Is Mysticism Rational? LOGIC and MYSTICISM with Esoterica's Justin Sledge

Mystics are often seen as irrational. The word ‘mystical’ is oft employed disparagingly as a synonym for the vague, dubious and enigmatic. In this convo with Dr Justin Sledge, scholar of religion and philosophy and host of Esoterica, we challenge and debate this conception.
Asking: What is Logic? How does it work? What are its Origins and History? Is it Discovered or Invented? Is there a common Logic among the Mystics? What of Alternative and Paraconsistent Logics? Does a Two Truths Doctrine make sense? Does logic require faith at some level? What happens when mystics take logic to its limits? To what degree, if any, are mystics beholden to or bound by logic? Can mystics give up on logic? All this and more…
00:00 Excerpt
00:27 Introducing Dr Justin Sledge
03:39 Outline of the Conversation | Five Questions
05:32 • Are we taking the Mystics Seriously?
7:23 What is Logic? Brief Overview
12:44 What is Rationality? Brief Definition
15:05 • Are the Mystics Rational?
17:38 • Irrational vs Non-Rational
19:28 • Reality as Non-Propositional | Noetic vs Propositional
22:37 The History of Logic
26:40 • Modern Logic
29:54 • Pre-Socratics | Mystical and Rational
35:20 The Principle of Charity | How to Read the Mystics
37:34 The Law of Non-Contradiction | A Law to be Broken?
41:34 • Mystics and Logicians
43:31 Paraconsistent Logics & The Principle of Explosion
47:37 • Two Realms, Two Truths
51:35 • Can our Brains make sense of Reality?
53:56 Logic of the Absolute? Plotinus, Cusa, Hegel, Buddhism and Jainism
59:04 • Apophatic vs Cataphatic | Nay-saying and Yay-saying
1:03:33 Zeno’s Paradoxes | Is Motion Contradictory?
1:06:29 Analogical Logic | To What Shall We Compare Thee?
1:12:08 Quantum Logic | Dead and Alive? Wave and Particle?
1:15:08 Multivalent Logic | True, False, Both and Neither | Nagarjuna and Modal Logic
1:19:14 • Logic of Self, Identity | Levels of Reality
1:23:22 Double Negation yields an Affirmation | Comparative Logic of Mysticism
1:25:55 On the Possibility of Comparative Mysticism | Contradictions toward Enlightenment
1:32:13 • Are Monism and Non-Dualism the same?
1:39:53 On the Definition of Mysticism | A Heavenly Debate
1:45:57 Reading Mysticism Seriously | “The Mystics ain’t playin”
1:52:12 Conclusion
Justin’s Channel: / @theesotericachannel
Justin's Website: www.justinsledge.com/esoterica
Support Justin: / esotericachannel
Join Seekers of Unity:
facebook: / seekersofunity
instagram: / seekersofunity
twitter: / seekersofu
podcast: anchor.fm/seekersofunity
website: www.seekersofunity.com
Thank you to our loyal Patrons:
Little Hobbitus, Adam, Alexandra and Curly Joe (x2)
Join them at: / seekers
“They do not understand that the [Logos] conflicting in itself, is identical with itself: conflicting harmony as in the bow and in the lyre." - Heraclitus
“If indeed, reality itself is a coincidence of opposites, as Nicalos of Cusa says, then have we not left poor logic far behind? And yet, on second glance, all this luxuriant irrationality begins to take on its own logic, its own reason, and perhaps through it all one can begin to perceive a common essence.”
- William Earle, “Phenomenology of Mysticism,” The Monist, p. 519.
Some good logic resources:
plato.stanford.edu/entries/lo...
plato.stanford.edu/entries/lo...
‪@TheEsotericaChannel‬
#Logic
#Mysticism
#Philosophy

[@TheEsotericaChannel]

Zevi - So happy to have this important conversation with you. So much respect for you thoughtful, careful approach to mysticism and your content generally. What important work you are doing !

[@SeekersofUnity]

Thank you Justin. What a pleasure.

[@timberfinn3131]

Thanks for having this conversation... it would be cool if you guys talked again and explored logic and infinity (cantor godel etc) 😎

[@Isaiahmetalbender]

@@timberfinn3131 I've a fairly comprehensive logistic on the nature of an extant infinite and how it "creates" finite form.

[@DarkMoonDroid]

@@timberfinn3131 I think that's pretty much the point where this topic branches off into a *"Theory of Everything".* If they make that turn, they might not find a "logical" place to stop. LOL

[@helenbostock2350]

I think great too.

[@ahobimo732]

Justin has such a fierce intellect. It's hard not to be intimidated by such a rigorous thinker. Thankfully, he's also warm, kind and gracious.

[@imaginaryphi1618]

It's not. It can be so if you like. Don't you think intimidate is in the person who experience it? You may reason or about intimidating but... I see two persons talking and both not appearing very intimated. Both see each other reasonable enough that there is no need for because they dare to assume there is nothing indicated a problem would arise within the self or other or both... Powerhouses may seem intimidating but in there reason they prefer not to use that power to blow the other away... Its not practically to do so for you need to shout over distance. Smile. Just a word from me to you... There is no need to be intimidated. Beside that you are able, value yourself. Don't let shadows of others... Hold you back. Rather use them for shadow when it's warm lol. In faith.

[@fraktaalimuoto]

Greetings from a physicist and a Buddhist! I really appreciated the philosophical rigour of the conversation. Very refreshing.

[@SeekersofUnity]

Thank you friend. Glad you appreciated it. Welcome to the channel 🙏🏼

[@thishandleistacken]

Hey if you see this could you recommend a book or two or more which approaches physics from a spiritual angle which isn't wooey, insane or scientifically inaccurate? I study both physics and world religions/philosophy in my spare time but have never found a good book which doesn't veer too off the path of science. The closest I've found is The Dancing Wu Li Masters but it's kinda outdated nowadays as science has advanced a great deal since then. Anything similar and more up to date come to mind?

[@galisgewi]

Maybe the paradox that exists without application of logical propositions is the same kind of paradox as superposition (in physics) related to relativity.

[@thishandleistacken]

Found you through Justin's Esoterica video on Neoplatonism and I found Justin through Let's Talk Religion who I found through Religion For Breakfast. Love all of you and your work its been a breath of fresh air to find a community of people on KZbin who are spiritually inclined but not insane. The grounded academic approach is incredibly important, appreciated and needed.

[@CPTkeyes317]

I absolutely love that when one of them talks, the other holds their beard 😅🤣🤣 so perfect, what a great talk

[@lokeshparihar7672]

6:19 Book: Varieties of religious experiences by William James 7:11 Article: The logic of mysticism by John Findlay 10:02 A concise introduction to logic by Patrick j hurley 11:13 Ethica by Spinoza 11:45 A study of mohist logic by yang wuhn 11:50 Buddhist Logic by th. Stcherbatsk 17:17 The idea of holy: An inquiry into the non-rational factor in the idea of the divine and its relation to the rational by RUDOLF OTTO 20:30 Mysticism and Language by STETVEN T. KATZ 26:02 the port-royal logic 26:50 The foundadtions of arithmetic by GOTTLOB FREGE 27:24 Principia Mathematica by whitehead and russell 34:55 Mysticism by EVELYN UNDERHILL 44:20 why Contradiction is not acceptable

[@frederickanderson1860]

Was jesus parables mystical or just everyday examples that fishermen and shepherds could relate. And jesus was the logos himself

[@Seven-mc1pb]

Esoterica is a great channel. I love the jokes Dr. Sledge does throughout every download.

[@thishandleistacken]

They're so so so dry it's amazing. He delivers jokes with the same tone he describes the intricacies of an ineffable Monad. Love it.

[@alwilliams5177]

Two of the coolest content creators on KZbin in one show? Outstanding! Perfect topic for this progssive hunanist Christian. I had a mystical experience 15 years ago. If you ever get to drink from that fountain beneath our conscious being, it changes everything. Spiritual intoxication is a real danger. Never underestimate something just because it's "in your head."

[@mwbgallery]

Sharing the fluidity of knowledge through well mannered and thought-out discourse and play is as good as it gets.

[@SeekersofUnity]

Thank you Michael. Glad to be a part of it.

[@heressomestuffifound]

This reminds me of an essay by Aleister Crowley I read in The Equinox Volume 1 No 2 yesterday. In “The Psychology of Hashish” he brings up many of these points a hundred years ago. As you said if the mystics are right it’s crazy that this isn’t being discussed more in intellectual circles. Great discussion guys!

[@josie_posie808]

As a writer looking to tackle global mysticism, you guys helped bring to focus my dilemmas in how to treat the subject, if it is one subject, esp with varying degrees of understanding for the religious environment each flavor of mysticism was born from. I now have a grip on where we are in this conversation. 🙏 Phenomenal work

[@SeekersofUnity]

Hi Alicia. Thank you so much. So glad to hear this was helpful. I’d love to hear about your work and about what you’re doing. Feel free to reply here or drop us an email 🙏🏼

[@DarkMoonDroid]

This is one of the most important conversations we can have as a species. Period. It always has been. G_d bless you both for bringing your substantial dedication and scholarship to it for us. WOW! 🔥

[@DarkMoonDroid]

Incidentally, because you _both_ speed-talk, I've dropped the playback speed down to .75 and now it's normal. 🤭 Love you both!!!

[@SeekersofUnity]

Thank you Jennifer ☺️🙏🏼 Just glad to be a part of it.

[@SeekersofUnity]

😋 good move 🙈😘

[@DarkMoonDroid]

@@SeekersofUnity 🙏💙

[@pentegarn1]

In my personal experience I had tried casting some magick circles rooted in the Key of Solomon style. I tried it a couple times with no result...but I was very very logical at the time. I was pretty much an atheist but was open minded enough to try it. But it wasn't until I threw myself into it 100% and just dropped my left brained approach to the ritual that it finally worked with dramatic result. And by dramatic I mean I physically seen and heard spirits outside the circle. But it takes a certain amount of "letting oneself go", which is something Heinrich Cornelius Agrippa says in his "Three Books of Occult Philosophy" 1510.

[@liamnewsom8583]

Yeah I feel like it's really a leap of faith dude. Faiths bizare.

[@t0xcn253]

Magic performed with faith and kept secret, even kept out of one's own thoughts as much as possible after casting, WILL have an effect beyond what mere chance could reasonably account for. I speak from experience.

[@BeforeTheCause]

1 year ago, says KZbin. I wonder how I missed this one. Appreciate you both. ❤️ 🙏

[@SeekersofUnity]

Appreciate you. Enjoy :)

[@debbygrupp6401]

Introvertive as opposed to extravertive mystical experiences show many differences. Another good point to bring up would be that two mystics may experience the same phenomena but articulate their findings much differently, much like two people experiencing the perception of the same apple. There may be a difference in the perception of the actual colour. We can even go so far as to say that one may like that particular shade of green, while the other may detest it. I think you're right Zevi regarding the universality of the inherent qualities of the introvertive mystical experience. You are both amazing individuals. Much love! Lechaim!!

[@kathleenhensley5951]

When I had my experiences ... I did not know how to assume facts or truths from them so i didn't try for a long time. I just let the experiences happen. At first, I thought i was just reviewing the furniture of my soul - especially, when my experiences seemed to trend towards to the Christian, I was honestly terrified. The most impressive experiences seem to be beyond words, I've tried to describe them. I can speak of what i learned as fiction,fantasy --- or metaphors .... I've been trying to write about the experiences and what they seemed to imply, but even speaking of them...seems to be profaning them. I want to paint a picture or tell a story ... create a world, the art of the soul's journey? I wish I could find the right form of art to express myself... it is like journeying to a distant world and returning ... and realizing, you don't have the vocabulary to describe what you saw.

[@SeekersofUnity]

Hmm, the eternal challenge of the mystic indeed ;)

[@kathleenhensley5951]

@@SeekersofUnity Certo! words fail. Art fails, craft fails. How to you describe something beyond words? Light, Love, an down-pouring of Love, sheets of energy?? Beauty. simply beauty. I've always wondered what poor angel lost his job when he put my name on the wrong list. :-) I am certainly not a likely mystic. A hard working housewife/Widow? Right now, I have to cut up some boxes and put them in recycling, put the chickens in their coop.. clean up the garage. I've got mice in there, once again. Hate killing things. Even vermin. I'm just delaying the work by writing this..

[@DarkMoonDroid]

@@kathleenhensley5951 Gosh, I can so relate. 💙

[@pathkeepers]

1:29:26 “the cruel irony of a species that is aware of its own existence, without the emotional capacity to understand it” paraphrasing exurbia or some other KZbin philosopher. I kept thinking about this line during this whole wonderful conversation.

[@stefanislutty9214]

This was a rather interesting dialogue between Zevi of Seekers of Unity and Dr. Justin Sledge of Esoterica. The deep dive into philosophy was at times beyond my knowledge. I took a few courses in philosophy at Philadelphia Biblical University (i.e. Cairn University), but mostly Ethics and Metaphysics not Logic, and so this episode made me realize just how much I still have to learn regarding Philosophy as a discipline, especially Logic. That said, I enjoyed the honest contrast between the two. I have a lot in common with both interest wise, but I probably am closer to the perspective of Zevi as a practicing Lurianic Kabbalist myself, yet I also enjoy having Dr. Sledge challenge my perspective with his deep skepticism. I tend to agree with Zevi that there seems to be an overall synthesis between the various mystical traditions. I, myself, practice Zen Buddhist meditation mixed with Laya Yoga meditation, mixed with Abulafian Hithbodeduth meditation, mixed with Taoist Neidan meditation, mixed with elements of Sufi and Hesychasm meditation, et cetera, and I have personally observed that the seemingly different references to the Chakras-Padmas, or the Tantiens, or the Sephiroth, or the Lataif, et cetera, can all be understood as simply a different religious bias, paradigm, world view, et cetera, affecting the experiential interpretation of internal sensations (probably just neural synapses interacting with the mind?!) as internal vortices of energy, which seemingly cause my body to shake or quake, et cetera, in a weird manner, perhaps like the experience of the Shakers or the Quakers, et cetera. I personally do not interpret these sensations as any sort of literal, supernatural psycho-spiritual occurrence, but they do seem to represent a shared mystical experience of meditation as described in these many often disparate mystical traditions, and I have been able to replicate them, with predictable outcomes of visionary experience (maybe being only hallucinations, but self-induced and intentional nonetheless). Indeed, even within a common tradition such as my own religion of Judaism, I have practiced meditation upon the seven היכלות, using the Divine Names and the Barbarous Names provided in the זוטראתי and the רבאתי as a sort of mantra, or the various Tetragrammaton permutations, using the Pranyama-styled breathing techniques and head motions of the Or HaSekel, mixed with the גמטריות of Chayai Olam HaBa, along with a contemplation of the ten ספירות and Divine Names of the Shaarei Orah, and arrived at a similar outcome, involving an experience of internal, whirling sensations, and also visions. Now admittedly I am at times utilizing certain combinations from different traditions such as those of Abulafia and Gikatilla, but they were historical contemporaries who appear to have influenced each other, while also at times disagreeing with each other on whether to meditate with the 22 Hebrew letters or the 10 Sephiroth, whereas I tend to use both simultaneously. Yet, I am admittedly inspired by Rabbi Chaim Vital’s own seeming mixture of these traditions together, along with יחודים derived from the ARIeL, the godly Rabbi Isaac of Luria, blessed be his memory, and where he described mystical visions similar to my own, with my head seemingly glowing afterwards, et cetera, in his Shaar Ruach HaQodesh. Furthermore, I admittedly interpret the reference in the Sepher Yetzirah (עולם, שנה, ונפש, along with the תלי, גלגל, ולב) to be different lower and higher experiences of the ten ספירות as Chakra-like sensations in the lower dimensions of the Soul and Heart. Therefore, there may possibly be a confirmation bias in my own personal mystical experience, but one which I seem to find confirmation for elsewhere, even when I study mystical disciplines as different as say those mentioned by Tsung Hwa Jou in his The Tao of Meditation, where I am able to better contrast my own sense of internal sensation at times as being closer to the three Tantien located near the possible bidily locations of the three doublets of הוד ונצח, חסד וגבורה, חכמה ובינה rather than just the seven Chakras of Laya Yoga, for instance, suggesting perhaps just a particular stress upon certain aspects of observation, emphasis, and jargon in each of these distinct mystical traditions? I would further argue that perhaps the more distinct aspects between these mystical traditions actually derive from the distinct religious traditions from whence they originate, rather than the meditative methods themselves. Indeed, I would argue that, while these mystic traditions cannot be properly separated from their religious dogma and ritual, the esotericism from the exotericism, say Kabbalah from Judaism or Sufism from Islam, the mystical and religious aspects should be considered separately, mostly as being personal versus collective, and mystery rite versus doctrinal rite, et cetera. I have often discouraged my own students of meditation over the decades to avoid the ecumenical approach of the New Age movement, and instead immerse themselves in the religious culture and custom of the particular meditative tradition we are studying, in order to grasp a sense of its distinct world view, before beginning to correlate it with our shared experience of meditative traditions we have already studied and practiced. Although, truth be told, because of this approach of mine, which I adopted from my study of Rabbi Abraham Abulafia, I often lose my students to other teachers as they become enamoured with a particular mystical tradition, be it Taoism (Luke Hart) or Zen Buddhism (Aimee Desjardins), et cetera - but sadly, never Kabbalistic meditation, other than my very first student David E. Scheel, a practicing psychologist from San Francisco, CA. After listening to Dr. Sledge tonight, however, I realize that I need to more formally consider and develop my own approach to the Divine transcendence versus immanence problem of logical contradiction, since there do seem to be very substantial logical issues unresolved in regard to the matter! My instinct has been for decades to simply adopt the Zoharic notion that there are perhaps two aspects of the Divine: אריך אנפין וזעיר אנפין, which is perhaps derived from my early Rosicrucian experience with the notion of Macroprosopus and Microprosopus from the Qabalah Unveiled translation of Knorr von Rosenroth’s Cabala Denudata by Samuel Liddell MacGregor Mathers. I have mostly finished my own updated version of the first section of Mr. Mathers’ Qabalah Unveiled, סיפרא דצניותא, providing the original Latin text of the Cabala Denudata, along with my own slightly revised version of the critical Aramaic text provided by Dr. Daniel C. Matt, but maintaining otherwise the original English transcription of Mr. Mathers, in an updated format, along with my own commentary notes added as part of my Jedi Knowledge Commentary series, of which I also hope to soon finish my translation of, at least, Books four and five of the Sepher Raziel, as a preferable and more critical version of it as compared to the respectfully aspirational but faulty translation by Steve Savedow, having consulted an online manuscript of it, along with an online copy of Merkavah Shelemah, but unfortunately not having access to the Oxford Hebr. C 65 or the Sasson Collection Ms. 522 of the Cairo Geniza manuscripts in order to establish a truly critical text of it.

[@stefanislutty9214]

For clarification, by a more critical text of the Sepher Raziel, what I mostly meant was the שיעור קומה aspects of it, which I believe better represent some its earlier recension, as perhaps related to the reference to μέτρων ηλικίας in the Deutero-Pauline epistle to the Ephesians (4:13), the seeming Pauline doctrine of Merkavah soteriology and Enochian theosis, along with possibly the fragments we have preserved of the alleged Book of Elchasai.

[@thenew4559]

All this conversation about contradictions embedded into the metaphysics of mysticism reminds me of the union of opposites in Hermeticism.

[@SeekersofUnity]

Right on.

[@artsolomon202]

I feel blessed, we (the audience) can see these kind of intellectual conversations about one of the most important and most fascinating subjects talked about by two people i really admire on their knowledge and their very unique and pleasant personalities.

[@SeekersofUnity]

Thank you Art. It’s a pleasure to have them with such a fine thinker, scholar and friend and to people like you join us to think carefully about such important subjects.

[@artsolomon202]

@@SeekersofUnity before YT gave rise as platform for the more interesting things in life, about life etc. i dreamed sometimes imagining that Bruno or Spinoza, Mozes de leon, Chaim Vital, to name a few of all philosophers, kabbalists, etc could have been talking to eachother if there was internet ( and lived in eachothers times), that remained a fantasy untill you and others started this on YT and all the knowledge of the ages finds a way through you and others as medium for the wisdom and sometimes very ancient wisdom. For me its a miracle and very thankful i live in these times.

[@artsolomon202]

Btw do you know Mircea Eliade ( the sacred & the profane) also a very Interesting study with some of these topics.

[@SeekersofUnity]

Yes. I’ve read a good deal of his work :)

[@artsolomon202]

@@SeekersofUnity that was a bit naive of me to think that i can bring something new to the table for someone as well-read as you! 🤐🙂

[@tomnaughadie]

The combination of logic/rationality and mystery/arcana is exactly what I love about the Esoterica channel.

[@AmidstTheLight85]

I'm on my like 4th watch on this one. Can't get enough!

[@helenbostock2350]

All is one love is all. One is love and so is him.

[@BUGZYLUCKS]

Blessings guys keep up the great videos

[@SeekersofUnity]

Thank you 🙏🏼

[@HappyHermitt]

Dr. Sledge is the go to for all things Esoteric. I would live to see he and Robert Sepehr have some great conversation

[@geofsawaya394]

Yes, Justin ✊🏼

[@t0xcn253]

This is a heroic task, the very foundation of a mysitcal worldview presents an incompatibility with rational thought. That said, the question is a valid one and, in the attempt to answer it, a great deal of valuable information comes to light. Fantastic work and admirable thoroughness displayed by both parties; this is indeed an important conversation. They do so much to bring the dialogue to students in a way that can easily be engaged with and facilitates a deeper understanding of the mystical traditions.

[@SeekersofUnity]

Thank you friend. I’m glad you’re here to share in it with us.

[@abrahamsedri3935]

I have never used this feature to give thanks, because I have also never felt so deeply understood in having, what has mostly been a frustrated and stunted internal monologue, been so incredibly played out and explored by such incredible seekers of truth with such honesty and rigour ❤ Thank you both from the bottom of my being.

[@SeekersofUnity]

You’re very welcome. I’m glad the dialogue resonated so deeply with you. Thank you.

[@heqaib]

A conversation that has not aged. A pleasure to listen to & hear ideas that are still troubling thinkers today. I feel that I still have lots of homework to do to understand all that was discussed. So I'll keep seeking.

[@antewaso8876]

such a great discussion the best, really, and how very very rarely encountered in traditional academic contexts

[@SeekersofUnity]

Thank you Ante. Glad you’re enjoying it.

[@KristySeeks]

Zevi and Justin, thank you both for having this dialogue, which has raised the bar for me in my studies. I have learned much here, just by intently listening, not the least of which is that I still have much to learn 🤓 especially as pertains to logic. Wow. The “isms” abound, don’t they? Human logic and reason certainly have their limits, but they are useful tools. Trying to communicate the essence of something as complex as reality itself or a numinous experience via human verbal language is a daunting task. We (and our evolved languages) are shaped by nature/nurture factors. There is a humility, I believe, that must be protected and cultivated alongside this gift of intelligence we possess. Justin mentioned a charitable nature, which demonstrates genuine respect via matching the rigor of the mature mystics. We must give them serious consideration, using our gifts of understanding in various fields of knowledge as a means of reflection-the more varied perspectives, the better. For life itself is diverse, yet unified by patterns. We all pick up on different patterns, depending upon a number of factors-life experience, intellect, education, personality, etc. but I do believe that at the heart of mysticism is an essence of intimacy, which is based in emotion. Emotions are quite nuanced and difficult to describe in a consistent manner. Our experiences are subjective, by nature. When we try to relate an emotional experience through the language of logic, we remove its essence. Music is an emotional language, as is art. Poetry, parables, and other modalities which are emotionally evocative are, in my opinion, more semantically appropriate languages for the mystic. I recently read a story to my students, which expressed the need to listen with your eyes and your heart, not just your ears. I found this to express a simple, yet profound truth. Having a more comprehensive understanding of and appreciation for how humans communicate via all 5 senses is, I think, needful for defining (not just in words) this underlying unity amongst all mystics and seekers of unity. I feel it, too Zevi ☺️ We are ONE. Blessings to both of you 🕊

[@craigreedtcr9523]

Twenty minutes in so far. Excellent discussion. He is underscoring the logic of one of my core arguments from religious experience: “ I am completely rationally justified to believe in that which I clearly perceive “ to do anything other then that would not only be irrational, but, depending on how strong and real the experience was to the perceiver: borderline crazy. I think this is the essence of mysticism. Your videos are really good. We seem to be on the same page about a lot of stuff.

[@keithapm]

Absolutely riveting conversation. Thoroughly enjoyed it. So much food for thought.

[@ashleychapman4038]

Well, I've been skirting around this dense but delightful subject (pushing upward, earth above mountain below, so to speak) and have discovered this rigourous philosophical debate, Esotericism, which does not look down on mysticism, but seeks to appreciate its analogical constant. This is a great gift. I simply don't have the resources or possibly even the time, but at least by listening to all these wonderful discussions, I will absorbed some of what has fascinated and entranced, and reached me in dreams and wonderful moments of insight - flashes of Wisdom - during a lifetime. Thank you. This appeals hugely and is profoundly enjoyable.

[@karensimon876]

The two of you in conversation is food for my mind. Thank you.

[@SeekersofUnity]

You’re most welcome. Thank you for joining us Karen 🙏🏼

[@PapaYo4XXX]

Here from Esoterica and Justin, thank you for this discussion!

[@SeekersofUnity]

You're most welcome. Thank you.

[@jstenuf]

So glad to listen to two scholars exploring these ideas in a deep and skillful way!

[@matthewniemi9276]

This is fantastic. Thanks for this, gentlemen. Now gonna go look for the sequel.

[@SeekersofUnity]

Our pleasure. Thank you Matthew.

[@brandonfuller4413]

As I've put it before on mystics, having my own experiences, they get a piece of the truth but the more they try express it the more it becomes a distortion of that truth. There is a reason for them to share and try to articulate despite it becoming a distortion. Partly it allows the indescribable fundamental reality to anchor into this reality, there are a lot who get lost in this and fall towards a grandeur delusion that they are solely the one anchoring it when they are really just a piece of the anchor that became aware of it. The other reason could be viewed as a sort of how bats navigate, sending out messages that make waves in order to reach others that can understand them. So what is spoken may be distorted but the words used can sometimes provoke the visualization or the feeling of that mystical experience in others meant to experience. I do not believe there is any meritable reason on which individuals get exposed to these experiences, it seems as if it just happens because it has to.

[@ac-jn1iq]

Really fair points. I resonated with all of it.

[@ivanamarkovic8588]

My personal favorite Leftbrainer and Rightbrainer discussing this subject as our contemporarys. Bought beautifully balanced in their stance which makes the listening of this dialog a wonderful experiance. A warm hearted scholar, of righteous pragmatism meets a radiant poetic philosopher of great benevolence. We can only rejoice to this opportunity and I personally hope that you will have time and desire to come back to us with more similar discussions . You are bringing to us the great personal insight grounded within the best of the diversity of the culture that you represent. Sincer gratitude 🙏 Jascha Heifetz Itzhak Perlman Leonid Kogan this artists of highest virtuosity are a testimony of what is like when left nad right are aligned in the name of Beauty Rigour and stucture meet poetic inspiration and hearts aspiration for the divine I wouder if you would be interested in giving an insight on the writing of Nikola Tesla, the scientist inventor and the mystic, Specifically on his essay How Cosmic Forces Shape Our Destinys Thanks to bought of you 💟💟

[@thekingscourt]

Thanks so much! Brilliant minds picking up the pieces and trying to put them together.

[@SeekersofUnity]

You’re most welcome. Thank you friend 🙏🏼

[@thestevepbrady]

Fascinating discussion guys. Opened up a lot of different topics I need to get educated on.

[@IIImobiusIII]

Brilliant and inspiring. After a day full of sweet remembrances of St.John of the Cross, this video made a fitting end to a very nice day. Thank You both.

[@SeekersofUnity]

You're most welcome. Your comment make a very nice start to what will hopefully be a sweet day. Thank you.

[@MysteriousSlip]

Within Eastern Orthodoxy 'rational' is defined as being able to behave according to right principles. So this ties into the hesychastic tradition of asceticism and mysticism and the mastery of passions (in the active/passive - action/passion sense of classical philosophy) so that our will is freed. Once the will is freed then rational thought and action becomes possible. In this regard, the question of rationality is tied directly to the ability of one to have a genuine mystical experience in the terms that one who is most capable of doing the former, is most capable of experiencing the latter.

[@robertc.7258]

Late to the party on this particular stream, but I'm a practicing mystic working on my own interdisciplinary grimoire (for lack of a better word) and the very first of seven points deals with the question of if/how mystical and magic experiences can be quantified or verified and what good methodology on the part of the individual can look like to that end. I'm not really connected to the academic community on this but I highly value historical accuracy and scholarly integrity, and it's exciting to be part of this blossoming field of research. Esoterica is an invaluable resource for me and my work. Thank you.

[@SeekersofUnity]

You’re most welcome Robert 🙏🏼

[@paulsakoilsky4639]

Fascinating and brilliant discussion

[@IpsissimusPrime]

Zevi! I’ve been meaning to get to this for a bit on my watch list, until this early AM since I couldn’t sleep. Perfect time to watch through the whole thing though. Great convo! Justin is a powerhouse yet the thought I was left with is that he views things through a predominantly “Constructivist” lens despite his crazy depth of knowledge about mystics. So he sees the issues but somehow can’t seem to relate deeply to them IMO. Reminds me of Wouter Hanegraaff in a way, who probably played a large part in his Western Esotericism studies. Obviously, I adhere to a Perennial outlook ( note that I DON’T say philosophy because “words get in the way”). I wish that you had both gotten into the underlying fundamental aspect of the mystic vision (which includes the “Christian” beatific vision) which is Light! This is the near-universal aspect of mystical experiences from diverse traditions and based on my own experience I feel that it plays a role linking the material and the spiritual realms. Have you ever heard of Robert Forman? In his THE INNATE CAPACITY, he discusses how the “philosophical mystics” themselves argue that the deepest mystical core experience of the nondual Light of Pure Consciousness involves an innate capacity of the processes of Consciousness itself which goes beyond their own culturally indoctrinated conceptions and perceptions. Unfortunately I think that our limited understanding about Logic (and the whole development of Philosophy after the Axial Age) gets in the way. Your discussion on the Pre-Socratics is spot on since the whole “Science-Religion” divide doesn’t seem to be present then from the fragments we have. The importance of fire in Heraclitus, and even Empedocles, again points in the direction of light. And Parmenides is sort of mind blowing in his assertion that “all is one” and yet he posed constraints on both language and thought in stating that we cannot speak or think about things that are not real/do not exist. Anyway, I hope you can both discuss the whole issue of Light in mysticism in a future episode.

