Mysticism And Mormon Spirituality

[Calm]

Good to know, thanks! 4 more.

If you are in a hurry, go to Social Hall and post four times in the Three Word thread pinned at the top.

[Bill Hamblin]

Thank you Robert F. Forget the "divine council". Everything else is OK!

On the subject of Ariel Bension, I think Bill Hamblin needs to learn something him and his works, who has said in this thread:

And I suppose Rabbi Bension has a cabalistic relationship with Jehovah.

On the subject of the relationship between Sufism and Jewish mysticism, it goes a lot deeper than most people realise. The Sufis adopted practices that were almost identical to ancient Hebrew prophetic orders, down to the wearing of wool, the master/disciple relationships, and even the use of music to achieve the mystical state if communion with God, all of which can be found in the biblical text.

I didn't say there was no interaction or borrowing between different forms of mysticism. I said that they remain fundamentally distinct, despite borrowings.

For example, Sufi mysticism is intimately Qur'anic. It cannot be understood without a profound knowledge of the Qur'an. Likewise Jewish mysticism is "Torahic." The Zohar, for example, is an esoteric commentary on the Torah. And Christian mysticism is biblical, with numerous New Testament elements. All three systems, on the other hand, share esoteric interpretations of the Old Testament as a core, but all interpret the Old Testament differently. All also share a Neoplatonic underpinning. So, are there similarities. Of course. But you need to read primary sources in the original languages in great detail to see how distinct they really are.

[Bill Hamblin]

Another thing to bear in mind in dealing with neo-mystical interpretations is that they rest on a fundamental reductionistic fallacy: that all religious experiences are, at their core, mystical experiences. I, instead, believe that mystical experiences are one type of religious experience. To conflate them all is a fundamental methodological fallacy. A further reductionism occurs among secularists that a mystical experiences are fundamentally internal phenomena caused by brain chemistry. Mystics would maintain that they are external phenomena (God).

[pogi]

Another thing to bear in mind in dealing with neo-mystical interpretations is that they rest on a fundamental reductionistic fallacy: that all religious experiences are, at their core, mystical experiences. I, instead, believe that mystical experiences are one type of religious experience. To conflate them all is a fundamental methodological fallacy. A further reductionism occurs among secularists that a mystical experiences are fundamentally internal phenomena caused by brain chemistry. Mystics would maintain that they are external phenomena (God).

Definition used by the OP:

Mysticism is the knowledge of, and especially the personal experience of, states of consciousness, or levels of being, or aspects of reality, beyond normal human perception, sometimes including experience of and communion with a supreme being.

All external phenomena (including God) can only be perceived and experienced internally.

How else could you experience God than through knowledge, personal experience, consciousness, communion, or perception? All religious experience is therefore mystical.

It all boils down to pure intelligence - the glory of God.

[Bill Hamblin]

That's a very mystical interpretation, but entirely at odds with many biblical theophanies.

[volgadon]

The man in the center, wearing a black headdress, is Yosef Thoma Ha-Cohen. He was a rabbi and Kabbalist from Pekiin. The man with the white headdress is a Druze Aqil, one the enlightened, that is, those initiated into the esoteric knowledge of the Druze faith. Both were mystics. Both were to one degree or another, ascetics.Both were fierce monotheists who believed in a similar concept of God and the unseen world. They grew up together in the same village, spoke the same language, interracted on a daily basis, and even shared the same ethics, shrines, superstitions, proverbs, and marriage customs. Yet, despite all that, there is a fundamental gap between the two mystics. Yosef Thoma's mysticism would have revolved around the commandments of Jewish law, their observation, and their place in the structure of the universe, whereas his Druze friend would reject the necessity for commandments and ritual observances (the Druze consciously replaced the Seven Pillars of Islam with spiritualised requirements such as upholding truth instead of praying). Yosef Thoma Ha-Cohen would have found the kind of universal mysticism Harfad talks about to be perplexing. So would his Druze friend.

[volgadon]

Another thing to bear in mind in dealing with neo-mystical interpretations is that they rest on a fundamental reductionistic fallacy: that all religious experiences are, at their core, mystical experiences. I, instead, believe that mystical experiences are one type of religious experience. To conflate them all is a fundamental methodological fallacy.

By its very nature, the batin must differ somehow from the zahir. Otherwise it makes for a very silly category.

[mfbukowski]

Another thing to bear in mind in dealing with neo-mystical interpretations is that they rest on a fundamental reductionistic fallacy: that all religious experiences are, at their core, mystical experiences. I, instead, believe that mystical experiences are one type of religious experience. To conflate them all is a fundamental methodological fallacy. A further reductionism occurs among secularists that a mystical experiences are fundamentally internal phenomena caused by brain chemistry. Mystics would maintain that they are external phenomena (God).

And Pragmatists would see them, within the context of the whole of human experience, as "valid" as any scientific observation.

I agree completely with your view that each cultural context entirely changes the quality of the experience. One cannot lump them together into one whole, though of course there are similarities.

[Bill Hamblin]

By its very nature, the batin must differ somehow from the zahir. Otherwise it makes for a very silly category.

Indeed. As any batini would understand.

[harfad]

I didn't say there was no interaction or borrowing between different forms of mysticism. I said that they remain fundamentally distinct, despite borrowings.

But do they have important common threads running through them? Do they seek to achieve similar aims? Do they adopt similar practices to try and achieve those aims—in spite of their differences? Do they relate similar experiences, and do they express those experiences in similar terms? If you extract all of those common threads, can you then define "mysticism" as a phenomenon that is cross cultural and relates to more than one culture or religious tradition? If a Jewish mystic can look at Sufism and find cultural and religious affinity with it (or the reverse), can you then say that they are really that far apart?

[volgadon]

But do they have important common threads running through them? Do they seek to achieve similar aims? Do they adopt similar practices to try and achieve those aims—in spite of their differences? Do they relate similar experiences, and do they express those experiences in similar terms? If you extract all of those common threads, can you then define "mysticism" as a phenomenon that is cross cultural and relates to more than one culture or religious tradition? If a Jewish mystic can look at Sufism and find cultural and religious affinity with it (or the reverse), can you then say that they are really that far apart?

Absolutely. See the example with the kabbalist and aqil. For the former, God is incomprehensible without the 613 commandments, for the latter, God is above such things.

[Bill Hamblin]

But do they have important common threads running through them? Do they seek to achieve similar aims? Do they adopt similar practices to try and achieve those aims—in spite of their differences? Do they relate similar experiences, and do they express those experiences in similar terms? If you extract all of those common threads, can you then define "mysticism" as a phenomenon that is cross cultural and relates to more than one culture or religious tradition? If a Jewish mystic can look at Sufism and find cultural and religious affinity with it (or the reverse), can you then say that they are really that far apart?

Almost all religions use music in religion. Does that mean they are all the same?

[Bill Hamblin]

Another thing to bear in mind is that mystics within a single religion often disagree with one another in all sorts of important ways. Compare the neo-mystical new age Kabbalah of the Bergs' Kabbalah Centre with traditional Kabbalists who often view them as complete apostates--teaching Kabbalah to women and even Gentiles, of all things!

Edited November 12, 2012 by Bill Hamblin

[Calm]

Almost all religions use music in religion. Does that mean they are all the same?

To answer that requires that standards are set for when similiarities cross into significance....the question then becomes who gets to set the standards.

[Bill Hamblin]

Baal Shem Tov was viewed as a heretic by many Kabbalists too. The point is if actual practicing traditional mystics don't see what they do as universal, why should we impose it on them.

Look at sexuality, for example. Sex on the Sabbath is a Kabbalist sacrament. For Medieval Christian mystics the sex act was forbidden. Yet they use the erotica of the Song of Songs as a great esoteric mystical mystery. Tantric mystics in both Buddhism and Hinduism see promiscuous sexuality as divine, while other Buddhist monks renounce sexuality, as do many Hindu sadhus. So what is THE mystical attitude towards sexuality?

Edited November 12, 2012 by Bill Hamblin

[Calm]

The point is if actual practicing traditional mystics don't see what they do as universal, why should we impose it on them.

Because it allows one to claim a heritage that doesn't actually exist perhaps thus giving a greater sense of importance or weight to one's personal beliefs? Edited November 12, 2012 by calmoriah

[Robert F. Smith]

. . . . . . .

Sorry for the novel.

Thank you, pogi, for your very insightful comments. I hope someone takes that sort of material into consideration at next year's BYU conference on mysticism.

Bob

[harfad]

Almost all religions use music in religion. Does that mean they are all the same?

Two answers to that. Firstly, all religions don't use music in religion. Islam (in the mainstream) doesn't. It is in fact frowned upon, and would be regarded as sacrilegious. Sufism is "counter religious" in that sense in the use of music in religion. It may be tolerated, but is regarded as "un-Islamic" by the strict orthodoxy in the mainstream of the religion. Secondly, let us assume that you are right, and all religions do use music in religion (most of them probably do). That does not mean that all of the religions are the same, but it does suggest at least one common thread running through them—music in religion. Now if you found a sub-culture in all (or nearly all) major religions all of whom share a lot of common threads between them (much more than the mainstream of the respective religions do, i.e. mysticism), what conclusion would you draw about the aggregate of those subcultures within those religions?

