Part 1: The Making of Mysticism: ruclips.net/video/OBHsLOgXZNc/видео.html Part 2: William James and the Modern Study of Mysticism: ruclips.net/video/2CZ3zJGT4ZQ/видео.html Support this project: patreon: www.patreon.com/seekers paypal: www.paypal.com/donate?hosted_button_id=RKCYGQSMJFDRU
I just have one word for Katz: SHANDA! Gershom Scholem, in On the Kabbalah and It’s Symbolism, states: “ It is mystical experience which CONCEIVES AND GIVES BIRTH to authority”. He was writing about religious authority specifically however I believe it extends to secular authority as well. Unfortunately it is exoteric authority which has claimed authority. And it seems that we will forever be quibbling about esoteric authority until we face the limitations of exoteric authoritarian dogma rather than waiting for the next Kuhnian “paradigm shift”. No amount of “philosophizing” will ever replace the esoteric mystical experience, which by nature is itself irrational. So, unfortunately, I don’t believe anyone can ever really talk about it unless they’ve “been there.” Even the writings of all our cherished mystics (what brave souls!) are completely confounding to the discursive mind. Writing and researching the historical and philosophical development of mystic ideas is one thing. But unless one’s been there, it’s not the same. Sad but true. There are many seekers on this channel who haven’t had an experience, which is why they’re here ( thanks to folks like you, Justin, and Filip to name just a few!). What they really need is technical guidance. And that is something that THE ACADEMY in its present form can never do. (For the Seekers: Pray and practice contemplative meditation. Learn if you have to and be patient. Knowledge & Wisdom will come in time!) Yet the conversation (and the controversy ) has to happen because we will otherwise live in an impoverished world of materialists- ALL of whom are afraid of death! Isn’t this why there are so many brilliant young scholars of religion on RUclips? The avenues for academic careers are dried up - aren’t they? This is a place where you can talk about these things without fear of academic censorship. (There are also some outstanding academicians on RUclips who do have to be very careful.) As for the Traditionalists, yes Evola went rogue, but all ideas can be used for evil Zevi. And nowhere is this most evident than in the current news, where exoteric dogmatic approaches are instituted in order to control the collective message, regardless of bloodshed or torture. Headscarves (Hijabs) come to mind… There is a lot of phenomenal writing from these Traditionalists although all of it is couched in some pretty academic prose, which limits the reach of the audience. Corbin in particular is very important (so why aren’t all his works available in English? Is that due to a relative canceling of Orientalists? Not everything they said needs to be “forgotten”). And were you aware that Eliade made his career from the writings of Guénon? Nasr has outright stated that in a few of his RUclips lectures. (Seems that Guénon was more interested in writing than in oral polemic discourse). Personally, I’m grateful for that, having read all his translated works.
Quite superb, thank you. If felt like a graduate seminar, except that it went far deeper than most graduate seminars do. Contra Katz, I had a mystical experience myself (only one, unfortunately!) almost forty years ago, and although I can't claim that I am untouched by the culture I grew up in, I can affirm that at the time I was an atheist, and had never taken the official Anglican services which we were subjected to at school seriously. And I wasn't seeking mystical experience at all. Nor was I taking hallucinogens, sleep-deprived, fasting, or anything else. If anyone's interested, it happened like this: I was walking with my then wife back from a cinema in a rather dreary English city (Peterborough) and I distinctly remember she was irritated with me. So the context could not have been more banal. We crossed the bridge over the River Ouse, which was far from picturesque: there was a power station on one bank, and a neon sign, if I remember right for a strip club, on the other. Then I saw two white swans and at once the world changed. I saw them as I had never seen swans before - not merely their beauty, although that stunned me, so that I felt rooted to the spot, but I at once felt that I was one with them, not merely loving them, but actually identical. As Zevi says, the experience is ineffable, and it's unfortunate that it can't be properly communicated in words. I didn't feel any of this in articulated thought; the inner monologue completely stopped. (And I wasn't even meditating in those days.) In any case there were no angels, saints or Christ. Perhaps Katz would object that because I had grown up in a secular England, that's the explanation for my symbol-free experience. I understand this is just one subjective experience, but I can say that it changed my life. Ever since then I have known that there is a spiritual dimension to life, and that everything in the universe is one, and united by love. And it seems to me, having since read a few of the mystics (I'm not a philosopher, so confess that I may have read them somewhat uncritically) that their experiences were similar to mine, in essence, as far as I can tell from their equally inadequate descriptions. I know just enough about mysticism from that single brief experience - which lasted only a few minutes - to feel certain that anyone who's had such an experience could not doubt it, and my suspicion is that Katz et al have never had it.
I don't think this is contra Katz. Katz's main point was to say that any mystical experience will be cognized through Kantian transcendental ideals and likely culture, so there is no universal mystical experience. It's not to say that mystical experience doesn't exist.
Wow Zevi, I can't tell you how important this video was to me. I have, and continue to struggle with the logic of mysticism as a practice in my own life. because of that this video was enormously helpful in finding some clarity of thought and in directing me to relevant literature on the topic. Your ability to contextualize the modern debate on mysticism has been an inestimable resource in my decision to pursue a religious life; from the bottom of my heart, thank you so much!
“Neither the mystic nor the philosopher can remain content with an irreducible heterogeneity of mystical experience, the mystic because the ultimate character of the experience implies a universal claim, the philosopher because a diversity of ultimate claims is a challenge not a resting-place. Thus, it is not an uneducated essentialist desire, but religious integrity or philosophical urgency that leads those who no longer find an exclusive claim by any single tradition convincing to seek an underlying unity and to investigate the equivalence of symbols under their diversity.” - Charles Davis, in Review of Mysticism and Philosophical Analysis
This video is so good. I actually became interested in perennialism and pantheism after psychedelic experiences I had almost 15 years ago now. I hope that's not taboo to mention here. I no longer experiment with such substances and I would recommend people approach with extreme caution as it was also responsible for a drug psychoses which I had (I'm better now in case anyone reading this is worried) but I definitely relate to this being experiential because I experienced it and then my beliefs changed and I became a pantheist. I had little contact with the ideas beforehand 🤷♀️ Also I want to add that I find the New Age movement disappointing, it is full of cult leaders who take advantage of the spiritually lost.
I finished watching this 30 minute video, and it feels like I've just took in a week's worth of study... I'll have to rewatch it at least a couple more times 😁 However, the one notion I immediately take from this, is that ultimately, EVERY experience is "mystical" by nature. Once again, thank you Zevi and SoU team (and all Seekers out there for that matter) for this priceless content! Much love and appreciation!
Thank you Leo. Glad to be part of this journey with you. Without you it would be meaningless. Looking forward to continue to learn and seek together. Love, Zevi
This was the video I needed and wanted to find and watch. Thankyou so much for creating. I'm kind of having a perrennialist journey experience finding the unity in various strands of my life: religion, culture, academia and hobbies and this video is the nexus of information - the crossroads signpost with map showing "you are here". Can't thank you enough. ❤
'Mysticism without love can lead to dark places.' Quiet profound. Then you link it to the New Age, which is increasingly individualistic and neutered of its critique of greed. Indeed, such beliefs are so frequently stripped of their philosophical sources (context), although of course cannot ultimately be discovered through discourse.
Hi Zevi, the work you are doing is amazing. I really appreciate your clarity. To be able to receive this amount of teaching in such a small amount of time is one of the wonders of the internet. And it is for free!! At the same time, the effort you must have invested to create this video must have been significant and I am truly grateful for what you are doing. I particularly enjoyed your closing comments regarding experience. As a past student of Jewish mysticism I recognised (my assumption based on observation without objective proof) that I was being taught by academics and scholars who had never had a mystical experience in their lives. This, in spite of their deep devotion to religious practice. I feel that religious devotion is often engaged in primarily out of social conditioning. To be able to scholarly discuss and articulate mystical teachings only further enhances the individuals social currency. It is just so easy for smart people to enhance their social status by speaking esoterically. In some ways the academic scholars are more pure in their pursuit of mysticism than the religious scholars. At least they are clear about their agenda. It would seem to me that it is high time that the engagement in the mystical experience isn’t somehow downgraded just because we have a logical mind that will get in the way. It seems that it is precisely the approach of engaging in mysticism through wisdom, understanding and knowledge that perpetuates the intellectual and academic approach to mysticism and thus the unity that is ultimately sought is forever beyond our grasp. It is my hope that the seeking of unity is engaged in primarily through the experience and that everything else will flow from there. I can talk about love until the cows come home but unless I have actually felt love for another it remains a sterile and academic exercise and will most likely leave any listener unaffected.
I just wanted to share that your channel showed up on my timeline 2 years ago, probably around 2 weeks after my first hand experience with the divine; and that it’s helped me (along with other channels) to really gather all of this information and aid me in my personal growth and inevitably the growth of the people in my life. Thanks, dude!
"There are no pure mystical experiences" So true. But I would make the argument that for natural mystics one can improve upon ones experience by removing ecstatic notions of divine revelations and other objects of divinity. Moreover, it is better not to recognize normative expectations that will be reinforced or try to create probative experience by trying to enhance experiences. In other words dont try to shape that which is not there. Rather than this approach the experience with a feathers touch and allow the experience to reveal itself within the local context of being. I hear these saying about the divine oneness of being. This is delusional when considering all the beliefs and believers that have lived, 10s of billions, exceed the capacity of the minds awareness, of you see everything at once, then you objectively see nothing. Whereas in the local context of being, awareness comes to familiar things that reach out when the mystic avoids probing the divine. Most natural mystical experiences reveal nothing, but when they reveal then it is time that they be revealed. And if one is practicing as to reveal many things, the many things that are revealed are delusions. The quote before this is correct the biases and objectives of the seeker will inform the vision and in informing the vision it also shapes the interpretation. The apostle Paul, for instance, never met Yeshua of Nazara, saw his face or heard his voice. but somehow in his initial vision he saw Ihsou Christos talking to him. He then goes into the desert to gather instructions through seeking and comes back with a theology. Like many in this genre of religious seekers they are not trying to unify, but promote nascent sectarian ideas, this is mysticism at its worse. If you are not prone to mystical experiences then abstain from promoting them for those that struggle for visions will find falseness. Instead work for better meditative stances. But if you are prone then the goal is to create purity of the experience by avoiding preexisting religious tropes, and make it clear that the source of the experience is the self-being and clean the vision scape of mystical desires and let whatever comes, comes, or not.
Well that was... exhausting! I must applaud our presenter (what is his name?) for such a thorough and skillful job in managing to give his audience a "bird's eye view" of a huge swath of intellectual territory. That said, I found myself joining a number of other commenters in reflecting that Katz et al. in the "constructivist" camp do indeed sound as though the "doors of perception" had never opened for them. As a result, "mysticism" can ONLY exist for them as yet another captive object to be dismantled, thus eagerly aligning themselves with generations of heirs of the European "enlightenment", absolutely certain that every human mystery, from cosmology to "quantum neuroscience" (is there such a thing?) must eventually surrender its secrets to the relentless probings of the academic intellect. It seems that among the legacies of that "enlightenment" is a determined effort to achieve the intellectual high ground, from which trenchant criticism can successfully be aimed at any topic, thus revealing its "real meaning". I am reminded of an academic trend I myself witnessed quite a few years ago, in which certain doctors of the humanities became entranced by the hermetic world of Freudian psychoanalysis, and proceeded to characterize the shortcomings of their colleagues' academic work as resulting from their failure to plumb the depths of ego, id and superego clearly visible in the literature etc. of their specialty. Once again, the Olympian summit of rigorous intellectual insight was claimed by a group of thinkers, just as Katz et al. seem to claim for themselves. As someone who has spent his adult life as a Zen Buddhist clergyman, I would be tempted to invite Katz et al. to see how non-trivial experience of meditative discipline might affect their point-of-view, but of course I would be dismissed as someone ignorant of his own "contextualized" situation. I'm afraid there is no ultimately privileged viewpoint, no matter how clever and elegant the arguments. Human beings are heir to a "mysterium tremendum et fascinans", and that I declare to be the "ground" on which we ultimately meet each other. "Mystic"? Well, if you like.
I am not sure if I understand the problem: why can't there be universal experience and cultural interpretation at the same time? E.g. the sun: (almost) every person has seen or experienced it. Maybe a bit different in northern countries compared to the equator or someone who is blind differently than someone who can see. There is a similar experience but the interpretation might be quite different - a secular person might think of a big mass that emits light. Someone who sees the sun as having devine power might worship it. A farmer desperately waiting for rain might experience it quite differently than a child who goes swimming with friends. ----- With mystical experiences it might be the same. Maybe most people are able to experience e.g. some inner light or inner darkness but then interpret it differently, based on his religious/cultural assumption and personal experience.
This debate has a parallel in discussions of the near-death experience. Many reports of modern NDEs resemble historical accounts of mystical experiences, from various religious traditions. These accounts show a fascinating interaction of the 'raw' NDE itself (if such a thing is possible) with the experiencer's previous religious beliefs - if any. Very few experiencers emerge with their previous beliefs intact, especially those with fundamentalist backgrounds - including fundamentalist atheists. My overall impression is that most NDEs convey an intense sense of reality ('more real than us sitting here'), but often expressed in partly familiar images. The Christian might meet and talk with Jesus in outer space, while the agnostic scientist might explore the cosmos with an angel at his side - but in either case, they return with a sense of vast realities which they only briefly touched. I get a sense that most NDErs would agree that their experience was both 'objective' and 'subjective' - a glimpse of Reality itself, but shaped in uniquely appropriate terms, offering comfort, challenge, and amazement in equal measure.
