Interesting to see this on the front page! I spent a year in a monetary mostly cloistered. While I'm glad now for the life I ultimately chose of having a family, I often draw from the experience, especially the discernment process (the Ignatius Exercises) and the meditation/contemplation practice.
I spent some time discerning as a Trappist, and now have a family. I’ve found the lack of silence to be the biggest challenge. How is your prayer life as a parent?
Trappists make great beer right? It is strong beer and gets your head messed up. I've often wondered how such good religious folks would become producers of alcoholic drinks. I assume they didn't drink themselves, doesn't go well with meditation I assume. So are they more like thinking "Let the sinners drink this since they want, and it will pay for the rent of our meditation chambers?"
There is no issue with alcohol in Catholicism. Indeed, some during the middle ages would live off beer alone during Lent, when they would abstain from food entirely. It is simply a question of moderation. There are many medevial images of monks drinking.
"In Catholicsm, the Pint, the Pipe, and the Cross can all fit together." ~ GK Chesterton.
> Indeed, some during the middle ages would live off beer alone during Lent
In the middle ages, 'small beer' [0] was a low-alcohol drink which because of the brewing process was often safer than bacteria-contaminated water from some natural sources such as wells and streams
"There's no issue with alcohol" is the wrong way to put it.
Consumption of alcohol is mandatory at certain times (as part of Mass) and forbidden at other times (Ash Wednesday and Good Friday, but traditionally every Friday and all of Lent).
The Catholic Church actually teaches that Jesus is present in both the wine and bread, so only one must be consumed. At least in the Roman Rite it is never compulsory to receive the wine, and prior to the 1960s only the priest would receive the wine while the lay people would receive bread only.
Yes I just meant that some consumption of alcohol (by the priest) is a compulsory part of the rite. At least here, the wine isn't generally offered to the laity, though you can get it if you ask nicely.
Also I thought I was going to be corrected on the other part of my claim. Apparently abstaining from alcohol on fast days isn't centralized Catholic doctrine and bishops/archbishops have some discretion on what they tell their congregations to abstain from.
I know in many Eastern Orthodox churches and some ethnic Catholic chruches have bars on the premises so after church you can go get some beer or a few shots, or to go shot-for-shot with the local Bishop.
Let's make things straight :) "Trappist" is a appellation for beers made by Trappist monasteries in Belgium, Netherlands and a few around the world. They are not specially strong and they may be consumed by the monks. In fact, like for the wine where a lot of monastery produced and developed the basis for modern wine production, it as a bit similar in Belgium for the beers.
Take Orval for example, one of the most famous and it have 6.2% alcohol level. A draft pils beer in Belgium is expected to be around 5%-5.5%. And a few monasteries produced and keep producing beers in Belgium without being Trappist labeled like the Dominicans in Liege with their Sanctus Dominicus.
Besides the rules to give the Trappist label were :
* The beer must be brewed within the walls of a Trappist monastery, either by the monks themselves or under their supervision.
* The brewery must be of secondary importance within the monastery and it should witness to the business practices proper to a monastic way of life.
* The brewery is not intended to be a profit-making venture. The income covers the living expenses of the monks and the maintenance of the buildings and grounds. Whatever remains is donated to charity for social work and to help persons in need.
There are some Protestant denominations who don't drink alcohol, including many Baptist and Presbyterian groups as well as the Seventh-Day Adventists and the Salvation Army.
While some Methodists now drink alcohol, they historically didn't and still won't allow it in their church buildings (I used to play in an amateur orchestra who had to serve non-alcoholic interval refreshments when we hired a Methodist church for our concert).
The majority of Christians worldwide, though, belong to denominations with no proscription against alcohol.
I'm the poster. I've read the Rule of St. Benedict in Italian, a few years back (I'm from Italy, and specifically from Umbria, the region where St. Benedict was from [0].
Yesterday I saw this on Project Gutenberg and I felt inspired to share it here. I woke up and saw it on the front page, which is always an interesting little thing that kind of makes my day.
I would be really interested in hearing more about your experience in the monastery, if you're willing to share.
Ironically I missed the structure that came from the vow of obedience that felt at times like I gave up all my individual freedom. I learned this gave me focus on the thing at hand, whether it was praying, meditating, cooking or cleaning. I still miss the sheer simplicity of that life.
It's a strange paradox, but one that I've found time and again; 'liberty' to do anything anytime can be much more restrictive than 'freedom' to choose one thing and then move on.
It is very saddening to see "modern" and "progressive" thinkers promote the idea of choice and freedom, while condemning those that choose particular lifestyles (monks, housewives, etc). Some of the happiest people in the world are the ones that choose a simple yet rewarding lifestyle. The unhappy ones, as I have invariably found, are those that are never happy with the choices of others.
I don't condemn housewives, I think it's important that care work is recognised as, well, work. I'd say that calling it a simple yet rewarding lifestyle makes it sound a lot less difficult than it is, it comes off as dismissive. Having gotten a taste of both worlds, I can tell you working as a software developer is a lot more simple and, at times, more rewarding.
Many people are in a situation where they can't make the choice to exclusively do care work, due to financial constraints, and much of the care work is done by women who also work for money alongside of it. So in a way, being wealthy enough to have one person concentrate on maintaining the house is lucky. At the same time, it's a risky choice, because it leads to financial dependency on the partner, and marriages tend to end.
A little problem with "housewives" here: many of them didn't choose anything, nor had a voice in choosing their lives.
