Did those experiences change your life in any way?
I guess they may have made you more careful when crossing the road, or climbing, but you know what I mean!
The mind wiper was getting lost, then stuck, caving. I drove home at well over a ton from the Forest of Dean, swearing well up to Evesham. Where I realised I wanted to do it again, better.
There's nothing like a brush with death or agony that you walk away from realising that you're weaker, more vulnerable and stronger than you knew.
During my cancer scare (follow up tomorrow) I had to keep telling myself to remember that I was dying of cancer.
It seems to me that there's a hierarchy of logical, rational, and reasonable. Logical means that the position is internally consistent, rational means that it's consistent with all the evidence and actually supported by some of the evidence, and reasonable means that it additionally doesn't wilfully violate common sense or a sense of proportion.
Well, hmmmm. I’m not sure this gets us much further ahead, really. The question that arises is of course ‘whose common sense or sense of proportion?’ And the answer to *that* question then helps to determine what counts as evidence and what doesn’t, and what kind of evidence needs to be accounted for. And then that of course helps to determine what set of data logic is expected to operate over, and perhaps to some extent what counts as logic. Which I think just gets us back to the notion of reason needing to be based on (or even ‘slave to’) the right sort of passions ....
I don't have the words to describe this, but my experience of faith (that something 'feely' precedes something which 'feels' (sorry) like 'knowledge') mirrors my former experience of being a university researcher in an engineering department. Here something often smelt bad (but how, I didn't know) and it would take a lot of work for me to work out in rational terms what that bad smell was. I must stress this argument is *not* about my brilliance, or prescience - I was a rather ae researcher and my insights were 98% revelations for me only, with no novelty value - but from my personal perspective it did indeed feel like reason was founded on faith, and this in the dry, mathematically-mediated world of engineering.
(Incidentally having some background in machine learning, I am often reminded of this when folks start talking about 'emergent' bases for what we have been describing here as eusocial behaviour. It's an absolute f*cker when the machine iterates for 2 days (this was a long time ago) and takes you to a solution which you really don't want. One often starts reformulating the problem or the start location in the optimisation in order to achieve a more acceptable 'emergent' solution ... )
Amen to your observations on ML, brother! I’ve only dabbled - but the results have sometimes left me tearing out my hair and wondering whether it wouldn’t have worked just as well to use a random number generator ....
As for the non-rational character of research ... I’m not sure how commensurate this is with your observation, but I’ve always felt that nothing slows one down like taking care to internally show your work. It’s like there’s a leap, which you then have to retrograde confirm,
Just my tuppenceworth, but we all (if we're honest) know of times when anger, lust, etc. etc. (if that's what Plato meant by 'passion') simply rise up, and overcome, our reason/self-control.
Not sure about enslavement, but could that be referring to a state in which we no longer can control those passions?
Not being a philosopher, I'm groping in the dark here!
I think (Hume the Great Infidel seems curiously popular on this site, so perhaps others will correct me) he was arguing against the view, popular in his own day, that there are objectively-existing moral truths in the universe which can be demonstrated by the exercise of reason (in a way somebody like Plato or Spinoza or a Platonising Christian or Deist might hold). For Hume reason is purely instrumental: it doesn’t set goals, only achieves them.
“Life is what you do while you’re waiting to die,
Life is how the time goes by!
Life is where you wait while you’re waiting to leave,
Life is where where you grin and grieve!”
@Martin54 - thank you, and best wishes for the follow-up appointment. Mine's due in November...
You're more than welcome and thanks mate and the best to you too.
A fifth of a second sooner on to a pedestrian crossing and the 45 to Nemesis via South Wigston would have got me.
I tripped running on another on to an island and the momentum launched me beyond in to the A6 south. Some reflex made the runaway right foot stamp down and I was able to kick off backwards. I suspect less than a fifth of a second was involved there.
... For anyone who hasn't had such a numinous experience, the fact that it's abnormal and unusual and inconsistent with everything in mundane, usual, common-reference experience is a good indication that there's something deficient (lacking in sanity, balance, etc) about the numinous experience. To someone who has, however, it's an indication that there's something deficient about mundane experience. It ends up, I think, being a difficult conversation to have.
2 very good, mainstream & scholarly books on these experiences are "Mysticism" by Evelyn Underhill, and "The Varieties of Religious Experience" by William James.
Both are classics which, IMHO, should be known by everyone interested in the spiritual dimension of life.
Sounds as though your Guardian Angel was working overtime!
