How does mysticism differ from religious belief?

[freeztar]

I'm confused how this relates to the OP.

 

Let's stay on topic.

 

I would argue that religion can be mass hypnosis (funny pun), but is most often mass delusion. One can be deluded without being hypnotized.

[Michael Mooney]

Thanks! It's nice to be included.

 

I just think you are maybe a little too--shall we say--sure of yourself sometimes. I haven't seen that certitude in descriptions of Western Mysticism. Certainly the others around here who feel they may have had that experience don't demonstrate that certitude. I'm not sure of much except that whatever I have experienced I have experienced as an individual. I would no more presuppose your experience than I would presuppose your level of happiness absent sure signs of depression. You have shown those metaphorical signs. There are times when you tell me I should understand the world in ways that violate all I have experienced in my life. As I think I've made plain in the past, I intend you no more harm than you do to my friends, the other people around here. Well, maybe I haven't made that plain, but it's the truth.

 

What I have trouble with in this thread is that you are requiring all kinds of proof from people to defend what they pretty well know to be true while you yourself when asked for proof of your family's powers supposedly gained through transpersonal psychology became greatly offended and refused to respond. A little consistency and a little application of the Golden Rule would be nice.

 

Overall, I guess I'd have to say I'm a fan of niceness.

 

--lemit

 

The trouble with one person judging another is that we all have different backgrounds and values. I value "truth telling" as way higher than "being nice" tho they are obviously not mutually exclusive, and I have been doing my best to tell the truth as i know it in at least a non-offensive way.

Your implication reflects what I call the egocentric credo:

"Everyone should be more like me!" :confused:

 

As for certainty, gnosis is, by definition certainty by direct revelation, once the illusion of "separate identity" is transcended.

 

My "background" in that regard includes over 14,000 hours of "sitting still"... meditation, and my "breakthrough", my spiritual awakening, this revealed truth as certainty, happened after a mere 9,000 hours of "sitting" ... an hour a day for 25 years.

 

Here is my web page on meditation, which I teach (and hold a circle with regulars) at my "Center for Conscious Unity."

med

 

Thanks for your interest.

Michael

P.S.: I don't get what you mean by "when asked for proof of your family's powers"...

I gave details of our telepathy experiments in the Transpersonal Psychology thread and related an incident in which I "felt" my son's ulcer and "saw his image" from many miles away... and found him in the hospital with a critical peptic ulcer.

Both cases just ended with "believe it or not," and I have no expectation or need for this forum to "believe it." My duty and calling is just to tell the truth about it. I take how it is received in total equanimity.

[Michael Mooney]

I'm confused how this relates to the OP.

 

Let's stay on topic.

 

I would argue that religion can be mass hypnosis (funny pun), but is most often mass delusion. One can be deluded without being hypnotized.

It has kind of washed over into how gnosis differs from religious belief. this latest exchange would have been more appropriate in a thread of some such title, but thing do grow rather organically here.

 

I use the term "hypnosis" in the broadest, most general sense, to mean our "programing" as bio-computers. This includes all religious beliefs and personal identity beliefs, like "This is who I am"... etc.

 

So, in this regard, contrasting Kant with Whitehead is like contrasting "intellectual beliefs" with "metaphysical realization."

The former can be thought of as a form of hypnosis (What is your "philosophy of life?")... as contrasted with mystic transcendence of belief, programing, and generic hypnosis. Merrell-Wolff was a "philosopher" of the latter realm, as well as being a mathematician.

 

Michael

[modest]

Michael, I am not taking Kant's conclusions at face value. The fact is, your claims are synthetic. I was hoping you would acknowledge that by your own intellectual capability, but you've instead reverted to your typical ...my beliefs transcend synthetic and analytic, etc... There is no intelligence involved in that kind of posting and it is a waste of my time reading it.

 

Claims such as:

Souls cause transcendence

or

Spirits experience enlightenment.

or any other mystical, metaphysical kind of claim you wish to make will be synthetic. I challenge you to prove a synthetic claim through a priori reasoning with either science or philosophy. You're not going to be able to do that.

 

Since you can't, and you've admitted that you can't using science, then this has become little more than preaching. Tread lightly.

