quote:

Originally posted by Phil:
[qb] As Teasedale is quoted above, however, and as I have read that book and we discussed it as a Heartland Center team, I will say that I found him, at times, blurring the distinctions between the different types of mystical experience. [/qb]

The most salient point in my post, from your perspective Phil, is that Rohr is very likely using the term natural contemplation in the very same way that Merton uses it. Now, Merton draws upon Maritain for many of his distinctions and, from his writings regarding East-West contemplative dialogue, there can be little doubt that he agrees with Maritain's account of natural mysticism. Merton also draws upon the early Church Fathers, and it is clear that he uses the term natural contemplation in that context, as a form of Christian mystical contemplation, which is not the same thing as Maritain's natural mysticism. This all speaks directly to Rohr's usage in the Tolle article and is a very plausible explanation for what you were otherwise considering a major gaffe or faux pas. While concerns may persist for you, it would seem to me that they would be of a somewhat different nature on a somewhat different level? Or not. That's my two cents worth.

quote:

Originally posted by Phil:
[qb] from JB: All that said, it could be that Rohr's apparent conflation of "infused" and "natural" contemplation was a typo and should have read "supernatural."

Well, I hope readers are as generous as you are in making allowances for some of the things I've written. In fact, he repeated this conflation twice, which makes the typo explanation unlikely.
[/qb]

What I was thinking, regarding a possible typo, was someone's mind being stuck in an erroneous rut, albeit temporarily.

You fail to note I provided a "more likely" explanation:

quote:

More likely, though, he is not talking about natural mysticism whatsoever when he uses the term "natural contemplation."

I'm willing to bet that Rohr will be very generous with you in your unwitting conflation of "natural contemplation" with "natural mysticism," the former mystical, the latter not.

quote:

Originally posted by w.c.:
[qb] Well, given the weight that Rohr's writing may have among Catholics seeking psychological ground for their spiritual aridities, and the tendency among recent Catholic writers (described by Arraj) that falter around this notion, I'd say the experiential distinction is crucial. For those who make the distinction, I'm not aware of it being "blown-up" into what you describe, although knowing such sources would be equally important. [/qb]

When we draw distinctions between such as infused contemplation, acquired contemplation, natural mysticism, and even the Mertonesque natural contemplation, what is not helpful, even erroneous, in my view, is any hint or suggestion that ALL of these acts are not supernatural, that ALL of these acts are not under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. The proper distinction to apply, rather, is whether or not a given prayer is mystical.

The ecclesiocentric exclusivism is alive and well at This Rock , Catholics United for the Faith and EWTN, some who view any appropriation of Eastern asceticism as not only not Holy Spirit-inspired but as "Satan's Counterfeit."

As for Rohr and Keating, I do not see them setting aside Lectio Divina but rather working to restore its contemplative character. We must ask the question as to whether or not our churches have successfully institutionalized conversion, true metanoia, as opposed to merely institutionalizing "socialization," in other words, good little "False Self"s. Of course, if you outright reject the notion of acquired contemplation, then we will argue past each other ad nauseum. Such contemplative prayer, as CP, even, is amenable even to the Carmelite tradition.

quote:

When we draw distinctions between such as infused contemplation, acquired contemplation, natural mysticism, and even the Mertonesque natural contemplation, what is not helpful, even erroneous, in my view, is any hint or suggestion that ALL of these acts are not supernatural, that ALL of these acts are not under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. The proper distinction to apply, rather, is whether or not a given prayer is mystical.

Well, JB, we'll have to agree to disagree on this one, for sure. To push this position to its ultimate implications, would one not end up concluding that all apophatic experiences are ultimately the same thing? And, to say that a prayer is "mystical" still leaves room to distinguish a supernatural mysticism from a metaphysical mysticism, no?

As Phil alludes, without these experiential distinctions, spiritual direction could end up being rather futile, or lacking discernment, as it often depends upon the director having a perspective the directee doesn't yet have, especially on subtle matters that bear upon virtue, unrecognized pride gathered through enlightening encounters, etc . . . And how would one even know that aridity was purposeful without someone else having been through that process?

