Is Mysticism possible in an Atheistic worldview

[Desert Snake]

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.

So..seems like you are actually agreeing with me then.

 

[Vouthon]

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

The mystical experience, which I prefer to call 'contemplation', has nothing to do with belief or non-belief or any other set of contraries or concepts.

Consider the, 'Verses on the Ecstasy of Deep Contemplation' by Saint John of the Cross. It is emblematic of a very profound mystical state in which the consciousness of the saint has had to surrender all beliefs, ideas, concepts and images that he previously had held on to and in his own words "rest in unknowing".

I feel that it is one of the closest approximations to the mystical experience ever committed to poetry and it might help you understand why personal beliefs are quite moot at such a stage:

"...I entered where there is no knowing,

and unknowing I remained,

all knowledge there transcending.

I

Where no knowing is I entered,
yet when I my own self saw there

without knowing where I rested

great things I understood there,

yet cannot say what I felt there,

since I rested in unknowing,

all knowledge there transcending.

II

Of peace and of holy good

there was perfect knowing,

in profoundest solitude

the only true way seeing,

yet so secret is the thing

that I was left here stammering,

all knowledge there transcending.


III


I was left there so absorbed,

so entranced, and so removed,

that my senses were abroad,

robbed of all sensation proved,

and my spirit then was moved

with an unknown knowing,

all knowledge there transcending.


IV


He who reaches there in truth

from himself is parted though,

and all that before he knew

seems to him but base below,

his knowledge increases so

that knowledge has an ending,

all knowledge there transcending.


V


The higher he climbs however

the less he’ll ever understand,

because the cloud grows darker

that lit the night on every hand:

whoever visits this dark land

rests forever in unknowing,

all knowledge there transcending.


VI


This knowledge of unknowing

is of so profound a power

that no wise men arguing

will ever supersede its hour:

their wisdom cannot reach the tower

where knowing has an ending,

all knowledge there transcending.

VII


It is of such true excellence

this highest understanding,

no science, no human sense,

has it in its grasping,

yet he who, by self-conquering

grasps knowing in unknowing,

goes evermore transcending.


VIII

And in the deepest sense,

this highest knowledge lies,

of the divine essence,

if you would be wise:

his mercy so it does comprise,

each one leaving in unknowing,

all knowledge there transcending..."


- Saint John of the Cross (1542 – 1591), Carmelite mystic & Doctor of the Church​

 

[s2a]

Yes, this.:yes:

The mystic experience is a personal experience of immersion into reality, into in incomprehensible wonder that is. "Mysticism" such as the Sufi teachings, etc., grow out of mystic experiences that someone had and has tried to express in words for others--something that does not work very well, mostly.

Because it is a personal experience that cannot be replicated and measured in an external, so-called "objective" sense, its value as a base of knowledge is rejected outright by the empiricist school of thought of modern materialist philosophy--although other schools of materialism may be more accepting.

There is nothing preventing an atheist from having a mystic experience; based on my reading of his work, I believe Albert Einstein to have been such a mystic; the works of Carl Sagan strongly suggest that he was as well--his novel Contact, for example, was an investigation into the experience of a scientist who has what can only be described as a mystic experience. There are others, of course. The person who has had a mystic experience approaches the world with a different view than they did before the experience: they see more clearly the wonder and mystery of reality, and recognize the limits and possibilities of the human mind to comprehend even a small part of that reality. That viewpoint is clearly reflected in the writings of Einstein, Sagan and others.

At least, that is my understanding: based in part on having had mystic experiences, and in part on having carefully read a great variety of material about mystics and mysticism. Others' results may vary.

My results vary.

