سنڌي ورچوئل لائبرري

CHAPTER I THE MYSTICAL BASIS

---

Preliminary Considerations:

At the outset of our inquiry we are faced with the extreme difficulty, if not the actual impossibility of obtaining an exact and comprehensive definition of Mysticism which will command the assent and approval of every mystic. Various adherents as well as opponents of the cult, but they seldom agree, and are in some cases almost contradictory. Indeed, their chief importance would seem to lie in showing that Mysticism is definable. Dean Inge has made an interesting collection of no less than twenty-six definitions in the first Appendix to his ‘Christian Mysticism’, and to these he has added a definition of his own which, however, like so many other lacks comprehensiveness. Further, he makes statements about Mysticism which involve a certain amount of contradiction. For instance, he speaks of Mysticism as the most scientific form of religion,[1] and yet introduces into it element of vagueness when he describes Religious Mysticism as “an immediate communion, real or supposed. Between the human soul and the Soul of the World, or the Divine Spirit.”[2]

Some of the definitions, again, illustrate with convenient brevity certain aspects and features of Mysticism. In this connection it may be interesting to recall the story told by ‘the greatest mystic of any age,[3] ‘the excellent Rumi’, as Hegel called him,[4] while discussing the theme of his great mystical poem, the Masnavi. He tells of an elephant which some Hindus were exhibiting in a dark-room. Many people gathered to see it, but as the place was too dark to permit them to do so, they all felt it with their hands to gain an idea of what it was like. Once felt its trunk, and said that the animal resembled a water-pipe; another felt its ear, and said it must be a large fan; another felt its leg, and thought it must be a pillar; another felt its back, and thought that the beast must be like an immense throne. So it is with those who attempt to define Mysticism; they can merely express what they themselves think Mysticism means. Referring to this, Rumi exclaims:

“Each interprets my notes in harmony with his own feelings,

But not one fathoms the secret of my heart;

My secrets are not alien from my plaintive notes,

Yet they are not manifest to the sensual ear.”[5]

Philological Considerations:

Is Mysticism then really such a slippery subject as to elude all attempts at definition? I contend that it is most readily amenable to definition, and that it is nothing more and nothing less than what it philologically connotes. The New English Dictionary derives the word Mystic from the Greek verb, μvciv which means, ‘to close the lips or eyes,’ and says that the primary sense of the word is probably ‘one vowed to keep silence.’ We are told that there existed in pagan Greece certain secret religious ceremonies, the most famous being those of Demeter at Eleusis, which were allowed to be witnessed by a select class of people after they had taken preliminary course of purification, prayer, and fasting, and that it was strictly enjoined upon them not to disclose what they had seen to the profane and the vulgar. References to this injunction are scattered throughout the works of the Classical authors of Greece and Rome. It will be sufficient to recall the well-known lines of Virgil, “Pruculo, procul este, profane.”[6]

Thus Mysticism originally meant nothing more than a secret cult or doctrine which was designed to be the exclusive possession of a select class of people. But when the word was taken over, with other technical terms of the Greek mysteries by the Neo-Platonists, closing of the eyes rather than of the lips became the more prominent feature of Mysticism. We find Suidas, Plotinus and Proclus use the Greek word μνω of the closed eye.[7] This referred to the Neo-Platonic practice of shutting the eyes of all external things with a view to induce quietism and introspection. And when the word was transmitted to the Christian Church by Dionysius, The Areopagite, it retained the same meaning.[8] It is to be remembered that the Neo-Platonists neither found a new derivation for the word Mysticism, as Dean Inge[9] and Rev. W. K. Fleming[10] would seem to suggest, nor extended its meaning at Vaughan[11] asserts, but gave currency to a meaning which already contained in the word, for as I have said above the Greek verb, μνω means, ‘to close the lips’ or ‘to close the eyes’.

Mysticism Defined:

It is evident from our inquiry that Mysticism, true to its philological origin, may be defined as a secret science which aims at the closing of every avenue of perception by the senses (the eyes being regarded as the physical sense par excellence), in order that a higher faculty of knowledge may be released. I have deliberately used the word science in reference to it, because Mysticism, like all sciences, depends on the testimony of experience, and only sure testimony as to the existence of facts, both without and within us. We respond to something from without and within, and according to the nature of the response, we classify the various objects, label them and place them in a certain recognized scheme of knowledge. We find, for instance, the external objects produce a certain effect upon our consciousness through the senses. We classify these under the name of physical sciences. We find that another class of impressions which appeal to a different part of our consciousness, and we have what we call thought or ideas. We range these under a new name, viz. Philosophy. So we have three classes of impressions, − the sensuous, the emotional, the mental. But the question naturally arises: Is this all? Or is there any other part of our consciousness which does not belong to the impressions that cannot be included in any of the three categories mentioned above .the normal consciousness of humanity in all times and in all countries has distinctly answered: Yes, there is something more. The spirit no less than the senses, the emotions and intellect has its own domain, its own powers, its own experiences, and these like all the other sciences are bases on a part of human consciousness. And, if we accept the testimony of consciousness as valid in every other department of human inquiry, surely we cannot deny it in this. In this sense then, Mysticism claims to be direct knowledge of spiritual facts, as direct as the knowledge on which science is based. But I shall refer to this again later.

Universality of Mysticism:

But Mysticism had not to wait for pagan Greece or Christian Rome. Its essential characteristics are to be found in every religious system in every country of the known world. Though called by different names in different lands, the meaning is the same, the method is the same and the goal is the same. The same set of ideas, experiences, emotions, and other mental phenomena are apparent in the mystics of the East as in those of the West. The Egyptian priests practiced mystic rites during the novitiate, and their initiation into mysteries of Isis; the ancient Sabians regarded Mysticism as an essential act of religion; and it was prominent among the Arabs even before the advent of Islam; and it permeates the whole religious history of the Jews. In the New World its prevalence may be traced in the religions of all the North American Indians, the Caribs, the Mexicans, and the Peruvians.[12]

(1) Hindu Mysticism:

The most prominent example of influence of Mysticism are, however, to be found in the religions of India and Persia. In the former country, the ordinary religious life of he people consisted of sacrifice and ceremonial: and on the other hand, there was what was called the Vedant, which literally means, ‘true knowledge’. It was regarded as the highest sciences, the most profound of secrets, and the greatest of sanctities, and was to be realized not through the physical senses, nor through reason, but through direct inner experience.[13] Further, it was called, ‘gupta-vidya,’ i.e. secret science which “Must be communicated to no one who is not a pupil, who has not been a pupil for a whole year, who does not himself propose to be a teacher.”[14] We find in ancient Hindu scriptures numerous injunctions regarding the secrecy to be observed in connection with his wisdom. It was deemed unfit for and even dangerous to the ordinary human mind, and in any case liable to misuse and perversion if revealed to vulgar and unpurified spirits. Hence the ancient sages favoured the existence of an outward worship suitable for the profane, and an inner discipline for the initiate; and embodied their thought in words and usages which had at once a spiritual significance for the elect, and a concrete meaning for the mass of ordinary worshipers.

(2) Persian Mysticism:

If we turn to Persia, we find that alongside the rigid formalism of Islam, there grew up an occult doctrine called Sufism. According to Al-Ghazzali,[15] its chief philosophical exponent, the Sufi is to be differentiated from the ordinary type of religious people in that he cuts himself off from all externally acquired knowledge. He likens the human heart to a well and the physical senses to streams which are continually conveying water to it. In order to find out the real contents of the heart, the streams must be stopped for a time, and the refuse they have brought with them must be cleared out of the well. In other words, says he, a Sufi is essentially one who, in order to arrive at pure unadulterated spiritual truth, must put away for the time all knowledge which has been acquired by external processes, and which too often hardens into dogmatic prejudice. Al-Ghazzali speaks not only from personal experience, but cites the authority of the Quran where God is represented as commanding Mohammed to tell the believers to close their eyes; i. e. bodily eyes, in order that their spiritual eyes might be opened. Secrecy too is considered as one of the primary obligations of the Persian Sufi, and its breach one of the gravest of offences against the Order.

Now from what we have said it I clear that Mysticism, wherever it has manifested itself, has an identity of meaning, and possesses the same essential characteristics, viz., secrecy and closing of all external sources of knowledge with the definite aim of attaining to some higher wisdom unattainable by any other means. This naturally leads us to the inquiry as to the character of this higher wisdom.

The Mystic’s Problem:

The ultimate problem of all knowledge is the relation of the finite to the infinite, of the universe to the Primal source of being from whom all existence proceeds. There is certainly nothing higher for the human mind to try to know than the nature of this religion. Indeed, Faust put the whole problem in a nutshell when he asked, “What is it that at bottom holds the world together?”

(1) Answer of Sciences:

The most obvious and therefore most generally accepted explanation of the world is of course that of Naturalism. It is the standpoint which all men naturally adopt and most retain throughout life. It is that which is alone valid for all sciences and for all practical purposes. Naturalism states that the world is nothing but the world; it lies extended before our eyes, and all the physical sciences are engaged in investigating more and more minutely every part of it. We have already conquered much of Nature, and with the progress of time we shall have brought it entirely under our control. In other words, we seek on the evidence of our senses to form an idea of what Reality is. “But can our observation,” asks Miss Evelyn Underhill,[16] “be exact?” where in the guarantee that what we see is the real, not apparent? “Eyes and ears,” says Herakleitos, “are bad witnesses to those who have barbarian souls.”[17] Besides, our vision of the world changes with changing moods and states of life.

As a matter of fact, the natural sciences show us the world as a totality of matter which perpetually changes its qualities, forms and conditions. Now all these changes in matter and also material objects themselves are finally only a sum of effects; and these effects are one and all merely the varied manifestation in space, time and causality of some ultimate Reality, of which and of the working of which, Naturalism has so far been unable to tell us anything at all.

“Yet all experience is an arch, wherethro”

Gleames that untravell’d world whose margin fades

Forever and forever as I move.”[18]

Sir Oliver Lodge has very candidly summed up the scientific position in these words: “We live in a universe of which we know very little: we eke out our knowledge by precarious reasoning. We merely generalize, which sums up our experience.”[19] Bacon foresaw the triumph of Science in every department of life, but was obliged to leave the realm of ‘Divine things’ to ‘Authority’ and ‘Faith.’[20]

(2) Answer of Philosophy:

While Science has concentrated on the purely material aspect of the universe, Philosophy seeks to unify and comprehend all knowledge and by doing so attempts to establish a principle form which it can explain the world. In fact, at bottom it is the real essence of the world which Philosophy has sought since the most ancient times. But has it succeeded in discovering it? The Persian poet Saib says:

“No one has yet unraveled a knot from the skein of

The Universe.

And each who came and essayed the same but made

The tangle worse.”[21]

Modern philosophy, especially through the Idealism of Berkeley and Transcendentalism of Kant, has demonstrated that the world is merely a phenomenon of the brain, and is affected with such different subjective conditions that it is impossible to know the reality underlying the phenomenon. Kant showed for the first time that the human intellect is not at all competent to attack this problem. What he says may be summed up by Schopenhauer. Time, space and causality are not the determinations of the thing-in-itself (i.e. the real essence of the world), but belong only to its phenomenal existence, for they are nothing but the forms of our knowledge. Since, however, all the multiplicity, and all passing away, are only possible through time, space, and causality, it follows that they also belong only to the phenomenon, not to the thing-in-itself. But as our knowledge is conditioned by these forms, the whole of experience is only knowledge of the phenomena, not of the thing-in-itself; therefore its laws cannot be made valid for the thing-in-itself. This extends even to our own ego, and we know it only as phenomenon, and not according to what it may be in itself.[22] And Bergson in recent years has sounded a note of warning by telling us that we must distinguish between the actual unseen energy- the continuous movement of things- and the categories, divisions, or classifications into which the intellect arbitrarily separates the energy.[23]

Greek philosophers, particularly Parmenides and Plato, spoke almost in the same manner.[24] The later has beautifully expressed this idea in the figure of the Cave at the beginning of the seventh book of the ‘Republic’.

The same truth is the leading doctrine of the Hindu system of Philosophy, called the Advaita. It pronounces that the universe as viewed with the intellect is nothing but “maya” or illusion. According to the esoteric philosophy of Islam, the universe which appears to the senses has no true being, but only a ceaseless becoming and decaying,[25] and what we suppose we know about it is no more than mere phantom. In recent times the truth has been stated by two notable teachers, one a man of Science, James Hinton, the other a theologian, Cardinal Newman.[26]

All these voices proclaim with one accord that the riddle of the universe cannot be solved by the human intellect. Hafiz, in despair exclaims:-

“The tale of wine and minstrel tell

Nor after Heaven’s secrete seek;

For this enigma to resolve

None ever knew nor yet shall know.”[27]

The simple reason is, as we have made clear above, that our intellectual faculties can consider the empirical universe only under the forms of time, space and causality, whereas Reality is beyond all these.

(3) Answer of Religion:

And yet it is precisely this ceaseless striving, this irresistible impulse after Reality which constitutes the highest and noblest side of humanity, and is the most indubitable proof of its spiritual nature. In no country and in respect of no nation can it be said that this unquenchable thirst for the fountain-head of knowledge is insignificant or unimportant. It occupies only much of the time and attention of all nations, but exercises a considerable influence over their life and conduct. The various religions of the world at once testify to the existence of this craving. Indeed, as we look back over the long history of the past, we find that all religions are primarily based on the answer to this craving which the most highly gifted of the human race received. They gave out their experiences in forms suited to the time, and the nation and the type of the people to whom they were given. They laid down the path by which the individual could satisfy for himself his craving for the Real. But in course of time, religions dwindled into dogmas. People were told to believe certain articles of faith, they were given creeds to accept, and their sole attention was directed to the showy outer shell and pomp of ceremony. In the case of the great majority of mankind, however, who cannot think for themselves, religions to a considerable extent satisfy the longing for the knowledge of the ultimate reality of existence which human nature feels to be imperative. But the spiritual intellect refuses to believe in mere dogmas and promises of a future knowledge in Heaven. The knowledge of God is eternal life, as Christ said. And what is eternal is a present possession, not a future experience. And truth is not something which is contained merely in Scriptures and upheld by external authority, however exalted; it is rather the self-evident, whose ultimate authority ought to spring from within.

“Truth is within ourselves; it takes no rise

From outward things, whatever you may believe.”[28]

Now, is there no way which will give us true knowledge at last of That which is the thing-in-itself?

(4) Answer of Mysticism:

There is no room for despair, says the mystic. There is a way by which the human heart may satisfy its craving for the Real. The very hunger for Reality is an implicit proof that not only does such Reality exist, but that it is possible of realization. In our inmost nature lies the key which will open to us the beatific vision. Mystics of every race and creed lay emphasis on this point. They speak, as Saint Martin says, the same language.[29]

But, we cannot know God by the sense, nor by the emotions, nor by the mind; we can only know Him by the Spirit that is Himself within us, and we once know Him in ourselves, He will shine upon us from everything around us. Says Rumi: “It is the sun’s self that lets the sun be seen.”[30]

Method of Mysticism:

Now Mysticism not only declares that direct knowledge of God or Reality is possible of attainment by every human being even in this life, but proclaims the method whereby that knowledge may be obtained. It is noteworthy that the progress of the spiritual disciple and life, or, as it is called the Mystic Way, is identical in all the mystical systems of the world. Further, it is universally likened to a journey or pilgrimage. The mystic who sets out to seek God is called a pilgrim or traveler; he advances by ascending heights along a prescribed path to the goal of knowledge and through it to union with God. The Mystic Way is known as Scala Perfection in Christian mysticism, Tariqa, i. e. Pathway in Persian mysticism, and Yoga-Marga, i. e. Path of Union in Hindu mysticism. Each is divided into several stages, some of which relate to the ascetic and ethical preparation of the mystic, and others to his progressive psychological states. But on the whole, the division of the Scala into three stages, viz. (1) the last two stages are the same, admitting of no subdivisions; it is only the first stage which is variously subdivided. But all these subdivisions of the first stage could be easily described under the Purgative stage. We shall now proceed to discuss each stage.

Purgative Stage:

(1) Ethical Preparation:

This stage lays stress on the ethical preparation necessary for the spiritual journey. It lays down abstentions and observances which must be carried out before any advance in the journey can be made. As a first step, we should cultivate all the moral virtues, and abstain from all the vices. Hindu mysticism regards nonviolence as supreme. It consists in abstinence from hatred and malice towards all living creatures in every way and at all times, and is said to be the root of all other virtues. No exceptions are allowed. Non-violence is a categorical imperative, and we cannot compromise its absoluteness in any manner. Not even self-defense can justify its breach. It has a universal validity regardless of differences of caste and creed, age and country. The observances consist of purification, both external and internal, cultivation of tranquility, austerity, penance, and devotion to God. The sole aim of these abstentions and observances is the development of dispassionateness, i.e. absolute detachment not only from the world, but from the next too, for as the philosopher mystic poet of Persia, Hakim Sanai says the realm of Reality transcends both the worlds.[31]

(2) Discipline of the Body:

In order to open the inner eye of the soul, Mysticism generally favours the idea of mortifying the flesh, and severely punishing the body. Asceticism is said to be the universal concomitant of Mysticism. Plotinus declared that the mystic should be “ashamed of his body” and that war must be waged against the natural man.[32] In the lives of the Christian mystics we find numerous instances of the great austerities to which they subjected their bodies. In the autobiography of Suso,[33] we are told that he wore a hair shirt and an iron chain, until the blood flowed. He also caused an undergarment to be made in which he had strips of leather fixed into which a hundred and fifty brass nails, pointed and filed sharp, were driven and the points of the nails were always turned toward his flesh. St. Bernard scourged his body to the point of death. St. Theresa would continue her tormenting exercises until she would cry: “Let me suffer or no live,” and St. John of the Cross inflicted, all sorts of conceivable austerities on his person.

If we turn to Persian mysticism, we find similar practices in vogue. The mystics often quote the well-known tradition of the Arabian Prophet, viz., “Thy worst enemy is thy flesh.” They are all agreed that no one who neglects to mortify the flesh can ever learn the rudiments of the spiritual life. They prescribe several methods of mortification, e.g. fasting, wearing of coarse woollen garments,[34] beating of the body with iron chains. Self-mortification is to be indulged in till the flesh is utterly crushed, and the state of what is called poverty of self’, expressed in the oft quoted formula, ‘Die, before ye die’ is reached.

Curiously enough Hindu mysticism, as a rule, does not favour this extreme type of self-mortification, in spite of what some writers have said of it.[35] It realises that the human body has a dignity of its own. It agrees with the Great mystic, Tauler who said “Ali, my friend, what hath thy poor body done to thee, that thou shouldst so torment it? Oh, folly! Mortify and slay thy sins, not thine own flesh and blood.”[36] It only asks the disciple to control the body and not kill it. To this end the mystic is commended to be careful about what he eats and drinks. No food is to be taken which excites the animal passions, or induces stupor. Further, he should settle himself down in a convenient posture which makes him feel pleasant and easy, so that meditations which is the first step towards illumination may be rendered easy.

(3) Breath Control:

The regulation of breath is a distinguishing feature of all Oriental mysticism. We do not find any trace of it in European mysticism. Considerable emphasis laid on it both in the Hindu and Persian mysticism, and yet it is curious that no European writer on Persian mysticism has mentioned it. It is though that serenity of mind, or what is called quietism in the West, may be attained by the regulation of breath much more easily than by the cultivation of the moral virtues. Deep inspirations and expirations continued during two to three hours are prescribed, with a view to induce trance. Sometimes, again, total suspension of breath is practiced. But the physically weak are cautioned against these respiratory exercises, as they are deemed to be dangerous for them.

(4) Introversion:

Plato says: “And thought is the best when the mind is gathered into herself, and none of these things trouble her neither sounds nor sights nor pain, nor any pleasure – when she has little as possible to do with the body and has no bodily sense or feelings, but it is aspiring after being.”[37] The senses are to be withdrawn from their natural outward functioning. The disciple has to reach the condition described by St. John of the Cross as the ‘Night of Sense.’[38] He must make a monastic cell in his own heart and retire into it every day. Not only this; but he must purge his heart of all the hitherto acquired knowledge and enter into what Dionysius, the Areopagite Calls ‘the Divine Dark’. He says: “The mystic must leave behind all things, both in sensible and intelligible worlds, till he enters into the darkness of knowing nothing that is truly mystical…… Our highest knowledge of God consists in mystic ignorance.”[39]

The Hindu mystic tells us that worldly knowledge is much more dangerous than ignorance, inasmuch as those who pursue the path of ignorance may go after death to a region of pitchy darkness, while those who pride themselves upon their possession of knowledge may go to a greater darkness still.[40] We must lay aside our pride of intellect and self-consciousness and approach Reality with the innocent and curious outlook of a child.[41]

Rumi likens the human heart to a mirror which has become so befouled with rust and dirt that it gives no clear reflection. The more a man purifies himself from empirical knowledge, thoughts of worldly things, and concentrates his mind on God by a sort of ‘introsum ascendere’, i.e., traveling into self by introverting the senses, the more conscious will he be of Reality. Every human heart is capable of this, says Rumi. Just as iron, by sufficient polishing, can be made into mirror, so any heart by due discipline of the mind can be rendered receptive of this vision. “Blessed are the pure in heart; for they shall see God.”[42]

(5) Spiritual Guide:

When the purgation is completed, the disciple may prepare himself for the Illuminative stage. If he follows the general rule, he will take a spiritual director, i.e. an adept who has traversed the whole path himself and is fully conversant with all its intricacies and pitfalls. Mystics of every race and creed attach utmost importance to this. “Arise, awake, and learn from those who are better than ye; for the path of illumination is as hard to tread as the edge of a razor,” says the Hindu mystic.[43] The Persian mystic regards the disciple who attempts to traverse the path without the guidance of an adept as one who is under the guidance of Satan, and is likened to a tree that for want of the gardener’s care brings forth bitter fruit or none.[44] The Catholic mystic too, as is shown by the lives of saints like St. Francis of Assisi, St. Theresa, St. John of the Cross and others, considers the necessity of a preceptor as supreme, for has not Christ said: “Strait is the gate, and narrow is the way which leadeth upto life, and few there be that find it.”[45] St. John of the Cross, like the Persian mystic, realized the danger of the dark powers that lurk on the path, so he warned his fellow pilgrims that their only safeguard against delusion and Satan’s subornation lay in perpetual and unreserved appeal to the director.[46] Placing himself under the guidance of some eminent teacher, the disciple is fairly started upon his journey to the Illuminative stage. He is now exhorted to cultivate the power of self-concentration by various methods and aids, which I shall now describe.

