What would it take to make you a Christian?

[Joyousperson]

My take is that mystical experiences are "qualia". Probably there are degrees of mystical experiences, so a person could possibly imagine what some greater mystical experiences might be like by extrapolating from his/her own lesser mystical experiences, but the key word is EXPERIENCE. A person can't claim to understand mysticism without some personal experience of mysticism. I don't think a person can learn much about mysticism by reading a book anymore than a person can learn the difference between salty and sweet by reading a book - you need to taste something salty and taste something sweet.

I haven't been following the details of your discussion with @dlamberth , so maybe I just don't get it.

I agree for one to understand mystical experiences [as defined], it would be preferable that the person has some experiences of the mysticism, i.e. the appropriate altered state of consciousness.

However, I do not think mystical experience is imperative to understand mysticism thoroughly. What is mystical can be explained from the common experiences reported by mystics and traced to the root causes and intermediate mechanics and processes.

Note the work of Andrew Newberg [who is not a mystic] and he specializes in studying brain activities of those who are recognized as mystics or highly spiritual individuals;

Dr. Andrew Newberg is a neuroscientist who studies the relationship between brain function and various mental states. He is a pioneer in the neurological study of religious and spiritual experiences, a field known as “neurotheology.” His research includes taking brain scans of people in prayer, meditation, rituals, and trance states, in an attempt to better understand the nature of religious and spiritual practices and attitudes.
Andrew Newberg​

Note this guy who reported 'mystical experiences' but was cured with the help of a neuroscientist who is not a mystic together with psychiatry.

Many has used hallucinogens and various methods to duplicate the experiences reported by the so-called mystics of the past and present.
What do you think could be the different element between the so called real mystics and the one who took hallucinogens, like DMT, etc.

 

[dlamberth]

True, DNA wise, ALL human beings has the potential to be a mystic.
But that mystic potential is not activated in all. When activated it is in degrees.

Yes, the mystic experience is a Human experience and is one of the things that sets us apart from the rest of the animal kingdom.

Your definition of Mysticism and mystic is too loose.

Your dictionary definition is way too limited. If you notice, I haven't defined mysticism. I haven't done that because it's a human experience that not unlike another human experience called Love, can not be defined.

In term of the mind of mystic, the critical element and feature of mystics is the altered state of consciousness in its various forms.

Not really. The critical element is "inner experience". Some might call it "gnossis" Little "g".

As from the above, the mystics are in general an elitist group. Many mystics are also ascetic or prefer to be loners.

That's just not at all true. There's more mystics around than you know. They just don't go around announcing themselves as such.

 

[dlamberth]

However, I do not think mystical experience is imperative to understand mysticism thoroughly.

You say this, yet you have constantly miss-represented the mystical experience. As you can tell, I completely and totally disagree with your statement. To understand mysticism thoroughly, like any other human experience, it is absolutely imperative that it be explored through the experience itself. The reductionist approach as you have used it, goes right past the Human experience aspect, which is what this is all about.

It's like your claiming to know all about flying an airplane by reading a book while never actually sitting in the pilots seat of an airplane let alone taking off and flying one.

 

[dlamberth]

How are you to start or implement any of the above if you do not have a thorough understanding to the internal elements, the mechanics and processes within the relevant system?

Your want is to reductionist right past what it is to be a Human Being. Love, Compassion, Empathy and Service to those in need are basic Human Heart felt experiences. A mother does not need any of your Quotients to love her children anymore than anyone else needs them for empathy or compassion or even to help anyone in need.

 

[Joyousperson]

Yes, the mystic experience is a Human experience and is one of the things that sets us apart from the rest of the animal kingdom.

I would not be that 100% certain.
It is possible the higher primates and other higher animals could have experience 'mystical' experience. The limitation is they cannot express it literally.

Your dictionary definition is way too limited. If you notice, I haven't defined mysticism. I haven't done that because it's a human experience that not unlike another human experience called Love, can not be defined.

It is not a dictionary definition but its from an article in Wiki.

That article has 25 Notes, 155 References and various mentioned Sources.
Mysticism - Wikipedia

Not really. The critical element is "inner experience". Some might call it "gnossis" Little "g".

Note Wittgenstein's
"Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.".

Whatever "inner experiences" of mystics they have been recorded [spoken] over the ages.
Whatever it hidden is likely to be illusory.

That's just not at all true. There's more mystics around than you know. They just don't go around announcing themselves as such.

It is possible there could be more mystics than the knowns, but the number is not likely to be significant. Many could have been suffering from mental illnesses.

Note one example;

Depersonalization can consist of a detachment within the self, regarding one's mind or body, or being a detached observer of oneself.[1] Subjects feel they have changed and that the world has become vague, dreamlike, less real, lacking in significance or being outside reality while looking in. It can be a disturbing experience.[citation needed] Chronic depersonalization refers to depersonalization-derealization disorder, which is classified by the DSM-5 as a dissociative disorder.
Depersonalization - Wikipedia​

Those less chronic ones could feel they are like a 'god' looking independently of the world from a higher perspective.

 

[Joyousperson]

You say this, yet you have constantly miss-represented the mystical experience. As you can tell, I completely and totally disagree with your statement. To understand mysticism thoroughly, like any other human experience, it is absolutely imperative that it be explored through the experience itself. The reductionist approach as you have used it, goes right past the Human experience aspect, which is what this is all about.

It's like your claiming to know all about flying an airplane by reading a book while never actually sitting in the pilots seat of an airplane let alone taking off and flying one.

Whatever "inner experiences" of mystics they have been recorded [spoken] over the ages.
Whatever it hidden is likely to be illusory.

Note the extensive coverage by the Wiki article on mysticism. There are thousands of books out there written by mystics and those who had recorded the experiences and knowledge of mystics. I have read loads of the books and articles on mysticism and mystics.

It is from the experiences and knowledge gather from mystics over the centuries that mystics and researchers are able to established the common features of what is mysticism which initially was from a black-box approach.
But new advances in neurosciences and other knowledge, researchers and even mystics themselves are penetrating into the black-boxes of mysticism to get a clearer picture.

The Dalai Lama [I regard as a mystic] is heavy into neurosciences of mysticism and spirituality.
There are also many "mystics" who are neuroscientists, neuro-psychology and physicists who had researched into mysticism*.
* I would prefer higher spirituality rather than mysticism.

Note again, I rely in the reductionist and the holistic approach simultaneously which I claim must be of high complementarity. Yin-Yang.

 

[Joyousperson]

Your want is to reductionist right past what it is to be a Human Being. Love, Compassion, Empathy and Service to those in need are basic Human Heart felt experiences. A mother does not need any of your Quotients to love her children anymore than anyone else needs them for empathy or compassion or even to help anyone in need.

Note a more rational, rigoristic, systematic approach is definitely better than a trial and error, 'hit and miss' approach.

For example, note how medicine and science deal with curing diseases as compared to the hit and miss medicines of shamans and old folks tales [which works but not all the times].

True the medical and scientific approach to disease has its pros and cons, but what is critical is it has a systematic framework that one can trace to one's errors to make corrections.

Note empathy and compassion has been traced to neurons in the brain, i.e. Mirror Neurons.

Iacoboni has argued that mirror neurons are the neural basis of the human capacity for emotions such as empathy.
Mirror neuron - Wikipedia
​

The above may not be definite at present but it open up opportunities to determine the neurons that are responsible for empathy and compassion. Therefore the proper development of these mirror neurons connectivity will increase one's capacity for empathy and compassion.

Note the love and bonding of mother and child is dependent on the level of

Oxytocin (Oxt) is a peptide hormone and neuropeptide. Oxytocin is normally produced in the hypothalamus and released by the posterior pituitary.[3] It plays a role in social bonding, sexual reproduction, childbirth, and the period after childbirth.
Oxytocin - Wikipedia​

Oxytocin is now a drug for medication;
Oxytocin (medication) - Wikipedia

Oxytocin is also modified as a love hormone to induce bondings.
The dark side of oxytocin, much more than just a “love hormone” - Not Exactly Rocket Science : Not Exactly Rocket Science
It has its darkside but there are room to improve on this.

Btw, note I have given loads of references to support my views and possibilities.

You?? what you are doing is simply brush off whatever is potentially useful and get stuck to a mysterious unknown.

I have cultured my spiritual experiences [mystical as defined] through years of meditation and spiritual exercises in a controlled fashion.
Whoever have had or are having what-are-supposedly-mystical-experience out of the blue without a spiritual tradition, it would be better to get clearance from a psychiatrist or medical expert to ensure there is no underlying medical or mental issues.

 

[cloudyday2]

I have cultured my spiritual experiences [mystical as defined] through years of meditation and spiritual exercises in a controlled fashion.
Whoever have had or are having what-are-supposedly-mystical-experience out of the blue without a spiritual tradition, it would be better to get clearance from a psychiatrist or medical expert to ensure there is no underlying medical or mental issues.

I take the opposite view. As an analogy let's consider two people:
Person #1 is somebody who desperately wants to see a UFO and spends years reading UFO books, attending UFO conferences, sitting cross-legged under the stars with other UFO enthusiasts in "UFO hot-spots" trying to telepathically invite a UFO appearance, etc.
Person #2 is somebody who thinks UFOs are bunk and has no interest in UFOs.

Now imagine both Person #1 and Person #2 sight a UFO. Both sightings are similar. The only evidence is the reliability of a single witness. Neither witness seems to be a hoaxer, but either of them could have misidentified Venus for example.

Which witness is more persuasive - Person #1 (the UFO fanatic) or Person #2 (the UFO scoffer)?

Arguments could be made either way. The UFO fanatic might be more astute about the possibility of misidentifying Venus and the importance of recording details like the time, direction, etc. On the other hand, the UFO scoffer might be less likely to wish to see a UFO and therefore less likely to misidentify.

I tend to dismiss meditation and other so-call spiritual experiences as merely altered states (such as LSD) rather than actual contact with spirits. Furthermore, intense meditative practices can actually cause psychosis, so a person practicing meditation is no less likely to have a hallucinatory experience and probably slightly more likely.

As an aside, I might have had a spiritual experience this morning. I was getting dressed and decided to get a handkerchief. I got out a handkerchief and put it in my pocket, but then I noticed a SECOND handkerchief was folded-up and balanced on my shoulder. It is difficult for me to imagine how that would happen by chance. The idea that a spirit was able to put a handkerchief on my shoulder is kind of interesting. A less appealing idea is that I am having neurological problems and put the handkerchief on my shoulder for some goofy reason and then "discovered" the handkerchief after my brain returned to normal function. ... Either way, I think this type of potentially paranormal experience is what we should be analyzing when we talk about spirituality. If somebody claims to experience spirituality through meditation, I would ask for some evidence. Did the spirit give you the winning lottery numbers or did it just tell you something you already knew?

 

[dlamberth]

I have cultured my spiritual experiences [mystical as defined] through years of meditation and spiritual exercises in a controlled fashion.

What is your background in these areas? And what are you calling a controlled fashion?

 

[Joyousperson]

I take the opposite view. As an analogy let's consider two people:
Person #1 is somebody who desperately wants to see a UFO and spends years reading UFO books, attending UFO conferences, sitting cross-legged under the stars with other UFO enthusiasts in "UFO hot-spots" trying to telepathically invite a UFO appearance, etc.
Person #2 is somebody who thinks UFOs are bunk and has no interest in UFOs.

Now imagine both Person #1 and Person #2 sight a UFO. Both sightings are similar. The only evidence is the reliability of a single witness. Neither witness seems to be a hoaxer, but either of them could have misidentified Venus for example.

Which witness is more persuasive - Person #1 (the UFO fanatic) or Person #2 (the UFO scoffer)?

Arguments could be made either way. The UFO fanatic might be more astute about the possibility of misidentifying Venus and the importance of recording details like the time, direction, etc. On the other hand, the UFO scoffer might be less likely to wish to see a UFO and therefore less likely to misidentify.

In this particular case it is a waste to time to find out which single witness is right or wrong based on your scenario.
If they have taken a video or picture of an UFO, it may be worth further investigations.

An UFO if truly one is likely to be human made where the possibility is >50% or if by Aliens from outer space which is 0.000..01% possible. Note not an impossibility.

Ultimately what counts is not the speculations but the empirical evidence to confirm the existence of that UFO as a physical object.

I tend to dismiss meditation and other so-call spiritual experiences as merely altered states (such as LSD) rather than actual contact with spirits. Furthermore, intense meditative practices can actually cause psychosis, so a person practicing meditation is no less likely to have a hallucinatory experience and probably slightly more likely.

Nope, meditation has nothing to do with 'spirits' which are independent of the human mind, i.e. flying around like Casper.

A disturbed, erratic, anxious, fearful, severely emotional mind is never efficiency and productive.
Meditation is basically and firstly to calm down the mind and the bodily system to make the person very alert and in tune with the environment and one's self.
Obviously such a state will increase one's mental efficiency thus facilitate one to perform physical skills [sports, whatever activities] with greater concentration and efficiency.

Should there be any experience of altered states of consciousness [ASC], such experiences must be let to pass by. If the ASC is severe and not within one's control, then something is wrong and thus need to be checked to ensure there are no medical issues.

As an aside, I might have had a spiritual experience this morning. I was getting dressed and decided to get a handkerchief. I got out a handkerchief and put it in my pocket, but then I noticed a SECOND handkerchief was folded-up and balanced on my shoulder. It is difficult for me to imagine how that would happen by chance. The idea that a spirit was able to put a handkerchief on my shoulder is kind of interesting. A less appealing idea is that I am having neurological problems and put the handkerchief on my shoulder for some goofy reason and then "discovered" the handkerchief after my brain returned to normal function. ... Either way, I think this type of potentially paranormal experience is what we should be analyzing when we talk about spirituality. If somebody claims to experience spirituality through meditation, I would ask for some evidence. Did the spirit give you the winning lottery numbers or did it just tell you something you already knew?

Any idea of an independent spirit involved in the above is false, i.e. an impossibility.

You can self verify the experiences and result of meditation if you practice it [preferably guided].

 

[Joyousperson]

What is your background in these areas? And what are you calling a controlled fashion?

Note this OP of mine,
Buddhism: The 4NT-8FP is Problem-Solving Technique in Life
Buddhism: The 4NT-8FP is Problem-Solving Technique in Life

This is an iterative model and system with a control-feedback.
In this case one can control one's meditation and results via the above iterative model.

One can practice very basic meditation by oneself and be guided by an experienced meditator/teacher if the techniques used are sophisticated.

Other than various positive outputs, controlled can be taken to the extreme when one can chart one's progress in meditation via brain imagings.

. And This Is Your Brain On Buddha: As part of his research, Andrew Newberg studied the brain activity of experienced Tibetan Buddhists before and during meditation. Newberg found an increase of activity in the meditators' frontal lobe, responsible for focusing attention and concentration, during meditation. He found similar results in a similar study of older individuals experiencing memory problems.
Neurotheology: This Is Your Brain On Religion

 

[cloudyday2]

Nope, meditation has nothing to do with 'spirits' which are independent of the human mind, i.e. flying around like Casper.

That is the point. That is why meditation is not spirituality or mysticism. The goal or spirituality and mysticism is to interact with "the gods" not to relax the mind and get some insights from your subconscious.

Of course I am aware that the definitions of spirituality and mysticism have broadened. They have broadened so much that they no longer mean anything at all. I can practice mysticism by savoring a glass of ice tea and watching the sun set by the modern definition.

 

[Joyousperson]

That is the point. That is why meditation is not spirituality or mysticism. The goal or spirituality and mysticism is to interact with "the gods" not to relax the mind and get some insights from your subconscious.

Of course I am aware that the definitions of spirituality and mysticism have broadened. They have broadened so much that they no longer mean anything at all. I can practice mysticism by savoring a glass of ice tea and watching the sun set by the modern definition.

I prefer the term 'spirituality' i.e. involving the experience of the whole self towards optimality for the well being of the individual and the collective which is empirically based all the way.

I do not prefer the term 'mysticism' [albeit overlaps in some degree to 'spirituality'] but I just went along with the flow of the discussion.

 

[dlamberth]

Of course I am aware that the definitions of spirituality and mysticism have broadened. They have broadened so much that they no longer mean anything at all. I can practice mysticism by savoring a glass of ice tea and watching the sun set by the modern definition.

When savoring a glass of tea, watch what happens to your self. You kind of step out of your ego just a bit in tea savoriness. Maybe not a lot like in a full blown peak mystical event. But still, the ego, just for a moment is left behind as one becomes lost in an "inner experience" of tea savoriness. That's not a "definition" of mysticism that one finds in a dictionary. Mysticism can not be properly defined. But it is a mystical moment non-the-less because of one loosing themselves into the experience of the "inner experience. It's all about the "inner experience" that makes something a mystical moment. It's not just a "modern" definition. The Mystics have been talking about the "inner experience" of the mystical moment for ever. The Mystic may even direct the direction of those inner experiences to see where they lead and what's there. gnosis is a word they use which is "knowledge gained by inner experience". Google it.

From there I have no idea how to separate out spiritual experience from mystical experience. They are one and the same. And a very Human activity.

 

[Joyousperson]

When savoring a glass of tea, watch what happens to your self. You kind of step out of your ego just a bit in tea savoriness. Maybe not a lot like in a full blown peak mystical event. But still, the ego, just for a moment is left behind as one becomes lost in an "inner experience" of tea savoriness. That's not a "definition" of mysticism that one finds in a dictionary. Mysticism can not be properly defined. But it is a mystical moment non-the-less because of one loosing themselves into the experience of the "inner experience. It's all about the "inner experience" that makes something a mystical moment. It's not just a "modern" definition. The Mystics have been talking about the "inner experience" of the mystical moment for ever. The Mystic may even direct the direction of those inner experiences to see where they lead and what's there. gnosis is a word they use which is "knowledge gained by inner experience". Google it.

From there I have no idea how to separate out spiritual experience from mystical experience. They are one and the same. And a very Human activity.

I see mysticism as a subset of spirituality [in the widest sense].

If A = Spirituality, then mysticism is B, i.e. a subset of spirituality.

Spirituality itself is a very loose term.
I view 'spirituality' like team-spirit or 'esprit de corps' i.e. all the individual parts, organs, and systems [including the good bacteria] within the person working optimally as one team for the well-being of the individual.

The individual person has many levels of consciousness.
When one is savoring tea, where "you-1" watch "you-2" is doing, one is merely shifting perspectives and being aware of the two sense of self within the same one physical brain. This is something like the "helicopter perspective."
This is a deliberate exercise of "mindfulness" used in Vipassana Meditation.

There are many levels of consciousness within one person, e.g.

1. Ordinarily recognizable: waking, sleeping, dreaming, coma, unconscious, drunk, drugged, etc.
2. Extra-ordinary: altered states of consciousness​

in various degrees which are separate but not independent of the person.
There are people who are awake and at the same time are conscious they are dreaming, e.g. lucid dreaming.
Lucid dream - Wikipedia

As for altered states of consciousness, see this
Altered state of consciousness - Wikipedia
and read the whole article [short].

An altered states of consciousness refer to a shift out of normal common ordinary consciousness to some other forms of out of ordinary consciousness within the brain.

Many of the altered states of consciousness are caused by mental illness & psychosis issues including brain damage [e.g. Jill Bolte], drugs and hallucinogen, health problems, experience of awe and from controlled meditative and other spiritual practices.

Thus if one were to experience a sudden altered states of consciousness which is seemingly 'divine' and strange it would be wise to get clearance from a psychiatrist.

 

[dlamberth]

I see mysticism as a subset of spirituality [in the widest sense].

Spirituality itself is a very loose term.
I view 'spirituality' like team-spirit or 'esprit de corps' i.e. all the individual parts, organs, and systems [including the good bacteria] within the person working optimally as one team for the well-being of the individual.

For me, spirituality is the awareness of doing. The mystical aspect is the awareness of the "experience" of doing.

An altered states of consciousness refer to a shift out of normal common ordinary consciousness to some other forms of out of ordinary consciousness within the brain.

Isn't something like Love an altered state of consciousness? And empathy?

Thus if one were to experience a sudden altered states of consciousness which is seemingly 'divine' and strange it would be wise to get clearance from a psychiatrist.

I think it depends on a lot of things. For one, what image of the Divine are you talking about. Because a lot of folks I know see the Divine everywhere they look.

 

[Joyousperson]

For me, spirituality is the awareness of doing. The mystical aspect is the awareness of the "experience" of doing.

"Experience" is another very loose term which cover all aspects of living and being alive.
What is mystical experience has to be confined to this;
Mysticism - Wikipedia
Read the article.
being aware one one's experience of 'hot' 'cold' and all sorts of ordinary experiences cannot be classed as mystical.