The same applied to monks centuries ago, if you weren't the first born, your destiny would be joining a monk life. But at least that stopped a while ago, while housewives by "force" are still a reality today in many situations.
Ancedotal evidence but the wife of one of my cousins explicitly chose not to work in spite of having the required qualifications as a dentist, simply because she doesn't want to work and just wants to raise her children. Even though they live in an expensive city. Of course, you'd be hard pressed to find such examples these days.
On the other hand, I have cousins in marriages where both are forced to work because they live in an expensive city where one person's salary is often not enough to cover living expenses. And as trends go, I think we'll be seeing more of the workers by "force" example in the coming years.
Increasingly the trend I've observed within my large extended family and my fiancée's family (different cultures altogether) is that the wives in more affluent families tend to work as either housewives or in less taxing roles where they can still take care of the house, even if they can afford servants and carers, while the less affluent ones are required to have two breadwinners.
Literally half the female population of Japan choose happily that path. And your claim about non first borns all going to become monks made no historical sense whatsoever.
I have never met a modern or progressive thinker who would condemn someone's lifestyle choice: I have only ever heard that as a criticism levelled by reactionaries who have only been exposed to an echo chamber. It is those people who seem to be most unhappy with the choices of others.
I've visited a couple of Greek monasteries for a few days each over the years. Even that short time as a layman was very refreshing. Even "mundane" acts were contemplative.
What I find more interesting than the rules themselves is in which ways were they broken. With any system of rules (and the more complex the better), there are bound to be omissions or conflicts which result in gray areas or loop holes.
While some monasteries were strict regardless, others pushed the boundaries. Relating to "CHAPTER 39 On the Measure of Food" for example, monk's meals were supposed to "have two cooked dishes". On the other hand, monks could accept gifts from the abbot "And it shall be in the Abbot’s power to decide to whom it shall be given". Naturally in some refectories, the abbot would receive dishes which he would then direct to other tables thus skirting the two dishes rule.
If you're interested in this and more, Max Miller's Medieval Rule Breakers[1] episode has many more examples
The rule was advisory in any case; there are multiple points at which St. Benedict advises that the abbot modify things if they had a better way of doing things; the rule of St. Benedict itself is based on several rules that predate it (which are obviously not identical to it).
This is probably where the bad cliche "rules are meant to be broken" came from. Perhaps St Benedict had missed the note of "Rules Making 101", never make up any rules that cannot and impossible to be followed.
As I mentioned in my other comments where God in the Quran has exposed and cautioned the monks (in Chapter "Hadid" or "Iron") who were not observing their own made up rules during their monastic period seeking God's good pleasure, for the exercise of monasticsm that were not originally prescribed or enjoined in their own God's scriptures, oh the irony! Pardon the pun :-)
> Whenever any important business has to be done in the monastery, let the Abbot call together the whole community and state the matter to be acted upon. Then, having heard the brethren’s advice, let him turn the matter over in his own mind and do what he shall judge to be most expedient. The reason we have said that all should be called for counsel is that the Lord often reveals to the younger what is best.
> But if the business to be done in the interests of the monastery be of lesser importance, let him take counsel with the seniors only. It is written, “Do everything with counsel, and you will not repent when you have done it.”
This is certainly an interesting take on "new hires bring fresh new ideas."
Atheist fan speaking up for Benedict and his rule. My education was entirely organized by Benedictine nuns who internalized this rule and lived it daily. The focus on the importance of daily discipline made a big impression on me. Like the military, see an organization make short term sacrifices for longer term objectives made a big impression on me and how I spend my time.
Yeah the benedictine life is cool with me. I consider my self as non-religious and I follow some aspects of Asceticism like abstaining from eating meat and just content with simple pleasures like playing the guitar and doing arts. I also removed my self from social media. I always work and don't take holidays. I'm done with life based on consumerism
I would have said that HN is social media; in your view, is the distinction that you don't post things to a personal timeline here? (Certainly even seeing HN as social media I wouldn't mind treating it as a special case)
not OP, but I would think that a core aspect of it is having a social graph, i.e. being able to follow specific people, and having other people follow you.
This is true for twitter/facebook/friendster, but not for hn/reddit/slashdot.
Some of the negative effects of online communities are shared by both kind of things, but not all.
True. I made it an exception because I consider checking HN as part of my work. I still need to be well informed with the trends and current technology events because it's part of my job.
Commenting and reading here, especially under this article, is not needed for your job. As it usually happens with strictly enforced ways of life, people skip the rules because strict rules enforced all the time, are really difficult to actually obey.
And that's good, it's part of the fun of being human. But at the same time it's why I don't like at all those lifestyles.
While it's not for everyone, I do believe everyone should be in an environment for an X amount of time in their life to learn basic discipline, ideally having to do with taking care of themselves and their environment. Things like food / cooking, regularity, hygiene, tidiness, and just getting on with things.
Those rules help the Church preserve the ancient knowledge until Gutenberg. As a Catholic, I'm devout of St. Benedict because the creation of monasteries have a huge impact of the human knowledge.
This is a widely known but misleading "fact". The truth is much more complicated.
For one, an almost universally overlooked bit of history is how absolutely crucial muslim scholars were in preserving classical texts, in keeping an unbroken chain from the Classical Age until the Renaissance. Places like Al-Andalus -- muslim Iberia that is -- or Bagdhad, were the centres of knowledge in the world in their time, and also places of surprisingly high religious tolerance, where Christian, Jewish, and Muslim scholars studied and discussed together. Many translators and schools of translators were founded and supported, and that's the path countless Greek and Roman tomes took until our days: translated to Arabic, later "rediscovered" by the West.
Among Christian monks, on the other hand, for centuries starting around 300-400CE the highest goal was asceticism, one of the corolaries of which was that one should waste no time studying or preserving pagan texts or indeed anything which were not: prayer books, missals, homilies, responsories, etc. An innumerable amount of works were lost during the centuries where Christian monasticism was most active. If indeed the monks preserved that ancient, pagan knowledge, then how can this be?
Not to mention the fact that Christians post-Constantine and Theodosious were engaged in brutal and relentless persecution and suppression of non-Christians, so called "pagans", and pagan art, pagan temples, pagan beliefs, and of course, pagan literature. They burned temples and all the art therein, they burned libraries, they suppressed academies and professors, either by force or by ending the state's patronage,
This paper is a great read, admittedly biased in its sources but not misleading (it cites contemporary opponents, rather than christians): https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/27899562.pdf
I think it's always important, when talking about Al-Alndalus - that even in works like The ornament, there is the temptation to selectively play up cooperative elements of the society and turning a blind eye to the fact that the general circumstances of the society are not one in which we as moderns would see as particularly 'multicultural' or 'tolerant' ; Scholars are good at holding these things in separation lay people generally muddle the two. Holding other religions as subservient classes is not in line with our ideals of modern religious tolerance.
I think its somewhat inevitable that pagan works would be lost over the centuries, and less surprising that they would survive in dryer climates. Ultimately, I think to make the christians look particularly oppresive and destructive one has to overlook a lot of pagan violence.
In the case of the islamic world, we can say for sure that there was a general destruction of churches, existing infrastructure and a general looting of most of the areas that came under islamic domination. And this is the pattern for the exchange of cultures nothing unusual. Taking the Dome of the Rock for an illustrative example - the Mosque at the dome of the rock began as a looted Marian shrine, built over the ancient roman temple which the romans themselves built over Herod's second temple.
I think it's useful to understand religious intolerance in a few tiers. The following tier-list is a sketch, but I think illustrates the idea:
Tier 1 (most intolerant): Suppress the out-group vigorously, including executions, torture, secret police, interrogations, etc.
Tier 2: Suppress the out-group violently (executions) any time they're noisy, but don't seek them out.
Tier 3: Disfavour the out-group, without permitting conversion.
Tier 4: Disfavour the out-group, permitting them to convert.
Tier 5: Disfavour the out-group socially and informally, but not in matters of enforced law.
Tier 6 (most tolerant): It's illegal to disfavour the out-group.
The reason I mention this is that modern notions of religious tolerance target maximum tolerance (Tier 6 or whatever), but there's a lot of variety through history. For example, I think that persecution of Jews under the Romans was, in some cases, only because the Jews were unwilling to also in-form-only obey the dictates of Roman religion (2nd Commandment makes that tricky). Contrast that with Nazi persecution of Jews, which was much more aggressive about seeking them out. It's worth it to identify that one of those is more tolerant than the other, even if we wish for our society to be more tolerant than either of those.
In that context, my understanding is that the Muslim law of the medieval period is pretty clear about tolerance, and that both Al-Andalus and Baghdad followed these rules. "People of the Book", i.e. non-Muslim monotheists, were granted a large set of very specific protections, while still being treated less well than Muslims. (Note that non-monotheists were not granted protections; I imagine that this did not result in much religious tolerance towards those people, but that's just a cynical guess.) These specific protections were strong enough that it made sense for non-conformist scholars (Christian or Jew, as long as they were monotheist) to migrate from Christendom to Dar al-Islam. Compared to modern west-coast notions of religious tolerance, this isn't great. But it's still remarkable and praiseworthy, especially in contrast with modern Sharia, and in contrast with then-contemporary Christian kingdoms.
In summary: it's not that medieval Muslim states were tolerant by modern humanist standards. It's that they were more tolerant than modern Sharia Muslim states, and more tolerant than medieval Christian states.
It is true that Muslim centers preserved some ancient Greek learning, but you overestimate this phenomenon and your depiction of the christianized Roman Empire destroying the classical tradition is inaccurate caricature. The reason we prize Muslim traditions for preserving Aristotle, for example, is not because the the Roman Empire post-Constantine had no interest in Greek learning, it is because Byzantine thought favored the rival (Neo-)platonism instead.
The importance of Ancient Greek literature in the Byzantine Empire is readily evident from things like Homer remaining a cornerstone of Byzantine education all the way through the first millennium, and Christian polemicists starting to write in Attic Greek instead of the Koine.
If you want to see just how much of the Greek tradition was preserved in the Christian world, and not the Muslim world, simply visit the Classical Philology section of any university library and look at the manuscript sources (including, yes, monastery copies) of any Oxford Classical Texts or Bibliotheca Teubneriana edition of Greek writers.
I think you are the one who are incorrectly underestimating the contribution of Muslim empires and civilization in preserving ancient Greek learning and books.
The Muslim centers are not only preserving ancient Greek learning and books, they are cherishing and enriching them for several hundreds years [1]. To them these ancient Greek books are equivalent of modern days da Vinci's paintings that can be weight in gold, literally no kidding. At the time, if you are doing translation of any Greek texts you can get paid by the weight of the translation in gold equivalent! Please tell me at any other time this is happening in any part of human history or even now.
It's also reported that at one time, Abbasid Caliph Al-Ma'mun was demanding an original copy of the Ptolemy's Almagest book as the condition of a truce between Byzantine Empire and the Abbasid Empire. This is really something big because based on the saying of Muhammad that prophesizes any Muslim leader who can defeated and conquered Byzantine Empire (Constantinople) is the best leader ever. He basically abandoning this potential privilege title because of an original copy of Ptolemy's book. If you think he is too weak to defeat Byzantine and resorting to lame truce, please think again. He basically conquered and subjugated entire modern day Afghanistan for good, and only a few legendary leaders that even managed to do that including your beloved Alexander the Great. For the record, the mighty British Empire and USA did not manage to do just that.
Al-Ma'mun is also the founder of the "House of Wisdom" where Al-Khwarizmi was the first director of the center and his name is very familiar because apparently the "algebra" and "algorithm" words were derived from his book title and his names, respectively. Because of his contribution to science one crater in the moon (Almanon) is named after him[2].
Believe it or not, according to some of modern historians, the extreme love for knowledge of the Abbasid Empire was partly blamed on the downfall of the Abbasid Empire at the expense of Islamic spirituality. This perhaps mainly due to the Islamic teaching that says after you're dead there are only three things that can increase you deeds in the hereafter. Firstly your God fearing children, secondly your donated and lively wealth for charity (waqaf) and thirdly your contributions to the knowledge that are beneficial to other people.
This is not true. The vast, vast, vast majority of works from the classical world we have were saved by byzantine and western European monks.
I am thankful we the works saved by Muslims, but there has been a gross over reaction where the true source of most of our knowledge of the classical world has been ignored so people can score woke points for praising non western cultures and erasing the contributions of the west and christendom.
We were not talking about whether the Muslim world appreciated Greek thought, we were talking about how much the Muslim world preserved Greek works otherwise unavailable. Regardless of your boasting of Muslim scholarship, many more Greek works have come down to use in manuscripts copied down in the Christian world. It is only a comparatively few works that we must credit the Muslim world with preserving.
Again, go look at the manuscript sources for all those OCT and Teubner editions.
Please check this article on the Benedict abbot or Peter the Venerable who was during his time in charged of more than 600 monasteries [1]. In the article it's mentioned that he summoned the monks to not only translate Arabic works he found in Toledo to Latin, but also Arabic translations of otherwise lost classical Greek texts. If this not the proof of Muslim Empire and scholars greatly help preserving Greek texts then I don't know what is. As you probably know that the renaissance era was started from the fall of Toledo into the Spaniard's hands.
Just for the sake of arguments, even if the Cristian world have most of their copies, are having the back up copies by the Muslim world really help preserving the books when there was no Google Drive around?
At least we probably can agree that these Muslim scholars were not only appreciating but they were also cherishing the Greek books just like we are cherishing the PlayStation 5 not only appreciating it. For them it is part of their religious duty to contribute and spread the knowledge regardless they were from India, China or Greek. You need to understand that these scholars not only preserved the book but they cherished them. It's given fact that you only keep what you value and cherish, and by nature human are selective hoarders. Without the ransack of Baghdad by the Mongol where the rivers turned blue/black by the ink of the thrown and demolished books it's probably not an exaggeration to say that we probably living in Mars by now. The fact that the lesser backup copies in Toledo, Spain that fell into the European hands essentially initiated the knowledge revolutions or renaissance as they called it today.
I am sorry, but you appear to lack any training in the field of Greek and Latin manuscript studies, and your posts here abound in oversimplification and urban myths about the Medieval era and the Renaissance. Again, instead of linking to pop-sci articles, and a JSTOR publication which does not actually bear on the present discussion, please consult an actual university library and go through the manuscript sources of editions of Greek and Latin writers to see how little a role the Muslim world has played in transmission of classical authors.
While you might be very proud that the Muslim world preserved (a very few) Greek and Latin sources that were also held by the Christian world, that is irrelevant to the discussion launched by the OP.
Yes I'm no a scholar in Greek and Latin manuscript but I doubt that you are more of a scholar than Dr. Columba Stewart the author of the allegedly "pop-science article" that I have referenced and provided you. He is not only a Benedictine monk, he is also a very reputable scholar and has been an executive director of the Hill Museum and Manuscript library since 2003 that has Harvard, Yale and Oxford University as his alma mater. Heck, I cannot even think of anybody else that has more credential than him in the Greek and Latin manuscripts as being maintained by the monasteries [1].
Did you even read the Columba Stewart article you linked to? The author speaks about precious manuscripts in general held outside Europe, that is, not just Latin and Greek works transmitted exclusively in the Muslim world (which certainly exist, but are comparatively few) but the Muslim world’s own works. The article is therefore not relevant to the OP’s claim that started this subthread, and your boasting about the Muslim world’s erudition is off-topic here.
Even Columba Stewart would agree, like the rest of scholars engaged in matters of textual transmission, that the great majority of Latin and Greek writers that have come down to us today, came down through manuscript traditions in the Christian world, and the Muslim world has contributed only in a few cases.
There were two biggest centers of ancient books and scriptures after the demolition of the Great Library of Alexandria, namely Baghdad and Toledo. The Library of Alexandria is said to house about 100,000 book or manuscript titles mainly by the Hellenistic Greek scholars.
Of all people, the Christian Coptic Pope is the culprit who ordered the demolition of the great library in the 4th century CE. The Muslim Empire and scholars somehow managed to scrambled majority of the Greek civilization learning and books of what have been left after the destruction, and also significantly add their own knowledge contributions. The effort resulted in the two greatest centers of ancient texts in the world by the 11th century CE.
Baghdad center was ransacked to the ashes, and majority of the stored books and manuscripts demolished. The only surviving secondary or lesser center of the two was Toledo. Toledo fell to the Spaniard in 11th century. Benedict the abbot who in charged of more than 600 monastery has ordered the clergy to literally copy and also translate books and scriptures from the center in Toledo. In Toledo there existed original Arabic books on the new knowledge, Arabic translations of Greek books and scriptures that otherwise have been lost forever, and perhaps many copies of the original books of Greek civilization but we probably never knew the exact composition since this happened about a thousand years back. These copies of the books and manuscripts were ordered to be kept in these many monasteries, and the books and manuscripts remained there for centuries. If you think only a few works (less than five) of the ancient Greek works that were preserved during the time due to the Muslim empire and scholars efforts, I really want to know what are the things that you are smoking at the moment?
Again, your posts abound in misunderstandings of history and urban legend. With regard to the Library of Alexandria, the library building probably no longer housed any books when it was destroyed by the Coptic hierarch; the library collection had been lost in past centuries.
With regard to Toledo, you appear to have read some pop-sci articles about it that made you excited, but you overestimate its impact. We know the provenance of the manuscripts of the Greek and Latin writers that have come down to us, and Toledo played absolutely no role in the transmission of most of them. Again, Greek and Latin manuscript studies is a well-established field.
Finally, none of what you have been posting is relevant to this subthread, and if you really want foreigners to appreciate the erudition of the Muslim world, getting your information right is important. With your carelessness about the facts, you are only damaging your own cause.
Wow, do you really believe that the Great Library of Alexandria is empty when the burning and the demolition happened? Its last recorded director was a scholar and mathematician Theon, father of famed female mathematician, astronomer and philosopher Hypatia. Hypatia a writer of 13 volumes Arithmetica (this probably where the "word" aritmetics came from) and a pagan was murdered by a Christian mob in 415 CE. Yes, why would an empty library has a director? Care to explain?
The Christian establishment in the antiquity and the middle age were so anti-knowledge that it was the opposite of Muslim empire at the time. The anti-knowledge behavior has been exposed by movement such as Renaissance (technology) and Protestant (religion). Do you know that by law at the time you cannot translate Bible to other local languages in many part of Europe until a few centuries back? Yes, that is the main reason you have the Protestant movement.
Regarding the effect the Toledo it is mentioned in the article by your own foremost Greek learning and manuscript expert in the so called pop science articles by Dr Columba Stewart and also other similar experts. It seems that you denied most if their relevant claims regarding Toledo. If you don't mind can you please tell me what is your credentials and expertises in Greek learning history that you have disagreed with most of these reputable scholars regarding the matter?
Anyway in Arabic the non-believers are referred to as "kafir", literally means the "denial of the truth".
Well one, no Ottomans, no fall of Byzantium, no Renaissance. :-) But more seriously, the Eastern Empire was in communication with their Muslim neighbors. For example, the iconoclastic controversy and the final resolution in favor of icons only makes sense in a context where your neighbors are much harder core than you are about idolatry and it’s embarrassing to the intelligentsia.
"We read, it is true, that wine is by no means a drink for monks; but since the monks of our day cannot be persuaded of this, let us at least agree to drink sparingly and not to satiety, because 'wine makes even the wise fall away.'"
I'm a Catholic, and this is the rule that amuses me the most.
The monks were willing to give up most material possessions and submit to a life of poverty, obedience, and sexual abstinence... but the one thing they couldn't be persuaded to give up was the hooch.
“Drink because you are happy, but never because you are miserable. Never drink when you are wretched without it, or you will be like the grey-faced gin-drinker in the slum; but drink when you would be happy without it, and you will be like the laughing peasant of Italy. Never drink because you need it, for this is rational drinking, and the way to death and hell. But drink because you do not need it, for this is irrational drinking, and the ancient health of the world.”
It's a good general rule for relationships and a lot of other things as well; don't go into one with the hopes it'll make you happy, don't go into one hoping it'll fill a gap or fulfill a need. Aim for interdependence instead of dependence.
And for the love of heck don't try and find a surrogate mom/dad. Do your own housekeeping and maintenance, earn your own money, live your own life before sharing it with another. Especially in my parents' generation, a lot of people went from home to live with their SO. People like my dad who never learned to cook and only had to get to grips with it when my mom started to work evenings. Mind you, that's also when I learned.
Anyway, modern day advice, try to live on your own for a while before living with someone else.
> Maybe a good basis for differentiating “drugs” vs “medicine”?
Perhaps, although I don't think in the way I'd take your statement. Chesterton was quite opposed to the idea that drinking would be medicinal (although maybe he would have allowed that happiness is good medicine?). From the context[1]:
> A new morality has burst upon us with some violence in connection with the problem of strong drink; and enthusiasts in the matter range from the man who is violently thrown out at 12.30, to the lady who smashes American bars with an axe. In these discussions it is almost always felt that one very wise and moderate position is to say that wine or such stuff should only be drunk as a medicine. With this I should venture to disagree with a peculiar ferocity. The one genuinely dangerous and immoral way of drinking wine is to drink it as a medicine. And for this reason, If a man drinks wine in order to obtain pleasure, he is trying to obtain something exceptional, something he does not expect every hour of the day, something which, unless he is a little insane, he will not try to get every hour of the day. But if a man drinks wine in order to obtain health, he is trying to get something natural; something, that is, that he ought not to be without; something that he may find it difficult to reconcile himself to being without. The man may not be seduced who has seen the ecstasy of being ecstatic; it is more dazzling to catch a glimpse of the ecstasy of being ordinary. If there were a magic ointment, and we took it to a strong man, and said, "This will enable you to jump off the Monument," doubtless he would jump off the Monument, but he would not jump off the Monument all day long to the delight of the City. But if we took it to a blind man, saying, "This will enable you to see," he would be under a heavier temptation. It would be hard for him not to rub it on his eyes whenever he heard the hoof of a noble horse or the birds singing at daybreak. It is easy to deny one's self festivity; it is difficult to deny one's self normality. Hence comes the fact which every doctor knows, that it is often perilous to give alcohol to the sick even when they need it. I need hardly say that I do not mean that I think the giving of alcohol to the sick for stimulus is necessarily unjustifiable. But I do mean that giving it to the healthy for fun is the proper use of it, and a great deal more consistent with health.
I think that's right. If people use cannabis or alcohol when depressed, consistently, I think it digs a deeper hole. On the other hand, combining drugs with happy moments can create a state dependent memory that allows a "storing up" of positivity. Smoking cannabis at the top of mountains, before going to museums or at concerts -- it builds a state that -- i believe-- can come out during a neutral use. It's a key approach to "virtuous drug use", which I think is important to communicate as a possibility. For a moral society, better to associate drugs with moral behavior than immoral.
"...But where the circumstances of the place are such that not even the measure prescribed above can be supplied, but much less or none at all, let those who live there bless God and not murmur. Above all things do we give this admonition, that they abstain from murmuring."
But if we run out, above all there will be no complaining.
I'm sure it depended on geography and time period, but I've read that it wasn't always possible to drink water due to cholera. There may have been a necessity of mixing in at least some wine with the water, to disinfect it. Some have gone so far as to suggest that the arrival of tea from China, which required boiling the water, resulted in a bit of an intellectual boost in Europe.
There were many monasteries where beer and wine making were part of their business model.
Another explanation I got from a Lithuanian is that, in the past, beer was used mainly as food. This was because the millstones were flaky and so you would end up with bits of stone in flour. Not great for the dental work. If you brew beer then the bits of millstone settle to the bottom.
Beer (wort, at this stage) is heated before fermentation, normally not boiled but enough to kill bacteria.
Wine is normally made from pure juice, and isn't heated at any point in the process. But again, it's made from pure juice: the inside of a grape is not a usual place to find dangerous bacteria, and on the outside one would normally find only the yeasts which produce the fermentation.
Modern wine-making washes the grapes thoroughly and adds yeast, the old-school method was simply to crush, and rely on the surface bloom and residual yeast in the vessel to do the work. Which lead to rather more vinegar than the modern vintner would tolerate.
As one who has brewed beer for 27 years now, wort is definitely brought to a boil at the beginning of a brew to cause the ‘hot break’ proteins to coagulate. The wort is then held at a low boil or near boiling for 45-60 min after the bittering hops are added as those temperatures most efficiently allow the alpha acids from the lupulin glands of the hops to enter solution.
Grape juice for wine, as it can’t be heated without ruining it, is usually lightly sulphited for a day or three before adding yeast, which kills the bacteria present in the juice.
I always considered it more of a reflection on practicality. There is going to be wine around the monastery, if only because it is necessary for Mass. Therefore, you cannot really ban wine, so are you really going to dedicate a group of monks to the sole task of cellar guard duty?
I don't know if this is off-topic, but in some religions, including Judaism and some denominations of Christianity, drinking is a religious necessity.
In Judaism: Every Sabbath, you bless and drink wine. Every Passover, you drink four cups of wine. Every Purim, you are commanded to drink to your happiness.
In some denominations of Christianity: You drink wine as part of the Eucharist.
On the other hand, I think in Islam, drinking wine is forbidden. So different religions have different views on drink.
DT Suzuki has a funny quip in some book where he knocks Christianity for drinking intoxicating wine, whereas Zen drinks tea. I laughed but actually wine rules.
While reading about Jesus drinking wine. :) I think the compromise is practical and also in line with the advice of the apostles. Nothing wrong with drinking, but drunkenness is a risk in many ways.
the amount of wine required for the mass isn't exactly the same as what would be drunk during meals, especially as, in monasteries, not all monks are priests.
And even if wine wouldn't be banned, I think the wine would be stored under lock and key, if only to avoid consumption outside of meals
Benedict predated the shift in Catholic practice of only priests drinking from the chalice. In his time both priests and lay members would have needed wine.
I spent 2 weeks in a benedictine monastery in Italy, about 2 months ago. I think these were some of the most influential weeks of my life. I really hope I can write something useful for others, but the more I digest the experience, the more I think people need to do that themselves and come to their own conclusions.
Does anyone know if there's something on par with Standard Ebooks quality and "remastering scrutiny" with a focus for old religious books like the above?
> Major religious texts from modern world religions, like the Bible or the Koran, will not be accepted. Texts about religion will usually be accepted. Texts from historical religious movements that were culturally influential but are now defunct, or are otherwise not significant in modern times, might be accepted; ask first.
https://standardebooks.org/contribute/accepted-ebooks
As this seems to be interesting to people, I highly recommend this article about a Benedictine monastery that started a web development agency in the 90s:
The project was started by Michael S. Hart in 1971 at the University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign and is now hosted by ibiblio at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Some of these seem quite strange, probably because I don’t have the right background to infer the proper context. For example, chapter 69:
> Care must be taken that no monk presume on any ground to defend another monk in the monastery, or as it were to take him under his protection, even though they be united by some tie of blood-relationship. Let not the monks dare to do this in any way whatsoever, because it may give rise to most serious scandals. But if anyone breaks this rule, let him be severely punished.
That is not so strange. I've seen it in similar forms elsewhere. It basically means you don't actually know what's in a man's mind and if it's found that you protected a deceitful person you're worse than if you let the things unfold by themselves. For example, you guarantee for a friend that you 'know' could not do something bad. You actually don't know.
Strong dhamma - thank you. I frequent budhist monasteries myself - i see how all prophets are indeed one, and how budha, christ and allah and all other gods stem from that one thing which we encounter after long meditations and prayer finally takes away our anger and hurt to open that door which cannot be closed.
I have a grievance always with “it” for making it so hard for the most of us to access. But i practice.
I wish you all find the power to forgive your enemies, and discover the hidden ones within us all.
> i see how all prophets are indeed one, and how budha, christ and allah and all other gods stem from that one thing which we encounter after long meditations and prayer finally takes away our anger and hurt to open that door which cannot be closed.
There certainly are teachings that one might find in different religions, but to say that "all prophets are indeed one" and "how budha, christ and allah and all other gods stem from that one thing which we encounter after long meditations and prayer . . . .", does not match up with what is taught in buddhism, christianity and islam.
In buddhism the goal is Nirvana, which is reached after extinction of greed, aversion and ignorance, leading to release from the cycle of rebirth.[1]
In christianity, the saviour is Jesus: "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me", [John 14:6], and "But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin". [1 John 1:7]
And the result of faith in Jesus is heaven, which is described in this way (a couple of glimpses):
"Then I saw “a new heaven and a new earth,” for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea. 2 I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband. [Revelation 21:1-2]
"They will need no light of lamp or sun, for the Lord God will be their light, and they will reign forever and ever."[Revelation 22:5]
In islam, one of the five pilars is: "I bear witness that there is no deity but God, and I bear witness that Muhammad is the messenger of God."[2]
Salvation in the afterlife: "According to the Quran, the basic criterion for salvation in the afterlife is the belief in the oneness of God (tawḥīd), angels of God, revealed books of God, all messengers of God, as well as repentance to God, and doing good deeds. Though one must do good deeds and believe in God, salvation can only be attained through God's judgment.[3]
"Jannah is described as an eternal dwelling (Q3:136), with its supreme felicity and greatest bliss being God's good pleasure (Q9:72)".[4]
The teachings in buddhism, christianity and islam are therefore very different, and points to completely different ways of salvation and afterlife. They all can't be true at the same time.
I have read the three monothiestic religions and have a practicing budhist for 3. Thousands of hours of silence now. As the buddha states, we must all each do the work, not adhere to scripture - the work is simple yet hard - i suggest you try vipassana or any type of extended silence retreats (muslim, christian ... it doesnt matter. I spoke wirh christisn and muslims who were on intensive prayer retreats, they reported the same experience)
seek truth within yourself brother - if you chase interpretation and opinion, you will spiral down. The truth itself is within you, in your flesh, inside your mind is an undying light surrounded by your traumas/impurities. Don't try to assume .. simply discover - the mind wishes to argue its way around truth and console itself with what it thinks is intellectual, but its just a battery of randomness.
Call it what we may, jhanna, yana, grace .. the understanding is truth itself - i wont and cant convince you, its work left for you.
I was thinking that they were only partial solution and thus only partially incompatible, in that if you seek through the gods abstraction you actually reach the hidden truth behind.
Lovely to see this here, from another atheist who reads it often for the great wisdom within.
Some favorites:
"When two monks meet they should each try to be the first to show respect to the other,"and, the abbot must “arrange everything that the strong have something to yearn for and the weak have nothing to run from.”
This is probably one of the oldest complete manuscripts that I've (partly) read in addition to the Tsun Szu's The Art of War and the Bible.
It is interesting to note that monasticism is neither prescribed nor enjoined in the Bible, in both the Old and the New Testaments [1]. It is, however, mentioned in the Quran that monasticism is rather an invention by the People of the Books namely Christians and Jews [2]. According to the Quran, it's invented for the monks to seek God's good pleasure, but apparently most of the monks do not observe it as it ought to have been observed. Perhaps this book and manual from St. Benedict provided us with the most authentic and comprehensive descriptions of the rules of the monks' observations during the classical antiquity. By reading the rules I can appreciate why the monks have failed observe them ;-). Adding to the fact that it predates the Quran, these type of observations that were probably being referred to by the Quran.
Fun fact, there is an Ashtiname (Book of Peace), a letter sent by Muhammad to the Saint Catherine's Monastery [3]. The purpose is to guarantee the safety of its monks living there against any potential aggression by the Muslim individuals or army. Given the monastery is still exist and standing today despite of being there for more than a thousand years under Islamic government rule is probably the testament of the effectiveness of the covenant provided by the Ashtiname.
Every age and degree of understanding should have its proper measure of discipline. With regard to boys and adolescents, therefore, or those who cannot understand the seriousness of the penalty of excommunication, whenever such as these are delinquent let them be subjected to severe fasts or brought to terms by harsh beatings, that they may be cured.
> For he is believed to hold the place of Christ in the monastery, being called by a name of His, which is taken from the words of the Apostle: “You have received a Spirit of adoption as sons, by virtue of which we cry, ‘Abba—Father!’”
In light of Matthew 23:9 [0], this practice concerns me.
[0] - “Call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven”
No longer Catholic, but Matthew 23 has to be interpreted in context since Christ also says to call no one a teacher but we don't freak about that at all.
Also, St. Paul says you don't have many Fathers in the faith but he is one.
So in combination it means that no one on Earth replaces God as Father and Lord of all. Pope, Patriarch, Bishop, Priest whoever, insofar as they submit to God, submit to them. Otherwise resist and refute them.
> Call no man father? Do Catholics violate Jesus' command in Matthew 23? Dr. Brant Pitre examines this passage in order to explain the meaning of the command to call no man father.
The whole "unquestioning obedience" thing is what freaks me out the most. Truly people are right when they say that religion is fundamentally about control.
I think it's instructive to see some of the rules (such as this) as descriptive rather than prescriptive---after all, one cannot by force of will still the murmuring in the heart, but someone who is genuinely completely committed to service will have few causes to hesitate.
Many spiritual texts stress obedience to the master/abbot/what-have-you both because of the presumption that the senior knows more than the junior, but also because it reinforces that the service is offered to something greater and not for the (material) benefit of the one doing the service.
I haven't had time to go over everything but I would be surprised if it's truly unquestioning rather than just unhesitating. Something whose purpose is not understood should probably lead to contemplation and then discussion with the abbot to confirm the understanding.
I don't know about you, but for me the obvious way in which politicians and other powerful sorts have abused and perverted religious devices (and systems of control) to achieve their own ends has left a really bad taste in my mouth generally w.r.t anything "control-y' about religion.
The religious motivation behind control in monasteries is something different, though (at least when uncorrupted by politics and power).
Monasteries are, by design, very controlled environments. That's _exactly_ what they are supposed to be.
A place where you can safely get lost in ecstatic bliss, altered states of consciousness and the sometimes-difficult psychological territory of self discovery that typically follows these experiences.
The guard rails are put there by people who have travelled the road before and know what the pitfalls are.
For anyone curious about that (from a Christian monastery context):
* Cloud of Unknowing (Anonymous)
* The Dark Night of the Soul (St. John of the Cross)
* The Interior Castle (Teresa of Ávila)
Similar material exists for guiding e.g. Buddhist monks through the sort of territory that comes up when people spend a lot of time alone in contemplation (The Visuddhimagga, The Vimuttimagga in the Theravada tradition, The Tibetan Book of the Dead in the Vajrayana tradition).
Shamanic traditions likewise have very strict schedules of diet and spiritual preparation before aspirants can consume psychedelics - and ceremonies are (traditionally) performed under exquisitely controlled conditions.
Incidentally - westerners who play with meditative technologies or "psychedelic" therapies absent a regular, working relationship with a guide who know the territory do so at their own peril, IMO.
Thousands of years of contemplative and meditative practice have yielded independently arising systems in many different cultures which call for a controlled environment where a practitioner is surrounded by peers who know what to do, and more importantly what _not_ to do when things get a bit weird.
That's JUST for the individual practitioner.
Now add another layer for "things that can go wrong when trying to manage / lead a large community of people doing these things together".
Many mystical traditions (particularly eastern ones) solve this problem by having rules about how long monks and abbots can stay in one place.
Here, we see some western solutions to the common problems of community governance (at least: the sorts of problems one was likely to encounter at the time).
I've meandered really widely around the point! :)
Really I just wanted to call out that there is a valid (within the context of the goals of spiritual practice) use for a very controlled environment that should be considered separately from the common understanding of "religious control" (i.e. the powerful and political abusing religious devices to exert control over the masses).
It's kind of implied. "Monk" comes from the Greek word "monos", which means "alone." You can check this by reading the Rule and seeing how well it can be followed by someone who is married.
This is an apt comment. I went to a Benedictine College with a Monastery attached. More than one of the monks, after a night of heavy drinking, would tell me: "We take a vow of celibacy (non-marriage), not of chastity."
Well, chaste is already something every Catholic is bound to be. I assume they aren't taking vows not to murder or not to steal or to not lie, because those things are already forbidden. The vows are for things that raise the bar.
from what I remember of my catechism, the chastity would depends on one's state (single/widower, married, cleric). So for single persons, priest, monks => abstinence, married => fidelity to the spouse
Though iirc from my (orthodox) catechism st benedict predates the western christian tradition of unmarried clergy. Monks would have been celibate always though I think.
If I remember correctly, the ban against marriage came after the monasteries were well established. The monasteries were some of the largest estates in medieval Europe, and there was a fear that they would become dynasties that challenged the lords (or became poweful in their own right which could challenge the church hierarchy). The marriage prohibition kept the church in control of the monasteries and kept the relationship between the church and the lords happy.
Monasteries from pretty early on required celibacy. According to https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clerical_celibacy_in_the_Cat..., priests did get married until the 12th century (even then, some say there was an unenforced law rule on the books saying that wasn't supposed to happen) .
While there were some theological and worldly reasons for the change, competition with lords wasn't one, and doesn't make a lot of sense. Religious communities were largely populated by the children of the nobles, and nobles gave to monasteries. (And again, wouldn't apply, since only non-monastic priests were married.)
I have never been able to square the catholic church ban on priest marrying with 1 Timothy 3:
2 Now the overseer is to be above reproach, faithful to his wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3 not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. 4 He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him, and he must do so in a manner worthy of full[a] respect. 5 (If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God’s church?)
The rule against unmarried clergy came pretty late in the game I believe. Anyway I think it was more of a practical organizational determination, not a theological thing.
