Mad or mystic?.........Wake Up!..........

[BarbaraTherese]

Hi all…………………I have read the Posts since last night (7.38am here in Sth. Aust.) and I certainly am not familiar with Eastern Wisdom or Mysticism, only what I have read here and there.

Reen – Post #21]

The belief is that the “self” is merely a stream of

“experiences”…and that nothing can be pointed to

that constitutes a “self”, in reality. [Go with the flow!]

This concept, of course, is rejected in Christianity,

where we are to “transcend” self, by the grace of

God -not “deny” that a self exists.

I’m wondering Reen if to comment on ‘the self’ there needs to be common agreement about what exactly ‘the self’ is as a common concept for the purposes of discussion and then to determine through discussion whether it exists or not. Perhaps one definition has been established in other Posts which I have not yet read with sufficient care. Certainly in Catholic thought the self exists and I tend towards that it does from my own concept of what it is. I am neither versed in Eastern theology, and with Catholic theology I merely have a working knowledge and not at all well versed in theology; However, I do have an experience of ‘self’ in that I amount to a mixture of thoughts, desires and motivations etc. etc. I may also have a concept of who I am and I am not necessarily correct in this assessment. I may think that I am right on an issue including a description of who I am when I am not. Hence the false self is in charge. If my false self is in charge, then my thoughts etc. are merely a ‘puff of smoke’ because my concept of myself is entirely inaccurate to the reality. About all I can claim with real confidence is that I am a human being.

Mastery of self comes about through detachment from all the above. This is not at all not caring. Rather a freedom to act against all the above for a positive or negative reason, hopefully positive. If for example I am in the presence of a depressed person and I am full of joy………I have the freedom to detach myself from my joy and act with empathy, understanding and compassion and so on and so forth. Detachment is a function of interior freedom. Freedom also leads to serenity and peace.

Quoting Reen………Post #21

To realize that each phenomenon rises,

endures, and…passes away. A sense of

equanimity arises, as a result of this practice.

I agree with this comment Reen………….as St. Paul says “all things pass only God remains”. And it is my experience that all things do indeed pass. Nothing in life is stable and consistent except God or rather my concept of God since God cannot be known and is Absolute Mystery. Possibly my prime concept of God is that He is Absolute Loving Mercy and Understanding, Compassion. And yet there have been times when I have been totally unable to ‘sight’ this…………hence my concepts of God remain inconsistent and not stable, passing. They may return but nevertheless they passed and then returned.

In pure Faith however, such concepts do not pass – only sense perception or awareness of them. Pure or naked, dark Faith presents an alternative perception or awareness of God.

I will respond to other Posts where and if I can; however time and word count too are limiting me to the above. A very quick read of other Posts does indicate to me that discussion is moving out of my field of confident knowledge and that merely means I probably wont comment, but still intend to read with care all Posts.

Regards all, Barb

 

[BarbaraTherese]

I am aware I am moving outside of my arena of confident knowledge, but did find this definition in New Advent. It may be worth a read of the entire statement in new Advent, of which I quote here only a part. Others may be able to find a better definition. The below to me does indicate the existence of an “I” and also “Me” central to the person. For example if I say I am angry, it is ‘the me’ who is angry which seems to me to reside in the ego or ‘the me’. The “I” or that which perceives the anger does not change, since the anger can pass while the “I” remains. I’m breaking out into a sweat:whacky: here, knowing I am on unsure ground in that I am no philosopher or theologian. Treading where only a fool would venture and a telling statement!!!

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11727b.htm

A man’s personality is that of which he has cognizance under the concept of “self”. It is that entity, substantial, permanent, unitary, which is the subject of all the states and acts that constitute his complete life. An appeal to self-consciousness shows us that there is such a subject, of which thought, will, and feeling are modifications. It is substantial, i. e. not one or all of the changing states but the reality underlying them, for our self-consciousness testifies that, besides perceiving the thought, it has immediate perception in the same act of the subject to whom the thought belongs. Just as no motion can be apprehended without some sort of apprehension of the object moved, so the perception of thought carries with it perception of the thinker. The changing states are recognized as determinations of the “self”, and the very concept of a determination involves the presence of something determined, something not itself a determination, i. e. a substance. It is permanent, in that though one may say, “I am completely changed”, when referring to a former state, still one knows that the “I” in question is still the same numerically and essentially, though with certain superadded differences.

 

[reen12]

Hi, Barb,
quote: BarbaraTherese

A very quick read of other Posts does indicate to me that discussion is moving out of my field of confident knowledge and that merely means I probably wont comment, but still intend to read with care all Posts.

Since the first posts in this thread dealt with deMello - and
referrenced the Vatican’s use of the term ‘oriental wisdom’ -
I weighed in on part of what constitutes ‘oriental thought.’

I realize that many are more familiar and knowledgeable
in terms of the mystical tradition of the West. Having
offered some material on Eastern thought, I’m content. :tiphat:

Best wishes,

reen

 

[BarbaraTherese]

springbreeze:

Dear friends

A person might look at the Church as a box, there is everything within the box that makes the box a box. If someone expresses within the Church a theory or way of expression and thinking that is not acceptable to the box then the box is no longer a box but a box bent out of shape, distorted from the nature of what the box was and is.

Sometimes and only rarely sometimes does the bending of the box become a growth of the box and in that bending of the box it is stretched goes through a period of pain and alteration and becomes a wider, larger, deeper, richer box, but it always remains the box.

It is commendable to think outside of the box, to explore faith, but there is some pride and some arrogance in thinking outside of the box with a view to change the box rather than to enrich the box, if the box is changed it is no longer the box it was.

I’m sorry Teresa, but I have had to edit your Post in the interests of word count - Please go to Post #27 for Teresa’s Post in full.

God Bless you all in your searchings outside of the box, it is commendable, but becareful outside of the box, where faith is easily lost, that is simply my warning to those thinking outside of the box, the box is the safest place, protect your position within the box at all times, be prudent what you buy into as people so easily buy into things and follow all manner of thinkings and it isn’t always the safest thing often it is very dangerous, simply that is my warning, not to stop thinking outside of the box, but be careful whereabouts outside of that ‘box’ you go and listen to the prudence and wisdom of the Majesterium within and in charge of the box, they have successfully protected the ‘box’, the Church, the Faith since Christ Jesus’ Ascencion. The ‘box’ isn’t the enemy, nor is the voice that cautiously protects the ‘box’.

God Bless you and much love and peace to you

Teresa

Hi Teresa…good Post! If one professes Catholicism then one accepts the confines “of the box of Catholicism” which is what such a profession implies. Personally I dont think there is anything intrinsically wrong with thinking outside the box on the proviso that my conclusions are ‘within the box of Catholicism’ if I choose to remain Catholic in profession. If I decide to come to conclusions outside such a chosen box, then I am no longer truly Catholic as the box of Catholicism perceives itself at my point in time. I could be said that broadly speaking the box of Catholicism can be defined by the Creed and also Faith and Morals proclaimed by The Church. That marks the boundaries of the box.

St. Teresa and St. John, St. Therese are masters of the spiritual life without equal and often excellent insights into human nature as well or psychology of the human being. In other words they insighted reality. They were great mystics. The essay opening this thread was posing a question: “Do you see reality for what it is or how you would like it to be or imagine it to be?”

Nevertheless in the main I could appreciate your Post if not agree with it in full, and your image of ‘the box’. I tend towards that whether we can insight it or nay we all choose the boxes in which to be confined which are our concepts whatever they may be.

We all remain sinners it seems to me and affirmed by the words of Jesus and our Catholic theology and may not fulfill our ideals which does not invalidate the ideals, it does however ask that if I hold to such ideals, that insighting (providing I do) my departure, return. Having insighted that in myself, then I owe it to my fellow human beings…and this too is an ideal that I may well fail to meet. In this way I acknowledge my equality with all humanity, not assert a superiority. And I may even fail in that ideal.
It is most interesting that I think all saints who did write were at pains to stress their own state as sinners. They were not uttering pious platitudes but stating a reality which they clearly saw in themselves.

I’ve never doubted that with great ardour you desire to love and follow The Lord and do so, if I cannot agree with all your concepts.
Fortunately I think God in His Mercy will not judge us on our concepts if held with integrity and honesty…even if somewhat off target. This is not to state a person has a right as a Catholic to choose any concept. That is the box of Catholicism. Be that as it may The Church has the right to state heresy if a person is heretical to her doctrines. The option if you like of being a heretic is within the box of Catholicism if one does deny her doctrines. Heresy is a word for a personal concept held that is outside Catholic Doctrine whether held in integrity and honesty or not. It’s a fact of being Catholic. Personally I hope to live and die a faithful Catholic within the box if at times I may (unsure - no theologian! ) think outside the box.

