I am facing twofold difficulty this afternoon. One, I am used to do lectures to students with a chalk and board but reading a paper to scholars is altogether a different matter. Second, I enthusiastically agreed for the talk but I was taken aback by the seriousness of the subject matter. A mystic should have been the speaker today. I am nowhere near that league. I feel a blind could lead but not an ignorant one. So, I am here with some trepidation to talk about mysticism.

In seminar on ‘Mysteries of Mysticism’, the topic for me is ‘Nature of Mysticism’ specifically. This may very well be antithesis of the main topic of this seminar because I intend to dissect the phenomenon of mysticism in an attempt to clearly understand this mysterious discipline. I am thankful for invitation to speak this afternoon on one of the most elusive and intriguing ideas that humans have practiced in all cultures at all times. Fascination with the idea of mysticism and its long history do not make it easy to define it. Before I try to define it, let me say that there are countless volumes of mystic literature but mostly they are filled with experiential narratives and poetic symbolism. There are also historical accounts, without any attempt at clarifying the real nature of mysticism. This makes it extremely difficult for one to rationally understand it.

( That mysticism is not so commonly understood has been clearly understood by Dr. Qazi. He has hit the nail on the head when he says that mystic literature is mostly filled with experimental narratives, poetic symbolism, and there are historical accounts without any attempt at clarifying the real nature of the phenomena itself.)

To give you a real sense of difficulty with this discipline let me tell you an old story that I inherited from my father. I am not known for story telling but I will take exception today. Story goes like this:

“Long ago, a monk in pursuits of spirituality and a businessman looking for business were walking through a jungle to a town. They ended up on a river bank. Monk proposed to do meditation to acquire powers to walk on water to cross the river because he considered it a disgrace to rely on material things like a ferry or boat. The other man disagreed. So they parted their ways. It so happened that they ran into each other again after 20 years. The monk said, “See! I have gained power today to walk on water”. The businessman man smiled and replied, “Indeed, but your 20 years of labor is equal to only one dollar that I paid to cross the river last time”.

Apart from an element of awe and a pragmatic ridicule in this story that catches the listener, it does not give any insight into the nature of mysticism. Exactly the same way historical or cultural descriptions are not insightful either. Therefore, I have opted for psychological approach to talk about mysticism. The word “Mysticism” comes from Greek, which means to close eyes.

Historically, religion is very closely tied with mysticism ....... ( and to science as well. For, in my opinion science is just another form of human awareness, only that it basically tends to verify all that it learns to believe.) Let me reiterate what most of you already know that religion has two components. One is ritualism as a core value that serves to stabilize the sense of self-identity and the other is subliminal part of religion, which quite paradoxically, diffuses sense of identity. It is the mystical part of religion. Before allowing it to play upon in my talk; let us try to understand a few particulars of human psyche that would set the stage for definition. Greeks come to our help at this point who understood human endeavors long ago.

Conceptually, Greeks attempted to explain life in two words. “Logos and mythos”­. Logos would describe the logic of natural phenomena that could be explained with reason. It deals with practical essentials of everyday life but it does not have necessary vitality to fully comprehend nature of life because it does not explain everything related to life. For example, the question of essential nature of human, of consciousness or what is the meaning of life or an emotional pain associated with death of a loved one? No reason or logic can explain it so far. It is hard to understand logic of presence of life on this speck of cosmic dust – called planet The Earth. There is no logic for pain, suffering and happiness. Theses elements of life are dealt at a different level of human mind that does not even care for a rational explanation. In Greek terminology this is the job of mythos that talks about the underpinning of human mind on which the logos is built for practicality of our daily life.

( Is not the idea of Logos and Mythos akin to the idea presented in Farzana sahiba’s paper of Wahadat Ul Shood and Wahadat Ul Wajood respectively. So, one concludes whether the Greek, or a few thousand years later the mystics of Islam, and other major philosophies in between and since, are  the proverbial blind men trying to describe the same elephant, only each one is examining different parts of the animal. To complete the view, in my opinion to merge both the external and internal or the visible and the invisible aspects of the theory or belief, as each one is the supplement of the other; the external experience is not possible without the internal, as noted elsewhere.  Logos is thus not possible without the  mythos and vice versa.  )

Against this background, it will be easy to understand mysticism, which predominantly is an experiential state of mind and I say it again that it is a “subjective experiential state of mind”. That is why almost every description of mysticism is of personal narrative. The fact is, there are no good words in any language to express any sensory experience; it is true with this personal experiential state of mind also. May be it is a digression from the main topic but allow me, for a moment, to divert your attention to poverty of language. How would you describe emotion that a beautiful musical symphony rouses? Everybody has experience of love in so many different relationships but still there are not enough words to express all of its shades. Thousands of years of experience of countless humans have created only one word for it – Love. So, you see why there is no good definition of mysticism or mystic experience for a rational mind and perhaps there can never be a good definition either.

But it is interesting to note that religious lingo comes rather close to describing mystic experience, which may give misperception as if it is a religious experience. The same holds true for the mythological symbolism that represents living dreams and is a source of inspiration to mankind. In this context, it mirrors the mystical conception.

(It seems that the language of feeling and emotion has a completely different vocabulary with its own grammar perhaps, and cannot be understood in terms of the ordinary language of words. Don’t you think the sages, the mystics and the like have some inkling of it, and have thus learnt to communicate with the other dimension of life, while still in this earthly abode?)

 

So, mysticism does not appear to be a rational function of human mind. As such it has nothing to do with logic and reasoning whereby it is more akin to unconscious of human mind that is represented in terms of mythos as a property of life in Greek mythology. Understandably, therefore, mystic state of mind or mystic state of consciousness differs from person to person but there are some common elements of such an experience. It is an ineffable and ecstatic state of consciousness, which diffuses the boundaries of self and non-self and gives a strong feeling of cosmic union. In the interest of time, I am not quoting any references. If you read experiences of mystics, I am sure you will agree with these conclusions.

(Can it not be said that it is a state of fusion of the ‘material’, ‘not material’ and ‘spiritual’ or ‘thought’, ‘word’ and ‘deed’—as discussed in my review of Farzana sahiba’s paper? It may be the moment of merger of the three states, as experienced by Mansur Hallaj, perhaps.)

Mystic experience as real as it is, in general, is a transitory experience. However, mystic state of mind; if one can achieve, could have a sense of permanency. Mostly, it is a sense of union with the universe or God. If such an experience becomes a permanent state of living, there is no craving or greed in pursuits of sensory pleasures. There is no anguish around life. This is best described in Buddhist literature by the term ‘Nirvana’, which means in Sanskrit, “To put out a flame”. Even though the flame of anguish is put out but it is not a dull kind of sensory state of living as is persistent vegetative state or coma in cases of brain injury.

(The mystic state is wonderfully described here. It is perhaps the state of Cosmic Oneness which is experienced by being fully alive in the moment of its experiencing.)

It is a state of high reception with subdued reactivity as would be predicted by diffusion of ego boundaries of ‘self’ that I have referred to earlier. It levitates a human from ordinary living to adoration as a source of inspiration for others. I think that is why there is a charm and an aura around such personalities that captures imagination.

This is an important point because this is where mystic experience starts to transform into mysticism as an ‘ism’ with a ritualistic protocol that has potential for some abuse by those who can concoct an aura around them. You would see them exploiting others. To my perception this defies the very nature of mysticism that I have laid out above. For the fact that, the way I understand, mystic state of consciousness being a personal experience, I am no judge to discount any such claims but the behaviors exhibited by proclaimed mystics would make me wonder if they are really practitioners of mysticism. In word of Woollcott, “Normal and pathological narcissism are central to religious struggle and aggrandizement is the main psychological hazard of religious illumination or conversion”.

Going back to mysticism, the next question that comes to my mind is what determines the nature of mystic experience? The less well-defined path of mysticism is a zygote of culture with native sense of spirituality. This also helps explain diversity and differences in mystic culture although in its core it is the quest for same psychic experience. I think the nature of experience is determined by essentials of personality with different inclination for perception and cultural training for expression. Muslim, Christian, Hindu and Jewish mystics etc have their own lexis, heavily borrowed from their respective religious lingo, thus, creating an impression of all being different from each other. I think all of them are the same as far the nature of mysticism goes.

(This is so apt. There are as many shades of opinion as there mind sets. Each dependent upon the origination of the thought process, and the consequent development of each philosophy -- each having started in a cradle of its own.)

On this end of the spectrum, I do not find much difference in creative poetic experience, scientist’s exclamation of “Eureka”, ecstasy of a musical composer or prophetic revelation. I think of them all as mystic experiences. For sake of brevity, I would forego detailing different religion-based and non-religious mystic expressions and perceptions but I want to touch on mystic experience as a neurological phenomenon.

I am convinced that a brain injured person would not be able to have mystic experience. The conclusion that I draw from this assumption is that frontal and parietal lobes of brain are a must necessity for mystic state of mind. Somebody might rightly argue in favor of temporal lobe perhaps. I would not mind that. Whatever it is; it is most evidently “Neo-cortex”. Somebody has attributed such an experience to stimulation of ‘Mu” receptors on cortical neurons as well. There is good literature on reinforcement of habits as a result of brain’s so called ‘Reward System’ that is triggered by a neuro-transmitter Dopamine that leads to a serene tranquility. I recognize that my friend Nuzhat, in audience would love to call me a reductionism, at this point. I take that chance!

