IV Apophatic Prayer as a Theological Model...
Some implications of the paradox of
intention become immediately apparent.
It is not a self-help technique since by definition the goal cannot be
reached by effort. The dynamics of the paradox are most easily demonstrated by
the practice of one-pointed meditation, which is common in some form to
virtually every religion and is enjoying a revival in contemporary Christian
circles.[i] That is to say, silence cannot be
entered except by the paradox of intention; the gift of silence is gratuitous (‘by grace’); the meditator can only become available
to receive the gift by focusing on something else and relinquishing the
self-conscious desire for silence.[ii]
The most obvious psychological dynamic at
work in the paradox of intention is the subversion of self-consciousness. It is the subversion of
self-consciousness, effected by
the paradox of intention and described by the paradox of vulnerability and
power that appears to be the nexus of the
theology-religion-psychology-apophasis cluster, and the empirical referent for
many texts that are central to the development of theology. The loss of perception of this
nexus -- and without apophatic praxis it is easily lost -- leads to much
unnecessary disagreement and the mistaking of texts that refer to experience
for abstract philosophical statements;
for the linear tendencies of language fossilize and domesticate
experience, and dismantle its necessarily paradoxical descriptors.[iii]
It may be seen from Shaw’s description and
from the model that follows that consciousness/self-consciousness is a
continuum (as opposed to a spectrum), and that its subversion is operative at
many levels. But for now suffice
it to say that the paradox of intention particularly as it is effected in
one-pointed meditation takes advantage of the fact that very little human
consciousness resides at the discursive level, and that both discursive and
non-discursive are in this process gathered, integrated and focused. In the context of Christianity,
cataphatic and apophatic
-- images and affectivity and imageless, wordless silence -- are
mutually enriching, enlarging and performative, and there is an aspiration,
union with a mutually self-emptying God, that entails all else.[iv]
[i] The literature in
this area is expanding exponentially.
See for example, Gerry Pierse, Silence into Service (Dublin, The
Columba Press, 1992); Gerald May, The
Awakened Heart, (San Francisco, HarperCollins, 1991); John Main, Word Into Silence, (London, DLT, 1990); M. Basil Pennington, Centering
Prayer, (Garden City, Doubleday, 1980). [Addition 2012: Martin Laird Into the Silent Land, OUP, DLT, 2006.]
[ii] This is not to say
that one-pointed meditation is the only way to enter silence. That entrance is as varied and unique
as there are people and moments.
However, the entry into silence seems inevitably to involve the paradox of
intention in some form. See the
examples below. I am deliberately
avoiding affective language in this article for obvious reasons. For the best
modern affective treatment, see the series The Way of Silent Love:
Carthusian Novice Conferences, London: Darton, Longman, Todd, 1993.
[iii] Insistence on the
sole use of this reified methodology also leads to teaching that destroys the
ability of theologians to create new texts of the variety most studied by their
contemporaries and successors.
[iv] One-pointed meditation
and the silence into which the practitioner enters has a different ‘flavour’ in
each context, on the one hand, the context of the individual meditator and, on
the other, the context from which the teaching emerges. For example, the difference between TM
and Christian meditation is marked.
TM is, generally speaking, a reflexive exercise. The goal is relaxation. The context of TM is
individualistic, inconsistent and without semiotic continuity. The discussion
in this paper of specifically Christian meditation is hampered by the
theological debasement of the word ‘Love’, as in ‘God is Love’ as the essential
ek-static performative word.
2 Comments:
regarding " The context of TM is individualistic, inconsistent and without semiotic continuity." This would depend on the intention of the practitioner. As the past pope of the Catholic Church when referring to TM and other forms of eastern meditation,in his LETTER TO THE BISHOPS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH ON SOME ASPECTS OF CHRISTIAN MEDITATION, Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
REFERENCE SECTION 12
"Some use eastern methods solely as a psycho-physical preparation for a truly Christian contemplation;"
Some people also use eastern methods for medical purposes or to lose weight, or to become more efficient killers. Intention in this situation really makes no difference. So-called Centering Prayer is just TM with a doctrinal veneer. It was invented long before the 'inventors' knew there was a Christian tradition of meditation to directly compete with TM.. In some ways it is even more restrictive and narcissistic than TM.
Contemplation, as I have written elsewhere, relinquishes all claims to experience. This, and not TM, is genuine contemplation; labels such as 'Chrisian' fall away. God, as someone once remarked is not a Christian (or a Buddhist or a Hindu....)
Post a Comment
<< Home