Mystical Pathways to the Governing Body of consciousness
William James submits to us the notion that “personal religious experience has its root and centre in mystical states of consciousness. ” Stating that mystical states of consciousness must have the characteristics of ineffability, Noetic quality, transiency, and passivity , James ascribes four marks to mystical states of consciousness, clearly defining them from our normal state of consciousness (what James calls “rational consciousness ”). These four marks provide reason for the existence of a supreme governing body over mystical states of consciousness, which will be established as G-d. Furthermore, G-d’s existence in these mystical states provides reason for G-d’s existence in rational consciousness.
In dissecting James’ four marks of mystical states of consciousness, we find that the very nature of them either implies or makes reference to some form of supreme governing being over their existence. Primarily, James states that there are two main qualities which every mystical state must have: Ineffability, and Noetic quality. The ineffability of mystical states provides a link to the ineffability of G-d. James quotes, “whoso calls the Absolute anything in particular, or says that it is this, seems implicitly to shut it off from being that – it is as if he lessened it. ” This is to say that not only is anything we use to describe G-d by no means of the level of divine quality, it also limits G-d and detracts from anything else that G-d may be. This raises a pondering question: If G-d is ineffable, how may we know of G-d’s existence? The preeminent means of addressing this problem is to compare this issue to the ineffability of mystical states of consciousness. While it is true that these states of consciousness are inexplicable, we do not deny the validity of their existence. Rather, we acknowledge that only the one experiencing them may know the true meaning of them. The same can be said of G-d. While it is true that G-d is ineffable, we must not deny G-d’s existence. Rather, we must accept that only G-d may know the true meaning of G-dself. As Søren Kierkegaard puts it, “the works of G-d are such that only G-d may understand them ”
James’ statement that Mystical states must possess a Noetic quality provides for a much more direct approach to establishing the existence of G-d. James stipulates that mystical states plunge the experiencer into an insightful state of truth and knowledge. This poses the question: from where is this knowledge gained? There only two options. It is either a prior or a posteriori. Let us for a moment assume that the knowledge gained in mystical states of consciousness is a priori. If this is so, then knowledge is, as Plato puts it, “simply recollection .” The mystic is merely accessing knowledge in parts of his/her mind which could not be accessed while in a rational state of consciousness. This statement, however disposes of the concept of a governing body over mystical states of consciousness. If the Noetic quality of mystical states of consciousness is approached with the conjecture that the knowledge gained is a posteriori, then one can clearly state that the governing body – G-d – is that source of that knowledge. And while the mystical state and the source of knowledge in that mystical state are both ineffable, we do not deny the validity of their existence.
Secondly, James submits that there are two more characteristics which, though “less sharply marked, ” are commonly applied to most mystical states of consciousness. The first is transiency. James proposes that:
Mystical states cannot be sustained for long. Except in rare instances, half an hour, or at most an hour or two, seems to be the limit beyond which they fade into the light of common day.
With this in mind, we must now address a prevailing question which has followed us throughout this critique. If other states of consciousness exist – which they do – what is it that allows us to move back and forth between these states, and what is it that holds us in our rational state usually and prevents us from entering others involuntarily? If it were a biological or physiological reason, that would then all but nullify any spiritual significance these mystical experiences would have in the first place. Being mystical experiences, there must be a spiritual foundation in them. The answer to our question must therefore be a spiritual one. Keeping in mind the divine nature of mystical states of consciousness which we have been exploring, the justification for what governs our state in and of consciousness can be said to be G-d.
Lastly, James asserts that mystical states of consciousness are passive. This is the most convincing argument for the validity of G-d’s place in mystical states of consciousness. If “the mystic feels as if his own free will (is in) abeyance ” during mystical states of consciousness, then there are four ensuing explanations for the events that occur during these states: 1. the events that transpire and the knowledge and insight that is gained is influenced by G-d. 2. The events that transpire and the knowledge and insight that is gained is due to fate. 3. The events that transpire and the knowledge and insight that is gained is merely chance. 4. The mystic only perceives his/her free will to be nonexistent – in reality, it does exist and the mystical state of consciousness is merely shrouding it. Explanations three and four deny the existence of a divine governing body, and are thus not compatible with this elucidation of James’ four marks. Explanations one and two both present the possibility of mystical states of consciousness being governed by an external body of some sort. Whether that body is G-d or fate is irrelevant. If it is G-d, the very ineffable nature of G-d will cause us to view the explanation as fate – Kierkegaard’s postulation holds true: “the works of G-d are such that only G-d may understand them ” If it is fate, there is still the possibility that it may be G-d – we are just unable to perceive it as such. Additionally, seeing as G-d’s influence on mystical states is evident, if the external body is perceived by the mystic as having control over his/her autonomy, the simple question to ask would be: “Why wouldn’t G-d be the one controlling my fate? Who else would?”
Underlying James’ four marks are the foundations of G-d’s presence and influence in mystical states of consciousness. With G-d’s presence established in the mystical state of mind, we turn to the rational state of mind and the question of God’s presence here. As the mystical states of consciousness which we have been exploring are not consciousnesses different than the one in which we regularly exist – they are merely mystical states of this consciousness – it stands to reason that due to the monotheistic values which Judeo-Christian society upholds, whatever being governs the altered states of awareness will also govern the unaltered state of awareness . We can therefore establish G-d’s presence in our rational daily state of consciousness.
The question of the function of G-d in rational consciousness is answered in two ways: 1. while we humans transcend to a different level of consciousness during mystical experiences, G-d does not. G-d remains the same, constant being – we merely alter our relationship with G-d during mystical states of mind. Consequently, G-d’s function in our rational state of consciousness is the same as G-d’s function in our mystical state of consciousness. What is that function? To be the governing body over consciousness as a whole. Bearing this in mind, we find that, 2. G-d is ineffable – we cannot describe G-d’s function. Seemingly at first a paradox, one must realize that stating that G-d is the governing body over consciousness is not a description of G-d. We have already established that there must be some form of governing body – it just so happens that the governing body is G-d. One would not say that a description of G-d is that G-d is a god . That is implied when we speak of G-d. So too is it implied that G-d is the governing body over all consciousness.
Thus, we find that G-d’s existence includes being the governing body over all states of consciousness – both mystical and rational. But in keeping with this rationalization of James’ marks of mystical states of consciousness, G-d is also ineffable.
A final realization of James’ treatise is that “mystical states wield no authority (over others) due simply to their being mystical states. ” While James maintains this to be true and while no one person can claim that their mystical experiences are of just cause to be considered dogmatic principles over all others, it must be supplemented that the governing nature of G-d over consciousness that is revealed through mystical experiences does indeed wield an unwavering form of authority that must not be questioned.
Bibliography:
Hick, John, ed. Philosophy of Religion. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1991.
