Mystics and doctrine?

[Linusthe2nd]

Thank you for your helpful response. I had thought about some of these points but the idea of over complication through theology and philosophy hadn’t occurred to me. It is something Protestant Evangelicals sometimes object to in Catholicism saying we have made a simple message unnecessarily complicated. This might be worth writing about in its own right I’m glad you brought it up

Catholics should not be involved in Eastern mysticism, it is actually related to occult practices. The idea of contemplation is not to empty your mind of content, it is to connect with God. I don’t know who you connect with when you empty your mind, but it isn’t God. Check it out on some Catholic sites like the archives on C.A. radio or EWTN archives.

There is no short cut to spritual perfection ( if there really is such a thing). Reaching the spiritual heights is not about making us feel good, it is about uniting our will to God’s more and more perfectly. This will not be achieved without hard work. Uniting our will to God’s requires actually living a holy life, works as well as prayer. True mystical union with God cannot be achieved withoug doing the actual work. Even the great desert mystics did actual works of charity. Mysticism should be a natural outgrowth of a true Catholic life. To seek it for its own sake is a guarantee of failure. Holiness first, mysticism as a natural outcome of that - if called to it. It is very much a calling.

Seek God first, peace of soul should be a natural outcome to that. But the kind of mysticism lived by the Church’s great mystics was not sought for its own sake.

You become a Saint by doing God’s work in the calling God has given you. And for most of us, that does not mean being another St. Theresa of Avila or another Little Flower. These people became great mystics because they became who God called them to be. But even so, that type of Spiritual Union is a very special call, it is not for all. However, Sanctity is what we are all called to. Do you see the distinction?

Linus2nd

 

[catholicscot]

Catholics should not be involved in Eastern mysticism, it is actually related to occult practices. The idea of contemplation is not to empty your mind of content, it is to connect with God. I don’t know who you connect with when you empty your mind, but it isn’t God. Check it out on some Catholic sites like the archives on C.A. radio or EWTN archives.

There is no short cut to spritual perfection ( if there really is such a thing). Reaching the spiritual heights is not about making us feel good, it is about uniting our will to God’s more and more perfectly. This will not be achieved without hard work. Uniting our will to God’s requires actually living a holy life, works as well as prayer. True mystical union with God cannot be achieved withoug doing the actual work. Even the great desert mystics did actual works of charity. Mysticism should be a natural outgrowth of a true Catholic life. To seek it for its own sake is a guarantee of failure. Holiness first, mysticism as a natural outcome of that - if called to it. It is very much a calling.

Seek God first, peace of soul should be a natural outcome to that. But the kind of mysticism lived by the Church’s great mystics was not sought for its own sake.

You become a Saint by doing God’s work in the calling God has given you. And for most of us, that does not mean being another St. Theresa of Avila or another Little Flower. These people became great mystics because they became who God called them to be. But even so, that type of Spiritual Union is a very special call, it is not for all. However, Sanctity is what we are all called to. Do you see the distinction?

Linus2nd

I see the distinction but I don’t see why you are telling me about it.

 

[frobert]

Catholics should not be involved in Eastern mysticism, it is actually related to occult practices. The idea of contemplation is not to empty your mind of content, it is to connect with God. I don’t know who you connect with when you empty your mind, but it isn’t God. Check it out on some Catholic sites like the archives on C.A. radio or EWTN archives.
Linus2nd

I would agree except for the fact that the church offers little in the way of teachers. For example who does one turn to if their contemplation leads to a dark knight of the soul as experienced by Mother Teresa and many other mystics. What I am getting at is those of us with a mystic disposition have little can expect little guidance from the CC.

 

[ZenFred]

CatholicScot,

Sorry about assuming about your name. Thoughts/expectations don’t equal reality

Iconoclast? Zen teaches really that the direct experience of enlightenment is the final authority. It is mixed with anti-intellectualism as well. So even a teacher/zen master should not be allowed to hinder your enlightenment but are merely companions and guides on the way. We often talk about you could read all the sutras, chant all day long, have the best teacher, and it means nothing. Zen does an excellent job of saying “God is not this”

I really enjoyed your blog, at least the two articles about eastern religion that I’ve read. I am opposed to mix and match eastern religion and discarding of the cultural context as much as you. If you just read eastern texts as you would chicken soup for the soul, you gain nothing. If you think your western culture and “superior” understandings then you forfeit vast treasures of wisdom, there is a reason behind these traditions. Watering down eastern religion and doing it a la carte is pointless. Kierkegaard talks about the dangers of a superficial religious practice as taking the wrong medicine for constapation.

Your perspective of the gifts of inner calm and mystical treasures available in the church helped me relook at why I practice Zen. It is more than just a preference of style as I described earlier. The dharma (teaching) of Buddhism offers profound liberation in the present from the suffering of mind and my practice are the tools to achieve it. This freedom from suffering is not a mystical experience but a discipline. Christianity contains parralell teachings but without using a Buddhist lens would I ever have found it? I don’t know, perhaps you guys could respond to that.

I don’t think being “christain” and “buddhist” is mixing religion. If my Zen practice is one of seeking the truth and mastery of myself then it is really one path, not two. I am not less “buddhist” in any way because there is no Buddhism, it is an illusion and attachment.

I just want to say if I haven’t already, I am very greatful to all of you here. I know some of you may disagree but I know we serve the same Lord and have the same fundamental faith. I feel deeply comforted that there is still a place for me and that our God is truly compassionate and glorious beyond our comprehension.

 

[Granum_Frumenti]

What more would you like to hear on mysticism? I think a thread like this can increase our knowledge and help those of us inclined to a mystical path.

What I wrote directly refers to that other thread (which did continue since I last posted) but can also indirectly refer to this thread as well.

My particular interest is in a discussion of the subjects of mystics’ use of language and misunderstandings thereof.

Some years ago, I seem to have come across a number of people who believed that Meister Eckhart was "heretical’ or “heterodox”–whether the terms were to them a sign of reproach or a badge of honor.

(I really don’t remember any specific examples of such people on either side, but I have my impressions. Maybe a good number of discussions centered on his lines about “the eye with which I see God.” So a caricature of these sides may go like this: one side would say, “oh, no, this is the writing of a ‘Christian’ pantheist,” and the other would say, “yay, this is the writing of a Christian pantheist.”)

I never believed either of those sides. For example, what I found from my scanty research at the time didn’t align with this idea of an “obviously heterodox” figure.

In the intervening years, though, I hadn’t really thought about Meister Eckhart and therefore haven’t been looking deeper into other perspectives. The recent discussion around here may be helpful in clarifying our understanding of such mystics.

 

[Vouthon]

My particular interest is in a discussion of the subjects of mystics’ use of language and misunderstandings thereof…The recent discussion around here may be helpful in clarifying our understanding of such mystics.

A good mystic for you to consider, given your specified interest, may then be St. Catherine of Genoa.

The transcriptions of her talks, often simply called her “writings”, are very highly thought of by the church at large. Benedict XIV, tells us, in his work on the Beatification and Canonization of Saints, that the works of St Catherine of Genoa were examined and approved by the theologians of Paris: intending, no doubt, the examination by the Sorbonne in 1666, by direction of the Archbishop of Paris; and again by the Sacred congregation in the cause of her canonization.Catherine’s writings were subsequently examined by the Holy Office and pronounced to contain doctrine that would be enough, in itself, to prove her sanctity.

She was therefore, interestingly so, canonised primarily on the basis of her writings. The Holy Office and her bull of canonization declared that there was nothing contrary to faith in her writings.

Why is this of interest?

Mainly due to the fact that Catherine actually surpassed Eckhart in the degree to which her recorded mystical experiences seemingly stretched the bonds of logical orthodoxy. On the face of it, these “doctrinally approved” works of literature express a very high “auto-theism”.

