Showing posts with label perennial. Show all posts
Showing posts with label perennial. Show all posts

2021/12/24

The Perennial Philosophy by Aldous Huxley | Goodreads

The Perennial Philosophy by Aldous Huxley | Goodreads


The Perennial Philosophy
 Want to Read
Rate this book
1 of 5 stars2 of 5 stars3 of 5 stars4 of 5 stars5 of 5 stars
The Perennial Philosophy
by Aldous Huxley
 4.01  ·   Rating details ·  6,212 ratings  ·  250 reviews
The Perennial Philosophy is defined by its author as "The metaphysic that recognizes a divine Reality substantial to the world of things and lives and minds." With great wit and stunning intellect, Aldous Huxley examines the spiritual beliefs of various religious traditions and explains them in terms that are personally meaningful.

An inspired gathering of religious writing ...more
GET A COPY
KoboOnline Stores ▾Book Links ▾
Paperback, 336 pages
===

Connor
Apr 13, 2009Connor rated it it was amazing
This book redefined the way I look at religion. It speaks of the philosophy which connects all religions, and should be used as a way of relating to one another.

I found this particular passage quite engaging:

"The invention of the steam engine produced a revolution, not merely in industrial techniques, but also much more significantly in philosophy. Because machines could be made progressively more and more efficient, Western man came to believe that men and societies would automatically register a corresponding moral and spiritual improvement. Attention and allegiance came to be paid, not to Eternity, but to the Utopian future. External circumstances came to be regarded as more important that states of mind about external circumstances, and the end of human life was held to be action, with contemplation as a means to that end. These false and historically, aberrant and heretical doctrines are now systematically taught in our schools and repeated, day in, day out, by those anonymous writers of advertising copy who, more than any other teachers, provide European and American adults with their current philosophy of life. And so effective has been the propaganda that even professing Christians accept the heresy unquestioningly and are quite unconscious of its complete incompatibility with their own or anybody else's religion." -- Well said Hux. (less)
flag87 likes · Like  · 3 comments · see review
Bryon Medina
Dec 28, 2007Bryon Medina rated it it was amazing
Recommends it for: ...anyone who cares.
Dear Aldous Huxley,
I know that you where pronounced dead a long time ago, but because of this book, you are a living presence in my life today.
Thank you,
Bryon.
flag56 likes · Like  · comment · see review
Adam
Jul 03, 2015Adam rated it liked it
Shelves: 1900-1969, myth-religion, eastern-philosophy
To begin, I must note that I am not "spiritual," if spirituality is taken to indicate belief in spirit, to point to crystals and new-agey-ness and tarot and so on. I also do not consider myself "enlightened," but I think I get on a gut level a basic idea of what that state might be like.

The greatest fault Huxley's book has is its attempt to force varying traditions of mysticism into one "perennial philosophy." The Perennialists, Huxley included, seem not to acknowledge the diversity of views within the mystical tradition. That is a shame. And yet there is a category known as the mystical, to which various traditions speak. It is a real category of experience and, as far as I'm concerned, is totally fascinating. The book is mostly Huxley's commentary, but a very large portion of it is quotations from various texts, either mystical or interpreted as such by Huxley. It is well-written and, as single-volume accounts go, a pretty good one. And buried within Huxley's sometimes frustrating notion that he is capable of uncovering the esoteric truth of esoterica are some pretty excellent observations and some very good writing. For instance:"Samsara and Nirvana, time and eternity"; "Nirvana and Samsara are one"; for instance: "the path of spirituality is a knife-edge between abysses"; for instance: "to be diabolic on the grand scale, one must, like Milton's Satan, exhibit in a high degree all the moral virtues, except only charity and wisdom."

Huxley also does a pretty good job of explaining why mysticism is not equivalent to sticking one's head in the sand, and why its denial of self-separateness is not the same as the dangerous forms of collectivism and indifference to difference. For instance, he identifies "political monism" as something very different to monism in its more genuine sense. There is a cult of unity that is not the religion of unity, but is "only an idolatrous ersatz." He gets at everyday ignored truths in a blunt and (to me) refreshing way: he notes that "bondage to self-will" is "the root and principle of all evil."

It's often really hard to explain my interest in the mystical, given that it coincides in me with much its opposite. Some of it is just having been obsessed with The X-Files and the esoteric in general, but never having donned a tinfoil hat or purchased crystals. That's not so odd in itself. But mysticism? Unity with the One that is all, whether you call it Brahman or the Tao or the Nature of Things or Allah or God? How can someone be interested in that but be almost anti-religious, and think that everything has a material explanation at some level?

I think Huxley's book has helped me understand my interest in mysticism. A lot of it has to do with how mysticism is not boring, but very interesting as a way of perceiving the world. And there is also great ethical potential in all this, which is to an extent simply about a species of passivity combined with profoundly active awareness, in which one is neither an unaware imbecile nor an overactive shit-stirrer. I almost wrote "not boring as a mode of thought." Except, of course, meditative states, "centredness," certain experiences possible through psychedelics, and so on do not necessarily revolve around thought or knowledge. They do not revolve around the self, around your past or your future or your dreams and desires and attitudes.

They revolve around the realized real, something almost indescribable (and I cannot describe it or pretend to) that happens when one engages in contemplative practice. And this practice and what happens within it are so fucking fascinating precisely because it's just something you have to do to get there and because it will dramatically affect your everyday experience of the world. "the saving truth has never been preached by the Buddha, seeing that one has to realize it within oneself"- Sutralamkra. There is the possibility of pure(-seeming) awareness. Awareness without the ego's involvement. Experience of reality, in other words, without the mediation of time-oriented, result-oriented thought. This awareness is a way out of the self, a way out of what David Foster Wallace has famously called our default setting, in which I am and you are and everyone is at the centre of their own little universes, in which one's self is what processes all incoming information. Huxley says: "there has to be a conversion, sudden or otherwise, not merely of the heart, but also of the senses and of the perceiving mind... metanoia, as the Greeks called it, this total and radical 'change of mind'." This change of mind is about, in large part, "the elimination of self-will, self-interest, self-centred thinking, wishing and imagining." Underpinning all this is an understanding of the difficulty of the transition and of its potential value. At the risk of sounding like the shittiest Beatle not named Ringo, imagine a world in which self-interest is not merely questionable, but is blasphemy, in which "individual self-sufficiency" is a thoroughly blasphemous idea.

