The Risen Lord Krishna and Other Spiritual Experiences

[ChristIsTheWay]

Something occurred to me recently. I suppose I’ve always been aware of it but never really thought about it or its implications. Basically, the adherents of other faiths have spiritual experiences of their own deities and spiritual powers. For example, I’ve heard that in India, and elsewhere, that followers of Krishna have experienced him as the Risen Lord Krishna. These experiences supposedly bear resemblances to Christian experiences of the Risen Jesus. I can’t be certain but I take that to mean something like appearances or visionary experiences. I’ve also heard of Neo-Pagans claiming similar encounters with the spiritual powers of their respective traditions. I can also think of similar things with Mormons. I would imagine the same can be said of virtually all religions, including claims of actual deity appearances.

My question is how to account for this from an orthodox Catholic perspective. These experiences could be purely subjective and thus explicable as the result of neurological, psychological, and other natural mechanisms that could produce such experiences. I suppose some religious experiences are just that but I don’t see how all could be. However, if that be the case, I don’t see how Christianity escapes the same devastating conclusion. The other alternative is that these experiences are, at least some of the time, of an objective reality. But what reality is that? Catholicism teaches there is only one true God. It would seem difficult to reconcile the Catholic understanding of the one true God with the idea that this one true God would manifest Himself as Jesus and Krishna.

 

[ChristIsTheWay]

Should I have placed this thread in the Apologetics forum?

 

[Sufjon]

Should I have placed this thread in the Apologetics forum?

No, I think it’s a great discussion for this forum.

Your friend,
Sufjon

 

[fermat]

There is a God shaped hole in everyone’s heart. This longing for God will manifest itself in different ways in different cultures, all attempting to led to a relationship with God. Christianity is the only one where we believe that God became manifest, preached and died for our own sake. The resurrection of Jesus is what really separates us fully from non-Christians.

If you look at other belief systems, you will not find these elements in their entirety. It is the completeness of what Catholicism in particular brings that can truly fill that hole.

 

[ChristIsTheWay]

There is a God shaped hole in everyone’s heart. This longing for God will manifest itself in different ways in different cultures, all attempting to led to a relationship with God. Christianity is the only one where we believe that God became manifest, preached and died for our own sake. The resurrection of Jesus is what really separates us fully from non-Christians.

If you look at other belief systems, you will not find these elements in their entirety. It is the completeness of what Catholicism in particular brings that can truly fill that hole.

Okay but my question really isn’t about how these other belief systems lack some of the elements of our faith. My question is the nature of the spiritual experiences of these faiths. I don’t think the idea that non-Christian believers are trying to fill a God-shaped hole in their heart is adequate. It might not even be desirable. One could just as easily argue that this God-shaped hole is really the human brain being hardwired by natural selection for religious experience and therefore all religions, Christianity included, have had experiences of spiritual entities that rest solely in the neurological wiring of the brain. In other words, these experiences do not point to an objective reality.

Sufjon,

Am I correct in stating that followers of Krishna have reported visionary experiences (or visual appearings) of Krishna as a living, risen Lord?

 

[jbeck43]

Your assumption about other religions is not accurate. I’m not saying that other religions don’t have avid devotees, what I’m saying is that truth is not a relative commodity that each religion shares equally. And because of that, some religions are–must necessarily–be false. Remember what Christ said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father, except by me.” Now that is either a true statement, or Christ is a liar frankly. Also note that the Hindu religion and the Mormon religion you mentioned are both polytheistic, while Christianity is not. There is an inherent logic problem with polytheism that undermines the claims of either hindu, or mormon belief system, and that is the understanding that more than one infinite, omnipotent being can occupy the same universe. How can two omnipotent beings exist together without one necessarily being greater than the other? Such a question is not addressed in either faith understanding. It should be safe to assume, since the universe is based on laws and rules that are reasonable and logical, that the creator would find those traits desirable and useful (since being God, he would not have to be bound by either in creating the universe). If however a religious understanding eschews those traits, then it’s truthfulness may be called into question. Consider the Mormon faith you mentioned. They believe that the universe itself is eternal (while not interestingly, believing that the Gods who occupy it are). Now consider this problem–if we begin at a point in the infinite past–which they believe existed, then how many days would it take for us to arrive at our present day? Answer: an infinite amount of days. Then how did we get to today? By mormonism’s account, the question is unanswerable. If then we can deconstruct the universe that their gods occupy, how can we know that those gods or the mormon world exist in the first place? I’ve had several Mormons into my home to discuss in charity these very questions, with the same befuddled responses. Yet each of these Mormons to a man, describe an experience (a testimony) that Mormonism is a true understanding of the world we live in. I’m sure that Hindus would have the same convictions. The question should be then, just as pontius pilot asked, what is truth? And while it may sound self-serving, the most reasonable answer to that question is the Catholic Church, because it is doesn’t deny logic, but embraces it (there is only one God, the universe is finite, etc.), because there are documented miracles throughout history that attest to it (I defy you to find the same in any other faith, despite the generalized claims), because at the center of the Catholic faith there exists a God so intimate and infinite that he would give His life out of love for us. And because that is not a God so easily conceived of in the imaginations of men.

 

[Sufjon]

Okay but my question really isn’t about how these other belief systems lack some of the elements of our faith. My question is the nature of the spiritual experiences of these faiths. I don’t think the idea that non-Christian believers are trying to fill a God-shaped hole in their heart is adequate. It might not even be desirable. One could just as easily argue that this God-shaped hole is really the human brain being hardwired by natural selection for religious experience and therefore all religions, Christianity included, have had experiences of spiritual entities that rest solely in the neurological wiring of the brain. In other words, these experiences do not point to an objective reality.

Sufjon,

Am I correct in stating that followers of Krishna have reported visionary experiences (or visual appearings) of Krishna as a living, risen Lord?

Hi ChristIsTheWay: There are reports of people seeing Krishna, most notable in my recollection are the accounts of Paramahansa Yogananda, who details his encounters with Krishna as well as Jesus. Yet, I don’t think the parallels to a risen Krishna as opposed to a risen Jesus are the same. The resurrection of Krishna in Hindu texts aren’t a critical part of the story of Krishna’s life, wherein my understanding is that the resurrection of Jesus was the key event on the story of His life.

I think the answer to your question is that you’re right in that there are lots of accounts of people seeing Krishna and Jesus, but the mechanics of these apparitions would differ greatly between Christians and Hindus. My sense is that Christians are seeing what they feel is an apparition of a Jesus who took His physical and personal body into heaven with Him and appears to people in it from time to time. For Krishna, His body was one He chose to inhabit as a God-incarnate teacher among us, but it is not His only body. There is not a one for one personal relationship between Krishna and the body He wore in the Mahabharata stories. This was a fully realized incarnation of God in a human body, however, every body of every creature is the body of Krishna. Krishna says that “I am the beginning, the middle and the end of every creature - the inmost self of every being.” So there is the big difference between Hinduism and mainstream Christianity. We are supposed to look for Krishna in every person (every creature actually). Any Hindu who is familiar with the story of Jesus would view Jesus in exactly the same way, because we would think that Jesus is an Avatar like Krishna or Sri Anandamayi Ma. So if you were to ask me (Sufjon), have you ever seen Jesus Christ in the flesh, and have you ever seen Krishna in the flesh I would say “yes, just this morning I gave Her a big hug before I left for work. Then I cut Him off in traffic, and another time still, I got annoyed with Him when He took too long when He was in front of me at the drive through at Starbucks. I have seen Him many times this very day, but just wasn’t looking.” The point I think is to be looking. If you look, you will surely see Him. In the flesh even. But we have to keep reminding ourselves to look, and the more we look, the more we will see Him.

Your friend
Sufjon

 

[ChristIsTheWay]

Your assumption about other religions is not accurate. I’m not saying that other religions don’t have avid devotees, what I’m saying is that truth is not a relative commodity that each religion shares equally. And because of that, some religions are–must necessarily–be false. Remember what Christ said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father, except by me.” Now that is either a true statement, or Christ is a liar frankly. Also note that the Hindu religion and the Mormon religion you mentioned are both polytheistic, while Christianity is not. There is an inherent logic problem with polytheism that undermines the claims of either hindu, or mormon belief system, and that is the understanding that more than one infinite, omnipotent being can occupy the same universe. How can two omnipotent beings exist together without one necessarily being greater than the other? Such a question is not addressed in either faith understanding. It should be safe to assume, since the universe is based on laws and rules that are reasonable and logical, that the creator would find those traits desirable and useful (since being God, he would not have to be bound by either in creating the universe). If however a religious understanding eschews those traits, then it’s truthfulness may be called into question. Consider the Mormon faith you mentioned. They believe that the universe itself is eternal (while not interestingly, believing that the Gods who occupy it are). Now consider this problem–if we begin at a point in the infinite past–which they believe existed, then how many days would it take for us to arrive at our present day? Answer: an infinite amount of days. Then how did we get to today? By mormonism’s account, the question is unanswerable. If then we can deconstruct the universe that their gods occupy, how can we know that those gods or the mormon world exist in the first place? I’ve had several Mormons into my home to discuss in charity these very questions, with the same befuddled responses. Yet each of these Mormons to a man, describe an experience (a testimony) that Mormonism is a true understanding of the world we live in. I’m sure that Hindus would have the same convictions. The question should be then, just as pontius pilot asked, what is truth? And while it may sound self-serving, the most reasonable answer to that question is the Catholic Church, because it is doesn’t deny logic, but embraces it (there is only one God, the universe is finite, etc.), because there are documented miracles throughout history that attest to it (I defy you to find the same in any other faith, despite the generalized claims), because at the center of the Catholic faith there exists a God so intimate and infinite that he would give His life out of love for us. And because that is not a God so easily conceived of in the imaginations of men.

I am not a relativist. But my question has nothing to do with the specific beliefs of any one religion. It is also not a question of which faith has had a better track record of experiences or miracles. I’m not asking which faith is The Truth or something like that. It simply does us no good to deny or downplay the spiritual experiences of other faiths. If all their spiritual experiences, gods appearing or being sensed, healing, miracles, etc, are overblown, subjective experiences that do not point to an objective reality, I honestly do not see why the same can not be said of Christianity. One can easily say we’ve just had more subjective experiences than other faiths. Naturally, I don’t believe this. I’m not asking you or anyone to prove the objective reality of God.

 

[ChristIsTheWay]

Hi ChristIsTheWay: There are reports of people seeing Krishna, most notable in my recollection are the accounts of Paramahansa Yogananda, who details his encounters with Krishna as well as Jesus. Yet, I don’t think the parallels to a risen Krishna as opposed to a risen Jesus are the same. The resurrection of Krishna in Hindu texts aren’t a critical part of the story of Krishna’s life, wherein my understanding is that the resurrection of Jesus was the key event on the story of His life.

I think the answer to your question is that you’re right in that there are lots of accounts of people seeing Krishna and Jesus, but the mechanics of these apparitions would differ greatly between Christians and Hindus. My sense is that Christians are seeing what they feel is an apparition of a Jesus who took His physical and personal body into heaven with Him and appears to people in it from time to time. For Krishna, His body was one He chose to inhabit as a God-incarnate teacher among us, but it is not His only body. There is not a one for one personal relationship between Krishna and the body He wore in the Mahabharata stories. This was a fully realized incarnation of God in a human body, however, every body of every creature is the body of Krishna. Krishna says that “I am the beginning, the middle and the end of every creature - the inmost self of every being.” So there is the big difference between Hinduism and mainstream Christianity. We are supposed to look for Krishna in every person (every creature actually). Any Hindu who is familiar with the story of Jesus would view Jesus in exactly the same way, because we would think that Jesus is an Avatar like Krishna or Sri Anandamayi Ma. So if you were to ask me (Sufjon), have you ever seen Jesus Christ in the flesh, and have you ever seen Krishna in the flesh I would say “yes, just this morning I gave Her a big hug before I left for work. Then I cut Him off in traffic, and another time still, I got annoyed with Him when He took too long when He was in front of me at the drive through at Starbucks. I have seen Him many times this very day, but just wasn’t looking.” The point I think is to be looking. If you look, you will surely see Him. In the flesh even. But we have to keep reminding ourselves to look, and the more we look, the more we will see Him.

Your friend
Sufjon

That is very interesting. I suppose my question isn’t so much about whether there are differences but about the source of these experiences. I think we all agree that they’re not purely subjective, at least in some cases. So that must mean some of them are experiences of an objective reality. I think the explanation for a Hindu is probably quite easy as Hinduism can easily accommodate the objective existence of both Christ and Krishna. The problem arises for an orthodox Catholic attempting to understand all this in a manner satisfactory to the teachings of Catholicism.

 

[Sufjon]

Your assumption about other religions is not accurate. I’m not saying that other religions don’t have avid devotees, what I’m saying is that truth is not a relative commodity that each religion shares equally. And because of that, some religions are–must necessarily–be false.

The truth is that all religions are an expression of experiences with God by one group of people or another. What you worship is the way in which God chose to relate to a particular group of people. The rest of the world is not there to serve as a backdrop against the effulgence of one small piece of God’s creation.

Remember what Christ said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father, except by me.” Now that is either a true statement, or Christ is a liar frankly.

That which spoke those words were not the hair,skin capillaries, fingernails and teeth, mouth and voice of a man named Jesus. It was the words of the Christ Consciousness speaking through the man Jesus. This same Christ Consciousness has spoken to us through other incarnations of God long before Jesus and many times after. The Christ Consciousness is in you too, and no one comes to the Father until they see that in themselves and others. You are taking the literal and primitive interpretation of people who were closer to Neanderthals than to you and me in regard to the information available to them and their ability to understand what they heard. What you believe is not what Jesus said. What you believe is how you are processing what Jesus said, and I think it’s your right to do so.

Also note that the Hindu religion and the Mormon religion you mentioned are both polytheistic,

Hinduism is monotheistic, but again your mistake is a common one for people who know nothing about Hinduism. If you were to read the Hindu scriptures such as the Bhagavad Gita and the Upanishads you would not say that we are polytheistic.

T

here is an inherent logic problem with polytheism that undermines the claims of either hindu, or mormon belief system, and that is the understanding that more than one infinite, omnipotent being can occupy the same universe.

No, there is an inherent misconception problem on the part of anyone who would say that Hinduism in polytheistic.

It should be safe to assume, since the universe is based on laws and rules that are reasonable and logical, that the creator would find those traits desirable and useful (since being God, he would not have to be bound by either in creating the universe). If however a religious understanding eschews those traits, then it’s truthfulness may be called into question.

I agree. That’s why any religion that believes that the unfathomable expanse of Universe that we live in was created for the pleasure and benefit of one sect of people on one small planet would have to be false religion.

Your friend,
Sufjon

 

[Ahimsa]

It would seem difficult to reconcile the Catholic understanding of the one true God with the idea that this one true God would manifest Himself as Jesus and Krishna.

Difficult, yes. Impossible, no.

 

[ChristIsTheWay]

Difficult, yes. Impossible, no.

Any suggestions on how one might do that?

 

[Sufjon]

Any suggestions on how one might do that?

Hi ChristIstheWay: You always ask really good questions. You are right that it’s hard to reconcile if one were to do so from a mainstream Christian perspective, which incorporates dogmas and certain definitions people have ascribed to what Jesus said. I don’t think it’s so hard to reconcile when you look at what Jesus said and compare it to what all the other Avatars said. They all match. I spent a good many years comparing them, and reading up on all that. I think you are very bright to suspect a connection, and that you came to wonder about that on your own.

If you ever get time, there is a two volume book on this (about 1,600 pages as I recall) that studies the continuities between the teachings of Jesus and Krishna. To read it properly takes about a year, but personally I think it answers a lot of questions. Here is a link to the book:

amazon.com/Second-Coming-Christ-Resurrection-Within/dp/0876125550

The author is a Hindu saint, who was held in high regard in both the East and the West. The title of the book gives a good view into the Hindu understanding of the Second Coming and the fact that the Way, the Truth and the Life that was in Jesus is in you as well, and the only way to the Father is to awaken it. That is how we would see it.

Your friend,
Sufjon

 

[ChristIsTheWay]

Hi ChristIstheWay: You always ask really good questions. You are right that it’s hard to reconcile if one were to do so from a mainstream Christian perspective, which incorporates dogmas and certain definitions people have ascribed to what Jesus said. I don’t think it’s so hard to reconcile when you look at what Jesus said and compare it to what all the other Avatars said. They all match. I spent a good many years comparing them, and reading up on all that. I think you are very bright to suspect a connection, and that you came to wonder about that on your own.

If you ever get time, there is a two volume book on this (about 1,600 pages as I recall) that studies the continuities between the teachings of Jesus and Krishna. To read it properly takes about a year, but personally I think it answers a lot of questions. Here is a link to the book:

amazon.com/Second-Coming-Christ-Resurrection-Within/dp/0876125550

The author is a Hindu saint, who was held in high regard in both the East and the West. The title of the book gives a good view into the Hindu understanding of the Second Coming and the fact that the Way, the Truth and the Life that was in Jesus is in you as well, and the only way to the Father is to awaken it. That is how we would see it.

Your friend,
Sufjon

Thank you for the kind suggestion. I’ll will further investigate this book.

 

[tlimon]

Coming out of an atheistic fog, I stopped by Buddhism. When it comes to reconciling Jesus and Krishna, I think, from my experience, the picture looks rosier from the perspective of a Buddhist or a Hindu. From that perspective, the Hindu could pretty easily assimilate Christ into the larger tapestry because the nature of Krishna could more easily accommodate Jesus. As a matter of fact when Thomas brought Catholicism to India, a lot of the time the external liturgical structure and occasionally the vestments would remain relatively in tact but the doctrine had dissolved into some Creole version of Hinduism. In other words, Catholicism was co-opted.

When Catholicism reconciles other traditions, what usually happens is cooption of those other traditions in light of Catholicism. Accepting other traditions as respective Old Testaments, which merge into the fruition in Jesus Christ, is probably the best chance for Catholicism reconciling with other religions. In other words, Krishna and Buddha point toward Christ. What it does not mean is that Krishna, Buddha, and Christ all point toward each other. Egalitarian style amalgamation, I am afraid, is a new age fantasy that does not acknowledge profound differences in faith traditions.

 

[Ahimsa]

Any suggestions on how one might do that?

Exo-theology (the theology of extra-terrestrial contact) has raised some interesting questions about the probability of the Word incarnating on different worlds. As far as I know, it is not heretical to suppose that the Word may have incarnated not just as Homo sapiens, but as other intelligent species that may exist. The Catholic priest, and Vatican astronomer, Guy Consolmagno has spoken favorably on this possibility.

An extra-terrestrial incarnation would not necessarily mean that Krishna is an incarnation of the Logos, but it would show that the Word may manifest in ways that surprise us.

 

[Sufjon]

Accepting other traditions as respective Old Testaments, which merge into the fruition in Jesus Christ, is probably the best chance for Catholicism reconciling with other religions. In other words, Krishna and Buddha point toward Christ. What it does not mean is that Krishna, Buddha, and Christ all point toward each other. Egalitarian style amalgamation, I am afraid, is a new age fantasy that does not acknowledge profound differences in faith traditions.

Hi - I think we are in agreement up to this point, wherein other religions are seen as an Old Testament in relation to Christianity, or specifically Krishna and Gautama Buddha pointing to Jesus. All three were human bodies with a fully awakened Christ Consciousness (or Kutsashtha Chaitanya ). They were God in human form, yes, but the demarcation between them and most of the rest us is the level of realization, which in turn made them instruments through which God acted (and still acts) directly. I think it is more helpful to see the man Jesus or the man Siddhartha Gautama or Sri Krishna as part of a continuum in a series of visits of God among us. I think the problem is that most Christians have become so accustomed to seeing the life of Jesus as a sort of culmination, and this makes it hard to see the whole. It also makes it less possible to benefit from the messages of the Avatars who have come since the three of them were among us.

Your friend
Sufjon

 

[Sufjon]

That is very interesting. I suppose my question isn’t so much about whether there are differences but about the source of these experiences. I think we all agree that they’re not purely subjective, at least in some cases. So that must mean some of them are experiences of an objective reality.

I agree that many of them are not subjective. I think lots of people probably see Jesus and Mary as well.

I think the explanation for a Hindu is probably quite easy as Hinduism can easily accommodate the objective existence of both Christ and Krishna. The problem arises for an orthodox Catholic attempting to understand all this in a manner satisfactory to the teachings of Catholicism.

I think you are right again, but I have to add a qualifier. I think there are probably two forms of Catholicism, or at least I sense that there are. You might call one of them “Catholicism light,” which is what you see day to day at mass, CD classes and Catholic adult forums. This is what I was constantly exposed to in my episode of becoming a Catholic in order to enable my wife to marry in her church. I have to say it was painful. Then I think somewhere there is a serious Catholicism. I can’t prove it, but I sense that it’s there. I have had some long discussions with some Friars, and when I spoke to them I see something different. I don;t know what order they are, but they wear brown robes. Yes, I have met the beer drinkin’ Good Old Father Flanagan type many times, but on a few rare occasions I have met another sort altogether. These remind me of St Francis and the mystics of your religion. They are different. There is also a priest who presides over the chapel at a nearby university. He is another one of those “different ones.” When I spok to these men, I felt as thought I was talking to a Hindu Sadhu, or at least someone outside the realm of standard definition. From these men I have gotten the sense that somewhere deep in some sequestered part of the Catholic Church there is some serious spirituality going on. I was impressed by these men.

I think if you found one of those people you may find it easier to reconcile the things you’re thinking about with Catholicism.

As for the “Religion Light” brand of Catholicism I encountered, I need to be clear that this is fine. Any path to God is sacred, and I think God provides a way for every temperament and for every ability to reach. But you should never try to jam yourself into one that doesn’t work for you.

Your friend
Sufjon

 

[tlimon]

Hi - I think we are in agreement up to this point, wherein other religions are seen as an Old Testament in relation to Christianity, or specifically Krishna and Gautama Buddha pointing to Jesus. All three were human bodies with a fully awakened Christ Consciousness (or Kutsashtha Chaitanya ). They were God in human form, yes, but the demarcation between them and most of the rest us is the level of realization, which in turn made them instruments through which God acted (and still acts) directly. I think it is more helpful to see the man Jesus or the man Siddhartha Gautama or Sri Krishna as part of a continuum in a series of visits of God among us. I think the problem is that most Christians have become so accustomed to seeing the life of Jesus as a sort of culmination, and this makes it hard to see the whole. It also makes it less possible to benefit from the messages of the Avatars who have come since the three of them were among us.

Your friend
Sufjon

Hey Sufjon. Your post is pretty fascinating from a Catholic perspective. In a way it’s a self exemplification of my prior post. What I mean is the language you use to describe Christ is from the perspective of a different tradition and, like a prism, refracts the concepts of Jesus in a different way. Below are a few points of observation that I thought that would be interesting to bat around.

1. You say that Jesus was God in human form. Well, this is dicey area. Jesus was not God in human form per se. Jesus was a fully man and fully God. The triune Christian God consists of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as you probably already know. In other words, there is the lover, the beloved, and the love they share. The New Testament says that “God is Love.” Love exists as a dynamic, thus implying the lover and beloved and the love they share. Therefore, it is absolutely essential to keep these entities separate.

When you say Jesus is God in a human form, you are flirting with the concept of “Modalism.” Since you are a fan of good music, I suppose you know that E minor is a modality of G major, the same notes comprise each but are expressed in different ways. This is not quite the concept of the trinity. The trinity is more abstract than that. The trinity was never supposed to make perfect sense – Christian mysticism puts God into the realm of the ineffable. Christian philosophy creates the language in order to define the mystery but not solve the mystery.

1. You also say that Christians see Jesus as the culmination. This is true. But you also say that we have difficulty seeing Jesus as part of a Continuum including Buddha and Krishna. Apart from Buddha and Krishna, yes. But as an isolated occurrence apart from a continuum, no. Christ’s fingerprints exist throughout the Old Testament. The Book of John, one of my favorites and one of the favorites among Hindus so says by Hindu friend, says that the Word was God and the Word was with God and through Him all things were made. Christ was the footsteps in the Garden of Eden. Christ was the fourth person in the furnace in the Book of Daniel. After His death, resurrection, and ascension, Christ appeared to Paul on the road to Damascus. He was also appeared in visions at Fatima, Mary Faustina Kawalska, and perhaps St. Jerome.

Moreover, Christ has promised to come again. And last and profoundly, through the consumption of Christ’s flesh and blood at mass - we, as Catholics, become united in one body - “I in you and you in me” (paraphrasing of course). Additionally, Catholics are also quite aware of Anti-Christs, false prophets and the like. Thus, we are very skeptical of those who come in the name of Christ. You may want to spend some time with the concept of “Christophanies” – this is deeply mystical territory and you would probably enjoy reading about them. Take care and God bless.