Illuminative Sage:

In normal life ideas come and go; they do not stay long, and concentration is possible only for a brief space of time. But Reality can be known in its nakedness only when concentration is steady and prolonged, and normal consciousness is withdrawn from both outward things and mental states. This can be achieved by the judicious direction of one or other of the five senses. It is a matter of general experience that the fixing of attention on one object prevents distraction and helps concentration. It is stated that Kant used to gaze steadily for hours on end at the steeple of a neighbouring Church with a view to concentration, and once when he found the steeple suddenly disappear from view, owing to the luxuriant growth of the surrounding trees, he was very disturbed in his contemplation.[47]

(1) Oral Aids:

The Hindu mystic develops the power of concentration by the continuous repetition aloud or mentally of the sacred syllable, ‘Om’. In the Upanishads, we are told that this mystic syllable is the bow, the human soul is the arrow, the Reality is the target. We must give the target an undivided attention, so that the arrow may pierce its centre and be done with it.[48]

‘Om’ not only serves to help the meditation of the disciple, but the Divine Sun Himself, we are assured, travels through the universe towards the disciple, singing ‘Om’.[49] And finally, “Just as a snake is relieved of its slough, so likewise the man who meditates by repeating ‘Om’ is relieved of his sins; and by the power of his chants is lifted to the highest plane where he, beholds the Person who informs the body, and who stands supreme above any living complex whatsoever.”[50]

The Persian mystic follows a similar practice. He too repeats a sacred syllable, viz. ‘Hu’ i.e. (God) which exactly corresponds to the ‘Om’ of the Hindu mystic. The act of repeating it is called ‘Zikr’, which means literally ‘recollection’. Now this is a very significant term. It refers to the belief common to the mystics of all nations that the human soul in its prenatal state sang litanies of praise to its Creator, which during its sojourn on earth, owing to its occupation with worldly things it forgets for awhile; but when it purifies itself, it begins to recollect the burden of its song in Heaven and forthwith starts repeating it as it used to in its prenatal state. The syllable ‘Hu’ is intonated with an intense concentration of every faculty on it, and is regarded more efficacious as an aid to communion with God than the five appointed prayers of Islam. Al-Ghazzali says that if the disciple continues reciting it, he may be sure that the light of the Real will shine out in his heart.[51]

In Christian mysticism, although it is admitted that the efficacy of prayer is enhanced by repetition, and there are on record numerous instances where the regular practice of prayer has brought about trance and in a few cases the phenomena of stigma, we find no evidence of the existence of a fixed word or formula as an aid to contemplation. Perhaps, Lord Tennyson’s is the only case which in any way, corresponds to this practice of the Oriental mystic. It is stated that he used to have trance through repeating his name two or three times to himself silently.[52]

(2) Aural Aids:

The practice of inducing trance through an appeal to the ear, is prevalent only among the Persian mystics. They are extraordinarily susceptible to the sweet influences of sound. There exist numerous anecdotes of persons who were thrown into ecstasy on hearing poetry or music. Many are said to have died from the emotion thus aroused. Several mystic orders, especially those of Turkey, called the ‘Spinning Dervishes,’ employ this and most effectively, and have developed it into a regular institution called ‘Sama’, i.e. audition. A number of disciples assemble together in a cloister where vocal or instrumental music is being played. Under the stress of intense emotion they begin dancing and whirling around and around till gradually losing consciousness they fall into a state of deep trance. Commenting on this practice, Nicholson says that there prevails a belief among the Moslem mystics that God has inspired every created thing, so that all the sounds in the universe form as it were, one vast choral hymn. Consequently those who have purged their hearts hear this music everywhere and ecstasy overpowers them as they do so.[53]

(3) Visual Aids:

The eye being physical sense par excellence; concentration occurs better through visual aids. The Hindu mystic, in accordance with the injunctions of the Bhagavad-Gita sits motionless in a prescribed posture for hours on end with his gaze steadfastly fixed on his navel or the tip of his nose or the image of a god. Though this method is not commonly practiced in Persian mysticism, yet we find traces of it in the lives of a few reputed mystics, such as Abu Said ibn Abi’l-Khayr who used to keep his eyes fixed on his navel. Christian mystics have a similar practice, viz. the contemplation of the Cross, which in the case of many saints has resulted in deep trance.[54]

(4) Beauty and Love:

But all the mystics regard the contemplation of beauty in Nature and man as the most valuable and effective aid to illumination. It is the contemplative method par excellence. In the East, as well as in the West, we find it in vogue in a marked degree among the poet-mystics. It is, so to speak, their natural religion. Love, says Rumi, is the astrolabe of heavenly mysteries, the eye-salve which clears the spiritual eye and makes it clairvoyant, and the more a man loves, the deeper he penetrates the divine purposes.[55] Love defies the soul, raising itself on its own wings to the level of the divine beloved.[56] We love nature and man, says Rumi, because there is in them some reflection of the divine. From the love of reflection we pass to the love of the light which casts it; and loving the light, we at length become one with it, losing the illusory Self and gaining the true.[57]

Now in accordance with the Persian mystic’s belief in the emanations of Being, the divine light is manifested at its highest in man, but gets weaker and more diffuse in external Nature. For this reason, he primarily centers his love of beauty in man. He is not altogether insusceptible to the beauty of Nature. He dwells on it, but more often than not uses it as a foil to set off the human and through it the divine beauty. The first lessons of this love, says he, must be learnt through a merely human love which is to lead to the divine is a youth, not a woman. Love for a youth, he maintains, is the only form of love which does not admit the entrance into it of gross animal passion, and the desire of personal enjoyment. This corresponds to Platonic love in the highest sense of the term. But this human love is not itself the end; it is but the means to the end; it is what the Persian mystic call a bridge which carries across to the realm of Reality.[58] Plotinus concurs with the Persian mystic when he says that we must not adore corporeal beauties, but knowing that they are only images of an ideal beauty, we should flee from them to approach the archetype.[59] A modern English poet, Stephen Phillips, has summed up this idea of Plotinus in his beautiful poem ‘Marpeasa’, thus,

“For they,

Seeking that perfect face beyond the world,

Approach in vision earthly semblances,

And touch, and at the shadows flee away.”

And Jami, the last Classical mystic poet of Persia says:

Drink deep of earthly love, so that thy lip,

May learn the wine of holier love to sip.”[60]

The Hindu mystic, on the other hand, believes that what is called human love is often selfish, and may prove a hindrance rather than a help to illumination. He, therefore, prefers to contemplate the beauty of Nature, and to this end he often retires to the limitless silence of a forest where he can forget all other men, and commune with the Infinite through its manifold finite forms, ̶ the tree and flowers by day, and the stars by night. Indeed, the Upanishads are nothing more than the mystical experiences of the ancient Hindu seers gained through the contemplation of Nature. Even today, this practice is in vogue in India. Men and women, voluntarily renouncing everything, retire to the quiet of a mountain or a forest where the contemplation of the beautiful scenery around leads them gently on to communion with the Supreme Spirit.

If we turn to Christian mysticism, we find love of Nature and man used as mediums of divine grace and knowledge mainly among the poets. The religious mystics of early mediaeval Christianity encouraged the repression of all tender feelings and emotions. In the seventeenth century, however, the chill rigidity of the earlier ascetics gave place to erotic fervour. God came to be looked upon as the Heavenly Beauty, and His footprints were found both in Nature and man. “Every good man,” says John Smith, “finds every place he treads upon holy ground; to whom the world is God’s temple.”[61] It is in the nineteenth century poets, however, that we find this tendency in its most developed form. They see in Nature and man, alike, a mirror of Omnipotence, the screen of an unknown Reality, a reflection of many coloured wisdom and beneficence. But of this later.

Faculty of Perception:

The end of the practice of the various methods that we have been describing is to release a higher faculty of knowledge than the sense and reason. “In the vision of God, that which sees is not reason, but something greater than and prior to reason, something presupposed by reason, as is the object of vision.”[62] All the mystics bear testimony to the existence of such a faculty. The five senses are like five windows opening on the external world; but more wonderful than this is the fact that man’s heart has a window which opens on the unseen world of Reality.[63] It is only when the avenues of the senses are closed by deep self concentration that this window is opened.

“If the doors of perception are cleansed, everything would appear to man as it is infinite.

For man has closed himself up till he sees all things through narrow chinks of his cavern.”[64]

The same thought runs constantly in Emerson writings, e.g. “Whoever thinks intently will find an image more or less luminous rise in his mind.” And Shakespeare who was no mystic has the same intimation:

“Such harmony is in immortal souls;

But while this muddy vesture of decay

Doth grossly close it in, we cannot hear it.”[65]

Now this supernatural power of discernment is named differently by different mystics, but at bottom it is the same. The Persian mystics call it ‘Firasat’[66] and reckon it as a beam of god’s own light cast therein by Himself. The Hindu mystics name it ‘Buddhi’ and suppose it to result from the inner poise brought about by intense contemplation. The Christian mystics call it by various names, e.g. Imagination, intuition, pure reason, creative reason, recollective faculty, apex of mind, abyss of mind, ground of consciousness, synteresis, divine spark, word of God, inward light, uncreated centre.[67]

Visions and Auditions:

When the body and mind in a state of trance become dead to all external impressions, the mystic is able by means of this new faculty of perception, to experience visions and auditions. The chronicles of Christian mysticism teem with visions and auditions. Many of these records are no doubt untrustworthy; but a considerable number remains whose authenticity can hardly be challenged without rejecting all historical evidence. It will serve no useful purpose to quote them. ‘The biographies of reputed Christian mystics such as St. Francis of Assisi, St. Catherine of Siena, St. Dominic, St. Theresa of Avila, and St. Bernard among others, contain a vast store of them with all circumstances and detail. References are not wanting in the memoirs of Hindu[68] and Persian[69] mystics to these strange experiences. Though in the main, the experiences relate to two only of the senses, viz. sight and hearing, instances are not rare in which experiences have accrued through the three other senses. St. John of Cross, for instance, mentions delightful sensation of touch, pleasant taste, and fragrant smells.[70]

To many of the mystics these experiences have seemed to be genuine and objective. But even some mystics themselves have doubted the reality of their own experiences. St. Theresa was dubious about some of her visions, Eckhart regarded visions and locutions as the “Tricks of the soul indulging in comfortable intuitions of divinity and answering herself by a sort of reflex action;”[71] and St. John of the Cross and Molinos considered visions as childish toys probably sent by the devil.[72] From some of the remarks made about these experiences in the Upanishads, it would appear that even among the Hindu mystics there are some who doubt their objective character. They are inclined to think that auditions particularly are perhaps due to gastric disturbances.[73] Some mystics, again, treat them as at best symbolic and allegorical. In recent times, they have been subjected to a close scrutiny by the Society for Psychical Research. A great majority of them are dismissed as pure hallucinations or are described to the agency of the subliminal self; the residue, however, defy all explanations.[74] Considering the fact, that every mystic, as a rule, sees in his visions either the prophets and saints revered by his own religion, or the devils and spirits denounced by his own faith, it is not unlikely that the origin of most of them is to be traced to subconscious mentation.[75]

All the mystics, however, are agreed that vision and auditions although incidental to Mysticism, are not to be reckoned as its essential element. They spring from a lower plane of consciousness, and are to be looked upon as encouragement to the struggling novice. But if he succumbs to their seductive power, he runs the risk of missing his end. He must resist them, if he would rise to the acme of mystic consciousness.

Illumination:

If contemplation is steadily maintained, a period is reached when all visions and auditions cease, and an intensive concentration fills the soul. And then with the flash of one hurried gaze, to use the words of St. Augustine, the mystic’s soul attain s the vision of ‘That which is’.[76] In this state of illumination there is a clear consciousness of the divine presence as distinct from the contemplating subject. “The soul is no longer conscious of the body or of the mind, but knows that she has what she desired, that she is where no deception can come and that she would not exchange her bliss for all the heaven of heavens.”[77] The Hindu mystic distinguishes this knowledge from the one derived through inference and scriptural authority by holding that its object is a concrete reality and not merely a vague general idea. In so far as it has a specific entity for its object, it has closer relation to perception; only the intuited objects are too subtle for gross perception. It is seeing with the soul when the bodily eyes are shut. Now when this higher perception occurs, “the unheard becomes heard, the unperceived becomes perceived, the unknown becomes known.”[78] The deadlocks and antinomies created by the ‘meddling intellect’ solve themselves automatically.

Al-Ghazzali, the Persian mystic, says that this light of the Real is at first unstable like a flash of lightning; it turns and returns, though sometimes it hangs back. And if it turns, sometimes it abides, and sometimes it is monetary. And if it abides, sometimes its abiding is long and sometimes short.[79] When the light is on, the mystic is said to be in a state of ‘unveilment’, and when it is off, he is said to be in a state of ‘veilment’. This corresponds to what St. John of the Cross calls ‘The Dark Night of the Soul’, ‘mystic pain or death’ etc. The mystic finds himself in great desolation of which his soul seems abandoned by God. But by sustained effort, and prolonged purification, the frequency and continuity of illumination can be attained.

Unitive Stage:

Many Mystics never go beyond the Illuminative stage.[80] But this is not the climax of mystical consciousness. There is a further succession of mental states which grow more and more profound until complete unconsciousness results, and all distinction between the subject and the object disappears, and there ensues union between the two. This total cessation of all conscious thought is called ‘nirvana’ in Hindu mysticism. And it is remarkable that all the three words literally mean, ‘passing away from self’. It forms the prelude to an exalted state of consciousness in which the individual becomes one with God. Jami, the Persian mystic poet, defines ecstasy as “neither consciousness of self, nor even consciousness of such absence of consciousness ̶ nothing save the one God alone.”[81] Often the ecstasy comes unbidden. “In contemplation we can do nothing”, says St. Theresa, “it is altogether the work of God.”[82] And Madame Guyon says: “I tried to obtain by effort that which I could only obtain by ceasing all effort.”[83] Both the Hindu and Persian mystics believe with the Christian mystics that ecstasy is an act of divine grace. One every celebrated passage of the Mundakopanishad[84] says that God cannot be realized except by one whom God Himself chooses; to such a one alone does God reveal His own proper form.

Dean Inge confounds ecstasy with what I have described above as trance, a stage which precedes real illumination.[85] Perhaps it is due to the fact that he does not countenance what he calls “the pantheistic mysticism of the Oriental type.” Which would be the inevitable corollary to ecstasy in the sense in which I have used it, of course, on the authority of the mystics of both East and West themselves. According to his definition, Mysticism is no more than ‘the attempt to realise in thought and feeling, the immanence (or in and through dwelling) of the temporal in the eternal, and the eternal in the temporal.” But by no means the attempt to be united with God.

Do stand out of yourself, says the mystic, and you will become not only aware of a Reality very different from empirical reality, but you will recognize at last with wonder and delight that you are That. Then you may, like the Persian mystic, Mansure cry out “I am the Truth,” or like the Hindu mystic exclaims, “I am That”, or again, about with joy, like Meister Eckhart’s spiritual daughter: “Sir, rejoice with me, I have become God.” Says Rumi in one of his poems:

“O my soul, I searched from end to end:

I saw in thee naught save the Beloved;

Call me not infidel, O my soul,

If I say thou thyself art He.”[86]

You will revel in the consciousness that you yourself are the quintessence of the universe, and the source of all existence, to which all returns; and you will know that whatever is outside of you is a mere illusion. From this point of view there is no multiplicity, no manifold world, by only one essential, undivided reality and that is man himself. “We behold,” says Ruysbroek, “that which we are, and we are that which we behold, because our being without losing anything of its own personality is united with the Divine Truth which includes all diversity.”[87] Plotinus expressed exactly the same thought when he said: “He who then sees himself, when he sees, will see, himself as a simple being, will be united to himself as such, will feel himself become such. We ought not even to say that he will see, but he will be that which he sees, if, indeed, it is possible any longer to distinguish seer and seen, and not boldly to affirm that the two are one. He belongs to God, and is one with Him, like two concentric circles; they are one when they coincide, and two only when they are separated.”[88] There is no lack of such utterances among the mystics of all nations. Even the most orthodox Catholic mystics have not merely asserted communion, but actual union with God, e.g. St. Bernard says: “To lose thyself in some sort, to have no consciousness at all, to be emptied of thyself and almost annihilated ̶ such as heavenly conversation. So to be affected is to become God.”[89]

Mysticism is essentially a unitary consciousness. Speaking of this characteristic, William James says in a strikingly eloquent passage: “This overcoming of all the usual barriers between the individual and the Absolute is the great mystic achievement. In mystic states we both become one with the Absolute and we become aware of our oneness. This is the everlasting and triumphant mystical tradition, hardly altered by differences of clime or creed. In Hinduism, in Neo-Platonism, in Sufism, in Christian Mysticism, in Whitmanism, we find the same recurring note, so that there is about mystical utterances an eternal unanimity which ought to make a critic stop and think, and which brings it about that the mystical classics, have as has been said, neither birthday nor native land. Perpetually with God their speech antedates language, and they do not grow old.”[90]

This is the supreme end of the mystic’s quest. It is generally called union, but is also known by other significant names. It is curious that the Roman Catholic mystic uses the word deification in reference to it, and this means nothing less than man become God. The Hindu and Persian mystics all it liberation.[91] i.e. the setting free of the human spirit from the bonds of flesh and the senses.

Ineffableness of Mystical Experience:

But nothing of this experience is communicable. We can describe it only by metaphors and symbols, simply because our everyday speech has no terms for the adequate expression of this experience which is in the most literal sense ineffable. To any suggested definitions of Reality we can only answer in the words of the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad: “Neti, neti”, i.e. “It is not so. It is not so.” For this reason, the sage Bhava, when asked by the King Vaskali regarding the nature of Brahaman[92] kept silence. And when the king pressed his request, the sage quietly answered: “Verily, this Reality is silence.”[93]

In Christian mysticism there is no lack of expressions of this idea. For instance, Hooker says: “Our safest eloquence concerning Him is our silence.”[94] And St. Augstine remarks: “We must not even call God ineffable, since this is to make an assertion about Him. He is above every name that can be names.”[95] The negative definition only demonstrate how the positive attributes known to the human intellect are inadequate in the extreme. “He is best adored in silence; best known in nescience; best described by negatives,” is the last word on the matter by Rufus M. Jones.[96]

Is Mystical Experience Real?:

Now, not only are all our symbolical descriptions of the mystic’s supreme experience and theories concerning its nature mere leaps in the dark, but we are confronted with the curious and baffling paradox that precisely the experience which most stands in need of scientific proof is the one that appears the last susceptible of such proof. How can we be sure that all the ideas of the mystics as to ‘the birth of God in the soul’, and the other great truths of the spiritual world are not mere figments of his brain? The answer to that is three-fold.

(1) Identity of Response:

There is an identity of response in mystics of all ages, of all religions, of all countries. They all respond in the same way to the impact of a spiritual fact. Their experience of God is everywhere the same; the truth of the spiritual nature of man is everywhere the same; the contact of the human spirit with the divine is claimed everywhere to have been attained; and whenever and wherever man has the direct experience of God, he attains to knowledge which transcends all other knowledge, and which no argument in world is either able to strengthen or shake. Further we can repeat, and re-experiment all the facts to which the mystic attests, each one independently for himself, by following the path which the mystic treads. In this sense, Mysticism is in no way inferior to Science, for even like Science it possesses both a method and an identity of response.

(2) Validity of the Mystical Method:

Philosophy may be employed in an attempt to systematize and give a reasoned basis for the unreasoned experiences of the mystic, though as I have pointed out, it is not possible to do so. But this does not add anything to the grounds on which the mystic’s convictions must always rest. Those who have these experiences do not want demonstrations, and to those who have had them not, all demonstration, are useless. Referring to those who deny the reality of Mysticism and treat as charlatans those who profess it, Al-Ghazzali says: “To this ignorant class applies the verse of the Quran: ‘These are they whose hearts God has sealed up with blindness and who only follow their passions.’[97] The mystical experience is on a level with perceptual experience but unlike the latter, it is not objective. Even in everyday matters it is impossible to explain the beauty of a rainbow or the glory of a sunset to one who is stone-blind, or the charm of poetry to one whose ear is insusceptible to cadence and rhythm. So to the non-mystic the vision of the mystic cannot be described. Simply because it is incommunicable, it does not become less valid than other forms of knowledge. Its value in the search for truth has been recognized by modern philosophers so widely different as William James[98] and Bergson[99] on the one hand, and F. H. Bradley[100] on the other. Even a confirmed agnostic, like Tyndall, was forced to admit that “when we endeavour to pass from the phenomena of physics to those of thought, we meet a problem which transcends all conceivable expression of the powers we now possess. We may think over the subject again and again ̶ we stand at length face to face with the incomprehensible.”[101]

(3) After-effects of Mystical Experience:

All the mystics are never tired of telling us of the diverse psychological effects which the realization of God entails on them. Now if their experience were a mere hallucination, it would leave no permanent marks on them. Some of the after-effect may be described as follows: (1) the senses, the emotions and the mind become subtler and finer. They are no longer wild horses carrying their rider over the fields of wanton desire; but well broken steeds carrying him wherever he wills to go. (2) All the knots of the heart, as the Hindu mystic says, are broken; all the doubts and difficulties are solved. (3) The whole being is filled with illimitable bliss. The Hindu mystic describes this ineffable joy in an almost erotic vein thus: just as when a man is embraced by his dear wife, he knows nothing outside or anything inside; similarly when the individual self is embraced by the Universal Self; he knows nothing outside, nor anything inside; for he has attained an end which involves the fulfillment of all other ends, being verily the attainment of Reality which leaves no other ends to be fulfilled.[102] (4) The direct result of the enjoyment of bliss is that the mystic is for ever divested of all feeling of fear. The one kind of emotion kills the other. Whom and what may such an awakened sage fear, when he finds infinite joy, in all directions and at all times? “He becomes fearless, because he has obtained a lodgment in that invisible, incorporate, indefinable, fearless, support less support of all.”[103] We thus see that some of the permanent after-effects on the mystic are the refinement of his nature, the resolution of all his doubts, the enjoyment of bliss, and the destruction of all fear.

Fundamental Doctrines of Mysticism:

Hitherto we have inquired into the meaning, the method and the goal of Mysticism. Our comparative study of the three principal mystical systems of the world has elicited a complete unity and harmony in all essentials. We shall now proceed to discuss the fundamental doctrines of the three systems.

(1) God

As I have said above, there is an essential agreement between the mystics that Reality in its transcendental aspect is incapable of definition and description. Intuition alone can give us the highest insight into the nature of Reality, and he who has had it answers every question regarding it either by silence or negative marks. Now according to the Hindu mystic, the only positive account which can give of Reality is that it is being, intelligence, and bliss.[104] But when we attempt to give intellectual formulation to our intuitive knowledge, we cannot help using empirical, allegorical or symbolical terms which, by their very nature ascribe attributes to Reality, and set it out as a Personal Being who may be described as creating the universe or as something deeply interfused in and through it. There are thus two views of ultimate Reality, the higher and the lower.[105]

Christian mystics echo the same thought. The draw a distinction between Reality which is incomprehensible and indescribable, and God who creates or is immanent. For instance, Eckhart says: “In himself he is not God, in the creature only doth he would bring me into the essence; that essence which is above God and above distinction. I would enter into the eternal unity which was mine before all time, and when I was what I would and would what I was; into that state which is above all addition and diminution, into the immobility whereby all is moved.”[106] Any description, of Reality, therefore, which the mystic gives has no meaning for the highest experience where existence and content are no longer separated; and yet it is the best image of the truth possible.

All is one, says the mystic. Indeed, this view of the ultimate is not a supramundane deity, but a being immanent and deeply interfused in the universe. Now this does not mean that the mystic holds that everything is a God. He rather believes that there is nothing but God, a very different thing, indeed. In his view, the only real existence belongs to God who is not merely the aggregate of all the finite objects, but is a living whole manifesting himself in an infinite variety of names and forms. If there is one life and only one without a second, as the mystic says, then surely the lives of us all are the life of God Himself, and thus we can realize him within ourselves. It is for this reason that Christ said “The Kingdom of God is within you.”[107] And, in truth, if we cannot find God within ourselves, we can never find Him anywhere. But if once we catch a glimpse of Him within our own hearts, then He will shine out to us from every object around us. To the perfected mystic, says Rumi, “God shines down from every star in the sky, God looks up at him from every flower in the field, God smiles on him in every fair face. God speaks to him in every sweet sound; all around him there is God and nothing but God.”[108] Still larger is the sweep of the Hindu mystic: “They that see the Real in the midst of this Unreal, they that behold life in the midst of this death, they that know the One in all the changing manifoldness of this universe– unto them belongs eternal peace– unto none else, unto none else.”[109]

(2) Creation:

Now the question naturally arises: why should the One pass into the Many? Philosophically, a question such as this is inadmissible, because Reality transcends the law of causality. It belongs to what Schopenhauer calls the realm of Epiphilosophy.[110] The mystic, however, answer this question in beautiful allegories. The Hindu mystic’s account of how and why the universe arose is best given in that world-famous hymn of the Rigveda, called the ‘Hymn of Creation.’ It is so magnificent that it may be fittingly introduced here in its entirety:

“When existence was not, nor non-existence,

When the world was not, not the sky beyond,

What covered the mist? By whom was it contained?

What was in those thick depths of darkness?

 

When death was not, not immortality,

When night was not separate from day,

Then That vibrated motionless, one with Its own glory

And beside That, nothing else existed.

 

When darkness was hidden in darkness,

Undistinguished, like one mass of water,

Then did That which was covered with darkness

Manifest Its glory by heat.

 

Now first arose Desire, the primal seed of mind,

(The sages have seen all this in their hearts,

Separating existence from non-existence.)

Its rays spread above, around, and below,

 

The glory became creative,

The Self, sustained as cause below,

Projected, as Effect, above.

 

Who then understood? Who then declared?

How came into being this Projected?

Lo, in its wake followed even the Gods,

Who can say, therefore, whence It came?

 

Whence arose this projected, and whether sustained or not,

He alone, O Beloved, who is its Ruler in the highest

Heaven knoweth,

Nay, it may be that even knoweth it not.”[111]

Of the many Persian mystics who have sought to explain the problem of Creation, none has done it more successfully, more beautifully, and with a greater profusion of imagery that the great mystic poet, Jami. His account which has been admirably rendered into English verse by the late Professor E. G. Browne[112] is as follows:

“In solitude, where Being signless dwelt,

And all the universe still dormant lay

Concealed in selflessness, One Being was

Exempt from “I” –or “Thou” –ness, and apart

 

From all duality, Beauty Supreme,

Unmanifest except unto Itself

By Its own light, yet fraught with power to charm

The souls of all…….

 

But Beauty cannot brook

Concealment and the veil, not patient rest

Unseen and unadmired: ‘Twill burst all bonds

And from its prison casement to the world

Reveal Itself…….

 

Wherever Beauty dwells,

Such is its nature and its heritage

From Everlasting Beauty, which emerged

From realms of purity to shine upon

The worlds, and all the souls which dwell therein,

……………………………………………..

Each speck of matter did He constitute

A mirror, causing each one to reflect

The beauty of His visage. From the rose

Flashed forh His beauty, and the nightingale,

Beholding it; loved madly. From that fire

The candle drew the luster which beguiles

The month to immolation……..

Beware I say not “He the ALL Beautiful…

And we His lovers. Thou art but the glass,

And He is face confronting it, which casts

Its image on fine mirror, He alone

Is manifest, and Thou in truth art hid.

Pure love, like beauty, coming but from Him

Reveals itself in thee. If steadfastly

Thou canst regard, thou wilt at length perceive

He is the mirror also; He alike

The Treasure and the Casket, “I” and “Thou”

Have no place, and are but phantasies

Vain and unreal.”

In another place,[113] this same poet describes the relation of God to the universe more philosophically thus: “The unique Substance, viewed as absolute and void of phenomena, all limitations and multiplicity, is the Real. On the other hand, viewed in His aspect of multiplicity and plurality, under which He displays Himself when clothed with phenomena. He is the whole created universe. Therefore the universe is the outward visible expression of the Real, and the Real is the inner unseen reality of the universe. The universe before it was evolved to outward view was identical with the Real; and the Real after this evolution is identical with the universe.”

(3) Man:

Man, according to the mystic, is an emanation of Divinity. Though last in the order of Creation, he is first in the process of divine emanations, for the essential part of him, the divine spark at the basis of his being, is no other than the first emanation from the Primal source of Being. It is called ‘the Logos’ in Neo-Platonism, ‘Aal-e-Kul’ –i.e. ‘Universal Reason’, in Persian mysticism, and ‘Purusha’ or ‘Atman’, i.e. ‘Universal Spirit or Self’ in Hindu mysticism. But man is ultimately one with God. In conformity with this doctorine, man is invariable spoken of as the image of God[114] in other words man is a direct emanation from God, and in the words of St. Peter, a partaker of the divine nature.[115] Blake, of all the English mystic poets, has given great prominence to this idea, and when I come to deal with him, I shall discuss it in detail.

(4) Evolution:

So according to Mysticism God is playing with Himself and projecting this world of phenomena.[116] He is appearing through all these masks of imperfection, and at the same time He is the one perfect being in all splendour and purity. “He vibrates and He does not vibrate. He is far and He is near, He is within all and He is without all this world of phenomena,” says the Upanishads. Now Mysticism is at one with Science as regards the theory of evolution but it assigns a different cause to the change of one species into another. It is not the survival of the fittest and sexual selection which are responsible for the change, but the struggle of the divine within every mode of being to unfold itself more and more completely. This struggle has evolved higher types in the scale of the universe up to man. It is going on continually, and will not end until the divine has manifested itself in its plentitude in every form. The whole Creation is moving consciously or unconsciously toward that “one far off divine event.” But what would take aeons to attain to, man can attain to even in this life, for the story of his evolution is not a story beginning with a fall but beginning with an ascent. And has he not before him the example of the perfect man of the past, men flowered into diety, such as Christ, the Buddha and Krishna? To discuss how this perfection may be achieved, how the various stages of ascent may be traversed is the practical aim of Mysticism.

(5) Pre-existence and Immortality:

Speaking transcendentally, the human soul, being a fragment of the Divinity, is unborn and imperishable, but from the empirical point of view, all the mystics believe in its prenatal existence, I have referred[117] to the Persian mystic’s beautiful faith that the human souls before they were sent down to the earth, chanted hymns of praise in the Divine Presence. Many mystics, begin absorbed with the sole idea of attaining to union with the divine, have not declared their belief regarding the state of the soul after death, but those who have generally agreed upon the continuous progress of the soul from ‘orb to orb’, from light to light.’[118] i.e. from a lower to a higher plane of existence, until the final illumination and re-absorption into the Deity. Some mystics, however, hold the doctrine of transmigration. It is of cardinal importance in Neo-Platonism and Hindu mysticism. Both believe that all human souls pass after death from one body to another in order to undertake the eternal circle of life in the sensible world. “For to one that is born, death is certain; and to one that dies, birth is certain,” says the Bhagavad-gita.[119] Again, “as in this body, infancy and youth and old age come to the embodied, so does the acquisition of another body.[120]

The Persian mystics generally do no share this view, with the exception of Rumi, who subscribes to this doctrine in emphatic terms:

“Even like the grass have we taken birth again and again.

Indeed, we have entered into nine-hundred and seventy

bodies.”[121]

Now, those of thy mystics who believe in the doctrine of transmigration, declare that when the soul has purified itself and attained to the state of divine knowledge, it is finally liberated from the cycle of birth and death.

(6) Origin of Evil:

In its transcendental aspect, Mysticism does not recognize the existence of evil, so the question of its origin in time or its source in the nature of things does not arise, but merely the causes of its appearance in consciousness. It is therefore the chief concern of the mystic to transcend the consciousness of evil by living; the truly mystical life. There is the empirical view; which accounts for evil in a variety of ways. Rumi says that a skilful painter is of necessity able to paint ugly pictures as well as fair ones. Things are only known by their contraries. If evil did not exist, good will not be known. Again, much of what we call evil is only relative; what is evil for one being is good for another –nay, more, evil itself is often turned into good for the good. Some evil, again has a medicine value; it is like the surgeon’s knife. Though it gives pain, it rejoices the heart of God, for He knows that it will purge us of our infirmities. Says Rumi:

“The child cries, but the mother’s heart is glad with joy,

When the surgeon’s knife is turned on the child’s tumour.”[122]

(7) Religion:

The Mystic does not care very much about formal religion. He recognizes only one proof, and that is direct perception. According to him, even religion itself derives its sanction and authority from the direct perception of the perfected mystic. His aim, therefore, has always been to reach beyond all scriptures and dogmas. It is written in the Bhagavad-gita that scriptures are all useful to the enlightment sage as a tank in a country which is all covered over with water.[123] “Mysticism,” says Otto Pfleidere, “overlaps all those channels by which religion is at once interpreted and obscured in the dogma and worship of the Church, in order to find its life directly in religion itself, to experience the revelation of God in the heart of the individual, and to possess salvation now and here, in the sense of most intimate union with God.”[124]

Formal religion, however, the mystic admits, has its uses. It is, in the words of Shabistari, the philosopher mystic poet of Persia, the dry husk that covers the nut, but is not the kernel concealed within, and yet the husk must exist to ripen the kernel.[125] Dogmas are necessary at a certain stage, exactly in the same way as scientific formulae are necessary at the commencement of the study of Science. Bu they must be verified by the student for himself. The priest, however, would not suffer this for he looks upon the dogma not as a guide, but as a limitation, not as a way to knowledge, but as the end of knowledge. Hence it is that the mystic and the priest are always at logger-heads. Joseph Marechal has laboured to show that in the Roman Catholic Church, at any rate, there exists no quarrel between the priest and the mystic.[126] But it is a matter of common knowledge easily verifiable from the lives of Catholic mystics, such as John Tauler, St. Theresa and Madame Guyon that the Roman Catholic Church has always regarded Mysticism as a sort of heresy and not as a ‘fine flower’ of religious experience, as Marechal says,[127] and kept its mystics within bonds of threat of persecution or actual persecution. The same writer commits another mistake. It is with regard to Persian mysticism. He attempts to show how the Persian mystics have secured toleration by making their mysticism purely esoteric. Those who are conversant with the history of Persian mysticism will bear me out that the mystics have been nowhere persecuted more cruelly than in Persia. The very case of Mansur of Baghdad which Marechal cites in a case in point. He was literally butchered to death, his mangled body burnt on a funeral pyre (so revolting to Mohamedan practice and sentiment), and his ashes thrown into the Tigris. All the mystic literature, including that greatest mystical poem of the world, viz. the Masnavi of Rumi, was until recently confiscated and burnt by the orthodox of Mahomedan Church. It is only Hinduism which not only tolerates its mystics, but considers their experiences as superior to all the scriptures and authorities in the world. It is good, says the Hindu, to be born in a Church, though it is foolish to die there.

All the mystics look upon dogmas as so many veils which hide the light of truth. They, therefore, want all the dogmas to be broken, and all authority to be transferred from outside to inside, from the Church to the individual.

“Not until every mosque beneath the sun

Lies ruined, will our holy work be done,

And never will true Mussulman appear,

Till faith and infidelity are one.”[128]

Hence from the mystic’s point of view, all formal religions are equal. God says to Prince Arjuna in the ‘Song Celestial’ that in whatever way men go to Him, in that same way does He reach out his hand to them.[129]

“Those who follow other gods in simple faith, their prayers arise to me, though they pray wrongfully; for, indeed, I am the Lord and Receiver of every form of worship”.[130] To the artist his art, to the man of science his science, to the monk his vow, to the soldier his country’s defence, to each believer his own particular belief, all these are forms of religion according to the Hindu mystic.[131] And it does not matter how and where one worships God. Each object of worship, devotion or duty is, as it were, a new window through which the Infinite shines out; and each place of worship –be it a Church, a pagoda, or a mosque –it equally the shrine of God.

“Love[132] is where the glory falls

Of Thy face –on convent walls

Or on tavern floors, the same

Unextinguishable flame.

Where the turbaned anchorite

Chanteth Allah day and night,

Chruch bells ring the call to prayer

And the Cross of Christ is there.”[133]

Indeed, the mystic belongs to no sect and to no creed, and yet in spirit he belongs to all sects and to all creeds, because he knows the fundamental truth which underlies all sects and creeds. No mystic ever sang his Confession of Faith in sweeter strains than that prince of mystics, Jelaleddin Rumi, in the following ode:-

 

“Soul of mine, thou dawning Light: Be not far, O be not far!

Love of mine, thou Vision bright, be not far, O be not far!

Life is where thou smilest sweetly: Death is in thy parting look;

Here mid Death and Life’s fierce Light: Be not far, O be not far!

I am East when thou art rising; I am West when thou dost set;

See how well my Turban fitteth, yet the Parsee Girdle blinds me;

Cord and Wallet I bear light: Be not far, O be not far!

True Parsee and true Brahman, a Christian, Yet a Mussulman;

Thee I trust, Supreme by right: Be not far, O be not far!

In all Mosques, Pagodas, Churches, I do not find one Shrine alon;

Thy face is there my sole delight: Be not far, O be not far!

Thine the World’s all-loving Heart; and for it I yearn and pray;

O take not from my Heart thy flight: Be not far, O be not far!

Thee, the World’s Eternal Centre, here I circle round in prayer;

Thy absence is last judgment quite: Be not far, O be not far!

Thine judgment Day and Blessedness: Mien is Bliss when Thou art nigh.

Keep me circling in thy Might: Be not far, O be not far!

Fair World Rose, O blossom forth; sweet heart-buds unfold in love;

Put on the longing Soul’s pure Whitel Be not far, O be not far!

O rose, hear through Night’s silence, how the thrills thy Nightingale;

As if I did his Notes indite: Be not far, O be not far!

Jelaleddin, all loving, let Love’s Heart resist no more:

Hear him chanting, Day and Night: Be not far, O be not far![134]

Morals of Mysticism:

Does Mysticism, as Sir Oliver Lodge alleges,[135] underestimate conduct and practical affairs? The truth is rather the other way. The communion with Reality not only purifies the understanding, refines the senses, and enlarges the vision, but renovates human life and conduct which nothing else can, and supplies the surest foundation of morality. We are told in the Bible that we should love our neighbour as ourself.[136] But neither the Bible nor the Christian theology can supply the raison –d’etre. It is to be found in the mystic’s creed. We must love our neighbour as ourself, because we are our neighbour, and mere illusion makes us believe that our neighbour is something different from ourself.

“He sees indeed who sees in all alike

The living, lordly, soul; the Soul Supreme;

Imperishable amid the Perishing:

For, whose thus beholds, in every place,

In every form, the same one, Living Life

Doth no more wrongfulness unto himself,

But goes the highest road which brings to bliss.”[137]

His conviction, that all life has a common root, kindles in the mystic a passionate desire to minister to the need of mankind. He feels a sort of urge divine to help others to discover the divine in themselves. The good becomes “not merely the keystone of knowledge, but the pole star of conduct,” in the words of Nettleship. His spirit remains detached from all earthly cares and selfish desire. He lives and acts, but is not attached to life and action. He is, to use a favourite Hindu simile, like a lotas, which floats on the water, though its roots are immersed in it. He is self-contained and desireless, yet he has always something to accomplish. Of him it may be said: “He dwells in God, and yet he goes out towards created things in a spirit of love towards all things, in the virtues and in the works of righteousness. And this is the most exalted summit of inner life.[138]

Whatever he does, is not done in subjection to an external law, but in obedience to the inner determination of the soul’s freedom. This is the highest kind of action. Says Aristotle: “He is best who acts on his own convictions, while he is second best who acts in obedience to the counsel of others.”[139]

Is Mysticism a call to Renunciation?

True Mysticism is nowhere a call to leave the world, but everywhere the supreme imperative that the true seer must carry his vision into action, regardless of the consequences to himself. Spiritually does not lie in retreat from men and things, but a burning fire of knowledge that destroys bondage, consumes sluggishness and egoism, and penetrates everywhere. Not the refined but the transfigures life, radiant with power and energy, triumphant in its selflessness, is Mysticism. “As the ignorant act from selfish motives, so should the wise man act, unselfishly,” says the Bhagavad-gita.[140]

Varieties of Mysticism:

The transcendental consciousness in which the individual self is ‘empties and lost and swallowed up’ in an undifferentiated One, may occur in a great variety of fields, in numerous ways, and with all degrees of depth and intensity. “There are different roads by which this end may be reached; the love of beauty which exalts the poet; that devotion to the One and the ascent of science which make the ambition of the philosopher; that love and those prayers by which some devout and ardent soul tends in its moral purity towards perfection. These are the great highways conducting to that height above the actual and the particular, where we stand in the immediate presence of the Infinite, who shines out as from the deeps of the soul.”[141] Vaughan evidently on the authority of this statement of Plotinus has divided the mystics into three groups according to their respective tendencies, or temperaments, which he calls (1) the theopathetic, (2) the theosophic, and (3) the theurgic.[142] These in popular phraseology may be names respectively (1) the saint, (2) the sage, and (3) the spiritualist. Dean Inge too makes three classes, though he names them differently: (1) the speculative or intellectual mystic, (2) the practical or devotional mystic, and (3) the Nature mystic.[143] Now this classification is rather misleading for, in the first place, the mystic is the last person to indulge in speculation or intellectual jugglery of any kind; his sole aim being direct perception, which results only when the intellect is passive and, in the second place, as I have said above, Nature, both external and internal is used by the mystic merely as a means or an aid to the attainment of divine knowledge, or as a mode of contemplation. Thus the mystic who seeks contemplation of or communion with Nature should rightly be placed in the same category with the devotional mystic. Hindu mysticism has three groups, viz. (1) the intuitional,[144] (2) the devotional,[145] and (3) the practical.[146] Persian mysticism knows only two varieties, viz. the intuitional and the devotional. Since the names used by Vaughan and Dean Inge are too well-known in the West to need an explanation, I shall discuss the Oriental varieties only.

(1) The intuitional Mystic:

With certain persons, says Bradley, the intellectual effort to understand the universe is a principal way of experiencing the Deity.[147] Now the Hindu and Persian mystics admit that the intellect is not an absolutely useless guide. It can give us account of Reality, which is not false, but distorted and fragmentary. By its very constitution, it cannot grasp Reality in its entirety.[148] Every heightening of common knowledge is no doubt to be welcomed, but the mere reports of the intellect cannot satisfy for all time a soul whose sole struggle is the passion for light, more light. In the case of such a man, there arises at last a consciousness in his soul that reason looking at the Light of Lights is blinded like a bat in the sun. the moment he realizes the nothingness of the intellect there ensues a conversion of the soul, and he turns his gaze in another direction. And the conviction dawns upon him that what conceals the truth is not merely the intellect, but also the body and senses. For this reason, he practices renunciation, negates the senses, represses the individual impulse, and makes his unstable mind “as a lamp in a sheltered spot, not flickering.”[149] Having thus acquired perfect control over the intellectual apparatus, he can direct every part of it at will to a common point. Then, says the Hindu mystic, he being one, perceives oneness, and his soul sees truth face to face. Intense concentration is the single secret of the intuitional mystic. He dives in an atmosphere of stillness, calm, and light without emotion. The greatest intuitional mystic that has appeared in the East was the Buddha. In the West, the Cambridge Platonists would be the best representatives of this variety. Even Kant, in as much as he realised the impotence of pure reason, and turned his gaze to “the starry heavens above and the moral law within,” would be regarded as intuitional mystic.

(2) The Devotional Mystic:

Devotion or love is the predominant feature of this type of mystic. Love may bind him to God directly, or through man, or through external Nature. But whatever the form it may assume, it ultimately leads him to the perception of the Supreme. Says Rumi: True love on whatever object we centre it, leads us ultimately to the eternal Beloved.[150] It is said, in the ‘Song Celestial’ that this path is open to all, to the learned and ignorant like, and is also the easiest means of access to the divine. This was the method of man Christian saints, e.g. St. Francis, St. Theresa, Madame Guyon. Gradually, in such souls, the power of love becomes a scorching fire that burns up all the barriers of individuality, and the whole universe is looked upon as a supreme manifestation of God. Jami declares:

“In neighbour, friend, companion, Him we see,

In beggar’s rags or robes of royalty.

In Union’s cell or in distraction haunts,

There’s none but He, by God, there’s none but He.[151]

Then comes a fusing of all things in the one image of what the Persian mystics terms ‘the Eternal Darling.’ Lastly all distinction disappears, self is utterly forgotten and there remains nothing but the Infinite Love. “This love so maketh a man one with God, that he can never more be separated from Him.”[152] It is love in its purity and fullness.

(3) The Practical Mystic:

The man who does his allotted duty in life, whose soul thirsts for service, who is devoid of all motive including the subtler shades of selfishness, such as the preference for special forms of work, and the desire for sympathy or fame “that last infirmity of noble minds’ is the practical mystic. He wants nothing, he asks for nothing, he desires nothing. Considering pleasure and pain, success and failure as exactly alike,[153] he stands up and fights the battle of life: and gradually merging his own self in the good of others, he is always ready to help his fellowmen, even unto death. ‘The people’ with Mazzini, ‘the fair realm of France’ with Joan of Arc, the fulfillment of duty to his country with Oliver Cromwell are amongst the forms which this variety of mystical realization may take. This path of duty, service and action in purity of motive ultimately leads to the highest truth.

Such are the three types of mystical realization. They all lead to seeing, experiencing and living the divine life. He to whom it is given while in the flesh to drink of the waters of this ocean of life is called a ‘swan amongst men’[154] in Hindu Mysticism, and a ‘perfected sage’[155] in Persian mysticism. Most mystics die, it is said, having heard only the thunder of its waves upon a shore: a few come within sight; fewer still taste; to few alone it is given to drink. That are the marks of the illumined sage, asks Prince Arjuna of Krishna, in the ‘Sogn Celestial’; and the reply is:

“When one, O Pritha’s Son!–

Abandoning desires which shake the mind–

Finds in his soul full comfort for his soul,

He hath attained the Yog[156] –that man is such!

In sorrows not dejected, and in joys

Not overjoyed; dwelling outside the stress

Of passion, fear, and anger; fixed in calms

Of lofty contemplation: –such a one

Is Muni, is the Sage, the true Recluse!

He who to none and nowhere overbound

By ties of flesh, takes evil things and good

Neither desponding, nor exulting, such

Bears wisdom’s plainest mark! He who shall draw

As the wise tortoise draws its four feet safe

Under its shield, his five frail senses back

Under the spirit’s buckler from the world

Which else assails them, such a one, my Prince!

Hath wisdom’s mark![157]

Mysticism and Poetry:

Having laid the mystical basis, I shall now deal with that type of superconsiousness which constitutes the greatest mainspring of Poetry. It occurs in the case of men of lofty genius under the stimulus of beauty in Nature and man, and from this circumstance it is called Nature Mysticism by some. It consists of “leaps into insight through the fusing of all the deep-lyign powers of intellect, emotion and will, and in a corresponding surge of conviction through the dynamic integration of personality”,[158] Plato held that the soul in its prenatal state had been conversant with the ‘Ideas’ of beauty and goodness, and that in its sojourn on earth it is reminded of these ‘Ideas’ by the sight of beautiful things.[159] Beauty stands on the threshold of the mystical world, and rekindles the love of the soul for its heavenly prototype. Wordsworth in his ‘Ode on Intimations of Immortality’ and Newman in ‘The Pillar of the Cloud’ echo the same thought.

All men possess the faculty of perceiving these Platonic ‘Ideas’, if they could but transcend their personality.

“For every man whose soul is not a cold

Hath visions and would speak if he had loved,

And been well nurtured in his mother tongue.”[160]

But, in the case of poet, this faculty of perception is, –so to speak, raised to its n^th power. By reason of his genius and clairvoyant faculty, he is more keen to perceive and seize upon the highest and holiest truths, and is more capable of expressing them with vividness and power. But it should be borne in mind that the poet does not create his facts; he is only more sensitive by nature or by training than others to see them clearly, and more richly gifted in the capacity of giving expression to what he sees.

Media of Poetic Inspiration:

Different natures are sensitive to different sorts of beauty. To some sublime scenery, wild woods and downs, quiet meadows and streams, and the starry heavens, as in the case of Wordsworth; to some again the mysterious charm of a human form divine, as to case of Blake, has most quickening power. “There are as many revelations of God as there are saintly souls.”[161]  A thing of beauty is a mirror, in which is reflected the light of truth; and the lover’s homage is rendered not to the shrine at which he offers his devotion, but to the Divine Beauty which inhabits and irradiates it. “If love desire Beauty, it is but His (God’s) reflection, and exists by Him and for Him”[162]

Process of Poetic Inspiration:

By illumination of gradually increasing splendour, the poet’s own consciousness is wholly melted away, and he becomes transfigured in the divine light. None has explained this process in a more lucid and beautiful manner than Schopenhauer: “If, raised by the power of mind, a man relinquishes the common way of looking at things, gives up tracing, under the guidance of the forms of the principle of sufficient reason, their relations to each other, the final goal of which is always a relation to his own will; if he thus ceases to consider the where, the when, the why, and the wither of things, and looks simply and solely at the what; if, further, he does not allow abstract thought, the concepts of the reason, to take possession of his consciousness, but instead of all this, gives the whole power of his mind to perception, sinks himself entirely in this, and lets his whole consciousness be filled with the quiet contemplation of the natural object actually present, whether a landscape, a tree, a mountain, a building, or whatever it may be; in as much  as he loses himself in this object (to use a pregnant German idiom), i.e. forgets even his individuality, his will, and only continues to exist as the pure subject, the clear mirror of the object, so that it is as if the object alone were there, without any one to perceive it, and he can no longer separate the perceiver from the perception, but both have become one, because the whole consciousness is filled and occupied with one single sensuous picture; if thus the object has to such an extent passed out of all relation to the will, then that which is so known is no longer the particular thing as such; but it is the ‘Idea’, the Eternal form, the immediate objectivity of the will[163] at this grade; and, therefore, he who is sunk in this perception is no longer individual, for in such perception the individual has lost himself; but he is pure, will-less, painless, timeless subject of knowledge.”[164]

By the disinterested contemplation of beauty, the poet is led into that communion in which

“We are led asleep

In body and become a living soul:

While with an eye made quiet by the power

of Harmony, and the deep power of joy

We see into the life of things.”[165]

In this state of assimilation, “the Reason becomes clear and pure, the Will ordered into harmony with the Divine Will, the Feelings of Emotions corrected and sharpened.”[166] The greater the power of the poet’s perception, the clearer and more lasting is his impression.

The poet is a Prophet:

When the poet has communed with beauty in this state of exalted consciousness, he feels an irresistible impulse “to entangle in complex colours and forms,”[167] a part of his vision for his fellow creatures. In this sense, Mrs. Browning speaks of the poets as “God’s prophets of the Beautiful.”[168] Middleton Murry, agreeing with the ancients, regards the poet as a veritable vates sacer, commissioned with a direct message from God, rather than as a mere Lusus naturae, an incalculable provider of some exotic thrill called an ‘aesthetic emotion.’[169]

In the East, the poet has always been looked upon as the most sublime interpreter of heavenly mysteries, and poetry is the one distinguishing feature of all Oriental mysticism. It is recorded in the ‘Table Talk’ of the Arabian Prophet that God has His treasuries in Heaven, the keys whereof are the tongues of the poets. Socrates, in the long dialogue, conceives of poetry as a magnetic influence passing like an electric current from the loadstone of divine essence into the soul of the poet, and from thence into the souls of his hearers. Jami, whom I have previously quoted, tells in a beautiful way why the poet feels the urgent need of ridding his soul of the burden of beauty, which his mystical consciousness imposes on him. A marked characteristic of beauty, says he, whatever be the form it may assume, is an innate of desire of self-manifestation. Thus a beautiful face is impatient of concealment, and ever desires to be seen; similarly when a beautiful thought or conception occurs to the mind, it is not content to be buried away out of sight, but seeks expression through language or though art, as the case may be. This is so because the desire of self-expression is an essential attribute of the Absolute Beauty whereof these phenomenal forms are so many partial manifestations. The phenomenal universe itself, according to this poet, as I have shown above, results from this desire of self manifestation on the part of Absolute Beauty.[170]

Poetic Symbolism:

Every mystic poet, in his endeavour to communicate the knowledge of Reality revealed to him in ecstatic vision, is obliged to employ symbols and imagery drawn from the common objects and sights of the world. This cannot be otherwise, for as has been said previously, the Absolute Reality, the God with whom the soul seeks to be united, cannot be described as He actually is except negatively

“But as there is no language for the Infinite,

How can we express its mysteries in finite words?

Or how can the visions of the ecstatic

Be described in earthly formula?

So mystics veil their meanings

In these shadows of the unseen.[171]

The objects of the senses.”

It is a unique feature of Poetic mysticism, however, that while it emphasizes the negative side of Reality, it attempts to portray the positive side as well. It effects a synthesis of both. The symbolism employed by each poet will largely depend upon his own temperament; training, and philosophic outlook, but to some extent also upon the exigencies of the time and country in which he lives, and the character and predilections of the people to whom he wishes to deliver his message. His ideas of Reality and spiritual facts are likely to clothe themselves in forms of beauty, love, goodness and truth.

Conclusion:

I cannot do better than close this inquiry by summing up its results thus: (1) Mysticism is in its meaning the direct knowledge of God and of the facts of the spiritual world, arising not through the senses of the intellect, but through the deliberate introversion of these. (2) Like any other science, Mysticism has both a method and an identity of response in the normal human consciousness. (3) Mysticism is a universal phenomena, and exhibits that identity of knowledge which is the mark of reality in all ages and countries. (4) Mysticism is the central and ever abiding Principle of all true religion and poetry. (5) The basic principle and practices of Mysticism are identical throughout the world. These may be briefly stated as (1) God alone exists. He is in all things and all things are in Him. (b) The universe and man are emanations from Him, and thus are not really distinct from Him. (3) Nothing shall be lost, not a worm is cloven in vain. The whole universe is consciously gravitating toward its centre and origin. (4) The human soul existed before the body and will continue to live forever. (e) Souls which have not fulfilled their destination, viz. union with God here below will purify themselves, and thus render themselves worthy of reunion with God, either by metempsychosis or by incarnation on higher planes of being. (f) Religions are matters of indifference. They have all dwindled into a bundle of mechanical and stereotyped formulae. Unless they lead to individual experience of truth, they are an encumbrance and a curse. (g) Really speaking there is no difference between good and evil; for all is reduced to unity of God; but all seeming evil is universal good.

I shall now proceed to the study of Mysticism and its fundamental doctrines in those of the English poets of the early Nineteenth Century, who have not merely shown deep sympathy with and clear appreciation of Mysticism, but have realized its spiritual facts in their personal experience. In doing so, I shall be mainly guided by three considerations, viz. (1) the power and capacity of each poet’s mystical consciousness, (2) his conception of the ultimate Reality, and (3) his explanation of the universe and man from that conception.

