Mysticism: East versus West

Take a look at the standard definitions of the term “mysticism”. These are generally accepted in academic circles as proper meaning for the term in communicating with others in the English language. Note the emphasis on non-rational means to apprehension.

These are definitions in Western intellectual terms. Yet, oddly enough, the Western tradition of mysticism does not actually meet that definition. Reading the great works of great minds in Western tradition will eventually serve up something quite different from the agreed upon common definitions.

In Western culture, we recognize appetites as the lowest level of mental awareness, closely followed by emotions. It can get really complicated fast with emotions, but only because popular literature exaggerates their importance. Movies only make it worse. Above emotions we have standard rational process by which most of us get by in this world. It’s a sloppy logic, but effective. Above that is a very clear and sharp logical reasoning, with the awareness of when ideas violate the rules, and which rules. For the most part, here in the West we have Aristotle to thank for this. Then for a few rare individuals, their ability to work in such a rational mental environment brings a highly developed mental awareness.

Western mysticism, such as it is, pretty much focuses on that last level. It’s an achievement easier for some than others, to be sure, but the potential is there. As previously noted, this does not quite meet the definition of mysticism. Rather, mysticism is decidedly non-rational. While most Aristotelians regard that with some suspicion, as if it were simply a smart-alecky emotionalism disguised as wisdom, those who step outside Aristotle’s regime would dispute that.

Aristotle had to have known about the intellectual cultures which came before him. Frankly, his teachers and predecessors were somewhat influenced by what is commonly called Eastern Mysticism. Granted, it was Near Eastern Mysticism, and unlikely to include much east of ancient Persia, it is today still lumped into the same broad category and left to specialists to slice and dice. Since Aristotle, the whole thing is handled with some contempt.

How sad, since the vast wealth of intellectual culture gets tossed out in that way. Indeed, I often remind my fellow evangelical Christians by clinging to their particular intellectual assumptions — basically the Enlightenment plus some room for miracles — they reject the very intellectual culture of the Bible itself. The ancient Hebrews were Near Eastern mystics. Jesus was, too, which was the essence of His dispute with the Westernized Sanhedrin. The shared element in all that big kettle of Eastern Mysticism is the assumption within man is a faculty for knowing, and thus deciding what to do, which is not simply outside the intellect and reason, but superior to it.

Western Christians and Western Mystics share one great flaw: a very poor anthropology. Human nature includes the body, the soul (of which the mind is a part), and a spirit. When you hold long conversations with Westerners, you sense quickly they may allow the existence of a spiritual element, but describe in terms of a higher reasoning. They insist firmly the whole thing can make sense, can be handled by the intellect. Funny, but the Western theological term “ineffable” — an attribute of God — means the truth can’t be told, can’t be received intellectually. But they still insist “faith” is reasonable.

From the Near Eastern position, faith is quite unreasonable. It makes audacious demands which require the intellect to step aside and assume a junior role. No one says reason is inherently bad; otherwise there would be no computers and you would not be reading this. Reason is quite good at grappling with the mechanisms of tangible and theoretical things, though more limited than Aristotelians want to admit. But the Near Eastern mind insists reason has a limit, and beyond that are things scarcely told. Indeed, most ancient Near Eastern literature is loaded with non-literal narratives which offer no more than some indication of those ineffable things. We call it symbolic or parabolic language. It can’t be described, only indicated. Near Eastern logic is not analytical and descriptive, but symbolic and indicative. You are expected to absorb it on a non-intellectual level and have your mind simply come up with ways to comply with the inherent demands of these unspeakable truths.

I assert, in the purest definition of the terms, Western mysticism is not mysticism at all. It stretches the limits of rationality, but remains on that level. Mysticism is not a state of mind, an achievement of peace and whatever. Mysticism is a process, a pathway, the means to reaching that higher state simply where the mind becomes captive of something far wiser. Ultimate Truth is not a body of knowledge, but a living entity. It’s not, “Use the force, Luke!” We don’t become supermen with elite advantages over common folks. Yet most Western mystics describe their craft as aiming at something like Jedi Knighthood. No, Ultimate Truth is connecting with a living power, so that even the most pitiful case of ignorant savage with minimal brain function can participate in discerning the underlying moral fabric of the universe.

The whole point of all this is not being better in ourselves, as if there were some end product, but in the process of drawing ever closer to the life force behind all that exists. Enlightenment is not a place or status, but a process, a whole different world to explore, the Land Without Words. We do not lose our selfhood, but we live in voluntary surrender to something which is what we were all meant to be. Indeed, I find I cannot even really say what it is, but I can recognize what it is not. It most certainly is not within the grasp of anything man can do or be on this plane. What comes Beyond is not more of this, or prettier, but unspeakably Other than this. If you can tell me much about it, you don’t have it. We can still be friends, and I’ll do my best to cultivate that. But if you can act upon the same indescribable moral power of Eternity which holds me, I’ll recognize it pretty quickly. Then it won’t be mere friendship, but the most intimate fellowship and kinship possible for humans, a taste of what we can find on that Other Side.

For my fellow Christians, you should easily recognize all of this is merely restating biblical truth without traditional ecclesiastical terminology, so long as you aren’t a prisoner of the Enlightenment. Sadly, precious few in the West will countenance such things. For a confessed Bible thumper I find it easier to talk to those who embrace liberal religion. For those of other backgrounds with a spiritual awareness, you’ll recognize that kinship in a more neutral language.

Sadly, too, is that we have such a vast legacy of that Western brand of “mysticism” that I don’t much expect to bridge the chasm. I’m a nobody, without any of the proper ticket-punches necessary to be taken seriously. There are no invitations to address conferences, no books to sell, nor articles in scholarly magazines. Sure, I have a baccalaureate degree and some post-graduate work, but I found it all going in the wrong direction. Western Civilization has no place for me, and it has no place with me. That’s because it’s already dead; it’s so big will take a long time to hit the ground. But in Eternity, I’m family, a member with full rights. Folks who share that affinity will have no trouble recognizing me, and that’s what matters.