1. 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
1