[MD] are theism and mysticism mutually exclusive notions?

[Dan Glover]

Hello everyone

>From: "david buchanan" <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com>
>Reply-To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
>To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
>Subject: Re: [MD] are theism and mysticism mutually exclusive notions?
>Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2006 10:43:49 -0600
>
>gav said:
>i don't think so, but i am interested to hear what others think.
>
>dmb says:
>First of all, I have to confess that I'm going to be a bit biased here
>because I'm just crazy about gav. But as to the actual question, I'd say
>that philosophical mysticism and theism present two incompatible visions of
>reality.

Philosophy has to do with rationality and as we know from LILA no 
metaphysical system can be constructed of the mystical. That aside, the 
theistic person (despite the great number of religious forms) always assumes 
a particular characteristic mode of existence where there is an absolute 
reality which transcends the world yet manifests itself in the world. 
Mysticism on the other hand runs the gamut from theism to atheism to 
anti-theism. So to the question whether mysticism and theism are mutually 
exclusive, my answer is both yes and no depending upon the context.

>Considering the context I think its a bit odd that Ian refuses to
>seriously entertain Pirsig's comments on the topic, but it hardly matters
>since this distinction does not depend on the MOQ. The following is from
>"The Oxford Companion to Philosophy"...
>
>"Mysticism of the theistic, dualistic sort seems to generate no particular
>difficulty for Christan metaphysics, and indeed ofen includes specifically
>Christian elements, such as visions of Christ. Strongly monistic mysticism,
>however, is harder to square with a Christian view, and when such mystics
>have themselves been Christians they have often een suspected of heresy.
>This sort of mysticism is likely to find a more comfortable religious home
>in the great non-theistic religions." (p.600)
>
>You may recall that I've used quotes from Campbell and Northrop on this 
>same
>point. Campbell also thinks the distinction between monism and dualism, as
>its referred to here in the "Oxford" quote, is the key. In a theistic,
>dualistic religion we get a picture of man in a RELATIONSHIP with a divine
>creator, very much like the basic SOM picture where subjects exist in a
>relationship with an external, objective reality. By contrast, monistic,
>non-theistic mysticism says that it is not a matter of relationship between
>man and god, between man and nature, but rather a matter of indentity.
>Instead of saying we have contact with god or with the world, this sort of
>mysticism says you are god, you are the world. Thou Art That. You are
>indentical to that. Or, at least, the distinction between Thou and That is
>conventional and therefore illusory.

I think it worth noting that the quote offered above is preceded by: 
"William James characterized mystical experience by four marks: transiency, 
passivity, noetic quality, and ineffability. Perhaps we should add a fifth, 
that mystical experiences often, perhaps characteristically, involve what is 
now called an 'altered state of consciousness'--trance, vision, suppression 
of cognitive contact with the ordinary world, loss of the usual distinction 
between subject and object, weakening or loss of the sense of self, etc. 
These features constitute an interesting 'syndrome.'"

I think part of this "syndrome" is initiation: trial by ordeal, death and 
resurrection/rebirth. Mysticism seems to rely on initiation and trial by 
ordeal to build a foundation of agreement that can be passed on from teacher 
to student directly. Religion is tame by comparision to Dynamic mysticism. I 
should think this is why Robert Pirsig states in LILA that nothing upsets 
the Bishop so much as a Saint in the garden.

>
>See, if enlightenment consists in seeing that ultimate reality is 
>undivided,
>and if dualism depends upon dividing this from that, then enlightenment
>consists in seeing that dualistic theism is part and parcel of the illusion
>to be overcome. Of course words are part of the divided world too and are
>always going to be inadequate on this topic, gotta see it for yourself, but
>you'll notice that I'm mostly just saying what philosophical mysticism is
>NOT. And one thing that it is NOT is theism. That fact that it is also way
>too static is an additional problem which only compounds and solidifies 
>this
>fundamental error.

I think we can safely say that the theistic person wishes to be other than 
they are in everyday life; they strive to make themselves better by 
approaching models of the devine revealed in myth. I also think anything we 
say of enlightenment will be far from enlightenment.

>
>gav said:
>or is the term 'god', unlike quality, an explicit concept? hence DMBs,
>Pirsig's and ant's aversion to theism? perhaps......
>
>dmb says:
>I think the problem of god as an "explicit concept" does depend on the
>dualistic assumptions as explained above, but really rears its ugly head on
>the conventional level. This is where the blood gets spilt over rival
>concepts of god. We can see that even though Judaism, Islam and 
>Christianity
>are all monotheistic, dualistic religions there are still plenty of
>believers who are willing to fit for one concept of god over the others.
>Statements from the head of the Catholic church about the differences
>between Christianity and Islam recently inspired riots throughout the
>Islamic world, for example. All threee of those religions have doctrines
>saying the very same piece of real estate, I believe it is the Dome of the
>Rock in Jerusalem, was promised to them by their god and they each believe
>that controlling that little piece of land is required if history is to be
>fulfilled, so that the end of the world can arrive. This is a ridiculous 
>and
>extremely dangerous situation. So I'm saying that theism, even on a
>pragmatic level, is a pretty serious problem. Its just a form of tribalism,
>really.

It appears so, yes.

>
>gav said:
>'god' has more static connotations than 'quality'....and because of that is
>less useful as a mystic marker...perhaps. yes 'god' seems static to me,
>whereas the Tao and Quality are more dynamic, 'process' terms.
>
>dmb says:
>Right. Being too static with respect to politics or other conventional
>realities is bad enough, but I think when references to DQ itself become 
>too
>static something has been killed. In the class I'm taking at the University
>of Colorado we just finished looking at how this process occured in our own
>tradition. We looked at work of "The Jesus Seminar", a large group of
>scholars who set out to determine, through testual analysis, what the
>historical Jesus actually said.

This is assuming there was a historical Jesus to actually say something, of 
course. I am sure you know there's not one single shred of evidence to prove 
such a man ever lived. Everything we know about Jesus is hearsay. So tell 
me: can a person who never existed actually say something?

>(For the sake of brevity i won't describe
>the techniques they developed.) They determined that he said less than 20%
>of what is attributed to him in the tradition that's been handed down to 
>us.
>They found that nearly everything he did actually say could be found in the
>parables and they even assert that the historical Jesus never spoke 
>publicly
>except in parables. And it just so happens that the recently discovered, in
>1949 if memory serves, Gospel of Thomas is one of the earliest known
>Christian texts and it consists of nothing but parables. It is something
>akin to authentic, according to these scholars.
>
>I was thrilled when, in the final minutes of a three hour discussion, the
>head of the religion department who was a guest lecturer on this topic,
>finally got around to saying that Jesus spoke in parables for the same
>reason that Zen masters speak in koans. Paradox is used to collaspe
>rationality, to demonstrate the limits of thought and language itself in 
>the
>apprehension of the Kingdom of Heaven. The Kingdom of heaven is like a
>mustard seed? What? The kingdom of heaven is like a grain jar with an 
>unseen
>hole in it so that the woman who carries it home from the market is
>surprized to find it empty when she arrives home and finally puts it down?
>Huh? The kindom of heaven is like a treasure buried in a farmer's field, 
>and
>the field is bought and the treasure is fogotten. What the hell is this
>freakin hippy talking about, man? When we try to read this stuff in terms 
>of
>ethical tales or conventional norms, its bat-shit crazy. But if Thomas is
>read with through the lens of philosophical mysticism, it makes a great 
>deal
>of sense. Verse 61 even contains a little nugget where Jesus is reported to
>have said, "I am he who exists from the undivided" in verse 72 he says, "O
>man, who has made me a divider?" "I am not a divider, am I?" and in verse
>106 Thomas has him saying, "When you make the two one, you will become the
>sons of man, and when you say, 'Mountain, move away', it will move away". I
>think you can see dualism being rejected in this sort of talk. I and the
>father are one, sort of stuff all over the place. And this is also the
>gospel where Jesus basically says that heaven is not some other place, but
>this world rightly seen. He says in verse 113, he says its not a place or a
>time, "Rather, the kindom of the father is spead out upon the earth, and 
>men
>do not see it".
>
>But then when we turn to the synoptic gospels (Matthew, Luke and Mark) we
>can see these same parables, except that they have been drained of their
>mind-shattering paradoxicality and are instead softened and/or turned into
>allegorical tales in support of conventional morality. Kings and rich men
>are unequivocally denied the ability to enter this kingdom in the Gnostic
>parables while in the synoptic gospels its just harder for the rich and
>powerful and they're a lot like us on this point anyway. Softening 
>statement
>like "But all things are possible through the LORD" quickly follow to take
>the edge off. I mean, its pretty easy to see that Christianity was drained
>of mysticism fairly early on and it has been treated with great hostility
>ever since.

I agree there's been a regression of sorts but it's not just in theism that 
we find degenerate behavior and camoflaged initiatory combats and ordeals. I 
am thinking of the doll episode in LILA. I think it's interesting to note 
that even in professed atheists many scenarios of initiation still exist. 
They stagger under a whole pile of pseudo-religious paraphernalia that has 
degenerated into something hard to recognize for what it is, but it's there 
nonetheless.

>
>gav said:
>so i guess i have just had a bet each way....i think god is simply not a
>good term for pointing to a
>dynamic ultimate reality: too static.  ...hold on i think i just changed my
>own mind,
>
>dmb says:
>I suppose that's how it usually works. We have to persuade ourselves to be
>truly persuaded, which is to say we have to work through the concepts and
>reach the conclusion for ourselves rather than just be told. Others can 
>help
>to set out the hoops, if you will, but no opinions will be altered unless
>and until you decide to talk a walk through those hoops.
>
>Also, there is the idea that its simply not possible to contain the meaning
>of this experience in intellectual terms because it is prior to any such
>linguistic divisions. This is why mystics can only make oblique and
>paradoxical references to it. A brilliant darkness. A deafening silence. A
>shimmering nothingness. Stuff like that can get you oriented to look in the
>right direction, but if you want your "hallelujah shine", if you wanna meet
>the Buddha and kill him on the road to glory, you gotta go down there
>brother, you gotta get in the water, Jordan's mighty water.

This seems about right to me.

Thank you for your comments,

Dan


Mu-on was a great teacher. It was the custom in those days for zen masters 
to have only one student. His student was a monk named Shu-on. One day Mu-on 
called his student before him and bade him sit. I am growing old, he told 
Shu-on, and I feel that soon I will no longer walk this earth. Therefore it 
is time that I pass this on to you. And he handed Shu-on a journal.

Shu-on objected. You have taught me all I need to know. Why are you giving 
me this book? I have no need of it. Please keep it, master. Mu-on explained 
that the journal was 7 generations old and that as he himself had done, each 
of his predecessors too had added their own thoughts to the book over the 
centuries. Putting the journal in his hands, he told Shu-on: It is now yours 
to do with what you wish. Shu-on got up and walking to the fire he thrust 
the journal into the midst of the hot coals. Startled and angry, Mu-on 
jumped to his feet and shouted: What are you doing? Shu-on shouted back: 
What are you saying?