Hi there Carole…good to catch up with you again.
De Mello is talking about seeing our relationships with honesty. His quite challenging words are a manner of immediately opening the ears of his ‘audience’. It is one manner of presentation amongst many to capture the interest of an audience.
Certainly de Mello is not calling all lunatics or mad ( see followng link:
[
5. Are We Talking About Psychology in this Spirituality Course](
http://www.geocities.com/~spiritwalk/demelloawareness.htm#psych & spirit)
Lunacy or madness, insanity, is labelled such because such are not living in the reality of matters. He is pointing out that though we are quite sane very often we do not see the reality of matters either. As an example a few years ago I was accused of theft and all of my friends bar one believed that accusation because the evidence looked pretty convicting. I was entirely devestated to find that my friends had turned against me. The accusation was found to be entirely false and my name cleared. However I learnt something out of all that…we are just as ready to condemn as to praise.
Prior to the accusation, did I see the reality of matters that my friends could and would turn against me. No I did not. Did my friends see the reality about me that I I was not a thief, no they did not. Our perception of reality is not necessarily THE reality, the correct perception of actual realities.
In the second paragraph de Mello is challenging his listeners (it was actually a retreat transcribed given to religious sisters) to see the reality very often of their good or charitable acts, of who they really are and how they perceive themselves. That we do receive our reward: we feel good, we may feel holy etc. etc. Now this is all well and good, but he is challenging them to insight the truth or reality of matters, that they are actually getting their reward and getting it in the here and now.
Life is all perception and attitude, Carole, it could be said and in much of what I have read of de Mello (not all I repeat!) he simply is putting the concepts often of St. John and St. Teresa in contemporary terms. He oft quotes them as well as Scripture. You perceive matters differently to me. Anything that I lift out of common sense and of the teachings of The Church I would hold absolutely suspect.
But your perception and attitude together with your admonishment are different to mine. And hey that’s fine by me. Your coming from wherever you are coming and I also.
St. John and also St. Teresa remain to my mind without equal in insighting spiritual and often psychological realities and de Mello most often recognizes this nor does he contradict.
With any sort of religious writings I always look to see if there is an Imprimatur and if not, then I know that the work has not been approved by The Church and I know exactly where I am thus where a particular work is concerned. There is no obligation nowadays to read only reading with an Imprimatur. If I find one or two bad apples in my bowl of fruit and I then chuck out the hole bowl, even the healthy fruit it is clearly nonsensical. AS the Vatican proclomation on de Mello does state, I quote:
*
"His works, which almost always take the form of brief stories, contain some valid elements of oriental wisdom. These can be helpful in achieving self-mastery, in breaking the bonds and feelings that keep us from being free, and in approaching with serenity the various vicissitudes of life. "
If I find gold in a rubbish heap and chuck it away because it IS in a rubbish heap, I am clearly stupid! Gold as they say is wherever it is found.
I simply refuse to chuck out the whole bowl of fruit because a few pieces are bad or rotten…I pay this same common sense application to all matters. If I cannot see I am often partly right, partly wrong, I live in self deception and possibly pride that is blinding me to the reality of matters and this is the same for all.
*
Thank you for the concern for my soul.
I did notice smiling your opening sentence and possible implication including your entire Post.
…and hearkened to the words of de Mello in his opening paragarph "wily and subtle’. Now this is simply my conditional interpretation as is yours that he is sneering and taunting and an interesting perhaps projection. Thank you for the concern for my soul?
Thank you very much for the comments Carole, no publicity is bad publicity. My response is every bit as deliberate as yours. I was in fact wondering if you were still around since I have not contributed to CAF much lately at all and if you would come in, if you were around, on this thread.
Regards, Barb:wave: