Report 3

Contrasting mystical versus Rational Spirituality

www.soc.hawaii.edu/leonj/409as2004/jones/report3.htm

1. Preface

My previous report two” The Cognitive Organization or Rational Spirituality” gives my results of the diagnostic test and my interpretation of those results on my perspective of theistic psychology. I also found empirical evidence of applied theistic psychology in my everyday life and surroundings and reported my findings. The purpose of the report was to gain a better understanding of what I know about theistic psychology, the teachings of Swedenborg and how the people around me view god in their everyday life.

The purpose of report three is to give a review of the text books required for or class (Testimony to the Invisible and Spirituality That makes Sense). What the books made me think about, what I found significant about the books and the significant difference between the books. The class oral presentations I found helpful in my pursuit of understanding Swedenborg. I also reviewed the class notes and covered those areas that I learned most from or that I found most interesting and gave a summery.

2. Introduction

From the text “Spirituality that makes sense” by: Douglas Taylor explains the teachings of Swedenborg and the meaning behind the writings in the bible and backs up this information passages from the bible. Taylor tells how we need to be conscious of our actions. Taylor explains the Trinity, what is faith, evil and how to follow faith and escape evil, it also tells of religion in history. One passage that I found interesting was in the chapter “The spiritual world 2,000 years ago” where Taylor talks about the Greeks and all of their gods and how he found this to be a very dark time. It was dark because Taylor thought there was no celestial light that was able to shine down and the only people to have true faith were the Jews, but even their faith was so twisted and contorted that it too became dogma. Taylor also stated that the lord gave man this choice for without the choice man would cease to exist as human. Thus giving man the choice of heaven and hell “the lord always has to preserve a balance between the influence of heaven and that of hell, so that our free choice may operate.”(Taylor 53). Taylor explains through Swedenborg’s teachings that in the time of the Greeks that hell dominated. Hell and the devils in hell had great power at that time due to god extending man a greater sense of freedom. With too much freedom leads to loss of freedom. If the devils lead us astray our freedom will be taken away. With control of our mind comes control of our body Taylor states “ Anyone able to take complete possession of our mind can, at the same time, take over our body because the body is really only in obedience to the mind ( Apocalypse explained 10:7 12). What the mind does, the body follows.”(54)

Taylor goes as far as to explain how the lord is involved in as simple matters as healing a scratch on our hand “Provided that scratch is kept clean, it will heal automatically. It is not the body, of course, that heals itself. The body, in itself, is just flesh. The action of the soul-a spiritual organism, a finite receptacle of life-is what channels life from the lord and automatically does the healing and restores order in the body.”( Taylor 94) I don’t believe this to be so, I think the lord has created nature to be able to take care of itself to a certain extent in matters of simple scratches at least. The lord has a hand in much of life but I think he created an immune system to take care of the trivial minor details, at the same time if that scratch were to get infected and get gang green and the person dies then god had a hand in that because it was that persons time to go. I think god has bigger fish to fry, but if you wanted the lords help in healing your scratch and asked for it then he may help you or, just for asking and believing in him. I there for believe in the healing power of god, medicine and our immunity.

Tylor also made a very interesting summery of matters of faith in the true Christian religion. Matters of faith has two parts “god is one, in whom is a divine trinity, and the lord god the savior Jesus Christ is that one. Saving faith is to believe in him.”(Taylor 185) This means it is our duty to believe in and have faith in god. The only salvation for our faith is to maintain that faith in god. There is only one god, no matter all of his aliases there is only one. The next set is matters of charity. Matters of charity being “ Evils should not be done, because they belong to the devil and are from the devil. The opposite being, Good things should be done, because they belong to god and are from god.”(185) This means if you do evil you are playing with the toy of the devil, if you do good you are playing with the toy of god. The toys of god will make you play nicely, the toys of the devil will only get you hurt.

In the second text book “Testimony to the Invisible” by: Jorge Luis Borges, Czeslaw Milosz, kathleen Raine, D.T. Suzuki, Eugene Taylor, Wilson Van Dusen, Colin Wilson. This text covers essays on Swedenborg by those famious who he most influenced. One of the essays struck me in particular by: Colin Wilson titled “The reality of the visionary world” Wilson talks about how religion or lack their of has affected us throughout history. Wilson studied Swedenborg and his writings. But what struck me the most was Wilsons perception of history “until the seventeenth century, European civilization was essentially Christian- which meant that people had a clear idea of the meaning of human existence. There was a heaven above and a hell beneath, and we were suspended somewhere between the two, able to glimpse heaven or sink into hell. That meant, essentially, that there was a greater “meaning” behind the trivial meaning of our everyday existence, and we felt that everything we did had an invisible significance, which would become clear when we reach the after life.”(Wilson 90) This shows that we as humans had a true belief in our religion that is until “Since then, it has sometimes seemed that science not only destroyed the religious myths but also their deeper meanings.”(Wilson 90) I believe that science has not made religion weak but rather it has made it real and gotten rid of a lot of the fairytales or dogma in religion. I know many who still believe in Noah’s ark even though science has proved it all but impossible. I think science has made religion be honest. Faith is different from religion. Faith in god is one while religion is a lifestyle or culture.

