I have ordered the Third Eye and I am guessing that the dynamic, however implicit or explicit, will be oriented toward moving people beyond the humanization and socialization involved in what Merton describes vis a vis, in my words, the ongoing construction, maintenance and repair of the persona and False Self.

For the possibility is that many, in their practice of religion, do not move beyond the socialization processes, which enabled them to function in the world, to engage the transformation process, which helps them realize the Good News of the Kingdom of God.

It is because so many get trapped in this false self dynamic, unable to self-critique their own presuppositions and those of any systems --- philosophical, religious and cultural --- which they have bought into wholesale, that we must then enlist the holistic help of any spiritual exercises, asceticisms, disciplines, practices, methods, prayer forms, psychological individuation tools and advanced critical thinking in order to get people to JOTS (jump outside their systems), not to abandon them but to critique them. And to eventually realize that to engage God using only the logic of socialization, which is sometimes, for example, avoidance-approach reinforcement at its crudest and an enlightened self-interest meritocracy at its best, is utterly NUTS.

God loves us because of who we are, His creatures, and not because of what we do.

So, in addition to exploring various practices and prayer forms and ways of thinking to JOTS, to transcend our humanization and socialization via transformation, we employ a Third Eye. Again, to wit:

quote:

Richard of St. Victor thus informs the Franciscan tradition thru Bonaventure about the occulus carnis (eye of the senses), the occulus rationis (eye of reason), and the occulus fidei (eye of faith). This "eye of faith" is what Rohr would refer to as the "third eye" and, consistent with Merton, it integrally takes us beyond our senses and reason but not without them.

Rohr also teaches, as we know, how suffering and prayer can both be efficacious in moving us out of mere socialization to "enjoy" transformation. If you've been on this journey, then you know that the word "enjoy" marks my own introduction of paradox and creative ambiguity.

In a nutshell, the general thrust of this whole brain approach is that, in order to have a relationship with your spouse in marriage, as was intended in creation, one has to approach one's spouse with more than words, logic, science, math, analytical skills and pragmatic considerations. One has to go beyond (NOT WITHOUT) these ways of knowing (Aquinas-like approach) to a knowledge that comes from love (Bonaventure's approach). One must enter a relational realm, in addition to the logical, empirical and practical realm. One must move beyond the language of math, philosophy, business & commerce, engineering and so on to learn the language of relationship, the grammar of assent, loyalty, fidelity, trust, faith, hope, love.

We tend to eventually "get this" in marriage, or it dissolves (and half of all marriages do). There is reason to suspect, then, that "getting this" in our relationship with God is similarly problematical for most people.

Our institutions, in fact, tend to socialize and infantilize us and not, rather, grow us. Dogma deteriorates into dogmatism. Ritual into ritualism. Law into legalism.

This is why we need to deconstruct (purgatively) this false self system. But not to leave it in a shambles. It must be reconstructed (illuminatively) back into one of authenticity in relationship to creed, cult, code and community. That places us, then, on the threshold of further transformation (unitively), and the realization of our True Self (a la Merton, not a la some other conceptions of same).

quote:

Originally posted by Phil:
[qb] Maybe we can move on from the Rohr/Keating stuff? [/qb]

Seriously, thanks for the engagement. I do have to prepare to travel the next couple of weeks, so my recent flurry of activity is necessarily fleeting. Florida bound

quote:

Originally posted by johnboy:
[qb]
Which brings me to my one lingering question, which drives more to the substance of your concern and less to the style of Rohr's writing. I put this forward earlier, in a string of a gigazillion other electrons I know, but, what do you take to be the practical import of confusing the otherwise theoretic distinctions between natural, acquired and infused contemplative prayer forms . . .
[/qb]

JB, this is a very good question, and does go beyond nit-picking about the proper use of terminology. I think the years of dialogue with Arraj about this, experiences in doing direction, dialogues with people about my writings, and, of course, the many, many exchanges on this board, have formed in me several concerns about what's going on today in the renewal of Christian contemplative spirituality. I don't know if this will respond to the "practical" aspects of your question, but here goes:

1. It's important for people to know their tradition, especially if they intend to teach about it and to engage in dialogue with others. (From our exchanges above, I think it's obvious that I have strong misgivings about Rohr on this point.)

2. Christian mysticism has always emphasized that our contact with God is a grace -- a Self-communication by an-Other. Eastern methods like what Tolle teaches emphasize a shift in attention to a state of consciousness that is already there; accessing this is possible through proper practice and learning to "tune in." I don't think these are the same experience; one is what we've traditionally called infused contemplation, the other natural mysticism. (Again, it doesn't help that Rohr uses these terms as synonyms.).

3. Meditative methods are usually dynamically oriented toward the type of experience one seeks. It's no accident that Buddhists don't practice lectio divina, nor that, traditionally, at least, Christians didn't sit cross-legged counting their breaths. Iow, these methods lead toward a certain type of receptivity and openness. It very often happens that when people get going with apophatic Eastern methods, they eventually close the door on relational practices. They also frequently begin to reinterpret Christian teaching through "Eastern eyes." I'm seeing the beginnings of this with Rohr's conflation of God and Consciousness-a-la-Tolle.

4. Re. acquired contemplation, this was the bugaboo during the Quietist controversy, which produced some very strange phenomena and heretical teachings. See http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12608c.htm, especially the section on what happened following Molinos' teachings. Clearly, there's no harm done in taking time to silently wait on God, but if one is not in a state of recollection (acquired or habitual), then forcing this silence through use of a mantra or "sacred word" can produce discomforting psycho-physiological effects. We covered this sometime back on the thread, "Evaluating centering prayer," and noted that what Keating et al call "the unloading of the unconscious" need not be understood as a work of the Spirit, but could well be the consequence of the centering prayer methods, per se.

5. The undermining of Christian faith that can ensue from various combinations of the above. Once a pluralistic dynamic with regard to spiritual practice is introduced, it seems to lead many to a pluralistic perspective concerning exoterica -- e.g., that all religions are different paths to the same liberation, that Jesus is but one of many masters, that organized religion is of little use, etc. Ecclecticism.

Of course, with proper formation and spiritual direction, none of the above are inevitable. As I've said so many times, one must know what one is doing, and why. Above all, we need to be asking ourselves who Jesus Christ is to us, and if we want what He came to offer us.

Hope that helps. Have fun in Florida.

Phil:

Those are clear and concise. If you review Rohr's new book, and find it lacking in this particular way, I hope you'll post a review on Amazon with something close to these comments.

I remember my years practicing Buddhist and Hindu meditation. Even though much cultivation of compassion and receptivity to the presence of creation was possible in those disciplines, there was simply no happening upon the Holy Spirit. I was dumbstruck in the late 90's when I first became simple enough to allow Him to form a relationship with me. Prior to that it seemed my Christian friends were merely unaware of kundalini, and the old stories and misgivings about cradle religious faith re-inforced my skepticism. So your #3 rings clear for me. Once we see and taste the Holy Spirit, there's simply no confusion about the two; they are completely different species, not alike in some degree and needing intellectual re-framing. Which makes one wonder about Rohr, since if his concerns were mainly over semantics, he'd have been laboring to make himself clear all along. If you don't experience the Holy Spirit and kundalini-based awareness states as the same, then just say so. And maybe he has, but I don't think it's as complicated as aligning philosophical notions or broadening metaphorical usage.

And I should add, though most folks here don't need to hear it: there is quite a wealth in these other traditions. One of the two saints I've known, or think of in this way, is Hindu. Fruits of the Holy Spirit abundant in her. Yet while her trasmission of peace to me was integrative and rich and deep, leaving me free of worries for several days, the Holy Spirit remains incomparable.

quote:

Originally posted by Phil:
[qb]traditionally, at least, Christians didn't sit cross-legged counting their breaths.[/qb]

In my exploration of the Orthodox tradition, I came across this in The Three Methods of Prayer attributed to St. Symeon the New Theologian, who lived about a thousand years ago:

quote:

Sit down in a quiet cell, in a corner by yourself, and do what I tell you. Close the door, and withdraw your intellect from everything worthless and transient. Rest your beard on your chest, and focus your physical gaze, together with the whole of your intellect, upon the center of your belly or your navel. Restrict the drawing-in of the breath through your nostrils, so as not to breathe easily, and search inside yourself with your intellect, so as to find the place of the heart, where all the powers of the soul reside.

To start with you will find there darkness and an impenetrable density. Later, when you persist and practice this task day and night, you will find, as though miraculously, an unceasing joy. For as soon as the intellect attains the place of the heart, at once it sees things of which it previously knew nothing. It sees the open space within the heart and it beholds itself entirely luminous and full of discrimination. From then on, from whatever side a distractive thought may appear, the intellect immediately drives it away and destroys it with the invocation of Jesus Christ.

quote:

Originally posted by Phil:
[qb] Of course, with proper formation and spiritual direction, none of the above are inevitable. As I've said so many times, one must know what one is doing, and why. Above all, we need to be asking ourselves who Jesus Christ is to us, and if we want what He came to offer us. [/qb]

That was all very well said, Phil. Cautionary notes, as I said before, are like pharmaceutical contraindications and side-effects, and should neither be neglected nor overemphasized.

I don't think I have misplaced my confidence in Rohr. I understand your concerns but, as I think you have acknowledged, the jury is out on whether Rohr is being sloppy or heterodox. I don't fully share your concerns for reasons already set forth. Rohr is heavily invested in Thomas Merton, who in turn was heavily invested in Maritain when it comes to an understanding of contemplative prayer forms. And I encounter the relevant distinctions in his work repeatedly, while seeing no serious problems, theoretically or practically. You refer to other problems, in generalities; I can only address specifics. The man is extremely prodigious, which makes it much less problematic to clarify any ambiguities; much less difficult to situate and contextualize any of his more isolated sayings or essays; much easier to indict for any shortcomings, which should be much more readily apparent to a much wider audience than most enjoy; much less susceptible to having anything of his wrenched from its context in the whole and swollen to madness in its isolation.

And Maritain's leit motif was that we distinguish in order to unite. Both Merton and Rohr are great men of distinction (pun intended) because philosophical rigor (as lingua franca) in interreligious dialogue is very complicated, corresponding to the manifold and multiform and complex realities that go with the territory of our human depth dimension, which, as imago Dei, is richly textured and depthful indeed!

I think it is very important for us to recognize and affirm that, even as we draw distinctions between such as natural, acquired and infused contemplation, between such as implicit and explicit faith, between such as the immanent, impersonal, apophatic, existential and natural and such as the transcendent, personal, kataphatic, theological and supernatural, between East and West, between degrees of fullness of experience in our God-realizations THAT

STILL, it is the same Gift, the same Holy Spirit, being experienced and at work in ALL of these practices and prayer forms, and wherever else people of goodwill are practicing the upright and moral life ... now implicitly, now explicitly, now understood anonymously, then inchoately, now incipiently, then overflowing ...

even as we all continue to seek AMDG, ad majorem Dei gloriam, some implicitly, others explicitly, such that we aspire to an ever more nearly perfect articulation of the truth through creed (dogma), an ever more nearly perfect celebration of beauty through cult (liturgy), an ever more nearly perfect preservation of goodness through code (law) and an ever more nearly perfect enjoyment of unity through community (fellowship) ...

and it is this aspiration to AMDG that causes me to want to avoid, then, any facile syncretistic blending of traditions; any insidious indifferentism regarding which contains the greatest fullness of truth, beauty, goodness and unity even if as a pilgrim tradition; any false irenicism as if our great traditions were already at peace and in unity; or any imprecise mapping by metaphysical and spiritual cartographers ...

but, nevertheless, being inclusivistic, at the same time, I take great comfort in knowing that, at least, from a more minimalist perspective, these manifold and multiform paths, however perfect or imperfect in degree, can and do indeed foster both salvific efficacy and Lonerganian conversion processes, again, all gifted without merit by the same Gift, the Holy Spirit!

What you will encounter in his Third Eye rendition, I predict, will be Rohr's hauntingly beautiful litany to the Holy Spirit, Whom we encounter as a Stable Witness to all of our interactions with others and life circumstances. Rohr will emphasize that most of these interactions, even within our organized religions, take place between one False Self and another, between our false self and life circumstances, and that we must transcend our incomplete ways of knowing reality by going beyond our normal senses and critical thinking, not abandoning critical thinking but sharpening it, by our turning to the Holy Spirit and surrendering our False Self through prayer, realizing our True Self and then engaing it with other people and life circumstances. And this entails detachment and poverty and dispossession and emptying, such as through surrendering our mind in prayer, surrendering our will in fasting, surrendering our wealth through almsgiving, while transcending our senses and thinking through relationship. The movement involves transcending the merely functional to enjoy the robustly personal. It involves self-criticism of our different logical frameworks, solving problems with a different consciousness than that which caused them. He uses a lot of 12 Step metaphors, like stinking thinking. The third eye, then, is faith. Transformative faith, not the sterile religiosity of a spiritually impoverished false-self system. And these words, in this paragraph, are neither my alleged eisegesis nor exegesis, but Rohr's own words, which I've heard and read, over and over and over, to my everlasting edification.

He's not going to come out and deny the Holy Spirit's presence anywhere or in anyone or anything. That would be the most arrogant of false dichotomies of all for a Franciscan, quite an impoverished pneumatology, quite the tragically exclusivistic ecclesiocentricism! Even the Holy Spirit seems to have a preferential option for the poor, while the spiritually "rich," He sends empty, away. Our answer to any advaitic nondual imperialism is not going to be any ecclesiocentric pneumatological imperialism.

Rohr will, however, recognize the degrees of fullness in experience, hence the fruits, when he sees them, wherever he sees them, in whomever he sees them. And he won't be preoccupied with experiences or gifts but with the Giver and inviting us to thus "fix" (pun intended) our gaze!


See ya next time Phil taps me on the ole cybershoulder, asking me for my typically sycophantic support. Joking aside, I trust my contributions were value-added and substantive and civil, even if strident (Phil likes to call himself stubborn; I like my word better. It sounds less like a full blown vice and possibly even a virtue).

Dominus vobiscum,
jb

Footnote: In his conference on Holding the Tension: The Power of Pardox, Rohr says, when describing the apophatic tradition, that he can see why the church backed away from it, because, he says, he'll be the first to admit that this is sort of dangerous. He said, roughly: I've had all sorts of people come up to me and say "I know. I know" and I've had plenty of them in my life and I just wanted to say: "Oh gee, she's nuts!" So, I can see why the church backed away from this part of the tradition after the first thousand years. It had a tendency to lead all sorts of people to claim authority and legitimation and validation for their opinions when, frankly, they were nuts, when, in fact, they were egocentric idiots. The problem is, says Rohr, that the tradition was nonetheless true and he goes on to describe it in a conventional manner and how it is integrally related to kataphatic tradition. He adds that his use of unkind language was purposeful.

Another aspect of this fawning over non-duality that has me concerned is the way it can express an intolerance for psychological pain and the vulnerability of intimate relationship. JB mentions this:

" . . . that we must transcend our incomplete ways of knowing reality by going beyond our normal senses and critical thinking, not abandoning critical thinking but sharpening it, by our turning to the Holy Spirit and surrendering our False Self through prayer, realizing our True Self and then engaing it with other people and life circumstances. And this entails detachment and poverty and dispossession and emptying, such as through surrendering our mind in prayer, surrendering our will in fasting, surrendering our wealth through almsgiving, while transcending our senses and thinking through relationship."


But for me there is a caution to note in this description regarding the Christian mystical path up to a certain point, or where St. John and St. Teresa might describe the loss of consolations and the beginning of more extended periods of aridity. Not that this is ever uniform across large numbers of people, as Phil can attest to as a spiritual director. But I do wonder what the relationship might be between persistent resistance to this "stage," what Teresa seems to allude to as the 5th-6th mansions, and human developmental deficit.

It is my theory, and truly provisional, that much of the hype over non-duality and unity consciousness and notions of planetary healing is a result of such deficits - where spiritual seeking leads us only so far, and then we are faced with what we can't manage for ourselves. Now, I don't mean what usually passes for the 12 Step program, since in my experience most folks in those programs are shame-based and never deal with developmental deficit, but pass from one addiction to another without ever risking psychotherapy or facing what slowly emerges within the subconscious; they go over and over the steps and never really face their attachment pain, which would occur, as in JB's example of Eastern Orthodox prayer of the heart.

So what better way to avoid attachment pain than to jump on the bandwagon of non-duality? For me, much of the New Age is about this avoidance, and it isn't hard to imagine it plaguing the church as well since it is so widespread a core form of suffering.

And it isn't hard to appreciate how long periods of aridity would spawn interest in Zen or Vipassana, etc, as the attachment needs stir us to find an experience of love and peace (belonging), or merely a lack of pain to self (which would be a product of false self hypervigilance).

So the outcry of "dualism!" may have this psychological aspect, where we so fear having these deep wounds evoked by others that we seek a form of spirituality relatively free of that pain. Aridity can never be a popular notion, even in spiritual circles.

It must be a rare number of priests without developmental deficit. And I don't mean existential pain arising from one's mortal sensibilities. Rather, it is a pain with pre-verbal roots, where internalized relationships are lacking, and the love within the heart isn't self-activating and pre-conceptual in the true self sense. Without this psychological readiness it is doubtful aridity can be tolerated, as it continually re-invokes attachment longing. Perhaps it is easier to see some possible motivations for attraction to Tolle and others from this perspective, especially since the response to relational spirituality is modest by comparison.

quote:

Originally posted by Derek:
[qb]

quote:

Originally posted by Phil:
[qb]traditionally, at least, Christians didn't sit cross-legged counting their breaths.[/qb]

In my exploration of the Orthodox tradition, I came across this in The Three Methods of Prayer attributed to St. Symeon the New Theologian, who lived about a thousand years ago:[/qb]

Good point, Derek. And the monks at Mt. Athos practiced something similar using the Jesus Prayer, prompting accusations of being "navel-gazers." The debates between Gregory Palamas and Barlaam pertained to this practice and, happily, St. Gregory was considered the victor, thus vindicating the practice.

I think what we have, here (including St. Symeon's method) is more similar to the current practice of Centering Prayer (with posture considerations added) than it is to zen, however. There is a relational faith at work, informing the practice. Nontheless, it never really became widespread, and it was (perhaps still is) fraught with the kinds of pcyho-physiological fireworks one sometimes observes in CP intensive retreats. What we have, here, then, is an early example of efforts at "acquired contemplation," and as we've noted many times on this board, that approach has always been somewhat controversial.

quote:

Originally posted by johnboy:
[qb]What you will encounter in his Third Eye rendition, I predict, will be Rohr's hauntingly beautiful litany to the Holy Spirit, Whom we encounter as a Stable Witness to all of our interactions with others and life circumstances. Rohr will emphasize that most of these interactions, even within our organized religions, take place between one False Self and another, between our false self and life circumstances, and that we must transcend our incomplete ways of knowing reality by going beyond our normal senses and critical thinking, not abandoning critical thinking but sharpening it, by our turning to the Holy Spirit and surrendering our False Self through prayer, realizing our True Self and then engaing it with other people and life circumstances. . . [/qb]

All very good, JB. Let's compare this to the book when someone finally reads it!

What's interesting about your pre-review, however, is that one can do all that you've described without being a Christian, and so I hope there's some development of the advantages of faith in Jesus Christ. I'm not denying the obvious working of the Spirit in all the world religions; as w.c. noted, there are good and holy saints to be found there. But it does seem that the Spirit has an orientation to Christ that is best known, grown, and realized in the context of explicit Christian faith. That's kind of un-PC to say, I know, but the teaching on theosis presumes this Christic orientation. That inevitably points one to the necessary kataphatic teachings and practices -- Scripture study, Sacraments, liturgy, community, etc. --- and it's on that point that I found Rohr going negative in a recent DVD I saw of him teaching on the false self. We shall see, however . . .

Re. the problem with apophatic spirituality in the Church -- this was hardly ever mainstream. Nevertheless, its value, along with negative theology, has always been recognized as a "corrective" to kataphatic excesses in theology and spiritual practice. It's the more "radical" forms of apophaticism that have been problemmatic, and it does seem that this crops up in every age. Quietism in the 17th C. is one extreme example, as are the later teachings of de Mello in our own age. We obviously need both, as you and others have pointed out many times.

- - -

Glad to see you were finally able to bring up the site, w.c. I'll get back to you later. Appointment time!

quote:

Originally posted by Phil:
[qb] the kinds of pcyho-physiological fireworks one sometimes observes in CP intensive retreats. [/qb]

I'm interested to know more about the effects of intensive retreats. Is that subject covered in any of your books?

quote:

Originally posted by w.c.:
[qb] Another aspect of this fawning over non-duality [/qb]

quote:

Originally posted by w.c.:
[qb]So the outcry of "dualism!" may have this psychological aspect[/qb]

I don't know much about non-duality and so can't contribute much to this conversation. But from my slight acquaintance, I have seen that it does generate a kind of oneupmanship among its adherents -- a "more non-dual than thou" mentality.

quote:

Originally posted by Derek:
[qb]

quote:

Originally posted by Phil:
[qb] the kinds of pcyho-physiological fireworks one sometimes observes in CP intensive retreats. [/qb]

I'm interested to know more about the effects of intensive retreats. Is that subject covered in any of your books? [/qb]

For what it's worth, I had a period of saying the Jesus prayer quite intensively, and at the start, it seemed to warm my heart no end. I soon felt my heart activated, but found myself rather exposed psychically, which could be quite disturbing at times. Physiologically too there was a lot of disturbance because I seemed to be forcing the energy to stir within me. Now I say the prayer occasionally, when the Spirit leads, not forcing myself into it, which has resulted in a more balanced activity of the heart.

I tend to agree with w.c. What's the old cliche - relationships are hard! Apart from those periods of grace when God gives of himself in wonderful ways, those dry periods can tempt one to make an escape into the seductive arms of whatever seems to be offering that blissful non duality.

quote:

Originally posted by Phil:
[qb] What's interesting about your pre-review, however, is that one can do all that you've described without being a Christian, and so I hope there's some development of the advantages of faith in Jesus Christ. I'm not denying the obvious working of the Spirit in all the world religions; as w.c. noted, there are good and holy saints to be found there. But it does seem that the Spirit has an orientation to Christ that is best known, grown, and realized in the context of explicit Christian faith. That's kind of un-PC to say, I know, but the teaching on theosis presumes this Christic orientation. [/qb]

You have said explicitly, what I have said more subtly. The reason we do not want to be indifferentist, syncretistic, falsely irenic or imprecise in our approach to truth, beauty, goodness and unity, as we consciously choose creed, cult, code and community, is not so much because we do not believe that the Holy Spirit is universally accessible, not because we deny salvific efficacy in other traditions, not because we deny their ability to foster ongoing Lonerganian conversion, not because we deny various degrees of fullness of the experience of God-realization in this or that practice, method, discipline, asceticism or process BUT precisely because, to the extent anyone's orthopraxis authenticates orthodoxy and to the extent we differentiate our tradition via a consciously competent theosis ... we have suggested that one can move more swiftly and with less hindrance toward this Giver of all good gifts, best disposed and best prepared to experience and realize the utter fullness of relationship with one another through our God, with our God through one another, in His creation for all eternity, through the rich experience of knowing Christ with a full certainty and deep understanding!

The other project I have been working on, in fact, is a deeper investigation into the Wilber-Helminiak dialogue. It is manifestly clear that, however much Wilber's work provides a helpful heuristic structure, when Wilber ventures beyond the vaguely heuristic into the more robustly metaphysical and theological, he is clearly revealing his departure into an arational gnosticism, fragmenting the integral nature of human value-realization. I will share some of my assessment before I leave later this week, maybe even later today.

On the other hand, what Rohr is talking about in regard to the False Self and tertium quid is not this Wilberian nondualism but more of a Mertonesque transformational account, emphasizing that Faith is the real tertium quid, that proper relationship to the Holy Spirit and proper realization of our True Self is distinct from socialization process and persona or False Self construction & maintenance. To the extent we successfully institutionalize conversion, then we will foster Lonerganian conversions and move beyond functional relationships with God, one another and creation and into more robustly personal relationships, which is all to say, toward authenticity. Rohr's advocacy of contemplative prayer forms, like CP, is but one aspect of this larger project of not over-intellectualizing our God-relationship, not seeing this relationship in functional terms, not experiencing this relationship out of the False Self. Apophasis is but one tool in the spiritual technology toolbox to help us move out of our heads and away from our ego-centered agenda and out of our False-self system frameworks to taste and see the goodness of God.

Rohr is using "dualistic" almost interchangeably with False-self and nondualistic almost interchangeably with the life of faith and authenticity and the True Self. If you use this as your cipher or glossary, vis a vis his vocabulary useage of dualistic and nondualistic, and recogize that it is moreso out of the dictionary (dualistic is there, typically, not nondualistic, but one can infer the negation as etymologically correct) and not so much borrowed from the rather esoteric literature, which is really dealing with metaphysical (even theological) nondualism, then you will have a better grasp of his overall thrust.

Our churches can do a better job inviting people past the state of being good little socialized Christians and into a disposition of being sweet little transformed Christians is his project, which was also Merton's.

quote:

Originally posted by w.c.:
[qb] And I should add, though most folks here don't need to hear it: there is quite a wealth in these other traditions. One of the two saints I've known, or think of in this way, is Hindu. Fruits of the Holy Spirit abundant in her. Yet while her trasmission of peace to me was integrative and rich and deep, leaving me free of worries for several days, the Holy Spirit remains incomparable. [/qb]

w.c., I would have responded to you earlier on this, but I had to go to bed! But, yes, yes, yes.

And I would place this all in the same context as in my last response to Phil as it regards our moving more swiftly and with less hindrance vis a vis a more robustly consciously, competent theotic paradigm. Folks like you and Phil are a living laboratory and testimony to this dynamic. I resist going off on yet another tangent, but, from something of a compare and contrast perspective between traditions, to the extent any given tradition is getting the human authenticity path correct, that tradition is, in some sense, gifted with, to put it crudely, a better operator's manual .... which brings me to my point, and I'll be more concise and succinct than usual: It has always seemed to me that, in the East, the Bhakti movement had a better owner's manual in that it's schematic more accurately depicted our human hardwiring as it was Designed and purposed. I resist too facile a mapping of same but always felt an affinity for those particular Hindu sensibilities. I was initiated into some of this by a friend over a five year period, but will desist from going into the details. It was mostly positive.

quote:

Originally posted by Phil:
[qb] That's kind of un-PC to say, I know, but the teaching on theosis presumes this Christic orientation. That inevitably points one to the necessary kataphatic teachings and practices -- Scripture study, Sacraments, liturgy, community, etc. --- and it's on that point that I found Rohr going negative in a recent DVD I saw of him teaching on the false self. We shall see, however . . . [/qb]

Phil, shoot me an e-mail or post the name of that DVD and I'll be happy to take a look at it. Chances are very good that I own it.

Rohr made one statement re: John of the Cross in his description of the sanjuanian approach vis a vis apophasis that I would have more richly nuanced in regard to St. John's kataphatic devotions. I had written a long essay years ago about his being the "liturgical mystic" and, in that sense, he was the paragon of proper integration of alternating apophasis and kataphasis. I recall that I closed that essay with a quote from Thomas Keating, who affirmed the mutually informing and enriching movements between the apophatic and kataphatic modalities.

quote:

Originally posted by Phil:
[qb] All very good, JB. Let's compare this to the book when someone finally reads it! [/qb]

Yes, please do. I ordered the CDs, which looked like a new release with the same title. I'm guessing those are substantively the same? I don't think I'm being presumptive, though, in that, after decades of absorbing the Rohr body of work, what I typically encounter in new presentations is not so much wholly novel material but the same materials with different emphases and greater amplification, though not without the occasional resynthesis.

quote:

Originally posted by Phil:
[qb] Re. the problem with apophatic spirituality in the Church -- this was hardly ever mainstream. Nevertheless, its value, along with negative theology, has always been recognized as a "corrective" to kataphatic excesses in theology and spiritual practice. It's the more "radical" forms of apophaticism that have been problemmatic, and it does seem that this crops up in every age. Quietism in the 17th C. is one extreme example, as are the later teachings of de Mello in our own age. We obviously need both, as you and others have pointed out many times. [/qb]

Now YOU are sounding more like Rohr. Anyone interested will find precisely this teaching in Rohr's Holding the Tension: the Power of Paradox. It is his second lecture in that series and is entitled: How You Get There Determines Where You Arrive. Now, is that not precisely what our conversation re: theosis has been about today?

quote:

Originally posted by w.c.:
[qb] It is my theory, and truly provisional, that much of the hype over non-duality ...[/qb]

w.c., that was a depthful analysis and right-on, I think, in many regards. Such analyses can serve us well and can be complemented by any number of other psychologistic and reductionistic accounts of human behavior. They give us glimpses about what might be going on with humanity, or even large cohorts of people, in general.

The cautionary note that I would add is that it might be best to resist facilely applying them to any given person, in particular, for we run a grave risk of pigeon-holing, stereotyping, caricaturizing and downright ad hominem a priori dismissal of another person, whom we very likely know very little about, which is bad enough, and especially very little of, which can wield the cruelest cut of all.

Preaching to the choir, here, I know, but wanted to inject this for the benefit of others who will surely come along. After all, so much of the discussion has been about Fr. Richard Rohr, in particular, and what seems to me to be a very narrow slice, indeed, of his body of work, narrowly interpreted at that.

quote:

Originally posted by Phil:
[qb] What we have, here, then, is an early example of efforts at "acquired contemplation," and as we've noted many times on this board, that approach has always been somewhat controversial. [/qb]

Praying in Tongues seems to be mostly an acquired type, it seems to me. Very early origin, too! And I'd reckon it sometimes flowers into infused contemplation. When John XXIII prayed for a New Pentecost and the Charismatic Renewal flourished, on a parallel track, some of these contemplative prayer forms arrived, mid-wifed by folks like Merton, Keating, Pennington. The Holy Spirit gifts us still.

quote:

Originally posted by Derek:
[qb]

quote:

Originally posted by w.c.:
[qb] Another aspect of this fawning over non-duality [/qb]

quote:

Originally posted by w.c.:
[qb]So the outcry of "dualism!" may have this psychological aspect[/qb]

I don't know much about non-duality and so can't contribute much to this conversation. But from my slight acquaintance, I have seen that it does generate a kind of oneupmanship among its adherents -- a "more non-dual than thou" mentality. [/qb]

As with any tradition, I think we can draw a real distinction between adherents and practitioners. Holier than thou is a universal manifestation of ego-centered mindsets, false-self dynamics. We don't want to fall into the fallacy of misuse, either, where someone's abuse of a practice or belief serves as testimony against same.

Sup?

This is a post I duplicated but could not delete.

So, while I am here, I would like to take this opportunity to invite you to enter with me into a nondual

quote:

Originally posted by Stephen:
[qb]I tend to agree with w.c. What's the old cliche - relationships are hard! Apart from those periods of grace when God gives of himself in wonderful ways, those dry periods can tempt one to make an escape into the seductive arms of whatever seems to be offering that blissful non duality. [/qb]

I think we need a little more rigor in our descriptions such that we distinguish between epistemic stances, phenomenal experiences and metaphysical propositions.

The descriptor, blissful non duality, applies to a pheneomenal experience. Nondualism applies to Eastern metaphysics, which includes both epistemic stances and metaphysical propositions, since they conflate the two by definition.

The predominant useage of nonduality vis a vis my major thrust here, lately, discussing what Rohr means, merely means that we are being invited into a robustly personal relationship with God. In order to fully enjoy same, we must supplement those value-realization strategies that we employ in science and math and philosophy and engineering and business and commerce and government and crime & punishment (the social matrix) with many of the same value-realization strategies that we employ in our love of Mom and Dad, brother and sister, cousin and friend. And what are those? Those do not exclude our binary thinking, our analytical left-brain, our categorical schemes, our pramatic concerns, which are inherently dual (necessarily employ subject-object cleavage) but they certainly GO BEYOND them, to include the nondual (the other than those dual things): the nonrational and superrational value-realization strategies like affection, storge', philia, eros, agape, faith, hope, love, fidelity, loyalty, trust. Some mystics go BEYOND even this: to love of God like the love of a spouse or lover. If you pay close attention to the nuance, some are advocating going beyond the dual AND WITHOUT the dual, which then makes one's journey not only nondual but also not nonrational and superrational but ARATIONAL.

That's what this whole conversation has been about, in a nutshell. A nondual approach that is also dual includes the rational, nonrational and superrational. A nondual approach that is not also dual is, instead, arational.

This type of nondual approach, whether involving an epistemic stance, epistemological structure, phenomenal experience, metaphysical proposition or theological dogma is, in my view, nothing but a FETISH. Rohr would call it a heresy using the criteria that it has appropriated a partial truth as if it were the whole truth. This is not a danger that exists for the gnostic arationalists, alone, however. A thousand such blossoms bloom and are pejoratively labeled scientistm, fideism, fundamentalistic religion, pietism, encratism, quietism, rationalism, empiricism, advaitic imperialism, exclusivism, ecclesiocentrism, indifferentism, etc.

If you understood the above two paragraphs, you can really skip reading this thread, which is teasing out a million nuances, using different perspectives (and alleged perspectives ) as a foil.

There are many tools in our spiritual technology toolchest. If we take the path VERY seriously, which is not required (we must only take it seriously), then we will avail ourselves of many more tools, necessarily. If we make the TOOL our focus, then we will have quite missed the point. If we make the gifts our focus, then we will quite miss the Giver.

As we survey conventional religion today, we are interested in how well transformational dynamics have been institutionalized. And, we've got to work the system to make the system work. If we keep doing only what we have always been doing, then we will keep getting the same results we have always gotten. And if institutionalized religion is turning out folks who have gone beyond socialized, ego-centered approaches to more transformed, True-self realizations, then all is well. If not, reaching into the toolbox is not contraindicated just because some folks misuse such tools. They should, of course, consult the owner's manual.

JB,

Aren't epistemic stances, phenomenal experiences and metaphysical propositions interdependent?
Can metaphysical propositions be conceived of without the potential for phenomenal experiences, and if they can, don't they rely on phenomenal experience for corroboration or proof? Without such, they are, perhaps, meaningless. Is this what you mean by an epistemic stance?

Now just let me lie down for a wee minute .

"Some mystics go BEYOND even this: to love of God like the love of a spouse or lover."

Yes, yes, yes ! If God can be loved and lived with as a Father, then why not as lover or wife, although I often find myself in a feminine role when involved in prayer which conceives of this.

Andre Marquis, Janice Holden, and Scott Warren at the University of North Texas write, in their Response to Helminiak's Treatment of Spiritual Issues in Psychotherapy at http://wilber.shambhala.com/ht...helminiak/index.cfm/ :

quote:

Thus, our appreciation and respect for Helminiak's (2001) efforts to develop a spiritual psychology for the mental health profession are outweighed by our overriding reaction that his model provides a far less comprehensive approach than does Wilber's (1999a) integral psychology model. We came to Helminiak's work with a background in integral psychology, and we approached his work with the question of whether it added to, or even might more comprehensively substitute for, the integral perspective. Our answer on both accounts is, essentially, no. Whereas Wilber's integral perspective encompasses, clarifies, and affirms Helminiak's views as well as numerous phenomena that Helminiak addressed incidentally or not at all, Helminiak's (p. 17) outright rejection of Wilber's model shows that, conversely, Helminiak's model does not encompass the integral perspective. We value the broadest possible approach to spiritual psychology because it seems better suited to account for the experiences of all people across cultures and throughout history; consequently, we opt to continue to use the integral perspective as our guiding model. However, we want to repeat that the integral model does not reject but, rather, affirms much of Helminiak's model as having some applicability for, but only for, the level of human experience it addresses. Because Wilber's integral perspective subsumes Helminiak's, the integral model would appear to offer mental health professionals a more complete framework with which to conceptualize and work with the varieties of spiritual experiences and issues that clients might bring to counseling.

The dynamic going on here, in this critique of Helminiak, in my view, is the failure to draw the distinction between what is a comprehensive but necessarily vague heuristic device (Wilber�s integral account) and a more robustly explanatory but necessarily incomplete theoretic account (Helminiak�s Lonerganian account).

Both approaches aspire to the same goals of integrality but only Helminiak�s approach lends itself to empirical falsifiability within an appropriately fallibilist hermeneutic. Wilber�s approach, ironically, misses the integrality mark by facilely conflating same with comprehensivity, which is a confusion between, on one hand, a successful reference of a reality with, on the other hand, a successful description of that reality, which again lends itself to empirical falsifiability and predictability, hypothetical fecundity, rational demonstrability and a host of other epistemic criteria, which will be examined in my engagement of this article. In other words, to talk about many, many things might meet the criteria of comprehensivity, and that is fine for heuristic placeholding, but this is a distinct epistemic enterprise from explaining and predicting in a robustly scientific approach.