On an Introduction to the Study of Mysticism

This is a very interesting book, and it does exactly what the title says: it introduces the study of mysticism, not mysticism as such. I think Jones would agree the latter is an impossible task, since he reiterates throughout that there is no single “mysticism.” That isn’t to say the concept is useless — it works more like “language,” a unifying principle that gathers several other categories under one name.

For Jones, mysticism isn’t merely about mystical experiences; it’s a way of life. The experiences matter to that life, and they are the ones in which the “self” seems to merge with the rest of existence — with reality, as the individual’s belief system understands it. There are two main types. The “extroverted,” where one feels a general connectedness with all things, and the “introverted,” where the self/other distinction drops away entirely. An introverted experience can’t be described while it’s happening; it can only be discussed afterward, once the experiencer has returned to the self/other distinction. That matters, because the experiences let the mystic adjust their way of being and live according to reality as it really is.

Jones argues that, the umbrella term notwithstanding, mystics interpret their experiences in markedly different ways — Sufis speak of union with God, Buddhists of the illusory nature of reality. The chapters are largely thematic: what is the relationship between mysticism and science, and what can neurology tell us (are these “true” experiences at all, or just one region of the brain glowing under an MRI)? What is the relationship between meditation and mysticism? How have various disciplines approached the field? Are psychedelic trips “true” mystical experiences or something else? And what is the deal with the “ineffable,” anyway? For the most part Jones is remarkably fair, laying out the arguments under each theme and marking their limits. There are no definitive answers here, but plenty of avenues for further study.

I don’t quite share Jones’s pluralism. I agree there are major differences between practices, but I lean toward one camp of perennialists: there are many paths to one summit, and mystical experiences occur when a person taps into the “source” — not the only incarnation of the source, but perhaps the most powerful one. I was also disappointed to read, in the final two chapters, that religious studies scholars and theologians don’t really take mystical experiences seriously. Maybe that’s to be expected given the weight of secularism, including within religious organizations, but since these experiences resonate with so many people — including those who have never had one — it seems a particularly fruitful area of study.

The book is scholarly. You won’t learn much about how to be a mystic, but you’ll learn a great deal about how academics discuss mysticism, and that’s good enough.