S p i r i t ua l i t y S t u d i e s 8 - 2 Fa l l 2 0 2 2 3 1 Diego Pérez Lasserre 5 Some Conclusions The objective of this paper was to justify that the mystical way of portraying human understanding enriches what has already been said about this topic by the hermeneutical tradition. To provide plausibility to our hypothesis, we started by briefly reviewing what philosophical hermeneutics have said about the way human understanding operates. In this context, we argued that this philosophical lineage portrays human understanding as hermeneutic (or interpretative) and projective (we throw, or project said interpretations to what is presented to our senses). We also noted that said thematization of human understanding presents some problems that are not minor. The two main difficulties we observed were: philosophical hermeneutics does not provide a mechanism for determining the legitimacy and truthfulness of different horizons of meaning (and therefore leads to nihilism), and that it does not articulate the relation between the hermeneutical nature of understanding and human happiness. Then, in the second and third sections of the paper, we justified, with the help of David R. Hawkins, that the mystical thematization of human understanding as hermeneutic and projective allow us to overcome the nihilistic perspective to which existential hermeneutic had led philosophical inquiry. Therefore, mysticism can be seen as a “way out” of the nihilistic and relativistic view of the world in which we are immersed in current times. The analysis made allows us to assert, with relative certainty, that the mystical tradition enriches what philosophical hermeneutics has said about the way in which human understanding operates in the following manner: a) After recognizing the hermeneutical and projective character of human understanding, the mystics argue that this fact is not an obstacle to affirming that there is an objective reality (absolute truth). b) Human understanding, though finite and precarious, can access truth. c) It is imperative that we take responsibility for the erroneous paradigm from which we understand the world. If this is done, then the truth of reality will be revealed, and we will have a happier and more peaceful life. d) Reason can set the stage for this to happen, but it is finite and, therefore, cannot lead us all the way. e) A manner through which we can see reality as it is, and not as it is portrayed (and distorted by human mind) is through spiritual practices. They allow us to let go of the content that our mind projects to what it perceives; that is, to undergo a process of gradual “cleanse” of the a priori concepts from which we interpret the world. Finally, we can only make explicit something that should already be obvious at this point: the intellectual and philosophical nature of the work here presented makes its scope extremely limited. As Joseph Campbell well explains (2008, 254), “symbols are only the ‘vehicles’ of communication; they must not be mistaken for the final term, the ‘tenor’, of their reference. No matter how attractive or impressive they may seem, they remain but convenient means, accommodated to understanding.” In that sense, in the best of cases this work can illuminate to the reader the fact that he or she should stop studying spiritual texts and start (or deepen) a spiritual practice. Gloria in Excelsis Deo! [13]
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MzgxMzI=