For quite some time, there has been a debate among scholars of mysticism over whether or not there is a single core mystical experience. The notion that there is indeed a single core experience has been called "perennialism". The notion that there is no single core experience has been called "constructism".
Current science on the subject strongly -- but not yet conclusively -- supports the perennialist position that there is a single core experience. If the science proves conclusive, what would account for the differences in ways mystics talk about their experiences?
I can think of three things that might account for at least some of the differences.
First, language and culture. Obviously, a mystic like the Buddha living around 500 BC on the Indian subcontinent would have a very different culture and language from a mystic like Saint John of the Cross living about 1500 AD on the Spanish peninsula. Even if the two had the exact same experience, they would not have been likely to describe their experience in quite the same terms due to cultural and language differences.
Second, differences in emphasis. Different mystics tend to emphasize different aspects of their experience while perhaps discounting other aspects. It's as if they all see the same tree, but one focuses on the shape of the leaves, the other on the quality of the bark.
Last, differences in observational skills. It is sometimes assumed that all mystics are equal when it comes to how observant they are. But why assume that? Isn't it more likely that they are unequal? An old joke has it that if ten people witness the same car accident, there will be eleven versions of exactly what happened. Why should we not expect something similar to occur with mystics? Some might very well be better observers than others.
Current science on the subject strongly -- but not yet conclusively -- supports the perennialist position that there is a single core experience. If the science proves conclusive, what would account for the differences in ways mystics talk about their experiences?
I can think of three things that might account for at least some of the differences.
First, language and culture. Obviously, a mystic like the Buddha living around 500 BC on the Indian subcontinent would have a very different culture and language from a mystic like Saint John of the Cross living about 1500 AD on the Spanish peninsula. Even if the two had the exact same experience, they would not have been likely to describe their experience in quite the same terms due to cultural and language differences.
Second, differences in emphasis. Different mystics tend to emphasize different aspects of their experience while perhaps discounting other aspects. It's as if they all see the same tree, but one focuses on the shape of the leaves, the other on the quality of the bark.
Last, differences in observational skills. It is sometimes assumed that all mystics are equal when it comes to how observant they are. But why assume that? Isn't it more likely that they are unequal? An old joke has it that if ten people witness the same car accident, there will be eleven versions of exactly what happened. Why should we not expect something similar to occur with mystics? Some might very well be better observers than others.