"What is the relationship between the mystical experience and it interpretation" The better question is what is the relationship between the mind-body of the mystic and the mystical experience. A mystic that is taking drugs to have an experience begs the question, is this the result of some gradious divine force or misfiring of neurons in the brain of the mystic. We dont have to go far into the issue of vision seeking to make the argument that the mystic is trying to project something, otherwise why take the drug, and after he finishes the experience he is projecting something, not about the divine but about a divine rational that he is trying to project. The people who i know have unprompted mystical experiences typically don't reveal, less so reveal grand overarching theistic unification theories. I mean if we are talking about esoericism, then why aren't the divine revelations kept to oneself. If we take a look at notable mystics in the course of humanity, are they unifying or trying to create sectarianism, these are the mist vocal among the mystics, caveot emptor.
I feel stirred by the call to go beyond the debate and learn and build together! Shkoyach :) I know that for me, both Perennialism and Constructivism have offered a great deal and I see a place for both in the future
Thanks so much for this..I am doing a part time PhD which started life as a comparison between Platonism and some Indian philosophy but has become increasingly focused on Mysticism. I am currently researching the Constructivist V Common Core debate so this was really useful. I also meditate however and appreciated your call to take the best of diversity and unity in moving forward. I practise Sahaja Yoga meditation which balances the essential unity of the great prophets and mystics with delineating the contextualised roles they had to play. Ultimately however, it is of course about the experience of the meditative state itself.
Zevi, you’re brilliant! Yes, learn from both sides. There may be no “pure” interpretation of a mystical experience, but that does not negate a whole unity or oneness. Language is something all cultures do.. and as different as it is, more than 80% of communication is dependent on tone and body language.. that is universal. Neuroscience, anatomy, biology, as environmentally influenced as they are, are a likeness we all share. Love, presented in different ways through familial bonds, lovers, mankind, is still a force beyond reason, yet globally proven by biochemistry and neuroscience. To understand the wholeness of a mystical experience, we must strive as a whole to understand the whole interpretations, philosophies, and sciences. Thank You for your amazing work!
Enlightening as always Zevi, loved Kant touch this, of course we need to continue to explore mysticism, it may be the best chance we have to bridge our minds, history and source code. Peace
This is insanely well put together, while you may have a script it really feels like we’re just having a conversation which makes the information digestible, thank you
Although you're still in your prime and youth, b'ezrat H, this episode is already a massive piece of legacy and, for me, from my modest point of view , is a emarkable achievement and an inspiration for all those who are already on the path or are attracted to it. Kol ha Kavod.
Thank you my friend. That’s very kind of you. That episode was, and still is, close to my heart and mind. I’m glad you’ve gotten so much for it. With love, Zevi
❤🙏 That was a lot of ground to cover in one video lol. That being said, I think you did a great job of presenting the arguments. It seems like academic inquiry into mysticism has gotten stuck in the realm of duality and it is time for a reconciliation of opposites. That will certainly be a difficult process but I think it is possible. I think you've identified a really great opportunity, now we just need someone to rise to the challenge.
@@thesjewishpsychedelicsandbox For sure! I've been contemplating this for awhile and hints of a decent synthesis are starting to come to me so I'm sure there are people out there like Zevi who are more knowledgeable and qualified who are feeling that too and are possibly further along in articulating it.
Reconciliation would be nice. I don't think it's mysticism that's stuck. Whenever we get closer to truth, politics asks us to abandon truth in favour of love; truth and love are not mutually exclusive. Love silences accusation, it does not silence truth.
@@justinbirkholz I have read many of your comments on this channel and esoterica.. and they are always insightful and spoken like a true mystic 😁 so I looked you up and read your blog, and it was awesome. After reading about how your accident set this path in motion for you, I started wondering about some theories on this “unified” mystical experience debate. I watched a video on shamanism with Angela’s symposium and Seekers of unity… there was this part where Zevi asked if shamanism was related to any particular religion, and Dr.P explains that even the indigenous shamanism has no origin of religion because it was happening in every culture. She said it was more based on practices than religion… which makes me wonder… what if mystical experiences are unified by some practice we are doing whether we recognize it or not? For instance, many mystics talk about NDEs or becoming ill, etc. I was curious to what you think unifies mystics. Enjoyed reading your blogs and comments.
@@Annavae1111 wow...thank you.❤🙏☀ I'm so honored that you took the time to visit my blog and read some of my writing! That's awesome. You pose a really great question. I've spent the last five years trying to understand mystical experiences, what they share in common, how they can be distinct, and I certainly have much more to learn, but I have noticed some patterns in the lives of mystics. I think the path of the mystic often begins with a major disruption, this could be an NDE or illness like you suggested, an initiatory rite, a plant-medicine ceremony, death of a loved one, etc. That disruption causes them to break out of the mindset/worldview they were previously inhabiting and see the world in a new light. And once you catch a glimpse of that realm it is hard to go back to your old ways so you develop a new lifestyle, new practices, new philosophies, and so on. But I like your question though because maybe there is something even more subtle that mystics are doing within themselves that hasn't been explicated yet. Definitely something to think about! I'm so glad to hear that you enjoyed my content. I will be starting a RUclips channel of my own later this year and will be appearing on podcasts and interviews as well. Starting with my first podcast appearance on the goodinthehead channel on 2/26. I hope you'll come check it out and find me when I launch!
Brilliant video. A few thoughts. Speaking about ultimate ground realities of mysticism for comparative purposes yet seems to be challenged by the fact that each mystic tradition has its own ultimate epistemological reference and any form of speaking "about them" to study and compare and understand them, "from outside" necessariously implies not only to set aside those ultimate epistemological planes of reference but also to posit a higher (and truly universal) epistemological ultimate level for thinking on this issues (a meta-language for mystcs-language that is of a higher order and comprehensive of all the possibilities of their languages). Yet mystics's ultimate epistemological planes of reference all claim more or less expressly (and it does not deny that mystics can surely adopt studies in their own traditions as tool for inner cultiation) that an outsider point of view, a non mystic-point of view, is inherently defective in mystic-epistemological capabilities. And so outsider-points of view, both constructivists or perennialists, would then be doomed to be discarded as inherently defective in their capaciblity to "know" and discern ultimate epistemes in mystics universe. Or to put it in a simple example: many people can be looking different things, either because they are looking at different sides, or some because they use glasses, or because some have different physical capabilities regarding the sense of sight, some may even have an illness in their eyes, but one thing they will have in common: they all have eyes and they see. Then comes a group of different blind people trying to analyze their sights themselves: the philosophical-critic method, whether defending and using a perennialist language and ideas or defending and using a constructivist one, or mixing them. There would be a simple ultimate final impediment that prevent them (all those three camps) to knowing mystical realities as mystics do, even if they can truly know many aspects of what occurs in mystics when they are seeing (where are they located, how they describe, what is their story and so on). The analytical outsider mode for investigating mysticism, whatever specific thesis it may defend, would then be lost in a great problem: its own basis makes of it a discourse inherently separate and lateral and disconnected from each tradition of mysticism.
Totally agree. I really appreciate all these people putting so much thought into this, noticing historical trends, emphasizing the importance of context and so on. Yet it saddens me that many of these academics seem to have no idea what a (profound) mystical experience actually feels like. I wish it were more acceptable in academia to be open about one’s personal experiences than it is and how these do or don’t inform one’s scholarship. There are insider-outsider issues in most fields, of course, but mysticism seems to me to be the kind of field where it’s really, really helpful for scholars to be open about their own insider experiences.
I’ll preface what I’m about to say by saying that I have seen any of your work in the past couple months. But in my opinion, this is by far the best video of yours that I have seen. You managed to be incredibly clear and assertive about this stuff and your thoughts on it, say genuinely productive things.
The depth and breadth of your research and analysis never fails to astound me. Having spent quite a long stretch in academia, I thought I knew what competent scholarship was. Your work makes my past efforts look... less than impressive, to put it mildly. Thankfully, I'm no longer a player in the academic game, so my ego is not too badly bruised. 😁 I'm just grateful that you've chosen to freely share the knowledge and understanding you've attained. Your channel is truly a treasure.
Thank you Mark. I do appreciate the kindness of your comments. I don’t care that much for academia per se. I just think it much be a useful tool to critically explore the field mysticism, in the hopes of bring us to greater common understandings and appreciation of unity. But its certainly far from the only way, just one puzzle piece amongst many in this beautiful tapestry of life.
@@SeekersofUnity Whether you apply them within an academic context or not, you certainly have some fantastic research and communication skills. You must have had some wonderful teachers and mentors somewhere along the way. 🙂
20:44 "Constructivists claim that a mystic's given tradition will dictate not only their interpretation of the experience, but also the very experience itself, conditioning them with what to expect, hope for, and eventually see in their experience..." Katz and Company speak exactly like those who have never had the experience (nor have even tried). The integral ingredient this argument overlooks entirely is THE ELEMENT OF SURPRISE. If the experience could be conditioned to the extent Katz and Constructivists argue, then it would not be ineffable and would not need to be EXPERIENCED, it could simply be transmitted pedagogically. A mystical experience is never what is expected and shatters the boundaries of conditioning. Shift this argument to any other experience possible to anyone, and the argument is shown to be shallow, obvious, and rather silly. "The Chinese person's experience of riding a bicycle is conditioned by their cultural tradition." Don't be silly. Certainly the way a Mandarin speaker relates the experience will be conditioned by language and culture, but the experience itself will be conditioned only by his humanity.
'Shift this argument to any other experience possible to anyone, and the argument is shown to be shallow, obvious, and rather silly. "The Chinese person's experience of riding a bicycle is conditioned by their cultural tradition."' What exactly about this is 'shallow', 'obvious', or 'silly'?
The fact that when mystics and contemplatives from different traditions talk to each other they recognise what the other is saying is an indication that Katz is wrong. The Dalai Lama visited the Grande Chartreuse, the Carthusian order, in France and spoke to the monks there. I felt they had a lot in common on a contemplative level. Thomas Merton corresponded with lots of contemplatives and mystics and again there was a recognition of similar experience. And so on. Katz’s position is too extreme and typical of the debunking obsession of postmodernity
I found some ideas in Traditionalism interesting but its not actually rooted in any tradition, its more an amalgamation of all traditions. Like Evola for example, he references Aztecs, Zoroastrians, Inca, Greek Mythology, Zen, and Christian Mysticism. I found it a bit schizophrenic to be honest. I find the whole Thor is Indra is Zeus is Wotan is Jehova, Krishna is Christ thing a bit overated to be honest. It's a very popular thing amongst orientalists, anthropologists, mystic perennialists to whitewash things and blend it all together into one large grey goo. And also the race politics of Evola turned me off. Believing in traditional values like family, raising children, not working on the sabbath, going to synagogue/temple/church is fine, but a lot of the alt-right aryan theory and hyperborean race theories I found very offputting and too focused on identity politics as opposed to a connection with God, or that their God requires a supreme so-called "aryan" race. Guenon is only slightly better, because he was in the Shadhili Tariqa, but he was still a heretic to Sunni Islam and preached non-Islamic things like Traditionalism. The issue I had with Guenon was more aesthetic and stylistic than Evola. I found in Crisis of the Modern World, he wrote really long winded sentences and used too many commas, and would never get to the point of his messages, and insert a lot of filler phrases which ended up bulking the pages with repetitive filler. And then you have Savitri Devi who thinks Hitler is an incarnation of Vishnu, I really couldn't take that one seriously. One of the arguments that I do agree with about on the Traditionalists is that there is a decay in society, a focus on quantity over quality, and that religious traditions have become corrupted over time. I'm going back to the source texts and reading through the Tanakh now. I've finished all the books and am now up to Isaiah now. What I find interesting is that the structure of the Tanakh is quite cyclical. There is creation, a state of innocence, then there is a covenant, then the breaking of a covenant, retribution, then exile, then the promise of redemption. And it occurs again. I find this in stark contrast to the Traditionalist assumption that we are in a "Kali Yuga", which is more of a Hindu concept. But even in the hindu Kali Yuga, it is only considered a part of the cycle to returned to a state of purity by the avatar of Vishnu Kalki. I'm listening to the rest of the video and I agree with Katz. That there are irreconcilable differences and they should be respected. I don't think Muhammad is Kalki, and I don't think Kalki is the Maschiach, and I don't think Jesus is the Jewish Messiah. They are all different religions, and Traditionalists will pounce at any ounce of similarity and claim that it is part of the Perennial Tradition as they have access to some "esoteric" new age truth which religious people somehow don't. I find this utterly pretentious and it's a form of cultural appropriation.
254th to like! Thank you for your research and arguments! Very illuminating work. the universal particular, the kernel that all attempts to theorize or specify get wrong, i.e., what are they all wrong about, seems like the way past the impasse. And i have been, like all those who suffer mystical experiences, very surprised by what happened. but not for one second did i in hubris think it was veridical: that i somehow achieved oneness with the All, even if that is how it feels. it's just an experience, subject to the same human frailties as whether i see the same colour of the dress you do or hear the same word you do etc. To accord mystical experiences with the authority of Truth is blasphemy. unless you have religious beliefs about human nature being godlike already, eh? and that's putting the cart before the horse. i think mystic humility is the way past the impasse. Much love in this godly world!
Coherence detection is the common core that's being overlooked, i think. We can use our brains for coherence detection, which in a civil context implies roles and duties; or one can use one's brain to make one's self comfortable. Not mutually exclusive but, comfort has a strong visceral positive feedback that's hard to overlook (eg. everyone likes a nice buffet).
24:33 particles and waves. There is also the pilot-wave theory that is both at once. I wonder what the philosophical equivalent is. Also, I was so excited to see Hux's face. There is a recording of him geeking out the symbolism of the dancing shiva that I just love. Is he mentioned in any other Seekers of Unity videos??
@@yahwings7813 Perennial Philosophy is an amazing work. It's like William James' Varieties. Basically a must read. If you are a fan of Huxley, I also highly recommend a book called Huxley and God which is a collection of essays and articles that he wrote for spiritual publications. If you want to know the mature Huxley, that is where you will find him.
Amazing content as always... In my own experience, I escaped the "new age" thinking and "spiritual but not religious" modus operandi by the writings of the Guenonian perenialists, which impelled me to seek a living tradition and a authentic spiritual master. When I finally found a Shaykh, he advised me against being a "intelectual sufi". Not that I was forbidden to continue reading on the pereniallists, but he warned me that by reading that so much I might be straying away from sufism, and indeed, and it could turn me into a f4sc1st or a n4z1. That stroke me hard as f4sc1sm is the most abominable human ideology ever born. Later, I came to understand the relationship between the Guenonian pereniallist school and some f4sc1cts movements, and also some of the "orientalists" kind of mistakes made there, and thank God, Alhamdulilah took distance from those who take that framework of thought too seriously. Although, I am still a fan of the "common ground" hypothesis, the more I study religions and mysticism, whatever the optics of whatever tradition, the more I tend to focus on the similarities and "coincidences" instead of on the differences, the more I am convinced they all emanate from a formless, timeless, primordial Truth, taking different shapes and flavours throughout different geographical, cultural and historical context. That's the only aspect of "pereniallism" that I took to my life, throwing away all their critics of the modern world, which is almost turned into a political and philosofical inquisition... I can even argue that the Guenonian contradict themselves, because, if they say we're in Kali Yuga, near the end, what purpose would fight modernism achieve? All the secularism, materialism, scientificism and excessive rationalism, dismissing of religions and mysticism, all they "fight", It's just all part of our predestinated fate, there's no point in "fighting" it politically or philosophically, one should take care of one's own salvation because world is probably doomed already 😀.
Not saying we should be individualists, because caring of one's own salvation includes helping others and making positive impact on the world, but if you want to turn taking religion and mysticism back to the center of human experience (where it should be) and turning that into a political crusade, specially, as you mentioned WITHOUT LOVE, in CONFRONTATIONAL ATTITUDE, is the Guenonian biggest mistake.
Once again, a fantastic critique and exploration ^_^ Ever since my own experience it has become my life goal to produce a work that reconciles the empirical with the phenomenological; bringing together science and religion within the gnosis we call mysticism ^_^
@@SeekersofUnity Starting with becoming a chartered psychologist and then taking my research into the effect of compassion based practises and mindfulness on the brain. Watch this space! :D
The resolution of this debate is to recognize that religious traditions are but collections of means and methodologies that lead to a progression of different states that culminate in the pure consciousness event. Any tradition that doesn't culminate in the PCE is removed from Nibbana, God, and the ultimate because the PCE is Nibbana, God, and the ultimate. The PCE is provably the ground of being, the unconditioned, etc. This view is also pragmatic in the sense that any tradition that doesn't lead one to the PCE can safely be rejected as falling short of Truth and traditions can be compared for their efficacy and efficiency in leading one to it. ie: The progression of various states and the means and methodologies are conditioned on the various factors Katz, et al point to. The PCE by its nature is universal. Both sides have a point. And frankly, we live in an age where mystical training is largely unnecessary and in need of radical rework, because a 20mg dose of 5-MeO-DMT will bring most people straight to the PCE. The only reason it doesn't is the person resists the experience and that's the only place training is really needed: learning to surrender the self completely to the void: a lot of people get to the edge of the cliff, have one foot dangling over, and know full well what the next step entails (death of self in a very real sense), and reject taking the next step. The only training that must be done is the training Schopenhauer alludes to: denial of the Will to Live until it's reflexive.
I'd like to start over. My name is Troy. Or tj. I took a quick peek at your Playlist and I'm very impressed to say the least. Not just at the range of knowledge but also the questions and particularly subjects you cover about the varying sources. Obviously you know far more about the academic and historic events and people in the field of mysticism. But what I want to know is are you a Mystic? Have you had mystical experiences yourself and if so what were they like? I myself have had many from The Young years of my life to the present in many varying forms. Demanes mystical experience I have and the most profound type are usually lucid dreams are far beyond just the little bit of Lucidity when might have upon the edge of waking when when realize one is in a dream in once either start flying if they are a child start trying to materialize the most beautiful girl they can so they can try to get there you know what on if they are a teenager. Pain reaching maturity though one usually has a desire to either explore the environs they find their selves in or explore their inner self or the beings that they might find their all the way up to God themself. Some of these lucid dreams can last what seems decades even though only minutes have passed in real-time here. Sometimes you have dreams that are quite Lucid even though they're still in a dream format where it is a story that you are living that is not of this world but you know usually that this is happening but somehow in the story you still act as if you don't. I've also had experiences that were brought on by various narcotics and alcohol and psycho active hallucinogenic substances. I've also had near-death experiences at least twice period but it wasn't until recently that I really had some mind-blowing experiences that or I should say I created creation from the beginning all the way to the end over and over and over again I finally remembered who I was on this little planet called Earth in my little life here and my gigantic love I had for my children and my family in our dog that brought me back. I never had any flashbacks from this too bad except for a couple little jobs like in the back of my neck area anyone who's ever done acid LSD knows what I'm talking about half awake in a lucid dream controlling my body which is actually sleepwalking and I would do things like play my guitar in my sleep while in my dream I was doing the same thing floating over my body watching it 122 up to twenty at a time and there were probably over a hundred different ones that popped into the the Mind Circle I guess you would call it at various times each one of these worlds has our own histories Technologies coulter's music mathematics and everything and I knew all of these different things all at once in my own Consciousness while we were connected and it was one of the most profound experiences I ever had cuz this has lasted for about 2 days. I've also had close interpersonal contact with both male and female god heads and their direct disciples are servants right under them and I've also had contacts with completely diabolic creatures that I had to basically vampiric Lee drain their Essence from them or their Spirit to destroy them or defeat them because I don't think I completely defeated them I think both of them got away and both of them happened at separate times. And I've also had many many wars with the nature spirits that inhabit to ask the plains of dreams while lucid and somehow these things can make you get stuck there no matter how Lucid you are you can't wake yourself up although you will think you are waking you will get up and everything around you will look at 100% normal and you'll think all right this time I am actually awake but you were not there playing a trick on you. These situations I have also had a lot of contact with dead relatives. In fact my mother usually comes and visits me about once a week but normally she disguises herself. This lucid dreaming naturally step back into my body like a rubber band when I get to far away but it didn't hurt and finally it the complete control and was able to actually exit the dwelling I live in and go to outside where upon I abruptly started floating into the air as all the buildings and such around my started folding like interdimensional Eli con Doctor Strange in the Marvel movie with all the buildings are doing that weird stuff that's what they were doing around me and I blasted off into outer space at the speed of light instantly and I do not know what happened after that because it turned into a regular dream and only thing I remember was I was taking some place and instructed on many things when I came back there's a Council of Elders here that also did the same thing and basically goddess is trying to tell me. That is why I speak out so vehemently against Christianity and Islam. Because I can see the evil Upon This Plane of existence like a blight that they are creating. Like I told you before Judaism is not part of this although it did cause it in a way. But it's not to blame the Romans are more to blame than the Jews I am a Nazi I don't hate Jews but I do hate Zionist actually I don't hate anybody you have to love them to hate them but I do despise Zionist from the very core myself because they are behind all the death in this world and they blame the victims every time. They weren't always called Zionist. By the zionists I basically mean to bankers and the industrial military complex the Oil Barons and the liberal woke political media cartel that is trying to brainwash the world. People like George Soros. They're behind all the evil yet they blame the victims of it every time it is disgusting I'm sick of it happening. Most people actually believe they're bulshit without even researching it whatsoever. I've not only research that I've seen it firsthand I know the truth everything into existence while fearing it to destruction. I seen everything from the perspective of God itself that was God God told me I'm so disrespectful that you didn't want to talk to me but I would have to take his place for a little while to see what he had to go through. This was sent to me by his Butler looked kind of like a dragonman but spoke with a British accent. He almost looked like a muppet coming to her dwelling and how's invited and unexpected which is something she took to be very disrespectful and would not speak to me so she did was hiss like a snake which is fitting because she wasn't snake but she was also a river snake that lives in the river she was a snake that was a river in the form of a spiral. After this I live every event that happened in the beginning of time to the end Planck second or plank Time by Planck time. Of course I popped in here and there just to see how things are going in the one that sticks out my mind the most is when I popped in France somewhere sometime during the Thirteen or fourteen hundred and there is a night out on a Green Field of grass upon his horse flirting with a group of ladies and when I've appeared directly in front of them their eyes got so big like saucers and expressions on their faces were comical so I just told them that God had gone crazy everything was alright which he had for making me God.. that's my story
Personally, I agree with your endorsement of the "middle path" between constructivism and perennialism - imagined not as a superficial compromise, but as a thoughtful reconciliation of the two perspectives that takes the best of each, and discards the worst. Perennialism offers a beautiful vision of religious harmony, but its pursuit of the universal runs the risk of becoming patronising and condescending to people located in times and places that it doesn't properly understand. The constructivist critique stresses the importance of caution and intellectual humility. Conversely, if you take the constructivist approach too far, you end up throwing the baby out with the bathwater. If there is no such thing as a transcendent experience, then there is no such thing as The Transcendent, and mysticism (as well as religion) becomes no more than a naive delusion at best, and at worst, a pernicious lie. Perennialist faith, tempered by constructivist self-awareness seems the best path to me.
I feel like my personal experience flies in the face of the constructivist assertions; when I elect to sort my mystical experiences by religious content, hindu and jewish elements greatly out number the Christian elements of my professed faith. I can't prove this of course so it's moot; but i feel unseen big time haha
I’ve been fundamentalist my entire life, a black sheep of sorts, but fundamentalist. Ive debated many different denominations until I was blue in the face. I’m a strong advocate for the faith. I’ve also studied the occult my entire life to better expose them through their symbolism… Well, I’ve reached an inevitable conclusion that something more is going on. The more I learn about the occult, the more I realize that objectively speaking, it does seem to be rooted in truth. Sure it can be used for satanic and luciferic agendas, but the knowledge itself seems to be valid. Now I’m in an ironic situation. That which I’ve spent my life exposing, I’m more and more interested in. I’m still Christian, but I’m now leaning towards an esoteric version of Christianity. I’m not sure how this all fits, but I do know that something more is going on here, beyond the analytical dogmatic fundamentalist paradigm. My biggest problem is this: Creation is a reflection of the creator, as a painting is a reflection of the painter. The painting, doesn’t seem to reflect the painter taught in most churches.. I’ll leave it at that.
I try not to be partisan in most matters because that usually only leads to division , but in matters mystical I am bound by experience to be . The whole debate in the great presentation , and all the queries in the comments section , can be resolved in 4 words - Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharshi 🙏🕉️. Here we have an example ( in living memory ) of a fully Self-Realized soul , who did not exploit His elevated State for self aggrandisement , and in Whom all contradictions and traditions are resolved .🕊️
Huxley's 1944 introduction to Isherwood's translation of the Bhagavad Gita enumerates the few tenets of perennialism, and they are simple. There is an inflection point between mundane and eternal consciousness; Rufus Jones was explaining that whatever happens on the eternal side, any expression in the mundane world is compromised. This is why the Name of the Infinite can never be pronounced--it simply does not exist in the realm of the definite.
I'm not sure solving this impasse with a path reminiscent of a hegelian dialectic will satisfy the side that is sensitive to the imposition of western constructs into the conversation.
@@SeekersofUnity More than enjoyed (& enjoying) your Oceanically deep midrash episodes. Shots in the spiritual arm, so to say. Will check in as oft as Ruach ha Kodesh prompts. Chi Meschiach!! (terrible Hebrew, but ya git my drift...)
It will be interesting, some day in the future, when scholars - theologians, philosophers are able to experience something like 5-MeO-DMT to have deep unitive mystical experiences themselves. It would be material for firsthand comparison to historical accounts written by mystics. When this happens there would undoubtedly be another revolution in the scholarship on mysticism.
I don't think it would be relevant to any interpretive or contextualizing effort, simply because the experience was entirely chemically induced. To a material functional neurological understanding it would be helpful, i think. Seems to me that a natural experience is coincident with some practical insight/liturgical exercise.
I think it would be greatly valuable for mystics as well. I could be wrong, but it seems like Katz had no firsthand knowledge of mystical states himself. So, some firsthand knowledge seems like it might change his mind. I don’t know I could be completely wrong about him and his experience, that’s just what sounded like to me. Not at all that his perspectives aren’t valuable, they clearly are. It seems incomplete, however. I don’t know what “entirely chemically induced” means, but we have these chemicals in our bodies. Our physiology works on chemical action/reaction. Mystical states I’ve experienced have been both endogenous and exogenous. And all experience has an interaction between outer and inner, I don’t see how one context facilitated by substance is more or less valid than a context (like prayer, meditation) where one might never achieve the mystical experience.
