Why are we inclined to believe in this untruth and hold skeptical the spiritual realm

  • Thread starter Thread starter contemplative
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

contemplative

Guest
From the Orchards of Perseverance by David Perata
A book of insights from nine Cistercian Monks. Learn more about the Cistercian Order of the Strict Observance (Trappist) here.


I remember sitting in my room at the monastery reading one evening before bed when I looked up from my book and saw everything in the room before me as having at one time been an idea in someone’s mind: the bed, the chair, the table, the lamp, etc. And even when I dissected each object into the materials and processes that produced them, they to, had been merely ideas at one time or another; thousands upon thousands of ideas combining to make that bed, chair, table and lamp.
Click to expand...
And then if I removed each of these ideas one by one – metal for tools to carve the wood, processes to forge the steel, plastic, textile, nails, plaster, paint, etc. – every item in the room systematically disappeared until the entire guest house had vanished from existence. Carried further, I continued to remove the ideas of humanity until everything on this planet that is human-made was gone, which left only nature in its original created form.

My experience that night brought home to me how we are truly co-creators with God of our own reality, and how transparent and frail that reality actually is. So if reality itself is merely an illusion – an untruth as Merton so aptly described it – why are we inclined to believe in this untruth and hold skeptical the spiritual realm?

So why are we so inclined to hold on to only that which we can see?
 
Excellent point. Adds a new dimension to my own thoughts…

Thank you for posting this – yes, thank you very much!
 
I don’t believe for a second that we are “co-creators of our own reality”, nor that “reality is an illusion”,

In re: the latter, the absurdity of the proposition can demonstrated simply by trying to go about living one’s life as if it were true. As Dr. Phil is fond of quipping, “And how’s that working out for you?” :rolleyes:

In re: the former, I only began to make progress toward maturity in the spiritual life, and toward simple sanity in the rest of life, when I stopped trying to think that I was in any way a creator of any kind of reality - and merely accepted God’s reality as He intended it to be.

Perhaps it was Lucifer’s original delusion to think that he could be a creator of his own reality…

Is the composer of that reflection a Mahayana Buddhist?
His is definitely no Catholic way of thinking.
 
I don’t think he meant it as being “equal” to God. I think he meant is as realizing that the things human beings created were initially ideas, just like WE were initially “ideas” in the mind of God.

So that not being able to “see” the spiritual realm is kind of silly for a person to say, when it should be clear that everything around us came from the realm of “ideas,” which are not concrete.
 
Contemplative, I think that your quote seems to be more in line with a Buddhist form of meditation known as “Vippasanna” where you break down everything to its smallest component… Its a circular form of constant questioning that honestly from my own experience just leaves one trying to understand more the physical world than things of the spirit.

Anyways, getting to your original question on “Why do we hold on to what we can only see?” I think that it is all a part of what can be easily touched and felt. I think it is much much harder to put ones trust in what is unseen.

It takes a great leap of faith to believe in something you have not yet seen or experienced. Especially when you still lack in faith and so want to experience what you have read in the bible (miracles, descent of the Holy Spirit) or in the lives of the Saints.

As human beings we are all into our “Sensory” feelings… If we can see, touch or smell it then it is real. The problem with this in terms of our relationship with God is that you can’t put human feelings on the same level of understanding as “things of the Spirit”.

St. Teresa of Avila had said that if human beings were aware of just how innumerable are the mysteries contained within each individuals soul, they would no longer be so fascinated with the physical world or sensual pleasures.

Just my 2 shekels lol

God bless
 
It seems to me that the quote is totally Christian. It is simply pointing out that before any created things – including those that are manmade – there is the IDEA of the thing. I think the poster was offering a very simple method of demonstrating to unbelievers that there is a kind of parallel (but not an actual parallel) to what humans do when they create physical objects and what God does.

That’s the whole point of the quote, to me.

It’s a good tool for those of us who are trying to make the idea of “spirit” comprehensible to people who are seeking to understand.

That is, before there was a crucifix on the wall, there was the thought of the object. Only after the THOUGHT (the IDEA), did it become concrete.

That’s the message of the quote to me, anyway.

It’s certainly not remotely Buddhist, in my estimation.
 
The notion that “reality is an illusion” is very definitely a Buddhist concept - Mahayana, to be precise - and absolutely incompatible with orthodox Christianity.

There is so much sound Catholic contemplative spirituality available - take Ss. Teresa of Avila and John of the Cross, for example - I find it hard to understand why folks bother with the utter nonsense masquerading as spirituality these days.

(Cf. the Vatican Instructions on Aspects of Christian Meditation, and Chrsitian Response to the New Age)
 
I really don’t think the text meant “illusion” in the Buddhist sense at all. Perhaps the OP can verify this. If the quote indeed means what you think it does, I would heartily agree with you. I think the speaker in the quote meant to say that spirit is “more real” than the physical realm.

But if I’m mistaken, again, I will strongly concur in your conclusion. It may just be a case of imprecise expression on the part of the person being quoted.

I don’t think Cistercians are known for their heterodoxy.
 
40.png
ThisOne:
I really don’t think the text meant “illusion” in the Buddhist sense at all.
Click to expand...
It seems to me that the use of “illusion” in the original poster was not Buddhist-related at all. The author speaks of analyzing everything around him/her, and realizing that he/she was surrounded by things humans had created. (And since humans could really only re-arrange what God had actually created, you could speak of such human re-arrangements as “co-creations” – since, for instance, both a human and God are needed in order to “create” a cabin.)

Since everything man re-arranges will decompose, one can then usefully speak of such re-arrangements as “transparent” and “frail” and “illusion” – but only when compared with what “never changes” – which is God.

