The Yogi and the Mystic

Studies in Indian and Comparative Mysticism

Karel Werner

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2005
• eBook ISBN: 9781135799205
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Ethnic Studies
• Index: Social Sciences

Embraces a wide range of aspects of Indian mysticism, displaying the structural patterns in mystical experiences and the mystic paths in different traditions and schools, while there are also significant contributions to comparative mysticism, Eastern and Western. First published in 1989.

1
MYSTICISM AS DOCTRINE AND EXPERIENCE

Karel Werner

When writing about mysticism, it is still necessary first to explain what one means by that expression. Some years ago Rufus M.Jones complained that ‘mysticism in common speech usage is a word of very uncertain connotation’.¹ That this is still the case is well illustrated by the entry in The Concise Oxford Dictionary which defines the term by deriving it from the word ‘mystic’ as noun, thus: ‘one who seeks by contemplation and self-surrender to obtain union with or absorption into the Deity, or who believes in spiritual apprehension of truth beyond the understanding, whence -ism m. (often derog.).’ The trouble is that the word ‘mystic’ has also an adjectival meaning, to quote again from the Dictionary, ‘spiritually allegorical, occult, esoteric; of hidden meaning, mysterious, mysterious and awe-inspiring’. The derivative noun ‘mysticism’ apparently acquired some overtones particularly from the area of occult sciences and hence its ‘uncertain connotation’.

This difficulty with the word ‘mysticism’, though perhaps not peculiar to English, is nevertheless not present in all languages. German for instance has two expressions: ‘der Mystizismus’, which refers to occult pursuits of all kinds, including those responsible for the Oxford Dictionary’s bracketed designation and ‘die Mystik’, which is reserved for man’s bona fide experiences of the divine or the ultimate reality, or at least for experiences genuinely believed, by those who have had them, to have penetrated into that dimension.

Why English has not produced a less ambiguous term for genuine mystical pursuits is not easy to see, especially as England is not lacking in authentic mystical tradition. As R. Otto once remarked when invited to lecture on mysticism in this country, ‘for a foreigner to come and tell an English audience about mysticism was “to bring owls to Athens” ’ (meaning ‘coals to Newcastle’).² Be that as it may, it will remain for some time obligatory for every historian of religion dealing with the subject to attempt to contribute to the clarification of the term.

Mystical writings are probably as old as writing itself, but writings on mysticism are an innovation of this century, so the subject is young. It developed in the wake of the pioneering Gifford lectures on The Varieties of Religious Experience given by William James in Edinburgh, 1901–2. It is therefore not surprising that a general consensus on the scope, methods and interpretation of research into mysticism has not yet emerged. However, this is equally true of the study of religion as a whole and since it has not prevented the history of religion or comparative religion from establishing itself as a respectable academic discipline, it is clear that the study of mysticism has a bright future despite inherent difficulties.

If we try to explain what mysticism is, we are immediately faced with the fact that even within its genuine province the word has been used in more than one sense. First, it designates what is described as a direct experience of communion or union with the divine or ultimate reality or at least with what is believed to be its dimension beyond the world of sense perception and rational reflection. Second. it is frequently understood as a theological or metaphysical doctrine, perhaps built around the experiences of a mystic either by himself or others or both. Of these two components, experience is primary while mystical doctrines, both philosophical and theological, in so far as they can be distinguished from descriptive accounts of mystical experience, are derivative. The third constituent of mysticism is the mystical path, a certain way of life with incorporated spiritual training in contemplation, designed to lead in stages to the realization of the mystical goal. The mystical path may be based purely on a teacher’s experience and described as such. More often, however, it is coupled with, or at least described in terms of, metaphysical or religious doctrine.

The proportion in which the experiential and doctrinal components are mixed in mystical writings varies and sometimes it is not easy to disentangle them. Mystical writers in the past could not be expected to point out the difference, since only very few were even aware of it; it is only as a result of the modern psychological approach that the two components are now widely recognized, although not always fully respected and correctly applied. W. James did not himself deal theoretically with this problem, but in his lecture on mysticism he was clearly interested only in mystical experience as such and passed over the doctrinal elements contained in the materials, which he quoted, without comment. But he obviously understood the issue well. Within the field of religious studies the distinction was clearly formulated by R.M. Jones, but he then partly clouded the issue by his attempt to restrict the usage of the term ‘mysticism’ to the ‘historic doctrine of the relationship and potential union of the human soul with Ultimate Reality and to use the term “mystical experience” for direct intercourse with God’.³ It is this very statement of his which is an illustration of the difficulty of distinguishing the two components clearly and consistently. To say that mystical experience is direct intercourse with God is already tantamount to imposing a theistic interpretation on it. It is no wonder then that even present writers on mysticism, if committed to a particular doctrine, fail to make the distinction and tend to produce classifications of mysticism based on preconceived ideas and incorporating value judgements derived from personal belief or preference.

One good example is R.H.Zaehner. A Roman Catholic, he regarded ‘genuine theistic mysticism’ as the highest attainment.⁴ Two other types, ‘monistic mysticism’ and ‘pan-en-henic’ or ‘nature mysticism’ (the two last expressions standing for the more usually applied term ‘pantheistic mysticism’) are at best stages on the way⁵ if not aberrations of the mind. In fact, he suggested that monistic experience was the isolation of the individual spirit from the psychophysical body which is man’s mortal part and since that would also mean isolation from God, it would be a state of sin.⁶ The pan-en-henic experience he further explained as the reversion of the individual soul to a state of original innocence (akin to Jung’s collective unconscious) and as such neither good nor evil, It would not produce substantial change in man, but enhance only the good or bad qualities which he already had.⁷

Without necessarily questioning the validity of Zaehner’s classification of mystical experience into theistic, monistic and pantheistic, it is quite clear that his interpretation of the varieties of mystical experience is guided by his doctrinal allegiance. He did show a certain courtesy when he admitted of ‘genuine theistic mysticism’ even in Protestant Christianity and also in Islam and Hinduism; Rāmānuja’s theism particularly appealed to him as being in agreement with Catholic mystical tradition. But his bias was fully revealed when he stated that only Christians believed in the highest mystical achievement called the Beatific Vision in which even matter in the shape of the body will share in the general deification, and God will be ‘all in all’ (I Cor. XI, 28). In this point he was entirely wrong, forgetting or ignoring the Mahāyanā goal of universal liberation ‘down to the last blade of grass’ and the Hindu expectation of universal salvation under Kalki, the future saviour. These teachings have even found philosophical expression in the work of Aurobindo who formulated the goal as the spiritualization of the entire universe.⁸ Although few may be inclined to say with F. Staal that Zaehner’s contribution is an unhappy medley of dogmatism and emotionalism,⁹ the inherent bias of his work seriously limited, if not entirely destroyed, its value and usefulness for the general study of mysticism.

From the opposite side of the spectrum we can take the example of Ben-Ami Scharfstein. Though not unsympathetic to mysticism, he apparently does not accept it has any foundation in objective reality or possesses a dimension of being of its own. Right at the start of his book he says: ‘Seen very broadly, mysticism is a name for our infinite appetites—less broadly, it is the assurance that these appetites can be satisfied. Still less broadly, it is some particular attitude towards “reality” and a view as to how someone or anyone can come into perfect contact with it. And mysticism is also, of course, a name for the paranoid darkness in which unbalanced people stumble so confidently.’¹⁰ Here we can see how the ambiguity of the term mysticism receives a further twist, covering for Scharfstein also the area of mental aberration (hinted at, for different reasons, also by Zaehner, as we have seen). Scharfstein later elaborates on this theme and practically equates psychosis and the ‘mystic state’. Yet all is not lost, because: ‘A mystic who remains intellectually alert, will accompany his emotional experience, as we may non-commitally call it, by persistent reasoning.’¹¹ Besides, psychosis is ‘involuntary and inescapable while the mystic state tends to be voluntary—given a suitable training it can be entered and left almost at will. The mystic does not suffer his internal ecstasy, infinity or truth, but creates it’.¹² This is not just agnosticism, but a denial of the possibility of any ontological basis for mystical experience. Like psychosis it is held to be only a subjective state of mind and if an objective base to it can be found, it will be physiological, in man’s nervous system,

Scharfstein shares here the reductionist approach of some scientists to psychological facts of experience. Unlike Zaehner he does not exactly define his position, but even so he does not leave us in doubt about his stance when he says: ‘I myself dislike and prefer to explain away much of mysticism, but it is in some way essential to us and it is too natively human ever to die.’¹³ His often witty and lighthearted yet penetrating remarks make a sober summary of his actual views difficult, but I think that if we try to produce one we shall find that his stance can be described as evolutionary positivism and formulated thus: Emotional experiences have a certain realistic value, though not a basis in objective reality, in so far as they prove of assistance for the survival and evolution of the species. Thus the human emotion of love secures, better than mere instinct, procreation and the protracted care of offspring, enabling humans to develop higher intelligence on maturity. The emotional experience of oneness could in this way be interpreted as a future further stage of evolution which would replace strife, a one-time stimulant of evolution which has become too destructive, if mystical experience were to become an achievement of a substantial part of mankind or at least of a large élite which could command the respect of the rest.

Although this view incorporates a preconceived positivistic bias, it does have a worthwhile implication, for if our summary of Scharfstein’s line of thought expresses correctly the logic of the positivistic approach, then scientific and wider academic research interest must sooner or later include mysticism not only as a phenomenon or an object of study, but also as a method of research. In other words the researcher studying mysticism would adopt some kind of mystical practice. This approach is also advocated by Staal who says: The study of mysticism, to the extent that it has so far been undertaken, resembles the sketching of a territory that is never visited and only described from hearsay.’¹⁴ ‘If mysticism is to be studied seriously, it should not merely be studied indirectly and from without, but also directly and from within.’ Without this provision it would be ‘like a blind man studying vision.’¹⁵ I have expressed a similar view with respect to Yoga when advocating for it, in the context of the modern world, the status of a ‘new field of inquiry both in scientific laboratories and in the laboratory of the human mind’, the latter implying ‘the experimenter’s use and application of the Yoga method on a personal basis, not only by the study of its results on other subjects’.¹⁶

All modern writers on mysticism include within its range traditions belonging to different times and parts of the world. But its concept has been formed in the context of European civilization which has its roots in ancient Greece, drew substantially from Judaic tradition and was basically Christian before it underwent the process of secularization. It is therefore inevitable that in a paper like this one turns also to history.

The origin of mysticism has to be sought in the mystery cults of prehistoric Greece which survived well into the historical period and penetrated later into Rome. Since they were secret, not much is known about them. But in general one can say that some kind of mystical experience was evoked by rites of initiation into the mysteries and on special occasions various ecstasy-inducing techniques were used such as sacred movements and dances, recitations and enigmatic utterances. There were also enactments of sacred events (‘mystery plays’). The application of these techniques was often preceded by periods of fasting and chastity. There are also reports of individuals who achieved ‘union with the deity’ and the god, it was believed, spoke through them, giving prophecies.¹⁷

Besides the component of mystical experience and the methods of bringing it about, the mysteries already had their doctrinal element also. Since a fair deal is known about the mystery doctrines, they may not have been as secret as the rites, if they were secret at all. While the initiatory rites and ecstasy-inducing techniques probably relied also on the effect of novelty, surprise and awe, the teachings provided the motivation for joining the mystery movement, for undergoing purifications and perhaps for adopting, temporarily or permanently, a stringent discipline in life. The teachings of mysteries can be described as ethical, eschatological and soteriological.¹⁸ In the atmosphere of life’s uncertainties in those rough times and in the face of the gloomy prospects, in the then current Greek religion, of a shadowy Hades after death, the outlook of rich rewards in the afterlife, a favourable lot in future lives on earth and the possibility of final rebirth into immortality represented highly desirable achievements, attracting mentally alert candidates and furthering their experiences of ecstasy during the sacred rites.

The exact state of elaboration of the mystery doctrines is not known, but they influenced philosophers, some of whom were initiated and incorporated mystery doctrines into their teachings. As philosophy was not yet a purely academic discipline they also lived it practically, sometimes together with their disciples in monastic communities. Two pre-Socratics have to be mentioned in this context. Pythagoras, who left Samos for Crotona in southern Italy in 530 B.C., was described by B. Russell as a combination of Einstein and Mrs Eddy. He was probably initiated into Orphic mysteries and it may be worth mentioning that it was suggested that he had come from India, his name being explained as a hellenization of the Sanskrit pitā gurus ( = father teacher).¹⁹ He was the contemporary of the Buddha and one of his utterances, ‘There are men and gods and beings like Pythagoras’,²⁰ suggests that he regarded the expression ‘Pythagoras’ as a designation for a special category of beings rather than a personal name which is reminiscent of the usage of the term buddha in the texts of both early and Mahāyanā Buddhism. Several passages in the Buddha’s discourses related in the Pāli Canon resemble the above statement. In one of them (M 4, 36) when a priest who saw unusual signs about the Buddha asked if he was a god, a man, a ghost etc., he answered each time in the negative. To the direct question who, then, he was, he retorted he was a buddha ( = an enlightened one). Pythagoras taught metempsychosis as did the Orphics as ...

Table of contents

• COVER PAGE
• TITLE PAGE
• COPYRIGHT PAGE
• ABBREVIATIONS
• THE EDITOR’S PREFACE
• 1: MYSTICISM AS DOCTRINE AND EXPERIENCE
• 2: MYSTICISM AND INDIAN SPIRITUALITY
• 3: THE LONGHAIRED SAGE OF RV 10, 136: A SHAMAN, A MYSTIC OR A YOGI?
• 4: MYSTICISM IN THE UPANISADS AND IN ŚANKARA’S VEDĀNTA
• 5: BIRTH OF EXTRAORDINARY PERSONS: THE BUDDHA’S CASE
• 6: CONSCIOUSNESS MYSTICISM IN THE DISCOURSES OF THE BUDDHA
• 7: THE STAGES OF CHRISTIAN MYSTICISM AND BUDDHIST PURIFICATION: INTERIOR CASTLE OF ST TERESA OF ÁVILA AND THE PATH OF PURIFICATION OF BUDDHAGHOSA
• 8: LIVING BETWEEN THE WORLDS: BHAKTI POETRY AND THE CARMELITE MYSTICS
• 9: YOGA PHILOSOPHY AND JUNG F.W.J.HUMPHRIES
• 10: THREE CONTEMPORARY INDIAN MYSTICS: ĀNANDAMAYĪ, KRISHNABAI AND RAJNEESH
• 11: YOGA, MYSTICISM AND A MODEL OF COMPARATIVE RELIGION
• GLOSSARY
• CONTRIBUTORS
• NOTE ON THE PAPERS AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS