In other words the irrational, unreasonable, fantastic path?

The mystic essentially claims to know what cannot be known. So how does he or she know?

Being a mystic means taking the direct path that leads straight to God while renouncing the many erring and astray paths. It’s finding our path in God alone and not in institutions, theologies or philosophies or human authority. — MysticMonist

This is something I've thought about a bit. Beliefs called "mysticism", including pretty much all eastern religions and philosophies, are generally thought of as focusing on supernatural entities and forces. This is exacerbated by the way eastern teaching is portrayed - flying monks with staffs and swords fighting off armies, etc. If Taoist and Buddhist teachings are mystical, then mysticism is the most down-to-earth, naturalistic understanding I can imagine. I remember something Alan Watts wrote, it may have been in "Nature, Man, and Woman" - When there's a spiritual mystery, the mystery is always something inside us that we've hidden, denied, or ignored. That's always made a lot of sense to me.

Ok, so what is mysticism actually. Here's some stuff from the web:

• belief that union with or absorption into the Deity or the absolute, or the spiritual apprehension of knowledge inaccessible to the intellect, may be attained through contemplation and self-surrender.
• Becoming one with God or the Absolute.
• Any kind of ecstasy or altered state of consciousness which is given a religious or spiritual meaning
• Attainment of insight in ultimate or hidden truths, and to human transformation supported by various practices and experiences
• A spiritual belief stating that a connection can be obtained with God or the spirits through thought and meditation.

Actually, I don't mind any of these. Generally, when I hear the word used, it applies to something supernatural, which I don't think any of these definitions do.

a spiritual belief stating that a connection can be obtained with God or the spirits through thought and meditation. — T Clark

Comments revised...

So this would be the closest to the direct, independent experience I’m talking about.
But as I’ve learned in my research on psychedelics and many people pointed out in brain science, awareness of this really real isn’t spiritual or religious at all. Mysticism in a western sense is a special or hyper-spiritual, hyper-religious thing. Becoming one with God.

But really if I’m a true monist, everything already is united with God. So much so that something as mundane as a stroke to the correct part of the brain, taking LSD, or staring at a wall long enough will reveal this to pretty much anyone.

Yogis seem to be metaphysical idealists of a sort. The common folk are limited to the material transmutations by instrumental science and the works of reason. Yogis claim to traverse space and time (the Veil of Illusions) as if the universe was a manifestation of the mind of Atman, the primordial being at the core of all things. Ideas manifest as matter. But what limits their miracles to such silly displays I don't know, unless how they appear to us is dependent on whether or not we are able to receive them on their terms.

All phenomena is secondary to Atman, which includes the instrumentality of thinking. Atman precedes or exists outside or is the source of Maya in some way.

My favorite mystic meme:

"God is an intelligible sphere whose center is everywhere and whose circumference is nowhere."

Maybe I am drifting into Hinduism

But really if I’m a true monist, everything already is united with God. So much so that something as mundane as a stroke to the correct part of the brain, taking LSD, or staring at a wall long enough will reveal this to pretty much anyone. — MysticMonist

So is conciousness of this absolute state of union the goal for you?

Is this state of union dependent on conciousness apprehending it?

So this would be the closest to the direct, independent experience I’m talking about.
But as I’ve learned in my research on psychedelics and many people pointed out in brain science, awareness of this really real isn’t spiritual or religious at all. Mysticism in a western sense is a special or hyper-spiritual, hyper-religious thing. Becoming one with God. — MysticMonist

I've also asked myself what "spiritual" means to me. Well, if it's not intellectual, emotional, perceptual, or physical, what does that leave? The answer that works for me is that "spiritual" refers to awareness. The act of becoming aware of things that I was previously unaware of is a spiritual activity. It can apply to physical, emotional, perceptual, or intellectual aspects of myself. I can tell you, for example, that getting old has given me lots of opportunities to become aware of my body as parts that I took for granted or abused before no longer work like they're supposed to.

I think you're talking about more profound experiences than that, but I think they are different in intensity, but not in kind. Also - we have to take little steps before we take big ones. I'll roll out one of my favorite quotes from Franz the Manz Kafka again:

You do not need to leave your room. Remain sitting at your table and listen. Do not even listen, simply wait. Do not even wait, be quiet still and solitary. The world will freely offer itself to you to be unmasked, it has no choice, it will roll in ecstasy at your feet.

Yogis seem to be metaphysical idealists of a sort. The common folk are limited to the material transmutations by instrumental science and the works of reason. Yogi's claim to traverse space and time (the Veil of Illusions) as if the universe was a manifestation of the mind of Atman. Ideas manifest as matter. But what's limits their miracles to such silly displays I don't know, unless how they appear to us is dependent on whether or not we are able to receive them on their terms.

