A Reasonable Mystic

We finished Part 1 by saying that the human mind already has a faculty that appears to fulfill all of the functions needed for spirit to spirit communication. It is called the imagination.

For some kinds of communication, e.g. thoughts, words and visions, the imagination is already able to place the information into the mind, with one of the only difficulties being for the mind to know where the thought, etc. came from. For things like physical or emotional feelings, the imagination needs to affect the body. However, such an ability is already well established, as evidenced by the abreaction of the body when a past trauma is remembered, or the rising up of fear, hatred or love when we learn of something happening to someone else, even in a fictional context such as a novel or a movie. We can even conjure up in our imagination details of something that never happened and feel what would be appropriate emotions or sensations as if it was a real event. Psychosomatic illness and many phobias are cases in point.

So, the human imagination provides all of the faculties that are needed for spirit to spirit communication, and I am convinced that this is an important function of the imagination, perhaps even its primary purpose. Yes, it is the faculty by which we create original ideas, but that is not surprising if creativity is actually a function of the human spirit, not the mind alone.

If humans are created in the image of God, who is infinitely creative (in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth with a word), and given that God, by definition, is a Spirit, then it surely follows that spirits create!

In one sense, spirit to spirit communication could be considered as a creative process, whereby one spiritual being creates a “message” directly in the imagination of another spiritual being.

Those of us who believe we have heard God’s voice, who have prophesied, seen a vision or “picture”, or received words of knowledge or wisdom, know that it just appears in the mind out of nowhere, and it takes experience to discern that we did not just imagine it or ‘make it up”.

So, when someone says, “You didn’t really hear God (or see an angel or demon, or have a vision), you just imagined it,” then they are partly right. You did imagine it, but that does not mean it didn’t really happen. It is extremely difficult for someone steeped in a tradition of intellectualism to grasp the possibility that the mind is not supreme.

If the role of imagination is as I have described above, then many otherwise esoteric subjects lose some of their mystique. In particular, consider prayer. True prayer is revealed to be an intimate, two-way communication between two persons, rather than the hit or miss, impersonal, ritualistic uttering of formulaic words so often practiced in and out of the church. Spiritual gifts such as prophecy, word of wisdom, word of knowledge, and interpretation of tongues become a natural outworking of the ability of the human spirit to listen to the Spirit of God. You can learn more about the practicalities of this at Listening2God.com where you will find a complete course on hearing God’s voice, prayer, intercession, spiritual gifts, and more.

Even some human to human interactions become easier to understand, such as the bond of love between husband and wife, and the knowledge we often have on first meeting someone that they are, or are not, a person with whom we wish to have a relationship.

Given all of the above, we can see how important it is to develop and nurture our imaginative and creative abilities. Is it any wonder that children, until they become burdened with the knowledge and responsibilities of adult life, are so much more spiritually in tune with God and creation. This is especially so if they have not yet been told that they should put aside their childish fantasies and “grow up”.

We will have more to say about all of this.

Those with an interest in exploring and understanding how the human brain operates, and the relationship between brain and mind, generally operate with an overriding assumption – that the human mind is alone, isolated from all other minds except for communication processes relying on the five physical senses – sight, hearing, touch, smell and taste, and the ability to speak, write, draw, gesticulate, etcetra.

Some enthusiasts also posit extra-sensory perceptions, human to human, human to animal, and sometimes human to other entities. Such investigations are not held in high regard by the general scientific and medical community, I believe largely because of their assumptions that other entities do not exist, and that all processes are determined entirely by operation of the physical brain.

Leaving out, for now, speculative ideas like ESP, five physical senses would be enough for simple communication and interaction. However, this neglects the possibility that a considerable amount of human interaction is of a much more direct, though largely unconscious nature. Such neglect is one result of another common assumption – that human beings do not have a spirit that is not merely a function of the mind or the brain.

Let us put all of that aside for now and examine a hypothetical scenario. Just suppose that:

1. humans have a spirit,
2. there exist other entities that have, or are, spirits, and
3. spirit can communicate directly to spirits.

The question I now want to ask is: what type of faculty within a human being would be needed for such spirit to spirit communication to take place?

Because a spirit does not have a physical form, the physical senses are not likely to be of much use. Rather, I suspect that some form of direct transfer of information would be more likely. In other words, what one entity “sends” to the other would simply “appear” within the receiving entity’s mind.

Note, I am not talking about what is usually called ESP. Most of the explanations that I have seen for ESP ability assume some form of brain to brain transfer, perhaps by means of electromagnetic waves. This is analogous to normal human thinking being enhanced by some form of radio system controlled by the mind, allowing the thoughts to be transmitted to another person. What I am considering here is a more basic ability, but it might also provide a better explanation for what has been thought to be ESP phenomena as well.

Most understandings of the nature of spirit allow it to be unconstrained in some degree by time and space, so a physical transmission medium would not be essential. Rather, two spirits might simultaneously occupy a single conceptual space for the duration of their interaction. Again, here “space” is not necessarily physical relativistic space. If it is actually physical space then an alternative possibility is that spirits might have access to relativistic dimensions apart from the normal Einsteinian space, such as are commonly drawn on in current attempts by physicists to reconcile quantum mechanics and general relativity. This is a subject I will write more about another time.

Let us now go back to our question of the nature of the faculty the human mind would need to support spirit to spirit communication and to provide a spirit/mind/brain interface. From the perspective of a person receiving such a communication, the “message” would simply appear in the mind as a thought, picture, memory or emotion, or by the impression of a sound, smell or physical sensation as the body responds to the information.

Similarly, transmission would occur by simply thinking, visualizing, feeling, etcetera, the content to be communicated. Interestingly, visualization has become a popular technique among some New Age and humanist groups in the attempt to try to change reality. Such use and abuse of visualization is something else I will write more about later, but suffice it to say that even in its misuse the principles remain the same, only the motive or the intended recipient has changed.

The human mind already has a faculty that appears to fulfill all of the functions described above. It is called the imagination.

In Imagine That! – Part 2 we will explore further the role of the human imagination in perceiving the spiritual realm.

So, what do I mean when I say I am a reasonable mystic? And then, in what sense can I be a reasonable mystic and a Christian?

Such descriptions are open to many interpretations, and misinterpretations, depending on your perspective on the nature of mysticism, the role of reason, and the validity of Christianity as a worldview.

When I coined the term “reasonable mystic” I was unaware of its having been used before. Since then a quick Google search throws up a number of references, many of which are my own websites. A few websites on the Beguines have it refering to William of St. Thierry (1085-1148), a friend of Bernard of Clairvaux. William described in emotional terms the human desire to know God in perfect love, and was also known as the “learned lover“.

Some other references were to a site by Douglas Muder called Tips for a Reasonable Mystic. It was interesting, but contained many ideas with which I could not agree. His characteristics of the next religion sound too much like humanism for my liking. However his definition of a “reasonable mystic” is thought provoking: “someone who wants to be open to the Infinite without losing touch with the Earth under your feet”. I can relate to this approach to life even when I don’t like some of the conclusions. We might come back to Muder later.

There were many in history who, while perhaps not being called “reasonable mystics”, were reasonable and mystical in outlook, and we will encounter some of these in our journey.

In another vein, I found references to being “a reasonable mystic” in discussions of Dumbledore and Shamanismin in Harry Potter, and I’m sure if I dug further that Getafix, the Druid in Asterix would also appear out of the mist.

I guess the point that I am making here is that no matter how anyone else has used the term before, when I speak about being “a reasonable mystic” it means what I mean it to be. Any reading of another meaning into it will just lead to a loss of communication – it is not the term that is important but the content it references. In addition, it will not just be what I say in these articles that makes my definition clear. Rather, as being a reasonable mystic requires, it will be my actions and experiences that determine the truth of what I say. Some evidence for these actions and experiences can be found in other websites – for example at Listening 2 God, Prayer Ministries Network, and others that I will mention later.

Having said that, I cannot lay claim to the components of the term. The words “reasonable” and “mystic” have been around for a long time and it is their accepted content that will require me to justify my juxtaposing them as I have done.

The posts to this blog also go to my Google Group – reasonablemystic@googlegroups.com. “Dr David” posted the following comment to that group:

—————————————————————-
“because God cannot be logically proved without being experienced in relationship”

Spending time looking at this issue of “proof” and “relationship with God” can lead one to some interesting conclusions regarding being “prepared to be reasonable mystics”

It is not possible for me to recount in this reply decades of research along this avenue but I can make a few points. 1) the terms relationship, mystic and proof need definition 2) the links between the terms need clarification, and 3) the application of these concepts to humanity and well being need to be further expanded. I have attempted to do provide some material to address each of these points on my website www.SacredHealingNow.com

I think that any one on the path of the “reasonable mystic” is taking apath that few have traveled with widom and compassion.
—————————————————————-

Here is the gist of my reply:

Dr David, you might like to outline briefly how you believe your work relates to the subject of this group, keeping in mind its purpose. I quote from the group website “The visible trail of my journey from reluctant fundamentalism, through evangelical by conviction of Jesus as the only way, charismatic through encounter with the Holy Spirit, postmodern by choice, to protestant mystic as the only sensible response to the presence of God. ”

In the context of this group, and the blog that it is fed from, www.reasonablemystic.com, I would define a “reasonable mystic” to be one who seeks an intimate and experiential relationship with the Living Father God, with Son Jesus Christ, through the Holy Spirit, but who does not at the same time neglect clarity of reasoning and the expectation of learning more about who God truly is and how God relates to his children and the world.

By “relationship” I intend to include all aspects of how two or more beings may interact in ways that enrich each other and bring life rather than death.

I would not wish to separate the terms “reasonable” and “mystic” because then we are talking about something else entirely. For example, I am convinced that true “knowledge” is attained more through the spirit than the mind, whereas the mind is good at remembering, making connections and decisions, and initiating action. The two working together promote understanding. If we focus on the mind as the knowledge source then we are not considering mysticism but materialism and humanism. If, on the other hand, we neglect the mind in this relationship, we are into superstition and ultimately occultism.

However, we can gain much from studying both reason and mysticism in isolation (using both spirit and mind to do so, of course), while keeping clear in our minds that not everything said about either of these is necessarily life bringing.

Having said all of that, and it is necessarily superficial but I hope it gives the general drift, then I must say that I am convinced that such a true “reasonably mystical” relationship with God and the world can best be explored by interacing with and relating to the one true expression of God in the world – Jesus Christ. If God has deliberately revealed himself in this one, then is it reasonable to avoid him in our search? And, since the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Jesus, is the presence of God in the world, and has been promised by God to indwell followers of Jesus, then surely the easiest way to get in touch with God is to interact with that Spirit, not some other spirit – human or otherwise.

In the light of this, I did a quick scan through the website you refered us to, Dr David, looking for the terms “God”, “Jesus”, “Christ”, and “Spirit”. There is much material on your site, and I have not been able to read it all. However, I was rather surpirised at the results of my search. I found references to a great many areas of investigation that I would be hestitant to embrace, having seen the mental, emotional and spiritual damage such experimentation caused to many of those troubled souls who come to us for ministry and healing. I found references to “God”, but in a fairly non-identifiable form as to who this “God” is. I found “Spiritual”, etc, but nothing that would point me to the Holy Spirit of God. And I did not find “Jesus”, or “Christ” or “Jesus Christ”, except in one or two quotes from other people.

Could I invite you to respond to the above so we can beter understand your position.

You must be wondering what happened to My Spiritual Journey, after more than a year! It hasn’t finished – I’ve just been rather busy doing it. More will come, I promise.

In the meantime, I’ve just begun reading Alister McGrath’s The Twilight of Atheism: The Rise and Fall of Disbelief in the Modern World.

What has atheism got to do with being a reasonable mystic, you might ask? Well, I discovered something interesting. For a long time I have heard atheists using the words of people like Voltaire and Descartes to bolster their cause. Now I discover that neither of them were atheists. In fact, they were deists. Not only that, but Descartes was actually trying to prove that God does exist, not the reverse!

Anyway, let’s go back one step so we can see what this has to do with this blog.

How many times have you heard someone say that Voltaire said God was an invention of man? They quote him as saying: “If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent Him.” On page 25 McGrath gives this line along with the other four lines it belongs in:

If the heavens, stripped of their noble imprint,
Could ever cease to reveal Him,
If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent Him,
Whom the sage proclaims, and whom kings adore.

In fact, Voltaire was as antagonistic to atheism as he was to the brand of Christianity exemplified by the corrupt hierarchy of the French Catholocism of his time. Far from wanting to remove Christianity, he actually wanted to remove this cancer that was forcing the loathed atheism to appear.

On pages 31 and 32 we meet Rene Descartes, famous for his “I think, therefore I am”. He was aware of the threat the new ideas of atheism were to Christianity, and with others set about trying to provide a philosophical proof that God did exist. Unfortunately, in order to make his “proofs” more palatible to his readers, who were more inclined towards science and natural reason than to religion, he decided to not make any appeal to experience of God. Of course, as this makes any such proof impossible, because God cannot be logically proved without being experienced in relationship, his efforts only succeeded in making the existence of such a hamstrung God seem even more unlikely.

The nail in the coffin came from the way other “Christians”, equally devoid of true experience of God, fought with each other in popular journals to demonstrate that their proof of God was better than anyone else’s proof. Atheism won by default, without hardly having to strike a blow.

So, it is clear that if they had realised the crucial need for experience of God as well as reason and understanding of his nature and ways – in other words, they had been prepared to be reasonable mystics – things could have turned out somewhat differently.

Welcome to a reasonable mystic!

Mal Dow