As already indicated the methods and results of meditation as practised by Brahmanic Hindus and by Buddhists show considerable resemblance to the experiences of Christian mystics.  The coincidences do not concern mere matters of detail, although theology has done its best to make the content and explanation of the experiences as divergent as possible.  But the essential similarity of form remains and there is clearly no question of borrowing or direct influence.  It is certain that what is sometimes called the Mystic Way is not only true as a succession of psychic states but is, for those who can walk in it, the road to a happiness which in reality and power to satisfy exceeds all pleasures of the senses and intellect, so that when once known it makes all other joys and pains seem negligible.  Yet despite the intense reality of this happy state, despite the illumination which floods the soul and the wide visions of a universal plan, there is no agreement as to the cause of the experience nor, strange to say, as to its meaning as opposed to its form.  For many both in the east and west the one essential and indubitable fact throughout the experience is God, yet Buddhists are equally decided in holding that the experience has nothing to do with any deity.  This is not a mere question of interpretation.  It means that views as to theism and pantheism are indifferent for the attainment of this happy state.

The mystics of India are sometimes contrasted with their fellows in Europe as being more passive and more self-centred:  they are supposed to desire self-annihilation and to have no thought for others.  But I doubt if the contrast is just.  If Indian mysticism sometimes appears at a disadvantage, I think it is because it is popular and in danger of being stereotyped and sometimes vulgarized.  Nowadays in Europe we have students of mysticism rather than mystics, and the mystics of the Christian Church were independent and distinguished spirits who, instead of following the signposts of the beaten track, found out a path for themselves.  But in India mysticism was and is as common as prayer and as popular as science.  It was taught in manuals and parodied by charlatans.  When mysticism is the staple crop of a religion and not a rare wild flower, the percentage of imperfect specimens is bound to be high.  The Buddha, Sankara and a host of less well-known teachers were as strenuous and influential as Francis of Assisi or Ignatius Loyola.  Neither in Europe nor in Asia has mysticism contributed much directly to political and social reform.  That is not its sphere, but within the religious sphere, in preaching, teaching and organization, the mystic is intensely practical and the number of successes (as of failures) is greater in Asia than in Europe.  Even in theory Indian mysticism does not repudiate energy.  No one enjoyed more than the Buddha himself what Ruysbroeck calls “the mysterious peace dwelling in activity,” for before he began his mission he had attained nirvana and such of his disciples as were arhats were in the same case.  Later Buddhism recognizes a special form of nirvana called apratishthita:  those who attain it see that there is no real difference between mundane existence and nirvana and therefore devote themselves to a life of beneficent activity.