Sunday, July 10, 2022

Seeking the Divine - part 2

When Evelyn Underhill published the quote below, in 1911, she lived in a world of relatively few distractions. Even so, she understood that in all ages, the search for the Divine requires that we first of all put aside what our five senses gather. 

Today that "mist of thought", the ever more complex assault on our minds, is an even greater barrier to knowing that stillness at the core of our being. It sometimes feels like a conspiracy to keep us from being fully human. 

What is it that smears the windows of the senses? Thought, convention, self-interest. We throw a mist of thought between ourselves and the external world: and through this we discern, as in a glass darkly, that which we have arranged to see. We see it in the way in which our neighbours see it; sometimes through a pink veil, sometimes through a grey. Religion, indigestion, priggishness, or discontent may drape the panes. The prismatic colours of a fashionable school of art may stain them. Inevitably, too, we see the narrow world our windows show us, not "in itself," but in relation to our own needs, moods, and preferences; which exercise a selective control upon those few aspects of the whole which penetrate to the field of consciousness and dictate the order in which we arrange them, for the universe of the natural man is strictly egocentric. We continue to name the living creatures with all the placid assurance of Adam: and whatsoever we call them, that is the name thereof. Unless we happen to be artists — and then but rarely — we never know the "thing seen in its purity; never, from birth to death, look at it with disinterested eyes. Our vision and understanding of it are governed by all that we bring with us, and mix with it, to form an amalgam with which the mind can deal. To "purify" the senses is to release them, so far as human beings may, from the tyranny of egocentric judgments; to make of them the organs of direct perception. This means that we must crush our deep-seated passion for classification and correspondences; ignore the instinctive, selfish question, "What does it mean to me?" learn to dip ourselves in the universe at our gates, and know it, not from without by comprehension, but from within by self-mergence.

from Practical Mysticism: A Little Book for Normal People Chapter III, paragraph 8. 


9 comments:

  1. It does make one wonder how anyone can ever claim that what we perceive is reality. Of course, if we reach a stage when we achieve that for which Evelyn Underhill calls us, then we necessarily must become "perfect," as defined by Meister Eckhart and St. John of the Cross. But that state is reached by comparatively few people. "For many are called, but few are chosen." [Matt 22:14]......[It's tough at the top!]

    ReplyDelete
  2. "It's tough at the top!" made me chuckle... I'd bet that it would be lonely at the top, but that seems impossible at so many levels in this case.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hi Deanna,
    Reference
    Today that "mist of thought", the ever more complex assault on our minds, is an even greater barrier to knowing that stillness at the core of our being. It sometimes feels like a conspiracy to keep us from being fully human.

    True - Maybe put another way, resisting societal pressures by contemplative practices to avoid the onslaught to the mind.
    But isn’t there equally those same spiritual experiences (or mystical) that happen out of the blue so to speak to people of goodwill – being kind or thoughtful through introspection - what can also happen within or without religious communities of which she was very much part of as a devoted practicing catholic, just as was Eckhart . We are spiritual beings in a material world Pierre Teilhard de Chardin. You are probably aware she was such an insightful writer but also blind and widowed at only 42 and with 5 children. .

    Best wishes

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Lindsay,

      Before I dive into the heart of your comment, I'd like to know who the insightful writer in your last sentence is - certainly not Evelyn Underhill. http://evelynunderhill.org/about/

      Delete
    2. Not sure why my comment elicited such a sharp seemingly unfriendly response.
      As a poet, novelist, and pacifist (and of course much better known as a writer on mysticism) Evelyn Underhill (1875-1941) to my way of thinking was an insightful writer as she dived deeply into her subject matter.
      Hence I think it is perfectly oaky to say Underhill is generally regarded as a respected insightful writer on religion and spiritual practices and become immensely popular like Huxley. I also think some of her writings are philosophical or at least theological.
      She was a frequent lecturer at conferences and seminaries, she also conducted retreats from 1924 and gained a reputation as a leading religious counselor. She was a contributor to numerous journals and was the theological editor of The Spectator from 1929 to 1932. Among her other works are Man and the Supernatural (1927), The Mystery of Sacrifice (1938), and two books of poetry, The Bar-lamb’s Ballad Book (1902) and Immanence (1913).
      Best wishes

      Delete
    3. I am so sorry that you found my query sharp and unfriendly. I went looking for information on Evelyn Underhill, and found that she had no children. I found no information on her marriage or that she was blind. It occurred to me that perhaps you might have another source or, perhaps, you were mistaken. That is all.

      She was undoubtedly a prolific and insightful writer. She was also, clearly, a passionate and gentle teacher.

      Delete
    4. Here is a reference: http://evelynunderhill.org/about/ which mentions her life and marriage- indeed it was a faulty prior reference on my part which you correctly inferred.
      Please feel free to dive into my previous comment
      Best wishes

      Delete
    5. I couldn't agree more that acts of kindness needn't be connected to a religious connection. I would suggest that, as with Underhill, I strive to be an "incarnationalist" in my studies. Time spent meditating isn't a withdrawal from the world. Rather, it is necessary to do my best to put aside the distractions of the senses while meditating. I can only describe what arises from these times without distraction as encounters with love, not of a physical sort, but of a sort that fills you up, leaving you wanting nothing. During these times I have been often suddenly called back to the material world. At those times, there was never a feeling of disorientation, but rather, an energized and totally engaged feeling in every moment for a long time afterward.

      For me, being a spiritual being in a material world means being immersed in the present; in the moment totally. When that happens, the same love that fills me up can flow out without being exhausted. Only when I allow myself to engage in thoughts of "what if" or "what next" does worldly distraction take over.

      Delete
    6. Many thanks for your comprehensive response which I’m going to share within our group as it’s pertinent to recent discussions.
      Best wishes

      Delete