lovemuffin
τὸν ἄρτον τοῦ ἔρωτος
I think Marxism is an attempt to reach a synthesis rather than an anti-thesis. An Anti-thesis would be more characteristic of an eliminative materialism, which tries to eliminate consciousness and therefore all religious belief, whereas Marxism does recognize an objective source for religious belief in the world, only that it is material and not spiritual. It is the fact that matter is primary, which leads to the rejection of mystical concepts.
"Every illusion has its source in reality..."
To me, the quoted part still seems eliminative. That's what "illusion" indicates. Or at least its eliminative as far it having some significance beyond the physical. It eliminates the part that is important to me by dismissing it as illusory
The closest Marxism comes to mysticism is 'Freudo-Marxism'
Just want to say, I love this term. Maybe because it sounds like Pseudo.
How did people achieve the state of purity with which to experience God? There must necessarily have been a predictable path for people to follow for religious belief to reproduce itself through the generations. That suggests that it is not ineffable, but again comes back to the question of "how" something can be known.
This probably depends on the religious tradition, but we might first of all distinguish between the ineffability of the divine, as far as the impossibility of a comprehensive knowledge about that reality, and the possibility of a path that is (at least somewhat) dependable at leading towards the experience of that ineffable reality. Even here I think it's a "yes, but..." in many religious traditions. There is the element of "grace", to use a Christian term, which is unpredictable.
In a sense, in Christian monastic tradition, there is this sort of expectation that striving towards purity will allow a more complete and full experience of God, but it's neither a pre-requisite to having any experience, nor is it a guarantee of having a specific experience. It is neither strictly necessary nor entirely sufficient, at least as far as mystical experience goes. There is a saying in the Dhammapada that says "in the sky there are no footsteps", which was echoed independently by St. John of the Cross. Past a certain point in the cultivation of spiritual experience, there are no formulas. But there is also the idea that in order to be open to a certain experience and knowledge and reality, in order to grow and reach your full potential, you do have to be open to that reality, that "who has ears to hear may hear", as Jesus said. The paths, the idea of purification, of ascesis, spiritual and moral effort, is a pre-condition in that sense. It prepares the ground, so to speak. But it's not a strict formulaic sort of thing, and I think the best explanation for that is that we are not simple machines, and it's not purely a question of achieving an artificial experience but a cultivation of one's entire life and being, where individual psychology, history, conditioning, culture, and everything else comes into play.