There have been several trends in the church that began in the last half of the 20th

century that seem consistent with an overarching dynamic of democratization (not

regarding church polity but more generally conceived) and inclusivism. There has been a
clericalization of the laity and a laicization of the clergy. Our approach to other traditions
has been more inclusivistic and less exclusivistic. And thanks to Rahner and Merton,
even contemplation has been democratized. What brings all of these trends together is a
much broader understanding of how the Holy Spirit might be operating in our world at
large as opposed to being distributed through pipelines from Rome. And I have
sufciently nuanced, elsewhere, how a properly inclusivistic perspective need not be at
all indifferentist or syncretistic. However otherwise meaningful the sanjuanist
distinctions once were and even remain, it seems to me that the words contemplation
and contemplative have been coopted by a much more general audience, including no
too few spiritual writers, and that it is much more broadly conceived than it is otherwise
more narrowly dened in the classical sanjuanist usage. And this is due, in the largest
measure, to Rahner and Merton. Why shouldn't "infused" be far behind? In fact, where
infused is concerned, it is a bad word from the get go, etymologically, if it truly only
represents a matter of degree? Especially since so many people, otherwise, seem to
equate it with the very presence or absence of the Holy Spirit, implying that Eastern
practitioners could not know such an experience, whether of kind or degree. And that is
not just a sematical issue or one of preferred denitions, but a substantive theological
error. Increasigly, the formative spirituality theopolicy wonks are going to need to come
up with a vocabuluary that comports with the new trends and try to nd different labels
for those experiences that will help them discern how active or passive this or that
directee should be in prayer.
I think it is important to note that Fr. Rohr employs the word contemplation as it is more
broadly conceived such as by Rahner and Merton and as understood by modern general
audiences (and not per the narrow sanjuanist usage). He emphasizes a contemplative
stance, which he basically equates as a realization of our True Self, and notes that most
of us spend time in our False Self and True Self each day but need daily reminders to
keep our True Self awareness in play. Because there are so many personality and
temperament types, Fr. Rohr does not really emphasize one practice over another, but
afrms the use of a 20 minute sit, the rosary, the Eucharist or other devotions,
encouraging people to employ that prayer form best suited to them. He employs
nonduality as an epistemic stance which goes beyond the calculative mind, the dualistic
mind that is logical, empirical and practical and geared toward meeting functional needs
and gaining extrinsic rewards, to experience ALSO that consciousness which is
nonpropositional, more geared toward relationships and their intrinsic value. Basically,
this dualistic vs nondualistic consciousness is characteristic, then, of our False Self and
True Self. Dualistic consciousness of our False Self is not bad. The False self is not bad
either. They are just not our True Self. So, for a robust personal relationship with God,
beyond a merely functional relationship, the false self and dualistic thinking might be
thought of as necessary but not sufcient. That's all. As far as your prayer practice, that's
up to you and your director, if you have one.
Below is a unproofed summary of Fr. Rohr's The Third Eye from some rather sketchy
notes. There's nothing new in his approach here except for his emphasis, perhaps, on
praxis vis a vis our realization of True Self.

Father Rohr spent ve weeks, this past Lent, in a hermitage, in solitude. He spent this
time reflecting and writing a new book, The Third Eye. On Easter Monday, he made a
presentation of an outline of these thoughts and this conference is available in a 4 CD
set.
Its not until the 3rd CD of this 4 CD presentation that Fr. Rohr speaks directly to or
denes the Third Eye per se. His use of this descriptor, he then explains, is derived from
two 11th Century monks, Hugh and Richard of the Monastery of St. Victor in Paris. The
flowering of this thinking in his Franciscan tradition, he tells us, took place in the 12th
and 13th centuries.
Although the metaphor is similar to the same concept of Hindu and Buddhist traditions,
it is independent of those in that there was no contact between those and this Christian
conceptualization.
As I mentioned elsewhere, we are talking about the eyes of 1) sense, 2) reason and 3)
faith.
Basically, Fr. Rohr is amplifying his teaching on contemplative living, which continues to
be heavily informed by his love of Thomas Merton. He makes frequent references to
Merton, False Self and True Self and compares and contrasts them in many different
ways, using many different adjectives and metaphors.
Fr. Rohr likes the word realization and sees it as being richer than the word
experience for he describes the robust encounter of God as a total body blow,
where not only head and heart are engaged but the body, too. Unfortunately, we
localize knowing and too often try to access God only in the top 3 inches of the body
and only on the left side at that. This dualistic, binary or dyadic thinking, which we
employ in math, science and engineering, or when we are driving a car, is of course good
and necessary. It is the mind that divides the eld into classes and categories and
then applies labels through compare and contrast exercises. It is the egoic mind that is
looking for control and order, but, unforunately, also superiority. It can lead to both
intellectual and spiritual laziness, however, to an egoic operating system (Cynthis
Bourgeault), which views all through a lens of How does it affect me?
An aside: Rohr says that all that participates in love in our lives is forever, even your dog.
So, theres one view of heaven among others.
The contemplative mind goes beyond the tasks of the dualistic mind to deal with
concepts like love, mercy, compassion and forgiveness. It doesnt need to divide the
eld for such tasks.
The contemplative mind is practicing heaven in that it sees the Divine image as being
equally distributed and present in all others. We see that presence, honor it and
know it. The contemplative mind starts each moment with yes. It is vulnerable
before the moment, opening heart space. It is present to people and does not put
them in a box. So, in our primary level encounter with others, we do not prejudge. At the
secondary and tertiary level, a no may be absolutely necessary. Once you know you
can say yes, then it is important to be able to say no, when appropriate.

Rohr makes clear, in his words, that we include previous categories and retain
what we learn in early stages. Our goal, in his words, is to master both dualistic and
nondualistic thinking.
We must go beyond (not without) that part of our tradition that was informed mostly by
Greek logic in order to be more open to paradox and mystery. Rohr described some of
the early apophatic and nondual elements of the Christian tradition, especially in the rst
three centuries with the Desert Mothers and Fathers, especially in the Orthodox and
eastern Christian churches, and describing John of the Cross and Teresa of Avila as the
last supernovae. The apophatic and unknowing tradition has not been constant. For 400
years after these Carmelites there has been no real tradition. He credits Merton with
almost single-handedly retrieving authentic contemplative teaching that has not been
taught for almost 500 years. This type of mysticism, he, like Merton says, is available to
all but it takes a type of humility to let go of our control tower.
We and others are living tabernacles, even given the contrary evidence. That God dwells
in us is the foundation of human dignity.
Fr. Rohr discusses the Gift of Tongues in this contemplative vein and notes that when it
died out, prayer-based beads emerged. He apparently went on to discuss prayer beads in
other traditions but that part was truncated.
Fr. Rohr notes that the East and West differ in that more emphasis is placed on
discipline, practice and asceticism in the East, while, in the West, we emphasize
surrender and trust.
Our Christian path is more one of letting go and yielding of self. He believes that most of
us, a very high percentage, have enjoyed unitive moments, but that there was no one
there to say thats it. He thinks that it would be useful to retrieve our contemplative
tradition because we apparently need some degree of discipline or practice to keep
seeing and trusting our unitive moments, our union, our communion. The Spirit will thus
teach us all things and re-mind you that you are in union with God, that you are select;
you are chosen; you are beloved. We need to learn how to live in communion, now, for
that is what well enjoy in heaven.
Fr. Rohr then describes practices that open up this contemplative mind: silence, stillness,
solitude, patience about needing to know everything, poetry, art, body movement, music,
humility and redemptive listening. He describes how we need to stand back and
compassionately and calmly observe reality, without initial regard for how it affects us,
but to see persons and events nakedly, seeing our drama almost as if it wasnt us. If
we cannot thus detach, then we are over-identied. Whenever were defensive, it is
usually our false self. What characterizes an addict is typically all or nothing thinking. We
do not hate the False Self. We must simply see it. It is not our bad self, just not our
true self. We need to better learn to hold together opposites and contradictions. A
modern retrieval of our ancient practices of contemplative seeing can foster this type of
nonjudging awareness. Rohr says that a master of nondual thinking needs to also be a
master of dualistic thinking. Our Catholic tradition has great wisdom in retaining icon
and art and symbols and music. The primary teachers of this approach to God and
others and all of reality are great love and great suffering. Our primary paths have been
suffering and prayer.

When head and heart and body are all connected, that is prayer. This, says Fr. Rohr, is not
esoteric teaching. Everybody has the Holy Spirit!
What appears to be the new theme emerging from Fr. Rohrs latest thought is that of
supplementing and complementing our traditional approach to belief-based religion with
more practice-based religion. In particular, he sees great wisdom in retrieving those
practices which have been lost or deemphasized that we can better cultivate a
contemplative outlook. In prayer, we are like tuning forks that come in to Gods
presence and seek to abide inside of a resonance with God. We need to set aside
whatever blocks our reception, especially a lack of love or lack of forgiveness.
Fr. Rohr does describe much of Buddhism as gifting one with practices and not
conclusions.
Be well, everyone!
More likely, though, he is not talking about natural mysticism whatsoever when he uses
the term "natural contemplation." Because of his heavy reliance on Merton, my most
educated guess would be that, when Rohr uses the term "natural contemplation," his
meaning is the same as Merton's. These distinctions date back to the early Church
Fathers and are not the same being drawn by Jacques Maritain, on whom Merton also
heavily relied.
quote:
As with Origen, for Evagrius the way of the soul is divided into 3 stages, although he
adopts his own terminology. In Evagriuss terms: praktike, physike, and theologia.
Praktike: refers to the stage during which the soul develops the practice of the virtues. It
is the life of struggle with demons (well have to say more of this aspect of desert
spirituality), a struggle to overcome temptation and subdue the passions.
Physike: refers to the stage of natural contemplationthrough contemplation of the
natural order the soul rises beyond it to discern the principles that lie behind it. There is a
natural movement from the immaterial to the immaterial.
Theologia: refers to knowledge of the Holy Trinity, contemplation of God as He is in
Himself.
In this usage of the word natural, it is not being distinguished from supernatural, such as
when Maritain distinguished natural mysticism. Natural contemplation, in this other
sense, is not called natural with respect to its origin but with respect to its object. As
William Shannon explains:
quote:
Such contemplation presupposes a long ascetic preparation that delivers one from
attachment from exterior of things and produces a purity of heart and a singleness of
view that enables one to see straight into the nature of things as they are. It is a
contemplation of the divine in nature, not contemplation of the divine by our natural
powers. pg.134 of Thomas Merton's Paradise Journey: Writings on Contemplation By

William H. Shannon
Also, Wayne Teasdale:
quote:
And in fact, natural contemplation in this sense is mystical, that is to say, it is a gift of
God, a divine enlightenment. pg 192 of The Mystic Heart: Discovering a Universal
Spirituality in the World's Religions By Wayne Teasdale
All that said, as I mentioned previously, Merton would not see the distinction between
such as supernatural and acquired contemplation as differing other than in degree,
where the Holy Spirit is concerned. And the same thing would apply to the Holy Spirit
being active even in what we call natural mysticism (as distinct from natural
contemplation). There is certainly a distinction to be made vis a vis fullness of
realization or experience of the Holy Spirit, as would be expected for those blessed with
the unmerited gift of moving, as I said, "more swiftly and with less hindrance toward this
Giver of all good gifts."
Where Rohr is concerned, I badly do not want our concerns to be interpreted as
overwrought, our rhetoric as overheated or excessiviely pejorative, especially when his
errors, to me, are only "so-called". I do not want to have my charitable interpretations of
him construed as disingenuous either. If I am strident, it is only because I am very much
in earnest. This is a difcult medium with no nonverbal cues, so I toss out those caveats
for any casual passers-by, who do not know the history of our long friendships. Smiler
I hope this helps. I would contribute more but am very out-of-pocket with vacationing.
I mentioned, on the nonduality thread, the dialogue between the transcendental thomists
and their account of thematic grace and the peirceans and their account of grace as
transmuted experience. The Lonerganian account of conversion does clearly distinguish
between the secular conversions (intellectual, affective, moral and social) and religious
conversion, but its theological anthropology is still very optimistic with its transcendental
thomism. The Peircean account does not see everyone longing spontaneously for the
beatic vision, as Rahner and Lonergan might seem to have suggested with their
account of the "supernatural existential." What Rohr describes is a more robustly
contemplative outlook and prayer life that would be accessible, in my view, to many as
they pass from the purgative to the illuminative way, not without occasional, fleeting
unitive experiences. This is distinct from abiding in the unitive way and infused
contemplation per se. Rohr describes most transformative growth as fostered mostly via
prayer and suffering, surrender and trust, as I mentioned. He sees some additional
practices as well warranted is all.
I'm equally, maybe even moreso, concerned with the distinction being overblown into an
insidious and arrogant ecclesiocentric pneumatological exclusivism. With Merton, I do
see the distinction as being largely defunct on the theoretical level, irrelevant. The
experiential differences between prayer forms, too problematical for generic
considerations, are, instead, practical concerns that require discernment in a spiritual
direction context, which has its own set of caveats. I'm all for cautionary notes, just not a
preoccupation with same; they are "notes" and not banner headlines.
The most salient point in my post, from your perspective Phil, is that Rohr is very likely

