quote:

Originally posted by Stephen:
[qb] 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 [/qb]

Yes indeed! I had to rub my eyes and read the post again to be sure it wasn't JB writing, or to decide whether or not you were quoting him.

- - -

Folks, I'm kinda done with this topic, although I do have a few more posts to make on Tolle as time and brain power permit. I think we've developed a fine resource area, here, and on Tolle as well. In fact, if you go to google.com and do a search for "Eckhart Tolle, Christianity" (no quotes, of course), there we are in the top 10. If you've wondered why I've kept this dinosaur software of a Board, it's because the search engines can access it.
- see http://shalomplace.com/cgi-bin...&t=000306&p=4#000088 for a recent post on Tolle.

After all is said and done, I still have to say that I don't think "nonduality" has much traction in the Christian mystical tradition. We've used other terms to signify what's being described. "Nonduality" can too easily give the wrong impression, and often does.

quote:

Originally posted by Stephen:
[qb] 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?[/qb]

Yes, Stephen, these things are integrally-related. The question that I drive at in my distinctions is not whether these things are interdependent but, instead, does any given one necessarily indicate any given other.

I really like this question: don't they rely on phenomenal experience for corroboration or proof?

Our phenomenal experience is how we empirically gather data. And these data can be involved in different types (3) of inference. Data gathering, itself, as an empirical and descriptive perspective, is distinct from its employment in a logical or inferential operation, which is further framed up within an interpretive perspective (think Copernican vs Ptolemaic astronomy, or Newtonian vs Einsteinian physics). All of these are philosophically related through a normative perspective (think of this perspective as providing rules and guidelines, like logic and ethics and even aesthetic criteria, eg.like Occam's Razor). The normative mediates between the descriptive and interpretive to effect the evaluative, our value-realizations, in this consideration, an epistemic stance.

A major criticism (my own) of Ken Wilber, re: the value of phenomenal experience as data, is that he goes straight from a datum (mystical, even) or empirical perspective to an interpretive perspective, by-passing the normative perspective (wherein rationality inheres).

Helminiak might say, if he were employing my Peircean rubric, that the philosophic mediates between the positivistic and theistic to effect a theotic value-realization. In simpler terms, let me see, we would say that philosophy and logic and left-brain analysis, mediate between science and metaphysics to effect all sorts of value-realizations.

Coming full circle then, epistemic stances mediate between phenomenal experiences and metaphysical propositions to effect human value-realizations, like truth, beauty, goodness and unity. One can adopt an epistemic stance of nonduality and even enjoy a nondual phenomenal experience without, necessarily, arriving at the metaphysical proposition known as nondualism. If one's epistemic stance is a whole-brained approach, then, one's dualistic faculties will normatively guide one in accord with all sorts of presuppositions, some uncritically examined even. If one's epistemic stance is solely nondual, then the normative perspective has been dispensed with and anything goes and there ain't no arguing about it because one needs the normative and philosophical tool box to put those rational wheels on one's interpretive vehicle. Such a vehicle would then moreso resemble, I suppose, a flying saucer.

quote:

Originally posted by Phil:
[qb] After all is said and done, I still have to say that I don't think "nonduality" has much traction in the Christian mystical tradition. We've used other terms to signify what's being described. "Nonduality" can too easily give the wrong impression, and often does. [/qb]

I'm afraid we're going to have to add it to the list of other confusing (and unfortunate) terms like False Self and learn to live with it because it appears that it is here to stay. It's a natural outcome, in my view, of East-West contemplative dialogue.

Out of over 25,000 Google hits for the syntax +christian +nonduality , my own page (hit #8) comes up on the first page of hits, a few hits behind the Bede Griffiths site (#5). Just be glad that when it is Googled, folks may come here!

I do wish we could replace the thrust of it all with whole-brain approach, maybe more appropriately whole-person approach. Even then, we have Wilber using the word integral and advocating what turns out to be anything but integral. And that makes me want to avoid that term, which is prescisely what my own thrust is.

If people go to Rohr's conferences or buy his books and tapes and DVDs attracted by nonduality as a buzzword, at least they will get good catechesis and evangelization, in MY view. He is NOT misusing the term and is closer to the dictionary, etymologically, than most.

Are we making this distinction harder than it really is?

Here Stephen, this -- below -- is for you. Think of "intentional" in terms of "stance," if you will.

quote:

Dear Dan,

Thanks for your thoughtful response. Is it possible we can make a distinction between an ontological nonduality and an intentional one?

In an ontological nonduality there is no distinction in nature between me and God so that I can say that I am God. As you indicate, where do we go from here? What can we really say after this? What possibility is there for development? This kind of ontological nonduality doesn't seem to match my personal reality with all my needs and wants.

In an intentional nonduality, I don't have the same nature as God, but I can become like God through knowledge and love. Therefore, the way is open for me to try to know and love as much as possible.

Do Buddhists believe in an ontological nonduality? I don't see how Christians can, and so I would prefer to say that they are intentional nondualists rather than dualists.

Sincerely,
Jim Arraj

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:

... from the integral perspective, a humanistic, existential perspective is not uniquely spiritual and is inadequate to address the spiritual domain. In Wilber's (1999a) model, the existential domain is found at the outer limits of the personal realm of development, just short of the qualitatively different transpersonal domain. Helminiak (2001) did briefly mention that the cultivation of spirituality "would result in an on-going way of living and/or extraordinary experiences associated with enlightenment or mysticism" (p. 7). However, he did not elaborate on these phenomena described by contemplatives the world over as involving transcendence of some of the very precepts Helminiak considers central to spirituality: "intelligence" and "rationality" (p. 9). How can the cultivation of rationality spawn experiences and a way of life that are transrational? On a related note, Helminiak argued that his transcendental precepts are self validating, in that, to critique them is to invoke them. However, from the integral perspective, the entire domain of rational discourse belongs to the level of reason -- the personal spheres of development; although they are highly appropriate within those levels, they are not inherently spiritual.

Let's reintroduce the Peircean rubric, that the normative sciences (logic, ethics, aesthetics; the philosophic) mediate between phenomenology (science, the empirical, the positivist, the descriptive) and metaphysics (the interpretive; the thestic) to effect human value-realizations (the evaluative; truth, beauty, goodness & unity; creed, cult, code & community; the theotic).

As a human being develops --- intellectually, affectively, morally, socially and religiously, there is already an integral dance going on between all of these faculties --- rational, nonrational and transrational. Rationally, we learn reading, writing and arithmetic. Nonrationally, we grow affectively, our neurotic reactivity yielding to a more life-enhancing and relationship-enhancing existential responsivity. Transrationally, our relationships with parent and siblings and society are slowly being transformed from the merely functional to the robustly personal. The rational, in a real way, mediates along the way, between our nonrational and transrational value-realizations effecting conversions: intellectually, affectively, morally, socially and religiously.

Our trasnrationality does not emerge, therefore, out of our rationality, which did not emerge out of our nonrationality. They were all already innately present and integrally-related.

From this perspective then, the question How can the cultivation of rationality spawn experiences and a way of life that are transrational? is a nonsensical category error, the very premises of which we reject.

Also, we categorically reject this: However, from the integral perspective, the entire domain of rational discourse belongs to the level of reason -- the personal spheres of development; although they are highly appropriate within those levels, they are not inherently spiritual.

This is a flat-out denial of integrality from the standpoint of psychological development and Lonerganian conversion.

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:

Helminiak (2001) also asserted that "spirituality names the committed pursuit to become the best one can be" (p. 7) and that "spiritual practices are geared toward enhancing inner experiences" (p. 28).

From the integral perspective (Wilber, 1999a), the goals of self-improvement and experiential enhancement belong to the domain of spiritual translation. However, the self-transcending dimension by which Helminiak himself defined spirit pertains, in the integral perspective, to spiritual transformation. Helminiak not only failed to discriminate between these two processes but actually entangled them. Translation fortifies the self and its experiences; transformation aims to dismantle and destroy the sense of separate self. In Zen, enhanced "inner experiences" are called makyo (Ma -- devil; kyo -- the objective world). Although they are not inherently "evil," they can powerfully divert spiritual seekers who are "ignorant of [the] true nature [of these experiences] and [who are] ensnared by them" (Yasutani Roshi in Kapleau, 1989, p. 42). Chogyam Trungpa referred to the pursuit of such experiences as "spiritual materialism" (1973, p. 13). From an integral perspective, what Helminiak's spirituality is "geared toward" actually interferes with his definition and defined goal of spirit: self-transendence.

At the crux of this argument lies the question of just what one might mean by self-transcendence.

So, if one takes that to mean going beyond one's sense of self or persona or False Self or socialized self or functional self

to a sense of one's True Self, seeing oneself as God sees oneself with Ignatius, with a sense of self in relationship to God and others that is no longer merely functional but robustly relational,

then, quite simply put, we do not disvalue our socialized, functional self

but, instead, realize that we need to get in touch with a sense of our more authentic self, beyond any facade or persona or mask,

if we want to enjoy deeply personal relationships, intimate even, with God and others.

This does not comport with any notion that transformation aims to dismantle and destroy the sense of separate self.. Wilber and Helminiak are using two definitions of transformation, with different categories even. Helminiak's internal coherence and logical consistency cannot be subverted from without by using Wilber's definitions and categories and it cannot be subverted from within because he is manifestly consistent and coherent.

Finally, they begin to get the point, however incohately: Helminiak not only failed to discriminate between these two processes but actually entangled them.

That is correct! They ARE "entangled ," which is another way of recognizing that they ARE integrally-related.

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:

Regarding theism, Helminiak (2001) asserted that the human concept of God is often merely projection and, therefore, unreliable. He also cited Wilber's assertion -- and, we might add, the collective assertion of contemplatives across history and cultures -- that the innermost consciousness of humans is identical to the absolute and ultimate reality of the universe. Helminiak seemed to have concluded that this assertion also is a projection and, therefore, is incompatible with his spiritual psychology. For people who have not directly realized the Absolute, this issue becomes a question of authority. For ourselves, we find greater authority in the collective wisdom of the world's saints and sages, and we consider the exclusion of that wisdom to render any spiritual psychology incomplete, even potentially harmful.

Let us back up here and distinguish the nature of the claims under consideration by careful parsing.

Regarding theism, Helminiak (2001) asserted that the human concept of God is often merely projection and, therefore, unreliable.

This is an empirical datum, verifiable and falsifiable by the science of psychology.

He also cited Wilber's assertion -- and, we might add, the collective assertion of contemplatives across history and cultures -- that the innermost consciousness of humans is identical to the absolute and ultimate reality of the universe.

The nature of human consciousness, in the philosophy of mind, is what is known as the hard problem of consciousness. Slowly but inexorably, scientists and philosophers have made progress on this. It is both an empirical scientific question and an empirical metaphysical question, and the question perdures. There are all sorts of philosophy of mind positions by some very competent philosophers and neuroscientists. I lean toward a nonreductive physicalist account but am, at bottom, metaphysically agnostic where this question is concerned.

To the extent, however, that Wilber has also introduced a theological assertion that the innermost consciousness of humans is identical to the absolute and ultimate reality of the universe, at that point we are dealing with not only a metaphysically heuristic or scientifically theoretic matter but a theologically dogmatic matter. And there is no real arguing over dogmatic propositions since they tend to be adjudicated, in the end, by nonpropositional aspects of our epistemic stance.

This is not to deny a place for natural theology which can demonstrate the reasonableness of our claims even if not producing conclusive proofs beyond a mere Scottish verdict. What we can argue, however, is Wilber's facile invocation of authority, a fallacious appeal but, like I said, we have to fall back on nonpropositional aspects vis a vis our will to believe and the existential warrants that back it up as a living, vital and forced option.

Ergo, to the extent that, for themselves, they find greater authority in the collective wisdom of the world's saints and sages, then they have ipso facto dismissed the authorities of all monotheistic traditions and movements, in general, and the Abrahamic traditions, in particular.

Not only have they cursorily dismissed the authority of philosophers and scientists who remain conflicted over the nature of consciousness, considering it both epistemologically and ontologically open, they have dismissed any religious or ideological tradition that is not either pantheist or based on some idealist monism.

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:

We believe Helminiak's (2001) model will not be very helpful to mental health professionals (MHPs) who are not already proficient in spiritual matters. Take, for example, his approach to validating aspects of spirituality. Referring to a client's belief in God, the need to have meaning in one's life, and so forth (translative spirituality), he wrote, "Insofar as these beliefs and practices facilitate the integration of organism, psyche, and spirit in the client, a therapist's support of them is actually fostering spiritual growth" (p. 18).

How is an MHP to determine whether or not a belief or practice is facilitating integration or reinforcing pathology in the sense of Battista's (1996) offensive and defensive spirituality? We believe the integral model has provided far more guidance. One example is Wilber, Engler, and Brown's (1986) accounts of how Vipassana meditation loosens and breaks down psychic structure. Thus, for a client suffering from psychotic, borderline, or narcissistic disorders -- disorders involving an insufficiently organized sense of self -- recommending or affirming such meditation is contraindicated. This notion has been corroborated even by those unsympathetic with the transpersonal perspective (Yalom, 1989, p. 52-53).

