The 3 Forms of Mysticism and Why It Doesn't Matter

It amounts to very little, whether we conceive mysticism as a means of escaping (or transcending) the material realm or as a means of entering more deeply into the spiritual substructure of materiality. Though philosophers, and even mystics themselves, have often taken sides in this issue, it seems to be rather a question of temperament than ontology.

In both instances, there is something indicated, -- something more, -- which is not readily apparent, which calls into question the significance of all appearances, and which requires a sincere, devoted effort to realize.

To one man, it is fitting to speak of such things as lofty, while another prefers to call them deep; one wishes to rise, another to penetrate. But these are semantic trifles; in the subtle realms there is no above or below; these are merely metaphors taken from our present experience, and we may embrace or reject them as we will. The result is the same.

Nor ought we to omit here that there are some mystics (though they might object to being called such) who deny any world but the world of appearances, and say that all our difficulty is the result of striving after that "something more". These are the ones who like to speak of enlightenment as "the ultimate disappointment". Many of them, too, despite their reputation for passionlessness, seem rather passionate in their defense of this view, and their derision of the other, aforementioned views. Nevertheless, I maintain that even this distinction is rather paltry.

Whether the mystic sets out to deny the world utterly, embrace it fully, or just take it at face value, the result is a heightened experience of presence and unity. To my mind, the only truly relevant significators of genuine mystical experience are these two: presence and unity. In all the cases we have mentioned, there is agreement on these two principles, and on a third, as well, -- which seems to be rather the synthesis of the two; namely, love, or goodwill toward all.

In conclusion, it would appear that even mystics, and those interested in debating the finer (or flimsier?) points of mysticism, sometimes need to be diverted from their differences, and reminded of their commonalities.