On 9/19/10 12:09 PM, "MarshaV" <[email protected]> wrote: > I don't think the word 'religious' needs to be attached the word transcendent, > nor the word mysticism. Going beyond conventional knowledge would be > a transcendence.
The problem with your last statement is that it waters down the meaning of transcendence almost to point of anything new to you, me, or anyone is transcendent. My breakfast this morning was a new experience, only by a huge stretch of imagination was it a transcendent one. Even though I thought it was a "good" breakfast. (French toast made with home-made bread using vanilla ice cream as the egg extender served with real maple syrup and fresh brewed Café Verona coffee with a dollop of vanilla ice cream in it. Yuuumm!) Next are you going to claim that Zen Buddhism, or any type of Buddhism for that matter, is not a religion? And that an integral part of their religious experiences are not practices specifically design to evoke mystical experiences and understanding them? And are you then going to deny that a majority of all mystical experiences reports are linked by the people experiencing them to either depression (think James, maybe Pirsig) or religious practice (think Buddha,Mohamed,Moses, Brigham Young et al)? And further that according to the MoQ, mystic experience is the most dynamic, the highest and best way, to experience reality. Based on this they are morally superior to all static patterns and automatically have the right to dominate, over rule, any of them. How is this different from all religious claims made down through the ages? Dave Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org/md/archives.html
