Is Mysticism possible in an Atheistic worldview

[Willamena]

There is an enormous amount of research into this in the sciences of the mind, postmodernist insights and the like. This is not woo at all, but just how the brain works. We are not seeing reality, we are seeing a construction of it, created by a bunch of mental objects!

So the mystical experience, whether spontaneously occurring, or through deliberate paths of induction, breaks this temporary illusion of reality created by the mind, the constant interactions of our perceptions with these mental objects, and allows it to see freed from it. The result of that is utterly life changing, as you know.

It's ironic that the mystic maintains his relation with the whole by understanding his separation from the whole, while the dualist understands his relation with the whole by maintaning no separation from the whole.

 

[Windwalker]

It's ironic that the mystic maintains his relation with the whole by understanding his separation from the whole, while the dualist understands his relation with the whole by maintaning no separation from the whole.

And the nondualist holds both perspectives unproblematically. For me, the mystical experience includes duality, form and emptiness. I think the first response to realize the world is illusion, is a first realization. But that's getting beyond the scope of this discussion as a whole. To define anything as this or that, is only one perception. I like the term best, "Integral Aperspectival".

 

[YmirGF]

And the nondualist holds both perspectives unproblematically.

I tend to agree with this as it is an aspect of what I call the multidimensional viewpoint. I know that sounds like a contradiction of terms, but to anyone who perceives reality this way, it is not.

For me, the mystical experience includes duality, form and emptiness.

Pretty much, although I don't perceive the boundaries between each to be quite as rigid as the words imply.

I think the first response to realize the world is illusion, is a first realization.

But, a very important illusion for very good reasons...

But that's getting beyond the scope of this discussion as a whole. To define anything as this or that, is only one perception. I like the term best, "Integral Aperspectival".

But, is it really?

 

[Windwalker]

I
tend to agree with this as it is an aspect of what I call the multidimensional viewpoint. I know that sounds like a contradiction of terms, but to anyone who perceives reality this way, it is not.

There's a quote from one of the Upanishads that I always think of in this regard. "And the illumined soul moves freely up and down all these worlds, taking whatever form it wants, eating whatever food it desires, chanting 'Oh Wonderful! Oh Wonderful! Oh Wonderful!"

Pretty much, although I don't perceive the boundaries between each to be quite as rigid as the words imply.

Yes, words suck when it comes to this. I see it more visually as radiance. A dance. Joy. And the like. These are better words.

But, a very important illusion for very good reasons...

Oh very much so. First we have to wake up. Then, we have to grow up. I think that's the problem for most people in thinking about things like Enlightenment. They think you hit that and then instantly everything is now permanently in view. No, that's just the beginning. There is visiting the home, and then there is moving into it.

But, is it really?

No. There was a book by Zen master Dainin Katagiri that was all about emptying ourselves of descriptors in order to find Enlightenment. But then his subsequent book was called, "You have to say something". And I think that makes the point. We have to say something about it, even though it is impossible. Nothing we say is "That".

 

[Sunstone]

Forming a collective definition does not make it "my own". Again mysticism is not a vague word like spiritualism and it indeed does have a definition but many seem to be changing it to keep hold to a theistic/religious sensation. The only redefining seems to be on those who claim to be atheists and mystics.
Mysticism is very well defined for it to have an etymological basis that has some use and meaningfulness to it.

I'm finding it difficult to take your opinions seriously given that you do not appear to understand even so much as that words can have more than one meaning. But whatever. I'm going to quit concerning myself with it.

 

[Desert Snake]

Basically, no. It's like calling oneself a vegan because meat eating only occurs on the weekends.

 

[Windwalker]

Basically, no. It's like calling oneself a vegan because meat eating only occurs on the weekends.

So you're saying that the atheist mystic believes in God on the weekends?

 

[Desert Snake]

So you're saying that the atheist mystic believes in God on the weekends?

I'm saying there isn't a atheist mystic.

 

[Sunstone]

I'm saying there isn't a atheist mystic.

I get that. But what's your reasoning and/or evidence for your opinion?

 

[Desert Snake]

I get that. But what's your reasoning and/or evidence for your opinion?

It doesn't add up. Atheism is usually (in real life) attached to non-belief in mystical ideas in general. Evidence? Never met one, sort of like flying pink unicorns, never met one either, but hey, anythings possible right.

 

[Sunstone]

It doesn't add up. Atheism is usually (in real life) attached to non-belief in mystical ideas in general.

If you are arguing that, because most atheists do not believe in at least some mystical ideas, no atheists believe in at least some mystical ideas, then I believe your reasoning is fallacious.

 

[Windwalker]

I'm saying there isn't a atheist mystic.

Why? My partner of 14 years would disagree with you. She is one.

Let's try this, why do you believe a mystic of necessity must believe in God?

 

[Desert Snake]

If you are arguing that, because most atheists do not believe in at least some mystical ideas, no atheists believe in at least some mystical ideas, then I believe your reasoning is fallacious.

O.k. great.

 

[LuisDantas]

It doesn't add up. Atheism is usually (in real life) attached to non-belief in mystical ideas in general. Evidence? Never met one, sort of like flying pink unicorns, never met one either, but hey, anythings possible right.

Try to consider that while atheism is about not choosing to believe in highly hypothetical entities, mysticism seems to be defined by at least some people as a discipline that involves far more practical goals.

 

[Windwalker]

It doesn't add up. Atheism is usually (in real life) attached to non-belief in mystical ideas in general.

