>Forgive me if I find the blanket sweeping aside of
the spirituality of the last 2000 years to be slightly
heavy handed. The people involved felt that they were
attaining the heights of spiritual liberation, etc. -
who are we to say they were not? How can one judge
such a thing for another? I know the list is about
magic and won't go on but this is precisely the >sort
of thing I was trying to get at.
I'd say specialisation was alienation from the whole,
everythings connected to everything else ultimately
and religion and magic more than most, but I take you
point on a pragmatic basis. :)
My last word on this is that religion is actually a
collective thing, which ultimately is supposed to
enthuse an entire community (from the 'to make whole'
root of the word), while spiritual is private. Given
that none of the worthy people
you mentioned have had much influence on Church dogma
or on
a lasting effect on the world I'd class them as
mystics with a mediated spirituality and in a grey
area in regard to religion as a social phenomena. The
German mystics you mention did have a big influence on
Rosicrucianism though its true.
___________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Photos – NEW, now offering a quality print service from just 8p a photo http://uk.photos.yahoo.com
|