- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I am still noodling over all of this. Some of it is as clear as mud. OTher parts makes me think….”Holy Schmokes! I might just be a mystic.” But Thank you for the discussion. I am learning a lot. I hope the conversation continues.
The practical test of all these strange religious experiences of mysticism, ecstasy, and inspiration is to observe whether these phenomena cause an individual: 1. To enjoy better and more complete physical health.
2. To function more efficiently and practically in his mental life.
3. More fully and joyfully to socialize his religious experience.
4. More completely to spiritualize his day-by-day living while faithfully discharging the commonplace duties of routine mortal existence.
5. To enhance his love for, and appreciation of, truth, beauty, and goodness.
6. To conserve currently recognized social, moral, ethical, and spiritual values.
7. To increase his spiritual insight–God-consciousness.
True religion is not a system of philosophic belief which can be reasoned out and substantiated by natural proofs, neither is it a fantastic and mystic experience of indescribable feelings of ecstasy which can be enjoyed only by the romantic devotees of mysticism. Religion is not the product of reason, but viewed from within, it is altogether reasonable. Religion is not derived from the logic of human philosophy, but as a mortal experience it is altogether logical. Religion is the experiencing of divinity in the consciousness of a moral being of evolutionary origin; it represents true experience with eternal realities in time, the realization of spiritual satisfactions while yet in the flesh.
For the record, I don’t consider myself a mystic. I suppose in some technical sense, if I admit I have had a spiritual experience, I could be considered a mystic. But in the colloquial sense of the word I don’t think so. I put little to no weight on my spiritual experiences to tell me anything about reality, but rather to help my physiological self. I don’t expect prayer to help me find car keys, or help me make major decisions. That doesn’t mean there isn’t a benefit in this regard, but I expect it to come from natural consequences, like clearing my mind so I can think more clearly, helping me look at things from a different perspective etc. In other words, with regard to finding car keys, I would expect a natural consequence of prayer to be helping me recall the memory cues that can help me remember where I “lost” my keys. Whereas a mystic might find some supernatural message in this natural consequence, I do not. Doesn’t mean I don’t appreciate spirituality, or religion. I just view it as a tool, and a different one than what a mystic might view it as.
Quote:quite blue said…True religion is not a system of philosophic belief which can be reasoned out and substantiated by natural proofs, neither is it a fantastic and mystic experience of indescribable feelings of ecstasy which can be enjoyed only by the romantic devotees of mysticism. Religion is not the product of reason, but viewed from within, it is altogether reasonable. Religion is not derived from the logic of human philosophy, but as a mortal experience it is altogether logical. Religion is the experiencing of divinity in the consciousness of a moral being of evolutionary origin; it represents true experience with eternal realities in time, the realization of spiritual satisfactions while yet in the flesh.
Dang that was good!
quietblue wrote:The practical test of all these strange religious experiences of mysticism, ecstasy, and inspiration is to observe whether these phenomena cause an individual:
1. To enjoy better and more complete physical health.
2. To function more efficiently and practically in his mental life.
3. More fully and joyfully to socialize his religious experience.
4. More completely to spiritualize his day-by-day living while faithfully discharging the commonplace duties of routine mortal existence.
5. To enhance his love for, and appreciation of, truth, beauty, and goodness.
6. To conserve currently recognized social, moral, ethical, and spiritual values.
7. To increase his spiritual insight–God-consciousness.
True religion is not a system of philosophic belief which can be reasoned out and substantiated by natural proofs, neither is it a fantastic and mystic experience of indescribable feelings of ecstasy which can be enjoyed only by the romantic devotees of mysticism. Religion is not the product of reason, but viewed from within, it is altogether reasonable. Religion is not derived from the logic of human philosophy, but as a mortal experience it is altogether logical. Religion is the experiencing of divinity in the consciousness of a moral being of evolutionary origin; it represents true experience with eternal realities in time, the realization of spiritual satisfactions while yet in the flesh.
Yes! Very good stuff here, QB. Thank you.
You know…..at the end of the day, I don’t think these kind of labels serve me as they may serve some of you. I feel mostly like a regular human who has all of the desires listed above but who thinks about it in rather simple terms. I know I am not the smartest tool in the shed. I know I will never be a great intellectual. I can bearly hold my own in these deeper conversations. But I know about the truth that is written on the inside of me …. and it isn’t something that is a product of rational thinking or intellectual conclusions. When I hear truth, I think I recognize it. It kinda resonates inside me and I see the fruit of it as it expands and directs me.
This earth life is awfully confusing. So many different perspectives and groups and people who think so many varied and opposite thoughts!! I can’t make sense of all of it. Sometimes I feel like each division is focused on some wedge of truth….some portion that excites and fulfills. But it seems at times off balance and missing a centeredness….something that really resonates and appeals to me. I think I would rather see things as they really are even if I can’t see that far.
Poppyseed wrote:But I know about the truth that is written on the inside of me …. and it isn’t something that is a product of rational thinking or intellectual conclusions. When I hear truth, I think I recognize it. It kinda resonates inside me and I see the fruit of it as it expands and directs me.
Great thoughts Poppyseed. You seem to have a confidence about you in your ability to live with your truths. That’s great.It made me think a little…has it happened to you where the “truth that is written inside of [you]”, that truth that you recognize as resonating inside of you, has it ever been wrong and made you wonder how that could be so? If so, how do you handle that and still have confidence in the next truth you accept?
Heber13 wrote:Poppyseed wrote:But I know about the truth that is written on the inside of me …. and it isn’t something that is a product of rational thinking or intellectual conclusions. When I hear truth, I think I recognize it. It kinda resonates inside me and I see the fruit of it as it expands and directs me.
Great thoughts Poppyseed. You seem to have a confidence about you in your ability to live with your truths. That’s great.It made me think a little…has it happened to you where the “truth that is written inside of [you]”, that truth that you recognize as resonating inside of you, has it ever been wrong and made you wonder how that could be so? If so, how do you handle that and still have confidence in the next truth you accept?
Yes, I think many times what is “inside” is our mind wrestling with our heart. Sometimes the mind has been poisoned with the traditions of our parents — not always the truth for us.
Don Miguel Ruiz writes in his “Four Agreements” about putting off the old “dream” for the new. I like how he does it. (I know, guess that means another book review, huh?!)
😆 Rix wrote:Don Miguel Ruiz writes in his “Four Agreements” about putting off the old “dream” for the new. I like how he does it. (I know, guess that means another book review, huh?!)
😆
Yes! I thoroughly enjoyed the “Four Agreements”.HiJolly
Is “The Four Agreements” the name of the book or part of the book? Sounds good. Thanks Rix. I think you answered the question quite nicely for me.
Poppyseed wrote:Is “The Four Agreements” the name of the book or part of the book? Sounds good.
It is the name of the book. If you like it, his other books are great too. I really like “The Mastery of Love,” but The Four Agreements should be read first.
I used to study a bit of Kabala and spent many moons in the temple in a true quest for revelatory learning. I used to consider myself a mystic Mormon.
But like a Hasidic Jew would tell you, if you were not a good male Jew over the age of 45, this pursuit would leave a person literally insane. I found this to be a true warning worth heeding.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.