Also, I do not accept that similarities that can be found among various mystical traditions are necessarily the result of "borrowings". That may be the conclusion of secular scholarship, but not necessarily true. I believe that mysticism has been an inspired movement within all major religions, and the similarities among them have arisen from inspiration rather than borrowings from other cultures and religions.

[harfad]

Another thing to bear in mind is that mystics within a single religion often disagree with one another in all sorts of important ways. Compare the neo-mystical new age Kabbalah of the Bergs' Kabbalah Centre with traditional Kabbalists who often view them as complete apostates--teaching Kabbalah to women and even Gentiles, of all things!

You are taking a superficial look at mysticism in religion. Mysticism has had a long history in all major religions where it has developed, and has had its ups and downs, and has had its periods of corruption and decay. What passes off as mysticism in a particular religious tradition today may not be the same as what it was in the golden age of that religion.

[harfad]

Baal Shem Tov was viewed as a heretic by many Kabbalists too. The point is if actual practicing traditional mystics don't see what they do as universal, why should we impose it on them.

See my previous post. I do not classify as mysticisim everything that passes off as mysticism, or everything that claims that heritage; any more than I would lump an apostate religion together with its unapostate version as though they were one and the same, and indistinguishable from one another.

[Calm]

Two answers to that. Firstly, all religions don't use music in religion.

That is not what Dr. Hamblin stated.

Almost all religions use music in religion.

Now if you found a sub-culture in all (or nearly all) major religions all of whom share a lot of common threads between them (much more than the mainstream of the respective religions do, i.e. mysticism), what conclusion would you draw about the aggregate of those subcultures within those religions?

First, you need to demonstrate that the commonalities are more than coincidence, otherwise one may commit the error of parallelism. Edited November 12, 2012 by calmoriah

[harfad]

That is not what Dr. Hamblin stated.

The main point I was making was that mysticism can be counter-religious sometimes and come into conflict with the mainstream of that religion.

First, you need to demonstrate that the commonalities are more than coincidence, otherwise one may commit the error of parallelism.

The commonalities are sufficiently numerous and significant that it has been generally recognised in the scholarly community that they must be more than just coincidences. The debate has been about how they came about. The secular scholarly world have tried to explain them by suggesting "borrowings" or "cross-cultural" influences; but their attempt to demonstrate this historically or with documentary evidence has never been very successful. But there is another possible explanation. I believe that these movements have been divinely indpired, and the similarities between them have arisen independently by inspiration rather than dependently by borrowing from one another.

[pogi]

Bill and Volgadon,

Mysticism is not a set of dogma, or outward practices. You guys are defining religion, not mysticism. Mysticism put quite simply, is the personal experience of deity. It is the actual experience, not the steps you take, or rules that you follow to have that experience.

[Bill Hamblin]

Two answers to that. Firstly, all religions don't use music in religion. Islam (in the mainstream) doesn't. It is in fact frowned upon, and would be regarded as sacrilegious. Sufism is "counter religious" in that sense in the use of music in religion. It may be tolerated, but is regarded as "un-Islamic" by the strict orthodoxy in the mainstream of the religion. Secondly, let us assume that you are right, and all religions do use music in religion (most of them probably do). That does not mean that all of the religions are the same, but it does suggest at least one common thread running through them—music in religion. Now if you found a sub-culture in all (or nearly all) major religions all of whom share a lot of common threads between them (much more than the mainstream of the respective religions do, i.e. mysticism), what conclusion would you draw about the aggregate of those subcultures within those religions?

One of the key rituals in Islam is the chanting of the Qur'an, done in mosques, funerals, weddings, etc. It's music.

[Bill Hamblin]

Bill and Volgadon,

Mysticism is not a set of dogma, or outward practices. You guys are defining religion, not mysticism. Mysticism put quite simply, is the personal experience of deity. It is the actual experience, not the steps you take, or rules that you follow to have that experience.

I didn't say it was. The problem is precisely that there is no universal definition of mysticism. You have your definition. Many agree with it. Many don't. And more importantly, the mystics themselves don't agree among themselves. And for many the path and stages are absolutely crucial. According to them, you can't experience God without following the path and stages. And, of course, Buddhist mysticism is NOT about the personal experience of God. It is about extinction/nirvana. So, by your definition, Zen (not the only form of Buddhist mysticism, by the way) is not mysticism.