[@SeekersofUnity]

Thank you friend. I’ve been meaning to.

[@ghostinameatsuit4654]

Two of my favorite thinkers having open discourse 🍻 looking forward to the chat!

[@SeekersofUnity]

I hope you enjoyed it ☺️🙏🏼

[@Int3rpo1]

Fantastic conversation!

[@gabrielleangelica1977]

My two favorite people on the spiritual path!

[@robinrobinson6714]

Thank you Zevi for this interview! Dr. Sledge is one of my most favourite persons! Bless you both!!😊👍

[@SeekersofUnity]

You're most welcome. Mine too ;)

[@douglaspackard3515]

I'm new to your channel (coming over from Justin's), and really enjoyed this conversation! What you were saying about hating the word "transcendent" and replacing it with the "sub-strata of reality" (or at least conflating them) reminded me of Deleuze and Guattari in "What is Philosophy?"

[@SeekersofUnity]

Thank you Douglas. Glad you enjoyed it. I’ll have to get to reading those two. Thanks for the rec 🙏🏼

[@helenbostock2350]

I glad you picked misticks apart. It help me to understand me better

[@Andre_Foreman]

Was very interesting to see ESOTRICA been sympathetic to softening the need for Law of excluded middle, seems to be something more and more people are taking seriously.

[@Ernestiqus]

When great beards meet... Good crossover.

[@SeekersofUnity]

_Barba non facit philosophum_ but in this case..

[@cr2378]

Great content as usual. I am not much of an intellectual or philosopher so some of the more technical aspects of this discussion are lost on me but what really resonated with me with this was philosophies eventual rejection of mysticism that you both touched upon. As someone who cherishes certain experiences in my life above all others this rejection has largely turned me off from philosophy post-Spinoza (I loved your videos on Spinoza) in some part due to their attitude and their inability to take mystical experiences seriously. I'd like to think the 'goal' of philosophy would somehow inevitably lead to such experiences. Rather than mysticism being irrational I personally think that after exhausting rational thought it leads to something 'supra-rational' or above it. Someone like Abulafia and his prophetic Kabbalah to me embodies this type of rational or logical mysticism in a way that resonates with me. Or something like Aquinas's remarks at the end of his career after his experience says so much. Even reading Maimonides talk about prophecy to me indicates someone who has had a glimpse of what the prophets experienced. It's hard for me to accept someone who speaks so intimately and authoritatively on the experience of the prophets had not at least experienced a small part of it themselves. Anyways, I hope that made a little sense :) Your channel really touches on a really interesting and I'd say important niche. It is quite comforting to me to see you bridging certain subjects I've pondered myself (albeit with far, far less sophistication on my part) in some of your content. Take care and keep at it!

[@SeekersofUnity]

Thank you so much for this message. Making the Spinoza videos was really fun so I'm glad you enjoyed watching. (I'd recommend checking out William James as another post-Spinoza philosopher who takes mystical experience seriously). Ya, there are a bunch of logical/philosophical mystics throughout history, in every tradition. Abulafia is one such example. One of the things we're really trying to do at the channel here is to highlight those serious mystics, to open a new dialog and way of thinking about mysticism, as a serous option for an intelligent 21st century human to consider, and as a positive direction forward for humanity at large, as opposed to something backward, arcane, superstitious and 'woo,' as it's often seen and portrayed. Thank you for your kind feedback. This project will only have a chance at achieving the aforementioned if it succeeds at uniting seekers, in joining our forces and energy towards what we believe to be good, true and beautiful. So thank you for joining. Good to have you in the Seekers community. For Unity.

[@oksanaorlenko6978]

❤ truly beautiful. once read a description of Truth, from Ukrainian philosopher Skovoroda, who wrote in Latin, that ultimate truth is experienced as beautiful... as always, not sure about ultimate, but beautiful it was. Thank you 🙏

[@HissingGeotrauma]

잘 봤습니다. 덕분에 많이 배워갑니다.

[@johncaccioppo1142]

What this talk cemented for me beyond it's soteriological value is how different systems of mysticism rely so heavily on their use of language and storytelling in order to establish authority. The more naturalistic systems, to me, establish a far more liberating and unifying experience, if only in the detachment they offer from cultural conversations. It's very much the same contrast that plays out in politics where many things can be true and yet fail to coexist, demanding for us to choose what kind of world we really want to live in and be willing to let cherished traditions of the past go as a ruling precedent for the direction we want civilization to move forward in unity. Where the mystical experience shows us our connection to a divine sense of reality, so we must be willing to be creators of the truth and respect the seriousness of that role, rather than fight like children over what our absent parents would have wanted.

[@ottocatte5297]

Great conversation. I think when we start talking about the differences in mystic experiences we have to remember that mystics are still people and are still going to have their own experience and place they come from. They aren't going to be able to interpret their experience of the divine ( or however we want to phrase it) through the lens of a culture they have never experienced. I think there is something of a through line for all these experiences but that doesn't mean that someone is going to suddenly drop their bias and start agreeing with people thousands of years apart.

[@SeekersofUnity]

Hey Otto. Glad you enjoyed it. Thank you for the thoughtful feedback. You might enjoy this video where we go into those exact questions in greater detail: kzbin.info/www/bejne/pJC1e4SJYq-Fra8 Enjoy, Zevi

[@SeekersofUnity]

Thank you so much to our loyal Patrons: Little Hobbitus, Adam, Alexandra and Curly Joe (x2) Join them at: www.patreon.com/seekers

[@toddtaylor4649]

Wonderful!! Ty gentlemen. Thank you

[@SeekersofUnity]

You’re most welcome 🙏🏼

[@7kurisu]

I'd say that the conversation got interesting at the end, about how all mystics are talking about the same thing. In one sense, they may all be reacting to the same transcendental phenomena from different angles. But I doubt many of them would see it that way. In any case, we can't forget the enormous damage done to both east and west mystical philosophy by the ruling class and racist structures which benefit at different times in history by condemning the experience of the other or conflation of all beliefs as one

[@athenassigil5820]

More of this...please

[@radioactivegorgon2307]

Been doing a lot of thinking on this subject and connected it to these conversations. The model of Rationality I'm constantly encountering is simulacrum rather than simulation, because Reason is a (useful) habituation tool. It reprioritizes our models using attentional-sites based on how evocative they are along the lines of affect and prioritization (such as morals). It arrives at useful data by how effectively it manages the aggregation of world experience data but to actually do that it needs to maintain a strong semiotic continuity. It is why experts are useful (focus on gathering a set of experience data) but also not believed without some prioritizing content, and then "anti-Reason" movements sometimes take this towards the limits of concept creduility by Reason itself while losing what that logic is trying to do. It's related to how everybody sorta fakes communication? We have to draw from our semiotic commonalities but to communicate we have to turn these into transmissible symbol content. But without that semiotic continuity between people and an ability to be receptive enough to interpret where incongruities might appear they talk past each other. Like, in Logic there arise concepts like 'P-Zombies'. What does it mean for a Person without an inner Being? Concept-wise it makes "sense" because we can have models of both, but semiotically it doesn't collapse into anything on the inner Being side. It's the NOT; it can been anything and thus it means nothing. It is purely evocative of something that our reasoning thinks *should* be there. And this is why I think people should try reading Jenna Moran's Philosophical Treatise masquerading as a TTRPG setting. (assisting content towards my reasoning: See the failures of 'Falsification' to demonstrate usefulness in how science is done and Thomas Kuhn, the polarization in binaries e.g. Science vs Mysticism, the conflicts of Modernity, etc.) EDIT: Rewatching is probably why I connected it with my own explorations. It was hard to keep track of all the concepts as discrete (I have poor concentration and memory) nor could I properly inculcate them into my own models but they sort of collapse into this, and it is a sort of, to us the evocative potential, a Quantum Logic that isn't about deniable reality as much as arriving at a point of useful data.

