Mysticism And Mormon Spirituality

[harfad]

So notice we are back to the problem of definition, which is precisely where we started. We can't have a coherent discussion because we are all talking about something different and calling it "mysticism."

No, the problem I am here describing is one of identification, not definition. You can correctly identify something without being able to define it. I can identify genuine mysticism without necessarily being able to define it. A US judge famously declared, "I can't define potnography, but I can recognize it when I see it!"

[harfad]

The question is not "what is authentic mysticism?" The question is "what is mysticism?" Only when mysticism is understood can we even begin to evaluate what is authentic mysticism.

Mysticism is a quest to go beyond dogmatic and ritualistic beliefs and practices of mundane religion and make direct contact with the divine. I am not giving this as a definition, but as an identification mark.

[harfad]

From a more positive perspective, I would say that a fundamental characteristic of all mysticisms (note the plural) is that they are esoteric. Mysticism is based on a believe that:

1- there is more to reality than the material world--there is an esoteric reality

2- there is more to the individual than his physical self--there is an inner, esoteric self

3- most importantly, there is more to sacred texts than the exoteric meaning--there is a divinely inspired esoteric meaning

4- the esoteric interpretation of sacred texts is the foundational method of comprehending the esoteric reality behind the material world and self

I believe that all forms of mysticisms share these four assumptions. That is to say: all mysticism is esoteric, although not all esotericisms are mystical.

I wouldn't describe esotericism as the fundamental feature of mysticism. Mysticism is about making you a better person. It tries to achieve its goal of drawing you closer to God by helping you become a better person.

[Bill Hamblin]

Mysticism is a quest to go beyond dogmatic and ritualistic beliefs and practices of mundane religion and make direct contact with the divine. I am not giving this as a definition, but as an identification mark.

There are numerous mystic dogmas and rituals in most mystical traditions. Your opinion simply doesn't correlate with beliefs and practices of many people and traditions which claim to be mystics.

[Bill Hamblin]

Another characteristic of mysticism, which I think could be considered universal, is its interior nature. Mysticism is something associated with the inner spiritual life of a mystic. (This is not to cay that all activities of the inner spiritual life are necessarily mystical. On the other hand:

1- Traditional mystics are not necessarily individualistic. Mystics frequently form groups that are often communal or even communitarian

2- Traditional mystics form master-disciple relationships, from whom they learn the mystic path and life.

3- Mystics frequently form schools, groups, and movements with dogmas, rules, rituals and practices of the mystical life

Thus, although the mystical experience is individual and interior, the mystical life is social and communal. In most traditional forms of it is believed that one cannot have a mystical experience without first living the mystical life.

[harfad]

There are numerous mystic dogmas and rituals in most mystical traditions. Your opinion simply doesn't correlate with beliefs and practices of many people and traditions which claim to be mystics.

It appears that you are not understanding half the time what I am talking about. I did not say that mysticism does not have its own rituals or traditions, or that it is trying to get away from them altogether. Its traditions and rituals are geared towards achieving its own goals, which are not identical to the goals of the mainstream of that religion. I said that it tries to go beyond those in order to achieve a goal which the mainstream of that religion does not offer—i.e. making direct contact with the divine.

[mfbukowski]

I presume you are referring to the tajwid. First of all that is not a chant. To chant means to repeat the same phrase over and over again in rhythmic tones, like "We want justice," repeated over and over. The Qur'an is not chanted. You can call the tajwid music if you like, but the Muslims would be the last to call it that. That is properly called a recitation, like reciting poetry in English.

Holy cow. Have you ever heard of Gregorian Chant?

Dude you really should quit while you're behind- far behind. When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.

[Calm]

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.

CFR.....and something besides Wiki please. If it has been generally recognised it should be easy enough to come up with at least a couple of solid quotes.

[Calm]

Recognising the existence of a phenomenon is not equivalent to being able to define it

Not sure it that qualifies as "recognition" then....

[pogi]

Another characteristic of mysticism, which I think could be considered universal, is its interior nature. Mysticism is something associated with the inner spiritual life of a mystic. (This is not to cay that all activities of the inner spiritual life are necessarily mystical. On the other hand:

1- Traditional mystics are not necessarily individualistic. Mystics frequently form groups that are often communal or even communitarian

2- Traditional mystics form master-disciple relationships, from whom they learn the mystic path and life.

3- Mystics frequently form schools, groups, and movements with dogmas, rules, rituals and practices of the mystical life

Thus, although the mystical experience is individual and interior, the mystical life is social and communal. In most traditional forms of it is believed that one cannot have a mystical experience without first living the mystical life.

I guess the question is, where does religion and/or spiritual/philosophical practice end and mysticism begin? Because, again, it sounds like you are defining religion to me.

I would argue that mysticism is separate from a list of do's and do not's, but is rather the transcendence or result of the do's and do not's. It is not always an individual experience, but can be experienced as a group. It is always a unifying experience. People become at one.

While the mystical life may be important to a mystic, it does not define the mystic. It is the mystical experience that defines the mystic. One cannot be a mystic without having a mystical experience, despite the lifestyle he/she may live. Mysticism should therefore not be defined by practice, rather by experience.

Though I am not as familiar with the world religions as many of you posting, I would venture that all mystics can relate to commonalities in the experience. Dreams, visions, enlightenment, clarity, knowledge, endowments, change of heart, inner peace, burning in the bosom, still small voice, etc. I recently read a book about the Buddhist practice of mindfulness. I was surprised to read a common experience described as "the still small voice of reason". Whether they attribute it to a deity or not, a Mormon would be quick to recognize the Holy Spirit.

Our experiences are the same, our explanations or understandings of what those experiences are may differ. I attribute it all to God.

[Bill Hamblin]

I guess the question is, where does religion and/or spiritual/philosophical practice end and mysticism begin? Because, again, it sounds like you are defining religion to me.

I would argue that mysticism is separate from a list of do's and do not's, but is rather the transcendence or result of the do's and do not's. It is not always an individual experience, but can be experienced as a group. It is always a unifying experience. People become at one.

While the mystical life may be important to a mystic, it does not define the mystic. It is the mystical experience that defines the mystic. One cannot be a mystic without having a mystical experience, despite the lifestyle he/she may live. Mysticism should therefore not be defined by practice, rather by experience.

Though I am not as familiar with the world religions as many of you posting, I would venture that all mystics can relate to commonalities in the experience. Dreams, visions, enlightenment, clarity, knowledge, endowments, change of heart, inner peace, burning in the bosom, still small voice, etc. I recently read a book about the Buddhist practice of mindfulness. I was surprised to read a common experience described as "the still small voice of reason". Whether they attribute it to a deity or not, a Mormon would be quick to recognize the Holy Spirit.

Our experiences are the same, our explanations or understandings of what those experiences are may differ. I attribute it all to God.

I am simply describing what actual traditional mystics say, believe and do. I am not proscribing what they should do. If we want to understand mysticism, we should at least pay some attention to what traditional mystics believe and practice.

[pogi]

I am simply describing what actual traditional mystics say, believe and do. I am not proscribing what they should do. If we want to understand mysticism, we should at least pay some attention to what traditional mystics believe and practice.

I didn't think that you were trying to proscribe what they should do. It sounds like you were saying that what they do prescribes them as mystics. I disagree. A mystic is not a mystic because of what they do, rather what is done to them. There is a transcendent element that goes beyond action or inaction. Mystics do not transform themselves into mystics, rather, they are transformed.

I agree with you that we should pay some attention to what mystics believe and practice if we want to understand mysticism. I still stand firm, however, that what they believe and practice does not define the mystic, their experience does.

The mystic does not choose the mystic, God chooses the mystic. If you really want to understand mysticism, perhaps we would gain more insight by studying God rather than the mystic. This makes sense as it seems the most common means to mystic experience is prayer/meditation.

Edited November 13, 2012 by pogi

[Calm]

If you really want to understand mysticism, perhaps we would gain more insight by studying God rather than the mystic. This makes sense as it seems the most common means to mystic experience is prayer/meditation.

There is a difference between the academic/scholar approach and the experiential approach. Expecting the first to be similar to the second is unrealistic.

[pogi]

There is a difference between the academic/scholar approach and the experiential approach. Expecting the first to be similar to the second is unrealistic.

I'd disagree. "Experience is the greatest teacher." - Benjamin Franklin

Edited November 13, 2012 by pogi

[mfbukowski]

The mystic does not choose the mystic, God chooses the mystic. If you really want to understand mysticism, perhaps we would gain more insight by studying God rather than the mystic. This makes sense as it seems the most common means to mystic experience is prayer/meditation.

I think the point is more along the lines of If one is chosen as a mystic, why then do their beliefs regarding God differ?

And here you seem to be saying two different things- that God chooses the mystic but yet the mystic must study and meditate first. If there is a path to mystical experience, one cannot determine if it is the path or God which induces the experience. If an ungodly person were out plowing the field and got zapped THAT would be evidence that God chooses- if the experience happens after meditation and study, one might think that it was the path which helped along the experience.

