Žinojimo ir tikėjimo santykis apofatinėje mistinėje patirtyje

LTTai, kad riba tarp žinojimo ir tikėjimo nėra aiški, rodo ilgi viduramžių ir naujųjų amžių filosofų ginčai. Šiame straipsnyje nesiekiama nagrinėti bendrųjų „žinojimo“ ar „tikėjimo“ sąvokų. Dėmesys kreipiamas į žinojimo ir tikėjimo sampratas misticizme, t. y. į mistinės patirties sukeltą žinojimą ir tikėjimą, atskiriant nuo žinojimo ir tikėjimo kasdiene prasme. Mistinė tradicija yra labai plati tiek laiko, tiek geografine prasme. Todėl straipsnyje nesiekiama aprėpti šią tradiciją, juo labiau nekeliamas tikslas išnagrinėti kurio nors mistiko kūrybą. Šiame straipsnyje pagrindinis dėmesys yra skiriamas apofatiniam misticizmui, kurį, kalbėdama apie mistinės patirties specifiką, lyginu su katafatiniu misticizmu. Tai yra vienas iš bendresnių mistinės patirties skirstymų, tačiau jis tampa daugelio mistinės patirties tyrinėtojų atskaitos tašku. Straipsnio objektas yra žinojimo ir tikėjimo santykis mistinėje patirtyje. Be abejo, tiek „misticizmo“, tiek „patirties“ sąvokos yra plačios ir nevienareikšmės. Kaip pastebi kone kiekvienas misticizmo tyrinėtojas, kasdienybėje žodis „misticizmas“ suponuoja kažką neaiškaus, painaus ir neapibrėžto. Be to, tarp mistikų yra ir panteistų, ir teistų, ir ateistų, todėl misticizmo negalime apibrėžti net religine priklausomybe. Vis dėlto, kaip pripažįsta W. T. Stace’as, ši sąvoka yra sąlygota Vakarų tradicijos ir neišvengiama. Šiame straipsnyje remiamasi R. Otto apibūdinimu, kad mistinė patirtis nuo kasdienės iš esmės skiriasi kitokiu Dievybės suvokimu. Tikima Dievu, neapribojant Jo sąvokomis, nebandant „įsprausti“ Jį į vieną ar kitą apibrėžimą. Atsižvelgiant į šį bendresnį apibūdinimą, toliau straipsnyje svarstoma patirties specifika misticizme ir jos sąsajos su mistiniu žinojimu bei tikėjimu.Šio straipsnio tikslas – aptarti žinojimo ir tikėjimo pobūdį mistinėje patirtyje. Siekiant tikslo išsikelti šie uždaviniai: 1) aptarti „žinojimo“, „tikėjimo“ ir „patirties“ vaidmenį bei reikšmę misticizme; 2) atskleisti racionalaus ir mistinio žinojimo skirtumus; 3) išryškinti objektyvumo ir subjektyvumo santykį mistinėje patirtyje; 4) atskleisti iš mistinės patirties kylančio žinojimo ir tikėjimo tikslą. Įgyvendinant iškeltą tikslą ir uždavinius remiamasi bene labiausiai žinomo Vakarų apofatinio misticizmo atstovo Mokytojo Eckharto mintimis ir šiuolaikinių Vakarų mokslininkų – filosofų, psichologų, religiotyrininkų (pvz., Rudolfo Otto, Thomas’o Mertono, Roberto K. C. Formano, Williamo James‘o, Williamo T. Stace‘o) pastebėjimais. Taip pat reikia pažymėti, kad turint galvoje jau minėtą pastabą apie mistikų religinę priklausomybę nesiekiama vertinti mistinės patirties iš teologinės perspektyvos, o žvelgiama į ją kaip į reiškinį. [Iš teksto, p. 15-16]

ENThe ‘knowing’ presupposes something what is perceived by the means of rationality and logic according to the objective reality and is independent from personal sentiments, experiences and impressions. The ‘belief ’ designates something that is unachievable to our reason and logic. The dividing line between the belief and the knowing is not so clear in the mystical experience. It is totally different, we can say. The objective of this article is the relationship between the knowing and the belief in the apophatic mystical experience, the different forms of the knowing and the possibility of their communication. The mysticism is usually attributed to the field of faith. This is true if we think about mysticism as an unio mystica theology. But the concrete conception of Deity may be absent in the mysticism and the mystical knowing may be understood as a part of philosophy as well. The ordinary knowing is reasonable and sensual but is far from the knowledge achieved through the mystical experience. The mystical knowledge is a personal personal knowing. Two kinds of mysticism – kataphatic and apophatic – are distinguished according to the character of the experience. R. Otto calls the kataphatic mysticism based on the sensual experiences ‘occult’, ‘magic’, ‘empirical and hyper-physically sensualistic’. The various visions and ‘paranormal