The Three Theological Virtues APOSTLE PAUL: THE VISION MYSTIC
If we list the problems of Western Mysticism to evolve, in speech and penetration of hearts and minds, the worst of all the obstacles may be the lack of clear distinction between the mystical discourse and religious discourse.
For many years, in the absence of a competent and thorough review, the text that supports the ideologically Mysticism in its most varied manifestations, is made up of a patchwork quilt made up of sacred texts of different religions created by the human sensitivity , on which the mystical vision casts his original interpretation, extracting the meanings of these texts concerning him.
Still, in many cases, the mystical text is just the repetition of the words of the Enlightened these texts, placed strategically in other texts, in the form of quotes should thus support the realization of an idea.
In other words, when we talk about the importance of charity or ethical conduct, we used speeches of Christ; if we want to talk about detachment, use quotes the Buddha or other spiritual leaders.
It is assumed that by using these speeches ready, we are being sufficiently supported by the word of the authorities in this field (the mystical field) and therefore our thesis will be better grounded.
There is, however, a conceptual problem in this strategy: their ingenuity. By basing his ideas on religious speech, the mystics are in danger of confusing the two speeches and having to defend values that are not yours.
Maybe that's why it is very common for ideas strength of spiritualism and the Catholic Church constantly penetrating the discourse of mystical schools as AMORC, as if they were identical, sufficient and satisfactory to explain what mysticism advocates.
Ledo mistake.
There is perhaps most original vision of the religious notion that mystical vision.
Mysticism is not religion, it is an absolutely different understanding of the world as we see it. Is in relation to religious discourse in proportion to the scientific discourse is the discourse of common sense.
For example, to religion there must be a prophet, mysticism each is his own prophet.
If religion need is the belief in a personal God, spatially located in the mystical vision God is an amorphous, decentralized phenomenon, pantheistic, truly ubiquitous.
If, finally, to religion, Death issue of discussion is fundamental and Life beyond Life, the mystic replies that there is no death, but transition and that there are two kinds of life, but only one kind of life.
Ie thinking is mystically change values that go beyond mere intellectual information. It must change the way of thinking and, I admit, the esoteric schools have enormous difficulty of dealing with this problem.
The limitation is not only spiritual, but also philosophical.
When mysticism speaks of an omnipresent God, man tries to represent him by Orthodox Christian model of a bearded old man seated on a throne of the Apocalypse of John the Evangelist. This being so, spatially located, the representation of a naive mind the philosophical point of view, will have great powers, and so it will be Omnipresent.
At no point going through the mind of this neophyte thought to represent an omnipresent God as present in any place, at any time, it is a logical nonsense.
No matter the concept that we work. The image that we use to represent it in our mind denounce understanding or not this same concept.
And like mysticism works with very advanced concepts in relation to religions, we need to maintain power and to facilitate access of the masses to their speeches Manichean images, simple, palatable, easily digestible, it generates a conflict in most cases intuited but not understood much less expressed.
This is cancer of the Mystical Education. The lack of clarity about its fundamental elements, on the lines of its contour on their basics, their ideas about power.
The mystic speech, eager to be didactic, makes concessions to the lack of clarity and the speeches of other lines of thought, not mystical, but religious, in an attempt to attract the understanding of their new members from other doctrines and other lines of thought.
Supposes, again naively, that should be left to the heart of each one, understand what's deep, mysterious, so mystic, under the religious discourse in his times of their particular understanding, not realizing that the offer the mystical neophyte an incomplete speech and unclear, it only delays this understanding it would be much faster if, at first, was put that to enter the world of mystical understanding is necessary to avoid the values of understanding and that's what the job alchemical initiate must concentrate.
This also takes time, but unlike the other case, has a direction, a compass, a focus in which focus.
I have no doubt that we have removed many individuals of modern mysticism is not only the immediacy of our day, but this philosophical uncertainty that permeates our teaching, and that confuses with a New Religion.
Not official, basic texts, prepared with care, but the interpretations made by people who should represent the world's mystical thought.
For example, I would like to mention an important piece of religious discourse which has been assumed to be mystical, proving my thesis that lack any kind of philosophical filter in transliteration values between these areas.
It is known to all the concept of "Theological Virtues," which we find in Paul the Evangelist.
Is the Letter to the Corinthians, 1, ch. 13:
"Now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity. "
The mystical discourse often incorporates these as their values without critical or explanatory care.
Then do a mystical analysis of these three virtues and see how would after filtering the values they preach.
The Faith
Faith is considered mostly as a mystic virtue, but this is not true. When I say I have faith in something, I mean that I believe without proof, without anything to give me support my belief. It is a delivery phenomenon, a bet shall we say, a conviction that springs from the intimate or an educational conditioning, doctrinal thus acquired, that something is one way, regardless of facts that support this conviction.
But the mystical works with other value, the confidence. He trusts things experienced in the style of orthodox scientist, but in a more subtle perceptual field. It is the nature of the mystical search yourself and not what is outside it.
Therefore, when the mystics claim to believe in some things, mean that they know that they are so because they have experienced personal and intimate way the perception of these convictions. Their belief stems from an indoor experiment, an experience, not a convincing done from outside to inside. The classic example is the sunrise. The mystic has no faith in the fact that the sun will rise, but know that it will, as experienced this phenomenon many times. And its repeated experience, draws its confidence that this phenomenon will repeat itself, respecting its cyclical character.
Faith is an unfounded belief. Trust is a reasoned belief. Who has faith believes what he does not know if it's real. Who relies on the other hand, believes in things he knows are the way they are.
The Hope
"Hope generates belief and then the search. That hope is despair of the product - the despair of all those around us in this world. Despair is born Hope - (...) two sides of the same coin. When there is no hope, there is hell, and the fear of hell gives us the vitality of hope. "[1]
"Happy To live is to live without hope. The man who gave hope, is not a happy man; he knows despair. The state of hopelessness 'projects' hope or resentment, despair or happy future.
We're free of hope when we are happy. It is when we are unhappy, sick, oppressed, exploited, that's when tomorrow becomes important "[2].
It is with these considerations Krishnamurti who want to start my discussion of this word, this force idea of religion, which some mystics take as his own.
The krishnamurtiana view is very useful to report this game of mirrors that words like hope creates in us. Manifestation of anxiety and not of spirituality, the term defines a passive state waiting for something we want to happen, without specifying any action for such a thing to occur. It is the version of everyday, mundane life, to the concept expressed in the word faith, the relationship with the Divine.
It is an unfounded belief that something will happen unless we take no action for this to occur, as if the facts were separated from us, as if the karma does not exist.
There are causes and consequences of these causes, it knows no mystic. Hope is a concept devoid of this understanding. It is hoped by some independent thing of any causes that have generated. This is just one of the manifestations of anxiety, the other face of despair, as well remember Krishnamurti.
Rather, the mystic does not live in the future, not waiting for the next, but delves into the eternal present, preparing and modifying the future in the now, in action, the transformation brought about by words, thoughts, actions and views of what you want.
The mystic has no hope, but awareness of here - now that the fence and know that there is no future without the present and the very notion of time is a con itself.
And all that is born of an error, error is also, according to a principle of logic support.
So mystics have no hope or may have, as they are beings aware of their role as transforming forces and its connection with everything around. His life, he knows what he will decide in your mind and in your heart, these convictions that will shape their actions and behaviors.
God is within every mystic. Therefore it must believe in themselves, in what is within themselves, not something distant for which we must passively wait.
Tomorrow is now. There is no future. Surely none of us has any future. Only the eternal present.
The Charity
Finally, we question the charity. Because sung in prose verse, it is important as an evaluation criterion of the degree of goodness of heart.
What is however Charity, Paul considers the most important of the three virtues? It is the act of giving to those in need, again and again, becoming "a river flowing to those who need" [3].
The Concise Oxford Dictionary, 2009, Ed aims says
Charity is: 1.virtude theological leading to love
God and our neighbor; 2 Derivation: by metonymy .: act by which benefits others, esp. the poor and the powerless (emphasis added); 3.disposição favorable toward someone at a disadvantage (physical, moral, social etc.); compassion, kindness, mercy.
By definition, be Charitable is to be good with someone weaker, inferior, and therefore, it is assumed in need.
The giver of charity, gives because he sees the other as inferior to him. This, amazingly, is not a typical mystical vision.
Such a statement, which will seem surprising to many, intoxicated by the theoretical confusion between mysticism and religion, rests on a holy book, not the Bible or the Koran, but the Bhagavad Gita, which says in chapter 5, verse 18:
"The humble sages, by virtue of true knowledge, see with the same vision a learned and courteous brahmana, a cow, an elephant, a dog and a dog-eater (outcaste)."
