2. As I mentioned earlier, I have been studying Underhill's Mysticism now for many years. Through this work I have developed an understanding of many Western mystics - Teresa of Avila, John of the Cross, Catherine of Siena, and so on.
3. What is strange is despite Underhill's book being the "textbook" of mysticism, there is no reference in it to what we would call the OOBE.
4. There are some brief, vague references to "transport" or "rapture" - but as usual with mystic writers it is a struggle to get at what exactly is meant by these terms.
5. Despite the above, there is no concrete reference to nonphysical reality had via direct experience throughout the entire book. It seems that if this was an important factor for the mystic quest this would be a glaring omission.
6. What got me thinking about this was actually this reference of Catherine of Siena, when she refers to one of her ecstasies.
Oftentimes, through the perfect union which the soul has made with Me, she is raised from the earth almost as if the heavy body became light. (...) From the body she did not depart, because that cannot be except in death; the bodily powers alone departed, becoming united to Me through affection of love.The bolded being what I am thinking of. Here we see one of the prime Christian mystics, and yet in this major text of hers she denies the possibility of the OOBE. Catherine of Siena is revered as a saint, and her Dialogues are an account of the unitive life, but it seems Catherine may have never been out of body?
7. Underhill also refers to "ecstasy," by which I think she is referring to catalepsy or sleep paralysis - although the mysticification she makes of this state makes it very hard to follow.
8. It is here where I think of the other Christian mystics I am familiar with - Teresa of Avila and John of the Cross - and must admit they, too, have no discussion of what we would call an OOBE.
9. I know that Teresa of Avila has some references to "transport" or (spiritual) "levitation," though from what I recall she never elaborates on these, or goes into an explication of nonphysical reality. Based on this, it seems these mystics were of the same opinion as Catherine of Siena.
10. Here we have a stunning question. Is it possible we went the whole span of spiritual history and none of these titans of mysticism ever encountered the OOBE? It seems hard to believe. The OOBE would be very rare indeed.
11. It seems reasonable to think a Christian mystic would be among the most willing of dualists; as it is taught in the West that the spirit and body are separate, and that at death the spirit goes on to the "kingdom of heaven."
12. Yet it is here where I return to that idea of nondualism or the experience of "universal I" - examined yesterday in reference to Bodhimind and Gary Weber. As this most certainly is alluded to universally by the above mystics. It is not only their end for meditation, but the permanent establishment of this is what they call the spiritual marriage, deification, or the unitive state.
13. Here I am confronted with a contradiction of Jeff Brooks. When I asked Jeff what he defined enlightenment to be - and if it was possible without the OOBE - he said the OOBE was required. If this is so it would mean all these great saints from Christian history were unenlightened.
14. I am still reflecting on my reasoning. Who could decipher all this?
