mysticismattention to his notion of ineffability that excludes the possibility of cross-
cultural comparisons of mystical experience because by definition inef-
fability already negates the possibility that an accurate description of
mystical experience can be given by the mystic.
In addition to the characteristics identified by James, other scholars
have attempted to define types of mysticism in order to further under-
standing of the subject. W. T. Stace differentiates two main types of mys-
ticism: the extroverted and the introverted. The former type is
characterized by: (1) the unifying vision; (2) experience is interpreted as
having an objective reference; (3) apprehension of an inner subjectivity
in all things; (4) feeling of blessedness, joy, or satisfaction; (5) a feeling
that what is experienced is holy or sacred; (6) paradoxicality; and (7)
ineffability of the experience. The introverted type of mysticism is char-
acterized by: (1) void or empty unity; (2) being non-spatial and non-
temporal; (3) a sense of objectivity or reality; (4) feelings of blessedness,
joy, peace, or happiness; (5) the feeling that the holy is apprehended; (6)
paradoxicality; and (7) ineffability. In contrast to Stace, R. C. Zaehner,
an Oxford University professor, enumerates three types of mysticism: (1)
panenhenic (nature); (2) theistic; and (3) monistic. Panenhenic mysti-
cism is what Stace means by extrovertive mysticism, a type in which the
mystic experiences nature in all things or of all things as being one.
Zaehner equates theistic mysticism with various forms of Christian,
Muslim, and Hindu devotional forms in which love and the grace of God
are important features. A major characteristic of the theistic mystic is that
he/she does not lose his/her individual personhood in God, whereas the
monistic type of mystic does lose his/her identity in a greater reality or
God. Another major difference between the theistic and monastic mystics
is that the former depends on God for assistance, while the monistic mys-
tic achieves the unitive experience by means of his/her own efforts.
Ninian Smart agrees with Zaehner’s distinction between panenhenic and
monistic types of mysticism, but he questions Zaehner’s differentiation
between monistic and theistic types.
Are these types inadequate when applied to a cross-cultural perspec-
tive? Are these types too reductive and inflexible? If a person answers
these questions positively, this means that such scholars are forcing mul-
tifarious and variegated forms of mystical experience into improper inter-
pretative categories. Within anyone type, there are a number of varieties
that promote the following danger: the uniqueness of a particular case
could get lost or fundamentally important differences are obscured to the
point of confusion. When Smart claims that all mystics share a similar
experience, it becomes difficult to account for the differences, and it
reflects an essentialist position that is associated with what is called a