Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
1
And now for something completely different, unintended and
without even trying to do or be that, different that is (since very
small my parents would say why do you always have to be
different, why do you always have to do something different,
in a different way well I suppose it does reveal something?)
Well, if Griezmann is not disponible, or another saviour, one
must step up oneself, or find another saviour, like Sophos.. ?
https://youtu.be/jXI4FXXIpmw
1
https://sites.google.com/site/philosophyphilosophizing/home, at
amazon.com or here: http://philpapers.org/profile/myworks.pl
Explorations, questions and searches not put down on paper
are probably more important than the ones mentioned above.
These were occurrences for almost as long as I can remember.
They took many forms, endless questions about everything
under the sun, unsatisfied with unexplained socio-cultural
institutions, communities, social relationships, social roles,
behaviour, values, norms and much more I had to question
them rather than merely submit to them or act in accordance
with them. Although I expressed these questions and queries
about the status quo in many areas such as sport, art, social
sciences, endless reading and marginal groups and
relationships I realized that they form part of the philosophical
discourse. Not the discourse that has become the expression of
the professionalization of philosophy the last few hundred
years, but of the not-institutionalized practice of original
thinking, of creative philosophical thinking. As examples of the
latter, Socrates, of course, the pre-Socratics, Plato, Leibniz,
Spinoza, Kant, Hegel, Plotinus, writers on Mysticism such as
Meister Eckhart, van Ruysbroeck, John of the Cross, Teresa of
Avila, Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, from Advaita, Zen and other
Buddhist schools, Wittgenstein, Hume, German Idealists, Rumi,
novelists and poets, Paul Klee and other visual artists and many
names who form part of the seeking for the unity-experience as
explored in History of Mysticism (those who seek the unity
experience, to become ONE with THE ONE, Godhead, the one
real Self, Buddha mind, Sophos, etc). History of Mysticism *was
first published by Atma Books in 1987, now and is a unique
compendium of the lives and teachings of the world's best
known mystics. They are presented in chronological order, and
include representatives of every religious tradition, revealing
the broad universality of genuine religious experience.
expanded and revised Thirtieth Anniversary edition is available
as a free downloadable PDF document on this website at my
Downloads page. This book is fundamental for seasoned
scholars of philosophy and religion as well as anyone new to
the study of Mysticism. Here is a reproduction of the Table of
Contents:
30th_anniv._of_history_of_mysticism__revised_2015_.pdf
2
Download File
Contents
I. Mystics of The Ancient Past
Pre-history Of Mysticism
Vedic Hymnists
Early Egyptians
The Early Jews
Upanishadic Seers
Kapila
The Bhagavad Gita
The Taoist Sages
The Buddha
Pseudo-Dionysius
Narada
Patanjali
The Tantra
Shankara
Dattatreya
Milarepa
The Chan And Zen Buddhists
The Sufis
3
Al-Hallaj
Jewish Mysticism
Ibn Arabi
Iraqi
Rumi
Jnaneshvar
Medieval Christians
Meister Eckhart
Thomas Kempis
Nicholas of Cusa
Juan de la Cruz (St. John of the Cross)
Kabir
Nanak
Dadu
Seventeenth And Eighteenth Century Mystics
Sri Ramakrishna
Ramana Maharshi
Swami Rama Tirtha
Twentieth Century Mystics
Conclusion
So much for my own wisdom- or unity seeking and
experience. During which I learned many things, that this
seeking will not be taught in academic classes, that those
who live OFF philosophy and other socio-cultural practices
(eg priests, religious, professors, etc of religion, philosophy,
sciences, arts, humanities, etc) do not form part of the
seekers of this experience and do not represent those who
love the one above all and who have realized the unity-
experience of the one. As illustrated by those included in the
History of Mysticism and in other books such as F C
Happolds https://www.amazon.com/Mysticism-Anthology-F-
C-Happold/dp/0140137467 . One of the first books I have
ever read and never stopped reading since. I include the
4
image of the cover for several reasons, it sums up the book,
the two types of mysticism and of course look whose work it
is!! Lol, of course, the one who many has said I must be the
reincarnation of?
5
myself or fulfil a need to share details concerning myself with
others, but merely to illustrate something about thinking (not
thinking about) and living philosophically. And thereby to
reveal something about what philosophy, philosophizing is
and is about.
It is against this background and in this context that the few
things I do put on paper, such as the exploration of
philosophical approaches, methods (or ways) and subject-
matter, and on canvas (as my visual art explorations and
expressions), should be viewed and interpreted. The above
answers the question why philosophize and why paint, or
rather why I philosophize and why I paint, night and day
and almost 24/7. At some stage perhaps as an exploration of
the one, Sophos, etc and of the methods, road and ways to
unity with the one, then after the unity-experience with the
one, Sophos, the one real self, etc, the nature of this
experience and expressing the nature of the one. In other
words as the Muslim Sufis whose words are included in
Happold, put it: when I look inside my coat/cloak, it is only
you I see, when you knock on the door and I open it to let
you in, we say, it is I and no longer you and I. In short an
expression of the nature of Sophos, wisdom, the one, when
one opens ones mouth in a considered manner, in language
only lovers will recognize (not contrived, technical,
professional terms borrowed from others and an academic
tradition, but in intimate sighs and simple ordinary, everyday
language), one talks as if the beloved, one expresses the
mind, the characteristics, the mind set, the reality, the
cosmos, the universe and nature of the beloved, the one.
The only one that is. This is no longer mere talking about, but
taking in the name of, like when the prophets from the Old
Testament spoke in the name of the one, spoke as if
HASHEM, as if they are, at that moment at least, Hashem-
itself.
3
From the explorations of the subject-matter of the
philosophical discourse we are able to identify a number of
things concerning the objects of philosophy and the changes
6
that occurred over time in the subject-matter of this
discourse.
In the beginnings of the Western tradition of philosophy, the
traditional genesis of this discipline with the Pre-Socratics,
few other disciplines and specialized discourses of these
disciplines existed. Those who were involved in this inter-
subjective, socio-cultural practice at that time explored
phenomena that at later stages in the history of philosophy,
became the objects of study of disciplines that became
differentiated in the scheme of things concerned with reality,
beings, humans, experience and perception of reality,
consciousness, thinking, reflecting on all these things, and
other elements. Plato and Aristotle dealt with questions and
phenomena that today are the subject-matter of other
disciplines for example physics, chemistry, astronomy, astro-
physics, theology, geography, geology, social sciences,
humanities, aesthetics, the arts and inter-disciplinary
sciences such as cognitive sciences.
If philosophers are still concerned with the subject-matter of
these disciplines then they will deal with them as philosophy
of, philosophy about such disciplines, their assumptions,
theories, methodologies, terms being developed, concepts
etc. In other words philosophy has not quite given up
ownership of those domains that previously formed part of
its discourse. Theoretical Physics might suggest ontologies of
the kind that previously were presented in the philosophical
discourse, but philosophers still cling to that discipline in an
attempt to salvage and retain some subject-matter from
those discourses, now, all but lost for the socio-cultural
practice of modern philosophy.
Others employ and extend the intersubjective principles,
assumptions, pre-suppositions, values, norms, attitudes,
rationale and other transcendentals of the philosophical
discourse so that they are able to remain involved in
disciplines such as theology, logic, mathematics, ethics, law,
economics, sociology, psychology, the art, humanities, etc.
So today we find a philosophy of everything and anything,
for example gender, ecology, risk, social theory, migrants,
7
global warming, virtual reality, social media, sex,
government, the public (sphere), language, linguistics, signs,
and any idea that exist, or does not yet exist, in our
conceptual system, life-worlds, realities, thinking, dreaming,
imagination, etc.
Let us refer to this as conceptual analysis, analysis,
deconstruction, critical theory, post-Kantianism, neo-
Platonism, new-Hegelianisms, post-anarchism (the
philosophical approach), neo-Marxism, phenomenology,
hermeneutics, cognitive science, cartographies of cognition,
etc so as to arrive at a whole array of approaches that will
encompass every possible type of language game, linguistic
exploration and analysis that could be done with ideas,
concepts, conceptual systems, their origins, transcendentals,
aims, rational, functions, etc in this Anthropocene(!!! Another
latest fade and fashionable term, that is meant to be all-
explanatory, like cognitive, cognition and cognitive sciences
once were meant to be)- centered, -originated, -constituted
and maintained reality, realities, cosmos, universe/s,
multiverse of ours. Yes, of ours, as one thing has not
changed much since the earliest Western philosophical birth
pangs, and probably since the first being resembling
anything human walked upright, became concscious, started
to think and think about his existence and thinking that one
thing is, it is all about us, us being the centre not only of our
socio-culturally constituted realities and life-worlds, but all
existing, or not yet existing, possible reality/s, life-worlds and
universes. Yes, it is all about us human beings, homo
sapiens sapiens as far as the universe or multiverses,
infinity stretch, is, or is (not, ad infinitum.
No matter what clever new terms we contrive, whatever
disciplines we devise, whatever socio-cultural practices we
execute, whatever institutions (or their norms, values, pre-
suppositions, assumptions and other transcendentals we
un/intentionally support, maintain and adhere to, be they
fictional, reality, hyper-reality or virtual reality) it is all
about us, from us and for us. In spite of minute, rebellious
attempts to try and create an alternative to
anthropocentrism, such as those of object- oriented
8
ontology, it remains with US, us who usurped and replaced
the creator, all creators , be they real or fictional, if they
resemble us or not, if they are beings or forces (such as
those that caused the big bang, created and maintain the
universe or other variations on that as imagined by the pre-
Socratics, by primitive religions, folk beliefs, etc.
4
Is there an alternative to Anthropocene- and anthropo-
centered consciousness, cognition, thinking, frames of
reference, perspectives, constitution of realities and life-
worlds, approaches, socio-cultural practices and
intersubjectivity? Are we the only creators of
transcendentals, our constitution the constitution of all
transcendentals as Kant and Hegel speculated and showed
us? Are human beings, our constitution, our motives, needs,
values, attitudes and aims, be they personal and subjective,
or intersubjective and socio-culturally derived, based and
maintained (as critical theory and other sociologisms have
shown us through their scientific speculations, descriptions,
analyses and theorizing and want us to believe) the only
possible one, the only meaningful one?
Is it possible that, if someone were to be in union with the
beloved (of the Sufis), united with Sophos, one/d with the
buddhamind, realized the one, true self, if someone like that
could reveal something of an alternative to the restricted
anthropo(cene?)-centered philosophies we deal in? If
someone like that could identify, reveal and conceptual the
transcendentals that underlie and precede all our activities,
including our fake, false and inauthentic, professional-
oriented philosophizing, could that someone present us with
alternatives, for example more authentic and relevant
(constitutions of) life-worlds, realities, interpretations of
understandings of existence and realities? Activities and
consciousness that have as transcendentals Sophos, that
have as rationale and purpose the realization of Sophos, and
that have as values, norms and intersubjectivity (and the
creation, development and maintenance) Sophos? Living for
9
and by Sophos in the manner in which the mystics revealed
to us how they lived for and by (the values and norms) of
the one ?
http://www.themysticsvision.com/uploads/1/3/9/2/13928072/
plotinus_the_origin_of_western_mysticism-rev._2012.pdf
vi
The Origin of Western Mysticism
CONTENTS
Preface............................................
..................................vii
Introduction .......................................
............................... 9
I. The One.................................
......................... ......... .........26
The One of Plotinus is synonymous with Brahman
of the Upanishads. It is also synonymous with the
Shiva of Shaivism, the Taoof Taoism, the Purusha
of the Bhagavad Gita, the Dharmakayaof the Buddhists, the
Haqqof Ibn Arabi, and the Gottheitof Meister
Eckhart. However, it is best to limit our comparisons; too
many would be tedious. We It may be termed "pure Consciousness,"
but even th
is is inaccurate as It is
Consciousness prior to the act of being conscious of anything. Even to
say, "It is," is
misleading, since It is beyond Being; even the word, "prior," connotes
causal or
temporal sequence, and It is beyond both Time and Causation. Nothing
can be rightly
said of It, but we must settle upon a name in order
to speak of It, and so we may choose "Consciousness," "the Self," "The
One," The First,"
or "The Good," despite their inadequacy.
The One, we must remember, is not something standing behind the
manifold, as
a separate thing, but is the One by which, in which, and from which all
that is manifest
exists
10
III. The Soul ................................
........................................... 54
IV. Providence...............................
........................................ 66
V. Free Will...............................
........................................... 86
VI. Beauty ..................................
......................................... 100
VII. Love ....................................
.......................................... 110
VIII. Purification ............................
...................................... 118
IX. The Return..............................
...................................... 126
X. Happiness ...............................
...................................... 140
XI. The Stars ...............................
........................................ 148
XII. Letter to Flaccus .......................
................................... 162
5
What are the values, rules, norms of the mystics of their
beloved, the one? Wittgenstein said something like, that
what cannot be said should or can be shown. It seems to me
that most things are shown by us, even if they appear to be
said. Even sentences in speech or writing present us with
words that we imagine we understand, but we understand
merely something approximate from what is shown to us,
even though we mistakenly think that we become that what
is said or written, that we grasped the meanings being said
or shown as real, true facts.
Experience Or Understanding?
seemed to some to imply that the nondual (advaita) Reality
could be known through deliberate intellectual enquiry.
11
which, literally, means not two, but it is generally used to
stand for both nonduality and nondualism. To illustrate
this, let us look at several official definitions of the word:
First definition, from the Britannica Concise Encyclopedia:
Advaita (Sanskrit: Nondualism) Most influential school of
Vedanta etc. Second definition, from the Oxford
Dictionary of Philosophy: advaita (Sanskrit, nonduality) The
doctrine of the Vedantic school associated with Shankara,
that asserts the identity of Brahman and atman etc. And
the third definition, from the Oxford Dictionary of Asian
Mythology: Literally, nondual, advaita is the Hindu term for
the state of nondifferentiation that is Brahman or the
absolute reality.
12
mind. However, Nonduality has been experienced by many
throughout historyincluding myself. Nonduality, therefore,
is, by definition, a transcendent experience, a divine
revelation, beyond the temporal mind.
I incline to the idealistic theory that consciousness is fundamental, and that the
material universe is derivative from consciousness, not consciousness from the
material universe... In general the universe seems to me to be nearer to a great
thought than to a great machine. It may well be, it seems to me, that each
individual consciousness ought to be compared to a brain-cell in a universal
mind.
What remains is in any case very different from the full-blooded matter and the
forbidding materialism of the Victorian scientist. His objective and material
universe is proved to consist of little more than constructs of our own minds. To
this extent, then, modern physics has moved in the direction of philosophic
idealism. Mind and matter, if not proved to be of similar nature, are at least
14
found to be ingredients of one single system. There is no longer room for the
kind of dualism which has haunted philosophy since the days of Descartes.
15
We have all become somewhat accustomed to the picture of
the world presented to us by modern physics which asks us
to accept that the world consists of either particles or of
wavesdepending on how we decide to analyze it. Suffice it
to say that, in some experiments the world of both light and
matter prove to be particulate; and in some experiments the
world of both light and matter prove to be wavular. This
empirical ambiguity is so prevalent in the field of physics
that we now refer to the constituents of both light and
matter as wave-particles, while ignoring the clearly
contradictory nature of the term and its meaning.
Reality, as we all know, is one; and yet it can appear to be
divisible into individually distinct and separate perceivable
entities, or appear as waves on a single continuum in which
there is no separation between subject and object. Back in
the 1930s, many were pondering these two versions of
reality which physics had discovered were complementary
but irreconcilable descriptions of the reality we experience
among them the highly respected mathematician and
dabbler in physics, James Jeans (1877-1946). Jeans couldnt
help noting that these two complementary versions of reality
were radically dissimilar:
When geography cannot combine all the qualities we want
in a single map, it provides us with more than one map.
Theoretical physics has done the same, providing us with two
maps which are commonly known as the particle-picture and
the wave-picture. It is perhaps better to speak of these two
pictures as the particle-parable and the wave-parable.
16
The old particle-picture which lay within the limits of space
and time, broke matter up into a crowd of distinct particles,
and radiation into a shower of distinct photons. The newer
and more accurate wave-picture, which transcends the
framework of space and time, recombines the photons into a
single beam of light, and the shower of parallel-moving
electrons into a continuous electric current. Atomicity and
division into individual existences are fundamental in the
restricted space-time picture, but disappear in the wider, and
as far as we know more truthful, picture which transcends
space and time. In this, atomicity is replaced by 'holism':
the photons are no longer distinct individuals each going its
own way, but members of a single organization or whole a
beam of light.
17
Compare his notions of The Particulate (Dualist) Version
of Reality and The Wavular (Nondual) Version of
Reality .
1. Here, each perceiving subject and each perceived object
possesses a unique identity, each individual subject or object
being distinct from any other.
18
continuum.
19
As anyone can see, neither of these two quite different
versions of the one reality are remotely similar to the other,
though they are complementary versions of the same reality.
How can this be? Most of us experience the Particulate
(Dualist) version of reality everyday. It is our normal view of
the world. But, few of us, it seems, actually experience the
Spiritual or Wavular (Nondual) version even for a few
minutes of a lifetime. Nevertheless, it appears that these
two versions of reality are not entirely independent, though
one exists in time and space, and the other in eternity.
Amazingly, they exist together, overlapping, as it were, one
projected upon the other.
.. The wave-theory of the scientists has been around since
the late nineteenth century. Mystical experience and Wave
Theory have just never been associated together before. But
today marks a momentous occasion. The recognition that
the mystical experience provides experiential confirmation of
the scientific theory of an underlying wave-based reality
signals the long-awaited and undeniable coincidence of
science and mysticism in our time.
Not only is wave-particle duality a recognized property of
light (electromagnetic radiation), quantum theory implies
that wave-particle duality is a property of all matter; the
electron, which we think of as a particle, is really a quantum
bundle of an electron-field which acts with wave-like
properties. 4 However, we humans regularly perceive our
macroscopic world (which is made up of the microscopic
world) not as Wavular (Nondual), but as Particulate
(Dualistic). Yet these two perspectives (or parables) are
vastly dissimilar.
As anyone can see, neither of these two quite different
versions of the one reality are remotely similar to the other,
though they are complementary versions of the same reality.
How can this be? Most of us experience the Particulate
(Dualist) version of reality everyday. It is our normal view of
the world. But, few of us, it seems, actually experience the
Spiritual or Wavular (Nondual) version even for a few
minutes of a lifetime. Nevertheless, it appears that these
20
two versions of reality are not entirely independent, though
one exists in time and space, and the other in eternity.
Amazingly, they exist together, overlapping, as it were, one
projected upon the other.
The Wavular (Nondual) version of reality is absolute; it exists
noumenally, but not phenomenally; that is, it can be seen in
inner vision by the higher mind, but does not appear as a
physical reality. Physical requires time and space; and
thats where the Particle-version of reality exists. The two
versions of reality exist as exclusive, yet complementary
realms, or perspectives. The Wave-version of reality can be
discovered as operative in the Particle-version; but the
Particle-version of reality is ultimately illusory, being identical
to the Vedantic concept of Maya, an appearance.
Some mystics, including myself, have experienced for
themselves, in inner vision, that the nature of reality is
wavular, and that one eternal continuum of Consciousness
and Bliss is all that is. How, then, do we get from there to
the particulate reality that we all normally experience in the
framework of time and space? Is it possible that this
Particulate reality is a construct of the perspectives of our
individual minds?
21
produced by the sense of Iwhich then necessitates not-I
(or the other), and hence a multitude of pairs of subjects
and objects? Or is our delusion a universal one, created by
God?
23
experience and interact with this type of constituted reality.
The type of intersubjectivity we become and then are part of
is ascribes to this kind of reality, thinking, perception,
experience and consciousness. The intersubjectivity of the
implicate order, of nonduality of wavular theory is not
available to us, so we do not internalize it, its values,
attitudes, norms and practice.
The explicate or institutionalized intersubjectivity we
internalize and employ to constitute our selves, our realities
and existence are as follows of the The Particulate
(Dualist) Version of Reality
1. Here, each perceiving subject and each perceived object
possesses a unique identity, each individual subject or object
being distinct from any other.
24
departure, as described and experience by those who have
passed on from this existence to so-called after-life.
1. Here, only one limitless continuum of Consciousness
exists, containing within It all phenomena, including ones
own body, consisting of waves in the continuum.
26
http://www.themysticsvision.com/science-and-gnosis-orig-
2006-rev-10-14-14.html
The Problem of Consciousness
Steve Dzemidzenka
dissertation on The Problem of Consciousness which offers a
highly intelligent summation of the most pressing problems
confronting the paradigm of materialistic science today,
along with an astute presentation of the radical solution to
these problems
Our Mathematical Universe And The Hard Problem of
Consciousness
Copyright 2014 by Steve Dzemidzenka
In this new ontological paradigm, Consciousness is
fundamentally the only thing that exists. Our individual
consciousness exists only because reality itself is
Consciousness. What we call the external universe is just
the holographic matrix/sense data projected into our
awareness. The matrix itself is computed by Cosmic
Consciousness according to the algorithms and equations of
the Grand Mathematical Structure.
Max Planck: I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard
matter as a derivative of consciousness.
John Wheeler: I suggest that we may never understand this
strange thing, the quantum, until we understand how
information may underlie reality. Information may not be just
what we learn about the world. It may be what makes the
world.
Ken Wilber in his book, The Eye of Spirit: From De Broglies
assertion that mechanism demands a mysticism to Einsteins
Spinozist pantheism, from Schrodingers Vedanta idealism to
Heisenbergs Platonist archetypes: these pioneering
physicists were united in the belief that the universe simply
does not make sense and cannot satisfactorily be explained,
without the inclusion in some profound way, of
consciousness itself. And using words that few of these
pioneering physicists would object to, James Jeans pointed
out that it looks more and more certain that the only way to
27
explain the universe is to maintain that it exists in the mind
of some eternal spirit.
James Jeans: I am inclined to the idealistic theory that
consciousness is fundamental, and that the material universe
is derivative from consciousness, not consciousness from the
material universe The universe seems to me to be nearer
to a great thought than to a great machine. It may well be, it
seems to me, that each individual consciousness ought to be
compared to a cell in a universal mind.
George Wald: Mind, rather than emerging as a late
outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the
matrix, the source and condition of physical realitythe stuff
of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. What we
recognize as the material universe, the universe of space
and time and elementary particles and energies, is then an
avatar, the materialization of primal mind. In that sense
there is no waiting for consciousness to arise. It is there
always.
Scientific materialism is a philosophical opinion that is
closely associated with science. It grew up alongside science,
and many people have a hard time distinguishing it from
science. But it is not science. It is merely a philosophical
opinion. But it is one that leads to incomprehensible
conceptual difficulties in the understanding of the universe
especially the hard problem of consciousness and the
phenomena of subjective experience.
28
Lets start with giving a rough definition of what we mean by
consciousness here. Consciousness is something that has a
capacity for subjective experience. I am not going to define it
further by trying to define what subjective experience is. It
would be a waste of time as we all already know intuitively
what it is. When you notice that you feel sad or excited,
angry or scared, feel desire, see colors, hear sounds, taste
flavors, feel solidity of touch, when you notice your own
thinking and awareness of abstract concepts you notice
your own subjective experience. Its existence is
fundamentally the only undeniable fact that each one of us
knows for oneself. The question is what in our universe of
elementary particles accounts for the existence of
consciousness/subjective experience?
Its plainly obvious that neither the neural cells of the brain
nor the electrochemical reactions/interactions between them
experiences anything in themselves. We must assume that
they are only communicating information about what to
experience to some other entity an independent entity that
is capable of experiencing in a fundamental and irreducible
way. In other words, an entity that is, in itself, actually
capable of a subjective experience. One such entityin fact,
the only entity that is fundamentally capable of subjective
experienceis called consciousness. The question then
becomes How can we explain how the neural cells of the
physical brain can even interact with this independent and
immaterial consciousness? This is called the problem of
interaction and its resolved below.
31
We have two alternatives here: either both are of a
material/physical type made of the stuff of matter/energy or
both are of some intangible/immaterial type since
consciousness seems to be immaterial. At this point, we
dont know which alternative is true, but we do know that the
materialistic alternative, which in essence is trying to reduce
consciousness to physical terms, leads us to
incomprehensible conceptual difficulties and even forces
some to completely deny the existence of the subjective
experience altogether, treating it as a mere illusion.. So, lets
see where the other alternative leads us, and let us judge the
tree by its fruits.
35
3. It provides the ontological framework for the resolution of the
duality of particles/waves in Quantum Mechanics. There are no
particles or waves in the mind of Cosmic Consciousness; there
are only the equations of The Grand Mathematical Structure.
According to the current formulations, these are equations of
the wave function. At the point of observation, the equations
are computed and the results are translated into our sense
data.
15. It explains the nature and function of the brain. The human
brain is simply an algorithm (in The Grand Mathematical
Structure) that processes information and gives instructions to
our individual consciousness about what and how to
experience. By finding the right triggers, its possible to instruct
our consciousness to experience (or not to experience) all kinds
of things e.g. psychedelic substances, anesthesia, etc.
Another function of this algorithm is to filter out information.
Clearly, there is so much more happening in The Grand
Mathematical Structure than what our consciousness is
39
instructed to experience. It should be possible in principle to
find ways to tweak a brain to filter out information.
P.S.
I am not theistic at all in the traditional sense, but needless to
say, Cosmic Consciousness is of course instantly identified with
God (God The Father in Christian terms not God The Son).
Cosmic Consciousness is fundamentally the only thing that
exists thus It is omnipresent, because everything else exists
inside It. For this very reason, Its omniscient; Its thoughts
constitute The Grand Mathematical Structure. Its omnipotent
because by changing Its thoughts, It changes the universe. The
act of designing and thinking The Grand Mathematical
Structure into existence is an act of love. Cosmic Consciousness
is infinite, but It divided a finite part of Itself into distinct
entities us. Thus we are created in the image of God.
The latter reminds one of the famous story of the Journey of the
Birds. The Conference of Birds: the Sufi's journey to God: Farid
ud-Din Attar ...
https://www.amazon.com/Conference-Birds-Sufis-journey-
God/dp/1908388072
Written in 1177, 'The Conference of Birds' is a Muslim mystical
allegory dealing with the struggles and ordeals a soul must face
to achieve enlightenment. The Conference of the Birds or
Speech of the Birds, is a long and celebrated Sufi poem of
approximately 4500 lines written in Persian by the poet Farid
ud-Din Attar, who is commonly known as Attar of Nishapur.
Wikipedia
Originally published: 1177
42
Author: Attar of Nishapur
Genre: Epic poetry
Characters: Simurgh, Chamberlain, peacock, parrot, Duck,
Partridge, Owl, hoopoe, Sparrow, nightingale, Heron, Falcon,
Dove
Written in 1177, 'The Conference of Birds' is a Muslim mystical
allegory dealing with the struggles and ordeals a soul must face
to achieve enlightenment. One thousand birds assemble to
hear the Hoopoe bird (a spiritual master) who describes how
they must seek the Simurgh, their true King. Many give
excuses: they are happy with love or treasure, or fame, or any
number of other worldly delights, and do not see the need for
an arduous adventure in search of a semi-mythical sovereign.
But the journey begins, leading the avian pilgrims through
seven valleys where the travelers confront their own individual
limitations and fears. Only 30 birds complete the journey, and
discover that they themselves are the Simurgh they have
sought. As with all truly mystical literature, 'The Conference of
Birds' teaches that the aim of the quest is the discovery of the
Divine within.
http://www.themysticsvision.com/where-consciousness-comes-
from-2008-revised-12-10-14.html
http://www.themysticsvision.com/uploads/1/3/9/2/13928072/my
sticism_and_science_-_a_call_for_reconciliation.pdf
5
CONTENTS
Preface
7
Introduction
9
1. The Experience of The Self
16
2. On Learned Ignorance
25
43
3. The Uncertain Science
33
4. The Implicate Order
40
5. The Interconnectedness of All Things
47
6. The Constancy of The Whole
55
7. The Unity of God
61
8. The Eternal Return
68
9. Consciousness
76
10. The Soul
85
11. The Logos
95
12. Toward A Synthesis Of Science And Gnosis
104
Epilogue
111
Notes
115
Bibliography
117
About The Author
119
http://www.themysticsvision.com/uploads/1/3/9/2/13928072/the_suprem
e_self.pdf
vii
CONTENTS
Preface.......................
.......................
..........ix
PART ONE
:
THE EXPERIENCE OF THE SELF
1. The Awakening...................................
.............. 3
2. The Common Vision ...............................
......... 9
3. Enlightenment...................................
44
.............. 18
4. The Kingdom of God..............................
........ 33
5. Encounter With The Guru .........................
..... 38
6. The Wave And The Ocean ..........................
... 43
PART TWO
:
THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE SELF
1. Vedanta.........................................
.................. 49
2. Sankhya.........................................
.................. 57
3. Taoism ..........................................
.................. 60
4. Buddhism........................................
................ 66
5. Shaivism ........................................
................. 70
6
Judaism ..........................................
................. 75
7. Christianity ....................................
................. 81
8. Islam ...........................................
.................... 86
PART THREE:
THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE SELF
1. Science And Gnosis..............................
.......... 93
2. Consciousness...................................
............ 108
3. Mind............................................
.................. 111
viii
CONTENTS
(Continued)
4. Soul............................................
................... 116
5. The Problem of Evil .............................
........ 120
6. Personality .....................................
45
............... 123
7. The Celestial Dynamics Of Grace................ 1
26
8. Freedom Or Determinism? .........................
.. 135
PART FOUR:
THE WORSHIP OF THE SELF
1. The Appearance of Duality.......................
.... 145
2. The Ultimate Unity..............................
......... 160
3. Devotion And Grace..............................
....... 164
Appendix...........................................
...................... 172
About The Author...................................
................ 185
Notes .............................................
......................... 186
Bibliography.......................................
..................... 190
http://www.themysticsvision.com/uploads/1/3/9/2/13928072/mysticism_a
nd_science_-_a_call_for_reconciliation.pdf
This great culmination of the desire for knowing can only be described
by the mystic, but a reasoned explanation
of the various mechanisms that are involved in the unfolding of this
complex universe must be left to the scientist.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/religious-experience/
46
clearly are religions, or include terms that can only be understood in the light of
a prior understanding of what religions are. Nevertheless, we can make some
progress in elucidating the concept by distinguishing it from distinct but
related concepts.
Many have thought that there is some special problem with religious language,
that it can't be meaningful in the same way that ordinary language is. The
47
Logical Positivists claimed that language is meaningful only insofar as it is
moored in our experiences of the physical world. Since we can't account for
religious language by linking it to experiences of the physical world, such
language is meaningless. Even though religious claims look in every way like
ordinary assertions about the world, their lack of empirical consequences makes
them meaningless. The principle of verification went through many
formulations as it faced criticism. But if it is understood as a claim about
meaning in ordinary language, it seems to be self-undermining, since there is no
empirical way to verify it. Eventually, that approach to language fell out of
favor, but some still use a modified, weaker version to criticize religious
language. For example, Antony Flew (Flew and MacIntyre, 1955) relies on a
principle to the effect that if a claim is not falsifiable, it is somehow
illegitimate. Martin (1990) and Nielsen (1985) invoke a principle that
combines verifiability and falsifiability; to be meaningful, a claim must be
one or the other. It is not clear that even these modifed and weakened versions
of the verification principle entirely escape self-undermining. Even if they do,
they seem to take other kinds of language with themlike moral language, talk
about the future or past, and talk about the contents of others' minds that we
might be loathe to lose. Moreover, to deny the meaningfulness of religious-
experience claims on the grounds that it is not moored in experience begs the
question, in that it assumes that religious experiences are not real experiences.
Another possibility is to allow that religious claims are meaningful, but they
are not true or false, because they should not be understood as assertions.
Braithwaite (1970), for example, understands religious claims to be expressions
of commitments to sets of values. On such a view, what appears to be a claim
about a religious experience is not in fact a claim at all. It might be that some set
of mental events, with which the experience itself can be identified, would be
the ground and prompting of the claim, but it would not properly be what the
claim is about.
48
geography, or cosmology from them, never mind demand the same kind of
evidence for them. On this view, religious experiences should not be treated as
comparable to sense experiences, but that does not entail that they are not
important, nor that they are not in some sense veridical, in that they could still
be avenues for important insights about reality. Such a view can be attributed to
D. Z. Phillips (1970).
While this may account for some of the unusual aspects of religious language, it
certainly does not capture what many religious people think about the claims
they make. As creationism illustrates, many religious folk think it is perfectly
permissible to draw empirical conclusions from religious doctrine. Hindus and
Buddhists for many centuries thought there was a literal Mount Meru in the
middle of the (flat, disc-shaped) world. It would be very odd if The Buddha
attained enlightenment under the bo tree had to be given a very different
treatment from The Buddha ate rice under the bo tree because the first is a
religious claim and the second is an ordinary empirical claim. There are
certainly entailment relations between religious and non-religious claims, too:
Jesus died for my sins straightforwardly entails Jesus died.
Epistemological Issues
49
principle has excellent reason to accept the deliverances of religious experience,
unless he or she believes that defeaters always, or almost always, obtain.
50
mostly consistent sets of beliefs. They produce a sufficiently consistent set of
beliefs if they don't produce massive, unavoidable contradictions on central
matters, either internally, or with the outputs of other equally well-established
practices. If that's all there is to be said about our ordinary practices, then we
ought to extend the same status to other practices that have the same features.
He then argues that the Christian practice of belief-formation on the basis of
religious experience does have those features. Like Plantinga, he admits that
such an argument might be equally available to other religious practices; it all
depends on whether the practice in question generates massive and unavoidable
contradictions, on central matters, either internally, or with other equally well-
established practices. To undermine this argument, one would have to show
either that Alston's criteria for rationality of a practice are too permissive, or that
religious practices never escape massive contradictions.
The two most important defeaters on the table for claims of the epistemic
authority of religious experience are the fact of religious diversity, and the
availability of naturalistic explanations for religious experiences. Religious
diversity is a prima facie defeater for the veridicality of religious
experiences in the same way that wildly conflicting eyewitness reports
undermine each other. If the reports are at all similar, then it may be reasonable
to conclude that there is some truth to the testimony, at least in broad outline.
But if two eyewitness reports disagree on the most basic facts about what
happened, then it seems that neither gives you good grounds for any beliefs
about what happened. It certainly seems that the contents of religious-
experience reports are radically different from one another. Some subjects of
religious experiences report experience of nothingness as the ultimate reality,
some a vast impersonal consciousness in which we all participate, some an
infinitely perfect, personal creator. To maintain that one's own religious
experiences are veridical, one would have to a) find some common core to
all these experiences, such that in spite of differences of detail, they could
reasonably be construed as experiences of the same reality, or b) insist that
one's own experiences are veridical, and that therefore those of other
traditions are not veridical. The first is difficult to manage, in the face of the
51
manifest differences across religions. Nevertheless, John Hick (1989) develops
a view of that kind, making use of a Kantian two-worlds epistemology. It is
only as plausible as the Kantian framework itself is. Alston (1991) and
Plantinga (2000) develop the second kind of answer. The general strategy is to
argue that, from within a tradition, a person acquires epistemic resources
not available to those outside the tradition, just as travelling to the heart of a
jungle allows one to see things that those who have not made the journey can't
see. As a result, even if people in other traditions can make the same argument,
it is still reasonable to say that some are right and the others are wrong. The
things that justify my beliefs still justify them, even if you have comparable
resources justifying a contrary view.
52
true of the neurological explanations, but they face another kind of weakness
noted by Ellwood (1999): every experience, whatever its source, is
accompanied by a corresponding neurological state. To argue that the
experience is illusory because there is a corresponding brain state is
fallacious. The same reasoning would lead us to conclude that sensory
experiences are illusory, since in each sensory experience, there is some
corresponding neurological state that is just like the state that occurs in the
corresponding hallucination. The proponent of the naturalistic explanation as a
defeater owes us some reason to believe that his or her argument is not just
another skeptical argument from the veil of perception.
53
experiences cannot be shown a priori to be defective somehow, and that
religious language is intelligibleand if we do not make these assumptions,
then the question of religious testimony doesn't even arisethen it must be
because the evidential value of the experience is so small that it cannot survive
transmission to another person; that is, it must be that in the ordinary act of
reporting an experience to someone else, there is some defeater at work that is
always stronger than whatever evidential force the experience itself has. While
there are important differences between ordinary sense-experience and religious
experience (clarity of the experience, amount of information it contains,
presence of competing explanations, and the like), it is not clear whether the
differences are great enough to disqualify religious testimony always and
everywhere.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_experience
A religious experience (sometimes known as a spiritual experience, sacred
experience, or mystical experience) is a subjective experience which is
interpreted within a religious framework.[1] The concept originated in the 19th
century, as a defense against the growing rationalism of Western society.[2]
William James popularised the concept.[2]
Skeptics may hold that religious experience is an evolved feature of the human
brain amenable to normal scientific study.[note 1] The commonalities and
differences between religious experiences across different cultures have enabled
scholars to categorize them for academic study.[4]
Definitions
54
1.4 Rudolf Ott
Perennial philosoph
For Stace the universality of this core experience is a necessary, although not
sufficient, condition for one to be able to trust the cognitive content of any
religious experience. Karen Armstrong's writings on the universality of a golden
rule can also be seen as a form of perennial philosophy.[61]
Although perennial philosophy also holds that there is no single true religion, it
differs when discussing divine reality. Perennial philosophy states that the
divine reality is what allows the universal truth to be understood.[63] Each
religion provides its own interpretation of the universal truth, based on its
historical and cultural context. Therefore, each religion provides everything
required to observe the divine reality and achieve a state in which one will be
able to confirm the universal truth and achieve salvation or spiritual
enlightenment.
55
According to the Perennial Philosophy the mystical experiences in all religions
are essentially the same. It supposes that many, if not all of the world's great
religions, have arisen around the teachings of mystics, including Buddha, Jesus,
Lao Tze, and Krishna. It also sees most religious traditions describing
fundamental mystical experience, at least esoterically. A major proponent in the
20th century was Aldous Huxley, who "was heavily influenced in his
description by Vivekananda's neo-Vedanta and the idiosyncratic version of Zen
exported to the west by D.T. Suzuki. Both of these thinkers expounded their
versions of the perennialist thesis",[13] which they originally received from
western thinkers and theologians.
7.1 Psychiatry
7.2 Neuroscience
o 7.2.1 Neurology
o 7.2.2 Neurotheology
56
According to the neurotheologist Andrew B. Newberg, neurological
processes which are driven by the repetitive, rhythmic stimulation which
is typical of human ritual, and which contribute to the delivery of
transcendental feelings of connection to a universal unity.[clarification needed]
They posit, however, that physical stimulation alone is not sufficient to
generate transcendental unitive experiences. For this to occur they say
there must be a blending of the rhythmic stimulation with ideas. Once this
occurs "...ritual turns a meaningful idea into a visceral experience."[73]
Moreover, they say that humans are compelled to act out myths by the
biological operations of the brain due to what they call the "inbuilt
tendency of the brain to turn thoughts into actions"
http://staff.kings.edu/davidjohnson/Religious%20Experience%20Can't
%20Justify%20Religous%20Belief%20v1.pdf
http://philosophicaldisquisitions.blogspot.co.za/2010/01/religious-
experience-part-1-argument-vs.html
30th_anniv._of_hist
ory_of_mysticism__revised_2015_.pdf
57
rare moment of clarity in contemplation.When we study the many speculative
philosophies and religious creedswhich men have espoused, we must wonder at
the amazing diversity of
opinions expressed regarding the nature of reality; but when we examine
the testimonies of the mystics of past and present, we are struck by the
unanimity of agreement between them all.I have known
that spirit, said Svetasvatara, who is infinite and in all, who is everone,
beyond time.1 He can be seen indivisible in the silence of
contemplation, said the author of the Mundaka Upanishad. 2 There a
man possesses everything; for he is one with the ONE. 3
About five hundred years later, another, a young prince named
Siddhartha, who was to become known as the Buddha, the enlightened
one, sat communing inwardly in the forest, when suddenly, as though a
veil had been lifted, his mind became infinite and all-encompassing: I
have seen the Truth! he exclaimed; I am the Father of the world,
sprung from myself!4
And again, after the passage of another fivehundred years, another young man,
a Jew, named Jesus, of Nazareth, satin a solitary place among the desert cliffs of
Galilee, communing inwardly, when suddenly he realized that the Father in
heaven to whom
he had been praying was his very own Self; that he was, himself, the sole
Spirit pervading the universe; I and the Father are one! he declared
they had realized the truth of man and the universe, that they had known their
own Self, and known it to be the All, the Eternal. And throughout succeeding
ages, these announcements
were echoed by others who had experienced the same realization: I am
the Truth! exclaimed the Muslim, al-Hallaj; My Me is God, nor do I
recognize any other Me except my God Himself, said the Christian
saint, Catherine of Genoa. And Rumi, Jnaneshvar, Milarepa, Kabir and
Basho from the East, and Eckhart, Boehme and Emerson from the West,
said the same.
These assertions by the great mystics of the world were not made as
mere philosophical speculations; they were based on experience an
experience so convincing, so real, that all those to whom it has occurred
testify unanimously that it is the unmistakable realization of the ultimate
Truth of existence.
In this experience, called samadhi by the Hindus, nirvana by the Buddhists,
fana by the Muslims, and the mystic union by Christians, the consciousness
of the individual suddenly becomes the consciousness of the entire vast
universe. All previous sense of duality is
swallowed up in an awareness of indivisible unity. The man who previously
regarded himself as an individualized soul, encumbered with sins and inhabiting
58
a body, now realizes that he is, truly, the one Consciousness; that it is he,
himself, who is manifesting as all souls and
all bodies, while yet remaining completely unaffected by the unfolding
drama of the multiform universe.
Even if, before, as a soul, he sought union with his God, now, there is no
longer a soul/God relationship. He, himself, he now realizes, is the one
Existence in whom there is neither a soul nor a God, but only the one
Self, within whom this imaginary relationship of soul and God
manifested. For him, there is no more relationship, but only the eternal
and all-inclusive I AM. Not surprisingly, this illuminating knowledge of
an underlying I that is the Soul of the entire universe has a profoundly
transformative effect upon the mind of those who have experienced it.
If we can believe these men, it is this experience of unity, which is the
ultimate goal of all knowledge, of all worldly endeavor; the summit of
human attainment, which all men, knowingly or unknowingly, pursue.
The reason for the similarity of view among the various primitive cultures is
that the
Reality, which their pictorial symbols are contrived to represent, is the
common and universal Reality experienced in the mystical vision, a
Reality that is the same for all who seeit never dawning on them that
the direct
knowledge of the one Absolute and Its projection of the universe is an
actual experience common to all seers of all times.
In this vision or union, the mind is somehow privileged to
experience itself as the eternal Consciousness from which the entire
universe is projected. It knows itself as the unchanging Ground, or
Absolute, and the world as Its own projected Thought or Ideation. The
individual who contacts, through prayer or deep meditation, that
universal Consciousness, experiences It as his (or her) own identity. He
(or she) realizes, in those few moments, that he (or she) is indeed nothing
else but that one Being manifest in a singular individual form; and that
all this universe is the manifestation of that one Being, flowing forth
from It as a wave of love streams out from a loving heart.
One who has known It sees clearly that this mystically experienced
Reality has two distinct aspects; It is the pure, eternal One, beyond
motion or change; and It is also the world-Thought, which emanates
from It,
59
two aspects as male and female complements. In their attempts to
explain this ineluctable duality-in-Unity, the seers of early cultures relied
upon pictorial symbolssuch as the yin-yang symbol of the Chinese, or
depicted the projection of the world of matter upon the Absolute in
anthropomorphic or animistic images. In nearly every such instance, the
unmanifested Absolute was depicted as Male, and Its projected image-
Power, co-existent with It, was regarded as Female. He is the Father-
God, the eternal One, the ultimate Source and Controller; but She, His
inherent Mind is the Creatrix, the Mother-Power from whom all creation
flows.
When we delve even further backward, into the upper Paleolithic era (ca.
35,000-9,000 B.C.E.), we find it difficult to imagine how one might have
communicated mystical experience in that time, long ago, even to ones
peers, considering the limited language skills of the peoples of that time.
some nameless mystic told his comrades of his experience of
the great Unity. And, for century after century, that tale was passed
down orally as an authentic description of the origin and beginning of all
things; until, around 700 B.C.E., it finally appeared in written form as an
allegorical tale, or myth, of creation. Here is that tale as it appears in the
Brihadaranyaka Upanishad:
In the beginning, there was only the Self. ... He reflected, and saw that there was
nothing but Himself, whereupon heexclaimed, I am (Aham). Ever since, He
has been known
within as I. Even now, when announcing oneself, one says, A distorted
version of this tale shows up a few centuries later in Platos
Symposium, 3 where Aristophanes recounts the legend of the original
androgynous creature who was both male and female rolled in one, and
who was then divided into two by Zeus as a means of checking its
power. But Platos version is without the profound allegorical meaning
of the original myth as retold in the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad. Let me
attempt to explain:
In the One, there is no form, no experience at all. There is no vision, and
no knowledge. For, in order for there to be experience, there has to be
two: the experiencer and the experienced. For vision, there has to be a
seer and a seen; for knowledge, there must be a knower and a known, a
subject and an object. For any of these things to be, the One must I am ..., and
then gives the other name that one bears.pretend to be two, must create within
Itself the semblance of duality. If there is only a seer and no seen, there can be
no vision. And if there is
only a seen and no seer, again, vision cannot be.
Figuratively speaking, the One is lonely being alone; so It creates
(images forth) a second, in order to experience (enjoy) Itself. This is the
primal division, the primary creation: it is an apparent bifurcation of the
60
one Consciousness into subject and object, seer and seen. In all
existence, there are only these twoand they are really both the One.
This Self-division of the One into subject and object is the primal
dichotomy alluded to in this allegory. The subject is, in actuality, the
One; the object is, in actuality, the One. That One is, naturally, beyond
gender; but, in Its (pretended) roles as subject and object, It becomes the
male principle and the female principle.
This same bifurcation is continued throughout creation; the subject and
object, as male and female, become the multitude of living forms, and
through delighting in each other, continue to recreate themselves. This is
the allegory of the cow and the bull, the mare and the stallion, the jenny
and the jack-ass. Then he realizes, all this is myself! This is the
wondrous knowledge that comes to man when he knows and understands
his own true nature and the nature of all objective reality. He is,
indeed, the one Self of all, who lives within his own creation,
experiencing the play of duality, while remaining the forever-undivided
One.
In the mystical experience of unity, there is seen, of course, neither male
nor female. The One, which contains in Itself all pairs of opposites, is
Itself beyond gender. However, It is apprehended under two different
aspects: It is the transcendent, quiescent Consciousness, beyond the
manifestation of time and space; and It is the Creative Force, which
cyclically manifests and de-manifests the entire universe. And it is
evident that, in almost every early culture, these two aspects have been
commonly represented in word and picture by those who have
apprehended them both, as the Father-God and the Mother-Goddess
These two symbols of the primary duality-in-Unity
It has long been recognized as a fact of mystical psychology that, as a
man comes to know God in the unitive vision, he knows in that some
moment, his own true Self. This intriguing fact is expressed most
succinctly in a passage from the ancient Indian epic, the Ramayana; in it,
Rama, who represents the Godhead incarnate, asks his servant,
Hanuman, How do you regard me? And Hanuman replies:
dehabhavena dasosmi
jivabhavena twadamshakah
atmabhave twamevaham
(When I identify with the body, I am Thy servant;
When I identify with the soul, I am a part of Thee;
But when I identify with the Self, I am truly Thee.) 1
These three attitudes represent progressively subtler stages of selfidentification:
from the identification with the body, to identification with
the soul, until, finally, one comes to know the Divine, and thereby ones
eternal Self. While each of these three relational attitudes finds
61
expression as the prevailing attitude within various individual religious
traditions, they are essentially representative of the viewpoint from these
different stages of self-awareness.
Of Pythagoras personal life and authentic teachings little is known for
certain .
Pythagoras seems to have introduced to the Western mind a truly
Monistic philosophy, and in particular, the concept of a Unity (Monad)
self-divided into a higher, eternal principle, characterized as Male, and a
lower, creative principle, characterized as Female. Says Hippolytus, in
his Refutation of All Heresies:
Pythagoras declared the originating principle of the
universe to be the unbegotten Monad and the
generated duad ... And he says that the Monad is the
Father of the duad, and the duad the Mother of all
things that are begotten. ...For the duad is generated
from the Monad, according to Pythagoras; and the
Monad is Male and primary, but the duad is Female
[and secondary]. 1
He stated further that the creation produced by the duad, or Mother,
consisted of two kinds, or levels; one, the physical level, which includes
the material world, and the other, a subtle, or psychic, level which
includes all the individualized souls, various spirits, and mental realms.
Plato, in his Phaedo, states as a Pythagorean doctrine that the soul is but
temporarily encased in the body, and transmigrates from birth to birth in
this world, which is not its true and final home. For Pythagoras,
contemplation of the Eternal was mans highest calling. When asked,
What are men born for? he replied, To gaze on the heavens.
According to him, when the soul is perfected, purified from its
subjugation to the material body, there would be no further need of
rebirth. Thus, it appears that the philosophy of Pythagoras, if not entirely
derived from Indian sources, was certainly in perfect agreement with that
of the Upanishadic seers.
The Pythagoreans formed a widespread and influential religious cult
HertaclitusHis book, On Nature, was written in brief epigrammatic
statements about
the one Reality, which few could understand. According to his
biographer, he deliberately made it obscure so that none but adepts
should approach it. But there were some who understood, and called it
a guide of conduct, the keel of the whole world, for one and all alike.
One appreciative
scholar of the time wrote about Heraclitus book: Do not be in too great
a hurry to get to the end of this book by Heraclitus the Ephesian. The
path is hard to travel; gloom is there and darkness devoid of light. But if
62
an initiate by your guide, the path shines brighter than sunlight.
In a time of polytheism and superstition, Heraclitus writings were
unique. He assumed, as most philosophers of his time assumed, that the
natural world consisted of unoriginated matter that predated its divine
orderingmatter which Hesiod had described as the primal Chaosand
that this matter of which the universe consisted was then rearranged and
set in order in a designed manner by the all-pervading Thought or
Intelligence of God. That Divine, all-pervading formative Intelligence,
Heraclitus called Logos, a common Greek word used variously to
mean thought, reason, idea, or theory. What he intended by this
term becomes clear when we examine the philosophy of Heraclitus, not
as a rational construction, but as an attempt to explain what he had
experienced in the mystical vision of Unity. The Logos represented
that Divine principle of Intelligence or Soul revealed in the mystical
vision as the all-pervading Consciousness by which the physical world is
invisibly ordered and governed
Heraclitus tried to explain that the manifest universe is permeated by the
Thought (Logos) of the one Mind; and for that reason, the entire universe
is a conscious manifestation of the one Divine Consciousness. Man
himself, as a soul, is a manifestation of the Logos, and, for that reason,
can discover the Logos within himself. The Logos is his source, his
ruler; in fact, his very being. And, says Heraclitus, it is only through the
conquest of egotistical pride, and dedication to the one Self in the silence
of contemplation, that one is able to know that hidden Unity.
Following is a reconstruction of Heraclitus thought, based on existing
fragments from his book, On Nature :
I have explained the Logos, but men are always incapable of
understanding it, both before they have heard it, and after.
For, though all things come into being in accordance with the
Logos, when men hear it explainedhow all things are made
of it, and how each thing is separated from another according
to its naturethey seem unable to comprehend it. The
majority of men are as unaware of what they are doing after
they wake from sleep as they are when asleep. 6
... Everyone is ruled by the Logos, which is common to all;
yet, though the Logos is universal, the majority of men live as
if they had an identity peculiar to themselves. 7 ... Even when
they hear of the Logos, they do not understand it, and even
after they have learnt something of it, they cannot
comprehend; yet they regard themselves as wise. 8
Those who believe themselves wise regard as real only the
appearance of things, but these fashioners of falsehood will
have their reward. 9 Though men are inseparable from the
63
Logos, yet they are separated in it; and though they encounter
it daily, they are alienated from it. 10 What intelligence or
understanding do they have? They believe the popular
orators, and are guided by the opinions of the populace; they
do not understand that the majority of men are fools, and the
wise few. 11
Of all the wise philosophers whose discourses I have heard, I
have not found any who have realized the one Intelligence,..
To be able to understand the meaning of the concepts here expressed and what
the entire piece tries to express and communicate we employ our
64
intersubjectively created, institutionalized and internalized conceptual means.
This intersubjectivity is usually of a dualistic kind with ideas of subject-vs
object, etc, based on, employing and transmitting dualistic notions, principles
and underlying assumptions. Have we ever considered the creation and
employment of an intersubjectivity based on non-dual notions, not of the subject
vs object dichotomy, but one based on Sophos, unity with the one, the one real
self, etc?
We perceive, experience, think, reflect, understand and communicate in terms of
a frame of reference of dualism, for example subject vs object. Is it not possible
to imagine and devise and then philosophize in terms of a non-dual
intersubjectivity, and intersubjectivity that does not accept and convey dualistic
notions such as subject, object, etc? But an intersubjectivity of a non-dual nature
such as a), b) the one real self, c) of unity, and d) the one, pure consciousness or
absolute awareness. Is it not possible to develop and constitute a frame of
reference of this kind of intersubjectivity? A point of reference that does not
constitute, assume and proceed in terms of subject vs object and other dualistic
notions. The above presented us with examples of non-dual notions based on
principles and assumptions of unity with the one, experience as if one is the one
real self, god, etc. We will now look at more examples of this kind from the
history of mysticism a link to the download of which was given above.
The Christian community had, among its more vocal proponents, a
number of learned philosophers and theologians during this time,
including Justin Martyr (d. ca. 165 C.E.), Clement of Alexandria (d. ca.
215 C.E.), and Origen (182-251 C.E.), all genuinely devout and earnest
men. They seem not to have been mystics, however; they had not,
themselves experienced God directly, but were interested primarily in
rationalizing the Christian tenet of the divine authority of Jesus. Being
well learned also in the philosophical tradition of the Greeks, they were
at pains as well to explain their theology in terms recognizable to the
pagan world. As a means of accomplishing this, they adopted the
Greek concept of the Logos, and asserted that Jesus was none other than
the divine Logos of God.
Let us look for a moment at the progression of ideas and events, which
led to the wholehearted adoption of this conception by the Christian
Church. The idea first appears in the opening paragraph of the Fourth
Gospel written about sixty years after the death of Jesus by the evangelist
known only as John. John undoubtedly had some familiarity with the
concept of the Logos, probably from Philo, and perhaps from Stoic
sources as well. He began his Gospel with these words:
In the beginning was the Logos; the Logos was with God,
and the Logos was God. ...All things were made by the Logos;
without him nothing was made. It was by him that all things
came into existence.
65
... What came about in him [the Logos] was life, and the life
was the light [of God] in man. The life shines in the darkness
[of world-manifestation], but the darkness did not understand
it. 31
All this is in keeping with the mystical perception of duality-in-Unity
enunciated by mystics of every time and place. John then goes on to
assert that the Logos became Jesus of Nazareth:
And the Logos became flesh and lived among us ...as the onlybegotten
son of his father.
32
This statement, that the Logos became flesh in the person of Jesus, is
also inarguable, as it is the Logos, the creative Intelligence of God,
which has become flesh in the person of every creature on earth; and the
phrase, only-begotten son is a designation for the Logos which goes
back to Philo. But John seems to imply that Jesus was more than simply
another manifestation of the Logos, that he was, indeed, the creative
Intelligence itself. It was this very suggestion, which gave immediate
rise to a widespread movement among 2nd century Christians to regard
Jesus as a special and unique manifestation of God, through whom the
very Godhead lived and acted upon earth for the upliftment of humanity.
But let us take a moment to recall the meaning of the term Logos, as it
had been traditionally used up to that time.
Note: here we have an example of the one, the logos, sohpos, the one real self,
of unity in embodied form.
The Logos, as we have stated before, is the Absolute in Its immanent
aspect, the Divine Intelligence or Consciousness that pervades the
material world of form. These two, the transcendent One and Its
immanent presence are one and inseparable, just as a mind and its
thought are one and inseparable. Thus, Nature is formed and ruled by
Gods Thought, or Logos, and is replete with Divinity, is nothing but
Divinity; and is as much one and synonymous with God as the radiance
of the Sun is with the Sun itself. The term, Logos, had long been
understood in this way, and it was in this way that it was understood and
explained by Christians as well, such as Athenasius, Patriarch of
Alexandria (293-372 C.E.):
Was God, who IS, ever without the Logos? Was He, who is
light, ever without radiance? ...God is, eternally; then, since
the Father always is, His radiance also exists eternally; and
that is His Logos.
33
... For, as the light [of the Sun] illumines all things within its
radiance, and without that radiance nothing would be.. Athenagorus (2nd
century C.E.), who wrote an Apology of Christianity
66
to the Roman Emperor, Marcus Aurelius, also asserted the eternal
coexistence and oneness of God, the Father, and His Power of worldemanation
(the Logos), which he calls the Son:
If ... you ask what is meant by the Son, I will state briefly that he
is the first product of the Father, not as having been brought into
existence (for from the beginning, God, who is the eternal Mind
has the Logos in Himself, being from eternity instinct with
Logos); but inasmuch as the Logos came forth to be the Idea and
energizing power of all material things.35
Tertullian (150-225 C.E.), another of the early Church Fathers, expressed
the same idea in more simplified terms:
The Spirit is the substance of the Logos, and the Logos is the
activity of the Spirit; the two are a Unity (unum). 36
and so on and so on.
These remarks by the early Church Fathers are identical with the
declarations of all the mystics who have, over the centuries, described
their experience of the two complementary aspects of Reality. But they
went on, from this conventional observation, to formulate a rather
startling tenet of faith: that the Logos, the very stream of Gods
Intelligence pervading the universe, took on a personality of its own, and
lived on planet earth as the man known as Jesus of Nazareth. Here is
how this idea was expressed by one of the most influential of the early
Church Fathers, Ireneus, the bishop of Lyons (ca. 130-200 C.E.):
The Logos existed in the beginning with God, and through
him all things were made. He was always present with the
human race, and in the last times, according to the time
appointed by the Father, he has been united with his own
handiwork and become man, capable of suffering. ... He was
incarnate and made man; and then he summed up in himself
the long line of the human race, procuring for us a
comprehensive salvation, that we might recover in him what
in Adam we had lost, the state of being in the image and
likeness of God. 37
At a later date, Athenasius, the Patriarch of Alexandria, added some
clarifying remarks to that, in order to explain how the Logos could be
working entirely through the person of Jesus while at the same time
manifesting the entire universe:
The Logos was not confined solely within [Jesus] body; nor
was he there and nowhere else; he did not activate that body
and leave the universe emptied of his activity and guidance.
Here is the supreme marvel. He was the Logos and nothing
contained him; rather he himself contained all things. He is the
whole creation, yet in his essential being he is distinct from it
67
all, while he is in all things in the activities of his power,
ordering all things, extending over all things his universal
providence, quickening each and every thing at once,
containing the universe and not contained by
note with these ideas in mind let us now move on through history.
We come across the gnostics,for example the Thomas Christians,
who considered themselves as the true believers in the real Jesus.
68
explicit references to the mystical vision of God in his Discourses; his
preeminent concern, like Socrates, was to guide men to the awareness of
the Divinity within them through the development of virtue, right
understanding, and spiritual strength.
Plotinus taught his philosophy in Rome.
His lectures were free and open to the public, and he lived solely on the
favors of his wealthy students and patrons. He taught from his own
mystical experience, but he framed his thoughts often in terms familiar to
students of Plato; and for that reason he became labeled in much later
times as the founder of Neoplatonism. This is an unfortunate
misnomer, however, for it tends to detract from the fact that Plotinus
message was founded, not so much on any one tradition, but on his own
personal realizations.
Plotinus, like Socrates, had attained the realization of the absolute
Reality, and was solely intent on expressing what he had directly
perceived in the vision of Unity. Yet, since he and Socrates had
experienced a common unitive Reality, it is only natural that Plotinus
would utilize familiar terms, which had been used previously in the
Socratic dialogues of Plato. It should be remembered that the mystic
writes in order to put into rational verbal form what he has experienced,
and he utilizes the verbal symbols and terms of preceding mystics, not in
a dogmatic fashion, but solely in order to draw upon familiar
terminologies to make clear his own vision, and to show its consistency
with the vision of those who preceded him.
Plotinus philosophy of Unity is identical to the Upanishadic philosophy
also, yet, though he was no doubt familiar with Indian thought, it would
be a mistake to infer therefore that he borrowed his own philosophy from
those sources. For it is only natural and to be expected that one person,
having experienced the Unity, will describe It in terms similar or
identical to another who has experienced It. For Plotinus, philosophy
was not a mere game of ideas put forward as a convincing hypothesis; he
had experienced, through contemplation, the ultimate unitive Truth, and
spoke from his experience in order to explain It to others. We need not,
therefore, be astonished that his words agree with those of all others who
have experienced that same interior revelation.
69
Aphrodisias, and Adrastus. Said Plotinus, We must believe that some
of the ancient and blessed philosophers also discovered the Truth; and it
is only natural to inquire who of them found It, and how we may obtain a
knowledge of It. 3
In the first ten years of his life in Rome, Plotinus wrote nothing, but by
the time Porphyry had become his follower in 263 C.E., he had
completed twenty-one treatises. In answer to the questions of his later
students, he wrote thirty-three more, which were circulated without titles
among his closest followers. And, after Plotinus death, Porphyry
gathered these fifty-four treatises together into a book of six sections,
containing nine treatises each; hence the title, Enneads (Nines), by
which Plotinus book is known.
In his meetings with his friends and students, Plotinus would explain in
an imaginative and compelling manner the truths of the spiritual life.
Says Porphyry: When he was speaking, the light of his intellect visibly
illumined his face; always of winning presence, he then appeared of still
greater beauty; a slight moisture gathered on his forehead, and he
radiated benignity.4 Plotinus, said Porphyry, lived at once within
himself and for others; from his interior attention he never relaxed unless
in sleep. And even that he kept light by often touching not so much as a
piece of bread and by constantly concentrating upon the thought within.5
...He was gentle, and always at the call of those having the slightest
acquaintance with him. After spending twenty-six years at Rome, acting,
too, as arbiter in many differences, he had never made an enemy of any..
...Once There, she will trade for This nothing the universe
holdsno, not the entire heavens; for there is nothing higher
than This, nothing more holy; above This there is nowhere to
go. All else, however lofty, lies on the downward path; she
knows that This was the object of her quest, that there is
nothing higher. 32
...Without that vision, the soul is unillumined; but illumined
thereby, it has attained what it sought. And this is the true
Goal set before the soul: to receive that light, to see the
Supreme by the Supreme; ...for That by which the illumination
comes is That which is to be seen, just as we do not see the
Sun by any other light than its own.
