Western mysticism from Plotinus and Philo to St John of the Cross

WESTERN MYSTICISM FROM PLOTlNUS AND PUILO TO STo JOHN OF THE CROSS IWill not attempt within the scope oi this paper ro give a definition oi mysticiSin. Volumes b¡ave been written on this ropic, and most end with the author saying that his definition ls lnadequate due ro the ultimate ineffability of the mysticial ,experience. Writers of various religious traditions and those outside any particular tradition agree in essence but disagree on interpretation. The mystical experience has been interpreted as the cessation of desire, union with God, reabsorbtion in the One, and many other things. Descriptions of the mystical experience show a remarkable degree of unanimity, and fairly obviously refer to the same experience. As one who believes that the mystical experience is a contact with a reality, a cosmic spiritual presence toward which all great religions grope, 1 aro neither suprised nor disturbed by this unanimity. Mystics of various traditions agree on the ineffability of the experience, its parodoxical, alogical, and contradictory nature, the feeling of complete oneness and unity, and an ecstasy which defies description. Arthur Koestler, who Hes outside any particular religious tradition, is in complete agreement with the above description. In this work we shall be concerned with western rather than oriental mysticism. AH the forms of mysticism mentioned in ithis work, with the possible exception of Plotinus, are 70 MICHAEL MCCLAIN [z} unquestionably within the western mystical tradition. The great religions of the west, Judaism', Christianity, and Islam are theistic rather than pantheistic. In a pantheistic theology, complete unity with Brahman, Tao, or the Qne ls theoretically possible ... ln the theistic religions of the west, the Sanskrit phrase "tat tvam así", "that art thou" must be interpreted as union of likeness and similarity of purpose (St. John of the Cross), or "of sunlight and air, or of hot iron and heat" , (Jan von Ruysbroeck), rather than as literal uníon and identity. Keeping this in mind, we shall proceed with Plotinus. Qur study begins fittingly in Alexandria, the golden city. In Alexandria Greek, Hebrew, Egyptian and even Persian met on comrnon ground. and came into contact with elements fram farther east. As well as being a melting pot of peoples and ideas, Alexandria was a cUy of unbeUevable wickedness side by si de with unbelievable piety. While many sought sensuous pleasures, many others sought God, in many different ways. In the near future, Alexandria would become "'the anvil of Christianity". Qne of the Alexandrians who sought God was Plotinus. Plotinus was the greatest of the neo-Platonic school of Alexandria, who drew their 1nspiration from, toe Platonic dialogues "Timaeus", "Laws", and parts of other dialogues. Neo-Platonism was a rnYstical philosophy with rationaUstic elernents and in,. fiuences from Persia and India. Plotinus spent sorne time in Persia studying philosophy, and died while on the way to India for the saine purpose. The neo-Platonists carried Plató'g idea of the Good and the world of forms one step farther. The Good and the world of forms were rnerely emanations of the Qne, which is comparable to the ludian Brahma and the Chinese Tao. AH things are emanations of the One, and the ,Qne is undifferentiated unity. AH things ftow from the One and seek to return to it. The One is neither personal nor conscious, as attributes imply division. Through contemiplation, leading a wholesome life, and wisdorn, a person seeks reunion with the One. The mystical experience 1s reuníon with the Qne, when the illusions of distinctions and multiplicity are eliminated, and may be interpreted in the light of the Platonic metaphor of the cave. As all things are emanations of the Qne, all things WESTERN MYSTlCISM FROM PLOTlNUS AND PHILO TO STo JOHN OF THE CROSS 71 are sacred, and a moral eode is founded upon this. However, there is a hierarchy of emanations, the world of pure intelligence, the Platonic forms, is aboye ordinary mind, which is aboye matter. In Plotinus one finds a great intellect, a supremely great mystic, and a great moralist united in a single individual. Sto Augustine was quite right when he said that Plotinus need change only a few words to be a Christian. In spirit Plotinus would need to change nothing. Plotinus writes in a lively yet deep and scholarly style reminiscent of Plato. However, suggestions of mystical ecstasy and intensity are more common in Plotinus than in Plato. So we leave the God-intoxicated sage of Alexandria. Had Alexandria produced only Plotinus, she should richly deserve the title "the gOlden city". However, we now discuss another jewel in the crown of Alexandria, Philo Judaeus, who showed that the Hebraic and Heleno-Oriental traditions were not antithetical, but complementary Philo has been more honored in tl1e Christian tradition than in hIs own Hebraic tradition, as many, though by no means aH, Jewish TheoIogians and Talmudists have considered him a heretic and Heleniser. Neo-Platonism did not begin withi Plotinus. In fact, Plotinus lived in the third century AD, not long before neo-Platonism was absorbed by Christianity. Philo was a contemporary of Christ, and is sometimes called the first Jewish mystic. Philo combined neo-Platonic metaphysics with Jewish mononotheism in an ingenious and rational manner. No doubt to combat the anthropomorphism common to a great part of his fellow Jews, Philo stresses the ineffability oí God, and is thus considered by some the founder of the "via negativa", that any quaUty attributed to Goid is false, beca use attributes imply limitation, though the "vía negativa" is found much earlier in India. Faced with the difficulty of combining the ineffable, unchanging God who is beyond all categories of time and space with the creator God of the Jewish tradition, Philo borrowed the Logos from Heraclitus and interpreted it as combining the MICHAEL MCCLAIN functions of the One and the Platonic world of pure intelligence. Pure monotheism was maintained by interpreting the Logos as the crea ti ve and sustaining aspect of God. Thus, the Logos is a personal aspect of an impersonal God. The mystical experience is an encounter with the Logos. Pantheism was avoided by stressing that aH things are creations rather than emanations of God. This Logos doctrine is found in the Gospel of Sto John and in the Nieene Creed. Jewish law and ethícs were identified with the Stoic concept of universallaw. For Philo, however, the mystical experience is not undifferentiated unity, but "beholding God in all His glory". Tb:is was to become a unique aspect of Jewish mysticism, distinguishing it from neo-Platonic, Christian, and Islamic mysticism. The present writer believes this distinction to be merely a matter of words and semantics. This distinction is not made by all Jewish mystics. Philo writes in a style which betrays both:' his Hebraic and his Greek antecedents and is interesting for this reason. Philo's inftuence on Christianity and on Jewish mysticism would be diffieult to overestimate. Philo is a key figure in the cross-fertilisation of ideas which took place in Helenistic Alexandria. The origin of Christian mYsticism is difficult to pinpoint. There are passages in the Epistles of Sto Paul which seem to indicate that he had mystical leanings. Sto John the Evangelist was obviously inftuenced by Philo, but there is no positive evidence that he himself was a mystic. The first Christian mystic of which we may be certain is Dionysius the Areopagite. This name is probably a pseudonym, and he was probably a Syrian Christian of the second century AD. What is significant is that h¡e was an early Christian rnystic. In Dionysius, the influence of the neo-Platonists is obvious in both "Mystical Theology" and "Di vine Names". Dionysius, like PhHo, was a follower of the "via negativa", of the Upanishad injunction that the Universal SeU is incommensurable, "not this, not that", the negative si de oí the mystical experience. For example these quotations from "Mystical Theology". "God is the Super Essential Darkness. It is not number, nor {5] WESTERN MYSnCISM FROM PLOTlNUS AND PHILO TO STo ¡OHN OF THE CROSS 73 order, nor greatness nor littlel'l.ess, nor equality, nor inequaUty ... nor is it the One, nor is it GOdhead nor Goodness; nor does It belong to the category oí non-existence nor to that of existertce" Dionysius reconciles this with his Christian theism in the "Divine Names" by stating that anything man may say about God is falseo Thus Dionysius is a forerunner of such thinkers as Rudolf Otto in his view that aH words used to describe God are of necessity symbolical and metaphorical. Also in Dionysius we find a strong esoteric elemento For example; "These things thou must not disclose to any of the uninitiated ... ". "For not without reason is the blessed Moses bidden first to undergo initiation himself, and then to separate himself from those who have not undergone it ... ". This esotericism ils more than a little reminescent of gnosticism, though Dionysius was very far from gncsticism otherwise. It would reappear in a Jewish guise in the Cabala. Dionysius writes in a style which still preserves traces oí its Greek antecedents, but in ~ts 'incandescent manner betrays influence from farther East-Persia and India. The influence of Dionysius was enormous. Thanks to him, a very pure form of mysticism acquired an almost canonical authority. Dionysius must be considered the forerunner oí a very long and richly varied Une of Christian tnystics. The gold of Alexandria is not vet exhausted. We pass now to one of the most profound and interesting of all Christian thinkers: Origen. Origen is practically the antithesis of Dionysius. Dionysius was a mystical philosopher who was indubitably Christian, but whose Christianity is almost incidental to his mystical theory. The greater part of the works Ol Dionysius could have been written by a Christian. a Moslem, a Hindu, or a Jew, and in fact may be mistaken for certain passages in the Upanishads. Origen. on the other hand, was a very versatile thinker whose mystical theory forms only a small part oí his total output. Origen's interpre"tation of his mystical experience could only be Christian. If Dionysius was a mystic who happened to be a Christian, Origen was a Christian who happened to have 74 MICHAEL MCCLAlN [6J a mY8tical experience. From the viewpoint of mysticism, Origen 18 interesting beeause he 8eem3 in many ways to be a forerunner not only of later Christian but of Jewish and moslem mysticism. Origen's mystical doctrine is scattered through his works, but principally in certain homilies on Leviticus and Numbers and in his Coinmentary on the Song of Songs. lUexandria was a city oí many Jews and there is every evidence that Origen followed the Rabbia in a great part of his exegesis of the booka of the OId Testament. Thus, the Horoiliea of Origen show much infiuenee of Rabbinie exegesis, not unlike the Talmud. However, this is not all. There are also strong elements of the 80rt of exegesi8 used by Medieval Cabalista. Is this coineidental? Were there forerunners olf the Cabalists in third century Alexandria? We do not know. In Origen, the mysUe quest has nine stages. Eight of these stages are described in the homilies on Leviticus and Numbers the ninth in the commentaries on the Song oí Songa. The first eight stages involve the self-knowledge and purgation common to aH mjTsticism, but sorne parts are very interesting. A specifically Christian element, and one which will be reiterated by later Christian mystics is the "second baptism" 01' "second conversion". In OrIgen, this means a new consciousness, under grace, of the true content of Christian me. The seventh stage is one found in the writings of many mystics, notably Sto Catherine of Siena. This is the stage in which the mystic is harrassed by false visions, visions which tempt tbe aspiring mystic to deviate from his quest. In the homilies, this stage is identified with the Wilderness of Sin. "Sin" in the Rabbinic interpretation meanig "temptation". The eight stage is that called by Sto John of the Cross "Dark Night of the Soul", though in Origen the darks is 1ess absolute. Sto John of the Cross uses the "Ascent of Mt. Carmel" as an allegory of the :mystical quest. Origen uses happenings in the books oí Leviticus and Numbers and stages in the journey of the Israelites from Egypt to Canaan to symbolise the various [7] WESTERN MYSTICISM FROM PLOTlloi'US AND PHILO TO STo ¡OHN OF THE CROSS 75 stages of the mystical quest in a manner remínescent oí the Rabbis and the cabalists. The ninth stage is the stage oÍ mystical uníon, though Origen never uses this termo This stage is dealt with in the works on tb¡e Song of Songs. Here it is important to differentíate between description and interpretation. In the description~ Origen uses images oí sexual love in an allegorical :fashion very much like many Moslem Sufis, and also like Sto John of the Cross in the Spiritual Canticle and other works. This is a first in the history of mysticism, at least west of India. He also uses the senses as an analogy, common enough in mystical writings. In Psalm 34 one finds "taste and see that the Lord is good". Interpretation is another matter. Here we have a contrast with Plotinus. For Plotinus, the object is simply uníon with the One. Origen comes near to this, but his Christian Theism draws him back from might ,be considered pantheism. For Origen, the mystical experience is uníon in intention with Christ coupled with an illuminatingconsciousness of God in Christ. Two symbols Origen uses are instructive, the symbol of eating, which is of course in terms of the Eucharist, and the symbol of marriage. taken from the "two in one fiesh" found in Genesis. Origen was the forerunner in a great many things typical oí Christian mysticism, and in fact may be considered the Íounder oi one branch of Christian mysticism, Dionysius the founder of the other. For Origen, the mystical experience is of the "sunlight and air" or "hot iron and heat" type, involving a "conpenetration" oi creator and created, but without real unÍon or absorption. Origen, unlike Dionysius, is not Theosophic, there is no speculation on the nature of God. Origen's mysticism is not ecstatic at any point. Also, in contrast to Plotinus, Dionysius, and Origen's fellow Egyptian ChristIans, the desert fathers, it is not solitary, 01' at least the quest is noto The role of the chur<;h ls of great importance in Origen's mystical quest as the visible body of Christ on earth. Origen and Dionysius are thus the forerunners of the major MICHAEL MCCLAIN [8] :strands of Christian mysticism, though most later Christian mystics are somewhere between the two rather than being strict followers of one or the other. Very early figures in the history of Christianity, such as Sto Ignatius oí Antioch and the unknown authoT or authors of the Syriac Odes of Solomon betray a mixture of mystic and gnostic elements. Fairly ·early, however, there is a separation between mysticism and gnosticism, so that Christian mystics, such as Origen, Sto Gregory of Nyssa, Dionysius, and Stephen bar Sadaili have Httle of the gnostic about them, while Christian gnostics, such as the unknown authors of the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Truth, and the Gospel of the Egyptians show few mystical elements. A certain parallelism exists between gnosticism and mysticism, but beyond a certain point the two diverge and in fact becoine nearly antithetical. This division between mysticism and gnosticism in Christianity was no doubt furthered by the fact that while !mystidsm was