19 Sep 07
Originally posted by epiphinehasIt's hard to have "hard science" on metaphysical questions.
Good stuff. So, the Big Bang isn't hard science? And what about the Planck length, nonlocality and the implicate order? Hard science, or not?
To quote NASA, "Although the Big Bang Theory is widely accepted, it probably will never be proved; consequentially, leaving a number of tough, unanswered questions. "
The Planck Length is a unit of measurement used to define at what point Quantum Mechanics take over... What's that got to do with the infinite/finite universe question?
Likewise, non locality would lend to a discussion of waves.
I have not read Bohm's book where he explains his idea of an implicate cosmological order.
Based on your questions, I'm not sure you understand what constitutes a hard science.
19 Sep 07
1 edit
Originally posted by epiphinehasI am not sure what Eastern mysticism you followed, but I have not found one that demands a loss of personality.
No, your help is not necessary, I understand that the Hindu concept of Maya jives with quantum physics. The biggest difference between Christian mysticism and Eastern mysticism is that there is no loss of personality in Christian mysticism. Communion with God, both now and for eternity, in Christian mysticism does not entail the loss of one's own uniqu ...[text shortened]... particularly a certain variation of Sufism, so I may not be as misinformed as you assume I am.
They encourage us to overcome our egos so we can overcome suffering.
Eastern Christian Mysticism is very similar from my studies.
Wester Christian Mysticism, if you can call it that, is more difficult to pin down. Unless you're talking about St Thomas Aquinas and St Augustine, but they're really Theologists, not Mystics. Maybe St Francis since he spoke with animals. What do you refer to as Wester Christian Mysticism?
19 Sep 07
1 edit
Originally posted by mdhallI think there is a tendency to see the “ego” and “personality” as the same thing. I think there is an expectation that any Eastern mystic that does not walk around in some sort of vaporous state is—well, not “enlightened.” I recall a story about students who left Hakuun Yasutani roshi because of his love for ice-cream (I think it was)—clearly demonstrating that he could not be “an enlightened being”. Let’s see: Did Lin-chi have personality...? I seem to recall stories about some of gerontes and startsi of Mt. Athos having a bit of a scamp-like personality as well. Personality is just—personality.
I am not sure what Eastern mysticism you followed, but I have not found one that demands a loss of personality.
They encourage us to overcome our egos so we can overcome suffering.
Eastern Christian Mysticism is very similar from my studies.
Wester Christian Mysticism, if you can call it that, is more difficult to pin down. Unless you're talking abo e St Francis since he spoke with animals. What do you refer to as Wester Christian Mysticism?
The somebody-self construct tends to be either deprecated or elevated to divine stature; that seems to be pretty much what people want to have eternal life. And that’s where the problem comes in when people start talking about Nirvana, or Fana, or the wave dispersed back into the ocean... Or even the Zen master who said that he hadn’t a clue what happened when someone died, because he hadn’t been dead yet...
Of the Western Christian apologists (at least those I have some across), I think the existentialist Unamuno was the most brutally honest about all this.
EDIT: In terms of Western Christian mystics of the "perennial philosophy" sort, Meister Eckhart comes to mind.
19 Sep 07
Originally posted by vistesdDid you happen to read Umberto Eco's The Name of the Rose?
I think there is a tendency to see the “ego” and “personality” as the same thing. I think there is an expectation that any Eastern mystic that does not walk around in some sort of vaporous state is—well, not “enlightened.” I recall a story about students who left Hakuun Yasutani roshi because of his love for ice-cream (I think it was)—clearly demonstratin ...[text shortened]... f Western Christian mystics of the "perennial philosophy" sort, Meister Eckhart comes to mind.
It was a really great historical fiction piece set in the Medieval times and highlight the clash between the Philosopher/Theologists and the Papal state of Avignon centered around the argument of Pope John the 22 concerning Christ living in poverty or not.
You'd love it for sure.
Very enlightening if you have the history on those fellows.
Also, have you ever read the Philokalia?
It's a collection of essays over the 600 years following Christ's death and before the cataclysm of the great mystics of those times. Very impressive.
If you have background from both these it becomes really easy to see why a modern western Christian is pretty much left to their own devices in terms of spirituality. A pretty amazing step backward.
19 Sep 07
2 edits
Originally posted by mdhallThanks for the recommendations: It’s been so long since I read The Name of the Rose, I don’t think I had the philosophical base to read it as anything but—a damned good read. I’ll have to go at it again, I see. 🙂
Did you happen to read Umberto Eco's The Name of the Rose?
It was a really great historical fiction piece set in the Medieval times and highlight the clash between the Philosopher/Theologists and the Papal state of Avignon centered around the argument of Pope John the 22 concerning Christ living in poverty or not.
You'd love it for sure.
Very enlightenin ty much left to their own devices in terms of spirituality. A pretty amazing step backward.
