The human race is developing into a universal society, and this evolution embraces the mystical dimension of life. The religions thus have a central role in this process. (Hammond, Howarth and Russell, 1991) There are three progresses connecting the religions are acquiring explicit form: the discovery and expansion of deep bonds of community among the religions themselves, the phenomenon of interspiritual wisdom, and the sober recognition that the environmental crisis is a concern and a responsibility that we all share. (de Caussade, 1975) Although mysticism comprises a huge bulk of the activities of man, it is, instead, a loosely organized collection of premises, held to be self-evident. The evidence comes from experience; which is to say, the foundation of all categorical concepts is believed to be simple, unsophisticated experience (Suzuki, 1964, p. 33). It is for this reason that mysticism is always characterized, in its most basic form, by reference to direct experience. Mysticism, in this sense, shares a commonality with phenomenology and existentialism. The existential focus on existence rather than essence reflects this same understanding of evidence (Hammond, Howarth, & Keat, 1991; Merleau-Ponty, 1967).
In terms of the discussion on the nature or origin of all mysticism, it can be said to be a direct, immediate, experiential awareness of reality, nevertheless that is known and conceived. (Jones et al, 1986) This description is moderately general, thus it should be relevant in characterizing every form of mysticism, regardless of the tradition. Mysticism spawns religion, since all religion bounce from some kind of encounter with or inner consciousness of what they perceive as absolute. It is an empirical responsiveness of this reality, knowing that takes place from undergoing it completely and instantaneously. Majority of all forms of mysticism are personal or impersonal; or relational, intimate, and loving; or nonrelational, purely unitive, nonemotional, and nonaffective. To illustrate, the virtues of Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta in the Hindu custom are formal mysticism since there is no “entity” to which the mystic could be dispassionately associated. There is only an unconditional bias or unadulterated subjectivity. It is an uncongenial “affiliation” or a non-relational kind of mystical union. Christian, Sufi, Jewish, specified Hindu schools, and aboriginal variety of mysticism are considered as personalist for the reason that they give emphasis to the reality of a deity and an familiarity of correlation with God. Although some forms may have both the personal and impersonal characteristics, these are very atypical and make up a more unmitigated category that possesses greater understanding. (Gyatso, 1990)
Forms of mysticism could also either be transcendent and immanent, apophatic and kataphatic. A nonrelational mysticism such as the Buddhist form is essentially transcendent, while the personalist mysticism of Christianity, Islam, and Judaism is both immanent, as of God’s proximity to the humankind, and transcendent, that is, further than man and outside his comprehension. (Jones et al, 1986) Simultaneously, the understanding of reality is overwhelmingly apophatic meaning that the experienced in an inexpressible method that exceed the competence of logic, understanding, recollection, thoughts, and the senses. Apophatic mysticism is the consequence of the concept of a divine’s transcendence to mankind. To be apophatic denotes to be enigmatic or to be incomprehensible in the current conditions of comprehension. Moreover, it suggests instinctive or circumlocutory ways of understanding that appear to be fundamentally dissimilar from what one have been familiarized to call knowledge. Ultimately regardless of place whether East or West, North or South, the presence of apophatic theology is always focused on the absolute as judiciously arcane, while kataphatic theology take for granted a specific level of balanced knowledge derivative from the absolute’s discernible by itself in the restricted universe. (Griffiths, 1982)
In addition, every established or wholly complete form of mysticism has several elements in common with every other type despite the fat that is in changeable levels of prominence for specific religions. These elements include the aptitude to exist morally, innate peacefulness, harmony with the whole existence and the world itself, a spiritual habit and a responsible self-knowledge, plainness of life, altruistic assistance, and visionary action. (Hammond, Howarth and Russell, 1991) The initial three are introductory temperament, persuasive feelings, and continuing steadfastness; the fourth is the channel of spiritual living, while the only remaining three are the end result.
The ability to live in the bounds of morals is the source of the solid foundation for mysticism when it is realized through the practice in one’s everyday life. When one lives morally in concrete situations, then the moral capacity is actualized. Each religion and spirituality emphasizes this insight. It could be see in the Ten Commandments and in Jesus’ two great commandments or conditions for salvation, “to love God” and one’s “neighbor.” Similarly, it is present in the yogic tradition of Hinduism in the notion of yama (restraint) and niyama (discipline) and in the Eight-Fold Path of the Buddha. The global ethic draws on this foundational role of the moral part of human being and appeals to it. Spiritual life is not possible without moral character, though it is only deemed as the beginning. Examples of this moral capacity at work in Christ, the prophets, the saints of all traditions, the Buddha, Mahavira, Gandhi, Mother Teresa, and the Dalai Lama. (Gyatso, 1990)
Moreover, indisputable spirituality and mysticism have need of a allegiance to deep-rooted nonviolence. This type of nonviolence is comparable to the ahimsa of the Indian tradition as it is brought into being in its Jain, Buddhist, and Hindu categories. (Jones et al, 1986) This variety of non-harming stretch to all sentient beings and to the planet itself; it is not simply a focus on the human species. Deep nonviolence is clearly necessary to the successful growth and development of spirituality and to the emerging global society, because it adjusts our outer actions and inner attitudes to the consistency of compassion and the demands of love.
Another building block of every act of mysticism involves the way of spiritual customs. It is impossible for a system of spirituality to become crucially authentic and efficient without some type of religious restraint that is the process of intimate development in the disposition, temperament, behavior, and devotion of the existence of meaning, profundity, and human sensibleness that is foretasted in the finest of religious experience. (Von Hugel, 1999) Moreover, mystic practices particularly meditative forms of entreaty, reflection, consecrated recitation, or what is called lectio divina in the Christian tradition, which accurately stand for “divine reading,” a soothing, conscious attendance at liturgy and ceremony, an effective partaking in them, music, chanting, yoga, even walking – are all transformative. Moreover, the subsistence of spiritual masters in each tradition demonstrate the recurrent, collective soundness and efficacy of spiritual practice as an assistance to authentic self-understanding and uncompromising inner transformation. All mystic practice is about this internal progress that arrive at the culmination in altruistic affection and empathy. Such mystical practices as chanting the names of God, the numerous types of meditation are all confirmation of overwhelmingly positive consequences that cannot be overlooked. (Jones et al, 1986)
Similarly, mystical practice, which comprises and necessitates self-knowledge, display an altered essence, or nature in the latter three aspects of spirituality within the bounds of simplicity of life, selfless service and prophetic action. (Von Hugel, 1999) These are among the consequences based on action as reflected in every form of mysticism. These stand for the inner assets needed for shifting the course of the humanity such that it could assume its universal responsibility, as the Dalai Lama puts it, for the Earth. (Gyatso, 1990)
Among these inner resources that improves this common responsibility and could affect a critical modification in humankind’s rapport to the milieu and other such issues, is simplicity of life. Mysticism has constantly advocated this value and practice in every form it has understood, more than ever in its austere expressions and other forms of religious life. There is only the dimension of spirituality itself as part of human experience, and its requirements are universal. (Von Hugel, 1999) Simplicity has largely disappeared in the Roman Catholic Church and in most other Christian communions. Priests have become very attached to their material comforts with no spirit of sacrifice in how they use resources. Most religious communities have lost any real sense of poverty. (Watts, 1983) Simplicity of heart and life requires an appreciation of insecurity, vulnerability, marginality, and detachment, which a certain experience of material poverty facilitates. Similarly, true mysticism is always open to service; it never evades it, especially as need arises, but the spiritual life summons us to a selfless kind of service, a form of action that, as the Bhagavad Gita so powerfully emphasizes, does not seek a result: that is, it is not attached to the possible fruits of any action, so it is not performed with any result or purpose in mind other than to respond to the perceived need. (Gyatso, 1990)
Mystical views are not as incompatible as they might first appear however. In fact, many of the issues with which mystics have struggled have begun to present themselves. It seems likely that behavior analysts may at some point find themselves addressing some of these same issues and, in being forewarned, may be better prepared to do so. Moreover, the philosophical category of mysticism encompasses many different traditions. What distinguishes these traditions is not the end to which they are aimed: All mysticisms are inevitably drawn to the same end. Neither do they differ in their fundamental premises, however implicitly these may be contacted. Instead, they differ in the extent to which those premises sustain a consistency throughout; and this in turn reflects their positions along the path to the end.
Furthermore, providing an understanding of mysticism, therefore, entails more than merely characterizing the end to which it is aimed, or to that which is referred to as “mystical experience.” Required, as well, is an understanding of the path by which it may be approached. It is difficult to make sense of a path when its destination is unclear, however.
Reference:
de Caussade, Jean-Pierre (1975) Abandonment to Divine Providence. Image-Doubleday, Garden City, NY.
Griffiths, B. (1982) The Marriage of East and West. Templegate Publishers, Springfield, IL.
Gyatso, T. (1990) the Fourteenth Dalai Lama, The Global Community and the Need for Universal Responsibility. Wisdom Publications, Boston, MA.
Hammond, M., Howarth, J. & Russell, K. (1991). Understanding phenomenology. Oxford, UK & Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishers.
Jones, C. Wainwright, G. and Yarnold, E. eds. (1986), The Study of Spirituality. Oxford University Press. New York
Merleau-Ponty, M. (1981). Phenomenology of perception (C. Smith, Trans.). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. (Original work published in 1962)
Suzuki, D. T. (1964). An introduction to Zen Buddhism. New York: Grove Weindenfeld.
Von Hugel, F. (1999) The Mystical Element of Religion: As Studied by Catherine of Genoa and Her Friends, ed. Michael Downey. Crossroad, New York.
Watts, A. (1983). The way of liberation. New York & Tokyo: Weatherhill.
Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com
0 comments:
Post a Comment