God, Religion, Mysticism and Professor John Hick; in praise of de-mystifying the mystical
A guy called John Hick provides us with three wonderful definitions of mystical experience. First there is his own which simply says;
” Mystical experience…..does not seem to me to be anything other than first-hand religious experience as such. This is, however, the core of religion…..…the explanatory function of religion is secondary and derivative.”
Hick however relies on Ninian Smart to make clear how mystical experience relates to the other aspects of religion;
Religion consists primarily in experiencing our life in its relation to the Transcendent and living on the basis of that experience….
…..in terms of Ninian Smart’s six-dimensional analysis – distinguishing the
ritual,
mythological,
doctrinal,
ethical,
social and
experiential dimensions of religion
– mysticism is a general name for religious experience together with part at least of the network of religious practices which support it.
Hick, John, (1981)
Mystical Experience as Cognition in Understanding Mysticism, ed. Richard Woods, London: The Athlone Press
Hick provides us with two other definitions of mysticism;
…. Brother David (Steindl-Rast) defined mysticism as “experience of communion with the source of meaning“; and he stressed that all who worship, and indeed all who are conscious of the divine, are mystics. ….and Swami Prabuddhananda defined mysticism as ‘the realization of relationship between the individual soul and the infinite reality‘” P423
Source of meaning’ and ‘infinite reality’ are I suppose deliberately abstract and universal. I sense a correlation between anthropomorphic views of God and fundamentalist views – does anyone know of any relevant research?
Our unity, that is harmonization beyond diversity, must inevitably centre on
a) recognition of our oneness in our common humanity and
b) that which is universal.
These definitions take us to the heart of religion, to the realization that the ultimate is mystery and to the most universal and abstract.
If we need to personalize our belief it needs to be in terms of celebrating the diversity of our fellow human beings and in our loves for those that we can serve and take inspiration from.
When we personalize or anthropomorphise God we inevitably see God in our own image and since we all imagine differently we are tempted more and more into a ‘make-wrong’ frame of mind through which we reject others.
—–0—–
All postings to this site relate to the central model in the PhD.
Summaries are HERE
PS As to 'spiritual' I heard the great Professor John Hull define it with stunning simplicity, "If it ain't physical it's spiritual"!
Why is that so important? Because it acknowledges thought and art and emotion all as spiritual. Just as it is vital to de-mystify understanding of the mystical - it is an everyday experience of everyone, with possibly the exception of psychopaths, so also is it important not to see spiritual as the (sole) prerogative of priests or religionists.
We are all, children as well as adults, philosophers and dancers and scientists and mystics by nature, our human nature. The problem is we come to believe, wrongly, that only 'specialists', gate-keepers, celebrities, priests etc have these ways of knowing and celebrating.
These very essences of being human are the stuff of life - for us all.
Posted via email from sunwalking's posterous
Posts
