Nancy Gish wrote:
> The point I have made is that *Eliot* said he was not. He admired
> mystics and spoke of "hints and guesses," by which he may well have
> meant those occasional moments of experiencing what I would call
> insight, exaltation, transcendence or immanence, intimacy with the
"Intimacy with the universe" sounds enticing. Has it been established
anywhere that Eliot did not have mystical experiences? One wouldn't need
to consider oneself a mystic to have had them, I think. But I don't know
the official line on that.
> But I am not at all presuming to know his private spiritual
> experiences; I am only assuming that he knew them and that if he said
> he was not one, he was not.
> >>> DIana Manister <[log in to unmask]> 03/20/10 10:50 AM >>>
> Dear Nancy and Peter,
> Religious orthodoxy presumably facilitates transcendence, samhadi,
> satori, epiphany or whatever name a particular religion gives to peak
> spiritual experience. Eliot I think writes about this experience even
> before 4 Qts. But it is beyond words in all belief systems, so
> language becomes mysterious and vague.
> Few mystics live in a peak state all the time (though I've been told
> wondrous accounts of some who did or do.) It's not a permanent state
> of mind usually. So to say Eliot was not a mystic presumes knowledge
> of all his private spiritual experiences, which no one can know.
> Sent from my iPod
> On Mar 19, 2010, at 1:03 AM, Peter Montgomery <[log in to unmask]>
> > One need not be religious or even holy, to have mystical expereience.
> > Mystical experience does not necessarily lead to holiness.
> > Saints are not necessarily mystics. Mystics are not necessarily
> > saints.
> > Although the two are frequnently associated, they are by no means
> > synonymous.
> > Eliot may have claimed not to be a mystic, but that does not mean
> > he did not have mystical experience.
> > P.
> > ---- Original Message -----
> > From: Nancy Gish
> > But he was not a mystic himself. And when it became attractive and
> > possible, he remarried. So the point--while true--about language is
> > about
> > the result of mystic experience if it does come; it is not about any
> > claim
> > that the negative way is the only one.