g-rh@cca.UUCP (Richard Harter) (08/24/83)
I have followed the recent discussions in net.philosophy with
interest and pleasure (and occasional indignation.) However there
is one thing that disconcerts me regularly and that is the general
misuse of the words 'mystic' and 'mysticism'. Let me remark as a
preliminary that the word, 'mysticism', and its cognates are standardly
misused in popular usage. The reason is, I suppose, that most people,
particularly in the United States, have little knowledge of what
mysticism is. As a result they use the term for things that are
tangential to mysticism proper. This submission is for those who
might be interested in learning something about what mysticism
actually is.
As a side note, I can support the way that objectivists use
the term provided that it is clearly understood that "mysticism"
and "mystic" are technical terms in objectivist philosophy that
are distinct from mysticism. They have some justification; the
objectivist definition is a refinement of the popular misunder-
standing. However, I wish they wouldn't do it. Agreed misuse
of terminology may make for clarity of communication -- if I use
the word B when I mean A and you do the same then we understand
each other. The trouble is that if you use B to mean A you are
left without a way to talk about B.
Before I talk about what mysticism is I want to mention some
things that it is not. Mysticism is not:
o a synonym for the occult
o a system of belief
o a philosophy
o a religion
o ascetism
o shamanism or animism
o a mood or philosophy
o theosophy
o magic, astrology, or numerology
o intuitism
o epigrammatic wisdom
o mythologoy
o a form of mystery religion
o EST, scientology, etc.
o Revelations or prophesy
The list could be continued indefinitely.
Now let's look at what mysticism actually is. This is not so
simple. As a starting point let me begin with the definition given
in the Encyclopedia Brittanica (1979) in the article on mysticism.
"The goal of mysticism is union with the divine or sacred."
This will do as a starting point provided that you realize that
the practice of mysticism requires neither a belief in nor the
existence of the divine or sacred and is consistent with the view-
point that the experienced union is, in some deep sense, an illusion.
(All discussions of mysticism are replete with apparent paradoxes.)
Another definition: "Mysticism is a radical transformation
of self which leads to a state of illumination." This definition
does not tell us anything about the nature of the transformation
or the nature of a "state of illumination". However it does tell
us that mysticism is a process with a goal.
Mysticism is a practice, a human activity with a definite
goal. It is, in its own right, religiously and philosophically
neutral. Its practice leads to certain definite perceptions and
experiences. Their interpretation and expression will depend
upon the background of the person involved and the context in
which the mystical endeavour was undertaken. Usually mysticism
is undertaken in the context of strong religious motivation
and is therefore associated with religion. However it need not
be -- it is feasible to be a materialist and an atheist and still
be a mystic.
There is definite and strong evidence that the nature of
mysticism is independent of the beliefs of the person practicing
it. One can look at the recorded experiences and practices
of mystics and find a commonality (disguised by language and
context.) In European culture mysticism is mostly associated
with Christianity and Judaism and has usually been interpreted
in terms of those religions. The relationship between mystics
and instititutional relgion has always been uneasy in the West.
In the East (India, China, Japan) a knowledge of and experience
with mysticism is much more a part of the popular culture than
it has been in the West. The expression is more widely varied.
Zen Bhuddism and Mahayana Bhuddism tend more towards the pure
thing. Taoism mysticism is also "pure"; however there is a
vast body of occultism and superstition associated with Taoism.
Hinayana Bhuddism tends to be encumbered with a lot of Bhuddist
philosophy and theology. Indian (i.e. Hindu) mysticism is
hopelessly intertwined with mythology, superstition, and occultism.
It is also incredibly varied. I have no familiarity with
mysticism in Moslem cultures.
There are a number of observations that can be made about
mysticism generally. First of all, as noted, the process and
the goal achieved seem to be similar in essential character for
people of widely varying backgrounds. Secondly, the quest
requires both strong motivation and strong committment; it is
not easy. Thirdly, what mystics have to say about the process
and the results achieved is generally reliable although not
completely comprehensible by the layman. Fourthly, what the
mystic has to say about religion and philosophy is not reliable.
Fifthly, the observed success rate is not high. Sixth, it helps
to have a good guide or teacher. Finally, the results, if the
quest is successful, are highly desirable.
The process (quoted from the Encyclopedia Brittanica with
emmendations by myself) has four basic stages:
(1) purgation of bodily desires
(2) purification of the will
(3) illumination of the mind
(4) unification with the divine
Purgation does not mean asceticism or self mortification although
this is widely practices. These practices can result in visions
and related phenomena. Some religions see these states as desirable
end goals. "Maturer" forms of mysticism reject them. My personal
opinion is that the extremes of self mortification, like drugs,
trigger exotic states of mind that are unrelated to mysticism per se.
Stages one and two can be thought of as a process of focusing
and of gaining self control. The mind of the non-mystic is continually
agitated by desires and sensations; people are dominated by and
distracted by their emotions. The successful mystic does not cease
to have desires and sensations; however he (or she) is serene in
their presence and is not compelled by them. In the process of
attaining the goal, however, it is necessary to, so to speak, clear
the decks.
Stage three is widely compared with the "flash of insight" or
"Aha!" experience. This is misleading. The onset of illumination
is usually very definite and has the "flash of insight" character.
As such it can be exhilarating. Illumination of the mind cannot be
completely understood secondhand. One way to envision it is to
think of sense of clarity of the insight experience made permanent.
(This is not correct; it is only a misleading analogy.)
Stage four is not the same as stage three but they are intimately
intertwined. I am not even going to attempt an explanation or a
description. However I will note that (a) unification is a very
apt term, (b) it can either be a state of being or a transitory
experience, and (c) it does not require the intellectual belief in
the divine (or nirvanna).
To summarize: the mystical quest, when successful, results
in deep inner serenity and joy and a great increase in personal
energy. The process and results are nonrational and cannot be
adequately expressed in words. The reports of successful mystics
are filtered through intense personal symbology. The word and
methods of teaching mystics are oriented towards achieving the
desired result and cannot be taken literally as explication.
A disclaimer: This article is no more than superficially
informative. A serious effort would be much longer. It is
intended only as an introduction to the fact that there is such
a thing as mysticism. I hope that it has been of interest.
FINALLY: I am not a guru. Please do not ask me for help
and guidance or more information. If you want to know more your
local library or bookstore will have books on the subject. If
you are a student in a university, someone in the Philosophy
department can probably offer you suggestions.
Richard Harter