Through Eyes of Light

image

What does an illuminated sage see through physical eyes? I imagine that such eyes do not see the world as “matter ” at all, but as “spirit-matter,” that is, all is seen through to its luminous depth and height. All such looking is, or may by choice be, spiritual seeing. The eye never stops upon the surface of anything—it probes the depths of all things instantly divining their innermost meaning.

Advertisements

11 thoughts on “Through Eyes of Light

  1. As a mystic, I like to question what I see before I pass judgement on it. I do that with all things . . . living and “inanimate”. It’s almost an unconscious process. I do not accept what other people tell me without considering the matter briefly. I practice this with discretion though. It’s usually only necessary to do this when I am faced with new information. Humans are creatures of habit. We enjoy our routines. I try to seek out new experiences whenever I can in order further my personal growth.

  2. I really appreciate your comment as well as the one above. First, the unconscious process he refers to requires (I believe) practice and self-discipline. Do you not consider this an ability that has been gained through practice? “To consider the matter briefly” indicates to me one who is able to think before speaking which for the most part people in general know nothing of. We are creatures of habit and habits ill-learned are difficult to be rid of. My question is in regard to my own abilities. I am all the things mentioned in the comment above, non-judgmental, yet able to see certain things (characteristics) about those with whom I am in contact, I do think for myself (to a fault sometimes) but I try to do so based on information, while acknowledging that I don’t have all information. I examine myself and my motives critically, and see things spiritually (by choice). I don’t believe I instantly divine innermost meanings of all things (on the contrary I struggle with interpretations until the meaning finally comes to me and then most often it is like a flash of light, something that causes me to wonder why haven’t I seen that before? You may recognize that I speak of Biblical study here, which to my mind is quite different than “seeing the world as matter.” I recognize a kinship with the statement to know the “whys” of all things, but I think that comes from scripture. So my second question is why is this termed as being a “mystic”?

  3. Marie, thanks for your thoughts; very interesting.

    You wrote:
    “First, the unconscious process he refers to requires (I believe) practice and self-discipline. Do you not consider this an ability that has been gained through practice?”

    Yes, it seems to me there are lots of practices that help clear the way for seeing things clearly or for spiritual perception. Many of these are built into normal life that requires us to focus, choose, concentrate, and develop knowledge along some line. Our psyche is refined to quite a degree in the normal process of a life well lived. And there are, of course, also the deliberately chosen disciplines of meditation, study, and service which call out more that is latent within us.

    You wrote:
    “So my second question is why is this termed as being a “mystic”?”

    You touched on many things in your paragraph. To make sure I understand, why is what termed being a mystic?

    • On rereading what I said, I have decided that I was quoting Mr. Bailey who began his comment with the words “as a mystic.” The qualities he mentioned as part of his ‘being’ seemed ordinary enough in one sense of growth or development but it didn’t help me understand how this could make one a ‘mystic’. Then I realized I don’t have any idea of what his usage of the word means, so I guess I was asking for help. I would really like to know more about this.

      • Hi Marie,

        Not sure if David is still monitoring this thread; perhaps he will circle back and give us more on what he had in mind. If not, and in the mean time, I’ll share with you a few thoughts on our topic.

        You wrote:

        “I examine myself and my motives critically, and see things spiritually (by choice).”

        There is perhaps a superficial self criticism, and a certain mental/emotional attitude one might take where we feel that we are seeing things spiritually. But behind that I think there are many deeper levels, or higher correspondences, which lead us more and more toward a state where we can more truly view ourselves from above, so to speak, and where we see ever more deeply into the spiritual dimension of life. The person who is more or less completely in their little self-centered ego–that person–can not see themselves at all. To really critique ourselves we have to be more than our usual ego self. That “more” is movement toward the mystic and spiritual and it is that, I think, which leads toward deeper and deeper spiritual seeing. “Mystic” is a beyond self word. The word in its higher meaning points to some measure of transcendence of the personal and limited self. And it is, fundamentally, the progressive realization of the unity of all life. It is love, unity, and revelation. It is the direct knowledge that we are not body, but soul; it is the consciousness of immortality.

        “…most often it is like a flash of light, something that causes me to wonder why haven’t I seen that before?”

        Sudden light is characteristic of mystic insight.

        “You may recognize that I speak of Biblical study here, which to my mind is quite different than “seeing the world as matter.” I recognize a kinship with the statement to know the “whys” of all things, but I think that comes from scripture.”

        Yes, of course biblical study addresses things beyond the material world, the “why” of things, and the same is true of all of the worlds great religions. I think, though, that this is more true of the deeper study of scriptures. There is a hidden side to Christianity and biblical interpretation. To put it in terms of our current thread, there is mystical religion and a mystical interpretation of scripture.

