Talk:Mysticism/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

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. — Richard_RDF^talk 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)

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)

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.

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.

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 Gross and subtle bodies
Theosophy
Full list 1. Spiritual/Divine/Logoic/Mahaparanirvanic plane/Adi Divine Spirit/Word; First Logos/Theon/Pranava/Parabrahman. paramatman 2. Spiritual/Monadic/Paranirvanic plane/Anupapaduka Holy Spirit/Word; Second Logos/Monad; Nirguna Brahman. oversoul/monad/jivatman 3. Spiritual/Pneuma/Nirvanic/Atmic plane Holy Spirit/Word; Third Logos/Pneuma; Saguna Brahman. individual spirit/pneuma/atman 4. Spiritual/Soul/Causal/Intuitional/Noetic/Buddhic plane soul/nous/buddhi/causal body 5 Mental/Manasic/Causal/Intellectual plane mind/manas/phren: mental and causal and higher mental bodies, projection/out-of-body experience (OBE) 6. Astral/Emotional plane ghost/thymos/kama/emotional/astral body, projection/OBE 7. Material-Ethereal plane material/soma/sthula and life/ethereal/phasma/linga/vital bodies/shariras, aura/prana, projection/OBE
Rosicrucian
The 7 Worlds and the 7 Cosmic Planes The Seven-fold constitution of Man The Ten-fold constitution of Man
Thelema
Body of light | Great Work
Hermeticism
Hermeticism | Cosmogony
Surat Shabda Yoga
Cosmology
Jainism
Jain cosmology
Sufism
Sufi cosmology
Hinduism
Lokas/Talas - Tattvas, Kosas, Upadhis
Buddhism
Buddhist cosmology
Gnosticism
Aeons, Archons
Kabbalah
Atziluth > Beri'ah > Yetzirah > Assiah Sephirot
Fourth Way
Ray of Creation

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)

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.  :-)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

There are actually those who practice Theoria who believe that the transfiguration of Christ was symbolic of his practice of union with God, also known as Theoria and as Unio Mystica. This is an important consideration of theirs which they base their practice on and do not take lightly, so it is really important that we include their viewpoint on this page. The practice of union with God is held to be the highest goal of Christian life in the Greek Orthodox Church. makeswell (talk) 00:10, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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

"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)

Why are the pics gone?

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

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)

I hear what you say, but I'm not sure what resolution you have in mind. how should we frame it? --Ludwigs2 22:31, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Opposition

This article doesn't adequately cover opposition to mysticism. Many religions and philosophies consider it to be nihilistic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.216.37.31 (talk) 23:38, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Druze

Please add Druze to the list of examples of major mystical traditions. Shwidog (talk) 03:25, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Origin of the term

Why do people keep adding bogus translations of Greek μυστικός? Really, if you don't know, why burden Wikipedia with unverified speculation? μυστικός means "initiate", period. We have a WP:CITE policy for a reason. --dab (𒁳) 10:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I suppose we file this as trolling, then? --dab (𒁳) 14:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

practice section - removal?

I've started to do some cleanup and revisions on this article, but the Practice section seems to have little to do with practice, and may need much more extensive revision than I'd realized (possibly even removal). I just wanted some feedback before I started that - want to make sure I'm not missing something. --Ludwigs2 22:17, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

mysticism: singular or plural?

I prefer to talk of mysticisms, to reflect the idea that there are numerous approaches, and avoid the idea that there is a single concept 'mysticism' that fully covers all of the various things we need to discuss in this article. my edits that way got changed, though, so I'd like to see which way other editors feel about this. thoughts? --Ludwigs2 05:30, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

irony

I find it sort of ironic that we're engaging in the exact practice that mysticism tries to dissolve, the illusion of disunity, through amending the definition perpetually. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.131.221.32 (talk) 07:06, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

That's beautiful. Each new edit is what TS Eliot called "a raid on the inarticulate." And yet, there is something worthwhile in trying, even knowing every attempt is doomed to fall short. It's more than irony --- in some way, it's not different from sacred mystery. Lapisphil (talk) 05:40, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Article vandalism

At the end of the New Religious Movements section: "witch will relate to peoples belifes of mistical cows and turtles having seriously amazing powers that put you in awe" --Athenais39 (talk) 16:11, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Traditional Religion

This section begins: "A religion will generally include most or all of the following:

• an established hierarchy
• a definitive creed
• a set of approved central texts
• regular public services
• an accumulation of rites, rituals, and holy days
• a clearly stated ethical code or set of moral laws"

This smell a lot like Christianity only; often folks in the West, especially here in America, take Christianity as a model for all religions. That is a prime fallacy in comparative religion. "An established hierarchy" was very important in Imperial Christianity (4th cent. onward), but not nearly so much in 1st cent. Christianity, and certainly not in the same way in any other religion. From the 4th century to the 16th century, Western Christianity had one leader, the Pope, deciding what was and what wasn't Christianity. No other major religion on earth has been shaped by a single centralized imperial authority for over a millennium like that. "A definitive creed" --- not Daoism & Zen Buddhism, and even in Hinduism, it would be hard to boil things down to a creed. "A set of approved central texts" --- well, if there's no central religious authority, then there's no one to do the "approving"; Native American religions and indigenous religions of Africa have no texts --- that makes it harder for Westerner to study them, but it doesn't make them less as religions. "Regular public service" --- the three Abrahamic religions have these, admittedly, but less so the Eastern Religions, and the concept is alien to most indigenous systems. Ritual is probably a common element in almost all religions, but what are rites? how do they differ from ritual? "Holy Days" -- again, quite common, but it's not clear, for example, that Daoism has any "holy days" per se. Morals & ethics get lumped into religion, but can easily exist without any religion, and some religions (like Daoism) don't make any reference to them. Overall, I consider this list hogwash. If the writer wants to talk about the Abrahmaic religions and how mystics fare within those structures, that's fine. Nevertheless, it's almost impossible to make any statement about religion that is simultaneously true for Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Confucianism, Daoism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Zen, Shinto, shamanism, and the indigeneous religions of Asia & Oceania & Africa & the Americas. All of those are religions, yet it's almost impossible to make a statement that's true for all of them. Naively taking Christianity as a template, and assuming all other religions follow that pattern, is a pernicious error that is the source of endless misunderstandings in approaches to comparative religion. That's my two cents. Lapisphil (talk) 05:36, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Grammatical error

Grammatical error, singular form might imply there is or can be only one mystic who achieves the fifth state of mysticism, a small change is suggested, substituting 'a' for 'the'. Quote: from article: "Filled up with the Divine Will, it immerses itself in the temporal order, the world of appearances in order to incarnate the eternal in time, to become the mediator between humanity and eternity." Change 'to become the mediator' to read: 'to become a mediator'. 76.103.47.11 (talk) 16:55, 30 August 2009 (UTC)Gharveyn, aka greg.gourdian@gmail.com

Freemasonry

The article states: "Freemasonry is an esoteric society, in that certain aspects of its internal work are not generally disclosed to the public,[12] but it is not an occult system."

This is inaccurate. Freemasonry is occult. Could you please rephrase this sentence until I can collect my sources to prove my point.

Thanks (Torchrunner (talk) 11:01, 11 September 2009 (UTC))

cleanup tag

is he cleanup tag (from April 2008) still relevant? I'm willing to go through and do a bunch of rewriting/copyediting if the need is there; if it isn' the tag should probably be removed. --Ludwigs2 01:50, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

self help and objectivism section?

this section was added, but I'm not sure it works well, for several reasons. it seems to be a criticism of religion and faith in general from a relatively minor self-help author in the tradition of Objectivism (Ayn Rand), and not anything particularly pertinent to mysticism specifically. I'm not sure it belongs at all, and if it does it needs a lot of balancing and weighting to be appropriate. comments? --Ludwigs2 05:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah the addition an Ayn Rand critique of religion, seems totally off topic and irrelevant, and I question the motives of whoever added it. It should be removed. - anonymous reader —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.104.151.124 (talk) 03:23, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

A series on mysticism?

Regardless of one's personal views on mysticism, there are many different religions that have a form of mysticism. I think each section needs to be focused on moreso. Mysticism should be taken a lot more seriously especially since it is becoming an industry in itself and has rising interest.

Figures like Crowley and Rumi could be part of the series as well, giving it more attention and bulk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rootsandwires (talk • contribs) 06:34, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Relation to philosophy and sciences section bias

"Throughout history and even today mysticism has attempted to gain scientific validity by borrowing from all branches of science various laws, theories, jargon, formula, etc. These are then incorporated into the literature (for example) to give the uninformed reader the feeling that what is being discussed is "scientifically sound" and thus valid" This statement assumes that mystic traditions are not "scientifically sound," and it implies that mystic traditions use science to persuade others to believe. This is a broad statement which would lead the leader to believe that all mystic traditions follow this practice. This statement would not apply to any traditions I am familiar with and i feel that for it to be kept in the article it needs to be made more specific and site a source for this claim. I would like to know when a mystic religion has done this. Since most mystic religions are unorganized and individualistic no statement could be made about what "mysticism" has attempted to do, only what specific mystic movements and groups have done. This statement shows bias against the validity of all mystic religions. This purpose of Wikipedia is to inform not to push opinions about religious concepts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.216.248.156 (talk) 11:53, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

transcendental knowledge - mature fruit of all mysticism

"Bhagavad-gītā As It Is 4.38

na hi jñānena sadṛśaḿ pavitram iha vidyate tat svayaḿ yoga-saḿsiddhaḥ kālenātmani vindati SYNONYMS

na — nothing; hi — certainly; jñānena — with knowledge; sadṛśam — in comparison; pavitram — sanctified; iha — in this world; vidyate — exists; tat — that; svayam — himself; yoga — in devotion; saḿsiddhaḥ — he who is mature; kālena — in course of time; ātmani — in himself; vindati — enjoys. TRANSLATION

In this world, there is nothing so sublime and pure as transcendental knowledge. Such knowledge is the mature fruit of all mysticism. And one who has become accomplished in the practice of devotional service enjoys this knowledge within himself in due course of time. PURPORT

When we speak of transcendental knowledge, we do so in terms of spiritual understanding. As such, there is nothing so sublime and pure as transcendental knowledge. Ignorance is the cause of our bondage, and knowledge is the cause of our liberation. This knowledge is the mature fruit of devotional service, and when one is situated in transcendental knowledge, he need not search for peace elsewhere, for he enjoys peace within himself. In other words, this knowledge and peace culminate in Kṛṣṇa consciousness. That is the last word in the Bhagavad-gītā." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.132.128.162 (talk) 09:16, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone else think the article is long and rambling?

I got the article down from 81 000 bytes to 76 600 bytes, but resisted minimising it more because I wanted some consensus before I went about doing anything drastic. At best the article is long and rambling.. at worst it is incomprehensible. Also, I think much of the information on this page is 'spirituality'. 'Mysticism' is the unique experience of God.. 'spirituality' is the system of thought and practice. Tjpob (talk) 08:42, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

It does appear to have gotten a bit essay-ish, not to mention confused. Also, the article is missing the point - a mysticism is a belief system that holds (as a core principle) that proper spiritual/moral understanding cannot be attained through the the human intellect, but only by getting past intellect to a deeper form of perception of reality. I'm not averse to a major rewrite, but I don't want to lose any useful material that's tucked in amidst the overgrowth, so maybe we should talk a bit before whipping out the weed-eater.--Ludwigs2 16:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes. I ended up on this page following links from Chabad through several similar pages, attempting to find a concise explanation understandable to the non-scholar. I think the article could have stopped with the introduction. Mysticism is a concept, not a practice. If both is insisted, the practices should be separated out somehow and the writing should be directed more toward a general audience.Samtha25 (talk) 02:13, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

The previous definition of Mysticism was succinct.

"Mysticism is the pursuit of communion with, identity with, or conscious awareness of an ultimate reality, divinity, spiritual truth, or God through direct experience, intuition, instinct or insight."

This definition was all encompassing and precise. Mystickunoichi (talk) 15:14, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Not only 'Long and Rambling', but Unsupported

The article needs a major rewrite, if not a WP:TNT, for 4 reasons:

1. It's long and rambling ... to the point of incomprehensibility ("entheogens" - eh?)
2. It's a prohibited WP:ESSAY, or worse, lots of random essays
3. It's Unsupported WP:OR for most of its length --- 33 citations for 84,000 bytes, anybody?
4. Oh, and some (much? most?) of the unsupported material is WP:COPYVIO

Join me - WP:Be Bold - it's time for some Slash-and-burn agriculture on this article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:18, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

• OK - I located the source of most of the trouble (but not the perpetrator): simple COPYRIGHT VIOLATION with text taken from Webster's Online Dictionary, http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/definitions/Mysticism.

The text has come down from 84,248 to 36,925 bytes. Oh my.

The article now needs reorganisation, and then the gaps need to be filled in. But first I shall check for any more COPYVIO. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:43, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Essay "Overview" moved here from article, possibly contains usable fragments

"Overview"

Mysticism, referred to as spirituality in the Catholic Church, refers to beliefs and practices that go beyond the liturgical and devotional forms of worship of mainstream faith, often by seeking out inner or esoteric meanings of conventional religious doctrine, and by engaging in spiritual practices such as breathing practices, prayer, contemplation and meditation, along with chanting and other activities designed to heighten spiritual awareness. For example, Kabbalah (based in Judaism) seeks out deeper interpretations of the Torah and other mystical works, and may conduct spiritual practices based in Meditation, Theurgy, or Alchemy, as well as song, dance, prayer, and talmudic study, accordingly, as is done in many other mystical traditions. Sufism (in Islam) extends and amplifies the teachings of the Quran, most famously through their devotional musicians dancing Zhikrs and singing Qawwalis. Vedanta reaches for the inner teachings of Hindu philosophy encapsulated in the Vedas, and many students of both Shaivite Tantric schools within Hinduism, as well as Shakta Tantrics, along with usually more mainstream-oriented Vaisnaivas, will use the symbolism and mythologies of their gods and goddessess, to take the initiate home to their highest awareness, via mystical practices designed and proven for these purposes. Often mysticisms center on the teachings of individuals who are considered to have special insight, and in some cases entire non-mystical (doctrine-based) faiths have arisen around these leaders and their teachings, with few or no mystical practitioners remaining.

Mystics hold that there is a fundamental, indescribable essence, a No-Thing That Is All Things, the Unmanifested that manifests the Manifested; and that it underlies and gives birth to all the phenomena (realities) of our existence. (In physics, it is called a field, in Taosim, the Tao, in Hinduism, Brahman, in Christianity, God. This One Being exists behind or beneath the observable, day-to day world of phenomena, and that in fact the ordinary world is superficial or epiphenomenal.

Different faiths have differing relationships to mystical thought. Hinduism has many mystical sects, in part due to its historic reliance on gurus (individual teachers of insight) for transmission of its philosophy. Mysticism in Buddhism is largely monastic, since most Buddhists consider jhana (meditation) to be an advanced technique used only after many lifetimes. Mysticism in Abrahamic religions is largely marginalized, from the tolerance mainstream Muslims grant to Sufism to the active fears of cultism prevalent among western Christians, with Chasidic Kabbalists of Judaism being the notable exceptions. Mystics generally hold to some form of immanence, since their focus on direct realization obviates many concerns about the afterlife, and this often conflicts with conventional religious doctrines. Mystical teachings are passed down through transmission from teacher to student, though the relationship between student and teacher varies: some groups require strict obedience to a teacher, others carefully guard teachings until students are deemed to be ready, in others a teacher is merely a guide aiding the student in the process. However, none of the truly Great Mystics ever require strict obedience, knowing that that interferes both with the fundamental nature of the spirit as free, and with the development within the student of his own wisdom and power of discernment.

Mysticism may make use of canonical and non-canonical religious texts, and will generally interpret them hermeneutically, developing a philosophical perspective distinct from conventional religious interpretations. Many forms of mysticism in the modern world will adapt or adopt texts from entirely different faiths—Vivekananda in Vedanta, for instance, is noted for his assertions that all religions are one. As a rule, mysticisms are less concerned with religious differences and more concerned with individual development. What mysticism is most concerned with, however, is having the most effective set of practices to attain enlightened consciousness and union with God. Not much else beyond this matters to a dedicated mystic, who focuses on the inner realms: mind-breath, non-thinking awareness, and so on. Mystics are not too concerned with the opinions or the religious tools of their more conservative religious compatriots. For a true mystic, the important thing is his results in achieving his mystical goals.

end of 'Overview' essay ---

feel free to recycle any of it (find refs, structure with headings, write coherent prose) Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:06, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Mysticism in Buddhism (again, undue weight at the moment, could be re-added if other religions' have similar sections

Edit-summary: "moved →‎Mysticism in Buddhism: as undue weight given absence of similar sections for other religions"

Buddhism includes a vast array of scriptures, beliefs, traditions and practices. Many of these are not overtly mystical. Yet, some doctrines within Mahayana and Tantric Buddhism have a strong flavour of mysticism. Pre-eminent amongst these are the teachings of Dzogchen and of the Tathagatagarbha. Both of these doctrines indicate the presence of a hidden, deathless core reality within each being—variously called the Buddha Nature, Buddha Matrix, Awakened Mind, Mind Essence, Dzogchen or Mahamudra—which needs to be recognized and ‘entered into’. This Essence of Mind is empty of tangible substance and is resistant to the intellect’s efforts to conceptualise or ‘model’ it, but it is supremely Aware and filled with benevolence and compassion. Writing on this theme, Lama Chökyi Nyima Rinpoche explains the Buddha’s teaching on the ultimate nature of the Awakened Mind (‘bodhicitta’), stating:

‘What is ultimate bodhicitta? It is truly free from all mental constructs, like space; it cannot be indicated by any analogy whatsoever. It falls into no extreme or category; it is beyond mental constructs. It is the unity of emptiness and compassion; it is empty like space. Yet it is loving and compassionate, open and clear. That is ultimate bodhicitta …According to Mahamudra, the essence is nonarising, its expression is unceasing, and its manifestation is the unity of these two. According to Dzogchen, the essence is empty, the nature is cognizant or luminous and the compassion is the unity of these two.’

In the same work, Chökyi Nyima writes that the essence of the mind is not a concrete thing, yet is not to be viewed as non-existent; nor is it a multitude of things or just one thing. It is an essence that could be called the ‘I’ or the Ground of all that is:

"It is not found to be a concrete thing … Yet it is not nonexistent, since your mind is vividly awake. It is not a singularity, because it manifests in manifold ways. Nor is it a plurality, because all these are of one essence. There is no one who can describe its nature … It may be given many kinds of names such as “mind essence”, “I”, or the “all-ground”. It is the very basis of all of samsara and nirvana."

This spiritual essence is not something that has to be developed or created: it is primordially present within each being. It constitutes the inner ‘bodies’ or aspects of the Buddha found in every person. Chökyi Nyima Rinpoche writes:

‘Since primordial time, these have been one’s natural possession, intrinsic and inherent to one’s being. We learn that these kayas are not something which one achieves or which occurs through the compassion of the buddhas … It cannot be produced through applying the key points of Dharma [religious] practice. One has possessed them since the very beginning. The kayas are absolutely inherent to oneself, to one’s own nature. The kayas exist spontaneously within oneself. Their presence is not a product of blessings or something slowly produced through practice. One cannot create or manufacture one’s enlightened essence through one’s own intelligence or through study of the teachings. One possesses them primordially. The sutras and tantras all agree on this point.’

In the Tathagatagarbha tradition of Buddhism, this enlightened essence is called the Buddha Nature or (in the Mahaparinirvana Sutra) the Self (see atman (Buddhism)). It is the essential, indestructible nature of all beings, but is covered over by moral and mental contamination. Once that is removed, the inner ‘treasure’ of one’s true nature stands revealed in its full radiance and one becomes ‘Buddha’. In the Nirvana Sutra, the Buddha teaches:

‘”Self” means the matrix-of-one-gone-thus [i.e. Buddha Nature]. The basic constituent of a one-gone-thus [i.e. Buddha] indeed exists in all sentient beings, but it also is obstructed by types of afflictive emotions. While existing in them, sentient beings cannot see it … The Buddha-nature of sentient beings is, for example, like a treasure of jewels under a poor woman’s house, like a diamond on a powerful being’s forehead, and like a universal emperor’s spring of ambrosic water.’

Elucidating this notion of the Buddha Nature or Buddha Matrix, Professor Jeffrey Hopkins comments:

‘The basis [of the spiritual life] is the ground on which the spiritual path acts to rid it of peripheral obstructions, thereby yielding the fruit of practice. The basis is the matrix-of-one-gone-thus [Buddha Nature], which itself is the thoroughly established nature, the uncontaminated primordial wisdom empty of all compounded phenomena—permanent, stable, eternal, everlasting. Not compounded by causes and conditions, the matrix-of-one-gone-thus [Buddha Nature] … is not something that did not exist before and is newly produced; it is self-arisen.’

One specific mysticism of Buddhism is union with Dharmakaya through jhana. Dharmakaya is both the wisdom body of The Buddha, for one, and is also the omnipresent Mind. This unbegotten and immortal essence within each being is called the Dharma-kaya—Body of Truth—or Buddha Within (as Dr. Shenpen Hookham has termed it). Its nature is described in the Samadhiraja Sutra, where the Buddha states:

‘the Body of the Tathagata [i.e. Buddha] should be defined as … having its essence identical with Space, invisible, surpassing the range of vision—thus is the Absolute Body to be conceived. Inconceivable, surpassing the sphere of thought, not oscillating between bliss and suffering, surpassing the illusory differentiation, placeless, surpassing the voice of those aspiring to the Knowledge of Buddhi, essential, surpassing passions, indivisible, surpassing hatred, steadfast, surpassing infatuation, explained by the indications of emptiness, unborn, surpassing birth, eternal from the standpoint of common experience, undifferentiated in the aspect of Nirvana, described in words as ineffable, quiescent in voice, homogenous with regard to conventional Truth, conventional with regard to the Absolute Truth—Absolute according to the true teaching.’

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Chiswick Chap (talk • contribs) 15:36, 29 October 2011

No, I do NOT think the previous description of Mysticism was long and rambling at all.

It was a breadth first spectrum of the Mysticism of the major religions. Not unlike Religious Studies 283.3 Comparative Mysticism in University. Looking forward to a reinstatement of the Buddhist section. It was quite informative. Mystickunoichi (talk) 19:27, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Hallo. Well, firstly I should say that nearly everything that I removed was a straight copyright violation - it seemed to ramble because it had simply been pasted in, in quantity, with no thought for whether it fitted the context. We can't put it back as it doesn't belong to us - it was straightforward theft.

Secondly, its removal left several tricky problems - the remaining fragments didn't make up a coherent story; and there was a sizeable and quite reasonably-written chunk on Buddhism which could either go into another article - new or existing, or (perhaps) could be reinstated alongside matching sections on the other major religions to avoid imbalance.

Therefore, among other things, I made it explicit (above) that the Buddhism section was here in waiting. Since I didn't have the time, energy and possibly skill to create the matching sections, and nobody else has so far volunteered, there the matter has rested. I wouldn't like to see the Buddhism section back in the article until we have the other sections to balance it. If you'd like to write them...? Alternatively, we could make it into a separate article and link it from here? Note that there is a table entry for Buddhism already, and that provides links to 3 articles on mystical forms of Buddhism, so there is already quite good coverage on Wikipedia (we don't have to try to say everything on one page, fortunately). Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:58, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Non-Objective

The following is non-objective: "is the knowledge of, and especially the personal experience of, states of consciousness, i.e. levels of being, beyond normal human perception, including experience and even communion with a supreme being"

Ayn Rand made a pretty good objective meaning of Mysticism:

What is mysticism? Mysticism is the acceptance of allegations without evidence or proof, either apart from or against the evidence of one’s senses and one’s reason. Mysticism is the claim to some non-sensory, non-rational, non-definable, non-identifiable means of knowledge, such as “instinct,” “intuition,” “revelation,” or any form of “just knowing.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billegge (talk • contribs) 19:54, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Ayn Rand is not a very good source for a definition of mysticism. Yworo (talk) 18:35, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

suggested article to expand the content in the section mysticism in world traditions

Hello. I'm from south america and I like to study the topic. There's an organization in USA that is dedicated to mysticism and from it's website I found an article that I consider that might be helpful to expand the section about literary forms used by mystics and the information about world traditions: http://www.centerforsacredsciences.org/publications/the-mystical-core-of-the-great-traditions.htm

I leave the link. I think that somebody interested in the topic may find it useful and informative. I leave to the editors the option to consider this article or not. --Daniel — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.31.39.163 (talk) 00:30, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Section on 'Contrasts'

The following section was unreferenced and has been deleted piecemeal for that reason. However, all of its constituents contain bluelinks to other articles so it should be quite possible to find reliable sources for each of them.

That leaves open the question of whether the section or parts of it are worth saying in this article. So here is the material if anybody wishes to work on it: Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:46, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

"Contrast with other concepts"

• "Esotericism, like mysticism, holds that there are insights known only to few, but unlike mysticism holds that they can be learnt and transmitted without special experiences.^{[citation needed]"}

• ""Paranormal experiences, like mystical experiences, are held to be non-ordinary, but unlike them are not noetic, ie, leading to deep insights about the nature of reality.^{[citation needed]}"

• "An attitude of religious faith is generally one that values holding to certain beliefs in the absence of confirmation, including revelatory experiences. Religions may also be hostile to claims of special insights by individuals, some mystics having been punished for heresy.^{[citation needed]}"

• "Scientific empiricism only accepts reproducible and publicly verifiable experiences as evidentiary.^{[citation needed]}"

---

(end of quoted section)--------------

Yoga

Asanas and yoga need to be included somewhere in the article. Buekerc1 (talk • contribs) 01:43, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes; actually Yoga was in the table, but I've added a ref for it and also added an entry in the list with a mention of Asanas too. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:29, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Lead

I've undone this diff change of the lead by User:58.107.73.137. His/her change limited the definition to a modern-spiritual understanding of mysticism, emphasing spiritual experience. And it removed a source. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:25, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Eastern Mysticism

Similar to western mysticism a section of the east should be added? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.200.147.62 (talk) 08:18, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Like incorporating the disambiguation page on Eastern mysticism? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:27, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Done. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:05, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Ernest Holmes

The lead reflects the contents of the article WP:LEAD; Holmes is not being mentioned in the article. It isn't a reliable source either WP:RS: outdated, and a very specific point of view. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:38, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

And also WP:UNDUE. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:43, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

RE: Ernest Holmes

The purpose of mysticism is firstly to comprehend the understanding of the self and therefore understanding the unity within the whole. What justifies what source is reliable or not on a topic which isn't wholly understood? You can read below from an excerpt from his book, The Science of Mind, that Holmes speaks of mysticism and the unity of the self within the whole and points which are brought up are logically plausible points in which it doesn't matter if the case is brought up by someone that is deemed reliable because of only one understanding. Holmes is quite reliable in the field of the superficial understanding in which he has even founded the religious science movement.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/eso/som/som21.htm

RE:RE: Ernest Holmes

I have edited the page from 177 to 169 in which the book speaks specifically of mysticism and the understanding in which Holmes brings up that go hand in hand with the statement that mysticism is explicitly expressed within monasticism, in which practices such as meditation are applied to comprehend different understandings and therefore achieve comprehension of the unity within the whole. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.116.88.90 (talk) 20:31, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Please read WP:RS: Ernest Holmes is a primary source. Following your link, p.169 does not mention "mysticism" nor "unity". Neither does p.177. This is WP:OR. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:11, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

The page in the link is from a different publication, but the one I cited is paged on 169 in the beginning of Lesson 5: Introduction as is the one in the link. It goes as follows, "A mystic is not a mysterious person; but is one who has a deep, inner sense of Life and Unity with the Whole; mysticism and mystery are entirely different things; one is real while the other may, or may not, be an illusion. There is nothing mysterious in the Truth, so far as It is understood; but all things, of course, are mysteries until we understand them."

Regarding the autheticity of the claim. Ernest Holmes is reliable according to Wikipedia...

What counts as a reliable source

The word "source" in Wikipedia has three meanings: the type of the work (some examples include a document, an article, or a book), the creator of the work (for example, the writer), and the publisher of the work (for example, Oxford University Press). All three can affect reliability.

Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Source material must have been published (made available to the public in some form). Unpublished materials are not considered reliable. Use sources that directly support the material presented in an article and are appropriate to the claims made. The appropriateness of any source depends on the context. The best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments. The greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source. Be especially careful when sourcing content related to living people or medicine.

Where available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources, such as in history, medicine, and science. You may also use material from reliable non-academic sources, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications. Other reliable sources include university-level textbooks, books published by respected publishing houses, magazines, journals, and mainstream newspapers. You may also use electronic media, subject to the same criteria. See details in Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources and Wikipedia:Search engine test.

23:52, 21 March 2013‎ User:68.116.88.90

Hi 68.116.88.90. Your quote from WP:SOURCE does not make clear that Ernest Holmes is a reliable source; your explanation of the Holmes-quote does make clear though that your contribution is WP:OR. I'll editt your edit again, and ask you to first reach WP:CON here, on the following concerns:

• WP:OR: the quote does not state that "The purpose [of mysticism] is to understand the unity within the whole", it states that mystics, or mysticism are not something mysterious. It also states that "A mystic [...] is one who has a deep, inner sense of Life and Unity with the Whole".
• WP:RS: Ernest Holmes is interesting, because of his connection with New Thought. But your source is a primary source, not a secondary. It reflects a spocific understanding of mysticism, not a scholarly clonclusion. This context should be made clear. Also, it is from 1926, which is not exactly up-to-date.
• WP:LEAD: the lead should reflect the article. Ernest Holmes and New Thought are not being mentioned in the article. What is being mentioned, is that mysticism has acquired a new, broad meaning in the west, more or less synonymous with spirituality and New Age. Ernest Holmes and New Thought fall within that ntion; that could be mentioned in the lead.
• WP:CON and WP:BRD: when you add new material, and this is refuted, Wikipedia-policies ask you to first reach concensus at the Talk Page. Simply ndoing won't do; first address the concerns (which are neatly listed now here).

Greetings, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:18, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Thinking over this discussion again, maybe I should stated it the other way: why do you think that this particular sentence should be in the lead? Greetings, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:52, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

As Holmes states than a mystic or mysticism is when someone has a deep understanding of the unity within the whole. Now you should understand what mysticism has always been, and in the context of where I added it, it also yields to the monastic practices which ultimately comply that the understanding of mysticism has always been to understand the unity within the whole. That all is unified, rather than a dualistic understanding. Both monasticism and mysticism are hand in hand for the purpose of this understanding. I wanted to add that there, because it's not only the view of Holmes and the "New Age" movement, but it is also the understanding of thousands of years since the birth of logic. Mysticism is to question and understand the mysteries and to understand the unity of the whole would be the complete mystery as in these terms the understanding of unification would mean total understanding of the mechanism of creation. So when I say "The purpose of mysticism is to understand the unity within the whole" means it is to understand the mysteries within that are asked and then in turn comprehending that unifying understanding that governs not only us, but all forms of creation. You must understand the title of a mystic to understand it's meaning, not based on the title, but rather based on the purpose. You mention many labels from "New Age" to "Scholarly", but you fail to understand that these are labels of adherence. "New Age" is but only a term, one word used to comprehend many understandings. To only understand that "Scholarly" knowledge is reputable knowledge would mean that you only deem the knowledge brought up long ago by they who, by nature, came about to understand that certain knowledge which then was passed down and taught as "truth". My point here is that this knowledge, including it's context, is reputable as you are trying to label something that is not wholly understood, by dismissing it completely based on no analysis. The point here is that this field of unknown is the field of opportunity and to deem something from the early nineteenth century as not up to date, would mean that you must dismiss all ancient knowledge by the means of your understanding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.116.88.90 (talk) 19:11, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi 68.116.88.90, thanks for your reply.

• Let me first respond to the second part, about "To only understand that "Scholarly" knowledge is reputable knowledge". Wikipedia has WP:FIVEPILLARS, of which the first one is "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia". It's meant to collect knowledge, scholarly knowledge. That's why WP:RS (reliable sources) applies: someone may be convinced about the eternal truth of a specific matter, but what counts for Wikipedia is: what do we know about that matter from an outside point of view?
• In the first part you state "the understanding of mysticism has always been to understand the unity within the whole. That all is unified, rather than a dualistic understanding". Wikipedia asks for a source: who says so? and in which context? That's clear: Ernest Holmes does. But it's definately not the only point of view, so it needs to be contextualised.
• In the third part you state "to deem something from the early nineteenth century as not up to date, would mean that you must dismiss all ancient knowledge by the means of your understanding". It's not up to Wikipedia (or it's editors) to dismiss "ancient knowledge"; if this "knowledge" is relevant it will be stated here. But not as "this is true", but "this or that person in this or that time deemed this to be true, as you can read in this or that (reliable) source."
• So, Ernest Holmes states "a mystic is someone who has a deep understanding of the unity within the whole". That's a direct quote from Holmes, reflecting Holmes' opinion. If someone else agrees with this opinion, that may be relevant. If "all" mystics in "all" times think so, then you need a reliable source which says so. And then it's still the question where to state this: on the lead, or in the article itself, where it will be contextualised as a specific opinion by a specific group of people in a specific time. And probably will be joined by other quotes and sources, stating something different.
• In concreto: "mysticism" has acquired a broader meaning since the nineteenth century, due to the western interest in both Asian religions an our own esoteric traditions, and the popular synthesis of these traditions. That's the context. Simply stating "The purpose is to understand the unity within the whole" is generalising a specific understanding to a grand truth, which is not justified by the source, nor by the context.

PS: Thezensite has just added this interesting article on Shaku soens influence on western notions of mysticism. Interesting read. Also have a look at Rambachan, Anant Anand (1984), The attainment of moksha according to Shankara and Vivekananda with special reference to the significance of scripture (sruti) and experience (anubhabva) (PDF), University of Leedsfor the influence of Vivekananda on the western understanding of mysticism. Greetings, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:29, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Turning some people off of this article

Why on earth is there a "part of a series on Christian Mysticism" sidebar? This seems to be a stark violation of neutrality - "Mysticism" is not part of "Christian Mysticism", rather the other way around. If I wanted to learn about specifically Christian Mysticism I would go to that article. If this article is going to be part of a series of anything, the terminology should be neutral. 173.239.78.54 (talk) 22:58, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

The Mysticism-article is one of the articles mentioned in the Christian Mysticism sidebar, therefor the side bar is at this page. I don't see what this has got to do with neutrality? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:25, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Carlos Castaneda

Carlos Castaneda is mere fiction, made up by himself; see his wiki-page. If we add this to the "Further reading", we can add an endless list of books. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:33, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

There ins't even anything on Shamanism in general. 1Z (talk) 13:59, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

W.F. Cobb

W.F Cobb seems totally unreliable to me. The book was first published in 1914, Cobb being connected to the Order of Women Freemasons (see also [2]). Scarce information is available on him (her?) I'm afraid this source, and this definition, should be removed.

A better alternative for the "narrow definition" is the Encyclopedia Britannica:

In modern times, "mysticism" has acquired a limited definition,[web 1] but a broad application,[web 1] as meaning the aim at the "union with the Absolute, the Infinite, or God—and thereby the perception of its essential unity or oneness"[3]

with the Stanford giving a broader definition:

"‘mysticism’ would best be thought of as a constellation of distinctive practices, discourses, texts, institutions, traditions, and experiences aimed at human transformation, variously defined in different traditions."[4]

See also William B. Parsons (2011), Teaching Mysticism p.3-5 for a concise introduction to the problem of definition of "mysticism".

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:05, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I've replaced Cobbs by William James, one of the most, if not the most central person in this "perennial-constructionism debate". He's relevant anyway, and probably a major influence on Cobb. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:27, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Structuring of article

217.20.25.50, are you the same as Peterdjones? You make the same kind of edits, presenting "mysticism" as something universal. Regarding your edit summary "Restore something like the original structure, after some weird changes -- since when was the West not part of "worldwide"?", I suggest you first read the article carefull, to see how the meaning of mysticism has changed in the past century, and how some people try to present it as an universal and "perennial" phenonenom. Your "original structure" disguises this historical contingency. I have commented on this before; see Talk:Mysticism#Popular understanding. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:24, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

1. Your restructuring of the article was undiscussed.
2. I have no axe to grind about whether or not mysticism is unviversal. It just makes no sense to not include the West under "worldwide". Either the heading or the placement should change.
3. You are not entitled to structure the article to reflect one theory. Structure should be as neutral as possible.
4. . it is possible and easy to find information about mysticism in the context of XYZ religions, cultures, etc. Therefore the article inevitably contains sections on "Buddhist mysticism" (10,100,000 results on google)., etc. I cannot see the slightest reason why some of them should be characteried as "worldwide" and others not. You may beleie worldwide myticism is a Western invention, but that is only one theory. I can be discussed in the aricle, but hte article shouldnotbe built around it.
5. You placement of the fourth way is particualrly peculiar. Why should this eclectic early 20th century movement (founded by a russian) be placed completely separately to theosophy, an eclectic late 19th century movement (also founded by a russian!)

1Z (talk) 12:35, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

OK: I get it now. Theosophy is treated separately because it is part of your theory, advertised throughout the article, that worldwide mysticisim is a Western construct. The section on theosophy, isn't abut theosophy per se, it is about how theosophy fits into that theory. 1Z (talk) 12:46, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Reply by JJ:

• Apparently the heading is wrong. Why are all those traditions regarded as "mysticism", by which definition?
  • For Buddhism, D.T. Suzuki is given as a reference. Bad start... Shunryu Suzuki is also given; he doesn't even mention the word "mysticism".
  • Hinduism: Dasgupta (1923), and Jacobson (2005). Jacobson looks like a better source. Search for "mysticism" within this book, and page 149 gives an interesting hit: "The model of comparative mysticism proposed by Stace does not apply does not apply to the case of Trika-Kaula." Page 144 is also interesting: it gives Larson's definition of "mystical experience": "A mystical experience is an intuitive understanding and realization of the meaning of existence - an intuitive understanding and realization which is intense, integrating, self-authenticating, liberating - i.e., providing a sense of release from ordinary self-awareness - and subsequently determinative - i.e., a primary criterion - for interpreting all other experience whether cognitive, conative, or affective." At the same page we can read "... while many spiritual traditions within India have utilized yogic practices for the attainment of their higher aspirations, there is no concensus as to what such experiences have validated."

You need to say what is wrong with DT Suzuki. It is absurd to reject refeneced material just because you don't like the author.

• • A series of conclusions by me:
    • It looks to me like this whole table is WP:OR.

The table is not important. It could be removed from a finished article.

• • • The term "mysticism" is ill-defined.

True but doesn't resolve any of the issues.

• • • There is no agreement on which non-western tradtions may be called "mysticism".

True, but no justification for scare quoting Eastern "Mysticisim". You cannot assume a POV in the absence of consensus.

• • • Stace's theory of introverted and extroverted mysticism has to be mentioned.

Yes the universalism/particularism debate needs to be mentioned. No, it shoild not be the sole topic of th earticle, or built into its very fabric.

• • • The "Mysticism worldwide"-section can be replaced by a series of links at the "See also"-section

Should it? I can see why it would suit your purposes to have no mention Hindu Sikh or Buddhism, but multile repetitions of "the meaning of the term 'mysticism' has achanged".

• • • "mystical experience" and "Scientific research of mysticism" can be merged

But sould it? You don't get to decide the things on your own. Wikipedia is based on consensus.

• • • "Induction of mystical experiences" can be deleted; a link to Religious experience and Spiritual practice suffices

And then there would be no text in the article save for that advertising your favourite thesis.

• • • The difference in meaning or 'perception' between "mysticism" and "mystical experience" should be made clear
• I find 7.500 hits for "Buddhist mysticism" -wikipedia at the web, and 4.660 hits at Google Books.

That in now way justifies ignoring or scare-quoting the topic of Buddhist Mysticism.

• A link would suffice for the Fourth Way.

And then there would be no text in the article save for that advertising your favourite thesis.

• Theosophy is indeed mentioned to illustrate the "inclusive" interpretation of "mysticism". It's not my theory; it's been described by many. See for example McMahan (2010), The Making of Buddhist Modernism, or Richard King, Orinetalism and Religion.Joshua Jonathan -

It doesn't have to be indiovidual POV to be POV.Again, you are openly admitting to POV pushing.

Let's talk! 19:36, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

You should not have made changes to the article without resolving this discussion.

The purpose of a talk page discussion is to reach consensus. Instead, you have made edits that exacerbate the problem-- your pet theory is now mentioned in something like four separate places.

You need to justify your edits according to wikipedia standards. Quoting sources in favour of you POV does not jusify writing an unbalanced article, since there are always sources on the other side.

And, for cyrying out loud you have added actual scare quotes now -- you are behaving like a parody of a POV editor! 1Z (talk) 11:28, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Reply by JJ: Could you try to answer at one place please, instead of inserting your replies throughout the thread? The whole thread becomes quite messy.

• I've removed the quote-marks from the headers in response to your objection
• All the different "mystic traditions" are in one section, just like you wanted. They are introduced with the following remark: "Inclusion is based on various definitions of mysticism, both mysticism as a way of transformation, and mysticism as an experience of union."
• I've added Stace, and Hood
• Next step is to incorporate more info on the Perennialist-position - though actually there already is a lot on Perennialism. Some suggestion(s - I'll look for more)(the debate seems to center around Stace and Katz):

- james R. Horne (1996), Mysticism and Vocation - p.26 advices to start with Stace, Zaehner and Katz to study the debate

- John Hinnells (2009), The Routledge Companion to the Study of Religion - p.332 gives a short overview of Zaehner (three types of mysticism; only two are mentioned in the article), Stace's critique of Zaehner, and Katz' position

- Robert K. Forman (1997), Problem of Pure Consciousness: Mysticism and Philosophy p.198: "The work of Katz and his colleagues is to a large extent a critique of Stace"

- Wesley J. Wildman (2011), Religious and Spiritual Experiences

• But some more critics too, who say that most contemporary scholars reject the perennialist position:

- Ross Aden (2012), Religion Today: A Critical Thinking Approach to Religious Studies, p.223

- David McMahan (2010), The Making of Buddhist Modernism, p.269, note 9

- Wouter Hanegraaf (1998), On the construction of "esoteric traditions", p.27-28 ("...perennialism [...] cannot be regarded as a scholarly methodology at all")

- Jeffrey D. Long (2007), A Vision for Hinduism: Beyond Hindu Nationalism, p.65-66

- Samuel Bendeck Sotillos (2013), Psychology and the Perennial Philosophy: Studies in Comparative Religion, p.202

• Regarding Suzuki, see

- Sharf, Robert H. (1993), "The Zen of Japanese Nationalism", History of Religions, Vol. 33, No. 1. (Aug., 1993), pp. 1-43.

- Sharf, Robert H. (1995-A), Whose Zen? Zen Nationalism Revisited (PDF) {{citation}}: Check date values in: |year= (help)CS1 maint: year (link)

• Regarding Wikipedia-standards and "POV-pushing": my edits are based on WP:RS. Where are your sources?
• By the way, I don't think it's an either/or debate. Socalled "mystical experiences" are a part of religious/spiritual/mystical traditions. But they are not the end of the road! And that's what is suspiciously missing in popular notions of perennialism. Take for example the Rinzai Zen-tradition. Kensho is highly valued, yet it's only the start of real practice. Eventually, one has to be able to life an "enlightened life" amidst the turmoil of daily life, incorporating the Bodhisattva-ideal of lifting the suffering of others. Just like some of the contemporary (western) Advaita teachers warn against a fixation on "enlightenment" or "nondual" "experiences". You can have great experiences, be en enlightened being in that respect, and still be a jerk. See

- Lachs, Stuart (2006), The Zen Master in America: Dressing the Donkey with Bells and Scarves

- Maezumi, Taizan; Glassman, Bernie (2007), The Hazy Moon of Enlightenment, Wisdom Publications.

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:52, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I've added more info on the "perennialist-constructionist debate", to contextualise the different positions (e.g., "points of view"), and give central importance to this debate, which seems to be central to all contemporary understanding of what "mysticism" is. I've also moved the section with the mystical practices upward, and moved the criticism-section downward, to give a more balanced presentaton. Best regards, and sincere thanks for your criticism; it has helped me to dive into the matter, and to dig out Zaehner, Stace and Katz. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:04, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Comments in italics. 1Z (talk) 10:26, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

   1 Etymology Headings 1 2 and 3 are all about meaning, and so should be subheadings of a 'Meaning' heading
   2 Definition The subheadings would be better named after the inidividuals offering the definition
       2.1 Spiritual life and re-formation
       2.2 Enlightenment
       2.3 Mystical experience and union with the Divine
   3 Development
       3.1 Early Christianity
       3.2 Medieval meaning
       3.3 Early modern meaning
       3.4 Contemporary meaning
   4 Mystical experience
       4.1 Induction of mystical experiences
       4.2 Origins of the term "mystical experience"
       4.3 Freud and the Oceanic feeling
       4.4 Scientific research of "mystical experiences" The scare quotes are completely unacceptable
           4.4.1 Perenialism versus constructionism
           4.4.2 William James - The Varieties of Religious experience
           4.4.3 Zaehner - Natural and religious mysticism
           4.4.4 Stace - extrovertive and introvertive mysticism
           4.4.5 Katz - constructionism
           4.4.6 Newberg & d'Aquili - Why God Won't Go Away
       4.5 Criticism
   5 Forms of mysticism
   6 Western mysticism
       6.1 Mystery religions
       6.2 Christian mysticism
       6.3 Jewish mysticism
       6.4 Islamic mysticism
   7 Eastern mysticism
       7.1 Buddhism
           7.1.1 Enlightenment
           7.1.2 Buddhahood
           7.1.3 Absolute and relative
           7.1.4 Zen
       7.2 Indian mystcism
           7.2.1 Hindu mysticism
               7.2.1.1 Yoga  The subsubsubsubheadings are fiddly and unnecessary. This shouldbe restructured with a flatter hierarchy
               7.2.1.2 Vedanta
           7.2.2 Tantra Tnatra has influenced Tibetan Buddhis as wel. It should not therefore be unver Inidan Mysitcisn.
           7.2.3 Sikh mysticism
   8 Modern mysticism
       8.1 Perennial philosophy
       8.2 Transcendentalism and Unitarian Universalism
       8.3 Theosophical Society
       8.4 New Thought
       8.5 Orientalism and the "pizza effect" Out of place here. The other sectisn deal with mysticla movements, this deals with cultural esearch.
       8.6 The Fourth Way
   9 Skepticism
       9.1 Schopenhauer
       9.2 Marvin Minsky
   10 See also
   11 Notes
   12 References
   13 Sources
       13.1 Published sources
       13.2 Web-sources
   14 Further reading
   15 External links

Replies from 1z:

"I've removed the quote-marks from the headers in response to your objection" Not all of them.

"Next step is to incorporate more info on the Perennialist-position"

Says who? Where is the consensus? This hobby-horse of yours is already mentioned multiple times. There is an argument that NPOV would require *less* mention.

"Regarding Suzuki, see

- Sharf, Robert H. (1993), "The Zen of Japanese Nationalism", History of Religions, Vol. 33, No. 1. (Aug., 1993), pp. 1-43.

- Sharf, Robert H. (1995-A), Whose Zen? Zen Nationalism Revisited (PDF) {{citation}}: Check date values in: |year= (help)CS1 maint: year (link)"

Whatever. Some people don't like him. That doesn't stop him being a WP:RS

"Regarding Wikipedia-standards and "POV-pushing": my edits are based on WP:RS. Where are your sources?"

Many and varied. You can't claim you are not engaging in POV because you are using sources. It is possible to write sourced POV. Sourcing and POV are different issues.

By the way, I don't think it's an either/or debate. Socalled "mystical experiences" are a part of religious/spiritual/mystical traditions. But they are not the end of the road!

Whatever. I have no interest in arguing that they are, or for any other POV

"And that's what is suspiciously missing in popular notions of perennialism."

Whatever. The article is not just abotu perennialism.

"I've added more info on the "perennialist-constructionist debate", to contextualise the different positions".

Why? Is it the sole topic of the article? I don't think so. We need a consensus of how much information on perennialism should be in the article, not you unilaterally adding more and more.

1Z (talk) 11:02, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Reply by JJ - It's clear that you don't have very much to add to a "discussion" on the content of this article, other than "whatever" and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The POV is mainly on your part, without giving substantial support for your views.

• Quote-marks: if there are some left, then I should remove them, though I can't find them.
• Perennialism: you may be right; thre is a lot n perennialsim in this article. The constructivist-view needs more attention. Perennialism is not accpeted anymore in the scholarly communion. That's not a matter of "POV", that's a simple fact.
• Suzuki: this is not about "some don't like him", this is about being a WP:RS or not. D.T. Suzuki is not WP:RS.
• "Many and varied [sources]": so, show them.
• "Perennialist-constructionist debate": it's not the sole topic of the article, but it's a central topic in the contemporary research and scholarly debates on mysticism.

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:04, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I say "whatever" because you are not disucssing the editing of the article, but rather you own views, likes and dislikes.

There is too much on the Prennialism/Constrcutivism debate. None of the other encyclopedia articles this links to make that kind of emphasis. 1Z (talk)

"Suzuki not RS": Ridiculous.

Sources. Try to undertstand that being able to fuind sources for a POV does not justify POV editing.

1Z (talk) 16:35, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Popular understanding

With this edit the overview of "Contemporary popular understanding" was changed in "Contemporary movements and schools of thought". It's exactly this kind of 'mystifications' which I intended to expose with those headings: several modern strands of thought have given "mysticism" a broader meaning, which may not correspond with the original meaning, namely 'the mystery of God'. It has been replaced with the popular understanding of 'union with a transcendental reality', ignoring that to state it this way is also to conceive it this way. "Transcendental realities" are not a fact confirmed by mystical or religious experience, but part of a frame of reference of which so-called "mystical experiences" are also a part. See the series of books by Katz:

• Mysticism and Philosophical Analysis (Oxford University Press, 1978)
• Mysticism and Religious Traditions (Oxford University Press, 1983)
• Mysticism and Language (Oxford University Press, 1992)
• Mysticism and Sacred Scripture (Oxford University Press, 2000)

See King, Richard (2001), Orientalism and Religion: Post-Colonial Theory, India and "The Mystic East", Taylor & Francis e-Library and McMahan, David L. (2008), The Making of Buddhist Modernism, Oxford University Press, ISBN 9780195183276 for a description of the interplay (c.q. "cultural memesis" c.q. the Pizza effect) between western and Asian religiosity and the emergence of this popular understanding. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:28, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

It's exactly this kind of 'mystifications' which I intended to expose with those headings. Blatant WP:POV. 1Z (talk) 14:02, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

No. An attempt to neutrality and balance, in response to the perennialist POV, which blissfully ignores context and alternatives. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:41, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

POV

POV in article

The article argues against the perenniality/commonality thesis (see SEP) throughout. However, there are plenty of sources *for* this theory, although they are not allowed a mention.

Examples:-

"The limited definition has been applied to include a worldwide range of religious traditions and practices.[web 1] In this contemporary usage "mysticism" has become an umbrella term,[4] conflated with spirituality and esotericism.[5]" 1Z (talk) 14:05, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

"Within the academic study of religion the apparent "unambiguous commonality"[13] has become "opaque and controversial".[13][13]". POV. All three refs are from teh same author!.

1Z (talk) 14:08, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Example of what's been left out:

"The psychologist, Ralph Hood, has argued extensively that psychometric studies provide “strong empirical support” for “the common core thesis” of mystical experience. (Hood, 2006) ".1Z (talk) 14:24, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Reply by JJ:

• If you've got "plenty of sources", give them. Just to say so is not enough. It's absurd to say "they are not allowed a mention", if you don't mention them at all.

Add them where? The current structure of the article reflects your POV.

• "All three refs are from teh same author!" - Three sources, actually, from WP:RS:

- Dan Merkur, Mysticism, Encyclopedia Britannica

- Harmless 2007

- Parsons 2011

• Hood looks like a good point to add to "Scientific research of mysticism" - though a title and a page-number will be necessary. But then you will also have to provide the context, and the definitions Hood is using. Looking at the third edition of "The psychology of religion"(2003) by Spilka, Hood, Hunsberger & Gorsuch, I read that

- Hood refers to the "Common-core versus Diversity Theorists", and mention Katz and Proudfoot as exponents of the Diversity Thesis;

- Hood referes to Stace, and the mention of "introvertive experience (identified as "pure consciousness experience")"(p.321), or "an experience of unity devoid of perceptual objects; it is literally an experience of "no-thing-ness".(p.291) He also equates "numinous" and "msytical" "experiences". With other words, this is exactly the limited definition which has become popular in modern times.

So? You are just arguing your POV here. A certain usage of the word "Mysticism" is pervasive, and because it is pervasive there are many sources that can be found using it, and because many sources can be found using it they should be in the article, because that is how wikipedia works. You may personally think

older usages are better, but that does not entitle you to give the scare quotes treatment to all other usages thoughout the article.

- read the section "Mystical experience#Criticism" in this Wikipedia-article, in which a wide range of criticisms of the notion of "mystical experince" has been mentioned

I have. So what? It is one set of perspectives. There are others. It looks like you are trying to persuade me of your POV. It is not a problem that I don't have your POV, it is a problem that you are editing based on a POV.

• Hood does not even attempt to provide a historical context of the term "mysticism". Some authors who do provide this context, and make clear how "perennialism" has pervaded the modern understanding of "mysticism", both in the west and in the east, are:

So what? You think the historical context is all important. Others don't. You don;'t get to impose your POV on everything,.

- Borup, Jorn (Year unknown), Zen and the Art of inverting Orientalism: religious studies and genealogical networks {{citation}}: Check date values in: |year= (help)CS1 maint: year (link)

- Rambachan, Anatanand (1994), The Limits of Scripture: Vivekananda's Reinterpretation of the Vedas, University of Hawaii Press

- Sharf, Robert H. (1995-B), "Buddhist Modernism and the Rhetoric of Meditative Experience" (PDF), NUMEN, vol.42 (1995) {{citation}}: Check date values in: |year= (help)CS1 maint: year (link)

- Sharf, Robert H. (2000), The Rhetoric of Experience and the Study of Religion. In: Journal of Consciousness Studies, 7, No. 11-12, 2000, pp. 267-87 (PDF)

- King, Richard (2001), Orientalism and Religion: Post-Colonial Theory, India and "The Mystic East", Taylor & Francis e-Library

• You forgot this quote, from Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Mysticism:

- "Stace has been strongly criticized for simplifying or distorting mystical reports (For a summary, see Moore, 1973). For example, Pike criticizes the Stace-Smart position because in Christian mysticism union with God is divided into discernable phases, which find no basis in Christian theology. These phases, therefore, plausibly reflect experience and not forced interpretation (Pike, 1992, Chapter 5)."

It looks like you are trying to persuade me of your POV. Everybody is criticised by everybody.

• Calling this contextualisation "POV", without providing sources except for Hood, and ignoring counter-voices, is not sufficient argumentation, and ignores a very broad scholarly concensus.

