Mysteries of Mysticism

The seminar today had all the qualities of intellectual stimulation. Quite frankly, the stimulation was to the extent of intellectual indigestion. I say this because the topic of discussion was of extreme density, and the individual papers presented were very well researched and documented, having a rather challenging impact on the intellect. I feel that to do justice to the content of each narrative it required an extended exchange of thought between the presenter and the attendees. That this would have only been possible if the organizers had learnt from their previous seminars and the experience gained at them. It is not sufficient to have five papers read and rushed through, with hardly any time available for digesting and assimilating them-- though audience interaction. I have  suggested this earlier and would like to reemphasize that after each speaker has delivered his/her address the audience should have a chance to question and clarify the various obliquities or obscurities they have been grappling with during the speech, and perhaps dying to question, only not to be given such a chance at the appropriate moment. If this interaction is not taken up right at the end of the deliverance, then the whole impact of the exercise of mutual benefit comes to naught. Keeping the questions for the end has two disadvantages, firstly, the content and impact of the earlier lecture is either lost or fades away towards the end. Secondly, the later talks are fresh in peoples memory and only they are thrashed out, giving undue importance or weight to their content, as the previous ones seem to have receded in the memory of the listener. The next important point to stress is the large number of speakers at any given session. Five orators are, in my opinion, simply too many to fathom, on a subject of such intellectual depth. Once again, if two or three speak, then their scholarly effort will sink in more and both they and the audience will be pleased by delving on the subject a little longer -- in the question and answer session, which should follow.

Having said the negatives above, the whole Seminar idea remains without doubt a resounding success. It seems to me that the ‘Family of the heart’  does not suffer from the dearth of talent of intellect or will, for the organization for  such seminars. They should become a more frequented feature. I do not want to subordinate the importance of other social and cultural activities, but some how it is seen, that other groups and organizations are predominantly engaged in them, leaving a big room in the field of stimulation of the mind.

I have taken it upon myself, to thoroughly go through each paper presented in the seminar. I shall comment and review each separately, as I personally feel each speaker approached the subject from a different and enticing angle, putting in devoted and honest effort, requiring an undiluted response in each and every case.

I wish to congratulate the organizers of the seminar and extend my personal deep appreciation of the effort of the selfless, behind the scene, workers.

Best wishes and kind regards.

Zia

http://tidylink.net