What is the nature of mysticism?

[flowperson]

Dauer...I don't believe that we lost each other's dialogue thread. We are both talking to the phenomenon of mystical experiences and how such experiences may alter the world view of both individuals and communities in general."Both , and" was only my way of expressing the development of an individual's world view substantively beyond dualistic varieties, triggered by mystical experiences..

I've have done a lot of research into the root experiences which shaped the first and original forms of belief among the Hebrews. Many of them were stories of "mystical" experiences by my way of thinking. Maybe we're talking about different terms here, but the "shekinah" I referenced dates to way before the kabbalist origins in Spain in the 14th century. Is "shechinah" specifically referential to kabbalistic beliefs ? Maybe we're talking about apples and oranges here. Are they even the same term ? Here's an encyclopedia reference for you:

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/vi...d=588&letter=S

Now this reference is very specific and names this phenomenon as being something real, experienced by people in general at different times, and not specific to only individual experience and interpretation. So I would say that this is beyond mystical experience. It might be of a similar nature to the sun vibration visions at Fatima that I mentioned. Although if someone described such encounters with manifestations of G-d these days they would likely be labelled a mystic or a nutcase.

I had always thought of "shekinah" as the receptive attitude of the female in everyone which encouraged the descent of G-d's spiritual presence to dwell among His people. But here it is referred to mainly as an actual manifestation of light forms which could be observed by anyone in general. It was a visible evidence of G-d's presence, and it is suggested that there were unique sounds that accompanied the "shekinah" also at times, tinkling bells for instance. And if I remember correctly small bells were even added to the Temple priest's robes somewhere along the line to simulate this sound when they walked about the Temple precinct.

If early forms of Judaism were based upon mystical experiences, then I'm all for that .

Thoughts, opinions ?

flow....

[dauer]

Flow,

Dauer...I don't believe that we lost each other's dialogue thread. We are both talking to the phenomenon of mystical experiences and how such experiences may alter the world view of both individuals and communities in general."Both , and" was only my way of expressing the development of an individual's world view substantively beyond dualistic varieties, triggered by mystical experiences..

I didn't mean we were talking past each other, just that I had no idea what you were responding to. I still don't because you haven't quoted what you were responding to.

I've have done a lot of research into the root experiences which shaped the first and original forms of belief among the Hebrews. Many of them were stories of "mystical" experiences by my way of thinking. Maybe we're talking about different terms here, but the "shekinah" I referenced dates to way before the kabbalist origins in Spain in the 14th century. Is "shechinah" specifically referential to kabbalistic beliefs ? Maybe we're talking about apples and oranges here. Are they even the same term ? Here's an encyclopedia reference for you:

Same thing. I said it first appears in rabbinic literature and that it wasn't really fleshed out until kabalah was developed, not that it first appeared in kabbalistic texts. The targumim which it cites are rabbinic texts that serve as both translations into aramaic and commentary in that hte translations are not word-for-word. Frequently when G!d appears the word shechinah is used, related to the word mishkan. It was really just a new word for kavod which isn't even a feminine word, just translates as glory and in the Jewish tradition refer to G!d's presence (it has a connotation of weightiness, substance.) It has been suggested that in the targumim and in other early rabbinic literature there aren't so many feminine qualities to the shechinah at all. It's more of a fence against literalism by referencing only to G!d's presence. There were earlier Jewish examples of the Divine feminine such as asherah, ashtarot and chochmah.

So while the word shechinah is as old as the targumim, which themselves are much later than the Torah, it didn't mean the same thing then. Cults devoted to the Divine feminine was something the monarchy was busy squashing half the time, although it has been suggested that for a time YHWH did have asherah as a consort and that there may have been a statue of asherah in the Beit HaMikdash. It's also been suggested by modern scholars that the cheruvim, male and females in embrace, were at one point linked to some form of sacred sexual orgy celebrated by the people, upon seeing the two in embrace. The female of the pair is another example of the Feminine, although those cheruvim came later.

The linking of the shechinah to light as it states first appeared along with the view of the Helenists that YHWH is unseen. jewishencyclopedia.com is a great resource, but it's not that great because of how old the encyclopedia is. It predates the writings of Gershom Scholem and thus what is considered the real renessiance in the modern study of Jewish mysticism. I really think though, that saying there were actual lights falls prey to mythical literalism. I think the concept was being conveyed in a way that meant something to the Helenists. It's like Reb David Cooper, a wonderful Jewish meditation teacher who, at a silent retreat I attended with him, explained the cheruvim in terms of some type of generator that creates an electric field. Doing that, I think, takes something away from the myth. It loses for me the emotive power of the rabbinic explanation.

There are earlier forms of Jewish mysticism such as merkava mysticism, heichalot mysticism. It's possible that merkava mysticism predates ezekiel although it's also possible that it was inspired by the book of ezekiel.

Originally there were different types of prophets, and there was one type of prophet who would have ruach hakodesh take him and then go into an ecstatic fit. There's a polemic against this type of prophet when Saul is pursuing David.

Imo a lot of the earliest roots of religion are a response to mystical experiences as I originally defined them however I think that organized religion frequently has many other roots including political control and I think that those types of roots likely have more to do with "official" or "canonical" religion as it were. That's not to say I'm against organized religion. I can view David historically a bit of a ruthless guy while still viewing him ahistorically and mythically as the archetypal and ideal king. I think that when myth is forced to conform to history or vice versa that generally something is lost, and I prefer maintaining both rather than being forced to compromise.

-- dauer

edit:

btw if you're interested in mystical roots in Judaism I suggest Reb Aryeh Kaplan's book Meditation and the Bible. While for the most part I view it as a very beautiful and sometimes powerful drash, it may strike you differently as history is concerned. He is very thorough. My issue stems from the fact that the basis for much of his interpretation is on the word of much later Jewish texts, but you may not have that same response. He does have a section on biblical words related to meditation and the like that I will have to review as I think that seemed a little more compelling. One of the nice things is that he does have translations of so many primary texts related to the subject. The source material for each chapter follows it.

[flowperson]

[quote=dauer;131047]

Imo a lot of the earliest roots of religion are a response to mystical experiences as I originally defined them however I think that organized religion frequently has many other roots including political control and I think that those types of roots likely have more to do with "official" or "canonical" religion as it were. That's not to say I'm against organized religion. I can view David historically a bit of a ruthless guy while still viewing him ahistorically and mythically as the archetypal and ideal king. I think that when myth is forced to conform to history or vice versa that generally something is lost, and I prefer maintaining both rather than being forced to compromise.

-- dauer

edit:

Hi Dauer...I usually do not quote other's posts when responding. I try to hold the sense of what was said by the other in my head and write a response based upon my understanding of the other's words. I know that goes against the de riguer of logically based argument used these days in webworld. But IMHO, it's a more civilized way to proceed and fosters a discussion less likely to get hung up on details. So let's just say that we agree upon the nature and application of mystic experience and leave it at that.

I wholeheartedly agree with the above statement, That is precisely the way that I see the roots of the dilemma in societies' acceptance of mystical experiences. I agree with you that many religious movements are begun through an experiencing of the mystic. The true emotions connected with those moments are usually always washed away over time by the dilutions of control issues and of politically motivated compromises. Mircea Eliade had a lot to say about this process in his book, The Sacred and the Profane. If G-d is love, then emotionless teaching and empty rituals are mostly meaningless to me. But then, I am half Italian.

Thank you for your exensive commentary regarding the use of the word "shekinah". It all makes more sense to me now.It could be that we are witness to the struggles for the control of mystical experience in discussing the historical conceptions and uses of this one word down through the centuries.

Best....flow....

[dauer]

flow,

So let's just say that we agree upon the nature and application of mystic experience and leave it at that.

Okey doke.

Mircea Eliade had a lot to say about this process in his book, The Sacred and the Profane.

Thanks for mentioning the book. I've added it to my amazon wishlist. It looks like he's saying a bit along the lines of what Abraham Joshua Heschel of JTS went on about. Looks like Eliade's thinking is in many places in line with my own. It isn't for nothing that I called my now inactive blog "...and the new will be made holy" which is one half of Rav Kook's saying "The old will be renewed and the new will be made holy (or sanctified)."

Thank you for your exensive commentary regarding the use of the word "shekinah". It all makes more sense to me now.It could be that we are witness to the struggles for the control of mystical experience in discussing the historical conceptions and uses of this one word down through the centuries.

I think that's a big part of it. The fleshing out of the feminine metaphor and the growth of kabbalah can in part be seen as a reaction to the hyperrationalism that had become so pervasive. It's hard to feel much for an Unmoved Mover or the Active Intellect. Reaching a level at which one might be given the gift of prophecy by in part thoroughly refining the intellect? *gags*

Before you said anything I was reflecting on the switch from the word kavod to the word shechinah and wondering if there might be something partly political in that, just as with hazal there may have been something to the way they expanded on the dietary laws to create a complex system of purity for the whole nation, not just the kohanim. But it's also possible they did it so as not to cause confusion by seeing kavod in places the word does not appear. I'm not really sure.

I think another issue, along with politics, is that of the misunderstandings by followers of a given individual that lead to a literalism to myth or dogma that was not originally intended as well as to a mytholigizing of the individual. I do think that can be an aide for some, the mytholigized individual, but I also think that at times the veneration can lead to difficulties.

--dauer

[Francis king]

what is the nature of mysticism..?

I would have to say that all out faiths point to some "otherworldy", or "spiritual" or "transcendent" or "mystical" quality or medium, and perhaps this quality or medium is what unites us...

when I am in catholic mode, I see it as God, when I am am buddhist mode I see it as sunyata, when in kabbalist mode I see it as Ayin- yet I do not see this "it" as different- for me, it is the same thing each time, just described in different ways...

for me, there is a difference though between those things of the "mysterium fidei" (the mystery of faith) and those things which are alternatively described as ayin, sunyata, God, etc... and the difference, for me, is...

one is real, one is just an opinion that somebody else wants you to have!

the mystic, all they desire is to meet with God, to have that transcendental otherworldy experience, to taste that "thatness", to "unite", to "know"...

the rest of them? they want something else entirely; they look for status, protection, power, fame, glory, acceptance... no matter how much faith they say they have, they will forever be agnostic... the mystic has gnosis...

[esa888]

I have enjoyed your conversations about this subject, It it a fascinating one.
through experiences i have had, i came to religion,to help me understand them.

I have read various texts about the mystical mindset, as you know it is found in all different religions. To explaine the nature of it, is in a way futile, as its not of the intellect, it is beyond but i would say :-

It is when a subject becomes emersed in spirit connection with the whole, and the self becomes as nothing, this can happen to ordinary people if the conditions allow.

Now i am new around here so i am not going to speak about things that have happened to me, and project some foolish idea`s to you, i am still learning, and am not at all advanced in this subject, but to become open, one must in my experience, simplify and unlearn things to get down to a harmonious state.

There are many ways people use to do this, any tradition can work, it depends only on you.

[Iacchus]

What is mysticism? It is all about the space between our ears. In fact, we are all mystics, we just don't know it. Either that or, we are "legends" in our own minds. Hence, when it comes to die, we are off to oblivion. So, one would think that reality would provide us with a more substantial basis for us to think. Otherwise "we" are entirely disconnected. We don't know anything outside of what consciousness knows, and our bodies may just as well not be there if we didn't. Consciousness is all we have in that regard.