Mystical Recognition E-Book

Carl Albrecht

• Herausgeber: WS
• Kategorie: Religion und Spiritualität
• Sprache: Englisch
• Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2020

Seitenzahl: 1007

Beschreibung

Mystical Recognition relies on the insights of Albrecht's earlier study Psychology of Mystical Consciousness, which are applied here to the critical analysis of a representative corpus of mystical texts—about 100 testimonies of numerous Christian and non-Christian mystics across cultural and historical traditions. Mystical Recognition aims at exploring the 'ontic fundament' by which the psychological phenomena and responses are elicited in a mystical event. While conceding that an individual mystical experience is largely imbued with the beliefs and suppositions that a mystic holds prior to a mystical experience, Albrecht insists that a genuine mystical experience will always impart some impact and cognitive insight that cannot reasonably be accounted for from the subject's prior knowledge or the subjective domain of his/her consciousness. Any genuine mystical event is caused by an 'impact' imposed from beyond the confines of the individual self and thus the manifestation of a living 'mystical relation' between the experiencer and the 'All-encompassing. The discovery that the 'mystical relation' is an existential facticity and, as such, an 'ultimate phenomenon' (i.e. a phenomenon that 'is'—like 'life,' 'spirit,' or 'love'—but which cannot be rationally explained or traced to a known source) is a unique pioneering achievement and provides a new epistemological foundation for the understanding of the spiritual nature of man. In the final chapter, Albrecht juxtaposes his findings of his analyses of the corpus of mystical records and of several original accounts of mystical experience (including his own) critically to the conception of human 'Dasein' as outlined by Heidegger's and Binswanger's 'hermeneutics of Dasein,' resulting in the claim that man is endowed with the capacity of 'openness' which enables him/her to perceive and respond to phenomena of 'transcendental Reality' 'arriving' in his/her consciousness.

Leseprobe

MysticalRecognition

Carl ALBRECHT

MysticalRecognition

Gnoseology and PhilosophicalRelevance of the ‘Mystical Relation’

TRANSLATED, INTRODUCED AND ANNOTATED BY

Franz K. Woehrer

A Herder & Herder BookThe Crossroad Publishing Companywww.crossroadpublishing.com

© 2020 by Franz K. Woehrer

Translated from the German edition of Psychologie des Mystischen Bewußtseins. Mainz: Matthias-Grünewald-Verlag, 1976 (ISBN 3-7867-0563-1), which is the identical reprint of the original edition published by Carl Schünemann, Bremen, in 1951.

© For the texts of the English translation, the general introduction and the annotations: 2018 Franz K. Woehrer, [email protected] and Crossroad Publishing Company, New York. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying or otherwise, without prior permission in writing from both the translator-editor and the publisher.

Crossroad, Herder & Herder, and the crossed C logo/colophon are registered trademarks of The Crossroad Publishing Company.

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be copied, scanned, reproduced in any way, or stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the written permission of The Crossroad Publishing Company. For permission please write to [email protected].

In continuation of our 200-year tradition of independent publishing, The Crossroad Publishing Company proudly offers a variety of books with strong, original voices and diverse perspectives. The viewpoints expressed in our books are not necessarily those of The Crossroad Publishing Company, any of its imprints or of its employees, executives, owners. Although the author and publisher have made every effort to ensure that the information in this book was correct at press time, the author and publisher do not assume and hereby disclaim any liability to any party for any loss, damage, or disruption caused by errors or omissions, whether such errors or omissions result from negligence, accident, or any other cause. No claims are made or responsibility assumed for any health or other benefits.

The text of this book is set in 11/14 Sabon LT Pro.

Composition and cover design by Sophie AppelCover illustration 'Transcendence' by Liz W, Firestone Colorado (2016)

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Dataavailable upon request from the Library of Congress.

978-0-8245-9802-0 paperback978-0-8245-9801-3 cloth978-0-8245-9711-5 ePub978-0-8245-9712-2 mobi

Books published by The Crossroad Publishing Company may be purchased at special quantity discount rates for classes and institutional use. For information, please e-mail [email protected].

Translated from the German edition of Das Mystische Erkennen. Gnoseologie und Philosophische Relevanz der Mystischen Relation.Mainz: Matthias-Grünewald-Verlag, 1982 (ISBN 3-7867-0986-6), which is the reprint of the original edition, published in 1958 by Carl Schünemann (Bremen, Germany).

[Note: Gnoseology (alternatively spelt gnosiology). From Greek gnōsis, meaning ‘knowledge’. It refers to any philosophy or branch of philosophy concerned with solving problems about the nature and possibility of knowledge; also, it denotes delivering knowledge of ultimate reality, especially insofar as this is not available to sense-experience. Today ‘gnoseology’ is an archaic term; in the first instance, it has been replaced by ‘epistemology’, and in the latter sense by the term ‘metaphysics’. – Cf. Honderich, Ted. The Oxford Companion to Philosophy. 2nd ed. Oxford: OUP, 2005. s.v. “gnoseology” – FKW]

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

PREFACE by Simon Peng-Keller

PREFACE by Alicja Sakaguchi

GENERAL INTRODUCTION by F. K. Woehrer

FOREWORD by Carl Albrecht

INTRODUCTION Pseudomysticism

Occultism

‘Spirit-Seers’ and ‘Spirit-Researchers’:The Cognitive Experience of ‘Higher Worlds’

Cosmic Consciousness

PART ONE The Structure of Mystical Experience

Experiencing, Cognitive Perception and Beholding

The ‘Object Arriving’ and ‘the Experience of Being Acted Upon’

Pictorial Visions

Allegorical Visions

Graphic Visions of the Devil and of Angels (Teresa of Avila and ‘Lucie Christine’ [aka Mathilde Boutle, 1844–1908])

The Vision of Christ

The Vision of Light

Light Adhering to an Object Beheld in ‘Inner Sight’

Light as Such

Light as the Medium of ‘Inner Sight’

The Transfiguration of the Perceiver

The Cognitive Awareness of Presence

The ‘Beholding’ of a Presence

Awareness of the Presence

The Non-Spatial Recognition of the Presence

Mystical Insight

Numinous Perception

The Vision of the ‘Majestas’

The Perception of Mystical Effects

Review and Future Direction of Our Enquiry

The Glimpse of God

Manifestation of Self-Expressive Gestures and Appearances

The Basic Structure of the ‘Imageless Vision’

The ‘Inward Vision’ Directed at the Invisible

The End of the State of ‘Vision’

The Spectrum of the ‘Mystical Vision’

Auditory Mystical Experience

The Sense of Being ‘Touched’:Somatic Modes of Mystical Perception

The Sense of ‘Being Directed’ by an Overwhelming Power

Person-like Features of the ‘All-encompassing’

The Experience of the Mystical Relation

Critical Considerations

The Mystical Relation

The Concept of the ‘Ultimate Phenomenon’

PART TWO Gnoseology of Mysticism

Delusion and Error in the Context of Mystical Experience

The Gnoseological Pyramid

Error and Delusion in the Overall Structure of Mystical Experience

Critical Analysis of the Structure of Mystical Recognition

PART THREE The Philosophical Relevance of the Mystical Relation

Anthropology

Hermeneutics of “Dasein”

CONCLUSION

BIBLIOGRAPHY

INDEX

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Since the early 1980ies eminent scholars in the English-speaking world in the field of mysticism, such as Bernard McGinn and Harvey Egan, have expressed their regret that the pioneering empirical studies on mysticism by the German medical doctor, psychotherapist and mystic Carl Albrecht are not available in English translation. It has taken nearly forty years for this deficiency to be removed—first with the publication of Psychology of Mystical Consciousness by Crossroad in 2019, and now with the release of the present annotated English edition of Das Mystische Erkennen entitled Mystical Recognition. Without the discerning judgement of Chris Myers and Gwendolyn Herder from Crossroad Publishing this project would never have been realized. They recognized the ground-breaking relevance of Albrecht’s research for the cross-cultural study of mysticism and the understanding of the spiritual nature of man and paved the way for bringing out Albrecht’s works in English. I owe special thanks to Julie Boddorf, production coordinator with Crossroad Publishing, for patiently supervising the publishing process of this voluminous study and for speeding up procedures even when confined to working from home-office during the pandemic. I thank you all for your continued trust, prudent advice, untiring support, and discreet reminders.

Furthermore, I am especially grateful to the Albrecht family, represented by Dr. Harald Albrecht and Carl Albrecht’s daughter, Adelheid Haas, for their constant encouragement, fruitful cooperation, and generous financial support.

Special thanks go to the American artist from Firestone, Colorado, known to me only by the pseudonym Liz W, who generously supplied the high-resolution image of her painting ‘Transcendence’ for the cover illustration.

I also wish to thank Simon Peng-Keller, professor of Spiritual Care at the University of Zurich, one of the leading experts on Albrecht in Europe, for writing a preface, and to Alicja Sakaguchi for providing another preface from the critical perspective of a linguist.

Last but not least, I wish to thank my wife Herta and my ‘boys’ Sebastian and Nico for their patient tolerance and benevolent understanding for the husband and father’s enduring spells of absent presence in the past two years.

PREFACE

Simon Peng-Keller(Translated by F. K. Woehrer)

Today, the research of meditative practices is mainly focussed on the neuronal corollaries of mindfulness and on the influence of these practices on mental health and well-being. Research in this area has undoubtedly made significant progress in recent years and led to a considerable increase in knowledge. Though psychological approaches and experimental research in neuroscience surely have their merits, there are also aspects that remain eclipsed or are overlooked. By strictly focussing on the mental effects of the practice of mindfulness, it is often ignored that it is a phenomenon of life that is explored, and as such it is one that can be analysed and described from different (including non-behaviourist) perspectives. Carl Albrecht opted for a philosophical approach in his study Mystical Recognition. His methodology is perfectly consonant with the prevailing discourse in this field and may be traced throughout the 20th century.1 Yet despite the many diverse philosophical approaches to mysticism in the 20th century, they shared the endeavour to relate different kinds of mystical experience to modes of cognitive perception and categories of knowledge. Mystical experiences have been assessed differently, depending on the nature of the approach: either as something that is incompatible with rational comprehension, as something that causes its implosion, an experience that is ineffable and located beyond the confines of categorical knowledge or as a form of intuitive cognition, which is esteemed as the apex of the ‘degrees of knowledge’.2 If we wish to locate Albrecht’s point of view in the present book within the spectrum of these two poles, it is to be located (as the title suggests) closer to the pole of ‘intuition’. For Albrecht’s endeavour is to demonstrate that genuine mystical experience, whatever its mode of manifestation, is inalienably imbued with intuitive cognition. Mystical perception (unlike familiar modes of perception) is not directed at some specific content, but at a Presence that is entirely imageless. Hence ‘mystical recognition’ means ‘cognitive perception of the All-encompassing’. Albrecht tries to show that this core-experience is intertwined with numerous facets of mystical experience. Together the individual modes of mystical perception are combined into a complex experience which, however, is tinged also with ‘subjective knowledge’ originating from the perceiver’s religious belief. This means that the act of mystical recognition is always entwined with the act of ‘comprehending in faith’.

The question that needs to be asked is why Albrecht was so keen on probing into the elements of knowledge inherent in mystical experience. Why was he not just satisfied with the psychological insights that he gained in his earlier book Psychologie des Mystischen Bewußtseins (1951), in which he describes in detail a wide variety of mystical phenomena? What can the numerous analyses and classifications in the second book (which make for difficult reading at times) contribute to the understanding of this pivotal phenomenon of life? Valuable clues to an answer are supplied if we look at it from the perspective of Albrecht’s biography.3 After he had completed his first study in 1950, Albrecht was clearly aware that the goals of his empirical investigation could never be achieved by means of a psychological-phenomenological approach. The psycho-dynamic processes involved in various modes of mystical experience could not be fully embraced by psychological phenomenology, however subtle and minute its differentiations and classifications. Albrecht was vehemently opposed to reductionist psychological enquiries. For this reason, he took great pains to substantiate his central claim that genuine mystical experience is rooted in an ‘ultimate phenomenon’, i.e., that it is an experience that cannot be dismissed as an epi-phenomenon, which can be traced to and explained by some psychic process.

When Albrecht had finished Mystical Recognition two years later, he was confident that he had succeeded in corroborating the claim that mysticism is indeed an ‘ultimate phenomenon’. The extreme strain and sacrifice that this endeavour had imposed on him personally and the great relief he experienced after having completed the book are openly addressed by him in a letter to one of his companions, written in 1956:4

When you read this book, which has been completed at long last, you will understand why I have for a long time withdrawn into silence. And you will realize that this silence has not resulted from negligence. Now I have reached the end: my passionate aspiration has finally reached its goal. What I felt impelled to reflect on, from humble beginnings building a structured edifice to the very roof-top. As I had told you already when we met in Bremen, this was for me an arduous enterprise, in fact a catharsis, and at times I felt as if in purgatory. I leave it to you to judge whether this endeavour has any objective value or has a place in objective reality; it does have subjective significance to me now, not least because I am still rather close to the experiences encountered. I now look forward to a simple and unpretentious life. On March 27, I will travel to Greece and stay there for four weeks. After this sojourn, I will be ready to resume my social communication, which has been incumbered for the past seven years. I will seek my friends again.

Before Albrecht departed for Greece, however, he gathered his large family in his home to celebrate the ‘feast day of the book’. In his thanksgiving address he vindicates the purpose of his research and explains the insights gained during the painstaking years of his enquiries:

Both books, which are in fact one, have something to do with the reality of God. Truly, man ought to acknowledge this reality and abandon himself to it in faith, pure and simple, and immerse himself in this reality without resorting to rational reasoning. However, this is not the path taken by man in the 20th century, or let us put it this way: it is not my path, since I as well have been inoculated by the ‘zeitgeist’ of the 20th century and been exposed to the maladies of the 20th century, or perhaps I was at the same time gratified by it – depending on how you look at it. It is impossible for me simply to situate myself naively into a reality without reflecting on this reality as thoroughly as this is possible for me. Once having pondered every aspect of what this reality is, I will be better prepared to acknowledge what the real call is for me.5

