What is mysticism?

maxfreakout said:

This ^ completely contradicts the received view of what mysticism is, the encyclopaedia defines mysticism as: "the practice of religious ecstasies (religious experiences during alternate states of consciousness)"

Click to expand...

I would just like to note how ironic I find phrases like "received view" or the uses of dictionaries and encyclopedias to define mysticism by anyone who isn't a mystic.

Those are tools that I use to try to understand mysticism, because what I have practiced that relates to mysticism did not work for me (or I was not able to work with it). So I use dictionaries, history, the descriptions recorded, written down, inscribed on stone or depicted in mosaics for almost 3,000 years (and the use of anthropological research to reach back far longer than that). And I do not think that this has enabled me to understand mysticism. It helps me, I think, to understand mystics, and to grasp some part of what they experience and/or believe.

I can tell you how mysticism is defined in the most complete and comprehensive dictionary of the English language. I can translate the earliest uses of the Greek terms which were incorporated into Latin texts I can also translate and then into French and middle-English I can still translate and I can give you a lot of references to academics (some who are mystics themselves) who can tell you about the ways in which "Eastern" mysticism and modern Eastern religion itself came to be through several centuries of cultural interactions.

I cannot give you anything better than, or equal to, responses already given in this thread.

Vouthon said:

You are quite right. For the mystic everyday life is imbued with higher reality. Mysticism is not about ecstatic experiences, visions, voices etc. That is esotericism, not mysticism.

Mystical experiences are life-changing but contrary to what Max said, they are life-affirming not utterly removed from daily life.

Karl Rahner spoke of a "mysticism of everyday life".

The mystic is no different from anyone else. He sees himself as being no different. If he was a worker in a stable, he returns to the stable - only that the stable now has a different significance for him, it becomes a meeting place with the Infinite.

That is mysticism. If anyone tells you its ecstasies, voices, miracles or what not, then please tell them that is esotericism not mysticism although the two are commonly confused.

Trust your own intuition Straw Dog. Mysticism is about direct experience without any intermediaries.

Click to expand...

I see. This is a useful distinction. It also explains why people were asking about an esoteric dimension to Zen a while back after I shared that bit about going beyond breath. I even had a new kid PM me asking about esotericism/ initiation and I didn't know what to tell him.

Willamena said:

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

Click to expand...

And it turns out that we all had intelligence, compassion, and bravery this whole time without needing to seek anything outside ourselves.

Straw Dog said:

I see. This is a useful distinction. It also explains why people were asking about an esoteric dimension to Zen a while back after I shared that bit about going beyond breath. I even had a new kid PM me asking about esotericism/ initiation and I didn't know what to tell him.

Click to expand...

As I said many mystics have had supernatural or esoteric experiences. Many also haven't and the really great ones who have, such as St. John of the Cross, have warned against becoming attached to ecstasies, visions and other strange experiences because they are not mysticism.

Exalted and sublime as they are to the person experiencing them, they are really spiritual imperfections that must be purged from us according to St. John, although they tend to occur often to some mystics in the early stages and can provide great initial comfort to the individual. This is the work of the Dark Night of the Soul, purging all these imperfections away. The most profound experience of God is that of "no" experience where we come to know Him in the darkness of pure faith beyond sense perception or knowledge. John of the Cross calls this "nada" (nothingness).

In this state there are no voices, visions, ecstasies or peculiar supernatural phenomena.

It is a way of being, and what we are.
It is what uncovers and what is uncovered.

Mysticism, nothingness. uncovering....... I'll take JESUS, the real thing, the real Person, the real Being, the Creator, my God and Savior and His present, eternal love any time over the emptiness within.

Therefore I also, after I heard of your faith in the Lord Jesus and your love for all the saints, do not cease to give thanks for you, making mention of you in my prayers: that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give to you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of Him, the eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that you may know what is the hope of His calling, what are the riches of the glory of His inheritance in the saints, and what is the exceeding greatness of His power toward us who believe, according to the working of His mighty power which He worked in Christ when He raised Him from the dead and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places, far above all principality and power and might and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age but also in that which is to come. And He put all things under His feet, and gave Him to be head over all things to the church, which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all. Ephesians 1:15-23

InChrist said:

Mysticism, nothingness. uncovering....... I'll take JESUS, the real thing, the real Person, the real Being, the Creator, my God and Savior and His present, eternal love any time over the emptiness within.

Click to expand...

That's kewl, InChrist. I haven't met a mystic yet who has a problem with Jesus, or with his teachings. Speaking for myself, I would be overjoyed if more people followed Jesus's teachings.

InChrist said:

Mysticism, nothingness. uncovering.......

Click to expand...

Nothingness to St. John of the Cross is not 'nothing' at all.

Nothingness is 'No experiences except the experience'.... the experience that counts.
That is, being 100% w/out distraction, with God , is what is said there.

Uncovering.... in all relationships is possible, picking apart that metaphor isn't worthwhile.

I'll take JESUS, the real thing, the real Person, the real Being, the Creator, my God and Savior and His present, eternal love

Click to expand...

Mystics would probably agree with you, that they'd take that too.
It's what the Mystic Christian practice is all about.

Not being separate, but living the Word in our lives,
hearing the Divine in the experiences in and around us.

emptiness

Click to expand...

To be empty of your supposed 'independent self' is to be full of God....
To put the idea in a more Christian perspective.

But in a Buddhist perspective this is to realize that everything is empty of inherent existence.
That everything is interconnected. That all is part of one.
Realizing this 'emptiness' in the illusion, one becomes 'full'.

SageTree said:

Nothingness to St. John of the Cross is not 'nothing' at all.

Nothingness is 'No experiences except the experience'.... the experience that counts.
That is, being 100% w/out distraction, with God , is what is said there.

Uncovering.... in all relationships is possible, picking apart that metaphor isn't worthwhile.

Mystics would probably agree with you, that they'd take that too.
It's what the Mystic Christian practice is all about.

Not being separate, but living the Word in our lives,
hearing the Divine in the experiences in and around us.

To be empty of your supposed 'independent self' is to be full of God....
To put the idea in a more Christian perspective.

Click to expand...

By not obscuring or covering over reality and spirit with our own prejudices and biases--we are uncovering reality and spirit.

maxfreakout said:

yes, the transcendent is above and beyond the immanent:

immanent = down here - earthly, lower level, physical/3D/sensory reality

transcendent = up there - heavenly, higher level, beyond physical/3D/sensory reality

Personally, there is constant mystical presence within the mundane rather than in isolated pockets of experience involving some other class of reality.

Click to expand...

This ^ statement is a crucial misrepresentation of mysticism. Mystical experiences are isolated and distinctly non-ordinary. Also they are extremely powerful and cause profound personal transformation. This fits with the way that mystical experience is depicted in the world's religious traditions, such as the examples i gave earlier, eg Mohammed's mystical experiences (from which the religion of Islam originated) happened when he was away from his life, fasting in the wilderness, and it involved an encounter with an angel, hardly an ordinary occurence.

Click to expand...

I agree with everything else you say but this. You are correct in the sense that the mundane is not the transcendent. But when you or most others speak of the mundane they are referring to ordinary awareness, that world of "normal" perceptions, living inside our heads, living inside our cultural hypnosis, busily living in this and not seeing beyond this. What is transcendent is to see beyond that to the subtle in everything, the formless Source itself in everything.

When others, and myself, say it is present in the mundane, this is referring to nonduality. It is wholly transcendent, and wholly immanent. It is "just this", seeing the transcendent in every moment. Life itself for the mystic is a mystical experience in every act, in every thought, in picking up sticks, in washing the car, in loving your mate, in the song of every bird. It is not just sitting on a pillow and experiencing the light of God streaming down from above, but in that radiating out in every molecule of every ordinary thing. And seeing that. Being that.

That's the nondual experience. That is indeed mystical.

InChrist said:

Mysticism, nothingness. uncovering....... I'll take JESUS, the real thing, the real Person, the real Being, the Creator, my God and Savior and His present, eternal love any time over the emptiness within.

Click to expand...

Jesus as the Christ is the express image of the invisible God. The Christ expresses that Emptiness, that "no-thing'ness" of God in form. Mysticism goes where Jesus does. My saying in such experiences is that to call Jesus brother, is far greater than to call him Lord. Reconciliation with God, is a mystical experience.

Vouthon said:

As I said many mystics have had supernatural or esoteric experiences. Many also haven't and the really great ones who have, such as St. John of the Cross, have warned against becoming attached to ecstasies, visions and other strange experiences because they are not mysticism.

Exalted and sublime as they are to the person experiencing them, they are really spiritual imperfections that must be purged from us according to St. John, although they tend to occur often to some mystics in the early stages and can provide great initial comfort to the individual. This is the work of the Dark Night of the Soul, purging all these imperfections away. The most profound experience of God is that of "no" experience where we come to know Him in the darkness of pure faith beyond sense perception or knowledge. John of the Cross calls this "nada" (nothingness).

In this state there are no voices, visions, ecstasies or peculiar supernatural phenomena.

Click to expand...

Compare this to this, regarding the stages of psychic, subtle, causal, and nondual. Stages of Meditation | Integral Life

The subtle stage is where you have visions, etc. It is deemed lesser than the higher stages, but it is hardly unimportant. The difficulty as described above of course is to view these as the ultimate, to become fixated upon them, to seek them and to be dismayed if not present. Rather properly utilized, they, as any other mystical experiences, are vehicles to a higher realization. They move from the low subtle, to the high subtle in archetypal forms, to causal emptiness or godhead, and through this to nondual Spirit.

I could go on at length, but I think its important to recognize there are stages, and mystical experience is not just one type of experience alone. They are all transcendent from the ordinary, consensus mind.

In order to understand mysticism we need to understand different levels of identifications we can go through:

1. Identification with the body and senses and the truth is considered what we see with our senses.-empirical truth.
2.Scientific mind, the truth that is known from the scientific observation. Some times the scientific truth may disprove empirical truth; for example the sun rising in the East is empirical truth but scientifically the sun does not rise and and does not set.
3. Rational mind: it is truth that is arrived through rational thinking, asking questions like who we are, who is God, whether God exists, the meaning of life etc. All philosophies belong to this level. There can be theistic philosophies that believe in God and atheistic philosophies that do not believe in God.
4. Theological mind: It is the temporary but profound experience of God which gives certainty the existence of God and gives direction to one's life. All the sacred scriptures from this theological mind. the experience of Abraham, the experience of Jacob, Moses and Jesus. Mohammed and all the great prophets and sages.
5. Mystical mind is the direct experience of God in which a person says that 'I am in God and God in me'. This mind goes beyond the theological mind and scriptures. This person sees things directly and is free from the authority of scriptures and institutions.
6. Self Realized mind or awakened mind is that in which a person realizes that only God is there and everything comes from God and returns to God. it is like a piece of ice that comes from the water and dissolves back into the water. All the different levels of minds are seen like a long dream. Self realization is awakening from the dream or ignorance.

All the levels of mind before that are only belong to the process of purification. As it is said, it is dissolving the ego or dissolving the ignorance.

InChrist said:

Mysticism, nothingness. uncovering....... I'll take JESUS, the real thing, the real Person, the real Being, the Creator, my God and Savior and His present, eternal love any time over the emptiness within.

Click to expand...

I want to come back to your comment here as there is something else to address. Nobody is saying you don't experience God in how you approach Him. But there are degrees of that experience. When someone speaks of emptiness, that means empty of forms - raw, pure, unformed eternal potential. It is to experience Source, God, prior to rising into form. It is not blank. It is not "empty" in the sense of zero. It is in fact everything before it becomes everything.

