A Comparative Study of Mystical Experience Among Christian, Muslim, And Hindu Students in Tamil...

A Comparative Study of Mystical ExperienceAmong Christian, Muslim, and Hindu Studentsin Tamil Nadu, India

FRANCIS-VINCENT ANTHONYDepartment of Practical TheologySalesian Pontifical University

CHRIS A. M. HERMANSDepartment of Empirical Practical TheologyRadboud University Nijmegen

CARL STERKENSDepartment of Empirical Study of ReligionRadboud University Nijmegen

Hood developed a Mysticism Scale based on the theoretical work of Stace. The scale was tested by Hood andothers in a comparative perspective. Using an abridged version of Hood’s Mysticism Scale, we join the debatewith a study of a much larger number of Christian, Muslim, and Hindu respondents (1,920 college students)living in Tamil Nadu, India. Our empirical analysis yields a moderately reliable model of mystical experiencethat permits comparison between the three religious traditions. We argue for the usefulness of a comparativemodel of vertical mysticism that combines with the complementary common characteristics of noetic qualityand ineffability. Vertical mysticism has a revelatory, ineffable character and is comparable in the experience ofadherents of the Christian, Islamic, and Hindu traditions.

INTRODUCTION

This study focuses on the mystical experiences of college and university students living inthe southern state of Tamil Nadu, India. The proportions of Hindus (88.7 percent), Muslims(5.5 percent), and Christians (5.7 percent) in the area make Tamil Nadu a suitable place for acomparative study of mystical experience among adherents of Christian, Islamic, and Hindutraditions. Taking stock of Stace’s view (1961:21) that “all men, or nearly all men, are insome sense or other rudimentary or unevolved mystics,” we seek to analyze mysticism as “anormal phenomenon, reported by healthy and functioning persons struggling to find a meaningfulframework within which to live out their experience as foundational—as at least what is real forthem, if not in some sense as the ultimate ‘Real’” (Hood et al. 1996:267). We begin with anoverview of the theoretical framework of mystical experience propounded by Stace (1961),which formed the basis of Hood’s Mysticism Scale. Insofar as mystical experience can be linkedto personal characteristics we also consider its social location.

Although the Reinert and Stifler (1993) replication of Hood’s scale included some Hindu andBuddhist monks and nuns, no comparison based on religious affiliation was reported. Hood et al.(2001) did compare Christians and Muslims using the same mysticism scale. Our comparativeresearch goes beyond these attempts by comparing Hindus with Christians and Muslims, testingfor unidimensionality and scalar invariance. Our comparative study, based on responses from1,920 students, attempts to meet a long felt need underscored by Hood et al. (2001:704). In theirview, if comparison of Christianity and Islam is pertinent because both are monotheistic religions

Correspondence should be addressed to Francis-Vincent Anthony, Department of Practical Theology, Salesian PontificalUniversity, Rome. E-mail: [email protected]

Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion (2010) 49(2):264–277C© 2010 The Society for the Scientific Study of Religion

A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF MYSTICAL EXPERIENCE 265

with shared historical roots, it is even more challenging to compare Christians, Muslims, Hindus,and Buddhists because the comparison might yield very different findings.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

Hood’s Mysticism Scale is based in part on the conceptual framework of mysticism pro-pounded by Stace. Stace (1961) outlines a conceptualization of mysticism that is cross-cultural,a-historical, and unbiased by religious ideology. His conceptual framework rests on three con-structs: (a) a distinction between mystical consciousness and its interpretation; (b) a distinctionbetween the core characteristics of extrovertive and introvertive mysticism; and (c) identificationof universal common characteristics (see Figure 1).

Stace (1961:31) makes a distinction between mystical consciousness and its interpretationon the basis of his enquiry into Christian, Islamic, Judaic, Hindu, Buddhist, and Taoist mysticalexperiences. The distinction is analogous to the distinction between sense experience and itsinterpretation, although he concedes that we may never come across an altogether uninterpretedexperience. He recognizes the directness and seemingly uninterpreted state of unity in mysticism:“The unity is perceived, or directly apprehended. That is to say, it belongs to experience and notto the interpretation, in so far as it is possible to make this distinction” (1961:66). Stace uses theterm “mystical consciousness” in this context, but not always consistently; at times he equates itwith “mystical experience,” which includes the interpretation of the state of unity.

In our view this state of unity belongs to the realm of mystical consciousness and not somuch to that of interpretation. Empirical research supports the claim that mystical consciousnessand its interpretation can be relatively independent (cf. Hood and Williamson 2000). Mystical

Figure 1Stace’s common core theory of mystical experience; item numbers of our measuring instrument

are noted in parentheses—see the Appendix for list of items

Core characteristics (mystical consciousness)

Extrovertive mysticism Introvertive mysticism

Unifying quality (9, 12) Ego quality (5, 6, 11)

Inner subjective quality (3) Temporal-spatial quality (2)

Common characteristics (interpretation)

Noetic quality (1, 7)

Ineffability (8)

Positive affect (10)

Religious quality (4)

Paradoxicalitya

a This ninth criterion, that “there can be no logic in an experience in which there is no multiplicity” (Stace 1961:270),was not measured because Hood doubted its theoretical and empirical usefulness.

266 JOURNAL FOR THE SCIENTIFIC STUDY OF RELIGION

experience as a concept entails the distinct but not separable aspects of the consciousness ofunity and its interpretation. While mystical consciousness—in Stace’s perspective—is basicallysimilar all over the world in different periods and religious contexts, mystical experiences canvary insofar as the interpretations of this state of unity may differ from one religious tradition toanother.

Stace’s second distinction is between extrovertive and introvertive mystical experience, basedon the direction of the stimuli that lead to the experience of unity.

The essential difference between them is that extrovertive experience looks outward through the senses, whileintrovertive experience looks inward into the mind. Both culminate in perception of an ultimate unity—whatPlotinus called the One—with which the perceiver experiences union or even identity. But extrovertive mysticsusing their physical senses perceive a multiplicity of external material objects—sea, sky, houses, trees—mysticallytransfigured so that the One or Unity shines through them. Introvertive mystics, on the other hand, by deliberatelyshutting off the senses and obliterating from consciousness the entire multiplicity of sensations, images, andthoughts, seek to plunge into the depths of their own egos. There, in that darkness and silence, they claim toperceive the One and be united with it—not as a Unity seen through multiplicity (as in extrovertive experience),but as the wholly naked One devoid of any plurality whatever. (Stace 1961:61–62)

Stace identifies two core characteristics of extrovertive and introvertive mysticism. Extro-vertive mysticism is characterized by awareness of unity with the universe or the perception ofall things as one (unifying quality), and by apprehension of the One as inner subjectivity or lifein all things (inner subjective quality). In introvertive mysticism the experience of unity refers toa “pure” state, in the sense that the mystical consciousness has no substantive content and is evencharacterized by a loss of self (ego quality). Such consciousness of nothingness is accompaniedby distortion of time and space (temporal-spatial quality). He describes it as follows: “Whenthe self is not engaged in apprehending objects it becomes aware of itself. . . . One may also saythat the mystic gets rid of the empirical ego whereupon the pure ego, normally hidden, emergesinto the light. The empirical ego is the stream of consciousness. The pure ego is the unitywhich holds the manifold of the stream together. This undifferentiated unity is the essence of theintrovertive mystical experience” (1961:86–87).

These descriptions of the very essence of mystical experience suggest that the extrovertivetype “is an incomplete kind of experience which finds its completion and fulfillment in the intro-vertive kind of experience. The extrovertive kind shows a partly realized tendency to unity whichthe introvertive kind completely realizes” (Stace 1961:132). In pointing out the interconnectionbetween extrovertive and introvertive consciousness, Stace underscores that mystics themselvesgenerally do not distinguish between the two types, indicating that there is also a wider set ofcharacteristics common to both extrovertive and introvertive mystical consciousness.

These common characteristics of mystical experience, Stace claims, are universal in allcultures, religions, and ages. He identifies five psychological and phenomenological commoncharacteristics that can be seen as universal factors directing the interpretation of mysticalconsciousness: noetic quality (perception of special knowledge or insight), ineffability (diffi-cult to articulate), positive affect (experience of peace or bliss), religious quality (perceptionof sacredness or wonder), and paradoxicality (cf. Hill and Hood 1999:364; Stace 1961:31–37,131–32).

Together with Hood et al. (1996:257–58) we may sum up the three fundamental assumptionsin Stace’s proposal as follows: first, despite the variations in interpretation, mystical consciousnessis universal and is essentially identical; second, conceptually there is a clear distinction betweenthe introvertive and extrovertive forms of mysticism; third, although there is a set of commoncore characteristics, mystical experience need not always imply all characteristics, since therecan be borderline cases.

Stace’s common core theory has been challenged by Katz (1978) and others, who favorthe diversity theory and “argue that no unmediated experience is possible, and that in the


extreme, language is not simply used to interpret experience but in fact constitutes experi-ence” (Katz 1978:256). Here the category “consciousness” may help to clarify that, while we canspeak of “pure consciousness” without interpretation or qualification, experience always impliesinterpretation. The opposition between the common core theory and the diversity theory seemsto be compounded by Stace’s identification—at times—of consciousness with experience. Asexplained above, mystical experience can be seen as comprising both mystical consciousness(consciousness of union with reality/Reality) and its interpretation. While in some cases we mayspeak of uninterpreted pure consciousness, mystical experience always implies a greater or lesserdegree of interpretation of the consciousness of union.

EMPIRICAL RESEARCH

Research Questions

Against the background of this conceptual framework of mystical experience, the researchquestions that we wish to address are:

(1) What comparative model of mystical experience emerges among Christian, Muslim, andHindu students once group-specific differences have been ascertained?

(2) Are there significant differences in the levels of mystical experience between Christian,Muslim, and Hindu students?

(3) Which personal (sociocultural, socioeconomic, and socioreligious) characteristics arerelated to the level of mystical experiences among Christian, Muslim, and Hindu collegestudents?

(4) To what extent can agreement with mystical experience among Christian, Muslim, andHindu college students be explained by personal (sociocultural, socioeconomic, andsocioreligious) characteristics?

Measuring Instrument

The measurement instrument is based on Hood’s Mysticism Scale. This scale has been provenempirically to be acceptable in diverse cultural contexts and religious traditions (Hill and Hood1999; Holm 1982; Hood 1975; Hood et al. 2001). Hood’s Mysticism Scale comprises 32 items,half of which are formulated negatively to prevent response set. Eight common core characteristicswere operationalized with four items each from Stace’s concept of mystical experience.

