Are Theists and Atheists Joined at the Hip?

[Rick O'Shez]

I think the Wiki definition of mysticism is narrower than I use the term.

The semantics here are quite tricky.

 

[Sunstone]

The semantics here are quite tricky.

True that. But I think there are genuine, non-semantic differences too.

 

[Windwalker]

Did you come up with this fourfold classification yourself?

No. Those are roughly the types or categories that researchers into mystical experience have come up with previously. I was drawing from memory these four basic categories or types of mystical experience from the chapter Depths of the Divine in Ken Wilber's magnus opus work, Sex, Ecology, Spirituality. The way he lays them out giving examples has him calling them in order Psychic, Subtle, Causal, and Nondual. (I was remember the names of the first two inexactly but it was saying the same thing). The first two of these are dealing with the domain of the "soul", whereas he previously had been speaking of the domains of matter, life, and mind in his previous chapters of his book. These mystical domains are in the "transpersonal" domains of human experience.

The first of these the Psychic level tends to be characterized by things like nature mysticism, as I recall. He cite Emerson as a good example of this type of experience of the mystical domains. The second, the Subtle level is characterized by things like deity mysticism. He cites Theresa of Avila as a good example of this and of course digs deep into examples and explanations. These first two of the higher domains are where the Soul and God unite. In the third, the Causal level, "The Soul and God are both transcended in the prior identity as Godhead, or pure formless awareness, pure consciousness as such, the pure Self as pure Spirit (Atman = Brahman). No longer the 'Supreme Union' of God and Soul, but the 'Supreme Identity' of Godhead". He then draws from Meister Eckhart as exemplifying this level as he states, "I find in this breakthrough that God and I are one and the same". He of course cites others as examples of these levels besides these.

The fourth level, the Nondual he again cites Eckhart and Ramana Maharshi as examples of this. The Causal is not the final word on the ultimate Truth of reality, but, "When one breaks through the causal absorption in pure unmanifest and unborn Spirit, the entire manifest world arises once again, but this time as perfect expression of Spirit and as Spirit. The Formless and the entire world of manifest Form - pure Emptiness and the whole Kosmos are seen to be not-two (or nondual)." Ramana states this as the development from nirvikalpa to sahaj samadhi where, "The whole cosmos is contained in the Heart, with perfect equality of all, for grace is all-pervading and there is nothing that is not the Self. All this world is Brahman."

I think I did a fair job summarizing these originally but dug out the book just now to flesh them out a little more. There is of course much more to be said, but I think these as basic frameworks of understanding work quite well when looking at and understanding the different aspects of different types of mystical experience.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I think I did a fair job summarizing these originally but dug out the book just now to flesh them out a little more. There is of course much more to be said, but I think these as basic frameworks of understanding work quite well when looking at and understanding the different aspects of different types of mystical experience.

It's an interesting framework, though I find his eclectic approach a little hard to follow.
http://www.mitashah.com/meditation/stages-of-meditation/

 

[Windwalker]

It's an interesting framework, though I find his eclectic approach a little hard to follow.
http://www.mitashah.com/meditation/stages-of-meditation/

That's funny, the link you provided is the same material I was thinking to share and the end of my last post. https://integrallife.com/integral-post/stages-meditation

I'm not quite sure what you mean by his eclectic approach? Are you speaking of an integral framework in general? Yes, it can be quite complex because it is after all trying to create a meta-view bringing together all the very many pieces of the puzzle from many divergent fields, East and West. I have a pretty strong handle on this as it's the dominant framework I look at all these things through.

 

[mystic64]

Proposition: "Most folks who have never experienced 'god' tend to think of god in ways similar to most atheists who have never experienced 'god'."

Is there any truth to the proposition? Why or why not?

Note: In this context, "god" means the experience of oneness that comes about when subject/object perception ceases while some form of experiencing continues.

Well, when it comes to the atheists on this message board, one having a mystical experience would have to be considered a brain chemistry malfunction !

 

[mystic64]

Oh yah, but they can not say that because we are in the Mystic DIR . Only I can say that because I am a mystic . And which is probably why our beloved Sunstone has placed this topic in the Mystic DIR .

 

[Orbit]

Proposition: "Most folks who have never experienced 'god' tend to think of god in ways similar to most atheists who have never experienced 'god'."

Is there any truth to the proposition? Why or why not?

Note: In this context, "god" means the experience of oneness that comes about when subject/object perception ceases while some form of experiencing continues.

I don't believe in the same God that the atheists don't believe in.