From JB:

quote:

The most salient point in my post, from your perspective Phil, is that Rohr is very likely using the term natural contemplation in the very same way that Merton uses it. Now, Merton draws upon Maritain for many of his distinctions and, from his writings regarding East-West contemplative dialogue, there can be little doubt that he agrees with Maritain's account of natural mysticism. Merton also draws upon the early Church Fathers, and it is clear that he uses the term natural contemplation in that context, as a form of Christian mystical contemplation, which is not the same thing as Maritain's natural mysticism. This all speaks directly to Rohr's usage in the Tolle article and is a very plausible explanation for what you were otherwise considering a major gaffe or faux pas.

And:

quote:

I'm willing to bet that Rohr will be very generous with you in your unwitting conflation of "natural contemplation" with "natural mysticism," the former mystical, the latter not

Yes, that would make sense, JB, only one must assume a lot here, no? For one thing, I'm not familiar with the Fathers use of the term "natural contemplation." I've never run across this anywhere except as a stage of "theosis" roughly corresponding to what we now call the "Illuminative Stage,", so I can't comment on whether it means the same as what John of the Cross meant by "infused contemplation." I don't think the term "natural contemplation" has been widely used in our tradition, and one is to be excused, at any rate, if one mistakes it to mean "natural mysticism." Rohr claims that Tolle is teaching "a form of natural mysticism or contemplative practice (point #1 in the essay cited above)," so I don't think I'm misunderstanding anything. What he's saying is (I quote him):
a. "Eckhart Tolle is teaching 'natural mysticism' or contemplative practice.'"
b. "Tolle is, rather brilliantly, bringing to our awareness the older tradition of both 'infused' or 'natural' contemplation, in the first two senses of Underhill's listing." (1. Mystical Contemplation of the Natural World; 2. Metaphysical Contemplation of the world of Being and Consciousness).

Now if one want to read in all this that Rohr is intending "natural contemplation" in Mertons' sense of the term -- which is something akin to "infused contemplation" a la John of the Cross -- that's fine with me, but I don't think that holds up at all considering the two points above. Either he's saying that Tolle is teaching what Merton intends by "natural contemplation" (a dubious point, as he references Underhill's points 1 and 2 with regard to Tolle), or he's misusing the term "infused contemplation." My point is that he's doing the latter. If you think he means by "natural contemplation" what Merton means, then you must also conclude that Rohr is holding out Tolle as one who teaches that sort of mysticism. But that's not what Rohr is saying; quite the opposite. So it turns out that Rohr is, in fact, using "natural contemplation" in the sense of Maritain's "natural mysticism."

That's all been clear since I brought this matter up in the Tolle discussion, then again in the nonduality one. What baffles me is your bending over backwards and tying yourself in knots to extricate Rohr from what might be nothing more than a misunderstanding of what we mean by "infused contemplation" in our tradition. Clearly, he's on to the essential distinctions, as indicated by his manner of referencing Underhill's three types of mysticism. I see that. Yet I wonder about someone writing now on contemplative issues who seems ignorant of how the terminology is used in our Tradition.

I hope we can let the Tolle-essay/Rohr-terminology issue go and move on. Of course, if he perpetuates this confusion in his new book, that would be unfortunate. I'll just have to wait and see when I read it.

quote:

Originally posted by Phil:
[qb] What baffles me is your bending over backwards and tying yourself in knots to extricate Rohr from what might be nothing more than a misunderstanding of what we mean by "infused contemplation" in our tradition. [/qb]

1) Rohr relies heavily on Merton.

2) Merton used the term natural contemplation.

3) This is how Merton used the term: natural contemplation

4) Rohr used the term natural contemplation.

5) Maybe Rohr used it the same way.

Where's the knots?

pax!
jb

quote:

Originally posted by Phil:
[qb] I don't think the term "natural contemplation" has been widely used in our tradition, and one is to be excused, at any rate, if one mistakes it to mean "natural mysticism." [/qb]

Yes, of course. Merton also relied heavily on Maritain and would have, at times, likely employed both "natural contemplation" and "natural mysticism" using, also, Maritain's categories (and not, in some instances, those of the early church fathers). That's how I interpreted Merton, at appropriate times, myself. Hence, it is plausible that, again, Rohr relying on Merton, Rohr may very well have been speaking of natural mysticism, as you suggest.

JB, I give up. If you're going to dialogue based on "hypotethicals" about what Rohr said and intended, then it's pointless to continue. In my post above, I delineated how I see Rohr qualifying his statements and meanings, and I have nothing really to add.

If this is how it goes in discussing a short essay by Rohr (due in no small part to his confusing use of terminology), I wonder how it will go with his book, which is sure to have controversial statements and sections.

quote:

Originally posted by Phil:
[qb] Now if one want to read in all this that Rohr is intending "natural contemplation" in Mertons' sense of the term -- which is something akin to "infused contemplation" a la John of the Cross -- that's fine with me, but I don't think that holds up at all considering the two points above. Either he's saying that Tolle is teaching what Merton intends by "natural contemplation" (a dubious point, as he references Underhill's points 1 and 2 with regard to Tolle), or he's misusing the term "infused contemplation." My point is that he's doing the latter. If you think he means by "natural contemplation" what Merton means, then you must also conclude that Rohr is holding out Tolle as one who teaches that sort of mysticism. But that's not what Rohr is saying; quite the opposite. So it turns out that Rohr is, in fact, using "natural contemplation" in the sense of Maritain's "natural mysticism."[/qb]

I do see what you are saying here, Phil. That was my first reading, trying to apply syllogistic logic to these categories. And, when I did, I remained confounded and explored other categories from other approaches.

And, honestly, I remain confused such as with Underhill's categories and how they map vis a vis Merton, Maritain et al; which is apophatic, which kataphatic; which relational & devotional & theistic, which impersonal; which theistic, which nontheistic; and so on.

And these distinctions may be quite beside the point, of course, in that Rohr emphasizes that Tolle is teaching process and not doctrine, in that Tolle is merely bringing aspects of our tradition to our awareness and not teaching us anything explicitly and robustly about those parts of our tradition. We are dealing, then, with ascetical disciplines, practices, methods and technologies as abstracted from any interpretive paradigm.

So, I wasn't thinking (and no one else need necessarily think) that Rohr was holding out Tolle as one who teaches the sort of mysticism that Merton refers to as natural contemplation, or what was attributed to Underhill either vis a vis mystical contemplation of the natural world or metaphysical contemplation of the world of being and consciousness, or whatever Rohr intended by infused contemplation.

In fact, Rohr explicitly states that Tolle is not teaching Christian contemplative prayer or Christian prayer at all. Tolle's just bringing all that to our awareness by teaching a form of natural mysticism or contemplative practice.

Tolle's contemplative practices are the object of ascetical theology and not mystical theology and is concerned with the level of morality and virtue.

BUT I can see how my above-described interpretation could be all wrong and yours could be the correct one.

I was just giving you some insight into where my thoughts were trending.

When I see the word "mystical," my default interpretation is to contrast that with ascetical. I think in terms of infused and passive contemplation. So, what happened, at one point (and there were MANY points of departure as my Enneagram 5 brain hopped out of one system or set of categories to another to try out alternate interpretations), was that I saw Underhill's first category and infused contemplation and Merton's natural contemplation pretty much in terms of distinctions without differences.

Even the word contemplation vs "contemplative" throws me off in the same vein, my default interpretation being that the former is mystical, while the latter may or may not be. So, my read was that, through natural mysticism a la Maritain, Tolle was gifting us with practice that ONLY brought to mind, ONLY brought to our awareness, our own, fuller realizations from our own mystical tradition.

This was all further reinforced, in my mind, by the desert fathers' distinction between natural and theological contemplation, both considered mystical. It certainly made more sense to me than imagining that Rohr was saying that Tolle was teaching us infused contemplation. However, I do not a priori rule out that some of the contemplation of the natural world in the East might not have been mystical, even in our classical sense, even if not robustly theological. Who am I to circumscribe the Holy Spirit since, as Underhill always taught and Wm. Johnston reinforced, we are dealing here with a practical matter, with a science, and the matter and science is Love, not doctrine.

YOUR read (???) was that Tolle was teaching us natural mysticism and natural contemplation and Underhill's first two categories (considered neither mystical nor contemplation in our classical sense) as well as infused contemplation (as per Rohr), while wondering how that could possibly be so. That was my first read. Can hardly blame me for backing off of it?

So, I offer this in no polemical vein but only to elucidate my own musings and meanderings, which look like knots, perhaps, to outsiders, especially those who are J types, when encountering my peripatetic P sensibilities. I offer this because, apparently Phil, you could not fathom what I was doing or where I was coming from. I may have to content myself with understanding and not being understood, the occupational hazard of Enneagram 5 - INTPs and a charism of those with Franciscan sensibilities, to which I like to lay claim.

So, thanks for that latest clarification, which your J-ness settled on earlier in that Tolle thread, which I did not indulge. I had only read the radicalgrace site piece, which my P-ness will have to leave alone.

pax, all
jb

quote:

Originally posted by Phil:
[qb] JB, I give up. If you're going to dialogue based on "hypotethicals" about what Rohr said and intended, then it's pointless to continue. In my post above, I delineated how I see Rohr qualifying his statements and meanings, and I have nothing really to add.[/qb]

Phil, we cross-posted. I was busy explaining how I see what you were saying. And in a very irenic fashion. If after reading my post, it is okay if you still want to label my interpretation as hypothetical and yours as necessary truth but I hope you'll give me a pass for not being totally impertinent or wildly extravagant in how I read Rohr's piece according to strict grammatical construction, also, without the benefit of a glossary and imputing perfectly valid (and more or less probable) definitions to terms, based on an informed perspective re: Rohr's hermeneutic and body of work, which contextualizes this essay (like it contextualized his 3rdEye Cds, for example, lending proper interpretations of same even in anticipation). I believe my points are perfectly valid and not tortuous. I appreciate that they are seldom transparent. Besides, why would Rohr write this: Tolle is, in fact, rather brilliantly bringing to our awareness the older tradition of both �infused� or �natural contemplation," if he meant, instead, this: Tolle is, in fact, rather brilliantly bringing to our awareness the older tradition of both �infused� or �natural mysticism."?

quote:

Originally posted by johnboy:
[qb] Besides, why would Rohr write this: Tolle is, in fact, rather brilliantly bringing to our awareness the older tradition of both �infused� or �natural contemplation," if he meant, instead, this: Tolle is, in fact, rather brilliantly bringing to our awareness the older tradition of both �infused� or �natural mysticism."? [/qb]

Furthermore, when speaking of natural contemplation, Rohr, in the VERY SAME SENTENCE, invokes Orthodoxy:

quote:

The mystical tradition inside of Orthodoxy and Catholicism often divided contemplation into two types: infused or natural contemplation.

Does that not further bolster the interpretation that he is relying on the early church fathers:
Rohr drawing on Merton drawing on Maximus (who called himself the Greek) drawing on Pseudo-Dionysius and Evagrius re: natural contemplation?

You said you recognized the term from theosis. Indeed, Evagrius considers these as developmental stages. I recall this from my earlier consideration of hesychasm on my nonduality thread.

Maximus has been interpreted as seeing these stages as moreso parallel, regarding the practical and contemplative life as essentially together. (Reminds one of the Rohr approach to Action and Contemplation?) Maximus interprets Luke 22:8 as Peter representing the ascetic or practical path and John the contemplative path when preparing the Last Supper, noting that both are necessary; both stand essentially together. The theoria physike, or natural contemplation, is mystical, as Shannon makes clear. Merton, as we all know, was immersed in the desert fathers and Greek patristic thought. His teachings on natural contemplation, in particular, are drawn from lecture notes regarding Maximus.

No need to invoke a Merton-hypothesis, as you call it. The pointer is right there in the text in the same sentence.

