I mean, you are correct that people have been doing it for thousands of years. The thing is to do it well, it helps to illustrate the point by adding some poetry, rhyme or style of some kind.

The thing is, in our current society, it's quite easy to find some New Age-ish perspective that says something like "the world is awesome, man. Feel the vibrations." Yeah, ok fine. But this type of talk can take away from the serious point:

The world is a mystery, existence is too. We have no idea why we are here, why things appear the way they do, or why we even have experience at all. Sure, you can speak in terms of the laws of physics and biological processes that lead to ever more complexification of life and that perception is merely the way the brain makes sense out of information.

I think this view, while true in so far as it manages to describe some facts, does nothing to explain why things are the way they are, and not some other way.

It's a bit of a shame that many people, if told this, don't seem to care or think it's empty or something. Why complicate everything? Well, I don't have a good answer to that. But I think it's evident.

I figure communicating with the dead should count as a mystical process. There are shamanistic practices from many different traditions that involve being a "medium" for the conversation.

There are many different forms of divination, from oracular pronouncements from "speakers" in contact with the gods to systems of interpretation like Tarot or the I Ching.

What some people shun as superstition is a valid practice for others.

I'd be interested in parsing the difference between mystery and mystical - I think the two become confused.

It seems fairly clear that those who have mystical experiences don't generally view them as mysterious in the moment - the experience itself brings a type of grounding and certainty - perhaps a sense of oneness or a meaningful connection to higher consciousness. When encountered this is not doubted.

Talking about, describing it afterwards is the problem.

Is there any thinking about any notions of good mysticism versus bad mysticism. Can it be graded in any way? Perhaps shallow versus deep?

What are some of the better descriptions people have provided about the wisdom or insights they encounter through mysticism? Can it be brought back to the quotidian? Or does it remain resolutely first person and ineffable? I am particularly interested in whatever transformative capacities mysticism is said to have for people.

We should probably distinguish between the experiences people have taking substances and those mystical states gained during contemplative states. Thoughts?

Well perhaps the mystical experience was already present before homo sapiens. It's just an artificial line historians drew to define when apes became humans. Jane Goodall claims they know spirituality.

This is what the gurus say: that everything we understand is but a concept in our minds. And that in letting go of those concepts one gradually becomes more blissful. And bliss lies more in emptiness than people realize.

I was mentally circling above "The Abyss", the bottomless pit. And it was terrifying. And I'm not sure if I ever want to feel that way again. But what I realize now is that it's empty. There was no gravity to pull me in. I wanted to die that day but I didn't. And that was an awakening.

Jesus fasted 40 days and nights in the desert. That means that he must have been near death. And maybe only such an extreme experience can bring one closer to understanding the mystery of life.

That is how I currently define mysticism: appreciation for the mysteriousness of life.

This happened to me in December 2020. I'm still trying to make sense of things. Thank you for helping me on this journey.

The thing is, in our current society, it's quite easy to find some New Age-ish perspective that says something like "the world is awesome, man. Feel the vibrations." Yeah, ok fine. But this type of talk can take away from the serious point: — Manuel

I place a strong emphasis on the fact that the Tao and associated phenomena are not magical or mysterious. They are as real as a box of rocks. As real as smelly socks. I do that because I don't want my understanding of Taoism to be mistaken for new age baloney. And yes, I know the Tao is not a phenomenon.

The world is a mystery, existence is too. We have no idea why we are here, why things appear the way they do, or why we even have experience at all. — Manuel

Careful. This sounds a bit new agey. I read somewhere that a mystery is a part of us we have hidden from ourselves. I think it may have been in Alan Watts. That makes a lot of sense to me. There is no mystery, just things we're not aware of. The Tao, God, enlightenment, reality, whatever - it's sitting right here in front of us right now.

It's a bit of a shame that many people, if told this, don't seem to care or think it's empty or something. Why complicate everything? Well, I don't have a good answer to that. But I think it's evident. — Manuel

There are lots of good ways to know the world. Different ways work for different people. None of these ways of seeing we are calling mystical are necessarily any better than other ways of seeing. They work for some people and not for others.

I figure communicating with the dead should count as a mystical process. There are shamanistic practices from many different traditions that involve being a "medium" for the conversation.

There are many different forms of divination, from oracular pronouncements from "speakers" in contact with the gods to systems of interpretation like Tarot or the I Ching.

What some people shun as superstition is a valid practice for others. — Valentinus

As I've noted several times so far in this thread, I emphasize the mundaneness of Taoism because I don't want it to be mistaken for the occult. I say it's not secret, it's not magic, it's just meat and potatoes. I think mixing mysticism up with magic undermines mysticism's credibility. I am reluctant to do that. For that reason, I wouldn't call communicating with the dead a mystical practice, although it may be, I'd call it an occult practice.

There's stuff we don't know anything about.

When folk talk about that stuff, despite not knowing anything about it, they are being mystical.

Honest folk will remain quiet.

Careful. This sounds a bit new agey. I read somewhere that a mystery is a part of us we have hidden from ourselves. I think it may have been in Alan Watts. That makes a lot of sense to me. There is no mystery, just things we're not aware of. The Tao, God, enlightenment, reality, whatever - it's sitting right here in front of us right now. — T Clark

Well, I mean, I think there's good actual evidence for this view. I could send you a very good essay about if you are interested. But, in either case, point taken.

There are lots of good ways to know the world. Different ways work for different people. None of these ways of seeing we are calling mystical are necessarily any better than other ways of seeing. They work for some people and not for others. — T Clark

Sure. I only would like for people who think of this stuff, not to be labeled as "wacky" or the like. I don't think it is. I have in mind people like Dawkins, for example.

I'd be interested in parsing the difference between mystery and mystical - I think the two become confused. — Tom Storm

Mystery means lots of things. In what way is it confused with mystical?

It seems fairly clear that those who have mystical experiences don't generally view them as mysterious in the moment - the experience itself brings a type of grounding and certainty - perhaps a sense of oneness or a meaningful connection to higher consciousness. When encountered this is not doubted. — Tom Storm

I can't really speak to this. I don't think I've ever had what I would call a mystical experience. What I have seen is that the way I normally see the world sometimes has more in common with what is called mysticism than with everyday conventional realism. Reading the Tao Te Ching has just given me words to talk about my experience.

Is there any thinking about any notions of good mysticism versus bad mysticism. Can it be graded in any way? Perhaps shallow versus deep? — Tom Storm

This is a really good question. Maybe we apply the same standards as we do for all other ways of knowing. Does it work? I guess we have to decide what it means for knowledge to work. Did I mention that this is a good question.

What are some of the better descriptions people have provided about the wisdom or insights they encounter through mysticism? Can it be brought back to the quotidian? Or does it remain resolutely first person and ineffable? I am particularly interested in whatever transformative capacities mysticism is said to have for people. — Tom Storm

I don't really have an answer, but here's a quote from Franz Kafka that I think captures the heart of what mysticism means.

It is not necessary that you leave the house. Remain at your table and listen. Do not even listen, only wait. Do not even wait, be wholly still and alone. The world will present itself to you for its unmasking, it can do no other, in ecstasy it will writhe at your feet.

I only would like for people who think of this stuff, not to be labeled as "wacky" or the like. — Manuel

Yes. This is why I try to make sure mysticism is kept separate from the occult, magic.

By the way - I've been meaning to ask you what that thing is in your icon picture. I looked a the larger version on your page. It looks like maybe it is meant to weigh down fabric or rugs or something. I want it. Give it to me.

As I said, I did this primarily for myself. If anyone has any comments on the definitions or any other aspects of mysticism, feel free to include them here. — T Clark

Many of the examples start with 'belief that....'. The point about mysticism is that it is purported to provide an insight or realisation which is not a matter of belief. (Actually the term 'realisation' is key in this context - the enlightened 'real-ise' the higher truths, not as a matter of belief, but by direct intuition, and also 'making real'.)

It's often overlooked that the original derivation of the term was associated with 'initiation into the mystery schools'. The 'schools' in question were the indigenous cults of ancient Greece, notably the cult of Orpheus:

[The Orphic] myth describes humanity as having a dual nature: body (Ancient Greek: σῶμα, romanized: sôma), inherited from the Titans, and a divine spark or soul (Ancient Greek: ψυχή, romanized: psukhḗ), inherited from Dionysus. In order to achieve salvation from the Titanic, material existence, one had to be initiated into the Dionysian mysteries and undergo teletē, a ritual purification and reliving of the suffering and death of the god. Orphics believed that they would, after death, spend eternity alongside Orpheus and other heroes. The uninitiated (Ancient Greek: ἀμύητος, romanized: amúētos), they believed, would be reincarnated indefinitely.

A notable commentator on, and possible initiate into, the Orphic cult was Plato - making Plato, if indeed he was initiated (and it will never be known for sure) a textbook mystic.

I mention this by way of rebuttal of (2) and (5). Mysticism is, for sure, a pejorative in many contexts and is generally abjured by the positivists and materialists, but it's also part of all genuine intellectual cultures. (Interestingly, Nikola Tesla's mystic vision of a sunset was integral to the development of alternating current in electronics.)

:up:

There's a rather quirky Wikipedia article I sometimes mine for references, on Higher Consciousness. I'm a firm believer in there really being higher and lower forms of consciousness - therefore a vertical dimension, the sense of which is all but extinguished in modern 'culture'.

Many of the examples start with 'belief that....'. The point about mysticism is that it is purported to provide an insight or realisation which is not a matter of belief. (Actually the term 'realisation' is key in this context - the enlightened 'real-ise' the higher truths, not as a matter of belief, but by direct intuition, and also 'making real'.) — Wayfarer

This reminds me of arguments about what it means to have faith in something. Materialists/realists speak as if it's self-evident that faith is not a valid basis for knowledge because it hasn't been put to a rational test. It's also another reason that rationalists look down on mysticism.

I mention this by way of rebuttal of (2) and (5). Mysticism is, for sure, a pejorative in many contexts and is generally abjured by the positivists and materialists. — Wayfarer

That's the argument I'm trying to make - that pejorative definitions like 2 and 5 unreasonably undermine the credibility of mystical viewpoints.

There's a rather quirky Wikipedia article I sometimes mine for references, on Higher Consciousness. I'm a firm believer in there really being higher and lower forms of consciousness - therefore a vertical dimension, the sense of which is all but extinguished in modern 'culture'. — Wayfarer

I took a look. The only problem I have with the ideas is that there is a lot of goofy hippy-talk mixed in with the more substantive stuff. That provides more ammunition for those who want to undermine the credibility of mystical ways of knowing.

It was brave of you to share your experience. Your experience must have been just before you found this site I do believe that it is often the harshest things in life which bring about transformation. I have seen some literature on mysticism which seems to ignore this, and almost treat mystical states as if they were add on extras to the comforts of life. However, there is the tradition of mysticism which sees it in the context of 'the dark night of the soul.'

But, of course, I would not be wishing to denigrate the mystical experience of anyone, but do think that as your testimony suggest, the mystical experience arising from suffering is important.

I understand the distinction you are drawing between magic and "real" mysticism. But the criteria is not as straightforward as the thought of separating the superstitious from the phenomena we establish as separate from our experience by definition.

In Taoism, for example, the ineffable is related to our experience and that speaks to your preference for "meat and potatoes." But the Tao is also said to be the means to setting up everything on both sides of the gate separating our lives from whatever makes it possible. That encouraged a religious interpretation that was expressed in various ideas of immortality, some of them that are very "occult."

While I don't understand the text in that particular "religious" way, I remember Romulus is related to Remus, suckling from the same mother.

It is a wooden toad. When one draws the rod seen on the left along the spiky spine, it makes a sound much like some toads do.

It is not necessary that you leave the house. Remain at your table and listen. Do not even listen, only wait. Do not even wait, be wholly still and alone. The world will present itself to you for its unmasking, it can do no other, in ecstasy it will writhe at your feet. — T Clark

Isn't this fascinating? Kafka... I really like this. This could be from any number of mystical traditions. And maybe for me this is the initial entry point on this subject that resonates most. That sense of no nothing (although that is perhaps too crude).

Mystery means lots of things. In what way is it confused with mystical? — T Clark

I think mystery is often used as a synonym for mysticism but for me this suggests it is a puzzle to solve rather than an experiential phenomenon. Wrong path. Also to say it is a mystery is too general and sometimes used as a pejorative to shut down a discussion of mysticism (at least, that's what I've seen) as in 'Don't mystify us with your bullshit!'. And mystery is kind of a low resolution stand in for what people mean by the ineffable. That which cannot be explained but is experienced by others is a mystery to those outside the experience. Sorry, perhaps I lack sufficient precision on this point.

I think that there is a danger of trying to make mysticism into a neat and tidy term. For some people this may work, but the problem is that the mystical experiences of individuals vary so much as well as the attempts to understand them.Some of those who have experienced mystical states have been those who explored philosophies which are obscure. Also, some of the literature is not easy to read. One book which I have, but not managed to read, is W B Yeats" 'A Vision', but I am determined to do so, at some point.

:up:

One asks "Why am I?" and then "Why anything at all?"

And then one waits for an answer (Godot?). One listens with eyes and mouth shut (múō), with body and mind relaxed (wu wei). One gradually, imperceptibly, lets (the) answer be ... revealed.

On cloudy, moonless nights the mystic does not wait for the sound of thunder from distant lightening to arrive; the mystic, instead, awaits that dark silence which reveals all (dao, tat tvam asi, logos, Ich-Du, natura naturans) before it's suddenly gone.

so the mystic cannot answer
and s/he can no longer ask:
between question and answer
(or "the lightning" and "the thunder")
between thoughts
between breaths
between the moments ...
the mystic simply waits

Perhaps 'mysticism' is waiting for sudden revelations as a way of life.

There's stuff we don't know anything about.

When folk talk about that stuff, despite not knowing anything about it, they are being mystical.

Honest folk will remain quiet. — Banno

:zip:

Is Taoism a form of mysticism? — T Clark

(re: #6 definition) Yeah, the more naturalistic-pragmatic interpretation daojia I'd say is more mystical (esoteric) than religious (exoteric).

The only problem I have with the ideas is that there is a lot of goofy hippy-talk mixed in with the more substantive stuff. That provides more ammunition for those who want to undermine the credibility of mystical ways of knowing. — T Clark

:up:

Perhaps 'mysticism' is waiting for sudden revelations as a way of life. — 180 Proof

I don't know why but the word 'sudden' seems slightly off target.

Very much so. The curious thing about this is that there seems to be no direct way to communicate mysticism, we have to elude, circumscribe, reveal, retreat and then make manifest what was already there. It's a bit like running in a straight line all around the world, just to find yourself where you originally were, but this time everything is different, more illuminated and transcendent.

Another quote:

"There are these two young fish swimming along and they happen to meet an older fish swimming the other way, who nods at them and says “Morning, boys. How’s the water?” And the two young fish swim on for a bit, and then eventually one of them looks over at the other and goes “What the hell is water?”

.........

It is about the real value of a real education, which has almost nothing to do with knowledge, and everything to do with simple awareness; awareness of what is so real and essential, so hidden in plain sight all around us, all the time, that we have to keep reminding ourselves over and over:

“This is water.”

“This is water.”

It is unimaginably hard to do this, to stay conscious and alive in the adult world day in and day out."

- David Foster Wallace

'suddeness' or 'abruptness' is often associated with mysticism. One of the mystical classics par excellence, the Platform Sutra of the Sixth Patriarch (of Zen Buddhism) revolves around the immediacy of enlightenment, which no amount of careful preparation or disciplined praxis can effect. This text in turn gave rise to a centuries-long debate in Zen/Ch'an about 'gradual versus sudden'. It's been critiqued in a book which is on my 'really must read' list, The Rhetoric of Immediacy: A Cultural Critique of Chan/Zen Buddhism Bernard Faure.

There are many other examples in mystical literature of the sudden 'parting of the veil'.There are also parallels in other areas of intellectual life, such as mathematician Henri Poincare:

Most striking at first is this appearance of sudden illumination, a manifest sign of long, unconscious prior work. The role of this unconscious work in mathematical invention appears to me incontestable, and traces of it would be found in other cases where it is less evident. Often when one works at a hard question, nothing good is accomplished at the first attack. Then one takes a rest, longer or shorter, and sits down anew to the work. During the first half-hour, as before, nothing is found, and then all of a sudden the decisive idea presents itself to the mind. It might be said that the conscious work has been more fruitful because it has been interrupted and the rest has given back to the mind its force and freshness. 1

Not hard to imagine parallels between the 'unconscious' and what Buddhists would consider the 'karma of previous lifetimes'.

:up:

I don't know why but the word 'sudden' seems slightly off target. — Tom Storm

What "sudden" implies is this:

"There are these two young fish swimming along and they happen to meet an older fish swimming the other way, who nods at them and says “Morning, boys. How’s the water?” And the two young fish swim on for a bit, and then eventually one of them looks over at the other and goes “What the hell is water?”

.........

It is about the real value of a real education, which has almost nothing to do with knowledge, and everything to do with simple awareness; awareness of what is so real and essential, so hidden in plain sight all around us, all the time, that we have to keep reminding ourselves over and over:

“This is water.”

“This is water.”

It is unimaginably hard to do this, to stay conscious and alive in the adult world day in and day out."

- David Foster Wallace — Manuel

:clap: :100: Thanks for this reminder.

“What the hell is water?” — 180 Proof

Excellent!!

Yes, I suppose I took sudden to be predicated on a lack of preparation rather than the awareness/experience. Is sudden for the first time, or for the seasoned mystic?

Every time. S/he is always a beginner it seems especially the more s/he is not.

Every time. S/he is always a beginner it seems. — 180 Proof

I wonder if there is a price to pay for all that suddenness.

I like W.S. Merwin for this:

The Hosts

You asked what
were the names of those two
old people who lived under the big tree
and gods in disguise visited them though they were poor

they offered the best they had to eat
and opened the oldest wine in the house
the gods went on pouring out pouring out wine
and then promised that it would flow till the ends of their lives

when the shining guests were out of sight he turned to her
by the table and said
this bottle has been in the cave all the time
we have been together

:cool:

I wonder if there is a price to pay for all that suddenness. — Tom Storm

Saṃsāra ... wei ... maya ...