Another misunderstanding of yours, and others as well, is that of "emptying" oneself into God. This does not mean going blank. This means emptying yourself of all your grasping, clinging, seeking to posses, seeking to fulfill desires, seeking to know and understand with the mind, seeking to wrap your thoughts around God. That "emptying" of oneself is best described as "release". Releasing all clinging and desire and falling into that Infinite. You release, and allow. That is "bringing every thought captive". That is "obedience", not just following a bunch of rules written on a page.

All of this, BTW, is in the Bible if you need that to sanction doing this in your desire to know God.

Regarding again, that emptiness of God, I direct you to John 1:1-14. The Logos is that agent of manifestation of the unknowable God, making God known through creation, and through incarnation. It's all right there.

Windwalker said:

I want to come back to your comment here as there is something else to address. Nobody is saying you don't experience God in how you approach Him. But there are degrees of that experience. When someone speaks of emptiness, that means empty of forms - raw, pure, unformed eternal potential. It is to experience Source, God, prior to rising into form. It is not blank. It is not "empty" in the sense of zero. It is in fact everything before it becomes everything.

Another misunderstanding of yours, and others as well, is that of "emptying" oneself into God. This does not mean going blank. This means emptying yourself of all your grasping, clinging, seeking to posses, seeking to fulfill desires, seeking to know and understand with the mind, seeking to wrap your thoughts around God. That "emptying" of oneself is best described as "release". Releasing all clinging and desire and falling into that Infinite. You release, and allow. That is "bringing every thought captive". That is "obedience", not just following a bunch of rules written on a page.

All of this, BTW, is in the Bible if you need that to sanction doing this in your desire to know God.

Regarding again, that emptiness of God, I direct you to John 1:1-14. The Logos is that agent of manifestation of the unknowable God, making God known through creation, and through incarnation. It's all right there.

Click to expand...

According to the scriptures, Jesus expresses WHO God is, not nothingness or everythingness. Jesus is the Word and according to His Word the only “release” humans need to do is the relinquishing of self-will and submitting to God’s will. This includes agreeing with the truth of the scriptures and admitting that we are sinners under God’s righteous judgment and in need of the saving work of Jesus Christ. Also, according to the scriptures Jesus is the Lord of Lords, King of Kings and Master over all, He is only a “brother” to those who have been set apart from sin, made holy, and adopted into God’s family by His atoning work on the cross.

The kind of mysticism you are promoting gives the impression that you believe anyone can be reconciled and connect with God through meditative spiritual encounters into nothingness, emptiness, or the “vague” infinite...without the cross, without the historical Jesus Christ presented in the Bible. The scriptures say this is false teaching, a different gospel and the Jesus you talk about is a another Jesus.

For if he who comes preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached, or if you receive a different spirit which you have not received, or a different gospel which you have not accepted—you may well put up with it! 2 Corinthians 11:14

The real Jesus was God who became flesh and demonstrated His wondrous love for humanity on the cross and gives freedom through His resurrection power.

Blue Highway in Bristol ~ What Wondrous Love is This - YouTube

crossfire said:

By not obscuring or covering over reality and spirit with our own prejudices and biases--we are uncovering reality and spirit.

Click to expand...

You've said it very nicely and concisely.

“Concepts create idols; only wonder grasps anything.”
― St. Gregory of Nyssa, The Life of Moses

Click to expand...

InChrist said:

According to the scriptures, Jesus expresses WHO God is, not nothingness or everythingness.

Click to expand...

Again you fail to understand what "nothingness" means. You continue to falsely represent what it means to anyone who uses that term. Nothingness is not blank, not a zero. It simply means "formless". Devoid of form.

I pointed you to John 1:1-14. You ignored it. Strange, considering you claim scripture as your standard of truth! The Logos is the Manifestor of the unmanifest. The Logos "reveals" the formless. "Through creation the invisible things of God and manifest and made known, even his eternal power and godhead". Formlessness (emptiness), expressed in form. The Logos is the Revealor.

If God is not formless, then there is no need to express it. It's an object itself, like a Yeti, or some fool thing.

InChrist said:

Jesus is the Word and according to His Word the only “release” humans need to do is the relinquishing of self-will and submitting to God’s will.

Click to expand...

You just described emptying of oneself - exactly as I said. Thank you for agreeing with me.

InChrist said:

This includes agreeing with the truth of the scriptures and admitting that we are sinners under God’s righteous judgment and in need of the saving work of Jesus Christ.

Click to expand...

Let's be clear, your understanding is not THE understanding of these things. I agree with the truth in scripture. But I see that truth differently than you do with where you are at on your path.

InChrist said:

Also, according to the scriptures Jesus is the Lord of Lords, King of Kings and Master over all, He is only a “brother” to those who have been set apart from sin, made holy, and adopted into God’s family by His atoning work on the cross.

Click to expand...

Being a "brother" as I called it, is not some magic thing you can say that because you sprinkled a little H2O on your head and cited a word or two. It's a realized experience of living. Whereas one may be a teacher for someone, the point is to learn and become who you are. At that point, he is no longer "Lord", but brother. "I shall call you friends".

InChrist said:

The kind of mysticism you are promoting gives the impression that you believe anyone can be reconciled and connect with God through meditative spiritual encounters into nothingness, emptiness, or the “vague” infinite...

Click to expand...

Again, you are clueless what is meant by nothingness, emptiness, etc, despite everyone on the planet trying to explain it to you. Through meditative practices, you encounter Truth. It is that encounter that enlightens and transforms. And when that encounter happens, the mind becomes purified, you see the truth of who you are, you "repent", you align your life on that path of "right-living", a path of compassion, etc.

And you say this is worthless? What sort of Christian would call that wrong? What is the point of your faith, if not what I described?

InChrist said:

without the cross, without the historical Jesus Christ presented in the Bible.

Click to expand...

Again, your understanding of these things is not everyone's. You charge the language with a very narrow conservative understanding. I don't accept conservatives as the voice of God. Sorry.

InChrist said:

The scriptures say this is false teaching, a different gospel and the Jesus you talk about is a another Jesus.

Click to expand...

Nope. I could equally say you preach another Jesus, and then quote that same verse at you. But I won't stoop to such worthless rhetoric. I have no desire to put on the Grand Inquistor's cap. That's not the heart of God, as I embrace that. That's religious self-righteousness that doesn't yet know that Compassion.

Dear Wind

Thank you for the post! Please allow me to comment on your position and likewise explain my own.

I should first add that my understanding of mysticism is particularly grounded in the Catholic Christian tradition. I do try to speak broadly and universally, however I am probably more narrow in my focus than your own, since I approach the phenomenon from within an established, age-old, 2,000 year progressing tradition of mystical cognition and analysis; whereas as a Perrenialist, you will likely take a more over-arching view of things, if that makes sense.

To begin, let us define mysticism. Swami Bhajanananda, a Hindu mystical scholar, defines it accurately, and from the Christian perspective, as such:

"...Religious experience [is an] immediate and self-authenticating encounter with the Divine. However, there are two kinds of immediacy: revelational and mystical. Revelational immediacy pertains to the peculiar ability of the human mind to apprehend God in the form of an insight or certitude. This is usually regarded as a higher form of faith, but is also known as “religious a priori”. The German Protestant theologian Schleiermacher was one of the first to propound this kind of religious experience. Later on Emil Brunner and several other Protestant theologians spoke of the “divine-human encounter”, and Martin Buber spoke of religious experience as an “I-Thou” relationship.

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The other type of immediacy known as mystical immediacy refers to the direct experience of God obtained by transcending the senses through contemplation. This is what is called mysticism. Its validity is accepted by Roman Catholic and Eastern Churches...

The word “mystic” is said to be derived from the Greek mystikos, which means “of the mysteries”, which in its turn is derived from the Greek word mystos, “keeping silence” (akin to Sanskrit mouna). William James in his celebrated work Varieties of Religious Experience has given the “four marks” of the mystic state: ineffability, noetic quality, transiency, and passivity. According to Evelyn Underhill, the chief characteristics of mysticism are practicality, transcendence, love, and a sense of oneness.

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]We may, however, define mysticism as the transcendent, life-transforming experience of the ultimate Reality. The word [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]“[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]transcendent[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]”[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] in the definition distinguishes mysticism from ordinary empirical experiences; the word [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]“[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]life-transforming[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]”[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] refers to its pragmatic import; and [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]“[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]ultimate Reality[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]”[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] distinguishes mysticism from clairvoyance and other extra-sensory or psychic phenomena...[/FONT]

Contemplation is a passive state of stillness and silence in which God infuses love and divine knowledge into the soul. This infused contemplation may be said to correspond to Hindu samadhi. As in the case of samadhi, mystical contemplation also has different stages or degrees, although the terms used to denote these stages are often metaphorical and vague.(18) Contemplation is the real field of mystical experience....

There are two main mystical traditions in Christianity: the Western or Roman Catholic and the Eastern, chiefly Greek Orthodox...

The Roman Catholic Church has produced a large number of saints, many of whom have left vivid descriptions of their spiritual experiences. Not all these experiences, however, can be called “mystical”. According to St. Thomas Aquinas, the most authoritative Roman Catholic theologian after St. Augustine, God can communicate spiritual truth to man in three ways: (a) by a “corporeal visio” of something real together with an intellectual light to judge it; (b) by an “imaginary vision”, in which mental images are either produced or rearranged in the imagination, along with an intellectual light to judge its meaning (These “visions” and “locutions” are difficult to distinguish from false imaginations produced either by one’s own brain); and (c) by an “intellectual vision” of pure, unfalsifiable truth without any phantasmata; known as lumen sapientiae, this is the knowledge which angels have (and also Adam had before the Fall) and is not in itself liable to error. This true knowledge is infused during contemplation devoid of all conceptualization. It was this apophatic experience of divine truth that St. Thomas regarded as true mysticism..."

- Swami Bhajanananda
[/FONT]

Click to expand...

In the above description, the Swami avoids all the 'pitfalls', as I see them, that people often encounter and as a result misunderstand the nature of mystical cognition. Despite being a Hindu, he has an astute and truly exemplary understanding of Christian mysticism.

Given the above, I hope that you will now understand why I as a Catholic cannot apply the term "mystical" to visions or paranormal experiences. I do not deny their reality for some people, though rare, however I cannot in good conscience consider them to be "mystical". The intellectual "vision" (used less than literally) is beyond sense or concept.

There have been many itineraries outlined by mystical theologians and systematicians of consciousness throughout the ages. I think of, for example, the Buddha's very elaborate system of jhanas and stages; the early Dionysian system from early Christianity of a purgative - illuminative - unititive triple axis; Marguerite Porete's Seven Steps; Bonaventure Six Stages of the Journey of the Mind into God using nature as a spiritual ladder and going from exterior things, to interior things and then beyond the mind...and so on.

These are also equally beneficial in their own way to the prospective seeker.

However we should be careful not to become attached to schemas and systems. Ultimately mysticism is a wayless way. Since it is ineffable, the mystic is ever wandering in uncharted territory. Things may happen to an individual in an entirely different order to someone else. There is no set way, yet the mystical orison is the same at the end. How one gets to that point is various, as is ones understanding of it.

One can become attached to a certain way and lose the goal.


(continued next post)

Probably the person for whom the reward for categorizing the most levels of mystical cognition should be rewarded, was St. Teresa of Avila. Teresa of Avila (1515-1582), categorized prayer into nine levels, and then sub-analysed those as well into constituent blocks. For simplicity's sake, let us treat of the 9 in the broad sense alone. Fr. Aumann notes (Ibid., p.316):

"The grades of prayer taught by St. Teresa represent so many grades of elevation and ascent toward Christian perfection.

These grades are (1) vocal prayer, (2) meditation, (3) affective prayer, (4) prayer of simplicity, (5) infused contemplation, (6) prayer of quiet, (7) prayer of union, (8) prayer of conforming union, and (9) prayer of transforming union. The first four grades belong to the predominantly ascetical stage of spiritual life; the remaining five grades are infused prayer and belong to the mystical phase of spiritual life."

Click to expand...

If you are hawk-eyed you will notice something considerable about the above "mystical path". Only the last five in her schema are identified as "the mystical phase of the spiritual life". The earlier stages are of great importance overall for the mystical path but are not per se mysticism as yet. This is the standard Catholic understanding of mysticism, and while in no way definitive, it would seem to be the same in Sufi Islam and in many of the academic writings I have read, such as Stace, Evelyn Underhill (herself an accomplished Christian mystic as well as a scholar) etc..

The earlier stages, which deal with sensual images, affective prayer, discursive thought, meditation and so on, are certainly crucial building works of the entire process but despite their importance they are not mystical in essence. They are spiritual experiences but not inherently mystical ones.

Mystics can and often do have these experiences, but mystics also do not have them. They are not at all considered essential or desirable in the Catholic mystical tradition. If they occur they can be used to benefit the individual concerned but ultimately they will fall away at one point. They are like echoes on the physical, sensual level of something occurring more deeply beyond the senses. In this understanding they can be a preparation for mystical prayer or even described as physical manifestations of mystical prayer at a deeper level and in this way as "mystical" but they are never seen as mystical ipso facto by themselves.

St. Francois de Sales went so far as to give this advice to his disciple:

"...Everybody has his own notion of perfection. One man thinks it lies in the cut of his clothes, another in fasting, a third in almsgiving, or in frequenting the sacraments, in meditation...or in extraordinary gifts or graces - but they are all mistaken...The only perfection I know of is a hearty love of god, and to love one’s neighbour as oneself. Charity is the only virtue which rightly unites us to God and man. Such union is our final aim and end, and all the rest is mere delusion..."

- St. Francois de Sales (1567 – 1622), French priest & Catholic mystic

Click to expand...

He is of course using hyperbole however Catholic mystics often warn against trusting too much in visions or paranormal activity. The Catholic tradition has far more visionaries, stigmatics and so on than any other, yet we do not recognise any of this as mystical. To a mystic, they can be a genuine distraction from the goal of infused contemplation and at times merely symptoms of the person's own imagination in states of heightened concentration.

A person can be a visionary without being a mystic. A person can be both a visionary and a mystic. And a person can also be a mystic without being a visionary. It just so happens that most visionaries have also been mystics but they are not the same thing IMHO.

SageTree said:

You've said it very nicely and concisely.

Quote:
“Concepts create idols; only wonder grasps anything.”
― St. Gregory of Nyssa, The Life of Moses

Click to expand...

Prescisely! )(


Just as the quote speaking of St. Thomas Aquinas explained above:

"...The Roman Catholic Church has produced a large number of saints, many of whom have left vivid descriptions of their spiritual experiences. Not all these experiences, however, can be called “mystical”. According to St. Thomas Aquinas, the most authoritative Roman Catholic theologian after St. Augustine, God can communicate spiritual truth to man in three ways: (a) by a “corporeal visio” of something real together with an intellectual light to judge it; (b) by an “imaginary vision”, in which mental images are either produced or rearranged in the imagination, along with an intellectual light to judge its meaning (These “visions” and “locutions” are difficult to distinguish from false imaginations produced either by one’s own brain); and (c) by an “intellectual vision” of pure, unfalsifiable truth without any phantasmata; known as lumen sapientiae, this is the knowledge which angels have (and also Adam had before the Fall) and is not in itself liable to error. This true knowledge is infused during contemplation devoid of all conceptualization. It was this apophatic experience of divine truth that St. Thomas regarded as true mysticism..."

- Swami Bhajanananda

Click to expand...