@@jjensen1122 The difference as i see it is the conscious effort toward sense or understanding within the context of whatever "liturgy" the seeker might employ. ... I suppose i agree with you; i'm just saying "beware the genre shift": how the technical details of the experience as we come to understand them inform our understanding of historical events is a politically active landscape; particular characterization is best left to that particular context, fully connected of course.
That’s a lot of isms. The irony is that the mystical experience IS. Exactly that, experiential. Yet we spend so much time, contemplating it, dissecting/analyzing it, it’s pretty ironic.
Hard/strong constructivism is untenable, but I suspect subjective interpretation reflective of one's culture and personal disposition plays a large part in many mystical experiences. There is still, however, an unsullied common core.
Fascinating character, Evola. Luckily, he was an eccentric Italian aristocrat with minimal influence on world affairs. But if he'd been born German...well, he thought that Hitler's SS was only a soft version of his own preferred elite. In my own opinion, Evola's insights into several esoteric traditions was genuine enough, but he distorted them into various forms of fascism.
@@jackpayne4658 Fascism this... nazi that... Julius Evola criticized both nazism and fascism, which both were in core left wing ideologies, he only admired certain esoteric aspects of Himmlers (not HItlers) SS and I recall he even worked with the Ahnenerbe during WWII.
there is one void or one behind the will which wills the will. worrying about cultural differences is interesting and worthwhile entertainment (we are a game after all), but misses the point if one takes the mystical experience as something valid and real. If will created the universe (or multiverse) in itself and of itself, this will isn't worried about what sounds and symbols it makes of itself as a japanese person vs a jewish person on a grain of sand, in a minuscule corner, of a minuscule galaxy, in a small galactic cluster, in one small part of the known universe, which is almost certainly a minuscule part of the entire universe, in what is probably and infinite multiverse. other than doing so for its own entertainment. we are as significant as ameoba, and our differences are as important as those between single cells. a major aspect, if not the central point, of any mystical experience is a transcendence of ego, time, and space.
Zevi's criticism of the Traditionalist school makes me wonder, has he ever publicly acknowledged the overtly jewish supremacist tone of many kabbalistic/jewish works? At least Justin Sledge has.
He has and does. He did it most recently in his one of his videos on Maimonides: The Mystical Chapter of the Guide ruclips.net/video/QP4T057lRa8/видео.html
Isn't one point of perennialism that there is an underlying common truth? Why would it matter then if culture transform the experience? That cultural flavor wasn't the interesting part to begin with. What would be interesting is to define the underlying structure and finding which cultural and religious variants that goes against it.
It is by the very fact, that the differences are Irreconcilable, that makes the Absolute itself Unique. My response to Katz is not respecting the difference per say. But respecting the difference that manifest as Absolute. Also most Mystics acknowledge when they speak of the Absolute, that they can never directly speak about it. If you really want to speak about it, you would say nothing. What's also missing from Katz is his own ontological test, meaning his own connection to the Absolute. Other than that, all I find is mere Philosophical twisting. Side note: Is it possible to critique Modernity without it being interpreted as hatred or superiority? What's your opinion on that ?
@@SeekersofUnity thank you for taking the time to respond 🙏. I do agree that it is rather a line worth being careful to tread on. Critiquing anything shouldn't bring a sense of bitterness. Which I myself, do my best to refrain from ( though not always, unfortunately).
Isn't mysticism another process and is outside the thought-making process, otherwise, it is just the calming down of the thought-making process? The thought-making process creates words, thoughts, experiences, memories, and desires. Isn't mysticism the awakening of the dormant-like process of our brain? Since mysticism is outside the thought-making process, than while in the mystical process, there is no awareness. Only after the mystical process can the thought-making process make sense of it. The awakening of the dormant-like part of the brain fundamental changes are noticed.
Katz describes the obvious. However, in his pursuit of "purity" misses the mystery. All experience is mystical viewed through illusion. The mere observation of this mystery affects it. Bummer! It's still there, impure as it is. The fact is the experience doesn't care. We do. It's messy world that doesn't care what we think.
Why is the academic literature on the matter being given precedence over mysticism itself which is experiential and beyond description or analysis by the mind? Why are the opinions of non-mystics who are stuck in the mind in any way of relevance to the transcending of the ego/mind?
By community: it is in this way that the experience is filtered and applied. Further; why ignore and so deny the possibility of a collective experience? "Love your neighbour as you love yourself" is an exercise in collective meditation, i think. One person has access to one truth and, we're after the fullness of truth.
@@mediocrates3416 You're right that we must accept other's perspectives and learn from them if we're truly interested in the mystical process of opening the heart. Forgive me if that's a misunderstanding or conflation. I suppose what I observed (and admittedly on some level egoicly reacted to) is that some of the perspectives of mysticism in the academic literature addressed in the video, such as the constructivists and post-colonialists, seem to be primarily interested in their own divisive ideological mindsets, and furthermore, not at all mystical in their lived experience - but rather applying their particular ideological lens to mysticism as one subject among many to reduce to their formulaic ideological lens. Like if everything is seen in terms of identity groups seen as victims of some kind of cultural imperialism, and only that or a manifestation of it, or everything understaood purely as constructed based on socialization, and that or a manifestation of that, actual appreciation of mysticism becomes lost by the way side, as it becomes treated as just a front of a ideological conflict or something, all under the guise of intellectual and 'scientific' analysis. I guess it just feels just as lacking in love and compassion as elitist, 'left hand path' forms of occultism and perrenialism, and generally missing the point of what it's all about. Of course, I'm aware of the irony of myself finding this annoying - since that it probably a reflection of the very tendency I'm complaining about, in myself. But of course, mysticism is all about the inner journey of meditation and self-inquiry to hopefully understand and love ourselves and others better, and also let go of the mental barriers between our sense of self and the ineffable. I.e. mysticism in practice and experience is the solution to the ideological and ego driven oneupmanship in question.
@@FromIdeologytoUnity The deification of the experience has led to a selfish arrogance in some, to be sure. The way i see it, Judas had the meditative experience out of which christianity grew so, to be ostracised rather than deified is kinda the goal. Well, to be understood first of all.
@@mediocrates3416 Honestly I'm not sure where you're going with this. Ostracization is perhaps linked with shame, being 'deified' with pride? I don't know what you're saying. I would say mysticism is about unconditional love, unity and transendent experience via inner work, self-inquiry and self-realization - thats my perspective.
What a cool video. The whole debate seems kinda weird to me, like it was already solved. If there are particular religions, and the general rule is to respect their particularities and practices; then it is an exception to the rule to see the universal in the particular. Isn't that the movement that all religions make? The soul and god, or whichever other thread connects them. Maybe I am biased in favor of the perennialists (Who isn't?) but even if we accept that particularities exist, why couldn't they be compared? Don't their differences make comparison *possible* in the first place? And plus, even if the constructivists were correct in saying that we are predisposed socially to be religious in a certain way, people have rather rigorous filters in which they are able to critique, morph, and challenge the status quo (As was explained in the video. Am I just repeating what the video said?). It's not like people are passive receptacles of society. Anyway, great content! More like this, please.
How does a perrenialist, who believes in one ultimate truth common to all traditions, explain the difference between the Abrahamic god, who is a personal god, and Buddhism where there are no gods at all?
Which is one of Katz's arguments. And Richard Jones argues that Perennialism is a metaphysical view and not the best counter to Constructivism in terms of the mystical experience itself. I would say that Katz fails to distinguish between dogma/concept and the mystical experience itself. He also does not really say what he means by mysticism. From my own spiritual path, Sahaja Yoga, I would say that the understanding is that different teachers taught different things because they had different things to accomplish in our spiritual evolution.
It isn't mysticism that is broken, it is academia! Academia was and remains a counter-cultural subversion since the days of Plato ... and therefore is not a political free zone. While I agree that say ... Navajo religion is something for real Navajos to do, and I recognize that the "common core" view is part of post-Christian progressivism aka Marxism ... the common deep psychology of humans makes the psychological basis of this, culturally independent.
Guys, there's a philosophy called Perennial. It's what I've been Googling the last weeks. All Religions, historically, merge. Anyone Religious can read a non-Religion philosophy about Human Religions, right? Please do. Humans need the Zohar. So few people even ever read it. Heeeeelp.
Wait a minute bud you sounded like you knew a little bit about what you're talkin about it first but I'd like to say that any Mystic would never ever agreed that the thing that some of the religions have done and well medieval to modern times especially to the abrahamic ones with anything not to hate. So basically there's no to Mystic going to condone the inquisition's and shit like that
Thank you for the critical feedback. It is appreciated. I did say “the best of mysticism,” a subjective evaluation no doubt but a distinction non the less.
If anyone was to ever read the book the Mythic Image by Joseph Campbell you would see that perennialism probably and I'd say Almost 100% is certainly true. It details the symbolism involved in all religious artwork from the dawn of mankind up until modern times. He shows how that same symbolism is used the world over, culture by culture Nation by Nation religion by religion and it has been ever since the beginning and it still is today just most people don't understand it because they wanted to adhere to the literal interpretations of their own individual religious Dogma. Somebody could think they're seeing Jesus Christ coming to talk to them when actually it's Lucifer or if they don't like that analogy, mithras.
Sir , how can I message you , I want to give you secret informations and realities about sufism which you will never find them in internet , you can see the light of god with your two eyes in real while you're awake , I swear ,
@@SeekersofUnity First of all : Sufism is not theories or information that we find in books here and there. Rather, it's an esoteric science that you can only obtain through a real Sufi sheikh. As for what you find in books, it is just very superficial information. I will try to speak briefly, There is a Sufi way called the" The Karkariya sufi order ", and it is the only path in the world that makes you see the light of God while awake. It's very certain. I mean, there is no doubt about that. All those who follow this path have seen the divine light with their own eyes and talked about it in videos on RUclips. The leader of this way is Sheikh Muhammad Fawzi al-Karkari.. Well, all I want to tell you is that the Karkariyya sufi order is the correct Sufi way. Because it shows you the truth with your eyes, it only takes 40 days of training and you will see the divine light. Sheikh Muhammad Fawzi al-Karkari says, “He who does not see the light, I am not his leader and he is not my follower.”
Yeah the deaths of millions of people infrastructure what is horrible and evil in fact in fact the worst atrocities are committed by humans apart other humans were committed during that war and I'm talking about the bombing of Dresden in Hamburg in other German cities by the Royal Air Force where Millions upon millions of women and children died in the burning Agony and there is nowhere near any frontlines military installations are factories while they used the blitz as the excuse to do this when the blitz was aimed solely for the purpose of taking out military installations industry and infrastructure and all the civilian casualties were accidental it was in the sexual anyways since the English had recently gained the technology of radar and the Germans decided not to use fighters to escort their bombers very much so the bombers were like sitting ducks and got shot out of the sky. Which was the exact reason the Royal Air Force didn't bomb during the day only at night and they selected civilian Targets on purpose and used anti-personnel incendiary devices upon them and didn't even Target any industry or military basis whatsoever just civilian population centres and that is by far the worst atrocity ever committed by you and the other commute humans in the history of humanity. Yet the Germans always made out to be the bad guys when everything said about them almost a hundred percent is a lie
Part 1: The Making of Mysticism: ruclips.net/video/OBHsLOgXZNc/видео.html
Part 2: William James and the Modern Study of Mysticism: ruclips.net/video/2CZ3zJGT4ZQ/видео.html
Support this project:
patreon: www.patreon.com/seekers
paypal: www.paypal.com/donate?hosted_button_id=RKCYGQSMJFDRU
"Ouch.." 😢
I feel your pain... 😮
I just have one word for Katz: SHANDA!
Gershom Scholem, in On the Kabbalah and It’s Symbolism, states: “ It is mystical experience which CONCEIVES AND GIVES BIRTH to authority”. He was writing about religious authority specifically however I believe it extends to secular authority as well. Unfortunately it is exoteric authority which has claimed authority. And it seems that we will forever be quibbling about esoteric authority until we face the limitations of exoteric authoritarian dogma rather than waiting for the next Kuhnian “paradigm shift”.
No amount of “philosophizing” will ever replace the esoteric mystical experience, which by nature is itself irrational. So, unfortunately, I don’t believe anyone can ever really talk about it unless they’ve “been there.” Even the writings of all our cherished mystics (what brave souls!) are completely confounding to the discursive mind. Writing and researching the historical and philosophical development of mystic ideas is one thing. But unless one’s been there, it’s not the same. Sad but true. There are many seekers on this channel who haven’t had an experience, which is why they’re here ( thanks to folks like you, Justin, and Filip to name just a few!). What they really need is technical guidance. And that is something that THE ACADEMY in its present form can never do. (For the Seekers: Pray and practice contemplative meditation. Learn if you have to and be patient. Knowledge & Wisdom will come in time!)
Yet the conversation (and the controversy ) has to happen because we will otherwise live in an impoverished world of materialists- ALL of whom are afraid of death! Isn’t this why there are so many brilliant young scholars of religion on RUclips? The avenues for academic careers are dried up - aren’t they? This is a place where you can talk about these things without fear of academic censorship. (There are also some outstanding academicians on RUclips who do have to be very careful.)
As for the Traditionalists, yes Evola went rogue, but all ideas can be used for evil Zevi. And nowhere is this most evident than in the current news, where exoteric dogmatic approaches are instituted in order to control the collective message, regardless of bloodshed or torture. Headscarves (Hijabs) come to mind…
There is a lot of phenomenal writing from these Traditionalists although all of it is couched in some pretty academic prose, which limits the reach of the audience. Corbin in particular is very important (so why aren’t all his works available in English? Is that due to a relative canceling of Orientalists? Not everything they said needs to be “forgotten”).
And were you aware that Eliade made his career from the writings of Guénon? Nasr has outright stated that in a few of his RUclips lectures. (Seems that Guénon was more interested in writing than in oral polemic discourse). Personally, I’m grateful for that, having read all his translated works.
Quite superb, thank you. If felt like a graduate seminar, except that it went far deeper than most graduate seminars do. Contra Katz, I had a mystical experience myself (only one, unfortunately!) almost forty years ago, and although I can't claim that I am untouched by the culture I grew up in, I can affirm that at the time I was an atheist, and had never taken the official Anglican services which we were subjected to at school seriously. And I wasn't seeking mystical experience at all. Nor was I taking hallucinogens, sleep-deprived, fasting, or anything else. If anyone's interested, it happened like this: I was walking with my then wife back from a cinema in a rather dreary English city (Peterborough) and I distinctly remember she was irritated with me. So the context could not have been more banal. We crossed the bridge over the River Ouse, which was far from picturesque: there was a power station on one bank, and a neon sign, if I remember right for a strip club, on the other. Then I saw two white swans and at once the world changed. I saw them as I had never seen swans before - not merely their beauty, although that stunned me, so that I felt rooted to the spot, but I at once felt that I was one with them, not merely loving them, but actually identical. As Zevi says, the experience is ineffable, and it's unfortunate that it can't be properly communicated in words. I didn't feel any of this in articulated thought; the inner monologue completely stopped. (And I wasn't even meditating in those days.) In any case there were no angels, saints or Christ. Perhaps Katz would object that because I had grown up in a secular England, that's the explanation for my symbol-free experience. I understand this is just one subjective experience, but I can say that it changed my life. Ever since then I have known that there is a spiritual dimension to life, and that everything in the universe is one, and united by love. And it seems to me, having since read a few of the mystics (I'm not a philosopher, so confess that I may have read them somewhat uncritically) that their experiences were similar to mine, in essence, as far as I can tell from their equally inadequate descriptions. I know just enough about mysticism from that single brief experience - which lasted only a few minutes - to feel certain that anyone who's had such an experience could not doubt it, and my suspicion is that Katz et al have never had it.
I don't think this is contra Katz. Katz's main point was to say that any mystical experience will be cognized through Kantian transcendental ideals and likely culture, so there is no universal mystical experience. It's not to say that mystical experience doesn't exist.
Wow Zevi, I can't tell you how important this video was to me. I have, and continue to struggle with the logic of mysticism as a practice in my own life. because of that this video was enormously helpful in finding some clarity of thought and in directing me to relevant literature on the topic. Your ability to contextualize the modern debate on mysticism has been an inestimable resource in my decision to pursue a religious life; from the bottom of my heart, thank you so much!
You’re most welcome Kaiden. I’m very glad I could help.
“Neither the mystic nor the philosopher can remain content with an irreducible heterogeneity of mystical experience, the mystic because the ultimate character of the experience implies a universal claim, the philosopher because a diversity of ultimate claims is a challenge not a resting-place. Thus, it is not an uneducated essentialist desire, but religious integrity or philosophical urgency that leads those who no longer find an exclusive claim by any single tradition convincing to seek an underlying unity and to investigate the equivalence of symbols under their diversity.” - Charles Davis, in Review of Mysticism and Philosophical Analysis
This video is so good. I actually became interested in perennialism and pantheism after psychedelic experiences I had almost 15 years ago now. I hope that's not taboo to mention here. I no longer experiment with such substances and I would recommend people approach with extreme caution as it was also responsible for a drug psychoses which I had (I'm better now in case anyone reading this is worried) but I definitely relate to this being experiential because I experienced it and then my beliefs changed and I became a pantheist. I had little contact with the ideas beforehand 🤷♀️
Also I want to add that I find the New Age movement disappointing, it is full of cult leaders who take advantage of the spiritually lost.
I finished watching this 30 minute video, and it feels like I've just took in a week's worth of study...
I'll have to rewatch it at least a couple more times 😁
However, the one notion I immediately take from this, is that ultimately, EVERY experience is "mystical" by nature.
Once again, thank you Zevi and SoU team (and all Seekers out there for that matter) for this priceless content!
Much love and appreciation!
Thank you Leo. Glad to be part of this journey with you. Without you it would be meaningless. Looking forward to continue to learn and seek together.
Love, Zevi
This was the video I needed and wanted to find and watch. Thankyou so much for creating. I'm kind of having a perrennialist journey experience finding the unity in various strands of my life: religion, culture, academia and hobbies and this video is the nexus of information - the crossroads signpost with map showing "you are here". Can't thank you enough. ❤
You’re most welcome Anna 🙏🏼
'Mysticism without love can lead to dark places.' Quiet profound. Then you link it to the New Age, which is increasingly individualistic and neutered of its critique of greed. Indeed, such beliefs are so frequently stripped of their philosophical sources (context), although of course cannot ultimately be discovered through discourse.
Hi Zevi, the work you are doing is amazing. I really appreciate your clarity. To be able to receive this amount of teaching in such a small amount of time is one of the wonders of the internet. And it is for free!! At the same time, the effort you must have invested to create this video must have been significant and I am truly grateful for what you are doing.
I particularly enjoyed your closing comments regarding experience. As a past student of Jewish mysticism I recognised (my assumption based on observation without objective proof) that I was being taught by academics and scholars who had never had a mystical experience in their lives. This, in spite of their deep devotion to religious practice.
I feel that religious devotion is often engaged in primarily out of social conditioning. To be able to scholarly discuss and articulate mystical teachings only further enhances the individuals social currency.
It is just so easy for smart people to enhance their social status by speaking esoterically.
In some ways the academic scholars are more pure in their pursuit of mysticism than the religious scholars. At least they are clear about their agenda.
It would seem to me that it is high time that the engagement in the mystical experience isn’t somehow downgraded just because we have a logical mind that will get in the way. It seems that it is precisely the approach of engaging in mysticism through wisdom, understanding and knowledge that perpetuates the intellectual and academic approach to mysticism and thus the unity that is ultimately sought is forever beyond our grasp.
It is my hope that the seeking of unity is engaged in primarily through the experience and that everything else will flow from there. I can talk about love until the cows come home but unless I have actually felt love for another it remains a sterile and academic exercise and will most likely leave any listener unaffected.
Thank you friend. Thank you for your kind words and your thoughtful reflection :)
I just wanted to share that your channel showed up on my timeline 2 years ago, probably around 2 weeks after my first hand experience with the divine; and that it’s helped me (along with other channels) to really gather all of this information and aid me in my personal growth and inevitably the growth of the people in my life. Thanks, dude!
You're most welcome. Glad we could be of service.
"There are no pure mystical experiences" So true. But I would make the argument that for natural mystics one can improve upon ones experience by removing ecstatic notions of divine revelations and other objects of divinity. Moreover, it is better not to recognize normative expectations that will be reinforced or try to create probative experience by trying to enhance experiences. In other words dont try to shape that which is not there. Rather than this approach the experience with a feathers touch and allow the experience to reveal itself within the local context of being. I hear these saying about the divine oneness of being. This is delusional when considering all the beliefs and believers that have lived, 10s of billions, exceed the capacity of the minds awareness, of you see everything at once, then you objectively see nothing. Whereas in the local context of being, awareness comes to familiar things that reach out when the mystic avoids probing the divine. Most natural mystical experiences reveal nothing, but when they reveal then it is time that they be revealed. And if one is practicing as to reveal many things, the many things that are revealed are delusions.
The quote before this is correct the biases and objectives of the seeker will inform the vision and in informing the vision it also shapes the interpretation. The apostle Paul, for instance, never met Yeshua of Nazara, saw his face or heard his voice. but somehow in his initial vision he saw Ihsou Christos talking to him. He then goes into the desert to gather instructions through seeking and comes back with a theology. Like many in this genre of religious seekers they are not trying to unify, but promote nascent sectarian ideas, this is mysticism at its worse.
If you are not prone to mystical experiences then abstain from promoting them for those that struggle for visions will find falseness. Instead work for better meditative stances. But if you are prone then the goal is to create purity of the experience by avoiding preexisting religious tropes, and make it clear that the source of the experience is the self-being and clean the vision scape of mystical desires and let whatever comes, comes, or not.
Well that was... exhausting! I must applaud our presenter (what is his name?) for such a thorough and skillful job in managing to give his audience a "bird's eye view" of a huge swath of intellectual territory. That said, I found myself joining a number of other commenters in reflecting that Katz et al. in the "constructivist" camp do indeed sound as though the "doors of perception" had never opened for them. As a result, "mysticism" can ONLY exist for them as yet another captive object to be dismantled, thus eagerly aligning themselves with generations of heirs of the European "enlightenment", absolutely certain that every human mystery, from cosmology to "quantum neuroscience" (is there such a thing?) must eventually surrender its secrets to the relentless probings of the academic intellect. It seems that among the legacies of that "enlightenment" is a determined effort to achieve the intellectual high ground, from which trenchant criticism can successfully be aimed at any topic, thus revealing its "real meaning". I am reminded of an academic trend I myself witnessed quite a few years ago, in which certain doctors of the humanities became entranced by the hermetic world of Freudian psychoanalysis, and proceeded to characterize the shortcomings of their colleagues' academic work as resulting from their failure to plumb the depths of ego, id and superego clearly visible in the literature etc. of their specialty. Once again, the Olympian summit of rigorous intellectual insight was claimed by a group of thinkers, just as Katz et al. seem to claim for themselves. As someone who has spent his adult life as a Zen Buddhist clergyman, I would be tempted to invite Katz et al. to see how non-trivial experience of meditative discipline might affect their point-of-view, but of course I would be dismissed as someone ignorant of his own "contextualized" situation. I'm afraid there is no ultimately privileged viewpoint, no matter how clever and elegant the arguments. Human beings are heir to a "mysterium tremendum et fascinans", and that I declare to be the "ground" on which we ultimately meet each other. "Mystic"? Well, if you like.
I am not sure if I understand the problem: why can't there be universal experience and cultural interpretation at the same time? E.g. the sun: (almost) every person has seen or experienced it. Maybe a bit different in northern countries compared to the equator or someone who is blind differently than someone who can see. There is a similar experience but the interpretation might be quite different - a secular person might think of a big mass that emits light. Someone who sees the sun as having devine power might worship it. A farmer desperately waiting for rain might experience it quite differently than a child who goes swimming with friends. ----- With mystical experiences it might be the same. Maybe most people are able to experience e.g. some inner light or inner darkness but then interpret it differently, based on his religious/cultural assumption and personal experience.
This debate has a parallel in discussions of the near-death experience. Many reports of modern NDEs resemble historical accounts of mystical experiences, from various religious traditions. These accounts show a fascinating interaction of the 'raw' NDE itself (if such a thing is possible) with the experiencer's previous religious beliefs - if any. Very few experiencers emerge with their previous beliefs intact, especially those with fundamentalist backgrounds - including fundamentalist atheists. My overall impression is that most NDEs convey an intense sense of reality ('more real than us sitting here'), but often expressed in partly familiar images. The Christian might meet and talk with Jesus in outer space, while the agnostic scientist might explore the cosmos with an angel at his side - but in either case, they return with a sense of vast realities which they only briefly touched. I get a sense that most NDErs would agree that their experience was both 'objective' and 'subjective' - a glimpse of Reality itself, but shaped in uniquely appropriate terms, offering comfort, challenge, and amazement in equal measure.
I'm on board for this 'Trip'! Great and scholarly presentation Zevi! You've given me much to think about (always a good thing)!
Thanks for joining us for the trip Jason 😉
"What is the relationship between the mystical experience and it interpretation"
The better question is what is the relationship
between the mind-body of the mystic and the mystical experience. A mystic that is taking drugs to have an experience begs the question, is this the result of some gradious divine force or misfiring of neurons in the brain of the mystic. We dont have to go far into the issue of vision seeking to make the argument that the mystic is trying to project something, otherwise why take the drug, and after he finishes the experience he is projecting something, not about the divine but about a divine rational that he is trying to project.
The people who i know have unprompted mystical experiences typically don't reveal, less so reveal grand overarching theistic unification theories. I mean if we are talking about esoericism, then why aren't the divine revelations kept to oneself. If we take a look at notable mystics in the course of humanity, are they unifying or trying to create sectarianism, these are the mist vocal among the mystics, caveot emptor.
I feel stirred by the call to go beyond the debate and learn and build together! Shkoyach :) I know that for me, both Perennialism and Constructivism have offered a great deal and I see a place for both in the future
Thanks so much for this..I am doing a part time PhD which started life as a comparison between Platonism and some Indian philosophy but has become increasingly focused on Mysticism. I am currently researching the Constructivist V Common Core debate so this was really useful. I also meditate however and appreciated your call to take the best of diversity and unity in moving forward. I practise Sahaja Yoga meditation which balances the essential unity of the great prophets and mystics with delineating the contextualised roles they had to play. Ultimately however, it is of course about the experience of the meditative state itself.
You’re most welcome. I’m glad I was able to be of assistance. May your research be blessed and be a source of blessings to others.
Yours,
Zevi
Zevi, you’re brilliant! Yes, learn from both sides. There may be no “pure” interpretation of a mystical experience, but that does not negate a whole unity or oneness. Language is something all cultures do.. and as different as it is, more than 80% of communication is dependent on tone and body language.. that is universal. Neuroscience, anatomy, biology, as environmentally influenced as they are, are a likeness we all share. Love, presented in different ways through familial bonds, lovers, mankind, is still a force beyond reason, yet globally proven by biochemistry and neuroscience. To understand the wholeness of a mystical experience, we must strive as a whole to understand the whole interpretations, philosophies, and sciences. Thank You for your amazing work!
You're most welcome Christian. Thank you for your kind and thoughtful feedback.
Enlightening as always Zevi, loved Kant touch this, of course we need to continue to explore mysticism, it may be the best chance we have to bridge our minds, history and source code.
Peace
Thank you William. Agreed ;)
Love
This is insanely well put together, while you may have a script it really feels like we’re just having a conversation which makes the information digestible, thank you
Thank you friend. I’m really glad you enjoyed it and found it conversational.
Yours,
Zevi
Although you're still in your prime and youth, b'ezrat H, this episode is already a massive piece of legacy and, for me, from my modest point of view , is a emarkable achievement and an inspiration for all those who are already on the path or are attracted to it. Kol ha Kavod.
Thank you my friend. That’s very kind of you. That episode was, and still is, close to my heart and mind. I’m glad you’ve gotten so much for it. With love, Zevi
Thank you, thank you....
Free course and discussion on RUclips, out of all place, thank you
You’re most welcome friend. Thanks for joining us.
❤🙏 That was a lot of ground to cover in one video lol. That being said, I think you did a great job of presenting the arguments. It seems like academic inquiry into mysticism has gotten stuck in the realm of duality and it is time for a reconciliation of opposites. That will certainly be a difficult process but I think it is possible. I think you've identified a really great opportunity, now we just need someone to rise to the challenge.
It is definitely possible. I personally think it's only a matter of time, we can do it together!
@@thesjewishpsychedelicsandbox For sure! I've been contemplating this for awhile and hints of a decent synthesis are starting to come to me so I'm sure there are people out there like Zevi who are more knowledgeable and qualified who are feeling that too and are possibly further along in articulating it.
Reconciliation would be nice. I don't think it's mysticism that's stuck. Whenever we get closer to truth, politics asks us to abandon truth in favour of love; truth and love are not mutually exclusive. Love silences accusation, it does not silence truth.
@@justinbirkholz I have read many of your comments on this channel and esoterica.. and they are always insightful and spoken like a true mystic 😁 so I looked you up and read your blog, and it was awesome. After reading about how your accident set this path in motion for you, I started wondering about some theories on this “unified” mystical experience debate. I watched a video on shamanism with Angela’s symposium and Seekers of unity… there was this part where Zevi asked if shamanism was related to any particular religion, and Dr.P explains that even the indigenous shamanism has no origin of religion because it was happening in every culture. She said it was more based on practices than religion… which makes me wonder… what if mystical experiences are unified by some practice we are doing whether we recognize it or not? For instance, many mystics talk about NDEs or becoming ill, etc. I was curious to what you think unifies mystics. Enjoyed reading your blogs and comments.
@@Annavae1111 wow...thank you.❤🙏☀ I'm so honored that you took the time to visit my blog and read some of my writing! That's awesome. You pose a really great question. I've spent the last five years trying to understand mystical experiences, what they share in common, how they can be distinct, and I certainly have much more to learn, but I have noticed some patterns in the lives of mystics. I think the path of the mystic often begins with a major disruption, this could be an NDE or illness like you suggested, an initiatory rite, a plant-medicine ceremony, death of a loved one, etc. That disruption causes them to break out of the mindset/worldview they were previously inhabiting and see the world in a new light. And once you catch a glimpse of that realm it is hard to go back to your old ways so you develop a new lifestyle, new practices, new philosophies, and so on. But I like your question though because maybe there is something even more subtle that mystics are doing within themselves that hasn't been explicated yet. Definitely something to think about!
I'm so glad to hear that you enjoyed my content. I will be starting a RUclips channel of my own later this year and will be appearing on podcasts and interviews as well. Starting with my first podcast appearance on the goodinthehead channel on 2/26. I hope you'll come check it out and find me when I launch!
Yes we do, well said Zevi. Enough point making, more highlighting commonalities in expressing the human experience.
Brilliant video. A few thoughts. Speaking about ultimate ground realities of mysticism for comparative purposes yet seems to be challenged by the fact that each mystic tradition has its own ultimate epistemological reference and any form of speaking "about them" to study and compare and understand them, "from outside" necessariously implies not only to set aside those ultimate epistemological planes of reference but also to posit a higher (and truly universal) epistemological ultimate level for thinking on this issues (a meta-language for mystcs-language that is of a higher order and comprehensive of all the possibilities of their languages). Yet mystics's ultimate epistemological planes of reference all claim more or less expressly (and it does not deny that mystics can surely adopt studies in their own traditions as tool for inner cultiation) that an outsider point of view, a non mystic-point of view, is inherently defective in mystic-epistemological capabilities. And so outsider-points of view, both constructivists or perennialists, would then be doomed to be discarded as inherently defective in their capaciblity to "know" and discern ultimate epistemes in mystics universe. Or to put it in a simple example: many people can be looking different things, either because they are looking at different sides, or some because they use glasses, or because some have different physical capabilities regarding the sense of sight, some may even have an illness in their eyes, but one thing they will have in common: they all have eyes and they see. Then comes a group of different blind people trying to analyze their sights themselves: the philosophical-critic method, whether defending and using a perennialist language and ideas or defending and using a constructivist one, or mixing them. There would be a simple ultimate final impediment that prevent them (all those three camps) to knowing mystical realities as mystics do, even if they can truly know many aspects of what occurs in mystics when they are seeing (where are they located, how they describe, what is their story and so on). The analytical outsider mode for investigating mysticism, whatever specific thesis it may defend, would then be lost in a great problem: its own basis makes of it a discourse inherently separate and lateral and disconnected from each tradition of mysticism.
Totally agree. I really appreciate all these people putting so much thought into this, noticing historical trends, emphasizing the importance of context and so on. Yet it saddens me that many of these academics seem to have no idea what a (profound) mystical experience actually feels like. I wish it were more acceptable in academia to be open about one’s personal experiences than it is and how these do or don’t inform one’s scholarship. There are insider-outsider issues in most fields, of course, but mysticism seems to me to be the kind of field where it’s really, really helpful for scholars to be open about their own insider experiences.
I’ll preface what I’m about to say by saying that I have seen any of your work in the past couple months. But in my opinion, this is by far the best video of yours that I have seen. You managed to be incredibly clear and assertive about this stuff and your thoughts on it, say genuinely productive things.
Thank you Gareth. I really appreciate that. Glad you’re appreciating it.
@@SeekersofUnity I agree with him. This is your best!
The depth and breadth of your research and analysis never fails to astound me.
Having spent quite a long stretch in academia, I thought I knew what competent scholarship was. Your work makes my past efforts look... less than impressive, to put it mildly.
Thankfully, I'm no longer a player in the academic game, so my ego is not too badly bruised. 😁
I'm just grateful that you've chosen to freely share the knowledge and understanding you've attained. Your channel is truly a treasure.
Thank you Mark. I do appreciate the kindness of your comments. I don’t care that much for academia per se. I just think it much be a useful tool to critically explore the field mysticism, in the hopes of bring us to greater common understandings and appreciation of unity. But its certainly far from the only way, just one puzzle piece amongst many in this beautiful tapestry of life.
@@SeekersofUnity Whether you apply them within an academic context or not, you certainly have some fantastic research and communication skills. You must have had some wonderful teachers and mentors somewhere along the way. 🙂
20:44 "Constructivists claim that a mystic's given tradition will dictate not only their interpretation of the experience, but also the very experience itself, conditioning them with what to expect, hope for, and eventually see in their experience..." Katz and Company speak exactly like those who have never had the experience (nor have even tried). The integral ingredient this argument overlooks entirely is THE ELEMENT OF SURPRISE. If the experience could be conditioned to the extent Katz and Constructivists argue, then it would not be ineffable and would not need to be EXPERIENCED, it could simply be transmitted pedagogically. A mystical experience is never what is expected and shatters the boundaries of conditioning.
Shift this argument to any other experience possible to anyone, and the argument is shown to be shallow, obvious, and rather silly. "The Chinese person's experience of riding a bicycle is conditioned by their cultural tradition." Don't be silly. Certainly the way a Mandarin speaker relates the experience will be conditioned by language and culture, but the experience itself will be conditioned only by his humanity.
'Shift this argument to any other experience possible to anyone, and the argument is shown to be shallow, obvious, and rather silly. "The Chinese person's experience of riding a bicycle is conditioned by their cultural tradition."'
What exactly about this is 'shallow', 'obvious', or 'silly'?
The fact that when mystics and contemplatives from different traditions talk to each other they recognise what the other is saying is an indication that Katz is wrong. The Dalai Lama visited the Grande Chartreuse, the Carthusian order, in France and spoke to the monks there. I felt they had a lot in common on a contemplative level. Thomas Merton corresponded with lots of contemplatives and mystics and again there was a recognition of similar experience. And so on. Katz’s position is too extreme and typical of the debunking obsession of postmodernity
Thanks, you've helped me get a foothold in mysticism! And your efforts are a key that have opened The door a crack..if it exists :)
You’re most welcome. Keep seeking 😉
I found some ideas in Traditionalism interesting but its not actually rooted in any tradition, its more an amalgamation of all traditions. Like Evola for example, he references Aztecs, Zoroastrians, Inca, Greek Mythology, Zen, and Christian Mysticism. I found it a bit schizophrenic to be honest. I find the whole Thor is Indra is Zeus is Wotan is Jehova, Krishna is Christ thing a bit overated to be honest. It's a very popular thing amongst orientalists, anthropologists, mystic perennialists to whitewash things and blend it all together into one large grey goo. And also the race politics of Evola turned me off. Believing in traditional values like family, raising children, not working on the sabbath, going to synagogue/temple/church is fine, but a lot of the alt-right aryan theory and hyperborean race theories I found very offputting and too focused on identity politics as opposed to a connection with God, or that their God requires a supreme so-called "aryan" race.
Guenon is only slightly better, because he was in the Shadhili Tariqa, but he was still a heretic to Sunni Islam and preached non-Islamic things like Traditionalism. The issue I had with Guenon was more aesthetic and stylistic than Evola. I found in Crisis of the Modern World, he wrote really long winded sentences and used too many commas, and would never get to the point of his messages, and insert a lot of filler phrases which ended up bulking the pages with repetitive filler.
And then you have Savitri Devi who thinks Hitler is an incarnation of Vishnu, I really couldn't take that one seriously.
One of the arguments that I do agree with about on the Traditionalists is that there is a decay in society, a focus on quantity over quality, and that religious traditions have become corrupted over time.
I'm going back to the source texts and reading through the Tanakh now. I've finished all the books and am now up to Isaiah now. What I find interesting is that the structure of the Tanakh is quite cyclical. There is creation, a state of innocence, then there is a covenant, then the breaking of a covenant, retribution, then exile, then the promise of redemption. And it occurs again. I find this in stark contrast to the Traditionalist assumption that we are in a "Kali Yuga", which is more of a Hindu concept. But even in the hindu Kali Yuga, it is only considered a part of the cycle to returned to a state of purity by the avatar of Vishnu Kalki.
I'm listening to the rest of the video and I agree with Katz. That there are irreconcilable differences and they should be respected. I don't think Muhammad is Kalki, and I don't think Kalki is the Maschiach, and I don't think Jesus is the Jewish Messiah. They are all different religions, and Traditionalists will pounce at any ounce of similarity and claim that it is part of the Perennial Tradition as they have access to some "esoteric" new age truth which religious people somehow don't. I find this utterly pretentious and it's a form of cultural appropriation.
You will enjoy Mircea Eliade's book Treatise on the history of religions
254th to like! Thank you for your research and arguments! Very illuminating work. the universal particular, the kernel that all attempts to theorize or specify get wrong, i.e., what are they all wrong about, seems like the way past the impasse. And i have been, like all those who suffer mystical experiences, very surprised by what happened. but not for one second did i in hubris think it was veridical: that i somehow achieved oneness with the All, even if that is how it feels. it's just an experience, subject to the same human frailties as whether i see the same colour of the dress you do or hear the same word you do etc. To accord mystical experiences with the authority of Truth is blasphemy. unless you have religious beliefs about human nature being godlike already, eh? and that's putting the cart before the horse. i think mystic humility is the way past the impasse. Much love in this godly world!
Thank you friend :)
Interesting take. Food for thought.
While I am not Baha’i, their views are not that different in many respects. Seekers did a series on them. Much love!
Another clear and illuminating video. Thanks Zevi!
Thank you Sebastian 🙏🏼
Coherence detection is the common core that's being overlooked, i think. We can use our brains for coherence detection, which in a civil context implies roles and duties; or one can use one's brain to make one's self comfortable. Not mutually exclusive but, comfort has a strong visceral positive feedback that's hard to overlook (eg. everyone likes a nice buffet).
24:33 particles and waves. There is also the pilot-wave theory that is both at once. I wonder what the philosophical equivalent is.
Also, I was so excited to see Hux's face. There is a recording of him geeking out the symbolism of the dancing shiva that I just love. Is he mentioned in any other Seekers of Unity videos??
Interesting question. Ya, big Hux fans here. Hmmm i think he's in our top ten list vid: ruclips.net/video/Fi9f11LVPHc/видео.html
@@SeekersofUnity Thank you! Now I have a new book. I assumed it was going to be doors to perception. I'll check out perennial philosophy!
@@yahwings7813 Perennial Philosophy is an amazing work. It's like William James' Varieties. Basically a must read. If you are a fan of Huxley, I also highly recommend a book called Huxley and God which is a collection of essays and articles that he wrote for spiritual publications. If you want to know the mature Huxley, that is where you will find him.
Amazing content as always... In my own experience, I escaped the "new age" thinking and "spiritual but not religious" modus operandi by the writings of the Guenonian perenialists, which impelled me to seek a living tradition and a authentic spiritual master. When I finally found a Shaykh, he advised me against being a "intelectual sufi". Not that I was forbidden to continue reading on the pereniallists, but he warned me that by reading that so much I might be straying away from sufism, and indeed, and it could turn me into a f4sc1st or a n4z1. That stroke me hard as f4sc1sm is the most abominable human ideology ever born. Later, I came to understand the relationship between the Guenonian pereniallist school and some f4sc1cts movements, and also some of the "orientalists" kind of mistakes made there, and thank God, Alhamdulilah took distance from those who take that framework of thought too seriously. Although, I am still a fan of the "common ground" hypothesis, the more I study religions and mysticism, whatever the optics of whatever tradition, the more I tend to focus on the similarities and "coincidences" instead of on the differences, the more I am convinced they all emanate from a formless, timeless, primordial Truth, taking different shapes and flavours throughout different geographical, cultural and historical context. That's the only aspect of "pereniallism" that I took to my life, throwing away all their critics of the modern world, which is almost turned into a political and philosofical inquisition... I can even argue that the Guenonian contradict themselves, because, if they say we're in Kali Yuga, near the end, what purpose would fight modernism achieve? All the secularism, materialism, scientificism and excessive rationalism, dismissing of religions and mysticism, all they "fight", It's just all part of our predestinated fate, there's no point in "fighting" it politically or philosophically, one should take care of one's own salvation because world is probably doomed already 😀.
Not saying we should be individualists, because caring of one's own salvation includes helping others and making positive impact on the world, but if you want to turn taking religion and mysticism back to the center of human experience (where it should be) and turning that into a political crusade, specially, as you mentioned WITHOUT LOVE, in CONFRONTATIONAL ATTITUDE, is the Guenonian biggest mistake.
Once again, a fantastic critique and exploration ^_^
Ever since my own experience it has become my life goal to produce a work that reconciles the empirical with the phenomenological; bringing together science and religion within the gnosis we call mysticism ^_^
Thank you Ewan. Looking forward to your work ;) How’s it coming along?
@@SeekersofUnity Starting with becoming a chartered psychologist and then taking my research into the effect of compassion based practises and mindfulness on the brain. Watch this space! :D
@@eyeofgnosis558 Watching closely ;)
The resolution of this debate is to recognize that religious traditions are but collections of means and methodologies that lead to a progression of different states that culminate in the pure consciousness event. Any tradition that doesn't culminate in the PCE is removed from Nibbana, God, and the ultimate because the PCE is Nibbana, God, and the ultimate. The PCE is provably the ground of being, the unconditioned, etc. This view is also pragmatic in the sense that any tradition that doesn't lead one to the PCE can safely be rejected as falling short of Truth and traditions can be compared for their efficacy and efficiency in leading one to it.
ie: The progression of various states and the means and methodologies are conditioned on the various factors Katz, et al point to. The PCE by its nature is universal. Both sides have a point.
And frankly, we live in an age where mystical training is largely unnecessary and in need of radical rework, because a 20mg dose of 5-MeO-DMT will bring most people straight to the PCE. The only reason it doesn't is the person resists the experience and that's the only place training is really needed: learning to surrender the self completely to the void: a lot of people get to the edge of the cliff, have one foot dangling over, and know full well what the next step entails (death of self in a very real sense), and reject taking the next step. The only training that must be done is the training Schopenhauer alludes to: denial of the Will to Live until it's reflexive.
I'd like to start over. My name is Troy. Or tj. I took a quick peek at your Playlist and I'm very impressed to say the least. Not just at the range of knowledge but also the questions and particularly subjects you cover about the varying sources. Obviously you know far more about the academic and historic events and people in the field of mysticism. But what I want to know is are you a Mystic? Have you had mystical experiences yourself and if so what were they like? I myself have had many from The Young years of my life to the present in many varying forms. Demanes mystical experience I have and the most profound type are usually lucid dreams are far beyond just the little bit of Lucidity when might have upon the edge of waking when when realize one is in a dream in once either start flying if they are a child start trying to materialize the most beautiful girl they can so they can try to get there you know what on if they are a teenager. Pain reaching maturity though one usually has a desire to either explore the environs they find their selves in or explore their inner self or the beings that they might find their all the way up to God themself. Some of these lucid dreams can last what seems decades even though only minutes have passed in real-time here. Sometimes you have dreams that are quite Lucid even though they're still in a dream format where it is a story that you are living that is not of this world but you know usually that this is happening but somehow in the story you still act as if you don't. I've also had experiences that were brought on by various narcotics and alcohol and psycho active hallucinogenic substances. I've also had near-death experiences at least twice period but it wasn't until recently that I really had some mind-blowing experiences that or I should say I created creation from the beginning all the way to the end over and over and over again I finally remembered who I was on this little planet called Earth in my little life here and my gigantic love I had for my children and my family in our dog that brought me back. I never had any flashbacks from this too bad except for a couple little jobs like in the back of my neck area anyone who's ever done acid LSD knows what I'm talking about half awake in a lucid dream controlling my body which is actually sleepwalking and I would do things like play my guitar in my sleep while in my dream I was doing the same thing floating over my body watching it 122 up to twenty at a time and there were probably over a hundred different ones that popped into the the Mind Circle I guess you would call it at various times each one of these worlds has our own histories Technologies coulter's music mathematics and everything and I knew all of these different things all at once in my own Consciousness while we were connected and it was one of the most profound experiences I ever had cuz this has lasted for about 2 days. I've also had close interpersonal contact with both male and female god heads and their direct disciples are servants right under them and I've also had contacts with completely diabolic creatures that I had to basically vampiric Lee drain their Essence from them or their Spirit to destroy them or defeat them because I don't think I completely defeated them I think both of them got away and both of them happened at separate times. And I've also had many many wars with the nature spirits that inhabit to ask the plains of dreams while lucid and somehow these things can make you get stuck there no matter how Lucid you are you can't wake yourself up although you will think you are waking you will get up and everything around you will look at 100% normal and you'll think all right this time I am actually awake but you were not there playing a trick on you. These situations I have also had a lot of contact with dead relatives. In fact my mother usually comes and visits me about once a week but normally she disguises herself. This lucid dreaming naturally step back into my body like a rubber band when I get to far away but it didn't hurt and finally it the complete control and was able to actually exit the dwelling I live in and go to outside where upon I abruptly started floating into the air as all the buildings and such around my started folding like interdimensional Eli con Doctor Strange in the Marvel movie with all the buildings are doing that weird stuff that's what they were doing around me and I blasted off into outer space at the speed of light instantly and I do not know what happened after that because it turned into a regular dream and only thing I remember was I was taking some place and instructed on many things when I came back there's a Council of Elders here that also did the same thing and basically goddess is trying to tell me. That is why I speak out so vehemently against Christianity and Islam. Because I can see the evil Upon This Plane of existence like a blight that they are creating. Like I told you before Judaism is not part of this although it did cause it in a way. But it's not to blame the Romans are more to blame than the Jews I am a Nazi I don't hate Jews but I do hate Zionist actually I don't hate anybody you have to love them to hate them but I do despise Zionist from the very core myself because they are behind all the death in this world and they blame the victims every time. They weren't always called Zionist. By the zionists I basically mean to bankers and the industrial military complex the Oil Barons and the liberal woke political media cartel that is trying to brainwash the world. People like George Soros. They're behind all the evil yet they blame the victims of it every time it is disgusting I'm sick of it happening. Most people actually believe they're bulshit without even researching it whatsoever. I've not only research that I've seen it firsthand I know the truth everything into existence while fearing it to destruction. I seen everything from the perspective of God itself that was God God told me I'm so disrespectful that you didn't want to talk to me but I would have to take his place for a little while to see what he had to go through. This was sent to me by his Butler looked kind of like a dragonman but spoke with a British accent. He almost looked like a muppet coming to her dwelling and how's invited and unexpected which is something she took to be very disrespectful and would not speak to me so she did was hiss like a snake which is fitting because she wasn't snake but she was also a river snake that lives in the river she was a snake that was a river in the form of a spiral. After this I live every event that happened in the beginning of time to the end Planck second or plank Time by Planck time. Of course I popped in here and there just to see how things are going in the one that sticks out my mind the most is when I popped in France somewhere sometime during the Thirteen or fourteen hundred and there is a night out on a Green Field of grass upon his horse flirting with a group of ladies and when I've appeared directly in front of them their eyes got so big like saucers and expressions on their faces were comical so I just told them that God had gone crazy everything was alright which he had for making me God.. that's my story
I love these discussions so much. :*)
Thanks Mel. Same here :)
Seekers of Unity spilling those video titles like fire :D getting good at it
thanks Finn ;)
This is the 2nd time I've heard him say he doesn't like Julius Evola, I wish he'd do a video explaining why
@Seekers of Unity Hey Zevi, was wondering if you follow Qualia Research institute at all?
I’ve yet to come across them but will check them out 🙏🏼
Personally, I agree with your endorsement of the "middle path" between constructivism and perennialism - imagined not as a superficial compromise, but as a thoughtful reconciliation of the two perspectives that takes the best of each, and discards the worst.
Perennialism offers a beautiful vision of religious harmony, but its pursuit of the universal runs the risk of becoming patronising and condescending to people located in times and places that it doesn't properly understand. The constructivist critique stresses the importance of caution and intellectual humility.
Conversely, if you take the constructivist approach too far, you end up throwing the baby out with the bathwater. If there is no such thing as a transcendent experience, then there is no such thing as The Transcendent, and mysticism (as well as religion) becomes no more than a naive delusion at best, and at worst, a pernicious lie.
Perennialist faith, tempered by constructivist self-awareness seems the best path to me.
This is spot on. Precisely the point I wanted to convey. Thank you Mark 🙏🏼
@@SeekersofUnity Unity! Hooray! 😁
I feel like my personal experience flies in the face of the constructivist assertions; when I elect to sort my mystical experiences by religious content, hindu and jewish elements greatly out number the Christian elements of my professed faith.
I can't prove this of course so it's moot; but i feel unseen big time haha
I’ve been fundamentalist my entire life, a black sheep of sorts, but fundamentalist. Ive debated many different denominations until I was blue in the face. I’m a strong advocate for the faith. I’ve also studied the occult my entire life to better expose them through their symbolism… Well, I’ve reached an inevitable conclusion that something more is going on. The more I learn about the occult, the more I realize that objectively speaking, it does seem to be rooted in truth. Sure it can be used for satanic and luciferic agendas, but the knowledge itself seems to be valid. Now I’m in an ironic situation. That which I’ve spent my life exposing, I’m more and more interested in. I’m still Christian, but I’m now leaning towards an esoteric version of Christianity. I’m not sure how this all fits, but I do know that something more is going on here, beyond the analytical dogmatic fundamentalist paradigm. My biggest problem is this:
Creation is a reflection of the creator, as a painting is a reflection of the painter.
The painting, doesn’t seem to reflect the painter taught in most churches.. I’ll leave it at that.
There has been strong and beautiful Christian occultism for centuries. Seek , and you shall find.
I try not to be partisan in most matters because that usually only leads to division , but in matters mystical I am bound by experience to be . The whole debate in the great presentation , and all the queries in the comments section , can be resolved in 4 words - Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharshi 🙏🕉️. Here we have an example ( in living memory ) of a fully Self-Realized soul , who did not exploit His elevated State for self aggrandisement , and in Whom all contradictions and traditions are resolved .🕊️
Why not see unity between the Perrenialists and the Constructivists? You might say that even those categories are constructed by the mind.
I feel like I dove head first 😁😋and am now filling in data that I hadn't hadn'tyet harvested. Great Discussion! 🙌
Hehe. Thank you friend. Thanks for joining us :)
@@SeekersofUnity 😊
Huxley's 1944 introduction to Isherwood's translation of the Bhagavad Gita enumerates the few tenets of perennialism, and they are simple. There is an inflection point between mundane and eternal consciousness; Rufus Jones was explaining that whatever happens on the eternal side, any expression in the mundane world is compromised. This is why the Name of the Infinite can never be pronounced--it simply does not exist in the realm of the definite.
I'm not sure solving this impasse with a path reminiscent of a hegelian dialectic will satisfy the side that is sensitive to the imposition of western constructs into the conversation.
This is quite tripped out. Mucho expando appreciate. Might need a mushroom omelette & listen again ..
Thanks David :) Glad you enjoyed
@@SeekersofUnity
More than enjoyed (& enjoying) your Oceanically deep midrash episodes. Shots in the spiritual arm, so to say. Will check in as oft as Ruach ha Kodesh prompts. Chi Meschiach!!
(terrible Hebrew, but ya git my drift...)
23:50 interesting. Religious studies particularist view. What is your take on Jungian thought which seems to be "grouping" things together?
Thanks for this.
You’re most welcome 🙏🏼
thank you
You’re very welcome.
Very interesting. Congratulations
Thank you Gianluigi 🙏🏼
It will be interesting, some day in the future, when scholars - theologians, philosophers are able to experience something like 5-MeO-DMT to have deep unitive mystical experiences themselves. It would be material for firsthand comparison to historical accounts written by mystics. When this happens there would undoubtedly be another revolution in the scholarship on mysticism.
I don't think it would be relevant to any interpretive or contextualizing effort, simply because the experience was entirely chemically induced. To a material functional neurological understanding it would be helpful, i think. Seems to me that a natural experience is coincident with some practical insight/liturgical exercise.
I think it would be greatly valuable for mystics as well. I could be wrong, but it seems like Katz had no firsthand knowledge of mystical states himself. So, some firsthand knowledge seems like it might change his mind. I don’t know I could be completely wrong about him and his experience, that’s just what sounded like to me. Not at all that his perspectives aren’t valuable, they clearly are. It seems incomplete, however.
I don’t know what “entirely chemically induced” means, but we have these chemicals in our bodies. Our physiology works on chemical action/reaction. Mystical states I’ve experienced have been both endogenous and exogenous. And all experience has an interaction between outer and inner, I don’t see how one context facilitated by substance is more or less valid than a context (like prayer, meditation) where one might never achieve the mystical experience.
@@jjensen1122 The difference as i see it is the conscious effort toward sense or understanding within the context of whatever "liturgy" the seeker might employ. ... I suppose i agree with you; i'm just saying "beware the genre shift": how the technical details of the experience as we come to understand them inform our understanding of historical events is a politically active landscape; particular characterization is best left to that particular context, fully connected of course.
That’s a lot of isms. The irony is that the mystical experience IS. Exactly that, experiential. Yet we spend so much time, contemplating it, dissecting/analyzing it, it’s pretty ironic.
Hard/strong constructivism is untenable, but I suspect subjective interpretation reflective of one's culture and personal disposition plays a large part in many mystical experiences. There is still, however, an unsullied common core.
What was wrong with Evola? Serious question, I don't know much about him.
Fascinating character, Evola. Luckily, he was an eccentric Italian aristocrat with minimal influence on world affairs. But if he'd been born German...well, he thought that Hitler's SS was only a soft version of his own preferred elite. In my own opinion, Evola's insights into several esoteric traditions was genuine enough, but he distorted them into various forms of fascism.
@@jackpayne4658 Fascism this... nazi that... Julius Evola criticized both nazism and fascism, which both were in core left wing ideologies, he only admired certain esoteric aspects of Himmlers (not HItlers) SS and I recall he even worked with the Ahnenerbe during WWII.
there is one void or one behind the will which wills the will. worrying about cultural differences is interesting and worthwhile entertainment (we are a game after all), but misses the point if one takes the mystical experience as something valid and real. If will created the universe (or multiverse) in itself and of itself, this will isn't worried about what sounds and symbols it makes of itself as a japanese person vs a jewish person on a grain of sand, in a minuscule corner, of a minuscule galaxy, in a small galactic cluster, in one small part of the known universe, which is almost certainly a minuscule part of the entire universe, in what is probably and infinite multiverse. other than doing so for its own entertainment. we are as significant as ameoba, and our differences are as important as those between single cells. a major aspect, if not the central point, of any mystical experience is a transcendence of ego, time, and space.
Zevi's criticism of the Traditionalist school makes me wonder, has he ever publicly acknowledged the overtly jewish supremacist tone of many kabbalistic/jewish works? At least Justin Sledge has.
He has and does. He did it most recently in his one of his videos on Maimonides: The Mystical Chapter of the Guide
ruclips.net/video/QP4T057lRa8/видео.html
@@SeekersofUnity Respect for the integrity!
Isn't one point of perennialism that there is an underlying common truth? Why would it matter then if culture transform the experience? That cultural flavor wasn't the interesting part to begin with.
What would be interesting is to define the underlying structure and finding which cultural and religious variants that goes against it.
Or better yet, make the study of mysticism into an empirical science.
Everything has its wave equation and they all add to one. Done and done!
This is so cool fr
It is by the very fact, that the differences are Irreconcilable, that makes the Absolute itself Unique. My response to Katz is not respecting the difference per say. But respecting the difference that manifest as Absolute. Also most Mystics acknowledge when they speak of the Absolute, that they can never directly speak about it. If you really want to speak about it, you would say nothing. What's also missing from Katz is his own ontological test, meaning his own connection to the Absolute. Other than that, all I find is mere Philosophical twisting. Side note: Is it possible to critique Modernity without it being interpreted as hatred or superiority? What's your opinion on that ?
It’s certainly possible, yes. And there’s certainly much to be critical of.
@@SeekersofUnity thank you for taking the time to respond 🙏. I do agree that it is rather a line worth being careful to tread on. Critiquing anything shouldn't bring a sense of bitterness. Which I myself, do my best to refrain from ( though not always, unfortunately).
Isn't mysticism another process and is outside the thought-making process, otherwise, it is just the calming down of the thought-making process? The thought-making process creates words, thoughts, experiences, memories, and desires. Isn't mysticism the awakening of the dormant-like process of our brain? Since mysticism is outside the thought-making process, than while in the mystical process, there is no awareness. Only after the mystical process can the thought-making process make sense of it. The awakening of the dormant-like part of the brain fundamental changes are noticed.
Katz describes the obvious. However, in his pursuit of "purity" misses the mystery. All experience is mystical viewed through illusion. The mere observation of this mystery affects it. Bummer! It's still there, impure as it is. The fact is the experience doesn't care. We do. It's messy world that doesn't care what we think.
Why is the academic literature on the matter being given precedence over mysticism itself which is experiential and beyond description or analysis by the mind? Why are the opinions of non-mystics who are stuck in the mind in any way of relevance to the transcending of the ego/mind?
By community: it is in this way that the experience is filtered and applied. Further; why ignore and so deny the possibility of a collective experience? "Love your neighbour as you love yourself" is an exercise in collective meditation, i think. One person has access to one truth and, we're after the fullness of truth.
@@mediocrates3416 You're right that we must accept other's perspectives and learn from them if we're truly interested in the mystical process of opening the heart. Forgive me if that's a misunderstanding or conflation.
I suppose what I observed (and admittedly on some level egoicly reacted to) is that some of the perspectives of mysticism in the academic literature addressed in the video, such as the constructivists and post-colonialists, seem to be primarily interested in their own divisive ideological mindsets, and furthermore, not at all mystical in their lived experience - but rather applying their particular ideological lens to mysticism as one subject among many to reduce to their formulaic ideological lens.
Like if everything is seen in terms of identity groups seen as victims of some kind of cultural imperialism, and only that or a manifestation of it, or everything understaood purely as constructed based on socialization, and that or a manifestation of that, actual appreciation of mysticism becomes lost by the way side, as it becomes treated as just a front of a ideological conflict or something, all under the guise of intellectual and 'scientific' analysis.
I guess it just feels just as lacking in love and compassion as elitist, 'left hand path' forms of occultism and perrenialism, and generally missing the point of what it's all about. Of course, I'm aware of the irony of myself finding this annoying - since that it probably a reflection of the very tendency I'm complaining about, in myself.
But of course, mysticism is all about the inner journey of meditation and self-inquiry to hopefully understand and love ourselves and others better, and also let go of the mental barriers between our sense of self and the ineffable. I.e. mysticism in practice and experience is the solution to the ideological and ego driven oneupmanship in question.
@@FromIdeologytoUnity Well said.
@@FromIdeologytoUnity The deification of the experience has led to a selfish arrogance in some, to be sure. The way i see it, Judas had the meditative experience out of which christianity grew so, to be ostracised rather than deified is kinda the goal. Well, to be understood first of all.
@@mediocrates3416 Honestly I'm not sure where you're going with this. Ostracization is perhaps linked with shame, being 'deified' with pride? I don't know what you're saying. I would say mysticism is about unconditional love, unity and transendent experience via inner work, self-inquiry and self-realization - thats my perspective.
What a cool video. The whole debate seems kinda weird to me, like it was already solved. If there are particular religions, and the general rule is to respect their particularities and practices; then it is an exception to the rule to see the universal in the particular. Isn't that the movement that all religions make? The soul and god, or whichever other thread connects them. Maybe I am biased in favor of the perennialists (Who isn't?) but even if we accept that particularities exist, why couldn't they be compared? Don't their differences make comparison *possible* in the first place? And plus, even if the constructivists were correct in saying that we are predisposed socially to be religious in a certain way, people have rather rigorous filters in which they are able to critique, morph, and challenge the status quo (As was explained in the video. Am I just repeating what the video said?). It's not like people are passive receptacles of society. Anyway, great content! More like this, please.
The Equation of the whole Creation : 'AIN { ALEPH - IUD - NUN final }
What does that actually mean?
Amen
Ahooga!!
How does a perrenialist, who believes in one ultimate truth common to all traditions, explain the difference between the Abrahamic god, who is a personal god, and Buddhism where there are no gods at all?
Buddha said the self ( ego ) doesn't exist . Nirvana =SELF =Atman=The kingdom of Heaven =The ' I AM ' of the Abrahamic God .🕊️✌️
Which is one of Katz's arguments. And Richard Jones argues that Perennialism is a metaphysical view and not the best counter to Constructivism in terms of the mystical experience itself. I would say that Katz fails to distinguish between dogma/concept and the mystical experience itself. He also does not really say what he means by mysticism. From my own spiritual path, Sahaja Yoga, I would say that the understanding is that different teachers taught different things because they had different things to accomplish in our spiritual evolution.
Perennialism all the way!
It isn't mysticism that is broken, it is academia! Academia was and remains a counter-cultural subversion since the days of Plato ... and therefore is not a political free zone. While I agree that say ... Navajo religion is something for real Navajos to do, and I recognize that the "common core" view is part of post-Christian progressivism aka Marxism ... the common deep psychology of humans makes the psychological basis of this, culturally independent.
Guys, there's a philosophy called Perennial. It's what I've been Googling the last weeks. All Religions, historically, merge. Anyone Religious can read a non-Religion philosophy about Human Religions, right?
Please do. Humans need the Zohar. So few people even ever read it.
Heeeeelp.
אהבתי את המוזאייקה
אם אתה צריך עוד מנורות דומות סבתא שלי מכינה כאלה ומוכרת די בזול
Thank you :)
Can someone ask their Rabbi if Jewish can study Jewish Religion before the Torah was compiled? So, namely, Yahwism?
tempest in a teapot.
Wait a minute bud you sounded like you knew a little bit about what you're talkin about it first but I'd like to say that any Mystic would never ever agreed that the thing that some of the religions have done and well medieval to modern times especially to the abrahamic ones with anything not to hate. So basically there's no to Mystic going to condone the inquisition's and shit like that
Thank you for the critical feedback. It is appreciated. I did say “the best of mysticism,” a subjective evaluation no doubt but a distinction non the less.
If anyone was to ever read the book the Mythic Image by Joseph Campbell you would see that perennialism probably and I'd say Almost 100% is certainly true. It details the symbolism involved in all religious artwork from the dawn of mankind up until modern times. He shows how that same symbolism is used the world over, culture by culture Nation by Nation religion by religion and it has been ever since the beginning and it still is today just most people don't understand it because they wanted to adhere to the literal interpretations of their own individual religious Dogma. Somebody could think they're seeing Jesus Christ coming to talk to them when actually it's Lucifer or if they don't like that analogy, mithras.
Sir , how can I message you , I want to give you secret informations and realities about sufism which you will never find them in internet , you can see the light of god with your two eyes in real while you're awake , I swear ,
Feel free to message right here :)
@@SeekersofUnity
First of all : Sufism is not theories or information that we find in books here and there. Rather, it's an esoteric science that you can only obtain through a real Sufi sheikh.
As for what you find in books, it is just very superficial information.
I will try to speak briefly,
There is a Sufi way called the" The Karkariya sufi order ", and it is the only path in the world that makes you see the light of God while awake. It's very certain. I mean, there is no doubt about that. All those who follow this path have seen the divine light with their own eyes and talked about it in videos on RUclips. The leader of this way is Sheikh Muhammad Fawzi al-Karkari.. Well, all I want to tell you is that the Karkariyya sufi order is the correct Sufi way. Because it shows you the truth with your eyes, it only takes 40 days of training and you will see the divine light. Sheikh Muhammad Fawzi al-Karkari says, “He who does not see the light, I am not his leader and he is not my follower.”
@@SeekersofUnity
ruclips.net/user/TariqaKarkariyaEnglish
Yeah the deaths of millions of people infrastructure what is horrible and evil in fact in fact the worst atrocities are committed by humans apart other humans were committed during that war and I'm talking about the bombing of Dresden in Hamburg in other German cities by the Royal Air Force where Millions upon millions of women and children died in the burning Agony and there is nowhere near any frontlines military installations are factories while they used the blitz as the excuse to do this when the blitz was aimed solely for the purpose of taking out military installations industry and infrastructure and all the civilian casualties were accidental it was in the sexual anyways since the English had recently gained the technology of radar and the Germans decided not to use fighters to escort their bombers very much so the bombers were like sitting ducks and got shot out of the sky. Which was the exact reason the Royal Air Force didn't bomb during the day only at night and they selected civilian Targets on purpose and used anti-personnel incendiary devices upon them and didn't even Target any industry or military basis whatsoever just civilian population centres and that is by far the worst atrocity ever committed by you and the other commute humans in the history of humanity. Yet the Germans always made out to be the bad guys when everything said about them almost a hundred percent is a lie