Most religions have a mystic tradition,which is somewhat different from the orthodox viewpoint.
Which is the mystic tradition of Buddhism?
Particular relevant since Buddha was obviously a Mystic!
Mysticism in buddhism?
Mysticism in buddhism?
Non buddhist Zen Practitioner.
Focus!
Focus!
- JamesTheGiant
- Posts: 2157
- Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2015 8:41 am
- Location: New Zealand
Re: Mysticism in buddhism?
Back in the first half of the 20th century the forest Monks in Thailand and Burma had a reputation for being wild and unknown and really into almost unknown deep meditation, deeper meditation than anyone saw in regular Buddhism in Thailand. But now that kind of life has become much more well-known and it is seen as less mystical.
Apart from that one example I can't really think of any mysticism in Buddhism. Maybe it's ALL kind of mystical since it relies so much on personal experience of altered state of consciousness.
Apart from that one example I can't really think of any mysticism in Buddhism. Maybe it's ALL kind of mystical since it relies so much on personal experience of altered state of consciousness.
Re: Mysticism in buddhism?
I did read that forest monks wre coming up with some new views.JamesTheGiant wrote: ↑Thu Jun 10, 2021 8:42 pm Back in the first half of the 20th century the forest Monks in Thailand and Burma had a reputation for being wild and unknown and really into almost unknown deep meditation, deeper meditation than anyone saw in regular Buddhism in Thailand. But now that kind of life has become much more well-known and it is seen as less mystical.
Apart from that one example I can't really think of any mysticism in Buddhism. Maybe it's ALL kind of mystical since it relies so much on personal experience of altered state of consciousness.
Like the existence of a soul.
In theory all meditation/ buddhism should be mystical,I agree,but in reality it seems to be very much slavish adherence to sutras,commentaries and dogma.
Some versions of zen seem somewhat close to mysticism.
Non buddhist Zen Practitioner.
Focus!
Focus!
Re: Mysticism in buddhism?
Gombrich might be a good place to start. In his paper Religious Experience in Early Buddhism (1997), he says that the general western understanding of the Buddha's enlightenment is that it was a mystical experience. He quotes William James on this, who thinks that mystical experiences in various religious and cultural traditions have certain characteristics, the chief of them being ineffability.
Gombrich continues:
Gombrich continues:
(R.E.E.B., p7)But that is not at all how Buddhists see it. When I began to study Theravada Buddhism, both from books and in the field, I found to my surprise that there is nothing in that tradition or culture corresponding to James' idea of the mystical. Neither Pali nor Sinhala contains any word for "mystical" or "mysticism" or for anything remotely like it. Indeed, when I interviewed a famous Theravadan monk in Sinhala and he wanted to speak of mysticism, he had recourse to the English word...What the Buddha achieved is expressed in various ways....what makes his experience important to us is the truth that he discovered and taught; had it been ineffable, he could not have done that...What is, of course, ineffable is the emotional quality of the experience..."
Re: Mysticism in buddhism?
I must say I do respect William James a lot. His books are very well written and contain excellent and practical wisdom. I agree the Buddha was a mystic,but I think mystical experiences are not ineffable and the Buddha obviously communicated his mystical insights and experiences.Sam Vara wrote: ↑Thu Jun 10, 2021 8:49 pm Gombrich might be a good place to start. In his paper Religious Experience in Early Buddhism (1997), he says that the general western understanding of the Buddha's enlightenment is that it was a mystical experience. He quotes William James on this, who thinks that mystical experiences in various religious and cultural traditions have certain characteristics, the chief of them being ineffability.
Gombrich continues:
(R.E.E.B., p7)But that is not at all how Buddhists see it. When I began to study Theravada Buddhism, both from books and in the field, I found to my surprise that there is nothing in that tradition or culture corresponding to James' idea of the mystical. Neither Pali nor Sinhala contains any word for "mystical" or "mysticism" or for anything remotely like it. Indeed, when I interviewed a famous Theravadan monk in Sinhala and he wanted to speak of mysticism, he had recourse to the English word...What the Buddha achieved is expressed in various ways....what makes his experience important to us is the truth that he discovered and taught; had it been ineffable, he could not have done that...What is, of course, ineffable is the emotional quality of the experience..."
Non buddhist Zen Practitioner.
Focus!
Focus!
Re: Mysticism in buddhism?
James considered ineffability to be an essential aspect of mystical experience, so if you don't think that's the case, what makes an experience mystical?Zenny wrote: ↑Thu Jun 10, 2021 8:54 pmI must say I do respect William James a lot. His books are very well written and contain excellent and practical wisdom. I agree the Buddha was a mystic,but I think mystical experiences are not ineffable and the Buddha obviously communicated his mystical insights and experiences.Sam Vara wrote: ↑Thu Jun 10, 2021 8:49 pm Gombrich might be a good place to start. In his paper Religious Experience in Early Buddhism (1997), he says that the general western understanding of the Buddha's enlightenment is that it was a mystical experience. He quotes William James on this, who thinks that mystical experiences in various religious and cultural traditions have certain characteristics, the chief of them being ineffability.
Gombrich continues:
(R.E.E.B., p7)But that is not at all how Buddhists see it. When I began to study Theravada Buddhism, both from books and in the field, I found to my surprise that there is nothing in that tradition or culture corresponding to James' idea of the mystical. Neither Pali nor Sinhala contains any word for "mystical" or "mysticism" or for anything remotely like it. Indeed, when I interviewed a famous Theravadan monk in Sinhala and he wanted to speak of mysticism, he had recourse to the English word...What the Buddha achieved is expressed in various ways....what makes his experience important to us is the truth that he discovered and taught; had it been ineffable, he could not have done that...What is, of course, ineffable is the emotional quality of the experience..."
- JamesTheGiant
- Posts: 2157
- Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2015 8:41 am
- Location: New Zealand
Re: Mysticism in buddhism?
True, some of them did that too, unfortunately. There are still a lot of soul-believers in Thailand.
Yes, I'd say that's true. Although a lot of Zen mysticism seems to be because they deliberately obsfucate through cryptic language and poetry. Whereas the same experiences in theravada are explained clearly in plain (dull?) unimaginative prose.Some versions of zen seem somewhat close to mysticism.
- Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta
- Posts: 2179
- Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2019 5:06 pm
Re: Mysticism in buddhism?
May I know the definition of mystic/mysticism used in this topic?
𝓑𝓾𝓭𝓭𝓱𝓪 𝓗𝓪𝓭 𝓤𝓷𝓮𝓺𝓾𝓲𝓿𝓸𝓬𝓪𝓵𝓵𝔂 𝓓𝓮𝓬𝓵𝓪𝓻𝓮𝓭 𝓣𝓱𝓪𝓽
𝓐𝓷𝓪𝓽𝓽ā 𝓜𝓮𝓪𝓷𝓼 𝓣𝓱𝓪𝓽 𝓣𝓱𝓮𝓻𝓮 𝓘𝓼
- Iᴅᴇᴀ ᴏꜰ Sᴏᴜʟ ɪs Oᴜᴛᴄᴏᴍᴇ ᴏꜰ ᴀɴ Uᴛᴛᴇʀʟʏ Fᴏᴏʟɪsʜ Vɪᴇᴡ
V. Nanananda
𝓐𝓷𝓪𝓽𝓽ā 𝓜𝓮𝓪𝓷𝓼 𝓣𝓱𝓪𝓽 𝓣𝓱𝓮𝓻𝓮 𝓘𝓼
- Nᴏ sᴜᴄʜ ᴛʜɪɴɢ ᴀs ᴀ Sᴇʟғ, Sᴏᴜʟ, Eɢᴏ, Sᴘɪʀɪᴛ, ᴏʀ Āᴛᴍᴀɴ
V. Buddhādasa
Re: Mysticism in buddhism?
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mysticismDefinition of mysticism
1 : the experience of mystical union or direct communion with ultimate reality reported by mystics
2 : the belief that direct knowledge of God, spiritual truth, or ultimate reality can be attained through subjective experience (such as intuition or insight)
3a : vague speculation : a belief without sound basis
b : a theory postulating the possibility of direct and intuitive acquisition of ineffable knowledge or power
Taking item 2 of the definition ("the belief that direct knowledge of ... ultimate reality can be attained through ... insight") buddhism is mysticism.
Cleared. αδόξαστος.
Re: Mysticism in buddhism?
Vajrayana - “tantra”
Like the three marks of conditioned existence, this world in itself is filthy, hostile, and crowded
Re: Mysticism in buddhism?
See the conventional understanding here. It seems to be a general problem - especially in this section of the forum - that users start threads using private concepts. Then other users join using their own private concepts. That's hilarious.Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta wrote: ↑Thu Jun 10, 2021 11:48 pm May I know the definition of mystic/mysticism used in this topic?
Cleared. αδόξαστος.
- Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta
- Posts: 2179
- Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2019 5:06 pm
Re: Mysticism in buddhism?
SteRo wrote: ↑Fri Jun 11, 2021 4:31 amhttps://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mysticismDefinition of mysticism
1 : the experience of mystical union or direct communion with ultimate reality reported by mystics
2 : the belief that direct knowledge of God, spiritual truth, or ultimate reality can be attained through subjective experience (such as intuition or insight)
3a : vague speculation : a belief without sound basis
b : a theory postulating the possibility of direct and intuitive acquisition of ineffable knowledge or power
Taking item 2 of the definition ("the belief that direct knowledge of ... ultimate reality can be attained through ... insight") buddhism is mysticism.
