SOURCE: "Numen, Nirvana, and the Definition of Religion," in Concept and Empathy: Essays in the Study of Religion, edited by Donald Wiebe, Macmillan, 1986, pp. 40-48.

In the following essay, originally published in 1959 in The Church Quarterly Review, Smart contends that Otto misunderstood the notion of nirvana, thus throwing into confusion his notion of the numinous in religious experience.

Despite Rudolf Otto's remarkable contributions to the philosophy and comparative study of religion, there is a defect in his treatment of spiritual experience—namely, his relative neglect of, and partial misinterpretation of, Buddhist nirvana.¹ This hinders a fully satisfactory analysis of mysticism and militates against a correct description of the nature of religion. What I wish to show here is, briefly, as follows. Given Otto's analysis of his own illuminating expression 'numinous', nirvana is not, strictly speaking, numinous; but nirvana is the key concept of (at least Lesser Vehicle) Buddhist...