Natural Law and Mystical Experiance

[Soulewolf]

I’ve been doing some thinking (uh-oh lol), and came to a question about Natural law.

It is apparent through the existence of enlightened beings that the human body is biologically set up to achieve enlightenment. If this is true, what does Natural law say about the morality of not living life to achieve a paradigm of pure understanding?

 

[Soulewolf]

PS:

Through the catholic paradigm of course. Though points of view through different belief systems would also be appreciated.

 

[reggieM]

We do have a moral responsibiliity to develop our spiritual life as best we can. Whether this results in what you’d call “enlightenment” or not is a different matter.

We are designed for mystical union with God. The extent of our awareness of this union is conditioned by many things out of our control. But we do have a responsiblity to live “the supernatural life”. This is the life of faith – so we look to God, rather than put our trust in “the flesh” or material nature.

That is the life of resurrection – rising above the physical to the mystical.

The natural law does point us to that mystical union. Our mind can accept (to some extent more or less of a glimpse) the infinity of God, and God’s love.

Our desires are what brings us to the mystical union – or we could say “enlightenment”.

We defintely are all required to perfect our desires – turning away from sinful desires and – through prayer, increasing desire for God.

 

[Soulewolf]

another question then i guess.

If natural law points to the idea of spiritual “enlightenment”, would it then not make sense to look at the subject of the Divine through a variety of different belief systems to better understand that which people call “divinity” and the nature of spirituality?

 

[reggieM]

another question then i guess.

If natural law points to the idea of spiritual “enlightenment”, would it then not make sense to look at the subject of the Divine through a variety of different belief systems to better understand that which people call “divinity” and the nature of spirituality?

I guess it depends on where you’re starting from. In order to fully learn about a belief system, you have to practice, or do that system and become proficient. That’s how we travel along the path of mysticism - through knowledge and spiritual practice. In the Catholic system, it’s through prayer and contemplation of God.

I think the danger in exploring many systems is that you can never fully engage the practice. It leaves you forever researching and never fully living-the-life.

But if you’re asking about how to get started – then I think you’re right that you have to look at various systems, and eventually choose one to follow.

Where do you see yourself in that journey?

In other words, what would be your alternative to searching several sprititual systems?

 

[scottm]

another question then i guess.

If natural law points to the idea of spiritual “enlightenment”, would it then not make sense to look at the subject of the Divine through a variety of different belief systems to better understand that which people call “divinity” and the nature of spirituality?

I would say “yes, but —”. Yes this is good to do, and should be done, but only after grounding yourself in one tradition first. I truly believe that being a “jack of all trades and master of none” produces little if any spiritual maturity. Pick one path to God, and stay with it until it’s a part of you. Then expand, yes.

I also believe in only picking paths whose founders were demonstrably enlightened by God. I have that rule for the obvious reason that I don’t want to chase fiction. Religion is not a game to me.

 

[Soulewolf]

I guess it depends on where you’re starting from. In order to fully learn about a belief system, you have to practice, or do that system and become proficient. That’s how we travel along the path of mysticism - through knowledge and spiritual practice. In the Catholic system, it’s through prayer and contemplation of God.

I think the danger in exploring many systems is that you can never fully engage the practice. It leaves you forever researching and never fully living-the-life.

But if you’re asking about how to get started – then I think you’re right that you have to look at various systems, and eventually choose one to follow.

Where do you see yourself in that journey?

In other words, what would be your alternative to searching several sprititual systems?

Interesting answers. definitely some food for thought.

Myself in this journey? Heh rather blessed honestly. I’ve experienced things that very few have experienced. I’m able to look at the world in new and more fulfilling ways. Better myself a little more every day, and look at the world through a viewpoint of love instead of fear.

My alternative? probably Buddhism. But my first choice will always be comparing religions and finding the links. Meditation and truly knowing yourself, and experiencing new and different paradigms.

hmm well let me put it this way. When i ask most christians i have asked this question to; why they believe blank moral philosophy upheld in the bible is right or wrong, the usual response is “because it is gods law” or something along those lines. Personally, an answer along the lines of “because it helps me cultivate a deeper relationship and understanding with God” would be a bit more understandable to me.

That is, the bible isnt an end in itself, which so many academics seem to get lost in the idea of. It is a tool towards spiritual “enlightenment”. Honestly i’m bored of people who quote bible verses all day long without much explanation as to the necessity of that specific verse in the overall relationship with Divinity or even how that specific idea helps them towards being the person they want to be.

In this sense, Buddhism in my oppinion has the upper hand as the philosophy is understood as a means and not an end in itself much like how more mainstream judeo christian sects interpret their own Scripture.

sorry for the rant. >.<

 

[scottm]

Actually, Soulewolf, you and I are on the same wavelength, and that’s almost scary because you’re only the 3rd such person I’ve met.

I agree with you about Buddhism having an upper hand in that area. It is precisely for that reason that I like it too (specifically Theravada). I can never take refuge in the Buddhist sangha (community, church) because that would require me to leave the Christian sangha, and that’s the same as leaving God, and therefore it cannot be done. I would hope you never leave it either, for that same reason. But, I see no conflict whatsoever in a Christian remaining a Christian while taking refuge in the other two Jewels. At the level of spirituality that you’re talking about, that is. That underlined part, that qualification, makes all the difference. I would never suggest it for anyone below the level of spirituality that you’re talking about. It’s not appropriate.

 

[Soulewolf]

Actually, Soulewolf, you and I are on the same wavelength, and that’s almost scary because you’re only the 3rd such person I’ve met.

I agree with you about Buddhism having an upper hand in that area. It is precisely for that reason that I like it too (specifically Theravada). I can never take refuge in the Buddhist sangha (community, church) because that would require me to leave the Christian sangha, and that’s the same as leaving God, and therefore it cannot be done. I would hope you never leave it either, for that same reason. But, I see no conflict whatsoever in a Christian remaining a Christian while taking refuge in the other two Jewels. At the level of spirituality that you’re talking about, that is. That underlined part, that qualification, makes all the difference. I would never suggest it for anyone below the level of spirituality that you’re talking about. It’s not appropriate.

shrugs a bit well i’m not christian (i am in many senses, though i do not call myself such) and i personally would not equate that to leaving god, just looking at your relationship with him through a different paradigm. Though it might be thought of that way through a christian paradigm i guess. shrugs again

The idea of “levels of spirituality” is new to me. would you mind going more into depth?

 

[scottm]

shrugs a bit well i’m not christian (i am in many senses, though i do not call myself such) and i personally would not equate that to leaving god, just looking at your relationship with him through a different paradigm. Though it might be thought of that way through a christian paradigm i guess. shrugs again

Oh I could visit other churches, for sure, and in fact I do from time to time. (There’s an Islamic center nearby that I like to visit on Fridays.) But to exclusively attend a non-Christian church, or to seek membership in a non-Christian church/mosque/whatever, would necessarily be in effect to forsake the Christian refuge. That’s what I’m saying can’t be done.

Monks don’t go hopping between Orders either. Same idea to me.

The idea of “levels of spirituality” is new to me. would you mind going more into depth?

The only context I have for it is Ken Wilber’s explanation. You’ll find it in A Brief History of Everything and Integral Spirituality, both. My friend’s one-page summary to me is in this post

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6942508&postcount=2

To my ears you’re talking about the green level.

So you don’t call yourself Christian. Well, what do you call yourself?

 

[Soulewolf]

Oh I could visit other churches, for sure, and in fact I do from time to time. (There’s an Islamic center nearby that I like to visit on Fridays.) But to exclusively attend a non-Christian church, or to seek membership in a non-Christian church/mosque/whatever, would necessarily be in effect to forsake the Christian refuge. That’s what I’m saying can’t be done.

Monks don’t go hopping between Orders either. Same idea to me.

The only context I have for it is Ken Wilber’s explanation. You’ll find it in A Brief History of Everything and Integral Spirituality, both. My friend’s one-page summary to me is in this post

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6942508&postcount=2

To my ears you’re talking about the green level.

So you don’t call yourself Christian. Well, what do you call yourself?

i call myself a completionist. Though if that doesnt work for you, i’d have to say Shamanistic.

As to the levels, unfortunately i will have to disagree.

I believe exposure from the green and teal levels (and beyond) would greatly help those in the lower spiritual evolution to achieve a greater peace and understanding within their own paradigms.

 

[scottm]

As to the levels, unfortunately i will have to disagree.

I believe exposure from the green and teal levels (and beyond) would greatly help those in the lower spiritual evolution to achieve a greater peace and understanding within their own paradigms.

It probably wouldn’t. Every person has to travel through the levels from the bottom up. There is no skipping. A Red person can only rise to Blue, and at those levels there is no compromising with other religions or even with other denominations within one’s religion. A Red person cannot comprehend Green or Teal words. It’s not a question of desire or intelligence. It’s a question of ability. He is not able to do it. The very words don’t register in the brain. A Blue person can only rise to Orange where everyone outside one’s composite religion is flat out wrong. That is, an Orange Baptist would accept a Methodist but not a Moslem. Any words to the contrary will be static in the Orange person’s ears. He cannot understand the Green or Teal message.

People usually need several years at a given level before they’re ready to jump to the next one.

If you find a mature Orange person, a person almost ready to jump to Green, then sure, exposure to Green and/or Teal would be helpful. Likewise if you find a mature Green person then exposure to Teal would definitely be helpful.

 

[Soulewolf]

It probably wouldn’t. Every person has to travel through the levels from the bottom up. There is no skipping. A Red person can only rise to Blue, and at those levels there is no compromising with other religions or even with other denominations within one’s religion. A Red person cannot comprehend Green or Teal words. It’s not a question of desire or intelligence. It’s a question of ability. He is not able to do it. The very words don’t register in the brain. A Blue person can only rise to Orange where everyone outside one’s composite religion is flat out wrong. That is, an Orange Baptist would accept a Methodist but not a Moslem. Any words to the contrary will be static in the Orange person’s ears. He cannot understand the Green or Teal message.

People usually need several years at a given level before they’re ready to jump to the next one.

If you find a mature Orange person, a person almost ready to jump to Green, then sure, exposure to Green and/or Teal would be helpful. Likewise if you find a mature Green person then exposure to Teal would definitely be helpful.

You could be right. This was not my experience with spirituality. I’ve kinda always been “green/teal”.

Would you say that within a culture, this kind of expansion of knowledge on religious principles should be encouraged?

 

[reggieM]

Excellent discussion, Soulewolf. I appreciate your insights.
scottm – I didn’t read about the color assignments yet so I hope I don’t repeat or conflict with that with my own opinions (I’ll try to absorb it later).

I mentioned earlier that Catholic mysticism is prayer and contemplation, but I left out two (or one if you combine them) aspects:

1. The “active life” and
2. The life of virtue

It’s counter-intuitive but part of the great spiritual tradition of paradox, that our “bodily” actions in charity (good works) and the virtues have a huge impact on (in fact, are a foundation for) our spiritual/mystical progress.

The difference between Catholic and Protestant approaches to mysticism are worlds apart. Protestantism intentionally destroyed the mystical teaching of Catholicism.

In part for a good reason – the mistaken belief that mysticism is something “out there” alone. But Catholicism is “both and” – so “out there” and also “within here”. Not just one or the other.

But the “out there” is essential – and a major difference with Buddhism.

As you state:

Meditation and truly knowing yourself …

That is right. But in the Catholic tradition, the meditation has a different object or focus. And knowing yourself is a collaborative effort – we ask our Creator, to help us learn about ourselves. To see ourself as God sees us. That’s how we find the truth.

This is different from something like “finding our truth within” – if that means, finding something that comes from us alone, and refers back to us alone.

Now we might say “a mystical union with the cosmos” or something like that – but this does not bring the personal in (in the Catholic world, God is “personal” to (within) us at the same time as “outside” of us).

So, the doctrine of Creation is very important.

When i ask most christians i have asked this question to; why they believe blank moral philosophy upheld in the bible is right or wrong, the usual response is “because it is gods law” or something along those lines.

I fully agree that this is not a helpful response (to my way of thinking). What doesn’t get explained is why we should care if it’s God’s law – and if this is just “so we don’t get punished” then this seems more of an obstacle than an attraction, to me.

Personally, an answer along the lines of “because it helps me cultivate a deeper relationship and understanding with God” would be a bit more understandable to me.

Exactly. And as above, we need to know why we should want that relationship and understanding of God. This is the focus of meditation. If we contemplated ourselves alone – there’s a lot to think about, but eventually it ends in considering a finite being that does not and cannot know the reason and purpose for his existence – and cannot know the true value he has.

When we contemplate the nature of God, and His relationship to us – we can recognize the reason “why” … on many things. Plus, it’s not just a meditation, but rather a “dialogue”. It’s an encounter with a (actually The) living Being.

This is radically different. Personal communication (two way) with this Being, who is not ourself.

Anyway – great thoughts and I respect your view and your search. I would say “yes” to your question regarding the search. It should be open and honest.

But I would put a limit – the search accepts some boundaries over time once some options are rightly eliminated and the most fruitful path emerges.

 

[Soulewolf]

nice post reggie.

 

[Tuno]

Fascinating dialogue, as distinct from a discussion.

Yes, imo&e the human body is set up as a device for Self Knowledge. The physical analog of the device is the so called “tree rooted in heaven,” or at the individual level, the root-ball brain and the many-branched nerve and endocrine systems. Similarly to the whole meshugena of the origins of the Church being in ancient myths ( a term grossly misunderstood in common usage) all of these differing systems are derived from one common factor of the human species; they are therefore similar. That common fact is that the Human, therefore every human, is the Image and Likeness of God.

But since the Fall of Man, actually his ascent into reflexive awareness as described at,* due to the exigencies of subject/object awareness, we are ordinarily blinded to the Source of our awareness which is Consciousness as a Principle, equatable with Love, a synonym for God. So we might say that the multiplicity of congruencies in myths, parables, and religions stem not from plagiarisms and traditions, but from the Nature of Man as the Son of God, or the image and likeness of God, itself. The whole aim, purpose, and goal of both ascending/exoteric religions and those that are descending/esoteric, taken together are to step through the glass of clouded perception into that State of awareness wherein each one directly perceives their at-onement with Source, God, or whatever synonym one uses for the Supreme. Because the way of these transformations are of delicate nature, they are/were sometimes to various degrees clothed in the lore surrounding a hero or a god *with which one might readily wish to identify.
*
A fascinating corollary to this, if you are still with me, is the NDE. It has been noted that while the seven distinguishable stages of such an experience are common to *all *who have them, whether they experience one or all seven, the name of the entity encountered is determined by the religion or lack thereof of the experiencer. In details, the entity is described in remarkably similar terms by all who “meet” it. An incisive and accurate analysis of who/what this Entity is, is put forth in Danion Brikley’s Saved by the Light.

Another remarkable corollary is the generic sameness of spontaneous awakenings regardless of time, place, culture, religion or lack of it, gender, intellectual capacity, etc. These belie the external forms of worship and devotion relegating them to the status of temporary scaffolding while the actual work on the structure of experience takes place. This is not a belittlement, it simply adds to the perceived dynamic of what is commonly called “salvation” or “realization.” Again, Franklin Merrell-Wolff’s diary of transformation is a superb work in contemporary English dealing with the deep questions and doubts encountered in/on such a journey.

