harfad Posted November 18, 2012 Posted November 18, 2012 Do the Catholic, Methodist, and Baptist experience God as Hasidic Jews or Japanese Animists?The whole problem is that you are claiming a universal mystical tradition, in which all mystics self-identify as mystics. You are imposing the category, then forcing the data to fit. I never claimed "a universal mystical tradition, in which all mystics self-identify as mystics". Go back to my previous posts, and show me where I have made such a claim.
volgadon Posted November 18, 2012 Posted November 18, 2012 I never claimed "a universal mystical tradition, in which all mystics self-identify as mystics". Go back to my previous posts, and show me where I have made such a claim.You have many posts touching on that, here is an example."No modifier is required when referring to the phenomenon as it is universally observed in all major religious traditions."As for self-identifying, your post #323 would seem to imply that.
harfad Posted November 18, 2012 Posted November 18, 2012 You have many posts touching on that, here is an example."No modifier is required when referring to the phenomenon as it is universally observed in all major religious traditions."As for self-identifying, your post #323 would seem to imply that.That quote does not say what you are attributing to me to have said, and it is quoted out of context anyway. Nothing I have said amounts to what you are attributing me to have said.
volgadon Posted November 18, 2012 Posted November 18, 2012 The Bible does not call them "mystical," but neither does it call them "un-mystical." If the mystics want to define their spiritual experiences in those terms, they have every right to do so.No modifier is required when referring to the phenomenon as it is universally observed in all major religious traditions. A modifier becomes necessary only when you are referring to a particular mystical tradition, such as Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, or Islamic mysticism.We'll let people see if I was quoting you out of context.
volgadon Posted November 18, 2012 Posted November 18, 2012 Since our friend MN has not attempted to answer my question (perhaps wisely so!), I will try to answer it myself anyway. Mysticisim (as a distinct movement in religious expression) has always arisen in later stages of the history of long established religions when the "mainstream" of that religion has become a bit old, rigid, and began to decay, thus failing to continue to provide the kind of spiritual nourishment that spiritually hungry souls expect from it. It is a reaction and backlash, a kind of spiritual rebellion if you like, by spiritually hungry souls against that rigidity, ossification, and spiritual decay of long established religions; an attempt to "go it slone" so to speak, when the mainstream of that religion is no longer able to satisfy the spiritual needs of spiritually sensitive members of that religion. When the religion is new and fresh, it is capable of satisfying that spiritual hunger of all of its members. But as it gets old and begins to decay, and it is no longer able to provide that spiritual need, that is when that mystical offshoot begins to develop, and express itself as a distinct movement from the mainstream of that religion. Mormonisim is still in those early stages of its history; and given the promises that it will never apostatize, that situayion is unlikely to ever arise in Mormonism at all. But in older religions where it has arisen, it makes for an interesting subject of study.This evolutionary view is untenable when the actual sources are studied closely and when universal constructs of mysticism are abandoned. 1
volgadon Posted November 18, 2012 Posted November 18, 2012 Thanks, Pogi,Your clarifications really helped, and I appreciate your citation of Hickman. Excellent.It is a good post, though I do disagree with much of it.
harfad Posted November 18, 2012 Posted November 18, 2012 We'll let people see if I was quoting you out of context.It doesn't say what you have attributed to me to have said though.This evolutionary view is untenable when the actual sources are studied closely and when universal constructs of mysticism are abandoned.I accept that that is your opinion, which does not agree with mine.
pogi Posted November 18, 2012 Posted November 18, 2012 (edited) Do the Catholic, Methodist, and Baptist experience God as Hasidic Jews or Japanese Animists?The whole problem is that you are claiming a universal mystical tradition, in which all mystics self-identify as mystics. You are imposing the category, then forcing the data to fit.In the experience of God, all titles become meaningless but one - child of God. A Catholic, Methodist, Baptist, Hasidic Jew, and Japanese Animist all experience God as children of God, and no other way. God does not place such titles on himself. When we become one with him, we truly do transcend all such titles and tradition and discover our unity with him and all life. We experience others as brothers and sisters, and we experience God as Father. All titles become familial. I recognize that all mystic traditions might not view it this way, but they certainly do experience it this way. There is always a familial oneness. Edited November 18, 2012 by pogi
pogi Posted November 18, 2012 Posted November 18, 2012 (edited) oops Edited November 18, 2012 by pogi
volgadon Posted November 18, 2012 Posted November 18, 2012 It doesn't say what you have attributed to me to have said though.Are you not saying that there is a universal mystical phenomenon observed in all major religious traditions?I accept that that is your opinion, which does not agree with mine.So much is obvious. I'll be happy to discuss any specific examples, that way we can see if your theory holds up.
