Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Mystical beliefs...
Jeffrey
Veteran
I was thinking of the use of Mysticism as belief in things or forces or something outside our knowledge....
Now consider my dog. There are all sorts of relationships and connections that he is unaware of but that play a roll in his life. For example he doesn't know the existence of letters. But yet sometimes we spell out words when talking so that he does not get excited such as B A L L.
Now I disagree with mysticism which would be having too many theories of said unseen forces. Because it might all just be made up. Aka bunkum
But I do not agree that MYSTERY is non-existent. I am quite convinced that there are things that I do not know. For example I have never personally seen an atom although I have seen drawings of them elaborated from x-ray patterns.
Mysticism would be definitively the study of mysteries. And so science would be an example of mysticism technically. Obviously the scientific method and skepticism is a necessary component of mysticism presuming you don't want to indulge in superstition.
Now consider my dog. There are all sorts of relationships and connections that he is unaware of but that play a roll in his life. For example he doesn't know the existence of letters. But yet sometimes we spell out words when talking so that he does not get excited such as B A L L.
Now I disagree with mysticism which would be having too many theories of said unseen forces. Because it might all just be made up. Aka bunkum
But I do not agree that MYSTERY is non-existent. I am quite convinced that there are things that I do not know. For example I have never personally seen an atom although I have seen drawings of them elaborated from x-ray patterns.
Mysticism would be definitively the study of mysteries. And so science would be an example of mysticism technically. Obviously the scientific method and skepticism is a necessary component of mysticism presuming you don't want to indulge in superstition.
0
Comments
Not just outside knowledge, but incompatible with knowledge.
Divergent from the known laws of the universe.
My view is even a smidgen of lawbreaking and it becomes bunkum.
The threashold is any.
Here is lots of mystery in the universe, but the thing is, it falls into two kinds, those that can be explained from within this universe (eg the Naszca Lines) and those that cannot (eg Predicting the future using tea leaves)
I think this is a useful distinction between the "mystical" and the "mysterious":)
Maybe you see trillions every day?
Hmmmm, what's wrong with paranormal or Parapsychology studies?
I don't think so. Science is about an ever expanding corpus of evidence, theory, prediction, pattern, reduction... that has to form a consistent whole.
Mysticism is really the prime example of NONSCIENCE because it doesn't need to be compatible with science.
Again, I don't think so:) Mysticism is utterly susceptible to scepticism and the scientific method, the two camps are completely incompatible.
At best modern mysticism fumbles around with energised, forces and entanglements that sound scientific but have zero reasons to believe or explain function outside of what they are trying to support. That is the essence of Bunkum to me:)
(There are a number of great skeptical podcasts I think you might like, SGU, Skeptoid etc)
well wishes
mat
There's nothing mystic about this, I'm afraid....:)
Ok, with you so far....
I also agree.
I watched a programme in the 'Horizon' series in the UK, about Near Death Experiences, and the plethora of scientists attempting to find a reasonable and logical explanation for these phenomena, by examining brain patterns and the workings of different areas of the brain during such experiences.... and at first I thought "Great! is nothing 'sacred'? Can people not be left alone to benefit from these experiences and call them a 'Mystery'? Why do we have to know EVERYTHING?"
However.... it turned out, as the programme progressed, and each experience was examined and explanations put forward, that the next experience reported, blew the previous explanation clean out of the water.... and it also turned out that in the end, the motley collection of world scientists whom had pooled all their resources, knowledge and experience together, over a matter of several years - had only personal theories to try to explain the phenomenon of 'Near-Death Experiences'.
They had not a single clue as to what actually happened. It was all supposition, because they came to understand that 'Mind' is different to 'brain'.
The collective summary was a unified metaphorical shrug of the shoulders and the conclusion that 'we just don't know'.
There are plenty of theories and scientific explanations for some diverse aspects of this phenomenon, but there are also many different instances where these theories and scientific explanations do not apply.
therefore, what happens exactly during a Near-Death Experience - is still a Mystery.
And I like that.
Ok.... I think your definition is a bit simplistic.... but I take your point..... and agree with the last bit.
We don't understand something as seemingly simple as gravity. At present it's a mystery but not mystical.
It is perhaps not universally known but psychology does not accept the existence of "the mind" in the generally accepted usuage of that term.
Exactly! We are pretty sure whatever it is in itself it will cohere with the universe:) Unlike the mystcial.
Mat
It is rather like a two-dimensional creature experiencing a three-dimensional object. It simply wouldn't be able to grasp or understand the three-dimensional object because it has no point of reference for three dimensions. For example, if a three-dimensional sphere passed through its world, it would only perceive it as a line that began small, then got longer, then shrank again to nothing.
So the problem with understanding experiences that lie outside our normal ken is one of perception. There are such things as mystical experiences that are very real, but as we have no way of understanding them with our normal way of thinking, they remain mysterious.
Now, what was the question?
Palzang
But that's not what the OP wanted to talk about. :-)
Yes, I would say Buddhism is at heart mysticism, but when one is starting to practice it isn't really necessary to get into all that. That will come in its own time, and one should not be put off by it because to most people, when you say "mysticism", they just think it's weird and want nothing to do with it. However, Western history is full of great mystics as well, so it really isn't weird at all. But it may take getting a bit used to for someone who grew up in our materialistic, dualistic, electric kool-aid acid culture!
Palzang
It may seem mystical, but a rationalist will seek the rational explination and the mystics may not. It is a subtle but profound distinction:)
Actually I think not:)
Flatlanders in the 2d world experince a world that doesnt have all of the laws the 3d world has, for sure, BUT the laws are consistent in both directuions.
The geometry of 3d can make sense to the flatlanders, even if they dont have the sensory apparatus to ever experience it were they in 3d, in the same was as our 3d boffins can make sense of ten dimension etc.
But many mystcial beliefs are not like this, they are anomalous with this universe and more like 2+3=4 than any 2d/3d sensory analogy.
I can explain more if you like:)
Yes, but again be careful not to confuse perception with cognition. 2d mathmaticiions will be able to do 3d geometry no problem, they just wont be able to see or feel in 3d:)
Shalom
Mat
I think MS has a point here - otherwise the true absolute would not be "beyond concept".
Given that mysticism involves the immediate intuition of transcendental truth, and given that this intuition can be achieved by anyone using normal mental skills (everyday mind, as we say in Zen), a mystic has no reason to object to a scientific study of the mental states that lead to an intuition, and a rationalist should have no objection to a mystic's efforts to work out the implications of an intuition. In fact, a rationalist and a mystic may be one and the same person.
Maybe to you:) To rationalists, when we see something unexplained we look for the expliantion that is simplest and most cohesive with the corpus of science and reason.
The starting assumption is that the world is not anomalous and that this consistency should be seen to be preserved. This is in direct contrast to the mystics starting point.
I agree:) We can quibble about the definition of "mystic" but we cannot about the dentition of "rationalist" in any meaningful sense.
It not an argument, Its an opinion:) If you would prefer instead of "mystic" we can use "nonrationalist" but that is a bit cumbersome.
That seems bogus, you are saying there is an isotropic confirmation between mystical experience and reason.
The rationalist will rightly say there is no transendent truth and the "mystcial intuitions" might be delusions...
I do not see how a belief in things without rational explanation can be compatible with a belief that all things have a rational explanation.
If I was a Buddhist Mystic I would keep well out of trying to explain the msytcial'c connection with reality because it cant be done.
In the same way as if I was a Christin I would defeat skeptical arguments by just saying "God works in mystical ways."
you cant have your cake and eat it here, its faith or reason, baby;)
mat
We could, but let's just use the dictionary definition, which I quoted earlier in the thread. Using our own personal definitions would just be silly and contribute nothing.
The fact that one word is more cumbersome than another is not a justification for using one in place of the other when they actually have very different meanings.
In Buddhism, the teachings that lead to liberation are transcendent. "Transcendent" means not found in ordinary understanding. There's nothing there that contradicts reason.
Neither do I. Let's stick to the subject and stop introducing irrelevant statements, please.
Again, this is irrelevant.
Gawd no Ren!:) This is a complex thing that spans the abstract to the concrete not an type eighteenth centrality ladies headgear:)
If you wish to philosiohise, the nominal definitions must be left at the door:)
I disagree, I think they are mundane, either prove me wrong or lets agree to disagree with that.
If you mean in the sense transendent knowelege then yes. But I dont think there is such a thing, at least not that you or I or anyone can make sense of.
Its tantamount to saying "there are facts outside of this universe" and I am just not sure that is true. Nor am I sure why you are so sure. BTW not interested in debating this point, i am sure I am sure and sure you are not sure:p
Let's get some perspective here:
Do you agree with these 4 statement or do you wish to force your dogma down my throat?
Mat
don't start veering it in weird directions, please.
Buddhism and the Buddha were not part of the original outline. Stick to topic, thanks.
Excuse me Federica, this just shows your bias. I was completely on tpic and then Ren came in with his diverging points.(Which I admit I thought were interesting)
you brought Buddhism into the equation, when there was none in the first post.
Please. You have a propensity for doing this.
I'm asking you nicely.
Answer the first post, and go from there.
And watch your tone.
This seems to be an attempt to rescue the term "mysticism" from someone else's efforts to define it in a pejorative way. I don't agree that scientific method is a necessary component of mysticism. Without going into the details, a lot of people would like to associate the prestige of science with their religious views, but I've never seen an attempt to do this that didn't involve logical fallacy.
Here's a way of looking at mysticism that sticks to accepted definitions and doesn't try to import extraneous concepts.
Obviously, the term "transcendent" is the translator's (Thanissaro Bhikkhu's) effort to convey something he found in the original Pali. Transcendent means It's possible to add additional meaning to the term, but this is it's basic, common meaning.
So, Thanissaro, who seems to know something about Pali, found something in the sutta that indicated that noble right view goes beyond ordinary limits. Exactly how it goes beyond ordinary limits is explicitly stated in the quote; it is superior (for purposes of attaining liberation) to the right view that sides with merit.
Elsewhere the Buddha indicated that his teaching was something new and was not found in the understanding of ordinary people. So again, his teaching is transcendent in that it goes beyond ordinary understanding. On the other hand, there's nothing to indicate that his teaching goes beyond the _capabilities_ of ordinary people, although it may require practice to use those capabilities.
And finally, quoting from the same dictionary's definition of mysticism: which fits very nicely with the description of the Buddha's teaching found in the suttas.
Of course there are some mystics who incorporate additional beliefs about things unseen or incomprehensible into their mysticism. Defining all mystics in terms of some mystics is equivalent to saying all doctors are obstetricians because some doctors are obstetricians. What characterizes mysticism is not incomprehensibility, but transcendence; going beyond ordinary thought.
1. Buddha knew about things that I don't know about.
This is pretty obvious. If I didn't already know everything then why would I be reading about buddhism? huh? If it is not true then the only possible motive to study buddhism would be to shore up my fragile ego.
Second thought:
2. If I discard everything that buddha taught which is beyond my current knowledge I will be unable to learn from buddha.
This one is under the umbrulla of spiritual materialism as designated by Trungpa Rinpoche. Instead of listening to a spiritual teaching and grappling/learning you instead use the 'credentials' of a buddha to strengthen your own views, perhaps an ego boost?
Third thought:
3. If I blindly (without confirming from my own experience) believe whatever buddha said is true I won't truly understand. And still I won't be able to learn.
So I believe I have identified 2 barriers to learning.
1 Buddha had something to teach beyond what I already know
2 I cannot learn what buddha had to teach if I reject everything which I don't already know
3 I cannot learn what buddha had to teach if I just rote mouth what he said rather than examining, testing, and comprehending the meaning
M: To rationalists, when we see something unexplained we look for the explanation that is simplest and most cohesive.
S9: Materialistic science is not the only discipline that is rational, although they often claim this distinction.
Rational isn’t a noun (a label) that can be placed on whatever we believe at any given time. It is a verb or a process (using your mind in an organized fashion) and many people who do not consider themselves scientist materialists can use their rational faculties quite well, as far as they will go.
Even in science there are very few laws, or unchangeable concrete understandings. A good part of what science claims to know remains a hypothesis, and open to new data all the time, data that either contradicts or replaces the old data, (AKA not completely understood).
Many scientists like to pretend that they are walking on stone, and building upon what they certainly "know" so far…but this is just pretending.
I think many have mentioned here that mysticism is often jumping into alternate dimensions from the material dimension. Because of this the same rules do not apply. This is a bit like the findings of physics seeming a bit hokus pokus and hard to understand for our more materialistic ways of viewing our world, and yet there they are going on simultaneously.
We live in an age where knowledge is growing so rapidly that it is becoming difficult to refuse to change and grow constantly. It must be difficult for someone who wants the world to remain concrete and controlled to find his footing.
Many amateur scientists remain about 100 years behind what is actually going on today, a scientific friend once told me.
As soon as we start examining our more interior world, and I am not talking blood and guts here, things like intuition or transcendence of mind, the scientific instrument become totally ineffective. You can’t find intuition, or religious experience, by cutting open my head. ; ^ )
Warm regards,
S9
This is what I believe is called a "keeper", Jeffrey.
Mind you, in your first, you may want to consider if there are other teachers you can put there, alongside the Buddha - not wanting to confuse the issue of anything LOL.
http://www.snowlionpub.com/pages/N59_9.html
He was a very simple, humble person, who made his way as an itinerant stone carver, carving mantras and sacred texts. Some say he had been a hunter in his youth, and had received a teaching from a great master. No one really knew he was a practitioner; he was truly called a "hidden yogin."
. . . he then fell ill, or seemed to, but became strangely, increasingly happy. When he illness got worse, his family called in masters and doctors. His son told him he should remember, 'Everything is illusion, but I am confident that all is well.'
Just before his death at seventy-nine, he said "All I ask is that when I die, don't move my body for a week." When he died his family wrapped his body and invited Lamas and monks to come and practice for him. They placed the body in a small room in the house, and they could not help noticing that although he had been a tall person, they had no trouble getting it in, as if he were becoming smaller. At the same time, an extraodinary display of rainbow-coloured light was seen all around the house. When they looked into the room on the sixth day, they saw that the body was getting smaller and smaller. On the eight day after his death, the morning in which the funeral had been arranged, the undertakers arrived to collect the body. When they undid its coverings, they found nothing inside but his nails and hair.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MqPsb9NaCE0
Its the only one thats rational and compatible with science, isnt it? what am I missing?
I comepleted agree:)
This kind of objection I don't agree with, we know so much, its just silly to say we don't:) Either that or the world is an "Evil Demon" illusion, thats how I see it.
That is pretty meaningless to me to be honest:) Its like saying "but its just not like it is." I disagree, I think it is like it seems.
I agree. I think the reason is because they are abstract emergent phenomena, you think they are mystical.
We disagree on this:)
Metta
Mat
Warm regards,
S9[/QUOTE]
RE: S9: Materialistic science is not the only discipline that is rational, although they often claim this distinction.
M: It’s the only one that’s rational and compatible with science, isn’t it? What am I missing?
S9: When God died some made science king…but I’m not buying it.
Materialism is only one of many philosophical schools in Philosophy, of which science is it’s most arrogant child.
How about Philosophical Idealism, which believes that everything material is merely a mental projection? Are you about to claim that these guys can’t think in an organized fashion, (as in rational vs. irrational)? Rationalism grabs the name 'Rationalism,' but that doesn’t mean it owns the copyrights on being rational. ; ^ )
If I name my son 'Clever,' would that mean that he in fact would be clever, or even that no one else could be clever thereafter? If it were that easy we would all name ourselves 'Happy' and make our middle name either 'Wealthy', or 'Wise' depending. ; ^ )
And:
Name calling against our enemies would really break their bones, as in “Sticks and stones can break my bones, but names will never hurt me.” Saying something, doesn’t make it so.
M: This kind of objection I don't agree with, we know so much, it’s just silly to say we don't.
S9: This is not a new discussion between us. So you know that I respect science to some degree. All I am saying here is that scientific proof is out of its depths when dealing with the more intrinsic truths like Buddha Nature ,for instance, which defy being measured with a ruler, cut up and examined under a microscope like so many things in the more material world.
Also:
Much that science claims to understand is merely what we can control to some SMALL extent, and show through manipulation that it is repeatable. A thing/process (?) like gravity is actually in a good part still a mystery to us. We can measure some of its peculiarities, yes, but we do not actually understand it in full, and a real BIGGY is that we cannot replicate it.
Science, in a big part, is in awe of the great mystery of life.
M: Either that or the world is an "Evil Demon" illusion, that’s how I see it.
S9: Our ultimate lack of control is certainly quite humbling, and for some quite frightening. Perhaps this understanding of our ever present vulnerability is the very beginning of our search for meaning, which ends in Liberation. : ^ )
Friendly Regards,
S9
Nice
S9:Materialism is only one of many philosophical schools in Philosophy, of which science is it’s most arrogant child.
Materialism isn't a school its a foundational ontology. And its not really one of many, there are essentially two.
Science is no child of Materialism, science supports materialism and doesn't support the dualism needed for many mystical beliefs.
S9:How about Philosophical Idealism, which believes that everything material is merely a mental projection?
How about it? It doesn't answer what the mechanism or medium ideas is. who believes that today?
S9:Are you about to claim that these guys can’t think in an organized fashion, (as in rational vs. irrational)?
M:No, but at least they have an argument, or arguments to support the claim. Bad arguments I think, from what I can remember. I just dont see the connection or relevance. Mysticism is incompatible in ways idealism might not be.
S9:Rationalism grabs the name 'Rationalism,' but that doesn’t mean it owns the copyrights on being rational. ; ^ )
M:I agree, mysticism could be 100% rational too. But It would be hard to see how without self defeating itself.
S9:Saying something, doesn’t make it so.
M: It seems it does for Buddhist mystics;)
The fact is that science stands up to test and theory and mysticism .... meh... not so much.
S9: All I am saying here is that scientific proof is out of its depths when dealing with the more intrinsic truths like Buddha Nature.
M: What is the evidence for Buddha nature? Why do you believe in it? Why didnt the Buddha teach about it in the suttras?
I think you will find you believe it because someone told you about it?:)
S9:Much that science claims to understand is merely what we can control to some SMALL extent, and show through manipulation that it is repeatable. A thing/process (?) like gravity is actually in a good part still a mystery to us. We can measure some of its peculiarities, yes, but we do not actually understand it in full, and a real BIGGY is that we cannot replicate it.
M: We can feel it. We can use it. We can see it in action. We can calculate with it. We know that the same force that makes a raindrop fall makes a galaxy form. Its just wrong to say that the same kind of statements are true of mystcial beliefs.
S9: Our ultimate lack of control is certainly quite humbling, and for some quite frightening. Perhaps this understanding of our ever present vulnerability is the very beginning of our search for meaning, which ends in Liberation.
M: That may be true, I dont know. But again, that isnt relevant to this point. There is no reason to be mystical in one's thoughts other than because mystical beliefs are nice. They make us feel more special than we are.
well wishes:)
Mat
:rolleyes: And here we go again, the science attack.
I dont think any of the buddhas teachings are a problem:)
You will find references to Tathatagarbha (Buddha Nature) in a number of sutras and alluded to throughout, Mat (cf. Anguttara Nikaya or, of course, Mahaparinirvana Sutra).
I think that one of the aspects of Buddhism that you tend to skate over is its soteriology or 'salvific' message, which is currently still unavailable for scientific examination, as other aspects have also been in the past. For some, Buddha Nature is a way of expressing the belief in the potential of every human to liberate themselves from suffering - this is, of course, simply a story we use to comfort ourselves. In this, it resembles the belief in Reason as a common human faculty.
I dont recall it from the MP suttra? But anyways my point is really about why beleive in it in its own right.
I think the Buddha's discovery, message and teaching is bigger than mere human suffering and its cessation though agree in human terms its the key mass of practice:)
I am happy with that idea that buddha nature is a later shorthand for the "good" essence of beings that is demonstrable in dharmic terms. But some treat it more like mystical core to a being. That was my point:)
Thanks,
Mat
And what is this '"good" essence' of which you speak? Show me rational proof that such a thing exists outside stories told to children.
Sure:)
Assume that you have a self-interested system in a time, space and energy finite possibility space.
Assume that there are other systems competing in this possibility space.
There will thresholds of complexity* beyond which cooperative and altruistic systems will have an increased chance of persistence over the opposite.
This fact in addition to karma is the essence of dharmic morality, it explains why meta exists and has reality.
As I understand it it is also being backed up by studies in the evolution of alturism.
I don't really understand why this would be an issue of contention for Buddhists. Should we not be pleased that dharmic morality can be grounded and that it has evidence in nature?
What is the alternative view? It is that dharmic morality gets its goodness from some permanent universal that is logically incompatible with annica and anataman?
If The Buddha discovered emergent morality two and a half millennia ago then that is a cause for celebration more than argument, surely?
Well wishes:)
mat