From: Jim Ledbury (jim.ledbury@dsl.pipex.com)
Date: Sun Mar 21 2004 - 14:14:09 GMT
Hi folks,
I apologise if this observation has been made before (it will be a
little while before I digest the MD archive - certainly not at one
sitting), but maybe the distinction between mystical and religious
experience is that a mystical experience is an transcendental individual
relationship with the cosmos whereas a religious experience is a
trancendental relationship with humanity (and perhaps via that to the
cosmos).
The mystical can often bypass the human and can at times seem profoundly
anti-human (thinking of Dao De Jing #5 "Heaven and Earth are not
humane,//And regard the people as straw dogs.//The sage is not
humane,//And regards all things as straw dogs.") whereas the religious
will try to promote an integration with a human ethic. By human ethic I
mean much more than simple social level morality, but an ethic which can
inform the intellectual level and arguably a meta-intellectual level.
Although I can't help David in his quest to find transcendance within
the context of a particular Christian (or other) denomination, although
technically atheistic myself I do find that I have a deep sympathy with
the some aspects of Christianity, which I don't really find with other
religions. Perhaps this is related to having being brought up as a
Christian and relates to David's Jung quote "...if we desert our own
foundations as though they were errors outlived...", although I have had
some similar sympathy with aspects of Buddhism and Daoism.
In particular I can find a profound peace of mind in relation to some
church buildings. This is partly aesthetic, but there is an accord with
their being used, possibly for centuries, in devotion to a human ethic
(discounting the abuses of authority practiced is the past). This is
of a different quality to the quality of mind I find on say hilltops and
I would put it down to this human aspect. But also I find a peace of
mind when I consider the sublimation of tradition into humanism (for
want of a better word) that Jesus had in the 1st century CE. I find
that this cannot be simply understood in intellectual terms, and that
such a reduction degrades the quality of the understanding, although
simple intellectual considerations would make me question any belief
with regard to life after death (which I can feel to only mean
integration with the ongoing human ethic), raising of the dead (a
metaphor, or perhaps a simple consequence that without medical
certification, many people have been considered dead, only to come back
to life again) or reject biological absurdities (virgin birth). I find
that in consideration of this human ethic one can find an immense solace
in one's problems. I would think it is this aspect that allows people
with drug dependencies to be cured and for people in a state of despair
to find hope.
I can only feel that it was his discovery of this transcendental human
ethic that gave Jesus his strength to go to the cross. I can find very
real meaning in the concept that "he died for our sins". I can find
similar resonances in all aspects of profound self sacrifice to the
human ethic. The manner and moral authority of Nelson Mandela derive
from this. More ambivalently, the devotion of Mother Theresa to the
dying of Calcutta (the object of her devotion was the Roman Catholic
Church which to a degree taints it).
As I said above, it would be a mistake to identify this with simply
social level morality, although it has fairly obviously informed it down
the ages. It certainly can't be encapsulated by the intellectual
level. There are some aspects of DQ there to be sure, but I am
unconvinced that it is DQ pure and simple because some of it is possible
to be explained in terms of high quality religious thought (the 4 noble
truths and the eight fold way are examples, so are many samples of
Christian prayer and biblical psalms). But you probably do need a
sympathy with them before the quality in these words becomes evident,
and one cannot simply treat them as intellectual propositions and expect
the same effect. It is in this manner that one could I guess experience
transcendence in a Mass.
It's in this regard that I am uncomfortable with such thinkers as
Richard Dawkins: although I think he is spot on in his attacks on
creationism and superstition, his intellectual SOM cannot grasp this
example of religion and so he attempts to destroy it as well.
Oh well, it's a nice sunny day, which would be a crime not to take in
some of the limited natural aspects that one can in London.
Regards,
Jim
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Mar 21 2004 - 14:24:43 GMT