Leaving Jesus is not Leaving God!

[Antlerman]

Yes indeed - back full circle - but with another dimension added. The dimension of how humans "know" things. And "exploring how we arrive at knowledge" as well as the more subtle ways of "knowing" is a discussion that could get very complex, as you mentioned yourself.

Cool. Let's go there, shall we? (But not tonight)

[Open_Minded]

Yes indeed - back full circle - but with another dimension added. The dimension of how humans "know" things. And "exploring how we arrive at knowledge" as well as the more subtle ways of "knowing" is a discussion that could get very complex, as you mentioned yourself.

Cool. Let's go there, shall we? (But not tonight)

 

Sounds good to me Antlerman

 

And if we take things at a paced rate... I'm fine with that as well.

 

On another note. Earlier you asked me about my own faith. It occurred to me - after posting an answer - that I should have referred you to an earlier thread. Week's ago, when I joined this forum, I got into a conversation with Mr. Grinch and others in a thread titled: "The Silly-Putty® Bible". It's on the third page in the Lion's Den. Here's the link: http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?showtopic=5088

 

Reading through this thread might give you some more detailed answers about the way I approach Biblical interpretation and answer your questions about my "faith"

 

Anyway, I look forward to further discussion

[Amethyst]

There is a “spell” operating within everyone on this forum. But please understand that when I say “spell” I am not talking about a hocus pocus type of thing, but rather a logical mental thing which causes a certain type of behavior. This spell is one that creates and inspires disagreement and argument.

 

This is no magic, it's called debate. There is nothing supernatural about it. This is a forum for debates. If you want a forum where everyone agrees with you and can post no disagreements, you should really start your own. I recommend Blogger or Live Journal. Both are free or low cost and you can ban whoever you don't like from commenting on your blog.

[Antlerman]

Yes indeed - back full circle - but with another dimension added. The dimension of how humans "know" things. And "exploring how we arrive at knowledge" as well as the more subtle ways of "knowing" is a discussion that could get very complex, as you mentioned yourself.

Cool. Let's go there, shall we? (But not tonight)

 

Sounds good to me Antlerman

 

And if we take things at a paced rate... I'm fine with that as well.

 

On another note. Earlier you asked me about my own faith. It occurred to me - after posting an answer - that I should have referred you to an earlier thread. Week's ago, when I joined this forum, I got into a conversation with Mr. Grinch and others in a thread titled: "The Silly-Putty® Bible". It's on the third page in the Lion's Den. Here's the link: http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?showtopic=5088

 

Reading through this thread might give you some more detailed answers about the way I approach Biblical interpretation and answer your questions about my "faith"

 

Anyway, I look forward to further discussion

I have just finished reading the page of posts and your responses. I'm sorry I missed that when it was being posted. I'm very happy to have read it today. I don't know how to say this exactly, but it is possible that you are today what I may well be tomorrow. I have lately come close to calling myself a Christian Atheist, though there are many reasons at this point I cannot. Suffice to say, my being an atheist does not at all mean a lack of spiritual connectiveness with myself or the world, or life around me. It is just a deliberate voiding of religious symbols for, I suppose I could call it "connotive reasons"?

 

You of course had to quote John 1:1-14. I spent around 4 months studying and contemplating that passage and to this day am still awed by its depth and power. That said I don't know the road I am on could ever be able to overcome the associations that come with a direct interaction with the "spiritual parts" of scripture, yet for all that I know it is there and in very many regards, those principles are lived out in my life. Not out of a dutiful compliance to a set of rules. Quite the contrary, but because they are meaningful to me and are fruitful in practice to healing and unity in the world.

 

I see as you, that Christianity would not be the exclusive holders of the keys, nor that anyone else does either. How I process this at this time is that the Bible and other writings of Wisdom come/came from the spirit that comes from within the hearts and minds of human beings. Those things that are of higher ideals are what we would collectively call, "divine". "God" essentially is "us", what we want to be in pursuit of becoming more aware of and connected to our own existence. Is there a real divine essence outside us? Is that an important "truth" for us to determine?

 

This said I certainly hope you remain among us on the site. I've hoped for sometime for someone who might be able to articulate these things like this in the way my mind can processes them without a prerequiste of intellectual suicide. Which by the way would seqway into that topic of epistimologial mysticism, but I will forgo that for the time. But for now, thanks!

[Open_Minded]

Suffice to say, my being an atheist does not at all mean a lack of spiritual connectiveness with myself or the world, or life around me. It is just a deliberate voiding of religious symbols for, I suppose I could call it "connotive reasons"?

 

I've a better understanding of it than I did a few months ago. This forum has given me a real education about negative impact religious language and ritual can have on a person's mind and ability to connect with the sacred.

 

You of course had to quote John 1:1-14. I spent around 4 months studying and contemplating that passage and to this day am still awed by its depth and power.

 

OK - now I'm curious. Four months studying and contemplating that passage - what did you learn from this process

 

This said I certainly hope you remain among us on the site. I've hoped for sometime for someone who might be able to articulate these things like this in the way my mind can processes them without a prerequiste of intellectual suicide. Which by the way would seqway into that topic of epistimologial mysticism, but I will forgo that for the time. But for now, thanks!

 

I do intend to remain here. The lessons I'm learning help me relate to people in my own life. And anytime you're ready for a discussion on epistimologial mysticism just let me know

[Antlerman]

OK - now I'm curious. Four months studying and contemplating that passage - what did you learn from this process

It was so long ago. I don't remember.

 

Seriously though it was more than just that one passage, but it was largely centered on the concepts of the passage. I was going in the ministry as a Pentecostal minister and after graduating Bible College, I had to work out some deep-seated doubts I had about their doctrines, theology, and scholarship before I could in all good conscience use my abilities to persuade and lead people into something I questioned this deeply.

 

The particular Christian sect I was in did not believe in the doctrine of the Trinity. They set themselves apart from and above all of Christendom because of their views. Historically they would be known as Modelistic Monarchians. I obviously had seen some validity to their views, but in time discovered their scholarship and subsequent theology was a shoddy house of cards. What was of a far deeper disturbance then that to me though, was their legalistic and self-righteous dismissals of all of Christendom while they themselves, were not even a shadow of the scholarship that preceded them! At its heart was arrogance, not spirituality. Was all of Christianity throughout history only meant as the "scaffolding" to bring back the "true" church?? Ridiculous!! And this can be said of all modern fundamentalists!

 

So John 1:1 - 14 was one particular verse they used to support a radical monotheist theology, but Trinitarians also used this. So I spent a great deal of time on it with many other things, and came to a far deeper understanding of the concept of the Logos. What I got from it was far more than a debate over Seballian, Arius, and Tertullian arguments, but the concept of divine expression.

 

The concept of the Logos being "effulgence" of God's glory, the Manifestor of God, the Revealer of God, the Creative expression of God - as a part of the nature of God, becoming human as a continuance of that nature He/It possessed and fulfilled in eternity, as an expression of close and intimate connection with us! Well frankly it blew me away. Screw the issues of 3 persons in one god, or 3 manifestations of one God, and whatnot, this was far more interesting and transcended theological quibbling.

 

Now, does this convince me of some *real* truth? Well, I suppose what I could say is that these concepts about the divine (which clearly did not originate with John), are an effective way of describing a particular spiritual concept that has meaning to some people. Isn't it all about symbols? This blending of ideas of Platonism and Jewish notions of the Memra of God, at its heart is about viewing God as accessible through his Logos, or "Son". It's about viewing God as "loving" towards us. That's an extremely powerful concept actually, and these sorts of symbols convey a very transcendent concept.

 

Needless to say I left them before bringing more souls into their sect. I went to mainstream Christianity but if found it lacking substance.

 

All for now.

[Open_Minded]

The concept of the Logos being "effulgence" of God's glory, the Manifestor of God, the Revealer of God, the Creative expression of God - as a part of the nature of God, becoming human as a continuance of that nature He/It possessed and fulfilled in eternity, as an expression of close and intimate connection with us! Well frankly it blew me away. Screw the issues of 3 persons in one god, or 3 manifestations of one God, and whatnot, this was far more interesting and transcended theological quibbling.

 

Now, does this convince me of some *real* truth? Well, I suppose what I could say is that these concepts about the divine (which clearly did not originate with John), are an effective way of describing a particular spiritual concept that has meaning to some people. Isn't it all about symbols? This blending of ideas of Platonism and Jewish notions of the Memra of God, at its heart is about viewing God as accessible through his Logos, or "Son". It's about viewing God as "loving" towards us. That's an extremely powerful concept actually, and these sorts of symbols convey a very transcendent concept.

 

Yes... this passage has connected with me in various ways all throughout my spiritual life (both beyond and within Christianity). It is a passage that can impact on so many different levels.

[Antlerman]

Yes... this passage has connected with me in various ways all throughout my spiritual life (both beyond and within Christianity). It is a passage that can impact on so many different levels.

You know it's symbolically meaningful to me as a musician also. When I write music, and hit that "vein" of inspiration, the expression that comes out transcends what words can. It is art, and art be it music, painting, poetry, etc is an expression of some deep inner vision, or "sense" that issues forth from beyond thought. This is how I imagine Creation through the metaphor of "God's Logos". Interesting thoughts from an atheist, no?

 

P.S. I'm listening to some Polka music someone claims is Dixieland! I sincerly do not consider this music divine by any stretch of imagination!

[Open_Minded]

You know it's symbolically meaningful to me as a musician also. When I write music, and hit that "vein" of inspiration, the expression that comes out transcends what words can. It is art, and art be it music, painting, poetry, etc is an expression of some deep inner vision, or "sense" that issues forth from beyond thought. This is how I imagine Creation through the metaphor of "God's Logos". Interesting thoughts from an atheist, no?

 

 

Ah... Antlerman

 

We are circling around again, you know this. Your writing above takes me right back to another post I made earlier, post 92 to be exact:

 

Hello just jumping in here again. Remember the website that I suggested you all check out... ?http://www.quantumconsciousness.org

 

On this website is a newsarticle about their work, following is a quote from this article...

 

But few thinkers purport to understand how all of these brain functions supposedly give rise to the reality inside our noggins.

 

Chalmers, a steely-eyed rationalist when the need arises, is not above indulging in a little speculation on the matter. And surprise, surprise he suggests that perhaps consciousness is a bit too complicated to be invested exclusively in our puny, palpitating brain tissues.

 

"You know, we have physicists who want to build a so-called Theory of Everything using just a few basics, such as spacetime, mass and charge," Chalmers notes. "They want to explain everything in terms of a few reductionist components. And they can certainly explain a whole lot of complicated stuff that way maybe even chemistry, life and behavior.

 

"But consciousness seems to be left out. And so what I tend to think is that if we're reasoning consistently about these things, if we've got something that these fundamentals can't explain, then we need something else which is new and fundamental.

So I've argued that perhaps we need to view consciousness as a kind of fundamental constituent of reality

."

 

For years I've trusted that my moments of "inspiration" come from something much deeper than myself. I wouldn't say for certain that there is a fundamental constituent of reality, like "cosmic consciousness" for lack of a better term. It can't be proven. But.... ahhhh... the moments of inspiration the subtle awareness that our own thoughts do not always originate from our own feeble little minds. Yes, LOGOS, connects on a very intimate level if one allows it to

[Guest Lev Bronstein]

All atheists are liars!

 

Everyone know that God exists.

[Open_Minded]

All atheists are liars!

 

Everyone know that God exists.

Poor Lev... came in where he wasn't invited.... Now I'll step back and let the firing begin

[Antlerman]

All atheists are liars!

 

Everyone know that God exists.

Your Lord rebuke your potty mouth in calling me a liar! That is against the spirit of the God you prentend to believe in. BTW, you know? Now who is the liar? You can't know that. No one can. Now go judge your brothers and sister in the Lord or something, high and respectable one.

[NotBlinded]

All atheists are liars!

 

Everyone know that God exists.

[NotBlinded]

You know it's symbolically meaningful to me as a musician also. When I write music, and hit that "vein" of inspiration, the expression that comes out transcends what words can. It is art, and art be it music, painting, poetry, etc is an expression of some deep inner vision, or "sense" that issues forth from beyond thought. This is how I imagine Creation through the metaphor of "God's Logos". Interesting thoughts from an atheist, no?

 

 

Ah... Antlerman

 

We are circling around again, you know this. Your writing above takes me right back to another post I made earlier, post 92 to be exact:

 

Hello just jumping in here again. Remember the website that I suggested you all check out... ?http://www.quantumconsciousness.org

 

On this website is a newsarticle about their work, following is a quote from this article...

 

But few thinkers purport to understand how all of these brain functions supposedly give rise to the reality inside our noggins.

 

Chalmers, a steely-eyed rationalist when the need arises, is not above indulging in a little speculation on the matter. And surprise, surprise he suggests that perhaps consciousness is a bit too complicated to be invested exclusively in our puny, palpitating brain tissues.

 

"You know, we have physicists who want to build a so-called Theory of Everything using just a few basics, such as spacetime, mass and charge," Chalmers notes. "They want to explain everything in terms of a few reductionist components. And they can certainly explain a whole lot of complicated stuff that way maybe even chemistry, life and behavior.

 

"But consciousness seems to be left out. And so what I tend to think is that if we're reasoning consistently about these things, if we've got something that these fundamentals can't explain, then we need something else which is new and fundamental.

So I've argued that perhaps we need to view consciousness as a kind of fundamental constituent of reality

."

 

For years I've trusted that my moments of "inspiration" come from something much deeper than myself. I wouldn't say for certain that there is a fundamental constituent of reality, like "cosmic consciousness" for lack of a better term. It can't be proven. But.... ahhhh... the moments of inspiration the subtle awareness that our own thoughts do not always originate from our own feeble little minds. Yes, LOGOS, connects on a very intimate level if one allows it to

I love this stuff! Have either of you ever said something and didn't realize what you had said until you thought about it and realized that that was exactly what you thought but didn't realize it? I know that doesn't make any sense does it?

[Antlerman]

I love this stuff! Have either of you ever said something and didn't realize what you had said until you thought about it and realized that that was exactly what you thought but didn't realize it? I know that doesn't make any sense does it?

Oddly enough, that does make sense. Am I passing into the realm of quantum mechanics? Maybe if I just close my eyes and click my heels together 3 times, "There's no place like home. There's no place like home. There's no place like... ahhhhh Toto there you are!!"

[Open_Minded]

Oddly enough, that does make sense. Am I passing into the realm of quantum mechanics? Maybe if I just close my eyes and click my heels together 3 times, "There's no place like home. There's no place like home. There's no place like... ahhhhh Toto there you are!!"

 

Ah yes, it is very easy to get caught up in it all. That is what is so frustrating; because it isn't concrete we don't trust it.

 

This morning I was reading the book Before the Beginning: Our Universe and Others By Martin Rees. It's a good read, but the words that struck me and have stayed with me all day are as follows:

 

It is only because we perceive patterns and regularities in the natural world that science doesn't clog up as a data accumulate. On the contrary, as we come to see how previously disconnected facts hang together, and subsume data into more and more general laws, we need to remember fewer independent basic facts, from which all the rest can be deduced.

 

In other words - it is the patterns we should search for or we will get lost in the details. So… in our on-going discussion we've made a few conclusions.

 

1. At some point along the spiritual journey, the human must give up subjective/objective reasoning.

2. That the possibility exists that there are other ways of "knowing" for the human.

 

Keeping these in mind I went back to one of my favorite books about the mystic way. Maybe the following will give us some direction to take in our discussion of possibilities. Notice the author take time to highlight a pattern that can be shown in multiple cultures and across different historical periods…..

 

 

Mysticism: The Nature and Development of Spiritual Consciousness by Evelyn Underhill

 

Pgs. 63-64

 

The great teacher, poet, artist, inventor, never aims deliberately at his effects. He obtains them he knows not how: perhaps from a contact of which he is unconscious with that creative plane of being which the Sufis call the Constructive Spirit, and the Kabalists Yesod, and which both postulate as lying next behind the world of sense. "Sometimes," said the great Alexandrian Jew Philo, "when I have come to my work empty, I have suddenly become full; ideas being in an invisible manner showered upon me, and implanted in me from on high; so that through the influence of divine inspiration, I have become greatly excited, and have known neither the place in which I was, nor those who were present, nor myself, nor what I was saying, nor what I was writing; for then I have been conscious of a richness of interpretation, an enjoyment of light, a most penetrating insight, a most manifest energy in all that was to be done; having such an effect on my mind as the clearest ocular demonstration would have on the eyes." This is a true creative ecstasy, strictly parallel to the state in which the mystic performs his mighty works.

 

To let oneself go, be quiet, receptive, appears to be the condition under which such contact with the Cosmic Life may be obtained. "I have noticed that when one paints one should think of nothing: everything then comes better," says the young Raphael to Leonardo da Vinci. The superficial self must here acknowledge its own insufficiency, must become the humble servant of a more profound and vital consciousness.

 

See, to me, whatever this other way of "knowing" is; it should be accessible to every human being. It should NOT be supernatural, but very natural.

 

At any rate... I look forward to your thoughts...

[Antlerman]

See, to me, whatever this other way of "knowing" is; it should be accessible to every human being. It should NOT be supernatural, but very natural.

 

At any rate... I look forward to your thoughts...

We are unavoidably moving into the topic of epistemological mysticism. There's another thread started on epistemology, but it seems more focused on the Western approach to knowledge. I think I'd prefer to keep this topic of mysticism part of this overall thread with you.

 

At the outset I should put up front my "knee-jerk" reaction mindset I have when I start talking about what I perceive as mysticism. I'm sure I'm probably tossing out the baby with the bath water, but I have built up walls of rationality against. I have seen too many "wacky" ideas that people in religious pursuits just pull out of the air and go off on bizarre tangents of illogic that many times conflict with good reason and are not in theirs or other's best interests.

 

I think the conversation of inspiration in writing music, along with my profound sense I feel towards nature and life at various times of quite and solitude, sitting in my garden, listening to music, fishing on a lake where no other soul is, etc, is that part of myself I find that I took religious symbols when I was in the system and applied to those experiences. As I said before, it seems now the personal historical connotations of those symbols interferes with the fullness of that experience for me. Oddly enough, I sometimes think the experience is diminished slightly without having an object to focus that sense of the profound towards? Maybe, maybe not. I'll have to consider this.

 

But to the basic question: How does "Knowledge" gained via "mystical" experience (whether we call that "natural" in the sense that we all have the capacity for that within us), operate within the individual? Is it meaningful to anyone other than the one experiencing it? In other words, can it be used in any meaningful way for a society? In what way does it have value and to whom? I guess what I'm getting at is it's "trustworthiness". For instance, Mary says she feels the Lord telling here that he will do this or that, or some other prediction or statement of fact based upon her mystical experience. You see where I'm going? What I've seen of mysticism seems to always run headlong into reason and reality.

 

I realize this may be an overly simplistic question at the outset, but I think starting there may help cast some light on this other that what I assuming based on what I've seen and experienced.

[Open_Minded]

At the outset I should put up front my "knee-jerk" reaction mindset I have when I start talking about what I perceive as mysticism. I'm sure I'm probably tossing out the baby with the bath water, but I have built up walls of rationality against. I have seen too many "wacky" ideas that people in religious pursuits just pull out of the air and go off on bizarre tangents of illogic that many times conflict with good reason and are not in theirs or other's best interests.....

 

But to the basic question: How does "Knowledge" gained via "mystical" experience (whether we call that "natural" in the sense that we all have the capacity for that within us), operate within the individual? Is it meaningful to anyone other than the one experiencing it? In other words, can it be used in any meaningful way for a society? In what way does it have value and to whom? I guess what I'm getting at is it's "trustworthiness". For instance, Mary says she feels the Lord telling here that he will do this or that, or some other prediction or statement of fact based upon her mystical experience. You see where I'm going? What I've seen of mysticism seems to always run headlong into reason and reality.

 

I realize this may be an overly simplistic question at the outset, but I think starting there may help cast some light on this other that what I assuming based on what I've seen and experienced.

 

No... it's entirely appropriate.

 

I've been meditating since I was 17 years old. I've learned eastern approaches, new age approaches and the Christian/western approach. I'm most well versed and most comfortable in the Christian approaches. But, my point is, even with all of this experience I still question my experiences on a rational level... are they "real". That type of thing.

 

What I've learned over the years, from all the different approaches I've studied, is that keeping oneself "grounded" is half the game. It becomes very important, the further one travels on a contemplative path, to intentionally work at staying "grounded". In regard to trusting our own experiences, and the experiences of others there are some ways.

 

One way, I've already mentioned, does the experience we are questioning fit within a pattern of the contemplative experiences across traditions and ages? This one point helps keep me on track in more ways than I can describe in one little post. But, it is the reason I've worked so hard to learn about the mystic traditions of different cultures. It only makes sense if individuals across cultures and timelines had similar experiences than these types experiences are more "classic" and can be "trusted" more.

 

Secondly, I've found it is very helpful to intentionally pursue and maintain relationships with people who come at life from a different point of view. This one thing will keep you grounded, because these people will tell you when they think you're going off the deep end That is, if you pursue relationships with honest people who are different from yourself For instance... this forum is a check on my own "groundedness". By participating in this forum I am forcing myself to use another language to talk about my spirituality besides the Christian language. I have to, or I wouldn't be able to adequately communicate with people who consider themselves ex-christians. Do you see what I mean? By forcing myself to use a broader language than the one of Christianity I am forced to really think through my own spiritual point-of-view.

 

You may also know of some other ways to help maintain a sense of "groundedness" while pursuing a contemplative path?

[Antlerman]

What I've learned over the years, from all the different approaches I've studied, is that keeping oneself "grounded" is half the game. It becomes very important, the further one travels on a contemplative path, to intentionally work at staying "grounded". In regard to trusting our own experiences, and the experiences of others there are some ways.

This makes some sense, though I cannot fully relate to finding "knowledge" though mystical experience. Even as a rationalist, I have to have checks and balances, bouncing my thoughts or notions of others as a way for keeping centered. Too much time isolated can lead one off on some tangents of ill-founded assumptions. So I suppose it's really not too much different in that regard.

 

But what is the knowledge gained? A sense? Or is there some "revelation" of direct knowledge, such as instruction? I'm going to venture a guess based on my own experiences I suppose could be called "mystical": the knowledge would be a greater sense of self and connection to the universe? A sense that there is more than the temporal, that our concerns, worries, fears, and other distractions are less than the big picture we are apart of, that a sense of peace and awareness is opened to us?

 

Let's keep going with this as these questions and understanding of religious beliefs in the non-literalist mindset are something I've desired a greater understanding of. I want to also incorporate into this the nature of mythology and symbols as part of this pursuit or discipline. (Just a note to myself not to lose focus on that question).

[Open_Minded]

But what is the knowledge gained? A sense? Or is there some "revelation" of direct knowledge, such as instruction? I'm going to venture a guess based on my own experiences I suppose could be called "mystical": the knowledge would be a greater sense of self and connection to the universe? A sense that there is more than the temporal, that our concerns, worries, fears, and other distractions are less than the big picture we are apart of, that a sense of peace and awareness is opened to us?

 

Antlerman.... you ask some excellent questions.

 

About "knowledge gained"....

 

I think that if you were to study the different traditions you would find "but what is the knowledge gained?" a loaded question. One that cannot be answered so easily as in a post. But, going back to patterns, it is possible to find patterns of the following across traditions.

 

1. Yes there can be a specific "revelation", for instance when you referred to your music and the creative flow that you find yourself in. This aspect of the contemplative journey is the one that can be most misused - as I'm sure you are already aware. But it is a valid aspect of the journey.

 

2. A greater sense of self and connection to the universe is also an aspect of the "knowledge" one gains. In fact, I think this aspect of "knowledge" helps keep #1 in check a bit. I mean if you've had experiences that humble you and make you aware of yourself in relationship to all creation then a specific "revelation" is likely to be absorbed in regards to the whole. Does this make any sense?

 

3. All mystic traditions have a point of "knowledge" in which the individual can experience "oneness". This is the "highest" experience, and I use that word with caution, because we must avoid western thinking in terms of growth as rungs on a ladder, rather than the more fluid sense of growth that you will find in the east.

 

Having said that the experience of oneness is the earnest meditators "goal", and again goal is not to be understood in the concrete sense of the term, "I will do the following actions and at a given time a goal will be reached as a result of those actions." The way I use "goal" here is the way one would use "goal" in talking about maturation. If one intentionally practices a particular discipline in order to mature and learn something the chances are very good that the person will indeed learn. But a timeline cannot be set to the learning. We are all different, we all learn and mature at different rates.

 

This awareness of One is one thing (however it should not be the sole, or most important reason for pursuing meditation) a meditator prepares oneself for, never knowing if and when it will happen. But when the experience happens, for the duration of the experience there is no "I" and "thou" there is only oneness. Every boundry we know in our rational world gives way and the contemplative is aware of the interconnectedness of the whole. To the Christian this is considered Union with God. To the Christian this experience is a Christ experience because it is the experience of the WORD or the experience of the Alpha and Omega. To the eastern contemplative this may be enlightment... I hesitate to go much further in describing the eastern experience of oneness because I can't interpret that tradition as well as the Christian tradition.

 

Suffice it to say that monks from both the east and west have been in dialog about this "oneness" experience for years. There are many parallels, but as of yet nothing I've read concludes that it is indeed the same experience. If there are Buddhists or Hindus out there wishing to jump in feel free, it would be interesting to get your take on this.

 

At any rate, to bring this back down to earth Antlerman, try to look at it this way. You've mentioned that music is important in your life. I assume you've spent years practicing and working with particular instrument(s)? The years of practice have prepared you for much more indepth appreciation and expression of music. This is the same with the contemplative. When one spends years practicing meditation and other contemplative disciplines certain things naturally happen. The contemplative cannot say when, or where these experiences will occur. But, when they occur they are expected and natural in the context of disciplined meditative practices.

 

Just the practice of meditation, twice a day, 20-minutes for each session one intentionally quiets one's mind. With this type of discipline, over the years there are physical differences in the cognitive ability of the contemplative.

 

Does this help answer your questions?

 

One last thing... someone truly focussed on a meditative path will find that their experiences demand action in the concrete world. It is not necessary to be a contemplative to pursue peace-building, or work to relieve pain in the world. But when one is a disciplined contemplative - maturing requires work in these areas. Not because some religious doctrine is requiring but because knowledge of one's place in the whole demands it....

[Open_Minded]

Hello again Antlerman:

 

The more I think about my previous post, the more I am convinced that our conversation would be more rounded if someone from a Buddhist or Hindu perspective was willing to participate.

 

The problem is that I am new to this board and I don't really know who we can invite. So... I'll post this with the hope that someone may see it and decide to join our conversation. Also, if you know of anyone that could be invited, that would be wonderful to.

 

You are right.. these topics of discussion can move into some very nebulous areas. Having participants from other perspectives beyond yours, NotBlinded's and myself would ensure a more grounded discussion.

 

Anyway, I'll leave it at this and affirm that all will work out as it should

[Antlerman]

Wow. Thanks for the information. A few questions before I form others for you: That experience of Oneness, is this something that occurs more than once in someone's lifetime, and can it occur "randomly" without being in a state of meditation?

 

Also, would you call this discipline Christian Mysticism, and do you consider it a subset of Christianity, or what the real Christianity is about? I was also going to ask about its tradition, its origins?

 

One other question, are you aware of the Existential experience in philosophical existentialism? If so do you consider this a mystical experience, or have any thoughts on it?

 

I'll be contemplating (sorry... considering) these things and have more questions later.