experiences’ are determinant in such kind of mysticism. The kataphatic mystical experience is a waft rather than an rather than an experience influencing the whole life. The main attention is paid to the apophatic mysticism therefore. The apophatic mysticism denies both rationalized conceptual knowing about God and pure sensual experience of God. It is related to the senses as well as to the reason nevertheless. The apophatic mysticism points out the wordless experience as the very name of it shows. The fruit of such experience are called the mystical knowing.The differences between the mystical knowing and the scientific knowing are discussed in the article. The knowing of a mystic does not become the bases for the knowledge of other people contrary to the scientific knowing. It is impossible to understand the mystical truth by the means of reason. One can say that not all scientific truths are understandable too. The non-understanding of scientific truth is concerned with the lack of knowledge, while the non-understanding of mystical truth is conditioned not only by the lack of inner readiness but also by the incommunicability of this truth as the very essential attribute of it. The mystics maintain that the mystical experience is indescribable, unresearchable and super logical. It is the objective of the scientific research nevertheless. The intersection of subjectivity and objectivity reflects in the texts concerning the mystical experience. In the article I discuss the relationship between subjectivity and objectivity rather in the attempts to communicate it than in the very mystical experience. There are three ways to talk about the mystical experience analyzed in the article. 1) Some mystics try to point at the path to the very experience. 2) Some other mystics, such as Meister Eckhart, try to reflect over their own experience and to talk about it like so it became open for those who have not had a similar experience. 3) The third way is to investigate the mystical experience without bias and to give some knowledge about it, though most of authors do not have their own experience of such kind or are trying to distance from it. The intersection between subjectivity and objectivity disappears in the very mystical experience as well as the object and the subject of this experience. The apophatic mystical experience cannot be objective because there is no experienced ‘objects’ in it.It can not be subjective for the same reason if we understand the subjectivity as inadequacy of the content of an experience to the objective order of the world. The singularity of the apophatic mystical experience is not only in the lack of objects or contents but in the lack of the very experiencing person. Therefore it is not subjective in the sense the experience of a dream, hallucination or mirage is. The very essence of apophatic mystical experience is to feel a unity and oneness with Deity and whole world. There is no remnant of the ‘subjectivity’ or ‘objectivity’, no ‘person’ and nothing ‘personal’ in the mystical experience. The characterization ‘subjective knowing’ accordingly may be applied only if we look at this experience from outside and as opposition with the ‘objective knowing’. The mystical knowing ranges between the usual knowing and the belief varying from them but stays related to them nevertheless. There is no belief in the common sense of the word left in the mystical experience because there is no object of belief. On the other part the mystical experience is inseparable from the underlying belief to the reality lying beyond the limits of human consciousness, senses and imagination. We can say using a parable that a man can see the rainbow where is no rainbow at all through his belief. A man can know where and when the rainbow will appear without seeing it through his knowledge. A man can see all the rainbows of the world through his mystical experience because he looks not outside but inside himself. His seeing does not depend on time or space therefore and the conditions of the nature are only empirical expression of the mystical seeing. [From the publication]