4 S p i r i t ua l i t y S t u d i e s 7 - 1 S p r i n g 2 0 2 1 2 Methods When we study spirituality, mysticism [1], or mystical texts, we assume that what we can rely on them; in other words that the authors of such texts intended to describe everything truthfully and were only limited in terms of their own knowledge and language (Dojčár 2013, 2). Truthfulness, effort to describe mystical experience truthfully, is the fundamental condition (prima conditio sine qua non) for studying mysticism. When Carl Gustav Jung mentions Chinese texts, he does not think that their authors could be liars: “We assume that a Chines author is, firstly, not a liar, secondly has a common sense and thirdly – is a person of a great intellect.” (Jung 2004, 130). Veracity in great spiritual traditions is verified by the existence of similar phenomena in a given spiritual tradition If Christian religion mentions in various contexts a sequence purification (Lat. purificatio), illumination (Lat. illuminatio), and unification (Lat. unio), then we believe the truthfulness of this mystical tradition grows. This is even stronger in Buddhism, as it implicitly involves also verification of the spiritual method. This is also acknowledged by Buddha’s words, as John Snelling reminds: “It is proper for you, Kalamas, to doubt, to be uncertain. But Kalamas, do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing; nor upon tradition; nor upon rumor; nor upon what is in a scripture; nor upon surmise; nor upon an axiom; nor upon specious reasoning …The monk is our teacher, Kalamas, when you yourselves know.” (Snelling 2000, 18). The words “you yourself know” mean knowledge gained from personal experience; experimental verification of a given spiritual tradition. In fact, it means that we should not trust even Buddha’s words, but verify them, which is a condition that applies even in the present science. If we assume that great spiritual and mystical traditions, including Carmelite spirituality and Zen Buddhism, are truthful, then we should take a second step and determine a method to study these traditions. In the case of Carmelite spirituality, namely in mystical visions of St. Teresa of Ávila, we can use her own texts, but also written testimonies provided by people who were close to her, as well as many secondary sources of information that tell us about her life and work. In the case of Zen Buddhist tradition, more precisely spirituality of Rōshi Jiyu-Kennett, we can use her texts, drawings, secondary sources of information about her life and work, but also testimonies provided by Japanese monks who are still alive. In both cases, the prevailing source of information can be found in texts, so we choose the hermeneutical method as the main method – more specifically linguistic and semiotic approach. However, mysticism, or spirituality, is not solely a matter of linguistics, simply because mysticism that constructs the core of spirituality (mystical spirituality) goes beyond any cognitive and linguistical limits. This is the reason why it is necessary that the person who analyses mysticism has had some previous experience with mysticism [2]. Mystical texts often mention certain “light”, “milk-like beams”, “death”, “nothingness”, “unification with God”, “awakening”, and similar phenomena, each of these means a concrete mystical experience. If the person that studies mysticism had no previous experience, then he or she could only use analogical ideas linked to common life experience, this would result in permanent uncertainty. Initial experience with mysticism thus constitutes the second primary condition (secunda conditio sine qua non) for studying mysticism. 2.1 Hermeneutical Approach to Comparison Comparison is one of the basic tools of the process of learning in humans. Without comparison, Dalibor Antalík (2005, 101) argues, there is no knowledge: “Comparison is not purely classification; it is especially a tool for understanding.” In this comparison, we utilize semiotic rules that also apply in our language, thinking and consequently also in learning. Umberto Eco (2009, 93) writes, “[a] cultural unit exists and is distinguished since there is another unit in opposition. This is a relationship between members of individual cultural units, in which everything that is transferred to other members are deduced.” In other words, human thinking and learning is contextual, i.e. , based on comparison. This form of learning works quite well in small language-games [3] (these are common in one-language everyday situations), because participants more or less understand the meaning of individual words. However, the situation gets more complicated when the meanings of the words are not so straightforward, for example in religious experience [4]. In this case not everybody may have such experience even when we regard just one language and one religion. Even worse is to come when we speak about comprehension within great language-games, which happens when we compare and try to understand various languages and religious and spiritual traditions. In this case individual languages describe religious and spiritual traditions differently. In the Spanish
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MzgxMzI=