religions Article Religious Experience without an Experiencer: The ‘Not I’ in Sam¯ . khya and Yoga Alfred Collins Alaska Neuro/Therapy Center, 615 E 82nd Ave. #102, Anchorage, AK 99518, USA;
[email protected] Received: 2 January 2019; Accepted: 24 January 2019; Published: 2 February 2019 Abstract: “Experience” is a category that seems to have developed new meaning in European thought after the Enlightenment when personal inwardness took on the weight of an absent God. The inner self (including, a little later, a sub- or unconscious mind) rose to prominence about 200–300 years ago, around the time of the “Counter-Enlightenment” and Romanticism, and enjoyed a rich and long life in philosophy (including Lebensphilosophie) and religious studies, but began a steep descent under fire around 1970. The critique of “essentialism” (the claim that experience is self-validating and impervious to historical and scientific explanation or challenge) was probably the main point of attack, but there were others. The Frankfurt School (Adorno, Benjamin, et al.) claimed that authentic experience was difficult or impossible in the modern capitalist era. The question of the reality of the individual self to which experience happens also threatened to undermine the concept. This paper argues that the religious experience characteristic of Sa¯m. khya and Yoga, while in some ways paralleling Romanticism and Lebensphilosophies, differs from them in one essential way. Sa¯m. khyan/Yogic experience is not something that happens to, or in, an individual person. It does not occur to or for oneself (in the usual sense) but rather purus.artha¯ , “for the sake of [artha] an innermost consciousness/self”[purus.a] which must be distinguished from the “solitude” of “individual men” (the recipient, for William James, of religious experience) which would be called aham.