Mysticism and Religion

Transcription

1 Mysticism and Religion Objective: This module seeks to explain the concepts of Mysticism and Religion and the subtle differences between them. Mysticism: Religion is the basic awakening of consciousness in man, which is an imperfect groping in the dark in an effort to have a glimpse of the Infinite. The earliest religion, the Sanatana Dharma of India, was not divisive, it was inclusive in its all-embracing gesture towards humanity. In course of time, religion was distorted and became divided into numerous sects. Mysticism, on the contrary, is common to humanity and is accessible to every individual. It is basically a private experience of a man or a woman to realise the Infinite in one's own individual way. It is founded on mystic experiences, which go beyond the Intellect, towards the province of Intuition, which is the real source of knowledge, according to many critics, poets and yoga-psychologists, from Heraclitus down to Jiddu Krishnamurti. There had been in fact, a lot of speculations regarding the notion of mysticism since antiquity. It had often been equated with religion or religious sentiment or spirituality. Some critics had associated mysticism with clairvoyance, paranormal experience and psychism (J.D. Marquette, 1949: 21). The term has its origin in the classical antiquity, when it denoted mysteries of faith or secret rites. Critics believe that it had derived from the Greek adjective mystikos meaning rituals, sacraments, scriptures and theology and the term became popular in the seventeenth century. But a kind of vagueness had always been associated with this term. Many had attempted to clarify this term with examples for ages. By the beginning of the twentieth century, the focus had shifted from the sociocultural context of the term to the individual perception of ultimate reality. The first clear articulation on mysticism had been made by William James in his book entitled The Varieties of Religious Experience: A Study in Human Nature, which was published in It is a series of lectures, which he had delivered at the University of Edinburgh in 1901 and According to William James, there are four obvious features, which characterise the mystic realisation. They are: Ineffability, Noetic Quality, Transiency and Passivity. By ineffability, James means that it is inexpressible. it defies expression, that no adequate report of its contents can be given in words (1902:380). Jacques De Marquette explains that a mystic finds it difficult to convey his/her experiences (1949:22). The second characteristic is noetic quality, which means revelations and illuminations. They are states of insight into depths of truth unplumbed by the discursive intellect (380). The third is transiency meaning that the mystical experience cannot be sustained for long. The experience is fleeting. The final characteristic is passivity. It is a condition for mystical enlightenment because the mystic has to surrender to a power beyond his individual consciousness. In a state of passivity, the mystic 1

2 feels that his own will is in a state of abeyance and he is under the spell of a superior power (381). These four characteristics of mysticism had provided a platform for all the critics of later days. In fact, the leading critics of mysticism like Evelyn Underhill, Walter T. Stace, Rufus Jones, Margaret Lewis Furse and Jacques De Marquette collectively opine that it is a kind of transcendental consciousness or a state of ecstasy, which culminates into the feeling cosmic consciousness leading to oneness. It elevates the mundane self-awareness of an individual. This feeling of ecstasy, to some critics, is flared up either by a natural sight or an incident. Malwida von Meysenbug says: I was alone upon the seashore as all these thoughts flowed over me, liberating and reconciling; I was impelled to kneel down, this time before the illimitable ocean, symbol of Infinite. I felt that I prayed as I had never prayed before (James, 1902:395). This is an example of mystical experience, which cannot be explained in terms of reason. At the same time, we cannot call it an intellectual experience, rather this is an intuitive realisation, which is flickered by a vision. A mystic is a seer of life, who is gifted with an extraordinary sight. He is able to see the essential truth of Nature by virtue of his integrating power. Mysticism has been classified as extrovertive mystical experience and introvertive mystical experience by the critics like Rudolph Otto and Walter T Stace in their books entitled Mysticism East and West (1932) and Teachings of the Mystic (1960) respectively. According to them, extrovertive approach moves towards the external world in search of unity with the One, whereas the introvertive approach asks us to look inward in search of the unity with the self or the soul. We can say that extrovertive way propagates cosmic unity or a feeling of identification with every aspect of Nature. Otto defines it as a way of unifying vision. The introvertive approach is synonymous with introspection. It is to be one with one s soul or the true essence of being, which is devoid of ego and other gross emotions like pride, vanity, hatred and jealousy. Our true self is always governed by the principle of love, an all-embracing love. The mystic realises that by virtue of his intuitive self-awareness. In fact, all the mystic poets of all ages had spoken of unity in their poetry and songs. However, we can refute this with reference to Plotinus and Sri Aurobindo. Both of them accept the external world as a reality and link the inner and the outer. The extrovertive and the introvertive mysticism are not exactly contradictory but complementary. One way is to go inside oneself to discover the secret of harmony with the self. The other is to look outside of oneself and find the awareness of identity with the whole universe, which is analogous to cosmic consciousness and V.K. Chari calls it the mystic s unifying vision that obliterates distinction. The unitive vision of the external reality helps the mystic to connect with his or her true self. R.M. Bucke defines it as cosmic consciousness and he explains it as: is a consciousness of the cosmos that is life and order of the universe. Along with the consciousness of the cosmos there occurs and intellectual enlightenment or illumination which alone would place the individual on a new plane of existence would make him almost a member of a new species. To this is added a state of moral exaltation, elation and joyousness, a quickening of the moral sense (Roy, 1991:30). 2

3 Bucke s explanation is quite similar to that of Sri Aurobindo s idea but moral exaltation and moral sense have no role to play in Aurobindonian idea of cosmic consciousness. Mysticism is intuitive enlightenment. The widening of consciousness is an intuitive perception of the cosmos, which integrates the mystic with his own soul. It is a process of discovering the outer world gradually inside one's soul. Extrovertive approach or cosmic consciousness finally leads us to the core of our being and we become introvertive. It is as if the mystic moves from the outer to the inner reality. The basic principle upon which the entire body of Sri Aurobindo's mysticism rests is that Matter as well as Spirit is to be seen as real. Sisir Kumar Maitra observes: It will not do therefore for philosophy to ignore Matter as it will not do for it to ignore Spirit. (Maitra, 2012:1). The inner and the outer should be integrated by one central unifying vision. That is the essence of proper mysticism. Let me cite examples from Whitman, Vivekananda and Sri Aurobindo to clarify this proposition: Whitman says: I take part, I see and hear the whole. Vivekananda says: He who is in you and outside you, who works though all hands. Sri Aurobindo says: I have wrapped the wide world in my wider self. In all the three examples from their poetry, we see this image of integration of the inner and the outer. William Ralph Inge also combines both the aspects very precisely in his book entitled Christian Mysticism, Mysticism may be defined as the attempt to realise the presence of the living God in the soul and in nature, or, more generally, as the attempt to realise in thought and feeling, the immanence of the temporal and in the eternal, and of the eternal in the temporal (Furse, 1977: 161). Religion: According to sociologist, Emile Durkheim, religion is a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things, that is to say, things set apart and forbidden beliefs and practices which unite in one single moral community called a Church, all those who adhere to them. Here we see that unlike William James, Durkheim opines that practice of religion is either a communal or collective activity, which binds the people sharing the same faith and religious beliefs. On the contrary, mysticism is an individual experience as defined by the critics like William James, Rufus Jones and Evelyn Underhill. The concept of religion came into use in the seventeenth century. The ancient scriptures and texts like the Bible, the Quran and the Vedas did not propagate any religion in particular. However, the term had derived from the Latin root religio meaning respect for what is sacred. Some critics believe that it has originated from the term religare meaning to bind or to connect. The writers of Greco-Roman period had used a specific term for religion. That was threskeia, by which they meant worship. The reference of this term is also found in the New Testament. In the holy Quran, the word din is used interchangeably with religion. But it meant law. Sometimes, it was understood as equivalent to morality coupled with a belief in God, sometimes it meant a set of pietistic actions and emotions. So we see that religion had never been understood as a particular system of faith and worship in the past. There had been no precise equivalent of the term religion till the nineteenth century. The Sanskrit word dharma had often been used as religion. But it means either law or principle. Often there is also a tendency to equate religion either with faith or a set of duties. But faith is singularly private whereas religion is something eminently social or collective thing. Durkheim 3

4 has precisely pointed out the sociological aspect of religion in his discourses. According to him, religion is disciplinary, cohesive, vitalizing and euphoric social force. In fact, this is very true as we see that it is a great uniting force. Religious rites offer a social bonding. People belonging to same religion congregate at one place for celebration, which reinforces the bonding and solidarity leading to group cohesiveness. One can preserve and uphold the age old beliefs and customs of a particular religion for future generation through the celebration of rituals. Religion also imposes the principles of discipline, morality and asceticism. Religion is also euphoric in the sense as it helps us to counter sorrow and frustration. We pray to deities in times of distress. Idols and images help us to worship the particular deities. Over all, each religion is unique because of its distinct beliefs, rituals, practices and ceremonies. It promotes a kind of collective consciousness. According to Sri Aurobindo, there are two aspects of religion: true religion and religionism. True religion deals with surrender of ego, compassion and tolerance. Whereas religionism deals with some narrow pietistic activities, intellectual dogmas, forms and ceremonies and the stress is on some rigid moral codes. The true religion can be equated with the transcendental aspect of religion, which is the essence or soul of every religion. The religionism is synonymous with the phenomenal aspect of religion emphasizing religious rites, external forms of worship and certain social codes and thus it takes the form of an institution and serves as a uniting force among the believers of the same religion. Sometimes, we see that the phenomenal aspects of religion are very rigid and impose different moral codes on the believers. There is also another aspect of religion, which is called the metaphysical aspect dealing with the theological issues of any particular religion. Theology, as we know, comprises of the beliefs and provides the foundation of any religion. More precisely, it comes in between the transcendental aspect and the phenomenal aspect. Here, we have to remember that whatever may be the theological differences 4

