| |
Contents of Part 1
1.
Introduction
1.1.
Mysticism: Some Definitions
1.2.
Via Positiva and Via Negativa
1.3.
The Role of Nature in Mysticism
2.
Scholars on Nature Mysticism
2.1.
William James
2.2.
Evelyn Underhill
2.3.
Edward Mercer
2.4.
Zaehner
2.5.
Happold
3.
Nature Mysticism in Religious and Mystical Traditions
3.1.
Religions of the Book
3.2.
Hinduism
3.3.
Taoism and Zen
References
for Part 1
1.
Introduction
The purpose of
this essay is to attempt an investigation of what a 'nature mysticism'
might be as indicated primarily by four writers: Traherne, Whitman,
Jefferies, and Krishnamurti. These have been chosen because their writings
are substantially mystical or at least because their mysticism is more
easily identified than with others such as Wordsworth and a whole range of
other writers and poets through the ages. These other sources are vital to
a fuller development of this subject but time does not permit the much
longer trawl through these less populated 'seas'.
1.1. Mysticism: Some
Definitions
Any writer on
mysticism will inevitably bring certain assumptions with them to the
subject, so it is important to state these at the outset. While broadly
sympathetic to the definitions of mysticism given by James, Underhill,
Zaehner and Happold (whose ideas are explored in more detail below), I am
generally interested in a mysticism that does not require either the
religious, the paranormal, or the occult. Hence no great effort will be
expended to justify the concept of a nature mysticism against the very
real (to them) worries that an orthodox Christian might have; nor on the
other hand will it readily be ceded that nature mysticism might expand to
include Blake's or Steiner's angels or any other occult or supernatural
phenomenon. I also have to state that I accept the perennialist view
(popularised by Huxley) as against the contextual view (promoted by Katz
et. al.). The perennialist view holds that at core we are looking at one
phenomenon called mysticism as against many, so that any taxonomy of
mysticism is more a taxonomy of paths than of ends. On the other hand the
traditionalist view (epitomised by the works of Frithjof Schuon) is not
useful here as it assumes that any 'real' experience of God has to come
via established religion, so it would neither accept the importance of
Traherne, Whitman, Jefferies, or Krishnamurti, or even the concept of
nature mysticism.
Another important caveat on a too-ready
acceptance of the above scholars' definitions of mysticism is that their
definitions are perhaps too bound up with mystical experience.
Although a discussion of discrete experiences, usually understood to be in
some way 'peak' experiences, is useful, it obscures the fact that the
lives of the mystics need also to be characterised in terms of their
continuum or orientation.
As a rough working definition to begin
the discussion of nature mysticism we can say that it is an expansivity
triggered by Nature. This expansivity will include not only discrete
experiences (such as certain raptures often cited as examples of nature
mysticism) but a mystical continuum or orientation in which Nature plays a
role.
1.2.
Via Positiva and Via Negativa
Although the place of nature mysticism in existing
taxonomies of mysticism will be explored later on, it is worth introducing
at this point the distinction, widely held to be useful, between via
positiva and via negativa. Via negativa is the more
easily defined of the two: it is the path to mystical union via the
denying of all manifest things. The work of Dyonisius the Areopagite is
perhaps the best example in a Western context, but the same principles are
found as far afield as in branches of Hinduism ('neti, neti' meaning 'not
this, not that' is its Indian formulation); in Buddhism (in the very
concept of nirvana or nothingness); and in modern sages like
Krishnamurti and Douglas Harding. Via negativa carries with it
associations of withdrawal, solitude, contemplation, silence, simplicity,
and renunciation, though these are often caricatured, as in the supposed
Christian 'heresy' of quietism.
Via positiva is the path of
expansion, a growing capacity to lose boundaries and temporality until one
becomes the Whole. Perhaps the best exponent of this path is Whitman
(though as this may be an unfamiliar proposition, it will be defended in
more detail below). One might more readily recognise via positiva
in an ecstatic like Rumi or Kabir. Clearly nature mysticism will be more
readily associated with via positiva than via negativa, but
it does not in the least require one aspect common in via positiva:
the devotional orientation, or at least not a theistic devotion.
The distinction between via positiva and via
negativa is a difficult one, and even more so the relationship between
this distinction and those between bhakti and jnani, heart
and intellect, love and awareness, and theistic and monistic mysticism,
and so on. All of these are useful signposts however.
