Stephen Paul wrote:
>
> Dear Colleagues,
>
> In an effort to propel this group's important discussions into a
> universally more meaningful realm for all of the members globally, I
> feel that it is important to poll my colleagues to find out if I am the
> only one disturbed by the frequent use of the word "mysticism" and its
> derivatives.
If you have an alternative, I would consider it. But the problem is
here:
>... possibly, as a society, we can find a better, less
> prejudicial, way to describe these fundamental beliefs and practises.
>
There are other words for the practises, but what other word would you
suggest for beliefs (and that's not the right word either) such as "The
tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao" or "Form is not other than
emptiness, emptiness is not other than form" and so on? The point of
using the word "mysticism" with its "mysterious" connotations is to
acknowledge that the truth to which the people you mention (Lao-Tse et
al) are alluding, defeats all attempts at description, but are
nevertheless vital.
One can also state it as: if you understand it (without having gone
through the radical change of consciousness called Awakening or
Enlightenment or whatever), then you're wrong.
I would agree that any "other-wordly" connotation is misplaced, but that
is more about correcting the typical mistake of thinking that mysticism
(or religion in general) is about escape from the world. Rather,
"nirvana is samsara".
Since these discussions are meant to be potentially
> enlightening, I find it very perturbing to constantly hear a word that
> by definition means "other-worldly" or "mysterious" used to describe
> practises and beliefs that are anything but other-worldly or mysterious
> to its practitioners. Judeo-Christian practises are far more other
> worldly than Taoism, Zen, Buddhism, Confucianism ever were. In fact, the
> Eastern approaches that I have just listed are among those that are more
> integrated with the physical world and everyday life (therefore,
> science) than the majority of Western practises.
If they are so "integrated with...everyday life", why do they have such
a rich monastic traditions? Then there's the word "maya" to consider.
However (see above), the point is not to deny normal experience but to
change our consciousness so that we are no longer ignorant of its "true
nature".
IMHO, Lao Tze would
> never have considered himself as a mystic, nor would Confucius, Buddha,
> the Dalai Lama, or Krishnamurti, to name a few. For that matter, neither
> would Jesus - and his teachings are remarkably similar to those of the
> Eastern teachers mentioned. Is not the use of "mysticism" (particularly
> when describing eastern belief systems) merely a cultural bias by many
> of our members (and yes, by Pirsig too in his writings)?
Again, what do you suggest as a replacement, one that will allow not
only a distinction between mainstream Christianity on the one hand and
the writings of, say, the pseudo-Dionysius or Meister Eckhart on the
other, in the West, but also distinguish between the teachings of
Confucius and the Buddha in the East?
- Scott
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:01:59 BST