He wrote a lot about Christianity, not necessarily in a positive way, he was a non-believer, but not an atheist according to his own words.
An interesting book of his dealing exactly with the topic at hand is this:
Though I’m afraid this might be too much for your head, girl. 
Thanks for the thorough answer, Bob. So far, you’re the only one here to engage the topic deeply.
I see then what you mean by saying we’re all “mystics”. Though it defies the common definition of mysticism:
“Mysticism, broadly defined, refers to a belief in the possibility of experiencing direct communication with or union with a divine or transcendent reality through practices like meditation, prayer, or other altered states of consciousness. It’s often characterized by a subjective experience of truth, insight, and transformation.”
you associate it with transcendence, which can be defined as to go beyond the limitations of me and try and reach the outside world, its complexities, its aspects I don’t understand but at the same time which relate to my life, as I can’t be everything to myself without incurring in solipisism or egomania.
So, reaching for others, trying to establish communication, solidarity, a bond, that could be defined as transcendence. Yes, in my particular case, trying to conciliate my social nature with my perception of individualism. Trying to find a happy medium, to always be satisfied with myself but also not to be self-obsessed, like I would be if I entirely forgot there are other people around me. But what I try not to do is not to dive much deeper in social dependence, ie, I try not to become a sheep, because I have firmly established in my mind the notion that we can only exist individually- albeit living socially. This can also be an application of the coincidentia oppositorum.
My basic problem with this is the same as Cioran’s. He actually believe all mystical experiences were “nothing but rites and shudders”. You have to take the words of Eckhart, Jung and others at face value. Did they really access this hidden side of existence, did they really liberate themselves from the simplicity of duality, and how were they able to communicate this to us, if our normal understanding of things is so limited? Couldn’t these experiences be attribute to particular states of mind? Such as schizophrenia?
I particularly like Carl G. Jung. Why? Because he tries his best to look through and beyond things. He tries his best to say- hey, things are not black or white, things are not all scientifically provable or demonstrable (like his “father” Freud believed), there are things which escape our comprehension. Now, I have some reservations about fully following Jung (or James, or others) in his “trip”. I think he goes too far. Later in his life he became practically a Christian mystic. But he was a scientist. He should have known science, knowledge, advises us to be moderate, temperate.
Which would be an objection I would raise to the whole mystic experience, albeit I admit I never personally experienced nothing similar to that- nothing is impossible, who knows what I could experience in the future?- I think the feverish tone of the mystics (as commented by Cioran in Tears and Saints) comes very close to straightforward paroxysm.
So, nope, I can’t come here and simply say such things can’t happen. I would only advise anyone to interpret gnosticism with the healthy grain of salt.
Amen to all that, and that’s the reason I particularly do not accept the whole of his philosophy. I only quoted him because he was the first to come to mind and he was also obvioulsy obsessed by this topic.
That’s what I was saying, basically. It made their lives interesting. It made them penetrate a hidden side, a side of existence closed (deliberately or not) to other humans.
Someone described Cioran as a mystic without a God, as a man obsessed with unveiling the reality of life, at all costs. His obsession with his own pessimism, which borders on pathology (and which ends up making much of his later writings sound redundant), is one example of when a man decides to concentrate only on some, the gloomy, aspects of reality and forget everything else. Yet, he said himself “he loved man and life”. What he aimed at, mostly, was a life without delusions. All the -isms, all the absolutes, intend to give a man understand and meaning, but fail to do so. So he tries to dissect such things, and they are generally found wanting. Even existencialism, the philosophy en vogue in his time, and which could be easily associated with him, is entirely rejected. He only accepts himself, his own vision on the world, to exist perpetually disillusioned about men and things were essential to him.
I’d argue it’s impossible to classify these guys with a more apt term than fanatics. This term is not necessarily negative. I’m fanatic for a lot of things. In order to achieve these, say, higher levels of consciousness, they could not count on simple religious enthusiasm, which is appeased by easy answers. What you’re saying- they tried to look deeper, to go further, and, by all accounts, managed to do so. Just as, to gain deep knowledge about a science, you must become a fanatic for learning, this supposed higher vision cannot be attained by your average Christian or man on the street, it’s a compromise, a “leap of faith”, an all or nothing attempt to come to terms with the ultimate meaning of reality. And it must be accepted, by us, with a grain of salt. Using your own answer to “Mr Authoritarian” in the atheism topic, we may need to study the situation and understand all the circumstances, to be able to affirm it was really a mystical experience, or if the person is just taking his imagination and creativity too far.
It’s definitely not a matter of “they affirmed to reach that unity of opposites, they affirmed to transcend all earthly dualisms, so it must have been so”.
The enquiring mind is not that easily satisfied.
You’re welcome.
Without providing an exhaustive definition, Evelyn Underhill defined mysticism as ‘the art of union with reality’. A mystic is someone who has attained this union to a greater or lesser degree, or who aims to do so and believes in its possibility”. We have seen that the ideas of reality taught at school are outdated, and that our brains interpret reality very differently, suggesting WYSIWYG. But this is not the case.
My understanding of mysticism clearly contradicts a materialist worldview. Materialism holds that reality is fundamentally composed of matter, and that all phenomena — including consciousness and spiritual experiences — can be explained by physical processes. The concept of consciousness being primary in the universe is closely aligned with panentheism and rejects strict dualism between matter and consciousness. Instead, it proposes that both are manifestations of a deeper ontological unity. Therefore, the concept of a transcendent reality, as understood in mysticism and many philosophical traditions, differs greatly from the conception of God found in religious fundamentalism.
As a civilisation, we find ourselves profoundly alienated from reality as it truly is. Our everyday perceptions are often shaped by habits, assumptions and inherited narratives rather than direct, unfiltered experience. When we attempt to align ourselves with the deeper currents of reality, we begin to sense — however tentatively — that there may be an underlying intention or intelligence at work, animating consciousness within matter. The true scope and nature of this phenomenon remains largely unexplored and mysterious.
Consider, for instance, the simple act of sitting in meditation. Many people discover, often to their surprise, that maintaining focus or silencing the mind for even five minutes is a formidable challenge. Our thoughts arise and dissipate with a will of their own, revealing just how little control we possess over our consciousness. Similarly, try sustaining undivided attention on a single task for an extended period and you will quickly encounter the restless, wandering nature of the mind.
Venture into the natural world and you will witness a far more intricate and interconnected tapestry of life than our anthropocentric perspectives often allow. Observe the interactions among various species — predation, cooperation and competition — and you may find yourself labelling some behaviours as ‘cruel’. However, such judgements merely project human morality onto a reality that operates according to its own logic.
Examine a handful of soil under a microscope and the inert ‘dirt’ you once saw is suddenly revealed to be a bustling universe of life: bacteria, fungi and microfauna, all engaged in processes that are essential to the health of the planet. Listen to a lecture on photosynthesis and you will glimpse the staggering complexity of the process by which plants convert sunlight into energy — a process that is foundational to nearly all life on Earth.
Delve into the writings of medieval mystics such as Hildegard von Bingen, whose studies spanned music, medicine, theology and natural science. Her insights remind us that our understanding of reality is always evolving and that much of what we now take for granted was once shrouded in mystery.
Consider the profound experiences of those who care for the dying. Seasoned nurses often recognise subtle bodily changes that signal the approach of death — processes that science is only beginning to fully understand. Alternatively, reflect on the marvel of reproduction, where the orchestration of countless biological mechanisms results in the emergence of new life.
These examples, and countless others, reveal a humbling truth: we typically only scratch the surface of reality. The world is far richer, deeper and more mysterious than our everyday awareness suggests. Engaging with reality requires humility, curiosity and a willingness to question our most basic assumptions. Only then can we hope to gain an authentic understanding of the world and our place within it.
Rituals and spontaneous reactions — what Ciaron refers to as ‘rites and shudders’ — often serve as outward expressions of inner experiences or realities that we may not fully comprehend. Consider watching a video of a lively party or people dancing with the sound turned off, for example. Without context, the scene can appear chaotic, even absurd. Yet to those taking part, these actions are meaningful and deeply felt. This illustrates how easily we can misinterpret or undervalue experiences that we don’t personally share or understand.
