Reddit mentions: The best books about mysticism

EDIT 2: u/valegrete attempted to talk some sense into me. I think he half succeeded? I hope? Whatever, here we go.

If you are Catholic and are shaken by the current stuff going on DO NOT JUMP SHIP TO THE ORTHODOX CHURCH. AS AN ORTHODOX CHRISTIAN, I AM PUTTING THIS IN ALL CAPS BECAUSE IT IS IMPORTANT. Bishops are idiots, like the rest of us. Their mistakes, unlike ours, are writ large, and while I've had quite a few nasty things to say about the Catholic hierarchy on here as of late, that is no excuse to tell someone else to jump ship. The Roman Catholic tradition is extremely rich. Get fed, focus on what you're doing, call out your bishop for being an idiot or heretic if you have to, persevere!

If you are needing an idea of where to start, I heartily recommend the following Roman Catholic works:

The Ways of Mental Prayer. I just flat out recommend this book to anybody who wants to learn to pray, regardless of which Church you're in. It's great.

The Three Ages of the Interior Life: This book is nuts. It's amazing. Read it. Consider it essential.

If, after reading those two giants of modern Roman Catholic theology, you are still dissatisfied, well, that's a different matter. But by that point that's a conversation I'm not going to be a part of, most likely. Regardless, do not despair.

I don't like the article. I think it's insulting and ill-informed. But I left the idea that it's easy to find Truth a very long time ago, out of necessity over a variety if circumstances that are best not gotten into here. The point is, if you're shaken by this, it's a call to deeper investigate the Faith, not a boot out the door. If, after praying about it and coming to the conclusion that God is calling you to the Orthodox Church, know that I sure wouldn't stop you. But do not leave because of all that is going on in Rome. You will never become what God made you to be if bishops determine your life like this, spiritual and otherwise. The rest of what's below are my thoughts on the article. I stand by them. I will continue to stand by them. I sure as hell don't like it. But do not take it as a sign that I want you to leave the Catholic Church. That would do us all a disservice.

ORIGINAL POST

As an Orthodox, I find the article laughable. Peter being the Prince of the Apostles is universally acclaimed and has never been a real issue. The man's entire article misses what Orthodoxy is so fundamentally that it walks into actual hysterics on my end.

EDIT 1: So, a lot of people asked for me to elucidate. Here we are. I do not begrudge the man for going Roman Catholic. I do not understand his heart and I do not know what God put there. I do not pretend to know those things. But what he's written here is just execrable and is an active stumbling block to unity, which I think God not only wants but demands. The world will suffer because of Catholic and Orthodoxy idiocy, and this man is contributing to it. My post will attempt to clear up three things: the point of Orthodoxy, how this point relates to the hierarchy, and thus why the Orthodox hierarchy the way it is. I do not pretend that modern Orthodox ecclesiology doesn't have problems, nor do I think his points about ecclesial unity are wholly without basis. But I do think he missed the point so widely as to make his comments profoundly unhelpful. And that does anger me.

1. Orthodoxy is therapy first, with an eye toward theosis, becoming a God by grace and taking the whole of the cosmos into oneself, humanity's nature primarily. The idea of there being a perfect structure on is earth utterly irrelevant to this concept, because there is no ideal here on this earth, Church included (and especially). Man is seen as ill and in need of rehabilitation, with perfection in this life never being on the table.
   
2. The hierarchy is seen closer to medical professionals, with councils and the canons thereof as to aiding in the healing and glorification process of the people more than anything. The bishop is the head doctor of his diocese, with the priests his assistant (operating under his license), and the deacons smoothing over many of the practical considerations in the ministry of healing that the Church must undertake.
   
3. The idea of a Pope, therefore, as a supreme head of the Church is utter nonsense in Orthodox thinking. How can a man who does not know you aid in your healing? He can't. The bishop is as far as it can go in helping the people of that diocese heal, and spiritually speaking the bishop is the Peter of the diocese. Order in the , Church is seen as preferential but is secondary to making sure the bishops can take care of their flock first, on a personal basis. A lot of Catholic's issues (what is the teaching? How do I know for sure?) is simply not on an the typical Orthodox radar, because Orthodoxy is method first. And that method is incredibly clear and well put together.
   
   Now onto the actual article.
   
   Primacy is not the same as supremacy. Rome is prime. Yup. I said it. All you uberdox get over it. Rome has the right of final appeal, as the First Ecumenical Council teaches. But Rome's primacy does not mean the supremacy of Vatican I. He cannot shove things down everyone's throat, which is entirely what Vatican I was. No Father that was not a Pope taught the supremacy of Rome. It doesn't exist. Hell, you can't even get St. Jerome to agree to the idea that a bishop and a priest are actually different sacramentally, nevermind whether or not another bishop can be over another! The writer of the article misses how toxic that council was, and that nobody with a conscience would agree with how it was implemented (which included the Pope calling the Melkite Patriarch to sign the document and calling him troublesome for refusing to do so!) Rome can hold a primacy without Vatican I. And, honestly, with more than five minutes of looking at that miserable council, I can't in good conscience agree to it.
   
   The difference of focus in Orthodoxy means that clarity (or the lack thereof) is not an issue. You are there to heal. That is it. You are being drawn into the apophatic Trinity and the idea that there is clarity here in this life is something wholly alien to it. The circumstances for healing shift so greatly between people that saying "there is a universal rule" is something Orthodox are quite loathe to answer quickly (read: a few hundred years). How you heal is going to be different to another person's. It's just the way that it operates, and the writer misses that, egregiously so. By valuing clarity over healing I think a lot of harm is done. I also, personally, find it to be an immature wish for a world that frankly does not exist.
   
   The unity of the Orthodox is far greater than anything I've seen in the Catholic Church. There is no confusion about theosis, or liturgy. It does not exist in the endemic state that has always existed in the Catholic Church. And this is without someone trying to rule the roost. We agree because are there for healing, and certain principles heal everyone, with the rest of it necessarily needing to not be so clear.
   
   If you have any other questions I will update this post, as much as I can.

I felt the same way after I first rediscovered my Catholic faith. I read a lot by the Carmelite mystics, and I even thought about the Carthusians. As I continued to discern my vocation, I eventually saw my attraction to those orders as God growing my interior life rather than a vocation (I'm now happily married with my first child on the way!). Before diving right into St. John of the Cross or St. Theresa of Avila, I recommend reading Fr. Thomas Dubay.

Or better yet, if you have some theology or philosophy background already, read Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange or Fr. Adolph Tanqueray.

Carthusians: http://transfiguration.chartreux.org/
Benedictines in Norcia: https://en.nursia.org/
More Benedictines (I think): https://clearcreekmonks.org/
Fire Within by Thomas Dubay https://www.amazon.com/Fire-Within-Teresa-Gospel-Prayer/dp/0898702631/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1486491394&sr=8-1&keywords=thomas+dubay+fire+within
Three Ages of the Interior Life by Fr. Garrigou Lagrange https://www.amazon.com/Three-Ages-Interior-Life/dp/1492390976/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1486491194&sr=8-3&keywords=garrigou+lagrange
The Spiritual Life by Adolphe Tanquerey https://www.amazon.com/Spiritual-Life-Adolphe-Tanquerey/dp/0895556596
Dark Night of the Soul by St. John of the Cross https://www.amazon.com/Dark-Night-Dover-Thrift-Editions/dp/0486426939/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1486491335&sr=8-1&keywords=dark+night+of+the+soul
The Way of Perfection by St. Theresa of Avila https://www.amazon.com/Way-Perfection-Image-Classics/dp/0385065396

Exactly, times 1,000. This should be the basis for such a website. Pointing out to people they are the fringe, even in their own churches.

To expand more on your greater points there I want to point you to the following, excellent book;

http://www.amazon.com/Search-Meaning-Life-Reflections-Experience/dp/089243774X

Written by a monk who basically says: "So what if Jesus is made up, let's just like the story and learn from it". Granted he does assert at points the story is likely true, because of his life-calling and all, but cites so much from differing religions to show it's about universal truths about humans - not about god. The reviews say it's about mysticism, and that's mostly true in a way, but it's got a greater reckoning of differing religious beliefs than I've seen elsewhere. I guess the point is that it's normal for humans to want religion (cue the responses... now!) but that the religion isn't important, the introspection is.

Dogma and theology kill the spiritual mind was what I took away from it. Religion is suffocating the religious by being so dogmatic and cites so many people who left their churches because they felt something, but what they were being taught wasn't what they were feeling.

Disclaimer, I'm not religious, but I think it's good to be well versed in these things

A few months ago I got interested in this topic as well, largely due to reading Ben Morgan's On Becoming God, which talked about identity as something that we do in communities. To do this, Morgan first 'clears the ground' of contemporary thoughts about identity, which are generally isolated objects, and goes back to medieval Europe, and in Meister Eckhart finds a way of doing identity that is more communal. It's a wonderful entry into the subject, as well as a great introduction to religious mysticism as well.

Another book that's arriving in the mail tomorrow is Self, Value and Narrative, which I obviously haven't read yet, but it apparently is going to pick of the lens of Kierkegaard as a means of understanding identity. I'm super excited to read it.

http://www.krishnapath.org/quantum-physics-came-from-the-vedas-schrodinger-einstein-and-tesla-were-all-vedantists/

This source is pretty random, but it has some of the same quotes I have written down, "Bohr, Heisenberg and Schrödinger regularly read Vedic texts. Heisenberg stated, “Quantum theory will not look ridiculous to people who have read Vedanta.” It looks pretty in depth, and of course you can track the quotes from it down to other places.

https://www.amazon.com/My-View-World-Erwin-Schrodinger/dp/0918024307?ie=UTF8&keywords=schrodinger&qid=1450233393&redirect=true&ref_=sr_1_3&sr=8-3

https://www.amazon.com/Quantum-Questions-Mystical-Writings-Physicists/dp/1570627681?ie=UTF8&keywords=quantum%20mysticism&qid=1461680798&ref_=sr_1_4&sr=8-4

If you want some primary sources, here's two books, one with quotes from many of them, and one which is just schrodinger's book. Though neither of these books really talk about physics that often per say, but rather are them describing their worldview in general. Unfortunately for some of them its not made obvious in their actual published works what the line is between qm, and why it led them to think this, since obviously being scientists they didn't publically talk about anything too often that they thought would make people see their work in a mystical light. So when they did talk about it they would try to distance it from their physics work. But from the modern benefit of hindsight it becomes more obvious why their physics led them to this. Schrodinger's section is easily the highlight of the book, so you might just want to track down his own book instead to get the entire thing rather than a small slice.

Yeah, well, this is exactly the point where apophatic theology reaches the its culmination point. When saying "God is not a being", or "God is being itself", or "God is outside being" you could change being with language or concept: "God is not a word or a concept", "God is Nous", "God is beyond, God is beyond speech", etc. This is, of course, problematic. If you say "you cannot speak of God", you still refer to God with the word "God" and are effectively speaking about God. This is an interesting theological question. I've read quite a few books about it. One of the most interesting ones was Mystical Languages of Unsaying by Michael A. Sells. (For example, see page 2-3 for this same topic; at least my LookInside shows them!)

My own personal view on this is that a claim that "You cannot speak about God" or "God is outside reality" is not a claim on the superessential = outside-the-existence-being God, but a claim on the borders of language or reality. Saying this shorter: there is a border of reality and language and we can talk about and point to that border and use the term of otherness or beyond-the-border, but this is not a proper concept that would "reach" or "contain" that thing-which-is-not-a-thing-but-outside-thinginess, but simply saying that there is a border of our language.

Of course, classical philosophy (Neoplatonism, to be more exact) and Christian theology in quite a similar fashion claim that this thing-which-is-not-a-thing-but-outside-thinginess (this long phrase is usually simplified with the term super-thing) is the cause of world. Christians go further, still, and name this Cause to be God, and that this God has become man, and that this God is triune, etc.

These, of course, are things that according to this metaphysical ontology cannot be proven, as they are beyond the scope of language, logic and concepts.

I personally don't think any sort of cognitive approach can get you closer to awakening other than learning about better ways to meditate. They're just two totally different ways of perceiving the world. That said, though, you should definitely check out Fritjof Capra's Tao of Physics. It's about how science and eastern mysticism (mostly Buddhism) are converging on the same truths. Excellent read.

Here are all the local Amazon links I could find:


amazon.com

amazon.co.uk

amazon.ca

amazon.com.au

amazon.in

amazon.com.mx

amazon.de

amazon.it

amazon.es

amazon.com.br

amazon.nl

amazon.co.jp

amazon.fr

Beep bloop. I'm a bot to convert Amazon ebook links to local Amazon sites.
I currently look here: amazon.com, amazon.co.uk, amazon.ca, amazon.com.au, amazon.in, amazon.com.mx, amazon.de, amazon.it, amazon.es, amazon.com.br, amazon.nl, amazon.co.jp, amazon.fr, if you would like your local version of Amazon adding please contact my creator.

I strongly recommend The Laughing Jesus by Timothy Freke. Sunday school left a lot out.

https://www.amazon.com/Discourses-Meher-Baba/dp/1880619091

It is one of the most truly mind blowing books I have ever read, I'll say that. There are small sections that are a bit disagreeable, but most of it is incredibly rich.

I find it interesting that Islam still places such emphasis on the actual audible sounds of the holy books, simply because it was actually a feature of many religious traditions even before Islam. Tantric Buddhism spends a lot of time discussing the power of the syllables themselves and how their recitation has a certain power that can help guide the practitioner. Lama Anagarika Govinda's Foundations of Tibetan Mysticism explores some of this and even makes the connections between Buddhism, Islam, and Gnostic Christianity on this level.

That's weird - many of the greatest physicists somehow managed to somehow think about religion. Its almost like Dawkins is presenting an over-simplified perspective and some people are blindly following it without thinking about it.

http://www.amazon.com/Quantum-Questions-Mystical-Writings-Physicists/dp/1570627681/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1346332354&sr=8-1&keywords=physicists+mysticism

Primordial Traditions Compendium 2009

Here is a complete list of contents -- not all of these articles have been published in Primordial Traditions; some were originally published in larger publications -- the first article mentioned here is the core premise of this group, and that it should be the primary point of reference for all members, as it explains the entire function of this group.

• The primordial tradition(Philosophy)
  
  
• Does practice make one perfected: The role of gTum mo in the six yogas of Nāropā (Buddhist Tantra)
  
  
• Clarifying the clear light (Buddhist Tantra)
  
  
• Mara and the vinaya: A comparison of references to Mara in the Mahavagga and the Mahavastu(Buddhist)
  
  
• Monks and magic - The use of magic by the sangha in Thailand (Buddhist)
  
  
• Divine mortality: Natarāja, Śankara, and higher consciousness in the imagery of Śiva (Hindu)
  
  
• Seats of power: How does the body of Sati relate to the geographic locations of Śakta pithas? (Tantra)
  
  
• The lord of Kāśī (Hindu)
  
  
• Draupadi and Kali in the Mahabharata (Hindu)
  
  
• Aesthetics of the divine in Hinduism (Hindu)
  
  
• Tantra: Fifth Veda or anti-Veda - Part I (Tantra)
  
  
• Tantra: Fifth Veda or anti-Veda - Part II (Tantra)
  
  
• Invincible sun: The cult of Mithras(Middle Eastern)
  
  
• Islamic tradition and the Muslim Hadith (Middle Eastern)
  
  
• The Yezidis: Angel or devil worshipers of the near east? (Middle Eastern)
  
  
• Dyadic approaches to the divine: Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, religion, and gender (Philosophy)
  
  
• Mayan ceremonial astrology (South American)
  
  
• The Black Sun: Dionysus in the Philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche and Greek Myth (Ancient Greek)
  
  
• Of wolves and men: The berserker and the vrātya (Hindu/Teutonic)*Contemporary shamanism(Asatru/Shamanism)
  
  
• Knowledge is power: Rune magic in Germanic culture(Asatru)
  
  
• Ancient goddess or political goddess? (Wicca)
  
  
• Athena (Poem)
  
  
• Raising Apollonius (Occult/Esoteric)
  
  
• Cúchulainn, the wolfhound of Culann (Celtic)
  
  
• Communing with the dead in ancient Greece(Ancient Greek)
  
  
• Dead but dreaming: Oneiromancy and dream incubation (Ancient Greek/European)
  
  
• The sacred state: The traditional doctrine of state legitimacy(Traditionalist)
  
  
• Tempora mutantor: The deterioration of men and the aristocratic principle (Traditionalist)
  
  
• Ars regia: The royal art revisited (Alchemy/Tantra)
  
  
• Son of the sun (Poem)
  
  
• The age of darkness: prophecies of the Kali Yuga (Hindu/Traditionalist)
  
  
• Mercury rising: The life and times of Julius Evola (Traditionalist)
  
  http://www.primordialtraditions.com/

/u/quintessentialaf have you by chance read this? It reminded me of your podcast name. It's interesting for someone who may have just started to question religion.

Found it, but a link would have been awfully convenient.
http://www.amazon.com/Create-Your-Own-Religion-Instructions/dp/1938875028/ref=tmm_pap_title_0?ie=UTF8&qid=1367700028&sr=8-1
Looks interesting.

Quantum Questions is also a great book. It shows that all physicists involved in the discovery of quantum physics and relativity, including Albert Einstein, Werner Heisenberg, and Max Planck among others, were all deeply mystic and had a lot of doubts about life and consciousness.

Owner disabled an app and made it look nice again.

I need to read this Girard guy. Is this what you're referring to?

>^(~)^(Chaos)^(.)

Entropy: Jeremy Rifkin

The Tao of Physics: Fritjof Capra

These two help with a bit of a framework to ford the physicl/metaphysical gulf.

Yup, QM is supernatural. You shouldn't be surprised, given the mystical writings of its founders. What an age to be alive! 😮

https://www.amazon.com/Quantum-Questions-Mystical-Writings-Physicists/dp/1570627681

By veridical I mean verified.

Have heard of it from this self help book that a shop I used to work in sold:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Anam-Cara-Spiritual-Wisdom-Celtic/dp/1848270488/ref=sr_1_12?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1261097218&sr=8-12

Heisenberg, Shrödinger, Einstein, de Brogli, Jeans, Planck, Pauli and Eddington all wrote about their thoughts on how science relates to religion and mysticism. ^source

According to two of the Amazon reviews, that Mead version is allegedly missing the Asclepius/the last 4 sections of the corpus making it an incomplete compilation of the Hermeticum. I recommend avoiding this version if it is thoroughness that you seek.

 

Perhaps this Mead version represents a more complete rendition, though of this for certain I cannot say.

>. Schrodinger didn’t think that a cat could be both alive and dead, he thought that the copanhagen interpretation was flawed.

Erwin Schroedinger was a mystic, who had a copy of The Upanishads in his bedside table, believed Atman is Brahman and wrote extensively on related subjects. He indeed thought the CI was flawed, but most people who point this out apparently have no idea what else he believed.

>The universe doesn’t give a fuck about your decisions

Schroedinger would not have agreed with you.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Quantum-Questions-Mystical-Writings-Physicists/dp/1570627681

Yeah, pretty sure Finnegans Wake would be what you're looking for but since I've never gotten past the first few pages I'm gonna have to go with Beelzebub's Tales to His Grandson by G. I. Gurdjieff. I read it many years ago but I remember finishing it - god knows why I bothered - in disgust and almost physical pain. Utterly batshit insane, deliberately and tortuously long and impenetrable and probably badly translated to boot.