Jump to content

Welcome Guest!

Welcome to UK Pagan; The Valley

Like most online communities we require you to register for an account before we give you access to read and post.

Only a small number of our forum areas can be read without registering for an account.

Help to keep this website running - Become a Patron.

Help to keep UK Pagan online...
Become a Patron!
Sign in to follow this  
Hazel

Meditation And Journeying

Recommended Posts

Guest Therapon
From my understanding meditation is often based in Eastern traditions which focus on the emptying of the mind so that realisation may be obtained. Whilst journeying is based in more Western traditions which are sourced in the richness of story telling.

382256[/snapback]

I would say that is generally true however there was a tradition of meditation in the Neoplatonism of late antiquity. Much of the underlying philosophy in eastern forms of meditation echoes Neoplatonism. My 'Indo-Pagan' tradition draws from both and I find that the philosophy of east & west is quite compatable.

 

Om Namah Shivaya.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_SUoY-bfweg...layer_embedded#!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ad from Google

Moonhunter
Hi Mike,

Of course what works for the individual is correct however after thousands of years of human endeavour in the realms of consciousness and the nature of reality one can be pretty certain that all effective traditions hold to certain .....lets say recipes. if one wants to disregard these tried and tested processes fine, however it would seem a tad churlish and even egotistical to suggest one can use ones own initiative and instinct. To find what it took great saints, sages, seers and mystics many life times within established traditions to find.

 

Please excuse me, but I find this a somewhat strange attitude.

 

I studied some of the Western Mystical Tradition within the Christian Church. Mainly the Catholic tradsitoin, but some Orthodox. Although hermits and eremites were well known from a very early period in Church history onwards (from at least the 3rd Century), it was not until the 16th Century that Ignatius Loyala came up with a brand new type of meditation. He 'invented' this on his sickbed, when he had a lengthy recovery period.

 

Had he been chided for being a tad egotistical or churlish to use his own imagination and initiative, the Jesuits might not have existed, and the Chatholic Church would have lost a great meditative tool.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moonsmith

Oh and while I think about it Hazel

 

Look long and hard. Think out your ideas for yourself and be VERY sure of what you want before you part with money for any form of teaching in this field.

 

 

You might also want to look at what the practice has done for the practitioner before choosing one :D

Pat.

Edited by Moonsmith

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest muddymick
Hi,

sorry if the simplistic remark smarted (it was not intended to cause umbrage)

Could you tell of a tradition or in fact a type of meditation where the focal attention becomes the object of meditation? as opposed to a tool to enable meditative states?

 

Are you having a laugh?

 

Hi B,

No I was not having a laugh it was an honest request for discussion.

Hi,

this is a little confused and I think you may have misunderstood my points.

Of course you are creating the the things you are being mindful of! tell me an instance when it could be otherwise?

I have a little difficulty reconciling your testament to being non-dual and yet proposing dualistic paradigms.

 

No, this isn't confused. You're coming from a different worldview to the one that I have and you seem to know very little of mine so naturally this will be confusing for you. As for non-dualism, what I proposed is non-dualist. The 'scinn' or 'hamr' as I see it is a detachable part but not after death. It's not something that floats away and will only degrade as the physical remains of the person does. That it can be 'detached' temporarily is neither here nor there.

 

Hi B,

mmm interesting you presume I know little of your world view yet you fail to establish a reason for such an assumption. It would be helpful if the generally accepted mores of discussion are adopted e.g posit-refutation with evidence or logic-re-posit or refutation again.

I think the question of dualism is always a difficult one, however that said I am talking about objective reality and it's exclusivity in regards to the subject object dichotomy.

 

"

Hi,

I was keeping he parameters wide to not become to technical.

Could you elucidate please as you have in no way suggested the respective mechanics involved?

 

However when I keep the parameters wide so as not to become too technical in my initial post, my approach is referred to as simplistic.

 

Why would I tell you the mechanics of how I do things so that you might pick them apart because it's different to how you think things should be done?

 

Hi B,

sorry I may have come across as gladiatorial and I was only interested in the mechanics as a way to understand your paradigms in relation to the interaction of consciousness in so called 'meditation' 'journeying' and reality (both objective and subjective.

 

I suppose it might be easier if I put it another way; what mechanisms (whether from tradition/lineage or implicit in ones practice ensures that one is not subject to flights of fancy or delusion?

I am not sure what you mean by my tone (if I have been discourteous I apologise unreservedly) but I think you raise a good point in terms of mental illness (forgive me I am a psychologist by career) as I have encountered innumerable individuals who are damaged by their faiths/delusions.

Of course I am not suggesting all.

 

I think a much better question would be does mental illness necessarily exclude a person from encountering truths or having experiences? Also if a person is so afraid of not having a real experience, they're not going to relax enough to get into any kind of a mental state to have a real experience.

 

Hi b,

That was not the question I asked.

I have no doubt that mental illness does not exclude truth or experience (I studied with some of R.D laings contemporaries in the anti-psychiatry movement)

However it would be unusual for one to choose suffering and illness for ones loved ones or patients, as mental illness does not imply a greater ability to encounter truth or have experiences. In fact in extreme circumstances one would say truth and positive experience are rare indeed.

 

I found this very strange

When we apply such relativism it is problematic. If two posited positions are in direct opposition how can they both be right?

If they are mutually exclusive how can they both be correct.

I understand relativism is applied often with good intentions (to be more inclusive) however it is a rather double edged sword and can do much harm.

 

 

This to me is rather suggestive of your intentions here. I don't doubt that you have a lot to teach, in fact I look forward to reading about your path and what insights you have gained, however barely any of us here on the site are on the same path, we all have different worldviews, different ways of encountering the world and we are all of us, the products of our varied life experiences. A certain degree of relativism has to be adopted or we'd never get a conversation off the ground for arguing who's doing it 'right' and shouting people down who are expressing opposing views as being 'deluded'. While you may see relativism as being harmful, others may see your way as being more harmful. Indeed, we have more examples of 'one true way-ism' being more harmful during the course of history.

391942[/snapback]

 

Hi B,

non -relativism does not suggest 'one true way-ism' as you put it, in fact quite the obverse. If we have the ability to look objectively and critically at any tradition, lineage or in fact religious practice we can establish it's veracity or usefulness. It does not suggest that we adopt a mono-practice in any way shape or form.

It does allow us to see what is useful, what is true, what makes us healthy and what engenders a fulfilment of our potential as opposed to adhering to useless practice, believing what is false, making ourselves unhealthy and stultifying our potential as human beings.

 

regards

MM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Birka

 

Hi B,

non -relativism does not suggest 'one true way-ism' as you put it, in fact quite the obverse. If we have the ability to look objectively and critically at any tradition, lineage or in fact religious practice we can establish it's veracity or usefulness. It does not suggest that we adopt a mono-practice in any way shape or form.

It does allow us to see what is useful, what is true, what makes us healthy and what engenders a fulfilment of our potential as opposed to adhering to useless practice, believing what is false, making ourselves unhealthy and stultifying our potential as human beings.

 

regards

MM

391964[/snapback]

 

 

To first of all decide what is false, one must first decide what is true. Therefore in order to give an absolute judgement on what is false, one must absolutely decide what is true. From your postings, you have obviously decided what is false, ergo you must believe that the way you believe to be true, is the only way.

 

Is this one true wayism a paradigm you're testing out? Because you're doing a good job of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest muddymick

 

Hi B,

non -relativism does not suggest 'one true way-ism' as you put it, in fact quite the obverse. If we have the ability to look objectively and critically at any tradition, lineage or in fact religious practice we can establish it's veracity or usefulness. It does not suggest that we adopt a mono-practice in any way shape or form.

It does allow us to see what is useful, what is true, what makes us healthy and what engenders a fulfilment of our potential as opposed to adhering to useless practice, believing what is false, making ourselves unhealthy and stultifying our potential as human beings.

 

regards

MM

391964[/snapback]

 

 

To first of all decide what is false, one must first decide what is true. Therefore in order to give an absolute judgement on what is false, one must absolutely decide what is true. From your postings, you have obviously decided what is false, ergo you must believe that the way you believe to be true, is the only way.

 

Is this one true wayism a paradigm you're testing out? Because you're doing a good job of it.

391968[/snapback]

 

Hi B,

Sorry this is a straw man argument!

"A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position"

 

Just because you establish the need to establish a truth to establish falsity it does not follow logically that I have established either nor that I suggest one should follow these.