We endorse Helminiak's (2001) attempt to establish criteria for evaluating the healthfulness of various spiritual/religious beliefs -- at least of clients in the prepersonal and personal spheres of development with little or no experience of the transpersonal. However, one of us (Holden) has been using a similar criterion for years which, compared to Helminiak's, she still finds more elegant: the old "1, 2, 3" National Association of Mental Health criteria of whether a belief or practice helps one 1) feel better about oneself, 2) have more harmonious relationships with others, and 3) carry out more effectively the tasks of daily life. In addition, from the integral perspective, once one crosses into the mystical domain of the transpersonal, criteria such as these remain valuable only to a point.

At what point would criteria like these lose their value?

I have my sneaking suspicions as to how this would be answered by one who disvalues the socialized, functional sense of self.

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:

We further believe Helminiak's (2001) limited existential perspective could risk laying the groundwork for a counselor to do harm. One form of potential harm involves category errors, as when, for example, a counselor indiscriminately conceptually reduces a near-death experience to a consoling fantasy built into the human brain through evolution to comfort the person facing existential annihilation. Another form of potential harm in an exclusively existential view is that the counselor lacks a framework to offer a client who seeks to understand a transpersonal experience. For example, how can an existential perspective explain spontaneous physical healing or the complex phenomenon of spiritual emergency (Holden, VanPelt, & Warren, 1999)? "At stake," as Helminiak likes to say, is whether to affirm a spiritual reality that is not merely existential: not merely "intelligent" but also intuitive and contemplative, not merely "rational" but also transrational, not merely "humanistic" but also transpersonal yet apprehensible to humans.

Yes, I like to say that, too. Beyond but not without. What's at stake is integrality, itself.

What seems to be missing from this account is that Helminiak's paradigm does not begin and end with the positivist and philosophic foci of human concern. It precisely anticipates the broadening of these foci to include the theistic and theotic, which have all manner of interpretations available for all manner of experiences, none of which a good MHP would cruelly dispossess a client.

quote:

Originally posted by Phil:
[qb] Folks, I'm kinda done with this topic, although I do have a few more posts to make on Tolle as time and brain power permit. [/qb]

It would be my preference that we continue any more Rohr-related discussion here at Richard Rohr's new book.. and, when appropriate, here at Eckhart Tolle: A Christian Critique . I'll post something else after I've heard the Third Eye CDs.

quote:

Originally posted by johnboy:
[qb]

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. . . [/qb]

JB, I believe spontaneous glossalalia is a specialized type of infused contemplation. Deliberate, intentional praying in tongues might qualify as an acquired-type practice, however. Whatever the case, there's no doubting that glossalalia has been and still is a controversial phenomenon.

quote:

Originally posted by Phil:
[qb] JB, I believe spontaneous glossalalia is a specialized type of infused contemplation. Deliberate, intentional praying in tongues might qualify as an acquired-type practice, however. [/qb]

I recall a nice little book by Fr. Faricy that addressed this. Also, from reliable and credible sources, I have heard that, on occasion, some people have prayed in tongues and, unwittingly, were doing so very eloquently in a recognizable foreign language known to others nearby but not to the pray-er.

For anyone interested, there is another thread from several years ago entitled: The Eternal Now - and how to be there! .

It began just prior to a release of conference materials from a conference conducted by Keating & Rohr together. And to be honest, I forgot about having this conversation. All the dynamics seem to be the same as with this one. We start talking about an anticipated release. Eventually the DVD comes in and I discuss the materials. I wax eloquent and enthusiastic about those materials. Phil jumps in and provides all the caveat emptors, contraindications and side-effects saying he's not trying to pick a nit. I say that's okay but you worry too much. When I went back and re- read that thread, I felt like Bill Murray in Ground Hog's Day! Now THAT's a great movie with many lessons for life!

For a good summary statement re: both the the giftedness as well as some cautionary notes re: prayer approaches like CP, in particular, but, by extension, certainly other contemplative prayer forms, in general, below is a Pastoral Letter from Cardinal Sin. I think it touches on many of the points we have raised here at Shalomplace, both pros and cons. Shalomplace .. fair, balanced and unafraid

quote:

Pastoral Statement

The Centering Prayer?

For several years now a growing number of the faithful in the Archdiocese of Manila has been practising Centering Prayer, and a greater number has heard about it, some through opinions which praise it, others through judgments which condemn or warn against it. The spread of the practice of Centering Prayer and the varying opinions about it have moved the authorities of the Archdiocese of Manila to study the matter. This study included consulting experts in spirituality and persons with extensive experience in teaching and practising Centering Prayer. It is after such study and consultation that this Statement is being issued for the guidance of the faithful.



Centering Prayer Defined



Centering Prayer, correctly understood, is a method designed to prepare sincere followers of Christ for contemplative prayer in the traditional sense in which spiritual writers understood the term for the first sixteen centuries of the Christian era. Centering Prayer is rooted in the word of God, both in person of Jesus Christ and in Scripture. It comes out of traditional Christian spirituality, principally from two sources: The Cloud of Unknowing (by anonymous fourteenth-century author), and St. John of the Cross. Throughout the history of Christianity this kind of prayer has been known by different names, such as the prayer of faith, the prayer of simple regard, the prayer of simplicity, and the prayer of the heart. Centering Prayer is an effort to present these elements of traditional Christian spirituality in updated or contemporary form, and to put a certain order and regularity among and into them.



Centering Prayer is not meant to replace other kinds of prayer (such as vocal prayer, meditation, affective prayer, veneration of sacred images). Centering Prayer is not contemplation in the strict sense, which in Catholic Christian tradition has always been regarded as pure gift of the Holy Spirit. It is rather meant to prepare Christians for contemplative prayer.



To understand Centering Prayer it is necessary to first grasp what contemplative prayer or contemplation is and what its main effects are.



Meaning of and main effects of contemplative prayer or contemplation


Contemplative prayer, also known as contemplation, is the opening of one�s mind, heart and whole being to God, beyond thoughts, words and emotions. It springs from and deepens one�s experiential knowledge of God, a knowledge that is rooted in love.



Contemplation is a great gift of the Holy Spirit which is available in principle to all Christians by virtue of Baptism. It should be a normal development, moved and made possible by God, of the grace of Baptism. By this development, one�s relationship with God gradually grows so that one comes to a friendship with God so deep that one�s mind and heart, going beyond thoughts, words, and emotions, no longer actively seek God, but begin to �rest� in God, �tasting� and �enjoying� God. This condition is not the suspension of all activity, but the reduction and simplication of many acts and thoughts into a single act or thought to sustain one�s consent to God?s loving presence and action.



Contemplative prayer moves beyond ideas and reflections and the multiplication of particular acts, to the level of interior silence in which the person communicates with God in the wordless union of deepest love. In contemplative prayer the deep awareness of God�s presence frees one from making oneself or one�s relationship with God the center of one�s attention. Though one�s own reflections and acts of will are necessary preliminaries to deeper friendship and union with God in and through Christ, one has to transcend these if in the power of the Holy Spirit one is to be able to share with Christ in his most personal prayer to the Father, which is characterized by total self-surrender.



The essence of contemplation is the trusting and loving faith by which God both elevates the human person and purifies him or her from all the conscious and unconscious obstacles that oppose the values of the Gospel and the work of the Spirit. Contemplative prayer therefore makes one �spiritual� in the deepest sense; docile to the guidance of the Holy Spirit in all aspects of our life. It makes for the deep transforma-tion of one?s life in Christ.



How Centering Prayer prepares Christians for contemplative prayer



Centering Prayer prepares Christians for contemplative prayer by its method. This method is precisely meant to deepen faith, hope and love, to free one from attachment to one�s condition and activity, and to focus one�s mind and heart on consenting and surrendering to God�s presence and action within oneself. Centering Prayer reduces the obstacles to contemplation caused by hyperactivity in prayer and excessive dependence on concepts in order to go to God. Centering Prayer prepares Christians for contemplation by cultivating their heart � their inmost being � through disciplining it in order to reduce the obstacles � chiefly selfishness and distraction � that prevent them from following the gentle and subtle inspirations of the Holy Spirit.



Throughout the process of Centering Prayer one intention predominates � the movement of one�s will to consent to God�s intention, which according to Christian faith, is to communicate God�s life to us. Centering Prayer therefore promotes personal union with God, which is the essence of contemplation.



What Centering Prayer is not



Centering Prayer is not a technique which supposedly automatically produces union with God. It is not a relaxation exercise. It is not a form of self-hypnosis. Neither is it merely an altered state of consciousness. It certainly is not Transcendental Meditation or Hinduism or Buddhism in Christian attire. Nor is it a New Age teaching and practice infiltrated into the Christian Churches.



Centering Prayer is not a charismatic gift specially given by the Holy Spirit to some individuals for the encouragement and building up of the Christian community (as in 1 Corinthians 2:1-13). It is not limited to the �felt� presence of God. Nor is it meditation or effective prayer.



Advantages of Centering Prayer



The advantages of Centering Prayer include the following:



It habituates those who practice it to the language?? of God, which is loving silence.



It addresses the contemporary hunger for spirituality in a way that in principle is practicable by anyone, and those who do not find it helpful simply drop it without suffering any harm.



It is completely rooted in the Christian contemplative tradition. Unlike other Systems like Christian Zen and Christian Yoga, which borrow some elements from other religions and integrate these in a Christian framework, Centering Prayer emerges purely from teaching of the recognized masters of Christian spirituality.



It renews the Church by fostering contemplative prayer and transformation in Christ, with a deepening of faith, hope, and love authenticated in practice, which results from authentic contemplative prayer.


It helps attract back to the Church many Catholic Christians who have gone elsewhere searching for spiritual experiences.



Points of caution in relation to Centering Prayer



Though from a Catholic Christian viewpoint, Centering Prayer is a very helpful practice, certain points of caution need to be observed in relation to it. Among these points of caution are the following:



The practice of Centering Prayer needs spiritual guidance, as its promoters themselves affirm. A qualified spiritual guide is one who has a thorough conceptual background of the Christian contemplative tradition, good judgment, and? experience of contemplative prayer. The need for guidance arises in relation to several matters, such as the following:



There is need for adequate preparation of beginners in prayer, before they can practice Centering Prayer correctly and fruitfully. Beginners need advice, instruction, and support on the following:



reform of life


concrete questions on God?s self revelation in Scripture and in the core teaching of the Church (since one cannot love what one does not know)



basic truths of Catholic Christian faith in order to clarify their interpretation of their spiritual experiences.



Those who are advancing in the practice of Centering Prayer need spiritual guidance to understand and manage the difficulties that occur in the development of Centering Prayer into the classic mystical path of St. John of the Cross.



Outside the context of orthodox Catholic Christian faith, it can conceivably be distorted to promote wrong and harmful worldviews and practices.



It can be misused by the poorly instructed or those with psychological problems, towards such harmful directions as fundamentalist and simplistic interpretation of Scripture, fanaticism, and emotionalism.



A few of its leading figures have made naive and injudicious pronouncements. These seem to approve of such systems and techniques as Transcendental Meditation and the teaching of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, which aside from being opposed to Christian teaching, also dubious, to say the least, as far as their claims to be forms of authentic spirituality.



Overall assessment of Centering Prayer



On the whole, Centering Prayer, correctly understood, merits the approval of the Catholic Christian faith community. It merits this approval because it is a method which has brought renewal and deepening of Christian prayer and life among increasing numbers of individuals and communities, and has brought many seekers for God and for spiritual life back to the Church. It is a movement of renewal which was born and remains in the bosom of the Church, from which God works much good to all kinds of people everywhere. As long as the necessary precautions mentioned earlier are observed, those who wish to start learning and practising Centering Prayer are highly encouraged to do so.



(Sgd.) + JAIME L. CARDINAL SIN, D.D.

Archbishop of Manila

quote:

Originally posted by johnboy:
[qb]
Points of caution in relation to Centering Prayer


Though from a Catholic Christian viewpoint, Centering Prayer is a very helpful practice, certain points of caution need to be observed in relation to it. Among these points of caution are the following:[/qb]

I've done my own share of handing out cautionary notes and with no small sense of urgency regarding genuine pastoral concerns and real practical consequences for aborted transformative processes and thwarted Lonerganian conversions.

Yep, the very concerns Cardinal Sin listed regarding "CP improperly considered," also leapt off the page at me as the very same things that can and have gone wrong in our own country with fundamentalistic thinking, whether rooted in sola scriptura or solum magisterium. Yep, as with CP, we gotta be just as careful, maybe more, about such things as indiscriminately stocking the bedside nightstands of our B&B's [1] with B&B's [2]! And, then not following up with appropriate formation. That's caused a multitude of problems, too, on a much larger scale!

pax!
jb

[1] Bed & Breakfast

[2] Bibles & Baltimore Catechisms

Just so that I'm understanding this:

Granted that there is a ontological distinction between man and God - duality. But isn't there a kind of second tier non-duality where the distinction between the individual, the rest of creation, and reality itself is wiped? Can we not conceive of and experience this as Christians? And isn't this what non-dualists really mean anyway, since they don't actually believe in an ontologically distinct God?

quote:

Originally posted by Stephen:
[qb] Just so that I'm understanding this:

Granted that there is a ontological distinction between man and God - duality. But isn't there a kind of second tier non-duality where the distinction between the individual, the rest of creation, and reality itself is wiped? Can we not conceive of and experience this as Christians? And isn't this what non-dualists really mean anyway, since they don't actually believe in an ontologically distinct God? [/qb]

Stephen, I think this "wiping" of distinctions that you speak of happens when we silence the reflective operations of our consciousness in order to live more in non-reflective awareness (stage one in Lonergan's four levels of consciousness, as I've mentioned before). In this state of simple awareness, everything is experienced "directly" along with an intuition that everything is arising moment-by-moment from a deeper Ground of Being. Without the engagement of reflective consciousness in the experience (which would diminish or even nullify it), conceptual distinctions about "who's who" aren't made. One is still free to communicate, of course, but what we get is "descriptive" accounts of the experience rather than "interpretive" accounts.

Now the BIG difference between this kind of "enlightenment spirituality" and infused contemplation is that, with the latter, we don't need to silence reflective consciousness to receive it; the grace comes from beyond the faculties, and provided they aren't engaged in sinful or judgmental activities, but are, instead, recollected (disposed toward God) to some degree, one can enjoy the sense of God's loving presence while thinking, choosing, etc. Of course, there are times when we simply want to rest in it, but this rest is a consequence of the grace, not a pre-requisite to receive it.

Does this help to reply to your question? Maybe it also helps to clarify some of the differences between enlightenment and infused contemplation. Acquired contemplation is a kind of strange hybrid between the two.

JB, I think Cardinal Sin's (bummer of a name!) reflections on Centering Prayer are well done. Some might also be interested in this chapter of a book Jim Arraj and I co-authored last year.

Would you mind, JB, copy/pasting some of your postings above about Wilber to this thread? I don't have the time to go much into Wilber these days, but I do intend to get back to it.

From JB's post with comments from Cardinal Sin, above:
In contemplative prayer the deep awareness of God�s presence frees one from making oneself or one�s relationship with God the center of one�s attention.

YES!

And so perhaps the biggest difference between Christian contemplation and the kind of mysticism promoted by people like Eckhart Tolle is this matter of focus. To be honest, here, I don't think Tolle gets outside of self into God; rather, what he describes seems to be enlightenment, which is attuned to the cosmic dimension of the soul's arising from God. All throughout his, Wilber's, and other similar spiritualities, the focus is on self -- even if it be about dissociation from thought, feeling, the pain body, etc. How different this is from the kind of self-forgetfulness implied in loving God with one's whole heart, soul, mind and strength, the fulfillment of which is adoration and contemplation. True, there is a self-knowledge which is borne of this spirituality -- we awaken to ourselves as images of God and discover who we are in God -- and there is a work of detachment to be pursued in its interest, but it is GOD Who is the focus.

This "gesture" unto transcendence is critically important, imo. It's not unique to Christianity, of course, but it's as though, in Christianity, we stand with Christ and are moved by the Spirit to love the One who has given us everything.

" . . . what he describes seems to be enlightenment, which is attuned to the cosmic dimension of the soul's arising from God."


That is a good way of putting it. There is no supernaturally infused knowledge in this non-dual way of knowing, as it participates only in the creative, and therefore fallen, process. Whereas during infused contemplation we are given knowledge that only the Uncreated can give, which is naturally beyond the reach of the soul's faculties except via passive receptivity, itself a response to the graced infusion.

So when the faculties are filled to the limit of their own capacity to know, rather than opened via grace to being known by the Uncreated (experienced often as not knowing how this occurs as the faculties can't know this of their own accord), there is no longer an ability to see that there is more. The faculties have been saturated with Cosmic presence, which is an effect of Creation and inherently unstable; hence the mythical character of the fully enlightened non-dualist, and the rationalization of "crazy wisdom" to justify unvirtuous and sometimes abusive behavior.

So everything is unified at some level of consciousness (non-duality), but arising from God, sustained by God, perhaps a reflection of God, albeit somewhat distorted.

Is this non-reflective awareness necessarily acquired? Can't it be given or experienced without practise?

Stephen:

The few folks I've known that are seemingly established in the Unitive Stage, as St. John of the Cross describes it, were also present in this way, but with no struggling after it. As such, non-duality seems more properly the secondary outcome of the soul's passage through grace-based transformation than something to achieve through meditation.

quote:

Originally posted by Stephen:
[qb] So everything is unified at some level of consciousness (non-duality), but arising from God, sustained by God, perhaps a reflection of God, albeit somewhat distorted.
[/qb]

I like the Biblical metaphor of "word" -- that we are words spoken by the Divine. So what is the relationship between a speaker and his/her words?
- http://shalomplace.com/res/premium/GodAndCreation.pdf

Suppose one could awaken to oneself at a level where one is being "spoken" -- where existence is being received? That would be a very deep enlightenment experience.

Check out this reflection on Rahner's view of what happens to the soul at death. Note the pan-cosmic orientation of the soul, which is to be expected if the nature of the soul is spiritual. I think something of this can be known in certain states of consciousness even while in the body -- what is called "cosmic consciousness," for example. (There are good reflections on the meaning of Christ's death in this chapter as well.)

"Suppose one could awaken to oneself at a level where one is being "spoken" -- where existence is being received? That would be a very deep enlightenment experience."

That's beautiful, Phil .


"The few folks I've known that are seemingly established in the Unitive Stage, as St. John of the Cross describes it, were also present in this way, but with no struggling after it. As such, non-duality seems more properly the secondary outcome of the soul's passage through grace-based transformation than something to achieve through meditation."

That makes sense, w.c., and rather what I suspected.

Thank you both.

------------------------------
http://afterlights.blogspot.com

These are some notes from a couple of weeks ago re: my study of Scotus that relate to this nonduality writ large consideration. Phil will recognize some thoughts related to Jack Haught's _Cosmic Adventure_.

Might radical grace be a redundancy? Or is it, rather, an oxymoron?

Does an analogical imagination affirm the radicality of grace and gift us with an optimistic theological anthropology, while a dialectical imagination denies it, while gifting us with a pessimistic stance toward human nature?

Perhaps there is a tertium quid that will mediate these extremes, gifting us, instead, with a Goldilocks anthropology that is �just right.�

Will such mediation dissolve this dichotomy by revealing some category error and thus the nonsensical nature of our approach? Or might this mediation resolve it in a Hegelian-like, dialectical synthesis? Perhaps the mediation will maintain a creative tension between these extremes, gifting us with a supremely intelligible but otherwise utterly incomprehensible mystery?

There are worldviews, some ancient and others modern, that venture an answer to these questions about human nature along this optimism-pessimism spectrum. These manifold worldviews represent both ends of this spectrum and every conceivable point in between. Even within Christianity, there are theological anthropologies representing both ends of this spectrum and every conceivable point on it.

As we consider our own answer, perhaps there is a clue in our preparation for communion as we pray with the centurion, �Lord, I am not worthy to receive you, but only say the word and I shall be healed.�

One might be tempted, due either to habitual piety or self-image, to find the answer in the most obvious place, at the beginning of that prayer, which matter of factly dismisses our worthiness. There are more compelling reasons, however, to focus on the clause, �only say the word and I shall be healed.� Those reasons are not found at the beginning of that communion prayer, but are found at the beginning of creation, when the foundations of the world were laid: �In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.� Still more reasons are found in the Magnificat: �Be it done to me according to Thy word. And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us.�

Any lingering doubts we might entertain about human nature and whether or not optimism or pessimism is most warranted in our theological anthropologies have been laid to rest, because the Word was spoken; we have been healed; He did come, is with us now and will come again, in glory.

Our optimism or pessimism is not rooted in any consideration of our worthiness or what we can do on our own behalf. We turn our attention, rather, to our primal origin, primal meaning, primal cause, primal support and primal destiny. We look not at the gift, then, but to the Giver. How can we keep from singing? All may be well. All can be well. All will be will. All shall be well. And you will know that all manner of things shall be well.

From John Duns Scotus, we properly gather that the Incarnation was part of God�s Divine Plan from the very beginning, notwithstanding our almost reflexive felix culpa. This is not a theology of atonement but one of at-one-ment, which is to say that Jesus was coming, anyway.

Of course Jesus� coming has salvific efficacy but, if everything is honky dory, why is it, we must ask, that we really don�t feel so very well? And this is a subtle way of framing the timeless question of theodicy, which addresses the meaning of suffering and evil. The honest, hence humble, response must first be that we are dealing with an immense mystery, even as the overall plan has been revealed. So, we do not know exactly why it is that there is evil or that we suffer.

From a Scotistic perspective, however, two partial responses to this theodicy mystery suggest themselves. To some extent, the vision of creation that we have been gifted by Scotus, and repeatedly regifted by his Franciscan family, is that of an aesthetic teleology, which is to say, a striving toward beauty, toward the attainment of the maximum aesthetic value.

We can glimpse something of this dynamic in the science of nonequilibrium thermodynamics, whereby the greater the number of bifurcations and permutations underlying an emergent, but otherwise still dissipative, structure, the greater that structure�s fragility. The more fragile, as we have experienced, the more beautiful something is. And beauty entails, in this same dynamic, the shedding of monotony and the appropriation of novelty, which further runs the risk of disintegration toward the amplification of even more beauty.

We have not explained suffering, here, but have described it, have discerned a pattern of how evil and suffering seem to get trumped, over and over again, and transformed into ever greater realizations of beauty. We witness this dynamic on microcosmic and macrocosmic scales and can testify to it in our own lives as there can be efficacy in suffering. And there are many varieties of efficacies in suffering. Foremost, though, we are created co-creators as we set out on this grand cosmic adventure and, in such a role, the Scotist witnesses evil and suffering and, rather than ask why it is so, instead, asks what can be done about it. Thus Francis loved not only Brother Sun and Sister Moon but, also, the leper.

This turns our attention now to the question of how we are to inhabit this Kingdom, even as we all groan in creation�s ongoing act of giving birth. What does all of this mean for our journey?

Thomas Merton describes the earliest part of our individual journeys in terms of humanization, which is nothing more or less than our early formation from being little animals to becoming little humans. (Many teachers seem to testify that this has not always been accomplished by the commencement of grade school.) Following this earliest formative period, we are next socialized, which is to say that we learn how to function in society in order to get what we both need and desire. Even our earliest relationships to parents and other significant others are mostly functional, oriented to meeting needs and desires, and only slowly transform into the robustly personal, where we value one another for our intrinsic worth.

This early formative development, Merton tells us, is necessary. It is not, however sufficient --- at least, not where transformation is involved, which is to speak of theosis or deification, as we move from image to likeness of God. This socialized self, or persona, oriented to mostly functional relationships but with the incipient emergence of a few more authentically personal relationships, is ego-centered and oriented toward ongoing construction, maintenance and repair of one�s self and one�s needs and desires. It is a program. It was taught. It was necessary. It is good. And it is unfortunate, then, that in the formative spirituality literature it has been given the name False Self.

The False Self got its name honestly, though, because this descriptor has significance in our relationship with God, which, if it is going to ever be more robustly personal needs to be engaged with something beyond our socialized self with its needs and desires orientation. And this is just to say that, if we are going to realize a more robustly relational experience of God and others and all of created reality, then we certainly would aspire to value them all beyond what it is that we can extract from them all in terms of our own needs and desires, which is to value them all, again --- not for any extrinsic value, but --- for their intrinsic worth, in and of themselves. That�s our aspiration. It is very often frustrated.

Let�s look at what might be going on with this intractable frustration regarding our ongoing failure to enter into more robustly personal encounters with all of reality, employing not the socialized self but what Merton calls our True Self. If only, with Ignatius, we could see ourselves as God sees us, we would be moved into proper relationship (justice) out of pure love.

I like to describe the human psyche in terms of value-realization using something derived from the great American pragmatist, Charles Sanders Peirce. My Peircean formulization goes something like this: the normative mediates between the descriptive and the interpretive to effect the evaluative.

The normative entails the philosophic (philosophical methods), and traffics in logic, aesthetics and ethics, which correspond to our value-realization approaches to truth, beauty and goodness (How do I get that?).

The descriptive entails the scientific, or the empirical, and traffics in data or facts (What is that?).

The interpretive entails the hermeneutical (Is that what I think it is?), metaphysical, theological and ideological, and it traffics in worldviews, philosophical systems and, plain and simple, strategies to get what one needs and desires and all manner of perversions and illusions regarding same.

The evaluative entails the objects of our needs and desires (What�s it to me?) and traffics in what we value, which is truth, beauty, goodness and unity.

Philosophers have labeled, arranged and related these foci of human concern in many different ways, which, to a great extent, correspond to the subject matter of our opening consideration regarding theological anthropology. All are philosophers, each of us, even the Rolling Stones, �You Can�t Always Get What You Want,� and the Beatles, �All You Need is Love.�

In order to get what one wants or desires, two immediate problems present themselves. The normative (How do I get that?) and evaluative (What�s it to me?) realms or foci of concern pretty much take care of themselves, in an unconsciously competent manner, or through what we call instinct, which gets trained somewhat through socialization. The descriptive (What is that?) and interpretive (Is that what I think it is?) foci of concern, however, continue to confound individuals and professional philosophers, alike.

If the descriptive focus asks: What is that? And the interpretive asks: Is that what I think it is? --- then a big problem immediately arises between our subjective take on reality and reality�s objective status. Do our concepts correspond or cohere with reality?

Philosophy of mind academics and major philosophical schools remain divided in their accounts of how it is that humans know reality and whether or not our concepts truly refer to actual realities. In an overly simplified scheme, one can imagine them divided into those that think we know reality just as it is (essentialism) and those that think we only know our concepts (nominalism).

And this includes the Aristotelian and Humean schools as well as the Kantian tradition, which took the Humean critique of the Aristotelian seriously, which Mortimer Adler rightly suggests that it should not have done, for all practical purposes. And it included the Platonic tradition, too.

Somewhere along the way, in the 3rd Century, a Neoplatonic tradition began and, its accommodation to Christianity was attributed to Dionysius, in the 5th Century, whose work was translated by John Scotus in the 9th Century and further transmitted by Bonaventure, Duns Scotus and other Franciscans in the 12th Century. The common theme that I picked up on, years ago, unwittingly as to any historical philosophical lineage, was that of breaking out of this either-or, dualistic mindset of nominalism versus essentialism, with a triadic approach, a language of mysticism that inchoately resembles the more modern semiotic science of Charles Sanders Peirce, who was heavily influenced by Duns Scotus.

It is the Peircean formula above that I am amplifying now but it represents a modern semiotic realism that marked an advancement and improvement of Scotus� own moderate realism, which was inherently triadic.

What is going on in this triadic approach? When we suggest that the normative mediates between the descriptive and interpretive to effect the evaluative, to a large extent, we are saying, at a much more basic level, that the necessary mediates between the possible and the actual. This is pretty straightforward. All it is saying is that, as we survey possibilities and wonder which will become or already is an actuality, we only need recourse to the necessary in order to figure it out. This is almost too simple. But that is how profundity operates, with elegance.

So, all that little socialized person needs to know in order to have his or her needs and desires satisfied is, descriptively - What is that?; and interpretively - Is that what I think it is?; and if normatively, it necessarily is or is not, then, evaluatively, one�s needs and desires are then met or not.

By now, you might see a problem in this schema. Who in the world, interpretively, has unfettered access to the necessary? Peirce suggested that, recognizing our intractable fallibility, we need to back up, or prescind from this interpretive stance, in order to better grapple with reality. Too many mistakes were being made, mistakes that had profound existential import and enormous practical significance in human value-realization strategies.

This Peircean maneuver can be thought of as a move from ontological certainty to ontological vagueness. Now, vagueness is not the same as being occulted completely. It just makes things a little fuzzier, like our logic for example. So, ontological vagueness looks like this: The probable mediates between the possible and the actual. All we did was change the necessary to the probable.

What happens to our logic, then? What happens, in other words, epistemologically? Peirce would have us adopt, of course, epistemological vagueness, too. What does that look like? It merely involves a change in our application of First Principles, such as Noncontradiction [PNC] and Excluded Middle [PEM]. What makes a reality �possible� is the status where PNC folds (doesn�t apply) and PEM holds. An �actual� reality is the status where both PNC and PEM hold, as would any necessary reality. A �probable� reality is one where PNC holds but PEM folds, which is to say that something is going to definitely be determined here, within given boundaries or limits even, but it is �not necessarily� this or that. And that, my friends, is the philosophical nonfoundation of nondual thinking. It inheres in Dionysian and Scotistic logic and in Richard Rohr�s appropriation of Merton. Here�s how.

Coming full circle back to the normative mediating between the descriptive and interpretive to effect the evaluative, a person locked into any interpretive stance that relates to other people and God in a mostly functional mode, where one�s needs and desires are to be necessarily met, is going to eventually experience a great deal of cognitive dissonance and existential anxiety as the gap between the descriptive � �What is that?� and interpretive � �Is that what I think it is?� grows larger and larger, with the practical upshot being that either one�s normative or interpretive stance is going to have to go, or at least be suitably amended or addended. This is because �How do I get that?� isn�t working any longer. When it comes to a robustly personal relationship with God, it doesn�t work at all.

Now, to some extent, we might consider our evaluative concerns as nonrational or nonpropositional. We don�t really reason our way into intrinsically valuable relationships with people or other aspects of reality. We already experience a deeply seated existential orientation to these theological imperatives of truth, beauty, goodness and unity.

Our realizations of these values, evaluatively, might also be considered transrational in that they certainly require our rational faculties as employed in our normative, descriptive and interpretive foci of concerns in order to be effected but they clearly go beyond those propositional aspects in their essentially evaluative aspirations and realizations.

These different foci of human concern are, then, intellectually-related but not strictly logically-related in that they represent distinctly different value-commitments. Differently formulated, goodness often comes flying in on the wings of truth and beauty as uplifted by unity.

The transrational, then, does not orphan the rational but merely goes with it and then beyond. To jettison the rational is not a transrational or even nonrational maneuver, it is an arational maneuver that leads to arational gnosticism.

The present point is, however, that the False Self, or socialized self, similarly needs to be transcended, neither annihilated nor orphaned. And this process of True Self realization requires a new way of looking at reality, at God, at other people. And, in order to JOTS [jump outside the system], our old false self system, we need to make this transrational move. We need to go beyond the dualistic thinking that predominates in the mind of one who relates to reality in a solely functional way, which is what dualistic thinking was designed to do: �What is that?� and �Is that what I think it is?� and �How do I get that?�.

To go beyond such thinking, not without it, we need to embrace both ontological and epistemological vagueness, to prescind from the a priori metaphysics of the dualistic dead-ends of nominalism versus essentialism.

We even need to embrace epistemic vagueness, a recognition of our fallibility, which does not rush to closure when confronted with reality, does not even rush to closure when confronted with paradox and whether it should be dissolved, resolved or maintained in creative tension, as would be appropriate vis a vis the demands of reality.

Fallibility (semiotic and critical realism), again, is not a recognition that reality is in any way occulted, in principle, which some aspects might be, only a recognition that we cannot stand in an ontological bucket and pull our epistemological systems up by the handles (classical foundational systems and na�ve realism).

Neither do we saw off the epistemological limbs where our ontological eggs are nested (radical postmodernism and agnosticism).

Nor do we go beyond our rational faculties by going without them (arational gnosticism).

Fallibility is the tertium quid, the Third Eye, between gnosticism and agnosticism, between scientism and fideism, between religious fundamentalism and Enlightenment fundamentalism. We prescind from the eye of the senses and the eye of reason to employ, also, the eye of faith, where, early on our journey, all was clear but tentative, while later, all was certain but obscure.

Because these human foci of concern are intellectually-related and not logically-related, we have something to learn from every perspective, from every person, who offers a ray of God�s truth, beauty, goodness and love. As Fr. Rohr says, then, Everything Belongs.

We can, then, in our East-West contemplative dialogue, as well as in other interideological and political discourse, abstract their good descriptive and normative methods, practices, disciplines, asceticisms from their otherwise seemingly heterodox interpretive stances and appropriate them for use in our own traditions, such as when Dionysius accommodated the neoplatonic triadic logic for Christianity long, long ago, such as when Charles Peirce turned to the brilliance of a medieval Franciscan and elaborated his own triadic semiotic realism, which might recommend a more fully inculturated American theology for our new millennium, which, at bottom, would be as old as the hills of Athens and Jerusalem.

Radical grace is, then, a redundancy.

Below is a unproofed summary of Fr. Rohr's The Third Eye from some rather sketchy notes. There's nothing new in his approach here except for his emphasis, perhaps, on praxis vis a vis our realization of True Self.

Father Rohr spent five weeks, this past Lent, in a hermitage, in solitude. He spent this time reflecting and writing a new book, The Third Eye. On Easter Monday, he made a presentation of an outline of these thoughts and this conference is available in a 4 CD set.

It�s not until the 3rd CD of this 4 CD presentation that Fr. Rohr speaks directly to or defines the Third Eye per se. His use of this descriptor, he then explains, is derived from two 11th Century monks, Hugh and Richard of the Monastery of St. Victor in Paris. The flowering of this thinking in his Franciscan tradition, he tells us, took place in the 12th and 13th centuries.

Although the metaphor is similar to the same concept of Hindu and Buddhist traditions, it is independent of those in that there was no contact between those and this Christian conceptualization.

As I mentioned elsewhere, we are talking about the eyes of 1) sense, 2) reason and 3) faith.

Basically, Fr. Rohr is amplifying his teaching on contemplative living, which continues to be heavily informed by his love of Thomas Merton. He makes frequent references to Merton, False Self and True Self and compares and contrasts them in many different ways, using many different adjectives and metaphors.

Fr. Rohr likes the word �realization� and sees it as being richer than the word �experience� for he describes the robust encounter of God as a �total body blow,� where not only head and heart are engaged but the body, too. Unfortunately, we �localize knowing� and too often try to access God only in the top 3 inches of the body and only on the left side at that. This dualistic, binary or dyadic thinking, which we employ in math, science and engineering, or when we are driving a car, is of course good and necessary. It is the mind that �divides the field� into classes and categories and then applies labels through compare and contrast exercises. It is the egoic mind that is looking for control and order, but, unforunately, also superiority. It can lead to both intellectual and spiritual laziness, however, to an egoic operating system (Cynthis Bourgeault), which views all through a lens of �How does it affect me?�

An aside: Rohr says that all that participates in love in our lives is forever, even your dog. So, there�s one view of heaven among others.

The contemplative mind goes beyond the tasks of the dualistic mind to deal with concepts like love, mercy, compassion and forgiveness. It doesn�t need to �divide the field� for such tasks.

The contemplative mind is practicing heaven in that it sees the Divine image as being �equally distributed� and present in all others. We see that presence, honor it and know it. The contemplative mind starts each moment with �yes.� It is vulnerable before the moment, opening �heart space.� It is present to people and does not put them in a box. So, in our primary level encounter with others, we do not prejudge. At the secondary and tertiary level, a �no� may be absolutely necessary. Once you know you can say �yes,� then it is important to be able to say �no,� when appropriate.

Rohr makes clear, in his words, that we �include previous categories� and �retain what we learn in early stages.� Our goal, in his words, is to master both dualistic and nondualistic thinking.

We must go beyond (not without) that part of our tradition that was informed mostly by Greek logic in order to be more open to paradox and mystery. Rohr described some of the early apophatic and nondual elements of the Christian tradition, especially in the first three centuries with the Desert Mothers and Fathers, especially in the Orthodox and eastern Christian churches, and describing John of the Cross and Teresa of Avila as the last supernovae. The apophatic and unknowing tradition has not been constant. For 400 years after these Carmelites there has been no real tradition. He credits Merton with almost single-handedly retrieving authentic contemplative teaching that has not been taught for almost 500 years. This type of mysticism, he, like Merton says, is available to all but it takes a type of humility to �let go of our control tower.�

We and others are living tabernacles, even given the contrary evidence. That God dwells in us is the foundation of human dignity.

Fr. Rohr discusses the Gift of Tongues in this contemplative vein and notes that when it died out, prayer-based beads emerged. He apparently went on to discuss prayer beads in other traditions but that part was truncated.

Fr. Rohr notes that the East and West differ in that more emphasis is placed on discipline, practice and asceticism in the East, while, in the West, we emphasize surrender and trust.

Our Christian path is more one of letting go and yielding of self. He believes that most of us, a very high percentage, have enjoyed unitive moments, but that there was no one there to say �that�s it.� He thinks that it would be useful to retrieve our contemplative tradition because we apparently need some degree of discipline or practice to keep seeing and trusting our unitive moments, our union, our communion. The Spirit will thus teach us all things and re-mind you that you are in union with God, that you are select; you are chosen; you are beloved. We need to learn how to live in communion, now, for that is what we�ll enjoy in heaven.

Fr. Rohr then describes practices that open up this contemplative mind: silence, stillness, solitude, patience about needing to know everything, poetry, art, body movement, music, humility and redemptive listening. He describes how we need to stand back and compassionately and calmly observe reality, without initial regard for how it affects us, but to see persons and events nakedly, seeing our drama almost as if it wasn�t us. If we cannot thus detach, then we are over-identified. Whenever we�re defensive, it is usually our false self. What characterizes an addict is typically all or nothing thinking. We do not hate the False Self. We must simply see it. It is not our �bad� self, just not our �true� self. We need to better learn to hold together opposites and contradictions. A modern retrieval of our ancient practices of contemplative seeing can foster this type of nonjudging awareness. Rohr says that a master of nondual thinking needs to also be a master of dualistic thinking. Our Catholic tradition has great wisdom in retaining icon and art and symbols and music. The primary teachers of this approach to God and others and all of reality are great love and great suffering. Our primary paths have been suffering and prayer.

When head and heart and body are all connected, that is prayer. This, says Fr. Rohr, is not esoteric teaching. Everybody has the Holy Spirit!

What appears to be the new theme emerging from Fr. Rohr�s latest thought is that of supplementing and complementing our traditional approach to belief-based religion with more practice-based religion. In particular, he sees great wisdom in retrieving those practices which have been lost or deemphasized that we can better cultivate a contemplative outlook. In prayer, we are like �tuning forks� that come in to God�s presence and seek to abide inside of a resonance with God. We need to set aside whatever blocks our reception, especially a lack of love or lack of forgiveness.

Fr. Rohr does describe much of Buddhism as gifting one with �practices� and not �conclusions.