| |
Defining Pure Consciousness Mysticism
The study of mysticism is usually based on texts either written by the mystics
or by those in close contact with them. The problem with this is that a
scholar of mysticism is free to choose texts drawn from a broad pool of
mystics, making it hard to reach a consensus on exactly what mysticism is.
If the definition of mysticism is based on one set of mystics drawn from
this pool, then this definition can be used to justify that choice of mystics
and to reject others: clearly a circular process. This is not to say that
the scholarly work does not have a recognisable boundary, or that it is
not useful or interesting, but more to point out that the personal preferences
of the scholar have a bigger role in shaping the debate than in many other
areas of study. These preferences generally go unstated, only becoming apparent
in the development of the arguments. To avoid this circularity I intend
to define a form of mysticism based explicitly on my personal preferences,
and give it the name Pure Consciousness Mysticism (PCM) to distinguish it
from other forms. It is not particularly radical, so it will not be located
outside current debates in mysticism, but on the other hand it can be precisely
defined. The personal bias that is usually implicit in studies in mysticism
will be made explicit in this volume, and some autobiographical detail is
included in order to help the reader understand it; additionally, some poems
of mine are included in the Appendix to give further insight into the author's
emotional stance in respect of mysticism, should the reader be interested.
The term mysticism can be used to cover the study of many areas, including
the religious, the occult and the paranormal. If a scholar were to include
Jesus, the Buddha, Eckhart, Krishnamurti, Rudolf Steiner, Edgar Cacey, Charles
Manson, Alistair Crowley and C.G.Jung as mystics (and each of these have
been at some point or other), then mysticism becomes broad indeed. In this
volume the religious, occult and paranormal will be specifically excluded,
or subtracted, making for a much narrower definition of mysticism. The mystics
included under this narrower definition may well have a religious, occult
or paranormal dimension to their lives and teachings, but there must be
other underlying qualities for them to be included. The religious
aspects that will be subtracted out from the mysticism in this volume are
the normal features of conventional religions, including belief, practice
and organisation. The occult and paranormal aspects that will
be excluded are such phenomena as visions, miracles, healing powers, levitation,
telepathy, seeing into the future, and so on. The type of mysticism put
forward here does not reject the possibility of any paranormal phenomena,
or reject the possibility of any kind of disembodied beings such as a fairies,
angels, gods, or God; but does not regard any of this as central to Pure
Consciousness Mysticism. The motivation for these exclusions is complex
(though it will become more apparent through the book), but comes partly
from a desire for an accessible mysticism, or a form of lay mysticism.
The exclusion of these phenomena from Pure Consciousness Mysticism does
not however exclude their use in a descriptive capacity as metaphor and
allegory neither is the subtracting out of the religious to be seen as a
form of iconoclasm: although some of the mystics covered by PCM are iconoclasts,
others choose to use the language and observances of their particular religious
tradition.
Before giving a precise definition of Pure Consciousness Mysticism it is
important to raise the issue of mystical experience. Even if we exclude
the occult and the paranormal, it is often assumed that the mystic has special
kinds of experiences denied to 'ordinary' people, and that these experiences
are crucial to the identity of the mystic, and to our understanding of them
as such. It is not experience per se that is the problem in most
accounts of mysticism, but the emphasis on special or peak experiences (even
though they feature in the lives of some mystics). The emphasis here will
be less on experiences than on orientation, and the value of any
particular experience will be seen in the light of a change of orientation.
We can now give a preliminary definition of Pure Consciousness Mysticism:
it is an orientation towards the infinite and the eternal. However,
because this orientation could be considered as merely the opposite of our
normal orientation, another requirement is introduced into PCM: that of
embraciveness. This term can be seen as a corrective to the first
two, but is more properly considered as the harmonising principle in this
form of mysticism. The three cornerstones, then, of Pure Consciousness Mysticism
are the infinite, the eternal, and the embracive.
I have chosen the infinite as the first characteristic of Pure Consciousness
Mysticism, because it sums up the shift in identity from the individual
to the universal. The mystic, through whatever process, expands his or her
boundaries until they reach beyond the ends of the universe; it may be through
denying everything (via negativa), accepting everything (via positiva),
or a route not open to classification, but the end-result is an identification
with the whole. Identifying with the whole or the infinite can be seen as
either identifying with everything, the manifest and manifold, or
identifying with the source of everything, that is the unmanifest,
also termed nothingness or nirvana. Another form of this is an expression
of union: with theocentric individuals it might be union with God; with
others it may be union with the Whole. The concept of union can bring in
a misleadingly dualistic emphasis however generally speaking, a mystic that
insists on speaking of union with a God that is totally other than
him or her self would not be considered a clear case of Pure Consciousness
Mysticism.
