Introduction
I first knew about Russell through references to his writings on Logic and Philosophy of Science. Only recently, I discovered that he had written about Mysticism (an article in one of his books titled "Mysticism and Logic").I thought it would be interesting to see how a scientifically minded person with the caliber of Russell would view Mysticism. And indeed it was interesting and thought provoking. However, I feel that there is a certain gap between what I think is Russell's perception of Mysticism and what I have understood about Mysticism. In this article I shall try to present my view.
Before commenting on Russell's article, there are few points I would like to clarify:
- This comment is not about criticizing Russell’s opinion, rather it can be described as an attempt to understand how he reached his conclusions. In the process, some background and points on Religion and Science shall be discussed.
- I think that the subject can be discussed within the context of a certain faith, or generally relevant to believers in the Creator of the universe, or at a more abstract level that probably can be shared with non-believers. I shall try to consider as wide an audience as possible. However, the reader may notice that the scope can change as specific points might require.
- The term 'Mystic' in this article, means someone who has been through a mystical experience. Prophets and Messengers of God and some advanced believers are generally called mystics. There are of course important differences between them within a certain religious context, but since it seems that Russell's discussion did not make any note on differences (probably some readers won't notice or are not interested in details about the differences either, given the broader context of the discussion), I shall use the term in a more general scope than it is usually used in discussions within the religion of Islam for instance. However, I should mention that in some places I specifically mean Prophets and Messengers of God, and in others I mean Sufi masters or persons with similar status in other religions, and yet in other places I mean the whole category.
- In a subject as deep and sensitive as mysticism, it might not be a simple task to “express a thought properly”, in a manner that different religious groups as well as scientists would find acceptable, no matter how careful one can try to be. I would like to say that it is not my intention, and I am not in a position, to judge thoughts of any orientation. All I will try to do is to explain what I have understood. Any mistakes are mine, and I will appreciate any correction or comment.
- I felt the need to comment because, if my understanding of some basic concepts of Sufism and Mysticism in general is correct, and if I understood Russell's opinion, then it seems to me that his view about mysticism missed the mark. However, I would like to mention that my background is limited when it comes to deep aspects of Religion, Mysticism and Modern Science, so what is in this comment is just an ordinary guy's personal opinion. I don't think it has more weight than that.
Specific Comments on the Article
1. Paragraph 2 about the reconciliation between religion and science:
When people who feel and know what it is to be religious, face conflicts with information that scientists are asserting as credible, it is natural, I think, to try to find a reconciliation. Man’s knowledge on any subject, spiritual or physical, is always limited, and I believe it is the open-minded and the commendable attitude to keep an open eye and mind and try to increase what one understands of existence with its vastness.It seems to me that some writers think that one either believes in religion or in science, and that there is no way the two can be reconciled without something being sacrificed in the process. But, since no human knows everything, there are always new things to learn and discover. And I think this applies to both the book of nature as well as the scriptures.
To expect religious people to have complete and flawless explanation about spiritual issues might be as fair as expecting a scientist to have complete and flawless explanation about natural phenomena. We are humans in both cases, a religious view would just consider more about existence than a strictly modern scientific view would consider.
Science and religion might seem to be in different domains right now, each with its own defenders who, in my view, cannot be blamed for being quite protective of their respective domain's turf. However, if existence is the same for all, and questions from different perspectives about its nature have to be reconciled at some point, and both people of religion and of science are basically not wrong as they are standing, then probably with increased awareness and understanding within each domain there is actually a chance that both views would eventually meet one day. Personally, I wouldn't be surprised to see religious and scientific views converging towards a unifying view.
2. Paragraph 5 about why believe mystics:
Had mystics relied on their supposedly charismatic personalities alone, probably few people would have stayed around them, and not for a long time. Followers of major mystics show a very unusual attachment, in a consistent manner, generation after generation. This probably informs us that there are additional reasons for believing in what mystics preached. Mystics typically provide a wide range of teachings for a better living experience, but in particular, they give specific detailed guidelines to be followed in one’s personal and social life. They also provide clear descriptions for acts of worships (meditations, prayers, zikr, breathing techniques and body postures, etc.). Such guidelines were not intended just to be practiced blindly. They are guidelines to help the aspirant follower to reach a level of awareness that would enable him or her to “see” what the mystic was talking about. And indeed, generation after generation there were followers who wrote about their experiences when they reached higher levels of awareness. Such successes were perhaps what sustained the continuance of the mystic’s message.It is true that not everyone is able to reach such heights, but the mere acceptance and abidance by the guidelines would set the follower on the track towards that destination. A side effect of following mystical guidelines has something to do with a better living experience, that many religious people feel even if they cannot claim to have reached the level where mystical insight is realized. Even a non-religious person can benefit from such guidelines, and this might be more obvious in the case of practicing Yoga postures and Qigong exercises without having an interest in the mystical and philosophical background accompanying them. That might not be different from taking a plane and being sure it will safely take a passenger from one place to another without having to understand all the laws of physics being used to make that journey possible. What I want to say is that followers do not believe a mystic just because he said something, but also because of what he had realized and how he helped and still helping others realize.
A note on the difference, in Sufi writings, between a believer and what they describe as a person who has realized (Mutahaqiq). The latter has realized and “seen” what the former feels and senses to some degree (it depends on the particular person).
3. Paragraph 6 on the scientific point of view:
a) It is often said about science that it is a neutral or an objective approach towards understanding the universe. I have reservations in this regard. As I understand, someone has to choose assumptions as a starting point for the whole setup of scientific investigation and, to me, that means that subjectivity is involved from the very beginning of the process. I can't see how a "systematic process" affected by subjectivity be considered neutral or totally objective? Scientific inference is tightly bound to how human thoughts are structured. I am not sure if one can build a system of thoughts and then claim it has sweeping authority beyond one’s own awareness. Fortunately, most scientists don't claim that. It might sound surprising but mystics do not build restrictive systems of thought. They know what mental reasoning is, and they have realized since ancient times that it is good for some jobs, yet it is severely inadequate for others. When it comes to mystical insight, what I understood is that they do not depend on their mental faculty to perceive, rather their approach is that of utter silence and preparing the ground for rise of instinctive realization of what it is what is “seen”. It is a realization, which leaves no room for guesswork, assumptions or theorizing. Just as one does not need any of that to realize one does exist. Imagine such a realization, with the same certainty, expanding far beyond awareness of oneself. While scientists insist on “certifying” what can be perceived and confine that perception with artificial boundaries, mystics do not confine perception with any boundaries.I hope that this view does not sound critical of modern science, because it is not intended to be. I have no problems accepting modern science as it is. However, what I'd find unnecessarily restrictive is confining perceptions to what can be realized through investigation methods modern scientists are accustomed to. What I am trying to say is that there probably are different roles for scientific investigation and mystical insight. Or that different jobs need different tools. Scientific investigation seems to be quite different from mystical realization. One of the important differences between science and mysticism, is the cautious and prudent approach of science towards the unknown, compared to the certainty about final answers and the absolute conviction of mystics that what is needed is only clearing up the surface to find them. And the surface here is the surface of one's own heart and consciousness.
As an example, Science depends on assumptions and tests. A medical treatment has to go through numerous trial and error sessions, mostly at the expense of so many animals. I read once that some ancient 'medicine men' had no talent other than being able to 'communicate' with nature. For instance, herbs would expose information about themselves. It is a view based on a realization that existence is actually brimming with life and intelligence, probably far beyond what many people are ready to accept. By the way, communicating with trees and animals should not sound that strange, since religion stands on one's ability to talk to God the creator of all things, so communicating with creatures, regardless of what particular creature, need not sound foreign at all.
I wonder where could we be right now, had scientists adopted more relaxed rules towards existence instead of considering it a dead heap of matter where very few things, including human beings, are the exception? I am not asking what would have happened had we gone through that door. I am just wondering what could have happened if that door was just not kept so tightly shut? Could we have spared so many helpless animals from what they had to go through unnecessarily? Could we have found cures that are much less expensive and much more effective than what we have today? If this view is correct, then wouldn't the current way of medical research sound like trying to force our way through life to find cures, instead of peacefully and calmly listening to nature and how it can cure us? It might look far-fetched to some readers. Personally, I think that stage is not impossible to reach, although, it is obvious that several stages before it, need to be covered first, satisfactorily.
b) If credibility is based on testable perceptions, then I think that is possible to detect, considering following religious guidelines (‘testing’ if you want) that has resulted in appearances in successive generations, of mystics vindicating the “claims” of previous mystics. It is true that there were very few of them, but so is the case regarding rocket scientists. I don't think anyone would usually blame rocket scientists or criticize their knowledge just because one hasn't been able to get a rocket to lift off.
c) There is a notion that some scientists are so focused on, that science is actually about physically measurable aspects. While recognizing the physical aspect, mystics appear to be experts also in recognizing the non-physical aspect of existence as well. It is total wellbeing (physical and non-physical) and inner transformation towards a much better awareness and tranquility that is being sought through following the footsteps of mystics.
From what I understood about Sufis, looking at the teachings of a mystic from a purely physical aspect and expecting to find out what he had found by merely noticing and trying to apply the physical side of what he says, is not only missing the point but it may not be surprising if no result is realized.
(Does that mean, that one has to experience some deep inner change, as an indication of starting to understand what mystics say? Would it be possible, then, to retain the same sense of objectivity one had, before starting to study Sufi concepts? Possibly interesting questions to which I do not have clear answers.)
4. Paragraph 7 'Logical Approach':
I think that there is a sense of exclusiveness (i.e. something is either one thing or not) in Russell’s discussion. To express one’s thoughts in an 'either/or' fashion is just being logical, I suppose. But, here, Russell is dealing with concepts that are different from concepts defined in Science.I think it should be noted, when talking about well-defined terms that precision and clearness of science and math need to be considered within proper context. It is unrealistic to think that scientists have a perfect and absolutely precise perception about various phenomena, scientists, and especially logicians, know that. The whole setup of modern Science and Logic is based on basic assumptions that knowledgeable people agree they are “good enough” as a base to start from. There is nothing sacred or “absolutely right” about those assumptions. It is just that the repeated usage of such assumptions has so far shown them to be concepts that can be relied upon. Yet scientists acknowledge that no amount of repeated usage is a proof that those assumptions are final. From another angle, nobody claims that scientific methodology is immune to evolution. Changed opinions, hence modified assumptions, probably can lead to an enhanced understanding of the same existence we are experiencing. I think that concepts whether in Science or Mysticism can be seen as based on a certain state of realization. Based on that realization, one “tries to” describe something in a manner that can be communicated to others.
Coming back to what I think is an exclusive viewpoint on which Russell appeared to have based a good deal of his discussion. From what I have understood about mysticism, most people do see the “real” aspect only. Some mystics see either the “unreal” or the “real” aspect at a time, others (considered by Sufis to be at a higher level) can sense how it is “real” and how it is sort of “unreal” or “illusory” at the same time. It is not at a higher level of awareness to view it as completely illusory, hence no need to respect the “real” aspect, as Russell probably understood from part of mystic literature. In fact, because the “real” aspect is important to mystics since ancient times, they have laid out detailed spiritual and social guidelines for it. It is not at a higher level of awareness either to be blinded by the “real” aspect and cling to it with total disregard to how this aspect is also transitory in nature. I think that one of the indications that shows that mystics usually are aware of the balance between the two aspects, is that special trait of inner satisfaction that many mystics seemed to have. It looks like a sense of peace that helps in going through daily life without obsession over worldly possessions, or any need for recognition from society or being overwhelmed by emotions. They didn’t expect to be appreciated or loved; yet had so much love to give. Such a mystic’s outer appearance adheres to the “real” aspect (the laws and the rules etc.), while his inner sight penetrates it and sees through it. Events have their outer (physical) impact all right, yet they also have their inner aspect that, for Sufis, is not shielded by the physical aspect. An analogy to how physicists see the universe is perhaps not too far. From a physicist's point of view, not even a solid rock is really solid. One of the descriptions of the universe is that it is more like an ocean made up of tiny particles. As true as that might be, no one can deny the outer appearances with all their complexities in forms and relationships, many of which have been perceived through beautiful mathematical models. How, and more importantly why, such tiny particles are translated into such forms governed by such relationships will probably remain “mystifying”.
A side Note: I think that realizing the existence of mathematical relationships is a point worth wondering. Why can’t matter exist without equations explaining it and explaining the numerous interactions going on at various levels from particles to galaxies? Why it is inconceivable to think of matter without equations, no matter what sense of a universe one can think of? One cannot touch equations (or order?) but one definitely can sense their existence. Different people are at different levels of perceiving such relationships (laws?). Is it possible that what is popularly known today to scientists represents only the tip of an iceberg? Literally, by the way, the tip of an iceberg is the part that is easily detected, isn’t it? One more question, assuming that every single movement of matter is governed by some sort of a cause-and-effect relationship (regardless of how well we know it mathematically or even if our background about nature or the mathematical tools available at any certain point are adequate to consider such a relationship), how can one explain chaos? Or is it really chaos? or does randomness really exists then? If not, then could this point be used as an introduction to explain why ancient philosophers were fond of talking about the teleological nature of existence?
Back to perceiving existence, it appears to me that to Mystics, there is Form and there is Essence, and both aspects are important to them. The ability to “see” both aspects at the same time probably distinguishes major mystics from the rest of us. It could also be the reason why mystical expressions sometimes sound “so unusual”.
Regarding “Concepts”, Mystics stress on the fact that Mystical concepts are to be experienced firsthand instead of analyzed, which is what Russell appeared to be trying to do. A Sufi (Ibn Ata-Ellah) described deep mystical concepts as “what lie outside the domain of expressions, and any kind of gestures or signals cannot catch”. That is probably why another Sufi once said about explaining deep mystical concepts: there is a stage of awareness, regarding which one realizes that his own expression (no matter how he tries) cannot but be a distorted expression (Al-Ghazali, in "Al-Munkiz", he is a well-known Sufi and an author on Logic and the rational approache to religion or Kalam, by the way). It seems that Mystical concepts are of a depth that makes both psychological and logical expressions always come short of giving them full appreciation. No matter how careful and how eloquent they can be, Mystics could only hope to point towards such concepts and not pinpoint them.
