Christian Mysticism – A different understanding of Christ

Philosophy Forums Religion and Spirituality
1

Some thoughts for discussion on Christian Mysticism (if anybody at all is interested).

“The Christian revelation at its richest contains and reflects the Kogi and Hopi knowledge of the interconnecton of all life, the Taoist sense of organic balance and the mysterious conjunction of opposites, the Hindu awareness of the grandeur of the soul, the Buddhist devotion to compassion and clear ethical living, the Jewish awe at the unutterable holiness of God and the sacredness of ordinary life, the Greek adoration of divine beauty, and the Islamic passion for God as the Beloved.” – Andrew Harvey, The Essential Mystics, Castle Books, 1996

In our haste around here to dismiss all things that smack of “organized” religion and authoritarian and patriarchal orders of theology, I worry that Christianity gets too easily rejected by those who see it, perhaps from childhood memories, as an instrument of either guilt or fear. And the beauty of the story of Jesus, the story of his life and death and resurrection, gets rejected along with the misguided perceptions of what it means to be a Christian.

This is no less than tragic and I think it’s about time somebody around here presented an alternative to what is unfortunately perceived as Christianity today, at least a nutshell version of what Christian Mysticism is all about.

Maybe this will be interesting. Maybe this will be a total waste of time. (I’m okay either way).

Mysticism gets its name from the Mystery Religions, early cults from the Hellenic and Roman periods that focused on union with God, rather than worship. Personal salvation and personal rebirth were prominent ideas in most of the mysteries, with a common motif being a myth of a dying and rising savior.

Mysticism has taken many forms since then and mystics can be Taoists, Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, Muslims, Christians. In its essence, mysticism is a spiritual approach towards the union of the soul with God, or whatever one considers as the underlying force of the universe. In mysticism we see a God that is accessible, able to be touched and able to touch. A God not at arm’s length, not worshipped from afar, but present here and now, searching as much for us as we search for Him. One can either find God deep within, moving away from the rest of the world, or find God without, in all things, in all beings. In philosophical terminology, mysticism is something of a pantheistic worldview.

For Christian mystics specifically, the approach is to find the underlying “true self” within, rejecting the “ego self,” that part of us corrupted by the material world and the erroneous choices we have made, through our free will, as we have stumbled blindly through life, moving farther from God rather than closer. Nowhere is this better exemplified than in the story of Christ’s resurrection, the sacrifice of the body (ego self) to be reborn as spirit (true self). This is the meaning and the point behind the resurrection story, the central tenet of Christianity.

It was never about Heaven and everlasting life. Through the sacrifice of the ego self, through quiet and stillness and prayer and meditation, through harmony with the underlying reality of the universe (call it the Holy Spirit), one can find union with the Divine and one can find union at this moment. In this moment is eternity. All that there is, exists now. “The Kingdom of the Father is spread out upon the earth and men see it not” (The Gospel of Thomas). All one need do, from a Christian mysticism viewpoint, is sacrifice that part of oneself that is not of God, and follow the God within. “Whosever will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me” (Mark 8:34).

The union of created with Creator is a theme of wonderous beauty and divine love. Once one comes to understand that we are a part of God, an expression of God, a manifestation, a co-creator, an incarnation no less than was Jesus, then anything less than union with God is unthinkable. Upon this realization, the full realization of all of this, I might go so far as to say that anything less is - in fact – impossible, as God seeks union with us every bit as much as we with Him.

We find and we are found. We become God, God becomes us. This is the meaning of Christian mysticism. More than this, it is my opinion that this ought to be the meaning of Christianity and what it means to be a Christian.

2

Hi Jerry,

One could hope that the mystic tradition could be the bridge connecting all religions, all philosophies, but sadly, religion and even philosophy seems to be more about differences than alikes. We see it everywhere we look. We see it here in ILP.

I see quite a division of what is Christianity and Taoism, Buddhism, or the so-called 'Eastern" ways of thinking. It really is the core assumptions that create that division. The Eastern cosmologies do not personify that which is. Rather, God is present in all, but is unknowable as more than the ebb and flow of ordered process, which is also unknowable in that experience (life) comes in sponteneity and novelty. This is quite different than the Christian tradition that relies on the single point, omnicient creator, who created and controls all. The Christian cosmology implies and assumes a externally ordered universe created and controlled by God. This one-behind-many, “big guy in the sky” POV creates the many divisions between Eastern and Western thinking. It encourages the attempts to define God. Do we have free will? Is there really original sin? Can God do this or that? Why does God allow…? It is water cooler talk trying to understand what the big boss has planned and how do I keep my job?

In the Eastern traditions, one looks to the manifest natural order and attempts to be in concert (dare I say aligned? :astonished:) and thereby be of and in that which we call God. The former says man is alienated (original sin) from God, and must find his way back (to God), while the latter assumes that what and how we are is part of the natural order, and all we have to do is get out of our own way.

These differences in cosmological viewpoint are very real, and few can transcend these differences and look at the underlying connectedness of man/God.

All mystics, from whatever tradition, find the core of what you have described, but the Christian mystic has a much harder path to follow. Dragging all the ‘baggage’ of what is known as “Christian” is a daunting task, and few will take up the burden.

Experientially, I found that I really didn’t understand what Jesus of Nazareth was saying until I began studying Eastern philosophy. I’m not sure if that qualifies me as a mystic, but I found that the words of Jesus and what has been practiced in the name of “Christos” doesn’t match up very well until his words are seen from a much different POV than is traditionally, ‘Christian’.

You do realize you could be burned at the stake for this…

3

Jerry,

Now I assume that you are a pantheist? Correct me if I’m wrong.

The question I have for you is:

I am confused as to how you might interpret God, from what I gather, you believe (and I like this) that God is not a seperate entity from us and everything else, but rather is us and everything else.
That to me makes sense beautifully.

However I wonder if you understand that if in fact God is everything, then God is not omniscient, God is simply a way to describe what the universe is, rather the nature of the universe. Causes and effects, both with physics and with human affairs.

Jesus Christ was not a divine avatar, but rather a man with an amazingly profound worldview, one that has its origins in the Jewish faith tradition.

In the same way as Jesus was the greatest Jewish theologian, Siddhartha Gautama was the greatest theologian of Hinduism.

So basically my question for you Jerry comes down to:

Who is Jesus Christ, to you?

4

Jerry

I thought I had referred to it but alas those Like Simone Weil and Meister Eckhart are not New Age enough. They are old fashioned. It is time for the new and improved version.

Out with the old and in with the new.

Jerry, why pick on Christianity? Here is a good alternative. Reveal the barbarism of Krishna in the Gita. After all look at the horrible advice he gave poor Arjuna.

Poor Arjuna is moved to tears having realized he must kill his family on the Battlefield of Kuruksetra. For what? Lunacy?

How beautiful. Surely now he will be surrounded by a hundred oohing and coohing women in admiration and Krsna will be overwhelmed and stop the battle.

But don’t forget that this was written a long time ago before we had education, Oprah, and Dr. Phil. Without these guides, how could any one be expected to think straight.

Krsna then has the audacity to say:

ABC news will probably do an expose on this barbarism emphasizing the importance of PC thought. Why wait for them? Instead of reconstructing Christianity, challenge the Gita. If nothing else you will get a lot of oohing and coohing and maybe an occasional BJ from a lot of women.

If not, introduce “A Course in Miracles” as true Christianity. Lets face it, the old stuff is becoming outdated. The course was initiated by a real expert, a Columbia University Professor that channeled Jesus directly. No middleman here. The Course is directly from the horses mouth. This is not something related to a manger but a real university. It is time to grow up. Consider the wonderfulness of its premise:

How lovely and peaceful. No Crosses to hang on. Get into that and everything will be just wonderful. It is really not necessary to tamper with ancient Christianity in the presence of such delightful and more urgent alternatives.

5

Hello F(r)iends,

Hi Jerry, I don’t have much time to respond, so I will have to write down a thought that your thread inspired within me. I shall return and dedicate more time to this thread. In the meantime:

The tao is not like water and neither is god like water. The tao is like Pepsi and god is like Coke. They are both delicious (on occassion), but potentially dangerous to your health. Especially dangerous when either becomes a permanent staple in your diet. The problem is that coke and pepsi are artificial. The problem is that they replace what we (mankind) really need: water. Water sustains us. Water is not artificial. Water is science, reason, and logic. We should all take a tall drink of water, instead of coke and pepsi. Coke and Pepsi are ok, but never let either replace water.

