Could There Be a Mystical Core of Religion? Author(s): Grace M. Jantzen Source: Religious Studies, Vol. 26, No. 1 (Mar.

, 1990), pp. 59-71 Published by: Cambridge University Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20019387 Accessed: 28/07/2010 08:01
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Cambridge University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Religious Studies.

http://www.jstor.org

Rel. Stud. 26, pp. 59-71

GRACE M.JANTZEN

COULD THERE

BE A MYSTICAL RELIGION?

CORE OF

An identical consciousness of close communion with God is obtained by the non in his silence and by the sacramental Catholic in the Eucharist. sacramental Quaker sense of personal The Christian the divine as intercourse with contemplative's in the incarnate Christ is hard to distinguish from that of the Hindu manifest when we have allowed for the different constituents of his apperceiving Vaishnavite,
mass.1

This

It involves core of

sort of claim, articulated is frequently here by Evelyn Underhill, heard. or religious we can the idea that in mystical find experience across that this somehow constitutes the heart or world identity religions,

and human and that this is of enormous religion, religious sig? to the In this paper I wish to explore something of the background core of religion. of whether I shall argue there could be a mystical question out of specific post-Enlightenment that it is a question that has emerged nificance. some of the ways in which it has changed thought forms, and shall illustrate to the present. to suggest that there are I wish in meaning from the Deists can in which serious difficulties about accepting the context such a question we consider in the first place. When be raised the tradition of seriously a common who Christian which theorize about mysticism philosophers - we core frequently fail to do find that the parameters of the discussion must be significantly altered. ismeant What core? Even at first glance, by the idea of a common mystical two quite different both of them themselves, present meanings possible illustrated and influenced The Schleiermacher's first is by Speeches. meaning or at rate that mystical at intense is the any experience, feeling, religious heart of religion. It is the kernel; the doctrines in which and rituals this or are is contained which it is external the experience by expressed wrappings or husk. To the extent that they foster and protect the essential experience, a hard shell but when they are valuable; they become preventing people from penetrating to the inner itmust more Schleiermacher, that term was applied James
1 Evelyn (London:

reality, they are worse be said, did not usually use

the term

(on whom

the extent

consistently by Schelling of Schleiermacher's influence

than useless. ' mysticism and then by William is insufficiently

'

'The Essentials Underhill, Athlone Press, 1980), p. 38.

of Mysticism'

in Richard

Woods,

ed. Understanding

Mysticism

6o

GRACE

M.

JANTZEN

in Schleiermacher's notion of immediate Yet noticed).2 feeling as the true core centre of religion we have all the ingredients of the theory of a mystical sense. true character in this primary 'The of religion of religion is... immediate And consciousness again, the world'.3 of the Deity is religion as he is found in ourselves and in

to have life and to know life in immediate feeling, only as such an existence in the It is an affection, a revelation of the Infinite in the finite, God Infinite and Eternal... seen in and in God.4 it it being this primary of immediate understanding feeling sense one might postulate in which the second religion that all the world of religion, namely religions are expressions From arises
or experience. do these dogmas are ?... They and comparison, propositions necessary requires for and and all doctrines the of which are... religion creates result we come of have but that that many consider of The to be feeling, the essence of that that feelings. religion,

as

the

core

of

a mystical

core

of that feeling

Whence of religion reflection

contemplation spoken.

already general even

underlie They but are

these not

nothing itself, them.5

scarcely

expressions for communicating

conceptions for divine

reflection

the immediate original feeling, to nature human essential macher, The the way situation Their
same

consciousness, and therefore varies with arise

less

is, according

to Schleier?

in which

it is articulated Hence and

more or

of the experiencer. of dogma differences

experience,

the same; but everywhere the language and culture and the different religions of the world. different
according

ritual

are simply
adequate

expressions
to the

of the
of

essential

degree

or corruption of its proponents, but all of them are balance, authenticity, at efforts the pure experience.6 only inexpressible expressing to notice It is important that for Schleiermacher this is ultimately based have be that it would theory. One might thought anthropological a core sense to argue for mystical while denying of religion in the first possible is at the heart it in the second sense : that is, one might agree that experience core of all religion, but deny that this is always the same experi? ence. Maybe as do the doctrines it differs as much and rituals of the various of Schleiermacher. the world. But this is not the position around religions core at to is is the the immediate which the of religion him, feeling According or same wherever what
2 3

on his

it is found.