When Mystics express themselves, they naturally do that under a certain historical atmosphere and surrounded with certain circumstances. How to point to the unchangeable aspects within the whole picture has not always been a simple job, but that is what mystics and those following their footsteps tried to do. It seems that even though original mystical expressions were properly intended, there is no guarantee that all followers fully or properly understood those expressions. Some followers might have concentrated on the historical circumstances and outer shells (linguistic and logical constructs) more than on the spirit of the expressions, and that, later, could have played a role in how concepts were dogmatized by following generations.
The Quran says:
"Mankind was but one nation, but differed (later). Had it not been for a Word that went forth before from thy Lord, their differences would have been settled between them." [Quran 10:19]
Yusuf Ali's comment on the verse: "All mankind was created one, and God's Message to mankind is in essence one, the Message of Unity and Truth. But as selfishness and egotism got hold of man, certain differences sprang up between individuals, races, and nations, and in His infinite Mercy He sent them messengers and messages to suit their varying mentality, to test them by His gifts, and stir them up to emulation in virtue and piety."
Quran [2:213]: "Mankind was a single nation, and God sent Messengers with glad tidings and warnings; and with them He sent the Book in truth, to judge between people in matters wherein they differed; but the People of the Book, after the clear Signs came to them, did not differ among themselves, except through selfish contumacy. God by His Grace guided the Believers to the Truth, concerning that wherein they differed, for God guides whom He will to the Path that is straight."
Sufi master Ibn Ajeeba comments on the verse saying that all people were one at first, united in there beliefs. Then they differed in how they saw matters of faith, so God sent Messengers to explain the eternal truths (essentially the same message) and bring them back together, but they differed even more.
So, even though there are some similarities in mystical concepts across religions, the delicate task of expressing a given mystical concept on one hand and the way recipient audiences received and treated it, appear to have led to a situation of seemingly irreconcilable views held by followers from different religious groups. Probably, that explains why there are expressions of “what-is” (using Parmenides’s expression that Russell noted) ranging from Pantheism to Creation having its own existence separate from Creator. Regarding this particular point, some Sufis say the reality is neither. Ibn-Arabi for instance, who was described as being a pantheist by some religious scholars, said that there is no Connection or Disconnection (La Wasl wa La Fasl) since both are characteristics of created things and do not apply when it comes to God, the creator of all things. According to the Sufi concept of Oneness of Being, Creation does not have an existence of its own yet it is not synonymous to God either. Such a position is probably not easy to explain logically (which is the skill most critics of mysticism, religious or non-religious, seem to be relying on) and that is what mystics maintain, consistently, about deep mystical concepts.
The reason behind the insufficiency and inadequacy of logic (mental reasoning) to handle deep spiritual matters [not sure if I can properly explain the Sufi view here] is that, the Creator of all things creates the fabric (He is not in it and it does not have its own existence), based on which created things are manifested including man’s psychology, his rational thinking, any manner of conceptualization, his whole being and the entire creation. Based on that view, how is it possible to be totally objective about such a situation if objectivity itself is just a part of creation?
Ibn Ata-Ellah says in his prayer (addressing God): “How can your existence be proven using something that needs you for its very existence? Could other than yourself be more obvious than you hence it is used to reveal about you? When did you hide so there is need for evidence to tell about you? When were you so far so there is need for traces and signs to lead to you?”. It seems that to Sufis, the presence of God is unmistakable, constant, and more obvious than any “thing”.
So, what is the proper way, according to Sufis, to deal with it then? Ibn Ata-Ellah, says "There is no comparison between seeking His Help to know Him, and using mental means to reason about Him.", then in his prayer he asks God as follows: "I ask You to lead me to You, and to know You by You, so guide me with Your Light to You". In other words, the 'I' part needs to acknowledge total inability (submit to God) and humbly seek help. The teachings of religion in general and of mysticism in particular encourage self improvement, refraining from endless arguments, and to be receptive. Or in other words, to "clean up the place" (one's mind or consciousness), to be silent and to keep one's heart and eyes open.
5. Paragraph 8 on differences between mystics:
Regarding “Certainty”, I think it is a certainty as in ‘A mystic did have a vision, heard or experienced something’. As certain as they were of their experiences, Mystics’ visions were not identical. Visions and experiences were probably shaped and colored according to the mystic’s own particular cultural and linguistic background, yet what seemed very close if not identical were the Source and the Core Concepts. Put another way, maybe the similarities are due to the Essence being the same, while the differences are because of a) It is not easy to express about such a deep level of awareness, in any humanly expressible form. b) the differences in cultures and manners of approaching information about existence. In more broader words, what is being addressed by all human beings cannot but be the same structure of existence, what differs probably are priorities (immediate gains vs. long run), points of focus (essence vs. outer aspects) and levels of awareness (about one particular aspect or more).
The Quran mentions how messages were revealed to different nations in their tongues and signs revealed suitable to the people in question. Perhaps it is more the case that concepts beyond any particular language, culture, and space-time point (by the way, that is how they probably can be perceived as relevant no matter what space-time point) are revealed to highly spiritual men ready to perceive such concepts, making use of the cultural and linguistic background available at the space-time coordinates.
6. Paragraph 9 about mystics practicing yoga to "produce" certainty:
As I understand, a mystic breathes or meditates (among many other things representing a whole lifestyle) to achieve inner purification and in order to reach a favorable state to see “Divine Light”. It is a great gift from the Divine rather than something mortals can produce for themselves. The direction is from Divine to mortal creature and not the reverse. It is because a creature is supposed to get it, that all the needed Causes gather to "produce" the outcome. (However, according to Sufis, one cannot use this argument to say 'well guess what, the needed causes did not gather to get me to believe'. A better explanation of this point needs background on Causality in mystical sense and preordination or the teleological nature of existence). According to historical accounts, some have tried hard for a long period of time with little or no success, others would get it with adequate effort and yet others did not have to try much before getting it. Every experience seemed to have been peculiar to an individual, and not easily reproducible. However, those who knew it, appear to have been able to relate to other mystics’ experiences even mystics from other religions.7. Paragraph 11 on emotions and mystics:
Not directly related to Russell’s discussion here, though probably worth mentioning, on what might be perceived as indifference of mystics: there is indifference as in pure disinterest in an event, but there is a position that mystics appear to recognize where there is comprehensive awareness of an event. That awareness, however, is not associated with feelings and emotions overcoming one’s consciousness. After being well aware of a situation, how much feelings one chooses to express and how they are expressed is a personal thing. A mystic in the described position is probably a better judge of a situation compared to someone who can be affected by emotions.8. Paragraph 12 about mystics urging "doctrines from which these conclusions inevitably follow":
A distinction between the “Original Mystic” and “Followers” is probably very important. Since, more often than not, “Doctrines” are governed by the understanding of the majority of Scholars. It is their understanding that is often preserved and spread. Nothing is wrong with that, it is just that there are additional and deeper interpretations that might be important. So, perhaps it is a good idea to look at the original message and the original mystic and check the consistency at that level first, and then, as well as considering the understanding of the majority of scholars, maybe, one should not ignore the views of later mystics (typically a minority among scholars) for further elaborations.With a better understanding of the subject at hand, “these conclusions” could probably change.
9. Paragraph 13 about "not to caricature the doctrine of mysticism, in which there is, I think, a core of wisdom":
An honest thinker! That has always been my opinion of Russell. However, in other places he did use phrases like "ignorant men" describing ancient wise men as it appeared. I have not been able to reconcile Russell's acknowledgement about a core of wisdom in mysticism and his description of mystics as ignorant men.10. Paragraph 14, a note on Hegel:
Here, Russell acknowledges that Hegel’s philosophy was based on mysticism. A piece of information that was clear to Russell yet seemed, surprisingly to me, to have been unimportant to many of Hegel’s fans and critics alike. I'm not an expert on Hegel, but if I understood correctly, it appears that ignoring that aspect was probably the reason why Hegel was widely misunderstood. However, unlike many other philosophers, I think that misunderstanding Hegel and taking many of his words literally and understanding some concepts mechanically, had a negative effect on so many people. From what I read, Hegel’s influence was, and still is widespread, whether on people who tended to agree with his views or those who did not.Hegel, by the way, is one of the philosophers who caught my attention.
11. Paragraph 15, emotions, science and mystics:
The way I understand how mystics see it, various emotions, guesswork, assumptions, and theorizing, all need to be transcended. Transcending them is not ignoring them, since one needs them for expressing oneself, but it is important to see through them, and not to let them hinder one's ability to see things in themselves or confine one’s perception.12. Paragraph 16, a note on scientific methods:
The subject of a scientific study is something that is observed by an observer. Mysticism is about that which underlies all that is created including oneself as an observer. Who is to study what then? Subjectivity and objectivity do not have the same meaning people might have of them at that level. However, reaching such a level of awareness or trying to convince others that it does exist is what many mystics have been trying to communicate to non-mystics (either scientists or religious people who depend on logic to some extent in religious issues).I am not sure if this is a good analogy, but it might bring the idea closer to some readers: Mathematical models are widely used to describe relationships between variables representing measurable aspects of the real world. Let us imagine a Model that represents the ultimate set of equations, that solves for every variable there is in creation. Constructing it (or realizing it?) requires complete knowledge about everything (in creation) or in other words dissolving every “thing” (de-creating?), including we the observers and the ability to observe. Who is to know the final shape of the model or how it is solved then? Would an answer like “the Creator of all things, who nothing is like unto him”, be plausible then?
The analogy probably suggests that the less abstractive and the more deterministic the system becomes, the more knowledgeable about the system one becomes yet the closer one is to vanishing. Complete knowledge comes with total vanishing, but whose knowledge is it then?.
I wonder if that sort of vanishing is what Sufis mean by Fana and Mahq (total obliteration) or to die before one's death or the first death. It is a vanishing not of one's physical being, but of any sense of individuality. It is a stage described sometimes as "when only the shapes remain, but no individuality is seen anywhere". It is a stage considered lesser than realizing the 'nonexistence of existence' without losing the sense of individuality at the same time. It is probably when a person sees only the bodies/shapes without life of their own, that some mystics lose ability to properly express themselves about the distinction between Creator and creatures hence they were accused of heresy. It appears that at the higher stage, the knowledge of who is who is realized and limits of how one can express himself become in line with normal conventional religious terms. Treading the path, is not an easy journey or a simple task, that is why the need for a learned guide or a Sufi master. Knowing why a mystic in the stage of realizing the shapes/bodies alone, may err in expression, Sufi masters would sympathize with such a mystic, but nonetheless according to historical accounts, they would not express agreement with him. It seems that mystics have to pass through that stage, but it needs more restraint and guidance than at any other stage. A known Sufi master who was a close friend of Al-Hallaj, said "we were together, but he spoke out and I remained silent." A Sufi saying goes : "Nine tenth of [acquiring] wisdom is in silence."
Back to the model, I guess the set of equations needs two things, initial values that determine the course to take, and the initial command to start everything rolling. Once that rolling is in action, would the presumed tight relationships between the variables leave any chance for errors or unexpected events?. Anyway, it is just a thought while trying to find a setup that might fit how mystics describe existence.
13. Paragraph 16, about visions through drugs:
The deep aspect of existence does exist for all beings. It seems that experiences in this regard happen to trained mystics and they can happen to untrained people probably induced by certain conditions coming together accidentally. Sufis distinguish between the path of Light and the Dark path. Those on the path of Light can experience glimpses or visions on rare occasions, some of them experience a sudden uplift (Jazb), yet others go through a gradual progress (Sulook) towards better and better states of awareness. The last approach is what much of Sufi literature is about. Mysticism, as I understand, is about knowledge and realization based on Stable Grounds with help from a Learned Guide whose main quality is that he has been through that path. It is about a whole lifestyle, a firm and clear realization, and a fine appreciation of life at the level most people know it, and beyond that level. And most importantly, it is purely a natural experience.Just a side note on Guides. Sufis distinguish between people who believe but have not realized yet (in a mystic sense), and people who have realized what the same beliefs are about. The first type of people depend on books and lectures to know about mystical concepts. They have not mystically realized for themselves what the concepts are. So what they can teach is only based on information relayed from a previous generation of scholars. Such scholars can teach about religion and mysticism but with a notable limitation. Abu-Alhasan Al-Noori said, regarding a crucial difference between normal religious scholars and Sufi masters (addressing a non-Sufi religious scholar): "You received knowledge from dead people who received it from other dead people, we receive knowledge from the Living One, Who does not die." I would say here that I did not get the feeling that Al-Noori said it in a manner that reduces the importance of knowledge that non-Sufi scholars have, rather he said it while trying to explain how he (Al-Noori) has been able to provide detailed answers to intricate questions on religion without having gone through formal religious education. There are also people who have experienced the sudden uplift (a person is called a maj-zoob in this case). These people, while they have gone some way in 'seeing' and 'realizing' are typically unable to communicate in a manner that can be understood by most non-Sufi people, hence, according to Sufis, a Maj-zoob is unfit to teach either. The category of 'salikeen' (people who have experienced firm steps towards 'realization') have learned religion as the first category, and in addition to that, they have delved into realizing what it is all about. They were able to communicate with all levels of society, and able to give, in proportionate measures, information that each could understand and relate to. Very rare indeed were people of the last category. It might sound unbelievable or just a fairytale, for such people to have existed. But they did, and the effect and the traces they have left can probably be described as an overwhelming evidence.
14. Last Paragraph, what looks like Russell’s conclusion: "Deep contemplation is good, but assertions about the nature of the universe associated with it are unnecessary. Such unnecessary associations have led to much evil as well as good."
Some Sufis, in their attempts to describe what it is like to experience the leap in awareness that comes with Fath (literally: Conquest, Opening, symbolizing Realization), have used several analogies. An interesting one is that of trying to explain what it is like to reach puberty to someone who has not yet reached that stage, and does not have a clue about it.To try to separate deep contemplation from a realization associated with it, is probably more like trying to separate reaching puberty from all the transformations in the body and the psychology that come with it. Reaching puberty, while does not erase all one had learned and experienced before it, definitely comes with new realizations. One is still the same person with the same name, yet it is not quite the same anymore.
In the above quoted phrase, Russell recognized that there is a good aspect to deep contemplation. If I understood his point of view correctly, I think that his gripes have more to do with how, based on realizations associated with deep contemplation, mystics expressed themselves and how such expressions were interpreted by recipients and their consequent behavior, than with the original process of contemplation plus realization of the mystic.
It is probably to avoid getting into any possible misinterpretations, that Sufis encouraged going right to the core of religion, the realization of the original mystic, rather than going through piles of interpretations. Their methods seem to be more about helping one to reach a sort of a spiritual puberty and realize what it is, instead of endlessly arguing and guessing about what it might be like.
There were Sufis who refused even to use analogies, by the way, saying that no analogy can be close to Realization.
General Comments
1.
Based on what I admit is a limited background in Mysticism and in Russell's philosophy, here are my impressions: (a) It seems to me that Russell had less information about the subject than I had expected. It could have been that original mystical sources were not quite available at his time, or he probably was not interested in more than general information on mysticism. (b) As for the information that seemed to be available to him, I think he was unsuccessful to see specific terms (like Illusion and Reality) as, I think, mystics would see and understand them. (c) I felt that he sounded like someone approaching a subject after having formed an opinion about it. In other words, he seemed to have been more interested in delivering an opinion than in an in-depth exploration of mysticism.That said, I think I can understand that there are aspects about widespread religious attitudes (e.g. rigid and restrictive views or insisting that a certain view is the only possible one), and about the manner in which religious authority was exercised in certain locations and certain periods, that might have affected some people's judgment regarding religion. When that background is coupled with shortage of information on a subject (or misunderstanding available information), and the rigor and conceptual integrity that a modern scientific investigation demands (based on accepted scientific methodology of the age of course), and not finding what might be described as "satisfying answers" from religious people, the situation might lead a person who has never sensed, tasted or seen anything to convince him otherwise, to take a position such as Russell’s. A position, while not normally acceptable to religious people, is not, in my view, unscientific or illogical (again based on currently established Logic and scientific methodology. More on that later). In an article titled “Am I an Atheist or an Agnostic?”, Russell classified himself as an Agnostic. He probably could also be described as, what is known these days as, a weak atheist which is not the same as a strict or a strong atheist. I think that the information, that he saw himself as an Agnostic rather than an Atheist, is worth noting.
2.
It appears that the lack of sufficient information and misunderstanding mystical concepts is not something peculiar to non-believers, since Sufis often note that many religious scholars criticized Sufism without fully understanding Sufis.3.
I have noticed in several non-believers’ writings that mystics and normal religious people are addressed as if they were in the same category. Ideally, that should be the situation, but realistically (at least in an Islamic context), it might not always be the case.Mystical concepts might be difficult to understand for someone who is not used to the unique and, what might appear to someone not used to hear such expressions as, an unusual manner in which mystics express themselves. Religious people are at different levels of perceiving deep religious concepts, but while most of them appear to be content with 'outward'/'obvious' meanings of such concepts, Sufis insist that there is more to expressions of the Quran and the Prophet's sayings than meets the eye. They pursued and explored the depths of such concepts. And it was not uncommon for them to find themselves being criticized and alienated by some religious people.
4.
Among non-believer writers there appear to be many honest people who are sincere about finding the truth about it all. They do not seem to be aimlessly criticizing religion. However, I do not know how acceptable it is to them to consider a view that does not negate the modern scientific view but urges extending that view to include more than what it is considering right now, and by that I mean non-physical, not easily measured or immediately sensed aspects.5.
It seems that the main difference between mystics and non-mystics (whether religious or non-religious) is not in what the latter group feels and knows (scientific methods and scientific way of thinking, moral values and religious guidelines), I think that that aspect is well understood by mystics, and should be no area of argument to most of them. It appears that the difference arises when mystics delve into a deeper level of feeling and knowing, ultimately reaching a point where what they feel and know might sound "unusual". Most people might understandably have many reservations, to say the least, about such “claims”. However, without trying to draw a parallel and only to suggest that mystical expressions need not sound weird, scientists do talk about points at which laws of physics might give us bizarre experiences (like time going back) and even the possibility of a point at which such laws cease to work. But that is still within the luxury of a theoretical framework, beside the fact that there is the time factor to deal with. As I understand, what mystics are calling attention to is: Reality as it is, right now, right here. Realize it, see it and be your own judge. It cannot be proven using logical means or scientific investigation. It can only be pointed at, not pinpointed. It can only be tasted and experienced firsthand. That is probably why Sufis call Sufism the science of tastes.6.
Reaching to a point where one can see it from a mystical point of view remains tantalizing to many. There is the solemn commitment and sustained serious effort that ‘treading the path’ requires. And even after a good effort, how far one can reach is not known. That’s why there are so few major mystics in the history of man after all. But assuming that everyone has to reach that level of awareness is probably unrealistic (in some communities especially in the east, not to reach the minimum stage can be considered a shortcoming in an individual). It is like assuming that everyone should be a rocket scientist or a scuba diver. At some point, one has to trust some “expert” about knowledge regarding a particular field. I believe that Prophets and mystics are such experts when it comes to the Creator and creation and other deep concepts.7.
A huge effect Mystics have had and still having on the world, as we know it. No matter how varied their ways of expression, it appears that mystics were essentially pointing to the same direction, and referring to the same concepts. It is hard to imagine that various unconnected mystical schools were conspiring to give the rest of the world that picture. Russell acknowledged as a strong point that there is a degree of agreement between mystics of different backgrounds, yet as I understand, he did not try to research the reasons behind such a situation.8.
When it comes to mysticism, my understanding is that approaching it 'systematically', 'analytically' or 'scientifically' might prove inappropriate. Such approaches are probably more like muscling one's way to find one's own pair of glasses when one is actually wearing them. As I understand, mystics see Mystical insight as the original source of all philosophical orientations and scientific methods, no matter how sophisticated or at what point of space-time (by the way, that's probably how the same origin is equally accessible regardless of how 'advanced' or 'primitive' a society 'looks'. If that view is correct, it sounds like a good ground for calls for equality and mutual respect between people). From that perspective, an attempt to treat mysticism as a subject that can be examined or judged by what can only be a possible product of mystical insight, might not be successful.9.
I think that the Mystical approach might help in Science. In particular I feel that reintroducing the role of Metaphysics (as understood by ancients) might be worth considering. After all, that’s how it began, and not without a good reason in my opinion. I think it is giving ancient scientists far less credit than they deserve, to view their endeavors as crude and undeveloped. Epistemology wise, because the metaphysical dimension was always present, I believe the ancients were in a better position and had a broader view, than we have right now. We are more advanced in perceiving physical phenomena within a confined view of existence, and developing the needed tools and the techniques that serve that perception. Development in tools and techniques is probably a function in time, the percentage of professional and creative people, and accumulated research efforts. I wonder what tools and techniques we could have developed given the same time and without the restrictions brought up by ignoring the non-physical aspect of existence. I don’t claim that with metaphysics’ reintroduction to the scene one can have all the answers, but I think that an enhanced view is very likely, and probably many would agree it is desirable if it can be shown to have advantages. In Medicine, “Alternative” ways are being seriously considered, and most of them are ancient methods with metaphysical aspects attached to them. In Physics, some physicists have been wading through piles of mystical writings. It is interesting to note why they are doing that. More than in any other scientific field, physicists are reaching the limits of man’s knowledge, an area where it seems that normal scientific convictions are more likely to break down. My only gripe is that seeking to be relevant to modern scientific mindset can prove to be confining. I do not think it is wrong to amend modern Laws in order to cover cases not yet properly covered, instead of earnestly trying to rephrase a case so that it fits under existing Laws. And just like in Law, any amendments are expected to be consistent with the whole body of Laws. I don’t expect it to be a simple task, we are not living in city-states (like the ancient Greeks) anymore, but I think it is possible with due care and at a level of abstraction that would avoid any direct use of controversial religious terms. I understand that considering religion in science is potentially a sensitive issue and that historically, religion was often linked to politics. What I am talking about is religion as a source of information about man and existence. I think that there is information that can be obtained through an analytical look at ourselves and existence, but, having read about mysticism, there might be aspects that we cannot take into consideration with normal analytical means (these means being restricted with human limits. More details elsewhere on the site). Metaphysics in science need not be about religious terms. Rather, basically, it is about acknowledging that there is more to existence than just the physical (easily detectable) attributes we are most aware of, and if there are attributes that are not purely physical yet have a tight relation to physical ones, then it is probably justified to take those extra attributes/aspects into consideration. So, I’m not talking about replacing current models, rather just enhancing them. A properly designed enhancement can probably give us a model that can work with extra attributes turned on or off.I think it is not a revolution or something unconventional that is needed these days; we can learn a lot just by rediscovering and appreciating the wonderful treasures lying there in collective mankind heritage.
