Mysticism And Mormon Spirituality

[mfbukowski]

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)?

The problem is that you cannot say how they are the "same". It cannot be done. You would have to have had all the experiences the others had to compare them and then decide they were all correct and the "same".

You cannot get out of your skin to compare them and you cannot have another's experience. It's folly to say they are the same- that cannot be shown.

[volgadon]

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)?

Very easy to ape my response to you rather than addressing it. You cannot take a scalpel to a mystic's practices and beliefs, separating them from the mystical experience.

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.

For a mystic, though, there is no such thing as an abstract experience of God. I've been saying that all along. The mystical experience is tied to knowledge of God.

The true path is straight, depending on an individual's concentration. He must know how to concentrate on its truth with an attachment of thought and desire derived from its unfathomable power. According to the strength of his concentration, he will then transmit power through his desire, desire through his knowledge, imagination through his thoughts, strength through his effort, and fortitude through his contemplation. When there is no other thought or desireintermingled with his concentration it can become so strong that it can transmit an influence from the Ayn Sof [infinite] …

An individual thus ascends with the strength of his concentration from one thing to the next, until he reaches the Ayn Sof.

AZRIEL OF GERONA

Edited November 13, 2012 by volgadon

[Calm]

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)?

Please describe your experience of love without reference to any action or belief about that love.

[volgadon]

Please describe your experience of love without reference to any action or belief about that love.

Ooh.

[harfad]

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.

It has been many years ago since I studied these things, and since then I have had to jettison practically all of my books on these subjects because I have had to move around so much, and got fed up with carrying too much excess baggage. I read the

Cloud of Unknowing

( a classic Christian mystical text) more than forty years ago, and compared it with other mystical traditions which I was familiar with at the time; and it has been decades now since I lost the book. The same goes for everything else I have read on these subjects, including good scholarly books and articles such as by A. J. Arberry for example, who is a very well known authority on Islamic mysticism. (A lot of his books and translations are available in PDF format online, and they make a good read; Google for "Arberry PDF" to see what you will find). For these reasons I will not be able to quote references; but I can give a general rundown of the concepts I have learned during my research into this subject decades ago.

There is a very good book on Islamic mysticism called Mirṣād al-ʻibād min al-mabdāʼ ilāʼl-maʻād by the famous 12th century Persian mystic called Najm al-Din Razi, which is practically a textbook on the practical question of how it was done. It leaves little room for ambiguity, as far as the practicality of the procedure is concerned from the point at which someone becomes a disciple, and the disciplinary procedure he has to undergo before he achieves the final state of attainment in the mystic path, where he has reached his final destination. The discipline was hard and arduous, and took several years to be completed; but the essence of it was abstinence and the chant, or ḏikr in Arabic, where a certain word or phrase is repeated over and over again. The commonest or most popular ḏikr was the Qur'anic phrase, la ilaha illallah (there is no God but Allh), repeated over and over under the supervision of a mystic master. Now this chant was not just an idle repetition. It had to be accompanied by a resolute and determined effort not only to focus on the words of the chant to the exclusion of all other extraneous thoughts, but also of all other worldly attachments, so that nothing remains in the consciousness of the disciple except God. That is basically all that the discipline entailed, coupled with abstinence from too much food, drink, sleep, and other pleasurable pursuits. That was the program, simple as that; at the end of which (after several years, depending how good you were as a disciple in following the directions of the master) you achieved your objective of oneness with the divine. You became a sage, and could do extraordinary things, and perform miracles. This book apparently has been translated into English (so I have just discovered) by someone by the name of Hamid Algar, with the title of: The Path of God's Bondsmen: From Origin to Return. I will see if I can get hold of it and read it, to see how good the translation is. I would probably translate the title a bit differently. I would translate it as, The Journey of Souls From Origin to Restoration. The meaning of the title is very significant. maʻād in Arabic means restoration (or return), but it also means resurrection. In Islamic theology resurrection and restoration are used synonymously, which is what Alma does in the Book of Mormon. The Islamic mystics believed in the preexistence. They believed that man preexisted before he was born, and entered into a covenant relationship with God in that preexistent state. The book title basically refers to man's journey from the presence of God in the preexistent state through the veil of forgetfulness which is mortality, and back to God's presence again, which occurs at and through the resurrection—as per Alma 11:43; 40:22–25; 41:1–5. The book essentially purports to guide the mystic safely along that journey home. It is an amazing book which I would recommend to be retranslated (if need be), and published as part of the Islamic text initiative of BYU.

