The 'Cloud of Unknowing' and 'centering prayer'

[J. A. McIntyre]

Just wondering if anyone has read the Cloud of Unknowing and if it was considered Orthodox? Is Father Thomas Keating's teachings on prayer considered Orthodox?

Thank you.

[Elzabet]

I've read parts of Cloud of Unknowing. It's also recommended by Mother Gavrilia in the biography of the same name. I do not know if it is Orthodox though. I had always thought it was Roman Catholic.

[J. A. McIntyre]

Found this after some digging:

Archimandrite Sophrony of Mount Athos, "In advising against being carried away by artificial practices such as Transcendental Meditation I am but repeating the age-old message of the Church. . . . The way of the Fathers requires firm faith and long patience, whereas our contemporaries want to seize every spiritual gift, including even direct contemplation of the Absolute God, by force and speedily, and will often draw a parallel between prayer in the Name of Jesus and yoga or Transcendental Meditation and the like. I must stress the danger of such errors. . . . He is deluded who endeavors to divest himself mentally of all that is transitory and relative in order to cross some invisible threshold, to realize his eternal origin, his identity with the Source of all that exists, in order to return and merge with him, the nameless transpersonal Absolute. Such exercises have enabled many to rise to suprarational contemplation of being, to experience a certain mystical trepidation, to know the state of silence of mind, when mind goes beyond the boundaries of time and space. In such like states man may feel the peacefulness of being withdrawn from the continually changing phenomena of the visible world, may even have a certain experience of eternity. But the God of Truth, the Living God, is not in all this.

"It is man’s own beauty, created in the image of God, that is contemplated and seen as divinity, whereas he himself still continues within the confines of his creatureliness. This is a vastly important concern. The tragedy of the matter lies in the fact that man sees a mirage which, in his longing for eternal life, he mistakes for a genuine oasis. This impersonal form of ascetics leads finally to an assertion of the divine principle in the very nature of man. Man is then drawn to the idea of self-deification—the cause of the original Fall. The man who is blinded by the imaginary majesty of what he contemplates has in fact set his foot on the path to self-destruction. He has discarded the revelation of a personal God. . . . The movement into the depths of his own being is nothing else but attraction towards the non-being from which we were called by the will of the Creator" (His Life is Mine, 115–116).

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1997/9711fea1.asp

[Owen Jones]

Thomas Keating got way off track, not only with a bastardized version of "Eastern" meditation techniques, but even with EST. For example: you tell the novice to fall backwards without any attempt to brake his fall. He has to trust that there is somewhere who is there to catch him before he hits the deck, and trust that he will indeed do so! This technique is supposed to manufacture a spiritual experience of surrender to God. The question of whether this is Orthodox or not begs the question: is it even real or is it phony?

We cannot manufacture spiritual reality. We cannot manipulate people into a state of spiritual obedience and tranquility.

The Cloud of Unknowing is a different issue. In the Latin West you have certain diversions and distinctions that do not occur in Orthodoxy. For instance, there becomes a class of person called a mystic and a class of theology called mystical theology. This of course is a false path. In Orthodoxy, there are no such distinctions. In the LAtin West you have different types of monastic communities devoted to different things. In Orthodoxy, there is only one monastic order. Praise God!

It has been a long time since I read Cloud but the important thing to look for in any "esoteric" text: is it just esoterica, or is it grounded in obedience to the commandments and the practical pursuit of virtue?

[Peter Farrington]

Hi Owen

What about the very famous book 'Mystical Theology' by Lossky then?

Best wishes

Peter

[Scott Pierson]

I believe Lossky is stating that the "mystical" is something that permeates every aspect of the Church and its practice and is not a separate category in and of itself that can be detached from the liturgy, sacraments*, etc, and that is only available for the really advanced "mystics" who have a unique calling to go beyond the "merely exoteric" practices of the Church.

*In the Orthodox view our whole theology is informed by divine gnosis and contemplation or “mysticism” even the aspects that would not normally be associated with that in the west. In the west there are doctrines arived at through merely human rationalization and logic (scholastic theology for example) and mysticism is often thought of as something outside that general trend that only certain people are called too.

At least thats what I get out of the book I read it a long time ago though I may be wrong. I'll look through it again and maybe post a few excerpts on the topic.

[M.C. Steenberg]

It would be interesting to do a word study on the terms 'mysticism', 'mystery' and 'mystical' as they are encountered in the early patristic corpus. Should anyone have the time and the materials to hand to do so, I'm sure many of us would appreciate the findings.

INXC, Matthew

[John Charmley]

It would be interesting to do a word study on the terms 'mysticism', 'mystery' and 'mystical' as they are encountered in the early patristic corpus. Should anyone have the time and the materials to hand to do so, I'm sure many of us would appreciate the findings.

INXC, Matthew

Dear Matthew,

One for a good undergraduate dissertation, at least.

I have run the word 'mysticism' through my on line edition of the Nicene and post-Nicene Fathers, and I get 472 references from 44 documents. When I exlude Schaff's History of the Church, I still get 400 references. The earliest of the Fathers cited is Theophilius, who uses the word 29 times. The first reference my search throws up is from Chapter 26 of his letter to Autolycus:


GOD’S GOODNESS IN EXPELLING MAN FROM PARADISE
And God showed great kindness to man in this, that He did not suffer him
to remain in sin for ever; but, as it were, by a kind of banishment, cast him
out of Paradise, in order that, having by punishment expiated, within an
appointed time, the sin, and having been disciplined, he should afterwards
be restored. Wherefore also, when man had been formed in this world, it is
mystically written in Genesis, as if he had been twice placed in Paradise;
so that the one was fulfilled when he was placed there, and the second will
be fulfilled after the resurrection and judgment. For just as a vessel, when
on being fashioned it has some flaw, is remolded or remade, that it may
become new and entire; so also it happens to man by death. For somehow
or other he is broken up, that he may rise in the resurrection whole; I mean
spotless, and righteous, and immortal. And as to God’s calling, and saying,
Where art thou, Adam? God did this, not as if ignorant of this; but, being
long-suffering, He gave him an opportunity of repentance and confession.


The vast majority of the uses of the word 'mystical' or 'mystically' come from Origen and Augustine, which in view of our discussion elsewhere on Original Sin, is not altogether surprising.

Needless(?) to say, adacemics, historians and theologians, use the words far more often than most of the Fathers.

It's an odd way to spend my lunch hour, and, of course, reveals more about my limitations in using the 'search' facility on the on-line edition of the Fathers, but I thought as a provisional finding, it might be worth posting.

INXC

John

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

I have run the word 'mysticism' through my on line edition of the Nicene and post-Nicene Fathers, and I get 472 references from 44 documents. When I exlude Schaff's History of the Church, I still get 400 references. The earliest of the Fathers cited is Theophilius, who uses the word 29 times.

Yes, the word is used very freely and often by the fathers- except interestingly enough- up until recent centuries. Now it is coming back into common usage again I think.

What's striking about the use of the word (as in John's quote above) is that it is very rarely qualified so as to give us a clear idea of what the word actually meant.

'Mystical' is used in many different ways within the Church. But I think its basic sense is how everything within the Church refers to and is fulfilled in the Divine and the divine life. Everything is iconic & sacramental at the same time.

What is 'mystical' in the Church is descriptive of an ecclesiological way of seeing and living; of how things become and find their life within the Church; of a life placed and found only at the centre of the Church and its way of seeing. It is a way of life lived in constant reference to the Divine.

Although it can be recognized and lived, what is 'mystical' defies definition in a modern sense, because in this new world which the Church foreshadows no thing or person refers only to itself or themselves any longer. What is 'Mystical' is a transfigured reality which is lived and recognized only in reference to everything else. And this is found only within the Mystical life of the Holy Trinity.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Todd G]

Owen,

I don't know if I agree with all you are saying about Keating here. I have heard a number of his lectures on video and have not run across the characterization you are making at all. I am not saying his techniques are orthodox, but he has spent about five decades as a Trappist monk and what he has said in the 20-40 hours of talks in the DVD series a friend of mine has is wide ranging and seems well grounded in the Western monastic tradition. It's not "mantra" he is using. and he has alot to say about the development of character and virtue which must accompany the pursuit of prayer. But as I say, I am still trying to work out whether what I think he is doing is Orthodox in any way, but I need to hear from people informed on the wide scope of all Keating said before I grant others a hearing, no offense.

The Cloud of Unknowing is supposedly based in Christian Neo-Platonism and Ps. Denys. The technique Keating is teaching clearly comes out of the Cloud and is not a new age, Yoga amalgamation. The question though is to what extent does the Cloud really transmit authentic Christian Neo-Platonism and have links to other parts of , or the mainstream of, the eastern monastic tradition.

this is a pretty old thread. Not sure if any of this will get read and responded to. But hope so. Peace to all.

[Anna Stickles]

I was into the Centering Prayer movement for a short time before coming into Orthodoxy. Cynthia Bourgeaulf, a teacher of centering prayer who has studied many different meditation and prayer traditions, in her book Centering Prayer and Inner Awakening mentions the difference between centering prayer and the practice of the Desert Fathers - that the latter are striving for attention and tension (sorry I don't remember exactly how she worded it) but that centering prayer follows more the East Asian practices of relaxation and disengagement. She specifically rejects the practice of the Desert Fathers and instead concentrates on borrowing from the East Asian practices and I think she also has some comments on Quietism (Quakers) in there, as this too follows the same general practice as centering prayer and the East Asian practices.

This matches exactly with what I have just been reading in Enlargement of the Heart by Arch Zacharius. He too mentions that East Asian practices teach a certain type of relaxation and disengagement while Orthodox practices teach tension and striving toward God. (pg 120)

The following quote I think sums up the difference both in practice, theology and fruit.
"They say that Buddha had compassion and felt pity for human suffering, and with beautiful words taught both the possibility and the manner by which man may detach himself from sufferings and remain calm.

However, the Only-Begotten Son of God, Christ, through His Passion, Cross, and Resurrection, voluntarily and without sin, took pain upon Himself and transformed it into a means of expressing His perfect love.

With this love He healed His creature from the great wound caused by the sin of our forefather and made him into a new creation. This is why pain is so precious in the practice of the prayer, and its presence is a sign that the ascetic is not far from the true and holy Way. Without experiencing pain, the Christian cannot know the depths of being, and remains a stranger to the love tha conquers sin and death." Enlargement of the Heart, p. 147

The quote above in post #3 is good too.


Such exercises have enabled many to rise to suprarational contemplation of being, to experience a certain mystical trepidation, to know the state of silence of mind, when mind goes beyond the boundaries of time and space. In such like states man may feel the peacefulness of being withdrawn from the continually changing phenomena of the visible world, may even have a certain experience of eternity.But the God of Truth, the Living God, is not in all this.

Here again we notice that the goal/fruit of these Asian practices is to escape from suffering, to disengage from the pain of this fallen world. And yet over and over in the teachings of the Church on the inner life we see that the ascetic is called, like Christ, to bear in some small portion the pain of this fallen world. The goal is not escape from suffering, but it is understood that by enduring suffering in Christ one participates in His work of the Resurrection from the dead.

[Jan Sunqvist]

Thank you Anna for the quote from Arch Zacharius.

Especially, 'This is why pain is so precious in the practice of the prayer, and its presence is a sign that the ascetic is not far from the true and holy Way. Without experiencing pain, the Christian cannot know the depths of being, and remains a stranger to the love tha conquers sin and death.'

I haven't read this thread before, but am somewhat familiar with the 'Cloud' and the related topics here discussed.

I have read the quote of Archimandrite Sophrony, and although I find that he was uncannily on to something very crucial in the difference between the Christian and non-Christian paths, I am still not convinced that his argument is true in an absolute sense. On the one hand, the 'mirage' he speaks of and the dangers of 'self-deification' are more then real. However isn't our own creatureliness and our own Being in the image of God, and is not the Kingdom of Heaven within as well as without? Why does contemplating the self need to lead to worshiping the self? Or does it? How is worshipping God to be done, without 'going within'?
In Judaism, the 'secret name of God' was not to be pronounced. Jesus Christ was said to be crucified for proclaiming 'I AM'.

This is a very very tricky area. Like Arch. Sophrony says, it goes back to the story of the original Fall. It may have not much to do with Orthodoxy, but there are many Jewish traditions, mystical and non-mystical, and then gnostic, that have an 'upside down' interpretation of that very story. Some Jews claim that Talmudic and oral traditions always kept the key to interpretation of the Torah.

In any case, I am not expecting an answer, but if one is to talk about these topics, how is one to discuss this when it all falls back to subjective understandings of demonology and demonic deception, and again Jews have a somewhat different explanation for the role of the 'adversary'.... And they claim that's how the Kohanim understood it from the beginning...

Another thing that has always struck me as peculiar in these debates, is that while there is a wish for contemplative practice in the general population, the contemplative practice for a lay Orthodox Christian, is, despite the odd person who may be blessed with a 'staretz', not much of an option, unless he becomes a monk. This is why many people find the alternative/Eastern paths simply more accessible. I understand the importance of obedience to the commandments and the pursuit of the virtues, as well as the fact that participating in Liturgy is in and of itself the most important. However, the fact is, that there is so few Christians with genuine contemplative experience and insight, and can be only found in remote Monasteries etc, yet there is at every corner a yoga studio, meditation center etc etc, that although offering something that may be only a byway, or even dangerous for a Christian, yet those teaching it, however flaky and misguided, still have more basic contemplative experience than average Christian Priest etc.

(by contemplative experience, here i don't mean prayer in itself, but include the various 'techniques' used for drawing attention to the body, mind as thougths arise, breath, heart etc)

[Rick H.]

Thanks Jan for this:




. . . isn't our own creatureliness and our own Being in the image of God, and is not the Kingdom of Heaven within as well as without? Why does contemplating the self need to lead to worshiping the self? Or does it?



and especially this:




How is worshipping God to be done, without 'going within'?



Contemplating the self does not necessarily lead to worshipping the self in non-Orthodox or psychological approaches anymore than it does within an Orthodox approach. It can be a help in terms of awareness and it can also be a hindrance depending on the degree, and the individual person. It is error to think otherwise. This is the first mistake I think many make when they consider this kind of thing if some think contemplating the self by necessity leads to worshipping the self.

The second mistake people make is to reject all esoteric literature and techniques just because they speak of an inwardness or a going within [of course this is a part of worshipping God!]. I think this is motivated by fear from those who have to maintain a position of particularism for one reason or another.

As Owen has said above:




. . . the important thing to look for in any "esoteric" text: is it just esoterica, or is it grounded in obedience to the commandments and the practical pursuit of virtue?



In short, for me, the first thing to do with such subjects as this is to weed out the thinking of those who are motivated more by the fear factor and particularism than anything else. All contributions by these types of people (those driven by the spirit of fear and those with a strong agenda) are tainted and not credible. For that matter, what does this have to do with the acetic spirit of any tradition?

What I mean is that there are some who are afraid that it would be too easy to find a place of unity within a discussion of this type . . . a unity with people outside of their particular group. This is the starting place of some, both the beginning and the ending points in their thinking.

Possibly, this is a 'shadow' for some in the sense of Jung's usage of the word. Or, possibly some are just not aware at all that what lies at the heart of their perception and thinking about the necessity for strong lines of division and demarcation is the fear of a unity that can be described as a transcendental unity.

I think there is no greater hindrance to positioning oneself for a greater Grace than to be motivated by the spirit of fear and the spirit of particularism. Once one is stuck in the mire of this, there will be no spiritual progress (only parroting and cliches uttered as a salesman and tape loops and unfruitful needless suffering / circling /cycling), the demon's work is complete . . . and the demons can move on in search of their next student/disciple, the can move on to someone else.

What determines which of these gets unstuck or finds a way out of this dead end / cul de sac? What is it that helps these individuals stop running the path of the rabbit and get back on the Path? Knowing some never do, I am sure the one common denominator, and first step, with the ones that do stop moving in circles is to abandon their spirit of particularism and fear.

[Anna Stickles]

Jan , you bring up some good points. Arch Sophrony is not speaking simply from abstract reasoning from his reading, nor his own subjective interpretation - he is speaking from his own experience of having tried both of these different Ways. He will probably end up being canonized at some point. There is no one who doubts that he was a true Orthodox staretz and Arch Zacharias is following in his footsteps.



Another thing that has always struck me as peculiar in these debates, is that while there is a wish for contemplative practice in the general population, the contemplative practice for a lay Orthodox Christian, is, despite the odd person who may be blessed with a 'staretz', not much of an option, unless he becomes a monk. This is why many people find the alternative/Eastern paths simply more accessible. I understand the importance of obedience to the commandments and the pursuit of the virtues, as well as the fact that participating in Liturgy is in and of itself the most important. However, the fact is, that there is so few Christians with genuine contemplative experience and insight, and can be only found in remote Monasteries etc, yet there is at every corner a yoga studio, meditation center etc etc, that although offering something that may be only a byway, or even dangerous for a Christian, yet those teaching it, however flaky and misguided, still have more basic contemplative experience than average Christian Priest etc.

(by contemplative experience, here i don't mean prayer in itself, but include the various 'techniques' used for drawing attention to the body, mind as thougts arise, breath, heart etc)
Why are these techniques which you are calling "contemplative practice" so rarely found in Orthodoxy Christianity?

Besides the fact that the techniques between the two traditions are very different, another difference is that techniques themselves like breathing, trying to hold the attention in the heart, etc. are considered of secondary importance to the goal in Orthodox practice, while they are quite important in the East Asian practices and offshoots. Someone like Fr Raphael or one of the other monks here could talk about the extent to which they are even used or encouraged even in monasteries, but from my reading I get the impression that in a lot of monasteries these techniques are being, or mostly have been, abandoned.

It is prayer itself and spiritual struggle that are emphasized. Spiritual struggle is something every priest who hears confessions is familiar with. It is something that every Christian, layman or monk is called to and ought to be familiar with if they are seriously trying to live the Gospel. But spiritual struggle is certainly not something that there is any wish for in the general population. Even in the Church many people try to avoid it as much as possible. :-) Real Christianity has never won a popularity contest.

Now admittedly your average priest is not familiar with this struggle in its more spiritual and intense forms. But God provides and for those who need it. The fact that this more intense struggle exists is something most priests are familiar with, and most priests will recognize when a spiritual child in their parish is struggling with something beyond what they can handle and refer that person elsewhere. Usually laymen who end up entering into this struggle at that level recognize it and actively seek out someone who is experienced in the deeper levels of prayer. But since this type of prayer is a much rarer gift, instruction on it is not needed on every street corner. For most people obedience to the commandments and participation in the liturgy is all that is needed.

[Anna Stickles]

Why does contemplating the self need to lead to worshiping the self?

In Orthodox theology, contemplation doesn't refer to techniques nor is it merely detached awareness as in the East Asian practices. Within Orthodoxy contemplation is synonymous with participation. Also worship is intimately connected with participation. Worship of the Holy Trinity is participation in that same Trinity, or contemplation thereof. The words can be used synonymously.

But we use the word contemplation to stress that what the nous is "looking at" is what it is participating in, and also what it is becoming like. So if we are contemplating ourselves..... well hopefully with this definition it becomes obvious that this is a dead end street. Yes, the person who is contemplating the Divine image as created within them is going to be more like that image on one level then someone who is contemplating their body's carnal desires, but in the end, as Arch Zacharias says of the Asian contemplation: (his aside)

"it does not transcend the limits of created being, neither does it touch upon the primordial Being of the living God of revelation. ... the fact remains true that, "that which is born of the flesh is flesh" and cannot please God. (aside But this is the "old man"; they strengthen the "old man") Enlargement of the Heart p. 147

Here is another quote from this section in Enlargment... speaking about techniques
"In these (East Asian) traditions it is man who sets the programme, a programme thtat is bound to work and must be followed; and nowehere is it even mentioned in the Upanishads, for example, that pride is an obstacle, or that humility is a virtue.... The most perfect divesting of the mind from every passionate attachment to the visible and transient elements of this world is accomplished naturally, through the fervor of repentance. Pain of the heart, which is born of the grace of repentance, not only detaches the mind from things corruptible, but rather attaches it to that which is unseen and eternal.

(Aside We are not only detached but attached; we are not only divesting but vesting. Even in its best form, Buddhism is only half the matter, and concerns only the human factor.) In this respect, divestiture alone remains but partial and imperfect, relating as it does merely to the human factor on the created level of being.

In Christianity there is, however, a further clothing of the soul with the grace of God which must necessarily follow, and this is the fullness of life immortal.


When we speak of meditiation, contemplation and prayer traditions, each one has developed experimentally. The practitioners experiment in their own lived experience to find the best way to reach their goal and this is how these practices develop over time. The East Asian traditions have a different goal and their practices have developed to help people best reach that goal. But the quote above from Arch. Zacharias shows that Christianity has a different goal and it is this goal that has influenced and formed the Orthodox ascetic practice over the years. Techniques are given such a low priority because stress on techniques leads to pride of accomplishment, and humility is an absolutely necessary prerequisite to repentance and to receiving grace.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Actually these techniques in & of themselves serve no purpose and can even be a pathway towards serious delusion. This is why our priests and monastics do not follow such practices and know little of them except in certain guided cases where they are aids in prayer. That said though- prayer is different from these techniques.

In Christ
-Fr Raphael

[Rick H.]

I missed the emphasis on techniques in this thread.




(by contemplative experience, here i don't mean prayer in itself, but include the various 'techniques' used for drawing attention to the body, mind as thougths arise, breath, heart etc)



I think we would all agree that techniques are just that techniques, methods, etc. We have many threads here on Monachos and many pages about such things as yoga, marital arts, and other(s). I don't have the energy to run that circle again, it is a well worn rut here that always comes to the same conclusion(s).

I shouldn't be so negative though, there are some most excellent posts in those threads that are very illuminating and helpful.

The more detached one is from his own body and the more one is stuck in her own head the more one can benifit from some techniques that are available to us.

Probably just about all techniques, Orthodox or Non can be a pathway to serious delusion without proper moderation or a proper moderator.

[Jason Hunt]

I don't know if I agree with all you are saying about Keating here. I have heard a number of his lectures on video and have not run across the characterization you are making at all. I am not saying his techniques are orthodox, but he has spent about five decades as a Trappist monk and what he has said in the 20-40 hours of talks in the DVD series a friend of mine has is wide ranging and seems well grounded in the Western monastic tradition. It's not "mantra" he is using. and he has alot to say about the development of character and virtue which must accompany the pursuit of prayer. But as I say, I am still trying to work out whether what I think he is doing is Orthodox in any way, but I need to hear from people informed on the wide scope of all Keating said before I grant others a hearing, no offense.

The Cloud of Unknowing is supposedly based in Christian Neo-Platonism and Ps. Denys. The technique Keating is teaching clearly comes out of the Cloud and is not a new age, Yoga amalgamation. The question though is to what extent does the Cloud really transmit authentic Christian Neo-Platonism and have links to other parts of , or the mainstream of, the eastern monastic tradition.

I used to be very involved with the “Christian Meditation of John Main OSB and the Centering Prayer of Thomas Keating OCSO. I have read many of their books and listened to countless hours of talks given by them. After later learning about the Orthodox Church and the Orthodox teaching on prayer, I became convinced that the teachings regarding “Christian Meditation” and “Centering Prayer” are an attempt to clothe Hindu and Buddhist meditative practices in Christian terminology, which enhances the appeal of these practices amongst Roman Catholics and Protestants but does not change the spirit of these practices which are alien to Christ and the path of Christian theosis. The Benedictine monk John Main OSB learned to “meditate” from Swami Satyananda in Malaysia and only several decades later, after having been told by his Benedictine novice master to abandon the non-Christian practice, began meditating again after finding “justification” for the practice in the 4th century Conferences of St. John Cassian. Even while teaching “Christian Meditation” to others as a Benedictine monk decades after meeting the Swami, he would refer to the Swami as “my teacher”. Similarly, the primary inspiration for “Centering Prayer” was the desire to offer a Christianized form of the Maharishi’s Transcendental Meditation to the spiritually hungry and disillusioned seekers of the 1970s who sought out Eastern non-Christian religions for “spiritual experience”. Centering Prayer was mostly developed by Trappist monks in America following the popularity and influence of their fellow Trappist monk Thomas Merton and Merton’s affection for, and promotion of, Zen in particular. “Christian Meditation” and “Centering Prayer” share the same spiritual foundations and both were developed in the 1970s when Eastern non-Christian mysticism was being popularized. Those involved in teaching Centering Prayer and Christian Meditation often recommend Eastern non-Christian practices such as yoga, and Thomas Keating himself used to invite zen master’s to teach his monks zazen (zen meditation) when he was abbot of Spencer Abbey in Massachusetts.

Regarding the “Cloud of Unknowing”, this is a post-Schism Roman Catholic text and contains beliefs that are contrary to Orthodox teaching such as the existence of “Purgatory.” Regarding the teachings on prayer found in the Cloud, movements like Centering Prayer and Christian Meditation refer to the Cloud and to St. John Cassian’s Conferences more out of a desire to justify their practice of Buddhist or Hindu meditation within a Christian context, rather than in an attempting to build their teachings specifically from such texts. What Centering Prayer takes from the Cloud is the use of repetitive prayer and the repetition of one word in prayer. The manner and context in which this prayer is prayed, however, differs between the Cloud and the teachings on Centering Prayer. The differences in methodology, however, are not as important as the differences in overall context and orientation. Both Centering Prayer and Christian Meditation movements openly state that the practice of “prayer” that they teach was not received by them from ancient times but is an attempt to recover an ancient practice that was lost “in the West” (outside of Orthodoxy). Both practices use the Cloud and the Conferences to prove that their practices are Christian, while both methods are in living continuity only with Buddhist and Hindu rather than with Christian teachers. Teachers in both movements are extremely vague about the process of Christian transformation and the role of the sacraments and the Holy Spirit in this process, tending to believe and affirm that the Spirit is experienced by all “contemplatives” and mystics in the same or in similar ways regardless of religion or belief.

Both movements, Centering Prayer and Christian Meditation, lead practitioners to an experience of unity with other faiths regardless of differences in belief, which they ascribe to the common experience of the presence of God which is accessible to all alike. The casual and familiar manner in which the “experience of God’s presence” is referred to in these movements, however, from an Orthodox understanding makes it clear that it is not God but man’s own created nature that is being referred to as God’s presence. As Elder Sophrony of Essex has said, this mistaking of one’s own created nature for God is the greatest barrier to true knowledge of God, a greater barrier than the grossest passion. This easy, relaxed, and effortless experience of God’s presence promised by these methods is completely out of sync with the Orthodox patristic teachings regarding the perception of God’s grace which comes to the baptized Orthodox Christian after years of ascesis, purification from the passions, regular confession of sins, and participation in the Church’s mysteries.

Much more could be said, but I think the most important issue here is that Centering Prayer and Christian Meditation movements claim to be attempting to recover an ancient practice of contemplative prayer which has been lost “in the West”, and there are really only two texts that they point to for guidance on the “method” of the prayer, the Cloud and the Conferences. These practices are being recovered and taught in a very universalistic and syncretistic post-Vatican II context that is completely at odds with the Apostolic faith and the dogmatic consciousness of the hesychastic fathers (St. Silouan the Athonite refers to the dogmatic consciousness which is a fruit of ascetic labor and hesychia, whereas todays teachers of “Centering Prayer” trivialize dogma in favor of an “experience of the Absolute”). On the other hand, in the Orthodox Church, we have the tradition and practice of the Jesus Prayer which has been handed down and taught continuously from Apostolic times, we have countless saints who have spoken of and exemplified the proper use of this prayer, and we have monastics today who faithfully pass on this living tradition within its fully Christian and Orthodox context. Furthermore, we have people who convert to Orthodoxy from Roman Catholicism and Protestantism that say that they could not truly make progress in prayer as long as they remained outside the Church (the Orthodox Church), and could only make progress after receiving the Holy Spirit in an Orthodox baptism. The manner in which the Cloud is spoken of and utilized in Centering Prayer is very questionable, and the text itself has no significance within an Orthodox context where there is no lack of patristic writings on the Jesus Prayer and hesychasm.

As for the practicality of hesychasm outside monastery walls, all the hesychastic fathers themselves say that ceaseless prayer is a command for monk and laity alike, and those in the world can achieve theosis and experience the deifying grace of God just as can monastics, though it is very hard. As others have indicated, such progress is not a matter of technique but of purity of heart, humility, and participation in the mysteries of the Church.

[Rick H.]

"The Benedictine monk John Main OSB learned to “meditate” from Swami Satyananda in Malaysia"

Jason,

Thanks for your post! This is very interesting to me, I did not know this at all. Is this Swami Satyananda 'Saraswati' born in 1923 that you are referring to?

If it is (and I am not challenging you at all) could you provide any documentation so support your above statement please?

I do not doubt you, I have never heard this before, I just would like to see something to support this before I accept it as true.

Thank you.

[Herman Blaydoe]

It is documented in several places. Have you ever heard of a nifty little tool called "Google"?

John Main OSB (1926-1982) (http://www.wccm.org/content/john-main)
Herman the hopefully helpful Pooh

[Rick H.]

That is helpful Herman, thank you!

The article says he met him one day and learned from him. I don't doubt anything that has been said here, but I would like to find out more details about his association and the extent of it. I don't have time for things like facts and research now though, I'm busy making posts! :)

Thanks.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

As Elder Sophrony of Essex has said, this mistaking of one’s own created nature for God is the greatest barrier to true knowledge of God, a greater barrier than the grossest passion. This easy, relaxed, and effortless experience of God’s presence promised by these methods is completely out of sync from the Orthodox patristic teachings regarding the perception of God’s grace which comes to the baptized Orthodox Christian after years of ascesis, purification from the passions, regular confession of sins, and participation in the Church’s mysteries.

I think this well sums up whatever I have read by the Elder Sophrony on the difference between Orthodox prayer and types of meditation. Meditation in fact is a psychological effort- it touches the deeper sides of what we are in a way which seeks to remove distraction; but it can and often does nowadays mistake what is at the core of the human for God; of mistaking our created natural light, for God's light; which then potentially is very dangerous (I have met some people who were guided in methods of inner meditation that brought them to break down).

In Christ-
Fr Raphael

[Herman Blaydoe]

The article says he met him one day and learned from him. I don't doubt anything that has been said here, but I would like to find out more details about his association and the extent of it. I don't have time for things like facts and research now though, I'm busy making posts! :)

You might try reading the article again when you have more time to do more than skim it. While it says one day he met the Swami, that is NOT the same as saying he only spent one day with the Swami. One day I stumbled across the Monachos website, but I think it fair to say I have spent more than one day here since.

And yes, those nasty little "facts" certainly can get in the way of one's posting, can't they?

[Rick H.]

I'll do that Herman . . . but, in my initial skim it does not say whether he spent 1 day with him or 20 years. I would like to know how much time he actually spent with him.

[Todd G]

Jason, thanks for your post. You obviously know more about this than me. I am aware that Keating's movement is centered in a post vatican II, Thomas Merton-like ethos and has a different ethos from the Orthodox church. But I am not certain the notion that one can be linked with other mystical traditions through Christ and through a non-orthodox meditation technique if done properly is such a bad thing. I have not heard the continual deference to Hinduim and Buddhism that so often gets thrown at Keating and his ilk. Yet I certainly agree that his ethos is pluralistic and Merton-like. But it seems to me that whether or not we are going to reach the true uncreated light only by abandoing Keating or if we merely staying in the realm of the self by following him, seems to me in the end pretty subjective. How can these things really be stated objectively?

Let me state my issue another way. I happen to go sit in silence with Quakers on Wednesday afternoons. Their meeting house is right next to where I work, and it is and convenient to go there for a half hour of completely unprogrammed and unshaped sitting in silence with other human beings. I see the Keating techniques and experience along the same lines. I do feel that what I am doing when I sit with the Quakers or withe Keating folks from time to time is anything other than silent sitting. It has as much to do with brain functioning and trying to work with the brain's natural ability to function better when it learns to slow down and leave its chatter box mode. I do not consider myself to be following ANY teaching when I am doing this other than the brain's natural capacity to turn off chatter.

So in relation to that, and in a way repeating what I wrote last week about the apophatic tradition, the Christian Neoplatonist tradition of Psuedo-Dionysus etc, is there a tradtion in the early christian east of prayer that is silent and without the repetition of a phrase. I have practiced the Jesus prayer some. I do not find it particularly helpful honestly, or in steady doses. I find that I really enjoy the total silence and chatter-box clearing practice that I have found with the Quakers and with this group of Anglo-Catholics (who are by the way not by any means dogmatic in saying Keating has to be followed per se). Most of the people in both the groups I have been sitting with, the Quakers and the anglo-caths, have been doing this for decades. They are not dogmatic about the techniques other than to say that learning to sit in silence with others for half an hour at a time is one step in beginning to pray and enter the spiritual life more deeply. Other than saying simply that, they are 'silent."

[Herman Blaydoe]

So do you believe this brings you into a deeper relationship with Christ or does it just make you "feel better"?

[Daniel R.]

I admit I know little of this subject, but I have a thought about it.

To me meditation quite often seems to be about the focusing of oneself in a way of switching of to the outside world and from its sufferings and troubles.

To me there is here two problems one is the focusing on oneself and ones thoughts when we should be focusing on Christ and his thoughts. That is not that we know the thoughts of Christ but some where it is written "Ye have the mind of Christ" that is then focusing on His Divine and Holy will. That we may conform to His image and likeness.

The second is with the later the switching of from the pressures of the outside world, when Saint Ignatius the God-Bearer was faced by the troubles of this world he thought it not a thing to switch of from but rather a holy suffering that is the suffering of this world he made holy by his acceptance and this became to him his means to God.

We ought not look for temptations and sufferings but when they should come we ought not try to focus away from them(and into ourself) but rather seeing them we should look unto Christ and accept them as salve for our wound of our sinful souls and our way to God, the cross about which the Lord said "If any one will follow me, he must deny himself, take up his cross each day and follow me." And knowing our weakness to bear it alone reassures us with divine aid saying, "Come unto me all ye that labour sore, and are laden, and I will ease you, take my yoke upon you and learn of me, for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls For my yoke is ease, and my burden is light" So then any looking into ourselves is as to see our sins but it is to Christ we must look with our burdens that he might free us from them and give rest unto our souls.

This may seem a bit unrelated to the tread but it is in response to forms of meditation in general, which to me are against the Christian way of thinking of looking of our sins beating the chest and saying "Lord have mercy on me a sinner" and taking all our burdens unto Christ our God who gives us relief and aid.

In Christ.
Daniel,

[Jason Hunt]

"The Benedictine monk John Main OSB learned to “meditate” from Swami Satyananda in Malaysia"


Is this Swami Satyananda 'Saraswati' born in 1923 that you are referring to?

Dom John Main OSB learned to meditate from the Swami Satyananda that founded the "Pure Life Society" (http://www.purelife.org.my/index.cfm?fuseaction=his_background , http://thestar.com.my/health/story.asp?file=/2009/7/12/health/4297967&sec=health) who is not the same person as Swami Satyananda Saraswati. The fact that John Main's teacher in meditation was the Swami Satyananda of the Pure Life Society was stated quite openly by John Main when he was teaching Christian Meditation to others, and every biography or biographical summary on John Main mentions the fact that he learned to meditate from the Swami. Neither John Main nor his successors, nor those who teach Christian Meditation following his tradition, make any attempt to hide the fact that he learned to meditate from a Hindu Swami, nor do they seem to think that there is anything wrong with this fact. This alone should be a major cause of concern. The fact that the founders of the Christian Meditation and Centering Prayer movements all learned to meditate from Hindus and Buddhists creates a strong sense of spiritual indebtedness to Buddhism and Hinduism within these movements, a sense of spiritual indebtedness that automatically compromises one's exclusive commitment to Christianity. The fact that a non-Orthodox Christian experiences a strong spiritual vacuum within their non-Orthodox Christian practice, and then seeks to fill that vacuum by seeking out Buddhists and Hindus to learn various meditation practices, is an indication that such a person must not believe that Christianity contains a full and complete method of spiritual transformation. This alone is very problematic.

[Jan Sunqvist]

I think the posts of Todd and Daniel both bring important considerations.



I think this well sums up whatever I have read by the Elder Sophrony on the difference between Orthodox prayer and types of meditation. Meditation in fact is a psychological effort- it touches the deeper sides of what we are in a way which seeks to remove distraction; but it can and often does nowadays mistake what is at the core of the human for God; of mistaking our created natural light, for God's light; which then potentially is very dangerous (I have met some people who were guided in methods of inner meditation that brought them to break down).

In Christ-
Fr Raphael

Personally, I am not keen at all about any kind of ecumenical notions of putting various spiritual practices together at all. I think that is counterproductive and yes, it can be dangerous. I think if someone is a Christian then one is simply not interested in also being a Buddhist although there may be crucial similarities and differences. A Christian may simply be unconcerned about other belief systems. In this case, he may need not even have an opinion about whats right or wrong about Islam, Judaism or Shintoism.

On the other hand, if one is interested in these topics of 'comparative' religion, then one ought to take some serious responsibility for making any claims, or at least acknowledge the subjectivity of one's opinions. In other words, if Arch. Sophrony practiced some form of meditation or Hinduism as a spiritual practice, he did so to a point, when he realised that he had doubts about that path (he is definitely entitled to his subjective opinions, which are certainly valuable to hear, and I personally in general agree with what he said here), but it is important to recognize the subjectivity of his opinion and the fact that he did not go 'all the way' on his yogic path. Why is this important? It is very important because all of us can only be followers of Christ, or Buddha, Krishna, Moses, Lao Tzu etc and unless they all met in person and told us what they thought of each other and each other's teachings, we will never know anything absolute about the differences between these religious paths. That's a very simple fact.

Also as an Orthodox Christian would advise against someone making a general opinion about the Christian path judging by, say the followers of some famed televangelist or Pentecostal, or even 'Christian' cult leader, so should we also give the benefit of the doubt to other religions. No doubt there is many less-than-genuine gurus out there, probably many many more than genuine ones, and then again judging from outside or even inside, the criteria for genuineness are always tricky to compare objectively ie which is the one true Church etc

Also, no doubt there are people who had breakdowns from doing a lot of meditation, but apparently there were many desert monastics who also went insane from ascetic labours and had less then glorious endings. One does not often hear about those, but that should hardly change our opinion about countless of Saints for whom the ascetic practices were Life giving. Again, we can only speculate what it means for a Buddhist to have an experience that there is no 'self' in the way he ordinarily perceived himself or something like that etc, but as none of the paths one can ever come to a point of completion and the end, therefore even those who have substantial experience with more than one path can only have subjective opinions but no definitive answer as to where each path really leads in the end.


Also, earlier in the thread, i mentioned 'techniques'. Of course 'techniques' in and of themselves lead nowhere. What I meant was simply quality of the practice. If one is asked to do some labour like chop some wood, one can do it any which way so the wood is chopped at the end of the day, or one can chop it well (ax sharpened, point of attack and angle, efficient use of the body etc etc) The same goes for prayer. It is not so much the particular 'technique' but the aim of doing it well. And yes there are monastic descriptions of the many levels of prayer starting from the lips and going deeper and deeper, but again these practices always seem to be associated with monastics. This is all I meant by apparent lack of techniques for the lay Orthodox. Of course Church is not boot camp where one gets forced to do something well, on the other hand it does seem to me that personal instruction of this type (other then confession etc) is very rare. This is what I meant in contrasting this situation to the fact that learning how to train some noetic faculties ie the mind through meditation etc is now available on every street corner.

Just one last point. Like Todd said, and then Daniel wrote a nice reply to it, really the only crucial thing is the reason why one undertakes such practice as sitting with Quakers or meditation. If one is a Christian and does meditation for a spiritual goal that is simply counterproductive. Like Daniel pointed out, a Christian approaches pain and suffering from a different perspective than a Buddhist. So, if when confronted with pain and suffering one always runs to meditate (in the belief that 'disattachment' is the key, although when it comes down to it even this is too simplistic and distorted representation of Buddhism) it is probably safe to say that this is not a Christian path.

On the other hand, I don't see why one can't use a technique that calms the mind, such as meditation or Tai Chi etc to achieve a non-spiritual goal, such as calm the restless mind before an exam or a sport competition or a Shakespeare performance or simply for health reasons, provided its in moderation (yes that's subjective too). The fact is the body is connected to the mind, and it is a fact that when the mind quiets down, the heart beat, breathing and blood pressure change etc. I am sure that prayer practiced well produces the same effects on the body too or even better. But if someone is told to avoid meditation or Tai Chi or yoga and instead use a prayer to read out aloud or repeat for 15-30 min as they also get one calm and focused, and he is given this advice without any 'noetic' instruction of how to do it well (in the fear that the practitioner will start praying for the psychological effects and not for growing in humility), and finally if this person also finds out that he gets much better and quicker results from the former practices which go straight for the mind-body effects, which do you think he will be more likely to choose when he needs to focus or feel like he is mentally alert and at his best? What is he likely to think when his evangelical friend tells him that actually 'meditation is the work of the devil'?

[Todd G]

So do you believe this brings you into a deeper relationship with Christ or does it just make you "feel better"?

I sense A) a false dichotomy here and B) fuzzy words that can be defined in a hundred different ways. I wish somebody would answer my question about silent prayer in the early Christian east and stop reacting emotionally to things non-Orthodox christians are doing. Is silent, apophatic prayer found in the Desert Fathers or the Greek and Syriac Christian Neo-platonist tradition between the 2nd and 8th century?

[Todd G]

I should have said "Coptic" too. Just found this, a small piece of the vast ocean that is probably there on this topic, on the web. I quote:


Compel yourselves in silence, the mother of all godly virtues. Keep silent, in order to say the Prayer [of Jesus]; for, when someone speaks, how is he able to escape idle talk, from which comes every evil word, which weighs the soul down by the responsibility for it. — Elder Ephraim of Philotheou Mount Athos, “Counsels from the Holy Mountain”

… silence is the fastest path to virtue — Nikitas Stithatos (The Philokalia Vol. 4 pg. 84)

…about things you know for certain to be true or false, or self-evident, speak with conviction, saying that they are true, or false, or evident. About doubtful things better say nothing, but when necessary, say that they are doubtful and reserve your judgment. Of what you know nothing, say nothing. — Lorenzo Scupoli (Unseen Warfare: Chapter 25)

Abba Poemen said: If we remembered that it is written, “By your words you will be justified and by your words you will be condemned,” we would choose to remain silent. — The Desert Fathers

A man may seem to be silent, but if his heart is condemning others, he is babbling ceaselessly. But there may be another who talks from morning till night and yet he is truly silent, that is, he says nothing that is not profitable. — Abba Poimen

[Herman Blaydoe]

I sense A) a false dichotomy here and B) fuzzy words that can be defined in a hundred different ways. I wish somebody would answer my question about silent prayer in the early Christian east and stop reacting emotionally to things non-Orthodox christians are doing. Is silent, apophatic prayer found in the Desert Fathers or the Greek and Syriac Christian Neo-platonist tradition between the 2nd and 8th century?

I sense you avoided answering the question, but that is OK it was largely rhetorical and intended to be "fuzzy", a place to start thinking from. I do believe that there are more references to "quietness" and "stillness" than there are to silence in Orthodox literature. Is there a difference? I suspect so.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

I sense A) a false dichotomy here and B) fuzzy words that can be defined in a hundred different ways. I wish somebody would answer my question about silent prayer in the early Christian east and stop reacting emotionally to things non-Orthodox christians are doing. Is silent, apophatic prayer found in the Desert Fathers or the Greek and Syriac Christian Neo-platonist tradition between the 2nd and 8th century?

Well, prayer of the heart was practiced by the early monks. See the various writings of Metropolitan Hierotheos Vlachos where he refers to genuine monasticism from its beginning as being hesychast in spirit. This includes prayer of the heart & a manner of life withdrawn from this world.

In Christ
-Fr Raphael

[Georgianna]

.... I do believe that there are more references to "quietness" and "stillness" than there are to silence in Orthodox literature. Is there a difference? I suspect so.

Although I am ignorant, I agree that there is a great difference within Orthodox literature. In fact, the quotes appear to be addressing different areas.

In Vol 4 of the Philokalia (pp 83-85), I could not find "...silence is the fastest path to virtue" provided by the web. However, that portion of "On the Practice of the Virtues" is actually addressing the need for stillness (ἡσυχία).
Stillness (ἡσυχία): a state of inner tranquillity or mental quietude and concentration which arises in conjunction with, and is deepened by, the practice of pure prayer and the guarding of the heart and intellect. Not simply silence, but an attitude of listening to God and of openness towards Him. - from the glossary of the Philokalia.

The quote from Unseen Warfare is from the chapter "On control of the tongue."
The greatest necessity of all is to control and curb the our tongue. The mover of the tongue is the heart: what fills the heart is poured out through the tongue. And conversely, when feeling is poured out of the heart by the tongue, it becomes strengthened and firmly rooted in the heart. Therefore the tongue is one of the chief factors in building up our inner disposition. - p 143

Stillness and control of the tongue are not the same; watchfulness is a vital link.
Watchfulness (νῆψις): literally, the opposite to a state of drunken stupor; hence spiritual sobriety, alertness, vigilance. It signifies an attitude of attentiveness (προσοχή), whereby one keeps watch over one's inward thoughts and fantasies, maintaining guard over the heart and intellect. ...Watchfulness is given a very broad definition, being used to indicate the whole range of the practice of the virtues. It is closely linked with purity of heart and stillness. - from the glossary of the Philokalia.

It appears that for those who have not attained theosis, the repeated emphasis is on watchfulness and especially guarding against fantasy.
Fantasy (φαντασία): denoting the image-producting faculty of the psyche, this is one of the most important words in the hesychast vocabulary. As one begins to advance along the spiritual path one begins to 'perceive' images of things which have no direct point of reference in the external world, and which emerge inexplicably from within oneself. This experience is a sign that one's consciousness is beginning to deepen: outer sensations and ordinary thoughts have to some extent been quietened, and the impulses, fears, hopes, passions hidden in the subconscious region are beginning to break through the surface. One of the goals of the spiritual life is indeed the attainment of spiritual knowledge (γνῶσις) which transcends both the ordinary level of consciousness and the subconscious: and it is true that images, especially when the recipient is in an advanced spiritual state, may well be projections on the plane of the imagination of celestial archetypes, and that in this case they can be used creatively, to form the images of sacred art and iconography. But more often than not they will simply derive from a middle or lower sphere, and will have nothing spiritual or creative about them. Hence they correspond to the world of fantasy and not to the world of the imagination in the proper sense. It is on this account that the hesychastic masters on the whole take a negative attitude towards them. They emphasize the grave dangers involved in this kind of experience, especially as the very production of these images may be the consequence of demonic or diabolic activity; and they admonish those still in the early stages and not yet possessing spiritual discrimination (διάκρισις) not to be enticed and led captive by these illusory appearances, whose tumult may well overwhelm the mind. Their advice is to pay no attention to them, but to continue with prayer and invocation, dispelling them with the name of Jesus Christ. - from the glossary of the Philokalia

[Rick H.]

I sense A) a false dichotomy here and B) fuzzy words that can be defined in a hundred different ways. I wish somebody would answer my question about silent prayer in the early Christian east and stop reacting emotionally to things non-Orthodox christians are doing. Is silent, apophatic prayer found in the Desert Fathers or the Greek and Syriac Christian Neo-platonist tradition between the 2nd and 8th century?

Todd, I see you are new to monachos, but there is nothing unique about this place . . . when people have an agenda it can be hard to get a straight answer to an honest question. I appreciate your question and hope someone will address it directly. I do not know what the academically honest answer is to your question, maybe someone else does. Open honest discussion is not always in abundance.


Otherwise, as far as Herman's questions go, I have no problem sharing that I know without a doubt, if I was sitting with the Quakers/Friends as you are, I would feel better, and I think that as much as this experience would counter such things as monkey mind it would move me closer to Christ.

I think anyone who has meditated for any period of time and read much about it, especially nuero-theological findings/testings, knows that it is a psychological activity and is all about created light initially . . . it is like any other Orthodox technique or techniques that is a means or a way or an instrument or a vehicle. I think Father Raphael provided a post or a quote or something that implied that other groups view meditation as kind of an instant fix or instant entry, so to say, but this is not completely true. Here's part of a post from another thread today that shows in the Indian philosophies / religions, meditation is one techniques of various techniques and is a prerequiste to and part of the process of finding union with the Divine after a time of aceticism.


One of the main textbooks we used in a yoga teacher's training program is: "Asana Pranayama, Mudra Bandha" buy Swami Satyananda Saraswati.

In this he writes:




The word yoga means 'unity' or 'oneness' and is derived from the Sanskrit word yuj which means 'to join.' This unity or joining is described in spiritual terms as the union of the individual consciousness with the universal consciousness. On a more practical level, yoga is a means of balancing and harmonizing the body, mind and emotions. This is done through the practice of asana, pranayama, mudra, bandha, shatkarma and meditation, and must be achieved before union can take place with the higher reality.



Look at the differentiation between a practical level with these techniques and union with a higher reality. These distinctions are taught from day one, they are below a 'survey level' and are the first things taught on an 'introduction to level'.

Most folks who are actually involved with this and actually in the know clearly understand the differentiation between the practical, the psychological, and the created light as opposed to something more. But, it seems like they are viewed like they are stupid, confused, victims who are ignorant of what is going on here and in danger of loosing their minds. This is why some of these kinds of people just smile when they read some of the things that are posted here . There are those who would-be-teachers here who do not seem to have a great deal of understanding about the real people in the real world of which they speak. Most of these people that I have met are pretty sharp /well-informed, well-balanced, and have a very good understand of the mechanics (as well as benefits and trappings) of the kind of mediation that is being discussed right now.

[Christina M.]

Is silent, apophatic prayer found in the Desert Fathers or the Greek and Syriac Christian Neo-platonist tradition between the 2nd and 8th century?
It seems to me that silent prayer is very present in Orthodox Christianity. I always thought that the main purpose of prayer is to keep the mind on God, and that the Jesus Prayer is usually considered the best way to accomplish this goal for most people. But of course everybody is different. For example, didn't St. Gregory Palamas repeat: "Enlighten my darkness" instead of the Jesus Prayer? Maybe that happened to be the most beneficial prayer for him. Likewise, I don't see why silence might not be the most beneficial form of prayer for some people. The only danger with using silence as prayer is that for most people (I think) the mind tends to wander more often if we simply try to keep it silent, and I think that's why the Jesus Prayer is so highly recommended.

Here's what St. Theophan the Recluse says:

The principal thing is to stand with the mind in the heart before God, and to go on standing before Him unceasingly day and night, until the end of life.

And likewise:

Feeling towards God - even without words - is a prayer. Words support and sometimes deepen the feeling.

But notice that both of these quotes have the main goal being unity with God. If we are simply trying to keep the mind silent for the purpose of earthly comfort, I think that is an entirely different matter.

[Todd G]

I sense you avoided answering the question, but that is OK it was largely rhetorical and intended to be "fuzzy", a place to start thinking from. I do believe that there are more references to "quietness" and "stillness" than there are to silence in Orthodox literature. Is there a difference? I suspect so.

You may be aware that there is a huge interest among neuroscientists and psychologists in meditation and that what is now happening in the mental health field around it is very different from the kinds of things happening in the 1960s, which produced worked not based in empirical work and data collection and was at a time when psychology was still mired in its early 20th century materalist, Behaviourist and Freudian influences. There have been substantial collections of work that have come out just in the last few years, and it has involved not only large sections of the psychological community but also input from various religious traditions. I could easily look at this and say "well there are no Orthodox Christians working on this, so it cannot be good." Or I can take a wider view.

On the other hand I don't need a batch of new studies to tell me that the accumulated experience of various types of Christian meditators (some of the Quakers I know who sit regularly in silence with one another have been doing this for decades ) who have worked with the mind and ways to control the chatter box mode of the frontal lobe area of the brain and who may or may not have been influenced by a Buddhist or a Hindu here or there, may be tapping into something universal about how the human mind and spirit works. Since Christ is the Logos itself, that which is truly real and that through which what is truly human comes into view and acts as a model for us, pitting this type of quietness and Christ against one another and asking if it merely "feels good" may well be a false dichotomy. It feels good precisely because it is enabling Christ to be formed in us.

As I said above, the Anglo-Catholics I have been around when I on occasion (but with no regularity or doing so currently) have done Centering Prayer, never mention Hindu or Buddhist links. I recall them using other things at the beginning of the sessions, such as a bit of Gregorian chant, Pslam singing, or lectio Divina (mediation on scripture passages and coming out of the Benedictine tradtion), all of which are deeply part of the Western monastic tradition. We should also remember that the John Main (sp?) and his Christian Meditation Society folks and the centering prayer folks are practicing a very different technique. Perhaps the CM folks are practicing some kind of syncretism, I don't know them well enough to comment. But as for the CP crowd, I do not find them running to other traditions trying to recover something that is not in their tradition, but rather trying to return to something of the pre-Reformation ethos and which was stolen from them by Henry VIII and other Protestant Reformer Iconoclasts. I find that what they are doing is groping their way back to the Orthodox Church and toward something of universal importance. Respected theologians within the Orthodox church have argued that the canonical boundaries of the church and the charismatic boundaries of the church are not precisely the same thing. Perhaps this is one instance of that.