I have Volume I of the Philokalia, but have barely scratched it as yet. From my reading, Eastern Christendom—while rejecting an out-and-out non-dualism—is (a) more amenable to a panentheism; and (b) more content to let the mystery be the mystery (e.g., Pseudo-Dionysius, Gregory Palamas’ distinction between God’s knowable energies and unknowable essence, etc.). I’d really like to hear your take—especially on the Philokalia.
Have you read Olivier Clement’s The Roots of Christian Mysticism? He covers the Eastern tradition wonderfully.
Basically, I’m pretty Zen—though I cross boundaries pretty easily. I’ve described myself as a non-aligned, non-supernaturalist, non-dualist. (The “non-supernaturalism” is not to imply that there are not aspects of the cosmos in which we find ourselves that, in fact, transcend our cognitive capabilities—just that I feel no need to posit something “extranatural” or “outside” the bounds of the natural universe.)
Again, thanks.
EDIT:
If you have background from both these it becomes really easy to see why a modern western Christian is pretty much left to their own devices in terms of spirituality. A pretty amazing step backward.
Historically, I think the West would be better off if Luther had “stepped backward”—toward the Greek East—rather than flinging down his sola scriptura. Western Protestantism is almost totally severed from the tradition, and its Biblical hermeneutics tends to be a far cry from Origen or Clement or Gregory of Nyssa...
19 Sep 07
Originally posted by epiphinehasCould you please cite to a Christian mystic who offered any opinion that approximates the idea that the universe we see is an illusion? How could one maintain his illusory personality, character, identity if it was?
No, your help is not necessary, I understand that the Hindu concept of Maya jives with quantum physics. The biggest difference between Christian mysticism and Eastern mysticism is that there is no loss of personality in Christian mysticism. Communion with God, both now and for eternity, in Christian mysticism does not entail the loss of one's own uniqu ...[text shortened]... particularly a certain variation of Sufism, so I may not be as misinformed as you assume I am.
20 Sep 07
Originally posted by mdhallMy understanding of Eastern mysticism is that the ultimate goal is union with the Divine. An "enlightened" state which involves a dissolution of the self, wherein one merges with God and experiences God as oneself.
I am not sure what Eastern mysticism you followed, but I have not found one that demands a loss of personality.
They encourage us to overcome our egos so we can overcome suffering.
Eastern Christian Mysticism is very similar from my studies.
Wester Christian Mysticism, if you can call it that, is more difficult to pin down. Unless you're talking abo ...[text shortened]... e St Francis since he spoke with animals. What do you refer to as Wester Christian Mysticism?
Such enlightenment occurs, typically, along prescribed guidelines, the completeness of which in any given individual may vary by degrees. Full enlightenment is possible to achieve in this lifetime, but, if not, the soul will reincarnate until the goal is reached. Contemplation and meditation, coupled perhaps with different ascetic practices, is generally how such enlightenment is pursued.
Given that Eastern mysticism involves reincarnation, it is difficult to claim that such enlightenment does not require the loss of personality. Perfect enlightenment is posited as a formless, perpetual experience of God; the consciousness itself being all that remains of the individual identity.
---------------------------------------------
The Christian mysticism I speak of is not necessarily the Christian mysticism found in books like The Cloud of Unknowning (Author unknown) or New Seeds of Contemplation by Thomas Merton. (But it does have more kinship with that type than the Eastern type.) It is not based on contentless experience. True Christian mysticism is based on historic fact and propositional truth.
That is, when one accepts Jesus Christ as Savior, one is then legally able to "reckon" (an act of faith) back to that which has been accomplished by Jesus Christ on the cross. Judicially, God considers those who accept Jesus Christ as Savior as having already died with Christ and also to have already been raised with Him from the dead. This propositional reality, the historic fact of Christ's crucifixion and resurrection, is the foundation of true Christian mysticism.
When a Christian dies, he or she goes to be with the Lord, however, while the Christian is still living, the Lord also promises that Christ already lives within him or her. Both realities are present and equal; parallel, if you will. There is neither a required loss of personality to the Divine Personality, nor a loss of the continuity of the individual soul (the mind, will, and emotions) in either the present or the future.
God is an intelligent Person with whom we interact with our various God-endowed faculties. When we cooperate with Him, it is neither in resignation nor in our own power. There is a certain passivity to the "reckoning" of faith, but it is not resignation. A better term would be, "active passivity." Christians, "live by faith" (Gal. 2:20) in God's promises.
Such is what I refer to as, "Christian mysticism." It is not the metaphorical reading of scripture, as is the case with some forms of mysticism derived from the Bible. For example, Christ's transfiguration on the mount, as witnessed by His disciples, is not to be understood metaphorically, as if in reference to some type of enlightenment; it is to be read as a "supernatural" physical event in time and space, much like Christ's resurrection should not be read metaphorically, but as being an actual physical event in time and space, historically.
20 Sep 07
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderCould you please cite to a Christian mystic who offered any opinion that approximates the idea that the universe we see is an illusion?
Could you please cite to a Christian mystic who offered any opinion that approximates the idea that the universe we see is an illusion? How could one maintain his illusory personality, character, identity if it was?
Paul: "While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal" (2 Cor. 4:18).
