As far as I know, Giordiano Bruno was executed for being, basically, his period's version of a neo-pagan and for being, just as Lizzy L says, "brilliant, and a pain the ass to know."
Ref: (but I haven't read it, just heard good things about it) Yates, Frances A. Giordano Bruno and the Hermetic Tradition, University of Chicago Press, 1964.
James D. Macdonald, #526, on sainting mystics, see #354. I agree that Western Christianity incorporates mysticism--what I wrote on that was flat wrong and I wish I'd edited it out. In any event, it's the reaction to mysticism outside the walls of the churches and monasteries that concerns me. Perhaps more later. I'm still considering my thoughts on this.
Terry Karney, #462: connecting the two threads of this discussion: consider that Dobson's idea of discipline is very likely the same as his idea of how God disciplines. It is perhaps accurate to say that Dobson's idea of his--of our--place in the world is similar to that of a damned soul.
strawhat, #451: "But anyway. I once asked a wise old priest what would he and his colleagues do if someone like Bernadette came to them saying they'd had a vision of Mary or direct revelation from God. And he said they'd tell them to go away. More than once. If the visionary kept coming back saying the same thing, they'd start to listen -- but very cautiously. And they'd never promote it officially. People can get carried away, and suffering people can be hurt. See what's happened with the so-called visionaries at Medjugorge. See what happened in the sweat lodge."
yes, I'm getting at that kind of thing. Thank you. I have more to say on this, but I want to try to get my thoughts a bit more together before I post them.
Terry, I think you have the right of it; I posted my first unedited thoughts, and they contained errors & were incendiary. My apologies to everyone. I do have some second thoughts, based on this discussion, & perhaps--provided the discussion is still alive & I have time to think them through--I'll put them up in a day or two.
Heresiarch, #374: no, you're right. Those two statements are contradictory: one reflects US Protestantism, the other Mexican (and many other sorts of) Catholicism. The commonality, though, is how hard mysticism is in both. It's not just that the churches outlaw esotericism, it's that many churches treat all unapproved mystical beliefs and practices as esotericism and forbid them, and there are either no allowed practices or only very painful practices. From there, variations.
I am now wondering how many of the physically painful practices lead to spiritual experiences, and how many just hurt.
Debra Doyle, it seems to me that we're talking past each other, and the only way I can see to reestablish communications is by doing a lot more study than I am willing to do at this time. I'm going to let that thread drop. Peace.
Heresiarch, #358: "Mysticism is the pursuit of communion with, identity with, or conscious awareness of an ultimate reality, divinity, spiritual truth, or God through direct experience, intuition, instinct or insight."
I would go along with that, generally. I'd caution, though, that uncritical belief is not mystical knowledge, though it has been promulgated as such by religious groups.
Vicki, Heresiarch, pilgrimages on one's knees were chosen as an example of a harsh mystical practice. Christianity is replete with them. I suppose this is partly because many people trust pain more than joy. Still, it is perhaps not so large of a step from that practice to the disaster in Arizona.
TexAnne, #361: I'm sorry. What I'm trying to convey is that your personal experience is not universal. It is not my intention to invalidate your experience at all. As someone whose beliefs are shared by very few people, I'm rather envious of you.
Heresiarch, "esotericism." In between the "secret knowledge" beliefs and the "baptized = saved" belief, there is, I hope, the moderate idea that applying openly available knowledge takes some effort, and that the effort is worthwhile and worthy of respect.
TexAnne, #353: I'm sorry. It was not my intent to criticize your choices. (Please also ready my reply to Lizzy L at #344.) I am glad you have found a place for yourself. Yet your statement that Xopher's spirituality is legitimate would be rejected by the authorities of many Christian churches, probably most Christian churches. I'm glad there are liberal Christian churches. I'm glad that many US Christians are tolerant. But one can hardly talk about legitimacy when so many churches reject mysticism. At most one can say that mysticism is controversial, and sometimes accepted by some churches. There is nothing in Western Christianity like the small but secure place mysticism has in Judaism, let alone the centrality of mysticism in Buddhism.
BTW, I see I need to qualify this as applicable only to Western Christianity and its daughter churches; "Eastern" Christianity has a strong mystical streak.
Nancy Leibowitz, #349: thank you, yes, that was my point. "If your judgment isn't good enough to start out with recognizing what's worthwhile, you're screwed unless you're very lucky." And even most of the lucky ones spend years involved in practices they end up rejecting. The unlucky ones, well, that's what started this thread.
Debra Doyle, #347: and none of those central points involve spiritual practices, and only limited knowledge is required. There are huge omissions and, as you know, they were implemented in the actual conduct of the religion.
Vicki, #348: I cited the treatment of St. John of the Cross. Add his contemporary Teresa of Avila. They won their way only with the greatest of struggles. Examples multiply. Eckhart von Hochheim, a more controversial figure, was tried for heresy. Margarete Porete was burned at the stake.
Christianity usually honors its mystics only after they are safely dead.
Abi, #346: The Third Carmelites are a lay order, and I can't find any reference to them that in JP II's short official biography, so that's probably not so.
Abi, #343: see my remarks on music in Islam and mysticism in Christianity in #344. No religion can completely reject the central experiences that lead to the creation of religions. But it can push them to the side, and this is common in Christianity. And, yes, I believe it does a huge amount of harm.
Lizzy L, #340, you have found a place for yourself; I am happy for you. I know many people who have found places in Christianity. None of this is directed at you or the church you attend. Yet I know many more people who were shut out, anathemized, abused. You and your church are members of a minority. Look at Catholicism throughout the third world. In Mexico, people still make pilgrimages on their knees. Examples multiply, and I can cite horrific ones from the present day, and many more from history, but enough. I would never send someone who was looking for a mystical practice to Christianity unless that was the only path they would accept--there are too many traps, and a majority of Christians regard mysticism as, at best, an aberration and at worst evil.
It is perhaps useful to regard the place of mysticism in Christianity as similar to the place of music in Islam. The more stringent sorts of Islam outlaw music and nowhere is it more than tolerated. Yet Muslims still make music, and the muzzein's call itself is a kind of music. So with mysticism in Christianity. It is not loved by the Church's authorities. Yet there are still Christian mystics, and despite all secularization there is a kind of magic in the rituals.
Debra Doyle, #335: the Nicene Creed contains no requirement for study or discipline or anything other than baptism. There is no requirement that adherents make an effort to know the spiritual, no requirement of practice. In every other religion I am aware of, core dogma makes greater demands. As this worked out historically, any mystical interest was treated as suspect--indeed that too much interest in any kind of knowledge was suspect. Hence the destruction of the libraries of Hellenic paganism.
"What I thought on reading those tweets was that if James Ray honestly believed what he preached, if he truly believed that thoughts and words and intentions are magic, he would never have written those tweets and sent them out into the world."
Or, perhaps, he is death-obsessed. He speaks (or tweets) much of death.
It seems to me that a big part of the reason these "instant enlightenment" scams are so popular is because there are no legitimate outlets for spiritual hunger in our society. For this, I see two reasons: first, and simplest, from my viewpoint all religious forms are past their use-by dates, and out of touch with current reality. We await the new revelation. This I see as a global problem. The second is specific to Western culture: the dominant religion is hostile to mysticism. Consider the fate of St. John of the Cross. It is not a coincidence: the Nicene Creed contains, among other things, a rejection of mysticism, and Christianity often treats its mystics little better than Rome and Israel treated a certain famous itinerant preacher from Galilee. Contributing to the problem are unrealistic Christian attitudes towards the physical. Make no mistake about it: there are people for whom the hunger for the spiritual is as real as the hunger for human contact. And most Christian churches offer these people only a harsh monastic creed which barely admits the possibility of mysticism. The times are unsettled and there is much hunger of many sorts. It is not, therefore, surprising that many people are prey for the likes of Ray.
"Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled."
"Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravening wolves."
C. Wingate, #61: does defeating John McCain on an antiwar platform count? I daresay that's a contribution to world peace. We corvids are very disappointed.
I think dsquared has the right of it:Surely it ought to be a basic criterion for winning a peace prize that you shouldn’t be currently fighting a war, or at the very least that you shouldn’t be increasing your commitment to a war you’re already fighting?Croak!
Ah, well. Could be worse. Henry Kissinger was once awarded a Nobel Peace Prize.
If the Phelps group is a racket, why have there been no charges nor lawsuits? Surely there is some applicable law?
Returning to the subject...
"I’m increasingly interested in examinations of the ways we’ve managed, in the last two or three decades, to convince ourselves that life is vastly more dangerous than it actually is."
Is this new? Surely this is latest incarnation of "sin and the man-eating shark," as it were? Like some Onion headline, when we exhaust one fear, we seek another. Sometimes we even create another: picking a fight with the Islamic world has to rank among the great historical errors of foreign policy-making. And at the personal level, feeding alienation in US society is foolhardy.
The converse of creating fears is failing to take sensible precautions. Environmental policy is the big failure here: sensible policy would have the preservation of the planetary environment as the primary goal of every government for at least a century and, well, you can see. Hence remarks about food for corvids. But it is everywhere in our lives, to the smallest level, to the things we use and eat and do every day.
There's a whole vein in mystical literature about clear vision and understanding. I am thinking this is practical as well as mystical. We fight the wrong wars, and ignore the necessary self-care.
"Simple test: Next time you're sitting in a car with your lap and shoulder belts fastened, see whether normal motion allows you to bring your head into contact with a window, the steering wheel, the seat in front of you, or a fellow passenger. If the answer is "yes," your head will most assuredly be able to hit it more and hit it harder in an accident."
The seat belt inertia reel stops people from smashing into the windshield when quick deceleration takes place, as in a head-on collision. Seat belts have been made very convenient, and do not restrain people in normal motion. If we went back to the older inconvenient constraining style, people would be more aware of what the belt does, but probably would wear them less.
And yes, of course, head injuries are still possible in a car accident. But not with anything like the frequency or risk of a bicycle or motorcycle fall. I know a fair number of cyclists who are pretty sure that helmets have saved their heads--it's a common accident. A lot of the anti-helmet arguments I've heard--and yes, I include the ones cited--remind me unpleasantly of the "safety rules don't apply to me" arguments that can be heard around every machine shop. They're nonsense and get people retrained or even fired in a well-run shop.
That said, I think the issue of overcaution and protection against the wrong dangers are real. I just think bike helmet campaigns are a really poor example of them.
Although, the eating might be better if we corvids supported them...
"why don't you wear a helmet every time you get into an automobile?"
And here I thought it was because it's hard for seat-belted automobile travelers to fall on their head. Annoying to us corvids--we have to wait longer for our meals. On the other hand, left to your own devices, a majority of you hominids will quite happily conclude you will beat the odds. Could be worse.
| Year | Number of comments posted |
|---|---|
| 2009 | 90 |
| 2008 | 4 |
Total: 94 comments. View all these comments on a single page.
The most recent 20 comments posted to Making Light by The Raven:
Show all comments by The Raven.