Stylites, Dendrites, eremites, monastics and ascetics. What value should we place on asceticism?
Gamma Gamaliel
Shipmate
in Purgatory
This is a spin-off from the Christocentric thread.
As Christianity spread, became more mainstream and arguably 'settled down', some believers headed into the desert to pursue what they believed to be a more radical and ascetic form of discipleship.
Hence all the hagiographies of ascetics enduring extreme feats such as sitting on tops of poles, living in trees or other unfeasibly inhospitable places.
These days, of course, we prefer to see an emphasis on social action and community, although there are still some hermits and solitaries in some Christian traditions.
Equally, other religions have their equivalents and the Jains seem particularly noteworthy in this respect.
Buddhist monks and nuns also undergo various ascetic disciplines, some of them pretty intense.
Is there a 'collective' value to such practices alongside whatever spiritual benefits practitioners seek to gain from such approaches and emphases?
Is there anything the rest of us can gain from their example?
Is there a potential societal or corporate dimension or are these things solipsistic and self-serving?
Thoughts?
As Christianity spread, became more mainstream and arguably 'settled down', some believers headed into the desert to pursue what they believed to be a more radical and ascetic form of discipleship.
Hence all the hagiographies of ascetics enduring extreme feats such as sitting on tops of poles, living in trees or other unfeasibly inhospitable places.
These days, of course, we prefer to see an emphasis on social action and community, although there are still some hermits and solitaries in some Christian traditions.
Equally, other religions have their equivalents and the Jains seem particularly noteworthy in this respect.
Buddhist monks and nuns also undergo various ascetic disciplines, some of them pretty intense.
Is there a 'collective' value to such practices alongside whatever spiritual benefits practitioners seek to gain from such approaches and emphases?
Is there anything the rest of us can gain from their example?
Is there a potential societal or corporate dimension or are these things solipsistic and self-serving?
Thoughts?
Comments
Its story is here..
For that matter, Mrs. Gramps has become an oblate at the Monastery of St Gertrude in Cottenwood, ID. She usually attends a couple of retreats a year up there. She figures once I am gone and she becomes too feeble, the sisters will take her in. Its website is here.
I even bought an Fransiscan alb from a Monastery in Minnesota when we lived near there.
Which is to say throughout our married life we have had monasteries weave through the fabric of our married life.
Well when there’s an agreed definition of ‘conspicuous and wasteful’…
You may as well argue (from the other side) ‘why should we not be critical of performatively hair shirted consumers?’
Probably with about as much success.
More people are flattered into virtue than are bullied out of vice… (RS Surtees)
A quote which should be in our 'Great Lines' thread!
I live in a mixed capitalist economy, which I can not personally change - any more than my personal recycling can stop climate change. That doesn’t mean I don’t recycle - but I don’t recycle or reduce my consumption to the maximum extent I could. Similarly, I am fortunate to have a good salary, I pay someone to clean my house - you could say that’s extravagant as I could do it myself - conversely I am giving someone a job.
Which is a long winded way of saying I think it possible to be a mindful consumer without becoming an ascetic.
I am not good at this, and it is something I am trying to improve in my life. That said, I think the qualifier “freely chosen” is really important.
For those people who choose a monastic or quasi monastic discipline - I think that can be valuable to them and also to wider society. Much as a philosopher or an academic mathematician is of value. It is a distilled version of something we can all benefit from and sometimes take as an inspiration or a sign post.
I wouldn’t want to see it cross the line to self harm though. As a mental health professional reading some old stories of saints and monastics does look like you are reading an account of unhealthy self directed disgust of the body, anorexia or neurological problems re described as spiritual disciplines or experiences.
(Much as I think many haunting accounts are a pre-contemporary descriptions of trauma related flashback.)
There is a somewhat strange dynamic in the Hebrides that locally made goods (and some services) are priced for the tourist trade. People will pay considerably more for a locally made or branded item when they're on holiday than they would for the same thing on Etsy (or even Scottish Island Gifts), and there is a sense that there is a need to shake down tourists for as much money as possible to make it worthwhile tolerating them (recognising that most accommodation is not locally owned so that money is largely extracted). That's not to say that folk are profiteering, but making a reasonable living involves pushing prices to the maximum tolerable.
Well, conspicuous and wasteful consumption has a damaging effect on people who live in the developing world for starters. And has a damaging effect on the planet we all share. It is a deeply moral matter.
I don’t disagree at all - but again we need to define both ‘conspicuous’ and ‘wasteful’ in such a way as most people agree.
Superyacht where all the rubbish is thrown overboard? Fine
String of second homes used only by the owner? Again most will buy in.
Four flights a year (two foreign holidays)? Good luck*
Basically I’m suggesting the problem is lack of a definition that MOST people are on board with that would do more than touch the sides.
*I haven’t flown since 2019 but I reckon this would be a place where there was push back from both the loads of people that think two foreign holidays a year is fine, AND a large constituency of those who aspire to it.
ish. In this case you are just paying for a service which you would perform yourself - you are not really increasing the amount of consumption that has harmful externalities (and may indeed be reducing it as you no longer have to buy and maintain specialised cleaning equipment).
Yeah, but I'm sceptical of the Paradox of Thrift when it's applied to individual actions, largely because the people who are most vocal about its harmful effects rarely apply their logic at the level it actually matters and will be in favour of things like austerity (Reform's official position on the PIP changes is that the people of Clacton need to be made poorer on aggregate).
For the record, I am absolutely not in favour of austerity.
[/tangent]
Oops. My mistake.
You can be poor and accumulate. It doesn't necessarily have to be physical accumulation. Things easily become a sort of addiction, where people want more and more.
So from that angle, simplification, becoming mentally detached, is helpful for focus on God, for wisdom and being able to listen to and love others, for simply being centred and being oneself.
To me, this is a healthier approach than simply denying oneself any desire. Self-denial is not necessarily a good thing, and can be used as a power and pride thing, I've observed. I have become aware of some rather incel-type pages on Facebook, and they have in common that they are encouraging men to fast, to live as if they were poor, to overcome any lust or sexual desire (wanking is seen as very bad, leading to physical and emotional weakness, and women are seen as manipulative, deceitful, leading to a man's downfall). The end goal in this is that they secretly become rich and powerful and they then can get the right sort of woman, who will submit and cook for them and make their life easier.
Sitting light to possessions, so that you can enjoy them, but not be destroyed by their loss would seem to be the object.
But it would be nice if facilities existed for the religious institutions to take care of their own screwups. Too often we hear of some great religious celebrity who turns out to be a complete hypocrite.
If they've done something that's clearly illegal then they absolutely should be imprisoned, but I would make a refreshing change if a televangelist who was unmasked as a sexpest who then spent the rest of their lives locked away in voluntary obscurity so we didn't have to see their stupid face again.
I'm sure most religious people could do with a bit of time in a darkened room where they can think about the stupid things they've done. Let's just extend that thought and encourage those who make really stupid public mistakes to shut up, sit down and go away for a very long time.
The obvious UK example of someone actually doing this (though they were political rather than religious) is John Profumo.
And, to a lesser extent, Jonathan Aitken.
Of course this brings with it various risks around power dynamics but it's a much better look than the conspicuous consumption of today's super rich.
That said, I agree if the person has been charged with a sex offense against a minor or a vulnerable person there needs to be legal recourse to follow first.
The top polluters are big companies not individuals, and one of the biggest is the textile industry. That's not to say that individuals can't or shouldn't make lifestyle changes, but we all have to wear clothes for example - we all participate in producing excessive waste and pollution in some way.
To do it personally to people you know would be rude and graceless. If you mean general trends in society, that might be a different matter.
Destroying the planet is pretty rude and graceless behaviour. Sometimes shame is the only thing that prompts someone into changing their ways - and someone who might not listen to an article or a TV show might listen to somebody they know. If someone pollutes less due to vanity or shame rather than due to personal conscience that's still a win.
It cost me a fair bit of money to get here and to do so.
The monks who were here originally were pretty ascetic but the abbey accumulated great wealth over the centuries.
I agree with @Doublethink that much early Christian ascetic practice wasn't as pure as the driven snow - and self-harm certainly came into it. The monks on Skellig Michael off the Irish coast were emaciated and reduced to eating grass it seems.
I'm finding all the comments interesting on this thread, even though I've no idea whether or not I'm doing the right sort of things in this respect.
I'd have read @Alan29 to be talking about excessive consumption based on want rather than need - and calling for the kind of shame you talk about in your followup - which can equally go in bad directions.
That's all true to a point; and generally the only fix is that of systemic change, though the problem with the initial statement is that either highlights that there isn't popular support for change or that those companies are beyond the reach of democracies to change (or both).
I think there is a case to be made that the eremitic life did at one point allow for a kind of Holy Fool role - which I think often if not always requires the work of messed-up people, certainly many rude and graceless people! It's not like the Desert Fathers and Desert Mothers held back in how they wrote to others. I agree that it often involved a lot of behaviour that would be seen as very concerning now eg disordered eating and orthorexia. I personally feel like perhaps that came from the kind of people on the edges that were called to do that work, rather than it being caused by the work - IYSWIM. Certainly I can see a lot of commonalities between the Prophets, the writers of the Epistles (especially Paul), and the bluntness of many desert solitaries etc.
I do wonder how useful the eremitic life is nowadays as an example of the Holy Fool, given that the kind of seclusion involved generally tends to be the preserve of the wealthy nowadays - think billionaires with their luxury nuclear bunkers. Which is certainly not to suggest that those living such a life now are all wealthy and detached from reality! But I wonder if it was a kind of role that was called for a lot and now isn't. That doesn't make it better or worse now, just that the role of Holy Fool has changed as the world has different needs now.
The ascetic ideal seems to be more about detaching the ascetic from the world, and especially the bodily appetites, in order to connect with God and the spiritual world. I think we find this really difficult to embrace (I certainly do). There's a great bit in William Dalrymple's "From the Holy Mountain" where he is talking with a monk at the monastery of Mar Gabriel in eastern Turkey. He is told how the original Mar Gabriel "punished his flesh in order to liberate his soul"...
Like Dalrymple I just find this bewildering, like many of the Desert stories. I think there are many layers to the difficulty:
- A Reformation suspicion of "religious works", monasticism and the idea of special super-spiritual people.
- An Enlightenment suspicion that this is just mystical mumbo-jumbo.
- Most of all, a suspicion that these practices reflect an unhealthy, Gnostic downer on the body and its appetites, which are not something we ought to be trying to detach ourselves from.
I can see the power of all these critiques - and yet, ascetism was (and in some parts continues to be) a major part of Christian practice (and indeed, that of other religions) for many centuries. So perhaps it is we who are out of step? Have we discarded something vital?No it’s not. If someone pulls that on me I would get angry and I might “let them have it.” It certainly would strongly tempt me to do the opposite just out of spite. It doesn’t make that right—spite is a sin—but being rude to people, for something like buying or using a product they don’t approve of, isn’t appropriate, even if one is convinced one’s cause is just.
Sorry, I don't know which part you're referring to by "it's not".
The conversation was about excessive consumption, not buying an individual product. You're also going to have to define "being rude to people", because I don't think it is rude to question a friend's behaviour if it goes against your shared values or is doing something that's bad. Part of the blessings of friendship is being able to be honest with each other. If I was starting a TikTok-style hygiene room (a whole room just to store your toiletries because you have bought so many) I would *hope* that someone I knew would stage an intervention! Is any kind of criticism "being rude"?
I mean to me it reminds me a bit of physical mortification that some Catholics still partake in (against current Catholic instruction), wearing a cilice or a hair shirt for eg. It all seems to me to just be repressed masochism - "punish[ing] his flesh in order to liberate his soul" is a bit high-falutin' but not really different to how friends involved in BDSM would describe masochism. A monthly trip to a pro dominant would achieve the same thing and let you live a normal life.
So why was it previously so popular? It may be against current Catholic instruction but surely St. Bernard would have been all over it! Were these guys so spiritually dim that they didn't perceive these obvious problems with it? Are we missing something?
I think that's an overly-harsh reading of something that wasn't actually critical of those in question, much less comparing them to abusers. I don't see why it couldn't be both, and I would also not reduce it to "getting their rocks off". Masochism and other associated behaviours are not necessarily sexual in nature.
I don’t consider berating a friend over buying or using a product “a win.” If you get them to stop using a product—or at least letting you know they do—but alienate them, I don’t think that’s “a win.”
I’m not sure what “excessive consumption” means in an individual’s life here. Maybe we’re talking about different things. If a friend pushed me aggressively about whether buying some brand of paper plates was bad for the environment, I’d not take it well.
Oh OK sorry I misunderstood. So... in this reading of it there was perhaps something satisfying or even enjoyable in the ascetic's voluntary suffering? But in what sense is it then "mortification" i.e. putting to death one's worldly desires? Is it not then actually indulging worldly desires albeit some slightly unusual ones? In what way (if any) would it be spiritually beneficial?
But why are you assuming that people are just talking about stuff like paper plates rather than more serious overconsumption, especially after I used an example of TikTok-style hygiene rooms? Also given that paper plates are biodegradable I'm not sure why they would be a problem - doing the dishes can be worse in terms of water waste. I use paper plates myself on low-spoon days.
I think you're making assumptions about how this would be done - I wouldn't call a calm conversation between adults "berating" anyone.
Agreed!
By the way, if you meant something more like the whole-room-for-toiletries thing, my apologies. I was thinking more of the “How dare you buy this product” end of the spectrum. I used to boycott stuff (I avoided anything from the company that makes Dixie products, because it was owned by the Koch brothers, who donated to right-wing causes, etc. and in the LGBTQ community, it’s considered a sin to eat food from Chick-Fil-A (which I haven’t done in years anyway, at least at the moment), and of course there’s the whole “plastic straws” thing—that’s the kind of thing I was thinking of, especially if was some environmental issue the product is considered to be connected to).
This seems to be a very reductive reading of a complex spiritual experience imo.
I mean given that nobody in this conversation is doing this kind of thing, I'm not sure that's a question we can really answer. I don't personally know what strangers get out of their own behaviour! Certainly the view that this is indulging desires is part of why the RCC has disowned mortification as a practice (although some groups like Opus Dei do still partake).
Our comments crossed—yes, I think we meant very different things. My apologies for taking it in a different (and more aggressive) way than it was meant!
Amen. Not that some people may not have or have had some of that too, but agreed.