All phenomena is secondary to Atman, which includes the instrumentality of thinking. Atman precedes or exists outside or is the source of Maya in some way. — Nils Loc

This is sort of what I was discussing - I think presenting mysticism as granting superpowers undermines its credibility. It's one of the reasons it gets a bad rap among so called rationalists.

The mystic essentially claims to know what cannot be known. So how does he or she know? — tim wood

The mystic claims to try to know what is not known, what is hidden.

Right; esoteric (hidden) vs. exoteric (visible) knowledge.

That’s a really good question.
Because we are already in a state of union, so yes the goal is awareness.



Though I’m starting to feel my whole intellectual house of cards shaking.

Why was Socrates wise? Because he knew he didn’t know.
I know religion doesn’t have a monopoly on God. But I don’t know if I can really tell you that much about God if he would be freed. I definitely don’t know once God is open access why anyone would ask me about Her.

Because we are already in a state of union, so yes the goal is awareness. — MysticMonist

And so the reason to strive for this awareness is because it's the "real" reality? It's a pursuit after truth?

I've also asked myself what "spiritual" means to me. Well, if it's not intellectual, emotional, perceptual, or physical, what does that leave? The answer that works for me is that "spiritual" refers to awareness. — T Clark

I think spiritual refers to the "inner"; the same principle of hidden (esoteric) knowledge. Awareness is the state of conciousness where the hidden is revealed for what it is. That sounds kind of new-agey, but I think it's consistent.

I think spiritual refers to the "inner"; the same principle of hidden (esoteric) knowledge. Awareness is the state of conciousness where the hidden is revealed for what it is. That sounds kind of new-agey, but I think it's consistent. — Noble Dust

I think you and I are agreeing with each other. Someone, I think it was MysticMonist, said some nasty things about new agers in a recent post. He said they steal the shiny surface from whatever comes floating down the river and ignore the insight that requires a bit of digging. That's my paraphrase. The new agey guys have stolen the idea of consciousness without its substance. Awareness always requires giving something up, generally your pride.

I think you and I are agreeing with each other. Someone, I think it was MysticMonist, said some nasty things about new agers in a recent post. He said they steal the shiny surface from whatever comes floating down the river and ignore the insight that requires a bit of digging. That's my paraphrase. The new agey guys have stolen the idea of consciousness without its substance. — T Clark

Yeah that was me. I really don’t feel sorry either.

And so the reason to strive for this awareness is because it's the "real" reality? It's a pursuit after truth? — Noble Dust

Yes! You have be aware of it yourself, you can’t trust anyone else. Or at least you need to verify it for yourself.
That’s why I feel so inept at saying what Truth is. I’m not certain myself and it’s not shareable.

Though I’m starting to feel my whole intellectual house of cards shaking.

Why was Socrates wise? Because he knew he didn’t know.
I know religion doesn’t have a monopoly on God. But I don’t know if I can really tell you that much about God if he would be freed. I definitely don’t know once God is open access why anyone would ask me about Her. — MysticMonist

My religion does not allow to use those little faces used in emails to express emotion and mood. We are not even allowed to speak or write their name. For that reason, I am telling you in advance that what follows is intended to be amusing and ironic.

You're really a pitiful philosopher - here Noble Dust and I are agreeing with you on almost everything and still you lose faith.

In a discussion about mysticism, why'd you pick the religion of Islam which has perhaps the weakest mystical tradition of all major world religions to attempt your point? Seems a tad strange, unless you're a Muslim yourself.

Being a mystic means taking the direct path that leads straight to God while renouncing the many erring and astray paths. It’s finding our path in God alone and not in institutions, theologies or philosophies or human authority. — MysticMonist

Dare I say the opposite - the "mystical path" is rather the least direct, and most murky, of roads that promise a deeper connection with God.

In other words the irrational, unreasonable, fantastic path? — tim wood

Even if I were to grant you these three descriptions of mystical experience as being accurate, none of them are bad if they are successful.

The mystic essentially claims to know what cannot be known. So how does he or she know?

Yeah, no. Not every mystic claims knowledge of what they call mystical experience. My old moniker on this forum had referred to Meister Eckhart - he's one such, famous mystic who has very little to do with modern "mystics".

I really enjoyed your comments.
Yeah if I’m drawn to the Quran, perhaps I’m not really a mystic. It does have a very strong Monism, there is no God but God, no intermediaries, one revelation with many prophets.
Now the Sufis get more mystical, but I think your point is still valid. My love of the directness is not mystical. Also check out the Baha’i. They are pretty convinced I’m one of them.