This

constitutes
See my 'Mysticism F. Schleiermacher,

our essential

is not an empirical thesis; it is a thesis about in such Human humanity. beings are created

in Religious Studies 25, 1989. and Experience' Speeches on Religion to its Cultured Despisers (Eng. trans. John and Row, that Schleiermacher's views Harper 1958), p. 101. It should be noted the Speeches and his later book The Christian Faith ;but itwas his earlier view between and in due course William James. Schelling 4 Ibid. p. 36. 5 Ibid. p. 87. 6 Cf. Speech no. 5.

New York: Oman; shifted considerably that most influenced

MYSTICAL

CORE

OF

RELIGION.'

6l

a way and

as to have the different that

practice

a capacity for the immediate of the Infinite, consciousness are to world of into doctrine and ways put religions trying immediate consciousness.

on mysticism core of writers who have argued for a mystical not always been clear about this. William for James, example, in the section on mysticism in The Varieties of Religious Experience piles one on another to make it look like an empirical thesis that mystics example same have the Walter Terence Stace in everywhere Similarly experiences. Subsequent religion have Mysticism that
we must

and Philosophy

thinks

that

the appropriate

methodology

requires

quote as

a number

of

representative

descriptions

of

their

experiences of these

which

have

been

given

by mystics,

taking

them from all historical

examination characteristics,

times, places,

and

cultures, we must

as and by an widely separated possible; to common at arrive their try inductively

descriptions are if there any.7

their significance is, is the burden of his thesis and its implications to point out here is the difference until I wish between this later; what an and that of Schleiermacher. For the empirical methodology empiricist to is of crucial make and the the fact of case; piling up examples discrepancies/ in descriptions of experiences is a problem that must be resolved if the thesis is to stand. For Schleiermacher neither of these applies. It is in virtue of what it is to be human that we are capable of immediate consciousness of the divine: his thesis is not a consequence of accumulated statistics. Neither need of the rest of his book. I will he be troubled of such experiences vary. He can by the fact that descriptions are verbal, wouldn't say, in effect, 'Well, they would, they?' Descriptions and as such they are already conditioned the and the culture of by language the describer; their variation is to be expected and does not consequently
count against Schleiermacher's central contention.

That

such characteristics

exist, and what defer discussion

if Schleiermacher's account of a core of religion in immediate feeling is not based on generalization from statistics but on an anthropological thesis, the question arises: how can this anthropological thesis be justi? immediately fied? In the Speeches Schleiermacher that such a justi? gives no indication fication is necessary; and this in itself is indicative. I suggest that what But in this respect was simply varying a theme whose doing taken for from the time the of Deist major granted controversy to the Romantics. Great as the differences between them were, through Kant the common and indeed made the disagreements ground was far greater, Some variant of the anthropological common thesis was part ofthat possible. Schleiermacher notes were and because it was taken for granted it was not seen as standing in ground, me need of justification. Let that suggestion in more detail. explicate In reaction to the interminable strife over religion in the sixteenth and
7 Walter Terence Stace, Mysticisms and Philosophy (London and New York: Macmillan, 1961), p. 45.

was

62

GRACE

M.

JANTZEN

in England and on the continent had come to centuries, Deists of God hold that the essence of religion did not consist in personal experience nor yet in authoritative or whether revelation, through Scripture through in that which but rather could be known tradition, by anyone through a reason. There to Lord Herbert of Cherbury, natural was, according seventeenth common mongering existence ideals, common denominator priestcraft: of a Supreme all discoverable to people the question in all religions which had nothing to do with it had rather basic Power worthy the natural to be worshipped, light of human to do with mystery truths such as the and with lofty moral which was in other but 'Is 'Yes!'

words, there a rational That

by rationality and culture.8 For the Deists, of every language was not 'Is there a mystical core of religion?' core of religion?' and the answer was emphatically

could be asked in that way at all indicates that it was the question in all its divergent nevertheless is a assumed that religion, manifestations, an essence common its that denominator essence, being single thing with reason. But the and the natural discoverable furthermore, by question, answer capacity human. reveal given, to ascertain To be human that it was assumed that this natural is built had been the common denominator, : that much is to be rational the this reason, is to be into what

millennia.

for ingrained this of Furthermore, Descartes, through partly was now seen to be individual, and logically prior to language rationality access was now that this individual culture. It rationality provided argued con? : the essence of human nature to the common of religion denominator influence the essence
were many

nects with
There

of religion.
differences among Deists, not least in the seriousness

with

which

England, fucianism

they treated empirical were very much by impressed available that were just becoming Yet

evidence.

Some the

in of them, particularly accounts Con? of Chinese

Matteo Ricci. the Jesuit missionary like Leibniz rationalists continental from China (and to a lesser extent was

the pioneering work of through the for many Deists, particularly the information and Voltaire, arriving India and other a welcome parts of the world confirmation of theories

from

simply held on other grounds. which they already than theories into pre-existent There was much more fitting of the evidence on available of the basis of theories up newly descriptive religion building was to the theories, whatever their other differences, evidence.9 And central being explored by Europeans) nature and human of religion reason. natural the premise of access to the essence of religion by individual shifted somewhat. As iswell known, Kant dismissed the ground With Kant reason to be able to prove the existence of a Supreme all claims of human : to Kant of God have direct claims alone let any argued experience Being,
8 Cf. Peter Byrne, Natural Religion and the Nature of Religion : The legacy ofDeism (London 1989), pp. 52-78. Routledge, 9 Cf. Eric Sharpe, Comparative Religion (London: Duckworth, 1975), pp. 15-19. and New York :

A MYSTICAL instead that ' religion within

CORE OF RELIGION? alone ' must

63 restrict itself to

the limits of reason

can be left on intended this to be interpreted how Kant morality. Precisely :what one side for our present purposes is that is important for us to notice some in in has shifted from the earlier the Deists, respects ground although an same. There is agreement both that there is it remains the crucial ways essence of religion and that there is built into individual human nature something answering that essence is to be found Where the Deists course have to that essence : the disagreement is only about whether or in individual in individual morality. rationality

core of religion would look for a rational of (which would a strongly ethical component) core Kant would look for a moral be within the limits of reason alone). Considering it in this (which would is far more extensive than where they have in common they differ. light, what From can see why thesis anthropological this we Schleiermacher that there is in the to defend did not feel it necessary essence nature of human

his

to the essence of religion. As far as he was concerned answering something :he simply that was not in question the position of his philosophical accepted on was that for debate in Schleiermacher's issue. What think? precursors up an essence was not such whether could be postulated in but rather ing what neither it could be said to consist: hence nor (rationality) was not whether In other words, of the Infinite. the question a core of religion to the core of individual there was human corresponding nature: that core was mystical. the question was whether consciousness Now, when ligion, while the import is different. of religion
humanness, which

in doctrine

his arguments that religion consists in ethics but in individual immediate

this question is raised by contemporary of re? philosophers are the form may be the same, there respects in which significant It is no longer assumed either that there is an essence is that within human of our every being, constitutive
to that essence, so that all we need to do is to

or that there

answers

identify whether

the proper locus of that response. When philosophers core of religion we are much more there is a mystical in the light of the manifest of doctrine, asking whether, diversity even of and there is anything practice, experience descriptions ... and could be an underlying to see unifying principle looking

today likely ritual, at all whether

ask to be and that it

lie in mystical This is why the accumulation of evidence might experience. is important for us in a way that it never was for Schleiermacher, and also in across the the of of why discrepancies descriptions experiences mystics sense in There is an important problematic. which and continental and Deists, Kant, by the English Schleiermacher crumbles under modern feet. In a post-Christian empirical and although we world, we no longer share some of their basic assumptions, world might which One frame what the question we are asking in which in the same words, is different. that difference there makes are significant ways in is so much religions the ground shared more

of the ways

itself obvious

lies in the

64 fact that

GRACE M. JANTZEN

or not there is a mystical core of the modern debate about whether as a is about taken debate evidence for the truth of religious regularly religion across world are recognizably If the experiences of people claims. religions that this constitutes evidence the same, then it is arguable for the existence sort of the WThat of God, the putative of God this is, and object experiences. whether a further there is any resemblance but to the God of Christian which question; themselves experiences Thus for example we find Stace arguing, out of variations of interpretation arising common To set of characteristics precise, of what he calls mystical a sense Stace be more claims it is a question upon again are felt to have a bearing. belief, is of course the data of the

differences first, that underlying a in culture and background, themselves to identify can be discerned. two such sets, one the other

