----- Original Message -----
From: "Marvin Long, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "BRIN-L Mailing list" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2001 11:57 PM
Subject: Re: Contradiction Problems????
> On Sun, 2 Sep 2001, Dan Minette wrote:
>
> > Well, I guess one could construct a system in which beings that are
labeled
> > fairies and unicorns are transcendent. But, the fairies and unicorns I
have
> > seen referenced in literature are definitely empirical objects in the
same
> > manner as you or I are. They are magical instead of truly mystical.
Here,
> > I use magical as being able to work outside the normal laws of nature by
> > special powers or special knowledge of secret words, spells, etc.
>
> Things that make me go "Hmm..."
>
> I wonder to what degree the distinction between "magical" and "mystical"
> (or "religious") is a byproduct of Judeo-Christian theology's attempt to
> set itself apart from and above the other religions with which it has had
> to compete. It seems to me that most things we westerners call magic
> are simply the mystic rituals of non-Christians. Mysticism comes from
> good rituals, but magic comes from bad (i.e. unapproved, non-Christian)
> rituals.
The purpose of magic and the purpose of mysticism are different. There are
Christians who approach their religion with a very magical point of view.
I'll give you an example of Catholic magic. There are people who believe
that if you pray to Mary seven times on seven different Sundays and leave
seven copies of these instructions in the church where you pray...your
prayer will be answered positively. (I may have gotten the numbers and the
days.) That's magic...using a particular ritual to manipulate God.
Mysticism is more about creating silence within yourself and listening to
the Divine. You probably don't know, but de Mello was raised in India
studied for years in monasteries in the East. I have heard/read a number
of traditions and techniques for Eastern mysticism...and many make a lot of
sense.
The practice can be summed up real quickly: shut up and listen. Mystics
turn off the internal dialog and listen in true silence.
> > I also use Anthony de Mello's definition of mystical:
> >
> > Theology: the art of telling, and listening to, stories about the
Divine.
> >
> > Mysticism: the art of taking the taste and feeling of those stories into
> > your heart so that your life is transformed.
>
> I dislike these definitions intensely. They are bland and misleading.
We differ here. I think that they are very strong statements of a mystic.
Writing within the Catholic church, with its tradition of Augustine and
Aquinas, it is a strong statement on the value of large logical systems.
> Here are my alternatives:
>
> Theology: the art of justifying the ways of the Divine, as defined by his
> Church, to man. Also, when man's ways fail to yield, the art of
> redefining the ways of the Divine so as to justify to man the continuation
> of the Church. Also, the frank questioning of what the heck is the
> meaning of the world, as experienced, in the context of the Divine, as
> defined.
>
But, that all deals with reducing the divine to human terms. For de Mello,
its experience the Divine in ways that transcend human words. The advantage
of stories is that they point to something beyond the words. I agree that
he made an overstatement, but it is an overstatement with a point. Yes,
there is poetry and Paul's logical system in scripture, but it can be best
interpreted, in a theological sense, as a collection of stories of God's
interaction with the lives of a community.
> Mysticism: the art of inviting the immediate and tangible presence of
> the Divine into one's consciousness, whether through meditation, prayer,
> ritual, deprivation, service, drugs, etc., or some combination of factors.
> Also, the art of altering one's consciousness to contact the Divine.
>
> I dislike de Mello's definition of theology because it seems to suggest
> that it consists of little more than the telling of instructive parables,
> which is false.
Well, there is indeed more to it than that, but his argument is that the
extra stuff isn't worth all that much. I think one of the stories he tells
is instructive to show his attitude (I misplaced my copy of the Song of the
Bird, so this is from memory."
The master taught
Everything said about the Divine is inadequate, everything said diminishes
the Divine.
But then a disciple asked
"if this is true, master, why do you teach"
"why does a bird sing."
The stories are the maps made by the travelers. They are not to be studied
in your armchair, but used as a guide when you make your own journey.
I dislike his definition of mysticism because it turns
> any regular churchgoer into a mystic, which also is false. Mystics are
> scary, otherworldly people, at least when in the grip of their mystic
> practice. It is the mystic's strangeness that makes him or her
> valuable (or threatening, or both). That's why we draw a distinction
> between mystics and ordinary priests and parishioners. If even priests
are
> not by definition mystics (and I've never met a priest that seemed to fit
> the bill), then de Mello's definition is useless.
>
Well, that's a fairly common distinction, but its not realistic. If you
consider the mystical traditions of St. Theresa of Avalon or John of the
Cross, or St. Ignatius, and if you look at the practices of numerous
religious people, you may very well see a number of mystics where you might
not expect.
I'll give my aunt as a pretty clear example. She left the cloister because
she didn't have enough time to pray there (too many 400 year old European
practices getting in the way of serious prayer time), and became a hermit.
She practiced silence and meditated for long periods of time. She was/is
definitely part of the Christian/Catholic mystical tradition.
She is certainly not the least bit scary. She is a loving warm woman, who
enjoys a good joke. Indeed, another hermit who lived in the hermitage with
my aunt for 25 years gets into punning contests with me when she isn't
practicing silence.
One point my aunt made is very important. She said that she had people come
to the hermitage for solitude because they had trouble dealing with people.
She said they were just running away from themselves. A person with a true
calling to solitude gets along great with people, but feels the need for
something more.
Mystics don't always fit the stereotypes.
> I think this assumes that all mystics will perceive and describe the
> Divine with similar rhetoric. While similarities between religions
> traditions have certainly been noticed by people like Jung and Campbell,
> it seems to me that those similarities are often to a large degree
> inferred rather than directly parallel. This is not to say
> that those inferences are necessarily illegitimate, but that to assume any
> polytheistic mysticism will be expressed in terms directly parallel to
> Hinduism, say, is to place too narrow a restriction on the possibilities
> of mystic expression.
Well, the example I gave studied within Eastern traditions for years. I'd
argue that the tremendous similarities are because the mystics around the
world in the various traditions use different techniques to do the same
thing. For example, the lotus and kneeling positions were instituted to
keep the back straight...which helps keep one from sleeping and/or the mind
wandering.
>
Dan M.
