Can Mysticism Serve as an Alternative to Religion?

[mystic64]

The question, of course, is which practices can legitimately lead to that today. I'm sceptical that anyone who doesn't enter a proper religious tradition, observe it devoutly, and seek a spiritual master and mystic initiation/path/order will succeed in reaching enlightenment. Indeed, I would think that a non-mystic follower of a traditional faith would be spiritually better off, given the discipline, rites, and imaginal world they provide, than someone who tried to develop a highly idiosyncratic mystical path, with a few exceptions.

Jeremy, I did it without any proper religious tradition or mystic "initation/path/order". And my spiritual master was Lord Jesus. But the whole process took me sixty years and thousands of hours of meditative prayer. Basically that has been my life and that is about it. At the same time I do not teach it because I agree with you, "Normal folks with any kind of a life just can not do it that way." They just plain do not have the time even if they had the inclination. But at the same time most folks that follow some religious or yogi tradition do not actually achieve it either. And lets face it one is playing with the human mind which can be mine field and can lead one in a lot of circles. Anyway Jeremy, I like your post, it shows that you do have some understanding about how things are .

 

[Alitheia Aylso]

Is mysticism a viable alternative to religion?

Could mysticism, even in theory, ever replace religion for most people?

Mysticism:

1. Belief that union with or absorption into the Deity or the absolute, or the spiritual apprehension of knowledge inaccessible to the intellect, may be attained through contemplation and self-surrender.

2. Belief characterized by self-delusion or dreamy confusion of thought, especially when based on the assumption of occult qualities or mysterious agencies.

Religion:

1. The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.

2. A particular system of faith and worship.

3. A pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance.

If we use the 1st definition given for both terms, then mysticism could not be a religion in and of itself. While the 1st definition of mysticism includes belief in a deity/God it does not include worship, instead using contemplation and self-surrender.

If we use the 1st definition given for mysticism and the 2nd definition for religion, then mysticism could not be a religion in and of itself. The 2nd definition of religion requires worship which, by the 1st definition of mysticism, Mysticism does not necessarily include.

If we use the 1st definition given for mysticism and the 3rd definition for religion, then while it may seem that most practicing mysticism would ascribe it supreme importance it is not necessary to practice mysticism and therefore is not fulfilling the hallmarks of the 3rd definition of religion.

If we use the 2nd definition of mysticism and the 1st definition of religion, then it would be true that someone following this definition of religion would be following this definition of mysticism, however like how a square is a rectangle but a rectangle is not necessarily a square, religion (in this definition) is mysticism but mysticism is not necessarily religion (due to the mysterious agencies not having to be God/gods).

If we use the 2nd definition for both terms, we would have the same results as the when comparing the 2nd definition of mysticism with the 1st definition of religion.

If we use the 3rd definition for both terms, we would get the same results as when comparing the 1st definition of mysticism and the 3rd definition of religion.

I hope my answer was to your satisfaction.

 

[mystic64]

Mysticism:

1. Belief that union with or absorption into the Deity or the absolute, or the spiritual apprehension of knowledge inaccessible to the intellect, may be attained through contemplation and self-surrender.

2. Belief characterized by self-delusion or dreamy confusion of thought, especially when based on the assumption of occult qualities or mysterious agencies.

Religion:

1. The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.

2. A particular system of faith and worship.

3. A pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance.

If we use the 1st definition given for both terms, then mysticism could not be a religion in and of itself. While the 1st definition of mysticism includes belief in a deity/God it does not include worship, instead using contemplation and self-surrender.

If we use the 1st definition given for mysticism and the 2nd definition for religion, then mysticism could not be a religion in and of itself. The 2nd definition of religion requires worship which, by the 1st definition of mysticism, Mysticism does not necessarily include.

If we use the 1st definition given for mysticism and the 3rd definition for religion, then while it may seem that most practicing mysticism would ascribe it supreme importance it is not necessary to practice mysticism and therefore is not fulfilling the hallmarks of the 3rd definition of religion.

If we use the 2nd definition of mysticism and the 1st definition of religion, then it would be true that someone following this definition of religion would be following this definition of mysticism, however like how a square is a rectangle but a rectangle is not necessarily a square, religion (in this definition) is mysticism but mysticism is not necessarily religion (due to the mysterious agencies not having to be God/gods).

If we use the 2nd definition for both terms, we would have the same results as the when comparing the 2nd definition of mysticism with the 1st definition of religion.

If we use the 3rd definition for both terms, we would get the same results as when comparing the 1st definition of mysticism and the 3rd definition of religion.

