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.

Diana

Sent from my iPod

On Mar 19, 2010, at 1:03 AM, Peter Montgomery <[log in to unmask]>  
wrote:

> 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.
>