Jump to content

Talk:Mysticism/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Dan Merkur on Mysticism (Encyclopedia Britannica)

Dan Merkur on Mysticism (Encyclopedia Britannica): he's really good! Some quotes:

  • "In subsequent Christian usage, mystes, or mystic, referred to practitioners of doctrinally acceptable forms of religious ecstasy."
  • "In the mid-19th century, after the Romantic movement had shifted the emphasis in much religious thinking from theology to individual experience, a growing interest in ecumenism led to the invention of the term mysticism and its extension to comparable phenomena in non-Christian religions."
  • "The competition between the perspectives of theology and science resulted in a compromise in which most varieties of what had traditionally been called mysticism were dismissed as merely psychological phenomena and only one variety, which aimed at union with the Absolute, the Infinite, or God—and thereby the perception of its essential unity or oneness—was claimed to be genuinely mystical."
  • "The historical evidence, however, does not support such a narrow conception of mysticism. Even within the history of Christianity there were mystics—such as Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite in the 5th century and the anonymous author of the Cloud of Unknowing in the 14th—for whom the most desirable mystical experience or perception was not of unity but rather of nothing, or nothingness."
  • "The complexity of the historical record is multiplied exponentially when one includes other religious traditions in the survey. Both Buddhism and Kabbala, the esoteric Jewish mysticism originating in the 12th century, emphasize nothingness rather than oneness, and the notion of oneness itself has many varieties in both Christianity and Hinduism."
  • "These facts are inconsistent with the postulation of a single unity or oneness that mystics everywhere experience or perceive. It is not that the Absolute, the Infinite, or God is One, and mystics experience and perceive this truth."
  • "Rather, the data support a psychological interpretation regarding a tendency of the mind to unify its contents in different ways, resulting in slightly different experiences on different occasions. Mystics do not experience or perceive an objectively existing unity; rather they formulate their own experiential unities in different ways.
  • "The traditional conception of mysticism was finally abandoned by academic scholars in the 1970s. Since then, some scholars have rejected the category of mysticism as a fiction, while others have enlarged it to encompass all religious uses of alternate states of consciousness."

So, not a unity with God, but ecstacies which are defined and interpreted in various ways. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:46, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

All very well, but I don't see the editorial point to it. There are an abundance of sources supporting the existence of non-christian mysticism, so that's that as a far as the article is concerned. Trying to argue for the existence of non-Christian mysticism from first principles on the page itself would constitute WP:OR. If you have some sort of personal interest in the issue, write a blog or a paper or something. 1Z (talk) 09:11, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
The point is, that the constructionism versus perennialism is superceded, at least by some scholars, by an attribution approach. I don't understand why you jump to non-Christian mysticism. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:29, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
And how does the "attribution approach" impact the future development of the article? 1Z (talk) 18:27, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
I don't know. I only know that there are a lot of definitions, and that this is line with what Merkur and others notice, namely that the term or concept "mysticism" is far from from clear. Merkur includes all kinds of ecstacies, c.q. 'altered states of consciousness', which are given a religious interprettaion. He seems to be followng Ann Taves there. It's a rather distanced approach; unfortunately, it's also a disenchanting approach... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:09, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Talk pages are for discussing editorial issues, not for general discsussion of the subject. Again, it sounds like you are trying to formulate a view on the subject, which is not the sort of thing that should be played out in an article. 1Z (talk) 08:55, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

What to do about Buddhism

I believe the current section is far too short for such an important subject. As I have already argued, the typical reader would expect it to include a fuller treatment of mediation, and Zen, to mention only two topics. Of course, there was no consensus backing the shortening. (Unmotivated removal of material is WP:Vandalism) Reversion to a previous version should be largely sufficient. 1Z (talk) 09:27, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Be carefull with allegations about vandalism, and read again what that page says:
"Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content, in a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia."
I've explained several times why it was removed; WP:ASPERSIONS can be seen as WP:DISRUPTIVE, just like WP:DONTGETIT.
There are several articles on Zen; any addition would need WP:RS linking Zen to mysticism, in a coherent and relevant way. Read again (I'd already provided the diffs) what text was removed from the Buddhism section:
"Buddhism is the religion based on the teachings of Gautama Siddartha. The main goal in Buddhism is not some sort of "union", but insight into reality, which leads to liberation. The path to liberation may include several practices, including meditation.[note 1] In classical Indian Buddhism, which survives in altered form in Theravada, this insight in to the three characteristics of existence is believed to lead to the cessation of suffering realizing Nirvana, thereby being freed from samsara. East-Asian (Chinese) Mahayana Buddhism, emphasizes insight into the Buddha-nature, the innate capacity of all sentient beings to attain Buddhahood, non-duality of absolute and relative reality, and Bodhicitta, compassion for the benefit of all sentient beings.[1] Tibetan Mahayana Buddhism emphasizes the Madhyamaka-teachings of sunyata, but places equal emphasis on bodhicitta.
Buddhism has developed several branches and philosophies throughout its history, and offers various paths to liberation. The classic path is the Noble Eightfold Path, but others include Oath of Purification, the Bodhisattva path, Lamrim and subitism.
A central term in Buddhism is "enlightenment", the "full comprehension of a situation".[web 1] The English term "enlightenment" has commonly been used to translate several Sanskrit, Pali,[web 2] Chinese and Japanese terms and concepts, especially bodhi, prajna, kensho, satori and buddhahood. Bodhi is a Theravada term. It literally means "awakening" and "understanding". Someone who is awakened has gained insight into the workings of the mind which keeps us imprisoned in craving, suffering and rebirth,[web 1] and has also gained insight into the way that leads to nirvana, the liberation of oneself from this imprisonment. Prajna is a Mahayana term. It refers to insight into our true nature, which according to Madhyamaka is empty of a personal essence in the stream of experience. But it also refers to the Tathāgata-garbha or Buddha-nature, the essential basic-consciousness beyond the stream of experience. In Zen, kensho means "seeing into one's true nature".[2] Satori is often used interchangeably with kensho, but refers to the experience of kensho.[2]
Buddhahood is the attainment of full awakening and becoming a Buddha. According to the Tibetan Thubten Yeshe,[web 3]
[means] full awakening; buddhahood. The ultimate goal of Buddhist practice, attained when all limitations have been removed from the mind and one's positive potential has been completely and perfectly realized. It is a state characterized by infinite compassion, wisdom and skill.[web 4]
Many branches of Buddhism hold Gautama Siddartha was not unique, and that there were former, and will be future Buddhas. One of the main themes of Mahayana, a later development of Buddhism, is its emphasis on Boddhisattvas, individuals who delay their own entry to nirvana in order to assist in the salvation of other beings. Therevada, the older form, has the somewhat different concept of Arhats, loosely translated as "saints"."
"Various schools of Buddhist philosophy discern levels of truth, reflecting a polarity of "absolute" and "relative" truth. A fully enlightened life asks for the integration of these two levels of truth in daily life.[3]
* The Two truths doctrine of the Madhyamaka
* The Three Natures of the Yogacara
* Essence-Function, or Absolute-relative in Chinese and Korean Buddhism
* The Trikaya-formule, consisting of
** The Dharmakāya or Truth body which embodies the very principle of enlightenment and knows no limits or boundaries;
** The Sambhogakāya or body of mutual enjoyment which is a body of bliss or clear light manifestation;
** The Nirmāṇakāya or created body which manifests in time and space.[4]
The two truths doctrine states that there is:
* Relative or common-sense truth (Sanskrit samvṛtisatya, Pāli sammuti sacca, Tibetan kun-rdzob bden-pa), which describes our daily experience of a concrete world, and
* Ultimate truth (Sanskrit, paramārthasatya, Pāli paramattha sacca, Tibetan: don-dam bden-pa), which describes the ultimate reality as sunyata, empty of concrete and inherent characteristics.
Vajrayana, literally the "Diamond Vehicle" is a form of Buddhism originating in India,[5] but currently best known in its Tibetan form. Vajrayana is influenced by Tantra,[6] in that it uses a wide variety of methods,or "skillful means", including mantras, visualisations and rituals. Vajrayana Buddhism is esoteric, in the sense that the transmission of certain teachings only occurs directly from teacher to student during an initiation or empowerment and cannot be simply learned from a book.
Dzogchen literally meaning "the great completeness", or the "great perfection", is a body of teachings within the Nyingma school of Tibetan Buddhism.[7] It holds that "mind-nature" (sems nyid) is the abiding condition (gnas lugs) of every mind.[8] It is manifested when one is enlightened,[8] being nonconceptually aware (rigpa, "open presence") of one's nature,[9] "a recognition of one's beginningless nature."[10] It is an ever-present background[11] or undercurrent to ordinary mental activity, and seeking for transcendence externally is therefore futile: instead, the practitioner should "realise the nature of [their own] mind".
Dzogchen as a system is regarded as being advanced and requiring preliminary preparations, although it lacks the complexities of many systems.[citation needed] Patrul Rinpoche describes it as "at once simple and profound".[12] Dzogchen practitioners aim to attain rigpa, the awareness of the Ground, and integrate this into their daily life. As Sogyal Rinpoche writes:
The practical training of the Dzogchen path is traditionally, and most simply, described in terms of View, Mediation and Action. To see directly the Absolute state, the Ground of our being is the View; the way of stabilising that view, and making it an unbroken experience is Meditation; and integrating the View into our entire reality, and life, is what is meant by Action.}}
Dzogchen is being taught in both the buddhist Nyingma school and the non-Buddhist Bön tradition.[13]
Zen aims at insight one's true nature, or Buddha-nature.[14] In Soto, this Buddha-nature is regarded to be ever-present, and shikan-taza, sitting meditation, is the expression of the already existing Buddhahood.[15] Rinzai-zen emphasises the need for a break-through insight in this Buddha-nature.[15]
The Rinzai-Zen tradition stresses the need of further training after attaining kenshō. Practice is to be continued to deepen the insight and to express it in daily life.[16][2][17][18] To deepen the initial insight of kensho, shikantaza and kōan-study are necessary. This trajectory of initial insight followed by a gradual deepening and ripening is expressed by Linji Yixuan in his Three mysterious Gates, the Four Ways of Knowing of Hakuin,[19] and the Ten Ox-Herding Pictures[20] which detail the steps on the Path.
According to Hakuin, the main aim of "post-satori practice"[21][22][23] (gogo no shugyo,[24] or kojo, "going beyond"[25]) is to cultivate the "Mind of Enlightenment",[26] "benefiting others by giving them the gift of the Dharma teaching".[27][note 2] According to Yamada Koun, "if you cannot weep with a person who is crying, there is no kensho".[29]
But one also has to purify oneself by ongoing practice.[30][31] And "experience" has to be supplemented by intellectual understanding and study of the Buddhist teachings;[32][33][34] otherwise one remains a zen temma, a "Zen devil".[35] Finally, these efforts are to result in a natural, effortless, down-to-earth state of being, the "ultimate liberation", "knowing without any kind of defilement".[36]"

References

  1. ^ Snelling 1987.
  2. ^ a b c Kapleau 1989.
  3. ^ Maezumi 2007.
  4. ^ Welwood, John (2000). The Play of the Mind: Form, Emptiness, and Beyond, accessed January 13, 2007
  5. ^ DhramaNet
  6. ^ tRIMONDI
  7. ^ Rigpa Wiki
  8. ^ a b Klein & Tenzin Wangyal 2006, p. 4.
  9. ^ KLein 2011, p. 265.
  10. ^ Klein 2011, p. 272.
  11. ^ Klein 2011, p. 266.
  12. ^ Sogyal Rinpoche (1992), Tibetan Book of Living and Dyin, p.151
  13. ^ Klein 2011, p. 265.
  14. ^ Dumoulin & 2005-A, p. 168.
  15. ^ a b Dumoulin & 2005-B.
  16. ^ Sekida 1996.
  17. ^ Kraft 1997, p. 91.
  18. ^ Maezumi 2007, p. 54, 140.
  19. ^ Low 2006.
  20. ^ Mumon 2004.
  21. ^ Waddell 2010, pp. xxv–xxvii.
  22. ^ Hakuin 2010, pp. 33–34.
  23. ^ Hisamatsu 2002, p. 22.
  24. ^ Hori 2006, p. 145.
  25. ^ Hori 2006, p. 144.
  26. ^ Hakuin 2010, p. 33.
  27. ^ Hakuin 2004, p. 34.
  28. ^ Takahashi 2000, p. 165.
  29. ^ MacInnes 2007, p. 75.
  30. ^ Low 2006, pp. 33–34.
  31. ^ Maezumi 2007, p. 54.
  32. ^ Hori 2000, pp. 295–297.
  33. ^ Low 2006, pp. 35–37.
  34. ^ Kim 2007, p. 115.
  35. ^ Hori 2000, p. 297.
  36. ^ Low 2006, pp. 37–39.
It's quite a lot of info, most of it introductory and general. Looking through it, I think that Dzogchen should be mentioned. Plus, maybe, add back "Zen aims [...] Buddha-nature." Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:36, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
I have re-inserted some of this info. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:06, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
"There are several articles on Zen". There are several articles on Sweden, but that doens't mean Sweden shouldn't be mentioned in Scandinavia. 1Z (talk) 15:27, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
And do we have to an epic quote from an old article on the talk page? 1Z (talk) 16:14, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

And what should be done about Hinduism

I notice that in your restoration of a longer version of Hinduism has also replaced the POV-pushing.

"With the onset of the British colonisation of India, those traditions came to be interpreted in western terms such as "mysticism", drawing equivalents with western terms and practices.[68]"

Just the one reference? No alternative view?

"n modern times, the Upanishads have been interpreted by Neo-Vedanta as being "mystical".[68]"

And the same, single, reference.

Also:- "Yoga is the physical, mental, and spiritual practices or disciplines which aim to attain a state of permanent peace". Could do with more emphasis on the fact that yoga is not limited to Hatha yoga, as this is a very common misapprehension.

1Z (talk) 15:34, 22 April 2016 (UTC) 1Z (talk) 15:34, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Please provide a diff for the "restoration of a longer version of Hinduism" you're referring to; I can't find it. Regarding King (2002), Orientalism and Religion: Post-Colonial Theory, India and "The Mystic East", it can be supplemented with De Michelis (2005), A History of Modern Yoga, among others. But maybe you can explain how citing WP:RS is "POV-pushing," and what alternative views you're referring to? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:22, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
One source for one POV. 1Z (talk) 17:44, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Where's the diff for the "restoration of a longer version of Hinduism", and what are the pother POVs, according to which sources? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:09, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Mystical experience and union with the Divine or Absolute

Could with splitting into separate "Mystical experience" and "Union with the Divine or Absolute" sections, IMO.

1Z (talk)

That makes some sense, yet it's William James and the like who popularised the notion mystical experience and the notion of "union" with God/the Absolute. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:31, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
I thought henosis was rather ancient. 1Z (talk) 17:40, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Maybe "mysticsm" is not the correct term; Eckhart was also influenced by neo-Platonism. As were the Transcendentalists, who also seem to have influenced William James. Nevertheless, the sources are clear that "mysticism" was equated in popular 19th centruy thought with "union with God/the One"; well, it's clear what the influences were. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:16, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Western Esoterocism

"etc"? Oh, come on, is this an informative article, or what? 1Z (talk) 16:13, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Of course more could be added, but maybe you could try to understand how vast the topic of "(western) esotericism" et cetera is? There's no need to repeat everything that's already included at other places. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:'25, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Yes there is'. There is no non-duplication rule on wikipedia, and overview articles are not supposed to be just a series of links.
I notice that you are not inhibited from writing about perennialism vs constructionism here by the fact that it is included in other places. Perhaps the problem is your contempt for the subject. 1Z (talk) 18:38, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
There are rules on duplication, like WP:COATRACK, attributing the source from which you copy, and the preferable maximum size of articles. Overview articles should indeed be more than a collection of links, yet less than a verbatim repetiton c.q. copying of info which can be found at other places. As I already wrote before, "Of course more could be added," etc. And Perennialism versus constructionism is being mentioned here shortly, as an intro, with links to the relevant, related articles. That's not the same as verbatim copying info. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:09, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Etymology

""Mysticism" is derived from the Greek μυω"

The Greek verb "μυώ" does not mean "conceal", or at least has not retained that meaning in Greek. According to its entry in world reference.com, the primary meanings it has are "induct" and "initiate". Secondary meanings include "introduce", "make someone aware of something", "train", "familiarize", "give first experience of something".

According to a dictionary entry in bible hub.com the related term used in the New Testament is "μυέω" (mueó), which means "to initiate into the mysteries, hence to instruct". In more detail: "properly, shutting the eyes and mouth to experience mystery; (figuratively) initiated into the wonderful "mystery revelation" ". According to another page in the dictionary, It is related to μυστήριον (mystḗrion, mystery). The explanation given for this term is "anything hidden, a mystery", "a mystery, secret, of which initiation is necessary", "in the NT: the counsels of God, once hidden but now revealed in the Gospel or some fact thereof; the Christian revelation generally; particular truths or details of the Christian revelation."

The entry in lexigram.gr suggests the related terms "μυήσω" and "μυώ" mean "Initiate", "introduce to".

The book "Mystic Cults in Magna Graecia" also examines the Greek nouns "μύστης" (mystis, singular) and "μύσται" (mystai, plural) which mean "initiate", "the person who is initiated to the mysteries".

To be honest, Greek is my primary language and the etymology given in Wikipedia is the first time I see "μυώ" used to conceal something instead of revealing it. Dimadick (talk) 07:18, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

@Dimadick: thanks for your comments! Could you edit the etymology-section, and improve it? Thanks! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:10, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

"It could be argued"

P. Oliver,Mysticism: A Guide for the Perplexed, does not contain the sentence "It could be argued that the entire religion is mystical." It says ""It could be argued, for example, that the entire religion is fundamentally mystical in nature." When quoting, please quote correct, and give page-numbers. I think that it would also be more interesting to read the arguments given by this author, not just a quote which says what Buddhism is not, namely union with God. That's only one definition of mysticism, and does not tell us why Buddhism is a form of mysticism. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:30, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

AFAICS, the claim that Buddhism is not mysticism, in a sense, is just as interesting as the claim that it is, in a sense.1Z (talk) 14:11, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Response? 1Z (talk) 10:05, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Why is it "just as interesting as the claim that it is"? You merely give a quote, without the explanation. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:13, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
The explanation was contained in the quote. And, again, it is not necessary for a WP article to argue every point since it is not an academic paper.1Z (talk) 11:53, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Shamanism

At the time of writing, the article fails to say anything at all about what shamanism is, only noting claims that it has something or other to do with mysticism. That will be of little use to the general reader. Expansion needed. 1Z (talk) 15:39, 22 April 2016 (UTC) I have expanded this. It is now a little repetitive, but there is much else to do. 1Z (talk) 16:39, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Jonathan, please explain why you reverted the move. 1Z (talk) 16:59, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

It makes more sensed to begin that section with the classical mystery religions, and then move on to Christian mysticism, since that reflects the etymology and historical development of the term.

1Z (talk) 17:06, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

The term "shamanism" is derived from Siberian practices, but applies to a worldwide phenomenon, thousands of years older than the mystery religions. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:03, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
According to some. Please respond to this argument: "It makes more sensed to begin that section with the classical mystery religions, and then move on to Christian mysticism, since that reflects the etymology and historical development of the term."
1Z (talk) 14:18, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Makes sense. But it also makes sense to use a chronological approach. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:20, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
The rest of the section is arranged more or less geographically. A chronological approach is more or less impossible, because accurate origins cannot be established for many traditions. 1Z (talk) 10:10, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
That's an additonal argument: shamanism is a worldwide phenomenon. Which predates organised religion. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:22, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
That doesn't answer the problem that complete chronological ordering is impossible., and it still doesn't answer my argument in favour of placing mystery religions first. 1Z (talk) 12:03, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

TBD

To-Do list

Some of the more notable things missing from the current article include:

  • Any mention of neo-paganism, shamanism etc.
  • Philosophical issues raised by mysticism.
  • Added. Jainism and Zoroastrianism.
  • Added. Rational mysticism and nature mysticism.
  • added. Spontaneous mystical experience.
  • added "householder" versus monasticism.
  • added Any mention of Therevada!
  • added gnosticism.
  • What happened to "skepticism"? It hasn't been incorporated into the current article.
  • Themes and controversies within mysticism, such as:-
    • The quietism controversy
    • Apophatic versus kataphatic experience.
    • Subitism versus gradualism.
    • Theistic versus non-theistic mysticism.

1Z (talk)

Discussion

  • How are neo-paganism and shamanism "mysticism," unless you threat the term "mysticism" as a synonym for New Age spirituality
  • "Philosophical issues raised by mysticism": which issues, by which definition of "mysticism"?
  • There's a "See also" section to add additional links, like Quietism (Christian philosophy). Apophatic theology is being mentioned and linked; I've also added a link for Subitism. And of course, there also the categories at the bottom of the page: Category:Mysticism, Category:Esotericism, Category:New Age, Category:Nondualism, Category:Spirituality. Not to mention the 10 (ten) navboxes. Now, I won't count the total number of links included within these navboxes, categories and additional links attached to this article, but the Mysticism-category alone yet links to 972 articles. Altogether, this should suffice, shouldn't it?
  • "Theistic versus non-theistic mysticism" may be worth one sentence in the Christian mysticism section. I've added the navbox on Christian myticism; maybe that helps.
Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:47, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
[Shamanism:] Presumably, by being a form of mysticism, as many people think. "new age mysticism" gets 44,000 google hits.1Z (talk) 10:17, 19 April 2016 (UTC). 1Z (talk) 10:20, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
["Philosophical issues raised by mysticism":] eg http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mysticism/
[See also-section:] There is such a thing as undue lack of emphasis. If someone is POV-pushing, it is no excuse that they have left in links after deleting text.1Z (talk)
You don't understand how wikipedia editing works. It is not for you to declare what is necessary autocratically, it is for all editors to reach WP:CONSENSUS. 1Z (talk) 10:17, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Could you PLEASE keep your responses keep together, instead of splitting-up my responses? Thank you.
"Mysticism, the practice of religious ecstasies (religious experiences during alternate states of consciousness), together with whatever ideologies, ethics, rites, myths, legends, and magic may be related to them."
So, not Perennialism, but constructionism, which is also clear from the subheader Mysticism as experience and interpretation. Looks like a good article! Written by Dan Merkur, who seems to come from a more spiritual background, with a lot of publications, but not very much cited.
  • Philosophical issues: the Stanford article is mainly on "mystical experience." Issues like the "Pure Conscious Event" are threated in the related Wiki-article.
  • Trimming down is not the same as POV-pushing. This is a main article, not an encyclopedia on its own. Shall we talk about the undue weight of a subsection on Gurdjieff, in an article which provides a couple of thousand of links?
Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:51, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Undue weight and trimming down

(Copied from above:) Trimming down is not the same as POV-pushing. This is a main article, not an encyclopedia on its own. Shall we talk about the undue weight of a subsection on Gurdjieff, in an article which provides a couple of thousand of links? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:51, 19 April 2016 (UTC) (End of copied part)

I can't see any consensus in favour of trimming down, and the RfC was faux.1Z (talk) 12:07, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
You created the undue weight by removing everything else. Why do you keep brining it up as though it is my problem? 1Z (talk) 13:15, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
What was the justification for "trimming down"? There is no indication of discussion or consensus. A user complained that the Buddhism subscetion did not deal with mysticism per se, so your response is to remove almost everything. What sense does that make? 1Z (talk) 08:09, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
See Talk:Mysticism#Belated comments: unnecesssary info. No need to repeat too much nfo, or create WP:COATRACK. Yes, another user, complained, and had the balls to do something about it. I agree with him, and continued. That's an indication of concencus. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:55, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
The only other user I see mentioned is edit2020, and they were not claiming that there was to much information genreally. There was no real RfC and no real consensus. 1Z (talk) 08:57, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Additional topics

Regarding the addition of additional topics; this way you may ass well write sub-sections for any topic related to religion. Meanwhile, it might help if you could also provide some sources which threat those various topics in regard to mysticism, and if you figured out how to keep this article readable and limited to a reasonable size. Regarding Theravada: in what way is the Theravada-tradition "mystical," according to which source? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:59, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Shamanism and neo-Paganism

(Copied from above:) How are neo-paganism and shamanism "mysticism," unless you threat the term "mysticism" as a synonym for New Age spirituality:Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:47, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

[Shamanism:] Presumably, by being a form of mysticism, as many people think. "new age mysticism" gets 44,000 google hits.1Z (talk) 10:17, 19 April 2016 (UTC). 1Z (talk) 10:20, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Shamanism: great, 44,000 hits for "new age mysticism." Now some WP:RS please. The Encyclopedia Britannica article on mysticism does have a subsection on shamanism. :::Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:51, 19 April 2016 (UTC) (End of copied part)

I've added some info on shamanism. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:48, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

I've also added a link to Neo-Paganism. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:00, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Philosophical issues

(Copied from above:) "Philosophical issues raised by mysticism": which issues, by which definition of "mysticism"? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:47, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

["Philosophical issues raised by mysticism":] eg http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mysticism/1Z (talk) 10:17, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Philosophical issues: the Stanford article is mainly on "mystical experience." Issues like the "Pure Conscious Event" are threated in the related Wiki-article. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:51, 19 April 2016 (UTC) (End of copied part)

Jainism and Zoroastrism

Could be mentioned with one or two lines, and a Wiki-link. If there are WP:RS, which explain how these are mystical traditions. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:00, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Rational mysticism and nature mysticism

Rational mysticism seems like an obscure topic. Regarding "nature mysticism," the Encyclopedia Britannica, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, and the Encyclopedia of Religion and Society don't even mention it. The MacMillan Encyclopedia of Religion (2005) does mention it, though shortly, giving a short explanation, but also stating that

"In other cases any religious equation of cosmic-mystical experiences with what John of the Cross or the Bhagavadgıta expressed would be clearly inappropriate. Nevertheless, to deny any resemblance between the intense, unifying experience of nature and that of a transcendent presence would be absurd." (p.6342)

So, one or two lines, at best. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:48, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Spontaneous mystical experiences

Mentioned at Mystical experience. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:00, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

"Householder" versus monasticism - or folk-religion and organized religion

This pair seems more essential to me than topics like "theistic versus non-theistic mysticism." New Age, western esotericism, et cetera, may be regarded as modern forms of folk religion, placing them at odds with older Christian spirirtuality, but also the academic research on mysticism (professors also tend to belong to the higher classes, 'the ruling powers', don't they?). Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:36, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Do you have WP:RS's saying esotericism is folk religion? 1Z (talk) 09:05, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
"Western esotericism" in a broad sense, including New Age, Theosophy, Steiner, et cetera. I guess that Hanegraaff does have something on it. Or magic in western thought; much New Age thought may be a continuation of magical thinking. Not favored by the churches, yet still existing. Compare Tantra in India: not favored by Vedic orthodoxy. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:52, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
I don't think "folk" and "unorthodox" are synoyms: "folk" implies tradition, but some esotericism considers itself modern and scientifc. In any case, this sounds like theory-building rather than reporting. 1Z (talk) 18:26, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
You mentioned "householder" versus monasticism; Merkur notes that most mystical (c.q. consciousness-changing) traditions are restricted to initiates, c.q. monastics etc. May be worth mentioning somewhere. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:16, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Theravada

I've added a few lines on Theravada. Without a source, though; Google does not provide very much usefull info on Theravada + mysticism. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:22, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, okay, two sources: Harvey, and Belzen & Geels. Nirvana as transcendent reality (mysticism as unity), and self-restraint and self-discpline (mysticism as self-transformation). Belzen & Geels speak about transcendental ground or related terms; Nirvana is such a related term. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:33, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Okay, some more: Richard H. Jones, Science and Mysticism. Better. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:41, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Gnosticism

I've added a link. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:00, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Skepticism

The morality-section is still there. Schopenhauer and Minksy were condensed under the header "Subjective certainty," and. then moved to Mystical experience. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:00, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Quietism, apophetic, subitism, theistic versus non-theistic

All mentiined and linked in the article. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:00, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Basic Buddhist info

