What is the nature of mysticism?

[dauer]

I read an article that I thought would be a good jumping off point for a discussion on the nature of mysticism and the relationship between types of experiences in in different religions:

Zeek | Jewish Mysticism in the University: Academic Study or Theological Practice? | Boaz Huss

It's two pages long and focuses primarily on the etymology of the word mysticism and its application. Some questions that it raises for me:

What is mysticism?

What is a mystical experience?

What is the metric by which one experience is judged to be mystical and another experience judged not to be mystical?

Are there commonalities between mystical experiences within individual traditions and are there commonalities between mystical experiences between different traditions?


My own answers to my questions are as follows:

Mysticism is a category for those systems of thought and practice that foster experiences which go beyond our ordinary way of relating to and experiencing the world.

A mystical experience is one which goes beyond our ordinary way of relating to and experiencing the world.

An experience is mystical if the majority of people do not have that experience without expressly fostering it.

I think that within a particular system that will often be the most similarity found because there isn't so much need to define one particular experience in two very different ways but that between traditions there may be analogous experiences that are nonetheless distinct due to the context in which they are experienced that colors the experience itself.

-- dauer

[intrepidlover]

Originally Posted by dauer

I read an article that I thought would be a good jumping off point for a discussion on the nature of mysticism and the relationship between types of experiences in in different religions:

Zeek | Jewish Mysticism in the University: Academic Study or Theological Practice? | Boaz Huss

It's two pages long and focuses primarily on the etymology of the word religion and its application. Some questions that it raises for me:

You can't discuss or define mysticism in intellectual terms. By its very nature mysticism is in a different realm to the intellect.

Originally Posted by dauer

What is mysticism?

What is a mystical experience?

What is the metric by which one experience is judged to be mystical and another experience judged not to be mystical?

Are there commonalities between mystical experiences within individual traditions and are there commonalities between mystical experiences between different traditions?

1. Mysticism refers to and relates to levels of consciousness "above" the intellect. It is supra-physical.

2. A mystical experience is an event which, in most instances, is known only to the person who has the experience. Because it is by "nature" supra physical, it cannot adequately be described in the language of the intellect, i.e. words and metaphors.

3. Only the person or persons who has/have the experience can assess or judge whether the experience is in fact mystical.

4. A mystical experience is a mystical experience. It is not relative to the belief system through which it is experienced. However any symbolism seen in or read into the experience is likely to be related to the belief system of the person/s participating.

[flowperson]

IL...Having been "there" several times myself, much of what you say is very true.

flow....

[dauer]

IL and Flow,

Reiterating a query raised by the article I linked to,

what are the similarities between: "...visiting the Heavenly Palaces, seeing the appearance of God... and raising one’s thoughts up to the point of Nothingness..." and to add to the list: "a Kabbalist hearing the voice of the Shechina, a Catholic nun who is spiritually betrothed to Christ, or a Buddhist monk who aspires to attain Nirvana."

When I ask for similarities I do not mean, what do a couple of these things have in common, but what do they all have in common as they are all currently categorized as a part of mysticism.

Specifically to intrepid, if only the individual can assess whether an experience is mystical and there is no comparative verifiability then of what value is the word for communicating something to another person? Couldn't an individual judge any experience as mystical that another might judge not mystical and vice versa? For example, to use again from the examples above, if one person visits the heavenly palaces, and another person is spiritually betrothed to Christ, both call what they have achieved mysticism, what is shared between those two experiences that they might both be categorized in the same way?

-- dauer

[path_of_one]

I think the article is interesting, but in part is a problem of semantics and not concepts. That is, if we remove "mysticism" as a label all together, that does not remove the concept people have of "that bunch of stuff that seems cross-culturally similar in significant ways and involves reaching out to some extraordinary experience."

The reason many people, including scholars, see an underlying unity in mysticism in various traditions is that mystics themselves often see it. Yes, mystics' experiences differ and how they interpret that varies according to their cultural and religious traditions. However, most people who have significant mystical experiences over time, particularly those that pursue it routinely, are aware that their attemtps at interpretation and communication of their experiences fall very much short of the actual experience. As IL was saying, it cannot be adequately described, least of all in a scholarly manner, and the closest many people often feel they come is through art or poetry, which allows a transfer of some of the experience without quite so much filtering.

