What, if anything, is the Relationship of Mysticism to Morality?

[Sunstone]

What, if anything, is the relationship of mysticism to morality?

Does mysticism in some way or another promote morality? If so, how?

Does it in some way or another undermine morality? If so, how?

​

Although most people probably think mysticism produces moral people, scholars have questioned this ever since Albert Schweitzer criticized Hinduism and wrestled with the issue of how to reconcile a monistic interpretation of mysticism with morality and life affirmation. -- Richard H. Jones, Mysticism and Morality, p.5

Some scholars (and others) argue that mysticism in general, and monistic mysticism* in particular, are selfish pursuits for enlightenment in which the mystic typically abandons common, everyday moral issues as being irrelevant to his or her quest. So, for instance, it is claimed that a mystic might be unconcerned with improving the sewer system and thus extending people's lives, or unconcerned with preventing wars, because his or her pursuit of enlightenment is all consuming, or because -- once enlightened -- he or she thinks that such things as better sanitation and longer life spans or peace pale in comparison to enlightenment.

Other scholars (and others) argue that mysticism is by its very nature selfless (or nearly so) and that perhaps only mystics can act out of pure concern for others or genuine unconditional love because they have at the very least ameliorated their psychological selves, if not altogether abolished them.

There are several other positions taken by various people on the issue, as well.


What do you think?


_____________________________________________
Footnote: *Monistic mysticism is a form of mysticism in which their is complete and total identity with a single reality, often identified as god. That is, god and the mystic become one. Some religions, such as Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, discourage such an interpretation, while it seems Jainism and most forms of Hinduism encourage it.

 

[Orbit]

What, if anything, is the relationship of mysticism to morality?

Does mysticism in some way or another promote morality? If so, how?

Does it in some way or another undermine morality? If so, how?

​

Some scholars (and others) argue that mysticism in general, and monistic mysticism* in particular, are selfish pursuits for enlightenment in which the mystic typically abandons common, everyday moral issues as being irrelevant to his or her quest. So, for instance, it is claimed that a mystic might be unconcerned with improving the sewer system and thus extending people's lives, or unconcerned with preventing wars, because his or her pursuit of enlightenment is all consuming, or because -- once enlightened -- he or she thinks that such things as better sanitation and longer life spans or peace pale in comparison to enlightenment.

Other scholars (and others) argue that mysticism is by its very nature selfless (or nearly so) and that perhaps only mystics can act out of pure concern for others or genuine unconditional love because they have at the very least ameliorated their psychological selves, if not altogether abolished them.

There are several other positions taken by various people on the issue, as well.


What do you think?


_____________________________________________
Footnote: *Monistic mysticism is a form of mysticism in which their is complete and total identity with a single reality, often identified as god. That is, god and the mystic become one. Some religions, such as Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, discourage such an interpretation, while it seems Jainism and most forms of Hinduism encourage it.

I don't think mysticism is related to morality, nor should mystics be charged with making the world a better place. In the division of labor there are other people who want to do that, so it's not a zero-sum game for society.

 

[SalixIncendium]

What, if anything, is the relationship of mysticism to morality?

Does mysticism in some way or another promote morality? If so, how?

Does it in some way or another undermine morality? If so, how?

​

Some scholars (and others) argue that mysticism in general, and monistic mysticism* in particular, are selfish pursuits for enlightenment in which the mystic typically abandons common, everyday moral issues as being irrelevant to his or her quest. So, for instance, it is claimed that a mystic might be unconcerned with improving the sewer system and thus extending people's lives, or unconcerned with preventing wars, because his or her pursuit of enlightenment is all consuming, or because -- once enlightened -- he or she thinks that such things as better sanitation and longer life spans or peace pale in comparison to enlightenment.

Other scholars (and others) argue that mysticism is by its very nature selfless (or nearly so) and that perhaps only mystics can act out of pure concern for others or genuine unconditional love because they have at the very least ameliorated their psychological selves, if not altogether abolished them.

There are several other positions taken by various people on the issue, as well.


What do you think?


_____________________________________________
Footnote: *Monistic mysticism is a form of mysticism in which their is complete and total identity with a single reality, often identified as god. That is, god and the mystic become one. Some religions, such as Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, discourage such an interpretation, while it seems Jainism and most forms of Hinduism encourage it.

I can only speak for own views on mysticism (and I do consider myself a monist).

My moral values are rooted in monism, which, for me, is the realization that I am an aspect of a singularity. Therefore, I have a moral duty to be concerned with the condition of others, as lack of concern may cause harm to them (who are also aspects of the same singularity), which thereby harms my Self, which, as I see it, is counterintuitive to the concept of enlightenment.

 

[Terese]

People would see it selfish because they are living in the now. I have not reached any kind of enlightenment, but if i can assume its effects, i'd say that the present is just one small piece of history in the infinite future. I think they would see the larger picture, and are content to not intervene because good and bad things happen all the time. A great war would be terribly destructive, but what would matter would be the aftermath of the war, and beyond it. I'm aware that this opinion of enlightenment may seem terribly detached and/or insane.