Here's the review of this book I just posted to Amazon.com -- may take a day or so to show up. Some of my own approach to spirituality comes through, here, which will be of no surprise to the "regulars" here.

--------

This is a good and timely book, offering sound teaching on spiritual practice in a non-theistic, humanistic context. Readers who haven't read and studied Dr. Helminiak's previous works, especially "The Human Core of Spirituality," might wonder how he can be discussing spirituality apart from religion -- a point he addresses in several places in this work. Indeed, it seems that what we have, here, is a further elaboration on on the "Human Core" book, developing some of its implications for spiritual practice.

Basically, what is emphasized are a few practices that enable one to increasingly awaken to what in earlier works Helminiak called the non-reflecting aspect of human consciousness (as opposed to reflecting, discursive consciousness). Hence, we are encouraged to be aware, to become conscious of our consciousness, to move beyond thought, feeling, ideas, etc., to become more cosmically consciousness. Readers familiar with Eastern literature will recognize similarities between what is described here and Eastern accounts of enlightenment states, a correlation already suggested in the earlier "Human Core" book. What's most significant about that, in my view, is that he provides a non-theistic accounting for enlightenment in terms of human spirit rather than considering it an experience of the divine, or, as he would say, a theistic or theotic mystical experience. This is quite exciting, as it means that such awakenings are within the reach of all human beings who undertake the right kind of practices, including ethical living, here, which the book also emphasizes.

So how is this all different from Buddhism?

In the end, it's not too terribly different, except that it's Buddhism stripped of all sorts of excessive religious baggage. That's not a bad thing, but if you're already into Zen or Buddhist practice, you won't find anything new, here, except, perhaps, another way to understand what's going on in terms of spirit, psyche and organism.

Those who are committed to a more theistic pathway will probably find this book challenging and even provocative in places, as its emphasis on non-religious, humanistic spirituality will probably seem offensive, or certainly pointless. As one who has been committed to Christian contemplative practice for years, however, I would encourage taking the time to really consider what's being said, here. There is nothing in this book that detracts from Christian spiritual practice, as theistic and theotic spirituality simultaneously includes and transcends the approach recommended here. Furthermore, the emphasis on authenticity and clarity can only help improve any relationship, including one's relationship with God. Finally, it's enormously helpful to have clarified what aspects of the spiritual life fall within our own human powers and, hence, are our responsibility to develop to the best of our ability. An old Thomistic aphorism is that grace works in and through nature, so there's no discounting the role of supernatural grace in this approach. Such grace leads to a further transformation than what is recounted in this book, however, as Helminiak himself noted in his earlier works, especially "Spiritual Development."

One small bone I have to pick is that on page 38, the meditation technique recommended is described as "the internal repetition of a word," obviously a mantra method. What follows is an equivocation between this method, the Christian practice of centering prayer, and Transcendental Meditation. I disagree with this equivocation, as would anyone who teaches Centering Prayer, in that the latter is not simply an "internal repetition of a word" in mantra-like manner. The use of the "sacred word" in Centering Prayer is to facilitate a surrender of the will to the presence and action of God; it's an inherently relational dynamic with the Other. A mantra, on the other hand, is mostly a device to quiet the mind and open one to a deeper level of one's own awareness; it doesn't really entail an exercise of the will or require a relational context.

Another objection is the subtitle of the book, where Helminiak laments that he was not taught what this book teaches about "prayer, meditation and the quest for peace." The reason it wasn't taught in the way this book teaches it is because the Catholicism in which he was raised emphasizes more than a humanistic spirituality of the non-reflecting aspect of consciousness; it promotes theistic -- even what he would call theotic! -- spirituality. Also, it is not so difficult to find in the Catholic spiritual literature practices that facilitate inner silence, prayer, peace, and all kinds of methods of meditation. Consider, too, that some of the kind of teaching presented by Helminiak here would be inappropriate for young people, which is when so many of us were first introduced to religious teaching.

Those objections noted, I recommend this book and think it would be a real help to anyone on any kind of spiritual journey.

Here�s the direct link to the book. Phil, your review is the first one.

Phil�s review said: Finally, it's enormously helpful to have clarified what aspects of the spiritual life fall within our own human powers and, hence, are our responsibility to develop to the best of our ability. An old Thomistic aphorism is that grace works in and through nature, so there's no discounting the role of supernatural grace in this approach.

I�ve read, for years now, a number of descriptions by people of their experiences of consciousness, various mental activity, prayer, meditation, and what-not. Everybody seems to describe something different, and even considering the difficulty of the object being described, these descriptions often baffle me. I don�t intend to add to the confusion. But the general sense I get is that intention and the subject of prayer/meditatioin is very, very important. My general sense is that if one wants to get a bit of surface-level relaxation (aka �peace�) then one can do a Buddhist-like �spiritual� meditation. Nothing wrong with that. Nothing at all. And if you do enough of it you�re likely to reveal to yourself and all the world that people are, deep down, good, that compassion is the norm if we can only remove the clutter of so much other gunk. But allow me be the one to be presumed to be unabashedly arrogant by saying that there is a deeper level that can not be penetrated by such meditation and that can only be penetrated by an explicitly religious orientation toward a Creator.

But I heartily agree with these words: As one who has been committed to Christian contemplative practice for years, however, I would encourage taking the time to really consider what's being said, here. There is nothing in this book that detracts from Christian spiritual practice, as theistic and theotic spirituality simultaneously includes and transcends the approach recommended here.

I tend to think that Christians tend to �pound� a bit too heavily in their attempts at contemplation and prayer. Perhaps that is reflective of slightly fundamentalist tendencies. I don�t know. But I would think that for serious and sincere Christians it would be helpful to sort of �soften the edge� by seeing the commonality in the approaches to prayer/meditation. I�ve already sort of shown my working model which is that people are deep-down good and that peace is always at hand. That is a gift reality gives us. This, I think, is a good step to go through. Perhaps only then can the enormity hit us of the idea of actually and willingly resting in a Creator during prayer.

That's a good addendum, Brad. Thanks.

I sent the review to Helminiak, but got an auto-response that he's out for the summer (where can I sign up for a job like that? ). I'll let the forum know if I hear from him.

Thanks, Phil. Here�s an excerpt from the second review at Amazon.com:

If you are on a spiritual quest and use meditation as a way to connect with the infinite life force of the universe you will enjoy the simplicity of the message contained in Helminiak's latest work.

Whether one believes in a Star Wars like �force� or not, is fine with me. They might even be correct. But is this the kind of stuff the book is teaching, Phil? Is it primarily teaching pantheism or appealing to people with that orientation?

This comes to mind because in C.S. Lewis� book, �Mere Christianity,� (I think) he does a very thorough job of critiquing (that is, knocking the stuffings out of) the idea of pantheism. I was left with the impression regarding pantheism that a belief in it, really, is not much of a belief in anything in particular at all. It�s more of a somewhat �feel good� orientation without much substance. My apologies to sincere pantheists out there.

I saw that and wondered if she'd even read the book.

You might think of it as a philosophic psychology like Buddhism, with a meditative focus to help one awaken to the reality of their spiritual nature beyond its physical and psychological grounding.

You might think of it as a philosophic psychology like Buddhism, with a meditative focus to help one awaken to the reality of their spiritual nature beyond its physical and psychological grounding.

I see what you're saying, Phil.

Perhaps Step One is to acknowledge that our spiritual natures (at least surely our non-material natures) are hard to get a handle on�or at least it's hard for me to get a handle on. I realize that there is scripture, tradition, logic, natural philosophy, and experience that sort of come together to give one a general framework, and I'm not disputing that or discounting that. But something as ethereal and intangible as the spirit is open to all kinds of definitions and interpretations. It's real easy for this stuff to mean anything to anybody. On the other hand, we wouldn't expect everyone to have the same idea in mind regarding his or her spiritual nature either. So surely learning to be still, to be quiet, and to find the resources of the mind outside of words and thoughts is a good thing whether done inside or outside a religious context. But I think Step Two would be to understand that there is a religious context and, depending on the religion, this can make a real difference. In some instances (and I ain't namin' any names) it would probably be better to remain in Buddhist-like spirituality rather than to get involved in some fundamentalist religion or sect whose goal could hardly be called peaceful. Perhaps the subtitle of that book is a nod to that. Surely there are people who are turned off by religions (often for good reason) but who still want to nurture or explore their spiritual aspects. And particularly if they think that religions are nothing but the product of man then at least they have this style of meditation. But I submit that it is only the first step, not the destination. I don't wish to be unkind, but there's a superficiality involved with only a Buddhist-like level of meditation and I think this shows up readily enough in the child-like behaviors and attitudes that one often sees in its practitioners�even in the Dalai Lamas! Not always, for sure, but there seems to be lacking the rich depth and wisdom that one typically sees in the master practitioners of, say, Christian contemplation. One tends to speak like children (including, frankly, Deepak Chopra) while others seem to speak like seasoned adults.

So surely we might all agree that the Step One of awakening to our spiritual natures is a good thing. There is SO much evidence (from saints, Buddhas, and otherwise) that this is a good thing. But Step Two might surely be to then awaken to a Creator-based spirituality. And this is more than just semantics or a change of mantras for a Creator-based meditation is a completely different orientation. One might even say that many aspects of Buddhism point to this orientation because of its notion of non-attachment. But I don't believe attachments can exist in a vacuum. When one becomes unattached from something then one in some way, shape, or form becomes attached to something else. In Buddhism one's attachments just sort of float and probably inevitably (and this is surely one reason this philosophy turned into a religion) they will settle on something else like a billion and one precepts or attaining the badge of enlightenment. But in a Creator-based orientation there is a logical and complete shift and destination for those attachments as they sproing from attachment to worldly things to attachment of transcendent things. This is arguable the source of peace in Buddhism. One might notice how Christ-like the dispositions are of the truly enlightened ones. Did Buddha do no more than unknowingly settle in God? I'd say it's very possible for can any of us really know what we're settling into? But we do feel things and we do see results in our lives and we can be aware of where our attention and intentions lie. If one can gain vast peace through Buddhist-like meditation then more power to you. But I suspect that there's an element of self-deception involved. We want to have our cake and eat it too, so to speak. We want all the benefits of a deep religious experience without dealing with the difficulties, complexities, and responsibilities of acknowledging the very distinct possibility of a creator � particularly sometimes the basic aspects of good and evil. Things like this are bound to have consequences in the results of our meditations.

But I would still bet that an earnest and devout Christian might unlearn a lot of bad habits if he or she were to read a book like this. It's probably good to have a good feel for where the "baseline" is for such things.

Phil,

Thanks for posting this. You really address the needs of many groups of people and I truly admire that ability. I had a long response typed up about mantra and how it can be relational, but after doing more research on it, I see that you are correct in terms of what is said about it. I think that I fondly recall the stories of Swami Ramdas and Papaji who talk japa as a means of communing with Krishna--and thus I have always thought that there was a profoundly relational aspect to it. I think that this quote pretty much provides the distinctions that I needed:

"Ultimately, the mantra produces a state where the organism vibrates at the rate completely in tune with the energy and spiritual state represented by and contained within the mantra. By slowly understanding how mantras work, our understanding of the universe which is composed of energy is broadened." (from a Ramdas website)

Mantram practice is applied because of a belief in some power implicit in the word itself whereas centering prayer uses the word as vehicle to strengthen ones relationship to God...you suggest? I would guess then that mantra practice is an affirmative practive; it affirms the livingness of God within certain words, whereas centering prayer depends more on the individual will, as you say, to surrender. I can see the danger now in the mantra, if applied in a person who doesn't have faith in God. It can cover up what needs to be seen--the weakness of the individual, the necessity of effort and grace.

In terms of trancendental meditation, I've never really connected with it so I can't comment. I think you should write more articles though:-)

Yours,

Asher

Thanks, Asher.

Re. a mantra: it affirms the livingness of God within certain words . . . Maybe so, but it might also be a natural phenomenon -- how a repetitive sound affects the brain.