Marie Claire P. Mandar 2013-52151 Philo 1 X5-2 Reaction Paper: Essays on Mysticism
July 21, 2015
Are Men Ever Ever Directly Directly Aware Aware of God? God? By William James Summary
In the article Are Men Ever Directly Aware of God , William James considered ‘mystical states of consciousness ’ as the center and source of personal religious
experiences which involves variety of understandings, from the spiritual to the most faithfully insightful. He wrote his paper by producing a valid subject of examination and study by defining mystical states of consciousness as "real" experiences, which is accessible to most people. The words “mysticism” and “mystical” are terms often used when throwing opinions that are regarded as vague, vast and sentimental. And to prevent verbal argument and criticism of the loosely-defined words - 'mysticism' and 'mystical', he proposed four marks that an experience must have to be considered one.
First is ineffability which stresses the defiance of expression, that no adequate report of its contents can be given in words, to avoid it from being classified as a state of intellect but rather to classify it as a state of feeling. Moreover, according to James, it must be directly experienced and it cannot be imparted or transferred to others. Second is Noetic quality, which is also a lot similar to states of feeling. But mystics do not only experience it as such, they also experience it as states of knowledge. They are, according to him, states of perception into depths of truth unfathomable by the broad
understanding. They are illuminations, revelations, full of significance and importance. The third one is transiency. It refers to the mystical states that cannot be sustained for long. It disappears fast and remains out of reach. The fourth and last one, passivity, is when in a mystical experience; people do not appear to clearly process data. It is when the subject feels a loss of control, and of being in the grip of higher command. These four forms a distinct area of consciousness.
He gave examples that are related to the influence of poetry, music, and the art. Another example given that happens quite frequently to humans is déjà vu, or the feeling of “having been here before ”. James also gave examples of situations from people who have experienced mystical consciousness. One example is from a person who describes being visited by trance states in which his/her awareness of the world was annihilated, leaving sharp awareness of his own self. This situation is similar to what we call today a drug-induced state, where the consciousness is produced by intoxicants and anesthetics, especially alcohol. James also added his own experience of being intoxicated by nitrous oxide, which has led him to the conclusion that our walking consciousness is only one of the many types of consciousness that we humans have.
William James completes his analysis by looking at methodical cultivation as a component of religious life. Hindus, Buddhists, Mohammedans, and Christians all have cultivated it methodically. He stated in the article that in India, training in mystical insight has been known ever since the ancient times under the name of yoga. Yoga means the
experimental union of the individual with the divine. It constitutes persevering exercises; and the diet, posture, breathing, intellectual concentration, and moral discipline, which varies slightly differently depending on the systems which teach it. The Vedantists believe that a person can rarely discover superconsciousness without doing yoga, but they believe that doing that is impure. It will only be pure if its end results are good for life. The Buddhists used the word “dhyâna”, for the higher levels of contemplation which
has four stages.
The mystical theology of Catholicism is demonstrated by three Iberian mystics – St. John of the Cross, St. Ignatius Loyola, and Saint Teresa of Avila. William James dwelled on two concerns which are sense of revelation and tonic effects of mystical states, which are referred to as Illusion and Ecstasy, respectively. The basis of their experiences is the “orison”, the methodical elevation of the sou l towards God. According
to Saint Teresa, t he highest of these “orisons” is the “orison of union” where t he soul is fully awake regarding God.
Five negatives have been described in the essay but despite this, James seems to see that the main advantage in all this is an overcoming of all the usual barriers between the individuals and the Absolute. Both parties are aware that there exist a union between them.
In conclusion, James suggests that mystical experiences, when viewed overall, are broad in moral content and that mystical experiences prevent us from discarding
straightaway the possibility of a world beyond our senses. He explains that all mystical experience, whether positive or negative, deserves acknowledgment as existing states of consciousness.
Reaction
William James’ approach is subjective rather than objective and he makes valid points on how we should judge the claims made by other people. It was right to respect the personal belief of serious spiritual believers and it is also right that what they believe to be true should not be forcedly imposed on anyone for them to accept as true.
Evaluating religion whether it is a good social force is the task set by James for himself. He eventually concluded that it is, though with some important cautions. This leaves us with a vital account of what religion really means and the way in which it is or can be tangled with social, political and other factors. It shows us that religion in its core is not the source behind all the world's evil and or good.
In James’ paper, religion was scrutinized from a purely realistic viewpoint. It focused on the distinct link of one individual to the divine. Moreover, it was notable that the characteristics of religious experience were connected to a range of other phenomena such as drunkenness, ghostly visions, optimism and diseases without any anti-religious representation.
I agree that mystical states have the right to be absolutely authoritative over the individuals they come to. But it depends on the person who experiences these mystical things whether he will acknowledge what had happened to him or her as a mystical experience or not. If the event happened to a man of science or a rational person, then he would not think too much of it and would just shrug it off and call it an illusion, or a
hallucination. But if it happened to a truly religious person then he would deem that happening as a mystical experience and would think that the divine one has graced him of his holiness. The decision is on the person and other people should not interfere to avoid biases and conflicts of opinion.
I guess this article is not just an evaluation but a search for the rightfulness of religion, its reality, and the unity within it. The article is a technical and theoretical look at religion and one that does not solely address faith as trash.
A Skeptical View of Mysticism By Bertrand Russell Summary
The article written by Bertrand Russell entitled A Skeptical View of Mysticism talks about the credibility of the assertions made by the mystics as compared to those made by scientists. Mystics argue that we believe the assertions made by the scientists even if we did not see them for ourselves. Why then, should we not believe the assertions they made when they are, according to them, equally undoubtable?
It was mentioned in the article that when a scientist tells the public the result of his experiment, he also tells them how the experiment was performed; others will be able to repeat it and see for themselves if the scientist ’s end result will be the same as theirs, and if the results are different, the result will not be accepted as true. But in another case, when men put themselves in a situation in which the mystic’s vision
occurred, it is possible that they will not obtain the same revelation. The mystic himself may be certain that he knows and has no need for scientific tests, but those who are asked to accept his claim will subject it to a series of steps in order to prove if it is true. This means that the claims made by scientists have a higher percentage of credibility than that made by mystics because they can be proven to be true or false. And taking the words from the article, “science depends upon perception and inference; its credibility is due to the fact that the perceptions are such as any observer can test”.
Mystics also argue with themselves because of the differences in their views due to different experiences but according to Russell as said in the article, there are certain points that all successful mystics agree on: 1) that all division and separateness is unreal, and that the universe is a single indivisible unity; 2) that evil is illusory, and that the illusion arises through falsely regarding a part as self-subsistent; 3) that time is unreal, and that reality is eternal, not in the sense of being everlasting, but in the sense of being wholly outside time.
The statement “time is unreal ” was discussed and made clear thoroughly in the
article. It was said there that if time is unreal, we will have to suppose that there are no “events” at all. There will be no distinction between improvement and deterioration and
the order of being born, then growing up and eventually dying will be just as false as the reverse of the order stated above. If this is view is true, it was said that it will put an end not only to science, but also to hope, prudence, and effort. Lastly, it will be incompatible with worldly wisdom and morality --- which is most important in religion.
Mystics, most of them, do not wholly accept all of the conclusions stated above, but they urge doctrines which these conclusions inevitably follow. That it is why Dean Inge rejects the kind of religion that appeals to evolution, because it lays too much stress upon a temporal process. According to Dean Inge, “There is no law of progress,
and there is no uni versal progress.” Dean Inge also says that the doctrine of automatic and universal progress has the disadvantage of being disproved. Russell finds himself
in agreement with Dean Inge in this matter but stated that Dean Inge does not draw from his grounds all the conclusions which seem to him to be acceptable.
It was also discussed in the article how mysticism seeks to avoid the extreme consequences which followed the denial of time. Parmenides introduced into metaphysics the distinction between reality and appearance, or the way of truth and the way of opinion, as he calls them. Since the world appears to be in time, people who deny the reality of time must introduce such distinction. But if reality and appearance is made too close, all the unpleasant features of appearance will have their unpleasant counterparts in reality, and if the relationship between the two is made too distant, we shall be unable to make assumptions from the character of appearance to that of reality, and reality will become a vague Unknowable, according to Herbert Spencer. For Christians, there is a related difficulty of avoiding pantheism. If the world is only “apparent”, God would not have created anything and the reality of the world is part of
God, but if the world is real and separate from God, then we are obliged to presume that the evil which the world contains is also real. The Bishop of Birmingham says that all forms of pantheism must be rejected because if a man is actually part of God then that would mean that the evil in man is also part of God.
Russel believes that when the mystics compare “reality” with “appearance”, the word “reality” has not a logical, but an emotional impact. Instead of saying that time is “unreal”, what should be said is that in some sense and occ asions, it would be important
to think of the universe as a whole just like what the Creator, if He existed, must have
thought when he decided to create it. Believing this, the past, present, and future all exist together. When such an understanding is acknowledged, it would be acceptable to think that mysticism expresses an emotion and not a fact; it does not claim anything, and therefore can neither be confirmed nor disproved by science.
When a man of science wishes others to see what he had observed, he makes changes in the external world, but demands from the observer only normal eyesight. The mystic, on the other hand, demands changes in the observer, by practicing what they do --- fasting, breathing exercises --- and by refraining from external observation.
Russell believes that observations made or visions experienced in an abnormal physical condition are all abnormal perceptions. He is certain that assertions are inessential and there is no reason to believe them to be true.
Reaction:
According to the essay written by Russell, the first thing that most successful mystics agree on is that “all division and separateness is unreal, and that the universe is a single indivisible unity” but despite this consensus, most of the wars, disputes, and
tragedies that happened in the world came from the reason that mystics with different views and experiences do not agree with one another, that their own religion is the
absolute religion. Take for example the Jihads, the crusades, or the World War III. I mean yes, they agree that the universe is one but the fact that they themselves do not follow this is confusing for me. The three I have stated above have resulted in a lot of deaths. These conflicts happened in the past because of the differences between religions. Even now in the present time there are still conflicts which are caused by religious differences.
The things claimed by the mystics are all based in their beliefs. In the essay it is said that the Catholics have visions of the Virgin, Christians and Mohammedans had truths uncovered to them by Archangel Gabriel. Why is it that only the people who share the same belief have the same revelations revealed to them? How did they know that the one who delivered them the message was the Virgin or Archangel Gabriel? How are we supposed to know that all of those are true and not make-believe stories? They would think that it must be because of their strong beliefs and faith that they have received such revelations. Who knows? Maybe they are just fooling themselves in claiming that what they have seen are visions and not mere hallucinations. The second thing the mystics agree on is that “evil is illusory, and that the illusion arises through falsely regarding a part as self-subsistent ”. If evil is just an illusion then what will the word “evil ” written in the Holy Bible of the Christian Church be referring to? If it is true that evil is illusory then the word “evil” will be meaningless. What about the concept of Heaven and Hell? It was said that all “evil” belongs in Hell. If there is no “evil” then what would be inside Hell? Will it be just an empty space? Does that mean that these religions are just deceiving us with regards to these concepts?
And the third and the last thing that most successful mystics agree on is that “time is unreal, and that reality is eternal, not in the sense of being everlasting, but in the
sense of being wholly outside time ”. This, for me, is quite mind-boggling because if I assume that time is unreal, then there will be no proper order of things, and the universe will surely be chaotic. A lot of things, especially the people ’s lives, will be greatly affected. Predictions will have no sense because there is no future. Science will be close to nothing because time is very important in conducting experiments which proves the claims made by scientists. If it is true that time is imaginary, there would be no such thing as respect for the elderly, which is a doctrine that us as Filipinos follow, for we do not know who of us is older or younger. It would be pointless to work hard on something; not knowing what it would produce or what you will achieve in the end. Furthermore, how can you be outside time or not exist in time?
References: James, William. Are Men Ever Directly Aware of God?. Lectures XVI & XVII Mysticism, of the Varieties of Religious Experience. 1902 Russell, Bertrand. A Skeptical View of Mysticism. Religion and Science(1905). Chapter VII Mysticism. http://www.ukessays.com/essays/philosophy/what-is-the-ultimate-basis-of-religiousbelief-philosophy-essay.php