I feel I know a little about this subject because what made me Mormon was an overwhelming spiritual experience which was fundamentally life transformational, but yet it came after study and meditation, as you yourself suggest above, and surprise surprise, what I had studied was Mormonism and so I saw the experience as a confirmation of Mormonism and see each additional experience in the same way.

One gets to a chicken/egg stage here where one could argue which came first- the experience or the study. Perhaps it doesn't matter.

But to believe that all mystics have the same view of God because their experience came from God is just plain inaccurate as is blatantly clear.

The question becomes- if all mystics have the same kind of experience, why then do they differ so profoundly in beliefs?

I don't find this difficult to answer. I think that God leads and directs us to him, and we overlay our experiences with what we believe and know previously. I think there are many paths to God- at least at first, but eventually we will all be on the same path.

But of course that is a very LDS way of seeing it- that there is "truth in all religions" but yet eventually "every knee shall bow and every tongue confess, etc."

But one cannot question that mystics belong to multiple religious traditions and see their experiences as confirming the path they are on. It is just the way things are. Each experience is individual and interpreted individually by the person who receives the experience, and there is no way to determine of the individual experience are the "same" or not when in fact people act as if they had different experiences.

I don't think that can be debated. It is blatantly obvious that mystics disagree on doctrine and would not describe their experiences as the "same as others". Each absolutely knows that theirs is "correct".

I think that the mere fact that mystics disagree on dogma shows that the personal element overwhelms the transcendence of the experience.

Edited November 13, 2012 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

There is a difference between the academic/scholar approach and the experiential approach. Expecting the first to be similar to the second is unrealistic.

Agree. It is the old first person/ third person distinction we have just expressing ideas. The mystic describes the experience in the first person- what happened to him individually while the scholar abstracts those first person accounts into the third person, speaking of what he has observed about the accounts of others. That distinction cannot be bridged in my opinion- such are the different viewpoints of the experiencer and the observer.

[Bill Hamblin]

I didn't think that you were trying to proscribe what they should do. It sounds like you were saying that what they do prescribes them as mystics. I disagree. A mystic is not a mystic because of what they do, rather what is done to them. There is a transcendent element that goes beyond action or inaction. Mystics do not transform themselves into mystics, rather, they are transformed.

I agree with you that we should pay some attention to what mystics believe and practice if we want to understand mysticism. I still stand firm, however, that what they believe and practice does not define the mystic, their experience does.

The mystic does not choose the mystic, God chooses the mystic. If you really want to understand mysticism, perhaps we would gain more insight by studying God rather than the mystic. This makes sense as it seems the most common means to mystic experience is prayer/meditation.

I'm not imposing something here on the traditional mystics. I'm telling you what the traditional mystics themselves have consistently said. I'm not making this up. My summary is based on numerous statements in primary sources from many cultures and religions. To have the mystic experience you need to first follow a master and live the mystic life. The mystic life prepares you intellectually, spiritually and morally (purgation and illumination) to be ready and worthy to receive the mystic experience (union). That's what the vast majority of traditional mystics say. Without the mystic life--following the path and the stages, etc.-- you won't obtain the beatific vision (to use Christian terms). Read McGinn's The Essential Writings of Christian Mysticism (2006) to get a sense of what I'm talking about.

[pogi]

I hear what you are saying bukowski,

I agree that the path does help along the experience, just as works helps along grace. But in the end it is God that bestows the grace, or the experience, not the doer, or the mystic. I would think that any mystic would agree. Even the Buddhist who may not attribute the experience to deity, still does not attribute it to himself.

You are right that mystics have different views of God, yet interestingly their experience of God is remarkably similar (from their own descriptions). Because a mystic experiences God in no way means that he understands God in terms of being (body vs spirit), name, doctrine, etc. That requires a prophet. We experience God individually, we understand God through prophets.

A mystical experience is a confirmation of the path that one is on as you suggest. That path will always be truth and purity of heart. Like you said, there is truth in all religions. So to will there be mystics in all religions, all disagreeing with each other about "the right path" Perhaps the path is not a dogma or practice as much as it is a state of heart.

[mfbukowski]

I hear what you are saying bukowski,

I agree that the path does help along the experience, just as works helps along grace. But in the end it is God that bestows the grace, or the experience, not the doer, or the mystic. I would think that any mystic would agree. Even the Buddhist who may not attribute the experience to deity, still does not attribute it to himself.

