Therese Neumann, the Catholic Stigmatist

Autobiography of a Yogi (1946 edition) ^ | 1946 | Paramhansa Yogananda

[dangus]

I'm afraid you missed what I said. His fleeing from her is not in a physical manner. He cannot deny what he has seen, so he has changed the meaning of what he has seen. In this way he has fled from the reality of what she has spoken. She has spoken and given witness to Christianity, and he knows the truth of what she has done, so he has, in his own mind, changed what she has said so he can think of her as having given witness to something she in fact must have opposed; he has refused to live in the truth. It is a subtler way of fleeing than fleeing in body, but it is no less a denial of what she has said.

[Gilead]

I realized at once that her strange life is intended by God to reassure all Christians of the historical authenticity of Jesus' life and crucifixion as recorded in the New Testament, and to dramatically display the ever-living bond between the Galilean Master and his devotees.

What about these words do you not understand? Is it the author's unusual Indian name that offends you the most?

[dangus]

No, get past it. Why must you play the race card? Who mentionned anything about race? I happen to love the Indian people. If anything, I am biased *towards* them, because my experience with many Indian people has been so positive, I almost take for granted any given Indian persion I meet is going to freindly, warm, peaceful, decent and respectful. I know many who are wonderful Christians, and have liked many who were not. But I respect more someone who practices Hindu than someone who tells me that Hindu and Christianity are the same thing, for they are not.

BUt suppose I did not have warm feelings towards Indians. Suppose I only knew a few Indians and happened to get along with them quite poorly. What's that to you? Have I said anything debasing Indians in general, or do you accuse me of bigotry just because I find fault in this one man?

Let me tell a parable, a fantasy. Suppose Jim believes in UFOs. Robert sees a dragon swoop down from the sky, and burn an entire village. He sees its yellow eyes, its lizard-like skin, its great big wings. He tells Jim, "Go warn the king... there is a dragon here!"

Jim says to himself, "I don't believe in dragons!" But Rob has shown him the village that was burnt to cinders, and the giant dragon egg in the middle of town. He sees the damage and destruction. He even hears the dragon's wings in the distance.

And yet Jim says, "I don't believe it was a dragon. It was a UFO! THey probably have weapons which make great fires. And they fly in the sky. And I bet that 'egg' is some sort of landing pod. And that noise on the wind must be its engines." And so Jim reports to the authority that Rob told him a UFO destroyed the village.

Has Jim told the truth? No. Has Jim even respected Robert? No, he has presumed Robert is a fool! He would have been telling the truth if he said, "Robert says he has seen a dragon; I believe it to be a UFO." But he didn't say this. Even if his intentions were well, he lied. He said "Robert says he has seen a UFO" even though Robert does not believe in UFOs.

That is what the Indian has done. The Holy Spirit is not AUM; it is not a "great vibration." And the Eucharist is not merely consecrated bread. He has seen incredible things, but has disbelieved what the woman has told him. So he reports that it is the things that he believes in him.