How does mysticism differ from religious belief?

[Michael Mooney]

Moderation Note: The following 37 posts have been moved from: Religion as Mass Hypnosis, in favor of having their own topic in this thread.

 

Your basing of your faith on your research which is non-scientific i must say, is an act of hypnosis itself. :confused:

I disavow "faith." Gnosis is knowing by resonance-in-identity, the "part" or individual with the whole, consciousness itself as the one identity/consciousness in all parts.

Look up "epiphany" for another definition of the above.

This is not presented as science (this is the theology section) and this kind of direct, immediate experience is not "research" any more than ones direct perception of the computer screen is research, but both are direct perception not requiring faith or belief, except that you can trust your eyes to be seeing the "real object," computer screen. (Many here are subjective idealists and do not trust their eyes to be seeing "real objects," but I am not one of them."

 

If you are interested in the research my family has done in the

paranormal field, check out my Transpersonal Psychology thread.

 

Michael

[modest]

I disavow "faith." Gnosis is knowing by resonance-in-identity, the "part" or individual with the whole, consciousness itself as the one identity/consciousness in all parts.

Look up "epiphany" for another definition of the above.

This is not presented as science (this is the theology section) and this kind of direct, immediate experience is not "research" any more than ones direct perception of the computer screen is research, but both are direct perception not requiring faith or belief, except that you can trust your eyes to be seeing the "real object," computer screen.

 

Faith enters the equation and science exits the equation when you relate what you "know". If you say that you've had an epiphany and you know that unicorns are real (or whatever it is you might say) then I cannot accept what you're saying unless 1) I have faith, or 2) you present falsifiable scientific evidence. It doesn't matter if your gnostic beliefs come from your eyes, ears, or any other imaginary senses. It is the falsifiable evidence you present which can be reliably tested which removes faith from the equation.

 

Schizophrenic patients regularly believe that a family of lizards inhabit their chest cavity. That "knowledge" requires no faith on their part—they know it to be true as surely as they know their hand is at the end of their arm. I remain unpersuaded.

 

~modest

[Michael Mooney]

As usual Modest your indelible negative judgment of me will not allow you to even comprehend what I just wrote, saying: "This is not presented as science (this is the theology section)..."

What part of "this is not presented as science..." did you not understand?

So, ignoring that central point in my post, you proceed:

 

Faith enters the equation and science exits the equation when you relate what you "know". If you say that you've had an epiphany and you know that unicorns are real (or whatever it is you might say) then I cannot accept what you're saying unless 1) I have faith, or 2) you present falsifiable scientific evidence. It doesn't matter if your gnostic beliefs come from your eyes, ears, or any other imaginary senses. It is the falsifiable evidence you present which can be reliably tested which removes faith from the equation.

 

Schizophrenic patients regularly believe that a family of lizards inhabit their chest cavity. That "knowledge" requires no faith on their part—they know it to be true as surely as they know their hand is at the end of their arm. I remain unpersuaded.

I studied epistemology in depth for my MA in philosophy. Maybe you should review at least the Wikipedia version of it.

 

There is heavy emphasis in epistemology on the difference between *knowledge* which is *justified* and *mere belief* which is not.

 

You present *belief* in unicorns and psychotic hallucinations as *beliefs* on par with the world of consensus after the universal (among mystics)epiphany of union with *universal consciousness.*

 

(Ref: for readers not familiar with this debate): I presented, in my transpersonal psychology thread, in particular the link The Center for Sacred Sciences - Exploring the mystical traditions, their universal principles, and their compatibility with modern science a consensus of mystics from every major religious tradition**... but transcending *religious belief*... on what "gnosis" is.

(**Specifically at: Mystical Traditions - Center for Sacred Sciences )

 

Dear Modest,

Please pay attention: Enlightenment, also called gnosis, also called permanent epiphany or "union with God" is not in the realm of science. The closest this forum comes to the realm it belongs to is the "Theology" section, tho the latter is the study of religious doctrines... clearly distinct from the subject matter of the links above. Please make an effort to contemplate the difference.

