--- 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?
> > >
> <snip>
> > 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.
>
> That was pretty much the point of the hypothetical, that
> it was the reverse of what you've told us of your history.
> But on the other hand, the hypothetical is also directly
> parallel to one interpretation of Aquinas's "straw"
> remark, i.e., that the nature of the experience which
> generated it was contrary to everything he had written.
>
> RESPONSE: Aquinas's 'straw' remark, in my reading of it at
> least, is not intended to imply that "the nature of the
> experience which generated it was CONTRARY to everything
> he had written." No, it was a matter of the COMPARATIVE
> quality of supernatural joy, power, and holiness which this
> subsequent experience had given to Aquinas.
Right, I understand that's your reading. But my
hypothetical was inspired by and conforms to the
"contrary" reading.
I should probably note that I'm not a religionist. I
find religion fascinating and generally respect it, but
I'm not a believer. I do lean intellectually toward a
very, very abstract metaphysics, which is why I was
drawn to TM (was never a teacher, so I didn't get sucked
into the devotional side of it).
Anyway, obviously you and I have very different
perspectives. Although I don't really have a dog in the
fight, I hope you don't mind if I play a sort of gentle
devil's advocate just for the, er, hell of it.
> From being inspired to DESCRIBE God, creation, heaven and
> hell, the angels, the soul, good and evil, and so on, Aquinas
> received the grace to KNOW all this through direct perception
> and experience. He, as it were, entered into a heavenly
> context instead of merely an intellectual one (chaste and pure
> as that intellectual one was)to behold the truths about which
> he had written. No, authfriend,in my intuition about this
> remarkthere was no conflict whatsoever. It is the difference
> between knowing about the true Godand then meeting him face-
> to-face. (I am of course speaking on behalf of Aquinas, for he
> never clarified that remark in the way I have attempted to do
> here.)
You make a good case for this possibility.
I've been looking on the Web for more insight into
the question. So far I've found only support for
your position--but it's all been from believers, who
would have an investment in not seeing his revelation
as contrary to his writings.
One comment noted that the word "straw" was "a
conventional metaphor for a literal reading of the
Bible. It expressed the conviction that a
straightforward treatment of scripture might provide
the believer with comfort, or some basic material
upon which to build their faith, but that such a use
of the Bible was at best a first step."
If that's the case, then it appears Aquinas was
analogizing his own writings to a literal reading of
the Bible--not inaccurate per se, but only
preliminary and incomplete.
> In other words, I was attempting to put you in Aquinas's
> shoes, at least the shoes I imagine him to have been in.
> I was struck, when Xeno made his post, by the reverse
> parallelism between your history and that of Aquinas
> (again, as I imagine the latter to have been).
>
> RESPONSE: Oh, I see. I missed this ("attempting to put you
> in Aquinas's shoes. . ."). I don't see any parallel at all,
> since, as far as I can tell, I have never had ANY of the
> religious experiences that Aquinas hadand which are written
> about in the major biographies.
It's a limited and simplistic parallel, granted--and
it's a *reverse* parallel--but I think it works for
purposes of my hypothetical (which assumes, again,
that Aquinas's revelation was that his writings were
not just inadequate but wrong): You were converted (or
converted yourself) from the mystical realization to
the theology of Aquinas; Aquinas was converted from
his own theology to the mystical realization. That's
all I meant.
> But perhaps I have gone the wrong way and misinterpreted
> you here. I could never have beenexcept analogically'in
> Aquinas's shoes"
Not in your interpretation, no. But remember, this is
a hypothetical contrary to fact.
<snip>
> Which is why nearly everyone on FFL is in one way or
> another implicitly a Hindu, Buddhist or whatever. A
> Christian would be fed to the lions on this blog
Well, it would depend on how the person presented his/her
faith. Most of the participants here (with the exception
of the few TBs) wouldn't object to a Christian disagreeing
with MMY's teaching, and would probably be happy to see a
Christian thoughtfully refuting MMY's rather limited
understanding of Christianity. If the Christian didn't try
to proselytize and demonstrated tolerance for other
perspectives, while there would no doubt be disagreement
and challenge, especially from the atheists, I doubt
there'd be any lion-feeding.
BTW, did you ever read Anthony Campbell's "Seven States of
Consciousness"? He was a lapsed cradle Catholic whose faith
was revived as a result of MMY's teaching (although he
eventually moved on from both). And there are plenty of
devout Christian TMers (including clergy) who don't see a
conflict, who feel MMY's teaching illuminates Christianity
(and perhaps vice-versa). From Campbell's book:
"Having...gone to a good deal of trouble to rid myself
of the beliefs of a conventional [Catholic] religious
upbringing, I found it rather hard to be expected to
swallow them all once more. However, as my understanding
of Maharishi's ideas began to grow a little, I saw that
I had really been making a fuss over nothing. It was an
extraordinary experience to see ideas I had rejected as
meaningless because they had been taught by people who
did not themselves fully understand them suddenly catch
fire like diamonds in a muddy stream."
Brief digression:
BTW, just for the record, FFL isn't a "blog," it's a
Web/email forum designed strictly for conversation
among many individuals. It's a modern version of the
old Usenet forum. Blogs are too, in a sense, but they've
gone in a different direction. They're usually dominated
by the blog owner (and sometimes appointed partners).
Many have a Comments feature that allows for discussion
by those who read the blog, but it's the blog owner/
partners who initiate the discussions (and may or may
not participate in them). The FFL-type forum is more of
a free-for-all among many participants of equal status.
No big deal; just thought I'd mention it.
<snip>
> BTW, I don't think you took into account one stipulation
> of my hypothetical, that the experience didn't last very
> long. This was, again, in the interests of making the
> hypothetical conform to what we know of Aquinas's
> experience, that it was transitory, so that he didn't
> have to fight off the experience itself. Whatever
> impression it left on him was what remained after he
> had returned to his ordinary state of consciousness
> (which was presumably the context of his "straw" remark).
>
> RESPONSE: This seems about right to me. Aquinas, unlike myself,
> was not TRANSFORMED by the experience. Nevertheless that
> experience put his previous perspective on his life and his
> works in a very different light. Again, though, I think,
> against the grain of your argument, that in effect this 'straw'
> remark actually signified the perfect VINDICATION of all this
> writing. "Do you guys remember what I said in The Summa
> Theologicae? Well, I have just had an experience which makes
> all that seem like strawBECAUSE I have seen the real thing."
That does seem to be the conventional reading, at least
in terms of what I've been able to find so far on the Web.
<snip>
> We'll never know, I suppose, but it's fun to speculate.
> I could make a case (admittedly knowing virtually nothing
> of Aquinas) that his experience *was* contrary to what he
> had written, but that over the course of the three months
> before he died he managed to convince himself in retrospect
> that he had misinterpreted it and that his original view of
> God etc. had been correct after all.
>
> RESPONSE: No, as his dying declaration attests to (quoted
> in that previous post), Thomas Aquinas was exemplary in
> his consistencyas a person, as a philosopher, as a
> theologian, and as a Saint.
Well, but, come on, he could have had a period of doubt
after his experience if it was of the U.C. type. He didn't
write anything from that point on, so we don't know what
he went through. I'm just speculating that as the memory
of the experience faded, he talked himself into believing
it had been illusionary and got himself back to his
original understanding (as reflected in his dying
declaration). IOW, the fact that he asserted his faith on
his deathbed didn't mean he hadn't gone through any
struggle to return to it after his experience.
> And this is the thing about how he writes. There is no
> sense of someone COMING FROM HIS EXPERIENCE. It is better
> than that. He is coming from his objective perception of
> what is the case when it comes to these ultimate
> questionsthe subjective aspect of him is not in sight.
How can perceptions vis-a-vis ultimate questions
be anything but subjective? How are you defining
"objective"?
> > 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."
>
> I'm a little skeptical of this account; doesn't it seem
> incongruous on its face that Christ would have offered
> Aquinas his choice of "rewards," as if Aquinas might
> have given any other reply than the one he is said to
> have given?
>
> RESPONSE: I understand your skepticism here. I think, from
> the way it was conveyed to you, it (your skepticism) is
> well-foundedthat is, because of the artifice of its bearing.
> However, I think you take your 21st century, postmodern,
> TM-influenced, secularized post Sixties sensibility into
> your apprehension and judgment of this instance in Aquinas's
> life.
Actually, my skepticism comes from several years'
involvement in orthodox (lower-case) Christianity,
which I decided to explore a few years after I
began TM. Pre-TM I had flatly rejected religion,
but MMY's teaching made me see it in a different
light. Eventually I realized I couldn't buy into
Christianity as it was currently being taught, but
along the way I got a good dose of the mainstream
Christian perspective (the UCC-type liberal version,
granted, but by no means fringe).
I should think most mainstream Christians would
cringe at the notion of Christ offering Aquinas his
reward of choice. Other than eternal life, Christians
don't expect to be rewarded for their faith.
Why should God not be polite, gracious, sweetly
> ironical to a person he has created?
Ironical? Yikes! Don't we have enough trouble
understanding God without having to worry about
whether He's being ironical?
> Why should he (God) be bound by any apriories of etiquette
> and protocol? I think this highly credibleand producing a
> favourable impression of God (in this instance, Christ, the
> Second Person of the Holy Trinity). In fact I think ONLY
> CHRIST capable of setting up such a colloquy. By suggesting
> Aquinas has a choice, he underscores the immense and
> unfathomable reality that, even now, in the presence of his
> Creator, he, Aquinas, has free will. This incident kills off
> Hinduism for me altogether. I love it. In the end, Christ
> gives Thomas the opportunity to affirm in the most dramatic
> and ineffaceable way, his love for Christ. BECAUSE HE GETS
> TO SAY SOMETHING LOVELY TO CHRIST. Get it?
That's an ingenious way to look at it. But for me, it's
a little *too* ingenious, too particular, too
idiosyncratic. In fact, it sounds to me like something
a Hindu deity would pull!
> On the other hand, I amuse myself by speculating that
> Aquinas's experience later that year was Christ's
> response to his request: "You want more of Me than what
> I've already revealed to you? OK, take THIS!"
>
> RESPONSE: Oh, I think this VERY good indeed. Here I give way
> easily and happily to you.
Well, er, but "THIS," in my imagination, would be the
U.C.-type experience.
I'm beginning to see more clearly now what I was rather
blindly driving at to start with, which is the possibility
that a full-blown experience of Christ and a full-blown
experience of U.C. are the *same experience*. As long as
one is dealing with doctrine (including the quasi-
doctrinal version of U.C.), the two will appear to be
incompatible; but experientially, the differences vanish.
I haven't had either experience, so this is just my
speculation.
<snip>
> Oh, come to think of it, I have another question, if
> you don't mind. I've read what seem like pretty
> convincing contemporary accounts of heavy-duty
> Christian-type experiences of Christ/God. Have you read
> or heard anything along these lines? If so, since you
> maintain God has withdrawn Himself from the world, what
> do you think might explain them?
>
> RESPONSE: I must be careful not to offend anyone by my
> insensitivity to the potential vulnerability that is
> there (unknowingly) when someone believes something is
> true (about God, reality) when I feel, from my experience,
> it is NOT true,
No need to be careful on my account.
> and moreover feel that I can demonstrate or argue persuasively
> that it is not true. But in answer to THIS query, I can only
> say: No, these experiencessay as tested against Aquinas's, or
> Augustine's, or Newman's, or Teresa'sare not realor rather
> they do not conform to reality. These people have "heavy-cuty
> Christian-type experiences of Christ/God" certainly, but what
> is the inherent credibility, the metaphysical believability
> one feels when these experiences are reported?
>
> Do they seem to be the same as the experiences of Francis of
> Assisi? of King Louis IX (a Saint by the way)? of Thomas More?
> of Thomas A Becket? of Catherine of Siena?
Or Pascal:
-----
The year of grace 1654
Monday, 23 November, feast of Saint Clement, Pope and Martyr, and of others in
the Martyrology.
Eve of Saint Chrysogonus, Martyr and others.
>From about half past ten in the evening until half past midnight.
FIRE
'God of Abraham, God of Isaac, God of Jacob,' not of philosophers and scholars.
Certainty, certainty, heartfelt, joy, peace.
God of Jesus Christ.
God of Jesus Christ.
My God and your God.
'Thy God shall be my God.'
The world forgotten, and everything except God.
He can only be found by the ways taught in the Gospels.
Greatness of the human soul.
'O righteous Father, the world had not known thee, but I have known thee.'
Joy, joy, joy, tears of joy. [...]
He can only be kept by the ways taught in the Gospel.
Sweet and total renunciation.
Total submission to Jesus Christ and my director.
Everlasting joy in return for one day's effort on earth.
I will not forget thy word. Amen.
-----
Hooboy, that makes my hair stand on end. Now, why
couldn't Aquinas write something that passionate?
For some reason, it's the timestamp at the beginning
that really gets to me, and then that one word, "FIRE."
Obviously Pascal wrote it only for himself, as a
reminder. (Maybe Aquinas wrote something similar and,
like Pascal, sewed it into his clothing, except that
nobody ever found it after he died?)
"Not of philosophers and scholars."
"All that I have written seems like straw to me."
<snip>
> As to the ultimate causality at the basis of this claims I
> could only say that, CERTAINLY they are not just being MADE
> UP. They are at least real in that sense: they do not stem
> from the person's imagination. But whatever is the source
> of their inspiration, it cannot be what was the source of
> the experience of St Paul, or Aquinas, or any pre-World War
> Catholic believer.
That's when you think God withdrew, before the First
World War? Any speculation as to why? Was the war the
consequence of God's withdrawal?
<snip>
> So, what could be the explanation for these Christian
> experiences? Not the Vedic gods; the experiences are too
> emotional for that. But not the good angels either.
> Something in between perhaps?
Such as?
<snip>
> But for all that, to compare their experiences to Aquinasor
> the Saints,that strikes me as on the face of it untenable in
> the extreme. Anyone who undergoes some conversion to God which
> is accompanied by a fixed dogmatic belief system, always
> betrays the unnaturalness of this actat some level.
But Aquinas and the saints had no fixed dogmatic
belief system??
> Now I think a cradle Catholic the most benign form of religion
> there is. Because the effects of when the Eucharist was real
> (the act of Transubstantiation, whereby the bread and wine
> becomes Christ) are still in their DNAfrom their ancestors.
> When Christ was in his Church. When God was inside his Creation.
Interesting. Not sure I buy that such a thing could
become encoded in human DNA.
> But other than a cradle Catholic, No, I am not convinced
> religionEast or Westrepresents, in any way whatsoever, the
> presence of the living God.
Do you think there's any chance of ever getting that
presence back?
