My point was being in a Monastery is not, in and of itself, part of Mysticism.
It is only an aid to the sort of mystic paths that involve detachment from the cares and concerns of the world. It's something that novices of this path generally need to do to resist temptation. Making the choice to step away from these mundane things can be hard, but actually taking the step to become physically remote indicates your decision to follow this sort of path.
Scholars might also withdraw merely from the benefit of less interference, better safety for their records, or due to conflict with other scholars (some say heretics) that distract from serious study.
--Todd
On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 4:22 PM, Peter Larsen <p3larsen_at_sob4vi3qANHSUJZqFhhG1-5dwbNiW6RWtqIvO6ZN8R2kwOlUnAPT5iRdbZErq1HUHsZcqMGZ5F0qKuI2Ug.yahoo.invalid> wrote:
>
>
> I agree with this less. Certainly a lot of mysticism is like this, but
> engaging with the community via understanding that there is no substantive
> difference between "you" and "them" can also be mysticism. "All mystics
> withdraw from the world" is as true as "all mystics are ascetics" -- that
> is, much of the time but nowhere near all of it. Really, the goal of
> transcending is the only necessary marker of the mystic, and the first day
> apprentice is, in this sense, infinitely more free than, say, Humakt, who
> has not yet realized that he is trapped in the world.
>
> Peter Larsen
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Powered by hypermail