Mysticism And Mormon Spirituality

[peteolcott]

You've seriously misunderstood this passage. You need to read it in context.

Spend thousands of hours studying Hinduism, Buddhism, and Mysticism (as I have) and see if you still think that I misunderstood the passage. If you want to cut this work short, you only have to truly understand a single term from Hinduism: Advaita.

[peteolcott]

I know you've said you have thousands of books, been studying this since 1991, etc., but this assertion is flat out wrong. Don't know any way of sugarcoating it.

Spend a few hundred hours on the single term from Hinduism: Advaita, and if your mind is open, you might see what I mean.

[peteolcott]

That is similar to the Islamic "Shahada:" lā ʾilāha ʾillā l-Lāh (لا إله إلا الله) meaning that "there is no god but Allah," or "there is no god but God". Islamic mystics interpret that to mean not only that there is only one God, but that He is the only true Reality—meaning that he is the embodiment or sum total of all that is. He is the origin and source of all reality or being, the beginning and the end of all things. You need to understand mystics and mysticism on their own terms. You seem determined not to do that, and you can't

Thanks for the wonderful open-mindedness, it is a breath of fresh air, and the only path to the actual truth.

Both belief and disbelief tend to be the process of making up and then closing one's mind.

[peteolcott]

I've been arguing all along that we need to understand mystics and mysticism on their own terms. Which is why I reject Neomysticism, and the attempt to conflate all mysticisms into one.

The Muslim shahÄdah says precisely what Isaiah says. There is no [other] god but AllÄh/God.

However, there are numerous branches and types of Islamic mysticism, (which have also changed through time) with many different interpretations of all sorts of things. You are, as you always have been, conflating all forms of Islamic mysticism into one idealized mysticism, and then conflating your conflation with Advaita (which you have also conflated with all forms of Hindu mysticism). See the problem?

If nothing exists besides God, that would make God a member of every religion, including atheism.

That nothing exists besides God can be proven empirically, in Buddhism this first-hand direct experience is called enlightenment. In Hinduism it is called Moksha. In Zen Buddhism it is called Satori. This experience is completely unbelievable before one has it, and completely undeniable after.

[Bill Hamblin]

Spend thousands of hours studying Hinduism, Buddhism, and Mysticism (as I have) and see if you still think that I misunderstood the passage. If you want to cut this work short, you only have to truly understand a single term from Hinduism: Advaita.

Spending thousands of hours studying Hinduism, Buddhism and Mysticism won't help you understand Isaiah, which is neither Hindu, Buddhist, nor mystical. Sorry.

Whether you're right or wrong about Advaita, you're still wrong about Isaiah. You are giving an advaitic eisegesis to Isaiah. He is not saying that nothing exists except God. He is saying there are no other gods except YHWH.

Whether you're right or wrong about Advaita, Mormons are neither pantheists nor non-dualists.

[Calm]

Thanks for the wonderful open-mindedness, it is a breath of fresh air

If someone said this to someone else who wasn't agreeing with him, it would be a lot more refreshing and open imo.

[Bill Hamblin]

If nothing exists besides God, that would make God a member of every religion, including atheism.

No, it would make all religions, including atheism, mÄyÄ (illusion). It doesn't make all religions equally true. It makes them all equally false.

[pogi]

Both belief and disbelief tend to be the process of making up and then closing one's mind.

Are you saying that both believing and disbelieving are veils to seeing the truth? Are you saying that you don't believe or disbelieve in anything? Believing opens up your mind to whatever it is you believe in, it also limits your mind to that belief. Example: your mind is open to Advaita because of your belief in it, it is also limited to Advaita because of your belief. Belief is good, so long as we are willing to discard it in place for belief in things that are good.

This experience is completely unbelievable before one has it, and completely undeniable after.

In Mormonism there is a similar experience called the mighty change of heart or baptism of fire, which we also consider empirical proof. Even after this mighty change of heart or baptism of fire, however, there is still more to the picture to be seen. How can you be sure that you have seen it all?

Edited November 26, 2012 by pogi

[Bill Hamblin]

Thanks for the wonderful open-mindedness, it is a breath of fresh air, and the only path to the actual truth.

Both belief and disbelief tend to be the process of making up and then closing one's mind.

Disagreeing with you is not a sign of closed-mindedness. Just as your disagreeing with me is not a sign of closed-mindedness. (Besides which, from the advaitic point of view, the belief that my mind is closed and yours is open is actually mÄyÄ, right?)

[Calm]

Disagreeing with you is not a sign of closed-mindedness. Just as your disagreeing with me is not a sign of closed-mindedness. (Besides which, from the advaitic point of view, the belief that my mind is closed and yours is open is actually mÄyÄ, right?)

OTOH, thinking that only those who agree with you are openminded does seem to me to be a sign of closed-mindedness.

[Bill Hamblin]

If nothing exists besides God, that would make God a member of every religion, including atheism.

That nothing exists besides God can be proven empirically, in Buddhism this first-hand direct experience is called enlightenment. In Hinduism it is called Moksha. In Zen Buddhism it is called Satori. This experience is completely unbelievable before one has it, and completely undeniable after.

I'm not at all confident that a Zen Buddhist would say that Satori demonstrates that nothing besides God exists. Is the ultimate reality understood when achieving Satori in Zen Buddhism actually understood as God?

[Bill Hamblin]

OTOH, thinking that only those who agree with you are openminded does seem to me to be a sign of closed-mindedness.

But when you think that, are you being open-minded? Or closed-minded? It's getting confusing!

[peteolcott]

Spending thousands of hours studying Hinduism, Buddhism and Mysticism won't help you understand Isaiah, which is neither Hindu, Buddhist, nor mystical. Sorry.

Whether you're right or wrong about Advaita, you're still wrong about Isaiah. You are giving an advaitic eisegesis to Isaiah. He is not saying that nothing exists except God. He is saying there are no other gods except YHWH.

Whether you're right or wrong about Advaita, Mormons are neither pantheists nor non-dualists.

If you start with the verified fact that nothing but God exists (as I am starting) then what would Isaiah 45:6 be saying?

[peteolcott]

No, it would make all religions, including atheism, mÄyÄ (illusion). It doesn't make all religions equally true. It makes them all equally false.

No it makes every statement pertaining to empirical reality a figure-of-speech.

There is no such thing as (empirical) X is Y, there is only X is like unto Y, a parable.

[Bill Hamblin]

If you start with the verified fact that nothing but God exists (as I am starting) then what would Isaiah 45:6 be saying?

Well, I don't start with that "verified" fact.

But if it were true that nothing but God exists, then Isaiah wouldn't be talking about the idea that nothing but God exists. He would be talking about something else, or he would be wrong.

[Calm]

If you start with the verified fact that nothing but God exists (as I am starting) then what would Isaiah 45:6 be saying?

CFR that it can be verified.

[pogi]

If you start with the verified fact that nothing but God exists (as I am starting) then what would Isaiah 45:6 be saying?

You believe in the Bible?

[peteolcott]

Are you saying that both believing and disbelieving are veils to seeing the truth? Are you saying that you don't believe or disbelieve in anything? Believing opens up your mind to whatever it is you believe in, it also limits your mind to that belief. Example: your mind is open to Advaita because of your belief in it, it is also limited to Advaita because of your belief. Belief is good, so long as we are willing to discard it in place for belief in things that are good.

In Mormonism there is a similar experience called the mighty change of heart or baptism of fire, which we also consider empirical proof. Even after this mighty change of heart or baptism of fire, however, there is still more to the picture to be seen. How can you be sure that you have seen it all?

Believing and disbelieving are errors of reasoning AKA fallacies, they are both mind closing things, thus erroneous.

I do not merely believe in Advaita, I have had the direct first-hand experience very many times. From my point of view refuting Advaita is like telling me that there is no such thing as strawberries while I am eating strawberries.

I am just now getting the mighty change of heart, and it is wonderful, yet not Advaita. It seems to me that you may be very receptive to the Holy Spirit.

[peteolcott]

By the way, the fact that I disagree with you doesn't mean I don't understand what you are trying to say.

I like you. You are really trying to understand.

[peteolcott]

You believe in the Bible?

I do not accept as absolutely certain that five minutes ago ever existed, this forces my mind to remain wide open.

The only thing that I count as completely certain is that existence itself exists right now.

[peteolcott]

Disagreeing with you is not a sign of closed-mindedness. Just as your disagreeing with me is not a sign of closed-mindedness. (Besides which, from the advaitic point of view, the belief that my mind is closed and yours is open is actually mÄyÄ, right?)

I can tell that you are very open-minded too. This comes naturally from seeking God's will through practicing humility.

That is why I tend to love Mormons very much.

[pogi]

I do not accept as absolutely certain that five minutes ago ever existed, this forces my mind to remain wide open.

The only thing that I count as completely certain is that existence itself exists right now.

I'm just trying to understand where you are coming from.

You are LDS?

[Bill Hamblin]

I do not accept as absolutely certain that five minutes ago ever existed, this forces my mind to remain wide open.

The only thing that I count as completely certain is that existence itself exists right now.

If I believed in Advaita, I wouldn't accept that your Atman exists, since it is mÄyÄ because it really Brahman, which alone exists. But then my Atman would actually be Brahman too, so I'd be talking to myself.

It gets really complicated really fast.

[peteolcott]

I'm not at all confident that a Zen Buddhist would say that Satori demonstrates that nothing besides God exists. Is the ultimate reality understood when achieving Satori in Zen Buddhism actually understood as God?

Yeah, they skip the whole set of conceptions pertaining to God, and go straight to the Non-Duality.

[peteolcott]

I'm just trying to understand where you are coming from.

You are LDS?

I count myself as one half LDS and one half Zen Buddhist.