SELF-SACRIFICE: the tool of the MYSTICS (page 10)

LittleToe

Wouldn't you say the imprecision is a clue to the emptiness of the entire process?

And hence [what Protestants would later call the queen of sciences,] "theology" was established, to attempt to encapsulate the ineffable. A lot of good that did them...

...I wonder what part of "ineffable" they didn't get?

I'm all about irony, these days. The irony seems to be that the closer an individual gets to the divine-love, the less the divisions and words matter. It's a little like having something in common amongst exJWs. Does that mean that it's merely a "club"? Some would say so, but dang I hope not!

LittleToe

S:
That's an interesting observation.

It might be one of the reasons I'm a bit of a Panentheist.

Narkissos

1.If Mysticism pits the mystic one on one with direct communication with God: where does scripture fit in (if at all?)

The mystic's faith indeed is not scripture-based. To a Christian mystic scripture is at most a confirmation of faith and an opportunity for spiritual upbuilding. Mysticism (in the common sense of the word) implies a fraternal rather than filial relationship with scripture. It is less the Father's "instructions" than older brothers' testimony.

2. If God is open to such one on one communication with the mystic: why do we need Jesus, the church or ritual?

Most mystics in Christian history (from the early Gnostics to middle-ages mystics like Meister Eckhart) would actually suggest (although in cautious terms sometimes, for obvious reasons) that church and ritual are not needed. As long as they were tolerated they would use them as an opportunity to upbuild and share their "inner" or "deeper" understanding. About Jesus, it is interesting that the Gnostics considered him as a revealer (sometimes along with other "spiritual masters") rather than the cause of salvation: unveiling our true divine nature rather than bringing us something we didn't have.

3.One-ness with God is a unity which has no lack. Humanity by virtue of its human-ness is non-god and non-spirit. Efforts to link chalk with cheese abound in religion/mysticism.

That's where (at least in Christianity) it is vital imo to distinguish mysticism from religion. The trend of mysticism is monistic and tends to pantheism (we are a part of God, our spirit is God's spirit). Its dualism does not separate God from man but rather within man (spirit vs. flesh-matter etc.) and sometimes within the divine (the true spiritual Father vs. the demiurge in Gnosticism).

4.Religion and ritual are about "process". The means to an end. The end can be defined as god-union. Having the mind of god seems to replace having the mind of a human. After all, God didn't make a human as a seed that sprouts god-ness.

Mysticism here would rather describe the "process" as revelation (or enlightenment) rather than causality (see # 3).

Mysticism parlays floating concepts with dangling adjectives into a lifestyle that is rather vague. Either we are human as God made us or we are stuck in an egg-larvae-pupa-adult cycle on "rinse". I blame the language on the confusion. The language of religion is not clearly defined under precise conceptual headings. Hence it is endlessly malleable. My chief point of contention with mysticism is the fast and loose way words are used which can mean practically anything.

Wouldn't you say the imprecision is a clue to the emptiness of the entire process?

Ambiguity is needed because mysticism is never popular. It can only exist within a mass religion as the (admittedly "elistist") secret way of the chosen few (the pneumatics, spirituals, etc.). Whence contemplative orders in Catholicism, sufism in Islam, etc. So in most traditional religions language has to be ambivalent, susceptible of both exoterical and esoterical understanding. To the average "believer" it is eudemonism, a process working out "good" -- divine blessing in life, bliss in the hereafter etc. To the mystic it is something else, here and now, but secret.

As soon as ambiguity is dissolved a split occurs (e.g. the rejection of "Gnosticism" by "orthodoxy" in the early church). The mystics lose their originality in having to deal with their own independent social structures (heretic sects). And the orthodoxy becomes spiritually empty until a new generation of mystics finds its own way to "inner understanding" of dogma.

kid-A

"The irony seems to be that the closer an individual gets to the divine-love, the less the divisions and words matter"

LT, sometimes you sound more like a Zen Buddhist monk on a quest for satori !!.

LittleToe

Didier:Very well put - you're on fire, in this thread!

I especially liked your comments on the relationship of the mystic to sacred writings.

Kid-A:
You mean no-one ever told ya about the corrulation between Jesus and Buddha?

Some have scarlet robes, some have orange, oh vey!

Divisions aren't just denominational or even religous

DanTheMan

I'm not eloquent or educated enough to add anything of substance to this thread but:

Didier:Very well put - you're on fire, in this thread!

I'll second that! Nark, can I have your brain when you're done with it? ;)

Satanus

Lt

Careful, you might lose your dogma.

Terry

1.If Mysticism pits the mystic one on one with direct communication with God: where does scripture fit in (if at all?)

It doesn't, anymore than any other 'holy' book, except for those that deal directly w the subject of mysticism. Imo, the bible is very low in mystical content, as jews were mainly materialists.

2. If God is open to such one on one communication with the mystic: why do we need Jesus, the church or ritual?

We don't. Well, not much.

3.One-ness with God is a unity which has no lack. Humanity by virtue of its human-ness is non-god and non-spirit. Efforts to link chalk with cheese abound in religion/mysticism.

Yes, the human and the spirit have different characteristics.

Human/animal - food, sex, ego, pride, competition, conquest, control

Spirit - peace, tranquility, creating happiness in self an others, respect for nature

4.Religion and ritual are about "process". The means to an end. The end can be defined as god-union. Having the mind of god seems to replace having the mind of a human. After all, God didn't make a human as a seed that sprouts god-ness. Mysticism parlays floating concepts with dangling adjectives into a lifestyle that is rather vague. Either we are human as God made us or we are stuck in an egg-larvae-pupa-adult cycle on "rinse".

The cycle style can apply. I see us as dualistic. One who was totally spiritual would be living on the extreme fringe of society, relying on others to feed him. Perhaps a balance of the two is needed, not a replacement of one w the other. I have found that, many times, mystics have been those who had a hard time w worldly ways, or a distate for the ways of the flesh, including their own bodies. And so, they have retreated inward and found the spiritual dimension. Those who adapt easily to the physical world, or perhaps the world of the mental/mind generally don't get into the spiritual in a first hand way. I don't see the spiritual as necesarily superior to the animal or mental.

I blame the language on the confusion. The language of religion is not clearly defined under precise conceptual headings. Hence it is endlessly malleable. My chief point of contention with mysticism is the fast and loose way words are used which can mean practically anything.
Wouldn't you say the imprecision is a clue to the emptiness of the entire process?

While many people mix religion w mysticism, they do not necesarily mix. Systematic theology has attempted to place order and mix the two, but it is hopeless. While there are basics that many mystics do agree on, to me, it does seem as if there is also much that appears different to different mystics. As well, the mystical world is tremedously large, perhaps many times larger than the universe, and also includes it. It is mostly uncharted. From the perspective of this material world, perhaps the conquest of the other dimension is not that important at this time.

S