I hope my answer was to your satisfaction.

Alitheia Aylso welcome to the message board! Your approach to the OP is interesting. Your first argument based on the the first definitions of both terms pivots on the definition of the term "worship". According to my dictionary, Worship: n. 1a. The reverant love and devotion accorded a deity, an idol, or sacred object. If one uses this definition of the word "worship" and your first definition of "mysticism" and "religion", then one can come under both of the terms religion and mysticism. And this is the type of religion mysticism that I have practiced for sixty years now. Which is also why I agree with what Jeremy Taylor said: "I'm sceptical that anyone who doesn't enter a proper religious tradition, observe it devoutly, and seek a spiritual master and mystic initiation/path/order will succeed in reaching enlightenment. Indeed, I would think that a non-mystic follower of a traditional faith would be spiritually better off, given the discipline, rites, and imaginal world they provide, than someone who tried to develop a highly idiosyncratic mystical path, with a few exceptions." I thought that he was right on about that one .

 

[Alitheia Aylso]

Alitheia Aylso welcome to the message board! Your approach to the OP is interesting. Your first argument based on the the first definitions of both terms pivots on the definition of the term "worship". According to my dictionary, Worship: n. 1a. The reverant love and devotion accorded a deity, an idol, or sacred object. If one uses this definition of the word "worship" and your first definition of "mysticism" and "religion", then one can come under both of the terms religion and mysticism. And this is the type of religion mysticism that I have practiced for sixty years now. Which is also why I agree with what Jeremy Taylor said: "I'm sceptical that anyone who doesn't enter a proper religious tradition, observe it devoutly, and seek a spiritual master and mystic initiation/path/order will succeed in reaching enlightenment. Indeed, I would think that a non-mystic follower of a traditional faith would be spiritually better off, given the discipline, rites, and imaginal world they provide, than someone who tried to develop a highly idiosyncratic mystical path, with a few exceptions." I thought that he was right on about that one .

I thought I could give an outsiders perspective because I do not practice either of them.

 

[Milton Platt]

Friends,
The dictionary meaning of both the words are:
mys·ti·cismn. 1. a. Immediate consciousness of the transcendent or ultimate reality or God.
b. The experience of such communion as described by mystics.

2. A belief in the existence of realities beyond perceptual or intellectual apprehension that are central to being and directly accessible by subjective experience.
3. Vague, groundless speculation.


re·li·gion n. 1. a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.

2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

In general Religion is a way/ method/ path/ etc. to be one with existence and the person who realises that is a mystic. Besides the words are not replaceable with each other. Rather one is a result of the other.
Maybe there was something to the question which could not be understood; if so, please clarify the same.
Love & rgds

This seems to be a distinction without a difference.

 

[mystic64]

This seems to be a distinction without a difference.

Hi Milton Platt and welcome to the message board! I catch the joke : 3. Vague, groundless speculation.

Humm? One's "belief" system causes one to pass judgement on things that they have not any experience with. Which is why an enlightened person does not have a "belief" system. Atheism and Orthodox Religion are "I believe" systems that are based on "3. Vague, groundless spectulation. "I believe", is a bit different than, "I understand because of direct experience". From there it becomes science becoming advanced enough to explore the unexplained in a physics sense. Milton Platt, I know what I can do and why I can do it. Sometimes hanging out with the "transcendent or ultimate reality or God" can result in some interesting information relative to some "can do" realities .

What is my point? Welcome to the message board Milton, things can get interesting here in a mind altering way . I love RF!

 

[mystic64]

I thought I could give an outsiders perspective because I do not practice either of them.

Works for me Alitheia (I love your name it is so cool!). And outsiders' perspective is always welcome as far as I am concerned, "activity is the life of a message board" and we are all minds at play .

 

[Milton Platt]

Hi Milton Platt and welcome to the message board! I catch the joke : 3. Vague, groundless speculation.

Humm? One's "belief" system causes one to pass judgement on things that they have not any experience with. Which is why an enlightened person does not have a "belief" system. Atheism and Orthodox Religion are "I believe" systems that are based on "3. Vague, groundless spectulation. "I believe", is a bit different than, "I understand because of direct experience". From there it becomes science becoming advanced enough to explore the unexplained in a physics sense. Milton Platt, I know what I can do and why I can do it. Sometimes hanging out with the "transcendent or ultimate reality or God" can result in some interesting information relative to some "can do" realities .

What is my point? Welcome to the message board Milton, things can get interesting here in a mind altering way . I love RF!

Anyone's direct experience, and those supposed direct experiences of adherents of other religions with differing gods offer no evidence except perhaps to the one who had them. And even then, there is no way to verify that their interpretation of what they called and experience is actually what the experience was.
Atheism at it's basic is simply a lack of belief in any gods. I do not take the position that there cannot or are not any gods, only that there is not sufficient credible evidence to support the claim. In the case of Christianity, this evidence has not been forthcoming after some 2,000 years of effort. We will never know in he absolute sense that there are no gods, just as we will never now in the absolute sense that there is no a planet in a distant galaxy that is made of goat cheese. But I withhold my belief on both of these things until convinced with evidence. The goat cheese planet has a higher probability of existing. We have tangtible evidence of the existence of goats, goat cheese, and planets.

 

[mystic64]

Anyone's direct experience, and those supposed direct experiences of adherents of other religions with differing gods offer no evidence except perhaps to the one who had them. And even then, there is no way to verify that their interpretation of what they called and experience is actually what the experience was.
Atheism at it's basic is simply a lack of belief in any gods. I do not take the position that there cannot or are not any gods, only that there is not sufficient credible evidence to support the claim. In the case of Christianity, this evidence has not been forthcoming after some 2,000 years of effort. We will never know in he absolute sense that there are no gods, just as we will never now in the absolute sense that there is no a planet in a distant galaxy that is made of goat cheese. But I withhold my belief on both of these things until convinced with evidence. The goat cheese planet has a higher probability of existing. We have tangtible evidence of the existence of goats, goat cheese, and planets.

I will talk about anything Milton it is all fun as far as I am concerned. And posting credits are posting credits. Lets see where we are at here? ok, the mysticism DIR. Humm? I guess we can't have an argument, "darn", but we can have a discussion . And the Staff is pretty cool about things as long as one stays within reason. "Can mysticism serve as an alternative to religion?" So just for the sake of discussion, your answer Milton would be, "Sure why not? It is all either a belief in Santa Claus or a brain chemistry malfunction or both." So Milton how up are you in what is going on in science these days? The back room cutting edge stuff? And what do you know about the phenomenon "empathy". The ability to feel first hand the emotions, feelings, and thoughts of other living things? All living things give off electrical magnetic frequency (EMF) energy and these EMF energys can be felt by other living things as well as be measured by science to a certain extent including the EMF that is generated by an active living mind. And I mention this because you are using the word "never" as an absolute. Why do I bring this up as a part of the discussion? Because I am extremely "empathic" which makes me somewhat telepathic also. You and I visit long enough here on this message board and I will become able to separate out the EMF signals that you generate from the "noise" that other living things are generating. From there things can get interesting in a discussion. And from there, here is where things also continue to get interesting, "Are there entities out there are a more advanced and longer lived that we are?" And if there are, can the EMF that these entities give off as a part of their life and thought processes be felt by an "empath" and measured by science?

Now Milton, your part of this discussion is that these entities are not possible and that I can't be an empath that can eventually begin to pick up and process the EMF signals that you generate as a part of your life and thought processes. Eventually over time Milton I can prove to you that what I am claiming is real and from there it is just a matter of introducing you personally to "the profoundly powerful force with a conscious mind" that seems to be the "big honcho" relative to the creation that we live in and the creation that science is studying. "Can mysticism serve as an alternative to religion?" Miton, it seems to me that it is not about planets made of goat cheese or the fact that Santa Claus doesn't exist and the absolute of "Never". It is about openning up realities that you may wish to not explore. It is ok to not believe in things, but one should tred carefully around folks that claim to have connections to the "dark side", because some folks do have these connections and they have abilities because of it. I stay as far away from them as possible and I do not antagonize them because I have met them and they can be a handful .

Well Milton keep hanging out here in the "Mysticism DIR" and we will work on you having an up close and personal experience with the mystical side of "physics". Everything is physics, there is no such thing as magic. So Milton why don't you start some topics here in the Mysticism DIR and lets liven things up here a bit ?

 

[Marcion]

Only on a personal basis can mysticism serve as an alternative for religion.
You can leave your religious system behind and join a more universal mystic cult or you can try to ignore the limiting, religious parts of your religion and delve into its mystic part.

But on a global level there must remain religions (vedic way of thinking) for those who are not yet ready for mysticism (tantric way of thinking).
You cannot let everyone in the world go to college by simply abolishing all kindergartens, primary schools and secondary schools.

At most you can try to remove the irrationality, the superstitions, the dogmas, the sectarianism, the ritualism, as well as the abuse by priests in religions but that does not automatically turn them into strong mystic paths.