[@apdurigon]

Thank you for the beautiful and thought-provoking dialogue. The one of the many matters discussed that stands out for me is whether there is one mysticism, as the ecumenicists might assert, or many mysticisms in difference and conflict, as those who follow a logic, eg, one that Mr. Hutchinson seems to follow in the context of the Conflict of Civilizations, ie seperate and differant The one shows itself in many different ways, which doesn't mean that the ways are all the same or that the one is different in each case, but rather means, i would have you consider, that it is we ourselves who are the open middle, open to the question of the one mystery, and mediating the answer of the many mysticisms, in the dialogue of questioning and questing truth we conduct with ourselves and have with each other. we ourselves thus would appear the one middle mediating difference

[@SeekersofUnity]

Thank you friend 🙏🏼

[@rlewis3520]

Nice conversation, thoroughly enjoyed it. A point that stuck with me from this was the limitation of language. When I stumbled across quantum grammar after many hours spent comparing religions and philosophy I find it really hard to be able to sit and listen to most anything being discussed on esoteric subjects. Just wanted to say I appreciate what seems to be a non dogmatic approach here.

[@SeekersofUnity]

Thank you friend. Glad you appreciated it. Thank you for joining us.

[@ianhamza8240]

Thank you

[@helenbostock2350]

Most people you talk about I lost but thank you and your fantastic mate

[@CrowMagnum]

I feel the mystic experience is awareness through a phase change of consciousness, so as unique as the individual consciousness, but also common in the sense that we all experience these phase changes, not always with the same degree of awareness.

[@MrKreinen]

I certainly think that these mystics have wrestled with the same consciousness-universe complex in some meaningful way; but I think its worth noting that Mystics, like Theoretical Physicists developing their/a/the new theory, are attempting to court genius and risking madness by leaving the realm of how we have thought, and trying to reach a different state of mind, perception in the hopes that it will give us new powerful insight. That's not abandoning reason, nor is it just coloring within the lines; its another hegelian engine of brilliant machine learning/conceptual-darwinism in which we seek out schizoid associations, not too much schizoid associations or useful/meaningful coherence will be lost, with each vision and inscrutable new-way of thinking then gets tested, and selected, or forgotten. The pregnant void, weather it was Ayin & Tzimtzum, or Atman Brahman and Anatma, or Akasha, or Yin, ancient mystic insights about the nature of no-thing has certainly been important to both mathematics, and physics. Even if Dr.Sledge is put off by Nagarjuna's four option system, I can see you certainly recognize the reasons why; Binary logic gates work great on abstract thought experiments, but almost nothing we talk about in real life is actually simple enough to be adequately matriculated in self-evident binary terms, and instead what we get is interlocutors smuggling in their assumptions and perspective by HOW they boil down the topic to cross that divide between a more complex real-life scenario and the absolutely simplest abstraction of binary logic. I think Justin Sledge is attached to the usefulness and purity of a logical machine universe, and the idea of pluralism, that beyond a certain point, "reality is one, and the wise speak of it differently" must seem to him like a cop-out used to keep the peace; I'd say Heisenberg kinda killed the hopes of a reducibly binary reality.

[@oleghrozman4172]

Thank you for your videos.

[@SeekersofUnity]

You're most welcome. Thank you.

[@lilithsrainb23lionsrloose19]

To be fully open knowing we no nothing is key , things you hate and label Are not what you think , and understanding the garden, spirit God is key I believe you are what you eat And hearing voices won't be seen in the same light again.

[@iamlinaris]

A very condensed discussion. I haven't watched it all yet and I will, gradually, so my comment may be covered later on, on your discussion. There is, I believe, a line that unites logic with mysticism, that line can be explained in a few words as the 'nature of revelation', or, to put it more simply, the ability to watch, hear, touch, feel, be, without judging, trying, willing. By this inner stillness, one can jump from logic to mysticism. The 'inner stillness' is, from what I have seen, a common factor between many religions, but it is neglected by philosophy. At some point in time, religion and philosophy drew apart and now the two cannot meet, even though they stem from the same principle.

[@SeekersofUnity]

Hey Vasilis. We did manage to pack in a lot in the conversation. I’d recommend watching through the whole thing and then hit us up.

[@shamanverse]

As a mystic, the various locations and experiences available through diverse technologies (rituals, art, music, language, entheogens, and so on) are ones I experience as fundamentally different phenomenological sites. What I experience in shamanic practices is different in resolution, scope, depth and duration then what I experience when meditating, dancing or reading Deleuze, for instance. I think for me the drive to to resolve the varieties of mystical experience into one grand mythos is a gorgeous endeavor yet less important than how each in its own way is an open ended participation in how to die well.

[@christopherellis2663]

I hear the sound of one hand clapping ✋️ 🤣

[@mendyseldowitz]

Monism vs Non-dualism was an interesting segment. Hope to see a full exploration of this. Your suggestion that a possible differentiation is I Am all vs there is no I (or anything else) is an interesting one. I’m curious if you’ve explored this further. Regarding the point made about widely, even militantly, differentiating views amongst mystics: All mystics can agree that Oneness is the core truth, but might still adamantly disagree on what to do about it. Believing that all of humanity must accept a certain faith with a non-dual esoteric aspect is different than believing different groups should be able to grow organically as we find in nature and compete (while agreeing to specific basic principles). Said differently, within the apparent dualism that exists in nature, there is a need for hierarchy so that there can be growth and life, but it should be bottom up in terms of service. Ie. Leaders should serve their constituents, masculine should serve feminine, advanced nations should serve the less advanced, etc. A visualization of this theory would be that within nature there is an emergent hierarchy 🔼. Beyond nature there is down-flow of supprt and influence 🔽 and humans have the capacity to live in the middle ✡️. :)

[@SeekersofUnity]

Thank you Menachem. I’m glad you found it provoking.

[@ac-jn1iq]

I believe in a horizontal leadership. Top down or down up are neither necessary.

[@tkgawa]

I like that there's still a big disagreement here: is mysticism unified globally? Dr. Justin Sledge says it is not and Zevi says it at least rhymes. The perspectives work well to center the definition of mysticism when they ask whether mystics were rational. The two answers coming out of the conversation sound like "mystics are rational in the logical considerations of their schools of thought" (Justin) and "there is a hidden logic common to all mysticism" (Zevi). I think you can use either POV based on your needs. If you want to understand how Eckhart logically established the ground as the primary reality, Justin's POV helps more. If you want to establish a mystical genre of thought as a global phenomenon and part of "philosophy," Zevi's POV is more helpful. At the end, they make sure to acknowledge the logical calculation inherent in major mystics, whether or not that means taking mystics at a time or together.

[@KalebPeters99]

This is a really well put reflection on a super dense conversation. Thanks!

[@luisrios5703]

There comes a point during jhana where thought stops. Logic will probably only get you so far (I do not know). I have only experienced 2nd jhana. I can say nothing beyond that. It seems to me that I wouldn’t have ever experienced it without the kind of questioning and self-examination similar to what is being said in this video. I really enjoyed this discussion. Great content

[@SeekersofUnity]

Thank you Luis 🙏🏼

[@danterosati]

the best case scenario would be having as many unique mystical takes on the nature of reality as there are sentient beings. And >not< "all saying the same thing," but all with unique perspectives. I see no difference between philosophy, mysticism, literature, music or science: they are all expressions of various perspectives on the infinite. These kind of views get me in trouble all the time, for example in Buddhist groups lol. The world would probably be a better place if people could let go of a neurotic need for triumphalism when it comes to perspectives on the nature of reality.