I have chosen the eternal as the second characteristic of Pure Consciousness
Mysticism because it sums up a change in attitude to life and death. The
mystic experiences a loss of the sense of mortality, and the loss of the
fear of death; they often speak of the 'eternal now'. The concept of the
eternal is also related to the cessation of thought, or the cessation of
the identification with thought. Under the symbol of the infinite the mystic
loses identification with the body, and under the symbol of the eternal
the mystic loses identification with the process of time, and in particular
with the mechanism that sustains the illusion of time: thought.
To totally orient oneself to the infinite and eternal is sufficient to become
a mystic in PCM but carried to an extreme leads to an abandonment of the
body, and so the term embracive is introduced as a corrective. The
embracive describes the mystics' re-orientation to the manifest world as
a result of their identification with the infinite and eternal, and it usually
shows itself as love and compassion. The PCM world-view is incomplete without
this quality of embraciveness, and though it might seem that the embracive
is already included in the infinite, the infinite is not sufficient to cover
the new orientation to life. Embracive implies a life-affirming, celebratory
orientation, though it is not intended to be prescriptive about its means
of expression, which are very varied, and indeed this variety forms an important
focus of this study.
Because mysticism often deals with unusual individuals (though we shall
be arguing the ordinariness of PCM), we often have to consider not just
a supposed paranormal dimension to their life-histories, but also a mythical
dimension. This leads to special claims about figures like Teresa of Avila,
that she could levitate, to the miracle-making requirement for the canonisation
of many saints (who may also be candidates in PCM for being mystics), and
claims made by or for figures like Jesus or Krishna that they are divine.
This claim takes various forms, such as that they are God incarnate, or
the Son of God, or avatars (saviours), or messiahs. An assumption at the
heart of Pure Consciousness Mysticism is that all these figures are human,
born in the normal way, and dying in the normal way, and that any special
claims arise from the requirements of pedagogy, the weight of sycophancy,
or through the mists of historical remoteness.
Because of the emphasis on pure consciousness it may sound like PCM includes
only those mystics of the awareness traditions such as Buddhism, or individuals
like Krishnamurti, and excludes the world-views of devotional types like
Richard Rolle or Ramakrishna. Love is a fact in the lives and teachings
of all the mystics, and it is true that in some it is emphasised to the
extent of excluding other considerations. The particular love shown by mystics
will be examined in this book, but the word has been left out of the term
Pure Consciousness Mysticism for several reasons. Firstly, although awareness
can be analysed, love is more difficult; secondly, this book is aimed at
the Western intellectual and attempts in part an analysis of the vacuum
at the heart of our intellectual tradition. The most important reason however
is this: the kind of awareness that Pure Consciousness Mysticism stems from
brings love with it like spring brings the rains and, conversely, the world-view
of the love mystic contains the same pure consciousness. The dialectic between
love-mysticism and awareness-mysticism is a theme running through this book,
and it is not proposed that the questions raised by it should be settled
at this point.
The Development of Studies in Mysticism
Before further developing the concepts of Pure Consciousness Mysticism it
is worth considering how the study of mysticism has evolved. There has been
at least a hundred years of scholarly work in the subject; books like Bucke's
Cosmic Consciousness, James' Varieties of Religious Experience
and Underhill's Mysticism constitute defining early works. The German
scholar Otto made significant contributions, as did the Oxford professor
of religious studies, Zaehner. In the post-war period much debate in studies
in mysticism has centred around the perennialist versus contextualist positions.
The perennialist view, partly popularised by Aldous Huxley's The Perennial
Philosophy maintains that despite the apparent differences in expression,
mystics are describing the same fundamental experience, while the contextualists,
led by the academic Steven Katz, have argued that all experience is mediated
by culture and language, and that we should not assume any single underlying
experience. The essence of Katz's argument is that it is hard to prove the
perennialist view because it is an assumption that verifies itself through
its interpretation of the mystic's words. Katz's views have in turn been
countered by Robert Forman in a book called The Problem of Pure Consciousness,
in which he defines an experience that he calls the pure consciousness event
(PCE) which he argues is common to many mystics, and which cannot be explained
by the contextualists. Forman's PCE is not related to my Pure Consciousness
Mysticism, though there are some similarities: Forman uses the word 'pure'
in the PCE to indicate an experience devoid of content, but fully awake.
The purity of this experience lies in the lack of content, but in my terminology
purity refers to a lack of agenda, that is a disinterestedness that allows
for content, however rich, to be present, but for it not to swamp consciousness.
Pure Consciousness Mysticism is not about events, or discrete experiences,
but about a continuum of consciousness. Neither does disinterestedness
imply renunciation or boredom, quite the opposite: it means that the individual
is open and receptive to the world, but places their real investment in
consciousness itself. Where PCM aligns itself with Forman's approach is
in an assumption that it is valid to take a broadly perennialist view. However,
no attempt is made in this volume to argue the position (other than to show
how it follows naturally from the author's own experience), although some
criticisms of the contextualist view are developed later on.
Another problem in the study of mystical texts is the diverse nature of
the material. Some of it is expository in nature, attempting to give a simple
account of the mystical orientation, or of mystical experiences, while some
of it is celebratory, that is a spontaneous expression of the delight of
the mystic in their condition. However, the bulk of it must be considered
as teachings, that is having a pedagogical motive. These texts are
the most difficult because the mystic as a good teacher has to locate themselves
within the ignorance of their particular audience, possibly accommodating
any doctrinal rigidities of the prevailing religious structures and culture.
Wisdom is one, we could say, but ignorance is many, and hence, depending
on the audience, one may be examining material and propositions quite at
odds with the state or true beliefs of the mystic. If the scholar examining
the text is not a mystic then the fundamentals of the teachings may be hard
to disentangle from the pedagogical detail. In fact, few scholars of mysticism
claim to be mystics, though some claim to have had mystical experiences.
William James stated that he never had any mystical experience (though he
did experiment with nitrous oxide), whereas Bucke claimed that he did; Bharati
and Feuerstein (more recent writers) have both been initiated by teachers
of mysticism. However, most of the writers on mysticism in the last hundred
years or so have not had a specifically mystical world-view, and have approached
mysticism from a religious, psychological, philosophical, or literary perspective,
each of which carry with them a critique or value-system. When a psychologist
studies mysticism, for example, they apply the value-system of their own
discipline in varying degrees to the new subject matter, and in turn the
new subject matter can in varying degrees inform their world-view, and hence
their value-systems. The richness of our intellectual life partly derives
from this continuous inter-penetration of one disciplinary perspective into
another, but can also lead to misunderstandings and in extreme cases a denigration
posing as scholarly analysis.
In looking at the scholarly work by philosophers in the area of studies
in mysticism, one can observe certain assumptions and methodologies, regardless
of adherence to any particular school of philosophy. On the positive side
there is an open-mindedness and breadth of view, such as that of William
James (who was as much psychologist as philosopher). On the negative side
philosophers are often eager to debate in minute detail areas of human experience
that they have either not experienced themselves, or are downright sceptical
of or hostile to (though this is rarely stated explicitly). Generally it
is the job of philosophers to resolve paradox on the basis that it is always
resolvable at a higher level of abstraction, or with a more detailed analysis,
or with better knowledge. Mysticism is very rich in paradox, but the means
for resolving it are rarely open to the methods of philosophy. Logic is
a blunt instrument as far as mysticism goes: it can be used, but not alone.
Commentators on mysticism who have a background in psychology also
bring with them a world-view that can be rather sceptical; this is partly
due to a reductionist strand in psychological thinking, and also due to
the emphasis on pathology in general psychologists seem to be more interested
in the 'sick soul' than the 'healthy mind' (to use William James's terms).
The religious world-view varies from religion to religion of course,
but there are common factors which include social and moral structures,
the holding of beliefs or creeds, and the provision of modes of worship
or other forms of service. Because many religions are explicitly exclusive
of each other, rather than merely implicitly exclusive as for example different
schools of psychology are, it is harder to apply a single 'religious' critique
to any aspect of human life. An Islamic and Christian interpretation of
literature would be very different for example, partly because the religions
have such an impact on the culture that produced it in the first place.
If we look at their analysis of science though, we may find common features,
for example the rejection of the scientific method as the arbiter of truth
in debate over the origin of the world and its species. The 'strong' religious
approach, and this would even include religions like Buddhism, would be
to consult the relevant sacred texts, regardless of their age and circumstances
of origin, for ultimate authority on any subject. Hence when a religious
perspective is applied to mysticism the debate often hinges on perceived
challenges to orthodoxy, and little progress is made.
Literature as a world-view or critique tends to borrow heavily from
other critiques, except in the aspect of aesthetics, or style. Where a mystic
writes in a particularly poetic or literary way they can be the subject
of criticism which focuses on the literary merit of the work, and often
overlooking or confusing the mystical elements. Generally speaking we can
say that studies in mysticism are carried out from perspectives more likely
to be informed by a discipline like philosophy, psychology, religion or
literature, than by mysticism itself. This book attempts to do the
opposite: to set up Pure Consciousness Mysticism as a perspective from which
to look at religion, philosophy and literature. One of the few areas where
something like this has already been attempted is in the investigation of
parallels between mysticism and the 'new' physics (mainly quantum theory)
by authors like Fritjof Capra and Gary Zukav. What many scientists are now
agreeing on is that the 'new' physics supports at least the view that the
observer cannot be ignored in scientific experiment at the quantum level,
and many are seeking ways to extrapolate this idea from the sub-atomic into
the classical world, either literally or as metaphor. This idea, sometimes
referred to as the anthropic principle, places the individual at the centre
of the universe again, while other aspects of the theory stress the 'holistic'
nature of the universe, and hence provide support in scientific terms for
the unitive experience of the mystics. However there is not space in this
volume to explore the relationship between quantum theory and mysticism,
other than to point the reader to the work of Capra and Zukav (mentioned
above) and also the interesting work of David Bohm and Danah Zohar, amongst
others.
Applying Pure Consciousness Mysticism
Pure Consciousness Mysticism as a world-view should be independent of era,
culture or religion, and so, in the first instance, has to develop from
the mystical writings that are relatively free of these additional layers
(the writer Frits Staal calls them 'superstructures'). This is relatively
easy with modern writings, as we understand much more about the context
of their genesis, than it is of ancient writings. It is also much easier
with a mystic like Krishnamurti than with Gurdjieff for example, as Krishnamurti
subtracts everything out for us (to such an extent in fact that it makes
him somewhat unapproachable) whereas Gurdjieff deliberately obfuscates.
It is relatively easy to subtract the Christian out of Richard Rolle, but
more difficult with Julian of Norwich to give another example. Suitable
writings can be found in all periods all over the world, but it is not the
intention here to devote much space to developing PCM from them,
but to apply it. One reason for this is that PCM represents the author's
preferences in mysticism, and searching out texts that support these preferences
would become the circular process that was criticised earlier. By applying
a mystical world-view to some well-known texts that usually lie outside
of mysticism, the assumptions underlying the view can be exposed and evaluated,
and, more importantly we can examine areas of thought outside of mysticism
in a new light.
If the infinite, eternal, and embracive are the cornerstones of the PCM
world-view, how do they become a critique, that is a value-system and a
method of analysis? The value-system generated by PCM is a difficult and
complex one, firstly in its relationship to conventional morality. Some
of the greatest mystics are regarded with suspicion because they appear
to challenge the conventional morality of their day, while others seem to
support it. Other values implicit in PCM appear to challenge accepted wisdoms
of our time, for example about identity, the loss of which is usually seen
as an indication of physiological or psychological malfunction; conversely,
many mystics are seen to be ego-maniacs, so where is their loss of identification
with the self? If we can allow the value-system to emerge from later discussions,
there remains just to outline PCM as a method of analysis. In this book
we shall examine four main texts, the Bhagavad Gita, Leaves of
Grass, Thus Spoke Zarathustra, and Nausea; we shall also
look at a variety of other material that is relevant to issues raised by
the main texts. Clearly we shall be looking for material that relates to
the infinite and the eternal, and shall be interested in the different ways
that these are expressed, taking particular interest in the embracive
aspects of the text, as it is this aspect of PCM that produces the extremes
of expression that sometimes obscure the mystical nature of the work.
Finally, it must be made clear that there is an underlying motivation behind
this critique and the choice of texts to be examined. Just as an examination
of these texts without any of the well-known existing critiques would leave
gaps in our understanding, the contention here is that there is a gap in
our understanding due to the lack of a mystical critique. More than this,
I would suggest that this gap has serious implications for the whole of
Western thought.
|
