Mysticism And Mormon Spirituality

[harfad]

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.

The Gregorian Chants are some kind of songs or hymns. Some of them are litanies which are repeated over and over, which is why I suppose they are called chants. They are not recitations—dude!

[volgadon]

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 amezuzah over every entrance, or, in the case of one woman, scoffed 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.

I should also add that one of the clearest expressions of this is the genre of kabbalistic ethical literature that flourished during the 16th-18th centuries. A nice introduction is Aryeh Wineman's "Ethical Tales From the Kabbalah." These are incredibly dogmatic tales, with few exceptions.

[volgadon]

The Gregorian Chants are some kind of songs or hymns. Some of them are litanies which are repeated over and over, which is why I suppose they are called chants. They are not recitations—dude!

http://www.voiceofunity.com/melodies-of-the-quran Time to put your shovel away.

[mfbukowski]

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.

Yes, I understand what you mean and you could be right.

[volgadon]

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

You might be interested in reading the late Alan Segal's "Paul the Convert," a whole chapter is devoted to that question.

[mfbukowski]

The Gregorian Chants are some kind of songs or hymns. Some of them are litanies which are repeated over and over, which is why I suppose they are called chants. They are not recitations—dude!

You are wrong. Among other uses, they were used most commonly as responses at Mass. And have you ever heard Gregorian chant? They are not "songs" or "hymns" by any stretch of the imagination.

Edited November 13, 2012 by mfbukowski

[volgadon]

Yes, I understand what you mean and you could be right.

Look at my post #106. Real mystics, real faces, real neighbours, yet their mystic experience of God was poles apart, and almost diametrically opposed.

Edited November 13, 2012 by volgadon

[Bill Hamblin]

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?

Mystical experiences are generally described as ineffable, meaning they are the one facet of mysticism that cannot be examined from the outside. All we can go on is descriptions of mystical experiences, which are always intimately tied to a particular religion, symbol set, context, time and place. So, although it is regularly claimed that, at their core, mystical experiences are the same, in fact it is impossible to demonstrate this. Even when made by a mystic, it is an assertion, since no mystic can ever know another's ineffable mystical experience.

[Bill Hamblin]

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.

When did I say there aren't similarities? Being similar is not being the same.

[volgadon]

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've been trying to get people to do that all along.

[mfbukowski]

So, although it is regularly claimed that, at their core, mystical experiences are the same, in fact it is impossible to demonstrate this.

Yes I think I get it now. As I said myself

Perhaps that is it right there- how are we to know they are "similar" if they are described so differently?

They cannot be demonstrated to be the "same" since they are described so differently and all we have to go on is the descriptions.

OK- that was my initial reaction to the question and now I see why that initial instinct was right.

[harfad]

You are wrong. Among other uses, they were used most commonly as responses at Mass. And have you ever heard Gregorian chant? They are not "songs" or "hymns" by any stretch of the imagination.

Well then what are they? I wouldn't call them recitations either. Take a look at the website linked below. It lists their lyrics with English translations. They look like hymns or songs to me, some of them being litanies which are repeated over.

https://www.chantcd.com/index.php/page/shop:lyrics

[mfbukowski]

When did I say there aren't similarities? Being similar is not being the same.

Yep. No way to show that they are.

[mfbukowski]

Well then what are they? I wouldn't call them recitations either. Take a look at the website linked below. It lists their lyrics with English translations. They look like hymns or songs to me, some of them being litanies which are repeated over.

https://www.chantcd....age/shop:lyrics

They are sung prayers. Just please quit while you are behind on this. Even if used as a litany it is a sung prayer. You do not understand Catholic prayers or responses at Mass. These are virtually all Catholic prayers. Suppose we sung our sacrament prayers or the endowment was sung rather than spoken. Do you get it now?

(Not a bad idea....)

[harfad]

They are sung prayers. Just please quit while you are behind on this. Even if used as a litany it is a sung prayer. You do not understand Catholic prayers or responses at Mass. These are virtually all Catholic prayers. Suppose we sung our sacrament prayers or the endowment was sung rather than spoken. Do you get it now?

No. Pray tell what any of this has to do with the recitation of the Qur'an.

[mfbukowski]

No. Pray tell what any of this has to do with the recitation of the Qur'an.

Uh, nothing. Don't worry about it.

[harfad]

Uh, nothing. Don't worry about it.

So you finally decided to put your shovel away, did you. About time too.

[volgadon]

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.

"We the undersigned, twelve of us, corresponding to the number of the tribes of Judah, agree to love one another with great love of soul and body, all for the purpose of giving satisfaction to our Creator through our single minded association, although we are separated. Each man's soul will be bound to that of his associate so that the twelve of us will be as one man greatly to be admired. Each one of us will think of his associate as if the latter were part of his very limbs, with all his soul and with all his might, so that if, God forbid, anyone of us will suffer tribulation all of us together and each one of us separately will help him in every possible way.... To sum up, from now and forever after we are met together, we are associated, we are joined, we are bound to the others as if we were one man."

This is part of Sharabi's pact of friendship (or charter of mutual attachment) which the mystics of Beit-El signed. I provided the quote as it is found in Cohn-Sherbok's "Jewish and Christian Mysticism: An Introduction."

This is what Cohn-Sherbok left out.

"The main principle is that each of us will rebuke his associate when, God forbid, he hears of any sin the latter has committed. This embraces the obligation of the undersigned to bind ourselves together in the mighty bond of love."

And so on.

[mfbukowski]

So you finally decided to put your shovel away, did you. About time too.

No. I'm just tired of yelling down a hole. I have to yell louder and louder every time.

[volgadon]

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.

Harfad, before you keep posting, please answer Cal's CFR.

[pogi]

Look at my post #106. Real mystics, real faces, real neighbours, yet their mystic experience of God was poles apart, and almost diametrically opposed.

I read your post #106

I failed to recognize any difference in the experience of God. In fact you didn't even mention an experience with God. I would be currious to hear their actual experiencces with God and compare how similar they really are.

I think that we all agree that the modes of each mystic may vary greatly, What is intriguing is how their experiences are so similar, almost as if they were from the same source

[volgadon]

I read your post #106

I failed to recognize any difference in the experience of God. In fact you didn't even mention an experience with God. I would be currious to hear their actual experiencces with God and compare how similar they really are.

I think that we all agree that the modes of each mystic may vary greatly, What is intriguing is how their experiences are so similar, almost as if they were from the same source

I find it telling that you can't see how one mystic's experience may be radically different if he accepts commandments as integral to God's nature than his friend, who holds that commandments are no part of God. What is at question here is the identity of the God, rather than an abstract experience.

[wenglund]

Once the definition of "mystic" is definitively settled, we can then move on to definitively decide upon the definition of "Christian," and this so as to accurately identify "Christian mystics".

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[pogi]

I find it telling that you can't see how one mystic's experience may be radically different if he accepts commandments as integral to God's nature than his friend, who holds that commandments are no part of God. What is at question here is the identity of the God, rather than an abstract experience.

I find it telling that you can't share with me how their experience of God is different. So, please share, how are their experiences different (not their practices and beliefs)?

It is the abstract experience that makes a mystic a mystic. It is what sets them apart from the rest. Their perceived identity of God does not set them apart as mystics, it is the experience of God.

Edited November 13, 2012 by pogi

[mfbukowski]

I would be currious to hear their actual experiencces with God and compare how similar they really are.

Here's the problem: suppose you told us your experience. I can guarantee that first, it would be in 21st century English and secondly that it would entail a lot of similes and metaphors about what it was "like".

Just as one cannot explain the color red to a blind person, your experience would also be indescribable except in common terms used in English today. If one was describing a red sunset to one who was blind, using sound analogies it immediately becomes clear how impossible it is to describe a simple experience like that of color. Try it.

"The color red is like the sound of a trumpet, it draws your attention instantly and demands to be noticed. It pushes itself to the foreground and seems to make the background recede into insignificance; it is also the color of blood and carries with it all the passion that fact connotes. "

I don't know- that is my very feeble attempt. But it really doesn't say much if you have never seen red and don't have a clue what I am talking about.

Yet that is totally based on my present vocabulary and is culturally based. The idea that red is associated with "passion" is culturally based, the use of the word "trumpet" would be unrecognizable to a culture which did not have trumpets, but say, only stringed instruments. Further the whole idea of "demanding to be noticed" is a Western idea- those raised in other cultures may not see it that way at all.

Studies have been done about how different cultures perceive things, for example a landscape containing a picture of mountains and a barn in the distance with people working was shown to people of different cultures for 3 seconds and then they were asked to describe the picture. Asians tended to report only seeing a landscape, and Westerners tended to see the barn and the people and ignore the landscape.

The way we see things and understand what we have seen is very much culturally based and so of course then our descriptions are even more so, factoring in the differences in languages.

And then we have the additional problem of somehow showing that two experiences expressed in different cultural contexts and in different languages were somehow the "same".

In order to do that, one would have to be able to get "outside" own's own cultural context, look at the other contexts somehow magically filtering out their descriptions, and say "yep- they're the same".

It cannot be done. It is exactly the same problem I have discussed here so often about getting outside of the descriptions of language to see things without a linguistic context and report back- using language- what one saw "outside" of language.

It cannot be done. It is as if one mystic wears rose tinted glasses another wears yellow tinted glasses another grey tinted glasses and now you ask them what color they have observed, while you are wearing blue tinted glasses.

The problem is you cannot take off the glasses to see the "true" color- the best you can do is pretend that somehow the color you see is the "same" as the others. There is no way to do that however!