Sorry to jump in between you two here, but there is simply nothing "natural" about "infused" contemplation, JB. I know you're struggling with the digression of terms and their histories and usage between sources, but when it comes right down to it, why would Rohr speak of infused as natural? There's nothing "infused" about any of Tolle's own descpriptions, at least not in his book "The Power of Now." For Tolle, consciousness and God are the same, whereas within the Christian traditions which Rohr is most familiar consciousness cannot in anyway procure the infused contemplative state through its own powers. It seems unlikely Rohr would have said "or" rather than "and" unless he meant Tolle's experience included the infused state and that our own traditions have made a distinction that to him is somehow untenable.

From JB: I do see what you are saying here, Phil. That was my first reading, trying to apply syllogistic logic to these categories. And, when I did, I remained confounded and explored other categories from other approaches.

And, honestly, I remain confused such as with Underhill's categories and how they map vis a vis Merton, Maritain et al; which is apophatic, which kataphatic; which relational & devotional & theistic, which impersonal; which theistic, which nontheistic; and so on.

We are in agreement on this part. Considering that we are both well-read on this subject and we find it confusing, what is the casual reader on spiritual matters to make of it? Everyone is supposed to know what Underhill means by "natural mysticism," and how this is like or different from what he's just mentioned as "natural contemplation?"

And these distinctions may be quite beside the point, of course, in that Rohr emphasizes that Tolle is teaching process and not doctrine, in that Tolle is merely bringing aspects of our tradition to our awareness and not teaching us anything explicitly and robustly about those parts of our tradition. We are dealing, then, with ascetical disciplines, practices, methods and technologies as abstracted from any interpretive paradigm.

Well, yes and no, for Rohr says:

quote:

Tolle is, in fact, rather brilliantly bringing to our awareness the older tradition
of both �infused� or �natural contemplation,� and the two first types in Underhill�s
listing.

So what's Rohr really saying? That Tolle is teaching something akin to the early Fathers'/Merton's notion of "natural contemplation" which is like from what Underhill describes as "mystical contemplation of the natural world" and "metaphysical mysticism." That's what I hear. Then when you keep insisting that Rohr intends by "natural contemplation" what Merton means, then one can only conclude that you mean to say that Rohr sees Tolle teaching a kind of Christian mysticism a la the early Fathers and their understanding of theosis and its stages. (Whew! )

Rohr goes on:

quote:

These are both the ground and the process for breaking through to theological contemplation of God, and acquired contemplation of Jesus, the Gospels, and all
spiritual things.

What does "both" refer to? Underhill's first two points, I guess. And so now Rohr is saying that metaphysical mysticism and contemplation of the natural world are foundational for "breaking through" to "theological contemplation of God," which is somehow related to "contemplation of Jesus, the Gospels, and all spiritual things"? Not to mention his problematic usage of "acquired contemplation," here, I don't believe that Underhill's first two types of mysticism are foundational for what she means by "Theological Contemplation of the World of God" (infused contemplation a la John of the Cross, as I've understood her). That's not even true. One will find countless Christian mystics who didn't move from Underhill's first two types to "Theological Contemplation." One doesn't have to be established in "metaphysical mysticism" before experiencing "Theological Contemplation." Then there's the term "breaking through" which is an Eastern idea referring to enlightenment states rather than a Christian understanding of infusion by grace, the response to which is "receptivity". Do you (and others) see the problems, here?

Later, in his summary, Rohr writes:

quote:

1) Eckhart Tolle is teaching a form of natural mysticism or contemplative
practice.

That should have, for once and for all, removed any doubt about Rohr referencing Merton for his understanding of "natural contemplation." He was not. Why? Because Rohr has already stated that Tolle is, in fact, rather brilliantly bringing to our awareness the older tradition of both �infused� or �natural contemplation� and so now, in stating that Tolle is teaching "natural mysticism" we know more about what Rohr means by "natural contemplation" or "infused." He means "natural mysticism." Of course, one still wonders what Rohr means by that. Maritain's sense of the term? Or maybe it does have some connection with Merton's "natural contemplation," but that would then mean that, for Rohr, what the early Fathers were teaching was also "natural mysticism," which would be absurd! Besides, Rohr has just told us that 2) He is not teaching Christian contemplative prayer or Christian prayer at all. Curiously, then, Rohr drops the phrase "or contemplative practice" as though to further qualify what he means by "natural mysticism." I take it to mean, here, the kinds of practices that Tolle writes about; this is what "contemplative practice" means to Rohr, I guess.

I have other criticisms of Rohr's essay but have focused only on the snafu about natural contemplation/mysticism we've been wrestling with. I'll read the rest of your posts later, but have appointments to get to for now. I think it ought to be clear that the Rohr piece we've been reflecting on is confusing on several points. His basic message -- "hey y'all, I think Eckhart Tolle' is an OK guy so don't let the fundies scare you away -- comes through loud and clear, however. But, my goodness, he makes a muddle out of his explanation.

quote:

Originally posted by Phil:
[qb] From JB:
And these distinctions may be quite beside the point, of course, in that Rohr emphasizes that Tolle is teaching process and not doctrine, in that Tolle is merely bringing aspects of our tradition to our awareness and not teaching us anything explicitly and robustly about those parts of our tradition. We are dealing, then, with ascetical disciplines, practices, methods and technologies as abstracted from any interpretive paradigm.

Well, yes and no, for Rohr says:

quote:

Tolle is, in fact, rather brilliantly bringing to our awareness the older tradition
of both �infused� or �natural contemplation,� and the two first types in Underhill�s
listing.

So what's Rohr really saying? That Tolle is teaching ... [/qb]

One inference, as I described it above, was that Tolle's teachings on awareness, broadly conceived, bring to mind our own traditions, which share that particular aspect. But bringing those things to mind and enlivening our memories of our own traditions is not wholly the same thing as the teaching of our tradition. That is what I meant by Tolle is merely bringing aspects of our tradition to our awareness and not teaching us anything explicitly and robustly about those parts of our tradition.

So, this above-described inference regarding what Rohr was saying is quite different from the one you describe above, which is that "Tolle is teaching." This is, then, a different inference. In the first, Tolle is not teaching our tradition. In the next he is.

And I find this second inference compelling, too.

I went and re-read Underhill, just a tad. And I think it is fair to say that her first two categories do not describe anything distinctly mystical, as in our classical sanjuanist usage, or what might be considered contemplation per se, again, as in our classical sanjuanist usage (not that my categories are constrained by the sanjuanist approach, but they are certainly heavily informed by it).

I am still inclined toward understanding Rohr's usage of natural contemplation as being consistent with the Orthodox tradition, the desert fathers, the Greek patristics and so, as they come down via Maximus and through Merton. And I also see his usage of natural mysticism as consistent with Maritain's, again via Merton to Rohr, (via Arraj to us.)

As I have revisted this, what we would have in such a schema are the following categories. And I know they don't map perfectly over any scheme, Maritain, sanjuanist, Cistercian, Benedictine, etc

1) Underhill's Mystical Contemplation of the Natural World (not infused)
2) Underhill's Metaphysical Contemplation of the World of Being and Consciousness (not infused)
3) Natural Contemplation of Evagrius & Maximus, or the Theoria Physike, which may variously be mystical (infused) or not, depending on circumstances and persons
4) Theologike or Theologia of Evagrius & Maximus, which corresponds to Underhill's Theological Contemplation of the World of God, broadly conceived to include both acquired and infused, kataphatic and apophatic

In this sense, Tolle may very well be bringing to mind and, as our second inference suggests, also teaching some aspects of our own tradition (the first three listed above or natural mysticism, broadly conceived), which we would consider to be the ascetical and not the mystical dimension of our tradition. To wit:

quote:

Tolle is, in fact, rather brilliantly bringing to our awareness the older tradition
of both �infused� or �natural contemplation,� and the two first types in Underhill�s
listing. These are both the ground and the process for breaking through to theological
contemplation of God, and acquired contemplation of Jesus, the Gospels, and all
spiritual things.