How is this to be accomplished?
Let all else go! 33
This is Plotinus final word on the means to the attainment of that
supernal vision: Let all else go!
70
Whether we call this by the name of
dedication, devotion, purity of heart, singleness of mind,
renunciation, or detachment, it is the word of all the seers of God in
response to the question, How is It attained? But who can let all else
go? How does one find the courage to turn away from the world to focus
all ones attention on the divine Source within? It cannot even be
attempted unless one is inspired from within by His grace. For it is that
One Himself who puts such a desire into the heart; it is He who attracts
like a magnet the soul to its own awakening, to contemplation, just as it
is He who reveals Himself as the one Soul of all
The declarations of the mystics differ from the exclusively philosophical
and theological reasonings of such intellectuals in that they are derived
solely from direct experience, and are put forward as a means of
expressing the truths realized in that experience rather than as
speculations based on authority or reason. And since it is only the very
few who reach to the height of direct experience of God, the mystical
writings which appear in the early Middle Ages are also very few.
One of the best examples of genuine mystical thought produced during
this time is found in a series of writings which came to light in the early
6th century, and which produced a great effect on all subsequent
Christian theology. This collection of writings was attributed to
Dionysius, the Areopagite, a figure who is mentioned only briefly in the
New Testament book, Acts of the Apostles (17:32), as a follower of Paul
in Athens. This collection consists of four treatises: The Divine Names,
Mystical Theology, The Celestial Hierarchy, and The Ecclesiastical
Hierarchy, along with several letters addressed to various Apostolic
figures. All were regarded, up until the 16th century, as genuine and
authoritative,
It was determined in the 16th century, however, and corroborated by
scholars of later centuries, that these writings could not possibly have
been by Dionysius of the 1st century, owing to their use of terms which
came into prominent usage only much later, and were therefore spurious.
It is now supposed that they were written at some time around the end of
the 5th century, perhaps by a Syrian monk who had some familiarity
with the Neoplatonic tradition through Proclus (410-485), and who, no
doubt, chose to use the name of an Apostolic figure as a means of
assuring permanence to his work. To Christians, the fact that it was not
Dionysius, the Areopagite, who wrote these mystical works, might
present a serious impediment to considering their author a genuine
representative of Christian mysticism; nonetheless, regardless of who the
author really was, he not only greatly influenced Christian thought for
over a thousand years, but he was and remains an able spokesman for the
perennial philosophy of mysticism.
71
It was the intention of the author calling himself Dionysius, the
Areopagite, to explain, as best he could, the nature of the transcendent
Reality which he had experienced, and which the Greek philosophers
called Being, or the Good, and which the Jews called Yahveh.
That God could not be seen as an object of perception by the eyes, and
could not be known by the intellect, the authorwhom we shall call
Dionysius for convenience sakefirmly maintained. However, he
explained, God could be experienced in rapt contemplation when the
mind transcended all perceptions of images and all knowledge as we
commonly know it, and entered into a perfect union with God,
participating in His being, and knowing through His knowing:
He is superessentially exalted above created things, and
reveals Himself in His naked Truth to those alone who pass
beyond all that is pure or impure, and ascend above the
topmost altitudes of holy things, and who, leaving behind
them all divine light and sound and heavenly utterances,
plunge into the Darkness where truly dwells, as the Oracles
declare, that ONE who is beyond all. 1
That divine Darkness is the unapproachable light in which
God dwells. Into this Darkness, rendered invisible by its own
excessive brilliance and unapproachable by the intensity of its
..
Note: I merely mention these quotes concerning Psudo-Dionysus to
Show more of the development of the non-dual intersubjectivity, based on
Sophos, the one real self, etc and not to give contents to the believes
of that intersubjectivity.
There was really little to choose between the two, Toaism and Buddhism
however; for, while the Taoist and Buddhist terminologies were
different, the realization of Truth which each taught was, of course, the
same. In every mystical tradition, the ultimate goal is the attainment of
enlightenment, the direct perception of the one Reality. In ancient India,
this realization was called nirvana, or samadhi; when Buddhism was
transplanted in China, this supramental experience was called, in
Chinese, chien-hsing, and as Buddhism became established in Japan in
later centuries, this experience was called kensho or satori. The words
and the languages are different, but the experience is the same.
This experience of enlightenment, of the absolute, quiescent, Source of
all existence, is described by one Chinese Buddhist in this way:
In learning to be a Buddha, and in seeking the essence of the
teaching of our school, man should purify his mind and allow
his spirit to penetrate the depths. Thus he will be able to
wander silently within himself during contemplation, and he
72
will see the Origin of all things, obscured by nothing.
...His mind becomes boundless and formless, allilluminating
and bright, like moonlight pervading the
darkness. During that absolute moment, the mind experiences
illumination without darkness, clarity without stain. It
becomes what it really is, absolutely tranquil, absolutely
illuminating. Though this all-pervading Mind is tranquil, the
world of cause and effect does not cease; though It illumines
the world, the world is but Its reflection. It is pure Light and
perfect Quiescence, which continues through endless time. It
is motionless, and free from all activity; It is silent, and selfaware.
...That brilliant Light permeates every corner of the
world. It is This we should become aware of and know.
Similarly, in every mystical tradition, the means to the realization of
Reality is the same; it is an inturning of the mind in search of its root, its
source; we call this process meditation. In India, the Sanskrit word for
meditation is dhyana; in China, it is chan, and in Japan, it is zen. Chan,
or Zen, then, is nothing but the practice of meditation toward the
attainment of enlightenment. Enlightenment is the only goal of Zen; and
it is meditation, or contemplation, alone which leads to it. For this
reason, all the Chan and Zen masters incessantly point all sincere
seekers of enlightenment to the meditative life.
Note: above we saw about the development of intersubjectivity of the one or the
real self in Zen, below we will see how it developed in Islam as Sufism.
73
busily engaged in the spread of their religion through territorial conquest
during the 8th and 9th centuries, the Sufis were teaching the pure love of
God, and living an ascetic life aimed at realizing Him in the depths of
their souls.
All were great lovers of God,
and each of them greatly influenced the mystical mood of their time.
Their love of God took the form of a one-pointed yearning for union with
Him, for the vision of His Face; and their writings often resembled the
arduous outpourings of a lover to his beloved.
For the Sufis, the path of love is the Way by which the soul makes the
involute journey to the awareness of her own true identity. And the
prayerful songs of love sung by the Sufis are the expressions of the
souls yearning to return in awareness to her eternal Source and Ground.
She searches inwardly for her pristine state, her Beloved, her Lord; and
subdues herself, dissolving herself, as it were, by reducing her own being
to her pristine simplicity and ultimate non-being.
Note: is this not what happens when through Socratic dialogue or analysis
of language use dissolves away misleading use of language and we are left with
more meaningful concepts and conceptual practice?
She renounces all regard for herself, divests herself of all fascination with
manifested
phenomena, both inner and outer; and, drawn by a one-pointed love and
desire for God, is brought at last to silence. Then the illusory duality of
soul and God is no more; the awareness of the one Self dawns with
supreme clarity, knowing who It has always been, knowing Its eternal
freedom and joy.
Such a description of the souls inner pilgrimage makes it appear a
simple and clear-cut process, but it is the most difficult accomplishment
that can be performed, for the ego-soul does not die without a fight. It
wages a tireless and bitter warfare against its own attraction to God, and
fights with all the fury and panic of a drowning man struggling to sustain
his existence; it incessantly asserts its love of the manifested world and
life, and restlessly strives to create a diversion from its path toward God.
Torn in two directions, the soul suffers, on the one hand, the agonies of
annihilation, and on the other, the painful prolonging of its failure to
reach its avowed Goal. Only when it comes at last, by the grace of God,
to that point where it surrenders all other objectives for God alone does it
become capable of reaching its cherished Goal; divinely inspired by the
desire for God alone, it makes that leap into the consciousness of
universal Being.
In the writings of the early Sufis, and in particular, those of Dhun-Nun,
this path of divine love for God, culminating in vision, or gnosis, is
74
charted as a path (tariq) marked by several distinct advances, or stations.
The actual journey along the spiritual path begins with the station of
Repentence (tauba).
The next station is that of Faith, or Surrender To God (tawakkul). The
mental agitation resulting from fear for ones own welfare, which may
afflict the novice when he chooses to give all his thought to God, is
dispelled by the calm remembrance that it is He who has called the soul
to Him, and that He will nourish and provide for the body as well.
Surrendering all thoughts of his own bodily welfare, he gives everything
into the hands of God,
The next station is that of Patient Endurance (sabr), a great necessity for
the soul called to the contemplation of God. Calm acceptance of the
rigors of such a life is necessary to the stability of the soul, which must
pass through many ordeals, and many temptations that arise in the mind.
Next, and allied with Patient Endurance, is Joy In Affliction (rida).
When the soul is free to focus its attention on God, it enjoys an inner
bliss, which cannot be dislodged by any outward occurrence, no matter
how unpleasant.
The Dark Night Of The Soul; the Sufis call it gabd. This is a state of
dryness and emptiness, when the soul, struggling to become completely
selfless, egoless, has not yet reached the ultimate degree of extinction,
and suffers the heavy sense of death, with no light of superconscious life
yet visible. It is a dry, awful, sense of ones own nothingness, ones own
emptiness, which may be likened to the darkness experienced while
going through a dark tunnel when the light at the other end cannot yet be
seen. The ego-self is withered, dried-up, and all but gone; but the greater
Selfhood has not yet revealed Itself
Then comes the revelation of Love and Spiritual Knowledge (mahabba
and marifa). The soul awakens to an incredibly clear awareness that
embraces both divine Love and Knowledge. It is an inner realization by
the soul that the God it sought is all-inclusive Love, and the soul
experiences that Love within itself. It knows that This is the sustaining
Power and guide of all its life.
It is this love longing which leads to the station of Annihilation (fana).
This is the profoundly transformative experience previously referred to
as nirvana, samadhi, or the vision of God. For, at the moment the ego
is extinguished, the eternal and all pervasive I is realized. It is an
experience that overturns all previous conceptions of God and the soul.
Scholars may imagine that a Buddhist experiences one thing, a Vedantist
another, and so forth; but one who has experienced It, whether a Sufi,
Christian or Hindu, knows that It is the final Truth, the only One. There
are not different Unitys, one for each sect or denomination; there is only
one One, and it is That which is experienced by Christians, Buddhists,
75
Hindus and Sufis alike. It should be obvious that, if there is such a thing
as Unity, and if It can be experienced, then the experience must be the
same for all; since Unity, by its very definition, by its very nature, is one.
So what if that One is called by different names in different lands! In
every place and in every generation, new terms are ever being invented
in the hope of elucidating the knowledge of Unity.
Said al-Hallaj:
I am He whom I love, and He whom I love is I; we are two
spirits dwelling in one body. If you see me, you see Him; and
if you see Him, you see us both. 1
These words of his were very similar to those of Jesus, who had
experienced the same revelation; and they met with a similar response.
By the late Medieval period (11th-14th centuries), the philosophers and
theologians of the Western world had become increasingly aware of the
long tradition of mystical philosophy dating from the early Greeks and
Neoplatonists.
Solomon Ibn Gabirol (ca. 1021-1058 or 1070) was born in Malaga, in
southern Spain, reared and educated in Saragossa, and began composing
religious poems at the age of sixteen. He wrote his philosophical works
in Arabic, but his poems, of which he wrote over three hundred, were
written in Hebrew. Some of these poems are still part of the liturgy of
the Spanish Jews. His main philosophical work is The Fountain Of Life,
but he wrote, in addition, two ethical treatises, The Improvement Of The
Qualities Of The Soul, and The Choice Of Pearls, along with a book on
the Divine Will, which is lost.
In its Latin form, this work greatly influenced such Christian theologians
as Albertus Magnus, Bonaventure, Thomas Aquinus, and Duns Scotus,
all of whom quoted it freely. And it was not until the 19th century that a
Jewish scholar, Solomon Munk, discovered that the translation of Ibn
Gabirols work, from Arabic to Hebrew, which had been made by Shem
Tob Falquera (1225-1290) under the Hebrew title, Mekor Hayim, was
identical to the work Christians called Fons Vitae. Thus it was
discovered that the Muslim, Avicebron or Avicebrol, was none other
than the Jewish philosopher, Solomon Ibn Gabirol.
Ibn Gabirol, following after the fashion of Aristotle and Plotinus, with
whom he was familiar through Arabic translations, tried his hand at such
a systematic presentation, and made a remarkable effort, offering many
clarifying conceptualizations. Yet, for all his genius and skill, in addition
to his apparent first-hand knowledge, his great work, The Fountain Of
Life, remains a dry and tedious work, holding little appeal for the modern
mind. It is an unhappy fact that any attempt to explain the emanation of
the world from God must prove futile and unrewarding, no matter how
clearly and unmistakably one has seen it in the mystical experience.
76
See how many have vainly tried to do so, utilizing such words as
Logos, Prakrti, Will, Shakti, and so many others, to signify the
ineffable Power of God by which He casts forth this world-image from
Himself, remaining all the while entirely unaltered, eternally and
indivisibly One
To those who have seen God, His projection of the universe from
Himself is a clear and obvious fact; but to those who have not, the notion
that the spirit of God somehow permeates the mutable universe must
seem an impossible contradiction.
One can scarcely speak of Medieval Jewish mysticism without making
some mention of the separate and unique phenomenon of the Kabbala, a
word that simply means the tradition. Kabbala stands for a peculiar
movement of Jewish esotericism, which arose in the 12th century,
making use of mystical thought to elaborate a system of secret
symbolism, much as the Pythagoreans had done much earlier.
It was Moses de Leon, in his pseudepigraphic work, the Splendor
(Zohar), who carried on the formulations of Isaac the Blind, explaining
in a similar fashion the manifestation of the world from the En Sof.
Moses de Leon, a Castilian Kabbalist, wrote the Zohar around 1280, but
presented it as an ancient tract from the hand of a member of the circle of
Simeon bar Yohai, a revered figure of the Talmudic literature, who lived
in the 2nd century C.E. Under this pretence, it managed to have a wide
circulation and influence during medieval times. De Leon went to great
lengths to portray the Zohar as a work of the 2nd century by writing
much of it in the Aramaic language, and by extolling its authenticity in
his other writings. So successful was he in his forgery that it was not
until recent times (the 19th century) that the fraud was discovered; up to
that time, the Zohar was regarded by many devout Jews as possessing an
authority equivalent to that of the Talmudic scriptures.
In the first chapter of the Zohar, the Biblical description of Creation in
the book of Genesis is reformulated to comply with the mystically
perceived projection or emanation of the phenomenal universe from the
Absolute, the En Sof:
In the beginning, when the Will of the King began to take
effect, He impressed His signs into the heavenly sphere.
Within the Most Hidden, the Infinite (En Sof), a dark flame
issued forth, like a fog forming in the Unformed.
This rather fanciful description is, of course, in keeping with the general
scheme of creation put forward by the philosophers of the so-called
Neoplatonic tradition, including Ibn Gabirol. But, from this point on,
the Zohar reveals itself as a Midrash, or commentary, upon the tales of
the Jewish Torah, inventing tales of its own to elucidate the teachings of
the ancient prophets
77
While the Zohar and Judaism in general
recognizes that God Almighty is all one without separation, and that
the Father and the Mother never separate and never leave each other,
but are [always] together in complete union, the Shekinah, as human
soul, is recognized to be separated in effect from its Eternal Source by
ignorance, and yet capable of conscious reunification with God through
mystical ascension, thus coming to know through direct experience the
Oneness of the soul with God. The purpose of a mans life therefore is to
accomplish the Yihud (unification) of the Shekinah and the Holy One;
i.e., the union of the soul with God.
In 1244, Jalaluddin Rumi met Shams Tabriz in the streets of Konya, and was
drawn by him to the fervent life of mystical love. His relation to Tabriz
was like that of a loving disciple to his Guru or Pir. Jalaluddin
transferred all his ardent devotion to Shams, as only a spiritual lover can
do, seeing him as the Divine manifest in his life for the sake of providing
him with companionship with God. However, Rumis sons and other
family members were so jealous and outraged by the hold that Shams
had on Jalaluddins affections that they murdered Shams and threw his
body in a well. At least, so the story goes. Rumi filled the void in his
life by writing a book of poems of love and longing, called Divan-i
Shams Tabriz, sometimes addressing them to Shams, and sometimes
identifying with him.
His verses are full of the imagery of love, but it is the love of the soul for
God. Rumi is the epitome of the mystical lover; but he also knew the
union with his Beloved, and speaks with rare beauty of this mysterious
marriage of the soul and God.
While Thomas Aquinus was still teaching in Paris, Johannes Eckhart
(1260-1328) was born in the village of Hochheim in Germany, and
entered the Dominican monastery at Erfurt, near his village, at around
fifteen years of age. There he learned Latin, logic, and rhetoric. In those
days, a novice served a one-year novitiate, followed by two years of
studying the Divine Office and the Constitutions of the Order; then there
were five years of philosophy and finally three years of theology.
Meister Eckhart had attained great position in the Church and had
acquired great learning; but he was also a man of great devotion. One
night, while intently praying to his invisible Lord, his mind, suddenly
made clear and bright through his one-pointed attention, became
perfectly still; and in that stillness, the truth of his own and all being
became perfectly clear and evident to his minds eye. He realized, in this
still, luminous clarity, that his own mind, which moments ago searched
the darkness for its God, was, in fact, itself the one Reality. It had
created, by its sense of I and Thou, a duality where none in fact
existed. And as the light of his mind grew more steady, he became more
78
and more aware of his true nature as the one eternal Consciousness
whose light fills the universe and who is the true identity of all living
beings.
In this experience of unity which Christians call the vision of God,
there is no longer a veiling sense of duality; for when the I discovers
that the Thou it sought is itself, then all duality vanishes, as a dream
vanishes when a man awakes from sleep. When that pure and eternal I
is known, It is the one who knows; there is no other. When It is known,
It is known as the true Self, which has always been the Self, despite all
previous misconceptions one might have had as to ones identity. Then
it is realized that this one Self is the only conscious I of all beings, and
that it is this one Self also who is projecting all this world of forms.
Truly, there is no one here but that one Self. When He awakens us, then
we realize this. First, He calls us, by causing us to become aware of His
presence within us; then we are drawn to seek Him in prayer and
contemplation. Like a flame within, He draws us to Himself, our Self,
by an inwardly inspired love and desire. When we are purely and singly
focused on Him, when the mind is stilled and clear, we awake to who we
have always been, and know our eternal Identity.
Eckhart, like the ancient Upanishadic rishis, like the Buddha and Jesus
and all other true mystics, had seen the ineluctable Truth of all existence,
had become enlightened. But how was he to speak of it? It was so high
above the understanding of ordinary men and women that they would
surely become frightened and confused on hearing of it, and even the
wisest would surely misinterpret it!
But the difficulties facing Eckhart were two-fold; he had not only the
natural obstacle presented by the inability of language to describe the
indescribable; but there was also the stone-wall of Christian doctrine that
he had sworn to defend, and which, now, if he were to speak faithfully of
the truth, he should have to demolish. To be sure, the Truth he had
known and of which he was eager to speak was the same Truth which
Jesus had seen and of which he had spoken. But the real purport of
Jesus teachings regarding his identity with the Father had been
construed over the centuries as a doctrine relating to him alone and not
applicable to all men; and so, ironically, when Meister Eckhart began
reiterating the message of Jesus regarding the identity of the human soul
and God, his message was received with horror, and regarded by all
orthodox Christians as heretical and blasphemous.
Eckhart,
like all others who have seen the Truth, recognized that the divine
Consciousness at once transcends and pervades the universe. It is both
the absolute, transcendent Godhead and the projecting Power, the
Creator. Yet there is no actual division between these two aspects; for it
79
is that same one Consciousness that appears as all existence.
But who can tell of this knowledge?
That
one eternal Consciousness is beyond time, beyond the universe of
phenomena; yet from It, like a thought or projected image, the world
shines, like a magic-show. This world-image is projected and withdrawn
in a recurrent cycle, and while it is distinguishable from the eternal
Consciousness Itself, still, it is not different from the eternal
Consciousnessas a thought is not different from the consciousness
from which it emanates.
Meister Eckhart, in his Sermon, made the distinction between these two
aspects of the One by using the two terms, Godhead (Gottheit)
and God (Gott), to represent these two aspects respectively. By
Godhead, he meant, of course, that transcendent, absolute, Silence
which is forever unchanging, unmoving; and by God he meant the
Creator, that aspect of the Divine which, like an effusive mind,
continually projects the phenomenal universe.