While on the surface, many mystical traditions and experiences may seem quite different, "mysticism" is simply referring to the underlying commonality in them. This needn't be from the perspective that they are, indeed, caused by an experience of a transcendental reality as the author states. In fact, if it were based on that assumption, the term would not be used by most social scientists. Having had mystical experiences myself, I do believe that these arise from interaction with an extra-ordinary reality, which I refer to as God or the Divine, but acknowledge other ways of expressing it. However, as an anthropologist, I would not base a cross-cultural comparison on that assumption. Rather, one can look at a common type of experience based on how it affects the humans involved. Altered states of consciousness, paired with various sensory and physical sensations, are fairly common cross-culturally in these sorts of experiences. Whether you argue these arise from interaction with the Divine or simply from certain ways the brain is functioning, it is remarkable that in many cultures worldwide (including many shamanic traditions), people attained certain common experiences (such as auditory and visual hallucinations, significant changes to heartrate and breathing patterns and pain response, feelings of oneness or unity, etc.) through certain widespread practices (including fasting, exposure, spinning, drumming, chanting, taking drugs, etc.). There ARE significant widespread behaviors and ideas that are cross-culturally observable and these are what most social scientists refer to as mysticism (generally in reference to world religions) and shamanism (generally in reference to shamanic traditions).

To say that these commonalities are to be disregarded due to cultural and religious variety in their interpretation and symbolism is to take, I feel, an extreme position in antithesis to reductionism. Yes, we do not want to reduce all "mystic" experiences to one blob of non-culturally-defined stuff, but we also don't want to ignore significant elements of human experience that are widespread in order to disintegrate into a position that does not allow that humans, as a whole, share anything in common. In fact, it seems particularly important to our understanding of what makes humans human that mystical experiences are so widespread. Intellectually, this points to a unique way that human brains function, and like art and music, is such a uniquely human trait that has no immediately apparent evolutionary function. Of course, for many people (but not a scientific position), this also points toward a reality of underlying transcendent reality, which people cannot fully grasp but can experience.

I think what the author confuses is the first position with the second. The author assumes that scholars are lumping together certain practices and experiences as "mysticism" AND assuming they are borne of interaction with the Divine. In actuality, many scholars I know are agnostic or atheist and they are lumping together certain practices and experiences as "mysticism" without reference to any transcendent whatsoever. They are lumped together because of their common traits. Of course, they vary by culture and religion. So do all the other things we lump together in order to theorize about them. For example, capitalism, socialism, Christianity, Buddhism, horticulture, pastoral, magic, witchcraft... the list goes on and on and on. The capitalism of Ghana fish markets isn't much like the capitalism of Wal-Mart. (Wait, but Wal-Mart isn't REALLY pure capitalism... I digress )

The reality is that in theorizing about people, we either agree to simply study each culture and religion individually and never make any statements about humanity as a whole or what processes lead to what types of societies (yawn, boring, and not theoretically all that useful) or we sacrifice some of the distinctiveness of each in our quest for understanding underlying processes of humanity and society. Heck... by extension, the same could be said of biologists, who have to draw lines in the sand and lump species together into higher categories. It is the nature of categorization to be slightly inaccurate, but categorization is still a useful way to look for patterns.

As for my answers to the questions...

I preface with my favorite definition of religion (also a tough one to define).

1A. Religion is human transformation in response to perceived ultimacy. Ultimacy conditions and gives meaning to all of existence.

1B. Mysticism is the group of behaviors designed to grant direct experience of perceived ultimacy.

2. A mystical experience is one in which the person has a direct interaction with perceived ultimacy. I agree with IL that this surpasses our communicative abilities, so while mystics tend to easily recognize commonality in others' mystical experiences, no one can adequately express what they have experienced.

3. Two answers to this...
As a social scientist, you judge a mystical experience by your definition, but you are always relying on the interpretation and expression of the mystic. So, in fact it still goes by to IL's observation that only the individual person can deem an experience mystical.

4. Yes. And yes. I explain a few above but could provide a list of behaviors, emotions, and thoughts that are commonly found cross-culturally in mystical experiences. Interpretation of experience varies widely, but the underlying behaviors that lead to mystical experiences and the physical and sensory manifestations are observable and found throughout the world.

[dauer]

PoO,

I think the article is interesting, but in part is a problem of semantics and not concepts. That is, if we remove "mysticism" as a label all together, that does not remove the concept people have of "that bunch of stuff that seems cross-culturally similar in significant ways and involves reaching out to some extraordinary experience."

That was pretty much my reaction to the article too. I was hoping that the dialogue in this thread could help to flesh out, in quite concrete terms, what those underlying similarities are that are shared by most if not all experiences deemed mystical. That's why my definitions remain so vague, so as not to exclude a particular experience or set of experiences that a group or groups might deem mystical. I agree with you that the author of the article did create a bit of a straw man. He acknowledges other views of mysticism but addresses only one.

I agree with IL that this surpasses our communicative abilities, so while mystics tend to easily recognize commonality in others' mystical experiences, no one can adequately express what they have experienced.

Are there any experiences that can really be adequately expressed in words? How does one communicate in words the actual experience of biting into a piece of toast? A person can speak of the action of biting into the toast, of the taste and texture, of the resistance of the toast to the teeth, of temperature, the sounds of the toast crunching and the appearance of the toast, but I think the experience itself is still a bit ineffable and it is only shared perceptions of biting into toast that allow us to say anything about it. The experience itself is beyond language and to put it to words limits it. Nonetheless, when we wish to communicate the experience of biting into toast we use words that convey a very specific experience. If the word mysticism is really so vague, why not categorize mystical experiences further? I know various traditions have but I mean cross-culturally.

To clarify on 4, I'm referring to similarities shared by most if not all mystical experiences, not by a decent number while lacking in a good number of others.

Also, something I have come across in the writings of Ken Wilber that I think I see coming up in this thread as well is a differentiation between "pre-rational" and "trans-rational" such that someone who experiences some sort of archetypal content, something understood by the individual as a direct interaction with deity that is quite removed from any non-dual experience, that isn't really as much of a mystical experience as something that is extremely non-dual. For me that seems a bit problematic. Why ignore those experiences that contain more personal content? They have analogues too, ones that appear in a different skin, as it were. Are those experiences less mystical or less an expression of what mysticism is? If those experiences are not mystical then what are they?

-- dauer

[flowperson]

Wonderful and thoughtful exposition Path.

To answer your primary question Dauer, I would describe a common attribute of such experiences to be "an experiencing of otherness". Since we are all so different genetically, and yet the same, there is a gap in understanding what this might mean.

What is an "otherness" experience for one may not be so for another. But anyone that I have spoken with about the phenomenon stated that they felt to have been "chosen" to be some sort of messenger.

Mystics somehow have the ability to put themselves into receptive states and to be "made" receptive to messages or visions intended for them. Your reference to the "shekinah" attitude of the ancient Hebrews attests to the timelessness of the matter. There is little doubt in my mind that this is an individuated phenomenon. Some people just seem to have "thinner" veils of reality to pierce than others, and this is a spiritual attribute not available to all humans. Those who find themselves in this category also are more prone, statistically, to perceived mental aberrations. But this does not always hold true on a case by case basis.

However there is evidence for mass mystical experiences such as happened at Fatima, Portugal early in the 20th century. The masses of people experienced similar phenomenological happenings concerning the sun in the sky, but only a few peasant children received the actual "messages".

To me the reception of such messages and/or visions are the most important features of such things. Those who are on the receiving end feel duty bound to relate their experiences to others in order to gain some validation and understanding for themselves of what happened. As stated above, these communications invariably result in artistic creations, which are themselves open to variable interpretations.

I've written about these experiences as they have applied to my existence, but I mostly did it to help "me" to understand what happened and why. Whetheror not anybody else believes any of it or not matters little to me. The information is there for anyone else to read if needed. But no one has requested it thus far. That's just as well.

flow....

[dauer]

Flow,

shechinah is not an ancient Hebrew concept. It first appears in rabbinic literature and isn't really fleshed out as understood today until the development of kabbalah.

I want to clarify, I didn't create this thread to question whether mystical experience are valid or invalid, or whether there are people who have mystical experiences, or whether there are some similarities between certain mystical experiences, or about how individuals apply or respond to their mystical experience, but just to take a look at the way the word is applied, what it is applied to, and what can be said about all of those experiences, not just a certain category within those experiences. I think your statement that it's an experience of otherness is better than the previous ones given in that it's not wedded to the idea that a mystical experience must be non-dual but at the same time to me the idea of otherness excludes the non-dual by suggesting that something is other than oneself, although I know that what you mean is probably closer to what I meant when I said that "A mystical experience is one which goes beyond our ordinary way of relating to and experiencing the world."

--dauer

[flowperson]

Dauer...The term "both,and" comes to mind my friend.

flow....

[dauer]

Flow,

in regard to what?

[path_of_one]

Great point about the difficult of expressing experience, Dauer. This is true for any sensory experience that others have not had, as well. Try explaining seeing color to someone who has always been blind. Or what the ocean sounds like to someone who is deaf. Mystical experience, in my opinion, is an opening up to the parts of reality that are inaccessible through the ordinary senses and reason. I wouldn't say it is super-natural, necessarily, since I don't really distinguish what is natural from what isn't (does nature have boundaries?). But rather, there are aspects of reality that are usually "beyond the veil" of ordinary experience. Through various means, some practiced, some spontaneous, people can step into an experiential space that is beyond the veil, at least partially and temporarily.

I think the problem is that it is difficult to define most "isms" by a core set of attributes. What is more often the case is a group of stuff that often goes together. Thus, I would put forth that defining mystical experiences is less about meeting criteria X (as a minimum) as it is about an amalgam of attributes that are part of the broader list of mystical experiential elements.

The two things I can think of that possibly run through nearly all mystical experiences I've read about, and certainly my own, are:

1. Not sure if I am referring to the same "otherness" that Flow is discussing, but I would say "extraordinary," meaning that you are experientially aware of the vast reality beyond your usual one. In a way, I imagine it is like a fish that gets caught and suddenly realizes that the ocean is there, whereas before that vast reality was just background to life and out of its awareness.
2. Unity. A feeling of disintegration of ego and unification with The All. Whether you define that as uniting with God, the Universe, Nothingness, or whatever... I think it is a similar experience for all who have had it, at least based on my discussions with others who have had mystical experiences from a variety of religious traditions.

Often, it seems the one leads to the other, and the accompanying sensation is often how incredible small one is in the grand scheme of things, but also how incredibly significant all beings are.

I would add that #2 is more definitive than #1. Some people are quite aware of the Otherworld but do not experience unity. Hence, while one could experience #1 it does not necessarily lead to #2. In my experience, and in the sacred texts of many religions, you have to let go of yourself to a certain degree to get to #2. This can be really difficult for some people and I have a feeling that is partly why so many practices that attempt to lead to mystical experience push one into altered states of consciousness and push the body to limits (through fasting, drugs, sleeplessness, etc.). In pushing the body and brain outside the realm of its comfortable existence, you assist oneself in letting go of oneself and dissociate from the body, making it easier to let go of the concept of self.

[flowperson]

In regard to the way(s) in which the "realities of the world" may be viewed. "Both" in reference to an either/or, good/bad, yes/no, dualistic mindset which is fostered by popular culture and its offshoots.

"And" in the sense of a transcendant world view in which both the "either/or" aspects and larger meanings, or "and" experiences, may be surmised based upon the mystical experiences one has encountered. Such encounters expand the possibilities in one's experience base so that a larger set of pictures might be more realistically envisioned.

Out of this "and" mindset, when embraced, comes such things as fantasy-based video games, virtual Alhambras, inventions, films, novels, etc. Mystical experiences seem to enable the ongoing creative energies that have the possibility of expanding the future possibility horizons of the "both" and the "And".

Difficult to explain, but that's how I see the "bigger picture".

flow....

[dauer]

PoO,

I think that's very true about -isms in general and it frequently I think makes more sense to speak of a range. Do you think, in the same way that one can speak of many Christianities and many Judaisms that it makes sense to speak of many mysticisms, each being a different permutation of certain characteristics?

I think one of the things I've brought up a couple of times that I don't think is being addressed is those experiences that don't necessarily contain that same idea of unity, may even reinforce a sense of separateness from certain entities, for example a shamanic journey. Maybe that's what you're hinting at in your last paragraph, and I may be reading you wrong, but it seems like you're suggesting an experience of dissolution of the ego is greater or more complete than that of the shamanic journey because it contains more of the characteristics you have identified as central to mystical experience.

This can be really difficult for some people and I have a feeling that is partly why so many practices that attempt to lead to mystical experience push one into altered states of consciousness and push the body to limits (through fasting, drugs, sleeplessness, etc.). In pushing the body and brain outside the realm of its comfortable existence, you assist oneself in letting go of oneself and dissociate from the body, making it easier to let go of the concept of self.

In the Mei HaShiloach of the Izhbitzer Rebbe (and a concept I've seen similarly in the writings of other mystics) he suggests that taking on various disciplines is like entering a very narrow tunnel, but first one must pass through the tunnel in order to get to the expanse on the other side. He was actually, iirc, referring specifically to the mitzvot, in that once a Jew gets to the other side the negative mitzvot are no longer obligatory, however he suggests that one should still observe them anyway so as not to place a stumbling block before another person.

-- dauer

______

flow,

No, I understand and I agree with you, if I am interpreting you correctly, that there is this perspective of reality and that perspective of reality, but I still don't understand what you're responding to. Do you think you could quote the passage from me that you were responding to? I lost the "flow" of the dialogue. xD

--dauer

[path_of_one]

Originally Posted by dauer

PoO,

I think that's very true about -isms in general and it frequently I think makes more sense to speak of a range. Do you think, in the same way that one can speak of many Christianities and many Judaisms that it makes sense to speak of many mysticisms, each being a different permutation of certain characteristics?

I think one of the things I've brought up a couple of times that I don't think is being addressed is those experiences that don't necessarily contain that same idea of unity, may even reinforce a sense of separateness from certain entities, for example a shamanic journey. Maybe that's what you're hinting at in your last paragraph, and I may be reading you wrong, but it seems like you're suggesting an experience of dissolution of the ego is greater or more complete than that of the shamanic journey because it contains more of the characteristics you have identified as central to mystical experience.




In the Mei HaShiloach of the Izhbitzer Rebbe (and a concept I've seen similarly in the writings of other mystics) he suggests that taking on various disciplines is like entering a very narrow tunnel, but first one must pass through the tunnel in order to get to the expanse on the other side. He was actually, iirc, referring specifically to the mitzvot, in that once a Jew gets to the other side the negative mitzvot are no longer obligatory, however he suggests that one should still observe them anyway so as not to place a stumbling block before another person.

-- dauer

______

Yes, I think very much that one can speak of "mysticism" in the way one says "Judaism" or "Christianity." It is a very general, broad term that does speak to some stuff that holds *something* in common, but when you look too closely at it, the commonalities dissolve into distinctions. Such is the nature of any term referring to large religious or spiritual lumps of stuff.

I don't mean to imply the shamanic journey, or any other experience that deals with the Otherworld but not unity (which can include some types of magic, psychic experiences, etc.) are less than or inferior but rather different. For some people, experiencing the Otherworld can push them into the experience of unity. For others, the experience of unity opens them to the Otherworld. But for some people (and some traditions or paths, such as some types of modern magic), the point is experiencing and even acting within the Otherworld, and this does not necessarily lead to unity. One can interact with nature spirits, for example, and never feel unified with them, just as one interacts with other people every day but typically remains firmly in self vs. other distinctions. So I do think, upon further reflection, there is a distinction there between the shamanic and the mystical beyond what I outlined in my previous posts.

I forgot to add that it is very interesting to me to think of the mitzvot this way. Have you read "The Year of Living Biblically?" Your comment reminds me of his journey-- that following the mitzvot did eventually lead to greater spiritual awareness and experience in the author's life. I think there is a lot of mystery in how the body relates to spiritual growth, but for most people, there is a relationship there.

Path/Kim (or poo... LOL)

[dauer]

Po1 (?),

I haven't read that book but I just looked it up. It seems interesting. The connection of the mitzvot to spiritual awareness and experience is a theme that's pretty common in the Jewish tradition. What I mentioned was just one example because it seemed to state in different words what you were saying. I think it's why between some conservative Christians and Jews there can be a bit of a disconnect when the Christian sees the OT law as a heavy burden and the Jew sees them as a blessing. It makes sense to me that spiritual practices integrate as many of the spheres of life as possible, and that's hardly something exclusive to one religion. For me, certain of the mitzvot, having either tried them for a while or reflected, just don't work or could work better for me. In those cases I don't discard the mitzvah. I adjust it. For example I want to have a spiritual dietary practice even though traditional kashrut didn't work for me so I do eco-kashrut. I like having structured daily practice but regular meditation is an important practice to me too, so I daven shacharit in the morning, meditate in the evening, or at least I was. Since before the summer I've been overstimmed most of the time from the noise in my apartment and had difficulty getting the sleep I need or getting much done.

-- dauer