But it is true that not everyone needs the same experiences or thinks the same way, and vive la difference!

Mysticism does not suit all. It requires some transcendental experiences which most part of us do not have.

So, neither affirm it, nor reject I cannot, just because I cannot prove some one he does not have his experiences.

The other thing is to investigate why and how people turn to it. Is it not because they are so dissatisfied with their lives that they need new drug -- new transcendental experiences?

There are very few who may claim they had visions their life long, others accquired them because of fear before every day life.

However, what do they change?

Maybe in future we'll have a great deal of this drugs even without years meditations and prayers. Just eat a tablet (without side effects now), and thou wilt get into fourth dimension, meet God, Trinity, Buddha, expereince bliss... But is this keif what we need?

But this means that those mystical experiences does not contribute to happiness. Otherwise, if we can become happy only through them, we should all sit in meditation or contemplate yantras, or repeat prayers.

Thus, if these expereinces are not necessary for happiness, then all you are talking about is a mere hobby, just like photography or sightseeing...

Rigorous mystic practice does not suit all, that is very true. But to say that transcendental experience is not familiar to most people, I think, is untrue.

People have wondered about this for a long time. In the 1960's Tim Leary and Alan Ginsberg worked hard to usher in a new era of psychedelic transcendence. They thought they found the pills to eat that showed you God, enlightenment, ect. And what did they discover? We all learned that even though psychedelics cause transcendence, that users directly experience a world beyond everyday physical existence, this transcendence is not the same as spiritual transcendence. In the wake of this mistake, uncounted thousands were left crippled by drug abuse. The spiritual materialism (looking to a pill rather than inward) of Tim Leary and crew proved to be a disaster.

Yes, people turn to a great many different things when they are dissatisfied with their lives...
A drug is not a solution to some dissatisfaction, but a means by which a person can ignore and push out their dissatisfaction for a moment. Regular running or swimming are real solutions to dissatisfaction with health. Going to college or starting a new business are real solutions to dissatisfaction with a job. Mysticism seems to be a real solution to spiritual dissatisfaction.
To compare mysticism with a drug is to deny mysticism as a real solution to spiritual dissatisfaction.

No that's true, because most part of people does not belong to any religion except the religion of flesh.

Everything we experience in this life has its manifestation in brain and causes electrical impulses and so on (ask Krumple, he's an expert), and I doubt that if we could imitate those impulses, create them artificially, there would be any need in any spiritual practice...

Perhaps there is some misunderstanding of mysticism and 'transcedence'. For me it means that we are receiving some images of God, experience bliss etc.

But all this just what drugs (or let's say future advanced drugs) may give.

And this is not a solution: this is again attachment to some images, feelings etc.

I am convinced that if every one had those experiences we should never ascribe such significance to them. God, Buddha, Christ, Krishna... So what? Can their existence or non-existence free me from greed, from lust, from anger -- the things that really make our life so terrible.

Therefore mysticism is exactly an escape from problems into 'the fourth dimension', not a real solution of our problems, and I am convinced that could we live longer, we should eventually get dissatisfied with those 'transcendental images'. This is what I understand by mysticism and if thou hast another understanding, correct me.

And yes, I agree again that neither affirm, nor reject the existence of those images I can't. The only think I can do is to show their meaninglessness as well of all another experiences during one's life. Does it matter, indeed, whether one has another ways of perception?

This does not mean that people cannot have an experience in which people experience something beyond themselves. Herd behavior is an example of transcendence. One need not have any involvement with religion to have a transcendent experience.

It appears that we have the drugs to do this. However, we have learned that higher consciousness cannot be sold for five dollars a hit. We have learned that the practice is integral to true spiritual transcendence.

Mysticism is the pursuit of direct experience of God or the Divine. Transcendence is going beyond - going beyond one's self, or ego - and is related to the conception of God as being a being that transcends, or goes beyond, physical reality.

And this is what we learned after watching Tim Leary. We realized that no matter the apparent similarities between spiritual transcendence and drug induced transcendence, there is a difference between the two. One immediately apparent difference is stability: someone who seeks direct experience of God through serious spiritual practice does not lose their experience, whereas drugs lose their influence of transcendence as the drug wears off.

But it does not seem to be an unhealthy attachment: the mystic experience is not an attachment to worldly pleasure, it is not ignorant, it recognizes that something more than ceremony is necessary, and it is not egocentric.

The mere existence of the Buddha, Jesus or any other teacher cannot free you from greed, lust, or anger. Mysticism holds that the individual has to practice as those teachers practiced in order to achieve what they achieved: freedom from greed, lust and so forth. That's the basic idea: through practice, we can overcome the suffering of this life.
Mostly I would point out that Mysticism does not teach that the existence of Jesus or any other teacher can free you from greed, ect. What Mysticism teaches is that through certain practices, we can be free from greed, ect.

Yes, I think perception matters a great deal. There is a huge difference between perceiving the world as if altruism were true and perceiving the world as if egoism were true.

If someone hit thy head with a stone, what will remain of those experiences? Through some devices scientists can make the feel what ever they want.

If I met God or Christ, or Buddha, it will not change anything in my life. These images seem to be very valuable for mystics just because life is so short that they cannot become fed up with them.

That's not true. Were it so, monks wouldn't need new dose of prayer.

I am recalling a book by Thai monk Buddhadasa Bhikkhu "Handbook for mankind" where he taught that we should not have attachments even on supramundane plane...

I have a friend who was Buddhist (he lived in Russia, then in Thailand, then again come to Russia, then returned to Thailand). So he said he had constant quarrels with his grandparents because 'he wanted to meditate all the time and they made him do something'. However rediculuous it may sound, it proves that every attachment is harmful, because it is conditioned, time and space. Rely on nothing, as, if I am not mistaking, said the Buddha.

I should say that we could never know what was the real teaching of the Buddha, Christ or so, but this is ganz another story... Some teachings say we should repeat a certain amount of prayers in a certain order, others that we should meditate on Buddha, others -- on Non-dual Self or Brahman, others that we should have skilful sex, others -- that we should kill people, as worshippers of Kali did... Which is right? Or shall we say as Ramakrishna: every path leads to God? Even consistent atheism...

And I think we should perceive the world as it is, not through altruism or egoism.

And no, I am not rejecting any practice at all, just as I don't reject art, for example. Seeing Buddha may indeed bring joy for a certain period of time, but not for ever. Happiness is deeper than any external experience.

How do you know that is not true? You have, by your own admission, not had such an experience.

Monks continue to practice after early success because the spiritual path is not a quick hike, but an epic personal journey.
How can you know with certainty that this is true?

Hence the importance of finding out for yourself. And yes, I think the atheist can find God, even though the atheist will use a different name.

Altruism and egoism are moral theories. They determine what we should and should not do, and this shapes our perception of reality.

And if a Christian fanatic may be stopped by his own scripture, others, from sects where distribution of belief is approved in every wise, may only be inflamed with their writs.

How can it be otherwise?

So if I met shinig Buddha or God, it will not change my misunderstanding, rather it will create tension between my desire to follow the ideal and my misunderstaning which does not vanish.

Any mystical practice depends on conditions. Thou wantest to meditate, what if I switch on heavy metal...

Happiness, real happiness is deeper than any practice, any experince. It must not be disturbed by any conditions.

Life is so short, how many wrong paths shall I follow until I find the real one?.. Moreover, vipashyana needs years, hear, decades so as to achieve any result. None can guarantee, I shall find anything, or that I shall not die before, en route... That would be incredibly cruel, if we had to seek in darkness. What if I am following a wrong one, this only moves me away from the right one...

Well it's no surprise that most Christians feel that aligning themselves with the gestalt values of other Christians is more important than considering the example set by Christ.

Because it's so much easier.

And you know this as a matter of fact?

None can guarantee, I shall find anything

If you have not had the experience, you could not possibly know one way or the other.
How could you know what it would be to meet the Buddha if you have not ever done so? Isn't this pure speculation?
Heavy metal music would make it more difficult. So what?

I agree. But how do you imagine we arrive at happiness if not by some sort of practice?

No one said the spiritual path was easy.

You will still be having this conversation in 10 years, and nothing will have changed. And that is guaranteed for sure.

What am I going to get out of it?

The whole point of spiritual practice is to overcome your basic self-centeredness. This is nothing personal. Everyone is naturally self-centered - it is a result of evolutionary biology. Spiritual teachings have always recognized this. It is one of the many interpretations of the Myth of the Fall. This is the very nature of the battle - there is nothing new in this. We are all in precisely the same position. IN Christian parlance, we are all 'sons of Adam'.

So - to overcome self- centeredness obviously means, not being concerned with yourself any more. From the viewpoint of the ego, this is obviously always going to be a bad deal. So ego will naturally say, 'what is in it for me'? The answer is, in the case of spiritual development, 'nothing'. But the ego is always bound for ultimate dissolution anyway, via death, which is the source of the underlying anxiety, or dukkha, about existence. So it kind of knows it has to look at this, in spite of itself.

Question: You have realized reality. Can you tell us what God is?

Krishnamurti: How do you know I have realized? To know that I have realized, you also must have realized. This is not just a clever answer. To know something you must be of it. You must yourself have had the experience also and therefore your saying that I have realized has apparently no meaning. What does it matter if I have realized or have not realized? Is not what I am saying the truth? Even if I am the most perfect human being, if what I say is not the truth why would you even listen to me? Surely my realization has nothing whatever to do with what I am saying and the man who worships another because that other has realized is really worshipping authority and therefore he can never find the truth.

It's a conviction, fairly solidly held, and I feel that I'm entitled to my opinions even if they are based on no more than a passing hunch. However, particularly in relation to a converstation on a philosophy forum where most people will have at least a passing familiarity with Cartesian thought or phenomenology, I'd shy from saying just about anything was a 'matter of fact'.

Do you know that 'no one said the spiritual path was easy' is a matter of fact? I'm fairly sure there have been people who claimed just such a thing. I've certainly seen a documentary on Hindu ascetics who claimed their spiritual journeys, including feats such as holding a left arm in the air for a decade when not sleeping, were 'no big feat' (though I would find it so).

Eudaimon - "discrimination between true good and true evil" is not a practice? You must be doing something if you are discriminating - this must be some kind of practice.

You made a claim about "most Christians" that was rather negative. You said that "most Christians" are more concerned with being in the cool club than with actually learning from the teachings attributed to Jesus. Remarkably cynical.

I won't even debate that "most Christians" do not align themselves with the cool club more often than refer to the teachings of Jesus, but to make such cynical assumptions about the motivations of such a wide group of people is unnecessary, unfounded, angry.

As far as the Hindu asceticism (I saw that documentary, too - cool huh!), I think we might want to distinguish between ease of practice and the sort of attention the practice deserves. We all know that holding one's arm up for such a period of time is not easy - however, it is wise for the man to call it "no big feat" to avoid undue attention, essentially ego-stroking.