R E S P O N S E--T O:

Mysticism as the Crossing of Ultimate Boundaries A Theological Reflection
by Wayne Teasdale

  found at: http://www.csp.org/chrestomathy/drugs_and.html

____________________________________________________

  Mr. Teasdale starts out with the statement:

  "It is inevitably and invariably difficult to write about mystical experience and the whole inner process of contact with the Divine, or Ultimate Reality; it is completely surrounded by mystery. This difficulty is compounded when we try to speak about mysticism theologically. Most theological topics deal with issues that have been ostensibly settled by the Church in councils, the Magisterium, papal encyclicals, and sound theological studies."

  Naturally it is, "inevitably and invariably difficult to write about mystical experience" if you have never had one! Theologians and their fellow travelers always want you to think you are too stupid and cannot understand what is going on._They speak in terms like: "difficult to write about", "completely surrounded by mystery" and "difficulty is compounded when we try"._My response to that is: Hogwash!_Mysticism and mystical experience are only MADE TO BE difficult by "Church in councils, the Magisterium, papal encyclicals..."_When these are left behind mysticism is not so difficult to understand at all._Once you understand that belief is irrelevant and that the only prerequisite for having a genuine mystical experience is to be a human being, then, the difficulties disappear._This does require that one leave behind the need to justify one's stand and outlook with naive notions about gods, goddesses, boogy men, devils and the like._When a person finally matures beyond the need of these products of stolen mythology the understanding of mysticism and mystical experience comes easy.

  Mr Teasdale then goes on to explain further why it is that you cannot understand._To reinforce the feeling of your inability he uses phrases like: "this quality of ineffability, of incomprehensibility, or ungraspableness is a result of two related factors: the limitations of the human subject..." (you)._The truth is that you are limited only if you allow Mr Teasdale, or those like him, to convince you that religion has the only answer to mystical experience. The truth also, is that it is THEY that find the subject of mysticism incomprehensible and ungraspable and to hide this fact they push their inability off onto you. The writer of the MAAMAR - VEYADAATA also found on the RESPONCE page uses this same underhanded strategy.

  The section finishes up with an old religious ploy: the new word.

  "In what follows, I want to explore what I call interspirituality as a way of naming the phenomenon of crossing-over boundaries that mysticism makes possible and concrete."

  The ploy of using a 'new word' is but a stratagem, a ruse, a word trick employed to make you THINK that what you have been told repeatedly you cannot understand you now understand._The reality is though, you have not had anything explained well enough for you to understand, but, what you do have is this new word which supposedly explains it all._Rudolf Otto in his book, Mysticism East and West, used this same ploy._Hans Penner in his book, The Mystical Illusion, responded:

  He [Otto] proposes that we divide religious experience into 'numinous' and 'mystical'. However, it is anything but clear how such a classification advances our understanding of mysticism or how it accounts for such experiences. What we are given are a new set of labels with the belief that the problem has now been solved. But the problem remains unsolved precisely because mystical experience continues to resist explanation and is therefore unsuitable for use in our explanation.(1)

  Not to belabor the point but, this ploy has been used from the beginning by the church. Arnobius of Sicca exposing this type argument style said.

  All this is splitting hairs and straws, as is evident, and quibbling, the usual props that bolster bad cases in the courts; indeed to put it more accurately, we have here the veneer of sophistic disputes by which not the truth but its image and appearance and shadow are always sought after.(2)

 

  In the next section ,The Origin and Nature of Mysticism, we do get a little reality._He Says:

 "Every authentic religion derives from the primary spiritual realizations and experience of the founders. By authentic I mean arising out of the depths of our encounter with the Ultimate Mystery the Divine Reality in its essential hiddenness, rather than merely invented by a disturbed individual."

  ". . .invented by a disturbed individual. . ." sounds to me like a slap in the face of Islam and Mohammed._Notice how he says "our encounter" implying he or his readers had had such an experience._For sure, Mr. Teasdale regards Christianity as "authentic", but the founder of Christianity was not a mystic._W. T. Stace begins his chapter on 'Christian Mysticism' with these words:

  At what point in history, and with whom, does Christian mysticism begin? Buddhist mysticism begins with the founder of the religion. The greatest of all Buddhist mystics was the Buddha himself. The Hindu religion cannot be traced back to any one founder, but Hindu mysticism goes back into the mists of past time. One might expect that in Christianity, too, mysticism would be an original element. One might expect that the founder of Christianity would stand to Christian mysticism in the same relation as the Buddha stood to Buddhist mysticism. But this would be a complete mistake.
  We have now definitely crossed the line between East and West. We are in the area of the three great Western religions, Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. These three are Semitic in origin and "theistic" in character. They are not primarily mystical religions at all. Hinduism (at least in its higher developments) and Buddhism are essentially mystical. They are rooted in mysticism, have mysticism at their core, and would not be what they are without it.(3)

  In short, Christianity was not founded on mystical experience and its' supposed founder taught no mystical practices. The one thing that is totally absent from this section is any discussion of the main subject Mr. Teasdale starts out with, namely: The Origin and Nature of Mysticism.

 

  In his next section Mr. Teasdale explains "Interspirituality" as,

  "Interspirituality is a term to describe the breaking-down of the barriers that have separated the religions for millennia."

  And why is this important? He tells us,

  "It frees us from the obstacles within us that would hold us back from that generosity and willingness to partake from the mystical springs of other traditions. To drink this precious nectar requires openness and a capacity to assimilate the depth experience of these venerable traditions."

  And just what are ". . .the obstacles within us that would hold us back. . .", except for the often violent intolerance and religious bigotry that has characterized Christianity from its' beginning._These characteristics are what the institutions builds into their believers from an early age to insure that they do not, ". . .partake from the mystical springs of other traditions."

  Christianity is not a mystical religion therefore it MUST, "...assimilate the depth experience of these venerable traditions."_This has been the modus operandi of Christianity from before its' beginning._The very idea of the "dying and resurrected savor god whose flesh must be eaten as a sacrifice" is pure mystical paganism assimilated (plagiarized) into Christianity. The stories of the Gods and Goddesses of Mythology contained hidden knowledge pointing the way to true mystical experience. This is why they were called Mystery Religions and why they were hunted down destroyed by Christianity._Mr. Larson speaking of the Mysteries explains:

  "The ancient pagan cults [were] based upon ritualistic soteriology. [A soter being:] ...the incarnate god-man savior who dies as an atonement for sinful humanity and whose body and blood must be consumed by the communicant so that he may become divine and immortal by absorbing the essence of the god."(4)

  All the major religions of the ancient world had, as a central theme, a sacrifice or holy food. Whether it was called Ambrosia, Soma, Manna, Kykeon, Wine, or Elixir of Immortality. Its function was to build a closer relationship between the worshipers and their god. The names change but the idea of a holy food, libation and/or incense reoccurs time and time again. More and more the human race is discovering that the holy elixir of the ancient religions were drug preparations of one type or another._In Magic and Religion, Mr. Vetter writes:

  "Almost without exception the drugs and intoxicants found in nature or discovered by primitive technology were used more or less as the nucleus of rituals and ceremonials of a profoundly religious character, not to forget or overlook the role played by wine in "communion," a peculiarly revealing term for the ideas and beliefs of yesteryear."(5)

   The greatest evidence in favor of evolution is the evolution of belief systems._From the prehistoric people's shamanistic cosmogonies and cosmologies through the age of mythologies to the dogmatism of theologies runs an unbroken thread of mystical ideas and themes._Indeed, if it were not for the fact of evolution, from the original bases of Western theology in Judeo-Catholicism, from where came Protestantism, Mormonism, Moonieism or Umbonda of South America?_They are all synchronistic mutations of what came before._And what came before, in the beginning, was Shamanism.

  "Concretely, the distinctions among shamans, prophets, and sages are seldom razor-sharp. Not only do priests, saviors, diviners, and other functionaries intrude, shamans, prophets, and sages themselves break out of our restrictions of their roles. So the descriptions we make are only approximations.
  In beginning perspective, the shaman stands forth as an ecstatic. Through such techniques as fasting, isolation, dancing, and taking hallucinogenic drugs, the shaman gains access to a non-ordinary reality."(6)

  Christianity stole the outward 'forms' of Paganism but did not include the substance (drug) that led to mystical experience that was the heart of Pagan belief._They made the esoterical stories literal (which they were not meant to be) and substituted "belief" for the actual experience._Speaking of intermixing religions Mr. Teasdale then says,

  "More and more it is becoming common for individuals to cross over the frontiers of their own faith into the land of another or others. So much so is this the case that we can speak of this new millennial period as the Interspiritual Age."

  To my knowledge Christianity has never given in to, or given up on any, theological point to any other religion. The reason (in this instance) to "cross over" or carry on a dialogue with other religions is to assimilate (ideas that it does not have), adapt (these plagiarized ideas to a Christian framework) and then use them to prop up belief in itself.

  Why is this necessary at this time?_Because, sense the '60s and the psychedelic movement there has been a growing awareness of the lack of mystical consciousness in modern Christianity._There has also been an abandonment of religious ideology and a vacating of the pews, a removal of people from churches._The influence of Eastern religious thought is now being felt, not just by the people, but by the churches themselves._Ruhi Afnan put it this way,

  "In other words, whenever revealed religion declines, mysticism flourishes. [The] Essenes sprung into eminence, when the spiritual vitality of Judaism was at a very low ebb. Manichaeanism appeared when Zoroastrianism was far in its process of decline. Christianity tended towards mysticism when it was too weak to withstand any further the onslaught of Neoplatonism, and began to compromise with it. Islam gave way to Sufi tendencies four centuries after its birth, when it began to be culturally on the decline. All these mystic movements appeared, when revealed religion was in the process of loosing its cultural and spiritual values and failing to justify its claim to act as a source of illumination; when formalism and legalism were weighing down upon its spirit and its animating cultural purpose and pursuit." (7)

 

  Let me quote Mr. Teasdale's last section in its' entirety,

  "If the mystical experience of other traditions is genuine and if it is on the same level as Christian contemplation in its fullness in the transforming union, the spiritual marriage between God the soul, then one implication is that Christianity does not have a monopoly on wisdom as it relates to the nature of the Divine. Christian theological formulations do not exhaust the infinite reality and subtlety of the Divine nature. This means that we can learn from the inner experience of other forms of spirituality. Christianity's understanding of God is not complete in this sense, nor is the experience and understanding of the other traditions complete without the Christian contribution. Buddhism, for example, needs the insight on the Divine, an insight won from thousands of years of mystical consciousness. Complementarity is thus the direction toward which the mystical leads us. In this way, humankind can cross the boundaries to reach the further shore of our eternal homeland."

  Let us look at the first sentence. Notice how he says "IF the mystical experience of other traditions is genuine and IF it is on the same level as Christian contemplation..." IF,,IF,, The very use of the term 'if' is an insult implying that Christianity, which is not even a mystical religion, is somehow genuine and the truly genuine are just ... ifs. Buddhist mysticism and Hindu mysticism has been has been mystical for thousands of years, Christianity has not.

  The next insult comes in the sentence, "Buddhism, for example, needs the insight on the Divine, an insight won from thousands of years of mystical consciousness." WHO "won" insight from thousands of years of mystical consciousness? Not Christianity!_If we substitute the word Christianity for the word Buddhism the sentence would be correct, thus:_"Christianity, for example, needs the insight on the Divine, an insight won from thousands of years of mystical consciousness."_Buddhism could thus impart this insight because Buddhism HAS HAD thousands of years of mystical consciousness, Christianity HAS NOT and therefore could not supply such insight and why it needs "Interspiritual" to get it._This sentence, in its original form, is not just an insult but a dishonesty.

  "Complementarity is thus...", the only way that Christianity can catch up and "Interspiritual" the method of getting close enough to those religions that Christianity has hated, maligned, fought against for thousands of years, and labeled false, close enough, to plagiarize yet another religious practice: mysticism._The "New World HOLY Order" must have a religion which is an amalgamation of all of them and Christianity intends to be (indeed, always has been) the lead amalgamator.

  In conclusion, the thing that is most striking (by its' absence) is no talk whatsoever about how to go about having a genuine mystical experience.

MARIHUANA the Burning Bush of Moses, Mysticism and Cannabis Experience

  is still the first book ever to show a tested method to achieve the genuine mystical experience of Inner Light with the CORRECT use of cannabis._All these subjects and many more are covered in depth in the book. Order your copy today.

 

 

(1) In S. Katz, Mysticism and Religious Traditions, Pg. 91. The same can be said about both N. Smart and Mr. Zaehner. See Mysticism and Philosophical Analysis, Pg. 13.

(2) G. E. McCracken, Ancient Christian Writers, Pg. 441.

(3) The Teachings of the Mystics, Pg. 124.

(4) The Religion of the Occident, Pg. 665-6.

(5) Pg. 76-7.

(6) Carmody & Carmody, Shamans, Prophets, and Sages, Pg. 53.

(7) Zoroaster's Influence on Greek Thought, Pg. 27.

 

 

Back to Response List

Home  /  Mysticism  /  Rings  /  Links

Feedback  / Trade Links  /  Order