-Thirst4Water

6

Hi thirst

True, but there is water and there is water. How to tell the difference?

7

John 7

37On the last and greatest day of the Feast, Jesus stood and said in a loud voice, “If anyone is thirsty, let him come to me and drink. 38Whoever believes in me, as the Scripture has said, streams of living water will flow from within him.” 39By this he meant the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were later to receive. Up to that time the Spirit had not been given, since Jesus had not yet been glorified.

8

Hello F(r)iends,

Coke can satisfy, no doubt about it… but it is an artificial satisfaction.
Bad for your being.
How to tell the diff?
Avoid anything with sugar…

-Thirst4Water

9

Also bad for your teeth. Eh? What are we talking about again…I forgot…? But I remembered I need to make a dental appointment…

10

Jerry, I haven’t read many of your posts, so I don’t know if you are familiar with Aldous Huxley’s “The Perrenial Philosophy”. I am neither a christian nor a mystic, but I recommend this to anyone interested in the topic at hand. I do not know if it still in print. Can be had fairly readily at serious second-hand shops. Just thought I’d pass that along. Don’t hear much about the book, wonder if it’s commonly read.

11

Hi thirst

But neither have sugar. Sugar promotes thirst; it doesn’t satisfy it. Keep going.

12

Hi JT. One of the beautiful things about Christianity is the personification of the divine through Jesus. One of the dangerous things is the temptation to want to anthropomorphize. I’ve always liked your word “ineffable.” I first saw that word used in relation to God by the great Jewish theologian Rabbi Abraham Heschel in his book God in Search of Man. I think we can know pieces of God. I think we catch glimpses. That might be the best we can do.

I’ll leave it to others to decide whether we’re aligning or whether we’re conquering original sin. It may be that being out of alignment is inescapable, if we are even remotely able to choose independently. And maybe that’s a metaphor for Adam’s fall, I don’t know.

Don’t forget to bring the marshmallows…

13

Well, yes and no, Mr. Kebop. I believe in limited free will and so I imagine there is something of the universe not of God, and the traditional definition of pantheism seems inadequate. I imagine separation from God if we are not in union. We can postulate an underlying intelligence or consciousness but we’re contemplating here, too, a separate intelligence or consciousness as well, namely that which is held by man. In union with God the consciousness overlaps and becomes as one. If not in union, there is separation from God, a kind of scattering of consciousness.

I don’t know about omniscience. The separation from God, the consciousness that is held by man alone, leads me to think omniscience is an impossibility. The flip side of this coin is creativity. Man, free to act and choose, even to separate himself from God, becomes a creative agent. And with this, we can perhaps postulate a purpose for mankind.

If one is in total union with God, one is Christ.

14

Thirsty,

God is water. Furthermore, God is “science, reason, and logic.” Why is a divide necessary? Why are these things mutually exclusive?

Faust,

Thanks for the book recommendation. It’s been added to my list.

15

.

People already have posted on this forum regarding the matter . Or there,s plenty of literature elsewhere if your interested

.

16

Damn. And here I thought I might have something interesting to say about it. Something that could possibly generate some conversation where maybe other people might also say interesting things.

But, if there’s already been things said about it around here…

And if there’s literature I can read “if I’m interested…”

Well, I guess there’s just no need for me to have started this thread is there?

Thanks Disciple of light. I do hope I haven’t wasted too much of your time here today.

(You heard him folks. Nothing more to see here. Move it along…show’s over…)

17

Hi Jerry

It is one thing to discuss it and quite another to redefine it through “explanation.”

Imagine Christianity to be a profound work of art. If we don’t understand it, is it better to strive to abandon our preconceptions and rise in our understanding to become open to it, or reinterpret it so that it feels meaningful for us?

This is really the essential question. Is it we that do this or Christ in us that does it? If we believe we do it, it is demonic. Christianity asserts our nothingness. This is the same battle that exists over the Tao and balance going on here. Without proper preparation and the experience of our nothingness, what we feel as balance is just support and strengthening of our primary misconceptions and leads only to self justification. This is the idea of the Devil: self justification. The only way to be free of self justification is in the experience of our nothingness. If you don’t experience your nothingness by definition you are justifying yourself.

Where do you see this in scripture? What is this true self? It is Christ that lives in the mystic

Where do you see body into spirit?

Paul does not refer to spirit but to the spiritual body. this is a big difference.

The life of the mystic is not hearts and flowers. It begins with the purgative practice whereby the mystic gains control over the body rather than the body being the dominant influence. This is the development of real will in the face of desire.

The next step is illuminative where through real balance, will and attention, a person experiences real illumination of sacred truths. This is no longer intellectual but a direct illuminating experience.

The next step is unitive or contemplative and the experience of divine love. Simone Weil described this beautifully in relation to her experience. This communion with God is not cold awareness but a quality of love beyond our experience. It is the indication of a higher life to come in the spiritual body.

I know this is brief but I’m trying to suggest to you that there is something extraordinarily profound in Christianity and for those who care, rather than using our efforts to interpret it, I believe it would be more beneficial to learn how to understand and experience it .

18

It’s Friday night, I just left a barbeque, I’m half bagged and I’m ready for the challenge.

So Jerry,

How do we mesh The Christian cosmology with Eastern traditions, or do we? The parallels are obvious to those who have spent time looking at both, but parallels aren’t necessarily capable of carrying the same or even similar POV, are they?

I walked away from religion because of the single-point creator POV which I could never reconcile with a processual universe. And yet, The Christian mystics and the mystics of other traditions seem to see the same underlying order. Different language, but very close to the same understanding. How do you put the two together? How does one avoid the hassles with the fundamentalists in every religion screaming about ‘tampering’ with God’s “holy word”.?

All religious organizations are exclusive regardless the ecumenical chatter, and they defend their perogatives to declare meaning. How does one break through the wall (stone) of exclusivism? Is it a matter of waiting for the right time? Is this the right time? Or are the mystics to continue the ‘tradition’ of being whisperers on the sidelines?

My take suggests that the mystic tradition will always be the smallest minority of people who seek genuine conciliation among peoples and that which is. But I’m still waiting for the second coming or anything that will wake up hearts instead of another round of mind games.

Perhaps it best if I not hold my breath waiting…

I hope this looks as good in the morning as it does right now. :astonished:

JT

19

I think ‘christian mysticism’ is an oxymoron.

I like the reference to the Mahabharat. Arjun was taught, along side of the brothers he must kill, to keep his eyes on the target. Mysticism, mystery, secret traditions; its a mess, quite frankly. To understand the mystery, to remove the veil, one need only follow the mithreic iconography. The cool thing (one of the many cool things) is the coherence of the idea of mithras as the god of contracts being the one who ‘comes back’ to the abrahamic tradition.

Fundamentally, i can see ground for a ‘real’ kind of magic that would have run up against the earliest slight of hand. Early secret societies would have been the other side of the intuitive aspect of consciousness, intuitive matriarchal understanding being the one. At the same time, there’s a solar/lunar conflict going on; again, the Mahabharat is awsome, with Yuddhister and his direct brothers being the lunar aspect and, Karna embodying the purity of the erroneous solar aspect. In the western christian tradition, we are living the conflict to this day; christians have to testify to the truth through a haze of secret structures.

20

Hi Nick. One can’t get too far into a discussion without stepping into explanation. It is the explanations that are in need of, that are the reasons for, the discussion.

Let’s be clear. Every understanding of Christianity, indeed every understanding of anything, is an interpretation. Yes, we attempt as best we can to abandon all preconceptions but the very fact that we are attempting understanding, the very reasons for our interest in the first place, says something about our underlying beliefs, try as we might to purge them from our thought processes.

What place man? What purpose? And what comes from union with God?

I don’t disagree. I would just suggest once again to you that all is interpretation, including our experience and what it is we think we understand. I would also suggest that that may not be a bad thing. And further, that in a philosophy forum, it is unavoidable.