Eightfold Path

Lion Guardians of the Bodhi Path by Tony Fischer Photography via Flickr

In Buddhism the Eightfold Path is the path said to lead away from suffering (dukkha), constituting the fourth of the Four Noble Truths. The eightfold path is:

1. Right views
2. Right intention
3. Right speech
4. Right action
5. Right livelihood
6. Right effort
7. Right mindfulness
8. Right concentration

The path is not to be followed in a linear sense; the aspirant usually shifts from one prescription to another. And interpretations of each prescription differ according to the doctrine of a particular Buddhist school, of which there are myriad. Japan, alone, had 162 different Buddhist schools in 1972 (Eliade Guide to World Religions: 1991, p. 40).

Having said that:

1. Right views generally refers to accepting the Buddha’s teaching, particularly the Four Noble Truths.
2. Right intention refers to cultivating a state of mind leading to the flowering of awareness known as enlightenment (bodhi).
3. Right speech means avoiding harsh, unnecessary and untruthful speech.
4. Right action means monks following the rules of their order or laypersons avoiding slothful, violent and generally unethical actions.
5. Right livelihood means avoiding unethical occupations.
6. Right effort means harnessing all of one’s thoughts and activities to the goal of enlightenment.
7. Right mindfulness dispassionately observes the flow of thoughts, feelings and sensations, with a view towards controlling and stilling them.
8. Right concentration refers to focusing on a single point, ultimately leading to the achievement of nirvana. Right concentration could be seen as the doorway to meditation, the last step towards the Buddhist understanding of enlightenment.

Many compare the Eightfold Path, in a very superficial way, to the Hindu Vedanta or Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount. But an honest, clear-minded analysis reveals important differences among the teachings of these world religions. By way of analogy, it’s like saying coke is identical to corn syrup, which is identical to water. While these all share the quality of being liquids, they’re also quite different liquids. And so it is, many would contend, with the teachings (and effects) of different world religions.

Related Posts » Ch’an Buddhism, Zen

Related articles

• Four Noble Truths (earthpages.wordpress.com)
• Wise Effort: Neither Slacking Nor Overachieving. (elephantjournal.com)
• Dharma Medicine – Insight Bodywork (hofholistichealingcenters.com)
• One Dhamma, One Buddhism (bodhikaram.wordpress.com)
• What is Buddhism? Who is the Founder of Buddhism? (sensualblissvoyager.wordpress.com)
• The life and teachings of Gautama Buddha…. (unusuallyusualtale.wordpress.com)
• 8 Ways to Mindfulness In My Purse (sycalaelen.wordpress.com)
• Understanding Nonattachment: Basics of Buddhism from the Temple Buddhist Center (magneticwind.com)
• Toward a Buddhist Aesthetic (inmaterialdesign.wordpress.com)

Evil

"Sauron's eye : my church is turning evil !" by AmUnivers / Amelie at Flickr

The definition of evil is informed by one’s core beliefs, and different kinds of arguments try to explain its existence.

Some materialists and scientists scoff at the idea of evil as if it were an antiquated legacy from a superstitious past.

Violent criminals are usually described in the news in psychiatric terms. Murderers are often reported as having a mental illness instead of being possessed by the devil. However, sometimes callous murderers are called “monsters” so the idea of evil can creep in to our essentially scientific worldview.

Meanwhile, savage tyrants and warlords are often viewed through a historical or, perhaps, political lens.

Evil in Christian theology

A basic theological distinction exists between natural evil and moral evil. Natural evil includes “acts of God” such as floods, earthquakes and avalanches. Moral evil is a conscious human choice to turn away from God’s will and participate in some action harmful to self and possibly others.

Duns Scotus classified “intrinsic evil” as acts that are inherently evil and accordingly prohibited. But intrinsically evil acts are not evil because they are prohibited.

In Christian theology evil is often seen as a necessary component of God’s plan of salvation. Here one accepts as an article of faith that God permits evil for some greater good, beyond the comprehension of mere mortals (see Isaiah 55:8-9).

