Is Buddhism a form of mysticism?

[Rick O'Shez]

I sometimes view it as such.

Mystics are welcome to comment.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I sometimes view it as such.

Mystics are welcome to comment.

 

[crossfire]

I sometimes view it as such.

Mystics are welcome to comment.

Yes. Just a sample:

What the excellent Awakened One extolled as pure
and called the concentration
of unmediated knowing:
No equal to that concentration can be found.
This, too, is an exquisite treasure in the Dhamma.
By this truth may there be well-being.​

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/snp/snp.2.01.than.html

 

[crossfire]

While Buddhism is primarily about discernment (or what Western Alchemists would call Separation, there is also the factor of what Western Alchemists would call Conjunction, which Buddha described as "the immediacy that leads to the ending of the effluents," or "quick intuition," or "slow intuition," (depending on the mode of practice.) I see this as a mystical function, but your mileage may vary. (It's interesting to compare this sutta with Western Alchemical stages: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.162.than.html)

 

[crossfire]

Tathātā is one state often described by non-Buddhist mystics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tathātā

 

[Orbit]

I sometimes view it as such.

Mystics are welcome to comment.

I think it can be if you have an open mind about the nature of deity. If connecting with your higher self counts as deity, then I would say yes. I can imagine how those of the Zen persuasion would say "no", though.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I think it can be if you have an open mind about the nature of deity. If connecting with your higher self counts as deity, then I would say yes. I can imagine how those of the Zen persuasion would say "no", though.

Don't worry about the Zennies, I used to be one myself.

But how do you think about "higher self"?

 

[Orbit]

Don't worry about the Zennies, I used to be one myself.

But how do you think about "higher self"?

Well, this is where I would go all Advaita Vedanta and start talking about connecting with Atman as a way of connecting with Brahman, but that's not Buddhist. It is how I think of the higher self,. I think that vipassana (Buddhist) meditation is conducive for all this, though. (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vipassanā )

 

[Papoon]

Buddhism trains the mind to be unconditionally awake to the experience of self. When it is clear that the aggregates are not self, and the nature of mind is observed as being spontaneous display of wisdom, this is mysterious delight beyond explanation.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I sometimes view it as such.

I do not know why should you term it as such. Buddha, actually wanted to kill all kind of mysticism. He was a perfect rationalist for his time. Later, those who did not have his vision, added all types of things to Buddhism. There is no 'self' in Buddhism, so what to talk of 'higher self'.

 

[Kartari]

Hi Spiny,

I sometimes view it as such.

I can see why. Certainly a number of traditions employ esoteric ritual and belief. I think the core teachings of the Buddha were rather focused on the pragmatic removal of the causes of existential dissatisfaction, however.

 

[Kirran]

I don't see that mysticism requires esotericism. Mysticism is just about direct experience of our own nature, or the nature of reality. Certainly many schools of Buddhism are into that. Realising the nature of one's self and of reality as non-existence, through one's own experiencing of that.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I don't see that mysticism requires esotericism. Mysticism is just about direct experience of our own nature, or the nature of reality. Certainly many schools of Buddhism are into that. Realising the nature of one's self and of reality as non-existence, through one's own experiencing of that.

It seems to depend on how one defines "mysticism". I think the first line of this Wiki article is consistent with the idea of Buddhism being a form of mysticism, though the later discussion raises some questions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mysticism

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Later, those who did not have his vision, added all types of things to Buddhism.

Some secularists argue this, but it is far from clear whether this actually happened.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I don't see that mysticism requires esotericism. Mysticism is just about direct experience of our own nature, or the nature of reality. Certainly many schools of Buddhism are into that. Realising the nature of one's self and of reality as non-existence, through one's own experiencing of that.

Yes, I broadly agree. Again it depends on how we define "mysticism".

 

[Papoon]

There is no 'self' in Buddhism, so what to talk of 'higher self'.

Quote a sutra where Gautama states definitively that there is no self. His consistently misinterpreted teaching is that the aggregates are not self. Anatta. No way does that translate as 'no self'.
Sure, the idea of atman , in the sense of an 'atomic soul' is dismissed. Rightly IMO, because the very notion is just a daydream based on fear of annihilation.
But to assert that there is no self is a philosophical idiocy, and I do not see Gautama as an idiot. Self is inherently mysterious, and in the end only experiential. Science has not even adequately defined the terms involved, and all philosophical and religious attempts also fall flat on their face. So, to avoid the 'humiliation' of having no idea at all, people invent ridiculous notions, whether the Hindu Atman, the Christian soul, the mistranslation of anatta in bhuddism, or the mysterious 'emergent property' of the materialist reductionists.

 

[YmirGF]

Quote a sutra where Gautama states definitively that there is no self. His consistently misinterpreted teaching is that the aggregates are not self. Anatta. No way does that translate as 'no self'.
Sure, the idea of atman , in the sense of an 'atomic soul' is dismissed. Rightly IMO, because the very notion is just a daydream based on fear of annihilation.
But to assert that there is no self is a philosophical idiocy, and I do not see Gautama as an idiot. Self is inherently mysterious, and in the end only experiential. Science has not even adequately defined the terms involved, and all philosophical and religious attempts also fall flat on their face. So, to avoid the 'humiliation' of having no idea at all, people invent ridiculous notions, whether the Hindu Atman, the Christian soul, the mistranslation of anatta in Buddhism, or the mysterious 'emergent property' of the materialist reductionists.

This is really very good.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Quote a sutra .. materialist reductionists.

You are pondering on the imponderables (acinteyyas).

Four imponderables: 4. Speculation about (the origin, etc., of) the cosmos is an imponderable that is not to be speculated about.

 

[crossfire]

Quote a sutra where Gautama states definitively that there is no self. His consistently misinterpreted teaching is that the aggregates are not self. Anatta. No way does that translate as 'no self'.
Sure, the idea of atman , in the sense of an 'atomic soul' is dismissed. Rightly IMO, because the very notion is just a daydream based on fear of annihilation.
But to assert that there is no self is a philosophical idiocy, and I do not see Gautama as an idiot. Self is inherently mysterious, and in the end only experiential. Science has not even adequately defined the terms involved, and all philosophical and religious attempts also fall flat on their face. So, to avoid the 'humiliation' of having no idea at all, people invent ridiculous notions, whether the Hindu Atman, the Christian soul, the mistranslation of anatta in bhuddism, or the mysterious 'emergent property' of the materialist reductionists.

Holding the view of having no self is just as much a fetter as holding the view of having self.

"This is how he attends inappropriately: 'Was I in the past? Was I not in the past? What was I in the past? How was I in the past? Having been what, what was I in the past? Shall I be in the future? Shall I not be in the future? What shall I be in the future? How shall I be in the future? Having been what, what shall I be in the future?' Or else he is inwardly perplexed about the immediate present: 'Am I? Am I not? What am I? How am I? Where has this being come from? Where is it bound?'

"As he attends inappropriately in this way, one of six kinds of view arises in him: The view I have a self arises in him as true & established, or the view I have no self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive not-self... or the view It is precisely by means of not-self that I perceive self arises in him as true & established, or else he has a view like this: This very self of mine — the knower that is sensitive here & there to the ripening of good & bad actions — is the self of mine that is constant, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change, and will stay just as it is for eternity. This is called a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a writhing of views, a fetter of views. Bound by a fetter of views, the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person is not freed from birth, aging, & death, from sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair. He is not freed, I tell you, from suffering & stress.​

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.002.than.html

 

[Papoon]

You are pondering on the imponderables (acinteyyas).

Four imponderables: 4. Speculation about (the origin, etc., of) the cosmos is an imponderable that is not to be speculated about.

Excuse me ? Exactly what is the nature of my speculation ? My point was precisely that speculations on self and consciousness make fools of those who speculate.