Introduction: Pure Consciousness Mysticism

Defining Pure Consciousness Mysticism

The study of mysticism is usually based on texts either written by the mystics or by those in close contact with them. The problem with this is that a scholar of mysticism is free to choose texts drawn from a broad pool of mystics, making it hard to reach a consensus on exactly what mysticism is — if the definition of mysticism is based on one set of mystics drawn from this pool, then this definition can be used to justify that choice of mystics and to reject others: clearly a circular process. This is not to say that the scholarly work does not have a recognisable boundary, or that it is not useful or interesting, but more to point out that the personal preferences of the scholar have a bigger role in shaping the debate than in many other areas of study. These preferences generally go unstated, only becoming apparent in the development of the arguments. To avoid this circularity I intend to define a form of mysticism based explicitly on my personal preferences, and give it the name Pure Consciousness Mysticism (PCM) to distinguish it from other forms. It is not particularly radical, so it will not be located outside current debates in mysticism, but on the other hand it can be precisely defined. The personal bias that is usually implicit in studies in mysticism will be made explicit in this volume, and some autobiographical detail is included in order to help the reader understand it; additionally, some poems of mine are included in the Appendix to give further insight into the author's emotional stance in respect of mysticism, should the reader be interested.
The term mysticism can be used to cover the study of many areas, including the religious, the occult and the paranormal. If a scholar were to include Jesus, the Buddha, Eckhart, Krishnamurti, Rudolf Steiner, Edgar Cacey, Charles Manson, Alistair Crowley and C.G.Jung as mystics (and each of these have been at some point or other), then mysticism becomes broad indeed. In this volume the religious, occult and paranormal will be specifically excluded, or subtracted, making for a much narrower definition of mysticism. The mystics included under this narrower definition may well have a religious, occult or paranormal dimension to their lives and teachings, but there must be other underlying qualities for them to be included. The religious aspects that will be subtracted out from the mysticism in this volume are the normal features of conventional religions, including belief, practice and organisation. The occult and paranormal aspects that will be excluded are such phenomena as visions, miracles, healing powers, levitation, telepathy, seeing into the future, and so on. The type of mysticism put forward here does not reject the possibility of any paranormal phenomena, or reject the possibility of any kind of disembodied beings such as a fairies, angels, gods, or God; but does not regard any of this as central to Pure Consciousness Mysticism. The motivation for these exclusions is complex (though it will become more apparent through the book), but comes partly from a desire for an accessible mysticism, or a form of lay mysticism. The exclusion of these phenomena from Pure Consciousness Mysticism does not however exclude their use in a descriptive capacity as metaphor and allegory — neither is the subtracting out of the religious to be seen as a form of iconoclasm: although some of the mystics covered by PCM are iconoclasts, others choose to use the language and observances of their particular religious tradition.
Before giving a precise definition of Pure Consciousness Mysticism it is important to raise the issue of mystical experience. Even if we exclude the occult and the paranormal, it is often assumed that the mystic has special kinds of experiences denied to 'ordinary' people, and that these experiences are crucial to the identity of the mystic, and to our understanding of them as such. It is not experience per se that is the problem in most accounts of mysticism, but the emphasis on special or peak experiences (even though they feature in the lives of some mystics). The emphasis here will be less on experiences than on orientation, and the value of any particular experience will be seen in the light of a change of orientation.
We can now give a preliminary definition of Pure Consciousness Mysticism: it is an orientation towards the infinite and the eternal. However, because this orientation could be considered as merely the opposite of our normal orientation, another requirement is introduced into PCM: that of embraciveness. This term can be seen as a corrective to the first two, but is more properly considered as the harmonising principle in this form of mysticism. The three cornerstones, then, of Pure Consciousness Mysticism are the infinite, the eternal, and the embracive.
I have chosen the infinite as the first characteristic of Pure Consciousness Mysticism, because it sums up the shift in identity from the individual to the universal. The mystic, through whatever process, expands his or her boundaries until they reach beyond the ends of the universe; it may be through denying everything (via negativa), accepting everything (via positiva), or a route not open to classification, but the end-result is an identification with the whole. Identifying with the whole or the infinite can be seen as either identifying with everything, the manifest and manifold, or identifying with the source of everything, that is the unmanifest, also termed nothingness or nirvana. Another form of this is an expression of union: with theocentric individuals it might be union with God; with others it may be union with the Whole. The concept of union can bring in a misleadingly dualistic emphasis however — generally speaking, a mystic that insists on speaking of union with a God that is totally other than him or her self would not be considered a clear case of Pure Consciousness Mysticism.
I have chosen the eternal as the second characteristic of Pure Consciousness Mysticism because it sums up a change in attitude to life and death. The mystic experiences a loss of the sense of mortality, and the loss of the fear of death; they often speak of the 'eternal now'. The concept of the eternal is also related to the cessation of thought, or the cessation of the identification with thought. Under the symbol of the infinite the mystic loses identification with the body, and under the symbol of the eternal the mystic loses identification with the process of time, and in particular with the mechanism that sustains the illusion of time: thought.
To totally orient oneself to the infinite and eternal is sufficient to become a mystic in PCM but carried to an extreme leads to an abandonment of the body, and so the term embracive is introduced as a corrective. The embracive describes the mystics' re-orientation to the manifest world as a result of their identification with the infinite and eternal, and it usually shows itself as love and compassion. The PCM world-view is incomplete without this quality of embraciveness, and though it might seem that the embracive is already included in the infinite, the infinite is not sufficient to cover the new orientation to life. Embracive implies a life-affirming, celebratory orientation, though it is not intended to be prescriptive about its means of expression, which are very varied, and indeed this variety forms an important focus of this study. 
Because mysticism often deals with unusual individuals (though we shall be arguing the ordinariness of PCM), we often have to consider not just a supposed paranormal dimension to their life-histories, but also a mythical dimension. This leads to special claims about figures like Teresa of Avila, that she could levitate, to the miracle-making requirement for the canonisation of many saints (who may also be candidates in PCM for being mystics), and  claims made by or for figures like Jesus or Krishna that they are divine. This claim takes various forms, such as that they are God incarnate, or the Son of God, or avatars (saviours), or messiahs. An assumption at the heart of Pure Consciousness Mysticism is that all these figures are human, born in the normal way, and dying in the normal way, and that any special claims arise from the requirements of pedagogy, the weight of sycophancy, or through the mists of historical remoteness.
Because of the emphasis on pure consciousness it may sound like PCM includes only those mystics of the awareness traditions such as Buddhism, or individuals like Krishnamurti, and excludes the world-views of devotional types like Richard Rolle or Ramakrishna. Love is a fact in the lives and teachings of all the mystics, and it is true that in some it is emphasised to the extent of excluding other considerations. The particular love shown by mystics will be examined in this book, but the word has been left out of the term Pure Consciousness Mysticism for several reasons. Firstly, although awareness can be analysed, love is more difficult; secondly, this book is aimed at the Western intellectual and attempts in part an analysis of the vacuum at the heart of our intellectual tradition. The most important reason however is this: the kind of awareness that Pure Consciousness Mysticism stems from brings love with it like spring brings the rains and, conversely, the world-view of the love mystic contains the same pure consciousness. The dialectic between love-mysticism and awareness-mysticism is a theme running through this book, and it is not proposed that the questions raised by it should be settled at this point.

The Development of Studies in Mysticism

Before further developing the concepts of Pure Consciousness Mysticism it is worth considering how the study of mysticism has evolved. There has been at least a hundred years of scholarly work in the subject; books like Bucke's Cosmic Consciousness, James' Varieties of Religious Experience and Underhill's Mysticism constitute defining early works. The German scholar Otto made significant contributions, as did the Oxford professor of religious studies, Zaehner. In the post-war period much debate in studies in mysticism has centred around the perennialist versus contextualist positions. The perennialist view, partly popularised by Aldous Huxley's The Perennial Philosophy maintains that despite the apparent differences in expression, mystics are describing the same fundamental experience, while the contextualists, led by the academic Steven Katz, have argued that all experience is mediated by culture and language, and that we should not assume any single underlying experience. The essence of Katz's argument is that it is hard to prove the perennialist view because it is an assumption that verifies itself through its interpretation of the mystic's words. Katz's views have in turn been countered by Robert Forman in a book called The Problem of Pure Consciousness, in which he defines an experience that he calls the pure consciousness event (PCE) which he argues is common to many mystics, and which cannot be explained by the contextualists. Forman's PCE is not related to my Pure Consciousness Mysticism, though there are some similarities: Forman uses the word 'pure' in the PCE to indicate an experience devoid of content, but fully awake. The purity of this experience lies in the lack of content, but in my terminology purity refers to a lack of agenda, that is a disinterestedness that allows for content, however rich, to be present, but for it not to swamp consciousness. Pure Consciousness Mysticism is not about events, or discrete experiences, but about a continuum of consciousness. Neither does disinterestedness imply renunciation or boredom, quite the opposite: it means that the individual is open and receptive to the world, but places their real investment in consciousness itself. Where PCM aligns itself with Forman's approach is in an assumption that it is valid to take a broadly perennialist view. However, no attempt is made in this volume to argue the position (other than to show how it follows naturally from the author's own experience), although some criticisms of the contextualist view are developed later on.
