[Buddha-l] RE: Article of possible interest--correction

[Joy Vriens]

Lance,

>>Old stuff no doubt, but sometimes it's good to be reminded of it.  
>>Henri Delacroix, was a student of Henri Bergson and a disciple of  
>>William James. In Les grands mystiques chrétiens, Delacroix studies  
>>"primary sources", i.e. autobiographic material written by the great  
>>Christian mystics themselves. 

>  We have to remember that many of them were writing at times when  
>unorthodox ideas were often punished with death, if you didn't keep  
>quiet. 

Some unorthodox ideas become orthodox in time, others are not accepted for various sometimes arbitrary reasons. Any new idea or development in a religion is somehow unorthodox. Hard to say why in the evolution of a religion some ideas are considered orthodox and others not. The mystics in Delacroix's book may have censored some of their experiences (if that is what you are suggesting), hard to know, but what they did publish is still pretty special and often on the verge of what could be considered orthodox. In fact, what made something unorthodox in the Catholic tradition was a direct experience of God, without the intermediairy of Christ and outside the traditional means that the church offered. As long as one respects that rule, one has the right to become as mad as a hatter.  
 
>We have to remember that belief in multiple lives was common (if not  
>normative) among intellectuals at the time of the rise of  
>Christianity. I suspect that it was not unusual among early  
>Christians, but a considerable effort was made to prohibit the idea  
>at a later date. 

Normative, I don't know, but it was an idea that circled although it was not a fundamental idea without which a religious or philosophical system would fall and lose its raison d'être. The Cathars seemed to have believed in reincarnation as well.
 
>>  Generally speaking, his explanation for the mystical experiences is  
>>that the mystics in questions work in a general framework, which is  
>>the belief system of their religion. Their mind, subconscious, is  
>>continuously impregnated through meditation, prayer, ascetism and  
>>other imagery. At one point, when their mind is passive, not active,  
>>it all bubbles (back) up spontaneously mixed in with other  
>>subconscious material. I am not saying that there is no kamma, and  
>>past lives etc. (but don't tempt me ;-)), but have you considered  
>>the possibility of something along the lines of Delacroix's theory? 
 
>I don't know that I believe in the 'subconscious' but it is clear  
>that a process of this sort can occur. Indeed, that is obvious from  
>dreams. But I would think of the meditative process as cleansing the  
>mind from this kind of distorting tendency. 

It all depends on what one understands by meditation... If it is to feed the mind with ideas, beliefs and images, I am not so sure
 
>Actually, this is not different from ordinary memory. We know that  
>people can (unintentionally) construct false memories of their past,  
>but I would not take that as proving that people cannot have correct  
>memories of their childhood. 

I am pretty distrustful of correct memories of childhood. I am not sure correct memories exist. How does one correctly revive something that is gone?

Joy