Now the basic disciplinary procedure that the mystic follows to achieve his desired objective is as simple as that. It consists of the ḏikr, under the supervision of a Sufi master, subject to the condition described. Everything else that is talked about around it is embellishment and tends to obscures that essential disciplinary procedure.

I will mention one more interesting book which I read around thirty years ago, and have since lost it. I can neither remember the name of the book nor of its author. The only thing that I can remember about its author is that he had been a disciple of another well known mystic guru and master of the 13th century by the name of Sadruddin al-Qunawi, who himself had been the step-son and most famous disciple of Muhyiddin Ibn 'Arabi, who in turn has been recognised as possibly the greatest of the Islamic mystics and theosophers. His book was a short "do it yourself guide" on how to do mysticism. A kind of "teach yourself book" on mysticism. Normally to do that you would become disciple to a Sufi master who would guide you through the arduous process. He had written a book to teach you how to do it on your own. And his procedure basically was that you would find yourself a secluded place where you could practice undisturbed. You would still need help from someone who would provide you with food and other basic necessities (which would be minimal). An then just practise ḏikr, under abstinence and self-mortification, and subject to the principles previously discussed. That was it. After about two years of doing it properly, you would achieve your ultimate objective of the Nirvana of Islamic mysticism. Now obviously an awful lot of culture, tradition, literature and jargon has been built around this over the course of the centuries, which tends to obscure that essential feature of it; but the core essence of it was what I have just described.

Now here comes the interesting bit: this practice of achieving mystical union with God through the discipline of the chant or the ḏikr is found in nearly all mystical traditions. It has been recognised by independent scholars and discussed, although I don't have a reference to give for it right now. But you don't need to be a scholar to recognise it. All you need to have is half a brain. I should add that the Jewish traditions of Kabbalah and Zohar are a bit suspect. It is not certain if they represent authentic mystical traditions or not. I am not the only one who has expressed doubts about it. Others have as well. To find authentic Jewish mystical tradition you will have to go back to the Old Testament. But the interesting question is, Where did this commonality come from? Was it by accident? Was it by design? Was it borrowed? Was it inspired? It is too pervasive to be a coincidence.

This idea of the chant or ḏikr by the was has passed onion a somewhat corrupted form, from mysticism into mainstream religion, both Christian and Muslim. Many Muslims after saying their ritual daily ritual prayers, they do ḏikr, usually with the help of the rosary. They repeat so many times some name of God, or some other Qur'anic phrase. But that is not real mystical ḏikr. The real thing is a mighty hard mental and spiritual (and physical) exercise aimed at divesting yourself not only of unwanted thoughts, but of all worldly attachments or vain ambitions. It was more than just repeating some word or phrase over and over like an idiot.

That basically is the best I can do at the present time to answer your question. Hope it has been helpful.

[Bill Hamblin]

The belief that all mystical experiences are “ultimately one,” and thus somehow in essence are “the same” is a common modern claim, which requires some reflective analysis. It is generally made by two groups. First Neomystics generally posit a transcendental unity of religion and God, and believe that God/the Ultimate manifests him/her/itself in different ways and with different symbols to different cultures in different times. But at root, all these are culturally-based manifestations of the same transcendent God. (This belief, by the way, ultimately derives from syncretism Vedantic Hindu pantheistic assumptions.) The second group are secularists, who agree that all mystical experiences are at root the same because they are entirely internal mental phenomena caused by human brain chemistry. There is no outside reality causing the mystical experience. It is only (aberrant?) brain chemistry that humans wrongly believe to be caused by an external force of some kind. These two groups thus share this universalist mystical claim, though for drastically different reasons.

Our knowledge of the nature and meaning of mystical experiences drives from two sources: 1- personal mystical experience, and 2- reports of the mystical experiences of others. However, mystics almost universally claim that mystical experiences are ineffable. They cannot be explained to others. They cannot be learned from others. They must be experienced first hand to be understood. Thus, studying reports of the mystical experiences of others is an inadequate means of understanding the reality of mystical experiences. The mystics themselves insist upon this. As Laozi, one of the great Chinese mystics, said: zhī zhě bù yàn; yàn zhě bù zhī. (“He who knows does not speak; he who speaks does not know.”) What mystics report--and can only report--is an inadequate symbolic, allegorical model of what they experience. But map is not territory. Looking at a map of Tibet is nowhere near the experience of visiting Tibet. It lets you know there is a place called Tibet, and it will help you know how to get there, but it is not visiting Tibet.

