Summary: The Two Sources of Morality and Religion (page 7)

Similarly, Buddhism does not represent complete mysticism, for complete mysticism would mean action, creation, and love ¹—whereas Buddhism advocates the extinction of the will-to-live.

By contrast, complete mysticism is action ².

Indeed, if complete mysticism is neither Greek nor Hindu, it is found among the great Christian mystics: Think of what was accomplished, in the realm of action, by Saint Paul, Saint Teresa, Saint Catherine of Siena, Saint Francis of Assisi, Joan of Arc, and so many others ³.

Bergson describes mystical ecstasy: Then comes an immensity of joy, an ecstasy in which he absorbs himself [...]: God is there, and he is in him ⁴. At the same time, however, an anxiety arises from the mystic’s awareness that his coincidence with God remains only partial. This anxiety is traditionally known as the "dark night". At this stage, action no longer detaches the soul from God by bringing it back to itself. Now, it is God who acts through it, within it: the union is total ⁵.

The love that consumes the mystic is no longer merely the love of one man for God—it is the love of God for all of us ⁶.

This love for humanity is neither innate, instinctive, nor natural. The only true instinct is love of one’s homeland. Social instincts, rather than fostering universal love, tend to drive societies into conflict with one another.

From this perspective, religion is merely the crystallisation—achieved through a controlled cooling—of what mysticism deposits, burning, in the soul of humanity ⁷. It is the solidification into doctrine of this primary energy.

The mystic has a relationship with the true God, who is not the God of the philosophers—not even Aristotle’s God, the unmoved prime mover who thinks only of himself: If by some miracle [...] God thus defined descended into the field of experience, no one would recognise him ⁸.

Bergson now applies the conception of mysticism he has just outlined to approach—experimentally, as it were—the problem of the existence and nature of God ⁹.

It would be a mistake to oppose mystical experience and scientific experience on the grounds that the former is singular while the latter is repeatable.

For Bergson, mystical experience is repeatable: The mystic too has made a journey that others can repeat in principle, if not in fact ¹⁰.

Some deny the reality of mystical experience, but one also encounters people for whom music is nothing but noise [...] No one would take this as an argument against the existence of music ¹¹.

A simple examination of mystical experience already creates a presumption in favour of its validity, in the sense that all mystics describe the same states, use the same images, and employ the same comparisons.

This agreement among mystics is a strong indication of the veracity of their claims:

Their profound agreement is a sign of an identity of intuition which would be explained most simply by the real existence of the being with whom they believe themselves to be in communication ¹².

However, it is acknowledged that mystical experience, left to itself, cannot provide the philosopher with definitive certainty ¹³.

By contrast, the vital impulse, this condensation of facts [...], has nothing in common with the hypotheses upon which metaphysics are built ¹⁴.

The mystic overcomes in a single moment the false problems raised by philosophy—questions such as "Why is there something rather than nothing?" He grasps at once the positive determinations of God, having no need for negative ones.

This positive determination, expressed in a formula: God is love, and he is the object of love ¹⁵.

This love is not merely an attribute of God—it is God himself: All the contribution of mysticism is there ¹⁶.

¹ p.238
² p.240
³ p.241
⁴ p.243
⁵ p.245
⁶ p.247
⁷ p.252
⁸ p.256
⁹ p.255
¹⁰ p.260
¹¹ p.261
¹² p.262
¹³ ibid.
¹⁴ p.264
¹⁵ p.267
¹⁶ ibid.