1.3. The Role of Nature in
Mysticism
If nature mysticism
is perhaps more closely related to via positiva however, then what
is the role of Nature in this form of mysticism? Some pointers as to what
we are looking for are needed here. We have mentioned that Nature might be
a trigger, that is a trigger to a discrete mystical experience, and that
it might also be part of the continuum or orientation of a mystic. We can
easily investigate the first case, as there are many recorded accounts of
mystical experiences that took place as a result of the contemplation of a
mountain, sunset, or even of humbler commonplace Nature: these are
ecstatic or sublime moments. How can we learn about Nature as part of the
continuum of the mystic however? The answer may lie in a simple
characterisation of a mystic's writings: they may pedagogical, or they may
be the spontaneous celebration of the delight they find in their
condition. This distinction is very important because the pedagogical is
more often a picture of the mystic's audience than of their inner world
for some such as Krishnamurti there is no allowance made for the listener,
while for others such as Gurdjieff it is almost impossible to disentangle
pedagogical device from the real teaching. Hence to understand the role of
Nature in the continuum of the mystic can take some detective work.
Nature as a trigger to mystical experience can be understood, as
identified earlier, as part of an expansivity. It may also cause the
resonance of some faculty that goes beyond time, so that as a cause
of the loss of boundaries and as a cause of the loss of the sense
of time Nature somehow works on certain individuals. Nature is vast,
though this is often lost on city dwellers, and it is timeless in the
sense that it regenerates itself. It is also prodigious, and this
is part of via positiva: Arjuna's overwhelming experience of the
cosmic nature of Krishna in the Bhagavad Gita is partly due to the
abundance of creation that is manifest through Krishna. The views of
Nature that we shall come across in nature mysticism are not romanticised
views of Nature however, even if they may seem so on the surface. Nature
can also be seen as the destroyer of the false, and this is important in
Buddhist mysticism for example the Buddha nature is revealed once the
imperfections of vision are removed, rather than by grace as in the
Christian tradition.
2. Scholars on Nature Mysticism
Recent debates amongst scholars of mysticism have
focused on the perennialist / contextualist argument in which nature
mysticism plays no important role. Hence it is more useful to look back at
earlier scholars like Bucke, James, and Underhill who provided much of the
basis at the turn of the century for later work; we also look at the work
of an obscure author, J. Edward Mercer, and R.C. Zaehner, who wrote on
nature mysticism in connection with drugs.
2.1. William
James
In the Varieties of
Religious Experience William James introduced an influential
distinction between the religion of the healthy-minded and that of the
sick soul, locating nature mysticism (without an emphasis on it by name
however) in the healthy-minded. The distinction is useful because it helps
focus on the problems of evil and innocence, both of which are
inextricably linked with nature mysticism. James was unaware of the work
of Jefferies or Traherne, and wrote his Varieties long before
Krishnamurti was published, but he knew of Whitman and in a way that is
not well understood today. At the end of the nineteenth century
'Whitmanism' as a proto-religion was much discussed; it is only more
recently that Whitman studies has become merely literary, and James was
reacting to the earlier debates. He makes this comment on Whitman:
In some individuals optimism may become
quasi-pathological. The capacity for even a transitory sadness or a
momentary humility seems cut off from them as by a kind of congenital
anaesthesia. The supreme contemporary example of such an inability to
feel evil is of course Walt Whitman [1].
This grossly misrepresents Whitman as we
shall see later. James continues:
Thus it has come about that many persons
to-day regard Walt Whitman as the restorer of the eternal natural
religion. He has infected them with his own love of comrades, with his
own gladness that he and they exist. Societies are actually formed for
his cult; a periodical organ exists for its propagation, in which the
lines of orthodoxy and heterodoxy are already beginning to be drawn;
hymns are written by others in his peculiar prosody; and he is even
explicitly compared to the founder of the Christian religion, not
altogether to the advantage of the latter [2].
We shall return to James's view of Whitman
later, but it is interesting to note that he uses the term 'eternal
natural religion'. Throughout James's chapter on the healthy-minded he
attempts an even-handedness but we can see that his instinct is with the
religion of the sick soul. I believe that James taps into a universal
interest in evil, the morbid, and the penitent; this interest makes via
negativa such a strong current in mysticism. Nature mysticism should
not be assumed to require the naive healthy-mindedness of James however.
In his chapter on the sick soul James puts forward ('without judgement' he
tells us) the view that 'naturism' is pessimistic because 'Old age has the
last word: the purely naturalistic look at life, however enthusiastically
it may begin, is sure to end in sadness.' [3]
(Modern adherents to this view gleefully cite the case of Whitman in his
old age as an example.) 'Naturism' in this context is far removed from the
concerns of nature mysticism.
James underpins his healthy/sick
dichotomy with a further distinction: between the once-born and twice-born
the former are permanently in an innocent state of happiness and the
latter regain it through some form of salvation. This forms the basis of
two types of religion for him: naturalism and salvationism, and we shall
consider this view in the nature mysticism of Traherne, Whitman and
Jefferies. Before leaving James it is useful to comment on another
important contribution he made to the study of mysticism: his four 'marks'
of mystical experience. These are: ineffability, noetic quality,
transiency and passivity [4].
These marks have been largely adopted by later writers on mysticism, and
perhaps have set the trend to consider mystical experience at the expense
of mystical orientation. James concludes on the general traits of the
mystic range of consciousness:
It is on the whole pantheistic and
optimistic, or at least the opposite of pessimistic. It is
anti-naturalistic, and harmonizes best with twice-bornness and so-called
other-worldly states of mind [5].
James's dismissal of Whitman, his obvious
preference for the sick soul, and his emphasis on mystical experience do
not diminish however his contribution to the study of mysticism, in
particular his recognition of the authority that mystical experience
brings to the experiencer.
2.2. Evelyn Underhill
Evelyn Underhill first published her Mysticism
The Nature and Development of Spiritual Consciousness in 1911, some
nine years after James' Varieties. It built on the work of James
and Bucke (who also influenced James); it focused on mysticism; it was
broader in its sources, though it did not venture further than the
Religions of the Book (considering mystics of the Far East to be
nihilists); and it shared the emphasis on mystical experience (adding
further 'marks' to James' scheme). Of the four main protagonists in this
essay Underhill was aware of Whitman and Jefferies, neither of whom she
acknowledged as full-blown mystics. Unlike James she placed no great
emphasis on the distinction between the healthy-minded and the sick soul,
seeing in the mystics a universal earnestness and determination in their
pursuit of the absolute. There are many sympathetic references to Nature
none of which make the association with naive healthy-mindedness that
James implies. Here are some examples:
Such use of visible nature as the stuff of
ontological perceptions, the medium whereby the self reaches out to the
Absolute, is not rare in the history of mysticism. The mysterious
vitality of trees, the silent magic of the forest, the strange and
steady cycle of its life, possess in a peculiar degree this power of
unleashing the human soul: are curiously friendly to its cravings,
minister to its inarticulate needs. Unsullied by the corroding touch of
consciousness, that life can make a contact with the "great life of
All"; and through its mighty rhythms man can receive a message
concerning the true and timeless World of "all that is, and was, and
evermore shall be." Plant life of all kinds, indeed from the "flower in
the crannied wall" to the "Woods of Westermain" can easily become for
selves of a certain type, a "mode of the Infinite." So obviously does
this appear when we study the history of the mystics, that Steiner has
drawn from it the hardly warrantable inference that "plants are just
those natural phenomena whose qualities in the higher world are similar
to their qualities in the physical world."
Though the conclusion be not convincing, the
fact remains. The flowery garment of the world is for some mystics a
medium of ineffable perception, a source of exalted joy, the veritable
clothing of God. I need hardly add that such a state of things has
always been found incredible by common sense. "The trees which move some
to tears of joy," says Blake, who possessed in an eminent degree this
form of sacramental perception, "is in the Eyes of others only a green
thing that stand in the Way." [6]
To "see God in nature," to attain a radiant consciousness of the
"otherness" of natural things, is the simplest and commonest form of
illumination. Most people, under the spell of emotion or beauty, have
known flashes of rudimentary vision of this kind. Where such a
consciousness is recurrent, as it is in may poets, there results that
partial yet often overpowering apprehension of the Infinite Life
immanent in all living things, which some modern writers have dignified
by the name of "nature-mysticism." [7]
In the first passage Underhill hints at a
personal sensitivity to nature, though in the second one is left with the
impression that "nature-mysticism" is for her too grand a term. (I am not
sure also whether her dismissal of Steiner is warranted: his theories were
not derived from a study of the mystics.) Incidentally, she gives the
following as a list of poets that fit the description in the passage:
Keats, Shelley, Wordsworth, Tennyson, Browning and Whitman.
Underhill is keen to defend the mystic from the general assumption
that they deny the world; she often uses their relation to Nature to
illustrate this. At one point she cites the seeing of "all creatures in
God, and God in all creatures"; at another the brother Wolf of Francis of
Assisi; and at another the case of the Peruvian Saint, Rose of Lima, who
sang the praises of God for a whole hour in alternation with a songbird
[8].
In another passage Underhill recommends natural objects as subjects for
contemplation.
Seen thus a thistle has celestial qualities:
a speckled hen a touch of the sublime. Our greater comrades, the trees,
the clouds, the rivers, initiate us into mighty secrets, flame out at us
"like shining from shook foil." The "eye which looks upon Eternity" has
been given its opportunity. We have been immersed for a moment in the
"life of the All": a deep and peaceful love unites us with the substance
of all things, a "Mystic Marriage" has taken place between the mind and
some aspect of the external world. Cor ad cor loquitur: Life has
spoken to life, but not only to the surface-intelligence. That
surface-intelligence knows only that the message was true and beautiful:
no more.
The price of this experience has been a
stilling of that surface-mind, a calling in of all our scattered
interests: an entire giving of ourselves to this one activity, without
self-consciousness, without reflective thought. To reflect is always to
distort: our minds are not good mirrors. The contemplative, on whatever
level his faculty may operate, is contented to absorb and be absorbed:
and by this humble access he attains to a plane of knowledge which no
intellectual process can come near.
I do not suggest that this simple experiment
is in any sense to be equated with the transcendental contemplation of
the mystic. Yet it exercises on a small scale, and in regard to visible
Nature, the same natural faculties which are taken up and used it is
true upon other levels, and in subjection to the transcendental sense in
his apprehension of the Invisible Real. Though it is one thing to see
truthfully for an instant the flower in the crannied wall, another to be
lifted up to the apprehension of "eternal Truth, true Love and loved
Eternity", yet both according to their measure are functions of the
inward eye, operating in the "suspension of the mind." [9]
Underhill leaves us with many question
regarding a possible nature mysticism in this passage, the principle one
being whether it really is a lesser mysticism, any more than 'quietism' is
really to be treated as deficient. There are also useful pointers in this
passage regarding the silence of the mind in which Nature speaks to us.
2.3. Edward
Mercer
As far as I know there
has been only one book published in the English language with the title
'Nature Mysticism': this was written by J. Edward Mercer in 1912 and is
now out of print. Mercer was aware of Jefferies and Whitman (both of whom
are quoted extensively, though Jefferies more so) but not of Traherne or
Krishnamurti; he does also cite James' Varieties. Nature
Mysticism is scholarly review of a wide range of sources, stating at
the same time that 'metaphysics and theology are to be avoided' [10]
the latter surprising as Mercer was bishop of Tasmania. He gives us a
useful definition of nature mysticism that can complement the first
approximation given earlier:
The goal of the nature-mystics is actual
living communion with the Real, in and through its sensuous
manifestation [11].
This definition is useful because it
avoids the emphasis on ecstatic or otherwise special experiences and
focuses more on a continuum, as implied in the word communion. The use of
the term 'the Real,' though vague at this point, is also useful if we
place it for the time being merely in opposition to the false or fanciful
(thus alerting us to the danger of the romantic or merely aesthetic
dimension of nature mysticism). Mercer is careful also to deal with the
charge of anthropomorphism and also deals with the issue of animism
(quoting Wordsworth's recollection of a boyhood incident on a lake where a
peak seems to come alive to him [12]).
Mercer is oddly cautious about nature itself, spending many chapters on
the elements (eight on water, two on air, and one on fire) before dealing
briefly with vegetation; he more or less rules out a discussion of animal
life. Despite this the book is valuable, particularly for its conviction
that nature mysticism is worthwhile in itself and also for the view that
its pursuance can be fostered.