When Einstein died on April 18, 1955 he left a piece of writing ending in an unfinished sentence. These were his last words:

"In essence, the conflict that exists today is no more than an old-style struggle for power, once again presented to mankind in semireligious trappings. The difference is that, this time, the development of atomic power has imbued the struggle with a ghostly character; for both parties know and admit that, should the quarrel deteriorate into actual war, mankind is doomed. Despite this knowledge, statesmen in responsible positions on both sides continue to employ the well-known technique of seeking to intimidate and demoralize the opponent by marshaling superior military strength. They do so even though such a policy entails the risk of war and doom. Not one statesman in a position of responsibility has dared to pursue the only course that holds out any promise of peace, the course of supranational security, since for a statesman to follow such a course would be tantamount to political suicide. Political passions, once they have been fanned into flame, exact their victims ... Citater fra..."


Ok then, Sagan's last words:

[FONT=Book Antiqua, Times New Roman, Times]'We live on a hunk of rock and metal that circles a humdrum star that is one of 400 billion other stars that make up the Milky Way Galaxy which is one of billions of other galaxies which make up a universe which may be one of a very large number, perhaps an infinite number, of other universes. That is a perspective on human life and our culture that is well worth pondering.'[/FONT]

Well. Mysticism? Religiosity?

Um, you tell me.

I leave the magic wand of revisionism in your hands now...

 

[s2a]

It may require coming to terms, but the consensus of responses on this thread indicate that while religious faith does not preclude mysticism, religious faith is not necessary for mysticism. Einstein was brought out simply as an example that that scientific mind does not preclude mysticism either.

The significant difference between them to me is revelation. Religious faith sits and waits. Mysticism sits and practices.

I understand.

You are wrong.

Einstein did not wish to believe his own predictions might be true. His successors (ironically) proved him to be correct.

 

[s2a]

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.

For the most part, me too.

Whatever happens in DIR's, should stay in DIR's. and I do my best to avoid all DIR's except when they invite commentary from other DIR's, like "atheism" (and I do). As if often enjoin others to do...you can "look it up. I let DIR's "live" as they see fit with no outside commentaries. Like Vegas, ya'll are welcome to "discuss" amongst yourselves whatever you think is "worthy" of "discussion", minus that unpleasant aspect of actual debate.

Continue on please. Just know that when comparisons are to be distinguished or drawn upon in open forum... the "mean", "insincere" people like me WILL offer differing views to ponder upon.

I have no interest to pee in your cornflakes.

I believed my inquiries were even fair to be introduced within this DIR forum (not even as debate, but to better understand the differences), but was instead answered by non-sequitur and ad hominum replies upon my sincerity and implied unfair "sarcasm".

OK, my bad.

I promise to ignore all here.

My bad.

My only defense is a final reminder of the initially presented OP:
Is Mysticism possible in an Atheistic worldview

Perhaps it may be that "atheists" need not reply.

 

[Windwalker]

My results vary.

What are the results of your mystical experiences then? What have your experiences been, and what insights did you take away from them?

When Einstein died on April 18, 1955 he left a piece of writing ending in an unfinished sentence. These were his last words:

"In essence, the conflict that exists today is no more than an old-style struggle for power, once again presented to mankind in semireligious trappings. The difference is that, this time, the development of atomic power has imbued the struggle with a ghostly character; for both parties know and admit that, should the quarrel deteriorate into actual war, mankind is doomed. Despite this knowledge, statesmen in responsible positions on both sides continue to employ the well-known technique of seeking to intimidate and demoralize the opponent by marshaling superior military strength. They do so even though such a policy entails the risk of war and doom. Not one statesman in a position of responsibility has dared to pursue the only course that holds out any promise of peace, the course of supranational security, since for a statesman to follow such a course would be tantamount to political suicide. Political passions, once they have been fanned into flame, exact their victims ... Citater fra..."


Ok then, Sagan's last words:

[FONT=Book Antiqua, Times New Roman, Times]'We live on a hunk of rock and metal that circles a humdrum star that is one of 400 billion other stars that make up the Milky Way Galaxy which is one of billions of other galaxies which make up a universe which may be one of a very large number, perhaps an infinite number, of other universes. That is a perspective on human life and our culture that is well worth pondering.'[/FONT]

Well. Mysticism? Religiosity?