Isn't something like Love an altered state of consciousness? And empathy?

Altered state of Consciousness is restricted to experiences that are nor considered normal and common.

'Love' is an emotion. 'Empathy' comprised a range of emotions and cognition. These experiences are common to the majority of people, likely 80-90% of humans.

But what is altered state of consciousness [as defined] and are considered 'mystical' are experienced by not more than 1% of people.

I think it depends on a lot of things. For one, what image of the Divine are you talking about. Because a lot of folks I know see the Divine everywhere they look.

I refer to what is general considered as 'divine'.
Note this,
Divinity - Wikipedia
Btw, seeing in things and directly experiencing divinity are different experiences.

Example below is an experience of the 'divine' but the reality is the person was suffering from temporal epilepsy.
Listen to the full video, its only 6 minutes.

 

[dlamberth]

'Love' is an emotion.

At one point in a previous post you referenced William Johnston as a mystic you've read. Might I recommend to you: "The Inner Eye of Love: Mysticism and Religion" by William Johnston. If you ever get a chance to read it you'll clearly see that Johnston has a vastly different perspective about Love than you. You also will find that Love is for many mystics the gateway to ecstatic states of consciousness. As an example at one point Johnston writes about "Riding Love like an Arrow to the Heart of God".

About mysticism, Johnston writes "Mysticism does not mean that we learn new things but that we learn to know in new ways". He goes on to say, quoting him now: "Coming to the mystical experience, we find ourselves confronted with the most powerful Love of all - Divine Love, Infinite Love, unrestricted Love; and this force shakes the so-called unconsciousness to it's very foundations".

We can see there that for Johnston clearly Love is way more than an emotion. I wonder why he experienced Love so differently than you? It's the same for most other mystics as well. Do a study of the Sufies and see what they say about Love. Or the other Christian mystics as well.

 

[Joyousperson]

At one point in a previous post you referenced William Johnston as a mystic you've read. Might I recommend to you: "The Inner Eye of Love: Mysticism and Religion" by William Johnston. If you ever get a chance to read it you'll clearly see that Johnston has a vastly different perspective about Love than you. You also will find that Love is for many mystics the gateway to ecstatic states of consciousness. As an example at one point Johnston writes about "Riding Love like an Arrow to the Heart of God".

About mysticism, Johnston writes "Mysticism does not mean that we learn new things but that we learn to know in new ways". He goes on to say, quoting him now: "Coming to the mystical experience, we find ourselves confronted with the most powerful Love of all - Divine Love, Infinite Love, unrestricted Love; and this force shakes the so-called unconsciousness to it's very foundations".

We can see there that for Johnston clearly Love is way more than an emotion. I wonder why he experienced Love so differently than you? It's the same for most other mystics as well. Do a study of the Sufies and see what they say about Love. Or the other Christian mystics as well.

'Love' is a generic emotions to all humans.
However there are many other activities in the brain that can trigger the basic 'love' emotion and what we get is a compounded feeling.
Even when a man get near another man, he could fall in love with him.
Thus in Johnston case, the person's love circuit is activated by some mystical experiences in with different intensities and variations.

Note I mentioned earlier, one can upped one's intensity of 'love' by taking 'oxytocin' the love hormone.
Oxytocin: The love hormone?

Note the pleasure circuit is an independent neural circuit that is connected to many other activities, e.g. eating, sports, sex, accomplishment and even violence, pain, etc.

Therefore the love experienced by the mystic is basically,
= basic love emotion + neural mystic activities + others.

 

[dlamberth]

Therefore the love experienced by the mystic is basically,
= basic love emotion + neural mystic activities + others.

I see. So basically you have no clue of the Mystics inner experience of Love and what they experience. Or even of mystical experience of the Mystics in general for that matter. And clearly your not referencing anything Johntson has written. Have you truly read him as you claimed? I wonder. Johnston himself writes: "Mysticism is the experience". Which this whole time you have not understood and even argued against. Which speaks volumes of your knowledge, or lack of, of mysticism.

And you would think there's a lot more to Love for the mystic than merely an emotion when someone like William Johnston writes a whole book on the subject from the mystics perspective and even highlighted with the title "The Inner Eye of Love: Mysticism and Religion".