Why do you keep referring to mystics so wistfully Bob?
A satanic priest can be a mystic, according to the definitions of dictionary.com
You particular perception of what a mystic is is irrelevant, the list you give is just a list of respectable mystics. You can’t just say “Only people I respect can be mystics, so Koresh isn’t a mystic”.
I think you keep missing my main point! It’s not only what you believe, as you have judged a mystic to teach either a Good or Bad message. But it’s only fair you respect everybody else’s freedom to make that same choice. You might think somebody is a Good mystic; I might disagree, why is your opinion more correct then mine? Each person will judge a mystic and it will be up to them to believe if the mystic is true or not. ‘Man is the measure of all thinks,’ the individual is the measure of the Mystic. You’re an individual; I’m an individual. We both have the same decision to make and to ourselves we will each have chosen the correct choice.
But we haven’t discussed individuals - I have named and quoted those people who I respect and leave myself open for other opinions. And pardon me, but if you expect me to even consider people like Koresh, then we’re wasting our time here.
Remember the first Posting?
Those were world Religions and respected persons who were named, if you want to bring in Fanatics, then perhaps you should mention the fact that you see Mystics in two categories. I could communicate on that. But the first time a Critic is asked to name someone, he brings up a real nutter!
That isn’t a basis for discussion. To be quite honest its just a pub crawl at that level.
Shalom
Bob
But we do expect that!
Look at it from the other perspective, name all the philosophers that have been utterly wrong and had many follow their philosophies, who now have nothing to offer us.
I can’t think of any of the top of my head. It’s not easy, they stop being documented, new writers ignore them, no-one cares about them. Even in recent times virtually every neo-Hegelian is unknown apart from Kant. Why? Because Hegel was so far off track it astounds, the only reason he’s still known is that he had such an influence on that most enigmatic of people Kant.
The well documented ancient mystics are going to be the ones who had something useful to offer.
Bob. Please correct me if i’m wrong, but at one point you alluded to mystics shunning authority; and now we are to accept mystics only from established religions?
Marshall wrote:
No, but if someone is talking about a subject as openly as I have done, naming and quoting sources and very clearly not meaning the likes of David Koresh or Jim Jones or other maniacs, and my opposite discusses with me without stating the kind of people they have in mind, where does this all lead to?
Had we at the outset been talking about this kind of person, then I would have interjected with my examples to show that Mysticism can also have a respectable face. This is what I would expect from others vice versa. After all Matt can state:
Which well documents my attempts to be clear about what I’m talking about. Where else would Maslow have come from, if not from a discussion that is not talking about Koresh and Jones?
Shalom
Bob
Matt wrote:
I fail to miss the point. Those Mystics that I have mentioned talk to us today from a long time ago and haven’t failed to be a source of enlightenment to me. My own mystical experience is again enlightening - for me. Who is going to have a problem with it? Some have answered my posting by saying they enjoyed my insights or those of the quoted Mystics. That has made it worth the while.
I think that whilst we can talk about these things, ask questions, state that we are not impressed or come up with some point of view that opposes the hypothesis presented, we can’t dispute when someone say’s he has been enlightend by something. You can ask them to explain, give alternative explanations or parallel experiences, but simply to dispute for the sake of it without backing it up seems somewhat blunt to me.
Matt stated:
If you are referring to the “occult rites and practices”, occult means “hidden” as used in medicine. “Occult bleeding” means inner bleeding that no-one can see and is symptomised by an anaemic condition. By that, occult practices could also be used to describe a private party.
Shalom
Bob
I think the good and the bad exist within any religion, philosophy, or ideology and i clearly understand your desire to acquaint us with the ‘good’ mystics. I have had many useful insights from this dialogue.
I found this dialogue nearly twenty years ago in the spirit of ILP as we discovered it, and surprisingly, I haven’t changed much in my attitude, although since then I have been through a lot professionally and since retired.
I am also returning to the path I was on back then, which confirms my feeling that we move in circles in life.