This article sets forth three signs or criteria for the evaluation of interior locutions according to the great Spanish mystic, Teresa of Avila (1515-1582), as found in her Interior Castle, Sixth Mansion, Chapter Three, pp. 138-148 in the E. Allison Peers translation. Such locutions are variously called inner, interior, spiritual, and intellectual. I will call them interior. They are to be distinguished both from exterior locutions heard by the ears and from exterior locutions imagined to be heard by the ears. All locutions, whether exterior or interior, are verbal, not visual: they are words or composed of words. Etymology of ‘locution’ here. Interior locutions are sometimes called interior words. They convey a message that appears to come from without, and in many if not most cases, one that appears to come from God.
Teresa gives “Be not troubled” as an example of an interior locution that appears to come from God. But how does one know that this locution does in fact come from God, either directly or via one of his appointed messengers such as an angel? What are the criteria whereby we judge the source, and thereby the veridicality, of the message conveyed?
The first and truest [sign] is the sense of power and authority which they bear with them, both in themselves and in the actions which follow them. I will explain myself further. A soul is experiencing all the interior disturbances and tribulations which have been described, and all the aridity and darkness of the understanding. A single word of this kind — just a “Be not troubled” — is sufficient to calm it. No other word need be spoken; a great light comes to it; and all its trouble is lifted from it, although it had been thinking that, if the whole world, and all the learned men in the world, were to combine to give it reasons for not being troubled, they could not relieve it from its distress, however hard they might strive to do so. (141) [. . .]
The second sign is that a great tranquillity dwells in the soul, which becomes peacefully and devoutly recollected, and ready to sing praises to God. (141) [. . .]
The third sign is that these words do not vanish from the memory for a very long time: some, indeed, never vanish at all. Words which we hear on earth — I mean, from men, however weighty and learned they may be — we do not bear so deeply engraven upon our memory, nor, if they refer to the future, do we give credence to them as we do to these locutions. For these last impress us by their complete certainty, in such a way that, although sometimes they seem quite impossible of fulfilment, and we cannot help wondering if they will come true or not, and although our understanding may hesitate about it, yet within the soul itself there is a certainty which cannot be overcome. (142) [. . .]
Suppose a putative message ab extra passes these tests. Does it follow that the message is from God either directly or indirectly via a divinely appointed emissary? No. But by the same token it does not follow from the visual and tactile perceptions as of a cat on my lap, that there is a cat on my lap. And yet the evidence of the senses in normal to optimal conditions, good light for example, is pretty good evidence! It is evident, though not self-evident (in the way it is self-evident that I seem to see and feel a cat on my lap) that there is a cat on my lap. What is evident needn’t be self-evident. One could question this distinction, but it is one that lays strong claim on our acceptance.
Now if the evidence of the outer senses is good enough to render reasonable our belief in the reality of material things, is the evidence of interior locutions good enough to render reasonable the belief that some of these locutions have a divine source? I answer in the affirmative.
There are, however, important differences between outer perception (via the five outer senses) and the inner perception of the Interior Word. They need to be considered. One difference is that the outer perception of material particulars and events is repeatable ad libitum. I see a mountain, and the sun setting behind it, turn away, then look at both again. I see the same mountain and the same event. This repeatability confirms my belief that the material objects of outer perception are ‘really there.’
A second difference is that one and same material thing can be seen from many different angles.
A third is that my perceptions as of mountains and cats are easily corroborated by my companions. Intersubjective agreement is a major source of support of trust in the outer senses.
A fourth difference is that the occasional misperception is correctable by further perception. “See that cat? It’s a bobcat!” “No it isn’t. Look more closely. It’s just a big ornery domestic cat. Bobcats in the wild don’t wear collars.”
Ad (1). By contrast with outer sense perceptions, mystical deliverances are not repeatable ad libitum: I cannot bring them about by my own effort. They are not under the control of my will. Their phenomenological quality is that of something gratuitous, granted, gifted. And only rarely are they granted. The rarity of mystical deliverances aids and abets the thought that they are illusory. Whereas material objects confront us every waking moment, messages from the Unseen Order arrive only a few times in a lifetime. And when these putative messages do arrive, they don’t last long. This makes them easy to discount and dismiss.
Be not troubled! The message is vouchsafed and then it is over. I cannot request the messenger to repeat himself, let alone display his credentials. The messenger does not appear, only his message. The tests of outer perception (repeatability, corroborability by others, correctability) are not applicable.
Ad (2). I can walk around a tree and see it from different sides. The Interior Word cannot be ‘heard’ from different positions in space.
Ad (3). You and I and indefinitely many others can view one and the same tree. Our perceptions are mutually corroborative. But your Interior Word experience is numerically different from mine even if the content is the same, such as Be not troubled!
Ad(4) The transiency of the experience of the Interior Word renders irrelevant any correctability by further perception.
The question is now: are these undeniable differences reasons to discount or even dismiss interior locutions as divine revelations? I say No. The differences are what we should expect given the nature of mystical deliverances as compared to the nature of ordinary perceptual deliverances. The fact that interior locutions are unrepeatable at will, had by few and by these few only rarely, is no argument against their veridicality. To think otherwise is to judge them by an inappropriate standard, one that is ruled out by their very nature.
To conclude. Interior locutions that pass Teresa’s tests are evidence of God’s existence and his concern for us. Coercive evidence? Proof? No. But evidence sufficient to render reasonable our taking of such mystical deliverances as revelatory. So go ahead, believe! What harm can it do? (Wittgenstein) There is light enough for those who wish to see, and darkness enough for the contrary-minded. (Pascal) Evidence enough for those who are disposed to believe, but not enough for those who are disposed to disbelieve.
There is a story told about Bertrand Russell. Russell dies and enters the divine presence. God says, “Why didn’t you believe in me?” “Not enough evidence, God, not enough evidence!”
I’d say that Lord Russell was constitutionally indisposed to believe. Some of us, however, are so disposed. It is a further question whether this disposition to believe is itself a divine gift. Whether or not it is, you are within your epistemic/doxastic rights to believe that it is.
