Thanks everyone for the stimulating discussion. I have some thoughts to offer. First, to Phil's concerns about the notion of obstacles to divine union. I agree, Phil, that it ought to be emphasized that God's grace is always and everywhere calling us to him, and that we don't have to wait until all blocks are removed to experience it. At the same time, one could draw a (rough) distinction between sporadic experiences of grace, a stable rootedness in grace, and perfection in grace, and this seems to be consonant with the Christian tradition, as for example in these ways:
1) the traditional triad purgation/illumination/perfection implies that one must undergo some sort of ascent in order to become fully one with God
2) the teaching on "original sin" implies some sort of universal disorder in the human race, which implies the need for a radical healing, along the lines of Christ and Paul's "dying to self" to live in Christ

I agree, though, that cata and apoph prayer shouldn't be hierarchicalized, and I like your words about their being a dance.

I agree, too, that there are likely many people who aren't called to CP. However, I don't think that anyone escapes the need for radical healing of original sin. Even the holiest people I know manifest occasionally some pride, bias, etc. (I don't mean to imply that you would disagree on any of the things I'm saying).

In this sense I think that Fr. Keating's call for a healing of the false self has a universal relevance. But I agree with your objection to the idea that CP is the way for everyone to experience this healing. I also agree that some grounding in other practices and Christian teachings generally is a good idea, and one that is underemphasized by Keating and other CP folks. I think that Keating himself, as I said before, takes such grounding for granted, in a way, because it is such a part of his life. But perhaps out of a desire not to offend those who feel scarred by "organized religion" or have guilt complexes surrounding experiences in Catholic schools -- which seems to be the case with a lot of the baby boomer generation that gravitate toward him -- he underemphasizes these things. Unf. I think that this could lead to future imbalances in the movement, as I said above.

In my own view, it's not the doctrines and dogmas themselves that are scarring, but only their misuse, as when they are violently or hypocritically imposed. As a member of "gen-x," I have experienced the rootlessness that can result from having too little doctrinal instruction or guidance, and this is something I've had to seek myself later in life.

Re: Keating and Wilbur -- I think K. still holds onto the evolutionary stages of Wilbur in his teaching.

Thanks, all!

That's a good, balanced perspective, PG. Thanks!

I'm glad you think so. I've found your questions/criticisms balanced as well. I think it's healthy to challenge what may be entrenched models of thinking. I'm still giving thought to your concerns about the role of the Holy Spirit.

Re. the Holy Spirit -- S/He is really the Divine Therapist, and the more it goes through the years, the more I'm convinced that this Therapy goes on in all people of good will, especially those committed to loving in a perspective of explicit faith. What's pivotal to the Therapy is that one relax one's hold on self-image and exercise the will-to-God/Love often and intentionally. Whatever is incompatible with this intention will eventually be cleansed from the unconscious, and it doesn't seem to matter that one uses an apophatic or kataphatic approach, here. What's important is living intentionally for God/Love, and I don't see where CP practitioners have an advantage over anyone when it comes to this kind of life stance. I'm pretty sure this is the case.

I also wonder if we need to have the unconscious cleaned of all childhood wounds, etc. to abide in union with God. Anything that contributes energies that frustrate the will-to-love need to go, for sure, but it seems to me that God sometimes just seals old wounds without us having to gouge them out and get all raw. The willfulness residing them is cleansed, but the wounds abide, like Christ's, as signs that we have persevered in a very broken world.

Jordan Auman's Spirituality in the Catholic Tradition is a classical work that I'm happy to see online. The section on Quietism is particularly relevant to the current attempts to promote contemplative spirituality using Centering Prayer. See if this section on Michael Molinos sounds familiar:

quote:

The first work published by Molinos was a short tract in which he replied in great detail to the Jansenists, who placed severe conditions on the reception of Holy Communion. In the same year (1675) Molinos published his Gu�a espiritual, and in six years it went through twenty editions. The theme of the book is that the soul should abandon itself completely to God through the practice of the prayer of simple regard, rejecting all other devotions and practices and cultivating an absolute indifference to everything that happens to it, whether it be from God, man or the devil. It is not possible to say for certain whether Molinos deliberately set out to start a new spiritual movement or whether he simply took advantage of a quietistic and mystical ferment that was near the surface of Italian spirituality. What is certain is that Molinos became the "darling prophet" of Quietism.(60)

As we have already indicated, there was in the seventeenth century an unusually great interest in the practice of prayer, especially the more passive and affective types of prayer. Acquired contemplation was considered to be within the reach of all, and the means for attaining it were carefully expounded.

http://www.op.org/domcentral/s...cs/cs09.htm#QUIETISM

Jim Arraj covers Molinos and several others in some of his books, which is why he came to be concerned about what he's seeing happeing today. The upshot for Molinos was that 68 statements of his were formally condemned; to his credit, he recanted them (then was thrown in prison -- ahem! ).

So what are we to make of this? How closely does CP practice come to Quietism? Fr. Keating is surely well-aware of this period in Church history, but some of the teachings that have come down re. "pure faith" and associating CP with the prayer of simple regard bring it dangerously close to Quietist tendencies. I'm sure he wouldn't go so far as Molinos and, later, Madame Guyon in the practice of indifference re. moral issue, nor would he encourage such an exclusive use of CP in the spiritual life as Molinos did, but the parallels re. the practice of prayer are there, to be sure. And most controversial of all, here, is the idea of "acquired contemplation" through the practice of the prayer of simple regard.

What say others, here?

What say others, here?

I don't understand all the ins and outs of prayer and meditation, but it sounds to me like the technique and purpose of CP is just fine...if it's just one part of one's orientation toward faith. It seems the error is to try to make one narrow thing do everything. It sounds like the problem comes when we break the common sense rule of moderation in all things and/or that variety is the spice of life.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12608c.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quietism

http://www.metatronics.net/lit/quietism.html

Qietism's relationship to the political left by a National Review contributor:

http://www.olimu.com/Journalis...eviews/DaoDeJing.htm

This might explain a great deal:

Why Centering Prayer people tend to gravitate toward the political left.

Ditto for mystics of all traditions.

Why some Centering Prayer practitioners tend to fall away from the faith.

Why in my personal experience this all tended to happen and I required a sharp jerk back toward orthodoxy and conservatism.

-------------------------------------------------

Like Thomas Merton, Father Keating was able to avoid military service during the Second World War by joining the Trappists. He may feel aome survival guilt over this. One of his spiritual experiences was visiting the cemetary at Anzio and realizing that he took the spiritual journey for
the sake of those fallen soldiers as surely as they had given themselves for him. -- Profound!

Although Keating believes in the use of military force when necessary, he shares the conviction
of the Dalai Lama and Ronald Regean that the eventual multilateral disarmament would seem desirable. I wholeheartedly concur!

Arraj is interested in "sustainability." I believe that mysticism will produce less militaristic, materialistic, controlling and otherwise overattached citizens, and I'm all for that. We are out of balance in the other direction, IMHO.

If that puts me in agreement with liberal concepts
like "Catholic Social Teaching," then so be it!

http://catholiccincinnati.org/...04/0730teaching.html

In defense of Contemplative Outreach and as one who has spent hundreds of hours with Keating's prodigious output of audio, video and printed teachings, it is clearly a Christian outreach and evangelical apostolic ministry. If the people do not get that, or frown on Keating meeting with rabbis, Sufis, Hindus, Bhuddists and others, I remain convinced that the teacher has fulfilled
his obligation of teaching, and the students sometimes take off in their own directions and have missed the teacher's message.

Building the Kingdom in the trenches and on the front lines is messy, sloppy work, and things do go wrong and one must get their hands dirty.

caritas,

mm <*)))))><

Good posts, gents! And I do think it's spot-on to say that, unlike Fr. Keating, the error of the Quietists was in their wholesale devaluation of kataphatic spirituality and doctrinal teaching, in general. Once you break from that and extol, instead, the primacy of intentionality, you lose the accountability that comes from dialoguing with the exoteric tradition and maybe even hold yourself above the need for such. So while CP practice itself is basically indistinguishable from the manner of prayer the Quietists were recommending, the overall context of the teaching by Fr. Keating is different.

- - -

Moving along, I'd like to re-focus a bit. It's one thing to criticize CP and the noble efforts of Fr. Keating and Contemplative Outreach to renew the Church's contemplative tradition, but quite another to offer constructive alternatives. Given the interest in Eastern and New Age mysticism, it is imperative, I believe, that Christianity offer the world an alternative from its own tradition -- which is precisely what Keating et al are trying to do. I think the error, here, is primarily one of offering such a small piece of the tradition, and a somewhat controversial one, at that. So here are some alternative suggestions for those who want to live a more contemplative life within the framework of Christian faith.

1. Silence. Make more time for this in your life. Turn off the TV and radio if you're not really being entertained or educated. Silence gives us more access to our own thoughts and feelings. Our culture is such a noisy one that many do not even know their own minds and hearts on issues.

2. Simplicity. Get rid of what you don't need or benefit from -- activities, stuff, etc. The fewer claims on your time and attention, the easier it will be to come to silence.

3. Twelve Step Spirituality. This is a great development from the 20th C. Use this or something similar to sort out where you're snagged by addictions and attachments. Let the Steps help you clarify your understanding of Higher Power, and guide you to turning your life and will over to the care of your HP. Fr. Keating saw the value of this and even asked me to help him compose 12 Steps for people practicing CP. It's published somewhere, I'm sure.

4. Prayer. This would come as the 11th Step, and I recommend, here, Lectio Divina -- not a rigid movement through the process, but one that is spontaneous and natural. Use the sacred text when necessary; otherwise, just relate to God as you feel moved. If times of rest or consolations come, enjoy them. When you are distracted, share even this with God and pray your way through them. The idea is to relate to God, not to create a silent mind. Contemplative silence will come from relating to God, not vice versa.

5. Daily practice. "Be here now in love." Stay awake to what you're doing, to what's going on around you. Consciously direct your intention to love and to be open to love breaking in all through the day.

6. Church membership. Gotta have it. Christ identifies himself now with his mystical body. One's Christian commitment is incomplete and overly privatized without it. Take your time and find a tradition that you can feel most at home in. Know that none are perfect.

7. Spiritual reading. Stay informed. Feed your mind. Ignorance of Scripture and theology is ignorance of the ways of God. Your receptivity before God is informed and sustained by your theological perspective. Too many people have lazy, undisciplined minds. Don't let that happen to you. Never stop asking if something is really true; learn why the Church teaches what she teaches and how she came to those teachings.

8. Service. Because you can't keep what you don't share. Step 12 of the Twelve Steps. See if you can determine what spiritual charisms you've been blessed with and put them to use. Every baptized Christian has charisms. You grow by exercising the charisms and the community is blessed through your exercising them. It's win-win for everyone, most beautifully arranged by the Holy Spirit.

- - -

All of the above is essential for renewing Christian spirituality today, including its contemplative dimension. Contemplatives are not immune from the need to study, to be in community, and to serve, for example, nor can they ever assume that their deep resting indicates that attachments and addictions no longer exist. The great monastic traditions always made provisions to attend to these kinds of concerns; we ignore them to our peril.

I'm praying about #6. That one is elusive to me now
as I'm not sure where I fit any more. I have visited
Orthodox, Catholic and Anglican congregations and I can't go back and I can't go forward.

I guess it took Malcolm Muggeridge about thirty years to make up his mind. I hope it won't take me that long...

What marvelous points, one to eight.

MM said: I believe that mysticism will produce less militaristic, materialistic, controlling and otherwise overattached citizens, and I'm all for that.

quote:

If we are involved only in our surface existence, in externals, and in the trivial concerns of our ego, we are untrue to Him and to ourselves. To reach a true awareness of Him as well as ourselves, we have to renounce our selfish and limited self and enter into a whole new kind of existence, discovering an inner center of motivation and love which makes us see ourselves and everything else in an entirely new light .... The real sense of our own existence, which is normally veiled and distorted by the routine distractions of an alienated life, is now revealed in a central intuition. What was lost and dispersed in the relative meaninglessness and triviality of purposeless behavior (living like a machine, pushed around by impulsions and suggestions from others) is brought together in fully integrated conscious significance. � Thomas Merton

Maybe religion is a shortcut (as in "direct path") for what so many other people are doing when they are, in essence, trying to do the same thing, to get outside themselves and in touch with something greater. They probably are instinctively doing this when they are out "getting in touch" with nature or making an excursion to the museum to marvel over the works of the masters�or blabbing away on an internet forum.

Another thread re: The Eternal Now - and how to be there! by Rohr and Keating segued into this one as follows:

Posted by johnboy (Member # 31) on 13 April, 2005 02:05 PM:

I own a large audio library of Rohr and so thoroughly resonate with so much of his stuff. My next largest audio library is Merton.

What should be interesting is the Keating contribution. I learned much from his teachings on apophatic and kataphatic prayer. I am still conflicted, however, regarding the employment of techniques that, so to speak, can facilitate an unloading of the unconscious and inadvertently unleash, shall we say, energies. Maybe increased experience with this with retreatants and directees has revealed new wisdom and added additional caveats? hmmmmmm

pax,
jb

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by johnboy (Member # 31) on 13 April, 2005 02:10 PM:

Many years have passed ... what IS anyone's current take on the relationship between CP and contemplation?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Phil (Member # 1) on 13 April, 2005 04:07 PM:

JB, we recently had the following discussion:
- http://shalomplace.com/ubb/ult...t_topic;f=1;t=000182

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by johnboy (Member # 31) on 13 April, 2005 06:09 PM:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Phil:
JB, we recently had the following discussion:
- http://shalomplace.com/ubb/ult...t_topic;f=1;t=000182
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, THAT, certainly answered my question!

If I had to succinctly summarize the confusion that so often comes about such issues of formative spirituality, then it would be between:
1) phenomenal states
2) developmental stages
3) meta/physical and/or psychic structures and their various similarities and dissimiliarites, which lead people to certain logical fallacies. To wit: If we see this, then it must be that.

Also, when it comes to developmental and stage theories, there is a tendency to negate certain aspects of earlier stages of development when those aspects do not call for negation but, instead, for a transvaluing and recontextualizing.

Some aspects get elevated that should not be.
Some get reduced that should not be.
Some get underemphasized which should not be.
Some get overemphasized which should not be.
Some get overexpressed or underexpressed or even ignored.

Certain aspects of our integral human experience get distinguished and then sundered rather than united, are allowed to improperly pretend to autonomy and in so doing improperly deny relationality.

Such is the litany of fallacies I was working on just the other day: Scroll down to the maroon text, just below the green.

Now, I know all of the above is abstract -- but Phil, on that thread, and others, have already provided the concrete examples of those fallacies. I am borrowing, in part, in fact, from Washburn's pre-trans fallacies, as he expanded on Wilber's.

Misc observations:

The False Self or social persona is an indispensable part of human development. It must be formed and owned before being surrendered.

Contemplation involves apophasis but apophasis does not indicate contemplation.

Such things as imperfect contrition are not negated by perfect contrition. Eros is not negated by agape. Such "lower" stages are transvalued and taken up in a new context. The stages of Bernardian love: love of self for sake of self; love of self for sake of God; love of God for sake of God; love of self for sake of God --- are not negated in succession but transvalued and transformed. There remains something in it for you, for God, for humanity, for cosmos!

The nonrational, prerational and rational; the cognitive, affective and instinctual; monadic, dyadic and triadic; kataphatic, apophatic and eminent; univocal, relational and equivocal; esse and essence in relation to Ipsum Esse Subsistens; all such aspects remain integrally and holistically interrelated, none autonomous. They are differentiated only to be united.

I mean to better systematize this one day in these terms:

The logical approaches of:


1) modal logic (or ontological vagueness):

a) possible

b) actual

c) probable/necessary


and


2) semiotic logic (or epistemological vagueness; pseudo-Dionysius):

a) univocal

b) relational

c) equivocal


must be properly applied to the anthropological categories of the:


1) ontological (Washburn)

a) (meta)physical structure

b) developmental stages

c) phenomenal states


and


2) epistemological

a) foci of concern (Helminiak)

b) evaluative continuum (Gelpi)

c) organon of knowledge (Peirce)


It is the willy-nilly interplay between these six categories using these six logics that cause all the confusion. They can be held together, though.

pax,
jb

[ April 13, 2005, 06:10 PM: Message edited by: johnboy ]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by johnboy (Member # 31) on 13 April, 2005 06:44 PM:

Just another thought re: therapy, however Divine, in an integral, holistic approach, we still appreciate the differentiations between psychological counseling, psychiatric treatment, medical and dietary treatments, spiritual direction and so on and so forth. They all mutually enrich the others but none can really very effectively take the place of the others.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by johnboy (Member # 31) on 14 April, 2005 08:57 AM:

Thinking of Arraj's distinctions drawn from Maritain between 1) intuition of being 2) philosophical contemplation 3) natural mysticism and 4) mystical contemplation ...

And thinking of Merton's distinctions between 1) immanent and transcendent 2) natural and supernatural 3) apophatic and kataphatic and 4) existential and theological ...

It is clear that Keating's emphasis on 1) loving intentionality and 2) alternating nurturance, one by the other, of apophasis and kataphasis ...

clearly makes CP a Christian approach, not in jeopardy of any radical apophaticism (such as the late Tony deMello, unnuanced and improperly interpreted perhaps) and perhaps as a nondiscursive way of disposing oneself toward receiving a gift of infused contemplation.

What may remain unclear is whether or not CP can be considered perhaps an acquired contemplation or active contemplation like the traditional prayer of simplicity or simple gaze that ensues from an affective prayer following the degrees of vocal and meditative prayer -- and I think that CP is something like that and could be considered a true charism of the Holy Spirit, much like praying in tongues, glossolalia. This would distinguish it from infused contemplation which is a gift of the Holy Spirit (distinguished from a charism).

All this said, our prayer life has a natural progression, aided by the Holy Spirit, to proceed toward simplicity. It is my view that this progression cannot be short-circuited and that there is a wealth of wisdom in the church that deals with discernment of different signs for when one is being called from discursive to nondiscursive prayer forms that must be honored.

Additionally, there is a wealth of teaching on the false self and true self, whether in Merton's work or as in so much of Phil's work. One must approach the dismantling of the false self in this type of context, which clearly sets forth exactly what it is that actually comprises our True Self. More importantly, it sets forth exactly what it is not: It is NOT some pantheistic or even some panen-theistic, immanentistic existing in God, but a pan-entheistic immanent-transcendent disposition to God's indwelling in us. [ Don't get me wrong, even John of the Cross noted how we can never, in one way, be separated from God, even in mortal sin, as He holds us in existence. This is a consoling thought of how inter-related we are at all moments of existence via His creatio continua in addition to any ex nihilo. It does not mean there is no ontological gulf.]

Those are my two biggest caveats. CP must be approached 1) with the same direction and discernment the church has always advocated regarding a directee's prayer of choice and 2) with an orthodox understanding of the essential difference between creature and Creator.

Not following those caveats, at best one experiences a natural mysticism, altered state of consciousness, which, indeed, can be peaceful, but may very well get short-circuited itself by an unloading of the unconscious. At worst, it is a selfish pursuit, a desiring and occupying in prayer in pursuit of consolations rather than in pursuit of the strength to serve and carry one's cross.

Finally, it seems to me that we should be encouraging openness to receive the charism of glossolalia. It takes us into a state much like that of those who have prayed the Rosary or litanies faithfully, where our prayer naturally progresses from vocal to meditative to affective to simplicity, where we no longer focus on words and thoughts but loving intentionality. One can pray in tongues and still proceed in discursive thoughts, such as having in mind certain petitions or intercessions or thanksgiving but, maybe, especially praise. All can be encouraged to dispose themselves to receive this charism. Not all should be similarly encouraged to practice CP.

What I've read of Keating would be consonant with the above. What I've heard from many CP practitioners, however, is not. Any reliance on Wilber is going to be infected with a fallacy related to phenomenal states, psychic structures and developmental stages and the confusion that ensues from 1) confusing them due to similarites and dissimilarities between them and 2) overemphases/underemphases/ignorance of different of their aspects and 3) negation rather than reintegration/transvaluation of "lower" stages.

pax,
jb

[ April 14, 2005, 09:07 AM: Message edited by: johnboy ]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by johnboy (Member # 31) on 14 April, 2005 09:16 AM:

I am even wondering if The Eternal Now, How to be There -- as a title, though hopefully not in substance, overemphasizes the proleptical and eschatological dimension of the Kingdom to come versus the Kingdom that already exists within? There must be a nurturance of awarenesses of the Kingdom already established and of the Kingdom yet unfolding. Clearly, there must be a correction for the Vale of Tears mentality that overemphasizes the afterlife at the expense of living fully now and transformation now. It would be my guess that this is what Rohr is about. He has been a person of balance and has properly discerned, for instance, imbalances such as our need to Awaken the Soul (Helminiak's psyche) due to excess of spirit and excess of body or such as the under/over-expressions of temperament types, etc

END of transfer from other thread

Again, re: The Eternal Now, How to be There - this balance between now and to come, between the eschatological and proleptical and our present, temporal milieu --- it is one thing to focus on how we can be there, which is good, but I doubt anyone is suggesting we would not ALSO be HERE now in love, too. These are two aspects that need ditinction in order to be properly united. This is not unlike the issue with pan-entheism and panen-theism and pantheism, where the wrong emphasis is placed on immanence as if realizing such immanence is the route to achieve personal transcendence. IOW, we ARE God so all is well. Suffering is maya. Heck no. These essentialistic-existential chasms are REAL. The ontological gulf is real. The epistemological gulf is real. The teleological striving must continue!

Julian of Norwich is correct in that all is well and all things may be well, can be well, shall be well. And, even if one buys into universal salvation and apokatastasis, there remains the issue of our struggling to give God the greatest glory possible, Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam, and to conform ourselves, per the three degrees of humility a la Ignatius, as much to the Imago Dei as is possible through ongoing transformation.

Anything that says the journey is over or the quest is finished, not properly distinguishing between the Kingdom now and to come, between creature and Creator immanently-transcendently, can lead into great error. I haven't encountered that error in Rohr or Keating, btw, just in a lot of people that miscontrue such teachings. Despite what has been said on EWTN re: New Age, these folks are decidedly not deserving of the criticisms and caricatures of their work so often levied against them. Some folks, however, are deserving of those criticisms.

pax,
jb

Those are my two biggest caveats. CP must be approached 1) with the same direction and discernment the church has always advocated regarding a directee's prayer of choice and 2) with an orthodox understanding of the essential difference between creature and Creator.

Not following those caveats, at best one experiences a natural mysticism, altered state of consciousness, which, indeed, can be peaceful, but may very well get short-circuited itself by an unloading of the unconscious. At worst, it is a selfish pursuit, a desiring and occupying in prayer in pursuit of consolations rather than in pursuit of the strength to serve and carry one's cross.