Absolutely. In my experiences, it has always been clear as a bell that the experience was coming from "outside" as much as a strike of lightning comes from outside, unpredicted and unanticipated and quite surprising and also completely tangible. If I could make them happen, I would want them every day and that is not possible because I am not in charge of what is happening unfortunately.

You are right that mystics have different views of God, yet interestingly their experience of God is remarkably similar (from their own descriptions). Because a mystic experiences God in no way means that he understands God in terms of being (body vs spirit), name, doctrine, etc. That requires a prophet. We experience God individually, we understand God through prophets.

That last sentence is truly profound. I think the "problem" is that we integrate the experience intellectually and linguistically and so inevitably it is described in cultural terms. As with any experience, we "translate" the experience thorough our cultural tools and organize such experiences within our own cultural frameworks.

So perhaps the answer is a kind of compromise here, understanding it in that way. Though there are similarities in the experiences, they are always explained in the cultural and linguistic framework of the mystic, and that can vary widely obviously.

A mystical experience is a confirmation of the path that one is on as you suggest. That path will always be truth and purity of heart. Like you said, there is truth in all religions. So to will there be mystics in all religions, all disagreeing with each other about "the right path" Perhaps the path is not a dogma or practice as much as it is a state of heart.

Or an intellectual expression reflecting the cultural and religious context of the one having the experience. Seeing it in that context, none of this is surprising at all, in fact one would expect it to be precisely this way.

[volgadon]

Thank you pogi, you have made a good point.

His point does a terrible job of representing traditional mystical traditions.

[mfbukowski]

I'm not imposing something here on the traditional mystics. I'm telling you what the traditional mystics themselves have consistently said. I'm not making this up. My summary is based on numerous statements in primary sources from many cultures and religions. To have the mystic experience you need to first follow a master and live the mystic life. The mystic life prepares you intellectually, spiritually and morally (purgation and illumination) to be ready and worthy to receive the mystic experience (union). That's what the vast majority of traditional mystics say. Without the mystic life--following the path and the stages, etc.-- you won't obtain the beatific vision (to use Christian terms). Read McGinn's The Essential Writings of Christian Mysticism (2006) to get a sense of what I'm talking about.

And so you yourself admit there ARE similarities. Again, I would suggest that the central experiences might be similar but described in the individual's cultural context, which is, after all, not surprising.

[mfbukowski]

His point does a terrible job of representing traditional mystical traditions.

So did I get it wrong too? What's wrong with the idea that the experiences are similar in so far as can be discerned but are expressed differently?

Perhaps that is it right there- how are we to know they are "similar" if they are described so differently? I don't have any horse in this race- I am trying to figure it out myself. So what exactly is the problem?

[blackstrap]

Do we consider Paul to be a mystic? What path did he follow in order to receive his experience?

[volgadon]

Mysticism is a quest to go beyond dogmatic and ritualistic beliefs and practices of mundane religion and make direct contact with the divine. I am not giving this as a definition, but as an identification mark.

Are you kidding?

The most dogmatic Jews tend to be the mystics as even the slightest nuance of Jewish law and practice has consequences of cosmic proportions. Failure to observe even one precept fully and properly causes damage to the soul, resulting in a cycle of transmigration that can only be broken by fully observing the missed commandment. The more one doesn't follow the commandments, the more damage to the soul, until it is forced to wander the earth, suffering unspeakable horrors inflicted by angels. This is before it can even undergo the purging torments of Gehenna!

Some of these disembodied spirits are so tormented that they seek refuge by possesing living people. They can only do this if the person has neglected some detail of dogma, such as not placing a mezuzah over every entrance, or, in the case of one woman, scoffing at the miracle of the parting of the Red Sea. For a Kabbalist, making contact with the Divine is very much a matter of ritual and dogma.

Edited November 13, 2012 by volgadon

[volgadon]

So did I get it wrong too? What's wrong with the idea that the experiences are similar in so far as can be discerned but are expressed differently?

Perhaps that is it right there- how are we to know they are "similar" if they are described so differently? I don't have any horse in this race- I am trying to figure it out myself. So what exactly is the problem?

Do you remember that vid you posted about the colour experiment conducted in Africa? I think it has relevance here.

CUltural (or, rather, religious) context makes a significant difference. So much so, that one can hardly stress it enough. Their context makes it, for all intents and purposes, an entirely different experience with different content, purpose, and meaning. To reduce it all to a universal phenomenon and goal distorts it into something that mystics would not recognise.