Defining Mysticism
I’ve been using the term mysticism pretty loosely and it’s meaning has drifted for me over time.
In the Qur’an, there is a beautiful description of being a mystic. Satan is having a conversation with God after his fall.
39:15:He said, ‘My Lord! Since You have condemned me as astray (and erring), I will surely make (evil of straying from the straight path) fair-seeming to them (as long as they stay) on the earth; I shall seduce them all,
40:15:‘Except your (sincere) servants from among them; (Your) chosen and purified ones, (whom I shall not be able to seduce).’
41:15 :(Lord) said, ‘The path (that My sincere servants follow) leads straight to Me.
Surrah 15:39-41
Being a mystic means taking the direct path that leads straight to God while renouncing the many erring and astray paths. It’s finding our path in God alone and not in institutions, theologies or philosophies or human authority.
In the Qur’an, there is a beautiful description of being a mystic. Satan is having a conversation with God after his fall.
39:15:He said, ‘My Lord! Since You have condemned me as astray (and erring), I will surely make (evil of straying from the straight path) fair-seeming to them (as long as they stay) on the earth; I shall seduce them all,
40:15:‘Except your (sincere) servants from among them; (Your) chosen and purified ones, (whom I shall not be able to seduce).’
41:15 :(Lord) said, ‘The path (that My sincere servants follow) leads straight to Me.
Surrah 15:39-41
Being a mystic means taking the direct path that leads straight to God while renouncing the many erring and astray paths. It’s finding our path in God alone and not in institutions, theologies or philosophies or human authority.
Comments (37)
This is something I've thought about a bit. Beliefs called "mysticism", including pretty much all eastern religions and philosophies, are generally thought of as focusing on supernatural entities and forces. This is exacerbated by the way eastern teaching is portrayed - flying monks with staffs and swords fighting off armies, etc. If Taoist and Buddhist teachings are mystical, then mysticism is the most down-to-earth, naturalistic understanding I can imagine. I remember something Alan Watts wrote, it may have been in "Nature, Man, and Woman" - When there's a spiritual mystery, the mystery is always something inside us that we've hidden, denied, or ignored. That's always made a lot of sense to me.
Ok, so what is mysticism actually. Here's some stuff from the web:
Actually, I don't mind any of these. Generally, when I hear the word used, it applies to something supernatural, which I don't think any of these definitions do.
Comments revised...
So this would be the closest to the direct, independent experience I’m talking about.
But as I’ve learned in my research on psychedelics and many people pointed out in brain science, awareness of this really real isn’t spiritual or religious at all. Mysticism in a western sense is a special or hyper-spiritual, hyper-religious thing. Becoming one with God.
But really if I’m a true monist, everything already is united with God. So much so that something as mundane as a stroke to the correct part of the brain, taking LSD, or staring at a wall long enough will reveal this to pretty much anyone.
All phenomena is secondary to Atman, which includes the instrumentality of thinking. Atman precedes or exists outside or is the source of Maya in some way.
My favorite mystic meme:
"God is an intelligible sphere whose center is everywhere and whose circumference is nowhere."
Maybe I am drifting into Hinduism
So is conciousness of this absolute state of union the goal for you?
Is this state of union dependent on conciousness apprehending it?
I've also asked myself what "spiritual" means to me. Well, if it's not intellectual, emotional, perceptual, or physical, what does that leave? The answer that works for me is that "spiritual" refers to awareness. The act of becoming aware of things that I was previously unaware of is a spiritual activity. It can apply to physical, emotional, perceptual, or intellectual aspects of myself. I can tell you, for example, that getting old has given me lots of opportunities to become aware of my body as parts that I took for granted or abused before no longer work like they're supposed to.
I think you're talking about more profound experiences than that, but I think they are different in intensity, but not in kind. Also - we have to take little steps before we take big ones. I'll roll out one of my favorite quotes from Franz the Manz Kafka again:
You do not need to leave your room. Remain sitting at your table and listen. Do not even listen, simply wait. Do not even wait, be quiet still and solitary. The world will freely offer itself to you to be unmasked, it has no choice, it will roll in ecstasy at your feet.
This is sort of what I was discussing - I think presenting mysticism as granting superpowers undermines its credibility. It's one of the reasons it gets a bad rap among so called rationalists.
The mystic claims to try to know what is not known, what is hidden.
Right; esoteric (hidden) vs. exoteric (visible) knowledge.
That’s a really good question.
Because we are already in a state of union, so yes the goal is awareness.
Though I’m starting to feel my whole intellectual house of cards shaking.