Another writer in “Testimony to the Invisible” Wilson Van Dusen wrote an essay “A Mystic Looks at Swedenborg” one of the paragraphs in the essay struck me as very interesting. The quote is interesting because in one of Wilson’s mystical experiences he has a conversation with God “I once asked God for a sign of his existence. God answers in direct knowing, beyond words. His answer was, in effect, “Is not the whole of existence sign enough?” Well yes, that’s a pretty good one: existence- yes, I’d call that a substantial sign!”(112). It’s kinda a funny little story. It reminds me of another one, people are always asking if God exists and some people say yes and others ask them to prove it, than those who said yes he does exist say I cant prove it. Those that asked the impossible question laugh and say see, but then those who said yes ask do you love your mother and those who answered yes they ask “Prove it”. You see there are some things of this world and some things not of this world that we can and cannot be proven, but we know them to be true, how or why sometimes we cannot answer that either, but I think the best answer is faith and hope. Even with the proof Swedenborg brings us, his experiments can never be repeated, so we have to take what he says with faith and hope.

The contrast between the two books is clear one book explains how Swedenborg’s teachings follow and translate much of the bible while the other is more critical and controversial. “Spirituality that makes sense” is more on the perspective of someone who believes Swedenborg and his teachings. Taylor helps us to translate and understand what Swedenborg and the bible are trying to teach us. Taylor believes in Swedenborg and God and is trying to put everything in terms we can understand. This is the text that takes the more rational approach, with Swedenborg’s proof and Taylor’s interpretation it all makes sense. One quote in “Spirituality that makes sense” that says a lot is “ For instance, the first and great commandment is that we should love the Lord with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength (Deuteronomy 6:5; Mark 12:30). But who is the Lord? We must at the very least know about Him in order to love Him.(4)” This goes to show we all hold the highest regard for the Lord and we don’t even know who he is, this may not seem rational but it seems right and at times uncontrollable, we almost cant help but believe. How many times do we ever believe in anything else such as the Lord with out having some proof or facts on the matter?

“Testimony to the invisible” places more controversy on Swedenborg and the idea of God. “Testimony to the invisible” shows both sides of the story, those who share the same ideas as Swedenborg and those who oppose it. Some agree and thinks Swedenborg was a genius and others think he was a mad man but brilliant. Mystics believe in God because they think they can see him or speak to him where rationales believe in him but know they can never have contact with him in this life. This places “Testimony to the invisible” in the mystical category because people disbelieve in what they cannot perceive or vice versa, which is being mystical or dogmatic. One example that Swedenborg gave that he saw in heaven was “ Within the boundaries of heaven, he saw a hermit who had set out to gain admittance there and had voluntarily spent his mortal life in the solitude of the desert. Having reached his goal, the blessed one discovers that he is unable to follow the conversation of the angels or fathom the complexities of paradise. He is finally permitted to project around him self a hallucinatory image of the wilderness. There he remains, as he did on earth, engaged in self-denial and prayer but without the hope of reaching heaven.(4 Jorge Luis Borges)” This is a perfect example of if you believe what you want or what others tell you too that is what you will get, even if that is not really what you want or what is true. Believe in what is true or what is true to you.

3. Class Discussions and lecture notes

“Spirituality That Makes Sense” Presentation by:Josh Cooper, April 8,04. Joshes presentation was interesting in that it shed a lot of light on how Gods word reaches us through all the levels. One of the ideas that I understood best was “the influx of Good and Truth flow into the celestial mind, into the spiritual mind, and finally the natural mind, which is where we become conscious of it.” This helped me understand the most basic of Swedenborg’s ideas. Another of the quotes taken from Josh’s presentation that I agreed with and disagreed with “The heavenly or spiritual mind is always in a state of order, always enlightened by the Lord. Only our earthly, conscious mind is ever out of order. The whole purpose of our life on earth is to cooperate with the lord in bringing our natural mind back into order so that heavenly feelings and thoughts can flow in.” I agree with the state of order and it involving our conscious but what I don’t agree with is the whole purpose of our life on earth being cooperation with the lord about our natural mind I think we have a greater purpose like to help others and fulfill a destiny. Another statement that I disagree with was that “Evil and false things stem from a love of self and the love of the world” I love myself and I love the world that surrounds me, if I didn’t why would I want to continue to live or live in a world that I didn’t love. All in all the presentation was good and I learned a lot yet it made the world we live in and the life we are supposed to live a system of perpetual turmoil.

“Spirituality That Makes Sense” Presentation by:Elisabeth Malsey, April 15, 04. Elisabeths presentation was good and one of the ideas that I agreed with was “I believe Taylor put this section first because one cannot learn anymore beyond God, like how to love him, obey him or understand Him, if one doesn’t have a particular idea of what He is.” When reading the text book “Spirituality that makes sense” Elisabeth and when she states that Taylor put that information fist in the text because it gives you a better understanding. One statement that I disagreed with was “ Taylor says if a person or church does not understand the true god properly than all doctrine, dogma and ritual are possibly invalid.” I disagree with Taylor because I don’t understand the true God and I don’t think anyone ever could really understand him truly. Taylor believes “that God appears as “mysterious” to people and therefore god cannot truly be apart of the mind if He is not understood.” I think God is always present wether we understand him or not and mysterious is a part of our misunderstanding of God that makes him great. One of the statements that I agree with is when Elisabeth disagrees “I think there will always be mystery with God, because we have a finite mind while God has an infinite mind.” I agree with this totally I think God is beyond our comprehension.

“A Vision of Marriage” Presentation by: Heather Piper, January 29, 04. Heathers presentation on marriage was intriguing, everyone is concerned with their future with a potential life long partner. I agree with heather when she stated “ It is as impossible for the state or the church to marry a man and a woman, in the essential meaning of the word.” I think a marriage between a man and a woman is more than a piece of paper but a promise to each other and just stating that you want to marry that person is a big promise and a huge statement. One statement that I disagreed with “Look within your own mind and see what manner of man or woman you are” in order to find your other half. I tend to disagree I believe opposites attract to an extent, have dated someone with my same personality and it was explosive, we just clashed. One of the statements that I did agree with was “Beings that are the complements of one another cannot be kept apart. No obstacles of time, or place, or circumstance can prevent the union of those whom god has destined for each other. They may never meet in this world, but congenial souls cannot fail to find each other when all natural obstructions are removed.” Soul mates are just that mates, mates for all eternal life. The last statement that I disagreed with was “ Each one thinks the other is the greatest, the wisest, and the best.” I love my boyfriend but I don’t think he is always the greatest, the wisest, and the best. The presentation was one of the most interesting and talkative presentations of the semester.

“The Coming Swedenborgian Revolution in the Social Sciences and Humanities” Presentation by: Ly Vuu, February 12, 04. Ly’s presentation was at the heart of the controversy of theistic psychology on “How scientific revolutions occur.” A statement that I agreed with was on “New research is found that doesn’t quite fit into the current paradigm” this means that a whole new theory must be derived to fit the new information. I disagreed with “statistics are developed through this motto and its ‘null hypothesis” paradigm now dictates research standards in medicine, genetics, psychology, business management.....” this is based on the negative bias. I don’t believe psychology is based on a negative bias, I think psychology is based on observation and experimentation to prove a norm. Yet what I agree with is “ It excludes from research qualities that we use everyday such as faith, wisdom, love, morality, truth.....” these are very human factors, which is exactly what the study of psychology is, the study of human nature and the human mind. The positive bias is what I don’t agree with “we are required to ‘first accept something, which is asserted by a trustworthy source, and then requires us to confirm it through experience and experiment” I disagree because I think there is such a thing as a neutral position that is not considered in these two points of views. Both points covered were interesting, right, and wrong at some aspects.

The theme or idea in the lecture notes that I don’t tend to agree with is the theoretical model for theistic psychology. The model is broken down into four parts, each part has a level of rationality, main characteristics and an explanation. Some of the explanations are hard for me to agree with because there is no main characteristic that I fit into. There is no happy medium, but the levels seem to be rather cut and dry. I find myself agreeing with a little of each level and disagreeing with a little of each level. The broad explanations make it difficult to figure out which level you may be in. The first level being 0 and main characteristic is Denial of God, the second level is 1 Natural science, the third is 2 Mystical religion, and the fourth is 3 Theistic science. I don’t deny there is a god but I do believe in natural science, and what I believe is straight forward yet I cant say I totally agree with all in theistic science.

Another section of the class lecture notes that I thought was interesting was “ What’s the difference between religion and theistic psychology,” it was interesting in that it explained the differences and how theistic psychology is scientific. The section refers to the chart on theoretical model, basing that religion is at level 2 and theistic science is at level 3. The section gives the clear distinction between theistic psychology and atheistic psychology as being atheistic psychology automatically excluding God, where theistic psychology includes God as a concept as explaining every action and reaction in all life. To theistic psychology God is the cause for all rational and scientific events. I agree that “ religion is always bound up with culture and history,” I also agree that “Theistic psychology is a science and therefore cannot depend on belief, faith, or personal preference.” Of course if theistic psychology is a science it not only cannot depend on these things but should not, for the sake of being universal, and versatile. This section gives you a clear picture on where theistic psychology stands.

One of the other ideas in lecture notes that struck my interest is “What is God’s role in the evolution of the human race,” the theory of evolution has always intrigued me. I fully believe in Darwin’s theory or the theory of evolution and have a hard time with believing creationism. I also agree that “ sectarian beliefs or religions are divisive of the human race rather than unitary, as science is.” I have had many history classes, and if there was anything that I learned from theses classes is that most major wars were caused due to religious differences. I also understand that religion is more corrupt than government. Theistic psychology seems to be more theistic psychology on religion, yet the notes state that it “depends not on religion or belief, but on having developed a heavenly character or hellish.” The notes become compelling when it started explaining the basic evolution of wo/man kind, not so much humans.

In the beginning “the first generations of our race were heavenly altruistic people, peaceful and gentle.” Could this mean the cavemen or is theistic psychology referring to another time in human history? As we evolved apparently we became less advanced and more natural, “This second phase of evolution of the human race was less spiritual, more natural and materialistic.” I can believe this because we became less concerned on how to survive and more concerned on how to live. We had the technology to create and the desire to own. In the third stage of human kind we weren’t so kind, we lost our spiritual knowledge and became religious instead. The third stage is apparently where we are stuck in a perpetual of chaos. This third stage is actually a giant leap backwards for us, “In this third phase of human evolution all knowledge of the spiritual world was lost,” I agree because I think humans no longer know their purpose in life other than to get an education in order to get a good paying job to buy all that is desired.

4. Conclusion

This assignment helped me identify my views on spirituality, especially regarding the mystical vs. the rational approach because by looking at the evidence I have come to realize that I tend to follow my heart more than my head. But what I have come to realize later is that my heart is usually right. I believe myself to be a rational person in my spirituality. This assignment spoke to me on my intellectual and moral side. The “Testimony to the Invisible” text gave me many other peoples points of view on Swedenborg but many were one sided as for or against him. Yet this helped me get a better perspective on how others thought and felt about Swedenborg’s teachings, this is when I knew people felt some of the same things I did. The text “Testimony to the Invisible” helped me to understand Swedenborg better, it helped me make sense of it all. I think I believe in the more rational side of my beliefs and actions. I believe that there is something greater out there that created everything, there has to be because science just cant explain it all especially the beginning of it all so something such as god just makes sense.

There is a distinct difference that needs to be made between mystical vs rational because mystical is basic dogma or tends to be fairy tale, which makes it un-rational though traditional which people have a hard time letting go of. Rational is what we need to be using in our everyday life. Rational is truth and putting things you know to the test of rationality. Religion I believe more than government needs to be put to the test of rational. Religion in this world has more power than all of the government put together, yet so much of our religion is based on mystisysm. This is an important debate for mysticism vs rational because I believe a lot of people don’t know some things they believe in may be more mystical than rational.

My views have changed several times throughout the semester. First I didn’t even want to hear the word god, I knew what my beliefs were and I wasn’t going to change them for no one. But as the semester went on and I studies Swedenborg more I began to see that he had taught many of the same views I had. Now towards the end of the semester I am getting lost again, because I think too many dogmatic rules and regulations are being put forth. I have some extra interest in Swedenborg because I do share some of the same ideas with him, yet I get lost in all the details and I don’t believe in religion I just believe in god, living my life and being a good person.

I predict in the next few years my spiritual growth and development will change as I change, yet I am comfortable where I am with my spirituality. I cannot for see my future but I know what I want and I will work towards that. Family and friends and life can change all together and that can have a great impact on someone’s spirituality. I think I will be pritty close to the same as I am now but who knows with age hopefully comes knowledge.

5. Future Generations

My advice to the future generations would be to take notes in class presentations on what you find interesting and what you find controversial. This will help you later to refer back to in your report. When reading the text and class notes do the same, this will make your review of the information for your report much easier. Pace yourself and give yourself plenty of time. The earlier you start the earlier you will get done. Read the directions for your reports early so you can have a heads up on the information you are looking for. Keep an open mind but stand your ground you should not have to give up what you believe in for anyone yet be rational about it. Speak your mind without offending others. If it doesn’t makes sense ask questions if its not rational you don’t have to conform with it. Just do the best you can do.

Back to Ingrid’s Home Page