I think I’m a God alone kinda of guy. So maybe a acestic contemplative?

You're really a pitiful philosopher - here Noble Dust and I are agreeing with you on almost everything and still you lose faith. — T Clark

What’s the difference between philosophy and rhetoric?
Philosophy’s goal is truth and justice
Rhetoric’s goal is flattery.

I’m not here to win arguments and you my friend I don’t think you are either

What’s the difference between philosophy and rhetoric? — MysticMonist

If you believe, as I sometimes do, that truth is what you can convince other people of, then philosophy and rhetoric are the same thing.

Was that trying to egg me on? Read Plato’s Gorgias on this very subject.

I studied mysticism through comparative religion, and have also been personally drawn to mysticism throughout my life.

But I'm sorry to say the opening quotation is poorly chosen. It's got nothing to do with mysticism per se, it's more a boilerplate description of religious orthodoxy, i.e. 'right belief'. I have no doubt you could find corresponding statements expressing exactly the same idea in Buddhist, Hindu and Christian texts. What does 'straight and narrow' mean?

The original derivation of mysticism is actually 'initiated into the mystery cults or religions of ancient Greece'. One of those was Orphism, and one noted initiate was Plato. So, in fact, he is a textbook mystic, and not an innappropriate instance, as Christian Platonism is the main current of mysticism in the Western spiritual traditions.

But there are some cardinal points about mysticism generally. One is ineffability - that the mystic enters a dimension of reality that is subjectively apodictic but which is impossible to communicate or describe. Subsequent attempts to describe their ecstatic utterances then crystallize into religious dogma, often over the space of generations, as the enigmatic sayings are written down and repeated, often by disciples who don't really know what they mean.

Another is the directness of the knowledge or intuition - it does not involve priestly intermediaries or ritual; the seer enters directly into the domain of the numinous.

Another is intellectual or noetic transformation - the mystic understands or sees a unifying principle which makes sense of many diverse and apparently conflicting phenomena, as if they have risen to another level of perception.

And finally there are often physical and outward signs and symptoms, such as suspension of metabolic processes, going into trance states which in Eastern lore, might last weeks, months, or even centuries (although of course there is ample scope for confabulation of the legends around such people.)

Do you guys have recs for more reading material on mysticism? I feel like I've asked you that before, Wayfarer.

Hmm... I think you are right in how this quranic passage would be interpreted by Muslims. They would definitely say their hadiths and traditions were the straight path to God. Non-Muslim paths or heresy would be the errant paths.

You also give a compelling description of mysticism, thank you.

I’m still trying to balance competing approaches. That’s what I get from religion hopping.

So would Soto Zen be mystical? It denies study or institutions or ritualism or intermediaries but relies on direct enlightenment

perhaps I’m not really a mystic — MysticMonist

I don't think mystics call themselves mystics, just as Saints in the Christian Churches don't call themselves Saints.

I think I’m a God alone kinda of guy. So maybe a acestic contemplative? — MysticMonist

What do you mean by this?

I think Dogen was a profound mystics - as was Lin Chi (Rinzai).

But you will find it’s still controversial to speak of Buddhist mysticism - a lot of Buddhists are suspicious about the term ‘mysical’. ( It has many connotations, not all of them helpful, but I’ve always liked it. )

I’m a Boomer, so probably older than yourself, and there have been many books published since I read these - but I read Evelyn Underhill, Dean Inge, William James, and also Richard M. Bucke’s ‘Cosmic Consciousness’. Also the Sermons of Meister Eckhardt. D T Suzuki, I still recommend Alan Watts’ serious books, particularly Behold the Spirit, The Supreme Identity and Beyond Theology (despite Watts’ questionable reputation in some matters). Teachings of Ramana Maharishi. The Record of Rinzai. Krihsnmurti First and Last Frredom. That was my ‘core curriculum’. ;-)

I think you're confused and in need of more research, to be honest.

Maybe that’s what he’s doing here.

Secondary lit? You'd have to go by religion and then time period. Even then, the secondary stuff isn't that helpful, I've found. It's more worthwhile to get a bulk translation of something, perhaps with a bit of notation and biography accompanying.

I’m not at all ashamed to say I’m confused. My head is a jumble of scriptures and sages.

How can wise and holy and brilliant people be in contradictory traditions? How could you possibly choose between agreeing with St. Anthony, Maimonides, Rumi or Bahá’u’llá? (Just a tiny fraction of examples) I’ll never have the same insight as they do. How as a lessor mind am I able to choose which of these greater minds is most correct?