NATURE OF MYSTICISM

by Dr. Tahir M. Qazi, June 2005

(Review and comments by Rafi Amer)

Noam Chomsky once said that our ignorance can be divided in problems and mysteries. When we face a problem, we may not know what the solution is but we can apply our knowledge, which increases with every passing day, and our insight to find the solution. As for mystery, we can only stare at in wonder not knowing what the solution may even look like or if a solution can ever be found. Steven Pinker, one of the world's leading cognitive scientists, added that there are dozens of mysteries that have, in recent years, upgraded to problems. When I read Dr. Tahir Qazi's presentation "Nature of Mysticism", I had the sense that Dr. Qazi had made an attempt to upgrade mysticism from a mystery to a problem. 

For me, the most important piece of the entire article was the following

"[Mysticism] predominantly is an experiential state of mind and I say it again that it is a “subjective experiential state of mind”. That is why almost every description of mysticism is of personal narrative." 

I think the operative word in this quotation is "subjective". This, according to my very limited knowledge of mysticism, is somewhat different from the traditional mystical thought that treats mysticism as a curious mixture of subjective and objective experiences. The line of what is subjective and what's not gets very blurry in a traditional thought. In fact, since most of the descriptions of mysticism are personal narratives, the nature of mysticism itself is a mystery not really understandable to an objective observer like me who has never gone thru the mystical experience. The very next line in the article answers why is that

"there are no good words in any language to express any sensory experience;" 

Languages are social institution that, according to one theory, reflect the collective knowledge and experience of the society. Like all other social and cultural institutions, languages evolve and create/adopt words continuously. Poverty of language pertaining to some particular phenomenon may be reflective of poverty of adequate knowledge of that particular phenomenon. Maybe the human knowledge about sensory experience is so primitive that we haven't formed any words for them yet.

Dr. Qazi writes

"it is interesting to note that religious lingo comes rather close to describing mystic experience, which may give misperception as if it is a religious experience."

It is a rather confusing concept for me. If mysticism is not a religious experience, then why it goes to religion at all? Can it not exist independently? Why do I see mystics frequently quoting religious scriptures? Is there a logical link between mysticism and religion or mysticism only goes to religion to borrow the lingo? I guess Dr. Qazi's point is latter but I would love to request him to elaborate it a little more.

"Whatever it is; it is most evidently “Neo-cortex”. Somebody has attributed such an experience to stimulation of ‘Mu” receptors on cortical neurons as well. There is good literature on reinforcement of habits as a result of brain’s so called ‘Reward System’ that is triggered by a neuro-transmitter Dopamine that leads to a serene tranqulity.

I think the next thing Dr. Qazi needs to do is to convince a mystic to subject him/her to fMRI. I am willing to raise funds for such a study :)

Dr. Qazi writes

"I recognize that my friend Nuzhat, in audience would love to call me a reductionist, at this point. I take that chance!"

Well, Dr. Qazi, you know that I know the feeling :) Although I'm still grappling to understand what reductionism means. Please allow me the digression. If you bring some phenemonen inside the realm of human knowledge, draw formulations to explain the phenomenon in detail, make observations, test your observations with experimentation, refine the observations repeatedly and thus establish a set of scientific principles regarding the phenomenon, are you reducing the phenomenon or expanding it? To me, a mathematical equation is better than a lot of fancy words strung together beautifully that explain nothing. Some say that you may strip a concept of its charm in the process but then they, I think, are unfamiliar with the charm of knowledge. An intelligently drawn mathematical theorem is no less beautiful than Ghalib's ghazal and when astronomers look up the starry sky on a clear summer night, they see more beauty than any layperson can ever even dream of.

"[Maitreya] has put forward the concept of “Social Nirvana”, where he proposes that people of such great vision and wisdom ought to go out to meet the needs of society and be the light of reason for causes of social justice. He questions: 'What is the use of such Nirvana that one achieves on ones navel point on tops of Himalayas while there is suffering in humanity?'"

What a beautiful thought. Thanks for sharing that.

"The humanity, as we see today, disintegrated and suffering is in search of collective efforts for peace and justice. It is looking for a shared mystic vision and a social nirvana. Unless we strive for it, we will never get there and who knows we, as human species become extinct with our individualistic mysticism. But let us, at this juncture of history, optimistically look forward to witnessing a collective social nirvana dawn on humanity."

I totally agree with Dr. Qazi and share his dream.

All in all, the entire article contains very cogent arguments and is written skillfully. It was a wonderful read for me. From one reductionist to another: congratulations on a job very well done.

Regards,

Rafi Aamer