MYSTICISM
Philosophical Investigations
Shijin Pulimoottil
1. Introduction
The relation among science, philosophy and religion has always been tenuous in the history of philosophy. The human quest for the meaning and purpose of life has led him to go even beyond space and time to the transcendental reality whose essence is yet to be understood by the rational mind. It is in such a scenario that we have gathered here today to present our seminars on “Mysticism.” Probably many might consider a discussion on mysticism is just like pouring oil on fire. But as Wittgenstein rightly states the goal of philosophy is a lucid understanding of various concepts, though the various philosophical methods differ in their approach. However my presentation is an attempt to underline the philosophical relevance of mysticism today through philosophical investigations at a time when the post modern generation is moving away from the spiritual practices due to the lack of faith in religious beliefs.
2. Mysticism in General
2.1. Mysticism and its Definition
The term ‘mysticism,’ is derived from the Greek word “muein” (μυω), meaning to hide, to conceal, or to close the eyes. Therefore mysticism is basically the sensitivity to the mystery of the being with its horizon being the unfathomability and incomprehensibility of the divine. In general, ‘mysticism’ could be best understood as a constellation of distinctive practices, discourses, texts, institutions, traditions, and experiences aimed at human transformation, variously defined in different traditions.
However in the narrow sense, as most philosophers believe, ‘mystical experience’ refers to a super sense-perceptual or sub sense-perceptual unitive experience granting acquaintance of realities which are not accessible by way of sense-perception, somatosensory modalities or standard introspection. A unitive experience involves a phenomenological de-emphasis, blurring, or eradication of multiplicity, where the cognitive significance of the experience is deemed to lie precisely in that phenomenological feature.
Yet in this narrow sense of mystical experience, mysticism would refer to practices, discourses, texts, institutions and traditions associated with unitive experiences. However there is surely an element of mysticism in every spiritual or religious experience. Though mystical experiences are often referred to as religious experiences, throughout this presentation the term ‘mystical experiences’ is presented distinct from that of religious experiences.
2.2. Mysticism in Eastern and Western Traditions
It has been assumed that the Eastern spirituality and mysticism is intuitive and receptive. These form the basic stereotypes of the Eastern tradition. Out of it we can trace a culture in the East that is deeply spiritual and vibrantly religious. It forms the part of life and no dimension of human being escapes the touch of religion. The people just live their religion and vibrate a sense of oneness with the world. Coupled with it there is a profound philosophical (intellectual) depth connected with the Indian tradition.
The general stereotypes of the West are that they are rational, assertive, and so predominantly materialistic than the East. They are much more pragmatic in dealings, resulting in the attitude of “use and throw.” This has led to tremendous technological advancement without moral convictions. Hence theirs is a “progress without profound depth” and leads to uni-dimensional growth.
Though mysticism has various strands, we may generalize the Western approach to mysticism in terms of service. Along with service for fellow human beings, one of the strong points of western (Christian, Jewish, Islamic) traditions is agape, expressed variously as love, care and concern. The world is not “Maya” and therefore it is not important only at the “Vyavaharika” (practical) level. The world has an independent existence and contributes profoundly to the spiritual growth and mystical intuitions of the religious believer. It further focuses on the “I-Thou” relationship of Martin Buber. It is the domain of genuine relationships and includes one’s interaction with fellow human beings and God. Further, the other does not merely limit me, instead defines me and constitutes me. I am what I am, in terms of the interaction with the other. Hence human relationship counts a lot in one’s self-realization as well as in one’s spiritual fulfillment.
In contrast to the primary Western concept of service, the Eastern tradition could be termed as “silence.” The focus of the Eastern tradition is to discover silence as the source of one’s profound mystical experiences. The silence of the Eastern tradition is not merely the absence of words or activities, but the meaningful fullness of being and bliss. The silence into which the mystics descend is the silence of fullness, the silence of solitude – nirvana – where the fleeting external sounds and activities are transcended to reach the depth of the absolute.
Therefore, unlike the Aristotelian understanding of philosophical quest, “Know Thyself”, the Eastern traditions attempt just to “Deny Thyself”. The mysticism of silence and solitude is the best means for such an enterprise of total self-annihilation leading to the realization of one’s fullness in the Ultimate, sat-cit-ananda (that is Being, Consciousness, and Bliss). However these traditions don’t form water-tight compartments as such, because we do see a lot of similarities too in both.
3. Philosophical Implications
3.1. Various Classifications of Mystical Experiences
3.1.1. Extrovertive and Introvertive
When any experience includes somatosensory modality or sense-perceptual content, we may say it is an extrovertive experience. There are, then, mystical extrovertive experiences, as in one's mystical consciousness of the unity of nature overlaid onto one's sense perception of the world, as well as non-unitive numinous extrovertive experiences, as when experiencing God's presence when gazing at the rain drops or any other marvelous creation of God. Sometimes, the term “extrovertive” is reserved for experiences that pertain to a perceived character of the natural world with no added phenomenological data.
When it is not extrovertive, we may say an experience is introvertive. That is to say when our experience includes introspective content, it forms an introvertive experience. An experience of “nothingness” or “emptiness,” in some mystical traditions, and an experience of God resulting from a disengagement from sense experience, would be examples of introvertive experiences.
3.1.2. Theistic and Non-theistic
A favorite distinction of Western philosophers is between theistic experiences, which are purportedly of God, and non-theistic ones. Non-theistic experiences can be allegedly of an ultimate reality other than God or of no reality at all. Numinous theistic experiences are dualistic, where God and the subject remain clearly distinct, while theistic mysticism pertains to some sort of union or else identity with God.
3.1.3. Apophatic and Cataphatic
Apophatic mysticism is derived from the Greek word “apophasis,” meaning negation or “saying away”, while Cataphatic mysticism is derived from the Greek word “kataphasis,” meaning affirmation or “saying with”. Hence from the very etymological derivations we understand that Apophatic mysticism is contrasted with Cataphatic mysticism. In contrast, with this understanding of Cataphatic and Apophatic, many have argued that Christian mysticism strongly endorses God's being unknowable. Instead, the distinction between Cataphatic and Apophatic refers solely to differences in the preparatory procedure employed in the “mystical way,” the former using “positive” techniques, the latter only “negative” techniques.
Apophatic mysticism, put roughly, claims that nothing can be said of objects or states of affairs which the mystic experiences. These are absolutely indescribable, or “ineffable.” Apophatic preparation involves a practice of “emptying” out of other conscious content in order to “make room” for the apprehension of God, who is beyond our discursive, sensual natures. The goal however is not in order to understand God rationally, which is impossible, but in order to obliterate all anthromorphic notions about God and confront the unknowable.
Cataphatic mysticism does make claims about what the mystic experiences. Cataphatic preparation employs reason, imagination, memory, and visualization for getting into position for mystical consciousness. It asserts what God is although always assuming that God is this and more.
3.2. Various Attributes of Mystical Experiences
3.2.1. Ineffability
William James reckoned “ineffability” or indescribability as an essential mark of the mystical. It is not always clear, however, whether it is the experience or its alleged object, or both, that are to be ineffable. A logical problem with ineffability was noted long ago by Augustine. Several responses to this problem are possible for the mystic. One among the possibilities is to avoid speech altogether and remain silent about what is revealed in experience. A second possibility is to distinguish first-order from second-order attributions, where “ineffability” both is a second-order term and refers solely to first-order terms. To say, then, that something is “ineffable” would be to assert that it could not be described by any first-order terms, “ineffability” not being one of them.
Another possibility for resolving the paradox of ineffability issues is from William Alston's observation that mystics professing the utter unknowability of God have had much to say about their experiences and about God. Alston maintains, therefore, that when mystics talk about ‘indescribability’ they refer to the difficulty of describing in literal terms, rather than by metaphor, analogy, and symbols. This is not a peculiar mark of mysticism since quite common in science, philosophy, and religion. His position, however, may not square well with the explicitly “unsaying” trends in mysticism.
3.2.2. Paradoxicality
Scholars of mysticism sometimes stress the “paradoxical” nature of mystical experiences. It is not always clear whether the experience, the mystical object, or both, are supposed to be paradoxical. We can discern four relevant senses of ‘paradoxical’.
To start with, according to its etymology, ‘paradoxical’ refers to what is surprising or “contrary to expectation.” Secondly language can be intentionally ‘paradoxical’ in using a logically improper form of words to convey what is not intended to be logically absurd. This may be for rhetorical effect or because of difficulty in conveying a thought without resort to linguistic tricks. Finally Walter Stace sees paradoxicality as a universal feature of mystical experiences, equating ‘paradoxicality’ with an intended logical contradiction.
Insofar as mystical experience is out of the ordinary, and the unitive quality strange (for ordinary folk, at least), reports of them may very well be surprising or contrary to expectation. Hence, they may be paradoxical in the first sense. Reports of mystical experiences may be paradoxical also in the second sense, because at times mystical language does assume logically offensive forms, when actual absurdity may not be intended. However, paradox in this sense occurs less frequently in first-hand reports of mystical experiences and more in second-order mystical systems of thought.
4. Philosophical Relevance of Mysticism
Being philosophers it is good that we know the philosophical relevance of mysticism in our daily life. I was much taken up by the definition given by Margaret Louis about mysticism, though we can never round up over a particular definition for mysticism. According to her, “Mysticism is the recovery of immediacy.” And the mystic is one who believes that immediacy can be recovered, and who has some experience of doing so himself.
The word “immediacy” here can be interpreted in three types of metaphor, but basically it is a denial of some kind of separation. In the metaphor of space immediacy is expressed as being at one with God or deepest reality. In the metaphor of time immediacy means that God is present. No interval of time separates the mystic and God. His experience of God does not lie in the past or the future it is now. In the metaphor of manner, immediacy is the spontaneity that removes in a flash all studied and effortful means or techniques of approaching God. Immediate knowledge does not wait for the gathering of evidence, nor does innocence need to plan a strategy for goodness.
The religious motivation of the mystic is to recover that original state of oneness from which we are apparently separated. Firstly, so long as one assumes a separation one is in a state of disquiet. The mind is at work puzzling over intellectual problems, like ‘What is truth?’, ‘Does God exist?’ and so on. The sensibilities are alert to moral dilemmas. These busy intellectual and moral efforts are not judged by the mystic as valueless but are seen as a preliminary to something more ultimate toward which he desires to move. They are like the first part of a one act play which involves separation and disquiet which is followed by the second part involving reunion, recovery, and quietude.
Therefore secondly the recovery of immediacy will mean a relaxation of both discursive intellectual activity and moral effort. Now the mystic knows at first hand that which he could only puzzle over before. And now without any effort of the will he does what he “ought” to do and has no need to make moral distinctions. “Passivity” is the descriptive word often used of this more ultimate stage.
The basic difference between philosophy and mysticism is the method utilized in philosophy involves rationality while mysticism is led by the faith aspect. According to Thomistic epistemology sense perception of the object is an essential requirement to obtain true knowledge in the strict sense. However mysticism, on the other hand, looks for a first hand direct experience of God. Even among various mystical experiences we see a set of dissimilarities. The means they use, as we have already found in the different traditions, may not be probably the same.
Though all mystics claim to have reached the Ultimate reality, God, the very nature of the God based on the experience varies from one mystic to another. The reason being, the mystics interpret their direct experiences about God with a preoccupied understanding they have received from various religious teachings. Hence religions do play a great role in this very aspect of mysticism.
In other words both mysticism and philosophy though differ they do have something common in both. And it is the preliminary stage in mysticism which seeks for the Ultimate reality which is once again the primary quest of philosophy which calls man for a self reflection, leading him to the Self within him. This finally results in the self-actualization or self-realization of the self with the Brahman himself. Thus the Advaitic concept of “Aham Brahmasmi” is being established. Thus one could indubitably assert that philosophy is the foundation for mysticism for philosophy too basically begins with the perennial quest for the transcendental Ultimate reality.
5. Conclusion
A mystical experience of oneness with God, with other human beings and reality makes dialogue imperative, the dialogue between science and religion, between religious traditions and between mystical ways. Such a dialogical encounter between humans, world and God helps to create collectively a new world, a new horizon, and a new spirituality. Only in such dialogue, humans become what they are. The basic feature of such a way of life is respect: for oneself, for the other and for God.
Just as rationality is a potential that human beings are endowed with, mysticism is another capacity that is essential to, but concealed within the human race, though rarely it comes to its fruition. Mysticism is an ability to perceive the transcendental reality, which cannot be usually done by employing our ordinary reasoning capacity. Appropriating mystical experiences, however, calls for openness on the part of every human being, a yearning to personally encounter the Ultimate Reality. Let the ever vibrant and ongoing quest for the Ultimate continue to reverberate in the budding philosophers who have the potency to be the mystics.
No comments:
Post a Comment