Regards, Barb

 

[springbreeze]

Joysong:

How interesting that one might think that following the saintly Doctors’ writings could be an “attachment.” Then praise God - I have an attachment! :clapping:

Carole

Dear Carole

I had to laugh when I read the above quoted! If only this was my only attachment, if it was the going would be good.

God Bless you and much love and peace to you

Teresa

 

[springbreeze]

BarbaraTherese:

Personally I hope to live and die a faithful Catholic within the box if at times I may (unsure - no theologian! ) think outside the box.

Regards, Barb

Dear Barb

Hack away at my posts I can’t imagine for one minute that anyone would want to re-read them anyway .

The last part of your post really struck me. I have for some time now believed that it’s all in the intent and am convinced that if I make it to heaven I will see all different people of many different religions. But this doesn’t lessen the teachings of the Church, it is still the ‘golden city on the hill’ and the Bride of Christ. There is no danger in stating this, all are called as and when and we cannot fathom this in our lifetime.

I think the greatest offence to God is not to love Him and each other whatever our beliefs or ‘thinking’ is. Intertwined in the Revelation of God Himself in Catholicism is also man’s reaching out to God and man’s perceiving of God and I believe that God speaks to humanity in many ways, He has spoken in His fullest in Catholicism. I am smiling because a Jew will tell me God has spoken at His fullest in Judaism and a Muslim will say likewise in Islam and straight away there is conflict where there never should be because if the One God speaks, He speaks and if in the listening we perceive then we should always respect beliefs held by others, the end road of belief is to find God.

Like you say we are all within boxes, however there is the dilemma that some are ‘called’ to a box, that is what grace dictates, that there is no faith without grace and therefore no existing within the ‘box’ without God’s grace, without God’s calling. I can only say that if the intent is formed by grace within the ‘box’ then we must and should as our duty form the conscience so that our intent is pure, so that we are not drawn from the box and I don’t think anyone needs to be a theologian to not stray from the boundaries of the ‘box’, His word is written in our hearts if we are His ‘My sheep know My voice’. God also lives within the ‘box’; that implies that the box is infinite, that’s a big box, but it is a selective box, bound by God’s laws and not the laws of man, bound by God’s ways and not the ways of man, bound by God’s thinking and not the thinking of man and this is when we can come to a stage that the box seems restricting when infact the box is freedom, the box is immense, the box is infinite.

So considering that, for me there is enough within the box to meditate upon without looking outside of the box.

I enjoyed your reply Barb, thank you.

God Bless you and much love and peace to you

Teresa

 

[BarbaraTherese]

From Barb’s article: Good and evil are simply mental evaluations imposed upon reality.

Hi Carole. Good and evil are actually concepts that we impose on ourselves. In defining what is good and evil as my concepts of good and evil, I accept Catholic teaching…and still concepts imposed. Imposed on myself virtue of my right to religious freedom. Over and above that I do hold for myself that Catholic teaching on morality and an obligation of mine to hold to, makes good sense to me and over and above the fact that if I am to remain Catholic in the true sense of the world I hold to all the Church teaches and absolutely on Faith and Morals. All of these are religious concepts some of which I hold infallibly so because of The Church’s teaching on Infallibility and still a concept. A concept can either be true of false. Concepts either way.

The example from Barb’s story about the nun concludes with:

I dont think you stated what I concluded, hence I am repeating it here…

My story of the nun concludes that she believed a deception, which she did. The moral of de Mello’s tale of the nun is not so much that she accepted a deception as truth as that she was dependant on others’ opinion of her.

The theory of Quietism advocates that one come to a “state of indifference, so one may enjoy an imperturbable tranquility” - one must undergo a self annihilation, so that the thoughts and/or deeds of others will not affect the person interiorly.

This certainly is not the teachings of St. Teresa and John of the Cross. Quietism is a heresy condemned by the Church, and was prevalent in the time of both of these saints.

I am no quietist, Carole…I freely acknowledge the evil in me as my own while I try to remember to strive against it. I am certianly not indifferent to the evil in me rather very much quite to the contrary. If someone should call me mad for example, the anger rises up in my self if it does. This is not intrinsically evil until I decide to react with it, express it by thought and/or deed altho thought precedes the deed often, and with the intention of hurting the other in some way or ‘an eye for an eye’ philosophy- rather, I should “love my enemies” as Jesus asked. At times my shoulds and my thoughts or actions, conflict. I dont deny this, rather accept it and may well state it at times. Detachment from emotion and certainly anything contrary to Charity in the self does not at all mean an ‘unawareness of the evil in me and a repression of that awareness’ which is the essence of quietism I tend to think and a false even psychologically unhealthy denial of reality until the reality is repressed and that is psychologically and indeed spiritually unhealthy. I am then very prone to projecting onto others evils falsely and the evilnot in the other but repressed in me, which is the essence of psychological ‘projection’. Detachment does mean that I am interiorly free not to act on my emotions if I see a greater good by not reacting.

Barb, I realize you did not want our objections, but rather common agreement for what you found to be helpful. I see that you are defensive, and that is your right.

No Carole, you have judged me quite wrongly by concluding you knew my thoughts and an illogical presuming. I am quoting from my Post to Josephene on 7.12.05 in this thread:

I think the portion from “Awareness” that I did quote opening this thread or rather stated the link for was spiritually and doctrinally quite sound. Perhaps there was something in particular in that link that you disagreed with? We could hash it out and find out if we can find agreement?

I did not want agreement (in fact quite to the contrary), rather discussion on the subject of perception of reality. Certainly if I came across an ‘argument’ that made more sense to me than my own concepts, I would change my mind. I did make a comment on another discussion site that it fascinates me how I can think that something is helpful to me, when another cannot or does not see the subject as important as I may.
Other than that I have pointed out that I do not agree with all of de Mello, but I certainly do agree with his essay which started the thread and I was hoping in quoting the essay that we would discuss in this thread the essay itself. Interestingly as I insight that you may think there is a danger in misleading others in me, I insight the same in your concepts (while not calling into question your integrity which I do not doubt). Of course I defend my own position in discussion, while I remain hopeful I would not compromise logic, doctrine or common sense.
In places I have had to shorten what I quote from you in the interests of wordcount. Apologies.

Regards Carole, Barb

 

[springbreeze]

Dear friend

The person of evil is a reality and it is not a humanly perceived reality it is a reality in itself and his name is satan and the persons of good are the Holy Trinity and they are not a humanly perceived ‘good’ but actual persons of good besides being the Creator of all that exists. It is not a concept imposed, it is a reality.

We may say we percieve this and that to be good or evil, but it does not and never will detract from the truth of what is good and evil and beyond this it is dangerous ground to state a personal perception on evil or good when both have been revealed to us in Sacred Scripture and Catholic Tradition and which beliefs in God outside of Catholicism particpate in this Truth to their extent.

When humanity makes things this ‘relative’ which you outline in your post then the barriers for description of good and evil are blurred and it opens the floodgates for people to state goods as evil and evils as good ( we only have to look at abortion for this), this intellectualisation of human perceptions without looking to Divine Revelation is the beginning of the end and the ushering in of the end of the integrity of the humanity of Christ Jesus within all peoples.

The unformed human conscience is no barometer for the Truth.

God Bless you and much love and peace to you

Teresa

 

[Joysong]

Dear Barb,

I’m trying very hard to be patient, for I see that language is a real barrier in this thread, and how we perceive one another’s words. You read from my posts meanings that I do not intend for you personally. I have been commenting on de Mello’s theories which you posted for our comments. When I comment on them, you seem to take them personally.

In referring to Quietism, I was not in any way calling you a quietist, but stating what I perceive is a dangerous teaching on the part of de Mello. The same goes with the nun story, and the “good/evil” statement of his as being simply a mental reality. These are very anti-Catholic concepts in this priest’s writings.

If you post an article and invite comments on the same, why do you assume we are confronting you, rather than expressing our views on the material you provided? It could well become a point of division between us, when it was not meant to be, don’t you think? When Teresa and I gave warning, out of love for you, about what we perceived as real error and danger in what he wrote, I’m not sure you really took it as charitably as it was intended.

Our Holy Father spoke last evening about man’s error in the garden; i.e., that he wanted to learn, not what God had proposed as good or evil for him, but what he could discover on his own from the Tree in the garden that was forbidden to him, “the knowledge of good and evil.”

I suppose when I saw that statement from de Mello today after hearing the Holy Father, it really jumped out at me.

No Carole, you have judged me quite wrongly by concluding you knew my thoughts and an illogical presuming.