5 among various religions, the universal values of the true religion remain same in every religion. No religion will ever advocate intolerance, fanaticism and hatred. All the religions of the world are phenomenally different. In reality, we see that the transcendental aspects of religion elevate our consciousness and the phenomenal aspects of religion promote ethnocentric behaviour leading us towards intolerance. People fight in the name of institutions like church, temple and mosque. But neither Christianity, nor Hinduism nor Islam teaches us to despise others. We forget the transcendental aspects of religion and we embrace the phenomenal aspects, which make us egoistic. Swami Vivekananda had rightly said: Nothing has made the brotherhood of man more tangible, nothing has made more bitter enmity between men than religion Nothing has deluged the world with more blood than religion... (CW, Vol.II:360). Here is the paradox and the religion has become a disintegrating force instead of a uniting force. Humanity has forgotten the basic principle that different religions follow different paths to reach the same goal. It starts with idol-worship and culminates into the contemplation of the formless One. Religionism basically prepares us to embrace the true essence of religion based on allembracing love, compassion and tolerance. To be religious is to be tolerant. All the religions are same. There is no hierarchy. All the religions of the world should be placed on a horizontal scale. The true religion is the religion of man. Swami Vivekananda and Rabindranath Tagore had spoken of it time and again. Swami ji in his address delivered World Parliament of Religion, Chicago, says that the different streams have different sources but they all mingle in the sea. Similarly, human beings take different paths to reach the Lord. And then he quotes from the Gita: Whosoever comes to Me, through whatsoever form, I reach him; all men are struggling through paths which in the end lead to me. He then says that sectarianism, bigotry and fanaticism have only filled the earth with violence, bloodshed and destruction, which hinders the progress of any nation. Rabindranath Tagore also advocates the same thing in his seminal text entitled The Religion of Man. It is in fact the most relevant text with reference to his concern for the unity of humanity and the possibility in man to bring about that unity. In many ways it has a close relation with Sri Aurobindo's text The Ideal of Human Unity, which also seeks to find universal harmony. The divinity in man is the clue to the future possibility of a common religion of man. As Tagore rightly puts it at the very outset: The idea of the humanity of our God, or the divinity of Man the Eternal, is the main subject of this book (Tagore, 2012:5). At quite a few places of the same text, he refers to the ancient prophet Zarathustra, who too had spoken of human unity in the 10 th Century BCE. So we see that the true essence of religion had always been there for ages. We had distorted the image of it by our separatist ego and sectarian attitude. We have to remember that we live in a pluralistic world with different ethnic groups and different cultures. In spite of these differences, we are after all human beings and in order to be human, we have to be humane. This would lead us towards global peace, harmony and unity. Mysticism and Religion: Quite a few critics in the past have equated mysticism with religion. In fact, William James has also referred to mysticism as religious experience in his cult text, Varieties of Religious 5

6 Experience. Louis Dupré, says that mystical union is the fundamental principle of religion as it without the flavor of mysticism, religion will end up as arid ritualism. But we have to remember that mysticism is not religious experience. Religion is more related to rituals, beliefs and worship of deities of different religions. We can say that religion is the basis of our mystical experiences and spiritual illumination. According to William Ralph Inge and Jacques De Marquette, mysticism has its origin in religion. We can say that initiation to religion prepares one for the mystic realisation. As if it is the stepping stone to enter the higher zone of awareness. Rabindranath Tagore says that his religion is neither that of an orthodox man of piety nor that of a theologian. It is the religion of a poet and he subsequently describes an experience: a sudden breeze of religious experience for the first time came to my life and passed away leaving in my memory a direct message of spiritual reality. One day while I stood watching at early dawn the sun sending out its ray from behind the trees, I suddenly felt as if some ancient mist had in a moment lifted from my sight, and the morning light on the face of the world revealed an inner radiance of joy that which was memorable in this experience was its human message, the sudden expansion of consciousness (Tagore, 2012: 87). This is an example of mystical experience. But Tagore also refers to it as both religious and spiritual. But there are subtle differences between mysticism and religion. Mysticism leads to the expansion of consciousness culminating into all-embracing cosmic consciousness. In other words, it is an intuitive experience, which liberates us from ordinary and mundane levels of existence and helps us to integrate with our inner selves and the every aspect of the cosmos as well. Religion is not an experience or realisation. It involves practice and following of some rites, which in fact, make one moral and disciplined. At the same time, it controls one s behaviour as well. From the mid-19 th century onwards, there had been an emphasis on individual experiences and perceptions rather than on the theological issues pertaining to religion. Unlike religion, mysticism has nothing to do with theology. Mysticism aims at essential union with the absolute. We can say that romantic idea of pantheism comes close to mysticism. We also have to remember that it has nothing to do with ratiocination and intellect. It is an intuitive experience. Evelyn Underhill says: mystics find the basis of their method not in logic but in life their theory of knowledge is that the spirit of man, itself essentially divine, is capable of immediate communion with God, the One Reality... (Underhill, 1945: 24). She also refers to James s argument that it is of vision rather than of argument. A mystic is a seer. Like the romantics, she too stresses on individual perception of the absolute. It is basically the vision of the absolute in Nature and in us as well. We can equate it with non-dualistic approach as well. 6

7 At the same time, mysticism is purely a subjective experience. It has nothing to do with collective experience. Each mystic experiences the ultimate reality in his own way and the expression also differs from other mystics. Poets like Whitman, Tagore and Sri Aurobindo express the state of mystical experiences in poetry and songs. Emerson and Krishnamurti reveal it in poetic proses. The expression of religious sentiment does not have any variety. People belonging to same religion follow the same rites in the same manner. It has a devotional fervor and moral sentiment. Religion curbs our freedom and mysticism transcends us beyond the rites of religion. It is high time that humanity should embrace true religion of man based on the principles of love, freedom and tolerance leading to the mystic realisation. References: Aurobindo, Sri. SABCL* Vol. 15. Pondicherry: Sri Aurobindo Ashram, 1971 SABCL Vol. 18. Pondicherry: Sri Aurobindo Ashram, 1970 Chattpadhyaya, Gauri et al (eds). Perspectives On Comparative Religion. Sagar-M.P.: Vishwavidyalaya Prakashan, 2008 Colledge, Ray. Mastering World Religions. England: Palgrave Master Series, 1999 Furse, Margaret Lewis. Mysticism: Window on a World View. Nashville: Abingdon, 1977 James, Williams. The Varieties of Religious Experience: A Study In Human Nature. Longman, Green, And Co: New York, 1902 Lewis A. Coser. The Sociology of Religion. Masters of Sociological Thought: Ideasin Historical and Social Context. 2 nd Ed. Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc., 1977, pp [ Maitra, S.K. An Introduction to Sri Aurobindo s Philosophy. Pondicherry: Sri Aurobindo Ashram, 2012 Marquette, Jacques De. Introduction to Comparative Mysticism. New York: Philosophical Library, 1949 Otto, Rudolph. Mysticism: East and West-A Comparative Analysis of the Nature of Mysticism. USA: Theosophical Publication House, 1932 Parrinder, Geoffrey. Comparative Religion. London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd, 1962 Roy, Sumita. Consciousness and Creativity: A Study of Sri Aurobindo, T.S. Eliot and Aldous Huxley. Delhi: Sterling Publishers, 1991 Spencer, Sidney. Mysticism in World Religion. London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd, 1963 Stace, Walter T. The Teachings of the Mystics. The New American Library: New York,

8 Tagore, Rabindranath. Religion of Man. New Delhi: Niogy Books, 2012 Underhill, Evelyn. Mysticism: A Study in the Nature and Development of Man s Spiritual Consciousness. London: Methuen & Co. Ltd, 1911 Vivekananda, Swami. The Way to the Realisation of a Universal Religion, Complete Works, Vol.II. Mayavati Memorial Edition. Kolkata: Advaita Ashrama, 2005, pp Whitman, Walt. Leaves of Grass. Norton Critical Edition** *SABCL: Sri Aurobindo Birth Centenary Library, Vol. 15-Social Political Thought, Vol. 18-The Life Divine ** Leaves of Grass: Authoritative Texts- Prefaces-Whitman On His Art-Criticism. Eds. Sculley Bradley and Harold W. Blodgett. Pub by W.W. Norton & Company,