Again on nature of mystic experience, let me elaborate on what I said earlier that it is a high receptive and subdued reactive state of mind; a state of cosmic diffusion or union with God (Whatever the realization of God may be). I do not think it is a hallucinatory or delusional content of mind. It is real and normal perception because mystics do not exhibit abnormalities in their behaviors but psychiatric patients do.

 (The realization of God!  is, perhaps the discovery one has been in quest for, all his life. The mystic does not show any abnormality because all the he /she achieves, has been done with full participation and consciousness of the free-will. Nothing, either known or unknown, has been imposed against either the consciousness or the will of the individual, and there is no conflict in his/ her being; because it is a conflict of some sort that creates the agitative or denial state in the person. That Is to say a state where one forgets, or wants to forget or deny the experienced phenomena.) 

The same is, theoretically, true for some varieties of epilepsy also. I think it would be prudent to try to elaborate differences between mystic experience and psychosis. It would also be wise to consider narcolepsy too. Those who are in the field of psychology or psychiatry would not find it difficult to differentiate between psychosis and mystic consciousness but epilepsy and narcolepsy deserve a special mention.

Narcolepsy is a sleep disorder where a person very quickly gets in and out of REM (Rapid Eye Movement) phase of sleep. REM sleep is characterized by dreams. Narcoleptics quickly oscillate between dream state of sleep and true wakefulness. This makes it extremely difficult to differentiate between illusion and reality. Such a person is almost paralyzed at the time of attack. Loss of control on the body is also a characteristic of mystic experience. On the other hand, epileptic aura has some similarities with mystic experience too. Although epilepsy is a totally distinct phenomenon but partial seizure, also called petit mal may resemble the description of mystic experience. In this context, it is important to note that person with epilepsy has no control on the impending experience. A person may, in fact, feel an approaching aura leading to a seizure or on the contrary, a mystic experience

Contrary to epileptics and narcoleptics, mystics carry over the experience and adopt a way of life that is conducive to upholding principles of good in life. But, I do not think that such an attitude towards life is a product of only one experience. I think it is the smoldering flame of underlying personality that is sometimes rekindled or reinforced at the conscious level where shining tops of conscious and  deep, dark, otherwise intangible crevasses of unconscious mind are in free communication with each other. It may or may not be a product of meditative exercises. But, I think, this is where a mystic or a mystic way of life is born. In Walt Whitman’s words: 

O’ my soul! If I realize you I have satisfaction

            Animals and vegetables, If I realize you I have satisfaction

            Law of earth and air! If I realize you I have satisfaction

            I cannot define my satisfaction …. Yet it is so

            I cannot define my life …. Yet it is so.         (Leaves of Grass)

Look at the irony here, such a wonderful experience and so personal. What a contemplative state of mind, what an internalization of whole surrounding existence and what a meaningless experience for the rest of humanity. Does this kind of mysticism fulfill any social responsibility? I found the answer from a modern mystic who lived in Toronto and taught at University of Toronto named: Maitreya. He has put forward the concept of “Social Nirvana”, where he proposes that people of such great vision and wisdom ought to go out to meet the needs of society and be the light of reason for causes of social justice. He questions: 

 

“What is the use of such Nirvana that one achieves on ones navel point on tops of Himalayas while there is suffering in humanity?” 

 

The humanity, as we see today, disintegrated and suffering is in search of collective efforts for peace and justice. It is looking for a shared mystic vision and a social nirvana. Unless we strive for it, we will never get there and who knows we, as human species become extinct with our individualistic mysticism. But let us, at this juncture of history, optimistically look forward to witnessing a collective social nirvana dawn on humanity.

Thank you for your attention! 

(Her I would like to record that, Was it not the suffering around Buddha that led him to seek the path of Nirvana? It is perhaps only after seeing and experiencing suffering, and understanding their effect, that Nirvana can be appreciated and achieved. In the case of Buddha it may have been self imposed to create the affect and realize its significance, and in the case of ordinary individuals it is a natural process. A point to note here is that the denial of material self may have arisen from the fact that imposed suffering makes one realize the hidden potential of the spirit . Now, which ever way suffering is experienced, imposed or natural, it has an inexplicable effect on mortals and they look for solace. Religion have taken  advantage of this fact when it promotes the philosophy of ‘reward’ and ‘punishment’;  Saying that it will come in some future dimension of existence. Perhaps, it is thus right to say that, “religion is the opium for the masses”.  Now social Nirvana is perhaps achievable if we understand and learn the practice of ‘Nature’s principal of Self-restraint and Self-sacrifice’ — discussed in some detail in my essay ‘Nature of Nature’.

In the closing I wish to apologize to Dr. Qazi for being rather speculative in my comments, for I feel that he is a man of pure science, not much appreciative of speculations and assumptions. Please take my  imaginative and speculative remarks with a pinch of salt.  )    

Best wishes and kind regards.