This is but one more interpretation. The inferences are rather straightforward.

pax!
jb

quote:

Originally posted by Phil:
[qb] I have other criticisms of Rohr's essay but have focused only on the snafu about natural contemplation/mysticism we've been wrestling with. I'll read the rest of your posts later, but have appointments to get to for now. [/qb]

I'll be out-of-pocket, out-of-state. On my way out the door. Thanks for hanging in with me on these various interpretations and clarifications. It's an entertaining and informative exercise to me. But I have a lot more discretionary time than many others, so please do not feel compelled to reply to everything in general or anything in particular. Also, my temperament (INTP/5) resists moving to closure by nature, which is alternately a strength and a weakness. Thanks for thus abiding with my contradictions.

pax, all
jb

quote:

Originally posted by w.c.:
[qb] Sorry to jump in between you two here, but there is simply nothing "natural" about "infused" contemplation, JB. I know you're struggling with the digression of terms and their histories and usage between sources, but when it comes right down to it, why would Rohr speak of infused as natural? There's nothing "infused" about any of Tolle's own descpriptions, at least not in his book "The Power of Now." For Tolle, consciousness and God are the same, whereas within the Christian traditions which Rohr is most familiar consciousness cannot in anyway procure the infused contemplative state through its own powers. It seems unlikely Rohr would have said "or" rather than "and" unless he meant Tolle's experience included the infused state and that our own traditions have made a distinction that to him is somehow untenable. [/qb]

w.c., almost missed you. I'll get to you later but maybe my last post will clarify. I do think that the natural contemplation as explicated by the Merton biographer, Shannon, and as conceived by the early church fathers, can be experienced mystically, for one properly prepared and disposed. And I'm not inclined to restrict such, necessarily, to my own tradition. As I make clear though, Tolle is dealing with ascetical and not mystical dimensions. But I would qualify that and say, for the most part. Anyone can come to the threshold of mystical contemplation if properly disposed through love. Keep in mind the distinction, too, between what we call nature mysticism, which I think can be mystical or not, and natural mysticism, which is sometimes not even kataphatic and not always dealing with the the natural world writ large as its object but metaphysical intuitions regarding such as being or consciousness, itself. iow natural in n contemplation refers to object of same while in n mysticism it refers to origin of same. edit done on road with phone gadget.
pax,

jb

quote:

Originally posted by w.c.:
[qb] It seems unlikely Rohr would have said "or" rather than "and" unless he meant Tolle's experience included the infused state and that our own traditions have made a distinction that to him is somehow untenable. [/qb]

Hi w.c., I didn't forget about you.

I see what you are saying. And that sounds very right-headed, too. It prompted this reflection. So, yes, Tolle's experience would indeed include an "infused state" as the strict grammatical construction you reference would suggest. I don't think he is saying it necessarily includes THE infused state as per classical sanjuanist formative spirituality, for example, but neither would it rule that out, for any given individual. He is employing "infused" in a more generic sense following transcendental thomism, for which ALL experience of God, all contemplation of God, is considered infused. And I'm quite certain he is not a priori ruling out the possibility that Tolle or any other nonChristian experienced same in a "high degree."

To wit:

quote:

For Karl Rahner, all experience of God
is the expression of faith and love, all of it is
rightly called mystical, and all knowledge and
love of God are infused. Not only prayer
experiences, but even the mundane
experiences of average Christians which are
products of faith are movements of the Holy
Spirit and constitute �ordinary mysticism� or
the �mysticism of everyday life.� In Rahner�s
view, what has been designated as infused
contemplation in the tradition is a high degree
of the same one basic experience of loving
faith. The classical mystical experience of the saints remains �extraordinary,� not because of
its principles, but because of its perfection and
rarity. Theologically, the experience of God
in meditation, in human activity, or in
classical infused contemplation are all the
same one gift of God working within us, the
same one reality different not in kind but in
degree. Ernest E. Larkin, O.Carm

So, I would not say our traditions have made a distinction that to him is somehow untenable, only that he'd certainly recognize that some do not agree with Rahner and him regarding the experience of God by those who do not believe in God intellectually. Rohr's use of infused contemplation is not really idiosyncratic. It is just not the narrowly conceived sanjuanist-type definition of formative spirituality but the more broadly conceived (and more widely received) transcendental thomist, Rahnerian type.

