Shalom Place Community Shalom Place Discussion Groups General Discussion Forums Christian Spirituality Issues Reevaluating BRGo | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply | |
| Reevaluating BR | Login/Join |
At one time, our favorite (!) subject was BR. After a break of several years, I'm beginning to reevaluate her work. When I first came across BR, I was dazzled by her intellect. She wrote so beautifully on subjects about which I knew nothing. And I can still admire the precision of her prose. But I'm beginning to question her basic assumptions: that the contemplative life is a linear path, and that she had traversed this line further than any other writer. The immediate prompt for this reevaluation is a statement I came across by Thomas Troward: "There are certain Oriental schools of thought, together with various Western offshoots from them, which are entirely founded on the principle of annihilating all desire." I think we could say something similar about BR. Her spirituality was entirely founded on the principle of annihilating all sense of a personal self. By stubborn persistence -- a characteristic in which she excelled -- she took the eradication of a personal self to its utmost conclusion. But I question not only her one-dimensional view of human development, but also whether her accomplishment is even worthy of admiration in its own right. Troward remarks that, even in rare cases where Eastern spiritual practice is successful, it "saps away every power of mental and bodily activity, leaving nothing but the outside husk of an attenuated human form -- the hopeless wreck of what was once a living man." I wonder whether the end result of BR's journey wasn't something similar -- her failed career, her failed marriage, and her failed finances. Perhaps her novice mistress's judgment of the 18-year-old BR was right: her problem was that she was caught up in the errors of Quietism. | |||
|
 |
Derek, as you note, we've had several discussions on Bernadette Roberts' writings and teachings through the years, some of which have tens of thousands of views. I've also written reviews of some of her books on Amazon.com I continue to find her mentioned as one of the great Christian mystics of all time, largely because she went "beyond duality" and came out in a place that seems closer to what the Buddhists and Hindus describe. In her first book, The Experience of No-Self, she even accounts for her own journey in those terms: Christian unitive mysticism > Buddhist No-Self > Hinduism's awakening to divinity. I agree that Quietist disciplines might account for this to some extent, Jim Arraj was more convinced that she had, during the course of what was initially a Christian journey, come upon the kind of enlightenment experience described in Zen. - see https://www.innerexplorations.com/ewtext/br.htm The major problem I've always had with BR's writings was that she considered her experience paradigmatic, with implications for how to understand even Christian doctrine itself (e.g., her last book on The Real Jesus). She also believed that if one hadn't experienced what she had, then one could not critique her writings, thus insulating herself from any kind of dialogue with the Christian mystical tradition, which she claimed to know thoroughly. I was bothered by this from the beginning and shared as much with her in our letters and private conversations. There was simply no discussing it, however. There are other theological problems we could get into, like her strange views about Jesus. To her thinking, Jesus is no more -- long gone! It was not Jesus who confronted Paul on the road to Damascus. The phrase, "I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting," shared with Paul is meant to emphasize "I am," not Jesus. So much wrong with her views on Jesus and Christ, not to mention her critique of Vatican II. She has her fans, and they don't like to hear criticisms of her. So be it. | |||
|
When I say Quietist, I mean not her practices, but her priorities. She attaches undue importance to inner states of silence, which she ranks more highly than any act of the faculties. That's along the same lines as proposition #1 of the 68 propositions for which Miguel de Molinos was condemned: "It is necessary that man reduce his own powers to nothingness, and this is the interior way" (Coelestis Pastor). I'm now going beyond questioning BR to questioning the whole mystical endeavor. It seems to me that Christian mysticism ("union with God") is just Neoplatonism in disguise ("union with the One"). It's a foreign intrusion into the Gospel. And to be honest, all that's really accomplished in mysticism, whether Eastern or Western, is regression to early layers of consciousness. You're not really achieving union with God/the One. I agree with you that (1) her claim that her own experiences are paradigmatic is completely groundless and (2) the Christology she constructs in support of her mysticism is equally groundless. I was thinking of making a video on "The Case Against Mysticism," but I don't know if I can pluck up the courage to appear on YouTube. | ||||
|
|
Infused contemplation as taught by Sts. John of the Cross, Teresa of Avila, and others is quite different from the kinds of concerns you're expressing, Derek. There's no effort/intention to suppress thought, desire, feelings, etc., but an effortless resting in God's loving presence. I've experienced this regularly since 1974 so it's not merely an academic concern for me. While I make no objection to centering prayer and other kinds of active practices that supposedly foster an "acquired contemplation" (Jim Arraj hated that term), I don't see many sticking with it for long if it doesn't lead to restful silence. There can be other good fruit from such practices, even if they don't lead to contemplation. My book, God and I, examines a variety of interactions between God, Self, and Ego. Most harmful -- and it's what I hear you objecting to -- are practices that aim to lead one to experience the Self/God Ground of consciousness by suppressing the reflecting/intentional activities of the Ego. But active practices like traditional prayer and lectio divina can draw the Ego to absorption in its Ground of Being, if God so chooses, and if that doesn't happen, one can live rather fully out of an Ego - God relationship. That's the pathway most Christians seem to be traveling. Catholic mystical theologians have long been onto the dangers of trying to force some kind of mystical/contemplative consciouness, which is what happened during the Quietist period. As Jim Arraj noted in his book, St. John of the Cross and Dr. C. G. Jung, without the actual experience of infused contemplation, contemplative practices are sometimes completely unfruitful.
| |||
|
I think it's more than that, Phil. A while ago I came across a statement by Karl Barth (1886-1968) that Christian mysticism exhibits "a different spirit than the Spirit of Christ." I have to say, that strikes me as true. The whole mood or flavor of the mystical tradition is quite different from the spirit of the New Testament. Now I've learned why. So-called "Christian" mysticism is just Neoplatonist mysticism re-expressed using Christian vocabulary. Having learned that, I now see not only BR, but the whole tradition of the Pseudo-Dionysius, The Cloud of Unknowing, John of the Cross, and all the others, like a foreign infiltration into the Christianity of the New Testament. | ||||
|
|
Well, I disagree with Karl Barth on Christian mysticism being of a different spirit than the Gospel. Virtually every canonized Saint was something of a mystic, some spending hours in prayer each day. John of the Cross was not a Neo-Platonist; his philosophical perspective was rooted in Thomas Aquinas, and so Aristotelian. Mysticism usually gives rise to gifts of wisdom, knowledge, understanding and discernment. Mystics are often teachers and writers, sometimes engaged in the arts and crafts. You can even find some who are activists (Merton, Dorothy Day) or into social work type activities (the movie Cabrini makes that clear). Catholic and Orthodox Church leadership have recognized signs of false mysticism (e.g., Quietism), but that's by no means the whole story. As I've noted, contemplative prayer as I experience it is certainly not Neo-Platonic or Quietist nor even Easternish. It's obvious that you've gone sour on BR, and I can understand that, but she's hardly representative of the Christian mystical tradition. As she herself noted many times, she's in a class by herself.  | |||
|
| Powered by Social Strata |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|