Yes, in that sense, considering together the meanings of both "belief" & "ultimate reality," i also think, buddhism is mysticism for non-ariyas.
𝓑𝓾𝓭𝓭𝓱𝓪 𝓗𝓪𝓭 𝓤𝓷𝓮𝓺𝓾𝓲𝓿𝓸𝓬𝓪𝓵𝓵𝔂 𝓓𝓮𝓬𝓵𝓪𝓻𝓮𝓭 𝓣𝓱𝓪𝓽
𝓐𝓷𝓪𝓽𝓽ā 𝓜𝓮𝓪𝓷𝓼 𝓣𝓱𝓪𝓽 𝓣𝓱𝓮𝓻𝓮 𝓘𝓼
- Iᴅᴇᴀ ᴏꜰ Sᴏᴜʟ ɪs Oᴜᴛᴄᴏᴍᴇ ᴏꜰ ᴀɴ Uᴛᴛᴇʀʟʏ Fᴏᴏʟɪsʜ Vɪᴇᴡ
V. Nanananda
𝓐𝓷𝓪𝓽𝓽ā 𝓜𝓮𝓪𝓷𝓼 𝓣𝓱𝓪𝓽 𝓣𝓱𝓮𝓻𝓮 𝓘𝓼
- Nᴏ sᴜᴄʜ ᴛʜɪɴɢ ᴀs ᴀ Sᴇʟғ, Sᴏᴜʟ, Eɢᴏ, Sᴘɪʀɪᴛ, ᴏʀ Āᴛᴍᴀɴ
V. Buddhādasa
Re: Mysticism in buddhism?
I don't believe that nibbāna is a mystical experience. The Buddha learned about Brahminic mysticism under his previous teachers, and he rejected it, but he kept using key Brahminic terms to formulate his own teaching (name & form, brahmin, Brahma etc) while giving them non-religious/practical meanings.
Thus, Brahma is no longer "God", but the personification of sainthood... it is the opposite of Māra. To become one with Brahma (metaphorically, as opposed to the literal interpretation of Brahmanism), one must develop certain virtues (the 4 immeasurables) to the point where they become "infinite". This is a reference to the meditative practice involving the visualization of elements (earth, water, fire, wind, aether, consciousness, Nothingness/Soul) to the point where they appear "infinite".
Thus, Brahma is no longer "God", but the personification of sainthood... it is the opposite of Māra. To become one with Brahma (metaphorically, as opposed to the literal interpretation of Brahmanism), one must develop certain virtues (the 4 immeasurables) to the point where they become "infinite". This is a reference to the meditative practice involving the visualization of elements (earth, water, fire, wind, aether, consciousness, Nothingness/Soul) to the point where they appear "infinite".
Re: Mysticism in buddhism?
A mystical experience is an insight that makes you go "a ha"! Like the punchline in a joke or when you get something you have been pondering over. It's not necessarily ineffable,you can describe and explain the experience,and the insight. But sometimes its hard to explain in detail or doesn't need lengthy detail for the listener to get what you are describing.Sam Vara wrote: ↑Thu Jun 10, 2021 9:02 pmJames considered ineffability to be an essential aspect of mystical experience, so if you don't think that's the case, what makes an experience mystical?Zenny wrote: ↑Thu Jun 10, 2021 8:54 pmI must say I do respect William James a lot. His books are very well written and contain excellent and practical wisdom. I agree the Buddha was a mystic,but I think mystical experiences are not ineffable and the Buddha obviously communicated his mystical insights and experiences.Sam Vara wrote: ↑Thu Jun 10, 2021 8:49 pm Gombrich might be a good place to start. In his paper Religious Experience in Early Buddhism (1997), he says that the general western understanding of the Buddha's enlightenment is that it was a mystical experience. He quotes William James on this, who thinks that mystical experiences in various religious and cultural traditions have certain characteristics, the chief of them being ineffability.
Gombrich continues:
(R.E.E.B., p7)
Non buddhist Zen Practitioner.
Focus!
Focus!
Re: Mysticism in buddhism?
True Zen can be explained poetically or prosaically.JamesTheGiant wrote: ↑Thu Jun 10, 2021 9:17 pmTrue, some of them did that too, unfortunately. There are still a lot of soul-believers in Thailand.
Yes, I'd say that's true. Although a lot of Zen mysticism seems to be because they deliberately obsfucate through cryptic language and poetry. Whereas the same experiences in theravada are explained clearly in plain (dull?) unimaginative prose.Some versions of zen seem somewhat close to mysticism.
And definately the explanations should not be obfuscating.
But sometimes it's also the lack of insight of the one listening to the poetry.
Non buddhist Zen Practitioner.
Focus!
Focus!