Is Taoism a form of mysticism? — T Clark

No, completely not. As you shared with us, mysticism is another religious doctrine or way of living. Taoism is philosophy and self realisation. TTC is a tool where we can develop our knowledge and satisfaction in life without any kind of subterfuge. When Lao-Tzu wrote TTC he was explaining the Principle or the Tao. This a criteria that goes further than “God” or any type of mysticism because it doesn’t explain it like it is over us but how wisely we should take it.
I shared with you and @Amity @Possibility a lot of verses from TTC but I guess a good example of showing that is not mysticism is the following one:
Verse XI

Thirty spokes join in one hub
In its emptiness, there is the function of a vehicle
Mix clay to create a container
In its emptiness, there is the function of a container
Cut open doors and windows to create a room
In its emptiness, there is the function of a room
Therefore, that which exists is used to create benefit
That which is empty is used to create functionality

It is about emptiness, functionality, spaces, etc... all examples which are opposite of mysticism.

The pursuit or achievement of personal communion with or joining with God (or some other form of the divine or ultimate truth) — T Clark

I searched and found the same definition at RAE Misticismo. Real Academia Española

No, completely not. As you shared with us, mysticism is another religious doctrine or way of living. — javi2541997

No, I don't think mysticism is necessarily a religious phenomenon at all. According to one of the definitions above, mysticism is "The belief that direct knowledge of ... ultimate reality can be attained through subjective experience (such as intuition or insight)." I think calling the Tao "ultimate reality" is a reasonable interpretation.

While I am not an expert in either mysticism or the Taoism, I would like to put a few thoughts forward. I have read the Tao Te Ching and must agree that:

No, completely not. As you shared with us, mysticism is another religious doctrine or way of living. Taoism is philosophy and self realisation. TTC is a tool where we can develop our knowledge and satisfaction in life without any kind of subterfuge. — javi2541997

I have found that the Tao Te Ching is something more akin to a philosophy which seeks to understand the deeper reality of the world and how we ought to behave in it. Perhaps something like metaethics? I say metaethics because it does not seem to me to present practical actions or particular actions but rather attitudes and such.

As for what mysticism is in itself? I like the first definition that was proposed.

[1] Belief that union with or absorption into the Deity or the absolute, or the spiritual apprehension of knowledge inaccessible to the intellect, may be attained through contemplation and self-surrender. — T Clark

My own experience of mysticism is founded in the Roman Catholic tradition. I am not claiming to be a mystic, but as a religious in the Catholic Church, I seek mystical union with God through prayer. But the goal is not knowledge per se but rather union with God in love.
The mystical tradition of the Catholic Church looks to find the heavenly reality of union with God in some aspect while still here on earth. It is a surrendering of the will in love to God in the hopes of a few moments of this mystical union. Knowledge and insight may follow, but that is a grace or gift which can be given but need not be. The experience may simply be that, an experience which is unlike any earthly experience, since what can be said of an experience of what transcends all earthly reality?

In this way, it is why I do not see Taoism as a form of mysticism.

Compare to Socrates' famous saying: "the only thing I know, is that I know nothing". The entire story of humanity and innovation and discovery is about people believing things that were wrong, and then finding it out later. In a world still ravaged by suffering, ill-will, and contempt, why would this stop anytime soon?

The ignorant man believes that he is wise and knows all there is or at least all he needs to know. Not to be confused with the diligent scholar who knows he knows more than he would have without his academic pursuits and perhaps more than most.

A wise man believes there is more to know and more that is not yet understood. A mystic also believes this, yet seeks to narrow down, at least to a degree, where such knowledge can be found.

In some ways, I think that the term mysticism is sometimes used in a derogatory way. It is also difficult to talk about sometimes because there is the whole experiential level, which is so subjective. I am currently reading a book on peak experiences by Colin Wilson, 'Superconsciousness: The Quest for the Peak Experience' (2019). In this, he says, ' What I learned from mystics and poets was that " everyday consciousness" is only one of many possible states, and that we become trapped in assuming that it is the only kind.' Colin Wilson, in his many books looked at the quest for heightened states of consciousness. He began first exploring this in his first book, 'The Outsider',in relation to the states of mind or creative writers and artists, who entered into certain states of mind as part of the creative process. Of course, mysticism is central to religious and spiritual quests, but I think that it is an idea which is relevant to the whole spectrum of peak experiences too.

I have found that the Tao Te Ching is something more akin to a philosophy which seeks to understand the deeper reality of the world and how we ought to behave in it. — BroAlex

I think this is a good description of Taoism.

My own experience of mysticism is founded in the Roman Catholic tradition. I am not claiming to be a mystic, but as a religious in the Catholic Church, I seek mystical union with God through prayer. But the goal is not knowledge per se but rather union with God in love. — BroAlex

I think the definitions of "mysticism" I've included are broad enough to include both seeking union with God and knowledge of deeper reality. "Surrendering" is a word I sometimes use to describe the experience of the Tao, which I see as a yielding of my personal will to something outside myself.

Your insight into your experience as a Catholic is really helpful.

I think calling the Tao "ultimate reality" is a reasonable interpretation. — T Clark

:up: :100:

Perhaps something like metaethics? I say metaethics because it does not seem to me to present practical actions or particular actions but rather attitudes and such. — BroAlex

Interesting. It is a very good point of view. I think fits what TTC actually means or at least the meaning.
What I pretended to do is defend that clearly TTC is so away of religion mysticism or whatever dogma because it is about (most of the verses) of self, thus, individual or individualism thinking. It is a way of put in practice some attitudes as you explained that not necessarily are connected with God...

In some ways, I think that the term mysticism is sometimes used in a derogatory way. — Jack Cummins

Yes, I agree. That's one of the reasons I started this thread.

It is also difficult to talk about sometimes because there is the whole experiential level, which is so subjective. — Jack Cummins

The first lines of the Tao Te Ching say this exactly - The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao.
The name that can be named is not the eternal name.

In this, he says, ' What I learned from mystics and poets was that " everyday consciousness" is only one of many possible states, and that we become trapped in assuming that it is the only kind.' — Jack Cummins

I resist the idea that a mystical understanding of reality, at least as I've experienced it, represents an extraordinary phenomenon or heightened state. One of the things I like best about the Tao Te Ching is the pragmatic everydayness of what it describes.

A wise man believes there is more to know and more that is not yet understood. A mystic also believes this, yet seeks to narrow down, at least to a degree, where such knowledge can be found. — Outlander

I don't see mysticism as limiting the scope of where we look for knowledge. I think of it as a way of recognizing and acknowledging how we already gain knowledge. Most of what we know we don't know through study.

I have read the Tao Te Ching and looked at the lengthy thread on it, but did not participate because I don't have a copy of it currently. I am interested in Taoism, especially as developed by Jung. There is also Capra' book, 'The Tao of Physics' which was important in the leading the way in the exploration of mysticism arising from the findings of the new physics developed by Einstein.

I am wondering why you resist the idea of mysticism as being about heightened states of consciousness? I do not believe that we are able to touch upon these easily but I do see mystical states as being part of this spectrum. Maurice Bucke's book, 'Cosmic Consciousness' looks at specific individuals who reached illuminated states of consciousness, such as the Buddha, Jesus, William Blake and Dante. Of course, these were extemely rare individuals. I am aware that we cannot even attempt to compare ourselves to such important figures, but I do think that there is a whole range of potential mystical states, ranging from the the almost mundane states of bliss, to those of a more magnificent nature. It seems to a whole pathway of possible states of consciousness, more frequently touched upon within esoteric traditions.

Yes, I agree. That's one of the reasons I started this thread. — T Clark

I've always thought that Wittgenstein's mysticism in the Tractatus was extremely sensible and fascinating. The only disagreement I'd have with his presentation would be that, I think we can speak of the mystical as we can speak of anything else. It need not be silent nor need it be irrational or religious.

It's certainly a much, much better alternative than calling oneself "spiritual", or so it seems to me.

I don't have a copy of it currently. — Jack Cummins

Here is a link to more than 20 translations.

https://terebess.hu/english/tao/_index.html

Different people like different translations. The ones I use most often are Stephen Mitchell, Ellen Marie Chen, Derek Lin, and Addiss & Lombardo.

I am wondering why you resist the idea of mysticism as being about heightened states of consciousness? — Jack Cummins

When you see Asian mystical practice portrayed in the West, it is often associated with the occult, e.g. "Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles" and "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon." That's why I resist portraying it as some sort of secret knowledge or heightened consciousness. There's nothing magical about it. It's down home and everyday. It's just regular old stuff. The fact that we often can't see it is what's complicated and hard to understand. I think that's an important attitude to take into mystical understanding.

I've always thought that Wittgenstein's mysticism in the Tractatus was extremely sensible and fascinating. — Manuel

I don't know anything about Wittgenstein's mysticism. Why don't you tell us about it.

I am not talking about the kind of Asian 'mystical' stuff you are talking about portrayed in the media. I am speaking of serious meditation practices, such as those within Hinduism, Buddhism, or Sufism . I am also thinking of the whole tradition of esoteric Christianity. However,it may be that you are not wishing for such areas to be explored in the thread you have created, and are just wishing to explore what the idea.

I am speaking of serious meditation practices, such as those within Hinduism, Buddhism, or Sufism . I am also think of the whole tradition of esoteric Christianity. — Jack Cummins

Please discuss this if you'd like. I started out wanting to find a good definition of mysticism but I tried to make it clear that it will be fine if people want to go further. BroAlex had interesting things to say about Catholic attitudes in a previous post.

As far as I know it depends on the tradition. Christian mysticism has been focusing on interaction with God, Christ or Mary. Jewish mysticism on receiving insight. Islamic mysticism on the human experience. Hindu mysticism on the cosmos. Buddhist mysticism on enlightenment. Shamanism on Earth. And esotericism and occultism on mythology. I guess Taoism is more about flow, but I don't know that much about it. Actually only about christianity, the rest is just my interpretation. Hope I won't offend anyone with this. And do feel free to correct me.

Contemporary mysticism seems to be focusing a lot on science and technology. For example the use of dance music to induce trance-like states. Or synthetic drugs such as XTC (ecstasy) to create a mystical experience.

What classifies an experience as mystical? That can only be defined by the experiencer in my opinion.

I have a Wittgensteinian interpretation of mysticism that is irreligious, if you'd like to hear my 0.02$.

If everything we can speak of is such that it's part of a system of parameters, and if those systems are such that there is always a conceivable parameter that is absent from these systems, then it is possible to infer there is always a single missing parameter.

Identify the parameter and you're potentially talking about religion. At least that's my take.

Obviously the whole area of mysticism in Hinduism and Buddhism is a very complex one and it is not as if I am from one of these traditions. I just read widely, and there is probably some truth in the common notion that a little knowledge is a bit dangerous. So, I will wait to see what happens in the thread as it so new.

Thanks for the link to The Tao de Ching. I may put one latecomer entry, probably on Hexagram 23. I often used to get that hexagram, or it might not have been that I really got it more than other ones, but it always used to stand out for me.

Fortunately, it's very very short. The problematic thing is how to interpret it!

I'll have to compress even that to give the bare essentials, which is a distortion:

6.44 Not how the world is, is the mystical, but that it is.
6.52 We feel that even if all possible scientific questions be answered,
the problems of life have still not been touched at all. Of course
there is then no question left, and just this is the answer.
6.521 The solution of the problem of life is seen in the vanishing of
this problem.
(Is not this the reason why men to whom after long doubting
the sense of life became clear, could not then say wherein this
sense consisted?)
6.522 There is indeed the inexpressible. This shows itself; it is the
mystical.
7 Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.

I take it to mean that the given in the world, what is self evident, cannot be expressed. Whatever we say about the world falls way short, therefore, instead of speaking non-sense we should not speak at all about such matters.

I agree with the description of the mystical here, but I still think we can talk about it while risking complete ridicule. That's my (mis)understanding about it.

What classifies an experience as mystical? That can only be defined by the experiencer in my opinion. — TaySan

That's the question I'm trying to answer when I ask "What is mysticism." People use the word. We ought to be able to agree on what they mean. Or at least they should be able to explain what they mean.

If everything we can speak of is such that it's part of a system of parameters, and if those systems are such that there is always a conceivable parameter that is absent from these systems, then it is possible to infer there is always a single missing parameter. — Zophie

I don't understand. Can you give an example? And how is that mysticism?

A supposedly rational inference from many parameters to a single parameter isn't strictly permitted by the rules of any system. I think this has also been called a negative theology. To me that's pretty close to mystical.

Examples of systems? Like a formal example?

Thanks for the link to The Tao de Ching. I may put one latecomer entry, probably on Hexagram 23. I often used to get that hexagram, or it might not have been that I really got it more than other ones, but it always used to stand out for me. — Jack Cummins

Are you talking about the "Tao Te Ching" or the "I Ching?"

Oh, I am talking of the I Ching. Initially, when I read your thread I thought that The Tao de Ching was another book, and then I came to the conclusion that your thread was about the I Ching. So I feel extremely foolish. I have not read the Tao de Ching, in that case.

People use the word. We ought to be able to agree on what they mean. Or at least they should be able to explain what they mean. — T Clark

Isn't ineffability one of the hallmarks of mysticism?

I'm surprised you don't have a ready and cheerful definition fo this. For me Mysticism is an umbrella word for a range of spiritual ideas. I think the Tao Te Ching is an example of a form of mysticism, perhaps in part depending upon how it is approached. The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao. The name that can be named is not the eternal name. Mysticism has a central focus on knowledge or realisation which can't be stated in ordinary language or apprehended in conventional ways.

Generally Mysticism takes as a staring point the idea that there is spiritual wisdom or higher consciousness which is inaccessible to ordinary intellectual activity. Access to mystical insights may be approached using various practices: readings, exercises, mediation, substance use, and contemplation. Most religions have a mystic tradition. Like many pursuits, there is hard and soft mysticism. There is probably a common mystical core to most of the world's spiritual traditions.

I have not read the Tao de Ching, in that case. — Jack Cummins

If you're interested, you can read it in about an hour. Tell me what other philosophy or religion can you say that about.

Okay, I will have a read of The Tao te Ching tomorrow evening. It is true that there are not that many philosophies or religions which can be read in an hour. So, it is strange that I have missed this little one, considering all the piles of books I accumulated from an esoteric bookshop in Central London a few years ago.

I agree with the description of the mystical here, but I still think we can talk about it while risking complete ridicule. That's my (mis)understanding about it. — Manuel

Your description of Wittgenstein's mysticism looks compatible with the definitions I laid out. It's true - when you get down to it, it's all about the inexpressible. As to whether you can talk about the unspeakable without looking foolish, people have been doing it for thousands of years.

This is a really good summary.