Marie Claire P.

Mandar
2013-52151
Philo 1 X5-2
Reaction Paper: Essays on Mysticism

July 21, 2015

Are Men Ever Directly Aware of God?

By William James
Summary

In the article Are Men Ever Directly Aware of God, William James considered
mystical states of consciousness as the center and source of personal religious
experiences which involves variety of understandings, from the spiritual to the most
faithfully insightful. He wrote his paper by producing a valid subject of examination and
study by defining mystical states of consciousness as "real" experiences, which is
accessible to most people. The words mysticism and mystical are terms often used
when throwing opinions that are regarded as vague, vast and sentimental. And to
prevent verbal argument and criticism of the loosely-defined words - 'mysticism' and
'mystical', he proposed four marks that an experience must have to be considered one.

First is ineffability which stresses the defiance of expression, that no adequate

report of its contents can be given in words, to avoid it from being classified as a state of
intellect but rather to classify it as a state of feeling. Moreover, according to James, it
must be directly experienced and it cannot be imparted or transferred to others. Second
is Noetic quality, which is also a lot similar to states of feeling. But mystics do not only
experience it as such, they also experience it as states of knowledge. They are,
according to him, states of perception into depths of truth unfathomable by the broad

understanding. They are illuminations, revelations, full of significance and importance.

The third one is transiency. It refers to the mystical states that cannot be sustained for
long. It disappears fast and remains out of reach. The fourth and last one, passivity, is
when in a mystical experience; people do not appear to clearly process data. It is when
the subject feels a loss of control, and of being in the grip of higher command. These
four forms a distinct area of consciousness.

He gave examples that are related to the influence of poetry, music, and the art.
Another example given that happens quite frequently to humans is dj vu, or the
feeling of having been here before. James also gave examples of situations from
people who have experienced mystical consciousness. One example is from a person
who describes being visited by trance states in which his/her awareness of the world
was annihilated, leaving sharp awareness of his own self. This situation is similar to
what we call today a drug-induced state, where the consciousness is produced by
intoxicants and anesthetics, especially alcohol. James also added his own experience
of being intoxicated by nitrous oxide, which has led him to the conclusion that our
walking consciousness is only one of the many types of consciousness that we humans
have.

William James completes his analysis by looking at methodical cultivation as a

component of religious life. Hindus, Buddhists, Mohammedans, and Christians all have
cultivated it methodically. He stated in the article that in India, training in mystical insight
has been known ever since the ancient times under the name of yoga. Yoga means the

experimental union of the individual with the divine. It constitutes persevering exercises;
and the diet, posture, breathing, intellectual concentration, and moral discipline, which
varies slightly differently depending on the systems which teach it. The Vedantists
believe that a person can rarely discover superconsciousness without doing yoga, but
they believe that doing that is impure. It will only be pure if its end results are good for
life. The Buddhists used the word dhyna, for the higher levels of contemplation which
has four stages.

The mystical theology of Catholicism is demonstrated by three Iberian mystics

St. John of the Cross, St. Ignatius Loyola, and Saint Teresa of Avila. William James
dwelled on two concerns which are sense of revelation and tonic effects of mystical
states, which are referred to as Illusion and Ecstasy, respectively. The basis of their
experiences is the orison, the methodical elevation of the soul towards God. According
to Saint Teresa, the highest of these orisons is the orison of union where the soul is
fully awake regarding God.

Five negatives have been described in the essay but despite this, James seems
to see that the main advantage in all this is an overcoming of all the usual barriers
between the individuals and the Absolute. Both parties are aware that there exist a
union between them.

In conclusion, James suggests that mystical experiences, when viewed overall,

are broad in moral content and that mystical experiences prevent us from discarding

straightaway the possibility of a world beyond our senses. He explains that all mystical
experience, whether positive or negative, deserves acknowledgment as existing states
of consciousness.

Reaction

William James approach is subjective rather than objective and he makes valid
points on how we should judge the claims made by other people. It was right to respect
the personal belief of serious spiritual believers and it is also right that what they believe
to be true should not be forcedly imposed on anyone for them to accept as true.

