Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
It would be wiser of you not to jump to conclusion too hastily.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".
For so many of the Mystics, what's going on for them with Love that its so central to their mysticism? Is there a relationship with Johnston with Love and when he says that mysticism is experience?It would be wiser of you not to jump to conclusion too hastily.
I have read Johnston's 'Silent Music' and the one on his Autobiography, quite some time ago. I have not read his other books, e.g.
The Inner Eye of Love: Mysticism and Religion
One of my interest is in all things spirituality which encompassed mysticism, religions [Eastern, Western, Middle], various spiritual approaches, self-development techniques, etc.
Johnston is an expert on Christian meditation and Eastern meditation, especially Zen.
I am VERY familiar with Zen Buddhism and its meditation techniques.
The point with the term 'love' is one cannot move the concept of 'love' from its fundamental groundings.
Here is some notes on the book;
Johnston begins with the mystical tradition itself, its roots and origins, its appearance and significance in the Gospels, the letters of Paul, and the early Church. He explains what mysticism is and is not, and how it is inextricably bound up with love. It is at the level of mysticism, he maintains, that the two traditions of East and West can at last understand one another and begin to work together to heal a broken world. The Inner Eye of Love escorts the reader through the stages of the mystical journey, from initial call to final enlightenment. Johnston compares and contrasts the Oriental and Christian experience, continually revealing new points of commonality The much discussed "dark night of the soul" is seen here in a positive way, as an emptying preliminary to the overbrimming of the soul with the knowledge and love of God.If Johnston believe there are commonalities between the East [Zen, etc.] and West, example the concept of 'love' then that is restricted to the fundamental emotion of 'love' that all and nothing more than that.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/082321778...ProductDesc=1#product-description_feature_div
Note Love - Wikipedia
Zen [non-theistic] do not agree with 'love' that is divine.
There is no way Johnston can talk of 'love' without reference [explicit or implied] to the fundamental emotion of 'love' that is activated within the brain.
As such 'love' in the mystical and divine sense must be,
Agape, mystical love, divine love = fundamental love emotion + mystical elements or divine elements.
Note;
"Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets." (Matthew 22:37-40)
The 'heart' and 'mind' refer to the fundamental neural network of love within the brain in connection with the heart. If not, where else? from the stomach, groins?
Here is a comment on Johnston's Book;
Mystical Theology: The Science of Love
However: (i) the book's major downfall seems to be that it deploys the phrase "a cloud of unknowing" as a sort of bail-out phrase for something the author either does not know, or does not have the skilfulness to really 'convey.' Indeed the phrase is so often deployed in this manner one sees it literally dragged kicking and screaming throughout the entire text. The next bailout phrase seems to be "the dark night."
"Love" is also deployed without any effort to distinguish it from common mediocre (crumbling) notions of the term, which get thrown around like bags of sand in everyday usage. These seem to be like a kind of hangover of Johnson's from writing too many earlier books 'about' mysticism, just as one might write 'about' poetry;
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0006277098/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_hsch_vapi_taft_p1_i1#customerReviews
One point is I have read Johnston's books only for reference which does not mean I agree totally with his views.
Another critical point is your knowledge is SO narrow and shallow but you want to sound like you know a lot.
So far you are making noises only but have not provided any sound and rational arguments with evidences.
I believe those mystics who got involved with the concept of 'love' e.g. divine love are lesser than the mystics [e.g. Zen mystics] who recognize the inevitable love emotion but will never get entangled with the emotion of love.For so many of the Mystics, what's going on for them with Love that its so central to their mysticism? Is there a relationship with Johnston with Love and when he says that mysticism is experience?
Well, it's not the emotion of Love or even any "concepts" of Love that the mystics are talking about. I think that's where your miss-understanding what's going on here. The Mystics point towards a Mystical Love which is not the same as the love you have been pointing towards.I believe those mystics who got involved with the concept of 'love' e.g. divine love are lesser than the mystics [e.g. Zen mystics] who recognize the inevitable love emotion but will never get entangled with the emotion of love.
The higher mystics will merely 'be' and not being too involved with concepts like 'love' 'agape' love of God for these still involved some inklings of 'attachments.'
If Johnston claimed mystical love does not even involve the basic emotion of love, then he should not have used the term 'love' to confuse people.Well, it's not the emotion of Love or even any "concepts" of Love that the mystics are talking about. I think that's where your miss-understanding what's going on here. The Mystics point towards a Mystical Love which is not the same as the love you have been pointing towards.
Quoting William Johnston again: "Mystical Love is open to the infinite which can only happen through the process of detachment, through emptiness, and nothingness, the void, the mu. All of this nothingness does not kill love. By no means. It simply detaches it from it's expressions and from it's restriction for Love is deeper and more mysterious than any of it's expressions."
As I know that you know, Buddhist do not make much about Love and do not talk about Love. But this does not mean that Love is absent.
I take refuge in the Buddha
I take refuge in the dharma
I take refuge in the sangha
Isn't the Triple Jewel a total commitment. And is not this commitment an expression of Love?
For mystics, it's a non-duality sort of thing in how they approach this stuff. So they don't attach any concept to things like Love. It's all about "inner experience" for the Mystic. For some reason that's not being understood.If Johnston claimed mystical love does not even involve the basic emotion of love, then he should not have used the term 'love' to confuse people.
Again, Mystics free themselves from concepts. Concepts get into the way., if it not 'concept of love' which is the most realistic then what?
Concept - Wikipedia
Mysticism is "inner experience". Again for emphasis.. Mysticism is "inner experience". My question is, how does anything in the above have anything to do with what the Mystic is experiencing?It is possible now, if not soon, one can test and verify the above via brain imaging of Johnston or any mystic's brain when they expressed such "mystical love". In this case the neural network in the brain that are associated with the love 'emotion' will show in the fMRI images.
Note this research on 'romantic love' and scientist will get closer to 'love in general'.
Love's all in the brain: fMRI study shows strong, lateralized reward, not sex, drive
The emotions happen after the mystical event, not during. Ecstatic moments are totally free of emotion, even to the smallest degree. The instant emotions or any other thinking breaks in, the moment of the mystical experience will stop.It is unlike you who deny 'mystical love' is fundamentally an emotion albeit of the smallest degree.
Johnston spends some time talking about the various images of Love to educate the reader about how mystical love is something else.Did Johnston insist specifically 'mystical love' has nothing to do with emotion at the most fundamental refine level at all?
No one here said that Triple Gem does have anything to do with emotional Love. I certainly don't believe so. Emotion need not be a part of commitment, but the moment that one commits, an attachment happens. In Love there is attachment.No, a commitment to the Triple Gem has nothing to do with the emotion of love ..
From a dualistic perspective, that's all true. But the picture does change quite a bit while in a non-dualistic mode.I had stated 'agape' is not the typical kind of 'love' which is commonly expressed between humans and with things, but agape still involves the 'love' emotional circuit at a very finer and deeper sense.
If they do not attach to any concept of things like 'love' then why are they [re Johnston] using the term 'love'.For mystics, it's a non-duality sort of thing in how they approach this stuff. So they don't attach any concept to things like Love. It's all about "inner experience" for the Mystic. For some reason that's not being understood.
Not in the case of Johnston et al who somehow imputed the concept of 'love' into his "inner experience". Otherwise he should have just introduced the the term 'nothingness' or 'emptiness'.Again, Mystics free themselves from concepts. Concepts get into the way.
But they do work through inner Experience-Wiki
Obviously the mystics are not brain dead when having an inner mystical experience.Mysticism is "inner experience". Again for emphasis.. Mysticism is "inner experience". My question is, how does anything in the above have anything to do with what the Mystic is experiencing?
Note emotions are triggered initially at the subconscious levels and felt as feelings in the conscious levels. Then these feelings also re feed back to the subconscious and compound higher feelings and this continuously repeat itself till the system breakdown for the person to be an emotional wreck [if negative emotions].The emotions happen after the mystical event, not during. Ecstatic moments are totally free of emotion, even to the smallest degree. The instant emotions or any other thinking breaks in, the moment of the mystical experience will stop.
That he had to use the term 'love' is indication that his emotion of love is triggered in some low degrees at the subconscious level which he was not aware of.Johnston spends some time talking about the various images of Love to educate the reader about how mystical love is something else.
In effective commitment for the optimal well being of the individual, there is no 'love' in any emotional sense in any attachment to anything.No one here said that Triple Gem does have anything to do with emotional Love. I certainly don't believe so. Emotion need not be a part of commitment, but the moment that one commits, an attachment happens. In Love there is attachment.
In the case of Johnston's experience and the concept of agape, it is not a case of full non-duality as the 'nothingness' or 'emptiness' of Buddhism. In Johnston's case there are trace elements of refine emotions of love triggered at the very fundamental unconscious levels of the brain.From a dualistic perspective, that's all true. But the picture does change quite a bit while in a non-dualistic mode.
This is why I raised this threadI'm going to go ahead and add one more reason to my earlier list:
• The immense, unapologetic hypocrisy of so many Christians. It has especially bubbled to the surface thanks to the internet. Christians are supposed to be transformed and sanctified by the Holy Spirit. Made into a new creation in the image of Christ. What I instead have seen is a sharp rise in xenophobia, racism, dishonesty, apathy, and a preference for violence to solve problems. I understand this is a significant criticism, but I do think it is true. I saw it in my churches. I see it here on this message board. The hypocrisy alone is infuriating. The embrace if racism and hatred and deception is infuriating. That alone doesn't turn me away from Christianity. What turns me away is that so many Christians embrace these negatives, when the Holy Spirit is supposed to be radically changing them, quickly leading them into love and holiness. If that's not happening... then it tells me there is no such transformation.
This is a No True Scotsman, and not a valid rebuttal of my point, as far as I'm concerned.to establish 'What is Christianity' and 'Who is a TRUE Christian' in accordance to the intent of the Christian God.
My point do not fit in with the True Scotsman fallacy in a rhetorical claim.This is a No True Scotsman, and not a valid rebuttal of my point, as far as I'm concerned.
It's the subjective approach that I apply to. I think that what's in a person's heart is way more useful in identifying who is a Christian. At least that's what works for me.What is Christian and Who is a Christian can be established objectively via the Gospels.
When one use the subjective basis there is a possibility one could end up with a cult.It's the subjective approach that I apply to. I think that what's in a person's heart is way more useful in identifying who is a Christian. At least that's what works for me.
We end up with cults even with objective biases. I'd argue that its because of objectives biases of rules and laws that we have moved away from Christ.When one use the subjective basis there is a possibility one could end up with a cult.
I have an interest in medieval women Christian Mystics. Marguerite Porete was a French Beguine from Hainault who lived during the late thirteenth and early fourteenth century. She distinguishes between what she calls "The Great Holy Church", which is the Church that preaches Love and the "Little Holy Church", which preaches rules and law and order. One church is subjective and the other is objective. It's the objective Church, the church of rules and law and order which burned her at the stake in 1310. That's just one example of many with even greater human horror upon human where the objective church can lead to.In may be in a person's heart but that has to be objectively in alignment with God's doctrines.
Of course we can, we do it all of the time. We each have our own relationship with God. And any relationship by it's very nature is going to be subjective. Otherwise I'd question if that relationship with God is really there in the first place.Humans cannot make their own decisions as to What is Christianity and Who is a Christian based on their own subjective opinions and feelings.
You claim you have the definition of a "TRUE Christian", and anyone who does not meet your definition is "no true Christian". That's exactly the No True Scotsman fallacy. I lose faith in an honest conversation with someone if they try to gaslight me.My point do not fit in with the True Scotsman fallacy in a rhetorical claim.
It is not my direct personal definition of What is Christianity and Who is a Christian.You claim you have the definition of a "TRUE Christian", and anyone who does not meet your definition is "no true Christian". That's exactly the No True Scotsman fallacy. I lose faith in an honest conversation with someone if they try to gaslight me.
You also did not interact with the point I was making. You waxed philosophically about something only tangential to what I was saying. I'm not interested in an argument by verbosity if it does not engage with what I actually said.
