Talk:Mysticism/Archive 1

message: :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)
thread_title: Opening comments

message: Spiritual healing has alot to do w mysticism. Sam Spade  22:41, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It does? Exactly what? Jayjg (talk) 00:20, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Spiritual healing 

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

message: :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)
replies: text: 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 / 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: does anyone care to comment on any of this?  its been a couple weeks.  --Heah (talk) 19:51, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Essay moved from article, for discussion 

message: <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; .
: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)
thread_title:  Mysticism Defined 

message: 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).
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)
thread_title: Why so much attention to Abrahamic religions? 

message: #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).
#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.
#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.
#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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Sources

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Christian mysticism

message: * 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)
thread_title:  change log 22:07, 25 February 2006 (UTC) 

message: 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)
replies: text: "Ontos" is an experienced object or thing, apart from its relation to an experiencing subject or observer.Lestrade 12:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  What is "ontos"? 

message: 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)
replies: text: Thanks, please do. :) Sam Spade 17:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What the article used to be 

message: 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)
thread_title: Fantastic Site

message: 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)
thread_title: article inherently irreligious and anti-traditional

message: 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)
thread_title: muo

message: :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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Jesus a Christian mystic? 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Psycanic" example 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Citations/References 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Overview deleted 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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, .Lestrade 01:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Short Definition

message: 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)
thread_title: "Quantum mysticism" deleted

message: 67.176.14.100 16:16, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why are the pics gone? 

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  the article is absurd and doesn't have good intention to begin with 

message: 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)
thread_title: Reworking the "ambiguities of meaning" segment

message: "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)
thread_title: The relation of mystical thought to philosophy, psychology, biology and physics

message: 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)
thread_title:  what is the "other" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Opposition 

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

message: 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)
thread_title: Origin of the term

message: 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)
thread_title:  practice section - removal? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  mysticism: singular or plural? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  irony 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Article vandalism 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Traditional Religion 

message: 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)
thread_title: Grammatical error

message: 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)
thread_title: Freemasonry

message: 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)
thread_title:  cleanup tag 

message: 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)
thread_title:  self help and objectivism section? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  A series on mysticism? 

message: "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)
thread_title:  Relation to philosophy and sciences section bias  

message: "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)
thread_title: transcendental knowledge - mature fruit of all mysticism

message: "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)
thread_title:  The previous definition of Mysticism was succinct. 

message: "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.Alexander Wynne, The origin of Buddhist meditation. Routledge, 2007  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)
thread_title: Essay "Overview" moved here from article, possibly contains usable fragments

message: 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)
replies: text: Ayn Rand is not a very good source for a definition of mysticism. Yworo (talk) 18:35, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-Objective 

message: 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)
thread_title:  suggested article to expand the content in the section mysticism in world traditions 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Section on 'Contrasts' 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Lead 

message: 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)
replies: text: Like incorporating the disambiguation page on Eastern mysticism? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:27, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:05, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eastern Mysticism 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Turning some people off of this article 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Carlos Castaneda 

message: 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 ). 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" 
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."
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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  W.F. Cobb 

message: 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  and  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Popular understanding 

message: 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)
replies: text: Done. Thanks! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:59, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source found for "citation needed" 

message: 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)
replies: text: I've reverted again; please respond at the trhead above. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:46, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  "has been described" 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: And what's your point here? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:12, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Traditional Advaita bias in the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mysticism#Vedanta Vedanta] section 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Shankara/Buddhism 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: And what's your point here? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:12, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Neo Advaita Critique 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Grammatical Edits 

message: 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)
thread_title:  This is a very narrow usage of the word 'Mysticism' 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Mystical experience" moved to [[:Mystical experience]] 

message: 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)
thread_title: RfC