In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Mysticism and the Problems of Mystical Literature RAYMOND NELSON I In bodi its philosophical and artistic reference, "mysticism" is notoriously an abused term. Used irresponsibly, it has served rationalists as a pejorative synonym for superstition, for vague or irrational diought, for dreaminess. It has been adopted by journalists to identify Theosophy and otlier bastard cults of even less integrity, and has too often become popularly associated widi some of its less edifying sideeffects : magic, unspeakable sexual practices, and die sensational asceticism of diose Hindu gentlemen who make dieir living by sleeping on nails. The Sirhan Sirhans and Charles Mansons of diis world have been called "mystics." Unfortunately, such associations have given a connotation to die word, and left it widi a faint aura of shame, as if one who professed or defended mysticism were admitting himself a holdover from a pre-scientific age. Even in its spiritual application, mysticism is only vaguely defined, and in its vagueness lumped widi whatever odier concerns an individual may bring to it. Alice Meynell and die andiologist Irene Hunter,1 for instance, apparendy equate it widi devotional statement. On die odier hand, rigidly pious laymen, and clerics who should know better, have frequently identified it widi a dislike for ecclesiastical audiority— as a kind of spiritual anarchy—and mystics, consequendy, have a Raymond Nelson is an associate professor of English at the University of Virginia. He is completing a critical biography of Van Wyck Brooks. 1AIiCe Meynell, "Mystical Lyric," in Prose and Poetry (London, 1947), pp. 322-39. Irene Hunter, ed., American Mystical Verse (New York, 1925). ROCKY MOUNTAIN REVIEW1 long record of trouble widi tlieir institutional superiors. Christian tlieologians have traditionally treated mysticism as die highest form of religious "science" and have acted as if it were a universally accepted concept But die extensive list of definitions diat Dean Inge appends to his Christian Mysticism testifies to a confusion even in ordiodox ranks.2 The one explicit point, moreover, on which Western (Christian and Moslem) students of mystical dieology must agree—diat genuine mysticism is of necessity an infused experience of "die Other" (i.e. God)—is considered a severe impediment to spiritual progress by the adieistic mystics of Asia. At least in classical Taoism and most of die Buddhist systems, diere is no personal God who can be distinguished from die tilings of His creation. In these disciplines die mystic recognizes essentially diat diere is no "Odier," diat all tilings share one life. As if die contradictions of partisan quarreling were not enough, diey are furdier complicated by popularizers of mysticism, notably Aldous Huxley, who insist diat all mystical experience (and by extension , all religious experience) is identical. In order to accommodate tlieir "perennial philosophies" to die gready varied manifestations of world mysticism, diese syndiesists have often slackened tlieir definitions until very nearly any experience can qualify as mystical. Their writings rely far too much on die logical extension of ideas. Nor has die danger in lacking a firmly orthodox model of the mystical experience been limited to popularizers. William James, in a classic study, extended his definition of mysticism to even alcoholic and narcotic intoxication— just as Huxley would after him. James's discussion of "die drunken consciousness" is typically his in its courage and democratic hospitality, but his error (and any serious mystic would insist it is error) probably results from a too great emphasis on die passivity of mysticism.3 Much of diis waywardness of usage is due, of course, to die nature itself of mystical experience, which is not accessible to language, and which * W. R. Inge, Christian Mysticism (London, 1899), pp. 325-348. 3 The Varieties of Religious Experience (New York, 1922), pp. 381-82. James perhaps confuses trance with mystical experience here. 2 MYSTICISM AND MYSTICAL LITERATURE has as many valid manifestations as diere are true mystics. Because of its enigmatic quality, any full definition of die term must be developed out of detailed study of particular individuals and particular practice. At present, it will be enough to establish a broad, suggestive definition of bodi mysticism and mystical literature which can be modified or expanded by an examination of specific texts. In its largest sense, mysticism...

pdf

Share