[@DarkMoonDroid]

From my perspective, what you said is true and I would describe it differently. When considered as a collective, a decent analogy would be that each individual is a cell in the eyeball of God. The more cells, the more perception of what is real. In the Blind men and the elephant sorta way. But if all we are is a heap of individuals, then infinite plurality is merely chaos. What do you think?

[@danterosati]

@@DarkMoonDroid yes we can't escape being parts of the whole, or the whole expressing itself in (seeming) parts, whichever way one likes to look at it.

[@Anthropomorphic]

Out of curiosity, what do the Buddhists in question take issue with?

[@danterosati]

@@Anthropomorphic Buddhists believe that their take on reality and what needs to be done is uniquely true and all the other religions and philosophies are wrong and will only lead to being trapped in the suffering of Samsara forever lol. So of course any suggestion that their views are subjective and culture bound like all other religions and philosophies makes them hopping mad.

[@mmjxtragood6528]

awesome!

[@SeekersofUnity]

Thank you.

[@radioactivegorgon2307]

I think there is something within a deep mystic state that reinforces the sense of the Sacred in some capacity holy, blasphemous, or at least quite noteworthy. These latch onto semiotic content and our internalized models in ways which reaffirm our own being by reconjuring an Essence of The True thing towards our icons (in my sense sharing a notion with models ). This reconnects our being with something in a way that no longer has the experience of 'aesthetics'. My own icon in this fight is a Marxist-inspired one in that there was something at least commonly deep within us about the needs of a social being that regularly appears in mystics through a renewed 'Love of their Own Being' which then wishes to engage in social being with renewed vigor.

[@danterosati]

One of the things that may be possible for the first time in our modern multi-cultural world is, after the recognition of the heavily culture-bound content of most historical mystical experience (Buddhist mystics don't see Jesus etc), to at least >attempt< to bracket as much of the cultural tropes as possible while engaging in a meditative or contemplative exploration of reality. Whether this is even possible, and to what extent, is a difficult question, but it is certainly possible to be basically a secular humanist and do a simple meditative practice to quiet the mind and then begin to observe what is experienced without the many conceptual overlays that belief systems impose. Of course, while we may be able to escape the categories and tropes of organized religions we cannot escape our own personal history and our sub conscious zoo of energetic after effects of our life experiences. Nevertheless, it may be possible at least to some extent to investigate meditatively basic categories like "being" and "mind" largely as a scientist might investigate natural phenomena trying to bracket presuppositions. The experiences obtained this way can certainly be compared to those of historical mystics who were deeply embedded in an institutional belief system to see if there are commonalities or not, but if the goal is to understand reality (and not necessarily the history of mysticism) then these comparisons are not strictly necessary.

[@SeekersofUnity]

Welcome to the project 😉

[@firstnamesurname6550]

Well, It is not that Budhists don't find 'Jesus' in their Psychonautic Explorations ... They find another 'Anthropic Entities' in their travels to the 'Inner Mind Universes' or 'Imaginary Subtle-Spaces' or 'Chit' ( in the Sanskrit original terminology ) ... They Call Those 'Anthropic entities', The 'Buddhas', each of one representing some sort of Monadological Human Archetype in Nirvana or Eternally Liberated from Material Attachments ... and Those 'Buddhas' can assume any human form but they don't have any need to assume a specific form ... Therefore, Once The Monk achieved the state of 'Chit Concentration' for intuit The Eternal Radiation, Refulgence or Presence from those 'Buddhas' ... The monk will render an Image of them adequate to The Monk Dharma ... That should fit The Monks 'Higher Self' ... In the Monotheistic Middle East Jewish tradition, 'The Messiah' is 'The Incarnated Higher Self from The Tribe of Israel' or 'The Israelis Buddha' ... and for The Christians ( for some, Monotheistic Post-Jewish Mediterranean-European tradition ), 'Jesus' is 'Their 'Messiah' ... therefore, 'The incarnated and re-incarnated Higher-Self from The Western World' or 'The Westernner's Buddha' ... For A Traditional Indian Buddhist, 'Jesus' is a Shape of Buddha given by Buddha to the Western Monks seeking Nirvana/ Transcendental Truth from The Contingent Existence in This Contingent World/Universe ... But As in The Original Judaism ( Buddhism was a political branch from Hinduism that comes as a protest against a previously established 'system of Casts' that merge from A Monotheistic Branch from The Vedanta ... and that Monotheistic/Atheistic branch is way long ago Jewish monotheism ... that can be tracked in the middle east way long ago from 1400-1300 B.C in Egypt up to 4000-1400 B.C in the Indian Continent ), The Monopoly Deity or 'God's Presence' is not a 'human form' but an Inconceivable Shapeless Omnipotent Pure Energetic Entity that permeates and sustain Everything from 'The Unmanifest' (Brahman) or 'The Spirit' ( The Pre-Existence and Post-Existence ) ... That's the reason, behind Buddha himself rejecting Himself as The Path for Ultimate Truth and/or The Traditional Jewish Tradition to Reject Jesus as Their Messiah ... Because for them, The Ultimate Truth can not be constrained or confined to a Human Shape ... But In a Sense, Buddhism doesn't reject The Buddha's teachings ( Jesus's Teachings) as some sort of providers of guidelines for liberation and Communion with the Ultimate Truth ... The Ones who had trouble with that tend to be Jewish, Christians, and Muslims ... Basically, because most or the majority of the Jewish don't foresight in Jesus their 'Messiah or higher Self', the Christians wants to Kill Buddha ( Kill Jesus itself ) and impose His corpse as the magic amulet that gives to them God a Like Status by killing the Buddha ( Jesus himself ) and imposing their impersonal 'philosophical' imaginary god ... and the Muslims because they believe that they know better the impersonal God than everyone else and deeply hate any previous 'Incarnation of God in human shape' or The Buddha', their 'Messiah' will comes to establish a Monopolistic Islamic Global state ... At the end of the day ... Just the apes playing a game established by their Zoo Gatekeepers ... ( In Heaven ) ...

[@pug9431]

Speaking to the final discussion at the end about the potential to find unity or comparability of mysticism, we ought to see that we are all speaking about the same reality here. Although our ideas and the way we percieve it and understand it through our minds, influenced by our language and cultural inheritance will be different, we are speaking to the same One, non-dual reality. Even the mystical experiences that mystics experience will express different things based on the mind that it is experienced in and through.

[@FortYeah]

Around 55:00 , it is exactly what Lupasco found. He was trying to resolve the contradictions the quantum world was showing (where light can be both wave AND particles) and he found a system that can be applied to... everything ! Energy is the result of contradiction and so is the psyche. The law of contradiction still stands, of course, but the middle included that contains the contradiction relies on another level of reality. The mystics have access to that other level of reality, non-dual (often outside time ; no past and no future), from which comes our dual perspective.

[@SeekersofUnity]

Thank you Jean for sharing that. I'm going to look him up. Sorry your other comments got deleted. KZbin does that sometimes when links are posted.

[@FortYeah]

@@SeekersofUnity He covers so many topics adressed in the discussion (and the one you had with John and Guy (which was really great discussion), you'll see, I think you'll like him because it will confort you in your attempt to find a universal common ground for mysticism when it comes to the coincidentia oppositorum ... I think one of his colleague, Basarab Nicolescu, wrote in English about Lupasco's work but Brenner will be a good intro. Great channel by the way Zevi, keep up the good work!

[@TorahforAll]

This is awesome

[@SeekersofUnity]

Thank you.

[@Cardioid2035]

I always say there’s a damn good reason that a religious edifice is found in the centre of every town around the world. We should all take spirituality/ mysticism much more seriously since it’s legitimately the only common denominator of humanity’s infallible truth of its existence on Earth that got us to modern society today

[@TheMimiorange]

Thank you for this unbelievable inspiring talk! ✨ To me a mystical experience is nothing less but encounter God and of course it's impossible to describe God in words. The core of the experience can never be told. But as it is so overwhelming and positive, you want to share it or somehow communicate what you experienced. God in the sense as I understand it, as ultimate source of everything and not one of the Elohim - this source of everything has to be everything. In my perception everything that can be thought, felt or experienced, is God. Yahweh is God - but God is far more than Yahweh. Yahweh is an aspect of God. Or rather - Yahweh is an aspect of "the Elohim", of the male aspect of Elohim - as Inanna is one aspect of the female aspect of Elohim. The Elohim are an aspect of God. As we are an aspect of God. So logic, again to me, is one aspect of observing, understanding and communicating "all that is". Art is one of many other forms of the same process. Neither logic nor art alone can grasp or show "all that is". But looking at both we can get a bigger, a more complete understanding. So yes - to me it makes sense to observe mystical experiences through logic, as long as we keep in mind, that it's only one aspect of the entire picture. I'm very grateful for Dr. Sledge's unbelievable knowledge and insights he's sharing with us. He is one of the view most reliable source of knowledge to me. By following him I just discovered your channel now and I'm curious what I will find here. Sorry for my bad English. And yes - mystics are crazy, but that might be necessary. There is a great poetry by Leonard Cohen saying "There is a crack in everything, that's how the light gets in." 🙏✨

[@cosmicman621]

“Only the way-out know the way out.” Bob Kaufman:Poet

[@ensrationis5670]

Great talk. What struck me as a concern is Dr. Sledge presupposing his own philosophical and logical commitments. For instance, when (at 1:35:45) Dr. Sledge claims that Zevi has to provide an argument for compatibilism (of contradictory perspectives), he is presuming that his view -- that is, the standard, analytic philosophical approach -- is correct. Why? Because Zevi could appeal to compatibilism as a presupposition just as much as Dr. Sledge implicitly appeals to his own presuppositions. Dr. Sledge never provides an argument for his own presupposition (that the law of non-contradiction is true). In this, I think we find his analytic bias, one that is dominant in almost every graduate philosophy program in North America. Either they both have to provide arguments for their presuppositions, or neither of them do -- and this is something that Dr. Sledge conveniently ignores. Of course, espousers of dominant positions -- whether philosophical, logical, or political -- always seem to behave the same way: the minority view is expected to take down the majority view instead of vice-versa, or instead of differing views being accorded the same respect from the start. For me, Zevi's approach is much more open and holistic. It is evident, in the way he speaks, that he does not have this indoctrinated aversion to accepting contradictions that Dr. Sledge demonstrates. Indeed, every time an argument for accepting contradictions arises, Dr. Sledge's face tenses up. And that psychological reaction seems to have a direct relationship to dogmatic thinking, whether it be concealed by humility and charity or not.

[@mmore242]

Sunyata is not merely emptiness as in "nothing" but that everything does not exist in and of itself but is interconnected with everything else. This matches up well with Adi-Shankara's teaching of non dualness. Even though the doctrinally both Adviata Vedanta differ they don't seem to differ much from a philosophy or their meditative experiences. In fact Adi Shankara was accused to be a crypto Buddhist and it's been discovered that the early teachings of the Buddha unlike later schools like Theravada which it's scriptures defined the most ancient of Buddhism up until recently actually did not deny the Vedic understanding of Self but his teaching of No Self was to make his students understand what is NOT the Self but after identifying these 5 skandas (components of the false self) then one can realize the True Self. In this sense, Nibbana (Nirvana) would be identical to Moksha.

[@matthewmaguire3554]

Reason is in the clear and precise… Wisdom in the sloppy throwaways…WABI-SABI🐥

[@AlexLococo]

Not that I know a fraction of what you or Justin knows, but, I do agree with you in that the mystical experiences described by the mystics are, in essence, the same. Like I describe to my friends, the mystical experience is one both infinitely equal and eternally distinct from one person to another. My "we're all carbon-based structures" is another man's "we're all the one", to oversimplify it.

[@helenbostock2350]

I just cry when these feelings come through. I might be silly or its might be true.

[@helenbostock2350]

Now he was a good friend to man its not my voice but I love it

[@NullStaticVoid]

Hey Buddhism got a shout out from Dr.Sledge! It's very interesting how some branches of Buddhism like Vajrayana embrace mysticism. While others oppose or discourage mystical practices or texts. The reasoning tends towards the doctrine of selflessness, and mystical experiences, by virtue of emphasizing experience, are encouraging attachment to a self that is experiencing. But then we have debates over the nature of time which have lasted hundreds of years and been axiomatic to a few Mahayana and Sarvastivadin schools. As far as a commonality between mystical experiences. Would not dissolution of self be this? Perhaps they are all touching the same elephant, and reconciling those ears, trunk and legs according to doctrines they applied after the fact. As much as I hate to invoke him, I think McKenna is right that mystical experience comes first. Religion comes afterward to explain or try to repeat what was experienced.

[@ceh5526]

It's usual in Christian mediaeval mysticism for the apophatic strategy to be more applied as a double negation. So, there is a negation of the affirmation, and then a negation of that negation. It avoids the subject being the affirmed statement, whether in its simple affirmation, or its simple negation. This is often described as the 'sleep' of the intellectus, and the continuing life of the affectus - cf. Bonaventure's 'Itinerarium' for its classical statement. It's in his Franciscan tradition especially, that creation is affirmed and the passion of Christ is the ongoing motif for union with God. The passion of Christ is a good example of this double negation in the apophatic method; the life and mission of Christ are negated in his death and the failure of his mission on the cross, and the resurrection negates that negation. His life, mission, and now death, are now realised cosmically, not simply historically, religiously or geographically. And the death bestowing wounds of hate, and now the life giving wounds of love. Both Franciscan and Dominican affective piety and art are pretty strong on this too. There's a lot of this in Denys Turner's work, especially 'The Darkness of God', which has been taken up by several of his students, of whom I'm happy to say that I'm one 🙂

[@sariahmarier42]

7:45 Rationality is an amazingly undefined phenomena!! It's qualified by "normalcy", and "normal" is a relative term based on cultural and ideological upbringing, language, the accepted behaviors of others in society, family dynamics, economic status, ecology, etc. Etc. Etc. These are All fluid and change over time, (or what we perceive as 'time'). Down to the Individual level changes in mood, energy levels, health, accidents or incidents, relationships to all of the above will inevitably be percieved as normal or abnormal variably and almost entirely by exposure. One hardly thinks about what is normal or rational for themselves outside of habit or routine, save when in relationship to or comparison to someone or something outside of themselves. We should stop considering life experiences and interactions in general as normal or abnormal and therefore rational or irrational, but rather as simply Real, and perhaps in more present terms.

[@pierrelabrecque8979]

I will stroke his humility and call him Justin, but he is still Dr. Sledge to me

[@SeekersofUnity]

Dr. and dear friend.

[@sariahmarier42]

17:12 It's striking that although spiritual experiences are by nature ineffable and unquantifiable they are nevertheless comparable by virtue of their commonalities. So many individuals throughout esoteric history and into modernity have certain experiences in common, whether it's reincarnation, dreams, synesthesia, near death experiences, the interesting and diverse effects of amnesia, divine revelation, etc. These and many other experiences are universal to all humanity in every history, culture and religion, and yet they are deemed irrational despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. For if our Reality is deemed so by the evidence of our senses and our senses translate themselves through our minds actual neurology then our very perception dictates the nature of Reality rather than the reverse. Therefore everything perceived by the mind is inherently Real in some form... And such is the nature of Conciousness.

[@johnmartin2813]

Rigorous logic leads eventually to conclusions that can only be interpreted paradoxically.