What do you think?
Rate this book
Why Not Be a Mystic?
A presentation of the traditional teachings of mysticism presented in a fresh way so that each of us can open ourselves to an experience of the presence of God—here and now.
- GenresSpiritualityCatholic
192 pages, Paperback
First published May 1, 1995
2 people are currently reading
32 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
Read
July 31, 2023The author is quite engaging, and some of his ideas are interesting and I appreciated them. However, the book is questionable in places and outright heresy in others.
For example: in the chapter "A Sea of Lies" after extolling Buddhism the author states that "the source of all illusions is [...] the ego-I." [...] "The ego-I, the "father of lies," feeds on the very lies of its own fabrication, spinning a web of falsity and deception. It believes it's own lies, seducing us with the great lie from which all other lies are birthed - that you and I and everyone else are isolated, separate, individually sourced "units." [...] "Thus we live in a divided consciousness, "split off" from everyone and everything else, alienated from our true selves, and therefore from God. In Christian theological terms, this is "original sin."
My problem here is multi-fold:
1st) This man is claiming to be a Catholic writing Catholic doctrine. This is not Catholic doctrine. This is merely religious syncretism. Catholics aren't Buddhists, and you can't mix the two beliefs together. They simply don't mesh. Nor, truly, do they need to.
2nd) The ego is not the father of lies, satan (little s intentional) is the "father of lies" per John 8:44, not the human ego. If he hadn't put it in quotation marks it would be up for debate what his intended meaning is - however, the quotations make it clear he is referring to the devil. The ego is not the devil, and you can't be a Christian and disbelieve in the devil.
3rd) He states elsewhere that there is really only non-duality and we are truly all one. This is what he's referring to when he states that we have sinfully divided our consciousness, and live alienated from others and God. Non-duality is a concept within Eastern religions stating that we are one nature with God, basically. Christian teaching states that God is other and separate; that we live in a dualistic world.
4th) His definition of "original sin" is flatly wrong. The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) states that original sin is in fact "a deprivation of original holiness and justice" (P. 405). The CCC further states that it came about through the disobedience of our first parents. Nowhere has it ever been taught (before post-Vatican II syncretism) that original sin is denying our non-duality from God and all else.
The book is rife with syncretism, though it does also have some solid reflections from St. Teresa of Avila and St. John of the Cross. I realize this man had great respect for Buddhism, but he writes about it and Christianity as if they are the same thing and he states that they are two paths up the same mountain, or perhaps up two different mountains which are in the same range.
While anyone can believe that if they choose, one simply can't be a Christian and believe that Buddhism is also the correct path to God. For one thing, Buddhism is a non-theistic religion. Buddhists don't believe in a god. Christians do believe in God. But, they don't believe that all "gods" are "the God." Christians believe that Jesus is the only mountain that one can climb to God. John 14:6, Acts 4:12, etc.
So, while I appreciate his deep respect of that which he found to be positive in the Buddhist communities he visited, I can't see why he did not feel as if his purported religion was good enough to be worthy of his belief? If there is no objective truth, whatever it is, then why write a book about the supposed objective truth of contemplative prayer? Why should I believe anything he says at all in the book? Buddhists don't teach that their form of prayer is leading to God, so why is the author claiming it?
The author also quotes Thomas Merton to such an excess that one might as well simply read Merton's works on contemplative prayer - the author includes an entire chapter of quotes from Merton.
He also has a very narrow pool of authors from whom he quotes, besides the two Doctors of the Church noted about (Teresa and John), he quotes Basil Pennington, Thomas Keating, Karl Rahner, George A. Maloney S.J. (extensivel, who apostasized to the ACROD (Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Church) before he died), as well as a few other Jesuits including Pierre Tielhard de Chardin.
I've spoken in other reviews of why I take issue with centering prayer, which appears in this book, and why it's not a Christian practice Lectio Divina and the Practice of Teresian Prayer such as my review of this book. So I won't go into detail here.
This author is a former Trappist monk, who lived alongside Thomas Merton, so it makes sense that he would be devoted to Merton, Pennington, and Keating. However, it was unfortunate to see such a narrow view and so much syncretism.
Either way, whether as a Catholic book about meditation or a survey of meditation styles of various religions it would fail. Syncretism belongs in neither, and he did not give a clear enough vision of Eastern meditations - though I'm familiar enough with them to have noted the inferences he tried to draw.
I would not recommend this book. There are far better books to be read on the subject of mysticism, meditation, and contemplative prayer. And this is true whether one is Buddhist, Christian, Hindu, or anything else.
For example: in the chapter "A Sea of Lies" after extolling Buddhism the author states that "the source of all illusions is [...] the ego-I." [...] "The ego-I, the "father of lies," feeds on the very lies of its own fabrication, spinning a web of falsity and deception. It believes it's own lies, seducing us with the great lie from which all other lies are birthed - that you and I and everyone else are isolated, separate, individually sourced "units." [...] "Thus we live in a divided consciousness, "split off" from everyone and everything else, alienated from our true selves, and therefore from God. In Christian theological terms, this is "original sin."
My problem here is multi-fold:
1st) This man is claiming to be a Catholic writing Catholic doctrine. This is not Catholic doctrine. This is merely religious syncretism. Catholics aren't Buddhists, and you can't mix the two beliefs together. They simply don't mesh. Nor, truly, do they need to.
2nd) The ego is not the father of lies, satan (little s intentional) is the "father of lies" per John 8:44, not the human ego. If he hadn't put it in quotation marks it would be up for debate what his intended meaning is - however, the quotations make it clear he is referring to the devil. The ego is not the devil, and you can't be a Christian and disbelieve in the devil.
3rd) He states elsewhere that there is really only non-duality and we are truly all one. This is what he's referring to when he states that we have sinfully divided our consciousness, and live alienated from others and God. Non-duality is a concept within Eastern religions stating that we are one nature with God, basically. Christian teaching states that God is other and separate; that we live in a dualistic world.
4th) His definition of "original sin" is flatly wrong. The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) states that original sin is in fact "a deprivation of original holiness and justice" (P. 405). The CCC further states that it came about through the disobedience of our first parents. Nowhere has it ever been taught (before post-Vatican II syncretism) that original sin is denying our non-duality from God and all else.
The book is rife with syncretism, though it does also have some solid reflections from St. Teresa of Avila and St. John of the Cross. I realize this man had great respect for Buddhism, but he writes about it and Christianity as if they are the same thing and he states that they are two paths up the same mountain, or perhaps up two different mountains which are in the same range.
While anyone can believe that if they choose, one simply can't be a Christian and believe that Buddhism is also the correct path to God. For one thing, Buddhism is a non-theistic religion. Buddhists don't believe in a god. Christians do believe in God. But, they don't believe that all "gods" are "the God." Christians believe that Jesus is the only mountain that one can climb to God. John 14:6, Acts 4:12, etc.
So, while I appreciate his deep respect of that which he found to be positive in the Buddhist communities he visited, I can't see why he did not feel as if his purported religion was good enough to be worthy of his belief? If there is no objective truth, whatever it is, then why write a book about the supposed objective truth of contemplative prayer? Why should I believe anything he says at all in the book? Buddhists don't teach that their form of prayer is leading to God, so why is the author claiming it?
The author also quotes Thomas Merton to such an excess that one might as well simply read Merton's works on contemplative prayer - the author includes an entire chapter of quotes from Merton.
He also has a very narrow pool of authors from whom he quotes, besides the two Doctors of the Church noted about (Teresa and John), he quotes Basil Pennington, Thomas Keating, Karl Rahner, George A. Maloney S.J. (extensivel, who apostasized to the ACROD (Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Church) before he died), as well as a few other Jesuits including Pierre Tielhard de Chardin.
I've spoken in other reviews of why I take issue with centering prayer, which appears in this book, and why it's not a Christian practice Lectio Divina and the Practice of Teresian Prayer such as my review of this book. So I won't go into detail here.
This author is a former Trappist monk, who lived alongside Thomas Merton, so it makes sense that he would be devoted to Merton, Pennington, and Keating. However, it was unfortunate to see such a narrow view and so much syncretism.
Either way, whether as a Catholic book about meditation or a survey of meditation styles of various religions it would fail. Syncretism belongs in neither, and he did not give a clear enough vision of Eastern meditations - though I'm familiar enough with them to have noted the inferences he tried to draw.
I would not recommend this book. There are far better books to be read on the subject of mysticism, meditation, and contemplative prayer. And this is true whether one is Buddhist, Christian, Hindu, or anything else.
May 15, 2009
I read this book and it helped me survive Christian fundamentalism. I found direction and courage to freebase into the abyss of freedom. I don't think it had anything to do with the author's intention. While I may have believed more like the author at the reading, I wasn't reading his theology. I was looking for new territory.
May 31, 2008
Frank Tuoti describes contemplation as “the infused loving knowledge of God," which he says is passively received, not induced by any spiritual practice.
He writes from a Catholic perspective but looks to other religions, particularly Buddhism, for insight and direction. Tuoti notes that people of deep spirituality are able to transcend foundational teachings and precepts (without surrendering them) in order to communicate with others of different spiritual paths. Therefore, he says, it must be the mystics who speak for Christianity if there is to be any fruitful dialog among people of different religions.
Throughout the book, he emphasizes that contemplation is not about achieving “inner peace.” Rather, the result of true mysticism is compassion and service. The author quotes Thomas Merton on the subject of “bourgeois spirituality,” described as an “evasion of responsibility in order to enjoy interior comfort.”
With lots of quotes from among the Who’s Who of Christian contemplatives down through the ages, this is an easy and inspiring read.
He writes from a Catholic perspective but looks to other religions, particularly Buddhism, for insight and direction. Tuoti notes that people of deep spirituality are able to transcend foundational teachings and precepts (without surrendering them) in order to communicate with others of different spiritual paths. Therefore, he says, it must be the mystics who speak for Christianity if there is to be any fruitful dialog among people of different religions.
Throughout the book, he emphasizes that contemplation is not about achieving “inner peace.” Rather, the result of true mysticism is compassion and service. The author quotes Thomas Merton on the subject of “bourgeois spirituality,” described as an “evasion of responsibility in order to enjoy interior comfort.”
With lots of quotes from among the Who’s Who of Christian contemplatives down through the ages, this is an easy and inspiring read.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews