Showing posts with label holy spirit. Show all posts
Showing posts with label holy spirit. Show all posts

2021/12/22

A New Way to Be Human by Robert Taylor, Desmond M. Tutu - Ebook | Scribd

A New Way to Be Human by Robert Taylor, Desmond M. Tutu - Ebook | Scribd




Start reading

Remove from Saved
Add to list

Download to app

Share

A New Way to Be Human: 7 Spiritual Pathways to Becoming Fully Alive


By Robert Taylor and Desmond M. Tutu
247 pages
5 hours

Included in your membership!
at no additional cost

Description
A New Way to Be Human is an invaluable guide for individuals intent on transforming their lives, revolutionizing our society, and refining our world. It is for those who seek:


An impactful life of meaning and purpose, love and hope, compassion and delight

The courage to cross the boundaries of religion and move beyond the demonizing debates about gender equality and human sexuality

The spiritual wisdom discovered in the many forms and disguises of the Holy

By identifying 7 pivotal, universally recognizable life occurrences as spiritual pathways, A New Way to Be Human will immediately connect you to actionable personal spiritual practices.

From his miraculous physical healing as a teenager in Cape Town, to fighting apartheid alongside Desmond Tutu, to his eventual appointment as one of the United State’s highest ranking, openly gay Episcopal priests, Robert’s life shows anyone how to integrate personal spirituality with a legacy of compassionate purpose in the world—and invites others to do the same.

Go to www.robertvtaylor.com/publications/book-club

New Age & Spirituality
All categories
PUBLISHER:
New Page Books
RELEASED:
Apr 22, 2012
ISBN:
9781601636003
FORMAT:
Book

About the author
Robert Taylor


I was born in Dallas, Texas (Oak Cliff) and lived there most of my life I’m a Navy veteran and served during early 1960s. I was in the war zone of Vietnam on the USS Ranger cva-61air craft carrier. Afterwards I was in the wholesale electrical supply business for about twenty-five years in Dallas. My home is now in East Texas.


2021/12/20

What is "Holy Indifference?" - Amazing Catechists

What is "Holy Indifference?" - Amazing Catechists



What is “Holy Indifference?”

BY CHRISTOPHER SMITH, OP


Indifference is an uncomfortable word, isn’t it?

Imagine if someone called us, “indifferent”. I suspect we would either be offended, because we don’t think that accurately describes us, or we might feel convicted if we felt the word did accurately describe our attitude.

The word “holy” we tend to think of only in a favorable way. If something is holy, then it is good, pure, or “of God”.

But now bring the two together – “holy indifference” – and I think the most likely impression is the phrase represents an oxymoron. The terms are too dissimilar to be used in conjunction with one another.

We might be surprised to know that “holy indifference” is an attitude recommended by the Saints for hundreds of years. For example, Saint Francis de Sales (1567 – 1622) wrote a chapter entitled, “Holy Indifference Embraces All Things” in his book, Of the Love of God. In it he wrote:


We should seek to practise such indifference with respect to all that concerns our natural life such as health or sickness, beauty or deformity, strength or weakness, honour, rank, and riches; so, also, in all fluctuations of the spiritual life, dryness, consolation, and the like.

In a later chapter of the same book, St Francis de Sales writes:


Unquestionably it is a most pious mental attitude to bless and thank God for all that His Providence may ordain; but if, while leaving God to will and do whatever He pleases in us, we, indifferent to all surroundings, could devote our whole heart and mind to His Boundless Goodness and Mercy, blessing them, not merely in their appointed results, but intrinsically, this would assuredly be a higher spiritual exercise.

Jesus encouraged his followers to be detached from this world and some isolated verses of scripture might lead us to the conclusion that our “holy indifference” is to be so radical as to almost be hostile towards the world. For example when Jesus says of the man who wished to bury his parents before following him, “No one who puts his hand to the plow and looks back is fit for the kingdom of God” (Lk 9:59-62). Is Jesus really telling us we need to adopt a hostile attitude towards the world in order to be “fit for the kingdom of God”?

I don’t think so.

Jesus taught us to love God and love neighbor, calling these the greatest two commandments (Mt 22:36-40). So right away we can see that we need to love our neighbor through concrete actions (i.e. Corporal Works of Mercy). This is not something we do in the abstract.

So for example, it’s the dead of winter and you’re leaving your office early to head home because the weather forecast is calling for snow and freezing temperatures. You put on your brand new winter coat (man, you really love this thing) and head outside towards your car. You’re getting ready to put your keys in the door when you see a homeless person walking by with a tattered blanket wrapped around their shoulders. It’s decision time. You really love your new coat (and that’s okay) but an attitude of “holy indifference” doesn’t love the coat more than the homeless person. You know you can get in your warm car, drive to your warm house, and take out last year’s winter coat, which is still in fine shape, and use that.

There is nothing wrong with having a new coat. Also, there is nothing wrong if you really enjoy it. But when an opportunity presents itself for us to fulfill our Savior’s command to love our neighbor, we can’t love the coat more than that. That’s having an attitude of “holy indifference”. It says, “This thing is nice, but it is nothing, absolutely nothing, compared to my Lord.”

Pope Innocent XII (1615-1700) wrote the following on “holy indifference”:


In the state of holy indifference, a soul no longer has voluntary and deliberate desires for its own interest, with the exception of those occasions on which it does not faithfully cooperate with the whole of its grace.

In the same state of holy indifference we wish nothing for ourselves, all for God. We do not wish that we be perfect and happy for self interest, but we wish all perfection and happiness only in so far as it pleases God to bring it about that we wish for these states by the impression of His grace.

In this state of holy indifference we no longer seek salvation as our own salvation, as our eternal liberation, as a reward of our merits, nor as the greatest of all our interests, but we wish it with our whole will as the glory and good pleasure of God, as the thing which He wishes, and which He wishes us to wish for His sake.

The bottom line is we can love our things so long as we don’t become so attached to them that we no longer have the strength to become detached when they begin to interfere with our eternal destiny. Everything and everyone must be subordinated to our pursuit of God. That’s “holy indifference” in contrast to the world’s indifference which would have left a homeless person without a coat.



Share this:

Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)
Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window)
Click to print (Opens in new window)
More



READ ALL POSTS BY CHRISTOPHER SMITH, OPFILED UNDER: THEOLOGY
About Christopher Smith, OP


Mr. Christopher Smith, OP was born and raised in Northern Michigan. After graduating high school, he joined the United States Navy and had the honor of serving his country for almost 21 years. He retired from active duty in March 2010 and now works as a cybersecurity consultant for the Department of Defense. Christopher, his wife, and their two children live near Baltimore, Maryland.

Christopher earned a BA degree in Philosophy and Religious Studies from Chaminade University in Honolulu, Hawaii in 2005 and a MA degree in Theology (AOC: Moral Theology) from St. Mary's Seminary and University in Baltimore, Maryland in 2010. In June 2007, he was received into the Dominican Order as a member of the Immaculate Conception Chapter of Third Order Dominicans located at the Dominican House of Studies in Washington D.C.

When he is not blogging, Christopher is involved in several ministries in his parish, including: RCIA catechist, adult formation leader, and parish council. He also conducts workshops on a variety of theological subjects. Some of Christopher’s favorite research topics include: apologetics, theodicy, just war theory, church/state relations, and public theology. He also enjoys digital photography, soccer, reading, and playing on his drum set.

In addition to writing for AC, you can find Christopher on his blog Christopher's Apologies. He also hangs out on Twitter, Facebook, Google+, and YouTube.

2021/12/17

Gertrude More - Wikipedia 영원읯 철학

Gertrude More - Wikipedia

Gertrude More

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
Dame Gertrude More.

Dame Gertrude More (born as Helen More; 25 March 1606 - 17 August 1633) was a nun of the English Benedictine Congregation, a writer and chief founder of the abbey at Cambrai which became Stanbrook Abbey.

Life[edit]

More was born in Low Leyton in Essex. Her father, Cresacre More, was great-grandson of Thomas More;[1] her mother, Elizabeth Gage, was sister of Sir John Gage, 1st Baronet of FirleSussexLord Chamberlain to Queen Mary.[2] Her mother died in 1611 and Helen's father, who had trained to be a monk,[3] became responsible for her care and education. Dom Benet Jones, a Benedictine monk, encouraged her to join his projected religious foundation, Our Lady of Comfort, in Cambrai. She was the first of nine postulants admitted to the order on 31 December 1623. Helen More came under the prescriptive influence of the Dominican Augustine Baker and took the religious name of Gertrude.[1] Catherine Gascoigne, one of her peers, was chosen ahead of her by the authorities in Rome as abbess in 1629 because she was older.[2] Gascoigne was more welcoming of Baker's advice. Sister More opposed Baker's approach but eventually gave into his ways - which included writing good books.[1]

Her writing was heavily influenced by the christian mystics such as Julian of Norwich and Teresa of Avila and other spiritual writers[4] and she contributed to the effort to publish their work.[5][6]

The row at Cumbrai continued and Baker was recalled to Douai. Before the row was settled Gertrude died at Cambrai, from smallpox, aged 27.[1]

Posthumous[edit]

Some papers found after her death and arranged by Father Baker, were afterwards published in two separate works: one entitled The Holy Practices of a Divine Lover, or the Sainctly Ideot's Devotions (Paris, 1657); the other, Confessiones Amantis, or Spiritual Exercises, or Ideot's Devotions, to which was prefixed her Apology, for herself and for her spiritual guide (Paris, 1658).

2021/12/07

산상수훈 8복

산상수훈 8복 : 네이버 블로그




산상수훈 8복

우리안

2016. 7. 27. 8:17
이웃추가
본문 기타 기능


Ⅰ. 서론



복이란 헬라어로는 '마카리오스(Μακάριος)'로써 '일상적인 염려와 걱정들로부터 놓여 자유 하는' 것을 의미한다. 또한 시적인 언어에서 이 단어는 '신들의 행복'을 가리키는 말로써 신들의 상태와 더불어 신들의 행복한 실존을 함께 나누는 자들의 상태를 나타내었다.

헬라어 원어에서 복에 대한 두 가지 핵심적인 의미를 생각해 볼 수 있는데, 첫째는 세상의 근심 걱정으로부터 해방되는 것이며, 둘째는 하나님의 은혜에 참예하는 것이다. 다시 말해서 복에 대한 원어적 의미는 세상을 통해 얻는 권력, 물질, 형통의 의미가 아니라 오히려 세상으로부터 구별됨으로써 얻게 되는 진정한 마음의 평안의 상태, 하나님의 위로와 평강의 은혜로 말미암아 얻게 되는, 즉 세상에서 맛볼 수 없는 은혜의 상태를 말하는 것이다.

이처럼 '마카리오스'는 하나님과의 관계에서 주어지는 은혜의 상태를 의미하는 것이지 개인의 노력으로 얻은 결과를 의미하지 않는다. 그동안 한국교회는 오랫동안 번영신학에 빠져 있었다.(비단 한국교회만의 문제는 아니지만) 복음주의 목회자인 존 파이퍼 목사는 그가 시무하던 교회의 마지막 설교에서 번영신학을 다음과 같이 비판했다.



"예배가 수다스럽게 떠드는 라디오 토크쇼같이 취급되며, 모든 것에 대해 명랑 쾌활하게 말하고, 사람들에게 편안하고 즐겁고 활기찬 느낌을 주도록 기획된 교회 예배에 크게 실망했다. 물론 세상이 행복한 크리스천을 봐야 하지만 그 행복은 고통 속에서 하나님이 빚으신, 그리스도가 획득한 행복이어야 한다. 우리가 그들에게 줘야 할 것은 그들이 이미 지니고 있는 것이 아니다."



개인적인 견해로 마카리오스를 ‘복’이라고 번역하지 않고 ‘행복하다’고 번역했다면 지금처럼 기복적인 개념으로 덜 받아들이지 않았을까 하는 생각을 해 본다. 번역을 탓하자는 것이 아니라 세속적인 단어를 가져올 때에는 그 단어에 실린 의미도 함께 따라오기에 번역에 신중했거나 아니면 이를 신학적 적용에 더욱 주의했어야 한다는 말이다.





Ⅱ. 성경이 말하는 복



1. 구원받은 자의 행복

구약에서의 말 하는 복은 죄 사함을 받고 죄의 길에 서지 않는 것(시 1:1, 32:1), 가난한 자에게 선을 베풀며(시41:1), 오직 말씀 즉 여호와께 의지하는(84:12) 것 등을 말한다.

신약의 서신서에서 바울은 죄 사함과 믿음에 초점을 맞추고 있다. 즉 구원받은 자의 행복을 말하고 있는 것이다.(롬4:7; 14:22) 계시록에서 말하는 복은 단호하다. 즉 죄 앞에 부끄럽지 않고 정결하며(계16:15; 22:14) 말씀을 지키고(계22:7), 믿음으로 인하여 죽는(계14:3) 것이 복 받은 자들의 자격 요건인 것이다.

이처럼 신·구약에서 공통적으로 복에 대해 말하는 것은 구원을 받은 자들의 마땅한 신앙적인 상태(죄를 멀리하고 정결하며 말씀을 지키고 죽기까지 믿음으로 충성하는)를 말하고 있다. 물론 예수님께서는 믿는 모든 자들에게 복을 주시기 위해 이 땅에 오셨다(행 3:26). 그러나 성경 어디에도 예수를 열심히 믿으면 이 세상에서 주는 복을 받는다는 말은 없다.



2. 천국 시민이 받는 복

그렇다면 예수님께서 말씀하시는 복은 무엇인가? 마태복음 5장(1~12절)에서 선포하시는 예수님의 말씀은 산상수훈 중에서 팔복에 관한 말씀이다. 산상수훈은 구원받지 못한 자를 위한 복음의 메시지가 아니며 제자들에게 전하는 메시야 왕국의 특성을 나타내는 것이다.

원어로 8복은 마카리오이(Makarioi)라는 형용사로 서술적 용법 즉 ‘복이 있나니’로 사용되었다. 이것은 우리말 해석과는 순서에 있어서 차이를 보인다. 즉 “심령이 가난한 자는(애통하는 자는, 온유한 자는, …) 복을 받는다."라는 우리말 표현은 어떠한 사람들이 복을 받는데 필요한 조건, 또는 복을 받는 사람들의 유형을 말하는 것과 같은 뉘앙스를 풍긴다. 그러나 진작 팔복에 말하는 ‘복’은 세상에서 가지는 통념과는 매우 다르기에 역설(paradox)이라고도 부른다.

따라서 팔복은 복을 받기 위한 조건이나 복을 받는 사람들의 유형을 말하기보다 그들의 특성(거룩한 성품)이 어떻게 나타나는가를 언급하고 있는 것이다. 달라스 윌라드는 그의 저서 '하나님의 모략'에서 팔복을 복을 받는 조건처럼 해석한다면 다양한 부류의 사람이 자신에게 맞는 복을 고름으로써 천국에 자동 입성하게 될 것이라고 하였다. 따라서 팔복을 원어의 의미를 살려서 해석을 한다면, “복되도다. 이곳에 심령이 가난한 자가 있느냐? 천국은 그들의 것이다.”라고 볼 수 있다.

예수님께서 팔복을 강론하는 대상은 병 고침을 받으러 온 자들이 아니라 믿음으로 나온 제자들이었다. 예수님께서는 장차 천국 시민이 될 제자들에게 천국 시민이 복되며 복된 이유에 대해 말씀하고 계신 것이다.





Ⅲ. 천국 시민의 특성



3.심령이 가난한 자는 복이 있나니 천국이 그들의 것임이요 4.애통하는 자는 복이 있나니 그들이 위로를 받을 것임이요 5.온유한 자는 복이 있나니 그들이 땅을 기업으로 받을 것임이요 6.의에 주리고 목마른 자는 복이 있나니 그들이 배부를 것임이요 7.긍휼히 여기는 자는 복이 있나니 그들이 긍휼히 여김을 받을 것임이요 8.마음이 청결한 자는 복이 있나니 그들이 하나님을 볼 것임이요 9.화평하게 하는 자는 복이 있나니 그들이 하나님의 아들이라 일컬음을 받을 것임이요 10.의를 위하여 박해를 받은 자는 복이 있나니 천국이 그들의 것임이라



1. 심령이 가난한 자

심령(퓨뉴마)은 우리의 영혼을 말하며 가난(프토코스, ptocos)하다는 것은 두려워하여 움츠려든 상태를 말한다. 즉 세상 가운데에서 억압을 받고 개인의 힘으로서는 살아갈 수 없는 상태인 것이다.

예수님이 이 세상에 오셨을 때에도 세 부류의 가난한 사람들이 있었다. 첫째는 단순히 물질적 의미에서 '가난한 자'다. 둘째는 몸이 병들고 약하거나 사회적으로도 아무 힘이 없기 때문에 차별당하고 억압을 당하는 사람, 그래서 사회적으로 보호와 도움을 필요로 하는 사람이다. 셋째는 세상적인 물질과 권력, 명예 등을 가지고 있으면서도 양심으로는 가책을 느끼는 사람이었다.

그러므로 '가난한 자'라는 것은 세상적으로는 부유하거나 권력이 있음에도 그 영혼이 움츠려든 상태에 있는 사람이다. 똑같은 바리새인이면서도 니고데모와 같이 영적인 갈급함이 있는 사람이 있었고, 또한 부자인 세리장이면서도 영적인 가난을 깨달은 삭개오와 같은 사람이 있었다.

세상의 권력과 부를 탐하면서 마음이 부자인 사람들이 있다. 그들은 세상 권세를 붙잡고 또한 그것을 탐닉하기에 그 양심이 굳어있는 자들이다. 그들은 겉으로는 예배의 자리에 있거나 하나님을 향하고 있는 것 같지만 그들에게는 믿음의 형식만 남아있고 그 안에는 교만과 욕심으로 가득 차 있는 것이다.

가난한 자는 구걸할 수밖에 없다. 문제는 누구에게 구걸하느냐는 것이다. 니고데모와 삭개오 그리고 욥과 같은 자가 가난해서 구걸한 것이 아니라 영적인 갈급함을 알기에 하나님 집 앞에서 구걸하며 그의 베푸심에 의존하는 것이다. 세리는 상한 심령으로, “하나님이여 불쌍히 여기소서 나는 죄인이로소이다(눅 18:13)”라고 외쳤는데, 이것이 바로 심령이 가난한 자들의 외침인 것이다.

오직 예수님을 만난 자만이 자신의 영혼이 가난한 상태를 깨달을 수 있다. 마치 거울을 본 자가 자신의 추악한 모습을 볼 수 있듯이 말이다. 이러한 자들의 모습은 겸손함으로 나타나기 마련이다. 회당장 야이로는 회당에서 말씀을 선포하는 청년 예수를 보고 자신의 무력함, 세상의 권세와 물질 그 어떤 것으로도 해결할 수 없는 영적인 가난에 처했을 때 예수님 앞에 겸허히 무릎을 꿇었다.(막 5:22)

천국은 부족한 것이 없는 곳이다. 그러나 천국은 세상의 부자나 교만한 자가 들어갈 수 없는 곳이다. 천국은 오직 이 세상의 것을 배설물과 같이 여기며 자신의 영혼의 가난한 상태를 깨닫는 겸손하고 온유하며 순종하는 심령에게 주어지는 것이다.



2. 애통하는 자

우리가 그리스도를 바라보면서 가져야 할 경건한 슬픔이 있다. 그것은 곧 죄에 대해 갖는 슬픔이다. 애통하는 자란, 자신의 본성적인 부패성과 또한 실질적인 갖가지 범죄들을 슬퍼하는 자다. 그러므로 하나님께서 자신으로부터 멀어진 것에 대해 슬퍼하며, 또한 하나님을 존귀하게 여기려는 열심으로 다른 이들의 죄에 대해서도 슬퍼하고 모든 가증한 일로 말미암아 탄식하며 우는 자들이다.

그러므로 진실로 애통하는 자는 자신의 죄에 대해 깊이 슬퍼하고 철저히 '애통하는 자'의 자리에까지 나아가야 하는 것이다. 특별히 이 애통은 영적인 측면의 애통을 말하는 것으로 인간과 하나님 사이를 갈라놓는 불의에 대한 애통이며, 사람들이 자랑하던 바로 그 도덕성과 '자기 의'(self-righteousness)에 대한 애통이며, 하나님의 뜻을 진지하게 찾고 끝끝내 발견하려는 가운데 분출되는 애통인 것이다.

우리는 누구 때문에 무엇 때문에 애통해하며 기도하고 있는가? 아무것도 할 수 없다는 안타까움보다 나 자신의 부요함에 부끄러워해야 한다. 예수님께서는 자신의 전부를 우리에게 주셨는데 우리는 자신의 작은 소유조차도 아까워하지 않는가? 우리 주변에서 애통해하는 많은 자들을 보면서 우리는 위로를 받은 자로서 주님이 주시는 위로를 소개하는 자가 되어야 할 것이다.

누가 위로를 받는가? 당연히 애통하는 자가 위로를 받는다. 문제는 무엇 때문에 애통해 하느냐는 것이다. 세상 가운데 아등바등 살다가 뜻대로 되지 않아서 애통해 하는 것인지 아니면 하나님 뜻대로 살다가 고난을 당함으로써 애통해하냐는 것이다.

이 세상에 애통해보지 않은 사람이 어디 있겠는가? 그러나 중요한 것은 누구로부터 위로를 받았느냐는 것이다. 힘들 때 사랑하는 남편이나 아내 혹은 부모나 친구로부터 받는 위로가 얼마나 큰 것인가? 그때 비로소 가족이나 친구의 소중함을 느끼게 되는 것이다.

그러나 때론 가족이나 친구 등으로부터도 위로가 되지 않을 때가 있다. 인생의 위기에서 절망 가운데 있을 때 그 어느 누구도 위로가 되지 않을 때 위로해 주시는 단 한 분이 계시다. 바로 예수 그리스도이시다. 주님의 위로를 받으라. 주님의 위로를 경험한 사람은 다른 애통해하는 사람에게 주님의 위로로 격려할 수 있는 것이다.(요16:30)

예수님께서 십자가에 달리셨을 때 제자들과 예수님을 따르던 자들은 모두 슬픔에 잠겼다. 반면 예수님의 대적들은 모두 기쁨의 환호를 질렀다. 그러나 그들의 기쁨과 슬픔은 잠시였고 이내 역전이 되고 말았다. 부활의 첫 열매가 되신 예수님께서는 믿음으로 십자가를 바라보는 모든 자들, 즉 애통을 경험한 자들에게 기쁨의 위로를 주시는 것이다.



3. 온유한 자

온유함이란 크게 두 가지 측면에서 살펴볼 수 있다.

첫째는 순종이다. 예수님께서는 십자가에 달리시기까지 온전히 순종하셨다. 마치 제물로 바쳐진 어린 양이 반항하지 않듯이 말이다. 예수님의 철저한 순종이 없었다면 십자가도 없었을 것이고 십자가가 없다면 우리의 구원도 물 건너갔을 것이다.

예수님께서는 아버지 하나님께 온전히 순종하심으로 친히 산 제물이 되셨을 뿐 아니라 다시 부활하심으로 산 자의 첫 열매가 되셨다. 즉 그분의 죽으심은 우리의 구원이요 그분의 사심은 우리의 부활과 영생인 것이다. 십자가에서 물과 피를 다 쏟으신 주님께서는 십자가에 달리시기 전에 마지막 만찬에서 제자들에게 빵과 포도주로써 자신을 기념하라고 하셨다(눅22:19). 그러므로 천국 시민은 늘 생명의 말씀과 십자가의 보혈을 기억함으로써 예수님의 온유함에 동참해야 하는 것이다. 늘 말씀 앞에 낮아지고 죽기까지 순종해야 하는 것이다.

온유함의 두 번째 의미는 범사에 모든 사람에게 언행으로 나타나는 품성과 태도다(딛3:2). 즉 화를 돋우는 일이 있어도 화내지 않고 침묵하거나 부드럽게 대답할 줄 아는 자요, 불쾌함을 나타내 보이되 예의를 잃지 않으며, 다른 이들이 격렬한 감정을 나타낼 때에도 침착할 줄 아는 자다. 그러나 여기서 우리가 생각해야 할 것은 이러한 온유함은 세상 사람들 중에서도 찾아볼 수 있는 덕목이라는 것이다. 그렇다면 천국 시민으로서 온유함의 특성은 무엇인가?

온유는 헬라어로 프라위스(prawis)인데 이 말은 동물에 관해서는 길들여져 유순한 상태에 있는 것을 의미한다. 즉 선천적으로 조용하고 내성적인 사람에게서 일반적으로 나타나는 성품을 말하는 것이 아니라 본성은 거칠고 급하고 인내심이 없었던 사람이 예수 그리스도를 주님을 섬김으로써 나타나는 순종인 것이다. 즉 주님의 성품으로 길들여진 것이다.

모세가 바로 그러한 사람이었다. 다혈질적인 혈기로 사람까지 죽였던 모세가 하나님을 만나고 나서 그는 완전히 길들여진 사람이 되었다. 성경은 그를 누구보다도 온유한 사람이라고 말하고 있다(민12:3).

이러한 온유한 자에게는 땅이 기업으로 주어진다. 마치 길들여진 짐승에게 목초지가 주어지듯 말이다. 그 목초지에는 풀이 풍성하고 또한 목자의 보호 아래 쉼이 있는 것이다. 주님께 순종함으로 예수 그리스도를 닮아가는 자들은 주님이 주시는 땅에서 주님의 보호 아래 풍성한 생명의 꼴을 먹고 평안과 기쁨을 누리는 삶을 사는 것이다.



4. 의에 주리고 목마른 자

주리다는 것은 헬라어 원어(페이나오, peinao)로 굶주리다는 것을 의미한다. 고대에서 자기가 통치하는 백성들이 굶주리지 않도록 하는 것은 통치자의 책무였다(예: 애굽의 바로). 통치자들은 식량을 공급하여 사람들의 생명을 보존하기 때문에 헬라 세계에서 신과 같은 영예를 누렸다

세상 사람들은 양식이 없음으로 굶주리지만 천국 시민은 의로 말미암아 굶주린다. 왜냐하면 회개함으로 심령이 되살아났기 때문이다. 그러므로 깨어난 내면의 영이 정의를 갈급해하는 것이다. 왜냐하면 육신을 통해 들어오는 것은 육신의 양식에 불과하며 영의 양식이 되지 못하기 때문이다.

그렇다면 영의 양식인 의는 무엇을 말하는가? 그것은 바로 하나님의 의가 되신 그리스도를 말한다. 그러므로 예수님께서는 빵과 포도주를 주시면서 내 몸과 피를 먹과 마시라고 하신 것이다(눅 22:19,20). 그렇다. 의에 굶주린 자는 예수의 살과 피를 마심으로써 영적이 회복이 있는 것이다. 그럼으로써 그리스도의 옷, 즉 하나님의 형상으로 거듭나는 것이다.

그러므로 의에 굶주린 자는 거룩한 욕구로 가득 찬 사람이다. 따라서 날마다 영의 양식을 갈망한다. 살아있는 몸이 언제나 새로운 음식의 공급이 필요한 것처럼 주님이 공급해 주시는 은혜의 신선한 공급을 갈망하는 것이다. 광야에서 이스라엘 백성에게 하루에 필요한 만나가 날마다 주어졌듯이 의에 굶주린 자는 날마다 신선한 만나를 구하며 그것으로 배부른 자다. 그러므로 의에 주리고 목마른 자는 날마다 의를 공급받기 위해 수고를 마다하지 않는다. 즉 날마다 말씀을 묵상하며, 무시로 기도하며, 늘 기쁨으로 찬양하며 예배를 사모하는 자인 것이다.



5. 긍휼히 여기는 자

남을 긍휼히 여기는 자는 비참한 상태에 있는 사람을 향하여 경건한 사랑을 품고 그들을 불쌍히 여기며 돕고 구해 주는 자들이다. 선한 사마리아인이 바로 그러한 사람이다(눅 10:29-37).

강도 만난 어떤 사람이 거의 죽어가는 상태에 있었음에도 제사장과 레위인은 그냥 지나쳤다. 그들은 왜 지나쳤을까? 아마도 예루살렘에서의 성전 봉사 때문에 급히 가야 해서 강도를 도울 여유가 없었을 것이다. 그러나 사마리아인도 그의 볼 일을 보러 지나가는 중이었다. 그러나 그는 곤경에 빠진 사람을 구하는 것이 하나님에 대한 제사보다 우선이라고 생각했을 것이다.

하나님께서 기뻐하시는 제사는 오직 선을 행함과 서로 나누어 주는 것이다(히13:16). 예수님께서 바리새인들을 책망하신 것은 율법을 자신의 해석으로 가져갔다는 것이다. 예컨대 “부모를 공경하라"라는 하나님의 명령을 그들은 ‘고르반’ 맹세를 악용해 부모 공양 의무를 피하면서 자기 소유는 그대로 유지하는 수단으로 삼았듯이 “경건의 모양은 있으나 경건의 능력이 없는 자(딤후 3:5)”의 모습이 바로 강도 만난 자를 회피하는 자의 모습인 것이다.

우리는 강도 만난 자였다. 우리의 원수인 사탄은 우리를 약탈하고 우리의 옷을 벗겨갔으며 우리에게 상처를 입혔다. 결국 우리의 영혼은 피폐해져서 강도 만난 자와 같이 영적으로 죽은 자였다. 율법의 사역자인 제사장과 레위인은 우리를 불쌍히 여기지도 않았고 우리를 구해주지도 않았지만, 즉 율법은 우리를 도울 힘도 없어 피해 지나갔지만(롬 8:3) 찬송 받으실 예수, 저 사마리아인(유대인들은 예수를 사마리아인이라고 부르며 비난하였다.)이 오셔서, 우리를 불쌍히 여기시고, 피가 흐르는 상처를 싸매어 주신 것이다.

남을 긍휼히 여기는 자는 긍휼함을 입은 자다. 즉 긍휼의 은혜에 빚진 자이기에 남에게 긍휼을 베푸는 것을 자선이라고 생각하지 않는다. 따라서 그리스도인의 긍휼은 세상 사람들의 동정심이 아니라 예수 그리스도로부터 받은 사랑을 실천하는 자인 것이다. 그러므로 예수 그리스도의 사랑을 깨닫고 긍휼을 베푸는 자는 또한 주님의 긍휼을 덧입는 것이다.



6. 마음이 청결한 자

구약 시대에는 하나님을 볼 수 없었다. 하나님은 거룩하시기에 죄를 가진 인간은 거룩하신 하나님을 대면하면 죽을 수밖에 없는 것이다. 따라서 대제사장도 지성소에 들어가면 발에 방울을 매달고 들어가야만 했다.

그런데 그 거룩하신 하나님이 인간에게 직접 자신을 나타내셨다. 바로 육신으로 오신 하나님, 예수 그리스도이시다. 그러나 빛이 세상에 왔으되 깨닫는 자가 없었다(요1:5). 죄로 눈이 가려졌기 때문이다. 따라서 죄로 인해 마음이 어두운 자는 비록 육신의 하나님을 볼 수 있었으나 영적인 하나님은 볼 수 없었다. 제사장과 서기관과 바리새인이 바로 그러한 자였다.

그러나 자신의 죄를 회개하고 예수 그리스도를 바라본 자는 구원의 하나님을 볼 수 있었다. 예수님께 향유를 뿌리고 눈물로 예수님의 발을 적셨던 여인, 침상에 들려온 중풍병자처럼 죄 사함을 받은 자가 바로 그러한 자였다(눅7:48; 눅5:20).

즉 마음이 청결한 자는 복음이 되신 예수 그리스도를 대면하여 회개함으로써 육신의 정욕과 부정한 생각과 욕심으로부터 마음의 순결을 유지하는 사람이다. 진정한 회개에 이르러 구원의 십자가를 바라보는 자, 십자가의 보혈로 양심의 죄 씻음을 받은 자는 마음이 청결한 자요. 이러한 자는 영의 눈으로 예수님을 바라보는 자다. 예수 그리스도를 바라보는 자는 곧 하나님을 보는 자다(요14:9).



7. 화평하게 하는 자

이 말씀에서 화평은 단지 마음의 상태가 평안하다는 것을 의미하는 것이 아니다. 즉 이 말씀의 핵심은 화평보다도 화평하게 하는 중재의 의미인 것이다. 그렇다면 누구를 화평하게 한다는 것인가?

아담이 죄를 지어 에덴동산에서 쫓겨난 후 인류는 하나님과 원수가 되었다. 죄로 인해 타락한 인간은 죄의 담을 넘어서 거룩한 하나님의 나라에 들어갈 수 없을 뿐 아니라 거룩하신 하나님을 심히 욕되게 하는 지경에 이른 것이다.

죄에 빠진 인간은 하나님과 화평할 수 있는 능력도 자격도 없었다. 심지어 앞서 언급한 제사장과 레위인 그리고 율법도 하나님과 화평하게 할 수 없었던 것이다. 결국 화평하게 할 수 있는 주도권은 오직 하나님만이 쥐고 있는 것이다. 다시 말해 하나님과 인간 사이에 쌓인 담을 허무는 것은 오직 하나님의 주권이며 따라서 하나님이 친히 그 담을 허물어 주시는 것이 은혜인 것이다.

그런데 하나님과 인간 사이에 가로막힌 죄의 담은 하나님도 일방적으로 허물 수 있는 담이 아니다. 공의의 하나님이시기 때문이다. 따라서 합법적으로 죄의 담을 허물기 위해서는 희생양이 필요했는데 예수님께서 직접 희생양이 되신 것이다. 전능하신 하나님이요 영존하시는 아버지시며, 평강의 왕이신(사 9:6) 예수 그리스도께서 하나님과 인간의 화평을 위해 친히 이 땅에 오셔서 십자가에 달리신 것이다.

모든 것이 하나님으로부터 난 것이다. 하나님께서는 그리스도로 말미암아 우리를 하나님과 화목(화평)하게 하시고 또한 우리에게 화목하게 하는 직분을 주신 것이다(고후5:18-21). 그렇다. 십자가로 하나님과 세상을 화평하게 한 자는 바로 하나님의 아들이 예수 그리스도시며, 예수께서는 믿음으로 말미암는 우리에게 하나님의 자녀라는 직분, 즉 하나님의 아들이라 일컫는 은혜를 주신 것이다.



8. 의를 위하여 박해를 받는 자

이 말씀은 팔복 중에서 가장 큰 역설이요, 오직 기독교에만 있는 고유한 것이다. 팔복의 결론이기도 하다. 의를 위하여 받는 핍박은 의를 위하여 받는 것이요(마5:10), 예수 그리스도로 말미암아 받는 것이다(마5:11). 그는 의의 일에 관심을 두시기 때문에 의의 원수는 곧 그리스도의 원수인 것이다.

아이러니하게도 팔복의 결론이 예비 된 고난이다. 예수님이 부활하셔서 하늘로 올라가신 후 제자들과 초대교회가 직면한 것은 세상의 복된 삶이 아니라 예수 그리스도를 믿고 전한다는 이유만으로 모욕과 조롱을 당했다. 심지어 바울처럼 사십에 하나가 감해진 매를 3번이나 맞기도 하였다(고후 11:2). 초대교회의 사도들은 예수님의 기적과 십자가의 고난, 부활의 영광을 눈으로 보고, 듣고, 만진 자들이었다. 그들이 체험한 것은 아무나 체험할 수 없는 특별함과 영광이었지만 그들은 복음을 위하여 순교에 이르기까지 고난을 감내해야 했다.

결국 예수를 따르는 제자의 길은 가장 복된 것이지만 그 길은 핍박과 고난의 길이 되는 것이기에 천국이 보장되는 길인 것이다.





Ⅳ. 결론



8복은 하나님이 주시는 8가지 복의 종류를 말하는 것이 아니다. 8복의 주인공은 하나다. 즉 말씀 앞에서 죄를 깨닫고 회개하는 자며, 회개함으로 죄 용서함을 받은 자는 하나님의 긍휼을 깨닫고 또한 남을 긍휼히 여길 줄 아는 자다. 십자가를 대면하여 죄에서 돌이킨 자는 죄에 대하여는 죽은 자요 하나님 즉 의에 대하여는 산 자다. 죄에 대해 죽은 자는 곧 마음이 청결한 자다. 거룩하신 하나님의 자녀로 하나님을 닮은 자기 때문이다.

이 모든 것이 예수 그리스도를 만난 자가 경험하는 복이며 천국 시민의 품성인 것이다. 주님이 주시는 복은 이 땅에서 먹고 마시며 즐기기 위함이 아니요 오직 구원받은 자, 즉 복음에 빚진 자로서 주어진 사명을 감당해야 할 자에게 주어지는 것이다. 그러므로 복음의 사명을 가진 자에게는 마귀가 대적함이 당연한 것이고, 따라서 그 삶 속에서 알게 모르게 크고 작은 고난과 핍박이 따르는 것이다.



“기뻐하고 즐거워하라(마5:12)”

“세상에서는 너희가 환난을 당하나 담대하라 내가 세상을 이기었노라(요16:33)”



8복의 결론은 세상에서 얻은 복으로 기뻐하지 말고 구원받은 자로써 구별된 삶을 기뻐하라는 것이다.

#산상수훈
#팔복
#마카리오스
17 공감한 사람 보러가기
댓글 2공유하기

우리안좋은글·이미지

로뎀나무교회 김광열 목사(기독교한국침례회, 침례신학대학원 M.Div)의 개인 블로그입니다. 이곳을 찾으신 모든 분들을 주님의 이름으로 환영합니다.

이웃추가
===
gie sim chang한국컴패션
5 hfJ0anfalu7aryhs8r 7240121  · Seoul, South Korea  · 
산상수훈 중에서 8복은 가장핵심적인 예수님의교훈입니다…
첫째;심령이가난한자
자신이 죄인임을깨닫고 회개하는사람 ~이런사람은복음을 쉽게받아들이고 마음속에 심령천국을 소유하게됩니다.
둘째;애통하는자.
이는 자신의부족함과죄를통해하는사람 이런사람은 하나님의 위로를 받게됩니다
셋째;온유한자.
하나님을온전히믿고 순종하는사람.이런사람은 땅을기업으로받게됩니다.
넷째;의에주리고 목마른자
하나님나라와 그의 의를  갈구하는사람.
이런사람은 그리스도의 영원한 의로 만족함을 얻게됨니다.
다섯째;긍휼히여기는자.
이는 자원하는심령으로 우는자와 함께울고 마음을 낮은곳에두며 형제들에게 선한일을 베푸는 사람.
이런사람은 하나님의 궁휼과자비를 받게됩니다.
여섯째;마음이 정결한자.
이는 예수님의 보혈로 씻음받아 순수하고 정직한 마음을 가진 사람을 말함니다.이런사람은 마지막 날 영광중에 주님을 뵙게 됩니다.
일곱째; 화평케하는자.
이는 예수그리스도와 바르놘계를 맺고 이웃을 회복케하는 사람을 가리킵니다.이런사람은 하나님의 아들이라일컬음을
받게됩니다.
여덟째;의를위하여 핍박을 받는자.
이는 예수님과 복음을위해서
고난받는 사람.
이런사람은 천국을 소유하고
그리스도의 영광에 참여하게 됩니다.
8복의 근본은예수님의 십자가 대속에 근거합니다.
예수님의십자가에 뿌리를 든든히내리고 천국시민의도리를 다하여 참으로 복된 삶을 살게 되시기를 축원합니다!!!♥


===
산상수훈 - 팔복
 김창환 (서울남노회,강서교회,목사)  2018-11-22 (목) 16:42  6931   
이전글  다음글 목록 글쓰기
                    http://cafe.daum.net/thekingjesus/I1Nl/486 
  


이미지를 클릭하면 원본을 보실 수 있습니다. 

                      행복한 예수님의 사람들 칼럼 (486호)     
                        팔복을 누리는 성도가 되자 (마 5:1-12) 

 “예수께서 무리를 보시고 산에 올라가 앉으시니 제자들이 나아온지라 입을 열어
 가르쳐 이르시되”(마 5:1-2). 예수님께서 제자들에게 8가지의 복을 가르쳐 주셨다. 
  이 복을 모두 누리는 성도가 되자.

 1. 심령이 가난한 자가 되자.
 “심령이 가난한 자는 복이 있나니 천국이 그들의 것임이요”(마 5:3).
 심령이 가난하다는 것은 절대자 앞에서 자신은 아무 것도 아니며 지극히 작은 
 보잘 것 없는 자의 모습이다. 절대자를 의지하는 자이다.   
 * 칼빈-인간은 연약한 갈대. * 루터-우리 모두는 하나님 앞에 거지들이다.

2. 애통하는 자가 되자.
 “애통하는 자는 복이 있나니 그들이 위로를 받을 것임이요”(마 5:4). 
 렘 17:9 에 보면 "만물보다 거짓되고 부패한 것은 사람의 마음"이라고 하며, 
 이어서 "누가 능히 이것을 알리오"라고 하였다. 이것을 깨달았을 때 애통하는 마음
 이 되며 이러한 심정은 단지 죄의 고백에만 그치지 않고 적극적으로 삶의 방향 전환
 을 하게 되는데 회개라는 말의 ‘메타노니아’는 철저한 방향 전환의 의미를 담고 있다. 
 그래서 바울은 ‘나는 죄인 중의 괴수라’고 고백했다.

3. 온유한 자가 되자.
 “온유한 자는 복이 있나니 그들이 땅을 기업으로 받을 것임이요”(마 5:5). 
 온유한 자는 부드럽고 겸손한 마음을 가진 자이다. 온유한 마음은 강제와 권위로
 하는 것이 아니라 참된 겸허와 인내와 자제로 하는 마음이다. 예수님께서 자신
 스스로에게 ‘나는 마음이 온유하고 겸손하다’라고 하셨다.

4. 의에 주리고 목마른 자가 되자.
 “의에 주리고 목마른 자는 복이 있나니 그들이 배부를 것임이요”(마 5:6).
 여기서 의란 본질적으로 하나님 자신을 지적한다. 의로우신 하나님의 속성을 말하
 는 것은 ‘의’가 하나님 자신에게서 출발하며, 주님 자체가 ‘의’이고 주님이 원하시는
 것이 ‘의’이다.  따라서 의에 주리고 목마르다는 것은 의 자체이신 하나님에 대한
 우리의 갈망이다.

5. 긍휼히 여기는 자가 되자.
 “긍휼히 여기는 자는 복이 있나니 그들이 긍휼히 여김을 받을 것임이요”(마 5:7).
  긍휼은 히브리어로 ‘헤세드’로서 이웃의 마음으로 들어가 그 고통을 당하는 이의
 시각에서 이웃의 고통을 보는 사랑이다. 히브리어 헤세드의 헬라어 번역은 ‘엘레오
 스’이다. 엘레오스는 당연한 결과로 비참한 상태에 처해 있는 이들을 오히려 불쌍히
 여겨 돕는 미덕이다. 하나님의 긍휼의 극치는 십자가 사건이다.

6. 마음이 청결한 자가 되자.
 “마음이 청결한 자는 복이 있나니 그들이 하나님을 볼 것임이요”(마 5:8). 
  청결하다는 뜻은 헬라어인 ‘카타로스’는 원래 비혼합, 비합금의 의미로서 분열되지
 않고 순수한 마음, 윤리적 순결, 영혼의 순결 등으로 이해된다. 마음이 청결한 자에
 게 주는 축복은 하나님을 보는 것이다. 이것은 시각적 대면이 아니라 의를 위하여
 하나님의 거룩한 성품에 참여할 수 있다는 것이다. 

7. 화평케 하는 자가 되자.
 “화평하게 하는 자는 복이 있나니 그들이 하나님의 아들이라 일컬음을받을 것임이
  요”(마 5:9). 화평은 곧 평화로서 히브리어 ‘샬롬’을 번역한 말이다. 샬롬의 헬라어는
 ‘에이레네’이다. 샬롬의 상태는 물가에 심겨진 나무가 그 생명력을 발휘하는 것처럼
 인간의 삶이 아무런 제약을 받지 으며 잘 되어가는 상태를 말한다.

 8. 의를 위하여 박해를 받는 자가 되자.
 “의를 위하여 박해를 받은 자는 복이 있나니 천국이 그들의 것임이라”(마 5:10).
  의는 하나님의 속성이고 하나님 자체를 의미하기 때문에 여기서 의를 위해 박해를
 받는다 함은 하나님 때문에 받는 박해이다.  마태복음은 다른 복음서에 비해 ‘의’라는 
 단어를 많이 사용한다. ‘의’(디카이오쉬네)란 단어를 마가는 단 한 번도 기록하지 않고,
 누가는 1회, 요한은 단지 2회만 기록한다. 그런데 마태복음에는 17회나 언급이 되었고,
 자신의 죄 때문이 아니라 의 때문에 박해를 받는 자가 복이 있다고 했다. ‘예수님을 
 구주로 믿고, 믿음으로 살고, 믿음을 증거하다' 받는 박해를 뜻한다.
"너희 믿음의 확실함은 불로 연단하여도 없어질 금보다 더 귀하여 예수 그리스도께서 
 나타나실 때에 칭찬과 영광과 존귀를 얻게 할 것이니라"(벧전 1:7).
“의를 위하여 박해를 받은 자는 복이 있나니 천국이 그들의 것임이라”(마 5:10). 
 팔복의 마지막 복은 순교의 정신이다. 



  산상수훈의 팔복이란?  

 성경은 창세기부터 계시록까지 복에 대해서 말하고 있다.
하나님께서 인간에게 베푸시는 "복"을 성경에서는 크게 두 가지로 구분한다.
그 중 하나는 '일반은총'에 속한 복이고, 다른 하나는 '특별은총'에 속한 복이다.
일반은총의 복이란 현세적이고 일반적이기 때문에 누구나 함께 누리게 되는 것이다.
하지만 특별은총의 복은 신령한 복으로, 하나님의 백성이 현세에서 누리는 내세적인
복이다. 
 산상수훈은 구약의 십계명과 비교할 수 있다. 십계명은 하나님이 출애굽 후 시내산
에서 이스라엘 백성에게 주신 율법이다. 출애굽 하였으니 이제 너희들이 하나님 백성
답게 살라는 법이다. 즉 십계명은 '구원의 법'이 아니라 구원받은 자가 구원받은 자답 
게 사는 '성결의 법'이다. 
 반면에 산상수훈은 예수님이 팔복산에서 선포하신 하나님 나라의 새 율법이다. 
하나님 백성들이 어떻게 살아야 하는 가를 말해 주는 '성결의 법'이다. 성결(Holy)한 
삶이란 노력해서 이룰 수 있는 것이 아니다. 오직 '성결의 영'(Holy Spirit)의 지배를 
받을 때 성결하게 살 수 있다. 
 성령충만이란 성령의 지배를 받는다는 말이다(엡 5:18).
       

매주 14,000 여명의 회원님들에게 한번씩 보내는 칼럼입니다. 
                                                     서울 강서교회 김창환 목사(문지기) 드림
===

2021/12/03

Read Enlightened Contemporaries Online by Steve Kanji Ruhl | Books

Read Enlightened Contemporaries Online by Steve Kanji Ruhl | Books


Start reading

Remove from Saved
Add to list

Download to app

Share

Enlightened Contemporaries: Francis, Dōgen, and Rūmī: Three Great Mystics of the Thirteenth Century and Why They Matter Today


By Steve Kanji Ruhl
271 pages
8 hours

Included in your membership!
at no additional cost

Description

Enlightened Contemporaries is the first book to compare the lives and teachings of three of the world's most admired spiritual masters: Francis of Assisi, the Christian saint; Dogen, the great Zen Buddhist teacher; and Rumi, the Islamic Sufi master. They lived during the same turbulent century. They integrated mystical experiences of the sacred into their lives, and they can inspire us to do the same.

Enlightened Contemporaries combines robust scholarship with brisk, engaging, lyrical prose. Offering a thorough introduction for the general reader as well as specialists, it will appeal to those who enjoy an interfaith approach to spiritual exploration, one that links Christian, Buddhist, and Islamic mystical teachings within a vibrant historical context and shows how they not only complement each other but remain profoundly relevant in the twenty-first century.

Bringing Saint Francis, Dogen, and Rumi vividly to life as complex and compelling human beings, Enlightened Contemporaries lucidly explains their spiritual paths, explores the dynamic age in which these three pioneering teachers struggled and triumphed, and investigates their remarkable poetry. It also deftly examines how Francis, Dogen, and Rumi engaged the world in the context of five shared themes: spiritual love, nature, the body, the role of women, and balancing retreat from society with active involvement. By interweaving the spiritual lives of these Christian, Buddhist, and Muslim teachers, Enlightened Contemporaries will help readers enhance their own lives and find new paths of spiritual understanding.


Inspirational
New Age & Spirituality
Religion & Spirituality
Islam
Religious
Christianity
All categories
PUBLISHER:
Monkfish Book Publishing
RELEASED:
Jun 16, 2020



About the author
SRSteve Kanji Ruhl


Steve Kanji Ruhl received his Master of Divinity degree from Harvard University and his B.A. in Religious Studies with high honors from Pennsylvania State University. An ordained Zen Buddhist minister, Reverend Kanji has served as a Buddhist adviser at Yale University and is a core faculty member in the Shogaku Zen Institute and in the multi-faith Spiritual Guidance Certificate Training Program at the Rowe Center in Massachusetts. He also works in private practice one-on-one with spiritual guidance clients. Reverend Kanji has been a guest speaker or workshop facilitator at Harvard’s Center for World Religions, Yale Divinity School, Harvard Divinity School, the International Conference on Socially Engaged Buddhism, the Omega Institute, and elsewhere. He is a contributing author to the book The Arts of Contemplative Care: Pioneering Voices in Buddhist Chaplaincy and Pastoral Work and author of The Constant Yes of Things: Selected Poems 1973-2018. Visit www.stevekanjiruhl.com

===
Enlightened Contemporaries: Francis, Dōgen, and Rūmī: Three Great Mystics of the Thirteenth Century and Why They Matter Today Paperback – June 30, 2020
by Steve Kanji Ruhl  (Author)

4.1 out of 5 stars    9 ratings
See all formats and editions
Paperback

from $11.09 
7 Used from $11.09
13 New from $11.49

Print length
220 pages

Editorial Reviews

Review
"A beautiful, rich, and vivid weaving of the experiences of awakening by three great mystics and teachers, this book is a treasure and inspiration for our time." —Roshi Joan Halifax, Abbot, Upaya Zen Center

"The gift of Steve Kanji Ruhl’s Enlightened Contemporaries: Saint Francis, Dogen, and Rumi is its ability to bring these awakened masters to life in a manner that allows them to speak Truth without the trappings of power. This is a book to be treasured." —Rabbi Rami Shapiro, author of Perennial Wisdom for the Spiritually Independent

"In the 13th century three great mystics awakened to their True Nature, or God. Steve Kanji Ruhl shows how their inward journey, pursued with devotion, transformed their world and continues to inspire ours in this superbly written, stirring book." —Roshi Eve Myonen Marko, founding teacher, Zen Peacemaker Order

"Steve Kanji Ruhl writes beautifully, and Enlightened Contemporaries is a fascinating study. This is sure to be a well-received and much-appreciated comparative study of Dogen, Francis, and Rumi." —Dr. Anne Monius, Professor of South Asian Religions, Harvard University

"Enlightened Contemporaries provides an introduction to the thought of three contemporaneous spiritual masters in a way that bridges the past and present and affirms and inspires the human compulsion to find meaning." —Dr. Nina Safran, Associate Professor of History, Director of Middle Eastern Studies, Pennsylvania State University

"This is an excellent group biography of three mystics of critical importance to their own traditions and to mysticism as a whole."—Publishers Weekly

About the Author

Steve Kanji Ruhl received his Master of Divinity degree from Harvard University and his B.A. in Religious Studies with high honors from Pennsylvania State University. An ordained Zen Buddhist minister, Reverend Kanji has served as a Buddhist adviser at Yale University and is a core faculty member in the Shogaku Zen Institute and in the multi-faith Spiritual Guidance Certificate Training Program at the Rowe Center in Massachusetts. He also works in private practice one-on-one with spiritual guidance clients. Reverend Kanji has been a guest speaker or workshop facilitator at Harvard’s Center for World Religions, Yale Divinity School, Harvard Divinity School, the International Conference on Socially Engaged Buddhism, the Omega Institute, and elsewhere. 

