From: Sam Norton (elizaphanian@kohath.wanadoo.co.uk)
Date: Mon Dec 20 2004 - 16:53:34 GMT
Hi DMB, all,
> dmb says:
> I think this distinction [jnani/bakhti] is very important in general and is central to our
> debate in particular. As the JNANI website explains, Western religions tend
> to be of the devotional sort and tend to deny that there is any other kind.
> It seems pretty clear to me that this has been your position, Sam. Your
> insistance that mysticism can only be found within the traditions and your
> denial that mysticism is about the mystical experience itself plainly
> expresses that position....
I think this counts as putting words into my mouth (to better fit in with your rhetorical
strategies). Moreover, you're misrepresenting King's views, now that I've had a look at the website
itself. "For many intelligent and educated individuals the bhakti orientation may seem a lesser road
than the jnani orientation. This assumption is to be resisted as fiercely as outmoded views on
gender and sexual orientation." So why (even assuming that this analysis is a valid one to use) are
you so concerned to emphasise the invalidity of 'bhakti"?
Anyhow, if I'm insisting that mysticism can only be found in 'the traditions' whence the bus-driving
analogy? My point is that bus-driving is a tradition in and of itself. Why not?
> Some readers may
> recall that I tried to explain this distinction in terms of EXOTERIC and
> ESOTERIC mysticism. The same line has been drawn many ways. I think this
> distinction is beginning to get through Sam's filters. I believe we may be
> on the verge of a breakthrough and that we may finally begin a discussion is
> which we are both talking about the same thing. Maybe...
As we do seem to be getting closer to an agreed framework of discussion, let me try and provide a
bit more clarity, especially re: your Plotinus quotation.
As I see it there are various traditions which we might call 'mystical', but as that word is
undoubtedly generating more heat than light - and seems to be triggering ego-reactions in the both
of us - let's see if we can have this debate without use of the word. Let's use 'spiritual' as the
umbrella term, noetic and praxis in the way I defined earlier, and hang on to bakhti/jnani for the
time being. Your point of view is that noetic/praxis corresponds to jnani/bakhti, is that right?
Hence you say:
> dmb says:
> While its clear that we would be talking about two different things, I think
> its important to step back and look at the larger field. See, its not just
> that philosophical mysticism is different from christian mysticism, its that
> those two kinds are representatives of the distinction King and Campbell and
> so many others have made. All three of the West's great religions share this
> in common. They are all ritualistic, theistic, dualistic, devotional,
> exoteric, bhakti. The East, especially Buddhism, tends to reflect the other
> side of this coin. This is why both Buddhism and philosophical mysticism are
> compatible with the MOQ. This is the same reason Pirsig rejects faith,
> theism, ritualistic religions and such. But its not quite so simple as
> picking one and rejecting the other kind of mysticism. I think Pirsig's
> static/Dyanamic split shows how these two kinds of mysticism are related in
> all sorts of interesting ways, but lets stick to the differences for now,
> lest our breakthrough be lost.
Well, I'll continue to explore that website (see below), but I resist the placement that you have
set my argument in. That is, I don't think that what I am objecting to is one side of this divide.
What I believe myself to be objecting to is a specifically Western, SOM misappropriation of
(largely) the Christian spiritual tradition - that is what I call the 'Jamesian' understanding. So
Plotinus, for example, I am quite happy to take as someone who has explored a spiritual and
intellectual path, and whose teachings can reflect that. Similarly with Socrates, I'm very happy
that his approach can be seen in spiritual terms. Also - and I would have thought this went without
saying, but I'm being careful - the different religious traditions in their diverse fashions each
have different patterns of spirituality. Now what I think of as 'praxis', that is, being within or
exploring from a particular tradition, *includes* both bakhti and jnani, so far as I have understood
those terms from a brief read of the website. In other words, however different the emphases may be
in each main tradition, I'm quite happy that each of Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam etc has
jnani and bakhti aspects.
My belief, however, is that following the sequence of intellectual revolutions in the West,
culminating in Kant, a particular understanding of spirituality was born, which went via
Schleiermacher and the German Romantics (and Idealists, it would seem), and took a canonical
expression in William James - this is what I've called the 'noetic', it's also called
'experientialism' in the literature. I think this particular understanding of spirituality is novel,
has no roots in any of the different religious traditions, and is wholly saturated with the
metaphysical assumptions of SOM. I don't believe it is possible to read this perspective out from
someone like Socrates unless you bring those same assumptions with you to the interpretation of the
evidence. Now, as we've been battling that out for the last few years, I don't expect you to agree
with it, but I thought it would help to foster the clarity which I seek by setting it out.
What gets me annoyed/ frustrated/ resentful in our discussions has been, so far, when you've tried
to claim that Christianity is in fact about this Jamesian spirituality; and so what has made me
relaxed much more recently is when you've been prepared to accept that Christianity isn't just a
sociological expression of this Jamesian truth. Great.
Now, in so far as you think the Jamesian point of view is the good and right one, you will reject my
descriptions, which is perfectly fair enough. What I suppose we need to do is find some form of
language to have a conversation about this. How are we to assess which is the true description of
what is going on? A little while back, you used the Hamlet analogy, which seems to provide a point
of agreement; that is, you can't understand what's going on in Hamlet's head unless you study the
play, try to act it out, etc etc. I think that's a description of praxis, and that's what I think
the different religious traditions, in their diverse ways, are all about.
What it seems to me that you have been arguing for - and I'm quite happy to be told I'm wrong in
this - what I think you've been arguing for is that there is something which is the end-point of the
spiritual path which is grounded, or established, or validated, or mediated, through *a particular
type of experience*; moreover, that this particular experience is common across the diverse
religious traditions, and so the different traditions are simply more or less replaceable clothing
which obscures the truths generated from that particular experience.
My rejection of that does not correspond, so it seems to me, to a rejection of jnani in favour of
bakhti; if anything, it seems more the reverse, a doubt and seeking of intellectual validation
(jnani) of an established pattern of devotion (Jamesian philosophical understandings, bakhti).
My rejection of it is, by and large, that I don't see it as spiritual in any sense at all, either
jnani or bakhti, exoteric or esoteric, Christian, Buddhist, Hindu, whatever. In other words, I see
it as lacking in Quality. More specifically, I see the Jamesian understanding as the product of
Western metaphysics, with very little relation to any living spiritual tradition. Most crucially, I
don't see people like Plotinus as fitting in with James, even if that neo-Platonic strand comes
closest to what James was describing. This is what my essay was wanting to explore.
Finally, to Pirsig. I had been thinking that in Lila (not in ZMM) Pirsig was aligning himself with
the Platonic strand of Western thought, and that he was extending that line of spiritual searching.
Since writing that essay, I'm now quite concerned that in fact he is much more Modern in his
metaphysics than I had thought, and that the correspondence of language and structure between the
MoQ and Schleiermacher is not an accident. This was a surprise to me, but it ties in with the
various discussions we've had here and in the MF section, especially about whether Quality is
separate from DQ/SQ (my perspective) or whether DQ and SQ are in a source/expression relationship
(your point of view, as I recall).
Anyhow. We seem to be getting somewhere at last, and that must be good.
Happy Christmas :-)
Sam
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Dec 20 2004 - 16:54:34 GMT