The two-component structure reported by Hood (1975) and the three-factor solution advancedby Caird (1988) and Reinert and Stifler (1993) suggest a three-factor Mysticism Scale, compatiblewith Stace’s conceptualization: extrovertive mysticism (experience of unity with the externalworld) measured with 12 items; introvertive mysticism (experience of nothingness) measuredwith 8 items; and religious interpretation measured with 12 items (Hood, Morris, and Watson1993; Hood and Williamson 2000).

Since mystical experience is only one of many themes in a broader cross-religious study ofparticipative and conflictive tendencies among religious traditions, we abridged the measuringinstrument to 12 items. This was possible because Hood’s scale of 32 items consists partly ofnegative formulations (16 items), which to a great extent simply reverse the positive formulations.We opted for positive formulations only in accordance with modifications in our answering format.Each dimension (extrovertive mysticism, introvertive mysticism, and religious interpretation) isrepresented by four items. Our choice of items is based on the interitem correlations in Hood’sinitial study (1975) and the results of our own pilot study. Since English is the language ofeducation (in colleges) for all respondents, it was not necessary to translate the items. However,it should be noted that linguistic consideration can play a role in evaluating the appropriatenessof an instrument in a multilingual context (Van de Vijver and Leung 1997:38–40).


We should point out that the items we used from Hood’s original scale (form D) representedthe eight common core characteristics of mystical experience (see the Appendix for list of items):ego quality (items 5, 6, 11), temporal-spatial quality (item 2), unifying quality (items 9, 12),inner subjective quality (item 3), noetic quality (items 1, 7), ineffability (item 8), positive affect(item 10), and religious quality (item 4).

Hood used a four-point Likert-type response ranging from +2 (“this description is definitelytrue of my own experience/s”) to −2 (“this description is definitely not true of my own experi-ence/s”), with no midpoint but with the additional option, “I cannot decide.” The original formatof the item (e.g., “I have had an experience in which a new view of reality was revealed to me”)seemed weighted in favor of a positive response and rather indirect in its approach to respondents’mystical experience. That is, it focused less on the experience and more on the description of it.In Hood’s formulation the respondents had to choose between “This description is probably (ordefinitely) true (or not true) of my own experience/s.” We opted for a more direct formulation ofitems and responses. For example, our item 7 reads: “Did you ever have an experience in whicha new view of reality was revealed to you?” The respondents could answer on a four-point Likertscale: “Certainly no,” “Probably no,” “Probably yes,” “Certainly yes.”

We have included three categories of background variables in our research: sociocultural char-acteristics (age, gender, language, urbanization, and field of specialization at college/university),socioeconomic characteristics (caste, educational level of mother, educational level of father),and socioreligious characteristics (agents who have influenced the religiosity of the respondents,namely, parents, relatives, friends, religious community, teachers/professors, and media). Allmeasuring instruments for the background variables have been constructed by the authors. Ageis measured in three categories: (1) 17–19 years, (2) 20–22 years, and (3) 23–26 years. Genderis coded (1) male and (2) female. Language is coded (1) the respondent’s mother tongue isTamil or (2) not Tamil. Urbanization is measured in three categories: (1) village, (2) town, and(3) city. Field of specialization is measured in two broad categories: (1) Art & Social Sciences and(2) Natural Sciences. Caste, a characteristic element of the Indian society, is measured in termsof (1) Forward Caste, (2) Backward Castes, (3) Most Backward Castes, (4) Scheduled Caste,(5) Scheduled Tribes, and (6) Other Caste.1 Educational level of mother and of father is measuredin three categories: (1) no formal education or primary education, (2) middle or high school, and(3) secondary school, undergraduate level or higher level education. The influence of socioreli-gious agents (namely, parents, relatives, friends, religious community, teachers/professors, andmedia-persons linked to one’s religion) on the understanding and practice of one’s religion ismeasured with a Likert scale ranging from (1) very unfavorable to (4) very favorable.

Sampling and Data Collection

The sampling and data collection procedure has already been described in previous articles(Anthony, Hermans, and Sterkens 2005, 2007) as part of a wider research project on interreligious

1 The Indian Constitution (Articles 341 & 342) identifies ST, originally considered “outcastes” (comprising over 24 percentof the Indian population), and Scheduled Castes (SC) as groups who have historically suffered oppression and denial ofequal opportunity. The government proposes to reserve a certain percentage of jobs in the public sector for ST (7.5 percent)and SC (15 percent). Later on, reservations were introduced for Other Backward Castes (Constitution Article 340). Thedetailed division of castes and the percentage of job reservations can vary according to states. In the state of Tamil Nadu, afurther distinction was made between Backward Castes (BC) and Most Backward Castes (MBC) in 1971. In our researchwe followed the classification used by the Tamil Nadu government: ST are traditionally identified with “adivasi” (originalindigenes and outcastes); SC are identified with “dalit” (untouchables). MBC and BC are consequently the better end ofthe disadvantaged groups. Those who do not belong to these categories and cannot claim reservations are said to belongto the Forward Castes (FC). We also included the category “Other Castes” (OC), since there may be respondents who donot associate themselves with these categories.


participation and conflict. A selective stratified sample, taking into account students’ gender,religious affiliation, area of residence, and educational level, was drawn from 16 colleges andMadras University. In order to assure an appropriate gender balance, eight women’s collegeswere selected, the remaining eight being principally for men. Madras University represents afully fledged co-educational system.