Consider this:

“…The pure and clear love can desire nothing of God, however good it may be, that could be called participation, for it wants God himself…I will not be content until I am locked and enclosed within that divine heart in which all created forms lose themselves and, so lost, remain divine…My I is God, and I know of no other I than this my God…In this way God so transforms the soul into Himself, its God, that it sees nothing but God…The more the soul is purified, so much the more it annihilates self till at last it becomes quire pure and rests in God…Thus purified the soul rests in God without any alloy of self; our very being is God…Everything that has being has it from God’s highest essence through participation; but the pure and clear love cannot be content with seeing that it has acquired God through participation, nor with his being in it as a creature…My being is God, not through participation, but through true transformation and through annihilation of my own being…So in God is my me, my I, my strength, my bliss, my desire. But this ‘I’ that I often call so - I do it because I cannot speak otherwise, but in truth I no longer know what the I is, or the Mine, or desire, or good, or bliss. I can no longer turn my eyes on anything, wherever it be, in heaven or on earth…I do not want a love that would be for or in God. I cannot bear to see this word for, this word in, for to me they indicate a thing that would be between me and God…Faith seems to me wholly lost…for it seems to me that I have and hold in certainty that which I believed and hoped in former times. I no longer see union, for I know nothing more and can see nothing more than Him alone without me. I do not know where the I is, nor do I seek it, nor do I wish to know or be cognizant of it. I am so plunged and submerged in the source of his infinite love, as if I were quite under water in the sea and could not touch, see, feel anything on any side except water…Everything to do with self passes away. It [the soul] neither sees, speaks, nor knows loss or pain of its own…God became man in order to make me God; therefore I want to be changed completely into pure God…”

***- Saint Catherine of Genoa (1447-1510), Italian Catholic mystic ***

For some reason, the church authorities never considered these words to be in any way incendiary or controversial in the context of her mystical experiences. These kinds of statements are quite common in the field of Catholic mysticism, when the mystic speaks from the perspective of the experience itself rather than in an objective, critically theological sense (or “technical accuracy”). This is why Eckhart and his followers were so shocked when he was tried for heresy and most scholars to this day consider the whole debacle to have been politically motivated, in that Eckhart preached his Sermons in the vernacular, rather than Latin, and was seen as a kind of advocate for the “serfs”.

Had a non-mystic simply said off the cuff, however, any of these statements by St. Catherine such as, “My I is God”, then he or she surely would have been brought before a heresy tribunal or investigated for insanity.

No one, however, has ever questioned St. Catherine’s orthodoxy nor declared her to be in any way controversial, which demonstrates the kinds of accommodations made for mystics in the Catholic Church owing to the theological recognition of the profundity, ineffability and transcendental nature of their communion with God, as well as the patristic doctrine of divinization which endorses the idea of “God became man that man might (by grace) become god”.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . Had a non-mystic simply said off the cuff, however, any of these statements by St. Catherine such as, “My I is God”, then he or she surely would have been brought before a heresy tribunal or investigated for insanity.

No one, however, has ever questioned St. Catherine’s orthodoxy nor declared her to be in any way controversial, which demonstrates the kinds of accommodations made for mystics in the Catholic Church owing to the theological recognition of the profundity, ineffability and transcendental nature of their communion with God, as well as the patristic doctrine of divinization which endorses the idea of “God became man that man might (by grace) become god”.

:twocents: “My I is God” suggests that what was “I”, has been replaced by “God”. Not my will, but thy will be done. One’s self “evaporates” in the face of the ultimate Reality. It does not mean I=God.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Thank you for your helpful response. I had thought about some of these points but the idea of over complication through theology and philosophy hadn’t occurred to me. It is something Protestant Evangelicals sometimes object to in Catholicism saying we have made a simple message unnecessarily complicated. This might be worth writing about in its own right I’m glad you brought it up

Originally Posted by catholicscot
. . . I’m currently writing a little series of blogs on the attractions that Eastern spirituality has for Westerners. . .

I apologize if I jumped to conclusions. Many Catholics don’t recognize the dangers and get ropped in.

Linus2nd

 

[hazcompat]

Prayer begins in heaven! This reality is most profound when I see my enemy pray. (not you zen). The Holy Spirit is incessant. Jesus perfects our prayer. We are all a work in progress. Through Him, with Him, and in Him. In the unity of the Holy Spirit. All glory and honor is Yours, Almighty Father, forever and ever! Amen

Peace

 

[catholicscot]

CatholicScot,

Sorry about assuming about your name. Thoughts/expectations don’t equal reality

Iconoclast? Zen teaches really that the direct experience of enlightenment is the final authority. It is mixed with anti-intellectualism as well. So even a teacher/zen master should not be allowed to hinder your enlightenment but are merely companions and guides on the way. We often talk about you could read all the sutras, chant all day long, have the best teacher, and it means nothing. Zen does an excellent job of saying “God is not this”

I really enjoyed your blog, at least the two articles about eastern religion that I’ve read. I am opposed to mix and match eastern religion and discarding of the cultural context as much as you. If you just read eastern texts as you would chicken soup for the soul, you gain nothing. If you think your western culture and “superior” understandings then you forfeit vast treasures of wisdom, there is a reason behind these traditions. Watering down eastern religion and doing it a la carte is pointless. Kierkegaard talks about the dangers of a superficial religious practice as taking the wrong medicine for constapation.

Your perspective of the gifts of inner calm and mystical treasures available in the church helped me relook at why I practice Zen. It is more than just a preference of style as I described earlier. The dharma (teaching) of Buddhism offers profound liberation in the present from the suffering of mind and my practice are the tools to achieve it. This freedom from suffering is not a mystical experience but a discipline. Christianity contains parralell teachings but without using a Buddhist lens would I ever have found it? I don’t know, perhaps you guys could respond to that.

I don’t think being “christain” and “buddhist” is mixing religion. If my Zen practice is one of seeking the truth and mastery of myself then it is really one path, not two. I am not less “buddhist” in any way because there is no Buddhism, it is an illusion and attachment.

I just want to say if I haven’t already, I am very greatful to all of you here. I know some of you may disagree but I know we serve the same Lord and have the same fundamental faith. I feel deeply comforted that there is still a place for me and that our God is truly compassionate and glorious beyond our comprehension.

Thank you for your thoughtful response. Have you read anything by the French philosopher Simone Weil? She stumbled upon the Christian mystical tradition almost by accident and wondered why it was buried so deep within Christianity. Like you she found the techniques suggested by some Eastern traditions helpful but had no difficulty in affirming that she accepted all the truths of faith proposed for belief by the Catholic Church. She never though joined the Church for a number of reasons which she outlined in her most famous work Waiting on God. Some of these obstacles were subsequently removed by the Second Vatican Council or at any rate, to be more precise, Catholic doctrine was re-nuanced to make more explicit things which had only been implicit before. She died in the 1940’s but her ideas are said to have influenced both Pope John XXIII and Pope John Paul II.

I am always suspicious of anti-intellectualism. I think that what you are describing is an approach that says that the discursive mind is a hindrance to the encounter with ultimate truth which is probably true. But in order to try to understand what that encounter is and why we should desire it intellectual arguments can play a part.

 

[hazcompat]

Prior to this Blessed John makes a doctrinal statement…

“Now understand, you who would live in the spirit, for I am speaking to no one else. The union with God which a spiritual man feels, when the union is revealed to the spirit as being abysmal—that is, measureless depth, measureless height, measureless length and measureless breadth—in this manifestation the spirit perceives that through love it has plunged itself into the depth and has ascended into the height and escaped into the length; and it feels itself to be wandering in the breadth, and to dwell in a knowledge which is ignorance. And through this intimate feeling of union, it feels itself to be melting into the Unity; and, through dying to all things, into the life of God. And there it feels itself to be one life with God. And this is the foundation, and the first point, of the God-seeing life.”

Blessed John Ruysbroeck
The Sparkling Stone

Peace

 

[catholicscot]

A good mystic for you to consider, given your specified interest, may then be St. Catherine of Genoa.

The transcriptions of her talks, often simply called her “writings”, are very highly thought of by the church at large. Benedict XIV, tells us, in his work on the Beatification and Canonization of Saints, that the works of St Catherine of Genoa were examined and approved by the theologians of Paris: intending, no doubt, the examination by the Sorbonne in 1666, by direction of the Archbishop of Paris; and again by the Sacred congregation in the cause of her canonization.Catherine’s writings were subsequently examined by the Holy Office and pronounced to contain doctrine that would be enough, in itself, to prove her sanctity.

She was therefore, interestingly so, canonised primarily on the basis of her writings. The Holy Office and her bull of canonization declared that there was nothing contrary to faith in her writings.

Why is this of interest?

Mainly due to the fact that Catherine actually surpassed Eckhart in the degree to which her recorded mystical experiences seemingly stretched the bonds of logical orthodoxy. On the face of it, these “doctrinally approved” works of literature express a very high “auto-theism”.

Consider this:

For some reason, the church authorities never considered these words to be in any way incendiary or controversial in the context of her mystical experiences. These kinds of statements are quite common in the field of Catholic mysticism, when the mystic speaks from the perspective of the experience itself rather than in an objective, critically theological sense (or “technical accuracy”). This is why Eckhart and his followers were so shocked when he was tried for heresy and most scholars to this day consider the whole debacle to have been politically motivated, in that Eckhart preached his Sermons in the vernacular, rather than Latin, and was seen as a kind of advocate for the “serfs”.

Had a non-mystic simply said off the cuff, however, any of these statements by St. Catherine such as, “My I is God”, then he or she surely would have been brought before a heresy tribunal or investigated for insanity.

No one, however, has ever questioned St. Catherine’s orthodoxy nor declared her to be in any way controversial, which demonstrates the kinds of accommodations made for mystics in the Catholic Church owing to the theological recognition of the profundity, ineffability and transcendental nature of their communion with God, as well as the patristic doctrine of divinization which endorses the idea of “God became man that man might (by grace) become god”.

Where does your St Catherine quote come from? It is very similar to Sufi formulations which certainly got the Sufis into a lot of trouble.

 

[hazcompat]

Thank you for your thoughtful response. Have you read anything by the French philosopher Simone Weil? She stumbled upon the Christian mystical tradition almost by accident and wondered why it was buried so deep within Christianity. Like you she found the techniques suggested by some Eastern traditions helpful but had no difficulty in affirming that she accepted all the truths of faith proposed for belief by the Catholic Church. She never though joined the Church for a number of reasons which she outlined in her most famous work Waiting on God. Some of these obstacles were subsequently removed by the Second Vatican Council or at any rate, to be more precise, Catholic doctrine was re-nuanced to make more explicit things which had only been implicit before. She died in the 1940’s but her ideas are said to have influenced both Pope John XXIII and Pope John Paul II.

I am always suspicious of anti-intellectualism. I think that what you are describing is an approach that says that the discursive mind is a hindrance to the encounter with ultimate truth which is probably true. But in order to try to understand what that encounter is and why we should desire it intellectual arguments can play a part.

discursive prayer is our ABC’s. Essential to forming words.

Peace

 

[Vouthon]

Where does your St Catherine quote come from? It is very similar to Sufi formulations which certainly got the Sufis into a lot of trouble.

Hey

I extracted it from the “Life and Doctrine of Saint Catherine of Genoa”, I think in the “Spiritual Dialogue” section of it (which is one of her two main treatises):

ccel.org/browse/bookInfo?id=catherine_g/life

This is a compilation of the three main sources on her thought: her biography, the Dialogue and the Treatise on Purgatory.

Ursula King, a scholar of Christian Mysticism, noted regarded her:

In the early twentieth century, attention was drawn to Catherine’s remarkable mystical, mental, and at times almost pathological, experiences through the classic study by Baron Friedrich von Hügel, The Mystical Element in Religion as Studied in Saint Catherine of Genoa and Her Friends (1908). The last ten years of Catherine’s life were marked by violent interior emotions, mentioned in her works. It has been said that in many ways Catherine of Genoa is a “theologian of purgatory,” a purgatory that she herself experienced in a marriage she did not desire, in her care for plague victims, and also in her nervous illness. She also experienced purgatory spiritually as the soul’s realization of its own imperfections, in her search for salvation and purification. Influenced by Plato and Dionysius, the focus of her mysticism was, in spite of her eucharistic devotion, not so much Christ, but above all the infinite God. Her mysticism is primarily theocentric, not Christocentric. She speaks of the absorption into the totality of God as if immersed into an ocean: “I am so…submerged in His immense love, that I seem as though immersed in the sea, and nowhere able to touch, see or feel aught but water.” At the height of her mystical experiences she could exclaim: “My being is God, not by simple participation but by a true transformation of my being.”

- Ursula King, Christian Mystics: Their Lives and Legacies throughout the Ages (1998), p. 42

And another scholar said:

Some of the mo[st] daring statements [are] of another Catherine who has been canonized by the Church—Catherine of Genoa (1447-1510). Among the autotheistic sayings of this mystic are the following: “My me is God, nor do I recognize any other me except my God Himself,” and “My being is God, not by some simple participation but by a true transformation of my being.”

- James A. Wisemann, O.S.B. (1990), The Autotheistic sayings of the Mystics

 

[Vouthon]

I am always suspicious of anti-intellectualism. I think that what you are describing is an approach that says that the discursive mind is a hindrance to the encounter with ultimate truth which is probably true. But in order to try to understand what that encounter is and why we should desire it intellectual arguments can play a part.

Intellectualism is certainly necessary and a good, just consider the predominance of scholastic theology in the history of Catholicism. Some of the mystics, by no means the majority, where themselves what one would call rational intellectuals. They had the humility, nevertheless, to recognize that human knowledge has a limit and that knowledge per se cannot be a proximate means of union with God, since our discursive mind is a created entity whereas God is unfathomable in His divine uncreatedness. Mystics centre their awareness of God’s Presence in the heart, the holistic “centre” of the soul or person as Hebraic anthropology understood it. The mystic has experienced something that transcends human language. As a result he does not claim to have a higher knowledge than anyone else. His knowledge is more precisely a supreme *not-knowing *. Unlike most people he is aware that he doesn’t know the “what” that transcends all human categories because he has experienced it first hand, whereas others haven’t and they therefore are still convinced that their “opinions” and limited conceptions of that reality are the same thing as that reality itself.

A neat illustration of this is the story recorded about Abba Anthony the Great, the founder of Desert Monasticism in Roman Egypt:

“…One day some old men came to see Abba Anthony. In the midst of them was Abba Joseph. Wanting to test them, the old man suggested a text from the Scriptures, and, beginning with the youngest, he asked them what it meant. Each gave his opinion as he was able. But to each one the old man said, “You have not understood it”. Last of all he said to Abba Joseph, “How would you explain this saying?” and he replied, “I don’t know”. Then Abba Anthony said, “Indeed, Abba Joseph has found the way, for he has said: ‘I do not know’”…”

***- St. Anthony the Great (ca. 251–356), (17) ***

Another of our greatest medieval German mystics and a disciple of Meister Eckhart, notes:

“…You must give up human understanding if you want to reach the goal, because the truth is known by not knowing…No one can explain this to another just with words. One knows it by experiencing it…”

- Blessed Henry Suso (c. 1296-1366), German Catholic mystic & Dominican priest in "The Little Book of Truth"

Or as St. Catherine of Genoa said:

“…Faith seems to me wholly lost and hope dead; for it seems to me that I have and hold in certainty that which I believed and hoped in former times. I no longer see union, for I know nothing more and can see nothing more than Him alone without me. I do not know where the I is, nor do I seek it, nor do I wish to know or be cognizant of it. I am so plunged and submerged in the source of his infinite love, as if I were quite under water in the sea and could not touch, see, feel anything on any side except water…I see without eyes, and I hear without ears. I feel without feeling and taste without tasting. I know neither form nor measure; for without seeing I yet behold an operation so divine that the words I first used, perfection, purity, and the like, seem to me now mere lies in the presence of truth. . . . Nor can I any longer say, “My God, my all.” Everything is mine, for all that is God’s seem to be wholly mine. I am mute and lost in God…God so transforms the soul in Him that it knows nothing other than God; and He continues to draw it up into His fiery love until He restores it to that pure state from which it first issued…”

- Saint Catherine of Genoa (1447-1510), Italian Catholic mystic (Life, 50)

Mystical experiences are therefore most often viewed as “non-sensuous”, a foretaste of the Beatific Vision which the soul will enjoy in Paradise - a purely spiritual state.

 

[fhansen]

Mystical experiences are therefore most often viewed as “non-sensuous”, a foretaste of the Beatific Vision which the soul will enjoy in Paradise - a purely spiritual state.

The amazing thing about these non-sensuous experiences is that through them the recipients really do “see”, they really do “taste”, they really do know the object revealed directly, intuitively, experientially via an “intellectual vision” which they really are completely overwhelmed and enthralled by while the whole thing is yet totally ineffable by virtue of its being non-sensous.

 

[Vouthon]

The amazing thing about these non-sensuous experiences is that through them the recipients really do “see”, they really do “taste”, they really do know the object revealed directly, intuitively, experientially via an “intellectual vision” which they really are completely overwhelmed and enthralled by while the whole thing is yet totally ineffable by virtue of its being non-sensous.

This is an absolutely exquisite and sharp description! Thank you so much! A lucid description of something very difficult!

 

[catholicscot]

People might be interested to know that I have posted the third part of my blog on Western seekers after Eastern spirituality and how they miss out on the treasures of Christianity by looking so far from home.Enlightenment Too, Who Needs #Buddha 3?

Thanks to all those whose contributions to this thread helped me so much, you know who you are.

These mystic peaks, however, only qualify to be called enlightenment in the sense that the knowledge of the fact that we really know nothing is the fullest enlightenment that we can have. The idea of Union transcends the notion of satori. It is an entering into the Divine life and it’s entering into us. As conversion is relationship so Union is consummation. Technique plays a part in helping us reach this point but to be melted in the embrace of the beloved ultimately requires His initiative so humble love and hopeful patience are the greatest techniques we can deploy. And these are seldom highly desirable to the Western seeker.The Christian, however, might argue that with such a goal to aim for these virtues are a small price to pay.

 

[Vouthon]

People might be interested to know that I have posted the third part of my blog on Western seekers after Eastern spirituality and how they miss out on the treasures of Christianity by looking so far from home.Enlightenment Too, Who Needs #Buddha 3?

Thanks to all those whose contributions to this thread helped me so much, you know who you are.

BTW Did I tell you that I also am from Scotland? (I say UK because I am vehemently opposed to Scottish Nationalism and want to stress that Scot and Brit are not oppositional terms).

That was a splendid post my friend. I hope that many read it, since they would learn an awful lot from what you have to say.

I particularly like your conclusion:

These mystic peaks, however, only qualify to be called enlightenment in the sense that the knowledge of the fact that we really know nothing is the fullest enlightenment that we can have. The idea of Union transcends the notion of satori. It is an entering into the Divine life and it’s entering into us. As conversion is relationship so Union is consummation.

If I may quote another of our mystics to corroborate:

“…Believing that you are so smart
and understand it all
condemns you to ignore your ignorance
— this is the meaning of the Fall…”

***- Angelus Silesius (1624 – 1677), German Catholic mystic & poet ***

It is the antithesis of mysticism.

 

[Vouthon]

Another section of your blog post that appeals to me deeply:

The point being that the mystic is caught up into the mystery of God and the boundaries between self and God cease to exist. She has realised the oneness of creature with Creator, realisation meaning not an intellectual understanding but a whole person submerging in what is beyond all finite understanding

You have summed up and captured this perfectly catholicscot.

If I may quote from the “Life” of St. Catherine of Genoa for comparison:

catholicfirst.com/thefaith/catholicclassics/catherinegenoa/catherinegenoa2.html

She felt herself drawn with St. John, to rest on the bosom of her loving Lord, and there she discovered a sweeter way which contained in itself many secrets of the bounteous love which was consuming her, so that she was often beside herself; and in her intense eagerness, her hatred of self, and her deep contrition, she would lick the earth with her tongue, and so great was the wain of contrition, and the sweetness of love, that she knew not what she was doing; but she felt her heart lightened, occupied with unbounded, poignant grief, and the sweet ardor of love. Thus she remained for three years or more, melted with love and grief, and with the deep and burning flames that were consuming her heart.

  **Then she was drawn to the open wound in the side of the crucified Lord, and there she was allowed to see the Sacred heart of her Lord burning with the same flames with which her own was enkindled**; at the sight of this, her heart died within her, and her strength abandoned her. This impression remained for many years which were spent by her, in continual sighs, and burning flames, **so that her heart and soul were well nigh melted, and she was constrained to cry out: "I have no longer either soul or heart; but my soul and my heart are those of my Beloved;" and in him she was wholly absorbed and transformed.

  Finally, her sweet and loving Lord drew her to himself, and bestowed upon her a caress, by the power of which she was entirely immersed in that sweet Divinity to which she abandoned herself exteriorly, so that she exclaimed: "I live no longer, but Christ lives in me**." **She knew no longer whether her mere human acts were good or bad, but saw all things in God**.

**What I find remarkable about St. Catherine is that she was a married laywoman. She never became a nun nor even joined a third order as a tertiary like her husband later did. She is an example to all of us lay persons. **