accepted as orthodox, gnosticism was condemned as heresy. Before taking lea ve of this period in the history of Christianity I should like very miUch to recommend the writings of' the early, eastern church including those of the heretical gnostics. The writings of this period have a freshness, richness, and variety difficult to equal in any time or place. When we turn to Judaism, the situation is quite different. There was never a clear cut break between gnosticism and mysticism. In fact, it may be considered a cb;aracteristic of Jewish mysticisin that while Christian mysticism early purged itself of gnostic elements (and was foUowed in this by the Moslem Sufis), gnostic eleiments have persisted in Jewish mysticism down to our own day. The reasons for this are probably because the Rabbinic tradition rejected alike gnosticism and mysticism, thus tending to at once preserve the secretive, esoteric atmosphere so typical on gnosticism, while at the same time real if generally non-violent persecution tended to keep gnosticism and mysticism united. AIso, Jewish gnostic5 and mystics claimed to be following an esoteric tradition parallel with the orthodox or Rabbinic tradition, and hence there was a great reluctance to reject or simply ignore anything purportlng to be of this tradition. WESTERN MYSTICISM FROM PLOTlNUS AND PHILO TO STo ¡OHN OF THE CROSS 77 The cabalists have always claimed to follow an esoteric tradition extending back to the Patriarchs and even to Adam. In fact, the esoteric gnostic-mystic tradition in Judaism extends: to beforé the time of Christ. Sorne place the origins 01 this tradition in the Persian period, others place it later in the time of the Seleucids of the Maccabees. We know next to nothing of the earUest period of this tradition, but from roughly the latter part oí the first century BC to the rise of Cabalism in the Middle Ages, this tradition gave rise to Merkabah m\ysticism. In the study of Merkabah mysticism one generally gets the impresion that one 113 dealing not with mysticism but with a. sort of visionary gnosticismo Nevertheless, 1 fe el that Merkabah mysticism has a place in this work because at times at least one can detect a sort of ecstatic mysticism behind the gnostic fa<;ade, though expressed in odd ways, and because of its importance in the formation of Cabalism. Merkabah mysticism is the work oí Jewish sages of Palestine and Babylonia. It is known to us írom the writings of now anonymous authors who used a variety of literary formsmishnaic commentaries on Biblical texts, apocryphal works such as the Book of Enoch and the Apocalypse oí Abraham, and "independent" works such as the Book of Creation. The word merkabah means "throne", and is derived from. the vision of Ezekiel. The obj ect of the merkabah adept 113 the vision of God enthroned in glory in the hiekaloth, or the great halls and palaces of Heaven. At times one i8 reminded of the Byzantine and Sassanian courts. The emphasis here is all on the glory and the m!aJesty of God. Here too a rather complex angelology is developed. The core of this system could hardly be more gnostic. The souI, in its ascent to the throne of God, or, expressed another way, to the fullness of God's light, passes. through the spheres of the seven hostile planetary archons,. and t-he Uterature contains vivid descriptions of the perils of this ascent. Said ascent is always preceded by ascetic practices of varying duration. Here, however, there is no hint of the Shekinah, God's Immanence in the world, of later Cabalism, comparable to the Atman of Hindu tradition. AH emphasis is on God transcendant. In gnostic fashion, a distinction is made MICHAEL MCCLAIN prophetic, and his system is quite far from Cabalism in both the literal meaning of the word and what is normally considered as being characteristic of Cabalism. Abulafia has a great deal more to say oí the mystical experience than this. He frequently writes of the vision of the spiritual guide or teacher, identicle to the Hindu spiritual guru. This is known in Merkabah mysticism, where the "guru" is identified with the angel Metation. Here Abulafia is more inclined to identify the guru as an aspect of God. Here Abulafia comes veiy close to saying that the mystic is truly united with God, and thus very near to pantheism. A number of times Abulafia speaks of the identity of the mystic and his guru. Abulafia says "now he is no longer separated from his master, and behold he is his master and his master is he; for he is so intimately adhering to him that he cannot by any means be separated from Him, for he is HE". A bolder statement ofthe union of the soul of the mystic with God would be difficult to find west of India. There is at least an apparent equivocation between the prophetic aspect and the unitive aspect of the mystical experience. In another context Abulafia seems to clarify this, and also his continuity with the oIder Merkabah mysticism. In speaking of the sephiroth, or primal numbers so dear to the Merkabah mystics, Abulafia states that one shourd begin with contemplation of the sephiroth and later pass on to the letters of the Hebrew alphabet, and by an untranslatable play on words, states that his systein is the true vision of the merkabah. Abulafia a!Bo describes seven stages of knowledge of the Torah. The sixth stage is that of prophetic cabalism, the seventh stage the Holy of HoUes about which it is not possible to speak. This seventh stage would seem to be the unitive stage spoken of earlier. Note that in this context the prophetic stage is sixth, not seventh. A few general words about Abulafia. His system is ecstatic, not theosophic. There is virtually no speculation as to the nature of God anywhere in his writings. Like Buddha, Abulafia [J 7] WESTERN MYSTlCISM FROM PLOTINUS AND PHILO TO STo JOHN 01' THE CROSS 85 considered philosophical: questions which do not aid in the achievement of the mystical experience or "untying the knots" as irrelevant and a waste of time. This is clearly very far from the Zohar or Cabalism in general. Also note that Abulafia did not think of himself as following an incredibly ancient, esoteric tradition, but rather emphasised the newness and individua lit y of his system. The gnostic elements generally characteristic of Jewish mysticism are very nearly absent in Abulafia. Also clearly, Abulafia's concept of God is quite far from the fearsome, unreachable Deity of at leastthe greater part of Merkabah mysticisin. We now take leave of a great rnystic and a great mano At this point 1 wish tocomment on a persistent theme oi Jewish mysticism. This 1s the problem of the Ein Sof. Though the term is an invention of the Cabalists, the issue was very much alive among the Merkabah mystics. The Ein Sof is the "God beyond God", the Infinite, the Divine Ground, the God of Dionysius, the God Who transcends the creator God of the Bible, GOd, in the words of the Cabalists, "in the depths of His nothingness". In Merkabah mysticism the Ein Sof has no special name, but only such definitions as "the indefinible essence of God". Throughout most of the history of Jewish mysticisin, the problem of the Ein Sof has been central, or nearly so. The Cabalists deny the reality of any division between the Ein Sof and the Creator God, but there have been heterorthodox systems which admit a dualism or even opposition between the two. Here we probably have the origin of those gnostic sects which identified the God of the Old Testament as a demon. Heterorthodox Judaism, under the influence of Iranian dualismJ and the terrible disasters to the Jewish people in the latter half of the first and first half of the second century, cameto believe that while God is good, the world of matter was created by a demon. This extreme dualism is very far from any 80rt of mysticisin. Not all gnostic sects were so extremely dualistic; The doctrine oi the Essenes, for example, though essentially gnostic and largely dualistic ("The Sons of Light versus the Sons of Darkness") 86 MICHAEL MCCLAIN [ r8J still recognised the creator God of the 010. testament as the true God. However, Abufalia lS a typical of Jewish mystics. In Judaism, perhaps more so than in Christianity or Islam, the distance between creator and creature is strongly stressed. "Throne" mysticism is more tyical. Contemporary with Abulafia was the great age of Cabalism, which culminated in the Zohar, the Book of Splendor. In the Cabalism of Medieval Spain we find the esotericisrn as expressed by Dionysius at its height. Despairing oi expressing mystical truth by mere words, the Cabalists turned to strange, esoteric symbols, ideograms, and symbolic language. From the Zohar "when the thirteen fountains of the rivers of oil descend, all these are mercies". "Also we learned that five nakednesses can be revealed on that side, which are the five judgements; and these five judgements are extended into 248 paths". The Cabala also made use of mystic numbers and combinations of letters. The bulk of the Zohar was composed by a Spanish Jew nameO. Moses de Leon in the latter part of the 13th century. The ünmediate cause of its publication was an antidote to the frigiO. rationalism: of the contemporary Talmudists. Ironically, the Zohar iswritten in a style which imitates the Palestinian Talmud, to the extent that it is written in an archaic Aramaic rather than Hebrew, Arabic, or Latin. However, a great part of the Zohar resembles a series of medieval sermons more than the dialogue typical of the Talmud. This was also the great age of Jewish philosophy, Jehuda Halevi, Moses and Abraham ibn Ezra, Joseph ibn Zaddik, Abraham bar Hiyya, Bahya ibn Pakuda, Solomon Ibn Gabirol, Abraham ibn Daud, Moses ben Maimon, and many others being citizens oi medieval Spain. The doctrine of the Zohar is theosophic rather than ecstatic. Indeed, it is nearly the antithesis of the doctrine of Abulafia. The theosofic doctrine oi the Zohar, 1 am not ashamed to say, 18 the worst head-breaker 1 encountered in my research for [19] WESTERN MYSTlClSM FROM PLOTlNUS Al:'<1) PHILO TO STo JOHN OF THE CROSS 87 this papero To the uninitiated it seems a mass of contradictions, words with veiled meanings, and rank nonsense. The doctrine of the Zohar is semi-pantheistic. The universe is made of ten sefiroth, sünilar to the emantions of Plotinus e.nd the phenomenal forms of the Sufis. There is a difference, however. The sefiroth are not intermediate steps between God and the world. These sefiroth take plaoe within GOd, and at the same time enable man to perceive God. In the process, God's creative power breaks through the elosed she11 oi the Ein sor, the Infinite, the Innermost Being of Divinity, the "elear light of the void", henee the possibility of the mystieal experience. The relationships of the sefiroth and their names 1 will not go into here. To symbolise these different aspeets of Divinity, with their many gradations, the symbol oí the human body is used. Though aman is one individual, hands, eyes, etc., have different funetions. This is elaborated in the Zohar. The number of symbolisms in the Zohar is vast, but at least one more is worthy of mentíon, the He, You and 1. GOd, in the most deeply hidden of His manifestations is ealled He. God, in the stage oí the unfolding of His Being, Graee, and Love, is eaHed You. God, in the supreme manifestation, when the fullness of His Being finds final expression in the last and aH embracing 01 His attributes is called 1. This Divine Self, this "1", is the shekinah, the immanence 01 God in an creation. It is at this point that the mystic becomes aware of the presence 01 GOd, and there progresses into the deeper regions of the Divine, the "You", and "He", into the depths of the "elear light of the void". Creation is the external aspeet of something which takes place in God Himself. (Note: at this point Professor Stanley Lusby noted in the margin of this paper: "Not unlike Mudhyanaka Buddishsm in some respects"). I doubt if the reader knows what 1 am getting at, sinee I doubt if 1 know myself. Let us mové on to something alse, the problem of the external aspeet of ereation, the phenomenal universe, and its relation to God. The eore 01 the Zohar ls semi-patheistic, as has been said, or perhaps panentheistic, to use the term of professor Charles 88 l\!1ICHAEL lVlCCLAIN [20] Hartshorne. According to the Zohar, creation takes place on two levels; that which produced the upper world of the sefiroth, and that which produced the lower world of the visible creation. The higher order represents the dynamic unity of GOd, the lower order the world of separation, where exist things isolated. from each other and from God. However, the mystical spitit of Moses de Leon comes to the surface, and he says: "If one contemplates the things in mystical meditation, everything is revealed as One, and He (God) fills everything, and He is everything". On every level, creation reflects the inner movement of the Divine Life. From the Zohar: "Everything exists linked with .everything else down to the lowest link on the chain, and the true essence of God is aboye as well as below, in the Heavens and on the earth, and nothing exists outside Him, and "Meditate on these things, and you will understand that God's essence is linked and connected with aH worlds, and that aH forms of existence and essence". This pantheistic (or, rather. panentheistic) side has its lim:i.ts and may disregarded (it usually is in Jewish eircles), as all created existen ce has a kind of reality in which it appears independent of the mystical worlds of unlty. However, such was not always the case. Before the jntroduction oI eVil, everything stood in immediate mystical rapport to everything else. Note: ThIs is one of the universal doctrines of mysticismthat which makes for separation is evil. Note the words with evilconnotations derived from the Indo-European roots meaning twodu and bi -dubious, diabolic, bilious, disaster, doom, venial (b to v), doubt, The word divide has evil connnotation, distract, perhaps die, violent, vioIate, discrimina te, disthe list is almost endIess, and a similar situation is found in all Indo-European languages. The problem of evil is dealt with in the Zohar. Separation from the unified life of GOd, and therefore evil, carne about when sorne creature seeks to rnaintain his own seU, and thus destroy the pristine unity, making a world of false contexts, which only the mystic may penetrate and return to reality. There is also a deeperorigin of evil, concerned with the sefiroth. As one cannot have a mountain without a valley, so the exercise of God's f 21] WESTERN MYSTlCISM PROM PLOTlNUS AND PHIW TO Sr. ¡OHN OE' THE CROSS 89 mercy and love, symbolised by the. right hand, cannot be exercised without strict justice and judgemerit, symbolised by the 1eft hand. When the 1eft hand ceas es te be tempered by the right, it breaks away from God and becomes evil. The parallel with Jacob Boehtne is striking. The soul of man has three divisions, nefesh, or lite, Ruah, or Spirit, Neshamah or soul proper, similar to the Sanskl:it Atmano The Neshamah is beyond sin, being of the sam:e substance as God (I almost said Brahma), and only the Nefesh sins and suffers. Souls are pre-existent and have been since eternity. After death the soul returns from whence it carne, save those oi sinners. Reincarnation enters here. In certain cases a soul is reincarnated in a new body, partly as punishment, partly as a chance of restitution. Much of the Zohar is a mystical interpretation of the Torah. Corresponding to the upper and lower worlds, there lB the visible and practicable Torah, and the invisible and mysterious Torah. o Much of Cabalistic literature is devoted to the discovery of veiled meanings in the Torah. The Sufis considered the Coran as having esoteric, mystical meanings, but the Cabalists went much further in this sort oi thing, making use of sound values of the Hebrew letters (example: two Hebrew words with the same numeric values have the same meaning, therefore a word in the Torah may be construed to havle more than one meaning. Likewise the Cabalists transposed Ietters, and if the numeric values of the letters of a word equalled a mystic number, su eh as seven, this was consider a .sign of a veiled, mystical meaning). The Sufis almost never went beyond a eomparatively simple allegorical: interpretation of the Coran, somewhat like OrIgen's allegorical-mystical interpretation of parts of the Bible. The mystieal theory of the Zohar is something of a compromise between the Merkabah, or "throne mysticism", and the "identity in difference" of the Sufis, Christian mysties, and AbulafIa. The soul of the mystic reaches devekuth, or "adhesion" with theshekinah, and penetrates beyond the musíon of se ... paration. A Iower, less developed form of devekuth may be accomplished within the normal Ufe of the individual and community, thus every phase of life may be sanctiefid. In the ZOhar, 9° MICHAS!. MCCLAIN poverty is stressed asa religious virtue. The poor are caUed "God's broken vessels". This glorification oí poverty is found in the psalms, but died out in the Rabbinical tradition, and was revived by Cabalism and medieval and modern Hasidism. Cabalism is a vast study, and 1 have mentioned only the Zohar and Abulafia. On the ZOhar, 1 merely attempted to extract its essence, though my interpretation should be taken with a grain of salto Much of the Zohar 1 did not cover. Someday 1 will return 1.0 the esoteric, head-breaking study of the Cabalah. The Zohar has since taken its place behind the Torah and the Talmud, and is oiten "interpreted" so that it will sound more orthodox. It is the inspiration for modern Hasidism. What is the relation oi Cabalism 1.0 the othe1' form oí Jewish mysticism, Hasidism? Though modern Hasidism is influenced by CabaIism, it resembles medieval Hasidism in these respects: Cabalism is theosofic, Hasidism is ecstatic, Cabalism is esoteric, Hasidism is exoteric. Cabalism is Íor the elite, Hasidism is more deínocratic, Cabalism expresses itself in symbols, ideograms, mystical poems, and esoteric writings. Hasidism expresses itself in simple folktales, anecdotes, and aphorisms. 1 have dealt with neither medieval nor modern Hasidism, though I have read Gershom Scholem's ana Martin Buber's writings on the subject. However, 1 feel that 1 have given enough space to Jewish mysticism, fol' the time and space at my dispo'Sal. I hope the Baal Shem will pardon me for this, as certainly no disrespect was intended. For those interested in Hasidism, 1 recommend Martin Buber. Pel'haps a comparison between Cabalism and Hasidism wouId be this: Cabalism, is like a meal which más take longer to eat and to digest, but for those with a suitable constitution, contains much more nutrimento .[1 ... few words about later Cabalism. Between the writing of the Zohar and the expulsion of 1492, the Cabalists of Spain developed certain trends, though these are foreshadowed in the Zohar. These trends are away from the apocalyptic, messianic doctrines so typical of Judaísm. Rather than communal, the salvation sought by these Cabalists was individual; rather than awaiting the end of the world, these Cabalists sought the beginning; rather than awaiting a messiah who would lead them [23] WESTERN MYSTlCISM PROM PLOTlNUS ANO PHILO TO STo ¡CHN 01' THE CROSS 91 toearthly power and gIory, these Cabalists sought uníon with God. A word of explanation is needed here. What these laterCabalists sought was to return to before the beginning of time, befare theDivine Unity was compromised, before the first de~ ception of Satan. This whole idea is very gnostic, though the extreme dualism of the more extreme gnostic sects is avoided. However we must not be misled. Strange thugh all this may sound, it is a matter of words rather than substance, interpretation rather than fact. Quite clearIy these later Cabalists' were seeking for the same thing as other mystics -to transcend the spatio-tempóral categories, to be united with God. The expulsion from Spain, the second exile or second diaspora, produced spiritual effects into which 1 do not wish to delve he1'e. We now return to Christianity, and to the golden age oí Christian mysticism, from the twelfth century to the reformation. Medieval Christian mysticism has sorne distinguishing characterIstics. With few exceptions, Christian mysticism is ecstatic rather than theosophic. The mystic uníon is interpreted in ter:ms of identity in difference Because Christian mystics had very.little contact with India, and because Christian orthodoxy was more sympathetic to mysticism than Islam, Christian mystics are in general less colorful, original, 01' as daring thinkers as the Sufis. A tone of greater gentleness and humility is found among Christian mystics than among Cabalists 01' Sufis, but there is in general less universalismo In no other tradition is mysticism soclosely linked with charity and love of God and one's fellow mano Says Eckhart: "If one be in mystical ecstasy, and hear of a man in need, go ilmmediately to help him". Tl1ere were no mystics in the inquisition, and mystics were not antisemítico What 1 have said applies to mysticism in the Eastern as well as the Western Church. In the Eastern Church in the middle ages, mysticism, though no less widespread, Hes under a cloud of anonymity, and specific information is difficult to come by. Mysticism in the Eastern Church differed from the West in these regards: hermits and ascetics were more common in the East than in the West. Eastern mystics were more solitary, less literary, and more in- 92 MICHAEL MCCLAIN -clined towatd complete detachrnent and quietisrn, though sorne becarne popular and well known in spite of themselves. The humility and selflessness of these rnystics is not to be qnestioned. If eastern mystics were less inclined toward taking an active part in the life of the times, they were at h:;ast the equals of their western brothers in modesty and humility, and ,t>ne who Calme to them was never turned away. Meister Eckhart is the most original thinker and greatest -metaphysician among Christian mystics. Though he held a high position in the Dominican order, and was a learned man, his writings are plain, straightforward, and lack the beauty and polish of sorne other mystical writings. Only mrigena among Christian mystics i~ comparable to Eckhart as a theosophist. Eckhart's ideas, though somewhat unsystematic, are startling for their originality, and are the subject of endless speculation as to their origin.Erigena's Celtic heritage is unmistakable in his writings but Eckhart had no Celtic heritage, and almost univelsal mystic imagery and metaphors are not found in his writings. Rudolf Otto has made a point-for-point comparison between Eckhart's ideas and those of Shankara, the yedantist, and has shown them to be almost identical. Eckhart was totally ignorant "of Hindu or Buddhist mysticism, and the afinity is truly amazing. What are these ideas of Eckhart which are so amazing? More positivily than even Erigena, Eckhart repeats the Upanishadic phrase "tat tvam asi". For example: "In the mystical experience the God within (Atman or Neshamah) contemplates the God without. It is God contemplating God". Eckhart goes beyond the Trinity, or Positive Divine, to the undifferentiated unity, the Divine Ground, the barren Godhead, the "elear light of the void". Eekhart stressed that the Divine 'Ground is formless, undifferentiated. (Note parallel between the 'Trinity in Eekhart and the Sefiroth of the Zohar.) Says Eckhart of the Divine Ground: "God is not good, 1 am good". This means that the Divine Ground is beyond all categories, ineluding good and evil, while the mystic is noto When the soul is freed from all empirical eontent, and thus becomesundifferentiated unity, then it may experienee the undifferentiated unity of the Godhead. Eckhart at times contra- [25] WESTERN MYSTlClSM FROM PLOTlNUS AND PHILO TO STo jOHN OF THE CROSS 93 dicts himself on this point. At times he says that in Eternity there is no separation or multiplicity, at other times he hints that one little point of creatureliness remains on reuníon with the - Divine Ground. The Divine Ground, being the negative Divine. does not act, the Trinity _orPositive Divine does. In eternity there is no space nor time, no past nor future. Mystics knew thousands of years before Einstein that time and space are the same. Eckhart at times seems to belong to India rather than the west. There is no distinction between subject and object in the mystical experience according to Eckhart. This contrasts' with the dualistic theories of the Christian and Moslem tradition and the Zohar. "The birth of Christ in the soul" takes place when the soul is emptied of all empirica! contents. The Son is begotten by the Father in the soul of the mystic. In Eckhart's words, "1 am identically His Son, and no other ... I am His only begotten Son". (Separation is an illusion.) HIf ... 1 am changed into GOd, then, by the living God, there is no distinction between us". One may readily see why Echart's thinking has been a cause of amazement to scholars. AH this must not be allowed to: obscure Eckhart's purely Christian sympathies. He lived and died a devout Catholic. Meister Echart was the leading figure in a mystical movement centered in the Rhine valley called the Beghards, or the Friends of God. Not heretical in intent, this movement was tolerated and encouraged by the Church of the 13th and 14th centuries until it degeneratedinto magic, .frenzy, etc, when it was curtailed by the church. We now return to Spain. Spanish mysticism has a flavor aH its own which is difficult to express in a few words. 1 am inclined to attribute it to long association with Moslem and Jewish mystics. Christian mysticism in Spain has a longer continuous history than in any other country west of Persia, and Spain has cel'tainly reaped a larger erip of mystics than any other country in Christendom. When the Moslem and Jewishmystics who made Spain their home is added to this, the number becomes astouding. People inclined to be bitterly critical of Spain and Spanish Catholicism keep this inmind, as well as the tolerance enjoyed by Moslems and Jews in Medieval Spain.