      • Wow! You have given me a lot to think about and I thank you for it. When I spoke of myself and characteristics I feel to some extent are mine, I didn’t realize how egotistical it might sound. I’m sure there is some self-satisfaction expressed there, but it was not as I intended. I apologize.
        I have set myself on a path of learning more about spirituality following the publication of my first book which touched on the indwelling of the Spirit as a gift from God to all who believe and follow Him in the path of obedience. It created within me the desire to know more of the Spirit, speaking of the One who dwells within us who is identified as the Spirit of God. I knew very little about this subject until I began this study, but had the opinion that the whole idea of spirituality had something to do with attitudes, and following what we know about God’s nature. The more I learned the more I realized I have only touched the surface.
        I recognize that if one were to learn all that it is possible to learn about the mystical world beyond our own more than likely there would still be vast amounts of information that God alone knows. (I link this to the multi-levels you mentioned.) I have come to believe there is a reason He wants us to emulate His nature beyond the obvious and that is to prepare us for examining more of His wisdom and knowledge in that new world to come. To that end I would be happy to hear anything you can tell me regarding the focus and meditation that might lead me in that path. In the meantime I want to think about what you have said not only this time but in your previous posts.

      • Marie wrote:
        “When I spoke of myself and characteristics I feel to some extent are mine, I didn’t realize how egotistical it might sound. I’m sure there is some self-satisfaction expressed there, but it was not as I intended. I apologize.”

        Oh, I didn’t mean to especially suggest that there was ego in your post. No doubt there is some in my posts, I mean after all, some ego is just normal for life in the world and it would likely be very egotistic of us to imagine that we are beyond ego! 🙂

        What I intended to get across is that we all have some ego or self focus and that we are slowly, or sometimes in sudden leaps, transcending it. I think ego, or limited self perspectives is built into the human or animal side of our nature. Yet I think we are under the impress of a spiritual impulse, a way of higher evolution that leads toward greater freedom from limitations.

        Your comment suggested more thoughts which I will try to share a little later.

      • Hi Marie,

        A few more thoughts.

        You wrote:

        “I have come to believe there is a reason He wants us to emulate His nature beyond the obvious and that is to prepare us for examining more of His wisdom and knowledge in that new world to come. To that end I would be happy to hear anything you can tell me regarding the focus and meditation that might lead me in that path.”

        When I try to speak or think about God, I find that I am keenly aware of the inadequacies of my words and thoughts or of any words and thoughts. The words we use are symbols that point our mind, and the minds of those we speak with, toward the reality. Long ago, I was uncomfortable with the word “He” in connection with God. It’s conventional, I know. Looking at now, and back along the history of the world, we see a man-dominated world. So, as I imagine it, men in religion dominated language so God became “He.” In certain ancient societies, woman was exalted and God was called “She.”

        The picture of God as “She” is almost humorous in today’s society. It strikes the ear strangely, and yet I find it has a place in my heart, and Christianity preserves a bit of God-like “She” for us in the concept of the angelic.

        But then, I think, if we must use gender, we might just as well use both and say that God is “He” and also “She.” And then I think, yes, but really “He” and “She” do not capture much God. So, I want to say that God is “He” and “She” and God is neither of these. But, of course, God can never be captured in a word, yet we try. Most of our experiences of the world related to “He” and “She” are not very God like.

        We could imagine, for a moment, our God concept as a triangle. “He” is at the left hand base, and “She” is at the right hand base of the triangle. But God, as I imagine it, is not the left hand or the right, but is the top most point at the apex of the triangle. Shall we name this apex “Spirit?” Or shall we leave it nameless, knowing that any name we use will fail to measure up?

  4. Hello,

    I can see there has been some excellent discussion taking place on this tread. It’s always nice to see an intelligent exchange of ideas. I encourage independent thinking.

    In answer to your question about the term mystic, I use this title because I chose the path of mysticism. I study metaphysics. I do see value in the teachings of the Bible. I make use of information that I feel rings true for me and serves my higher purpose . . . usually without regard to the source. Whatever ideology or philosophy a person chooses to adopt as their personal belief system should empower the him/her in seeking out his/her own truths. It should not inhibit the seeker’s personal growth and spiritual evolution.

    People tend to get confused about the ego. Society has given it a negative label. I constantly hear people say that the ego is “something” that should be eliminated. There are some quasi-religious groups in the world that employ techniques for doing this. I would advise against it. The truth is we need our egos. The ego is our interface between the spiritual realm and physical reality. We use our egos to operate in the physical world. The egos attention is naturally drawn towards physical reality. It accepts the “ illusion”. However, the idea should not be to destroy the ego, but to tame it, so that we can experience higher levels of understanding.

    BTW – In my opinion “God” is gender neutral. I have made direct contact with a “collective entity” whose dominant personality is female. However, if we compare this “Goddess” to a human, she would be considered bi-sexual. This higher being holds both genders in its many personalities. This idea may come across as radical or controversial to many. I can only say that being offended is a choice.

    Have a Happy New Year!

    David

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s