Toward a universal mysticism?

E

earl

?
Messages
1,623
Reaction score
19
Points
38
Location
Kansas
I do not know if a universal mysticism is even desirable let alone possible, but as 1 who always delights at discovering the apparent universal nuggets of truth in multiple traditions, thought I'd post a link to an interesting web site I just was introduced to-though haven't had time to do more than skim it:

http://www.centerforsacredsciences.org

Take care, Earl
 
The aforementioned site among other things offers quotes/points of view from the esoteric side of most of the world's great religious traditions, such as Sufism, Christian mysticism, Vedanta, as well as non-theistic ones such as Buddhism, (though may to some degree taking a bit of liberty with this tradition), pointing to how their essential messages are nearly identical. I don't know if the "absolute Reality" each of these traditions reveals truly is fully identical, but what seems to be is their message regarding what it may take to fully realize the Truth to which they point and in that aspect they seem to reveal an aspect of absolute reality that is universal: to fully realize-or attempt to do so-seems to take one through to a fully open Being-the openness dimension of Reality. They promote some of the essential universals of such a path: meditative self-inquiry and morality or ethics, which assist in realizing the state of openness-selflessness. They also point to devotional approaches which are typically associated with theistic approaches. Such devotionalism addresses an aspect of Otherness which may or may not reflect part of the Ultimate picture but nevertheless points to an aspect of the path innate to the human condition which may not respond to anything but that: the need for surrender of will to something greater than our mundane sense of self. In non-theistic traditions such as Buddhism this dilemma is occasionally discussed: that the aspiration to realize selflessness can subtly involve the kind of effort which reinforces a sense of self. Tariki, one of our members here, being not only a practitioner of a school of Buddhism based primarily on reliance on Other power-literally what the term "tariki" means, could provide a wonderful explanation of that school-Pureland Buddhism and is a wonderful writer with as I've put it to him before a great ecumenical orientation. So, tariki, (Derek), if you happen to see this passing comment, it would be great to hear from you re devotionalism and the path to "enlightenment."

So, is there possibly a universal mysticism? Don't know if all those fingers point to the same moon, but it seems they tend to use some of the same fingers;) Have a good one, Earl
 
Hi Earl,


I hope Derk posts here too, I love reading his work!
It occurs to me when I wander out into my yard, and look at all the wonderful flowers my wife has planted, how wonderful diversity is. True, they are all flowers and all of them need something to thrive. There the similarity ends, and I am grateful that this is so. The Zinnias seem to like the sunshine, and my wonderful rose bush is growing like mad on the south side. The impatiens like the shade and are fond of a little extra water.
If there is ever to be a universal mysticism, I don't think I would like it to be an outer one. Maybe it already exists in our hearts because no matter what we think we see outside ourselves, inside we sense the beauty, the devotion, the stillness radiating from the many beliefs and practices.
I can make an argument that refutes Pascal's wager but fall in love with the devotion that spawned it.
If I tried to practice a whirling dervish I would probably hurt myself and several bystanders as well, but when I watch someone else do it I am hushed to stillness by what I see.
The list goes on and on, and as I walk through life's garden I am constantly amazed, delighted and fall in love with the essence of living over and over again.

This, I would submit, is universal mysticism, and the temple is the human heart.

Peace

Mark
 
Thanks, Earl. for the link--interesting. (I have got to finally read Eickhart and Merton).

Don't know about everything stated in the article, but the following sure hits home with me:

Center for Sacred Sciences said:
The reason Ultimate Reality cannot be grasped by thought or communicated in words is that thoughts and words, by definition, create distinctions and, hence, duality. Even the simple act of naming something creates duality because it distinguishes the thing that is named from all other things that are left unnamed. However, the mystics of all the great traditions agree that all distinctions are imaginary and that the Ultimate Nature of Reality is non-dual.
Click to expand...

I say it all the time:). Language is so often at the center of misconception. But what is the alternative? A vow of silence? No, because the thought is still there.

InPeace,
InLove
 
(oops--better clear that up. The Center for Sacred Sciences did not post the quote in the previous post, of course. I was quoting from the website--my bad!)
 
Paladin said:
Hi Earl,


I hope Derk posts here too, I love reading his work!
It occurs to me when I wander out into my yard, and look at all the wonderful flowers my wife has planted, how wonderful diversity is. True, they are all flowers and all of them need something to thrive. There the similarity ends, and I am grateful that this is so. The Zinnias seem to like the sunshine, and my wonderful rose bush is growing like mad on the south side. The impatiens like the shade and are fond of a little extra water.
If there is ever to be a universal mysticism, I don't think I would like it to be an outer one. Maybe it already exists in our hearts because no matter what we think we see outside ourselves, inside we sense the beauty, the devotion, the stillness radiating from the many beliefs and practices.
I can make an argument that refutes Pascal's wager but fall in love with the devotion that spawned it.
If I tried to practice a whirling dervish I would probably hurt myself and several bystanders as well, but when I watch someone else do it I am hushed to stillness by what I see.
The list goes on and on, and as I walk through life's garden I am constantly amazed, delighted and fall in love with the essence of living over and over again.

