the mystical life has never much trafficked in the literalistic interpretations of fundamentalism or syllogisms of rationalism instead, its

hallmark, traditionally, has pretty much always entailed being provocative in employing rhetorical devices that can creatively exploit ambiguity, evoke curiosity & encourage engagement with paradox (nowadays, if it so happens to sell more books, that's incidental - wink, wink) all usually much ado about nothing (nada, nada, nada) to the infernal dismay of heresy hunters as the ambiguity usually gets clarifed right before the sticks are ignited at the stake of those eternal mystical mischief makers far from being inartful, then, such rhetoric is, instead, an ancient artform at any rate, few people engage 3 minute video clips or 3 paragraph written excerpts, especially of those sayings that are hyberbolic and provocative, without further investigating a spiritual guru's other teachings and most certainly not without trying to emulate the teacher's other practices (that's indeed the intent and purpose of such hyberbole) this is to suggest that few will ever wrench such sayings out of their context in the whole and then swell them to madness in their isolation besides, having a sacramental theology exactly right in one's mind, much less an ontotheology, does not much interfere with the value-realizations that accrue to the manifold & multiform practices of the faith, which moreso express reasons of the heart if this applies to such grand sacred mysteries as the eucharist, it certainly applies to what might be going on during a 20 minute nondiscurive sit, and most especially in those situations where one has properly taken the counsel to commit to both, such as would come from any true catholic contemplative


Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful