The Varieties of Religious Experience Lectures 14-15-The Value of Saintliness

Lec 14-15-The Value of Saintliness

Now to analyze the value of saintliness, and certainly we must test it by the human value of its fruits and in regards if it truly is good or not. Certainly, our own disbelieves can even be a theology of its own dogmatism thus we must stay a bit radical and take a step back. However, the reality of God here certainly must be judged as much of religion tends towards social arrangements, perspectives and needs change throughout generations. Thus, the particular God revered changes if only in a need to take seriously. A prior God of cruel appetites was certainly worshipped as at one point its “fruits were relished” (328). Now with a lack of effort towards X worship such fruits may not be accessible anymore. By this we can now analyze religious extents with saintliness. By James, “if it commands itself, then any theological beliefs that may inspire it, in so far forth, will stand accredited” (331). And if not then be discredited to the survival of the fittest of other religious beliefs. Collective and individual needs feeling violated? In comes new and/or evolved faiths.

            Now, in addressing some vague factors James, in regards of ‘the many’ problem, aims at a sort of objective certainty and he argues our empirical methods are not skepticism rather it is about recognizing the imperfections of our instruments of understanding and that we must utilize observations to gain better truth for future understandings, something dogmatism will forever contrast. And, certainly it is best to be open and receptive for any future provisional truths as, “when half-gods go, the Gods arrive” (333). Thus, religious diversity is inescapable as different types of religious function are best for different people at different times. Next, James notes an importance in distinguishing individual personal religion from institutional, corporate, or tribal religion (334). Historically speaking, religious geniuses tend to attract followers and create sympathizers (334), then when amassed enough followers and momentum they themselves become institutional, bound to contaminate what was originally innocent (335). Now, certainly such saintly lives argue a strong loneliness with many religious experiences drive particular individuals ‘into the wilderness’ with examples such as Buddha, Jesus, Mohammed, even George Fox (335). We get an example of George Fox, Quaker founder. He was strongly self-isolated even practicing in walks and fasting and also carried many sorrows of the Lord inside him. In his troubles he gave everything up to the Lord, even his family relations, mom, dad, and friends. He became a stranger on earth but with the Lord inclined to his heart. Others gave him anxiety, even priests, but hearing Jesus and he jumps with joy. With Christ he could overcome his human relations. His relatives would have been happy to relieve him of his condition, but Christ took him as he was and he left his care to him alone.

            Such appears as a lonely madman to many but may prove contagious to some and if enough it may form an orthodox and “it's days of inwardness is over: the spring is dry” (337). Instantly the institution persists in contrasting spite of individual ‘spiritual bloomings’ with many saints or prophets being strong examples. Many religious disregards center around the cons of such religious institution domains. With many also bigotries tied to ‘the spirit of dogmatic dominion’. Generally, by the combination of both institutional and individual dominions we find the ecclesiastical spirit. With religious, or even general human bigotry such as neophobia, “piety becomes a mask” (338). But enough blame of piety, James argues, if only now to blame it at most for not keeping possessions in check or for supplying hypocritical pretexts (338). Of course, hypocrisies do impose obligations and with passions in piety it may bring a repentance possibly never otherwise known (338). Thus, it is not religion’s part to blame but it's “overzealousness or fanaticism” (338) that tends to follow. That will be our next point, but first a preliminary remark.