Why was Socrates wise? Because he knew he didn’t know.
I know religion doesn’t have a monopoly on God. But I don’t know if I can really tell you that much about God if he would be freed. I definitely don’t know once God is open access why anyone would ask me about Her.
And so the reason to strive for this awareness is because it's the "real" reality? It's a pursuit after truth?
Quoting T Clark
I think spiritual refers to the "inner"; the same principle of hidden (esoteric) knowledge. Awareness is the state of conciousness where the hidden is revealed for what it is. That sounds kind of new-agey, but I think it's consistent.
I think you and I are agreeing with each other. Someone, I think it was MysticMonist, said some nasty things about new agers in a recent post. He said they steal the shiny surface from whatever comes floating down the river and ignore the insight that requires a bit of digging. That's my paraphrase. The new agey guys have stolen the idea of consciousness without its substance. Awareness always requires giving something up, generally your pride.
Yeah that was me. I really don’t feel sorry either.
Yes! You have be aware of it yourself, you can’t trust anyone else. Or at least you need to verify it for yourself.
That’s why I feel so inept at saying what Truth is. I’m not certain myself and it’s not shareable.
My religion does not allow to use those little faces used in emails to express emotion and mood. We are not even allowed to speak or write their name. For that reason, I am telling you in advance that what follows is intended to be amusing and ironic.
You're really a pitiful philosopher - here Noble Dust and I are agreeing with you on almost everything and still you lose faith.
In a discussion about mysticism, why'd you pick the religion of Islam which has perhaps the weakest mystical tradition of all major world religions to attempt your point? Seems a tad strange, unless you're a Muslim yourself.
Quoting MysticMonist
Dare I say the opposite - the "mystical path" is rather the least direct, and most murky, of roads that promise a deeper connection with God.
Quoting tim wood
Even if I were to grant you these three descriptions of mystical experience as being accurate, none of them are bad if they are successful.
Yeah, no. Not every mystic claims knowledge of what they call mystical experience. My old moniker on this forum had referred to Meister Eckhart - he's one such, famous mystic who has very little to do with modern "mystics".
I really enjoyed your comments.
Yeah if I’m drawn to the Quran, perhaps I’m not really a mystic. It does have a very strong Monism, there is no God but God, no intermediaries, one revelation with many prophets.
Now the Sufis get more mystical, but I think your point is still valid. My love of the directness is not mystical. Also check out the Baha’i. They are pretty convinced I’m one of them.
I think I’m a God alone kinda of guy. So maybe a acestic contemplative?
What’s the difference between philosophy and rhetoric?
Philosophy’s goal is truth and justice
Rhetoric’s goal is flattery.
I’m not here to win arguments and you my friend I don’t think you are either
If you believe, as I sometimes do, that truth is what you can convince other people of, then philosophy and rhetoric are the same thing.
Was that trying to egg me on? Read Plato’s Gorgias on this very subject.
But I'm sorry to say the opening quotation is poorly chosen. It's got nothing to do with mysticism per se, it's more a boilerplate description of religious orthodoxy, i.e. 'right belief'. I have no doubt you could find corresponding statements expressing exactly the same idea in Buddhist, Hindu and Christian texts. What does 'straight and narrow' mean?
The original derivation of mysticism is actually 'initiated into the mystery cults or religions of ancient Greece'. One of those was Orphism, and one noted initiate was Plato. So, in fact, he is a textbook mystic, and not an innappropriate instance, as Christian Platonism is the main current of mysticism in the Western spiritual traditions.
But there are some cardinal points about mysticism generally. One is ineffability - that the mystic enters a dimension of reality that is subjectively apodictic but which is impossible to communicate or describe. Subsequent attempts to describe their ecstatic utterances then crystallize into religious dogma, often over the space of generations, as the enigmatic sayings are written down and repeated, often by disciples who don't really know what they mean.
Another is the directness of the knowledge or intuition - it does not involve priestly intermediaries or ritual; the seer enters directly into the domain of the numinous.
Another is intellectual or noetic transformation - the mystic understands or sees a unifying principle which makes sense of many diverse and apparently conflicting phenomena, as if they have risen to another level of perception.
And finally there are often physical and outward signs and symptoms, such as suspension of metabolic processes, going into trance states which in Eastern lore, might last weeks, months, or even centuries (although of course there is ample scope for confabulation of the legends around such people.)
Hmm... I think you are right in how this quranic passage would be interpreted by Muslims. They would definitely say their hadiths and traditions were the straight path to God. Non-Muslim paths or heresy would be the errant paths.
You also give a compelling description of mysticism, thank you.