of the experiences to be able

descriptive ' of introvertive both

'extrovertive

involving

experiences'. of blessedness

sees all things as One in and herself this the whereas for introvertive vision, unifying harmony profound fall away; of harmony there is instead union, mystic questions complete in what calls One with the Stace consciousness. Stace then unitary merging with between that the difference argues difference of kind, but the difference
the extrovertive experience... in the introvertive is actually kind of

paradoxicality, them is that

The and ineffability. the extrovertive mystic

and mystical experiences' sets overlap in many These respects, a feeling and peace, of the holy, most difference between significant

these

two sets of characteristics the partial

level than

is not

between
on a lower

and
the

the complete:
type ;

introvertive

that is to say, it is an incomplete

fulfillment

kind of experience
experience.10

which

finds its completion

and

across world of the similarity of mystical this analysis experiences on his between the and its based distinction pure experience religions, even owes to Schleiermacher while it much (which obviously interpretation From differs whether the import of this in terms of him) Stace goes on to consider or not one can deduce of the experience that from the universality are more nuanced referent. His findings than he has been it has an objective from critics. Nevertheless, with suitable quali?

credit for by some of his given Stace affirms that fications

we but have reached truth the conclusion that

is in very

what

the mystics

mystical themselves

experience claim,

is not namely

merely a direct

subjective, experience

of the One, There

the Universal

Self, God.11

taken by Stace, has, of course, been much debate about the position across world of mystics the experiences about whether really religions and also about what the he claims to discern, do display the characteristics both implications
10 Stace, p.

would
132.

be if they did. Central

11

to the first aspect

Ibid. p. 207.

of the debate

is

A MYSTICAL the work between of Steven Katz. and He

CORE OF RELIGION? argues that both the distinction All

65 Stace relies on

place individual This ation from must

experience a context within and

interpretation which includes

is unsustainable.

context

cultural and religious the itself, not merely shapes experiences subsequent interpret? of the Jewish mystic, who has been taught of it. Katz gives the example what God is like and therefore what childhood the experience of God are not left behind in mystical be like: these expectations experience the wider

experience of the the personal history milieux of which she is a part.

takes

but on

the contrary is desired experience from

set parameters sort of in advance around what actually are and what will count as authentic. These parameters those which for whom, mystical would be set by the background and context different could therefore, something quite Katz concludes, experience.

very different of a Buddhist be counted

mystic, as genuine

This much is certain : the mystical experience must be mediated by the kind of beings we are. And the kind of beings we are requires that experience be not only instan?
taneous tation, each and discontinuous, accumulation but that of prior it also involve memory, concepts language, fresh experience, apprehension, and expectations, expec? with

each experience
by

being built on the back of all these elements

experience.12

and being

shaped anew

that the common Katz characteristics which Stace Furthermore, argues are so as to discern to to in mystical claims be useless vague experiences an to make. the fact that I have establish the point Stace wishes From as paradoxical I describe which and ineffable, and that you have experience an as which describe and ineffable, it by no you experience paradoxical means follows that you and I have had the same experience, let alone that the same objective referent. Accordingly, Katz concludes, are insufficient for that mystics grounds asserting across world same a have the and this is substantial religions experiences; or more that is part of his argument 'mystical generally religious experience or any in establishing irrelevant the truth or falsity of religion in general our experiences contra Stace, have that there in particular.,13 specific religion seem that Stace and Katz It might the other denies. In a sense are polar opposites: what one affirms true. Yet my earlier discussion of us to should have alerted the possibility can be debated, and of I the are various

this is indeed

aspects are common to both of them. One between Stace and Katz which agenda of these is their understanding of what a mystical is; I shall return experience concerns to this later. Another the truth of religion. Both agree that ifmystics did have
12

the Deists, Kant and Schleiermacher of a common upon which ground disagreements that this is the case here. There suggest again

uniform

experiences

within

different
'

religious

traditions,

this would
Analysis

Steven Katz, Sheldon (London: 13 Ibid. p. 22.

' Language, Epistemology Press, 1978), p. 59.

and Mysticism

in his, ed., Mysticism

and Philosophical

RES 26

66 count are significantly

GRACE M. JANTZEN of the question of truth. Both, therefore, as evidence, about though they disagree In spite of their disagreement, what they than what greater and his precursors.14 either of them

in the assessment

treating mystical experiences in which it points. the direction in this regard in common have have in common writers with have Other been

is much

Schleiermacher concerned

to challenge Stace on the other aspect that mystics of his argument. do have remarkably similar experi? Allowing can ences across world more and that be made of the experi? religions, Katz distinction than what follows? It might admits, ence-interpretation are that the fact (if it could be proved) that there similar experi? be argued ences already, across reveals what we know perfectly well religions simply at that certain levels around the world have similar namely people In other words, and psychological human capabilities. psychology world social structures are sufficiently alike to allow as we for people have to have similar religious experiences, just as artistic of other sorts. Widely

religious and human

recognizably varies between expression to be taught to for example, it is still possible for an outsider cultures, or or as not another culture's dance literature, recognize painting perhaps to appreciate fully as one born into the culture, but nevertheless sufficiently to contrasts and the aesthetic find parallels and with such ex? expression in her own culture. pression But it may well be argued we are all part differences, experiences, are to be found to be are found. that of this says no more than race. Religion, the human that, for all our and religious

recognizably similar experiences

in every human culture, just as art, and artistic some in many cultures have That people experiences, we on a sort of the that call is with the fact par religious experiences mystical we sort in many that some people cultures have aesthetic of the propensities a no more a call musical. It is than of temperament and ability: question wonderful and thing about humankind an objective but not needing referent, existence reductionist of God. Various in particular have the organization of society, to be sure, let alone serving as evidence for the

accounts in general and of religion are been and associated with mystical experience proposed and Freud. Yet one can reject Marx the name of Feuerbach and Durkheim, accounts and still treat religion as a human these reductionist phenomenon like artistic saying expression that people or ways of living together in community ; and while in many world have experiences which have religions see this as no more than indicating that people with the propensity those who to such experiences are not is

striking similarities, or temperamental psychological to restricted any one culture. such views there are Against
14 The same,

argue

that religious

experience

'Mysticism, (1984)

Identity

of is true of subsequent discussions of course, philosophical International Journal The Debate and Realism: Continued',

them : cf. Peter Byrne, of theHistory of Religion

A MYSTICAL quite have different

CORE OF RELIGION?

67 it seems

to those who because from, say, artistic experience, or some aspect of 'the God of something: it to be an experience ' an : In have the absence apparent object. religious experiences Supernatural to the contrary, and given that there is general coherence of of evidence those who have about the nature of the experienced object among testimony such experiences, this counts exists. Thus as good reason to believe that such an object or for example Richard Swinburne argues on the that in the absence of Credulity of (i.e. the principle it is reasonable to how there things are) is a God.15 in one sense to believe that those that what one seems to religious experience who is good believe

being actually basis of the Principle special considerations perceive reason to believe is accurate

that

congruous sufficiently testimony counts as evidence for the existence of God are experiences to those who account for such experiences reductionistically polar opposites a more or simply as a common human is there basic sense in phenomenon, have mystical which In each case the question about mystical they share the same ground. on a a common about evidence; and relies view of is question experiences While about should be characterized. how such experiences they disagree and it of the evidence, the proper evaluation they share a common agenda, as same to in shared Stace and that and is the Katz, respect by agenda from that shared by the Deists, Kant and of evidence, different questions ' a core In modern Is the there Schleiermacher. discussions, question mystical to be discerned 'Is the core of religion in feeling of religion?' does not mean or or experience rather than in rationality It means, 'Is rather, morality?' from the reports of mystical of there reason to believe, experiences people to which that there is a God or Ultimate around the world, these Reality ' one ? The issue has become of the bear witness truth of reports religion (or of a religion) rather than one about the essence of religion and a correspond? ing account And yet of anthropology. can be overstated: the differences there as well. is a continuity to their thinking, to account for it. with experience

it is clear that while Again, or at least that the common

like Swinburne

of those who

to all the people we have considered, Common and central a is of religious and how particular perception diversity Common also to all those who are particularly concerned (that is, from Schleiermacher how such experience should Now, give shared what the I wish two groups ; and agenda we Kant,
15 Richard

onwards) be described been

are a set of shared : what

about assumptions are its main characteristics.

we find when the Deists,

considering, this agenda is utterly at look the mystics themselves. The that and Schleiermacher
The Existence

to suggest we have

is that these common

and assumptions questions a for all their differences, at variance with the agenda shift of ground between and modern writers
ch.

on
of God

the one hand

Swinburne,

(Oxford:

Clarendon,

1979),

13. 3-2

68 from Stace to Swinburne

GRACE M. JANTZEN on the other

is as nothing with the shift compared writers put together and the mystical of ground from all these philosophical And it seems to me that in discussions of mysticism, writers themselves. mystics ought not It is unfortunately to be ignored. not superfluous to insist upon this. There is far too much about that shows no evi? mysticism writing in depth, intellectual likeWilliam either contexts in terms in which and W. and T. of their those Stace

(and theological) philosophical studied actual mystics dence of having or terms in of the social and writings writings who pepper with very of regularly pression conceived must be understood. effort Even their books with little distorted

James from mystical writings quotations out of context to have taken quotations or at least given intention, And many

those

can be shown to have false into bother im? pre? to

the mystics'

the meaning overall patterns.

quote I propose,

conceptual them at all.

a substantially their words fitting don't philosophers

to look at the shared ground among the philosophers, therefore, turn in of and the of the charac? the question pluralism question considering at and then look the difference of this ap? teristics of mystical experience, from we with those of the Christian seen that modern what we might gets formulated for arriving mystical tradition. have have philosophers call an ecumenical

proach and these assumptions the Deists From onwards, looked at mystical experience tion inmind.

ques? The way this question differs, as do the methods at an answer; but in an be thought that might appropriate is 'Does the the same, namely, respect mystical question experi? important ence indicate an underlying Thus for instance unity among world religions?'

in his fountainhead for this discussion, who is an important Schleiermacher, to take religious diversity the Fifth Speech is concerned seriously, celebrating some rather than for actual universal between differences looking religions ' ' or natural in general religion as some of the Deists had done. Yet religion ' in the religions. Though I would have you discover he urges, they religion are always earthly and impure, is to be sought tried to depict in this view Schleiermacher enment, of the Enlightenment their historical glorification vidualistic arises same. The of religion and at the same in them. the same form of heavenly '16 beauty that I have

to be a true son of the Enlight? to it. The project reaction time part of the Romantic as the effort to liberate people from can be described shows himself in the name Thus human of nature of freedom, and results in the in indi? religiosity but that consciousness the divine; so that at root it is everywhere the is that the heart or context.
18.

particularity of individualism.17

is founded

immediate

consciousness of human

out of an essence

important thing in terms of the Enlightenment to historical is not to be attributed particularity

theNations (Minneapolis: Seabury, Winston

16 Schleiermacher, p. 211. 17 Cf. Stanley Hauerwas, Against

Press,

1985),

p.

MYSTICAL

CORE

OF

RELIGION?

69

the Enlightenment and giving is also reacting against saw to stream of human Romantic that the the growing particularity impetus societies as a good and rich treasure, the diversity of cultures being much richer than some theoretical monolithic His sentiments heap of humanity. But Schleiermacher of religious forms are reminiscent of of the multiplicity a as as to his the rather is Herder; diversity strength willingness perceive than a weakness of religion. about the value the Enlightenment and the Romantic on essence the of religion being simultaneously together by insisting same in the and also on its individual immediate consciousness, everywhere Schleiermacher manages strains diversity
Is there

to keep

of expression
not in all each religions be

in positive
more one stage of or the

religions.
less of the true forms has nature which to of religion... ?Must in some not, region

therefore, of the earth

religion at some and

special

mankind, accept?18

of development,

of religion is nothing but the sum of all relations of man to God, in all the possible ways inwhich any man can be immediately conscious apprehended in his life. In this sense there is but one religion... Yet all men will not by any means them in the same way, but quite differently.19 apprehend The whole would not concur on all seen, subsequent already philosophers with in whether that immedi? Schleiermacher, questioning points particular we ate consciousness to is the same, and how could know it be so given really of descriptions. the diversity But for the most part modern thinkers have into the that individual bought underlying assumption religious experience, however and is not it be construed, is logically prior to societal construction out determined traditions. It is of this individualistic assump? by particularist can be put: without it such a question question we assume at if is least that there the possibility point. Only of mystical the culture and tradition of of experience logically independent can we ask whether core of religion. the mystic there might be a mystical are as some if in of or world looked upon way expressions Only religions tion that the ecumenical no could have contexts for individualistic to private experiences can we discuss public responses (but universal) religious in which is understood and the ecumenical of way pluralism question core of religion feed off each other, and whether there could be a mystical are a joint product of post-Cartesian individualism. links directly with the question are seen which experiences, regularly This them as a plurality of The impulses. particular As we have

of the characteristics of mystical as private and individual intense states. as William characterization of subjective James' mystical experiences a and noetic is ineffable, transient, passive, having quality regularly repeated in modern of mysticism. discussions Sometimes additional philosophical are added,
p. 216.

characteristics
18

but

the fundamental
19

assumption

remains

the same,

Schleiermacher,

Ibid. p. 217.

70

GRACE

M.

JANTZEN

: are unusual and intense psychological that mystical phenomena experiences in the that and l?vitations, ecstasies, go bump voices, vision, night. things to which of this characterization the extent I have elsewhere argued as states on the fringes of normal consciousness experiences mystical psychic of the post-Kantian It is a direct consequence is misguided.20 assumption and beings, and must that God cannot be known at the centre of our minds on the inarticulate or not of consciousness therefore be encountered margins at all. James in locating in followed the Romantic religion philosophers an to in flavour his effort immediate anchor feeling, but gave that empirical were his his thesis in actual descriptions. Unfortunately quotations largely taken those mystical. Now from intense it would a compilation literary experiences to either their or their up by his friend Starbuck without regard and with an eye to precisely social context, to see as paradigmatically which James wished drawn

cannot be found be folly to pretend that such phenomena we a : course can. want to make If in mystical of literature they study of can states of consciousness be found without much search? bizarre examples ing. But what in philosophical are emphatic tuality. Some we need to note much more about mysticism themselves mystics writing are not what to their spiri? is central that these experiences of them, like John of the Cross or the author of The Cloud of that caustically 'like sheep with like the brain disease'.21 Others, are grateful for the visions have of Norwich, they in them the source of much teaching. Yet even spiritual affirmative all such experiences, in origin and saying advocating that thoroughly is that Christian than has been usual

Unknowing we should

give grave warnings against treat them all as demonic

they make people behave of Avila and Julian Teresa had, and recognize those who are most

of the experiences they have had never see never advocate to spiritual growth, that others should try them as essential never see them as central to what union with to have them too, and certainly God is about. union is not seen in in the history of Christian Indeed spirituality mystical terms of private that is a post-Enlighten? individual subjective psychology: ment to the great medieval In their terms teachers. notion foreign spiritual ' ' are with reference to the interpretation the chief usages of the word mystical its of the sacraments. of scripture and to the reception along with Scripture, : this did not was held to have mystical literal, historical meaning, meaning refer way to some in which esoteric or wholly understanding subjective to Christ. To discover it pointed ultimately but rather to the the way in which in Christ concealed This implied,

any particular its words was

and of Scripture both revealed passage to discover the mystical of meaning scripture.

20 In 'Mysticism and Experience' op. cit. 21 The Cloud of Unknowing (Classics of Western SPCK, 1981), p. 230.

Spirituality)

(New York:

Paulist

Press,

and London:

A MYSTICAL

CORE OF RELIGION?

71

to the Christ this thus encountered, and naturally indeed, personal exposure but whether it did or not was not the central could involve intense emotion, ' one received in the sacrament of the Eucharist the mystical issue. Similarly as of God's Christ': the embodiment of Jesus and blood Son, Jesus just body of Nazareth of scripture bread and The of meant both both revealed revealed both and and reveal concealed concealed the Son of God, Christ of whom just as the words they spoke, so the

the wine

discernment

of Christ

that discernment

the presence of Christ.22 and conceal in scripture and sacrament, and the permeation all the dimensions of life, was what was throughout

the Christian centuries by the term 'mystical'. The mystical, through to not its is and individualistic but therefore, according private practitioners and indeed in its inter? communal, quintessentially public, political to psychic with It has no intrinsic relation connections integrity and justice. which may or may not occur here or anywhere else, and should phenomena, to with It has be treated due and caution. respect always nothing whatever : our are is all do with God but ineffability beyond description, experiences

in their and mystics show themselves and articulate usually precise a core to if of And there is be this would argued mystical religion, writings. ' ' on an at of mystical variance be the basis of with utterly understanding not; the Christian categories repellent. r'sCollege,
22 Cf. my

and would tradition, mystical rely on post-Enlightenment which the Christian themselves would find baffling and mystics

London
'The Mystical Meaning of Scripture' in King's Theological Review xi, 2 (1988).