He is a contributing author to the book The Arts of Contemplative Care: Pioneering Voices in Buddhist Chaplaincy and Pastoral Work and author of The Constant Yes of Things: Selected Poems 1973-2018. Visit www.stevekanjiruhl.com

Product details
Publisher ‏ : ‎ Monkfish Book Publishing (June 30, 2020)
Language ‏ : ‎ English
Paperback ‏ : ‎ 220 pages

#210 in Sufism (Books)
#467 in Mysticism Christian Theology
#571 in Zen Spirituality
Customer Reviews: 4.1 out of 5 stars    9 ratings

Steve Kanji Ruhl

----
Top reviews from the United States
Ellen D.
5.0 out of 5 stars Three Extraordinary Spiritual Mentors
Reviewed in the United States on August 29, 2020
Verified Purchase
Kanji Ruhl drops the reader into the global scene of the 13th century with rich, vivid prose so that one feels a part of the landscape, commerce, and religious experience of the times. The revolutionary brilliance of these three spiritual reformers, St. Francis, Dogen, and Rumi, provides inspiration and opportunities for spiritual deepening for seekers today. As a professional spiritual guide myself, one who has been a devotee of St. Francis' spiritual example and a lover of Rumi's gift of poetry, my understanding and appreciation has greatly expanded with Ruhl's historical grounding with these three luminaries. I especially appreciate getting to "know" Dogen, to whom I'd previously been only sketchily introduced. What a treasure this book is! Ellen Dionna
One person found this helpful
----
Jenny
5.0 out of 5 stars Superb writing makes this historical exploration a fascinating read!
Reviewed in the United States on December 26, 2020
Verified Purchase
Enlightened Contemporaries traces the mystical origins of three world religions – Christianity, Islam, and Buddhism – through the spiritual lives of St. Francis, Rumi, and Dogen, whose parallel journeys into the sacred through nature and poetry unfolded around the globe simultaneously during the 13th century. Ruhl's lyrical prose vividly sparks life into the outer landscapes of middle age Italy, Persia, and Japan and the rapturous inner landscapes of these three spiritual seekers. Superb writing makes this historical exploration a fascinating read and truly inspiring for anyone curious about the mystical underpinnings of these religions. Steve Kanji Ruhl's Enlightened Contemporaries would make a fabulous edition to any college level religious studies course!
One person found this helpful
----
Lori
5.0 out of 5 stars Mysticism in 13th century and for today
Reviewed in the United States on January 26, 2021
Verified Purchase
A fascinating look at life for 3 great mystics, in very different worlds and religions. I especially enjoyed the connections to what they continue to offer in our own lives. As the author points out, "We can learn to live the everyday astonishment of this sacred world. They show us how."
One person found this helpful
----
kalia furnari
5.0 out of 5 stars Love 💜💜
Reviewed in the United States on November 17, 2021
Verified Purchase
Just beautiful. 🙏🏼💜
----
Craig
5.0 out of 5 stars Masterpiece
Reviewed in the United States on October 25, 2021
Kanji is a masterful writer. He brings to life three incredible teachers in a digestible and engaging way that makes you never want to put the book down. Wow.

===
Ward Stevens rated it it was amazing

I enjoyed this beautifully written introduction to the lives and works of three mystics from different spiritual traditions. The author guides the reader through fascinating biographical and historical information. He compares and contrasts their lives and works according to five main themes: the natural world, spiritual love, the physical body, the role of women, and engagement with society. He also provides a brief discussion of their poems. I already knew a bit about Francis of Assisi, and I've enjoyed Rumi, but Dogen was entirely new to me. I'd recommend this to anybody who's looking for an interfaith view of mysticism, focused on three innovators who all lived at the same time in history. (less)
flagLike  · comment · see review


Gerald McFarland
Oct 24, 2020Gerald McFarland rated it it was ok
This book is okay as an introductory summary of the lives of the three thirteenth-century mystics who are named in the title. Many readers can probably learn a lot from that summary. The second half of the book in which Ruhl compares and contrasts the beliefs of the three enlightened seekers sometimes strains to find similarities.
flagLike  · comment · see review



2021/11/27

Scholarly approaches to mysticism - Wikipedia

Scholarly approaches to mysticism - Wikipedia

Scholarly approaches to mysticism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search

Scholarly approaches to mysticism include typologies of mysticism and the explanation of mystical states. Since the 19th century, mystical experience has evolved as a distinctive concept. It is closely related to "mysticism" but lays sole emphasis on the experiential aspect, be it spontaneous or induced by human behavior, whereas mysticism encompasses a broad range of practices aiming at a transformation of the person, not just inducing mystical experiences.

There is a longstanding discussion on the nature of so-called "introvertive mysticism." Perennialists regard this kind of mysticism to be universal. A popular variant of perennialism sees various mystical traditions as pointing to one universal transcendental reality, for which those experiences offer the proof. The perennial position is "largely dismissed by scholars"[1] but "has lost none of its popularity".[2] Instead, a constructionist approach became dominant during the 1970s, which states that mystical experiences are mediated by pre-existing frames of reference, while the attribution approach focuses on the (religious) meaning that is attributed to specific events.

Some neurological research has attempted to identify which areas in the brain are involved in so-called "mystical experience" and the temporal lobe is often claimed to play a significant role,[3][4][5] likely attributable to claims made in Vilayanur Ramachandran's 1998 book, Phantoms in the Brain,[6] However, these claims have not stood up to scrutiny.[7]

In mystical and contemplative traditions, mystical experiences are not a goal in themselves, but part of a larger path of self-transformation.

Typologies of mysticism[edit]

Early studies[edit]

Lay scholars of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries began their studies on the historical and psychological descriptive analysis of the mystical experience, by investigating examples and categorizing it into types. Early notable examples include William James in "The Varieties of Religious Experience" (1902); the study of the term "cosmic consciousness" by Edward Carpenter (1892)[8] and psychiatrist Richard Bucke (in his book Cosmic Consciousness, 1901); the definition of "oceanic feeling" by Romain Rolland (1927) and its study by FreudRudolf Otto's description of the "numinous" (1917) and its studies by JungFriedrich von Hügel in The Mystical Element of Religion (1908); Evelyn Underhill in her work Mysticism (1911); Aldous Huxley in The Perennial Philosophy (1945).

R. C. Zaehner – natural and religious mysticism[edit]

R. C. Zaehner distinguishes between three fundamental types of mysticism, namely theistic, monistic, and panenhenic ("all-in-one") or natural mysticism.[9] The theistic category includes most forms of Jewish, Christian and Islamic mysticism and occasional Hindu examples such as Ramanuja and the Bhagavad Gita.[9] The monistic type, which according to Zaehner is based upon the experience of the unity of one's soul in isolation from the material and psychic world,[9][note 1] includes early Buddhism and Hindu schools such as Samkhya and Advaita vedanta.[9] Nature mysticism refers to "an experience of Nature in all things or of all things as being one," [10] and includes, for instance, Zen Buddhism, Taoism, much Upanishadic thought, as well as American Transcendentalism. Within the second 'monistic' camp, Zaehner draws a clear distinction between the dualist 'isolationist' ideal of Samkhya, the historical Buddha, and various gnostic sects, and the non-dualist position of Advaita vedanta. According to the former, the union of an individual spiritual monad (soul) and body is "an unnatural state of affairs, and salvation consists in returning to one's own natural 'splendid isolation' in which one contemplates oneself forever in timeless bliss." [11] The latter approach, by contrast, identifies the 'individual' soul with the All, thus emphasizing non-dualism: thou art that."

Zaehner considers theistic mysticism to be superior to the other two categories, because of its appreciation of God, but also because of its strong moral imperative.[9] Zaehner is directly opposing the views of Aldous Huxley. Natural mystical experiences are in Zaehner's view of less value because they do not lead as directly to the virtues of charity and compassion. Zaehner is generally critical of what he sees as narcissistic tendencies in nature mysticism.[note 2]

Zaehner has been criticised by Paden for the "theological violence"[9] which his approach does to non-theistic traditions, "forcing them into a framework which privileges Zaehner's own liberal Catholicism."[9] That said, it is clear from many of Zaehner's other writings (e.g., Our Savage GodZen, Drugs and MysticismAt Sundry TimesHinduism) that such a criticism is rather unfair.

Walter T. Stace – extrovertive and introvertive mysticism[edit]

Zaehner has also been criticised by Walter Terence Stace in his book Mysticism and philosophy (1960) on similar grounds.[9] Stace argues that doctrinal differences between religious traditions are inappropriate criteria when making cross-cultural comparisons of mystical experiences.[9] Stace argues that mysticism is part of the process of perception, not interpretation, that is to say that the unity of mystical experiences is perceived, and only afterwards interpreted according to the perceiver’s background. This may result in different accounts of the same phenomenon. While an atheist describes the unity as “freed from empirical filling”, a religious person might describe it as “God” or “the Divine”.[12] In “Mysticism and Philosophy”, one of Stace’s key questions is whether there are a set of common characteristics to all mystical experiences.[12]

Based on the study of religious texts, which he took as phenomenological descriptions of personal experiences, and excluding occult phenomena, visions, and voices, Stace distinguished two types of mystical experience, namely extrovertive and introvertive mysticism.[13][9][14] He describes extrovertive mysticism as an experience of unity within the world, whereas introvertive mysticism is "an experience of unity devoid of perceptual objects; it is literally an experience of 'no-thing-ness'".[14] The unity in extrovertive mysticism is with the totality of objects of perception. While perception stays continuous, “unity shines through the same world”; the unity in introvertive mysticism is with a pure consciousness, devoid of objects of perception,[15] “pure unitary consciousness, wherein awareness of the world and of multiplicity is completely obliterated.”[16] According to Stace such experiences are nonsensical and nonintellectual, under a total “suppression of the whole empirical content.”[17]

Table 1: Common Characteristics of Extrovertive and Introvertive Mystical Experiences as in Stace (1960)
Common Characteristics of Extrovertive Mystical ExperiencesCommon Characteristics of Introvertive Mystical Experiences
1. The Unifying Vision - all things are One1. The Unitary Consciousness; the One, the Void; pure consciousness
2. The more concrete apprehension of the One as an inner subjectivity, or life, in all things2. Nonspatial, nontemporal
3. Sense of objectivity or reality3. Sense of objectivity or reality
4. Blessedness, peace, etc.4. Blessedness, peace, etc.
5. Feeling of the holy, sacred, or divine5. Feeling of the holy, sacred, or divine
6. Paradoxicality6. Paradoxicality
7. Alleged by mystics to be ineffable7. Alleged by mystics to be ineffable

Stace finally argues that there is a set of seven common characteristics for each type of mystical experience, with many of them overlapping between the two types. Stace furthermore argues that extrovertive mystical experiences are on a lower level than introvertive mystical experiences.

Stace's categories of "introvertive mysticism" and "extrovertive mysticism" are derived from Rudolf Otto's "mysticism of introspection" and "unifying vision".[15]

William Wainwright distinguishes four different kinds of extrovert mystical experience, and two kinds of introvert mystical experience:[web 1]

  • Extrovert: experiencing the unity of nature; experiencing nature as a living presence; experiencing all nature-phenomena as part of an eternal now; the "unconstructed experience" of Buddhism.
  • Introvert: pure empty consciousness; the "mutual love" of theistic experiences.

Richard Jones, following William Wainwright, elaborated on the distinction, showing different types of experiences in each category:

  1. Extrovertive experiences: the sense of connectedness (“unity”) of oneself with nature, with a loss of a sense of boundaries within nature; the luminous glow to nature of “nature mysticism”; the presence of God immanent in nature outside of time shining through nature of “cosmic consciousness”; the lack of separate, self-existing entities of mindfulness states.
  2. Introvertive experiences: theistic experiences of connectedness or identity with God in mutual love; nonpersonal differentiated experiences; the depth-mystical experience empty of all differentiable content.[18]

Following Stace's lead, Ralph Hood developed the "Mysticism scale."[19] According to Hood, the introvertive mystical experience may be a common core to mysticism independent of both culture and person, forming the basis of a "perennial psychology".[20] According to Hood, "the perennialist view has strong empirical support," since his scale yielded positive results across various cultures,[21][note 3] stating that mystical experience as operationalized from Stace's criteria is identical across various samples.[23][note 4]

Although Stace's work on mysticism received a positive response, it has also been strongly criticised in the 1970s and 1980s, for its lack of methodological rigueur and its perennialist pre-assumptions.[24][25][26][27][web 1] Major criticisms came from Steven T. Katz in his influential series of publications on mysticism and philosophy,[note 5] and from Wayne Proudfoot in his Religious experience (1985).[28]

Masson and Masson criticised Stace for using a "buried premise," namely that mysticism can provide valid knowledge of the world, equal to science and logic.[29] A similar criticism has been voiced by Jacob van Belzen toward Hood, noting that Hood validated the existence of a common core in mystical experiences, but based on a test which presupposes the existence of such a common core, noting that "the instrument used to verify Stace's conceptualization of Stace is not independent of Stace, but based on him."[27] Belzen also notes that religion does not stand on its own, but is embedded in a cultural context, which should be taken into account.[30] To this criticism Hood et al. answer that universalistic tendencies in religious research "are rooted first in inductive generalizations from cross-cultural consideration of either faith or mysticism,"[31] stating that Stace sought out texts which he recognized as an expression of mystical expression, from which he created his universal core. Hood therefore concludes that Belzen "is incorrect when he claims that items were presupposed."[31][note 6]

Mystical experience[edit]

The term "mystical experience" has become synonymous with the terms "religious experience", spiritual experience and sacred experience.[34] A "religious experience" is a subjective experience which is interpreted within a religious framework.[34] The concept originated in the 19th century, as a defense against the growing rationalism of western society.[33] Wayne Proudfoot traces the roots of the notion of "religious experience" to the German theologian Friedrich Schleiermacher (1768–1834), who argued that religion is based on a feeling of the infinite. The notion of "religious experience" was used by Schleiermacher to defend religion against the growing scientific and secular critique. It was adopted by many scholars of religion, of which William James was the most influential.[35] A broad range of western and eastern movements have incorporated and influenced the emergence of the modern notion of "mystical experience", such as the Perennial philosophyTranscendentalismUniversalism, the Theosophical SocietyNew ThoughtNeo-Vedanta and Buddhist modernism.[36][37]

William James[edit]

William James popularized the use of the term "religious experience" in his The Varieties of Religious Experience.[38][33] James wrote:

In mystic states we both become one with the Absolute and we become aware of our oneness. This is the everlasting and triumphant mystical tradition, hardly altered by differences of clime or creed. In Hinduism, in Neoplatonism, in Sufism, in Christian mysticism, in Whitmanism, we find the same recurring note, so that there is about mystical utterances an eternal unanimity which ought to make a critic stop and think, and which bring it about that the mystical classics have, as has been said, neither birthday nor native land.[39]

This book is the classic study on religious or mystical experience, which influenced deeply both the academic and popular understanding of "religious experience".[38][33][40][web 1] James popularized the use of the term "religious experience"[note 7] in his Varieties,[38][33][web 1] and influenced the understanding of mysticism as a distinctive experience which supplies knowledge of the transcendental:[40][web 1]

Under the influence of William James' The Varieties of Religious Experience, heavily centered on people's conversion experiences, most philosophers' interest in mysticism has been in distinctive, allegedly knowledge-granting "mystical experiences.""[web 1]

James emphasized the personal experience of individuals, and describes a broad variety of such experiences in The Varieties of Religious Experience.[39] He considered the "personal religion"[41] to be "more fundamental than either theology or ecclesiasticism",[41][note 8] and defines religion as

...the feelings, acts, and experiences of individual men in their solitude, so far as they apprehend themselves to stand in relation to whatever they may consider the divine.[42]

According to James, mystical experiences have four defining qualities:[43]

  1. Ineffability. According to James the mystical experience "defies expression, that no adequate report of its content can be given in words".[43]
  2. Noetic quality. Mystics stress that their experiences give them "insight into depths of truth unplumbed by the discursive intellect."[43] James referred to this as the "noetic" (or intellectual) "quality" of the mystical.[43]
  3. Transiency. James notes that most mystical experiences have a short occurrence, but their effect persists.[43]
  4. Passivity. According to James, mystics come to their peak experience not as active seekers, but as passive recipients.[43]

James recognised the broad variety of mystical schools and conflicting doctrines both within and between religions.[39] Nevertheless,

...he shared with thinkers of his era the conviction that beneath the variety could be carved out a certain mystical unanimity, that mystics shared certain common perceptions of the divine, however different their religion or historical epoch,[39]

According to Jesuit scholar William Harmless, "for James there was nothing inherently theological in or about mystical experience",[44] and felt it legitimate to separate the mystic's experience from theological claims.[44] Harmless notes that James "denies the most central fact of religion",[45] namely that religion is practiced by people in groups, and often in public.[45] He also ignores ritual, the historicity of religious traditions,[45] and theology, instead emphasizing "feeling" as central to religion.[45]

Inducement of mystical experience[edit]

Dan Merkur makes a distinction between trance states and reverie states.[web 2] According to Merkur, in trance states the normal functions of consciousness are temporarily inhibited, and trance experiences are not filtered by ordinary judgements, and seem to be real and true.[web 2] In reverie states, numinous experiences are also not inhibited by the normal functions of consciousness, but visions and insights are still perceived as being in need of interpretation, while trance states may lead to a denial of physical reality.[web 2]

Most mystical traditions warn against an attachment to mystical experiences, and offer a "protective and hermeneutic framework" to accommodate these experiences.[46] These same traditions offer the means to induce mystical experiences,[46] which may have several origins:

  • Spontaneous; either apparently without any cause, or by persistent existential concerns, or by neurophysiological origins;
  • Religious practices, such as contemplationmeditation, and mantra-repetition;
  • Entheogens (drugs)
  • Neurophysiological origins, such as temporal lobe epilepsy.

Influence[edit]

The concept of "mystical experience" has influenced the understanding of mysticism as a distinctive experience which supplies knowledge of a transcendental reality, cosmic unity, or ultimate truths.[web 1][note 9] Scholars, like Stace and Forman, have tended to exclude visions, near death experiences and parapsychological phenomena from such "special mental states," and focus on sudden experiences of oneness, though neurologically they all seem to be related.

Criticism of the concept of "mystical experience"[edit]

The notion of "experience", however, has been criticized in religious studies today.[32] [47][48] Robert Sharf points out that "experience" is a typical Western term, which has found its way into Asian religiosity via western influences.[32][note 10] The notion of "experience" introduces a false notion of duality between "experiencer" and "experienced", whereas the essence of kensho is the realisation of the "non-duality" of observer and observed.[50][51] "Pure experience" does not exist; all experience is mediated by intellectual and cognitive activity.[52][53] The specific teachings and practices of a specific tradition may even determine what "experience" someone has, which means that this "experience" is not the proof of the teaching, but a result of the teaching.[34] A pure consciousness without concepts, reached by "cleaning the doors of perception",[note 11] would be an overwhelming chaos of sensory input without coherence.[55]

Constructivists such as Steven Katz reject any typology of experiences since each mystical experience is deemed unique.[56]

Other critics point out that the stress on "experience" is accompanied with favoring the atomic individual, instead of the shared life of the community. It also fails to distinguish between episodic experience, and mysticism as a process, that is embedded in a total religious matrix of liturgy, scripture, worship, virtues, theology, rituals and practices.[57]

Richard King also points to disjunction between "mystical experience" and social justice:[58]

The privatisation of mysticism – that is, the increasing tendency to locate the mystical in the psychological realm of personal experiences – serves to exclude it from political issues as social justice. Mysticism thus becomes seen as a personal matter of cultivating inner states of tranquility and equanimity, which, rather than seeking to transform the world, serve to accommodate the individual to the status quo through the alleviation of anxiety and stress.[58]

Perennialism, constructionism and contextualism[edit]

Scholarly research on mystical experiences in the 19th and 20th century was dominated by a discourse on "mystical experience," laying sole emphasis on the experiential aspect, be it spontaneous or induced by human behavior. Perennialists regard those various experiences traditions as pointing to one universal transcendental reality, for which those experiences offer the prove.[59] In this approach, mystical experiences are privatised, separated from the context in which they emerge.[46] William James, in his The Varieties of Religious Experience, was highly influential in further popularising this perennial approach and the notion of personal experience as a validation of religious truths.[40]

The essentialist model argues that mystical experience is independent of the sociocultural, historical and religious context in which it occurs, and regards all mystical experience in its essence to be the same.[60] According to this "common core-thesis",[61] different descriptions can mask quite similar if not identical experiences:[62]

[P]eople can differentiate experience from interpretation, such that different interpretations may be applied to otherwise identical experiences".[63]

Principal exponents of the perennialist position were William James, Walter Terence Stace,[64] who distinguishes extroverted and introverted mysticism, in response to R. C. Zaehner's distinction between theistic and monistic mysticism;[9] Huston Smith;[65][66] and Ralph W. Hood,[67] who conducted empirical research using the "Mysticism Scale", which is based on Stace's model.[67][note 12]

Since the 1960s, social constructionism[60] argued that mystical experiences are "a family of similar experiences that includes many different kinds, as represented by the many kinds of religious and secular mystical reports".[68] The constructionist states that mystical experiences are fully constructed by the ideas, symbols and practices that mystics are familiar with,[69] shaped by the concepts "which the mystic brings to, and which shape, his experience".[60] What is being experienced is being determined by the expectations and the conceptual background of the mystic.[70] Critics of the "common-core thesis" argue that

[N]o unmediated experience is possible, and that in the extreme, language is not simply used to interpret experience but in fact constitutes experience.[63]

The principal exponent of the constructionist position is Steven T. Katz, who, in a series of publications,[note 13] has made a highly influential and compelling case for the constructionist approach.[71]

The perennial position is "largely dismissed by scholars",[1] but "has lost none of its popularity".[2] The contextual approach has become the common approach,[46] and takes into account the historical and cultural context of mystical experiences.[46]

Steven Katz – constructionism[edit]

After Walter Stace's seminal book in 1960, the general philosophy of mysticism received little attention.[note 14] But in the 1970s the issue of a universal "perennialism" versus each mystical experience being was reignited by Steven Katz. In an often-cited quote he states:

There are NO pure (i.e. unmediated) experiences. Neither mystical experience nor more ordinary forms of experience give any indication, or any ground for believing, that they are unmediated [...] The notion of unmediated experience seems, if not self-contradictory, at best empty. This epistemological fact seems to me to be true, because of the sort of beings we are, even with regard to the experiences of those ultimate objects of concern with which mystics have had intercourse, e.g., God, Being, Nirvana, etc.[72][note 15]

According to Katz (1978), Stace typology is "too reductive and inflexible," reducing the complexities and varieties of mystical experience into "improper categories."[73] According to Katz, Stace does not notice the difference between experience and interpretation, but fails to notice the epistemological issues involved in recognizing such experiences as "mystical,"[74] and the even more fundamental issue of which conceptual framework precedes and shapes these experiences.[75] Katz further notes that Stace supposes that similarities in descriptive language also implies a similarity in experience, an assumption which Katz rejects.[76] According to Katz, close examination of the descriptions and their contexts reveals that those experiences are not identical.[77] Katz further notes that Stace held one specific mystical tradition to be superior and normative,[78] whereas Katz rejects reductionist notions and leaves God as God, and Nirvana as Nirvana.[79]

According to Paden, Katz rejects the discrimination between experiences and their interpretations.[9] Katz argues that it is not the description, but the experience itself which is conditioned by the cultural and religious background of the mystic.[9] According to Katz, it is not possible to have pure or unmediated experience.[9][80]

Yet, according to Laibelman, Katz did not say that the experience can't be unmediated; he said that the conceptual understanding of the experience can't be unmediated, and is based on culturally mediated preconceptions.[81] According to Laibelman, misunderstanding Katz's argument has led some to defend the authenticity of "pure consciousness events," while this is not the issue.[82] Laibelman further notes that a mystic's interpretation is not necessarily more true or correct than the interpretation of an uninvolved observer.[83]

Robert Forman – pure consciousness event[edit]

Robert Forman has criticised Katz' approach, arguing that lay-people who describe mystical experiences often notice that this experience involves a totally new form of awareness, which can't be described in their existing frame of reference.[84][85] Newberg argued that there is neurological evidence for the existence of a "pure consciousness event" empty of any constructionist structuring.[86]

Richard Jones – constructivism, anticonstructivism, and perennialism[edit]

Richard H. Jones believes that the dispute between "constructionism" and "perennialism" is ill-formed. He draws a distinction between "anticonstructivism" and "perennialism": constructivism can rejected with respect to a certain class of mystical experiences without ascribing to a perennialist philosophy on the relation of mystical doctrines.[87] Constructivism versus anticonstructivism is a matter of the nature of mystical experiences themselves while perennialism is a matter of mystical traditions and the doctrines they espouse. One can reject constructivism about the nature of mystical experiences without claiming that all mystical experiences reveal a cross-cultural "perennial truth". Anticonstructivists can advocate contextualism as much as constructivists do, while perennialists reject the need to study mystical experiences in the context of a mystic's culture since all mystics state the same universal truth.

Contextualism and attribution theory[edit]

The theoretical study of mystical experience has shifted from an experiential, privatised and perennialist approach to a contextual and empirical approach.[46] The contextual approach, which also includes constructionism and attribution theory, takes into account the historical and cultural context.[46][88][web 1] Neurological research takes an empirical approach, relating mystical experiences to neurological processes.

Wayne Proudfoot proposes an approach that also negates any alleged cognitive content of mystical experiences: mystics unconsciously merely attribute a doctrinal content to ordinary experiences. That is, mystics project cognitive content onto otherwise ordinary experiences having a strong emotional impact.[89] Objections have been raised concerning Proudfoot’s use of the psychological data.[90][91] This approach, however, has been further elaborated by Ann Taves.[88] She incorporates both neurological and cultural approaches in the study of mystical experience.

Many religious and mystical traditions see religious experiences (particularly that knowledge that comes with them) as revelations caused by divine agency rather than ordinary natural processes. They are considered real encounters with God or gods, or real contact with higher-order realities of which humans are not ordinarily aware.[web 4]

Neurological research[edit]

Lobes of the human brain
Lobes of the human brain (temporal lobe is shown in green)

The scientific study of mysticism today focuses on two topics: identifying the neurological bases and triggers of mystical experiences, and demonstrating the purported benefits of meditation.[92] Correlates between mystical experiences and neurological activity have been established, pointing to the temporal lobe as the main locus for these experiences, while Andrew B. Newberg and Eugene G. d'Aquili have also pointed to the parietal lobe. Recent research points to the relevance of the default mode network.[93]

Temporal lobe[edit]

The temporal lobe generates the feeling of "I", and gives a feeling of familiarity or strangeness to the perceptions of the senses.[web 5] It seems to be involved in mystical experiences,[web 5][94] and in the change in personality that may result from such experiences.[web 5] There is a long-standing notion that epilepsy and religion are linked,[95] and some religious figures may have had temporal lobe epilepsy (TLE). Raymond Bucke's Cosmic Consciousness (1901) contains several case-studies of persons who have realized "cosmic consciousness";[web 5] several of these cases are also being mentioned in J.E. Bryant's 1953 book, Genius and Epilepsy, which has a list of more than 20 people that combines the great and the mystical.[96] James Leuba's The psychology of religious mysticism noted that "among the dread diseases that afflict humanity there is only one that interests us quite particularly; that disease is epilepsy."[97][95]

Slater and Beard renewed the interest in TLE and religious experience in the 1960s.[7] Dewhurst and Beard (1970) described six cases of TLE-patients who underwent sudden religious conversions. They placed these cases in the context of several western saints with a sudden conversion, who were or may have been epileptic. Dewhurst and Beard described several aspects of conversion experiences, and did not favor one specific mechanism.[95]

Norman Geschwind described behavioral changes related to temporal lobe epilepsy in the 1970s and 1980s.[98] Geschwind described cases which included extreme religiosity, now called Geschwind syndrome,[98] and aspects of the syndrome have been identified in some religious figures, in particular extreme religiosity and hypergraphia (excessive writing).[98] Geschwind introduced this "interictal personality disorder" to neurology, describing a cluster of specific personality characteristics which he found characteristic of patients with temporal lobe epilepsy. Critics note that these characteristics can be the result of any illness, and are not sufficiently descriptive for patients with temporal lobe epilepsy.[web 6]

Neuropsychiatrist Peter Fenwick, in the 1980s and 1990s, also found a relationship between the right temporal lobe and mystical experience, but also found that pathology or brain damage is only one of many possible causal mechanisms for these experiences. He questioned the earlier accounts of religious figures with temporal lobe epilepsy, noticing that "very few true examples of the ecstatic aura and the temporal lobe seizure had been reported in the world scientific literature prior to 1980". According to Fenwick, "It is likely that the earlier accounts of temporal lobe epilepsy and temporal lobe pathology and the relation to mystic and religious states owes more to the enthusiasm of their authors than to a true scientific understanding of the nature of temporal lobe functioning."[web 7]

The occurrence of intense religious feelings in epileptic patients in general is rare,[web 5] with an incident rate of ca. 2-3%. Sudden religious conversion, together with visions, has been documented in only a small number of individuals with temporal lobe epilepsy.[99] The occurrence of religious experiences in TLE-patients may as well be explained by religious attribution, due to the background of these patients.[7] Nevertheless, the Neuroscience of religion is a growing field of research, searching for specific neurological explanations of mystical experiences. Those rare epileptic patients with ecstatic seizures may provide clues for the neurological mechanisms involved in mystical experiences, such as the anterior insular cortex, which is involved in self-awareness and subjective certainty.[94][100][101][102]

Anterior insula[edit]

The insula of the right side, exposed by
removing the opercula.

A common quality in mystical experiences is ineffability, a strong feeling of certainty which cannot be expressed in words. This ineffability has been threatened with scepticism. According to Arthur Schopenhauer the inner experience of mysticism is philosophically unconvincing.[103][note 16] In The Emotion MachineMarvin Minsky argues that mystical experiences only seem profound and persuasive because the mind's critical faculties are relatively inactive during them.[104][note 18]

Geschwind and Picard propose a neurological explanation for this subjective certainty, based on clinical research of epilepsy.[94][101][102][note 19] According to Picard, this feeling of certainty may be caused by a dysfunction of the anterior insula, a part of the brain which is involved in interoception, self-reflection, and in avoiding uncertainty about the internal representations of the world by "anticipation of resolution of uncertainty or risk". This avoidance of uncertainty functions through the comparison between predicted states and actual states, that is, "signaling that we do not understand, i.e., that there is ambiguity."[106] Picard notes that "the concept of insight is very close to that of certainty," and refers to Archimedes "Eureka!"[107][note 20] Picard hypothesizes that in ecstatic seizures the comparison between predicted states and actual states no longer functions, and that mismatches between predicted state and actual state are no longer processed, blocking "negative emotions and negative arousal arising from predictive unceertainty," which will be experienced as emotional confidence.[108][102] Picard concludes that "[t]his could lead to a spiritual interpretation in some individuals."[108]

Parietal lobe[edit]

Andrew B. Newberg and Eugene G. d'Aquili, in their book Why God Won't Go Away: Brain Science and the Biology of Belief, take a perennial stance, describing their insights into the relationship between religious experience and brain function.[109] d'Aquili describes his own meditative experiences as "allowing a deeper, simpler part of him to emerge", which he believes to be "the truest part of who he is, the part that never changes."[109] Not content with personal and subjective descriptions like these, Newberg and d'Aquili have studied the brain-correlates to such experiences. They scanned the brain blood flow patterns during such moments of mystical transcendence, using SPECT-scans, to detect which brain areas show heightened activity.[110] Their scans showed unusual activity in the top rear section of the brain, the "posterior superior parietal lobe", or the "orientation association area (OAA)" in their own words.[111] This area creates a consistent cognition of the physical limits of the self.[112] This OAA shows a sharply reduced activity during meditative states, reflecting a block in the incoming flow of sensory information, resulting in a perceived lack of physical boundaries.[113] According to Newberg and d'Aquili,

This is exactly how Robert[who?] and generations of Eastern mystics before him have described their peak meditative, spiritual and mystical moments.[113]

Newberg and d'Aquili conclude that mystical experience correlates to observable neurological events, which are not outside the range of normal brain function.[114] They also believe that

...our research has left us no choice but to conclude that the mystics may be on to something, that the mind’s machinery of transcendence may in fact be a window through which we can glimpse the ultimate realness of something that is truly divine.[115][note 21]

Why God Won't Go Away "received very little attention from professional scholars of religion".[117][note 22][note 23] According to Bulkeley, "Newberg and D'Aquili seem blissfully unaware of the past half century of critical scholarship questioning universalistic claims about human nature and experience".[note 24] Matthew Day also notes that the discovery of a neurological substrate of a "religious experience" is an isolated finding which "doesn't even come close to a robust theory of religion".[119]

Default mode network[edit]

Recent studies evidenced the relevance of the default mode network in spiritual and self-transcending experiences. Its functions are related, among others, to self-reference and self-awareness, and new imaging experiments during meditation and the use of hallucinogens indicate a decrease in the activity of this network mediated by them, leading some studies to base on it a probable neurocognitive mechanism of the dissolution of the self, which occurs in some mystical phenomena.[93][120][121]

Spiritual development and self-transformation[edit]

In mystical and contemplative traditions, mystical experiences are not a goal in themselves, but part of a larger path of self-transformation.[122] For example, the Zen Buddhist training does not end with kenshō, but practice is to be continued to deepen the insight and to express it in daily life.[123][124][125][126][note 25] To deepen the initial insight of kensho, shikantaza and kōan-study are necessary. This trajectory of initial insight followed by a gradual deepening and ripening is expressed by Linji Yixuan in his Three mysterious Gates, the Five Ranks, the Four Ways of Knowing of Hakuin,[129] and the Ten Ox-Herding Pictures[130] which detail the steps on the Path.

See also[edit]

Notes[edit]

  1. ^ Compare the work of C.G. Jung.
  2. ^ See especially Zaehner, R. C., Mysticism Sacred and Profane, Oxford University Press, Chapters 3,4, and 6.
  3. ^ Hood: "...it seems fair to conclude that the perennialist view has strong empirical support, insofar as regardless of the language used in the M Scale, the basic structure of the experience remains constant across diverse samples and cultures. This is a way of stating the perennialist thesis in measurable terms.[22]
  4. ^ Hood: "[E]mpirically, there is strong support to claim that as operationalized from Stace's criteria, mystical experience is identical as measured across diverse samples, whether expressed in "neutral language" or with either "God" or "Christ" references.[23]
  5. ^ * Mysticism and Philosophical Analysis (Oxford University Press, 1978)
    * Mysticism and Religious Traditions (Oxford University Press, 1983)
    * Mysticism and Language (Oxford University Press, 1992)
    * Mysticism and Sacred Scripture (Oxford University Press, 2000)
  6. ^ Robert Sharf has criticised the idea that religious texts describe individual religious experience. According to Sharf, their authors go to great lengths to avoid personal experience, which would be seen as invalidating the presumed authority of the historical tradition.[32][33]
  7. ^ The term "mystical experience" has become synonymous with the terms "religious experience", spiritual experience and sacred experience.[34]
  8. ^ James: "Churches, when once established, live at secondhand upon tradition; but the founders of every church owed their power originally to the fact of their direct personal communion with the divine. not only the superhuman founders, the Christ, the Buddha, Mahomet, but all the originators of Christian sects have been in this case; – so personal religion should still seem the primordial thing, even to those who continue to esteem it incomplete."[41]
  9. ^ McClenon: "The doctrine that special mental states or events allow an understanding of ultimate truths. Although it is difficult to differentiate which forms of experience allow such understandings, mental episodes supporting belief in "other kinds of reality" are often labeled mystical [...] Mysticism tends to refer to experiences supporting belief in a cosmic unity rather than the advocation of a particular religious ideology."[web 3]
  10. ^ Roberarf: "[T]he role of experience in the history of Buddhism has been greatly exaggerated in contemporary scholarship. Both historical and ethnographic evidence suggests that the privileging of experience may well be traced to certain twentieth-century reform movements, notably those that urge a return to zazen or vipassana meditation, and these reforms were profoundly influenced by religious developments in the west ii[...] While some adepts may indeed experience "altered states" in the course of their training, critical analysis shows that such states do not constitute the reference point for the elaborate Buddhist discourse pertaining to the "path".[49]
  11. ^ William Blake: "If the doors of perception were cleansed every thing would appear to man as it is, infinite. For man has closed himself up, till he sees all things thru' narrow chinks of his cavern."[54]
  12. ^ Others include Frithjof SchuonRudolf Otto and Aldous Huxley.[65]
  13. ^
    • Mysticism and Philosophical Analysis (Oxford University Press, 1978)
    • Mysticism and Religious Traditions (Oxford University Press, 1983)
    • Mysticism and Language (Oxford University Press, 1992)
    • Mysticism and Sacred Scripture (Oxford University Press, 2000)
  14. ^ Two notable exceptions are collections of essays by Wainwright 1981 and Jones 1983.
  15. ^ Original in Katz (1978), Mysticism and Philosophical Analysis, Oxford University Press
  16. ^ Schopenhauer: "In the widest sense, mysticism is every guidance to the immediate awareness of what is not reached by either perception or conception, or generally by any knowledge. The mystic is opposed to the philosopher by the fact that he begins from within, whereas the philosopher begins from without. The mystic starts from his inner, positive, individual experience, in which he finds himself as the eternal and only being, and so on. But nothing of this is communicable except the assertions that we have to accept on his word; consequently he is unable to convince.[103]
  17. ^ Minsky's idea of 'some early Imprimer hiding in the mind' was an echo of Freud's belief that mystical experience was essentially infantile and regressive, i.e., a memory of 'Oneness' with the mother.
  18. ^ Meditator: It suddenly seemed as if I was surrounded by an immensely powerful Presence. I felt that a Truth had been "revealed" to me that was far more important than anything else, and for which I needed no further evidence. But when later I tried to describe this to my friends, I found that I had nothing to say except how wonderful that experience was. This peculiar type of mental state is sometimes called a "Mystical Experience" or "Rapture," "Ecstasy," or "Bliss." Some who undergo it call it "wonderful," but a better word might be "wonderless," because I suspect that such a state of mind may result from turning so many Critics off that one cannot find any flaws in it. What might that "powerful Presence" represent? It is sometimes seen as a deity, but I suspect that it is likely to be a version of some early Imprimer that for years has been hiding inside your mind.[note 17] In any case, such experiences can be dangerous—for some victims find them so compelling that they devote the rest of their lives to trying to get themselves back to that state again.[105]
  19. ^ See also Francesca Sacco (2013-09-19), Can Epilepsy Unlock The Secret To Happiness?, Le Temps
  20. ^ See also satori in Japanese Zen
  21. ^ See Radhakrishnan for a similar stance on the value of religious experience. Radhakrishnan saw Hinduism as a scientific religion based on facts, apprehended via intuition or religious experience.[web 8] According to Radhakrishnan, "[i]f philosophy of religion is to become scientific, it must become empirical and found itself on religious experience".[web 8] He saw this empiricism exemplified in the Vedas: "The truths of the ṛṣis are not evolved as the result of logical reasoning or systematic philosophy but are the products of spiritual intuition, dṛṣti or vision. The ṛṣis are not so much the authors of the truths recorded in the Vedas as the seers who were able to discern the eternal truths by raising their life-spirit to the plane of universal spirit. They are the pioneer researchers in the realm of the spirit who saw more in the world than their followers. Their utterances are not based on transitory vision but on a continuous experience of resident life and power. When the Vedas are regarded as the highest authority, all that is meant is that the most exacting of all authorities is the authority of facts."[web 8] This stance is echoed by Ken Wilber: "The point is that we might have an excellent population of extremely evolved and developed personalities in the form of the world's great mystic-sages (a point which is supported by Maslow's studies). Let us, then, simply assume that the authentic mystic-sage represents the very highest stages of human development—as far beyond normal and average humanity as humanity itself is beyond apes. This, in effect, would give us a sample which approximates "the highest state of consciousness"—a type of "superconscious state." Furthermore, most of the mystic-sages have left rather detailed records of the stages and steps of their own transformations into the superconscious realms. That is, they tell us not only of the highest level of consciousness and superconsciousness, but also of all the intermediate levels leading up to it. If we take all these higher stages and add them to the lower and middle stages/levels which have been so carefully described and studied by Western psychology, we would then arrive at a fairly well-balanced and comprehensive model of the spectrum of consciousness."[116]
  22. ^ See Michael Shermer (2001), Is God All in the Mind? for a review in Science.
  23. ^ According to Matthew Day, the book "is fatally compromised by conceptual confusions, obsolete scholarship, clumsy sleights of hand and untethered speculation".[117] According to Matthew Day, Newberg and d'Aquili "consistently discount the messy reality of empirical religious heterogenity".[118]
  24. ^ Bulkely (2003). "The Gospel According to Darwin: the relevance of cognitive neuroscience to religious studies". Religious Studies Review29 (2): 123–129.. Cited in [118]
  25. ^ See, for example:
    * Contemporary Chan Master Sheng Yen: "Ch'an expressions refer to enlightenment as "seeing your self-nature". But even this is not enough. After seeing your self-nature, you need to deepen your experience even further and bring it into maturation. You should have enlightenment experience again and again and support them with continuous practice. Even though Ch'an says that at the time of enlightenment, your outlook is the same as of the Buddha, you are not yet a full Buddha."[127]
    * Contemporary western Rev. Master Jiyu-Kennett: "One can easily get the impression that realization, kenshō, an experience of enlightenment, or however you wish to phrase it, is the end of Zen training. It is not. It is, rather, a new beginning, an entrance into a more mature phase of Buddhist training. To take it as an ending, and to "dine out" on such an experience without doing the training that will deepen and extend it, is one of the greatest tragedies of which I know. There must be continuous development, otherwise you will be as a wooden statue sitting upon a plinth to be dusted, and the life of Buddha will not increase."[128]