Why have you removed basic information on the historical background and geographical spread of Buddhism? What purpose does that serve? Articles should assume minimal background knowledge on the part of the reader. You keep writing as if for an academic audience, but an encyclopeida is not the same as a paper. 1Z (talk) 14:04, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps the time is due for a reminder that a previous version of this article was WP:TNT'd for excessive obscurity and personal opinion. 1Z (talk) 14:24, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
"Undid revision 716609564 by Peterdjones (talk)Any relevance to mysticism for such over-general text?)"
The relevance would be the way that different traditions have influenced each other. There is not requirement that every single sentence be directly relevant to mysticism. That kind of defensive editing, invariable the result of "fighting" a POV editor who disbelieves in the entire subject, leads to terrible articles. 1Z. (talk) 14:11, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Please provide diffs. it's not clear what you are referring to:
  • 22:47, 22 April 2016 edit-summary: "Any relevance to mysticism for such over-general text?". Removed:
"The Vajrayana tradition is associated with Tibet and is influenced by Tantra.[1]"
This has been explained before, as you might have noticed. Instead I added this info, which is more accurate and better sourced:
"The Tibetan Vajrayana tradition is based on Madhyamaka philosophy and Tantra.[2] In deity yoga, visualizations of deities are eventually dissolved, to realize the inherent emptiness of every-'thing' that exists.[3]"
"Mahamudra has similarities with Dzogchen, emphasizing the meditational approach to insight and liberation."
I've also mentioned this change at the talkpage.
  • Removed "Buddhism originated in India, sometime between the 6th and 4th centuries BCE, but is now mostly practiced in other countries, and divided into a number of sects."
  • Changed
"The aims of Buddhism include the achievement of insight or even enlightenment; liberation from the cycle of rebirth, by enlarging self-awareness and self-control, often through meditation; and assisting other beings to attain enlightenment."
into
"Buddhism aims at liberation from the cycle of rebirth by self-control through meditation and morally just behaviour."
  • Changed
"It could be argued that the entire religion is mystical", but "[it] is not a mystical religion in the sense that it involves or aspires to a sense of merger or unity with a single, all-powerful creator God"."
into
"According to Oliver, Buddhism is mystical in the sense that it aimes at the identification of the true nature of our self, and live according to it."
This has also been explained before.

References

  1. ^ [1]
  2. ^ Newman 2001, p. 587.
  3. ^ Harding 1996, p. 16-20.
So, I have merely improved and corrected the info you added. If this is regarded "academic," yes, that's right. What's more, it's even a basic aim of an encyclopedia: to provide correct info.
At best, we can argue over "Buddhism originated in India, sometime between the 6th and 4th centuries BCE, but is now mostly practiced in other countries, and divided into a number of sects." I think it's not really relevant; the sentence "divided into a number of sects" is even problematic. It's better to speak of "developed into various traditions," I think.
Your reference to WP:TNT, and the suggestion that my editing "leads to terrible articles," is misplaced. You're referring to the series of removals by Chiswick Chap at 27-29 october 2011. I don't think you can compare my edits with the kind of stuff that was removed; it's more like the kind of removals you dislike in me. You've been casting aspersions before, and I am kindly asking you now to stop doing so. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:28, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
You're not explaining anything, just repeating that your edits are "better" ins some unspecified way. You need to explain in terms of wikipedia's editing principles. You also need to build consensus, ie discuss changes on the talk pages before diving in.
I'm entitled to cast aspersions. You have broken one rule after another. 1Z (talk) 10:05, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
I've explained a lot, including references to Wiki-policies, in response to all your requests, which cost me a lot of time. In contrast:
  • You repeatedly ask for explanations which have already been given;
  • You repeatedly ask for the addition of info which is already included;
  • You add info which is incorrect (Tibetan origins of Vajrayana);
  • You copy info from other Wikipedia-articles withoud attribution;
  • You accuse me of WP:VANDALISM, and suggest that my edits necessitate WP:TNT, which is offensive;
No, you're definitely not entitled to WP:Casting aspersions. Read that link. Otherwise, maybe Bishonen can explain this to you. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:14, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Therevada and Vipassana

I have expanded this section, indicating its contemporary relevance.

(I note, by the way, that Vipassana movement contains Jonathan's unmistakable "spoor", a one-side statement that something or other is the result of "modernism", with no indication that the subject my be contentious, and supported by a single (one,1)reference.)

1Z (talk) 10:33, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

I also notice that you jumped in and started amending this addition seconds after I made it, Jonathan,leading to edit conflicts.Would it kill you to follow proper editing procedure, and discuss changes on the talk page first? 1Z (talk) 10:39, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Again, you add unnecessary info. Here, too, no explanation from WP:RS why the Vipassana movement is mysticism. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:16, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Unnecessary in your opinion. Again, you keep putting phrasing your own opinions as if they were objective. Wikipedia is based on consensus and RS, not on subjective declarations of objectivity. And your explanation of why you don't discuss changes?1Z (talk) 11:50, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Starting in the middle

The section of Buddhism introduces too many words and concepts abruptly..for instance the section on Zen explain it in terms of "Buddha nature", without saying anything at all about what "buddha nature" is. 1Z (talk) 10:29, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

There's a link to the article. It's impossible to explain that term in a few lines. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:16, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
I took a look again; I've added some explanations. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:35, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Not enough on individuals

The section on Buddhism dwells on a lot on doctrine and philosophy, and makes very little mention of notable individuals, even ones as noteable as Padmasambhava and Nagarjuna. (Incidentally, I also notice that the section on Christian mysticism has the opposite problem, but I have enough on my plate). 1Z (talk) 10:59, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

That's a valid comparison. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:17, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
As the subsection is already guite long, this change will probably have to be at the expense of the many,and not very relevant references Buddhist philosophical doctrines. Mysticism =/= philosophy, M'yeah? 1Z (talk)
Oh please! What makes you think that those doctrines, which are at the heart of the various Buddhist traditions, are not relevant? The persons are relevant because of the philosophical doctrines they propagated. Read those contemporary definitions of mysticism: "mystical experiences" are deemed "mystical" within a specific frame of reference, that is, those philosophical doctrines which you deem irrelevant. Read McRae's introduction to the reprint of Dumoulin's "A History of Zen," to get an idea of the (ir)relevance of name-dropping. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:52, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Vajrayana

I've reverted the following addition:

"The Vajrayana tradition originates in Tibet and is influenced by Tantra.[1]"

The source was re-inserted, but with a slightly altered content:

"The Vajrayana tradition is associated with Tibet and is influenced by Tantra.[2]"

References

  1. ^ [2]
  2. ^ [3]

The source does not say that Vajrayana originated in Tibet, as anyone with some knowledge on Buddhism would know. The second addition is meaningless and non-informative; what does "associated with" mean? And "influenced by Tantra": Vajrayana is Tantra. Relevant information would be how Tibetan Buddhism can be reagrded as mysticism. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:54, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

I've added some info + links on Vajrayana. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:28, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
"The Vajrayāna, or Adamantine Vehicle, is the school of Mahāyāna Buddhism prevalent in Tibet, Bhutan, Sikkim, Ladakh, and Mongolia. A highly practical form of mysticism, it affords precise techniques for attaining that wisdom whereby man’s ego is negated and he enters into the bliss of Liberation (Nirvāna)."
"Mysticism, or the search for the divine truth within, has always existed among small groups everywhere; but the Tantric mystical techniques have few parallels in other religions or even in other schools of Buddhism; many of them are totally unique. Besides being of interest to students of Buddhism (especially Zen) and of psychology, a study of them will reward everyone who seeks to lift aside the veil of appearances and penetrate to the very source of all divinity and wisdom."
Tantric Mysticism of Tibet, John Blofeld, 1968.
1Z (talk) 15:07, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Blofeld is not WP:RS. Besides, these quotes do not explain why Vajrayana is mysticism. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:22, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Why isn't Blofeld RS?
1Z (talk) 22:16, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Blofeld is a nice writer, but not very reliable reagrding Asian religions. He mixed his personal opinions and beliefs with his observations 'on the ground'. It's more like a 'practitioners confession' than a scholarly study. Those observations (I've read his book on Chinese Buddhism, which is fascinating, because it provides an eye-witness account of Chinese Buddhism before the Communist destructions) are entertaining to read, but also annoying sometimes, because of his misunderstandings. There are better books on Tibetan Buddhism, by scholarly authors, published more recently. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:24, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
You have not explained in terms of wikipedia's policies on RS. You are just offering your personal opinions. We have done this dance before. 1Z (talk) 10:08, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

@VictoriaGrayson: could you explain to Peter why Blofeld is not WP:RS? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:12, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

We have been through this. The fact that scholar A has been criticised by scholar B does not make them non-RS by wikipedia's standards.1Z (talk) 11:57, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Why are you using such an old and out of date book? I agree with Joshua Jonathan.VictoriaGraysonTalk 14:16, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Deleuze

This addition does not belong in the lead; at best, it belongs somewhere in the article. But it seems unlikely to me that two books, writen in the 1960s, will criticise developments from the 1970s and later... This looks more like one editor's personal reflection, using a source that seems convenient (though it's also not clear to me how Deleuze's ideas relate to the constructionist criticism of perennialism). Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:06, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Western religions versus Eastern religions

I read in the paper version of the Encyclopedia Britannica (a long time ago now, it was between 1983 and 1985) that mysticism had been a challenging part of trouble for the Western religions of Christianity, Judaism and Islam, but a central part of the Eastern religions of Hinduism and Buddhism. Does any one know anything about this statement in the Encyclopedia Brittanica which could be reflected in this article?Vorbee (talk) 08:09, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref group=note> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=note}} template (see the help page).
Cite error: There are <ref group=web> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=web}} template (see the help page).

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mysticism/Archive_2&oldid=1191256637"