Experiential evidence for religion

[smaneck]

Mysticism by its very nature is occultic. It's hidden, not exoteric.

How are they very different from each other?

The goal of mysticism is unity with God, whether that is understood as a unity of essence or a unity of will, depends on ones theology. To put it in Islamic terms one seeks to annihilate the self (fana) in order to abide (baqa) in God. The occult on the other hand, involves harnessing hidden or metaphysical power in order to exalt the self.

 

[gord44]

The goal of mysticism is unity with God, whether that is understood as a unity of essence or a unity of will, depends on ones theology. To put it in Islamic terms one seeks to annihilate the self (fana) in order to abide (baqa) in God. The occult on the other hand, involves harnessing hidden or metaphysical power in order to exalt the self.

from my own exploration I have to agree with smaneck. More mystical aspects lead me to compassion and unity. When I dabbled in occult practices I found I became more focused on myself.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

"Occultism" tends to be a derogatory term these days, often used interchangeably with "Satanism" or "Witchcraft" (in a most negative sense).

 

[dlamberth]

"Occultism" tends to be a derogatory term these days, often used interchangeably with "Satanism" or "Witchcraft" (in a most negative sense).

But is occultism, "mysticism"?

.

 

[dlamberth]

The goal of mysticism is unity with God, whether that is understood as a unity of essence or a unity of will, depends on ones theology.

Because I see the prophets as experiencing levels of Unity with God, I feel that their spiritual messages gain understanding and wisdom in God when the lens of mysticism is applied. And with out that mystical lens of perspective, I feel that much of their message is lost.

.

 

[smaneck]

"Occultism" tends to be a derogatory term these days, often used interchangeably with "Satanism" or "Witchcraft" (in a most negative sense).

Granted, but Aleister Crowley and his subsequent followers did precious little to dissuade people from believing that. I don't believe in Satan myself and I think witchcraft is mostly harmless nonsense, but people like Crowley are so self-absorbed and for me self-absorption is satanic.

 

[Eyes wide Open]

My parents tell me I've always been a thinker. I'm told that when I was very young, I was trying to determine how a raindrop dispersed when it hit a puddle.

We can certainly learn most from just learning what type of person we are. I was fascinated by Einstein's quote when I first read it because one would assume he was a 'thinker' in the strongest meaning of the word. Most of us are thinkers because of the way we are wired, we are also habitual in our nature and just keep doing what we do. That's ok, but as others have said (myself included) my particular mode/line of thinking was caustic to me and meditation shifted me away from that. The old me would have never expected to end up meditating, but it was from a point of need and distress to some extent and without the need and distress (a kind of yearning for change) I wouldnt have done it. It was initially very hard to sit and think nothing. Einstien was a naturally gifted 'feeler' and 'thinker' portraying the right balence between the two IMO and look what he created!! The interesting thing about him though was that he attributed his thoughts as his own, as his singular creative expression, and his feeling intuitive part of himself he described as a sacred gift, and he felt he was the faithful servant to this gift, sounding very humble and thankful to me, but also relaying in the process that he was serving a greater 'something', and that the something was sacred, and a gift to him. A very inspiring man

Edit, the quote again from the previous post.


"The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift".
Albert Einstein

 

[morningstar2651]

Have you read what Crowley wrote, or only things that have been written about him?

Granted, but Aleister Crowley and his subsequent followers did precious little to dissuade people from believing that. I don't believe in Satan myself and I think witchcraft is mostly harmless nonsense, but people like Crowley are so self-absorbed and for me self-absorption is satanic.

I'll take that answer as "I've only read things people have written about him".

Here is an excerpt from the part of the book you scoffed at without reading.

What is there in common between Christ, Buddha, and Mohammed? Is there any one point upon which all three are in accord?

No point of doctrine, no point of ethics, no theory of a "hereafter" do they share, and yet in the history of their lives we find one identity amid many diversities.

Buddha was born a Prince, and died a beggar.

Mohammed was born a beggar, and died a Prince.

Christ remained obscure until many years after his death.

Elaborate lives of each have been written by devotees, and there is one thing common to all three -- an omission. We hear nothing of Christ between the ages of twelve and thirty. Mohammed disappeared into a cave. Buddha left his palace, and went for a long while into the desert.

Each of them, perfectly silent up to the time of the disappearance, came back and immediately began to preach a new law.

This is so curious that it leaves us to inquire whether the histories of other great teachers contradict or confirm.

Moses led a quiet life until his slaying of the Egyptian. He then flees into the land of Midian, and we hear nothing of what he did there, yet immediately on his return he turns the whole place upside down. Later on, too, he absents himself on Mount Sinai for a few days, and comes back with the Tables of the Law in his hand.

St. Paul (again), after his adventure on the road to Damascus, goes into the desert of Arabia for many years, and on his return overturns the Roman Empire. Even in the legends of savages we find the same thing universal; somebody who is nobody in particular goes away for a longer or shorter period, and comes back as the "great medicine man"; but nobody ever knows exactly what happened to him.

Making every possible deduction for fable and myth, we get this one coincidence. A nobody goes away, and comes back a somebody. This is not to be explained in any of the ordinary ways.

