Mysticism and the Idea of Sainthood, Part 1: One or Many?

physics-and-mysticism-vF

Originally uploaded by Ladyslc

Copyright © Michael W. Clark 2008.
All rights reserved.

The word ‘mysticism’ speaks to a variety of age-old occurrences reported among most world religions.

In his 1963 classic, Mysticism in World Religion, Rev. Sidney Spencer discusses the idea of ‘interior perception’ as an aspect of mysticism.

Spencer says that the chief commonality among mystics is their claim to be in contact with the transcendent “which typically assumes the form of knowledge, often described in terms of vision, and of union.”

He also suggests that mysticism is essential to not only religion but the future of humanity. But Spencer cautions against generalizing the claims of mystics without sufficient facts. To do so, he says, could be misleading.

Ninian Smart discusses religious experience within a global-historical context and, heading in a similar direction as Spencer, draws the analogy of sports: To claim that all sports are essentially the same is dubious at best.

Smart believes it is equally unwarranted to say that all different forms of religion are essentially the same religion or, for that matter, that all different types of mysticism may be boiled down to a single mysticism.

It is, I think, useful to distinguish between religion and religions, or to put it another way between religion and a religion. This is similar to the distinction between sport and sports. A religion is a given tradition of a religious kind, and so religious experience is often picked out by considering crucial experiences in the lives of those who belong to such traditions.

Critics of Smart’s view maintain that his analogy is unjustified because mysticism deals with God, of whom there is only one.

And some New Age and so-called ‘politically correct’ thinkers seem to denounce anyone trying to analytically assess and soberly compare different religious truth claims, insinuating that to do so is religious ‘fascism’ and so on.

For some It’s almost as if it’s a great sin to think about religion instead of mindlessly accepting the idea that all religious experiences are exactly the same.

Counter to this prevalent bias, Geoffrey Parrinder argues

The important distinctions in mysticism are not so much between the layman and the expert as between the assumptions and the objects of the mystical quest. It is popularly said that all religions are the same though their differences should be evident to unprejudiced eyes and part of their fascination is their diversity.

Parrinder highlights Martin Buber’s distinction between mystics who erroneously believe they are God (I-It) and those who genuinely relate to God (I-Thou). To say there’s no difference, Parrinder says, “is like telling a lover that his experience of embracing his beloved is the same as embracing the hedge at the bottom of the garden.”

Indeed, it’s seems quite reasonable to question whether one person’s experience and understanding of that which they believe is God differs from another’s.

To draw another analogy, imagine an hypothetical ancient or medieval astronomer who recognizes the galaxy Andromeda for what it is. He or she doesn’t see Andromeda as a magical being or mysterious cloud but as a galaxy. If the preconceived ideas of local dignitaries are challenged, they’d likely decry the astronomer’s claims and possibly administer the punishments of the day.

This is similar, of course, to the actual situation of Galileo, who was faced with not only incredulity but house arrest for the rest of his life by a power base of unenlightened elites.

And not unlike short-sighted dignitaries of former times, today some thinkers see themselves as open minded but instantly close off if their pet paradigm is challenged.

Perhaps these regimented folks are not called to consider or possibly it’s just too scary for them to envision a broader canvas.

—

¹ Sidney Spencer, Mysticism in World Religion (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1963: 9). A footnote to my article Krishna, Buddha and Christ briefly mentions the idea of interior perception as described by Catholic saints.

² Ninian Smart, “Understanding Religious Experience” in Steven Katz, ed., Mysticism and Philosophical Analysis (New York: Oxford University Press, 1978: 11). On the same page Smart rightly adds that many religious experiences happen “out of the blue” to people of no particular tradition. He also notes that conversion experiences often occur “at the frontier between non-belonging and belonging to a given tradition.” Thus “we should start with traditions in pinning down religious experience [but] we should not confine religious experience to this area.” Interestingly, the Catholic understanding of conversion experiences is that a person is a Christian in “seed” form before he or she becomes fully aware of this.

³ Geoffrey Parrinder, Mysticism in the World’s Religions (Oxford: One World, 1995: 192). Parrinder also critiques aspects of R. C. Zaehner’s sometimes unreasonable views about mysticism as expressed in Mysticism: Sacred and Profane (Oxford, 1957).

⁴ Ibid.

Proceed to Part 2: Mysticism, Science and Politics