My husband pointed me to this discussion, which he was directed to by his cousin. Makes profound sense to me.

Excerpts from: "Here & Now with Anthony de Mello": Workshop Presentation by Malcolm Nazareth at Call to Action Conference

1) Tony's life and thought embody in a wondrous way the trajectory of the spiritual fusion of East and West.

2) Eleven years after Tony was buried in Bandra, Mumbai, the Vatican Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith found his publications posthumously dangerous. Cardinal Ratzinger issued a declaration on 24 June 1998 concerning the writings of Father Anthony de Mello, SJ.

3) To my knowledge, most all other Catholic theologians and authors who've come under Ratzinger's fire were rapped on their knuckles during their lifetimes. What's Tony's distinction? Cardinal Ratzinger, who's a sincere and honorable man, went a-knockin on Tony de Mello's grave and denounced his views as a danger to the Catholic faith more than a decade after his death. That's his distinction. Good for you, Tony. Now we have reason to believe that you attained the pinnacle of Truth.

4) His Catholic Christian theological conditioning was blocking his spiritual progress, if I may presume to say so.

5) If the spiritual response of Jesus Christ was qualitatively different than theirs or Confucius', Lao Tzu's, Muhammad's, or Baha'u'llah's how or why is Christ different? Why should I as a Catholic care about such differences? And finally, from the point of view of ultimate reality, do the similarities and differences between the various religious paths matter at all? In a nutshell, what is spirituality?

6) Does a particular spirituality bring people to inner transformation? Only then is it worth it's salt.

Tony:

quote:

If religious people had always followed the instinct of their heart rather than the logic of their religion we would have been spared the sight of heretics burning at stakes, widows walking into funeral pyres and millions of innocent people slaughtered in wars that are waged in the name of religion and of God.

Moral: If you have to choose between the dictates of a compassionate heart and the demands of an ideology, reject the ideology unhesitatingly. Compassion has no ideology.

quote:

"People mistakenly assume that their thinking is done by their head; it is done actually by the heart which first dictates the conclusion, then commands the head to provide the reasoning that will defend it."

7) During our epoch of religious pluralism Tony's greatness in part consists of his having gone deep with an incisive and fearless mind, with a free, compassionate, and sensitive heart into the diverse spiritual riches of humankind. He took the mandate of Vatican II to heart-he took world religions seriously. To repeat what I said at the outset of this presentation, Tony's personal quest among the religions of the world embodies the trajectory of the spiritual fusion of East and West.

8) Anthony de Mello brought clarity to his field. He encouraged us to look into and even see through religions and spiritualities and, most importantly, to make them work for ourselves and for others in a religiously plural world. Thanks to Tony, some of us have been helped to live in the here-and-now.


In compassion,

Miriam A.O.

Good post. Anthony de Mello was a spiritual giant, one who is often overlooked even to this day.

One of the things that made his writings so powerful is his use of parables. I have a book of his essential writings (part of Orbis' Modern Spiritual Masters Series). I use it often. Very powerful.

There are two answers which may explain Tony
de Mello, from my POV.

1) He fell into spiritual deception

2) He reached a spiritual state which only a small percentage of us ever reach, IOW, he was "beyond theology."

Allan Watts wrote a book in the sixties called "Beyond Theology: The Art of Godmanship."
The problem, as I see it is spiritual neophytes
attempting to jump to some very advanced state which only a small percentage ever reach without passing through the intermediate stages,
with unfortunate results.

caritas,

mm <*))))><

Thanks for visiting, Miriam. I hope you'll register and join the discussions.

We've had a couple of threads on de Mello, along with a number of passing discussions.

This one is from the old board, right about the time some aspects of his writings were considered problemmatic.

Here's one from the present board.

Jim Arraj has a short section in this book

As you'll see from reading through some of this stuff, I mostly like de Mello and use many of his stories in my workshops and retreats. Toward the end of his life, he was a kind of a loose canon, however, and was sounding much more Buddhist than Christian; I don't think the CDF criticisms are unfair, nor that this was all about him breaking out of a confining theological conditioning. It's too bad he died so young, as it would have been interesting to see how his development would have gone and how he would have replied to the CDF criticisms.

I am going to revisit this again and again until I really get it. It seems reasonable and I can see that I might as well take the RCIA classes since there isn't room enough to grow into this much of anywhere else. Perhaps Episcopalianism or Quakerism
or some offshoot sect therof. I'll probably wind up
reaching similar conclusions down the road. Time takes time.
caritas,
mm <*)))))><

Not sure what you mean, Michael. You don't understand the CDF reasoning or de Mello?

Let's look a little more closely at a couple of Miriam's points.

4) His Catholic Christian theological conditioning was blocking his spiritual progress, if I may presume to say so.

I don't suppose anyone can really speak for the relation between de Mello's theological formation and his spiritual growth except him (and maybe his spiritual director). He was a Jesuit and undoubtedly had good formation. Personally, I've never heard him hint that his Catholic formation was somehow "holding him back." He knew well of our apophatic tradition and the emphasis on detachment taught by many saints, mystics and spiritual writers. So one is tempted to say, "What's up with the Buddhism bit, Tony?" Surely he was enamored with traditions of enlightenment/advaita before he died (Allan Watts and Krishnamurti being two of his favorite authors); he also seemed to be reacting to the dogmatism and moralism of Christian conservatives, both Catholic and Protestant. But to my knowledge, he still celebrated Mass regularly and several people I know say that his liturgies were very prayerful and sincere. So I don't think it's correct to say he had somehow renounced Catholicism as much as his encounter with Buddhism and its emphasis on detachment was purifying his own spirituality. He most definitely hadn't put it all together, however, and that's unfortunate. His death came during a period when he was lashing out so strongly against dogmatism as to devalue what is good in a dogmatic tradition. Because of his popularity and the growing influence of his writings (most of them posthumously), the CDF raised this issue and pointed out the problem. That's their job, and it's an important one, imo.

5) If the spiritual response of Jesus Christ was qualitatively different than theirs or Confucius', Lao Tzu's, Muhammad's, or Baha'u'llah's how or why is Christ different? Why should I as a Catholic care about such differences? And finally, from the point of view of ultimate reality, do the similarities and differences between the various religious paths matter at all? In a nutshell, what is spirituality?

These are excellent questions, but they are Miriam's questions, not necessarily Fr. de Mello's or the CDF. Discussions such as we've been having on the teachings of Ken Wilber, enlightenment and Christianity, and many others (not to mention the Kundalini forum) grapple with these deeply. My conclusion is that Christianity is unique and Christians really ought to become firmly grounded in their own traditions before crossing over to investigate others. I think Miriam really needs to take these questions seriously and I hope she finds this forum a place where she can pursue them or learn from discussions we've already had.

Since the conversation about de Mello is now going on here, I lifted this from the de Mello board. Hope that's not a problem.

Phil writes: I have no hesitation in recommending de Mello's books to anyone, with the proviso that you view his aphophatism as hyperbole and recognize that the dogmatic tradition really conflicts in no way with apophatic spirituality. It's only when we mistake our conceptual understanding of God for the Real Thing that problems arise.


Phil, you seem to say here that it's when we take dogma too seriously that problems arise. In other words dogmas, or conceptions about the nature of reality that have been officially sanctioned by the church, should not be mistaken for being "scientifically" accurate descriptions of the nature of Reality. Do I understand you correctly?


Phil continues: Tony knew that, but he didn't sufficiently emphasize the value of the dogmatic tradition, which provides a kataphatic configuration to apophatic receptivity.


And if do understand you correctly, then why do we need such a configuration?

I'll admit that I don't have much use for dogmas. I just don't see how anyone can finally claim to know anything at all about the nature Ultimate Reality.

Although I have long been an admirer of Bede Griffiths, I have always felt that he largely abandoned the church's dogma toward the end of his life, but he wouldn't allow himself to admit so publicly because, as Shirley du Boulay noted, he didn't feel the church was ready. Here's what du Boulay said: "To see [Christianity] in advaitic terms would demand a reinterpretation of the Bible and of all Catholic doctrine. A great deal was becoming clear to him, but he felt that the Church was not ready for such ideas and he did not want to publish anything on the subject."

Other modern mystics seem to have come to an understanding similar to that of Bede. Tony de Mello, on the other hand, seems to have overcome such hurdles (if indeed he ever really felt them to be hurdles).

I guess my question is this: what importance do you (this is for everyone) give to dogma? Why?

That's a good question, Dave, and it seems to be Miriam's as well, in a way.

The significance of dogma in the spiritual life is that it states what is essential . . . what cannot be neglected without consequences to one's faith. It represents a distillation of the Christian community's discernments through the ages and, hence, expresses something of the way the Spirit has guided the Church in its ongoing journey in faith. Hence, dogma has a role to play in forming faith and even spiritual receptivity. It also has a role to play in setting boundaries, and that seems to be the rub for many.

Dogma is part of the kataphatic dimension of spirituality; it summarizes what we might call the "content" of the faith, using concepts, but often images and analogies as well. In Christianity, we recognize that God is mystery, beyond concepts, etc., but we also affirm revelation-content that is God's communication to us. This revelation has come through the lives of a people, through individuals, teachings, deeds--especially in the person of Jesus, and our kataphatic tradition includes all of this. Dogma, as I'ved noted, is a summary of this kataphatic content--the most important aspects. Its expression has often been catalyzed by teachings that came to be known as heresies--errant because they led one away from the kind of relationship with God that Christ had come to bring.

Now the big temptation is that, because the kataphatic/exoteric tradition has a "content," it can be passed along, and to view those who grasp this content as being really "religious" or even "spiritual." I think you can see that that's a misuse of dogma--it's dogmatism, which is akin to Phariseeism, which Jesus complained. The danger, here, is that the dogma-police are ever on the prowl, ready to wop people who go astray on the heads. It seems that's how some view the CDF, and that poor de Mello was a victim of such backwardness. Maybe the CDF is comprised of a bunch of dogmatists (who among us really knows that for sure?), but their role is identifying movements unfaithful to dogma is an important one.

The antidote to dogmatism is not to spurn dogma, however, but to develop the inner, esoteric dimension of religious life to which it intrinsically related and from which its expression arose in the first place. Then one will come to view dogma and other kataphatic content in a different perspective -- as indicating a direction, and boundaries along the safe path. There's value in that, as I hope you can all see. Without this kind of direction, one usually ends up practicing a kind of spiritual ecclecticism, even when they sincerely believe they are being guided by the Spirit. To forsake the discernments of the community expressed in dogma is a perilous thing.

"To see [Christianity] in advaitic terms would demand a reinterpretation of the Bible and of all Catholic doctrine. A great deal was becoming clear to him, but he felt that the Church was not ready for such ideas and he did not want to publish anything on the subject."

I don't understand points like this. In place of "advaitic," substitute "shamanic," "animist," "wiccan," neo-Platonian," "Jungian," "Darwinian," etc. and see how that sentence works out. The advaitic perspective is just that--another perspective, as I and others have pointed out on this thread. Why should the interpretation of Christianity from an advaitan perspective trump Christianity's own interpretation of itself? In a way, statements like this only point up the importance of dogma, for if such an advaitan perspective would begin to make propositions in conflict with dogma formulations, then dogma would be helpful to either show how advaita was misunderstanding Christianity or else leading one in a different direction than Christian faith would have them go. What would be healthy would be for Christians and advaitans to try to understand what's really going on here and how they have light to offer each other. Dogmatists won't bother, and that includes advaitan ones, who are often more arrogant than the CDF.

I (flushed with embarassment) am one of those
dogmatic ones, and it has indeed caused myself and others a great deal of trouble.My karma runs over my dogma What it comes down to for me is that when, at six years old I was singing "Jesus loves me, this I know, for the bible tells me so!) in a Lutheran church so loudly that it embarassed my dear mother, I began to have an experience with this man, and he came to dwell with me. I have sought to leave him at various time, but he has never left me. mm

The errors of Quietism with respect to the knowledge of God consist in a formal rejection of theology, a depreciation of God's revelation of Himself to man in Christ the Incarnate Word, in the complete rejection of formal prayer and meditation,
and in the theory that supernatural contemplation can be "aquired" by the mere cessation of mental activity. These errors, as we shall see, actually make true contemplation impossible.

I should like to point out parenthetically, that Oriental mysticism at large has no more in common with the Quietism of Molinos than does the mysticism of Saint John of the Cross. It is a very great mistake to think that Yoga seeks absorption in the Absolute by a mere relaxation of the mind and a stoppage of activity. The techniques and disciplines of meditation practiced in the Orient
are far more laborious and exacting than anything known in the West. The Oriental contemplative is no more indifferent to conceptual knowledge than his Christian counterpart. Divine "revelation" plays a part in Oriental mysticism, and "knowledge" is one of the foundation stones of Yoga. Oriental mysticism is far more intellectual and speculative than the mysticism of the West, and this is, in fact, one of it's deficiencies. It is TOO intellectual. It tends to depend too exclusively on the work of man's own intelligence
and on human techniques, leaves too little place for love, and has only a hesitant, uncertain knowledge of the supreme work of God's grace in mystical prayer.

Thomas Merton
Ascent to Truth


<*))))><

Yes, but Merton wrote that at a certain point in his life. Later, while in Asia, I think he came to a different view. Have you read The Asian Journal of Thomas Merton?

I don't understand points like this. In place of "advaitic," substitute "shamanic," "animist," "wiccan," neo-Platonian," "Jungian," "Darwinian," etc. and see how that sentence works out. The advaitic perspective is just that--another perspective, as I and others have pointed out on this thread. Why should the interpretation of Christianity from an advaitan perspective trump Christianity's own interpretation of itself?


It shouldn't. Though there really isn't a single, homogeneous interpretation of Christianity with which to compare the advaitic approach, I do believe in dialogue, as did Fr. Bede.

I think the reason Bede was concerned with the advaitic view of reality in particular is that that is the philosophy he immersed himself in for nearly 40 years. After reading many of his works, and a couple of good biographies, I really believe he had to fight to remain a Christian. I think he found the Vedantic worldview very compelling. In struggling with advaita, he really was face to face with nonduality. And that is what I think he believed the church wasn't ready for.

It's funny, Bede was somewhat critical of Henri le Saux. But it seems to me that perhaps he was actually a little envious of the direction le Saux had taken.

I was halfway through my second reading of the Asian journal and got busy with something else. As far as I can tell, Merton never believed in reincarnation or stopped believing in the incarnation.
It seems to me a living reality of truth and light, and the men and women who accept Him have in general left a more favorable impression upon me than those who have historically opposed Him.
caritas,
mm <*))))))>,

I suppose if any of us was immersed in another cultural/religious milieu for 40 years, it would have a profound influence.

But Dave, with all due respect, I don't think anything Fr. Bede would have said about Hindu advaita would have affected Catholic doctrine very much, and it's got nothing to do with whether the Church was ready for that or not. Here you have a Benedictine monk going off to live in India for 40 years or so and then, at some point (assuming he'd say such a thing), stating that he thinks the Hindu experience is the ultimate! You can see how that would be perceived, I'm sure. And it's not like it would be the first time Christianity had to deal with advaita.

Maybe it's worth noting here that there already is a Christian advaita that was described as early as Paul: see Gal. 2: 20; 1 Cor. 2: 16; 1 Cor. 13: 12 (there, that'll send you all running for your Bibles. ). There are also the teachings on theosis, which were developed by the early Fathers to describe the destiny of a Christian. This becoming one/integrated into Christ enables one to know God as Christ knows God. That's a pretty high calling -- my main point being that Vedanta/advaita isn't really offering something Christianity doesn't already have (though in a different way, for sure, in its affirmation of the enduring existence of the individual person in Christ).

Still, it's understandable that Fr. Bede was drawn to Vedanta/advaita; that was the spiritual climate surrounding him.

Phil writes: I suppose if any of us was immersed in another cultural/religious milieu for 40 years, it would have a profound influence.

I guess I was stating the obvious.

I suppose du Boulay overestimated Bede's influence in the church. But I can see why he was reluctant to write about his struggles, especially if he felt as though he hadn't resolved certain issue himself.

Thanks for the scripture refs. I didn't know you Catholics read the Bible!

I'm beginning Huston Smith's Beyond the Postmodern Mind. Have you read it?

- - Oh Miriam . . . yoo hoo!

- - - -

Thanks for the scripture refs. I didn't know you Catholics read the Bible!

Well, after all, we wrote it!

- ahem . . .

What I wrote about dogma above applies not just to Christianity, but to any religious pathway. Try telling a Buddhist teacher that you think the cause of suffering is Original Sin, not desire, and see what happens. Or a yogi that you don't really think people reincarnate . . . . or a Moslem that Jesus really did die on the cross . . . This shouldn't suprise us, for every religious tradition has found a way to connect with Ultimate Reality and its dogmas help to focus the way to that connection.

A problem arises when interreligious dialogue is focused primarily on comparing dogmas. Dogmatism lurks in the depths of even the best of us, and it's really tempting to show how our understanding is better than anothers'. Listening to one another describe the inner experiences from these traditions yields very different fruit, helping all to come to a deeper appreciation of the Reality we all encounter, though in different ways. And I do think there are different kinds of encounters with God . . . different mysticisms . . . and even different ways these encounters shape our human development and culture-building.

-----

Dave, I really like Huston Smith's writings; his Religions of Man has been on my reference shelf for many years. I haven't read Beyond the Postmodern Mind but it sounds very good. Would you be willing to post a few comments on it in our Book and Movie Review forum when you're done?

Phil writes: Dave, I really like Huston Smith's writings; his Religions of Man has been on my reference shelf for many years. I haven't read Beyond the Postmodern Mind but it sounds very good. Would you be willing to post a few comments on it in our Book and Movie Review forum when you're done?

Yes, of course. I may just have to post comments along the way, as I read it, because it will be a while before I actually finish reading it--I'm taking 15 hours this semester and I have two kids and a wife. But I have to reserve some time for personal reading, else I'd lose it!

I'll keep you posted (no pun intended).

Those points in the opening post were excerpts from that CTA speech. Those questions weren't mine.

I do have some questions. What is anyone's view on how we are to progress on our journey? When Jung talks about individuation, or people talk about circling around the enneagram types until one is whole or redeemed in all nine (Is it 9?) areas, or when spiritual directors talk about transformation, or some have called it theosis (what is that, precisely?), are we saying that we all end up as spiritual clones? Are we saying we all end up just like Jesus' personality? Or you might think of the question like this: What does it mean to say there are many paths to God but also to say that this particular path is the best? Where does our individuality and our personality and temperaments come in and leave off? Where does our commonalities start and finish?

Thanks for all of the responses. I'll understand them better and have more questions if some of these issues are cleared up above.

Thanks.
M

M,

Blessed are you, since very few would ask such questions and those who seek tend to find answers.

caritas,


mm <*)))))><

Ahh, there's Miriam! Or shall we call you "questioner?"

The answer to your questions: just keep going; no; sort of; it means just what you asked; all along the way; all along the way.

Any follow-ups?

Or . . . maybe do a search of the forum or google for some of these. Questions of a more specific nature would be welcomed on this thread. You got a good thread topic going; how about that one. What do you think about the relationship between theological formation and spiritual progress? Anything to share from your story?

quote:

Originally posted by Phil:
[qb] Ahh, there's Miriam! Or shall we call you "questioner?"

The answer to your questions: just keep going; no; sort of; it means just what you asked; all along the way; all along the way.

Any follow-ups?

Or . . . maybe do a search of the forum or google for some of these. Questions of a more specific nature would be welcomed on this thread. You got a good thread topic going; how about that one. What do you think about the relationship between theological formation and spiritual progress? Anything to share from your story? [/qb]

Just to be sure, you answered as follows:

What is anyone's view on how we are to progress on our journey?

just keep going

When Jung talks about individuation, or people talk about circling around the enneagram types until one is whole or redeemed in all nine (Is it 9?) areas, or when spiritual directors talk about transformation, or some have called it theosis (what is that, precisely?), are we saying that we all end up as spiritual clones?

no

Are we saying we all end up just like Jesus' personality?

sort of

Or you might think of the question like this: What does it mean to say there are many paths to God but also to say that this particular path is the best?

it means just what you asked

Where does our individuality and our personality and temperaments come in and leave off?

all along the way

Where does our commonalities start and finish?

all along the way

The above questions concern spiritual progress and I was struggling to understand what it really means before I could really judge its relationship to theological formation. Do I have your answers correct?

Thanks Phil.
M.

If many paths lead to God and that is our chief goal and we arrive at our goal, then why does it matter which one we took and how can we say one is better much less the best?

M.

Circling round the Enneagram would look like this to me-

At One I attempt to be the perfect spiritual seeker, at Two I am very spiritually proud of my quest, at Three I attempt to look like a sincere seeker, at Four I envy those who have made more progress, at Five I become a spiritually greedy recluse, at Six I fight the Church or fight for the Church like Don Quixote tilting at windmills, at Seven I become eclectic and seek along every spiritual pathway known to man, at eight I boss everyone around and confront both spiritual and physical lust, at Nine I become somewhat slothful
while integrating the other eight stages and perhaps cycle through the whole thing again. ;(

caritas,

mm <*))))><

You've sorted out my answers correctly, Miriam. My answers were "tongue-in-cheek," obviously, as I suspect your questions were. Any one of them is worthy of extensive study and reflection.

You now ask: If many paths lead to God and that is our chief goal and we arrive at our goal, then why does it matter which one we took and how can we say one is better much less the best?

Maybe we can't say which one is better or best. Maybe in the end we're just left with our faith in these matters. We can share our faith-understanding and point to the difference our faith makes, but religious truth-claims are difficult to evaluate objectively.

I'm thinking our Why Christianity? thread might be a good one for you to check out. See what you think.

http://www.usccb.org/nab/090504.htm

Great--full someone sent me these readings. Humility

caritas,

mm <*)))))><