References[edit]

  1. Jump up to:a b McMahan 2008, p. 269, note 9.
  2. Jump up to:a b McMahan 2010, p. 269, note 9.
  3. ^ Matthew Alper. The "God" Part of the Brain: A Scientific Interpretation of Human Spirituality and God.
  4. ^ James H. Austin. Zen and the Brain: Toward an Understanding of Meditation and Consciousness. Archived from the original on 22 February 2004.
  5. ^ James H. Austin. Zen-Brain Reflections: Reviewing Recent Developments in Meditation and States of Consciousness. Archived from the original on 23 June 2006.
  6. ^ Ramachandran, V. & Blakeslee (1998). Phantoms in the Brain.
  7. Jump up to:a b c Aaen-Stockdale, Craig (2012). "Neuroscience for the Soul"The Psychologist25 (7): 520–523.
  8. ^ Harris, Kirsten. "The Evolution of Consciousness: Edward Carpenter's 'Towards Democracy'"Victorian Spiritualities (Leeds Working Papers in Victorian Studies).
  9. Jump up to:a b c d e f g h i j k l m n Paden 2009, p. 332.
  10. ^ Zaehner 1957, p. 50.
  11. ^ Zaehner 1974, p. 113.
  12. Jump up to:a b Stace, Walter (1960). Mysticism and Philosophy. MacMillan. pp. 44–80.
  13. ^ Stace 1960, p. chap. 1. sfn error: multiple targets (4×): CITEREFStace1960 (help)
  14. Jump up to:a b Hood 2003, p. 291.
  15. Jump up to:a b Hood 2003, p. 292.
  16. ^ Stace, Walter (1960). The Teachings of the Mystics. New York: The New American Library. pp. 20–21ISBN 0-451-60306-0.
  17. ^ Stace, Walter (1960). The Teachings of the Mystics. New York: The New American Library. pp. 15–18ISBN 0-451-60306-0.
  18. ^ Jones 2016, p. 26-27.
  19. ^ Hood 1974.
  20. ^ Hood 2003, pp. 321–323.
  21. ^ Hood 2003, p. 324, 325.
  22. ^ Hood 2003, p. 325.
  23. Jump up to:a b Hood 2003, p. 324.
  24. ^ Moore 1973, p. 148-150.
  25. ^ Masson & Masson 1976.
  26. ^ Katz 1978, p. 22-32. sfn error: multiple targets (2×): CITEREFKatz1978 (help)
  27. Jump up to:a b Belzen 2010, p. 97.
  28. ^ Hood 2001, p. 32.
  29. ^ Masson & Masson 1976, p. 109.
  30. ^ Belzen 2010, p. 50.
  31. Jump up to:a b Hood et al. 2015, p. 467.
  32. Jump up to:a b c Sharf & 1995-B.
  33. Jump up to:a b c d e Sharf 2000.
  34. Jump up to:a b c d Samy 1998, p. 80.
  35. ^ Sharf 2000, p. 271.
  36. ^ McMahan 2008.
  37. ^ King 2001.
  38. Jump up to:a b c Hori 1999, p. 47.
  39. Jump up to:a b c d Harmless 2007, p. 14.
  40. Jump up to:a b c Harmless 2007, pp. 10–17.
  41. Jump up to:a b c James 1982, p. 30.
  42. ^ James 1982, p. 31.
  43. Jump up to:a b c d e f Harmless 2007, p. 13.
  44. Jump up to:a b Harmless 2007, p. 15.
  45. Jump up to:a b c d Harmless 2007, p. 16.
  46. Jump up to:a b c d e f g Moore 2005, p. 6357.
  47. ^ Mohr 2000, pp. 282–286.
  48. ^ Low 2006, p. 12.
  49. ^ Sharf & 1995-C, p. 1.
  50. ^ Hori 1994, p. 30.
  51. ^ Samy 1998, p. 82.
  52. ^ Mohr 2000, p. 282.
  53. ^ Samy 1998, pp. 80–82.
  54. ^ Quote DB
  55. ^ Mohr 2000, p. 284.
  56. ^ JKatz 1978, p. 56.
  57. ^ Parsons 2011, pp. 4–5.
  58. Jump up to:a b King 2002, p. 21.
  59. ^ King 2002.
  60. Jump up to:a b c Katz 2000, p. 3.
  61. ^ Hood 2003, pp. 321–325.
  62. ^ Hood 2003, p. 321.
  63. Jump up to:a b Spilka e.a. 2003, p. 321.
  64. ^ Horne 1996, p. 29, note 1.
  65. Jump up to:a b Forman 1997, p. 4. sfn error: multiple targets (2×): CITEREFForman1997 (help)
  66. ^ Sawyer 2012, p. 241.
  67. Jump up to:a b Hood 2003.
  68. ^ Horne 1996, p. 9.
  69. ^ Moore 2005, p. 6356-6357.
  70. ^ Katz 2000, pp. 3–4.
  71. ^ Forman 1997, pp. 9–13. sfn error: multiple targets (2×): CITEREFForman1997 (help)
  72. ^ Forman 1997, p. 9. sfn error: multiple targets (2×): CITEREFForman1997 (help)
  73. ^ Katz 1978, p. 25. sfn error: multiple targets (2×): CITEREFKatz1978 (help)
  74. ^ Katz 1978, p. 28. sfn error: multiple targets (2×): CITEREFKatz1978 (help)
  75. ^ Katz 1978, p. 30. sfn error: multiple targets (2×): CITEREFKatz1978 (help)
  76. ^ Katz 1978, p. 46-47. sfn error: multiple targets (2×): CITEREFKatz1978 (help)
  77. ^ Katz 1978, p. 53-54. sfn error: multiple targets (2×): CITEREFKatz1978 (help)
  78. ^ Katz 1978, p. 65. sfn error: multiple targets (2×): CITEREFKatz1978 (help)
  79. ^ Katz 1978, p. 66. sfn error: multiple targets (2×): CITEREFKatz1978 (help)
  80. ^ Horne 1996, p. 29.
  81. ^ Laibelman 2007, p. 207.
  82. ^ Laibelman 2007, p. 209.
  83. ^ Laibelman 2007, p. 211.
  84. ^ Forman 1991.
  85. ^ Forman 1999.
  86. ^ Newberg 2008.
  87. ^ Jones 2016, chapter 2.
  88. Jump up to:a b Taves 2009. sfn error: multiple targets (2×): CITEREFTaves2009 (help)
  89. ^ Proudfoot 1985.
  90. ^ Barnard 1992.
  91. ^ Spilka & McIntosh 1995.
  92. ^ Beauregard 2007.
  93. Jump up to:a b van Elk, Michiel; Aleman, André (February 2017). "Brain mechanisms in religion and spirituality: An integrative predictive processing framework". Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews73: 359–378. doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2016.12.031ISSN 0149-7634PMID 28041787S2CID 3984198.
  94. Jump up to:a b c Picard 2013.
  95. Jump up to:a b c Devinsky 2003.
  96. ^ Bryant 1953.
  97. ^ Leuba 1925.
  98. Jump up to:a b c Drvinsky & Schachter 2009.
  99. ^ Dewhurst & Beard 1970.
  100. ^ Picard & Kurth 2014.
  101. Jump up to:a b Gschwind & Picard 2014.
  102. Jump up to:a b c Gschwind & Picard 2016.
  103. Jump up to:a b Schopenhauer 1844, p. Vol. II, Ch. XLVIII.
  104. ^ Minsky 2006, p. ch.3.
  105. ^ Minsky 2006.
  106. ^ Picard 2013, p. 2496-2498.
  107. ^ Picard 2013, p. 2497-2498.
  108. Jump up to:a b Picard 2013, p. 2498.
  109. Jump up to:a b Newberg 2008, p. 2.
  110. ^ Newberg 2008, pp. 2–3.
  111. ^ Newberg 2008, p. 4.
  112. ^ Newberg 2008, p. 5.
  113. Jump up to:a b Newberg 2008, p. 6.
  114. ^ Newberg 2008, p. 7.
  115. ^ Newberg 2008, p. 140.
  116. ^ Wilber 1996, p. 14.
  117. Jump up to:a b Day 2009, p. 122.
  118. Jump up to:a b Day 2009, p. 123.
  119. ^ Day 2009, p. 118.
  120. ^ Nutt, David; Chialvo, Dante R.; Tagliazucchi, Enzo; Feilding, Amanda; Shanahan, Murray; Hellyer, Peter John; Leech, Robert; Carhart-Harris, Robin Lester (2014). "The entropic brain: a theory of conscious states informed by neuroimaging research with psychedelic drugs"Frontiers in Human Neuroscience8: 20. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2014.00020ISSN 1662-5161PMC 3909994PMID 24550805.
  121. ^ Barrett, Frederick S.; Griffiths, Roland R. (2018). "Classic Hallucinogens and Mystical Experiences: Phenomenology and Neural Correlates"Current Topics in Behavioral Neurosciences36: 393–430. doi:10.1007/7854_2017_474ISBN 978-3-662-55878-2ISSN 1866-3370PMC 6707356PMID 28401522.
  122. ^ Waaijman 2002.
  123. ^ Sekida 1996.
  124. ^ Kapleau 1989.
  125. ^ Kraft 1997, p. 91.
  126. ^ Maezumi & Glassman 2007, p. 54, 140.
  127. ^ Yen 1996, p. 54.
  128. ^ Jiyu-Kennett 2005, p. 225. sfn error: multiple targets (2×): CITEREFJiyu-Kennett2005 (help)
  129. ^ Low 2006.
  130. ^ Mumon 2004.

Sources[edit]

Published sources[edit]

Web-sources[edit]

  1. Jump up to:a b c d e f g h Jerome Gellman, Mysticism, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
  2. Jump up to:a b c Dan Merkur, Mysticism, Encyclopædia Britannica
  3. ^ James McClenon, Mysticism, Encyclopedia of Religion and Society
  4. ^ The Argument from Religious Experience]] [1]
  5. Jump up to:a b c d e Peter Fenwick (1980). "The Neurophysiology of the Brain: Its Relationship to Altered States of Consciousness (With emphasis on the Mystical Experience)". Wrekin Trust. Archived from the original on 14 February 2016. Retrieved 14 November 2015.
  6. ^ William Barr (22 September 2003). "Is there an epileptic personality?". Retrieved 23 August 2009.
  7. ^ Peter Fenwick (7 January 1994). "Untitled". 4th International Science Symposium on Science and Consciousness. Retrieved 15 August 2006.
  8. Jump up to:a b c Michael Hawley, Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan (1888—1975), Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Further reading[edit]

  • Katz, Steven T. (1978), "Language, Epistemology, and Mysticism", in Katz, Steven T. (ed.), Mysticism and Philosophical Analysis, Oxford university Press
  • Forman, Robert K., ed. (1997), The Problem of Pure Consciousness: Mysticism and Philosophy, Oxford University Press, ISBN 9780195355116
  • Taves, Ann (2009), Religious Experience Reconsidered, Princeton: Princeton University Press

External links[edit]