The demographic characteristics of the 1,920 respondents reveal the adequacy of our samplingprocedure. The respondents represent the genders rather equally: 55.6 percent are women and44.4 percent men. As for religious affiliation, 45.3 percent are Christians (28.1 percent Catholics,12.8 percent Protestants, 4.4 percent from other Christian denominations), 41.1 percent areHindus, and 13.3 percent Muslims, with a few (.4 percent) Jains or Buddhists. As the studyfocused on Christians, Hindus, and Muslims, students belonging to other religions were notincluded in our analysis. The percentages of students according to religious affiliation do notreflect the ratio in the Tamil Nadu population. The smaller proportion of Muslims in our sampleis due to the fact that they rarely attend colleges other than their own, which are also fewer innumber.

Almost all the respondents (98.4 percent) are between 17 and 25 years of age. A vast majority(86 percent) are undergraduates, 65.6 percent of these in the final or third year of their studies.Our study focused on third- or final-year undergraduates, since some of them may not continueto postgraduate levels. Only 13.7 percent of our respondents are postgraduate students and a few(.3 percent) are enrolled in advanced studies (M.Phil. and Ph.D.).

Procedure of Data Analysis

As discussed more extensively elsewhere (Harkness, van de Vijver, and Mohler 2003; cf.Sterkens and Anthony 2008; Van de Vijver, Van Hemert, and Poortinga 2008; Van de Vijver andLeung 1997), the comparative nature of our research necessitates an appropriate data analysisprocedure. Measurement invariance must be established when different groups are compared orwhen the same group is compared across time. In order to establish measurement invariancewe use two procedures. In the first step we assess the dimensionality of the mystical experiencescale via factor analysis. In the second step we test whether the scale can be used to compare themystical experience of Christians, Muslims, and Hindus.

Dimensionality assessment involves an exploration of the factor structure for the pooledsample of all three religious groups. After that, the factor structure is evaluated for each subgroup(Christians, Muslims, and Hindus). In this evaluation the factor structure of each subgroup meetsthe following criteria (eigenvalue >.1; factor loadings >.45; commonality >.20), otherwise theitems are removed from the scale. Finally, we establish the factor structure of our comparativescale within the whole sample using only the items that met our criteria.

Comparability is assessed as suggested by Meredith (1993). We first assess whether themeasurement models are the same for all groups using confirmatory factor analysis by testingwhether the factor loadings are the same across groups. We then compare the relationships ofone factor with other factors. Finally, we test whether the item-intercepts are the same acrossthe groups and compare the latent means (or composite scores). To evaluate the adequacy of themodels we have used the CHI2, the RMSEA, and the GFI.

We then make a cross-religious comparison of the scores on the common factor “mysticalexperience” using a Scheffe test. We relate the scores of mystical experience to background char-acteristics of the students and describe the social location of mysticism in relation to sociocultural,socioeconomic, and socioreligious student characteristics. Finally, we conduct a multivariate re-gression analysis.


Table 1: Factor analysis (PAF, oblimin rotation), commonalities (h2), percentage of explainedvariance, and reliability (Cronbach’s alpha) of comparable mystical experiences among Christian,Muslim, and Hindu students as a whole

F1 h2

7. Did you ever have an experience in which a new view of reality was revealedto you?

.56 .32

8. Did you ever have an experience that cannot be expressed in words? .49 .2411. Did you ever have an experience in which something greater than yourself

seemed to absorb you?.49 .24

6. Did you ever have an experience in which your own self seemed to mergeinto something greater?

.48 .23

Cronbach’s alpha .58Number of valid cases 1,869

Explained variance = 25.8%.F1 = Vertical mysticism (mystical union with a higher reality).1N = 1,920.

Results of Empirical Analysis

Research Question 1

What comparative model of mystical experience emerges among Christian, Muslim, andHindu students once group-specific differences have been ascertained?

When free factor analysis (step one) was run on items manifesting strong correlations (6, 7,8, 11, 12), they yielded a single factor. We found that item 12 (“Did you ever have an experiencein which you realized the oneness of yourself with all things?”) yielded low commonality forChristians and Muslims. The factor loading for Hindus, by contrast, was quite high (.51). InStace’s conceptual framework item 12 represents one of the core characteristics of extrovertiveconsciousness—unifying quality. This suggests that the comparative model underrepresents theexperience of mystical union with all reality (perception of oneness) in the case of Hindus. Weshall discuss this difference in more detail in the final section.

Table 1 presents results from the principal axis factoring (oblimin rotation method) of thefour remaining items for the entire group of students. Analysis of the data with LISREL 8.51(Joreskog and Sorbom 1998) resulted in an acceptable model fit for the test of scalar invariance(X2[df = 18] = 38.75; RMSEA =. 043; GFI = .99). This means that we can assume that themeasurement model is equivalent for the three different religious groups (Christian, Muslim, andHindu), and allows meaningful comparison between these groups.

Of the four items, two represent the complementary (active and passive) aspects of mysticalunion implying loss of self. On the one hand, an experience in which one’s own self seemsto merge into something greater (item 6); on the other hand, an experience in which somethinggreater than oneself seems to absorb one (item 11). In the three factor analysis performed by Hood,Morris, and Watson (1993:1177) item 6 emerged as part of extrovertive mysticism. In Hood’soriginal scale (form D) items 6 and 11 represented ego quality (loss of self), conceptualized ascentral to introvertive mysticism (Hood 1975:31). In our comparable factor analysis these twoitems point to one of the core dimensions of introvertive mysticism, namely, loss of self in theexperience of union with a higher reality.

The other two items (7 and 8) of our comparative model stand for the common characteristicsof noetic aspect and ineffability. In Stace’s theoretical framework ineffability (item 8) “an expe-rience that cannot be expressed in words” is one of the common characteristics, but in Hood’s


Table 2: Vertical mysticism scale; reliability of the comparative model, percentages of explainedvariance, and number of valid cases for Christian, Muslim, and Hindu students consideredseparately

Cronbach’s Alpha % of Explained Variance Valid Cases

Christians .56 24.4 852Muslims .57 25.6 237Hindus .58 25.9 773

empirical study it turns out to be a component of introvertive mysticism. In a three-factor solution(Hood et al. 2001:694, 702) based on data from Iranian Muslims, the characteristic of ineffabilityfits the interpretation and introvertive factors equally well. In the case of U.S. Americans, how-ever, ineffability is indicative of introvertive mysticism. The significance of ineffability seems todiffer according to religiocultural setting. In Caird’s study (1988:125) with a small sample of 115respondents, the two-factor solution confirmed Stace’s view of ineffability rather than Hood’s.The two-factor solution in the Reinert and Stifler (1993:387) study also confirms ineffability aspart of the common interpretive categories. We conclude, therefore, that the interpretive categoryof ineffability has a particular affinity with introvertive mysticism.

Item 7 (“an experience in which a new view of reality was revealed”) has the highest loading(.56) on the factor. In Hood’s three-factor solution items representing the noetic aspect form partof the interpretive category. This accords with Stace’s understanding of the noetic aspect as acommon characteristic that can qualify both introvertive and extrovertive mysticism. Two itemsin our comparative model (items 6 and 11) represent the complementary aspects of loss of selfin the union with a greater reality, which is the core of introvertive mystical consciousness. Theother two complementary interpretive items (items 7 and 8) indicate the noetic quality of thisunion (leading to perception of new insight) and its ineffable nature (experience of union beingdifficult to articulate). The comparative model of mystical experience thus represents a revelatoryand ineffable experience of union with a greater or higher reality. Hence we label it “experienceof mystical union with a higher reality” or “vertical mysticism.”

The reliability (α) and percentage of variance explained by the comparative model of mysticalexperience are moderate when all respondents are taken together (Table 1), and remain almostunaltered when each of the three religious groups is examined separately (Table 2). Overall, thereliabilities are low, likely due to the limited number of items employed.

Research Question 2

Are there significant differences in the levels of mystical experiences between Christian,Muslim, and Hindu students?

As shown in Table 3, the experience of vertical mysticism reported by Hindus tends slightlytoward ambivalence (mean 2.89), whereas Christians and Muslims affirm it as “probably yes”(means 3.13 and 3.05, respectively).

Hindus with their lesser involvement are found to differ significantly from both Christiansand Muslims (Scheffe’s test: F-value: 27.81; sign. < .000). We would have expected Hindus tomanifest a higher level of involvement. While mysticism is a key component of Hinduism, beingboth its source and center, in Christianity and Islam it is only a minor strand (Stace 1961:342–43).The lesser involvement indicated by Hindus’ tendency toward ambivalence suggests that verticalmysticism may not be as important for them as for Christians and Muslims. At the same time,there is evidence that the comparative model underrepresents mystical union with all reality, thusinadequately capturing the Hindus experience.


Table 3: Descriptive statistics (mean, SD) of all items in the vertical mysticism scale comparableamong Christian, Muslim, and Hindu students

Item 7 Item 11 Item 8 Item 6 All Items

Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD

Christian students (n = 852) 3.02 .92 3.23 .89 3.29 .95 2.96 .95 3.13 .61Muslims Students (n = 237) 3.05 .89 3.08 1.00 3.33 .92 2.75 1.00 3.05 .63Hindu students (n = 773) 2.80 .98 2.95 .99 3.10 1.04 2.71 1.04 2.89 .67

Scale: 1 = certainly no; 2 = probably no; 3 = probably yes; 4 = certainly yes.See the Appendix for the formulation of the items.

Research Question 3

Which personal (sociocultural, socioeconomic, and socioreligious) characteristics are relatedto the level of mystical experiences among Christian, Muslim, and Hindu college students? Thisquestion concerns the social location of mysticism (see Table 4).

Among Christian students, female students report a higher level of vertical mysticism (r =.12). Four socioreligious characteristics are also associated with vertical mysticism: perceivedfavorable influence of friends, religious community, teachers/professors, and media. The asso-ciation between the influence of teachers/professors on the religiosity of Christians and verticalmysticism is strongest (r = .19).

Among the Muslim students, only the socioreligious characteristics are associated withvertical mysticism: influence of relatives, religious community, teachers/professors, and media.The strongest associations are with regard to the favorable influence of relatives (r = .23) and ofmedia (r = .20).

Table 4: Social location of vertical mysticism among Christian, Muslim, and Hindu students

Christians Muslims Hindus

Sociocultural characteristicsAgeGender .12∗∗ .10∗∗

Language .09∗

UrbanizationField of specialization

Socioeconomic characteristicsCasteEducation motherEducation father

Socioreligious characteristicsParents .08∗

Relatives .23∗∗ .10∗∗

Friends .12∗∗ .08∗

Religious community .12∗∗ .15∗ .14∗∗

Teachers/professors .19∗∗ .16∗ .18∗∗

Media .14∗∗ .20∗∗ .13∗∗

Note: Correlations (eta for the nominal variables (gender and language); Pearson’s r for the ordinal variables) betweenvertical mysticism on the one hand and some personal characteristics on the other hand.All correlations are significant at p < .00 level (∗∗) or p < .05 level (∗).


Among Hindu students, female respondents report a higher level of vertical mysticism (r =.10) as do those who speak the Tamil language (r = .09). In the case of Hindus all socioreligiouscharacteristics are significantly connected with vertical mysticism. The strongest associationrefers to the perceived favorable influence of teachers/professors on the religiosity of Hindustudents (r = .18).

Research Question 4

To what extent can agreement with mystical experience among Christian, Muslim, and Hinducollege students be explained by personal (sociocultural, socioeconomic, and socioreligious)characteristics?

The results of the regression analysis are rather modest. For the Christian and Hindu students,only the influence of the media on their religiosity is a significant predictor of vertical mysticism.The level of explained variance (.02) in both groups is too low to be theoretically relevant. Noother personal characteristic is associated with vertical mysticism.

However, for Muslim students, two predictors explain 8 percent of the variance (R2.08;Adj. R2.07). The influence of relatives (β .20) and of persons in the media on religiosity issignificantly associated with vertical mysticism (β .16). The positive influence of relatives isthe strongest predictor, suggesting the importance of primary religious socialization (i.e., inthe extended family). No other characteristic (sociocultural or socioeconomic) predicts a higherlevel of agreement with vertical mysticism. Vertical mysticism in the case of Muslim students isinfluenced by religious models close to them (relatives) and in the media.

SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION

The comparative model of vertical mysticism or mystical union with a higher reality emergingfrom our analysis is significant for many reasons. In the first place, it is the outcome of a procedureof measurement invariance that has not been used before in conjunction with the Mysticism Scale.Second, as far as comparison between religious groups is concerned, the only study has beenthat of Hood et al. (2001), which included 188 U.S. Americans (mostly Christians) and 185Iranian Muslims, with separate factor analyses for each group. In our research 1,920 respondentsbelonging to the Christian, Islamic, and Hindu traditions form a single sample and are comparedsubstantially. Third, from the perspective of Stace’s common core theory, as will be seen below,the comparative model offers new insights and prospects.

In our comparative model of vertical mysticism, one of the core characteristics of intro-vertive mysticism, namely, sense of loss of self, combines with the complementary commoncharacteristics of noetic quality and ineffability. Vertical mysticism has a revelatory, ineffablecharacter and is comparable in the experience of adherents of the Christian, Islamic, and Hindutraditions. In fact, Stace’s aim was to identify such comparable common core elements. However,this model seems to represent only one type of mystical experience, namely, mystical union witha higher reality or “vertical mysticism.” In a way, vertical movement in mysticism character-izes Semitic religions. It is alluded to, for example, in the classic of Christian mysticism, Theascent of Mount Carmel by St. John of the Cross (1542–1591), and in more humanistic termsin The ascent of Mount Ventoux by Francesco Petrarca (1304–1374), the first modern scholarand man of letters (Robinson 1898). Christian and Muslim students report a significantly higherlevel of vertical mystical experience than Hindu students. Socioreligious agents (relatives andpersons in the media linked to their religion) influence the level of vertical mysticism amongMuslims.

On the other hand, Hindus’ involvement in vertical mysticism tends toward ambivalence.Moreover, the comparative model of mystical experience underrepresents mystical union with a


wider reality, one of the core characteristics of extrovertive consciousness (perception of oneness).This is significant as in the Hindu tradition introvertive search for the ultimate ground of one’sbeing leads to discovery of Atman and extrovertive search for the ground of all reality leadsto discovery of Brahman. The search culminates in the realization that Atman is identical withBrahman (Ayam Atma Brahma, as stated in Mandukya Upanishad, 2).

Hindu mystical traditions recognize that the ground of one’s being is identical with theground of all reality. Given that this ultimate ground, Brahman, is consciousness (PrajnanamBrahma, as stated in Aitareya Upanishad, III, v, 3), in Hindu tradition mystical experience ispure consciousness. In the Vedantic tradition, Sankara (788–820), with his philosophy of advaita(nondualism), and Ramanuja (1017–1118), with his visishthadvaita (qualified nondualism), areleading exponents of the nature of consciousness. For Sankara and the advaita school, conscious-ness is pure light shining by itself without any subject-object distinction, whereas for Ramanujaand the bhakti (devotional) tradition consciousness is a relationship of illumination. Notwith-standing the differences, Sankara and Ramanuja assume consciousness to be the essential natureof spirit, namely, of Brahman and of the individual soul, and on this basis they interpret the na-ture of the phenomenal world (Chethimattam 1996:34, 96, 1971:54). In the experience of recentmystics like Ramana Maharishi (1879–1950) of Tamil Nadu and Sri Ramakrishna (1834–1886)of Bengal the difference between the two philosophical traditions is perceived to be basically oneof vantage points (Easwaran 1988:30). In relation to the external phenomenal world, advaitic andvisishthadvaitic consciousness, by underscoring the radical interdependence of all reality, tendto evoke a monistic or pantheistic mystical experience. As mentioned already, our comparativemodel of mystical experience was found to underrepresent this mystical union with a wider realityin the case of Hindus. This points to the possibility of horizontal mysticism (union of self with awider reality) as distinct from vertical mysticism (mystical union with a higher reality), which ismore compatible with the Christian and Islamic traditions.

