I've been listening to old podcasts of BBC Radio 4's religious debate program Beyond Belief, and I was struck by one from 9 January 2012 on mysticism (with Zoe Bran and Shaunaka Rishi Das and David Luke, experts on shamanism, Hinduism and psychology respectively).
It seems mystical insight can be defined by a set of experiences that are commonly reported together: a sense of timelessness; insight into a truer reality beyond that which we normally experience; the sense of self identity dissolving; an apprehension of the connectedness of all things; and a sense that everything's alive with a vital essence. Whilst traditionally these have been associated with religion, with the mystic believing they are coming into a divine presence, it seems more recently there's been a strong dissociation from a specific doctrine. Branches of the New Age and pagan or shamanic revival movements spring to mind, which some use as a license to read deeper insight into their experiences on psychoactive drugs (whilst others reject these as offering a way to reach genuine insights). But I'm also thinking of specific people including Eckhart Tolle and the individual interviewed on the programme. Tolle seems to avoid pinning his insights on one religion, and the interviewee categorically stated that his experience cut across religions.
I was also struck by the feature of mystical experience, which I'd associate with enlightenment too, that sounds like the classical allegory of the Cave of Shadows: reality is not as we normally perceive it; there is a 'higher' or truer nature of existence of which 'all this' is just a shadow. That view also fits with the Christian insight that's something like: now we see through a glass darkly, then we shall meet face to face.
I remain very sceptical that there's a literal deep truth in this insight. Using Occam's Razor, it's easier to explain this type of mystical experience, with its subjective force, as a trick of the mind - like a psychoactive trip. However... it seems also to point at something that's valuable, because it is so powerful to those who experience it, which is also cherished by their followers. It also does have a kind of literal truth to it in that the 'truest' description of reality is the scientific account of the properties of matter explaining what we experience. This says appearance, touch, scent etc are mostly about interactions in the uncertain world of electrons and photons. I really don't think that's what Plato, Buddha and the apostle Paul meant they'd realised though.
So for their enlightened insights, let's look to philosophy rather than the natural sciences. Thinking specifically of Descartes and Hume asking what they really knew to be true - just that there's an intangible empty point of consciousness that is me, which is the focal point of all these perceptions, memories, rational thoughts, emotions and dreams. Those cognitive artefacts are changeable, and unreliable. Yet they are the only access we have to the reality that's 'out there' (as that which is not 'me'). Still, we are justifiably confident in our naive internal models of reality. They allow us to interact and get by in the world and with others. We are also able to challenge, test and build on all those internally generated concepts to construct less naive models, which can then do more explanatory 'lifting' - enabling increasingly sophisticated technological advances and psychologically insightful artistic or social expressions.
So perhaps for those mystics and enlightened few, their subjective experience is another way to break out of the naive survival mode of thought and gain a more valuable 'direct access', which brings a new understanding of the relation between the self and the world, and the living connectedness of all things. The way such insight shakes the roots of sanity maybe a necessary price to pay. But it still seems to me something worth leaving oneself open to at least...
No comments:
Post a Comment