Contrasting Mystical versus Rational
Spirituality
By Takashi Nakamura
http://www.soc.hawaii.edu/leonj/theistic-psychology.htm#Instructions-report3
1. Preface
The
topic, “The Cognitive Organization of Rational Spirituality,” was the topic of
discussion in the second report. In
Report 2, we diagnosed the cognitive organization of thinking regarding God and
spirituality by using the Diagnostic Test of Rational Spirituality, created by
Dr. James.
The
Diagnostic Test consists of 100 multiple-choice questions and a 12-point Likert Scale for each one of those items. Phase 1 is the most secular, natural, and
lowest form of spiritual rationality.
Phase 2 is more religious, universal, and spiritual, and the individual
is bound to God by faith. Lastly, phase
3 is celestial, and the most rational and scientific in terms of understanding
God from the Writings of Emanuel Swedenborg.
The
purpose of Report 2 was to examine a few of the questions from the Diagnostic
Test, then determine which one of the three phases or levels that a person
belongs to. In the applied section of
the report, a few personal experiences were analyzed with the three phases in
mind. This report was the next step in
examining theistic psychology as a science, as done in our first report. We also examined ourselves by taking the
Diagnostic Test of Rational Spirituality to see where we stood, in terms of
rationally understanding the Writings of Swedenborg. Since I have my own interpretation of God, it
was interesting to see what phase in the Diagnostic Test I was dominant in.
I concluded in Report 2,
that Buddhism and Swedenborgianism share quite
similar views. This was confirmed after
scoring 62 points on phase 3 of the 100-point Diagnostic Test, without having
any background in Christian and Swedenborgian views
and beliefs. Also, this Diagnostic Test
will help determine whether or not a student would like to pursue the field of
theistic psychology.
To
take a look at my second report, go to:
http://www.soc.hawaii.edu/leonj/459s2004/nakamura/report2.htm
To take the Diagnostic
Test of Rational Spirituality, go to:
PURPOSE OF REPORT 3
2. Introduction
The required reading for
our class consists of two books. In the
first book, Testimony to the Invisible, James F. Lawrence compiles essays
from seven different people who admired the Writings of Swedenborg. Renowned writers Jorge Luis Borges, Czeslaw Milosz, Kathleen Raine, D.T. Suzuki, Eugene Taylor, Wilson Van Dusen, and Colin Wilson, each share their thoughts and
perception on Emanuel Swedenborg and his works.
Testimony to the Invisible (hereafter referred to as Testimony) takes a mystical approach in
examining the Writings of Swedenborg.
Swedenborg’s works are not taken literally and nearly all of the writers
question his approach.
Jorge Luis Borges was a
short-story writer, poet, an essayist, and metaphysician from
Czeslaw Milosz writes about
Swedenborg’s influence on Dostoevsky, a famous European writer and
philosopher. He explains that Swedenborg’s
writings were beyond his time. “The risk
of taking Swedenborg too seriously was too great; besides nobody seemed to know
what to think of him” (Testimony,
p.22). Milosz
also states that William Blake was another famous writer that was strongly
influenced by Swedenborg. In the
section, “The Human Face of God” by
Kathleen Raine, she explains that God is Man, and he
takes the shape of a human form.
Colin Wilson includes
profound people of his time in his essay, such as Thomas Carlyle, Alfred Lord
Tennyson, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Herman Melville, and how they were unable to
accept traditional Christianity.
Furthermore,
Wilson Van Dusen’s section, “A
Mystic Looks at Swedenborg” centers on mysticism. He defines mystic as “one who experiences God” and experience of God is defined as an obvious and ongoing communion
with Him. He considers himself a mystic
and mentions other activities, such as music, literature, paintings, and other
art forms as mystical.
The writer who interested
me the most was D.T. Suzuki’s “Suzuki on
Swedenborg.” He is a Buddhist
scholar who introduced Zen Buddhism to the people of the West, and also
introduced Swedenborg to the people of the East. He also wrote a book on his opinions of
Swedenborg, called “Suedenborugu,”
and it is summarized in his essay.
