Reality and Religious Experience – Part 3
Charles Seymour
Before considering in detail the relation of ‘ritual’ to religious experiences, it may help the student to get a clearer idea of the result of the use, the abuse, and the neglect of ritual, the attached diagram be studied.
In studying this diagram of the Seven Ways by which a religion may develop as a whole or in part, it must be remembered that no church and no sect travels completely or entirely by one way only. For example, in the Anglican Church, first, second, and sixth ways are strongly developed. In the Church of Rome, the fifth way is even more cultivated than it is in Quakerism. But the mysticism of the Roman Catholic is subordinated to his Catholicism; and the fifth way is subordinated in its teaching to the first way. For the Quaker, however, Quakerism is mysticism; it is ” the” way, not one of the ways.
These Seven Ways must therefore be considered as seven tendencies, all of which will show themselves to a greater or lesser degree in all religions, and in all subdivisions of any religion. This diagram will therefore apply equally to Buddhism and Mohammedanism, though here only Christian terminology has been used for the sake of convenience and brevity. The Seventh Way is the ideal one, and its characteristic is balance. Everything is in due proportion and nothing is in excess. It is unnecessary to emphasize very strongly the fact that no religion and no sect is fully on this way – as yet. But also, necessary to emphasize strongly the fact that almost every religion and every sect thinks that it, and usually it alone, is this seventh way.
This Seventh Way is really a “Middle Way” to borrow a phrase from Buddhism. It is the pure white light of Divine truth in its religious aspect. On either side of this middle way are the two ways of Catholicism and of Protestantism. And it is worth noting that in some form or other the basic principles for which Catholicism and Protestantism stand are common to all religions. The Hinnayama and the Mahayana, speaking generally, are but the Protestant and Catholic forms of Buddhism. Fundamentally the two ways part company on the idea of authority. Catholicism usually acknowledges as it’s only authority ” the church”. The authority in true Protestantism (a very difficult thing to find) is in the mind: It is usually called (rather mistakenly!) the individual’s own conscience. Protestantism in England, Northern Europe and North America, is dominated by the idea of Reason (so called!) as the ultimate authority on religion. It tends towards nationalism in religion, and intellectualism, as well as towards individualism and independence of thought. It is the religion of the virile independent northern races living in cool climates. Its great defect is its excessive tendency towards rationalism, and towards loss of touch with the numinous. As a religion, it is phenomenal rather than noumenal, and it is ethical rather than religious. As a result of its sceptical and materialistic philosophy, it has almost completely lost all its ritual powers – powers which it has long despised, partly because it does not understand religious psychology, and partly because it fears to use that which it cannot rationalize, measure, and more or less explain in terms of matter. In terms of the numinous we may say that Protestantism functions chiefly on the concrete mental plane and to a lesser degree on the astral plane; for as a religion, its emotional aspects are usually dominated by its concrete-mindedness. Even when emotionalism breaks loose, as it sometimes does in ‘revivalism’, its effect seldom last. The outburst may be violent, the results may sometimes be deplorable, but sooner or later reason returns to rule, and the uncontrolled expression of repressed emotional tendencies is a thing of the past.
Revivalism is disliked and distrusted – only too often with good reason – by the clergy. But it is usually welcomed by the laity, and as a nice emotional outbreak which is not banned by the law of the herd, it often gives relief to many repressions. For the Roman Catholic, a restrained and trained and continuous flow of emotion is encouraged by the ritual, the majesty and beauty of the Roman mass. Here you have a trained and regulated emotion deliberately allowed to run its ordered course and to over-rule ‘reason’, and speaking generally, for the Roman Catholic, beauty and the higher emotions guide reason in religious matters. The authority is the Church, and the latter’s chief instrument of power over the faithful is its ritual. Here, ritual may lead to a very definite religious experience. Often the Catholic knows by experience that which the Protestant can only reason about – usually somewhat illogically.
On the whole it may be said that, unlike Protestantism, Catholicism leads to internationalism, or rather to universalism, also that the ‘church’ comes before the ‘individual’. Also Roman Catholicism uses meditation much more thoroughly than even the Quakers do; and it is this combination of meditation and ritual which gives the Church of Rome the tremendous hold it has over the souls of its adherents. They will accept certain very evident drawbacks and failings for the sake of the practical religious experience which they can enjoy. We may also say that Roman Catholicism appeals especially to emotional people and the Latin races of the south of Europe, who have been far less touched by Protestantism than have the races of northern Europe.
Ritualistic experience mellowed by devotional meditation may then be said to be the chief source of the spiritual strength as well as the worldly success of Roman Catholicism as a religion. It satisfies the devout Roman Catholic, who can often say from personal experience,” I know”, whereas an equally devout Protestant, who neglects both ritual and meditation, can seldom get beyond: “I believe”.
Commentary by Christian Gilson
Looking at the simple diagram of the seven ways that Seymour has developed, it is interesting to see the different ways that he perceived that the revelatory materials of the founder could be approached. The first apparent claim at the centre, that the founder has taught “truth” must be initially questioned. Firstly, the teachings that are central to any given religion may not derive from a founder, for example the teachings of Buddhism were not committed to paper until five hundred years after Siddhartha Gautama was thought to have delivered them. The teachings of Jesus were written by followers who had not necessarily had first-hand experience of this teaching. Indeed, modern Biblical scholarship argues that this material was written and edited by a range of different contributors. Whilst Mohammed claimed to be illiterate and received the Qur’an directly from God by holy revelation. Whatever the case may be this is not the focus of the point, but rather the need to change the centre to the “teachings and doctrines specific to the faith” in order to be more accurate.
The seven ways are well thought out especially the concept that the best approach is a balance of the other six. That is to say, ideally religion should inspire devotion based on credulity, but not a blind faith, rather a faith in which the believer is asked to engage rationally. However, merely to use reason and devotion is to have a religion devoid of the potential of religious experience. The individual surely needs to feel that contact with the Divine is possible, and that meaning can be revealed to them through intuition and supernaturalism. Finally, all religious believers flourish when they are able to use ritual and object as a focussing point, what Seymour calls superstition. The diagram breaks down the approach to religion in a clear and very effective way and the examples given help the reader to understand the point.
However, there is a need in the present day to replace the example of Catholicism from the path of devotion and use instead Orthodoxy. Simply because of the changes that the Catholic Church has undergone in the last fifty years. Also, what is interesting is his placing of the tendency to pantheism, which is clearly given a negative placement. Certainly, many pantheists would not call their faith a mixture of supernaturalism and superstition. Whilst this may be true of early pagan religions this idea has evolved with time. Many neo-pagans would be more comfortable with the idea of panentheism, that there is one source approached through many aspects, it would be interesting to consider where he would have placed this concept.
The rich and definite distinction that Seymour draws between the Roman Catholic and Protestant denominations here is interesting for what he is telling us about the importance of emotion within ritual practice. However, it would be interesting to see how this would stand up today. The ritual practice of the Roman Catholic mass having been dramatically altered since his time. One could ask if it was the use of latin that attracted him, or the almost obsessional focus on devotion to the saints. The modern Catholic Church has worked to move itself away from such expressions.
However, his analysis of Protestantism as a religion of the mind still holds strong in some part, but not in all. The development of charismatic forms of worship have certainly re-introduced the emotional into protestant worship. But here I avoid the term ritual, because the new forms of Protestantism have abandoned ritual for a non-liturgical form of worship, where music dominates the majority of the service. Indeed, those attending for the first time may be forgiven for thinking that they are at a pop concert. This move certainly returns the emotional aspect but rejects any form of ritualism, so moving from one extreme to the other.
I think it would be more helpful for us to move away from the examples used by Seymour and look instead to those ideas that underpin this article. That is the importance of an emotional aspect to any form of ritual.
Ritual can take two forms, liturgical, and non-liturgical, to use the theological terms. The liturgical form is in effect scripted, following a set pattern with words and forms that are used for every ritual, with some variation in regard to the central theme. It would be easy to consider this to be potentially boring, and lacking spontaneity, and it is why some groups / denominations prefer non-liturgical worship. This ritual form has no script, simply using a theme and allowing the ritual to evolve as it progresses. This latter form is incredibly difficult to manage effectively and often ends in being just a simple gathering of like-minded people.
