The Universality of Mysticism
I'm afraid almost anything that I'm going to write here is going to be inadequate given practical time constraints and the difficulty of trying to remember and cross-reference everything I've ever read on the topic, and so the task feels daunting. I'm going to attempt a start nonetheless.
The thesis: there is a common strand running through the mystical expressions found in many religious traditions, and this strand speaks to the objective reality of the experience which I have labeled "spiritual". Further, that common experience may be described as an experience of "pure consciousness", and as such is the experience of the reality of that which is intuited in the "hard" problem of consciousness.
The antithesis: this commonality is masked and complicated by many differences and contradictions between the various traditions. Those differences matter and can't be ignored. An overly simplistic syncretism is unconvincing. A skeptic can argue that the supposed commonality is merely something being imposed from the outside, as a reinterpretation. The skeptic argues that, in fact, the wide variety of theological conceptions, moral views, and religious practices demonstrates that there is nothing "objective" in religion at all, that it's a purely cultural construct.
A Synthesis? The difficulty inherent in religious pluralism is something I've anticipated when I drew a distinction between
experience and
interpretation. That is, I wrote:
"It is important to my discussion of the spiritual to distinguish between the experience itself, which is immediate, qualitative, and which transcends senses and mind, with the interpretation, memory, beliefs, and concepts which are formed about the experience."
The argument is then that a great deal of the contradiction and variety exists as differences of interpretation and concept, which is so heavily influenced by the cultures within which the mystic writes. But, it is possible to also see the underlying unity of pure experience, even though that experience in itself is not directly available to us to inspect. What we do have is the many recorded experiences of mystics across these varied traditions, and while those mystics speak using the symbolic languages of their traditions, they often also find themselves at odds with the "orthodoxy" of their faiths because their descriptions tend towards the universal, or chafe against the boundaries of that very language. In some traditions, and I would argue that Hinduism and Buddhism may be the best examples, there are orthodox schools that already describe mystical experience very closely to how I have done so in this thread, and in others, like Christianity and Islam, it is more masked and the mystics more often at odds with "orthodox" views.
There is one other perhaps common objection, wherein the universality of mystical experience is accepted, but explained as a purely neurological phenomena. This kind of deflationary view is essentially the same as the reductive physicalist response to the hard problem. It simply denies that the experience in itself has any significance. Just as with the hard problem, this view can't be refuted as a matter of logical argument, it really comes down to how easily you are able to dismiss your own experience. The argument from the universality of mysticism is not intended to deal with it, but I think, alongside the intuitive hard problem of consciousness, it suggests that the reductive view may not be justified.
Existing Literature: This thesis is fairly well-explored, although the connection to philosophy of mind and Chalmers' arguments about the hard problem of consciousness may be a bit novel. The existing literature that deals with this kind of question does a much better job than I'm likely to do, and I'm borrowing freely from what I've read, and I haven't read everything I probably should. Here are a few references:
- The Varieties of Religious Experience, William James (wiki)
- The Perennial Philosophy, Aldous Huxley (wiki)
- The Rhythm of Being, Raimon Panikkar (probably most important to my argument)
A Short Survey of Texts
Here, then, are some examples from the various mystical traditions...
