Talk:Mysticism/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Opening comments

The students of mysticism must confine themselves to the experiences of mystics, the God or any absolute truth that they are trying to reach or understand.

What does this mean?

It means that the writer wanted a very narrow outlook on the topic. Surely, you can't seriously study mystics without considering the effects that some of them have had on the world around them. Eclecticology, Monday, June 17, 2002

Wondering why Thomas Aquinas is considered a mystic?

It can be argued that Thomas Aquinas is a mystic because one day after a mysterious morning church service, Aquinas basically questioned if all he had written before that point was meaningless (previously, he was hostile towards mystics and said there were only one or two true mystics in the history of Judaism and Christianity). Almost immediately after his 'experience', he began to write a commentary on the Song of Songs (or Song of Solomon) which is almost always (and most of the time, only) a topic written on by mystics. He died before he was able to finish. If you'd like here are some sources: Karl Rahner cited @ op.org (online Dominicans) and book Mystics of the Christian Tradition by Steven Fanning. He sounds like a mystic, but it doesn't bother me that someone felt the need to remove him from the list. -- Imma, June 10, 2004

Hey ! just because you ain't heard of him, no need to delete the name of Sir T.B. I would not dream of eliminating some of these very obscure names just because i ain't heard of them. Please add link . Sir Thomas Browne is perfectly qualified to be 'defined' as a mystic also. The Norwikian

Hmm. This page smacks of a private preserve of "approved" mystics. Might be incorrect. But is it really a co-incidence that the only Muslim mystics are Sufis? To me that does not denote a unity of mysticism, but rather a division. Just my view. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick 13:28, Sep 7, 2003 (UTC)

I must assert that I cannot accept the lead in line "Mysticism is the direct experience of union with God or divinity (or the tendency toward that experience), or a system of prayer or theology focused on such union." as appropriate. It is a bit too succinct and narrow in its interpretation of what mysticism is. The previous introduction which it originally replaced: " Mysticism is the belief that knowledge of divinity or Ultimate Reality can (only) be gained through direct personal experience." seemed adequate to me, though not perfect. It was replaced with assertions that it was rejected "because "mysticism" is not a "belief", and may be studied and experienced both by those having or lacking relevant beliefs." This statement fails to acknowledge mysticism is or involves a range of beliefs, even if it is not or does not embrace any particular traditional belief systems. It also excludes the philosophical concepts of Ultimate Reality that do not necessarily involve theistic notions and yet are very important to many who consider themselves or are declared to be mystics.

I myself do tend to be theistic in my perspectives, but I acknowledge the validity of others, and certainly feel they should not be excluded from the introduction. - Moby 21:23, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC) P.S. I believe the introduction as it stands would be somewhat more correct if the word Gnosis replaced mysticism, but though mysticism may be said to involve the experience or belief in Gnosis, it is NOT the experience of Gnosis itself, and Gnosis and ideas derived from those labeled Gnostic deserve their own articles.

Hello! Well put some more things in then. I would recommend a tighter introduction than the one you left. Trc | [msg] 21:40, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)


Orthodoxy

It may be helpful to expand a bit about the Eastern Orthodox idea of mysticism. To the Orthodox, Christian worship itself is a mystical experience. Taking the Eacharist itself is an experience of communion with the Triune God. This is the very reason we call it Communion. The word does not apply to the agape meals that follow the liturgy. Hesychasts go further into the mystical experience by seeking to be in full communion with God at all times. This has many times been described as the goal of a Christian life in Orthodox Tradition. St. Seraphim of Sarov is famous for his accomplishment of this goal. The liturgy itself is considered to be a mystical experience of Heaven. One important thing to note is that the Orthodox do not believe that this union with God subsumes a person's individuality, but that upon reaching such union, they become what they are meant to be, and can be described as "fully human", as human beings were designed to be in mystical union through with the Godhead.

Why call Himmler and Crowley mystics? Because they dabbled with esoteric matter? Mysticism does not equate (per se) with esoteria, nor with mystic mumbo-jumbo or the occult.

Spiritual healing

Spiritual healing has alot to do w mysticism. Sam Spade 22:41, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

It does? Exactly what? Jayjg (talk) 00:20, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

It is the primary focus of many forms of mysticism, esp. rosecrucianism. Have you seen Spiritual Healing btw? Kinda funny. Sam Spade 00:24, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

It's POV nonsense that will soon be deleted, so there's no point in linking to it. Jayjg (talk) 00:27, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Lol, ok, well lets link to faith healing then. Sam Spade 01:31, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

archived discussion

Old intro discussion archived here

Request for your aid dealing with actions from a user against Religious, Spiritual and Esoteric articles

User:Baphomet. is damaging Wikipedia: he his trying to label Religious articles as Superstition (from a POV view of positivism, that he calls Science). At the article Reincarnation he just went on to add to category "Superstition" and later on without discussion put a POV msg in the article. Please see the discussion page between both of us Talk:Reincarnation#Superstition.

Through the use of a Culture created by extremism in Science, he is clearly trying to do the job that the Inquisition did in the Middle Ages in a Culture created by extremism in Religion. He is damaging Wikipedia in a subtle invious way!

Please see also the Alert message I have created at Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#September_4, Thank you! --GalaazV 20:25, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Subjective or objective

I have decided to remove the following sentence, "This causes the subjectivist tendency of mysticism to be curtailed, as experiences not aligned with truths otherwise known are discarded." as it assumes the truth of Catholicism and violates the NPOV policy of wikipedia. Perhaps the sentence could be rewritten as something like, "This causes the apperant subjectivist tendency of mysticism to be curtailed, as experiences not aligned with ideas previously assumed are discarded." but I think that this would ALSO violate the NPOV policy of wikipedia.

Personally, I think that ALL mystical experiences are subjective.

organization of this page

this page badly needs a rewrite. i did one section today, but mostly i don't think the content is poor; rather, it is just organized very poorly. the tiny, unrelated sections don't flow and seem unnecesary. much of the info could use fleshing out and can be put together into one cohesive article.

imo, the sections should run along the lines of:

  • Defining mysticism
    • the difficulty of defining mysticism
    • the commonality of mystical traditions (four traits of mystical experience from james, etc)
  • History of mysticism
    • traditional
    • Eastern
    • western
    • new age
  • Philosophical and scientific considerations of mysticism
    • leibniz to james to plato to positivism. arguments for, against, and simply about.
  • Traditions

thoughts?? i didn't mean to miss anything already in the article, but this is meant to be a rough outline. i'm not looking at the page right now. --Heah (talk) 22:19, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea. I'm going to put your suggestion on a to do list so it's easier to see and track changes or updates. — RichardRDFtalk 23:30, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
A few thoughts: while I agree that this article needs a good rewrite and reorganize, and the section breakdown proposed here is good, I'm not convinced that the focus of each section is on target. for instance, I'd probably restructure this outline like this (with comments after each section):
  • The sense of mysticism
    • the difficulty of understanding mystical perspectives
    • relation of mystical paths to conventional religion
    • relation of mystical thought to philosophy
    • the commonality of mystical traditions (four traits of mystical experience from james, etc)
the problem with mysticism is not that it's difficult to define; rather, it's experiential and so difficult to explain unless the reader can tap into some relevent set of experiences. I suspect that if you tried to explain a football or baseball game to someone who had never seen (or even heard of) them, you'd end up sounding like a bit of a mystic.
  • Paths of mysticism
    • Advaita
    • Mystic elements of Buddhism
    • Taoism and the Great Way
    • Hellenic Mysticism
    • Christian mystical revelation
    • Sufis and the Muslim world
    • Occult mysticisms of the industrial age
    • Modern eclecticism
I think it's more fruitful to discuss mystical traditions by type, rather than historically. mystics don't tend to institutionalize much, and so there is usually no easily visible continuum to be discussed (as there would be with religions, which are usually concerned - even obsessed - with keeping records, documents, and other material that helps establish doctrine). it's usually clear what a particular tradition teaches, but not how that teaching was passed down through the ages.
  • Philosophical and scientific considerations of mysticism
    • Mysticism, ontology and epistemolgy
    • leibniz to james to plato to positivism. arguments for, against, and simply about.
not my bag, really, though I could do a decent job with the first section. I understand why this section has to be here, but a certain amount of care needs to be taken. the natural 'distanced observer' stance of the philosopher or scientist is somewhat antithetical to mystical thought. Ted 17:09, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Essay moved from article, for discussion

St. Thomas Aquinas, a Catholic mystic of the 13th century, defined it as cognitio dei experimentalis (experiential knowledge of God). This personal nature of the mystical experience itself, as a personal experience, is found in Eastern religions as well as western, and in the philosophic works of Plato and James. For Plato, one must come to stare out over the sea of beauty for themself in order for one to create true beauty and not mere imitation, as relayed in The Symposium; for James, in The Varieties of Religious Experience, mystical experience only has the status of truth for one who has had the experience, and for no one else.
Despite the importance placed on individual, subjective experience, for the mystic herself, the experience is one of ultimate reality. Through subjective experience one comes to see what is not the merely transient and subjective, but what has universal validity. Due to the nature of the experience, it is one that cannot be denied by those who have had it. It is this that leads James to say that mystical truths have no real validity for one who has not had the experience- the validity of the experience can be found only within the experience itself. The inherent circularity of this sort of logic cannot be adequately argued in a syllogism; it does not have any scientific or logical validity. This is also why mystical traditions so commonly place so much influence on direct communion with the divine; the meaning of the mystical traditions can be found only in that experience.

This obviously needs copy-editing and overhauling, but it also contains much in the way of original research (well, personal opinion). Any comments from other editors? --Mel Etitis(Μελ Ετητης) 15:22, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

On a heavily edited article like this, it would be helpful for editors who supply sources such as the Aquinas/Plato/James ones above to include editions and page numbers in footnotes ( with the {{ref|label}}/{{note|label}} templates –see Wikipedia:Footnotes) so they can be easily checked. And the second paragraph listed for discussion above needs to be recast as a documented report of such experiences. In the case of mysticism, its inherent subjectivity prevents what could reasonably be called a neutral POV. The best we can do is illustrate it with widely accepted sources (people with either long historical records or broad contemporary acceptance) because there is no way for a third person to verify a personal experience. This can be difficult for those dedicated to the scientific method, but the same problem exists with studying any personal conscious experience. --Blainster 22:13, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

The second paragraph was an apparently failed attempt to explicate the emphasis placed on individual experience within most mystical traditions, which is wrapped up in the relation between the subjective nature of the experience and what is experienced as universally valid WITHOUT trying to claim that the experience is either universally valid or simply unverifiably subjective. It may be a documented report of that experience, but its the experience of William James a hundred years ago that comes with a whole book attached. For the mystic, the experience demands to be taken as truth; for those who have not had it, it holds no status as truth although it is a nice thing to think about. its page 366 of varieties of religious experience, from writings 1902-1910. It isn't the reference i wanted to use- he explicates this in further detail earlier on, but i couldn't find that yesterday when i wrote that paragraph.

found the proper reference- 381 of varieties, as reprinted in writings. "(1) mystical states . . . usually are, and have the right to be, absolutely authorative over the individual to whom they come. (2) No authority emenates from them which should make it a duty for those who stand outside of them to accept their revelations uncritically." on 382- "mystics have no right to claim that we ought to accept the deliverance of their peculiar experiences, if we are outsiders . . . they form a consensus and have an unequivical outcome . . . however, this would only be an appeal to numbers, like the appeal to rationalism the other way; and the appeal to numbers has no logical force." ie, it is the experience itself which justifies the truth of the experience and mystical truths in general. there is no syllogism behind their claims. so without actually having this experience, mystical truths are not justified. we can sift through them and think about them if it makes sense for us to do so, but they cannot demand to be taken as verdad. --Heah (talk) 03:02, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

again, the paragraph wasn't meant to justify mystical truths. It was meant to explain the importance of individual experience in mystical traditions, as it is the experience itself that provides the justification of those truths within any given tradition. I don't see what this has to do with the scientific method- we aren't studying the objective nature of mysticism here, but rather explaining mysticism based on the sources available. Its scientific reality isn't of any consequence; for the purposes of this article, explaining why emphasis is placed on personal experience IS important.

discussing the justification of mystical truths IS important; trying to determine whether or not they are true is not. according to james, the justification for the truth of mystical experience is in the experience itself, meaning it does NOT demand in any way that we accept it unless we have the experience. For plato, one must actually have the experience for herself is one is to know beauty and to give rise to the virtue and not imitation. this is all i was trying to say here. --Heah (talk) 03:02, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

the plato is 211a-b for the non-relative nature of the sea of beauty and 212a-b for the need to see it in order to give rise to true virtue rather than simple images of it. The aquinas isn't from me. every paragraph here seems to end with something about aquinas and catholicism. previously the section was headed "subjectivity and mysticism" and simply stated that mysticism entails subjective experience. it needed to be expanded on. this article needs a major overhaul. It doesn't scan well and is divided into tiny, unnecessary sections that have nothing to do with each other. I was attempting to begin rectifying this. more later dependant on comments. i'll find the james i actually wanted to use. apologies for not actually footnoting the references. if it doesn't come across the way i intended then edit it as you see fit. --Heah (talk) 02:16, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I just think that it is important to discuss WHY this emphasis is placed on personal experience, and was not attempting to use any original research or provide any sort of pov defense or denial of mystical truths. --Heah (talk) 03:04, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
does anyone care to comment on any of this? its been a couple weeks. --Heah [[User_talk:Heah|(talk)]] 19:51, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Ok, since no one wants to comment and it's been forever, i'm going to put the paragraph back in tomorrow with the appropriate citations as provided above. so if anyone has anything to say that they haven't bothered to say for the last month and a half, you've got another 20 hours or so to speak up before i put it back . . . (and of course, it can always be removed again if objections arise.) --Heah talk 04:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Mysticism Defined

<Commenting on this phrase in Mysticism—A more general definition sees mysticism as an attempt to derive some wider meaning from personal experience, surpassing everyday human understanding and tapping insights normally hidden from our mundane selves. While usually understood in a religious context, a mystical experience may happen to anyone, does not require religious training, can occur unbidden and without preparation, and may not be understood as religious at all.>


From Spinoza's "On the Improvement of the Understanding", "The Ethics", and "Correspondence". Unabridged Elwes 1883 translation. Dover Publications, 1951; ISBN 048620250X.

But love towards a thing eternal and infinite feeds the mind wholly with joy, and is itself unmingled with any sadness, wherefore it is greatly to be desired and sought for with all our strength.
Oxford University Press "Concise Electronic Dictionary"—mystic n. a person who seeks by contemplation and self-surrender to obtain unity or identity with or absorption into the Deity or the ultimate reality:

Mysticism is that INTERACTING TOTALITY that is more than the sum of its parts.

  • 1. Imagine that you and the room you are sitting in as one corpuscle. Feel the organic interdependence of the Parts.
  • 2. Imagine as you drive down a main arterial highway that you are part of the traffic (think blood)—where each vehicle has its assigned task for the perpetuation of your society. When you stop at a red light, feel you are a corpuscle of the blood stopping at a heart valve. FEEL the organic interdependence of the Parts.
  • 3. Imagine you are conducting a large orchestra when that perfect chord is hit. Feel the rapture of love that flows over you—the need of every player, every instrument, the audience, the hall itself, the Universe itself.

Yesselman 17:55, 22 December 2005 (UTC)