Thoughts on Mysticism
Some thoughts following our episode on mysticism....
Mysticism refers to a series of practices that are a specific type of "religious experience". These experiences are usually ecstatic, ascetic, insightful and revealing of a personalised divinity. They are found in all religions but less observed in modernity as faith becomes more watered-down. Mystic and esoteric traditions seem socially fringe and alien to many moderates and especially the non-religious, but they are arguably the most natural manifestation of a religious life taken seriously. They are the most raw and experiential practices found in the religious world.
Though not really private, mystical traditions are usually more personal than "conventional" religion and thus often distanced from secondary revelation like scripture or ecclesiastical hierarchy. For mystics, god is experienced in the here and now, not just through text, miracles or eschatolologically (at end-times). Its this sort of direct access to knowledge and truth that has got them into trouble with more orthodox believers in the past.
The philosopher, William James theorised these states were induced by communication with the unconscious mind, a vast and largely unknown entity. This is one of many theories that the eclectic study of mystical experiences has yielded. Despite naturalistic explanations of mystical experiences, we must contend with the fact that faith is characterised in spite of explanation not because of it. Religion is something that happens to a person, not as cognitive as some think and comparable to falling in love; especially when characterised as an intense relationship with god. Just because its not based in reason however, it still needs consistent rules (theology) and historical context to flourish authentically. Ie. You can't just choose to worship Aztec gods in modern day UK. We've made a lot of points to this effect which you can find in various other podcasts such as the Reason and Religion episodes, their accompanying essays and the Humanism article that relate to the nature of religion more broadly.
It's worth considering whether a person can experience mysticism without religion. A transformative and emotional state induced outside of a religious context like music, sex or art could potentially be considered mystical by non-religious people. Perhaps the fundamental difference is that even if they invoke classically mystical qualities like moral duty or hyper awareness, the feeling is not heteronomously demanded by a higher power.
The origins of the term "spiritual" are inherently tied to religion and deeply entwined with Christian theology (specifically, Holy spirits, etc.). "Spiritual but not religious" is usually a vexatious placeholder phrase for "secular existentialism" or "I'm not actually a boring person". The use of this phrase is likely a consequence of atheism being considered a dirty word and to do with a general incredulity of atheist philosophy. This is also why agnosticism is considered an apparent "middle ground" when actually it describes a state of knowledge we all share (which is not knowing). Not many people claim to be actual gnostics thus we are all agnostic; the difference is what we choose to believe. Many people identify as agnostic when they're actually just apathetic to such questions, maybe they're lazy or even deeply skeptical of religion and thus atheist would often be a better word to describe this. Atheism is not necessarily a position on knowledge, nor something negative - it can be a positive.
Apart from paganism, religiosity is negatively premised; setting out to identify and confront a cosmic conflict and conclude that the human experience is inherently undesirable without external aid. Most forms of Humanism simply disagree and negate this premise but some have moral courage to live truly positively.
The West's popular infatuation (and commodification) with Eastern religion seems to forget that religion is an orientation or sentiment. Its goals are fundamentally opposed to the lifestyles that people make use of mindfulness and yoga to supplement. All religions and cultures borrow traditions but usually it is less clumsy and more of an organic growth. One way to think of the difference between Buddhist mindfulness and secular mindfulness is that the latter is appropriated to serve an ulterior purpose. Respectively, one places a demand upon the self… the other is demanded upon as a tool.
Though not really private, mystical traditions are usually more personal than "conventional" religion and thus often distanced from secondary revelation like scripture or ecclesiastical hierarchy. For mystics, god is experienced in the here and now, not just through text, miracles or eschatolologically (at end-times). Its this sort of direct access to knowledge and truth that has got them into trouble with more orthodox believers in the past.
The philosopher, William James theorised these states were induced by communication with the unconscious mind, a vast and largely unknown entity. This is one of many theories that the eclectic study of mystical experiences has yielded. Despite naturalistic explanations of mystical experiences, we must contend with the fact that faith is characterised in spite of explanation not because of it. Religion is something that happens to a person, not as cognitive as some think and comparable to falling in love; especially when characterised as an intense relationship with god. Just because its not based in reason however, it still needs consistent rules (theology) and historical context to flourish authentically. Ie. You can't just choose to worship Aztec gods in modern day UK. We've made a lot of points to this effect which you can find in various other podcasts such as the Reason and Religion episodes, their accompanying essays and the Humanism article that relate to the nature of religion more broadly.
It's worth considering whether a person can experience mysticism without religion. A transformative and emotional state induced outside of a religious context like music, sex or art could potentially be considered mystical by non-religious people. Perhaps the fundamental difference is that even if they invoke classically mystical qualities like moral duty or hyper awareness, the feeling is not heteronomously demanded by a higher power.
The origins of the term "spiritual" are inherently tied to religion and deeply entwined with Christian theology (specifically, Holy spirits, etc.). "Spiritual but not religious" is usually a vexatious placeholder phrase for "secular existentialism" or "I'm not actually a boring person". The use of this phrase is likely a consequence of atheism being considered a dirty word and to do with a general incredulity of atheist philosophy. This is also why agnosticism is considered an apparent "middle ground" when actually it describes a state of knowledge we all share (which is not knowing). Not many people claim to be actual gnostics thus we are all agnostic; the difference is what we choose to believe. Many people identify as agnostic when they're actually just apathetic to such questions, maybe they're lazy or even deeply skeptical of religion and thus atheist would often be a better word to describe this. Atheism is not necessarily a position on knowledge, nor something negative - it can be a positive.
Apart from paganism, religiosity is negatively premised; setting out to identify and confront a cosmic conflict and conclude that the human experience is inherently undesirable without external aid. Most forms of Humanism simply disagree and negate this premise but some have moral courage to live truly positively.
The West's popular infatuation (and commodification) with Eastern religion seems to forget that religion is an orientation or sentiment. Its goals are fundamentally opposed to the lifestyles that people make use of mindfulness and yoga to supplement. All religions and cultures borrow traditions but usually it is less clumsy and more of an organic growth. One way to think of the difference between Buddhist mindfulness and secular mindfulness is that the latter is appropriated to serve an ulterior purpose. Respectively, one places a demand upon the self… the other is demanded upon as a tool.