Now, from a practical and objective point of view, what mystics report of their actual mystical experiences are often dramatically, even drastically different. Yes, many mystics report that they feel an intense, overwhelming bliss and joy, and a oneness with God. But no Buddhist or Hindu mystic ever reports seeing the Virgin Mary crowned with twelve stars (Rev. 12:1). No medieval Christian mystic ever reports having oneness with the divine while have ritual physical sex like Tantric Hindu mystics might. No traditional Jewish mystic is ever tempted by the demon Mara like Tibetan mystics are. Without a pre-existing assumption that all mystical experiences are somehow one, no one reading the actual reports of the vastly different mystical experiences from many different cultures and times would possibly assume they are describing the same thing. The reports are, in fact, extraordinarily diverse.

Thus, the claim that all mystical experiences are the same is in fact an esoteric interpretation of the “real” meaning of mystical experiences, which are themselves esoteric descriptions of spiritual phenomena. It is further esotericizing the already esoteric. In fact, it represents a devaluation of the authenticity of the mystical claims of traditional mystics. A Muslim, Christian, or Jewish mystic believes that their mystical experience represents an authentic encounter with God. The Neomystics (along with the secularists), on the other hand, claim that the traditional mystics have fundamentally misunderstood their own mystical experience. A traditional Christian mystic might claim she actually saw the real Virgin Mary. The universalistic claim of the Neomystics implies that the vision of the Virgin Mary is not an authentic encounter with God in and of itself, but is a cultural-based symbol, which is in fact a further barrier to the real authentic encounter with the transcendental God beyond and behind the symbols of all traditional mystical experiences. In reality, the claim that all mystical experiences are ultimately the same is a culturally-based belief just as much as the claim that a medieval Christian mystic saw the Virgin Mary. It is not the reconciliation, transcending and uniting of all mystical experiences. It is, in fact, a new culturally based (mis-?) understanding of traditional mystical experiences, which necessarily devalues those traditional mystical experiences. It is a new form mysticism, which, while claiming to unite all others, in fact creates a new, different mystical system.

[pogi]

You are right, I understand that perceptions and descriptions of the experience may differ within different cultural contexts, but what is remarkable is that all mystics, despite language, cultural, and perception differences, somehow always describe them in the same types of ways.

I listed some examples previously: Dreams, visions, inner peace, still small voice, clarity, change of heart, love, light, oneness. It is common for many to describe experiencing darkness before being brought into the light. We all experience God in these same types of ways.

The phrase "still small voice" might make no sense to some mystics, but when we use other adjectives such as peaceful, or gentle intuition, they know what I am talking about. What is remarkable is that despite cultural, theological, and language differences we often still use the same exact vernacular to describe the same type of experience such as "still small voice," when it is often not even a voice at all.

[pogi]

Please describe your experience of love without reference to any action or belief about that love.

Ok, let me describe it to you as it relates to the way I feel God's love. Tender affection, warm, caring, oneness, light, accepting, amity, rapture, joy, peace, nirvana, serenity, clarity, compassion. It feels as if I am an infant being embraced skin to skin with my mother and nourished and filled by the warmth of her milk. You are right, it is tough to describe because the only word that really works is love. But, by using other adjectives and descriptions, you probably can relate to such a feeling, can you not?

[Bill Hamblin]

Ok, let me describe it to you as it relates to the way I feel God's love. Tender affection, warm, caring, oneness, light, accepting, amity, rapture, joy, peace, nirvana, serenity, clarity, compassion. It feels as if I am an infant being embraced skin to skin with my mother and nourished and filled by the warmth of her milk. You are right, it is tough to describe because the only word that really works is love. But, by using other adjectives and descriptions, you probably can relate to such a feeling, can you not?

Describing love is not feeling love. And you can't understand love unless you've felt it​.

[pogi]

You cannot take a scalpel to a mystic's practices and beliefs, separating them from the mystical experience.

Why not? They are separate experiences, even if one is derived from the other. One is something that a person does, the other is something that happens to them. There, I separated them. Example: A cake is more than it's ingredients. It requires external heat (God).

