Why are these Fora so overwhelming Conservative

[TheRealJuliane]

That echoes my thoughts as well. I heard a theolgian comment that sometimes mystics are simply getting high on their own brain chemistry rather than being somehow more enlightened than us mere mortals.

And anyone who thinks Catholics simply accept dogma without question has never met a Jesuit.

Lisa

Obviously some people here are in love with their own brains, and take them out and play with them every chance they get.

If there is one thing on this earth that I cannot stand, it’s being patronized. They can take their philosophical arrogance and leave me alone, I’m going to pray to my Savior. “Lord, have mercy on me, a sinner.”

 

[Elizabeth502]

since the majority of extractions form the Scriptures are made by folks who haven’t gone that far. and that explains why there is such reviling of those who do.

How precisely would you be able to determine that from your vantage point? (That’s right, you wouldn’t. )

 

[TheRealJuliane]

How precisely would you be able to determine that from your vantage point? (That’s right, you wouldn’t. )

Oh, but HE has a kind of sight that we don’t, don’tcha know…

 

[Elizabeth502]

I know Gaber enjoys the ability to take a non-dualistic view toward things, and I have to say that it is pretty exciting and one that is hard to share with someone who does not know such views already. Once you learn to do that on a regular basis things all seem different, even peaceful and joyful.

How would Gaber know (or you know, if you’re claiming some similar privileged knowledge) whether any people in the universe other than you two are capable of thinking non-dualistically?

I don’t mind people criticizing Catholicism for what it is, but it’s hard to stomach reading criticisms of it for what it is not, what its theologians are not, what its believers are not, what its scripture scholars are not, what its mystics are not, not to mention the depth of prayer & intellect that is being speculated upon with regard to the ordinary Catholic. etc. Giant caricatures and enough straw men to engage in some serious barn-burning for mere intellectual game-playing.

Do not confuse doctrine with spirituality. Those are two decidedly different realms in the rich history of the Roman Church. Spirituality helps the pilgrim to understand and to accept definitive doctrine (often with new insight and new levels of peace/joy), but spirituality does not change doctrine.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Oh, but HE has a kind of sight that we don’t, don’tcha know…

Modern Gnosticism.

 

[atheistgirl]

Even Mooji, who is obviously a non-dualistic (non-Catholic tho) thinker, defends duality.

I listened to this - and to be honest all I got was :hypno::hypno::hypno:

But he did say something which resonated a little, as it’s a view I subscribe to.

‘‘The world is not your enemy. Peope are not your enemy.’’

Sarah x

 

[PRmerger]

And anyone who thinks Catholics simply accept dogma without question has never met a Jesuit.

Lisa

And has never read any of the late, great Pope JPII’s magnificent encyclicals.

Nor examined the rich history of Aquinas, Anselm, Augustine, Teresa of Avila, Edith Stein…

 

[AlanFromWichita]

How would Gaber know (or you know, if you’re claiming some similar privileged knowledge) whether any people in the universe other than you two are capable of thinking non-dualistically?

I base my opinions on a point-by-point basis. I think everyone is born with non-dualistic thinking, and education adds the dualism – which it must do because without it we can’t even talk much less learn. So everyone has the “power” so to speak, it’s just a matter of which one, if either, is predominant in their writings. It’s largely a matter of “unlearning” in the contemplative way.

Do not confuse doctrine with spirituality. Those are two decidedly different realms in the rich history of the Roman Church. Spirituality helps the pilgrim to understand and to accept definitive doctrine (often with new insight and new levels of peace/joy), but spirituality does not change doctrine.

I don’t see the goal of Catholicism as understanding doctrine, with spirituality being able to help with that. I see it the other way around. The whole point of Christianity is to advance on the spiritual journey, and the doctrine is there to help with that. So yeah, doctrine is there to build spirituality, not the other way around. The other way around is the Church’s job.

Alan

 

[Gaber]

That’s most of what I was saying. But I was directing it specifically to Gaber because his posts suggest that somehow, he stands in a place apart where he can judge the rest of us as lacking in objectivity or ability to see with a larger scope, as he does. In other words, like so many liberals do, he condescends and patronizes, thinking that HE is standing outside somehow and can look at us fish and tell us that we are wet. But he is still in a larger fishbowl himself, and thinks his fins are legs.

Get me?

No, I do not “judge the rest of us as lacking in objectivity or ability to see with a larger scope.” I am pointing out that you see for the very great part from a very specific form of awareness which in metaphysical and other terms is called “subject/object” awareness. that is not all that we are heir too. What I am pointing to, and not claiming any proprietary rights to by the farthest stretch of imagination, is the ability to engage the reflexive nature of awareness and discover what that is without its contents.

That achievement instantly informs the mind of a rather subtle fact that is always already there, but veiled by the ceaseless chatter of the even gloriously wonderful story one might be telling themselves about themselves, the Universe, and God. that one experience reverses much in the realm of perception and the Scriptures and other writings reveal themselves in an astonishingly brilliant and unthought of way. I assure you I am no better, ore worse, in essence, than anyone on here or anywhere. What I am is differently expereinced thatn the vast majority on here who because of, ion my assesment, their consiervatism, have not looked into the very nature of their looking itself. I assure you beyond any capacity that I have to reward you for your effort, or Krosus, that there is astonishingly more to you than you think. That is all I’m saying.

And I am most certainly in the same water you are, RealJuliane, or anyone. There is no other water to be in, or out of. The “larger scope” is not a matter of contents and comparing various software we have accepted as our way of life, so to speak. It is about the nature of Electricity, one might say. that allows the electrons to dance on your screen of awareness and make pretty pictures and words.

 

[LisaA]

And has never read any of the late, great Pope JPII’s magnificent encyclicals.

Nor examined the rich history of Aquinas, Anselm, Augustine, Teresa of Avila, Edith Stein…

Thank you for the smile! The great intellectual tradition, the questioning, always seeking and confirming the Wholeness of Truth is one of the things I love most about my Catholic faith. Every day I am amazed at the incredible richness, the insight and the wisdom just waiting to be absorbed.

Somehow all the navel gazing pales in comparison
Lisa

 

[PRmerger]

Thank you for the smile! The great intellectual tradition, the questioning, always seeking and confirming the Wholeness of Truth is one of the things I love most about my Catholic faith. Every day I am amazed at the incredible richness, the insight and the wisdom just waiting to be absorbed.

Somehow all the navel gazing pales in comparison
Lisa

:yyeess:

 

[Elizabeth502]

I base my opinions on a point-by-point basis. I think everyone is born with non-dualistic thinking, and education adds the dualism – which it must do because without it we can’t even talk much less learn. So everyone has the “power” so to speak, it’s just a matter of which one, if either, is predominant in their writings.

A person’s “writings” – whether on CAF or anywhere else – is absolutely not revelation about their spiritual state, or even whether they believe or see or “contemplate” dualistically or not.

It’s largely a matter of “unlearning” in the contemplative way.

No. That is not what unlearning and Unknowing is. It is not related to discarding one’s learned truths, including any truths with the slightest foundation of dualism in them. It’s related to non-intellectual self-understanding, detachment toward self, openness to the mystery of God in a journeyed and emptying fashion, and does not imply that one’s adherence to doctrine is similarly open.

I don’t see the goal of Catholicism as understanding doctrine, with spirituality being able to help with that.

Who does? Unreal!

No one who understands Catholicism, or for that matter religion in general, would see “the goal as understanding doctrine.” Where you do come up with this stuff? It’s just that all your flowery talk about contemplation – and your frequent implications that somehow (a) most Catholics wouldn’t know how to get there, and/or (b) that most of the hierarchy responsible for doctrine is detached from spirituality, or somehow is spiritually stunted merely because they are able to define doctrine clearly; and/or (c) that orthodox Catholics who understand, accept, and live by their Church’s doctrine are somehow engaging in some kind of trade-off between spirituality and doctrine – all of that belies a misunderstanding of spirituality and doctrine.

