On many occasions I have been asked to explain my term ‘Synetic Dialogue’; and naturally to try and state an objective answer to the question: “What is Mysticism?” I will endeavour to tackle these two questions here.
Mysticism is not a religion and neither is it a belief system or a philosophy; as I say, it is a revelation of the inner depths of reality, and one which has a lasting effect upon all recipients. Mysticism does not teach us as to how creation works, it teaches us about ourselves at the deepest level, and that knowledge thence does its own inner working upon in the incarnate topside mind and personality. If mystical and transcendent experience had no effect then it would be of no value or importance to this world. I have heard it said by some that mysticism is the elite religion, but it is not, for it is not a religion at all, and it is the complete opposite and antithesis of elitism; for elitism is abhorrent and divisive: whereas mysticism is love and unity, harmony and one accord with the implicate order and the essential principle of creation. Thus, mysticism was never called the elite religion by mystics. (Perhaps the Bishops were jealous—what is it they say—the first shall be last?)
Mysticism is the process (because it is mysterious) of this personal (yet collective) revelation. So much has been written about mysticism, yet it is not all true; some however is excellent. Neither should one judge mysticism by the words and personality of any one human being, for on earth we are all different, and from different cultures. Some have the gift of words and some like myself do not. Some are old and some are young. Some are extrovert and some are introvert in tendency and inclination, and some are both at different times. Some are male and some are female. Some laugh and joke, and some do not. But despite all these things and minor differences there is the uniform effect of mysticism and the revelation therein and thereof. And that of course is the spiritual growth and gradual enlightenment of the individuals concerned, and a growth which is attained to and encouraged by something beyond and greater than our temporal incarnate self. That is what mysticism is.
In this day and age of course the word mysticism has been prostituted by so many other things; but this does not mean that the word should be changed, for it is a good word—the best there is. Thus, for those who read fortunes in tea leaves or predict the future from the stars, then it is they that should call their trade by another name. There are no mystic Meg’s and tea leaf readers in Paradise. Neither are psychic events mysticism, for they are things and manifestation of and within ones own soul and subconscious. It is true that they are closely related, but at nothing like the inner depths of mysticism. One does not learn of what one is and from whence one came by way of psychic phenomena; and one does not learn of the mystic death and resurrection into the beginning and the end of all being.
Then again a mystic may never ever come to have any psychic experiences as are generally reported. But they often seem to in fact after the event of mystical integration. Neither are the revelations of mysticism concerned with that of ordinary earthly knowledge. One does not learn as to how creation was created whilst in paradise; one learns as to why it was created. Psychic experiences do not teach you that either; for paradise is both beyond the ego and the psyche—in pure virgin unadulterated primordial mind.
Thus, such revelation does not make one clever, and one does not need to be clever to receive it; it is nought to do with thinking—on the contrary in fact, for you cannot even think at all in that level of reality. And as I have taken the trouble to explain, it comes through the process of purgation; the stripping away of everything which you have; and eventually even your self consciousness in annihilation. For only when everything which we have (on loan) is taken from you, stripped away from the owner of them, do you then know as to what the owner really is. Time is not ours. Our body is not ours. Memories are not ours. The universe is not ours. The world is not ours. The soul is not ours. But Paradise and conscious existence is ours eternally.
Thus it is then that only when everything which is not you is stripped away from you then can you know what you are. And you are the living progeny of the divine implicate order. Thus it is that all these other things are on loan to you; even your memories. So love them and treasure them, for they are divine also. And if you prostitute them or sell them short then you prostitute not only your self but the divine order also. Yet, as I say, there is no punishment for so doing—for they are given even knowing that you will prostitute them. And that is why the mystics weep—for the spirit is perfect, but we on earth... have a long way to go shall we say. They weep in humility at the sight of perfection and beauty, and as to how it is prostituted on earth. You will also weep.
So, what is the goal of mysticism? The goal is the knowledge and the effect; and the goal is always reached and attained. And thus the goal of mysticism is personal gnosis, the knowledge of the heart and deepest depths of the all and ones self; the revelation of the deepest knowable mystery within creation itself. But this knowledge, this gnosis, is for effect; nothing is for nothing. The goal of mystical experience, both introverted and extroverted types, is the major part of the spiritualising process (a project of transcendence). I believe I have mentioned the ‘Well analogy’ elsewhere. Imagine that our psyche was like that of a water well. Under ‘normal’ daily circumstances the water level is at the surface of the well. Imagine that the surface skin of the water to be the level upon which consciousness resides. Thus, the water below the surface skin is sub-conscious. Now, imagine at certain (mysterious) times the water level suddenly falls back to the source (bottom) of the well—transcendence. The water at source is pure water, unpolluted by contaminants. On the surface at the top of the well however, there is stuff of the outside world floating on the surface of the water, which is not the water itself.
