سنڌي ورچوئل لائبرري

In the present thesis I have endeavored (1) to clear up some prevailing misconceptions regarding the nature and method of Mysticism, (2) to give a more exact and comprehensive definition of Mysticism than those hitherto given and (3) to draw out the mystical element in each poet and subject it to a critical analysis, showing how his mystical consciousness functioned, and the causes by which it was advanced or retarded.

But the chief value of the thesis perhaps, lies in the close parallel I have attempted to establish between the thoughts and utterances of certain English poets of the early nineteenth century and those of the noted mystic poets of the East, particularly Hindu and Persian.

The method of treatment has been necessarily comparative. If I have put a different interpretation from the commonly accepted one on some of the teachings of the English poets, I do not think that I have read my own meanings into them, but rather that comparative study has elicited the true sense intended by the poets themselves.

Further, the remarkable similarity here shown between the Eastern and Western mystic poets unknown to one another, tends to prove that, as the Upanishads have it, “Truth is one: sages name it differently,” and that the mystical way of approaching Reality is based on a sure foundation, since it always leads to the same goal.

In conclusion, I would state that I am fully aware that my treatment of these English poets from the mystical aspect is, by no means, to be regarded as complete. Material enough remains or a more comprehensive study, and each poet may well provide a theme for a separate monograph. I only claim to have sketched in broad outlines, the salient features of their mystic philosophy.

1. M. G.

University of London,                                    1st June, 1928.

University College, Union Society,

Gower Street, W. C. I.