This, I would submit, is universal mysticism, and the temple is the human heart.

Peace

Mark
Click to expand...
I like the metaphor of the many flowering forms, Mark. They are all nourished by the same Sun that shines on all equally; the same rain that falls on all equally. They bloom in many shapes, sizes and colors. The only universal is their ability to respond to that impulse, one that in some way perhaps allows all of nature to move together. I guess that's also the metaphor for the multitude of spiritual forms we have seen represented at this forum, too. We're all moving in our own "heliotropic" manner, perhaps as we each should via a sort of "DNA" of the "soul" we each were given. InLove, as you may have also said here in so many words in the past & as you allude to Mark, in the end it's really about the size of the "heart;" as the Dalai Lama had said, his "religion" is human kindness. To follow the heart (& probably one's "soul") implies keeping it (& one's mind) open. Take care, Earl
 
John Horgan's book "Rational Mysticism" is a good read too for those interested in an overview of mysticism, including the debate about the "perennial philosophy" (the idea that all spiritual and mystical paths are really just different approaches to what is essentially a single central truth.)
 
earl- i love this idea, as well. that there could be something fundamental in human spiritual experience through which we could all be moved closer to the divine and to one another.

Mysticism:

Immediate consciousness of the transcendent or ultimate reality or God.

The experience of such communion as described by mystics.
 
Another recent book that explores these topics is Clifford A. Pickover's "Sex, Drugs, Einstein, & Elves" (SmartPublications: Petaluma, California; 2005.)

I just picked up a copy the other day and have started to read it. Pickover is a science writer who tends to cover more mainstream topics than spirituality, consciousness, and the fringes of science.

This book seems to me like a mix of John Horgan's "Rational Mysticism" with Robert Anton Wilson's style in his popular "Prometheus Rising" and other nonfiction books. It should be interesting reading.
 
Mysticism parts the veil covering our minds so we can step of duality to unity.
Life gives us so many clues to this experience. A spiritual experience that gives meaning to life without rejecting anything else.

Word are only the sign pointing to it, a menu, but who wants to read about cakes............its the experience in each mouthful.
 
soma said:
Mysticism parts the veil covering our minds so we can step of duality to unity.
Life gives us so many clues to this experience. A spiritual experience that gives meaning to life without rejecting anything else.

Word are only the sign pointing to it, a menu, but who wants to read about cakes............its the experience in each mouthful.
Click to expand...

I agree. Chardin (in THE DIVINE MILIEU, I think) said "Everything that rises must converge." Jesus said "One thing alone is necessary." The rubric of the Trappists is GOD ALONE. Kierkegaard said "Purity of heart is to will one thing."

The mystical approach seems by its very nature to be ecumenical.
 
My daughter spent a week at a universal peace dance camp. I went for the talent show and then a dance on Saturday night and their closing ceremony in the morning. The dances were chants from Judaic, Sufi, Islam, Christianity, Catholicism, Hinduism, Buddhism...a quite moving and enegetic experience, physically, emotionally, spiritually.

I recommend if you have a chance to dance to take it!
 
Three Gems:

Paladin said:
If there is ever to be a universal mysticism, I don't think I would like it to be an outer one. Maybe it already exists in our hearts because no matter what we think we see outside ourselves, inside we sense the beauty, the devotion, the stillness radiating from the many beliefs and practices.
Click to expand...
The reason Ultimate Reality cannot be grasped by thought or communicated in words is that thoughts and words, by definition, create distinctions and, hence, duality. Even the simple act of naming something creates duality because it distinguishes the thing that is named from all other things that are left unnamed. However, the mystics of all the great traditions agree that all distinctions are imaginary and that the Ultimate Nature of Reality is non-dual.

Center for Sacred Sciences
Click to expand...


soma said:
Mysticism parts the veil covering our minds so we can step of duality to unity.
Life gives us so many clues to this experience. A spiritual experience that gives meaning to life without rejecting anything else.

Word are only the sign pointing to it, a menu, but who wants to read about cakes............its the experience in each mouthful.
Click to expand...
Random thoughts:

"...the mystics of all the great traditions agree that all distinctions are imaginary and that the Ultimate Nature of Reality is non-dual."

Right. The "Ultimate Nature of Reality" is nothing. No-thing. So mysticism isn't concerned with Ultimate Reality because mysticism is essentially the cartography of consciousness. It's all about creating images, icons, archetypes,.. road maps through the realms of consciousness.

"If there is ever to be a universal mysticism, I don't think I would like it to be an outer one."

What would a universal mysticism be? I'm imagining two kinds of formats: In one it's like a friendly space where it's always open mike night. Everybody gets along and shares a sort of neo-tribal groove, you can act out any way you want and do your thing but there's no central philosophical direction. The other is a harmonized mysticism where the signs and forms are standardized but include at least a little somethin'-something from all branches of mystical-ness.