 

Thanks

[Open_Minded]

Wow. Thanks for the information. A few questions before I form others for you: That experience of Oneness, is this something that occurs more than once in someone's lifetime, and can it occur "randomly" without being in a state of meditation?

 

1st Antlerman... if we pursue this let's do it right. We should choose a topic of conversation, set a time frame for research and then have multiple points of view presented. NOT as a debate, but as a learning exercise.

 

The reason that I say this is because, though I've practice Christian contemplation and other forms of meditation for years, I'm not a trained leader or master. I would want time to really research the Christian perspective so that I don't misuse language, etc...

 

But as to your question above. This experience of Oneness can occur more than once and yes it can occur outside the act of meditation itself. It can also occur for an extended period, even days. But, AND THIS NEEDS TO BE STRESSED, it is not something that one should sit down and start meditating for. One cannot force this experience, nor predict it. The discipline of meditation is used to open one up in all of life, it should not be pursued to induce specific experiences. Because the flip side to this is that one can meditate for decades and NEVER have an experience of oneness.

 

Also, would you call this discipline Christian Mysticism, and do you consider it a subset of Christianity, or what the real Christianity is about? I was also going to ask about its tradition, its origins?

 

From a personal perspective - not from the perspective of a movement leader like Father Keating, I'd have to research his position - I believe it is a branch of Christianity dating back to the earliest years after Christ. There are some who point to Jesus desert experience and times in his life where he went apart to pray as the beginning of contemplative Christianity. There is no way to prove this, and I don't give it much thought. It can be proven, however, that the earliest Christian contemplatives lived in the first centuries after Christ. I'd have to research an exact timeline.

 

One other question, are you aware of the Existential experience in philosophical existentialism? If so do you consider this a mystical experience, or have any thoughts on it?

 

I've done some reading, but don't consider myself knowledgeable. I know enough to be dangerous and would consider a knowledge perspective a real contribution to this discussion. Why, are you pretty knowledgeable in this area?

 

I'll be contemplating (sorry... considering) these things and have more questions later.

 

Thanks

 

I look forward to the discussion... especially if there are more viewpoints involved besides ours and if we have time to do real research around a specific topic.

 

Thanks

[Open_Minded]

Also, would you call this discipline Christian Mysticism, and do you consider it a subset of Christianity, or what the real Christianity is about? I was also going to ask about its tradition, its origins?

 

I didn't completely answer your question. It could be called Christian Mysticism, I suppose. But I don't often see that phrase and I don't use it myself. The reason I don't use it myself is because of the overuse of the word "mysticism" in our culture. Many, many people use words like "mystic" or "mysticism" without true understanding of what they are talking about. So, on a personal level, I avoid the word unless I'm in the company of others who have studied this area in great depth and know that the word is referring to something more than a "state of bliss" for lack of a better description.

[Antlerman]

1st Antlerman... if we pursue this let's do it right. We should choose a topic of conversation, set a time frame for research and then have multiple points of view presented. NOT as a debate, but as a learning exercise.

I may be game for that. First let me restate that in no way do I feel any desire to debate these things with you. I am looking only for a discussion for an exchange of perceptions and to learn. If I challenge anything, it would likely be in the sprit of trying to overcome limits of my own understanding. I can clearly hear your desire to pursue this conversation with others and in a more ordered fashion. For the moment, I am just asking some questions for myself.

 

Twice in my life I experienced that overwhelming "sense" of Oneness with absoluteness - prior to my Christian experience, prior to any discipline, or philosophical belief. No words can possibly convey its reaches. My pursuit of Christianity was in the hope of finding answers to the knowledge I encountered, the sense of absolute meaning and joy. I was born that day. All the wonders of life I experience, the compassion, the peace, the passions, the expressions of life through music and art, are pieces of the whole - the whole of which I experienced but a sliver, which in itself was fathomless.

 

This is why I am asking you these questions informally. I am not looking for a system of answers. Just your personal insights in this area. I read your posts and you have a mind which I can respect. You are genuinely well reasoned, balanced, and insightful. This is an informal discussion for me, and in time I can crack some books and become more versed and articulate on the topic, just not now.