What are these "mystical ideas"? Anyone? Let's be specific. And then secondly, let's examine how they are incompatible with atheism. I wait with bated breath. That has not been forthcoming yet in this thread.

 

[Desert Snake]

Let's try this, why do you believe a mystic of necessity must believe in God?

Agnostic mystic I can believe. Atheist mystic seems unlikely. That's just my opinion.

 

[Desert Snake]

Try to consider that while atheism is about not choosing to believe in highly hypothetical entities, mysticism seems to be defined by at least some people as a discipline that involves far more practical goals.

So were at questioning what mysticism means to the OP, that's fine but by my definition it isn't likely.

 

[LuisDantas]

I have never met a context where mysticism's meaning was self-evident from the start. And that is probably helpful in avoiding misunderstandings, perhaps ironically.

 

[Windwalker]

Agnostic mystic I can believe. Atheist mystic seems unlikely. That's just my opinion.

I've said several times in this thread that terms like atheism, theism, and now agnosticism are irrelevant at the point of mystical awareness. There is no doubt whatsoever that what is experienced is real. What is in doubt is how to talk about this.

Terms like theism and atheism basically apply to questions about ideas about God. When you enter into the mystical states, there are no ideas going on. It's is not an "idea" experience. Ideas of God are pointers to the Absolute, to the "big question", the "ultimate concern" as Tillich called it. So atheism is an idea of what this is, which says "no deities". Fine. Theism is an idea of the Ultimate that say 'a deity exists'. No problem. But once one is immersed in the mystical state, all ideas are superseded. You are no longer operating in the idea domain. You now know. And God is no more. You don't need an idea of God anymore, be that theistic or atheistic, be that Atman and Anatman.

Both theism and atheism are right. Both are pointing to the Absolute. And once you are immersed in the Absolute, both become non-questions. Both become moot. Here's a fantastic quote from the 14th Christian mystic Meister Eckhart that captures this in the paradoxical prayer he makes, "I pray God make me free of God so that I may know God in [his] unconditional being".

What this is saying is make me free from my ideas of the Absolute, be that theistic or atheistic. Both theism and atheism are the same thing, not opposites. They are both relative views of the Absolute which is beyond them both. Both are conceptual. And concepts are not Reality. Both views are substitutes, models of the Absolute, and both when held tightly as the truth, prevent one from seeing and knowing the Absolute. So in a sense, yes, there are no atheist mystics. There likewise aren't theistic ones either! But once the mystical is Realized, both descriptive views are accurate, to muddy the waters further.

P.S. I realize there is a lot of clarification that will need to be explored in this, and hopefully someone will wish to hear it. I'll just add here for point of clarification, that theism and atheism are both paths towards knowledge of the Absolute. So a mystic can be one on the path of ascension, and that path can be theistic or atheistic. But at the point of Realization, these ideas are vaporized. Then after the fact, they become complementary ways to speak about "That", or "God" or whatever term you prefer. The mystical path is a path of ascension and descension. From the relative to the Absolute, to the relative, from the many to the One to the many. I really hope someone wants to explore this perspective on this further. I could fill several pages on it.

 

[Vouthon]

I've said several times in this thread that terms like atheism, theism, and now agnosticism are irrelevant at the point of mystical awareness. There is no doubt whatsoever that what is experienced is real.

This is an excellent post, as it captures very well the reality of the mystical experience which is the coincidence of all opposites, beyond conceptions, affirmations or negations. Not only are 'internal commentaries', 'labels' and 'ideas' such as the atheist, theist and agnostic positions 'irrelevant,' there is also a supreme joy and peace of mind which arises from no longer having to wrestle with or strive after our conceptions of reality. The contemplative mind arrives at a state of imperturbable calm and equanimity, no longer plagued by wandering thoughts, painful memories, addictive attachments and instability, or for that matter justifications of our beliefs. Free from disturbing passion, the relinquishing of one's most cherished and dearly held conceptions and ideas about God is the final death of the 'self', and the awakening to a new life in which we no longer try to mould reality to our own limited understandings but rather allow ourselves to be embraced by a simple and intuitive knowing that surpasses all understanding. This is the "peace that passeth all understanding" that St. Paul speaks of in the Bible.

In the Christian monastic tradition which the Catholic Church inherited from the Desert Fathers, this state of tranquillity is called apatheia, which the word 'apathetic' is derived from. In apatheia the mind is "integrated and purified of its naturally tumultuous activity, allowing one to simply be” to quote one scholar.

Fr. Martin Laird notes in his great book on contemplative prayer, "Into the Silent Land":

"...Saint Augustine speaks of a higher part of the mind reserved for the contemplation of God and a lower part of the mind that reasons. Evagrius Ponticus, a fourth-century monk, is one of a host of contemplative writers to make an important distinction between the calculating, reasoning mind that makes use of concepts in a process we call ratiocination or discursive thought, and that dimension of mind that comes to knowledge directly, without the mediation of concepts. This he later called nous, an intuitive spiritual intelligence. And so when he defines prayer as 'communion of the mind with God,' he means a dimension of our conciousness that runs deeper than the discursive process of ratiocination..."

- Fr Martin Laird, Catholic contemplative writer & priest

I recommend this book for you by the way, if you haven't read it yet. Fr Martin is very rooted in the mystical tradition yet is a very modern communicator of it. Here it is on Amazon:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Into-Silent-Land-Practice-Contemplation/dp/0232526400