 

~modest

[HydrogenBond]

There is a practical difference between the mind and the brain. The brain is that physical thing, made up of chemicals, which we can investigate in the third person. The mind is consciousness in action, within the physical brain. The mystic is involved with the activity of the mind and tries to correlate what he experiences from the inside; first hand data and experience within the mind. Science is more involved with the activity of the brain and tries to correlate what it see from the outside.

 

Terms like soul, spirit and body are just ways to lump the parameters of the mind into different categories. The body are inner experiences of the mind, that pertain to the instincts that humans share with animals. The soul is connected to emotions as they pertain to the experiences of the mind. The spirit is connected to thought aspects of the the mind but without emotion or instinct.

 

Using these three categories there are composites, like the animal-soul. This is simply emotions generated by instinctive potentials, such as the pleasure of eating. The animal soul is the basis of the pleasure principle. The term divine soul are based on spirit/soul composites, or emotions generated by thought. For example, cosmological inferences of the vastness of the universe, uses language and concepts to create feelings of awe within the science mind. This divine-soul effect can also be generated by religious dogma. The dogma sets up concepts to generate certain religious feelings.

 

The human soul is based on two composites, where emotion (soul) generates instinct (body) and emotion (soul) generates thought (spirit). For example, the feeling of depression makes some people hungry for food. An example of the other aspect, is the need to feel safe, can generate quick fix ideas of how to do this. These can often make one less safe since they are quick fix. Or feelings of fear can generate thoughts of risk that are not fully rational. Without that fear, the thoughts might not appear.

 

The categories of mind, soul and body and the four composites are mystic 1.0. Mystic 2.0 goes further. Once one can isolate the basic categories of the mind, one can isolate further subdivisions, by isolating each emotion of the soul, each instinct of the body, and each conceptual structure of the mind. The last often involves thinking about the superego of Freud.

 

With this deeper differentiation, Mystic 3.0, learns how to tweak them. This is first hand data, that science lacks. The mystic has about as much faith in the science of the mind, as science has faith in the mystic.

 

Let me give a subtle example. In physics, there are many versions of reality from quantum, strings and waves and more. Not all can be right at the same time, since some are mutually exclusive. But we can't rule anyone out, since all have math support. If the future, we finally prove one, then that would mean science maintained illusions with math, and had no way to tell the difference.

 

The mystics, knows the mind can play games. He also knows, science has no requirement in terms of the proper calibration of the mind, even though this is the main tool of science. As long as these theories creates conviction at the level of the divine soul, with math being the matrix of the mind for the feeling, it appears real. The mystic is aware of the effect of the mind, and tries to isolate these effects for better reality calibration.

 

Empirical creates it own special effect. The result has exceptions that are factored out with math to create a divine soul special effect. Again, as long as there is no calibration requirement of the science mind, this can look like reality, due to the reaction that the divine soul creates. It looks like eternal truth, since according to traditions the divine soul will last for eternity (creates that feeling). But eventually this changes as more data appears, because only the feeling was eternal. To the mystics this is all an illusion, since this will continue to happen, again and again.

[Michael Mooney]

Modest:

Michael, I am not taking Kant's conclusions at face value. The fact is, your claims are synthetic. I was hoping you would acknowledge that by your own intellectual capability, but you've instead reverted to your typical ...my beliefs transcend synthetic and analytic, etc... There is no intelligence involved in that kind of posting and it is a waste of my time reading it.

 

You simply refuse to accept the *possibility* that consciousness itself transcends its content, including anyones "intellectual capability."

 

As you know, my favorite author on this subject is Franklin Merrell-Wolff.

Either you have never read the links I have shared about him or you totally fail to comprehend the essence of it... which is the essence of gnosis, mysticism, enlightenment.

 

Here again is the link to what I think is the most accessible summary of his work... and the intro paragraph:

The Heart of Franklin Merrell-Wolff's Philosophy

 

The Fundamental Realization which is at the heart of Wolff's philosophy transcends conceptual understanding. Conception is a mode of cognition that involves objectification. When we know conceptually, we are creating an object of knowledge. Fundamental Realization, in contrast, involves the turning of the Light of Consciousness back upon Itself toward Its Source, a mode of cognition in which outward objectification is surrendered and Consciousness prior to objectification spontaneously Recognizes Itself. This Recognition is a Knowledge Through Identity wherein the knower, known, and act of knowing are identical. In this identity of subject, object, and knowing, Consciousness is the knower, Consciousness is the known, and Consciousness is the knowing. In other words, Consciousness is the knowingness that, in Fundamental Realization, Knows Itself through Identity with Itself, prior to any division of subject and object. This knowingness is inherent in the essential nature of Consciousness. It is, was, and always will be, right here and now, in the pure and simple immediacy of this very awareness.

 

See also my "meditation" link, recently shared again above... on the same principle.

 

If this is simply over your head, there is nothing left for me to say to you about how the mystic experience differs from religious belief or how it transcends the whole paradigm which Kant presented.

 

Michael

[RCP/CRT/RRT]

Modest:

Either you have never read the links I have shared about him or you totally fail to comprehend the essence of it... which is the essence of gnosis, mysticism, enlightenment.

Michael

This is not really my debate, but I have been following it, a philosopher I am not, so please excuse the intrusion.

 

Why can't someone just not agree with the content? If one understands the essence they must agree? It's not like dealing with empirical facts.

 

I'm sure I'll take some heat for interjecting, but, it seems like you are imposing a false dilemma.

[Moontanman]

HB, your statement that science cannot say what the brain is thinking is no longer true. a device has been created that can now read your mind from your brain activity. Reading your dreams cannot be far behind....

 

Science News for Kids: Snapshot: Mind-reading Machine

[Michael Mooney]

This is not really my debate, but I have been following it, a philosopher I am not, so please excuse the intrusion.

 

Why can't someone just not agree with the content? If one understands the essence they must agree? It's not like dealing with empirical facts.

 

I'm sure I'll take some heat for interjecting, but, it seems like you are imposing a false dilemma.

 

Hi, letters and numbers person,

Please contemplate what consciousness might be without focus on its content.... or "awareness itself" without a focus on what one is aware of.

Once you question/ agree/ disagree with the content ( the objects 'of consciousness' or 'in awareness') you have already, like Modest, missed the point and are debating the concepts... inductive vs deductive reasoning... synthesis vs analysis... a-priori vs a-posteriori knowledge... "real science" vs "metaphysical bullshit" (as Boerseun is fond of calling it)... along with Modest, sans the 'not nice' expletive.

 

Have you read the link just shared (again) above?

We could discuss it if you are not just 'shooting from the hip' without the background in the link. If that address captures your attention, you might be interested in the Merrell-Wolff masterpiece, "The Philosophy of Consciousness Without an Object."

 

Michael

[RCP/CRT/RRT]

You can call me RCP if you require a label, no numbers are apparent (to me, anyone? see numbers? am I seeing a shared perspective?). You totally disregard the question I presented. Empirical or not? I have no mind for your personal 'beliefs' but rather the evidence you can offer. I cannot separate my mind from what it actually is. Call it as YOU interpret it, which is all you can afford, (arrogance aside) but, it has no difference from a religious/spiritual epiphany, and which I 'know' is true (to me)... Flame away...

[RCP/CRT/RRT]

Hmm.. the double post syndrome....

[modest]

my favorite author on this subject is Franklin Merrell-Wolff...

...Consciousness is the knower, Consciousness is the known, and Consciousness is the knowing...

I guess I’ll frame my retort by way of my favorite author...? B)

 

The door was the way to... to... The Door was The Way. Good. Capital letters were always the best way of dealing with things you didn't have a good answer to.

 

~modest

[Michael Mooney]

Originally Posted by Michael Mooney View Post

my favorite author on this subject is Franklin Merrell-Wolff...

Quote:

"...Consciousness is the knower, Consciousness is the known, and Consciousness is the knowing..."

(Modest):

I guess I’ll frame my retort by way of my favorite author...?

 

Originally Posted by Douglas Adams

The door was the way to... to... The Door was The Way. Good. Capital letters were always the best way of dealing with things you didn't have a good answer to.

