Mysticism, Spirituality, and Organized Religion

Some of you may have wondered about my use of the term Mystic along with Counselor and Educator under the vision of my benevolent countenance. A mystic is a person who practices mysticism.

Mysticism (from the Greek, mystikos) is the pursuit of communion with, or conscious awareness of divinity, spiritual truth, or God through direct experience. Mysticism usually centers on a practice or practices intended to nurture such experiences or awareness.

I consider myself to be a mystic in that–following the Buddha’s advice–I accept as truth only that which I can verify from my own experience. When it comes to spirituality or religion this means I do not believe anything unless I have direct experience of it, which–by definition–means mysticism.

Mystics and organized religion have an ongoing love–hate relationship. Religious traditions need mystics for their origins (Where would Christianity be without Christ, or Buddhism without Buddha?), but mystics are very disruptive to the status quo once a religion is established around them. If you’ve got a means of having direct experience of the divine, who needs an ecclesiastical hierarchy as an intermediary? We can’t have ordinary people running around communing directly with God as this doesn’t bode well for church attendance and–perhaps more importantly–the Sunday collection plate.

In order to guard against this threat to their spiritual monopoly, religious organizations do one of three things:

1)    They segregate those with any mystical inclinations away from the masses by relegating them to monasteries, convents, etc. while also making admission to these groups unattractive with requirements such as vows of poverty, celibacy, etc.

2)    They claim that mystics are “special” people (Saints, etc.) favored by God that we should worship and revere, but not try to emulate.

3)    They attack mystics as being heretics who blaspheme the true doctrine and therefore must be excommunicated, banished, punished, or killed (sometimes all of the above).

I think this is one of the reasons–perhaps THE reason–established religions and even new age spiritual “gurus” (sorry Alan) shun the use of entheogenic substances by their followers, as they make the mystic experience far too democratic. It’s much easier to allow for a spiritual democracy when everyone in the tribe is wearing a loincloth and living in a hut with a dirt floor. Democracy of any kind makes those in power very nervous.

The problem is that once the spiritual experience becomes a religion, it ceases to be about individual spirituality and instead becomes centered around idolatry. Even though many religions–particularly the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam)–pay lip service to idolatry as a sin, the reality is quite different. They get by with this on a technicality–idolatry by definition is worship of a physical object as God. Since people are not considered physical objects, it’s OK to worship Christ, Mohammed, Buddha, etc. and not call it idolatry. Of course idolatry is always what the “other” religions do, not one’s own.

As an example, shortly after 9/11, I overheard two people discussing Islam. Because one of Islam’s most well-known icons is the crescent moon, one was telling the other than followers of Islam “worship the moon as their god.” I’m presuming this person was sharing this as evidence that Islam practiced idolatry and was, therefore, an inferior religion. I wonder if this person would apply the same “logic” to Christians by saying they worship a “wooden cross as their god” and that this too is idolatry. It can be a slippery slope from religious iconography to religious idolatry, and the difference is often  only a matter of perception.

A footnote: To anyone who doesn’t already know, Jews, Christians, and Moslems all worship the SAME God–the God of Abraham. A fact that would make the conflict among them laughable if not for its deadly consequences.

My own definition of idolatry is more–dare I say it–liberal in that I view any form of worship that puts the messenger before the message as idolatry. Not that there is anything inherently wrong with reverence for the messenger, unless in the process the message gets lost or marginalized.

And there is nothing “wrong” per se with religious worship. In Hinduism–the world’s oldest living religion–there are four paths to union with Brahaman (Universal Soul). These are each referred to as a form of yoga (interesting coincidence, the etymological meaning of the word yoga and religion are virtually identical). These are:

Bhakti Yoga–the path of love, devotion, and worship,

Karma Yoga–the path of right action and good works,

Raja Yoga–the path of meditation, and

Jñana Yoga–the path of wisdom.

Hinduism does not see any one of these paths as better than any of the others. They are simply ways toward the same end. Different paths are suited to different people and one may choose any as their primary path. Also, this does not mean that a particular path is chosen to the exclusion of others. I believe anyone with a genuine spiritual inclination will engage in aspects of all these at various times.

It is not surprising that most Hindus–indeed most people of ALL religious faiths–choose Bhakti–the path of love, devotion, and worship–as their primary path along with a little or a lot of Karma–good works–thrown in as well. These paths are the least difficult for the everyday person who has to manage daily responsibilities such as work, family, etc. You go about your business with love in your heart, devotion to your faith, and do such good works toward your fellow man as you are able. Nothing wrong with that. In fact the world would be a much better place if more people did this.

Others (such as yours truly) are more attracted to the paths of meditation and/or wisdom. Usually, because of the amount of time these paths require, they are more accessible to people with both the time as well as inclination to devote to them–clergy, religious scholars, monks, spiritual gadflies with access to a computer and internet connection, etc.