The One True Religion is Mysticism (ritual, tradition, soul, experience)

[Sunstone]

Seems to me creepy to get into an argument about what true religion is. Did someone copyright the term "religion"?

[.lava]

Originally Posted by YmirGF

I have a great deal of respect for the Sufi's, .lava, and am on record as saying that it is the only branch of Islam worthy of serious investigation. That being said, evidently you do not grasp the meaning of the non-differentiation between subject and object. I maintain that separation from Allah is an impossibility, regardless of what our primitive minds are capable of perceiving. In essence, any theology that places barriers between subject and object is doomed to failure as such thinking is contrary to reality.

dear friend, there is one point that you're missing. requires information from Qur'an, our teachings and that would be off topic..

[Surya Deva]

It is likely because they come from a single source. There are of course, very subtle differences between accounts, as should be expected.

I agree. I think that source is Santana Dharma, and all the mystical traditions in the world are surviving remains of that. However, that said, the mystical traditions in the world are also autonomous. They consist of long lineages of mystics each arriving at their own truths, only that they all converge.

As a "modern" mystic, I tend to agree, but feel that saying "God IS" is a bit closer to the mark. All That Is is more than a idea, although I don't want to denigrate the unlimited nature of ideas. Something that is expressed is not the thing, but rather, an expression of the thing.

I beleive what you said is true. I only believe in being, god for me is a superflous term. I also agree with you that expression of a thing is not the thing itself. Although I would like your opinion on whether there is a connection between the thing and the expression?

As to reincarnation. Yes, I do believe in reincarnation, but my model is not the common model. My model is one that is inherently multidimensional and all incarnations take place simultaneously, each in their own present. I tend to chuckle at the descriptions of "traditional" reincarnation that are based on imagined timelines.

I believe this too. I subscribe to the theory that all the past, present and the future exists as one. I am currently living all my past lives and all my future lives right now.

That is a bit sweeping, but I will admit to be aquainted with a "dream double" that is much more fluid in nature than my physical form, at the same time emphasizing that the entity or multidimensional self is the source of both.

I agree again.

I can only note that I have only sensed two so-called "chakras"; the "inner eye" and the "crown". I have not experienced any others. Do bear in mind that this is simply my perspective of what I experience. This isn't "what I believe" per se. I try to be an honest reporter, nothing more but hopefully, nothing less.

There are variations on how many exist. Some accounts say 7, some say 8 and some others. In Yoga there are 7 main ones and thousands of minor ones. It is basically a point in your astral body where nadis/meridians meet(plexus) I have also read of Chakras that exist beyond the crown in the outer astral body, but I think that is probably new-age myth.

I agree with this, for what it is worth. One of the lasting impressions of non-duality is the inherent oneness of all that is. It is not far from the truth to say that we are aspects of each other. In reality, we are all aspects of the one, or incarnations of divinity made flesh (an avatara).

The idea of ONE appearing as MANY is a natural conclusion I suppose of the mystical inquiry.

Here is where I break with traditionalists -- to an extent. I agree in the respect that the ego, as we understand the term, is not the totality of "self". The "whole" self, as far as I am concerned, is the entity (or... if you must... the soul). However, I strongly object to the notion that the ego is somehow inferior. It is the manifestion's interface with physical reality, so it is due some respect.

I agree I don't think the ego is inferior. I think developing a healthy ego is crucial in ones spiritual journey. This view is not shared by many mystics(which want to destroy it) but Tantric mystics recognise the importance of ego. In fact in Tantra there is nothing which is not sacred. We need fear to protect ourselves; we need lust to enjoy sexual pleasure; we need anger to fight; we need pride to value our selves; we need greed to want/desire things. All of this serves its role in our development and each can be manifested in a positive and negative way(like anything in life, a pen can be used to write poetry or write threatening letters)

that is an integral aspect of Oneness Theory (which I am still writing, I might add). If we are all One, then what is you name? There is only One answer.

I have felt that recently I have started to drift away from identifying myself as god, the idea that all is ONE. I think it is ONE and MANY at the same time. That supreme being exists, and so do souls, but they are part of each other and inseparable.

and my ravings and drooling fall into this category as well. All I am trying to impart is the inexhaustable validity of inner reality to a world that doesn't believe inner reality exists. Perhaps, I am just a bit thick, lol. I do sometimes wonder why I bother. Some think what I say is meaningful; others think what I say is ludicrous. It is all expected, so I am happy, regardless.

I blame myself when I try to convince others. Maybe, I did not articulate it well enough, maybe I could have said something else to convince them.
But I am starting to realise something: you can't convince them. Today it is a very common belief that there is no truth. Even if you say "Well, logically what you say cannot be true" they turn around with "Well, logic is just another theory" Today, everybody is as right as one another. It is a rather dangerous worldview. But you know what I have no answer for it. Do you?

This is somewhat true, but I think, for the most part that many are just "playing it safe" and sticking with established tradition. I am not overly fond of preaching, per se, although I do understand why some feel a need to blather on and on. The bottom line however remains that if the message one is delivering is not in sync with the mindset of the audience then all is for not. I have my eyes set on a larger prize.

I agree. Although the Mystics were not really concerned with audiences, they were just sharing the truths they discovered to help others discover the same.

The simple answer is because there are only so many ways to describe reality. I could, for example, tell of my 8 hour meeting with Vishnu, without mentioning the name that would probably have Christians salivating and Muslims wondering what on Earth had just happened.

Have you shared this account anywhere for me to check out. It would be fascinating to read your account.

There is a quickening happening in our world in this period of time. We are about to witness something very rare and many are "waking up" prior to the event itself.

Yes I can feel the huge change take place. Recently, I am feeling really weird, I don't feel any of this world is real. I can no longer go out and see the world in the same way. It all seems very dream like to me.

Suraj, you must join ZenZero, myself and whoever else when we finally meet and set out to "discover" India all over again. It has been a few lifetimes for me, but my memories are still strong nonetheless.

That would be fantastic. I definitely see myself going to India in the future to seek a Guru. I am starting to lose my worldiness. I want to live a pure spiritual life now.

[Surya Deva]

hi Suraj, as long as you repeat this false ideas about Sufism, i would have to put real information. i would not get tired of this because we are Sufis, our path is Islam to reach Allah. Sufism is Islam. without mystic religion is just words. words, scriptures stand with nothing if one does not get into its Spirit. Sufism never accepts expressions like 'i am God'. we do not idolize ourselves, we get over ourselves to be close to God. only if one loves his ego more, then he would follow his ego as an idol. that is what we call hidden shirk. only one we follow and believe is Allah. ego is an obstacle inbetween.

For many, Sufism is the path of love. To love others, to love the beauty of this world develops the capacity for love. The more we can love, the more we can love God. To love God is to know God.

.Lava, I accept what you say that Sufism is about love. However, I don't think you are accepting that all mystical traditions(of which Sufism is one) aspire to the same.

None of the Mystical traditions are about loving ones ego. That is not a mystical tradition. That is the tradition of individualism/narciscism.

I think you will also find if you read further on mystics that the assertion that "I am god" is complex and peculiar. They are not saying that they are god, rather they're identifying that their true nature is godness. In this worldview the soul and god are part of each other, one cannot exist without the other, but they are still distinct ontologically. Just like the rays of the sun are part of it, and neither can exist without one another, yet they are distinct.

Read more on Sufism and you will find it accepts this view wholeheartedly.

[Surya Deva]

Originally Posted by doppelgänger

Based on my experience of reading a few Sikh works and interacting with Sikhs (including recently our new member GURSIKH), I would say that mysticism is alive and well among Sikhs.

There are a number of great philosophers and scientists who were also mystics, including many of the pioneers of quantum mechanics (Heisenberg, Shroedinger, Wheeler, Bohm, and Bohr).

From a radio interview discussing Wheeler's Participatory Anthropic Principle:

Wheeler: We are participators in bringing into being not only the near and here but the far away and long ago. We are in this sense, participators in bringing about something of the universe in the distant past and if we have one explanation for what's happening in the distant past why should we need more?
Martin Redfern: Many don't agree with John Wheeler, but if he's right then we and presumably other conscious observers throughout the universe, are the creators — or at least the minds that make the universe manifest.

I think this is another thing that is very strongly going for mysticism. The fact that scientists also accept it. Look further and you will find even poets accept it(Elliot, Emerson, Thoreau and more)

This is the only religion that every field agrees on. Is that not evidence of its truth? Do you think that mysticism is both a religion and science?

[GURSIKH]

i m repeating my words

where there is religion there is mysticism ,but it require a breathe To "EXPERIENCE"

[Troublemane]

Originally Posted by YmirGF

Suraj, you must join ZenZero, myself and whoever else when we finally meet and set out to "discover" India all over again. It has been a few lifetimes for me, but my memories are still strong nonetheless.

I had a dream long ago of living along a river where people came from all over to pray, and remembered this dream when watching a National Geographic special on the Makara Sankranti, with people bathing in the Ganges, and was amazed to see my dream was real.

I'd go along on a pilgrimage to India with you guys! Or, if not in the flesh, at least we can meet there in the astral.

[doppelgänger]

Originally Posted by Suraj

This is the only religion that every field agrees on. Is that not evidence of its truth? Do you think that mysticism is both a religion and science?

Mysticism is where science, art and spirituality are seen as one.

[Surya Deva]

Is there anyone here that rejects mysticism, and if so, why?

[doppelgänger]

Originally Posted by Suraj

Is there anyone here that rejects mysticism, and if so, why?

That's a good question. Might be worth its own thread.

My own theory: most people live in a concrete reality with a comforting sense of certainty. Mysticism is fundamentally premised on embracing and acknowledging the fundamental uncertainty that underlies our knowledge. This has borne out in several scientific fields, and indeed uncertainty is the basis for scientific inquiry and the improvement of scientific models.

But most people want to believe that they know.