Talk:Esotericism

Deletion
I deleted the following:

[In searches of a spiritual life there is no sense to exhaust itself with the senseless interdictions, not having any attitudes to spiritual already by virtue of the materiality. As well as it is not necessary to refuse a wordly life except for harm to and another. I do not consider, that end in itself should be leaving in eternal spiritual life. Owing to perception of the world of spirit the person can live a spiritual life both on the ground and by virtue of knowledge of spiritual power already organize the life. That is I speak not about refusal from material, and about holly it. Just as the developed human spirit spiritualizes a body. ]

It defies comprehension, I believe due to incorrect choices of wording, and it has little to do with an encyclopedic definition or overview of the term "esotericism."

Of or Or?
Esotericism or Esoterism signifies the holding of esoteric opinions or beliefs,[1] that is, ideas preserved or understood by a small group or those specially initiated, or of rare or unusual interest
 * Is this supposed to be "ideas preserved or understood by a small group OF those specially initiated, or of rare or unusual interest" or "ideas preserved or understood by a small group OR those specially initiated, or of rare or unusual interest" ? To be honest, having "of" makes more sense, unless it's supposed to be: "ideas preserved or understood by a small group, those specially initiated, or of rare or unusual interest" Treeees (talk) 17:43, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Censorship
There is a growing movement among both private filtering services and governments to censor access to "esoteric material" on the internet, particularly in the UK. Not only do I find this highly concerning but I believe it to be notable and therefore should have a section in this article. Thoughts? 12:46, 31 October 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dantai Amakiir (talk • contribs)

Etymology
I have added a little on the origins of the two noun endings "-terism/-tericism", but this matter still requires clarification. Rather than being developed from "esoteric", "esoterism" is a neologism, probably of French origin, based directly on Greek roots, exactly along the lines of modern Greek "εσωτερισμός". "Esotericism" in turn does clearly come from the adjective. Let us hope for some research that can eventually make its way into the article. Servus!

Desde la Torre (talk) 11:20, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Merger proposal: Western esotericism into Esotericism
Propose to merge Western esotericism into Esotericism, because it's the same topic; "Western esotericism" seems to be a WP:FORK of "esotericism. See also Western esotericism:
 * "Various academics have emphasised the idea that esotericism is a phenomenon unique to the Western world; as Faivre stated, an "empirical perspective" would hold that "esotericism is a Western notion". As scholars such as Faivre and Hanegraaff have pointed out, there is no comparable category of "Eastern" or "Oriental" esotericism. Academic scholar of Western esotericism Wouter Hanegraaff has characterised these as "recognisable world-views and approaches to knowledge that have played an important although always controversial role in the history of Western culture.""

Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   03:43, 24 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Support per above.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   03:43, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Qualified support. The Western esotericism article is far more coherent. However, we also have, at very least, Esoteric Buddhism. (I'm not sufficiently informed to know whether there is sufficient evidence of Esoteric Hinduism to make this a significant phenomenon.) It would be possible, however, to have a single article, Esotericism, that focuses primarily on Western forms, yet includes a section on Buddhist (and any other non-Western extant forms) proportional to their prevalence. Would this be a possible alternative? HGilbert (talk) 14:18, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Consider: The esoteric tradition's "major features are central to the classic literature of Hinduism, and its perspective is evident both in the worldview of Mahayana Buddhism and in the process philosophy of Taoism and the I Ching" (source: Sellon and Weber, "Theosophy and the Theosophical Society," in Faivre/Needleman, Modern Esoteric Spirituality. p. 311.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hgilbert (talk • contribs) 16:43, 24 August 2015


 * Comment "Esoteric Buddhism" and "Esoteric Sufism" (a term sometimes used for Sufism) represent totally different phenomenon to "Western esotericism". It is basically a case of the same (English-language) word having applied to distinct and different phenomenon, with further problems arising in that the word "esoteric" actually has a variety of distinct meanings. This may have been done by adherents of the Traditionalist School, a Western esoteric school of thought that believed in perennial, "esoteric" (in the meaning of inner, hidden) secrets that were found across the world. In their view, there were a set of ancient "esoteric" secrets that were shared by such faiths Hinduism, Christianity, and Islam: for them, "esotericism" was the inner hidden secrets that lay within all religions across the world. This attitude is embraced by some in the Theosophical and New Age movements but is not something you will find endorsed in contemporary scholarship. The "Esotericism" article currently does a great disservice by presenting these different phenomenon as if they are somehow linked, which they are not. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:24, 24 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Strong support but I believe that "esotericism" should be merged into "Western esotericism", not the other way around. It is the latter term which is used prominently in the titles of academic studies on the subject, for instance the two academic peer-reviewed journals devoted to the subject are titled Aries: Journal for the Study of Western Esotericism and Correspondences: An Online Journal for the Academic Study of Western Esotericism. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:24, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment That's fine with me too.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   19:24, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * That would make sense; then the issue of non-Western forms drops away. HGilbert (talk) 19:30, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Recent edits
I've undone a series of recent edits for the following reasons:
 * revision 677635720: subsection on "secret doctrines"; it was removed with the edit-summary "rm. text describing "what it is not restricted to" as unnecessary -- not claimed to be restricted to this here". I put it back because this is one of the definitions/usages that Hanegraaff mentions. Hanegraaff himself says that this definition/usage is too restricted. Given the fact that Hanegraaff is one of the scholarly authorities on this topic, if he says so, it's relevant. Besides, it's also clear on a 'commom ground' basis that this is an often-used interpretation.
 * revision 677635460: this edit changed ""Esotericism" is a "generic label for a large and complicated group of historical phenomena" which share an air de famille." into "It can often seem to be a generic label for very diverse phenomena that share little more than an air de famille." That's something quite different! Hanegraaff's definition has been reinterpreted here. It was also moved from the top of this subsection to a place under the list of definitions, suggesting it's a mere aside, instead of Hanegraaff's main definition.
 * Re-inserting Hanegraaf-definition and adding Faive-characteristics: The Hanegraaff-definition was removed with the edit-summary "attempt to be a little more specific than "air de familie"!" This being "more specific" replaced
 * "Esotericism (or esoterism) is a "generic label for a large and complicated group of historical phenomena" which share an air de famille."
 * with
 * "Esotericism (or esoterism) refers to a range of spiritual forms sharing common elements which have proved remarkably elusive to define."
 * "A range of spiritual forms" is less specific and informative than "a large and complicated group of historical phenomena", and "spiritual" is a qualification/interpretation;
 * "common elements which have proved remarkably elusive to define" is in line with Faivre, but different from Hanegraaff;
 * And are the "common elements" hard to define? Faivre gives four defining characteristics;
 * These charatceristics are condensed to "a transformative experience of knowing, knowledge obtained through such experiences". This is an 'esoteric interpretation'; Faivre speaks of 'an experience of personal and spiritual transmutation when arriving at this knowledge.' The emphasis is on transmutation; knowledge leads to transmutation, or a "transmutational experience." Saying that experience leads to knowledge reverses what Hanegraaff says here.

Best regards,  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   04:36, 25 August 2015 (UTC)