The work of Byron Katie, on the other hand, describes a practical technique for penetrating the cloud of self ignorance, a short set of questions which came to her after a spontaneous awakening. Mine was of this nature, but not, I think, as deep as many I have read about or personally encountered. Nevertheless, because there was no readily available support system in my faith, it took me years to stabilize after my concepts of what constituted a person were summarily and unceremoniously pulled out from under me. My notion is that many become unstable, even permanently so, because there is a dearth of usable tools available in the public practice of churches and society in general that might even give a clue that something more is available through practice or Grace, despite what I now see as lip service to such ideals.

There is just too much in the annals of Human experience to discount the idea that there is a substrate of pre-existing Meaning, or common underlying Reality, which is the experiential source material that comes before and informs the diversity of religions and philosophies aimed at transformation, salvation, or realization. The very nature of Jesus’ parables as treated in Maurice Nicoll’s The New Man attests to this, as does Mark 4:33;34.

*forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=7032729#post7032729

 

[Soulewolf]

i wish more people would reply to this thread. I might remake it under a different name to get more responses.

Tuno, there are apparently a bunch of books i need to read on this subject then. Thank you for the post. Very insightful.

 

[reggieM]

I don’t know if you can change the title of an existing thread, but if so – maybe title it with the question you asked in your first post?
Or you could start another one like that.

I think it’s going to get a lot of responses on this topic. Usually people look for a controversial point where they can take a side. This topic is difficult to write on or have opinions on.

Responses with a lot of information to absorb (like mine here) also tend to kill off follow-up comments. (I will refrain from adding more).

 

[DPMartin]

I’ve been doing some thinking (uh-oh lol), and came to a question about Natural law.

It is apparent through the existence of enlightened beings that the human body is biologically set up to achieve enlightenment. If this is true, what does Natural law say about the morality of not living life to achieve a paradigm of pure understanding?

Soulwolf

You might consider that the world (human existence) is made for God’s Righteousness, Judgement and Mercy. Hence His Glory, not the glory, or self-righteousness of human existence.

The fulfillment of this in mankind is the fulfillment of God’s Word in mankind, not at mankind, or against mankind. Hence the reason God sent His Word that is of Him to be fulfilled to God’s satisfaction, because God knows that His Word cannot be fulfilled without His Presence. This is who Jesus Christ is for us, the fulfillment of God’s Word in the Son of man for man, that man cannot do with out the Presence of God, to God’s satisfaction, that we may be restored to and into the Presence of God that is the Righteousness, Judgement and Mercy that human existence is made for…

Hence Son of God, for He Jesus Christ is the only begotten of God, for He, Jesus is directly from God being the Word of God in God’s Presence, fulfilled in the Son of man for us.

 

[Soulewolf]

Soulwolf

You might consider that the world (human existence) is made for God’s Righteousness, Judgement and Mercy. Hence His Glory, not the glory, or self-righteousness of human existence.

The fulfillment of this in mankind is the fulfillment of God’s Word in mankind, not at mankind, or against mankind. Hence the reason God sent His Word that is of Him to be fulfilled to God’s satisfaction, because God knows that His Word cannot be fulfilled without His Presence. This is who Jesus Christ is for us, the fulfillment of God’s Word in the Son of man for man, that man cannot do with out the Presence of God, to God’s satisfaction, that we may be restored to and into the Presence of God that is the Righteousness, Judgement and Mercy that human existence is made for…

Hence Son of God, for He Jesus Christ is the only begotten of God, for He, Jesus is directly from God being the Word of God in God’s Presence, fulfilled in the Son of man for us.

headtilts i dunno. I think god created the universe out of love. That is, god knows existence is greater than non existence so he wanted to share it with us.