[FairfieldLife] Re: another question for MZ, and maybe William of Occam

[maskedzebra]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@...> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> > Because in reading Catholic philosophers—like Aquinas—I find
> > myself intuiting the cosmos as they experienced it—I sort of
> > read this off of their writing.
> 
> MZ, I have a question for you.
> 
> Xeno called attention to the fact that Aquinas late in life
> had some kind of experience that "silenced" him and led him
> to declare, "All that I have written seems like straw to me."
> 
> I'm wondering what you think happened to him. (If you've
> already commented on this, forgive me; I did a quick search
> but couldn't find anything.)
> 
> And I have a hypothetical: Let's say you cut your spiritual
> teeth on the writings of Aquinas and thorughly internalized
> his views. You never encountered MMY, knew nothing about him
> or TM or the Eastern idea of enlightenment.
> 
> One day in 1976, out of the blue, with no warning, you had
> the same experience you had on the mountain with MMY that
> you now refer to as "slipping into Unity Consciousness,"
> except that you had no preparation whatsoever and no context
> (and let's say it didn't last very long, a few hours or days).
> 
> How would that have affected your take on Aquinas's writings?
> How long would it have taken you to decide that the experience
> wasn't "real" but Aquinas was?


Dear Authfriend,

I consider this a great question, and I will do my best to answer it.

Had I started to experience exactly what happened to me on that mountain just 
above Arosa, Switzerland in September 1976—having only known (about) reality 
through the writing of Thomas Aquinas—now realize, I am going to be totally 
honest here—I WOULD HAVE IMMEDIATELY SENSED SOMETHING MYSTICALLY FOREIGN AND 
EVEN ANTITHETICAL TO THE TRUTH I LEARNED FROM AQUINAS.

Now you understand, authfriend, in this hypothetical situation, I did not, 
before this moment, have any EXPERIENCE of reality—beyond my ordinary waking 
state experience. That is, I am not, for purposes of answering your question in 
the way that I believe draws out the meaning and import that is behind the 
posing of this hypothetical situation, assuming ANY contact with reality in any 
mystical or supernatural sense. I have had, as it were, up until this decisive 
moment in my life, no religious experiences whatsoever—a very different 
antecedent circumstance than what was the case when I historically (actually) 
went through this enlightenment experience ('slipping into Unity').

You see, authfriend, the experience that began to take me over on that mountain 
was the dissolving of my individuality and the classic pantheistic vision of 
seeing the natural world charged with not, in Hopkins's words, the "grandeur" 
of God, BUT WITH GOD HIMSELF (or Itself).

So, then, having made myself completely familiar with the writings of Aquinas, 
in which the universe is the creation of God, and my own person also a creation 
of God, and that GOD IS WHOLLY SEPARATE FROM AND OTHER THAN HIS CREATION, to 
begin to behold that God WAS his creation—and that this same God WAS my 
innermost self—I would have (if the impression and conviction formed in me by 
Aquinas's writings was dominant) resisted the experience, and therefore if I 
had had the power to reject and withdraw myself from what was overtaking 
(Maharishi word there) me, this is what I would have done. That is, refuse to 
allow myself to surrender to God in this Hindu-pantheistic form, and realize 
that, somehow, fallen angels were deceiving me into experiencing reality in 
such a way which was contrary to THE WAY IT ACTUALLY IS.

(You see, Aquinas had told me that God is only immediately present to the human 
being in terms of having originally GIVEN EXISTENCE to him or her, and then 
KEEPING him or her IN EXISTENCE. God could never BECOME something he created. 
And conversely, a human being could never BECOME  what had created him or her.)

Now, I don't know if, given what actually happened to me on that mountain in 
September of 1976, I actually COULD HAVE stopped what was happening me (had I 
been certain that the Catholic description of reality was true, and the pagan 
description false)—I rather doubt it, since my overwhelming sensation of 
"slipping into Unity" was that it was ineluctable and inexorable. But—remember 
in this imagined circumstance I have had no prior EXPERIENCES that would have 
confirmed the Thomistic/Catholic vision of God and creation—had I been devout 
and obedient (as an adherent of Aquinas—that is, had a perfect faith in the 
reliability and veracity of his theology) I would have fought against the 
relentless and conquering power of the enlightenment experience—even if, in the 
end, I found myself succumbing physiologically, mechanically—and yes, 
metaphysically—to its authority and power over me.

But the main point is that the nature of going into Unity Consciousness WOULD 
have been recognized by me (as a follower of Aquinas) to be a direct 
contradiction of everything Aquinas had written, and had my intuition and faith 
been such that I 'knew' he was right—or had to be right—then my entire will 
would have been devoted to resisting and defending myself against what was 
happening to my consciousness—even if this proved futile in the end. And, as it 
were, while believing explicitly and wholeheartedly in Aquinas, I had ended up 
in a state of consciousness which empirically overthrew the true relationship 
of my soul to God—AND, experientially, percipiently, seemingly the true 
integrity of the universe itself (reality).

And of course, if you follow me here, authfriend, I would have dedicated my 
life fiercely and unceasingly to overcoming my condition, my hallucination, my 
mystical trance. WHEREAS, in the case of how it really happened in time and 
space (as the person I was) I was ecstatically and blissfully and lovingly 
cooperative as I could be. Indeed throughout the experience as it took hold of 
me in my body, mind, and heart (originating in my consciousness—as if, indeed, 
that was a separate and impersonal part of me—just like the Vedic Scriptures 
said, as Maharishi had taught) I could only be in awe and gratitude to 
Maharishi for being ultimately responsible for this final consummation of TM 
and all his Teaching.

But, you see, authfriend, I ended up doing what is the reverse of your 
hypothetical: I embraced Unity Consciousness—then read Aquinas and realized 
that either Aquinas was right about God, the nature of the human person, and 
the universe, or else Maharishi was. And when I read Aquinas deeply I knew—even 
against my state of being in Unity Consciousness—that I was in a false state of 
consciousness, that as real and spontaneous and coherent as it (Unity) was—and 
demonstrably superior to the state I had been in prior to enlightenment—IT WAS 
INTRINSICALLY FALSE TO REALITY. Because, for example, The Summa Theologicae is 
one thousand time more beautiful, complex, intelligent, and profound than The 
Science of Being and the Art of Living. In the very same way that Hopkins's The 
Wreck of the Deutschland is superior to Love and God.

Therefore if I was imagining what it would be like to have Aquinas's version of 
reality confirmed through EXPERIENCE, I would instantaneously know, in the very 
first few moments on that mountain that what was happening to me was not in 
accordance with The Summa Theologicae or The Wreck of the Deutschland but 
rather a confirmation of The Science of Being and the Art of Living—and Love 
and God.

Put it this way, authfriend: as glorious and mystically complete and 
transformative as that Unity experience was, I would have, if I had been 
steeped in Aquinas (and had an absolute faith and intuition that he was right), 
sought to do everything in my power to deny the truthfulness of my experience 
and eventually to overcome this hallucination.

Which, in effect, is what has happened. Only for ten years (eight years before 
that, preparing myself for getting the Arosa experience) I was as fulfilled and 
inspired as I could ever imagine anyone being—and my Unity Consciousness 
ushered in a purposeful, choiceless agenda about which I had no warning or 
anticipation: the metaphysical theatre of cosmic meaning based upon the 
conflict between the positive and the negative forces within oneself. No, Unity 
gave my life suddenly perfect meaning and purpose—and happiness.

But when I came upon Aquinas, I knew: Well, if this is true (what Aquinas 
says), then Maharishi must be wrong. And if Maharishi is wrong, then my 
enlightenment is a form of perfect mystical deceit, no matter how objectively 
and functionally rooted it is in my consciousness. It (my enlightenment) is 
being sustained (and was in the first place created) by intelligences which 
seek not my well-being, but to deceive and wound me in my integrity as an 
individual human being.

I remain convinced this is the case.

As to what Xeno concluded as to the implication of Aquinas declaring near the 
end of his life: "Everything I have written seems to be straw" (he later 
amplified this to say: "Everything I have written seems to be straw COMPARED 
WITH THE VISION I HAVE HAD"),—that essentially Aquinas is dismissing the 
validity and spiritual significance of what he wrote;—I believe all the 
evidence refutes this (even as this is the common interpretation of Aquinas's 
declaration.) Some time just before Aquinas said this (what Xeno has quoted) 
three Dominican monks witnessed Aquinas being levitated in ecstasy, and they 
heard a voice coming from the crucifix on the altar: "Thou has written well of 
me, Thomas, what reward wilt thou have?" Thomas replied, "None other than 
Thyself, Lord."

This event makes it impossible that Aquinas could mean what most readers of 
this statement [straw] assume he meant. Christ essentially dictated The Summa 
Theologicae to Thomas. Therefore what he wrote belonged to God. Even so, 
juxtaposed to the religious experiences he was having, The Summa seemed like 
straw—although that straw remained holy and supernatural straw.

And the incident witnessed by the three Dominicans is not the experience of 
Unity Consciousness. It is not the Self realizing it is the Self and finding 
itself unified and one with the rest of creation.

It is a Saint speaking to his Creator as a Person.

This makes all the difference.

MZ

P.S. You want more? This is Aquinas's verbal testimony upon receiving extreme 
unction and the Sacred Viaticum (as he was about to die):


"If in this world there be any knowledge of this sacrament stronger than that 
of faith, I wish now to use it in affirming that I firmly believe and know as 
certain that Jesus Christ, True God and True Man, Son of God and Son of the 
Virgin Mary, is in this Sacrament . . . I receive Thee, the price of my 
redemption, for Whose love I have watched, studied, and laboured. Thee have I 
preached; Thee have I taught. Never have I said anything against Thee: if 
anything was not well said, that is to be attributed to my ignorance. Neither 
do I wish to be obstinate in my opinions, but if I have written anything 
erroneous concerning this sacrament or other matters, I submit all to the 
judgment and correction of the Holy Roman Church, in whose obedience I now pass 
from this life."

Apparently Aquinas is not seeing everything as maya.

Unfortunately—in my opinion—this kind of EXPERIENCE is objectively not 
available to anyone in the universe in our lifetime. But Aquinas could not have 
written as he did, and could not have had the experience that allowed him to 
say so beautifully and truthfully what he says here, had not God—the Holy 
Trinity—inspired him. I have yet to encounter a single person who gives 
evidence that they have known reality the way Aquinas obviously, deeply, 
thoroughly knew it. And therefore, by a process of deduction, I have to assume 
that God ontologically changed the universe before you and I were born. The Why 
of this is an utter and staggering mystery to me.


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@...> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> > Because in reading Catholic philosophers—like Aquinas—I find
> > myself intuiting the cosmos as they experienced it—I sort of
> > read this off of their writing.
> 
> MZ, I have a question for you.
> 
> Xeno called attention to the fact that Aquinas late in life
> had some kind of experience that "silenced" him and led him
> to declare, "All that I have written seems like straw to me."
> 
> I'm wondering what you think happened to him. (If you've
> already commented on this, forgive me; I did a quick search
> but couldn't find anything.)
> 
> And I have a hypothetical: Let's say you cut your spiritual
> teeth on the writings of Aquinas and thorughly internalized
> his views. You never encountered MMY, knew nothing about him
> or TM or the Eastern idea of enlightenment.
> 
> One day in 1976, out of the blue, with no warning, you had
> the same experience you had on the mountain with MMY that
> you now refer to as "slipping into Unity Consciousness,"
> except that you had no preparation whatsoever and no context
> (and let's say it didn't last very long, a few hours or days).
> 
> How would that have affected your take on Aquinas's writings?
> How long would it have taken you to decide that the experience
> wasn't "real" but Aquinas was?
>