Mystical Recognition is Albrecht’s effort to gain self-assurance about the realness of ‘all-encompassing Reality’, couched in philosophical language. The very fact that he decided to publish this clarifying study suggests that he was aware that the self-assurance conveyed in the book might be helpful to others. Yet the question that may be asked is whether or not Albrecht’s avowal is still valid today, more than half a century after the book was first published. One might also wonder if the renewed publication of this book is merely a tribute to a rare research enterprise of the past, one that is only of historical interest. The critical reader of the 21st century may, admittedly, consider Albrecht’s use of mystical texts somewhat carefree and his concept of recognition not sufficiently defined in scientific terms. These deficiencies notwithstanding, the careful reading of the book will provide ample proof that Albrecht was aware of the shortcomings and limitations of his scientific and scholarly approaches. He makes it clear that this monograph does not presume to be the intellectual achievement of a philosopher, or that the book has been written for an academic readership, but he admits that it is to be taken as the work of a medical doctor who for many years had sacrificed his scarce spare time to pursue his research into the nature of mystical experience. The fact that the book is worth reading more than six decades after its first release may be accounted for by the extraordinary circumstances of its genesis: several of the concepts and insights were conceived and achieved in the meditative state of ‘quiet alertness’ (“Versunkenheit”). Though it is true that other philosophical works of the modern era are likewise informed by moments of instant inspiration occurring in a pre-reflective stage of the ‘waking consciousness’, the situation is different with Albrecht: in his case we are concerned with enquiries in which the ‘quiet state of alertness’ was consciously utilized as a source of clarification throughout. It falls to the individual reader to judge whether, or to what extent, the meditative process underlying the book can be noticed. Yet one thing is certain: Albrecht’s method of intertwining ‘meditative mindfulness’ in the ‘quiet state of consciousness’ with philosophical and phenomenological thinking was unparalleled in the humanities in the 20th century. These distinctive features of the book’s genesis need to be borne in mind when assessing Albrecht’s achievement: he has supplied a highly differentiated classification of diverse varieties of mystical experience and a most sensitive, highly ramified cartography of mystical perception.

Univ. Prof. Dr. Simon Peng-KellerZurich, 24 December 2019Chair of Spiritual CareUniversity of Zurich, Switzerland

1 For a representative survey on this issue see McGINN, Bernard. Die Mystik im Abendland. Vol. I. Ursprünge. Freiburg i. Br.: Herder & Herder, 1994. 415–60.

2 Cf. MARITAIN, Jacques. Die Stufen des Wissens. Mainz: Matthias Grünewald, 1953.

3 Cf. PENG-KELLER, Simon. Gottespassion in Versunkenheit. Die Psychologische Mystikforschung Carl Albrechts aus Theologischer Perspektive. Würzburg: Echter, 2003.

4 The letter was written to the Italian philosopher Ernesto Grassi (1902–1992), who (for several years) taught philosophy at the universities of Freiburg and Berlin. Grassi was, like Albrecht, deeply influenced by Heidegger’s existentialist philosophy. – Quotation from: PENG-KELLER, Simon. Gottespassion in Versunkenheit. Die Psychologische Mystikforschung Carl Albrechts aus Theologischer Perspektive. Würzburg: Echter, 2003. 68–69. (Translated by FKW).

5 Quotation from: PENG-KELLER, Simon. Gottespassion in Versunkenheit. Die Psychologische Mystikforschung Carl Albrechts aus Theologischer Perspektive. Würzburg: Echter, 2003. 69. [Translated by FKW.]

PREFACE

Alicja Sakaguchi(Translated by F. K. Woehrer)

More than sixty years have passed since the publication of Carl Albrecht’s pioneering study Das Mystische Erkennen (1958; reprinted in 1982 and forthcoming in 2020), but it is only now that this groundbreaking work has been translated and published in an annotated English edition.

Carl Albrecht (1902–1965) was a medical doctor and psychotherapist who, over many years, engaged in innovative empirical research in the field of psychological phenomenology and, more specifically, in the realm of mystical consciousness. He is one of many empirical scientists in the West who tried to widen the thresholds of science by probing more deeply into the domain of mysticism. The path Albrecht embarked on was long, painstaking and fraught with difficulty, since mystical experience and the study of written testimonies of the same are only accessible to a very limited extent to empirical enquiry and the methodologies of science. Before Albrecht, the first attempt in Europe to explore the nature of ‘mystical (viz., ‘prophetic’) experience’ had been undertaken by Abraham Joshua Heschel in the 1930s.1 Albrecht’s meticulous investigations were largely carried out between the late 1940s and the early 1960s and resulted in a comprehensive phenomenology of mystical experience. In fact, Albrecht was able to establish tangible phenomenological criteria for discerning authentic from bogus mystical experience. The present book not only demonstrates Albrecht’s profound and illuminating insights, but also his expert knowledge of Christian and eastern mystical writings and traditions and his wide reading in philosophy (especially existentialist philosophy). Another unique feature of his research is the fact that it is also grounded in his own mystical experiences and informed by his long-term practice of meditation.

Mystical Recognition is a sequel to Albrecht’s first study, Psychologie des Mystischen Bewußtseins (1951; reprinted 1976, 1990, 2019, and currently available in English translation),2 in which he offers a full systematic psychological phenomenology of mystical consciousness based on long-term empirical research and authentic records of mystical experience. Grounded in the findings of Albrecht’s earlier study, Mystical Recognition aims—as the title indicates—to provide a ‘gnoseology’ of mystical experience, that is, an analysis of the cognitive content transmitted to a perceiver in a genuine mystical event. Albrecht, approaching mysticism as a scientist, is careful to focus only on empirical and cognitive aspects of mysticism and not on the faith-related questions or theological issues germane to it, nor does he speculate on the religious relevance or metaphysical implications of mystical experience. Albrecht is aware of the limitations of his strictly empirical approach, which relies largely on accounts of subjective mystical events supplied by mystics, but also on personal reports by practitioners of meditation and on Albrecht’s personal mystical experiences. Albrecht admits that “the concept experiential mystical knowledge refers to knowledge derived from various mystical events reported by mystics and individual subjects; hence the only source of mystical knowledge is the collated corpus of records of subjective mystical experiences.” The ‘visions’, ‘experiential modes of cognition’ and ‘areas of knowledge’ dealt with in this study are part of empirical reality, which however largely elude objective scientific verification and fall outside the realm of everyday life experience. Albrecht, however, succeeded in developing a method of ‘introspection’ termed “Versenkung” (a meditational method derived from Autogenic Training), by which the subject can advance to a serene, vacated and perfectly calm state of consciousness termed “Versunkenheit” (named ‘quiet state of alertness’ in English). In this state of consciousness, the capacity of ‘inner sight’ (“Innenschau”) is released; it is a state of ‘receptive openness’ permitting the perceiver to observe phenomena ‘arriving’ in the vista of the ‘inner eye’, including phenomena experienced as ‘arriving’ from a domain beyond the confines of the ‘individual self’, which alone qualify as potentially mystical ones.

