Hi 3dwavedave,
I tried to collect a definition of a mystic from Webster on line but that's not
an easy job... lot of cross-references to follow, and multiple meanings to each
word. I think a rough more-or-less-average definition of a mystic could be: a
person who thinks that reality is not as it appears to senses and is explained
by rational thought, and that there are alternative, non-rational, ways of
deeper understanding where the basic foundations of rational-linear thought are
suppressed. (Maybe David can provide some more satisfactory definition).
This definition "points to" an experience (such as, satori) where you actually
reach a state of complete suppression of logic-linear delusions, but I don't
think a mystic is a synonim for an Enlightened. So the answer to:
> Is it that these "mystics" truely are "mystics" or is it that they believe
reaching a 'mystic' level is possible?
I would reply: the latter. Mmmm... I would even enlarge the meaning of mystic a
bit I mean, the fact of believing the above, independent of whether you believe
it can actually be completely attained by itself deserves a name, and "mystic"
looks like a good one. But well :)
If you (or Wilbur) want to use the phrase "a mystic" only for someone who is/has
been in a state of enlightenement, that's allright. Then I wonder we had very
few mystics throughout history. I wonder where Wilbur gets the 1 tenth of 1%
from. Who told him?
Cheers,
Andrea
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