But that's not what Paladin is talking about (I think). So how about mysticism reduced to the essentials? A mysticism of the practical? A mysticism that goes with planting flowers and mowing the lawn?

Chris
 
Chris, I do see a touch O' the zen in ya lad. As they said in that venerable tradition er so long ago: "before enlightenment, chop wood, carry water; after enlightenment, chop wood, carry water.":D have a good one, earl
 
Hi,

How about someone that knows about these things start a thread to post Eickhart quotes:)

s.
 
Earl,

I have seen your post "in passing".................unfortunately I've been banging my head against a brick wall in the form of another thread and feel mentally exhausted. Need a refill of the Other Power before attempting to jump in......................more in the form of a good nights sleep....:)

I would just say that the "universal" will always be expressed in multiple ways, and so much the better that it is!

:)

All of you, have a good one.............
 
As a contribution to this thread I would just like to offer one or two quotes (!!) in the time honoured tradition of Tariki........if not of Dookie! The quotes are from the letters of Thomas Merton, in this case written to Aldous Huxley. In effect they imply some distinctions within mysticism, even perhaps a form of distinction between "east" and "west". If there is a movement toward a universal mysticism then obviously any present distinctions need to be drawn and recognised for the stepping stones to be legitimate.

Merton is responding to an article by Huxley in the Saturday Evening Post on drugs that help man to achieve an experience of self-transcendence. Merton begins by suggesting that the whole concept of genuine mystical experience could be endangered by the suggestion that something could be produced by a drug. He then goes on to distinguish an essentially aesthetic and natural form of experience to one that could be termed mystical and supernatural. The former he describes as follows......

......an experience which would be an intuitive "tasting" of the inner spirituality of our own being - or an intuition of being as such, arrived at through an intuitive awareness of our own inmost reality. This would be an experience of "oneness" within oneself and with all beings, a flash of awareness of the transcendent Reality that is within all that is real.


Merton then goes on to describe just what he would consider to be the second kind......

It seems to me that a fully mystical experience has in its very essence some note of a direct spiritual contact of two liberties, a kind of a flash or spark which ignites an intuition of all that has been said above (i.e. concerning the aesthetic and natural), plus something much more which I can only describe as "personal", in which God is known not as an "object" or as "Him up there" or "Him in everything" nor as "the All" but as - the biblical expression - I AM, or simply AM. But what I mean is that this is not the kind of intuition that smacks of anything procurable because it is a presence of a Person and depends on the liberty of the Person. And lacking the element of a free gift, a free act of love on the part of Him Who comes, the experience would lose its specifically mystical quality.

The term, the contact of two liberties, has long intrigued me. I have in fact opened more than one thread around this theme without ever truly being able to express how it - at least to me - reaches down to some fundamental differences between the various Faiths, between what could be termed the impersonal and the personal.......even "east" and "west" (often a superficial split, yet still with a little mileage in it!) It is why my own interest in dialogue between the Faiths centres upon the meaning/reality of the "Person". I did say "fundamental differences", yet the Faiths could in fact be using different words and concepts to point toward what would ultimately be the selfsame experience. Merton wrote his words in 1958, ten years before his untimely death. Judging from enties in his Journals, I can only assume he may have "moved on" from the position seemingly taken by his words of 1958. I would love to know!

Anyway, a few "talking points".

:)
 
Well, my "talking points" seem to have stopped the talk - I suppose not such a bad thing from the point of view of "mysticism":D

Picking up my own talking points in relation to this thread and its intent........Personally, I find it difficult to relate to the "contact of two liberties" except in relation to other human beings. Without giving too many airs and graces to what I more often than not experience as a daily stumbling ineptitude and confusion, maybe I have too much of the apophatic spirit - the way of "unknowing" - to relate to "God", whether as another "liberty" or not. Not to mention much of my acclimatisation to Buddhist teachings. Though much seems "unknowable" - and for me a path that involves too many recognitions of the scenery as it constantly appears would seem more a tragic and repetitive circle than any form of genuine "progess" - the "other" in the shape of another human being is the true centre of another "liberty". I think I mentioned somewhere before, about a story from a Theravadan sutta where the Buddha is depicted as entering the deepest hells, holding aloft a lamp. By its light the people there, up until then thinking that they were alone, are heard to exclaim....."Ah! There are others here beside myself!" I can relate this to the words of a Buddhist writer who has said........"The roots of empathy, compassion, and love lie in that intimate encounter where we hear the other wordlessly say.....do not kill me, do not rob me, do not abuse me, do not deceive me, do not betray me, do not insult me, do not waste my time, do not try to possess me, do not bear me ill will, do not misconstrue me....." The point of all this is that, for me, any "mysticism" should issue in such relationships and encounters, that this is what mysticism can hopefully "converge" upon, what within it can become universal.
 
Hi All, I only had time to quickly scan this thread so far, but I look forward to coming back to it soon.

My thought is that myticism is already universal...not in need of moving toward...regardless of which system of thought (or lack thereof) you ascend within.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top