They are not mutually exclusive. And for anyone to assert that he or she would know, or even could guess, how developed someone’s Christian spirituality is, based on how orthodox their fidelity is to Catholic teaching, is just offensive, I’m sorry. But worse, it’s inaccurate. Like someone’s style of writing, or writing content, one’s adherence to Catholic doctrine is not some publicly available data allowing strangers to assess where that Catholic is on the spiritual journey – never mind how “open” they are.

doctrine is there to build spirituality, not the other way around. The other way around is the Church’s job.

Nope. Sorry. That is not the Church’s purpose. She does not see herself that way. She sees herself as leading souls to God in the present tense and eventually to Heaven, as her primary function. Doctrine is necessary to impart because spirituality cannot be separated from behavior, and Jesus Himself made that abundantly clear.

 

[Gaber]

How would Gaber know (or you know, if you’re claiming some similar privileged knowledge) whether any people in the universe other than you two are capable of thinking non-dualistically?

That is kind of easy. Meet one or read one. There are many writers or recorded lectures from many many proponents of non duaism from Sankara forward. There are even some excellent books from contemporary proponents in English by Westerners. At least if someone did that, realize the huge volume of work that stems from this realization, they might realize that we;re not making this stuff up. nor are we copy-catting. That can’t be done. This is not about intellectual assertion, while intellect can be the servant of one who has discovered what is behind person.

I don’t mind people criticizing Catholicism for what it is, but it’s hard to stomach reading criticisms of it for what it is not, what its theologians are not, what its believers are not, what its scripture scholars are not, what its mystics are not, not to mention the depth of prayer & intellect that is being speculated upon with regard to the ordinary Catholic. etc. Giant caricatures and enough straw men to engage in some serious barn-burning for mere intellectual game-playing.

Actually everyone is what we’re pointing at: conscious awareness being. No one is special in this regard or less special. All that is being put forth here, at least by me, is that whatever is perceived as thought, feeling, anything mental, all of it has a substrate that can be discovered–once the inner conversation one constantly has with themselves in the alleged “waking” state is halted. Then one can know what it is that makes them awake, and what relationship that has to thought, which is contents, similar to software.

We are simply pointing to the hard wiring of the human awareness before it gets loaded with parochial explanations made necessary by the nature of dealing with and navigating in a 3D world. Nothing is destroyed. Only there is clarity about the nature of identity after one discovers what that awareness is as well as what thought then is. And that can’t be made up any more that you can make up feeling that you are “I” to yourself.

Do not confuse doctrine with spirituality. Those are two decidedly different realms in the rich history of the Roman Church. Spirituality helps the pilgrim to understand and to accept definitive doctrine (often with new insight and new levels of peace/joy), but spirituality does not change doctrine.

Yes, you are right. That is the whole point, to discover by experiences what the root of doctrine is, why, there is a Golden Rule, and why there is a Great commandment. Then you can be Catholic if you wish, as in having a religion, but you will have it consciously, as do so many of the Great Saints, and some of them almost.

I mean, as someone else pointed out on here, there is nothing wrong with duality as we have it in our normal every day subject/object state of perception. It works for most things relative to Earthly existence. However, one at least ought to know that there can be a more inclusive state and that there are ways of inviting the Grace that allows it and its precursors to be experienced.

 

[Gaber]

Thank you for the smile! The great intellectual tradition, the questioning, always seeking and confirming the Wholeness of Truth is one of the things I love most about my Catholic faith. Every day I am amazed at the incredible richness, the insight and the wisdom just waiting to be absorbed.

Somehow all the navel gazing pales in comparison
Lisa

I haven’t read anyone on here who advocates omphalic meditation. I don’t care for it as a methodology, as it is a low form of yantra, in my opinion. However, in the great contemplative tradition one might ask themselves “Who is it that perceives (t)he great intellectual tradition, the questioning, always seeking and confirming the Wholeness of Truth?” By what means do you perceive that you have an intellect? Who is doing the looking?

 

[Elizabeth502]

That achievement instantly informs the mind of a rather subtle fact that is always already there, but veiled by the ceaseless chatter of the even gloriously wonderful story one might be telling themselves about themselves, the Universe, and God.

[snip/snip]

All this is, is the distinction between apprehension and comprehension.

And if it’s the One Truth of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ that is being either apprehended or comprehended, He is not divided or divisible. God does not contradict Himself in His Oneness and Truth. So if what is being supposedly (and subjectively) apprehended opposes what is and can be comprehended, whatever is being claimed as being so wonderfully subjectively & gloriously valid is something other than Truth.

 

[Gaber]

It is such a different way of thinking, that it takes quite a bit of calibration to become sociable again. Without calibration, the experiences may be wonderful but hard to control when trying to share with others.

Alan

No kidding. My own Mentor could hardly utter a word a minute afterwards in attempting to speak correctly from that standpoint. People who knew what he was about were actually, some of them, astonished that he could do it in English, ours being fundamentally a language based on dualism. As RA Heinlein noted, “In English, only the first person singular present tense of the verb ‘to be’ is true to fact.” The delicacy of such an endeavor as we attempt, usually somewhat poorly, unfortunately, is pointed to by the fact that original Sanskrit is not even taught because of the nuances it requires of language referent to existence and relationship. What is taught, usually, is a much abbreviated version.

And what Alan says is a vitally important point. The words aren’t it. They can only indicate that someone has had a discovery, not a book learning, of being. Would there be the consistency if there wasn’t a reference in experience of what I’m talking about? I’d be, and others expounding the “same” would be all over the place. It takes some doing to overcome the shock and re-engage society. Try having the rug pulled out from every last minute shred of what you thought it meant to be human and see how easily you can sit down at dinner and drinks with friends.

But we are not all over the place. there is remarkable consistency in the records of non dualists. And that is easily discernible by reading proponents of non duality through the ages and in many cultures–who came from many circumstances, and were religious or not. And many of them didn’t know of each other or their writings. So how did that happen? And how does it happen that, once this is understood, it is congruent with the Teachings of Jesus as well?

I think those questions, the result I see agreed with or not, are worth pondering. It is the only explanation that I find that fits with the Universality of the fact that we are made in the image and likeness of God, each and every one of us, whether we ever heard of Jesus or the Church or not. What came first? We being made in His image and likeness, without exception, or the Church? That answered, be the Church and Catholic. But one can be conscious about it, not just book learned or osmosed. Yes?

 

[Gaber]

[snip/snip]

All this is, is the distinction between apprehension and comprehension.

And if it’s the One Truth of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ that is being either apprehended or comprehended, He is not divided or divisible. God does not contradict Himself in His Oneness and Truth. So if what is being supposedly (and subjectively) apprehended opposes what is and can be comprehended, whatever is being claimed as being so wonderfully subjectively & gloriously valid is something other than Truth.

You are absolutely right. God cannot be divided against Himself. Knowing that got me through a lot. And pray tell me, what is it that you have ever perceived objectively? I mean given that the contradiction you set up doesn’t exist as I see it? Are you then saying that God is comprehensible?

 

[AlanFromWichita]

A person’s “writings” – whether on CAF or anywhere else – is absolutely not revelation about their spiritual state, or even whether they believe or see or “contemplate” dualistically or not.

I said nothing of their spiritual state. Only the type of reasoning demonstrated by their posts.

No. That is not what unlearning and Unknowing is. It is not related to discarding one’s learned truths, including any truths with the slightest foundation of dualism in them. It’s related to non-intellectual self-understanding, detachment toward self, openness to the mystery of God in a journeyed and emptying fashion, and does not imply that one’s adherence to doctrine is similarly open.

If you can’t see the correlation between the unlearning of dualistic-only thinking then I understand why you would feel this way. Besides, I said nothing of discarding dualistic thought, but dualistic-only thinking. I went to great pains to mention, and even linked a video, on dualism being necessary. But you are claiming I’m saying just the opposite. :whacky:

I only posted to offer you an explanation I thought might help you get along with Gaber, but I see you seem to be angry about my post as if I were attacking you. So now you’re going to find fault with me. I will not claim that this behavior is typical of conservatives, because there are many conservative posters who do not show attitude as a first response for something they misread or otherwise don’t seem to understand.

Who does? Unreal!

No one who understands Catholicism, or for that matter religion in general, would see “the goal as understanding doctrine.” Where you do come up with this stuff?