That�s very nice nutshellism, in my opinion, JB.

Yes, very good. And I agree, too, that the issue of "acquired contemplation" is at the heart of discussion. My understanding is that the prayer of simplicity or simple regard was never viewed as such, but was considered the simplest form of active prayer. CP teachers make that connection as well. I also like your suggestion about the value of glossalalia here; there's still so much misunderstanding on that one. Perhaps we'll do a discussion on it sometime.

- - -

Another sticky issue hanging around all this is if, even after dedicating one's prayer time to God and the direction of the Holy Spirit and consenting to the Church's teachings on the Christian mysteries, spiritual journey, etc., the type of method used works in sync with this or not. E.g., is there something about Zazen or TM that is so dynamically ordered toward enlightenment or altered states of consciousness that it moves one in that direction in spite of the intent with which it is used? I have the same questions about CP when it is significantly separted from the practice of Lectio Divina, which is often the case.

(BTW, JB, we can discuss the Rohr / Keating tape series on that other thread; it was just the CP eval. that seemed to fit better here.)

quote:

Originally posted by Phil:
[qb] Yes, very good. And I agree, too, that the issue of "acquired contemplation" is at the heart of discussion. My understanding is that the prayer of simplicity or simple regard was never viewed as such, but was considered the simplest form of active prayer. [/qb]

Yes and even glossolalia is active and, in the discursive sense I mentioned previously, moreso meditative. Might it be best to drop the acquired [contemplation] distinction [misnomer], recognizing contemplation as only that infused gift described in the sanjuanian and teresian sense, perhaps?

quote:

Originally posted by Phil:
[qb]E.g., is there something about Zazen or TM that is so dynamically ordered toward enlightenment or altered states of consciousness that it moves one in that direction in spite of the intent with which it is used? I have the same questions about CP when it is significantly separted from the practice of Lectio Divina, which is often the case. [/qb]

To the extent that natural mysticism and enlightenment seem to gift humans with what I think are authentic insights and intuitions about cosmotheandric unity and human solidarity and Divine immanence, then I truly believe they foster human authenticity in the fullest lonerganian sense. They contribute, in my view, to Lonergan's secular conversions: intellectually, affectively, morally and socially. So it is with anything that truly humanizes a human being: good diet, good hygiene, good discipline, good awareness, good asceticism, good habits, etc Even the construction of the false self, the social persona, is part of the humanization process of this animal, Homo sapiens. So, this drives at the question of whether or not humanization and divinization are the same thing, perhaps. And I think we can answer in the affirmative.

However, complete humanization, into the Imago Dei, seems to require the Lonerganian religious conversion, too, and seems to require Helminiak's theotic focus or realm of concern. Humanization and divinization go hand in hand but the process can be frustrated before one undergoes religious conversion and before one's realm of concern opens up beyond the positivistic, philosophic and theistic into the theotic.

So, I think, yes, there is something dynamically ordered about Zen and TM and natural mysticism, that moves one toward humanization and authenticity and which can improve on human nature in such a way that grace can build on a better foundation. That is what the Holy Spirit does n'est pas? Grace builds on nature. So, anything that helps us more fully realize our humanity and authentic human nature can help dispose us to gifts of the Spirit, among which is infused contemplation. [Especially since enlightenment seems to gift one with docility, openness, quietness, stillness, solitude, solidarity, compassion, good asceticisms and habits that transmute into true virtue, all related to the life of love and prayer that help properly dispose others to infused contemplation etc?] The Spirit, however, as with anyone who progresses in the prayer life on through advanced stages of meditation to the simplest forms of active prayer, remains sovereignly in control, in my view, of contemplative grace.

Further, it does seem that one must have habitually nurtured kataphatic devotion and loving intentionality in a fully relational approach, in addition to any apophatic experience of nonduality or void, if one is to then expand their focus of concern to include the theotic, if one is to have their secular conversions transvalued by a distinctly religious conversion, which is clearly explicit and kataphatic, devotional and intentional and relational. In other words, for example, ditching one's mythic-membership consciousness (credally) is NOT the way to go, for that is a negation of a stage and not rather a transvaluation.

Well, let me stop and not run to far ahead before seeing if we have a consensus or some qualifications.

quote:

Originally posted by Phil:
[qb] BTW, JB, we can discuss the Rohr / Keating tape series on that other thread; it was just the CP eval. that seemed to fit better here. [/qb]

First, I'll have to acquire same. Anybody else who gets it or has it, by all means, clue us in.

pax,
jb

A question: What about the cultivation of awareness and third-eye seeing and the practice of the presence of God and the cultivation of an habitual state of recollection --- know what I am driving at --- that habitual contemplative gaze at reality of sorts, maybe even quite apart from any explicitly nondual experiences or formal meditative practices ---

how might we relate that to advanced meditation and contemplation, to the active and passive, etc? Does that dispose one? Or is one possibly partaking of infused contemplation via that route?

pax,
jb

In case you missed it - por favor --- do check out the ? in my previous post, anyone with an idea or opinion. merci, jb

Not sure I understand the question, JB. Those are all different kinds of disciplines you're alluding to. Certainly, any turning toward God disposes one to receive contemplative graces, but some of the practices you list seem to do this more than others.

quote:

Originally posted by Phil:
[qb] Not sure I understand the question, JB. Those are all different kinds of disciplines you're alluding to. Certainly, any turning toward God disposes one to receive contemplative graces, but some of the practices you list seem to do this more than others. [/qb]

I'm not sure I understood it either

I suppose I was waondering just exactly what an habitual state of recollection was. And exactly what the practice of the presence a la Brother Lawrence might entail, too. How such things would compare and contrast with the contemplative gaze. These are all slightly different disciplines (setting aside awareness and third eye seeing, which are clearly different). I get confused as to what elements of discipline they have in common and where they differ and whether any of them are infused vs active and such. If this didn't clarify, well .. don't bother .. I'll dig deeper. Just thought someone might have a quick down and dirty take on how to catgeorize these different disciplines.

I think I mentioned above that "acquired recollection" is the state of mind and spirit that comes from what the classical writers called meditation and affective prayer. Basically, it means that one's mind and will are disposed toward God, so that the prayer of simplicity or simple regard becomes possible. This is a simple loving gaze, very much akin to what CP teaches, only different in some ways. Royo and Aumann in The Theology of Christian Perfection consider it an ascetical practice and have much to say about it, including mention that it is, for many, a transition point to infused mystical graces.

quote:

It is, as it were, the final disposition before the Holy Ghost begins to operate in the soul by means of his gifts. For that reason, one frequently perceives a blending of acquired and infused elsements in the practice of the prayer of simplicity. If the soul is faithful, the infused elements will gradually be increased until they dominate the practice of the prayer entirely.

Well . . . maybe! As you know, John of the Cross did not find this to be so and often wondered why some did not come to know infused graces. Same goes today.

Now, contrast Royo and Aumann's advice on what to do when distractions arise with the counsel given for CP practice.

quote:

During the practice of the prayer of simplicity the soul should strive to preserve the loving attention which is fixed on God, but without doing violence to itself. It must avoid distractions and empty sloth, but if it exerts too much effort, it will destroy the simplicity of the prayer. Psychologically, it is difficult for a person to remain attentive over a long period of time, and therfore one should not expect, at least not in the beginning, to be able to practice the prayer of simplicity for long periods of time. As soon as the loving attention begins to waver, one should turn to the use of affective prayer or simple meditation. All must be done gently and without violence . . .

(Bold highlighting mine, of course.) That's the traditional teaching on this point, and you can see that the main difference between it and CP practice is that it is solidly grounded in the context of Lectio Divina, to which the pray-er returns "gently and without violence" when the prayer of simplicity wanes. In CP practice, one returns again and again to the sacred word; the counsel is to do so gently, but the focus is to express one's consent to God's presence and action. The practice in the prayer of simplicity is a little more explicitly oriented toward God per se.

I wonder how Royo and Aumann would evaluate CP? Jordan Aumann is still alive, but I can't find anything from him about it. Other classical writers and experts on John of the Cross like Thomas Dubay have a negative view of CP and consider it a distortion of the prayer of simplicity and a hindrance in the life of prayer.

Getting back to your question, habitual recollection would be a similar state to acquired, only ongoing. People who live thus would find it fairly easy to use the prayer of simplicity.

Thanks, Phil. That helps muchly.

One simple rule I'd always found useful for discerning one's calling to a prayer form or "level" - Pray in such a way that begins most easily and that can continue with such facility the longest. There should be some "ease" and some "facility" to our prayer, as a general rule. Then, as for alternating consolation and desolation, we have rules for discerment there, whether from Ignatius, the Carmelites, etc

The overall thrust of the CP evaluation and re-evaluation, in my view? It has its place --- but "ubiquitous" and "for everyone" are not suitable descriptors. At the same time, I wouldn't give John of the Cross and Teresa the last word on contemplation and the norms for prayer. I like that you wrote: "Well, maybe" in that honors the sovereignity of the Holy Breath, Who blows where She will. And that includes the other great contemplative spiritualities outside of Carmel, like the Benedictines, who can have not only a constant tradition but also an emerging tadition -- as the Spirit gifts us with new directions, sometimes, in reponse to emerging needs and changing times. I guess that last sentence is both a statement and a question.

