PRISM - Planning a program in the study of mysticism

Studying mysticism: research into transcendence, union, and transformation of consciousness 

A conceptual white paper outlines how PRISM expects to move past the five major “impasses” facing the field of mysticism studies. The white paper takes a critical realist approach to mysticism, which it defines on the lines of family resemblances in a polythetic, somewhat “fuzzy,” and socially embedded manner.

The white paper is available to download for personal and academic purposes, but reproduction or public sharing is not allowed. 

The starting point is critical realism, driven by the observation that definitions of mysticism have become a hotbed of contest and critiques over the past half a century or so. These critical approaches have severely challenged the academic field of comparative mysticism. These are all important challenges emerging from critical reflections on how history has been told and by whom, and we need to factor in early modern biases of a-historical romanticism in accounts describing mystics. However, as many now point out, this critique doesn’t help explain the still-notable similarities among people of many religious traditions as well as the tremendous popular uptake of “mysticism.” Goals like inspired action in Kabbalah, Imago Dei in Christian monasticism, fana’ (ego dissolution) in Sufism, and Nirvana in the Buddhist Path might all have various socio-cultural inflections. Yet, they all denote some similar features that must be accounted for. Transcendence and intimacy, as the human rapport with Divine Otherness, have been and remain a staple of human civilizations. Rather than foreclose the matter, PRISM actively fosters the definitional debate to yield further insight into the philosophical and terminological issues at stake when we compare mysticisms.

One productive way forward identified by many is to follow mysticism as a conceptual cluster or concepts bearing a “family resemblance” (ala Wittgenstein). That is, not all forms of praxis that we may recognize as “mysticism” must showcase fully all the features we specify in one. The presence of cognate concepts and practices is enough to clump and compare “mysticisms.” To circumscribe the “ideal type” we are interested in probing, a good start is the phenomenological approach of William James in his seminal Gifford Lectures of 1901-02, “The Varieties of Religious Experience.” James considers mysticism to be an experience of oneness that is (i) ineffable, i.e., not fully describable; (ii) noetic, i.e., conveying some information beyond just “sensations” or “feelings;” (iii) passive in the sense that the mystic is “seized” by a higher force; and (iv) transient, so that it is always fleeting, although often repeatable. “Experience” is both central and unavoidable to mysticism, but also philosophically problematic and not always the keystone of mysticism that James suggested. Many like Louis Roy have proposed “consciousness” as a better entry into the study of mysticism as distinct from other forms of being and knowing. On those lines, a handier definition of mysticism that avoids the philosophical pitfalls in James’s approach, is by the contemporary master of scholarship on Western mysticism, Bernard McGinn, for whom mysticism is “the preparation for, the consciousness of, and the reaction to what can be described as the immediate or direct [and transformative] presence of God [or the Divine].”

This definitional grid allows us to circumscribe the boundaries of what we are interested in probing in terms of new spiritual knowledge. Such a post-critique approach recognizes, on one hand, the reality of the phenomenon that we need to study. On the other, it also questions the culturally rooted, linguistic categories by which an experience becomes “mystical.” In other words, the features that constitute “mysticism” are (hypothetically) universal to all human societies in history. These include, among others, transcendence, a certain (altered) type of consciousness, ineffable cosmic knowledge characterized by immediacy/ feeling/ tasting, and passivity or the sense of being taken over. Yet, the type of mysticism is variable: how that is experienced by an individual, what it takes to get there, and what means to the culture in which the mystic is embedded, etc.

Based on the team’s research and consultative process, PRISM follows a two-pronged approach to mysticism. First, it recognizes the reality that mystics do exist, and the program intends to probe their accounts, lives, thoughts, and works. Second, it takes seriously the recent critiques and so seeks to place those mystics in their cultural, historicized contexts and investigate how they make sense of their experiences, how their consciousness relates to society and institutions around them, and how others perceive or rely on mystics. Multiple disciplinary approaches are encouraged to follow both tracks, allowing us to get fuller accounts of what mystics can tell us about spiritual reality.

