Christian Mysticism

[Netti-Netti]

Yes God is absent from the world.

Really?? ...

I believe so but it is not the most popular idea and insults many so often is best avoided.

To my way of thinking, the Incarnation signifies the presence of G-d in the world.

While Christianity is big on atonement doctrine, it is also a powerful way of representing Divine Immanence. The Holy Spirit was made available as an aspect of Immanence. In John 15:26 Jesus specifically identifies the Holy Spirit as being of the Heavenly Father.

 

[Nick_A]

Hi Thomas

Then it's not a Christian idea, but rather an error when Christianity is determined either as pantheism, or panentheism, as both are excluded if one accepts the Christian idea of God.

But what is the Christian God. I agree with Simone that one of the primary reasons that Christianity became its opposite is because of the adoption of the Hebrew personal God. Naturally then I see the Christian God as does Meister Eckhart:

"The mind never rests but must go on expecting and preparing for what is yet known and what is still concealed. Meanwhile, man cannot know what God is, even though he be ever so well of what God is not; and an intelligent person will reject that. As long as it has no reference point, the mind can only wait as matter waits for him. And matter can never find rest except in form; so, too, the mind can never find rest except in the essential truth which is locked up in it--the truth about everything. Essence alone satisfied and God keeps on withdrawing, farther and farther away, to arouse the mind's zeal and lure it to follow and finally grasp the true good that has no cause. Thus, contented with nothing, the mind clamors for the highest good of all."

"The course of heaven is outside time--and yet time comes from its movements. Nothing hinders the soul's knowledge of God as much as time and space, for time and space are fragments, whereas God is one! And therefore, if the soul is to know God, it must know him above time and outside of space; for God is neither this nor that, as are these manifold things. God is one!"

Christendom or secular Christianity cannot understand this but tries instead to understand heaven from the point of view of our fallen nature. Naturally then God is created in the image of man to the misfortune of many.

Agreed, that has always been the case in Christian doctrine. That's why God is neither pentheist nor panentheist, both of which render God relative, and subject to temperospatial determination.

God as "ONE' is outside time and space. the beginning of the devolution into Creation is God as "THREE." It is relative but I hardly find it demeaning.

OK. But this is cosmology; it's psychology, not theology.

But what is theology?

1. The study of the nature of God and religious truth; rational inquiry into religious questions.
2. A system or school of opinions concerning God and religious questions: Protestant theology; Jewish theology.
3. A course of specialized religious study usually at a college or seminary.

We have opinions.
It is through psychology, not the behaviorism that we call psychology, but the study of "being."

The greater the quality of our being, the greater becomes our realization of the truths behind theology.

OK, but still psychology, not mysticism. An atheist would have no problem agreeing with all of this.

Atheists are not by definition wrong and often understand better then those calling themselves religious. As usual Simone is one of the few that truly understand this since she transformed from atheist to Christian. She wrote:

"Religion in so far as it is a source of consolation is a hindrance to true faith; and in this sense atheism is a purification. I have to be an atheist with that part of myself which is not made for God. Among those in whom the supernatural part of themselves has not been awakened, the atheists are right and the believers wrong".
- Simone Weil, Faiths of Meditation; Contemplation of the divine
the Simone Weil Reader, edited by George A. Panichas (David McKay Co. NY 1977) p 417

The fact that this would insult atheists and many religious people alike is proof of how profoundly accurate her observation is.

So I would suggest, and I do believe I can argue, that in this instance Weil's idea of 'absence' is a confusion of subjective and objective determination, or a case of sentimental objectivity.

Actually I've read this also to be an ancient Kabalistic notion. Simone is being artistic. She is creating a visual image to describe the incomprehensible. It is the same as when she writes:

"Toujours le même infiniment petit, qui est infiniment plus que tout."
[Always the same infinitely small, which is infinitely more than all

This is art and not sentimentality. It almost seems impossible that someone so young could understand such things. Yet someone can get a greater insight as to how God is in man and man within God through contemplation of this gem.

and moreover, Colossians 1:15-17
"Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: For in him were all things created in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones, or dominations, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him and in him. And he is before all, and by him all things consist."

This can only be realistically understood through cosmology and material density.

 

[Nick_A]

To my way of thinking, the Incarnation signifies the presence of G-d in the world.

While Christianity is big on atonement doctrine, it is also a powerful way of representing Divine Immanence. The Holy Spirit was made available as an aspect of Immanence. In John 15:26 Jesus specifically identifies the Holy Spirit as being of the Heavenly Father.

John 15

26"When the Counselor comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father, he will testify about me. 27And you also must testify, for you have been with me from the beginning

The Spirit descends into Creation from the Father.

Imagine the number 100 as All. It can be divided into fractions of itself. Now imagine the number 10 within 100 that also has 9,8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1, in the same way that 100 has 90,80,70,60,50,40,30,20,10, within it. 10 then is in the image of 100. The Father/Son relationshp is like this. Man is in the level of the Son and in creation just like the Son is in creation within the Father that is the source of creation.

 

[Thomas]

Hi Nick —

The Spirit descends into Creation from the Father.

We need be careful here. The Spirit proceeds from the Father, and from the Father and the Son.

The Spirit then leads to the Son, the Son to the Father, so I think your fraction analogy bears little resemblance to the doctrine to which you're referring.

It's best to stick with tried and tested theological developments, rather than inventing our own.

Thomas






Imagine the number 100 as All. It can be divided into fractions of itself. Now imagine the number 10 within 100 that also has 9,8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1, in the same way that 100 has 90,80,70,60,50,40,30,20,10, within it. 10 then is in the image of 100. The Father/Son relationshp is like this. Man is in the level of the Son and in creation just like the Son is in creation within the Father that is the source of creation.[/QUOTE]

 

[Thomas]

Hi Netti-Netti —

It seems esoterism can exist apart from traditional institutional religions, however.

No, I think not. An esoterism without an exoteric counterpart would be invisible — it does not 'exist' in the sense that it has no presence in the world. People will always try and do that, it's like wanting the cherry off the top of the cake. Everybody likes the idea of being esoteric, relatively fewer want to put in the effort, so they'll invent all manner of reasons why the two can be separate ...

I love the story of the meeting between the legendary samurai Yagyu Jubei and a Zen Master: "How long will it take to become a master of the sword?" demanded Jubei. "Ten years," the other replied. "I can't wait ten years! What if I train twice as long, and twice as hard?" The door slammed in his face. "Twenty years!" came the reply from within.

Jubei nevertheless became the student of the old man, on three conditions:
1 — You do whatever I ask of you.
2 — You obey without question.
3 — You never ask me about swordsmanship.

Jubei became the hermit's body servant and housekeeper. He cooked, he cleaned, he washed. A year or so passed. Then the old man took to attacking him with a stick, delivering frightful bruises, and knocking him unconscious. He would be attacked, even in his sleep. More years passed.

One day Jubei was stirring the rice, cooking in a pot on the hearth, when the old man emerged from the shadows like a wraith and swung at Jubei's head. Jubei, without turning, without hesitation, without even altering the rhythm of his stirring of the rice, casually raised an arm and warded off the blow with the iron lid of the pot.
"Good!" the old man said. "Now we can begin!"

The plain truth is ... there are no shortcuts, and no guarantees.

+++

Indeed, Great Britain has been enjoying a marked increase in the rate at which people are reporting religious/spiritual experiences.

I know. In ther absence of any objective measure, anyone can claim anything they like, and they do.

Interestingly, a substantial increase occurred between 1987 and 2000. This time frame corresponds roughly to a period of rapid decline in institutional religion. I suspect it could have something to do with the proliferation of spiritual ideas in popular culture.

Yes, it's called 'dumbing down' — people can't be bothered to make the effort or do the work, so they look for shortcuts, including self-determining what a spiritual experience is, and what it isn't. I love the statement "I'm spiritual, but not religious" which is like saying "I'm an athlete, but I don't train", or "I'm a really nice person, but can't be bothered with people."

In every spiritual discipline I've looked at, the first rule is to ignore 'spiritual experience' which is invariably self-manufactured by the ego as a means of self-delusion. You must know this from your studies? The East are far hotter on it than the West — even the Orthodox are critical, they would call those experiences 'fantasia' ...

With no objective measure, they're all at sea without a map, compass, or a star to steer by.

At any rate, the dual trends - increased spirituality and dwindling interest in the old religions organizations - would seem to suggest that esoterism is not dependent on traditional exoteric institutional religion.

No, anyone who claims that does not really understand the symbiotic relation between the two. I think it's easily demonstrable that what people consider 'spiritual' is not spiritual at all, and that the modern world has completely lost sense of the esoteric.

The link can become atenuated, I agree, it was during the end of the 19th early 20th century when scholasticism became dry Aristotelian argument ... but then look — von Balthasar (possibly the Aquinas of the 210th century), de Lubac, Schbeeben, Mersch ... I could go on.

Even though I think religious ideas have been popularized in contemporary culture, I think religious practice has become rather privatized (not likely to involve going to church).

I think the popularisation of religious ideas is basically that one can make it up as one goes along. 'Personal religion' is a meaningless phrase bandied about a lot.

Religion — and religious experience — has been relegated from the real to the personal. 'Truth,' as the critic said, 'is no longer a matter of objective reality, but personal narrative.'

Thus the religious, the spiritual, the esoteric, and the mystic are reduced to sentimentalisms. Their foundation lies in the affirmation "Because that's what it is for me."

Thomas

 

[Nick_A]

Hi Nick —

We need be careful here. The Spirit proceeds from the Father, and from the Father and the Son.

The Spirit then leads to the Son, the Son to the Father, so I think your fraction analogy bears little resemblance to the doctrine to which you're referring.

It's best to stick with tried and tested theological developments, rather than inventing our own.

Thomas






Imagine the number 100 as All. It can be divided into fractions of itself. Now imagine the number 10 within 100 that also has 9,8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1, in the same way that 100 has 90,80,70,60,50,40,30,20,10, within it. 10 then is in the image of 100. The Father/Son relationshp is like this. Man is in the level of the Son and in creation just like the Son is in creation within the Father that is the source of creation.

[/quote]

The Holy Trinity as ONE outside of time and space is not the same as within time and space manifesting as creation. In Creation, the level of reality that is natural for the Son, receives the Spirit from the Father and gives to man on earth. Wholeness is relative as to what it exists within. Within Creation, the Son is not on the level of the Father so it is relative wholeness that connects them and man on earth to the son.

 

[Netti-Netti]

I think it's easily demonstrable that what people consider 'spiritual' is not spiritual at all

How?? . . .

 

[Thomas]

How?? . . .

I would say a simple test is to determine whether the experience glorifies the self, or glorifies God. In my experience, it's usually the former, indeed that's why most people pursue the mystical and the spiritual outside of a religious environment, because they seek it for their own benefit.

Thomas

 

[seattlegal]

In every spiritual discipline I've looked at, the first rule is to ignore 'spiritual experience' which is invariably self-manufactured by the ego as a means of self-delusion. You must know this from your studies? The East are far hotter on it than the West — even the Orthodox are critical, they would call those experiences 'fantasia' ...

With no objective measure, they're all at sea without a map, compass, or a star to steer by.


No, anyone who claims that does not really understand the symbiotic relation between the two. I think it's easily demonstrable that what people consider 'spiritual' is not spiritual at all, and that the modern world has completely lost sense of the esoteric.

The link can become atenuated, I agree, it was during the end of the 19th early 20th century when scholasticism became dry Aristotelian argument ... but then look — von Balthasar (possibly the Aquinas of the 210th century), de Lubac, Schbeeben, Mersch ... I could go on.

Reminds me of Jesus being tempted by Satan on the mountain immediately after his being baptized.

I would say a simple test is to determine whether the experience glorifies the self, or glorifies God. In my experience, it's usually the former, indeed that's why most people pursue the mystical and the spiritual outside of a religious environment, because they seek it for their own benefit.

I find it interesting that Jesus was lead by the Spirit to the mountain to be tempted by Satan. (Matt 4:1, Mark 1:12, Luke 4:1)

 

[Netti-Netti]

I would say a simple test is to determine whether the experience glorifies the self, or glorifies God. In my experience, it's usually the former, indeed that's why most people pursue the mystical and the spiritual outside of a religious environment, because they seek it for their own benefit.

Glorify self or discover self? They could look the same.

I previous cited the UK survey. Most of what the survey reported in the way of religious experience actually pertained to cosmic unity and had little to do with "self." Let me know if you want a link.

 

[earl]

Hi Netti-Netti —

No, I think not. An esoterism without an exoteric counterpart would be invisible — it does not 'exist' in the sense that it has no presence in the world. People will always try and do that, it's like wanting the cherry off the top of the cake. Everybody likes the idea of being esoteric, relatively fewer want to put in the effort, so they'll invent all manner of reasons why the two can be separate ...

I love the story of the meeting between the legendary samurai Yagyu Jubei and a Zen Master: "How long will it take to become a master of the sword?" demanded Jubei. "Ten years," the other replied. "I can't wait ten years! What if I train twice as long, and twice as hard?" The door slammed in his face. "Twenty years!" came the reply from within.

Jubei nevertheless became the student of the old man, on three conditions:
1 — You do whatever I ask of you.
2 — You obey without question.
3 — You never ask me about swordsmanship.

Jubei became the hermit's body servant and housekeeper. He cooked, he cleaned, he washed. A year or so passed. Then the old man took to attacking him with a stick, delivering frightful bruises, and knocking him unconscious. He would be attacked, even in his sleep. More years passed.

One day Jubei was stirring the rice, cooking in a pot on the hearth, when the old man emerged from the shadows like a wraith and swung at Jubei's head. Jubei, without turning, without hesitation, without even altering the rhythm of his stirring of the rice, casually raised an arm and warded off the blow with the iron lid of the pot.
"Good!" the old man said. "Now we can begin!"

The plain truth is ... there are no shortcuts, and no guarantees.

+++


I know. In ther absence of any objective measure, anyone can claim anything they like, and they do.


Yes, it's called 'dumbing down' — people can't be bothered to make the effort or do the work, so they look for shortcuts, including self-determining what a spiritual experience is, and what it isn't. I love the statement "I'm spiritual, but not religious" which is like saying "I'm an athlete, but I don't train", or "I'm a really nice person, but can't be bothered with people."

In every spiritual discipline I've looked at, the first rule is to ignore 'spiritual experience' which is invariably self-manufactured by the ego as a means of self-delusion. You must know this from your studies? The East are far hotter on it than the West — even the Orthodox are critical, they would call those experiences 'fantasia' ...

With no objective measure, they're all at sea without a map, compass, or a star to steer by.


No, anyone who claims that does not really understand the symbiotic relation between the two. I think it's easily demonstrable that what people consider 'spiritual' is not spiritual at all, and that the modern world has completely lost sense of the esoteric.

The link can become atenuated, I agree, it was during the end of the 19th early 20th century when scholasticism became dry Aristotelian argument ... but then look — von Balthasar (possibly the Aquinas of the 210th century), de Lubac, Schbeeben, Mersch ... I could go on.


I think the popularisation of religious ideas is basically that one can make it up as one goes along. 'Personal religion' is a meaningless phrase bandied about a lot.

Religion — and religious experience — has been relegated from the real to the personal. 'Truth,' as the critic said, 'is no longer a matter of objective reality, but personal narrative.'

Thus the religious, the spiritual, the esoteric, and the mystic are reduced to sentimentalisms. Their foundation lies in the affirmation "Because that's what it is for me."

Thomas

What's interesting about both true Christian mystical intentions and Eastern spiritual discpilines is essentially a similarity in goal: both are essentially aiming for an awareness of a reality greater than/beyond the "self." earl

 

[Netti-Netti]

What's interesting about both true Christian mystical intentions and Eastern spiritual discpilines is essentially a similarity in goal: both are essentially aiming for an awareness of a reality greater than/beyond the "self." earl

I have a book written by a priest who tries to document this similarity. For some reason it's very unsatisfying. I don't understand the concern with this kind of experience. Talking about it doesn't make it happen.

 

[Thomas]

Hi Seattlegal —

I find it interesting that Jesus was lead by the Spirit to the mountain to be tempted by Satan. (Matt 4:1, Mark 1:12, Luke 4:1)

Yes. The way I read it, Jesus was lead by the Spirit to experience the full nature of His humanity, from the moment of His birth to its culmination on the mountain prior to the commencement of His ministry.

So I don't see the mystery of Christ's childhood being tucked away among the Essenes, or the Egyptians, or whistled off to the East and some Tibetan monastery. I see it as learning what's it's like to be authentically human, to not know ... to follow the Spirit (the Scriptures) and have faith, to live in hope ... the Temptation on the Mount is the same as the Temptation in the Garden.

Scripture, focusing on the Divinity of Jesus, offers just two crisis moments in the human life of Christ — the Temptation on the Mount and the Agony in the Garden — He is tempted as man, and speaks as man, on both occasions. But I do not doubt He was tempted, in His humanity, at every turn.

Thomas

 

[Thomas]

Glorify self or discover self? They could look the same.

The temptation is always there.

I previous cited the UK survey. Most of what the survey reported in the way of religious experience actually pertained to cosmic unity and had little to do with "self." Let me know if you want a link.

Yes please.

But I would say then, that what people report is a cosmic and not a metacosmic experience — the Christian Mystcial experience is of the self in Christ, in the Divine life, not of the self in the cosmos.

I'm not detracting from that experience, nor disputing its authenticity. It can be real, and genuine, and meaningful; it is a state of bliss, and encompasses a degree of the perfection of a human nature (degree according to how long it is sustained, and the scope of its universality), indeed it is the apex of some spiritual traditions, but not of Christianity.

Thomas

 

[Thomas]

Hi Earl, long time!

What's interesting about both true Christian mystical intentions and Eastern spiritual discpilines is essentially a similarity in goal: both are essentially aiming for an awareness of a reality greater than/beyond the "self." earl

I'm just writing an essay, and drew attention to the point that 'absolute objectivity' is the goal of many ascetic disciplines, whereas human subjectivity is (rightly) regarded as fallible, contingent, relative, etc. whilst human objectivity is better.

However, in the Christian paradigm object and subject coincide in God — He alone is One, He is, and His self-knowledge is perfect. So there is the possibility of the experience of 'absolute subjectivity' as the same as 'absolute objectivity' — but utterly different!

One is the apprehension of a brilliant darkness, the other of a dark brilliance? Here we go ... apophatic/cataphatic ... of course, midflow in essay mode here, so this could all be paddling up a blind alley (grief!@? mix those metaphors, whydoncha!) ... haven't got to the end yet!

Thomas

 

[Nick_A]

I would say a simple test is to determine whether the experience glorifies the self, or glorifies God. In my experience, it's usually the former, indeed that's why most people pursue the mystical and the spiritual outside of a religious environment, because they seek it for their own benefit.

Thomas

A classic misconception IMO. We cannot glorify God. The true mystical experience reveals our nothingness and nothingness neither glorifies God or ourselves but rather reveals a relationship we rarely ever have.

What happens normally is that immediatly after a real experience we begin to interpret it which ends up in the belief that we are either glorifying ourselves or God. This just means we've lost the reality of the experience.

Why would anyone not want to to experience reality for their own benefit? It is a beacon that indicates the direction necessary for a person "To Be." If becoming oneself or a Christian, it is necessary "To Be," then it is for our benefit.

Of course from the Christian perspective we go wrong when defining what "our benefit" means. From the secular exoteric perspective normal for Christendom, it is our personality. From the esoteric perspective it is for nourishing the seed of the soul.

Probably one of the biggest misconceptions made by Christendom is in not realizing how prayer becomes a meaningless expression for an imaginary God when done so by our personality: without our inner participation or "attention in oneself." Consequently few know how to pray for the potential of the God /Man relationship or our potential. A person rattles off an Our Father and says see, this is what it means to pray. Does it really?

 

[Thomas]

A classic misconception IMO. We cannot glorify God. The true mystical experience reveals our nothingness and nothingness neither glorifies God or ourselves but rather reveals a relationship we rarely ever have.

Well you're entitled to your opinions. Personally I don't see how 'nothingness' can have a relationship with anything, or why anything would want a relationship with nothing.

In Christian terms, as being understood that the individual logoi derives its being from the Logos, St Catherine of Sienna reports the words of Christ as "I am He Who Is, you are she who is not," but such statements are read and understood in the light of the Christian Revelation, such as in John 15, the statement "for without me you can do nothing" (v5) should be read in the context of the Sermon of the Vine.

However, the world is full of those who seek to explain such matters according to themselves.

Meister Eckhart said:

"Many a lofty intellect ... has erred and lapsed eternally from the eternal truth and this may happen also to those who ... preserve their idiosyncrasy and find satisfaction in the exercise of their own intelligence.

But then, St Catherine of Sienna, Meister Eckhart, and all the great saints, mystics and visionaries are part of your 'Christendom', so what would they know?

Thomas

 

[seattlegal]

Hi Seattlegal —

Yes. The way I read it, Jesus was lead by the Spirit to experience the full nature of His humanity, from the moment of His birth to its culmination on the mountain prior to the commencement of His ministry.

So I don't see the mystery of Christ's childhood being tucked away among the Essenes, or the Egyptians, or whistled off to the East and some Tibetan monastery. I see it as learning what's it's like to be authentically human, to not know ... to follow the Spirit (the Scriptures) and have faith, to live in hope ... the Temptation on the Mount is the same as the Temptation in the Garden.

Scripture, focusing on the Divinity of Jesus, offers just two crisis moments in the human life of Christ — the Temptation on the Mount and the Agony in the Garden — He is tempted as man, and speaks as man, on both occasions. But I do not doubt He was tempted, in His humanity, at every turn.

Thomas

This would make sense, in the light of John 5:24-30. "Son of Man" would mean "human" in the most basic meaning of the phrase. (Compare Genesis 6:1 where "sons of God" refers to Spirit beings, and "daughters of man" refers to human females.)

24 “Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life. 25 Most assuredly, I say to you, the hour is coming, and now is, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God; and those who hear will live. 26 For as the Father has life in Himself, so He has granted the Son to have life in Himself, 27 and has given Him authority to execute judgment also, because He is the Son of Man. 28 Do not marvel at this; for the hour is coming in which all who are in the graves will hear His voice 29 and come forth—those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation. 30 I can of Myself do nothing. As I hear, I judge; and My judgment is righteous, because I do not seek My own will but the will of the Father who sent Me.

However, in the Christian paradigm object and subject coincide in God

There is a similar concept in Buddhism which is associated with Buddha consciousness where there is no separation between subject and object.​

 

[Thomas]

Actually, talking of Christian Mysticism, here's what Eckhart has to say:
Signs of the True Ground

Thomas

 

[Nick_A]

Well you're entitled to your opinions. Personally I don't see how 'nothingness' can have a relationship with anything, or why anything would want a relationship with nothing.

In Christian terms, as being understood that the individual logoi derives its being from the Logos, St Catherine of Sienna reports the words of Christ as "I am He Who Is, you are she who is not," but such statements are read and understood in the light of the Christian Revelation, such as in John 15, the statement "for without me you can do nothing" (v5) should be read in the context of the Sermon of the Vine.

However, the world is full of those who seek to explain such matters according to themselves.

Meister Eckhart said:

But then, St Catherine of Sienna, Meister Eckhart, and all the great saints, mystics and visionaries are part of your 'Christendom', so what would they know?

Thomas

Thomas

Well you're entitled to your opinions. Personally I don't see how 'nothingness' can have a relationship with anything, or why anything would want a relationship with nothing.

Yes that is the idea. Christianity has the unenviable task of trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. The fact that we are nothing doesn't mean that we cannot become consciously something and capable of the more normal God/Man relationship.

In Christian terms, as being understood that the individual logoi derives its being from the Logos, St Catherine of Sienna reports the words of Christ as "I am He Who Is, you are she who is not," but such statements are read and understood in the light of the Christian Revelation, such as in John 15, the statement "for without me you can do nothing" (v5) should be read in the context of the Sermon of the Vine.

This is the idea. without help from above we can do nothing. How can we prepare ourselves to receive help from above?

But then, St Catherine of Sienna, Meister Eckhart, and all the great saints, mystics and visionaries are part of your 'Christendom', so what would they know?

Christianity lives within Christendom much like the living kernel of life of the acorn lives within the shell of the acorn. Meister Eckhart was initially condemned by the Church.

The social organism of Christendom is based on beliefs while Christianity is based on being open to the mysteries

"In the Church, considered as a social organism, the mysteries inevitably degenerate into beliefs." Simone Weil

You think that the apostles in Acts received the spirit by just being there. Jesus was a teacher and taught how to get out of ones own way in order to be able to become open. Of course such things cannot be written down but is past on as an oral tradition