Raids on the IneffableHarmless is a Jesuit Scholar, which shouldn't be an issue. The inclusion of Rumi and Dogen allow for a more comprehensive book, though he could easily have included many other non-Christians and been even more balanced in his account. He likely already knew the work of the six Christian mystics, so only had to do a bit of research for the Rumi and Dogen.
A lucid account of eight mystics refutes the notion that "all religions are the same at the top."
| posted 06/23/08
The word mystic does not bring to mind edifying images for most Christians these days. It smacks of a vapid, Southern California mindset, readily exploited by marketers of tea and juice and such. For the more historically minded, mystic might suggest the wild-haired, unwashed visionaries off in the wilderness—not, in other words, something of much concern to everyday believers as they balance their finances or play catch with their kids.
But true mystics are far from amorphously spiritual. As Bernard McGinn has put it, "no mystic (at least before the present century) believed in or practiced 'mysticism.' They believed in and practiced Christianity (or Judaism, or Islam, or Hinduism), that is, religions that contained mystical elements as part of a wider historical whole." McGinn's work serves as the starting point for William Harmless, a professor of theology at Creighton University, whose new book Mystics is a walk through the lives and teachings of eight great mystics: Thomas Merton, Bernard of Clairvaux, Hildegard of Bingen, Bonaventure, Meister Eckhart, and Evagrius Ponticus from the Christian tradition, as well as the Sufi poet Rumi and the Buddhist divine Dogen.
Harmless opens the book by presenting two contrasting views of mysticism. In the early 15th century, Jean Gerson, chancellor of the University of Paris, wrote a two-volume treatise on the subject, the first scholarly study of mysticism. The title alone, On Mystical Theology, shows his view: Mysticism is theology, but more personal and experiential than the scholastic theology of the academy. Gerson defines this mystical theology as "an experiential knowledge of God that comes through the embrace of unitive love," and he offers a robustly evocative account of the mystics' writings: "They talk of a jubilation beyond the spirit, of being taken into a divine darkness, of tasting God, of embracing the bridegroom, of kissing him, of being born of God, of obeying his word, of being brought into the divine cellars, of being drunk in a torrent of delight, of running into an odor of his perfumes, of hearing his voice, and entering into the bedroom, and of finding sleep and rest in peace with him."
A second approach is represented by the modern American philosopher William James and his enormously influential Gifford lectures, published under the title The Varieties of Religious Experience. James believed religion to be a matter of personal experience, not ideas: "The mother sea and fountain-head of all religions lie in the mystical experience of the individual." The sacred history, tradition, scriptures, and rituals of particular religions are all local outgrowths from this universal experience, and are not necessary for understanding it. At first glance, James' approach may appear to be quite similar to Gerson's: both emphasize the experiential character of mysticism. But for James, in contrast to Gerson, theology is strictly epiphenomenal.
Harmless' own view is squarely, though respectfully, opposed to James'. Indeed, he writes, "James treats history as though it were a stream to be stepped over instead of an ocean we swim in." As Harmless leads readers through the writings of his eight mystics, he gives the context surrounding each author's writing and shows how necessary that context—in all its ritualistic, theological, and historical fullness—is for understanding mysticism.
A college level teacher at Amazon reviewed the book favorably -- and he teachers mysticism classes.
Harmless' final chapter, in which he explores the question of how best to define mysticism, is the single best short analysis I've ever read. Consistent with his fondness for the case study method, Harmless argues for an understanding of mysticism that recognizes both religious pluralism and changing historical concepts--that recognizes, in other words, mysticism as a "macro-concept" that avoids the "bloating" that comes either from seeing it as the experiential foundation of religion in general or from insisting that all mystical experiences are cut from the same cloth. He also has some interesting things to say about the boundaries of mystical experience--that is, whether a nonreligious one is possible.Sounds like a good book. Here is the section from the Books & Culture review that mentions Dogen:
Dogen was a similarly controversial figure in 13th-century Buddhism, the founder of the Soto sect. His primary teaching was the practice of zazen as a means "to drop off body-mind." One would sit without thinking, but also without not-thinking. Instead, one would practice nonthinking. Once again, Harmless is adept in deciphering what this might mean: "Nonthinking, it seems, lies beyond both thinking and not-thinking; it 'neither affirms nor denies, accepts nor rejects, believes nor disbelieves'; it is presencing, a realizing of the 'pure presence of things as they are.' " This kind of mystical practice, Dogen teaches, would reveal true human nature and give its practitioner an experience of what Harmless calls "ultimate reality." So far Dogen's teaching aligns with traditional Buddhist doctrines, but he departs from them in his definition of what has sacred dignity—what is known in Buddhism as "Buddha-nature." Christians limit sacred dignity to human beings, and traditional Buddhists limit Buddha-nature to sentient beings, but Dogen extends it to all things. In other words, everything has an innate holiness. Traditional Buddhism also teaches that one should flee the impermanence of the world and seek the purity of Buddha-nature, which does not change. Dogen, however, teaches the exact opposite: the world in its impermanence is Buddha-nature.The version of Buddhism presented here is not what I have learned. But that is to be expected when a Catholic tries to interpret Buddhism through the lens of his own worldview. All things have Buddhanature - the whole Kosmos.
2 comments:
WH: "The version of Buddhism presented here is not what I have learned."
That's not because you're Catholic.:-) Indeed, most Buddhist traditions would miss the Buddha-nature in everything, namely immanence without limitation. But Dogen is giving it as it should be, delimiting "sentience" in such way, and so does the Japanese tantric tradition.
Thanks for Harmless.
Thanks for the post. In general, the notion that "all mystical experiences are the same at top" is reflexively dismissed by scholars of mysticism working in academia today, so far as I know. Rightly so, I think. And you are correct that this view is damaging, if not fatal, to the perennial philosophy of, say, Huxley. But it doesn't touch Ken Wilber's view of mystical experience as tetraarising in four quadrants at all, because his view doesn't deny that every experience "at the top" is inherently, deeply, irreducibly culturally shaped.
Post a Comment