2.4. Zaehner
Richard
Charles Zaehner wrote and translated prodigiously in religion and
mysticism and expanded on the works of Bucke, James, and Underhill by his
scholarship in Eastern mysticism (he does not seem to be aware of Mercer's
work). Compared to these three he is a slippery character however in that
his own views as a Catholic are hidden by a two- or three-deep layering of
academic scepticism. Like Underhill however he regards nature mysticism,
for which he coins the term panenhenic mysticism, as inferior to monistic
mysticism, which in turn is inferior to theistic mysticism. The usefulness
of his term panenhenic mysticism is diminished by his association of its
domain, nature mysticism, with drug-induced 'mystical' states,
particularly in his book Mysticism, Drugs, and Makebelieve first
published in 1972. Much of this book is a re-presentation of an earlier
work called Mysticism Sacred and Profane, first published in 1957.
Zaehner knew of all four of the major protagonists in this essay,
though he seems to reserve an unqualified admiration only for
Krishnamurti, referring to him as a 'holy man' [13].
Nature mysticism has 23 entries in the index to Mysticism, Drugs, and
Makebelieve, and deals at length with the subject in the chapter
called 'The Vitalist Heresy.' Zaehner equates nature mysticism with cosmic
consciousness (a term introduced by Richard Maurice Bucke, but who is
dismissed by Zaehner as 'fatuous') and says of it that 'is essential to
most of the experiences described in the Hindu sacred books.' [14]
He points out that for Proust as for many other nature mystics a mystical
experience may come unheralded, but for Zen students, where a similarly
mundane natural object or event might trigger a similar experience, they
have been trained to seek it out and recognise it [15].
Zaehner seems to classify Zen with nature mysticism (this is supported by
Suzuki, discussed below), and tends to relegate both to an inferior status
than other forms. Typical of his mix of cant and scholarly dispassion, he
goes on to praise the work of the Irish novelist Forrest Reid as
beautifully expressing the experience of the typical nature mystic.
Because however drug-induced experiences can induce similar states he goes
on to criticise James for not distinguishing nature mysticism clearly
enough from the kind of transcendental mysticism of Buddhism [16].
(Incidentally he twice states of James that 'his sympathies were plainly
all on the side of the 'healthy-minded' against the 'sick soul' who must
be born again' [17]
the opposite of my own reading!) At the end of the 'Vitalist Heresy'
Zaehner groups Jefferies and Whitman as nature mystics, with Whitman
perhaps the most thoroughgoing; he then slips into an attack on the
Upanishads as the vitalist heresy (which in typical Zaehner style is meant
half-ironically):
All this had of course been said thousands
of years ago in the Upanishads, the fount and origin of all nature
mysticism, for here too we find the perfect expression of 'Whitmanism'
in all its preposterous defiance of logic and common sense [18].
However Zaehner's association of nature
mysticism with the Upanishads is useful, though it is Taoism that may be a
better source for understanding it. He also mentions Spinoza in connection
with nature mysticism. Speaking on Timothy Leary's account of the Catholic
communion as giving an ecstatic revelation (similar to LSD) Zaehner
perhaps sums up his attitude to nature mysticism:
This is perfectly fair account of Christian
mysticism: it is the soul's love-affair with God and its spiritual
marriage to him. It is not a merging into the All as so often in the
Upanishads or with the nature mystics, nor is it the isolation of one's
own eternal essence from all that is other than itself as in the
Shankya-Yoga in India [19].
Zaehner is entitled to the opinion that
nature mysticism as he characterises it is fundamentally different from
Christian mysticism and inferior to it, but Mercer's view, that nature
mysticism is valuable regardless of its similarities or otherwise to other
forms, is probably the best to take in the long run.
2.5. Happold
F.C.Happold's work, called simply Mysticism,
was first published in 1962 and is still Penguin's current mainstream
offering on the subject. Happold acknowledges it as a personal anthology
and commentary, though he builds again on the work of James and Underhill;
he takes for example James' four marks of mystical experience and expands
them to six by adding a sense of Oneness and a sense of timelessness
[20].
Happold does not claim to move forward our understanding of mysticism in
any significant way, but does present a more balanced view than Zaehner.
He gives equal weight to what he calls nature-, soul- and god-mysticism
(corresponding to Zaehner's three categories), and devotes a chapter
respectively to Traherne and Jefferies. Happold shares with the other
scholars mentioned here the emphasis on mystical experience; a
confirmation of this comes from an account of Happold's visit to the great
English mystic Douglas Harding, in which Harding tells of Happold's
insistence on hearing about peak mystical experiences instead of Douglas'
very down-to-earth teachings [21].
Harding's own description of what comes nearest to a mystical experience
is found in the opening chapter of his On Having No Head [22],
but, like Krishnamurti he consistently plays down the role of 'peak'
experience.
3. Nature
Mysticism in Religious and Mystical Traditions
3.1. Religions of the
Book
A detailed analysis of the
role of nature and nature mysticism in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam is
beyond the scope of this essay, apart from some general remarks. The
Gnostic and Manichean influence on Christian thought has made Nature and
the body an area often set in opposition to the spiritual. This may be
less so in Judaism and Islam. Christian mystics are generally agreed to
have been more cautious in their language than Hindu or Buddhist mystics;
Sufi mystics have also run into trouble with mainstream Islam. The
theistic nature of Judaism, Christianity and Islam make nature mysticism
more difficult to accommodate than in Hinduism or Buddhism.
An
interesting example of how a modern Christian might view nature mysticism
is that of Anthony Freeman, the Church of England sacked for 'not
believing in God.' He writes:
Emotionally I hung on to the design argument
long after conceding that there was no intellectual force in it. And it
was my emotional response, to a growing doubt that the universe really
has a design, which finally tipped the balance against it. I can still
admire the way in which elements of nature interlock, but I can no
longer accept that it is part of a plan. For example I can marvel that
animals have so developed that they can breath air; I cannot accept (as
the old view required) that God made air the way he did in order that
the animals could breathe. Nor can I accept any longer (as traditional
faith requires) that a good and skilful God would have designed so much
waste and violence into nature, 'red in tooth and claw.' [23]
Freeman is proposing a humanist
Christianity, but what is interesting here is that in closing the door to
a Christian God (at least the one taught in the seminaries) he is also
closing the door to a nature mysticism. To see waste and violence in
Nature, to see it as 'red in tooth and claw', and not see its beauty,
tenderness, and intimations of the infinite and the eternal is to lose out
indeed. This pessimism is however a widespread view of Nature, and we need
to keep this example in mind as we examine further on the prerequisites
for a nature mysticism.
3.2. Hinduism
Zaehner rightly points out that the Hindu
Upanishads say much that is consistent with nature mysticism, though it is
hard to point to specific passages. What is often found is a regard for
the natural order and for Nature in all its aspects, including the sexual.
Although this may be hard to demonstrate, one is left with the suspicion
that the Hindus of 2 to 3 thousand years ago, authors of the Upanishads,
were more accepting of nature than at present; that renunciation has grown
from a symbolic act and a simple choice of lifestyle to an active
rejection of Nature. In the lives and teachings of those wonderful sages,
Ramakrishna and Ramana Maharshi, we find no pleasure in Nature, and in the
life of Gandhi an extreme of renunciation. Of modern Indian-born teachers
it is the iconoclast Rajneesh and the Western-educated Krishnamurti who
show a sensitivity and appreciation of Nature.
3.3. Taoism and
Zen
Taoism, as the ancestor of
Zen, is a more obviously promising ground for the development of a nature
mysticism. The Tao Teh Ching is an unusual document in the history of
mysticism, and quite unlike any Buddhist text, in that it seems to speak
of the post-enlightenment stage in a matter-of-fact way; pointing out that
the Tao is likely to be misunderstood; that the sage is like the infant
yet rules or guides his or her community; that with the least interference
the natural order will prosper; and that the sage prefers what is within
to what is without. It is anti-intellectual and anti-technology. Suzuki
points this out through a story from Chang-tze:
A farmer dug a well and was using the water
for irrigating his farm. He used an ordinary bucket to draw water from
the well, as most primitive people do. A passer-by, seeing this, asked
the farmer why he did not use a shadoof for the purpose; it is a
labour-saving device and can do more work than the primitive method. The
farmer said. "I know it is a labour-saving and it is for this very
reason that I do not use the device. What I am afraid of is that the use
of such a contrivance makes one machine-minded. Machine-mindedness leads
one to the habit of indolence and laziness [24].
Suzuki considers Orientals more attuned to
Nature than Westerners, giving as an example two poems, the first by
Basho:
Suzuki explains that he has translated the
Japanese word kana into the finishing exclamation mark in the poem;
it expresses admiration, praise, sorrow, or joy, and in this context lends
a mystical meaning to the poem, for the nazuna is the most common
and insignificant of flowers. In contrast he offers a poem by Tennyson:
Flower in the crannied wall,
I pluck you
out of the crannies;
Hold you here, root and all, in my
hand,
Little flowerbut if I could understand
What you are, root
and all, and all in all,
I should know what God and man is.
Suzuki points out the violence in
Tennyson's act of plucking the flower; in contrast Basho merely looks,
though carefully [25].
In the 'carefully' we have the whole of nature mysticism; in Tennyson's
'if' we have the whole of Western intellectual doubt.
References for Part
1
[1] James, W. The
Varieties of Religious Experience, Penguin Books, Middlesex, England,
1986, p. 83
[2]
James, W. The Varieties of Religious
Experience, Penguin Books, Middlesex, England, 1986, p. 85
[3]
James, W. The Varieties of Religious
Experience, Penguin Books, Middlesex, England, 1986, p. 140
[4]
James, W. The Varieties of Religious
Experience, Penguin Books, Middlesex, England, 1986, p. 380
[5]
James, W. The Varieties of Religious
Experience, Penguin Books, Middlesex, England, 1986, p. 422
[6]
Underhill, E. Mysticism - The Nature and
Development of Spiritual Consciousness, Oneworld Publications, Oxford,
UK, 1993, p. 191
[7]
Underhill, E. Mysticism - The Nature and
Development of Spiritual Consciousness, Oneworld Publications, Oxford,
UK, 1993, p. 234
[8]
Underhill, E. Mysticism - The Nature and
Development of Spiritual Consciousness, Oneworld Publications, Oxford,
UK, 1993, p 206, p. 260, and p. 261.
[9]
Underhill, E. Mysticism - The Nature and
Development of Spiritual Consciousness, Oneworld Publications, Oxford,
UK, 1993, p. 302
[10]
Mercer, J.Edward, Nature Mysticism, London:
George Allen and Co., 1913, p. 7
[11]
Mercer, J.Edward, Nature Mysticism, London:
George Allen and Co., 1913, p. 4
[12]
Wordsworth, William, 'The Prelude' in Poetical
Works, Oxford University Press, 1990, verses 356 - 380, p. 499
[13]
Zaehner, R.C. Drugs, Mysticism and
Make-Believe, Collins, London 1972, p. 133
[14]
Zaehner, R.C. Drugs, Mysticism and
Make-Believe, Collins, London 1972, p. 43
[15]
Zaehner, R.C. Drugs, Mysticism and
Make-Believe, Collins, London 1972, p. 45
[16]
Zaehner, R.C. Drugs, Mysticism and
Make-Believe, Collins, London 1972, p. 50
[17]
Zaehner, R.C. Mysticism Sacred and Profane, An
Inquiry into some Varieties of Praeternatural Experience, Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1957, p. 41 and 42
[18]
Zaehner, R.C. Drugs, Mysticism and
Make-Believe, Collins, London 1972, p. 65
[19]
Zaehner, R.C. Drugs, Mysticism and
Make-Believe, Collins, London 1972, p. 87
[20]
Happold, F.C. Mysticism - a Study and and
Anthology, Penguin Books, London, 1970, p. 47
[21]
Conversation with Harding in May 1994, Ireland.
[22]
Harding, D.E. On Having No Head - Zen and the
Rediscovery of the Obvious, London: Arkana, 1986
[23]
Freeman, Anthony, God in Us, London: SCM Press,
1994, p.18
[24]
Suzuki, D.T, From, Erich, and de Martino,
Richard, Zen Buddhism and Psychoanalysis, London: George Allen and
Unwin, 1960, p. 7
[25]
Suzuki, D.T, From, Erich, and de Martino,
Richard, Zen Buddhism and Psychoanalysis, London: George Allen and
Unwin, 1960, pp. 1 - 5
|
