Brian Nobbs.

It is very difficult to imagine a universe in which there is no sentient, conscious being, able to apprehend its existence. It may be an anthropomorphic illusion, but the existence of anything at all somehow demands a conscious percipient in order to exist. This, at least, is the foundation premise of the Idealist philosophy. It is also harmonious with belief in a Creator (however imagined).

Feelings of necessity are not by themselves proof of the validity of any idea. However they do serve to indicate a possible intrinsic necessity which could be explicated.

The phenomenon of consciousness is such a marvel and yet is so much an every day experience that it is almost impossible to isolate it for examination. Research has still not been able to identify the conditions for consciousness to happen, whether it is within organisms or in computers. It is very likely that it will elude definition within any current scientific paradigm, even though quantum mechanics is looking at the possibility that consciousness is the underlying reality from which all else depends.

It is the experience of many mystics, those scientists of consciousness, that we live in an infinite ocean which is self knowing and alive in all its aspects.

God is a word applied to this reality but which is so overused and has so many overtones and contradictions in its usage that incredible misunderstandings and conflicts exist around it. Buddha simply refused to talk in such terms, so Buddhism refers to itself as a religion without a god. In many ways this is useful because it cuts through all the thousands of years of accumulated accretions and lies and brings us to the recognition that we are simply not equipped to understand the real nature of the ultimate source of the reality within which we find ourselves. To call it the Void or Nothing, at a stroke eliminates the possibility of attempting to describe its qualities and thereby turn it into a concept measured by the human intellect’s shortcomings.

Instead we have by mental and moral disciplines to enter into the reality of this Nothing without attempting to describe it. The Buddha Nature is eventually identical with the meditator who remains unable to describe what is grasped, but is absolutely clear about being in a state of identity with it.

Christianity also has a venerable negative theology which comes directly from the experience of the mystical path. It too refuses to describe the object of experience and can reference only the effects of being in a state of union. St. Juan De La Cruz often replied Nada, nada, nada! when questioned about his deepest experience. Clearly he was not held in passionate embrace by a negation of being. He was absorbed and consumed by this Nada! It was also absolute Life and Love to him, but he could not use such words except by analogy, which is also what Void and Nothing are in this context. Human language is simply inadequate. For Christians this represents the transformation into Christ, incorporation into the mystical Body of Christ, assumption of the Christ Nature. The process is identical in the two religions even though much of the language is confusingly different at first hearing.

Within this process many new perceptions inevitably open up. Senses attuned to more subtle levels of reality can become active. Mystics are often also visionaries, experiencing directly the realms normally hidden from sight. This should not be confused with purely psychic sensitivity which may be possessed from birth as part of a range of enhanced perceptions which can be experienced to a greater or lesser degree without any particular spiritual effort. The range of perception experienced by the mystic may follow some pathways which are “psychic” but are not limited to them. More commonly a mystic will receive information at a soul level, because it is the soul that has been awakened and to some degree shares in the consciousness of the Divine. Usually the mystic has not cultivated these powers, but has received them as a gift. Also in the use of them there is a reticence coming from humility, a wish to avoid misuse or crude egoism.

Most spiritual teachers train their disciples to reject “phenomena” as a way of learning to discriminate between what is within the will of God and what is merely a distraction and seduction of the ego.

What this achieves is a very practical system for discernment of the truth in an experience of other dimensions. Whatever persists in the face of determined rejection can be taken as objective. Depending on many other criteria it is safe to take a closer look at what is being conveyed.

It can all become very complex, with the interplay between spiritual direction from a teacher or “guru”, and what emerges from the experience. In general it is usually safe to assume that anouncements of the end of the world as we know it, or similarly dramatic messages, are definitely mischievous! We are much more likely to receive useful personal advice or even be chided for shortcomings, by various guiding spirits, than have shattering prophecies to convey to the world.

Humility should always carry a clear sense of our limitations and a readiness to laugh with God at our many pretensions!

“Before enlightenment, chopping wood and carrying water.

After enlightenment, chopping wood and carrying water”!