Besides, “illusion” is always relative. You can’t have an illusion, unless there’s something real. The author knows this, and Buddhists know this.😃
 
Well, all in actuality is illusion and that illusion “Mara” is the architect of this… and all Buddhists know this… There is no true reality, just “mind” whose builder of these supposed realities, “Mara”, tries to make us believe this world of realities is real. 😉

I use to be an old-school Theravadan Buddhism enthusiast. But, for the sake of not going around in circles… I will bow and respect the conclusions of what each poster sees as the intent of the OP quote.

No more hijacking of this thread. LOL

God bless all
 
Well, I’m glad you’re watching out for errors of those kinds! 🙂
 
40.png
Maryam:
Well, all in actuality is illusion and that illusion “Mara” is the architect of this… and all Buddhists know this… There is no true reality, just “mind” whose builder of these supposed realities, “Mara”, tries to make us believe this world of realities is real. 😉

I use to be an old-school Theravadan Buddhism enthusiast. But, for the sake of not going around in circles… I will bow and respect the conclusions of what each poster sees as the intent of the OP quote.

No more hijacking of this thread. LOL

God bless all
Click to expand...
Just to clarify: “Reality is illusion” is rejected by Theravadans, who deem conditioned phenomena to be made up of form, feeling, recognition, intention, and consciousness, all of which are “real-and-impermament”.😃 “Illusion-theory”, better known as “Mind-Only” theory, is held by some Buddhists, but not all, or even most (and the astute ones would debate the propriety of using the word “illusion” to describe their position). But enough of Buddhism. Back to Christian contemplation.😉
 
A favorite Middle Eastern quote I enjoy: “Not all fingers are the same”.

Going back to OP quote on ideas and why we hold on to what we can only see…

I would often as a child get annoyed when I would see people make novena’s asking to see a sign from this or that Saint so that they would know if their petition was granted… but, later as an adult I came to see that we all at one point or another “test God” so that we can see whether God is really listening to us.

To ask for a sign would fall under the category of holding on to what we can only see… For ex. “St. Therese if you send me a rose then I will know you have answered my petition” is one that you often see.

When is asking for a sign from God permissible and does not fall into the category of “do not test the Lord your God”? If there is such a thing…

God bless
 
Everyone, please read the originating post once more.

To say that “reality is an illusion” is to say that reality is not real. It is a nonsensical contradiction of terms.

If reality is just an illusion, then sin itself is just an illusion, and we are all off the hook, gratis.

Did Jesus die for an “illusion”?

And Jesus Himself then is just an illusion.
And then you and I are just illusions.
Is this thread just an illusion?
If so, then we are all wasting our time!
(Or maybe my computer is an illusion…)

Insofar as it was created by God - who is real, not an illusion, I personally prefer objective reality.

Really!
 
The author continues to say in the next paragraph…
A man who writes the novice master of a Trappist monastery has, on some level, pierced the material illusion and has come to the conclusion that there’s got to be more to life than what his five senses tell him. When he enters the monastery, he then begins the process of stripping away this untruth that prevents him from attaining a perfect union with God. It’s not that he needs to go to a monastery to locate God, but the monastic life affords the necessary solitude away from the world’s hustle, bustle and illusion to begin his inner search.
The perception by some that a monk drops out from society and becomes a non-productive member only holds water if one believes that the material world is our sole reality, and that prayer is not a valid contribution to humanity.

So why do you think we are so inclined to hold on to only that which we can see? This is my original question. I’m sorry for those who have struggled so with my OP.
 
Part of the problem is with the writing or editing of the original text:

For example (I am bolding some text for illustrative purposes):
“A man who writes the novice master of a Trappist monastery has, on some level, pierced the material illusion and has come to the conclusion that there’s got to be more to life than what his five senses tell him. When he enters the monastery, he then begins the process of stripping away **this untruth ** that prevents him from attaining a perfect union with God. It’s not that he needs to go to a monastery to locate God, but the monastic life affords the necessary solitude away from the world’s hustle, bustle and illusion to begin his inner search.”

In the above paragraph, what does “this untruth” refer to? From the way this text is written, the only conclusion one can make is that “there’s got to be more to life than what his five senses tell him” is being referred to.

But that makes no sense if one has even an inkling of the purpose of the writer.

I would suggest using a text that isn’t so poorly constructed – or just your own words – to pose the question.
 
Rather than seeing us as “co-creators with God of our own reality,” Professor J.R.R. Tolkien, internationally renowned Catholic author, presents a different view — that we are instead sub-creators. You can read about this in fuller detail on the following EWTN website from which the below quote is taken: J.R.R. Tolkien
“We have come from God and inevitably the myths woven by us, though they contain error, will also reflect a splintered fragment of the true light, the eternal truth that is with God. Indeed, only by myth-making, only by becoming a “sub-creator” and inventing stories, can Man ascribe to the state of perfection that he knew before the fall.” (J.R.R. Tolkien: A Biography, Humphrey Carpenter, Ch. IV, 1977).
Click to expand...
My own personal answer to the OP’s question would be this: Not all of us are inclined to hold on to only that which we can see.

~~ the phoenix
 
Sounds like someone was reading too much Plato to me.
Plato also thought a lot about the natural world and how it works. He thought that everything had a sort of ideal form, like the idea of a chair, and then an actual chair was a sort of poor imitation of the ideal chair that exists only in your mind. One of the ways Plato tried to explain his ideas was with the famous metaphor of the cave. He said, Suppose there is a cave, and inside the cave there are some men chained up to a wall, so that they can only see the back wall of the cave and nothing else. These men can’t see anything outside of the cave, or even see each other clearly, but they can see shadows of what is going on outside the cave. Wouldn’t these prisoners come to think that the shadows were real, and that was what things really looked like?
Click to expand...
historyforkids.org/learn/greeks/philosophy/plato.htm

Note: beware of pop ups at link.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top