 

Nice dodge, Modest. Your "retort" totally avoided the subject and my challenge to you.

In review and summary... and, I hope in conclusion... since there is no communication happening between us, here are a few quotes from my posts and one of yours... with what you are avoiding highlighted in bold.

And your implication that I am merely appealing to Merrell-Wolff as an authority figure is false. I have repeatedly shared my direct experience of the mystic realm and showed over and over how it "...differs from religious belief."

 

Starting with my post 34:

The mystic experience is not about synthesis or analysis, as consciousness transcends content. Mystic unity is realized after the false boundary of individual identity is transcended and one realizes that consciousness itself has no boundaries.

 

Kant was "critiquing" "pure reason', but the experience of the hundreds of mystics I have read, *and my own direct experience transcends reason.*

 

There is such a difference in our backgrounds, Modest, that I don't think there is any way for you to understand the essence of this experience until you find whatever way works for you to transcend your "thinking mind" and enter consciousness itself as transcending all content. Then, together with content we have the non-dual state of unity with the whole (which is omnipresent consciousness.)

 

Here again is the central criticism you leveled at me from your Kant qoute:

3) How are the synthetic a priori propositions of metaphysics possible? ...

 

The answer to question three is found in the Transcendental Dialectic, and it is a resoundingly blunt conclusion: the synthetic a priori propositions that characterize metaphysics are not really possible at all."

Then I said:

"Not possible" for him because he has never experienced the dimension of consciousness in which it is directly revealed, as in gnosis.

 

Then I asked you a direct question, which you totally avoided:

 

Question: How do you reconcile the above assertion of impossibility with your own statement (and embedded quote) which I recently re-quoted:

You:

"To say 'I have not experienced X and therefore X does not exist' is a basic logical fallacy called Burden Of Proof or Proving a Negative. As the pithy saying goes: "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

Me:

"You simply refuse to accept the *possibility* that consciousness itself transcends its content, including anyones "intellectual capability."

 

While you made fun of the "Consciousness Is..." trio above, you ignore the context, as follows:

(MacFarlane on Merrell-Wolff):

"In other words, Consciousness is the knowingness that, in Fundamental Realization, Knows Itself through Identity with Itself,]prior to any division of subject and object.This knowingness is inherent in the essential nature of Consciousness. It is, was, and always will be, right here and now, in the pure and simple immediacy of this very awareness."

 

I cover the same territory in my meditation page, as follows:

"Meditation is turning the attention from the usual preoccupations of life,... one's thoughts, feelings, and sensations/perceptions ,toward Consciousness Itself, the awareness or Ultimate Identity in Whom all these experiences a rise....

 

Each way of meditating eventually reveals that there is only the stream of consciousness, full phenomena, and " home ", " the Omnipresent One, Universal Awareness,... " I Am "( without the words,) in each and all. And when that " I " sees ItSelf as the Divine, here now, it sees a reflection of the world in ItSelf, on whatever scale of vision one sees as his or her world."

 

Hope this puts your shallow "retort" and avoidance of the issue here in perspective.

You have no clue what consciousness is as transcending its content.

 

The End... unless/until you reply seriously to this post.

Michael

[Boerseun]

Mike - you're saying that mysticism transcends ego, the "false boundaries of individual identity", etc.

 

Keep in mind that those "false boundaries of individual identity" have evolved over millions of years to end up in us. Those "false boundaries" are not so false after all - they're perfectly human and part and parcel of our make-up. What you propose is that we shed it to get to the "true consciousness". Okay. Let's leave it at that for a second.

 

Consider this: Chimpanzees are considered to be conscious. They are demonstrably self-aware, they are intelligent, they use tools, etc. They have the same social order we have, just not as rigidly structured, maybe. If a chimp were to somehow "transcend" his ego and the "false boundaries" that make up his "individual identity", he should be experiencing the very same "consciousness" that a human does, who did the same? They would be connected in this "Omnipresent One", "Universal Awareness" (it is called universal, after all).

 

I doubt it.

 

A chimp can only experience the world as far as the limitation of his cranium allows him. Same with a human. That which you are trying to "transcend" is what we are. Trying to "transcend" it is denying what evolution did for you for millions of years. If you get rid of the "individual identity" part of your brain, your "ego", there will be no difference between you and a helpless, mindless infant. I fail to see the allure of that. At best, your "Universal Oneness" or whatever you want to call it, is a misnomer for mindlessness, or insanity, if you will. Yet, you make the claim that this "Consciousness" is universal, and independent of brain architecture, which is to be "transcended", somehow.

 

Michael, this is so much New Age bullshit (OMG! I said it again!). The argument is so full of holes, it makes the USS Swiss Cheese look positively solid.

 

"You simply refuse to accept the *possibility* that consciousness itself transcends its content, including anyones "intellectual capability."

Yes. I know you originally posted this to Modest, but I have to agree with this. I, too, simply refuse to accept the *possibility* that consciousness itself transcends its content.

 

Consciousness, to the best of our knowledge (and I have to stress the "best" part - it really, really is to the best of our knowledge - not according to some quasi-intellectual New-Age claptrap) is an artifact of our brain architecture. NOTHING MORE, and NOTHING LESS. Consciousness gets honed as the individual (!) grows to adulthood in a social setup, and in a big way is directed by society and the individual's interaction with it, during the course of the individual's lifetime. No two people's experience of the world is the same. No two people's brain architecture is the same, either.

 

Inventing things like "Universal Consciousness" points in the very least to a severe misunderstanding of evolution, how the brain works, and what consicousness is. There is no mystery here. And assuming that this magical "Universal Consciousness" transcends humans, implies that it precedes humans as well, not? And if it precedes humans, what is it, and where did it come from? It seems to me as likely as the little fairies living in my garden. It also seems to me that you have to do a leap of faith in order to get hooked by the idea, thus your whole idea is nothing less than religion, and you're the main preacher dude. We do not take kindly to preaching here.

 

="Meditation is turning the attention from the usual preoccupations of life,... one's thoughts, feelings, and sensations/perceptions ,toward Consciousness Itself, the awareness or Ultimate Identity in Whom all these experiences a rise....

Stand back for a second, if you can. Look this sentence over objectively, if you can. Lots of words. Lots of word salad. Zero content. Zero meaning. "Whom"? Who you talking about, there, brother Mik i el? Capital "W"? God? Bhudda? Zena? Zeus? This sentence means absolutely diddly-squat, and demands explanation.

Each way of meditating eventually reveals that there is only the stream of consciousness, full phenomena, and " home ", " the Omnipresent One, Universal Awareness,... " I Am "( without the words,) in each and all. And when that " I " sees ItSelf as the Divine, here now, it sees a reflection of the world in ItSelf, on whatever scale of vision one sees as his or her world."

Once again, this is classic New Age claptrap. You used (in the above quote) exactly 66 words to say exactly nothing. You simply do not understand that you can't go around talking about "full phenomena" and "home" and "Omnipresent One" and "Universal Awareness" and the "Divine" at a site that is populated by mostly rational adults who demand explanation and evidence to claims such as these. You are at a science site, Michael. Please remember that. I think you should maybe consider joining some New Age site where your preachings will be appreciated.

 

What does that sentence even mean? I don't know. It defies explanation. Yet you blame Modest for not agreeing with it, making his replies off as "shallow retorts". The irony is killing me, brother Mike.

 

You have no clue what consciousness is as transcending its content.

Once again, the irony - the irony! The more Fe you throw in a sentence makes it no more weighty, strangely enough.

 

Mike, you're insisting that transcending the ego is what its all about. Yet, you're probably the most egotistical New Ager I have seen in a long, long time, and I've had it with this airy-fairy New Age bull. Go read someone's palm at a circus, why dontcha. There is no way for the meditator to transcend his human brain with all its limitations and quirks, because it is inside the brain that the meditator experiences his transcendence. If you cannot see that simple truth, then you've been lobotomized in your last meditating session.

[RCP/CRT/RRT]

How does mysticism differ from religious belief?

Religious masses have the sense to admit it is faith.

 

Ironically, it requires an absolute arrogance to claim an absolute knowledge.

 

[Enter/... ... ... ... Cyclic Redundancy Error...]

 

In my opinion, it represents an inconsistent logic.

[RCP/CRT/RRT]

The End... unless/until you reply seriously to this post.

Michael

My interpretation: I have final say.... unless/until you concede.

[Michael Mooney]

I am done with taking this kind of abuse here, as if gnosis...enlightenment...transcendental consciousness is my own little delusion or a religion based on doctrine/dogma.

 

It is direct experience of/as consciousness itself. It has many names from all major traditions, but mysticism transcends the doctrines of all traditions... which distinguishes it from those religions-as-theology.

 

Rather than a tour of the six major traditions from which I have already copiously quoted, I'll just share a few "quickies" from "Wiki." and let it go.(My bold.)

I had thought such a topic as this thread title would be taken more seriously in any kind of "Theology" forum rather than just being a target of ridicule by those limited to the "scientific materialism" worldview.

 

But I am not "attached." (See "equanimity.)

 

Bodhi:

Bodhi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Bodhi (Sanskrit: बोधि) is both the Pāli and Sanskrit word traditionally translated into English as enlightenment. The word "buddha" means "one who has achieved bodhi." Bodhi is also frequently (and more accurately) translated as "awakening"."...

 

"Bodhi is most commonly translated into English as enlightenment. This word conveys the insight and understanding (wisdom) possessed by a buddha and is similarly used in Christian mysticism to convey the saint's condition of being lit by a higher power - the merging of the human and the divine in theosis. There is no image of "light" contained in the term "bodhi", however. Rather, it expresses the notion of awakening from a dream and of being aware and knowing (reality). It is thus more accurate to think of bodhi as spiritual "awake-ness" or "awakenment", rather than "enlightenment" (although it is true that imagery of light is extraordinarily prevalent in many of the Buddhist scriptures)."

 

Theosis:

"In Christian theology,...... meaning divinization, deification, or making divine) is the process of transformation of a believer who is putting into practise (called praxis) the spiritual teachings of Jesus Christ and His gospel. In particular, theosis refers to the attainment of likeness to or union with God, that is the final stage of this process of transformation and is as such the goal of the spiritual life. Theosis is the third of three stages; the first being purification (katharsis) and the second illumination (theoria)."

 

Nirvana:

Nirvana - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

... "Nirvāna is meant specifically - as pertains gnosis - that which ends the identity of the mind (citta) with empirical phenomena."

 

nirvana: Definition from Answers.com

" 1. Buddhism. The ineffable ultimate in which one has attained disinterested wisdom and compassion.

2. Hinduism. Emancipation from ignorance and the extinction of all attachment.

# An ideal condition of rest, harmony, stability, or joy."

 

Jhana:

JhÄna - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

"Jhāna (Pāli: Sanskrit; Dhyāna) is a meditative state of profound stillness and concentration. It is sometimes taught as an abiding in which the mind becomes fully immersed and absorbed in the chosen object of attention,[1]characterized by non-dual consciousness.[2][3] Other times it is taught as an abiding in which mind becomes very still but does not merge with the object of attention, and is thus able to observe and gain insight into the changing flow of experience."

 

Gnosis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Gnosis (from one of the Greek words for knowledge, γνῶσις) is the spiritual knowledge of a saint[1] or mystically enlightened human being. In the cultures of the term (Byzantine and Hellenic)

gnosis was a special knowledge or insight into the infinite, divine and uncreated in all and above all,[2] rather than knowledge strictly into the finite, natural or material world which is called Epistemological knowledge [3] Gnosis is a transcendential as well as mature understanding.[4] It indicates direct spiritual experiential knowledge[5] and intuitive knowledge, mystic rather than that from rational or reasoned thinking. Gnosis itself is obtained through understanding at which one can arrive via inner experience or contemplation such as an internal epiphany of intuition and external epiphany such as the Theophany.

 

So, dear hypographers, the above is a short lesson on how mysticism differs from religion even tho all religious traditions have "graduated" mystics into realization of the One Universal Consciousness as the same Identity in all forms/individuals.

 

This will conclude my patience with abuse here. Sincere and respectful dialogue on all the above is, of course, as always, welcome.

 

Michael