Talk:Mysticism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Mysticism article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] Why so much attention to Abrahamic religions?

there is hardly anything on eastern faiths in this page, regardless of the facts that: 1. mysticism is more integral in eastern faiths 2. mysticism has existed longer in eastern faiths and the oldest mystical texts in existence are the Upanishads which date to around 4000 years ago and have influenced Hinduism as well as Buddhism.

Yet we have a large paragraph dedicated to "Abrahamic mysticism" which initself is more recent than eastern mysticism and according to some, influenced or created from eastern faiths or texts.

It doesnt make any sense.

Its like writing an article on the history of automobiles with one big blurb on KIA and a few sentences of FORD.


—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.168.255.17 (talk • contribs) 07:17, 3 December 2006 (UTC).

I have a potential answer, in the fact that I arrived at this article to do a link that stated "Fascists embraced nationalism and mysticism, advancing ideals of strength and power as means of legitimacy. These ideas are in direct opposition to the liberal ideals of humanism and rationalism characteristic of the Age of Enlightenment." This link was in the article for fascism. When you aren't talking about meditation, crystals, and hippies-turned-Yuppie vacationing in Sedona, Arizona, but rather the mindset associated with what led up to the only atomic war in human history, suddenly it all makes sense... Zaphraud 17:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Archives

[edit] To Do list

To-do list for Mysticism: edit · history · watch · refresh
  • Finish organizing sections
  • Repair bias/factual inaccuracy regarding Christian mysticism and religious(American-religious-versus-scientistic) bias in general!
  • Remove templates from article header
  • Increase coverage of non-western/non-eastern mysticism
  • Place greater emphasis on concurent lines of thought througout mysticism
  • Redress ommission of common coinage of the word (ie Chambers definition 1) and poetic (metaphorical) usage!
  • Include poetic/metaphoric approach to subject - which after all involves a great deal of writing which applies to this definition!

Correct spelling of diety to deity in the overview
Priority 1 (top) 

[edit] Drugs and the origin of religion

I think we should emphasize that humans naturally attempt to alter their brain chemistry, whether its through prayer, meditation, fasting, smoking cigarettes, drinking coffee, having sex, etc, and that these things are direct aids to having a mystical or spiritual experience.

Its funny, really, how much religion just looks like the ramblings of someone who got really really high. I am no expert but I can make an educated guess that "back in the day" there was no such thing as a "war on drugs", everybody was getting high, eating mushrooms, preaching free love, and just generally doing the hippie thing.

Although my personal opinion is that the hippies are right, there exists today a "let me sell you revolution" element that people buy into. People are all about sitting on their butts and talking about love and forgiveness but when it actually comes down to doing anything, this is where people get spiritually lazy.

[edit] Proposed headline, "The destruction of meaning"

I have re-read this and have gone back through and attempted to make it seem less like a rant.

Although religion and self-help books would have you believe otherwise, a mystical experience cannot be explained. When one has a mystical experience they will see all of the world's religions as an explanation for the exact same thing, something that cannot be described. Ironically, when one tries to describe a mystical experience, a belief structure is created. It is by placing a mystical experience in the context of something that either has or doesn't have value or meaning when the trouble starts. The best that can be done is an attempt to explain why the experience cannot be explained. Any attempt to explain a mystical experience results in dogma, religion, cults, etc. It is simply observed that when people compare notes they will fight. This is the opposite of what a mystical experience teaches us.

It is in placing the intangable within the context of a tangable object that greed over this object will start. The truth is that a true explanation does not exist, Christianity, Hinduism, Zen, Buddhism, these are all observations and interpretations (reinterpretations) of a mystical experience.

Recalling a mystical experience is like recalling a dream. For a mystic is becomes obvious that people are comparing notes over the same thing, thus it is foolish to fight. Mystics do not believe in any kind of dogma. There is no "pyramid power", no "confess to the heavenly father", no requirement whatsoever in achieving such an experience, and it is in this that people make their mistakes. It is not something that can be obtained through training or knowledge but instead only through discarding these things that a mystical experience is possible.

And thus there is the destruction of meaning. To take away all power that symbols, feelings, desires, thoughts, and one's own perception of themselves has is to become empty, transparent, filled with nothing. This is the true nature of man.

Any attempt to explain the experience results in what others would perceive as absurdity, a wise mystic would also not listen to their own interpretations of their experience, and thus there are many phrases known to mystics which are indeed present everywhere that are at the least inside jokes, ("What is the sound of one hand clapping?").

A mystical experience is beyond description, even a memory of a mystical experience is reduced to what a person would feel as if they tried to recall a dream. A normal person would not write down their dreams and try to force the world to validate and believe it's significance.

In general, mystics know that their experience is best not talked about, (Silence is golden), because words give means to meaning, and to make tangeable the intangeable causes a lot of problems with people who have not yet experienced a loss of all desire for possessions and social importance.

Mystics come back with certain things they have come to realize, without possibility of debate, about life and existence.

  • Be good to eachother.
  • Make art and music.
  • Don't worry.
  • Don't throw your life away over objects or posessions.
  • Smile, enjoy.

There are many different things that happen to people during their mystical experience: time becomes an illusion, the body disappears, the mind's eye is lost, there are no thoughts and no awareness, there is only the experience, that one is a ripple in the infinite pond of the universe, that one's existence is no more important than that of an insect or tree, that all things are connected, true knowledge (and not just hope) of reincarnation, etc. It could get very much more detailed but to detail it is to miss the point entirely, and thus the destruction of meaning is best done by not looking to things to validate one's self.

It is by the things we have but do not posses which give our lives value, things like love, art, our dreams, and the desire to preserve something. Thus the saying "The best things in life are free." is more or less a statement and not a personal outlook. "Truly valuable things are the things that cannot be traded or stolen." When you don't explain a mystical experience you are preventing the creation of something that people would fight over.

