                                  T H E

                               Z E P H Y R

                      __     M A G A Z I N E
                     {__]++++++++++++++++++++++++++[]
                     Issue #60               10-16-88

                A weekly electronic magazine for users of
                            THE ZEPHYR II BBS
                        (Mesa, AZ - 602-894-6526)
                    owned and operated by T. H. Smith

                        Editor - Gene B. Williams

     . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
     . You may share this magazine with your friends under the   .
     . condition that the magazine remain complete and intact,   .
     . with no editing, revisions or modifications of any kind,  .
     . and including this opening section and statement.         .
     . If you like the magazine, our Sysop and I would appreciate.
     . it if you would let your friends know where they can log  .
     . in to find the magazine (and incidentally one of the      .
     . finest BBSs in the country!).                             .
     . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
                                (c) 1988

    THIS ISSUE:

       On boards such as "Heaven's Gates" some users CLAIM to have
    some knowledge of religions. Others actually know what they're
    talking about.
       One of our regulars, Sue Miller, has done extensive anf formal
    studies in the field. This issue is one of the papers who wrote
    for a class.
       The topic is mysticism.

                              ON MYSTICISM

                             by Susan Miller

         "Mysticism is the scholastic of the heart, the dialectic of
    the feelings."
             -Goethe-

         This quote by Goethe is one of many attempts to define
    possibly the most indefinable portion of religion -- mysticism
    and mystical experience.  How does one define, let alone study,
    mysticism?

                               Definitions

         In attempting to define what mysticism is and is not, below
    is presented a summary of the definitions given by six different
    authorities.  We'll examine these definitions and comment on
    their similarities and differences.

         Lawrence Fine:

         *   "...mystics seek intimate knowledge of the divine that
             goes beyond intellectualization and rational thinking.
             ...are interested in the experience of the sacred in a
             way that is intuitive, direct, and intense."

         *   "Mystics tend to find in themselves something in common
             with the divine.  They frequently turn inward in order
             to discover that an aspect of their being, or the
             totality of their being, corresponds to or is akin to
             God."  Mystics develop their "self-awareness" in order
             to discover some "identity between the self and the
             Other".

         *   Mystics "tend to look upon the world of nature as a
             whole as an opportunity for discovering the sacred."

         *   Mystics must follow a disciplined way of life, certain
             ethical practices necessary to perfect self, attain
             mystical experiences.

         *   Mystics use special techniques such as prayer or
             meditation to help increase their knowledge of the
             divine.

         David Blumenthal:

         *   Mysticism placed at one end of a continuum called
             "spirituality".

         *   "...the forms and dynamics of spirituality turn
             'mystical' when the reports of the experiences involved
             betray an abstract con-ceptualization of God, as opposed
             to a highly personalist, anthro-popathic conceptualiza
             tion."

         *   Emphasis on aspect of "hard work" and "practice" to
             achieve mystical experiences.

         *  Warning against reductionism in definition.

         J. Dan:

         *   "Jewish mysticism, like any other mysticism, is based on
             the deep religious belief that divine truth can be
             neither found nor expressed in worldly terms.  Divine
             truth lies in a mystical realm, completely hidden from
             the human sense and rationalistic analysis."

         *   "...hints of this esoteric realm in the Scriptures,
             which, even though written in words, refer to a
             dimension that is beyond human language."

         *   Says the bridge between the divine truth and language is
             symbolism, because this divine truth is completely
             inexpressible in human terms.

         Arthur Green:

         *   Gives a definition of the mysticism "currently available
             in the intellectual marketplace" which is "an utter
             absorption within and identification with the deity."
             He expands this definition into a working definition
             with the following three points:

         *   Mysticism is "a religious outlet that (1) seeks out
             inner experiences of the divine and to that end gener
             ally cultivates the life of inwardness;  (2) longs to
             recover an original intimacy with God,...; and (3) in-
             volves itself with an esoteric lore that promises both
             to reveal the inner secrets of divinity and to provide
             access to the restoration of divine/human intimacy."

         Steven Katz:

         *   "...renewed, immediate, non-critical, largely non-cogni
             tive, contact with the mystical depths of Being..."

         *   "...in the presence of the Absolute...all true seekers
             come to know - to feel - the sameness which is the
             Ultimately Real."

         Gershom Scholem:

         *   Mystic "seeks an apprehension of God and creation whose
             intrinsic elements are beyond the grasp of the
             intellect."

         *   Mystical experiences come about "through contemplation
             and illumination".

         *   Key phrases: "esoteric",  "cannot be communicated
             directly", "introspection".

                              Points of Similiarity

         In the above aspects of mysticism, three things are found
    common to more than one scholar: (1) the esoteric nature, (2) the
    discipline required to achieve the experience, and (3) the indes
    cribable nature of the experience.

         The esoteric nature of the mystic experience seems not to be
    a requirement of the mystical experience per se.  It does not
    result from the difficulty of achieving such an experience, nor
    from the indescribable nature of the experience, but results from
    a tendency of the mystic to limit the availability of the techni
    ques for whatever reasons.

         Several of the authors talk at some length about the
    discipline required to become a mystic.  This discipline might be
    but is not necessarily connected with the possible esoteric
    nature of mysticism.  Blumenthal particularly emphasizes the hard
    work and practice involved in the life of a mystic.  The techni
    ques used by mystics and aspirants to mysticism are many - study,
    prayer, meditation, holding to special ethical principles,
    performance of mitzvahs, and so on.  This discipline could
    conceivably include a life of asceticism, although not
    necessarily in all situations or religious systems.

         It seems obvious that any mystical experience, dealing as it
    does with some unnamed connection of the mystic with the divine,
    would be quite indescribable by normal human language.  Just
    about all of the authors make this point quite definitely, and go
    on to discuss the heavy use of symbolism needed in order to
    attempt to communicate mystical experiences in a way that others
    can attempt to understand.

                          Points of Difference

         The above descriptions of mysticism differ in the subtle
    point of identifying the exact goal or object of the mystical
    experience: is it union or identification with deity, or simply
    knowledge of deity?

         There is a difference, and it seems that various mystical
    traditions approach the matter in different ways.  In Buddhism,
    for example, the ultimate goal is an exact identification with
    that which is Absolute Reality, in which there is no self, nor
    any "other" against which to compare the Absolute. The Buddhist
    emphasis on non-self (Sanskrit: an-atman) is similar to the
    Hindu's goal to identify with the only true self, the Universal
    Atman, but some Hindu traditions are reluctant to regard the
    union with the Universal Atman as complete; there is sometimes a
    vague sort of distinctness between the one who has merged with
    the All and the nature of the All itself. 9  On the other end of
    the continuum are mystic traditions that strive for a knowledge
    of deity without a complete identification with the object of
    knowledge.  In such a "gnostic" mysticism, there must often be a
    partial merging of self with deity in order to obtain the mystic
    gnosis, but there is always a separateness between self and
    deity.

         It makes sense that Fine and Green, who both emphasize the
    goal of union with deity rather than simply gnosis, also agree
    that an aspect of mysticism is that it attempts to find the
    divine nature in man. When there is a piece of deity inside a
    person, that person is more apt to want to want to locate his/her
    "roots" in the deity of the same nature.  There is then a deep
    yearning to reunite with the ultimate being of like substance.
    Fine and Green naturally are also the two who point out the
    inward nature of mystics, which makes sense if that is where one
    can look to find deity.

         The alternative emphasis, provided by Katz and Dan, is on
    the knowledge, rather than the union with, the Ultimate Reality.
    This is naturally the position when we de-emphasize the deity in
    man, and have less motiviation to lose our self in something of a
    different nature. Katz and Dan both mention the goal of a
    mystical knowledge of reality, but neither mention the aspect of
    a divine spark in man, or of a goal to become identical with the
    Ultimate.

         These two ends of the spectrum are connected by Scholem's
    dualistic model of Jewish mysticism.  With Scholem, neither
    extreme describes the Jewish mystic.  The mystic does not have a
    "profound yearning for direct human communion with God through
    annihilation of individuality".10  Neither is God so distant that
    one cannot merge identities with God to some degree.  To Scholem,
    the Jewish mystic's concept of Deity is "dualistic", in that God
    is always simultaneously transcendent and immanent.  One can
    search for God inwardly and locate some measure of deity there
    with which to identify, without losing the distinction between
    self and God.

                         The Study of Mysticism

         Now that we have come to some understanding of what
    mysticism means, it is important for us to discuss methods for
    investigating it.  In general it seems useful to use those
    scholarly techniques of study already employed in the examination
    of traditional religious writings, with one special caveat:
    reductionism must be avoided at all times.  We must not reduce
    the mystical experience into completely human terms, although
    naturally that is a very tempting way to deal with it.  Although
    mystics are not necessarily at odds with the traditional
    religious community of their culture, the experiences of mystics
    are quite foreign to the average person, and tension over
    difficulties in communication will certainly occur.

       The natural starting place for mystical study by non-mystics
    is the literature of mysticism, first and foremost that produced
    by the mystics themselves as well as by commentators and critics.
    The latter works must be examined with care, always searching for
    the inevitable bias(es) that the writers will bring to their
    writings.  The literature of mystics should be compared and
    contrasted with the traditional writings of the religion in
    question as an aid to discover the cultural basis from which the
    mystic has arisen.  The student of mysticism would also profit
    from a careful study of the historical background of mystics and
    mystical works, since clues to deciphering the symbolism involved
    might be gained by this.  Time spent in philological study would
    also seem to be an aid toward this end.

       The goal of studying mysticism is an understanding of mystics
    and their experiences, although this is by definition impossible
    for the non-mystic. As William Inge aptly phrases it, "...the
    relation of the individual to the Absolute, an essential them of
    philosophy, can only be mystically apprehended."

    Until Next Time

       Your own views of mysticism could make for some interesting
    conversation here. The number of tangent issues and ideas could
    keep us running for years. It's a bit more than someone hanging
    out a sign that says, "Tarot Readings."

       As for myself, I've just about completed the present book
    project ("Run For Freedom"). Before digging into the next (on
    how to design a home), I'll do up a couple of new issues for the
    magazine here. I can't tell you what they'll be about, because
    I don't know myself at this point.
       Meanwhile, if anyone else has something they'd like to
    contribute . . .

Zephyr Magazine is © Gene Williams. All rights reserved.