Marinus Jan Marijs 0204
Question: In literature there are two separate ideas about the essence of mysticism. There are 2 ways how mysticism can defined. Some people will define it as something which is prerational, something which is mythical, for example for a mythical sort of consciousness. While other people will say it is transpersonal and is really related to the higher structures of consciousness. What is your feeling about this?
Marijs: I do think that within western society most of the people would think about mysticism is avery primitive a way of being or seeing. I do think that this is completely wrong.
When you look at the mystics, most of them of course lived perhaps two thousand or more years back, and they used mythical language, they used poetry to explain their ideas.
But I do think that there is a great difference between expressing your ideas in mythical form (and their expereinces). (So although the experiences) can be transrational, the language they choose gives the impression that it is just mythical, and so on.
But when you really look at the mystics themselves, I mean, when you look for example at Greece 2500 years ago, there where several mystics: Pythagoras, Heraclitus, Parmenides, Empedocles, Socrates, Plato. They where all mystics, and they were the ones who introduced logic into Greek society. They went beyond the myths.
The same is true of the Buddha. The Buddha lived in a world where everyone was relating to myths. All the stories told where myths. And (still) he came up with a system that is completely logical.