Do you seriously think the Christian notion that the soul is capable of carrying a burden of original sin is at all derived from a mystical experience? If so, how?
-
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!
Esoteric unity of religion
- Thread starter maxfreakout
- Start date
Do you seriously think the Christian notion that the soul is capable of carrying a burden of original sin is at all derived from a mystical experience? If so, how?
Student of X
Paradigm Shifter
Based on my own experience I've noted that most if not all mystical states wear off. Hours, days, weeks. It varies. And I've noted that no mystic gets to the top of the mountain without help somewhere along the way. Help from above, help from family, from friends, from strangers.
Based on my own mystical experience I've noted that the human body is an imperfect vehicle for the Holy Spirit and we are utterly, utterly dependent on Divine Grace, Divine Wisdom, and unconditional Divine Forgiveness. We can't get Salvation on our own, and we can't hold mana in our bodies for long. Without Divine Grace and Divine Power, we can't get all the way up the mountain.
Why? Well one theory that I can picture arising from observations of mystical experiences is 'original sin'.
Last edited:
Religiosity seems to be ultimately derived from the functioning of the brain. There might be as many as twenty or thirty functions of the brain that are vitally significant to understanding human religiosity.
For instance, it seems the occipital-parietal circuit creates the impression that god is an object that exists in the world. That is, that god is "real". Again, the amydala creates the impression of an authoritative, frightening, and punitive god. The amydala also, when over-stimulated, prevents people from thinking logically about god.
There are also brain functions like causal reasoning, agent detection, and our inherent respect for ancestors that some scientists have proposed as neurological precursors to concepts of deity and the supernatural.
So far as we know, those and other brain functions are in some sense common to everyone, and they give rise to human religiosity. However, it would be a mistake to look at all of that and then conclude that all religtions originate in the same experiences.
Why?
Because, as I said, there seem to be at least twenty or thirty key functions involved in all of human religiosity -- and different religions sometimes seem to be based on different groupings of functions. For instance, Middle-Eastern religions like Christianity and Islam seem to employ the pariental-frontal brain circuit much less than, say, Eastern mystical religions like Buddhism and Hinduism.
Thus, to assert that all religions originate in the very same experiences is to make nonsense of what we do know about the origins of human religiosity. When "The Perennial Philosophy" and other such things were being written, we knew a sight less about the function of the human brain in relation to human religiosity than we do today.
For instance, it seems the occipital-parietal circuit creates the impression that god is an object that exists in the world. That is, that god is "real". Again, the amydala creates the impression of an authoritative, frightening, and punitive god. The amydala also, when over-stimulated, prevents people from thinking logically about god.
There are also brain functions like causal reasoning, agent detection, and our inherent respect for ancestors that some scientists have proposed as neurological precursors to concepts of deity and the supernatural.
So far as we know, those and other brain functions are in some sense common to everyone, and they give rise to human religiosity. However, it would be a mistake to look at all of that and then conclude that all religtions originate in the same experiences.
Why?
Because, as I said, there seem to be at least twenty or thirty key functions involved in all of human religiosity -- and different religions sometimes seem to be based on different groupings of functions. For instance, Middle-Eastern religions like Christianity and Islam seem to employ the pariental-frontal brain circuit much less than, say, Eastern mystical religions like Buddhism and Hinduism.
Thus, to assert that all religions originate in the very same experiences is to make nonsense of what we do know about the origins of human religiosity. When "The Perennial Philosophy" and other such things were being written, we knew a sight less about the function of the human brain in relation to human religiosity than we do today.
Sounds like a stretch. It also sounds like your understanding of mystical experiences is heavily dependent on Christianity. Please allow me to honesty recommend that you study, say, Taoism as a means of getting a more well-round insight into mysticism.
Student of X
Paradigm Shifter
My understanding of mystical experiences is dependent on my studies of comparative mysticism.
And on, well, actually having them.