Another problem in the study of mystical texts is the diverse nature of the material. Some of it is expository in nature, attempting to give a simple account of the mystical orientation, or of mystical experiences, while some of it is celebratory, that is a spontaneous expression of the delight of the mystic in their condition. However, the bulk of it must be considered as teachings, that is having a pedagogical motive. These texts are the most difficult because the mystic as a good teacher has to locate themselves within the ignorance of their particular audience, possibly accommodating any doctrinal rigidities of the prevailing religious structures and culture. Wisdom is one, we could say, but ignorance is many, and hence, depending on the audience, one may be examining material and propositions quite at odds with the state or true beliefs of the mystic. If the scholar examining the text is not a mystic then the fundamentals of the teachings may be hard to disentangle from the pedagogical detail. In fact, few scholars of mysticism claim to be mystics, though some claim to have had mystical experiences. William James stated that he never had any mystical experience (though he did experiment with nitrous oxide), whereas Bucke claimed that he did; Bharati and Feuerstein (more recent writers) have both been initiated by teachers of mysticism. However, most of the writers on mysticism in the last hundred years or so have not had a specifically mystical world-view, and have approached mysticism from a religious, psychological, philosophical, or literary perspective, each of which carry with them a critique or value-system. When a psychologist studies mysticism, for example, they apply the value-system of their own discipline in varying degrees to the new subject matter, and in turn the new subject matter can in varying degrees inform their world-view, and hence their value-systems. The richness of our intellectual life partly derives from this continuous inter-penetration of one disciplinary perspective into another, but can also lead to misunderstandings and in extreme cases a denigration posing as scholarly analysis.
In looking at the scholarly work by philosophers in the area of studies in mysticism, one can observe certain assumptions and methodologies, regardless of adherence to any particular school of philosophy. On the positive side there is an open-mindedness and breadth of view, such as that of William James (who was as much psychologist as philosopher). On the negative side philosophers are often eager to debate in minute detail areas of human experience that they have either not experienced themselves, or are downright sceptical of or hostile to (though this is rarely stated explicitly). Generally it is the job of philosophers to resolve paradox on the basis that it is always resolvable at a higher level of abstraction, or with a more detailed analysis, or with better knowledge. Mysticism is very rich in paradox, but the means for resolving it are rarely open to the methods of philosophy. Logic is a blunt instrument as far as mysticism goes: it can be used, but not alone. Commentators on mysticism who have a background in psychology also bring with them a world-view that can be rather sceptical; this is partly due to a reductionist strand in psychological thinking, and also due to the emphasis on pathology —  in general psychologists seem to be more interested in the 'sick soul' than the 'healthy mind' (to use William James's terms).
The religious world-view varies from religion to religion of course, but there are common factors which include social and moral structures, the holding of beliefs or creeds, and the provision of modes of worship or other forms of service. Because many religions are explicitly exclusive of each other, rather than merely implicitly exclusive as for example different schools of psychology are, it is harder to apply a single 'religious' critique to any aspect of human life. An Islamic and Christian interpretation of literature would be very different for example, partly because the religions have such an impact on the culture that produced it in the first place. If we look at their analysis of science though, we may find common features, for example the rejection of the scientific method as the arbiter of truth in debate over the origin of the world and its species. The 'strong' religious approach, and this would even include religions like Buddhism, would be to consult the relevant sacred texts, regardless of their age and circumstances of origin, for ultimate authority on any subject. Hence when a religious perspective is applied to mysticism the debate often hinges on perceived challenges to orthodoxy, and little progress is made.
Literature as a world-view or critique tends to borrow heavily from other critiques, except in the aspect of aesthetics, or style. Where a mystic writes in a particularly poetic or literary way they can be the subject of criticism which focuses on the literary merit of the work, and often overlooking or confusing the mystical elements. Generally speaking we can say that studies in mysticism are carried out from perspectives more likely to be informed by a discipline like philosophy, psychology, religion or literature, than by mysticism itself. This book attempts to do the opposite: to set up Pure Consciousness Mysticism as a perspective from which to look at religion, philosophy and literature. One of the few areas where something like this has already been attempted is in the investigation of parallels between mysticism and the 'new' physics (mainly quantum theory) by authors like Fritjof Capra and Gary Zukav. What many scientists are now agreeing on is that the 'new' physics supports at least the view that the observer cannot be ignored in scientific experiment at the quantum level, and many are seeking ways to extrapolate this idea from the sub-atomic into the classical world, either literally or as metaphor. This idea, sometimes referred to as the anthropic principle, places the individual at the centre of the universe again, while other aspects of the theory stress the 'holistic' nature of the universe, and hence provide support in scientific terms for the unitive experience of the mystics. However there is not space in this volume to explore the relationship between quantum theory and mysticism, other than to point the reader to the work of Capra and Zukav (mentioned above) and also the interesting work of David Bohm and Danah Zohar, amongst others. 

Applying Pure Consciousness Mysticism 

Pure Consciousness Mysticism as a world-view should be independent of era, culture or religion, and so, in the first instance, has to develop from the mystical writings that are relatively free of these additional layers (the writer Frits Staal calls them 'superstructures'). This is relatively easy with modern writings, as we understand much more about the context of their genesis, than it is of ancient writings. It is also much easier with a mystic like Krishnamurti than with Gurdjieff for example, as Krishnamurti subtracts everything out for us (to such an extent in fact that it makes him somewhat unapproachable) whereas Gurdjieff deliberately obfuscates. It is relatively easy to subtract the Christian out of Richard Rolle, but more difficult with Julian of Norwich to give another example. Suitable writings can be found in all periods all over the world, but it is not the intention here to devote much space to developing PCM from them, but to apply it. One reason for this is that PCM represents the author's preferences in mysticism, and searching out texts that support these preferences would become the circular process that was criticised earlier. By applying a mystical world-view to some well-known texts that usually lie outside of mysticism, the assumptions underlying the view can be exposed and evaluated, and, more importantly we can examine areas of thought outside of mysticism in a new light.
If the infinite, eternal, and embracive are the cornerstones of the PCM world-view, how do they become a critique, that is a value-system and a method of analysis? The value-system generated by PCM is a difficult and complex one, firstly in its relationship to conventional morality. Some of the greatest mystics are regarded with suspicion because they appear to challenge the conventional morality of their day, while others seem to support it. Other values implicit in PCM appear to challenge accepted wisdoms of our time, for example about identity, the loss of which is usually seen as an indication of physiological or psychological malfunction; conversely, many mystics are seen to be ego-maniacs, so where is their loss of identification with the self? If we can allow the value-system to emerge from later discussions, there remains just to outline PCM as a method of analysis. In this book we shall examine four main texts, the Bhagavad Gita, Leaves of Grass, Thus Spoke Zarathustra, and Nausea; we shall also look at a variety of other material that is relevant to issues raised by the main texts. Clearly we shall be looking for material that relates to the infinite and the eternal, and shall be interested in the different ways that these are expressed, taking particular interest in the embracive aspects of the text, as it is this aspect of PCM that produces the extremes of expression that sometimes obscure the mystical nature of the work.
Finally, it must be made clear that there is an underlying motivation behind this critique and the choice of texts to be examined. Just as an examination of these texts without any of the well-known existing critiques would leave gaps in our understanding, the contention here is that there is a gap in our understanding due to the lack of a mystical critique. More than this, I would suggest that this gap has serious implications for the whole of Western thought.