To know there is no god?

[grover]

No, I'm not blind. However, a blind person should be able to; (i.e I can't see anything). Why even ask the question? It goes without saying that I am not going to be able to describe an experience someone else has.. the issue here is that they claim they can't describe it, in which case discussing it is pointless.

No, I said can you give an adequate description of how things look to a blind person. I didn't say you are blind, I said can you desribe how things look so a blind person could understand. How can you misinterpret what I am saying so badly? I think the reason I've made no headway with getting you to undersatand anything is because you misinterpret what I say. Lol.[/QUOTE]

No, it merely served to point out the worthlessness of this whole issue. You claim it's "identical" and yet they can't even explain the experience. Seeings as they cannot explain the experience how would you ever be able to claim that they're all identical?

Can you describe with language to a blind person how things look? If not I guess by your logic you are not really seeing anything. Lol

Ah, the minute I point out something that argues against your claims it's because of misinterpretation from the guy that made the statement in some text you used to try and make a point? Lol.

No, I offered a possible explanation. Do scientists agree on every tiny little aspect of evolution? Hell no. Does that mean it isn't true? Hell no. They agree on the vast majority of it. Same with mystical experience. Lol.

Now now, stop giving your opinion and trying to make it look like a fact :bugeye: Do you know "everyone" that has studied the subject? (of course the guy you quoted would disagree with you - he states that you can't describe it in which case you wouldn't know if they were similar or not.. oh wait, he misinterpreted lol). I notice you've also changed tact again - from identical to merely similar. Why do that?

I haven't changed tact. I still maintain the mystic experience is the same across cultures. As does everyone scholar I've ever read. If you disagree with me then find a scholar that says as much or show it is otherwise beyond just pointing out one sentence.

But aside from that minor fudge up, the rest of his research in English is perfectly fine? If you think he's in error, why apply it only to the one sentence that goes against your claims?

One sentence goes against my claims and my whole thesis falls apart? Where have I heard that argument before? hmmmmmm. oh yeah! From Christian Fundamentalists that find a minor discrepancy in evolutionary theory and then harp on it as if that disproves the whole thing. LOL.

Unless of course they read the sentence that states they're not. Oh wait, that's clearly wrong because it goes against your claims. Lol.

Right, one sentence ruins my whole argument.

Further to which, given that the experience is indescribable, we'd have no way of confirming your claim.

There is no way for a sighterd person to describe vision in away to a blind person so they have no way of confirming that vision actually exists or if its just the rambling of lunatics. Of course all sighted people KNOW that vision is real by direct experience.

A) Don't talk to me about bias (that parts wrong, the guy can't speak English!! I only say this because it goes against my claim). Lol.

Again, you want to harp on one minor discrepancy as if that unhinges my entire argument. Just like Christian Fundamnetalists think the missing link is proof that evolution isn't true.

B) I use 'hearing voices' because much like your claim, the experience is the same, (every single person 'afflicted'.. hears voices). Of course at least those that hear voices can describe the actual experience, your guys can't.. apparently.. unless that's just another example of their bad English?

I've pointed out that just because you can't describe an experience doesn't prove it isn't true. You can't describe what blue looks like to a blind person.

You don't have to do anything. Besides which, you wouldn't need to go round the whole internet looking for experiences from different faiths because apparently all the experiences are "identical". As a result you'd only need to point out one. Pick the first site that you come to and that, apparently, settles that.

I gave you a site and you didn't read it. Here it is again: http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/mcb/mcb03.htm


Here is one quote from it:
"Whatever influence Eckhart might have received from the Jewish (Maimonides), Arabic (Avicenna), and Neoplatonic sources, there is no doubt that he had his original views based on his own experiences, theological and otherwise, and that they were singularly Mahāyānistic. Coomaraswamy is quite right when he says:

Eckhart presents an astonishingly close parallel to Indian modes of thought; some whole passages and many single sentences read like a direct translation from Sanskrit. . . . It is not of course suggested that any Indian elements whatever are actually present in Eckhart's writing, though there are some Oriental factors in the European tradition, derived from neo-Platonic and Arabic sources. But what is proved by analogies is not the influence of one system of thought upon another, but the coherence of the metaphysical tradition in the world and at all times."

 

[SnakeLord]

No, I said can you give an adequate description of how things look to a blind person. I didn't say you are blind, I said can you desribe how things look so a blind person could understand. How can you misinterpret what I am saying so badly? I think the reason I've made no headway with getting you to undersatand anything is because you misinterpret what I say. Lol.

Well well, I suppose we best clear this up before that ego of yours becomes too big for your body. What I was saying is pretty much the same as you but with final disagreement. Frankly yes, I can explain to a blind man what something looks like - their handicap does not make them complete idiots. Ok, admittedly it might not be the best possible explanation but that does not mean one cannot do it.

In the reverse instance a blind man should be able to describe what they 'see', (I have had blind people tell me they can 'see' certain arrays of light and colour etc). Again, the explanation might not be perfect - but it is sufficient to gain a basic understanding.

Can you describe with language to a blind person how things look? If not I guess by your logic you are not really seeing anything. Lol

I would say yes, you can - although not perfectly. However the issue here is that given that those that have the experience cannot explain it you have no justification to claim they're all identical. That is the issue.

No, I offered a possible explanation. Do scientists agree on every tiny little aspect of evolution? Hell no. Does that mean it isn't true? Hell no. They agree on the vast majority of it. Same with mystical experience. Lol.

So you're basically telling me to ignore this guy because he's wrong?

I haven't changed tact. I still maintain the mystic experience is the same across cultures.

Clearly you have changed tact. "The same" is not "similar". Which is it?

One sentence goes against my claims and my whole thesis falls apart?

Taking lessons from LG I see. Divert attention from the question you didn't answer by asking one in return. Let's try again:

"If you think he's in error, why apply it only to the one sentence that goes against your claims?"

oh yeah! From Christian Fundamentalists that find a minor discrepancy in evolutionary theory and then harp on it as if that disproves the whole thing. LOL.

With all due respect, but you provided the information. That information then went against what you had claimed. That's hardly my fault but does indeed give me reason to doubt that you even know enough about the subject matter to be making claims in the first place. I would ask that in future if you're trying to support a claim of yours that you use sources that actually agree with those claims as opposed to plain disagreement.

There is no way for a sighterd person to describe vision in away to a blind person so they have no way of confirming that vision actually exists or if its just the rambling of lunatics.

Sure, and what it then comes down to is that you can't claim that experiences you haven't undergone are "identical", especially given that they can't explain those experiences.

I've pointed out that just because you can't describe an experience doesn't prove it isn't true.

We've been through this before, (also with LG). What it comes down to is that you cannot debate against something unless you are 'qualified', (have direct perception). Now you add to that in saying that you don't even have to explain the claim. "I saw a leprechaun, can't explain it to you, you can't refute it unless you also see that leprechaun". That's exactly what it comes down to and it's ludicrous.

I gave you a site and you didn't read it.

What would I gain from reading it? If it is impossible to describe the experiences, (as you have claimed with your blind man analogy), then what will be written there that is of any value in this discussion? It certainly wont describe the experience. So, you want me to read another bit of text that claims experiences are identical but without being able to describe that experience which means there's no justification for the claim in the first place.

Eckhart presents an astonishingly close parallel to Indian modes of thought

SnakeLord presented an astonishingly close parallel to the thoughts of some dude in the pub the other night. Just like me, he thought Blair's an asshole, Beckham should rejoin the England squad and that fox hunting is a cruel thing.

How do you think anything you have pasted supports your claim that mystical experiences are "identical"? Even more so considering the texts you paste generally do not support your claim. They say "similar" and "close" and then go on to say that "there are some Oriental factors in the European tradition, derived from neo-Platonic and Arabic sources" and "Eckhart might have received from the Jewish (Maimonides), Arabic (Avicenna), and Neoplatonic sources" - thus showing why there would be similar modes of thought. Needless to say, again, similar modes of thought does not support your claim that they are all "identical". Neither do your own statements that you can't describe the experience, (blind man analogy). As it can't be explained, you can't claim its "identical". Simple really.

 

[grover]

Well well, I suppose we best clear this up before that ego of yours becomes too big for your body. What I was saying is pretty much the same as you but with final disagreement. Frankly yes, I can explain to a blind man what something looks like - their handicap does not make them complete idiots. Ok, admittedly it might not be the best possible explanation but that does not mean one cannot do it.

Then put your fucking money where you're mouth is and do it. Describe the color blue.

In the reverse instance a blind man should be able to describe what they 'see', (I have had blind people tell me they can 'see' certain arrays of light and colour etc).

Then they're not blind.

I would say yes, you can - although not perfectly. However the issue here is that given that those that have the experience cannot explain it you have no justification to claim they're all identical. That is the issue.

No, the issue is just because something cannot be described in language doens't mean it is invalidated. And you are zeroing in one item on the list "ineffability." They do give other descriptions such as oneness, etc., reeread the list, "ineffability" isn't the only thing on the list, that's just one asperct. And it is an aspect that they all agree upon.

So you're basically telling me to ignore this guy because he's wrong?

I didn't tell you to ignore him. I said he disagrees one point and then provided an plausible explanation why he agrees with everything else the other guys are saying but disagrees on this one point. TO lend support to my hypothesis that it is a language barrier let me give you some quotes;
From the Zen master Dogen "To study zen is to study the self, to study the self is to forget the self, to forget the self is to become one with all things."
From the Christian mystic St. Teresa of Avila: "Forget yourself and you will know God." But Christian mystics also sometimes employ pronouns such as refering to God as he and the soul as she. See how that might confuse whose second language is english. At any rate he is clearly wrong on this single point that impersonla tone of zen mytic experiences differ from those of the Christian as evidenced by the exterme similarity of the statements of Dogen and St. Theresa (and no, they had weren't inluenced by each others tradtion but came up with these statments independently).

Clearly you have changed tact. "The same" is not "similar". Which is it?

You are just playing a little semantic game. I haven't changed tact, I maintain that their expeiences are identical and the high degree of similarity in their expeiences suggests something objectlvely observed.

Taking lessons from LG I see. Divert attention from the question you didn't answer by asking one in return. Let's try again:

"If you think he's in error, why apply it only to the one sentence that goes against your claims?"

Because that's the only sentencce I think he's in error on idiot. I gave you my explanation of why I think he is in error and provided an example of a Christian mystic that clearly show his statment was misguided. Do I have to go dig up more quotes?

With all due respect, but you provided the information. That information then went against what you had claimed.

The overwhelming majority of it is in agreemnet and you zero in on one sentence that could be reasonably accounted as a language misunderstanding. Giving a noun a gender is common in european languages but not in japanese. You think no confusion could ever arise becasue of that? Have you ever learned another language?

That's hardly my fault but does indeed give me reason to doubt that you even know enough about the subject matter to be making claims in the first place. I would ask that in future if you're trying to support a claim of yours that you use sources that actually agree with those claims as opposed to plain disagreement.

Again, they are in overwhelming agreement and you want to make a big deal out of one line.

Sure, and what it then comes down to is that you can't claim that experiences you haven't undergone are "identical", especially given that they can't explain those experiences.

Why are you assuming I haven't undegone it?
Not being able to describe something is not proof it doesn't exist. You can't explain to a blind person what blue looks like. (You claim you can so do it, give a description of blue).

We've been through this before, (also with LG). What it comes down to is that you cannot debate against something unless you are 'qualified', (have direct perception).

That's not what it comes down to. What it comes down to is somethings you have to have direct perception of to know it. A blind person is totallly incapable of imagining what blue is. And language can't describe it for them. That's what it comes down to. To know what blue is you must see it directly. It's not about debate. It's about knowing it directly. There is nothing to debate about blue. You either see it or you don't and seeing it is knowledge of what it is.

Now you add to that in saying that you don't even have to explain the claim. "I saw a leprechaun, can't explain it to you, you can't refute it unless you also see that leprechaun". That's exactly what it comes down to and it's ludicrous.

No, I'm saying it's impossible to describe it in language just as you can't describe blue. Somethings you have to have direct experience of. No, what would be ludicous is if blind people didn't believe we are actually seeing blue. Imagine if the population was 98% blind and 2% of the population had occasional flashes of sight. They would be totally incapable of describing their experience to those who were blind and the blind would assume that since those who saw couldn't describe to them what was seen it was some kind of mental defect. But, some of the more astute among the blind might notice that the attempts at description by the sighted sound remarkable similar, and occasionally some of those blind would have glimpses of their own in which case they would have seen themselves and then would have known through direct experience.

In the final analysis, all you are is a blind person that says sight is impossible.

 

[SnakeLord]

Then put your fucking money where you're mouth is and do it. Describe the color blue.

*Deep breath, count to 10...* Calm yourself!

Ok, the typical way of describing colour to a blind person is to equate that colour to a feeling or something else a blind person can understand, (i.e red is usually described as being hot, blue as cold, pink as something cuddly).

As I explained earlier, while the description will not be perfect, it doesn't altogether prevent giving a description.

No, the issue is just because something cannot be described in language doens't mean it is invalidated.

Certainly, but it does mean you cannot justifiably claim they are "identical". Similar, by what we can gather certainly. Similar is not identical.

And you are zeroing in one item on the list "ineffability."

Is that not the typical reaction of man? If something in a statement/claim stands out as erroneous, it's commonplace to pick up on it and say "dude, there's a contradiction/error in your claim".

They do give other descriptions such as oneness, etc., reeread the list, "ineffability" isn't the only thing on the list, that's just one asperct.

Certainly, but it only takes one aspect of a claim to denounce the claim if it goes against what the claim actually claims, (i.e you claim "identical". It ojnly takes one difference for that claim to fall apart).

From the Zen master Dogen "To study zen is to study the self, to study the self is to forget the self, to forget the self is to become one with all things."
From the Christian mystic St. Teresa of Avila: "Forget yourself and you will know God."

There is a vast difference in the two statements made above. One claims to forget yourself, (whatever that means), will allow you to know god. The first statement makes no such claim. It says studying oneself, (which the latter statement does not claim), will let you become one with everything. Vast difference.

At any rate he is clearly wrong on this single point that impersonla tone of zen mytic experiences differ from those of the Christian as evidenced by the exterme similarity of the statements of Dogen and St. Theresa

Clearly he is not wrong, given the vast difference between the statements of those two people. Having said that it is of little consequence. You cannot show they're "identical". That is the argument here.

(and no, they had weren't inluenced by each others tradtion but came up with these statments independently).

How do you know that? We're all influenced by others.

You are just playing a little semantic game.

Not at all. You cannot claim "identical" and then state they're "similar" without causing an issue.

I maintain that their expeiences are identical and the high degree of similarity in their expeiences

Contradiction.

Because that's the only sentencce I think he's in error on idiot.

*Breathe... slowly count to 10* Relax.

I gave you my explanation of why I think he is in error and provided an example of a Christian mystic that clearly show his statment was misguided. Do I have to go dig up more quotes?

You don't have to do anything. Fact is that you claimed he was wrong, (because he disagreed with your claims), purely by stating his English sucks ass, and yet cannot justify disagreeing with that sentence alone but considering everything else perfectly peachy - only because it agrees.

Have you ever learned another language?

Several. Needless to say, I generally don't just mess up with one sentence while speaking the rest fluently.

You either see it or you don't and seeing it is knowledge of what it is.

Which brings us back to the point. You can't refute or debate against Lenny the leprechaun until you see him, in which case there's nothing to debate. The same goes for mermaids, dragons, invisible purple unicorns etc etc.

 

[grover]

Deep breath, count to 10...* Calm yourself!

Ok, the typical way of describing colour to a blind person is to equate that colour to a feeling or something else a blind person can understand, (i.e red is usually described as being hot, blue as cold, pink as something cuddly).

Yes, and a blind person would still be completely clueless at to what those colors look like. For them to know they would have to experience it directly.

As I explained earlier, while the description will not be perfect, it doesn't altogether prevent giving a description.

Yeah you gave a description, and the blind person still has no idea what colors actually look like.

Certainly, but it does mean you cannot justifiably claim they are "identical". Similar, by what we can gather certainly. Similar is not identical.

Fine dude. I still maintain that people that have these experiences recognize that the experience is the same across cultures even though different terminology is used. But, I could see how someone that hasn't had the experience would merely see them as very, very, very, very similar.

Is that not the typical reaction of man? If something in a statement/claim stands out as erroneous, it's commonplace to pick up on it and say "dude, there's a contradiction/error in your claim".

Yes it is the typical reaction. And you're right there is a clear contradiction in one comment Suzuki made that goes against the other posts. I still maintain that a japanese person whose second language is english could have a misunderstanding about the use of personal pronouns in the writing of Christian mystics - that misundestanding specifically being that the Christian Mystics experience a personal element even though Christian mystics univeraslly say that all sense of personal must be lost and use terms such as"lose self, abandon self, die to self." It's identical to buddhism.

Certainly, but it only takes one aspect of a claim to denounce the claim if it goes against what the claim actually claims, (i.e you claim "identical". It ojnly takes one difference for that claim to fall apart).

Well, are you saying it's impossible that Suzuki didn't have a misunderstanding due to language?

There is a vast difference in the two statements made above. One claims to forget yourself, (whatever that means), will allow you to know god. The first statement makes no such claim. It says studying oneself, (which the latter statement does not claim), will let you become one with everything. Vast difference.

No, there isn't a vast difference. Both say one must forget oneself to have direct experience. "The most important, the central characteristic in which all fully developed mystical experiences agree, and which in the last analysis is definitive of them and serves to mark them off from other kinds of experiences, is that they involve the apprehension of an ultimate nonsensuous unity in all things, a oneness or a One to which neither the senses nor the reason can penetrate. In other words, it entirely transcends our sensory-intellectual consciousness." IN buddhism the term used for this super-sensory oneness is Buddha-nature, in Christian mysticism the term used is God. The statements are identical, only the terminology is different.

Clearly he is not wrong, given the vast difference between the statements of those two people. Having said that it is of little consequence. You cannot show they're "identical". That is the argument here.

There is no difference. They are identical. All you are doing is denying what has been demonstrated to you just as Fundamentalists deny that evolution is proven no matter what evidence is presented to them.

How do you know that? We're all influenced by others.

Are you claiming that a christian nun was reading buddhist texts and a buddhist monk was reading christian texts? Well your'e free to make that claim if you want but the burden of proof is of course on you to back it up. Of course even if you do show that that's the case I don't see how it's going to support the claim that there are vast differences between what they are saying. But like I said, if you're going to make that claim let's see some textual evidence.

Not at all. You cannot claim "identical" and then state they're "similar" without causing an issue.

Are identical twins similar?

Contradiction.

Nope

*Breathe... slowly count to 10* Relax.

I'm calmer than you.

You don't have to do anything. Fact is that you claimed he was wrong, (because he disagreed with your claims)

No, I claimed he had a misunderstanding due to language. I then provided evidence to back up my claims.

purely by stating his English sucks ass

Nope, didn't say that. Said he had a misunderstanding due to language.

and yet cannot justify disagreeing with that sentence alone

Nope, did justify it.

but considering everything else perfectly peachy - only because it agrees.

Yes, everything else does agree.

Several. Needless to say, I generally don't just mess up with one sentence while speaking the rest fluently.

Well, are you honestly making the claim that misunderstandings can't occur when reading a language that isn't ones native language? I made the claim he had a misunderstanding due to language and your trying to make it sound like that's just ridiculous.

Which brings us back to the point. You can't refute or debate against Lenny the leprechaun until you see him, in which case there's nothing to debate. The same goes for mermaids, dragons, invisible purple unicorns etc etc.

Yup, that's pretty much the point. I don't see how or why you think it disputes what I've been saying. I would never believe in Lenny unless someone provided me with evidence or I had direct experience. Nor do I think you should believe in God without evidence or direct experience.

But, like I said before, in the final analysis if you are claiming that it's impossible that these people are having direct experience of God all you are is a blind person that says sight is impossible.

 

[SnakeLord]

I still maintain that people that have these experiences recognize that the experience is the same across cultures even though different terminology is used.

The quotes you used do not support that which you maintain. There is perhaps a common basis, (i.e everyone dreams), but the actual experience and result differs, (everyone has a different dream).

There's no point debating with me on this either. According to you I can't understand it unless I experience it, so why are you wasting all this time and energy when you knew before it even began that it would be pointless?

Christian Mystics experience a personal element even though Christian mystics univeraslly say that all sense of personal must be lost and use terms such as"lose self, abandon self, die to self." It's identical to buddhism.

Christian mystics universally? A) You know them all? B) What exactly is a christian mystic and where can they be found? Now once again, the basis can be the same, (i.e lose self), but the outcome of losing oneself differs, (as seen in the quotes you used). Needless to say, a christian would then perhaps see jesus.. a buddhist wouldn't. They differ.

Well, are you saying it's impossible that Suzuki didn't have a misunderstanding due to language?

It's unlikely given that it's the only sentence in everything he said - and you only consider it faulty because it disagrees with you. That doesn't offer much support for your claim.

No, there isn't a vast difference.

Yes, there is. You just want them to be the same so you can claim they're identical. Your claim does not stand up under scrutiny.

IN buddhism the term used for this super-sensory oneness is Buddha-nature, in Christian mysticism the term used is God. The statements are identical, only the terminology is different.

Nonsense. For a christian, the direct experience would be seeing jesus/god. Not the same for bhuddists. Better luck next time.

All you are doing is denying what has been demonstrated to you just as Fundamentalists deny that evolution is proven no matter what evidence is presented to them.

No disrespect but all you demonstrated was the opposite of what you claimed. Now you try to force them to be identical by claiming any word used ultimately means the same thing.. when there is nothing to support that claim.

Are you claiming that a christian nun was reading buddhist texts and a buddhist monk was reading christian texts? Well your'e free to make that claim if you want but the burden of proof is of course on you to back it up.

Eh? I asked a question, I didn't make a statement concerning who was influenced by who. I then asserted that people are always influenced by others, but where did I mention anything that you now claim I did?

As for textual evidence of influence: "there are some Oriental factors in the European tradition, derived from neo-Platonic and Arabic sources" and "Eckhart might have received from the Jewish (Maimonides), Arabic (Avicenna), and Neoplatonic sources

Taken from the sources you cited to claim they're all identical.

Are identical twins similar?

They're usually quite similar. Interestingly they're not identical.

I'm calmer than you.

Then kindly refrain from personal insult.

No, I claimed he had a misunderstanding due to language. I then provided evidence to back up my claims.

Evidence? I didn't see it.

Yes, everything else does agree.

Not really, no.

Well, are you honestly making the claim that misunderstandings can't occur when reading a language that isn't ones native language?

What was he reading?

I would never believe in Lenny unless someone provided me with evidence or I had direct experience. Nor do I think you should believe in God without evidence or direct experience

Which inevitably leads us right back to the actual original problem. Furthermore, I can't consider those that hear voices as mentally ill. To argue the case I would need to have direct perception of these voices. If I can, explain why I can, (based upon your arguments that one needs direct perception), and then if I can then surely I can do the same with those that claim to have direct perception of gods, (it ultimately works out the same - a voice in their head, a feeling in their 'soul', something completely without merit)?

But, like I said before, in the final analysis if you are claiming that it's impossible that these people are having direct experience of God ..

Impossible? No. Perhaps these people that hear voices really do hear real voices.. but it's unlikely.

 

[grover]

The quotes you used do not support that which you maintain. There is perhaps a common basis, (i.e everyone dreams), but the actual experience and result differs, (everyone has a different dream).

Tell me exactly how the quotes don't support what I'm saying.

There's no point debating with me on this either. According to you I can't understand it unless I experience it, so why are you wasting all this time and energy when you knew before it even began that it would be pointless?

No, it's not pointless. My point was to demonstrate that religion is based on experience, not belief, and that the experience is universal across cultures. If you don't think it's the same show to me how it's different. Your making claim, back it up.

Christian mystics universally? A) You know them all?

Tat's a moronic point. No one's allowed to bring up a group of people unless they know all of them.

B) What exactly is a christian mystic and where can they be found?

You are showing your ignorance on this subject. Go to an online bookseller and type in 'Christian mysticism", buy the book, read it, and you will be less ignorant.

Now once again, the basis can be the same, (i.e lose self), but the outcome of losing oneself differs, (as seen in the quotes you used).

Explain exactly how it is differnt from the quotes I used. You are just making a claim without backing it up. Useless gibberish.

Needless to say, a christian would then perhaps see jesus.. a buddhist wouldn't.

That's just the point the Christians don't see Jesus. The experience the same things buddhists experience. If you disagree let's see some textual evidence.

They differ.

Let's see the evidence.

It's unlikely given that it's the only sentence in everything he said - and you only consider it faulty because it disagrees with you. That doesn't offer much support for your claim.

Yes, but I showed that he was mistaken and provided evidence that christian mystics say there is no sense of the personal in the experience. You already know I showed this since you said "the basis can be the same, (i.e lose self)."
Your point is total bullshit. If you want to show how I'm wrong then your going to haveto explain how there can still be a sense of the personal if one has "lost self."

Yes, there is. You just want them to be the same so you can claim they're identical. Your claim does not stand up under scrutiny.

Tell me how it doesn't stand up insteading of repeating your empty phrase that it doesn't.

Nonsense. For a christian, the direct experience would be seeing jesus/god. Not the same for bhuddists. Better luck next time.

No, they don't see Jesus, quit repeating this it has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. Yes some people do claim to see an Image of Jesus, but this is not considered a mystical experience it's considered a vision. Visions are different depending upon the culture, mystical experiences are the same across cultures. Stop trying to conflate a vison and a mystical experience.

No disrespect but all you demonstrated was the opposite of what you claimed.

At this point your just making claims and not using any evidence or rationality to back it up.

Now you try to force them to be identical by claiming any word used ultimately means the same thing.

Different cultures have different languages. The Christian Mystics description of God is the same as the Buddhist description of buddha-nature as I said: "No, there isn't a vast difference. Both say one must forget oneself to have direct experience. "The most important, the central characteristic in which all fully developed mystical experiences agree, and which in the last analysis is definitive of them and serves to mark them off from other kinds of experiences, is that they involve the apprehension of an ultimate nonsensuous unity in all things, a oneness or a One to which neither the senses nor the reason can penetrate. In other words, it entirely transcends our sensory-intellectual consciousness." IN buddhism the term used for this super-sensory oneness is Buddha-nature, in Christian mysticism the term used is God. The statements are identical, only the terminology is different."
If you think this is invalid explain why. You can't just stae your opinion and expect it to be accepted without backing it up. How does the Christian mystica God differ from the BUddhist term Buddha-nature?

when there is nothing to support that claim.

I did support the claim. If you disagree with my claim then demonstrate how I ma wrong using logic and textual evidence instead of just stating your opinion like a little child and expecting people to believe it.

Eh? I asked a question, I didn't make a statement concerning who was influenced by who. I then asserted that people are always influenced by others, but where did I mention anything that you now claim I did?

You were claiming a buddhist was influenced by a christian and vice versa. Once again, with nothing to back it up.

As for textual evidence of influence: "there are some Oriental factors in the European tradition, derived from neo-Platonic and Arabic sources" and "Eckhart might have received from the Jewish (Maimonides), Arabic (Avicenna), and Neoplatonic sources

Taken from the sources you cited to claim they're all identical.