When assessing phenomena such as mysticism, it is important to consider the observer’s perspective and disposition. Someone who has suffered from chronic depression or has a persistently gloomy outlook may not be best placed to evaluate the transformative or transcendent dimensions of a mystical experience. Their worldview could colour their interpretation, potentially leading to scepticism or dismissal of experiences that fall outside their own emotional range.
Language itself is a notoriously blunt instrument for conveying the richness of inner experiences. Whether it’s the profound stillness of meditation or the subtle beauty of a walk in nature, words often fail to capture the depth and nuance of our feelings. This is why poets, with their ability to evoke emotion and resonance, are often the only ones able to communicate such experiences in a way that allows others to recognise and relate to them. It’s no coincidence that many mystics throughout history were also poets, striving to articulate the ineffable.
Your comments on schizophrenia suggest a misunderstanding of the condition. Schizophrenia often involves a loss of contact with consensual reality, whereby thoughts and perceptions become disconnected from external facts and social context. For instance, someone with schizophrenia may develop an unwavering belief that those around them are machines, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. This is fundamentally different from a mystical experience, which usually involves a heightened sense of being part of a complex, interconnected reality that acknowledges the many factors, interactions and consequences which are often hidden from ordinary awareness.
It is crucial to approach these topics with nuance and empathy. Outward behaviours and inner experiences are not always easily interpreted, and the tools we have for understanding them — whether language, science or personal observation — are often limited. True insight requires an openness to perspectives beyond our own and a willingness to recognise the profound mystery at the heart of the human experience.
Carl Gustav Jung’s relationship with mysticism was complex and multifaceted. Although he often resisted being labelled a mystic, even expressing irritation at the term, his work and personal experiences were deeply intertwined with mystical themes and practices.
He drew inspiration from and was influenced by Christian mystics such as Meister Eckhart and Teresa of Ávila. He recognised a focus on transcending the ego and experiencing a direct connection with the divine in their writings — central themes in both mysticism and his own theory of individuation. Jung also explored Gnosticism and acquired the ‘Jung Codex’, a collection of Gnostic texts, which highlights his interest in esoteric spiritual traditions.
Despite his scientific background, Jung openly discussed his own mystical and paranormal experiences, including visions and encounters with what he termed “the other reality”. He maintained that true knowledge of the divine comes from direct inner experience rather than external authority, famously stating, 'I don’t need to believe. I know” regarding the existence of God.
There is also the story of the man who wanted to learn to swim and read a book on it. He then dived in and drowned of course.
At heart, the mystic embodies the spirit of inquiry, embracing the unknown and engaging deeply with the mysteries of existence. Unlike the narrowly focused approach often characteristic of modern science, the mystic seeks to understand reality in all its complexity, refusing to isolate phenomena from the broader web of life and meaning.
Science, for all its remarkable achievements, is necessarily specialised. While this specialisation allows for precision and depth, it can also result in hypotheses and experiments overlooking the larger reality in which their subjects are embedded. Critics rightly point out that, while a narrow focus is practical and often necessary for progress, it can blind us to unintended consequences. History is full of examples of scientific discoveries and technological innovations that, once released into the world, were later found to harm human health or the environment. The rush to embrace the new without sufficient reflection or holistic consideration has sometimes led to regrettable outcomes.
In contrast, the mystic’s approach is inherently integrative. Mystics fully immerse themselves in the subject of their contemplation, always seeking to understand its relevance to the greater whole. Their experiences are often transformative, leading to profound shifts in perspective, values and behaviour. These are not fleeting insights, but life-changing encounters that have a positive impact on the individual, their community, and the wider world.
The mystic’s path is organic and patient, recognising that true understanding and meaningful change require time to unfold. Just as living systems grow and evolve at their own pace, genuine wisdom also develops through sustained reflection and engagement. This holistic perspective encourages us to slow down and deliberate carefully on crucial issues, honouring the interconnectedness of all things.
In summary, while science excels at dissecting and analysing, the mystic reminds us to synthesise and contextualise. Both approaches are valuable, but it is the mystic’s commitment to seeing the bigger picture — and their willingness to be transformed by it — that offers a vital counterbalance in our fast-paced, fragmented world. By integrating the strengths of both inquiry and contemplation, we can make wiser decisions for ourselves and for the planet.
You seem to be a fan of ancient Greek history, what do you think on the subject of Orphism, was that which was described as the demiurge real name Elohim or Jehovah (Yahweh)? Both fit the bill very nicely in describing the demiurge, do they not?
What has always caused me to be interested in Gnosticism is the belief in the Demiurge who is this evil deity that rules over this world.
The Christians also have Satan and then of course we Buddhists have Mara. In some ways looking at Christianity I sometimes wonder if Jesus and Satan are really the same entity.
And then of course in Judaism there is no Satan for God is all encompassing being both good and evil where if evil things happen it is because God simply wills it to be. The duality of good and evil in Judaism being much more blurred than most Christians or outsiders even realize looking in.
The common belief in Gnosticism being that this world or plane we inhabit is a kind of fleshy hell prison ruled over by a deceptive God where the very concept of organized human civilization itself is just another continuation of that same prison where the only way to escape it is through a deeply virtuous religious life in ascending beyond this material plane of existence. I suppose for me that is what I find fascinating about the whole Gnostic worldview.
So, you equate physical reality with binary logic (i.e., everything is either one thing or its opposite). While binary logic is foundational in digital computing and some philosophical traditions (e.g., classical logic), physical reality is often more nuanced. Quantum mechanics, for example, introduces probabilities and superpositions, not just binary states.
Although the existence or non-existence of God is not definitively provable by empirical means and is why faith and belief are central concepts in theology, the idea that belief in God is binary (believe or don’t believe) is a simplification. In reality, belief is often a spectrum—people can be agnostic, uncertain, or hold nuanced views.
Ontologically, existence is often treated as binary—you either exist or you don’t. However, the subjective experience of existence (consciousness, self-awareness) is what distinguishes living beings from machines.
AI and computers can process information and output statements like “I exist,” but they lack subjective consciousness or qualia. This is a central issue in philosophy of mind (see the “Chinese Room” argument by John Searle).
So, I agree that genuine life is more than binary computation—it involves self-awareness, consciousness, and perhaps a spiritual dimension.
This is a classic issue in ethics and theology. Genuine belief (faith) is often expected to manifest in behaviour (works). Merely claiming belief without corresponding action is considered hypocrisy in many religious traditions (see James 2:14-26 in the Christian New Testament).
But again, belief is rarely purely binary; it can be complex and context dependent. The value of belief is often judged by its authenticity and its impact on actions. However, you correctly note that hypocrisy (claiming belief without genuine conviction or action) is not valued in most religious traditions.
Many religious traditions hold that life, especially conscious or spiritual life, is a gift, however you regard the giver of that gift. I also agree that machines (or people acting as mere machines) lack true life but not only because it is granted by God. But it does align with views that see life as more than biological or computational processes.
You have raised important philosophical and theological questions about the nature of reality, belief, consciousness, and authenticity and challenged the reduction of complex human experiences (like belief and existence) to simple binaries.
You highlight the distinction between genuine, lived faith and mere verbal or computational claims, and ultimately, what matters is not just binary statements of belief, but the authenticity and transformation of the heart—a view echoed in many spiritual traditions.
So, while binary logic is useful in computation and some philosophical analysis, human existence, consciousness, and faith are richer and more complex. Genuine belief is not just a binary state but is reflected in authentic living and transformation—a process that, according to many theistic traditions, is only possible through divine grace or intervention. But many philosophical and spiritual traditions emphasise self-knowledge and direct insight into the nature of reality as the core of wisdom and spiritual realisation.
The Delphic Maxim: “Know Thyself” was inscribed at the Temple of Apollo at Delphi and was central to Greek philosophy. Socrates famously echoed this in saying true wisdom comes from recognising one’s own ignorance and limitations. For Plato, knowing oneself was a path to understanding the Forms and the Good.
The Upanishads teach “Tat Tvam Asi” (“That Thou Art”)—the realisation that the true self (Atman) is identical with ultimate reality (Brahman). Self-inquiry (Atma Vichara) is a core practice, especially in Advaita Vedanta.
The Buddha taught investigation into the nature of the self, ultimately recognising the absence of a permanent, unchanging self (Anatta). Enlightenment arises from seeing reality as it truly is, beyond illusions and attachments.
Emphasises harmony with the Dao (the Way), which involves understanding one’s own nature and living in accordance with it. Laozi and Zhuangzi speak of returning to one’s “original nature.”
And even Christian mystics like St. Augustine and Meister Eckhart spoke of the importance of inner reflection and self-knowledge as a way to approach God. “God is closer to me than I am to myself” (Augustine)—suggesting that knowing oneself leads to knowing God.
Sufi teachings often stress that self-knowledge is the gateway to knowing God: “He who knows himself knows his Lord.” The journey inward is seen as a journey toward the Divine.
Carl Jung emphasised individuation—the process of becoming aware of oneself, integrating the conscious and unconscious. Existentialists like Sartre and Heidegger explored authenticity and the importance of confronting one’s true nature.
While some traditions focus on faith or divine grace, many others emphasise direct insight, self-inquiry and recognising the true nature of the self and reality. The phrase ‘Know thyself’ encapsulates the idea that understanding who and what we are is fundamental to wisdom, fulfilment and spiritual realisation. Here, the journey is not about binary belief, but about deep recognition, awareness and transformation. This approach complements, and sometimes contrasts with, traditions that emphasise faith or external authority.
You should probably throw out your sources and get better ones. ‘Cause you’re totally mixed up.
disclaimer: I have not read every reply in this thread
No, the Jews appropriated it from the Greeks and corrupted it…as they did from every host nation they came in contact with…beginning with the Egyptians.
That’s where they got their monotheism…or they could have stolen it from the Persians.
Orphic cosmogony is the basis of Gnosticism and all three Abrahamic variants.
Orphism had no Demiurge…it has a theogony…the creation of the gods.
The Greeks were never monotheists.
Gnostics and Jews, must have combined Orphism with Zoroastrianism, or Pharaoh Akhenaten monotheistic cult. They are also polytheistic…warped anti-nature pagans - messianic, in that they want to impose their gods on the world.
Know why they bob their heads when praying? Like freakin maniacs.
They are fornicating with their goddess Shekhina…or so I’ve heard.
Yes…so Saul (Paul) sells Judaism to Rome’s slaves, but ti is a version of Judaism that reduces Rome to a belief in goodness…disarming generations to come, converting them to passive minions, sheeple…meanwhile their god is good and evil…a scapegoat. A version of themselves.
Appearing good - ‘light upon the world’ and all that crap - but secretly evil.
The “most ethical army in the world” they said about the IDF, as it ethnically cleanses Semitic Palestinians in Gaza.
It’s ‘anti-semitism’ if you critique them, or boycott Israel…but most are not even Semites…not fully.
Arabs are more Semites than most of the ruling class in Israel.
How did that happen?
Propaganda…they are gifted with words - magical use of words/symbols to cast spells on gullible, vulnerable goyim.
They’ve convinced the American dominated world that they invented morals…and that without them we would be brutally slaughtering each other. All lies.
Other possibilities:
All 3 cultures were seeking the same answers about origins, and had similar source material because they sprang from the same root.
The one who kept the best records the longest influenced the other two more than vice versa. Can’t prove corruption without a source known to have zero poetry… and not even current science passes that test.
According to Sigmund Freud Akhenaten and Moses are the same historical individual.
It was the whole Jesus and Satan being identical that pissed you off, right?
I’ve never been a fan of the Jewish carpenter.
Yes, Christianity was a bad thing for Europe historically, far worse than the Black Plague. It has become almost like a servant religion for Judaism.
I don’t know, if I was an ancient Greek pagan seeing Christians tear down marble statues defiling them, burning down my temples, and arresting anybody upon the threat of death for worshipping the gods I might think to myself that their God who they call Jehovah is in fact some kind of demiurge. I wonder if there is any kind of connection in all of that within Gnostic interpretations.
I know…
Next on my reading list is a book on the Hassidic roots of Freud’s thinking.
Genocide via ideology.
Christians are ignorant of the atrociousness perpetrated against pagans that refused to convert to Christianity.
Even the myth about Roman atrocities is based on a lie.
Martyrdom was desired by the Christians of that time. They thought it was a fast track to paradise, like present day Muslims…so they invented the bullshyte about Christians being eaten alive in the Colosseum.
The lifeless binary processing biological machine body is agnostic because it operates on binary software.
The I am (SELF) interprets visions;sounds;sensations derived from binary signals derived from electromagnetic energy waves derived from vibrating matter.
The philosophy for creation is +/-=+/-
If I am not mistaken there’s a book written in Arabic by an Egyptian archeologist who wanted to prove Freud’s assertion that Moses was in fact Akhenaten. At some point I will need to find the English translation and buy it for my own private collection.
Yes, it is ideological warfare, they’re master manipulators of that. They always have been.
yeah…the odds are that Moses was an Egyptian, not a Jew, leading slaves to freedom, where the roamed in the desert for years, before they concocted their slave spirituality…and claimed Jerusalem as their land of milk and honey.
Their god giving them that land as a reward for being chosen to be the world’s victims.
They stopped proselytizing when they regularized all the world’s victims wanted in on the salvation myth.
They created the chosen myth…to preserve their victim status.
This is why Communism could only have been invented by a Jew.
‘Workers of the world unite!’…is not far from ‘victims of the world rejoice, you are saved!!’
Well, you must admit that this kind of ruinous ruthless capitalism that has infected all of western nations needs some kind of socialist insurrection against it, for if not socialism, then what exactly?
Yes, he undoubtedly was that same Egyptian in ancient times.
When I read your words I am reminded of McGilchrist’s spectrum of attention which has on the one end the prickly, categorising, naming, touching or grabbing side that wants to be sure what something is, and the other end of the spectrum is a wider perspective, that puts things in context, sees nuance, relationship, and recognises the dangers of ruthless scrutiny.
This is demonstrated best when the left or right hemisphere is in isolation through a brain injury to one side, or a stroke, which interrupts the cooperation of the hemispheres. A stroke caused by bleeding in the right hemisphere renders the left arm immobile, but the left hemisphere (LH) neglects the arm and can even claim it belongs to the person in the next bed. It also takes things at face value and can’t contextualise them. When the inhibition is on the left, the right arm is immobile, but is acknowledged, and although a speech impediment is possible, the contextualisation of what the patient faces is present.
The patients with LH impediment are often mouthy and uncooperative, whereas those with RH impediments are often more cooperative, albeit with difficulty in expressing themselves. Healthy cooperation sees the LH supplying the RH with specialised perception, and the RH contextualises the content. However, in all of this, it is working with input from the senses and with an inhibited perception of the external world.
It is when the inhibition of our brains is temporarily disabled, whether through illness, psycho-active drugs, or meditation techniques etc., that we get a glimpse of something we normally can’t perceive, and the brain’s attempt at interpretation can be wild or hypersensitive, even registering electromagnetic energy waves derived from vibrating matter.
When I read your words I am reminded of a psychotic atheists who claims to be an illusion trying to tell another individual that they have a mental health issue.
It’s hilarious.
You need to take the log out of their own eye before you post Bob.
You are clearly struggling to understand reality.
My intention is not to be insulting like you.
I just give the facts.
I KNOW how the physical works.
All of the physical is binary.There is no life in binary.
There is is only existence and non existence.
Well, my well-intentioned post has obviously not been understood by you, and you have reacted to contradicting your maxim.
Can you even attempt at understanding what I have written? And you call me an atheist with no evidence. Did you even enquire about McGilchrist if you didn’t know who I was talking about?