Mystics

This book is an instructive introduction into several important mystics. But it also seemed to me a book flawed in its methodology which proposes general conclusions about the nature of mysticism on the basis of a very narrow spectrum of case studies. First to the instructive part: Instead of giving a general survey of mysticism, Harmless concentrates on eight case studies (six Christian mystics, one Sufi and one Zen mystic). His approach works very well and I have learned a lot, particularly from his treatment of the Christian mystics that are closest to his scholarly expertise (the early church fathers). This is his primary focus and in this he succeeds.In addition, however, H. uses these case studies to set off modern scholarship on mysticism from older approaches, especially the approach that William James popularized 100 years ago. James becomes H.'s permanent boogieman, and the endless, repetitious stabs against him seem increasingly tedious and often rather unfair. What H. wants to emphasize is that mystical experiences are never purely individualistic achievements by solitary religious geniuses but are always firmly grounded in coherent religious traditions, clearly circumscribed communities and texts, ritualistic performances, linguistic contexts etc. True enough for the cases he presents us with. But let's also acknowledge that H. makes it very easy for himself to deduce these conclusions by choosing his case studies from a conveniently narrow spectrum: Six of the eight mystics were monks and one was a nun, and seven of the eight lived before 1328. Are these cases really representative enough to come to such general conclusions? Thomas Merton, the one mystic of today discussed by H. (more individualistic, more eclectic across several mystical traditions) clearly shows the first cracks in H.'s self-assured claims. H. regrets that he did not have time and space to include Protestant mystics. That's a real pity. What would the inclusion of a man like the Quaker George Fox or of William Blake or Emanuel Swedenborg, or of the German cobbler Jacob Boehme or the French intellectual Simone Weil have done to his views? There is no doubt that coherent religious traditions, religious communities, and ritualistic performances play less of a role in modern mystical experiences. H.'s view of mysticism might very likely have to be substantially modified once he allows a fuller spectrum to be considered.

Regarding Enneagram Spirituality there has been much discussion as to its original roots. Perhaps William Harmless has tapped into the origins of this unique approach to human spirituality. Harmless discusses Evagrius as a mystic in chapter 7 (Mystic as Calligrapher), and presents what he calls "Evagrius's Map of Spiritual Progress" on page 147. Therein William Harmless, S. J. describes Evagrius's view of the human soul as composed of three parts--the rational, the irascible, and the concupiscible.Within these three domains are located what Evagrius calls "eight deadly thoughts": Pride and Vainglory--the Rational realm of the human soul; Listlessness, Anger, and Sadness--the Irascible realm of the human soul; and Love of Money, Fornication, and Gluttony--the concupiscible realm of the human soul.Clearly Evagrius's deliniation of the tripartite spheres of the human soul correspond to what modern enneagram authors (Riso, Hurley, Zuercher) present in their descriptions--head, heart, and viscera--of the human person.As Karen Horney probably never heard of the enneagram, though she seems to uncannily forshadow it (Roxanne, Howe-Murphy), it is a certainty that neither did Evagrius ever hear of the Enneagram (died 399). Yet the retrofited Hornavian Triads (Riso) are most helpful in understanding what the enneagram has to offer. Likewise, it seems helpful to view Evagrius's description of the eight thoughts corellated to the personality stances of the conemporary enneagram: Pride, point two Vainglory, point three Listlessness, point nine Anger, point one Sadness, point four Love of Money, point five Fornication, point eight Gluttony, point sevenRichard Rohr has commented that even Evagrius missed the "hiding in plain sight" pervasive reality of fear. And if we add fear at enneapoint six we have a not disimilar description of what has been published in the enneagram canon over the last forty years.Perhaps, in the light of this book which highlights the similarities and differences of six major Christian mystics, it is time to clearly state the following: The Evagrian Triads of the Rational (enneaspaces 6, 2, 3), the Irascible (enneaspaces 9, 1, 4), and the Concupiscible (enneaspaces 5, 8, 7) have indeed been with us going back more than a thousand years, and continue to be with us in the modern Enneagram.

Easy to read, succinct introductions to key figures such as Thomas Merton, Meister Eckhart etc., but sufficiently detailed, referenced and evaluative. Good up to date bibliographies to enable further exploration. Great!

great