Please forgive me for excessive quoting, but I'm not sure what I say will
make sense otherwise.
On Wed, 5 Sep 2001, Dan Minette wrote:
> 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.
Ah, but how to get oneself to shut up is the big question, isn't it? It's
not easy. Lots of ways have existed, some more benign than others.
Techniques that don't fit the orthodoxy of the religion in charge tend to
get branded as witchcraft, sorcery, heresy, paganism, and so on--magic, in
short. The definition of magic, or "magical thinking" may also include
the kind of ritual foolishness you mention above, but it has never been
limited to only that sort of thing, to my knowledge.
> > > 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.
My problem with this reading is that historically, theology is the anlysis
of the stories and not the telling of the stories themselves. DeMello may
want to *change* that, and I'll grant that there's a big blurry area
between the distinctions, but the distinction is real.
That doesn't mean all theology is bad, incidentally. But it's basically
lit-crit, and the vast majority of it is deeply biased in the Christian
milieu.
>
> > 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.
That's lovely, and I like it. But it's not theology by any definition
that I can skew with my understanding of religious history. It's a
parable along the lines of one of Christ's original and mysterious
sermons, or it's like a lesson from Buddha. That is, it's something you'd
write theology about--or, better yet, meditate upon--and not theology
itself.
I think that, in cases like these, the distinction is extremely important.
> 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.
Ok, I was wrong to use the word "scary." I don't mean to omit good gentle
people with a calling to solitude or meditation, and I don't mean to limit
the title "mystic" to wild-eyed and unwashed loons. But there are two
things I'ld like you to consider. One, please compare your description of
your aunt's mystic practice with DeMello's definition. The definition
really doesn't hint at what she does, and here's why, IMO: the business
of the mystic is to go beyond the story, not simply to internalize. Maybe
this is a pedantic disagreement on my part, but IMO it is the business of
children in Sunday-school to take the meaning and flavor of stories into
their hearts. It is the business of mystics to take the next step beyond
the stories themselves and to attempt an understanding of the divine that
goes beyond words.
Two, I don't want us to forget the history inherent in the word "mystic."
Mystic, mysticism, mystery, mystery cult, etc. The concept of the mystic
is based in histories of religious tradition that include pagan cults,
tribal shamans, Christian saints...all kinds of things that would strike
the modern person as pretty strange, and most of which aren't nearly as
dignified as the image of the Buddhist monk or the image I'm picturing of
your aunt. The reason I picked the word "scary" when I originally tried
to describe mystics is that the mystic practice involves a pretty fierce
renunciation of ordinary social norms and often involves bringing back to
society a refutation of its values and expectations. Israel is typically
terrified by its prophets and rejects them at first, for example. Most
people immersed in the hurly-burly of daily life find the fierce silence
of the mystic unnerving and, yes, scary. If they're paying attention,
anyway. And then you've got things like Mithraic mystery cults, some
pretty fierce American Indian rituals, and so on. The ecstasies of St.
Theresa don't suggest serenity, for instance.
So, while you're correct that I shouldn't leap to one particular
stereotype of the mystic, I'd urge you not to sit content in the opposite
stereotype, the image of the serene master of meditation. It's on the
opposite end of the scale, but it's still a rather limited view.
> 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.
But these practices are hardly the whole of mysticism! I'd argue that
they represent a form of mysticism that is less threatening to a)
rationalists and b) Chrisitians than many, and as a result they've
received lots of press in the Western world because they make religion
seem relevant while not assaulting our cultural sense of self the way
taking peyote or chanting in sweat lodges or indulging in clearly pagan
rituals would. I suspect that DeMello is working hard to reinvigorate
Chrsitianity with understandings of mysticism and theology that are
intended to get western Christians out of the rut of associating mystics
with flying saints and theologians with medieval pedants.
I don't really disapprove, but by too selectively choosing our mystics I
think we give ourselves a false image and we distort history. In
DeMello's case (bearing in mind that I know only what you've told me
about him), he makes religion appear more rational and sedate than it
really is, and on the surface, at least, it makes myticism
and dogma seem like natural allies. I think that's probably a mistake, at
least if we take the Buddha and Christ seriously.
Marvin Long
Austin, Texas
For music that won't bugger your soul: www.guyforsyth.com
"The ego that sees a 'thou' is fundamentally different from an ego that
sees an 'it.'" -- Joseph Campbell
