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.
But is occultism, "mysticism"?"Occultism" tends to be a derogatory term these days, often used interchangeably with "Satanism" or "Witchcraft" (in a most negative sense).
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.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.
"Occultism" tends to be a derogatory term these days, often used interchangeably with "Satanism" or "Witchcraft" (in a most negative sense).
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.
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.
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.
I'll take that answer as "I've only read things people have written about him".
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.
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.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.
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.
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.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?