> >It should be said that, depending on one's understanding of these terms,
> what Greg
> >calls the 'transcendent realm' might (by some philosophers, monotheists, or
> >mystics) be referred to as the 'immanent realm' (among many other names).
>
> Absolutely not.
Erm, not my world, but the 'transcendent' or 'immanent' nature of that realm, as described by you, seems to be a question of one's POV.
ie : Does the pure self proceed *from* that realm, or does it *enter* the higher realm from without ?
According to which magical practices ?
Ineffable questions, IMO, best left unanswered. Unless you *want* the extra headache ? I wouldn't.
Both are possible, and both are variously true IMO.
Or, if you _do_ actually *want* the headache : is this wrong ? Why ?
Julian
Powered by hypermail