Personal experiance VS. Scripture

[antroji]

Kudos, Scottm!

For me you are one of the illustrations on here of the individual who has seen beyond the barrier of faith, whose faith is informed not by fear, habit, or momentum of intellection, but whose mind is in the service of a Reality that is prior to the mundanely necessary forms of religion. Re-ligion means “to tie back to.” That is what one does with a sapling until it is mature to the point that its own roots hold it straight and tall, or in whatever position it takes to deal with its particular location and climate. We get some really fascinating trees that way!

That is all to say that I really enjoyed your post. I would necessarily express my own experience in a slightly different way, but I would have to say that in essence it would be the same; it would have, I think, the same referent, if that makes sense to you. Yes, the Ineffable is impossible to state, and can only be pointed to. And only some know where you are pointing.

 

[Soulewolf]

Oh, okay. I wasn’t aware of those lesser definitions. Reminds me of “theosis” or “deification.”

Well then, Soulewolf, how has my interpretation of Scripture changed after experiencing Divinity … hmm. I’m not a Baptist anymore. I’m not even a Protestant anymore. I realize now, after the experience, in a living way that transcends intellectual understanding, that it doesn’t matter whether we interpret the first few chapters of Genesis literally or not. The Christianity of fundamentalists such as my former Baptist pastor completely breaks down if we don’t interpret Genesis a certain way, but the religion of Christianity itself does not break. The religion itself is much, much bigger than the so-called “Christianity” of my former pastor.

It’s also much bigger than that of the typical Roman Catholic on this forum. The typical Roman Catholic on this forum can’t handle Orthodoxy, for example, because the idea that there were 11 other Apostles commissioned by Jesus destroys their version of Christianity. Poof, it blows up, in the very same way that a non-literal reading of Genesis destroys the Christianity of my former pastor. But I can handle Orthodoxy. I comprehend both sides of the split. I can see where both sides are wrong and where both sides are right, and steer myself appropriately. I can be a genuine Catholic and a genuine Orthodox Christian at the same time. I can be a genuine Baptist for that matter. I “get it.” I understand everybody.

I used to think, based on divisive versus such as John 14:6, that all non-Christians were going to hell, period, full stop. I don’t believe that anymore. There is a way to interpret John 14:6 to allow non-Christians into heaven. Before my, ahem, “beatific vision,” I couldn’t believe that. I deemed it heresy and I denied it up and down. I preached against it, in fact. But I’m different now.

After my “beatific vision” or whatever, I stepped outside the boundaries of individual churches. In an experiential way, in a way that transcends intellectual comprehension, I understand how disparate religions can be the same. Islam can be the same as Christianity, and vice versa. Buddhism can be the same as Christianity, and vice versa. Very few people make it such. Almost everybody, on every side, practices religion in a way that forbids unity. Calvinists don’t even get along with Lutherans or Methodists, for crying out loud! But I know now, and did not know before, how to transcend differences between Christian groups, and between Christianity and other religions. I can chapter-and-verse my way through a proof of this now, whereas before I would have sworn it couldn’t be done.

Meh, whatever. It’s not really something that I can explain well.

i dont think its something that anyone can explain period.

Though i am interested in this “chapter-and-verse” proof. would you mind reciting it?

 

[Victorious]

If you think you’ve had a mystical experience, seek the counsel of a holy, orthodox Catholic priest. We are not judges in our own cases, and one must have the humility to seek help in discerning the genuineness of such an experience. It is possible to be misled without spiritual guidance, even in the case of legitimate mystical experiences.

 

[Soulewolf]

If you think you’ve had a mystical experience, seek the counsel of a holy, orthodox Catholic priest. We are not judges in our own cases, and one must have the humility to seek help in discerning the genuineness of such an experience. It is possible to be misled without spiritual guidance, even in the case of legitimate mystical experiences.

I am uncertain of this. Through the nature of what Buddhists call satori and what Catholics seem to call “beautific vision”, it seems like this counsel could be misleading as this experience seems to be impossible to explain through the current paradigms expressed through the English language.

Would you say that catholic priests would know this and include it into their decision? Even if these experiences are expressed through a more pagan paradigm? if so i know a bishop fairly well and would probably talk to him about it.

 

[Victorious]

I am uncertain of this. Through the nature of what Buddhists call satori and what Catholics seem to call “beautific vision”, it seems like this counsel could be misleading as this experience seems to be impossible to explain through the current paradigms expressed through the English language.

Could it be you are afraid of being told something you don’t want to hear? I guess it is futile to seek advice if one is not prepared to listen to any opinion but one’s own.

 

[Soulewolf]

Could it be you are afraid of being told something you don’t want to hear? I guess it is futile to seek advice if one is not prepared to listen to any opinion but one’s own.

well i wouldn’t say that, i just wouldn’t know if it was true because we would be using two different language systems that may seem to contradict each other. that is he wouldn’t be able to understand me perfectly and i wouldn’t be able to understand him perfectly, unless his understanding was such that this would not be an issue.

 

[antroji]

I agree with Soulewolf about the difficulty of expressing such things in English. It isn’t built for it, as it makes some assumptions in its structure that are not true to fact. On the other hand, there are some who seem to be able to get around that by making very specific rules of definition for their own particular use of certain words.

 

[fhansen]

I am uncertain of this. Through the nature of what Buddhists call satori and what Catholics seem to call “beautific vision”, it seems like this counsel could be misleading as this experience seems to be impossible to explain through the current paradigms expressed through the English language.

Would you say that catholic priests would know this and include it into their decision? Even if these experiences are expressed through a more pagan paradigm? if so i know a bishop fairly well and would probably talk to him about it.

Descriptions of satori and descriptions of saint’s mystical experiences sound different to me.
In the first, I understand that one comes to a realization or awakening. In the second, something “happens” to the individual, an event not of their own doing, and it’s obvious that another, superior, being is running the show.

 

[Soulewolf]

Descriptions of satori and descriptions of saint’s mystical experiences sound different to me.
In the first, I understand that one comes to a realization or awakening. In the second, something “happens” to the individual, an event not of their own doing, and it’s obvious that another, superior, being is running the show.

nods i can understand how they would sound different. When i first had my experiences, the first thing i came across that described the phenomena was the idea of satori. I did not know before the creation of this thread that Christianity also had a word for it. Though when one tries to describe the indescribable, there are bound to be conflicts.

 

[Tuno]

My sense about the dynamic of describing mystical experiences is that some of it is a matter of culture and some of it is a matter of definition, and some of it is a matter of language/translation. That holds on both sides, from the one attempting to delineate an event in awareness, or one reading/translating it. From the viewpoint of a non-dualist especially of the Eastern variety, as one novelist points out: “in English only the first person singular of the verb ‘to be’ is true to fact.” For this reason English speakers have to dance around the difference between “me” as person, which word stems for the Greek for “mask,” and “I” as Essence or the Supreme. Many Indo-European languages don’t have that distinction, which factor plays large in Middle and Far Eastern mysticism. It just isn’t competently dealt with for the most part in the West.

For that reason, many Eastern texts risk distortion to some degree if they pass through the skill of a translator who hasn’t a working familiarity with that distinction. It might be, as well, that a European Saint of some time ago, or even of fairly recent times, may have only a Christian/Catholic context for expressing such experiences or realizations and is/was constrained to use those idioms and the language of the Church.

Add to that again that parables, myths/mythos, and legends are and were often used as psychological maps for inner journeys of discovery as delineated by Maurice Nicoll in The New Man about Jesus’ parables in particular, and by Joseph Campbell in Hero With a Thousand Faces in general. In our culture “myth” is synonymous with “tall tale.” For others in times of less democratized spirituality and non-Christian cultures, they were the stuff of interior exploration in the hands of a competent guide. Indeed, some read side by side with many Bible stories, and one might ask why.

Furthermore, any language used to express such an ineffability is doomed to be at best a pointer to those who already know where to look and a sign of some concurrency. To someone just reading such an account, it might even be at best a fairy tale, or at worst, heresy, whereas in reality it is neither. This is why mystical poetry is of such great value. I personally very much like the Landinsky translation of some 300 examples of mystic poetry in a volume titled Love Poems from God. A friend of mine back East actually made a short play from a selection of those works and included a few by a Canadian proponent of non-dualism. Catholics take note; half of the 12 authors in that book are Catholic Saints.

Indeed, my own observation is that if one understands the non-dualist usage of “I,” and remembers the pitfalls of translation, the identity statements in both the OT and the NT take on a radically different interpretation and significance. This significance resonates deeply and profoundly with what is indicated even in this small sampling of CF individuals and portends a wide spread, misunderstood, and often squelched Soul propensity. For the very brave of imagination, it can even elevate the Gospels into a far greater and important category than they are now held in by more limited interpretations. Think on that for a while.

 

[fhansen]

My sense about the dynamic of describing mystical experiences is that some of it is a matter of culture and some of it is a matter of definition, and some of it is a matter of language/translation. That holds on both sides, from the one attempting to delineate an event in awareness, or one reading/translating it. From the viewpoint of a non-dualist especially of the Eastern variety, as one novelist points out: “in English only the first person singular of the verb ‘to be’ is true to fact.” For this reason English speakers have to dance around the difference between “me” as person, which word stems for the Greek for “mask,” and “I” as Essence or the Supreme. Many Indo-European languages don’t have that distinction, which factor plays large in Middle and Far Eastern mysticism. It just isn’t competently dealt with for the most part in the West.

For that reason, many Eastern texts risk distortion to some degree if they pass through the skill of a translator who hasn’t a working familiarity with that distinction. It might be, as well, that a European Saint of some time ago, or even of fairly recent times, may have only a Christian/Catholic context for expressing such experiences or realizations and is/was constrained to use those idioms and the language of the Church.

Add to that again that parables, myths/mythos, and legends are and were often used as psychological maps for inner journeys of discovery as delineated by Maurice Nicoll in The New Man about Jesus’ parables in particular, and by Joseph Campbell in Hero With a Thousand Faces in general. In our culture “myth” is synonymous with “tall tale.” For others in times of less democratized spirituality and non-Christian cultures, they were the stuff of interior exploration in the hands of a competent guide. Indeed, some read side by side with many Bible stories, and one might ask why.

Furthermore, any language used to express such an ineffability is doomed to be at best a pointer to those who already know where to look and a sign of some concurrency. To someone just reading such an account, it might even be at best a fairy tale, or at worst, heresy, whereas in reality it is neither. This is why mystical poetry is of such great value. I personally very much like the Landinsky translation of some 300 examples of mystic poetry in a volume titled Love Poems from God. A friend of mine back East actually made a short play from a selection of those works and included a few by a Canadian proponent of non-dualism. Catholics take note; half of the 12 authors in that book are Catholic Saints.

Indeed, my own observation is that if one understands the non-dualist usage of “I,” and remembers the pitfalls of translation, the identity statements in both the OT and the NT take on a radically different interpretation and significance. This significance resonates deeply and profoundly with what is indicated even in this small sampling of CF individuals and portends a wide spread, misunderstood, and often squelched Soul propensity. For the very brave of imagination, it can even elevate the Gospels into a far greater and important category than they are now held in by more limited interpretations. Think on that for a while.

I’ve heard these sentiments before and so anticipated them but I have to respectively object. The experiences I’m referring to-and which I’ve had- leave no doubt that another being is present. Whether I’m communicating to you now via the internet or whether we’re standing face to face speaking directly, we’re aware that we’re not talking to ourselves-that two minds are relating thoughts, one to another. This would also hold true if people from the east or from anywhere else were doing the communicating.

*In that particular sense *, the experiences I’ve had are no different. It’s not a sense of being in anothers’ presence-it’s an absolute knowledge. And that the “other” is initiating and controlling the experience, whether it consists of merely being bathed in his presence or of receiving word-for-word thought transmissions, termed locutions (except these lack the benefit of, or need for, the orally spoken or written word) or of receiving visions-which is a little harder to explain as these aren’t possible for us to communicate to each other the way we communicate thoughts using language

I probably wouldn’t speak of this ordinarily because, for one thing, it sounds crazy. But I’m in good company as there’s a rich tradition of such experiences within the Catholic legacy at least-experiences others have shared but which I wasn’t aware of until many years after my own.

Either way, you’re right. Language is simply inadequate to express the experience. The experience can only be, well, experienced. And, as an aside, experience is one thing I always felt Joseph Campell, for one, lacked.

 

[gavanhe]

As Catholics we are bound to uphold the veracity of scripture as taught us by the magisterium of the church. If we have personal experiences of divinity which is contradictory to scripture then surely we must question the experience. The only method to reliably treat with this matter is with the help of your priest.
Any catholic who denies this reality is setting themselves against church doctrine and either must reject the “divine” experience or accept their position as putting them outside catholic beliefs and all that that entails.
We need to constantly guard against other forces at work in our spiritual lives.
I am not qualified to comment on those not of our Catholic faith, but if they are Christian then they also need to affirm the truth of scripture, but they are open to reinterpret them as it suits.
Gerry

 

[Tuno]

As Catholics we are bound to uphold the veracity of scripture as taught us by the magisterium of the church. If we have personal experiences of divinity which is contradictory to scripture then surely we must question the experience. The only method to reliably treat with this matter is with the help of your priest.
Any catholic who denies this reality is setting themselves against church doctrine and either must reject the “divine” experience or accept their position as putting them outside catholic beliefs and all that that entails.
We need to constantly guard against other forces at work in our spiritual lives.
I am not qualified to comment on those not of our Catholic faith, but if they are Christian then they also need to affirm the truth of scripture, but they are open to reinterpret them as it suits.
Gerry

Well there you are. It is a matter for most of being faithful to their faith, whatever it may be. And fhansen thank you for your note and your engaging attitude. I agree with you completely, save that I would necessarily ask if there might not yet be another form of such experience, as there seems to be evidence for it. In my instance there was not a sense of other, and that was one of the chief characteristics of it. It is the magnitude of such an experience that made me so completely jump track, so to speak, and put me in a position where now I must differ with Gerry’s very strongly based in some instances. I am not outside the quale of spiritual experience looking in, but can, as I have often said, only speak for my own series of events and what those led to. I can neither discredit nor disclaim about what others have experienced, save in theory, that not being of much use outside a realm of speculation and/or information gathering.

But in any case, darned if it isn’t possible to witness to something immeasurably beyond one’s personal self.

PS Having met Mr. Campbell a number of times and having had occasion both to converse with him and to hear him in conversation with someone I am absolutely certain has had an exceptionally high order of such an experience as of which we speak, I must agree with your assessment of his qualifications.

 

[fhansen]

But in any case, darned if it isn’t possible to witness to something immeasurably beyond one’s personal self.

Absolutely. And I’m not in a position to doubt anyone elses’ experience. My point was that i can’t identify with some things I’ve understood to be common with the “eastern” ones.

 

[scottm]

Though i am interested in this “chapter-and-verse” proof. would you mind reciting it?

I can’t do it except for someone familiar with another religion, preferably Islam and Buddhism as they’re the ones I know. The problem is context, see. If we’re talking about how such-and-such Bible verse relates to people outside Christianity, we need to know something about something outside Christianity. We need to know the thing we’re talking about.

But if you’re up for it, send me a PM with your email address, and I’ll send you a Word or Pages document. I’ve been looking for someone who knows Buddhism or Islam for just such a discussion, actually!

 

[scottm]

As Catholics we are bound to uphold the veracity of scripture as taught us by the magisterium of the church. If we have personal experiences of divinity which is contradictory to scripture then surely we must question the experience. The only method to reliably treat with this matter is with the help of your priest.
Any catholic who denies this reality is setting themselves against church doctrine and either must reject the “divine” experience or accept their position as putting them outside catholic beliefs and all that that entails.
We need to constantly guard against other forces at work in our spiritual lives.
I am not qualified to comment on those not of our Catholic faith, but if they are Christian then they also need to affirm the truth of scripture, but they are open to reinterpret them as it suits.
Gerry

True, but with the caveat that one should seek the advice of a priest or bishop who has also had the experience. I really don’t think they all have, and clergy who haven’t been there won’t be much help.

 

[Soulewolf]

I can’t do it except for someone familiar with another religion, preferably Islam and Buddhism as they’re the ones I know. The problem is context, see. If we’re talking about how such-and-such Bible verse relates to people outside Christianity, we need to know something about something outside Christianity. We need to know the thing we’re talking about.

But if you’re up for it, send me a PM with your email address, and I’ll send you a Word or Pages document. I’ve been looking for someone who knows Buddhism or Islam for just such a discussion, actually!

well i can definitely say that i’m not catholic (by means of the more mainstream definitions) or christian for that matter. Though i was raised roman catholic so that is the religion ive had the most exposure to.

Other than that, i have had the most exposure through shamanism and Buddhism. Though i cant say i know much about Buddhism. And though i have experienced some of the more intense shamanic practices, i cant say i am fully immersed in that belief system as well. i’m more of a completionist. a snippet here and a snippet there. Would you say that is adequate?

 

[Tuno]

Souldwolf, sounds like you might get a great charge from integrational philosopher Ken Wilbur, especially his A Brief History of Everything.

 

[Soulewolf]

Souldwolf, sounds like you might get a great charge from integrational philosopher Ken Wilbur, especially his A Brief History of Everything.

you’re the second person to tell me that i needed to read that book. i guess i need to read it eh?

 

[Tuno]

Oh really? How cool. Wilbur is well known in some circles, but not broadly known or acknowledged, despite some very useful viewpoints. If you read it, let me know. maybe we can chat about our perceptions. Thanks for being on here.

Tuno