Neo-Perennialism and Mystical Exceptionalism

Summary

The essay argues that the neo-perennialist focus on mystical experiences is too narrow, both in its definition of what counts as mystical and in its exclusive attention to mystical states among all altered states of consciousness. The author defends the feasibility of the neo-perennialist project—the claim that there is a cross-cultural category of mystical experiences—but criticizes its limited scope. Criteria external to the phenomenology of extraordinary experiences are analyzed to justify restricting study to mystical states. The essay calls for refining the definition of mystical experience and expanding cross-cultural research to include other altered states.

Study at a glance

Abstract

I take “neo-perennialists” to share the following, minimal claim: there exists a cross-cultural category of experiences that can be defined as “mystical”. I first clarify the neo-perennialist project and defend its overall feasibility. I then criticize the narrow focus on mystical experiences that has characterized much neo-perennialist research, and research based on the above-mentioned core claim. With “narrow” I refer both to the specific understanding of mystical states that has become dominant in the literature, and the tendency to focus on mystical experiences specifically, out of all possible altered states. I finally analyze some criteria, external to the phenomenology of extraordinary experiences, that one might appeal to in order to justify restricting a neo-perennialist account, or study, to (certain) mystical states. I close the essay with a call to (1) refine the definition of “mystical experience”, and (2) push the cross-cultural study of altered states of consciousness beyond mystical states.

Tags