pogi Posted November 18, 2012 Posted November 18, 2012 Are you not saying that there is a universal mystical phenomenon observed in all major religious traditions?So much is obvious. I'll be happy to discuss any specific examples, that way we can see if your theory holds up.Here is the mystical phenomenon that is observed (if not understood) in not just all major religions, but among all people. - The light of Christ and the Holy Ghost. This is the unifying experience and phenomenon among all true mystics. We are all mystics by design if not by practice.
harfad Posted November 18, 2012 Posted November 18, 2012 (edited) Are you not saying that there is a universal mystical phenomenon observed in all major religious traditions?I adhere to what I had said in Post #51:Nobody is talking about "universal mysticism". I don't recall using that phrase, and I am not aware that anybody else has. There is in fact no such thing as universal mysticism. There are only various schools or traditions of mysticism normally associated with longstanding mainstream religions like Christianity, Judaism, or Islam. There is, however, an important observation to be made about these various mystical traditions, and that is the extraordinary similarities that exists among them. The similarities are so great and noticeable that some scholars have tried to establish common grounds, and to try to demonstrate that they have been derived, or been influenced by one another. That is the most remarkable observation that can be made about them. Looking at it from that point of view, there is indeed something "universal" about mysticism, although there is no such thing as "universal mysticism".I also adhere to the following posts I had previously made:Post #66The Conference Theme is "The Mystical" (i.e. acknowledging something universal about mysticism). The attached Word File containing the "Call for Papers" makes the following observation about mysticism:"Most religious traditions begin with or develop a mystical tradition—a tradition given to the study and direct encounter with the divine, the ineffable, or the transcendent. Somewhat surprisingly, the theme of the mystical has in recent centuries been as prevalent outside of the religious sphere as inside, suggesting that it may be fundamental to the human experience generally. Mysticism leaves its traces in the arts and cultures studied by the humanities.We are seeking papers on the mystical, whether in literature and art, or the relationship of mysticism to Mormonism. Some topics that might be considered are: ..." In other words, the theme of the conference [is] a universally observable phenomenon generically called "mysticism," (i.e. observable in human experience generally, and especially on religious experience). The purpose of the conference is to elucidate that universally observable phenomenon.Post #69I am just someone who has been interested in and made a study of the subject. I just looked up mysticism in Wikipedia, and noted the following:"Many if not all of the world's great religions have arisen around the teachings of mystics (including Buddha, Jesus, Lao Tze, and Krishna); and most religious traditions describe fundamental mystical experience, at least esoterically. Enlightenment or Illumination are generic English terms for the phenomenon, derived from the Latin illuminatio (applied to Christian prayer in the 15th century) and adopted in English translations of Buddhist texts, but used loosely to describe the state of mystical attainment regardless of faith."The idea of mysticism as a universally observable phenomenon in human experience (especially religious experience) has been recognised by by pretty much every scholar worthy of the name who has made a serious study of the subject. It is something that I have observed independently in my own studies, and noticed it confirmed by others who have made a serious study of the subject. Folks who are now seeking to deny it in this thread show a distinct lack of in-depth knowledge of the subject.Post #120See my previous post. I do not classify as mysticism everything that passes off as mysticism, or everything that claims that heritage; any more than I would lump an apostate religion together with its unapostate version as though they were one and the same, and indistinguishable from one another.You said:So much is obvious. I'll be happy to discuss any specific examples, that way we can see if your theory holds up.Your attempts to be "specific" so far has been very successful. Your posts are often become incoherent and disconnected from previous threads of conversation. So I am not being very hopeful. Edited November 18, 2012 by harfad
volgadon Posted November 18, 2012 Posted November 18, 2012 Your attempts to be "specific" so far has been very successful. Your posts are often become incoherent and disconnected from previous threads of conversation. So I am not being very hopeful.Says the person talking out of both sides of his mouth.
volgadon Posted November 18, 2012 Posted November 18, 2012 I recognize that all mystic traditions might not view it this way, but they certainly do experience it this way.A little sweeping. How are you sure? 1
pogi Posted November 18, 2012 Posted November 18, 2012 A little sweeping. How are you sure?Let me rephrase. I recognize that not all people attribute their true mystic experiences to the light of Christ or the Holy Ghost, but that is exactly what they are experiencing. By definition (if somebody else would like to suggest another definition we can examine it, as of yet, nobody has), a true mystic experience must be divinely inspired. So, by this definition, they are all experiencing the same phenomenon wether they view it that way or not. One cannot gain light and truth from any other source.
Nathair/|\ Posted November 18, 2012 Posted November 18, 2012 It seems that the only way to know if a Sufi's experience is the same as, say, a Druid mystic like William Blake is to live and practice both systems. Since they have elements of practice that are mutually exclusive, I don't think this is possible. 2
pogi Posted November 18, 2012 Posted November 18, 2012 (edited) Just so we are all clear.Mysticism is the knowledge of, and especially the personal experience of, states of consciousness, or levels of being, or aspects of reality, beyond normal human perception, sometimes including experience of and communion with a supreme being.Higher states of consciousness, levels of being, and aspects of reality, beyond human perception can only come from one source - God. These are true mystic experiences by definition.Mormonism doesn't claim exclusive rights to this privilege. If Mormonism is not neo-mystic, what is it?My claim is that it is most closely related to neo-mystisicm than any other form. Edited November 18, 2012 by pogi
volgadon Posted November 18, 2012 Posted November 18, 2012 Let me rephrase. I recognize that not all people attribute their true mystic experiences to the light of Christ or the Holy Ghost, but that is exactly what they are experiencing. By definition (if somebody else would like to suggest another definition we can examine it, as of yet, nobody has), a true mystic experience must be divinely inspired. So, by this definition, they are all experiencing the same phenomenon wether they view it that way or not. One cannot gain light and truth from any other source.Thank you, that clarification makes more sense. When you insert the qualifier 'true' before the term mystic experiences, that changes the question. I think this might be part of the problem. We have the questions of what is mysticism, and is there a universal phenomenon. The question you are asking, however, would be which experiences are true, if looked at from an LDS perspective. I don't feel qualified to answer the latter question as that would require a level of knowledge I do not possess.What I can do, beyond historical enquiry, is attempt to look at religious traditions from the lens of the adherents, as much as possible. Letting them speak for themselves, a radical concept. 1
volgadon Posted November 18, 2012 Posted November 18, 2012 It seems that the only way to know if a Sufi's experience is the same as, say, a Druid mystic like William Blake is to live and practice both systems. Since they have elements of practice that are mutually exclusive, I don't think this is possible.Very well said. 1
volgadon Posted November 18, 2012 Posted November 18, 2012 Just so we are all clear.Mysticism is the knowledge of, and especially the personal experience of, states of consciousness, or levels of being, or aspects of reality, beyond normal human perception, sometimes including experience of and communion with a supreme being.Higher states of consciousness, levels of being, and aspects of reality, beyond human perception can only come from one source - God. These are true mystic experiences by definition.Really? Try this. http://www.saintswithouthalos.com/p/try_spirits.phtml 1
harfad Posted November 18, 2012 Posted November 18, 2012 I don't see what your link has to do with his post. That is why I said that your comments often become disjointed and disconnected with previous threads of conversation. He is talking about an experience of communion with the divine. He is not talking about an experience of communion with the devil. Why do you think those two must somehow be equivalent?
volgadon Posted November 18, 2012 Posted November 18, 2012 I don't see what your link has to do with his post. That is why I said that your comments often become disjointed and disconnected with previous threads of conversation. He is talking about an experience of communion with the divine. He is not talking about an experience of communion with the devil. Why do you think those two must somehow be equivalent?I dunno, perhaps brushing up on basic reading comprehension might help you.Pogi said this. "Higher states of consciousness, levels of being, and aspects of reality, beyond human perception can only come from one source - God"I disagree, and shared a Joseph Smith quote showing that there are counterfeits. Perhaps you might like to actually get down to substance. 1
pogi Posted November 18, 2012 Posted November 18, 2012 Really? Try this. http://www.saintswit...y_spirits.phtmlNote that in every example, the false spirit led the person to error. This is not a state of higher consciousness, level of being, or aspect of reality. All of these experiences led the individual into states of lower consciousness of truth, levels of being, and into aspect of deceit not reality.I still stand by my claim.
volgadon Posted November 18, 2012 Posted November 18, 2012 Note that in every example, the false spirit led the person to error. This is not a state of higher consciousness, level of being, or aspect of reality. All of these experiences led the individual into states of lower consciousness of truth, levels of being, and into aspect of deceit not reality.I still stand by my claim.Yet those individuals could not tell for themselves. To them, it appeared right. Are you disputing that a revelation from or visitation by the Devil would be a state of consciousness, level of being, or aspect of reality beyond normal human perception? 1
harfad Posted November 18, 2012 Posted November 18, 2012 I dunno, perhaps brushing up on basic reading comprehension might help you.Pogi said this. "Higher states of consciousness, levels of being, and aspects of reality, beyond human perception can only come from one source - God"I disagree, and shared a Joseph Smith quote showing that there are counterfeits. Perhaps you might like to actually get down to substance.Do you think that a "state of consciousness" induced by the devil and one induced by God are so indistinguishable that one can never tell them apart?
Recommended Posts