itself sexually, if the expression may be allowed; but it is by predilection filial and results in ecstasis, in trance, and in mystic "illumination." Vivekananda has made us acquainted with the striking personality of one of these, Râmakrishna (who influenced Keshub Chandra Sen). Ramakrishna (1833-1886) was proficient in Yoga, but he held to the teaching of the Advaita Vedanta or pure monism, though perhaps not very strictly. He was a Bhakta rather than a Jñânin, that is a devotee rather than a philosopher. "Knowing God and loving God are identical," he said, but again "knowledge enters only the outer court; into the inner room of God only a lover can enter." But more important still in his teaching is this: "One does not attain to divine illumination till one becomes like a child." His life was wholly devoted to his Mother Kâlî (the goddess), whom he saw in visions. Such visions came to him in trances in which he identified himself with the divine. Even awake, as priest of Kâlî, he so far identified himself with divinity as to put upon his own head the flowers for her shrine and take her offerings; till his world regarded him as really divine. His spiritual agonies are those of a mediæval saint. Sleepless and without food he sought God till "a torrent of spiritual light deluged his mind " and a divine voice reassured him. He had the same experiences as had Caitanya, four hundred years earlier. His Mother (God) he explained as the omniscient universal consciousness, with whom he remained "in perfect union" for six months unconscious, or only partly conscious. He identified himself at one time with Râdhâ, at another with Râma and other forms of divinity. He saw Jesus in a vision and for three days could speak of nothing but Jesus and his love. These visions he saw outside of himself, but "when they vanished they seemed to have entered into him." Fits of God-consciousness came upon him and at such times he became a different person. He would speak of himself as knowing everything, able to do

anything, and proclaimed himself the soul of Krishna, of Buddha, of Jesus, an incarnation of the divine. During his trances he suffered severe bodily injuries, once by fire and once breaking his wrist, without becoming aware of his hurt. There is a real but rather intangible difference between the Caitanya and Râmakrishna school of mystic devotion and that of the erotic mystics, such as Vallabha. The latter, like the Buddhist Theras who boast that they have "vomited forth all love and things of beauty" and whose work is wholly for themselves, are self-centered; they seek their own good or enjoyment. Miss Underhill distinguishes mysticism, as that which gives, from magic, as that which gets. The distinction is well known in India and the better mystics renounce the getting of gold and glory. Hence they refuse to perform miracles, though their supernatural powers may make easy such feats as standing in the air, foretelling events, etc. The mystic of the type of Râmakrishna seeks no gain, though it is seldom that the emotional mystic of this sort devotes himself, as did Râmakrishna, to a life of service. The sensualist, on the other hand, religious or irreligious, is concerned only with self-satisfaction. No absolute school-difference is admitted or to be expected in this regard, but speaking generally we may say that there are these two types, the one full of devotion with a sensuous or even a sensual tinge, the other full of eroticism tinged with devotion of a mystic sort. But whether devoted and self-sacrificing or sensual and self-seeking, the emotional mystic of India in one fundamental respect remains always the same: he believes himself to be, through trance and vision, in possession of a special gnosis whereby he intuitively beholds and in beholding becomes one with God.11

11 Compare Vivekânanda's history of Râmakrishna in Max Müller's Râmakrishna, His Life and Works, New York, 1899; and for a general survey of the subject, N. Macnicol, Indian Theism from the Vedic to the Muhammedan Period, Religious Quest of India,

Résumé: Let us in conclusion glance back at the kinds of mysticism we have been examining, and see how they differ. In the oldest period the Upanishad-philosopher reaches through a preliminary course of study a state in which he, whose general moral excellence is taken for granted, and this is true of all, becomes aware by a final process of dhyâna, beyond reason, of his own identity with God, the AllSoul, and this knowledge is bliss, as the knower thereby becomes immortal; he is, he is incarnate intelligence, one with the cosmic being-intelligence-bliss, sac-chit-ânanda, that describes the otherwise indescribable Soul of the Universe.

In the second class of mystics, the early Buddhists, the subject attains insight into truth, the right relation of things, through a series of trances, at the end of which he obtains, with illumination or with the heavenly eye, a vision, sometimes aided or prompted by a vision of Buddha, whereby in a state of rapt contemplation he visualizes, usually with ecstasy, by intuition and enters into a state of pure lucidity, indescribable. He feels himself changed, purged from all hindrances, living a god-like life. To this state he returns as often as he will; it is a methodical, self-induced hypnotic state. There is no merging into a world-soul, no sense of union with any Divine Power. It is not a perfectly passive state; intellect and will bring it about; he becomes conscious of infinite space, of infinite consciousness, and passes into a state where he appears to lose all consciousness, as he goes on into further trance-experiences called arûpajhâna. In this stage he attains to a condition where he can ignore gravitation and opacity London, 1915; L. D. Barnett, The Heart of India, Wisdom of the East, London, 1908; R. S. Dineschandra, Literature of Modern Bengal, Calcutta, 1917; and for a modern believer's point of view, Ananda Acharya's Brahmadarsanam or Intuition of the Absolute, New York, 1911. For Christian parallels, see W. R. Inge, Christian Mysticism, Oxford, 1913. In Mysticism and Logic, New York, 1918, Bertrand Russell has shown the logical weakness underlying the mystic's position.

and can create a double of himself; but these iddhis belong to all Yoga experience.

Third. In the scientific Yoga, apart from similar magic, the mystic becomes illumined by freeing himself as spirit from matter. Here also there is no union; on the contrary, isolation is sought; and it is found by devotion or mainly by certain exercises, both giving intuition surpassing reason. In the fourth sort of mysticism, the mystic obtains intuition of the world-consciousness and of himself as a part of it.

Finally, the fifth, or emotional mystic discards philosophy for an emotional thrill of union with the divine imaged as a specific form of divinity.

THE MYSTICISM OF JESUS

GEORGE AARON BARTON

To some it may seem irreverent to speak of the mysticism of Jesus at all. Such may naturally say: "Jesus is one with the Father. Mysticism is a form of human religion. How can he have part or lot in it?" A little reflection should convince any in whose minds this thought arises that the objection that they feel is not valid. If there was in Jesus an incarnation of God, Jesus possessed nevertheless a real humanity. His was a human psychology; he shared our human experiences. If this were not so, the incarnation would be unreal. We may then without irreverence, even from the most orthodox point of view, proceed to investigate the life of Jesus with a view of discovering the mystical elements in it.

What, however, do we mean by mysticism? Previous speakers in this course have doubtless defined it, but, as I have not had the privilege of hearing their definitions, I cannot be guided by them. In the interest of clearness, therefore, I must tell you how I shall use the term. The word "mysticism" has been employed to denote all sorts of abnormal states and abnormal experiences. It accordingly suggests to many the irrational and grotesque in religion. If this were mysticism, then it would be necessary to say at the start that Jesus was no mystic, for, in spite of the efforts of such writers as De Loosten,1 Hirsch,2 and Binet

1 Jesus Christus vom Standpunkt des Psychiaters, Bamberg, 1905. 2 Religion und Zivilisation vom Standpunkt des Psychiaters, Munich, 1908.