How could one maintain his illusory personality, character, identity if it was?
Because the soul of a person is eternal, not temporal. For instance, God promises that His faithful ones will be "clothed" with new bodies and shall appear with Christ in the air when He returns. That is, the corruptible body will be exchanged for an incorruptible body, in which to "house" the soul and spirit. Contained within the soul is the character and personality of the individual (the soul being made up of the mind, will and emotions). Such is what God seeks to preserve through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
20 Sep 07
Originally posted by mdhallBased on your questions, I'm not sure you understand what constitutes a hard science.
It's hard to have "hard science" on metaphysical questions.
To quote NASA, "Although the Big Bang Theory is widely accepted, it probably will never be proved; consequentially, leaving a number of tough, unanswered questions. "
The Planck Length is a unit of measurement used to define at what point Quantum Mechanics take over... What's that got to do wi ...[text shortened]...
Based on your questions, I'm not sure you understand what constitutes a hard science.
That's why I'm asking you about it, since you seem to have a legitimate grasp of the facts. 🙂
20 Sep 07
1 edit
Originally posted by epiphinehasI think perhaps we’re all talking in huge generalities here. Reincarnation, for example (or transmigration of souls), is neither all-pervasive in “eastern” mysticism, nor absent from “western” mysticism (it’s very prominent in Judaism, for example).
My understanding of Eastern mysticism is that the ultimate goal is union with the Divine. An "enlightened" state which involves a dissolution of the self, wherein one merges with God and experiences God as oneself.
Such enlightenment occurs, typically, along prescribed guidelines, the completeness of which in any given individual may vary by degrees. ically, but as being an actual physical event in time and space, historically.
So—without speculating or thinking or theorizing—what exactly is the nature of that “I” that you essentially are? Do you know the nature of that “I”—or are you simply accepting a description of what that “I” is? Does that “I” entail some content that precedes the thinking of it? Until one can answer such questions, all our talk about what happens to that “I” after death is just talk. Whether one is a Christian or a Buddhist or a Sufi is just a matter of theory.
All this discussion of “I” disappearing into the whatever, or not, now baffles me somewhat. And it is not the shifting words that baffle me (ego or personality or self or soul...). What exactly disappears or doesn’t disappear?
20 Sep 07
1 edit
Originally posted by epiphinehasWHAT? Temporal means relating to time and the word eternal means existing forever. What does any of that have to do with the idea that the universe we see is an illusion? Nothing, though it seems to be your favorite passage of Scripture. Your second paragraph talks about eternal things also which, again, has nothing to do with the concepts of Bohm.
[b]Could you please cite to a Christian mystic who offered any opinion that approximates the idea that the universe we see is an illusion?
Paul: "While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal" (2 Cor. 4:18).
[b/]How c ). Such is what God seeks to preserve through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.[/b]
20 Sep 07
Originally posted by epiphinehasWhat you are describing as "Christian mysticism" doesn't sound any different from mainstream Christianity.
My understanding of Eastern mysticism is that the ultimate goal is union with the Divine. An "enlightened" state which involves a dissolution of the self, wherein one merges with God and experiences God as oneself.
Such enlightenment occurs, typically, along prescribed guidelines, the completeness of which in any given individual may vary by degrees. ...[text shortened]... ically, but as being an actual physical event in time and space, historically.
20 Sep 07
There are two things in the original C & P that are interesting as well as being scientifically correct:
1) That if the strength of the basic forces in the universe was even slightly different, then life would be impossible (so would galaxy formation). Forgetting the arguments about Earth's "specialness" (after all there are billions of planets so some were bound to be a proper distance from a proper star), Fact 1 does seem to have metaphysical implications;
2) Bell's Theorem does show that locality fails. What explanations are there for this fact besides superluminal connections and/or synchroncity?
20 Sep 07
Originally posted by no1marauderTemporal means relating to time and the word eternal means existing forever. What does any of that have to do with the idea that the universe we see is an illusion? marauder
WHAT? Temporal means relating to time and the word eternal means existing forever. What does any of that have to do with the idea that the universe we see is an illusion? Nothing, though it seems to be your favorite passage of Scripture. Your second paragraph talks about eternal things also which, again, has nothing to do with the concepts of Bohm.
Doh! Surely he's getting at the idea that if the universe is an illusion it must be a temporary illusion whereas something eternal cannot be temporary or an illusion because it is a permanent fixture , it doesn't go away like temporary illusions do.
20 Sep 07
1 edit
Originally posted by knightmeisterYes, everything "temporary" goes away. However, an illusion never really existed in the first place, while something real can also be temporary. What part of that is sooooooooooo hard for you to grasp?
Temporal means relating to time and the word eternal means existing forever. What does any of that have to do with the idea that the universe we see is an illusion? marauder
Doh! Surely he's getting at the idea that if the universe is an illusion it must be a temporary illusion whereas something eternal cannot be temporary or an illusion because it is a permanent fixture , it doesn't go away like temporary illusions do.
Paul never suggested that what we see isn't real.