As a Buddhist, I felt
throughout the whole semester that Swedenborg shares many similar views to that
of Buddhists, and Suzuki seems to agree.
In Chapter 1 of his book, he states, “Swedenborg’s theological doctrine
is very similar to that of Buddhism: that we must leave proprium; that salvation is based
on the harmony between faith and practice; that the Divine is wisdom and love
itself, yet love is higher and deeper than wisdom; that divine providence
prevails over everything, great and small; that nothing in the world accidental
(because) divine providence is contained in every iota, in which the
actualization of love and wisdom is recognizable” (Testimony, p.177).
The second book, Spirituality
that Makes Sense (hereafter referred to as Spirituality) by Douglas Taylor examines Swedenborg in a more
spiritual and rational manner. He
emphasizes faith through understanding, and examines it beyond the mysteries of
God. He states, “To think of God as
invisible to the human mind means that we have a blind faith in God” (Spirituality, p.5). In other words, God is not invisible because
He is not fully beyond our comprehension.
A question of why God put
on a human form was answered in the beginning of Chapter 5. Since I have never read the Bible, this part
was particularly interesting to me (I have never been interested in a topic
such as this until I took this course).
Another interesting topic
in the book was Chapter 11, “When Good Deeds are Good.”
“That charity and faith do
not profit a man so long as they remain in only one part of his body, that is,
in his head, and are not fixed in works, is evident from a thousand passages in
the Word” (True Christian Religion 376
cited in Spirituality, p.165).
Both Testimony to the
Invisible and Spirituality that Makes Sense examine Emanuel
Swedenborg and attempt to make sense of his Writings. However, the two books differ in their
approach. Although both books praise
Swedenborg in their own way, every essay in Testimony to the Invisible
refers to Swedenborg as a mystic. This
means that he was either delusional, he was in a trance, or his works are
fictional. Not only do the writers
categorize Swedenborg as a mystic, but his close followers such as William
Blake and Ralph Waldo Emerson are labeled mystics as well. Conversely, Douglas Taylor takes a deep and
spiritual approach to Swedenborg’s Writings in Spirituality that Makes Sense.
3. Class discussions and Lecture Notes
Each person in our class
was given one or two topics to discuss as an oral presentation this
semester. I have chosen a few
presentations from our class to discuss in this section, and they are listed
below:
The topic, “A Vision of Marriage” on
According to Webster’s
Dictionary, marriage is a “social institution under which a man and woman
establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments,
religious ceremonies, etc.”
This is marriage in its
literal sense and is the ceremony conducted by most parts of the world. In places such as
On the other hand,
Swedenborg’s definition of marriage is that it “…has its human origin in the
first principles and most interior forms of man’s nature, it consists essentially
in the union of two minds of souls… it is, therefore, spiritual in its
nature. It is not in itself a civil or
legal contract; it is not effected by ecclesiastical sanction. It is as impossible for the state or the
church to marry a man and a woman, in the essential meaning of the word.”
Because I know of many
people who choose not to get married (legally) for their own personal reasons,
I would have to agree with Swedenborg’s view.
If you love one another, a legal document should not declare whether you
are meant for that person or not. The
legal contract could ultimately make for a difficult separation and may lead
you to a miserable life imprisoned by evil.
In the end, however, my personal views would contradict my action on
this topic, for I will most likely be married by an institution someday.
In finding your “other
half,” the outline states, “look within your own mind and see what manner of
man or woman you are. Who will fit
you? That must be determined by what you
are. God cannot join incongruous natures
together, much less those of opposite and hostile character. The pure and the vile are not
homogeneous.” I must agree with this
quote, since I have observed many couples with completely opposite
characteristics that are not successful.
The ones who marry and are still together are the ones who do not have
differences in terms of character. By
this, I do not mean the occupational and social character, but rather on a
personality-based level.
The presentation outline
also states that “soul mates may never meet in this world,” and I disagree with
this particular statement. Although I do
not have any empirical evidence on this matter, I strongly believe that soul
mates will indeed meet in the natural world.
This does not mean that they will be together and married, but they
must, at the very least, meet one another in this world. In the spiritual world, they will undoubtedly
be together.
Chapters 1 and 2 of “Spirituality that Makes Sense” by
Douglas Taylor on
Another topic that I agree
with is that of the “mystery of God” and its effects. This mystery of God will ultimately lead to
disbelief in God. Though this is from a
religious standpoint, I strongly believe that this was the main reason in my
initial disbelief in God. The undeniable
truth is that the mystery of a Divine Being could indeed turn one away from
Him.
With the minimal amount of
information that I had on the topic of the Virgin Birth as explained in the
last section, I would have to question if it could have ever happened. I believe it was understood in our class that
miracles are irrational. It is rather
more of a mystical approach, thus one that is opposed to theistic
psychology. Like I said, I do not know
much in terms of the Bible and its history, but it sure is a difficult story to
swallow.
Furthermore, the passage
states that the Virgin Birth is possible, since “God can break the laws of the
natural world.” This indicates that God
is allowed to do such a thing. Think
about it: If God could break the laws of the natural world, would suffering in
the natural world exist? The original definition
of “virgin” was modified to indicate that Mary was a woman who had never had a
child before. The only way that I
consider the Virgin Birth possible, is if the term “virgin” is defined as a
person of the female sex that has never had a child before – not the
traditional definition. Interestingly
enough, it may be possible that modern theologians may adopt the “new”
definition as a way to avoid the whole “virgin” controversy.
“Children in Heaven” by Chauncey Giles was the most popular presentation
in the class. It was done on March 4;
March 11; and April 15; by three individuals including myself. The whole article is a possibility for those
who understand that God exists. At the
very least, the article has a very entertaining perspective on the death of a
child. Giles writes about a child’s life
in the afterlife and how death in the natural world is a beginning of life in
the spiritual world. Also, every child
chooses to go to heaven. Not only is the
article believable, but it is an article that every parent would like to
believe, regardless of their choice of faith.
I especially enjoyed this article since I would like to have children
someday.
There is no doubt that the
whole article is agreeable with just about every person that chooses to read
it, but several questions may arise from it as well. One example is the issue of when a child
would be considered as an adult. The
last version of the presentation states that “a child is anyone, under ‘normal
conditions,’ who has not developed a mental state where they are capable of
identifying the difference between good and evil. They are children because they have not
developed a conscience.” So the question arises: at what point does ignorance
end? If I were to commit a crime and
make the transition into the spiritual world, would I still be considered a
child? A child mass murderer, in my
opinion, should not be allowed into heaven.
The article, “Spiritual Psychobiology” by Dr. Leon
James, was presented by a student on
One criteria of scientific
theory that I still have a difficult time grasping in relation to the Writings,
is that of replication. The answer that
Swedenborg gives is that it would be understood and verified, but not in the
natural world. In other words, it is not
replicated while one is alive in the natural world. Although I take a positive bias approach on
this particular subject and I understand that it is rational, it is still not
easy for me to accept completely.
I have gathered a few
topics from Psychology 459 Lecture Notes that I feel are significant in
understanding theistic psychology:
2.1. What’s
the difference between religion and theistic psychology?
http://www.soc.hawaii.edu/leonj/theistic-psychology.htm#Q1
In
order to grasp what this course is about, one must first be able to distinguish
the difference between religion and theistic psychology. First and foremost, psychology is a
science. In other words, wanting to know
the difference between religion and theistic psychology is similar to
questioning the difference between religion and science. The purpose of Report 1 was to discuss the
two topics and observe their differences.
The question is generally answered in the cognitive organization of God,
as done in Report 2. According to the
Diagnostic Test of Rational Spirituality, religion falls in the phase 2 level
of understanding God, and theistic psychology is at the phase 3 level of
rational understanding. The underlying
difference between the two is that phase 2 is mystical and phase 3 is rational.
Dr.
James also mentions that theistic psychology is in reference to the Writings of
Emanuel Swedenborg. He states, “Theistic psychology is possible only when one can
read the Writings of Swedenborg and understand them rationally.” The Writings are said to be both rational and
consistent.
Perhaps the most important
concept to understand is that “the scientific revelations are not opposed to
the religious perspective. In fact, the scientific approach confirms the
religious one, and goes further in explicating the reality of God.”
6.8 Sexuality:
Love of the Sex vs. Love of One of the Sex
http://www.soc.hawaii.edu/leonj/theistic-psychology.htm#sex
As
Dr. James indicates in this page, “sex” is the highest ranked word in Web sites
on Google.com. This is, by far, the most
interesting topic in the world, and it was thoroughly discussed in our class as
well. Briefly, the love of the sex means
that one loves the activity (of sex).
The love of one of the sex is to love one person (sexually). The love of the sex is a hellish trait and
the love of one of the sex is a heavenly trait.
When a man and woman first meet, a natural love exists between
them. It is physical and not
spiritual. However, when love progresses;
it then becomes a spiritual or conjugial love. It is important to know the distinction
between the two types of sexuality.
13.1 Inherited Sin:
Inherited Traits from Parents
http://www.soc.hawaii.edu/leonj/theistic-psychology.htm#inherited-traits-parents
This
topic was interesting in the sense that each individual inherits many traits
from their parents. Some traits are
heavenly, but there are those that are hellish as well. One such hellish trait is the possible
genetic predisposition to enjoy causing harm to others. There have been studies conducted that aim to
prove that violence can be inherited.
Many of the lecture topics emphasize spirituality but the genetic
aspects should be considered as well.
Dr. James mentions that it is the evil traits that are what may hurt
us. “If we do not fight against the evil traits
we've inherited, we "die" in them, which mean that we are going to be
unwilling to choose life in heaven. In this sense, sin is "deadly"
for it is the appropriation of evil as one's own by means of love and habitual
practice.”
Dr.
James also states that, “it is that God does not and cannot remove evil habits
once these are brought into the world of spirits at the death of the physical
body. This is why it is so crucial that people understand this process
scientifically and not rely on the subjective idea of God's Compassion and
Mercy.” It is the practice of our
heavenly traits that allow us to enter heaven.
However, the same goes for hell, and we must not practice these traits.
4. Conclusion
This
report was similar to the previous two reports in a sense that we were allowed
to explore the recurring theme of mystical vs. rational spirituality. Once again, I was able to explore deeper into
the topic that I once ignored for the most part of my life. Rationally understanding God has opened my
eyes to the possibilities of the Divine Being, and it now allows me to be more
open-minded towards every religion, including other sects of Buddhism. This level of acceptance has grown
enormously, and I have never imagined being in the position that I am in
now.
The
distinction between mystical and rational spirituality parallels that of the
knowledge of a professor and a student’s, or that of a father to his
child. In understanding and educating
oneself in Swedenborg’s Writings, one makes the proper steps in achieving
rational spirituality. It only makes
sense. Unless this is done, God will
always be separated from science, and blind faith will ultimately lead to false
beliefs. It is a wonderful thing for us
“non-Christians” to know that faith alone will not separate one person from
another.
Although
I still believe that Buddhism and the Writings are similar in so many aspects,
my views on God have changed every week.
I keep learning newer materials each time I study this topic. For example, before this course, I have never
known much about the Virgin Birth, the Trinity, and other religious beliefs and
dogmas in general. I predict that I will
continue to pursue my thirst for knowledge in understanding the Ultimate Truth until
I die in the natural world.
5. Future Generations
As I mentioned in Report
2, if the class time is spent wisely and if you ask the proper questions, the
material is so much easier to understand.
Dr. James does a great job of thoroughly translating the Writings in such
a simple manner. Remember that it is
imperative in pursuing this topic with a positive bias and keep an open
mind. Believe it or not, each assignment
was easier to complete as time went on, because understanding the topic became
easier as well.
I still believe that the
best way to pursue the semester in this course is to constantly talk to your
family, significant others, and peers in reaching an understanding of the
Writings. This will help you in several
ways: it will give you a more of an open-mind, and will motivate you to learn
more on this unique topic in science.
Back to
Homepage / G20
Class Homepage