Mysticism And Mormon Spirituality

[mfbukowski]

Pete claims pure knowledge.

Others claim he is confused/delusional, and mock him.

Pete admits that he can't prove it, except they experience it for themselves.

Others demand proof and provide evidence as to why he is wrong.

Where does this story sound familiar?

Pete, you are wasting your time here unless you encourage them to find out for themselves and teach them how. They obviously are not going to listen to you, so you are just wasting your time here.

Others, you are wasting your time here unless you "know" that he is wrong, and encourage Pete to find out and teach him how. He is obviously not going to listen to you, so you are just wasting your time here.

I claim ignorance and am wasting my time here!

Rather smug and judgmental actually. No one here ever implied that he did not have the experiences we have- or that your experience is somehow "inferior" to ours- yet both of you have done that repeatedly.

Both of you have denied our religious experiences by implying that we have not had "real" experiences.

I suppose I should issue a CFR and have you prove your assertion or have you removed from the board or retract your statements but it is not worth the effort.

If you cannot present your case logically I would suggest you avoid logical discussions about mysticism which is probably good advice anyway.

But this IS a logical discussion. I did not start it. If you cannot handle a logical discussion instead of judging and deprecating others "level" of religious experience and asserting yours as superior, because you cannot make your case logically, I would suggest you not get involved in such discussions in the first place.

[mfbukowski]

I am saying the almost no one is qualified for say whether or not Buddhist enlightenment is aptly described by the phrase {union with God} except those very few Buddhists that have had this experience.

And how is a Buddhist, who don't believe in God, to tell us about the experience of "unity with God" to make the comparison?

You are not thinking any of this through.

[mfbukowski]

The Hebrew bible scholar said that it means: {Only God exists, and nothing besides God exists}.

In any case the enlightenment experience itself trumps everything else.

In case you were not aware, Bill himself speaks Hebrew, ancient and modern

[MiserereNobis]

If there were a Zen master on this thread, he'd whack us over the head with a stick

If St. Benedict were here, he'd probably tell us to shut up already (Lady Silence) and get to work in the fields (but don't forget that the office of None is being prayed in two hours!)

[MiserereNobis]

And how is a Buddhist, who don't believe in God, to tell us about the experience of "unity with God" to make the comparison?

You are not thinking any of this through.

In my experience, most neo-mystics redefine God to match the eastern conceptions of suchness, thusness, nirvana, etc. There is a strong tendency among the neo-mystics I know to condescend to the West in favor of the East. I myself fit into that category for awhile, kinda like teenage rebellion against my parent culture. Imagine my surprise when I discovered the depth of mystical experience and writing in the Catholic Church! Who knew...

[mfbukowski]

If there were a Zen master on this thread, he'd whack us over the head with a stick

If St. Benedict were here, he'd probably tell us to shut up already (Lady Silence) and get to work in the fields (but don't forget that the office of None is being prayed in two hours!)

Exactly exactly right!!!

[mfbukowski]

In my experience, most neo-mystics redefine God to match the eastern conceptions of suchness, thusness, nirvana, etc. There is a strong tendency among the neo-mystics I know to condescend to the West in favor of the East. I myself fit into that category for awhile, kinda like teenage rebellion against my parent culture. Imagine my surprise when I discovered the depth of mystical experience and writing in the Catholic Church! Who knew...

Well I certainly will not deprecate anyone's experience but let me tell you - I never understood any of this stuff really until God decided to whack me big time completely for his own reasons.

That's a technical mystical-stuff term! Not bad for talking about the Unspeakable.

That is really what the argument is about- if it IS Unspeakable, we should not be speaking about it. Yet others want it sliced and diced according to Montague.

That sounds totally contradictory to me.

[volgadon]

I love it and have since it first came out. Before he went electric and sold out

Judas! The poor guy was embarrassed for life.

[pogi]

Rather smug and judgmental actually. No one here ever implied that he did not have the experiences we have- or that your experience is somehow "inferior" to ours- yet both of you have done that repeatedly.

Both of you have denied our religious experiences by implying that we have not had "real" experiences.

I recall you stating many times that you are wasting your time here. I'm just agreeing with you.

Are you referring to me here? I have never denied your religious experience or claimed you have not had "real" experience. I don't necessarily agree with many of the assertions Pete makes, but there is nothing to argue about, he has already admitted that he cannot prove anything.