This approach could be termed critical realist, which posits ontological realism coupled with epistemological diversity. In critical realist terms, PRISM starts with the understanding that there is a truth but no one way to get at it nor, indeed, might it be possible to uncover all aspects of the truth. CR threads a middle path between extreme realism on one hand and extreme relativism on the other. In practice, this means that multiple disciplines, methodologies and theories can, cumulatively, be used to develop an empirically grounded theory that gets emergently closer to the truth, in this case of mysticisms.

Following the literature review and extensive academic consultations, PRISM seeks to operate on a new grid of research topics that function as a rubric to cut across existing divisions. These four themes (Experience, Methods, Interfaith, Culture: EMIC), complement disciplines and are intended as overlapping categories of research questions rather than exclusive boxes:

Experience: What changes in consciousness of mystical experiences?

At the core of mysticism is some form of experience/ feeling/ consciousness. What are examples of ecstasy and other altered states in religious traditions, and how are they similar or different? How has “imagination” been conceived of? What are the different forms by which religious traditions have engendered or encouraged altered states of consciousness? Does mystical practice entail psychological transformation? What aspects of ecstasy are objectively measurable and which aren’t? Does mystical ecstasy in episodic experience carry through into and beyond contemplative practice? How does mysticism connect with traditional and modern/ hybrid use of psychedelics, including sacred plants, in Western, Indigenous, and non-Western cultures? Are isolated, drug-induced experiences similar to traditional use in mystical practices and how?

Methods: How should mysticism be studied?

What are some metrics by which mystical dimensions of religions have been assessed and contrasted, i.e., what holds together “types” of mysticism in the tradition? Is the category of “mysticism” analytically reduced to other categories and, if so, what? How should mysticism be taught? Should mystical language be investigated like other religious language? How can incomprehensibility be comprehended? Is there a symbolic language of mysticism and, if so, what does that look like? What kinds of arts have mystics expressed themselves in and where? How has recent theorization of material, aspects of religion factored into the study of mysticism? How has the study of the “mystical” forced social sciences to innovate or collaborate with natural sciences or theology? What is the relation of mysticism to theology in the history of religions? Did modern/ Western categorization of “mysticism” affect research and even mystical experiences, and how?

Interfaith: What is the inter-tradition aspect of mysticism?

Are mystical experiences or practices inherently unitive or can they be divisive and exclusive? Can the study of mysticism lead to understanding the esoteric or symbolic aspects of inter-faith engagement? How has engagement of mysticisms and mystics in other traditions affected the development of one tradition? Are there intra-tradition differences in mystical paths? What changes and what stays the same across a tradition? Are contemporary mystics “more” interfaith than their historical counterparts and how? How do mystics view the sciences and the science-religion boundary? Which scientists are also mystics?

Culture: To what extent is mysticism culturally embedded?

To what extent are mystical experiences culturally embedded and interpreted vs. having an a-cultural "common core?" What are mystical chains of transmission and how have they adapted in modern times? How have modern technologies affected mystical transmission, praxis, and approach? How does AI affect mystics and the notion of divine union? Do linguistic and other types of communities impact the nature and description of mystical experiences and how? Has recent commercialization, mediatization, and tourism affected mystical practices and circles? Do pro-social benefits like charity and healing typically correlate with those who have had experiences they classify as mystical? How can we relate mysticism to social benefits? Do mystics contribute to human flourishing, including ecological action, and in what way? Can the historical role of women in religion be contextualized in mysticism? Are there gender differences in mystical experiences or interpretations? How have women’s interpretations of mystical experience been placed in the study of religions? What role do different cultures expect mystics to play (monastic, critical, pedagogical, etc.)? How do mystical practices, contexts, and sites engage broader communities? Are pilgrimages “sites” of mystical transformation and do saints’ resting places have an ontological presence today? When do religious rites and rituals enable mystics and when do they limit them? What social structures have enabled or constrained mystical experiences and transmissions over time? How does the authoritative structure of religious institutions handle the event of mystical experience? How have mystics dealt with religious institutions?

The PRISM promotes multi-disciplinary and interfaith research along this thematic grid. In order to strategically focus efforts, PRISM now concentrate on the social sciences and humanities.