Your beliefs and practices are the ingredients. God is the heat of the oven. Different ingredients make different types of cake, but the heat is the constant variable that makes all baked cakes into cakes. My argument that the heat (experience of God) is the same, not the cakes. Some cakes are better than others, and in the end God will only accept one type of cake with very specific ingredients.

[pogi]

Describing love is not feeling love. And you can't understand love unless you've felt it​.

You are right, and all mystics claim to have felt God's love and describe it in the same way. Even when you feel it, it is not so easy to understand.

[mfbukowski]

Very easy to ape my response to you rather than addressing it. You cannot take a scalpel to a mystic's practices and beliefs, separating them from the mystical experience.

For a mystic, though, there is no such thing as an abstract experience of God. I've been saying that all along. The mystical experience is tied to knowledge of God.

The true path is straight, depending on an individual's concentration. He must know how to concentrate on its truth with an attachment of thought and desire derived from its unfathomable power. According to the strength of his concentration, he will then transmit power through his desire, desire through his knowledge, imagination through his thoughts, strength through his effort, and fortitude through his contemplation. When there is no other thought or desireintermingled with his concentration it can become so strong that it can transmit an influence from the Ayn Sof [infinite] …

An individual thus ascends with the strength of his concentration from one thing to the next, until he reaches the Ayn Sof.

AZRIEL OF GERONA

See I totally disagree that such experience requires "concentration". I think it requires the opposite of concentration- emptying the mind so that God can come it. It requires total surrender to whatever God decides to give, and then indeed one ascends. But indeed that surrender requires genuine discipline and what we would call a "sincere heart and real intent".

The entire point is that if we would argue about it, we would be arguing about words and semantics but unfortunately that is all we have to describe things. Besides who am I to argue with Azriel of Gerona? Who am I not to? But I am not bringing it up to argue about it- because that is pointless. And that itself is the point- we all express these things differently

All we know is what we personally have experienced!

Edited November 13, 2012 by mfbukowski

[pogi]

For a mystic, though, there is no such thing as an abstract experience of God. I've been saying that all along. The mystical experience is tied to knowledge of God.

I agree. However, knowledge of God and experiencing God is different from knowing God in his fulness. I have a knowledge of math, I have experienced math. Can I say that I know math? Parts and pieces. Compared to some, I am ignorant. Compared to others, I am a genius! It's the same with God.

One cannot know God in his fulness unless he is like God and can comprehend all things. Unless you comprehend his fulness, experiencing him is pretty abstract, though your knowledge of him may be pure and true.

[mfbukowski]

The belief that all mystical experiences are “ultimately one,” and thus somehow in essence are “the same” is a common modern claim, which requires some reflective analysis. It is generally made by two groups. First Neomystics generally posit a transcendental unity of religion and God, and believe that God/the Ultimate manifests him/her/itself in different ways and with different symbols to different cultures in different times. But at root, all these are culturally-based manifestations of the same transcendent God. (This belief, by the way, ultimately derives from syncretism Vedantic Hindu pantheistic assumptions.) The second group are secularists, who agree that all mystical experiences are at root the same because they are entirely internal mental phenomena caused by human brain chemistry. There is no outside reality causing the mystical experience. It is only (aberrant?) brain chemistry that humans wrongly believe to be caused by an external force of some kind. These two groups thus share this universalist mystical claim, though for drastically different reasons.

Our knowledge of the nature and meaning of mystical experiences drives from two sources: 1- personal mystical experience, and 2- reports of the mystical experiences of others. However, mystics almost universally claim that mystical experiences are ineffable. They cannot be explained to others. They cannot be learned from others. They must be experienced first hand to be understood. Thus, studying reports of the mystical experiences of others is an inadequate means of understanding the reality of mystical experiences. The mystics themselves insist upon this. As Laozi, one of the great Chinese mystics, said: zhī zhě bù yàn; yàn zhě bù zhī. (“He who knows does not speak; he who speaks does not know.”) What mystics report--and can only report--is an inadequate symbolic, allegorical model of what they experience. But map is not territory. Looking at a map of Tibet is nowhere near the experience of visiting Tibet. It lets you know there is a place called Tibet, and it will help you know how to get there, but it is not visiting Tibet.