Now, the Spiritualisation process is that of making the surface water at the top of the well as pure as it is at the spring at the bottom of the well. That is to say that the top is to become a reflection of what the water really is in its ground of being. So, the concept (and reality) of Spiritualisation is not, as thought to be by some, turning us into spiritual beings from something which is not a spiritual being; far from it. We are already spiritual beings—we just have to be made aware of it, and thence learn (difficult though it is) to try and live like it. However, it is not all down to us in so far as these experiences actually change us to this or that degree anyway—and we become like it—like it or not. In a manner of speaking it is not that different in analogy from eating food. We may eat food either because we are hungry or simply because we like the taste if it. But when the food is eaten then the system does what it is supposed to do during and after the digestive process. You cannot eat food and not be effected by it. You cannot undergo profound mystical and psychic experiences without being effected by them—for that is what they are for—EFFECT.
And the effect is that the outer creation (the form) may become as the inner; the form as the essence, the man as the child, the knower as the known. That is it. That is mysticism; and the project of transcendence. You must ask a Christian as to what the goal of Christianity is. You must ask a Buddhist as to what the goal of Buddhism is. You must ask a scientist as to what is the goal of science. And you must ask anyone who holds beliefs as to what the goal of their beliefs are. But above all these things you must ask yourself as to what is your own goal, and why.
As yet, the mystics of this world have few friends (unless he or she keeps their mouth shut of course). Both science and religions will tell you that the mystic is wrong—and invariably mad as well. So it is a lonely road to be sure. Would one change it then? No, never in a thousand million years or for all the wealth of the universe. That is mysticism and love. Am I proud to have seen and known these things? No, I am humbled by them, and the beauty and love is more than I can cope with. But cope we must. Can one love another human being in quite the same way after mystic transcendence? No, one loves them even more—albeit in a way that such word does not usually mean to imply. And one even loves the ones that one does not love, or even like a great deal. That is mysticism. Does the world need mysticism then? Well, you be the judge of that one for your self. Does it work? Oh yes, indeed it does.
If it has taken every mistake in the book of life to get it right then is it worth it in due course? Yes; abundantly so. The effect of the effects is greater than could ever be anticipated or believed. What is truth, they ask? Truth is that which is so; and mysticism reveals the truth of ones self; and that which is not ones self. Everything which exists has its own jug of truths relating to it; but that which is true of a blade of grass is not true of a mountain or a pain in the back. Mysticism reveals the paradise of the mind in repose; transcendent of space, time and memory; the beginning and the end of all being. That is what it reveals—but the effect is even more; as I have tried to explain. In life, for example, some see a puddle; but others see a wondrous miraculous process taking place. That is mysticism. Perhaps the two most commonly known ways of expressing both the experience and wonder thereof is either through writing music (if the talent is there of course) or through poetry. There is however a third way; one which I have come to call ‘Synetic Dialogue’.
Synetic dialogue is a term I use for the event of talking or writing whilst existing ‘in this world or reality’ as though one were still existing in the transcendent order of existence itself: an example of which would be thus.... “I am the light which is before all other; the first of the acts of old, before all other things brought forth from the point of no extension and duration—no thing created”... so on and so forth. If such dialogue is misunderstood (by virtue of not explaining as to why one is talking that way) then one would be judged to be insane or over the top. Mystics are also guilty of this in part.
However, such type of dialogue carries, conveys, not only the truth of transcendence but also the impact of the event and experience more so than any other form of communication. But it must be understood thoroughly. Religions are founded upon such past individuals and their dialogue—as is obvious from hindsight. Re-Legio meant reunion, and ‘evil’ (an old archery term) meant not going all the way (only as far as Limbo) and hence falling short of the target (home). It is evident that there are two ways of ‘knowing’ the transcendent order of being. One way is direct experience (personal revelation—reunion) and the other is hearsay—to know ‘of’ it second hand from others.
Synetic Dialogue in a simple analogy is this. We sometimes relate a dream which we had to somebody, but in doing so it is always a narrative from hindsight. Imagine however, that instead of describing the dream that you actually spoke (or wrote) as though you were still in it—and with only that knowledge and existential existence. In transcendence you and I cannot think, and we know nothing of the world and the universe—let alone language. That part of our being cannot talk. Synetic dialogue is simply relating what it would say if it could talk. Thus, in so far as it can be got at (or as I see it anyway) this form of communication is the nearest which you and I can get to conveying a meaning without using a symbolic tool which arrives at meaning—for what is said is the thing itself. It is the reality without arriving at the meaning by other means. And thus very useful provided it is explained as to what one is doing and why. Otherwise one will be thought to be totally insane; and indeed miss the point.
Given that aspects of the world’s
religions are indeed true of human experience (and transcendence) the major
conflict between such spirituality and the rational mind (and science) is that
of the language and symbols used to communicate it. In times when metaphor and
symbols were the norm for communication then such dichotomy did not exist
presumably. But with the advent of objective analysis and rational enquiry—indeed
the scientific methodology—then such communication falls down, or rather misses
the point of conveying a meaning. Hence the symbolism and metaphor found in
religions is only really seen to be what it is from hindsight of the events
which they make symbols of. How then could even the most dedicated of academics
ascertain their true meaning whilst devoid of the very experiences which they
communicate? The reality of the phenomenon of mystical experience cannot be
arrived at by rational logic or empirical observation. And neither does this
mean that mystical experience is irrational when known. Mysterious, deep and
complex, yes. Irrational, no. Indeed far from it.
The ‘conflict’ between spiritual reality and science is nonexistent—for the mystics themselves are among the worlds greatest discoverers and detectives—albeit in another field; and sometimes even in science itself The real conflict however is not between science and our spiritual nature of being but simply between science and the state doctrinal priestcraft establishment—a power struggle. And that is also a fact. The scientists do not know all the answers as yet, and the sensible scientists do not claim to. The mystics do not know all the answers as yet, and they do not claim to. But it would seem to me that priestcraft at times believes that it knows all the answers; and this of course is not dignified behaviour if it is put across that way. Did they not insist that it should not be taught that the earth was round and in orbit of the sun? And were not black immigrants to Britain asked not to attend the church because it upset the congregation. They were indeed. Some spiritual church to be sure.
To have a belief or a faith is one thing; but knowledge is another. Perhaps a little humility on both sides would not come amiss. The divine implicate order of all existence works in mysterious fields and mysterious ways in its unfolding; and to assume that we know it all is a gross prostitution of both the truth and human dignity. If there is one thing that all the world’s mystics have learned then that is humility, awe and wonder of an ineffable existence. It is of course very interesting to know how everything works; but it works whether we know it or not anyway. What is even more important is to know not so much the how but the ‘why’. Moreover, in knowing the why, then so many of the ‘how’ questions, or rather the answers to them, become less important to know; indeed, even irrelevant at times.
And that, in some ineffable way, is one of the things that the mystics learn and come to understand in transcendence—the why of creation. Transcendence does not reveal how creation is created; but it certainly reveals the why—and what we are in our transcendent root or ground of being. Love is resonance within a system which is devoid of harmonics; in which all movement and understanding is in one harmony and accord with the fundamental foundation and essence and principle of all things brought forth—and no thing extended. Wisdom is knowing it.
The problems on this earth can be attributed to many causes, but on the bottom rung of that ladder there are the two major catalysts of such problems it seems to me—fear and selfishness, and albeit that the latter is often a product of the former itself. The goal in this world for so many people is to grab the most and the quickest, and sod the consequences to others. One of the effects of mysticism is that one cannot live this way. If that were the one and only effect of mysticism then that alone would be enough. But it is not the only effect by far, and it is not the only goal in the project of transcendence, but it is perhaps the first to be realised and understood by all mystics—we are not here for ourselves alone. Creation is for everyone, equally. And which, in all truth, is the most rewarding eventually—to receive happiness or to create happiness for another? One is nice, the other is a profound miracle.
What is the most difficult aspect of transcendence to cope with? Not many people ask that one, but a few have. The major difficulty (for me at least) is trying to live one’s life in accordance with that which is revealed to be in that ground of being. And I sure ain’t there yet. Indeed, I think it is an impossibility to do so on a world such as this world is as yet. If the world was a lot different then one could perpetually act a lot different, and with far less trouble.
The second most problematic aspect for me personally was in attempting to unite, meld, the deep inner emotional understanding into the rational aspect of our being. We must not abandon one iota of our rationality nor that of our emotional content and capacity—indeed we must exercise both at full throttle to hone them both up even more. But all the time that there is a conflict between reason and emotion then they are not working together in harmony and accord. That took me twenty years—plus another massive dose of extroverted mystical experience to accomplish that task.
Reason is a topside phenomenon, whereas emotion is primordial. In life we have to strike that magic balance so that both horses pull the cart in a straight line—otherwise we go around in circles and get nowhere fast. You cannot live life totally emotionally, and neither can you live by rationality alone. It has to be a fine and delicate balance, and that is not always easy. In fact it is damn difficult some of the time. Is there anything in human life on earth that mysticism does not touch or effect? If there is then I have yet to find it! Mind you, I have never won the lottery yet! That’ll be the day. We sure win other things however.
Only when our own dissonant harmonics of the soul and mind are coerced by that ineffable and unknowable power (through the process of stripping away the temporal reality—purgation) can we then redeem the knowledge of what we are, from whence we came, and to whither we return—in the mystical transcendent order of being—the first child of conscious being in the virgin womb of eternity beyond space and time. And we are all that emanation at that root. Contrary to priestcraft there is no punishment and no rewards; everything which exists is for everyone. No wonder then that the world’s mystics are never popular until they are dead and cannot argue back. The mystics however, do not come back into this world to resurrect the state religion: but rather to bury it; and rebuild anew. Religions cannot tolerate mystics. Yet without mystics there would be no religions. Remember that religions contain mysticism, but mysticism contains no religion on earth. Or elsewhere for that matter.
These then are some of the effects of Mysticism. If the dialogue of mystics, indeed the whole language of transcendence, could become uniform world-wide, then so many of the dichotomies and arguments would cease to exist. However, mystical experiences will always exist; they always have and they will always continue to all the time that they are needed. Human language and understanding evolves, and paradigms come and go and evolve likewise. One day we truly will have both a better understanding and a more subtle communication for these events. And that process itself is also a part of the unfolding of the implicate order incarnate, and a project of transcendence. Mysticism—ab aeterno ad hoc—From Eternity for this purpose.
* * *