What do you think?
Rate this book
Adornment Of The Spiritual Marriage: The Sparkling Stone & The Book of Supreme Truth
This volume contains three of Jan van Ruysbroeck's best The Adornment of the Spiritual Marriage , The Sparkling Stone , and The Book of Truth . These works are remarkable for their combination of lofty spiritual philosophy and robust common sense. As we read them, we feel that we are in touch with a man who, in his ecstatic ascents to God, never loses hold of the actualities of human life. In the Adornment of the Spiritual Marriage , he traces the gradual development of the soul through the active life of Christian virtue, the interior life of contemplation, and the superessential life of union with God. The Sparkling Stone further elaborates on some of the more difficult passages in The Adornment , and The Book of Truth was written as a refutation of the accusation that van Ruysbroeck's work supported a pantheistic and heretical view of the union of the soul with God. Primarily influenced by St. Paul and St. Augustine, van Ruysbroeck was driven to speak out on the mystical life in reaction to the rising of heretical sects in the lowlands of Belgium that were preaching a quietism of - the most soul-destroying kind - early in the 14th century. The singular feature of Ruysbroeck's teaching is achieving a balanced career of action and contemplation as the ideal of the Christian soul.
250 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1343
20 people are currently reading
105 people want to read
About the author
Jan van Ruusbroec
104 books16 followersJan (Johannes) van Ruusbroec of Ruysbroeck, ook "de Wonderbare" genoemd wordt beschouwd als een van de grootste mystici van de zuidelijke Nederlanden. Zijn werk, oorspronkelijk geschreven in het Middelnederlands, werd algauw vertaald in het Latijn.
Zijn studies aan de kapittelschool in Brussel werden bekostigd door zijn oom Jan Hinckaert, een rijke priester en kapelaan van de Sint-Goedelekerk te Brussel. Vanaf 1317 was hij op zijn beurt gedurende vijfentwintig jaar kapelaan van Sint-Goedele. Over deze episode uit zijn leven is verder slechts weinig gekend.
Rond 1339 besloten zijn oom, hijzelf en een jonge kanunnik, Vrank van Coudenberg, zich terug te trekken en in afzondering te gaan leven. Vanaf 1343 betrokken ze de kluis van Groenendaal en in 1350 stichtten ze een klooster van reguliere kanunniken (Augustijnen). Alhoewel hij geen overste van het klooster was en in geleerdheid moest onderdoen voor magister Vrank werd hij toch de centrale figuur van de gemeenschap door zijn uitzonderlijk mystieke roeping. Zijn reputatie groeide en vele machtige en belangrijke figuren kwamen hem in Groenendaal opzoeken. Na zijn dood kreeg hij de bijnaam 'admirabilis' ("de wonderbare"), en hij wordt momenteel tot één van de grootste mystici uit de wereldliteratuur gerekend. In 1908 werd hij zalig verklaard door Paus Pius X.
Jan (Johannes) van Ruusbroec of Ruysbroeck, also known as the "Blessed" is considered one of the greatest mystics of the southern Netherlands. His work, originally written in Middle Dutch, was soon translated into Latin.
His studies at the collegiate school in Brussels were paid for by his uncle Jan Hinckaert, a wealthy priest and chaplain of St. Goedele Church in Brussels. From 1317 on he was also chaplain of St. Goedele for twenty-five years. We know very little about this episode in his life.
Around 1339 he decided, together with his uncle and a young canon, Vrank (Francis) van Coudenberg, to withdraw and to live in seclusion. From 1343 they moved into the hermitage of Groenendaal and in 1350 they founded a convent of canons regular. Although he was not the leader of the monastery and was inferior to master van Coudenberg in scholarship, he nevertheless became the central figure of the community through his extraordinary mystical vocation. His reputation grew and many powerful and important people came to see him in Groenendaal . After his death , he was nicknamed "admirabilis", and he is now considered one of the greatest mystics of the world literature. He was beatified by Pope Pius X in 1908.
Zijn studies aan de kapittelschool in Brussel werden bekostigd door zijn oom Jan Hinckaert, een rijke priester en kapelaan van de Sint-Goedelekerk te Brussel. Vanaf 1317 was hij op zijn beurt gedurende vijfentwintig jaar kapelaan van Sint-Goedele. Over deze episode uit zijn leven is verder slechts weinig gekend.
Rond 1339 besloten zijn oom, hijzelf en een jonge kanunnik, Vrank van Coudenberg, zich terug te trekken en in afzondering te gaan leven. Vanaf 1343 betrokken ze de kluis van Groenendaal en in 1350 stichtten ze een klooster van reguliere kanunniken (Augustijnen). Alhoewel hij geen overste van het klooster was en in geleerdheid moest onderdoen voor magister Vrank werd hij toch de centrale figuur van de gemeenschap door zijn uitzonderlijk mystieke roeping. Zijn reputatie groeide en vele machtige en belangrijke figuren kwamen hem in Groenendaal opzoeken. Na zijn dood kreeg hij de bijnaam 'admirabilis' ("de wonderbare"), en hij wordt momenteel tot één van de grootste mystici uit de wereldliteratuur gerekend. In 1908 werd hij zalig verklaard door Paus Pius X.
Jan (Johannes) van Ruusbroec of Ruysbroeck, also known as the "Blessed" is considered one of the greatest mystics of the southern Netherlands. His work, originally written in Middle Dutch, was soon translated into Latin.
His studies at the collegiate school in Brussels were paid for by his uncle Jan Hinckaert, a wealthy priest and chaplain of St. Goedele Church in Brussels. From 1317 on he was also chaplain of St. Goedele for twenty-five years. We know very little about this episode in his life.
Around 1339 he decided, together with his uncle and a young canon, Vrank (Francis) van Coudenberg, to withdraw and to live in seclusion. From 1343 they moved into the hermitage of Groenendaal and in 1350 they founded a convent of canons regular. Although he was not the leader of the monastery and was inferior to master van Coudenberg in scholarship, he nevertheless became the central figure of the community through his extraordinary mystical vocation. His reputation grew and many powerful and important people came to see him in Groenendaal . After his death , he was nicknamed "admirabilis", and he is now considered one of the greatest mystics of the world literature. He was beatified by Pope Pius X in 1908.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews
January 19, 2016
This is the second time I've read this set of works. I had read the Classics Of Western Spirituality translation some time ago. Ruusbroec is a prominent author within the tradition of Christian Mysticism. These works are some of his most well known and well respected. They are a lot less ambiguous than his "Kingdom Of The Lovers Of God" I must say; that is probably a good thing, but I have to say that the mysterious language of the one fascinated me quite a bit. The Adornment Of the Spiritual Marriage is one of the more obviously trinitarian works of Christian mysticism. The tripartite framework is very obvious and is quite suitable to the methodology; and that may be what makes it one of the more clear and practical works of mystical theology.
May 28, 2021
"Här är ingenting annat än ett evigt skådande och seende av Ljuset med Ljuset och i Ljuset."
didnt-finish
July 2, 2023Gave it a go, but I find this quite objectionable as I read currently. Perhaps in the future, I'll be able to see this in a more receptive/ steelman/ koan-paradox-grokked state of mind. I would like to come back to it later if possible.
Not sure I would call him a mystic -- he reads a lot more aggressive and prone to black-and-white thinking/ us-vs-them zeal than I tend to find in mystics.
As someone said elsewhere about St. Teresa of Avila, "What most bothered me was that the mystical and orthodox strains in Teresa’s thought did not go easily together. Perhaps this is only my taste. One thing I enjoy about mystic writings is their grand conception of the cosmos, the notion that everything apparently opposite forms one complete whole. Thus mystic texts, in my experience, tend not to be especially preoccupied with moral injunctions, since they regard good and evil as a kind of illusion. But in Teresa, the emphasis on wickedness, on personal shortcomings, on temptation, and in general the whole moral framework of Catholicism made her system as much about avoiding sinfulness and unorthodoxy as achieving a mystical experience. For example, I’ve heard mystics say that each person is a part of God, but Teresa councils that we should contemplate God to realize our own foulness and lowliness."
And I think that's it. Mysticism seems to lend itself more to non-dualism. Moralizing on sin, focus on repentance for a thousand million ways of how you're unworthy/ imperfect -- that doesn't feel like the way forward or towards God to me. Yes, cut out doing bad things, that's the lowest hanging fruit sometimes; but then, also the way to God is love & joy -- it's not you deprive yourself of pleasure, it's that you share those riches. I heard Chesterton talk about this too; how the frameworks shifted/ flipped around the 1300s...
--
I will say this: Ruysbroeck's interpretation of the crucifixion paints Jews much more evil than they need be painted. The much likelier interpretation is, people hurt others when they are scared, like with an outsider. Their hearts don't have to be cold as stone, and they do not have to be mean with slanted eyes and twisted smiles or whatever. People do not have to be evil to do evil things. The Jews of the crucifixion were likely operating out of a mind-altering fear, (alongside some us-vs-them, less-than-human thinking, sure), and while love softens and unbinds us from fear, I know Christians have done pretty terrible things too, and those may have been done out of zeal/etc, but really, out of fear. So let's not go blaming/ hating Jews for everything.
Eg. So many people turn to anger, but when they can sit with it, what's underneath is pain, hurt, sadness, fear. And then sitting with the underlying feeling can dissolve those knots. Sorry not sorry, but Buddhism's got that one right. Embodying a profound love (like love of God) should teach us to be less reactive as at least one of its lessons.
"Show charity towards your neighbours" -- "Be like Christ, who showed infinite compassion" -- umm, except the Jews that killed him, right; don't show them any compassion in your telling of the story; don't relate to them as other humans? Why do we have to paint one party as evil (rather than misguided), to create this greater divide and highlight Christ's mercy and goodness? That seems a highly dishonest/ lazy way of regarding divinity. He's not particularly humble and gracious in a situation where people are particularly cruel; He simply is that way, no matter what situation arises, and His steadiness is what's inspiring -- that would be my argument. Like how the sun shines and generates life, regardless of our turmoils and drama. It's not about people being evil, though I grant you, some are genuinely evil -- but I don't believe the fight is generally against evil people and villifying specific groups. It's rather a fight against yes, the impulses that weaken our integrity, our fears, doubts, jealousies, greed, so on. To paraphrase, "The line separating good and evil runs through every human heart." I'll focus on my heart.
"He is still little and despised in all men's hearts that do not love Him well." -- I hate this black and white thinking. It's like emotional blackmail, "you don't love me well enough, therefore you hate me; I'm suffering because of you." How is this useful? I understand "forget about me", the kind of "I'm nothing" that's neutral; but not putting your own ego under attack for doing its job.
"The fifth kind of sinners are those hypocrites who do outward good works, not for the glory of God and their own salvation" -- How is doing good works for the sake of your own salvation (I'm sure many people treat it this way; I don't think this is a strawman) any better than doing them for your reputation/ your vanity? It's still self-focused. I thought the point is, it's not about you?
Not sure I would call him a mystic -- he reads a lot more aggressive and prone to black-and-white thinking/ us-vs-them zeal than I tend to find in mystics.
As someone said elsewhere about St. Teresa of Avila, "What most bothered me was that the mystical and orthodox strains in Teresa’s thought did not go easily together. Perhaps this is only my taste. One thing I enjoy about mystic writings is their grand conception of the cosmos, the notion that everything apparently opposite forms one complete whole. Thus mystic texts, in my experience, tend not to be especially preoccupied with moral injunctions, since they regard good and evil as a kind of illusion. But in Teresa, the emphasis on wickedness, on personal shortcomings, on temptation, and in general the whole moral framework of Catholicism made her system as much about avoiding sinfulness and unorthodoxy as achieving a mystical experience. For example, I’ve heard mystics say that each person is a part of God, but Teresa councils that we should contemplate God to realize our own foulness and lowliness."
And I think that's it. Mysticism seems to lend itself more to non-dualism. Moralizing on sin, focus on repentance for a thousand million ways of how you're unworthy/ imperfect -- that doesn't feel like the way forward or towards God to me. Yes, cut out doing bad things, that's the lowest hanging fruit sometimes; but then, also the way to God is love & joy -- it's not you deprive yourself of pleasure, it's that you share those riches. I heard Chesterton talk about this too; how the frameworks shifted/ flipped around the 1300s...
--
I will say this: Ruysbroeck's interpretation of the crucifixion paints Jews much more evil than they need be painted. The much likelier interpretation is, people hurt others when they are scared, like with an outsider. Their hearts don't have to be cold as stone, and they do not have to be mean with slanted eyes and twisted smiles or whatever. People do not have to be evil to do evil things. The Jews of the crucifixion were likely operating out of a mind-altering fear, (alongside some us-vs-them, less-than-human thinking, sure), and while love softens and unbinds us from fear, I know Christians have done pretty terrible things too, and those may have been done out of zeal/etc, but really, out of fear. So let's not go blaming/ hating Jews for everything.
Eg. So many people turn to anger, but when they can sit with it, what's underneath is pain, hurt, sadness, fear. And then sitting with the underlying feeling can dissolve those knots. Sorry not sorry, but Buddhism's got that one right. Embodying a profound love (like love of God) should teach us to be less reactive as at least one of its lessons.
"Show charity towards your neighbours" -- "Be like Christ, who showed infinite compassion" -- umm, except the Jews that killed him, right; don't show them any compassion in your telling of the story; don't relate to them as other humans? Why do we have to paint one party as evil (rather than misguided), to create this greater divide and highlight Christ's mercy and goodness? That seems a highly dishonest/ lazy way of regarding divinity. He's not particularly humble and gracious in a situation where people are particularly cruel; He simply is that way, no matter what situation arises, and His steadiness is what's inspiring -- that would be my argument. Like how the sun shines and generates life, regardless of our turmoils and drama. It's not about people being evil, though I grant you, some are genuinely evil -- but I don't believe the fight is generally against evil people and villifying specific groups. It's rather a fight against yes, the impulses that weaken our integrity, our fears, doubts, jealousies, greed, so on. To paraphrase, "The line separating good and evil runs through every human heart." I'll focus on my heart.
"He is still little and despised in all men's hearts that do not love Him well." -- I hate this black and white thinking. It's like emotional blackmail, "you don't love me well enough, therefore you hate me; I'm suffering because of you." How is this useful? I understand "forget about me", the kind of "I'm nothing" that's neutral; but not putting your own ego under attack for doing its job.
"The fifth kind of sinners are those hypocrites who do outward good works, not for the glory of God and their own salvation" -- How is doing good works for the sake of your own salvation (I'm sure many people treat it this way; I don't think this is a strawman) any better than doing them for your reputation/ your vanity? It's still self-focused. I thought the point is, it's not about you?
June 22, 2022
Hard to understand
Ruysbroeck is not an easy writer to read if we use only our natural reason. I found him most helpful when I moved through his teaching without effort. I trust that the grace of God will give to my spirit the union with God in grace which is the true and common good.
Ruysbroeck is not an easy writer to read if we use only our natural reason. I found him most helpful when I moved through his teaching without effort. I trust that the grace of God will give to my spirit the union with God in grace which is the true and common good.
November 29, 2016
This is the product of a raving lunatic. Or a Catholic Saint. Not much of a difference.
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews