In Black Elk speaks, Black Elk describes his 
vison which I think took place over 4 days (our time) while people hovered 
over him and thought he was dying. But for the Medicine Men of many of the 
North American tribes, the person was picked because he showed a certian kind 
of deep interest in understanding the world around him or he was "picked" by 
Great Spirit on a Crying for a Vision, and he saw his path in a vision or 
dream.
	This is all true but the general native person was also much more in 
tune with the mystical side. It was a part of their life. It was part of 
their dances. We have gotten away from that. In my humble opinion, we have 
gotten away from direct experience and gotten in the head and tried to 
intelluctize (sp?) everything. And it isn't working. More and more people 
seem to be running from the organized religions and back to simpler, more 
mystical experiences that are based on direct experience.

Sam

    
    Re.39, etc.
    
    Mike,
    
    Re: telepathy
    
    You promised you wouldn't tell!
    
    >If a reader knows genuine mystical experience, then they aren't
    >perturbed in the least by my words.  Their experience is made
    >no less genuine by my words, and they know it.
    
    Quite true.  (;^)
    
    Cindy

    Hi Todd .29,
    
    Thanks *very* much for your thoughts.  They've opened another 
    wide avenue of contemplation.
    
    >> The question I find myself pondering is "What is the deeper 
    >> motivation that people are responding to today, even though 
    >> some of the searches may appear superficial?"
    
    >	One possibility is that it is a similar response to that we've 
    >	seen several times in recent history, a response of glamorizing 
    >	the superstitious and the primitive as a reaction to the 
    >	perceived coldness and spiritual paucity of modern life in many 
    >	areas.
    
    >	Perhaps people searching for meaning in life and feeling 
    >	understandably very challenged by industrial society, aggravated 
    >	by a faltering economy and seemingly hypocritical political 
    >	system...
    
    Yes, I think you're right on.  This question draws me to 
    probe further below the visible dynamics of our society to something 
    deeper, something that feels even more essential which asks to be seen.  
    It has to do whith why people are drawn to glamorize the primitive or 
    the superstitious or the occult, or anything we may consider pseudo-
    mysticism in the first place.  
    
    I have an assumption, (which is not new here by any stretch of the 
    imagination):  most people wouldn't be running hither and yon 
    exploring any of these pseudo-mystical things, unless one is being 
    motivated by some internal force to do so.  I think this motivation 
    is felt as a sense of disconnection or alienation from "something" 
    _inherently essential_ to that person's well-being.  If there is 
    this incredible yearning and feeling of unfulfillment in this, one 
    of the most wealthy and progressive societies on earth, materially, 
    what is this essential something that is missing?  I believe it is 
    the mystical.
    
    > ...then choose to reject not only industrialization and material 
    > progress, but even reason itself...in that frustration.  And 
    > then... it is easy to fall prey to the superficial mysticism, or 
    > pseudo-mysticism, the cults, to fad spiritual groups, and so on, 
    > who then seem to have all the answers.
    
    Assuming further, it may indeed be the urges of the authentic 
    mystical, (or in Jungian psychological terms, an archetype called The 
    Mystic?) that many people feel moving in their lives today, 
    (consciously and/or unconsciously) that may be found at the root of 
    pseudo-mysticism.  If so, I think this awareness can be of great 
    value in our journey, individually and collectively.  For it may be 
    an indication of the crucial role the mystical has in our lives and 
    in our continued survival.
    
    I can't discount the possibility that pseudo-mysticism might also be 
    a necessary step along the way for many.  My feeling is that the
    universe wastes nothing.  If something exists, there is value to it.
    Wouldn't it make sense that even the great mystical writers of the 
    traditions Mike referenced earlier had to have experienced the glamour 
    of pseudo-mysticism first-hand in order to document it so well.  
    
    If I have my mythology correct, though the goddess Artemis may have sprung 
    fully developed and wise from Zeus' head, humans are not born the same.  
    It seems we've got to learn, and for the most part this learning happens 
    through experiencing the highs and lows and everything in between in life.
    
    Somewhere along the line I suspect the experience of glamour is un- 
    avoidable, and paradoxically, perhaps even _vital_ to a more comprehensive 
    understanding of the depth and breadth of one's mystical roots; and
    that which mysticism points to, but can never quite name.
    
    Of course, these are only a handful of nested assumptions which may 
    very well run contrary to the writings of the mystical experts. :-)  
    If I recall, however, one famous mystical dictum is:  "Question the 
    Status Quo" or what may be called consensual reality, _especially_ 
    those things which are considered sacred. :-)
    
    Thanks again Todd.  I've got a lot to chew on.
    
    Karen

> I can't discount the possibility that pseudo-mysticism might also be
> a necessary step along the way for many. My feeling is that the
> universe wastes nothing.  If something exists, there is value to it.

> Somewhere along the line I suspect the experience of glamour is un-
> avoidable, and paradoxically, perhaps even _vital_ to a more comprehensive
> understanding of the depth and breadth of one's mystical roots; and
> that which mysticism points to, but can never quite name.

Beautiful! I couldn't agree more. Thank you for making the point so
clearly and positively.

    RE: .40, Sam,
    
    Well, it certainly sounds as if I overestimated the difference
    between the more-or-less natural state and the mystical state,
    based on what you and Karen have said.
    
    The discussion here inspired me to get Mircea Eliade's study of
    _Shamanism_, and try to educate myself on the subject, at least from
    descriptions of it (I know, I know, the description is not the thing).
    
    Apparently it was a classic study of the subject with a very broad
    base.  Are you familiar with it ?  Can you recommend others of a
    similar type that discuss common themes in Shamanism with examples
    from different cultures ?
    
    							todd

    re: .42, Karen,
    
    >most people wouldn't be running hither and yon 
>    exploring any of these pseudo-mystical things, unless one is being 
>    motivated by some internal force to do so.  I think this motivation 
>    is felt as a sense of disconnection or alienation from "something" 
>    _inherently essential_ to that person's well-being.  If there is 
    
    Absolutely.  I think that was one of the great insights that
    William James had when he sought the 'essence of religion' in his
    work, _Varieties_of_Religious_Experience_, which you referred to
    earlier.   The motivation of what he at one point refers to as
    'faith state' is rooted in feelings that he considered common to
    all religions, but which were expressed differently intellectually.
    
    He never makes it clear (at least that I could tell) why the 
    supernatural is neccessarily involved in the search for meaning,
    but then the concept of something (e.g. God) as supernatural (vs. 
    'abstract,' or whatever) could well be a cultural bias, I guess.   
    
    		Thanks very much.
    
    							todd

Hi Todd

 >   The discussion here inspired me to get Mircea Eliade's study of
 >   _Shamanism_, and try to educate myself on the subject, at least from
 >   descriptions of it (I know, I know, the description is not the thing).
    
 >   Apparently it was a classic study of the subject with a very broad
 >   base.  Are you familiar with it ?  Can you recommend others of a
 >   similar type that discuss common themes in Shamanism with examples
 >   from different cultures ?

I have not read the above book yet but have seen many references to it in the 
literature. It is considered a classic study. Another classic study but 
perhaps more geared to "hands-on" work would be Micheal Harner's "The Way of 
the Shaman." There are other books that are more like Mircea Eliade's book 
that discuss common themes with examples. I have some of them at home but 
can't remember the names right now. I'll get them tonight. I would also 
recomend "Black Elk Speaks". Another thing I would recomend is a jornal 
called The Shaman's Drum, which is excellent. I'll get the other books for 
you tonight.

Sam

    re: .46, 
    	Thanks for your help, Sam.  I appreciate it.  I think I picked
    	up Harner a while back but never read it.  I'm glad you
    	reminded me !
    							todd

    Todd,
    
    Eliade has also written a few other books, two of which I think may 
    compliment William James' _Varieties of Religious Experience_.  They
    are _The Sacred and the Profane_ and _Myths, Dreams and Mysteries_.
    Both explore elements of mysticism from a more universal perspective.
    
    I'll provide more later.
    
    Karen

    Hellooooo, Kb, Cindy, Ellen, /bruce, et al
    
    Let me jump in here and give and the most profound answers of all?
    
    What is a Mystic?  
    
    I saw the movie, so it must be a town in Connecticut, right?
    
    Either that, or maybe it's one of those luscious pizza pies from the
    pizzaria, called "Mystic Pizza"
    
    Or $5.99, add extra for additional ingredients such as pepperoni,
    sausage (yuk!), black olive, bell peppers, etc.
    
    Is that "mystical" enough? 
    
    
    ;-)
    
    
    Bill Slater
    Colorado Springs

>                        -< Three "Mystical" Answers... >-
    
1>    I saw the movie, so it must be a town in Connecticut, right?
    
