Post Reply
Page 3 of 3  •  Prev 1 2 3
Switch to Forum Live View A Good Book and Site on Contemporary Christian Mysticism
3 years ago  ::  Jan 07, 2012 - 2:24AM #21
Namchuck
Posts: 11,788

Someone once rightly described mysticism as beginning in 'mist', centering on the 'I', and leading to 'schism'. It is a ripe ground for those with overt narcissistic tendencies.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jan 09, 2012 - 8:23AM #22
BBarton
Posts: 1,670

Jan 7, 2012 -- 2:24AM, Namchuck wrote:


Someone once rightly described mysticism as beginning in 'mist', centering on the 'I', and leading to 'schism'. It is a ripe ground for those with overt narcissistic tendencies.




And who might that someone be?  -Someone entrenched in a religious or academic hierarchy for their living and social status, who counts on those beneath them remaining ignorant and pliable?

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jan 09, 2012 - 2:16PM #23
Namchuck
Posts: 11,788

Jan 9, 2012 -- 8:23AM, BBarton wrote:


Jan 7, 2012 -- 2:24AM, Namchuck wrote:


Someone once rightly described mysticism as beginning in 'mist', centering on the 'I', and leading to 'schism'. It is a ripe ground for those with overt narcissistic tendencies.




And who might that someone be?  -Someone entrenched in a religious or academic hierarchy for their living and social status, who counts on those beneath them remaining ignorant and pliable?




No, just someone who is educated and knows that the claim to some sort of non-sensory, non-rational, non-definable, non-identifiable means of knowledge - or "just knowing" - is simply empty and vacuous.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jan 09, 2012 - 5:21PM #24
BBarton
Posts: 1,670

Jan 9, 2012 -- 2:16PM, Namchuck wrote:


Jan 9, 2012 -- 8:23AM, BBarton wrote:


Jan 7, 2012 -- 2:24AM, Namchuck wrote:


Someone once rightly described mysticism as beginning in 'mist', centering on the 'I', and leading to 'schism'. It is a ripe ground for those with overt narcissistic tendencies.




And who might that someone be?  -Someone entrenched in a religious or academic hierarchy for their living and social status, who counts on those beneath them remaining ignorant and pliable?




No, just someone who is educated and knows that the claim to some sort of non-sensory, non-rational, non-definable, non-identifiable means of knowledge - or "just knowing" - is simply empty and vacuous.





Hope you're off to a good year, Namchuck. 


I have to ask; are you defining the mystical as claiming non-sensory, non-rational, non-definable, non-identifiable means of knowledge?


I would have to agree if all efforts were by charlitans and conmen; however, there are teachings that don't always make it into popular, academic or emperial dictates.  It's not as if mystery and secrecy are there to hoard knowledge, but rather because sometimes knowledge isn't appreciated, and has often proven to be deadly.  Consider the quest for land grabbing by France and power grabbing by the Papacy in the area that is now the south of France, and what became of the good people and their teachings, just as an example.


 


 

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jan 10, 2012 - 12:11AM #25
Namchuck
Posts: 11,788

Jan 9, 2012 -- 5:21PM, BBarton wrote:


Jan 9, 2012 -- 2:16PM, Namchuck wrote:


Jan 9, 2012 -- 8:23AM, BBarton wrote:


Jan 7, 2012 -- 2:24AM, Namchuck wrote:


Someone once rightly described mysticism as beginning in 'mist', centering on the 'I', and leading to 'schism'. It is a ripe ground for those with overt narcissistic tendencies.




And who might that someone be?  -Someone entrenched in a religious or academic hierarchy for their living and social status, who counts on those beneath them remaining ignorant and pliable?




No, just someone who is educated and knows that the claim to some sort of non-sensory, non-rational, non-definable, non-identifiable means of knowledge - or "just knowing" - is simply empty and vacuous.





Hope you're off to a good year, Namchuck. 


Time, as usual, will tell, BBarton. 