 

"From your postings, you have obviously decided what is false"

 

Hi B,

where?

Again no evidence, just statements.

 

"ergo you must believe that the way you believe to be true, is the only way"

 

Hi B,

Sorry the use of ergo is ridiculous, it does not logically follow! and how does one arrive at the only way?

Sorry it just doesn't make sense nor are it's arguments based on evidence or logic.

 

 

very typical straw man!

 

Regards

MM

 

Edited to fix quotes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Birka

 

Hi B,

non -relativism does not suggest 'one true way-ism' as you put it, in fact quite the obverse. If we have the ability to look objectively and critically at any tradition, lineage or in fact religious practice we can establish it's veracity or usefulness. It does not suggest that we adopt a mono-practice in any way shape or form.

It does allow us to see what is useful, what is true, what makes us healthy and what engenders a fulfilment of our potential as opposed to adhering to useless practice, believing what is false, making ourselves unhealthy and stultifying our potential as human beings.

 

regards

MM

391964[/snapback]

 

 

To first of all decide what is false, one must first decide what is true. Therefore in order to give an absolute judgement on what is false, one must absolutely decide what is true. From your postings, you have obviously decided what is false, ergo you must believe that the way you believe to be true, is the only way.

 

Is this one true wayism a paradigm you're testing out? Because you're doing a good job of it.

391968[/snapback]

 

Hi B,

Sorry this is a straw man argument!

 

"A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position"

 

Just because you establish the need to establish a truth to establish falsity it does not follow logically that I have established either nor that I suggest one should follow these.

 

"From your postings, you have obviously decided what is false"

 

Hi B,

where?

Again no evidence, just statements.

 

"ergo you must believe that the way you believe to be true, is the only way"

 

Hi B,

Sorry the use of ergo is ridiculous, it does not logically follow! and how does one arrive at the only way?

Sorry it just doesn't make sense nor are it's arguments based on evidence or logic.

 

 

very typical straw man!

 

Regards

MM

391976[/snapback]

 

 

Hardly. You don't like what I'm saying so you're calling it a straw man. Good move. ;)

 

That I am not the only person to have come to this conclusion that you are peddling a 'one true way' (or at least trying to) based on the content and tone of your posts, should possibly suggest to you that you should maybe look at how you post and what in your style gives that impression.

Edited by Birka

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest muddymick

Sorry,

I have given you the parameters by which a straw man argument is judged.

If you don't believe me look it up.

 

With Regards

MM ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest muddymick

"That I am not the only person to have come to this conclusion that you are peddling a 'one true way' (or at least trying to) based on the content and tone of your posts, should possibly suggest to you that you should maybe look at how you post and what in your style gives that impression"

 

Hi B,

firstly the co-opting of another's supposed conclusion to give legitimacy to ones argument is also frowned upon in debate and argument.

 

secondly you are suggesting that the content and tone of my posts is at fault or in fact wrong. You posit that this wrongness needs to be looked at.

 

One could draw the conclusion that you have established the wrongness of my posts in tone and content and are suggesting the right way.

One could substitute wrong for false and right for truth!

 

So are you in fact the guardian of the one true way?

 

What happened to your relativism?

 

 

Regards

MM

;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Birka

This is getting pointless now. If I wanted to have circular arguments with someone who accuses me of building a straw man before then building one of their own, I'd go join Paganspace. Thank goodness for the ignore button.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Esk

Poor Hazel. All she wanted was a little reassurance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest muddymick

Brilliant!

 

;)

 

 

MM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Birka
Poor Hazel. All she wanted was a little reassurance.

391997[/snapback]

 

Poor Hazel indeed!!

 

Don't worry Hazel, you just be as relativistic as you'd like!! Do what works for you - after all everything had to be invented somewhere!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Animystic
Poor Hazel. All she wanted was a little reassurance.

391997[/snapback]

 

Poor Hazel indeed!!

 

Don't worry Hazel, you just be as relativistic as you'd like!! Do what works for you - after all everything had to be invented somewhere!!!

392002[/snapback]

;) :P :P

NLPers frequently refer to some thing known as the TOTE model (Test, operate, test, exit)... I prefer the TOTI model... Test, Operate, Test, Innovate ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Birka
Poor Hazel. All she wanted was a little reassurance.

391997[/snapback]

 

Poor Hazel indeed!!

 

Don't worry Hazel, you just be as relativistic as you'd like!! Do what works for you - after all everything had to be invented somewhere!!!

392002[/snapback]

;) :P :P

NLPers frequently refer to some thing known as the TOTE model (Test, operate, test, exit)... I prefer the TOTI model... Test, Operate, Test, Innovate ;)

392018[/snapback]

 

 

I think that's a pretty logical way of looking at it. Your version of course :).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hazel

Wow, thank you for all the information.

 

I have to be honest and say that a lot of what is being said is going right over my head. :(

 

Still, there are some good points made which I do understand.

 

Thanks everyone.

Edited by Hazel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moonsmith
Wow, thank you for all the information.

 

I have to be honest and say that a lot of what is being said is going right over my head.  :(

 

Still, there are some good points made which I do understand.

 

Thanks everyone.

392052[/snapback]

 

 

Don't worry - that which floated over your head was hot air.

 

That which you can extract and use is pure gold.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Birka

Don't worry - that which floated over your head was hot air.

 

 

 

Moonsmith is very right Hazel and I'm sorry for my part in it. You weren't asking for that when you started the thread. I do hope you found something helpful on this thread though in spite of that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NorseNephilim

I always had trouble with meditation. Mostly because people told me it was about 'emptying my mind'. That really caused problems for me as there is *loads* of stuff in my mind - very little of it useful.

 

But I think I will try meditation again since my Baguazhang instructor last week explained that, as far as he was concerned, it was not about emptying one's mind of thoughts, but of noticing the thoughts without becoming attached to them.

 

That then posits the question, who is it who is doing the thinking and who the observing?

 

As for journeying, that happens to me whenever I put some progressive or ambient rock on the stereo and get lost in the music! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Birka
But I think I will try meditation again since my Baguazhang instructor last week explained that, as far as he was concerned, it was not about emptying one's mind of thoughts, but of noticing the thoughts without becoming attached to them.

 

 

But eventually, at least in my experience, that leads to being able to 'switch off' thoughts and essentially empty the mind. It creeps my husband out that I can do this but I find it very relaxing to have that time away from the 'noise'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NorseNephilim
But eventually, at least in my experience, that leads to being able to 'switch off' thoughts and essentially empty the mind. It creeps my husband out that I can do this but I find it very relaxing to have that time away from the 'noise'.

392143[/snapback]

 

 

 

I can imagine that becomes possible later on (though I very much doubt I'd ever be able to do that) but as the meditation we were talking about was intended to be combined with walking a circle and performing various 'palm changes' then that might allow for a few more thoughts than the norm.

 

The closest I get to an empty mind is the aforementioned rock trances. That can be kinda like watching a rock musical in my head! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest muddymick
I always had trouble with meditation.  Mostly because people told me it was about 'emptying my mind'.  That really caused problems for me as there is *loads* of stuff in my mind - very little of it useful.

 

But I think I will try meditation again since my Baguazhang instructor last week explained that, as far as he was concerned, it was not about emptying one's mind of thoughts, but of noticing the thoughts without becoming attached to them.

 

That then posits the question, who is it who is doing the thinking and who the observing?

 

As for journeying, that happens to me whenever I put some progressive or ambient rock on the stereo and get lost in the music! :)

392125[/snapback]

 

Hi N,

what your baguazhang instructor said is true in the generally accepted classical sense and is bloody good advice.

it is the primary initial exercise of most mystical schools in regards to meditation.

Done intensely and often enough will lead to some very interesting experiences vis-a-vis the object subject dichotomy.

bhagua is very interesting and I have heard (I have never practiced) pretty good!

I study wing chun.

 

Regards

MM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NorseNephilim
Hi N,

what your baguazhang instructor said is true in the generally accepted classical sense and is bloody good advice.

it is the primary initial exercise of most mystical schools in regards to meditation.

Done intensely and often enough will lead to some very interesting experiences vis-a-vis the object subject dichotomy.

bhagua is very interesting and I have heard (I have never practiced) pretty good!

I study wing chun.

392157[/snapback]

 

I am still very much at a basic level on the bagua. Though I hope to progress quickly (providing I put the work in) as we are currently focused on form and structure and I used to practice some external arts a few years ago.

 

The meditation side interests me too, though, and my instructor seems encouraging in that respect. The training is quite demanding (mentally and phsyically), though, so I need to ease myself back in to some extent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest muddymick
But I think I will try meditation again since my Baguazhang instructor last week explained that, as far as he was concerned, it was not about emptying one's mind of thoughts, but of noticing the thoughts without becoming attached to them.

 

 

But eventually, at least in my experience, that leads to being able to 'switch off' thoughts and essentially empty the mind. It creeps my husband out that I can do this but I find it very relaxing to have that time away from the 'noise'.

392143[/snapback]

 

Hi N&B,

N, speak to your teacher I expect that he will accept/confirm a lessening of discursive discourse however he would be very unusual (as the teachings on meditation within these martial arts are drawn from Buddhism and Taoism) if he claimed it allowed you to 'switch off thoughts'

many people and especially westerners confuse the idea of empty mind/experience of emptiness with lack of thought! Confusing I know.

The idea in both Taoism and Buddhism (along with Bon) regarding empty mind refers to an experience of Sunyata, which as we can see many people confuse with absence of thought.

 

Regards

MM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest muddymick
Hi Mike,

Of course what works for the individual is correct however after thousands of years of human endeavour in the realms of consciousness and the nature of reality one can be pretty certain that all effective traditions hold to certain .....lets say recipes. if one wants to disregard these tried and tested processes fine, however it would seem a tad churlish and even egotistical to suggest one can use ones own initiative and instinct. To find what it took great saints, sages, seers and mystics many life times within established traditions to find.

 

Please excuse me, but I find this a somewhat strange attitude.

 

I studied some of the Western Mystical Tradition within the Christian Church. Mainly the Catholic tradition, but some Orthodox. Although hermits and eremites were well known from a very early period in Church history onwards (from at least the 3rd Century), it was not until the 16th Century that Ignatius Loyala came up with a brand new type of meditation. He 'invented' this on his sickbed, when he had a lengthy recovery period.

 

Had he been chided for being a tad egotistical or churlish to use his own imagination and initiative, the Jesuits might not have existed, and the Chatholic Church would have lost a great meditative tool.

391958[/snapback]

 

Hi M,

Sorry but I think you will find recipes for meditative states almost exactly the same (in fact numerous) meaning that; "it was not until the 16th Century that Ignatius Loyala came up with a brand new type of meditation" doesn't really hold water.

I think you will find he was already part of an established historical lineage of the a mystery tradition.

So thanks but this fails to establish any refutation.

 

regards

MM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moonhunter
Sorry but I think you will find recipes for meditative states almost exactly the same (in fact numerous) meaning that; "it was not until the 16th Century that Ignatius Loyala came up with a brand new type of meditation" doesn't really hold water.

I think you will find he was already part of an established historical lineage of the a mystery tradition.

 

Thank you so much for putting me right, MM. I see immediately from your brief statement that, although I followed this tradition for some years, I had no real understanding of it. :D

 

So thanks but this fails to establish any refutation.

392236[/snapback]

 

No problem. I shan't bother discussing anything with you again until you learn some manners. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest muddymick
Sorry but I think you will find recipes for meditative states almost exactly the same (in fact numerous) meaning that; "it was not until the 16th Century that Ignatius Loyala came up with a brand new type of meditation" doesn't really hold water.

I think you will find he was already part of an established historical lineage of the a mystery tradition.

 

Thank you so much for putting me right, MM. I see immediately from your brief statement that, although I followed this tradition for some years, I had no real understanding of it. :)

 

So thanks but this fails to establish any refutation.

392236[/snapback]

 

No problem. I shan't bother discussing anything with you again until you learn some manners. :)

392243[/snapback]

 

Hi M,

I was given to understand that the spiritual exercises of Ignatius Loyola (unless Loyala is someone else) engendered humility and selflessness?

Firstly I wasn't questioning your experience of this tradition however I was pointing out that you failed to realise that it is a duplication of previous spiritual exercises!

However if politely pointing this out as I have done elicits such response, the question must be why?

 

With Regards

MM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moonhunter
Firstly I wasn't questioning your experience of this tradition however I was pointing out that you failed to realise that it is a duplication of previous spiritual exercises!

 

Is it? I find this difficult to reconcile with your response that "I was given to understand that the spiritual exercises of Ignatius Loyola (unless Loyala is someone else) engendered humility and selflessness?". Do you know what Loyala's techniqe was, or are you relying on what someone has told you?

 

If you do know what you are talking about, I would very much appreciate knowing what type of spiritual exercises you have in mind in that tradition, when you state that Loyala's technique dulpicates previous spiritual exercises? I say in that tradition because I cannot assume Loyala had any familiarity with spiritual exercises outside his own culture or spirtual tradition. indeed, as he was primarily a soldier, he may not have been terribly familiar with any spirtual exercises.

 

However if politely pointing this out as I have done elicits such response, the question must be why?

 

Because you were not polite.

Phrases such as:

"Sorry but I think you will find ..."

"I think you will find ..."

and "So thanks but this fails ..."

without any attempt to justify your own position smacks of arrogance in the extreme, in that it assumes the position that you know so much more than I do that all you need to do is state your opinion without having to prove your position.

 

Indeed, beyond that, "So thanks but" is patronising in the extreme. I do not 'think I will find' and will not even try unless you can be bothered to treat me as an equal and attempt to explain why you think what you do. Otherewise, you give me no real reason to take the time to engage with you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest muddymick
Firstly I wasn't questioning your experience of this tradition however I was pointing out that you failed to realise that it is a duplication of previous spiritual exercises!

 

Is it? I find this difficult to reconcile with your response that "I was given to understand that the spiritual exercises of Ignatius Loyola (unless Loyala is someone else) engendered humility and selflessness?". Do you know what Loyala's techniqe was, or are you relying on what someone has told you?

 

If you do know what you are talking about, I would very much appreciate knowing what type of spiritual exercises you have in mind in that tradition, when you state that Loyala's technique dulpicates previous spiritual exercises? I say in that tradition because I cannot assume Loyala had any familiarity with spiritual exercises outside his own culture or spirtual tradition. indeed, as he was primarily a soldier, he may not have been terribly familiar with any spirtual exercises.

 

However if politely pointing this out as I have done elicits such response, the question must be why?

 

Because you were not polite.

Phrases such as:

"Sorry but I think you will find ..."

"I think you will find ..."

and "So thanks but this fails ..."

without any attempt to justify your own position smacks of arrogance in the extreme, in that it assumes the position that you know so much more than I do that all you need to do is state your opinion without having to prove your position.

 

Indeed, beyond that, "So thanks but" is patronising in the extreme. I do not 'think I will find' and will not even try unless you can be bothered to treat me as an equal and attempt to explain why you think what you do. Otherewise, you give me no real reason to take the time to engage with you.

392261[/snapback]

 

Hi M,

I really cannot understand why you are so discombobulated. I have retained decorum and courtesy, I have neither attacked you personally nor have assumed opinion over evidence contrary to your outburst.

'I think you will find' and 'so thanks this fails to refute' etc are neither discourteous nor condescending.

I would like to posit that it is indeed your misapprehension as to my intentions that has elicited such an emotive response as opposed to the actual content of my posts.

I think that if you calm down and try to reread my post objectively we could come to some mutual accord, however with that in mind you have posed me some questions.

1) yes I am aware of Loyola's techniques as passed down 'Spiritual exercises' although yes they where taught to me by a Brother in the society of Jesus.

2) The benedictine and Franciscan lives and discipline, The lives of the saints are full of very similar sometimes identical mystical experiences and methodologies.

That would be within his knowledge at that time whether a soldier or page (after all he received a privileged upbringing in the castle, even if he was the seventh child) it would have been art and parcel of his education. The fact that he unpicked the disciplines is I admit admirable.

3)The duplication of an already established catholic mystery tradition methodology in meditative exercises is without doubt, his graduations and classification of that methodology however was entirely his own.

With Regards

MM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moonhunter
I really cannot understand why you are so discombobulated. I have retained decorum and courtesy, I have neither attacked you personally nor have assumed opinion over evidence contrary to your outburst.

'I think you will find' and 'so thanks this fails to refute' etc are neither discourteous nor condescending.

 

I would like to posit that it is indeed your misapprehension as to my intentions that has elicited such an emotive response as opposed to the actual content of my posts.

 

I think that if you calm down and try to reread my post objectively we could come to some mutual accord

 

MM, if you are unable to see how offensive and patronising your attitude is, we have little further to say to each other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...