Yeah, you intellectually dishonest Motherfucker. You posted only part of the quote out of context in an attempt to make the post look like it's saying the opposite of what it's actually saying. Fucking ridiculous. Here's the entire post with the the parts high-lighted that you cut out:
"Whatever influence Eckhart might have received from the Jewish (Maimonides), Arabic (Avicenna), and Neoplatonic sources, there is no doubt that he had his original views based on his own experiences, theological and otherwise, and that they were singularly Mahāyānistic. Coomaraswamy is quite right when he says:

Eckhart presents an astonishingly close parallel to Indian modes of thought; some whole passages and many single sentences read like a direct translation from Sanskrit. . . . It is not of course suggested that any Indian elements whatever are actually present in Eckhart's writing, though there are some Oriental factors in the European tradition, derived from neo-Platonic and Arabic sources. But what is proved by analogies is not the influence of one system of thought upon another, but the coherence of the metaphysical tradition in the world and at all times."
It's clear to anyone reading this that you totally distorted the meaning of the quote. I'm interested in having an honest debate not dealing with some fucking infant like you that's going to resort to this intellectually dishonest bullshit.

 

[SnakeLord]

Tell me exactly how the quotes don't support what I'm saying.

I think we need to go back a little bit and recap on the actual discussion and where it has lead..

You said: "The simple fact is that anyone that has had the experience without exception has said it is the truth"

To which I pointed out that every single instance of a person telling me they hear a voice telling them to kill people has, without exception, said it is true. You them claimed it was a valid point but then indicated that the way to determine it's validity is if others are having identical experiences.

However, in this instance one cannot claim the actual experience, (end result), is identical. Some come to direct perception of yhwh or jesus, some come to a deeper understanding of their own nature and so on. The end result is not identical much like the end result of someone that hears voices is not identical, (although they do largely end up in the same place).

You said: "Whereas people who have a "mystical experience" as it is called in the west or "enlightenment" as it is called in the east do share the same experience and come up with identical descriptions of the transcendent."

The latter part I tend not to have that much of an issue with, (that's what I refer to as the basics and includes "forgetting oneself" etc). It is the former that is the issue - and I would ask that you substantiate the claim that the actual experience, (or end result - direct perception), is identical. After going through this mystical experience what does the buddhist have direct perception of? The christian? Or so on..

If you state that none of this leads to direct perception of godly beings then why are we even discussing it considering that was the topic of conversation, (direct perception of space beings)? If it doesn't lead to direct perception, what does it lead to?

As far as direct perception goes, they can't be identical. A buddhist would not gain direct perception of jesus.

At this stage you then decided to inform me of the absolute meaningless of our conversation: "I'm not even talking about that which can be told. I'm talking about that which must be known directly"

If it can't be told, (and I've asked you this before), why bother trying to tell me? No offence but that seems really quite stupid.

You then of course went back and forth between "identical" and "similar" - which are two different things and yet still haven't recognised the inherent contradiction in doing so. Are they identical or are they similar? Let's settle it once and for all. You even go on to show that the experience, (end result), is not identical:

"I'm saying is the case with God/Brahman/Nirvana.."

They are largely different things whether you want to acknowledge that or not. The fact here is that you want to claim that they're all the same things, but they're not - and that is where the problem lies.

I asked a question that unfortunately went unanswered. Perhaps the best way to clear it up would be if you could answer it now.. You said:

"I'm talking about a mystical experience(western term) in which on directly perceives God(western term)"

To which I asked:

Which god? You can't claim them all "identical" if they differ here.

So, is the experience, (direct perception), the same god in all cases? Does a buddhist get direct perception of jesus?

Now to your asking me to show how the quotes you used do not support your claim to these things being identical:

"Zen, known for its distrust of symbols, rituals, and study of holy texts.."

This is largely different from christianity that uses symbols, rituals and holy texts.

"Zen practice is mainly built around focusing the mind on the breath, a movement, or on an unchanging landscape such as a blank, white wall."

I am unaware of this being a christian custom.

"Perhaps the most remarkable aspect of the Zen experience is that it has no personal note in it as is observable in Christian mystic experiences."

The statement says all that's needed.

"Not, necessarily, that I get unified with a being greater than myself or absorbed in it, but that my individuality, which I found rigidly held together and definitely kept separate from other individual existences, becomes lossened somehow from its tightening...

The christian version of direct perception on the other hand is all about a being greater than oneself. This clearly is not.

D.T Suzuki, (about mystical experiences): "What is authoritative and final can never be negative"

William James, (about mystical experiences): "The handiest of the marks by which I classify a state of mind as mystical is negative"

From Walter Terence Stace: "It should be carefully noted that only fully developed mystical experiences are necessarily apprehensive of the One. Many experiences have been recorded which lack this central feature but yet possess other mystical characteristics."

Seems they are not identical after all heh? He goes on to talk about two different experiences, (extrovertive/introvertive).

Need I continue?

No, it's not pointless. My point was to demonstrate that religion is based on experience, not belief, and that the experience is universal across cultures. If you don't think it's the same show to me how it's different. Your making claim, back it up.

Religion? Hold up, are we talking about mystical experiences or religions now? No offence but you're kinda all over the place.

You are showing your ignorance on this subject. Go to an online bookseller and type in 'Christian mysticism", buy the book, read it, and you will be less ignorant.

Any specific book or will they all say the exact same thing?

Not to be a nuisance, but from what I have seen here there seems to be inherent problem in even defining a 'christian'. There's 'real' christians, protestants, catholics, mormons, jehovahs yada yada.. So, which book about which type of christian should I get? Secondly Walter Stace states that there's many different ideas on what a 'mystic' is. Seeings as you're the authority on the subject which book about which version of mystic should I get? Well sir?

Yes, but I showed that he was mistaken and provided evidence that christian mystics say there is no sense of the personal in the experience

Inaccurate. You claimed that his English was at fault. You now claim that christian mystics say there is no sense of the personal:

"the mystic feels as if his own will were in abeyance, and indeed sometimes as if he were grasped and held by a superior power."

If there were honestly no sense of the personal he wouldn't feel that he was grasped by a superior power, and his will wouldn't come into the equation.

Walter Stace says: "The introvertive way turns inward, introspectively, and finds the One at the bottoom of the self, at the bottom of human personality"

Again describing the personal.

No, they don't see Jesus, quit repeating this it has nothing to do with what I'm talking about

Yet it had everything to do with the discussion I was having.. (i.e direct perception of space beings/Lenny etc). Hmm..

If you disagree with my claim then demonstrate how I ma wrong using logic and textual evidence instead of just stating your opinion like a little child and expecting people to believe it.

Aww, you're really quite the aggressive young man aren't you?

I quoted extensively earlier. That should be sufficient, but hey.. if you want to fling insult some more, feel free.

You were claiming a buddhist was influenced by a christian and vice versa. Once again, with nothing to back it up.

Do you have anything to back that claim up with (i.e me saying christians were influenced by buddhists)?

However it needs to be considered that things are shared and spread around cultures - which leads to the formation of something quite similar. What you quoted states:

"D. T. Suzuki is credited with bringing Zen to America. Through books, articles, and teaching, Suzuki helped make Zen instruction widely accessible in North America. "

Would you state that this introduction of Zen in the western world would have no impact? Is it inconceivable that this would lead to more westernized forms of a foreign activity? Would you state that until recently no cultures shared stories/beliefs/rituals etc etc with anyone else? What would you have to support a belief that cultures came up with these things completely independantly? That no outside source was ever involved? Christianity doesn't even have it's own festivals, (they are taken from earlier pagan festivals). What exactly makes you think that mystical rituals are any different?

Yeah, you intellectually dishonest Motherfucker

Now now, kindly grow up before posting on forums. This whole place would fall into worthlessness if we all acted like that. I could state for the record that I don't, and nor have I ever f****d my mother. I have f****d yours though.

See? That's pointless behaviour isn't it? It's offensive, it's uncalled for and it doesn't aid the discussion. Understood? I'd be inclined to report you for that, but I'm a nice forgiving atheist.

It's clear to anyone reading this that you totally distorted the meaning of the quote.

Not at all. It shows that there was influence and it proves beyond doubt that they're not identical given the "astonishingly close", (which does not equate to identical).

I'm interested in having an honest debate not dealing with some fucking infant like you that's going to resort to this intellectually dishonest bullshit.

I see. What a quality argument.. Did it not occur to you that by throwing your tantrum you actually make yourself look more like that which you claim me to be? Grow up.

 

[grover]

I think we need to go back a little bit and recap on the actual discussion and where it has lead..

You said: "The simple fact is that anyone that has had the experience without exception has said it is the truth"

To which I pointed out that every single instance of a person telling me they hear a voice telling them to kill people has, without exception, said it is true. You them claimed it was a valid point but then indicated that the way to determine it's validity is if others are having identical experiences.

We're on the same page so far.

However, in this instance one cannot claim the actual experience, (end result), is identical. Some come to direct perception of yhwh or jesus, some come to a deeper understanding of their own nature and so on.

No, that's what I'm saying. They all come to the same thing. Only the terminology. I'm not talking about people that claim to have experiences of having seen Jesus, Vishnu, Yahweh. The experience I'm talking about is called a mystic experience, it doesn't involve seeing anything but is more like a direct perception of a higher reality. If you read the descriptions of these experiences people that have it the terminology may differ but what they are saying doesn't - i.e., sense of oneness, loss of self, etc.

The end result is not identical much like the end result of someone that hears voices is not identical, (although they do largely end up in the same place).

The reason hearing voices is an invalid comparison is because the voice will say something, i.e., give some kind of commandment, sound male or female etc. There is not of that in the mystical experience and the descriptions they give sound like they are talking about the same thing. Transcendent force in everything.

You said: "Whereas people who have a "mystical experience" as it is called in the west or "enlightenment" as it is called in the east do share the same experience and come up with identical descriptions of the transcendent."

The latter part I tend not to have that much of an issue with, (that's what I refer to as the basics and includes "forgetting oneself" etc). It is the former that is the issue - and I would ask that you substantiate the claim that the actual experience, (or end result - direct perception), is identical. After going through this mystical experience what does the buddhist have direct perception of? The christian? Or so on..

They both have direct perception of a transcendent force in everything. That's what they are claiming. In buddhism they say "All things have buddha-nature" "Buddha nature is in all things." The Christian mystic will say that "God is everywhere in all things" it's pantheistic. I should point out here that many mystics get in trouble for being heretics, you could be burned at the stake for claiming the nature of God was different from what the curch said. My claim is that the buddhist description of buddha-nature and the Christian Mystic(CM) description of God are the same, and in fact the Buddhist description and the CM description have much more in common than the CM description and the christian fundamentalist description.

If you state that none of this leads to direct perception of godly beings then why are we even discussing it considering that was the topic of conversation, (direct perception of space beings)?

Sorry, I didn't know it was about space beings. By space beings I'm assuming you mean the CHristian Fundamentalist(CF) that God is a male being in the sky?

If it doesn't lead to direct perception, what does it lead to?

I guess "direct perception of a transcendent force everywhere and that the self is an illusion" is how I would sum it all up in 25 words or less.

As far as direct perception goes, they can't be identical. A buddhist would not gain direct perception of jesus.

CMs do not claim direct perception of jesus. CMs claim something that is remarkable similar to what the buddhists claim. By the way, Christian fundamentalists hate it when people point out the similarities between what CMs say and what Buddhists say.

At this stage you then decided to inform me of the absolute meaningless of our conversation: "I'm not even talking about that which can be told. I'm talking about that which must be known directly"

I don't agree that that makes it meaningless. Many things must be known directly. The comparison to blind people. And I would even say that many of the discoveries in science were through direct observation (i.e., those things known through telescopes, microscopes). It's just that in the instance the thing observed is ones own mind so science dismisses it since there is no way to provide third part verification. Although everyone can observe there own mind for themself and verify it so it is similar to science in that regard.

If it can't be told, (and I've asked you this before), why bother trying to tell me? No offence but that seems really quite stupid.

Gotta agree with you, it is stupid. I was trying to counter the common belief that all religion is merely becuase some people wish to believe things for which there is no evidence, but that some people(that aren't crazy) actually claim to have direct experience. I'd just like to point out here that people that have this experience believes that the normal state of consciousness the average individual has is delusional. Just as normal individulas look at a depressed person or schizophrenic and consider it delusional. I'm just saying we know from our perspective there are dysfunctional states(depression, schizophrenia) in which a person is delusional. Who's to say that what the mystic is experiencing isn't a higher state from and from their perspective we are delusional.

You then of course went back and forth between "identical" and "similar" - which are two different things and yet still haven't recognised the inherent contradiction in doing so. Are they identical or are they similar? Let's settle it once and for all. You even go on to show that the experience, (end result), is not identical:

"I'm saying is the case with God/Brahman/Nirvana.."

I'm saying those are just different words for the same thing. They are different languages after all. That's what I mean when I say "only the terminology is different." I still maintian they are identical. Identical is just the highest degree of similarity and at times I may have said something to the effect of "How do you account for the similarity?" instead of saying "how do you account for their identicalness?"

They are largely different things whether you want to acknowledge that or not. The fact here is that you want to claim that they're all the same things, but they're not - and that is where the problem lies.

You're right this is where the problem lies. And you and I have no way of getting around it because we have now way of knowing if you are deluded or if I am deluded. In my mind I think I've shown how they're the same (oops, I mean identical), in your mind I haven't.

I asked a question that unfortunately went unanswered. Perhaps the best way to clear it up would be if you could answer it now.. You said:

"I'm talking about a mystical experience(western term) in which on directly perceives God(western term)"

To which I asked:

Which god? You can't claim them all "identical" if they differ here.

The God that is meant generally when one uses the term "pantheism."

So, is the experience, (direct perception), the same god in all cases? Does a buddhist get direct perception of jesus?

No buddhists don't get direct perception of jesus, neither do christian mystics, they both get a direct perception that all is one. In buddhism this oneness is buddha-nature. In, CM the oneness is God. (But, like I've said, in my opinion, they are both talking about the same thing. If a CM is to talk about Jesus they refer to Jesus as being a potentialty within all men just as in BUddhism all men are Buddha. When one becomes enlightened one becomes Buddha, just as in CM if one sees God it is as Paul siad "Not me, but Christ in me."

Now to your asking me to show how the quotes you used do not support your claim to these things being identical:

"Zen, known for its distrust of symbols, rituals, and study of holy texts.."

This is largely different from christianity that uses symbols, rituals and holy texts.

The word Zen actually referes to zazen which simply means meditation. Christian mystics arrive it their perception of God through contemplative prayer (which is meditation, I'll dig up a description -it's not what is usually thought of as prayer but is almost exactly like eastern practices). SO CMs and zen buddhists are actually useing the same method. Meditation is basically a technique of onserving one's own mind.

"Zen practice is mainly built around focusing the mind on the breath, a movement, or on an unchanging landscape such as a blank, white wall."

I am unaware of this being a christian custom.

No, I'll dig up descriptions of the Christian practice and let you decide for yourself if they are the same.

"Perhaps the most remarkable aspect of the Zen experience is that it has no personal note in it as is observable in Christian mystic experiences."

The statement says all that's needed.

"Not, necessarily, that I get unified with a being greater than myself or absorbed in it, but that my individuality, which I found rigidly held together and definitely kept separate from other individual existences, becomes lossened somehow from its tightening...

What is that a quote of? I'd say it's pretty clear that the person has lost a separate sense of self. CMs all say the self must be lost: St. Teresa: "forget self."

The christian version of direct perception on the other hand is all about a being greater than oneself. This clearly is not.

No, I'd say they are both clearly about seeing that all is one and recognizing oneself as part of that one.

D.T Suzuki, (about mystical experiences): "What is authoritative and final can never be negative"

William James, (about mystical experiences): "The handiest of the marks by which I classify a state of mind as mystical is negative"

Come on man, we've already been down that road of you shortening a quote to try and make it look like it says something it doesn't (have you been studying Goebbels?) Here's the Suzuki quote in it's entirety:
"4. Affirmation. "What is authoritative and final can never be negative. Though the satori experience is sometimes expressed in negative terms, it is essentially an affirmative attidude towards all things that exist; it accepts them as they come along regardless of their moral values."
And here's the James quote in it's entirety:
"1. Ineffability - The handiest of the marks by which I classify a state of mind as mystical is negative. The subject of it immediately says that it defies expression, that no adequate report of its contents can be given in words."

Everyone knows you can make a quote say something different than it does by shortening it and taking it out of context. Please don't use that propaganda tactic again.

From Walter Terence Stace: "It should be carefully noted that only fully developed mystical experiences are necessarily apprehensive of the One. Many experiences have been recorded which lack this central feature but yet possess other mystical characteristics."

So what? A full mystic experience is "apprehensive of the One." There are other less complete experiences that lack this.

Seems they are not identical after all heh? He goes on to talk about two different experiences, (extrovertive/introvertive).

The entire quote:
"One may be called extrovertive mystical experience, the other introvertive mystical experience. Both are apprehensions of the One, but they reach it in different ways. The extrovertive way looks outward and through the physical senses into the external world and finds the One there. The introvertive way turns inward, introspectively, and finds the One at the bottoom of the self, at the bottom of human personality. The latter far outweighs the former in importance both in the history of mysticism and in the history of human thought generally. The introvertive way is the major strand in the history of mysticism, the extrovertive way a minor strand"
I don't see how this contradicts anything I've said

Need I continue?

If you want to. This seems the best way for us to try and come to a consensus.

Religion? Hold up, are we talking about mystical experiences or religions now? No offence but you're kinda all over the place.

I said:
"No, it's not pointless. My point was to demonstrate that religion is based on experience, not belief, and that the experience is universal across cultures"
I can see how you would misinterpret what I'm saying. Let me try and clarify: Religions come from people that have mystical experiences. But what most people that are religous have not had mystical experiences, but they act like they have perfect knowledge (believe me, I think they're as insane as you do).

Any specific book or will they all say the exact same thing?

Pretty much has been my experience. A book on CM will describe CM.

Not to be a nuisance, but from what I have seen here there seems to be inherent problem in even defining a 'christian'. There's 'real' christians, protestants, catholics, mormons, jehovahs yada yada.. So, which book about which type of christian should I get?

I specifically said Christian Mysticism didn't I?

Secondly Walter Stace states that there's many different ideas on what a 'mystic' is. Seeings as you're the authority on the subject which book about which version of mystic should I get? Well sir?

Here is what Stace said in it's entirety:A Mystic is a Mystic
"By the word "mystic" I shall always mean a person who himself has had mystical experience. Often the word is used in a much wider and looser way. Anyone who is sympathetic to mysticism is apt to be labeled a mystic. But I shall use the word always in a stricter sense. However sympathetic toward mysticism a man may be, however deeply interested, involved, enthusiastic, or learned in the subject, he will not be called a mystic unless he has, or has had, mystical experience. (p.9)"
Some things which mysticism is not
"The word mysticism" is popularly used in a variety of loose and inaccurate ways. Sometimes anything is called "mystical" which is misty, foggy, vague, or sloppy. It is absurd that "mysticism" should be associated with what is "misty" because of the similar sound of the words. And there is nothing misty, foggy, vague, or sloppy about mysticism

Get one that fits Stace's actual definition and not the "many different" ideas you tried to imply Stace maintained.

Inaccurate. You claimed that his English was at fault. You now claim that christian mystics say there is no sense of the personal:

"the mystic feels as if his own will were in abeyance, and indeed sometimes as if he were grasped and held by a superior power."

If there were honestly no sense of the personal he wouldn't feel that he was grasped by a superior power, and his will wouldn't come into the equation.

Will in abeyance=passivity which Stace, Suzuki, and James all agree is an aspect of the experience.

Walter Stace says: "The introvertive way turns inward, introspectively, and finds the One at the bottoom of the self, at the bottom of human personality"

Again describing the personal.

No, "the One" is referring to God or Buddha-natue which the self is lost to.

However it needs to be considered that things are shared and spread around cultures - which leads to the formation of something quite similar. What you quoted states:

"D. T. Suzuki is credited with bringing Zen to America. Through books, articles, and teaching, Suzuki helped make Zen instruction widely accessible in North America. "

First of all I'd like to point out that this line of arument is agreeing with me that the different religions are quite similar.

Would you state that this introduction of Zen in the western world would have no impact? Is it inconceivable that this would lead to more westernized forms of a foreign activity? Would you state that until recently no cultures shared stories/beliefs/rituals etc etc with anyone else? What would you have to support a belief that cultures came up with these things completely independantly? That no outside source was ever involved? Christianity doesn't even have it's own festivals, (they are taken from earlier pagan festivals). What exactly makes you think that mystical rituals are any different?

Dude, in medieval Europe if you were caught studying a buddhist text you'd probably burned at the stake.

See? That's pointless behaviour isn't it? It's offensive, it's uncalled for and it doesn't aid the discussion. Understood? I'd be inclined to report you for that, but I'm a nice forgiving atheist.

Ok, I apologize. But it is very annoying when someone tries to distort the clear meaning of a passage by using a propaganda technique.

Not at all. It shows that there was influence and it proves beyond doubt that they're not identical given the "astonishingly close", (which does not equate to identical).

Fine, "atonishingly close." Funny how technical you are about everyhting except including the entire quote.

 

[Godless]

Ouch! Way to go SL, what patience, very commendable, I wouldn't have an ounce of patience compared to the likes of you, I loose my temper easily too. It's frustrating when one can't communicate their point across, this seems to be grover's problem as well, at least your very forgiving.

 

[SnakeLord]

No, that's what I'm saying. They all come to the same thing. Only the terminology.

This inevitably causes a problem though. From what I have gathered from both you and the quotes you used, a person can't even describe the experience. Given that this is the case there can be no valid claim stating they're all identical. They can have a similar process, (forgetting/losing oneself), but it is the actual outcome of that experience that I am focusing on. if a person attains "oneness" with [a] god, and another attains "oneness" with nature, it has to be said that they are different things, not the same thing with different terminology. Nature and god are vastly different.

Of course we could go on to state that if they don't actually have direct perception of any god, (which you have stated is the case), then they have no justification to make a claim that it is a god they can feel oneness with.

The experience I'm talking about is called a mystic experience, it doesn't involve seeing anything but is more like a direct perception of a higher reality.

This brings the entire experience down to a "feeling", which can hardly be considered of any real value. There's no voices, no visions, no sight of anything, no form, colour, shape, odour.. nothing. So what is left exactly that can be used to even try and substantiate any claim regarding it? From the quotes you used, apparently nothing - it can't be described, it defies reasoning and intellectual determination and those that have it happen to them can never explain it logically or coherently. Any claims regarding it are left redundant.

It is this above everything else that shows the inherent worthlessness of any claim stating it is "identical", other than to state the basics, (the processes), are similar. While the latter is fine, and you have done that, it is the former that is where I am focused.

If you read the descriptions of these experiences people that have it the terminology may differ but what they are saying doesn't - i.e., sense of oneness, loss of self, etc.

If you read what I am saying you'll see that all along I have been stating that the basics can be similar/the same, (the processes). In this instance a person loses themself [the process] to attain direct perception [the experience], (the feeling of oneness with something/someone). The former can be the same for many people but the outcome differs. Some attain oneness with nature, some with gods etc.

The reason hearing voices is an invalid comparison is because the voice will say something, i.e., give some kind of commandment, sound male or female etc. There is not of that in the mystical experience and the descriptions they give sound like they are talking about the same thing. Transcendent force in everything.

The point wasn't in whether there is anything visual/auditory to go by, it was that the process is the same, (they hear voices telling them to do things), but the actual outcome/experience differs, (one kills, one jumps off the roof). The same is true here.. The process is similar, (losing oneself etc), but the outcome does differ, (experience oneness with a god/oneness with nature).

If you are going to claim that a 'god' and 'nature' are the same thing you will need something to support that claim.

In buddhism they say "All things have buddha-nature" "Buddha nature is in all things." The Christian mystic will say that "God is everywhere in all things"

Of which there is a vast difference between buddha nature and god. How exactly do you support the claim that they're the same thing?

I guess "direct perception of a transcendent force everywhere and that the self is an illusion" is how I would sum it all up in 25 words or less.

Strange, buddha nature does not indicate that "the self is an illusion" but indeed the exact opposite. Buddha nature insists upon the True Self's ultimacy, sovereignty and immortality. The Buddha states): "all phenomena are not non-Self: the Self is reality, the Self is eternal, the Self is virtue, the Self is everlasting, the Self is immovable, and the Self is peace".

So, buddha nature describes the self as 'reality' etc etc whereas you claim it's about the self being an illusion. Seems there's an inaccuracy in there somewhere.

CMs claim something that is remarkable similar to what the buddhists claim.

Which is? Seemingly nobody can describe it coherently.

I'd just like to point out here that people that have this experience believes that the normal state of consciousness the average individual has is delusional.

Quick correction: "I'd just like to point out here that people that claim to have this experience..."

And it's a claim that nobody can debate - not even them because they can't explain it coherently or logically. Therefore to even try and explain it one must do so incoherently and illogically. And they claim others are delusional? But then of course there isn't even apparently anything to explain - it's voiceless, faceless, formless, odourless, colourless.. there's nothing left to describe other than to say "I felt something".. if there's even feeling. If there isn't we're truly wasting time.

I'm saying those are just different words for the same thing.

You'd have to support that claim.

The God that is meant generally when one uses the term "pantheism."

Which god? How can it be generally when they're all so different? buddhists don't even really have a god and so their mystical experiences are unlikely to include one.

You said they come to 'direct perception of god':

A) There is seemingly no 'direct perception' whatsoever considering the experience is apparently voiceless, faceless, formless, blah de blah. At the end of the day they're experiencing nothing.. a feeling at best.

B) While a christian mystic might get perception of a god through his experience, another such as kensho gets perception of nature. Why do you personally default to just one of them? You make claims to different languages, and yet nature and god are both English words that define something entirely different. Therein is the point.. One gets perception of a god, the other gets perception of something entirely different. If you want to claim that god and nature are the exact same thing you would need to support the claim.

No, I'd say they are both clearly about seeing that all is one and recognizing oneself as part of that one.

Recognising oneself as part of what one? god or nature? Being one with nature and one with a god are different things.

A full mystic experience is "apprehensive of the One." There are other less complete experiences that lack this.

So... mystical experiences do differ? So much for all identical. Thanks.

My point was to demonstrate that religion is based on experience, not belief, and that the experience is universal across cultures"

But there is the error. While some of the basics, (the tenets of certain religions), might have similarity the 'belief' differs vastly - the actual 'direct perception' in this instance of a god will be vastly different. Yet they claim to have direct perception of different beings. The actual "experience" differs from one person to the next.

Religions come from people that have mystical experiences.

Support this claim.

I specifically said Christian Mysticism didn't I?

Yeah, but you need to define what a christian is first just so I ensure I get a book about the right kind of "christian" mysticism.

Get one that fits Stace's actual definition and not the "many different" ideas

Why Staces?

Dude, in medieval Europe if you were caught studying a buddhist text you'd probably burned at the stake.

In England you could be killed for being a catholic, and then later for being a protestant, and then a catholic again, (something along these lines). This did not hinder people from 'studying' and believing in those things that would get them killed or for sharing it with others. Even jesus got killed for going against the trend, but that did not stop it from influencing the world... there even exist a group called 'jews for jesus'.

Ok, I apologize. But it is very annoying when someone tries to distort the clear meaning of a passage by using a propaganda technique.

Distort a meaning that doesn't seem to be apparent unless you alter the meaning of words to suit your agenda, (i.e god and nature mean the exact same thing). What you'd undoubtedly do if a man said he had oneness with god and another man said he had oneness with an oak tree you'd come here and claim they're both talking about the same thing. You'd be wrong, which is why we're having issues.

Fine, "atonishingly close." Funny how technical you are

Even more amusing how un-technical you are. god means nature, similar means identical yada yada. If you continue to change the meanings of words to suit your own agenda, we'll never get anywhere. Can we stick to words meaning what those actual words mean please?

 

[grover]

This inevitably causes a problem though. From what I have gathered from both you and the quotes you used, a person can't even describe the experience. Given that this is the case there can be no valid claim stating they're all identical. They can have a similar process, (forgetting/losing oneself), but it is the actual outcome of that experience that I am focusing on. if a person attains "oneness" with [a] god, and another attains "oneness" with nature, it has to be said that they are different things, not the same thing with different terminology. Nature and god are vastly different.

I already said the Christian mystics are pantheistic. Here is the definition of pantheism from wiki:
Pantheism (Greek: πάν ( 'pan' ) = all and θεός ( 'theos' ) = God) literally means "God is All" and "All is God". It is the view that everything is of an all-encompassing immanent God; or that the universe, or nature, and God are equivalent.

Of course we could go on to state that if they don't actually have direct perception of any god, (which you have stated is the case), then they have no justification to make a claim that it is a god they can feel oneness with.

See pantheism

This brings the entire experience down to a "feeling", which can hardly be considered of any real value. There's no voices, no visions, no sight of anything, no form, colour, shape, odour.. nothing. So what is left exactly that can be used to even try and substantiate any claim regarding it? From the quotes you used, apparently nothing - it can't be described, it defies reasoning and intellectual determination and those that have it happen to them can never explain it logically or coherently. Any claims regarding it are left redundant.

It is this above everything else that shows the inherent worthlessness of any claim stating it is "identical", other than to state the basics, (the processes), are similar. While the latter is fine, and you have done that, it is the former that is where I am focused.

Good you agree on the former then. Now for the latter: see pantheism

If you read what I am saying you'll see that all along I have been stating that the basics can be similar/the same, (the processes). In this instance a person loses themself [the process] to attain direct perception [the experience], (the feeling of oneness with something/someone). The former can be the same for many people but the outcome differs. Some attain oneness with nature, some with gods etc.

No the outcome isn't different. See pantheism

The point wasn't in whether there is anything visual/auditory to go by, it was that the process is the same, (they hear voices telling them to do things), but the actual outcome/experience differs, (one kills, one jumps off the roof). The same is true here.. The process is similar, (losing oneself etc), but the outcome does differ, (experience oneness with a god/oneness with nature).

See pantheism.

If you are going to claim that a 'god' and 'nature' are the same thing you will need something to support that claim.

See pantheism

Of which there is a vast difference between buddha nature and god. How exactly do you support the claim that they're the same thing?

See pantheism

Strange, buddha nature does not indicate that "the self is an illusion" but indeed the exact opposite. Buddha nature insists upon the True Self's ultimacy, sovereignty and immortality. The Buddha states): "all phenomena are not non-Self: the Self is reality, the Self is eternal, the Self is virtue, the Self is everlasting, the Self is immovable, and the Self is peace".

So, buddha nature describes the self as 'reality' etc etc whereas you claim it's about the self being an illusion. Seems there's an inaccuracy in there somewhere.

How can you make that claim when the passage begins by saying "self is an illusion."

Quick correction: "I'd just like to point out here that people that claim to have this experience..."

Yes, people claimed to see bacteri under the microscopre, you'd have to actually look to verify there claim. In this instance you would have to look inside your own mind to verify the claim.

And it's a claim that nobody can debate - not even them because they can't explain it coherently or logically. Therefore to even try and explain it one must do so incoherently and illogically. And they claim others are delusional? But then of course there isn't even apparently anything to explain - it's voiceless, faceless, formless, odourless, colourless.. there's nothing left to describe other than to say "I felt something".. if there's even feeling. If there isn't we're truly wasting time.

Describe your consciousness to me.

Which god? How can it be generally when they're all so different? buddhists don't even really have a god and so their mystical experiences are unlikely to include one.

See pantheism

You said they come to 'direct perception of god':

See pantheism

A) There is seemingly no 'direct perception' whatsoever considering the experience is apparently voiceless, faceless, formless, blah de blah. At the end of the day they're experiencing nothing.. a feeling at best.

If they were experiencing nothing they'd be able to say nothing at all about it. There would literally be nothin written about it. That's not the case. See description of expererience by James, Suzuki, Stace.

B) While a christian mystic might get perception of a god through his experience, another such as kensho gets perception of nature. Why do you personally default to just one of them? You make claims to different languages, and yet nature and god are both English words that define something entirely different. Therein is the point.. One gets perception of a god, the other gets perception of something entirely different. If you want to claim that god and nature are the exact same thing you would need to support the claim.

See pantheism

Recognising oneself as part of what one? god or nature? Being one with nature and one with a god are different things.

No. See pantheism

So... mystical experiences do differ? So much for all identical. Thanks.

No, Stace clearly states that these impartial experiences are not included by what he means when he says mystical experience. They don't differ.

But there is the error. While some of the basics, (the tenets of certain religions), might have similarity the 'belief' differs vastly - the actual 'direct perception' in this instance of a god will be vastly different. Yet they claim to have direct perception of different beings. The actual "experience" differs from one person to the next.

No it doesn't. See pantheism.

Yeah, but you need to define what a christian is first just so I ensure I get a book about the right kind of "christian" mysticism.

No, Christian mysticism is a term like any other term.

Why Staces?

Didn't say that. Said get one that fits with Staces actual definition and not the definition you createed by distorting what Stace said.

In England you could be killed for being a catholic, and then later for being a protestant, and then a catholic again, (something along these lines). This did not hinder people from 'studying' and believing in those things that would get them killed or for sharing it with others. Even jesus got killed for going against the trend, but that did not stop it from influencing the world... there even exist a group called 'jews for jesus'.

What does Jews for Jesus have to do with anything? 14th centruy Christian weren't reading buddhist texts and vice versa.

Distort a meaning that doesn't seem to be apparent unless you alter the meaning of words to suit your agenda, (i.e god and nature mean the exact same thing). What you'd undoubtedly do if a man said he had oneness with god and another man said he had oneness with an oak tree you'd come here and claim they're both talking about the same thing. You'd be wrong, which is why we're having issues.

See pantheism

Even more amusing how un-technical you are. god means nature, similar means identical yada yada. If you continue to change the meanings of words to suit your own agenda, we'll never get anywhere. Can we stick to words meaning what those actual words mean please?

And here it is once again for your convenience:
Pantheism (Greek: πάν ( 'pan' ) = all and θεός ( 'theos' ) = God) literally means "God is All" and "All is God". It is the view that everything is of an all-encompassing immanent God; or that the universe, or nature, and God are equivalent.

 

[SnakeLord]

I already said the Christian mystics are pantheistic

Great, "christian mystics" are pantheistic.. That doesn't say anything about other mystics now does it?

Here is the definition of pantheism from wiki:
Pantheism (Greek: πάν ( 'pan' ) = all and θεός ( 'theos' ) = God) literally means "God is All" and "All is God". It is the view that everything is of an all-encompassing immanent God; or that the universe, or nature, and God are equivalent.

Ok, and of what relevance is that to anyone else that isn't pantheistic? Why settle on that and ignore everyone else? Personally I find it quite defeatist. I do a big old smelly poo - it's god, I pick my nose.. the bogey is god. In saying, one doesn't even need to have a "mystic experience" to get to the same position that a "christian mystic" does. All one needs to do is cook cheese on toast and say "hey look! It's god! There's direct perception for ya!" :bugeye:

No offence but this discussion is pointless. You are clearly siding with one specific view, (showing clearly that these views are not identical), while claiming they are identical on the basis that one of these particular views says "everything is god" and thus by default it is irrelevant how non-identical anything is because it's all ultimately the same thing... according to one specific group.

Nature and god are different things. You simply cannot try and argue that they're the same on the basis that one group claims "god" is everything, (while having no direct perception or evidence). It's idiotic at best.

See pantheism

Done. It has no place here. The same goes with all the other "see pantheism" quotes that you used to evade having to answer questions. Go through them once more and try again.

Now, for the sake of idiocy.. I contend that "everything" is actually my penis. Therefore when you have a mystical experience you are witnessing my penis. When you make love to your wife it's actually my penis you're making love to. When you eat fruit cake it's actually my penis you're eating. god is my penis, mystical experience is my penis, hell.. everything is my penis.

What value is my claim to anything? Of what relevance is my penis to a buddhist? When a buddhist says he is one with nature, (for instance), and I say "no, you're one with my penis", does that honestly mean he is actually one with my penis? You claim them all identical on this basis? That I say it is my penis, everyone else be damned? Support the notion that whatever "christian mystics" say is the way it actually is.

Let it be said that this post must break the world record for the amount of times penis is said in a few short pararaphs. I deserve a medal.. but then hey, that medal is already one with my penis.

Now for the latter: see pantheism

See pantheism

See pantheism

See pantheism

Fallacious statements. Why should I see pantheism? Of what relevance is that to buddhism?

How can you make that claim when the passage begins by saying "self is an illusion."

Where does it say anything of the sort? All it says is that "self is reality". It does not say self is an illusion.

Yes, people claimed to see bacteri under the microscopre, you'd have to actually look to verify there claim. In this instance you would have to look inside your own mind to verify the claim.

*sarcasm* And then someone undoubtedly came along, claimed bacteria was god, (as god is everything to a pantheist), and done with it. Bacteria and god were no different, they were not different things.. they were one and the same... and so that first guy that looked down a microscope saw god up close. The mystics got pissed off because they had to do weird ritual thingys in order to come to direct perception of god and so killed the guy with the microscope. *end sarcasm*

Now, according to your claims god is everything. In saying, why would I have to look into my own mind? Surely I can just look down the toilet, up my bumhole, under the bed etc?

Describe your consciousness to me.

Would you like the coherent and logical example or the incoherent and illogical one?

If they were experiencing nothing they'd be able to say nothing at all about it. There would literally be nothin written about it. That's not the case. See description of expererience by James, Suzuki, Stace.

I see nothing worthy of note in their claims - other than the statements that nothing can be said about it.

Stace clearly states that these impartial experiences are not included by what he means when he says mystical experience. They don't differ.

Uhh, kindly try and support the claim that they don't differ given that the quote shows they do differ. Your *copycat mode* "they do" statements are childish. If you are going to claim they do you need to offer something substantial to go with that. *end copycat mode*

No, Christian mysticism is a term like any other term.

And involves which type of christian?

Didn't say that.

Didn't say what? I asked a question I didn't make a statement.

Said get one that fits with Staces actual definition

So... once again: why Staces? Why his definition?

14th centruy Christian weren't reading buddhist texts and vice versa.

Kindly provide evidence that there was no influence from foreign sources.

 

[grover]

Snakelord, you said:
"This inevitably causes a problem though. From what I have gathered from both you and the quotes you used, a person can't even describe the experience. Given that this is the case there can be no valid claim stating they're all identical. They can have a similar process, (forgetting/losing oneself), but it is the actual outcome of that experience that I am focusing on. if a person attains "oneness" with [a] god, and another attains "oneness" with nature, it has to be said that they are different things, not the same thing with different terminology. Nature and god are vastly different. ”

To which I replied:
I already said the Christian mystics are pantheistic. Here is the definition of pantheism from wiki:
Pantheism (Greek: πάν ( 'pan' ) = all and θεός ( 'theos' ) = God) literally means "God is All" and "All is God". It is the view that everything is of an all-encompassing immanent God; or that the universe, or nature, and God are equivalent.

Any third party reading this can see that all you are totally intellectually dishonest and you won't concede points when they are made.
-------------------------------------------------------------
I said:
"14th centruy Christian weren't reading buddhist texts and vice versa. ”

to which you repiled:
"Kindly provide evidence that there was no influence from foreign sources."

Now you're asking me to prove a negative. If you think Christian mystics in the 14th century were reading buddhist texts the burden is on you to prove it. The burden of proof is on you, not me. Either way I don't see why you keep bringing this up since you seem to think there are "vast differences" between the two.
----------------------------------------------------------------
You said:"No offence but this discussion is pointless."
If that's what you really think then it's hypocritical for you to continue it.

 

[SnakeLord]

Any third party reading this can see that all you are totally intellectually dishonest and you won't concede points when they are made.

No. Any third party reading this can see that you are totally intellectually dishonest and you wont concede points when they are made.. *yeesh, this will be a vastly circular discussion*. If you want to make claim that I am being somehow dishonest when I contend that things are not identical purely because a christian mystic says they are then please show how. Do my statements concerning that my penis is everything actually mean my penis is everything? Of what relevance is that to a buddhist? Are you saying that only a christian mystic is correct and that therefore anything anyone else ever mentions is in actuality 'god'? If so, you are being intellectually dishonest.

Now you're asking me to prove a negative.

1 is not 2.

If you think Christian mystics in the 14th century were reading buddhist texts the burden is on you to prove it. The burden of proof is on you, not me.

Actually you made the claim, I asked a question. The burden of proof cannot be on the person asking a question, only the one making the claim. It's going to be even harder for you considering the very quotes you used do indeed state that there was outside influence.

If that's what you really think then it's hypocritical for you to continue it.

Not hypocritical, just pointless. Of course perhaps I enjoy being called a motherf***er and whatever other insults spring to mind while engaging in discussion of experiences that cannot be discussed.

 

[grover]

This conversation doesn't move forward until you concede that you were wrong here:

Snakelord, you said:
"This inevitably causes a problem though. From what I have gathered from both you and the quotes you used, a person can't even describe the experience. Given that this is the case there can be no valid claim stating they're all identical. They can have a similar process, (forgetting/losing oneself), but it is the actual outcome of that experience that I am focusing on. if a person attains "oneness" with [a] god, and another attains "oneness" with nature, it has to be said that they are different things, not the same thing with different terminology. Nature and god are vastly different. ”

To which I replied:
I already said the Christian mystics are pantheistic. Here is the definition of pantheism from wiki:
Pantheism (Greek: πάν ( 'pan' ) = all and θεός ( 'theos' ) = God) literally means "God is All" and "All is God". It is the view that everything is of an all-encompassing immanent God; or that the universe, or nature, and God are equivalent.

Any third party reading this can see that all you are totally intellectually dishonest and you won't concede points when they are made.
-------------------------------------------------------------

 

[SnakeLord]

This conversation will not move forward until you admit that you're trying to back out of something you know you can't back out of.

Show to me how the claim from a christian mystic that everything is god is actually true and/or of any relevance to say a buddhist that does not concur with those claims made by christian mystics. Why are christian mystics/pantheists deemed by you to be the ultimate authority? Again, if I regard myself as a penisist and claim my penis is "everything", does that make it so? If so then pantheists are wrong, what they're actually describing is my penis, not god. So pantheists need to now change their claims to read "Snakes penis is ALL" "ALL is Snakes penis".

Can you not see the inherent flaw in what you're saying?

 

[grover]

I'm not backing out of anything. Concede you are wrong on this point and the conversation moves forward. If you can't see that you are wrong here you are either too stupid to debate this topic or lack the integrity to admit when you are wrong.

Snakelord, you said:
"This inevitably causes a problem though. From what I have gathered from both you and the quotes you used, a person can't even describe the experience. Given that this is the case there can be no valid claim stating they're all identical. They can have a similar process, (forgetting/losing oneself), but it is the actual outcome of that experience that I am focusing on. if a person attains "oneness" with [a] god, and another attains "oneness" with nature, it has to be said that they are different things, not the same thing with different terminology. Nature and god are vastly different. ”

To which I replied:
I already said the Christian mystics are pantheistic. Here is the definition of pantheism from wiki:
Pantheism (Greek: πάν ( 'pan' ) = all and θεός ( 'theos' ) = God) literally means "God is All" and "All is God". It is the view that everything is of an all-encompassing immanent God; or that the universe, or nature, and God are equivalent.

Any third party reading this can see that all you are totally intellectually dishonest and you won't concede points when they are made.
-------------------------------------------------------------

 

[SnakeLord]

Let's make a deal..

I will concede that nature, god, the universe, bird droppings and everything else are all identical when you support the christian mystic claim that god is everything - especially when that view differs from other views. What exactly makes christian mystics the authority on the subject? If we are to contend that they're talking about the same thing would you be as inclined to state that 'god' is meaningless and all the christian mystics actually refer to is 'nature', (as is the view held by others)? If not, how do you support your claim?

Oh and a second part of the deal.. stop with the quoting of the same thing over and over. You come across as a pre-pubescent teen with his fingers in his ears shouting "lalalalala, I can't hear you".

 

[grover]

You are not in a position to offer deals. You are in a position to concede you are wrong. Then and only then can any converstion move forward. You have no wiggle room. If you fail to concede you are wrong here you are either too stupid to debate this topic or lack the integrity to admit when you are wrong. Again, here is where you are wrong:

Snakelord, you said:
"This inevitably causes a problem though. From what I have gathered from both you and the quotes you used, a person can't even describe the experience. Given that this is the case there can be no valid claim stating they're all identical. They can have a similar process, (forgetting/losing oneself), but it is the actual outcome of that experience that I am focusing on. if a person attains "oneness" with [a] god, and another attains "oneness" with nature, it has to be said that they are different things, not the same thing with different terminology. Nature and god are vastly different. ”

To which I replied:
I already said the Christian mystics are pantheistic. Here is the definition of pantheism from wiki:
Pantheism (Greek: πάν ( 'pan' ) = all and θεός ( 'theos' ) = God) literally means "God is All" and "All is God". It is the view that everything is of an all-encompassing immanent God; or that the universe, or nature, and God are equivalent.