Vertical mysticism may be more dominant in the Semitic religions (Judaism, Christianity,and Islam). Such mysticism generally has a revelatory component and is not easy to express(ineffable). In the context of these religions, mysticism entails union of the self with the higherreality of God, who sometimes reveals himself and his intentions in an ineffable manner. Bycontrast, Oriental religions like Hinduism and Buddhism tend to emphasize horizontal mysticismin their introvertive and extrovertive search for the ultimate. It leads to union of self with a widerreality, an experience of the radical interdependence of all reality in a nondualistic sense. Thefinal phase of such mysticism is attained in total loss of self or total realization of self in pureconsciousness.

Loss of self implies emergence of the ultimate Reality as pure consciousness. In the Semiticreligions, there is a strong inclination to see this Reality as beyond or above the world as weexperience it. This Reality is One, absolute, and the ultimate ground of the self. The truth of theself is embedded in this Reality. In analogy with a distinction made in philosophy of mind (Searle1985), we could speak of a self-to-God direction of fit.2 The truth of the self is decided by the fitof the self to the nature of the absolute Reality. The loss of self implies a transformation of the selfaccording to this divine Reality. The self should mirror this Reality, which is beyond anything inthe world (including the self). Vertical mysticism is characterized by a self-to-God direction of fit.Horizontal mysticism on the contrary can be seen as characterized by a God-to-self direction of

2 Searle (1985) distinguishes between a mind-to-world direction of fit, and a world-to-mind direction of fit. Examplesof the first are beliefs. The truth of beliefs about the world is decided by the fit of beliefs to the state of affairs of theworld. A belief is satisfied when it depicts the world. A desire is an example of a world-to-mind direction of fit. The ideais that usually a desire is not yet realized, that is, it does not refer to a state of affairs in the world. Instead, the world istransferred in such a way that it fits the desire.


fit. Horizontal mysticism is characterized by the perception of all things as one, that is, by the ideathat the divine Reality is realized in all things (including the self). This implies the transformationof the divine Reality in order to fit the reality of all things. This implies not so much a loss ofself, but a self that becomes One with this Reality. The perception of all things as one is the resultof a process of transformation in which the divine Reality is realized in all things (including theself). By using the concept of direction of fit we suggest that the movement in vertical mysticismis different from horizontal mysticism. In vertical mysticism, the divine Reality transcends or isbeyond the world as we experience it. Therefore, a loss of self is implied because the truth of theself is in God. In horizontal mysticism, the divine Reality is immanent, that is, within everythingwe experience. Therefore, the self should be transformed in conformity with this all pervadingdivine Reality, or brought to God-realization.

The theoretical distinction between vertical and horizontal mysticism could be a fruitfulpath for further comparative research into religious mysticism and might be more fruitful thanintrovertive and extrovertive mysticism, as suggested by Stace. The qualifications “introvert”and “extrovert” refer more to the type of search one engages in rather than to the experience ofthe reality/Reality as such. In other words, mystical experience resulting from introvertive and/orextrovertive search is perhaps better understood as vertical mysticism and as horizontal mysticism.

This sheds light on the unresolved debate between the common core theory of Stace andthe diversity theory of Katz. Is there a common structure of mystical experience for all religions(cf. the common core theory of Stace) or do religions differ in the type of mystical experience(cf. diversity theory of Katz)? If Stace is correct both vertical and horizontal types of mysticismare present within all religions, and if Katz is right religions will differ with regard to specifictypes of mystical experience. We find support for the diversity theory of Katz. In the process ofconstructing measurement invariance, we had to remove items that can be regarded as belongingto a horizontal model of mystical experience (i.e., oneness with all reality). The items did notseem to belong to the mindset of our Christian and Muslim students.

In the case of Christians this may be due to fear of syncretistic fusion with monistic orpantheistic tendencies. For example, in its Letter to the bishops of the Catholic Church on someaspects of Christian meditation the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith (1990: n. 12) warnsof monistic or pantheistic syncretism in the use of Eastern methods of meditation. The problemwith regard to pantheistic tendency is also present in Islamic theology (Ventura 2000). Obviouslyfurther research into horizontal mysticism is needed among adherents of Oriental religions inorder to arrive at a full fledged, empirically tested common core theory or diversity theory.

In conclusion, this study underscores the need for further comparative research. The four-itemscale of vertical mysticism has a low level of reliability. Further research with more scale items onboth dimensions (i.e., noetic quality and loss of self) is needed to improve the level of reliabilityof the vertical mysticism scale. Research is also needed to study changes across age groupsand whether the change is the same for members of different religious groups. Theoretically,the distinction between vertical and horizontal mysticism looks promising for further theorybuilding. Our findings also point to the limitations of Hood’s Mysticism Scale (already foreseenby him) when it comes to comparing totally heterogeneous religions such as Semitic and Easternreligions (Hinduism and Buddhism). Finally, we think that the major theoretical problem withregard to mysticism still stands: Is there a core structure of mystical experience or does it implydiversity? In order to answer this fundamental question, we need more comparative researchamong members of different religions in different geographical contexts.

REFERENCES

Anthony, Francis-Vincent, Chris A. M. Hermans, and Carl Sterkens. 2005. Interpreting religious pluralism: Comparativeresearch among Christian, Muslim and Hindu students in Tamil Nadu, India. Journal of Empirical Theology18(2):154–86.


——. 2007. Religious practice and religious socialization: Comparative research among Christian, Muslim and Hindustudents in Tamil Nadu, India. Journal of Empirical Theology 20(1):100–28.

Caird, Dale. 1988. The structure of Hood’s mysticism scale: A factor-analysis study. Journal for the Scientific Study ofReligion 27(1):122–27.

Chethimattam, John B. 1971. Consciousness and reality. An Indian approach to metaphysics. Tenbury Wells: FowlerWright.

——. 1996. Experience and philosophy. Bangalore: Dharmaram.Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith. 1990. Letter to the bishops of the Catholic Church on some aspects of Christian

meditation. London: Catholic Truth Society.Easwaran, Eknath. 1988. The Upanishads. Translated with a general introduction. London: Arkana.Harkness, Janet A., Fons J. R. van de Vijver, and Peter Ph. Mohler. 2003. Cross-cultural survey methods (Wiley Series

in Survey Methodology). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.Hill, Peter C. and Ralph W. Hood, Jr. 1999. Measures of religiosity. Birmingham, AL: Religious Education Press.Holm, Nils G. 1982. Mysticism and intense experiences. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 21(3):268–76.Hood, Ralph W. Jr. 1975. The construction and preliminary validation of a measure of reported mystical experience.

Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 14(1):29–41.Hood, Ralph W. Jr., Nima Ghorbani, Paul J. Watson, Ahad Framarz Ghramaleki, Mark N. Bing, H. Kristl Davison, Ronald

J. Morris, and W. Paul Williamson. 2001. Dimensions of the mysticism scale: Confirming the three-factor structurein the United States and Iran. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 40(4):691–705.

Hood, Ralph W. Jr., Ronald J. Morris, and Paul J. Watson. 1993. Further factor analysis of Hood’s mysticism scale.Psychological Reports 73:1176–78.

Hood, Ralph W. Jr., Bernard Spilka, Bruce Hunsberger, and Richard L. Gorsuch. 1996. The psychology of religion: Anempirical approach. New York: Guilford.

Hood, Ralph W. Jr. and W. Paul Williamson. 2000. An empirical test of the unity thesis: The structure ofmystical descriptors in various faith samples. Journal of Psychology and Christianity 19(3):222–44.

Joreskog, Karl G. and Dag Sorbom. 1998. LISREL R© 8 user’s reference guide. Chicago, IL: Scientific SoftwareInternational.

Katz, Steven T. 1978. Mysticism and philosophical analysis. New York: Oxford University Press.Meredith, William. 1993. Measurement invariance, factor analysis, and factorial invariance. Psychometrika 58(4):

525–43.Reinert, Duane F. and Kenneth R. Stifler. 1993. Hood’s mysticism scale revisited: A factor- analytic replication. Journal

for the Scientific Study of Religion 32(4):383–88.Robinson, James Harvey. 1898. Francesco Petrarca: The first modern scholar and man of letters, pp. 307–20. New York:

Putnam.Searle, John R. 1985. Expression and meaning: Studies in the theory of speech acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.Stace, Walter Terence. 1961. Mysticism and philosophy. London: Macmillan.Sterkens, Carl and Francis-Vincent Anthony. 2008. A comparative study of religiocentrism among Christian, Muslim and

Hindu students in Tamil Nadu, India. Journal of Empirical Theology 21(1):32–67.Van de Vijver, Fons and Kwok Leung. 1997. Methods and data analysis for cross-cultural research (Cross-cultural

Psychology Series). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Van de Vijver, Fons J. R., Dianne A. Van Hemert, and Ype H. Poortinga. 2008. Multilevel analysis of individuals and

cultures. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.Ventura, Alberto. 2000. Il crocifisso dell’islam. Al-Hallaj, storia di un martire del IX secolo. Brescia, Italy: Morcelliana.

APPENDIX3

MEASURING INSTRUMENT 1: MYSTICAL EXPERIENCE

In this part, you are invited to indicate whether you have had the following types of expe-riences. Your answer can be one of four: certainly no (1), probably no (2), probably yes (3), orcertainly yes (4).

Extrovertive mysticism3. (8) Did you ever have an experience in which everything seemed to be alive?

3 Numbers in parentheses refer to the corresponding items in Hood’s Mysticism Scale.


6. (24) Did you ever have an experience in which your own self seemed to merge into somethinggreater?9. (19) Did you ever have an experience in which you felt that everything in the world was partof the same whole?12. (12) Did you ever have an experience in which you realized the oneness of yourself with allthings?

Introvertive mysticism2. (11) Did you ever have an experience in which you lost the sense of time and space?5. (4) Did you ever have an experience in which everything seemed to disappear from your minduntil you were conscious only of a void (emptiness)?8. (32) Did you ever have an experience that cannot be expressed in words?11. (3) Did you ever have an experience in which something greater than yourself seemed toabsorb you?

Religious interpretation1. (25) Did you ever have an experience that left you with a feeling of wonder?4. (20) Did you ever have an experience that you knew to be sacred?7. (13) Did you ever have an experience in which a new view of reality was revealed to you?10. (5) Did you ever experience a sense of profound joy?

A Comparative Study of Mystical Experience Among Christian, Muslim, And Hindu Students in Tamil...

Documents

Transcript of A Comparative Study of Mystical Experience Among Christian, Muslim, And Hindu Students in Tamil...