 

* *

 

[1] Christian Mysticism.

[2] Outspoken Essays.

[3] Diwan-e-Shams Tabriz by Reynold A. Nicholson.

[4] The Festival of spring, by William Hastie.

[5] Eng. tr. by E. H. Whinfield.

[6] Aeneid, Book VI. 258

[7] Hours with the Mystics by R. A. Vaughan.

[8] Ibid.

[9] Christian Mysticism.

[10] Mysticism in Christianity.

[11] Hours with the Mystics.

[12] Primitive Culture by Sir. E. B. Tylor.

[13] Bhagvad-gita. IX.1.2.

[14] Aitreya Aranyaka, 3.2

[15] Kimia-e-Sa’adat by Al-Ghazzali

[16]  Mysticism.

[17] Fragments by Bywater.

[18] Ulysses by Tennyson.

[19] Ether and Reality.

[20] Advancement of learning.

[21] Eng. Tr. by E. G. Browne in ;A Year amongst the Persians.’

[22] The World as Will and Idea. Eng. tr. by Haldane and Kemp.

[23] Creative Evolution. Eng. tr. by A. Mitchell.

[24] See Weber’s History of Philosophy.

[25] The original Arabic words are ‘Kaun’, and ‘fasad’, respectively.

[26] See ‘The Poetic Interpretations of Nature’ by Hon’be Roden Noel in Wordsworthiana.

[27] Eng. tr. by John Payne.

[28] Robert Browning.

[29] Life of Saint-Martin by A. E. Waite. How exactly alike the mystics speak will appear from the few quotations selected at random: (see foot notes on p.10)

[30] “The Kingdom of God is within you.” (Christ)

“We are nearer to man than his jugular vein.” (God in the Quran)

“If thou wishest to search our the deep things of God, search out the depths of thine own spirit.” (Richard of St. Victor)

Grace works from within Outwards. (Ruysbrock)

“God is closer to us than breathing, and than hands and feet.” (J. Smith)

[31] Qassid.

[32] Enneads, Eng. tr. by McKanna.

[33] Life of the Blessed Henry Suso by Himself, translated by T. F. Knox.

[34] From this practice, the Persian mystic is called ‘Sufi’, which literally means, ‘one clad in coarse wool.’

[35] e.g. H. E. M. Stutfiled in ‘Mysticism and Catholicism’. Rigorous practices involving mortification of the flesh are prescribed in what is called ‘Hatha-Yoga’, but they are generally resorted to by the illiterate and the uncultured, and have always been censured by the real mystic.

[36] Hours with the Mystics by R. A. Vaughan.

[37] Phaedo, Eng. tr. by Jowett

[38] Hours with the Mystics by R. A. Vaughan.

[39] Vaughan: Hours with the Mystics.

[40] Isavasya UP. IX.

[41] Brihdaranyaka Up. 111. of Matthew. 18, 3.

[42] Matthew. 5, 8.

[43] Katha Up. 1, 3, 14.

[44] Rumi: Masnavi.

[45] Matthew, 7.14.

[46] Hours with the Mystics by R. A. Vaughan.

[47] See Kant by Wallace.

[48] Mundaka Up. II. 2, 3-4.

[49] Chhandogya Up. 1. 5.

[50] Prasna Up. 1. 5, 43.

[51] Confessions, Eng. tr. by Claud Field.

[52] ‘Life of Tennyson’ by his son. Vol:I

[53] The Mystics of Islam.

[54] See Mysticism by E. Underhill.

[55] Masnavi.

[56] Fénélon by Viscount St. Cyres.

[57] Masnavi.

[58] The Arabic phrase runs: ‘Almajaz qantarat’ al-haqiqat’ i.e. ‘The typal

is the bridge to the real.’M..2

[59] Enneads. Eng. tr. by McKenna.

[60] Yusif and Zulaikha, Eng. tr. by R. T. E. Griffith.

[61] Select Discourses.

[62] Plotinus: Enneads, Eng. tr. by McKenna.

[63] Al-Ghazzali: Kimia-e-Sa’adat.

[64] William Blake.

[65] Merchant of Venice. V. I.

[66] Lit. ‘Intuition’.

[67] See Studies in Mystical Religion by Rufus M. Jones.

[68] See the Puranas.

[69] See especially Tadhkirat-l-awliya by Farid’d-din Attar. Persian text edited by Renold A. Nicholson.

[70] See Hours with the Mystics by R. A. Vaughan.

[71] The Quest of Reality by A. Wyatt Tibly.

[72] Ibid.

[73] Brih, V. 9. 1.

[74] See Human Personality by Frederic W. H. Myers.

[75] I shall give a detailed examination of this matter in my treatment of Blake.

[76] Confessions. Eng. tr. by C. Bigg.

[77] Plotinus: Enneads. Engl. Tr. by McKenna.

[78] Chhandogya Up. VI. 13.

[79] The Mystics of Islam by R. A. Nicholson.

[80] Miss E. Underhill: Mysticism

[81] Lawaih. Eng.l tr. by E. H. Whinfield.

[82] Hours with the Mystics, by R. A. Vaughan.

[83] Ibid.

[84] III. 2. 3.

[85] See Christian Mysticism.

[86] Eng. tr. by R. A. Nicholson in ‘Mystics of Islam.’

[87] The Adornment of the Spiritual Marriage. Eng. tr. by C. A. Wynschenk Dom.

[88] Enneads, Eng. tr. by McKenna.

[89] Hours with the Mystics, by R. A. Vaughan.

[90] Varieties of Religious Experience.

[91] The original Sanskrit and Persian words are ‘moksha’, and ‘najat’ respectively.

[92] Hindu name for Reality.

[93] Brihd. Up. III. 9. 26. etc.

[94] Ecclesiastical Polity.

[95] Confessions. Eng. tr. by C. Bigg.

[96] Rufus M. Jones: Studies in Mystical Religion.

[97] Confessions: Eng. tr. by Claud Field.

[98] Varieties of Religious Experience.

[99] Creative Evolution Eng. tr. by A. Mitchell.

[100] Appearance and Reality.

[101] Fragments of Science.

[102] Brihd Up. IV. 3. 21.

[103] Taittiriya Up. II. 7.

[104] Shankara, the great Hindu philosopher mystic, considers that even this positive account of Reality is imperfect. Of. Plotinus: “When we affirm existence of it, we mean no more than that it does not fall within the realm of non-existents; its transcends even the quality of being.” Enneads. Eng. tr. by McKenna.

[105] Reality in its empirical aspect is known in Hindu mysticism by the name of Ishwara, and its knowledge paravidya; in its transcendental aspect it is known by the name of Brahman, and its knowledge aparavidya. Similarly the Persian mystic calls Reality be the name of Haq, i.e. Truth, in its transcendental aspect and its knowledge Ilm-e-batin, i.e. intuitive knowledge; in its empirical aspect he calls it as Allah or Khuda, and its knowledge Ilm-e-Zahir, i.e. empirical knowledge.

[106] Quoted in Hunt’s Essay on Pantheism.

[107] Luke. 17. 20.

[108] Gibb: Ottoman Poetry. Vol. I.

[109] Katha Up.

[110] The World as Will and Idea. Eng. tr. by Haldane and Kemp.

[111] Rig-Veda, X. 129.

[112] See Religious Systems of the World.

[113] Lawih, Eng. tr. by E. H. Whinfield.

[114] Cf. the Persian mystic’s saying: “God created man in His own image” and Genesis: “God made man in His own image, in the image of God created He him; male and female created lie them.”

[115] 2. Peter. 1. 4.

[116] Both the Hindu and the Persian mystics call Creation a sport or an optic illusion of God.

[117] See above.

[118] Tennyson: In Memoriam.

[119] Chap. II.

[120] Ibid.

[121] Masnavi. Nine hundred and seventy stands for a very large number in Persian.

[122] Masnavi.

[123] Chap. II.

[124] The Philosophy of Religion. Eng. tr. by A. Stewart.

[125] Gulshan-e-Raz.

[126] Studies in the Psychology of the Mystics. Eng. tr. by Algar Thorold.

[127] Ibid.

[128] Abu Said ibn Abi’l-Khayr. Eng. tr. by R. A. Nicholson in ‘Mystics of Islam’.

[129] Bhagvad-gita. Chap. XI.

[130] Bhagavad-gita. Chap. IX.

[131] Accordign to Hinduism, the duty which one is called upon to perform in life constitutes one’s religion, provided it is performed with singleness of purpose, and unflinching devotion. Hence the word used for religion is ‘dharma’, which does not connote the idea which attaches to the word ‘religion’ in the West.

[132] By ‘Love’ here is to be understood ‘the Beloved’, i.e. God whom the Persian mystic loves to call ‘the Eternal Darling.’ That is the sense in the original.

[133] Hafiz Eng. tr. by R. A. Nicholson in ‘Mystics of Islam’.

[134] Eng. tr. by Dr. William Hastie in ‘The Festival of Spring’ which contains a beautiful selection from the Odes of Rumi.

[135] See Ether and Reality.

[136] e.g. Matthew, 19.10; 23. 39 etc.

[137] The Sogn Celestial by Sir Edwin Arnold.

[138] Tuysbrock.

[139] Ethics. 1. 4. 7.

[140] Chap. III.

[141] Plotine: Letter to Flaccus.

[142] Hours with the Mystics.

[143] Christian Mysticism.

[144] Although in deference to the prevailing Western terminology, I have used the word ‘intuitional’ to name this variety of mysticism, it does not convey adequately the meaning of the original word, viz, ‘jnan’. ‘Intuition’ has a certain hearness to it, but is not sufficiently intense.

[145] The original name is “bhakti-yoga”.

[146] Though I have used the generally accepted term ‘practical’, the original word which is ‘Karma-yogi’ means ‘actual mystic’ or ‘the mystic of action’.

[147] Appearance and Reality

[148] See above.

[149] Bhagavad-gita. Chap. VI.

[150] Masnavi.

[151] Lawaih Eng. tr. by H. Whinfield.

[152] Theologia Germanica. Eng. tr. byWinlworth.

[153] Bhagavad-gita. Chap. II

[154] Parama-Hamsa.

[155] Arif-e-Kamil.

[156] Union.

[157] Chap. II. Eng. tr. by Sir Edwin Arnold.

[158] Rufus M. Jones; Studies in Mystical Religion.

[159] See Phaedo, Eng. tr. by Jowett.

[160] William Blake.

[161] John Scotus Erigena.

[162] deFlagello Myrteo: ‘Thoughts and Fancies on Love’. by R. Garne. T.

[163] This is Schopenhauer’s name for the ‘ding an scih’ of Kant.

[164] The World as Will and Idea, Eng. tr. by Haldane and Kemp.

[165] Wordsworth: Tintern Abbey.

[166] W. L. Hare: Mysticism of East and West.

[167] W. B. Yeats: Ideas of Good and Evil.

[168] A vision of Poets.

[169] Keats and Shakespeare.

[170] See hi “Yusif Zulaikha’.

[171] Shabistari, “Gulshan-e-Raz’.

---