Template talk:Esotericism
Suggestion
Hello, Thiagovscoelho, we began our discussion on page [[1]], I'll continue it here. It's true that the word "esotericism" today includes, on the one hand, the fruit of genuine spiritual intuitions and, on the other, the fruit of psychic intuitions or personal inventions. As I believe that the two should not be mixed, I propose to separate them as in the example below. I've kept all your entries except Visualization (too specific and not in WP) + Propitiation, Sacrifice, Exorcism (exoteric rites) + Jung (I would not call him an esoterist). I moved Egregore from Esoteric Rites to Key Concepts, and Theosophy from Key Concepts to Esoteric Societes (showing its full name). I added a few esoterists: Socrates, Plato, Dionysius the Areopagite, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Plotinus, Adi Shankara, Ibn Arabi, Meister Eckhart, Dante, Frithjof Schuon. Of course, one can add a host of other Notable figures, Societies, Rites and Key concepts, and as this template is not sourced - it can't be - anyone can add, delete or move anything, which could lead to tedious discussions (no template, no problems!). I look forward to your comments.
| Part of a series on |
| Esotericism |
|---|
 |
Manamaris (talk) 09:55, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks, Manamaris. If Sufi tariqas come under "Esoteric societies", then I would say that Illuminationism (the Ishrāqi), which influenced "Western esotericism scholars" like Henry Corbin (via Suhrawardi and Ibn Arabi), might also be included in this. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 10:09, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
- I personally include Jung in the global umbrella of "esotericism": he was an associate of Henry Corbin (eg Eranos) and while Corbin had Suhrawardi as his inner Sheikh or inner guide, so too Jung had Philemon. See Gary Lachman, Jung the Mystic: The Esoteric Dimensions of Carl Jung's Life and Teachings and Peter Kingsley, Catafalque: Carl Jung and the End of Humanity (he is another Western esotericism scholar).
- "[Henry] Corbin believed that the Grail legends [which came to occupy an increasingly prominent place in his thought in the course of the last fourteen years of his life] enshrine a mystery of supreme importance. He wrote that 'the esoteric theme of our Grail cycle encloses, perhaps, the secret of the truly Western spiritual tradition'." ~ John Carey, "Henry Corbin and the Secret of the Grail". Jung, too, shared an interest in the grail legends.
- Secret Church: "Corbin's ideas on this subject were strongly influenced by A.E. Waite's book, The Hidden Church of the Holy Grail: an influence that can be clearly seen in his repeated references, when speaking of the Grail, to the Way of the Secret Church concealed in the secret shrine of the Soul." ~ John Carey, "Henry Corbin and the Secret of the Grail".
- "If we belong to the secret church, then we belong, and we need not worry about it, but can go our own way. If we do not belong, no amount of teaching or organization can bring us there." ~ Carl Jung, quoted in Esther Harding, Conversations with Jung, and quoted in Peter Kingsley, Catafalque: Carl Jung and the End of Humanity.
- Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 10:17, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
Manamaris, esotericism is not simply mysticism or metaphysics. Although figures such as the ancient Greek philosophers and medieval Christian, Indian and Islamic mystics heavily influenced esotericism, there is no evident "hidden teaching", occult worldview or secret line of initiation in many of those names you've proposed, such as Socrates or Origen. In my opinion, those who might be relevant to add are Plato, who had unwritten doctrines, inner teachings in his Academy and whose works were commented in an esoteric manner by later disciples; Ibn Arabi, who had a clear esoteric approach in part of his philosophical system; and also Dionysius the Areopagite and Frithjof Schuon. Best regards! Bafuncius (talk) 10:53, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
Categories
Would you maybe add the template to the following (or other) categories?
Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 12:39, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
- Will add the categories. Revert me if you don't want that. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 12:57, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for contributing
Thanks to all three of you above for contributing, and anyone else who may show up. As far as I'm concerned, you should all feel free to "be bold" about any changes you want made to it, as I don't have very strong opinions myself on what the template should look like, besides that I wanted there to be one, which is why I made it. As I noted in the Guénon talk page, I wanted something that could picture the conceptual space of Egregore, which this does either way. Thiagovscoelho (talk) 13:10, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
- Thiagovscoelho, Esowteric and Bafuncius: do you agree if I substitute the original template with the one on this TP, after which you enter your modifications?--Manamaris (talk) 14:58, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks, friends. Another editor made some slight fixes to the original structure ( "]] |[[", one or two were "]]| [["", and there is a "]]| |[[" near Gurdjieff which I left alone). So check I got that right, and also check that there are meant to be blank lines in the four lists (which I haven't altered) / that the blank lines are in the right place. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 15:18, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
- Manamaris, I've edited the predefinition and added some of the names you've suggested (I do not agree with all of them, as I said above). As Thiagovscoelho encouraged, let us feel free to edit, if there is any problem we may discuss here. Best regards! Bafuncius (talk) 16:36, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
- Bafuncius, you have modified the original template and not the one I suggested; does that mean that you disagree with my idea to separate the 2 kinds of esotericism? Regards,--Manamaris (talk) 18:08, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
- Manamaris, I see that in the template you've suggested there is in each subdivision a separate space forming two group of entries. I suppose that you have divided it according to your proposal of making explicit two types of esotericism: "on the one hand, the fruit of genuine spiritual intuitions and, on the other, the fruit of psychic intuitions or personal inventions", is that correct? If so, I don't agree with that division, mainly because it is not present in the academic research of esotericism. Esotericism, as a category, can indeed be subdivided according to the purpose of each researcher, but nonetheless its category remains unified and identifiable through some essential concepts, for instance those described by Antoine Faivre: an alleged secret or occult doctrine or gnosis; lineages of transmission or a closed society; doctrine of correspondences between levels of nature and man; transmutation of psyche or other hidden elements of nature, etc. Also, it would be too personal to define which part is "the fruit of genuine spiritual intuitions" and which is "fruit of psychic intuitions or personal inventions". To my knowledge, there is no relevant scholar reference that specifies so. Making that division in this template would be original research (WP:OR. Of course this is an unsourced template, but the unsourced information present here, such as "Notable figures" and "Esoteric societies", can be easily traced to valid sources which identify them as related to the category of esotericism. Best regards! Bafuncius (talk) 18:55, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you for your answer Bafuncius, which I can understand. I have nothing to add to, or delete in the existing template. Regards,--Manamaris (talk) 19:12, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
- Manamaris, "on the one hand, the fruit of genuine spiritual intuitions and, on the other, the fruit of psychic intuitions or personal inventions" sounds problematic to me. How would one gauge the distinction? Some might resort to a silsila (Sufi doctrinal chain of transmission) to determine a subject's legitimacy. Others might look instead at a Golden Chain of succession in Pythagorean, Platonic, Neoplatonic, and perennial philosophy. Some (like the Sufi thinker and writer, Idries Shah) might begin with clearing away the deadwood and undergrowth ("learning how to learn") and the first of the nafs: the commanding self or depraved self and self-accusatory self, others might start at the other end, working on the heart or activating the first one, two or three lataif (organs of subtle perception). Some might concentrate on light and spirit and aim for perfection, others (such as depth psychologists) on working in the inner depths on the psyche (soul) and wholeness of being (rather than perfection). Some might seek physical teacher/s, others may find an inner guide and inner-tuition (such as Suhrawardi, Philemon, or Khidr). Some may belong to an officially-enfranchised school with a silsila, others may be without a physical master (the Uwaisi or like a Rōnin). And yes, some may be con artists, deluded, cranks or mentally ill. But better to have a broad and non-sectarian church in the template, imo. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 19:18, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
- As for the Sufi tariqa (schools) which can at times be elitist, Idries Shah writes in The Way of the Sufi: "In the lower reaches the members are organized into circles and lodges. In the higher — sakina (stillness) — form, they are bound together by baraka (blessing, power, sanctity) and their interaction with this force influences their lives in every way."
- Sakina / Shekhinah: Peace, stillness, serenity, tranquility, indwelling presence. And it's there where we find unity.
- Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 19:36, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you for your answer Bafuncius, which I can understand. I have nothing to add to, or delete in the existing template. Regards,--Manamaris (talk) 19:12, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
- Manamaris, I see that in the template you've suggested there is in each subdivision a separate space forming two group of entries. I suppose that you have divided it according to your proposal of making explicit two types of esotericism: "on the one hand, the fruit of genuine spiritual intuitions and, on the other, the fruit of psychic intuitions or personal inventions", is that correct? If so, I don't agree with that division, mainly because it is not present in the academic research of esotericism. Esotericism, as a category, can indeed be subdivided according to the purpose of each researcher, but nonetheless its category remains unified and identifiable through some essential concepts, for instance those described by Antoine Faivre: an alleged secret or occult doctrine or gnosis; lineages of transmission or a closed society; doctrine of correspondences between levels of nature and man; transmutation of psyche or other hidden elements of nature, etc. Also, it would be too personal to define which part is "the fruit of genuine spiritual intuitions" and which is "fruit of psychic intuitions or personal inventions". To my knowledge, there is no relevant scholar reference that specifies so. Making that division in this template would be original research (WP:OR. Of course this is an unsourced template, but the unsourced information present here, such as "Notable figures" and "Esoteric societies", can be easily traced to valid sources which identify them as related to the category of esotericism. Best regards! Bafuncius (talk) 18:55, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
- Bafuncius, you have modified the original template and not the one I suggested; does that mean that you disagree with my idea to separate the 2 kinds of esotericism? Regards,--Manamaris (talk) 18:08, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
- Manamaris, I've edited the predefinition and added some of the names you've suggested (I do not agree with all of them, as I said above). As Thiagovscoelho encouraged, let us feel free to edit, if there is any problem we may discuss here. Best regards! Bafuncius (talk) 16:36, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks, friends. Another editor made some slight fixes to the original structure ( "]] |[[", one or two were "]]| [["", and there is a "]]| |[[" near Gurdjieff which I left alone). So check I got that right, and also check that there are meant to be blank lines in the four lists (which I haven't altered) / that the blank lines are in the right place. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 15:18, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
Peter Kingsley
Well, I foolishly tried to add Category:Western esotericism scholars and the Esotericism template to Peter Kingsley and was soon reverted. Of course I may well be the one in the wrong, especially if Kingsley himself responds to my talk page topic. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 16:35, 4 July 2023 (UTC)