Um, you tell me.

I leave the magic wand of revisionism in your hands now...

What on earth does any of this have to do with being incompatible with mysticism? I completely agree with every word of their insights here.

Please tell me what you believe mysticism is. Clearly we're not talking the same page here. So lets start with your views since nothing you've presented as objections to "mysticism" conflicts with actual mysticism.

I'll put it this way, if I said to you that atheism is messed up because it's all about eating babies, would you think I was making a valid argument?

 

[Windwalker]

I believed my inquiries were even fair to be introduced within this DIR forum (not even as debate, but to better understand the differences), but was instead answered by non-sequitur and ad hominum replies upon my sincerity and implied unfair "sarcasm".

I'll refresh your memory to which you yourself admitted was dripping with sarcasm. You didn't ask me a sincere question in any sort of respectful manner. You presented it laced with insults. If you say you're 55 years old, then why is it you didn't learn something in basic communication between individuals 40 years ago when you were supposed to have? Or are you the kind of guy that just goes around getting his face punched all the time in his interactions with people?

There is nothing I have said that merits insults. I responded as any adult would to the taunts of a juvenile delinquent, which is how you spoke to me and others pointed out quite clearly. Once again, take responsibility for yourself. Don't blame me for responding appropriately to your insulting tone. I am more than happy to answer any sincere question you have. There's no dodging questions here on my part. Or are you just setting the other up to say they're avoiding answering your "tough" questions by being a bully to them?

So please, ask away in an adult manner, and I'll happily answer clearly and rationally any question you have. I have no doubt it will expose that you are mistaken in your ideas of what mysticism is. If you are sincerely interested, I would expect you would be happy to be corrected. I certainly am in any area. Knowledge is power. Are you interested in increasing yours here, or are you content believing what you believe regardless of what information is there for you to learn from?

 

[Windwalker]

Einstein did not wish to believe his own predictions might be true. His successors (ironically) proved him to be correct.

Einstein was not speaking of mystical awareness in any sort of scientific predictions. You do not understand what mysticism is. Please read his words again. He says that is about a knowledge of that which supasses human knowledge! All our sciences are human knowledge! He's not making scientific claims based on mystical awareness. You need to dial in to what people are saying instead of making up fictions as you go. Here, read his words again,

"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science. He to whom the emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand wrapped in awe, is as good as dead —his eyes are closed. The insight into the mystery of life, coupled though it be with fear, has also given rise to religion. To know what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty, which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their most primitive forms—this knowledge, this feeling is at the center of true religiousness.”

- Albert Einstein, Living Philosophies​

I bolded a bunch of words to draw your attention to them so they aren't missed. These "dull faculties" he speaks of is the reasoning mind, all our scientific inquires, all our philosophies, all our speculations, all our theologies, all our reasonings. I'm make it explicitly clear, mysticism in not a rational investigation, it's an existential one. You know what this, right? It is the knowledge of Self. And that is no object outside ourselves, but contains and permeates everything, and which is ourselves and ourselves that. You do not investigate that with science. You investigate it with your being.

Again, please tell all of us what you think mysticism is. Does it sound anything like what I just described? Anything like what Einstein described? We are inviting you to become knowledgeable by asking questions.

 

[Willamena]

I understand.

You are wrong.

Einstein did not wish to believe his own predictions might be true. His successors (ironically) proved him to be correct.

Edit: I mis-read that.

I'm not familiar with Einstein's feelings about his predictions, but I don't think it significant to what I said. His scientific work and scientific mind does not preclude him being a mystic.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

What are the results of your mystical experiences then? What have your experiences been, and what insights did you take away from them?


What on earth does any of this have to do with being incompatible with mysticism? I completely agree with every word of their insights here.

Please tell me what you believe mysticism is. Clearly we're not talking the same page here. So lets start with your views since nothing you've presented as objections to "mysticism" conflicts with actual mysticism.

I'll put it this way, if I said to you that atheism is messed up because it's all about eating babies, would you think I was making a valid argument?

Thank you, Windwalker! I'll also respond a bit later, when I have some time to compose a response. :yes:

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

My results vary.

When Einstein died on April 18, 1955 he left a piece of writing ending in an unfinished sentence. These were his last words:

"In essence, the conflict that exists today is no more than an old-style struggle for power, once again presented to mankind in semireligious trappings. The difference is that, this time, the development of atomic power has imbued the struggle with a ghostly character; for both parties know and admit that, should the quarrel deteriorate into actual war, mankind is doomed. Despite this knowledge, statesmen in responsible positions on both sides continue to employ the well-known technique of seeking to intimidate and demoralize the opponent by marshaling superior military strength. They do so even though such a policy entails the risk of war and doom. Not one statesman in a position of responsibility has dared to pursue the only course that holds out any promise of peace, the course of supranational security, since for a statesman to follow such a course would be tantamount to political suicide. Political passions, once they have been fanned into flame, exact their victims ... Citater fra..."


Ok then, Sagan's last words:

[FONT=Book Antiqua, Times New Roman, Times]'We live on a hunk of rock and metal that circles a humdrum star that is one of 400 billion other stars that make up the Milky Way Galaxy which is one of billions of other galaxies which make up a universe which may be one of a very large number, perhaps an infinite number, of other universes. That is a perspective on human life and our culture that is well worth pondering.'[/FONT]

Well. Mysticism? Religiosity?

Um, you tell me.

I leave the magic wand of revisionism in your hands now...

Revisionism? I've long operated under the assumption that it is quite okay for two or more people to review the same evidence, and on the basis of their own sets of knowledge and experience and preferences, draw different conclusions. Especially on matters for which there can be no certain conclusion, such as the beliefs of now deceased persons. Of course, I forgot, YOU have absolute truth on your side, therefore any other interpretations must be wrong. :no:

Please explain how either of these passages demonstrates that neither of these self-declared atheists were mystics, in the sense that people who normally inhabit this Mysticism DIR are describing. Not the dictionary, common-usage meaning, but the meaning the philosophers and those who have experienced and have studied the experience describe it.

Religiosity? Certainly not, because there is no reason for a mystic to have any connection to religion, and these two eschewed religion and theology. Mysticism? Certainly.

These quotes are perfectly compatible (to me at least) with the idea that the authors are, if not actual mystics (defined as having experienced a state of mind in which they felt some connection to the numinous, the wonder, of existence), are at least appreciative of the experience. And elsewhere in their voluminous writings, both do describe their own personal experiences, which do fit the description of a mystic experience as it is understood in the field. Einstein's description of the moment on the trolley when he visualized the effects of relativity for the first time certainly reads like a mystical experience. Sagan described becoming caught up in the flow of drops of water down his arm while taking a shower--also sounding like a mystical experience. Both repeatedly wrote and spoke of the emotional experience of awe in contemplation of reality, in almost poetic terms--and that is certainly evidence of having had a mystic experience to me.

I'm certainly okay with you not believing they were mystics, but you'll have to do better to convince me otherwise. But since this is a DIR and not a debate board, let's leave it at that: you don't believe Einstein and Sagan were mystics; that's fine with me.

The OP asked of the participants on the Mysticism DIR if atheists could be mystics, and said that he/she his/herself was indeed an atheistic mystic, at least by her/his own definition of mysticism (which while it might fall under a very broad definition, does not seem to be particularly close the definition many of us would use). Others here have agreed that it is not only possible, it is likely, using the definitions that are common in the mysticism field. Many examples have been cited.

Understand, please, that to those who have had, and who have studied and researched mysticism and mystic experiences, not everything in the world that is called mystic or mysticism really qualifies, and just because YOU call something mystic or mysticism doesn't mean that the participants in this DIR will agree with you.

 

[Willamena]

My results vary.

When Einstein died on April 18, 1955 he left a piece of writing ending in an unfinished sentence. These were his last words:

"In essence, the conflict that exists today is no more than an old-style struggle for power, once again presented to mankind in semireligious trappings. The difference is that, this time, the development of atomic power has imbued the struggle with a ghostly character; for both parties know and admit that, should the quarrel deteriorate into actual war, mankind is doomed. Despite this knowledge, statesmen in responsible positions on both sides continue to employ the well-known technique of seeking to intimidate and demoralize the opponent by marshaling superior military strength. They do so even though such a policy entails the risk of war and doom. Not one statesman in a position of responsibility has dared to pursue the only course that holds out any promise of peace, the course of supranational security, since for a statesman to follow such a course would be tantamount to political suicide. Political passions, once they have been fanned into flame, exact their victims ... Citater fra..."


Ok then, Sagan's last words:

[FONT=Book Antiqua, Times New Roman, Times]'We live on a hunk of rock and metal that circles a humdrum star that is one of 400 billion other stars that make up the Milky Way Galaxy which is one of billions of other galaxies which make up a universe which may be one of a very large number, perhaps an infinite number, of other universes. That is a perspective on human life and our culture that is well worth pondering.'[/FONT]

Well. Mysticism? Religiosity?

Why must they be either?

 

[s2a]

Revisionism? I've long operated under the assumption that it is quite okay for two or more people to review the same evidence, and on the basis of their own sets of knowledge and experience and preferences, draw different conclusions. Especially on matters for which there can be no certain conclusion, such as the beliefs of now deceased persons. Of course, I forgot, YOU have absolute truth on your side, therefore any other interpretations must be wrong. :no:

Pretty much. You are wrong.

Please explain how either of these passages demonstrates that neither of these self-declared atheists were mystics, in the sense that people who normally inhabit this Mysticism DIR are describing. Not the dictionary, common-usage meaning, but the meaning the philosophers and those who have experienced and have studied the experience describe it.

Must I? Shall I consult the likes of Sean Hannity for his insight and wisdom instead?

Or, someone even dumber?

The depths go really low here...

Religiosity? Certainly not, because there is no reason for a mystic to have any connection to religion, and these two eschewed religion and theology. Mysticism? Certainly.

Cool, Then perhaps you are the source sought...please explain the differences tio us ignoramuses.

These quotes are perfectly compatible (to me at least) with the idea that the authors are, if not actual mystics (defined as having experienced a state of mind in which they felt some connection to the numinous, the wonder, of existence), are at least appreciative of the experience. And elsewhere in their voluminous writings, both do describe their own personal experiences, which do fit the description of a mystic experience as it is understood in the field. Einstein's description of the moment on the trolley when he visualized the effects of relativity for the first time certainly reads like a mystical experience.

Interesting. Is that how Einstein described that "revelation", or just your interpretation?

Sagan described becoming caught up in the flow of drops of water down his arm while taking a shower--also sounding like a mystical experience.

"Sounds like"? Really. Ever heard of "projection"?

Both repeatedly wrote and spoke of the emotional experience of awe in contemplation of reality, in almost poetic terms--and that is certainly evidence of having had a mystic experience to me.

To YOU, no doubt. Sounds like you also witnessed a messiah in a piece of toast.

So what?

I'm certainly okay with you not believing they were mystics, but you'll have to do better to convince me otherwise.

I have little interest here in doing so.

But since this is a DIR and not a debate board, let's leave it at that: you don't believe Einstein and Sagan were mystics; that's fine with me.

Fine with me too.

You lose.

The OP asked of the participants on the Mysticism DIR if atheists could be mystics, and said that he/she his/herself was indeed an atheistic mystic, at least by her/his own definition of mysticism (which while it might fall under a very broad definition, does not seem to be particularly close the definition many of us would use). Others here have agreed that it is not only possible, it is likely, using the definitions that are common in the mysticism field. Many examples have been cited.

As if multitudes of testimonials ever served as "proof".

Understand, please, that to those who have had, and who have studied and researched mysticism and mystic experiences, not everything in the world that is called mystic or mysticism really qualifies, and just because YOU call something mystic or mysticism doesn't mean that the participants in this DIR will agree with you.

I know. I get that. So be it.

 

[Desert Snake]

The mystical experience, which I prefer to call 'contemplation', has nothing to do with belief or non-belief or any other set of contraries or concepts.

Consider the, 'Verses on the Ecstasy of Deep Contemplation' by Saint John of the Cross. It is emblematic of a very profound mystical state in which the consciousness of the saint has had to surrender all beliefs, ideas, concepts and images that he previously had held on to and in his own words "rest in unknowing".

I feel that it is one of the closest approximations to the mystical experience ever committed to poetry and it might help you understand why personal beliefs are quite moot at such a stage:

First off, it's a 'saint'. That fact indicates that unlike the "story" you're presenting me, most likely he wasn't in some void of non-belief, even if his belief read non-atheism was not involved in his meditations or mystical experiences. Therefore, your entire theory falls flat, because he wasn't a proclaimed atheist.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Pretty much. You are wrong.

Must I? Shall I consult the likes of Sean Hannity for his insight and wisdom instead?

Or, someone even dumber?

The depths go really low here...

Cool, Then perhaps you are the source sought...please explain the differences tio us ignoramuses.

Interesting. Is that how Einstein described that "revelation", or just your interpretation?

"Sounds like"? Really. Ever heard of "projection"?

To YOU, no doubt. Sounds like you also witnessed a messiah in a piece of toast.

So what?

I have little interest here in doing so.

Fine with me too.

You lose.



As if multitudes of testimonials ever served as "proof".



I know. I get that. So be it.

lol. You're really something.

 

[Vouthon]

First off, it's a 'saint'. That fact indicates that unlike the "story" you're presenting me, most likely he wasn't in some void of non-belief, even if his belief read non-atheism was not involved in his meditations or mystical experiences. Therefore, your entire theory falls flat, because he wasn't a proclaimed atheist.

Friend, again you have got the wrong end of the stick.

I quoted his words as an example of how irrelevant beliefs regarding God or the non-existence thereof are during mystical states.

I never insinuated that he was a "proclaimed atheist". :sarcastic

Here is another Christian mystic who states the same, perhaps in simpler prose:

"...We must seek for the depths of our souls and we must find them. We must go into our house, our souls; and all our senses, everything to do with them, and everything which comes to us through them must all be left outside: all images, all forms, everything which our imagination has ever brought us, however rational it may be. Even our reason and its workings must he left outside....

Not everyone will understand what I am saying, though I always speak plain German. Those who have experienced something of what I am talking about and have been enlightened by it will understand what I mean; but no one else will. When I speak of "going in," I do not mean entering into one's soul occasionally, only to come out again and occupy oneself wholly with created things. And when I say that God seeks man in his house and ransacks it, I mean that in this house, in the depths of our souls, we are utterly deprived of all the ideas and conceptions of God by which we have ever thought of Him before. Our house is ransacked; it is as if we had never known anything about God at all. As He seeks, for us, this happens again and again; every idea that we ever had of Him, every manifestation of Him that we have ever known, every conception and revelation of Him which we ever had will be taken away from us as He searches to find us..."

- Johannes Tauler (1300 - 1361), Dominican mystic

 

[Windwalker]

Exactly. One can climb the path to mystical states on a theistic paths, or on non-theistic paths. But at the summit these are transcended. They are approaches, not the destination. God or not-God is moot at that point. The answer to both is "of course!".

I think people confuse the finger pointing with what is being pointed to. As you said, they are at the wrong end of the stick.

 

[Vouthon]

Exactly. One can climb the path to mystical states on a theistic paths, or on non-theistic paths. But at the summit these are transcended. They are approaches, not the destination. God or not-God is moot at that point. The answer to both is "of course!".

What is interesting to me are the number of theistic mystics, particularly those who fell under the influence of Eckhart and the Dionysian tradition in the West, who speak of transcending the idea of God or letting go of God to find the "hidden God".

An example is Blessed Henry Suso:

"...In order to attain perfect union, we must divest ourselves of God...The common belief about God, that He is a great Taskmaster, whose function is to reward or punish, is cast out by perfect love; and in this sense the spiritual man does divest himself of God as conceived of by most people. The intellectual 'where' is the essential unnameable nothingness. So we must call it, because we can discover no mode of being, under which to conceive it...it seems to us to be no-thing...This is the highest goal and the 'where' beyond boundaries. In this the spirituality of all spirits ends. Here to lose oneself forever is eternal happiness...This naked unity is a dark stillness and a restful calm that no one can understand except one into whom unity has shined with its essence. Out of this calm rest true freedom without any evil shines...Here in this region beyond thought the human spirit actively soars...In this wild mountain region of the 'where' beyond God there is an abyss full of play and feeling for all pure spirits, and the spirit enters into this secret namelessness and into this wild, foreign terrain. ..."

- Blessed Henry Suso (c. 1296-1366), Dominican mystic

I point to this line in particular:

"In this wild mountain region of the 'where' beyond God there is an abyss full of play and feeling for all pure spirits, and the spirit enters into this secret namelessness and into this wild, foreign terrain"

The mystic expressly refers to a mystical state (which he compares to a 'wild mountain region') in which he passes beyond God into an "abyss full of play and feeling" for people who have purified themselves of attachments and inordinate desires, which he says is a "secret namelessness".

A note of interest - Henry Suso was Meister Eckhart's closest disciple:

"...Another Dominican mystic of this period is the Blessed Henry Suso, or Heinrich Seuse, to give him his original German name. The son of a noble Swabian family, he was born near Lake Constance, on the border between Switzerland and Germany...Suso entered the Dominican order at the age of thirteen, but found monastic life rather difficult until he experienced a conversion and spiritual awakening. He subsequently studied under Eckhart in Cologne and became a devoted follower and great admirer of his beloved teacher. By 1326 Suso was back in Constance, where he wrote his famous Büchlein der Wahrheit, or Little Book of Truth, which is full of mystical reflection...Suso experienced intense mystical states and visions that made him see ultimate reality as eternal, uncreated truth in which all things have their source and being. He goes even beyond Eckhart in his understanding of divine and human oneness—a state in which “something and nothing are the same.”...Suso preached widely in the Upper Rhineland and Switzerland, enjoying great popularity wherever he went...Suso must have left a deep impression on his contemporaries, for the veneration of the “Blessed Henry Suso” began soon after his death, although officially the Church did not beatify him until 1831..."

- Ursula King, in "Christian Mystics: Their Lives and Legacies Throughout the Ages" (2001)

 

[Desert Snake]

Friend, again you have got the wrong end of the stick.

I quoted his words as an example of how irrelevant beliefs regarding God or the non-existence thereof are during mystical states.

I never insinuated that he was a "proclaimed atheist". :sarcastic

Here is another Christian mystic who states the same, perhaps in simpler prose:

Again, you didn't understand what I was saying in the first place, so you present something from a non-atheist, irrelevant.

 

[Windwalker]

Again, you didn't understand what I was saying in the first place, so you present something from a non-atheist, irrelevant.

I presented something from Einstein. Wasn't that good enough? Would like more non-theists?

Lets start with these:

• Einstein
• Schroedinger
• Heisenberg
• Bohr
• Eddington
• Pauli
• de Broglie
• Jeans
• Planck

All of these men were modern physicists and non approached mysticism as religionists. I don't believe any of them were traditional theists, and many if not all embraced as atheist. Yet all of them were mystics of one sort or another! There you go. Good enough?