Apologies…I was saying earlier that Catholics do have a deep tradition of prayer and meditation so why is there a need to adopt Buddhist techniques…
I would imagine the same thing that Catholic meditation techniques employed by Catholics have to do with Catholic belief. Everything.
I did not say, nor did anyone else say, that Buddhist meditation techniques are a substitute for Christian meditations. However, Buddhist meditation techniques certainly can be used to get one in a state of mind that is conducive to Christian prayers and meditations. In fact, I have on my iPod a breathing exercise and a body exercise taken almost straight from Buddhist techniques that is used for this very purpose: To get one settled into a prayerful, contemplative mood.
Actually, that’s not the case at all. Buddhist meditation techniques simply involve cultivation of the mind, and focus on developing attentiveness, calmness, mental/emotional stability, and detaching oneself from emotions and thoughts to see how the mind works, to see areas in which we can respond better and areas in which we can develop better habits.
Much of Catholic meditation is centred around actually not shedding yourself of emotion but in allowing your emotions to come to the surface and allowing the lord to speak to you through what you actually feel, often while you read the word of God. The Buddhist methods and Catholic methods are polar opposites because for Catholics prayer is often about the presence of God and sometimes even feeling that presence. For Buddhists - there is no presence.
Then why does Buddhism say that the mind must be empty before it can nystically unnderstand te subtle principle. If the mind if not EMPTIED it is like a lamp in the wind.
This is often said by relatively conservative Christians, but in fact I find it rather puzzling, because it seems to go logically with a “pluralist” view of truth. The assumption here seems to be that there are distinct “religious traditions,” each valid in their own right but with incompatible practices which shouldn’t be mixed. Now there are people who believe this, but it isn’t generally what conservative Christians believe.
And how do you know that “Nirvana” isn’t a highly apophatic way of describing the Beatific Vision?
I think you make some excellent points, particularly about the “wayless way.” This may have something to do with the Augustinianism of Western Christianity–we’re very uncomfortable with anything suggesting that one can somehow attain mystical union through proper technique, because this seems Pelagian. That can be found in what I think is a rather exaggerated form in rinnie’s posts, but I react to Cutsinger’s blog somewhat along those lines as well (I’m both intrigued and repelled by his emphasis on technique).My dear brother Contarini
I find this view of Western mysticism - both Catholic and Protestant (lets not forget Jakob Boehme, the English Metaphysical poets, Thomas Traherne, the Quaker founder George Fox etc.) very interesting, given that in my my honest experience I have found more similarities between Western mystics and Sufism - typically - than with Eastern Christian mystics. I have yet to find an Eckhart or a Ruysbroeck amongst the Easterners, with that characteristic daring language of “union of indistinction” with God, which one finds in surplus within Sufi literature (think Ibn Arabi, Iraqi, Attar, Rumi, Hafiz) and Vedanta.
Rarely - if ever - have I seen Eastern Orthodox mystics who use sexual - Song of Songs inspired - love imagery and poetry to express the spiritual path to union with God, whereas this abounds in Western mysticism especially from the time of Saint Bernard of Clairvaux, reaching its poetic summit one could say in Saint John of the Cross.
Eastern Christian mysticism seems to me a rather unique spiritual tradition, with great focus placed upon the Uncreated Tabor Light. Yes theosis is the keystone of Orthodox Christian spirituality, and its laity are beyond doubt more mystical than ours I would say given the heavily mystical orientation of Eastern Christianity as a whole over the more scholastic thought of the West, however I have never seen theosis expressed in a manner evolved from that of the Fathers. In my own experience the Easterners more than any other tradition in Christianity have maintained - with the exception of Palamas’ essence-energy distinction - a very Patristic manner of expressing union with God ie “God became man so that men might become God”. One does not find anything comparable to Sufi/Hindu forms of divine union, with concepts of the soul merging with deity like droplets of water dissolving into the ocean. I may be completely wrong, and simply not found such Eastern mystics yet, however such language - as un-orthodox as it could be construed - abounds in the poetry of Beguine mystics such as Mecthild of Magdeburg, Blessed Jacopone da Todi (Franciscan), Hadewijch of Brabant and even Saint Teresa of Avila (who uses the idea of rainwater falling into a river to explain union with God).
I honestly think that there is more direct resonance between the Westen mystics mentioned above and Sufism, than the Eastern Christian mystics (Ie Symeon the New Theologian, Palamas, Theophan the Recluse, Seraphim of Sarov).
