Shalom Place Community Shalom Place Discussion Groups General Discussion Forums Christian Spirituality Issues The Eternal Now - and how to be there!Go | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply | |
| The Eternal Now - and how to be there! | Login/Join |
Every now and then, something exceptional comes along -- In my view, this is one of those things:Keating & Rohr together - check it out pax! jb In this exciting, extended weekend conference, spiritual masters Fr. Thomas Keating and Fr. Richard Rohr put together in specific and practical ways the ancient, perennial, and Christian tradition of "now" teaching. Each in their gifted style help listeners connect the dots between Scripture, the desert mystics, the Benedictine and Franciscan traditions, the Buddhist masters and other contemporary teachers. "All of us with our unveiled faces, reflect like mirrors the brightness of the Lord, as we are gradually turned into the image that we reflect." 2 Corinthians 3:18 Cisterian monk and priest Thomas Keating established a program of ten-day intensive retreats in the practice of Centering Prayer after retiring as abbot of St. Benedictine Monastery in 1981. He is founder of Contemplative Outreach, Ltd. and its spiritual guide. He participates on an international level in religious dialogue and is also a well-known author of books, audios and videos. Fr. Richard Rohr is a Franciscan of the New Mexico province. He founded the Center for Action and Contemplation in Albuquerque, NM in 1986, where he presently serves as Founding Director. Richard considers the proclamation of the Gospel to be his primary call, and uses many different platforms to communicate that message. | |||
|
Sounds good, JB. I was kinda hoping it was an actual conference that was, say, centrally located (Colorado?) where attendance was only $100 and we could all get together to swap Mertonic clown noses and other wisdom. | ||||
|
JB, have you listened to the tapes? Should be interesting, all right. | ||||
|
I remember back in '93 when I discovered Rohr, Credence Cassettes and National Catholic Reporter all about the same time. I requested every single one of his titles from interlibrary loan. They'd call me up and say they had another one and I would rush down to get it. Good olde Franciscans!  thanx, jb | ||||
|
No, Phil, I haven't even bought them (or had them gifted to me yet)! 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 | ||||
|
Many years have passed ... what IS anyone's current take on the relationship between CP and contemplation? | ||||
|
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 | ||||
|
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. | ||||
|
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 | ||||
|
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 | ||||
|
JB, would you mind copy/pasting your comments on Keating/CP to the thread where we evaluate it? I'd really like to see those evaluations posted there where others are more likely to read it. If you think it makes sense to delete it from this one after doing so, I'll take care of it. | ||||
|
Well, I now note that Credence also added the following to their catalog on 27 June, 2004. Healing Our Violence Through the Journey of Centering Prayer by Richard Rohr and Thomas Keating and describe it as follows: Two internationally known spiritual guides challenge you to confront your inner and social viiolence and bring it to healing and transformation in a sacred and ecumenical context. This conference will appeal both to beginners and those more seasoned in centering prayer. The deep wisdom of these two spiritual masters is a gift. The Thomas Merton quote that was displayed on the giant screen at the closing of a weekend retreat with Fr. Richard Rohr and Fr. Thomas Keating. Well, my brain is done with CP and Ideas of God for now, too! Don't want to succumb to violence. pax! jb | ||||
|
Merton said: �To allow oneself to be carried away by a multitude of conflicting concerns, to surrender to too many demands, to commit oneself to too many projects, to want to help everyone in everything is to succumb to violence.� Merton 2.0 said (aka "JB): Well, my brain is done with CP and Ideas of God for now, too! Don't want to succumb to violence. "Succumb to violence" might be a bit of a rough cut of a statement. Let us just say that in helping others, no matter the "warm fuzzies" we may get from doing so, we're still sacrificing something of ourselves. We're taking time away from pursuing what we want. And yet, one wonders if the violence being done isn't because of quantity of work or demands, per se, but of quality. To do nice, selfless things sounds good on the surface, but will not these things be especially difficult and tiring if this work is not immediately involved in the development of ourselves? We might be avoiding some internal work; work which, if done, might be of much more benefit to other people simply because our own house is in order and because we're "on purpose", doing what we're supposed to be doing. We can, I think, shortcut these good processes by willful intellectual acts. Now, that's not always such a bad thing since there are times, particularly when our emotions are overwhelmed by other problems, that we must be guided intellectually to do the right thing. But ultimately our feelings and our intellect have to come to some accord. They have to be in sync and working together. If we're really doing "our work" it ought to be fulfilling to our being, not violent (although certainly our tasks might meet with physical and mental fatigue and a certain amount of wear-and-tear). I sometimes wonder if we all don't do "martyr time" from time to time when we're not exactly sure what else to do. We're told from day one, whether from our parents or religious upbringing, that sacrifice is good and necessary. And what parent of children could not immediately see these words to be true? But I think that sometimes we get a slightly hardened view of sacrifice; a view that is needlessly destructive and perhaps not altogether pious. Surely it is only human nature to make our suffering seem meaningful. And is not that core to a Christian teaching that our suffering does have meaning? But is it not then too easy to turn around and try to do good and to try to justify one's existence and to think that one is on-purpose by doing nothing more than suffer? If seems to me that JB intuitively knows that suffering for suffering's sake can sometimes be good but that it is not the only good (if I may put words into your mouth for the moment). If we're doing violence to ourselves, even if we perceive ourselves as helping others, it might be a good time to take a second look and see if we are really doing the work that was meant for us to do. | ||||
|
I have now finished listening to 6 of 8 CDs in this retreat by Keating and Rohr. My assessment is that it is inspired. It is delightful. It is full of faith, hope and love, truth, beauty and goodness. It is fully orthodox from a Catholic perspective and robustly pan-entheistic per my reading. It touches on CP and Divine Therapy in what I think is a balanced approach. Anyone who wants to delve further into some of the theological and psychological issues of CP and Divine Therapy should read these exchanges , which are irenic enough. The distinction between CP and Zen or TM is that between the intentional and the attentional, between heartfulness and mindfulness. I would say that the descriptors intentional and heartful are meant to indicate an integral and holistic approach. [Keating, I seem to recall, said precisely this.] My digression: An integral and holistic approach thus employs our entire being in the rhythms and movements of life and prayer: sensation and perception, emotion and motivation, intuitive and inferential, nonrational, prerational, rational, noninferential and preinferential, cognitive and affective and instinctual, apophatic and kataphatic, immanent and transcendent, existential and theological, natural and supernatural, impersonal and personal, attentional and intentional and devotional, lectio, oratio, meditatio, contemplatio, operatio, mindfulness and heartfulness --- grace always building on nature, unmerited grace and beautiful nature. We don't know some aspects of reality through reason and other aspects through faith. We approach all of reality with both faith and reason, whether the positivistic realm, the philosophic, the theistic or theotic. The goal is to approach reality with our entire being, with our entire being-in-love. When we do this, we will know the truth and the truth will set us free. We will discern the difference between the certain, probable, plausible, possible, uncertain, improbable, implausible and impossible (what Don Gelpi calls the scholastic notations). We will discern the voices of the Holy Spirit, of the true self, of the false self, of the world, and of the Devil. We will know when to say: Ain't that the truth! and That's a godforsaken lie! and even I don't know! The Holy Spirit always tells the truth. The Devil always lies, however subtly. Our self and the world variously lie or tell the truth, so we must rely on a community of discernment (however broadly or narrowly one conceives such a community). The lies point us toward fulfillment in pleasure, pride, profit, power, security, acceptance and such. The truth points us toward fulfillment in God, in Whom, alone, our hearts will rest in beauty and goodness. That's the essence of the spiritual journey: learning the difference between the Truth and lies and then pursuing the Truth. And knowing Truth is Personal, relational and is realized (not accomplished) by our entire being-in-love. love, jb | ||||
|
footnote on the devil Not many folks believe in Satan nowadays, even clergy. Let me say this, if a myth is that which, while not literally true, nevertheless, evokes an appropriate response to reality, then one would do well, for all practical purposes, to believe in the reality of Satan. My advice: Believe in the devil even if you suspect it is just a useful heuristic device and avail yourself of the Church's prayers, rituals and protections. Personally, I believe in the reality of the devil and recommend Scott Peck's __Glimpses of the Devil__. | ||||
|
I'm looking forward to Star Wars Episode III, where Anakin Skywalker chooses the Dark Side and allows fear to rule his destiny. No, he's not the little red pitchfork toting fellow in the red tights from Underwood Ham, but an actual entity. I have it on authority from a Hebrew carpenter of note. I had to know a fellow for ten years before he revealed to me that the forces from the Dark Side had spoken the words, "We want you back!" from several drug addicts who were probably "accessible" to these energies. It did not give me shivers, for I must admit to hanging around with them, though I did not give myself entirely over to them. I have been spared this, mercifully. There is a new movie about Enron and if Star Wars fails to get the message out, perhaps that will... or there is always David Duke's website. nolongerrunningwiththedevil.com | ||||
|
Another important implication of discerning the world, self, devil or Spirit - only the Spirit is always in Truth ... only the Devil is always a Liar ... the world and self vary ... We thus deify and over-idealize other people (and political parties, religious denominations, etc) if we think they are always in truth ... We thus demonize and over-critique other people (and political parties, religious denominations, etc) if we think they are always in error ... Not even possessed and oppressed people are always in error ... Thus the words: deify and demonize ... Thus the sins: idolatry (and reverse idolatry? --- wrongly attributing the demonic) ... It is not that some are not moreso in error or in truth (or in a position of not knowing), all further qualified by the scholastic notations (see above), or that some do not raise human error to an art form, unduly postponing their move to adulthood, stubbornly resisting conversion(s), fighting transformation at every turn ... but we can only know if others or the world have simply wronged us (wronged meaning thru personal sin or natural evil) and not whether or not the wrong was a result of sin (personal) or finitude (of either a person or the creation, which is still unfolding) ... | ||||
|
JB, it sounds like this has turned out to be an enriching resource. The distinction between CP and Zen or TM is that between the intentional and the attentional, between heartfulness and mindfulness. I would say that the descriptors intentional and heartful are meant to indicate an integral and holistic approach. [Keating, I seem to recall, said precisely this.] Yes, those are good distinctions (sometimes receptive vs. concentrative are used), but it still doesn't change my views on what's actually going on in CP teaching and practice. Keating's teaching on "pure faith" in reference to CP is problemmatic, imo, and turns out to be mostly a cultivation of attention with thought transcendence as the measure of its purity. . . all covered ad nauseum on this thread. Also, while I think the word "integrative" is a good one, it probably also holds a connection to Wilber's "integrative spirituality," which Keating has used to formulate stages of Christian spiritual growth. (Or maybe I'm just reading too much into that one?) Why all the mention of the devil and the demonic? Was that part of the discussions? | ||||
|
Another correspondent noted that these distinctions were reminiscent of Phil's Be Here Now in Love . I rather liked that tie in. If the East is good with Be Here Now, undeniably, Christianity adds In Love. Not to down play the solidarity and compassion that ensue from Eastern practices just to note, as you so well do, the intentional and devotional aspect where the Deity is concerned. This matches Merton's distinctions: personal and impersonal, existential and theological, kataphatic and apophatic ... The above two points were my digressions Fr. Thomas didn't say integrative but I projected my own paradigm there. He did say holistic vis a vis heartfulness . But, indeed, there were references to Wilber by both Rohr and Keating, especially re: holons (but no improperly nuanced immanentism). I thought they treated Wilber in a way that I'd call properly considered. As for the devil discussion -- that' all mine. The retreat discussions dealt a lot with truth and falsehood. I thought it would be worth expanding on same with scholastic notations (im/possible, im/probable, im/plausible, un/certain) and with a distinction of where these voices come from. I don't think it suffices to just discuss philosophy in terms of premodern, modern and postmodern, and psychology interms of pathological, humanistic and transpersonal -- and think that we can get an accurate picture of human error and finitude and theological anthropology. We cannot just think (mindfulness) and feel (heartfulness) our way --- but must discern our way in community. To Rohr's credit and Fr. Thomas -- they give due credit, as you know, to Tradition (including early desert fathers, contemplative traditions, sacramental economy, incarnational theology). I'm glad you asked; I should have more emphasized MY DIGRESSION than I did. All in all, a very good experience, indeed. I'm not really qualifed to critique Keating at the same level as you. Certainly, there is some paradox involved and a lot of both/and. I think they honor both/and/ness and balance very well -- the apophatic and kataphatic, for instance, the Kingdom NOW and to come. Sometimes, if a particular culture, like the American culture, is imbalanced --- then the corrective teachings will tend to moreso emphasize (and perhaps seemingly overemphasize) the neglected aspects of practice and ritual and theology, and will perhaps lead one to the wrong conclusion regarding Rohr and Keating's true position, for instance. I listened very carefully and critically to these tapes and came away satisfied vis a vis their orthodoxy and the soundness of the philosophy and metaphysics, too. There is much nuancing going on. pax, jb | ||||
|
Commenting on this separately. There is, indeed, the attentional and intentional, the receptive and concentrative, the passive and active, the open and closed --- and those distinctions seem to speak mostly to the cognitive aspect. There is also the affectivity to be considered and I thought that was well enough emphasized. Keating also affirms both active and passive elements. I'll look at that thread and see what was considered there. And I'm glad you referenced it for others to do likewise. If led thusly, I'll comment further on that thread. pax, jb | ||||
|
I took a look at what you said about "pure faith" in that CP thread and am in large agreement, so won't contaminate that thread. Let me share something I wrote (redacted) someone lese just today: This is not wholly unrelated. There is a fallacy in any stage theories and developmental theories that takes the form of negating lower stages rather than integrally transvaluing them. My whole discussion above can apply to the kataphatic and apophatic devotions, too. Although there are prayer movements and practices that now emphasize sensation and perception, now emotion and motivation, now discursive and now nondiscursive approaches -- an integral approach implies the whole human knowledge manifold or evaluative continuum is placed at the Spirit's disposal for God do to what She will when praying in us, for no prayer is initiated other than by the Spirit -- not kataphatic, not apophatic. Our entire being-in-love is placed at God's disposal. Apophasis and kataphasis are held in creative tension whereby kataphasis glories in God's intelligibility through metaphor and apophasis glories in God's impenetrable mystery and incomprehensibility as we acknowledge our metaphor is but a weak analogy. We hold on loosely but don't let go, as the song says. One thing I have always felt aout CP in America and the West, from a theoretical perspective, I really could not countenance what appears to be a radical apophaticism even if it is a momentary apophaticism that will always return to the kataphatic for nurturance. So, the teaching may deservedly be challenged. From a practical perspective, thinking of the art of the possible (sometimes called politics), I have always rather doubted that most grownups aspiring to CP, who have been immersed in lifelong kataphatic devotion and Western discursive and dualistic thought, could really accomplish even this theoretical momentary apophasis. IOW, no matter what they were trying to do --- they were not going to experience a rhythm of apophasis and kataphasis but rather an ongoing contemporaneous alternating current of both of them. The analogy would be -- when I speak metaphorically and analogically, you and i both know it without me having to explicitly point it out, usually. Conceptually, when I am having a kataphatic experience, it is simultaneously being apophatically qualified, especially when we are speaking cognitively. The point of contention might moreso surround the affective aspect. No need to reinvent that wheel insofar as both the sanjuanian and ignatian discussions of consolation and desolation and discernment treat this robustly? Which would be to suggest that -- how one responds to distractions, to desolation, to consolation -- in prayer and living --- cannot be captured in a one-size fits all prescription? Sometimes they should be ignored and sometimes embraced and often times even shunned -- it depends. pax, jb | ||||
|
An attempt at a summary of my perspective: The various practices and spiritual disciplines and asceticisms that have been developed East and West down through the ages aided by the Holy Spirit in response to emerging needs and particular exigencies of a given cultual milieu would seem to be moreso directed at proper re-integration of the various aspects of the human evaluative continuum, which include sensations & perceptions & memory (instinctual) and emotions & motivations (affective) and intuitions & inferences & understanding (cognitive) and not so much directed at privileging or emphasizing any given aspect, one over the other. One might equate our tripartite nature of body, soul and spirit, respectively, with various aspects of the human evaluative continuum and with the theological virtues of faith, hope and love --- as grace building on the nature of understanding, memory and will, all aspiring to the values of truth, beauty and goodness. From one spiritual writer to the next, however, these trichotomies don't lend themselves to discrete categories quite so neatly. They are very much intertwined and entangled, one with the other. This is precisely due to their integral nature, one relying on the next, none truly acting autonomously --- although it may apear that way when we overemphasize certain aspects of the evaluative continuum in our interactions with reality. This is exactly what reintegration is all about --- ridding ourselves of any tendencies to privilige one aspect of the evaluative continuum over the others, to engage one aspect as if it were autonomous, to act as if any aspect of our humanity were not somehow holistically and integrally related to all other aspects. And I use the word aspect rather than part to better describe our human evaluative continuum as a piece, as a fabric. Hence, we are not engaged in a tug of war between head and heart and senses, between memory and understanding and will, between body, soul and spirit. When the corrective admonition to move out of our heads into our hearts is issued, we are being invited to not live only in our heads. As Richard Rohr points out, Prayer of the Heart, in the early tradition, did not mean a move from the cognitive to the affective but, rather, a move toward the holistic: loving our God with our head and heart, mind and body, our entire strength, our entire being. Now, it would seem reasonable that, due to the exigencies of a given culture, or due to the nature of any given person's temperament type, this or that discipline or practice or asceticism will be required to be applied to correct any undue emphasis, any unwarranted autonomy, any unjustified privileging, of this or that aspect of the human evaluative continuum in order that we might place at the Spirit's disposal --- ALL that we are. To wit: Take, Lord, receive, all my liberty -- my memory, understanding, my entire will. What then ensues in the way of discernment, by our experience of desolations and consolations, will follow in accord with ignatian and sanjuanian rules of discernment regarding whether are not we are being invited into new forms of prayer or are being chastized, so to speak, for backsliding. It all depends on the particular pray-er's situation. In a similar manner, we have the ignatian and sanjuanian counsels, respectively, against inordinate attachments and disordered appetites --- and these apply very much to being overly attached to one aspect of our evaluative continuum to the prejudice of the others, such as in rationalism, such as in fideism, such as in pietism, encratism and such. This isn't new stuff. As we balance the apophatic and kataphatic, the affective and speculative, we are to avoid: 1)rationalism (over-emphasis of speculative and kataphatic), 2) pietism (over-emphasis of affective and kataphatic), 3) quietism (over-emphasis of affective and apophatic), and 4)encratism (over-emphasis of apophatic and speculative). And the same is true for the Four Loves: agape, eros, philia and storge; and for the four Bernardian loves; and for all other good gifts, which we are to receive with thanksgiving as totally unmerited and gratuitous. To the extent certain of these aspects emerge in a developmental fashion, per some stage paradigm, it is imperative that we not negate those aspects that emerge first and that we not privilege those aspects that emerge last but rather that we integrate all of the aspects, giving them their proper due and allowing them their proper role. As I noted elsewhere, the best scientists are in touch with beauty and symmetry and employ a refined aesthetic sensibility in conjunction with their intellect. Further, they must very carefully deploy their senses and extend them, even, through instrumentation. Finally, they must interpret their findings and intuitions in a larger community of inquiry. So it is with the best pray-ers, who properly apply all of their faculties and who seek proper discernment within a community and tradition. To this extent, there may be general precepts and general norms for the spiritual life and spiritual practice but beyond those, as we know in Catholicism, diversity thrives and a thousand blossoms bloom in our diverse spiritualities and traditions, contemplative and apostolic. We mustn't confuse the essentials with accidentals and we mustn't confuse the descriptive and the prescriptive when it comes to various practices and disciplines and asceticisms. Holistic living and prayer is normative. Certain practices and disciplines are useful in certain situations to correct any imbalances, to reintegrate any unruly aspect of the human evaluative continuum that would assert its autonomy. And this reintegration is as necessary for the good scientist as it is for the good mystic. Faith and reason are integral aspects of all human knowing (despite the howls and protests this assertion might invite). If one size fits all -- it is faith and hope and love. These are essential. Prayer forms are accidental and under the control, ultimately, of a sovereign Spirit, not us. Our various asceticisms and disciplines and practices are thus directed to placing the entire being, our entire evaluative continuum, at the Spirit's disposal, to receive whatever consolation or desolation, or even therapy, She would gift us with now, here in love with our entire being. If that is how the discipline or practice is prescribed, then very good. If, however, it is prescribed as a privileging of one aspect of the human evaluative continuum over the others, then I think we need to look at that. CP as a corrective discipline would be one thing; hence, as a means toward reintegration and holistic prayer would seem just fine (and I heard Rohr & Keating make this clear, unless I was over-projecting my own interpretation). CP described and prescribed as a privileged access of one aspect of the human evaluative continuum, as a top rung of a prayer ladder, would seem problematical (and I heard Rohr and Keating both acknowledge that this is how they can be miscontrued, when, in fact, they are seeking to correct a Western imbalance -- and the East has its own). The sanjuanist approach is clearly liturgical and sacramental and kataphatic as well as apophatic and does not privilege one aspect over the next. The paradox, I believe, lies in the fact that there is a distinct movement toward simplicity in the life of prayer but that simplicity, that nothingness, is a nada, nada, nada that contains all yada, yada, yada. In our simple prayer, one word then conveys all of our intercessions, petitions, praise, thanskgiving, affection, attention, intention -- and so does the wordless. It is, perhaps, then, when it most seems that nothing of our lives is there on the altar in our secret room, that EVERYTHING is most fully there, one aspect now in sharp relief and emphasis and then the next and then none and so on. It is a dance, not a trance. pax, jb | ||||
|
I think you're articulating a very healthy spirituality, JB, and one that will even develop quite naturally provided the overall context of the religious quest is viewed in terms of relationship. That, I believe, is even more to the point than contrasting attentional and intentional approaches (attention, after all, requires some exercise of intention, so it's never really an either/or affair). But relationship means that I'm not God -- something Keating and Rohr believe, of course. Yet somewhere in all this I've got lingering questions about the relationship between method of practice and the the operative spiritual paradigm. Zen practitioners don't do lectio divina, after all, and it wouldn't help them much no matter what kind of intention they bring to the practice. I feel much the same about CP practice that emphasizes so strongly "not-thinking" as one of the criteria for pure faith and contemplative experience. Oh well . . . all in that other thread.  | ||||
|
By Thomas Keating: Following is a list of practices and their sources in the tradition that have influenced Centering Prayer: Practice: choice of a place of outer solitude. Source: Jesus� exhortation to enter our inner room, close the door, and pray in secret (Matt.6:6). I will quote the commentary on that text by Abba Isaac in Chapter Nine of John Cassian�s Conferences, a Fourth Century treatise about the spiritual practices of the Desert Fathers and Mothers of Egypt. �We need to be especially careful to follow the Gospel precept which instructs us to go into our inner room and shut the door so that we may pray to our Father. And this is how we can do it.� �We pray in our room whenever we withdraw our hearts completely from the tumult and noise of our thoughts and our worries and when secretly and intimately, we offer our prayers to the Lord.� �We pray with the door shut when, without opening our mouths, and in perfect silence, we offer our petitions to the one who pays not attention to words but looks hard at our hearts.� �We pray in secret when in our hearts alone and in our recollected spirits, we address God and reveal our wishes only to him in such a way that the hostile powers themselves have no inkling of their nature. Hence, we must pray in utter silence to insure that the thrust of our pleading be hidden from our enemies who are especially lying in wait to attack us during our prayer. In this way, we shall fulfill the command of the prophet Micah, �Keep your mouth shut from the one who sleeps on your breast.�� Practice: gentleness toward unwanted thoughts, feelings and impressions during prayer. Source: St. Francis DeSales, Introduction to the Devout Life, Part 3, �Act with great patience and gentleness with ourselves�We must not be annoyed by distractions or our failures but start over without any further ado.� Practice: returning to the sacred symbol of our consent to God�s presence and action within. Source: St. John of the Cross, Living Flame, stanza 3:26-56. Practice: confidence in God�s action both in prayer and daily life. Source: St. Therese of Lisieux, her Autobiography and Letters. Practice: self-surrender and abandonment to God�s will. Source: DeCaussade, Abandonment to Divine Providence. Practice: purification of the unconscious Source: The dark nights of St. John of the Cross, especially his teaching on the secret ladder of contemplation. Centering Prayer owes much to the Living Flame, stanza 1, in which St. John of the Cross writes that as long as we have not reached our inmost center, there is always progress to be made. Practice: laying aside of thoughts. Source: Evagrius and the Hesychasts of the Eastern Orthodox tradition. Practice: disregarding thoughts during the Prayer of Quiet as �the ravings of a madman.� Source: St. Teresa of Avila, The Way of Perfection where she writes of the Prayer of Quiet. Practice: accepting the divine action of ascending levels of union with God in prayer. Source: St. Teresa of Avila, The Interior Castle Practice: humanness and humor Source: The Desert Tradition and St. Teresa of Avila Practice: continuous growth in divine union and unity. Source: St. Gregory of Nyssa, Life of Moses and the Rhineland Mystics, e.g., Ruysbroek and the Beguines. Practice: faith in the Divine Trinity as the source of Centering Prayer. Source: William of St. Thierry, Matthius Scheeben Practice: the movement of faith and love toward God as the inmost center of our being. Source: St. John of the Cross, Living Flame, stanza 8-14. Practice: its Christological focus Source: St. Bernard of Clairvaux and virtually all the Christian mystics. Practice: the ecclesial dimension, bonding with everyone in the Mystical Body of Christ. Source: St. Augustine and Pauline theology A TRADITIONAL BLEND ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Yes, I very much like relational as a descriptor, something captured in the Trinitarian, Christological and even Ecclesial foci listed immediately above -- all indispensable. Keating writes: In short, Centering Prayer is a blending of the finest elements of the Christian contemplative tradition with an eye to reducing contemporary obstacles to contemplation, especially the tendency to over-activism and to over-intellectualism which is a too great dependency on concepts to go to God. That reference to contemporary obstacles is consonant with what I said earlier about exigencies of particular times and cultural milieus (in our case, the West). I see a suitable nuancing in the descriptors of OVER-activism and OVER-intellectualism and TOO GREAT dependency on concepts, which would seem to imply that neither action nor intellect nor some dependency on concepts is being completely negated or abandoned, which would otherwise contradict the imperatives to trinitarian, Christological and ecclesial foci and render relationality nonsensical. Perhaps these nuances have been teased out over the years and the presentation of the practice has been more fully developed in an effort to clarify issues raised by worthwhile and earnest critiques. At least I know what I do and don't do but, as you say Phil, don't hold it out as normative. Heck, I don't even hold it out as descriptive much less prescriptive vis a vis what has been taught, which I reckon I have integrated into my own paradigm. pax! jb | ||||
|
| Powered by Social Strata | Page 1 2 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
Shalom Place Community Shalom Place Discussion Groups General Discussion Forums Christian Spirituality Issues The Eternal Now - and how to be there!