I do know a bit about Taoist alchemy and I give a pretty mean I-Ching reading.
Quiddity
UndertheInfluenceofGiants
I understood his experiences only to reflect your reference of original sin.
I'm no mystic in this sense but I'm inclined to think that the mystic can be heavily influenced from many religions and still be a mystic.
I'm open to correction of course.
To use a similiar comparison of the candy bar, there is a saying that the proof is in the pudding. Taste each of the religions, if one taste rotten, and one taste sweet, I am going to assume that the rotten one is for you, and I will take the sweet one, if that is all right with you. Being as they are all the same in your mind, I am sure you won't mind winding up with the one that taste rotten.
My main observation about this type of oversimplification is that it simply leads to confusion. People who say they believe this often don't actually know what it is they do believe. They will agree with a Christian, and then, in the next conversation, agree with a Buddhist. The religion of convenience ... friendly convenience. I suppose its an easy way out to say you believe in all religions, but really, is it the God within, or the God above? Is it vegetarianism, or is it non-vegetarianism? Is it reincarnation, or is it heaven/hell? Just what is it?
Here is an analogy. In Britain, the simple algorithm for computing subtraction is different than the one taught in America. Both algorithms work perfectly well, and will lead you to the answer. But if you try to use both at the same time, you'll most likely get the wrong answer, mostly because, unless you really understand Math, it'll confuse the heck out of you.
I do remember this actually happening. A new immigrant from Britain, about 10 years old, was in my colleague's class, and his teacher came to me saying the kid was doing it wrong, but getting it right, and she was busy trying to get the poor kid to do it 'right'. So the kid was all confused. Yeah, that worked well. Why not just leave the poor kid alone? Why not just leave the religions alone? You have quite the drink from mixing orange juice and milk.
Here is an analogy. In Britain, the simple algorithm for computing subtraction is different than the one taught in America. Both algorithms work perfectly well, and will lead you to the answer. But if you try to use both at the same time, you'll most likely get the wrong answer, mostly because, unless you really understand Math, it'll confuse the heck out of you.
I do remember this actually happening. A new immigrant from Britain, about 10 years old, was in my colleague's class, and his teacher came to me saying the kid was doing it wrong, but getting it right, and she was busy trying to get the poor kid to do it 'right'. So the kid was all confused. Yeah, that worked well. Why not just leave the poor kid alone? Why not just leave the religions alone? You have quite the drink from mixing orange juice and milk.
maxfreakout
Active Member
This ^ entire paragraph is 100% nonsense (apart from spelling 'amygdala' wrong), you will not find a single serious neuroscientist, or any serious neuroscientific research, which says anything even remotely similar to anything you say here
What scientists do know, is that certain drugs (such as psilocybin) which selectively targets serotonin receptors in the brain, reliably trigger mystical type experiences
This ^ again is 100% nonsense, not in any way related to any serious neuroscientific research
It's not my fault that you are apparently ignorant of the research done by Andrew Newberg, Eugene D'Aquili, and others. However, given some of the things you've said in this thread, your ignorance does not surprise me. In fact, I would be surprised if it happened that you actually knew something up to date about the neuroscience on this subject.
Student of X
Paradigm Shifter
Neurotheology, eh? Careful it could end up backfiring. It isn't doing the 'religiosity seems to be ultimately derived from the functioning of the brain' crowd any favors by *gasp* validating parapsychology.
Possible disruption of remote viewing by complex weak magnetic fields around the stimulus site and the possibility of accessing real phase space: a pilot study
Abstract
In 2002 Persinger, Roll, Tiller, Koren, and Cook considered whether there are physical processes by which recondite information exists within the space and time of objects or events. The stimuli that compose this information might be directly detected within the whole brain without being processed by the typical sensory modalities.