Albrecht’s meticulous analysis of numerous records by acknowledged mystics from various mystical traditions resulted in the discovery of a new ‘Ur-phenomenon’ or ‘ultimate phenomenon’: that of the ‘mystical relation’, i.e., the existence of an empirical relationship between a perceiving subject while absorbed in the ‘quiet state of alertness’ and (what Albrecht calls) ‘the All-encompassing’ (to avoid a religious or philosophical term for the transcendental Otherness encountered) revealing itself in the vista of the ‘inner eye’. The testimonies of male and female mystics and visionaries from different historical epochs and mystical traditions analysed by Albrecht include texts by Pseudo-Dionysius Areopagita, Hildegard of Bingen, the Hesychasts, Meister Eckhart, Johannes Tauler, Teresa of Avila, John of the Cross, Jacob Böhme, Angela of Foligno, ‘Lucie Christine’ (i.e., Mathilde Boutle), and Katharina Emmerich; from eastern traditions, accounts by the Hindu Yogi Yogananda Paramahansa and the Zen Buddhist Taisetz Suzuki. Altogether Albrecht examined nearly a hundred texts in view of the reliability of their mystical claims and in view of identifying their cognitive content and phenomenological characteristics. These analyses yielded invaluable insights into the nature of mystical experience, disclosing as a major core-phenomenon the shattering, life-transforming impact on the recipient. Thus, a mystical encounter is considered genuine if its effects and after-effects continue to persevere throughout the recipient’s life, positively affecting his/her future existence, even though the significance of the mystical event is not instantly recognized but comprehended only later in the mystic’s life.

Albrecht’s enquiry of the ‘cognitive content’ of mystical experience is situated between the disciplines of transpersonal psychology and linguistics. He introduces new concepts and neologisms, of which some are admittedly vague and obscure. For instance, it is difficult to discern the subtle differences between such concepts as ‘mode of perceiving’, ‘form of vision’, ‘vision of allegory’ (“Schau der Allegorie”), ‘pictorial vision’ (“bildhafte Schau”), ‘imageless vision’ (“bildlose Schau”) and ‘visual perception of appearances’; all these terms refer to different modes of mystical perception. They tend to overlap, however, so that their distinctive qualities are difficult to grasp. Not all these concepts refer, strictly speaking, to specific modes, phases or the content of mystical experience, but rather denote modes of speaking about mystical phenomena. In fact, these expressions point to rhetorical and stylistic means of telling about mystical experience. In any case, considerations of further linguistic aspects (e.g., the issue of speech acts) in analysing different types of mystical texts would have been a helpful epistemological premise. After all, the textual corpus examined by Albrecht includes such diverse types of utterances as spiritual confessions, descriptions of mystical experience, explanations, assertions, justifications and complaints. For the mystic language is a medium of communication of great importance, especially when trying to convey spiritual and mystical states in writing which are very difficult to describe (e.g., the stage of the purification of the self), and ultimately ineffable. It is obvious that language is, as such, not a medium of mystical perception – or, to put it more specifically, not a medium of prophetic inspiration, mystical intuition, mystical insight, or even of mystical knowledge. From this follows that it is principally not the experience as such that is ‘image-based’ or ‘imageless’, ‘personal’ or ‘apersonal’, but the mystics themselves bring a great variety of language forms to light by which the many different types of texts are produced.3

In individual mystical traditions, the occurrence of a concrete mystical event is considered the culmination of a spiritual progress, even if it is expressed in very different ways. Thus, in Jewish mysticism, the climactic mystical occurrence is variously termed visio Dei, prophetic experience (or high/inner calling); in the tradition of Gnosis, the mystical event is termed spiritual awakening and identified with the attainment of gnosis; in Christianity, the experiential encounter with God has variously been termed cognitio Dei experimentalis or transformatio mystica; in Hinduism, it is named experience of Brahman (or Atman); in Buddhism, the seeker’s initial mystical event is identified with spiritual awakening or enlightenment, or satori in Zen Buddhism. A mystical experience discloses aspects of the invisible, trans-material world and imparts in the perceiver a special capacity for “panoramic” knowledge and for religious awakening. In his analyses of mystical texts Albrecht demonstrates that mystics participate in unique experiences which they feel compelled to communicate to others. The language used for describing the encounter with the Divine derives its lexical material or external ‘linguistic garment’ from the language of the given cultural and religious context. However, in the context of mysticism, such mundane words as light, desert, death, dying, freedom, and verbs like hearing, seeing, watching, receiving, or tasting are imbued with special spiritual meaning. Words and idioms of common speech are transferred from the worldly object- and sense-related domain to the transcendental sphere and assume specific mystical meaning. Metaphors and pictorial expressions like magnificent splendour, flash of illumination, fire of love, magic charm, dark night, narrow gate, or ascension to heaven thus denote a distinct quality of a mystical experience. Similarly, symbols of revelation may indicate the revelatory and cognitive nature of a mystical event (e.g., flash of lightning, voices, thunder, the eagle, a star or an angel). The same applies to paradoxical expressions such as luminous cloud, learned ignorance, dazzling darkness, and sweet affliction, and to anthropomorphic expressions like countenance and shape of a new person, “He [God] granted me to prosper and augmented my capacity of knowledge”. Expressions of this kind are typically employed to describe different mystical states, specific qualities of a mystical event or of a spiritual change (e.g., ‘mystical conversion’, ‘illumination’). The inventory of such words and phrases that have mystical or spiritual import are the core of ‘prophetic speech’.

Undoubtedly, language, with its stereotypical expressions and connotations, limits man’s scope of cognition. Mystics go beyond this boundary and overcome the frailties of human language. In order to depict the totally different spaces of reality in which they have become immersed, they use very specific modes of linguistic expression, in which they resort especially to pictorial images (“Begriffsbilder”), analogies, metaphors, parallelisms, chiasmi, antitheses, allegories, paradoxes, symbols or parables.4

The Gnostics in late antiquity termed the eternal, uncreated and universal source of being the pre-existent Throne of God; the Quran and Islamic mystics (Sufis) refer to it in terms of Divine Wisdom, the Lustre of the Light of God Sublime or immovable Essence. C. G. Jung, by contrast, identified ultimate Reality with the universal consciousness termed Collective Unconscious (“das kollektiveUnbewusste”). In the Christian Middle Ages, the German mystics referred to the supreme Essence by which creation is sustained and in which it is rooted, the Ground of Being. Earlier, St. Augustine claimed that “God gave form to formless matter” (Confessiones XII, 12). Using such expressions, mystics try to endorse the claim that these concepts do not derive from rational reflection but are manifestations of a domain transcending human thought.

The fundamental features of genuine mystical experience are thus not directly reflected by the concepts, images and technical terms used for describing a mystical event, but refer to the ‘ur-phenomena’5 (in Albrecht’s terminology) or ‘sacralia’6 underlying a mystical experience: it is these ‘ur-phenomena’ (or ‘ultimate phenomena’) that constitute the perennial archetypal core of mysticism and the ultimate stage of religiosity. Albrecht shows persuasively in this book that ‘ur-phenomena’ are a ‘given’, i.e., an existential facticity, even though ‘ur-phenomena’ elude scientific verification and cannot be traced to any preceding natural cause. ‘Ur-phenomena’ can only be cognitively grasped in an act of ‘spiritual perception’. The mystic’s persistent capacity for transcendental perception thus provides a hermeneutic key to the understanding of the mystical experiences of all generations. Mystical experience and the language by which it is conveyed is thus unique: it cannot be compared to any other experience, and the language of the realm of mysticism and prophecy differs significantly from the literal meaning of ordinary speech. Therefore, the reader of today who is unfamiliar with the mystics’ idiolect will consider the language of the mystics obscure, or abstruse and unintelligible. Hence such metaphoric expressions as the path of fire (Blaise Pascal) or the dark night of the soul (John of the Cross) are censured as vague and incomprehensible. However, a reader familiar with mysticism and the writings of prophets and mystics knows that these metaphors and symbolic expressions in mystical texts refer to the stage of spiritual purification by which the mystic is enabled to achieve complete detachment from this world and thus from discursive (conditioned) thinking. In mystical theology the perfect state of spiritual detachment from this world is termed mystical death. This metaphor suggests that in this state man has entered a space beyond language and (discursive) thinking. Albrecht has termed this spiritual condition “Versunkenheitsbewusstsein” (‘consciousness of perfect calmness and alertness’). It is a mental state in which the mystic is temporarily set apart from the realm of multiplicity. In this state he can use the language differently than outsiders.

