Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    Mysticism is something that sorta sneaks up on me unawares sometimes.
    (But not often at all.)
    
    Is that heresy??

    Hi Nancy,
    
    > Mysticism is something that sorta sneaks up on me unawares sometimes.
    
    > Is that heresy??
    
    Nope, that's mysticism alright.
    
    Karen.:-)
    
    p.s  Okay Mike, you flushed me out on this one. :-)  
    	 I was thinking about starting a topic on mysticism today,
    	 but you beat me to it! :-)  Now let me get my thoughts
    	 together and put them on the airwaves.
     

    Karen, synchronicity strikes again.  :-)
    
    -- Mike

    The most useful definition I've encountered is that mysticism
    is the direct and immediate awareness of the Presence of God.
    
    It sneaks up on me, too.  At the same time, I've made deliberate
    efforts to become more sensitive to the Presence which I believe
    have been worthwhile.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

    Wow! I really thought y'all wouldn't know what I was talking about!
    I thought those of you who call yourselves mystics were "that way"
    all the time...

    
    I guess my own definition would be something like:
    
    Belief in (and study of, search for) the mystery of life.
    
    guy

    But that's true of every religion isn't it?
    
    Nanci

    guy,
    
    	That which you define as mysticism is part of what I define
    as faith.  Curious, eh?
    
    Peace,
    Richard

Mysticism cuts across all religious boundries.

There are Jewish mystics, Christian mystics, Islamic mystics,
Buddhist mystics (Zen; you there, Mike Seabury), and Hindu mystics
(Jains, I believe they're called).

They share many similarities and many differences.

To me, mysticism lies at the root of all religious belief.

Peace,
Richard

    
    re: .8 (Richard Christie)
    
    I can see why.  I think the idea of faith is a pretty core element in
    my idea of "mysticism".  
    
    re: .7 (Nanci)
    
    I agree with some of Joseph Campbell's ideas in this area.  I think
    you should stick with the software (religion) you began with.  That's
    just my opinion.  Ultimately, your religion is merely a matter of per-
    sonal preference, though it may not be what you are "comfortable" with.
    
    I choose a path that has less comforts in the spiritual sense.
    
    guy

    I have experienced what I refer to as Divine nudgings;
    irresistible promptings or "leadings", not of my own creation
    or consciousness.  Those which I determine are not of my own
    imagination I attribute to the Spirit of the Living God.
    
    Sometimes when this occurs I find myself quivering or "quaking". ;-)
    
    Peace,
    Richard

    Quakers have a name for these leadings of the Spirit in the direction
    of pursuing positive social change.  They call them "concerns".

    In Matthew Fox's book, "A Spirituality Named Compassion", he writes of
    two different kinds of mysticism:  one that is inner directed, and one
    that is outer directed.  The inner directed mysticism seeks to withdraw
    from the world, while the outer directed mysticism channels its
    energies outward.  Fox believes that the outer directed mysticism is
    preferable.

    -- Mike

    What canst thou say, Mike?

    .4, .9, .11,  Richard....
    
    Thanks for your descriptions here.  They pretty much describe my
    concept of and experience with "mysticism" -- the presence, the nudgings, 
    the higher state of consciousness/awareness.  Mysticism for me takes the 
    form of "encounters" or merging in oneness with -- being touched by -- a 
    higher divine domain (God).  Therefore, I think mysticism is is pretty 
    much something that is experienced, somewhat different than "faith."  
    Though faith and mysticism are two powerful components that, for me, must 
    go hand-in-hand.  I also agree that mysticism spans the boundaries of 
    various religions/spiritual systems and so forth.  Good topic.
    
    Paul                                

    Mysticism is derived from the Greek word "mystikos" meaning to "shut 
    one's senses" and to "enter into the mysteries".  Entering into the 
    mysteries, having a mystical experience is to have an _experience_ of 
    the oneness, or unity of life, which some also call God or the Divine.  
    The mystic is keen on the experience of the Divine and does not settle 
    for theory alone, or knowing about the Divine.  
    
    Ken Wilber in _Quantum Questions_ describes the mystical experience 
    in this way:
        
        The central mystical experience may be fairly described as 
        follows:  in the mystical consciousness, Reality is apprehended 
        directly and immediately, meaning without any mediation, any 
        abstractions;  subject and object become one in a timeless and 
        spaceless act that is beyond any and all forms of mediation.  
        Mystics universally speak of contacting reality in its 
        "suchness", or its "isness", without any intermediaries,
        beyond words, symbols, names, thoughts, images.
        
