"Phil Enns" writes: : I wrote: : : "At its simplest, how does one identify a mystical experience?" : : to which Scribe1865@xxxxxxx replied: : : "Doesn't that depend upon what one means by "identify"? If one is : making a rational argument, then identifying involves a consistent : narrative that has to ground its premises. However one can also identify : something without knowing precisely how one identifies it or why. : Identification would seem to include a spectrum of possibilities." : : First, I am not talking about making a rational argument. It really is : a simply question. How does one identify a mystical experience out of : the multitude of experiences we have all the time? Is stubbing my toe a : mystical experience? : : Second, it isn't that any particular mystic has to provide criteria for : identifying their mystical experience but these criteria must be at : hand, in some form. If there are no such criteria, then talk of the : mystical is nonsensical. : : Note, I am not trying to do away with mysticism but rather to suggest : that it must be grounded in theology of some form. One can't : consistently engage in only negative theology. Does this mean that Buddhists and other persons who don't have a theology, not having a god, cannot be mystics? There certainly are a lot of Buddhists who would deny that mysticism is compatable with Buddhism. On the other hand the Buddhist emphasis on ``emptiness'' at the core of all appearances certainly sounds negative in the same way that negative theology sounds negative. Is God great? No. Does a dog have Buddha nature? Mu. -- Peter D. Junger--Case Western Reserve University Law School--Cleveland, OH EMAIL: junger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx URL: http://samsara.law.cwru.edu NOTE: junger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx no longer exists ------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html