• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The Mystical experience and Clericalism

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Mystical experiences are independent of any religious affiliation, and to me are more of the personal nature.
 

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
@Vouthon, I think you and I might be defining "minor tradition" differently. You seem to be taking the term more or less in the sense of "an unimportant tradition." Is that correct?

My own usage is "lesser", or "less essential", as in "mysticism is a minor feature of Christianity compared to the Christian concept of salvation."
 

Vouthon

Dominus Deus tuus ignis consumens est
Staff member
Premium Member
@Vouthon, I think you and I might be defining "minor tradition" differently. You seem to be taking the term more or less in the sense of "an unimportant tradition." Is that correct?

My own usage is "lesser", or "less essential", as in "mysticism is a minor feature of Christianity compared to the Christian concept of salvation."

Whilst I appreciate this clarification, I still think we are relying - pretty much - upon a substantially similar working definition and thus aren't at cross-purposes on that front :)

The crux of the issue from my pont-of-view, is that the traditional (and by that I mean pre-Reformational) salvation theology was innately mystical in both the eastern and western church. Deification (theosis / theoria) was, and remains, the overriding focus in our ecclesial traditions. The theologies, the liturgical life, the monastic orders, the devotionals - everything is oriented around this sacred "mystery", as we term it.

Consider how the Catechism of the Catholic Church defines the doctrine:


Catechism of the Catholic Church - "He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit, and born of the Virgin Mary"


The Word became flesh to make us "partakers of the divine nature":78 "For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God."79 "For the Son of God became man so that we might become God."80


This is the salvation theology of the Church Fathers. The citation (no.80) given above is referencing St. Athanasius of Alexandria (died 373 CE), namely his De inc. 54, 3: PG 25, 192B. The two other authorities cited for the doctrine are the early second century church father St. Irenaeus (c. 120- c. 200 ) and St. Thomas Aquinas.

If one comes from a Protestant tradition other than high church Anglicanism, this concept of salvation might appear somewhat alien, however it is the traditional patristic understanding.

The idea is fundamental to the Catholic and Orthodox traditions. In Catholicism, our liturgy evokes it during the Communion or Eucharistic part of the Mass, when the priest says over the cup: "By the mystery of this water and wine may we come to share in the divinity of Christ who humbled himself to share in our humanity." It was taught equally in the West as it was in the East. The doctrine is essential to the teaching of the Church Fathers, who held that "God became man, so that man might become God" [St. Augustine, Sermo 13 de Tempore].

All the Fathers taught this doctrine as the most fundamental of the deposit of faith for salvation:


Patristic Text - Quotations on Theosis - The Taboric Light


St. Gregory Nazianzen (329-374) [Oration XXX, section 14: The 4th Theological Oration]

Even now, as man, Christ makes intercession for my salvation, for He still possesses the body which He assumed in order to make me God by virtue of His Incarnation.


St. Basil the Great (c. 330 - c. 379 CE) [On the Holy Spirit, Chapter 9]

From the Spirit comes foreknowledge of the future, understanding of the mysteries of faith, insight into the hidden meaning of Scripture, and other special gifts. Through the Spirit we become citizens of heaven, we are admitted to the company of the angels, we enter into eternal happiness, and abide in God. Through the Spirit we acquire a likeness to God; indeed, we attain what is beyond our most sublime aspirations -- we become God.

St. Hilary of Poitiers (c. 315 - c. 367) [De Trinitate: Book IX, Paragraph 38]

The Incarnation is summed up in this, that the whole Son, that is, His manhood as well as His divinity, was permitted by the Father's gracious favor to continue in the unity of the Father's nature, and retained not only the powers of the divine nature, but also that nature's self. For the object to be gained was that man might become God.



And when it says become God, it truly means an experiential participation in the divine nature through the grace of mystical contemplation: in which the deified person 'feels' no subject/object distinction between himself and God, the Divine Essence apprehended without mediation. Just as Blessed Ruysbroeck explains in the above article (as quoted in the scholarly commentary).

The dogma, I should note, is first set forth in the New Testament (quite apart from its articulation in the unwritten tradition):


"....by which have been given to us exceedingly great and precious promises, that through these you may be partakers of the divine nature, now that you have escaped the corruption in the world caused by evil desires" (2 Peter 1:4)

I think you may be underestimating, or perhaps failing to appreciate, its absolute centrality to the mystery of salvation in the Patristics and in the subsequent Catholic/Orthodox theological tradition i.e.


INTERVIEW: Humans Become God? Yes, It's Catholic Theology - ZENIT - English


The first generations of Christians saw in their new lives in Jesus Christ a way to transcend all the limitations of sin and death and become new creatures. St. Peter expressed this as “participating in the divine nature” (2 Pet 1:4), while St. Athanasius stated it succinctly 300 years later: “God became a human, so humans could become God.”

This is the heart of the Christian faith and the pledge of the Christian promise: that those baptized in Christ become “divine” through their partaking in God’s own life and love.

A new book, Called to Be the Children of God: The Catholic Theology of Human Deification, offers essays from more than a dozen Catholic scholars and theologians to examine what this process of “deification” means in their respective areas of study.

Theosis is the most ancient and venerable paradigm for understanding "salvation in Christ", indeed the one expounded by the earliest Fathers in the Christian religious tradition.

To hop over, for a moment, to my Eastern Orthodox brethren:


http://www.ceceurope.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/CSCtheosisorthodox.pdf


Theosis (lit. "ingodded," "becoming god," deification) in the Eastern Orthodox tradition is a vision of human potential for perfection, anticipated in ancient Greece, witnessed to in both the Old and New Testaments, and developed by Patristic Christian theologians of the first five centuries after Christ. In the words of St.Irenaeus (120-202): "If the Word was made man, it is that men might become god" (Against Heresies, Bk. V. Pref. col. 1035).

The idea of theosis is that God and humanity progressively achieve a union in Christ which in the end both blurs and preserves the distinction between Creator and creation, as in a mirror perfectly reflecting the source of its image.

Theosis comprehends salvation from sin, is premised upon apostolic and early Christian understanding of the life of faith, and is conceptually foundational in both the East and the West. The statement by St. Athanasius of Alexandria, "The Son of God became man, that we might become God" (On the Incarnation of the Word, Bk. IV. par 65), best indicates the concept.

It is the 'essential' of 'essentials' for us: the ultimate end-point of justification / salvation in Christ, the entire purpose (in our theology) underpinning the divine economy, God's incarnation in Christ. Literally nothing else matters apart from it, everything else is commentary so to speak. This simple mantra passed down in the church's sacred tradition is the essence, the heartbeat, the soul, the lifeblood of Christianity: "God became human so that we might become God".

If I had to give a doctrinal summation of Christianity in one short sentence, it would be that. Theosis. It's deemed by us to be the very rationale of creation, the incarnation, the crucifixion, the resurrection etc. Absolutely everything written or passed down is an elucidation, in some form, of this essential dogma of the faith.
 
Last edited:

Fool

ALL in all
Premium Member
I am predominantly directing this thread at posters - religious and non-religious, theistic or non-theistic - who consider mystical experiences to be an important dimension of the human condition (i.e. either self-identifying as mystics themselves, as mystically-inclined or as scholarly students of mysticism as a phenomenon). But everyone else is welcome to contribute too!

Q: In your estimation, can mystical experience positively coincide within a religion that is clerical in structure or is there an inherent conflict of interest between mysticism and clerical intermediarism?

I invite folks to answer this question based upon their own religious / spiritual / philosophical tradition, as I will do from the perspective of Catholic Christianity (further downstream in a later post).

My definition of 'clerical' is as follows: a faith at least in part reliant upon a hierarchy of priests and/or ministers as intermediaries between the 'divine' and 'phenomenal' / intercessionaries between worshippers and God.

By 'clericalism' I'm not referring merely to an ordained caste of sacrdotal ministers engaged in a religious ritual or sacrifice, like Jewish Aaronic priests of the tribe of Levi or the Roman Catholic priesthood (which practitioners understand to be - in some sense - expiatory and a participation in the divine / effulgence of divine grace / forgiveness as 'mediated' through the sacred office and/or activity of the cleric) but rather am extending this, secondarily, to encompass other non-priestly but equally ministerial religious functionaries such as Buddhist monks and nuns, Protestant pastors, Jewish rabbis, Islamic imams, Sufi pirs, Hindu gurus, yogis etc.

So Rabbinic Judaism, Evangelical Protestantism and Sunni Islam are encompassed within my definition of 'clericalism', even though they are - unlike priestly creeds such Second Temple Judaism and Roman Catholicism - religious systems either lacking in (because there's no Jewish Third Temple, as presently constituted) or without operational priestly functionaries. Rabbis, pastors and Imams still suffice for the purpose of this thread as being "clerics" (just like they'd fall under the legal definition of "chaplains" for the purposes of US law in the armed services).

In other words - any spiritually-imbued service, rite or activity which involves a congregation or at least two people, where someone functions as a set apart 'officiator' of the process (whether preaching, whereas the non-officiating party / parties adopt a more 'receptive' role i.e. a lay congregant or student of a spiritual director/guide).

This question came to me some weeks ago, inspired by another thread, on account of that incorriguble and irritatingly thought-provoking scalliwag @Sunstone. His argument - and I must grudgingly admit his intellectual merits from time-to-time ;) - has persuaded me to consider this in greater depth.

I felt the topic warranted a thread all to itself, so that we might meditate on it and further debate in the hopes of arriving at a 'compromise' understanding (being the representastive - as I am - of a church that is sacerdotal/priestly in its governance structure and liturgy).

The relevant section of @Sunstone's original post:




Do you agree with the thesis outlined, very effectively, by @Sunstone above? Is a priesthood / clerical system a barrier to, or at least inhibitor of, 'unmediated mystical experience' on the part of individual seekers or not?
love is always in our grasp; so long as there are a hands to clasp.


 

Vouthon

Dominus Deus tuus ignis consumens est
Staff member
Premium Member
You can't have mysticism when you place people between you and the divine.

A very lucidly expressed and balanced contributrion to the thread, thank you sincerely for it!

Question: do you think that a spiritual experience 'mediated' through the symbiotic relationship between a 'mediator' and 'mediatee', could ever function as a first step in 'preparing' that person for an unmediated apprehension of the divine? (I ask our friend @Sunstone as well!)

The Christian tradition, when speaking a priori about 'union through intermediaries' (one's own thoughts and mental images, meditation on the words of scripture, the sacramental life of the church and guidance of a spiritual father (i.e. priest or monk)) in preparation for 'union without intermediary', refers to this using the terms outlined by St. Paul in the New Testament: "I fed you with milk, not solid food, for you were not ready for solid food. Even now you are still not ready, for you are still of the flesh (senses)" (1 Corinthians 3:2).

In this respect, the church is thought to be like a mother preparing her infant to take his first "baby-steps" and walk on his own two feet in mystical contemplation, by breast-feeding him with milk until he can eat solid food on his own (only never truly 'alone', because a mother's love is always there in the foreground isn't it, even if just out of sight from her 'grown-up' baby?)

St. Thomas Aquinas used this same analogy in his Summa Contra Gentiles, explaining allegorically that the church's 'role' is to feed her children with 'milk' to make us ready, when the time comes (and it differs by individual), to eat 'directly' and 'unmediated' the "solid food" at the table of God (which means, direct apprehension of Him unmediated):


“…If God’s essence is to be seen, the intelligence must see it in the divine essence itself, so that in such vision the divine essence shall be at once the object which is seen and that whereby it is seen. This is the immediate vision of God that is promised us in Scripture: ‘We see now in a glass darkly, but then face to face’ (i Cor. xiii, 2)

Thus then shalt we see God face to face, in that we shall have an immediate vision of Him, as of a man whom we see face to face. By this vision we are singularly assimilated to God, and are partakers in His happiness: for this is His happiness, that He essentially understands His own substance.

Hence it is said: ‘When He shall appear, we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is’ (i John iii, 2). And the Lord said: ‘I prepare for you as my Father hath prepared for me a kingdom, that ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom’ (Luke xxii, 29). This cannot be understood of bodily meat and drink, but of that food which is taken at the table of Wisdom, whereof it is said by Wisdom: Eat ye my bread and drink the wine that I have mingled for you (Prov. ix, 5). They therefore eat and drink at the table of God, who enjoy the same happiness wherewith God is happy, seeing Him in the way which He sees Himself
…”

(Saint Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274), Summa Contra Gentiles)

Thus, in my church's tradition, our mystics often experience fundamental perceptual shifts in consciousness before, during and after partaking of the Eucharist, in the context of the liturgy. In many cases, the act of receiving Holy Communion from the priest (a mediated experience of the divine) leads in a spontaneous elevation of the mind to the direct and unmediated personal union with God, in effect, a union of "indistinction": in which the mystic is so aware of the intimate bond between the personhood of Christ with their soul, that they suddenely 'lose their sense of self', no longer perceiving any difference between themselves and Christ, such that they can cry out with Saint Paul: "It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me" (Galatians 2:20).

Consider the theosis experience of Hadewijch of Antwerp (a great medieval Beguine, Dutch mystic) when partaking of the Eucharist at Mass, which constituted for her a profound "spiritual orgasm": which she expressed via the metaphor of a couple having sex and finding satisfaction through the penetration of the one (God, the Lover) into the soul of the Loved (the worshipper):


"...One Pentecost at dawn I had a vision. Matins were being sung in the church and I was there. And my heart and my veins and all my limbs trembled and shuddered with desire. And I was in such a state as I had been so many times before, so passionate and so terribly unnerved that I thought I should not satisfy my Lover and my Lover not fully gratify me, then I would have to desire while dying and die while desiring. At that time I was so terribly unnerved with passionate love and in such pain that I imagined all my limbs breaking one by one and all my veins were separately in tortuous pain.

I desired to consummate my Lover completely and to confess and to savour in the fullest extent--to fulfil his humanity blissfully with mine and to experience mine therein, and to be strong and perfect so that I in turn would satisfy him perfectly: to be purely and exclusively and completely virtuous in every virtue. And to that end I wished, inside me, that he would satisfy me with his Godhead in one spirit (1 Cor 6:17) and he shall be all he is without restraint. For above all gifts I could choose, I choose that I may give satisfaction in all great sufferings. For that is what it means to satisfy completely: to grow to being god with God.


When at that time I was in a state of terrible weariness, I saw a great eagle, flying towards me from the altar. And he said to me: "If you wish to become one, then prepare yourself." And I fell to my knees and my heart longed terribly to worship that One Thing in accordance with its true dignity, which is impossible--I know that, God knows that, to my great sadness and burden. And the eagle turned, saying, "Righteous and most powerful Lord, show now the powerful force of your Unity for the consummation with the Oneness of yourself." And he turned back and said to me, "He who has come, comes again, and wherever he never came, there he will not come."

Then he gave himself to me in the form of the sacrament, in the manner to which people are accustomed. Then he gave me to drink from the chalice in the manner and taste to which people are accustomed. Then he came to me himself and took me completely in his arms and pressed me to him. And all my limbs felt his limbs in the full satisfaction that my heart and my humanity desired. Then I was externally completely satisfied to the utmost satiation.

At that time I also had, for a short while, the strength to bear it. But all too soon I lost external sight of the shape of that beautiful man, and I saw him disappear to nothing, so quickly melting away and fusing together that I could not see or observe him outside of me, nor discern him within me. It was to me at that moment as if we were one without distinction. All of this was external, in sight, in taste, in touch, just as people may taste and see and touch receiving the external sacrament, just as a beloved may receive her lover in the full pleasure of seeing and hearing, with the one becoming one with the other. After this I remained in a state of oneness with my Beloved so that I melted into him and ceased to be myself. And I was transformed and absorbed in the spirit, and I had a vision about the following hours..."

(Hadewijch of Antwerp (13th centry). Bernard McGinn "Hadewijch, Vision 7" in The Essential Writings of Christian Mysticism )

Blessed Hadewijch is here giving voice, in lyrical 'erotic-poetic' style, to the classic type of 'mystical experience' identified by Stace and many other academics of mysticism across the world: the nonsensuous apprehension of oneness; the breakdown of the subject/object in perception; the complete loss of the sense of an independent egoic self. But crucially, this supremely 'unmediated' experience came upon her quite suddenly in the context of a 'mediated' liturgical experience, involving a priest bestowing her with the consecrated host (the communion bread and wine). After eating and drinking of the host, she "grows to being god with God" (theosis) "in a state of oneness" with the Christ-God where she "ceases to be herself".

In other words through the act of consecration of the sacred host during the Sacrifice of the Mass, Hadewijch is led into an ecstatic rapture: becoming one with Jesus in a transformative union without any conscious, perceptual difference between herself (the subject) and her God (the object).

This symbiocity - presented holistically in my religious tradition in both the eastern and western church liturgical traditions - is difficult for me to press into the "mediation/unmediated" dichotomy if the one is understood to the total exclusion of the other; inasmuch as the 'mediated experience' so often unfolds into the 'unmediated' in an almost seamless fashion - as evidenced in Hadewijch's autobiographical account.

Where does this "mediated-leading-directly-to-unmediated" eucharistic mysticism fit into our analysis?

Islamic mysticism is the same: the Sufi 'whirling' dance of Rumi's Masnavi, performed by dervishes in the context of a religious service known as the Sama: a mediated, cultic religious experience (the dance while praying the dhikr, remembrance of God), in a ritual oriented towards an unmediated experience of the Divine, if a person is ready for such to occur when so graced (through years of preparatory practice):


Sama (Sufism) - Wikipedia


Sama (Turkish: Sema, Persian, Urdu and Arabic: سَمَاع‎ - samā‘un) is a Sufi ceremony performed as dhikr. Sama means "listening", while dhikr means "remembrance".[1] These rituals often include singing, playing instruments, dancing, recitation of poetry and prayers, wearing symbolic attire, and other rituals. It is a particularly popular form of worship in Sufism.

In 2008, UNESCO confirmed the "Mevlevi Sama Ceremony" of Turkey as one of the Masterpieces of the Oral and Intangible Heritage of Humanity.[2]


The Sama represents a mystical journey of man's spiritual ascent through mind and love to perfection. Turning towards the truth, the follower grows through love, deserts his ego, finds the truth and arrives at perfection. He then returns from this spiritual journey as a man who has reached maturity and a greater perfection, so as to love and to be of service to the whole of creation.
 
Last edited:

crossfire

LHP Mercuræn Feminist Heretic ☿
Premium Member
All in all, cleric
Interesting distinctions outlined here, if I may enquire a little further (because I'm genuinely interested):

In describing priestly religious systems as more 'political' in organisation, is that to say pertaining more to order and power dynamics?

A Catholic priest, to take one example, in addition to his organising and ministering at daily Masses - religious services involving homilies/sermons on moral instruction, rituals such as the Eucharistic sacrifice, public prayer interpersed with moments of silent contemplative prayer, creedal recitations, readings from Scripture, hymn-singing and so forth - and his officiating at weddings, funerals, baptisms, confirmations etc., has an essential 'pastoral' role that goes far beyond his cultic-sacerdotal one.

Priests listen to their parishioners concerns, worries and feelings of guilt in the confessional - and offer words of solace and spiritual advice tailored for that individual's personal situation. They are meant to be there for parishioners whenever they need them and many run 'prayer-circles' for those seeking a more in-depth contemplative, mystical insight into their faith.

Does his office therefore fall on the political or psychological side of the equation under your definitions? What about monks and nuns, who, from time immemorial, have taken in weary travellers and those seeking temporary respite for spiritual formation away from the noisy travails of the outside world? Do they fall on the political or psychological side? Their entire way of life is centered around contemplation and mysticism, after all.
The Priest falls under the political side due to his officiating at weddings. Monks and nuns are more on the psychological side, as they live a cloistered lifestyle and have basically withdrawn from secular society, and perform no state-recognized functions like marriages.
 

rational experiences

Veteran Member
Human history is owned by humans. No matter what a human claims to understand about self....all stories are stated in a statement of human awareness and consciousness.

Historically business or organization was factually imposed upon the life of the spiritual balances. For one reason only, science was against the existence of GOD.

For if any human said, my organization, that functions as an organization owns representation in a human community then the organization as that business is structured upon the business.

And the business in the past became what was against the occult and science, hence a personal spiritual mystical understanding was imposed against the science community.

For one reason.....the body of creation proves by its own evidence that when science burns/heats and converts any evolved mass that evolved in the body space...evil spirits manifest. Which provided all evidence against science claiming that it knew God, historically.

They were all proven wrong. And so the organization had to understand, learn and then impose human reasoning against what occult practice was, which began with the sciences. Hence consciousness was a word to state that claim....versus con science.

Therefore status in that organization provided information in variations to their owned studies of natural spiritual human life and causes of occult conditions....science and human inferred status.

The status of 2 minds is real. Yet the male science occult community lost their psyche consciousness to science AI being occult. And yet lived the Holy spiritual human Father life. So never believed in a spiritual human purpose, which was proven in the organization of owning information sharing.

The occult science self proved to the organization that they had tried to give their holy life by o cellular functions to destruction, yet claimed it for everyone else...and not self. By self claim for I am the Holy Father. Yet his prophecy information which is scientific probability was for his own removal.

Hence that organization owned a factual purpose in its experience to be of knowledge involving occult caused conditions......which science owned.

Science proves that it tries to convince the humanity that evil does not exist. Yet science always knew it never existed...it never owned life....it owned its destruction.

Hence that organization in the sharing of its personal organized advisors knew what they were realising. That the science brother tells lies.

Every status ever stated to be owned by male humans, expressed and determined on their behalf is why all information exists today.

It related to a conscious human self understanding about what consciousness is, how it exists, how it can be falsely coerced in the subliminal science owned causes.….all of which were human. As if science is now possessed by just machines in his own mind...claiming that his Father spiritual self, in knowledge of....not any machine will save him.

Therefore the cleric as far as I am aware related back information that the public shared with them about personal life changes....so that the organization was always informed about any human changes relative to science/occult causes.
 

crossfire

LHP Mercuræn Feminist Heretic ☿
Premium Member
This might qualify as "completely different" but in thinking about the OP and the learned commentary that followed it, I was reminded of a quote. This might be as useful as a using a hammer as a screwdriver, but I found myself focusing on one expression of the Jivanmuka (realized one) Nisargadatta Maharaj:

“Wisdom is knowing I am nothing,
Love is knowing I am everything,
and between the two my life moves.”
― Nisargadatta Maharaj
That's a nice expression of Jungian Logos and Eros. (Or Ancient Egyptian Shu and Tefnut, or even Solve et Coagula,) as well as being a means by which to focus on the process instead of looking for a thing (see Tao Te Ching 1.) This may require a reframing of perspective that many may find uncomfortable, and may wish to avoid, though. :(
 

February-Saturday

Devil Worshiper
These are wonderfully illustrative examples!

Question: do you think that a spiritual experience 'mediated' through the symbiotic relationship between a 'mediator' and 'mediatee', could ever function as a first step in 'preparing' that person for an unmediated apprehension of the divine?

The Christian tradition, when speaking a priori about 'union through intermediaries' (one's own thoughts and mental images, meditation on the words of scripture, the sacramental life of the church and guidance of a spiritual father (i.e. priest or monk)) in preparation for 'union without intermediary', refers to this using the terms outlined by St. Paul in the New Testament: "I fed you with milk, not solid food, for you were not ready for solid food. Even now you are still not ready, for you are still of the flesh (senses)" (1 Corinthians 3:2).

I do believe that it could act as a launching-off point, as long as the mediatee's direct experiences aren't devalued or attacked.

I knew of a Christian, for example, who believed they were being visited by an angel. Their church sent an exorcist, believing that the angel was Satan because it was teaching tolerance for people that didn't follow their church's doctrine. In a setting like this, nobody really progresses.

I highly doubt that this ofuscation is the norm, but it does illustrate how even in this context mediation can be a barrier when it's not properly handled.

Outside of that, while I can't speak too much about Catholicism, I have a friend who's an Orthodox Christian. Priests act only to help lead people back to God when they need the assistance, and do act as sort of nurturing guides. I think that set-up can coincide with mysticism. In fact, it seems to help my friend a lot. They suffer from a serious mental illness, and since they started going to church they've been functioning on a higher level than I've ever seen them.

As far as Catholicism goes, there are all the right elements there for mysticism. As an ex-Catholic, though, the clergy really frustrated my attempts to have mystical experiences, and I remember particularly that the way they taught prayer was vastly different from mystical prayer. They taught me to essentially just speak the words out loud, and that since God is omnipresent he would assumedly hear me. In mysticism, by contrast, prayers are a form of invocation and require a specific meditative state of mind.

Since then, I've learned that many Catholics do use prayer as meditation. I have to wonder how many, like me, get lost in the system, though. I think that's a risk you face when creating an organization like this. It can get in the way, but it can also help; it's very contextual. I don't think you can make a blanket statement about whether it can coincide with mysticism or not; it has to be taken case-by-case. The issues I brought up here are not universal, but I do think that they are issues that are probably inherent to this sort of structure and will always crop up in some form or another. I haven't seen it, but I imagine that these problems can be seen just as much in Orthodoxy as in Catholicism.

Nonetheless, I think if you're a devout priest and you know what you're doing, these sorts of problems are likely to go away for the most part. They're unique barriers to mediation, but far from insurmountable. Other ways of approaching mysticism have their own pros and cons, too, so this is hardly a bad thing. I will say that it's likely not for everyone, and they should be aware of the benefits and barriers of a wide variety of approaches before committing to a church, because on an individual level the church might not coincide with the approach to mysticism that they need.
 

Vouthon

Dominus Deus tuus ignis consumens est
Staff member
Premium Member
As far as Catholicism goes, there are all the right elements there for mysticism. As an ex-Catholic, though, the clergy really frustrated my attempts to have mystical experiences, and I remember particularly that the way they taught prayer was vastly different from mystical prayer. They taught me to essentially just speak the words out loud, and that since God is omnipresent he would assumedly hear me. In mysticism, by contrast, prayers are a form of invocation and require a specific meditative state of mind.

I'm very sorry to hear that the clergy frustrated your efforts. You might be interested to read the contemplative guides on mystical prayer written by Fr. Martin Laird - an Augustinian friar and professor of theology- as an example of a very different character of priest taking the spiritual formation of his flock seriously:

Martin Laird: Silent Land, Luminous Ocean (Part One)

Indeed, the mystical theologians of my church term this the "prayer of quiet": an introvertive state of content-free mindfulness (apatheia, imperturbable calm in the face of sense-impressions, to use the word most commonly applied by the desert fathers), of single-minded attentiveness, which prepares the soul for the grace of infused contemplation.

In the medieval mystical tradition of the Catholic Church, this concept was embellished further by our monks, friars and mystics into the idea that the mind was a dual phenomenon: with a lower seat rooted in the imagination and emotions, and the intellect; while above this (or below it, if you like) was the "apex", "ground" and "essence" of the soul, wherein contemplative prayer takes place, and union with God.

As the Benedictine monk Dom Cuthbert Butler explained in his 1922 book, Western Mysticism (p.140):


Western Mysticism


It is a common teaching of mystic writers that introversion is effected by a successive silencing of the faculties of the mind and of the powers of the soul, till the actuations become blind elevations to God; and in the 'Quiet' thus produced, the very being of the soul the "Ground of the Spirit', the later mystics call it comes into immediate relation with the Ultimate Reality which is God.

This at least will be held by all who regard the mind as something other than a bundle of sensations, phantasmata, emotions, cognitions, volitions. This essence of the soul, the soul itself, is what the mystics mean when they speak of the centre of the soul, or its apex, or ground, or the fund of the spirit, or the synteresis. 2 It has been called also in modern terminology the core of personality, and the transcendental self.

For the Catholic mystics it is this essence of the soul that enters into union with God. This we learned from Pope St Gregory the Great: he says that the mind must first clear itself of all sense perceptions and of all images of things bodily and spiritual, so that it may be able to find and consider itself as it is in itself, i.e., its essence; and then, by means of this realization of itself thus stript of all, it rises to the contemplation of God


Abba Evagrius (345-399 AD), the first hesychast, and the Desert Fathers who followed him, spoke about "clear thinking" or "clear sight" of the image of God within one's heart, untainted by the obscuration of the passions and logismoi (disturbing thoughts) - the kind of passionate, wild thoughts that distract our attention and scatter the focus of the mind.

As he wrote:


"...The Kingdom of Heaven is apatheia [imperturbable calm, dispassion] of the soul along with true knowledge of existing things.

The proof of apatheia is had when the mind begins to see its own light, when it remains in a state of tranquillity in the presence of the images it has during sleep, and when it maintains its calm as it beholds the affairs of life.

The spirit that possesses health is the one which has no images of the things of the world at the time of prayer.

The ascetic life is the spiritual method for cleansing [the mind]...

If one wishes to see the state (katastasis) of the mind, let him deprive himself of all representations, and then he will see the mind appear similar to sapphire or to the color of the sky. But to do that without being passionless (apatheia) is impossible...The mind would not see itself unless it has been raised higher than all the representations of objects
..."

- Abba Evagrius Ponticus (345-399 AD), Early Desert Father


Many contemporary scholars have concurred that a "state of sensory deprivation and extreme focus" of the mind, through meditative practices or contemplative prayer, has been known to predispose a person to have a mystical experience.

The opposite, an intense sensory overload combined with emotional arousal has, however, also been found to trigger whatever neuronal correlate of consciousness leads to these kind of shifts in perceptual awareness, as for example in shamanic rituals involving rhythmic
drumming, or by whirling Sufi dervishes (Beauregard, 2012).
 
Last edited:

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
I am predominantly directing this thread at posters - religious and non-religious, theistic or non-theistic - who consider mystical experiences to be an important dimension of the human condition (i.e. either self-identifying as mystics themselves, as mystically-inclined or as scholarly students of mysticism as a phenomenon). But everyone else is welcome to contribute too!

Q: In your estimation, can mystical experience positively coincide within a religion that is clerical in structure or is there an inherent conflict of interest between mysticism and clerical intermediarism?

I invite folks to answer this question based upon their own religious / spiritual / philosophical tradition, as I will do from the perspective of Catholic Christianity (further downstream in a later post).

My definition of 'clerical' is as follows: a faith at least in part reliant upon a hierarchy of priests and/or ministers as intermediaries between the 'divine' and 'phenomenal' / intercessionaries between worshippers and God.

By 'clericalism' I'm not referring merely to an ordained caste of sacrdotal ministers engaged in a religious ritual or sacrifice, like Jewish Aaronic priests of the tribe of Levi or the Roman Catholic priesthood (which practitioners understand to be - in some sense - expiatory and a participation in the divine / effulgence of divine grace / forgiveness as 'mediated' through the sacred office and/or activity of the cleric) but rather am extending this, secondarily, to encompass other non-priestly but equally ministerial religious functionaries such as Buddhist monks and nuns, Protestant pastors, Jewish rabbis, Islamic imams, Sufi pirs, Hindu gurus, yogis etc.

So Rabbinic Judaism, Evangelical Protestantism and Sunni Islam are encompassed within my definition of 'clericalism', even though they are - unlike priestly creeds such Second Temple Judaism and Roman Catholicism - religious systems either lacking in (because there's no Jewish Third Temple, as presently constituted) or without operational priestly functionaries. Rabbis, pastors and Imams still suffice for the purpose of this thread as being "clerics" (just like they'd fall under the legal definition of "chaplains" for the purposes of US law in the armed services).

In other words - any spiritually-imbued service, rite or activity which involves a congregation or at least two people, where someone functions as a set apart 'officiator' of the process (whether preaching, whereas the non-officiating party / parties adopt a more 'receptive' role i.e. a lay congregant or student of a spiritual director/guide).

This question came to me some weeks ago, inspired by another thread, on account of that incorriguble and irritatingly thought-provoking scalliwag @Sunstone. His argument - and I must grudgingly admit his intellectual merits from time-to-time ;) - has persuaded me to consider this in greater depth.

I felt the topic warranted a thread all to itself, so that we might meditate on it and further debate in the hopes of arriving at a 'compromise' understanding (being the representastive - as I am - of a church that is sacerdotal/priestly in its governance structure and liturgy).

The relevant section of @Sunstone's original post:




Do you agree with the thesis outlined, very effectively, by @Sunstone above? Is a priesthood / clerical system a barrier to, or at least inhibitor of, 'unmediated mystical experience' on the part of individual seekers or not?
I wouldn't call myself a "mystic," but I've had experiences that fit the definition you describe in post #5.

I see these experiences as basically irrelevant to my belief system. I chalked them up to quirks of how brains misbehave when under physiological stress. They've never been an impediment to me accepting any sort of religion, whether "clerical" or not.

(There have been plenty of other things that have created impediments, but "mystical" experiences aren't one of them)
 

Vouthon

Dominus Deus tuus ignis consumens est
Staff member
Premium Member
I wouldn't call myself a "mystic," but I've had experiences that fit the definition you describe in post #5.

I see these experiences as basically irrelevant to my belief system. I chalked them up to quirks of how brains misbehave when under physiological stress. They've never been an impediment to me accepting any sort of religion, whether "clerical" or not.

(There have been plenty of other things that have created impediments, but "mystical" experiences aren't one of them)

Many thanks for your contribution to the thread, I'm grateful for the unique perspective that you bring as someone who has had such a "noetic" experience but regards it as being incidental to your own beliefs.

If I may ask: why do you think that many people throughout history - both religious and irreligious, both theistic and atheistic - have had experiences like the one you describe, yet for them it has been a profoundly transformative experience that has radically altered how they view both themselves and the outside world?

There is good evidence that mystical experiences actually change neural pathways in the brain - that is, they spur a kind of neuroplasticity in adults that is otherwise very rare after adolescence (the child brain is super adaptable in its neuronal wiring, hence why kids can become fluent easily in second languages if raised with them, whereas this is extremely difficult for adults).

This could be particularly useful, potentially, for treating manic depression in adulthood. Because of perceived lack of neuroplasticity and neurogenesis in the brain after about the age of 25, these psychological afflictions can be tricky to cure, since the brain has become so shaped by conditions and experiences that it's "neuronal circuitry" is hardened.

But mystical experiences can open up radically new and unexpected pathways/connections in the brain, thus "liberating" sufferers from negative psychogenic conditioning. Consider pharmacologically induced mystical experiences in controlled experimental studies, such as this one from the University of California:


https://beckleyfoundation.org/2018/06/13/psychedelics-promote-neural-plasticity/


A new study from the University of California, Davis has found that psychedelic drugs such as LSD and DMT promote neural plasticity and development, indicating a potential mechanism for their therapeutic benefits.