We tested the artist Ingo Swann who can reliably draw and describe randomly selected photographs sealed in envelopes in another room.* In the present experiment the photographs were immersed continuously in repeated presentations (5 times per sec.) of one of two types of computer-generated complex magnetic field patterns whose intensities were less than 20 nT over most of the area. WINDOWS-generated but not DOS-generated patterns were associated with a marked decrease in Mr. Swann's accuracy. Whereas the DOS software generated exactly the same pattern, WINDOWS software phase-modulated the actual wave form resulting in an infinite bandwidth and complexity. We suggest that information obtained by processes attributed to "paranormal" phenomena have physical correlates that can be masked by weak, infinitely variable magnetic fields.
Last edited:
No one is talking parapsychology except you, Student. To interpret Newberg's MRI research as "parapsychology" is intellectually irresponsible, false, and misleading.
Student of X
Paradigm Shifter
Sir, you speak too quickly. I'm not interpreting neurotheology as parapsychology. I'm saying that neurotheology supports parapsychology.
It does you no good to use neurotheology against mysticism when neurotheology supports parapsychology. If you don't understand why that is so, then you have a bit of homework to do my friend.
Here is Newberg working with Radin. Dean Radin is a leading parapsychologist.
Neurotheology | Events | Institute of Noetic Sciences
And, did you catch this in the news?
“God Helmet” Inventor, Dr. Michael Persinger Discovers Telepathy Link in Lab Experiments
Neuroscience Researcher and Laurentian University professor, Dr. Michael Persinger, demonstrates telepathy under laboratory conditions.
Last edited:
blackout
Violet.
Exoteric is 'out there', by some other external authority.
Esoteric is 'in here'-- in 'me'... in 'you',
Self recognized and Self interpretted,
in light of one's Own symbolic connections.
That said, people who look to external authority for answers
tend to share certain 'exoteric' similarities
that differ in type
from those who tend to share certain 'esoteric' leanings,
as they Self Interpret World and Word.
This does not mean however,
that similar 'types'
will draw similar conclusions
(interpretive pictures)
Exoteric pictures
are more likely to at least 'look' the same.
(on the surface)
Esoteric is 'in here'-- in 'me'... in 'you',
Self recognized and Self interpretted,
in light of one's Own symbolic connections.
That said, people who look to external authority for answers
tend to share certain 'exoteric' similarities
that differ in type
from those who tend to share certain 'esoteric' leanings,
as they Self Interpret World and Word.
This does not mean however,
that similar 'types'
will draw similar conclusions
(interpretive pictures)
Exoteric pictures
are more likely to at least 'look' the same.
(on the surface)
maxfreakout
Active Member
as i said, no serious neuroscientist has ever claimed anything even remotely similar to anything you said in that last post
for some up-to-date research on the neurochemistry of mystical experience, have a look at this study from Johns Hopkins university:
"HOPKINS SCIENTISTS SHOW HALLUCINOGEN IN MUSHROOMS CREATES UNIVERSAL “MYSTICAL” EXPERIENCE" - www.hopkinsmedicine.org/press_releases/2006/07_11_06.html
Mystical experience has nothing to do with parietel lobes and amygdalas etc, but it does have a strong connection with psilocybe mushrooms
Last edited:
Your views and my theories are pretty similar because i believe in a common font of spiritual knowledge however the only difference is my theory allows for the possibility of individual pseudo historical figures.
Completely separate individuals could preach very similar things because they are accessing the same source of information with difference arising from their preconceptions which have filtered said information. This also allows spiritual elders currently preaching good to be on the same peg because it allows everyone to achieve that state.
The fact that each figure is given different status and some things that do not exist in other teachings e.g christian Jesus son of god/part of god. Would then be caused by misconceptions disciples have when understanding his message as well as later alterations by people in power (roman empire). For example part of god = son of god misconception , "slave obey your master" alteration.
This is mainly based on monotheistic religions as I believe polytheistic religions to have originated from an attempt to explain things without enough scientific knowledge
Completely separate individuals could preach very similar things because they are accessing the same source of information with difference arising from their preconceptions which have filtered said information. This also allows spiritual elders currently preaching good to be on the same peg because it allows everyone to achieve that state.
The fact that each figure is given different status and some things that do not exist in other teachings e.g christian Jesus son of god/part of god. Would then be caused by misconceptions disciples have when understanding his message as well as later alterations by people in power (roman empire). For example part of god = son of god misconception , "slave obey your master" alteration.
This is mainly based on monotheistic religions as I believe polytheistic religions to have originated from an attempt to explain things without enough scientific knowledge
Mehr Licht
Ave Sophia
The basic idea of a primal or adamic revelation that has been passed down throughout human history in different forms is pretty sound imo. I also believe there is evidence that God didn't limit his grace and teachings exclusivly to the Israelites before Christ came either. You can read things to this effect in the writings of many of the early Christians and church fathers. Justin Martyr for example called Socrates and Plato "Christians before Christ." Augustine elaborating on the same theme pointed out that the true religion always existed and that it was only in these later days that it obtained the name "Christianity". This idea was really expanded upon in the Renaissance were it took on the name of "philosophia perennis" .
When it comes to the Guenonian or "Traditionalist" elaboration of the theme I have mixed feelings though. In some ways I think the traditionalists are prone to overstatement and exaggeration. Also to oversimplification. Specifically in the area of Trinitarian theology I see a major weakness in Schoun and Geunon's teachings. You get the feeling they think the Trinity is a skillful means for people who just aren't smart enough to embrace a "more accurate" representation of divine reality like that given in Advaita Vedanta for example.
Phillip Sherrard, who himself is often considered a traditionalist, took on some of the common errors in the "traditionalist school" in relation to the Trinity in his book " Christianity Lineaments of a Sacred Tradition."
In "Guenonian Esoterism and Christian Mystery" Jean Borella points out some of the weakness in the Guenonian concept of esoteric vs exoteric in accurately describing Christianity. He focuses on the teachings of Clement of Alexandria, Origen , and Dionysius the Areopagite to make his case in that regard.
Both of those are great books. I really recommend them.
When it comes to the Guenonian or "Traditionalist" elaboration of the theme I have mixed feelings though. In some ways I think the traditionalists are prone to overstatement and exaggeration. Also to oversimplification. Specifically in the area of Trinitarian theology I see a major weakness in Schoun and Geunon's teachings. You get the feeling they think the Trinity is a skillful means for people who just aren't smart enough to embrace a "more accurate" representation of divine reality like that given in Advaita Vedanta for example.
Phillip Sherrard, who himself is often considered a traditionalist, took on some of the common errors in the "traditionalist school" in relation to the Trinity in his book " Christianity Lineaments of a Sacred Tradition."
In "Guenonian Esoterism and Christian Mystery" Jean Borella points out some of the weakness in the Guenonian concept of esoteric vs exoteric in accurately describing Christianity. He focuses on the teachings of Clement of Alexandria, Origen , and Dionysius the Areopagite to make his case in that regard.
Both of those are great books. I really recommend them.
Last edited:
Mehr Licht
Ave Sophia
Don't get me wrong I'm not saying I think traditionalism is horrible or anything. I've read a good deal of the works of the traditionalist- Guenon, Schoun, Seyyed Hossein Nasr (probably my favorite), Titus Burkhardt, Martin Lings , Julius Evola (he can be a little scary) , Marco Pallas and others. Overall I'm glad to have come in contact with their school of thought.
Last edited:
I tend away from universalism these days and more towards a skeptical pluralism. I understand that mystical experiences seem to be universal, but it doesn't seem we can say much more about them beyond their commonality in such a way that would be universally acceptable across cultures.
I'm a naturalistic mystic, but others have more introverted practices. Who's more mystical and why?
I'm a naturalistic mystic, but others have more introverted practices. Who's more mystical and why?