Very Best,

Thomas

p.s. Your name is not exactly the same as this artists but it’s close. Nevertheless, I thought of you and thought you might like this song. It might be too “low brow” for your musical tastes but I like eclectic stuff and perhaps you do too! On a side note, did you know that some Ethiopian Orthodox in America claim John Coltrane as a saint and play portions of “A Love Supreme” at their liturgies? Interesting, yeah?

youtube.com/watch?v=yeQlwc5FpEg

 

[tlimon]

From these men I have gotten the sense that somewhere deep in some sequestered part of the Catholic Church there is some serious spirituality going on. I was impressed by these men…As for the “Religion Light” brand of Catholicism I encountered, I need to be clear that this is fine. Any path to God is sacred, and I think God provides a way for every temperament and for every ability to reach. But you should never try to jam yourself into one that doesn’t work for you.

I don’t know if I am butting in but I’ll take some liberty since we are all part of a single larger conversation. Some thoughts:

1. I really don’t think that serious spirituality within the Church is all that sequestered. I think that spirituality, especially American spirituality, is unappreciated and therefore not sought after. It’s probably like finding an antique or rare item in someone’s house and saying “Wow, I can’t believe you have this.” And the owner responds, “Oh, that old thing? You can have it.”

I’ve had absolutely electric conversations with Catholic friends about deep deep spiritual matters. The thing is that we speak in hushed tones when we do speak, if we speak about our spiritual encounters at all. We are taken by a certain awesomeness that tantalizes our fears and thus leads to reverence – like looking into the crater of a volcano. Additionally, we are a little timid to come right out and talk irresponsibly about our mystical experiences, scripture warns against it.

Also, there are even some popular authors that dig in pretty deep. Scott Hahn’s “The Lamb’s Supper” and Fr. Robert Baron’s “The Strangest Way” come to mind. And how can I forget, “Man and Woman He Created Them” formerly known as “Theology of the Body” by Pope John Paul II is INCREDIBLE!

So, don’t let the N.O. mass deceive you!

1. As far as finding a place in the Church that is more comfortable or aids in your pursuit of sanctify, then I think you have a point. There are many orders and devotions within the Church. Although, I think that “simpler/non mystical variants” of Catholicism are not necessarily for those with lesser abilities. Because, after all, what is an ability?

People who go off to a monastery to study hesychasm are blessed with an opportunity. But those, as Dorothy Day teaches, who have nothing but the simple and profound love for the Eucharist, who spend 6 days a week working at a laundry mat, who came home every day for 40 years with aching feet, who fed and clothed and raised five children, who struggled past the pain of a deceased spouse crying themselves to sleep for 10 years, who stayed up late praying and worrying for their child who lost her way, who was never beautiful externally, who never got to wear nice clothes or wear nice jewelry, who never got to travel, who was never quoted as being brilliant, who could not reason brilliantly, who will never learn the deeper things of Catholic mysticism – these people, Sufjon, practice a spirituality, a Catholicism that most of us will never know nor may not be courageous or virtuousness enough to live.

These people will occupy the royal courts of heaven. They will be like queens and kings in their resurrected state. They will have a beatific vision that will rejoice in the realities of eternal life and the nature of God that most cannot even fathom. Even Jesus himself followed this spiritual path for most of his life. In the tradition of Opus Dei and St. Josemaria Escriva, Jesus probably worked long hours with Joseph as a carpenter. He hauled stones and labored in the shadows of the Roman garrison. The first will come last and the last will come first. Or as the band Mumford and Sons, in Platonist imagery, would say, “Come out of your cave walking on your hands - And see the world hanging upside down.”

I am not intending to criticize you, but this was an insight that I painfully learned just recently (though I am certainly not implying that I am wiser than you). I sought after a law degree, in part, to chase prestige. Now I am two years through and every moment seems more trifling that the moment before. My pride sent me chasing after the wind; it sent me digging for gold only to discover iron pyrite like a fool. I pray that though God’s grace that I could ever remotely measure up to the quiet unglamorous woman who works at the local mini mart. Not professionally per se, but spiritually. But then again, is there a difference?Take care, God bless, and sorry for the long message!

Best Regards,

Thomas