NSoC 2: What Contemplation Is Not

See Notes on this series...
As Merton built a tower to transcendence in chapter 1, he tears down some of our monuments to contemplative life in chapter 2.

First, he explains that contemplation cannot be taught. The more we try to define, objectify, and order it, the further away from true contemplation we get. The closer we get to defining it the closer we get to a non-existent psychology of contemplation. Contemplation is not found or described by our actions or feelings, neither is it quantifiable or observable.

Merton explains that true contemplation cannot be a function of our external selves. The "I" that we show to the world is not the real self that is united with God in Christ. The "I" is "...the vesture, the mask, the disguise of that mysterious and unknown "self" whom most of us never discover until we are dead." This "I" is not our eternal beings nor our spiritual beings.

Then he deconstructs one of the philosophical cornerstones, Descartes' cogito ergo sum: I think, therefore I am.

Next, he debunks the idea that contemplation is just for "a passive and quiet temperament." It is not merely thoughtfulness or reflection. Neither is it a prayerfulness or an affinity for liturgy. Temperament, prayer, and liturgy can all prepare one for contemplation but neither are that experience in and of themselves. He contrasts a passive man and an active man and their dispositions to contemplation, finding fault with each of them. The passive man who "sits and thinks" is not necessarily contemplating, though he finds it easy to be mislead into thinking he is. The active man struggles with finding contemplation, though he may be motivated, because his tendency is to objectify it as just another goal.

He removes contemplation from the realm of the mystical by means of emotion and imagination, relegating these to awakenings of contemplation but not the work of the "deep self" itself. Contemplation is not prophetic, discerning the secrets of others.

Nor is it characterized by "escape from conflict, anguish, or doubt." In fact, contemplation might cause us to doubt the "faith" of every day life and its conventional wisdom. Contemplation is no "pain-killer."

He ends the chapter by explaining that the contemplative suffers because he realizes that he doesn't know what God is. The sooner he realizes that this is a gain, not a loss, the better off he is, for "God is neither a "what" or a "thing" but a pure "Who.""

Quaff:
Ouch. Where to begin? I've written reams (not all for public consumption) dealing with my own struggles with the superficial, external "I". I know my weakness there. I need reminding that that "I" is not the "I" I present to God, in contemplation or otherwise.

I've also dealt somewhat with God as "Who" not "what." Again, reminders that he is personal, and that transcendent person calls me out of myself in confession and contemplation with him as both the source and objective of the experience. I can't find him within myself, nor within ritual, nor even within prayer, if I don't recognize his transcendence calling to my real self, the one inside, the one I suppress and avoid and deny and hide. It is great wonder that ever the twain shall meet.

I also stated earlier that just because I'm quiet doesn't mean I'm contemplative. That's what Merton said, too. So there.

Query:
Will the real Brian please stand up?

Quip:
Descartes: I think, therefore I am.
Watkins: He Is, therefore I am.
God: I AM, therefore you too.