"Fire Within": Contemp prayer and "Practice of Pres of God"

[JoyToBeCatholic]

I am reading “Fire Within” and Fr. Dubay is describing contemplative prayer as an infused gift that we have no control over. He says contemplation is NOT that inspiration or what-have-you that you get at looking at creation. Yet then the next chapter is about creation and meditation and how God has left “some trace of Who He is” in all of His creation, and that this should “enkindle love in the faithful soul who gazes with seeking and receptive eyes. Yet, good as all this is, these created realities are among the lesser works of God” and “…a love that is soon thirsting for a far greater vision of and imersion into the divine beauty than finite reality cannot possible trigger.” “Nothing worldly satisfies one who has tasted the divine” “”…the growing soul to be thirsting now for nothing less than some direct contact with the Fountain" “Good as meditation is, the holy person will find that finite beauty is only a messenger. An intermediary is no longer enough”.
With all this in mind, would you say then, that creation can be a vehicle for a person experiencing contemplative prayer? Likewise, he says “Discursive meditation is to lead one rapidly to so penetrating a yearning for the Beloved’s presence that nothing short of Him can cure her grief”. So then, is discursive meditation also a vehicle or means of attaining contemplative prayer?

It sounds like Fr. Dubay is saying contradictory things. On one hand contemplative prayer, according to him, is “infused” and not attained at will. He says repeatedly that it is unlike occidental or oriental “methods” of meditation and that it is unlikely that the two are at all related. But if discursive meditation or marvelling at creation are means or vehicles, then contemplation is achievable at will. He also talks about how John saw “so many signs of the hidden Beloved, and it sparked in his soul a burning response. The finite powerfully led him to the infinite. We read in his life how he loved to rest his elbows on the windowsill of his cell at night and to survey the stars, absorbed all the while in the Creator of the nocturnal jewels.” “…it was precisely b/c St. John, like St. Francis of Assisi, was so purified of selfish clingings to things that he could find in them a delight far outstripping what the worldling experiences.” It is here that he goes on to say that creation is one of God’s lessor goods and how marvelling at it should give us a hunger for something greater. What is confusing to me is that I thought the point of these first remarks about John and Francis is that it was precisely b/c of their union/contemplation that they were so “purified of selfish clingings to things that …could find in them a delight far outstripping what the worldling experiences”. On one hand creation is an incomplete revelation of God, yet, otoh, to one “purified” “a delight far outstripping what the worldling experiences” should be found in them. Isn’t this saying that creation can lead one to contemplation?

Also, I have long thought that contemplation corresponded to the “practice of the presence of God” (bro. Lawrence of Resurrection), but now I am uncertain as the way this book is describing it. I would have thought that “mindfulness” or awareness of God’s presence was somewhat like contemplation b/c in the “practice” of it, after time, one realizes that they are not really “practicing” anything more than recognizing a reality, which is that God is present. It isn’t that He wasn’t present before the “practice”, but now the person is more keenly aware of it. After time in realizing this presence, actions and thoughts proceed from this awareness (virtues). The “fruit” of contemplation is also virtue. I see similarities here. Afterall, contemplation is a fusion or union, and the “presence of God” is a realization of a presence. Isn’t contemplation just a gradual realization of an already existing union? If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him. (John 14:23)
It sounds like if we have faith, and love God, and obey Him, we will have this union. I do not understand a gradual “fusion”/“union” or where God has revealed this, except that perhaps some people gradually become more aware of this union and experience it in a profound way. Otherwise, it sounds to me very much like Buddhist or Hindu meditation, not that that is bad, but perhaps they are no different than Christic contemplation(?)

continued…

 

[diligamus]

It sounds like Fr. Dubay is saying contradictory things. On one hand contemplative prayer, according to him, is “infused” and not attained at will. He says repeatedly that it is unlike occidental or oriental “methods” of meditation and that it is unlikely that the two are at all related. But if discursive meditation or marvelling at creation are means or vehicles, then contemplation is achievable at will

The tradition distinguishes between acquired contemplation and infused contemplation. One is acquirable; the other isn’t.

 

[JoyToBeCatholic]

I also see similarities between “mindfulness” (an Buddhist technique) and the “practice of the presence”. In fact, I also see a correlation between mindfulness and the sacrament of the present moment. Coincidence?

Final question:
Is this “contemplative prayer” exclusive to Catholicism? And if so, how do you know? For that matter, how do you know it isn’t the same experience as “nirvana” and therefore, exclusive to Chrsitianity?

I am stuck between:
A)taking a very literal, biblical interpretation of scripture (lets not get into a sola scriptura argument) where I would not attribute any possibly “supernatural” occurances to being from God necessarily, and

B) looking at other religions’ similar experiences and wondering if there is a connection, and

C) are both experiencing God, or are they experiencing something achieved through methods at will?

Ok, that was a lot of questions. No, I do not and never have had a spiritual director, and at this point I wouldn’t know where to look for one. Besides that, at the present time, I don’t belong to any particular church or even religion for that matter.

1. I see Catholicism rejected constantly in the Bible (no offense, and let’s not discuss it so we won’t get o.t.) and my “logic” (or il-logic perhaps) will not allow me to just remain Catholic as I always have been based on…
2. I have an insatiable urge to go back to the Catholic Church but I cannot do so based on a feeling. There was a point, as a Catholic, when I was able to “practice” “the presence” and when I had a small sampling of the type of “contemplation” described in this book. At that point in my life I was immersed in the sacraments and virtue was much more possible for me then than it is now. But I have not had that “presence” in years and have only had very small remembrances of what those “contemplative experiences” were like. Now I am remembering more and more what that time was like, almost as though I am being drawn back into it somehow without even living that same, sacramental Catholic life, and it is pulling me to desiring communion with the church again, but I am wondering if it is because of an association I have made between the experience and the Catholic lifestyle, but not necessarily b/c there really is a connection between the two (I’m sure you’ll think there is - I’m asking the wrong people!)
3. I’ve also studied Buddhism a bit and I see a very close resemblance which has often over the years made me question the authenticity or origin of the experience. I have often nearly lost my entire faith over this.

I know you don’t have all the answers. I am just wondering if you see anything remarkable about it. There’s no one else around here to ask these questions to

Thanks.

 

[JoyToBeCatholic]

The tradition distinguishes between acquired contemplation and infused contemplation. One is acquirable; the other isn’t.

Ok, that would make sense to me. I didn’t see this refereced in the book (or in any prior reading). But they would say that infused, (though not acquired) can be “prepared” for, right? One does not experience “advanced contemplation” without having some prior dispositions (detachment, etc.). I would almost say that this is, in a way, still achieving it, but I may be wrong.

 

[diligamus]

Yes … these are good questions you have, and I admire your intellectual courage for tackling them, but I think if you want definitive answers you’re going to have to get stuck in to the primary texts rather than relying on secondary sources.

 

[JoyToBeCatholic]

By “primary texts” you are referring to Teresa’s and John’s writings? (I have read them some years ago.) I saw this book recommended to someone on another thread and hoped it would shed some light on things. Are there some other texts you are referring to?

 

[InLight247]

I have read and liked both books you mentioned and see no contradiction between them.

Infused contemplation is God given, we cannot acquire it. As Teresa of Avila said, only the pure can have the full communion with **The **Pure. Therefore, the more truly we live a Gospel life, the closer we are to God, the better possibility there is for receiving this gift.

Brother Lawrence’s practice of the presence of God helps us be mindful of God’s presence, and help us put ourselves in the presence of God. It is an acquired method we all can practice.

When one constantly immerses himself in God’s presence, he attains the closeness to God. He will also be transformed by God, sanctified. This closeness and purification are the premises and prerequisites of infused contemplation. So there is really no conflict between “Fire Within” and the “Practice the Presence of God”. Same is true for creation and contemplation.

Infused Contemplation is a very high ground. As you read further of the book of “Fire Within”, you will see the description in the 6th and 7th Mansion of Teresa’s interior castle.
Few people get to experience that. St. Faustina’s Diary is a very good example of infused contemplation. Reading her diary gave me a flavor and glance of what infused contemplation may be about. If you have not read Faustina’s Diary, I highly recommend it. See how the saint loves God and you will realize why she was given the gift of infused contemplation.

 

[JoyToBeCatholic]

I have read and liked both books you mentioned and see no contradiction between them.

Infused contemplation is God given, we cannot acquire it. As Teresa of Avila said, only the pure can have the full communion with the Pure. Therefore, the more truly we live a Gospel life, the closer we are to God, the better possibility there is for receiving this gift.

Brother Lawrence’s practice of the presence of God helps us be mindful of God’s presence, and help us put ourselves in the presence of God. It is an acquired method we all can practice.

When one constantly immerses himself in God’s presence, he attains the closeness to God. He will also be transformed by God, sanctified. This closeness and purification are the premises and prerequisites of infused contemplation. So there is really no conflict between “Fire Within” and the “Practice the Presence of God”. Same is true for creation and contemplation.

Infused Contemplation is a very high ground. As you read further of the book of “Fire Within”, you will see the description in the 6th and 7th Mansion of Teresa’s interior castle.
Few people get to experience that. St. Faustina’s Diary is a very good example of infused contemplation. Reading her diary gave me a flavor and glance of what infused contemplation may be about. If you have not read it, I highly recommend it.

Thank you, I have read it. In fact I was reading it a second time this past easter.

I don’t see a contradiction with the two (contemp & presence), but rather a resemblance. I wonder if they are more than complementary. Same as the “present moment”.

I am mostly concerned (though I’m not even sure I should be) with the resemblance with each of these and western religious techniques, as well as the question of its exclusivity to Catholicism.

 

[diligamus]

By “primary texts” you are referring to Teresa’s and John’s writings? (I have read them some years ago.)

Yes … St. John of the Cross gives a precise, incisive, and systematic analysis of the areas you have questions about.

 

[InLight247]

Catholic Church is the one true Church build by our Lord Jesus.
Only Catholic Church has Saints. The writings of Saints about contemplation
are purely Catholic products. That does not mean God only give infused gift of contemplation to Catholics. However, I personally have never heard any Protestants talking about contemplation.

As for Buddhist’s method, that is a total different story. Though there is similarity in all religions, there is a major basic difference – Christ, the Cross and the Resurrection.
No matter how other religions talk about charity, doing good deeds, love, etc, when there is no Christ, there is no redemption. When the issue of sin and repentance are not dealt with, man cannot reconcile with God. Buddhism meditation is not God centered. There is no comparison to the contemplation we are talking about.

I am not sure what you mean by “western religious techniques”.

 

[JoyToBeCatholic]

Catholic Church is the one true Church build by our Lord Jesus.
Only Catholic Church has Saints.

I disagree, but that’s for another forum…

The writings of Saints about contemplation
are purely Catholic products. That does not mean God only give infused gift of contemplation to Catholics. However, I personally have never heard any Protestants talking about contemplation.

As for Buddhist’s method, that is a total different story. Though there is similarity in all religions, there is a major basic difference – Christ, the Cross and the Resurrection.
No matter how other religions talk about charity, doing good deeds, love, etc, when there is no Christ, there is no redemption. When the issue of sin and repentance are not dealt with, man cannot reconcile with God. Buddhism meditation is not God centered. There is no comparison to the contemplation we are talking about.

I have to disagree IMO. Although obviously there is no Christ, Cross and Resurrection in Buddhism for example, the types of meditation are not unlike the “preparations” a Christian makes for contemplation (mainly, detachment). And how do we know the experience in contemplation is a “love-union” and not an altered state of mind? Further, how do we know it is exclusive of Christianity? I see heroic virtue in the lives of Buddhists too for instance. And if it is a union with God, how do we know that Buddhists are not also attaining this without the “doctrine”? Perhaps they are more “Christian” than some Christians are? (being drawn to the light, goodness, virtue, love etc) and through quiet and detachment and mindfulness find God (even if they don’t call Him Jesus or Yahweh etc.).

I am not sure what you mean by “western religious techniques”.

Sorry, I said that backwards. I meant eastern (Hinduism, Buddhism, etc.)