 

The scientific research to which I did refer ended up in the vault of closed threads, because no moderators here believed I was telling the truth. There were many runs of ten out of ten "hits" in telepathy experiments with my (now deceased) father. But they can not be duplicated by, as I said, herding people in off the street at "random" and testing them. It is a gift that seems to be quite rare.

But this is not the same as ridiculous belief in unicorns or hallucinating lizards inhabiting one's chest cavity.

 

It will be obvious to any thinking person that you are confusing two very different realms here just to assassinate the character of a mystic you particularly dislike.

 

Michael

[modest]

It will be obvious to any thinking person that you are confusing two very different realms here just to assassinate the character of a mystic you particularly dislike.

 

Well, of course that's what you think. After all, you think I'm disagreeing with you. But, I might point out the obvious—nothing in my post disagrees with anything in yours. :hihi:

 

I, in fact, agree. Believing sensory perception requires no faith on the part of the observer. My extreme example of the schizophrenic patient is in ultimate agreement with your premise. I further agree that nothing scientific has yet happened in believing ones own senses. I'm simply expanding on what you're saying. When a person relates his/her own experiences to a wider audience that is where the experience becomes unscientific and when faith is required.

 

I can't very well believe David Koresh was the son of God no matter how many times he made the clam nor what he reported to experience. Oh, sure, he said that he talked to God, but how do I know? I need something falsifiable and testable (something scientific) or I need faith. I should think you'd agree with that.

 

~modest

[Boerseun]

As a trained psychologist, as you claim, you should be aware of the dynamics and workings of hallucinations.

 

Perfectly healthy people are prone to suffer rare bouts of hallucinations for various reasons, mostly a failure in the interactions of the complex eye-brain system. It happens.

 

Now, if I were to see my computer screen turn into an adult mutant ninja turtle (they surely can't be teenagers any more), would that be a "gnostic" truth?

 

I saw it, after all. I have to believe what my eyes tell me, according to you.

 

If that's the case, then sure - you're right. There might be something to that "gnosis" you keep going on, after all.

 

But it obviously is not. Every other observer will still see a computer screen, no matter how long and hard they look. Eventually someone else will see it turn into a turtle, because my ravings about the matter have planted a subconscious seed into a mind that might be receptive to suggestion. The Emperor's New Clothes, and all.

 

As far as I was concerned, my screen turning turtle is a "gnostic" truth. I know it to be the truth, 'cause I've seen it. And now I've got at least one follower. But it's still BS to any objective observer.

 

And being trained in psychology, you should know this, not so?

[Michael Mooney]

You wrote:

"nothing in my post disagrees with anything in yours."

 

I wrote:

You present *belief* in unicorns and psychotic hallucinations as *beliefs* on par with the world of consensus after the universal (among mystics)epiphany of union with *universal consciousness.*

 

Are you now saying that you are *not* putting the former on par with the latter?

 

You wrote

 

"Faith enters the equation and science exits the equation when you relate what you "know"."

 

Epistemology is the study of how we know what we know and contrasts, by various criteria, how justified knowledge differs from unjustified belief. So what we *know* in this sense differs from what we merely believe as an act of faith.

 

You do not understand spiritual "epiphany."It is Way different than your use in the context of having...

"an epiphany and you know that unicorns are real."

This is an unjustified belief. In contrast, the dozens of quotes from mystics of all traditions (in the links above) saying essentially the same thing about the direct experience of union with universal consciousness, is, it can be cogently argued, a "justified belief." I see a world of difference between "belief" and "gnosis", as I shared in my webpage Beyond Belief

(Boerseun disclosed my website to discredit me via my "vision through the "Step" in the great pyramid, resulting in my pyramid prophecy page... not intended for this forum for obvious reasons.)

But the difference between belief and knowing (as in gnosis) is of central relevance here.

 

You say:

"It is the falsifiable evidence you present which can be reliably tested which removes faith from the equation."

 

If you just read the above link you saw that gnosis does not depend on faith. Yet it does not yet qualify as "science" as presently defined by the mainstream. "Sacred Science" refers to the direct,immediate experience of gnosis via whatever discipline works for the individual, i.e., it is verifiable like scientific experiments for anyone who will find a way to surrender the illusion of "separate personal identity."