    Albert Einstein talked about about three "impulses" which evoke 
    religious notions in humankind.  The first is fear, which he 
    associates with primitive human development -- the fear of hunger, 
    wild beasts, sickness and death.  The second is social -- the desire 
    for guidance, love, and support which prompts a "moral conception of 
    God."  The third is mysticism or what he calls "cosmic religious 
    feeling":
        
        ...But there is a third stage of religious experience which 
        belongs to all of them, even though it is rarely found in a pure 
        form:  I shall call it cosmic religious feeling.  It is very 
        difficult to elucidate this feeling to anyone who is entirely 
        without it, especially as there is no anthropomorphic conception 
        of God corresponding to it.
        
        	The individual feels the futility of human desires and 
        aims and the sublimity and marvelous order which reveal 
        themselves both in nature and in the world of thought.  
        Individual existence impresses him as a sort of prison and he 
        wants to experience the universe as a single significant 
        whole....
        
        	The religious geniuses of all ages have been 
        distinguished by this kind of religious feeling, which knows no 
        dogma and no God conceived in man's image;  so that there can be 
        no church whose central teachings are based on it.  Hence it is 
        precisely among the heretics of every age that we find men who 
        were filled with this highest kind of religious feeling and were, 
        in many cases, regarded by their contemporaries as atheists, 
        sometimes also as saints.  Looked at in this light, men like 
        Democritus, Francis of Assisi, and Spinoza are closely akin to 
        one another.
        
        	How can cosmic religious feeling be communicated from one 
        person to another if it can give rise to no definite notion of a 
        God and no theology?  In my view, it is the most important 
        function of art and science to awaken this feeling and keep it 
        alive in those who are receptive to it.
        
    I as a mystic in the tradition of Creation Spirituality;  however, 
    mysticism by its very nature transcends denominational and religious 
    labels.  When they are used it is merely to describe the roots of the 
    mysticism.  I have mystical experiences fairly often, and all have 
    lasted only a few brief moments.  As soon as I become aware of the 
    experience I move out of it, and I am then looking _at_ the 
    experience, rather than _being_ the experience.  Although the 
    experiences themselves are brief, the effects are long-lasting and 
    continue to _radically_ alter my life.  And like those experienced by 
    Nancy and Richard, they oftentimes sneak up on me unawares.
    
    Most mystics, if not all, after successfully assimilating their 
    experience, will reveal a kind of deep trust in the universe, how it 
    unfolds, and a trust in what occurs in his or her own life and the 
    lives of others in this process.  Mystics with a religious background 
    oftentimes refer to the "unfoldment of the universe" as Divine Will 
    or God's Plan.  
    
    Matthew Fox has this (among much more) to say about mysticism:
    
        Our mystical experiences are unitive experiences.  They may occur 
        on a dark night with the sparkling stars in the sky; at the 
        ocean; in the mountains or field; with friends or family; with 
        ideas; in lovemaking; in play; with music and dance and art of 
        all kinds; in work; in suffering and in letting go.  What all 
        mystical experiences share in common is this experience of 
        nonseparation, of nondualism.
        
        Julian of Norwich put it, "Between God and the soul there is no 
        between".  Mysticism announces the end of alienation and the 
        beginning of communion, the end of either/or relatinships (which 
        form the essence of dualism) and the beginning of unity.  Yet the 
        unity that the mystic celebrates is not a loss of self or a 
        dissolution of differences, but a unity of creativity, a coming 
        together of different existences.  There is a unity in diversity, 
        a diversity in the union of love.
        
    Interestingly, mystical experiences have been happening more and more 
    to both astronauts and cosmonauts while orbiting the Earth.  One such 
    experience happened to Rusty Schweikert during an Apollo mission in 
    1969.  While left floating outside the capsule during a malfunction 
    that consumed the attention of the other crew members and Misson 
    Control, Rusty had an incredible experience of compassion and love 
    for the Earth, the "shining gem" and _all_ life that lay before him 
    suspended in space.  
    
    For the first time in his life, a self-described macho-man and jet 
    fighter pilot, he looked upon the earth and saw no boundaries between 
    nations, in fact he did not see any nations.  He saw how the ocean 
    currents served all countries equally, the clouds did not stop at 
    borders to test for political or religious ideology.  Nations existed 
    in the minds of human beings alone.  Seperation exists in the minds 
    of human beings alone.  He returned to Earth and confesses to having 
    wandered around in a state of stupor for six months, bumping into 
    walls and wondering "Why did God do this to me?"  He finally 
    concluded that God did this _through_ him so that others might hear 
    the message of his experience which he is dedicated to sharing, that 
    of:
    
    	...compassion, love, interdependence, unity, 
    		and shared beauty on this shining, glistening planet.
    
    peace,
    
    Karen
    

    Touch�, Richard.

