AWARENESS by Anthony De Mello
The Catholic priest, Anthony De Mello, wrote a book
called Awareness (Fount, London, 1997) that became a runaway success. Many
retreat centres for Catholics based on his ideas have sprung up. The book is
basically about self-help and has some similarities with pop psychology. I will
discuss the merits of the book first and then the shortcomings and then how it
fails to square with Catholic doctrine. De Mello was a psychiatrist and no one
can expect even a priest one to be a real Catholic. The book says that suffering
is caused by stupid thinking or delusions and that all you have to do to be
happy is to be aware or see through this stupidity for happiness is not caused
by you but is intrinsic. You just have to learn how to let it activate. It is
there inside you all you have to do is let it out.
De Mello says we hate anything new not because we fear the unknown for we cannot
fear what we do not know (page 29) but because we fear the loss of what we are
familiar with and are afraid the new will show that we are wrong (page 18). Of
course we can fear the unknown for we don’t know what nasty surprises may be in
store. His assertion contradicts itself because he says we can’t fear what is
unknown and then he says we can for we feel secure with what we know. If we feel
safe with things because we know them then it is because we know them and we
don't want to risk opting for change.
De Mello says we like security when we should like taking reasonable risks. This
draws him to the notion that you must be open-minded on everything and have
faith and recognise that faith is insecurity while belief is security and all
beliefs should be checked out and questioned. He claims that faith is open to
contradicting Jesus and the Catholic Church who have made wilful doubt a sin.
How can it be open for the real Catholic when such a person is not allowed to
see if there is another side?
He maintains that the only difference between criminals and ourselves is that
they have done evil actions but inside we are as bad as them. We are the same as
what they are (page 30). And he says we should not expect others to be good to
us and then we won’t be disappointed (page 31-32). The truth is that self-esteem
comes not from doing good to earn a good self-image but from doing good to see
how good you are. It cannot be done any other way. You need to need to do good
works despite his claim that you should be detached from everything.
Suppose we are all as bad as each other. It follows then that instead of putting
the murderer in prison for his crimes we should give him a medal for being so
honest as to carry out what was in his heart. The rest of us who don't murder,
would do it and don't because we are hypocrites. We hide what we really are
while the murderer was honest. If we are as bad as each other, we cannot condemn
anybody as worse than us. Also, it doesn't matter if somebody is falsely accused
of a crime. It is not slander. To condemn somebody for committing a crime is
more about condemning them for being of bad character than about them breaking
rules. With that thought in mind, how can it be possible to slander anybody no
matter what you say about them?
He stresses that we must not try to change other people but just observe their
behaviour like a scientist would observe ants for the only person that needs to
change is the one who wants others to change (page 32,51). He says you are more
effective in helping others if you avoid negative feelings and just observe and
don’t let the evil done by others affect your emotions and make you negative.
He makes a difference between the I and the me. The I is the part of me that is
aware and which is intrinsically and naturally happy if it is allowed to be. The
me is the part of me that has the thoughts and the maladjustments. He says I
should never say I am depressed but it is depressed meaning the me part. Or it
is sick not I am sick. Suffering exists in the me not the I so if I become aware
of this though I will experience pain I will not experience suffering for
suffering is unhappiness and pain together. The I is what is left when I forget
about needing other people and things. That is why he is able to say you can be
happy while being depressed (page 61). I don’t see any benefit pretending that
when you feel pain that it is not you doing it but an it that is really you. it
is unnatural and trying to do it will only add to your distress. It is enough
just to reduce your emotional needs.
De Mello says happiness is within everybody's reach and my happiness is my own
responsibility and nobody else's. It follows then that if you are kidnapped and
kept in a dungeon for a decade and you spend it on the verge of going out of
your mind with misery and loneliness then it is your own fault. That could be a
consolation for the kidnapper. It denies he is to blame for the victim's misery.
The Catholic Church has accepted De Mello's nasty thinking since the time of the
incarcerated philosopher Boethius and his imaginary conversations with Lady
Philosophy. No wonder priestly paedophiles are exceptional and astonishing in
their lack of guilt.
When people praise me, they praise the me not the I and that praise is no good.
He says to be happy you just have to waken up and see the illusions that attach
you to things and people slip away (page 77). This distinction between I and me
means that when people tell me off they are against the me not the I. Also when
people praise us or call us geniuses it becomes evil for it forces us to try and
live up to what they say and we get depressed and lose the sense of self-worth
if we fail (page 113). People understandably will be sceptical of all this
because the I has to feel bad because of the me. But what De Mello wants you to
do is not make a division but a distinction. There is no division but there is a
difference between the I and the me. The good thing about all that is that you
see your defects as something the I can prevent from hurting the I for they are
outside the I and the I is boss. I am not my feelings but my feelings are
something that happen to me and they determine if I will be good to myself and
others or if I will be bad.
He says happiness is not a thrill and thrills make you depressed because you
want them all the time and can’t have them (page 60). He said this is not
happiness for it requires work and is an addiction.
De Mello might seem never to have discussed the question: “If I am happy then is
it the I or the me that is happy?” The answer is that the me can feel the good
thrill but the I is what is happy and the I is intrinsically happy.
De Mello says that religion is not
necessarily connected with spirituality (page 21). Spirituality is
what he calls awareness. He says his book is spiritual.
That is quite a matter of opinion! Since the book is just commonsense and
demands that you use your own material resources, your brain primarily, it
cannot have anything to do with spirituality because spirituality is getting
emotional help from an unseen plane of existence, like a world of gods and
angels, while this is shutting out the other world.
De Mello would say the greatest thing of all is awareness. But Paul in 1
Corinthians 13 says the greatest virtue is charity that expresses faith and the
Church believes that God wrote this through him.
When happiness is just being content whatever happens as De Mello asserts then
how can rewards be rewards? A reward is supposed to make you feel better but in
De Mello’s system you have to be detached from thrills and stuff and therefore
rewards. Yet the Bible promises rewards in Heaven. De Mello is accusing the
Christian God of being evil and opposed to awareness.
Awareness takes effort in the sense that you have to avoid the bad thinking that
destroys your inner peace. But in Heaven there is no need for the effort for God
supplies the happiness. So the happiness of Heaven then depends on us being lazy
and basking in the peace that comes from God. So much for laziness or sloth
being a deadly sin! If you want to go to this Heaven you will end up in Hell if
laziness is a sin!
De Mello says that becoming aware makes us have the right kind of selfishness.
The person becomes aware, to be happy. When you please only yourself you end up
with lots of enemies. When you serve others in case you will feel guilty you
will feel enslaved. He rejects these as being of any value. In fact they are
perversions of selfishness and not real selfishness for they cannot work and are
self-defeating. Jesus said that the man who does good for praise merits no
reward. We can say the same of the man who sees how to be selfish and how the
other two forms of selfishness could only be adopted by ceasing to be selfish to
some degree. He sees the thing that has the most of something in it for him. De
Mello admits that his path is hard and blames it on the fact that we allegedly
don’t want to be happy but just want relief for a while from our problems. He
believes that faults come from the sensation of needing others and needing
things for yourself so he is against you being imperfect. It has not occurred to
him that some people might find it easier just to find their faults make them
see themselves as lovable rogues.
The concept of deserving has to do with needing because rights are based on
needs and deserving means you have a right to be made suffer or happy. If you do
wrong of your own free will you need punishment for yourself and the Church says
that punishment does not degrade human dignity but restores it. De Mello forbids
needing so he forbids punishing or rewarding.
The Vatican has issued a warning about De Mello’s writings on the basis that he
is too much into Eastern philosophy with the result that he fuses God and nature
so that they are one and the same thing and has one religion as good as another
and makes Jesus superfluous.