I am not arguing a POV of my own, or ignoring anything. I am pointing out the existence of other POVs to indicate that the current article is badly unbalanced.1Z (talk) 16:35, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:41, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Reply by JJ -

From Wikipedia:Five pillars: "In some areas there may be just one well-recognized point of view; in others, we describe multiple points of view, presenting each accurately and in context"

The article now consists of:

• The lead
• Overview of definitions
• History-section
• A long section on "mystical experience", which gives a balanced overview, with more info on the perennialist view than the constructivisy view
• A short section on "Mysticism worldwide"
• A long section on "Western mysticism"
• A long section on "Eastern mysticism"
• A long section on "Modern mysticism"
• A short section on "Skepticism"

These sections give a balanced overview of mysticism, describing multiple point of view, in their context: the modern emphasis on "experience", the scholarly debate on this topic, and an overview of popular approaches to mysticism. Maybe you can give quotations from these sections which show a POV? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:26, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

What's really missing, though, is Robert K.C. Forman:

• Forman, Robert K. (1997), The Problem of Pure Consciousness: Mysticism and Philosophy, Oxford University Press
• Forman, Robert K.C (1999), Mysticism, Mind, Consciousness, SUNY Press

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:49, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

The article is not balanced because

• Perrenialism versus constructivism is the *only* debate/controversy mentioned.
• There are still scare quotes around Mystical Experience.
• Important topics are still not covered. (no mention of Taoism, for instance)

1Z (talk) 17:53, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

POV in lede

Form the current lead:- "Since the 1960s, a debate has been going in the scientific research of "mystical experiences" between perennial and constructionist approaches.[3][4]" There are also debates about

• theism versus nontheism
• dualism vesus monism
• sudden versus gradual enlightenment
• Quietism
• Experience/pure consciousness experiences/apohatic and kataphatic mysticism.

...and so on. Mentioning only one debate is WP:POV. POV is bad.

For my money, the old lede was better and did not need rewriting:

"Mysticism (About this sound pronunciation (help·info)) is the pursuit of communion with, identity with, or conscious awareness of an ultimate reality, divinity, spiritual truth, or God through direct experience, intuition, instinct or insight. Mysticism usually centers on practices intended to nurture those experiences. Mysticism may be dualistic, maintaining a distinction between the self and the divine, or may be nondualistic.[1]

Such pursuit has long been an integral part of the religious life of humanity. Within established religion it has been explicitly expressed within monasticism, where rules governing the everyday life of monks and nuns provide a framework conducive to the cultivation of mystical states of consciousness.[citation needed]

In the contemporary usage "mysticism" has become an umbrella term,[2] conflated with spirituality and esotericism.[3]

Practices associated with mysticism include meditation and contemplative prayer. Mysticism can be distinguished from ordinary religious belief by its emphasis on the direct personal experience of unique states of consciousness, particularly those of a transcendentally blissful character.[citation needed]"

1Z (talk) 11:27, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Reply by JJ - Do you actually read what's being written?

• The debate between perennial and constructionist approaches is central in the current scholarly research and sicussions on mysticism.
• First paragraph: this a "definition" from an obscure writer from 1914; absolutely not WP:RS, nor relevant.
• "Such pursuit" - "citation needed".
• "Umbrella term" - that still stands, but is less relevant than the other information in the current lead.
• "Practices" - "citation needed".

The current lead gives a adequate definition; a short historical overview; a remark on the limited definition; and it mentions the centrality of the perennialist-constructionist debate. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:12, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

The old lede isn't particularly good: just better (due mainly to lack of POV) than your replacement.

There is no reason for the article to focus on current scholarly debate at the expense of traditional or popular understanding. You have given no reason for omitting the five areas of controversy I mentioned above.1Z (talk) 16:22, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Your preferred lead is an excellent example of POV, using an obscure perennialist "definition" as the definition of mysticism, and unsourced statements which directly reflect the perennialist view: "Mysticism can be distinguished from ordinary religious belief by its emphasis on the direct personal experience of unique states of consciousness, particularly those of a transcendentally blissful character.[citation needed]." Read WP:RS and WP:FIVEPILLARS: Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, not on popular literature or opinions. The "perennialist-constructionist" debate is the central debate in the scholarly literature. If you think those "five areas of controversy" have the same relevance, then do some work, find reliable sources, and write something about it. The topic of experience is extensively covered. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:42, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

POV claims of consensus

"The perennial position is "largely dismissed by scholars",[70] but "has lost none of its popularity".[71]" Or is it "resurgent" as this source claims? 1Z (talk) 16:22, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

"Adam Tyson is a graduate of Lawrence University with a BA in Religious Studies." Not accpetable as a source here at Wikipedia, and not a convincing article either. It has got the level you may expect from a BA: merely quoting sources, no new insights. I'll remind you of some criticism, by respected scholars:

- Ross Aden (2012), Religion Today: A Critical Thinking Approach to Religious Studies, p.223

- David McMahan (2010), The Making of Buddhist Modernism, p.269, note 9

- Wouter Hanegraaf (1998), On the construction of "esoteric traditions", p.27-28 ("...perennialism [...] cannot be regarded as a scholarly methodology at all")

- Jeffrey D. Long (2007), A Vision for Hinduism: Beyond Hindu Nationalism, p.65-66

- Samuel Bendeck Sotillos (2013), Psychology and the Perennial Philosophy: Studies in Comparative Religion, p.202

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:44, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Dzogchen

• "Dzogchen is a body of teachings originating in the Himalayan region and attributed to Padmasambhava"
• Dzogchen is also taught in the non-Buddhist Bön tradition.

Padmasambhava was an Indian, Bön is older than Buddhism, Dzogchen is a Buddha-nature tradition. This is why you should use proper sources: you're mixing up different things. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:56, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

There is no contradiction there, because there is no logical or historical requirement for Bon to always have taught the same things. In fact that there is evidence of considerable evidence of cross-influence between Bon and Buddhism.1Z (talk) 09:20, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and according to which source is Dzogchen mysticism, and why? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:27, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

"Transformation of Consciousness in Tibetan and German Mysticism (Studies in the History of Religions, Vol. 107) Hardcover – May 1, 2005

This book argues that mystical doctrines and practices initiate parallel transformative processes in the consciousness of mystics. This thesis is supported through a comparative analysis of Tibetan Buddhist Dzogchen (rdzogs-chen) and the medieval German mysticism of Eckhart, Suso, and Tauler."

1Z (talk) 09:27, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Cool; very nice source! here's a review.Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:14, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

The review is critical, though: "Studstill brings together a particular school of Buddhist contemplatives who have a strikingly presence- or substance-oriented account of emptiness and a particular school of European mystics who naturally tend towards presence or substance but then take a pantheistic turn (see p. 179). And the result of this selection of examples is a unity." Nevertheless, interesting source. Did you read it? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:25, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Source found for "citation needed"

Would someone please use the following source for the "citation needed" tag at the end of the "Freud and the Oceanic feeling" section: Wilber, Ken (2000), Sex, Ecology, Spirituality, p. 211, Shambhala Publications. Google Books link: http://books.google.com.au/books?id=U5UJUChbuioC&lpg=PP1&dq=sex%20ecology%20spirituality&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q=sex%20ecology%20spirituality&f=false. Leafhopper (talk) 10:20, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Done. Thanks! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:59, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

"has been described"

This edit changed

"The perennial position is "largely dismissed by scholars", but "has lost none of its popularity"."

into

"The perennial position has been described as "largely dismissed by scholars", but having "lost none of its popularity"."

That's the wrong kind of attribution. It suggests it's a personal opinion of McMahan. That's incorrect; it's the contemporary scholarly opinion. Suggesting otherwise is POV-pushing. See also, for example:

• Wouter Hanegraaf (1998), On the construction of "esoteric traditions", p.27-28: "...perennialism [...] cannot be regarded as a scholarly methodology at all".
• Ross Aden (2012), Religion Today: A Critical Thinking Approach to Religious Studies, p.223
• Jeffrey D. Long (2007), A Vision for Hinduism: Beyond Hindu Nationalism, p.65-66
• Samuel Bendeck Sotillos (2013), Psychology and the Perennial Philosophy: Studies in Comparative Religion, p.202

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:11, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I've reverted again; please respond at the trhead above. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:46, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Traditional Advaita bias in the Vedanta section

Additions to this section have multple problems: they introduce jargon (eg sruti) without explaining it, dwell on the traditional vs neo debate at too great a length, are phrased argumentatively, and present a one sided POV.

The main offendrs are:- 1Z (talk) 13:34, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Shankara/Buddhism

Quote:

Shankara's interpretation was influenced by Buddhism[151][note 15]

The addition is reffed, but the refs are cherry-picked. Actually, Shankara is also said to be anti-Buddhist http://ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-PHIL/ew27155.htm, while other shcolars remain perplexed http://scholarworks.gsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1003&context=rs_theses. I am inclined to delete the above addition, since there is not way of summarising the Shankara/Buddhism relationship that is both concise and unbiased.

1Z (talk) 13:34, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Delete, because another source (from 1954) says he was anti-Buddhist? While Tenzin notes that Shankara has ofetn been called a "crypto-Buddhist"? Talking about cherry-picking and a peculiar interpretation of sources...? Read some policies please, like WP:RS and WP:OR. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:08, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Delete for the reasons stated. Which are, again: there is opinion all three sides of the question, no useful summary can be made, and the issue is not in any case important to a basic understanding of advaita vednta. 1Z (talk) 19:13, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Anubhava

Quote:

Shankara emphasizes anubhava, correct understanding of the sruti,[134] which is supposed to lead to mukti, liberation from endless cycles of reincarnation.[134] In modern times, the term anubhava has been reinterpreted by Vivekananda and Radhakrisnan as meaning "religious experience"[134] or "intuition".[web 10]

1Z (talk) 13:34, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

What's your point here? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:08, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Making the POV implication that Shankara has been misread or misinterpreted ("reinterpreted"). The historiography of Shankara is, again, not relevant, to a basic overview. 1Z (talk) 19:16, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Neo Advaita Critique

Quote:

Contemporary Advaita teachers warn against a rush for superficial "enlightenment experiences. Jacobs warns that Advaita Vedanta practice takes years of committed practice to sever the "occlusion"[159] of the so-called "vasanas, samskaras, bodily sheats and vrittis", and the "granthi[note 16] or knot forming identification between Self and mind":[160]

The main Neo-Advaita fallacy ignores the fact that there is an occlusion or veiling formed by vasanas, samskaras, bodily sheaths and vrittis, and there is a granthi or knot forming identification between Self and mind, which has to be severed [...] The Maharshi's remedy to this whole trap is persistent effective Self-enquiry, and/or complete unconditional surrender of the 'phantom ego' to Self or God, until the granthi is severed, the vasanas are rendered harmless like a burned out rope.[161]

And according to Puligandla:

Any philosophy worthy of its title should not be a mere intellectual exercise but should have practical application in enabling man to live an enlightened life. A philosophy which makes no difference to the quality and style of our life is no philosophy, but an empty intellectual construction.[162]

1Z (talk) 13:34, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

And what's your point here? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:12, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

The usual two: 1. Yet again, this is one sided, critque without defense or response from the other side. 2. Yet again, it is much too much detail. The article only needs to say that the relationship between neo advaita and traditional vedanta is contentious. Anyone who wants to know the details can click on the damn links, becuase its wiki and thats how wikis bloody well work.1Z (talk) 19:22, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

General comment

NB: A previous version of this page was largely erased, because much of the material on it was found to be too obscure and argumentative. THe same kind of editing is now occurring again, for the same reasons...the single-issue editors have not disappeared.

I urge all editors to rememeber that this page needs to be a concise and balanced overview of the subject that is comprehenesible to the general reader...in other words, an encyclopedia article! It is not the place for internecine disputes, or personal theorising!

1Z (talk) 12:21, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Have you got a diff? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:12, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mysticism&diff=457972330&oldid=457649231

You know Peter, we might as well remove the whole section on Mysticism#Forms of mysticism within world religions. It's basically WP:OR and POV-pushing by perennialists. Bus as long as it is in there, some balnce is needed per WP:NPOV. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:33, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

You know what? I just did so, per WP:BOLD! Ah, what an enlightenment! ;) Cheers, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:36, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

That wasn't in line with WP:BOLD, it was against WP:CONSENSUS. Please discuss changes, especially large ones. Reverted. 1Z (talk) 15:01, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Grammatical Edits

Hi,

I'm sorry. I'm the type of editor that takes the saying "be bold" to heart, and normally begin making edits without asking anyone. I removed a some commas that didn't belong in the second paragraph, and then I was like "you know what ... I can improve the sentence structure here and make the article more readable and appealing here." So improved the lead a bit (it was a quick edit. I can do even better). I find the [web] citations a bit distracting and the image is irrelevant to the subject. If no one has any objections, I'd like to put this article on my list of pet projects. Please and thank you.

—Soulgazer (talk) 00:50, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

This is a very narrow usage of the word 'Mysticism'

Mysticism involves not just knowing things, but being able to perform any supernatural action like levitation, transforming one's body, becoming invisible, shooting fire and anything else seen everyday in fantasy movies, television shows and books. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.63.2.246 (talk) 03:45, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

While I agree the definition is narrow and could have some expansion/detailing, your example are just insulting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.103.232.178 (talk) 14:53, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

"Mystical experience" moved to Mystical experience

I've moved the "Mystical experience" sections to Mystical experience, for the obvious reason that this is a related, yet distinct concept. "Mysticism" is moe than "mstical experience." Mysticism is primarily about personal transformation, of which mystical experiences may be a part. "Mystical experiences" as such refer to specific experiences, for which explanations and similarities are beig sought by scholars, and which can also happen spontaneously, apart from any " mystical practice." Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:22, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to Mystical experience on this talk page ... pity there isn't one on the article itself! 1Z (talk) 17:08, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

RfC: remove undue part

RfC

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

To my humble opinion, a large part of this article could be removed, since it duplicates several other articles (Spirituality, Nondualism), and is merely about modern western esotericism c.q. perennialism c.q. spirituality: the idea that all religions share a common, nondual "centre," which can be accessed by socalled "religious experiences." The part to be removed are:

• Mysticism#Induction of mystical experiences;
• Mysticism#Forms of mysticism within world religions, with the exclusion of Mysticism#Christian mysticism, Mysticism#Jewish mysticism, and Mysticism#Islamic mysticism;
• Mysticism#The Fourth Way, since this is a specific, marginal group, compared to the overall influence of Transcendentalism and Theosophy.

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:33, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Belated comments

There is no general rule against duplication of information on wikipedia. All these subjects, spirituality, mysticism, nondualism, etc, are nebulously defined and have many overlaps.

The fact that you did not alert me to this change on my talk page, despite knowing of my interest in this subject, is noted.

I also note that you have removed, without archiving, numerous previous discussions form this talk page.

1Z (talk) 09:41, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Also , I can't see how the changes actually made relate to the plan outlined above. For instance, you have *kept* Fourth Way, and removed Theosophy! 1Z (talk) 09:54, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Hallo Peter,

• Duplicate info: maybe not, or maybe there is; I don't know, I'd have to search throught the policies. Yet, there are rules on WP:COATRACK; that may be an indication. And the aim of an ancyclopedia is to give an overview of relevant info, not of every bit of info that may be related to a topic;
• Regular editors keep track of articles of their interest at their watchlists; you can add articles by clicking at the white star at top of the page;
• I don't see any removal of threads from this page without archiving; what exactly are you hinting at?
• In the closure-notice I explained that "Fourth Way" was moved to another section; apparently it fitted better there.
• Here's an overview:

• 06:35, 9 October 2015 by Editor2020. Edit-summary: "Buddhism: not about mysticism in buddhism" (Thanks Editor2020! Nice start).
• 12:31, 9 October 2015 by JJ. Edit-summary: "Buddhism: shortened." Removal of unnecessary info.
• 12:38, 9 October 2015 by JJ. Edit summary: "Hindu mysticism: shortened." Idem.
• 12:43, 9 October 2015 by JJ. Edit-summary: "Forms of mysticism within world religions: shortened." More specific: shortened the subsection on Sikhism; not so much on mysticism, as on Sikhism in general. See WP:COATRACK.
• 13:03, 9 October 2015 by JJ. Edit-summary: "Development of modern mysticism: shortened." Removed unnecessary info.
• 13:06, 9 October 2015 by JJ. Edit-summary: "The Fourth Way: shortened." Removed unnecessary info.
• 07:14, 23 October 2015 by JJ. Edit-summary: "re-ordered sections; removed undue." Rem oved list of religious practices; the same list is included at Religious experience, and is not so much about "mysticism," as about "mystical experience." Therefore, WP:UNDUE here.

Enjoy your sunday, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:52, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't see any links to archives.

Why have theosophy, etc, disappeared entirely? 1Z (talk) 16:56, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

[Buddhism:] In the current article, that section contains a certain amount about Buddhist philosophy, but little which is actually about mysticism, particularly mystical practice. You have shortened it without making it more relevant. Amazingly, there is no mention of Buddhist mediation, despite the importance of meditation to both mysticism and Buddhism! 1Z (talk) 16:16, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

And you have listed Buddhism as a an "Indian religion", although ithas a small minority religion in India for a long time. And you have no mention of Zen. Zen!!! 1Z (talk) 17:03, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Enjoy yours. I am sure you are very happy with the page, now that there is not a single mention of perennialism! 1Z (talk) 17:05, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

• Archives: top of the talkpage, third part of the first box.

From which we see that there is no disucssion at all of your major changes. When

you hold a RfC, you supposed to invite interested parties, which you did not do. There was no consensus or proper process. 1Z (talk) 10:43, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

• Theosophy is being mentioned; there's also a link to the main article. Other mentions and links include Western esotericism, Spirittuality, and New Age. And there's the navbox on Spirituality. Make a Wiki-book of all the articles linked in that navbox, and you've got an encyclopedia on ots own on western spirituality, c.q. the broad definition of mysticism

Make up your mind: is the sole entry on the Foruth Way "undue" or are the "mentions" of theosophy, actually just links, adequate? 1Z (talk) 10:43, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

• Buddhism: "little which is actually about mysticism" - depends on what you mean with mysticism. There's a short mentioning of 'mystical experience'; to threat all nuances of the Buddhist teachings on human transformation takes more space than a single article allows. Therefore, some introductory info, and links to other articles. I've added some additional links.

What I mean by mysticism is typical mystical practice, such as meditation. Indeed, that is what I said.1Z (talk) 10:43, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

• Indian religions: Buddhism originated in India, therefore it is categorized unr "Indian religions." Exemplary for the shortcomings of strict categorizations.

Leaving taoism as the sole representative of east Asian religion? And what about Zen and Tibetan Buddhism?1Z (talk) 10:43, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

• Zen is being mentioned.

For pity's sake, it's just one word!!!! 10:43, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

• Perennialism is also being mentioned.

NB: the subsection on Gurdjieff is WP:UNDUE, of course; I didn't want to kill your darling, but it's obvious that just mentioning it suffices. I suggest we remove that subsection too. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:55, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

So you left Gurdjieff as the sole inhabitant of Western Esotericism just so you coudl "frame" me for pushing a pro-Gurdieff POV? But throughout these discussions I have been complaining about the absence of other forms of Western Esotericism, because I am not a POV pusher. (Why do biased editors always think everyone else is biased?)What kind of person makes POV edits in order to blame them on someone else? It's not as if you can disguise who made the edits. Amazing!

Of course we should either have a balanced section, or none. Since there are abundant references to support the existence of non-religious, eclectic, and new age forms of mysticism, we should have a section.1Z (talk) 10:43, 19 April 2016 (UTC)