2>    Either that, or maybe it's one of those luscious pizza pies from the
2>    pizzaria, called "Mystic Pizza"
    
    Most mystical of all, Bill,
    	'Where was the third answer ?'
    		
    			todd :-)

Todd,

I found my book that is what you were asking for. It is called "Shamanic 
Voices: A Survey of Visionary Narratives" by Joan Halifax who has done a lot 
of work with Shamanism. She has collected the words of the shamans 
themselves. 
	Another great book is Fool's Crow: Wisdom and Power by Thomas E. 
Mails talks about the shamanic and mystical experiences of the last great 
Medicine Man of the Lakota Sioux.

Sam

Re .50 (Todd):

> 3> It's a river in Massachusetts.  [A virtual entry]

    Hi Todd,
    
    On my screen, the answer under pizza pies was: $5.99.
    
    Kind of like the joke where the priest keeps getting asked "want a 
    quickie - $5.00" by working girls.  Embarassed, he goes to the convent
    to inquire, "What's a quickie?" The mother superior fires back, "$5.00,
    same as in town!"
    
    :-)
    
    Sometime I laugh and grin so much I think my face will get stuck this
    way:   
                             :-)
    
    
    Bill

    Hi Bill!
    
    re .49, those are pretty mystical answers, imo, but I think
    you'll need to hear from Mike Glantz for the final decision.
    
    :-)
    
    Kb

    Bill,
    	$5.99 is definitely mystical.  It was hidden right under my
    	nose, and I couldn't see it.  That's part of the Sufi definition, 
    	right ?
    
    Sam, Karen,
    	Thanks for the references !
    
    							todd

> you'll need to hear from Mike Glantz for the final decision.

As my wife often says to me when I ask a question like that:

	If I told *you*, then *you'd* know.

    Todd,
    
    	The other three books I would highly recommend for a broad-based 
    study of shamanism are: 
    
    	_The spirit of shamanism_, by Roger Walsh 
    	   ISBN 087477-626-0
    
    	_The shaman's doorway_, by Stephen Larsen
    	   ISBN 088268-072-2
    
    	_Shaman's path_, edited by Gary Doore
    	   ISBN 087773-432-1
    
    Following are some personal opinions and more detailed info
    regarding these volumes.
    
    
    	Imo, Walsh's book is the best study on shamanic states of mind 
    and comparative mystical states I've seen thus far.  Walsh is 
    currently professor of psychiatry, philosophy and anthropology at the 
    University of California, Irvine, and he draws on each of these areas 
    in his treatise, producing a well-balanced, insightful survey of 
    shamanism.
    
    	I've never seen anything quite like Larsen's work.  The sub-title 
    of this book is "Opening Imagination to Power and Myth."  First 
    published in the mid 70's, it evocatively articulates entry into the 
    shamanic mythic realm, and describes four different levels of 
    humanity's experience, of what Larsen terms "mythic engagement."  
    Here mythic engagement is viewed more broadly, encompassing the 
    dynamics of how initial mystical experience can evolve into 
    institutionalized religion, then science, and further and why.  Fwiw, 
    there is an endorsement on the back cover from Joe Campbell saying 
    that had he still been teaching when Larsen's book was published, he 
    would have used it as an introduction to the complex field of 
    shamanism.
    
    	Doore's book is primarily an overview of neo-shamanism, and how 
    various shamanic techniques and the shamanic worldview are coming 
    into relationship with the modern industrial world.  Some of the 
    questions addressed are: "Are shamanic healing methods compatible 
    with Western medicine?  Can shamanism help in crises or difficult 
    life transitions?  Is it relevant to the search for meaning amid the 
    wasteland of industrialization and runaway technology?  Can it help 
    in healing the planet and preventing ecological catastrophe?  Some of 
    the contributors are:  Michael Harner, Joan Halifax, Stanley 
    Krippner, Larry Dossey, Serge King, Jeanne Achterberg, and Stan Grof. 
    
    	Imo, this would be a good book to introduce people to shamanism 
    and for those interested in knowing more about some of the current 
    applications of shamanic thought in western culture. 
    
    	Of particular interest to this note on mysticism is the 
    contribution by Joan Townsend in Doore's book entitled "Neo-shamanism 
    and the modern mystical movement."  And for a lively investigation of 
    opposing viewpoints on shamanism and its relationship to other 
    mystical experiences, I'd suggest Doore's article in _Shaman's Door_ 
    on "Shamans, yogis, and boddisattvas," (sp?) then Walsh's entire 
    chapter on "Mapping Shamanic States," where he directly confronts 
    some basic assumptions of Doore's theories and offers data supporting 
    a different set of conclusions. 
    
    	All three of these books are highly readable, although Larsen's 
    style demands a bit more concentration in a few chapters, but imo, 
    it's well worth it.  And no study of shamanism would be complete 
    without reading personal accounts in the shamans own words of their 
    life and experiences, for which Sam has already provided some 
    excellent references.
    
    Kb
    

    RE: 1657.49
    
    Right back at you Bill.  I thought suasage was definately mystical.  
    
    Thank all of you for your information, I can see I have a lot of
    reading to do.
    
    Ellen
    

    re Shamanism and modern society... to me, it's clear that this IS a
    culture in a spiritual drought, leading to endless consumption.
    Rootless, thirsty-for-authentic-experience moderns with plenty of 
    disposable income make questionable personal investments in pseudo-tribal 
    'shaman rituals', and they are happily fleeced by the glib and unethical.
    
    Re "spirituality is rooted in uncertainty".. I agree, and that's
    partially why I'm leaving Digital soon, with no other job lined up.
    
    thanks. karl

                                    
    Best wishes to you always, Karl!
    
    Cindy

    RE: 1657.59 
    
    My best wishes also, Karl!
    
    Ellen

karl,

    re Shamanism and modern society... to me, it's clear that this IS a
    culture in a spiritual drought, leading to endless consumption.
    Rootless, thirsty-for-authentic-experience moderns with plenty of 
    disposable income make questionable personal investments in pseudo-tribal 
    'shaman rituals', and they are happily fleeced by the glib and unethical.

You are right. One of my teachers has told me and has wrote that everyone 
these days comes up to him and asks to be a shaman and expects to get it all 
in an instant weekend course. Then when he tells them that it will be a 20, 
30 year journey they all go away. I also think that this culture is in a 
spiritual drought but the thing is, and you have touched on it, is that 
people are so thirsty-for-authentic-experience that they invest in anything 
that says Native American or Shaman. Most of these things are neither, they 
are new-age and actually have little authentic Native American traditions. As 
native people tell me, these new-agers come out to the res all the time 
begging for teaching. Some elder will feel sorry for them, teach them a 
little, and a weekend later, these people proclaim themselves Medicine Men or 
Woman, and then turn around and sell them to people. These new-agers have 
basterdized many Native American rituals and ceremonies, to the point that 
many people don't EVEN believe Native peoples anymore. Then you have your 
Micheal Harners of the world. Be a Shaman in one weekend for $165! Bullshit! 
It takes a lifetime, it takes a lot more than money. It takes a certain 
intent.
	Boy, I admire what you're doing. This culture is the wrong one for 
me. This isn't a day that goes by that I don't long for the days of the 
Medicine Men and the Circle and the Medicine Wheel. Good luck Karl in your 
journey.

Sam

    Hi Sam,
    
    	I agree wholeheartedly with you that there's a lot of 
    "bastardizing" going on, particularly of native cultures and
    spiritualities.  To me it is part and parcel of the "credit card 
    mentality" - get it now, pay later.  The idea of instant gratification 
    is very seductive, and imo, _very_ prevelant in this society.  And I 
    have to say it's one of the demons that I regularly meet on the path.   
    
    	Regarding Michael Harner, I don't know what he's said or done in 
    the past, but just last weekend I attended the only shamanic program 
    I've ever taken and it was Michael Harner's basic workshop.  I was 
    relieved to see he did not promote it as a "become-a-shaman-in-a-
    weekend" workshop.  In fact he _stressed_ the opposite.  He said very 
    much what you related - that most shaman train for a lifetime, and 
    this was definately NOT a weekend where he taught people "how to 
    become shamans," and neither is he qualified to do that.   
    
    	He also added that shamans _never_ call themselves such, so he 
    cautioned people to BEWARE of anyone advertising him/herself as a 
    shaman.  What he talked about were the core aspects of shamanism found 
    cross-culturally, and provided instruction on some of the basic 
    techniques of shamanic journeying, again from a universal perspective.  
    He did not discuss native "ceremonies" of any kind.
    
    	He spent much time in the 60's with South American natives and 
    said that in those cultures no one ever trains with a shaman for more 
    than a few days, or a week at most.  The shamans simply provide 
    guidance to help a person meet their own spirit teacher(s), then the 
    rest is up to the spirit teacher(s) and the person.  The shaman 
    departs and the person is left on their own.  In still other cultures 
    the person's teacher is a tree and a shaman is virtually uninvolved.
    
    	Being sensitive to issues of exploitation myself, my opinion after 
    spending a weekend with Michael Harner is that neither he nor the 
    program was at all exploitive;  based on my experience of this 
    weekend, Harner presented the topic of shamanism both responsibly and 
    respectfully.
    
    Peace, in all our relations,
    
    Karen
    
    p.s. the following is more a personal story regarding my journey 
    into shamanism;  it may also give you a better idea of where I'm 
    coming from regarding issues of exploitation...fwiw.
         
    
    	When I first heard the word shamanism in the early 80's, I didn't 
    have a clue as to what it was about.  As I received inner promptings 
    and visionary-type experiences to explore it further about 3 years 
    ago, I resisted, rather strongly, because of the faddish, bazaar-like 
    atmosphere that seemed to have sprung up around it.  I shared some of 
    my inner promptings and visions with a good friend of mine (who is 
    also a fellow DEJAVU noter) hastening to add that I was _not_ the 
    least bit interested in even looking into shamanism.  Even walking by 
    the section in the bookstore seeing the vast quantities of books on 
    the subject literally turned my stomach.  "What the heck is this?" I 
    thought.  "I get strong promptings that something is important, and 
    I can't even look at a book on it?"  So I pretty much concluded that
    the "powers that Be" had a purpose for it being this way, at least 
    for the time being.  
    
    	Over the next year the urgings and visions became more vivid and 
    frequent.  One day I went by the shamanism section in a bookstore 
    and paused to look.  For the first time I felt okay.  My stomach 
    wasn't protesting.  So I bought my first book, _Shaman, the wounded 
    healer_ by Joan Halifax.   Reading it was an eye-opening experience,
    and I found many parts of it perfectly matched some of the information 
    I had been receiving through the inner promptings and visions.  Then 
    I went for several months before picking up another book.  
    
    	As I began to pick up a few other books, I remember oneday that 
    the salesclerk who was usually there mentioned to me this "terrific" 
    6 week program on shamanism which was offered upstairs on Thursday 
    nights.  I said "no, thank you" and silently asked my stomach to 
    please calm down.    
    
    	I had heard about Michael Harner, his book, and the workshops he 
    offered.  Not knowing anything about the man or his or approach didn't 
    matter;  I was definately turned off.  A few months ago he came up in 
    a topic of conversation with a few friends, and I remarked that I was, 
    at best, suspicious of him and what I suspected to be a mass-market 
    approach.  One of the friends had attended Harner's workshop about a 
    year or so ago, and said that though the shamanic techniques weren't 
    for him, he thought it was a good experience and felt Michael Harner 
    was a man of integrity and presented the subject responsibily.  
    
    	Even then I had no plans on attending.  But it's funny the way 
    things work sometimes. :-) I've come to realize there is a greater 
    power in Life, in my life, and I've learned the hard way that it 
    "behooves" me to seek, listen and follow its direction.  So a couple 
    of weeks later when information on Harner's program found its way 
    into my hands and the promptings followed to sign up for it, I said 
    "okay, okay," and had to kind of smile to myself while I called to 
    register. 

Karen,

As we discussed on the phone, maybe things have changed for Mr. Harner. I'm 
so glad that your experience was a good one. I am only repeating what my 
teacher said to me - native people scoff at this type of workshop thing and 
the money that changes hands. It is totally against their tradition to 
charge money for ceremony (I know that Harner does not teach ceremony) but 
even for a class. I don't know exactly how I feel but I am glad that Harner 
emphasized that becoming a shaman is not a one weekend deal.

Ho Mitakuye Oyasin

Sam

    re: shamans
    
        ...from mystics to shamans...
    
        I have not finished the book yet, but it has been my intention
    to write something about it when I have completed it...since that
    time is slow in coming, I will simply mention the book.  IT is
    "Urban Shaman" by Serge King, and more-or-less follows the Hawaiian
    methods of shamanism.  One of the first pages in the book
    differentiates strongly between "warrior" shamans, which is the type
    that I see discussed mostly here in notes, and "adventurer" shamans,
    who do not come from aggressive shamanism (this "adventurer," 
    incidentally, is very similar to the definitions favorably recommended
    by Lazaris.)  I would urge some of you who are into shamanism to
    round out your information by reading this book, although I would
    prefer to read the whole book before giving my final opinion.
    Frankly, "warrior" energy seems finite..."adventurer" energy is much
    more hopeful and infinite (as I've understood the distinctions.)
    
    Frederick
    

Fredrick,

Thanks for your note. I have read the King book and I found it to be very 
interesting.

Sam