 

[InLight247]

I disagree, but that’s for another forum… I have to disagree IMO. Although obviously there is no Christ, Cross and Resurrection in Buddhism for example, the types of meditation are not unlike the “preparations” a Christian makes for contemplation (mainly, detachment). And how do we know the experience in contemplation is a “love-union” and not an altered state of mind? Further, how do we know it is exclusive of Christianity? I see heroic virtue in the lives of Buddhists too for instance. And if it is a union with God, how do we know that Buddhists are not also attaining this without the “doctrine”? Perhaps they are more “Christian” than some Christians are? (being drawn to the light, goodness, virtue, love etc) and through quiet and detachment and mindfulness find God (even if they don’t call Him Jesus or Yahweh etc.).
Sorry, I said that backwards. I meant eastern (Hinduism, Buddhism, etc.)

As far as I understand, Buddhists don’t believe there is a God, a creator. They believe all come from void, no beginning, no end.
Their Buddas used to be men who became Buddas by their own efforts. When they do not acknowledge a loving God, where does the loving union come from or go to? Union with who?

I don’t deny they are very loving people. But without God, you simply cannot talk about union with Him. You cannot have union with someone who does not exist.

There is the major difference between Catholic contemplation and Buddhist meditation. It is not that Buddhists call God with a different name, it is that they don’t believe there is a God.

 

[JoyToBeCatholic]

As far as I understand, Buddhists don’t believe there is a God, a creator. They believe all come from void, no beginning, no end.
Their Buddas used to be men who became Buddas by their own efforts.

Some Buddhists are deists, but that is besides the point. I’m not sure you need to believe in God to experience Him.

When they do not acknowledge a loving God, where does the loving union come from or go to? Union with who?

Intellectually they may not acknowledge God, but practically they live in a way that shows they do know Him and meditatively they seem to experience Him. Or, perhaps, neither Buddhas nor Christians are experiencing God at all (?)

I don’t deny they are very loving people. But without God, you simply cannot talk about union with Him. You cannot have union with someone who does not exist.

Perhaps God transcends our unbelief and rewards the one who lives as though He did know God and allows him to experience Himself in this union even though He doesn’t give the United a name. Or, again, perhaps it isn’t God being experienced in either or both instances.

There is the major difference between Catholic contemplation and Buddhist meditation. It is not that Buddhists call God with a different name, it is that they don’t believe there is a God.

But their lives show otherwise (that they do seem to know God and do seem to experience Him).

I guess it leaves one to question what exactly faith is? Obviously Buddhists have faith, but not necessarily the same kind us Christians. They do, however, believe in a “place”(mindset, state, awareness, realization, discovery of God, what-have-you) where there is no suffering, no passions, no attachments, etc… This sounds rather Christian to me. Merton said that prayer is a state of dispassion. I would liken Buddhist mediation to this “state”.

I believe it is possible that the Christian mystic and Buddhist are reaching the same thing, and the methods are very similar, as are the results. I don’t think this is a coincidence. But I’m not here to convince anyone that they are the same or that all religions are right.

The problem is that your argument is confirming my fears (that Buddhists are not reaching God). I think my fear has been that the experience is not from God and shouldn’t be sought by Christianity. But then I see the fruitful results of such contemplation and believe it must be from God. But many would argue that you cannot rely on the supposed fruit; that truth cannot be determined by such things. For instance, I know of many virtuous people who are not Christians, some who are athiests or agnostics, and others who are Christians but are not Catholic. Are all in the fulness of truth? What is more important in the end? The fulness of truth if it is not lived to the fullest, or a partial truth lived to the fullest extent? And how would we recognize the fulness of truth?

My concern isn’t so much with the fact that there are similarities between Christic contemplation and eastern mediation that may indicate they are the same ends, but rather that if eastern meditation is not touching God, then Christianity should be suspicious of these contemplative experiences. Afterall, what is faith if God reveals Himself to some people this way? Real faith is believing without the experience. I would have no real way to assess that the experience is from God except to take the words of Theresa and John for it. The Scriptures cited (in Fire Within) that supposedly give evidence for God’s approval of such contemplation/meditation don’t appear to me to be so. They possibly are, but not necessarily so.

 

[InLight247]

Your fear seems to base on your assumption that is lack of proof and support.

If I understand you correctly, your logic seems to run like this:
Catholics and Buddhists though use different ways of prayer, though don’t believe in the same God, they reach the same result or same status. Since Buddhists don’t believe in God but reach the same status of Christian contemplation, therefore, the experience of Christian contemplation must not be from God.

First, I don’t think Buddhists and Catholics reach the same status of contemplation.

The prayer of recollection (3rd Mansion according to Teresa) is the recollection of our loving God. Buddhist, without God, cannot have the same recollection. The prayer of quiet (4th Mansion) is in the solitude with our God. We experience the delight in God and with God. It is fully Christ centered. It is the occupation of the will with God. A Buddhist who believes life could be recycled from a human being in this life to a pig or a cockroach in the next life, cannot possibly reach the same status of contemplation as a Christian.

Catholic contemplation is guided, guarded, led and filled by the Holy Spirit. Holy Spirit indwells in us since a Christian’s body is His temple. You see how much difference there is. There are some similarities between Catholic contemplation and eastern meditation. But similarity does not mean they are equal.

What I discussed here are only acquired contemplation, not the infused one.

 

[Greg27]

These are very interesting questions. The distinction between infused and acquired contemplation is a Thomistic one; I am a bit rusty on that point so I’ll need to pass that over.

Contrary to what Dubay said I would argue creation can serve as a point of Christian meditation and contemplation, but it is not the end point of contemplation but only the starting point. The beauty of creation served St John of the Cross well as a point for many of his prayers and meditations on God, and also Meister Eckhart, another great mystic, said ‘each creature is a light and a book full of God.’

But at the same time St John, Meister Eckhart, and also the writer of the Cloud of Unknowing, whose meditation method is very similar to these mystics, all urge us to let go of attachments to self-will, objects, and images if we want to contemplate God. The writer of the Cloud says we need to contemplate God in a ‘darkness’ of unknowing where we remove sensible and imagined sense-images and forms we have of God or the divine essence. Eckhart also says ‘When the creature goes out, God comes in’ and St John of Cross says the sublimity of the light of God is so great that no creature can bear any likeness to God’s Being.

This is similar to Buddhism in the sense Buddhism requires us to empty our mind of images, forms, desires and attachments and focus the mind to acquire a state of conciousness ready for the states of transcendant conciousness, which along with the practiced life of Buddhist virtue, bring about the union of the mind with its transcendant ground in nibbana, which Buddhists describe in some very beautiful language, such as luminous emptiness, the jewel of wisdom, infinite peace and serenity, and so on. However the Absolute in Buddhism is different from Christianity in the sense it is impersonal and when a person unites with the Absolute (which in Buddhism means a person unites with no distinction into the Absolute) he or she loses completely the ego and the self, which are ultimately transcended to the point it makes no sense any longer to ask if the person continues to exist as an individual entity.

 

[Dorothy]

“Joy to be Catholic”

I would like to share some thoughts with you, from notes that I have taken over the years:

In the eastern spiritual quest (hindu, buddhist) the search begins in the natural order, and the framework reference for its system rests on the natural order. (what can be perceived by man unaided by supernatural revelation.)

In Christianity, the system is based on supernatural revelation., as man’s intellect, unaided, cannot otherwise come to know this revelation. (Fall, Redemption, etc.)

A Christian theologian, Johanns, said that Hinduism “is the most searching quest in the natural order for the Divine that the world has known.” It is a profound philosophy, but that is all. It lacks the light of supernatural revelation, thus exposing it to illusion.

The highest goal of contemplation is to return to the state of innocence before the Fall, to transcend the human state and be transformed in Jesus Christ our Lord.

Christian contemplatives seek union with Jesus Christ, a Person.

 

[Greg27]

Christian contemplation on the other hand, is basically a gift whereby in infused contemplation, we are deified by grace (as Eckhart, John, and the Cloud of Unknowing all point out in their works) so that we can directly experience the mysteries of faith, the highest of which is the Triune God himself. This is made possible (again as all three mystics point out) because the Christian is made an adopted son of God through baptism and because of this (so long as we are in grace) we also take part in the Triune life of God in our own souls; as St John and Eckhart say, God is at the centre of the soul, and the Cloud author says the contemplator is made one in spirit with God in grace, and becomes what God is by grace (though not by nature, as some of Eckhart’s more daring sermons seem to imply).

Christian contemplation or contemplative prayer then involves an intimate union with God, becoming a god by grace, in the sense the mystic is divinised, body, soul, intellect and will, in the act of contemplating God. The path involves three divisions, the way of purgation, illumination, and union. Purgation is the turning away from sin and controlling of the mind, senses and will so a certain poverty of spirit is created, illumination is the healing and the cleansing of the soul of sin and disordered attachment by the light of God, and union is the intimate union in an ineffable way of the Christian with God which involves divinisation and contemplation beyond rational understanding of the mystery of God himself, as well as a deep sharing in the life and being of the Trinity (without there being a total union with the Absolute where the self is lost).

In Christian contemplation all this is made possible because God became a man by nature in the incarnation, which is an act of grace, and while human effort is required to respond to this grace, contemplation is also a grace. This is also the same case in Eastern Christian spirituality, which began with the Desert monks including Anthony and Evagrius. In this case man is also divinised and St Maximus Confessor, the finest Byzantine mystic and theologian before St Gregory Palamas, argued the purpose of the incarnation was not simply redemption of man from sin but also to divinise humanity to God. He also emphasized the awesome incomprehensibility and infinity of God but also said the depths of God’s compassion, mercy and love are just as great and it comes down tenderly to anyone who sincerely seeks him and turns from sin (a point I agree with). Likewise the Cloud author also writes when a person has a desire to contemplate God, this is actually God’s grace at work, stirring the heart of the contemplative, and when a person is contemplating in the manner he describes, divine wisdom (which is Christ) is coming down to dwell in the contemplator.

There are some similarities between Christianity and Buddhist contemplation. Both religions have a strong mystical current as well as a strong monastic tradition. Meister Eckhart in particular seems at times to be a Christian Zen master, and the Cloud’s meditative method also seems to have a lot in common with Zen Buddhism. However I think the difference is while both religions believe in a transcendental ground to reality which is ineffable, infinite and incomprehensible, for Christianity this ground is not an ‘it’ but a ‘who’, a person calling us into relationship, while in Buddhism the ground is a mysterious reality or emptiness at the heart of things which is the source of all. If one carefully examines Buddhist philosophy and Christian philosophy when they describe the general properties of the Absolute from their greatest philosopher-mystics such as Eriugena, Eckhart or Nicholas of Cusa, and say Nagarjuna, there are a lot of similarities, except in Buddhist metaphysics the transcendance of the Absolute is described in terms of extensive negation to the point where we can say absolutely nothing about the Absolute in positive terms, and all one reaches is a deep and ineffable silence. The negation includes negating any ideas of a personal God, so a Buddhist would also say nirvana/the Absolute/emptiness is not God or a God in any sense. On the other hand, Western and Christian metaphysics describes the Absolute as unconditioned Being, and even in very negative mystics like Eckhart the Godhead (the highest reality which is unchanging and unchangeable) or Maximus God is described in both positive and negative terms, the implication being God is the fullness of Being, but about whose mode, principle, way of existence and essence are beyond human comprehension. Even so, God is still a Trinity of Father, Son and Holy spirit, as Christian dogma affirms, as do Eckhart, John of Cross, Maximus and the Cloud author, even when God’s essence has all the properties (in a negative sense) Eastern religions seem to affirm of the Absolute.

 

[Greg27]

In the same way a Christian mystic will be reduced to awed silence before the awesome infinity of the Absolute as a Buddhist would, except for the Christian there is also the key difference the Absolute has become incarnate in Jesus Christ; in Christ and through Christ we have full access to the Absolute as sought by other religions. As Nicholas of Cusa puts it, Christ is the ‘face of faces’ which makes the Absolute or God supremely visible and comprehensible, even if of God/the Absolute himself we face the same awesome and ineffable mystery which reduces us to silence and reverence as much as it does for a Hindu or Buddhist.

Contemplative prayer then for the Christian represents the ascent of the mind and person to God through Christ to the Absolute, via God’s grace producing the desire in us and also giving us the gift of his prescence when he so chooses.

In relation to your own situation, you should not give up on your Christian faith because what you find attractive in Buddhism, as I found myself when I explored Buddhism a while ago, is what Buddhism seeks (the Absolute) is also readily and easily found in Christianity, except it is sought by a way through Christ. One doesn’t need to leave the Christian faith in order to encounter God in profoundly beautiful and still forms of contemplation, at the same depth one finds in other religions, and one can encounter the sheer infinite mystery of God in ways which a Christian finds comprehensible. Sometimes it can take a while to read and understand the classic works of Christian contemplative spirituality, both from the Eastern and Western branches of the church, but if one reads the classics (especially from monastic writers East and West) one finds you can encounter the mystery of God which is not shallow and unsatisfying but truely satisfying for the Christian. Christian spirituality has so many varieties of contemplation and contemplative prayer if one seeks long enough, one will find where one is at home, though it can take a bit of a while; you have to learn to know yourself and what you are seeking and also have to read a range of authors and traditions to begin to know where you fit in. With me, silent apophatic (image-less) prayer and contemplation of God are where I feel at home, though for others, other forms of devotion or meditation (involving images) might be more appropriate, such as Ignatius of Loyola’s method, lectio divina of scripture, or another method.

 

[JoyToBeCatholic]

Greg,

Thank you, you related that very well. These are the similarities I see also.

I am also familiar with the “Cloud of Unknowing”. Image-less prayer is where I’ve been the past few years (as little as I’ve been contemplative in that time). I’d pretty much rejected the possibility that such prayer is indeed prayer until I get this insatiable urge to go back to it. But when I stick to the bare-bones, vocal prayer (which I find very odd) like I have the past year or so, I feel my relationship with God is sorely lacking; as if I am the one doing all the talking and never actually listening; having no real intimacy. An intimate relationship is more than just talking at someone.

In any case, whether they are the same experience or not, I am doubtful that if the origins were other than God, people would be excelling in virtue as a result. I have always drawn a connection between contemplation and Eucharistic devotion however. I haven’t seen this yet mentioned in my reading although I may have forgotten from writings I haven’t read in years. Also, I’m not done with “Fire” yet.

Thanks for your insight! I’m certainly not giving up on Christianity over this, although in the past I’ve nearly come to that. One thing it has done is pushed me out of the fundamentalist mentality I’ve seemed to have fallen into. That part of me is still kicking and screaming in rejection to all this, b/c it isn’t “simple” (in practice or in concept) or obvious in scripture. But relationships never are simple anyway, and God is not completely conceptual to our finite minds.

 

[JoyToBeCatholic]

Your fear seems to base on your assumption that is lack of proof and support.

If I understand you correctly, your logic seems to run like this:
Catholics and Buddhists though use different ways of prayer, though don’t believe in the same God, they reach the same result or same status. Since Buddhists don’t believe in God but reach the same status of Christian contemplation, therefore, the experience of Christian contemplation must not be from God.

First, I don’t think Buddhists and Catholics reach the same status of contemplation.

The prayer of recollection (3rd Mansion according to Teresa) is the recollection of our loving God. Buddhist, without God, cannot have the same recollection. The prayer of quiet (4th Mansion) is in the solitude with our God. We experience the delight in God and with God. It is fully Christ centered. It is the occupation of the will with God. A Buddhist who believes life could be recycled from a human being in this life to a pig or a cockroach in the next life, cannot possibly reach the same status of contemplation as a Christian.

Catholic contemplation is guided, guarded, led and filled by the Holy Spirit. Holy Spirit indwells in us since a Christian’s body is His temple. You see how much difference there is. There are some similarities between Catholic contemplation and eastern meditation. But similarity does not mean they are equal.

What I discussed here are only acquired contemplation, not the infused one.

But again, is God limited by the differences you cite? The problem is that I see, not only similarities between the result or status, but also similarities in the methods or means of obtaining those results (contrary to what you stated was my logic).