Time and chance. Twice on construction sites. And five times on motor schooters and bikes... Hmmm. It's impact that kills you. Nothing ever hit me. Apart from Earth.
And then there was the time a gang of demon possessed yoot mugged me and... gave me my money back and shook hands.
... For anyone who hasn't had such a numinous experience, the fact that it's abnormal and unusual and inconsistent with everything in mundane, usual, common-reference experience is a good indication that there's something deficient (lacking in sanity, balance, etc) about the numinous experience. To someone who has, however, it's an indication that there's something deficient about mundane experience. It ends up, I think, being a difficult conversation to have.
2 very good, mainstream & scholarly books on these experiences are "Mysticism" by Evelyn Underhill, and "The Varieties of Religious Experience" by William James.
Both are classics which, IMHO, should be known by everyone interested in the spiritual dimension of life.
I've heard of Underhill, but not James. Thanks @Moyessa for the suggestions.
I think (Hume the Great Infidel seems curiously popular on this site, so perhaps others will correct me) he was arguing against the view, popular in his own day, that there are objectively-existing moral truths in the universe which can be demonstrated by the exercise of reason (in a way somebody like Plato or Spinoza or a Platonising Christian or Deist might hold). For Hume reason is purely instrumental: it doesn’t set goals, only achieves them.
That sounds right, and can be related to Schopenhauer's point that I can possibly get what I want, but I can't determine what I want. Of course, it is contentious, but I've tended to agree with Hume that our drives are not willed. Well, I use the example of being involved in Christanity, for a long time, and then not. The latter shift took me by surprise. Obvious examples are falling in love, and friendships.
How can passions enslave reason? What do you (or Hume) mean by that?
Hume's thought is that reason can tell you the most effective way to achieve a goal but it has nothing at all to say about what goals we have or should have. ('There is nothing contrary to reason in preferring the destruction of the world to scratching my finger'.) Those come purely from our passions: thus reason is just able to serve our passions.
The contrary view would be that we have reasons for having some goals rather than others, which reasons can be discussed and evaluated.
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article on Hume's moral philosophy glosses the term "passions" as "what we today would call emotions, feelings, and desires" and summarizes his view on the relation between passion and reason:
Hume famously sets himself in opposition to most moral philosophers, ancient and modern, who talk of the combat of passion and reason, and who urge human beings to regulate their actions by reason and to grant it dominion over their contrary passions. He claims to prove that “reason alone can never be a motive to any action of the will,” and that reason alone “can never oppose passion in the direction of the will” (T 413). His view is not, of course, that reason plays no role in the generation of action; he grants that reason provides information, in particular about means to our ends, which makes a difference to the direction of the will. His thesis is that reason alone cannot move us to action; the impulse to act itself must come from passion.
Good point. I might have had a near-death experience whilst I was unconscious (the surgery took about 5 hours), but I certainly don't remember anything!
Good point. I might have had a near-death experience whilst I was unconscious (the surgery took about 5 hours), but I certainly don't remember anything!
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article on Hume's moral philosophy glosses the term "passions" as "what we today would call emotions, feelings, and desires" and summarizes his view on the relation between passion and reason:
Hume's...thesis is that reason alone cannot move us to action; the impulse to act itself must come from passion.
I often construe it (passions) in terms of wanting things. I don't determine what I want or like, and it's hard to change these things. It is valuable in psychotherapy, as people beat themselves up over things that they have no control over.
From a definition point of view, I think that everything we do counts as an experience, although the use of the word is usually to mean something that lasts longer and records itself in our memories more firmly.
Once we are convinced of what we believe to be the truth, it doesn't mean that we will never become unconvinced.
But if we won't allow ourselves to be convinced in the first place, because we've closed our minds to possibility, does that mean we can never be convinced?
I'll take the opportunity to repeat Timo Pax's excellent paragraph here, as I think it apposite:
I realise that nothing in that account is going to convince anyone who doesn't hold such experiences to be of special worth. All I can add, really, is that there's a kind of symmetry here. For anyone who hasn't had such a numinous experience, the fact that it's abnormal and unusual and inconsistent with everything in mundane, usual, common-reference experience is a good indication that there's something deficient (lacking in sanity, balance, etc) about the numinous experience. To someone who has, however, it's an indication that there's something deficient about mundane experience. It ends up, I think, being a difficult conversation to have.
But I am convinced as much as I need to be that there is no God. I could be convinced otherwise but it would take something pretty earth-shattering. Basically, if God really wanted to speak to me the state of my mind would be no obstacle.