There is not the smallest ground for the contention that these were from the start exceptional men. Mohammed would hardly have driven a camel until he was thirty-five years old if he had possessed any talent or ambition. St. Paul had much original talent; but he is the least of the five. Nor do they seem to have possessed any of the usual materials of power, such as rank, fortune, or influence.

Moses was rather a big man in Egypt when he left; he came back as a mere stranger.

Christ had not been to China and married the Emperor's daughter.

Mohammed had not been acquiring wealth and drilling soldiers.

Buddha had not been consolidating any religious organizations.

St. Paul had not been intriguing with an ambitious general.

Each came back poor; each came back alone.

 

[smaneck]

I'll take that answer as "I've only read things people have written about him".

I wasn't answer you, I was answering Jane. I didn't even see your post. I was given a copy of Crowley's Book of Law in my early teens when I became interested in reading about all religions. I was spending my lunch hours reading the Baghavad-Gita, etc. But something felt very, very wrong about this work and I never finished it. At the time I knew nothing about Aleister Crowley. I started reading it because it was suppose to be some kind of scripture and I was reading each and every scripture in those days. I don't even remember anymore why I had such a gut level reaction to it.

 

[GabrielWithoutWings]

The goal of mysticism is unity with God, whether that is understood as a unity of essence or a unity of will, depends on ones theology. To put it in Islamic terms one seeks to annihilate the self (fana) in order to abide (baqa) in God. The occult on the other hand, involves harnessing hidden or metaphysical power in order to exalt the self.

from my own exploration I have to agree with smaneck. More mystical aspects lead me to compassion and unity. When I dabbled in occult practices I found I became more focused on myself.

You two should have kept reading. The ultimate goal of Thelema is union with the Divine. It's a right-hand path goal with a left-hand path paradigm. There comes a point in which the adept must cross the Abyss. If one reaches the other side, they lose their sense of self. If they allow their ego to become inflated, they fall into the Abyss and become what Crowley called black brothers.

Union with the Divine in this sense is "Knowledge and Conversation of the Holy Guardian Angel," which is one's own inner deity. This sounds blasphemous, until you realize that Crowley borrowed this idea from early Gnostic groups who believed in a sacrament called the Bridal Chamber. This involved a merger of one's soul with its angelic twin in the Pleroma.

I have my own problems with Crowley and his system but I'd rather reason against what it actually is.

 

[GabrielWithoutWings]

Also, I'm curious as to why you're exalting the annihilation of self but seem to be against the expansion of self. The two are practically identical at their conclusion.

When al-Hallaj said that he was Truth, did he lose his identity in his love for the divine? Or did his sense of self expand so much that his awareness equaled that of God?

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Granted, but Aleister Crowley and his subsequent followers did precious little to dissuade people from believing that. I don't believe in Satan myself and I think witchcraft is mostly harmless nonsense, but people like Crowley are so self-absorbed and for me self-absorption is satanic.

Crowley was a Victorian "bad boy" who spent his entire life rebelling against the fundamentalist ethos of his radical Christian parents. Ironically, this reaction shackled him just as much to their influence as compliance would have.

In terms of what he taught, however, Crowley was decidedly opposed to exaltation of the self and to Western appropriations of the Vama Marga ("left-hand path"): he believed that people who clung to their self-construct would become trapped in the Abyss that separates the three topmost sephiroth on the Tree of Life from the rest, becoming cysts in the fabric of reality until their inescapable dissolution. There was no love lost between him and those he'd refer to as "Black Brothers", and most Western left-hand path devotees consider him a straightforward "right-hand path" teacher to this day.
At his Abbey of Thelema, he performed exercises where people were called upon not to talk or think in terms of "I" for days on end - asking them to hurt themselves a little whenever they slipped.

Was he still a perfectly self-absorbed individual? Sure. But the path he founded was anything but.

Personally, I'm with the Indians on the whole "left-hand/right-hand"-dichotomy. It's not about right and wrong, good and evil, light and dark. It's two paths leading to the same destination, with very distinct hardships and outlooks, but the same ultimate conclusion.

Interestingly enough, that very symbolism is contained in Crowley's tarot card "The Magus": first, they designed a right-hand path and a left-hand path design of the motif, but in the end they decided on a picture that was neither and both, balancing the two sides.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

We could also compare this to the whole Dionysian/Apollonian-dichotomy.

Or finding holiness in ascetic practices and ritual purity vs. realizing the holy in even the supposedly lowliest aspects of existence.

 

[cloudyday2]

Here is an example of what I mean by "experiential evidence":

One of my roommates in college had been reading about Zen. He told me that he was somewhere like a museum and a stranger walked up to him and said something like: "I believe you are interested in Zen". I don't remember what he said to the stranger, but it seemed weird to him.

Interestingly on another forum a member described a very similar experience. He was studying Buddhism and somebody he didn't know on a job site asked if he would like to "learn about God" (paraphrasing). That person taught him more about Buddhism.

Many religious people seem to believe without any personal evidence at all. Of course, personal evidence could take other forms such as answers to prayer, unexplainable personal growth, etc. But I think people ought to have some evidence otherwise they should not believe.

Why do people always talk about theology, philosophy, rules, history as if those things should persuade?

 

[morningstar2651]

Crowley was a Victorian "bad boy" who spent his entire life rebelling against the fundamentalist ethos of his radical Christian parents. Ironically, this reaction shackled him just as much to their influence as compliance would have.

In terms of what he taught, however, Crowley was decidedly opposed to exaltation of the self and to Western appropriations of the Vama Marga ("left-hand path"): he believed that people who clung to their self-construct would become trapped in the Abyss that separates the three topmost sephiroth on the Tree of Life from the rest, becoming cysts in the fabric of reality until their inescapable dissolution. There was no love lost between him and those he'd refer to as "Black Brothers", and most Western left-hand path devotees consider him a straightforward "right-hand path" teacher to this day.
At his Abbey of Thelema, he performed exercises where people were called upon not to talk or think in terms of "I" for days on end - asking them to hurt themselves a little whenever they slipped.

Was he still a perfectly self-absorbed individual? Sure. But the path he founded was anything but.

Personally, I'm with the Indians on the whole "left-hand/right-hand"-dichotomy. It's not about right and wrong, good and evil, light and dark. It's two paths leading to the same destination, with very distinct hardships and outlooks, but the same ultimate conclusion.

Interestingly enough, that very symbolism is contained in Crowley's tarot card "The Magus": first, they designed a right-hand path and a left-hand path design of the motif, but in the end they decided on a picture that was neither and both, balancing the two sides.

I am reminded of a quote by Morihei Ueshiba, the founder of the martial art Aikido. (aka The Art of Love or The Art of Peace):

"Each and every master, regardless of the era or the place, heard the call and attained harmony with heaven and earth. There are many paths leading to the top of Mount Fuji, but there is only one summit — love." -- The Art of Peace​

His martial art philosophy is unique. It's a martial art that protects both the practitioner and the attacker from harm. The goal is to protect both the victim and assailant from permanent harm. There are no initiating attacks in aikido - it's a martial art that can only be practiced when someone is attacking the practitioner.

 

[morningstar2651]

Why do people always talk about theology, philosophy, rules, history as if those things should persuade?

They forget what had persuaded them in the first place and confuse it for what has kept them from straying from their path after deciding to walk it.

Dogma is good at keeping people within a religion with promises of rewards and threats of punishment. If you threaten people or promise them things they don't believe in, then you're not going to reach them.

 

[LoAmmi]

They forget what had persuaded them in the first place and confuse it for what has kept them from straying from their path after deciding to walk it.

Unless of course it was something like history that convinced them. It is possible for people to be drawn to a path because of history, rules, and philosophy.

 

[cloudyday2]

Unless of course it was something like history that convinced them. It is possible for people to be drawn to a path because of history, rules, and philosophy.

That's the part I don't understand. Apparently the majority of religious people learn some history, philosophy, practices, and then accept the metaphysical beliefs that come with the package. A religion might have some good ideas and even positively transform people without being true.

Wicca and Neo-paganism are especially weird to me. It seems that the "believers" know that it is all make believe, but they don't care.

Maybe it's my upbringing as a Protestant Christian that makes it hard for me to understand. In Protestantism, belief in the metaphysical claims are the foundation. I suppose that isn't true in other religions. I have read that in Judaism the traditions and practices are more important than the beliefs.

 

[LoAmmi]

That's the part I don't understand. Apparently the majority of religious people learn some history, philosophy, practices, and then accept the metaphysical beliefs that come with the package. A religion might have some good ideas and even positively transform people without being true.

Wicca and Neo-paganism are especially weird to me. It seems that the "believers" know that it is all make believe, but they don't care.

Maybe it's my upbringing as a Protestant Christian that makes it hard for me to understand. In Protestantism, belief in the metaphysical claims are the foundation. I suppose that isn't true in other religions. I have read that in Judaism the traditions and practices are more important than the beliefs.

I'm speaking for myself here and have no belief that it holds true for others. I also fully expect plenty of people to tell me that it happened though other means, and I am not going to dispute it.

I see the continuation of the Jewish people though intense adversity, including losing a third of our population in less than a decade in the 20th century, as proof that there is something to the faith that unites the Jewish people. It is Judaism that unites the Jews, it isn't even a completely similar culture because there are two major cultural divisions between Jews. So, when I look at that history, how can I not be swayed to stay with Judaism and see it as true? Of course, it helps that I love the morality the rabbis teach.

You are correct, Judaism is a religion of action and not beliefs. It is not seen as necessary for someone to hold the correct belief but to keep the Torah.

 

[light upon light]

That's a good question... Maybe I'll have a different answer after I think, but here are some ideas:
- If there is some task I'm supposed to do that I wouln't accomplish as an atheist, then I want a clear understanding of that task and some evidence that it isn't all in my imagination.

You only get that evidence once you start working on the task. And you don't get a "clear understanding" of the task before you begin, only in hindsight will you look back and see the amazing things God has done with your willingness to act through trust and love...

Kingston Trio - Desert Pete Lyrics | MetroLyrics