Since a mystic’s unconventional mode of expression springs from a unique mode of perception of reality, a mystic’s language may best be approached from the perspective of apophatic (negative) theology7. An apophatic mode of expression articulates in negative terms what is ultimately ineffable, employing such epithets as incomprehensible, inexplicable, mysterious, unintelligible, ineffable, infinite, timeless, absolute, non-spatial, or expressions like unfathomable Nothingness, or the Void. The mystical discourse about the trans-intelligible Otherness is thus couched in terms of apophatic negation. Apophatic theology is a branch of theology which is based on the conviction that God endures beyond all existence, and that divine perfection exceeds all human dimensions. Apophatic theology (‘mystical theology’) stipulates that God encompasses, and at the same time transcends, the entire realm of being; this manifests God’s perfection, and conversely, man’s finiteness and imperfection. In apophatic theology mysticism is seen as the highest stage of faith; ‘symbolic theology’, by contrast, is assigned the lowest level of religious belief. An authentic mystical experience transcends any known experience and surpasses anything that can be imagined or grasped rationally in this world. In order to describe such an experience, apophatic theology resorts primarily to rhetorical devices of negation. Albrecht’s concepts of ‘personal mysticism’ versus ‘a-personal mysticism’ can be said to correspond to the notions of cataphatic versus apophatic modes of expression.

In this context we should also mention that in mysticism and folk-religion some identical expressions can be found. For example, the terms purgatory, resurrection and ascension are not only used in mystical writings but appear also in vernacular religious texts. The meaning of these terms, however, differs significantly between mystical and vernacular devotional traditions. We should, moreover, be aware that mystics were often forced by the church, or by secular institutions controlled by the church, to adapt their testimonies to conform to accepted theological teaching. Personal records of mystical experience generally required the approval of the spiritual counsellor or were even modified by the mystic’s spiritual advisor(s). Evidence of this practice is, for instance, reflected in the recurrent use of theological concepts like Faith, Son of God, Christ, Holy Communion, and recurrent references to the persons of the Holy Trinity. This means that records of mystical experience by Christian mystics are revised versions of the original account of a mystic’s personal experience. And often retractions and apologetic annotations were inserted to meet the demands of doctrinal authority. Teresa of Avila, for instance, concludes her final work The Interior Castle with the apologetic avowal: “If these writings contain any error, it is through my ignorance; I submit in all things to the teachings of the holy Catholic Roman Church, of which I am now a member, as I protest and promise I will be both in life and death.”8

Mystics generally reiterate their own smallness and humble existence in the face of God’s majesty and omnipotence. They emphasize throughout that they are incapable of verbalizing adequately what has been revealed to them in the visions and spiritual experiences. They also emphasize throughout the inability to know God in His fullness. They insist that only a few aspects of the mystical encounter with the Divine are open to cognitive perception, and thus to verbal expression. What the mystics are generally willing to confess – albeit with due humility and reverent awe – is the overwhelming impact that the encounter with the Divine has had on their whole being. The charismatic mystics testify that the encounter with the ‘divine mysteries’ has had persevering life-transforming effects though the experience as such is ultimately ineffable. The latter claim can be found, for instance, in the personal testimony of Al-Ghazali (1058–1111), one of the most important Islamic mystics:

[Dear reader, I beg you to] … ask forgiveness for me for anything wherein my pen has erred, or my foot has slipped. For it is a hazardous thing to plunge into the fathomless sea of the divine mysteries; and hard, hard it is to assay the discovery of the Lights Supernal that are beyond the Veil.9

Not all the testimonies of mystics are as eloquently couched as Al-Ghazali’s; there are numerous accounts, particularly by female mystics, that are rendered in a rather simple, almost childlike language. This applies especially to situations in which the mystic or visionary is transported into states of ecstasy, struggling to find adequate expression for the ineffable bliss, splendour and uniqueness of the overwhelming experience with which he/she has been gratified.

Despite the great variety on the level of linguistic expression in mystical writings – with its plethora of symbols, metaphors, analogies, personifications, hyperboles, paradoxes, allegories and parables – resulting from the mystics’ attempts to convey what is ultimately inexpressible, the underlying experience of these mystical texts is in part accessible to psychological enquiry. Albrecht has successfully examined a large corpus of mystical records from different periods and cultural and religious traditions in his endeavour to elucidate phenomenologically the core of mystical experience.

In this context I would also like to call attention to the studies of Adolf Reinach (1883–1917), a German phenomenologist and law theorist who contrasted social acts that originate from the highest religious experiences to the type of ‘trans-worldly acts’ (“überirdische Akte”), to acts of social behaviour rooted in the secular sphere (‘worldly acts’, “irdische Akte”) (Reinach [1916/1917]).10 Reinach inaugurated a new approach to religion, which had been widely displaced in western thought before the 20th century.

Finally, it should be added that Albrecht introduced a considerable number of neologisms and idiosyncratic technical terms for which there is no exact equivalent in English. Hence several of Albrecht’s concepts required paraphrasing in English translation. Yet, on the whole, the semantic meanings of Albrecht’s German terms have been adequately rendered in English. The author of this Foreword is confident that the English edition of Das Mystische Erkennen will arouse a great deal of interest in the English-speaking world and provide new incentives for the cross-cultural and interdisciplinary study of mysticism and the spiritual nature of man.

Alicja SakaguchiNovember 2019Poznań University, Poland

1 Cf. HESCHEL, Abraham Joshua. Die Prophetie. Kraków: Polska Akademia Umiejętności, 1936. (The Prophets. New York: Hendrickson, 1962; rpt. 2007.) The book is based on Heschel’s doctoral thesis, submitted at the Friedrich-Wilhelm-University Berlin in 1932, but approved only in 1935 owing to the political turmoil of the time, when National Socialists had seized political power. In this study Heschel analyses the ‘prophetic consciousness’ of the Hebrew prophets of the preexilic era as documented in the scriptures; he explores such thematic issues as the individual prophets’ self-awareness, their perception of creation, and their mission in this world. Heschel’s enquiry into the spiritual nature of the prophetic writings was innovative but conflicted with received teaching and the views held by contemporary Jewish scholars and exegetes. Heschel continued to propagate his mystical conception of religious experience after his emigration to the USA, despite ongoing criticism by conservative scholars who remonstrated that he was more interested in spirituality and mysticism than in critical textual exegesis.

2 ALBRECHT, Carl. Psychology of Mystical Consciousness. Trans., introd. and annotated by F. K. Woehrer. New York: Crossroad, 2019.

3 It should be mentioned that every verbal account of an authentic mystical experience is rooted in a mystical perception, a mystical recognition or moment of understanding (epignosis). The primary event is a spiritual mystical experience, whereas the linguistic testimony of this experience is a secondary act. Hence a mystical record is inevitably recalled from memory; the verbal record thus always lags behind a given mystical event.

4 Cf. SAKAGUCHI, Alicja. Sprechakte der Mystischen Erfahrung. Eine Komparative Studie zum Sprachlichen Ausdruck von Offenbarung und Prophetie. (Speech Acts of Mystical Experience. A Comparative Study of the Linguistic Expression of Revelation and Prophecy.) Freiburg and Munich: Alber, 2015. 360–443.

5 By ‘ur-phenomenon’ Albrecht understands a phenomenon that cannot be inferred from any other natural phenomenon or be explained rationally by causation. An ‘ur-phenomenon’ or ‘ultimate phenomenon’ is a proven and evident fact of human existence, though its origin is unknown and ultimately inexplicable. ‘Ur-phenomena’ include, for instance, ‘love’, ‘spirit’, ‘freedom’, ‘life’ and are an existential ‘facticity’.

6 The term ‘sacralia’ refers to archetypal elements of (prophetic) inspiration that emerge in a mystical experience and are peculiar expressive means in sacred (mystical and prophetic) texts (see SAKAGUCHI, A. Sprechakte der Mystischen Erfahrung. Freiburg and Munich: Alber, 2015. 360ff.).

7 The term ‘apophatic’ or ‘negative theology’ and the complementary notion of ‘affirmative’ or ‘positive theology’ can be traced to Pseudo-Dionysius Areopagita. The former term derives from Greek apophatikos (‘ineffable’, ‘unspeakable’, ‘stating something by way of negation’); the antonym originates from Greek kataphatikos (‘affirmative’, ‘stating something in positive terms’). The terminological differentiation between ‘negative’ and ‘positive theology’ is, however, rarely used in contemporary Christian theology.

8 TERESA of AVILA. The Interior Castle or The Mansions. Ed. and trans. Benedict Zimmerman. 3rd ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Christian Classics Ethereal Library, 1921. 300.

9 AL-GHAZALI. Mishkât Al-Anwar. (The Niche for Lights). Trans. and introd. by William Gairdner. London: Royal Asiatic Society, 1924. 175.

10 REINACH, Adolf. [Religiöse] Aufzeichnungen. (1916/1917). Sämtliche Werke. 2 vols. Ed. Karl Schuhmann and Barry Smith. Munich: Philosophia, 1989. 589–611.

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

Franz K. Woehrer

“… mit dem ougen, da inne ich got sihe, daz ist daz selbe ouge, dâ inne mich got siht: min ouge unde gotes ouge daz ist ein ouge und ein gesiht und ein bekennen und ein minnen.”1 [“The eye with which I see God is the same eye with which God sees me: my eye and God’s eye are one eye, one seeing, one knowing, and one love.”2]

Meister ECKHART (c. 1260–1328)

“By truly emptying the self, the field of consciousness can reflect an object just as it is.”

Kitaro NISHIDA (1870–1945)3

“When reposing in the ‘quiet state of alertness’, this hyper-lucid and vacated condition of consciousness affords the medium in which thinking may occur autonomously and without being disrupted by any other mental process. Thinking thus acquires the quality of an immaculate tool enabled to achieve the highest capacity possible …”

Carl ALBRECHT (1902–1965)4

Bernard McGinn was one of the first scholars in the English-speaking world to proclaim that Albrecht’s psychological studies into the nature of mysticism are ‘outstanding’. In his monumental study The Presence of God he draws special attention to “… Carl Albrecht, physician, philosopher, and mystic, [who] stands out amongst recent German thinkers [who] have written directly on the meaning of mysticism … though his writing is little known outside Germany.”5 McGinn refers explicitly to Albrecht’s Das Mystische Erkennen (1958) and the monograph study Das Mystische Wort: Erleben und Sprechen in Versunkenheit (1974)6, which is partly a scholarly study on Albrecht and partly a lengthy postscript by Albrecht on his research. Neither of these two books has previously been translated. Albrecht’s first book, Psychologie des Mystischen Bewußtseins (1951), not expressly mentioned by McGinn, has meanwhile appeared in English translation.7 Whereas Albrecht’s studies have had a significant influence on the study of mysticism in German-speaking countries to this very day, they have gone largely unnoticed outside Germanophone academia.

The reception of Albrecht in central Europe was widespread from the early 1970s onward. It was spearheaded by the charismatic Jesuit spiritual counsellor Hugo Enomiya-Lassalle (1898–1990). He was the first to recognize the heuristic potential of Albrecht’s innovative empirical enquiries into mysticism. He was not only impressed by the scope and detailed conception of Albrecht’s psychology of mystical consciousness, but also by its sound, unprecedented empirical foundation. Unlike other studies in this field, Albrecht’s research was based not only on a representative corpus of mystical records from western and eastern mystics, but also on the scientist’s own mystical experiences, which were, over and beyond this, not merely recorded from memory, but documented directly from ‘spontaneous mystical utterances’ spoken during an ongoing mystical encounter. These immediate ‘mystical utterances’, simultaneously recorded manually by a confidante (and/or on tape), provided empirical data of supreme immediacy and authenticity.

Enomiya-Lassalle spent nearly half of his life as a Christian missionary in Japan, where he acquired firsthand knowledge of Zen-Buddhist meditation. On one of his visits home after World War II, he came across two of Albrecht’s books: Psychologie des Mystischen Bewußtseins and Das Mystische Erkennen. He immediately recognized the striking affinities between Albrecht’s phenomenological description of specific states of consciousness and the method of self-emptying deep relaxation applied by Albrecht (termed “Versenkung”) and the practice of Zen-meditation. Both mental practices are aimed at the withdrawal of the mind from stimuli of the external world for the purpose of overcoming the scattered ‘waking consciousness’ in favour of a serene, calm and emptied state of mind. Albrecht’s meditational method is based on J. H. Schultz’s ‘Autogenic Training’8, which has psychosomatic and mind-expanding effects comparable to those induced by Zen meditation. Enomiya-Lassalle first drew attention to these affinities in Meditation als Weg zur Gotteserfahrung (1972).9 By that time he had become a distinguished spiritual counsellor not only in Catholic Europe but also in India. Over and beyond this, he had become a highly respected Zen master in Japan and Europe. In Zen und Christliche Spiritualität (1987)10 he reiterates his appraisal of Albrecht, stating that the German psychologist has established “… a concept of mysticism that does not only embrace Christian mysticism and the mysticism of non-Christian religions, but one that can also be accepted by science” (27).

Enomiya-Lassalle’s appreciative assessment of Albrecht alerted another eminent Jesuit theologian to the pioneering research of the German medical doctor Karl Rahner. Rahner even met Albrecht in the 1960s and was impressed by his sincere commitment to the research of mysticism. He praised Albrecht’s exceptional capacity for subtle phenomenological analysis of mental processes and mystical states of consciousness in a public speech delivered in 1976. In this lecture Rahner included Albrecht among the distinguished Christian mystics who shared with him the rare ability of minute introspective psychological analysis:

Mystics are witnesses of a spiritual experience, and basically there is no reason why we should not deem the testimony of their experience as a whole incredible … if we … consider that amongst the mystics of the mystical tradition there have always been individuals of extraordinary sobriety endowed with a highly acute sense of observation; this can be traced throughout the centuries until the present to the days of Carl Albrecht, the mystic, who was at the same time an excellent medical doctor, psychologist, philosopher and empirical scientist. This much is certain: there are human beings who are courageous enough to testify to us credibly their experience of the Spirit.11

Shortly before Rahner gave this speech at a conference, he had complied with the request of Hans A. Fischer-Barnicol, the editor of Carl Albrecht. Das Mystische Wort (1974), to write a preface to the book. In this preface Rahner again praised the heuristic value of Albrecht’s studies for both theology and the understanding of mysticism, stating that his books are “… important contributions to the conception of a theology of mysticism, which has as yet to be developed.”12 This aside, he appreciated Albrecht’s insights as a much-needed critical corrective to the ongoing process of secularization and to the spiritual deprivation in western society, as well as to the zealotry of esoteric movements within and outside the Roman Catholic Church.