    To answer your (and George Fox's) question, I agree with Matthew Fox,
    and the Quaker view of mysticism.  I believe that mysticism should be
    outwardly directed.  I don't believe in severing ties to the world, nor
    do I think that it has to be a necessary component of mysticism or
    the contemplative life.

    -- Mike

    Thanks, Karen.  This is what I wanted to say but couldn't find the
    words for.  :-)
    
    Nanci

    .16   Thank you Karen.  That was beautiful.  I can relate.
    
    Paul
    

    My goal in life is to become like a tree, with roots in the soil and
    branches in the sky.  Mysticism for me is the communion available at
    both poles.  There is a temptation, however, to get lost in the clouds,
    such that one's feet no longer touch the ground.
    
    DR

    Has anyone read the book "I and Thou", by the Jewish mystic Martin
    Buber?  I found the book to be difficult reading at times, but it did
    have a lot to say on this subject.  Buber described two different ways
    of relating to the world:  I-it, in which the world is experienced in
    terms of objects; and I-thou, in which the world is related to directly
    and immediately.  Buber believed that the I-Thou relationship can exist
    not only with other humans, but also with nature, and with God.

    -- Mike

    Re.9
    
    Was that a hint for me to add my two cents ?
    
      Perhaps the main difference between Zen and Christian mysticism
    has to do do with where God fits into the scheme of things.
      Whereas Christian mystical experience involves direct knowledge
    of God ( at least that's how I understand it ) Zen mysticism is
    focused on intuitive understanding of the universe. 
      These seem to be opposites of sorts. One involves a very specific
    entity and the other tries to be all encompassing.
      There seems to be a paradox in that direct knowledge of God would
    seem to include understanding of the universe and intuitive knowledge
    of the universe would include direct knowledge of God if God exists.
      The book "Mystics and Zen Masters" by Thomas Merton would be worth
    a look to anyone interested in either approach. Also, "Ascent To Truth"
    by the same author is about Christian mystical experience.
    
    
                                                       Mike 

    re .21
    
    Mike,
    
    Contradictions and apparent paradoxes never seemed to bother you
    before. ;-)
    
    I affirm that, yes, there _are_ important differences between Zen
    and Christian myticism.
    
    Richard

    
    re: .21 (Mike)
    
    I think you've touched on a very important point.  You've expressed
    what I see as the two extremes of the experience of God.  God is found
    in both directions and in everything in between.
    
    This reminds me of the Indian idea of Atman (the indwelling God) and
    Brahman (the aspect of God that appears as *other than* yourself).
    But the hitch is that they're really the same things and are only
    appearing that way because of temporality.  
    
    guy

    
    Re.21
    
          As paradoxes go this is one of your more interesting ones.
    
    
                                                       Mike

    The panentheist view is that God is in the universe, and the universe
    is in God.  How does that relate to the paradox?
    
    -- Mike

    
    re: .25 (Mike V.)   (got to watch my Mikes...:-)
    
    >...God is in the Universe, and the universe is in God...
    
     There are tons of paradoxes.  I think paradoxes exist only while 
    there are human minds (egos?) that are trying to distinguish them-
    selves from other minds, objects and ideas.  They exist because
    reality exists as it does.  When one tries to explain anything
    in the form of absolutes, they are going to run into paradoxes.
    In the mind of God, all paradoxes are resolved in a unified and
    central coherent point.
    
    guy

    The Personalist school of philosophy hypothesizes that God is Mind and
    that everything that exists (including you and me) is an "idea" in the
    Mind of God!

    Back to the personal level, however: for me, those rare mystical 
    experiences consist of a sense of an *intimate closeness of the Other.*
    Sometimes that Other is obviously God; at other times it is an intimate
    emotional/spiritual closeness to another human being, who may or may 
    not be physically present at the time, but with whom I have had 
    some kind of "deep" conversations.
    
    Another aspect of this is that when I am in that "mode" of being, I
    have, on occasion, carried much of that same experience with me over an
    extended period of time.  HOWEVER, I cannot seem to maintain that while
    also being task oriented and accomplishing work!  I can be in "task"
    mode or in "being" mode, but rarely in both at once.
    
    Is that true for anyone else?

    FWIW, The Quaker mystic Thomas Kelly wrote of living on two levels
    simulataneously, where at one level you carried out the mundane tasks
    of everyday life, and at the other you were in continuous awareness of
    the Presence.
    
    -- Mike

    Nancy,
    
    I believe that a life that is spiritually "centered" is possible
    most of the time, but that the experience of transcendence and exhilaration
    that accompanies "peak" or "mountain top" moments requires too much
    of our awareness to sustain itself during most of our temporal activity.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

    Mike S .21,
    
    > Whereas Christian mystical experience involves direct knowledge of
    > God ( at least that's how I understand it ) Zen mysticism is focused on
    > intuitive understanding of the universe.
    
    Hmmmm.  The mystical experiences I have more closely relate to what
    you've described for Zen mysticism above Mike.  I have not read many
    books on the subject, but my own personal feeling on this is that there 
    are no distinguishable philosophical or religious differences.  For
    example, when I've had a "mystical" experience I feel I am uniting
    or totally merging with the universe.  There is no awareness of God,
    per se, as an entity.  There is just an intuitive (for lack of a better 
    word) knowing or understanding of the universe wherein everything all 
    of a sudden fits perfectly and is in total harmony.  There is nothing
    out of place.
    
    I think when we then leave the experience, the perspective we choose 
    to reflect or contemplate upon the experience may reveal a particular
    religious doctrine or spiritual philosophy.  For me, my mind interprets
    and contemplates upon it as a unifying experience with God, although I 
    just realized that that in and of itself does not make it necessarily 
    Christian.  
    
    You see part of my current "dilema" ;-) is that I've been having the 
    experiences before reading any of what others such as Thomas Merton 
    have said about them.  Now I've begun reading to see how my experiences 
    fit with those of others, so I'm kind of backing my way into this...
    :-)
    
    Nancy .28,
    
    Like you I do not do both "task" and "being" modes simultaneously.  One
    mode usually steps into the background, and usually it is "being". :-)
    But that's okay.  The awareness of "being" is still there and colors
    every "task" you do.  And then the times when I become afraid, this 
    "being" mode slips sometimes very far into the background and I then 
    find myself needing to reach for faith and the memory of the awareness
    I had with it.  (This is a challenge to try to talk about :-)) 
    
    Hope this is somewhat helpful.  I also support Mike and Richard's 
    comments in .29 & 30.
    
    Karen   

 Karen:

       About that word for intuitive. There is a Sanskrit word, "Buddhi"
 (look familiar ?) the definition of which is about three pages long.
 In a nutshell it means to understand something in a way that transcends
 words or even conscious thought. It means to be awakened to something.
 You know, suddenly the the mental light goes on and you "just know",
 but can't explain how or why.
       I think it was Edgar Mitchell, who during a walk in space wrote
 that while drifting weightless looking at the Earth that all of a sudden
 he knew exactly what God had in mind during the creation. All of a sudden
 in a flash he had direct access to God's thought process. This guy is a
 test pilot and scientist hardly someone given to mysticism.
       Although I have never had a such an experience, apparently the
 the experience of direct knowledge of God happens to people. 
       I guess that mystical experiences just happen. Perhaps they involve
 a buddhi experience of the universe or God or both or neither. Are you
 backing into mysticism ? Who knows ? Is it something that is directional
 as we understand the idea ? Got me.


                                                 Mike 
       

    Mike .32,
    
    Thanks for the thoughts.  I understand the meaning of "Buddhi" as you 
    presented it.  It describes the essence of my experiences.    
    
    I believe you are right about Edgar Mitchell.  It was the mystical 
    experience he had that you referred to that prompted him to found the 
    Institute of Noetic Sciences in California some years ago.  They are 
    involved in a lot of *intriguing* research there, and have outlined 
    some of their findings in a recent book called _Global Mind Change_ 
    by Willis Harman, president of the institute.  I highly recommend it.
    
    Mystical experiences ime (in my experience) do just happen.  I 
    believe there are some yogas, meditations, and/or prayer practices 
    that can help lead one into these kinds of experiences.  Most of the 
    experiences I have though, just "sneak up on me unawares" :-) when 
    I least expect them.  (Sometimes they really make me chuckle and I 
    can't help but feel God is revealing His/Her sense of humor through
    them!)
    
    > I guess that mystical experiences just happen.  Perhaps they involve 
    > a buddhi experience of the universe or God or both or neither.  
    
    They do transcend words.  It's hard to name what they involve.  I 
    call it God or the Divine Mind or the Universe.
    
    > Are you backing into mysticism ?  Who knows ?  Is it something that 
    > is directional as we understand the idea ?  Got me.
    
    By using the phrase "backing into mysticism" I mean that I had the 
    experiences long before I knew there was a "name" (mysticism) for 
    them.  In my more naive days ;-) I thought they were experiences 
    most people were familiar with.  Over the last few years I've found 
    this is not necessarily the case.
    
    Is mysticism "directional" as we understand it?  Not in my 
    experience.  They are non-linear experiences;  or holographic is a 
    better word to describe them.
    
    Thanks Mike!
    
    Karen                                         

    I recently found the following two quotes regarding the value 
    of mystical experiences.  Thought I'd pass them on: 
    
    The first is somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but (imo) poignant 
    nonetheless :-)
    
    	Anthropologist Dr. A. Bharati:
    
    	"If someone is a stinker before a mystical experience,
     	 he'll be a stinker afterward."
    
    	Scholar Robert Gimello:
    
    	"The mysticism of any particular mystic is really the whole
    	pattern of his or her life.  The rare and wonderful "peaks"
    	of experience are a part of that pattern, but only a part,
    	and their real value lies only in their relation to the other
    	parts:  the mystic's conduct towards others, his or her character
    	and personality, etc.  The modern study of mysticism has,
    	I believe, tended to overlook those relations."
    
    
    Karen 
    

    .34
    
    Agreed.  Two Christians come to mind as shining examples
    of lives lived deliberately as a result of mystical experience:
    
    		Mother Theresa of Calcutta
    
    		Albert Schweitzer
    
    Peace,
    Richard
    

    
    Daniel Berrigan has been quoted as saying:
    
    	"Please, oh God, send us mystics with hands."
    
    Cindy

    'One dictionary of religion says, "No definition could be both
    meaningful and sufficiently comprehensive to include all experiences
    that have been described as 'mystical'".  It was maybe for this reason
    that William James, instead of defining mysticism, gave "four marks" of
    what may justly be called "mystical."

    	1. Ineffability--that is, it defies expression; it cannot be
    	adequately described in words.  So its quality must be directly
    	experienced.

    	2. Noetic quality--it gives deep insight into the truth that cannot 
    	be plumbed by the discursive intellect.  It is an illumination,
    	full of significance and importance.

    	3. Transiency--it soon passes away.
    	4. Passivity--we can do nothing with will power.

    'By these marks or standards, we may be able to screen out merely
    pathological or eccentric experiences.  Even then, in much of mystic
    literature we would find a variety of odd images and words which make
    it look like a dream world.  Yet, if we try...to strip off all
    unessential elements from mystical experiences--all that comes from
    tradition, culture, temperament, and so forth--we will find that all
    mystic experiences will be reduced to what might be called "the direct,
    personal experience of the Being of beings."  The Being of beings is
    variously called: the One, the Absolute, the Reality by philosophers;
    emptiness, nothingness, the true nature, the true Self, the Original
    Face by Zen Buddhists; nought, a bare pure ground, an unwalled world by
    some mystics.  Whatever words mystics may use, their fundamental
    experiences seem to be similar.'

                             Teruyasu Tamura
                  "A Zen Buddhist Encounters Quakerism"
                       (Pendle Hill Pamphlet # 302)

	I hope not to come across as self-aggrandizing in sharing this
announcement.

	Yours truly is among those profiled in the article, "The Mystics
Among Us," in the March issue of Springs Magazine (Free on periodical
stands throughout the Pikes Peak region).

Shalom,
Richard

>	Yours truly is among those profiled in the article, "The Mystics
>Among Us," in the March issue of Springs Magazine (Free on periodical
>stands throughout the Pikes Peak region).


Cool!  Would they have a web page where I can access the article?

Tom

.39

>Cool!  Would they have a web page where I can access the article?

I'm afraid not, Tom.

And Springs Magazine makes it clear that no article may be copied, in whole
or in part, without permission.  But I suppose it would be alright to tell
you a little about "The Mystics Among Us" (Into the Mystic).

After a few reflections and recollections on close encounters of the mystical
kind, the author, Michael Gardner, adroitly profiles a few of the local people
he's personally interviewed:  Father Denny, a Carmelite in dialogue with a
Roshi (Zen teacher) -- Larry Taylor, a Zen student -- Sister Claire, a
Benedictine leading a monastic life -- Moi (Okay, so I come towards the end!!)
-- and Alexey Kunin and Olga Sky, a Russian couple who've established a
spiritual center near Old Colorado City.

The article seems to suggest that among mystics, one may sense a great degree
of commonalty and an even greater degree of diversity.

Shalom,
Richard

    I recall accounts of mystical experiences recorded in the Bible of
    Abraham, Moses, Jacob, Elijah, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Peter,
    Paul, and John of Patmos.  Others may as well.
    
    Scripture is often the result of an encounter with Adonai.  It's really
    not unreasonable to say that Scripture would not have much authenticity
    without it.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard