Science does not even scratch the surface to solving the pain in humanity.
To some extent I agree. We can actually look at how one science, psychiatry, which was and is about helping people suffering from mental/emotional issues has caused more harm than good. If I start in on the problems psychiatry has caused not just to those with mental health problems but with everything from the criminal justic system to public policies, I'd go off on a rant which would be long even for me.
That said, I don't just come from a educational background in science, nor are my studies all science related. So this I find unfair:
You give it far more credit than I do..... you don't just give it credit - you worship it because you give nothing else room in your life to provide answers. And that is sad.
I had two undergrad majors and one minor, but only two of those (one being the minor) were sciences. The other was classical languages (ancient Greek & Latin).
Although I eventually became interested in linguistics, that's not why I chose that major, I did so because I wanted to read religious and philosophical texts (and translations don't cut it).
I definitely changed my plans for an academic career (I had intended to be a clinical psychologist), but I did not stop studying religious/spiritual topics and the discourse between religion, science, and philosophy.
That is flat our wrong, but then again - if you really took mysticism seriously you'd study enough of its history to know that even after 1000s of years it continues to serve many.
I've studied historical scholarship in the four languages which have the longest tradition of historical study (including that of religion) and of ethnology/anthropology that exist: French, German, Italian, and English. I've also read primary sources as far back as written language goes. Apart from older forms of English & biblical Hebrew, my ability to read languages like Sanskrit, Hittite, Arabic, & Aramaic is woefully inadequate. Nor can I read many languages that I'd like to read at all (such as Chinese or Japanese).
However, I have certainly studied the history of mysticism and religion. It's true that my knowledge of Eastern mystic practice/belief is less than my knowledge of mystic practice/tradition/beliefs found elsewhere. Part of that is because I can't read Pāli, Chinese, Japanes, and other languages necessary to read buddhist "scriptures", Confucius' writings (insofar as we have them), Bodhidharma's teachings, and so on. This does not mean I have not studied Eastern thought/spiritualism at all, and I have read many translations of extracts (e.g,. Penquin Classics collection
Buddhist Scriptures, or the Upanishads collection I mentioned earlier in this thread).
But much of mystic tradition, practice, and/or belief was never written down. And much of what we know survives only because anthropologists, folklorists, ethnologists, and even linguists went out to observe practices, record what they were told about mystics (both by others in the community and mystics themselves) and mysticism. What is known about Shamanism (from Siberia) doesn't come from writings by Shamans. It started first with those like Richard Johnson who (in 1557) recorded a ritual or practice by the Nenets. Such accounts are clearly biased, as the word "priest" is used to describe an individual playing "upoon a thing like a great sieve". But they contain important information:
"Then he singeth as we in England to halloo, whoop, or shout at hounds..."Igha,Igha, Igha"...and they answer him with the selfsame words so many times, that in the end he becometh as it were mad, falling down as he were dead...I asked him why he lay so, and they answered me, 'Now doth our god tell him what we shall do, and wither we shall god.'"
The account continues in great detail, including details like "he took a sword of a cubit and a span long (I did measure it myself) and put it into his belly halfway and sometimes less, but no woulnd was to be seen" or "And I went to him that served the priest, and asked him what their god said to him when he lay as dead. He answered, that his own people doth not know; neither is it for them to know; for the must do as he commanded."
As time went on, more and more cultures, practices, communities, and "shamans" (i.e., in the broader sense of the term) were observed and with less ethnocentric bias. From the finnish and germanic folktales to the languages and beliefs of the indigenous peoples of North America, Africa, Australia, what we have is because others provided us with records. In particular, it is because social & behavioral sciences did so.
I am a Christian Contemplative - some of my highest insights into "reality" (for lack of a better term) have come through writings authored hundreds of years ago. The west is only now rediscovering things like the gnostic texts and hidden gospels.
They were never hidden, and in fact the one of the most important things they did was lay to rest certain doubts we had from our previous evidence: lengthy descriptions and quotes such as those in
Adversus Haereses. It was believed that the descriptions were too bizarre and were reflecting biases of the authors. Then we found the actual texts to compare these quotes and descriptions to, and realized that despite the biased commentary the descriptions and quotes mostly accurate.
Another important problem is that gnostic texts weren't gnostic texts, as this term is a modern, western. It was coined based on the Greek title of Irenaeus' as a catch-all term for heresies. In the 19th century, Huxley coined another term "agnostic". He described his belief as one which lacked the knowledge of God that the gnostics had, and thus he was a-gnostic (without gnostic knowledge, not without
gnosis)
What we know now, and had realized even before the Nag Hammadi collection, was that this nomenclature was inadequate. It described views that differed in radical ways as belonging to the same spirtual, ideological, and or religious beliefs. It remains in use (despite
Rethinking Gnosticism and similar works) mainly because as we recognize it only to be an umbrella term, and can talk about actual individual "groups" using better names ("Sethian", "Valentinian", etc.).
And that says nothing about the Eastern traditions, or the Native American traditions, or the mystic traditions found in every known culture still alive and well.
True. The first two I've commented on above. Ronald Hutton's history of Wicca remains the best source to understanding the development of Gardnerian wiccan and some other Wiccan traditions (e.g., Alexandrian). Ironically, because of his pagan upbringing and the desire of Wiccans themselves to know more about the past, he ended up increasing our knowledge of Wiccan practices more than anthropologist Tanya Luhrmann, whose publication describing her involvement in private ceremonies caused more than a little hostility. Hutton is also responsible for the best book on the history of modern druids (he actually wrote two versions, one for the general public and the better but much more dense version), as we know next to nothing about actual druids.
Murray (whose works Gardner based much of his origin story on) actually helped in that the it inspired others to go back over the records from the middle ages to the 20th century and create a much more thorough knowledge of the practice os "wise ones", "cunning folk", etc. And of course Gardner is connected to yet another branch of mysticism: ceremonial magic and the occult. Crowley, Blavatsky, and even one of the founders of the boy scouts are all connected to various groups, orders, practices, and individuals which are at least related to mysticism, if one doesn't wish to associate this or that tradition with mysticism or individual as a mystic.
And we can add Sufism, "European" mystics both before and after the various "gnostic" groups/individuals, African traditions, etc.
All of these traditions share commonalities - and for you to state - categorically - as if you have any knowledge at all on the subject that... "these have not in general lasted"... is so far off base its laughable.
The category "gnostic" is so problematic because of the
dissimilarities between groups traditionally called gnostic. Yet you think it is my lack of studying that leads me to conclude you are incorrect? How many followers of Apollonius of Tyana have you come across? What about Sabians of Harran? What do you know about the disconnect between modern druid revivals and the actual evidence for druid practice? What about Jean-Antione Boullan? The mystic Suso from Cologne? Khoja Akhmet Yassawi? Or what roles a vǫlva played vs. a Seiðr?
That's the whole point, down through the ages, from all mystic traditions, the masters teach that pain and suffering are human conditions caused by our own illusions
I would suggest you start reading more of the actual texts and literature about mystic traditions "down through the ages". When an Inuit village goes after their "shaman" for killing 8 people, or Hayden discusses living among the Highland Maya and being told of "bad shamans" who were killed, then either we need to really define mysticism much better, or your descriptions simply isn't correct.
Both camps represent science. Only one, mysticism. 