The late Cardinal Hans Urs von Balthasar was another noted Jesuit theologian who responded positively to Albrecht’s empirical approach to mystical experience. He considered Albrecht’s conception of mysticism fully compatible with the tenets of mystical theology. For von Balthasar, Albrecht’s studies do not conflict with the theological conception of mysticism, since Albrecht categorically denies that mystical experience could ever be generated deliberately by personal effort. The meditational method of self-emptying applied by Albrecht is merely a method of transforming consciousness from the scattered condition of the ‘waking state’ into the emptied, lucid and ‘quiet state of alertness’13 (“Versunkenheit” in Albrecht’s terminology). This, however, is not a mystical state, but only the ideal mental setting for witnessing a mystical event, if it ‘arrives’ in consciousness. Albrecht insists that a mystical encounter may occur at any time, in any individual and in any state of consciousness – a claim that is entirely consonant with the theology of grace. Albrecht’s insistence on the ‘givenness’ of a mystical event is understood by von Balthasar as a psychologist’s version of the theological notion of gratia gratis data. The ‘living God’, von Balthasar states, is free to reveal Himself ad libitum anytime and anywhere, irrespective of the recipient’s given state of mind or disposition, which means that God is free to reveal Himself in the self-induced state of “Versunkenheit” just as in the state of ecstasy, the ‘waking state’, or in any other state of consciousness. Von Balthasar was convinced that “[s]omething of this kind [i.e., an encounter with the ‘living God’ in the state of “Versunkenheit”] must have occurred to Carl Albrecht, who on the basis of these experiences has found his way into the Catholic Church.”14

The first full-length study of Albrecht was the doctoral thesis of Simon Peng-Keller, published in 2003 as Gottespassion in Versunkenheit. Die Psychologische Mystikforschung Carl Albrechts aus Theologischer Perspektive. Peng-Keller, at the time professor of Spiritual Care at the university of Zurich, assesses Albrecht’s empirical investigations into mystical consciousness from a theological perspective. He acknowledges the exceptional epistemological and heuristic significance of Albrecht’s research for theology and the interdisciplinary study of mysticism. Peng-Keller has recently created the website <christliche-kontemplation.ch>, in which Albrecht is given ample space. A succinct appraisal of Albrecht’s achievements is provided by Peng-Keller in the preface to the present book and (with a different focus) in his preface to Carl Albrecht. Psychology of Mystical Consciousness.15

Albrecht’s reception in Europe can be traced throughout the late 20th and early 21st centuries. A representative example is the encyclopaedic study Die Mystik in den Religionen der Welt by Eleonore Bock, first published in 1991 and, in a revised edition, in 2009.16 Bock, though a chemist by profession, devoted most of her life to the cross-cultural study of world religions and mysticism. She had expert knowledge of Albrecht’s works and considered his findings so important that she dedicated a full chapter to his research: “Carl Albrecht: Psychologie der Mystik” (531–44). In this chapter, Bock offers a balanced evaluation of Albrecht’s psychology of mysticism and draws special attention to his unique methodology, which enabled him to probe more deeply into the ‘core’ of mysticism than any other study to date. She emphasizes that, owing to the unprecedented method of verbalizing ongoing mystical experience, Albrecht was able to disclose features of the ‘core’ of mystical experience which she claims are shared by ‘all varieties of mystical experience across time and space’:

Carl Albrecht’s psychological investigation of varieties of mystical experience have confirmed the pivotal issues described by many mystics of all mystical traditions and religions, even though his perspective is that of the modern Western scientist. This is seen as an important indication that there is indeed a ‘common core’ to all varieties of mystical experience across time and space (543). [English translation provided – FKW.]

One of the more recent academic studies in which Albrecht’s works are used as an epistemological reference-frame for the interpretation of mystographical and prophetic texts is Sprechakte der Mystischen Erfahrung17 by the Polish linguist Alicja Sakaguchi. In this voluminous philological study, the comprehensive corpus of mystical and prophetic texts is examined from a linguistic perspective in which Albrecht’s findings provide a viable heuristic fundament for the hermeneutics of idiosyncratic tropes in mystical writings.

Outside the Germanophone world, the reception of Albrecht has been rather sparse. The only notable exception in the English-speaking world – except for Bernard McGinn – has been Harvey Egan, a professor of theology at Boston College. Egan, like Rahner and Enomiya-Lassalle, a Jesuit, has recognized the potential of Albrecht’s studies for exploring mysticism and commends them in Christian Mysticism.The Future of a Tradition.18 He expresses his regret, though, that “… the studies on mysticism by the German psychologist and physician Carl Albrecht … have been undeservedly neglected” (252). He appreciates Albrecht’s empirical approach, as it is aimed at truth and objectivity and because it is – unlike many scientific studies in this field – neither inherently sceptical, nor reductionist, nor tainted by ideological bias:

Albrecht’s careful phenomenological studies show that mysticism cannot be reduced to intrapsychic processes. Although certain phases of the mystical ascent may involve some regression, neither regression nor pathology explains it. For Albrecht, the mystical consciousness is a ‘phenomenological state’ (sic!).19 This means that it cannot be reduced to anything else, because it contains an irreducible essence that must be studied for its own right. Although science can and must study this irreducible essence, it demands of its very nature a theological and religious explanation as well. In short, scientific investigation alone cannot do sufficient justice to the mystical consciousness. (Egan 252–53)

After the publication of Psychology of Mystical Consciousness in 2019 and the current release of Mystical Recognition, Albrecht’s main works are finally available in English and thus accessible on a global scale in the lingua franca of the sciences and humanities.

Readers of the present book who are not yet familiar with Psychology of Mystical Consciousness may, however, wonder why Albrecht’s research should still be relevant in 2020, considering that his empirical studies were carried out some seventy years ago. And since the 1950s a plethora of scholarly and scientific books on mysticism have, after all, been published worldwide, so that it would seem reasonable to suppose that Albrecht’s books and insights have meanwhile become obsolete. This, however, is not the case. Therefore, it is worth considering the possible reasons for the enduring value of Albrecht’s studies.

There are several reasons why the results of Albrecht’s research have stood the test of time, the first being the rare coincidence that the meticulous scientist, medical doctor and originally religious sceptic was turned into a mystic in the course of his enquiries into the nature of mystical consciousness. The awe-inspiring impact of the mystical experiences encountered during his scientific enterprise turned Albrecht into a deeply religious Christian mystic. The effects of these mystical encounters – as well as of their loss – had an enduring effect on his life that lasted until his death.

The second major reason for the enduring value of Albrecht’s insights is the fact that they are grounded in a double test of truth: Albrecht’s findings do not just rely on critical reflection and the rational analysis of a large corpus of records by approved mystics, but are also the result of a dual test of verification. One test was imposed by Albrecht’s ethics as a scientist, which demanded that all empirical data had to be screened for their objectivity and truthfulness. The second test was levied by the ‘cleansing fire of mystical conscience’ (as Albrecht puts it): all of his personal mystical experiences were only allowed to be articulated in ‘mystical utterances’, if the wording conformed truthfully to the underlying experience. The ‘mystical utterances’ were, in other words, subjected to a rigorous process of purification by the function of ‘mystical conscience’.

This unique method of transforming mystical experience into ‘spontaneous verbal utterances’ during an ongoing mystical event is the primary reason for the exceptional authenticity and unparalleled immediacy of the empirical data upon which Albrecht’s findings are based. Before he began his investigations into mystical consciousness, Albrecht had adapted J. H. Schultz’s method of ‘Autogenic Training’ for therapeutic uses in his practice as a psychotherapist. The introspective method of deep-relaxation (“Versenkung”) turned out to be not only an effective therapy against stress, neurotic disorders, states of restlessness and depression, but also an efficient method for transforming the scattered state of the ‘waking consciousness’ into a fully homogeneous, calm, clear and emptied mental condition. By ‘emptying’ the mind, a serene state of consciousness can be attained, one marked by enhanced inner clarity, inner peace and increased alertness to ‘incoming’ phenomena in the vista of the ‘inner eye’. In phenomenological terms, the state of “Versunkenheit” corresponds closely to what in eastern mystical traditions is known as ‘mindfulness’. In this lucid and vacated mental state, the only active function remaining is the capacity of the ‘inner eye’ (‘inner sight’, “Innenschau”). This exceptionally clear mental state differs from any other state of consciousness available to man, notably from both states of increased arousal (like the normal ‘waking state’, and various stages of the ‘ecstatic consciousness’) and states of decreased arousal (somnambulist states, daydreaming, hypnosis, deep-sleep and various drug-induced states). “Versunkenheit” is phenomenologically defined as “… a fully integrated, homogeneous, hyper-lucid and vacated state of consciousness; in it the flow of experience is slowed down; it is sustained by the persevering mood of calmness, and the only active function remaining in the otherwise entirely passive ‘experiencing I’ is the capacity of ‘inner sight’.”20

Yet the mere fact that Albrecht has identified and phenomenologically described in detail the state of “Versunkenheit” is not the pioneering achievement for which he deserves acclaim. The state of ‘mindfulness’ is, after all, an altered state of consciousness which has from time immemorial been reported by mystics and ancient sages as the desired goal of meditation or of related techniques of transforming the state of consciousness, such as contemplation, spiritual prayer, yoga, Zazen, or Dervish-dancing (to name only a few). The purifying, emptying and calming effects of these meditational methods have, in other words, long been common knowledge amongst contemplatives and mystics across cultural traditions. Though numerous antecedents of Albrecht’s concept of “Versunkenheit” might be quoted here, only a few may suffice to corroborate this claim.

In Christian mysticism, a description that has evident affinities with Albrecht’s practice of “Versenkung” and its progress toward the state of “Versunkenheit” can be found as early as the fourth century in the teaching of Evagrius of Ponticus (ca. 345–399). Evagrius was one of the first Christian contemplatives to employ the method of self-emptying by spiritual prayer. His advice to an adept has obvious psychological similarities with Albrecht’s psychological-phenomenological account of the secular practice of “Versenkung”:

When you are praying, do not shape within yourself any image of the Deity, and do not let your mind be stamped with the impress of any form; but approach the Immaterial in an immaterial manner … Prayer means the shedding of thoughts … Blessed is the intellect that has acquired complete freedom from sensations during prayer. 21

Two centuries after Evagrius, Pseudo-Dionysius promoted a similar method of spiritual prayer as a ‘natural’ preparation for the supernatural gift of ‘infused contemplation’. The teaching of Pseudo-Dionysius became the prevailing method of ‘contemplation’ in the apophatic tradition of Christian spirituality, which can be traced from the sixth century through the Middle Ages and the modern era to the present.22 Similarly, in Hinduism, diverse methods of vacating the mind had been developed from ancient times. If a ‘mystic’ wishes to attain the state of ‘mindfulness’, “[a]ll the mystic has to do is to empty his mind from thoughts, images and forms, what is called nirvikalpa in all the traditions of Yoga.”23 In Buddhism, the adept is taught to ‘withdraw from this world’ and to empty the mind by passing through the four (in other traditions six) stages of jhana.24 In Zen Buddhism, an analogous notion is expressed in the teaching of the 20th-century Zen master Nishida: “By truly emptying the self, the field of consciousness can reflect an object just as it is.”25

Albrecht’s psychological phenomenology of “Versenkung” and of the state of “Versunkenheit” is thus perfectly consonant with received teaching on the effects of spiritual prayer and the practice of meditation in eastern and western mystical traditions. Hence Albrecht’s findings are indirectly corroborated by the teachings of the mystics across cultures, just as, conversely, his empirical insights corroborate the veridical claims of the latter.

The congruity of Albrecht’s state of “Versunkenheit” with descriptions of the analogous state of mystics by spiritual counsellors and mystics across mystical traditions may be extended to the concept of ‘inward perception’ (‘inner sight’, “Innenschau”). This concept refers to the capacity of inward perception, which reaches its highest potential in the serene state of ‘quiet alertness’ (viz., ‘mindfulness’). It consists of the heightened receptivity to phenomena ‘arriving’ in the vista of the ‘inward perception’. Amongst the phenomena appearing in its vista are such as are perceived as surfacing from within the ‘individual self’, and such as are perceived as ‘arriving’ from a domain beyond the confines of individual self. The former are entirely intra-subjective phenomena that do not qualify as instances of genuine mystical perception. The latter, by contrast, are perceived as intruding from an unknown trans-subjective domain and qualify potentially as mystical phenomena. They can be approved as such if they have revelatory import and are perceived as ‘arriving’ from an unknown, unfathomable sphere and experienced (in the widest sense) as an ‘encounter’ with ‘the All-encompassing’ or with unfathomable ‘ontic Reality’ (whatever its concrete mode of manifestation). When an ‘encounter’ of this kind occurs in the ‘quiet state of alertness’, the state of consciousness is transformed into a mystical state. Though a genuine mystical encounter is ultimately ineffable and incomprehensible, this does not fully apply when the mystical event occurs in the calm and serene state of ‘quiet alertness’. In this mental condition the perceiver is able to grasp cognitively and phenomenologically some of the pivotal features of the ‘mystical Otherness’ when it appears in the vista of ‘inner sight’. A mystical experience on this level may, for instance, be perceived as an encounter with ‘unfathomable, all-encompassing Space’, or with an ineffable ‘Nothingness’, a ‘Loving Thou’, or may consist of the ‘awareness of an invisible numinous Presence’, or the presence of an ‘unfathomable Power’ acting upon and within the perceiver. The mystical event is, in other words, experienced as an encounter with ‘ontic Reality’, which may take many different (personal and non-personal) forms. When the encounter is genuine, it has inevitably a transforming impact on the perceiver that lasts for a lifetime. Albrecht’s pioneering contribution here is the claim that a mystical event can be acknowledged as genuine if it is sustained by the concurrent awareness that the perceiver has here and now become immersed in a living ‘mystical relation’ with ‘the All-encompassing’.