I am talking in terms of psychology. That's important to emphasize. Yes, it's still my brain processing input. But what is different in the throes of the mystical experience is that the software running from the hardware (let's pretend that's a valid way of looking at it) changes entirely. Everything begins to look different. That is still a chair, but it is no longer my chair, my pain, my love, my anger, my ambition. And that sort of dissociation (a dangerous psychological disorder according to the DSM, that great manual of the Cult of Self) is but a fraction of the larger picture. Freud is more Fraud than ever before. Jung starts to make sense in a way previously inaccessible to me. The categories of Western psychology start to reveal themselves as deeply mistaken and even stupid, and the Buddhist philosophers are revealed as the greatest psychologists and phenomenologists to date. The issue is not with the Western psychologists' accuracy of description. It is that they have an extremely narrow account of reality and of the possibilities of the human mind, and make their system make sense by excluding anything out of the ordinary, making it disorder and insanity. To quote Huxley: "one of the most extraordinary, because most gratuitous, pieces of twentieth-century vanity is the assumption that nobody knew anything about psychology before the days of Freud." Unfortunately, we are still dragging that nonsensical baggage behind us, even as we enter into a larger and more comprehensive understanding of mind and brain.

I suspect that my meditative practice has led me to what the mystics call the "divine" anyway. I just don't think it's divine. So a large portion of what Huxley talks about here and what is central to the mystical tradition makes sense to me, because I have had what counts as "mystical" experiences. That is not to say that mystical experiences are a matter of divine contact, only that there is such a thing as a "mystical experience." I mean that there is a sort of experience that many human beings have and have had that matches a list of criteria that makes it count as this certain sort of experience. An experience that often leads to a taste of beatitude, blessedness, which as Huxley notes is "something quite different from pleasure... [it] depends on non-attachment and selflessness, therefore can be enjoyed without satiety and without revulsion."

And it is no wonder that the mystics, whether Sufi, Catholic, Indian, Japanese, Chinese, etc. consider this experience a matter of unity with the divine. For the experience is a profound alteration of consciousness, a gaining of distance from the myopic, obscenely self-centred, violently egotistical standard mode of operation of the human being. And this standard mode has coloured most religious practice as well as led to our obscenely disgusting obsession with consuming and retaining material goods. The mystical is a way out of what Huxley calls "a certain blandly bumptious provincialism which, if it did not constitute such a grave offence against charity and truth, would be just uproariously funny."

Of course, not all those in the mystical tradition are all that concerned with God. Huxley neatly steps past Orthodox Buddhist thought to focus on the more spiritualist Mahayana practices, for instance. He ignores the possibility, recognized by some, that several prominent Sufi mystics come very close to denying to the "divine" any of the characteristics that make it properly divine. The amazing thing about the mystical tradition is that it repeatedly de-emphasizes and even annihilates everything bad about religious practice and belief.

The mystical tradition's view of God also bears so strong a resemblance to Spinoza's discussion of God that one might ask of it the same things one asks of Spinoza: is he a pantheist, a panentheist, an atheist? After centuries of debate, nobody's figured out with any certainty what Spinoza is. And that's that!

The contemplative tradition is one that needs to be taken account of. It is, instead, largely ignored (or, even more bizarrely, equated to the dangerous and dark forms of religious practice more common among humans). Why? Because it leads one to mysterious places and we want to pretend we know everything with certainty.

To end, I'll note that the book contains some unexpected surprises, including Huxley's various interesting, if not (in my mind) accurate, readings of various poems and the like. Also some psychological and philosophical perspectives on mind that I had never encountered before.

Three of the many quotations I underlined:

"Do not build up your views upon your senses and thoughts, do not base your understanding upon your senses and thoughts; but at the same time do not seek the Mind away from your senses and thoughts, do not try to grasp Reality by rejecting your senses and thoughts. When you are neither attached to, nor detached from, them, then you enjoy your perfect unobstructed freedom, then you have your seat of enlightenment"- Huang-Po

"With the lamp of word and discrimination one must go beyond word and discrimination and enter upon the path of realization"- Lakavatara Sutra

"Nothing burns in hell but the self"- Theologia Germanica (less)
flag36 likes · Like  · 2 comments · see review
Ashlie
Jul 23, 2012Ashlie rated it it was amazing
Everyone should read this book. It is one of the best inspirational, inquisitive philosophy texts I have ever read.
flag22 likes · Like  · comment · see review
Paul Gleason
Nov 15, 2013Paul Gleason rated it it was amazing  ·  review of another edition
I first read this book when I was on a Huxley kick when I was a teenager. Brave New World inspired me to read everything I could get my hands on by him. Needless to say, The Doors of Perception was more my speed then than The Perennial Philosophy.

I recently read Mike Scott's autobiography, Adventures of a Waterboy, and discovered that this book meant a lot to him and his spiritual life. I picked up a copy at the library and felt a spark of recognition: I'd read this book before but was too young (and probably too Catholic!) to understand a word of it.

But, I realized, that the book somehow lit an unconscious spark in me. It's precepts are essentially a reiteration of the beliefs that I've developed on my own through reading the writers whom Huxley surveys. Heck, I've even become a member of the Unitarian Church - which is largely influenced and informed by this book.

I realize that this isn't so much a review as it is a self-indulgent memoir - the kind of thing that goes against the precepts of the book. It's an ego-based piece of writing. But the book was a VERY necessary read for me at this point in my life. So I thank Mike for - yet again - pointing me in the right direction, the direction of healing. (less)
flag12 likes · Like  · 1 comment · see review
dely
Apr 07, 2017dely rated it liked it  ·  review of another edition
Recommended to dely by: Dhanaraj Rajan
Shelves: spirituality-religion, 0-uk
This is an interesting book but the style and the language are pretty difficult (at least for me). I think that who is into philosophy will have less problems than me to understand the language.
It doesn't talk about the dogma of the main religions (Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, Buddhism, Taoism), but about the philosophy and the spiritual side that are very similar if not the same. This is what I like the most: to see the points in common of religions, and not the differences.
There are a lot of quotes from different holy scriptures and from the writings of saints and mystics. I found them all very inspiring.
I recommend this book to who is interested in religions and their philosophical side, but be aware that it isn't a fast or easy read. (less)
flag11 likes · Like  · 3 comments · see review
Susan Steed
Mar 20, 2016Susan Steed rated it it was amazing  ·  review of another edition
I was talking to a friend about how much I hated the baggage I felt I had inherited from my loosely Christian upbringing. Some kind of female guilt about sex. Why I couldn't bear going to any more political events because I kept seeing this oppressive good v's evil narrative. So, for example if I went to events organised by the Left I kept feeling I had been co-opted by some church of people who believed they were the chosen ones, the 'good people' who would change the world, and we are in a war with the 'bad' tory people.

My friend said that he didn't think this is the ultimate truth of most religions, and told me to read this book. In this book, Huxley presents his version of the Perennial Philosophy. It brings together writing from Christian Mystics, Sufi Islam, Taoism, Hinduism, Buddhism and more. Sure, to some people this may be height of hippy bullshit. But, for me, the ideas presented here, that heaven and hell are not external but are within all of us, resonate very deeply with me. Or, put slightly nicer by Rumi 'If thou has not seen the devil, look at thine own self'. Or, in the words of William Law;

"The will is that which as all power; it makes heaven and it makes hell; for there is no hell but where the will of the creature is turned from God, nor any heaven but where the will of the creature worketh within God".

The book presents loads of really interesting ideas. I was interested in the ideas I mention above about the nature of good and evil, heaven and hell. But also the nature of capitalism, the violence of Christianity and Imperialism (and other religions). For me his presentation of the environment is also something I have been thinking about recently. The idea that God is in nature. It reminds me of an example that Wangari Maathai gives of Christian missionaries who went to Kenya and told the indigenous population that they were wrong for thinking that God living in the mountains. Then the mountains ceased to be sacred. They began to be exploited.

This will be a book I'll be drawing on and rereading for many years to come. As well as having loads of incredible quotes from thinkers and movements I'll be sure to look up and read more of, it also has some banging analysis that Huxley makes of the time in which he was living, much of which is still very relevant today. I like this quote:

"Our present economic, social and international arrangement are based, in large measure, upon organised lovelessness. We begin by lacking charity towards Nature, so that instead of trying to cooperate with Tao or the Lagos on the inanimate and subhuman levels, we try to dominate and exploit, we waste the earth's mineral resources, ruin it's soil, ravage its forests, pour filth in its rivers and poisonous fumes into its air…. Upon this fairly uniform ground work of loveless relationships are imposed others. Here are some examples, contempt and exploitation of coloured minorities living amount white majorities, or of coloured majorities governed by minorities of white imperialists… And the crowing superstructure of uncharity is the organised lovelessness of the relations between state and sovereign state - a lovelessness that expresses itself in the axiomatic assumption that it is right and natural for national organisations to behave like thieves and murderers, armed to the teeth and ready, at the first favourable opportunity, to steal and kill."
(less)
flag9 likes · Like  · comment · see review
Danns
Dec 12, 2011Danns rated it it was amazing
I picked this book up almost two decades ago coming off a run Robert Anton Wilson and a deep interest in Eastern Philosophies, particularly Taoism. I had never finished the book at the time as the real life of a young adult took sway. Coming back almost 20 years later this book still holds it's allure.

This is not an easy book to digest and Huxley did an amazing job presenting such a succinct overview of the Perennial Philosophy drawing from so many resources, it's just plain awe-inspiring. The e ...more
flag8 likes · Like  · 2 comments · see review
Nati S
Jan 14, 2021Nati S rated it it was amazing  ·  review of another edition
Recommends it for: those who are spiritually inclined
Shelves: everything, i-know-nothing, general-knowledge, metaphysics, philosophy, want-to-reread, would-recommend, 2021, favourites
The Perennial: that which is everlasting and continually recurring.

This book is the result of Huxley's deep study on the writing of the mystics from the great traditions of the east to the enlightened Christians of the west.

An anthology of mystical writing.


... in all expositions of the Perennial Philosophy, the frequency of paradox, of verbal extravagance, sometimes even of seeming blasphemy. Nobody has yet invented a Spiritual Calculus, in terms of which we may talk coherently about the di
...more
flag7 likes · Like  · comment · see review
Nikki
Apr 03, 2010Nikki rated it really liked it  ·  review of another edition
Huxley is referring to the perennial philosophy as those universal truths that span culture and religion. He shows in this book how all of the ancient traditions implemented these truths...or didn't. He is clearly very erudite and the book is full of quotes from early "saints", from both the East and the West.

While much of the material is quite interesting I wondered if he didn't write the book simply to show how Christianity has 'gone wrong'. His anti-Christian bias is pretty obvious.

This book is NOT a light read and you should only pursue it if you are really interested in this topic. On the positive side, this book did cause me some introspection on certain subjects and I feel like it has helped me in some of my own spiritual pursuits.
(less)
flag7 likes · Like  · see review
Tomaj Javidtash
Feb 23, 2015Tomaj Javidtash rated it it was amazing
This book is a gem, a must read, for people with even the slightest interest in the esoteric dimension of religions, any religion. It is a lucid presentation of exalting and inspiring quotes from mystics and saints throughout history. I believe it is the most comprehensive book on the subject of Sophia Perennis from the point of view of its practitioners.
Rumi, Meister Eckhart, Augustine, Shankara, etc. are among the many others whose memorable words about the Ground of Being are presented in this book.
It is one of the rare books that I can read many many time. Highly recommended.

Tomaj Javidtash (less)
flag6 likes · Like  · comment · see review
Theresa Leone Davidson
Jul 03, 2011Theresa Leone Davidson rated it it was amazing
Huxley examines a whole host of religions, from Buddhism to Catholicism and everything in between, explaining what the enduring philosophy of each is and what similarities they have to one another. In the end he makes the brilliant point that no matter how different each religion may be, they are, at their core, seeking the exact same thing. Anyone remotely interested in religion should read this. Highly recommend!
flag6 likes · Like  · see review
Liam
Mar 19, 2012Liam rated it liked it
"Puffing Billy has now turned into a four-motored bomber loaded with white phosphorus and high explosives, and the free press is everywhere a servant of its advertisers, of a pressure group, or of the government. And yet, for some inexplicable reason, the travellers (now far from gay) still hold fast to the religion of Inevitable Progress -- which is, in the last analysis, the hope and faith (in the teeth of all human experience) that one can get something for nothing. How much saner is the Greek view that every victory has to be paid for, and that, for some victories, the price exacted is so high that it outweighs any advantage that may be obtained!" (79)

"If specific exercises in self-denial are undertaken, they should be inconspicuous, non-competitive and uninjurious to health." (101)

"Here we may remark in passing that mechanization is incompatible with inspiration. ... The automatic machine is fool-proof; just because it is fool-proof it is also grace-proof." (171)

"Original ignorance is the same thing as original sin." (250) (less)
flag5 likes · Like  · comment · see review
Whitney
Dec 09, 2013Whitney rated it it was amazing  ·  review of another edition
Shelves: non-fiction, philosophy, spirituality, favorites
Huxley gets to the root of The Thing by examining religious texts from around the world. He finds out what they have in common to get to the parts that are not human projection, idolatry, and bullshit. It's all around us and we are part of It. (less)
flag5 likes · Like  · comment · see review
Justina Hayden
Aug 15, 2009Justina Hayden rated it it was amazing
Recommends it for: spiritual seekers who have not yet settled
Shelves: books-i-reread-frequently
This book explain the ways in which ALL the world's religions, taken at their core, express the "Perennial Philosophy". He quotes at length from Catholic saints, Martin Luther, the Vedantas, the Tao te Ching, George Fox, the Upanishads, the writings of many Buddhists, and so on. I know I've left some out; I'm not looking at the book as i write, and it has been probably 10 years since I read it last.

Nonetheless, a major formative book for my life, which I discovered when I was 13 or 14 and have been rereading ever since. (less)
flag4 likes · Like  · comment · see review
CV Rick
Sep 25, 2011CV Rick rated it really liked it
Shelves: literature, philosophy
Lest anyone doubt that one of the greatest philosophers of the modern age is Aldous Huxley I give you The Perennial Philosophy. Huxley boils all religious tradition into its basic universal truths. It is through this discovery that he finds what he is good in the best teachings and what is manipulative in its tenets.

I am constantly amazed by the breadth of thought that Aldous Huxley explored during his lifetime and how relevant that five years today. I will probably be thinking about this volume for many years to come. (less)
flag4 likes · Like  · 3 comments · see review
S. Jay
Jan 02, 2017S. Jay rated it it was amazing

The Perennial Philosophy
Forget self to discover the Self

The book A Short History of Nearly Everything, by Bill Bryson, is essentially a history of science book. This book is a history of philosophy and summary of major religion, organized into different points. In both, I ran out of room to review. Link to complete review at the end. The main idea is this – all religions are essentially saying the same 27 things and here’s what they are. I found it very neat to jump from a Sufi mystic to a Catholic saint to a Hindu or Buddhist scholar and say, wow, yes, they are all saying the same thing. There is an additional layer suggesting you can join the elite crew that gets it and practices the perennial philosophy, but I think that detracts a bit from the overall summary. There’s a tendency to evangelize to join this group, and a bit of the Western bias of passion = bad. Never the less, it’s detailed and comprehensive, not a good introduction to the topic of eternal questions but good if you’re along the path of the pursuit of the truth and dedicated to the mysteries of life.
A bit different structure than usual. I’m going to do one more overall paragraph then I’ll go through the majority of topics where I’ll describe the central idea and sample quotes.
So. If all religions are saying the same thing, what is it? We are all one. That God dwells in each moment and in each being (including ourselves). Life purpose is “unitive knowledge” that God and self and others and existence are one. Awareness can be achieved through detachment to central desires and denial of ego, eye on the divine but unconcerned with the outcomes of effort (a very odd balance called “holy indifference”). That path is not easy, but when you undertake the right actions eventually you can “catch a glimpse of the Self that underlies separate individuality.” Modesty, humility, and simplicity will get you there. The kingdom of heaven is within you and eternity can be attained in your lifetime. Never forget we are one, that God allows us to participate in this sacred moment called life. We are kidding ourselves if we think our perspective is in some way different than any others.
I should add, ps, most growned up people don’t care about these topics. They become caught up in the false idols of technology, human progress, business, politics, anything temporal. They will look at you like a weirdo if you bring these things up. All are called, but not all are chosen or choose to continue the conversation with the divine. Pursuit this path and you will be different.

Note: If there isn’t a name attached to a quote it’s from Huxley
Point 1 – That are Thou – “you” are not just your ego perspective, you are contained in everyone you see and interact with. We are all one, so do unto others what you would do to yourself because self and other is an illusion.
Quotes
It is ignorance that causes us to identify ourselves with the body, the ego, the senses, or anything that is not the Atman. He is a wise man who overcomes this ignorance by devotion to the Atman. –Shankara (8th century Hindu scholar) 7

Point 2 – The Nature of the Ground – You are part of God, existence happens because you open your eye which is divine. You’re essentially sitting in the palm of God, more so you’re one atom in his / her hand.
Quotes
* The last end of man, the ultimate reason for human existence, is unitive knowledge of the divine Ground – the knowledge that can come only to those who are prepared to “die to self” and so make room, as it were, for God. –21
* The purpose of all words is to illustrate the meaning of an object...For example cow and horse belong to the category of substance. He cooks or he prays belongs to the category of activity. White and black belong to the category of quality…Now there is no class of substance to which the Brahmin belongs, no common genus. It cannot therefore be denoted by words which, like “being” in the ordinary sense, signify a category of things…Therefore it cannot be defined by word or idea; as the Scripture says, it is the One “before whom words recoil.” –Shankara 24

Point 3 – Personality, Sanctity, Divine Incarnation – personality is a distraction, selfhood is a better concept (less egotistical), you are sacred because you are the same as God (only saints recognize this).
Quotes
Insofar as they are saints, insofar as they possess the unitive knowledge that makes them “perfect as their Father which in heaven is perfect,” they are all astonishingly alike. Their actions are uniformly selfless and they are constantly recollected, so that at every moment they know who they are and what is their true relation to the universe and its spiritual Ground. 44

Point 4 – God in the World – because we exist in the world, we shouldn’t shrug off the activities of life, neither should we embrace them fully, but instead use them to further contemplate the divine. Actions and contemplation can lead to a holy end (when properly guided). You are aware when you recognize, in fact, the world is apparition of Mind and therefore beautiful and majestic. Don’t become attached to the world or desires, instead recognize the oneness.
Quotes
* The world is a mirror of Infinite Beauty, yet no man sees it. It is a Temple of Majesty, yet no man regards it. It is a region of Light and Peace, did not men disquiet it. It is the Paradise of God. –Thomas Traherne 67

Point 5 – Charity – give selflessly and without any expectation of reward
Quotes
* Here on earth the love of God is better than the knowledge of God, while it is better to know inferior things than to love them. By knowing them we raise them, in a way, to our intelligence, whereas by loving them, we stoop toward them and may become subservient to them, as the miser to his gold. –St. Thomas Aquinas 82
Love seeks no cause beyond itself and no fruit; it is its own fruit, its own enjoyment. I love because I love…of all the motions and affections of the soul, love is the only one by means of which the creature, though not on equal terms, is able to treat with the Creator and to give back something resembling what has been given to it. 83
* Some people want to see God with their eyes as they see a cow, and to love Him as they love their cow – for the milk and cheese and profit it brings them. This is how it is with people who love God for the sake of outward wealth or inward comfort. They do not rightly love God, when they love Him for their own advantage. Indeed, I tell you the truth, any object you have in your mind, however good, will be a barrier between you and the inmost Truth. –Eckhart 84
Learn to look with an equal eye upon all beings, seeing the one Self in all. –Srimad Bhagavtam 85

Point 6 – Mortification, Non-Attachment, Right Livelihood – death of the self allows the birth of Self. The news of the day doesn’t matter. Have a job that is not in contradiction to the divine path (for example, drug dealing, taking advantage of the poor, producing weapons). Avoid the distractions of power or politics.
Quotes
“Our kingdom go” is the necessary and unavoidable corollary of “Thy kingdom come.” For the more there is of self, the less there is of God. 96
* God, if I worship thee in fear of hell, burn me in hell. And if I worship thee in hope of paradise, exclude me from Paradise; but if I worship thee for thine own sake, withhold not thine everlasting beauty. –Rabi’a (Sufi woman-saint) 102
* Listening four or five times a day to newscasters and commentators, reading the morning papers and all the weeklies and monthlies – nowadays, this is described as “taking an intelligent interest in politics.” St. John of the Cross would have called it indulgence in idle curiosity and the cultivation of disquietude for disquietude’s sake. 104
* A man undertakes the right action (which includes, of course, right recollectedness and right meditation), and this enables him to catch a glimpse of the Self that underlies his separate individuality. 112

Point 7 – Truth – seek the truth but don’t think there is a specific formula for extracting it. Don’t be hubristic and think you can reach it without surrender.
Quotes
* Even the most ordinary experience of a thing or event in time can never be fully or adequately described in words…God, however, is not a thing or event in time, and the time-bound words which cannot do justice even to temporal matters are even more inadequate do the intrinsic nature of our own unitive experience of that which belongs to an incommensurably different order. To suppose that people can be saved by studying and giving assent to formula is like supposing that one can get to Timbuctoo by poring over a map of Africa. Maps are symbols, and even the best of them are inaccurate and imperfect symbols. But to anyone who really wants to reach a destination, a map is an indispensably useful as indicating the direction in which the traveler should set out and the roads which he must take. 134
* The experience of beauty is pure, self-manifested, compounded equally of joy and consciousness, free from admixture of any other perception, the very twin brother of mystical experience, and the very life of it is super sensuous wonder…it is enjoyed by those who are competent thereto, in identity, just as the form of God is itself the joy with which it is recognized. –Visvanatha 138

Point 8 – Religion and Temperament – think of knowledge as a vertical axis of human capability, there is also a vertical axis that has divine union at its apex and separate selfhood at the base. All religions indicate the same ideas. Be temperate in consummation of knowledge of products.
Quotes
In the West, the traditional Catholic classification of human beings is based upon the Gospel anecdote of Martha and Mary. The way of Martha is the way of salvation through action, the way of Mary is the way through contemplation...in Hindu thought the outlines of this completer and more adequate classification are clearly indicated. The ways leading to the delivering union with God are not two, but three – the way of works, the way of knowledge and the way of devotion. In the Bhadagava Gita Sir Krishna instructs Arujna in all three paths – liberation without attachment; liberation through knowledge of the Self and the Absolute Ground of all being with which it is identical; and the liberation through intense devotion to the personal God or the divine incarnation. 148
“Holy indifference” is the path that leads through the forgetting of self to the discovery of the Self. 155

“If the doors of perception were cleansed, everything would be seen as it is, infinite.” –William Blake 189
* The aim of revolution is to make the future radically different from and better than the past. But some time-obsessed philosophers are primarily concerned with the past, not the future, and their politics are entirely a matter of preserving or restoring the status quo and getting back to the good old days. But the retrospective time worshipers have one thing in common with the revolutionary devotees of the bigger and better future; they are prepared to use unlimited violence to achieve their ends. 193
Every violence is, over and above everything else, a sacrilegious rebellion against the divine order. 194

* For what is probably the majority of those who profess the great historical religions, it signifies and has always signified a happy posthumous condition of indefinite personal survival, conceived of as a reward for good behavior and correct belief and a compensation for the miseries inseparable from life in a body. But for those who, within the various religious traditions, have accepted the Perennial Philosophy as a theory and have done with best to live it out in practice, “heaven” is something else. They aspire to be delivered out of separate selfhood in time and into eternity as realized in the unitive knowledge of the divine Ground. Since the Ground can and ought to be unitively known in the present life (whose ultimate end and purpose is nothing but this knowledge), “heaven” is not an exclusively posthumous condition. 202

Rest of review / all quotes (future self, you’re welcome)- https://1drv.ms/w/s!AkaMFERCFHxIgegKd...
(less)
flag3 likes · Like  · comment · see review
Jim Puskas
Feb 22, 2021Jim Puskas rated it it was amazing
Shelves: religion, philosophy
Referring to Huxley as a "bold thinker" would be a gross understatement. While ostensibly just a survey of the world’s great religious movements and the writings of a wide selection of mystics, Huxley takes his argument a great deal further, proceeding to proclaim that a unifying “perennial” truth lies at the heart of all “higher” religions. In so doing, he endeavors to define the very nature and purpose of existence; one could scarcely address any topic more fundamental than that!
I am, of course not at all the sort of reader this book is aimed at; as an avowed agnostic, I’m about as mystical as yesterday’s laundry. So this was a very steep hill for me to climb; I struggled with not only the basic premise of his argument but also the syntax and vocabulary employed express it. The fact that I stuck with it to the end (often shaking my head in bemusement) says much about the quality of Huxley’s work.
Fortunately, Huxley was considerate enough to have offered an introduction to soften the blow, so to speak. Nevertheless, the subtitle to Chapter1 “That art thou” let me know from the outset that I was in for a major challenge; and it doesn’t get any easier. I often found myself re-reading a paragraph half a dozen times, breaking off to look up references, leafing back to previous sections — and at times simply putting the book aside to think through what it was that I thought I had just read.
Does he succeed in convincing me of his general premise? In some small degree, yes. He has a valid point, that all religions boil down to a basic search for the devine. Which would imply that all those thinkers, agreeing on one basic idea, cannot all be completely wrong. But that thesis breaks down the moment one attempts to assign any particularity to that most fundamental notion: the differences among beliefs are so vast that one is inclined to conclude that in fact NONE of them are correct. Dogma, structure and practice get in the way of common sense. In the end, every religion on earth defies logic and demands that its teachings be accepted on faith, or not at all.
Through the first two chapters, when he is setting forth his basic concept and supporting argument for perennialism, he can be quite compelling, even in passages that tax one’s attention span and tolerance for abstruse concepts. That said, I found that as he moved on to peripheral issues such as sanctity, self-knowledge, etc. he became increasingly preachy. His arguments concerning the nature of truth are especially disappointing, relying on quotes from various sages having questionable degrees of relevance; I was hoping he would tie his conclusions back to the matter of objective reality but the chapter just fizzled out.
Huxley regains momentum when he tackles the contentious issue of grace in the context of free will — most tellingly where he quotes St. Bernard: ”Grace is necessary to salvation, free will equally so — but grace in order to give salvation, free will in order to receive it.” His chapter on “Time and Eternity” is also a mind-bendingly compelling discussion.
And even though I find myself in sharp disagreement with much of what Huxley has to say about religious belief, I wanted to stand up and cheer when I came to the chapter titled “Tantum religio potuit suadere malorum” (To such heights of evil has religion been able to drive men) concluding with a devastating condemnation of the travesty of religious infighting that Sebastiano Castellio addressed to the Duke of Wurtemburg at the height of the Reformation. Including that chapter was indeed a courageous decision, boldly putting his entire thesis at risk by exposing religion’s dirty linen. Huxley was no piker, he chose to face the issues head on.
Huxley was one very smart dude, perhaps one of the most brilliant thinkers of the 20th century. I therefore recommend the book to anyone seeking an intellectual (and perhaps spiritual) challenge. I’m likely to revisit this book many time in the future. So, despite my refusal to accept Huxley’s views, five stars for presenting a powerful, thought-provoking thesis.
(less)
flag3 likes · Like  · comment · see review
Aelia 
Feb 22, 2010Aelia rated it it was ok
Shelves: non-fiction
Written in 1945, the book is an anthology of the Perennial Philosophy and contains vast examples as extracts from scriptures and/or other type of writings from various religious: Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism, etc.

