To conceive of union with the Absolute
It is beyond doubt that it is on this point that the difference between immanent and transcendent religions is most flagrant. In effect, for the former, the mystical experience is a union between oneself and the universal self, while the latter envisage it as a union with a creator God outside the world.
Yoga – one of the six orthodox schools (Darshana[1] ) of Hinduism – has been absorbed, in a way inappropriately, into Indian mysticism. It carries with it, in one way, the idea of unification of oneself with the cosmos and of oneself with the universal self and, in another way, deliverance from the cycle of death and rebirth (samsara[2] ). The second aphorism of the Yoga Sutra[3] summarises the philosophy of the school well: “Yoga consists in arresting the fluctuating manifestations of the material of thought”. Because of its Indian origins, it is not surprising that Buddhism shows clear links with the mystic union described in yoga. Here also attaining nirvana constitutes ultimate deliverance and union with the Buddha as every man is in his essence of the Buddha.
At the heart of the three principal monotheistic religions union is associated with the idea of the love of God – an injunction reiterated in the sacred texts of the Jews, Christians and Muslims (Deut 6:5, Qu'ran 3:31 and 5:54). However, if the love of God remains the motor of mystical union, it is still necessary to define the quality of love, its form, and the finality of the union. For certain Greek Fathers of the Church, it leads to living the experience of Christ, while for others the union leads to a return to Paradise. This is also the position defended by the kabbalist Isaac Luria.
The Greek Fathers of the Church, above all, debated the use of the terms eros and agape to define the love due to God. Eros clearly evokes the idea of carnal love while agape signifies a disinterested and uniquely spiritual love. The defenders of eros relied in particular on the Song of Songs which served as a reference both to mystical union and the consummation of that union. The partisans of agape rejected the idea of physical desire for God. Gradually, Christianity came to defend the idea –specific to itself – that the mystical union with God is not loneliness but on the contrary communion; to love God is, like Him, to love all people.
The polemic surrounding carnal love and spiritual love is found in Islam around ishq – amorous desire – and hubb – disinterested love. It is especially polemical because the very idea of union with God is problematic in that. He has only revealed his word to man and the world, which makes the principal of union or identity (Ittihad) with God even more presumptuous. On the other hand, while a kabbalist[4] describes himself as a lover of the Torah, Judaism reveals itself as very modest in relation to descriptions of mystical union. Furthermore, while it does use the terms ahdut (unification) to describe the mystic path and ihoud (unity) to describe the end of that road, it recoils at speaking of union with God, preferring the term devequthm, which conveys the idea of adherence to God.
