Art/Mysticism and Recognition

[q]

(I posted this also at the Jhana support group as well for the benefit of those who aren't over here yet...)

Art/Mysticism and Recognition

Recognize: 3. to perceive as existing or true; realize: to be the first to recognize a fact.

It seems every discipline can be taken to the level of 'art' in the sense that
it approaches what cannot be named, or what is truly 'mystical' about human
experience. Why, though, are we obsessed with 'recognition'? Without which I
suppose none of us would be here now to talk about it.

Religion has to be the first (and worst?) place most people turn when confronted
with the meaninglessness of their life (or want more meaning, a stronger sense
of community and connection to something larger than themselves). The all
inviting arms of religion calling 'follow me, I know the way'.

Art: taking Marcel Duchamp as an example, although a serious artist, preferred
to portray himself as a somewhat layed back regular guy who liked to smoke, had
a few simple ideas about art, and preferred playing chess than posing as some
socially constructed notion of what a 'great' artist should be. So having thrown
a wrench into the machine of perception, or what he at some level must probably
have sensed as a stratified stagnation of energy, bloomed into generations of
influence.

Science: How did Einstein know he was right about the theory of relativity? He
says it was simple, beautiful...

A mystics solution could be to, at any cost (including dumpster diving),
meditate in the name of ecstasy.

But still the drive for validation, recognition: 'is what I am doing right'? The
right way? Am I on the right path? Or once I have recognized the signs of
absorption...what about art? Or that which approaches 'art'? Why do artists keep
making it? Scientists keeps stretching further, religions keep looking for new
ways to validate themselves - through science, art, mystics - all driven by an
inner need to be recognized, validated: to feel that what they are doing is
'right'. But how do you recognize when something is 'right'?

As an artist, someone involved in creating new work, I would say this drive for
'peer' acknowledgment is strong, perhaps even strong enough to call it some sort
of 'fuel' (for neurosis?); or just an inner need to further create, to bring
into being, from the virtual to the actual: the play of creation itself (with an
audience). Samuel Beckett said about his work, "for reasons unknown and
unknowable, I cannot remain silent."

(Just curious to see where this could lead...)

[jhananda]

Hello q, the issue for the mystic is not at all about a drive for validation, or recognition; it is about how do we, who are not mystics, recognize and contextualize a mystic, so that we might become enlightened, which is what it is to be a mystic? Validation is what an aspirant needs, not a mystic, because a mystic has found, an aspirant seeks. However, an aspirant needs validation to make progress toward becoming a mystic.

The important things that I wish to get across about mysticism is: First, the progenitors of ALL of the major religions were mystics; Secondly, to become a mystic, one must first be a contemplative; Third, to become enlightened is to be a mystic; Fourth, not all of those people who are recognized as mystics were mystics; Fifth, the major religions have no idea what it is to be a mystic.

Siddhartha Gotama was a contemplative, because he went into the wilderness and meditated for 6 years to become enlightened; and his enlightenment defined him as a mystic. The 7th fold of his Noble Eightfold Path defines the practice of meditation; and it is no coincidence that the 8th fold, which immediately follows his instructions for the practice of meditation, is one of the best definitions around for mysticism.

Moses was a contemplative because he went into the wilderness to pray and meditate, and through doing so he had the vision of Yahweh, which defined him as a mystic.

Jesus, the Nazarene, was a contemplative because he went into the wilderness to pray and meditate, and through doing so he found the Holy Spirit, which defined him as a mystic.

Patanjali was a contemplative because he clearly described in his Yoga Sutras what the practice of meditation was about; and he was a mystic, because he showed how the practice of meditation was meant to produce the direct experience of the sacred through various manifestations, which he called fruit (phala), therefore he was a mystic.

Now, while I was working on a degree in anthropology I took classes in Jewish and Muslim mysticism respectively. Those classes were taught through a series of readings, which were mostly from anthologies of mystical writing that were compiled by highly respected religious scholars. I found reading those anthologies that at best only 10% of the so-called mystics represented were mystics. Most of the rest of the authors were saints, occultists, philosophers and the pious. My papers critiqued the premises of the authors of the anthologies, which resulted in a low grade, and I was unsuccessful in convincing the professor what a mystic is.

Yes, I agree, q, a mystic can also be an artist, writer, poet, philosopher, scientist and/or musician, or chose art, prose, poetry, philosophy, science and/or music to express him or herself; however, we need not separate art, prose, poetry, philosophy, science or music from mysticism, nor should we necessarily conflate them. Some artists, writers, poets, philosophers, scientists and/or musicians were mystics whereas most were not. Just creating impressive art, prose, poetry, philosophy, science or music is insufficient evidence for mysticism. Yes, Beethoven, Michael Angelo, Marcel Duchamp, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Henry David Thoreau, Immanuel Kant, Albert Einstein and others might have been mystics, but I have studied these individuals and did not find sufficient evidence to argue one way or the other for any of them.

Religions have consistently proven they do not understand mystics and mysticism; and if anything, they are threatened by them. History has proven that the only thing priests want to do when they encounter a mystic is either shut him up, invalidate him or kill him. And, the orthodox just cannot allow a mystic to freely express himself. That is true today, as it has been throughout the history of every religion.

What drives a mystic to express him or herself is simply in being a mystic. It is their very nature to express their enlightenment to others. They do not care if they are dismissed, invalidated, marginalized, or even tortured, crucified, or burned at the stake.

Best regards, Jeffrey

[Michael Hawkins]

My take (for what it's worth!) is that artists, athletes and other "specialists" are frequently single-minded in their pursuits, bringing a great deal of focus to their particular expression. "Runner's high" is an example of an ecstatic manifestation of this single-minded focus, pushing one's limits until there is a breakthrough into... ecstasy. Artists, writers and musicians LIVE for this type of thing.

Mystics who are dedicated contemplatives take the breakthrough phenomenon and skillfully work with it in a way that leads to 24/7 saturation in bliss, joy and ecstasy. No more fluctuation, no more in-and-out -- but a total and complete surrender to the Intelligence expression as samadhi/jhana/absorption.

This is simplistic, but reflects my basic take.

Warmly,
Michael