As I had stated, it is not my personal definition.We end up with cults even with objective biases. I'd argue that its because of objectives biases of rules and laws that we have moved away from Christ.
Now, any true relationship with God will be subjective. Why? Because a true relationship with God will be of the Heart. That's where God dwells, if a person lets Him in. That's where God is experienced and becomes alive for a person.
For Marguerite Porete's thinking, actions and experiences to qualify as Christian-proper, they have to align with the doctrines in the Gospels. It cannot be from somewhere else, e.g. Zen, Buddhism or Taoism.I have an interest in medieval women Christian Mystics. Marguerite Porete was a French Beguine from Hainault who lived during the late thirteenth and early fourteenth century. She distinguishes between what she calls "The Great Holy Church", which is the Church that preaches Love and the "Little Holy Church", which preaches rules and law and order. One church is subjective and the other is objective. It's the objective Church, the church of rules and law and order which burned her at the stake in 1310. That's just one example of many with even greater human horror upon human where the objective church can lead to.
You missed my point.So from where I stand, I'd say that a person's Heart needs to be aligned with the "Heart of Christ" rather than doctrine, which is pretty subjective in nature. But at the same time is totally alive, vibrant and full of Love, compassion and often in service to those in need.
As I had stated the theory and the actual practice must go together.Of course we can, we do it all of the time. We each have our own relationship with God. And any relationship by it's very nature is going to be subjective. Otherwise I'd question if that relationship with God is really there in the first place.
Point is whatever that comes from the "Heart" it has to be verified to whether it is Christianity-proper or not. This can only be confirmed to the doctrines specified in the Gospels as central.When coming across self professed Christians who say that they know Christ, I first look at their fruit to know for sure what they say is true, which is all pretty subjective in nature. But it tells a person a lot about what comes from the Heart of another.
I understand all of those rules and regulations, and that that's what works for you. First and foremost though I'm still needing to see what's in a persons Heart while asking: Do I see God there?!?I have defined 'Who is a Christian' here;
A Christian is a person who;
- Believes in Jesus as son of God and his teachings [John 3:16, etc.],
- Is Baptized accordingly,
- Surrendered to God via Jesus as Son of God,
- Entered into a covenant with God to comply with God's words in the Gospels to the best of his/her ability.
- The person's thinking, actions and experiences align with the above. ['Heart' in alignment with the Gospels, Holy Spirit, God, Jesus].
Here's my take. First there's Christ. And over there is Christianity. And it's only rarely that they cross paths. With that as a baseline, I honestly don't know what Christianity is other than Doctrine.How else would you define 'Who is a Christian' and What is Christianity?
I've understood that that's been your point all along. And my point is that God can not be fit into doctrines. God is way too big for that. And what's cool about the Human Heart is that it can take in a lot more of God into a person's Soul than can any Doctrine. What that means is that a person can be outside of prescribed Doctrine and still know God through Christ.My point is whatever the subjective feelings, thinking, actions, and experiences of a Christian they have to align with the doctrines of Christianity as in the Gospel(s) re Jesus Christ.
You lost me on what you mean here.It is the same for all other believers of other religions.
Note it is well understood, there is no way others can ever comprehend what is truly another's first-person's experience.I understand all of those rules and regulations, and that that's what works for you. First and foremost though I'm still needing to see what's in a persons Heart while asking: Do I see God there?!?
Yes, there is Christ, and whatever expressed by Christ and his thinking and actions are noted in the Gospels. This is the objective representation of Christianity.Here's my take. First there's Christ. And over there is Christianity. And it's only rarely that they cross paths. With that as a baseline, I honestly don't know what Christianity is other than Doctrine.
What is God may not be able to fit into a doctrine.I've understood that that's been your point all along. And my point is that God can not be fit into doctrines. God is way too big for that. And what's cool about the Human Heart is that it can take in a lot more of God into a person's Soul than can any Doctrine. What that means is that a person can be outside of prescribed Doctrine and still know God through Christ.
I stated a Christian [as defined] is grounded within the Gospels re Jesus Christ. There is no other way.You lost me on what you mean here.
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?