Mysticism And Mormon Spirituality

[peteolcott]

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.

Yeah it does. I think it might be effectively summed up as "Love your neighbor as yourself", where {as} is a preposition and not an adverb. In other words Love your neighbor as an instance of your own self. Think of how quickly Peace on Earth would arise once this gets out... (and is accepted as true)

[pogi]

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

How do you approach the teachings of belief, such as in Alma 32, which is required for eventual knowledge and empirical proof?

Edited November 27, 2012 by pogi

[peteolcott]

How do you approach the teachings of belief, such as in Alma 32, which is required for eventual knowledge and empirical proof?

One of the reasons that I am so drawn to the LDS is that the Holy Spirit has shared things such as this with me long ago, long before I met my first LDS, or read any LDS scripture.

The mighty change of heart, is only coming for me from the direct experience of knowing LDS members. Once I actually see how people can be consistently kind and loving towards one another, I gain the courage to strive towards this too.

For me this has best been a process of losing myself. A young man from our Ward gave a talk on this. It was about the letter of advice that Gordon B. Hinckley's father gave to him, when he was on his mission.

http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=024644f8f206c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=851188a85f2fb010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____

[peteolcott]

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

Yes. I tend to listen to sound reasoning with an open mind, and see the wisdom that may be there.

[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?)

Yes, you are wonderfully open minded. That would be correct. I think that the best way for it to work out is a balance between duality and singularity. For example we never step over the boundary of 50%. Like Miley Cyrus, the Best of Both Worlds

.

[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.

The future literally becomes exactly what you make it.

[peteolcott]

CFR that it can be verified.

It is a self-evident truth that it has been verified.

[Nathair/|\]

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

It's nice to not be the only heretic here, though I count myself as 100% LDS and 100% mesopagan Druid (I don't feel I have to give up anything essential in either system to practice the other). In many ways, Druidry looks at things in the opposite way that you do. We see this world, the world of form and matter to be just as sacred as any other.

[Tacenda]

good to hear I'm not the only one on here who has had these experiences. I have come to realize that these types of things are a lot more prevalant than most people would think but most wont discuss them as they are afraid of what others would think. My father and my grandfather have both had dreams of the future. I started to recognize the same thing happening with me and am currently living in a constant state of deja vu. Most people would tell me I'm crazy however my wife is starting to believe me now.

I have also talked with members who use dowsing as a form of personal revelation and also scrying with a crystal much as Joseph Smith did. I haven't tried either of those but I have started meditating on a regular basis along with my scripture study. It is amazing what you can learn from the scriptures when you look at it from a slightly different perspective.

Last summer I spent a week in Sedona, Az, where there were several shops . In one of them it had an Aura Reader where you place your hands onto a machine. Mine showed pastel colors and showed that I had at least three people on the other side who were with me (hopefully two of them were my parents who died 3 yrs. ago). I was also told of something that I was going to do in the near future that I never would have thought possible a yr. ago and it came true. The gal helping me with the reading suggested that I stay close to those on the other side by using a crystal. I, of course wanted to buy a small crystal angel for about 10 bucks after that. I've yet to do anything yet though. I guess I'm somewhat skeptical.

Have you heard of aura readings and do you believe in them?

BTW, welcome!

Edited November 27, 2012 by Tacenda

[Nathair/|\]

Last summer I spent a week in Sedona, Az, where there were several shops . In one of them it had an Aura Reader where you place your hands onto a machine. Mine showed pastel colors and showed that I had at least three people on the other side who were with me (hopefully two of them were my parents who died 3 yrs. ago). I was also told of something that I was going to do in the near future that I never would have thought possible a yr. ago and it came true. The gal helping me with the reading suggested that I stay close to those on the other side by using a crystal. I of course wanted to buy a small crystal angel for about 10 bucks after that. I've yet to do anything yet though. I guess I'm somewhat skeptical.

Have you heard of aura readings and do you believe in them?

BTW, welcome!

Yes and no. I have a hard time believing that a machine could do it, but without more information, I can't discount it. There are a lot of charlatans in the occult world as well and they are hard to detect if you don't know what you are looking for. On the other hand, I know the theory behind them and I do recognize that almost anyone could learn how to do it. It's just not a skill I've had occasion to develop at this time. If you're interested, I can pass on book recommendations from my teachers on the subject.

[Tacenda]

Yes and no. I have a hard time believing that a machine could do it, but without more information, I can't discount it. There are a lot of charlatans in the occult world as well and they are hard to detect if you don't know what you are looking for. On the other hand, I know the theory behind them and I do recognize that almost anyone could learn how to do it. It's just not a skill I've had occasion to develop at this time. If you're interested, I can pass on book recommendations from my teachers on the subject.

If it's not too much trouble, that'd be great, thanks. I felt the gal was in tune and believable. The people with me didn't show readings of others on the other side. One of them had a reading that showed a completely red aura which I guess meant he had some intense stress and he had been holding it all in. I was so grateful for my reading because I've struggled with not believing my parents were living in the "afterlife".

[mfbukowski]

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

Not a convincing argument. You stated the position, you should defend it.

[Nathair/|\]

If it's not too much trouble, that'd be great, thanks. I felt the gal was in tune and believable. The people with me didn't show readings of others on the other side. One of them had a reading that showed a completely red aura which I guess meant he had some intense stress and he had been holding it all in. I was so grateful for my reading because I've struggled with not believing my parents were living in the "afterlife".

How to Read the Aura is a good place to start. Butler was a student of Dion Fortune. As far as trying to contact the other side, I don't recommend that until you have a lot more experience than you've shared. Not everything \you will encounter has your best interests at heart. John Michael Greer's Natural Magic Encyclopedia has good information on stones and plants you may find helpful.

[mfbukowski]

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

Verified fact? Are you serious? Have you tried that line on an atheist?

[peteolcott]

Not a convincing argument. You stated the position, you should defend it.

Bill Hamblin did a better job of explaining it than I could have.

[peteolcott]

Verified fact? Are you serious? Have you tried that line on an atheist?

Yes many times. They can not get past their disbelief system long enough to open their eyes and see the truth.

I did convince many of them that atheisim is an example of the ad ignorantiam fallacy.

[volgadon]

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

Sure, for some Hindus that is how things are. However, that is and was far from being the case for the majority of Jewish mystics.

[peteolcott]

Sure, for some Hindus that is how things are. However, that is and was far from being the case for the majority of Jewish mystics.

Seeing what I mean in terms of what the words mean is not the same as seeing what I mean, having the first-hand direct experience of the meaning of the words. The terms that the Jewish and Christian mystics use to describe the mystical experience are far more vague, veiled so that those that can not handle this truth also can not see this truth. The Hindu term Advaita, is not veiled or obscured.

[harfad]

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 shahādah says precisely what Isaiah says. There is no [other] god but Allāh/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?

Ultimately there is only one form of idealized Islamic mysticism; just as there is only one form of idealized Mormonism. The fact that there have been different schools or traditions of Islamic mysticism does not mean that they differ on fundamentals, or that they do not recognize each other’s legitimacy. Neither does the fact that it later became a corrupted version of its former self detract from the legitimacy of its former self. That would be like citing the case of FLDS, RLDS, and polygamist groups to argue that there is not an authentic or idealized form of Mormonism.

Islamic mysticism is more than just a set of obscure or difficult to fathom theories, doctrines, or beliefs. It has had an enormous impact on the culture and life of millions. Its influence has been felt in art, architecture, literature, music, and a whole way of life. Books have been written on the influence of mysticism (or Sufism as it is called) in Islamic art, architecture, literature, and music. Its influence in literature has been enormous. Take Persian literature for example. Persian has one of the greatest literary traditions in the world—if not the greatest—and it is the mystics who have been chiefly responsible for creating it. Take the top four Persian poets for example: Sa’di, Hafez, Rumi, and Firdausi (equivalent to Shakespeare and Milton in English), two of them have been mystics (and their poetry deeply mystical), one has been heavily influenced by mysticism, though not strictly a mystic, and one does not show a sign of significant mystic influence. If you widened that base to something like the top ten or twenty classical Persian poets and men of letters, you will find that that proportion will roughly remain the same. And all of these have been influences for good, not evil. Their writings have been “edifying,” not the reverse. And we know that that which is good, and “edifies,” comes from God (D&C 50:23; 52:16).

This is not the product of what you have described as “numerous branches and types of Islamic mysticism, (which have also changed through time) with many different interpretations of all sorts of things”. That just doesn’t fit the picture. Something that is as disparate, indeterminate, and unclear cannot produce that kind of result. There is a unity in the phenomenon which binds all of these manifestations into a common thread. It just is not the way you are portraying it. And that goes for other mystical traditions as well, such as the Far Eastern ones. When all of them are examined carefully together, a unifying thread is observable in all of them. Looking at it as “pantheistic” or “dualistic” or whatever is a very simplistic and insubstantial way of approaching the subject.

Edited November 27, 2012 by harfad

[Calm]

It is a self-evident truth that it has been verified.

I think you are using the term "verified" differently than most people do.

[peteolcott]

I think you are using the term "verified" differently than most people do.

It is a kind of truth that can only be verified by first-hand direct experience.

It is like verifying what strawberries taste like by eating some strawberries.

This subtle distinction is the reason why almost no buddhists ever realize enlightenment.

[mfbukowski]

I think you are using the term "verified" differently than most people do.

I'll have to remember that one when I get a CFR. "it's self evident".

Uh huh. Now THAT is a teacher. "If you don't get it - too bad, you dummy"

If he had actually reached "Enlightenment" do you think he would be on an internet board saying things are "self evident"?

[mfbukowski]

Yeah it does. I think it might be effectively summed up as "Love your neighbor as yourself", where {as} is a preposition and not an adverb. In other words Love your neighbor as an instance of your own self. Think of how quickly Peace on Earth would arise once this gets out... (and is accepted as true)

What is tough is loving someone as an instance of someone totally other.

[volgadon]

Seeing what I mean in terms of what the words mean is not the same as seeing what I mean, having the first-hand direct experience of the meaning of the words. The terms that the Jewish and Christian mystics use to describe the mystical experience are far more vague, veiled so that those that can not handle this truth also can not see this truth. The Hindu term Advaita, is not veiled or obscured.

So, in other words, what you mean is neither what Advaita or Jewish mystics mean.

[volgadon]

It has been many years ago since I studied these things, and since then I have had to jettison practically all of my books on these subjects because I have had to move around so much, and got fed up with carrying too much excess baggage. I read the ( a classic Christian mystical text) more than forty years ago, and compared it with other mystical traditions which I was familiar with at the time; and it has been decades now since I lost the book. The same goes for everything else I have read on these subjects, including good scholarly books and articles such as by A. J. Arberry for example, who is a very well known authority on Islamic mysticism. (A lot of his books and translations are available in PDF format online, and they make a good read; Google for "Arberry PDF" to see what you will find). For these reasons I will not be able to quote references; but I can give a general rundown of the concepts I have learned during my research into this subject decades ago.

There is a very good book on Islamic mysticism called Mirṣād al-ʻibād min al-mabdāʼ ilāʼl-maʻād by the famous 12th century Persian mystic called Najm al-Din Razi, which is practically a textbook on the practical question of how it was done. It leaves little room for ambiguity, as far as the practicality of the procedure is concerned from the point at which someone becomes a disciple, and the disciplinary procedure he has to undergo before he achieves the final state of attainment in the mystic path, where he has reached his final destination. The discipline was hard and arduous, and took several years to be completed; but the essence of it was abstinence and the chant, or ḏikr in Arabic, where a certain word or phrase is repeated over and over again. The commonest or most popular ḏikr was the Qur'anic phrase, la ilaha illallah (there is no God but Allh), repeated over and over under the supervision of a mystic master. Now this chant was not just an idle repetition. It had to be accompanied by a resolute and determined effort not only to focus on the words of the chant to the exclusion of all other extraneous thoughts, but also of all other worldly attachments, so that nothing remains in the consciousness of the disciple except God. That is basically all that the discipline entailed, coupled with abstinence from too much food, drink, sleep, and other pleasurable pursuits. That was the program, simple as that; at the end of which (after several years, depending how good you were as a disciple in following the directions of the master) you achieved your objective of oneness with the divine. You became a sage, and could do extraordinary things, and perform miracles. This book apparently has been translated into English (so I have just discovered) by someone by the name of Hamid Algar, with the title of: The Path of God's Bondsmen: From Origin to Return. I will see if I can get hold of it and read it, to see how good the translation is. I would probably translate the title a bit differently. I would translate it as, The Journey of Souls From Origin to Restoration. The meaning of the title is very significant. maʻād in Arabic means restoration (or return), but it also means resurrection. In Islamic theology resurrection and restoration are used synonymously, which is what Alma does in the Book of Mormon. The Islamic mystics believed in the preexistence. They believed that man preexisted before he was born, and entered into a covenant relationship with God in that preexistent state. The book title basically refers to man's journey from the presence of God in the preexistent state through the veil of forgetfulness which is mortality, and back to God's presence again, which occurs at and through the resurrection—as per Alma 11:43; 40:22–25; 41:1–5. The book essentially purports to guide the mystic safely along that journey home. It is an amazing book which I would recommend to be retranslated (if need be), and published as part of the Islamic text initiative of BYU.

Now the basic disciplinary procedure that the mystic follows to achieve his desired objective is as simple as that. It consists of the ḏikr, under the supervision of a Sufi master, subject to the condition described. Everything else that is talked about around it is embellishment and tends to obscures that essential disciplinary procedure.

I will mention one more interesting book which I read around thirty years ago, and have since lost it. I can neither remember the name of the book nor of its author. The only thing that I can remember about its author is that he had been a disciple of another well known mystic guru and master of the 13th century by the name of Sadruddin al-Qunawi, who himself had been the step-son and most famous disciple of Muhyiddin Ibn 'Arabi, who in turn has been recognised as possibly the greatest of the Islamic mystics and theosophers. His book was a short "do it yourself guide" on how to do mysticism. A kind of "teach yourself book" on mysticism. Normally to do that you would become disciple to a Sufi master who would guide you through the arduous process. He had written a book to teach you how to do it on your own. And his procedure basically was that you would find yourself a secluded place where you could practice undisturbed. You would still need help from someone who would provide you with food and other basic necessities (which would be minimal). An then just practise ḏikr, under abstinence and self-mortification, and subject to the principles previously discussed. That was it. After about two years of doing it properly, you would achieve your ultimate objective of the Nirvana of Islamic mysticism. Now obviously an awful lot of culture, tradition, literature and jargon has been built around this over the course of the centuries, which tends to obscure that essential feature of it; but the core essence of it was what I have just described.

Now here comes the interesting bit: this practice of achieving mystical union with God through the discipline of the chant or the ḏikr is found in nearly all mystical traditions. It has been recognised by independent scholars and discussed, although I don't have a reference to give for it right now. But you don't need to be a scholar to recognise it. All you need to have is half a brain. I should add that the Jewish traditions of Kabbalah and Zohar are a bit suspect. It is not certain if they represent authentic mystical traditions or not. I am not the only one who has expressed doubts about it. Others have as well. To find authentic Jewish mystical tradition you will have to go back to the Old Testament. But the interesting question is, Where did this commonality come from? Was it by accident? Was it by design? Was it borrowed? Was it inspired? It is too pervasive to be a coincidence.

This idea of the chant or ḏikr by the was has passed onion a somewhat corrupted form, from mysticism into mainstream religion, both Christian and Muslim. Many Muslims after saying their ritual daily ritual prayers, they do ḏikr, usually with the help of the rosary. They repeat so many times some name of God, or some other Qur'anic phrase. But that is not real mystical ḏikr. The real thing is a mighty hard mental and spiritual (and physical) exercise aimed at divesting yourself not only of unwanted thoughts, but of all worldly attachments or vain ambitions. It was more than just repeating some word or phrase over and over like an idiot.

That basically is the best I can do at the present time to answer your question. Hope it has been helpful.

http://www.shaulmagid.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Review-Essay-of-Garb-and-Giller-JQR-2012.pdf Pinchas GIller has a point. For the average kabbalist, performing the rite is the important part, any experience is marginal, secondary. So much for universality.