You say:

"Schizophrenic patients regularly believe that a family of lizards inhabit their chest cavity. That "knowledge" requires no faith on their part—they know it to be true as surely as they know their hand is at the end of their arm. I remain unpersuaded."

 

Such a hallucination is not a "justified belief" which epistemologically qualifies as "knowledge." They do not "know it to be true" in the same way we all "know" our hand is at the end of our arm.

Your epistemology stinks. Yet you paint gnosis with the same brush as belief in unicorns and hallucination "lizards!"

 

Then you claim that nothing in your post disagrees with mine.

I beg to differ.

Michael

[Michael Mooney]

Boerseun,

I find it amusing that you presume to lecture me on the nature of hallucinations. And your point coincides with Modest's as he places unicorn fantasy/make believe and full-on psychotic hallucinations in the same basket with gnosis.

So, just "ditto" by reply to him.

One last point, re:

"I saw it, after all. I have to believe what my eyes tell me, according to you."

 

It can be said that "believing your eyes" requires "faith," but that is too "religious" a word for it, in my opinion. I *trust* that I am seeing the computer screen *as it is.*

Yet, were I to see it turning into a turtle, I would *know* that this was an aberration due to whatever... (Someone slipped me some LSD or....) This is the difference between "normal" and a psychotic or a hallucinogenic episode. A psychotic doesn't know the difference while a "normal" will experience a radical departure from his baseline "normal" experience."

What were psychology credentials again?

 

Michael

[modest]

Schizophrenic patients regularly believe that a family of lizards inhabit their chest cavity. That "knowledge" requires no faith on their part—they know it to be true as surely as they know their hand is at the end of their arm. I remain unpersuaded.

 

Such a hallucination is not a "justified belief" which epistemologically qualifies as "knowledge." They do not "know it to be true" in the same way we all "know" our hand is at the end of our arm.

Your epistemology stinks.

 

"My epistemology stinks" That's a nice touch :shrug: Any road, I disagree with:

They do not "know it to be true" in the same way we all "know" our hand is at the end of our arm.

From their perspective, they know the lizard is there in the same way we know our hand is at the end of our arm. Oh, look, support:

 

New Hope for the Insane?

 

Another [schizophrenic] patient, his face full of desperation told me that a lizard had been living in a hammock in his chest. It had given birth to three small lizards which had crawled up into his head and eaten away his brain. What comfort could I offer him? Could I tell him that all this was a figment of his imagination when he could see the beasts in a thousand colors and dimensions and actually feel their slightest movement? No real experience of the normal person will rival this patient's sensation of reality.

My 12 hours as a madman | Macleans.ca - Canada - Features

Again, no faith is required on the part of the schizophrenic patient for him to "know" there's a lizard living in a hammock in his chest. He knows it to be real. But, if he were to make the claim that he had a lizard in his chest then it would require faith on our part to believe him—unless he could present some falsifiable evidence.

 

You'll find most people on a science forum are not big with faith. If you want us to believe what you "know", that requires evidence. Yup.

 

~modest

[Michael Mooney]

I'm on the run. Just a quickie here, just for fun.

 

From their perspective, they know the lizard is there in the same way we know our hand is at the end of our arm.

 

We*know* that our hand is at the end of our arm by all available sensations/perceptions right now and since birth that this is true.

 

Any psychotic who *believes* that a family of lizards inhabits his chest cavity inevitably has a history of mental illness which "explains" his *delusion*... and it is a delusion while our hands being at the end of our arms is not a delusion.

 

Not only does your epistemology regarding what one "knows" vs what one "believes" stink, your psychological understanding of the etiology of psychosis as compared with healthy spiritual awakening is... well... about kindergarten level. I am allowed to make this judgment after many years of practicing transpersonal psychology and the ordinary psych of neurosis and psychosis, whichgives me a broad context of experience and expertise for the 'judgement" I have just rendered.

 

I suggest you stick to your own area of *supposed* expertise:

 

"Everything is relative"... "There is no objective distance between objects in the cosmos"... 'its all subjective to frame of reference'.. 'time, not clocks slows down'... etc)... and cease your agenda to "one-up" my every post as my mentor in all areas of knowledge.

Michael

[freeztar]

We*know* that our hand is at the end of our arm by all available sensations/perceptions right now and since birth that this is true.

 

Any psychotic who *believes* that a family of lizards inhabits his chest cavity inevitably has a history of mental illness which "explains" his *delusion*... and it is a delusion while our hands being at the end of our arms is not a delusion.

It's all relative. To assume truth from mass consensus is useful, but it does not make it the truth. I agree with you and probably everyone else who will read this that I "know" there is a hand at the end of my arm. It is delusional to think otherwise, but it makes it no less "real".

 

I can look at a painting by Picasso and see a completely different image (and experience) from you. Yet, we can point to certain areas and agree on colors, shapes, etc.

It's all relative.

 

Not only does your epistemology regarding what one "knows" vs what one "believes" stink, your psychological understanding of the etiology of psychosis as compared with healthy spiritual awakening is... well... about kindergarten level. I am allowed to make this judgment after many years of practicing transpersonal psychology and the ordinary psych of neurosis and psychosis, whichgives me a broad context of experience and expertise for the 'judgement" I have just rendered.

 

I suggest you stick to your own area of *supposed* expertise:

 

"Everything is relative"... "There is no objective distance between objects in the cosmos"... 'its all subjective to frame of reference'.. 'time, not clocks slows down'... etc)... and cease your agenda to "one-up" my every post as my mentor in all areas of knowledge.

Michael

 

Be nice Michael. Being an "expert" in your field does not qualify you to immediately dismiss everyone else. When people challenge your ideas, it does not necessarily mean they don't understand them. Perhaps they are trying to learn more and are interacting with friendly debate to increase their understanding. You never know and you know what they say about when you assume (you make an *** out of u and me).

 

Put the past behind you, take a positive attitude, and approach every post not as a threat, but an opportunity to learn and teach, and I think you'll enjoy your time here more. :)

[Erasmus00]

We*know* that our hand is at the end of our arm by all available sensations/perceptions right now and since birth that this is true.

 

Any psychotic who *believes* that a family of lizards inhabits his chest cavity inevitably has a history of mental illness which "explains" his *delusion*...

 

Thats fine, but the lizards are just as real TO HIM. He KNOWS there are lizards. Try this similarly structured sentence:

 

Any mystic who *believes* to have transcended inevitable has a history of such notions which "explains" his "delusion."

 

How can we show that mystics "knowledge" is NOT a delusion, while a schizophrenic hallucination IS?

[Boerseun]

So, just "ditto" by reply to him.

Well, seeing as you merely dismiss his entire point, that wouldn't have helped, now would it?

It can be said that "believing your eyes" requires "faith," but that is too "religious" a word for it, in my opinion. I *trust* that I am seeing the computer screen *as it is.*

Precisely. You have to "trust" what your senses tell you, because there are a lot of incredibly intricate systems between your sensing organs and your brain that could go awry. "Seeing" a computer screen does not make it so. If other people see it too, it lends weight to the hypothesis that yes, you are indeed staring at a computer screen.

Yet, were I to see it turning into a turtle, I would *know* that this was an aberration due to whatever... (Someone slipped me some LSD or....)

But that's not what you said, Michael. You have been saying all along that we're supposed to blindly trust what our senses tell us. Do you want me to quote you saying that, and not only in this thread?

This is the difference between "normal" and a psychotic or a hallucinogenic episode. A psychotic doesn't know the difference while a "normal" will experience a radical departure from his baseline "normal" experience."

Yes. And how does a psychotic know he's a psychotic?

What were psychology credentials again?

Exactly.

[modest]

It's all relative.

 

:eek: Oh boy :eek: I said those same three words 9 months ago. I still hear about it in just about every post Michael writes. :eek:

 

9 months ago:

It's all relative.

 

Today:

"Everything is relative"... "There is no objective distance between objects in the cosmos"... 'its all subjective to frame of reference'.. 'time, not clocks slows down'... etc)...

 

It's all relative.

 

:eek: :) I'm sorry. I don't know why I find this so funny. It's like an Abbott and Costello skit.

 

 

:)

The Supreme Court has ruled with the military that imaginary things are officially not real, and therefore no approval is needed to nuke them.

 

Anchorman: Mike, does the military have the authority to nuke our imagination?

Mike: Uh clearly they don't, Steven, and they're gonna have a big problem because state government has already set a precedent that imaginary characters are real. I cite a famous case of Cartman v. Broflovski in which a U.S. court found for the plaintiff who saw a leprechaun. *

:eek:

 

~modest

[Michael Mooney]

Erasmus:

"Thats fine, but the lizards are just as real TO HIM. He KNOWS there are lizards. Try this similarly structured sentence:

 

Any mystic who *believes* to have transcended inevitable has a history of such notions which "explains" his "delusion."

 

How can we show that mystics "knowledge" is NOT a delusion, while a schizophrenic hallucination IS?"

 

One way would be to study the whole history of mystical awakening/enlightenment, compare all testimony and verify the commonality in all such experiences** and compare those results with the whole history of mental illness... and then see if there is a credible difference between "crazy" and "enlightened."

(** I offered a sampling of that in the "Sacred Science" links above.)

 

Of course no one has covered the "whole history" of either, but I have spent all my adult life studying and comparing both realms and have concluded that there is indeed a big and unmistakable difference, and I am not alone in that conclusion... to say the least (Yes, more "consensus"... see below.)

 

Boerseun:

"Seeing" a computer screen does not make it so. If other people see it too, it lends weight to the hypothesis that yes, you are indeed staring at a computer screen."

 

So maybe we can agree that consensus, though not *sufficient*, *helps* to establish the validity/objectivity that what is "seen" actually exists as it is seen.

But on the other hand I don't need anyone's supportive consensus to *know* that I am now "seeing" my computer screen *as it is.* (Yes, I do trust my eyes to convey accurate images in "normal" circumstances. No, I am not a subjective idealist.)

 

Me:

"Yet, were I to see it(my computer screen) turning into a turtle, I would *know* that this was an aberration due to whatever... (Someone slipped me some LSD or....)"

 

B:

"But that's not what you said, Michael. You have been saying all along that we're supposed to blindly trust what our senses tell us. Do you want me to quote you saying that, and not only in this thread?"

 

Yes, please quote me saying, "We're supposed to *blindly* trust what our senses tell us." Under normal circumstances, not under LSD or having a history of psychosis and assuming "normal vision," one sees what is in front of his eyes as it is, from different angles of course for different observers of the same object.

 

Me:

"This is the difference between "normal" and a psychotic or a hallucinogenic episode. A psychotic doesn't know the difference while a "normal" will experience **a radical departure from his baseline "normal" experience.**"

B:

"Yes. And how does a psychotic know he's a psychotic?"

 

Usually in retrospect, after therapy and/ or anti-psychotic medication, one realizes that he *was* psychotic... The computer screen didn't really turn into a turtle.

 

But everyone else knows he is psychotic while he is insisting on the latter... or that he is in fact "Jesus Christ" (one of the most common forms of psychosis.)

 

Me:

"What were psychology credentials again?"

 

B:"Exactly."

 

Oopse, sorry. I meant to ask "What were your psychology credentials?" I am a career psychologist. (Not my "identity", BTW, just one of my jobs.:))

Michael

[modest]

Maybe we can agree that consensus, though not *sufficient*, *helps* to establish the validity/objectivity that what is "seen" actually exists as it is seen.

 

Now, now, Michael

 

You started this thread under the premise that most of the world's population (religious folk) are hypnotized and apparently suffering from some mass delusion. Clearly, by your own admission, consensus does not establish ontology.

 

I'll repeat my position once again: It requires no faith on your part to believe whatever it is you see of feel. If you believe yourself tied to some cosmic consciousness then get down with your bad self. I have no objection. But, once you step into a science forum and start explaining your gnostic beliefs then either faith or evidence is required on our part to give any credence to what you're saying. In all of your posts on this forum, I've seen no evidence and I am not going to take what you're saying on faith.

 

So, there we are. Untill you produce some evidence or we develop a need to take things on faith.... there we are

 

~modest

[Michael Mooney]

Me (quoting and paraphrasing) Modest:

"Everything is relative"... "There is no objective distance between objects in the cosmos"... 'its all subjective to frame of reference'.. 'time, not clocks slows down'... etc)...

 

Freeztar:

It's all relative.

Modest:

I'm sorry. I don't know why I find this so funny. It's like an Abbott and Costello skit.

 

I too find it hilarious that relativist are so absolute in their dogma in this regard!

 

Way back, in debate with you, Modest, I found it totally absurd (and humorous) that you actually believe that the distance between sun and earth (earth and moon... this body and that one in the cosmos) changes with every observational perspective. Still do.

I'm still not sure how you distinguish yourself from those of the subjective idealism philosophical persuasion.

 

Then Doctordick shared his hypothetical universal "frame of reference" (as refreshingly different than the usual "observer A at this velocity and observer B at that velocity as frames of reference)...

And he supported my idea that "now" is the present everywhere... in agreement with me* that "time" is not a local environment and a self existing medium/entity even tho relativity usually assumes so....

 

(*DD: Please correct me if I have misrepresented you on this.)

He sees you as dogmatic just as I do... a "Jesuit" for your dogma I believe he called you, and I concur.

 

Then... what a "trip" it has been about what is ontologically "real" as contrasted with the epistemology of how we know what we know and what *assumptions* about what we think we know are taken for granted!

But this is straying far off topic... accept that *dogma* is "programing"... is a form of "hypnosis* even if the conditioning process is grad school and results in a Phd... ("Piled higher and deeper" )

 

Anyway, it's good to see so much good humor over all these basic differences.

Michael

[Michael Mooney]

Now, now, Michael

 

You started this thread under the premise that most of the world's population (religious folk) are hypnotized and apparently suffering from some mass delusion. Clearly, by your own admission, consensus does not establish ontology.

 

I said above that consensus helps but is not sufficient to establish the validity of a direct perception that, under normal circumstances we are seeing our computer screens as they exist in and of themselves, and that anyone who sees it turn into a turtle, is by consensus suffering a hallucination.

 

You can distort my words by ignoring context all you like, but the text is right up there for everyone to see and review. Religious belief in this or that doctrine/dogma is another whole ball-o-wax.

 

I'll repeat my position once again: It requires no faith on your part to believe whatever it is you see of feel. If you believe yourself tied to some cosmic consciousness then get down with your bad self. I have no objection. But, once you step into a science forum and start explaining your gnostic beliefs then either faith or evidence is required on our part to give any credence to what you're saying. In all of your posts on this forum, I've seen no evidence and I am not going to take what you're saying on faith.

 

To what part of the following, which I have quoted before, do you object: (Mystical Traditions - Center for Sacred Sciences)

 

9. Finally, mystics of all traditions agree that their teachings about the Ultimate Nature of Reality should not be taken on faith alone. Just as scientific theories can be verified by anyone willing to perform appropriate experiments, mystical teachings can be verified by anyone willing to engage in appropriate spiritual practices and disciplines. (This, incidentally, is why we at the Center believe mystical teachings and practices are rightly said to constitute a science of the sacred.)

 

The above is based on the distinct difference between "gnosis" (and all its synonyms) and religious belief. I have repeatedly illustrated this difference, yet you persistently ignore it.

And what is the point of having a Theology section in a science forum if one can not contrast enlightenment with religious belief??

 

Finally, regarding your statement:

So, there we are. Untill you produce some evidence or we develop a need to take things on faith.... there we are

 

... Many times I have asked you and many others here to show me the evidence in support of one of the most popular cosmologies (and growing more so all the time by the stats on higher degree applications)... based on string/M-theory.

 

There is none, yet you constantly hammer on this point with me whether I'm sharing an alternative cosmology or the direct gnosis (not belief) of dozens of mystics with identical realization.

 

Michael