From: markk@cypress.West.Sun.COM (Mark Kampe) Subject: reasons why not to be a mystic...... Date: 4 Oct 1993 19:58:54 GMT > From: oispeggy@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu (Peggy Brown) > Subject: reasons why not to be a mystic..... > Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1993 19:07:00 GMT > Attribution: This was written by jbanz, partly as a joke, and was posted to a list. It is reproduced here with his permission. He is interested in feedback, so comment away, and I will forward any comments to him (unless you say otherwise). Thanks. ******************************************************************** > ~Subject: Why Studying Mysticism is a Really Bad Idea > No, I'm not serious. But I came up with a list of reasons for > the subject-line assertion, to inflict on four bright undergraduates > who wanted to do a course with me on the history and philosophy of > mysticism. I thought they could show me they were serious if they > could navigate these waters. What do you think of them? Some have > fairly obvious misunderstandings of mysticism, designed to get them > thinking about the character of mystical experience. Some are more > serious problems. Does anyone have any more to add? Good stuff ... even if only 2/3 valid. We all need to challenge our beliefs and motivations, and we can all benefit from regular warnings about the perrils of our paths. Perhaps Bjanz was not entirely serious about the beliefs behind the quiestions, but I think the challenge inherrent in the questions is a very important thing, and should be a pre-requisite to mystical studies. > 1. There is nothing to study. Mystics have private experiences, and > by their own admission communicate them badly. Studying this leads > to speculation about fanciful stories that have no hope of > corroberation. True, it is absurd to 'study' someone elses mystical experience. On the other hand, it is not absurd to study the work that lead to the experieince, or the world-views that followed from the experience, or the lessons that would-be pilgrims can learn from the lives of mystics. > 2. The supposed "reality" that the mystic accesses could just be the > affectation of a psychotic mind. Indeed, but most break-throughs appear to be dementia when viewed from a pre-enlightened perspective. It is only in retrospect that their wisdom becomes clear. None the less, the warning is a very valid one, and we must continuously challenge ourselves in this regard. > 3. Mystics tend to challenge order -- in theology, in government, in > morality. They are therefore divisive and destructive to all normal > social functioning. Studying this is anti-social. The evils of obedience to authority are probably at least as great as the evils of anarchy. In order to be 'healthy' a society must include both conformist and non-conformist elements in a moderate ballance. A small element that challenges order, purpose, and conventional wisdom is vital to the health of a society. > 4. Mysticism adds nothing to the social world. A "moral mystic" is > almost an oxymoron, because mystics are solitary, while morality is > public. This solitary nature can lead to quietism. This is the first challenge that I think is poorly posed. I fail to see while 'morality is public' or why a hermit must 'of necessity' be less moral than a more social person. I see little difference between the sociopath who seeks 'God at any price' and the sociopath who seeks 'Wealth and Power at any price'. This is, therefore, not an indightment against 'mystics', but against people whose lives are not of service to others. I agree that would-be mystics must be warned of the danger of completely withdrawing from society, and must always ask what purpose their life is serving. > 5. Mystics do bad philosophy. There are no arguments, rarely any > reference to the philosophical tradition. Mysticism is not rational > -- to accept the mystic's version of the world, you have to have the > mystic's experience. Furthermore, mystics retreat to the inner > rationality of their own system to avoid criticism, but are quite > willing to use rationality to criticize others. There is an element of mystical experience that cannot be attained through logical deduction. This does not mean, however, that 'mystics do bad philosophy'. Einstein did not arrive at the theory of General relativity through mathematical investigation, but in a nearly religious epiphany. He said (in his first autobiography) words to the general effect of 'It was not through the use of my rational mind that I came to an understanding of the fundamental nature of the Universe'. Does this mean that Einstein did bad physics? How one comes by an insight is largely irrelevent. The important questions are what one does with the insight, and how valuable those results are. In Einstein's case, he spent seven years evolving a mathematical formulation of his insight, and changed the way we view the universe. Here, once again, we do not have a criticism of mysticism, but rather a warning of a weakness towards which mystics may be inclined. > 6. There is no ultimate value in the mystical insights, apart from > having the experience. It is a little like getting high on drugs -- > fine for the one taking them (unless of course they overdose), but > of no value past the momentary "hit". This is the test for quality in mystics and mystical insights. If an insight does not make a difference in the world, it is indeed of no value. If an insight brings about fundamental changes in the world, it may be of great value. I reject this argument as a blanket slur on mystical revelation, but I accept it as a warning against delusion. > 7. Mysticism makes for bad theology. You can get a 2-tiered system > -- those who have had the experience (the elite), and those who have > not (the lost, or the seekers). This can lead to a situation in > which the mystic can abuse the experience to gather power for him- > or herself. Another warning about how mysticism can be abused - although I think there are really two problems here: the formation of an elite illuminati mysticism seldom becomes good religion The first is another warning to understand what purpose our lives are serving. If we are building up our own egos (to serve no purpose) and driving away would-be students (serving a negative purpose) we are missing the point, and are not making a contribution to the world. The second is a fundamental problem, that a theology that depends on esoteric experience can not be put into a can and mass-marketed ... and so it cannot serve as a basis for a viable religion. If it is changed enough to be viable as a religion, it will inevitably have been corrupted greatly in the process, and the religion will not do justice to its predecessor. > 8. Further on this point, mysticism can lead to intolerance. After > all, why would a mystic have to take anyone else's non-mystical > experience into account if he or she has seen true reality? Hopefully, your insights will include the fact that 'every man or woman is a star'. If they do not, you are apt to become a sociopath ... whether you are a mystic or a doctor. Here, once again, we have a good warning about something that we must strive to avoid. > 9. Anything worthwhile that a mystic has said, has been said better > by a philosopher. This is true because philosophers do not appeal to > private experience. I agree. What is the difference between a 'mystic' and a 'philosopher'? I suggest that the difference is that a 'mystic' has the experience, and a 'philosopher' can make that experience accessible to others. Some mystics have been philosophers and some have not. A philosopher who does not have an experience to communicate is no better than a mystic who cannot communicate it. This is not a condemnation of mystics, but another warning to make sure that your experiences can be made of value to others. > 10. Mysticism can lead to an abandonment of the self. The mystic can > lose him/herself in the Other. It is suicide of the person, if not > the body. It is irrational to pursue this. I disagree completely - on both pragmatic and spiritual grounds. I consider this statement to be a misleading play on words. The abandonment of the self is not the suicide of the person. In fact, our species seems to heap great honor on people who sacrifice themselves for the benefit of others (Albert Schweizer, Mother Theresa,...). These are people who decided that there were things more important than themselves, and went on to achieve great works 'after their suicides'. There is, in fact, an argument that people who are obsessed with their personal egos are fundamentally crippled in their effectiveness ... since they are incapable of truly dedicating themselves to anything else. As self aware mortal beings, we are forced to confront the knowledge of our impending death. This is probably the basis of most of all of our spiritual problems. The only solution that has yet been found to our mortality is to relinguish our identification with our mortal shells, and to find our identity in something more timeless. Transcendance of our ego existance is not harmful to our lives. On the other hand, obsession with the self can very easily lead to a wasted life. > 11. The study of mysticism will not lead to mystical experience any > more than philosophy of religion will lead to faith. So, even if we > affirm that mystical experience is a good thing, studying it may > still be a waste of time. Absolutely. Study is interesting background preparation. The real question is 'what are you doing about it?' Here, once again, the question is an excellent warning.