[Dennis Justison]

I have many comments yet to digest, as I just started reading this thread. Being Catholic for many years, the Cloud has been one of my favorite books. I've read it a few times. It isn't 100% Orthodox, but neither are my trips to the grocery store or my visits with my mother in law. As I have been trying to incorporate Orthodox thought and practice into my life, I didn't expect the Cloud to "make the grade", but I think some of the comments are a little overboard. The Cloud has been part of my path. I believe there are no accidents. God's hand is upon everything that happens to us. My reading the Cloud, in part, has led me to Orthodoxy when upon reading it, I continued to search for more. Peace to all.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

I can see that the great temptation of our time to make of prayer a psychological work is very present. In this case prayer becomes a means to find one's inner self, find peace, etc.

However none of this has any relationship to Orthodox prayer. For the self, until we find Christ, is a reality that no one by their own means can sort out without falling into grave temptation. And Christ did not come to bring us the peace offered by modern forms of meditation, but rather struggle with ourselves, through many trials. If we matched up the modern ideal of meditator with the inner struggle of many saints, most of these saints would show up as unbalanced and 'unfulfilled'. Staretz Silouan comes to mind here, who was told by Christ to keep his mind in hell and despair not. Which advice if it is was heard by modern teachers of meditation would bring charges of being crazy.

What then is Orthodox prayer? This is what we must at least have some sense of, if we are to understand how or if modern meditation could have any relationship with how we are to pray. Many of us so far are seeing prayer as an external work to improve or touch our 'inner self', by which we find Christ- such an understanding though is far off track as to what Orthodox prayer is and also as to what the Orthodox life is supposed to be about. At best such modern forms of prayer lead no where and at worst they can lead to mental break down.

In Christ
-Fr Raphael

[Rick H.]

What then is Orthodox prayer? This is what we must at least have some sense of, if we are to understand how or if modern meditation could have any relationship with how we are to pray.




This is a good question.

Sometimes, I think some of us know more about non-Orthodox prayer and meditation than we do Orthodox prayer and meditation. What's up with that? I wonder if it is because the instruction of and teaching of the non-Orthodox ways are usually presented in a way that is so easy to grasp and understand what is being said (no double-talk and running in circles)? However, it seems to me that usually, the teaching about Orthodox prayer is not easy to find and when it is given after the explanation is over, the result in the learners mind is basically, Huh?

The above is a great question, yes, some sense of what Orthodox prayer is . . . I wonder if anyone can answer it in a way that is intelligible.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

I think that's a very good point Rick. The general teachings of non-Orthodox prayer are very wide spread and also basically understood as to their main points by the general public. This then also influences our own people.

One point here though that I would point to is that non-Orthodox prayer as it is generally presented appeals to us, precisely in the way that it appeals to the modern sense of centering on and satisfying ones self.

Which is exactly what should provide the warning signs for us. 'Discern the spirits'.

In Christ
-Fr Raphael

[Jason Hunt]

You may be aware that there is a huge interest among neuroscientists and psychologists in meditation and that what is now happening in the mental health field around it is very different from the kinds of things happening in the 1960s, which produced worked not based in empirical work and data collection and was at a time when psychology was still mired in its early 20th century materalist, Behaviourist and Freudian influences. There have been substantial collections of work that have come out just in the last few years, and it has involved not only large sections of the psychological community but also input from various religious traditions. I could easily look at this and say "well there are no Orthodox Christians working on this, so it cannot be good." Or I can take a wider view.

On the other hand I don't need a batch of new studies to tell me that the accumulated experience of various types of Christian meditators (some of the Quakers I know who sit regularly in silence with one another have been doing this for decades ) who have worked with the mind and ways to control the chatter box mode of the frontal lobe area of the brain and who may or may not have been influenced by a Buddhist or a Hindu here or there, may be tapping into something universal about how the human mind and spirit works

I agree with Fr. Raphael’s comments above. Meditation and yoga have indeed been growing in popularity and acceptance within society over the past three or four decades, and professional counselors and psychologists, as well as other mental health professionals, do take great interest in how these techniques can be used to help people manage stress, cope with trauma, overcome anxiety, manage anger, etc. My (non-Orthodox) parents are both professional counselors and talk regularly about the “mindfulness training” that is offered and marketed in their field, and the various meditation practices that are taught to help people with various difficulties. Stress management has become a key component of routine medical screenings and exams, and it is not uncommon for medical physicians to ask a person whether they meditate, or to suggest meditation if a person expresses concern over stress and anxiety. Often Christians learn about “Christian Meditation” and “Centering Prayer” in going through a 12 steps program or after being encouraged by a physician or mental health professional to develop a practice of meditation. The medical and mental health professions have taken note of the positive effects that meditation can have on a person’s sense of calm and well-being, and the effect of this psychological calm on a person’s overall quality of life.

Is any of this bad? I think that these various practices can (but not always) be good as far as they go, but since these methods do not go far enough, the place and state to which they bring a person can itself become an obstacle to attaining the ultimate purpose to which prayer (and the Jesus Prayer in particular) is aimed. Within the context of the medical and mental health professions, meditation practices (usually emphasizing breathing, attention, mental and physical stillness) are usually recommended to help a person achieve a better quality of life in this world with less suffering, anxiety, stress, etc. It could be said that these effects correspond with the goals of meditation in a Hindu or Buddhist context (for instance the emphasis on eradicating suffering in Buddhism), but in this context they are not at all connected to the problem of the Fall, man’s separation from God, and his need for salvation through Christ. When the meditator has as his goals the short-term objectives of attaining a state of calm alertness or freedom from anxiety and stress, these practices help a person believe that he can attain such short term goals on his own, without the help of God, by adopting certain techniques. When, apart from God, man attains to a state of relaxed and alert peacefulness, he may easily come to believe that he has everything necessary and is not in need of a Savior or salvation. Eastern non-Christian meditation techniques, and those recommended by physicians and mental health professionals, often proceed from the idea that we are already whole and complete and only have to realize it, or awaken to who we were created to be, yet all of this proceeds without any need for the regeneration through baptism and the need to obey the commandments of Christ.

In practicing meditation, one is able to detach the mind from thoughts and the consciousness of time and place, and this produces a “mystic awe” that Fr. Sophrony speaks of, and the experience of one’s own created spirit. The biggest delusion, though, as has been mentioned repeatedly above, is to mistake this experience of one’s own created spirit with the Spirit or grace of God, or to identify one’s spirit as one with God. A person can make much “progress” in meditation and see the fruits of their practice in their life in the form of being more patient with others, more calm and peaceful, etc. However, a person can make such progress without ever receiving the grace of the Holy Spirit through baptism into the Orthodox Church, without receiving the grace of the Holy Spirit through the Mysteries of the Orthodox Church, and without every tasting and perceiving the grace of the Holy Spirit in one’s own heart in the manner in which the hesychastic Fathers refer. Not only are such things not tasted or experienced by those who practice meditation outside of the Orthodox Church, but it is often the case that people are led to believe that they are encountering God when they are really only experiencing their own created nature, and the result of this confusion is that their meditation, while producing much fruit in the way of there being a greater sense of peace and calm, actually becomes the greatest obstacle to knowing God and saving their soul from eternal condemnation.

In the sayings of the Desert Fathers there is a story of an ascetic who visited an elder and said he had come to the point of being able to keep his mind constantly on God. The elder responded that this was no great thing but that for man to know his own sins would be a true accomplishment. Consciousness of one’s sins, reflection on death and the judgment, as Fr. Raphael indicated above, has always been foundational to the practice of interior prayer in the Orthodox Church. The great hesychastic fathers of contemporary and ancient times consistently teach that, prior to saying the Jesus Prayer in silence, one should reflect on ones sins, how one’s life might at any moment come to an end, how after death one will have to give an account of his deeds, how sinners are condemned to eternal torment, etc. The Jesus Prayer itself is then repeated as a cry to the Lord that he would have mercy on our sinful souls, a prayer that is made with much feeling and meaning, conscious of the ultimate desire for forgiveness and the hope of eternal salvation. St. John Cassian in his Conferences refers to the psalm continuously repeated by the Desert Fathers which similarly calls out for God’s help and salvation: “O God, make speed to save me: O Lord, make haste to help me” (Psalm 69:2). The basis if this prayer is consciousness of man’s sin, man’s need for God, and man’s need for salvation, just as is the case with the Jesus Prayer. Progress in this prayer is measure by very different standards than are used to evaluate the benefits of various meditation techniques. Whereas these various techniques bear fruit in a man feeling more peaceful, more content with himself and at peace with others, we make progress in the Jesus Prayer if we begin to develop a hatred for the sins which we formerly struggled with. While we should also be bearing the “fruits of the Spirit”, we do not evaluate ourselves on these terms but rather with regard to our consciousness of sin. If even sinful thoughts cause us to feel shame, and if we develop a true hatred for the past sins that formerly ensnared us, then perhaps we are making progress. Such consciousness of sin is a safeguard against delusion, protects the proper use and role of prayer, and establishes the place of man in relation to God. By contrast, we see how the instructions of “Christian Meditation”, “Centering Prayer”, and other similar methods always start with a positive basis of “turning your attention to the presence of God that is within you” (which assumes God is present within you), or something similar. I think this emphasis on “awareness of God’s presence”, from a patristic point of view, is very problematic and makes one susceptible to delusion as what is assumed to be God’s presence is not, and man is kept by this deception from the very means by which man acquires the grace of God within him and becomes united with God (Orthodox baptism and a life lived in the Orthodox Church according to the commandments of Christ).

In the interest of full disclosure, I was very involved in the World Community for Christian Meditation (WCCM) for a number of years following the teachings of John Main OSB. I was a “Regional Coordinator” responsible for establishing weekly meditation groups in my area, I established and led weekly meditation groups myself, I worked closely with practitioners of Centering Prayer in my area, and I led some small retreats at different churches to introduce people to Christian Meditation. I invited on a few occasions Fr. Laurence Freeman OSB (the disciple and successor of John Main) to our area for retreats, he appointed me as a Regional Coordinator for the WCCM in my area, and he initiated me into the novitiate as a Benedictine Oblate (I made the decision to enter the Orthodox Church before taking final vows as an Oblate). I first met Met Kallistos (Ware) at an annual John Main Seminar organized by the WCCM which invited Met Kallistos to give a series of talks over three days on the Orthodox tradition of the Jesus Prayer. At this time I was also taking yoga classes in the tradition of B.K.S. Iyengar, practiced yoga daily along with my Christian Meditation practice, and was in an advanced asana class taught by one of Iyengar’s senior instructors. When I became convinced, after years of prayer and study, that I had to become Orthodox, I asked Met Kallistos for some advice and he recommended that as an Orthodox Christian I should begin to practice the Jesus Prayer rather than the method I had learned over many years in John Main’s tradition. As I learned more about the Jesus Prayer and Orthodox life according to the saints and ascetics of the Church, I became convinced that the state and general disposition to which my yoga and Christian Meditation practices led to was not at all consistent with the disposition that the Jesus Prayer is intended to be practiced with, or which the practice of the Jesus Prayer should lead to. It was very difficult for me, but I realized I had to abandon the yoga and Christian Meditation altogether in order to properly pray the Jesus Prayer within and according to the Orthodox tradition. Now that I have been Orthodox for a number of years, I do believe that the contemplative prayer movement that I was involved with leads people away from the path of salvation rather than being a help in this way. However, I also acknowledge that it was through Christian Meditation that I learned about the Orthodox Church and the practice of the Jesus Prayer, and I realize that similarly for others what is not good can be used by God for good in bringing others into the Orthodox Church.

To Orthodox Christians interested in the meditation practices found outside of the Orthodox Church, I think it would be very dangerous to attempt to adopt or practice any spiritual method that has not been passed down by the Orthodox Church and which was not a part of the lives of the saints who have been glorified by God and raised up by the Church as examples for us. I cannot at all imagine St. Gregory Palamas or any of our hesychastic fathers practicing yoga or meditation as it is spoken of by physicians, mental health professionals, or various new age teachers today. To those who aren’t Orthodox, I would question why people would want to make up their own spiritual path by borrowing various techniques, methods, and teachings from various sources rather than enter the Orthodox Church where we have very developed teachings on prayer and the ascetical life that have been consistently applied since the time of Christ, the eternal benefits of which have been demonstrated by the countless saints whose lives and teachings serve as inerrant guides. Those who practice meditation outside of the Orthodox Church may indeed feel that great “good” results, but sometimes it also happens that “what is highly esteemed among men is an abomination in the sight of God.” (Luke 16:15).

[Jan Sunqvist]

One point here though that I would point to is that non-Orthodox prayer as it is generally presented appeals to us, precisely in the way that it appeals to the modern sense of centering on and satisfying ones self.


-Fr Raphael

Maybe, we ought to be clearer on which 'self' we are referring to. How does the self that feels satisfied eating a piece of cake differ form the self that likes to play video games, then the self that likes to please itself by meditating and 'feeling good from that practice', then the self that is satisfied by giving charity or being helpful to another human being, then the self that is satisfied by experiencing 'peace that passeth all understanding'?

Fr, Raphael, what is the 'self'? It seems to me fair to say that our 'self' must be replaced by the birth of Christ likeness in us, but, essentially every single of our desires whether destructive or altruistic, and even the wish itself to be like Christ, always come from this 'self' of ours.

[Herman Blaydoe]

Well, we certainly have been describing what Orthodox prayer ISN'T. The apophatic approach is genuinely Orthodox, yes?

Herman the emphatically apophatic Pooh

[Jason Hunt]

In previous messages I mentioned the experience to which meditation leads in Centering Prayer and Christian Meditation, and the sense among practitioners of these methods that Buddhists, Hindus, and others who meditate come to the same experience of “God” but understand this experience with perhaps different terminology. I also mentioned my concern with Centering Prayer and Christian Meditation in that they both tend to trivialize dogma and doctrinal truth while abosolutizing an experience which they claim transcends the world of concepts along along with the dogma and doctrine that belong to the conceptual world (thereby ignoring the source of dogma in God’s revelation to mankind).

Those who practice Centering Prayer and Christian Meditation often comment on the great unity they feel with non-Christian meditators in the practice of meditation, and how they may feel closer to the non-Christian meditator than to the Christian non-meditator. Noone disputes the fact that meditation itself has become very much a natural and organic part of Western society over the past 40 years and is playing a major role in today’s religious consciousness. Within this new religious consciousness, people like the Benedictine Dom Bede Grifiths in India who spoke of the “complementarity of religions”, the French Benedictine Swami Abhishiktananda whose attempt to combine Hindu non-duality with his Christian faith resulted in a major personal crisis, Thomas Merton who praised Zen and sought tantric Buddhist initiation at the end of his life, John Main who learned to meditate from a Hindu Swami, and Thomas Keating who had his Benedictine monks trained to meditate by a Zen master, are all held up as models and examples of the Christian contemplative movement in the West today.

The syncretistic spirit which is found in this movement and its leaders, and their radical openness to non-Christian Eastern religions, shows this movement to be radically different in spirit from the great hesychastic saints of the Church such as St. Anthony the Great and St. Gregory Palamas who held dogmatic teaching in such esteem that they left their solitude to battle against such heresies as Arianism and Barlaamism. That emphasis on “right dogma” and “right belief” as necessary foundations for a right way of life and theosis, and also “dogmatic consciousness” as a fruit of pure prayer and ascetic life, characterize the hesychastic Fathers of the Church and greatly distinguishes them from the leaders of the contemplative prayer movement within Roman Catholicism over the past sixty years.

The latter do, in fact, appear to be “prophetic”, but their prophetic quality appears to be in line with preparing the way for the Antichrist and his "One World Religion". This religion will tolerate all religious beliefs as long as such beliefs are held relatively while emphasizing the need to “go beyond” all beliefs to experience “the Absolute”. All beliefs will be tolerated as long as one does not believe that anything is absolutely true, nor imply that other beliefs are false. In his “Orthodoxy and the Religion of the Future”, Fr. Seraphim (Rose) does a very good job characterizing and describing the “new religious consciousness” that has developed particularly since the 1960s, how this “new religious consciousness” is preparing the way for the world religion of the Antichrist, and how this “new religious consciousness” is incompatible with Orthodox Christianity. It came as no surprise to me, then, when I spoke to John Main’s successor about my desire to be received into the Orthodox Church and my belief that the Orthodox Church was "the true Church established by Christ", that he would respond dismissively that I sounded like a fundamentalist. In this new religious consciousness, it is not false teachings and false teachers, heresies and teachers of heresy, which are to be avoided at all costs. Rather, "fundamentalists" are the greatest enemy and this phrase will be increasingly used to demonize anyone who dares to believe in revealed truth.

When speaking of Zen and its entrance into the West, after describing many things that are appealing about Zen for western man, Fr. Seraphim (Rose) writes:


Zen has, in fact, no theological foundation, relying entirely on "experience" and thus falling into the "pragmatic fallacy" that has already been noted earlier in this book, in the chapter on Hinduism: "If it works, it must be true and good." Zen, without any theology, is no more able than Hinduism to distinguish between good and evil spiritual experiences; it can only state what seems to be good because it brings "peace" and "harmony," as judged by the natural powers of the mind and not by any revelation -everything else it rejects as more or less illusory. Zen appeals to the subtle pride — so widespread today — of those who think they can save themselves, and thus have no need of any Saviour outside themselves.

Of all of today's Eastern religious currents, Zen is probably the most sophisticated intellectually and the most sober spiritually. With its teaching of compassion and a loving "Cosmic Buddha," it is perhaps as high a religious ideal as the human mind can attain — without Christ. Its tragedy is precisely that is has no Christ in it, and thus no salvation, and its very sophistication and sobriety effectively prevent its followers from seeking salvation in Christ. In its quiet, compassionate way it is perhaps the saddest of all the reminders of the "post-Christian" times in which we live. Non-Christian "spirituality" is no longer a foreign importation in the West; it has become a native American religion putting down deep roots into the consciousness of the West. Let us be warned from this: the religion of the future will not be a mere cult or sect, but a powerful and profound religious orientation which will be absolutely convincing to the mind and heart of modern man.

http://www.orthodoxphotos.com/readings/future/training.shtml

As Fr. Seraphim points out, Zen and other similar practices have great appeal and Orthodox Christians may see many similarities between Zen and Orthodoxy (just as Thomas Merton saw much resemblance between the sayings of the Desert Fathers and the teachings of the Zen masters). However, for all its appeal, Zen does not lead to Christ nor to salvation.

More generally regarding the “new religious consciousness”, Fr. Seraphim states:


When experience is emphasized above doctrine, the normal Christian safeguards which protect one against the attacks of fallen spirits are removed or neutralized, and the passiveness and "openness" which characterize the new cults literally open one up to be used by demons. Studies of the experiences of many of the "consciousness cults" show that there is a regular progression in them from experiences which at first are "good" or "neutral" to experiences which become strange and frightening and in the end clearly demonic. Even the purely physical side of psychic disciplines like Yoga are dangerous, because they are derived from and dispose one towards the psychic attitudes and experiences which are the original purpose of Yoga practice.

The seductive power of the "new religious consciousness" is so great today that it can take possession of one even while he believes that he is remaining a Christian. This is true not only of those who indulge in the superficial syncretisms or combinations of Christianity and Eastern religions which have been mentioned above; it is true also of an increasing number of people who regard themselves as fervent Christians. The profound ignorance of true Christian spiritual experience in our times is producing a false Christian "spirituality" whose nature is closely kin to the "new religious consciousness.

http://www.orthodoxphotos.com/readings/future/christianity.shtml

This exaltation of experience over doctrine has been my experience of the “contemplative prayer movement” that is taking place among non-Orthodox Christians today, which the Cloud of Unknowing and Cassian's Conferences are used to support. The problems with this movement have little or nothing to do with the Cloud or the Conferences, but their contemporary (mis)application.

In my former practice of yoga, I came to agree with Fr. Seraphim that even the physical aspect of yoga creates a disposition “towards the psychic attitudes and experiences which are the original purpose of Yoga practice” and therefore are not compatible with Orthodox Christianity. The more one gets involved with such things, the further he is removed from the spirit of the Fathers and the path of theosis.

[Aidan Kimel]

I honestly do not know what "mysticism" means in a Christian context. Everything about the Christian life is mystical, for it is life in the Holy Spirit. I commend to you Fr Andrew Louth's "Afterword" to the second edition of his book The Origins of the Christian Mystical Tradition. Fr Andrew writes:


The more I have read and thought about the phenomenon of ‘mysticism’, the more I have become convinced that the cluster of ideas associated with mysticism is not in the least a matter of ‘facts’, but rather strategies of thought and interpretation with a real, though not always focused, agenda. Furthermore, the more I have read the Fathers, the more the notion of the ‘mystical’ has come to be called into question – not in the sense that I feel inclined now to dismiss mysticism (as in Newman’s quip about mysticism beginning in mist and ending in schism), but rather that I have begun to realize that the mystical dimension is much more serious than our current ideas of mysticism envisage. Ultimately, a recovery of the patristic notion of the mystical involves a reconfiguration of what is involved in committing ourselves to be transformed by God’s grace – in the language of the Fathers, ‘deified’. As my original book made clear, for the Fathers this transformation certainly involved a reconstitution of individual human beings, but it is no individual quest, but rather the rediscovery of our humanity in Christ – the ecclesial and sacramental dimensions are part of the mystical, not to be contrasted with it. ‘Mysticism’, in this sense, is not esoteric but exemplary, not some kind of flight from the bodily but deeply embedded (not to say: embodied), not about special ‘experiences’ of God but about a radical opening of ourselves to God.

[Rick H.]

‘Mysticism’, in this sense, is not esoteric but exemplary, not some kind of flight from the bodily but deeply embedded (not to say: embodied), not about special ‘experiences’ of God but about a radical opening of ourselves to God.



". . . a radical opening of ourselves to God." Now, that's the Orthodoxy I saw in the brochures and signed up for! That's refreshing.

[Rick H.]

To those who aren’t Orthodox, I would question why people would want to make up their own spiritual path by borrowing various techniques, methods, and teachings from various sources rather than enter the Orthodox Church . . .




Many of us journey to Orthodoxy on different paths. We have all flown closer to the flame at different altitudes and speeds.

The older I get, the less I question things because as we see even in your own case, God was in control:





However, I also acknowledge that it was through Christian Meditation that I learned about the Orthodox Church and the practice of the Jesus Prayer, and I realize that similarly for others what is not good can be used by God for good in bringing others into the Orthodox Church.



The older I get, the less I want to tell people things like "you mustn't do that or you must do this." Actually, it's my understanding that the most seasoned and respected preists and spiritual fathers do not operate like that.

Keep up the good posts though, you are covering so much ground in such a short time and in such an excellent way!

[Todd G]

This is a good question.

Sometimes, I think some of us know more about non-Orthodox prayer and meditation than we do Orthodox prayer and meditation. What's up with that? I wonder if it is because the instruction of and teaching of the non-Orthodox ways are usually presented in a way that is so easy to grasp and understand what is being said (no double-talk and running in circles)?

I think there are several issues that need to be pointed out in relation to this. And let me first say that I cannot respond to or read and think about all the important contributions that have been made to this conversation above now, just too busy and need to get to other things today ASAP. Perhaps I can get to some of them later.

But I think it's important to realize that Orthodox converts have dozens of years often of experience and learning in other traditions. I do not think these things should simply dismissed. The people I listen to on Ancient Faith Radio are often converts and their Evangelical and Catholic backgrounds are bringing great riches to their current understanding of Orthodoxy and allowing the essence of the faith to be discovered. They are often far more committed to reading the scriptures, understanding the history of their faith, and living a life in communion with Christ than many orthodox I know. Many Russian Orthodox I know are simply at church because it is the thing to do now that the church is free in Russia. They know and practice very little of the treasures of the faith.

I am repeating myself somewhat for the second point, which is that I rely on other non-Orthodox sprititual practices simply because there is not enough around me in terms of Orthodox versions. I live hours away from an Orthodox monastery. I can not do silent meditation with Orthodox. I also simply do not believe that the Orthodox I know are as good with scripture and take scripture as seriously as do the Protestants I know. Orthodox often say "we read scripture with the mind of fathers and in relation the fathers." But among the Orthos I know, not only is NOBODY reading scripture and the Fathers at all, NOBODY is reading scripture or the fathers. I am sure someone will jump on me and say "well we Orthodox may not be meeting together for bible study, but we approach bible study in the right way, in the liturgy and by listening to what the hierarchy tells us we should think about it." I don't buy it. and I don't buy that we cannot practice prayer and meditation with other Christians as long as you seriously struggle without the soul and being careful about it, and thinking about what you are doing somehow in relation to Orthodox christianity, which is what we are doing via this website.

If you listen to orthodox talk long enough you begin to think of Orthodox as orthodox Jews. We will soon be living in a totally segregated community, walking around in distinctive costumes and refusing to intermingle or relate with anybody. We will be debating whether or not we are eating our breakfast cereal or driving our cars to work in an Orthodox manner.

[Dennis Justison]

It's like what one of my college professors said, "Let's be careful with truth, because once I think I have it, it's usually gone." We must not become too sure of ourselves otherwise it is the pagans who will surpass us.

I'd like to think that prayer is the humble raising of our hearts and minds to God. Orthodox prayer is multifaceted. It is the using of words on the tongue, the unspoken and unthought intentions of the heart, it is the reading of words of others from a printed page, but in all things I think it has something to do with the suspension of the "I" (the ego) and the making manifest, in my own heart at least, the "I AM" (the ego eimi).

[Rick H.]

I'd like to think that prayer is the humble raising of our hearts and minds to God.




Very good Dennis. I think this applies to all Christians regardless of their label. The Apostle Paul says we do not even know how to pray and that's why the Holy Spirit prays for us. Sometimes words just get in the way.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Fr, Raphael, what is the 'self'? It seems to me fair to say that our 'self' must be replaced by the birth of Christ likeness in us, but, essentially every single of our desires whether destructive or altruistic, and even the wish itself to be like Christ, always come from this 'self' of ours.

What I am referring to is the sense of self promoted by today's society, where the self as decision maker and enabler is the entire focus of ones life. Here the self is the ultimate authority over all things and is able, as we are told so often, able to be anything it wants. In other words, except for pure will, the self has no personal identity in today's society- and that is why it can be anything it wants. Ironicaly though this indicates that the self for all of its exalted sense of self will has never been so enslaved, since only through self control will we ever find freedom.

In other words then, in Christ we as created persons find our freedom, and discover who we were meant to be in God's eyes. However in a society 'free' of this divine oversight, the self is exalted in a fashion that enslaves it.

In Christ
-Fr Raphael

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Well, we certainly have been describing what Orthodox prayer ISN'T. The apophatic approach is genuinely Orthodox, yes?

Herman the emphatically apophatic Pooh

This was exactly my thought also. We're so goal oriented in our society that it's safer for us to see Orthodox prayer in a very simple way, as ascetic, and as part of our overall effort at self denial. Let God work through this in whatever way He will. It's far safer like this than to have any specific goal at all in mind.

In Christ
-Fr Raphael

[Rick H.]

I was just looking at the video in Aaron's new thread today and noticed this one keyed up ready to play next:


It's not easy to be Orthodox Christian - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ap7kreDRzgQ&feature=related)

In this at about the 4 minute and 50 second mark a monk is speaking and he shares:




Nothing will draw you close to God except prayer. I have also had the prayer of the heart; something that not everyone can have. And I had it and to be honest, I lost it because of my unworthiness.

But, when you are in contact with the Holy Spirit, you just sit there and the Holy Spirit prays for you! Yes, you pray with your heart then. Just like a mill: once you put the belt on it keeps running by itself, without you.



As Father Raphael has said, in Orthodoxy this comes after purification, and not just from taking a seat, and sitting in the woods one day.

But, what is expressed in this video is exactly what was on my mind about an hour ago, and I thought this quote had a place here in this discussion.

[Dennis Justison]

My discipline is Communication Studies. I think there are a couple basic definitions of Communications that apply to prayer, if of course, we assume that prayer is communication. First, "Communication is a relational process of creating and interpreting messages that elicit a response," (basic definition of communication by Em Griffin). Another basic concept is that to have communication, there must be two communicators and one must be aware of the other.

I am still an infant in regards to my Orthodox experience, but I would submit that I find these definitions of communication fulfilled in ORthodox prayer. Of course, prayer is intensely personal and we must individually be aware of the Almighty. Yet, I find in the rituals, the bowing, the incense etc., a profound respect, a communication of presence, a response even, from the Other. I remember the first Divine Liturgy that I attended. It gave me goose-bumps, not because of all the ritual or the singing, but because I noticed something different. At that time, I had already been a most fervent believer and Catholic for many years, and yet, here HE was, as if I met Him for the first time. I believe I was aware of Him before, and yet, here I was, seemingly made aware all anew.

[Todd G]

I sense you avoided answering the question, but that is OK it was largely rhetorical and intended to be "fuzzy", a place to start thinking from. I do believe that there are more references to "quietness" and "stillness" than there are to silence in Orthodox literature. Is there a difference? I suspect so.

I don't want to make this into a battle of wills, as there is far too much of that type of interaction on the internet. But I responsed to this question down below and did it in confusion thinking I was responding to you, but got side tracked. I don't think working with silent prayer takes us away from Christ, but rather to him, as I say below a few posts up.

[Theophrastus]

"Silence is a great power in our unseen warfare and a sure hope of gaining victory. Silence is much beloved of him, who does not rely on himself but trusts in God alone. It is the guardian of holy prayer and a miraculous helper in the practice of virtues; it is also a sign of spiritual wisdom. St. Isaac says: 'guarding your tongue not only makes your mind rise to God, but also gives great hidden power to perform visible actions, done by the body. If silence is practised with knowledge, it also brings enlightenment in hidden doing' (ch. 31 in Russian edition). In another place he praises it thus: 'If you pile up on one side of the scales all the works demanded by ascetic life, and on the other side -- silence, you will find that the latter outweighs the former. Many good counsels have been given us, but if a man embraces silence, to follow them will become superfluous' (ch. 41). In yet another place he calls silence 'the mystery of the life to come; whereas words are the instruments of this world' (ch. 42). St. Barsanuphius places it above preaching the word of God, saying: 'If you are just on the very point of preaching, know that silence is more worthy of wonder and glory.' Thus, although one man 'holdeth his tongue because he hath not to answer', another 'keepeth silence, knowing his time' (Ecclesiasticus xx.6), yet another for some other reasons, 'for the sake of human glory, or out of zeal for this virtue of silence, or because he secretly communes with God in his heart and does not want the attention of this mind to be distracted from it' (St. Isaac, ch. 76). It can be said in general that a man, who keepeth silence, is found wise and of good sense (Ecclesiasticus xx.5).

I shall indicate to you the most direct and simple method to acquire the habit of silence: undertake this practice, and the practice itself will teach you how to do it, and help you. To keep up your zeal in this work, reflect as often as you can on the pernicious results of indiscriminate babbling and on the salutary results of wise silence. When you come to taste the good fruit of silence, you will no longer need lessons about it."

Lorenzo Scupoli, Unseen Warfare. Edited by Nicodemus of the Holy Mountain and revised by Theophan the Recluse. Translated by E. Kadloubovsky and G. E. H. Palmer. Crestwood, New York: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1987. Chapter 25, 146-147.

________

55 Maxims for Christian Living (http://dangreeson.tumblr.com/post/31558579/fr-thomas-hopkos-55-maxims-for-christian-living)
by Fr. Thomas Hopko

1. Be always with Christ.
2. Pray as you can, not as you want.
3. Have a keepable rule of prayer that you do by discipline.
4. Say the Lord’s Prayer several times a day.
5. Have a short prayer that you constantly repeat when your mind is not occupied with other things.
6. Make some prostrations when you pray.
7. Eat good foods in moderation.
8. Keep the Church’s fasting rules.
9. Spend some time in silence every day.
....

[Todd G]

many excellent things here Theophrastus! so glad you posted the Hopko maxims, as I was just about to go and find it, not having seen it for a year or so.

Todd