I’m still trying to balance competing approaches. That’s what I get from religion hopping.
So would Soto Zen be mystical? It denies study or institutions or ritualism or intermediaries but relies on direct enlightenment
I don't think mystics call themselves mystics, just as Saints in the Christian Churches don't call themselves Saints.
Quoting MysticMonist
What do you mean by this?
But you will find it’s still controversial to speak of Buddhist mysticism - a lot of Buddhists are suspicious about the term ‘mysical’. ( It has many connotations, not all of them helpful, but I’ve always liked it. )
I’m a Boomer, so probably older than yourself, and there have been many books published since I read these - but I read Evelyn Underhill, Dean Inge, William James, and also Richard M. Bucke’s ‘Cosmic Consciousness’. Also the Sermons of Meister Eckhardt. D T Suzuki, I still recommend Alan Watts’ serious books, particularly Behold the Spirit, The Supreme Identity and Beyond Theology (despite Watts’ questionable reputation in some matters). Teachings of Ramana Maharishi. The Record of Rinzai. Krihsnmurti First and Last Frredom. That was my ‘core curriculum’. ;-)
I’m not at all ashamed to say I’m confused. My head is a jumble of scriptures and sages.
How can wise and holy and brilliant people be in contradictory traditions? How could you possibly choose between agreeing with St. Anthony, Maimonides, Rumi or Bahá’u’llá? (Just a tiny fraction of examples) I’ll never have the same insight as they do. How as a lessor mind am I able to choose which of these greater minds is most correct?
You all have helped me think thru how a mystic (in a technical sense) doesn’t equal contemplative.
Does it real mean anything to say I’m a contemplative? I think that’s the term Merton uses to describe himself. Not that I’m on par with Merton who is a monk.
I’m not really an ascetic since I still have a house and car and all that.
This is the point of 'praxis' - in the Greek philosophy, there were two parts, 'praxis' and 'theoria' - practice and theory. But, in those days, humans were much less fixated on the external or objective so the meanings of the word has changed, but originally, this is exactly what they were about.
The reason that Soto Zen resonated with me, was the emphasis on sitting practice - shikan taza - 'just sitting'. The point was just committing to meditation practice. It is very pragmatic, and something you can do at home. (Here is my handy guide.) Also the Soto emphasis on 'everyday mind' and 'nothing special', which means, learning not to expect anything special from meditation, but to stay with it through thick and thin. That is 'praxis'.
But I too have a house and car - actually coming to think of it, two of each - and all the rest. I also really understand the torrent of ideas; I have piles of books that I've bought and borrowed and then hardly have time to read. Again is why it's necessary to learn to sit - you can actually go down beneath the verbal~discursive intellect. Do that, and you're contemplative (or yogi, in Eastern terminology.)
I’m still chewing on the idea that the Quran is unmystical. It’s my favorite scripture though rather repetitive.
It takes the sovereignty and primacy of God seriously. There’s no intermediaries or partners of God. It’s a streamlined monotheism that’s consistent with Monism.
Those are all things that institutionalized religious practice often looses once you add clergy and hadiths or Talmud or creeds.
I’ve thought perhaps a philosophical approach to God would work. But I find the most value in praxis side of things and I have trouble staying philosophicaly consistent.
So I’m okay with not being a mystic then.
hmmmm......
My drive into work gave me some rare clarity though
It’s perfectly fine and good to be confused. None of us have any certainty. What religions and philosophies do is act like a bizzare meteorologist convention trying to predict weather trends. Some give polished, climate science based presentations. Others rant and rave about denying those presentations and bring in politics and what their grandfather used to say. Others consult the weather in 1912 and try to compare it. Others discect birds or take drugs to gain powers of an oracle. But no one knows how much snow we’ll get this winter. No one. Doesn’t mean it won’t snow, just we can’t know with certainty that it will or how much or on what days.
Luckily, we aren’t meteorologists and life isn’t a theology exam. It’s okay to say I don’t know. If I’m asked do I believe in the gospel of Jesus Christ, why can’t I say “that’s a good question. I wonder what God believes, I’ll ask when I see him”?
When I die God won’t punish me for wanting His opinion on the matter. He might punish me for the arrogance in thinking I don’t need His input and I joined some weird cult though. I suspect He’s pretty forgiving for all our follies though.
There’s still a good amount we can be pretty sure about though like not murdering and being respectful to your parents is a good idea. Donating food or time to the hungry seems pretty safe.
So yeah, I’m with God. I believe what he does.
Is Buddhism True?: A Conversation with Robert Wright
Sweet, thanks.