For these reasons I simply find it odd why Eastern Christian mysticism would be viewed by some as having more of an affinity with Sufism and Eastern religions.
I rather think that much of it stems from a distrust of the West because of centuries of colonialism and scientific progress, rather than an honest appraisal of the Western mystics.
That’s not to deny that the East is generally as a whole tradition more “mystical” in terms of general doctrine, whereas the West is more scholastic, however I honestly don’t detect much in common with Sufism.
Eastern Christian spirituality is, as a whole, probably more systematic but the West isn’t for good reasons - Christianity isn’t about methods or works but Grace.
Eckhart was emphatic in stating that we cannot become attached to “means”, methods or “paths” and devotions to God - since in doing so we find the way rather than God who is hidden behind the way, thus losing God in the process. The Meister thus called his way “the wayless Way” which I think captures the unique emphasis of Western mysticism rather well.
Of course as Pope John Paul II once said both the East and the West of the Catholic Church will be stronger in certain areas than the other, having a superior “understanding” one could say of different things, and the East is most definetly more defined in terms of methods (ie breathing exercises, postures, modes, logismoi).
But Edwin what about the people here who have encountered this revelation and reject it.
Rinnie,
Exellent points Edwin
Although I don’t doubt Orthodox have thought and claimed as much in the past. One cannot forget that Eckhart’s followers of the Rhino-Flemish school of mysticism - Blessed Suso and Blessed Jan Van Ruysbroeck - were both beatified. The Franciscan mystic Angela of Foligno was also beatified, Catherine of Genoa was canonized and the Carmelite reform mystics John of the Cross and Teresa of Avila were canonized. Bernard of Clairvaux was made a Doctor of the Church, as were the former two Carmelites. Angelus Silesius’ mystical book of poetry the Cherubinic Wanderer was given the imprimatur and Nicholas of Cusa was made a Cardinal. Pope Gregory the Great, an early mystic, was of course the Pope!
It isn’t detachment in the sense of shedding, but in the sense of examining. It is like the difference between when a regular person gobbles down a gourmet meal and a food critic who objectively analyses what he tastes. The food critic isn’t abandoning his sense of taste, but rather adopting a more objective perspective.
To my knowledge only Zen Buddhism actually talks about “emptying the mind” and even then it is talking about emptying the mind of distractions.
You are confusing the Limbo of the Infants with the Limbo of the Fathers. The Limbo of the Fathers was the place was the holding place for the souls of the just who came prior to Jesus. The Limbo of the Infants was believed to be a part of hell, and therefore eternal.By the way Limbo was considered a tempory place or state of the souls of the just for goodness sakes.
It was a tempory State or place of happiness where the souls were awaiting until the redemption of Christ.
Were is it ever stated in the RCC that hell is a temporty state or place of the Just souls awaiting Christ. And where does Limbo, which is no longer needed because Christ came and released those souls from Limbo, have to do with Hell which is total rejection of God?
Now how can you say the Souls in Limbo had natural happiness without Christ when they were all Justified and accepted Christ and were waiting to meet him face to face.
You said you can have natural happiness without Christ. If the souls in Limbo believed that then first of all, if they rejected Christ, they would not be there, and second if they believed that could enjoy eternal life without him, why were they so excited waiting for him to come?
Hell is not a tempory place, Hell is forever. You reject Christ and can never be with him. Why would God send righteous souls, such as Abraham, etc to hell when they lived their life to glorify him?
Again this is direct conflict again with Catholic teaching.
It was never taught that Limbo was a State where People rejected God and had natural happiness without him. Limbo once again is where the souls that ACCEPTED God and were Just awaited the Redemption of Christ so they could be released from Original sin and enter heaven. They were waiting for Christ to open heaven, not living in natural happpiness rejecting him.
As far as unbaptised babies the Church has no official teaching on what becomes of them. We no longer believe in Limbo because Christ released those souls when he died on the cross and cleared it out.
We teach you must be Baptised to enter heaven, because God taught us that. We do not teach you can enter heaven because we are taught you must be. But we neither condemn anyone to hell, because no one knows the extend of the mercy of God.
So please show me where it is taught that Limbo was hell, and where people in limbo were completely happy without God.
It is a Mahayana only sort of concept I would say. It is actually an interesting question about the term luminous mind. It is mentioned in the scriptures in four places in book I of the Anguttara Nikaya. They read:Is it only Mahayana Buddhism that has a concept of Buddha Nature? Is luminous mind a Therevada parallel?
Thank you my brother and sister Buddhists
