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
> Although the two are frequnently associated, they are by no means
> Eliot may have claimed not to be a mystic, but that does not mean
> he did not have mystical experience.
> ---- 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
> the result of mystic experience if it does come; it is not about any
> that the negative way is the only one.