2023/08/02

Awakening the Spirit, Inspiring the Soul: 30 Stories of Interspiritual Discovery in the Community of Faiths - Teasdale, Brother Wayne, Howard MD, Martha, Borysenko PH D, Joan | 9781681629827 | Amazon.com.au | Books

Awakening the Spirit, Inspiring the Soul: 30 Stories of Interspiritual Discovery in the Community of Faiths - Teasdale, Brother Wayne, Howard MD, Martha, Borysenko PH D, Joan | 9781681629827 | Amazon.com.au | Books





Awakening the Spirit, Inspiring the Soul: 30 Stories of Interspiritual Discovery in the Community of Faiths Paperback – 1 June 2004
by Brother Wayne Teasdale (Editor), Martha Howard MD (Editor), & 1 more
4.2 4.2 out of 5 stars 5 ratings

Edition: 1st
See all formats and editions

Kindle
$16.23
Read with Our Free App


Contributors from many faiths, ages and backgrounds tell how they learned to integrate the spirit into their daily lives and the remarkable transformations that followed.



Product description

Review


In Aquil Charlton's essay, "Sacred Story," she says, "Hearing the beliefs of others helps tune our ears to the sound of God being evoked in our presence. We can listen to the plights of others for familiar stepping stones and stumbling blocks that remind us of our own path." Isn't this the very gift we bring to bear in spiritual direction? We tune our ears and our hearts to the sound of God being evoked through the directee's sharing. This book, consisting of thirty individual stories, was gathered over the past four years by Teasdale, a Catholic lay monk, and Howard, a medical doctor and practicing Buddhist. As members of the Council for a Parliament of the world Religions' Spiritual Life Circle, they sought "to come to terrns with the value and effectiveness of spirituality across religions and cultures" and "to inquire into what works in all forms of the spiritual life to open minds, expand hearts, and transform lives into radiant examples of compassion, kindness and love-in-action."

This collection, written by people whose lives often reflect openness to more than one tradition (Christian, Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim, Jew) is effective and engaging. While some may find this a "mixed bag" in spiritual sophistication, that is what I found most captivating. This is a valuable resource for our culture, with so many seeking personal growth in spirituality. In a short space, readers can enjoy a range of spiritual experiences that challenge, inspire, and awe.

Russill Paul's essay helps us move into a greater understanding of interspirituality, a "both-and" experience in the spiritual realm. Paul offers a well-developed commentary on interspirituality, understood as the next wave of consciousness. He presents qualitative distinctions important for understanding interspirituality-its benefits and challenges. He observes, "the fear of interspirituality, which is the fear of globalizarion, is reflective of the most basic fear we all have: Will any semblance of our own lives and impressions remain when we merge with the Divine at death?" He continues, "Through an emerging global awareness, the Divine is showing us that our identity is not lost but merges with all things."

These stories invite us in-tolisten, to reflect, to make connections-and spiritual directors will find numerous uses for them. I can note five. For personal reflection to encounter a wide variety of stories reflecting various religious paths leading to a transformative, often mystical, experience of awakening to new insights, new commitments, new realities. For understanding diverse generations, especially generations different from the director's own. For encountering religious traditions and blends, which will stretch many directors focused in one tradition within their practice. For directees, as stories for spiritual reading. For spiritual growth groups, to invite members to share their own stories.

What I found myself wanting as I read the book was a biographical note for each seeker. Having connected with them at a spiritual level, I wanted to know more. That being said, I recommend this text as a valuable compendium, fostering the hope that our current generation welcomes a resurgence of the mystical tradition in its many manifestations. This is the hope we base our ministry of direction upon, and the Hope we serve.
About the Author


Wayne Teasdale was a lay monk and best-selling author of The Mystic Heart: Discovering a Universal Spirituality in the World's Religions; Bede Griffiths: An Introduction to His Interspiritual Thought and A Monk in the World. As a member of the Bede Griffiths International Trust, Teasdale was an adjunct professor at DePaul University, Columbia College, and the Catholic Theological Union in Chicago. Wayne Teasdale was coeditor of Awakening the Spirit, Inspiring the Soul: 30 Stories of Interspiritual Discovery.



Martha Howard, MD, is a pioneer in the field of integrative medicine, which she has practiced since 1982. She is medical director of Wellness Associates of Chicago, and author of the Power of Suggestion CD series. A practicing Buddhist, she is active in the interfaith and peace movements, and is a producing partner of a documentary film in development, Journey to Peace.



Joan Borysenko, PhD, is a respected scientist, gifted therapist and unabashed mystic. Trained at Harvard Medical School, she was an instructor in medicine until 1988. Currently the president of Mind/Body Health Sciences, Inc., she is an internationally known speaker and consultant in women's health and spirituality, integrative medicine and the mind/body connection. She is the author of nine books, including the New York Times bestsellers Minding the Body, Mending the Mind; A Woman's Book of Life; 7 Paths to God; The Power of the Mind to Heal and Inner Peace for Busy People.

Product details
Publisher ‏ : ‎ Skylight Paths Publishing; 1st edition (1 June 2004)
Language ‏ : ‎ English
Paperback ‏ : ‎ 224 pages
ISBN-10 ‏ : ‎ 1681629828
ISBN-13 ‏ : ‎ 978-1681629827
Dimensions ‏ : ‎ 15.24 x 1.22 x 22.86 cmCustomer Reviews:
4.2 4.2 out of 5 stars 5 ratings








Sponsored



Customer reviews
4.2 out of 5 stars
4.2 out of 5
Top reviews from Australia

There are 0 reviews and 0 ratings from Australia


Top reviews from other countries

B. Marold
3.0 out of 5 stars A lightweight book. Informative, with no agenda to push.Reviewed in the United States 🇺🇸 on 19 December 2011
Verified Purchase

Awakening the Spirit, Inspiring the Soul, edited by Brother Wayne Teasdale and Martha Howard.

This gives me the rare opportunity to offer a review which may reply to the comments offered by one of my classmates, who happened to have this book as a text in a class we shared.

Very briefly, the title and subtitle tell the story. It has thumbnail spiritual biographies of thirty individuals with several different starting points, primarily from Christianity (especially Protestant), Judaism, and Islam, who are dissatisfied with their spiritual traditions, or lack of spiritual tradition, in which they have grown up. None of the subjects have formal training (No Thomas Mertons here) and almost all depend on the guidance which good fortune may have brought their way. The result is what many of us have seen in our friends. The first place people go when they are dissatisfied or disillusioned is outside their own faith. (The book does not discuss those whose endpoint is non-spiritual agnosticism or athiesm).

There is a certain sense of serendipity in the choice of studies. By that I mean there seems to be virtually no plan to how the stories were selected. Of course, we do not see what stories went into their shredder, but there is no perceptible intention to single out a certain point of origin, destination, or method of making the journey. And, if you are writing in contemporary America, you are more likely to find Protestants who feel the need for spiritual renewal than Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, or whatever. And, if you turn from Protestantism, your first choice is not likely to be either Catholicism or Judaism. It is likely to be either Islam, because that is a common choice, or Buddhism, which is the religious inclination best known for its spirituality. It is also a not uncommon phenomenon for those who begin life in a Biblical literalist community to become disenchanted. One famous example is Bart Ehrman, who is one of the leading Biblical scholars, and who is now an agnostic, because of difficulties in resoling scripture with the world.

This is because a fundamentalist belief requires a far more sophisticalted understanding of the Bible than the average Protestant or Catholic has. While one of Luther's main tenants was study of the Bible, most Lutherans skate by on the 20 minutes they get in the sermon each week, if they are lucky. One of the strengths of Judaism is that it fosters deep bibical study among its members.

Because the approach of this book is so ecumenical, it is probably of little value to the average reader, unless you happen to have a career interest in pastoral counciling. It's purpose is to uncritically present as wide a range of journeys of spiritual discovery as one is likely to encounter at the local library or laundramat. Thus, it had some value as a text on that subject.
Read less

2 people found this helpfulReport

Y. Gowell
3.0 out of 5 stars Awakening the Spirit, Inspiring the Soul: 30 Stories of Interspiritual DiscoveryReviewed in the United States 🇺🇸 on 19 August 2011
Verified Purchase

The stories are mini-autobiographies, showing how people came to faith in a variety of faiths. I enjoyed the book - but it required some deep thinking about new ideas.

One person found this helpfulReport






====




A Christian Vedanta - Bede Griffiths and The Hindu-Christian Encounter | PDF | Advaita Vedanta | Vedanta

A Christian VedantaBede Griffiths and The Hindu-Christian Encounter | PDF | Advaita Vedanta | Vedanta

339 views
120 pages
===
A Christian Vedanta 
Bede Griffiths and The Hindu-Christian Encounter

===


A Way to God by Matthew Fox - Ebook | Scribd

A Way to God by Matthew Fox - Ebook | Scribd



book375 pages8 hours
A Way to God: Thomas Merton's Creation Spirituality Journey


By Matthew Fox
Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

4.5/5

(2 ratings)


Included in your subscription

About this ebook
This unique reflection was prompted by an invitation Matthew Fox received to speak on the centennial of Thomas Merton’s birth. Fox says that much of the trouble he’s gotten into — such as being excommunicated in 1993 from the Dominican Order by Cardinal Ratzinger (who later became Pope Benedict) — was because of Thomas Merton, who sent Fox to Paris to complete a doctoral program in philosophy. Fox found that Merton’s journals, poetry, and religious writings revealed a deeply ecumenical philosophy and a contemplative life experience similar to that of Meister Eckhart, the fourteenth-century mystic/theologian who inspired Fox’s own “creation spirituality.” It is little surprise to find Fox and Merton to be kindred spirits, but the intersections Fox finds with Eckhart are intellectually profound, spiritually enlightening, and delightfully engaging.
Skip carousel



Christianity



New Age & Spirituality

Interfaith Dialogue and Comparative Theology: A Theoretical Approach to a Practical Dilemma

Interfaith Dialogue and Comparative Theology: A Theoretical Approach to a Practical Dilemma


The Journal of Social Encounters 
 
Volume 3 
Issue 1 Special Issue: Religion, Politics, and Article 8 Peacemaking 
 
2019 
Interfaith Dialogue and Comparative Theology: A Theoretical Approach to a Practical Dilemma 
Michael Atkinson 
LaTrobe University 

Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.csbsju.edu/social_encounters 
  Part of the Comparative Methodologies and Theories Commons, Other Religion Commons, Peace and 
Conflict Studies Commons, and the Religious Thought, Theology and Philosophy of Religion Commons 
 
Recommended Citation 
Atkinson, Michael (2019) "Interfaith Dialogue and Comparative Theology: A Theoretical Approach to a Practical Dilemma," The Journal of Social Encounters: Vol. 3: Iss. 1, 47-57. 
Available at: https://digitalcommons.csbsju.edu/social_encounters/vol3/iss1/8 
This Additional Essay is brought to you for free and open access by DigitalCommons@CSB/SJU. It has been accepted for inclusion in The Journal of Social Encounters by an authorized editor of DigitalCommons@CSB/SJU. For more information, please contact digitalcommons@csbsju.edu. 
 ===

Interfaith Dialogue and Comparative Theology: 
A Theoretical Approach to a Practical Dilemma 
 
Michael Atkinson  
LaTrobe University 
 
Interfaith dialogue is based on the premise that there is more that unites than divides us.  Epistemological humility, acceptance of religious plurality or the need for unity itself have all been presented as unifying pathways across disparate religious traditions.  Despite such approaches, conceptual understandings of interfaith dialogue have not kept pace with practice. This theoretical paper argues that interfaith dialogical theory profits from a deep understanding of moral psychology and social learning theory.  The former posits that a sense 
of ‘fairness’ and ‘universal care’ are aligned with religious acceptance.  On the other hand, values of sanctity, loyalty and authority promote a sense of religious conservatism thereby hindering liberal ideals around plurality and acceptance. The latter suggests that it is first and foremost the exploration of difference, not similarity, which provides the tension to question our preconceived moral values and constructions and thereby move to more inclusive ones. Through contextualising these theories within the reflective spaces at the borders of interfaith dialogue, this paper suggests that bridging difference does not lie in making religious comparisons but rather in accepting religious ambiguity in pursuit of truth. The burgeoning area of comparative theology offers both theoretical and practical guidance for embracing religious diversity in a multi-religious world.  
 
Introduction 
The contemporary world is religiously diverse. Different cultures and religions intermingle. This raises important social as well as theological questions. Does only one religious tradition contain insight into truth or do all? Can we learn from other traditions or should we hold our own religious tradition is complete in our relationship with the divine? This paper explores these questions within the broader context of interfaith dialogue and the need to add conceptual clarity around its understanding and practice.  
 
A guiding principle of interfaith dialogue, as Leonard Swidler, Professor of Catholic Thought and Interreligious Dialogue at Temple University claims, is ‘for each participant to learn from the other so that s/he can change and grow’ (2013). Defined more broadly in terms of the purposeful interaction between members of different religious groups to promote mutual understanding, interfaith dialogue has garnered high profile support. Programs delivered by secular organisations as diverse as the World Bank, the Anna Lindh Foundation and UNESCO has ensured that interfaith dialogue has entered the language of contemporary society in the form of international partnerships, cross-cultural exchanges and sustainable social development.  It is a key aspect of the U.N. International Decade for the Rapprochement of Cultures (2013-2022), an important focus of the educational work of the Anna Lindh 
Foundation (Volpi 2008) and a part of the World Bank’s policy of fighting poverty (Marshall & Saanen 2007).   Alongside the establishment on the world stage of centres working internationally for the advancement of interfaith dialogue, there is also a proposal for an interfaith council at the UN. In the context of a world in which religious- based difference is seen as a threat, interfaith dialogue is viewed as a potential harmonising and accommodating framework to support unity within the diversity of humankind. 
  
 
Interfaith dialogue may be a practice whose time has come but it is also one which faces many challenges. Beyond a reconciliatory focus, there are multiple areas of uncertainty surrounding its implementation. At present the field is characterised by diversity in understandings of dialogue (Fletcher 2013), disciplinary basis (Neufeldt 2011) and theoretical orientation. Such divergences have contributed to an identified need to develop a robust theoretical basis for interfaith dialogue. As Marianne Moyaert argues ‘we are at the level of practice, of encounter and action, and not at the level of theory’ (2013 p 204).    
 
This does not mean that the field of interfaith dialogue is lacking in conceptual thought. The broad area of dialogue has a deep theoretical basis. Likewise, the discipline of comparative theology has both a strong dialogical and theoretical orientation.   Interestingly both these areas foreground the problem of bias and the learning required to bridge such bias.  Despite this however there has been a significant scholarly absence to exploring the connection between interfaith dialogue, social learning and religious based bias.  
 
This paper addresses this void.  It looks initially at the work of diverse dialogue scholars as well as the burgeoning discipline of comparative theology.  It then explores both the notion of implicit bias and social learning within the interfaith space to suggest a theoretical framework for interfaith dialogue.   The central message, utilising a principle of comparative theology, is that the dialogue path is not simply about peace and harmony but also an inner journey in how we view difference. The paper ends by exploring interfaith dialogical approaches to answer the two questions stated above. 
 
Dialogue 
Direct meanings of dialogue can differ depending upon one’s perspective. Most approaches to dialogue however hold close to a social constructivist understanding of reality. From a social constructivist position, truth is emergent and made in interaction, rather than given, eschewing singular perspectives which are partial and limited (Kim & Kim 2008). In this regard, dialogue represents the quintessential form of constructivist communication, deriving meaning through engaging with difference for the purpose of sharing and constructing new cultural meanings (Escobar 2009).  It moves beyond expressions of religious diversity and mutual understanding to the creation of something new, together (Platform for Intercultural Europe & Culture Action Europe 2010).  In requiring us to challenge, question and to reflect upon our own meanings and to ethically question the meanings of others, it demands a spirit of inquiry rather than advocacy in the knowledge that no singular religious group has a monopoly on truth. As a consequence, new knowledge is at once purposely constructed and idiosyncratic in what may broadly be defined as a continual learning process. A central aim, thereby, is not simply communication but also the creation of an ethical, humanitarian space where dissention and difference may be expressed to thereby stimulate collective, creative expressions through reciprocal inquiry.  
 
Notions of dialogue, in the form of discussion between master and student, may be identified in the early Hindu classical literature of India and in the Ch’an Buddhist literature of China (Besley and Peters 2011). It is the Greek philosopher Socrates, however, known chiefly through the writings of his student Plato, who has been the key influential historical figure on dialogue in modern western civilisation. His works, which focussed on rational debate and an ethical engagement with the other, served as an inspirational source for academic debate as the nature of conversational exchanges became once more a focus of academic attention from the early 20th century onwards (Rule 2004).   
The existential philosopher Martin Buber (1965), together with the hermeneutic philosophy of Hans Georg Gadamer (1989), the reciprocity of Bakhtin (1984) and to a lesser extent the rational re-constructionism of Jürgen Habermas (1984) have become synonymous with the concept of dialogue through their studies on what may be termed ‘ethical communication’.  Others may be added to this list.  Paulo Freire, who has been hugely influential in the area of pedagogy and human development through his critical orientation to dialogue and David Bohm, who sees in dialogue a vehicle to human consciousness, are two such figures. Aligned with social constructivism, each of these scholars foreground dialogue as a phenomenon of cocreation and tension (Stewart & Zediker 2000).   
 
These scholars have also been instrumental in the emerging area of interfaith theory. Keaton and Soukup (2009) have proposed a pluralistic conceptualization of interfaith dialogue based on Bakhtin’s work, highlighting the reciprocity and mutuality between stakeholders while paying attention to ontology and the social context.   Abu Nimer (1999) has applied conflict resolution theory to interreligious settings drawing on the work of peace activist John Paul Lederach (1995) who in turn drew on Paulo Freire’s critical approach to dialogue. Marianne Moyaert (2013) offers a hermeneutical theory for interreligious dialogue deriving inspiration through the work of Paul Ricoeur.  Paul Ricoeur, in turn, is frequently compared to Gadamer’s own hermeneutic interreligious positioning. 
 
An important point is that each dialogue scholar views dialogue through a different prism (Besley and Peters 2011) and is seen to be applicable to different areas of the human experience. Habermas, as an example, is particularly suitable for exploring rational deliberation within the dialogical space. Buber on the other hand, holds to a more reflective focus, while Freire has an andragogical orientation.  This does not mean that understandings of dialogue need be constructed around the ideas of a single scholar. Nor does it mean that a given orientation to dialogue is suitable only for certain social contexts. It does indicate however that the lens through which we look can only ever be incomplete; an interpretation of reality rather than reality itself.   
 
As such there is a need to be transparent with regards to the orientation we take to dialogue.  
Given the orientation of this paper in promoting the centrality of learning to interfaith dialogue, I find the work of Freire and to a lesser extent Buber and Bohm to be particularly useful.  As I discuss in greater detail below, these three dialogue scholars engage deeply in the social learning processes so evident in interfaith dialogue itself. 
 
Social learning and dialogue 
Freire (1970) shares the viewpoint that every dialogical encounter exists within a complex of social reality as participants themselves choose to see it. Social learning theory suggests that participation in a learning environment evolves from our aspirations to be part of, develop and negotiate our own sense of identity.  In this regard the creation of knowledge is always a socially and morally situated practice.  For Freire, non-coercive, open-ended and reciprocal dialogue activates the creative mind and thereby frees it, enabling those who feel silenced to vocalise their needs and aspirations. Freire utilises the term ‘oppressed’ for people whose voices are limited for diverse reasons and through diverse means.  In doing so he brings into the dialogue space the concept of power and voice both external and internal to the individual.  Although Freire’s focus is on social class, I would argue that his ideas could be transferred to any social based construction of difference inclusive of the interfaith encounter. 
Of particular note is that Freire positions dialogue as a struggle which  is both external, between individuals and internal, within individuals; a struggle of engagement with what makes us distinctly human while under the realization ‘that we can only ever become more fully human’ (Roberts 2005 p.136). Critical reflection and the recognition of the human within the other is an essential aspect of this process. In other words, dialogue, along the lines of Freire’s understanding, is a never-ending action as people grapple with difficult, complex processes arriving at unfinished places in a journey of both discovery and of humanizing change.  
 
Buber (1970) extends the reflective lens beyond actual vocal conversation to include the silent spaces within, either in communion with another, or in communion with oneself. As Buber notes: 
A dialogical relation will show itself ... in genuine conversation, but it is not composed of this. Not only is the shared silence of two such persons a dialogue, but also their dialogical life continues, even when they are separated in space, as the continual potential presence of the one to the other, as an unexpressed intercourse (1970 p. 125). 
 
Buber (1970), in contrast to Freire, sees the dialogic relationship in terms of a concrete and life-enhancing possibility born by understanding one another in a spirit of authenticity through everyday life (Stewart and Zediker, 2009). Such a perspective brings into question where dialogue begins and ends as well as the nature of such dialogue and the importance of silence. Buber would argue that dialogue continues beyond conversation into the silent reflections of oneself.  
 
Bohm (1996), by further contrast, charges that each person has a set of absolute meanings that they cannot readily move away from.  From a Bohmian point of view, an important function of dialogue is to reveal these meanings so that they may be explored and the assumptions uncovered. Through learning how to dissociate themselves from their reified thoughts, according to Bohm, people can thereby develop a different relationship with both their reasoning and emotional processes and how they come to know those processes. As a consequence, Bohmian dialogue is concerned with meaning and assumption alongside the generation and the questioning of abstract generalisations about one’s own identity and the identities of others.  
 
Collectively Friere, Buber and Bohm present a learning-based understanding of dialogue inclusive of the socio-cultural context (Freire), deep personal reflection and mutuality (Buber) and the acknowledgement of meaning (Bohm).  Each presents a pathway to positive change emphasizing the importance of critical understanding (Freire), communion (Buber) and suspension of thought (Bohm).  As they warn us however, the journey to change is never easy for it requires us to come face to face with our own fears (Freire), assumptions (Bohm) and incomplete sense of humanity (Buber). In short, it demands that we understand the bias within. 
 
Implicit bias 
At the heart of interfaith dialogue lies a core paradox. Religions promote a singular construction of truth, based on a doctrinal view to reality.  This serves to both include others within the embrace of all humankind, while excluding others on the basis that they have a misplaced perception of truth.  The result is a selective, circumscribed religious narrative.  The narrative we live by is fundamentally an exclusive one.  We cannot, at the same time be a pagan and a Christian; a Buddhist and a Muslim; a Protestant and a Catholic. 
The power of tradition and our social context to inform and dictate the limits of our viewpoints is a recurring point made by dialogue scholars. Our cultural ‘horizon’, according to Gadamer (1989, p.304-306), is one frequently mired in ignorance and prejudice about both ourselves and the other ensuring that we cannot readily move beyond that which we have already conceived of as ‘truth’. Consequently, many of our assumptions are so closely tied to our sense of identity that we cannot resist defending them (Bohm 1996, p.10).   Rather we choose an oppressive, inauthentic and monologic form of communication (Buber 1965) that, ‘at its extreme, denies the existence outside itself of another consciousness with equal rights and equal responsibilities’ (Bakhtin 1984, p.292). At issue is that we, as human beings, are hard wired according to our moral philosophy. Our religious bias is so ingrained, deep set and tied to our sense of identity that we act through our deep-seated emotions rather than rational thought.   
 
As social psychologist Jonathan Haidt (2016), argues, our moral philosophy exists on a spectrum. People who strongly identify with a singular narrative believe that their religion is clearly defined, clearly bordered and ordained. They feel a bond with their faith and believe that this bond imposes moral obligations. Morals around loyalty, authority and sanctity are binding and important (Haidt, 2016 ). At the other end are the more cosmopolitan minded.  Such people are comfortable with both religious diversity and religious ambiguity.  They are inclined to identify with universal values where fairness and protection from harm are of higher value than authority, loyalty and sanctity.   
 
While people at the extremes of this spectrum show dramatic differences from each other, many of us sit in the middle. The result is different discourses applied to the other. An orientation based on exclusion acts to legitimise a singular faith (thereby denying legitimacy to other faiths), by claiming a sense of moral authority on truth.  A second, related discourse is that of deficit.  It works on the assumption that ‘the other faith’ is inadequate, deficient or incomplete, lacking in fundamental understanding that puts it in deficit to one’s own faith.  A third category acknowledges the legitimacy and value of the other faith, but only in a limited extent thereby negating the need for reflection or questioning of one’s own beliefs. The fourth aspect draws on notions of universal humanity, compassion and respect to bridge the sense of constructed difference between one’s own faith and that of the other. In so doing it also widens debate on questions of truth, identity and power.  
 
Dialogue demands that we value the other, not because it confirms our sense of identity, but rather challenges us to question who we are.  In other words, it shifts us towards humanitarian viewpoints. Discarding the notion of an exclusive singular truth, embedded in a complex nexus of values and priorities is deeply challenging, however.  It is this space of challenge in the plural religious landscape that comparative theology offers a unique way of interacting with the challenge of otherness. 
 
Comparative theology  
Comparative theology aims to deepen our understanding of religious truth through encounter with religious difference. Professor Francis Clooney, at Harvard Divinity School in Cambridge, Massachusetts positions comparative theology as ‘a journey in faith’. 
 
If it is theology, deep learning across religious borders, it will always be a journey in faith. It will be from, for, and about God, whose grace keeps making room for all of us as we find our way faithfully in a world of religious diversity (2011 p 165).  
While rooted in one’s own faith, comparative theology views religious diversity as a pathway and mechanism for knowing God better.  Arvind Sharma, Birks Professor of Comparative 
Religion at McGill University, presents his approach to religious difference from a similar ethos.  Sharma’s concept of reciprocal illumination embodies the idea that something in another religious tradition may enrich our understanding of our own religious tradition.  As he notes what if one compares things not in order to judge one item in terms of another, but to see how our understanding of the items themselves is enhanced in the process… (Sharma, 2005, p 246). 
 
Arvind Sharma is circumspect with how much we can learn about the other.  As he notes, our understanding is always framed by our own limited experiences.  Only by converting to another point of view can we truly understand their world. Sharma indicates however that we do not have to enter the world of the other.  Rather, the point is to be challenged by the other. In seeking difference, we can extend our understanding of ourselves and thereby realise ‘that apparently different phenomena may also unexpectedly shed similar light’ (Sharma, p 254).   Sharma and Clooney have added an important element to understandings of interfaith dialogue demanding that we see beyond our own preconceived perceptions in order to understand our moral bias. The focus on difference, on learning and on change enables us to view the religious other not as a challenge to our deep-set feelings about our self but as a resource to enable us to explore the mysteries within.  It is this space of difference, learning and change that are essential elements for a theoretical framework of interfaith dialogue from a learning-based perspective.    
 
An interfaith framework 
I have constructed an interfaith framework according to three principles a) recognition of difference, b) learning across difference and c) transformation. In order to explain this framework, I layout each facet and contextualise it with examples from comparative theology in the context of the two questions in the opening paragraph of the introduction; repeated here. 
Does only one religious tradition contain insight into truth or do all?  Can we learn from other traditions or should we hold that our own religious tradition is complete in our journey in our relationship with the divine? 
 
a) Recognition of difference 
Interfaith dialogue takes place in a space of moral tension where identities of both the self and the other are transitive, imagined, self-ascribed and imposed. 
 
Rabbi Erik H Yoffie (2011) makes the point that meaningful dialogue happens when the conversation turns to our religious differences. … when we recognize that absent a clear affirmation of who we are, how we are different and what we truly believe, all our conversations are likely to come to nothing. 
 
A key challenge in Yoffie’s quote is to truly understand the complexity of who we are. It is far easier to refer to both ourselves and to others through the labels we construct.  Anita Ray, Honorary Fellow in the Centre for Inter-religious Dialogue, Faculty of Theology and Philosophy at Australian Catholic University, Melbourne, gives a very good example of such imposed labels applied to the positioning of Australian Aboriginal people. 
Indigenous Australian peoples have been contained within categories that non-Indigenous people have constructed for them. The power-holders in Australia have told them who they are and have scripted their roles, attempting to homogenize them (Ray, 2014, p 64) 
 
Power, categorization and homogenisation are three elements that Ray points to which place the ‘other’ in deficit.   
 
Unfortunately, it is often far easier to relate to the ‘Christian’, the ‘Muslim’ or the ‘pagan’ through the labels we apply to these categories than the people themselves.  As Clooney argues however (2011 n.p.), ‘we should be increasingly reluctant to confuse the necessary shorthand claims we make about religions…with the full, adequate account of those traditions’. The recognition of difference goes far beyond the labels and categories we place on others (and on ourselves).  Rather it is embedded in the moral pursuit of our experiences and in valuing the experiences of others. Recognizing our propensity to categorize and replace experience with labels enables us to navigate our assumptions and judgements from a position of vulnerability.  The following statement, by Paul F. Knitter, Paul Tillich Professor of Theology, World Religions and Culture at Union Theological Seminary, New York (2013 p 15) offers insight into the difference between experience and the potential emptiness of words that so often we use to replace experience. 
 
“God” must be an experience before “God” can be a word. Unless God is an experience, whatever words we might use for the Divine will be without content, like road signs pointing nowhere, like lightbulbs without electricity. 
Buddha would warn Christians…: if you want to use words for God, make sure that these words are preceded by, or at least coming out of, an experience that is your own. 
 
As such, before we can begin to understand the Muslim, the Buddhist, the Jew we must experience what these labels mean from their perspective, not our own.  So often however we see the other with our bias, not our discernment.   
 
Shifting our viewpoint to ‘experience’ rather than the words which describe experience and the labels we apply to otherness enables us to extend our sense of religious identity. From this perspective Knitter makes a profound point in reference to his ‘practice’ of learning from Buddhists.  As Knitter notes (2013, p 155) Buddhists are good at 
 
Unitive experiences in which the self is so transformed that it finds itself through losing itself. And that’s where I believe Christians can learn a lot from Buddhists.  By watching how Buddhists go about achieving their 
‘goals’, Christians can better ’come home’ to their own. 
 
Knitter emphasizes a dimension of faith structured on seeking truth in preference to identifying with defined, constructed and absolute meanings. Coming from a position that questions religious sanctity to favour the individual right to learn, Knitter eschews the moral authority and loyalty of singular religious doctrine to prioritise universal moral fairness. In other words, difference between religions is not in the labels applied to certain groups but in the journey towards evocative questions and nuanced answers (Steinkerchner 2011). 
 
 
b) Learning across difference  
An exploration and negotiation of meanings, objects or aspects of the self through participative structures that affirm and extend a person’s sense of belonging and identity to a more inclusive group through the considered construction of a shared vision, a shared practice or a shared goal. 
 
The theoretical framework of interfaith dialogue constructed above indicates that it is not just recognizing difference that is important but also in bridging difference.  A learning-based approach to dialogue, which highlights the creation of meanings in the vicinity of a wider discourse on reality, brings into focus not just difference but the bridging of difference.  Creating a learning space supporting a more inclusive sense of identity, requires us to identify beyond that which divides us to points of difference we can learn from. 
 
Believers, regardless of one’s religion, are seekers of truth. Haidt (2012) indicates that the pursuit of truth can bring people together who normally would be opposed to each other.  Religious truth however, is always mysterious and elusive. As comparative theologian Scott Steinkerchner argues, ‘None of us individually, nor all of us collectively, possess a complete understanding of our faith. That fullness of truth lies forever in the future’ (2011, p. 149).  
 
The answer to the guiding question of this paper lies is whether we feel comfortable in recognizing the value other religious traditions hold for us in our pursuit of the divine. In a world which traditionally has favoured a singular religious identity, cultural plurality is suggestive that we can no longer treat ‘the other’ as entirely separate from ourselves. What becomes interesting is the moral framework that underpins our positions and thereby how we approach otherness.  
 
Above I argued that we, as individuals have a choice with regards to our moral outlook on reality.  People who identify with a singular narrative, who believe that their religion is clearly defined, clearly bordered and ordained are more likely to base their morality on loyalty, authority and sanctity. By contrast, the more cosmopolitan minded are inclined to prioritise fairness and protection from harm over authority, loyalty and sanctity.  The result is different discourses, and biased understandings of otherness.  
 
Comparative theologians challenge such moral frameworks by practicing a form of deep learning based on the premise that it is not only possible to learn from difference but to deepen one’s relationship with God through difference. Working at the borders of faith enables people who practice thus to both learn from the religious other amd to hear God’s truth in a different way.  From such a perspective the argument that encounter with other faiths can weaken one’s own faith is all part of the journey.  The cultural dissonance through the exposure to challenge 
can create new insights around one’s own faith and one’s own truth. As Knitter would argue, an exclusive approach to religious worship based on a singular moral authority denies the spiritual learning accessible from the diversity of humankind.   
 
c) Transformation 
The enablement of people to initiate a process of mutual action, critical consciousness, and shared humanity for the purpose of positive human change.  
 
The following quote by Clooney extends the discussion above on the value of religious encounter.  
Instead of trying to protect the tradition from the possibility of contamination that goes together with encounter, comparative theologians intentionally move to the borderland of tradition. As go-betweens, they invest in learning from the other, accepting that this also entails disturbing experiences of alienation, disenchantment, and friction (2011, p. 165).  
 
There are two points I wish to highlight in this quote.  One is the focus on invested learning and the other is the ‘alienation, disenchantment, and friction’, associated with such learning.   Transformation in our own lives demand that we learn and take on the challenges around us.  In this regard interfaith dialogue always presents as a choice.  A choice around leaving the theological comfort zone to learn something new. In doing so we will encounter rich learning opportunities that extend our understanding.   Likewise, for interfaith dialogue, seeking difference, rather than similarity and learning from such difference also presents as an unknown journey; but one of rich possibility.   The work of people such as Clooney, Knitter and Sharma informs us that a possible pathway to God lies in neither opposing or agreeing with otherness but rather creating a space of reflection around the doubt. 
 
Conclusion 
I began this paper with two principle related questions. 
 
Does only one religious tradition contain insight into truth or do all?  Can we learn from other traditions or should we hold that our own religious tradition as complete in our relationship with the divine?  
 
In the context of interfaith dialogue my suggestion, based on the ideals of comparative theology, is that we look to explore difference between religions more broadly contextualised through the human need to search for meaning within the vicinity of the divine. A principle challenge lies in the unconscious ways that we see both ourselves and others within the myriad of meanings that constitute our modern lives.  A learning based dialogical approach informed through comparative theology suggests that the value of interfaith dialogue lies not in protecting our viewpoints but in realising our vulnerability.  Doing so enables us to not only to learn but to change and to promote change in others. If we are going to act on the challenges of our capitalistic, spiritually complex and politically divergent world, ‘otherness’ presents not as challenge but a facilitative factor for defining who we are.   
 
   
 
References 
 
Abu-Nimer, M. (1999). Dialogue, Conflict Resolution and Change: Arab-Jewish Encounters in Israel. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.  
Bakhtin, M. (1984). Problems of Dostoevsky’s Poetics Manchester: Manchester University Press. 
Besley, T. and Peters, M. (2011). Intercultural Understanding, ethnocentrism and Western Forms of Dialogue Analysis and Metaphysics 10: 81–100. 
Bohm, D. (1996). On Dialogue, London, Routledge. 
Buber, M. (1965). Between man and man R. G. Smith, Trans... New York: Macmillan. 
Buber, M. (1970). I and thou W. Kaufrnann,Trans., Prologue, & Notes.. New York: Scribner Original 1923. 
Clooney, F. (2011). Comparative Theology: Deep Learning Across Religious Borders, WileyBlackwell, London. 
Escobar, O. (2009). The dialogic turn: dialogue for deliberation InSpire Journal of Law, Politics and Societies Vol. 4, No. 2.  
Fletcher, J.H. (2013). Motherhood as Metaphor: Engendering Interreligious Dialogue. New York: Fordham University Press 
Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed, London: Penguin. 
Gadamer, H.G. (1989). Truth and method 2nd rev. ed., J. Weinsheimer & D.G. Marshall, Trans. New York: Crossroads. 
Habermas, J. (1984). The theory of communicative action: Vol. 1. Reason and the rationalization of society T. McCarthy, Trans. Boston: Beacon Press. 
Haidt, J 2012, The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion, Pantheon Books, New York. 
Haidt, J. (2016). ‘When and Why Nationalism Beats Globalism’ New York University Stern School of Business, https://www.the-american-interest.com/2016/07/10/when-and-whynationalism-beats-globalism/ accessed at 21/01/19 
Keaton, J. A., & Soukup, C. (2009). Dialogue and religious otherness: Toward a model of pluralistic interfaith dialogue. Journal of International and Intercultural Communication, 2(2), 168-187 
Kim, J. & Kim, E.J. (2008). Theorizing dialogic deliberation. Communication Theory, 181:5170. 
Knitter, P. (2013) Without Buddha I Could not be a Christian, Oneworld, Oxford. 
Lederach, J. P. (1995). Preparing for Peace: Conflict Transformation Across Cultures, N.Y: Syracuse. 
Marshall, K. & Van Saanen, M. (2007). Development and faith : where mind, heart, and soul work together (English). Washington, DC: World Bank. 
http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/306861468321857819/Development-andfaith-where-mind-heart-and-soul-work-together  
Moyaert, M. (2013). “Interreligious Dialogue.” In Cheetham, D Pratt, D. and Thomas, D. (eds) Understanding Interreligious Relations Oxford University Press Oxford, pp. 193-217. 
Neufeldt, R. (2011). Interfaith Dialogue: Assessing Theories of Change, Peace & Change 36:3: 344–372. 
Platform for Intercultural Europe & Culture Action Europe (2010). Concepts in practice 
Intercultural Dialogue as an Objective in the EU Culture programme 2007-2013.  
Platform for Intercultural Europe & Culture Action Europe. Accessed 25/01/16. 
www.intercultural-europe.org/docs/intercultural 
dialogue_in_the_Culture_Programme.pdf 
Ray, A (2014) (Re-)discovering comparative theology: An Australian perspective Pacifica 
Vol. 27(1) 50–67. 
Roberts, P. (2005). Freire and Dostoevsky Uncertainty, Dialogue, and Transformation Journal of Transformative Education Vol. 3 No. 2, pp 126-139 
Rule, P. (2004). Dialogic spaces: adult education projects and social engagement, International Journal of Lifelong Education, 23:4:319-334. 
Sharma, A. (2005). Religious studies and comparative methodology : the case for reciprocal illumination, State University of New York Press, Albany 
Steinkerchner, S. (2011) Beyond Agreement. Interreligious Dialogue and Persistent Differences, Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham. 
Stewart, J. & Zediker, K. (2000). Dialogue as tensional, ethical practice. Southern Communication Journal, 65: 224-242. 
Swidler, L. (2013). Dialogue Principles    http://dialogueinstitute.org/dialogue-principles/ 
Volpi, Silvia (2008). Interreligious and Intercultural Dialogue in Youth Work, Symposium Report: Istanbul, 27-31 March 2007– 30 Mar 2008.  
Yoffie, E. H. (2018). Why Interfaith Dialogue Doesn't Work—And What We Can do About it. 
Huffington Post. 2011. http://tinyurl.com/7f2w4th. Retrieved on January 26, 2018 
 
 


A Buddhist Spectrum: Marco Pallis | PDF | Religion And Belief

A Buddhist Spectrum: Marco Pallis | PDF | Religion And Belief



0 ratings0% found this document useful (0 votes)42 views241 pages

A Buddhist Spectrum: Marco Pallis


Original Title:
[Perennial Philosophy] Marco Pallis - A Buddhist Spectrum_ Contributions to the Christian-Buddhist Dialogue (Perennial Philosophy) (2004, World Wisdom) - Libgen.lc

Uploaded byHenrique Silva

Date uploaded
on Nov 11, 2020

Description:
...Full description
Download
0%0% found this document useful, Mark this document as useful
0%0% found this document not useful, Mark this document as not usefulEmbed
SharePrint
SavedRemove [Perennial Philosophy] Marco Pallis - A Buddhist S... from Saved
Jump to Page
You are on page 1of 241
Search inside document



A Buddhist Spectrum
Marco Pallis
Foreword by

Wayne Teasdale
Introduction by

Seyyed Hossein Nasr










Read free for 30 days.

Get 30 days of free Scribd membership when you invite your friends.Invite FriendsInvite friends to join Scribd


About this Book
“Marco Pallis’
A Buddhist Spectrum
is an admirable compendium of perennial wisdom, an authentic summation of Buddhism encom-passing its profoundest truths. It is written in a clear, classicalEnglish that is a delight to read, while daring to confront us with therealities of contemporary life dominated as it is by animalisticatavisms, estranging us from our specific humanness.“Modern ‘economic man,’ Pallis observes, oscillates between theanimal and the
petra
(hungry ghost), alienated as he is from him-self, under the illusions of an infinitely expanding consumption,uninterruptedly propagated as a ‘higher standard of living.’Estranged from ourselves as we are, this noble book can be trustedto overcome some of the almost insurmountable road blocks onour way home.”—
Fredrick Franck
, artist and author of
The Zen of Seeing
and
Messenger of the Heart: The Book of Angelus Silesius
“Marco Pallis’ contribution is unique and inspiring. At once a bril-liant comparative religionist, who moves back and forth with easefrom one tradition to another, seeing the commonalities, parallels,and differences, he is also subtle, wise, and committed to an expe-riential depth of appreciation which is the hallmark of a devotedpractitioner. He doesn’t just talk about Buddhism, he also practicesit, and so its deeper life is available to him … His probing mindunites a talented philosopher gifted in metaphysics with the schol-ar and mystic. [
A Buddhist Spectrum
is] a timeless treasure!”—
Wayne Teasdale
, Catholic Theological Union, authorof
The Mystic Heart: Discovering a Universal Spirituality in the World's Religions
and
A Monk in the World: Cultivating a Spiritual Life












“The work of Marco Pallis radiates a distinctively Buddhist ambi-ence. The tone is less combative and more amiable than that foundin the work of some of the other traditionalists, but he is no lesstough-minded.”—
Kenneth Oldmeadow
, author of
Traditionalism: Religion in the Light of the Perennial Philosophy
and
Journeys East: 20th Century Western Encounters with Eastern Religious Traditions
“Without a doubt, there is no better introduction to the mainnotions of Buddhism for the Western mind than this famous classic.Indeed,
A Buddhist Spectrum
is remarkable for its ability to convey, ina very elegant and persuasive manner, difficult and sometimes mis-understood aspects of this Eastern religion. Many misinterpreta-tions can be avoided by readers who encounter Buddhism for thefirst time through this book, as well as by more advanced ones.”—
Jean-Pierre Lafouge
, Marquette University“An honest and creative attempt to interpret Buddhist teachingsand apply them to basic religious issues that are alive today.
A Buddhist Spectrum
will be an appropriate resource for courses incomparative religion.”—
Joel Brereton
, Columbia University

Catholic Buddhist Mystic, Thomas Merton's Teachings 2011

Catholic Buddhist Mystic, Thomas Merton's Teachings | PDF | Mysticism | Revelation

THOMAS MERTON: THE CATHOLIC BUDDHIST MYSTIC

July 19, 2011 (first published September 11, 2008) (David Cloud, Fundamental Baptist Information Service, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061, 866-295-4143, fbns@wayoflife.org; for instructions about subscribing and unsubscribing or changing addresses, see the information paragraph at the end of the article) -

The following is excerpted from our book Contemplative Mysticism: A Powerful Ecumenical Bond. 

This book is available from Way of Life Literature, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061, 866-295 -4143, www.wayoflife.org (online catalog), fbns@wayoflife.org (e-mail). 
___________________

Thomas Merton (1915-68), was a Roman Catholic Trappist monk whose writings are influential within Catholicism, the New Age movement, the peace movement, as well as the centering prayer movement that lies at the heart of the emerging church and that is permeating evangelicalism. Richard Foster quotes Merton at least 14 times in his popular book Celebration of Discipline.
Merton was a prolific author. Nearly 70 of his books were published during his lifetime or posthumously. His autobiography, The Seven Storey Mountain, sold 600,000 hardbound copies in its first year and millions of copies since. It has been continually in print since 1948. His books have been translated into at least 29 languages.
Merton was involved with the peace movement during the Vietnam War. He was closely associated with the pacifist anti-Americans Daniel and Philip Berrigan and Dorothy Day. The Thomas Merton Center for Peace and Justice carries on this philosophy. 
Merton has been called “the most influential proponent of traditional monasticism in American history” (Ursula King, Christian Mystics, p. 229).
Ray Yungen says: 
“What Martin Luther King was to the civil rights movement and what Henry Ford was to the automobile, Thomas Merton is to contemplative prayer. Although this prayer movement existed centuries before he came along, Merton took it out of its monastic setting and made it available to and popular with the masses” (A Time of Departing, p. 58). 
Born in France, Merton was baptized in a Protestant denomination as an infant, though he was not a practicing Christian. After moving to America, he joined the Catholic Church. This occurred in 1938. The first step was a visit to a mass, which was prompted by “a sweet, strong, gentle, clean urge which said: ‘Go to Mass! Go to Mass!’” (Jim Forest, Living with Wisdom: A Life of Thomas Merton, p. 56). Merton said that afterwards he was filled with peace and contentment. The mystical power of the mass has been influential in the conversion of many people who are not spiritually regenerated and grounded in God’s Word. Soon thereafter, while reading the biography of Gerard Hopkins, a convert to Catholicism who became a Jesuit priest, Merton felt an impulsive stirring. “All of a sudden, something began to stir within me, something began to push me, to prompt me. It was a movement that spoke like a voice. What are you waiting for? Why do you still hesitate? You know what you ought to do? Why don’t you do it? It’s useless to hesitate any longer” (Forest, pp. 58, 59). Instead of testing this impulse by the Scriptures, Merton obeyed. He found a priest and said, “Father, I want to become a Catholic.” 
In 1941, Merton was accepted as a monk into the Order of Reformed Cistercians, otherwise known as Trappists. He spent 27 years in the Abbey of Our Lady of Gethsemani monastery, located near Louisville, Kentucky. It is dedicated to Mary, and all of the monks bear her name. Merton’s name was changed to Frater Maria Ludovicus or Brother Mary Louis. In Merton’s day, the monastery followed a strict ascetic discipline. Most of the time the monks observed silence, communicating by sign language. They abstained from meat, with a typical meal consisting of bread, potatoes, an apple, and barley coffee. They slept in their robes on straw-covered boards in unheated dormitories, their sleeping cubicles separated only by shoulder-high partitions. Hot water was available two days a week. Each Friday the monks lashed their own backs with small whips. They could communicate with those outside the monastery only four times a year via half-page letters that were read by a superior before being posted, and they could not leave the monastery even to attend the funeral of a parent. The daily routine, which began long before sunrise with prayers and chanting, consisted of physical labor punctuated by prescribed periods of study and worship. 
For three years, Merton lived as a hermit. He said: “This solitude confirms my call to solitude. The more I’m in it, the more I love it. One day it will possess me entirely, and no man will ever see me again” (Soul Searching: The Journey of Thomas Merton, 2007, DVD). 
Merton was committed to Rome’s foundational heresies such as the papacy, the mass, baptismal regeneration, prayers to the saints, and salvation through works (Merton, Spiritual Direction and Meditation, pp. 62, 71, 72, 74, 108). 
Merton considered the host, the consecrated wafer of the mass, to be Christ. He venerated it as Christ and prayed to it as Christ. Consider the following quotes from his autobiography
“And I saw the raised Host--the silence and simplicity with which Christ once again triumphed, raised up, drawing all things to Himself ... Christ, hidden in the small Host, was giving Himself for me, and to me, and, with Himself, the entire Godhead and Trinity...” (The Seven Storey Mountain, 1998 edition, pp. 245, 246).
“All these people, workmen, poor women, students, clerks, singing the Latin hymn to the Blessed Sacrament written by St. Thomas Aquinas. I fixed my eyes on the monstrance, on the white Host. ... I looked straight at the Host, and I knew, now, Who it was that I was looking at, and I said: ‘Yes, I want to be a priest, with all my heart I want it. If it is Your will, make me a priest’...” (The Seven Storey Mountain, pp. 279, 280).
“I was in the Church of St. Francis at Havana. ... I had come here to hear another Mass. ... Then ... there formed in my mind an awareness, an understanding, a realization of what had just taken place on the altar, at the Consecration: a realization of God made present by the words of Consecration in a way that made Him belong to me. ... a sudden and immediate contact had been established between my intellect and the Truth Who was now physically really and substantially before me on the altar” (pp. 310, 311).
Merton was a great venerator of Mary. As we have seen, his monastery is dedicated to Mary. Its chapel is called “the chapel of Our Lady of Victories.” The first time Merton visited Gethsemani Abbey he described it as “the Court of the Queen of Heaven” (John Talbot, The Way of the Mystic, p. 221). Merton named his little hermitage “the hermitage of Saint Mary of Carmel” and said that she was “queen of mine to the end of the ages” (Living with Wisdom, p. 143). Merton’s autobiography is filled with passionate statements about Mary. He calls her Our Lady, Glorious Mother of God, Queen of Angels, Holy Queen of Heaven, Most High Queen of Heaven, Mediatrix of All Grace, Our Lady of Solitude, Immaculate Virgin, Blessed Virgin, and Holy Queen of souls and refuge of sinners. He dedicated himself to her and prayed to her continually. Consider the following samples:
“Glorious Mother of God, shall I ever again distrust you, or your God, before Whose throne you are irresistible in your intercession? ... As you have dealt with me, Lady, deal also with my millions of brothers who live in the same misery that I knew then: lead them in spite of themselves and guide them by your tremendous influence, O Holy Queen of souls and refuge of sinners, and bring them to your Christ the way you brought me” (Merton, The Seven Storey Mountain, pp. 143, 144).
“One of the big defects of my spiritual life in that first year was a lack of devotion to the Mother of God. I believed in the truths which the Church teaches about Our Lady, and I said the ‘Hail Mary’ when I prayed, but that is not enough. People do not realize the tremendous power of the Blessed Virgin. They do not know who she is: that IT IS THROUGH HER HANDS ALL GRACES COME 
BECAUSE GOD HAS WILLED THAT SHE THUS PARTICIPATE IN HIS WORK FOR THE
SALVATION OF MEN. ... She is the Mother of the supernatural life in us. Sanctity comes to us through her intercession. God has willed that there be no other way” (The Seven Storey Mountain, p. 251).
“When we crossed over the divide and were going down through the green valley towards the Caribbean Sea, I saw the yellow Basilica of Our Lady of Cobre [in Cuba] ... ‘There you are, Caridad del Cobre! [Merton was praying to La Caridad, the black Madonna, the Queen of Cuba] It is you that I have come to see; you will ask Christ to make me His priest, and I will give you my heart, Lady: and if you will obtain for me this priesthood, I will remember you at my first Mass...” (p. 308).
“I realized truly whose house that was, O glorious Mother of God! ... It is very true that the Cistercian Order is your special territory and that those monks in white cowls are your special servants ... Their houses are all yours--Notre Dame, Notre Dame, all around the world. Notre Dame de Gethsemani ... I think the century of Chartres was most of all your century, my Lady, because it spoke of you clearest not only in word but in glass and stone, showing you for who you are, most powerful, most glorious, MEDIATRIX OF ALL GRACE, and the most High Queen of Heaven, high above all the angels, and throned in glory near the throne of your Divine Son” (p. 352).
Merton also prayed to a variety of Catholic saints, including Therese of Lisieux. He says, “I was immediately and strongly attracted to her” (The Seven Storey Mountain, p. 388). He not only prayed to her but he also dedicated himself to her, vowing, “If I get into the monastery, I will be your monk” (p. 400).
Merton was heavily involved in Catholic contemplative mysticism. He pursued the heschastic tradition of Eastern Orthodoxy, which is highly mystical and observes such things as the Jesus Prayer. This involves the repetition of a word or phrase such as “Lord Jesus Christ Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner.” Ancient monastic contemplative manuals suggest that this be repeated from 3,000 to 12,000 times a day (Tony Jones, The Sacred Way, p. 60). Commonly the practitioner is taught not to think on the words but to allow them to speak to him “intuitively.” This is an attempt to go beyond the words of the Bible, beyond doctrinal conceptions, to a direct experience of God.
From the writings of John of the Cross, Merton learned the “path of the negative,” which refers to pursuing God through experience rather than through defining God by Bible doctrine. Merton’s 1951 book Ascent to Truth was devoted to this idea. “It was through John that Merton had been introduced to the via negative, or apophatic tradition, a spiritual path founded on the awareness that any and all attempts to define God are inadequate. One can better say that God is not, for God is not an idea, not a concept...” (Living with Wisdom, p. 106). Merton wrote, “We must always walk in darkness. We must travel in silence. We must fly by night” (Ascent to Truth, p. 179). 
This is blind mysticism and idolatry. “All attempts to define God are NOT inadequate,” because the Bible’s definition of God is divinely inspired and infallible. If one’s pursuit of God is not confined by the revelation of Scripture, the seeker is left to his own imagination and is in danger of being deluded by doctrines of devils. The believer does not stumble after God in darkness but knows God through faith in the wonderful light of divine Revelation.
Merton was also influenced by Julian of Norwich, who called Jesus “our Mother.” This mystic “helped to open the door to Merton’s exploration of God’s feminine dimension” (Living with Wisdom, p. 144). 
Merton believed that contemplative mysticism is the key to Christian unity. He said, “If I can unite in myself the thought and the devotion of Eastern and Western Christendom, the Greek and the Latin Fathers, the Russian with the Spanish mystics, I can prepare in myself the reunion of divided Christians” (Living with Wisdom, p. 129).
From the mystical idolatry of the Roman Catholic variety, it is not a great leap to mystical idolatry of the pagan variety, and Merton made that leap in a big way. He was “a strong builder of bridges between East and West” (Twentieth-Century Mystics, p. 39). 
It was a Hindu monk named Bramachari who originally encouraged Merton to pursue the “Christian mystical tradition.” This was before Merton even converted to Catholicism. Bramachari said to Merton: “There are many beautiful mystical books written by the Christians. You should read St. Augustine’s Confessions, and The Imitation of Christ. ... Yes, you must read those books” (The Seven Storey Mountain, pp. 216, 217). Ray Yungen observes, “Bramachari understood that Merton didn’t need to switch to Hinduism to get the same enlightenment that he himself experienced through the Hindu mystical tradition” (A Time of Departing, p. 199). 
Merton was also influenced by Aldous Huxley, who found enlightenment through hallucinogenic drugs and was one of the first Westerners to promote Buddhism. Henri Nouwen said that Huxley brought Merton “to a deeper level of knowledge” and was his first contact with mysticism (Thomas Merton: Contemplative Critic, 1991, pp. 19, 20).
“He had read widely and deeply and intelligently in all kinds of Christian and Oriental mystical literature, and had come out with the astonishing truth that all this, far from being a mixture of dreams and magic and charlatanism, was very real and very serious” (Nouwen, Thomas Merton, p. 20).
Alan Altany observes:
“The pre-Christian Merton had come across Aldous Huxley’s book on mysticism, Ends and Means, which sowed an attraction for not only mysticism in general, but for apophatic mysticism--meaning a knowledge of God obtained by negation--that would enable him to later relate to Buddhist teachings about the Void and Emptiness” (“The Thomas Merton Connection,” Fall 2000, http://www.thomasmertonsociety.org/altany2.htm). 
Huxley was Merton’s introduction into Buddhism, a religion that he pursued extensively during his years at Gethsemani beginning in about 1952. Merton studied the teachings of Zen master D.T. Suzuki and Buddhist monk Thich Nhat Hanh. 
After meeting Thich Nhat Hanh, Merton said, “... he and I see things in exactly the same way” (Faith and Violence, quoted in Living with Wisdom, p. 215). When Merton wrote to D.T. Suzuki in 1959, he said, “Time after time, as I read your pages, something in me says, ‘That’s it!’ ... So there it is, in all its beautiful purposelessness” (Living with Wisdom, p. 213).
Merton also studied mystical Islamic Sufism. He said, “I’m deeply impregnated with Sufism” (Rob Baker and Gray Henry, Merton and Sufism, 1999, p. 109).
Sufis “chant the name of Allah as a mantra, go into meditative trances and experience God in everything” (Yungen, p. 59). They seek to achieve “fana,” which is “the act of merging with the Divine Oneness.” Some Sufis use dance and music to attain mystical union with God. I observed the “whirling dervish” ritual in Istanbul in April 2008. As they whirl in a trance-like state to the music, the Sufi mystics raise the palm of one hand to heaven and the other to the earth, to channel the mystical experience. 
The Yoga Journal makes the following observation:
“Merton had encountered Zen Buddhism, Sufism, Taoism and Vedanta many years prior to his Asian journey. MERTON WAS ABLE TO UNCOVER THE STREAM WHERE THE WISDOM OF EAST AND WEST MERGE AND FLOW TOGETHER, BEYOND DOGMA, IN THE DEPTHS OF INNER 
EXPERIENCE. ... Merton embraced the spiritual philosophies of the East and integrated this wisdom into (his) own life through direct practice” (Yoga Journal, Jan.-Feb. 1999, quoted from the Lighthouse Trails web site). 
Eventually Merton claimed to be both a Buddhist and a Christian. The titles of his books included Zen and the Birds of the Appetite, The Way of Chuang Tzu, and Mystics and the Zen Masters. 
Merton also said that he was both a Buddhist and a Hindu:
“I see no contradiction between Buddhism and Christianity. The future of Zen is in the West. I INTEND TO BECOME AS GOOD A BUDDHIST AS I CAN” (David Steindl-Rast, “Recollection of Thomas Merton’s Last Days in the West,” Monastic Studies, 7:10, 1969, http://www.gratefulness.org/readings/dsr_merton_recol2.htm, this report contains quotations from Merton’s talks at the Our Lady of the Redwoods Abbey in Whitethorn, California, in late 1968 on his way to Asia where he died).
“You have to see your will and God’s will dualistically for a long time. You have to experience duality for a long time until you see it’s not there. IN THIS RESPECT I AM A HINDU [here he was saying that he believed in Hindu monism rather than Christian dualism; that God is all and all is God]. Ramakrishna has the solution. ... Openness is all” (“Recollection of Thomas Merton’s Last Days in the West,” Monastic Studies, 7:10, 1969, http://www.gratefulness.org/readings/dsr_merton_recol2.htm).
“Asia, Zen, Islam, etc., all these things come together in my life. It would be madness for me to attempt to create a monastic life for myself by excluding all these” (quoted by Rob Baker and Gray Henry, Merton and Sufism, p. 41).
“I believe that by openness to Buddhism, to Hinduism, and to these great Asian traditions, we stand a wonderful chance of learning more about the potentiality of our own Christian traditions” (quoted by William Shannon, Silent Lamp, 1992, p. 276).
“I think I couldn’t understand Christian teaching the way I do if it were not in the light of Buddhism” (Frank Tuoti, The Dawn of the Mystical Age, 1997, p. 127).
(On a visit to the Abbey of Gethsemani’s bookstore in June 2009, I saw many books on display that promote interfaith unity. These include Zen Keys by Thich Nhat Hanh, Bhagavad Gita (Hindu scriptures), Buddhists Talk about Jesus and Christians Talk about Buddha, Meeting Islam: A Guide for Christians, and Jesus in the World’s Faiths.)
Merton defined mysticism as an experience with God beyond words. In a speech to monks of eastern religions in Calcutta in October 1968, he said: 
“... the deepest level of communication is not communication, but communion. IT IS WORDLESS. IT IS BEYOND WORDS, AND IT IS BEYOND SPEECH, and it is BEYOND CONCEPT” (“Thomas
Merton’s View of Monasticism,” a talk delivered at Calcutta, October 1978, The Asian Journal of Thomas Merton, Appendix III, 1975 edition, p. 308). 
Of Chuang Tzu (also called Zhuang Tze), a Chinese sage and one of the authors of Taoist principles, Merton said, “Chuang Tzu is not CONCERNED WITH WORDS AND FORMULAS about reality, but with the direct existential grasp of reality in itself” (Merton, The Way of Chuang Tzu, pp. 10-11). Merton called Chuang Tzu “my kind of person.” 
The Bible warns that “evil communications corrupt good manners” (1 Cor. 15:33), and it is therefore not surprising that Merton was deeply influenced by his intimate association with pagan religions. Eventually he denied the God of the Bible, the reality of sin, the separation of man from God because of sin, the necessity of Christ’s atonement, the bodily resurrection, and hell. 
Merton’s deep association with contemplative mysticism also resulted in his belief in panentheism, that God is in everything and that all men are united in God, and that within man is a pure spark of divinity. While standing at an intersection in Louisville in 1958, Merton says that he had an epiphany that he described as follows.
“In Louisville, at the corner of Fourth and Walnut,* in the center of the shopping district, I was suddenly overwhelmed with the realization that I loved all those people, that they were mine and I theirs, that we could not be alien to one another even though we were total strangers. ... Then it was as if I suddenly saw the SECRET BEAUTY OF THEIR HEART, THE DEPTHS OF THEIR HEARTS WHERE NEITHER SIN nor desire nor self-knowledge CAN REACH, the core of their reality, the person that each one is in God’s eyes. If only they could all see themselves as they really are. If only we could see each other that way all the time. There would be no more war, no more hatred, no more cruelty, no more greed. ... I SUPPOSE THE BIG PROBLEM WOULD BE THAT WE WOULD FALL DOWN AND WORSHIP EACH OTHER. 
“AT THE CENTER OF OUR BEING IS A POINT OF NOTHINGNESS THAT IS UNTOUCHED 
BY SIN and by illusion, a point of pure truth, a point or spark which belongs entirely to God, which is never at our disposal, from which God disposes our lives, which is inaccessible to the fantasies of our own mind or the brutalities of our will. This little point of nothingness and of absolute poverty is THE PURE GLORY OF GOD IN US. ... It is so to speak His name written in us, as our poverty, as our indigence, as our dependence, as our sonship. It is like a pure diamond, blazing with the invisible light of heaven. IT IS IN EVERYBODY, and if we could see it we would see these billions of points of light coming together in the face and blaze of a sin that would make all darkness and cruelty of life vanish completely. .... THE GATE OF HEAVEN IS EVERYWHERE” (Merton, Conjectures of a Guilty Bystander, pp. 140-142). (* Walnut was later renamed Muhammed Ali Blvd., and in 2008 the intersection was named Thomas Merton Square.)
This mystical experience was a denial of the Bible. It denies the Bible’s teaching that all men are lost sinners separated from God, that salvation is only through faith in the blood of Christ, and that God alone is God. 
Through his study of contemplative Catholic and pagan mysticism, Merton became a universalist of sorts. Nowhere did he say that Buddhists, Hindus, and Sufis worshipped false gods or that they were hell-bound because they do not believe in the Christ of the Bible. When writing about Zen Buddhists, Merton always assumed that they were communing with the same “ground of Being” that he himself had found through Catholic monasticism.
Merton said that monks of all religions are “brothers” and are “already one.” At an interfaith meeting in Calcutta, India, in 1968, sponsored by the Temple of Understanding, Merton said:
“I came with the notion of perhaps saying something for monks and to monks of all religions because I am supposed to be a monk. ... My dear brothers, WE ARE ALREADY ONE. BUT WE IMAGINE THAT WE ARE NOT. And what we have to recover is our original unity. What we have to be is what we are” (“Thomas Merton’s View of Monasticism,” a talk delivered at Calcutta, October 1968, The Asian Journal of Thomas Merton, 1975 edition, appendix III, p. 308).
Merton used the terms God, Krishna, and Tao interchangeably.
“It is in surrendering a false and illusory liberty on the superficial level that man unites himself with the inner ground of reality and freedom in himself which is the will of God, of Krishna, of Providence, of Tao” (“The Significance of the Bhagavad-Gita,” The Asian Journal of Thomas Merton, appendix ix, p. 353).
Merton claimed that there is no reason to believe that God has not revealed himself to other religions.
“Since in practice we must admit that God is in no way limited in His gifts, and since there is no reason to think that He cannot impart His light to other men without first consulting us, THERE CAN
BE NO ABSOLUTELY SOLID GROUNDS FOR DENYING THE POSSIBILITY OF SUPERNATURAL (PRIVATE) REVELATION AND OF SUPERNATURAL MYSTICAL GRACES TO INDIVIDUALS, NO MATTER WHERE THEY MAY BE OR WHAT MAY BE THEIR 
RELIGIOUS TRADITION, provided that they sincerely seek God and His truth. Nor is there any a priori basis for denying that the great prophetic and religious figures of Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc., could have been mystics, in the true, that is, supernatural, sense of the word” (Mystics and Zen Masters, p. 207). 
Merton could only write such a thing because he rejected the Bible as his sole authority for truth. Of course, God doesn’t have to consult us about anything, but He has chosen to reveal His mind in the Scripture and the Scripture plainly states that there is no salvation apart from faith in Jesus Christ. “He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him” (John 3:26). In John 10, Jesus said that He is only the door to God’s sheepfold, and “he that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber” (John 10:1). 
Merton described mankind as “persons within whom God exists” and said that man glorifies God simply by being what he is (Twentieth-Century Mystics, p. 35). 
Merton begins his book Mystics and Zen Masters with a positive review of the evolutionary, universalist, cosmic Christ theories of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin and R.C. Zaehner. Nowhere does he renounce these views. Merton writes:
“This implies, according to the Teilhardian view, a recognition that Christianity itself is the fruit of evolution and that the world has from the beginning, knowingly or not, been converging upon the Lord of History as upon its ‘personal center’ of fulfillment and meaning. ... We are thus in ‘the passage from an epoch of individual despairs to one of shared hope in an ever richer material and spiritual life.’
“[Zaehner] sees an evolution in mysticism from the contemplation that seeks to discover and rest in the spiritual essence of the individual nature, to a higher personalist mysticism which transcends nature and the individual self in God together with other men in the Mystical Christ” (Mystics and Zen Masters, 1967, p. 5). 
In his last speech, Merton called “original sin” a myth (“Marxism and Monastic Perspectives,” a talk delivered at Bangkok on December 10, 1968, The Asian Journal of Thomas Merton, appendix VII, p. 332). 
Merton rejected the view that non-Christians are lost sinners who are “all corrupted in their inner heart” and deceived by the devil (Mystics and Zen Masters, p. 206). 
This, of course, is exactly what the Bible says about the individual who does not believe on Christ and submit to God’s Word in the Bible. Such an individual has no light (Isaiah 8:20) and has a deceived and desperately wicked heart (Jeremiah 17:9). He is dead in trespasses and sins (Ephesians 2:1), controlled by the devil (Eph. 2:2), “having no hope, and without God in the world” (Eph. 2:12). 
Merton was also influenced by Jungian psychology. In 1956, he participated in a two-week seminar at St. John’s University in Minnesota on psychiatry and its application to religious life. In 1959, Merton began undergoing psychoanalysis with Dr. James Wygal in Louisville. Merton believed Carl Jung’s theory that the “I” that is self-conscious is not the real “I,” but that the real “I” is already “united to God in Christ” and the self-conscious “I” will eventually disappear. He did not write that this as true only for believers in Christ but for mankind in general (Twentieth-Century Mystics, p. 35). 
Merton has been at the forefront of the modern interfaith movement that is powered by contemplative practices: 
“Thomas Merton was perhaps the greatest popularizer of interspirituality. He opened the door for Christians to explore other traditions, notably Taoism, Hinduism and Buddhism” (Wayne Teasdale, Mystic Heart: Discovering a Universal Spirituality in the World’s Religions).
“Merton was consciously trying to relate the mystical insights of other traditions with his own Christian faith” (Teasdale, A Monk in the World, p. 181).
In 1958, Merton wrote to Pope John XXIII for permission to conduct interfaith dialogues, and in February 1960 he received permission from the Vatican to pursue this project in a “discreet” manner” (Living with Wisdom, p. 141). This was a foreview of the door that opened up for interfaith dialogue following the Second Vatican Council. The pope was so impressed with Merton that he presented him with the stole that he wore during his papal coronation. Today this resides in the Thomas Merton Center at Bellarmine College in Louisville.
Merton believed that the key to interfaith dialogue is to ignore doctrine and to focus on mystic contemplative experience.
“Personally, in matters where dogmatic beliefs differ, I think that controversy is of little value because it takes us away from the spiritual realities into the realm of words and ideas ... But much more important is the sharing of the experience of divine light ... It is here that the area of fruitful dialogue exists between Christianity and Islam” (Rob Baker and Gray Henry, Merton and Sufism, p. 109).
Actually, what Merton found in meditation was the same as what Mother Teresa found: darkness. He said:
“God, my God, God who I meet in darkness, with you it is always the same thing, always the same question that nobody knows how to answer. I’ve prayed to you in the daytime with thoughts and reasons, and in the nighttime. I’ve explained to you a hundred times my motives for entering the monastery, and you have listened and said nothing. And I have turned away and wept with shame. Perhaps the most urgent and practical renunciation is the renunciation of all questions, because I have begun to realize that you never answer when I expect” (Soul Searching: The Journey of Thomas Merton, 2007, DVD).
“The hermit, all day and all night, beats his head against a wall of doubt. That is his contemplation” (quoted from Tony Jones, The Sacred Way, p. 41).
Merton was powerfully influenced by dreams, because he did not test them by Scripture. Beginning in 1958, he had dreams of a Jewish girl who embraced him in non-judgmental love. He identified her with the mythical “Hagia Sophia” (holy wisdom) of Eastern Orthodoxy, which is supposed to represent the femine aspect of God and the unity of God with creation. Merton called the girl “Proverb” and even wrote letters to her. Merton believed that she symbolized the tenderness of God that permeates all of creation. “There is in all things an inexhaustible sweetness and purity, a silence that is a fount of action and of joy. It rises up in wordless gentleness and flows out to me from the unseen roots of all created being” (Living with Wisdom, p. 147). 
This is more universalistic, panentheistic nonsense, but it was encouraged by Merton’s dreams.
In 1964, Proverb appeared to Merton as “a Chinese princess who had come to spend the day with him.” He interpreted this as permission to pursue “the wisdom of the Far East” (Living with Wisdom, p. 181).
(For more about the role of dreams in demonic delusion, see the entry on “Sue Monk Kidd” in the Directory of Contemplative Mystics at the end of this book.)
When Merton was 51 and was in the hospital for a back operation, he developed a romantic relationship with his 24-year-old nurse (who “bore a striking resemblance to the Proverb of his dreams”). He pursued this relationship over a period of months during his trips out of the monastery
for follow up and rehabilitation. According to Soul Searching: The Journey of Thomas Merton, he broke “all his vows” but he did not marry the girl.
In 1968, Merton took the trip of his dreams, to visit India, Ceylon, Singapore, and Thailand, to experience the places where his beloved eastern religions were born. He said, “I’m going home, to a home I’ve never been in this body.” 
When he arrived in Calcutta, Merton said that he had come to Asia as a pilgrim seeking wisdom from “ancient sources”:
“I come as a pilgrim who is anxious to obtain not just information, not just ‘facts’ about other monastic traditions, but to drink from ancient sources of monastic vision and experience” (The Asian Journal of Thomas Merton, pp. 312, 313).
One of his goals was to search out a location for a Christian-Buddhist monastery. He described this in his diary of the trip in connection with a conversation with a Buddhist leader in Sri Lanka (Ceylon). 
“We talked long about my idea of Buddhist dialogue and of a meditation monastery that would be open to Buddhism” (The Asian Journal of Thomas Merton, p. 218).
In India, Merton met with the Dalai Lama three times and said that “there is a real spiritual bond between us” (The Asian Journal of Thomas Merton, 1975 edition, p. 125). The Dalai Lama agreed. When he visited Merton’s grave at Gethsemani Abbey, he said, “Now our spirits are one” (http://www.americancatholic.org/Messenger/Jan1997/feature1.asp 10/8/2002).
In Sri Lanka, Merton visited a Buddhist shrine by the ocean at Polonnaruwa, the ancient capitol. 
“The path dips down to Gal Vihara: a wide, quiet, hollow, surrounded with trees. A low outcrop of rock, with a cave cut into it, and beside the cave a big seated Buddha on the left, a reclining Buddha on the right, and Ananda, I guess, standing by the head of the reclining Buddha. In the cave, another seated Buddha. The vicar general, shying away from ‘paganism,’ hangs back and sits under a tree reading the guidebook. I am able to approach the Buddhas barefoot and undisturbed, my feet in wet grass, wet sand. Then the silence of the extraordinary faces. The great smiles. Huge and yet subtle. Filled with every possibility, questioning nothing, knowing everything, rejecting nothing ... without trying to discredit anyone or anything--without refutation--without establishing some other argument” (The Asian Journal, p. 233). 
This alleged wisdom is a complete denial of the Bible, which teaches us that there is truth and there is error, light and darkness, God and Satan, and they are not one. The apostle John said, “And we know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness” (1 John 5:19). True wisdom lies in testing all things by God’s infallible Revelation and rejecting that which is false. Proverbs says, “The simple believeth every word: but the prudent man looketh well to his going” (Prov. 14:15).
Merton described his visit to the stone Buddhas as an experience of great illumination, a vision of “inner clearness.” His complete capitulation to paganism was evident in the words that he wrote about his experience with the idols: 
“The thing about all this is that there is no puzzle, no problem, and really no ‘mystery.’ All problems are resolved and everything is clear, simply because what matters is clear. The rock, all matter, all life, is charged with dharmakaya ... Everything is emptiness and everything is compassion. I don’t know when in my life I have ever had such a sense of beauty and spiritual validity running together in one aesthetic illumination” (The Asian Journal, p. 235). 
Dharmakaya refers to the eternal aspect of Buddha. Merton was expressing the panentheistic belief that God permeates everything. 
This was a demonic delusion on par with Merton’s mystical experiences with the Mass and Mary.
 
Page 
Six days later, Merton was in Bangkok, Thailand, participating in an interfaith dialogue of contemplatives. The conference began with a welcoming address from the Supreme Patriarch of Thai Buddhism (Living with Wisdom, p. 235). In the final talk of his life, Merton said:
“I believe that by openness to Buddhism, to Hinduism, and to these great Asian traditions, we stand a wonderful chance of learning more about the potentiality of our own [Christian] traditions, because they have gone, from the natural point of view, so much deeper into this than we have. ... Now I will disappear from view, and we can all go have a Coke or something” (Merton: A Film Biography, 1984). He then went to his cottage and was electrocuted by a faulty fan switch. He was fifty-three years old.
As we have seen, Merton’s influence has been great. His books, which have sold by the millions, have been translated into many languages. There is an International Thomas Merton Society (with national branches in 15 countries), a Thomas Merton Studies Center, a Thomas Merton Foundation, and a Merton Institute for Contemplative Living. 
Merton has hundreds of disciples in the Roman Catholic Church, including David Steindle-Rast, M. Basil Pennington, William Johnston, Henri Nouwen, Philip St. Romain, William Shannon, and James Finley. 
_________________
This report is excerpted from our book Contemplative Mysticism: A Powerful Ecumenical Bond. This book is available from Way of Life Literature, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061, 866-2954143, www.wayoflife.org (online catalog), fbns@wayoflife.org (e-mail).
____________________________

Distributed by Way of Life Literature's Fundamental Baptist Information Service, an e-mail listing for 
Fundamental Baptists and other fundamentalist, Bible-believing Christians. Established in 1974, Way of Life Literature is a fundamental Baptist preaching and publishing ministry based in Bethel Baptist Church, London, Ontario, of which Wilbert Unger is the founding Pastor. Brother Cloud lives in South Asia where he has been a church planting missionary since 1979. 


A Monk in the World by Wayne Teasdale - Ebook | Scribd

A Monk in the World by Wayne Teasdale - Ebook | Scribd


Ebook286 pages7 hours
A Monk in the World: Cultivating a Spiritual Life


By Wayne Teasdale
Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

3.5/5

(3 ratings)


Included in your subscription

About this ebook
The Mystic Heart chronicled Brother Wayne Teasdale's journey into a multifaceted spirituality blending his traditional Catholic training and the Eastern way of sannyasa (Indian monkhood). A Monk in the World tells what the journey has meant for him — living as a monk outside the monastery, integrating teachings from the world's religions with his own Catholic training, combining his vigorous spiritual practice with the necessities of making a living, and pursuing a course of social justice in a major American city. In telling his story, Teasdale shows how others can find their own internal monastery and bring spiritual practice into their busy lives.


Switch to audiobook
Read now


Author

Wayne Teasdale

Wayne Teasdale was a lay monk and best-selling author of

 The Mystic Heart: Discovering a Universal Spirituality in the World's Religions, 

Bede Griffiths: An Introduction to His Interspiritual Thought, and

 A Monk in the World. 


As a member of the Bede Griffiths International Trust, Teasdale was an adjunct professor at DePaul University, Columbia College, and the Catholic Theological Union in Chicago. Wayne Teasdale was editor of Awakening the Spirit, Inspiring the Soul: 30 Stories of Interspiritual Discovery.