Mysticism is the heart of all religious systems, including Buddhism. However, mystical insights always presuppose the existence of god as object of awareness. It is little difficult theoretically applied mysticm in the religion which is no-theist like Buddhism. What kinds of experience experienced by someone if the god is not exist? Is it experience to nirvana can be called as mystical experience, if we assume that nirvana is god. But applied god to nirvana also cannot explained what is mysticism in buddhism. thus, I should go from assumption that there is little different in formulating my understanding about Buddhism mystic.
One keyword of mysticism is claimed of direct attainment to god, by divine intervention, or else by inward contemplation. If one attains mystical insight by divine intervention, it is likely to result in a closed system of thought, meaning a system that claims to possess all the necessary knowledge for proper conduct of life. In Buddhism, the divine intervention to human being called as Jhana. Jhana relates to concept truth, thus it is knowledge. If we related jhana to the divine and knowledge concept will come to one concept of Buddhism that is the concept of knowledge in attain God, beside meditation.
Perhaps, Buddhism did not mention what the object of mysticm is. Budhist mistic stressed to build an awareness of object become truly objects goes from all attachment. The life of monk is like the life of mystic, mostly of them did not aware to worldly matter beside contemplation. In my opinion, there are two kind that is very important in budhism, that are knowledge and awareness.
Stressing to the attainment of knowledge in mystical experience is exemplified by Gautama. He was able within the context of his time to obviate a strictly mystical outlook and recognize the essential role of sensory validation in acquiring knowledge. Buddhist knowledge (Jnana) must be conjoined with seeing (Pasya), for without some kind of sensory validation, one cannot hope to understands the world around us. Thus Buddhism, unlike Western religions, has no need to attack sensory validation or blindly attack reason.
As I know, the goal of Buddhists is to attain enlightenment. By so doing, they experience a total change of personality. The Vinaya has a passage which indicates the dogmatic nature of any form of mystically-acquired "knowledge:" "I have conquered and I know all, I am enlightened quite by myself and have none as teacher.
Knowledge is something that was experience, then formulated, trough and awareness. Knowledge is existence, and not consciousness. But, it will be attained by aware condition. Thus, consciousness is the starting point of knowledge. Consciousness presupposes the existence of an entity, and consciousness, properly understood, is a property of that entity. By placing consciousness rather than existence as the primary fact from which we derive all our knowledge, Buddhism is mystic and irational.[]

Read More...

In Sufism and mysticism literatures there are some informations about horrible situations faced by sufis and mystics in accordance with deadly violence against conventional religious leader. Some of them death defends about the belief of unity of human and god, called as wahdatul wujud, viz: al-Hallaj, Siti Jenar. Ibn Arabi, who also well-known with the wahdatul wujud concept, was condemned by some order, like Sunni, as heresy. The problem actually is because that concept understood as vague things to the tauhid, the basic Islamic doctrine which believes God as the only.
Hallaj statement “ana al-Haq” is understood, by conventional ulema, as acknowledgement of Hallaj’s Goddess. Whereas, in Sufism concepts, as I see from Ibn Arabi, wahdatul wujud is not lead to diminishing God as the only. God is God, and human are human. God as creator and human are creature. However, between god and human is not really apart each other, because human as creature come up from god, as source of everything. The special concept from Sufism actually says that everyone personally can meet with god trough such methods, like contemplation or follow mystical order that guide someone to reach god by her/his own ways.
I think it will be interesting when we see the concept of wahdatul wujud from the master of Sufism. In bezel of wisdom he explores that the concept of wahdatul wujud or oneness of being means “all-embracing one.” Everything in the word embrace by god, even this understanding come up to pantheism that god is in everything, whatever we see and touch that is god. There are many facets of god light, because he is omnipotence in theological view, so His existence cannot be simplified in human perception as someone or something. God is single and unique, but human also unique in the world. Different ability of human being make human catches various facet of god. The key concept of this view is experience of god. Even in same Sufism there is no similar experience to god as ultimate reality.
Ibn arabi purports that it should be differentiated between God as the ultimate and god as human perception. No one knows what, who, and why the ultimate reality is. God is always wujud in the place of wahdatul suhud or perception. However, that is true for human to justify that thing as God, because God goes to human souls accordance with the capacity of human itself.
Wadatul suhud is human capacity, while wahdatul wujud are god capacity. Human and god meet in imaginative place that calls as maqom muwahidah. In another explanation says that tasawuf in islam is return to the “word alastu,” where god ask to human about who is the illah. Alastu moment is human and god covenant, the true separation between god as creator and human as creature. If the meeting point of human and god understood as muwahidah it probably means return back to “tauhid”, because in that time all human acknowledge that god as the only.
Perhaps, the place of meeting between god and human in Sufism context is imagine concept because no one know where it. In one hand, muwahidah god and human not means human become god, but human cannot separately with god being because he very close in his vision. So, when he accompany with god, no one conduct outside god. all sounds, speaks, and attempts are god’s. in that condition, human awareness and god awareness meet one Being. in ibn arabi concept, god and human is different not because he/his different, but human belief that god and human different. Differentiation of human and god follow the logic of rationality. It is impossible god exist in the time where human make a covenant. The unity of human and god might be in the position of god’s manshut and human’s lahut. Human’s lahut, god dimension, gets closer to God, at vice versa god’s manshut gets closer to human. Thus, meeting point of god and human is the place that god and human is attainable each other.
Human can attain god because god is active being, he is not something or everything who is to be. It is interesting when I see the definition of being proposed by William cittick. He says that that Arabi highlights the expression ahl al-kashf wa'l-wujûd, "the folk of unveiling and finding", or ahl al-shuhud wa'l-wujûd, "the folk of witnessing and finding". It clear that god is finding, go is to be found. Thus, wujud is not to be, but also to alive and to aware.What will human find except wujud, because in arabi’s concept all cosmos all firstly come from god and cannot be separated from him. Qur'anic says that "Everything in the heavens and the earth glorifies God" (57:1). Glorifying is impossible without knowing, thus not only human find god in the sould, but everyone and everthing. However, human are special because human have an awareness to find god, not only god found human.
Yet, consciousness did not produce being, or the existence and being is not come from awareness as logically western philosopher formulated. For Ibn al-'Arabi and much of Islamic theological thinking, “no universe is thinkable without the omnipresence of life and awareness.” Cittik says that the very word that is employed to refer to the underlying stuff of the universe - wujûd - is understood by them to express this.[]

Read More...

William chittick asserts that Sufism is an attempt to reach individual salvation trough attaining the true tauhid. Tauhid means an acknowledgment of oneness of god as expressed in the word “there is no deity but Allah.” Making tauhid as center means that Sufism refer to the very basic and fundamental in islam. There is no Sufism without believes in tauhid, if in Islamic religious doctrine God is object of devotion, in Sufism God reflected as object of love.
The goal of Sufism as reflected in tauhid is to be unite with god in pre-existential condition. Tauhid means one, god is one, and human come from the one. Return to god means return to god when god create human for first time. Cittick clearly says : “The goal of mystic is ‘to return’ to experience of the “Day of alastu”, when only god existed, before he led creatures out of the abyss of not being and endowed them with life, love and understanding, so that they might face him again at the and of time.”
The word alastu can be found in the Quranic verses sura 7:17. “Am I not your lord? (alastu birabikum), and they answered: “yes, we witness it” (bala sahidna). Al-juneid as cittick quotes say: “..when god was alone and what is created in time was not yet existence. Only than can men realize perfect tauhid; only then can he witness that god is one from eternity.
The understanding toward word alastu, has influence muslim consciousness, especially Sufism. It described that human, all human being that now different in ethnicities, religions, and culture, have made an acknowledgement that he/she believe and devote to the “one” God. God of all creatures, god who examines people to proof his/her promise to believe to one god in the life.
In other hand, what Sufism used to support the idea of Sufism by referring tauhid concept and quranic verses indicates that God, Qur’an, and Muhammad as prophet are very central in Sufism. Muhammad is the key figure between god and human relationship, while Qur’an believed as representation of the God in the world. Muhammad, like Isa, is saint human which incorporated from human matter. Muhammad was ummi, illiterate, before he got God speaks, in the other side Isa begotten from virgin girls, Maria. God will close or be part of human life when he/she uncontaminated from worldly matter.
The concept of “return” to God also was influenced by the human capacity as “khalifa fil ardh.” For that mission human have a free will and predestination. In the context of alastu it will be understood that there is no return if someone did not go out from inside God. In mystical Christian human is God’s emanation. In Islamic teaching, as the world alastu, God create human being for several reasons. Human should acknowledge that God is creator, and human creature. As creature, human have a creator. Relationship between creature and creature was tied by primordial covenant. Because of his/her free will human can avoid the pre-existential covenant to be one of the people who return to acknowledgement to the “tauhid” to god.

Read More...

The main point of Eckhart’s mystic is “union of identity” between God and human. Union of identity means identity of human fused to God, or vice versa. God and human becomes one in which cannot be separated each other. Eckhart describes that situation in the word: “God’s ground and the soul’s ground is one ground.” There is no far different between God and human because both of them are the one in essence.
Because of his very strong argument of the “ground concept” his thought called as “mystical on the ground.” Actually there are many names to call Eckhart’s order as Mc. Ginn mentioned in his book “the mystical thought of Miester Eckhart,” For instance, German Mysticism, Rhineland Mysticism, Mysticism of German Dominican, and speculative mysticism. The concept of the ground is very fundamental because it is not only to differenciate Eckhart’s mystic to amorist order, but also to explain the highest relationship of God and Human. Ground is not soul as like in Agustinus teaching, but the essence of God and human.
The idea of union of identity in the ground is not easy to understand without understanding the sense of vernacular Germany language where the word originally derived. Mc. Ginn’s Book used half of chapter three to explain the symbolic meaning and aim of using the word “ground” trough semantic and hermeneutic analysis. As I know, Eckhart used many philosophical and theological propositions and terms in supporting the idea of union of identity, like grunt, Godhead, emanation, birth of Christ, essence, intellect, in which it all cannot be understood without proper understanding of the meaning.
Additionally, he also used many metaphors such as dessert and ocean to figure out the mystical union. Mc. Ginn asserts that the symbol or metaphor dessert –the vast and empty terrains of human experience that suggest the infinity of divine nature in which soul may sink and vanish-- is to express the experience of disorientation and terror in the face unknown. Eckhart maybe had such motif of mind in employing the dessert to refer to both limitless of the soul and to unfathomable expanse of hidden divinity. The important of metaphor is to break trough previous categories of mystical speech to create new ways of presenting a direct encounter with God. Pragmatically the concept is to “transform” ordinary limited form of “consciousness” trough the process of making the inner meaning of metaphor one’s own in everyday life.
Ground or Grunt, in German language, is actually new creation which its significance can only be appreciated by exploring its context and meaning within the vernacular sermon and treatises of Eckhart himself. “Grunt” refers to concrete and abstract object. Grunt can be understood as earth or hell in concrete meaning. Moreover, it is also employed to indicate the origin, cause, principium, reason, proof of something, and finally is employed as what in inmost, hidden, and essence in abstract meaning. In Eckhart views grunt have deeper meaning as “union of God and human or name for unknowable divine and human soul.” The word also used to show how God becomes “one” with human. Eckhart aim is to achieve centrality as way to presenting mystical consciousness.
Eckhart statement in his book “God’s ground and my ground is the same ground” implicitly said that the formation of the world is “univocal causality” because between God and human there is a close relationship between uncreated and the created in one analogy. Insofar as Eckhart takes up the theme of absolute being in its identity with God, he likewise gives expression to relationships of analogical causality, teaching that being as such, or absolute being, is what becomes restricted to determinate being, while determinate being is what brings it about that a this or a that actually exist
The concept of ground relates to Latin word deitas, essentia, and principium. However, Eckhart never used grunt in the sense of cause, because God as grunt lies at the deeper level than God as efficient cause of the universe. Deitas and essentia word cannot completely describe the dynamic of Germany vernacular mystic. Whereas, principium used by Eckhart to explain “formal emanation” of the three person of trinity to express the active of nature of divine emanation and to point out the pure potentiality of the hidden divine mystery. Emanation means someone or something come from the same source. In Christian theology, Christ is God because principally he emanates from Godfather. In wider sense if all human beings are son of God, indeed they also are emanated from the Godhead.
The argument of emanation or inner present of God is argument of justice and just man. Justice is in the just man, and the just man is in justice. The just man is his just action, and this just action is likewise justice. Between the just man and justice, there is difference on account of the opposition between them, but because of their relation which reciprocally include each other. What is just for Eckhart what is just of justice and therewith justice itself.
However, although grunt includes the mysticism of divine birth, but at least in some sense, goes beyond it. Mc. Ginn says “God becomes in the flowing of creation, and the God unbecomes when the mystic is not content to return to the God who acts, but breaking trough to silent unmoving Godhead, one that bring all creature back into hidden source trough their union.
The becoming and unbecoming concept leads us to the conversation of the concept of God in Eckhart views. Eckhart defines God is simple word, unspoken word, (Sermon 53). Only God can speak that world, everyone beside him cannot. Additionally he also used “negation of negation (sermon 21) or distinct indistinct. “Just as God is totally indistinct in himself according to his nature in that he is truly and most properly one and completely distinct from all things, so too man in God is indistinct from everything which is in God. it means God is not Good, not a person, not Trinity, not Father, Son or Holy Spirit, not even God. God is innominabile, as essence and as beyond being, as unmoving intellect and as hidden desert, designates God’s transcendence, God as the totally Other.
Furthermore, Eckhart distinguishes between “God” and “Godhead”. He says “as long as he was in the ground, the ground, the depth, the flood and all source of the Godhead,” no one asked him anything, because while God acts, the Godhead does not. Godhead is the deepest level of grunt while human and God completely unite while God is human creation. God become God in creation process, and he is Godhead before have anything to be created. Human moving to ground or grunt means move to Godhead where all identity is lost.
In this sense, Godhead is not being. He should be deeper than being. Eckhart contends that the absolute principle (or the absolute cause: God) is pure intellect and not being. According to this view, being (esse) is always caused and thus presupposes intellect, itself without being, as the cause of being. Eckhart holds that being is, in intellect, no other than intellect and, therefore, not simply being, but instead being that has been elevated to intellect. If someone should nonetheless object that in God knowing or anything else might be described as ‘being’, the proper response for Eckhart is that this ‘being’ still presupposes the knowing of intellect. As the absolute cause, intellect is thought of as absolutely unlimited only if it is thought of as wholly without being. As such, intellect becomes the principle for absolute as well as contingent being. Thus, Eckhart’s thesis that knowing is presupposed in every case of being.
Although human and God having the sameness in this sense, Eckhart’s word of “unum” can be used to express both the divine and the human poles of fused identity in contrasting between “oneness of Godhead” with all form of “likeness.” Like God insofar as God bears in his “like” in me, and all form of likeness arise love which is the Holy Spirit. But God as motionless source moving all things from within ad “returning” them to himself is beyond likeness. Other difference between God and man, in respect to intellect, is that God is intellect while man has intellect.
If any one wishes to come to God’s ground and his innermost, he must first come into his own ground and innermost, for no one can know God who does not know himself. Eckhart often speaks of God “penetrating” and “being in” the soul of the ground, as analogical relationship between two realities. But, in the deeper realities, or fused identity, there is no different because just there is only one univocal grunt.
God live in the soul: first by charity, then by his image, trough which we come to share in the life of Christianity. The place of this contact “ is the essential understanding of God, of which the pure and naked power is “intelectus,” which the term of master receptive. But turn to higher form of union.[]

Read More...

Mysticism is not new theme in academic discussion; it has widely speaking from many scholars since medieval eras. However, there is a wide array between mysticism in academic level and practical level. Academic level is not mystic practitioner; it is only learn to object from outside with straight methodology. However, mysticism in not usual phenomenon, like social and cultural objects, because it exist in the area where intellect and ratio cannot enter and understood it. Scholar only could have data from apart experience of mystic which is cannot be verified by methodology and modern worldview.
It is different from the mysticism in practice. Mystics never ask why, they are even close mind in order heart could attain the ultimate. They let heart, and all human potent to say “yes” all supernatural thing come to heart and body. There is not want, there is no intellect, the rest one is feeling of love and feeling of truth. They ready to enter unimagined condition where he will come to ecstatic state where no one feels he should be back. In that state, not only feeling of state, but also state of insight of the truth where between the creator and creature join in intimate.
Different standpoint between academic level and practice level is serious problem. Yet, that is the fact of the mysticism in academic level. Naturally speaking that mysticism is speaking of unspeaking. The experience of ultimate reality which personally experienced cannot be described and transferred another wholly except for people who have same experience. To get knowledge of mysticism, perhaps, will be able by reading, but it not means somebody will get mystical experience likes mystic. There are different language and measure of mystic and science or intellect. Mystical experience is by spiritual genius experience, not by mind. In addition, mystic is not prophet who can communicate their mystical experience with God to follower, mystic just experience it for personal people who limited by his/her language, culture, and memory of it experience.
However, many books resulted by the scholar which talks about mysticism not only covers mystical experience in which getting by straight method. In any case, gazing insight, getting new meaning from formulation, seeing the truth of concept, hallucination, anesthetic medicine can be classified as mystic experience where its experienced by people and believed it change his view of the reality and appealed to new understanding of life. William James explores different experience and acknowledgement of people who had mystical and close to mystical experience. The experience its self not all methodic, such as represented by Sufism, Buddhis and Hindu experience, and also Christian experience, whereas many of them are sporadic experience which stimulated by gazing of something that it could be “thing” or “nothing.” Thing is influenced by reflection of the material object who come to awareness, and nothing is high reflection like in Buddhis, Islam Christian in which existence and essence united.
Mystical concept of ultimate is lovable, attainable, and alive. The ultimate is will be near and become part of human in loving relationship. God is not part, because it attainable, and it could be nearer because they respond alive to human activity who want to near Him. Mysticism says oppositely to science and modern method. Ginn says, “what the world, which truly know nothing, calls ‘mysticism’ is the science of ultimate.. the science of self evident reality, which cannot be “reasoned about, because of the object of reason or perception.”

Read More...

Mysticism as discourse and practice is always part of religious speaking. The position itself is vital, even claims as heart of religion. The significance, however, is not because of that claims, religion still exist and perhaps will exist with or without mysticism. In one point of view it is probably influence by the opponent position of mysticism to religion. When religious beneficial to modern ages decreases, otherwise mysticism increases. Mysticism is different with religion because of theoretically build by stressing individual close and intimate relation to Ultimate reality. It is different with religion describing as communal ways to find God, and the relationship is not for god intimation with human body and soul. Religion is emphasis self obedience or religious defense in getting God blessing while mysticism stresses Loving relationship between creature and creator in mystical divine.
There are many definition of mysticism taken from different tradition and closed to different religion. Usually definition was made to represent the kind of mysticism and content of it as like practiced by mystic practitioner. One of the definition in which I think cover all things of mysticism was presented by Margaret Smith as: “… the immediate feeling of the unity of self with God. It is the religious life at its very heart and center-it is the endeavor to fix the immediateness of the life in God as such in his God intoxication, in which the self and the world are alike forgotten, the subject knows himself to be in possession of the highest and fullest truth.”
Feeling unity of self with god probably represents the aim of mysticism. Union with God is the highest success of creature in passing spiritual boundary of human and God. The position of human itself escape from material body to the spiritual body of God. The unity itself seems feeling or perception of mystical practitioner, thus it very subjective. No one else knows whether that really union experience with God trough “thing” or “nothing” except he/she. Unity in mystical term closed for people who get the experience. If it expressed even cannot be understood trough casual people because the language and expression become weird for layman. In higher level, even its arise as symbolic expression and acknowledgement that existence of God has been unite with body of people, when someone call name of her it means called God. Like Al-hallaj expression “ana al-haq”, I am God, also Siti Jenar confession “There is no siti jenar, whereas God. There is no God except me is alike. Smith calls it as penetration of the divine within the soul and to a disappearance of the individuality with all its modest of acting, thinking and feeling, in the divine substance. In this ways, what mystical practitioner no more than “passed out of phenomena of all lower forms of reality, to become being itself.”
Some mystical practitioner states that the unity only can be attained only by passing trough certain definite stage. For instance, Mystics’ like Meister Ekchar, Ibn Arabi, Al-Bustami formed their mystic by such stage before reaching highest stage. In sufi tradition its called as maqomat, like sobar, ikhlas, etc. Someone should follow it step by step under supervisor of master in order he/she stay on the mystical ways. Transcend condition will be gotten when “God ceases to be an object of and become an experience.” It seems mysticism is active and practical things to establish attitude of mind, seeking transcend reason and to attain to a direct experience of God.
One important think from Sufism is the experience of unity of subject is much more claimed as the truth, even the ultimate truth. The assumption is god as the truth, logically mystical unity or mystical married with God will diminish human feature. The consequence is unavoidably statement that he/she who has gotten God intimation did not need to do behave as formal religion preaches. Whereas, it is still problematic whether the personal experience is represent religious experience in wide context, or just probable experience which can be true or false when he/she meets and intimates with God.[]

Read More...