Mysticism And Mormon Spirituality

[mfbukowski]

It looks like we both believe that there is a common spirit that runs deeper than words. One that probably feels the same, Using your own words. Why all the fuss?

The fuss is trying to define that spirit in words. We can suspect all the livelong day about there being a commonality but it can't be defined because to do so destroys it. Saying what it is pretends that it can be captured, and it is too big for that. Saying what it is implies that there is something it is not, and it is too big for that.

As you said, we can see it only in little pieces and give each piece a name because the whole is too great to fit in a little word and attach another little word- "true"- to such vastness.

It reminds me of a story attributed to St. Augustine.

The scene is the seashore, where there is a small pool, a little boy with a seashell, and a sandy beach on which St. Augustine , clad in his episcopal robes, is walking, pondering with difficulty the mystery of the Most Holy Trinity. “Father, Son, Holy Spirit; three in one!” he muttered, shaking his head.

As he approached the little boy who was running back and forth between the sea and the pool with a seashell of water, Augustine craned his neck and asked him: “Son, what are you doing?”

“Can’t you see?” said the boy. “I’m emptying the sea into this pool!”

“Son, you can’t do that!” Augustine countered. “I will sooner empty the sea into this pool than you will manage to get the mystery of the Most Holy Trinity into your head!”

Upon saying that, the boy, who was an angel according to legend, quickly disappeared, leaving Augustine alone with the mystery of the Most Holy Trinity.

Substitute "mystical experience" for the Trinity in the story and I think we have a valid analogy.

Besides what's up with a mystic trying to put mysticism into a single set of words anyway?

[TAO]

God uses words. Is that how you approach the scriptures, "It's all only words"?

The scriptures are words. You can't get around that. It's not a bad thing. It's just words limit us. That's not a bad thing; it's just the way things work.

[mfbukowski]

Pogi, the point of Bukwoski's point is that we can never assert that we feel the same thing as being undeniably true. We can believe it; but we cannot assert it is undeniably true and that anybody who believes otherwise is speaking nonsense. That is what I think he means.

yep. thanks

[TAO]

I don't have to do so either.

You do if you want to assert it. The general rule is you have to have an argument to assert, but you do not need it to believe. You could go against this tradition, of course, but I doubt many will listen then.

We both agree on what a true experience with God entails: a) Holy Ghost or b) Light of Christ.

That's our perspective. Can someone without our perspective know this, or even use this in their judegment? Not at all. They are only responisble for what they know, and thus, we cannot judge them very accurately for they may have more or less than we do.

I don't need to use a mystic's description to substantiate my claim. The scriptures substantiate my claim that all are endowed with the light of Christ and are not prohibited from experiences with the Holy Ghost. Therefore, I am confident that other's outside of Mormonism are experiencing the same divinely inspired phenomenon as I am.

You may choose to believe that if you wish. I have noticed however that others desire different things from spiritual experiences than I; thus they recieve different witnesses, or in the least, the way they describe them would not be the way I would. No, I can't determine what phenomena they experience; it is beyond the communication barrier. I must rely on my own experiences with God to judge what I may trust in others.

If you want to equate mysticism with experiences with the divine, the adversary, and all physiological phenomenon, all you are really doing is defining all human experience as mystic.

Human experiences are mystic.

But you are forgetting, what 'is' and 'isn't' mystic is largely a matter of perspective. One will view one thing as mystic, another will view a different thing as mystic. Thus, in my view, it's imprudent to try to classify or declassify certain things as mystic or not; rather, people have experiences which they classify on a spiritual level, and they will choose to follow them. I may not judge them on it; I may merely judge my own experiences, and try to lead others to similar paths, through missionary work.

Best of Wishes,

-TAO

[mfbukowski]

Bukowski, I am troubled by your approach to this whole debate, knowing now that you have believed the same as me. I have admitted several times that there is no way of proving that I am right. I am simply throwing out a theory. One that you just admitted that you believe is probably right.

Instead of recognizing a common belief and searching for evidence to substantiate the theory, you argue on the side of the opposing view point. That makes no sense to me. Not only do you argue for the opposing view point, but you use an argument that is equally useless in which ever direction you point your finger. Volgadon equally cannot prove that we don't feel the same fruits the same way. Therefore, your point does no good to substantiate nor refute either theory, It just gets in the way. They are both theories only. All we can do is use the teachings of the GAs and scriptures, with some reasoning to support our theories. We can never prove them. That is how Mormon dialogue should work.

I haven't even begun to dig into the scriptures and quotes of the GAs to support the stance that we do feel the same fruits the same way. Now, if you would like to help me, I think that we can make a much stronger argument, as I can that think of a wealth of scripture and quotes that support my theory over Volgadon's. I understand that interpretations of scriptures and quotes may vary, but that is the fun of it.

The problem is not with what we believe in the most fundamental way, it is that frankly I think you have a bad philosophy of language and are stuck in Cartesian dualism as I have said from the beginning.

It's a methodological issue, and a fundamental one- nothing more nothing less.

I think the way you say it can lead to thinking incorrectly about the nature of truth. That's the good news and the bad news all in one.

[mfbukowski]

Why can we not be right? Because it's all only words?

Yep.

What is in my heart is scriptures without words, what cannot be written.

[TAO]

Why can we not be right? Because it's all only words?

We can be right; but we can be wrong also.

Would it be prudent of me to claim to a person without an experience to verify it for themselves that the gospel is true? Not at all. They must go to God themselves. We cannot make them; only they can choose. That's why we have to be careful about asserting our objectivity to people who don't know it's truth. Because they have not seen what we have, they have no reason to believe in our words.

[harfad]

The OP started this debate based on the assumption that there is phenomenon commonly observable in human experience to which may be given the name of mysticism. This phenomenon, according to him, is something that is observable and recognisable in more than one culture or religious tradition; and he feels that it is something that is basically good, and therefore must originate from a good source (i.e. God), and worth exploring. He has observed that there is a "commonality" about this observable phenomenon which is recognisable, and therefore make it a subject of comparative discussion. His primary purpose in starting this thread has been to explore, with the help of Mormons on this forum, to what extent this phenomenon is traceable an observable within Mormonism.

His observation also carries the assumption that it is possible to recognise the good in that phenomenon (wherever it is found), and therefore distinguish it from that which is not good, or which may be a counterfeit, and therefore not of God.

Furthermore, he is not the only one who holds such views about such an observable phenomenon. Lots of other people, both inside and outside Mormonism, think so too—so much so that BYU has gone to the trouble of organising a whole conference for the sole purpose of exploring that very same phenomenon on a larger scale than the OP has attempted in this thread.

Now if there are some people who believe that there is no such commonly observable phenomenon called mysticism which is worth exploring; or that if there is, it is so undefinable or inexpressible in words so as to make it worth exploring; or anything else along those lines—they should stick their noses out of this thread, and leave it to those who share the opinions of the OP, and therefore would like to discuss the subject on his terms and not their own.

If they really feel strongly about it, they can always start a new thread and call it "why mysticism is not worth talking about," and not spoil the fun in this thread for those who do not share their views.

[volgadon]

Now if there are some people who believe that there is no such commonly observable phenomenon called mysticism which is worth exploring; or that if there is, it is so undefinable or inexpressible in words so as to make it worth exploring; or anything else along those lines—they should stick their noses out of this thread, and leave it to those who share the opinions of the OP, and therefore would like to discuss the subject on his terms and not their own.

If they really feel strongly about it, they can always start a new thread and call it "why mysticism is not worth talking about," and not spoil the fun in this thread for those who do not share their views.

In other words, no opposing viewpoints should be shared, right?

Your strawmen aside, what Bill Hamblin and I (as well as others) have been doing is urging methodological caution in discussing these sorts of things.

[pogi]

what Bill Hamblin and I (as well as others) have been doing is urging methodological caution in discussing these sorts of things.

I recall you asserting the opposite assertion of my own, while urging caution and avoiding it at the same time.

I find it amusing that you and Bill (and others) believe in mystic experience but refuse to define it yourselves. I find it amusing that you accept all versions of mysticism but mine, which is probably most closely related to yours. I find it amusing that you refute my definition because it is not in harmony with others (as if theirs is in harmony with mine). In other words, you reject my definition which may in-authenticate other definitions, though it still authenticates their experience; yet you accept other definitions which in-authenticate both my definition and my experience. I find it amusing that you claim that there is not a common experience among mystics, but have no proof (I have no problem with that as you have supplied evidence). My problem is that you then claim that my methodology is somehow flawed for not being able to prove my assertion, though I have supplied evidence.

I find it amusing that Bukowski is on a Mormon dialogue forum attacking Mormons for using Mormon dialogue with other Mormons. I find it amusing that he does not like my philosophy of language and has never asked me what my philosophy of language is. I find it amusing that even if he did ask me, he would refute it based on the fact that "they are just words" and are inadequate. I find it amusing that he himself uses words and at some point must settle on definitions, as imperfect as they may be. I don't know how he justifies defining anything using words. You could refute any definition or title based on the fact that they are "just words" and mean different things to different people. Because they mean different things to different people, disputing word choice is absurd based on the fact that they mean different things to different people.

Here is an example of how Bukowski's reaction may have been when he first developed his "philosophy of language" and applied it to the words: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints:

"Wait a second here, you can't say Church, that could be referring to a number of different things. It could be building, a congregation, a religion. Even if we knew that it was specifically referring to a building, what is a building exactly? We would have to break it down into specific designs, the materials used, and the molecular structure of those materials in order to really understand what it is in relation to space. Then we have to define what space is before we can use the word building. What if it is referring to a religion? Don't even get me started there! What about Saint, what is a saint anyway? In order to understand the word saint, we have to define what a body is, what a spirit is, what qualifies for sainthood, etc. etc. It can't really be described in words so we have to throw that out. What about the words Jesus Christ? Are you referring to him as a human or as a God, or both? Because if you are making the assertion that he is a God, we have to reject that assertion based on the fact that you can't prove it. What a fundamentally flawed argument and assertion! What a fundamentally flawed title!" Bukowski, your methodology and philosophy of language just destroyed your own religion.

I find it amusing that TAO thinks that I have to prove something in order to assert it. As if I could prove anything! It's all probabilities. Unless of course you are a Mormon and know that you can be endowed with pure intelligence and have sure knowledge, yet I still could not prove it. An assertion is made strong or weak based on the evidence supplied. It cannot be proven with 100% surety. Can I assert that there is a God without being able to prove it? According to you, I am breaking the rules if I do. Heaven forbid that I say that there is a God on these forums! For one, I can't prove it and therefore should not assert it. Secondly, it is not in harmony with all of those who believe that there is no God. I also find it amusing that Tao thinks that I haven't made an argument to substantiate my assertion. I have set a solid frame work to build upon. The problem is that I have to sift through 22 pages of white noise before I can start to address the issue at hand.

Now, if you will all please allow me to build upon my frame work without further tangents and white noise distractions, I would be happy to do so. I am open to opposing view and dialogue, I am not open to proving my point, nor do I insist that you prove your point. We are attempting to define mysticism from a Mormon perspective. I understand that there will be much disagreement and debate, that is great! If you don't like my word choice, I understand that you may not know what I mean through words, we can discuss other options. How 'bout we read some scripture, some words of the prophets and discuss how they may relate to mysticism from a Mormon perspective (as was the original purpose of this thread)?

I would like to see others try to build something here as harfad, myself, volgadon, and Bill have done, rather than just tear down. Howeve, I am yet to see even the beginnings of a foundation of definition or description from Volgadon and Bill. So, to say that they are building anything is rather stretching here. At least they are tearing down opposing beliefs rather than common ones.

Edited November 20, 2012 by pogi

[Ahab]

...

You like me, though, right? I know I can be amusing too, sometimes, but at least we are pretty much in agreement on this.

They just don't know as much as we know about how God is involved in every form of mysticism, I think. No worries, though. We don't have to wait til they catch up with us to go on learning from God and drawing closer together with others who also are learning from God, even though we're not all at the same level. None of us are done learning yet, and some of us will always know some more than some others of us (our kind of being) as we continue to learn from God, forever.

[volgadon]

Is that all that you have been doing is urging methodological caution? I seem to recall you doing more than that. I recall you asserting the opposite assertion of my own, while urging caution and avoiding it at the same time.

I find it amusing that you and Bill (and others) believe in mystic experience but refuse to define it yourselves. I find it amusing that you accept all versions of mysticism but mine, which is probably most closely related to yours. I find it amusing that you refute my definition because it is not in harmony with others (as if theirs is in harmony with mine). In other words, you reject my definition which may in-authenticate other definitions, though it still authenticates their experience; yet you accept other definitions which in-authenticate both my definition and my experience. I find it amusing that you claim that there is not a common experience among mystics, but have no proof (I have no problem with that as you have supplied evidence). My problem is that you then claim that my methodology is somehow flawed for not being able to prove my assertion, though I have supplied evidence.

I find it amusing that Bukowski is on a Mormon dialogue forum attacking Mormons for using Mormon dialogue with other Mormons. I find it amusing that he does not like my philosophy of language and has never asked me what my philosophy of language is. I find it amusing that even if he did ask me, he would refute it based on the fact that "they are just words" and are inadequate. I find it amusing that he himself uses words and at some point must settle on definitions, as imperfect as they may be. I don't know how he justifies defining anything using words. You could refute any definition or title based on the fact that they are "just words" and mean different things to different people. Because they mean different things to different people, disputing word choice is absurd as they mean different things to different people.

Here is an example of how Bukowski's reaction may have been when he first developed his "philosophy of language" and applied it to the words: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints:

Wait a second here, you can't say Church, that could be referring to a number of different things. It could be building, a congregation, a religion. Even if we knew that it was specifically referring to a building, what is a building exactly? We would have to break it down into specific designs, the materials used, and the molecular structure of those materials in order to really understand what it is in relation to space. Then we have to define what space is before we can use the word building. What if it is referring to a religion? Don't even get me started there! What about Saint, what is a saint anyway? In order to understand the word saint, we have to define what a body is, what a spirit is, what qualifies for sainthood, etc. etc. It can't really be described in words so we have to throw that out. What about the words Jesus Christ? Are you referring to him as a human or as a God, or both? Because if you are making the assertion that he is a God, we have to reject that assertion based on the fact that you can't prove it. What a fundamentally flawed argument that Jesus is a God based on the fact that you can't prove it, etc. etc." Your methodology just destroyed your own religion.

I find it amusing that TAO thinks that I have to prove something in order to assert it. As if I could prove anything! It's all probabilities. Unless of course you are a Mormon and know that you can be endowed with pure intelligence and have sure knowledge, yet I still could not prove it. Can I assert that there is a God without being able to prove it? Heaven forbid that I say that there is a God on these forums! For one, I can't prove it and therefore should not assert it. Secondly, it is not in harmony with all of those who believe that there is no God. I also find it amusing that Tao thinks that I haven't made an argument to substantiate my assertion. I have set a solid frame work to build upon. The problem is that I have to sift through 22 pages of white noise before I can start to address the issue at hand.

My, you find a lot to be amused by.

I reject your definition as I find its assumptions very problematic for several reasons which I've already outlined. I'd much rather discuss mystic traditions in context, using the mystics' self-definition, while at the same time recognising how imprecise and clumsy the term "mysticism" is.

[mfbukowski]

The OP started this debate based on the assumption that there is phenomenon commonly observable in human experience to which may be given the name of mysticism. This phenomenon, according to him, is something that is observable and recognisable in more than one culture or religious tradition; and he feels that it is something that is basically good, and therefore must originate from a good source (i.e. God), and worth exploring. He has observed that there is a "commonality" about this observable phenomenon which is recognisable, and therefore make it a subject of comparative discussion. His primary purpose in starting this thread has been to explore, with the help of Mormons on this forum, to what extent this phenomenon is traceable an observable within Mormonism.

His observation also carries the assumption that it is possible to recognise the good in that phenomenon (wherever it is found), and therefore distinguish it from that which is not good, or which may be a counterfeit, and therefore not of God.

Furthermore, he is not the only one who holds such views about such an observable phenomenon. Lots of other people, both inside and outside Mormonism, think so too—so much so that BYU has gone to the trouble of organising a whole conference for the sole purpose of exploring that very same phenomenon on a larger scale than the OP has attempted in this thread.

Now if there are some people who believe that there is no such commonly observable phenomenon called mysticism which is worth exploring; or that if there is, it is so undefinable or inexpressible in words so as to make it worth exploring; or anything else along those lines—they should stick their noses out of this thread, and leave it to those who share the opinions of the OP, and therefore would like to discuss the subject on his terms and not their own.

If they really feel strongly about it, they can always start a new thread and call it "why mysticism is not worth talking about," and not spoil the fun in this thread for those who do not share their views.

Misses the point. If mysticism was not worth talking about this thread would have been a total waste of time. These methodological distinctions need to be made so that the subject remains clear from confusion.

Having confused views is not "fun" to those who want to think clearly but if you find it so, all I can do is try to stop the contagion from spreading.

[mfbukowski]

I find it amusing that Bukowski is on a Mormon dialogue forum attacking Mormons for using Mormon dialogue with other Mormons. I find it amusing that he does not like my philosophy of language and has never asked me what my philosophy of language is. I find it amusing that even if he did ask me, he would refute it based on the fact that "they are just words" and are inadequate. I find it amusing that he himself uses words and at some point must settle on definitions, as imperfect as they may be. I don't know how he justifies defining anything using words. You could refute any definition or title based on the fact that they are "just words" and mean different things to different people. Because they mean different things to different people, disputing word choice is absurd based on the fact that they mean different things to different people.

Here is an example of how Bukowski's reaction may have been when he first developed his "philosophy of language" and applied it to the words: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints:

"Wait a second here, you can't say Church, that could be referring to a number of different things. It could be building, a congregation, a religion. Even if we knew that it was specifically referring to a building, what is a building exactly? We would have to break it down into specific designs, the materials used, and the molecular structure of those materials in order to really understand what it is in relation to space. Then we have to define what space is before we can use the word building. What if it is referring to a religion? Don't even get me started there! What about Saint, what is a saint anyway? In order to understand the word saint, we have to define what a body is, what a spirit is, what qualifies for sainthood, etc. etc. It can't really be described in words so we have to throw that out. What about the words Jesus Christ? Are you referring to him as a human or as a God, or both? Because if you are making the assertion that he is a God, we have to reject that assertion based on the fact that you can't prove it. What a fundamentally flawed argument and assertion! What a fundamentally flawed title!" Bukowski, your methodology and philosophy of language just destroyed your own religion.

Wow.

There are some hard feelings here and I am sorry for that.

It might interest you that I found Mormonism much after I was trained in the philosophy of language and the only reason I find it my knowledge of the truth of Mormonism philosophically sustainable is precisely BECAUSE of that training.

It might interest you, though I posted this earlier, that Wittgenstein- who's philosophy of language I largely subscribe to, is often cited by those who believe in the "truth" of spiritual experience, to be one who would understand such matters the best of any nearly contemporary philosopher.

If you want to discuss philosophy I would love to do so, here, in another thread, or by PM or email if you like. Or not at all. It's up to you.

But I suggest you read this wikipedia article which may acquaint you with "where I am coming from" a bit better.

Really all I am saying is that mystical experience cannot be classified or expressed in language OR "reason" and I would find it odd that you would think otherwise. I am truly sorry for any offense I have given- it was not my intent by any means.

[Ahab]

Really all I am saying is that mystical experience cannot be classified or expressed in language OR "reason" and I would find it odd that you would think otherwise.

Maybe "finding it odd" is the reason you're not seeing how it can be. Maybe instead of just "finding it odd" you could ask some questions to try to get a better understanding of how it can be, by asking someone who says he understands how it can be. Maybe instead of just being stumped you could find some way to be at least a little bit curious to understand how someone can classify and express in language any or all types of mystical experience. You could, I think. Or then again, you could just go on saying that it can't be even though someone else understands how it can.

[Bill Hamblin]

The OP asked if there is such a thing as Mormon mysticism. The answer is: it depends on how you define mysticism. The problem is, as this discussion has more than amply demonstrated, there is no historically coherent and universally applicable definition of mysticism.

[volgadon]

I find it amusing that TAO thinks that I have to prove something in order to assert it.

Delicious unintentional irony.

[Ahab]

The OP asked if there is such a thing as Mormon mysticism. The answer is: it depends on how you define mysticism. The problem is, as this discussion has more than amply demonstrated, there is no historically coherent and universally applicable definition of mysticism.

Are you saying that if I defined mysticism coherently right now, that I would be the first to do so in all of history? I'm sure someone has done it already, and if I look around I'm sure I could find at least one person who did that I would understand.

And what do you mean by universally applicable? You mean a definition that everybody everywhere would agree with? There will never be a time when everyone will agree with everyone about anything, but that doesn't mean there's not a coherent definition of mysticism out there for all of us to understand once we correctly understand what it is.

[volgadon]

Are you saying that if I defined mysticism coherently right now, that I would be the first to do so in all of history?

Yes, you would be the first.

You mean a definition that everybody everywhere would agree with? There will never be a time when everyone will agree with everyone about anything, but that doesn't mean there's not a coherent definition of mysticism out there for all of us to understand once we correctly understand what it is.

The problem occurs once you started applying it to specific traditions. You end up excluding one tradition after another, til all you are left with is, say, certain Sufi schools. In other words, the definition is useful only for specific traditions. The other side of the coin would be a theory that is so vague and generalised that anything could fit, which doesn't tell us much at all.

[Ahab]

Yes, you would be the first.

pogi,

You did a good job of explaining what it is, and I could understand you. Why don't you try again with volgadon here to see if he'll get it this time. If he still doesn't it won't be your fault. I understood you just fine.

The problem occurs once you started applying it to specific traditions. You end up excluding one tradition after another til all you are left with is, say, certain Sufi schools. In other words, the definition is useful only for specific traditions. The other side of the coin would be a theory that is so vague and generalised that anything could fit, which doesn't tell us much at all.

... that anything could fit. Think about that some more, bud. That is what we're after here, as it relates to mysticism.

That doesn't mean everyone is at the same level, or will attain the same level of intelligence, but as each seeks to understand all things we will become more and more one with God, and all other things in existence,.with no need to stop learning and experiencing things directly through our own personal experiences with all things, including God.

[volgadon]

pogi,

You did a good job of explaining what it is, and I could understand you. Why don't you try again with volgadon here to see if he'll get it this time. If he still doesn't it won't be your fault. I understood you just fine.

I'd love for you to try your hand at a coherent definition of mysticism.

... that anything could fit. Think about that some more, bud. That is what we're after here, as it relates to mysticism.

Really? You are after a system so vague that purely utalitarian actions which don't involve God at all could be defined as mysticism? What is mysticism? Scratching your backside; yawning; pottering about in the garden directing randomn kicks at weeds which should have been uprooted weeks ago...

[Ahab]

I'd love for you to try your hand at a coherent definition of mysticism.

The process of discovering the truth about things (including God) through unmediated personal contact with those things... not to say that you can't have a mediator, but that mediator would be helping you to discover the truth about things through your own unmediated personal contact with those things rather than by relying solely on that mediator.

NOTE: If you don't agree that doesn't mean it's not a coherent definition of mysticism.

Really? You are after a system so vague that purely utalitarian actions which don't involve God at all could be defined as mysticism?

I'm not "after" that type of system, but God doesn't necessarily need to be involved or at least not fully involved with all forms or phases of a person's mystic experiences.

What is mysticism? Scratching your backside; yawning; pottering about in the garden directing randomn kicks at weeds which should have been uprooted weeks ago...

The main point is that it's a process of discovering things directly rather than by relying on a mediator, although a mediator can be involved. Try thinking of science as a branch of mysticism, with the scientific method of discovery involving things that someone isn't necessarily learning through personal contact with those things.

For example, suppose you wanted to know how the universe was formed from what it was into what it is now. Now imagine how you would learn that through unmediated personal contact with the universe or by what or who made it from what it was to what it is now. How would you do it? How would you learn how the universe was formed from what it was into what it is now? How would you know if you came up with the right answer(s)? How would you know if you found someone who was direcly involved in getting it done? Any mediator would get you only so far, so how would you bridge the gap between you and the mediator and between the mediator and what or who he is mediating for? The answer is by direct contact with the one who did it and how it was done.

Edited November 20, 2012 by Ahab

[mfbukowski]

The OP asked if there is such a thing as Mormon mysticism. The answer is: it depends on how you define mysticism. The problem is, as this discussion has more than amply demonstrated, there is no historically coherent and universally applicable definition of mysticism.

Agreed- because the experience itself cannot be defined.

There may be characteristics of the experience which can be defined and may be vaguely generalized but the experience is ineffable and expressible only through one's cultural understanding.

I am pretty much going to bow out of this discussion - I have said about all I have to say.

Before doing so though, I would like to leave some quotes from William James' Varieties of Religious Experience, especially his chapter on Mysticism and that is a link to the entire book as a pdf so further reading can be done as needed to check the context. Indeed what is discussed is precisely what the title implies- the VARIETIES of religious experience including their similarities and differences.

What I wish to show by these quotes is that the experiences are beyond description in language; since that is so, any attempt to do so clearly must be within the cultural linguistic context of the person attempting to express the experience.

All we have is language which is always within a cultural context, therefore any attempt to describe what is indescribable must fall short because the words are always cultural and fall short of the fullness of the experience.

James, page 267 in the provided pdf

This incommunicableness of the transport is the keynote of all mysticism. Mystical

truth exists for the individual who has the

transport, but for no one else. In this, as I

have said, it resembles the knowledge given

to us in sensations more than that given by

conceptual thought. Thought, with its

remoteness and abstractness, has often

enough in the history of philosophy been

contrasted unfavorably with sensation. It is a commonplace of metaphysics that God’s

knowledge cannot be discursive but must be intuitive, that is, must be constructed

more after the pattern of what in ourselves is called immediate feeling, than after that

of proposition and judgment. But our immediate feelings have no content but what the

five senses supply; and we have seen and shall see again that mystics may emphatically

deny that the senses play any part in the very highest type of knowledge which their

transports yield.

Then as evidence for this assertion James quotes St. John of the Cross:

We receive this mystical knowledge of God clothed in none of the kinds of images, in none of the

sensible representations, which our mind makes use of in other circumstances. Accordingly in this

knowledge, since the senses and the imagination are not employed, we get neither form nor

impression, nor can we give any account or furnish any likeness, although the mysterious and

sweet-tasting wisdom comes home so clearly to the inmost parts of our soul. Fancy a man seeing a

certain kind of thing for the first time in his life. He can understand it, use and enjoy it, but he

cannot apply a name to it, nor communicate any idea of it, even though all the while it be a mere

thing of sense. How much greater will be his powerlessness when it goes beyond the senses! This is

the peculiarity of the divine language. The more infused, intimate, spiritual, and supersensible it is,

the more does it exceed the senses, both inner and outer, and impose silence upon them....

The soul then feels as if placed in a vast and profound solitude, to which no created thing has

access, in an immense and boundless desert, desert the more delicious the more solitary it is. There, in this abyss of wisdom, the soul grows by what it drinks in from the well-springs of the

comprehension of love,... and recognizes, however sublime and learned may be the terms we

employ, how utterly vile, insignificant, and improper they are, when we seek to discourse of divine

things by their means.”

Then St. Teresa:

“In the orison of union,” says Saint Teresa, “the soul is fully awake as regards God, but wholly

asleep as regards things of this world and in respect of herself. During the short time the union

lasts, she is as it were deprived of every feeling, and even if she would, she could not think of any

single thing. Thus she needs to employ no artifice in order to arrest the use of her understanding: it

remains so stricken with inactivity that she neither knows what she loves, nor in what manner she

loves, nor what she wills. In short, she is utterly dead to the things of the world and lives solely in

God....

I do not even know whether in this state she has enough life left to breathe. It seems to me she has

not; or at least that if she does breathe, she is unaware of it. Her intellect would fain understand

something of what is going on within her, but it has so little force now that it can act in no way

whatsoever. So a person who falls into a deep faint appears as if dead....

Thus does God, when he raises a soul to union with himself, suspend the natural action of all her

faculties. She neither sees, hears, nor understands, so long as she is united with God. But this time

is always short, and it seems even shorter than it is. God establishes himself in the interior of this

soul in such a way, that when she returns to herself, it is wholly impossible for her to doubt that

she has been in God, and God in her. This truth remains so strongly impressed on her that, even

though many years should pass without the condition returning, she can neither forget the favor she

received, nor doubt of its reality. If you, nevertheless, ask how it is possible that the soul can see

and understand that she has been in God, since during the union she has neither sight nor

understanding, I reply that she does not see it then, but that she sees it clearly later, after she has

returned to herself, not by any vision, but by a certitude which abides with her and which God

alone can give her. I knew a person who was ignorant of the truth that God’s mode of being in

everything must be either by presence, by power, or by essence, but who, after having received the

grace of which I am speaking, believed this truth in the most unshakable manner. So much so that,

having consulted a half-learned man who was as ignorant on this point as she had been before she

was enlightened, when he replied that God is in us only by ‘grace,’ she disbelieved his reply, so

sure she was of the true answer; and when she came to ask wiser doctors, they confirmed her in her

belief, which much consoled her....

But how, you will repeat, can one have such certainty in respect to what one does not see? This

question, I am powerless to answer. These are secrets of God’s omnipotence which it does not

appertain to me to penetrate. All that I know is that I tell the truth; and I shall never believe that

any soul who does not possess this certainty has ever been really united to God.”

Note that these are not descriptions of the experience itself- they are statements about the fact that the experiences cannot be described.

Defining mystical experience is like defining any direct experience- it cannot be done. You cannot explain redness to a blind person who has never experienced it.

Any attempt to define "redness" or express it to one who is blind would be totally within the context of your own language. It cannot be otherwise

Note Teresa's insistence that her experience led her to believe that "God is everywhere" whereas the LDS experience would describe it differently- that his influence is everywhere. But what was directly experienced, insofar as it is understandable, was the presence of God- but even to say that is to distort it.

In both cases, the explanation is within the cultural/religious context and not in defining the experience as "it is"- indeed what is asserted is that such a definition or description is not possible. So an LDS reader would see Teresa's experience as "not true" because the doctrine expressed would be "in error" by LDS standards, but a Catholic would find it totally acceptable. One can detect that there was some kind of experience there, but the expression of it is so different to each person that one cannot assign a "truth value" to the description, or would see it as "incorrect" because in each case, the person's own doctrine would be expressed and the truth value would be based on the description, not the experience.

That is the reason that different traditions cannot agree on the content of "mystic experience" because every expression of it is doctrinal to the person describing it. To have it be otherwise, one would have to choose another way to describe it making their own doctrine "wrong". Essentially the experience reporter has no choice but to describe the experience in the context of their own linguistic understanding or admit that their own tradition is "wrong". The description MUST be in their own doctrine or they will be contradicting their own tradition, and that puts them psychologically in an untenable position.

Their tradition told them how to get the experience, but then the experience told them their own tradition didn't quite capture it. It automatically sets up a state of cognitive dissonance. Their tradition got them there, but then the experience was greater than what got them there. But they cannot express it in someone else's tradition for surely that would be "wrong".

So the only option left is to use their own doctrinal language to express it. God is not "everywhere" but the Light of Christ can be- that would be the Mormon description of what Teresa said, which makes the experience doctrinally correct from an LDS point of view.

But of course that is not what Teresa said!

Edited November 20, 2012 by mfbukowski

[Ahab]

This incommunicableness of the transport is the keynote of all mysticism. Mystical truth exists for the individual who has the transport, but for no one else. In this, as I have said, it resembles the knowledge given to us in sensations more than that given by conceptual thought.

Then all we need is the "transport" to experience it. What "transport" would this be? Whatever would take us to the truth.

Thought, with its remoteness and abstractness, has often enough in the history of philosophy been contrasted unfavorably with sensation. It is a commonplace of metaphysics that God’s knowledge cannot be discursive but must be intuitive, that is, must be constructed more after the pattern of what in ourselves is called immediate feeling, than after that of proposition and judgment. But our immediate feelings have no content but what the five senses supply; and we have seen and shall see again that mystics may emphatically deny that the senses play any part in the very highest type of knowledge which their

transports yield.

There is another sense used for feeling, beyond the 5 senses, and with that we can know the truth of all things as long as we have the "transport" to what we are trying to experience.

Good stuff, mski, but James needs a little revision.

[volgadon]

NOTE: If you don't agree that doesn't mean it's not a coherent definition of mysticism.

Even if I agree, that doesn't mean it is a coherent definition of mysticism.

Just kidding.

The process of discovering the truth about things (including God) through unmediated personal contact with those things... not to say that you can't have a mediator, but that mediator would be helping you to discover the truth about things through your own unmediated personal contact with those things rather than by relying solely on that mediator.

This is a decent definition of some mystical activity and goals, but it leaves out a lot of others. That is the problem, no one definition can cover mysticism.