A Christian school of thought, begun by Irenaeus and popularized by John Hick, argues that evil is permitted, but not caused, by God. Why, one might ask, would an all-powerful God permit evil? According to the Irenian school, the answer lies in the idea of ‘soul making.’ A soul freely choosing to abstain from evil is of greater value than one that automatically avoids evil like a programmed robot. The free soul apparently better glorifies God than would a sinless automaton.

Although evil may ravage, test and torment good souls living on earth, the true goal of our finite, earthly life is to be made worthy of eternal heavenly life. According to this perspective the evils of the world act as a crucible. Souls not succumbing to but resisting evil are purified and strengthened toward the good. Evil, then, is necessary. It acts as a kind of hammer that pounds out the soul’s impurities.

St. Thomas Aquinas, in keeping with the final winnowing of the Apocalypse (Luke 3:17, Matthew 3:12), writes:

God permits some evils lest the good things should be obstructed.

Another Christian argument, influenced by Plato‘s idea of the Forms, is given by St. Augustine. Augustine sees evil as a privatio boni—the absence of good. According to this view, since God is good, evil must be where God is not present. Therefore God doesn’t create evil. It’s a choice. But the theological debates get complicated here, and some ask whether Augustine’s theodicy holds up for both natural and moral evil.

Different branches of Christianity hold different views about what happens to evil souls in the afterlife. Some Churches damn sinners eternally. Martin Luther, for instance, believed that some souls are predestined for hell. Meanwhile, some contemporary Christians pray for the liberation of souls in hell while others do not.¹ And the Catholic Purgatory is neither heaven nor hell, but a difficult preparation for heaven.

Evil in non-Christian religions

Evil in Islam is similar to that of Christianity. But for Muslims it is evil to suggest that Christ is one with God (John 10:30). And the prohibitions in the Koran differ from those of the New Testament. Notably, killing is permitted in the Koran in some circumstances (see http://www.yoel.info/koranwarpassages.htm and http://www.islamreview.com/articles/jihadholywarversesinthekoran.shtml), whereas the very thought of killing is denounced in the New Testament. Many branches of Christianity do, however, entertain the idea of a Just War.

In Hinduism a different view of evil is presented. Evil is permitted to maintain a proper balance of sacred heat or power (tapas) within the universe. Aspects of Hinduism speak to the reality of hell for evildoers. But evil in Hinduism is mostly viewed in terms of personal ignorance and spiritual development, making hellish punishments temporary instead of eternal.

According to this perspective, the evil soul reincarnates on earth until it is cleansed of the ignorance that influenced it to commit bad deeds. This differs dramatically from the Catholic view that souls in hell are eternally damned and, strangely enough, would never want to leave. Unlike the Christian, the Hindu aspires to transcend apparently relative ideas about good and evil through an experiential knowledge of universal truth.

Accordingly, the goal of Hinduism differs from both Christianity and Islam. For the Hindu, heaven is a halfway house on the road to ultimate realization. The reincarnating soul may enjoy periodic visits to different heavens but, though the round of rebirth, it eventually transcends all heavens and ultimately achieves the greatest good of the Brahman. A similar but in some ways different view of evil is presented in Taoism.

An interesting but often overlooked question is whether Christian, Jewish, Islamic, Buddhist, Taoist and Hindu heavens and hells are identical in character. The celebrated Romanian scholar Mircea Eliade notes that heavens and hells are described differently among world religions. But do they all feel the same? We can’t really know but my guess is NO.

Most cultures around the world at some point in history have seen evil as a cause of mental or physical illness. This view is prevalent in Shamanism. And some religious writers, such as the Catholic, Michael Brown, say they feel the presence of evil almost anywhere.

And on the inferiority of evil as compared to good, W. H. Auden writes in A Certain World:

Good can imagine Evil; but Evil cannot imagine Good.

—

¹ See this excellent discussion: http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=329730

Related Posts » Determinism, Free-will, Shamanism, Siva, Suffering, Trickster

Related articles

• The freewill defense (St. Augustine of Hippo): Part 1 (thatreligiousstudieswebsite.com)
• One’s Good and the Other is Evil (conservativetickler.wordpress.com)
• Why God Won’t Allow Me to Heaven (ichosethebluepill.wordpress.com)
• A Scene from “Doctor Faustus” (alyssajmammano.wordpress.com)
• Medieval Good (ideasandotherstuff.wordpress.com)
• What is evil? (andrewejenkins.wordpress.com)
• Random Musings: the concept of a ‘just war’ (jmatthanbrown.wordpress.com)
• A reading from the Church Fathers: Love the Sinner Hate the Sin (gingerjar2.wordpress.com)

St. Francis of Assisi

St. Francis of Assisi (circa 1182-1220) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Before becoming known as St. Francis of Assisi (1181-1226), Giovanni Francesco di Bernardone was the son of a wealthy Italian cloth merchant, next in line to take over his father’s prosperous business.

In his youth Francis was a popular dilettante, enjoying friends and parties. In keeping with expectations for the young upper-class men of the day, he fought in the army and was taken prisoner. Suffering a serious illness, Francis apparently had some kind of powerful mystical vision.

He returned to his father, telling him he could no longer continue with the family business. Scorned by his father, Francis went to the central square in Assisi where he removed his clothing for all to see, which was his way of renouncing his life of worldly gain. Standing naked, a nearby person threw him a course blanket, which he took to wear. Francis went on to form the friars minor (fratres minores), a monastic order characterized by chastity and extreme poverty, and all of its members wore the same course cloth.

The order grew quickly. By 1219 the Franciscans swelled to over 5,000 members. His former friend and spiritual love, Lady Clare of Assisi, followed suit by likewise renouncing the world. She founded a similar but sequestered order and was eventually canonized.

Stories about St. Francis abound, telling of his love and tenderness toward animals, his writing a canticle to “brother sun, sister moon” and his insistence on complete poverty, which he affectionately personified as “Lady Poverty.” He apparently opened the Bible at random every morning and read a verse to set the tone for his actions throughout the day, believing that God directed him to the right passage. And with Papal permission he unsuccessfully tried to convert the Muslims in the Holy Land, who nonetheless were impressed by his piety.

He also endured a painful medieval eye operation using red-hot irons to remove cataracts. And he is one of the very few mystics said to have miraculously received the stigmata—physical marks of Christ’s crucifixion appearing on one’s own hands and feet.

St. Francis was buried in his native town of Assisi. He remains, perhaps, Catholicism’s most popular saint, probably because his kind of example can be easily understood by rank and file Catholics. However, it’s hard to know if his knowledge of God was a deep as, say, the contemplative St. Faustina Kowalska, who apparently saw Jesus on a near daily basis.

His feast day is October 4.

Related Posts » Divination, Jainism, Levels of Knowledge, Suffering

Related articles

• St. Francis Of Assisi’s Radical Love For Jesus – The Huffington Post (christcenteredteaching.wordpress.com)
• St. Francis of Assisi Prophesies of the Beast (gofishministries.wordpress.com)
• Religious Icons Of The St Francis Of Assisi Church (scenicadelaide.com)
• Francis of Assisi was no Sissy (chrisbrady.typepad.com)
• Reluctant Saint, the life of Francis of Assisi by Donald Spoto (lunaticchick.wordpress.com)
• Watching with Francis (hancockblog.org)
• The Stigmata (paranormala.com)

Four Noble Truths

Dhamekh Stupa, where the Buddha gave the first sermon on the Four Noble Truths and the Eightfold Path to his five disciples after attaining enlightenment at Bodh Gaya. Also seen behind the stupa in the left corner is the yellow-coloured spire of Digamber Jain temple, dedicated to 11th Jain Tirthankar, Shreyansanath, known to be his birth place. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The Four Noble Truths are the core of Buddhist teaching, said to have been outlined by the Buddha in his first discourse at Benares. They are as follows:

1. All of life is suffering (dukkha)
2. The cause of suffering is wrongful desire, craving or thirst (tanha)
3. Suffering can be overcome by eliminating these causes
4. The method for eliminating suffering is outlined in the Eightfold Path.

This differs from the Christian view of suffering. Christians, particularly Catholics, tend to make room for a positive view of some forms of suffering, regarded as a means towards purification in preparation for everlasting heaven. While neurotic suffering is not accepted and unnecessary suffering is to be avoided, the Catholic saints do not try to eradicate unavoidable “holy suffering,” which they believe should be patiently endured.

In some cases extreme suffering is welcomed as a blessing by the Catholic saint. St. Faustina Kowalska, for instance, embraced holy suffering because she believed she was instructed by Christ that it would maximize her heavenly reward. The depth psychologist C. G. Jung had something similar (but not identical) to say in his treatment of alchemy. For Jung suffering was a necessary kind of ‘smelting,’ as it were, for soul making—or rather, self making.

Again, the Buddhist understanding of suffering is very different from that of both Jungian theory and Christian theology. Buddhism sees all suffering as bad and something to be avoided, whereas mystical Christians see some types of suffering as a valuable experience leading toward purification and a heavenly reward beyond all human imagination. Jung’s take on suffering isn’t quite so grand as the Christian view. It’s more focused on psychological development within this life, and doesn’t really speak to the afterlife.

The Buddhist view of suffering and its solution also involves a supposed realization that we have no individual self. To most Christians and Jungians, alike, this view is simply misguided.

Related articles

• The Four Noble Truths (buddhalists.wordpress.com)
• Desire (jonathanscorner.com)
• The Mindful Writer: Noble Truths of the Writing Life by Dinty W. Moore. {Book Review} (elephantjournal.com)
• The Fourfold Noble Truth (talesfromthelou.wordpress.com)
• Weather and The 4 Noble Truths ~ Pema Chodron (alyssaeleven.wordpress.com)
• 28 January 2010 Varanasi – Sarnath (jgsapsford.wordpress.com)
• Understanding Nonattachment: Basics of Buddhism from the Temple Buddhist Center (magneticwind.com)
• Book Review – The Misleading Mind, by Karuna Cayton (digital-dharma.net)

The Great Schism

Patriarch Michael Keroularios sitting on a throne with clergymen from the Chronicle of John Skylitzes via Wikipedia

The first Great Schism was the separation of the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches. Antagonisms over various issues had been brewing since the 9^th century but the break formally took place in 1054.

Relations between East and West had long been embittered by political and ecclesiastical differences and theological disputes.^[2] Prominent among these were the issues of “filioque“, whether leavened or unleavened bread should be used in the Eucharist,^[3] the Pope’s claim to universal jurisdiction, and the place of Constantinople in relation to the Pentarchy.¹

The antimony between East and West was brought to a head in 1053 by an attack on the Pope by Michael Cerularius, the patriarch of Constantinople. This resulted in the excommunication of Cerularius and his Eastern followers by Western papal authorities.

—

¹ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East%E2%80%93West_Schism

Related articles

• “Confronting the Claim of Eastern Orthodoxy to be…” (insightscoop.typepad.com)
• Clearing Confusion on Who Speaks for the Church | Suffering With Joy (intostillness.wordpress.com)
• Survey of Church History: From the Apostles to Jordan (compasschurchamman.wordpress.com)
• The Gates of Hell Shall Not Prevail Against It (everytongueproclaim.wordpress.com)

Galileo Galilei

Galileo facing the Roman Inquisition, painting by Cristiano Banti via Wikipedia

Galileo Galilei (1564-1642) was an Italian mathematician and astronomer who was tried and found guilty by the Catholic Inquisition for claiming that the sun – not the earth – was at the center of the solar system. This view had been previously proposed by Copernicus, and it runs counter to the Biblical story.

Forced to recant under threat of torture, Galileo was placed under house arrest where he spent the rest of his days, eventually becoming blind.

Historian of science David C. Lindberg disagrees with the contemporary myth, however, that this conflict was about religion stifling scientific progress. Lindberg says that Galileo’s struggle epitomizes the ongoing political tension between traditionalism and liberalism. And the historical evidence supports Lindberg’s claim.

What we usually don’t hear in the TV documentaries about Galileo is that some scientists opposed and even ridiculed Galileo’s claims, as did the conservative Dominican religious order. However, the more liberal Jesuits supported Galileo (until Galileo insulted and alienated them) along with a few liberal scientists.

So the situation was far more complicated and not so simple as some contemporary opponents of Catholicism (and organized religion in general) tend to see it.

Lindberg also points out that in the 21^st century, Catholicism has embraced scientific inquiry while fundamentalist Protestants still adhere to a literal interpretation of the Bible. What Lindberg overlooks, however, is the ham handed way that some Catholics tend to embrace scientific truth claims, calling them “scientific truth” as if they were beyond question or, perhaps, further development. It’s almost as if some Catholics have made a leap of faith to the scientific paradigm that’s so prevalent and, sometimes, potentially dangerous when left unquestioned.¹

To this Neil adds:

I think great care must be used with the word “literal.”

For example, I think it is literally true that the original writings were 100% inspired by God – that is, the writings turned out exactly as He wanted them to.

But do I take every verse literally? No, because some sections are historical, some are poetry, some are parables, etc., and many contain figures of speech. The parables didn’t involved people who literally existed, but they involved principles that were literally true.

When Jesus said it is better to cut off our hands and/or gouge out our eyes rather than sin with them I hope He was using hyperbole .

In my experience those who are theologically liberal often take verses just as literally as those they accuse of being literalists. For example, they quote Jesus as saying, “Judge not, lest ye be judged” as a blanket statement against making any moral judgments. Yet that passage is talking about not judging hypocritically and there are plenty of other passages telling us how to judge problem (e.g., John 7:24). » See in context

—

¹ For example, while extremely vocal on some issues (e.g. homosexuality, contraception and abortion), some Catholics remain mute on other issues, turning a blind eye to vast tracts of wasted human potential and suffering (e.g. the experimental medication of some third world peoples and the excessive and unnecessary medication of some psych. patients). Just why this is so remains unclear. But it possibly involves ignorance and, in some instances, might fit with Michel Foucault‘s idea that morality usually has a political agenda.

Related Posts » Fundamentalism, Infallibility, Ptolemy, Saint

Related articles

• Why did church authorities charge Galileo with heresy (wiki.answers.com)
• Infallibility (earthpages.wordpress.com)
• Recreate Galileo Galilei’s Lunar Journal (ronit18.wordpress.com)
• Memo to Rick Perry: Galileo Was a Liberal (desmogblog.com)
• What are some important events of Galileo’s life (wiki.answers.com)
• Divining Perry’s meaning on Galileo remark (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
• Minor myths: the Galileo Gambit (newanthropocene.wordpress.com)
• The Caucus: Divining Perry’s Meaning in ‘Galileo’ Remark (thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com)
• Scientist of the Month (smartypots.wordpress.com)
• Galileo skeptics confound Catholics and astrophysicists alike (weinterrupt.com)

St. John of the Cross

St. John of the Cross, Doctor of the Church. via Wikipedia

St. John of the Cross (originally Juan de Yepes y Álvarez 1542-91) was a Spanish mystic born in Ávila.

As a Carmelite monk, he and St. Teresa of Ávila founded the Discalced Carmelites.

In Toledo he was imprisoned in 1577, but he escaped and became Vicar Provincial of Andalusia (1585-87).¹

Today, St. John of the Cross is best known in Catholic and contemplative Christian circles as the author of the Christian spiritual classic, Dark Night of the Soul.

In this introspective account St. John writes from personal experience about the delights and dejection involved in his own path of spiritual purification.

The work is reminiscent of another Christian classic, The Imitation of Christ, by Thomas à Kempis. And it is often cited by Jungians and other contemporary seekers as justification for long periods of feeling lousy, alienated and/or depressed (Carl Jung, himself, used an alchemical metaphor to describe depression as the nigredo—a stage of inner darkness).

While it seems that the spiritual life can involve initial periods of psycho-spiritual darkness and confusion, we should remember that, like St. John indicates, this is usually only a stage. With healthy-minded mysticism, as William James would have put it, some kind of inner “daylight” and meaning should emerge after a period of profound confusion, despair and seeming meaningless.

However, the two states may continue to alternate to some extent through the course of one’s new life. Christian seekers use another metaphor for the negative states, calling them periods of “dryness.” This comes from the idea that the Holy Spirit is experienced as a kind of pure and clean spiritual “water” from above.

St. John was canonized in 1726 and his feast day is on December 14^th.

———

¹ This is well described at Wikipedia:

On the night of 2 December 1577, John was taken prisoner by his superiors in the calced Carmelites, who had launched a counter-program against John and Teresa’s reforms. John had refused an order to return to his original house, on the basis that his reform work had been approved by the Spanish Nuncio, a higher authority than John’s direct superiors in the calced Carmelites.^[4] John was jailed in Toledo, where he was kept under a brutal regimen that included public lashing before the community at least weekly, and severe isolation in a tiny stifling cell barely large enough for his body. He managed to escape nine months later, on 15 August 1578, through a small window in a room adjoining his cell. (He had managed to pry the cell door off its hinges earlier that day). In the meantime, he had composed a great part of his most famous poem Spiritual Canticle during this imprisonment; his harsh sufferings and spiritual endeavours are then reflected in all of his subsequent writings. The paper was passed to him by one of the friars guarding his cell.

Related articles

• A checklist spirituality that focuses on doing things (opusfree.wordpress.com)
• For All the Beauty There May Be (stevebeckow.com)
• Pope Recommends Spiritual Direction to Every Christian (frstephensmuts.wordpress.com)
• Book Note | Naked Spirituality: A Life with God in 12 Simple Words by Brian D. McLaren (benjaminvineyard.com)
• Basilica Status Sought for Church Where John of Avila Rests (onecatholicorg.wordpress.com)
• Spain: a pilgrimage to the ancient Kingdom of Castile (telegraph.co.uk)
• June 24 in history (homepaddock.wordpress.com)
• The Heart of a Saint: Introduction and Chapter 1 (savedbygodsgrace.wordpress.com)
• Knowing God, Knowing Myself (palamas.info)

Kraken

Drawing by malacologist Pierre Dénys de Montfort, 1801, from the descriptions of French sailors reportedly attacked by a sea monster off the coast of Angola via Wikipedia

The Kraken is a huge sea monster apparently spotted off the coasts of Norway and Iceland. It is also known as sykraken, sea kraken, or krabben because of its flat, rounded shape and numerous arms.

Reports from sailors claim that it’s between a mile and two miles in circumference and creates a huge whirlpool when submerging, sucking even the largest seafaring vessels underwater.

Although the word Kraken never appears in the old Norse Sagas, the idea of sea monsters is certainly present.

The Norwegian Churchman Erik Pontoppidan first popularized the term Kraken in the “Natural History of Norway” in 1752-53.

In reality, the Kraken may be nothing more than large squids spied by weary and imaginative sailors suffering from the malnutrition that often came with sea voyages in those days (it’s now known that malnutrition can affect brain performance and thus proper perception and judgment).

Psychologically speaking, however, we might see the myth or the Kraken as an archetypal symbol for forces emanating from the collective unconscious or underworld.

Related Articles

• Introducing the newly released Kraken (life.nationalpost.com)
• On My Wishlist #9 (csilibrarian.wordpress.com)
• Is an cricken an animal (wiki.answers.com)
• Book Review : Book Review: Kraken: The Curious, Exciting, and Slightly Disturbing Science of Squid by Wendy Williams (sciencenews.org)
• Thor’s Hammer + Releasing the Kraken (redstate.com)
• The Kraken: The Simulation Application for Nautical Maneuvering (laughingsquid.com)
• Mysterious and Magical Creatures (brighthub.com)
• Kraken: A New Book About The Science of Squid (laughingsquid.com)
• Karetus – The Kraken (live) (metalectro.wordpress.com)

Kowalska, St. Maria Faustina Helena

St. Maria Faustina Helena Kowalska via Wikipedia

St. Maria Faustina Helena Kowalska (1905-1938 ) was one of the great Christian mystics of the 20th century. Originally Helena Kowalska, this Polish nun wrote what has been called the Divine Mercy Diary, narrating the daily struggles and joys of her unique convent life.

Hers differs from most other spiritual diaries by virtue of its immediacy and simplicity. With her health rapidly deteriorating, Faustina strove to follow the strict religious observances of her order. And with the permission of her superiors, she continued to write striking descriptions of her alleged encounters with Jesus, whom, she says, spoke to her on a near daily basis.

Her alleged mystical visions and encounters include seeing Jesus as a person of great beauty and grace. They also include seeing many souls suffering in hell and those bound for hell—some of these hell-bound souls apparently were fallen priests and religious persons.

In a way not entirely unlike the Hindu notion of karma transfer, Faustina claims to have suffered for the spiritual benefit of others. In essence, she claims that sin transfers from some souls to others. She wrote that Christ told her:

You are not living for yourself but for souls, and other souls will profit from your sufferings. Your prolonged suffering will give them the light and strength to accept my Will (Saint Maria Faustina Helena Kowalska, Divine Mercy in My Soul, 2^nd edition, Stockbridge Mass.: Marian Press, 1990, p. 34).

For believing Catholics, St. Faustina’s Diary is filled with the kind of simple, unpretentious wisdom that eludes so many apparently ‘great’ philosophers, scholars and intellectuals who are limited by the walls of their own conceptual corridors. St. Faustina writes that Jesus, in one visitation, said:

Speak to Me about everything in a completely simple and human way; by this you will give Me great joy. I understand you because I am God-Man. This simple language of your heart is more pleasing to Me than the hymns composed in My honor (Ibid., p. 316).

With regard to the idea of sacrificial love (agape), Faustina says that souls not in a state of grace caused her intense suffering by virtue of the spiritual transfer of sin and impurity:

Sometimes when I meet a soul that is not in a state of grace…the suffering is terrible (Ibid., p. 304).

She says solitary “heroic souls” are misunderstood and hated by the world but nonetheless receive strength from God as they prayerfully assist others with humility and courage:

They not only carry their own burden, but also know how to take on, and are capable of taking on, the burdens of others (Ibid., p. 329).

And she believes this essentially spiritual connection with other souls may occur at a distance:

During the night, I was suddenly awakened and knew that some soul was asking me for prayer, and that it was in much need of prayer. Briefly, but with all my soul, I asked the Lord for grace for her (Ibid., p. 319).

And again:

This evening, I felt in my soul that a certain person had need of my prayer. Immediately I began to pray. Suddenly I realize interiorly and am aware of who the spirit is who is asking this of me; I pray until I feel at peace (Ibid., p. 326).

Indeed, distance, seems to have little effect on interior perception:

For the Spirit, space does not exist. It sometimes happens that I know about a death occurring several hundred kilometers away (Ibid., p. 327).

Also, speaking of dying souls she says:

I feel vividly and clearly that spirit who is asking me for prayer. I was not aware that souls are so closely united, and often it is my Guardian Angel who tells me (Ibid., p. 325).

Concerning the idea of ‘spiritual warfare,’ in she recounts in another diary entry:

Today I have fought a battle with the spirits of darkness over one soul. How terribly Satan hates God’s mercy! I see how he opposes this whole work (Ibid., p. 320).

Faustina also says that even religious persons are far from perfect. Pettiness and jealousy figure prominently in the religious life, just as in the secular world:

I have experienced just how much envy there is, even in religious life. I see that there are few truly great souls, ready to trample on everything that is not God. O Soul, you will find no beauty outside of God. Oh, how fragile is the foundation of those who elevate themselves at the expense of others! What a loss! (Ibid., p. 326)

On a happier note, she writes that spiritually inclined souls recognize each other when they meet, even if not discussing religious matters:

A soul united with God…easily recognizes a similar soul, even if the latter has not revealed its interior [life] to it, but merely speaks in an ordinary way. It is a kind of spiritual kinship. Souls united with God are few, fewer than we think (Ibid., pp. 307-8).

Some might wonder if St. Faustina was merely hallucinating or imagining things. Nevertheless she, herself, openly admits to experiencing moments of doubt:

Once again, a terrible darkness envelops my soul. It seems to me that I am falling prey to illusions. When I went to confession to obtain some light and peace, I did not find these at all. The confessor left me with even more doubts than I had before (Ibid., p. 109).

And quite unlike many alleged psychics and mystics, she was concerned with verifying her interior perceptions:

Especially now, while I am in the hospital, I experience an inner communion with the dying who ask me for prayer when their agony begins…since this has been happening more frequently, I have been able to verify it, even to the exact hour (Ibid., p. 326).

While atheists and worldly-minded people would probably reduce Faustina’s claims to psychophysical aberrations,¹ for Catholic believers she represents the very best of their rich mystical tradition.

—

¹ For an alarmingly biased (and scientifically unsound) critique of parapsychology in general, see The Penguin Dictionary of Psychology, 4th edition (2009),  p. 555.

Related Posts » Clairaudience, Contemplation, Intercession, Jainism, Ramakrishna (Sri), Reaction Formation

Related Articles

• Sacrifice and Mercy – the Spiritual Mission of St. Faustina (beginningtopray.blogspot.com)
• Untitled (deaconjohnspace.wordpress.com)
• The Divine Mercy Devotion and the Second Coming of Christ (deaconjohnspace.wordpress.com)
• From Mark Mallett: The Great Refuge and Safe Harbour (deaconjohnspace.wordpress.com)
• How Much More? (catholicphoenix.com)
• Who will deliver the message of Divine Mercy? Your I Phone (App)! (k2globalcommunicationsllc.wordpress.com)
• Mark Mallett: The Last Hope of Salvation (deaconjohnspace.wordpress.com)
• From Mark Mallett: In the Days of Lot (deaconjohnspace.wordpress.com)
• The Last Effort: (whatisgarabandal.wordpress.com)
• Karma Transfer (earthpages.wordpress.com)

Koestler, Arthur

Arthur Koestler with Mamaine Paget, Robie Macauley and Flannery O'Connor via Wikipedia

Arthur Koestler (1905-83) was a Hungarian-born journalist and author who initially favored communism and wrote against the Nazis.

Koestler joined the German Communist Party (KPD) and was interned in a concentration camp but escaped to England in 1940, where he spent the rest of his life. By this time he’d broken with communism and had begun to explore political, scientific and humanistic themes through fiction and learned works.

He had a definite interest in the human brain, envisioning it as inherently conflicted due to an incomplete process of evolution. This idea of inherited conflict might have been more about him, however, and not the vast majority of people. He apparently was a misogynist and has gone on record for raping one woman.

Koestler also became interested in possible links between sub-atomic physics and parapsychology. And he wrote about the idea of coincidence, forwarding ideas remarkably similar to C. G. Jung’s concept of synchronicity. While this may surprise some, one has to remember that synchronicity is an ethically neutral concept. Dangerous madpersons, troubled neurotics and suffering saints may all experience – or believe they experience – the alleged parapsychological phenomena that Jung called synchronicity.

An advocate of euthanasia, Koestler and his wife both committed suicide when he developed a terminal illness.

Related Posts » Unconscious

Related Articles

• ‘Breathing the common air’ or the very best bits from Arthur Koestler (beinghuman.blogs.fi)
• 12.2.41 (orwelldiaries.wordpress.com)
• Palestine Exists (alternetviews.wordpress.com)
• Ghosts and Gallows (spiritofpn.wordpress.com)
• Inside holocracy (marcisegal.wordpress.com)
• The Best of Brit Lit (thedailybeast.com)
• Ghost in the Shell (philandrewsbadmp.wordpress.com)
• Stephen Barlay obituary (guardian.co.uk)
• Councillor refused to sign Holocaust Memorial Day book (thejc.com)
• Should Christians use the N-word? (mysteryworshipers.wordpress.com)