Resumen de On Mysticism and Non-mysticism, Religion and Non-religion
In this paper, I would like to focus on Ueda Shizuteru’s understanding of the movement from “mysticism” to “non-mysticism” in its connection with his reflections on “religion” and “non-religion”. As I will show in the following pages, the relationship between these central themes of Ueda’s thought is quite complex and not simply reducible to a linear scheme. Ueda treats them mostly in different works and does not develop their relation systematically. Through the analysis of Ueda’s texts, I would like to indicate, how an important common thread can be seen in the existential search for an answer to the question “what does it mean to live as human beings?”. At the same time, this individual inquiry cannot be separated from our questioning the world in which we are living and the complexity of its tasks. As I would like to point out, the reflection on “mysticism”, “non-mysticism”, “religion” and “non-religion” is deeply bound to the modern and contemporary situation. A detailed analysis of these aspects goes far beyond the possibilities and the purpose of this contribution, but it is important to indicate at least some issues as they are implicated in Ueda’s thought and in the broader context in which it takes place.
In considering the affinities between Meister Eckhart and Zen, Nishitani and Ueda have stressed the importance of a similarity beyond the historical differences for the opening of new possibilities for “religion” in a contemporary global world. At the same time, Ueda — whose precise studies on Meister Eckhart and Zen Buddhism have contributed to the interreligious dialogue with Christian thought— highlights the difficulties of interreligious discourse and the problematic nature of an inclusivistic model, which asserts the superiority of one religion over others. But, we might ask, in the idea of mysticism as something universal pertaining to all religions beyond historical contingency is there not also the risk of falling into a kind of inclusivistic model? Does this problematic consideration not concern Ueda’s idea of “non-mysticism” as well, because of its basis in mysticism? If not, why? This study examines Ueda’s works for answers to these questions.
