No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 24 October 2008
Some scholars have responded to the apparent differences between monistic and theistic mysticisms by emphasizing the role of socio-religious interpretations of the experiences. Both monistic and theistic experiences, they point out, are described as wholly unlike normal sensory events. These mystics claim to go beyond the usual categories of cognition; the experiences are said to be spaceless and timeless realizations which, though not strictly ineffable, defy precise and positive description. Moreover, the mystical exercises – the spiritual training and mental preparation – seem similar for both theistic and monistic mystics. Common mystical means, along with the cessation of normal categories of interpretation during the experiences, suggest that mystics interpret a singular experience type according to their particular theological or philosophical background.
1 Evelyn, Underhill, Mysticism (New York: New American Library, 1974), esp. pp. 95 and 418–19Google Scholar.
2 Stace, W. T., Mysticism and Philosophy (London: Macmillan, 1961)Google Scholar.
3 Zaehner, R. C., Mysticism: Sacred and Profane (New York: Oxford University Press, 1961),Google Scholar and Ninian, Smart, ‘Interpretation and Mystical Experience’, Religious Studies, 1 (1965), pp. 75–87Google Scholar.
4 These views are most notably expressed by Steven Katz and John Hick. I will not be addressing the issues associated with these constructivist perspectives in this paper; I direct the reader to ‘Constructivist Epistemologies of Mysticism; a Critique and a Revision’, Religious Studies, XXVIII (1992), 107–16,Google Scholar where I develop the problems of these views. Also in that paper I propose the epistemological basis for the types of introvertive experiences clarified here.
5 Barnes, L. Philip, ‘Introvertive Mystical Experience’, The Scottish Journal of Religious Studies, XI (Spring 1990), 5–17,Google Scholar and Davis, Caroline Franks, The Evidential Force of Religious Experience (Oxford: University Press, 1990), esp. p. 178Google Scholar.
6 See Ninian Smart, ‘Interpretation and Mystical Experience’, esp. p. 83.
7 See Ninian, Smart, Reasons and Faiths (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1958), pp. 132–47,Google Scholar and ‘The Purification of Consciousness and the Negative Path’, in Mysticism and Religious Traditions, Steven Katz, ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1983), especially p. 117Google Scholar.
8 Stace, , Mysticism and Philosophy, pp. 95–7Google Scholar. Stace's emphases.
9 Stace, , Mysticism and Philosophy, pp. 98 and 99Google Scholar. Stace's emphases.
10 Matthew, Fox, ed., Breakthrough: Meister Eckhart's Creation Spirituality in New Translation (New York: Doubleday, 1980), p. 328Google Scholar.
11 Stace, , Mysticism and Philosophy, pp. 95–6Google Scholar.
12 Fox, , Breakthrough, p. 76Google Scholar.
13 Fox, , Breakthrough, p. 77Google Scholar.
14 Jan Van, Ruusbroec, The Spiritual Espousals, Eric Colledge, tr. (New York: Harper and Row, 1953), pp. 101–2Google Scholar.
15 Ruysbroek, The Spiritual Espousals, see esp. Book II.
16 Fox, , Breakthrough, pp. 92–3Google Scholar.
17 Fox, , Breakthrough, p. 375Google Scholar.
18 Fox, , Breakthrough, pp. 304–5Google Scholar.
19 Fox, , Breakthrough, p. 395Google Scholar.
20 As quoted by Forman, Robert K. C. in ‘Eckhart, Gezucken, and the Ground of the Soul’, The Problem of Pure Consciousness (New York: Oxford University Press, 1990), p. 111Google Scholar. In this essay Forman associates Eckhart's use of the term Gezucken (enraptured) with the monistic, pure-consciousness experience, and he illustrates the non-relational and non-intentional structures of Eckhart's descriptions of these events.
21 Fox, , Breakthrough, p. 93Google Scholar.
22 Lanzetta, Beverly J., ‘Three Categories of Nothingness in Eckhart’, The Journal of Religion, LXXII, 2 (Spring 1992), p. 262Google Scholar.
23 Fox, , Breakthrough, p. 169Google Scholar.
24 Ruusbroec, , The Spiritual Espousals, p. 147Google Scholar.
25 Ruusbroec, , The Spiritual Espousals, p. 158Google Scholar.
26 Louis, Dupré, ‘The Christian Experience of Mystical Union’, The Journal of Religion, LIX, 1 (01 1989), 9–10Google Scholar. In this paper Dupré proposes an epistemological account of this transformative experience as it pertains to Christian mystica unio.
27 Fox, , Breakthrough, pp. 319–20Google Scholar.
28 Fox, , Breakthrough, p. 148,Google Scholar my emphasese.
29 Graham, A. C., tr., Chuang-Tzu: The Seven Inner Chapters and Other Writings from the Book Chuang-Tzu (London: George Allen & Unwin, 1981), note p. 69Google Scholar. Also see esp. p. 18 and p. 35, n. 72.
30 Ruusbroec, , The Spiritual Espousals, p. 136Google Scholar. Also, see especially pp. 163, and 165–6.
31 Fox, , Breakthrough, p. 282Google Scholar.
32 Fox, , Breakthrough, p. 441Google Scholar.
33 Robert, McKim, ‘Could God Have More Than One Nature?’, Faith and Philosophy, V, 4 (10 1988), pp. 378–95Google Scholar.
34 Donald, Evans, ‘Can Philosophers Limit What Mystics Can Do?’, Religious Studies XXV, (1989), pp. 57–8Google Scholar.
35 Louis Dupré, ‘The Christian Experience of Mystical Union’, p. 5.