On Sun, 2 Sep 2001, Dan Minette wrote:
> Well, I guess one could construct a system in which beings that are labeled
> fairies and unicorns are transcendent. But, the fairies and unicorns I have
> seen referenced in literature are definitely empirical objects in the same
> manner as you or I are. They are magical instead of truly mystical. Here,
> I use magical as being able to work outside the normal laws of nature by
> special powers or special knowledge of secret words, spells, etc.
Things that make me go "Hmm..."
I wonder to what degree the distinction between "magical" and "mystical"
(or "religious") is a byproduct of Judeo-Christian theology's attempt to
set itself apart from and above the other religions with which it has had
to compete. It seems to me that most things we westerners call magic
are simply the mystic rituals of non-Christians. Mysticism comes from
good rituals, but magic comes from bad (i.e. unapproved, non-Christian)
rituals.
This is not to suggest that a fairie is a substitue for God---well,
maybe Freddie Mercury <rimshot>---just that fairies may be a component in
a broader system of beliefs about the transcendant aspects of existence,
playing their own particular part in the luminous myth-iverse that
surrounds and infuses the everyday world.
> I also use Anthony de Mello's definition of mystical:
>
> Theology: the art of telling, and listening to, stories about the Divine.
>
> Mysticism: the art of taking the taste and feeling of those stories into
> your heart so that your life is transformed.
I dislike these definitions intensely. They are bland and misleading.
Here are my alternatives:
Theology: the art of justifying the ways of the Divine, as defined by his
Church, to man. Also, when man's ways fail to yield, the art of
redefining the ways of the Divine so as to justify to man the continuation
of the Church. Also, the frank questioning of what the heck is the
meaning of the world, as experienced, in the context of the Divine, as
defined.
Mysticism: the art of inviting the immediate and tangible presence of
the Divine into one's consciousness, whether through meditation, prayer,
ritual, deprivation, service, drugs, etc., or some combination of factors.
Also, the art of altering one's consciousness to contact the Divine.
I dislike de Mello's definition of theology because it seems to suggest
that it consists of little more than the telling of instructive parables,
which is false. I dislike his definition of mysticism because it turns
any regular churchgoer into a mystic, which also is false. Mystics are
scary, otherworldly people, at least when in the grip of their mystic
practice. It is the mystic's strangeness that makes him or her
valuable (or threatening, or both). That's why we draw a distinction
between mystics and ordinary priests and parishoners. If even priests are
not by definition mystics (and I've never met a priest that seemed to fit
the bill), then de Mello's definition is useless.
> I think that in a system in which fairies and unicorns are transcendent, one
> would think of a variation of Hinduism that would have different
> manifestations of the Divine in the form of fairies and unicorns. But, in
> that case, I would also expect arguments like Krishna's in the 'Gita (all
> are really me.)
I think this assumes that all mystics will perceive and describe the
Divine with similar rhetoric. While similarities between religions
traditions have certainly been noticed by people like Jung and Campbell,
it seems to me that those similarities are often to a large degree
inferred rather than directly parallel. This is not to say
that those inferences are necessarily illegitimate, but that to assume any
polytheistic mysticism will be expressed in terms directly parallel to
Hinduism, say, is to place too narrow a restriction on the possibilities
of mystic expression.
> One could also have them akin to the angels and fallen angels in the
> Judaic-Christian tradition, such as in Enoch.
>
> Do you know of a theology which treats fairies and unicorns in this type of
> fashion?
Offhand, no: I'm too much corrupted by Tolkien and his literary
descendents. The real question should be, can it be demonstrated that
people have lived by, and incorporated mysticisms into, religions
including such diverse beings as faeries and unicorns (or nymphs and
satyrs and dryads, or efreet and jinn, or gnomes and valkyries, and so
on), in which case I think the answer is obviously yes.
Marvin Long
Austin, Texas
For music that won't bugger your soul: www.guyforsyth.com
"The ego that sees a 'thou' is fundamentally different from an ego that
sees an 'it.'" -- Joseph Campbell
