Theory of mysticism

 

I believe that it was a combination from the fear of the unknown and those forces within nature its self, that where probably and foremost, seen as the first forms of a mystical experience ever witnessed by early humans. Thus, the results of a fear of the unknown in nature became the superstitions, behind the explanation for nature’s existence and religion was the results born out of the experience. Ceremonies, rituals, and costumes became the rational pragmatisms for our universal reality principle of consciousness and its laws of thought within nature. More concerned with results rather than with theories and principles, it was their functional awareness that guided their enlightenment and that of their inner perceptions was still structuring its self. In as much as it is still in today’s world sadly.

 

Intro

 

Mysticism is the belief in or the effort for communion with what perceived to be a god/s, anti-god/s or the natural forces within nature or with those entities seated below their rule. Such as those entities believed to be dwelling within those realms of a heaven, hell and/or within nature it’s self. The performance for mysticism is in order, for an individual to achieve a condition of control or a state in nirvana through, the intervention of rituals, ceremonies and customs. Through the utilization of meditation and/or the experience of undertaking the journey either through rituals, ceremonies and customs, to achieve an altar state of being, the nearness, to the oneness, not of self.

 

Those rituals, ceremonies and customs were designed for the purpose of a sort of mutual control for communication that can be achieved between those representations, nature, god/s or anti-god/s, being called upon, for their command, is the goal of the mystic. Mystics are of every nation and all religions around the world. Their methods or practices vary from generation to generation, through either the inner silence of contemplation or the outward, often violent demonstration of reverberation of action.

 

Most mystics are usually honest in their intentions, beliefs as well as being earnest in their devotion. They may rise in sudden ecstasy to saintly heights or may sink into depths of depression; their experiences may be brief or prolonged depending on their knowledge and the techniques presented for use. However, those are only experiences of feeling and desire. They are not the results of clear thinking; they do not hold knowledge in their illusion.

 

What they consider knowledge of a supernatural being or nearness to a spirit consistently seems connected with the objects of sight, sound, taste or smell. They are often not the results of an inner perception or the intelligence achieved thought the development within their triad of consciousness. Rather they are the consequences of their functional awareness within their self-essence of being.

 

An assessment of responses to
Contradictions in terms of mysticism

 

It seems that attempts to define a mystical experience and/or a mystical person have been as diverse and as conflicting as attempts to interpret and evaluate their importance. For the language used to express and describe most mystical experience is richly in some cases inconsistent, poetical and figurative. At times, a mystic chooses what looks like precise and authoritarian metaphysical terms, for they will employ those terms in senses far from what most might see as customary way of thinking.

 

Mystics have called god/s, anti-god/s or the natural forces within nature, as a concept of nothingness and yet at the same time they have called it the base perception for all reality offered. On the other hand, confirming at the same time, that the world is impossible to tell apart from those representations and yet that the world is not interchangeable with those representations, all in the same breath.

 

Yet it seems that some discrimination is possible even if an exact definition is not. Mystical experience is essentially a religion experience in general, but only in a meaningful sense of what a religion acknowledges as its acceptance. It seems to reveal something about the totality of things something of immense human importance at most times, most places, as well as something upon which ones ultimate well-being, ones inner salvation, in every respect of the word, depends upon.

 

More, specifically a mystical experience is not the act of acquiring religious or theological information. Yet often taken to be a confrontation or encounter with the divine source of the worlds salvation. Therefore, the mystical observation experience viewed is not a mystical experience. Especially if the divine power/s apprehended, become viewed as simply one wholly distinct image.

 

There must be a unifying vision, a sense that somehow all things and reality itself are one and share a holy, divine and single existence. In addition to that, ones individual being merges into what they perceive to be a complete essence of self-being. To be identified along with that god/s, anti-god/s or the natural forces within nature.

 

It seems that a mystical experience than involves the passionate and blissful realization of a oneness with or in the divine presence of those representations. There is the sense that this divine one is all-embracing in its existence of being. Yet, a mystical experience may possibly, be given much less theological interpretation, than this description might suggest. Especially when a mystic may be seen, to have no belief what so ever in a divine being yet holds to a spiritual essences of responsibility and accountability.

