Dali's works great i reckon.....
I'm engaged to an artist. She does really good abstracts.
All the best in your guru work 'centered' at the rockies MM

"When distractions come (Francis threw himself naked into the snow)...
"Use the 'welcoming prayer' and return gently to the 'sacred word'"

How is one to practice with two sexually active women next door and the rhythm of bouncing bedsprings? I'm glad someone is having a good time, but it can really be such a nuisance.

Give the goddess her due, three cheers for the ladies and all that...

happysummersolstice.org

Mary Mirzowski I believe is the originator of the "welcoming" prayer. That's when you are centering and grappling with the seven deadly sins, which have been waiting in the backround for an opportune time.
When you get quiet enough, those slithery creeping things of which Saint Theresa spoke get dragged out of their closets and shadowy corners into the light.
Welcome them, sit with them, be present with them.
Dissolve them. Water wears away stone. Drip Drip...

That "welcoming prayer" approach is just wonderful. What a great way to show one's faith in the ongoing guidance of Providence.

"Give the goddess her due . . . Drip Drip . . . "

__________________________________________

Sorry, MM, but it's hard not to take you out of context.

Thanks for the Mirzowski reference. I'll look around for her on-line.

Here's a link to Welcoming Prayer . . . .

(Mod. note -- just fixing up that very wide url)

Ok, Mrozowski. At least I know how to spell it now.
Thanx, w.c. That was just what the doctor ordered.
I sent it to all my e-mail buddies.

I've been using it when confronted with Mick Jagger's dillemma.

"I see the girls go by dressed in their summer clothes- I have to turn my head until my darkness goes."

It really works, too. I have also used it when in the presence of people in tremendous angst and pain. They are the ones who need most for me to be present with them, and sometimes the ones I want to turn away from. There are some hurting people
and I wish I could do something for them, but like
the moth in the cocoon, if I free them too soon, I deprive them of their struggle and they won't get enough fluid into their wings.

Again, a thousand thank yous! <*))))>< mm

It's clear that in their development of Centering Prayer, Keating, Pennington, and Meninger drew on a number of sources of instruction for contemplative practice -- especially John of the Cross, The Cloud of Unknowing, TM and Zen. It is also clear that these men were moved to provide those of us living in the West a valuable resource for deepening our spiritual experience, and to do so in a form that is accessible -- available to people with active lives and compatible for those who espouse Christian beliefs.

As Basil Pennington makes clear in the dialog that Phil has already referred to several times ,](http://www.innerexplorations.com/chmystext/cm1.htm), their efforts to support spiritual practice are not focused on making "scholar's distinctions." Their interest is very practical; philosophically precise terminology regarding when and whether the experience of Centering Prayer is meditative instead of contemplative and vice versa isn't their primary concern.

Many thought-provoking observations about the practice of Centering Prayer and those who teach it have been presented in this thread. But I would like to underline that practical quality illustrated in Pennington's remarks. I personally found his tone, and that of Bonnie Shimuzu, balanced, pragmatic, user-friendly and, well, just friendly overall.

Though the times and style of language are different, I find a similarly wholesome tone in the writings of the author of The Cloud of Unknowing. I thought I might share some passages from the latter here that illustrate just how that author came up with the pragmatic suggestion of using a sacred word as a support to contemplative experience. The translations are my own, following the original Middle English.

In the second chapter the author offers his essential understanding of what contemplative prayer is all about:

quote:

Your whole life now needs always to be founded in desire, if you are to profit in the level of perfection [i.e., contemplative practice]. This desire needs always to be worked in your will by the hand of Almighty God and your consent. But one thing I tell you: he is a jealous lover and puts up with no company, and he is inclined not to work in your will unless he be alone with you by himself. He asks no help, but only yourself. And you guard the windows and the door for flies and assailing enemies. And if you are willing to do this, it is only necessary that you meekly press upon him with prayer, and soon he will help you. (Cloud, ch. 2)

I like the crux of this passage in the original; it reads, He asketh none help, but only thyself. That right there, it seems to me, is the locus and the heart of the contemplative experience.

The Cloud author anticipates his reader's question, though, to be, "How am I to practice that?", and this is his suggestion:

quote:

Lift up your heart to God with an humble stirring of love, and mean himself and none of his goods. And in this look that you are loathe to think on anything but himself, so that nothing works in your intellect or your will but only him. And do what you are able to forget all the creatures that God ever made and their actions.... Let them be, and take no regard of them. (Cloud, ch. 3)

So do not let up, but work at this until you feel a liking in it. For when you first do it, you find only a darkness and, as it were, a cloud of unknowing, that you understand not a bit except that you feel in your will a naked intent toward God�. If ever you are to feel him or see him, as it may be here, it needs always to be in this cloud and in this darkness. And if you will work at it attentively as I suggest, I trust in his mercy that you will come to that. (Cloud, ch. 3)

the cloud of unknowing � is it that settith thee in silence as well from thoughts as from words. (Epistle of Privy Counseling,= Wolters' chapter 7)

The author suggests that though God cannot be contacted and truly known by intellectual activity, he can be known "at the full" in love. In another work, the author puts it this way (I'll leave it in the original, which has an alliterative, poetic force):

quote:

Eyes of the soul they been two, reason and love. By reason we may trace how mighty, how wise, and how good he [God] is in his creatures, but not in himself. But ever when reason defaileth {falls short} then list love live and learn for to play. For by love we may find him, feel him, and hit him even in himself. (Epistle of Discretion of Stirrings)

Therefore I will leave every thing that I can think, and choose to my love that thing that I cannot think. Because he may well be loved, but not thought. By love may he be gotten and held; but by thought neither. (Cloud, ch. 6)

I personally think it a mistake to expect that this author's way of speaking will be or could be altogether precise and logically ordered. His interest is a pragmatic, loving one -- to provide effective instructions for allowing an experience that once had, no one would trade for anything in this world. He's outlining a technique for uncovering something that is both too wonderful and too simple for words. To do this, he must use language to gesture towards an experience that is not properly fitted for language. It is a profoundly positive and rich experience, but it is not a cognitive, conceptual thing.

quote:

This activity � is far from any fantasy, or any false imagination, or fanciful opinion, which is brought in, not by � a devout and humble blind stirring of love, but by a proud, curious, and imaginative intellect. Such a proud, curious intellect needs always be put down � if this work shall truly be engendered in purity of spirit. (Cloud, ch. 4)

It is the Cloud author's experience that when looking to foster our most immediate contact with the divine, thoughts -- even our holy ideas and spiritual concepts -- are more hindrance than help. They get in the way. They shape and focus our minds in a manner such that we get caught up in them and end up missing the mark. So, for this type of contemplative exercise, he recommends getting out from under their effects. Again, this is in the service of a prayerful experience that involves a "just being ourselves" and a "not helping" God, especially not by means of our thinking.

For many readers of this forum this is all familiar material. One of my wishes, though, as I said, is to emphasize how the Cloud author comes up with his suggestion of using a mantra-like sacred word to aid and abet contemplative experiencing. His basic instruction (which gets a lot more direct expression in his "sequel" to the Cloud, The Epistle of Privy Counseling), is to "just be there." Naked. Simple. Unadorned. Un-thought-about. He speaks of this core contemplative posture in several ways. He calls it a "naked intent," a "blind love," a "blind awareness (literally, a 'blind beholding')," and, finally, a "naked, blind feeling of being."

As both a way to orient and direct oneself toward the unknowable but experience-able divine, as well as to disentangle oneself from the distracting and distorting effect the occurrence one's own thoughts can have, the author offers the suggestion of "wrapping up" that naked, loving intent in a single word. A word not to be thought about. A word to dispel and "answer" any impulse toward more discursive thinking.

quote:

When you plan to do this practice, and feel by grace that you are called by God, lift up your heart to God with an humble stirring of love ... a naked intent directed toward God suffices.

And if you would like to have this intent wrapped and folded in one word, so you might have a better hold thereon, take just a little word of one syllable; for so it is better with the work of the spirit. And such a word is this word "God" or this word "love." Choose whichever you will, or another as you care to, which you like best of one syllable, and fasten that word to your heart, so that it never goes from there for anything that occurs�.

With this word you shall beat on this cloud [of unknowing] and this darkness above you. With this word you shall knock down all manner of thought under the cloud of forgetting, insomuch that if any thought press on you to ask you what you want, answer him with no more words but with this one word. And if he offers to you out of his great scholarship to expound to you that word and to tell you the conditions of that word, tell him that you will have it all whole, not broken or taken apart. And if you will hold yourself firm in this purpose, be sure he will not long remain.(Cloud, ch. 7)

Some years after writing the above, the Cloud author revised his instructions somewhat, and instead of talking as much about directing your intent toward God by beating with love on a cloud of unknowing, he speaks of coming to rest in a naked, blind feeling of being. It is my impression that his recommendation to use a word at all was a kind of provisional, almost ad hoc suggestion, something to use if need be and to let go of if and when an even more simple state is realized ... one wherein the truth and worth of "God asketh none help, but only thyself" is all the more obvious.

~ Dave

Thanks for that thoughtful post, Dave. You make some very good points, especially when clarifying the teaching of The Cloud.

You wrote:
As Basil Pennington makes clear in the dialog that Phil has already referred to several times ,](http://www.innerexplorations.com/chmystext/cm1.htm), their efforts to support spiritual practice are not focused on making "scholar's distinctions." Their interest is very practical; philosophically precise terminology regarding when and whether the experience of Centering Prayer is meditative instead of contemplative and vice versa isn't their primary concern.

My primary concerns on this thread weren't merely "scholarly," although I'm sure it came across as picking nits at times. If I might summarize them briefly:

1. The heavy emphasis in CP teaching about God being beyond concepts tends to de-emphasize the value of kataphatic prayer. God in his essence is indeed beyond all concepts, but so am I. And yet here I am, communicating, and something of my intelligence, will and presence are conveyed in my communication. So it is with lectio divina and kataphatic prayer; we really can and do encounter God present to us through such means.

2. Pastoral concern about separating cp from lectio divina. The earlier practice of the prayer of simplicity took place in the context of lectio; not so cp. Although cp teachers speak of lectio and encourage it, cp is generally not practiced within the context of lectio.

3. Pastoral concerns about what happens when cp is separated from lectio, and how intensified psych-physiological energies can thus wreak havok in one's psyche and nervous system. I've received too many letters and emails about this through the years to feel reassured that this is no big deal.

4. Concerns in the service of discernment re. just what kind of experience cp is leading to. Fr. Pennington's remarks notwithstanding, I do think it's important to have some degree of clarity about this.

. . . coming to rest in a naked, blind feeling of being. It is my impression that his recommendation to use a word at all was a kind of provisional, almost ad hoc suggestion, something to use if need be and to let go of if and when an even more simple state is realized ... one wherein the truth and worth of "God asketh none help, but only thyself" is all the more obvious.

That makes sense, only we need to recall that the author is not speaking to beginners, here, but to people already established in the life of Christian faith -- mature Christians . . . what they called "proficients" . . . people tasting the beginnings of contemplative prayer.

Hi again, Phil, and Happy Father's Day.

I think exploring concerns and questions of the sort you've raised are totally appropriate, especially when carried out in an open-hearted, open-minded way with the express intent to support spiritual growth. This whole enterprise is just too important for us not to be "critical" about it -- in the sense of being careful and honest and discerning. For the same reason, of course, it's also important to honor and celebrate and encourage what is most positive and wholesome in the teachings and practices we encounter. A forum like the one you have put together here can be such a rare and wonderfully useful resource for doing both those things.

The kind of balance and integration/integrity I hear you calling for in your first point I think is crucial (namely, "The heavy emphasis in CP teaching about God being beyond concepts tends to de-emphasize the value of kataphatic prayer�"). It is SO common for a spiritual movement to rally around and champion a particular technique in a one-sided and ultimately prejudicial or even dogmatic way. Precisely because they know what they do WORKS, they can tend not to appreciate how profoundly beneficial other approaches can be, too.

And the relationships between apophatic and kataphatic practices and experiences can be complex. Sometimes, as just one example, it can be precisely through a negating, emptying, "letting go" technique or period of practice that an individual comes to find herself all the more receptive and responsive to relational, incarnational, "content-positive" methods and experiences.

With respect to your 2d and 3d points, in a general rather than specific reply, I find myself considering the following. It's my overall impression that CP folks have looked to offer a spiritual technique with as few potential barriers for people to practice it as possible -- sort of on the model of TM, which so very, very many people have been interested in practicing in our time. I think the issues you raise about a de-contextualized or potentially unbalanced instruction have merit. At the same time, because the lived benefits to both individuals and society as a whole are so great, I of course feel efforts to promote contemplative approaches more widely are to be valued.

I do not question for a moment the significance of the disturbances you mention in persons who have contacted you. At the same time I'm also reminded, as a sometimes spiritual director myself, of how very many people I meet have just assumed "esoteric" contemplative practices are not for them, without realizing how contemplative some of their own practices and personal experiences already are.

You've spoken in this thread about your concern regarding just what kind of experience CP is leading to, but would you mind summarizing that once more?


~ Dave

I find myself considering the following. It's my overall impression that CP folks have looked to offer a spiritual technique with as few potential barriers for people to practice it as possible -- sort of on the model of TM, which so very, very many people have been interested in practicing in our time. I think the issues you raise about a de-contextualized or potentially unbalanced instruction have merit. At the same time, because the lived benefits to both individuals and society as a whole are so great, I of course feel efforts to promote contemplative approaches more widely are to be valued.

I agree -- both with the TM parallel and the importance of promoting contemplative approaches.

There's a piece of history here, Dave, that I don't think we touched upon very much, but have alluded to. In many ways, this is "deja vu all over again," to use a phrase from Yogi Berra. Something very similar to CP was taught following the writings of Teresa of Avila and John of the Cross, with great interest and enthusiasm sweeping through the Church for contemplative spirituality. It all turned sour, however, as many of the teachers adopted Quietist perspectives on prayer and spirituality, while others complained of what we might today call psycho-physiological upheavals. You can read all about it in Jim Arraj's book, From St. John of the Cross to Us. Fr. Keating is aware of all this, and has attempted to steer clear of some of the errors of the Quietists. At the level of popular teaching and practice, however, I'm not so sure his careful nuances are taking hold.

The biggest problem here is divorcing the practice from Lectio Divina while emphasizing a practice that rejects all thoughts as being somehow incompatible with contemplative experience. The unavoidable implication, then, is that one cannot be having contemplative experience unless there are no thoughts going on. This is flat out wrong! Another implication is that all consciousness beyond thought is contemplative experience. Also wrong!

You've spoken in this thread about your concern regarding just what kind of experience CP is leading to, but would you mind summarizing that once more?

I think I went into this in some detail earlier on the thread, but I don't remember. If you take the structure of the practice per se and see where it is headed, it tends toward a radical rejection of reflective human consciousness in the service of accentuating radically simplified receptivity -- as though such receptivity is somehow more open to and receptive of grace than a counsciousness sullied by "thoughts." If such grace is not, in fact, given (or, better, is not a "given" -- and I don't think it is), then what one is left with is the experience of non-reflecting human consciousness (detached awareness) moving ever so subtly into the exercise of the will to be open to love. This is an "interesting" experience, akin to enlightenment in many ways, but certainly not the contemplation of which John of the Cross and others have written in the Christian tradition. It's also a somewhat impossible stance to remain, as any exercising of the will independently of the support of reason is bound to fail, or cause great havoc in the psyche. I speak, here, not just out of a theoretical model, but from my own experience with this practice and others similar.

Does this all make sense, Dave and others?

Here's a brief follow-up to the above, from the book by Arraj cited.

We can grow in charity and in divine union even to a very high degree and not receive contemplative graces. Why don�t we receive them? "God alone knows," John of the Cross responds.

This point needs to be shouted from the rooftop, as a teaching has emerged which seems to evaluate union with God in terms of the depth of prayer or contemplative graces one receives. Yet, as Arraj notes, one can grow in union with God without being a contemplative, and that has been the case more often than not. Still is, I'm sure.

Back to a point I made in the above post: I do not think contemplative grace is a "given," as cp teaching seems to imply. I think other graces are by virtue of Baptism, faith, and living a life of virtue -- i.e., we can always trust that God is with us and that nothing can separate us from the love of God poured out in Christ Jesus (Rm. 8). This doesn't translate into a promise of contemplative grace or infused contemplation for those who undertake contemplative practices and go through a kind of divine therapy, however.

Phil wrote, among other things:

quote:

The biggest problem here is ... emphasizing a practice that rejects all thoughts as being somehow incompatible with contemplative experience. The unavoidable implication, then, is that one cannot be having contemplative experience unless there are no thoughts going on.... Another implication is that all consciousness beyond thought is contemplative experience....

I don�t really follow astrology seriously, but I�ve been told I�m a typical Libra, always trying to see both sides. In the present instance, I find myself interested in exploring a kind of �both/and� perspective on this question.

A lot of what the Quietists suggested, for instance, actually sounds really good to me -- if and when it is understood to concern a practice, a technique, that functions to open our hearts and minds. Their suggestion to suspend judgments and quiet thoughts and allow oneself thereby to become �passive� before sources of grace and inspiration that come from beyond our self-centered will -- that sounds good. It�s a same suggestion, of course, that can be found over and over in contemplative traditions, across centuries and across cultures.

When, however, such practical, experimental suggestions are turned into dogmatic, authoritative proclamations about how the world is, how enlightened and above the law I am, and what others must and must not do to achieve such a purportedly final enlightened state, we have a problem. It�s tragically ironic how easy it is to turn practical suggestions for being open-hearted and open-minded into ideological positions that aren't.

I do not mean to say I find the CP folks to be closed-minded. To the contrary. But I do think Phil�s concerns are worth raising. If we are to be more open to experiencing the divine in a direct, immediate and intimate way, it can be vitally important to shift our relationship to our habitual thoughts and perceptions. But, as Phil is pointing out, to turn this into a generalization that �rejects all thoughts� can be an unfortunate limitation.

I�d like to offer an analogy that affirms both what I find to be the healthy heart of a practice like Centering Prayer, as well the sort of concern Phil is underscoring. Like all analogies, it has its limits, but I find it useful to think about.

Imagine we�re all characters in a movie. We�re on the big screen. Everything we see and think is part of the movie�s story. In this analogy, the projected light, the light that creates and sustains the movie, the light that puts us here, is God. It�s God�s activity and loving presence. The question is how to experience God.

So long as we stay locked into the drama of the movie�s unfolding story, so long as we stay unquestioningly identified with our scripted character, we risk never realizing the source and ground of everything in and around us. To appreciate and touch the presence of that light, it can be vitally important to let go of the story, to step out of our scripted character, to �convert,� in Plato�s sense, turning ourselves away from our outward focus and back toward the light that is the original source of it all. It can be important in this time to forget everything other than the light, since everything less than that Life and Truth has the potential to obscure it, to limit our focus, and to get us distracted and caught up once more in the drama of mere appearances.

That�s the �rejection� phase of the via negativa and of CP: letting go of and disidentifying ourselves with our thoughts and our perceptions, stepping out of our character and the scripted storyline. Sometimes by means of such a rejection we can then slip out from under our mistakenly limited views of ourselves and of all that�s around us and, instead, come to see, and feel, and be, the light that is the source and ground of what we really are.

It is then perhaps possible to lose oneself for a time in that light. Then there�s nothing but the light, white (or clear, if you like) and undifferentiated. I think this non-dual, unific state is one Phil often has in mind when referring to an eastern-flavored �enlightenment� experience. It�s what many feel is the final end and goal of the spiritual life: �Being the One.�

But I�d like to make two suggestions here.

First of all, letting go of the scripted story and �rejecting� our character and all our thoughts isn�t the only way to experience a true and intimate contact with God�s light. The divine is present in and as everything. There�s nowhere God isn�t. So, yes, we can be distracted by others around us and by our own thoughts, and, yes, some of us may need to retreat from such influences, at least temporarily �rejecting� them. But it�s also the case that absolutely anything can become a window onto the divine. Anything can be a vehicle in and through which the divine can contact us. The unformed, uncreated light is right there in the forms. Kataphatic, positive vehicles for transformation, in other words, are also to be affirmed.

The second point is that even when going through a unific, non-dual experience of immersion in the divine ground and �oneing� with the light -- that need not be the end of the story. In terms of the movie analogy, we can, as in a lucid dream, return to the world, the story, and the drama, in a both/and sort of way. We can be both appreciative of the underlying, ever-present, transfusing Source, and simultaneously fully present to the world of appearances and relationships.

The Christian spiritual tradition has long emphasized an integrated, grace-filled life where the Kingdom is sought, practiced, and realized here in the world of forms and relations. So, too, have many currents of eastern enlightenment traditions. One quick example of this is illustrated in the Zen school�s Ten Ox-herding Pictures. In that teaching, the �enlightened� point of a non-dual union, devoid of all distinctions, is only the 8th stage (the picture of an empty circle). Following that is the realization that all the manifest world is a living expression of enlightened reality, too (a picture of a flowering tree). And following that is the stage of return as a participant expression of, and instrument for, enlightenment for all (a picture of �entering the market-place with bliss-bestowing hands�).

It�s hard to be concise here, at least for me, in a post like this. But there is a lot to unpack in the �simple� teachings of contemplative spiritual practice. Phil has drawn attention to potential imbalances, or incompleteness in some applications of the Center Prayer instructions, and, I now see in his most recent post, has commented on a potential over-emphasis on expecting special experiences or presuming some automatic realization of grace from contemplative exercises. Another good point ...


~ Dave

Dave:

I've been following your exchanges with Phil and he is much better able than I am in making the needed distinctions between CP and the way prayer and meditation are taught via Lectio Divina. But let me suggest one example of the distinction. You said in your last post:

"That�s the �rejection� phase of the via negativa and of CP: letting go of and disidentifying ourselves with our thoughts and our perceptions, stepping out of our character and the scripted storyline."

Hopefully I'm not taking you too far out of context here. If not, then a concern is in perhaps the confusion of the via negativa, or apophatic state, with what may occur in CP, which is not meant as a generalization. What I mean to say is that the apophatic state in traditional Christian mystical teaching, as I've understood it, isn't something procured by the will, or one's intent, but arises through contemplative grace, usually after developing a more active, affective meditation that passes over time into a more passive, restful state as one feels drawn into the presence of Christ. Then there is what Catholic Christians call the prayer of quiet that arises from the prayer of simple regard, although these are sometimes equated.

In my experience these transitions are quite different than non-dual awareness, having a distinctly relational quality to transcendental love, rather than pure immanence. Even in the darkness St. John of the Cross describes there is this relational quality, and this may be part of Phil's concern over the attempt in CP to force a state of consciousness into one's experience through a more deliberate attempt to still the mind prior to the gradually, grace-based (i.e, transcendental) ordering of those faculties to the point where quiet is given through peace, rather than a willful suspension of thought with the attempt to hold that space, however gently.

Hi w.c.,

You wrote:

quote:

[there can be a] concern over the attempt in CP to force a state of consciousness into one's experience through a more deliberate attempt to still the mind prior to the gradually, grace-based (i.e, transcendental) ordering of those faculties to the point where quiet is given through peace, rather than a willful suspension of thought

I can�t speak for the way Centering Prayer is conceived by everybody who practices it or teaches it. I do not, though, think it has to be seen as an attempt to force a state of consciousness. It has always struck me more so as a practice of looking to allow something. Namely, it looks to allow a more recollected, intimate, simple, humble, and mindful presence. That presence, of course is one in and as which many of us find we are all the more available to sense, feel, receive and know the graced presence of divinity.

And even the suggestion that CP is concerned to make a deliberate attempt to still the mind needs to be nuanced, in my opinion. The distinction is subtle but there, I believe. There is a difference between making your focus to be the deliberate attempt to still the mind, on the one hand, and the attempt to discontinue habitual involvement in daydreams and distracted thinking, on the other. An intention to stop thoughts can be a little bit different from an intention to let go of distracting mental preoccupations. It�s like the difference between trying to force yourself to get somewhere (by stopping your thoughts) versus trying not to leave where you already are (by letting go of mental wandering).

Another question raised here, at least implicitly I think, is whether promoting CP practice in a general way should be deemed somehow premature. That issue seems a little tricky to me. It brings an image to my mind, though -- the image the Sufi contemplative poet, Rumi, describes of a spiritual seeker standing at the door of God�s house. Should that seeker knock? or wait to be invited in? or perhaps wait for God to come through the door to him? In the particular story I�m thinking of, the seeker does knock � and knock, and knock, and knock. Finally, one day the door opens -- and the seeker then realizes he�s been knocking from the inside.

~ Dave

"There is a difference between making your focus to be the deliberate attempt to still the mind, on the one hand, and the attempt to discontinue habitual involvement in daydreams and distracted thinking, on the other. An intention to stop thoughts can be a little bit different from an intention to let go of distracting mental preoccupations. It�s like the difference between trying to force yourself to get somewhere (by stopping your thoughts) versus trying not to leave where you already are (by letting go of mental wandering)."


Dave:

In Lectio Divina, as I've experienced over the years, there is no attempt to discontinue habitual distractions as in Zen, or by the use of a word as in Centering Prayer. The focus isn't on one's own attention, or an attempt to regulate it through a subtle mental technique, but on a relationship. It's really no different, in my experience, from having a conversation with a friend, where you have distractions, but simply turn back to the friend's presence. IOW, it's the relationship that spontaneously draws attention - attention not as an object but as an unselfconscious means. In Centering Prayer, as I've experienced it briefly, there is an intermediate step, where attention is objectified, or narrowed into a linguistic frame, rather than turned immediately to the Friend where all the senses are available just as would be the case in normal consversation. Now, in Lectio, there is a process where images or words of the Friend are used to cultivate affection for the Friend, as a way of remembering Him, just as we might with photos or memories of people we care about. As such, thoughts aren't vanquished or controlled with the use of a word for more narrow focus, but allowed to be a natural, spontaneous part of the emerging contact with the Friend. If we were trying to use a technique to pay attention to a friend, rather than just letting the affection of the friendship take its natural course, then the friend would probably notice the incongruity.

I think it is hard to know what Christians are talking about re: concerns over CP if there isn't an understanding of what Lectio Divina is. I'd recommend this website for a good introduction to Lectio Divina, if you're not already familiar with it:

http://www.valyermo.com/ld-art.html

re. Quietism, dave wrote: When, however, such practical, experimental suggestions are turned into dogmatic, authoritative proclamations about how the world is, how enlightened and above the law I am, and what others must and must not do to achieve such a purportedly final enlightened state, we have a problem. It�s tragically ironic how easy it is to turn practical suggestions for being open-hearted and open-minded into ideological positions that aren't.

I've enjoyed some of the Quietist writers as you have, and I think you've put your finger on some of the problems that ensued in its wake. Pushed to the max, the issue turned into one of absolutizing intention -- so much so that some (e.g., Madame Guyon) maintained that no sin was possible so long as one was in contemplation (understood, in her case, as thought-less-ness). Naturally, the Catholic hierarchy snarled at this sort of teaching, and rightly so, I believe. We find similar teaching among certain gurus, who believe that their "enlightened" state renders all their actions beyond the moral plane . . . crazy teaching . . . (or maybe just crazy! ).

See http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12608c.htm for a comprehensive discussion of Quietism.

Just to clarify, here, I don't think the teachings of Fr. Keating are Quietist; he's very much aware of this danger. If CP practice is undertaken apart from the theological perspective that Keating proposes, however, it could very well lead to that, which is problemmatic, then, in some ways. For the structure of a prayer method reflects the philosophy or theology that informs it (including Zen and practices from other religions). When CP is practiced as taught -- and not as the Prayer of Simplicity within the context of Lectio Divina -- its radical apophatic structure along with the emphasis on God being "beyond concepts" can easily lead to a denigration of the kataphatic dimension of Christian life, which is very much at the heart of our Tradition, informing its sacramental character. That's another issue that plagued Quietism, and cp runs the risk of suffering the same.

Do you see what I am saying about the relationship between the structure of a prayer method and a theological/philosophical tradition?

I note from your profile that you are a Zen practitioner. There is a relationship between zazen and the kind of experience that Buddhism is try to lead one to awaken to, and zazen points to that experience very directly. You wouldn't want to teach Lectio Divina to someone interested in the enlightenment experience, however, as it just doesn't move one in that direction -- too "dualistic," and fraught with all sorts of words and images about God. Likewise, I don't think zazen points to the type of experience that Christian revelation invites -- which is not to say that it points to a "bad" experience, as some would put it.

So where does CP fit in? Apart from the teaching by Fr. Keating and others on the Christian spiritual tradition that "surrounds" it and attempts to keep its practitioners properly directed, I think CP practice per se can easily become somewhat adrift from its Christian moorings -- especially if practiced outside the context of Lectio Divina, which is usually the case.

The divine is present in and as everything. There�s nowhere God isn�t. So, yes, we can be distracted by others around us and by our own thoughts, and, yes, some of us may need to retreat from such influences, at least temporarily �rejecting� them. But it�s also the case that absolutely anything can become a window onto the divine. Anything can be a vehicle in and through which the divine can contact us. The unformed, uncreated light is right there in the forms. Kataphatic, positive vehicles for transformation, in other words, are also to be affirmed.

I think this is an excellent way of speaking of the sacramental nature of reality. Beautifully stated!

. . . even when going through a unific, non-dual experience of immersion in the divine ground and �oneing� with the light -- that need not be the end of the story. In terms of the movie analogy, we can, as in a lucid dream, return to the world, the story, and the drama, in a both/and sort of way. We can be both appreciative of the underlying, ever-present, transfusing Source, and simultaneously fully present to the world of appearances and relationships.

Hopefully . . . yes! And I think the mystical branches of the world religions all say as much.

Another question raised here, at least implicitly I think, is whether promoting CP practice in a general way should be deemed somehow premature. That issue seems a little tricky to me. It brings an image to my mind, though -- the image the Sufi contemplative poet, Rumi, describes of a spiritual seeker standing at the door of God�s house. Should that seeker knock? or wait to be invited in? or perhaps wait for God to come through the door to him? In the particular story I�m thinking of, the seeker does knock � and knock, and knock, and knock. Finally, one day the door opens -- and the seeker then realizes he�s been knocking from the inside.

Those are fun stories! And I wholeheartedly endorse the importance of both knocking on the door and listening for response. CP is definitely a type of knocking, as is Zen and Lectio Divina. The question, is, however, whether they are all knocking on the same door, or, better, knocking in the same way and waiting for the same response? Would a Zen practitioner recognize the coming of the Holy Spirit, for example? Would a CP practitioner recognize a door opening to enlightenment? We are back to the issue of the kind of receptivity we bring to practice and how our faith tradition forms this receptivity. I find this framing the discussion in terms of how receptivity is formed to be the most helpful way to proceed in such dialogues.

Phil has asked:

quote:

Do you see what I am saying about the relationship between the structure of a prayer method and a theological/philosophical tradition?

This is how I'm understanding what you're saying (I'm trying to simplify here -- do correct me if I've mischaracterized your point):

The world has various spiritual traditions. These traditions shape our spiritual receptivity. Our spiritual experiences will conform to one tradition or another based on our own tradition�s shaping influence on us. In other words, the theology structures the prayer method, the prayer method shapes what you are receptive to, and the shape of your receptivity determines the types of experience you will have through that prayer method.

As an illustration, zazen, in this view, is something that fosters and allows a non-dual enlightenment experience, and Lectio Divina cum Christian contemplative prayer fosters and allows a relational experience with and of God. And while both experiences may be profoundly rewarding, they are different and not to be equated.

I think this issue is a vital one, worth truly care-filled and heart-opened exploration. I note that this forum has a lengthy thread on the question of whether Enlightenment and Christian Spirituality are commensurate with one another. But I believe I have a different perspective from the one that has been outlined in that thread and in Phil�s post above.

In my own case, as an example, one could definitely say my contemplative practice is strongly informed by the Zen school. I would agree with that. But I am disinclined to view the kind of experiential receptivity which is the heart of that type of practice as something that is "formed" by the Zen school. (Indeed, like many contemplative currents, Zen is at times explicitly concerned that its practitioners let go of any ideas that they are practicing "Zen.")

Zen is a tradition for cultivating honesty. This honesty carries profound epistemological, existential and ontological dimensions, but for the moment I'm just going to call it that -- honesty.

Such honesty is arrived at by a willingness to let go of presuppositions, suspend egotistical concerns, and give the uncreated, always already there Truth a chance -- a chance to inform us � and inform our practice � and inform our tradition.

Any attempts we make to describe that Truth and our experience of it in the language(s) we know, will be formed by the "receptivity" of that particular language. But I don't think that that Truth is a linguistic matter. It is something, literally, too simple and too fundamental for words. And I don't think, despite the world's different, culturally-informed languages and traditions, that that Living Truth is different for different people.

I also don't think that that honesty I'm talking about, at the core and foundation of a contemplative practice like Zen meditation, is something different in different people. Other �apophatic honesty� traditions, including the West�s via negativa, are performing very similar experiential practice methods.

The suggestion with Phil�s previous post and, generally, in that thread on Enlightenment seems to be that the religious experience most essential to and representative of a theistic, relational tradition like Christianity is ultimately incommensurate with and cannot be equated with a non-dual enlightenment held to be the goal of a tradition like Zen. But I very much suspect it�s a both/and situation. Much more would need to be said on that than I want to take the space for here (this is already a long post), but I think the description made in that thread of non-dual enlightenment as the goal of a practice tradition like Zen is inadequate. I think the way it�s described there is incomplete. Zen folks �leave� duality ultimately in order to return to it, infused with a Living Truth that is transcendent to conventional mental/ cultural structures. (This circular journey through non-duality and back to relational reality is elliptically implied in the Zen adage, �mountains are mountains, mountains are not mountains, mountains are mountains.�)

And I�m just not sure, as contradictory as it may sound, that a relational experience with and of God cannot also be non-dual. I�m pretty sure I don�t know enough to adjudicate that, at least not at this point in my life, and I do not trust the �formation� that my culture and my biology have bequeathed to my ratiocinative mind as something adequate to decide that. But, referring again to the movie analogy, I think it very likely there can be relational �characters� and a non-dual matrix simultaneously.

So, I've now been "outed" as a Zen practitioner. It's a bit more complex than that for me, but I can work with it as a provisional characterization, and I'm delighted by the prospect of having further dialog on this issue.

There�s much more to say, and qualify, and further explain, but the post is already long, so I�ll leave off with some summary points:

-- No matter how different cultural languages and traditions may be, the Truth is the Truth; it's not plural.
-- Honesty is a way to experience that Truth. �Apophatic honesty,� practiced in a variety of spiritual traditions, entails a radically un-structured receptivity towards Truth.
-- Whether or not non-dual Reality and relational religious experiences are incommensurate is an open question.
-- Looking into these matters with open minds and sincere hearts is a great good thing to do.


with nine bows,

~ �Bodhi� Dave

Dave, I'm very much OK with the notion that all religious traditions are onto truth and that their practices lead one to a living encounter with the Source of all truth. One can affirm that and, at the same time, maintain that they all have different experiences of that Source -- perhaps owing to certain initiatives taken by the Source Itself.

. . .And I don't think, despite the world's different, culturally-informed languages and traditions, that that Living Truth is different for different people.

I'm sure that that Living Truth is but One, but I'm also sure that, say, Jesus and Guatama had different experiences of It far beyond what linguistic considerations might predict.

The suggestion with Phil�s previous post and, generally, in that thread on Enlightenment seems to be that the religious experience most essential to and representative of a theistic, relational tradition like Christianity is ultimately incommensurate with and cannot be equated with a non-dual enlightenment held to be the goal of a tradition like Zen. But I very much suspect it�s a both/and situation. Much more would need to be said on that than I want to take the space for here (this is already a long post), but I think the description made in that thread of non-dual enlightenment as the goal of a practice tradition like Zen is inadequate. I think the way it�s described there is incomplete. Zen folks �leave� duality ultimately in order to return to it, infused with a Living Truth that is transcendent to conventional mental/ cultural structures.

I don't think I ever said that Zen people don't return to duality with a new appreciation, as I wasn't addressing that at all. Please do joing the discussion on that thread and share your feedback.

And I�m just not sure, as contradictory as it may sound, that a relational experience with and of God cannot also be non-dual. I�m pretty sure I don�t know enough to adjudicate that, at least not at this point in my life, and I do not trust the �formation� that my culture and my biology have bequeathed to my ratiocinative mind as something adequate to decide that. But, referring again to the movie analogy, I think it very likely there can be relational �characters� and a non-dual matrix simultaneously.

It can be non-dual in the sense that our will and the will of the divine have become one will through love. That's the usual way of speaking of mystical non-duality in Christianity, and this is different from the Hindu notion of Atman = Brahman, where the non-duality is of a more ontological character.

I think we can also speak of a non-duality in Christ, whereby we become transformed to know God as He knows God and so share in his own non-dual experience: one person with two natures. That situation is more for the beatific vision in eternity, which we can glimpse at times in this life, but only glimpse.

So, I've now been "outed" as a Zen practitioner. [Smile] It's a bit more complex than that for me, but I can work with it as a provisional characterization, and I'm delighted by the prospect of having further dialog on this issue.

Outed? By whom? I'm thinking there's an interesting story in those words, no?

Thank you for another thoughtful post, Dave. It's great to have you participating in these discussions.

Hi Dave and Phil!
It is very interesting to follow your exchanges on CP.
Phil wrote:
Dave, I'm very much OK with the notion that all religious traditions are onto truth and that their practices lead one to a living encounter with the Source of all truth.

Phil's assertion of the above statement makes me to write this post. At the time of my kundalini awakening last year I encounter with Christ totally unexpected. This makes me to ask why? was it because of my Christian background? Was it because of my baptisim? or because Christ is the only way? I had this questions in my mind until I experience the recent attack. What I have learned from this exeperience is how this dark enemies infiltirate other spiritual ways than Christ's. One of the common experience among Christian mytics is their encountering with the anti-Christ forces called Satan or Devils. Experiencing the attack of this forces fully is both terrifying and enlightening. One of the important thing I learn from this experience is the only way to God is Christ. Although the notion all spiritual ways leads to the same Truth sounds very positive and harmonic in our mind, the ultimate Truth is only Christ. This statement is not coming out of my conviction from some thought or theology. The knowledge is gained experientially.

I respect what your experience has taught you here, Grace. It almost seems like you're doubting whether authentic encounters with the divine are happening in non-Christian traditions, however. One only needs look to the fruits of the Spirit among many of their people to see that God is alive and well in those traditions. My own belief is that Christ is there as well, though not so explicitly identified as in Christianity.

FWIW, I wasn't saying that all spiritual ways lead to the same Truth in the same way. I don't think they do, and have stated as much above. That would be a discussion better pursued in the thread on Enlightenment and Christian Spirituality, however.

Responding to a couple of other points in Dave's previous post:

In my own case, as an example, one could definitely say my contemplative practice is strongly informed by the Zen school. I would agree with that. But I am disinclined to view the kind of experiential receptivity which is the heart of that type of practice as something that is "formed" by the Zen school. (Indeed, like many contemplative currents, Zen is at times explicitly concerned that its practitioners let go of any ideas that they are practicing "Zen.")

I'm not following, Dave. My experience with Zen training (nothing compared to yours) was that it very much did foster a certain kind of receptivity. What's the point of Zen or any other kind of spiritual training if not to form a certain receptivity?

Zen is a tradition for cultivating honesty. This honesty carries profound epistemological, existential and ontological dimensions, but for the moment I'm just going to call it that -- honesty.

I follow. I would use the term "authenticity" but it's pretty much the same, and I would, further, say, that Zen training helps to promote authenticity in the human spirit and its activities of attending, questioning, reasoning and decision-making. I believe this can be part of Christian spiritual training, for Christian spirituality is authentically practiced to the extent that the individual is authentic in the exercise of their own spirit. The old teaching on this was that self-knowledge (humility) is foundational in the spiritual life, which seems to be saying about the same thing.

Such honesty is arrived at by a willingness to let go of presuppositions, suspend egotistical concerns, and give the uncreated, always already there Truth a chance -- a chance to inform us � and inform our practice � and inform our tradition.

I think we need to reflect on this part some more, especially what you mean by "uncreated." The kind of letting go you speak of doesn't necessarily put one in touch with God, so much as allows the non-reflecting aspect of our own human spirit to become more experientially available to us. This can seem so different from our ordinary experience of reflecting consciousness that we are tempted to call it "Unborn" a la Zen Master Bankei, or even, perhaps, the divine itself, which is not the case. It does enable the perception of unbiased truth, however, so I think we're pretty close on that point.

Dave:

One of the difficulties with this sort of discussion is that we're all ultimately bound to our limited sense of such things. I was a practicing Buddhist for about 5 years before having an experience of Divine grace, which has completely altered my own perceptions re: grace and enlightenment. Such belongs to another thread, but here, in short, is the way I look now at the two different experiences:

The present moment and the Eternal are not the same. These two are equated in non-dual meditative systems. The radiance of the present moment is something the human organism is capable of intentionally opening to. Such is not the case with the Eternal, which stands outside time and space and all creaturely faculties. IOW, the present moment inheres in the Eternal, its uncreated source, much in the same way the kundalini energy arises from its uncreated source, the Holy Spirit.

St. Paul alluded to this distinction between creaturely perception and the darkness within the faculties during graced contemplation when he said:

"Now we see but a dim reflection, through a glass darkly, then we'll see face-to-face. Now we know in part, then we shall know fully, even as we are fully known."

Resting in the present moment is actually an effort by comparison to the rest within graced contemplation, where the faculties are completely at home in their source beyond self-reflection. In non-dual awareness, there is still the need to maintain the rest, keeping the will and mind from distraction, which is not the case when the Holy Spirit fills those functions. In the present moment, some degree of Eternal Light is no doubt experienced, but the present moment itself cannot fill the creaturely faculties, as it is itself an effect of the Uncreated.

Hello Grace, Phil, and w.c.,

You each have addressed fruitful issues. I think further exploration and dialog on these points will be rewarding.

I'm leaning towards addressing some of the questions posed in your posts by looking, for starters, at passages from the author of The Cloud of Unknowing that look a whole lot like Zen to me, even while the teachings, experiences, and practices described there are expressed in a fully Christian idiom.

I'm a little too busy at the moment to do a quality job with that, though, so I will give myself another day or so.

Meanwhile, I'm wondering if we should start another thread. The discussion here is still relevant to Centering Prayer issues, but it has widened. There's already a thread on Enlightenment and Christian Spirituality, where some of what is now being explored would fit well, but that thread's pretty long, too (I wonder if readers are sometimes disinclined to join a discussion that has a lengthy backlog of material to "catch up" on).

Also, I have yet to share much about my own spiritual history and background, which would of course give additional context for how I come to some of the perspectives I have. I am deeply committed to exploring and appreciating those experiences that are the most important in life - that's really all I am interested in - and any resource that can contribute to that I regard with respect. It's a very "practical" interest, which for me includes being very ecumenical and "postmodern."

So, I'm thinking about proposing a thread that would pick up from the points raised in the preceding several posts, and go from there in a way where I could include additional personal material ... something like "Spiritual practice in a postmodern world" ... and maybe start it in the Transformative Experiences forum.

What do you think?

~ Dave

Sounds good, Dave. Looking forward to your new thread.