I have to ask; are you defining the mystical as claiming non-sensory, non-rational, non-definable, non-identifiable means of knowledge?


Yes, I think that is is a fair description of mysticism. One may see it more clearly in contrast to reason, which is the perception of reality and rests on a single axiom: the law of identity. Mysticism is the claim to the perception of some other reality - other than the one in which we live - whose identification or definition is only that 'it's' not natural, it is supernatural, and it is to be perceived by some form of unnatural or supernatural means.


I would have to agree if all efforts were by charlitans and conmen; however, there are teachings that don't always make it into popular, academic or emperial dictates.  It's not as if mystery and secrecy are there to hoard knowledge, but rather because sometimes knowledge isn't appreciated, and has often proven to be deadly.  Consider the quest for land grabbing by France and power grabbing by the Papacy in the area that is now the south of France, and what became of the good people and their teachings, just as an example.


Well, I am familiar with the history of mysticism and its teachings, but maybe I've missed something. Perhaps you could elucidate a bit on what aspects of that "knowledge" didn't, or hasn't, received a fair hearing? 


By the way, it was Jean Houston who defined mysticism as beginning in mist, has an I in the middle, and ends in schism.




I hope there is a good year ahead for you, too.


 


 





Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jan 10, 2012 - 8:45AM #26
BBarton
Posts: 1,670

Jan 10, 2012 -- 12:11AM, Namchuck wrote:


Jan 9, 2012 -- 5:21PM, BBarton wrote:


Jan 9, 2012 -- 2:16PM, Namchuck wrote:


Jan 9, 2012 -- 8:23AM, BBarton wrote:


Jan 7, 2012 -- 2:24AM, Namchuck wrote:


Someone once rightly described mysticism as beginning in 'mist', centering on the 'I', and leading to 'schism'. It is a ripe ground for those with overt narcissistic tendencies.




And who might that someone be?  -Someone entrenched in a religious or academic hierarchy for their living and social status, who counts on those beneath them remaining ignorant and pliable?




No, just someone who is educated and knows that the claim to some sort of non-sensory, non-rational, non-definable, non-identifiable means of knowledge - or "just knowing" - is simply empty and vacuous.





Hope you're off to a good year, Namchuck. 


Time, as usual, will tell, BBarton.


Yes, but you have already blessed my first month!  


I have to ask; are you defining the mystical as claiming non-sensory, non-rational, non-definable, non-identifiable means of knowledge?


Yes, I think that is is a fair description of mysticism. One may see it more clearly in contrast to reason, which is the perception of reality and rests on a single axiom: the law of identity. Mysticism is the claim to the perception of some other reality - other than the one in which we live - whose identification or definition is only that 'it's' not natural, it is supernatural, and it is to be perceived by some form of unnatural or supernatural means.


Ah, that would explain it then; the space between our views.  We have two different definitions of the same word!  I see it as the dynamic, a form of physics even; which is not apart, but encompasses and transcends the temporal.  We know words are symbols of thought, and thought is energy.  Throughout man's journey through time and place, some have harnessed this for the good and some for personal power and glory.


I would have to agree if all efforts were by charlitans and conmen; however, there are teachings that don't always make it into popular, academic or emperial dictates.  It's not as if mystery and secrecy are there to hoard knowledge, but rather because sometimes knowledge isn't appreciated, and has often proven to be deadly.  Consider the quest for land grabbing by France and power grabbing by the Papacy in the area that is now the south of France, and what became of the good people and their teachings, just as an example.


Well, I am familiar with the history of mysticism and its teachings, but maybe I've missed something. Perhaps you could elucidate a bit on what aspects of that "knowledge" didn't, or hasn't, received a fair hearing?


I'm sure you know much more than I. 


By the way, it was Jean Houston who defined mysticism as beginning in mist, has an I in the middle, and ends in schism.


Thank You, Namchuck.  She's what I consider a mystic.  Also, I see mysticism as knowledge of the oneness of being; the part all religions transcend ego(s) to.




I hope there is a good year ahead for you, too.


Yes, thank You!  You have blessed me by introducing me to Jean Houston.  I have enrolled in her January teleconference series!  Smile   


 









Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jan 10, 2012 - 2:21PM #27
Namchuck
Posts: 11,788

Jan 10, 2012 -- 8:45AM, BBarton wrote:


Jan 10, 2012 -- 12:11AM, Namchuck wrote:


Jan 9, 2012 -- 5:21PM, BBarton wrote:


Jan 9, 2012 -- 2:16PM, Namchuck wrote:


Jan 9, 2012 -- 8:23AM, BBarton wrote:


Jan 7, 2012 -- 2:24AM, Namchuck wrote:


Someone once rightly described mysticism as beginning in 'mist', centering on the 'I', and leading to 'schism'. It is a ripe ground for those with overt narcissistic tendencies.




And who might that someone be?  -Someone entrenched in a religious or academic hierarchy for their living and social status, who counts on those beneath them remaining ignorant and pliable?




No, just someone who is educated and knows that the claim to some sort of non-sensory, non-rational, non-definable, non-identifiable means of knowledge - or "just knowing" - is simply empty and vacuous.





Hope you're off to a good year, Namchuck. 


Time, as usual, will tell, BBarton.


Yes, but you have already blessed my first month!  


Sincerely glad to hear it!


I have to ask; are you defining the mystical as claiming non-sensory, non-rational, non-definable, non-identifiable means of knowledge?


Yes, I think that is is a fair description of mysticism. One may see it more clearly in contrast to reason, which is the perception of reality and rests on a single axiom: the law of identity. Mysticism is the claim to the perception of some other reality - other than the one in which we live - whose identification or definition is only that 'it's' not natural, it is supernatural, and it is to be perceived by some form of unnatural or supernatural means.


Ah, that would explain it then; the space between our views.  We have two different definitions of the same word!  I see it as the dynamic, a form of physics even; which is not apart, but encompasses and transcends the temporal.  We know words are symbols of thought, and thought is energy.  Throughout man's journey through time and place, some have harnessed this for the good and some for personal power and glory.


Yes, I could go along with that, except, of course, that the energy of thought is very much a temporal energy. 


I would have to agree if all efforts were by charlitans and conmen; however, there are teachings that don't always make it into popular, academic or emperial dictates.  It's not as if mystery and secrecy are there to hoard knowledge, but rather because sometimes knowledge isn't appreciated, and has often proven to be deadly.  Consider the quest for land grabbing by France and power grabbing by the Papacy in the area that is now the south of France, and what became of the good people and their teachings, just as an example.


Well, I am familiar with the history of mysticism and its teachings, but maybe I've missed something. Perhaps you could elucidate a bit on what aspects of that "knowledge" didn't, or hasn't, received a fair hearing?


I'm sure you know much more than I. 


I don't know about that, but it is a fascinating subject.


By the way, it was Jean Houston who defined mysticism as beginning in mist, has an I in the middle, and ends in schism.


Thank You, Namchuck.  She's what I consider a mystic.  Also, I see mysticism as knowledge of the oneness of being; the part all religions transcend ego(s) to.


In your definition of the word, yes.






I hope there is a good year ahead for you, too.


Yes, thank You!  You have blessed me by introducing me to Jean Houston.  I have enrolled in her January teleconference series!  Smile  


Good for you! She "blessed" my life about twenty years ago and has remained a positive influence ever since. You're in for an exciting beginning to your year!




 













Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 13, 2012 - 11:54PM #28
BodhiBick
Posts: 78

Here's a link to some free Christian Mystic Books for anyone interested.



christianmystics.com/Ebooks/Christian_My...

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 25, 2012 - 10:04AM #29
BBarton
Posts: 1,670

Nice, thanks!

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 3 of 3  •  Prev 1 2 3
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook