The two types at a glance
The philosopher W. T. Stace, in Mysticism and Philosophy (1960), proposed that mystical experiences fall into two broad types:
| Extrovertive | Introvertive | |
|---|---|---|
| Direction | Outward, through the senses | Inward, away from the senses |
| What is experienced | Unity within the visible world | A state of undifferentiated unity, or pure awareness |
| Content | Objects seen as alive, sacred or one | No objects, thoughts or images |
These categories are scholarly tools, not terms most mystics used.
Extrovertive mysticism
In extrovertive experience, a person looks outward and perceives a unity behind or within the world. Objects may seem to shine, to be alive, or to be part of one reality, and the experience is often accompanied by a feeling of sacredness and peace. Accounts often come from moments in nature, and writers from many backgrounds have described something like it. In religious language, it can resemble a sense that the world is full of God.
Introvertive mysticism
Introvertive experience turns attention inward, away from the senses and ordinary mental content. Stace described a state of pure consciousness in which all multiplicity fades, leaving a sense of undifferentiated unity. Practitioners in contemplative traditions describe states of deep absorption, and some Christian, Sufi and Indian writings are read as pointing to this kind of experience. Stace regarded it as the more complete type. See mystical practices for the disciplines associated with it.
Stace’s common core thesis
Stace argued that, once cultural interpretation is set aside, these experiences share a common core across traditions. In his view the differences between a Christian, Hindu or Buddhist account lie mostly in interpretation, not in the experience itself. The idea has appealed to those who see a “perennial” unity behind religions. For the broader picture, see what a mystical experience is and what mysticism is.
The constructivist criticism
Other philosophers, notably Steven Katz in the 1970s, argued that mystical experience is shaped by a mystic’s beliefs and training from the start, so a Buddhist’s experience and a Christian’s cannot be assumed to be the same. On this view, the “common core” is partly a product of the scholar’s scheme. The debate is unresolved, and many scholars take a middle position, holding that there may be shared features while recognizing the influence of context. Compare how different traditions describe their paths in Christian mysticism and Eastern mysticism.
Other ways to classify
Stace’s scheme is not the only one. R. C. Zaehner, for example, distinguished nature mysticism, monistic mysticism and theistic mysticism, with theistic mysticism centered on a loving relationship with God. Others group by tradition, by technique or by the role of a teacher. No classification fits everyone’s experience neatly.