Interpretation and Mystical Experience

The article examines R. C. Zaehner's classification of mysticism into panenhenic, monistic, and theistic types. It argues that monistic and theistic mysticism likely involve the same kind of experience, differing only in interpretation. Similarly, the Theravādin experience of nirvana, interpreted neither monistically nor theistically, may be substantially identical to those two types. This raises methodological issues about distinguishing experience from interpretation. The fact that mystical experience is substantially similar across cultures does not imply a shared 'perennial philosophy', because mystics' doctrines are shaped by factors beyond the experience itself.

Study at a glance

Abstract

Summary Professor R. C. Zaehner's distinction between panenhenic, monistic and theistic mysticism will be examined. It will be argued that there is no necessary reason to suppose that the latter two types involve different sorts of experience: the difference lies rather in the way the experience is interpreted. Likewise it will be argued that the Theravādin experience of nirvana, which is interpreted neither in a monistic nor in a theistic sense, may well be identical substantially with the foregoing two types. All this raises important methodological problems, in relation to the contrast between experience and interpretation. The fact that mysticism is substantially the same in different cultures and religions does not, however, entail that there is a ‘perennial philosophy’ common to mystics. Their doctrines are determined partly by factors other than mystical experience itself.