You’re the one who said that spirituality supports the learning of doctrine, as if doctrine were the goal and spirituality were a supporting tool.

It’s just that all your flowery talk about contemplation – and your frequent implications that somehow (a) most Catholics wouldn’t know how to get there, and/or

Well, many don’t. Why? Because nobody tells them about it. Maybe they would do fine if their Church told them these tools were available, like maybe even from the pulpit once every 10 years would be an upgrade.

So I ask you, do you practice contemplative prayer forms? If you don’t, you’re not doing the kind of prayer the Holy Roman Catholic Church says you should be doing (CCC2708). My guess is that if you were a contemplative, you would not dismiss what I am saying as mere “flowery talk.” But of course you are right I can’t know your internal state; I can only go based on what I see you typed. So rather than assume, I ask.

(b) that most of the hierarchy responsible for doctrine is detached from spirituality, or somehow is spiritually stunted merely because they are able to define doctrine clearly;

Now you’re just making up stuff. I never even once claimed that knowing doctrine prevents spiritual growth or indicates its lack. Another straw man.

and/or (c) that orthodox Catholics who understand, accept, and live by their Church’s doctrine are somehow engaging in some kind of trade-off between spirituality and doctrine – all of that belies a misunderstanding of spirituality and doctrine.

I never said that either. Why should I be impressed with your professed knowledge of and love for 100% of Church teachings, when in just this thread you are taking to reading things into my posts that aren’t there? :tsktsk:

They are not mutually exclusive.

Well duhh.

And for anyone to assert that he or she would know, or even could guess, how developed someone’s Christian spirituality is, based on how orthodox their fidelity is to Catholic teaching, is just offensive, I’m sorry.

If I see anyone actually make that claim, I’ll let you know so you can be duly offended.

But worse, it’s inaccurate. Like someone’s style of writing, or writing content, one’s adherence to Catholic doctrine is not some publicly available data allowing strangers to assess where that Catholic is on the spiritual journey – never mind how “open” they are.

I don’t know who you’re fighting. You quoted my post but are arguing against things I never claimed.

Nope. Sorry. That is not the Church’s purpose. She does not see herself that way. She sees herself as leading souls to God in the present tense and eventually to Heaven, as her primary function. Doctrine is necessary to impart because spirituality cannot be separated from behavior, and Jesus Himself made that abundantly clear.

Thank you for informing me of how the Church thinks. Luckily one of us knows, eh?

Alan

 

[PRmerger]

You are absolutely right. God cannot be divided against Himself. Knowing that got me through a lot. And pray tell me, what is it that you have ever perceived objectively? I mean given that the contradiction you set up doesn’t exist as I see it? Are you then saying that God is comprehensible?

What is being said is that there is an Objective Truth and that we must conform ourselves to that Truth.

Not find a truth that conforms to our own ideas.

For that would be creating a god in one’s own image.

And if you can not say that there is a belief that you have changed because God declared it to be so, then you have, I daresay, created a god in your own image.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

And if you can not say that there is a belief that you have changed because God declared it to be so, then you have, I daresay, created a god in your own image.

One problem we have is that we cannot comprehend God in His fullness, so we have to take a point of view toward God, which is going to be an image. Those aspects of God that are important to us, that we believe we as humans “know” about God, are going to create that image. Whether the image resembles ourselves, or something we wish for, something we dread, or something the Church of other Catholics have told us, there is going to be an image because our mind needs that in order to process what’s going on. Even calling God “the Father” conjures an image, because that’s what the name is supposed to do. So does saying “God is merciful,” which can conjure up images for example of Jesus consoling the sorrowful.

But there are many images of God. Each of us was made in the image of God. So if we want to know God, look to a human being in need and if we help them, we have helped Jesus. People say they can’t “see God” in other people like they believe they should. Since people are images of God we each are one. We are the images of God, temples of Christ – every time we do a kind act for another person we’re building that person’s image of a good God. In fact, I challenge you to go beyond looking for God in other people … you should be able to look in the mirror and recognize the likeness to God. If you can’t, then your self-image and/or God-image might enjoy a little tweaking.

Alan