{"id":13822,"date":"2026-02-01T14:53:01","date_gmt":"2026-02-01T21:53:01","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/?p=13822"},"modified":"2026-02-01T14:53:01","modified_gmt":"2026-02-01T21:53:01","slug":"interior-locutions-criteria-of-genuineness-in-teresa-of-avila","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/2026\/02\/01\/interior-locutions-criteria-of-genuineness-in-teresa-of-avila\/","title":{"rendered":"Interior Locutions: Criteria of Genuineness in Teresa of Avila"},"content":{"rendered":"

This article sets forth three signs or criteria for the evaluation of\u00a0 interior locutions according to the great Spanish mystic, Teresa of Avila (1515-1582),\u00a0 as found in her Interior Castle<\/em>, Sixth Mansion, Chapter Three, pp. 138-148 in the E. Allison Peers translation.\u00a0 Such locutions are variously called inner, interior, spiritual, and\u00a0 intellectual.\u00a0\u00a0 I will call them interior.\u00a0 They are to be distinguished both from exterior locutions heard by the ears and from exterior locutions imagined<\/em> 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<\/a>.\u00a0 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.<\/p>\n

Teresa gives “Be not troubled” as an example of an interior locution that appears to come from God.\u00a0 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?<\/p>\n

\n

The first and truest [sign]<\/strong> 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) [. . .]<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

The second sign<\/strong> is that a great tranquillity dwells in the soul, which becomes peacefully and devoutly recollected, and ready to sing praises to God. (141) [. . .]<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

The third sign<\/strong> 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 <\/em><\/span>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) [. . .]<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Suppose a putative message ab extra<\/em> passes these tests. Does it follow<\/em> that the message is from God either directly or indirectly via a divinely appointed emissary?\u00a0 No.\u00a0 But by the same token it does not follow<\/em> from\u00a0 the visual and tactile perceptions as of<\/em> a cat on my lap, that there is<\/em> a cat on my lap.\u00a0 And yet the evidence of the senses in normal to optimal conditions, good light for example, is pretty good evidence!\u00a0 It is evident, though not self-evident<\/em> (in the way it is self-evident that I seem<\/em> to see and feel\u00a0<\/em> a cat on my lap) that there is<\/em> a cat on my lap.\u00a0 What is evident needn’t be self-evident.\u00a0 One could question this distinction, but it is one\u00a0 that lays strong claim on our acceptance.<\/p>\n

Now if the evidence of the outer senses is good enough to render reasonable\u00a0 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?\u00a0 I answer in the affirmative.<\/p>\n

There are, however,\u00a0 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.<\/em>\u00a0 I see a mountain, and the sun setting behind it, turn away, then look at both again.\u00a0 I see the same mountain and the\u00a0 same event.\u00a0 This repeatability\u00a0 confirms my belief that the material objects of outer perception are ‘really there.’<\/p>\n

A second difference is that one and same material thing can be seen from many different angles.<\/p>\n

A third is that my perceptions as of mountains and cats are easily corroborated by my companions.\u00a0 Intersubjective agreement is\u00a0 a major source of support of trust in the outer senses.<\/p>\n

A fourth difference is that the occasional misperception is correctable by further perception.\u00a0 “See that cat? It’s a bobcat!” “No it isn’t. Look more closely. It’s just a big ornery domestic cat.\u00a0 Bobcats in the wild don’t wear collars.”<\/p>\n

Ad (1). By contrast with outer sense perceptions, mystical deliverances are not repeatable ad libitum<\/em>:\u00a0 I cannot bring them about by my own effort.\u00a0 They are not under the control of my will. Their phenomenological quality is that of something\u00a0 gratuitous, granted, gifted.\u00a0 \u00a0And only rarely are they granted.\u00a0 The rarity\u00a0 of mystical deliverances aids and abets the thought that they are illusory.\u00a0 Whereas material objects confront us every waking moment,\u00a0 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.<\/p>\n

Be not troubled!<\/strong> The message is vouchsafed and then it is over. I cannot request the messenger to repeat himself, let alone display his credentials.\u00a0 The messenger does not appear, only his message.\u00a0 The tests of outer perception (repeatability, corroborability by others, correctability) are not applicable.<\/p>\n

Ad (2).\u00a0 I can walk around a tree and see it from different sides.\u00a0 The Interior Word cannot be ‘heard’ from different positions in space.<\/p>\n

Ad (3).\u00a0 You and I and indefinitely many others can view one and the same tree. Our perceptions are mutually corroborative.\u00a0 But your Interior Word experience is numerically different from mine even if the content is the same, such as Be not troubled!<\/strong><\/p>\n

Ad(4) The transiency of the experience of the Interior Word renders irrelevant any correctability by further perception.<\/p>\n

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.\u00a0 The fact that interior locutions are unrepeatable at will, had by few and by these few only rarely,\u00a0 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.<\/p>\n

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.\u00a0 So go ahead, believe! What harm can it do? (Wittgenstein)\u00a0 There is light enough for those who wish to see, and darkness enough for the contrary-minded. (Pascal)\u00a0 Evidence enough for those who are disposed to believe, but not enough for those who are disposed to disbelieve.<\/p>\n

There is a story told about Bertrand Russell.\u00a0 Russell dies and enters the divine presence. God says, “Why didn’t you believe in me?” “Not enough evidence, God, not enough evidence!”<\/p>\n

I’d say that Lord Russell was constitutionally indisposed to believe.\u00a0 Some of us, however, are so disposed. It is a further question whether this disposition to believe is itself a divine gift.\u00a0 Whether or not it is, you are within your epistemic\/doxastic rights to believe that it is.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

This article sets forth three signs or criteria for the evaluation of\u00a0 interior locutions according to the great Spanish mystic, Teresa of Avila (1515-1582),\u00a0 as found in her Interior Castle, Sixth Mansion, Chapter Three, pp. 138-148 in the E. Allison Peers translation.\u00a0 Such locutions are variously called inner, interior, spiritual, and\u00a0 intellectual.\u00a0\u00a0 I will call … Continue reading “Interior Locutions: Criteria of Genuineness in Teresa of Avila”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[66,41,1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-13822","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-faith-and-reason","category-mysticism","category-uncategorized"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13822","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=13822"}],"version-history":[{"count":8,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13822\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":13842,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13822\/revisions\/13842"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=13822"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=13822"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=13822"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}