God and the Godhead are as different from each other as
heaven and earth... Creatures speak of God but why do
they not mention the Godhead? Because there is only unity in
the Godhead and there is nothing to talk about. God acts.The
Godhead does not. ...The difference between God and the
Godhead is the difference between action and non-action. 5
The eternal Godhead is mans true Being, the conscious Self from
which the creative-aspect, God, shines forth. My real being, says
Eckhart, is above God, if we take God to be the beginning of all
created things. ... I [the eternal Godhead] am unborn, and in my unborn
aspect I can never die. In my unborn aspect, I have been eternally, and
am now, and shall eternally remain.6 That unborn aspect, the Godhead,
is experienced when, in contemplation, one enters into that Silence which
exists as the Source and Ground of the minds creative effusion.
Eckhart, having broken through into that Silence, spoke of his own
experience of the unborn Self:
In that breaking-through, when I come to be free of my own
will and of Gods will and of all His works and of God
Himself, then I am above all created things, and I am neither
God nor creature, but I am what I was and what I shall remain,
now and eternally. 7
It is worth repeating that this description of a unitive Reality, consisting
of an eternal and unchanging aspect and a creative aspect, which
manifests itself as the phenomenal world, is not the mere product of a
speculative theology; for Eckhart, as for all who have seen it, it is a
directly perceived fact. To those who have seen the Truth, such
80
descriptions as Eckhart offers of It seem perfectly simple and obvious;
yet to those who have not, it seems all a muddle. When Eckhart spoke of
these matters to the simple peasants in his Sunday Sermon, he closed by
saying to the congregation, Whoever does not understand what I have
said, let him not burden his heart with it; for as long as a man is not equal
to this truth, he will not understand these words, for this is a truth beyond
speculation that has come immediately from the heart of God.
Following the death of Meister Eckhart, many of those illumined by the
knowledge of the Self took a lesson from Eckharts condemnation, and
were careful to avoid offending the guardians of the faith; but there
were a few who, inspired by Eckharts words and his example, found the
courage to speak of their own experience of the unitive Self. Among
these, was one of Eckharts faithful disciples, John Tauler (1300-1361),
who, like Eckhart, was a member of the Dominican Order.
The Blessed Henry Suso (1296-1381) was another of Eckharts disciples
and defenders; and another, the Blessed Jan Ruysbroeck (1293-1381),
was a Flemish citizen who, inspired to lead the contemplative life,
formed a monastic community at Groenendael, under the rule of the
Canons Regular of Saint Augustine.
One of Ruysbroecks confreres at Groenendael was a man by the name
of Gerhart Groot (1340-1384), who later formed another contemplative
community at Deventer, called The Brethren of The Common Life.
He, like Ruysbroeck, Suso and Tauler, had become entirely disenchanted
with the theological hair-splitting of the Scholastics and wished to return
the emphasis of the Christian faith to the holy life of devotion, and away
from the preoccupation with philosophical and theological formulations,
which had been the trend since Thomas Aquinas flourished at Paris.
There, to Deventer, in 1376,
came a young man named Thomas Haemerlein from Kempen on the
Rhine, who was to become one of the most beloved and influential saints
of all time, known to the world as Thomas a Kempis.
In his solitary nights, Thomas wrote down his interior meditations,
prayers, and counsels, and these pure outflowings of Gods activity in
him were eventually collected in the form of a small book for the
spiritual benefit of those novices in his charge. In a very short time after
his death, however, this little book became frequently copied and widely
circulated, not only among ecclesiastics, but among the lay populace as
well; and was immediately received throughout Christiandom as a
supremely holy book of spiritual guidance. As the earliest Latin
manuscripts of this book were untitled, for purposes of identification it
was circulated under the title, Musica Ecclesiastica, or Music of The
Church; but later copiers, forming a title for it from the first few words
of the opening chapter, called it, De Imitatio Christi, or Of The
81
Imitation Of Christ. It is by that title that it is known to us today.
The 16th century Spaniard, Juan de la Cruz (1542-1591), known to
English-speaking people as John of the Cross, spoke with such simple
clarity and poetic beauty on the path of devotion, and with such
psychological subtlety on the mental stages leading to union, that all
others who have spoken of these matters seem, in comparison to him,
like babbling and stammering infants. Had he lived and written in our
own day, still the lucidity of his spiritual vision would be a matter for
wonder; the fact that he lived and wrote in the 16th century, in an age of
great narrow-mindedness and religious oppression, is nothing short of
miraculous.
If Thomas a Kempis was the epitome of the Christian bhakta in the 15th
century, Nicholas of Cusa (1401-1464) was that centurys representative
jnani. But these two were not so far apart in thought as they might at
first appear; in fact, one may find stated in Thomas a Kempis writings
the same perennial philosophy found in Nicholas and vice versa.
Thomas a Kempis, however, was very much a figure of the Middle Ages,
while Nicholas, though outlived by Thomas, is generally regarded as a
transitionary figure, with one foot in the Middle Ages and one in the
Renaissance era. This is due primarily to the scope of Nicholas
interests, which led him into scientific, social, and political concerns as
well as strictly mystical ones. He was born Nicholas Krebs at Cues (Cusa) on
the Moselle river in the
Rhineland to a well-to-do barge captain, in 1401. Like Thomas a
Kempis, twenty years before him, Nicholas went as a young boy to the
Brethren of The Common Life at Deventer to receive his early education.
At the age of sixteen, he entered the University of Heidelberg, and then
transferred to the University of Padua, where he studied Canon law, the
sciences, mathematics, and Greek. He received his degree at the age of
twenty-two, and thereafter decided to enter the priesthood. Nicholas
studied theology at Cologne, as did Eckhart, and in 1426 became
secretary to the Cardinal legate, Giordano Orsini, becoming ordained as a
priest in 1430.
It would seem that around this time Nicholas collected and read a great
number of classic philosophical and mystical works, including those of
Plato, Eriugena, Dionysius the Areopagite, and especially Meister
Eckhart. Sometime around his twenty-eighth year, he must have
experienced the vision of God of which he was later to write so
lucidly. But, in the years that followed, Nicholas became caught up in
the politics of the Church and the ongoing disputes between the Church
and the state, thus beginning the career of reform and reconciliation,
which lasted, throughout his life. In 1440, during a respite from his political
labors,
82
Nicholas wrote his best known philosophical work, De docta ignorantia,
On Learned Ignorance.
Nicholas wrote his little book, De visio Dei, On The Vision Of God, in 1453.
This was also the Nicholas was a prolific writer on the theme of mystical
vision; in 1450
he had written his beautiful dialogue, De sapienta, On Wisdom, and in
his later years, De possest (1460), De non aliud (1462), and De
venatione sapientia (1463), an autobiographical recounting of his search
for wisdom. His primary and overriding interest was in explaining
mystical theology in accordance with his own mystical experience, but
he was also aware of the great need to combine with the devotional life a
love and respect for scientific knowledge in order to forge a unified and
rational comprehension of reality, extending from God to all creation.
He had a natural bent toward mathematics, and used many similies and
analogies from that discipline to illustrate his meaning in many of his
theological works. In addition, he wrote a number of purely mathematic
and scientific treatises advocating a more experimental approach to
knowledge of the natural world. Among these are Raparatio calendari
(1436), his treatment of the reform of the calendar; De quadratura circuli
(1452), and De staticis experimentis (1453). In addition to his
remarkable knowledge of mathematics, geometry and physical science,
he was also well versed in Latin, Greek, Hebrew and Arabic. No
wonder, with all his vast learning and indefatigable energy,year that he wrote his
dialogue concerning the universal tolerance of all religions, De pace fidei,
in which he asserted that all religion[s] and the
worship of God, in all men endowed with the spirit, are fundamentally
one and the same, despite the diversity of their rites.
83
In this book, he pointed out to the dialecticians that all their metaphysical
and theological learning was, in fact, nothing more than ignorance; and
that, when they reached that understanding which allowed them to
acknowledge that all their learning had only brought them, and could
only bring them, to know that they did not know, then they will have
reached that state of learned ignorance wherefrom they could truly
begin to embark on their spiritual journey to true knowledge. Reason,
said Nicholas,
strives for knowledge and yet this natural striving is not
adequate to the knowledge of the Essence of God, but only to
the knowledge that God ...is beyond all conception knowledge. 2
In each generation, the story of the
vision of Truth is retold, even by those who recognize the futility of such
telling. These secret things ought not to be revealed to everyone, because when
they are made known they appear to many as absurdities. 1
He knew well the futility of words to explain what can only be known
through experience; and yet he spoke all the same. For what else is one
to do, unless he abandon humanity altogether and play the fool?
...That wisdom (which all men by their very nature desire to
know and consequently seek after with such great affection of
mind) is known in no other way than that it is higher than all
knowledge and utterly unknowable and unspeakable in all
language. It is unintelligible to all understanding,
immeasurable by all measure, improportion-able by every
proportion, incomparable by all comparison, infigurable by all
figuration, unformable by all formation, ...unimaginable by all
imagination,... inapprehensible in all apprehension and
unaffirmable in all affirmation, undeniable in all negation,
indoubtable in all doubt, inopinionable in all opinion; and
because in all speech it is inexpressable, there can be no limit
to the means of expressing it, being incognitable in all
cognition... 3
But this declaration of the inability of the rational intellect to know God
is not the end but the beginning of Nicholas message, as it is of all
mystics from the authors of the Upanishads forward. The Reality, says
Nicholas,
which is the truth of all beings, is unattainable in its purity;
all philosophers have sought it, none has found it, as it is; and
the more profoundly learned in this ignorance, the more we
shall approach Truth itself. 4
Those who think that wisdom is nothing other than that which
is comprehensible by the understanding, that happiness is
nothing else than what they can attain, are quite far from the
84
true eternal and infinite wisdom. 5
...The highest wisdom consists in this, to know ... how That
which is unattainable [by the intellect] may be reached or
attained in a manner beyond [intellectual] attainment. 6
Much of On Learned Ignorance and The Vision Of God as well is
devoted to proving by rational argument that God is quite beyond
rational comprehension. Nicholas does this by showing that God is
infinite, and therefore beyond all finite predications; and that God is the
coincidence of opposites (coincidentia oppositorum) and is therefore
beyond all thought or expression, which, by its very nature, is based on
either a positive or negative assertion. Nicholas arrived at this
understanding, however, not through logic or ratiocination, but through
direct experience of God.
This coincidence of opposites is the very nature of the mystical
experience. As one enters into the awareness of unity, one directly
perceives that all dualities are produced by the separative mind (or ego).
As that veil of false ego is dissolved, the duality of I and Thou
disappears; the fluctuating mind is stilled, and enters into a Stillness
beyond the opposites of motion and stillness. As this occurs, one realizes
that all that stood as a barrier to this Unity, is constructed of polarities.
For example, the activity of love necessitates its opposite, hatred; the
recognition of beauty necessitates the recognition of ugliness; the love of
knowledge begets a hatred for ignorance; our love of the true necessitates
the arising of repulsion for what is false; even our love of and desire for
Gods vision necessitates the despising of all that obscures it. Thus we
invent good and evil, likes and dislikes; we see movement and rest, and
all the other pairs of opposites, which go to make up our perception of
our separate reality.
But, in the Unity-awareness, which is the absolute Ground of all
existence, these opposites do not exist. As Nicholas says:
Because He is Himself the absolute Ground, in which all
contrariety (alteritas) is unity, and all diversity is identity, that
which we understand as diversity cannot exist in God. 7 ...Just
as contrariety in unity is without contrariety because it is
unity, even so, in infinity, contradiction is without
contradiction, because it is infinity. Infinity is simplicity
itself; contradiction cannot exist without a contrary. 8
...O Lord, my God, ... I see Thee to be Infinity Itself,
wherefore nothing is alien to Thee, nothing differing from
Thee, nothing opposed to Thee. For the Infinite allows no
otherness from Itself, since, being Infinity, nothing exists
outside It: absolute Infinity includes and contains all things. 9
In that Infinity, or Unity, the world-appearance is experienced as a cyclic
85
evolution and involution, or explication and complication, as
Nicholas puts it. Yet this primary dual motion of explication and
contraction, this recurring projection and withdrawal of the world appearance,
is reconciled or resolved in the primal Unity, which is
beyond all such opposites. It is unchanging, as It contains both
explication and contraction. The alternating explication and contraction
goes onas a mans breath goes on; but the One in whom this occurs
remains the same Unityas a man remains the same whether breathing
out or breathing in. That Unity is a One, not set over against a second,
but a One which encompasses all duality within Itself. This is the
simple Truth known by all who have risen to that unitive Awareness
which is the coincidence of all opposites.
Nicholas, having experienced that Unity-awareness, wherein all dualities
cease to be, sees this coincidence of opposites as a sort of threshold, or
wall, separating mortal awareness from God-awareness; he calls it the
wall of Paradise:
I have learnt that the place wherein Thou art found unveiled is
girt round with the coincidence of contradictories, and this is
the wall of Paradise wherein Thou dost abide. ...Thus tis
beyond the coincidence of contradictories that Thou mayest be
seen, and nowhere this side thereof. 10 ...O God almighty,
Thou dwellest within the wall of Paradise, and this wall is
that coincidence where later is one with earlier, where the end
is one with the beginning, where Alpha and Omega are one.11
All these polarities cease to be in the mystical vision. There is no
longer an I and a Thou, no longer a universe and a God, no longer a
separation between motion and rest, order and chaos, sound and silence.
That One is utter Unity, and It is oneself, ones only real, eternal, Self.
And the whole charade of polar opposites in comparison to that eternally
undivided Self is but a misty phantasy, as little affecting that Self as a
flimsy daydream. In that experience of Unity, a man realizes that That is
always and eternally his only Identity, despite the film of separate ego
and separate thought, which closes back in upon him, like moss on the
water, obscuring that pure Awareness. For he has seen in that Awareness
that this One is the only one anywhere; that that one Consciousness,
which is who he is eternally, is the source and manifestation of all that is.
Naturally, the separative mind, which exists and functions only as a
producer of opposites, can scarcely be expected to fathom That which is
beyond all opposites. Thought is made of opposites, and therefore
cannot be expected to conceive of That which produces it. It is only
when the mind, having become stilled and concentrated, rises to the
awareness of its own Ground and Source that this coincidence of
opposites occurs. One may practice this concentration through the
86
means of meditation or prayer, but one does not always succeed; it
occurs, in fact, but rarely. To anyone practicing this concentrated
transcendence of the ego-mind, it quickly becomes evident that it cannot
be done simply by ones own efforts. There must be a coincidence as
well of love and grace, which comes in its own time. It is set, as it
were, in the universal Will, and arises in its own due time during the
ordered unfolding of the universe.
We can only become aware of that grace as it increases in us. A strong
resolve arises in us to know God; our love for Him increases within us
beyond what we have experienced before, and we sense a nearness, a
proximity, which we long to close. It draws us like a magnet, increasing
within us Its own desire, until at last in a moment of yearning prayer, the
veil is drawn aside, the wall of contraries is passed, and the Unity dawns
within. This uncommon drawing-power experienced within is known as
grace. Everyone who has ever entered that Unity-awareness has
acknowledged its agency, and his own impotency without it.
When grace begins to be active within, the understanding becomes
quickened and illumined, and the heart becomes filled with a tender love
and yearning for God. The mind cannot bear to think of anything but
God, and it turns away from all mental apparitions to focus singly on its
Lord.
Of his own mystical experience, Nicholas is typically silent in most of
his written works; but, in The Vision Of God, written for the monks of
Tegernsee, he does reveal something of his own vision. Here, he speaks
of how the Face of God may be seen beyond the veil of all appearances
and all faces:
Thou hast at times appeared unto me, Lord, not as one to be
seen of any creature, but as the hidden, infinite, God. 16
...In all faces is seen the Face of faces, veiled, and obscured,
although it is not seen unveiled until a man enters, beyond all
faces, into a certain secret and mystic silence where there is
no knowledge or concept of a face. This mist, cloud, darkness
or ignorance into which he that seeks Thy face enters when he
goes beyond all knowledge or concept, is a state beneath
which Thy face cannot be seen except veiled; but that
darkness reveals Thy face to be there, beyond all veils. 17
...Thou dost ravish me above myself that I may foresee the
glorious place whereunto Thou callest me. ...Thou grantest me
to behold the treasury of riches, of life, of joy, of beauty. ...
Thou keepest nothing secret. 18
...I behold Thee, O Lord my God, in a kind of mental trance, 19
...Thus, while I am borne to loftiest heights, I behold Thee as
Infinity... 20 ...And when I behold Thee as absolute Infinity, to
87
whom is befitting neither the name of creating Creator nor of
creatable Creatorthen indeed I begin to behold Thee
unveiled, and to enter into the garden of delights! 21
...[In that vision] nothing is seen other than Thyself, [for
Thou] art Thyself the object of Thyself (for Thou seest,
and art That which is seen, and art the sight as well)... 22
It is there, in that mystical experience of infinite Unity that one beholds
the wondrous and paradoxical nature of an unchangeable and immutable
One, which appears as the changeable and mutable world of multiplicity.
In wonder at this ineffable paradox, Nicholas exclaims:
O God, ...[Thou dost] seem subject to mutability, since Thou
dost never desert Thy creatures, which are subject to
mutability; ...but, because Thou art the absolute Good, Thou
art not changeable, and dost not follow what is mutable. O the
unplumbed depths of Thee, my God, who art not separate
from Thy creatures, and art nonetheless beyond them! 23
Like all others who have experienced God, and faced this conceptual
paradox, Nicholas finds it necessary, in order to explain the nature of an
unchangeable and constant Unity which appears as a changeable and
inconstant world-manifestation, to conceptually divide the one Reality
into categorically separate persona. He frames his conception in terms
identical to those used by the early Christians, Gnostics and Hermeticists.
God, he says, in His absolute and invariable Unity, is the Father; in His
mysterious creative Power of world-manifestation, He is the Son, or
the Word; and in His perceptible manifestation as the multiple forms
of the world, He is the Holy Spirit. Nicholas is always quick to remind
us that these three are always one, and are divided conceptually only in
order to make clear the various modes, or aspects, of the One.
As the Father, God is the absolute Unity, Infinity, Eternity. The
creative Power of God Nicholas explains as that potency within the
Father wherewith all things are produced from non-being to being. If
God, the unchanging Unity, be called the Father, then, says Nicholas,
His Power of manifestation is the Son:
He is God the Father whom we might also call One or
Unity, because He necessitates being out of what did not
exist (through His omnipotence) ... This [omnipotent Power
of His] is the Word, the Wisdom, the Son of the Father; and
we may regard Him as co-equal to the One or Unity. 24
And the Power or Energy which is manifested by the Word, or Son, and
which forms all things, is the Holy Spirit. It is the Word that is, itself,
manifest as the world, but to differentiate the cause, or Creator, from the
effect, or the created, he uses these two terms. Thus, these three
Father, Son, and Holy Spiritare but names for God, His Power of
88
Manifestation, and the world-appearance which is the product of that
Power. They are one in essence, but three when categorized according to
their different characteristics.
Thus the Essence is triune, and yet there are not three essences
therein, since It is most simple. The plurality of these three is
both plurality and unity, and their unity is both unity and
plurality. 25
Nicholas always stresses the essential unity of these three aspects of
Reality, rather than their apparent plurality. For his purpose is to show
that the world is nothing but the Word, and the Word is nothing but God;
and that, therefore, the world is nothing but God. What is the world,
asks Nicholas, but the manifestation of the invisible God? 26
This threefold categorization of Reality is, of course a formulation
common to all mystics of all traditions. In the Vedantic terminology, for
example, these three are Brahman, Maya, and Jagat; in the Shaivite
terminology, Shiva, Shakti, and samsara; for the Buddhists,
Dharmakaya, Purvapranidhanabala, and samsara; and so on. Nicholas
vision is, in all respects, common to all who, through inner vision, have
seen the Truth of existence and attempted to explain it in a way
comprehensible to the intellect. But this is not a mere theological
formula to be learned and mouthed by school children. It is to be
experienced in that inner vision wherein God as man awakens to his
divine Ground and eternal Identity through a loving regard, as that of a
son to his father, or an ardent lover to her beloved.
Man is at once the Essence and the appearance; both God and His
Thought-image. When he rises in awareness beyond the appearances of
the Thought-image, he knows his eternal Identityas a man, waking
from a dream, realizes he is not just the dream-image within a dream, but
the dreamer; or as an image in a mirror might behold him who is the
source, or original, of the image. When anyone looks into this mirror of
Eternity, says Nicholas,
what he sees is not the figure, but the Truth, whereof the
beholder himself is a figure. Wherefore, in Thee, my God,
the figure is [really] the Truth, and the Exemplar of all things
that exist. 27
...I am a living shadow and Thou the Truth... Wherefore, my
God, Thou art alike shadow and Truth; Thou art alike the
image and the Exemplar of myself and all men. 28
In his little book, De sapientia, On Wisdom, which is a dialogue
between a teacher and his student, Nicholas expresses most beautifully
the difference between that knowledge attainable through intellectual
learning, and that direct knowledge of God which is wisdom; and he
exhorts his readers to pass beyond a mere intellectual understanding to
89
that wisdom attainable only in the vision of God, through love and grace:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Juan de Yepes y Alvarez on June 24, 1542, at Fontiveros, a
small village about twenty-four miles northwest of Avila in the district of
Old Castille. In 1567, at the age of twenty-five, he was ordained.