 

Yet they shall still experience that sense of an overwhelming supreme blessedness, an inner salvation of a lost regained, furthermore, that belief that they have risen above their individuality. Some mystical experience might occur at the end of a lengthy, religions discipline or a frugal path, others occur spontaneously. While others might, take place such as those induced by drugs, the results of hallucinogenic or those taken place during the course of a mental illness or injury to the minds brain.

An important distinction between the extroversive, an aggressive person, and the introversive, an inhibited person; could be made, both types come to mind within the mystical experience.
        

         a) In the extroversive experience, the subject looks out upon the multiplicity of objects in the world and sees them transfigured into a living unity of reality. Their distinction somehow turns out destroyed. In the nature of mysticism an extroversive, experiences the items of nature that are not lost to their functional awareness. Rather they perceive them with having an appearance of vigorous, dynamic and spiritual life, all as the inner workings of the one divine mind of perception.

         b) In the introversive type, the mystic might become progressively less aware of their environment and of themselves as a separate individual. They may speak about united into identifying with or dissolved into the divine one. Their functional awareness subject-object distinction vanishes altogether. There are those that have experienced both types, with the introversive possibly being at the furthest, removed from an ordinary experience. Moreover, usually held to be the more developed of the two.

 

Although one may call a mystical experience a kind of religious experience, one might not find much agreement among mystics about the nature and/or the state of the mystical goal achieved from those experiences.

 

It seems Islamic and Christian’s mysticism interprets their mystical experience as theistically, yet not with complete consistency. On the other hand, the Theravada and Upanishads, Buddhism is not theistic in their belief. The agnostic, monist and pantheist interpretations offered with some plausibility.

 

The pantheist argues that some mystical experiences compels us to strip away the acknowledgment of human attributes, motives, feelings and/or characteristics to any nonhuman objects, phenomena or beings. While the theistic notion of god/s states that it is that of an infinite, supernatural individual, that seems to be the all mighty power divine essence behind reality.

 

This picture contradicts the mystics own experience, which is not of an external face-to-face meeting with a deity, but rather one of a merging one’s own basic identity with the mystical divine one. That gulf of reality perceptions that stretches link less between themselves and their god/s anti-god/s and those nature factors is now connected.

 

Why have so many of the Christian mystics used the theistic language to describe their mystical experience? One could say that they either are simple mindedly using the religious terms that they were taught. Or else that they have a desire to conform to the orthodox Christian dogma about god’s transcendence. That might have made them keep quiet as to those parts of their individual experiences, which might be inappropriate to others that saw those occurrences as devilish in their nature.

 

The pantheist interpretation claims that it alone does a complete form of justice to god/s, anti-god/s or the natural forces within nature, time without end. Since a mystical experience is a discovery, a realization of what might be eternally true. There seems to be no perplexing doctrine about any special divine self-revelations and/or self-communications nor any interference with natural laws involved with this belief.

 

Pantheism and monism argues that the theist may map out the lower stapes of the mystics ascent. They are more concerned with the preliminary purifying of the senses and the intellect. There is not a union with god/s, anti-god/s or the natural forces within nature. They see rather an unusually, unmarked, innocent and/or aesthetically of an intense awareness, of the created outer world and its perfections. This is how a god/s, anti-god/s and those nature factors, can be, yet at the same time, not being; by living as an individual entity, it holds both possibilities.

 

What characteristics can define this being or state of possibilities, which is common to most beings self-essence, which would figure into their complete description of acceptance? God/s, anti-god/s or the natural forces within nature in their self cannot logically refer to anything either universal or particular and/or either a non-divine or a divine force. God/s, anti-god/s or the natural forces within nature, here means predetermined as well as independent, god/s, anti-god/s or the natural forces within nature is superior to this sort of acceptance.

 

God/s, anti-god/s or the natural forces within nature, seems to either exists or does not exist, we might say that god/s, anti-god/s or the natural forces within nature is above beings. Above beings carries thoughts indicating distance from and/or superiority to something. In order to be above, someone must be below and continue to stay there.

 

For that reason, paradoxes in general may be in use as metaphysical, poetical and/or symbolic language transmissions of this inner and outward experience and its existence. So, if the paradoxes are at best descriptions. It should be somewhat possible to translate them into a direct non-metaphysical language. Yet it seems to me, that the language most available to most mystics. For it seems to be a language of irreducible paradoxes. It even seems that it is almost impossible to speak without metaphors. The conceptions of the mind are, in many of its facets, the history of changing metaphors, analogies and/or myths.

 

When the mystic says, god/s, anti-god/s or the natural forces within nature is a wasteland. God/s, anti-god/s or the natural forces within nature is and is not, or that god/s, anti-god/s or the natural forces within nature is identical with the world, or the mystical enlightenment is an absolute emptiness, in which is an absolute fullness. We might be compelled to accept their metaphors and paradoxes on the known faith in their statements alone. Although this inner faith is not measurable and actually too many made unknown, to most mystics, they feel intensely that it is so and a present reality.

 

The words used by the mystic are often to overwhelming for the expressions in the words, they are indescribable. They seem neither to volunteer nor to have a unification story behind their use. The words are rich enough in their implications and connotations, cover both near and far. It seems the mystic’s paradoxical discourse relates ultimately to their basic over reactions as to god/s, anti-god/s or the natural forces within nature is a metaphysical status.

 

These reflections do not attempt to disprove the mystic’s statements or even to show the difference between meanings of words or symbols figuratively named. If the mystic had independent grounds for believing in a god/s, anti-god/s or the natural forces within nature then one might readily accept the claim that they might speak about this god/s, anti-god/s or the natural forces within nature, indirect or allusive, rather than straightforward in language. Some mystics might say that they do have such independent grounds, yet for others the mystical experiences, reported in the language of paradox, furnish the basic grounds for belief.

 

Four possibilities are worthy of serious thought and due consideration.

         1, Paradoxes cannot be eliminated one could not talk about a mystics experience or that of their god/s, anti-god/s or the natural forces within nature without them.

         2, Paradoxes seem to be necessary in somewhat the same way, as distortions of grammar and sentence structure are necessary for a poet attempting to say something that cannot be encompassed by just ordinary language configuration. Those words are expression not used literally.

        3, There seems to be no logically coherent account of mystical vision that seems attainable. Therefore, we can believe the mystic’s claim that their experience in indescribable and that language falsifies it.

       4, Because the mystic says so many contradictory things about god/s, anti-god/s or the natural forces within nature or the existence and their own experiences, they might demonstrate the logical impossibility of god/s, anti-god/s or the natural forces within nature existence, to be, described be using their mystical experiences.

 

We should consider the mystics intuitions, “either as a strange fantasy or a glimpse into the eternal relationships of all things.” If the mystic cannot interpret their experience theologically without talking nonsense, then it would seem much better for them not to attempt either theology or metaphysics. For fear that, they might bring their mystical experience itself into a needless and pointless disrepute or even worst, to bring ridicule upon them their self.

 

An approach of this kind might seem to have strong fundamentals of early Buddhism. Buddha taught the pathway to nirvana yet he turned away questions about any duties or the nature of any life hereafter. His main point was upon the moral quality of a life as well as upon attitudes towards life. For Buddha, mystical experience attained was in the course of a personal, somewhat practical discipline. The lack of speculation will not, make the mystical experience, unavailable to an individual that follows the Buddha’s prescription for attaining it.

 

The mystical experiences of an Agnostic are much different from those of the Muslim, the Christian and the Buddhist. The concepts used by them in their interpretation seem to help determine their mystic expectations for a future experience as well as to help determine the mystical pathway, while plotting their arrangement upon it. Their mystical experience involves a powerful urge toward the reconciliation harmony and unification of all. With all, there is a feature that can readily integrate with a moral outlook in which the most significant relationship given to live.

 

Their reflections may know, at the least that we cannot fairly assess the importance of mystical experience solely in terms of the interpretation that is, offered from it. An equally related question is, what does the mystic do with their experience, that is, what place do they give it in their total personal and moral existence. It seems a mystic may interpret elaborately as well as their mystical experience as a mere refuge from their responsibility. On the other hand, they may be quite at a low for an interpretation, while recognizing in their experiences the center, as the spring of a morally dedicated life.

 

The mystic normally claims that their experience is not only a way of being, inwardly subjectively moved, yet also that it makes known the nature of reality. It is a cognitive and objective experience. To help them to support their frame of thought, they may appeal to the impressive convergences of testimony on certain fundamentals among mystics of different periods as well as parts of the world.

 

It has been dubious in thought that most mystical experiences actually are neither subjective nor objective, yet it transcends this distinction. Moreover, best illuminated in the light of thought as indicating change, transfer or a conversion in its nature, to be objective, an experience must be orderly as well as law governed.

 

The criteria for a subjective experience are disorderliness as well as incoherence. A mystical experience fits neither category well. It would be better to describe it as an experience of unity. Unity touched by plurality and without the plurality there can be neither order nor disorder. The mystic not only approached the world of plurality as issuing from a single divine source.

 

Rather sees that source and the world as a unity. A mystical experience cannot usefully be restricted to the one type. For perception of multiplicity does play a role in mystical experiences. Therefore, they might, be seen in the extroversive mystical experience in general, is not simply enemies of perception, but rather enemies in multiplicity as well.

 

When one asks what sort of apprehensions or as to what modes of knowing are involved in mysticism, more paradoxes soon start to become the center of one’s attention. If one mystic claims to perceive the cosmic energies from the one divine being, another denies that anything like perception takes place. I ask you, if a tree spoke of a Supernatural knowledge and of a guiding light, which is with all. That seems to be so completely detached, unconcerned from almost all intelligible forms. In which are objects of the understanding, are neither apparent nor pragmatic.

 

Therefore, it seems that the mystical insights are not purely an intellectual act. For it seems that the higher and more personal the Divine light becomes. It gives the impression to being, a darker moment in to ones understanding.

 

A union with god/s, anti-god/s or the natural forces within nature, transcends all knowledge. The difficulty increases by the doctrine that is a mystical experience the object and subject distinction seems to break down. With it goes most our thoughts models for cognitive activities charged with the risk of failure in their communication. The mystic usually resorts to a characteristic complex use of language. It works in part, either by negations or in part by descriptions of their religious situation. As they read in between the lines, of those theological and/or metaphysical terms enhanced with poetical imagery.

 

God/s, anti-god/s or the natural forces within nature, may now dwell within the mystic or they might become immersed in the course of them. It might be easy to see why the mystic resort to their forms of discourse and might be why they offer little comfort to the epistemologist. The interpretations assume precisely what has been at the basic issue, that most mystical experiences are objective as well as reliably cognitive in their nature.

 

Some people maintain that they mystic’s claim to “know” might be believed as being real or genuine, but actually are not so and false in nature. For when some expressions, used as clarification in our world of sanity, are so drastically far from the so-called norm and applied with somewhat an obscure as well as an idiosyncratic criterion, it becomes apparent. That the person and their experiences become questionable at best.

 

For example, it has been a suggestion that the mystic’s language is not a description of a known reality but rather as the expression of a state of mind. Some of the mystic’s language is clearly emotion even when it seems to describe their situation. Yet this may still be an indirect expression of their state of mind.

 

I do not intend, nor imply that the mystic is a psychotic, although some psychotic experiences are mystical in nature. Yet, it hardly indicates that mysticism is a form of psychosis. I must point out that to analyze the mystic’s experience, as a state of mind is not necessarily to discredit it, nor them. States of one’s mind can be and usually seem to be objectives brought forth by states of affairs and properly interpreted. People also occasionally fall victim to real persecution fears as well as to their anxieties and other psychological factors.

 

Both mystics and psychotic’s use situation descriptive language for what might be a misperception of one’s situation. In which they may be a projection of inner disturbances upon the outer works in a form of madness or prophecy. One might say that the projection occurs to some extent because the disturbances are likely unspoken or not understood for what they are, which the failure to accumulate their insight more or less.

 

I have been considering some of the branches of philosophy that studies the nature of knowledge, in particular its foundations, scope, and validity, as well as linguistic problems set forth in mysticism. Now, let us consider what in the content and the quality of a mystical experience. The law of individuality as well as dissolution might characterize a mystical experience in a limitless divine totality. On the other hand, that the mystical experience might be a vision of the world that is free from the interposition of concepts.

 

A mystical experience is strange in the sense that it suspends the application of basic concepts as well as categories. As long as the mystic has the time, place, number, quantity, and multiplicity, they are on their way to a fundamental causation and god/s, anti-god/s or the natural forces within nature, allows the mystic away of being closer to influencing factors and not that far from them than others are.

 

When concepts are fundamental and withdrawn or distinctions alliterate, it is understandable that our ordinary sense of the known limits and the boundaries between thinking and thing or person and person, should also temporarily disappear. In this thought, we may have an important clue to the mystic’s claims about the overcoming of finite individuality. The cessation between the subjects objects relationship merging as well as melting into the infinite.

 

Because our normal sense of our powers and their abilities is somewhat fostered by the practical and utilitarian view of the world, when that point of view is suppressed, there may develop that sense of exhilarating expansion or liberation that may often be described in the mystical literature, as the experience. If the practical orientation is suspended and with it, some related conceptual framework of normal experiences, we may lose awareness to the passage of measured time. The introversive mystical experience, experiences the awareness to space, as annihilated.

 

The intensity, as well as the strangeness of a mystical experience reinforces the effect of timelessness. The experience is alternating with in the fields of events before and after; hence, it has felt as not belonging to it. It seems that the experience of and in mysticism either can be downgraded or upgraded with ease through the choice of a metaphor used to describe it.

 

Its paradoxes are unutterable truths or blatant contradictions. Their clearest affirmations are with trustworthy modes of knowing, or with psychotic divisionary states of mind. Therefore, are the human experiences, from enlightenment the most valuable form of knowledge or it is a psychosomatic curiosity, fashioned by one’s own unconscious, from infantile materials.

 

Thus, the results of a fear of the unknown in nature became the superstitions behind nature and the explanation for nature’s existence. I believe were probably the first mystical experiences ever witnessed by human beings. It could have been those elements, fear, turning into superstitions as explanation for nature’s existence. I believed helped kindle the fires for later established mystical experiences and all religions where the results born out of those experiences.

 

The fears, superstitions and those forces within nature formed into doctrines of belief passed on either in the spoken or written word. Thru ceremonies, rituals, and costumes that became the god/s, anti-god/s or the supernatural forces within nature. Those elements sadly became the rational pragmatisms for our universal reality principle of consciousness and its laws of thought, which is truthfully behind humanities existence, experienced.

 

From generation to generation, culture to culture, accepted as true, to believe in, taking on the forms of traditions, rituals, ceremonies, customs that became habits. Until they became those spiritual truths for acquiring a comprehension beyond human understanding, of what the god/s, anti-god/s or the natural forces within nature and this universal reality principle of consciousness and its laws of thought, within our existence to be experienced. For what is, repeatedly, seen as a divine being of purpose, is mostly a self-refection.

 

A mystical experience can neither be explained nor defined only interpreted by the individual for its worth without explanation or clarification as such. A true mystic and their mystical experiences have no thoughts as to god/s, anti-god/s or the natural forces within nature. They seek the inner trilogy that is always the inner search. Alluded to in many ways, under many forms and words of explanation, is the functional awareness perception through the inner enlightenment that leads towards this inner triad of consciousness that they seek, yet few fine that experience.

 

Have you or are you, one of those still in search of, or penetrating through, as if you are stumbling towards your answers blindly. In a diffuse light, that characterizes your perception of the outer world as reality and your inner world an illusion. Only when you have reunited your inner triad of consciousness as a whole unit of balanced thought, will you truthfully understand our universal reality principle of consciousness and its laws of thought and your place within it existence to be experienced.

 

A straightforward sensible way of thinking about things or dealing with your problems is found within your triad of consciousness, rediscovered a result of theories and principles of a philosophical viewpoints. The theory or concept in terms of moral consequence as the ethical standard for action and thought evaluated as such values.

 

That is the true mystical experience found, contained in our universal reality principle of consciousness and its laws of thought and within our existence to experience is this inner triad of consciousness. That is our essence of being and our purpose for living.

 

 

Copyrights Reserved
@JRB
Theory of mysticism
Uisiom/Jan/2006