using the term natural contemplation in the very same way that Merton uses it. Now,
Merton draws upon Maritain for many of his distinctions and, from his writings regarding
East-West contemplative dialogue, there can be little doubt that he agrees with Maritain's
account of natural mysticism. Merton also draws upon the early Church Fathers, and it is
clear that he uses the term natural contemplation in that context, as a form of Christian
mystical contemplation, which is not the same thing as Maritain's natural mysticism.
This all speaks directly to Rohr's usage in the Tolle article and is a very plausible
explanation for what you were otherwise considering a major gaffe or faux pas. While
concerns may persist for you, it would seem to me that they would be of a somewhat
different nature on a somewhat different level? Or not. That's my two cents worth.
I'm willing to bet that Rohr will be very generous with you in your unwitting conflation of
"natural contemplation" with "natural mysticism," the former mystical, the latter not. Big
Grin
When we draw distinctions between such as infused contemplation, acquired
contemplation, natural mysticism, and even the Mertonesque natural contemplation,
what is not helpful, even erroneous, in my view, is any hint or suggestion that ALL of
these acts are not supernatural, that ALL of these acts are not under the guidance of the
Holy Spirit. The proper distinction to apply, rather, is whether or not a given prayer is
mystical.
The ecclesiocentric exclusivism is alive and well at This Rock , Catholics United for the
Faith and EWTN, some who view any appropriation of Eastern asceticism as not only not
Holy Spirit-inspired but as "Satan's Counterfeit." Frowner
As for Rohr and Keating, I do not see them setting aside Lectio Divina but rather working
to restore its contemplative character. We must ask the question as to whether or not our
churches have successfully institutionalized conversion, true metanoia, as opposed to
merely institutionalizing "socialization," in other words, good little "False Self"s. Of
course, if you outright reject the notion of acquired contemplation, then we will argue
past each other ad nauseum. Such contemplative prayer, as CP, even, is amenable even
to the Carmelite tradition.
1) Rohr relies heavily on Merton.
2) Merton used the term natural contemplation.
3) This is how Merton used the term: natural contemplation
4) Rohr used the term natural contemplation.
5) Maybe Rohr used it the same way.
Where's the knots? Roll Eyes
pax!
jb

posted 31 July 2008 03:48 AM

Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by johnboy:
[qb] Besides, why would Rohr write this: Tolle is, in fact, rather brilliantly bringing to our
awareness the older tradition of both infused or natural contemplation," if he
meant, instead, this: Tolle is, in fact, rather brilliantly bringing to our awareness the older
tradition of both infused or natural mysticism."? [/qb]
Furthermore, when speaking of natural contemplation, Rohr, in the VERY SAME
SENTENCE, invokes Orthodoxy:
quote:
The mystical tradition inside of Orthodoxy and Catholicism often divided contemplation
into two types: infused or natural contemplation.
Does that not further bolster the interpretation that he is relying on the early church
fathers:
Rohr drawing on Merton drawing on Maximus (who called himself the Greek) drawing on
Pseudo-Dionysius and Evagrius re: natural contemplation?
You said you recognized the term from theosis. Indeed, Evagrius considers these as
developmental stages. I recall this from my earlier consideration of hesychasm on my
nonduality thread.
Maximus has been interpreted as seeing these stages as moreso parallel, regarding the
practical and contemplative life as essentially together. (Reminds one of the Rohr
approach to Action and Contemplation?) Maximus interprets Luke 22:8 as Peter
representing the ascetic or practical path and John the contemplative path when
preparing the Last Supper, noting that both are necessary; both stand essentially
together. The theoria physike, or natural contemplation, is mystical, as Shannon makes
clear. Merton, as we all know, was immersed in the desert fathers and Greek patristic
thought. His teachings on natural contemplation, in particular, are drawn from lecture
notes regarding Maximus.

posted 31 July 2008 02:16 PM

Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Phil:
[qb] From JB:
And these distinctions may be quite beside the point, of course, in that Rohr emphasizes
that Tolle is teaching process and not doctrine, in that Tolle is merely bringing aspects of
our tradition to our awareness and not teaching us anything explicitly and robustly about
those parts of our tradition. We are dealing, then, with ascetical disciplines, practices,
methods and technologies as abstracted from any interpretive paradigm.
Well, yes and no, for Rohr says:
quote:
Tolle is, in fact, rather brilliantly bringing to our awareness the older tradition
of both infused or natural contemplation, and the two rst types in Underhills

listing.
So what's Rohr really saying? That Tolle is teaching ... [/qb]
One inference, as I described it above, was that Tolle's teachings on awareness, broadly
conceived, bring to mind our own traditions, which share that particular aspect. But
bringing those things to mind and enlivening our memories of our own traditions is not
wholly the same thing as the teaching of our tradition. That is what I meant by Tolle is
merely bringing aspects of our tradition to our awareness and not teaching us anything
explicitly and robustly about those parts of our tradition.
So, this above-described inference regarding what Rohr was saying is quite different
from the one you describe above, which is that "Tolle is teaching." This is, then, a
different inference. In the rst, Tolle is not teaching our tradition. In the next he is.
And I nd this second inference compelling, too.
I went and re-read Underhill, just a tad. And I think it is fair to say that her rst two
categories do not describe anything distinctly mystical, as in our classical sanjuanist
usage, or what might be considered contemplation per se, again, as in our classical
sanjuanist usage (not that my categories are constrained by the sanjuanist approach, but
they are certainly heavily informed by it).
I am still inclined toward understanding Rohr's usage of natural contemplation as being
consistent with the Orthodox tradition, the desert fathers, the Greek patristics and so, as
they come down via Maximus and through Merton. And I also see his usage of natural
mysticism as consistent with Maritain's, again via Merton to Rohr, (via Arraj to us.)
As I have revisted this, what we would have in such a schema are the following
categories. And I know they don't map perfectly over any scheme, Maritain, sanjuanist,
Cistercian, Benedictine, etc
1) Underhill's Mystical Contemplation of the Natural World (not infused)
2) Underhill's Metaphysical Contemplation of the World of Being and Consciousness (not
infused)
3) Natural Contemplation of Evagrius & Maximus, or the Theoria Physike, which may
variously be mystical (infused) or not, depending on circumstances and persons
4) Theologike or Theologia of Evagrius & Maximus, which corresponds to Underhill's
Theological Contemplation of the World of God, broadly conceived to include both
acquired and infused, kataphatic and apophatic
In this sense, Tolle may very well be bringing to mind and, as our second inference
suggests, also teaching some aspects of our own tradition (the rst three listed above or
natural mysticism, broadly conceived), which we would consider to be the ascetical and
not the mystical dimension of our tradition. To wit:
quote:
Tolle is, in fact, rather brilliantly bringing to our awareness the older tradition
of both infused or natural contemplation, and the two rst types in Underhills
listing. These are both the ground and the process for breaking through to theological
contemplation of God, and acquired contemplation of Jesus, the Gospels, and all
spiritual things.

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

I do think that the natural contemplation as explicated by the Merton biographer,

Shannon, and as conceived by the early church fathers, can be experienced mystically,
for one properly prepared and disposed. And I'm not inclined to restrict such, necessarily,
to my own tradition. As I make clear though, Tolle is dealing with ascetical and not
mystical dimensions. But I would qualify that and say, for the most part. Anyone can
come to the threshold of mystical contemplation if properly disposed through love. Keep
in mind the distinction, too, between what we call nature mysticism, which I think can be
mystical or not, and natural mysticism, which is sometimes not even kataphatic and not
always dealing with the the natural world writ large as its object but metaphysical
intuitions regarding such as being or consciousness, itself. iow natural in n
contemplation refers to object of same while in n mysticism it refers to origin of same
So, yes, Tolle's experience would indeed include an "infused state" as the strict
grammatical construction you reference would suggest. I don't think he is saying it
necessarily includes THE infused state as per classical sanjuanist formative spirituality,
for example, but neither would it rule that out, for any given individual. He is employing
"infused" in a more generic sense following transcendental thomism, for which ALL
experience of God, all contemplation of God, is considered infused. And I'm quite certain
he is not a priori ruling out the possibility that Tolle or any other nonChristian
experienced same in a "high degree."
To wit:
quote:
For Karl Rahner, all experience of God
is the expression of faith and love, all of it is
rightly called mystical, and all knowledge and
love of God are infused. Not only prayer
experiences, but even the mundane
experiences of average Christians which are
products of faith are movements of the Holy
Spirit and constitute ordinary mysticism or
the mysticism of everyday life. In Rahners
view, what has been designated as infused
contemplation in the tradition is a high degree
of the same one basic experience of loving
faith. The classical mystical experience of the saints remains extraordinary, not
because of
its principles, but because of its perfection and
rarity. Theologically, the experience of God
in meditation, in human activity, or in
classical infused contemplation are all the
same one gift of God working within us, the
same one reality different not in kind but in
degree. Ernest E. Larkin, O.Carm
So, I would not say our traditions have made a distinction that to him is somehow

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