HOME | DD
Published: 2004-05-19 10:47:26 +0000 UTC; Views: 277; Favourites: 1; Downloads: 21
Redirect to original
Description
IV. Archetype : the MysticPerhaps no archetype is more coveted or more misunderstood than the Mystic. Many want to believe that they have mystical inclinations, yet underestimate how arduous the genuine mystical path is. When they find out, they're usually happy to let someone else have this role. The lives of the world's great mystics often included extraordinary states of consciousness such as prolonged ecstatic trance, and preternatural abilities of precognition or bilocation. Yet they also contained sometimes great physical as well as spiritual suffering, hard work, and mundane activities that made up much of their days. If you truly want to name this archetype as part of your sacred consortium, ask yourself if you are ready to pay the price in blood, sweat, and tears. If mystical consciousness is something you engage in once a day during meditation, or on a weekend retreat or a yoga workshop, you may be a spiritual seeker, but not a Mystic.
Related content
Comments: 19
melleciouss [2004-05-22 22:37:53 +0000 UTC]
i think your vision is fabulous...and it is YOUR vision
it is a personal inspiration...which is what art
is suppose to be......so if someone doesnt see it
with the same eye...well then let them make their
own.....who cares.
great work
^..^
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
pr0jectz In reply to melleciouss [2004-05-22 23:28:48 +0000 UTC]
It is interesting to see how people interpret my eye, or any art for as far as that goes. But I must agree.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
bumbaryca [2004-05-20 09:12:38 +0000 UTC]
nice word.. inclination.
maybe i have one in my gal.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
gnaime [2004-05-19 18:27:13 +0000 UTC]
I really like how the background overlaps in some places. It keeps me staring. And the entire piece as a whole is like a snapshot of an intense mind-trip. The background alone is beautiful, really fantastic piece.
I like that you informed us with the text, but like ~khog I would like to hear you're points of view on the subject. As for passing through candyland, hmmmm
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
pr0jectz In reply to gnaime [2004-05-20 01:04:51 +0000 UTC]
to answer your question
please look here :: [link] ::
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
pr0jectz In reply to gnaime [2004-05-19 22:17:53 +0000 UTC]
the background overlaps cause it is in 3 dimensions not just the 2 you see here. I replyed to khog prehaps you would like to read my reply. thanks for the comment and stoping in.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
whitest-ray-of-light [2004-05-19 18:27:04 +0000 UTC]
ok... so i am a little intimidated by her lack of pubies! do i have to be shaven to emark on the path to enlightenment?
and i definitely am somewhere below spiritual seeker... for i am in the yoga thing so i can giggle at the positions i end up getting into. oh my!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
pr0jectz In reply to whitest-ray-of-light [2004-05-19 22:15:31 +0000 UTC]
no I don't think you need to be shaven. thanks for the look see.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
khog [2004-05-19 15:21:47 +0000 UTC]
this is going to be a harsh critique.
i want more suffering depicted in my mystics. the road to enlightenment does not pass through candyland.
also, i'd rather hear what you think about these archetypes than what someone else wrote (i am presuming that that isn't your text). my guess is that your spin would be a lot more interesting.
harsh toke.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
pr0jectz In reply to khog [2004-05-19 22:13:44 +0000 UTC]
well now, 1st off no it is not my text I have taken from [link] who took it from [link] so it's been passed around a bit. As for my take on all this, I didn't think it would be as interesting and not nearly as well worded. Prehaps I should have stated this to begin with, to this effect I make all apologies. 2ed, I know very well were the road to enlightenment goes, no it is not candyland as you put it. What you see is the end result, the mysic in enlightenment. As depicted by the rays and the all seeing eye. not all that harsh, you could have said "this sucks, give up while you're ahead". not that would be harsh and would hurt. I but so much of myself in to my work.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
khog In reply to pr0jectz [2004-05-20 04:40:33 +0000 UTC]
i thought my candyland thing was funny
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
pr0jectz In reply to khog [2004-05-20 13:07:08 +0000 UTC]
me too, I realy didn't think it looked like candy land
👍: 0 ⏩: 0





