Turiya, a concept from the Mandukya Upanishad, and elaborated upon by Indian philosophy, speaks about "pure consciousness" directly:
"Turiya is not that which is conscious of the inner (subjective) world, nor that which is conscious of the outer (objective) world, nor that which is conscious of both, nor that which is a mass of consciousness. It is not simple consciousness nor is It unconsciousness. It is unperceived, unrelated, incomprehensible, uninferable, unthinkable and indescribable. The essence of the Consciousness manifesting as the self in the three states, It is the cessation of all phenomena; It is all peace, all bliss and non—dual. This is what is known as the Fourth (Turiya). This is Atman and this has to be realized" (Mand. U. 7)
The "realization" spoken of is experience. It is not first of all a philosophical reflection, but an experience that is sought. The meaning of "Atman" (Self) is given elaboration in different ways in different Hindu schools, but this "Self" is, in whatever way, also Divine, it is an experience of God. Compare this to a reflection on "pure prayer" in the 7th century writings of Christian mystic Isaac of Syria:
"Groans, prostrations, heartfelt requests and supplications, sweet tears and all other varieties of prayer, as I have said, have their boundary only as far as pure prayer. Moving inwards from purity of prayer, once one has passed this boundary, the mind has no prayer, no movement, no requests, no desire, no longing for anything that is hoped for in this world or the world to come. For this reason, after pure prayer there is no longer any prayer: all the stirrings of prayer convey the mind up to that point through their free authority; that is why struggle is involved in prayer. But beyond the boundary, there exists wonder, not prayer. From that point onwards the mind ceases from prayer; there is the capacity to see, but the mind is not praying at all." (Discourse 22)
There is an interesting parallel between the usage of negative language to attempt to describe a conscious state which is not consciousness
of anything. Unperceived, unrelated, uninferable, indescribable. Without movement, request, desire, or longing. "There is the capacity to see, but the mind is not praying". That is, the mind is still. In both the point is in isolating that moment of pure conscious experience which is exactly the core of what the hard problem of consciousness says must be explained. But here, the contemplative and pure experience of that state, when attained and not merely referenced abstractly as a logical argument, is perceived to be, in itself, the experience of the Divine. A spiritual experience.
In Buddhism, the term
Śūnyatā (Emptiness) is used in multiple ways, but one of them refers to a state found in meditation, which again seems comparable to "pure consciousness". Here again, this state is described in a particular sutta in this procession of "negative" terms. Sunyata as emptiness already describes something that is without content, and the meditate state is without direction, without signs, without form. Here also the meanings of the word
samadhi could be investigated, pointing in a similar direction.
From a particular
translation of the poetry of the sufi mystic Rumi:
"Although you appear in earthly form
Your essence is pure Consciousness.
You are the fearless guardian
of Divine Light.
So come, return to the root of the root
of your own soul."
"Purity" is an especially important concept in sufism (and in the middle eastern forms of Christianity) that certainly denotes more than just the technical description of consciousness which is not consciousness
of anything, but again in Sufi mysticism the experience itself seems to be present, at the "root" of the soul. In a less esoteric way, "purity" in these traditions includes also the ethical precepts of a spiritual life. "Spirituality" is not separate from the other concerns of life or human understanding, as I've said in the context of describing the "senses", "intellect", and "spirit". But, as also in Buddhism, albeit in a different way, the egoic "self" of the spiritual aspirant must be stripped away, and while that includes dealing with ethics and behavior and psychology, in the contemplative traditions, in prayer and in meditation, it is also experienced as a "pure consciousness" in this immediate way.
Turiya,
Sunyata,
Samadhi,
Pure Prayer,
Purity of Heart. These are all categories of experience and religious belief that extend well beyond the connection that I'm making between them and my previous arguments. They all could be given book-length treatments about their meaning in their respective traditions. And I didn't even attempt to approach the meaning of
Atman and
Brahman directly. But insofar as the traditions concern themselves with a spiritual experience and not just a theoretical knowledge or a set of beliefs, the experience that is sought is in interior experience, it is an experience in consciousness. It is described almost always in similar terms, emphasizing its ineffability and its place beyond the normal senses and mind. The commonality of these descriptions points at least towards some objective reality which explains the experiences.
Distinguishing "God" and "Consciousness"
A final clarification. In an attempt to be both reasonably brief and somewhat focused in terms of making an argument, it may seem like I'm implying that "God" or the Divine is really just our own consciousness, since in all cases the spiritual experience is tied to states of consciousness. In a sense, there is some truth to that according to some understandings of some traditions. This is a matter of interpretation though, and no longer of the pure experience.
Christians, for example, don't understand God to be
the experience, but rather that the experience is an experience of union with God, even though God transcends that experience. Only the "pure in heart" can "see" God. Purity is a pre-requisite, and purity of consciousness is related to purity of heart. But what is seen is not merely one's own self. This is where the religious point of view goes beyond the philosophical purpose of something like pan-psychism. When this experience wants to leap beyond a merely theoretical description, it is because in the experience itself a profound existential joy is found, which speaks of the Divine transcendence. But that is beyond the scope of this present argument.