Now, from a practical and objective point of view, what mystics report of their actual mystical experiences are often dramatically, even drastically different. Yes, many mystics report that they feel an intense, overwhelming bliss and joy, and a oneness with God. But no Buddhist or Hindu mystic ever reports seeing the Virgin Mary crowned with twelve stars (Rev. 12:1). No medieval Christian mystic ever reports having oneness with the divine while have ritual physical sex like Tantric Hindu mystics might. No traditional Jewish mystic is ever tempted by the demon Mara like Tibetan mystics are. Without a pre-existing assumption that all mystical experiences are somehow one, no one reading the actual reports of the vastly different mystical experiences from many different cultures and times would possibly assume they are describing the same thing. The reports are, in fact, extraordinarily diverse.

Thus, the claim that all mystical experiences are the same is in fact an esoteric interpretation of the “real” meaning of mystical experiences, which are themselves esoteric descriptions of spiritual phenomena. It is further esotericizing the already esoteric. In fact, it represents a devaluation of the authenticity of the mystical claims of traditional mystics. A Muslim, Christian, or Jewish mystic believes that their mystical experience represents an authentic encounter with God. The Neomystics (along with the secularists), on the other hand, claim that the traditional mystics have fundamentally misunderstood their own mystical experience. A traditional Christian mystic might claim she actually saw the real Virgin Mary. The universalistic claim of the Neomystics implies that the vision of the Virgin Mary is not an authentic encounter with God in and of itself, but is a cultural-based symbol, which is in fact a further barrier to the real authentic encounter with the transcendental God beyond and behind the symbols of all traditional mystical experiences. In reality, the claim that all mystical experiences are ultimately the same is a culturally-based belief just as much as the claim that a medieval Christian mystic saw the Virgin Mary. It is not the reconciliation, transcending and uniting of all mystical experiences. It is, in fact, a new culturally based (mis-?) understanding of traditional mystical experiences, which necessarily devalues those traditional mystical experiences. It is a new form mysticism, which, while claiming to unite all others, in fact creates a new, different mystical system.

Shall we get into the "ontological reality" then of what is experienced in mystic experiences? I suppose it would be a derail. How do we know that mystic experiences are "real" or "true" then?

This is only a problem for those who believe that truth reflects an "ontological reality" beyond what we experience to which our experiences "correspond".

I of course do not have that problem because I think that what we experience- including spiritual experiences- ARE "reality".

But as I said, I suppose that is a derail. The problem of course is that just as there is no way to check if mystics are experiencing the "same thing", there is no way to check our experience of anything against this mysterious "ontological reality" to which what we experience allegedly "corresponds".

I think it would be difficult to maintain a belief in an "ontological reality" beyond experience (and therefore a belief in a correspondence theory or truth) AND be able to say that the experience of mystics is "real". With all the disagreement what "reality" do such experiences "correspond" to then?

But of course I suppose that would be a derail.

[mfbukowski]

duplicate

Edited November 13, 2012 by mfbukowski

[pogi]

Now, from a practical and objective point of view, what mystics report of their actual mystical experiences are often dramatically, even drastically different. Yes, many mystics report that they feel an intense, overwhelming bliss and joy, and a oneness with God. But no Buddhist or Hindu mystic ever reports seeing the Virgin Mary crowned with twelve stars (Rev. 12:1). No medieval Christian mystic ever reports having oneness with the divine while have ritual physical sex like Tantric Hindu mystics might. No traditional Jewish mystic is ever tempted by the demon Mara like Tibetan mystics are. Without a pre-existing assumption that all mystical experiences are somehow one, no one reading the actual reports of the vastly different mystical experiences from many different cultures and times would possibly assume they are describing the same thing. The reports are, in fact, extraordinarily diverse.

Thus, the claim that all mystical experiences are the same is in fact an esoteric interpretation of the “real” meaning of mystical experiences, which are themselves esoteric descriptions of spiritual phenomena. It is further esotericizing the already esoteric.

Again, you are describing the ritual, not so much the experience. For example: Tantric Hindu mystics physical sex while experiencing oneness with God. Physical sex - ritual. Oneness with God - experience. Medieval Christians and Tantric Hindus thus relate to the experience if not the ritual.

Differences in visions and dreams are not differences in types of experiences. They are both experiencing visions and dreams that are recognized as divinely given. Interpreting these visions and dreams is where you get into esotericism. Noting that they are having the same types of experiences is not esotericisizing the already esoteric. They are indeed reporting the same types of experiences.

Edited November 13, 2012 by pogi

[pogi]

Please ignore this post, I can't delete the darned thing.

Edited November 13, 2012 by pogi

[mfbukowski]

Again, you are describing the ritual, not so much the experience. For example: Tantric Hindu mystics physical sex while experiencing oneness with God. Physical sex - ritual. Oneness with God - experience. Medieval Christians and Tantric Hindus thus relate to the experience if not the ritual.

Differences in visions and dreams are not differences in experiences. They are both experiencing visions and dreams that are recognized as divinely given. Interpreting these visions and dreams is where you get into esotericism. Noting that they are having the same types of experiences is not esotericisizing the already esoteric. They are indeed reporting the same types of experiences.

The problem is you can support none of this with evidence. Maybe you don't want to. But that is kind of the point. I can guarantee that a mystic practicing sex while feeling a oneness with God is not having the same experience as one who would find such a thing horrifying.

[pogi]

The problem is you can support none of this with evidence. Maybe you don't want to. But that is kind of the point. I can guarantee that a mystic practicing sex while feeling a oneness with God is not having the same experience as one who would find such a thing horrifying.

The evidence is in the testimonies of the their experiences. "In the mouth of two or three witnesses." While I cannot prove that they are experiencing the same spirit, there certainly is strong evidence in the similarities of their testimonies.

How can you guarantee as you claim, that the oneness they feel with God is not the same? From what I've read and heard, they certainly seem to describe it in the same way.

[Calm]

Ok, let me describe it to you as it relates to the way I feel God's love. Tender affection, warm, caring, oneness, light, accepting, amity, rapture, joy, peace, nirvana, serenity, clarity, compassion. It feels as if I am an infant being embraced skin to skin with my mother and nourished and filled by the warmth of her milk. You are right, it is tough to describe because the only word that really works is love. But, by using other adjectives and descriptions, you probably can relate to such a feeling, can you not?

Affection is an action, caring is an action, oneness is an action, accepting is an action, compassion is an action, etc. etc. Being embraced is an action... Edited November 13, 2012 by calmoriah

[Bill Hamblin]

Again, you are describing the ritual, not so much the experience. For example: Tantric Hindu mystics physical sex while experiencing oneness with God. Physical sex - ritual. Oneness with God - experience. Medieval Christians and Tantric Hindus thus relate to the experience if not the ritual.

Differences in visions and dreams are not differences in types of experiences. They are both experiencing visions and dreams that are recognized as divinely given. Interpreting these visions and dreams is where you get into esotericism. Noting that they are having the same types of experiences is not esotericisizing the already esoteric. They are indeed reporting the same types of experiences.

That's kind of like saying we both went to a movie. I saw Skyfall and you saw Lincoln, but because both are movies and both serve popcorn, both are the same movie.

And traditional mystics never differentiate between ritual and experience.

[pogi]

Affection is an action, caring is an action, oneness is an action, accepting is an action, compassion is an action, etc. etc. Being embraced is an action...

Love is also an action

Affection is also a feeling, caring is also a feeling, oneness is also a feeling, acceptance is also a feeling, compassion is also a feeling, etc. etc. Being embraced is also a feeling. The feeling of being embraced feels affectionate, caring, at one, accepting, compassionate.

[Ahab]

Greetings friends!

Hey Mis, or Miser, or whatever you don't mind me calling you without me having to type out that really big name.

The aspect that I would like to focus on is that a mystical experience involves knowledge and personal experience beyond normal human perception of communion (union, unity) with God. In other words, a mystical experience endows the mystic with direct, unmediated knowledge of God in a way that is different from our other modes of knowing. It is interesting that every major religion has its mystics and that these mystics often relate similar experiences, albeit clothed in their cultural and religious symbols.

Why do you think it needs to be in some way other than our "normal" way of perceiving things? If you saw God with your eyes that would still be a means of gaining a "direct, unmediated knowledge of God". Same thing if we heard him with our ears, or had a thought pop into our mind that was a result of him communicating one of this thoughts to us with his mind and/or words. I think a lot of people are missing out on communication with God because they think he has to communicate with us in some other way thatn the "normal" means of communicating with us. Why do you feel the need to limit God to some means other than "normal"?

This experience is universally described as being beyond language and conceptual thought (which is our main mode of knowing).

That isn't necessarily the case, though. Beyond conceptual thought? Beyond any language at all? Sounds too restrictive to me. Why do you feel the need to leave language or thought out of the process? I love it when God communicates his thoughts to me so that I'm then thinking the same thoughts he is thinking and wanting to communicate with me.

This means that the experience can never be adequately described by the mystic.

I guess that depends on what you mean by "adequate". I think I can describe it fairly well, even though it's me communicating with you instead of God communicating with you when I'm describing what it's like to experience it. I think I can describe what it's like well enough so that you can understand what I mean, but to be on an equal footing you would need to experience communicating with God directly rather than only communicating with God through me or some other mediator between you and God, unless maybe that mediator was some other person who was and is also a God person

Most mystics therefore use paradox to describe it, such as "the gateless gate" or "the bright abyss." There is a classic medieval text on Catholic mysticism called "The Cloud of Unknowing" because the mystic, when he or she reaches mystical states, he or she passes beyond the way of knowing and thus is now shrouded in the unknown. St. John of the Cross, the Mystical Doctor of the Catholic Church, described this as the "dark night of the soul."

That sounds weird to me. Why would I ever want to use contradicting terms to describe communicating with God?

The most common knowledge gained in such a state is that the mystic is truly one, in a metaphysical sense, with God. That at the center of one's soul, in the deepest parts of one's being, one will find God there.

I think that would only be possible if we were God in the deepest part of our own being, as if God were the same kind of being we are at some basic level.... which is actuallyl the case, btw.

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?

If you're talking in literal terms, yes we can find God within us in that way because we are an extension of him just as any child is an extension of his/her parents. That's what God touches when he communicates with us, and that part of us is what we call our spirit, which is literally the spirit of God.

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.

One of our favorite places to pray/meditate/sing/dance/communicate with God is in a temple of God, not only in our body which houses our spirit, but a constructed building which we dedicate as a temple to God. Have you seen any in your area, or in your travels? We also use our ward buildings, where we meet for "regular" worship services, and in nature, and pretty much everywhere else, but a temple building can be very conducive to communicating with God because God helps us to shut the world out when we are in it. Some even say that Satan isn't allowed in there, ,which may or may not be true. If he is in there I haven't noticed him when I have been in there.

Thank you for your thoughts and insights!

No problem, Mis. I'm glad to see you're taking an interest in how we communicate with God.

[pogi]

That's kind of like saying we both went to a movie. I saw Skyfall and you saw Lincoln, but because both are movies and both serve popcorn, both are the same movie.

And traditional mystics never differentiate between ritual and experience.

They had the same experience of watching a movie. If watching movies was a supernatural event, they would indeed relate to each other through a common experience, even if God showed them different movies. Who claimed that God has just one movie to show? The fact that they both claim to experience these same "types" of supernatural events is telling.

Not all people who practice rituals have spiritual experiences. There is a difference. I recognize that these spiritual experiences are often tied to ritual, but not always. The fact that they recognize a spiritual experience amidst often benign ritual, shows that they recognize the experience as something separate and unique from the ritual itself. Unless you consider sleep a ritual, or walking down the road on your way to destroy Christians (Paul) a ritual, you can't claim that they never differentiate the two.

[Bill Hamblin]

They had the same experience of watching a movie. If watching movies was a supernatural event, they would indeed relate to each other through a common experience, even if God showed them different movies. Who claimed that God has just one movie to show? The fact that they both claim to experience these same "types" of supernatural events is telling.

Not all people who practice rituals have spiritual experiences. There is a difference. I recognize that these spiritual experiences are often tied to ritual, but not always. The fact that they recognize a spiritual experience amidst often benign ritual, shows that they recognize the experience as something separate and unique from the ritual itself. Unless you consider sleep a ritual, or walking down the road on your way to destroy Christians (Paul) a ritual, you can't claim that they never differentiate the two.

I said most traditional mystics don't separate their mystical experiences from the path/ritual that brought them to that experience. That is not to say the two are never distinct.

At any rate, I find it incredibly puzzling that Neomystics insist that differences in the content of the mystical experience are unimportant and even distracting. For most traditional mystics the content is the experience. They can't be separated. It's a package deal. The esoteric teachings, the master, the lifestyle, the ritual, the intellection, the substance of the mystical experience are all inseparably connected. Neomystics want to separate all of these elements because if you take them all seriously as part of an undifferentiatable phenomena, it undermines the Neomystical presuppositions that all mysticism is ultimately one.

Edited November 14, 2012 by Bill Hamblin