How does mysticism differ from religious belief?

[RCP/CRT/RRT]

I don't see any point in that...

 

I can offer a definition also:

 

Mysticism [mys·ti·cism] NOUN: 3. Vague, groundless speculation.

 

Picking apart some definitions doesn't really offer anything to the controversy.

[Michael Mooney]

RCP:

I don't see any point in that...

 

Could be that you have never experienced even a flash of the ongoing epiphany common to all mystic experience.

I don't doubt that you don't see.

 

I can offer a definition also:

 

Mysticism [mys·ti·cism] NOUN: 3. Vague, groundless speculation.

 

Of course, if you had been blind from birth you might say the same about all the claims and groundless (to you0 speculation about "the wonderful world of color" reported unanimously by the sighted.

 

Picking apart some definitions doesn't really offer anything to the controversy.

 

How was my presentation of common definitions and explanations of different terms for... lets just say (for a change) "awakening from ego's dream" ... "Picking apart some definitions."

 

Michael

[Boerseun]

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.

Oh Michael, quit the dramatics already.

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.

It still does not tell us what it is. Apples are called many names in many languages, but after hearing the name apple in all 7,000 languages on Earth, you will know nothing more about what an apple is. What is "mysticism"?

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.

What is the above quote other than "I am right, and anybody who disagrees with me is wrong, and their criticism is nothing more than ridicule!". Name-calling, intellectual arrogance, you name it. It's called asking for proof, backing up your arguments. If you can't take the heat, get out the kitchen. Funny enough, you're also the one claiming that "mysticism" differs from religious belief, yet right here with this quote you appeal to the fact that this is in the "Theology" forum. It's because this mysticism differs no whit from religious belief, and you know it. Therefore you made the above appeal. Funny.

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"."...

I care not what "enlightenment" is called in either Pali or Sanskrit. I want to know what it is, in English. An apple is an apple in a thousand languages. But what is an apple? You don't get it, do you?

"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)."

Ah... here's an attempt at a definition. But read it again. It means absolutely nothing. Word salad, my friend. I'm glad it impresses you. But for us "scientific materialists", these words are hollow, empty, devoid of any meaning. Saying that "enlightenment" is the "saint's condition of being lit by a higher power" is akin to saying that "enfootlement is the krekop's condition of being gonfeetled by a suggoffling quirp." And is presupposes the existence of both the krekop and the suggoffling quirp. There's also no explanation for what gonfeetled means, yet we will create an entire industry around enfootlement and shun those who don't understand it. Yet, when asked, we cannot explain to them what it means. The emperor is as naked as the day he was born, but we will not see it. We refuse to be a part of this ungodly lot who point and laugh at our beloved naked emperor! You still don't get it, do you?

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)."

More of the same. See my reply to the previous quote above.

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."

...which, of course, doesn't mention the thousands of rebirths you have to go through until you reach it. You will end up a worm in your next life if you sucked at this one. Islam, Christianity and Judaism says you have only this one life before you're judged and go to Heaven, and the reincarnation is an explicit no-no. How is it that the contradictions between these different "traditions" don't interest you? Or are they merely dismissed because they might prove uncomfortable?

" 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."

What are these? Descriptions of "enlightenment", or "meditation"? I can't tell.

"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."

The "mind merge with the object"? I'll assume the writer intended to mean "the mind thinks about the object". Why is it that these New Agers can't call a spade a spade? Is the allure of the New Age movement in that they can't command language properly, and therefore sound "mystical" and "mysterious"? In my neck of the woods we call it ignorance and stupidity.

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.

Oh dear lord. More word salad. See my above analogy regarding the lit saint. A special insight into the "infinite, divine and uncreated"? "It indicates direct spiritual experiential knowledge"? "Intuitive knowledge"? "mystic"? These words are being bandied around with nary a definition anywhere to be seen. All definitions offered refer one another, and is worthless.

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.

How can mysticism differ from religion, if you include the "One Universal Consciousness" in your defense of it? And how don't you see it? [/despondent sigh] You have even appealed to this being the Theology forum for clemency regarding the topic.

 

If "mysticism" differs from religion then this should be in Philosophy - but it can't be, because you're now falling back on the One Universal Consciousness (note the handy capital letters) which you can't even describe, for Pete's sake.

 

I have been rude, I have been nasty, I agree. But I will ask you one last time, Mike: What in the hell are you even talking about? All your definitions so far have failed to impress us ungodly lot. So I think if you're looking for a pulpit from which to proceed with your eternally one-sided sermon (I'm 100% right and the only way I will continue this discussion with you heathens is if you accept everything I say as the Truth and the Final Word on the matter - sounds pretty rude hearing it from the other side, doesn't it?) then you should, after all, maybe look for some New Age spiritualism mysticism mumbo-jumbo forum somewhere on the 'net. 'Cause you're not going to find a pulpit here. You might find a soapbox, but it seems you can't take the rotten tomatoes coming your way. And over here, we throw rotten tomatoes based purely on content.

This will conclude my patience with abuse here.

Another threat. Michael, I have told you about the suicidal nut standing on the 20th story, with the crowd on the road below going "jump! jump! jump!". For God's sake, man. Jump, and get it over with. Or don't. But quit the f**ing melodramatics and make up your mind. It's really getting me down.

Sincere and respectful dialogue on all the above is, of course, as always, welcome.

Sure. But you threw that out the window loooong ago with your attitude of being totally right, and everybody else being wrong. You don't do that at a science site, Mike. You don't even do that in company, Mike. Matter of fact, I can't offhand think of anywhere where that would be acceptable, apart from a pulpit. Which Hypo most definitely is not.

 

So quit your threats. Come to the party or bugger off. Shape up or ship out. But quit this flopping around the middle. Nobody actually cares. They just get irritated to the point where the "Ban Member" button looms larger and larger every time they sign on to Hypo.

[RCP/CRT/RRT]

MM, my point is they are just words and definitions. It doesn't make any case (imo) to demonstrate you have experienced an ultimate reality that transcends our (non-mystics) reality.

 

Who's reality is it anyway?:phones:

 

An observation I have witnessed is even among a community of mystics, they make petty bickering about who actually is, enlightened.

 

I have no doubt you know you have transcended. But, honestly, and the point that has been made repeatedly, to great extent, is what you know does not make it fact. You are a human with the same possibility of mis-perceptions as the rest of us. You continue to be in denial.

 

The only major distinction between your claims and religion is the level of conviction of which you stake your claim. What most, at least myself, call arrogance, not far from plain ole' ignorance. Where again, this creates a logical trap.

 

It is not something that can be proven, it is a subjective experience. I'm fairly certain I understand where you are coming from, but if you could see beyond your conviction to preach until your blue in the face. You might realize how futile the argument really is.

 

I do not believe there is a omni-present consciousness, nor can you prove there is. Neither is it distinctly different from religion.

 

Good day, RCP

[RCP/CRT/RRT]

Boerseun, we kinna posted the same sentiment in different words at exactly the same time. I'm suddenly feeling very enlightened to our shared consciousness :phones:

 

(yes, I know its not the same MM, chill)