If there are enough signs to consider pure Materialism lacking, our next step will be to find truth in a non-materialist worldview. But, which one? First of all, is there such a thing as capital T “Truth” or are we just wasting our time pondering these questions?

Let us just remark that, in metaphysics, truth, by definition, is not multiple but unitary. The existence of multiple truths would show that the only real truth is that of Relativism, which amounts to affirm the self-contradiction that the only existing truth would be its absence. This, instead of liberating us, would make us slaves to meaninglessness.

Relativism, as a worldview or life stance, does not believe itself to be relative, therefore negating by its mere existence the only axiomatic presupposition and metaphysical notion that defines it. At most, we can say that truth can be found partially represented in different worldviews, but we cannot speak of multiple truths without the concept losing all its meaning. This aspect will be further analyzed in one of the last articles of this website.

Therefore, if pure Materialism is a self-contradictory worldview and truth is unitary, how do we navigate the complex catalogue of worldviews available to us in this modern globalized world?

One way to do this is through a deep understanding of what each worldview believes is our ultimate destiny and the aim we should strive for. In other words: what would be our subjective experience if we achieved the end goal of each worldview?

To answer this question we can resort to a typology of mysticism such as the one proposed by the scholar of mysticism R.C. Zaehner. Through his vast knowledge of the original sacred texts (he was skilled in many of the original languages of these traditions, such as Sanskrit [Hinduism], Pali [Buddhism] and Arabic [Islam]), he found that the range of mystical experiences could be classified approximately¹Taking into consideration that there is always some variety in interpretations between contending schools pertaining to the same tradition or even between particular, more or less influential, individuals. Nevertheless, the main view of each tradition is usually clear in what spiritual states they do expect to achieve and how they are subjectively experienced. as follows:²Zaehner, R.C. (1957). Mysticism, Sacred and Profane. Oxford University Press, pp. 66, 168, 184, 192, 198, 204.³Zaehner, R.C. (1958). At Sundry Times. Faber and Faber, p.172.⁴Zaehner, R.C. (1960). Hindu and Muslim Mysticism. Bloomsbury, p.19.⁵Zaehner, R.C. (1969). The Bhagavad Gita. Oxford University Press, p.2.⁶Zaehner, R.C. (1970). Concordant Discord. Clarendon Press, pp. 59, 129, 199-204.⁷Zaehner, R.C. (1972). Drugs, Mysticism and Make-believe. Collins, p.93.

This category encompasses all worldviews that, through ecstatic (to go “outside oneself”) techniques, have their initiated members experience an expansion of consciousness that makes them feel the whole Universe as part of themselves. This subjective experience has been defined as an “oceanic feeling” in which a person identifies with nature and the vastness of the cosmos. As such, it has been labelled as the subjective experience of Pantheism.

It is typical of Neo-Shamanic and nature worship revival movements that may, or may not, use entheogenic drugs as helpers to achieve this state (e.g., peyote, ayahuasca or mescaline, as per Zaehner´s own experience).

A primary difference remarked by Zaehner between this “I am All” or “All is Me” subjective experience and the “God is in Me” experience of theistic mysticism is the morally “open” or undetermined nature of the former, in contrast with the sense of holiness experienced in the latter.⁸Zaehner, R.C. (1957). Mysticism, Sacred and Profane. Oxford University Press, pp. xi, 22-23 (union of soul and God), 33 (satcitananda and the beatific vision), 37, 93-94.⁹14. Zaehner, R.C. (1974). Our Savage God. Sheed and Ward, pp. 10–12.

This form of mysticism, instead of using ecstatic methods, is characterized by the use of enstatic (to “stand-within-oneself”) ones. Therefore, the practitioners of this type of mysticism single-pointedly focus all their attention into their own inner core or Self.

Zaehner understood these experiences as fundamentally different from the ones of Nature Mysticism. Instead of expanding the adept´s consciousness (the ego, or little One, expanding to include the Many), the traditions using these methods try to isolate the Self from everything external to itself or, in other words, to remove (the One) Spirit from Matter (the derivative Many).

Zaehner further subdivided the category of Isolation Mysticism in two: Dualism and absolute Monism, with the Hindu paradigmatic examples of Samkhya / Yoga and Advaita Vedanta as representatives of each one.

According to Zaehner, what mystics from both categories experience is their self-absorption into the core of their own souls: pure Spirit. However, he found that the metaphysical outlook of the adept has an impact on the interpretation of this same experience.

The dualists interpret their subjective experiences as the detachment of their immortal, peaceful, undifferentiated and unitary Spirit or Self (Purusha) from the contingencies of a self-existent Nature or Matter (Prakriti). This Matter is understood as a second co-eternal Principle complementary to Spirit.¹⁰Zaehner, R.C. (1957). Mysticism, Sacred and Profane. Oxford University Press, Yoga (pp. 96-99, 111), prakriti and purusa (98, 108, 124-125), gunas (98, 107-108), buddhi (108, 125), the mind or lower soul {Sufi term nafs} (102, 125), the body (125), ahamkara (108, 126).¹¹Zaehner, R.C. (1970). Concordant Discord. Clarendon Press, p.97, buddhi is the “highest and most subtle form of matter”, as “the seat of cognition” it determines “right conduct”.¹²Newell, W.L. (1981). Struggle and Submission: R.C. Zaehner on Mysticisms. University Press of America, pp. 160-161, 167-170 (prakriti and purusa re Samkhya).

In monist or “non-dualist” (in the sense of “All is One”) Advaita Vedanta, in contrast, the Hindu mystic interprets the same subjective experience as the union of the Self (Atman) with Brahman, the divine Unity, universal Totality (the Absolute), pure Being (Being-Consciousness-Bliss) that is the ground of existence of all multiplicity.¹³Zaehner, R.C. (1970). The Comparison of Religions. Hassell Street Press, p.193 (Sac, Cid,Ananda compared to the Trinity).¹⁴Radhakrishnan (1923). Indian Philosophy (Oxford University Press, v.2, pp. 539, 483, 539 [saccidananda]; pp. 439, 687 [Tat tvam asi]).

For Advaita, Nature (Prakriti) becomes just an Illusion (Maya), while what was thought by the dualist to be one´s own pure isolated Spirit or Self (Purusha) is found to be really Brahman (the impersonal Supreme Reality or God).

The last category of Zaehner´s typology is that of Theistic Mysticism, found mainly in Christianity, Judaism, Islam and Theistic Hinduism (most notably in Ramanuja´s Vishishtadvaita Vedanta and some interpretations of Trika Shaivism). It may also include Sikhism and Zoroastrianism, although these worldviews also have been interpreted in panentheistic and dualist ways, respectively.

The theistic mystic, instead of experiencing his own self-unity, true Self, or pure “liberated” Spirit typical of nature religions¹⁵Zaehner, R.C. (1957). Mysticism, Sacred and Profane. Oxford University Press: two chapters discuss Theism and Monism, another two Mescaline (drug-induced states). The Triune Divinity of Christianity is briefly addressed at pp. 195–197.¹⁶Newell, W.L. (1981). Struggle and Submission: R.C. Zaehner on Mysticisms. University Press of America, pp. 5-6.
, experiences a true mystical union¹⁷Cf., Zaehner, R.C. (1957). Mysticism, Sacred and Profane. Oxford University Press, pp. 151-152, discussing the union in terms of its analogy to sexual union. with a personal and transcendent God, feeling a deep sense of union with Him while retaining his sense of (an elevated and sanctified) self.

This type of mysticism negates both pure Monism (as no union can exist where there is no “Otherness”) and Dualism (because true union by definition erases any opposition).

While Zaehner identifies isolation as the key principle of both the dualist and monist experiences, some critics remark that the monistic experience of Advaita Vedanta is not experienced as an isolated event but instead is felt as a deep connection with Universal Unity.¹⁸Reardon, J.P. (2012). A theological analysis of R.C. Zaehner’s theory of mysticism. ETD Collection for Fordham University, pp. 170-186, discussion regarding the complexities of the nature of Zaehner’s “Isolation” type.

The use of exclusively Hindu schools (especially Advaita Vedanta) as representatives of Non-Dualism, with little mention of the Buddhist version of the kind “Samsara equals Nirvana”, has also been singled out as a problem for a typology that wants to be as comprehensive as possible. Buddhist Non-Dualism, especially Mahayana and Vajrayana traditions, does not necessarily focus on merging with the One in an undifferentiated totality but in awakening to the fact that the non-theistic ground of existence they believe in (Emptiness / Buddha Nature) is the necessary other side or counterpart of all dualistic existence.

Therefore, in this section, a new proposal for a typology of mysticism that takes these criticisms into consideration is presented. The image below is a concise summary of it.

As we can see, in this modified version, the Isolation Mysticism category of Zaehner´s typology now contains only the experiences of the dualists, while the mystical experiences of the monists that experience fusion with the One (Panentheism) instead of expansion (Pantheism, Nature Mysticism) have been differentiated and incorporated into a new category, called Mysticism of Unity through Absorption. This category has been further subdivided between those who consider the existence of “otherness” as just an illusion and those who consider it a temporary, but real, form taken by the One.

Non-Dualism of the Buddhist type, in turn, has been added as an intermediate category between the Mysticism of Unity through Absorption and the theistic Mysticism of Union. It has been labelled as Mysticism of Union through Simultaneity of the One and the Many as no absorption is implied, just an awakening and recognition of the simultaneous dual nature of all that exists as both immanent and transcendent (e.g., the analogy of the ocean and the waves each implying and defining each other). In contrast, labelling Theistic Mysticism as Mysticism of Union implies the existence of an “Other” to unite with, while the unity spoken of by the previous categories is between parts, aspects or modes of existence of oneself, as the doctrines of the One state.

The basic subjective experience of pantheistic monists, who experience a form of Nature Mysticism, is their expansion of consciousness: “I am All that exists” or “All is Me”.

The experience of dualists, Mysticism of Isolation, can be summarized in the statement: “I am pure Spirit”, while that of panentheistic monists seems to be a combination of both: “I am (the only One) pure Spirit, and this spirit is All that exists”.

For Buddhist non-dualists their experience can be described as the certainty that everything that exists is/is not at the same time both/neither relative and/or absolute, with each of these two aspects implying each other: “Samsara equals Nirvana”.

For the theists, on the other hand, their subjective experiences can be summarized as: “God is in Me” (without this “Me” disappearing by being absorbed into God).

This category of Theistic Mysticism, which apparently conflates pure monistic Monotheism (one of the doctrines of the One) and the Tri-Une God of Christianity (not defined by the One/Many dialectic) as having the same subjective experiences, however, is more complex than it appears at first sight. It will be further expanded upon in the next articles but, for now, it is sufficient to understand the different subjective experiences of both theistic and non-theistic mysticism.

For impersonal mysticism, the existence of personal gods and spirits necessarily takes place at a level below that of the One, since any particularity means plurality and imperfection. Therefore, there is no need for a single God, even if their cosmologies are populated by a myriad of gods. This is why panentheistic worldviews such as Hinduism have no problem in adding the God of other religions as particular Avatars of one of its main gods. However, they are not God but a god, losing their transcendence along the way.

For theistic worldviews, in contrast, the “God” of impersonal monists is just the personification of God´s energies. From here comes the insistence of calling God a Force, Law or energy.¹⁹A state of affairs which the Bible seems to predict in Daniel 11:38: “But in his estate shall he honour the God of forces: and a god whom his fathers knew not shall he honour […]”.

From a Christian point of view, the experience of pure Spirit of the dualists can be understood as the experience of each one´s own soul or Spirit, made in the image of God, therefore containing all creation potentially (this was Zaehner´s position). This is especially explainable by Orthodox Christianity and its doctrine of the Logos (the Word of God, Jesus Christ) and His logoi (particular words or Reasons, willed-thoughts of God that provide the reason for the existence of everything). The Logos, God, is the recapitulation of all logoi, and we were created in His image.

Orthodox Christianity, again, can explain “the Universe is God” statement of Pantheism as just the personal realization that the efficient cause of all creation comes from the energies of a personal transcendent God, with those energies being the impersonal ground of all being of which the logoi are particular examples.

In this view, Panentheism would be the combination of both experiential realizations. In a theistic view, this numinous experience may be experienced as highly meaningful and transformative, but it is not the end of our voyage and can be potentially highly misleading. God´s energies are not God. God´s image in us does not make us God, either.

Maybe Zaehner´s Catholic concept of God as an Absolute Divine Simplicity, lacking the Essence / Energies distinction of Orthodox Christianity, made it impossible for him to see a real distinction between the isolation of the dualist into his own soul and the “fusion” (or recognition) of the monist of the impersonal sea of God´s energies from which himself and everything else comes from. The Catholic (and Protestant) doctrine of Absolute Divine Simplicity would have meant that, if there was a “fusion”, it could only be with God´s Essence, which is not really an appropriate position to hold for a Christian.

1. Mysticism, Sacred and Profane: an Inquiry Into Some Varieties of Praeternatural Experience. R.C. Zaehner.
2. At Sundry Times. An Essay in the Comparison of Religions. R.C. Zaehner.
3. The One and the Many: Studies in the Philosophy of Order and Ultimacy. R.J. Rushdoony.
4. Patterns in Comparative Religion. Mircea Eliade.

    

    

1. Taking into consideration that there is always some variety in interpretations between contending schools pertaining to the same tradition or even between particular, more or less influential, individuals. Nevertheless, the main view of each tradition is usually clear in what spiritual states they do expect to achieve and how they are subjectively experienced.
2. Zaehner, R.C. (1957). Mysticism, Sacred and Profane. Oxford University Press, pp. 66, 168, 184, 192, 198, 204.
3. Zaehner, R.C. (1958). At Sundry Times. Faber and Faber, p.172.
4. Zaehner, R.C. (1960). Hindu and Muslim Mysticism. Bloomsbury, p. 19.
5. Zaehner, R.C. (1969). The Bhagavad Gita. Oxford University Press, p. 2.
6. Zaehner, R.C. (1970). Concordant Discord. Clarendon Press, pp. 59, 129, 199-204.
7. Zaehner, R.C. (1972). Drugs, Mysticism and Make-believe. Collins, p. 93.
8. Zaehner, R.C. (1957). Mysticism, Sacred and Profane. Oxford University Press, pp. xi, 22-23 (union of soul and God), 33 (satcitananda and the beatific vision), 37, 93-94.
9. Zaehner, R.C. (1974). Our Savage God. Sheed and Ward, pp. 10–12.
10. Zaehner, R.C. (1957). Mysticism, Sacred and Profane. Oxford University Press, Yoga (pp. 96-99, 111), prakriti and purusa (98, 108, 124-125), gunas (98, 107-108), buddhi (108, 125), the mind or lower soul {Sufi term nafs} (102, 125), the body (125), ahamkara (108, 126).
11. Zaehner, R.C. (1970). Concordant Discord. Clarendon Press, p.97, buddhi is the “highest and most subtle form of matter”, as “the seat of cognition” it determines “right conduct”.
12. Newell, W.L. (1981). Struggle and Submission: R.C. Zaehner on Mysticisms. University Press of America, pp. 160-161, 167-170 (prakriti and purusa re Samkhya).
13. Zaehner, R.C. (1970). The Comparison of Religions. Hassell Street Press, p.193 (Sac, Cid, Ananda compared to the Trinity).
14. Radhakrishnan (1923). Indian Philosophy (Oxford University Press, v.2, pp. 539, 483, 539 [saccidananda]; pp. 439, 687 [Tat tvam asi]).
15. Zaehner, R.C. (1957). Mysticism, Sacred and Profane. Oxford University Press: two chapters discuss Theism and Monism, another two Mescaline (drug-induced states). The Triune Divinity of Christianity is briefly addressed at pp. 195–197.
16. Newell, W.L. (1981). Struggle and Submission: R.C. Zaehner on Mysticisms. University Press of America, pp. 5-6.
17. Cf., Zaehner, R.C. (1957). Mysticism, Sacred and Profane. Oxford University Press, pp. 151-152, discussing the union in terms of its analogy to sexual union.
18. Reardon, J.P. (2012). A theological analysis of R.C. Zaehner’s theory of mysticism. ETD Collection for Fordham University, pp. 170-186, discussion regarding the complexities of the nature of Zaehner’s “Isolation” type.
19. A state of affairs which the Bible seems to predict in Daniel 11:38: “But in his estate shall he honour the God of forces: and a god whom his fathers knew not shall he honour […]”.
20. This does not exclude that in theistic worldviews, God draws near Him those who have faith in Him and “call” Him through prayer. Therefore, experiences may be partially propitiated (not determined) by our mind, Soul and Spirit, but always in synergy with God. Again, the middle way between a pure homogeneous experience (Perennialism; the One) and pure subjectivism (Solipsism; the Many).

    This is why theistic monks, such as Hesychasts, “invoke” God through prayer (by using one or two sentences, just a few words, or even without any word but focusing on the idea and presence of their personal God), instead of leaving the mind completely empty. As all mystical traditions teach, meditation can be a dangerous affair if done without supervision. We can delude ourselves or become hosts to some unwanted guests.