Now, if we substitute the word "lowly wise" for the word "mystical" we will have a correct idea of the mystical vision of doing good.
When the mystical help someone does not do it for charity, since at no time see that it helps to be less than it is material or spiritual.
What the mystic does, why do so must do, since you see that it assists an extension of themselves, not someone different from him. His attitude is one of solidarity with an equal and not charity be with a different and inferior to him.
To the mystic, given to his knowledge, there can be no people below, or abandoned. All human beings are children of God like himself, all have within themselves the same divine spark, the same force and only apparently are in a state of suffering, this is due to their limited understanding of their own power inside and not because they really are weakened.
So in no time a mystical help a needy out of pity, but because it is his duty as a member of the human race, which he needed part, on equal terms, while not apparent that. Let's say he has no mercy pity that that helps.
This is an extremely different way to understand the act of kindness, not as a concession from someone in a better position to one that does not have them, but someone who shares with one who assists the blessings God has given us to be shared with our brothers.
Mystics do not give things because they are good people; share with those who help only what they have to manage and distribute and that at no time think it's yours. Are flow channels from the Source of all things and not sources itself. This is Solidarity. An action between brothers, between equals. This makes the escape of a grave sin: pride, as it follows the letter said that the right hand should not know what the left does. They act in silence and in secrecy to avoid the sin of pride, or the discomfort that causes someone to feel indebted to another, unable to reciprocate.
In this way, faith religious expression, Hope and Charity, the mystical point of view would be replaced by trust, awareness and solidarity, without prejudice to the action itself, but with great profit in the transmission of genuinely mystical values over others taken by Loan religious discourse.
This is just one example of how we could be more careful in the direction of those who seek the gates of mysticism, that could delay as I said, unnecessarily, their spiritual evolution.
[1] Krishnamurti, "The light is not quenched" Pag. 17 to 20 - published by ICK
[2] Krishnamurti, The True Purpose Of Life - pp. 92-94 - Edit. Cultrix
[3] Anthony Quinn, through the mouth of his character, Auda abu Tayi, the film Lawrence of Arabia with Peter O'Toole in the title role, 1962, directed by David Lean
by Mario Sales, FRC, SI, MM
If we list the problems of Western Mysticism to evolve, in speech and penetration of hearts and minds, the worst of all the obstacles may be the lack of clear distinction between the mystical discourse and religious discourse.
For many years, in the absence of a competent and thorough review, the text that supports the ideologically Mysticism in its most varied manifestations, is made up of a patchwork quilt made up of sacred texts of different religions created by the human sensitivity , on which the mystical vision casts his original interpretation, extracting the meanings of these texts concerning him.
Still, in many cases, the mystical text is just the repetition of the words of the Enlightened these texts, placed strategically in other texts, in the form of quotes should thus support the realization of an idea.
In other words, when we talk about the importance of charity or ethical conduct, we used speeches of Christ; if we want to talk about detachment, use quotes the Buddha or other spiritual leaders.
It is assumed that by using these speeches ready, we are being sufficiently supported by the word of the authorities in this field (the mystical field) and therefore our thesis will be better grounded.
There is, however, a conceptual problem in this strategy: their ingenuity. By basing his ideas on religious speech, the mystics are in danger of confusing the two speeches and having to defend values that are not yours.
Maybe that's why it is very common for ideas strength of spiritualism and the Catholic Church constantly penetrating the discourse of mystical schools as AMORC, as if they were identical, sufficient and satisfactory to explain what mysticism advocates.
Ledo mistake.
There is perhaps most original vision of the religious notion that mystical vision.
Mysticism is not religion, it is an absolutely different understanding of the world as we see it. Is in relation to religious discourse in proportion to the scientific discourse is the discourse of common sense.
For example, to religion there must be a prophet, mysticism each is his own prophet.
If religion need is the belief in a personal God, spatially located in the mystical vision God is an amorphous, decentralized phenomenon, pantheistic, truly ubiquitous.
If, finally, to religion, Death issue of discussion is fundamental and Life beyond Life, the mystic replies that there is no death, but transition and that there are two kinds of life, but only one kind of life.
Ie thinking is mystically change values that go beyond mere intellectual information. It must change the way of thinking and, I admit, the esoteric schools have enormous difficulty of dealing with this problem.
The limitation is not only spiritual, but also philosophical.
When mysticism speaks of an omnipresent God, man tries to represent him by Orthodox Christian model of a bearded old man seated on a throne of the Apocalypse of John the Evangelist. This being so, spatially located, the representation of a naive mind the philosophical point of view, will have great powers, and so it will be Omnipresent.
At no point going through the mind of this neophyte thought to represent an omnipresent God as present in any place, at any time, it is a logical nonsense.
No matter the concept that we work. The image that we use to represent it in our mind denounce understanding or not this same concept.
And like mysticism works with very advanced concepts in relation to religions, we need to maintain power and to facilitate access of the masses to their speeches Manichean images, simple, palatable, easily digestible, it generates a conflict in most cases intuited but not understood much less expressed.
This is cancer of the Mystical Education. The lack of clarity about its fundamental elements, on the lines of its contour on their basics, their ideas about power.
The mystic speech, eager to be didactic, makes concessions to the lack of clarity and the speeches of other lines of thought, not mystical, but religious, in an attempt to attract the understanding of their new members from other doctrines and other lines of thought.
Supposes, again naively, that should be left to the heart of each one, understand what's deep, mysterious, so mystic, under the religious discourse in his times of their particular understanding, not realizing that the offer the mystical neophyte an incomplete speech and unclear, it only delays this understanding it would be much faster if, at first, was put that to enter the world of mystical understanding is necessary to avoid the values of understanding and that's what the job alchemical initiate must concentrate.
This also takes time, but unlike the other case, has a direction, a compass, a focus in which focus.
I have no doubt that we have removed many individuals of modern mysticism is not only the immediacy of our day, but this philosophical uncertainty that permeates our teaching, and that confuses with a New Religion.
Not official, basic texts, prepared with care, but the interpretations made by people who should represent the world's mystical thought.
For example, I would like to mention an important piece of religious discourse which has been assumed to be mystical, proving my thesis that lack any kind of philosophical filter in transliteration values between these areas.
It is known to all the concept of "Theological Virtues," which we find in Paul the Evangelist.
Is the Letter to the Corinthians, 1, ch. 13:
"Now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity. "
The mystical discourse often incorporates these as their values without critical or explanatory care.
Then do a mystical analysis of these three virtues and see how would after filtering the values they preach.
The Faith
Faith is considered mostly as a mystic virtue, but this is not true. When I say I have faith in something, I mean that I believe without proof, without anything to give me support my belief. It is a delivery phenomenon, a bet shall we say, a conviction that springs from the intimate or an educational conditioning, doctrinal thus acquired, that something is one way, regardless of facts that support this conviction.
But the mystical works with other value, the confidence. He trusts things experienced in the style of orthodox scientist, but in a more subtle perceptual field. It is the nature of the mystical search yourself and not what is outside it.
Therefore, when the mystics claim to believe in some things, mean that they know that they are so because they have experienced personal and intimate way the perception of these convictions. Their belief stems from an indoor experiment, an experience, not a convincing done from outside to inside. The classic example is the sunrise. The mystic has no faith in the fact that the sun will rise, but know that it will, as experienced this phenomenon many times. And its repeated experience, draws its confidence that this phenomenon will repeat itself, respecting its cyclical character.
Faith is an unfounded belief. Trust is a reasoned belief. Who has faith believes what he does not know if it's real. Who relies on the other hand, believes in things he knows are the way they are.
The Hope
"Hope generates belief and then the search. That hope is despair of the product - the despair of all those around us in this world. Despair is born Hope - (...) two sides of the same coin. When there is no hope, there is hell, and the fear of hell gives us the vitality of hope. "[1]
"Happy To live is to live without hope. The man who gave hope, is not a happy man; he knows despair. The state of hopelessness 'projects' hope or resentment, despair or happy future.
We're free of hope when we are happy. It is when we are unhappy, sick, oppressed, exploited, that's when tomorrow becomes important "[2].
It is with these considerations Krishnamurti who want to start my discussion of this word, this force idea of religion, which some mystics take as his own.
The krishnamurtiana view is very useful to report this game of mirrors that words like hope creates in us. Manifestation of anxiety and not of spirituality, the term defines a passive state waiting for something we want to happen, without specifying any action for such a thing to occur. It is the version of everyday, mundane life, to the concept expressed in the word faith, the relationship with the Divine.
It is an unfounded belief that something will happen unless we take no action for this to occur, as if the facts were separated from us, as if the karma does not exist.
There are causes and consequences of these causes, it knows no mystic. Hope is a concept devoid of this understanding. It is hoped by some independent thing of any causes that have generated. This is just one of the manifestations of anxiety, the other face of despair, as well remember Krishnamurti.
Rather, the mystic does not live in the future, not waiting for the next, but delves into the eternal present, preparing and modifying the future in the now, in action, the transformation brought about by words, thoughts, actions and views of what you want.
The mystic has no hope, but awareness of here - now that the fence and know that there is no future without the present and the very notion of time is a con itself.
And all that is born of an error, error is also, according to a principle of logic support.
So mystics have no hope or may have, as they are beings aware of their role as transforming forces and its connection with everything around. His life, he knows what he will decide in your mind and in your heart, these convictions that will shape their actions and behaviors.
God is within every mystic. Therefore it must believe in themselves, in what is within themselves, not something distant for which we must passively wait.
Tomorrow is now. There is no future. Surely none of us has any future. Only the eternal present.
The Charity
Finally, we question the charity. Because sung in prose verse, it is important as an evaluation criterion of the degree of goodness of heart.
What is however Charity, Paul considers the most important of the three virtues? It is the act of giving to those in need, again and again, becoming "a river flowing to those who need" [3].
The Concise Oxford Dictionary, 2009, Ed aims says
Charity is: 1.virtude theological leading to love
God and our neighbor; 2 Derivation: by metonymy .: act by which benefits others, esp. the poor and the powerless (emphasis added); 3.disposição favorable toward someone at a disadvantage (physical, moral, social etc.); compassion, kindness, mercy.
By definition, be Charitable is to be good with someone weaker, inferior, and therefore, it is assumed in need.
The giver of charity, gives because he sees the other as inferior to him. This, amazingly, is not a typical mystical vision.
Such a statement, which will seem surprising to many, intoxicated by the theoretical confusion between mysticism and religion, rests on a holy book, not the Bible or the Koran, but the Bhagavad Gita, which says in chapter 5, verse 18:
"The humble sages, by virtue of true knowledge, see with the same vision a learned and courteous brahmana, a cow, an elephant, a dog and a dog-eater (outcaste)."
Now, if we substitute the word "lowly wise" for the word "mystical" we will have a correct idea of the mystical vision of doing good.
When the mystical help someone does not do it for charity, since at no time see that it helps to be less than it is material or spiritual.
What the mystic does, why do so must do, since you see that it assists an extension of themselves, not someone different from him. His attitude is one of solidarity with an equal and not charity be with a different and inferior to him.
To the mystic, given to his knowledge, there can be no people below, or abandoned. All human beings are children of God like himself, all have within themselves the same divine spark, the same force and only apparently are in a state of suffering, this is due to their limited understanding of their own power inside and not because they really are weakened.
So in no time a mystical help a needy out of pity, but because it is his duty as a member of the human race, which he needed part, on equal terms, while not apparent that. Let's say he has no mercy pity that that helps.
This is an extremely different way to understand the act of kindness, not as a concession from someone in a better position to one that does not have them, but someone who shares with one who assists the blessings God has given us to be shared with our brothers.
Mystics do not give things because they are good people; share with those who help only what they have to manage and distribute and that at no time think it's yours. Are flow channels from the Source of all things and not sources itself. This is Solidarity. An action between brothers, between equals. This makes the escape of a grave sin: pride, as it follows the letter said that the right hand should not know what the left does. They act in silence and in secrecy to avoid the sin of pride, or the discomfort that causes someone to feel indebted to another, unable to reciprocate.
In this way, faith religious expression, Hope and Charity, the mystical point of view would be replaced by trust, awareness and solidarity, without prejudice to the action itself, but with great profit in the transmission of genuinely mystical values over others taken by Loan religious discourse.
This is just one example of how we could be more careful in the direction of those who seek the gates of mysticism, that could delay as I said, unnecessarily, their spiritual evolution.
[1] Krishnamurti, "The light is not quenched" Pag. 17 to 20 - published by ICK
[2] Krishnamurti, The True Purpose Of Life - pp. 92-94 - Edit. Cultrix
[3] Anthony Quinn, through the mouth of his character, Auda abu Tayi, the film Lawrence of Arabia with Peter O'Toole in the title role, 1962, directed by David Lean
No comments:
Post a Comment