Patients who suffer from depression and post-traumatic-stress-disorder tend to have impaired neurogenesis and neuroplasticity – their brain cells grow more slowly and are less adaptable. These structural changes can lead to atrophy of various brain regions, including the hippocampus (which is involved in learning and memory) and the prefrontal cortex (which mediates personality and decision-making).

Counteracting this damage by promoting structural and functional neural plasticity has been suggested as novel way of treating psychiatric disorders. However, relatively few compounds that promote neuroplasticity – which the authors of the new study term ‘psychoplastogens’ – have been found capable of achieving this without drawbacks.


Psychedelics Promote Structural and Functional Neural Plasticity


The neuroscientific basis of mystical experiences - whether induced naturally through a spontaneous "occurrence" or proven methods like meditation, or pharmacologically through ingestion of a hyperactive substance - is a very live focus of scientific study at the moment. There is a great deal of interest in locating the precise neural correlates of these experiences, as they are believed now to be important ingredients in an eventual science of consciousness.

Researchers have found that the experience has been shown to significantly positively impact both mental and physical health (Sloan, Bagiella & Powell, 1999; Kass et al., 1991; Koenig, 2009), such that the scientists in question are of the opinion that identifying the neural mechanisms underlying RSMEs may help to improve current understanding of mental and physical health, possibly significantly changing medical treatment of a range of depressive disorders.

In light of this research, if it's not impertinent of me to ask, did your experience have any positive effect whatsoever on your mental well-being at the time?
 
Last edited:

Vouthon

Dominus Deus tuus ignis consumens est
Staff member
Premium Member
Another relevant scientific study from researchers at University College London:


Quality of Acute Psychedelic Experience Predicts Therapeutic Efficacy of Psilocybin for Treatment-Resistant Depression


It is a basic principle of the “psychedelic” treatment model that the quality of the acute experience mediates long-term improvements in mental health. In the present paper we sought to test this using data from a clinical trial assessing psilocybin for treatment-resistant depression (TRD).

In line with previous reports, we hypothesized that the occurrence and magnitude of Oceanic Boundlessness (OBN) (sharing features with mystical-type experience) and Dread of Ego Dissolution (DED) (similar to anxiety) would predict long-term positive outcomes, whereas sensory perceptual effects would have negligible predictive value.

This report further bolsters the view that the quality of the acute psychedelic experience is a key mediator of long-term changes in mental health. Future therapeutic work with psychedelics should recognize the essential importance of quality of experience in determining treatment efficacy and consider ways of enhancing mystical-type experiences and reducing anxiety

 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Many thanks for your contribution to the thread, I'm grateful for the unique perspective that you bring as someone who has had such a "noetic" experience but regards it as being incidental to your own beliefs.

If I may ask: why do you think that many people throughout history - both religious and irreligious, both theistic and atheistic - have had experiences like the one you describe, yet for them it has been a profoundly transformative experience that has radically altered how they view both themselves and the outside world?
Probably because of how they viewed everything. Check out medieval reports of sleep paralysis: they almost involve an account of a demon sitting on the person's chest, pinning them down. I have no doubt that someone who thought they had physically interacted with a demon they were sure they saw with their own eyes would have been transformed by that experience, too.

And mystical experiences often involve quite a bit of priming: someone going to a sweat lodge, for instance, is told ahead of time that the experience will be transformative, and the experience is surrounded by all sorts of ritual to signify the experience's importance.

Also, keep in mind the selection bias involved: someone who found the experience to be interesting but not paradigm-shifting isn't going to be writing books about it or trying to start a religion. It's only the people who were profoundly changed that you're likely to hear about.

There is good evidence that mystical experiences actually change neural pathways in the brain - that is, they spur a kind of neuroplasticity in adults that is otherwise very rare after adolescence (the child brain is more adaptable in its neuronal wiring, hence why kids can become fluent easily in second languages if raised with them, whereas this is extremely difficult for adults).
This reminds me of how people describe LSD (again: without suggesting that anyone do this). They say that taking it "changes the way you think."

The neuroscientific basis of mystical experiences - whether induced naturally through a spontaneous "occurrence" or proven methods like meditation, or pharmacologically through ingestion of a hyperactive substance - is a very live focus of scientific study at the moment. There is a great deal of interest in locating the precise neural correlates of these experiences, as they are believed now to be important ingredients in an eventual science of consciousness.

Researchers have found that the experience has been shown to significantly positively impact both mental and physical health (Sloan, Bagiella & Powell, 1999; Kass et al., 1991; Koenig, 2009), such that the scientists in question are of the opinion that identifying the neural mechanisms underlying RSMEs may help to improve current understanding of mental and physical health, possibly significantly changing medical treatment of a range of depressive disorders.

In light of this research, if it's not impertinent of me to ask, did your experience have any positive effect whatsoever on your mental well-being at the time?
I certainly don't think they had a negative effect. It did seem like I think differently after the first one.
 

Terry Sampson

Well-Known Member
This simple mantra passed down in the church's sacred tradition is the essence, the heartbeat, the soul, the lifeblood of Christianity: "God became human so that we might become God".
Well, your Post #23 will surely lift at least one Mormon's spirit here in RF, if I'm not mistaken. :D eh, @Clear ?
 

Vouthon

Dominus Deus tuus ignis consumens est
Staff member
Premium Member
And mystical experiences often involve quite a bit of priming: someone going to a sweat lodge, for instance, is told ahead of time that the experience will be transformative, and the experience is surrounded by all sorts of ritual to signify the experience's importance.

Also, keep in mind the selection bias involved: someone who found the experience to be interesting but not paradigm-shifting isn't going to be writing books about it or trying to start a religion. It's only the people who were profoundly changed that you're likely to hear about.

I think that's an excellent point about a 'selection effect' mechanism, inasmuch as those who experience the most profound 'perceptual/psychological' shifts, also happen to be the ones that will likely go on to disseminate information about the benefits of others experiencing the same.

This is, actually, how many (perhaps most) religious movements emerged historically. The experience itself is not typically a "fabrication" (i.e. they are not making it up, there likely is a neurobiological basis to what they interpreted as a "religious" experience) but obviously the 'mythic' narrative an individual employs to help themselves come to terms with it, in a manner conformable with their particular sociocultural environment, obviously differs hugely.

As regards 'priming' for a mystical experience, certainly every world religion has an established and time-honoured 'mystical' tradition comprising of literary works, guidebooks, orders and societies that aim to help people to actively induce such experiences (through empirically tried-and-tested methods such as Buddhist meditation or Catholic contemplative prayer exercises, which result in all sorts of preparatory mental conditioning).

However, the peer-reviewed literature equally highlights that whilst these experiences can be 'primed' in a ritual or meditative context (or through ingesting certain psychoactive drugs, like LSD, DMT or psilocybin), many self-professed mystics have also claimed to have these experiences 'spontaneously' and involuntarily, meaning that there was no conscious planning or yearning involved.

