Q&A: Defining “Meaningful” Mysticism
Defining “Meaningful” Mysticism
Question
Hello Rabbi,
I watched the first lesson in the series on mysticism, and I heard the Rabbi’s definition identifying mysticism with a subjective claim, and “meaningful” mysticism with an intersubjective claim.
It seems to me that the definition of meaningful mysticism is incomplete. To the best of my understanding, accepting the mystic’s claims relies not only on pure trust but also on non-scientific arguments such as coincidences or comparisons between fields that are not a priori connected to one another (as in personification). These partial arguments “fit together” well in the listener’s mind and provide a successful, though not necessary, explanation for phenomena that are not understood. The combination of trust and these arguments is what, in my view, turns mysticism into “successful” mysticism.
What does the Rabbi think?
Answer
I don’t see this as something essential. Coincidences don’t say anything at all (see my columns on the law of small numbers). If you decide to accept them, then what underlies it is trust in the mystic.
Non-scientific arguments are not a criterion, as I explained in the lesson. Philosophy too is not scientific, but that is not mysticism.