family system with the renunciationist religiosity of ascetic
and mystical virtuosos. The contribution of tradition is the
assumption that the four a ̄ ́sramas are coherently related to
each other, and that respect and communication are there-
fore possible among their representatives. The reach of
Hindu tradition is thereby significantly expanded.
A special adaptation of tradition to stages of life is repre-
sented by forms of religion connected with dying and the
treatment of the dead. In all societies these matters are regu-
lated chiefly by tradition, because neither reason nor experi-
ence can offer much guidance. By establishing a role in
death, a tradition secures a place for itself in life, because peo-
ple’s lives will be affected by the way they expect to die. In
Japan, for example, Buddhism has traditionally been the reli-
gion of funerals, and only at the grave does it come close to
being the universal religion of the Japanese people. Still its
special authority over death is one of the ways Buddhism
gains visibility and prestige in Japanese tradition as a whole.
In some religions the distinction between the religion
of virtuosos and that of ordinary people is built into the fun-
damental structure of the tradition. Buddhism is a case in
point. In its first century Buddhism was a religion of monks
that, although moderate in comparison with other asceti-
cisms in its day, proposed a way of life incompatible with life
as a householder in the everyday world. Yet Buddhism man-
aged to establish itself as the dominant religious tradition in
several Asian societies. It achieved its hegemony not by aban-
doning monasticism but by developing a mode of lay reli-
gious participation distinct from the monastic one yet in har-
mony with it: laypeople are invited to earn “merit” by
providing food, clothing, dwellings, and other services for
monks. The rewards of this exchange for the laity are ritual
protection against the chaotic forces of the universe, en-
hanced moral clarity in this life, and a better birth in the next
life. This “domestication” of Buddhism, as Todd T. Lewis
has called it, had a profound effect not only on Buddhist so-
cieties but on Buddhist monasticism itself (Lewis, 2000,
pp. 3–4). While the Western scholarly stereotype of the Bud-
dhist monk as a detached seeker of transcendental enlighten-
ment (nirva ̄n:a) can certainly be documented, the large ma-
jority of Buddhist monks seem to have been more concerned
with such sociable pursuits as collecting and disseminating
parables, conducting rituals, and preaching for the edifica-
tion of the community as a whole. Indeed it is hard to imag-
ine how Buddhism could have been such a successful religion
if most of its monks had followed the more detached way.
The dialectic of multiformity and community occurs in one
form or another in every religious tradition.
MYSTICISM, ESOTERICISM, AND TRADITION. Mysticism and
esotericism are forms of religious expression that present spe-
cial problems for classical traditions. Mysticism is the cultiva-
tion of closeness to or union with the divine or ultimate. It
may or may not involve special doctrines; it always involves
special techniques. Esotericism is the study and application
of “secret” teachings of a speculative (e.g., theosophical, cos-
mological, eschatological) or practical (e.g., magical, occult)
sort. Mysticism and esotericism need not overlap, although
they often do. The genius of classical religious traditions is
nowhere better seen than in their capacity to host mysticism
and esotericism, if not always as honored traditions within
the tradition at least as a traditionally tolerated religious
“night life.”
Experience is the goal of mysticism regardless of the
means employed, which range from strict asceticism through
sociable middle ways to antinomian abandon. In essence,
mysticism is not a matter of tradition, since experience can-
not be received from or handed on to others. Mysticism is
a matter of insight or perception, not texts, doctrines, or
rules. However, because mysticism is interesting to most reli-
gious communities, and because human beings need to com-
municate about the things that interest them, mysticism typ-
ically generates formal mystical traditions, which may grow
to an imposing size and complexity even against the wishes
of a saintly originator. Formal mystical traditions are canons
applied specifically to adepts or aspirants, such as myths of
foundation, sacred histories, chains of authoritative transmit-
ters, initiatory rites, techniques of devotion and ecstasy, say-
ings, texts, and rules regulating physical functions. As a gen-
eral rule, once a mystical tradition is formed, little vagueness
or laxity in its application is tolerated even though the goal
of mysticism remains personal experience. In fact the canons
of mystical traditions tend to be even more rigorously de-
fined and enforced than those of mainstream traditions. This
is partly because of the elite character of mystical tradi-
tions—rules can be more strictly enforced when applied to
a few; partly because of the central role of the spiritual master
in many mystical traditions, a role commanding a high de-
gree of obedience from aspirants and apprentices; and also
perhaps because of the need to guard against the explosive
forces of unstructured mysticism. In madness and in method
the traditional mystic is not unlike a classical S:u ̄f ̄ı poet: God-
intoxicated yet still mindful of the meters.
Whereas the interaction between mysticism and host
traditions is extremely complex, the history of religion sup-
ports the generalization that the two need each other. Mysti-
cism needs a host tradition as a source of vocabulary and
symbols. Even though the meaning of these may be revised
by the mystics who use them, without them the mystics
would not be understood by anyone. In addition, the reserve
shown to mystics by the authorities of a host tradition, be-
yond safeguarding the interests of the latter, is generally
healthy for mystics because it challenges them to clarify their
goals and refine their methods. As a rule the nemesis of mys-
ticism is not too much structure but too little.Mysticism can renew tradition. Cadmus and Tiresias,
personages representing the Greek political and religious es-
tablishment in Euripides’ play The Bacchae, gave good advice
to every established tradition when they counseled the young
ruler of Thebes, Pentheus, to admit the revels of the god
Dionysos into the city, maintaining that incorporation of theTRADITION 9277