| |
|
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.
>
Read
Krishna Part 1 as Web Page |
48k
text
|
|
