--- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@...> wrote:
>
> --- In [email protected], maskedzebra <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> > Because in reading Catholic philosopherslike AquinasI find
> > myself intuiting the cosmos as they experienced itI sort of
> > read this off of their writing.
>
> MZ, I have a question for you.
>
> Xeno called attention to the fact that Aquinas late in life
> had some kind of experience that "silenced" him and led him
> to declare, "All that I have written seems like straw to me."
>
> I'm wondering what you think happened to him. (If you've
> already commented on this, forgive me; I did a quick search
> but couldn't find anything.)
>
> And I have a hypothetical: Let's say you cut your spiritual
> teeth on the writings of Aquinas and thorughly internalized
> his views. You never encountered MMY, knew nothing about him
> or TM or the Eastern idea of enlightenment.
>
> One day in 1976, out of the blue, with no warning, you had
> the same experience you had on the mountain with MMY that
> you now refer to as "slipping into Unity Consciousness,"
> except that you had no preparation whatsoever and no context
> (and let's say it didn't last very long, a few hours or days).
>
> How would that have affected your take on Aquinas's writings?
> How long would it have taken you to decide that the experience
> wasn't "real" but Aquinas was?
Dear Authfriend,
I consider this a great question, and I will do my best to answer it.
Had I started to experience exactly what happened to me on that mountain just
above Arosa, Switzerland in September 1976having only known (about) reality
through the writing of Thomas Aquinasnow realize, I am going to be totally
honest hereI WOULD HAVE IMMEDIATELY SENSED SOMETHING MYSTICALLY FOREIGN AND
EVEN ANTITHETICAL TO THE TRUTH I LEARNED FROM AQUINAS.
Now you understand, authfriend, in this hypothetical situation, I did not,
before this moment, have any EXPERIENCE of realitybeyond my ordinary waking
state experience. That is, I am not, for purposes of answering your question in
the way that I believe draws out the meaning and import that is behind the
posing of this hypothetical situation, assuming ANY contact with reality in any
mystical or supernatural sense. I have had, as it were, up until this decisive
moment in my life, no religious experiences whatsoevera very different
antecedent circumstance than what was the case when I historically (actually)
went through this enlightenment experience ('slipping into Unity').
You see, authfriend, the experience that began to take me over on that mountain
was the dissolving of my individuality and the classic pantheistic vision of
seeing the natural world charged with not, in Hopkins's words, the "grandeur"
of God, BUT WITH GOD HIMSELF (or Itself).
So, then, having made myself completely familiar with the writings of Aquinas,
in which the universe is the creation of God, and my own person also a creation
of God, and that GOD IS WHOLLY SEPARATE FROM AND OTHER THAN HIS CREATION, to
begin to behold that God WAS his creationand that this same God WAS my
innermost selfI would have (if the impression and conviction formed in me by
Aquinas's writings was dominant) resisted the experience, and therefore if I
had had the power to reject and withdraw myself from what was overtaking
(Maharishi word there) me, this is what I would have done. That is, refuse to
allow myself to surrender to God in this Hindu-pantheistic form, and realize
that, somehow, fallen angels were deceiving me into experiencing reality in
such a way which was contrary to THE WAY IT ACTUALLY IS.
(You see, Aquinas had told me that God is only immediately present to the human
being in terms of having originally GIVEN EXISTENCE to him or her, and then
KEEPING him or her IN EXISTENCE. God could never BECOME something he created.
And conversely, a human being could never BECOME what had created him or her.)
Now, I don't know if, given what actually happened to me on that mountain in
September of 1976, I actually COULD HAVE stopped what was happening me (had I
been certain that the Catholic description of reality was true, and the pagan
description false)I rather doubt it, since my overwhelming sensation of
"slipping into Unity" was that it was ineluctable and inexorable. Butremember
in this imagined circumstance I have had no prior EXPERIENCES that would have
confirmed the Thomistic/Catholic vision of God and creationhad I been devout
and obedient (as an adherent of Aquinasthat is, had a perfect faith in the
reliability and veracity of his theology) I would have fought against the
relentless and conquering power of the enlightenment experienceeven if, in the
end, I found myself succumbing physiologically, mechanicallyand yes,
metaphysicallyto its authority and power over me.
But the main point is that the nature of going into Unity Consciousness WOULD
have been recognized by me (as a follower of Aquinas) to be a direct
contradiction of everything Aquinas had written, and had my intuition and faith
been such that I 'knew' he was rightor had to be rightthen my entire will
would have been devoted to resisting and defending myself against what was
happening to my consciousnesseven if this proved futile in the end. And, as it
were, while believing explicitly and wholeheartedly in Aquinas, I had ended up
in a state of consciousness which empirically overthrew the true relationship
of my soul to GodAND, experientially, percipiently, seemingly the true
integrity of the universe itself (reality).
And of course, if you follow me here, authfriend, I would have dedicated my
life fiercely and unceasingly to overcoming my condition, my hallucination, my
mystical trance. WHEREAS, in the case of how it really happened in time and
space (as the person I was) I was ecstatically and blissfully and lovingly
cooperative as I could be. Indeed throughout the experience as it took hold of
me in my body, mind, and heart (originating in my consciousnessas if, indeed,
that was a separate and impersonal part of mejust like the Vedic Scriptures
said, as Maharishi had taught) I could only be in awe and gratitude to
Maharishi for being ultimately responsible for this final consummation of TM
and all his Teaching.
But, you see, authfriend, I ended up doing what is the reverse of your
hypothetical: I embraced Unity Consciousnessthen read Aquinas and realized
that either Aquinas was right about God, the nature of the human person, and
the universe, or else Maharishi was. And when I read Aquinas deeply I kneweven
against my state of being in Unity Consciousnessthat I was in a false state of
consciousness, that as real and spontaneous and coherent as it (Unity) wasand
demonstrably superior to the state I had been in prior to enlightenmentIT WAS
INTRINSICALLY FALSE TO REALITY. Because, for example, The Summa Theologicae is
one thousand time more beautiful, complex, intelligent, and profound than The
Science of Being and the Art of Living. In the very same way that Hopkins's The
Wreck of the Deutschland is superior to Love and God.
Therefore if I was imagining what it would be like to have Aquinas's version of
reality confirmed through EXPERIENCE, I would instantaneously know, in the very
first few moments on that mountain that what was happening to me was not in
accordance with The Summa Theologicae or The Wreck of the Deutschland but
rather a confirmation of The Science of Being and the Art of Livingand Love
and God.
Put it this way, authfriend: as glorious and mystically complete and
transformative as that Unity experience was, I would have, if I had been
steeped in Aquinas (and had an absolute faith and intuition that he was right),
sought to do everything in my power to deny the truthfulness of my experience
and eventually to overcome this hallucination.
Which, in effect, is what has happened. Only for ten years (eight years before
that, preparing myself for getting the Arosa experience) I was as fulfilled and
inspired as I could ever imagine anyone beingand my Unity Consciousness
ushered in a purposeful, choiceless agenda about which I had no warning or
anticipation: the metaphysical theatre of cosmic meaning based upon the
conflict between the positive and the negative forces within oneself. No, Unity
gave my life suddenly perfect meaning and purposeand happiness.
But when I came upon Aquinas, I knew: Well, if this is true (what Aquinas
says), then Maharishi must be wrong. And if Maharishi is wrong, then my
enlightenment is a form of perfect mystical deceit, no matter how objectively
and functionally rooted it is in my consciousness. It (my enlightenment) is
being sustained (and was in the first place created) by intelligences which
seek not my well-being, but to deceive and wound me in my integrity as an
individual human being.
I remain convinced this is the case.
As to what Xeno concluded as to the implication of Aquinas declaring near the
end of his life: "Everything I have written seems to be straw" (he later
amplified this to say: "Everything I have written seems to be straw COMPARED
WITH THE VISION I HAVE HAD"),that essentially Aquinas is dismissing the
validity and spiritual significance of what he wrote;I believe all the
evidence refutes this (even as this is the common interpretation of Aquinas's
declaration.) Some time just before Aquinas said this (what Xeno has quoted)
three Dominican monks witnessed Aquinas being levitated in ecstasy, and they
heard a voice coming from the crucifix on the altar: "Thou has written well of
me, Thomas, what reward wilt thou have?" Thomas replied, "None other than
Thyself, Lord."
This event makes it impossible that Aquinas could mean what most readers of
this statement [straw] assume he meant. Christ essentially dictated The Summa
Theologicae to Thomas. Therefore what he wrote belonged to God. Even so,
juxtaposed to the religious experiences he was having, The Summa seemed like
strawalthough that straw remained holy and supernatural straw.
And the incident witnessed by the three Dominicans is not the experience of
Unity Consciousness. It is not the Self realizing it is the Self and finding
itself unified and one with the rest of creation.
It is a Saint speaking to his Creator as a Person.
This makes all the difference.
MZ
P.S. You want more? This is Aquinas's verbal testimony upon receiving extreme
unction and the Sacred Viaticum (as he was about to die):
"If in this world there be any knowledge of this sacrament stronger than that
of faith, I wish now to use it in affirming that I firmly believe and know as
certain that Jesus Christ, True God and True Man, Son of God and Son of the
Virgin Mary, is in this Sacrament . . . I receive Thee, the price of my
redemption, for Whose love I have watched, studied, and laboured. Thee have I
preached; Thee have I taught. Never have I said anything against Thee: if
anything was not well said, that is to be attributed to my ignorance. Neither
do I wish to be obstinate in my opinions, but if I have written anything
erroneous concerning this sacrament or other matters, I submit all to the
judgment and correction of the Holy Roman Church, in whose obedience I now pass
from this life."
Apparently Aquinas is not seeing everything as maya.
Unfortunatelyin my opinionthis kind of EXPERIENCE is objectively not
available to anyone in the universe in our lifetime. But Aquinas could not have
written as he did, and could not have had the experience that allowed him to
say so beautifully and truthfully what he says here, had not Godthe Holy
Trinityinspired him. I have yet to encounter a single person who gives
evidence that they have known reality the way Aquinas obviously, deeply,
thoroughly knew it. And therefore, by a process of deduction, I have to assume
that God ontologically changed the universe before you and I were born. The Why
of this is an utter and staggering mystery to me.
--- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@...> wrote:
>
> --- In [email protected], maskedzebra <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> > Because in reading Catholic philosopherslike AquinasI find
> > myself intuiting the cosmos as they experienced itI sort of
> > read this off of their writing.
>
> MZ, I have a question for you.
>
> Xeno called attention to the fact that Aquinas late in life
> had some kind of experience that "silenced" him and led him
> to declare, "All that I have written seems like straw to me."
>
> I'm wondering what you think happened to him. (If you've
> already commented on this, forgive me; I did a quick search
> but couldn't find anything.)
>
> And I have a hypothetical: Let's say you cut your spiritual
> teeth on the writings of Aquinas and thorughly internalized
> his views. You never encountered MMY, knew nothing about him
> or TM or the Eastern idea of enlightenment.
>
> One day in 1976, out of the blue, with no warning, you had
> the same experience you had on the mountain with MMY that
> you now refer to as "slipping into Unity Consciousness,"
> except that you had no preparation whatsoever and no context
> (and let's say it didn't last very long, a few hours or days).
>
> How would that have affected your take on Aquinas's writings?
> How long would it have taken you to decide that the experience
> wasn't "real" but Aquinas was?
>