Once we are convinced of what we believe to be the truth, it doesn't mean that we will never become unconvinced.
But if we won't allow ourselves to be convinced in the first place, because we've closed our minds to possibility, does that mean we can never be convinced?
I'll take the opportunity to repeat Timo Pax's excellent paragraph here, as I think it apposite:
I realise that nothing in that account is going to convince anyone who doesn't hold such experiences to be of special worth. All I can add, really, is that there's a kind of symmetry here. For anyone who hasn't had such a numinous experience, the fact that it's abnormal and unusual and inconsistent with everything in mundane, usual, common-reference experience is a good indication that there's something deficient (lacking in sanity, balance, etc) about the numinous experience. To someone who has, however, it's an indication that there's something deficient about mundane experience. It ends up, I think, being a difficult conversation to have.
But I am convinced as much as I need to be that there is no God. I could be convinced otherwise but it would take something pretty earth-shattering. Basically, if God really wanted to speak to me the state of my mind would be no obstacle.
Aye, and numinous experiences are human normal. Nothing is missing in explaining them materially. I don't put my Stendhal's down to Him.
Once we are convinced of what we believe to be the truth, it doesn't mean that we will never become unconvinced.
But if we won't allow ourselves to be convinced in the first place, because we've closed our minds to possibility, does that mean we can never be convinced?
I'll take the opportunity to repeat Timo Pax's excellent paragraph here, as I think it apposite:
I realise that nothing in that account is going to convince anyone who doesn't hold such experiences to be of special worth. All I can add, really, is that there's a kind of symmetry here. For anyone who hasn't had such a numinous experience, the fact that it's abnormal and unusual and inconsistent with everything in mundane, usual, common-reference experience is a good indication that there's something deficient (lacking in sanity, balance, etc) about the numinous experience. To someone who has, however, it's an indication that there's something deficient about mundane experience. It ends up, I think, being a difficult conversation to have.
But I am convinced as much as I need to be that there is no God. I could be convinced otherwise but it would take something pretty earth-shattering. Basically, if God really wanted to speak to me the state of my mind would be no obstacle.
A closed mind is an obstacle.
God has given us the gift of free will, and so God won't force him/herself on anyone.
Once we are convinced of what we believe to be the truth, it doesn't mean that we will never become unconvinced.
But if we won't allow ourselves to be convinced in the first place, because we've closed our minds to possibility, does that mean we can never be convinced?
I'll take the opportunity to repeat Timo Pax's excellent paragraph here, as I think it apposite:
I realise that nothing in that account is going to convince anyone who doesn't hold such experiences to be of special worth. All I can add, really, is that there's a kind of symmetry here. For anyone who hasn't had such a numinous experience, the fact that it's abnormal and unusual and inconsistent with everything in mundane, usual, common-reference experience is a good indication that there's something deficient (lacking in sanity, balance, etc) about the numinous experience. To someone who has, however, it's an indication that there's something deficient about mundane experience. It ends up, I think, being a difficult conversation to have.
But I am convinced as much as I need to be that there is no God. I could be convinced otherwise but it would take something pretty earth-shattering. Basically, if God really wanted to speak to me the state of my mind would be no obstacle.
A closed mind is an obstacle.
God has given us the gift of free will, and so God won't force him/herself on anyone.
Only those who have ears to hear will do so.
Would you say then that you have an open mind, and would listen with an open mind to the conviction of others that there is no God with impartiality?
From a definition point of view, I think that everything we do counts as an experience, although the use of the word is usually to mean something that lasts longer and records itself in our memories more firmly.
But the question is about things that are done to us, when we are unconscious.
But I am convinced as much as I need to be that there is no God. I could be convinced otherwise but it would take something pretty earth-shattering. Basically, if God really wanted to speak to me the state of my mind would be no obstacle.
On the one hand, grace is a gift, and the wind bloweth where it listeth. I didn’t particularly want the religious insight or epiphany or experience I was given. When it started there was a big part of my mind busying itself trying to reconcile it with both mechanistic atheism and with Soto Zen. But it kept on overflowing those efforts to contain it or make sense of it, and there wasn’t much I could do about it. Perhaps the years of Zen meditation helped prepare the soil or empty the conceptual cup for me. But the only effort of will involved was to still my natural tendency to system-building and just let it happen.
On the other hand, though ... now that I’m on the other side, I can see that there are, for want of a better word, spiritual exercises I can undertake to deepen and develop that first overflowing of the spirit. Prayer, meditation in the Christian sense, reading spiritual classics - these help sustain and clarify that first experience. And to neglect these things would strike me now as a dereliction, a turning away from my own source and from what I know of the good. Now that I’ve been gifted with this spiritual ember, it’s my duty and my heart’s work to keep it burning. But that initial opening - it didn’t involve the will, as such. It just came. And for that I’m grateful.
I have a feeling the above is thoroughly standard theology as well as my experience. But there are many better-informed than I on such matters.
Well, it may be the coveting is part of the problem. All I know is that, at the same time that it’s brought me great joy - maybe even brought me the idea of joy - it’s also been damnably inconvenient. Christian revelation runs orthogonal to everything else in my life.
As for the ‘never knowing it’ ... well, if you’d told me three months ago that I’d be spending half my time on a Christian social media and the other half pondering the question of how best to pray, I would have thought you were somewhere between ‘patronising’ and ‘insane’. So don’t rule anything out.
Also, blessed are the poor in spirit, for they shall see God. And the dark night of the soul needs to happen for there to be a dawn. But I would imagine those just sound like cliches right now.
From a definition point of view, I think that everything we do counts as an experience, although the use of the word is usually to mean something that lasts longer and records itself in our memories more firmly.
But the question is about things that are done to us, when we are unconscious.
Not quite sure what you mean here, could you clarify, please?
Wen I am unconscious, and asleep, my brain will be busy re-sorting and filing all recent input and making mne wake at the same time every day. When I am unconscious because of being anaesthetised, I trust the medical staff to do their best
The environment and any sort of accident might happen, but that is not something being done to me personally or directly.
From a definition point of view, I think that everything we do counts as an experience, although the use of the word is usually to mean something that lasts longer and records itself in our memories more firmly.
But the question is about things that are done to us, when we are unconscious.
Not quite sure what you mean here, could you clarify, please?
Wen I am unconscious, and asleep, my brain will be busy re-sorting and filing all recent input and making mne wake at the same time every day. When I am unconscious because of being anaesthetised, I trust the medical staff to do their best
The environment and any sort of accident might happen, but that is not something being done to me personally or directly.
Good point. I might have had a near-death experience whilst I was unconscious (the surgery took about 5 hours), but I certainly don't remember anything!
I asked if something like that, by which I mean it happens when you are unconscious and you don't remember it, counts as an experience. Because you haven't experienced it by any usual meaning of the word. To relate it to what you said, @SusanDoris, it does not record itself in Bishop Finger's memory at all. As he said, he doesn't remember it.
From a definition point of view, I think that everything we do counts as an experience, although the use of the word is usually to mean something that lasts longer and records itself in our memories more firmly.
But the question is about things that are done to us, when we are unconscious.
Not quite sure what you mean here, could you clarify, please?
Wen I am unconscious, and asleep, my brain will be busy re-sorting and filing all recent input and making mne wake at the same time every day. When I am unconscious because of being anaesthetised, I trust the medical staff to do their best
The environment and any sort of accident might happen, but that is not something being done to me personally or directly.
Good point. I might have had a near-death experience whilst I was unconscious (the surgery took about 5 hours), but I certainly don't remember anything!
I asked if something like that, by which I mean it happens when you are unconscious and you don't remember it, counts as an experience. Because you haven't experienced it by any usual meaning of the word. To relate it to what you said, @SusanDoris, it does not record itself in Bishop Finger's memory at all. As he said, he doesn't remember it.
Thank you. I wonder, if there was indeed an NDE during unconsciousness, it did in fact record itself amongst the trillions of bits of information in his brain - no way of telling though!
I wonder, if there was indeed an NDE during unconsciousness, it did in fact record itself amongst the trillions of bits of information in his brain - no way of telling though!
I'm thinking that if it had, he'd remember it. There are tons of things that impinge on our senses that we don't remember -- things we don't even notice at the time. If we're listening to our favorite album and the neighbors are mowing the lawn, if it's quiet enough we might not even be consciously aware of the lawn mower, even though if someone pointed it out, we would hear it. That sort of thing. But something as captivating as a near death experience -- wouldn't one remember that? Even if only as a dream. Dunno. As you say we will never know.
Thank you for sharing this Timo. It's very courageous of you. These things do happen in a life changing way But there is constant speech from heaven. Only most of the time we don't notice it.
'Earth's crammed with Heaven
and every common bush afire with God.
But only those who see take off their shoes,
The rest sit round it and pluck blackberries.'
(Even tho' my use of 'covet' seemed to make it my fault in your eyes somehow? Or are you just saying just Zen?)
More like 'just Zen'. Like I said, I don't think we really get to decide these things. Or at least, not in a way that doesn't stretch the meaning of the word 'decide' to breaking point. But I think it is possible that desiring something, particularly if it's about our own emotional or spiritual state, can be an obstacle to getting there.
There's a few mechanisms for this. A couple that I'm personally familiar with: desiring something making you hyper-aware of how little you have it (an anxious desire for tranquillity is like this). And a kind of scrupulousness and awareness of your own cognitive biases making you overcorrect in the opposite direction ('I really want Buddhism/Christianity/Communism to be correct. Which means I have to discard any evidence I find that in fact confirms that Buddhism/Christianity/Communism is correct, because I'm a biased judge').
Not saying either of these necessarily apply to you. I just mean ... it's funny what tangles we can get ourselves in when we want something to be the case. And given that we're human, we almost always want something to be the case.
Comments
It's called my life.
Didn't Terry Pratchett have Death say something along those lines (in one or other of the Discworld books)?
Either way, it's actually quite profound I think.
The mind wiper was getting lost, then stuck, caving. I drove home at well over a ton from the Forest of Dean, swearing well up to Evesham. Where I realised I wanted to do it again, better.
There's nothing like a brush with death or agony that you walk away from realising that you're weaker, more vulnerable and stronger than you knew.
During my cancer scare (follow up tomorrow) I had to keep telling myself to remember that I was dying of cancer.
@Martin54 - thank you, and best wishes for the follow-up appointment. Mine's due in November...
Well, hmmmm. I’m not sure this gets us much further ahead, really. The question that arises is of course ‘whose common sense or sense of proportion?’ And the answer to *that* question then helps to determine what counts as evidence and what doesn’t, and what kind of evidence needs to be accounted for. And then that of course helps to determine what set of data logic is expected to operate over, and perhaps to some extent what counts as logic. Which I think just gets us back to the notion of reason needing to be based on (or even ‘slave to’) the right sort of passions ....
Amen to your observations on ML, brother! I’ve only dabbled - but the results have sometimes left me tearing out my hair and wondering whether it wouldn’t have worked just as well to use a random number generator ....
As for the non-rational character of research ... I’m not sure how commensurate this is with your observation, but I’ve always felt that nothing slows one down like taking care to internally show your work. It’s like there’s a leap, which you then have to retrograde confirm,
‘Twasn’t me, I was just sort of trying to paraphrase Hume, really.
Ah. I don't really know Hume. Plato said that the passion needed to be controlled by reason like a rider on a chariot.
How can passions enslave reason? What do you (or Hume) mean by that?
Not sure about enslavement, but could that be referring to a state in which we no longer can control those passions?
Not being a philosopher, I'm groping in the dark here!
“Life is what you do while you’re waiting to die,
Life is how the time goes by!
Life is where you wait while you’re waiting to leave,
Life is where where you grin and grieve!”
You're more than welcome and thanks mate and the best to you too.
A fifth of a second sooner on to a pedestrian crossing and the 45 to Nemesis via South Wigston would have got me.
I tripped running on another on to an island and the momentum launched me beyond in to the A6 south. Some reflex made the runaway right foot stamp down and I was able to kick off backwards. I suspect less than a fifth of a second was involved there.
Both are classics which, IMHO, should be known by everyone interested in the spiritual dimension of life.
Time and chance. Twice on construction sites. And five times on motor schooters and bikes... Hmmm. It's impact that kills you. Nothing ever hit me. Apart from Earth.
And then there was the time a gang of demon possessed yoot mugged me and... gave me my money back and shook hands.
I've heard of Underhill, but not James. Thanks @Moyessa for the suggestions.
That sounds right, and can be related to Schopenhauer's point that I can possibly get what I want, but I can't determine what I want. Of course, it is contentious, but I've tended to agree with Hume that our drives are not willed. Well, I use the example of being involved in Christanity, for a long time, and then not. The latter shift took me by surprise. Obvious examples are falling in love, and friendships.
The contrary view would be that we have reasons for having some goals rather than others, which reasons can be discussed and evaluated.
Well, I don't know, TBH.
That seems clear - thanks, Dave W.
But I am convinced as much as I need to be that there is no God. I could be convinced otherwise but it would take something pretty earth-shattering. Basically, if God really wanted to speak to me the state of my mind would be no obstacle.
Aye, and numinous experiences are human normal. Nothing is missing in explaining them materially. I don't put my Stendhal's down to Him.
A closed mind is an obstacle.
God has given us the gift of free will, and so God won't force him/herself on anyone.
Only those who have ears to hear will do so.
I am as convinced of the non-existence of God as you are convinced God exists. Neither of us has a closed mind.
You're being very generous Colin, it's being claimed of you I perceive and that you have a choice in the matter.
Which are both untrue.
Indeed, but to paraphrase, I forgive them for they know not what they do.
And there are plenty of atheists who are equally intransigent.
I think I agree with both @Colin Smith and @Raptor Eye.
On the one hand, grace is a gift, and the wind bloweth where it listeth. I didn’t particularly want the religious insight or epiphany or experience I was given. When it started there was a big part of my mind busying itself trying to reconcile it with both mechanistic atheism and with Soto Zen. But it kept on overflowing those efforts to contain it or make sense of it, and there wasn’t much I could do about it. Perhaps the years of Zen meditation helped prepare the soil or empty the conceptual cup for me. But the only effort of will involved was to still my natural tendency to system-building and just let it happen.
On the other hand, though ... now that I’m on the other side, I can see that there are, for want of a better word, spiritual exercises I can undertake to deepen and develop that first overflowing of the spirit. Prayer, meditation in the Christian sense, reading spiritual classics - these help sustain and clarify that first experience. And to neglect these things would strike me now as a dereliction, a turning away from my own source and from what I know of the good. Now that I’ve been gifted with this spiritual ember, it’s my duty and my heart’s work to keep it burning. But that initial opening - it didn’t involve the will, as such. It just came. And for that I’m grateful.
I have a feeling the above is thoroughly standard theology as well as my experience. But there are many better-informed than I on such matters.
Well, it may be the coveting is part of the problem. All I know is that, at the same time that it’s brought me great joy - maybe even brought me the idea of joy - it’s also been damnably inconvenient. Christian revelation runs orthogonal to everything else in my life.
As for the ‘never knowing it’ ... well, if you’d told me three months ago that I’d be spending half my time on a Christian social media and the other half pondering the question of how best to pray, I would have thought you were somewhere between ‘patronising’ and ‘insane’. So don’t rule anything out.
Also, blessed are the poor in spirit, for they shall see God. And the dark night of the soul needs to happen for there to be a dawn. But I would imagine those just sound like cliches right now.
Wen I am unconscious, and asleep, my brain will be busy re-sorting and filing all recent input and making mne wake at the same time every day. When I am unconscious because of being anaesthetised, I trust the medical staff to do their best
The environment and any sort of accident might happen, but that is not something being done to me personally or directly.
Bishop's Finger said:
I asked if something like that, by which I mean it happens when you are unconscious and you don't remember it, counts as an experience. Because you haven't experienced it by any usual meaning of the word. To relate it to what you said, @SusanDoris, it does not record itself in Bishop Finger's memory at all. As he said, he doesn't remember it.
How we remember near-miss accidents (how many more happen that we don't notice?), vivid dreams etc.
I don't think we "choose" to decide what things we remember or forget and which continue to have an emotional impact upon us.
But then I think serious changes to our body can have their own muscle/bone memory even if we can't remember them.
Did I experience a "near miss"? Yes. But also no.
Did I experience a vivid dreamy spiritual event. No. But also yes.
Did I experience a major operation that I don't have any memory of? No. But also.. maybe.
(Even tho' my use of 'covet' seemed to make it my fault in your eyes somehow? Or are you just saying just Zen?)
And it's getting on for a thousand and one nights.
'Earth's crammed with Heaven
and every common bush afire with God.
But only those who see take off their shoes,
The rest sit round it and pluck blackberries.'
More like 'just Zen'. Like I said, I don't think we really get to decide these things. Or at least, not in a way that doesn't stretch the meaning of the word 'decide' to breaking point. But I think it is possible that desiring something, particularly if it's about our own emotional or spiritual state, can be an obstacle to getting there.
There's a few mechanisms for this. A couple that I'm personally familiar with: desiring something making you hyper-aware of how little you have it (an anxious desire for tranquillity is like this). And a kind of scrupulousness and awareness of your own cognitive biases making you overcorrect in the opposite direction ('I really want Buddhism/Christianity/Communism to be correct. Which means I have to discard any evidence I find that in fact confirms that Buddhism/Christianity/Communism is correct, because I'm a biased judge').
Not saying either of these necessarily apply to you. I just mean ... it's funny what tangles we can get ourselves in when we want something to be the case. And given that we're human, we almost always want something to be the case.