I judged you wrongly? You were not defensive in your lengthly response about finding gold in a trash barrel, etc.?

Regards,
Carole

 

[BarbaraTherese]

As the title of the thread goes, mad or mystic? I can only comment that when I read St. Teresa of Avila, the mystic, I can understand her. When I read the stuff in this thread, my head feels rather mad, for the concepts are way beyond a thinking person’s reason.

Hi Carole…I am jumping to a conclusion and not a wise move at all! that you conclude some of us are mad

for the concepts are way beyond a thinking person’s reason.

• and I thank you for that if I am correct, if not then I apologize …many great souls I am sure would find St. Teresa and the mystics very hard to read. Even St. Therese confessed that spiritual works gave her a headache, that they were not to her taste. If I dismiss as untrue something that I cannot understand nor insight, then I may be deceiving myself instead of admitting simply that something is outside my field of comprehension or whatever. Blessed Mary MacKillop admonished her nuns: “what you cannot understand, try at least to excuse”. I guess concluding madness is excusing!

Where my religious and spiritual concepts are concerned, I would hope I would never lift them out of the context (or box to quote Teresa) of Catholic Doctrine and common sense, nor indeed theological Catholic thought, which does include religious freedom.

I think I’ll stick with the mystics approved by the Church, rather than eastern writers that are not approved or canonized. Safety consists in following those writings whom the Church holds up as Doctors.

I have no argument for sure with the above! While nevertheless it is not my only reading matter for sure.

It’s analogous to going to a doctor who has a lawful license to practice “soul” medicine as opposed to one who reads a textbook and hopes to find some hidden gold that “might” be worth trying on the patient.

And then there is the position of the doctor who reads the textbook and is convinced it is gold. This is a position of integrity and a concept which may or may not be correct and any person interested in the truth of matters realizes this. Certainly a licensed practitioner who is willing to try something from the textbook on a patient without the conviction that the textbook is correct is compromising his/her integrity. Sometimes textbooks are absolutely correct and quite silly to dismiss a textbook because it is a textbook.

How interesting that one might think that following the saintly Doctors’ writings could be an “attachment.” Then praise God - I have an attachment! :clapping:

Me too!Praise and gratitude! …and a liking for the writings of the saints and also the Doctors of The Church often found in the Office of Readings within the context of The Divine Office (and a prayer) as well as other places. Mine is an absolute attachment not in inverted commas. Detachment in spiritual truth is not the absolute absence of all attachments, which is I tend to think, Quietism. Yet one of our saints did state that if we are at Prayer and Charity calls, then let Charity be our prayer. We don’t seem to be able to agree on a lot of things perhaps Carole…but I do not doubt for one moment your integrity and never have.

Regards Carole …Barb

 

[Catherine_Grant]

WARNING:

If the charity level of this thread does not improve immediately, this thread will be closed.

 

[BarbaraTherese]

WARNING:

If the charity level of this thread does not improve immediately, this thread will be closed.

Thanks Catherine and noted…and wherever I have fallen and erred against Charity, which I have in places. I really do sincerely apologize. I dont think this means not to discuss concepts, just to be aware and quite personally so that I do not have any form of uncharitableness towards another person in mind…rather simply a disagreement about concepts or ideas. That is discussing or debating an issue.

And I know you will correct me Catherine if I am again in the wrong.

Barb

 

[Joysong]

Dear Barb,

I think you were composing when my last post finished, so I doubt you saw it at the time of your writing. But here again, is another example of what I meant:

Hi Carole…I am jumping to a conclusion and not a wise move at all! that you conclude some of us are mad.

Not at all, and I should not even have to defend this, except that not to do so, would leave you with a wrong conclusion. My point was that when I read all this eastern jargon with concepts that Reen posted, and the like, it is so foreign to me that I consider it a mad exercise in my pea brain. I cannot grasp it whatsoever! St. Teresa at least wrote in layman’s english for the Catholic world, not eastern mysticism, so she was far easier for me to understand.

Another example of jumping to conclusions, now that I remember it, was when I made a very simple statement about the sign of the Holy Spirit being joy … and then you went off as though I directed it to you. It was just a general statement, again referring to the depressing tone of de Mello’s writings, which I stated clearly from the beginning.

I hope you are not always this introspective, for it will hinder true communication and friendship if you read way too much into another person’s statements.

Kind regards,
Carole

 

[Catherine_Grant]

That was NOT an increase in the charity level. This thread is now closed.