That is, can one's brain experience Mystical phenomena? I suggest it cannot, and my reason for saying this is that the term Mysticism is a label for that which the brain [being physical] cannot experience. And this naturally leads to the topic of "Intuition," which is a label for an aspect of the Soul, which is composed of Spiritual Energy. Can Intuition be proven via one's intellect? No, because no part of one's thinking is capable of perceiving Spiritual Energy. — 1 Brother James

The word "mysticism" has many definitions. Yours - "that which the brain cannot experience" - is a bit confusing. You say that mysticism cannot be experienced because mysticism means what the brain cannot experience, which is circular. Here are some common definitions, positive and negative, from a discussion called "What is Mysticism" from a few months ago.

[1] 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.

[2] Belief characterized by self-delusion or dreamy confusion of thought, especially when based on the assumption of occult qualities or mysterious agencies.

[3] The experience of mystical union or direct communion with ultimate reality

[4] The belief that direct knowledge of God, spiritual truth, or ultimate reality can be attained through subjective experience (such as intuition or insight)

[5] Vague speculation : a belief without sound basis

[6] A theory postulating the possibility of direct and intuitive acquisition of ineffable knowledge or power

[7] Mysticism is popularly known as becoming one with God or the Absolute, but may refer to any kind of ecstasy or altered state of consciousness which is given a religious or spiritual meaning. It may also refer to the attainment of insight in ultimate or hidden truths, and to human transformation supported by various practices and experiences.

[8] The belief that there is hidden meaning in life or that each human being can unite with God

[9] The pursuit or achievement of personal communion with or joining with God (or some other form of the divine or ultimate truth). — T Clark

I think you're right, intuition is a big part of mysticism. For me, intuition is a normal part of human mental processing and doesn't involve what I would call "spiritual energy."

Oh, yes, and welcome to the forum.

The brain is physical. The MIND is not physical. The Soul is not physical. And Consciousness is the Energy of the Soul, and thus, also Invisible to the brain and one's physical senses.
I coined a term "ExperTuit" that refers to the experience of Invisible phenomena [by what philosophers call] the "Self". I refer to the Self as "Conscious Awareness," or 'C-Awar,' which is where one's Soul stores bits of Truth that one's Soul has acquired by Completing Karma. One's faculty of Intuition can access one's C-Awar, and can use these bits of Truth as a means of resisting a desire by one's MIND. We refer to this "operation" as "Intuition" or Enlightenment. Peace

Thanks, and "mental processing" can mean the brain or the MIND, but neither is capable of perceiving the Energy of Intuition... since Intuition is part of one's Soul, which I believe is "Neutral Spiritual Energy," or "NSgy" for short. Peace

To be as clear as I would like to be, it would perhaps be helpful if I explained my view of the Whole Human Being, or WHB? I view the Whole of Man as composed of four simultaneously existing and yet entirely separate vibrational dimensions, each with its own range of vibrations, which makes three of these Invisible to the physical dimension [which includes the brain].

Probably my point of view was epistemological or metaphysical. I am agree with you in all you said previously but I was referring that I guess mysticism is not observed by intelligence neither is a "Whole of Man" as you said just because I see it as completely dogma. You cannot debate or put arguments (axioms or syllogisms for example) in something as simple as mysticism.

... , mysticism is another religious doctrine or way of living.

As has been pointed out, there are many definitions abound of mysticism, but I'd like to share my view on it.

I don't think mysticism can be called a religion. Religious individuals can be mystics or partake in mysticism, but the two are different.

Religions are belief systems.

Mysticism concerns itself primarily with peak/mystical/enlightenment experiences.

To the experiencer, these are no different and no less real than their sight, hearing, sense of smell, taste or touch (albeit a lot more profound).

The difference between religion and mysticism is that between which is believed and that which is directly experienced.

I like # 9, since what the label Mysticism refers to is the Spiritual Energy of the Soul, which I refer to as "NSgy," because of the term "Neutral". What does Man know that is Neutral? In the Bible, in Genesis, I, 1-2, it refers to existence as "without form," and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep..." But what if Existence prior to the Creation was quite Real, and fully operational, but also quite "Invisible" to the person writing the scripture? Creation was created, and thus, it exists "Within" the Primordial Existence... but it is also Invisible to Man. It is Man who intellectually needs for the Illusion of Creation to be real. Peace

I believe that Taoism is another "Mysticism" type label. There is the term Taoism, and there is the practice which is Spiritual, or requires one to be in a level of Consciousness that is not physical, tangible, nor describable nor capable of being experienced via one's brain, thinking, or one's physical senses. Again, only that person who is capable of "experiencing" an altered state of being can "see" or awaken to an actual experience that the term Taoism attempts to describe by using intellectual terms that do not [cannot] actually convey the Mystical Experience... to a physical brain, body.

It occurs to me that a clarifying label needs to be created for the field of Philosophy that sets aside as real, but rarely capable of Intuiting, certain concepts that presently the field attempts to embrace as simply unclear terminology, or an incomplete definition. Quite difficult for lovers of the brain and thinking [Intellectualism] to actually accept that the brain is entirely confined to the physical plane of existence. And there are three entire levels of existence beyond the physical dimension, and all four comprise the Whole Human Being. Peace

Your last sentence pretty much says it all. We are most reluctant to accept how much of Reality the physical brain cannot perceive. Peace

It finds a parallel in the term "Truth". How long has philosophy sought to prove the existence of Truth, and yet has failed to do so? And how reluctant is the field to embrace the fact that the brain and thinking simply cannot "find" the Truth by thinking? Peace

The brain creates everything. We don't know its size but it is material. Spiritual things are activities of the brain. All you experience is the spiritual activity of the extension of matter

Mysticism. Ritually mystifying oneself about 'oneself as a discrete entity' ... by suspending self-nonself distinctions (dualities) or, in other words, cultivating effortless attention to the calm between each breath, each heartbeat, each thought.

I don't understand why @1 Brother James new "Is Mysticism capable of being 'experienced' by the use of the Intellect?" discussion was jammed in here. This thread is four months old and covers mysticism in general. The new thread was addressing one specific issue associated with mysticism.

It doesn't make sense and it disrupts the discussion.

No, it was just as tangible as all this but could not longer be remembered on practical grounds since most people had been upheavalled, as I explained in my contribution to the textual analysis thread. You are (part of the time) muddling too many things up, underestimating the subtlety and alertness in most of our lives, and underinformed on some points. Of course there are some things beyond our brains, that doesn't mean we are hostile. Nor does it mean we should strain ourselves. Whatever "beings" are at those levels, I'm convinced, if they are benign, they are content that we leave them be: they wouldn't want to be attention seeking. Everyone's gift is different, that yours is doesn't reflect on ours. I've seen so many people strain themselves and get intense over all this. Am glad I saw there is another thread on the subject and shall look it over.

But the spiritual, and intuition, are usually not ecstatic, fortunately. My peak experience is to be ordinary. That probably places me at the peak of humanity.

I loosely group as spiritual intangibles such as boundaries, relationships, attitudes.

I don't know if your exotic sounding handle is meant to convey anything to me but as an intellectual I embrace some of the claimed attitudes of the anti-intellectual in your story. Instead of ideology and propaganda, why not just let each of us mix and match our already unique "portfolio" of inner wealths?

There is variety in this universe, there is me, there is some other people, there is things of all kinds, there are things I'll never know, all contentedly getting along alongside each other, no grand dichotomies anywhere, just variety. Many people sense all sorts, but I think it unsuitable to push any particular states. Just be you and you'll be surprised what you pick up.

Insights come looking for me. Serendipity = serenity dip. I get insights about what I like to get insights about. They aren't generic, they are personal, which is other people's access point because they know it has been vivid to me. Is designer outlet mysticism rather homogenised and therefore difficult for anyone to recognise as interesting?

Are there other kinds of mysticism according to you besides Tao? How do you compare and contrast. I'll look out my book on Ken Wilber because of this thread.

This is an old thread. Anand-Haqq was banned two months ago.

I don't understand why 1 Brother James new "Is Mysticism capable of being 'experienced' by the use of the Intellect?" discussion was jammed in here. This thread is four months old and covers mysticism in general. The new thread was addressing one specific issue associated with mysticism.

It doesn't make sense and it disrupts the discussion. — T Clark

The OP of the merged thread:

That is, can one's brain experience Mystical phenomena? I suggest it cannot, and my reason for saying this is that the term Mysticism is a label for that which the brain [being physical] cannot experience. And this naturally leads to the topic of "Intuition," which is a label for an aspect of the Soul, which is composed of Spiritual Energy. Can Intuition be proven via one's intellect? No, because no part of one's thinking is capable of perceiving Spiritual Energy.

Given this nonsense, the implication is that the moderating mergerer generally views mysticism as similarly nonsensical. Tellingly, they did not delete the topic or move it to the lounge but merged it into a topic that discusses mysticism in general.

Given this nonsense, the implication is that the moderating mergerer generally views mysticism as similarly nonsensical. Tellingly, they did not delete the topic or move it to the lounge but merged it into a topic that discusses mysticism in general. — praxis

I see it more as showing disrespect for discussions of mysticism in general. I thought the "What is Mysticism?" thread was a good one. It had some rigor and clarity. It really helped me get a hand on what the word means. I think it helped others too. The moderators brought it back from four months in the past just because a couple of us referenced it and it was easy to dump it in the trash with the new thread.

Pisses me off.

How long has philosophy sought to prove the existence of Truth, and yet has failed to do so? — 1 Brother James

Philosophy provided (or at least it tried to) a lot of logical principles to discover the "truth". This word as anothers like "freedom" or "happiness" are so free of interpretation and opened to many answers related. Before blaming philosophy to not discover the truth, you have to ask yourself: what do I consider as a "truth"?

Us mystics are only allotted one curtesy thread per every six months. It's in the site guidelines somewhere.

Frank Visser's book Ken Wilber, thought as passion (State University of New York Press, 2003) which has got lots of quotes from Wilber in it, explains that Wilber critiqued new age / "oriental" meditation severely and at the same time showed up the snags in reductionism in the name of so called science. He liked charts. One of his charts shows grades of development in different people. From his descriptions I would place a lot of "charismatics" rather low down on one of his charts.

I was in a movement of "charismatics" some years ago and it harmed me a lot because I was "supposed" to try to reach a vague standard which I now see had no basis. This is why I am now very feet on the ground and am opposed to strain of all kinds. I am only interested in what comes looking for me. Almost none of the public are using their faculties as dimosthenes9 was pointing out on another thread. All we need to improve the world is for more people to think straight and think more. I wonder how many self-appointed mystics were under 40 when they started and have not learned how to use their imagination yet. On the other hand some people are doing something highly normal, low key, plain, copious, relaxing and productive e.g poetry, or method in learning, or getting intuitions, but giving it a fancy name "mysticism".



I blame authorities who cut "logic" back to something very small, inaccessible and nasty (and sciences, history and languages likewise). I recommend Straight and crooked thinking by R H Thouless, revised ed, Pan, 1953, and Elementary lessons in logic by W Stanley Jevons, 1888. Jevons' sense of humour is subtle and his range of subject matter wide, familiar and vivid. I ignore his notations. Thouless guards us against the ever increasing gangs of thugs and liars. These things should have been taught in all schools. Don't forget Max Black's warning to not exclude a middle when it ought not to be excluded (middles get excluded far too often).

I used to think visually and even spatially as a small child, and a coach told me to get back to it and my life gradually got back on the rails again. Everyone has got this faculty and ought to start engaging it.

Always look for sound premises and don't be misled by what people "imply". Real logic is about honesty. Knowledge and belief can already be firm to be getting on with when they are tentative and provisional. Always keep all hypotheses on the table indefinitely, but provisionally re-prioritise them.

I am also determined to get infinite use out of words. Words allude (the word is not the thing). When we have a number of intersecting allusions (note my spatial imagery) we can begin to get meaning. Fundamentalists and reifiers deny all meaning(s). S J Gould slammed the reifiers.

Bourdieu is about habitus which is where Dawkins' memes hit us; Husserl describes the stages in perception (more than you would think) including a stage where we can build in a valuation prior to judgment. This is where we can revalue as Nietzsche called for which might help (nothing promised) in coping with traumas / triggers.

Follow J H Newman's "assent to degrees of inference" which is in Grammar of assent (free PDF). Your inference, your degrees of it, your assent, your good pride in your individuality and your productivity of mind. Everything in this world and in life IS betwixt and between and a bit of this a bit of that. Don't believe the heavies who want to deceive you into all or nothing thinking.

Barthes wittily saw semiotics in culture (try his essay 'Plastic'; he also panned the industrialised religion of Loyola), while Peirce saw semiotics in all of nature. I have only dabbled in a few of these authors and have come across commentary about others. I am pinning them on my mental pinboard.

Every day you get up, ask yourself what enlightenment is going to come looking for you today. I find this helps me achieve better than any kind of "mystic" I used to "try" and is more relaxing. If your religion or anything similar gives you facts consider the "mystic" has been done for you. Epicurus begs us not to fall for superstition (neurosis). My physical makeup was always very contemplative anyway.

Relativity and quantum mechanics made good sense to me as a child when my mates explained them to me (they weren't on the syllabus) because they refer to different scales from the scale we are in and which we see. It was always obvious to me all parts of the world interact.

Myth and ceremony are supposed to bring about lesser intensity and not more. This society deprives us of what is normal then sends us on wild goose chases. Don't consent to be stolen from. I think the latest thread start needed widening to this base anyway.

I note that several posts use the term "knowledge"in the sense of information the brain can process. I personally differentiate information from Knowledge in that the brain processes information, but the brain cannot perceive Knowledge [which is found only in the Spiritual Dimension], and I am speaking about what the term Knowledge "stands for," which is only found "Within" the Spiritual Dimension. Possessing information about a term, such as the term "Soul," does not provide one the experiential Knowledge of one's Soul. So the term Soul does not provide one an experience of one's Soul. Peace

For me Mysticism is an umbrella word for a range of spiritual ideas — Tom Storm

Pardon my interference, but the term "Mysticism "is quite specific in meaning. It refers to the ability to Intuit Spiritual Truth from "Within" ones own Conscious Awareness [or what philosophers refer to as the "Self"]. It also refers to a person's level of Consciousness that enables that person to access Spiritual Knowledge from "Within" him or herself via Intuition. Peace

Are so-called mystics neurological patients with subclinical TLE (temporal lobe epilepsy)? :chin:

Could be a brain tumor or perhaps a parasite (t. solium/t. gondi/etc.).

7] Mysticism is popularly known as becoming one with God or the Absolute, but may refer to any kind of ecstasy or altered state of consciousness which is given a religious or spiritual meaning. It may also refer to the attainment of insight in ultimate or hidden truths, and to human transformation supported by various practices and experiences.

[8] The belief that there is hidden meaning in life or that each human being can unite with God

[9] The pursuit or achievement of personal communion with or joining with God (or some other form of the divine or ultimate truth). — T Clark

Becoming one with gods or an absolute truth seems impossible. Gods are involved though. Mainly the mystery of their existence is healthy mystic fodder.

6] A theory postulating the possibility of direct and intuitive acquisition of ineffable knowledge or power — T Clark

That's a theory. Not mysticism.

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. — T Clark

I dont think so. There is no union involved. At most an intuitive mirror-neuron-like identification with the magic divine essence. Contemplation and meditation are helpful in attaining identification. Self-surrender? Hmmmm...

The experience of mystical union or direct communion with ultimate reality

[4] The belief that direct knowledge of God, spiritual truth, or ultimate reality can be attained through subjective experience (such as intuition or insight) — T Clark

Comes close.

Belief characterized by self-delusion or dreamy confusion of thought, especially when based on the assumption of occult qualities or mysterious agencies. — T Clark

This is an evaluation, not a definition. Likewise: "Vague speculation : a belief without sound basis"

Agreed, but unfortunately you won’t find many folk on here who practice. In the absence of this practice it’s just words chasing their own tail.

Mysticism is, inter alia, the rejection of rationality as a means to truths, herein the divine variety. That however doesn't mean mysticism is irrational. That would me the mistake naysayers often make.

Leibniz was of the view that our minds are little gods and introvertive mysticism allegedly attempts to find the divine spark within our self.

Extrovertive mysticism is, as the name indicates, appreciating the oneness of nature; union with the cosmic soul (Brahman).