Our Method
Writing about mysticism and the world’s contemplative traditions invites two opposite mistakes: finding the same teaching everywhere, and finding nothing in common anywhere. Our method is a set of practices meant to avoid both, and to let readers see exactly how we reached each conclusion.
Primary sources first§
We begin from the texts the traditions themselves regard as authoritative, read in good translations and, where we can, in the original languages. We cite the passage, not only the book, so that a reader can find it. We prefer whole texts to anthologies, because a sentence lifted from its context often says something its author did not mean.
Marked registers§
Every page of Metanoia and the Library marks what kind of statement it is making. There are four registers:
We keep these apart because the subject invites confusion between them. The sentence “the mystics agree” can be a historical claim, a claim about what certain texts say, a report of scholarly consensus, or a philosophical position. Each needs different evidence. Marking the register lets a reader accept our history and reject our philosophy.
Comparison without collapse§
When we compare traditions, we ask at which level the comparison holds: doctrine, practice, reported experience, interpretation, or the role a teaching plays in a life. A resemblance in practice is not a resemblance in doctrine. We read each passage in its own language, genre and argument before setting it beside another.
For every convergence we claim, we look for the most serious difference we can find, and report it. And we try to describe each tradition in a way its own thoughtful members could recognize, even if they would reject our conclusion. We call this practice convergence without collapse: real resemblances, found piece by piece, that never dissolve the traditions into one another.
Experience and interpretation§
Mystical texts report experiences, and they interpret them. We distinguish the two where we can, while recognizing that the line is contested: some scholars hold that experience is shaped by interpretation all the way down. We do not assume that mystics of different traditions have the same experience, nor that they cannot.
Respect without deference§
We write about every tradition with respect, and we do not rank them. Respect does not mean silence about difficulties: where a tradition’s history includes controversy, persecution or internal dispute, we say so. Nor do we present any tradition’s claims as established fact, or as error. Where we argue for a view, we mark it as ours.
Review before publication§
Every piece we publish, and every entry in the Library, is checked by an editor before it is approved: quotations against their printed editions, translations against the original where possible, and facts and dates against reliable sources. Until an editor has approved it, a piece is marked as in review.
Corrections§
We will make mistakes. When we are told of one, we check it, correct the text, and, where the correction changes the meaning of what we said, note that a correction has been made. Readers can write to the editors through the Contact page.