It was just at this time that Juan met the nun, Mother Teresa de Jesus,
who was then a woman past fifty years of age, and who was later to be
recognized as a saint, and known to the world as Teresa of Avila.
The Carmelites traced their ancestry to a group of anchorites who dwelt
on Mount Carmel in Palestine in ancient times, and who adopted in the
12th century the strict Rule of Saint Albert, the Latin Patriarch of
Jerusalem, which placed special emphasis on poverty, strict enclosure,
fasting and prayer. By the mid-thirteenth century, this Rule was relaxed,
and again made even milder in the mid-fifteenth century by order of
Pope Eugenius IV. In 1562, Teresa of Avila founded the Discalced
Carmelites, calling for a return to the primitive Rule, a return to the
original ideals of the strictly contemplative life.
The strict tenets of Teresas new Order were solely directed toward the
reformation of the heart, in order that it might receive the grace of divine
love, and toward the focusing of the hearts intent on the pursuit of the
holy union of the soul with the Divine. Thus, they called for very little
of outward works or preaching, but focused entirely on a life of interior
recollection and prayer, and a singular devotion to God alone, to the
exclusion of all else.
Juan was thereupon found guilty of rebellion and contumacy, and
condemned to an unspecified term of imprisonment. He was thrown into
a closet six feet by ten feet, which had served as a privy to an adjoining
guest-chamber. This was in December of 1557. His home for the next
nine months was this small stone privy-closet, lit only by a small hole at
the top.
It was during this nine months in his tiny cell that Juan wrote down, on
scraps of paper given to him by a sympathetic jailer, the verses which
were to comprise his most famous and exquisite poetry on the dark
night of the soul, and its union with its Lord. It was there, in this most
wretched physical state, that his mind, freed from all but God, his only
solace, experienced that illumination which he calls the divine
marriage of the soul and God.
Juans prose works, each corresponding to one of his short poems, are
The Ascent of Mount Carmel, The Dark Night (which was intended as
part of The Ascent), The Spiritual Canticle, and The Living Flame Of
Love. The path he expounds in these works is not, in the least way,
different from that shown by the devotional saints of all religious
90
traditions; his distinction lies, rather, in the keen clarity of his perception
of the progressive psychological stages along the way, and the amazingly
lucid and convincing way in which he describes these stations. Anyone
who has traveled the path of divine lovewhether Hindu, Jew, Buddhist
or Sufimust stand in awe, and thrill with delight, before these written
works of Fray Juan de la Cruz; for no more true and perfect description
of the mystical path of devotion could ever be imagined.
The goal of the mystic is Truth,
God, the Highestin short, the ultimate perfection and beatitude. For
the lover, all this is summed as union with the Beloved. To be united
with God is to be dis-united with the separative ego; to see the one Self is
to become blind to the desires and appetites of the individual self. The
knowledge, pleasure, and enjoyment of God is obtained internally and
not externally; and therefore the knowledge, pleasure and enjoyment of
the phenomenal world is not included in it.
.those who look to the Eternal, the Absolute, do so only
by looking away from the transient, the phenomenal; and those who look
to the transient, phenomenal world necessarily look away from the
Eternal. Make no mistake: though these two are undoubtedly
complementary aspects of the same one Reality, they are, to the vision,
mutually exclusive. Juan expresses this fact in this way:
The high things of God are foolishness and madness to man...
Hence the wise men of God and the wise men of the world are
foolish in the eyes of each other, for to the one group, the
wisdom and knowledge of God is imperceivable, and to the
other, the knowledge of the world is imperceivable. Wherefore
the knowledge of the world is ignorance to the knowledge of
God, and the knowledge of God is ignorance to the knowledge
of the world. 2
The wisdom of God lies in a direction opposite to the wisdom of the
world, but to the normally active and outgoing mind, such a 180 turnaround
is as difficult as holding back a raging river or a dozen wild
horses. To Juan, this total denial of the outgoing tendencies of the mind
and will is like a dark night for the soul. And in his poem, called The
Dark Night, he tells of the journey of the soul to union with God in
allegorical terms, describing a midnight rendezvous of a lover with her
beloved. In his commentary on this poem, he explains that he describes
this journey as taking place on a dark night because, in setting out on this
journey, the soul must be emptied of all appetite or desire for what
belongs to the phenomenal world; and this, to the soul, is like darkness.
Secondly, the path itself is dark, as it may not be negotiated by the light
of the reasoning intellect, but in the darkness of faith alone. Thirdly,
says Juan, God, Himself, the Objective and End of the journey, is
91
profound darkness to the mind and senses accustomed to the light of the
world.
In addition to the renunciation of the appetites, there is yet another,
complementary, ingredient in the successful attainment of union with
God; and that is grace. Grace is, of course, ever-present, and is the hand
that upholds an aspirant every step of the way; but the grace of divine
love, the grace of extreme longing for God, is a very special and highly
significant grace. The desire for God, says Juan, is the preparation for
union with Him. ... If a person is seeking God, his Beloved is seeking
him much more. And if a soul directs to God its loving desires, God
sends forth His fragrance by which He draws it and makes it run after
Him.8 And yet this love is an afflictive and joyless love, until it is
consummated; for, though it enters sweetly, it brings the soul near to
death before its work is done.
Yet, as the soul draws nearer to God, through this infused flame of love,
its suffering grows even more intense as it longs solely for the
consummation of that love, in the perfect meeting with the Beloved.
Brought, by grace, to utter humility and nothingness, it is prepared to
make that final ascent.
In the 20th Century there were an exceptional few Christian writers, even during
those awful
war years, who advanced the call to mystical knowledge, such as Evelyn
Underhill (1875-1941), Dean Inge (1860-1954) and Thomas Merton
(1915-1968).
It was not until the 1950s, however, that the new availability of
inexpensive paperback volumes served to familiarize an increasing
segment of the public with the past mystics of every religious tradition.
The works of D.T. Suzuki, R.H. Blyth, Christmas Humphries, Philip
Kapleau and other Buddhist scholars created a great deal of interest in
Zen Buddhism; and the publication of ancient Sufi works translated by
A.J. Arberry and R.A. Nicholson brought about an increased familiarity
with that tradition as well. By the 1960s, a large-scale Renaissance of
mysticism had surfaced in the West. During that decade, hundreds of
scholarly works and translations of mystical literature were published in
Europe and America, and thousands of eager young minds were
awakened to the life of devotion and meditation on the Self.
92
As mentioned previously at the beginning of the numerous quotes on the
insights, teachings and lives of these mystics, the above are from The History of
Mysticism (30th edition) by Swami Abhayananda. (Stan Trout)
1. Mystical Experience
4. Perennialism
6. Constructivism
Bibliography
Academic Tools
Related Entries
94
5 Forms of mysticism
5.1 Shamanism
o 5.5.1 Hinduism
o 5.5.2 Tantra
5.6 Buddhism
5.7 Taoism
6 See also
7 Notes
8 References
9 Sources
9.2 Web-sources
10 Further reading
11 External links
95
9
Are there characteristics we can identify in the descriptions of
the cases of religious experience and mystical experience we
have quoted? Are any of them philosophically relevant? Do they
reveal certain values, norms, attitudes, aims and other aspects
of a shared intersubjectivity? Is this a specialized type of
intersubjectivity? Are there different types of intersubjectivity,
for example in different countries, cultures, communities,
groups, disciplines and socio-cultural practices?
3.1 Phenomenology
4 In psychology
5 In child development
6 See also
7 References
8 Further reading
8.1 Psychoanalysis
8.2 Philosophy
Jean-Paul Sartre
Martin Buber
Gabriel Marcel
Dialogue
Edmund Husserl
97
Phenomenology
Eviatar Zerubavel
Emmanuel Levinas
9 External links
Psychoanalysis
Philosophy
98
Edmund Husserl Zur Phnomenologie der
Intersubjektivitt. Texte aus dem Nachlass 1929-1935
99
creating differing beliefs among people who subscribe to different thought
communities. These experiences transcend our subjectivity, which explains why
they can be shared by the entire thought community.[12] Proponents of
intersubjectivity support the view that individual beliefs are often the result of
thought community beliefs, not just personal experiences or universal and
objective human beliefs. Beliefs are recast in terms of standards, which are set
by thought communities.
http://study.com/academy/lesson/intersubjectivity-definition-examples.html
http://www.owenkelly.net/2439/intersubjectivity-a-working-definition/
http://www.center4familydevelop.com/Intersubjectivity.pdf
http://mmmi.robinfaichney.org/intersub.html
http://www.kheper.net/topics/intersubjectivity/definitions.html
100
definition is rather more nuanced. Because I'm interested in trying to find as
many definitions as possible, I'll quote Esbjorn-Hargens here, along with some
comments:
Wilber uses the same term, "intersubjectivity," to refer to at least five different
dimensions of intersubjectivity. Thus, when approaching Wilber on the topic of
intersubjectivity one needs to be sensitive to the context, which is often the
only indicator of which type of intersubjectivity is being explained. Though
this presentation doesn't afford the space for a thorough explanation of these
dimensions, let me briefly introduce them with terms I have generated:
102
seems to combine Intersubjectivity-1 (phenomenology) and 3 (process
philosophy)]
At best Wilber adds one new category, possibly two. A further dimension of
Intersubjectivity, curiously not mentioned by Wilber in view of hsi Mahayana
Buddhist leanings, is Tu-shun's non-obstruction of Shih against Shih . "Indra's
Net"
semiotic intersubjectivity
psychosocial intersubjectivity
psychological intersubjectivity
metaphysical intersubjectivity
nondual intersubjectivity
Indra's Net
http://www.kheper.net/topics/intersubjectivity/index.html
http://www.kheper.net/topics/index.html
http://www.kheper.net/topics/philosophy/index.html
http://www.kheper.net/topics/intersubjectivity/index.html
103
I first encountered the idea of Intersubjectivity in the work of Ken Wilber,
although it seems it originally developed in psychology and phenomenology.
The concept has however been developed in much greater detail by
Transpersonal Psychologist Christian de Quincey (who is also critical of
Wilber's interpretations)
It also occured to me that every interaction we have with the world, whether
on the gross physical or the subtle/auric level, and whether with inanimate
(inconscient) objects, nature, non-human animals, humans, devas, or any other
being, is intersubjective and participatory in some way, and ideally can aid in
transforming the world
http://sociologyindex.com/intersubjectivity.htm
104
Through intersubjectivity ordinary people as well as
sociologists assume that if another stood in their shoes
they would see the same things. We all make our subjective
experience available and understandable to others. What might
constitute intersubjective relations during infancy and early
childhood remains a puzzle within and beyond psychology.
105
intersubjectivity.
106
emergent theories and wisdom traditions in the light of
genetic phenomenology
Natalie Depraz, College International de Philosophie
Abstract: The relevance of Husserlian Theory of
Intersubjectivity for contemporary empirical research and for
ancestral wisdom. Two main Husserlian discoveries that
subjectivity is from the very beginning intersubjectivity and
infants, animals, the insane and aliens are subjects in a full
sense as they are right from the beginning already
intersubjective subjects.
107
for intersubjectivity proper
Iso Kern, Institute of Philosophy, Eduard Marbach, Institute of
Philosophy, University of Bern.
Abstracts: The study of intersubjectivity is closely tied to
questions of the representational mind. It focuses on
developmental studies of children's understanding of the
human mind.
108
Michigan, 525 East University, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1109, USA
Journal of Consciousness Studies, 8, No. 5-7, 2001, pp. 293-
309
Abstracts: Explores the kinds of relationships that can develop
between human and nonhuman animals. How Safi and I co-
create systems of communication and emotional expression
that permit deep 'intersubjectivity.'
109
complex problems, define others as significant in terms of their
perceived power.
110
John W. Du Bois, University of California, Santa Barbara
Why is it necessary to integrate intersubjectivity into any
understanding of language and social life? How does
intersubjectivity relate to stance?
111
Wanda Pierson
Abstract: This article examines some of the notions of
intersubjectivity and proposes an alternative understanding.
Critique of Intersubjectivity
112
Abstract: The article investigates the philosophical and
psychological notion of intersubjectivity.
http://mlwi.magix.net/intersubj.htm
Abstract
Conclusion
I contend that there are two kinds of intersubjectivity: (1) the unsound merger
theories and (2) the sound version where the intersubjective co-creation takes
place autonomously in the unconscious, (? Or as values, norms, etc?) supported
by an ego that allows for autonomy by defining itself against both inner
otherness and outer otherness. It implies that the unconscious is
acknowledged as a comparably autonomous inner other, rather than a passive
storage space for repressions or introjected object-relations.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/husserl/#EmpIntLif
113
7. Empathy, intersubjectivity and lifeworld
Among the fundamental beliefs thus uncovered by Husserl is the belief (or
expectation) that a being that looks and behaves more or less like myself, i.e.,
displays traits more or less familiar from my own case, will generally perceive
things from an egocentric viewpoint similar to my own (here, over there,
to my left, in front of me, etc.), in the sense that I would roughly look upon
things the way he does if I were in his shoes and perceived them from his
perspective. This belief allows me to ascribe intentional acts to others
immediately or appresentatively, i.e., without having to draw an inference,
say, by analogy with my own case. So the belief in question must lie quite at the
bedrock of my belief-system. It forms a part of the already pregiven (and
generally unreflected) intentional background, or lifeworld (cf. Crisis),
against which my practice of act-ascription and all constitutive achievements
based upon that practice make sense in the first place, and in terms of which
they get their ultimate justification.
114
Husserl's notion of lifeworld is a difficult (and at the same time important) one.
It can roughly be thought of in two different (but arguably compatible) ways:
(1) in terms of belief and (2) in terms of something like socially, culturally or
evolutionarily established (but nevertheless abstract) sense or meaning.
The term lifeworld thus denotes the way the members of one or more social
groups (cultures, linguistic communities) use to structure the world into objects
(Husserliana, vol. VI, pp. 126138, 140145). The respective lifeworld is
claimed to predelineate a world-horizon of potential future experiences that
are to be (more or less) expected for a given group member at a given time,
under various conditions, where the resulting sequences of anticipated
experiences can be looked upon as corresponding to different possible worlds
and environments (Husserliana, vol. III/1, p. 100). These expectations follow
typical patterns, as the lifeworld is fixed by a system of (first and foremost
implicit) intersubjective standards, or conventions, that determine what counts
as normal or standard observation under normal conditions (Husserliana,
vol. XV, pp. 135 ff, 142) and thus as a source of epistemic justification. Some of
these standards are restricted to a particular culture or homeworld
(Husserliana, vol. XV, pp. 141 f, 227236), whereas others determine a
general structure that is a priori in being unconditionally valid for all
subjects, defining that on which normal Europeans, normal Hindus, Chinese,
etc., agree in spite of all relativity (Husserliana, vol. VI, p. 142). Husserl
quotes universally accepted facts about spatial shape, motion, sense-quality as
well as our prescientific notions of spatiotemporality, body and causality
115
as examples (ibid.). These conceptions determine the general structure of all
particular thing-concepts that are such that any creature sharing the essential
structures of intentional consciousness will be capable of forming and grasping
them, respectively, under different lifeworldly conditions.
116
alternative to the naturalistic stance taken by many analytic philosophers
today.
117
8. The intersubjective constitution of objectivity and the case
for transcendental idealism
Roughly, his argument goes as follows. In order for me to be able to put myself
into someone else's shoes and simulate his (or her) perspective upon his
surrounding spatio-temporal world, I cannot but assume that this world
coincides with my own, at least to a large extent; although the aspects under
which the other subject represents the world must be different, as they depend
on his own egocentric viewpoint. Hence, I must presuppose that the spatio-
temporal objects forming my own world exist independently of my subjective
perspective and the particular experiences I perform; they must, in other words,
be conceived of as part of an objective reality. This result fits in well within
fact, it serves to explainHusserl's view, already stressed in Ideas, that
perceptual objects are transcendent in that at any given moment they display
an inexhaustive number of unperceived (and largely even unexpected) features,
only some of which will become manifestwill be intuitively presentedin the
further course of observation.
However, according to Husserl this does not mean that the objective world thus
constituted in intersubjective experience is to be regarded as completely
independent of the aspects under which we represent the world. For on his view
another condition for the possibility of intersubjective experience is precisely
the assumption that by and large the other subject structures the world into
objects in the same style I myself do. It is partly for this reason that Husserl can
be said to adhere to a version of both realism and idealism at the same time.
118
terminological choice he would later regret; see Fllesdal 1990a, 128). During
the years in which his transcendental phenomenology took shape, he developed
a number of "proofs" of this position, most of which are based upon his
conception of a "real possibility" regarding cognition or the acquisition of
knowledge. By a "real possibility", Husserl understands a possibility that is such
that "somethingmore or less 'speaks in favour of it'" (Hua XX/1, p. 178).
Real possibilities are, in other words, conceived of as more or less (rationally)
motivated possibilities; and Husserl understands motivation in such a way that it
is always someone who is motivated a certain way (cf. Hua IV, p. 222). This is
why Husserl subscribes to the following dependency thesis: The real possibility
to acquire (empirical) knowledge regarding a contingent object A (possible
world, individual thing, state of affairs involving such thing; cf. Hua XXXVI,
pp. 139f) "requires" an "epistemic subject", which "either experiences A, or
acquires knowledge regarding A on the basis of experience, or else has the
practical possibility (or the practical ability) to experience A and acquire
knowlede regarding it" (Hua XXXVI, p. 139). Husserl also adheres to the
following correlation thesis with regard to empirical reality and real epistemic
possibility: If a contingent object A is real (really exists), then the real (as
opposed to the merely logical) possibility obtains to acquire knowledge
regarding A (cf. Hua XXXVI, p. 138, l. 35-36). From these two propositions
the dependency and the correlation thesishe derives the conclusion that the
existence of a contingent object A requires "the necessary co-existence of a
subject either acquiring knowledge" regarding A "or having the ability to do so"
(Hua XXXVI, pp. 139f). This is nothing but "[t]he thesis of transcendental
idealism [...]: A nature without co-existing subjects of possible experience
regarding it is unthinkable; possible subjects of experience are not enough"
(Hua XXXVI, p. 156).
119
justified, is dependent on the phenomenological subjects reflecting about such
counterfactual cases in the methodological context of the transcendental
reduction and the results they arrive at in this context.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/husserl/#Bib
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/husserl/#SecLit
https://benjamins.com/#catalog/books/celcr.12/main
120
The cognitive and language sciences are increasingly oriented
towards the social dimension of human cognition and
communication. The hitherto dominant approach in modern
cognitive science has viewed social cognition through the
prism of the traditional philosophical puzzle of how individuals
solve the problem of understanding Other Minds. The Shared
Mind challenges the conventional theory of mind approach,
proposing that the human mind is fundamentally based on
intersubjectivity: the sharing of affective, conative, intentional
and cognitive states and processes between a plurality of
subjects. The socially shared, intersubjective foundation of the
human mind is manifest in the structure of early i The Shared
Mind
Perspectives on intersubjectivity
Table of Contents
Foreword. Shared minds and the science of fiction: Why theories will
differ vii
xiii
Colwyn Trevarthen
1. Intersubjectivity: What makes us human?
Jordan Zlatev, Timothy P. Racine, Chris Sinha and Esa 1 14
Itkonen
Part I. Development
2. Understanding others through primary interaction and
narrative practice 17
38
Shaun Gallagher and Daniel D. Hutto
3. The neuroscience of social understanding 39
John Barresi and Chris Moore 66
121
5. Coming to agreement: Object use by infants and
adults 89
114
Cintia Rodrguez and Christiane Moro
6. The role of intersubjectivity in the development of
intentional communication 115
140
Ingar Brinck
7. Sharing mental states: Causal and definitional issues
in intersubjectivity 141
162
Noah Susswein and Timothy P. Racine
Part II. Evolution
8. Evidence for intentional and referential
communication in great apes? 165
186
Simone Pika
9. The heterochronic origins of explicit reference 187
David A. Leavens, William D. Hopkins and Kim A. Bard 214
122
Terry Janzen and Barbara Shaffer
15. Language and the signifying object: From convention
to imagination 357
378
Chris Sinha and Cintia Rodrguez
379
Author index
382
383
Subject index
391
Main BIC
CFD: Psycholinguistics
Subject
123
1. Lus Claudio Figueiredo
o Abstract
o Abstract
o Abstract
124
Supplementarity and Surplus: Moving between the
Dimensions of Otherness Culture & Psychology September
1, 2003 9: 209-220
o Abstract
o Abstract
o Abstract
Why does Sally never Call Bobby `I'? Culture & Psychology
September 1, 2003 9: 287-297
o Abstract
o Abstract
o Abstract
125
o Full Text (PDF)
o Abstract
http://cognet.mit.edu/topics/351
http://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007%2F978-1-4614-6086-
2_9182
http://phenomenologyblog.com/?p=712
126
For philosophy the problem is this: how can I give an account of something if it
is completely outside of and transcends my own nature? A phenomenological
theory of intersubjectivity, founded upon the recognition of the imminence of
otherness offers a solution to the problematic of the transcendence of
objectivity. How can the other be present in my lived-world? How can the world
be an objective world though we are different living subjects? How can we live
in a society of shared values?
127
The sources Husserl borrowed to develop his theory of intersubjectivity are
especially indebted to Brentano (1973), Stein (1989) and Fink (1995). From
Brentano he took the theory of intentionality to explain the subject-object
relationship and from Stein the notion of empathy to clarify the manner in
which we perceive otherness.
Franz Brentano
128
what we might call, though not wholly unambiguously, reference to a content,
direction toward an object (which is not to be understood here as meaning a
thing), or immanent objectivity. Every mental phenomenon includes something
as object within itself, although they do not do so in the same way. In
presentation, something is presented, in judgment something is affirmed or
denied, in love loved, in hate hated, in desire desired and so on. (1973, p. 101)
Edmund Husserl
While intentionality describes the conscious relatedness of the subject and the
world, empathy helps us to understand in everyday language how I can put
myself in the shoes of someone else. In particular, I want to focus on a key
term in Steins doctoral thesis on empathy supervised by Husserl (Stein, 1989):
iterated empathy. This term concept enables us to give an account of the sense
of the others experience as somehow my own. In phenomenological terms, how
is it possible for me to ascribe the intentional acts of another person to myself
as if I were living the others intentional acts?
Husserl writes: the other man is constitutionally the intrinsically first man
(Husserl 1982 55, p. 124). In fact when I perceive another person, the other is
genetically constituted in the midst of my own, flowing experience within the
natural attitude, which means that my perception of the other is not posited
before or after my self-presence, but it blossoms as a natural experience
alongside my self-presence. In my own simple living and perceiving, the other
appears as natural part of my being-in-the world: one could almost say, as a
companion. Perhaps for this reason Husserl describes the relation using the term
pairing (Paarung), which I will address below. This very first experience is
called by Husserl communarization (Vergemeinschaftung) to indicate this
originary mode of living in which no ego (not even myself) remains absolutely
singular.
In this monadological intersubjectivity the second ego [the other] is not simply
there, and strictly given to himself; rather is he constituted as alter ego the
ego indicated as one moment by this expression being I myself in my owness
(Husserl 1982 44, p. 94). The other appears via a pairing (Paarung), that is via
its external presence as an animate organism (Leib) that is similar to mine.
When I perceive this organism analogous to me, I live an analogical
apprehension that enables me to recognize myself as a human being partaking
in a humanity that is shared with others. The analogy is not in full force and
effect (voll); it is an indication, not an anticipation (Vorgriff) that could become
a seizure of the self (Selbstgriff) (Husserl 1972, p. 87).
132
Everything [is] alien (as long as it remains within the apprehended horizon of
concreteness that necessarily goes with it). [It] centers in an apprehended Ego
who is not I myself but, relative to me, a modificatum: another Ego (Husserl
1982 52, pp. 115-6). I perceive the otherness only when I appresent it to my
ego, that is when I intend it by an epistemological intentional act. The identity-
sense of my primordial Nature and the presentiated other primordial Nature is
necessarily produced by the appresentation and the unity that it, as
appresentation, necessarily has with the presentation cofunctioning for it this
appresentation by virtue of which an Other and, consequently, his concrete ego
are there for me in the first place. Quite rightly, therefore, we speak of
perceiving someone else arid then of perceiving the Objective world, perceiving
that the other Ego and I are looking at the same world, and so forth though this
perceiving goes on exclusively within the sphere of my ownness (Husserl 1982
55, pp. 123-4).
Therefore the objective world and mutual existence of the others can be attained
by virtue of this harmonious confirmation of apperceptive constitution. I intend
the other within a specific horizon of functionings and peculiarities but these
presentations have to be continuously confirmed or corrected in the flow of my
new, intersubjective experiences of it. In this way, apperception is in a
continuous, open-ended process of adjustment and correction. Harmoniousness
is also preserved by virtue of a recasting of apperceptions through
distinguishing between normality and abnormalities (as modifications thereof),
or by virtue of the constitution of new unities throughout the changes involved
in abnormalities (Husserl 1982 55, 125 sq.) The mutual relations
characterizing each member of the monadological community involve an
objectivating equalization (Gleichstellung) (Husserliana 1982 56, p. 129) of
the existence of the ego and the others I, the ego, have the world starting from
a performance (Leistung), in which [] constitute myself, as well as my
horizon of others and, at the same time (in eins damit), the homogeneous
community of us (Wir-Gemeinschaft) ; this constitution is not a constitution of
the world, but an actualization which could be designated as monadization of
the ego as actualization of personal monadization, of monadical
pluralization (Husserliana VI, 417).
At the end of the fourth text in Husserliana XV Husserl writes starting from
intersubjectivity, it is possible to establish the intersubjective reduction by
placing between brackets the world in itself and thus achieving the reduction to
the universe of the intersubjective that includes in itself all that is individually
133
subjective (1973c, 69; Husserl 1972, 188 sq., p. 272). The very first beginning
of a phenomenological intersubjective analysis is given by reduction. The
reduction designates the inquirers passage from a natural attitude, in which the
subject naively participates in the world, to a phenomenological attitude, in
which the subject reflects upon what he already lived and is living in order to
discern the essence of a lived-experience (Erlebnisse).
In fact, the ego that stands out to the inquirer by means of this reduction is an
Ur-ich, a primordial ego (Husserliana VI, p. 188). In my spiritual ownness, I
am nevertheless the identical Ego-pole of my manifold pure subjective
processes, those of my passive and active intentionality, and the pole of all the
habitualities instituted or to be instituted by those processes (Husserl 1982
44, p. 98).
According to Husserls
phenomenological theory every ego seems to live many lives at once; or put
differently, to exemplify multiple modes of being-an-I simultaneously. The ego
can be said to live at least three lives at the same time: an immanent,
transcendental and intersubjective life. In the first one the ego lives according to
the natural attitude thanks to which it acquires sense data. Through employing
the reduction, it puts in bracket all that does not belong to its own intentional
134
life to recover habitualities and sedimentations constituted as abiding
convictions (bleibende berzeugungen), which determine the Self as a
concrete egoic pole and the transcendent objects (given either actually or
potentially). Finally the intersubjective ego is the ego given after the reduction.
In this life the ego discovers itself not as a solipsistic unit or a monad but as an
intersubjective unit. All that belongs to its lived-experience is mingled with and
inextricable from the lived-experiences of others. Thus, the second
transcendental ego is only a limited aspectone might almost say a profileof
the third, transcendental intersubjective ego, but at the same time the former
grounds (fundiert) the latter.
The relation between the transcendental ego and other egos is also strengthened
by the apperception of the world (Weltapperzeption). In fact the transcendental
ego constitutes the world as a phenomenon thanks to its intentional activity.
Since the transcendental ego is fundamentally one with the intersubjective and
immanent ego, the constitution of the world is an intersubjective constitution in
which the world is always intrinsically a lifeworld shared by an intersubjective
community. It itself is a part of the explication of the intentional components
(Bestnde) implicit in the fact of the experiential world that exists for us.
(Husserl 1982 49, p. 108).
In the first volume of Ideas Husserl had already introduced this concept under
the heading of Umwelt to mean a surrounding natural world, and it is only after
writing the Cartesian Meditation and most of all in the Crisis that Husserl
elaborates a proper Umweltanalyse to explicate the idea of an objective world
shared within the intersubjective life of a living community. (Husserliana, vol.
IV, p. 222; Husserl 1989, p. 234). To explain the layers of this lifeworld
(Lebenswelt), Husserl gives the following example:
135
could not be shared with a real or potential we, could not be grasped by
consciousness in the first place. In other words, we would not be capable of
intending itin the simplest terms, we would not be able to speak about it. Our
intended world is the grounding soil within which a more objective (or better,
intersubjective) world of community and science is co-constituted (Husserl,
1976, p. 134). This is the only soil within which we simultaneously discover
and shape our multi-tiered, intersubjective life.
References
Husserl, E. 1900, 1901, 1913 & 1921. Logical investigations, 2 vols. Edited by
J. N. Findlay, New York: Routledge, 1970.
136
Husserl, E. 1918-26. Analysen zur passiven Synthesis. Aus Vorlesungs- und
Forschungsmanuskripten, 1918-1926. [Analyses of passive synthesis. From
lectures and research manuscripts, 1918-1926]. Edited by Margot Fleischer. The
Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1966.
Photo credits
Friends shadows photo credit: Pink Sherbet Photography via photo pin cc
http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/viewArticle/19/41
Reiner Keller
138
Abstract: The contribution outlines a research programme which I have coined
the "sociology of knowledge approach to discourse" (Wissenssoziologische
Diskursanalyse). This approach to discourse integrates important insights of
FOUCAULT's theory of discourse into the interpretative paradigm in the social
sciences, especially the "German" approach of hermeneutic sociology of
knowledge (Hermeneutische Wissenssoziologie). Accordingly, in this approach
discourses are considered as "structured and structuring structures" which shape
social practices of enunciation. Unlike some Foucauldian approaches, this form
of discourse analysis recognises the importance of socially constituted actors in
the social production and circulation of knowledge. Furthermore, it combines
research questions related to the concept of "discourse" with the methodical
toolbox of qualitative social research. Going beyond questions of language in
use, "the sociology of knowledge approach to discourse" (Wissenssoziologische
Diskursanalyse) addresses sociological interests, the analyses of social relations
and politics of knowledge as well as the discursive construction of reality as an
empirical ("material") process. For empirical research on discourse the approach
proposes the use of analytical concepts from the sociology of knowledge
tradition, such as interpretative schemes or frames (Deutungsmuster),
"classifications", "phenomenal structure" (Phnomenstruktur), "narrative
structure", "dispositif" etc., and the use of the methodological strategies of
"grounded theory".
Table of Contents
4. Conclusion: Beginnings
http://www.discourses.org/OldArticles/Dialogue%20as%20Discourse%20and
%20Interaction.pdf
139
https://www.academia.edu/3877767/Symbolic_Interactionism_The_Role_of_La
nguage_in_The_Formation_of_Discourse_and_Self
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1010798510130
140
Brandom is broadly considered to be part of the American pragmatist tradition
in philosophy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Brandom
https://www.academia.edu/1057316/Criticism_and_normativity._Brandom_and
_Habermas_between_Kant_and_Hegel
https://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/Cult/CultGlyn.htm
142
Simon Glynn
Florida Atlantic University
glynn@fau.edu
http://cogprints.org/6159/
https://www.academia.edu/887480/Intersubjectivity_and_intenti
onal_communication
http://www.psychology.emory.edu/cognition/rochat/lab/Three%20Levels%20of
%20Intersubjectivity%20in%20Early%20Development.pdf
THREE LEVELS OF
INTERSUBJECTIVITY IN
EARLY DEVELOPMENT
PHILIPPE ROCHAT
1
, CLUDIA PASSOS
143
-
FERREIRA
2
The sense of shared values is a specific aspect to human sociality. It
originates
from reciprocal social exchanges that include imitation, empathy, but
also negotiation from which meanings, values and norms are eventually
constructed with others. Research suggests that this process starts from
birth via imitation and mirroring processthat are important foundations
of sociality providing a basic sense of social connectedness and mutual
acknowledgement with others. From the second month, mirroring,
imitative
and other contagious responses are by passed. Neonatal imitation gives
way to first signs of reciprocation (primary intersubjectivity), and
joint attention in reference to objects (secondary intersubjectivity). We
review this development and propose a third level of intersubjectivity,
that is the emergence of values that are jointlyrepresented and
negotiated
with others, as well as the development of an ethical stance
accompanying
emerging theories of mind from about 4 years of age. We propose that
tertiary intersubjectivity is an ontogenetically new process of value
negotiation
and mutual recognition that are the cardinal trademarks of
human sociality
http://ilabs.washington.edu/meltzoff/pdf/98M&M_InfantIntersubjectivity.pdf
144
philosophy, and psychoanalytic theory, this book will appeal to
a wide audience in the areas of philosophy, history of
philosophy, psychoanalysis, and social theory.
10
What is the nature of intersubjectivity that has a principles Sophos, the one, the
real self, pure consciousness, absolute awareness, nonduality, and other ideals of
mystics. What are the values of these principles, what is the purpose, the aims
and attitudes these ideas express? What are the norms and standards of
intersubjectivity of Sophos, the one, pure consciousness etc? We would have to
consider attitudes such as love, compassion, humility, altruism, etc. With these
conditions and principles in mind we will be able to identify relevant
characteristics of the intersubjectivity of mystics.
We need to keep in mind all the time our purpose, our rationale and goals when
we explore the intersubjectivity of mystics, a special kind of intersubjectivity
that is based on agreements about the one goal to realize and the one statae to
maintain, namely unity with the one, Sophos, the real self or the execution or
being of absolute, pure consciousness.
145
that have realized unity with the one, the all, Sophos, pure consciousness, the
one real self. In the case of the latter we will probably describe something like
the characteristics of Eckharts Gotttheit or Godhead, the Sufi Beloved, the one
in union with the one real self of Vedanta, etc, while in the case of the former,
those still on the way, we will probably explore characteristics of god the father,
son and spirit, or whatever terms are more meaningful for mystics of other, or
no, religion.
147
certain non-characteristics of Heideggers (depiction of) the
Being of all beings, that is beyond being. The mystics
(probably heightened but still) ordinary awareness is said to be
gradually or suddenly transformed, eg according to two schools
in Zen and other approaches.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_experience
A religious experience (sometimes known as a spiritual experience, sacred
experience, or mystical experience) is a subjective experience which is
interpreted within a religious framework.[1] The concept originated in the 19th
century, as a defense against the growing rationalism of Western society.[2]
William James popularised the concept.[2]
Skeptics may hold that religious experience is an evolved feature of the human
brain amenable to normal scientific study.[note 1] The commonalities and
differences between religious experiences across different cultures have enabled
scholars to categorize them for academic study.[4]
Definitions
148
knowledge that is normally hidden from human
understanding.
Moore and Habel identify two classes of religious experiences: the immediate
and the mediated religious experience (Moore and Habel: 1982).
149
In his book Faith and Reason, the philosopher Richard Swinburne formulated
five categories into which all religious experiences fall:
The German thinker Rudolf Otto (18691937) argues that there is one common
factor to all religious experience, independent of the cultural background. In his
book The Idea of the Holy (1923) he identifies this factor as the numinous. The
"numinous" experience has two aspects:
150
mysterium tremendum, which is the tendency to invoke
fear and trembling;
The numinous experience also has a personal quality to it, in that the person
feels to be in communion with a holy other. Otto sees the numinous as the only
possible religious experience. He states: "There is no religion in which it [the
numinous] does not live as the real innermost core and without it no religion
would be worthy of the name" (Otto: 1972). Otto does not take any other kind
of religious experience such as ecstasy and enthusiasm seriously and is of the
opinion that they belong to the 'vestibule of religion'.
Psychedelic drugs
7 Neurophysiology
7.1 Psychiatry
7.2 Neuroscience
o 7.2.1 Neurology
o 7.2.2 Neurotheology
https://www.redditch.tgacademy.org.uk/files/2016/02/Religious-
Experience-revision-guide.pdf
2
What is Religious Experience?
The term
religious experience
can conjure up a wide and diverse series of
images.
We might assume that it can mean anything from saying a prayer, to attending a
service at a place of worship, to hearing the voice of God.
152
However, our understanding of the term is important
in investigating the concept.
Definition of Religious Experience
Recipients of religious experiences usually say that what has happened to them
has drawn them into a deeper knowledge or awareness of God.
It is very important to remember that the experience itself is not a substitute for
the Divine, but a vehicle that is used to bring people closer to the Divine.
The experience that each individual has is absolutely unique and cannot be
shared
with anyone.
Finally,
genuine
religious experiences see to be encouraging; they
do not
condemn the individual, but help them to live a better life, or help others, for
example.
The Types of Religious Experience
3
The first two are within the 'public' realm, and the next three within the 'private'.
3
153
experience.
The first two are within the 'public' realm, and the next three within the 'private'.
.
Characteristics of Religious Experiences
Mystical experiences
His famous work The Varieties of Religious Experience (1902) was originally a
series of lectures (The Gifford Lectures) given at
Edinburgh University at the
beginning of the 20thcentury.
William James four characteristics of mystical experiences
James recognised that the term mystical is used in a wide variety of contexts,
but suggested that using it to refer to a person was has had a religious
experience
is too ambiguous.
The experience of God goes far beyond the human powers of description.
The person feels like they are unable to describe the experience or not do it
154
justice.
The person receives knowledge of the divine which is not otherwise available.
A transient appearance may appear to last for a long period of time whereas it
may have actually been very short.
Religious experiences were found to be passive, which means the person was
not in control of what happened to them.
F C Happold tried to provide some sort of context in which to think about and
discuss mystical experiences.
In
Mysticism: A Study and an Anthology
(1963), he suggests that we can divide
155
mysticism into two types:
1.
The mysticism of love and union
2.
The mysticism of knowledge and understanding.
The mysticism of love and union
This is the longing to escape from loneliness and the feeling of being separate.
Happold believes that there are two urges that govern all of us.
This suggests that, despite our need to be individuals, we are always trying to
get
back to God hence the desire to be part of something bigger than ourselves.
10
F C Happold -Types of mysticism
In
Mysticism: A Study and an Anthology
(1963), he suggests that we can divide
mysticism into two types:
1.
The mysticism of love and union
2.
The mysticism of knowledge and understanding.
The mysticism of love and union
156
This is the longing to escape from loneliness and the feeling of being separate.
Happold believes that there are two urges that govern all of us.
This suggests that, despite our need to be individuals, we are always trying to
get
back to God hence the desire to be part of something bigger than ourselves.
The mysticism of knowledge and understanding
We need to try to find out the secret of the universe (the meaning of life, in
other words).
Importantly, he says that we do not seek this in sections, but want to know the
whole story, as it were.
The way that we can look for answers to such an ultimate question is through
experience of God.
Aspects of mystical experience
157
3.
God-mysticism
SOUL MYSTICISM
11
This form of mysticism does not deal with the God of classical theism, although
it
does relate to certain Buddhist and Hindu philosophers.
Nature-mysticism
The cause of the experiences which people seem to have and are undoubtedly
affected by is real; if that cause is believed to be God, then God exists.
This does not prove the God of classical theism, but just God in the sense of the
source of the religious experience.
Put another way, if something is real and true it is likely to improve a persons
life, whereas that which is false is more likely to
restrict and damage a persons
life.
158
Significantly, James noted that those who claimed to have had religious
experiences seemed to be generally more fulfilled and purposeful in their
understanding of the world and their place in it, than those who subscribed to
atheist theories.
The challenges to religious experience from philosophy
Can the finite experience the infinite?
The problem arises of how you can distinguish God from other possible
objects
of experience.
159
Also, claims can be checked of encounters with objects, but when the object is
God, they are not verifiable.
Direct experience of God is impossible.
God is also said to be omnipresent, infinite, omnipotent and eternal but how,
simply by virtue of an awareness of an object of experience, can anything be
recognised to be that?
Also, claims can be checked of encounters with objects, but when the object is
God, they are not verifiable.
160
We interpret every experience in ways we understand
.
E.g. St Bernadette testified that the Virgin Mary had spoken to her.
Witnesses to the experience stated that they did not see or hear the Virgin Mary
and only saw Bernadette talking to an unseen some
one.
This is basically because experiences happen to people, and will always be open
to interpretation.
It would appear that those who encounter these experiences portray the Being
revealed to them quite differently.
161
or organised religion.
How can we then verify the authenticity if the experiences are so different?
In many cases, drugs or alcohol can produce very similar effects to a religious
experience.
More particularly, he believed that they were projections of the ultimate, oldest
and most profound ideas that people had.
Freud, on the other hand, would claim that the recipient of this experience was
simply projecting his or her ultimate beliefs about
suffering, helplessness and
separation, along with salvation, hope and desire t
o be reunited with ones parent
(in this case portrayed as God.)
162
makes use of magical thinking.
Freud had often said that paranoid delusions are like philosophical systems or
scientific theories - they are all trying to make sense of the world, and our place
in it.
V S Ramachandran
Ramachandran is a neurologist
He carried out extensive research related to temporal lobe epilepsy from which
he has concluded that there is important evidence linking the temporal lobes to
religious experience
So what we suggested was, there are certain circuits within the temporal lobes
which have been selectively activated. Their activity is
selectively heightened in these patients,
and somehow the activity of these specific neural circuits is more conducive to
religious
belief and mystical belief. It makes them more prone to religious belief.
V S Ramachandran, God on the Brian, BBC Horizon programme, 2003
Ramachandran is not unwilling to accept that it may
be that God exists and has
placed the temporal lobe within the brain as a means of communication with
humans.
What is beyond doubt is that the origins of religion are even more complex than
had been
thought. The science of neurotheology has revealed
that it is too simplistic to see
religion as either spiritually inspired or the result of social conditioning. What it
shows
is that for some reason our brains have developed specific structures that help us
believe
in God. Remarkably it seems whether God exists or
not, the way our brains have
developed, we will go on believing.
V S Ramachandran, God on the Brian, BBC Horizon programme, 2003
Michael Persinger
163
Persinger claims that by stimulating the temporal lobes with a unique machine
he
can artificially induce in almost anyone a moment that feels just like a genuine
religious experience.
Persinger has developed a helmet which produced weak magnetic fields across
the hemispheres of the brain, specifically the temporal lobe.
Over 900 people who have taken part in the experiments claim to have had
some
for of religious experienced.
However, as soon as the electromagnetic field is turned off then the experiences
cease.
164
in can sense, and what it senses
is the world, so the experience of the self simply
expands to fill the perception of
the world itself.
However, as soon as the electromagnetic field is turned off then the experiences
cease.
165
it is true.
In many cases, drugs or alcohol can produce very
similar effects to a religious experience. We also
have physiological problems such as temporal lobe
epilepsy. Therefore, it is difficult to prove the
source of the experience to be God.
People argue that just as you can encounter a table
,
you can also encounter God, but the two are very
different. E.g. God is not material, nor does he
have a definite location. Also, claims can be
checked of encounters with objects, but when the
object is God, they are not verifiable.
Is it necessary to have a religious experience in order to be able to understand
what
a religious experience is?
Page 20
How successful are the challenges to religious experience from philosophy and
science? Page 21
Conclusion page 28
The key advantage to the religious experience argument for the existence of
God
is that it relates to people in a much more direct
way than some of the other
traditional families of arguments.
The key disadvantage is that we are dealing with something akin to emotion, not
something empirical and verifiable.
Atheist philosopher Anthony Flew who was keen to dismiss the cumulative
approach, said: If one leaky bucket will not hold
water that is no reason to think that ten can.
166
it may be possible to arrange the buckets inside each other so that the holes do
not overlap.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_experience#Integrating_religious_e
xperience
Several psychologists have proposed models in which religious experiences
are part of a process of transformation of the self.
Carl Jung's work on himself and his patients convinced him that life has a
spiritual purpose beyond material goals. Our main task, he believed, is to
discover and fulfil our deep innate potential, much as the acorn contains the
potential to become the oak, or the caterpillar to become the butterfly. Based on
his study of Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, Gnosticism, Taoism, and other
traditions, Jung perceived that this journey of transformation is at the
mystical heart of all religions. It is a journey to meet the self and at the same
time to meet the Divine. Unlike Sigmund Freud, Jung thought spiritual
experience was essential to our well-being.[82]
The notion of the numinous was an important concept in the writings of Carl
Jung. Jung regarded numinous experiences as fundamental to an understanding
of the individuation process because of their association with experiences of
synchronicity in which the presence of archetypes is felt.[83][84]
167
as "the study of humanitys highest potential, and with the recognition,
understanding, and realization of unitive, spiritual, and transcendent states
of consciousness" (Lajoie and Shapiro, 1992:91). Issues considered in
transpersonal psychology include spiritual self-development, peak experiences,
mystical experiences, systemic trance and other metaphysical experiences of
living.
mysticism
mistsizm/
noun
noun: mysticism
1. 1.
belief that union with or absorption into the Deity or the absolute, or
the spiritual apprehension of knowledge inaccessible to the intellect,
may be attained through contemplation and self-surrender.
2. 2.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mysticism
Contents
1 Etymology
2 Definitions
168
Mysticism is popularly known as union with God or the Absolute.[10][11] In
the 13th century the term unio mystica came to be used to refer to the
"spiritual marriage," the ecstasy, or rapture, that was experienced when
prayer was used "to contemplate both Gods omnipresence in the world
and God in his essence."[web 1] In the 19th century, under the influence of
Romanticism, this "union" was interpreted as a "religious experience,"
which provides certainty about God or a transcendental reality.[web 1] An
influential proponent of this understanding was William James (1842-
1910), who stated that "in mystic states we both become one with the
Absolute and we become aware of our oneness."[12] William James
popularized this use of the term "religious experience"[note 1] in his The
Varieties of Religious Experience,[14][15][web 2] contributing to the
interpretation of mysticism as a distinctive experience, comparable to
sensory experiences.[16][web 2] Religious experiences belonged to the
"personal religion,"[17] which he considered to be "more fundamental than
either theology or ecclesiasticism".[17] He gave a Perennialist
interpretation to religious experience, stating that this kind of experience
is ultimately uniform in various traditions.[note 2]
McGinn notes that the term unio mystica, although it has Christian
origins, is primarily a modern expression.[18] McGinn argues that
"presence" is more accurate than "union", since not all mystics spoke of
union with God, and since many visions and miracles were not
necessarily related to union. He also argues that we should speak of
"consciousness" of God's presence, rather than of "experience", since
mystical activity is not simply about the sensation of God as an external
object, but more broadly about "new ways of knowing and loving based
on states of awareness in which God becomes present in our inner
acts."[19]
However, the idea of "union" does not work in all contexts. For example,
in Advaita Vedanta, there is only one reality (Brahman) and therefore
nothing other reality to unite with itBrahman in each person (atman)
has always in fact been identical to Brahman all along. Dan Merkur also
notes that union with God or the Absolute is a too limited definition,
since there are also traditions which aim not at a sense of unity, but of
nothingness, such as Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite and Meister
Eckhart.[web 1] According to Merkur, Kabbala and Buddhism also
emphasize nothingness.[web 1] Blakemore and Jennett note that "definitions
of mysticism [...] are often imprecise." They further note that this kind of
169
interpretation and definition is a recent development which has become
the standard definition and understanding
170
Under the influence of Perennialism, which was popularised in both the
west and the east by Unitarianism, Transcendentalists and Theosophy,
mysticism has been applied to a broad spectrum of religious traditions, in
which all sorts of esotericism and religious traditions and practices are
joined together.[37][38][15] The term mysticism was extended to comparable
phenomena in non-Christian religions,[web 1] where it influenced Hindu and
Buddhist responses to colonialism, resulting in Neo-Vedanta and
Buddhist modernism.[38][39]
In contrast, for the past decades most scholars have favored a constructionist
approach, which states that mystical experiences are fully constructed by the
ideas, symbols and practices that mystics are familiar with.[44] Critics of the term
"religious experience" note that the notion of "religious experience" or
171
"mystical experience" as marking insight into religious truth is a modern
development,[46] and contemporary researchers of mysticism note that mystical
experiences are shaped by the concepts "which the mystic brings to, and which
shape, his experience".[47] What is being experienced is being determined by the
expectations and the conceptual background of the mystic.[48]
172
more than brain events or does it merely identify the brain activity
occurring during a genuine cognitive event? The most common positions
are that neurology reduces mystical experiences or that neurology is
neutral to the issue of mystical cognitivity.[52]
5 Forms of mysticism
o 5.1 Shamanism
173
o 5.4 Islamic mysticism
5.5.1 Hinduism
5.5.2 Tantra
o 5.6 Buddhism
o 5.7 Taoism
6 See also
7 Notes
8 References
9 Sources
o 9.2 Web-sources
10 Further reading
11 External links
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henology
Areas of inquiry
Henology stands in contradistinction to several other philosophical disciplines.
The term "henology" refers to the discipline that centers around The One, as in
the philosophies of Plato and Plotinus. It is sometimes used in contradistinction
to disciplines that treats Being as its starting point (as in Aristotle and Avicenna)
and also to those that seek to understand Knowledge and Truth (as in Kant and
Descartes).[3]
174
See also
Absolute (philosophy)
Deleuzian metaphysics
Monad (philosophy)
Non-philosophy
175
which are philosophically uninterpretable".[1] The reason why the axioms
and theorems of non-philosophy are philosophically uninterpretable is
because, as explained, philosophy cannot grasp its decisional structure in
the way that non-philosophy can.
Univocity of being
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mysticism/
The term mysticism, comes from the Greek , meaning to conceal. In the
Hellenistic world, mystical referred to secret religious rituals. In early
Christianity the term came to refer to hidden allegorical interpretations of
Scriptures and to hidden presences, such as that of Jesus at the Eucharist. Only
later did the term begin to denote mystical theology, which included direct
experience of the divine (See Bouyer, 1981). Typically, mystics, theistic or not,
see their mystical experience as part of a larger undertaking aimed at human
transformation (See, for example, Teresa of Avila, Life, Chapter 19) and not as
the terminus of their efforts. Thus, in general, mysticism would best be
thought of as a constellation of distinctive practices, discourses, texts,
institutions, traditions, and experiences aimed at human transformation,
variously defined in different traditions.
176
1. Mystical Experience
177
typical of attentive sense perception (see below on unconstructed
experiences).
It is not part of the definition that necessarily at the time of the experience the
subject could tell herself, as it were, what realities or state of affairs were then
being disclosed to her. The realization may arise following the experience.
178
A (purportedly) super sense-perceptual or sub sense-perceptual
unitive experience granting acquaintance of realities or states
of affairs that are of a kind not accessible by way of sense-
perception, somatosensory modalities, or standard
introspection.
A unitive experience involves a phenomenological de-emphasis, blurring, or
eradication of multiplicity, where the cognitive significance of the experience is
deemed to lie precisely in that phenomenological feature. Examples are
experiences of the oneness of all of nature, union with God, as in Christian
mysticism, (see section 2.2.1), the Hindu experience that Atman is Brahman
(that the self/soul is identical with the eternal, absolute being), the Buddhist
unconstructed experience, and monistic experiences, devoid of all
multiplicity. (On unitive experiences see Smart 1958 and 1978, and
Wainwright, 1981, Chapter One.) Excluded from the narrow definition, though
present in the wide one, are, for example, a dualistic experience of God, where
subject and God remain strictly distinct, a Jewish kabbalistic experience of a
single supernal sefirah, and shamanistic experiences of spirits. These are not
mystical in the narrow sense, because not unitive experiences.
179
2.2.2 Identity with God
Theistic mystics sometimes speak as though they have a consciousness of being
fully absorbed into or even identical with God. Examples are the Islamic Sufi
mystic al-Husayn al-Hallaj (858-922) proclaiming, I am God (see Schimmel,
1975, Chapter 2), and the Jewish kabbalist, Isaac of Acre (b. 1291?), who wrote
of the soul being absorbed into God as a jug of water into a running well. (see
Idel, 1988, p. 67.) Also, the Hasidic master, R. Shneur Zalman of Liady (1745
1812) wrote of a person as a drop of water in the ocean of the Infinite with an
illusory sense of individual dropness. And, the (heretical) Christian mystic,
Meister Eckhart (c. 12601327/8) made what looked very much like identity-
declarations (see McGinn, 2001 and Smith, 1997). It is still controversial,
however, as to when such declarations are to be taken as identity assertions,
with pantheistic or acosmic intentions, and when they are perhaps hyperbolic
variations on descriptions of union-type experiences.
The Jewish kabbalah is the most prominent form of alleged theurgic mysticism.
In it, the mystic aims to bring about a modification in the inner life of the
Godhead (see Idel, 1988). However, it is questionable whether in its theurgic
forms kabbalah is mysticism, even on the wide definition of mysticism,
although it is clearly mysticism with regard to its teaching of union with the
Godhead and the Einsof, or Infinite.
180
In contrast, with this understanding of kataphatic and apophatic, Fr. Thomas
Keating has argued that Christian mysticism strongly endorses God's being
unknowable
4. Perennialism
181
Pure Conscious Events (PCEs)
5.1 The Defenders of Pure Conscious Events
6. Constructivism
182
background massively constructs determines, shapes,
or influences the nature of mystical experiences (See
Hollenback, 1996, Jones, 1909, Introduction, and Katz,
1978 and 1983). On the assumption that mystical
traditions are widely divergent, hard constructivism entails
the denial of perennialism. Soft constructivism is strictly
consistent with perennialism, however, since consistent
with there being some trans-cultural mystical experience
involving concepts common across mystical traditions.
Both hard and soft constructivist arguments have been
mobilized against the existence of PCEs.
Bibliography
Academic Tools
Related Entries
consciousness
kn(t)SHsns/
noun
noun: consciousness
183
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness
3 Philosophy of mind
184
encompassing a variety of distinct meanings with no simple element in
common.[25]
185
While philosophers tend to focus on types of consciousness that occur 'in the
mind', in other disciplines such as sociology the emphasis is on the practical
meaning of consciousness. In this vein, it is possible to identify four forms of
consciousness:[31]
4 Scientific study
4.1 Measurement
186
4.3 Biological function and evolution
4.5 Phenomenology
5 Medical aspects
5.1 Assessment
5.3 Anosognosia
http://www.iep.utm.edu/consciou/
187
that the subject is aware of it in some sense. The
relationship between consciousness and science is also
central in much current theorizing on this topic: How does
the brain bind together various sensory inputs to
produce a unified subjective experience? What are the
neural correlates of consciousness? What can be learned
from abnormal psychology which might help us to
understand normal consciousness? To what extent are
animal minds different from human minds? Could an
appropriately programmed machine be conscious?
Table of Contents
3. Objection 3: Mysterianism
4. Objection 4: Zombies
5. Varieties of Materialism
1. Neural Theories
188
1. First-Order Representationalism
2. Higher-Order Representationalism
4. Quantum Approaches
189
processed by different regions of the brain is known
as the binding problem
5. Philosophical Psychopathology
http://www.livescience.com/47096-theories-seek-to-
explain-consciousness.html
Not an easy concept to define, consciousness has been described as the state of
being awake and aware of what is happening around you, and of having a sense
of self. [Top 10 Mysteries of the Mind]
190
The 17th century French philosopher Ren Descartes proposed the notion of
"cogito ergo sum" ("I think, therefore I am"), the idea that the mere act of
thinking about one's existence proves there is someone there to do the thinking.
Descartes also believed the mind was separate from the material body a
concept known as mind-body duality and that these realms interact in the
brain's pineal gland. Scientists now reject the latter idea, but some thinkers still
support the notion that the mind is somehow removed from the physical world.
"The only thing you know is, 'I am conscious.' Any theory has to start with
that," said Christof Koch, a neuroscientist and the chief scientific officer at the
Allen Institute for Neuroscience in Seattle.
Correlates of consciousness
In the last few decades, neuroscientists have begun to attack the problem of
understanding consciousness from an evidence-based perspective. Many
researchers have sought to discover specific neurons or behaviors that are linked
to conscious experiences.
Recently, researchers discovered a brain area that acts as a kind of on-off switch
for the brain. When they electrically stimulated this region, called the claustrum,
the patient became unconscious instantly. In fact, Koch and Francis Crick, the
molecular biologist who famously helped discover the double-helix structure of
DNA, had previously hypothesized that this region might integrate information
across different parts of the brain, like the conductor of a symphony.
Nor do these studies explain how to tell whether consciousness is present, such
as in brain-damaged patients, other animals or even computers. [Super-
Intelligent Machines: 7 Robotic Futures]
191
Neuroscience needs a theory of consciousness that explains what the
phenomenon is and what kinds of entities possess it, Koch said. And currently,
only two theories exist that the neuroscience community takes seriously, he
said.
Integrated information
The basic idea is that conscious experience represents the integration of a wide
variety of information, and that this experience is irreducible. This means that
when you open your eyes (assuming you have normal vision), you can't simply
choose to see everything in black and white, or to see only the left side of your
field of view.
This system explains how consciousness can exist to varying degrees among
humans and other animals. The theory incorporates some elements of
panpsychism, the philosophy that the mind is not only present in humans, but in
all things.
192
An interesting corollary of integrated information theory is that no computer
simulation, no matter how faithfully it replicates a human mind, could ever
become conscious. Koch put it this way: "You can simulate weather in a
computer, but it will never be 'wet.'"
Global workspace
Another promising theory suggests that consciousness works a bit like computer
memory, which can call up and retain an experience even after it has passed.
The global workspace theory and integrated information theories are not
mutually exclusive, Koch said. The first tries to explain in practical terms
whether something is conscious or not, while the latter seeks to explain how
consciousness works more broadly.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cognitive-science/
1. History
2. Methods
193
4. Theoretical Approaches
o 4.2 Rules
o 4.3 Concepts
o 4.4 Analogies
o 4.5 Images
o 4.6 Connectionism
Connectionist networks consisting of simple nodes and links are very useful for
understanding psychological processes that involve parallel constraint
satisfaction. Such processes include aspects of vision, decision making,
explanation selection, and meaning making in language comprehension.
Connectionist models can simulate learning by methods that include Hebbian
learning and backpropagation. The explanatory schema for the connectionist
approach is:
Explanation target:
Explanatory pattern:
People have processes that spread activation between the units via
their connections, as well as processes for modifying the
connections.
o 4.8 Bayesian
5. Philosophical Relevance
195
Folk psychology. Does a person's everyday understanding
of other people consist of having a theory of mind, or of
merely being able to simulate them?
196
o 5.2 Critique of Cognitive Science
The first five challenges are increasingly addressed by advances that explain
emotions, consciousness, action, and embodiment in terms of neural
mechanisms. The social challenge is being met by the development of
computational models of interacting agents. The mathematics challenge is based
on misunderstanding of Gdel's theorem and on exaggeration of the relevance
of quantum theory to neural processes.
197
o 5.3 Philosophy of Cognitive Science
Bibliography
Academic Tools
198
Dictionary of Philosophy of Mind
http://cogsci.uwaterloo.ca/courses/Phil256/glossary.htm
Related Entries
http://www.bcp.psych.ualberta.ca/
%7emike/Pearl_Street/Dictionary/dictionary.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_science
Principles
Many, but not all, who consider themselves cognitive scientists hold a
functionalist view of the mindthe view that mental states and processes
should be explained by their function - what they do. According to the
multiple realizability account of functionalism, even non-human systems
such as robots and computers can be ascribed as having cognition.
200
2 Scope
2.2 Attention
2.5 Memory
2.7 Consciousness
http://www.cogs.indiana.edu/
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cognitive-science/
http://www.themysticsvision.com/science-and-gnosis-orig-2006-
rev-10-14-14.html
I.
Both the word, 'science'from the Latin scientia, and the word, gnosis
from the ancient Greek, mean to know, but the knowledge is of two
kinds. Each kind of knowledge has a long and well documented history:
Science has developed over the centuries through the positing of rational
theories and the rigorous accumulation of physical data, modifying its
position as reason, observation and data dictate. Gnosis is also based on
experience, but it is experience that is extra-sensual, supra-rational, and
wholly subjective, or personal. Science is confirmed by evidence derived
from empirical observation; gnosis is confirmed by evidence derived
from introspective revelation. Science pertains to knowledge of the gross,
material world; gnosis pertains to knowledge of the subtle, spiritual
foundation of the world.
201
Scientists, for example, have determined, through theory, reason, and
observation, that the universe of time and space began as an immense
burst of high-frequency energy, referred to as the Big Bang. Scientists
have determined over the past century or so that at some point, about 14
billion years ago, an enormous amount of energy suddenly appeared,
expanding and transforming into mass-bearing particles, that collectively
formed our phenomenal universe. Those scientists have even determined
the temperatures and rate of acceleration of this energy in the first few
seconds and minutes of its release, and have cataloged the material
particles which were created as this energy cooled and solidified. They
are also convinced that, prior to this big bang, nothing else existed
not space, not time, not matter; but only this concentrated
(electromagnetic) energy in a potential and pre-material state. It was only
as these highly-energized wave/particles of light interacted and collided,
that they were transformed into material wave/particles, which then
became the fundamental components of the universe.
202
Grace. It is a sudden interior illumination that reveals to the human
awareness the one eternal Consciousness, which is the origin and
substratum of all individuated consciousness.
"Consciousness is a biologica
"Consciousness indubita
203
us."
Another says:
"Understanding Consciousne
11
Now we need to apply all these ideas, notions, insights to
a) the development of
b) the nature of
1) mystics intersubjectivity
2) PURE consciousness (after the coordination or synthesis!! of
the transformation of normal awareness/consciousness into
pure awareness/consciousness) differentiation
-----------------------------------------------------
Note
1) that all these thoughts are not expressions of (concrete,
first-order nature and operation of) mystical consciousness,
awareness and intersubjectivity, but merely attempts to think
about and reflect on these things, to express and talk about
them (from a second-order or meta-position) . But in the end
204
we must be and remain aware of the fact that Pure Awareness
or Consciousness, like the Godhead, the One, the one Real Self,
the Beloved, etc will always be ineffable (in words and
concepts). It' might be (possible to allow it' to be) directly
expressed in music, visual art, fiction, poetry, movement,
performance, film, in virtual reality?
2) What we are asking for in the last sentence is in fact: what is
it like in concrete, first-order to be' (exist as if, as it does not
exist or has no existence, not existence or any other category
can be projected on it) Pure Consciousness or to be as if Pure
Awareness, the One, the one real self, sophos, etc. And, what
could be the nature of the intersubjectivity of (as contained in,
like everything that are contained in) of the Beloved and Pure
Consciousness? Because it is only one, not two and therefore
cannot be a gathering or group of persons so as to form or have
or reveal intersubjectivity, norms of behaviour or thinking' ,
values, attitudes, motives, etc. It' is complete, not lacking
anything, nothing can be added to or subtracted from it, it does
not require anything, so it has no wishes, no motives, no
choices between alternatives, it is fulfilled, fulfilment, the
absolute, both the zero and omega point at once, all finitude
and infinity simultaneously, everywhere and nowhere, it is and
not is both this and that...
205
206
207