Christian Mysticism – A different understanding of Christ

Hi Jerry

As I understand it, Christian mysticism is the spirituality of the direct experience of God. This is an experience of “knowing” that transcends belief. It contains love and joy but not the emotions we are accustomed to that normally define them… It attempts to allow the New Man to replace the Old Man.

Christian Mysticism strives for the creation of the New Man in us by allowing the Christ to enter into the place of the infant soul dominated by our corrupt egotism as illustrated by previous quotes. The creation of the New Man allows for the relationship described in John 10:

Allowing the Christ to replace our inner corruption paves the way for the same relationship described above by John.

Notice that Jesus doesn’t say that YOU and the Father are on but that I and the Father are one. We need to establish “I.” You in this case is the "old man"and “I” is the New Man. This distinction is often overlooked.We assume our existence as the Old Man to be the same as the New Man strictly from wishful thinking. It doesn’t work that way. It is as naive as assuming we are millionaires through wishful thinking.

The idea of God as ineffable is accurate. But I believe to be misleading in regards Christian Mysticism. Considering God as ineffable makes it easy to fall into the trap of star gazing into la la land and believing we are something we are not. God is ineffable so we just try and be guided by our instincts and emotions inspired by the ineffable. It is forgotten that all this is impossible for the Old Man. Have you noticed that the Gospels do not speak of communication with the ineffable Father. The concern is for the Son to make it possible.

Union with Christ establishing our soul is the goal of Christian Mysticism. It is not WE but CHRIST in us that allows for our inner unity “to be.”

Hello Jerry:
I will like to tell you that I admire your honesty and it is not without sympathy that I send my reply.

— The problem I have always had with respect to reading literally, is that the answer to one major question – maybe the question – is sorely in want. What purpose man?
O- I don’t know. But I guess whatever the person who asks the question thinks it should be.

— What purpose life?
O- God knows. But I guess that too would be answered eventually by the person who asks the question. Questions, it seems, by the time they become formulated and the “?” added, already have their answer made. By then, they are almost rose-cheeked, because unlike other, some might say easier questions around which could be asked and have not been answered, this one lacks no answer. It lacks if anything a unanimous answer. we might as well ask: “what is beautiful?”

— If not union with God, if not co-creation of some sort, then what, omar?
O- I don’t know but I guess whatever that particular person who ask the question thinks it should be. In your view this union is as good a purpose as any I could come up with.
But here is the thing Jerry, most of the answers for this questions answer nothing, but simply defer the question.
What is the purpose of man? Well, what is the purpose of God?
Sometimes this concept of “God” serves as a sedative under which we become at peace. The answer is not really an answer but because it is God, we can now feel at rest and satisfied that this concept we have added, this element of God, makes the purpose of man, of life, clear. Union with God is your goal and purpose, but I could still ask, like an obnoxious child, What is the purpose for this union with God? Creation? What is the purpose of that Creation? It never needs to end, we simply tired and fall at the ankles of “God”.
But in the end, whatever we find as purpose will include what we come to find worthy of our time. Creation important for you? Then that will find it’s way to your proposition of a purpose. As sublime and spiritual as it could be, the purpose of life, and of man, is perhaps, perhaps, enjoyment, pleasure. Cynical, maybe, but that is what I find in almost all propositions, all narrations, a happy ending.

— This was the question that originally steered me towards other avenues. This gaping hole gnaws at one incessantly, does it not? Where is the answer?
O- From a metaphysical discomfort, this hole that gnaws, we flow towards a metaphysical comfort, a sedative like Opium, that plugs the hole and gives those jaws somethings to chew on for a while. along the way, one more day is purchased of meaning.

— Asking the question gets us started down a completely new path and it has occurred to me that the question is left unanswered precisely so that we may go in search of its answer.
O- Unanswered to whom? You? Sounded like earlier you had a pretty good idea, but maybe I was wrong.

— Could be Nada. Could be Todos. Abraham Heschel used the word “ineffable”, a word tentative is fond of and for good reason I think. I can’t do better than that. We can catch glimpses and we can see God sometimes if we’re paying attention. Through time, I have learned that I can see God in such things as you, me, the love I feel for my son, the eyes of a close friend, the waves of the ocean, and the way twilight makes me feel.
O- What makes you so sure that perhaps all you see is just that: Me, You, a friend, a wave in the ocean, the twilight? What is found in you, me, the love for your son, the eyes of a close friend, the waves of the ocean and the way that the twilight makes you feel? What is common to all of these? There lies your God…

Hi Nick. What, based on what you have said in your last post above, makes your definition of Christian mysticism not a “man made” one? How are not various interpretations of mysticism (indeed of Christ himself) not man made? And where, exactly, does mine in so far as I have revealed it here, miss the mark, do you think?

Thanks omar. Now you’ve gone and given me something to live up to…

And perhaps we ought to ask “what is beautiful.” Beauty is certainly in existence. But why? And what conclusions can we draw from its existence? Far from being rhetorical, fun questions for philosophy forums, I think there is something deeper and more meaningful to the inquiries. It is this potential depth and meaning that pushes one forward, that impels one helplessly towards the source. Perhaps this is what drove the famous mystics throughout history. Life has to mean something, and the answer must be with God.

But this train of thought presupposes an ultimate purpose. Maybe the purpose of life is life. What is the meaning of a rose? It just is. The universe is Creativity. In its essence, that is all it is. Not as a means to an end, but as an end in and of itself.

“Why do we love Lewis Carroll with his ‘’Twas brillig, and the slithy toves did gyre and gimble in the wabe, all mimsy were the borogroves, and the mome raths outgrabe….’? Why is it that all those old English songs are full of ‘Fal-de-riddle-eye-do’ and ‘Hey-nonny-nonny’ and all those babbling choruses? Why is it that when we get ‘hep’ with jazz we just go ‘Boody-boody-boop-de-boo’ and so on, and enjoy ourselves swinging with it? It is this participation in the essential glorious nonsense that is at the heart of the world, not necessarily going anywhere….the true meaning of life is no meaning…its purpose is no purpose…its sense is non-sense.” --Alan Watts, “The Tao of Philosophy”

It only remains as to how we fit in, what part we are to play, how we are to create. How to answer these questions without union with God? Impossible.

Well I was referring to the idea that it was left unanswered in scripture. Christ, the son of God, had the opportunity to tell us what our meaning was, what our purpose was, why there was something rather than nothing. And on these points he was silent. Why? I would suggest that it is our searching for these answers that allows us to fully see the place we have in the universe…it is the seeking of union with God that enables us to see, in a way no scripture reading could convey, our particular role in the unfolding of Creativity.

And I agree. But we can find God inward as well. This is the idea of mysticism. And once one finds God inward, then one sees the outward manifestations as well. They are, really, everywhere.

.

He was,nt silent as far as I can tell , enough was said to explain these things , just that most people dont agree on the meaning of them by the looks of it

.

Hi Jerry.

I don’t believe my definition is man made since it begins on the assumption of a quality of higher consciousness that we are dependent upon and must surrender to for the spiritual quest we are attracted to. The necessity of re-birth, the change of a person’s being, from the level of earth to the level of heaven. was emphasized by Jesus so in that sense was not man made. As a man I must accept or reject it but its origin is not man made.

You write of marrying many different ideas from different points of view but all on the same level of fallen man together. IMO this must produce just an additional summary on the same level.

Christianity theoretically begins with a conscious source from a higher level of existence and Jesus in this case. Its purpose is to make clear man’s fallen condition and what can be done about it for the benefit of the individual and Mankind

However, as conscious awareness begins to be replaced by secular concerns, it becomes interpreted to suit these concerns. These interpretations taken as a whole are Christendom. From this perspective, the awareness of our nothingness and need to receive is replaced by what we should do and often the associated belief that we are already sons of God.

I could be wrong but get the impression that you do not appreciate the reality of man’s nothingness essential to accept the conscious origin of Christianity and the experience of Christian Mysticism.

Just to be clear, my relating to God and the path that enabled me to see that my relating was something of an imperative for me, are two different things. Interpretations of philosophy, theology, science, anything you can name, are by necessity man made. There is no escaping this. Now, one can put some or all of these things together and come up with a worldview that points a certain way, say towards Christian Mysticism, and attempt as I am doing here to relate that point of view. But the union with God, if there is one, is divinely done so, I would say. One likes to think the path to get there is also, if not divinely made, at least divinely-inspired, I don’t know. But it is something of an intellectual, man-made process based on interpreting the things I have mentioned, to get there. The union, on the other hand, is something else entirely.

Keep in mind that I am relating my own personal experience and my own interpretation of Christian mysticism. I cannot do otherwise. My interpreting and relating in this forum, my definition of Christian mysticism, these things are man-made, as are yours. Our respective relationships with divinity, on the other hand, well, that’s another story.

Well I don’t accept the total annihilation of the self, no. First off, I think it impossible but secondly I’m not even sure it’s desirable. The distinction between created and Creator - in unity with God – is, as the great, 14th century mystic John Ruysbroeck wrote, “the highest and finest distinction that we are able to feel.”

Well I don’t accept the total annihilation of the self, no. First off, I think it impossible but secondly I’m not even sure it’s desirable. The distinction between created and Creator - in unity with God – is, as the great, 14th century mystic John Ruysbroeck wrote, “the highest and finest distinction that we are able to feel.”

“I Am” suggests your existence as both "I"and your self. Why annihalate the real?

Annihilation only refers to what is not real: the substance of our artificially created selves. It takes a long time even to distinguish here so the question is of no direct importance. I’m speaking theoreically that this distinction exists…

Meister Eckhart was a Christian mystic. Read how he explains how the artificial drops off.

But this is just theoretical for us since we are encased in the artificial that can easily create this illusion.