[edit] Proposed new introduction

First let me point out the ironic side of this debate. one thing I am 'quite' confident of, is that mystics everywhere would agree that a protracted debate about what words to use to describe mysticism misses the point entirely. further, there will always be an element of 'original research' in anything that gets written on this page. there are no authorities here, just people (sorry, I recently saw the movie Dogma) with good ideas. rest assured that any opening paragraph we all find agreeable will most certainly be wrong, and let's work form there.  :-)

so, since this is a contentious issue, I'm going to post my proposed rewrite here for a couple of weeks before I post it on the main page, to give people a chance to comment, suggest, complain, or refuse the change before it goes public. so here's what I suggest:

  • trimmed for redundancy Ted 15:22, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

whaddayatink???  :-) Ted 21:38, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

ok, no feedback to date, so I'll go ahead and post. Ted 14:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't engage in the convo before, but I rarely use my watchlist, and instead review my contributions, It'd been a long time since I came in here to this talk page! In any case, your intro is well written, and rather likable. I do not however feel it is NPOV. God has been lost, which is not acceptable. Also you have taken a stand against transcendance, and other spheres of existance, or planes or whatnot, which are a large part of many forms of mysticism. See this template:

Planes of existence

Subtle bodies
Theosophy

1. Divine plane: Deity Spirit; Word
2. Oversoulful plane: Holy Spirit
3. Spiritual plane: Spirit
4. Soulful plane: Soul
5a. Higher mental plane: mind
5b. Causal plane: Causal body
5c. Mental plane: body, projection
6. Astral plane: body, projection
7a-b. Etheric-Material plane:
Ethereal body, Material body, OBE
Rosicrucian

The 7 Worlds & the 7 Cosmic Planes
The Seven-fold constitution of Man
The Ten-fold constitution of Man
Thelema

Body of light | Thelemic mysticism
Surat Shabda Yoga

Cosmology
Sufism

Sufi cosmology
Hinduism
Lokas - Kosas
Buddhism
Buddhist cosmology
Kabbalah
Atziluth -> Beri'ah -> Yetzirah -> Assiah

Sephirot
Fourth Way

Ray of Creation
The Laws
Three Centers and Five Centers
Dungeons and Dragons

  Inner Plane
  Prime Material Plane
  Outer Plane
 This box: view • talk • edit 


Now I think I know what your getting at, and I myself say that suggesting God is "outside of" existance isn't much different from saying he doesn't exist. But then I am a monist, and a believer in an immanent, omnipresent God. Thats my POV. Mysticism, however much traditions may find in common, is diverse and esoteric, understood very differently by some than others. We should strive to stick to where there is agreement, and clarify disagreement, rather than express one view as fact.

Glad to have you, Sam Spade 01:19, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Glad to have your help and insights (and thanks for the links, btw...  :-] )
In response: it saddens me a little to hear you say you think I've missed NPOV - I thought I'd been quite careful with that. though you may not believe it, I'm a monist myself; perhaps I was overcompensating. I certainly didn't think I'd taken a personal stand againt transcendent faiths. in fact, I put that one comment in there as clarification - the immanent/transcendent divide is part of how mystical and more conventional sects differentiate themselves from each other. often it's how they criticize each other as well, granted, which means the issue needs to approached with some delicacy, but I think the differentiation is essential. and do please note, I never suggested that God was outside of existence. part of what I was trying to do here was shift away from contentious 'facts' (such as the location of God) to stated beliefs. For example, one could argue either way as to whether the Christian community believes in an immanent or a transcendent God, but as a matter of doctrine and belief Christians look to heaven and/or the return of Christ's kingdom to earth for salvation; events which are distant in time and location. those Christians who do not hold those kinds of 'distant salvation' beliefs are generally labelled mystics (or maybe heretics...).
part of the difficulty I had with the original page, and why I wanted to do a rewrite was that - as it stood before - the page was carefully trying to avoid making any real distinctions: the concept of mysticism became a nebulous catch-all for any sort of belief or activity whatsoever. I think it's clear, however, that there are categories here - at least these five (mostly self-identified, with no prejudice): mysticism, (conventional) transcendentalism, esoteric beliefs, fundamentalism, and secular philosophy - and avoiding proper category distinctions is never beneficial. it doesn't help that there is a broad confusion about the word 'mystic' as applied to individuals; it gets applied to those who seek out mystical experiences or follow mystical paths; and to visionaries and prophets (who fall more naturally into esoteric or transcedental categories, depending); and to anyone who has a habit of sounding simultaneously confusing and wise. some lines have to be drawn if we want to talk meaningfully about this topic, though where those lines get drawn is entirely negotiable.
pragmatic suggestions
  1. I had thought that this phrase (last sentence of first paragraph) - Such direct experience is spoken of, variously, as ecstatic revelation, union with God... - was sufficient to include monistic beliefs in the introduction. if not, would it resolve the issue if we adjusted the previous line to read (changes in bold): For the mystic, this concealed state - perceived as God, or as a universal presence, or a force or principle - is the focus...?
  2. while I like the 'planes of existence' template, I do believe there is an important distinction between mystic and esoteric beliefs. if nothing else, esoterics have an almost scientific knack for breaking down and analyzing subtle experience which is alien to the mystic, who tends to see such subtleties as superficial (possibly important and useful superficialities, but still). this is true even within faiths - I've seen conversations between yogis and advaitans where they simply talked past each other, even though they were using the same texts. it would be natural to include something about that in the body of the article; any suggestions on how to introduce it in the beginning?
last thing: I'm not sure if this is a convenient forum for discussing this for you, though I myself rather like it; you say you don't normally watch it. I'm open to suggestions if there's something easier.  :-) Ted 03:48, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think were going to have much trouble here, you seem to have many of the same opinions and goals, so its just a matter of getting there. My current plan is to keep your intro, merge the best of the old intro in, and make whatever changes we can think of as we go. As far as your specific points, I'll have to see how look in practice.

Finally, this is a perfectly fine place for discussing things, I just hadn't been here in awhile and wasn't paying attention when you made your previous comments. I'll try to keep an eye out now tho, and you can always feel free to leave a note on my talk page, or send an email or whatever you like if you want to get ahold of me. Cheers, Sam Spade 16:51, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

ok. I'll make that one change I talked about and remove the active discussion tag, and I'll probably start making some of the restructuring changes that have been suggested above, over the next week or so. I'll look forward to your revisions.  :-) Ted 07:36, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

A few more changes (this is one article that will never be "done"): Mysticism is widely considered to be transcendental, so I removed the adjective contrasting it with "transcendental faiths" (what faiths are not?). That entire sentence is problematic because, for example, Catholicism has a rich heritage of mysticism within a faith that also "posit[s] distinct and separate planes of existence". Also noted in the intro the possiblility of spontaneous mysticism described by James, and the common experience of losing one's personal boundary. --Blainster 11:38, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

from Ted: well, ok. we have to be a little careful with the word transcendent, I guess (it's not a clearly defined word to beign with). but I can't stress enough that immanence is really what distinguishes mystical perspective. there are obviously a great number of Christian mystics, but if you read them they invariably talk about God as he pervades the universe and is immediately accessible; they often got in debates because the standard church doctrine looks to resurrection after death, not immediate contact with God. this is largely why the Gospel of Thomas is troublesome to the church: validity questions aside, it presents Christ as a pure mystic who supposedly argues against an external kingdom of heaven.
sorry, just talking to myself...  ;-) Ted 16:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] godless mysticism

Is anyone aware of an instance of this? Can it be cited? Maybe you were thinking of the epistimological usage? If so, I don't see how that should effect the intro... Sam Spade 22:57, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Buddhists are not theistic, but I think many of them would be comfortable being identified as mystics. In fact, I can ask some of my Buddhist friends next week. --Blainster 23:36, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

To my knowledge buddhists believe in many deities, but refrain from focusing over much on them in order to avoid an afterlife. Sam Spade 01:08, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

examples? sure
  • zen buddhism and some forms of theravedan buddhism: both completely non-theistic, and both seeking perceptions of the world that lies behind manifest reality
  • advaitan hinduism - brahman is not God in the conventional usage of the term. gods, in the advaitan perspective, are limited manifestations or personifications of brahman, which goes beyond any such characteristics. and add that the goal of advaitan hinduism is to realize brahman.
  • shamanism, which explicitly seeks mystical experiences, but which is (depending on the type) either explicitly polytheistic, or explicitly psychological/architypal.
  • philosophical mysticism... Plato, Socrates, and Pythagoras have all been called mystics (Pythagoras certainly, Plato arguably, Socrates maybe), though they all died before the rise of a monotheistic conceptions of God. even Hegel and Neitzsche have been called mystics...
  • taoism, which builds itself around a mystical principle which is not a being and thus not a god
mysticism involving God is, honestly, restricted to the judaic, christian, and muslim traditions, and some forms of hinduism. even in these cases, though, you'll find that the majority of mystics are concerned less with the 'fact' of God as a being, and more with the 'experience' of the divine. Ted 01:22, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I see we interpret these things very differently. From Theurgy to Taoism, shamanism and etc..., I've never heard any significant suggestion of atheism. Rather than a sensory experience or other gratification, the focus is on God fulfilling our dharma. That’s how I always saw it, anyhow. We'll have to find some people to cite... Sam Spade 02:03, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

In defence of Ted, he's quite right. The examples he gives are certainly not monotheistic, and many are atheistic. Many common branches of Buddhism are strictly atheistic. There are branches of Buddhism (Mahayana) that talk about gods, and I'm not knowledgable enough about Mahayana Buddhism to be the expert on this, but I believe that even here these gods are considered ultimately to be illusions (though useful illusions for one on the road to enlightenment). The problem here is largely one of language, and many monotheist or pantheist approaches to mysticism are actually at their heart identical with atheist approaches. That's something you have to get used to with mysticism - seeming paradoxes dissolve away. Take a Qabalist approach to mysticism, for instance. Creation (reality) is all a manifestation of one thing, which is God. It seems to be made up of many independent forms, but this is an illusion. Everything is a single thing, THE single thing, God. This single thing, however, is an expression of a strange nothingness, called Ain "not/nothing", or Ain Suph "no-limit/limitlessness", or Ain Suph Aur "Limitless Light". The "Ain", a "nothing" that even excludes the concept of "nothingness", bears some striking resemblance to the nirvana of Buddhism.
Basically, if God in his/her/its essence can be considered either as "everything" or as "nothing", this matches perfectly with various atheistic approaches to mysticism in which the mystic attempts to become conscious of "everything" or "nothing". I can't cite references for this - it's just something that becomes blatantly obvious once you've gone a little way down one of these mystical paths. Fuzzypeg 03:10, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
From Ted: ok. maybe we need to recognize that a strict categorical division between atheist and theist doesn't make sense in a conversation about mysticism. every mystic I've read eventually says something to indicate that our beliefs about the existence or non-existence of God are irrelevent; what matters is getting to the state where we can experience for ourselves (buddhist and advaitan teachers for sure - it's built into the faiths; certain sections of the taote and zhuangzi's writings; I think it's in aquinas and I've heard people argue it's in the new testament). there's the added problem that most mystical sects are associated with more conventional religions or philosophies (which always carry strong theistic or atheistic beliefs). Zen buddhist monks, for instance, are dedicated to a mystical, if atheistic, path, while the majority of zen buddhist laity (non-monastics) have temples and shrines to buddha and programs of worship just like any other religion. there's a need to distinguish between mystic pursuits and conventional dogma. I'll tell you, it's funny: when I read Neitzsche, I see someone who obviously had some kind of mystical experience (though it drove him i little crazy); but when I talk to neitzsche-style nihilists and atheists I see people who have essentially built a religion around atheism, and bought into it lock, stock and barrell. I think that kind of thing might be what drove neitzsche nuts...
I will say, Sam, that I'm a little bothered by the way you equate an experience of the divine with "sensory experience or other gratification". that really misses it. in fact, one of the regular claims about transcedent experiences is that after you've had one, simple gratifications of the flesh come to seem less and less meaningful.
Fuzzy, just FYI: it's vajrayana (mostly Tibeten) buddhism that has a well-defined pantheon, as well as a few variants of theravedan practice in south-east asia. mostly these are exemplar deities, meant to represent (metaphorically) particular struggles the practitioner has in his quest for liberation - they are not meant to be taken as 'literal' gods. the Mahayana sects (Madhyamika, Zen) tend to be philosophical, ascetic, and unadorned by belief or symbolism. otherwise I'm right there with you.  :-)

[edit] Sources

  1. buddhism - The Big View - look at the four noble truths, and maybe the eightfold path, which are core teachings of the faith. note that Buddha does not explicitly tell one to reject god, but rather to avoid attachment to physical or mental objects (the idea of god being a mental construct to which one can easilty become attached).
  2. taoism - Tao Te Ching - not a great translation, but it will do. read chapters 1, 7, 8, 14, 21, and particularly 25. these will give you a sense for both the mystical import of taoism and the non-theistic (as opposed to atheistic; lacking god, not opposed to god) nature of the faith.
  3. advaita vedanta (hinduism) - Advaita Vedanta - a bit stuffy, presentation-wise, but fairly acute. read the section on the basic tenets of advaita. Brahman (which they are somewhat incorrectly translating as God, here) and Atman (the 'personal' soul) are identical in advaita; there is only one, and so any perseption of God or gods or even a distinct self is ignorant and/or illusory.
  4. Neitzche - HL Mencken - digital version of an book by HL Mencken, a rather well-known academic in his day. read the first three or four paragraphs.

can't find anything for shamanism on the web (well, not anything reputable, without investing more time than I have - too much new-age stuff gumming up the works). I'll check other sources later. Ted 17:22, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

For not being "literal" gods they're pretty concrete. Vajrayana Tantric Buddhists have some pretty active communication and interaction going on with the various gods. I understand the various dharmapalas, dakinis and other deities were the original native gods of Tibet, who were converted to Buddhism. They may well be metaphorical, and in a sense not "real" beings, but then, are they any more metaphorical than you or I? You could equally say in vajrayana you and I are not to be taken as 'literal' beings. Fuzzypeg☻ 20:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

God is not amental construct, Tao can easilly be translated as natural law (a concept very inclusive of God), Brahman is correctly translated as God, and Neitzche is no mystic. Sam Spade 15:37, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


A movement called Scientific Pantheism gives us example of atheistic mysticism:

"One of the most distinctive facets of being human is being a distinct focus of consciousness, separated from what we perceive. Sometimes it is like staring out of a black sack with two holes in it.

Many, perhaps most people are not always entirely comfortable with this separate existence as individuals. At times we yearn to be re-united - but we are not sure with what.

Mystics in all religions have attempted to overcome this separation and achieve unity with the source of being - God, Allah, the Tao, Brahma, emptiness.

Regardless of the religion, there are echoes among the diverse accounts of mystic experience. The central experience is one of overcoming the gap between self and unity. It is an experience often accompanied with ecstasy, and a sense of being in contact with ultimate reality.

Scientific pantheism asserts that these mystical experiences are in fact states in which the mind makes contact with the matter of which it is made, the matter which makes up the entire universe. They are experiences of unity between self and cosmos, between mind and body, between consciousness and matter." [1] Hele 7 20:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


                             *********************************

Oxford calling:

Nullist, here. Well, I am not sure of your backgrounds but from the point of view of an English Lang. and Lit. man Oxford 1977:-

The metaphorical tradition comports with the recent understandings of neuroscience that the downward directions from the cortex are to be taken into account with the upward motions of the sensory nerve endings in the a-syncronic neuronal temporo-spatially distributed understandings of the corrolates of sensory percerption. This means that it is impossible to distinguish the momentarily external from the historically internal if you are, as anyone, an inhabitant of a brain. 'As if a magic lantern cast the nerves in pattern on a screen', as the poet(T.S Eliot) said.

It is common knowledge that we live in a subjective universe and the marvellous concoction of the imagination in classical art and of the rigorous investigation of replicable inference in Science is the Objective (God's or the Writer-in-the-Third-Person's viewpoint). This fails and must be replaced in Cosmological views by the integrated relative and in Quantum Physics by whatever can replace Local Realism.

The metaphorical has for as long as it has been understood mediated the literal. We live in a psychological reality in which emotions and ideas (both twigged and not apprehended) have modified our perceptions. The metaphor accommodates psychological reality within the convention of objective reality - simple as that! Let us go further. There is no linguistic difference between 'wind' and 'spirit' in some early language usage. Metaphor comes to the aid of the naive here.


Checkout Plotinus125.142.157.55

[edit] Christian mysticism

This article has a bias/inaccuracy regarding christian mysticism which needs to be addressed. Yes, some christian mysticism is dogmatic, but what about rasputin? What about Mary Baker Eddy, the New Thought Movement and Orthadox theosis? Christianity is not uniquely dogmatic among mystical paths, as the article falsely suggests. Sam Spade 15:37, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

it would help if you can point to specific sections or phrases; I'm not certain which portion you're referring to. my first inclination is to suggest that this is a function of the page being in development? I know the philosophical section by itself can seem slightly anti-christian (for historical reasons) but that will be resolved soon. Ted 23:32, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] change log 22:07, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

  • added 'identity with' (explicit in advaitan practice)
  • the paranthetical '(intuition or insight)' after direct, personal experience was unclear to me, as was this phrase: 'the belief in the existence of realities beyond perceptual or intellectual apprehension that are central to being and directly accessible through personal experience'. all forms of mysticism prefer experience to belief, and some are explicitly anti-belief.
  • 'personal' has been removed because some mystic paths see the individual self as illusory and all (well, most) see it as irrelevant.
  • question: which mystical faiths do not hold there is a deeper, more fundamental state of existence hidden beneath the appearances of day–to–day living? (I'm wondering about 'many faiths' as opposed to 'all faiths')
  • I've removed 'ego' and the reference, and replaced it with 'self'. this is a common error: the spiritual use of the word ego is not the Freudian use of the term, but refers to something more like 'the thinking, judging mind'. see the Zen Buddhist distinction between 'big mind' and 'little mind'.
  • I've also removed the following passage, since it plays off the Freudian sense of the word ego, not the spiritual sense. we can work it in later if we start a section on the Tantra.
Although ego loss is frequently named as the action of mysticism, it is more accurate to point to id loss. One can be enlightened and still be conscious, still make decisions as to what to say to the world. However, many sexual fascinations derive from the need to define the boundary between what is within and what is without. With mystical enlightenment, this distinction disappears, and consequently, the fascinations collapse.
  • re-added the artist and scintific aspects of intuition: if I remember correctly that's explicit in James. I'll have to check to be sure, though...
  • re-added the word mantras and intellectual investigation. mantra is an equivallent word to prayer and meditation. and no, I don't practice mantras; just trying to be fair.  :-) intellectual investigation has been re-added with people like vivikananda and krishnamurti in mind, or the rinzai zen school (who intentionally push reasoning and logic to it's limits). I'm open to better wording if you can think of it.
  • re-added the intro's closing line about mysticism and experience. I think this is central to any understanding of mysticism; ontos can only be a function of experience, not one of intellectual debate. Ted 22:07, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What is "ontos"?

I can't find a definition in wiktionary or answers.com. In the Ontos tank article, it says "ontos" is Greek for "the thing", but that definition seems lacking for this context. A more specific definition for ontos in philosophical context should be provided. Until then I think that the use of such a word hurts the clarity of this article. kostmo 02:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

"Ontos" is an experienced object or thing, apart from its relation to an experiencing subject or observer.Lestrade 12:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)Lestrade
See also ontology, where ontos is described as "being" or "existence". The name for the armament system probably meant to denote its awkward, otherwise indescribable appearance, as in the use of the name "the thing" for the 1973 Volkswagon vehicle. --Blainster 19:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] questions 18:23, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

four point I'll raise (two stylistic, one substantive).

  1. the direct, personal experience phrase is getting a lot of play, and stylisitically seems repetitive to me (this also connects with the substantive point, but I wanted to emphasize the style issue)
  2. for consistency, which format should we use: 'jargon word (usage)', or 'usage (jargon word)'. example: theosis (becoming one with God) or becoming one with God (theosis)?

substantive

  1. direct, personal experience, particularly when combined with the insight and intuition paranthetical the way you do, feels to me like a particular perspective (e.g. a third-person apperception of seeing the divine rather than a first-person experience of the being the divine). the former is more typical of judeo-christian-muslim mystics (since God is separate and distinct in those faiths); the latter more typical of Indian and Asian approaches. how can we resolve this?
  2. this line: the belief in the existence of realities beyond perceptual or intellectual apprehension that are central to being and directly accessible through personal experience bothers me. I don't know what you're trying to get at with it, and it makes for a very clunky construction. can you explain what it adds that you think is missing from the preceding and following lines?

The two stylistic bits I have no suggestions for, or knowledge of a policy regarding, and am open to your solution. I agree that repetition can look bad in an article.

Regarding theosis vrs. "God consciousness"... we need to make it clear that this is one of the distinctions of opinion in Mysticism. I think its more a continuum than a dichotomy really. I know thateastern thought is more inclined towards God consciousness than theosis, but again, I'd rather not suggest a dichotomy to the reader when there is actually awide range of ideas on both sides of the earth ;)

That sentance is from the mysticism section on the Human page. I merged it here for consistancy, and because I was trying to patch this, which I had some difficulties with. "Beyond understanding", for example, is a turn of phrase I don't agree with. I am welcome to further changes, this is an organic process after all. If you'd like to remove the sentance you object to, I am fine w that. Sam Spade 21:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

stylistic matters: ok. personally I prefer to use the definition first and add the tech jargon in brackets, and that's what I'll aim for, but we can play it by ear.  :-)
I'm thinking the theosis v. God consciousness thing might be more problematic than you make it (it's the imminent/immanent distinction, where that single vowel speaks a world of difference), but let me think if I find a gentle modification that will bridge it.
I agree with you about the 'beyond understanding' line, incidentally - I didn't like that when I wrote it... lol. well, ok; try try again...  ;-)

And for many God is both imminent and immanent, indeed that combination is really the sought after point for many forms of mysticism. Additionally I'm not entirely certain that Christian Theosis entirely rules out God Consciousness. Think of concepts like Righteousness or being full of the holy spirit... what, for example, is the difference between a western prophet and an eastern guru (outside of denomination, I assume...)

So in sum while we need to point out significant differences of description and interpretation, I'd like us to be careful to allow for a common understanding, a unified field theory of sorts ;) Sam Spade 11:42, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

total agreement with the last point; and a treatment of the difference between prophets, gurus, avatars and realized beings is on my ToDo list. my worry, really, is that the difference between theosis and God-consciousness is an explicit debate in some faiths (it's the way certain sects of buddhism reject reincarnation, for instance: the future (imminent) release from the world replaced by an immanent notion of present-tense release; or you might think of the ancient trinitarian debates in the christian faith). I'm trying to keep the latter concept from collapsing onto the former, because that will dbe perceived a s a denial of certain perspectives.

What I think we need to do is go down the list, issue by issue, and discuss the full range of opinions on each particular, citing sources as best we can. The goal is to give a student or other interested reader as thorough an understanding as possible not only of the points of agreement, but also of the areas of misunderstanding and debate. Nearly all of these issues are capable of flowing together, and we don't want to make any artificial distinctions, but sections for discussing issues like:

God-consciousness vrs. theosis, external vrs. internal divinity, pantheism vrs. acosmism, the goal of dissolution vrs. the goal of heavenly permanance, and so forth... would seem a very good idea to me. Sam Spade 16:34, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

agreed Ted 17:17, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Headers

I've explained why the headers are a problem. Headers used in the article space are always a problem, but are allowed when used as a beacon to warn readers of poor content, and to solicit aid on articles badly in need of improvement. Please read the following: Templates in the article namespace provide information to help readers. These can include navigation aids, or warnings that content is sub-standard. Templates that provide information only of service to editors belong on an article's talk page.

Sam Spade 21:16, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

yes, I understand. however, one header used is a warning to readers about incomplete content (which is clearly true for this article), the other is an unobtrusive tag to a meta-group that (I feel) has a perfect right to be there. I don't understand how either of these violates the standards you're pointing to; in fact, they both seem perfectly in line with the intentions outlined on the page you linked to. perhaps if you could explain that to me, we could come to an agreement Ted 00:02, 28 February 2006 (UTC).

Both of the headers are ment to assist editors, not readers, and are inappropriate for the article. Thats very obvious to me, who has been editing here for about 3 years now. I understand that having been here about a month, you might get confused about things such as this, so I suggest you look around, say at some of our Wikipedia:Featured articles (and their talk pages), and see what the standard is. For now I am restoring the image. Sam Spade 08:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

actually, I have no idea where you get that. the first header is explicitly intended to warn people that the content is incomplete and should be read with caution - the comment about editting was so that it didn't sound like people should refrain from editing. the second header is explicitly for the readers, so that they can find other related topics - it would be of little use to editors at all. besides, you are making a bizarre distinction between editors and readers, since anyone who reads can edit if they like.
further, I have issues about this image, since I believe it implies mysticism is equivallent to gnosticism.
I am going to revert this change, but (in light of what you said) I will rewrite the template to better reflect the readers concerns. Ted 14:12, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Although it is true that any reader can also be an editor, it is often useful to distinguish between the two roles. For example, there are a number of topics for which I feel that I know enough to contribute to an article. There are other topics that I know a lot about and feel strongly about, so I will add those pages to my watchlist and monitor any changes made to them, raising issues about any changes that I have concerns about. At the same time, I might be reading a different article that I know little about, in an attempt to learn more about the topic. While I might correct an obvious typo in such an article, I am not likely to contribute anything substantial to it.
The two headers being discussed seem to be aimed at two different user roles. If I am trying to learn about a topic, having a warning indicating that the page is missing major concepts alerts me to the fact that I won't gain a thorough understanding of the topic from the current article. It is unlikely that I would contribute to such an article, however. On the other hand, if it is a topic where I have some knowledge, encountering a header suggesting the need for additional input in some areas might tempt me to add some basic content based on my limited knowledge. I might not know enough to provide a lot of detail, but I might, for example, be able to provide an outline that someone else can then enhance. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 19:37, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

See also : Wikipedia:Village_pump_(assistance)#Mysticism_header.

Sam Spade 18:11, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What the article used to be

This looks pretty good to me, I'd like to see a good deal of it merged in. Sam Spade 18:16, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I restored the work put in by fellow editors over the last few days. Please do not revert beneficial edits in the future. Sam Spade 20:26, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Wow. Good job! Didn't read all the way through, but good job! Will have to come back. PhatJew 19:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, please do. :) Sam Spade 17:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


Just wanted to say that I read this whole article and think it is exceptionally well written as it is.

[edit] Fantastic Site

I just want to congratulate the team that has done this Mysticism entry. It is exceptional. Also congrats on the civil and professional communication, sometimes rare on sites of this kind of subject matter. chris 02:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Issue with "specific religious perspectives"

I take issue with the sentence "While mystics are generally members of some religious denomination, they typically go beyond specific religious perspectives or dogmas in their teachings, espousing an inclusive and universal perspective that rises above sectarian differences." This says, essentially, that mysticism transcends doctrine. I disagree. I don't think St. John of the Cross was espousing a universal perspective that would jibe perfectly with every religion. This statement seems to say that a true mystic is of every religion and none. It won't do.--Corbmobile

[edit] article inherently irreligious and anti-traditional

Corbmobile, that's a good point. The article seems to be inherently anti-religious and anti-traditional in its point of view, as it tries to divorce mysticism from religious traditions in which it is fostered. Take the second paragraph for example:

"The term "mysticism" is often used to refer to beliefs which are outside of a mainstream religion, but related-to or based in a mainstream religious doctrine." <--mainstream religious traditions commonly have embedded, symbolic, esoteric dimensions; why must mysticism be "outside of mainstream religion"?

"For example, Kabballah is the dominant mystical sect of Judaism," <-- Stephen Katz, a respected scholar of Jewish mysticism, adamantly affirms “The ‘Conservative’ Character of Mysticism” in Mysticism and Religious Traditions (Oxford UP, 1983), suggesting the vast majority of mysticism is conservative and traditional in nature. (Also see Katz: “Language, Epistemology and Mysticism,” “Mystical Meaning and Mystical Speech,” “Mysticism and the Interpretation of Sacred Scripture”)

"Sufism is the mystical sect of Islam," <-- Sufism is not a sect, per say, but rather a general name for Islamic mysticism as a whole. There are many kinds of Sufi brotherhoods, but very few consider themselves outside of mainstream Islam, nor do they generally accept some vague trans-religious perennial philosophy.

"and Gnosticism, refers generally to various mystical sects within Christianity." <-- Gnosticism is not a general term for Christian mysticism. It’s a vague movement predominately defined by a distaste for material reality and its notable lack of institutional organization (See the works of Elaine Pagels [Harvard]). Thus, Gnosticism is essentially non-traditional by definition. However, the term certainly does not encompass the range of Christian mysticism, considering very few notable Christian mystics would self-identify as Gnostics.

"While Eastern religion tend to find the concept of mysticism redundant, non-traditional knowledge and ritual are considered as Esotericism, for example Buddhism's Vajrayana." <--Again, why "non-traditional"? Vajrayana has a rich history and tradition surrounding it. --Vcondary

I agree, calling mystics a sect or as a recent editor did, placing them apart and outside the religious tradition doesn't do it. Maybe describing Mysticism as an additional dimension within each religious tradition might work. Kabbalah could be called an additional dimension within Judaism, the work of St. Teresa of Avila and St. John of the Cross likewise uncovered an additional dimension within Roman Catholocism/Christianity, Sufism as and additional dimension within Islam--It's not quite right, but I think it moves in the right direction--Jason Richards 16:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] muo

muo doesn't mean "concealed". First of all it is a verb. Which doesn't mean "to conceal", either. It means, rather, "to close" The term cannot be understood without referring to the Eleusian Mysteries and Platonism. I will try to fix it later. dab (ᛏ) 19:54, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Jesus a Christian mystic?

Ahh Jesus wasn't a Christian.

So I would have listed him as a Jewish Mystic..NOBODY in the bible was Christian. I just have to stress that because..this is why we have so many problems today. bhagi 10:04 UTC, July 14, 2006

This may seem like a small point, but how was jesus christ a christian mystic? he didn't know what a christian was. it seems he belongs under jewish mystics. after all, he was a practicing jew, not a practicing christian. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.72.111.166 (talk • contribs) 21:10, July 29, 2006 (UTC)

Actually these are pretty good points (about Jesus being Jewish, but not Christian— it was his followers who were Christian). Bhagi seems to forget that the New Testament authors were Christians writing to and about... Christians. So I will boldly make the change and see if it is supported. --Blainster 04:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Links

People need to more carefully consider the links that they are adding to this article? I stumbled across this article by hitting the random button this morning and already I have removed two low-quality links - this second of which was a site which said "if you want to read my (original) research send me an email".

Please read this about sources and this about links before adding any links to websites. --Charlesknight 11:48, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Agree. I just removed a personal website, a dead link and a newage e-shop. Hele 7 18:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


I just removed a number of external links, primarily in the supportive section - I'm still looking at those in the critical section as well. If someone feels like I took one or more out in error, please replace, but please review the guidelines linked just above before adding links. Lcarscad (talk) 17:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


Hello, Your comments on why the external link was deleted were helpful - I just went to my website and changed that first sentence, where I mentioned the non-profit organization, Flaming Rainbow Books. (It is a non-profit charter in Washington State.) I still mention the non-profit, but not until the end of the last page, the contact page. Please, if you would, look below...I explain there further perspective as to why my Heart of the Mystic website might still contribute to and amplify the splendid wiki articles on mysticism, spirituality, and comparative religion - the motive is only to contribute to a wonderful conversation, no profit motive...it's long, but please look, if you can? I would like to link to these fine Wiki articles very much, and I do believe my website might be a very good fit, a nice contribution and amplification....VirginiaLouVirginiaLou (talk) 05:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Dear Lscarscad, Thanks - I did remember that part about signing with the four tildes, and found your answer when I came back to see if I could fix the signature. Here is why I linked to my web page rather than contribute to the article; I did think the mysticism article is really good - even wonderful - but it is long and complex! Heart of the Mystic does say some of the same things, but very briefly. Also, it compares the perspective on mysticism in six different spiritual traditions, including one (the Peace Pilgrim) that affiliates with no organized religion at all. (That is why I added it to the comparative religion article.) And then, something else my website does add that would be hard to fit into the article is a sense of direct participation...of how mysticism happens directly in one's own life. So it could be a support to those who wanted not only to learn about mysticism, but find it in their own lives. As for the site's reference to Flaming Rainbow Books, your comment is well taken, normally that might indicate a conflict of interest. However, there is no bookstore in the usual sense, rather Flaming Rainbow Books is a non-profit organization. As a retired person, I self-publish articles/books that I think might be of benefit to the world. I do put the price on the website, but I have never sold a book there...although I would if someone requested...Instead, I tell people where they can go to buy them...and that is only on the book/event website, not on the Heart of the Mystic website. And, I actually subsidize the books - some of the books I do bind by hand, and none of them pay for themselves. What I will eventually do is put the text of some of the books on the website...that will make them very easily available, and no one will need to buy one at all unless they just want a hard copy. (And it will cost me less money than selling hard copies.) I thought all this through before adding that link, and decided to proceed on the basis of what I saw about "look at your motive." The motive is a non-profit one, and it seemed to me that this website would further develop and enhance those wonderful articles on mysticism, spirituality, and comparative religion...as a retired person, this is what I am now doing as my part in contributing to the betterment of the world. That is the motive, and so I added my link...I think you must be an editor, or perhaps a very dedicated volunteer. So if you truly still think this link doesn't fit, it is okay, of course I would not try again...please let me know? Also, you have me thinking - I wonder if mentioning the Flaming Rainbow Books at the top of the Mystic website might give people the wrong idea...in our age of commercialism . . . so thanks again. VirginiaLou..let me try this signature ...four tildesVirginiaLou (talk) 04:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)VirginiaLou (talk) 04:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


Dear Lcarscad, I am a new member of Wikipedia, so not sure I really understand everything well yet. But, an external link I added to the supportive section was one of those recently removed, perhaps by you? I did study the guidelines before I added the link, and believed it was compatible, and enhanced the article, neutral and well-documented and so forth.... Might you (or someone with more experience than me) be willing to look into the website itself, and help me discern whether it is a good link for this article? Thank you, VirginiaLou. First I had it as HEART OF THE MYSTIC, and then I put it again as Heart of Mysticism, it disappeared both times... —Preceding unsigned comment added by VirginiaLou (talk • contribs) 02:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Virginia - I'm sorry for the delay, but I've been away from a computer for since late Sunday my time and when I saw your message I wanted to make sure I read all the information in your link carefully. What I'm not finding is that the link is to a unique resource for this article. That said, I am going to paste the link below my message here on the talk page - if another editor wants to review it as well and provide their input as to whether or not it should be included, I'm more than happy to have them do so. Lcarscad (talk) 01:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

heart of the mystic page

Dear Lcarscad, That sounds very fair and reasonable to me - I like the 'consensus' feeling to Wikipedia. (Although I have often gone to W for information, I never knew how it worked until I got the idea of putting in my own website as a link.) I see your perspective, and still feel my website brings something unique - something that happens differently from the flow of Wikipedia, a comprehensive simplicity that also involves easier access to the flow of direct experience. I will check back about once per week . . . I am hoping it will show up on my talk page, if there evolves a consensus for my link to be added? Again, if possible, I would like to link from all three topics - mysticism, spirituality, and comparative religion. (This is regarding the Heart of the Mystic link I wanted to place.) Your thoroughness and conscientiousness is highly appreciated. VirginiaLouVirginiaLou (talk) 02:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)VirginiaLou (talk) 02:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello again Lcarscad, I just thought of something else - if it does turn out that my link is deemed suitable for those three Wikipedia articles, is it appropriate for me to ask you to just go ahead and append it? I still find the navigating a bit cumbersome - passwork, how to post messages, so forth . . . if so, then I will just go on and leave it to you...VirginiaVirginiaLou (talk) 03:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Psycanic" example

I think this example is out of proportion, being too long and specific. Websites with self-published material are generally not suitable even for linking, not speaking about copying long texts directly into text of the article. Summarizing and better references are needed. Hele 7 23:01, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

As there were no objections, I removed the example. If somebody disagrees, please discuss here. Hele 7 18:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citations/References

I'm doing my best to clean up/add citations and references in the article. I'm using the Cite template. Let me know of any objections. Clifflandis 14:35, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Overview deleted

I have deleted part of the overview. While the entire article is uncited, I am not concerned with the sections which are properly phrased as opinion or what mystics believe. However the following at least needs some kind of citation, and should hopefully be phrased in a neutral point of view:

"Only a mystic is truly qualified to write of mysticism for mysticism can only be experienced, never understood by the mind. When non-mystics try to interpret mystics (Christ and Buddha being two famous mystics) or write about their teachings, what results are religions or dry intellectual reports that cannot communicate the experience of the diety (which is itself ineffable). Non-mystics writing about mysticism is like trying to communicate Beethoven's 9th Symphony through a written report --and that written by someone who was born deaf and has never heard the Symphony itself."

This sounds like simple opinion, or to be very generous, original research. Fourdee 09:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Short Definition

How about this simple definition? Mysticism is the identification of a particular, single observer with the imagined complete whole of possible, or imagined, experience. In this way, a unit imagines itself to be a totality.Lestrade 02:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

I think it is a good idea, similarly to Underhill's "Mysticism is the art of Union with Reality". However, please find some published reliable sources if you wish to include it into the article. Hele 7 20:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Schopenhauer published the following words regarding mysticism. "The mystic starts from his inner, positive, individual experience, in which he finds himself as the eternal and only being … ." He stated that mysticism is "… consciousness of the identity of one's own inner being with that of all things, or with the kernel of the world … ." Such a consciousness is the essence of mysticism, as well as the basis of virtue, goodness, and morality. His words are to be found in his book The World as Will and Representation, Vol. II, Ch. XLVIII, ISBN 0-486-21762-0.Lestrade 01:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

If Schopenhauer's definition of mysticism is used, then mysticism is not ineffable, unspeakable, or inexpressible. It is the union of one's own inner being with that of all things. That, at least, is not beyond comprehension.Lestrade 17:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

[edit] "Quantum mysticism" deleted

Sorry, but I had to delete a sentence drawing brave parallels between teachings of Eckhart and modern quantum physics. Many teachings could gain authority by being confirmed by modern quantum physics, but let's wait until physicists themselves publish some reliable sources with the confirmation clearly expressed. Some physicists e.g. Bohm have hypothesized about similarities between mental and quantum processes, but this is not a widely accepted truth in physics. Unfortunately pseudoscience often "eats" such things and adapts them to its needs. Hele 7 20:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why are the pics gone?

67.176.14.100 16:16, 5 August 2007 (UTC)QQ

[edit] the article is absurd and doesn't have good intention to begin with

Such articles seem to be an effort to hijack the popular eastern thoughts. The whole idea of calling the vedantic thoughts and hindu philosophy as mysticism was to ignore wisdom of those thoughts. Now the trick is to somehow associate this mysticism to western religions!!! Did you notice the greek definition of mysticism:-) Good job, keep it up!!. Kant, Leibneitz or others tried to say what Upanishads said 3000 years ago. Moreover Schopenhaur and other German philosophers had to read the same upanishads to say things that were told by those Upanishads. Evolution of an idea is a good thing, but hijacking truth is not at all good.Skant 00:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

your comment is absurd. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.176.22.90 (talk) 01:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

"hijacking truth"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.30.235.192 (talk) 01:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reworking the "ambiguities of meaning" segment

What exactly is a "lens" as used here and what is different about what a non-Mystic and Mystic can experience? POV with obscurist structure and weasel-words. Why are those that don't believe in Mysticism termed "unenlightened" in this segment. It was either written by someone who subscribes to this (apparently quite vague) belief-system or by someone trying to take the piss out of it. The section clearly needs a few "Mystics believe that..."-style qualification statements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.178.167.204 (talk) 12:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The relation of mystical thought to philosophy, psychology, biology and physics

"The relation of mystical thought to philosophy, psychology, biology and physics" section is unsourced and speculative, and seems to reference ideas of Quantum mysticism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.28.253.178 (talk) 06:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] what is the "other"

in the first line, it mentions the "other" and links to the word other in a grammatical context... not too useful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.176.22.90 (talk) 01:43, 18 May 2008 (UTC)