Archive for March, 2008

Although by night

Wednesday, March 19th, 2008

I came across the following quotations in the last few days. It is consoling to discover that others have gone through similar experiences.

Have we ever tried to love God where no wave of emotional enthusiasm bears us up and we can no longer confuse ourselves and our life-urge with God, where we seem to be dying of a love that looks like death and absolute negation and we appear to be calling out into nothingness and the utterly unrequited?Karl Rahner

[Quoted in Soelle, The Silent Cry, Fortress Press,  p. 133. No reference given.]

I feel an ever increasing sense of devastation, both in my intellect and in the centre of my heart, at my inability to think with truth at the same time about the affliction of men, and the perfection of God, and the link between the two.I have the inner certainty that this truth, if it is ever granted to me, will only be revealed when I myself am in affliction, and in one of the extreme forms in which it exists at present.Simone Weil

[Seventy Letters, OUP, 1965 p. 178; quoted in Anderson, David, Simone Weil, SCM Press 1971 p. 90]

Que bien sé yo la fuente que mana y corre

Aunque es de noche

Su origen no lo sé, pues no le tiene

Mas sé que todo origen de ella viene,

Aunque es de noche

St. John of the Cross

 

[How well I know the fountain’s rushing flow / Although by night. / I do not know its origin, no one does / But I know that all origin from it comes / Although by night.Poems of St. John of the Cross, trans. Roy Campbell, Collins Fount 1979 p. 44] 

I think I am only just beginning to understand what faith means. We tend to think, at least I do, that the extraordinary mystics, like John of the Cross and Simone Weil, went around with, as they call it in the East, the ‘Third Eye’ wide open, aware of the divine Presence permeating everything. Not so. We all walk in darkness illuminated now and again by glimmers of light and moments of inexplicable joy. Perhaps for them the glimmers were brighter and the joy lasted a bit longer but the prevailing mode is darkness. The worst thing, as Rahner points out, is that the darkness is not only not being able to see but also not being able to feel anything either. There is no heightened emotion, no prevailing ecstasy, no spirit-filled exuberance.  There is simply the dry, dull, often banal, often boring and tedious daily routine. And that is where faith comes in. 

 

Wild Strawberries

Tuesday, March 18th, 2008

Some stray thoughts from this morning – what a major difference there is between authentic and inauthentic existence. We allow ourselves to be very easily distracted by the body, i.e. by physical feelings and also by feelings that are less explicitly derived from the body but come from it nonetheless, like seeking comfort, entertainment and, especially, seeking distraction from engagement in everyday matters. I am amazed at the people who wander aimlessly round shopping centres, usually elderly but not always. I suppose they go home and sit in front of the television. I was suddenly reminded of the Zen story of the man chased by a tiger over the edge of a cliff. He grabbed for a vine growing there and hung suspended over the void. Below wild tigers prowled. A mouse came and began to gnaw at the vine. In spite of his desperate situation the man notices a delicious wild strawberry growing just within reach. He plucks it and popping it into his mouth, savours it. 

It suddenly struck me that the aimless wanderers in shopping centres are like people wandering about at the edge of a cliff looking for wild strawberries and completely oblivious of the crumbling edge. The point of the Zen story for me is that recognition of the precarious and contingent nature of life does not mean that we are reduced to a state of terrified paralysis, or that the things that fill our lives are either of no significance, or value, or of supreme value. On the contrary, the mice, the crumbling edges, vines and the wild strawberries, are all extremely important but understanding what that importance is and how they relate to each other and how they relate to the void is another matter. 

Walking in a dark desert is so difficult. There is nothing to be seen, no landmarks, nothing to measure progress by, if there has been any. Distractions are difficult to resist. This, of course is the raison d’être for the cadre of the monastic life. 

Meanwhile we are on the brink of war, an economic crisis looms and the suffering of so many hangs over us like a cloud. To refer back to the Zen story, we have all become very aware of the crumbling edge of the cliff and that many, maybe millions, are going to be falling off it . The temptation to go in search of wild strawberries is almost irresistible because there is nothing an individual can do except add one more voice to the chorus of protest. Meanwhile the majority go off in search of strawberries – why languish in useless anguish when you can distract yourself. But, to think like this is to miss the point. The point is that, like Indra’s net, all is connected. Nothing happens that does not reverberate throughout the cosmos, not the slightest thing. This applies especially to us, straddling as we do the temporal and the eternal, every one, like the jewel in the net’s each eye, catching and reflecting back the good and the evil. 

Seeking God

Monday, March 17th, 2008

“Whoever seeks God sits in the shadow of his penitence, but whomsoever God seeks sits in the shadow of his innocence.”

 This is a quote from al-Hallaj. Dorothy Soelle says that what is to be learned from him goes beyond the Protestant search for God, with its preoccupations with guilt and piety. It is not the penitent children who seek their parents; rather the happy children know they are being sought, expected and accepted in the shadow of innocence. This reminds me of the story of children playing hide and seek. One boy hid himself so well that after a time the others, who couldn’t find him, got fed up and went off. Eventually the boy emerged and, dismayed at being abandoned, went crying to his father, a rabbi. The rabbi, when he heard what had happened, wrapped the boy in his arms and said, ‘Now you know what it is like for God. He is hidden everywhere but no one is looking for Him.’ 


Suffering and experience

Saturday, March 15th, 2008

Suffering and experience – thinking about suffering this morning it struck me that part of our problem with suffering is that we, inevitably I suppose, make too much of it. This arose out of a conversation yesterday when talk turned to suffering and the man suffering from motor neurone disease who went to Switzerland for an assisted suicide. Suffering is inevitable. All creatures suffer and the higher we are on the evolutionary scale the greater our capacity for suffering which extends from something purely physical to include the emotional and psychological. The problem with suffering, especially physical suffering, is that it is centripetal, pulling us into ourselves, into the body. The contrary – joy, happiness, emotional well being – is centrifugal, expansive, opening us out to be inclusive of others and the world. Suffering therefore provokes a self-centred destructive tendency, acting against our true nature to be open, inclusive and loving. The younger the person the greater is the power of suffering to do lasting damage to the psyche.

 The sad thing about the centripetal nature of suffering, especially physical suffering, is that it pulls the person into the experience so that the worse the experience the more it becomes the primary factor which determines meaning. Eventually life comes to mean suffering and therefore ceases to be worth living. The implied corollary of this is that, to be worth living, life has to mean well-being, joy and happiness. Neither of these viewpoints fits in with a Christian worldview, nor with a Buddhist one. 

In neither the Christian nor the Buddhist worldview is the meaning of life determined by experience. Life is not about undergoing or having experiences but about being. Both Gabriel Marcel and Eric Fromm have spelled this out.

 It is difficult to put what I want to say into a structured argument. I need to sit down and think it all out. Briefly – it is that because we assume that life is all about having and experiencing that we find ourselves constantly lurching back and away from the precipice of tragedy. The Three Brute Facts of Existence lurk at the edges of awareness, constantly reminding us of our frailty in the face of  the incipient dangers on every side. Our grasp of ourselves, our happiness and well-being, is uncertain and will remain uncertain as long as awareness is focused on self.

[Fromm, E., To Have or To Be, Sphere Books, London, 1979; Marcel, G., Being and Having: An Existentialist Diary, Harper & Row, New York, 1965]


Roller coaster existence

Friday, March 14th, 2008

The trouble with us is that we live a fractured existence. We are moved, not only by relationships and events, but also by mind and intentions. All this as a body on a roller coaster ride of feelings and emotions, never being able to predict the swerves and the curves, the ups and the downs; always longing for a smooth, high ride, putting up with the bumpy judder at rock bottom. We never seem to be able to learn to ride this roller coaster well, dreading the next change in direction, the next sudden dip. If only we could learn, like surfers, to achieve a balance keeping the mind and will steady and constant while we negotiate turbulent days.


Spiritual life

Thursday, March 13th, 2008

I can understand why some of the mediaeval religious got involved in all sorts of penitential excesses. It is very frustrating spending days, weeks, months in prayer and trying to lead a religious life only to seem to be getting nowhere. The trouble is that one’s mindset is constantly changing, influenced, if not determined, by events, the body, feelings and all sorts of things over which one has no control. So there will be a few ‘good’ days followed by many mediocre ones. The feeling that one is getting nowhere may not be true in an absolute sense but it certainly feels true and when it comes to feelings no amount of pep-talking to oneself is going to change them. What is to be done. There is need for some sort of strategy that takes account of the fact that one is a process and not a fixed entity. The strategy has to be one that goes with the flow, dealing with the highs and the lows, the times of ennui and accidie, as well as those of fervour and enthusiasm. The traditional monastic strategy is an enclosed cadre vowed to a regime of poverty, chastity and obedience which carries the individual along. For most enclosure is not appropriate – though there may be a longing for solitude. And I am suspicious about taking vows for reasons that I have not fully worked out. They are a bit like a straightjacket restricting any contrary movement. My feeling is that there is no merit in not doing something one is constrained from doing anyway. I remember talking to a monk once, a long time ago now. He said that he always wore clerical clothes and a collar when he went out of the monastery because they acted as a constraint against actions he might not otherwise be able to resist. So vows can be a help, but as long as they are necessary one has not achieved that conversio morum which is one of the preliminary goals of the religious life. It is a bit like learning to ride a bike. You will never learn as long as someone is holding it so that you don’t fall. There are going to be falls. That is inevitable. One just has to keep getting up afterwards, dusting oneself off, swallowing wounded pride and shame and get on with it. 

So, a strategy. My initial feeling is that meditation is the key, and I mean meditation seriously done for an hour morning and evening, not half an hour of vacuity and drifting thoughts. I believe there is a document from the Vatican this week condemning New Age practices, including meditation. Such blanket condemnations do no good and do not reflect well on the Church’s ability to make religious judgements. There are some forms of meditation which are questionable leading either to a form of self aggrandisement or to a pandering to the emotions. I don’t see, though, how any form of meditation based on Buddhist practice can be anything but helpful. After all, they have been doing it for two and a half thousand years and have learnt a thing or two about the mind and how it works. And it is the mind, especially the will, which is the key factor here. No religious progress can be made if bodily feeling and emotions determine action and lifestyle. So let’s try to work out the ‘what’ and the ‘how’.

WHAT?

God is the WHAT, if that’s not blasphemy. One of the questions that really bugs me, considering that God is Ultimate Reality, the All in All, and that we are destined to be oned with Him, is why we need to go through this whole samsaric process. Bernadette Roberts uses the analogy of a bubble to explain the relationship of the individual to God. Like the air, God is both inside and outside the bubble. When the bubble is popped there exists only God. Our usual awareness is of the iridescent surface of the bubble – the individual self – and we fail to recognise either the inner or the outer reality. The analogy cannot be taken too far. Suffice to say that God is both the ground of our being and also the wholly transcendent Other towards whom we are drawn – an irreconcilable paradox. So, given that God is the All in All, why is the individual process of birth-life-death necessary? In other words, why me, why you, why anybody? There has, in the past, been a tendency to play down the significance of this life, that is, its importance is seen to lie only in the fact that it is a precursor to the next. In the East it has been seen as samsara, an insubstantial and illusory reality compared to Brahman, or to Sunyata; in the West as a ‘vale of tears’, an unpleasant interlude between birth and death, the definitive birth into eternity. This cannot be a valid approach to the meaning of this life. The fact that God is Creator means that creation has an absolute significance, the fact that God is incarnate means that humanity has an absolute significance, the fact that God is immanent means that what is indwelt has absolute significance, the fact that God is transcendent means that what is transcended has absolute significance. In trying to see the light we fail to see what the light illuminates, or rather, we only see the shadow that it casts. If we could only turn our gaze away from the shadows to see what it is that the light is illuminating. That, after all, is what God sees. But we cannot. We can only see from our own human perspective. Though there are glimpses; from time to time an intuition,  a feeling, an intimation of depths beyond depths.

HOW?

There tend to be two approaches one in which the mind, the other in which the will (love) predominates. In practice I don’t think the two can be separated and, ideally, they ought to work in tandem but usually one or the other is dominant. The mind is the intellectual approach which sets out a path, a programme of action to be followed. It is based on knowledge and on the premise that the ultimate goal is to know the truth. The will is the way of love and faith (= trust). 

Meditation is a path from which to see more clearly. It is a path which leads to the awareness of emptiness. Emptiness is a standpoint from which things and the self show themselves for what they are:

True emptiness is nothing less than what reaches awareness in all of us as our own absolute self-nature. In addition, this emptiness is the point at which each and every entity that is said to exist becomes manifest as what it is in itself, in the form of its true suchness.

[James W. Heisig, Philosophers of Nothingness: An Essay on the Kyoto School, University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu, 2001, p. 222]

 

What does all this mean to one not familiar with Buddhist concepts? Emptiness is the contingent nature of reality as we know it, including ourselves and our own self awareness.  The bottom line is that there is no security, solidity, or permanency. All is flux, panta rei, as the ancient Greeks perceived. The only certainty is constant change. The hard problem is how to make sense of this constant change. How can anything have meaning if it is just a momentary phenomenon in a sea of momentary phenomena. And this goes for people too. What meaning had the lives of all the countless millions of people who lived in the past. What meaning will our lives have a hundred years from now. Looked at in this way depression looms. There are no satisfactory answers. This is why it is so important to come to perceive reality as it actually is – empty/contingent. 

There are no spiritual ‘rocks’ to which one can tether oneself. This is not to say that spirituality and spiritual practices are not necessary. They are vital, but they are propaedeutic and one needs to be prepared to have all support knocked away and to be set adrift. I can understand what Buddha means when he says that we must be our own resource. This is not Pelagianism. In the end all one has is this contingent self which is no-self. Only when one realises this, makes it real, does the true nature of Reality become apparent. This is not Pelagianism because God is immanent in all that is and especially in us. All life, all energy is drawn from Him but this is not a datum of experience – though sometimes there are hints and intimations. It is because we cannot be aware of the transcendent dimension of reality that we cannot see contingency/emptiness in context. And so we appear to be alone, drifting on a boundless and featureless ocean. All that is left is faith/trust, more or less blind, and love. This is the only way, the only strategy.

Getting nowhere

Wednesday, March 12th, 2008

Came across this from Teilhard de Chardin –

How… can it be that ‘when I come down from the mountain’ and in spite of the glorious vision I still retain, I find that I am so little a better man, so little at peace, so incapable of expressing my actions, and thus adequately communicating to others, the wonderful unity I feel encompassing me?

Is there, in fact a Universal Christ, is there a Divine Milieu?

Or am I after all a dupe of a mirage in my own mind?

I often ask myself that question.

[Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, The Heart of the Matter, Collins, London, 1978, 101, quoted in Ursula King, Christ in all Things: Exploring Spirituality with Teilhard de Chardin, SCM Press, London 1997, 91]

I know exactly what he means, less about the mountain perhaps, but certainly the feeling of being stuck in a rut, or perhaps better, a deep hole, getting nowhere and feeling intensely the pointlessness, futility and suffering that afflicts so many people. There is so much energy in the world willing love, compassion, peace, healing, forgiveness and an end to suffering, yet it seems to have little effect on the rich and powerful who determine our political and socio-economic structures.  Teilhard talks about the ‘mountain’, I prefer to think of the depth beneath the surface of our everyday reality.  


Self

Tuesday, March 11th, 2008

Long discussion with — last night about religions in general and Buddhism in particular. He is quick on the uptake and very interested in Buddhism. Discussed the problems of self, no-self, emptiness and Nirvana. He saw the idea of self as a changing process, rather than something permanent, or eternal, but remarked on the natural tendency to desire a continuing existence after death. I answered spontaneously without thinking, that to think thus was to be thinking in samsaric terms. It was to say that I understand that all the entities of present experience are contingent and ephemeral and I do wish to transcend them all and enter Heaven, or Nirvana, or whatever, but I would like to do this as my present impermanent,  relational self. Put like that the contradiction is obvious. I never saw it so clearly before. It is like a caterpillar saying – I do want to be a butterfly but I do not want to give up chomping on these delicious leaves. 

Seeing and looking

Monday, March 10th, 2008

It struck me, walking today, that a big part of the problem is that we are able only to see tiny fractions of the picture and that of course is why they don’t make sense. How can the mystic say that all is one? Or Julian of Norwich say that all is well, all manner of thing is well, when there is so much suffering and waste. Reality is like one of those newspaper photographs made up of thousands of tiny dots of various sizes. Under a magnifying glass all one can see are the various dots. Seen as a whole from a distance the dots form a picture. We live at the micro level and can only see our own particular piece of reality, a very tiny slice limited geographically, temporally and culturally. We cannot see the whole. All we can do is look at our particular bit. That is why many scientists and others get it so wrong. They do not understand the difference between seeing and looking. They are expert at looking and brilliant at analysing the individual bits, but they are not able to see the whole. We can intuit that there is a whole, though we do not understand it. Chaos theory can show that there is a connection between a butterfly alighting on a flower in England and a tornado in Kansas. Even more bizarre, quantum theory suggests there is a connection between the butterfly and the Orion Nebula. All is connected, but we cannot see how, nor can we  understand. Even when we do have that overwhelming intuition that all is one, and when we feel oned with all that is, we do not understand the why, nor the how. We know only that  that is how it is. And that is why the greed, the hatred and malevolence and the rejection of others by so many people is so painful. If only we could all realise what it means to be a person, how much we are each part of one other. If our relationships are not positive and nurturing they are destructive. There is no middle way. Indifference is a rejection, a denial of love.

Living and dying

Saturday, March 8th, 2008

I am beginning to realise that living  a spiritual life is a question of finding a very fine balance, like walking a tightrope, only more difficult because the rope to be walked is not visible. In fact it is not even manufactured. That you have to do yourself as you go along. And the raw material for it is each new day’s events, relationships and challenges. It is very easy, and fatal, to take one grand attitude, say for example the Ignatian agere contra. From then on you choose the least pleasant, or the most disagreeable option every time. That is taking a sledgehammer to kill the very subtle and universally pervasive working of the self and it is very inflexible. The gross instincts – fine, these you can clobber, but they are not the problem. They are so obvious that no self respecting novice would tolerate them. The self is so clever, sly and elusive that it is very good at subverting the weapons used against it. So before the unsophisticated Ignatian realises it his suffering (though greatly expanded) ego is taking a great deal of masochistic pride in denying itself everything remotely pleasurable. 

Living the spiritual life intelligently requires understanding. This does not come easily. It comes haltingly and retrospectively and is always imperfect. The important thing is to be aware of this, to be resigned to the darkness and always prepared to make revisions. One thing that is certain is that you will not be able to keep to the tightrope. You will make mistakes and fall off, perhaps again and again. You will feel ashamed and disheartened and wonder whether or not this is not all a waste of time and you are getting nowhere. You just have to pick your self up, brush the mud and the dirt off and get back on the tightrope again. And then there are the distractions. These are the thoughts, feelings and ideas – like colourful and attractive skateboards, they come out of nowhere – immensely appealing and attractive, and it is so easy just to step onto one and be carried away from the tiresome inching forward into the darkness. The most dangerous are those labelled ‘Important’, or ‘Significant Insight’, or ‘BRILLIANT IDEA’. These are almost irresistible because they give the impression that they will get you where you want to go more quickly and being so brightly illuminated they are far more attractive than the darkness. Then there are the armchairs at regular intervals. These invite you to step off and sink into them to relax and rest, perhaps to sleep, or read a book, or watch TV. This option is especially attractive when boredom descends. That can take all the colour and interest out of the day, laying over everything like a pall, weighing you down with lassitude and ennui.

You begin to wonder what is the point of all this. Prayer, meditation and the spiritual life do not seem to be getting you anywhere. After all Pelagianism, in both its full- and half-blown varieties, does not work, according to orthodox teaching. Only God can divinise us. So why not more of a helping hand from God, why the need for such prolonged and thankless efforts? There have been times in the past when the going was easy, when the air was filled with the presence of God and all of life was translucent. Virtue, and the generosity that went with it, was not an imposition, or a burden. It was an easy melody that one danced to. Those times are now a memory. So why has the grace appeared to dry up? Why has God hidden himself? The only reason I can think of is that it is a process of growth. Do you want to remain in the bright sunshine of childhood, but remain a child, or do you want to grow and become what it is in you to be?

If, as St. Athanasius says, God became man so that man might become God, that becoming is going to involve a transformation, more than a transformation – more than a metamorphosis. It is going to involve a death, perhaps many deaths, and a resurrection. So it is not just a question of change and growth. It is far more than that. The main obstacle in all of this is the self. The last thing the self wants is death. It cannot imagine a beyond-death. Oh, it can imagine death of the body, but then the self is not the body. It can imagine a disembodied existence. It can imagine union with God. It has, perhaps, had experience of a union with all of nature, even with God. But it cannot imagine a beyond-its-own-annihilation. The self clings to existence. The self and existence are synonymous. No self, no existence. So whatever the self desires, whatever it aspires to, no matter how high-minded and altruistic, however generous and self-giving, it does it from within its own, self-inclusive perspective. And that is the problem because, although the self is not the still-point, not the centre of gravity about which everything turns, in its own experience it is. So, until the self is removed from the centre reality will not be seen for what it is. 

This is what the darkness is all about. There is nothing of self in it. There is no perspective from which to see because there is nothing to be seen. There is nothing of interest, nothing self-satisfying. Within the darkness is the Void. The self is terrified of the Void because there is nothing to cling to, no support of any kind. One is suspended in a vast, empty darkness. There is no up, or down; no before, or after; no past, or future. This is the dark night of pure faith. It is beyond the verge of the empirical world. This is the terrible place where God is encountered. Terribilis est locus iste. [Gen 28:17]