But this IS a logical discussion. I did not start it. If you cannot handle a logical discussion instead of judging and deprecating others "level" of religious experience and asserting yours as superior, because you cannot make your case logically, I would suggest you not get involved in such discussions in the first place.

Again, are you referring to me here? Because I have never deprecated others "level" of religious experience and asserted mine as superior. Maybe you are confusing me with someone else.

Edited December 4, 2012 by pogi

[volgadon]

I think he said possible. Possible is not quite the same as believable. Something can be 100% unbelievable, but still possible.

You need to go back and read what he wrote.

[volgadon]

When seeking the truth of mysticism gullibility is far more useful than skepticism. In fact skepticism is a great impediment to realizing the truth of these things.

Gullibility is just as antithetical to mystic experience as skepticism. The Merkabah mystics warned against calling heavenly marble water, even though both closely resembled each other. "When you arrive at the stones of pure marble, do not say 'Water, Water' for it is said, 'The speaker of lies shall not be established before my eyes.'"

(Babylonian Talmud Hagigah 14b)

Iranian Sufis also distinguished between flames of different colours.

Then there is the whole "angel of light" tradition in Christian mysticism.

A mystic was not to believe everything he saw. A mystic was to discern the true form and import of things.

[pogi]

In my experience, most neo-mystics redefine God to match the eastern conceptions of suchness, thusness, nirvana, etc. There is a strong tendency among the neo-mystics I know to condescend to the West in favor of the East. I myself fit into that category for awhile, kinda like teenage rebellion against my parent culture. Imagine my surprise when I discovered the depth of mystical experience and writing in the Catholic Church! Who knew...

I don't consider myself a traditional neo-mystic. Quite honestly, I had never heard of the term until Bill introduced it to me on this thread. I do find principles that ring of Christ in the East, West, North, and South. I don't define God to match eastern conceptions (as perhaps others here do), on the contrary, I redefine eastern concepts to match God. I run principles through the filter of the words of the prophets. If they are conducive to the Spirit and do not contradict scripture or modern revelation, I find value in it. I love and cherish what I have learned from the Catholic Church, but I also find value in eastern teachings, and of course one of the only truly western and American religions, Mormonism.

[Storm Rider]

In my experience, most neo-mystics redefine God to match the eastern conceptions of suchness, thusness, nirvana, etc. There is a strong tendency among the neo-mystics I know to condescend to the West in favor of the East. I myself fit into that category for awhile, kinda like teenage rebellion against my parent culture. Imagine my surprise when I discovered the depth of mystical experience and writing in the Catholic Church! Who knew...

This thread has gone on for a very long time. Imho, The Church of Jesus Christ does not have a good equivalent of the mystical writings found within the Catholic Church or the Eastern Orthodox Church. The Church attempts to teach its members the importance of prayer and the need to recognize the working of the Holy Spirit. Approaching God and evolving one's relationship to more intimate and deeper levels is expected to be the natural result of consistent prayer and desire to emulate the Master. We can learn much from our brothers and sisters who have written about their process of knowing God more fully, but I believe that the path to God is both simple and complex. It is simple in that we need to submit to God through Jesus Christ. It is complex in that it is never ending; a constant process and a path that is infinite.

[peteolcott]

There is a difference between mocking someone and pointing out that when he claims he is communicating in a precise and logical fashion, he is not actually doing so.

I never claimed that I am communicating in a precise logical fashion. Although I strive for this, it takes as much as many hundreds-fold more time to check every word over-and-over again and again to produce the degree of precision that I am referring to.

When I referred to mathematical precision, it was in the reading of scripture, and not in the writing of words on this board.

Edited December 4, 2012 by peteolcott

[peteolcott]

You need to review the board guidelines. No preaching and no judging others' if you want to remain on board.

I will need more clarification on this.

[peteolcott]

I am curious. Do you believe you have refrained from judging others when you state they have not comprehended or whatever?

Hestia found one of the comments I was thinking of:

The only way to the actual truth is with a mind that is completely open, it seems that there are none of those here.

The first part before the comma seems to me to be a self-evident truth, because closing one's mind does prevent the acceptance of certain possibilities.

The second part might seem a little judgmental. I did try to cast it as an opinion by my phrase: "it seems".

I usually state this more fully as: "it seems to me".

It seems to me that completely open minds goes directly against the grain of human nature. It seems to me that my own mind is not 100% completely open. It seems to me that some people here have minds that are far more open than most.

[peteolcott]

And how is a Buddhist, who don't believe in God, to tell us about the experience of "unity with God" to make the comparison?

You are not thinking any of this through.

I am only referring to Buddhists that have directly experience enlightenment first-hand, which excludes most all of them, thus the premise that you start with is from an incorrect basis. Since I am proposing that the enlightenment experience is a first-hand direct experience of God, no beliefs are required.

It may be possible that a Buddhist whom has realized enlightenment has never encountered the term: "God". In this case they may have to look the word "God" up in a dictionary before they confirm that enlightenment is Union with God.

[peteolcott]

In case you were not aware, Bill himself speaks Hebrew, ancient and modern

It did seem to me that his knowledge is very thorough and deep.

He is also very able to express his understanding extremely clearly.

[volgadon]

The second part might seem a little judgmental. I did try to cast it as an opinion by my phrase: "it seems".

I usually state this more fully as: "it seems to me".

Being your opinion doesn't change it from a judgmental opinion.

[peteolcott]

Well I certainly will not deprecate anyone's experience but let me tell you - I never understood any of this stuff really until God decided to whack me big time completely for his own reasons.

That's a technical mystical-stuff term! Not bad for talking about the Unspeakable.

That is really what the argument is about- if it IS Unspeakable, we should not be speaking about it. Yet others want it sliced and diced according to Montague.

That sounds totally contradictory to me.

I am far more open to the possibility that these things should not be spoken, than the possibility that they are untrue.

If these things are true, then they would tend to go without saying.

[peteolcott]

Being your opinion doesn't change it from a judgmental opinion.

I have a human nature, too, because of this I make some mistakes.

From my point of view I see no precise criterion measure that distinguishes what I said or how I said it from the communication style of some of those disagreeing with me.

If you could provide this precise criterion measure so that I might be better able to comply with board guidelines, it would be greatly appreciated.

[peteolcott]

Gullibility is just as antithetical to mystic experience as skepticism. The Merkabah mystics warned against calling heavenly marble water, even though both closely resembled each other. "When you arrive at the stones of pure marble, do not say 'Water, Water' for it is said, 'The speaker of lies shall not be established before my eyes.'"

(Babylonian Talmud Hagigah 14b)

Iranian Sufis also distinguished between flames of different colours.

Then there is the whole "angel of light" tradition in Christian mysticism.

A mystic was not to believe everything he saw. A mystic was to discern the true form and import of things.

Although I agree with your last sentence, it seems to me that you did not sufficiently make your case against gullibility.

[volgadon]

Although I agree with your last sentence, it seems to me that you did not sufficiently make your case against gullibility.

Ironic, as I at least provided specific instances. WHat else do you want?

[volgadon]

Assuming that you aren't using a special definition of gullibility, a gullible person would believe whatever he saw. As the Talmudic quote (and verse from Psalm 101) show things are not always as a seem. Indeed, one must not accept everything at face value, but discern the truth of each thing. Gullibility would have the person swallow every illusion line, hook, and sinker.

[MiserereNobis]

Assuming that you aren't using a special definition of gullibility, a gullible person would believe whatever he saw. As the Talmudic quote (and verse from Psalm 101) show things are not always as a seem. Indeed, one must not accept everything at face value, but discern the truth of each thing. Gullibility would have the person swallow every illusion line, hook, and sinker.

Exactly. Gullibility is almost the antithesis to Catholic mysticism. The mystical experience must be discerned, hence the focus on a capable spiritual director. St. John of the Cross lamented the lack of spiritual direction for many monks and what a hindrance it was because it is quite easy for someone living the contemplative life to get lost in side-paths and illusions. The ego finds sneaky and slippery ways to retain pride ("My ego-death is better than your ego-death!")

I found this idea true in my experience of Theravadan Buddhism as well -- there is always the meditation master to whom you take your experiences for help and clarification. Mine was this very old monk from Thailand and he would sit and watch me meditate and then call me over and have relate what was going on in my mind and then give me advice, obviously Buddhist based.

In Catholic mysticism, gullibility is ineffective at best and dangerous at worst, as it allows the flesh, the world, and the devil to deceive you right smack dab in the middle of a spiritual practice.