Thanks for your point, w.c.

pax!
jb

quote:

Originally posted by johnboy:
[qb]. . . Rohr's use of infused contemplation is not really idiosyncratic. It is just not the narrowly conceived sanjuanist-type definition of formative spirituality but the more broadly conceived (and more widely received) transcendental thomist, Rahnerian type.
[/qb]

In terms of what's actually going on in relation to God and the soul, I think the quote by Rahner puts things very well. John of the Cross was making more experiential distinctions, however, especially in contrasting the Night of the Sense leading to contemplation vs. the Night of the Sense in a more general sense. John's understanding of "infused contemplation" implies a "special grace" that is given to some, but not all -- "why, only He knows," as John put it. Rahner seems to be acknowledging the same with his reference to a "high degree" of loving faith, only he has no term to use for this since all experiences of God/grace are "infused". I wonder how he'd describe this? "Intense infusion?" A special gift of faith?

Part of what I see going on, here, is that Rahner is using "infused" more in a theological sense (experiences of God as "graced") and John is using it to indicate a special grace and even calling. In Christian mystical theology, John's use of the term has been normative during the past 400 years, which doesn't mean that others can't use it in a wider sense -- only that it creates confusion when they do given its general connotation. It really does seem to be used primarily in the sanjuanist sense.

Btw, I've searched Amazon for Rohr's book but can't find it there. It's not in our Catholic bookstore either. Where'd you get it, JB?

-----

JB, as you've read the book, have you listened to these podcasts by Rohr? I'll give them a hearing in the meantime.

Phil,

I originally saw Rohr's book somewhere at www.contemplative-life.org but now I can't seem to find it, nor can I find anything about it at his web site.

Katy

quote:

Originally posted by Katy:
[qb]I originally saw Rohr's book somewhere at www.contemplative-life.org but now I can't seem to find it, nor can I find anything about it at his web site.[/qb]

You're right. It seems to have disappeared. I did find a copy of the product detail page in Google's cache. While the description says it's a book, the headings says it's a set of 4 audio CDs. Curiouser and curiouser. Derek.

quote:

Originally posted by Phil:
[qb]have you listened to these podcasts by Rohr? I'll give them a hearing in the meantime.[/qb]

I've just listened to Episode 1. I enjoyed it, though I could have done without the phone-in quality of the sound. In his answers, Fr. Rohr suggests that The Third Eye will be something of a sequel to his best selling book so far, Everything Belongs. I notice also that he pays tribute to the importance of Thomas Merton in re-popularizing contemplation. In the last 2 minutes of the podcast he also praises Eckhart (Tolle, not Meister), describing him as a "genius." Derek.

Episode 2. At 12'20" Fr. Rohr explains what he means by "dualistic" thinking: "All or nothing thinking; oppositional thinking; needing to prove that you're right and the Pope is wrong."

Episode 3. He describes an exercise of looking at an object without adding discursive thought to the experience. After some minutes, he says, you arrive at a sense of spaciousness and contentedness. In Fr. Rohr's terminology, "that is the beginnings of non-dual consciousness."

quote:

Originally posted by Derek:
[qb] Episode 3. He describes an exercise of looking at an object without adding discursive thought to the experience. After some minutes, he says, you arrive at a sense of spaciousness and contentedness. In Fr. Rohr's terminology, "that is the beginnings of non-dual consciousness." [/qb]

Right, Derek. I'd agree that that's the kind of experience Easterners are referring to as "non-dual consciousness," and I think this is nothing more than our own human non-reflective awareness. I'm also OK calling that "natural mysticism," especially in the sense of Maritain and Jim Arraj. I think that's all precisely what Tolle's teaching is about, along with his incisive understanding of how our brokenness/false self makes it difficult to silence discursive thought. All of this is usually addressed in some manner by teachers of Christian mysticism, but they are also attending to something More than their own attending and the the unitive sense that comes with simple awareness. Their Christian faith enables them to also be receptive to an-Other, and to be alert to inner movements of love, even though these might be obscure and clothed in silence. That's what we've meant by "contemplation" in our Tradition, as we've noted so many times on this Board.