Print

Print


My concern is that we not get derailed by stereotypes.

I have led a fairly active prayer life over not a few decades.
I have read about this stuff, attended guidance sessions, listened to
endless tapes.
I don't have any formal training  as a spiritual director or anything like
that,
and I make absolutely no claim on being a mystic, whatever that is.

One thing I feel very confident about is that if someone goes around saying
he or she is
a mystic, then one can be fairly certain that such a person is not a mystic,
if by
mystic one means a person having a conscious, interpersonal relationship
with a spiritual entity.

Indeed there are reports of people having spiritual experiences on a regular
basis.
I believe something like 200 such experiences a year in the US alone get
serious
attention by the proper authorities.

One bizarre little example, with which no one quarrels happened in a trailer
park
outside Portland, Oregon. The Virgn Mary appeared in the corner of a
painting.
It was witnessed by a whole lot (thousands) of people. It was not a hoax.
It just came and eventually went. A mystery.

At the other end of the spectrum are the visionaries of Medjugorje in
Bosnia.
They were not nice little obedient, innocent peasant children who knew
nothing.
Their parish priest said they were certainly not the people he would have
chosen.
The only significant characteristic was that everyone knew these six
teenagers would not lie.

It started in communist times with the first two doing their favourite thing
of
sneaking out after supper to go smoke cigarettes and sing pop songs
forbidden
by the communists. They saw lights which turned out to be the Virgin.
Then the manifestations came to four others and they collected as a group.

Put the spiritual dimension aside if you want. These six people have been
poked,
prodded, measured in and out of their visionary states, as well as being
questioned
by communist authorities and church authorities. The medical examinations
have
been done by all the leading authorities in Europe. Whatever it is, it is
not a hoax.
The visionaries have kept a careful record of everything they have
experienced.
It seems that the Virgin was hoping they would join religious orders. None
of them did.
They are all raising families. The most articulate of them says that it is a
painful
life, because once one has seen heaven, then it is agony not to be there.
Both the
previous and current Popes advocate that people go there. The phenomenon
has been accepted by Rome, just not officially (like sainthood, it takes a
long
time for the Church to commit itself). One interesting anomally was that
when
the visionaries were together in the apparition room  ( in the local
church - later
she appeared separately to each of them - and apparently still does) before
the
apparitions happened, birds would swarm about the place, and then go still
during the visions.

So are these people mystics? Does it matter?
Mystical experience can be a manifestation of holiness, but there are cases
on record
of people going on to lead very mediocre, worldy lives, totally unconcerned
with
their experiences.

All this is by way of preface to suggest that of course Eliot would deny
being a mystic,
if for no other reason than that he would lose credibility with a whole lot
of people,
and would look like a nutter to a whole lot of others. I personally find it
very
hard to believe that he could have created the kind of poetry he did in Ash
Wednesday and
The Four Quartets without having had some intimate experience of
transcendence.
It may well not have been visions, &c as the stereotypes suggest; it
certainly is consistent with
"a deeper communion" as he put it in 4Q. He certainly had the sensibility
for it.
To me the following  has the sura of mysticism:

"We must be still and still moving
Into another intensity
For a further union, a deeper communion
Through the dark cold and the empty desolation,"

P.
questioned endlessly over about 20
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ken Armstrong" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, March 22, 2010 7:59 AM
Subject: Re: signs and wonders


> Nancy Gish wrote:
> > Perhaps he did.  I only reported what he did say, that he was not a
> > mystic. I no longer remember where I read it because it has been many
> > years since I researched Eliot and mysticism at great length, but I
> > remember it without doubt.  I'm not sure it matters much if he
> > experienced it himself or experienced it through literature or
> > speaking with others.  So much of his work is evoked by reading, which
> > is, after all, personal experience.
>      At the risk of raising everyone's ire except Carrol's, let me
> hazard that reading and personal experience are very much not the same.
> Again, no professional line here, but a story that Ong repeats comes to
> mind about a ship's captain who learns by experience being a poor risk
> (so many things capable of wrecking/swamping a vessel). The conversation
> here about Eliot could go on and on with no positive conclusion, Eliot
> having never said whether he did or didn't have a mystical experience.
> For myself, I think mystical experiences are not so rare, even if
> mystics, relatively, are, and Eliot more than likely had such
> experiences, whether plural or singular. Don't know how that affects
> Gerontion or TWL.
>
> Ken A
>
> > So maybe he did have