Shalom Place Community Shalom Place Discussion Groups General Discussion Forums Christian Spirituality Issues Centering PrayerGo | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply | |
| Centering Prayer | Login/Join |
 |
(Still waiting for the storm to hit. Blizzard conditions this afternoon.) Thanks for your sharing, Claire. It sounds like you have found the right mix of prayer methods to keep you well focused toward God. That retreat center in Grand Coteau is a marvelous place, isn't it? BJ, you don't have to be a defender of CP. In fact, I haven't heard anyone criticizing CP. I've made it clear from the start that CP is an easy method to learn, and posted on another thread some good reasons for doing it (you added some good ones there). My problem, as I have stated a number of times, is the elaboration on it and the justifications often given for doing it. It does seem that anthropological considerations motivate the teaching more than anything else.
Stephen, all this influences what we bring to prayer, but the topic here is largely what we mean by contemplative prayer. I do think contemplative prayer is the same today, yesterday and tomorrow -- a mystical grace drawing us to rest in God's gentle, loving presence. Just because most people don't experience this regularly doesn't mean we ought re-define it so that it's meaningless. E.g. On page 10 of Open Mind, Open Heart, Fr. Keating acknowledges that, traditionally, contemplative prayer was considered a mystical grace, and he agrees with this. But to say that it's a grace is to also acknowledge that it's an experience (as all graces produce effects). This bothers him because so many, even in contemplative orders, do not know this experience, or not very often. So he makes this distinction between a mystical grace and the essence of mystical prayer,. . . which transcends any impression of God's radiating or inflowing presence." He goes on: "What is the essence of contemplative prayer? The way of pure faith. Nothing else. You do not have to feel it, but you have to practice it." I do not think this distinction between the grace of contemplative prayer and the essence of contemplative prayer serves any helpful purpose, certainly not in the interest of what you're suggesting. In fact, I'm not even sure what that's supposed to mean, and I read up on this stuff all the time. The practical outcome is important, however, as CP becomes less oriented toward contemplative prayer and more toward the essence of contemplative prayer defined now as "something you do not have to feel" . . "but you have to practice it" . . . "the way of pure faith." Pure faith, we learn elsewhere, goes beyond all experiences, even beyond feelings of God's love.
Gosh, unless I'm just not getting it, here, it seems that he's suggesting that contemplation itself is to be let go of because we experience it and, hence, it's not deep enough. Back to your prayer word, people, and the non-experiential "way of pure faith." We're a long ways from SJOC here, but where, exactly are we? And why? | |||
|
Claire, Thanks for sharing in depth about your experiences with Centering Prayer and other forms of prayer. I appreciate it. My deepest sympathy over the loss of your father. I am glad you found the healing you sought and needed. Prayer really does make a difference. Blessings, bj | ||||
|
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Phil: BJ, you don't have to be a defender of CP. In fact, I haven't heard anyone criticizing CP. I've made it clear from the start that CP is an easy method to learn, and posted on another thread some good reasons for doing it (you added some good ones there). My problem, as I have stated a number of times, is the elaboration on it and the justifications often given for doing it....... Phil, You have stated that a number of time and I acknowledge that you and other thinkers are making important distinctions. I keep trying to read over them and, probably because I am not looking at them from the perspective of a thinker, the points pale in comparison to the actual experience for me. ......(Your response to Stephen)..... "I do think contemplative prayer is the same today, yesterday and tomorrow -- a mystical grace drawing us to rest in God's gentle, loving presence." Contemplative prayer may be the same today, yesterday, and tomorrow but we are not. We are the ones who are growing and changing. We are the ones who are evolving. Therefore, it is our way of perceiving and responding that may be different. (P)..."Just because most people don't experience this regularly doesn't mean we ought re-define it so that it's meaningless." I think more and more people are experiencing these experiences regularly or, at least, sporadically and that is part of the reason why there is so much interest in the subject today. I don't hear the redefinition of it as meaningless. (P)"Gosh, unless I'm just not getting it, here, it seems that he's suggesting that contemplation itself is to be let go of because we experience it and, hence, it's not deep enough. Back to your prayer word, people, and the non-experiential "way of pure faith." Phil, Does CP have to be goal oriented? Isn't being receptive and open to the way God is manifesting in the moment of prayer enough? Does it have to go somewhere else or is the surrender to the present moment enough? All this talk of this sort of prayer and that sort of prayer can miss the point. It seems like endless classifying that really is ultimately unnecessary for many on the path. "We're a long ways from SJOC here, but where, exactly are we? And why?" We're in a place of intense growth and development....a place where the past is being redefined with present knowledge and also attempts are being made at integrating the past with the present. We can't be growing if we already know all the answers. Who knows what all God has in store for us! bj | ||||
|
|
That kind of receptivity is fine, BJ. But you're giving Fr. Keating a very big pass, here, aren't you? He's the one who's changed the goal from openness and receptivity to contemplative graces to a practice with a different focus -- one that sets aside experiences of God's love because it is something we are aware of and, hence, not a deep enough union. That's goal-oriented, isn't it? Are you OK with that?
Well . . . I don't dialogue with straw men. Sorry!  | |||
|
|
Let's look at point #3 of the centering prayer method: 3. When you become aware of thoughts, return ever-so-gently to the sacred word. But what is a "thought," in CP practice?
Q. So, dear forum friends, the setting aside of all of that by returning "ever-so-gently to the sacred word" implies what kind of goal? - - - The more this dialogue goes, the less OK I'm becoming with CP practice itself, especially with the understanding of "thoughts" shared by Fr. Keating. It seems that "thoughts" includes anything that registers in one's awareness, including contemplative graces. I don't get it. What's going on, here? | |||
|
Phil, I don't know what straw men are. However, if I am violating any rules of dialogue, I am not doing it intentionally because I am not aware of them. Also, I am soon returning to retreat mode again but I did want to add something. I am reading the first few chapters of OM, OH again. It's very helpful to me. I think "The History of Contemplative Prayer" Chapter and the "Dimensions of Contemplative Prayer" Chapter might also benefit you and address some of your questions. One of the things Fr. Thomas points out is that in the Western world we "have a special problem with discursive meditation because of the ingrained inclination to analyze things beyond all measure, a mind-set that has developed out of the Cartesian-Newtoninan world view and that has led to the repression of our intuitive faculties....."(p. 29, OM, OH trilogy). That's part of the problem here for me. There is such an emphasis on words that the wholeness of the Prayer is being lost. The intuitive portion is being overlooked. Good old common sense is being lost in the process. I feel like we're trying to measure electrons with a tape measure. The correct means aren't being used and we're getting mired in words in the process. Father Thomas goes on to talk about Jesus in His Divinity as the source of contemplation. He talks about Mt. Tabor. Then, he goes on to say, "Our experiences of God, however, are not God as He is in Himself. God as He is in Himself can not be experienced empirically, conceptually or spiritually. He is beyond experiences of any kind. That does not mean that He is not in sacred experiences, but that He transcends them. To put this insight in another way, He leads us by means of sacred experience to the experience of emptiness........"(OM, OH, p. 18) He also goes on to talk about the more we let go of consolations, the stronger the Presence of the Spirit becomes....."The Ultimate Mystery becomes the Ultimate Presence." (p. 18) I think another part of the problem is in the piecemeal glances at the articulation and not an overall look at the entire Prayer which goes far beyond the words that define it. Taking another look at those first few Chapters might be helpful. I'm off to retreat mode now. Hope I haven't added any more straw men. I need to think more about all this. bj | ||||
|
Hi Claire, to edit or delete one of your posts, you can go to the little edit icon on the lower, right-hand corner of your post. Click on that and it will open up your post to edit. I think you can make changes even days later. Don't worry about it. And I'm glad to hear such a good report about your lovely group of praying friends. God's love be with you! | ||||
|
You're not breaking some social etiquette, per se. It's a misstep in logical discussion. Your comment to Phil was straw man in that you were changing the subject. Your comment was a diversion, a pointing to a different issue than the one you're being challenged on.This message has been edited. Last edited by: Shasha, | ||||
|
Right, of course, that's true in general. But we're not talking about a generalization. We're talking about a specific claim Fr. Keating is making about this nun's spiritual development. He is assuming a cause and effect relationship, which is theoretically possible. The burden of proof, however, is on him to make claims that are apparently valid, that can be substantiated, or have general consensus by most reasonable people. Making such a claim as support for his new definition of 'contemplation' and 'contemplative practice' is suspicious. Anyway, have a good retreat. Peace!  | ||||
|
Thanks for the tip, Shasha. I've been wanting to tell you that I really enjoy your posts. You are a shining star in this discussion group. | ||||
|
|
BJ, you keep changing the subject instead of responding to the points I'm making. Fr. Keating uses words and wrote books about CP with them. I'm using words to communicate some of my reservations, now about point #3 in CP practice. This point goes to the crux of things, as it provides guidance for what to do when "thoughts" come up and qualifies "thoughts" as meaning pretty much anything that we are aware of, including experiences of God's love. How do you understand point #3, BJ, especially in light of Fr. Keating's teachings about "thoughts"?
Why do you bring this up? The first point is a truism: no one can experience another spiritual being as that being is in itself, so of course that applies to God. Are you saying that's the real goal of CP practice: to know "God as He is in Himself," understood now as "the experience of emptiness. . . ?" Notice again that the "emptiness" of thought-less-ness is being placed as a higher state than "sacred experience" (contemplation? that's certainly a "sacred experience"), but I wonder why that is? Is Fr. meaning to say that this emptiness is "God as He is in Himself?" That would be quite a claim! What would be the basis for it, I wonder? There are other possible explanations for this emptiness. Yes . . . more questions! Does anyone involved with CP ask these kinds of questions? As a spiritual director, I think they're important in the interest of discernment. | |||
|
|
Here are some quotes from The Mystery of Christ (p. 57), by Fr. Keating.
This talk of personal relationship morphing into transpersonal then beyond troubles me, especially in light of the teaching about emptiness and pure faith mentioned above. I'm also bothered by the way "Godhead" is mentioned -- like it's some deeper experience of God than we encounter in the Persons of the Trinity. The "Christian path," to my understanding, does not emphasize God as "That-which-is" except in a metaphysical sense, but that's not theology, nor mysticism. God is never a "That" in Scripture, always a "Who." Moses is introduced to "I AM WHO AM," not to "That-which-is." To my understanding, what is "personal" about us is never lost. We are, and forever shall be, a personal soul, endowed with intelligence and will. In the Christian life, we come to live by means of the life/energy of God, and to participate in God's own life, but we never lose our individual uniqueness nor our spiritual faculties. Furthermore, God is and shall forever be a Who, a beloved. The grand celebrations described at the end of the book of Revelations recognize saints wearing white robes, angels, and lots of other kinds of creatures. They sing God's glory and praise. You do not do this if you lose your personal self and discover that, in the end, God is "That-which-is." See the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the section on Death and the final things for more reflection: - http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p123a12.htm God as "That-which-is" is more of a Buddhist affirmation than a Christian one. - - - As a consequence of this discussion and earlier ones, I am left with the impression that the method of CP and its manner of dealing with "thoughts," its distinction between contemplative graces and the essence of contemplation, and the "emptiness" that "pure faith" emphasizes points more to an enlightenment type experience than Christian contemplation. It is true that the practice is surrounded on all sides by Christian language, but the state of consciousness that is implicitly sought resonates more with what Vedanta and Buddhist spirituality are about. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, just . . . let's say what it is. Acknowledging this helps to explain why many CP teachers are openly enthusiastic about writers like Eckhart Tolle, Ken Wilber, Bernadette Roberts, Jim Marion and other writers on nondual spirituality. Please do not take this to be a judgment of people who do CP. I'm critiquing the teaching about it and what it seems to point to. If you like CP and it brings forth good fruit in your life, then keep it up. Everyone who does CP regularly ought to be in spiritual direction, however, especially if you are interested in walking a Christian pathway. I invite those of you who do CP and have contact with people who teach CP to invite them review this discussion sometime. Maybe I've misunderstood or misinterpreted something, but this is the second big go-round we've had here on this topic and I come out in the same place. It also helps me to better understand why I could never do CP as it was taught but did my own thing in the silence in CP groups. I suspect that is the case with many others as well. | |||
|
So what is "your own thing", Phil? I have been practicing CP for many years, but actually, like you , can not see the point in returning to the prayer word when the Holy spirit gives me counsel and comfort (consolations?). So usually when I pray/meditate I am not sure what to do, what to think or not think.. would John Mains method be better? Katy | ||||
|
|
Thanks for chiming in, Katy. A veteran pray-er like you might not need a set method like CP or John Main's Christian Meditation. By doing "my own thing" in quiet prayer, I mean to say that I turn my attention to God in faith and ask the Holy Spirit to teach me to pray. I generally say a few Hail Marys, asking Mary to pray with me. I pray the Gloria to focus on God in praise, and use a "praise phrase" throughout my prayer time, much as the CP people use the sacred word. Glossalia comes and goes and I go with it when it does. When I sense an inner movement to rest in God, I allow it to be. I accept consolations when/if they come and express gratitude for them. If there are other kinds of "thoughts" that seem to come from God, I allow them, and if a response is called for, I respond with affective prayer. I always have a bible with me, and will open to a passage to read a few lines if I feel moved to do so. But mostly my first prayer period of the day is without reading, and goes on for 45 min. or so. Toward the end, it is mostly just a being present to God who is present to me. I am awake to myself and to God in this silence and cannot imagine why anyone would not want such awareness. When I am done, I know it. I get up and do a few stretches, closing with the Lord's Prayer. Not exactly a "method," I know, but this has worked for me for years. Later in the morning, after breakfast, I read through the morning prayers for the Liturgy of the Hours. Same in late afternoon. Generally, I do not read reflectively, but mindfully, attempting to pray the words as though I am joining Christ in his prayer in the Church. This is very satisfying. Thank you for asking, Katy. I don't think I've shared my manner of prayer in this way on the forum before. | |||
|
Katy, may I respond? Generally, when I become aware of receiving consolations, I return to the prayer word. This is because as soon as I become aware of receiving a consolation God has given me, I've received all the graces that He intends at that moment. To latch onto it and dwell on it has the problem of where I'll begin to add my own agenda to it. The ego looks to use the consolation for it's own purpose. So at this point, it's not God, but me. So, I just gently return to the prayer word, and allow God to bring me back into contemplation, if that is his will. It's part of being detached from seeking signs and wonders, and even consolations. We seek the God of consolation rather than the consolations of God. It's why the mystics of contemplation, from John of the Cross back, teach us to detach ourselves even from the holy thoughts we become aware of during prayer. Contemplative prayer is pure, without an agenda we create. Jim | ||||
|
That's really beautiful, Phil. Like other Christian mystics, I sense in you Phil, the capacity to be with God in simplicity and freedom. You don't need to try too hard to be with God. You don't battle with subtle accusations or vigilance. You don't evaluate your prayer time as right or wrong, good or bad... You're so ready to love God and be loved by Him that you don't have to battle any agenda to hold on, get past, or let go of thoughts, feelings, images, etc. Your pure intentions to be with God serve as the primary 'structure' you need to pray. Such is the blessing of those who love God. That's what I get from what you've shared about why you "do your own thing" during the silence in CP-led prayer. | ||||
|
If you're talking about Centering Prayer slash contemplative prayer as a method, it is certainly a created agenda...so I'm not seeing it as 'pure' any more than any other prayer method. | ||||
|
It's precisely for the reason you posted, that makes me reluctant to participate in web forums about Centering Prayer. You made a conclusion which is not taught in Centering Prayer, but just the opposite. But, thanks for reminding me to back away from the conversation. Jim | ||||
|
|
Thanks, Shasha. I never really know how it will go in prayer most days. Showing up and turning to God seem to be the most essential steps. After awhile, it seems things start to unfold on their own. - - -
Jim, receiving a consolation is not the same as seeking one or latching onto it. Why not pause and say "thank you, Lord," and enjoy it, and let it sink in and do its healing? Why treat it as some distraction to be chased off with the prayer word? The way you and others speak of CP and use of the sacred word seems to turn prayer into more of a rigid method or technique than a conversation or relationship. What's wrong with pausing with a thought that convicts, or one that affirms, and then moving on after a short period of dialogue with God about it? That's so much more natural, and not in any way an obstacle to contemplative graces that God might wish to grant. It certainly doesn't imply that the Ego wants to mess with it!
John says to do this once one begins to respond to a contemplative grace moreso than a condition for receiving such a grace.(see Stanza 34 in Living Flame of Love). Big difference! | |||
|
|
Jim, I know you're frustrated, but Shasha indicated in her post that she thought you were considering contemplative prayer and centering prayer to be the same thing (hence the "slash" remark). You're only a recent convert to making this distinction in terminology, and used the terms interchangeably for quite a few of your posts earlier in this discussion. Additionally, the post by you she was commenting on was largely about CP practice, detachment, etc., so you might give her a break for thinking you were talking about CP in your sentence about contemplative prayer being pure. | |||
|
Yeah, you're right Phil. Jim, I didn't imagine you were talking about infused contemplation when you said: Contemplative prayer is pure, without an agenda we create. It's like saying: God's gift is pure, not created by our agenda. WEll, that's rather redundant. Goes without saying. So I didn't think you meant contemplation as the gift from God. Nobody is questioning that. So I thought you were talking about Centering Prayer or contemplative prayer as a method (as I stated and maybe you overlooked that in your reading my post). Furthermore, the sentences that precede it focus on the actions of the prayer--to be detached. This speaks to the method of prayer, not the gift of contemplation. Sorry about that! | ||||
|
When we become aware that we've received a consolation, the reason why we don't dwell on it, but instead return to the prayer word, is because we wish to remain in prayer. If we dwell on the consolation, we have the tendency to begin building on it with ideas of our own and not those from God. Also, the Lord may have more to give us, and the prayer word merely directs the focus of our intention back to Him, and not on the consolation. I don't believe in a mantra aspect of the prayer word, but that like Fr Keating, where it's used in the beginning, merely to settle down our faculties, so that our focus is on God's presence. There's a point were the prayer word isn't even being said. Detachment from thoughts isn't just a concept from CP, but taught by all the contemplatives mystics of the Church. St John of the Cross says to detach from them all, for sometimes they could be from the evil one in order to draw you away from prayer. The consolations we receive from God will have a noticeable effect in our lives, and it's not necessary to dwell on them as they come during prayer. We're always thankful to God for what he gives us. The frustration in getting involved with discussions on Centering Prayer in forums is because regardless what's posted, people who are skeptical about it will challenge whatever is said, rather than accept that this is the experience of the person doing the praying. Heck, even poor spelling is complained about. Like Fr Pennington stated in one of the links you posted, "let the prayers pray in peace." And so from here, I leave in peace. Jim | ||||
|
I'm talking about Contemplative prayer and contemplation, both being the same. If we go to prayer with an agenda of our own, it's less likely that we'll enter contemplative prayer. Jim | ||||
|
I don't see infused contemplation as anything we can "enter" into. Entering implies you can come and you can go. That's what we do in recollection. In infused contemplation, God seizes and holds the soul for as long as He wants and in spite of our agenda or prayer methods, not as a reward for any prayer method. Anyway, we're going in circles. Fare thee well. And God's peace be with you! | ||||
|
|
But you can remain in prayer by thanking the Lord for the consolation and continuing to be present to Him as you enjoy it. Treating it as a "thought" to be dismissed doesn't make sense to me as it's a gift from God and not really an obstacle to prayer or contemplation -- unless one gets un-prayerfully involved with it, or goes off on some tangent. Then, sure, that's a problem. And . . . quit resigning from this conversation! Good Lord! | |||
|
| Powered by Social Strata | Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|