The central idea of the perennial philosophy is that there exists Divine Truth, Divine Reality which is one and universal, and that different religions are different ways to express that one Truth. However as Huxley writes this one Divine Reality cannot be directly and immediately apprehended except by those whom we generally give the name of 'saint' or 'prophet', 'sage' or 'enlightened one' and the only way is to study, reflect and comprehend their experience, works and writings.

"If one is not oneself a sage or saint, the best thing one can do, in the field of metaphysics, is to study the works of those who were, and who, because they had modified their merely human mode of being, were capable of a more than merely human kind and amount of knowledge" - writes Huxley in the introduction.
(less)
flag3 likes · Like  · comment · see review
Eric Marcy
Jun 16, 2015Eric Marcy rated it it was amazing  ·  review of another edition
Shelves: favorites
A phenomenal and profound philosophical study, Aldous Huxley seamlessly integrates the thoughts of philosophers, mystics and sages from Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism and Islam into a marvelously thought-provoking and coherent book. Wonderfully written, Huxley centers his discussion on man's ultimate end: to know the unitive nature of the Divine. Everything centers around what Huxley views as man's ultimate end, and the discussion of a myriad of spiritual issues centers around what Huxley views as man's unfortunate tendency to confuse means with ends, as people continually fall into the idolatry of means. With hard critiques on the vain foolishness of modern man, Huxley urges his readers to engage on the path of un-selfing, the only way in which God may be revealed to man.
Though I don't necessarily agree with Huxley 100%, his work is remarkably compelling, thoughtful, and earnest, and provides wise counsel to those seeking spiritual enlightenment and the truly moral life in a selfish and violent world. (less)
flag3 likes · Like  · comment · see review
Pat Rolston
Oct 22, 2015Pat Rolston rated it it was amazing
If you enjoy the opportunity to better understand eastern and western religious traditions as related through philosophical doctrine and their spiritual traditions this is an outstanding place to start. Huxley takes the actual words and quotes from great teachers, saints, and
sages from the eastern and western traditions to educate the reader about the differences and similarities functionally by subject area from, self, silence, good and evil, eternity and time among others equally compelling to enlighten the reader. He inserts some editorial comment that reflects his personal views, but generally this is an opportunity to come to your own conclusions as well as become more fluent in areas allowing for selected and deeper study. There are few authors you will ever find capable of putting in one place the incredible wealth of knowledge in such a succinct yet comprehensive fashion. (less)
flag3 likes · Like  · comment · see review
Callie
May 12, 2019Callie rated it liked it
Alas, I shan't finish this. At another moment in my reading life, I'm sure I would find it spellbinding, but as I just wrote in my other review, I cannot take another ounce of nonfiction.

I made it about halfway through and someday I will read the rest.

I won't lie, through much of this book I found myself uncertain of what he was getting at or barely cottoning on with the merest possible understanding of his general point. Still, I think it's a worthy book and good to have by one's bedside to just read a few pages at a time. Also, one that I should probably own so I can underline things and come back to it once in a while.

It's mainly about mystics and oneness with God and that kind of thing, so right up my alley. I am just really, really in need of a good novel right now. So it will have to be enough. (less)
flag3 likes · Like  · comment · see review
Frightful_elk
Jun 09, 2009Frightful_elk rated it it was amazing
Shelves: philosophy, spiritual, eastern-ish, essays-on-life, religion, popular-philosophy, learning
There is a lot to chew over in this book, I think I am going to have to come back for another going over.
Huxley presents his synopsis of spiritual systems, suggesting there are core principles common to all human spirituality, which are constantly refound and reinterpreted in each system. This is essentially a digest of spiritual writers, it has lots of interesting and important ideas, and extensive quotes to help you get a handle on them. Huxley himself seems to be blown away in enthusiasm and the confusion of trying to rebrand some of the non essential ideas attached to the vital philosophy. Well worth a read! (less)
flag3 likes · Like  · comment · see review
Ronald Wise
Sep 02, 2011Ronald Wise rated it really liked it  ·  review of another edition
I had no idea what "Perennial Philosophy" referred to when I checked out this book and began reading it. When I learned in the first sentence that it referred to the "divine Reality", I had doubts that I would be able to endure it. However, Huxley's overview of the spiritual proved very interesting in discussing the various aspects of man's pursuit of spiritual enlightenment. Some of his comparisons of the Muslim and Christian efforts in that pursuit were so strikingly pertinant to current events, including the 2004 presidential election now underway. This one was added to my reading list after reading Huxley's Brave New World. (less)
flag3 likes · Like  · comment · see review
Robert
Dec 13, 2010Robert rated it it was amazing
Shelves: philosophy, psychology, spirituality
Rational truth can be defined as ideas, definitions, facts, and concepts "about" reality. Mystical truth perhaps can be defined as a direct intuitive apprehension "of" reality. Huxley does a terrific job in using the mystics from the East and the West to help us to understand this most important kind of truth. (less)
flag3 likes · Like  · comment · see review
Sally
Mar 27, 2008Sally rated it liked it
Shelves: didn-t-finish
This is a very noteworthy book, but the author's style is such that I couldn't bear to continue reading it, on several tries; maybe in a few years I'll try yet again. Some writing styles are a total slog for one person, but fine or prefered for another. (less)
flag3 likes · Like  · 1 comment · see review
Jackson
Sep 04, 2019Jackson rated it really liked it
could be a grad student's best friend ; an avengers level assortment of religious thought across centuries of spiritual exploration ; for the contemplative, one of 'the' defining texts (less)
flag2 likes · Like  · comment · see review
Hunter Kinder
Mar 06, 2018Hunter Kinder added it
I definitely need to read this again as it didn't click the first time through. (less)
flag2 likes · Like  · comment · see review
Victor Finn
May 31, 2014Victor Finn rated it it was amazing
Shelves: nonfiction, favourite
All I can say is... WOW! Aldous Huxley is a genius. I read his "Brave New World" before (his most popular work) and was thoroughly impressed. It is the perfect prophetic dystopian novel (much more accurate than Orwell's 1984). Indeed, this book is almost a perfect companion to Brave New World because it shows what Aldous Huxley actually DOES believe in (whereas Brave New World shows what he DOESN'T believe in i.e. consumerism, hedonism, etc)

In this very philosophical work of comparative religion Aldous Huxley demonstrates his incredibly vast and original insights on Religion (drawing from sources all over the globe such as the biographies of famous Buddhist, Hindu, and Christian sages), Psychology, society, and philosophy.

Whenever I read myths and folkloric tales from different cultures I was always amazed at how civilizations that grew up independently of each other seemed to be telling the same kind of stories, with similar archetypes and messages. Later when I became interested in religion I noticed the same thing. Society, the media, and especially the school system taught me that each religious belief was mutually exclusive, so that if you followed one you had to hate the others. This leads to the insane idea that God somehow prefers one culture or group of people or way of life over another.

But really, just as different people in the world have different words for "Fire" or "water" but nonetheless they refer to the same things, so to do different people throughout history have different words for God and spiritual experiences but they are truly referring to the same thing. There is one divine reality that has been apprehended by contemplative mystics all around the world, and their testimony of it is what creates and renews religions all around the world. Aldous calls this worldview The Perennial Philosophy, or Perennialism.

I already believed in the essential oneness of the world's rich spiritual traditions, and have heard it expressed in various ways, but never with the brilliantly argued philosophical reasoning that Aldous demonstrates in this work. He says what I always wanted to say in a way better than I ever could have!

Not only that, but he also has brilliant insights I had never thought of before in regards to the implications of Perennialism, it's social implications, and what it tells us about human nature.

All in all, an almost perfect book that is so rich in truth that I fear that much of it may have went over my head, so I'll have to read it again some day. Highly recommended to anyone who liked Brave New World, who enjoys reading Spiritual, Religious or Philosophical books, and for anyone walking the upward path to the Truth.


(less)
flag2 likes · Like  · see review
Michael David Cobb
Jul 08, 2018Michael David Cobb rated it it was amazing  ·  review of another edition
This is a book that I think I will be referencing back to for the rest of my life. If you basically want to understand the entire perspective of a Western thinker on the commonalities of Eastern religion and mysticism as well as Christian mystic thought, this is the book. Think of it as the complete tutorial on what people *think* they're saying when they utter the cliche "I'm not religious but I'm spiritual." Now if a person were truly that, and very intelligent as well, then this book explains how they might think about God, self, universe, time, idolatry, salvation, truth, good, evil, immortality, mortification, charity, prayer... yeah, you name it everything you've stuffed in a closet in the back of your mind and called it 'religion' is presented here from the mystic point of view and collected wisdom of multiple 'religions'.

This might properly be called, at least I will, the set of ultimate goals for the self, or perhaps the self-less perfection of the realization of the divine in the individual and the purpose of all human consciousness. I'm not used to speaking this way, it will take me some time to get through all of the material in this course of study, but I can feel it working on me.

Several years ago I wrote that all I care about is wisdom. This is true. But one tends to think of wisdom as an attribute of the self. The Perennial Philosophy extends that challenge beyond the self (and yet within the self) towards the human infinite. So instead of the pursuit and capture of wisdom like a trophy to put on your mantle and show off, the Perennial Philosophy explains that this is an attainment of psychic, spiritual as well as intellectual dimensions.

There's some speculation in this which is especially clunky in the dated volume which contemporaries more well versed in psychology will easily spot. Also Huxley had been taken in by claims of faith healing and ESP that should not be taken seriously, but he seems to understand this. Also the book gets a bit murky in dealing with the concepts of time vis a vis Time and Eternity. And yet the book becomes quite persuasive in describing how nations and religions and philosophies that deal with reality in progressive time rather than in eternal timelessness, inevitably make bloody violent sacrifices to time (God the destroyer of all things, in time).

Huxley presents a convincing case for the unification of purposeful thought in this volume by taking contextualized quotes from a variety of wise ancients and mystics. It puts, for me, God back where God should belong in all thought, and the discipline of finding God central in human moral purpose.

I am convinced that this is the kind of material that is central to the human experience. It clears up a lot of things.

(less)
flag2 likes · Like  · 1 comment · see review
« previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 next 

2021/11/27

Mystical Experience - Friends Journal

Mystical Experience - Friends Journal



Mystical Experience


June 1, 2014

By Donald W. McCormick

What the Psychological Research Has to Say

Audio Player



00:00

00:00
Use Up/Down Arrow keys to increase or decrease volume.


Prominent twentieth-century Friends such as Howard Brinton and Rufus Jones have argued that mysticism is at the heart of Quakerism. But mysticism and mystical experiences raise many questions: 
  • What exactly is a mystical experience? 
  • What do they have to do with Quakerism? 
  • Do they come from some kind of mental disorder, like hallucinations come from schizophrenia? 
  • What triggers them? 
  • Is the mystical experience the core of all religions? 

In teaching courses on the psychology of religion, I’ve discovered that psychological research on mysticism has answers for many of these questions.

Let’s start with the first question: what exactly is a mystical experience? 

It is difficult to answer that question because the term is so loosely defined; it has come to symbolize a number of poorly defined concepts (one of the many dictionary definitions of mysticism is “vague or confused ideas”). 
In Friends for 300 Years, Howard Brinton describes mysticism as
 “a religion based on the spiritual search for an inward, immediate experience of the divine,” 
a definition which incorporates many different types of mystical experience. 

The field of psychology, however, reserves the term “mystical experience” for only one of these types, sometimes called a “unitive mystical experience.” 

It is a form that shows up in all the major spiritual traditions—Hinduism, Buddhism, mystical Christianity, Judaism (Kabbalah), Islam (Sufism), Taoism, Shamanism, etc.—but did George Fox have a unitive mystical experience? We don’t know enough about his experience to tell. 
This “pure” type of mysticism appears in Quakerism but also transcends it. 
Brinton wrote in Friends for 300 Years:

Quakerism is peculiar in being a group mysticism, grounded in Christian concepts. If it had been what might be called pure mysticism, it would not belong to any particular religion, nor could it exist as a movement or sect. Pure mysticism is too subjective to provide a bond of union.

Characteristics of Mysticism

The unitive mystical experience has four basic characteristics
  1. The most consistently reported characteristic is the experience of an overwhelming sense of unity, hence the term “unitive mystical experience.” 
  2. Second, people who have these experiences generally report that the experience is a valid source of knowledge. 
  3. Third, they say that the experience cannot be adequately described in words (they say it is fundamentally indescribable, and that language can’t really communicate it very well, but once they’ve had this experience, other people’s descriptions suddenly make sense). 
  4. Fourth, they say that they lose their sense of self. 

This last characteristic is reflected in Andrew Newberg’s brain scans of Franciscan nuns engaging in centering prayer. The scans show that when their prayer is at its peak, the part of the brain having to do with the sense of self is far less active than usual. The nuns reported that as their sense of self lessens, they feel closer to God.

Types of Mystical Experiences


Beyond these four characteristics of mystical experience, there are two types of unitive mystical experience: extroverted and introverted.

In extroverted mystical experiences, mystics experience unity with whatever they are perceiving. A friend of mine who is a decades-long Zen practitioner told me of an experience he had of looking at the ocean and losing any sense of self—subjectively becoming the ocean. This was extroverted mysticism. 
Another example comes from an elderly member of our meeting who told me about her experience of merging with the music of a Leonard Bernstein concert that she attended in New York City shortly after World War II. Her experience was far beyond simply being absorbed in the music. There was a very real sense of becoming the music and completely losing any sense of her self as an individual. Much of the quality of the extroverted mystical experience is captured by the eighth-century Taoist poet Li Po in his poem “Alone Looking at the Mountain,” translated below:


All the birds have flown up and gone;
A lonely cloud floats away.
We sit together, the mountain and me,
Until only the mountain remains.

Mystics who describe their experience as union with God often include descriptions of unity that contain religious imagery. These are extroverted mystical experiences as well.

Introverted mystical experiences involve no experience of any emotions, thoughts, or perceptions such as sight, sound, emotion, or tactile sensation. 
Some describe the experience as a void: pure consciousness, white light, unity with the ground of being, and consciousness without an object. 

The person having this type of mystical experience has no sense of self, of time, or of place. Some say religious mysticism is superior to mystical experience with no sense of God, while others say introverted mysticism (which does not refer to God) is deeper than extroverted mysticism. 

Years ago, I had an introverted mystical experience and immediately afterward I could not tell whether it had taken place in a fraction of a second or over a period of several hours. It would not be precise to say that “I” experienced a sense of overwhelming oneness because there was no sense of my self at all—there was no “I” to experience anything. There was just oneness.

Triggers of Mystical Experience

Generally, a person’s attention becomes fully absorbed in an experience before it triggers a mystical experience. The more traditional and socially legitimate triggers of mystical experience include prayer, meditation, experiences of nature, church attendance, viewing art, hearing music, and undergoing significant life events such as birth or death.

Less traditional triggers—ones that are less socially legitimate—include sex and psychedelic drugs. One of the best-known research studies of mysticism and psychedelic drugs was conducted at Harvard University and involved dividing a group of divinity students into control and experimental groups. The experimental group received a dose of psilocybin, and the control group received niacin as a placebo. The experimental group reported profound religious experiences. In 2006, a more rigorous version of this experiment was conducted at Johns Hopkins University and produced similar results.

People who have had both meditation-triggered and drug-induced meditative experiences report that the drug experiences are not as profound or meaningful. This may be in part because the spiritual framework associated with a meditation practice helps them to put the experience in a more meaningful context. Research also shows that people who are already committed to a religious tradition who then have a mystical experience tend to become even more intensely committed to that tradition.

Unfortunately, it is very hard to tell what percentage of the public has had a mystical experience because the surveys have used so many different (and inadequate) definitions for mystical experience.

One thing that psychological research has made clear, however, is that mysticism is not an indicator of a psychiatric disorder. People considered “normal” have the same rate of mystical experience as psychiatric patients.

The Universal Core of All Religions?

The question of whether mystical experiences are the core of all religions has split those psychology, philosophy, and religious studies researchers who study mysticism.

On one side are the common core theorists, who celebrate the commonalities between religions and tend to be social scientists or neuroscientists. 
They argue that the unitive mystical experience is generally the same for all people. Some even go so far as to say that it is the common, core experience in all religions and that different language is used by different religions to interpret it. Aldous Huxley, a nineteenth-century English writer well known for his use of psychedelic drugs, called this idea the perennial philosophy because descriptions of the unitive mystical experience keep emerging in different religions and cultures throughout history. In the field of religious studies, common core theorists are often called perennialists. A well-known perennialist is Huston Smith, author of the best selling book The World’s Religions and a participant in the Harvard psilocybin study.

On the other side of this controversy are the diversity theorists, who celebrate the differences between various religions and tend to come from the humanities. They lean toward the idea that it is impossible to separate an experience from the language used to describe it, and that the language various religious traditions use to describe the unitive mystical experience differs because their experiences actually are different. They argue that the common core theorists are incorrect when they say that the experience of the unitive mystical experience is the same for everyone and that people just interpret it differently for cultural reasons.

Psychological researchers have attempted to test whether mystical experiences can be separated from cultures and languages. They examined whether the underlying idea of a unitive mystical experience remained the same even when it was measured in many different cultures regardless of whether the measure used neutral language, or referred to God, Christ, Allah, etc.

Diversity theorists point out that while perennialists once dominated the field of religious studies, they now constitute a minority and argue that perennialism works out differences between religions in a manner that appeals to some but that leaves others feeling misrepresented. 
The philosopher of religion Steven T. Katz feels that perennialism distorts important elements of Jewish mysticism in order to make it more “mutually compatible” with other mystical traditions. 
In John Horgan’s book Rational Mysticism, Katz is quoted as saying that perennialists “think they are being ecumenical; they’re saying everybody has the same belief. But they are doing injustice to all the people who say, ‘I’m not believing like you do.’” 
According to Horgan, the Catholic scholar of mysticism Bernard McGinn complains that perennialism “strips Christian mysticism of precisely those religious distinctions that he as a Catholic finds most meaningful.”

An Ultimate Reality or Union with God?

The conflict described above leads us to what is perhaps the most interesting and important question addressed by the psychological study of mystical experience: 
is there evidence that the experience of unity in the mystical experience may be of a real, objective unity? The standard answer to this question is that psychologists can answer many questions about claims made by mystics but have nothing to say about whether or not their claims are true; that’s a question for theologians to answer.

This, however, is not entirely true. Psychologists can contribute some evidence that may help answer this question. Ralph W. Hood Jr., Peter C. Hill, and Bernard Spilka, the authors of the textbook The Psychology of Religion, point out that it is common for researchers who start out neutral about mysticism to end up believing that it involves the perception of something real. They grow to feel that the unitive mystical experience is not just a subjective experience.

Many people who have mystical experiences describe them as union with God. Others describe them as union with the ground of all existence
This may provide at least some evidence for the reality of what I believe mystics experience: the existence of God or of some unity that underlies existence.

Friends Journal podcast
Features

Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)


Donald W. McCormick

Donald W. McCormick is a member of Santa Monica (Calif.) Meeting. A professor for 28 years, he taught courses in management and leadership (and occasionally religion). He was a pioneer in the fields of workplace spirituality and mindfulness in the workplace. Currently, he develops mindfulness programs for organizations. He can be reached at donmccormick2@gmail.com. Includes audio reading.

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]