The power of the liturgical form of ritual is that it gives the ritual form from the outset. However, this is also its downfall. The liturgical ritual is like a play in which each participant has their role to play. Following this metaphor of a play, we can see that if the actors merely read their lines when on stage the audience are going to be very dissatisfied. As a result, the reviews will be terrible and the play will soon close. Rather the actors are called on to fill the role they have been given and give their part an emotional charge. They must make their character believable, so that the audiences’ imagination is captured and they are transported into the world of the play. This is the unification of force and form, it is at root a polarity working.
Transposing these ideas from the stage to the ritual space there is little or no difference. If the words of the ritual are said but no emotional force is brought to bear then they are dead words. The form is empty and lifeless. The ritual then is pointless, failing to appeal to the minds, both conscious and subconscious, and spirits of the participants. It therefore goes without saying, such a ritual will not attract the attention of the Inner Planes, and will not function on anything more than the material plane, which is what Seymour accuses the Protestants of his time of doing. For ritual to be effective it must involve all aspects of the incarnatory personality, speaking to all forms of the mind, drawing on the physical, mental, emotional, and imaginative aspects of every participant.
There is also another aspect to this, for a person who attends a ritual without the intention to be emotionally engaged will also fail to engage with and be moved by that ritual regardless of how much force flows through the other participants. It is not enough to merely turn up, it is essential to tune in and actively participate, even if that participation is to listen. This is the error that many who attend any form of worship/ritual make, it is not the task of the ritual itself to transform you, and make you transcend the ordinary, it is your task to engage with it and so allow it to activate those aspects of yourself that will enable you to transcend and transform yourself. Actors often talk about the importance of feeding from the energy of an audience, a disengaged audience often results in a poor performance, ritual is no different. The ritualist then, needs to bring to liturgical / scripted forms of ritual a willingness to be emotionally engaged. The words of the ritual then act as a channel for that force and by creating a balance of force and form enable the possibility of connection with the spiritual realms, creating the possibility for religious experience. Which as Seymour implies is the secret of any good ritual.
The non-liturgical or unscripted ritual is much harder because there is little for the participants to grasp onto. The channels of form are no longer proscribed, all that is given is an idea, and the participants must focus on this idea and develop an emotional response to it. Then through the altered state of consciousness achieved they must look for each other, and find both a connection to each other and the form of the ritual on the astral, reaching beyond the material. However, if they achieve this then to make the ritual effective they must be able to bring back both the force and form to the material plane and manifest it. This takes a very high degree of discipline and concentration. A state which is rarely found in exoteric worship of any kind, and so the resultant worship becomes little more than a party that leaves everyone happy.
It is argued that liturgical ritual is repetitive and as a result it loses its meaning, becoming something that the participants simply pay lip service too. This is true if there is no emotional connection, if there is no force given to the form by the participants. Malidoma Patrice Somé says of ritual: “No ritual can be repeated the same way twice (in my village there are seasonal rituals that are repeated – but never exactly!). There are structures, however, that stay the same.” (Ritual: Power, healing, and community 1993). He goes on to explain that every participant brings something new and different to the ritual every time, if they are truly engaged with it. He also points out that it is essential that every participant comes to ritual with a purpose. To fail to do so, to attempt to be a disengaged observer, will result in greater problems for that person. He writes “Elders say that ritual is like an arrow shot at something. When the intended target is not there, the arrow invents one.” That is to say the participant who fails to engage purposefully with ritual giving it the force and form required may find themselves receiving the gifts of that ritual in unexpected and often unwanted ways. It is for these reasons that the initiate is carefully trained in the disciplines necessary for ritual to be effective, and for the spiritual life to be enrichening. Seymour is showing us that ritual is not merely a one-way activity, it is a process by which we raise the material to meet with the spiritual and so enable Divine Union, the true religious experience as expressed by mystics in every religion.
