Evelyn Underhill

[Jhanananda]

Ah, well we will have to agree to disagree there.  Perhaps you read her early works, or her biographies. As I said I've only read her book Mysticism, which took me about 3-4 years.

I believe that text was written by a mystic of very great attainment. It reads like nothing a mere scholar would produce. It is possible in her early years she was a theorist, and became a sincere seeker over time. In the book are references to charismatic phenomena, emotional and personal transformation, the spiritual crisis, contemplative practice, spiritual joy and ecstasy, and the out-of-body experience.

Digital Mysticism

I would like if she had some more photos of what she looked like. It looks like there are only 2 publicly available.

Our journey to contemporary mysticism has necessited unpacking our bielf systems which are based upon blind faith to mainstream religio, so I do not see how we can possibly fall upon your belief system verses mine.  In stead I would like to see the members of this forum to provide a reasonable compelling arguement in support of a mystic we have embraced.

Evelyn Underhill

Evelyn Underhill (6 December 1875 – 15 June 1941) was an English Anglo-Catholic writer and pacifist known for her numerous works on religion and spiritual practice, in particular Christian mysticism.

In the English-speaking world, she was one of the most widely read writers on such matters in the first half of the 20th century. No other book of its type matched that of her best-known work, Mysticism, published in 1911.

These facts about Underhill certainly provide evidence that she was a mystic, but we have to keep in mind that mysticism is not without its quanitifying variables, which we discuss here. What we need to do here is quantify a mystic's mysticism.

Life
Underhill was born in Wolverhampton. She was a poet and novelist as well as a pacifist and mystic. An only child, she described her early mystical insights as "abrupt experiences of the peaceful, undifferentiated plane of reality—like the 'still desert' of the mystic—in which there was no multiplicity nor need of explanation".[3] The meaning of these experiences became a lifelong quest and a source of private angst, provoking her to research and write.

[Jhanananda]

In her perface to the 12th edition of her major work on myticism Evelyn Underhill writes

the pioneer work of William James...

I found William James' Varieties of Religious Experience was nothing more than  means of apropriation, subversion and obfuscation.  I am sorry that Evelyn Underhill did not recognize that fact.

[Alexander]

In her perface to the 12th edition of her major work on myticism Evelyn Underhill writes

the pioneer work of William James...

I found William James' Varieties of Religious Experience was nothing more than  means of apropriation, subversion and obfuscation.  I am sorry that Evelyn Underhill did not recognize that fact.

William James was a theorist and not a mystic, so did not have practical knowledge of the discipline. We can see that Underhill, as one of the great authorities of the topic, agreed...

She disagrees with William James' The Varieties of Religious Experience with his four-part division of the mystic state (ineffability, noetic quality, transcience, and passivity)....

Now, returning to our original undertaking, that of defining p. 81 if we can the characteristics of true mysticism, I think that we have already reached a point at which William James’s celebrated “four marks” of the mystic state, Ineffability, Noetic Quality, Transiency, and Passivity,  132 will fail to satisfy us. In their place I propose to set out, illustrate and, I hope, justify four other rules or notes which may be applied as tests to any given case which claims to take rank amongst the mystics.

1. True mysticism is active and practical, not passive and theoretical. It is an organic life-process, a something which the whole self does; not something as to which its intellect holds an opinion.

2. Its aims are wholly transcendental and spiritual. It is in no way concerned with adding to, exploring, re-arranging, or improving anything in the visible universe. The mystic brushes aside that universe, even in its supernormal manifestations. Though he does not, as his enemies declare, neglect his duty to the many, his heart is always set upon the changeless One.

3. This One is for the mystic, not merely the Reality of all that is, but also a living and personal Object of Love; never an object of exploration. It draws his whole being homeward, but always under the guidance of the heart.

4. Living union with this One—which is the term of his adventure—is a definite state or form of enhanced life. It is obtained neither from an intellectual realization of its delights, nor from the most acute emotional longings. Though these must be present they are not enough. It is arrived at by an arduous psychological and spiritual process—the so-called Mystic Way—entailing the complete remaking of character and the liberation of a new, or rather latent, form of consciousness; which imposes on the self the condition which is sometimes inaccurately called “ecstasy,” but is better named the Unitive State.

Mysticism, then, is not an opinion: it is not a philosophy. It has nothing in common with the pursuit of occult knowledge. On the one hand it is not merely the power of contemplating Eternity: on the other, it is not to be identified with any kind of religious queerness. It is the name of that organic process which involves the perfect consummation of the Love of God: the achievement here and now of the immortal heritage of man. Or, if you like it better—for this means exactly the same thing—it is the art of establishing his conscious relation with the Absolute.

The movement of the mystic consciousness towards this consummation, is not merely the sudden admission to an overwhelming vision of Truth: though such dazzling glimpses may from time to time be vouchsafed to the soul. It is rather an ordered movement p. 82 towards ever higher levels of reality, ever closer identification with the Infinite. “The mystic experience,” says Récéjac, “ends with the words, ‘I live, yet not I, but God in me.’ This feeling of identification, which is the term of mystical activity, has a very important significance. In its early stages the mystic consciousness feels the Absolute in opposition to the Self . . . as mystic activity goes on, it tends to abolish this opposition. . . . When it has reached its term the consciousness finds itself possessed by the sense of a Being at one and the same time greater than the Self and identical with it: great enough to be God, intimate enough to be me.”  133

This is that mystic union which is the only possible fulfilment of mystic love: since

“All that is not One must ever
Suffer with the wound of Absence
And whoever in Love’s city
Enters, finds but room for One
And but in One-ness, Union.”  134
The history of mysticism is the history of the demonstration of this law upon the plane of reality.

Now, how do these statements square with the practice of the great mystics; and with the various forms of activity which have been classified at one time or another as mystical?

(1) Mysticism is practical, not theoretical.

This statement, taken alone, is not, of course, enough to identify mysticism; since it is equally true of magic, which also proposes to itself something to be done rather than something to be believed. It at once comes into collision, however, with the opinions of those who believe mysticism to be “the reaction of the born Platonist upon religion.”

The difference between such devout philosophers and the true mystic, is the difference which George Tyrrell held to distinguish revelation from theology.  135 Mysticism, like revelation, is final and personal. It is not merely a beautiful and suggestive diagram but experience in its most intense form. That experience, in the words of Plotinus, is the soul’s solitary adventure: “the flight of the Alone to the Alone.”  136 It provides the material, the substance, upon which mystical philosophy cogitates; as theologians cogitate upon the revelation which forms the basis of faith. Hence those whom we are to accept as mystics must have received, and acted upon, intuitions of a Truth which is for them absolute. If we are p. 83 to acknowledge that they “knew the doctrine” they must have “lived the life”; submitted to the interior travail of the Mystic Way, not merely have reasoned about the mystical experiences of others. We could not well dispense with our Christian Platonists and mystical philosophers. They are our stepping-stones to higher things; interpret to our dull minds, entangled in the sense-world, the ardent vision of those who speak to us from the dimension of Reality. But they are no more mystics than the milestones on the Dover Road are travellers to Calais. Sometimes their words—the wistful words of those who know but cannot be—produce mystics; as the sudden sight of a signpost pointing to the sea will rouse the spirit of adventure in a boy. Also there are many instances of true mystics, such as Eckhart, who have philosophized upon their own experiences, greatly to the advantage of the world; and others—Plotinus is the most characteristic example—of Platonic philosophers who have passed far beyond the limits of their own philosophy, and abandoned the making of diagrams for an experience, however imperfect, of the reality at which these diagrams hint. It were more accurate to reverse the epigram above stated, and say, that Platonism is the reaction of the intellectualist upon mystical truth.

Over and over again the great mystics tell us, not how they speculated, but how they acted. To them, the transition from the life of sense to the life of spirit is a formidable undertaking, which demands effort and constancy. The paradoxical “quiet” of the contemplative is but the outward stillness essential to inward work. Their favourite symbols are those of action: battle, search, and pilgrimage.

“In an obscure night
Fevered with love’s anxiety
(O hapless, happy plight!)
I went , none seeing me
Forth from my house, where all things quiet be,”  137
said St. John of the Cross, in his poem of the mystic quest.

[Jhanananda]

While I agree with much of this quote from Evelyn Underhill, and I appreciate the quote at the end from John of the Cross; she completley ignores the superior fruit, which are both ethical and chaarismatic, even while she quote a poem from John of the Cross on an OOBE. So, the quote only support a very week understanding of mysticism by Evelyn Underhill.

We should never forget: "We know a tree by its fruit..." Matthew 7:15-20 NKJV

[Alexander]

While I agree with much of this quote from Evelyn Underhill, and I appreciate the quote at the end from John of the Cross; she completley ignores the superior fruit, which are both ethical and chaarismatic, even while she quote a poem from John of the Cross on an OOBE. So, the quote only support a very week understanding of mysticism by Evelyn Underhill.

We should never forget: "We know a tree by its fruit..." Matthew 7:15-20 NKJV

You counseled me many years ago to be cautious of the over-use of intuition when making judgments- and I feel this is the same here. There is extensive evidence, if we use this book as our basis, that Evelyn was a fruitful contemplative. As I wrote earlier, there is evidence in this book she manifested all of the following:

1 Out-of-body experiences (she uses the terms "transport" and "rapture"- keep in mind Bob Monroe hadn't been born yet to create the term OOBE )
2 Ecstasy (her explanations suggest direct experience- it would be difficult to describe them so well otherwise)
3 Spiritual joy (1st jhana)
4 Stilling of the mind (2nd jhana)
5 Opening of the heart (heart chakra) and spiritual tears
6 Spiritual crisis (awakening and Dark Night of the Soul)
7 Right discernment of teachers (her preferred authorities being saints John and Teresa)
8 Intuition (she refers to these as auditions, as automatic writing, and as the "call" to the spiritual life)

In my opinion these show very great attainment.    Especially when we read the ancient mystics and cannot establish the same quantity of fruit- we have to infer about them from the information that is available.

I put additional credence in her as this was also a book that was more or less given to me by the Inner Director to study. It has been a great discerner of teachers and authorities over the years, so I tend to defer to the judgments it gives me. It is the same Director that also showed me Jhanananda.

Unless- have you actually encountered Underhill in your adventures in the spirit (OOB)? And have seen that she was a solely intellectual figure firsthand?

[Jhanananda]

Thank you, Alexander, for pursuing this inquiry into Evelyn Underhill.  To support your last post on this subject it would be useful if you could provide quotes with references to support your arguements. 

Just to inform you I do not wholly reject Evelyn Underhill as a source on mystiicism; however, mystics are not a monolyth.  They come in shades of gray.  I don't see Evelyn Underhill as the last word on mysticism.  However, we could eventually classify here on the spectrum of mysticism through informed dialog here, and since you are a champion of Evelyn Underhill's writing, then you are our best source for that information.

[Jhanananda]

Unless- have you actually encountered Underhill in your adventures in the spirit (OOB)? And have seen that she was a solely intellectual figure firsthand?

After re-reading your response I realized to had not responded to your questions. No, in my journeys out of body I never encountered Evelyn Underhill.  No, I do not believe that Evelyn Underhill was soley an "intellectual figure" in the study of mysticism, but I find no evidence that she was writing from 100% direct spiritual experience, so she surely is not the last word in mysticism. It has been many years since I read Evelyn Underhill. If I recall correclty she only discussed western Christian mystics mostly, if not all Catholic.  Whereas, I found greater understanding of my mystical experiences by studying global mysticism, to include Rumi, Kabir, Patanjali and Siddhartha Gautama.  So, I recommend others read more broadly on the subject of mysticism.