Mysticism And Mormon Spirituality

[peteolcott]

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

Many people that talk about these things do not understand these things themselves. Many of these same people may be totally unaware of their own lack of understanding, I am not in agreement with any lack of understanding.

What I am saying is that the first-hand direct experience referred to using different terms from the various mystical traditions is exactly the same experience.

Of all of the terms used to describe the underlying meaning of this experience, the Hindu conception of Advaita would seem to be the most accurate, and the Buddhist conception of anatta would be saying this exact same thing, even if most all Buddhists are totally unaware of this.

Edited November 28, 2012 by peteolcott

[pogi]

Many people that talk about these things do not understand these things themselves. Many of these same people may be totally unaware of their own lack of understanding, I am not in agreement with any lack of understanding.

What I am saying is that the first-hand direct experience referred to using different terms from the various mystical traditions is exactly the same experience.

Of all of the terms used to describe the underlying meaning of this experience, the Hindu conception of Advaita would seem to be the most accurate, and the Buddhist conception of anatta would be saying this exact same thing, even if most all Buddhists are totally unaware of this.

The neo-mystic tally is climbing.

Pogi, harfad, Bukowski, and Pete vs. volgodon, and Bill.

[Calm]

I would be interested in knowing whether or not mfb thinks of himself as a neomystic or not.

[volgadon]

The neo-mystic tally is climbing.

Pogi, harfad, Bukowski, and Pete vs. volgodon, and Bill.

Pete's declaration is not exactly credible.

[peteolcott]

Pete's declaration is not exactly credible.

Credibility is a fake measure of truth, and I generally try to avoid it, along with the fallacy of belief / disbelief.

[volgadon]

Credibility is a fake measure of truth, and I generally try to avoid it, along with the fallacy of belief / disbelief.

Wow, this quote is a pearl.

[Calm]

I feel sometimes Pete is speaking a competely different language than the one I am used to where the words have all different meanings.

[peteolcott]

Wow, this quote is a pearl.

If both belief and disbelief are fallacies (errors of reasoning) and credibility is based on belief / disbelief, therefore credibility is based on an error of reasoning.

The reason that belief and disbelief are errors of reasoning is that the mind is generally closed once its made up regarding a belief or disbelief. Also both beliefs and disbeliefs tend to have strong emotional attachment, thus forming the antithesis of scientific objectivity.

Edited November 28, 2012 by peteolcott

[Calm]

IF thought and nonthought are fallacies (errors of existence) and action is based on thought/nonthought, action is based on a error of existence.

---

A big "IF" I would say.

Putting words together in grammatically correct order does not always mean they make actual sense.

If this: "If both belief and disbelief are fallacies (errors of reasoning) and credibility is based on belief / disbelief, therefore credibility is based on an error of reasoning", is your belief, does this mean we can conclude this statement of belief is an error of reasoning?

Edited November 28, 2012 by calmoriah

[mfbukowski]

What I am saying is that the first-hand direct experience referred to using different terms from the various mystical traditions is exactly the same experience.

I hate to bog this down with something as mundane as logic, but that is unknowable. We can't even know if two people experience "red" the same way exactly- all we can know is they describe it similarly.

Of course they do it in different languages or using different religious contexts so that makes it impossible to know.

Of course you will counter with some innuendo that I could not possibly know anything about it because I have not experienced Satori, for example and you have. Even making such an assertion confirms that you don't know what you are talking about because you thereby prove that you have NOT reached Satori.

The ego is a little tough to whip isn't it?

Edited November 28, 2012 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

IF thought and nonthought are fallacies (errors of existence) and action is based on thought/nonthought, action is based on a error of existence.

---

A big "IF" I would say.

Putting words together in grammatically correct order does not always mean they make actual sense.

If this: "If both belief and disbelief are fallacies (errors of reasoning) and credibility is based on belief / disbelief, therefore credibility is based on an error of reasoning", is your belief, does this mean we can conclude this statement of belief is an error of reasoning?

Oh but you are bogged down with reasoning and have not yet reached beyond the ego into the ONE as he has.

uh..... wait a minute...... beyond the ego, arguing rationality and that he knows better......

HUH?

[mfbukowski]

I feel sometimes Pete is speaking a competely different language than the one I am used to where the words have all different meanings.

You mean NO meanings.

[mfbukowski]

Credibility is a fake measure of truth, and I generally try to avoid it, ....

Very successfully might I add...

[Calm]

Very successfully might I add...

Ouch...

[peteolcott]

If this: "If both belief and disbelief are fallacies (errors of reasoning) and credibility is based on belief / disbelief, therefore credibility is based on an error of reasoning", is your belief, does this mean we can conclude this statement of belief is an error of reasoning?

It seems to me that the only reliable way to know anything is through comprehension. Once a concept is fully understood in terms of its tautological interlocking parts, (its component concepts mutually define each other) this concept is known rather then merely believed.

[wenglund]

If both belief and disbelief are fallacies (errors of reasoning) and credibility is based on belief / disbelief, therefore credibility is based on an error of reasoning.

The reason that belief and disbelief are errors of reasoning is that the mind is generally closed once its made up regarding a belief or disbelief. Also both beliefs and disbeliefs tend to have strong emotional attachment, thus forming the antithesis of scientific objectivity.

Rather than taking the time to point out the many ironic errors of reasoning in this brief post, I will simply point out that since you evidently believe what you just said, then according to your own "reasoning," it is closed-minded and fallacious. Nicely done.

Now, this kind of unwitting self-discrediting may prove problematic for most people, but not for someone like yourself who has successfully unfettered himself from credibility.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited November 28, 2012 by wenglund

[MiserereNobis]

This has been a fascinating thread to follow for so many different reasons

[mfbukowski]

This has been a fascinating thread to follow for so many different reasons

Glad you're back- hope all is well!

[Bill Hamblin]

Many people that talk about these things do not understand these things themselves. Many of these same people may be totally unaware of their own lack of understanding, I am not in agreement with any lack of understanding.

Of course, the same could be said, at least in theory, about you.

[Bill Hamblin]

What I am saying is that the first-hand direct experience referred to using different terms from the various mystical traditions is exactly the same experience.

How, exactly, could you possibly know this? While it is a standard claim of Neomystics, it is merely an assertion. Since mystical experiences are said by the mystics to be ineffable, you cannot possibly know what another mystic actually experiences, nor could you possibly know if it is the same as your experience.

And, of course, most medieval Christians would deny that a vision of Mary is "exactly the same experience" as Zen satori. Why should your asserted explanation that it is the same be privileged over a medieval Christian mystic's assertion that it is different?

[Bill Hamblin]

Of all of the terms used to describe the underlying meaning of this experience, the Hindu conception of Advaita would seem to be the most accurate, and the Buddhist conception of anatta would be saying this exact same thing, even if most all Buddhists are totally unaware of this.

Again, how could you possible know this? If mystical experience is ineffable (which is itself an assertion), then how can one particular culturally-based term possibly be better at describing the indescribable than another?

[Bill Hamblin]

If both belief and disbelief are fallacies (errors of reasoning) and credibility is based on belief / disbelief, therefore credibility is based on an error of reasoning.

It is, of course, a belief that "both belief and disbelief are fallacies," and therefore, if your claim is true, then your belief that "both belief and disbelief are fallacies" must itself be fallacious.

[Nathair/|\]

For what it's worth, my experiences with the Holy Ghost are not identical to my experiences with Cernunnos, Odin or Brigid.

[Ahab]

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

Isa 45:5 I am the LORD, and there is none else,

there is no God beside me:

I girded thee, though thou hast not known me:

6 That they may know from the rising of the sun,

and from the west, that there is none beside me.

I am the LORD, and there is none else.

The phrase in green is repeated twice. The bold face phrase defines what it means. There is no other God beside YHWH. This is NOT saying that nothing else exists except YHWH. It is saying no other god exists except YHWH.

... or to be more precise, he is saying there is no other God than the God he is. He's not saying he is the only person who is God, though. Just that there is only one God and that he is one of the persons who is that kind of being.

Now you tell me, how you do recommend everyone attain that knowledge of truth?

To some how to know God is a mystery but there are those who do understand what he is.

[pogi]

I'm wondering if such a mysticism is even possible in Mormonism, since God is a physical being. Can one find God at the center of one's soul and realize a perfect metaphysical union with Him if He has a body somewhere?

Also, what might some Mormon mystical practices be? Most religions have similar practices surrounding mysticism, such as meditation, prayer, song/dance, penitential practices (fasting, asceticism), etc. Usually mystical experience occurs in some sort of life removed from the world, such as a monastery. In Catholicism, we call it "contemplation" which is just another word for meditation. There are various forms, but all seem to have in common the idea of stilling or shutting down the linguistic mind, setting the ego aside, and then waiting for God's grace to touch us with knowledge of Him. I personally find that the life and schedule of a Benedictine monastery is most conducive for me to have mystical experiences.

Welcome back,

I hope that we have been able to answer some of these questions for you.

As I said before, I have a deep regard and respect for Lawrence Freeman, a Benedictine Monk and director of the World Community for Christian Meditation. His teachings have been a catalyst for me in communion with God, he has taught me much in how to hear prayer, and not just speak prayer. While I do not practice the mantra as prescribed, I find the principles behind it invaluable.