            Concerning religious saintliness there certainly are appeals of extravagance. So, are factors necessary? Are ascetic practices necessary? Certainly, extremes are not the only range for people in such religious regards and like all else most generally balances between extremes but often practitioners reduce away from advising others (339). Our lack of extravagance lies near this “middle line of human effort” (339), not dependent upon particular beliefs or doctrines, nor age, nor other denominational factors (339). Thus, all fruits are relative and certainly “liable to corruption by excess” (339). A balance is necessary, if not, James argues, “spiritual excitement takes pathological forms whenever other interests are too few and the intellect too narrow” (340). Now to discuss saintly corruptions by excess, first starting with excessive devoutness as fanaticism being the common vice, or also said as, “loyalty carried to a convulsive extreme” (340). James argues this is common for narrow minded people newly grasping a phenomenal moment, one to them worthy of immense devotion. Then turning into a near idolization of the active devotion itself even with “languages altered in the attempts to praise him enough” (341). And certainly, near legendary humans gather in such regards, a strong fruit of religion with examples such as Christ and his followers, or Buddha and his followers. With James arguing, such regards are rather silly and but “man's misguided propensity to praise” (342). With an immediate consequence of such as “jealousy for the deities honor” (342) and with very narrow minds it may become a central preoccupation. Or even lead to crusades. This saintly temperament is certainly a moral temperament that often requires cruelty (342) as against supporters of Satan or religious antagonists. Many times, it becomes hard to distinguish between religion and fanaticism but certainly fanaticism is on the wrong side of religions regard. Generally, fanaticism only arises within aggressive temperaments for feeble extremes and it disbalances often as “an imaginative absorption into the love of God to the exclusion of all practical human interests” (343). “A mind too narrow has room for one kind of affection. When the love of God takes possession of such a mind, it expels all human loves and human uses. (343). Such excessive devotion is best known as, a theopathic condition or the experience or ability to experience ‘divine illumination’. We get an example of a person whose feelings of divine receptivity are so powerful that she prays for it to relax to be able to perform everyday life. Often also having hallucinations bringing revelations of Christ and hearing him say that he did this, choosing her to spread such love to the world. He then reaches in her chest and swaps her heart with his spiritual one. Certainly, monumental but what of the fruits? In James's further research little else but sufferings, prayers, absent mindedness, swoons, and ecstasies (344). “She became increasingly useless about the covenant, her absorption in Christ's love” (344). With many friends trying to bring her back down to earth “they had to leave her in her heaven” (345). James argues, admirable but feeble. Concerning such inferior intellectual sympathies, the fruits are near worthless (346). And in comparing with ancient fruits yielded they certainly come across as rather shallow. With an example being of Saint Teresa, an inspiration and psychology, willpower, politics, and certainly religious service but James argues, in contemporary contextual readings she come across as pity, as her strong soul found such poor employment (347). And, in spite of her sufferings, certainly existed a superficial composition. Now James utilizes Dr. Jordan 's ideological ‘shrew’ and ‘non-shrew’ types of people. Shrews are motor types and non-shrews are sensory types of people with expressions more energetic than initial feelings. In general, Saint Theresa was a shrew; received invisible favors via Christ and then immediately felt ought to document and export to those in need. Her consistent egoism concerned her faults and imperfections and generally with a return of humility, covers her ego with confusion upon coming to. James argues, such regards are typical of shrewdom. Saint Teresa hated Lutherans, she generally saw religion as a relative flirtation between human and divine, and other than general health for nuns little human regard was seen in her however, certainly she was revered as superhuman (348). There are similar regards to all sainthood as a God minute in actions and favor is a certain small mindedness. With examples of Luther in discussing the churches sin/debt observation thus saving religious depth and maturity. So much for devotion detached from intellectual conceptions that may offer better fruits (348).

Next to address excesses of purity. Such prior theopathic individuals refuse to mix God's love with other types of love (348), with mom, dad, family, and friends considered too distracting. Many pietists need to abolish disorder for order while some are more comfortable accepting it in the world in full (348) while also personalizing a small world of dwelling for themselves. Those that flee the world, such as a monastery, all generally do so with similar regards, to unify life and simplify “the spectacle presented to the soul” (349). For many sensitive people things must be dropped one after another in relation to the consciousness's absorption into spiritual regards (349). And for many others to trek outside of their preset dwelling is rather unsteady. Often many saintly individuals will want restriction self or externally imposed; intertwined in monotony and a zealot for purity (350). We get an example of an excess of purity, Saint Louis of Gonzaga, of whom in youth highly disregarded external realities to an unadmirable point. With a vow of chastity, he gained an immediate inhibition of temptations unpure, a very rare occurrence. His disgust with it turned into disgust with the opposite sex. He never looked up in public and refused to be alone with any woman even his mother. Then at 17 he joins the Jesuit order and becomes a monumental monk but also in his time sought out “unjust reprimands as opportunities of humility” (353), he refused to give another paper until permission from his superior, God. He died at 29 and was then seen as a saint for the youthful. His case was attempts of purification via elimination. However, a final judgment certainly rests with the conception of God in what conduct of actions he appreciates most (354). Regarding a general 16th century Catholic they probably have little regard of social righteousness rather, with more attention to individual salvation and with the devil left to the world (354). This certainly contrasts strongly with contemporary moral sentiments of helping others especially within divine regards. James argues, other than heroic stories of action Louis, with an intellect “no larger than a pin’s head, and cherishes ideas of God corresponding smallness” (354) is not pleasing in general. Certainly, purity alone is not the right way about this as many times it is of greater use to deal with some impurities than to disregard usefulness to remain pure (354).

Next, to analyze excesses of tenderness and charity; often “preserving the unfit, in breeding parasites and beggars” (355). ‘Resist not evil’ and ‘love your enemies’; are saints justified by such extremes? James argues a perfect conduct comes in relating 3 regards, the actor, object of action, and reception of actions by others (355). The best of intentions fails if by false means or bad reception (355) thus one cannot judge by one factor alone. Saints easily can and do give away too much importance to personal enemies, “by non-resistance cut off his own survival” (355). By H. Spencer, only perfect conduct appears with perfect environment and with saintly conduct as generally the most perfect conduct within the environments of such saint (356). In often is confessed by us all that virtuous regard such as charity, sympathy, in non-resistance manage to grow in excess and many times are taken advantage of (356). For many it is easy to get lost in such inhumanities and for it to reduce our realities  and imaginations. In that, saints in their extravagances prove superhuman role models of humanity and tenderness. By James's regard Saints are leavens, as Saints certainly present a “genuine creative force” (357; the authors and increasers of genuine goodness (357). For many this is nearly incomprehensible and through life they have only continued hardening. For them saints may be useful and able to soften, convert, or regenerate (357). Even photos of prior, to take advantage of good welfare, certainly they are not incurable as with Saints, as the great ‘torchbearers’ of such beliefs, to the people that need them (357). And whether charitable actions are taken advantage of or truly appreciated is only known through trial and error. Force may destroy enemies but non-resistance, if done correctly, makes enemies into friends thus with charity superior (358). “This practical proof that worldly wisdom may be safely transcended is the saint’s magic gift to mankind” (358-359). But humans certainly confess an inconsistency to maintain such saintly values and they then change habits. Thus, the saint transmutes earth to a more heavenly order (360)

Next, to address excesses of asceticism. So, if such a saintly inner disposition for someone then why such extreme mortifications? Well, it over regards one's external; when truly emancipated from flesh sees pleasure and pains, abundance and scarcity, as irrelevant and indifferent (361). Thus, can engage in actions without fear of corruption as Saint Augustine said, “if you only love God enough you may safely follow all your inclinations” (361). Buddhist middle way: stay away from extremes as with them excess mortifications are unworthy and become pleasures (361). True peace here is through inner wisdom thus ascetic practice. Now it's certainly easy for us to see a set of practices pathological so it would be worth distinguishing general good intentions of asceticism versus some of its more useless aspects. Spiritually speaking asceticism is a general regard of twice borns of at least signaling something wrong with the world and can only be met with an appeal to the soul and its saintly heroic resources. With healthy mindedness reliable to some but shallow for twice borns, their true deliverance is rather universal. “Pain and wrong and death must be fairly met and overcome in higher excitement” (363). That one could die a horrid death but feel all the while they were never quite in the know of life or the ‘great initiation’ (363) this James argues, this is how ascetics think, volunteering for such initiation.

There seems to be a common human instinct of reality, one that we pay to see others act out in front of us at a theater, in many heroisms the main meeting may forever stay a mystery. And while most of us cling to a flower, another throws it away without a second thought a factor deeply regarding them as a natural born superior (364). “He who feeds on death that feeds on men possesses life supereminently and excellently, and meets best the secret demands of the universe, is the truth of which asceticism has been the faithful champion” (364). James argues thus, asceticism exists with a more profound regard of existence (364). Now James likes to note concerning poverty, militarism and volunteerism also serving as possible equivalents. High materiality is certainly notorious to contaminate culture and by this James argues that many people would redirect such an interest to factors such as athletics, militarism, adventures, etc. (365), remarkable factors that help fuel heroic energy. An example being that war certainly inhibits a tender subjective with its intense demands; with war also a reality also rather “incongruous with ordinary human nature” (366). Now to direct towards poverty, certainly a strenuous life and contemporary people have grown afraid of it. Generally finding poverty repulsive all the while forgetting a main ancient point, “the liberation from material attachments” (368). Our worth is us not our stuff. However, wealth certainly is generally helpful and more beneficial than intense poverty and should generally be chosen. But wealth only affects so much in excesses concerning focus on gaining or not losing, causing conflicts of cowardice and corruption (368). In many cases the wealthy become slaves while a person in poverty lives with no terrors and lives as a free individual (368).

Now, quick review before concluding; a main question has been does “religion stand approved by its fruits?” (369). Certainly, individual saintly traits exist in non-religious individuals. A whole group forms as a religion by combination with the divine feeling within the psychological basis and in such cases individuals tend to think “the smallest details of this world derive infinite significance from their relation to an unseen divine order” (369) with such supplying massive feelings of satisfaction, steadfastness of the soul, and even exemplary serviceability (369) sympathies become contagious and saintly individuals place a higher regard on inner excitements than general people, converts discomforts to joys, declining no duty, is more reliable than generally anyone, and their ascetics save petty temperaments and pretensions notorious for corruptibility. Thus, purity is highly useful in such regards to keep accessibility close (370). With felicity then purity, charity, patience, and self-severity certainly are remarkable traits common to saints. But again, such factors are not flawless, with a narrow intellect arises tendencies such as, “holy excesses, fanaticism, or theopathic absorption, self-torment, prudery, scrupulosity, gullibility, and morbid inability to meet the world” (370). Intense fidelities become possible to damn a saint more than the average person. As we saw our judgments of Saints must be intellectual as well as sentimental and also it is best to judge Saints within ideal environments (370). James also notes that narrowness of mind is not always a vice and many times it is contextually based. Also, to note, many saintly essentials are accidents such as fleeing to a monastery and gaining essential saintly traits. Many critics, especially Nietzsche, note their dislike of saintly nature. For Nietzsche, it comes across as a negative reaction to general human instinctual nature, in this regard an instinct of tribal survival (371). With a leader’s consciousness comes the responsibility of transmitting possibilities of doom to the people. A saint’s ontology is rather a unique appeal from average; the world of fables to act within, personified relations with nature, where women supposedly admire tough adversities of such saintly men, denying rulers accountability, and with individuals highly suggestible in opposing point of views (372). For Nietzsche, saintliness is next to slavishness, the “degeneration par excellence” (372) with a saint’s influence on others toxic, this fear incites the strong to be tyrannical with denial of it. A take of Nietzsche’s antipathy that James calls sickly, the strongman or strong person finds only morbidness out of saintly gentleness. All revolving around two main factors: one, should we adapt concern of the seen or unseen world? And two, in the seen world, should such means of adaptation be of aggression or non-resistance (373)? Certainly, by some regard both worlds need a note taken by individuals, with all sides certainly serving use; rather this is a question of degree and intensity. Is tough or tender minded more viable? Empirically speaking such regards are matters of relation and thus generally relative and never absolute. The best test of any regard is by social function as “ideality in conduct is altogether a matter of adaptation” (374); only tough minded and it will destroy itself; only tender minded and you have no structure.

A saint may hold the highest value in the appropriate environment but many times we make ourselves saints at times of peril. From abstract to action many times saints are poorly adapted thus in comparing with strong men or persons we must compare with similar compositions in psychology. And in this, many times, saints shine superior. Now, it is certainly common many westerners of religious devotion fall short concerning nonresistance with even Christ fierce at times. Now with success existing within vast dimensions we probably cannot measure it absolutely and certainly it varies from individual (376). As an example of a small point of view, biological, Saint Paul's decapitation makes for a failure, but big point of view and his story is one to pervade historical influence. Thus, a saint as a leaven of the world is a success regardless of flaws; as less theological and more as historical, certainly they hold strong monumentality within influences. “Let us be saints, then, if we can, whether or not we succeed visibly and temporally” (377) but we must adapt to what type suits us best. In concluding the lecture, should we depend upon its truths and not its fruits? Well, if religion is true its fruits are good even if ill adapted in the world and causes problems (377), taking us back to the question of the truth of theology. Thus, to stop this unanswerable cycle James proposes we face responsibility (378). “Religious individuals profess to see truth in a special manner” generally known as mysticism, a topic for next lecture.

--Seth Graves-Huffman