Evaluating religion whether it is a good social force is the task set by James for
himself. He eventually concluded that it is, though with some important cautions. This
leaves us with a vital account of what religion really means and the way in which it is or
can be tangled with social, political and other factors. It shows us that religion in its core
is not the source behind all the world's evil and or good.

In James paper, religion was scrutinized from a purely realistic viewpoint. It

focused on the distinct link of one individual to the divine. Moreover, it was notable that
the characteristics of religious experience were connected to a range of other
phenomena such as drunkenness, ghostly visions, optimism and diseases without any
anti-religious representation.

I agree that mystical states have the right to be absolutely authoritative over the
individuals they come to. But it depends on the person who experiences these mystical
things whether he will acknowledge what had happened to him or her as a mystical
experience or not. If the event happened to a man of science or a rational person, then
he would not think too much of it and would just shrug it off and call it an illusion, or a

hallucination. But if it happened to a truly religious person then he would deem that
happening as a mystical experience and would think that the divine one has graced him
of his holiness. The decision is on the person and other people should not interfere to
avoid biases and conflicts of opinion.

I guess this article is not just an evaluation but a search for the rightfulness of
religion, its reality, and the unity within it. The article is a technical and theoretical look at
religion and one that does not solely address faith as trash.

A Skeptical View of Mysticism

By Bertrand Russell
Summary

The article written by Bertrand Russell entitled A Skeptical View of Mysticism

talks about the credibility of the assertions made by the mystics as compared to those
made by scientists. Mystics argue that we believe the assertions made by the scientists
even if we did not see them for ourselves. Why then, should we not believe the
assertions they made when they are, according to them, equally undoubtable?

It was mentioned in the article that when a scientist tells the public the result of
his experiment, he also tells them how the experiment was performed; others will be
able to repeat it and see for themselves if the scientists end result will be the same as
theirs, and if the results are different, the result will not be accepted as true. But in
another case, when men put themselves in a situation in which the mystics vision
occurred, it is possible that they will not obtain the same revelation. The mystic himself
may be certain that he knows and has no need for scientific tests, but those who are
asked to accept his claim will subject it to a series of steps in order to prove if it is true.
This means that the claims made by scientists have a higher percentage of credibility
than that made by mystics because they can be proven to be true or false. And taking
the words from the article, science depends upon perception and inference; its
credibility is due to the fact that the perceptions are such as any observer can test.

Mystics also argue with themselves because of the differences in their views due
to different experiences but according to Russell as said in the article, there are certain
points that all successful mystics agree on: 1) that all division and separateness is
unreal, and that the universe is a single indivisible unity; 2) that evil is illusory, and that
the illusion arises through falsely regarding a part as self-subsistent; 3) that time is
unreal, and that reality is eternal, not in the sense of being everlasting, but in the sense
of being wholly outside time.

The statement time is unreal was discussed and made clear thoroughly in the
article. It was said there that if time is unreal, we will have to suppose that there are no
events at all. There will be no distinction between improvement and deterioration and
the order of being born, then growing up and eventually dying will be just as false as the
reverse of the order stated above. If this is view is true, it was said that it will put an end
not only to science, but also to hope, prudence, and effort. Lastly, it will be incompatible
with worldly wisdom and morality --- which is most important in religion.

Mystics, most of them, do not wholly accept all of the conclusions stated above,
but they urge doctrines which these conclusions inevitably follow. That it is why Dean
Inge rejects the kind of religion that appeals to evolution, because it lays too much
stress upon a temporal process. According to Dean Inge, There is no law of progress,
and there is no universal progress. Dean Inge also says that the doctrine of automatic
and universal progress has the disadvantage of being disproved. Russell finds himself

in agreement with Dean Inge in this matter but stated that Dean Inge does not draw
from his grounds all the conclusions which seem to him to be acceptable.

It was also discussed in the article how mysticism seeks to avoid the extreme
consequences which followed the denial of time. Parmenides introduced into
metaphysics the distinction between reality and appearance, or the way of truth and the
way of opinion, as he calls them. Since the world appears to be in time, people who
deny the reality of time must introduce such distinction. But if reality and appearance is
made too close, all the unpleasant features of appearance will have their unpleasant
counterparts in reality, and if the relationship between the two is made too distant, we
shall be unable to make assumptions from the character of appearance to that of reality,
and reality will become a vague Unknowable, according to Herbert Spencer. For
Christians, there is a related difficulty of avoiding pantheism. If the world is only
apparent, God would not have created anything and the reality of the world is part of
God, but if the world is real and separate from God, then we are obliged to presume that
the evil which the world contains is also real. The Bishop of Birmingham says that all
forms of pantheism must be rejected because if a man is actually part of God then that
would mean that the evil in man is also part of God.

Russel believes that when the mystics compare reality with appearance, the
word reality has not a logical, but an emotional impact. Instead of saying that time is
unreal, what should be said is that in some sense and occasions, it would be important
to think of the universe as a whole just like what the Creator, if He existed, must have

thought when he decided to create it. Believing this, the past, present, and future all
exist together. When such an understanding is acknowledged, it would be acceptable to
think that mysticism expresses an emotion and not a fact; it does not claim anything,
and therefore can neither be confirmed nor disproved by science.

When a man of science wishes others to see what he had observed, he makes
changes in the external world, but demands from the observer only normal eyesight.
The mystic, on the other hand, demands changes in the observer, by practicing what
they do --- fasting, breathing exercises --- and by refraining from external observation.

Russell believes that observations made or visions experienced in an abnormal

physical condition are all abnormal perceptions. He is certain that assertions are
inessential and there is no reason to believe them to be true.

Reaction:

According to the essay written by Russell, the first thing that most successful
mystics agree on is that all division and separateness is unreal, and that the universe is
a single indivisible unity but despite this consensus, most of the wars, disputes, and
tragedies that happened in the world came from the reason that mystics with different
views and experiences do not agree with one another, that their own religion is the

absolute religion. Take for example the Jihads, the crusades, or the World War III. I
mean yes, they agree that the universe is one but the fact that they themselves do not
follow this is confusing for me. The three I have stated above have resulted in a lot of
deaths. These conflicts happened in the past because of the differences between
religions. Even now in the present time there are still conflicts which are caused by
religious differences.

The things claimed by the mystics are all based in their beliefs. In the essay it is
said that the Catholics have visions of the Virgin, Christians and Mohammedans had
truths uncovered to them by Archangel Gabriel. Why is it that only the people who share
the same belief have the same revelations revealed to them? How did they know that
the one who delivered them the message was the Virgin or Archangel Gabriel? How are
we supposed to know that all of those are true and not make-believe stories? They
would think that it must be because of their strong beliefs and faith that they have
received such revelations. Who knows? Maybe they are just fooling themselves in
claiming that what they have seen are visions and not mere hallucinations.
The second thing the mystics agree on is that evil is illusory, and that the illusion
arises through falsely regarding a part as self-subsistent. If evil is just an illusion then
what will the word evil written in the Holy Bible of the Christian Church be referring to?
If it is true that evil is illusory then the word evil will be meaningless. What about the
concept of Heaven and Hell? It was said that all evil belongs in Hell. If there is no evil
then what would be inside Hell? Will it be just an empty space? Does that mean that
these religions are just deceiving us with regards to these concepts?

And the third and the last thing that most successful mystics agree on is that
time is unreal, and that reality is eternal, not in the sense of being everlasting, but in the
sense of being wholly outside time. This, for me, is quite mind-boggling because if I
assume that time is unreal, then there will be no proper order of things, and the universe
will surely be chaotic. A lot of things, especially the peoples lives, will be greatly
affected. Predictions will have no sense because there is no future. Science will be
close to nothing because time is very important in conducting experiments which proves
the claims made by scientists. If it is true that time is imaginary, there would be no such
thing as respect for the elderly, which is a doctrine that us as Filipinos follow, for we do
not know who of us is older or younger. It would be pointless to work hard on something;
not knowing what it would produce or what you will achieve in the end. Furthermore,
how can you be outside time or not exist in time?

References:
James, William. Are Men Ever Directly Aware of God?. Lectures XVI & XVII Mysticism,
of the Varieties of Religious Experience. 1902
Russell, Bertrand. A Skeptical View of Mysticism. Religion and Science(1905). Chapter
VII Mysticism.
http://www.ukessays.com/essays/philosophy/what-is-the-ultimate-basis-of-religiousbelief-philosophy-essay.php