I was actually kind of hesitant to bring up my interpretation of the NT, because so many people completely misunderstand the meaning of “mysticism”.
From your reply, I can see that you clearly understand what I am talking about …
One of the things I am interested in is the ways in which mysticism is interpreted in various cultures. I have always thought that the experience of mysticism is basically similar, but that the expression of the mystic experience varies from culture to culture. The basic experience (which is not easily explained, or indeed possible to explain) is expressed through the cultural preconceptions of the mystic in question - thus while (say) a Buddhist mystic experiences much the same thing as a Jewish mystic, the two will have very different explainations for what they have experienced.
Jesus, as a Jewish mystic, expressed his experiences as kinship with god - a perfectly reasonable explaination.
Ramakrishna, a 19th century Bengali saint was one of the greatest of all Hindu mystics. He started with visionary experiences of Kali and then moved on to explore as many different “yogas” and other mystic techniques as he could. After he had achieved samadhi by every path in Hinduism and Buddhism, he turned to the western mystic traditions of Islam and Christianity.
When he explored Islam he became a Muslim. He ate beef (unthinkable for a Hindu) he prayed five times a day, he studied the Koran, he lived in every way as a Muslim. He practiced sufi meditations and eventually had a visonary experience of Mohammed.
He next became fascinated by the gospels and “became” a Christian. One day, while praying at a statue of Mary and the infant Jesus, he had a very powerful visonary experience of Christ. (Ramakrishna always claimed that of all his mystic experiences that his Christian one was the most intense).
Ramakrishna acheived the highest mystic ideals in Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam and Christianity and he taught that each experience was essentially the same. He said that all religions were true, and that contradictions were an illusion. He said God had no form, but that formal theism was very useful. In fact his preferred religious practice was devotion to Kali (his first “love” as it were)
Ramakrishna was a very intersting personality and was said to have had a riveting personal presence. Victorian British soldiers who had heard of him, and went to see him to mock him, became so enamored of him that some of them actually left the army, their British citizenship and all of their belongings behind to become Ramakrishna’s disciples. I once wrote a term papeer on Ramakrishna-- fascinating guy.
Diogenes the Cynic Ramakrishna was a very intersting personality and was said to have had a riveting personal presence. Victorian British soldiers who had heard of him, and went to see him to mock him, became so enamored of him that some of them actually left the army, their British citizenship and all of their belongings behind to become Ramakrishna’s disciples. I once wrote a term papeer on Ramakrishna-- fascinating guy.
I’m curious what you would estimate the probability of this guy lying or being delusional compared to him having genuine experiences with god? How would you compare him to Jim Jones, David Koresh, or Benny Hinn.
[quote] badchad
How much do you know about mysticism? There is nothing supernatural required here, we’re just talking about altered states of consciousness. Conditions such as Samadhi can and have been observed or even induced under laboratory conditions. Mysticism has been the core of Indian traditions for thousands of years. Meditative and yogic techniques have been developed and refined for centuries. The fact that these techniques “work” to effect altered consciousness is not disputed by science. There is no question that people really do have intense personal experiences of “seeing” gods and goddesses, angels, etc. These experiences are often exhilarating and life changing. From a purely academic standpoint, they are still regarded as “psychotic” episodes, although socio-religious academia recognizes religious experience as having the potential for psychic catharsis in the individual, and, if the new vision is compelling enough, that it may be transmitted to others in such a way as to create a new religious movement, whether by cult or by sect. Ethnopsychiatrists refer to this as the “psychopathology model” of cult formation.
So to say that these individuals have an “experience” of speaking to Jesus is not the same, necessarily, as saying they have spoken to Jesus, but they are telling the truth about the experience.
Ramakrishna may have been a psychotic, I don’t know, but his written teachings are very insightful and thought provoking, and warming in the same way that the teachings of Jesus, Buddha and Mohammed have those qualities. He was not paranoid or violent as were Jones and Koresh. He made no attempt at financial exploitation of his disciples, and in fact, lived in poverty.
Hinn doesn’t even belong in this discussion. Jones and Koresh were crazy, but they were sincere in their craziness. Hinn is just a carnival sideshow con artist.
Thanks for the info Diogenes. I wonder about Hinn, whether he actually believes in what he does or not. I would guess he does. One of my hobbies is magic and mentalism (the magic that looks psychic). On the various mentalism newsgroups like this, you should see some of these guys debating that what they do is real, at least part of the time, while on another thread they are discussing how to trick folks. It’s an interesting phenomenon, and I’m sure it goes back at least 2000 years:)
I saw a documentary on Hinn a little while ago (I think it was PBS, but I can’t rember for sure). He uses techniques of group psych and suggestion, as well as some outright trickery. Most faith healing is just temporary placebo effect. This documentary followed some of the people who had gone to see him. Most of them got no benefit at all from Hinn’s “healing.” Others were carried away by a temporary religious “high” and felt a short term loss of pain, or maybe felt some energy. They were back to their original state the next day, or worse. Some of them actally aggravated physical conditions by trying to jump and dance around.
Hinn knows he’s a fraud, he’s not self deluded. He never tries to do the impossible. He stays the hell away from paraplegics. He doesn’t try to heal any blind people. It’s all just back problems, or chronic pain or stiff shoulders-- anything which might be briefly relieved by a little religious ecstasy. He knows what he’s doing.
Aww, I hate it when threads like this get started and I don’t even notice them until they are on page 3!
So, we’re talking “P” document versus “J” document?
Is it pretty much agreed that (regardless of whether you happen to believe the entirety of it is logically consistent or spiritually reconcilable or divinely inspired as a coherent whole) the creation story of Genesis is indeed two separate accounts written (or told orally and later written down?) by two different sources/traditions?
Or is that considered highly controversial among Biblical scholars?
I was under the impression that it was pretty much accepted that such is the case.
It’s not really disputed except among the most hardcore fundamentalists and true Mosaic authorship believers-- on an academic level that is. Message boards are a different matter…