Posted by cav on April 06, 2005 at 03:49:31:
In Reply to: Wayne Teasdale and Huston Smith posted by Dave on April 05, 2005 at 13:17:56:
Thanks for the info. I know the mystics well. I consider myself among the number, a student of the school if you will, but I find a big difference among the school of Christian mystics, with the strain that leads through people like CS Lewis, who is considered mystic by many in that he beleives in a personal revelation of truth (among other things). And the strain that in antiquity was rooted in the Platonic system and tends greatly toward panentheism. To me the panentheist can't really be called Christian for the reason I mentioned in the pervious post. Without Christ, you're merely a western neoplatonic philosopher, or one of the enlightenment schools, etc. For me the mystic tradition can realize evil, and does in many writings, in the form of negative theology. Of course everything emmantes from God, which means everything contains good, but evil is not a thing, it is the negation of a thing that was good. It is in essence, a lie. It takes what is good from God and denies what it is. Thus evil in a sense doesn't exist, but Satan can because he is a created being who is eternally trying to deny what he was created to be. He is the Father of Lies. It is a fine line that must be walked carefully for the conscientious Christian mystic. There are many who tend to lead away, and even the Catholic church warns of those within the Church who are not in line with the teachings.
So in my position, as a Christian and a mystic, why is panentheism dangerous? As with everything it is a wide spectrum that we are laying under a single term, but this is necessary for discussion. So panentheism is dangerous because it can lead toward just what you mentioned, a denial of the existence of evil. For morality this has dangerous implications, as Dr Pangloss of Voltaire's "Candide" proves. Anything can be rationalized if one assumes it must be good at the root. This in turn can lead to openings for the lying beings, which are especially dangerous to mystics who often enter into these realms in meditation, etc. If we are not on our guard against evil, we can be easily courted away and ensnared. I know this personally. For example, in centering prayer, if we use it in the context of lecto divinia we find that God will from time to time bring us to a place of silence in which he ministers to our hearts while we are more or less unaware of anything. But this is only in the context of scriptural reading and discipline, and as John of the Cross states, when the house is in order and at quiet rest. Even then it is a gift entirely from God, not to be sought after or forced into. So those who practice centering prayer alone with the conscious or hidden intention of finding this place of peace, are really using self-hypnotic techniques that work the brain into a physiologic state that has nothing to do with God. It is an issue of works, not of faith and pursuit of God out of true love with no expectation of reward. But then is Centering Prayer all bad? No. It just needs to be used in the correct context and best under the guidance of qualified spiritual leaders. See there are no short-cuts in this realm, and self-deception is the real killer. It is the essence of evil. The lie.
More plainly panentheism is dangerous because it leads to a universalism. Universalism threatens to take all the differences out of the world religions and teach that any path is ok, as long as you just pick one and act good. But this is contrary to the very definition of truth. It can only be one thing. And if you take each religion in part, sure they lead toward decent behavior in humans, because these things are universal...and as far as creating a peaceful world such commonalities are important, but on the spiritual and philisophical level, these religions have some serious fundamental differences. Christians do not beleive that there is a cycle of samsara, or that any amount of meditation or good works can lead to salvation. Buddhists do not beleive in a personal God. We don't need a savior in their view because the truth is awaiting awakening within us. Muslims cannot abide anything that denounces the prophet or is not in submission to God. Jesus could not be God's son because it belittles God to think that he would take on human flesh. These things cannot be reconciled without revising the principle foundations of these religions. So if truth is really truth, it can't be all of these things. Some of them have to be wrong. So are we to assume that the truth is actually outside of all these religions? Maybe, but then where is the standard by which we find it? Now we're into New Age, which even Huston Smith denounces. And to strike out on our own trusting that we are smarter and more capable than generations before is the height of hubris...and countless philosophers have said so.
So if the truth has to be in one of these religions, you have to rule out Christianity and Islam right away because both are exclusive by making clear claims to be the only correct one...et cetera, ad nauseum.
So to summarize, in my view and in that of those who have mentored me, for I make no claims to stand on my own here, everyone has a right to their own beliefs. And there is truth in every major religion that can be gleaned. I can't judge Huston Smith or Teasdale. But in my tradition of Christian mysticism, a clear distinction must be made between those who are followers of Christ, and those for whom Christianity is only the metaphor from which they embark on other journies. As for the former, the central heart of the faith is a deep abiding love for Jesus of Nazereth. We know he is who he says he is because we have seen him and talked with him and if we are wrong we are the most unfortunate of souls because we have lost our hearts and souls to Him alone.
: Hi cav-
: You're right--Teasdale's not for everybody. I think that whether or not you like him would depend on a number of factors.
: Huston Smith, in his book Why Religion Matters, outlines what he calls the four basic "Spiritual Personality Types." They are:
: 1) The Atheist: There is no God. This doesn't involve necessarily denying God's existence, but involves believing in no personal God. Einstein and Camus.
: 2) The Polytheist: There are many gods.
: 3) The Monotheist: There is only one God. The vast majority of Christians, Jews, and Muslims fall here. Some Hindus, as well, if you take into account that all of the Hindu "gods" are really just manifestations of the one true Brahma from their point of view.
: 4) The Mystic: There is only God. There aren't really many of these. This is not pantheism, because it believes in a personal God, but one who pervades creation completely and utterly, to the point that there is no place (or dimension) where God is not. This is panENtheism. "God IN all." The problem that monotheists have with this position is that it denies (or fails to consider) evil. As Smith puts it, "In the mystic's world evil drops from the picture and only good remains. There is only God." This teaching, the mystic teaching that you find with people like Teasdale, is hard for most people.
: That doesn't mean that everyone falls neatly into one of the four catagories. For instance, a dominant monotheist with mystic tendencies might like early Thomas Merton, but not his later stuff. Someone who is more of a mystic might like Merton's later stuff more. You get the picture.
: Dave