Phil and others:

Just a comment about Centering Prayer and how it may interfere with the simplicity facilitated in Lectio Divina. In CP, the focus on one word doesn't leave much room for the faculties, which in the beginning of prayer are not ordered or quiet, and often in need of an imaginative space for their soothing, where all the senses can be nourished. IOW, CP seems to rush the mind to a state of quiet it isn't ready for. The mind needs to move from a state of discursiveness to a state of wonder (which eases the internal dialogue while easing it further into a receptivity for prayer of simple regard and disposed to the gift of contemplation), and this transition is supported by the container of a meaningful passage of Scripture that suggests a relationship between Christ and the one praying. This state of wonder allows the one praying to be open to receiving meaning without having to control the process. The sense of this relational quality, and how the will is being consented to a Person, is probably lost on most folks new to CP, where one word is far more like a mantram used to quiet the mind rather than engage the mind in meditating receptively on a relationship. And so the delicate, and often fragile movement from active to passive receptivity, so well-contained in LD, is poorly taken up via CP where LD is given such little attention.

I would wager that those carefully taught LD, in an experential atmosphere, would see these differences quite clearly. As Arraj points out, the psyche, during CP, is probably often pushed too quickly into a state of quiet before its faculties are treated and soothed by the Holy Spirit.

Too bad courses on LD aren't offered more often around the country.

Good posts, JB and w.c. I think this recent contrast between CP and the prayer of simplicity highlights some of the issues of concern, here, especially in light of w.c.'s remarks on how the faculties need to be properly formed and supported. It seems that the classical practice was sensitive to this, rooting simplicity squarely within Lectio Divina. I turn again to Royo and Aumann's book, cited above:

quote:

Because of its simplicity, there is no particular method for this type of prayer. It is simply a question of gazing and loving. It is useful, however, to keep in mind certain counsels. Before one actually enters upon the prayer of simplicity, great care must be taken not to try to hasten the entrance into this type of prayer. As long as one is able to meditate and to obtain benefit from meditation, he should continue practicing that type of prayer. Otherwise he would be in danger of falling into that spiritual sloth which St. Teresa classified as foolishness.

The contrary extreme should also be avoided, namely, not to continue with the practice of meditation or even of affective prayer if one perceives clearly that the soul wishes to remain before God in a loving attention without any particular discursus or affective movement. St. John of the Cross severely criticizes those spiritual directors who try to keep souls restricted to the practice of discursive meditation when they have advanced far enough to enter the prayer of simplicity.

For the practice of the prayer of simplicity it is fitting that the soul dispose itself by means of some material, as was done in the use of simple meditation, but it should abandon it immediately if the attraction of grace so inclines. Nothing is lost if a person prepares himself for the prayer of simplicity by reading from a spiritual book or a manual of prayers, even if one is later moved by grace to turn the loving gaze of the soul to something else. . . . The essence of the prayer of simplicity requires that the powers of the soul be intimately united in this loving gaze, and this requires in turn that the object of attention should be simple and unified.

Contrast this with the method of centering prayer, whose teachers often connect the practice with the prayer of simplicity. Note, especially, these two points:

quote:

4. The sacred word is sacred not because of its inherent meaning but because of the meaning we give it as the expression of our intention and consent.

5. Having chosen a sacred word, we do not change it during the prayer period because that would be to start thinking again.

I must confess that, the more this goes, the more I am bothered by this. Phrases like that would be to start thinking again have no remote connection with the prayer of simplicity and suggest, more, a mantra type of dynamic. I also question the idea that intentionality and receptivity can be conveyed in the manner described in #4. A more spontaneous movement in and out of the prayer of simplicity, using various phrases and images as the Spirit leads would be more natural. "That would be to start thinking again," however, which would supposedly invalidate any movement toward contemplation.

Please note, here, once again, that I'm not buying into the pantheistic criticisms and other such nonsense. This article, which is a transcript of a program carried by EWTN years ago, is also problemmatic, in areas (Fr. LaFranz, in particular, is awful!). Increasingly, I am inclined to see CP practice as more dynamically oriented toward enlightenment states, which, as we've noted many times on these fora, is not a bad thing and, indeed, is something that Christians ought to be open to realizing. Note, I'm not denying that infused contemplation happens, of course, only that the practice seems to move more toward enlightenment.

Excellent, w.c. and Phil.

Hey Phil:

Can you connect DianeA to the Sedona Method thread? I can't find it.

DianeA:

You could also take a look at the books describing this method:

"The Sedona Method" by Hale Dwoskin

"The Power of Letting Go" by Patricia Carrington