An example:


http://atpweb.org/jtparchive/trps-44-12-01-073.pdf


SPONTANEOUS AWAKENING EXPERIENCES: BEYOND
RELIGION AND SPIRITUAL PRACTICE

Steve Taylor, M. Sc., PGCE
Leeds, United Kingdom

ABSTRACT: ‘Awakening experiences’ have been misunderstood to some degree by their long association with religious and spiritual traditions and practices.

The research reported here – 161 reports of awakening experiences – suggests that most of them occurred outside the context of spiritual or religious traditions.

Neither were they induced by spiritual practices such as meditation or prayer. Most occurred ‘spontaneously.’
As a result, they are termed here ‘spontaneous awakening experiences.’

Many activities and situations can be seen as having a certain degree of ‘awakening potential,’ capable of inducing – or at least being the context for - awakening experiences.

Many are psychological in origin, although they may be interpreted in religious terms.
Perhaps the term ‘spiritual experience’ should be applied only to awakening experiences related to –or triggered by – spiritual practices.

I suggest a more neutral term (‘awakening experiences’) to describe them. A psychological/energetic view of awakening experiences is presented which provides a framework for understanding spontaneous awakening experiences.

With that being said, there are still a range of 'unconscious factors' (not within the person's conscious control or volition), which help to predispose them to having such an experience. From the study above, here are the most commonly identified 'triggers' with their associated % value of recurrence (note, I believe this was for 'non-religious people'):


Trigger/cause Number of occurrences (n5161, one report per individual)

Psychological turmoil (e.g., stress, depression loss, bereavement) (23.6%)

Nature (18%)

Meditation (13%)

Watching or listening to an arts performance (e.g., a dance performance, music, play) (13%)

HD (homeostasis disruption) states, where pronounced physiological changes result in awakening experiences (Taylor, 2010) (10.6%), of which: drugs, fasting

Participating in creative performance (e.g., playing music, dancing)(4.3%)

Athletic activity (e.g., running, swimming) (4.3%)

Reading spiritual literature (2.5%)

Sex (1.9%)

Prayer (1.9%)

No discernible trigger (6.8%)

Total: 16


The most potent 'trigger', in terms of % value, was 'psychological turmoil'. This correlates with the mystical literature, in which many of the 'mystics' confess to first having gone through a "dark night of the soul" (depression, cynicism, disillusionment with life) prior to their 'breakthrough' experience which utterly transformed their thought-patterns in a way that made them feel immeasurably happier and more 'enlightened' than they were even before their becoming 'depressed/psychologically afflicted':


Dark Night of the Soul - Wikipedia


What's interesting, is that many of the most famous mystics in history have claimed to have had these unsolicited "autonomous" OBNs (Oceanic Boundlessness experiences) and/or DEDs (ego dissolution experiences).

The classic case of this kind of 'transformative' spontaneous mystical experience, would be that of St. Paul of Tarsus' "Dasmascus Road" experience.

In his letters, Paul is insistent that this transcendental experience of enlightenment in Christ was entirely unpremeditated and unsolicited in nature: "...for I did not receive it from a human source, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation." (Galatians 1:11); "About noon as I came near Damascus, suddenly a bright light from heaven flashed" (Acts 22:6) and later on in his second epistle to the Corinthians, he informs us (referring to himself in the third person) that the experience induced such a profound loss of ordinary sense-perception that he could not say whether he was 'in the body' or out of the 'body' during it: "fourteen years ago (I) was caught away to the third heaven. Whether it was in the body or out of the body I do not know—God knows...(I) heard inexpressible things." (2 Corinthians 12:2–4).

In another place he wrote that "eye has not seen, nor has ear heard, nor has it entered into the human heart, what God has prepared for those who love him" (1 Corinthians 2:9) (i.e. a nonsensuous experience that cannot be articulated by reference to anything seen, heard or conceived of through normal discursive thought).

This inability to convey the quality of the mystical experience in language ("ineffability, inexpressibility") is one of the characteristic attributes identified by scholars:


https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mysticism/#Inef

William James, (James, 1958, 292–93) deemed “ineffability” or indescribability an essential mark of the mystical experience...

Insofar as mystical experience is out of the ordinary, and the unitive quality strange (for ordinary folk, at least), reports of them may very well be surprising or contrary to expectation

Paul experienced what researchers today term 'OBN' (Ocean Boundlessness i.e. insightfulness, blissful state, experience of an undifferentiated unity): "There is one God who is father of all, over all, through all and within all" (Ephesians 4:6); "In Him we live and move and have our being" (Acts 17.28) and DED (ego dissolution): "it is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me" (Galatians 2:20) and the perception that his old way of thinking, as a dutiful and zealous Pharisaic Jew, had been entirely surpassed and subsumed by a new conscious identity, a 'reborn' and 'renewed' state of mind: "if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new.” (2 Corinthians 5:17).

According to another letter that may have either been written by him or about his conversion experience by a disciple: "in reference to your former manner of life, you lay aside the old self, which is being corrupted in accordance with the lusts of deceit, and that you be renewed in the spirit of your mind, and put on the new self.” (Ephesians 4:17-24); elsewhere: "Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind" (Romans 12:2).

His experience and its psychological consequeces tick all the boxes identified by the modern researchers, even down to the demonstrable 'mind-identity / neuroplasticity' changes in consciousness (i.e. my 'old self' is gone, my mind has been renewed, the 'I' of my ego has disintegrated and now there's just the Christ-God who is 'through all and within all' etc.).
 
Last edited:

Vouthon

Dominus Deus tuus ignis consumens est
Staff member
Premium Member
This reminds me of how people describe LSD (again: without suggesting that anyone do this). They say that taking it "changes the way you think."

Indeed, LSD (and ***NOTE: I am not encouraging, promoting or in anyway endorsing the use of psychedelic drugs to induce mystical experiences, only discussing controlled scientific studies***) has been proven, along with psilocybin and DMT, to produce very deep mystical experiences - akin to those attained naturally by ascetics or spontaneously in people for other neurochemical reasons - that radically alter thought-patterns by creating hyperactivity, fresh neuronal pathways and connections between regions of the brain that do not normally 'criss-cross'. So it really is an altered state of consciousness in which new 'possibilities' are opened up.

Recent studies to that effect:


Psychedelic drugs induce 'heightened state of consciousness', brain scans show



Brain scans have revealed the first evidence for what appears to be a heightened state of consciousness in people who took psychedelic drugs in the name of science.

Healthy volunteers who received LSD, ketamine or psilocybin, a compound found in magic mushrooms, were found to have more random brain activity than normal while under the influence, according to a study into the effects of the drugs.

The shift in brain activity accompanied a host of peculiar sensations that the participants said ranged from floating and finding inner peace, to distortions in time and a conviction that the self was disintegrating.

Researchers at the University of Sussex and Imperial College, London, measured the activity of neurons in people’s brains as the drugs took hold. Similar measurements have shown that when people are asleep or under anaesthetic, their neurons tend to fire in a more predictable way than when they are awake.

“What we find is that under each of these psychedelic compounds, this specific measure of global conscious level goes up, so it moves in the other direction. The neural activity becomes more unpredictable,” said Anil Seth, a professor of neuroscience at the University of Sussex.

Robin Carhart-Harris, a researcher at Imperial College who took part in the study, said the sudden increase in randomness in brain activity appeared to reflect a deeper and richer conscious state.

“People tend to associate phrases like ‘a higher state of consciousness’ with hippy speak and mystical nonsense. This is potentially the beginning of the demystification, showing its physiological and biological underpinnings,” he said. “Maybe this is a neural signature of the mind opening.”

Beyond confirming what scores of hippies learned more than 40 years ago, the research could help scientists to understand what neural activity corresponds to different levels of consciousness in humans. Another hope is that by understanding how people respond to the drugs, doctors can more accurately predict which patients might benefit from having psychedelic drugs to treat mental disorders, such as depression.


Psychedelic Drugs May Change the Structure of Brain Cells | Live Science



Researchers have shown that these drugs can also physically alter the brain, changing the structure of brain cells.

The new study was done on nerve cells in lab dishes and in animals, but if the findings also hold true in humans, these drugs could have surprising benefits for patients with certain mood disorders, the researchers said.

That's because, in people with depression or mood and anxiety disorders, neurons in the prefrontal cortex — an area of the brain that's important in part for controlling emotion — tend to shrivel up, said senior study author David Olson, an assistant professor of chemistry, biochemistry and molecular medicine at the University of California, Davis. What's more, the branches and dendritic spines on the neurons' branches — which they use to communicate with other neurons — tend to retract, he said. [11 Odd Facts About 'Magic' Mushrooms]


In the study, published today (July 12) in the journal Cell Reports, Olson and his team found that psychodelic drugs increase the number of branches and dendritic spines on neurons, and also increase the number of synapses, or connections between neurons.

"Psychedelics are able to actually [change] neuronal structure, [and] that's really important because [brain] structure controls function," Olson told Live Science. That means it's possible that these drugs could help repair brain networks in the prefrontal cortex that might be damaged in conditions like anxiety and depression, he said.


LSD Has A Bizarre Effect On Brain Connectivity

Publishing their findings in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, a team from the University Hospital for Psychiatry in Zurich and University College London used MRI scans to peer into the brains of 25 healthy people who had taken LSD, comparing what they saw to images of the volunteers' brains after they'd taken a placebo.

The researchers wanted to test an existing hypothesis that suggests LSD causes changes to certain circuitry within the brain, specifically the cortico-striato-thalamo-cortical (CSTC) pathways. They looked at four CSTC-linked brain regions: the thalamus, which relays information; the ventral striatum, which is involved in reward processing; the temporal cortex, which processes sensory information like sound; and the posterior cingulate cortex, which is linked to our sense of self – something weakened by LSD.
 
Last edited:

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
As regards 'priming' for a mystical experience, certainly every world religion has an established and time-honoured 'mystical' tradition comprising of literary works, guidebooks, orders and societies that aim to help people to actively induce such experiences (through empirically tried-and-tested methods such as Buddhist meditation or Catholic contemplative prayer exercises, which result in all sorts of preparatory mental conditioning).

However, the peer-reviewed literature equally highlights that whilst these experiences can be 'primed' in a ritual or meditative context (or through ingesting certain psychoactive drugs, like LSD, DMT or psilocybin), many self-professed mystics have also claimed to have these experiences 'spontaneously' and involuntarily, meaning that there was no conscious planning or yearning involved.
My point about "priming" wasn't meant to be about triggering the experience itself; it was about creating a context to interpret the experience.

For instance, some Native American traditions have religious rituals using peyote; peyote is also used by some people as an illicit drug. The physiological effects of the drug are the same in either case, but in the case of the religious ritual, it's presented as a means to profound insight, so in that context, people approach it looking for that insight. OTOH, in the case of its use as an illicit drug, it's presented as nothing more than a psychoactive high, so people don't look to the experience to provide any deep meaning.

In both cases, the person taking the drug generally finds what they expect to find. That's what I'm getting at.

Same thing in contexts without drugs: the experience of a high-energy Pentecostal service and the experience of a (drug-free) rave are similar in many respects; it's just that people only call the experience of being amped-up on high-energy music "being full of the Spirit" when it happens in church.
 

Vouthon

Dominus Deus tuus ignis consumens est
Staff member
Premium Member
In both cases, the person taking the drug generally finds what they expect to find. That's what I'm getting at.

Same thing in contexts without drugs: the experience of a high-energy Pentecostal service and the experience of a (drug-free) rave are similar in many respects; it's just that people only call the experience of being amped-up on high-energy music "being full of the Spirit" when it happens in church.

Ah, OK I understand your earlier point now. Thanks for the clarification.

What I would say in relation to 'mystical-type experiences', however, is that they do not conform to our ordinary perceptual awareness (as both the mystical literature and actual scientific studies indicate). Because they typically amount to a radically altered state of consciousness, which can feel very different to that of 'normal' waking discursive thought, I think people who have them would rarely not find them profound / awe-inspiring at least in some sense.

This explains why folks with a prior religious 'context', impute such transcendental meaning to them - because even for a secular person experiencing them, they are to quote the earlier researcher: "a deeper and richer conscious state" than just, say, eating a sandwhich after work or taking the commute train to the office.

Whether the meaning one imputes to them is spiritual or purely psychogenic, they do have quite substantial effects on the brain, its neuronal structure and circuitry relative to more run-of-the-mill experiences.
 
Last edited:

Ponder This

Well-Known Member
By 'clericalism' I'm not referring merely to an ordained caste of sacrdotal ministers engaged in a religious ritual or sacrifice, like Jewish Aaronic priests of the tribe of Levi or the Roman Catholic priesthood (which practitioners understand to be - in some sense - expiatory and a participation in the divine / effulgence of divine grace / forgiveness as 'mediated' through the sacred office and/or activity of the cleric) but rather am extending this, secondarily, to encompass other non-priestly but equally ministerial religious functionaries such as Buddhist monks and nuns, Protestant pastors, Jewish rabbis, Islamic imams, Sufi pirs, Hindu gurus, yogis etc.

If mystics are included among the clergy, then, evidently, it would seem they can be compatible.

Let's take look at an example. In Christianity, there is an esoteric realization of Christ. If you removed that esoteric realization, then you would no longer have an exoteric manifestation of Christianity that contained the fundamental essence of Christianity. You can have a group of people who lose their connection to the divine experience, and so it is possible for the two to be at odds with each other. It's just that they are not necessarily so opposed.

In other words - any spiritually-imbued service, rite or activity which involves a congregation or at least two people, where someone functions as a set apart 'officiator' of the process (whether preaching, whereas the non-officiating party / parties adopt a more 'receptive' role i.e. a lay congregant or student of a spiritual director/guide).

There is a saying, "Where two or more are gathered in my Name, I am there." The mystic experience is not diminished by the presence of more people. In fact, it can be enhanced.

Let's consider, f you have an officiator for a large group... that's really just the natural thing to do, isn't it?
Can the orchestra produce good music without the conductor?
Yes! But it is much more difficult to do. The conductor coordinates the actions of the individual members of the orchestra and helps them to realize their potential, even if the conductor is not the composer and makes no sound.
 
Top