Our Wisdom Lineage

“WHUR WE COME FROM… “

~ Br. Raphael Robin


Teachers of contemplative Christianity, who acknowledged the limitations of human knowledge and the inconstant nature of human sentiment, instead encouraged a commitment to practice. A scripturally grounded commitment to practice and service – rather than a reliance on unsteady belief and feeling – is the fulcrum of contemplative Christianity.” 

~ Paula Pryce, The Monk’s Cell


From time to time in the unfolding life of a lineage, it becomes important to stop and ponder together “whur we come from” (as my teacher Rafe used to call it); i.e., the fundamental understandings that called us into being as a particular expression of the wider tradition of Christian contemplative Wisdom. As The Contemplative Society, our flagsghip Wisdom vessel, now celebrates its twentieth anniversary and a new generation of seekers and board members assume their turn at the helm, it seems like an appropriate occasion for just such a moment of reflection.

Wisdom, like water, is itself clear and formless, but it necessarily assumes the shape and coloration of the container in which it is captured. Between formless essence and manifesting particularity there is a reciprocal dynamism; you can’t have one without the other.

Our own particular branch of the great underground river of Wisdom came to the surface about twenty years ago, flowing within two major riverbanks: a) the Christian mystical tradition of theosis – divinization – particularly as lived into being in the Benedictine monastic tradition; and b) the practical training in mindfulness and non-identification as set forth in the Gurdjieff Work. The fusion of these two elements was the original accomplishment of my spiritual teacher Br. Raphael Robin, who formed me in this path and, just before his death in 1995, sent me off to Canada to teach it. It is a distinct lineage within the wider phylum of sophia perennis – perennial Wisdom – and, as with all particular containers, it has its own integrity and its own heart.

Here, then, is my own quick shortlist of the eight main elements – or defining characteristics – for our particular branch of this Wisdom verticil:

  1. We are founded on a daily practice of sitting meditation, predominantly but not exclusively Centering Prayer, anchored within the overall daily rhythm of “ora et labora”, as set forth in the Rule of St. Benedict.
  2. We are rooted in the Christian mystical and visionary tradition, understanding contemplation in its original sense as “luminous seeing”, not merely a meditation practice or a lifestyle. In service to this luminous seeing, we affirm the primacy of the language of silence and its life-giving connection with the subtle realms, without which spiritual inquiry tends to become overly cognitive and contentious.
  3. We incorporate a major emphasis (much more so than in more conventional contemplative circles) on mindfulness and conscious awakening, informed here particularly by the inner teachings of G.I. Gurdjieff and by their parallels and antecedents in the great sacred traditions, particularly in Sufism.
  4. We are an esoteric or “gnostic” school to the extent that these terms have come to be understood as designating that stream of Christian transmission through which the radically consciousness-transforming teachings of Jesus have been most powerfully transmitted and engaged. But we eschew esotericism as simply mental or metaphysical speculation, and we affirm the primacy of the scripture and tradition as the cornerstones of Christian life.
  5. Also in contrast to many branches of the Wisdom tradition based on Perennial or Traditionalist metaphysics (with its inherently binary and anti-material slant), we are emphatically a Teilhardian, Trinitarian lineage, embracing asymmetry (threeness), evolution, and incarnation in all their material fullness and messiness.
  6. We are moving steadily in the direction of revisioning contemplation no longer in terms of monastic, otherworldly models prioritizing silence and repose but, rather, as a way of honing consciousness and compassion so as to be able to fully engage the world and become active participants in its transition to the higher collectivity, the next evolutionary unfolding.
  7. We are an integral school, not a pluralistic one, (to draw on Ken Wilber’s levels of consciousness); our primary mission field is teal, not green. Our work concentrates not at the level of healing the false-self, woundedness and recovery, substance abuse, equal rights, restorative justice, or political correctness (although we acknowledge the importance of all of these initiatives), but rather at the level of guiding the transition from identity based primarily in the narrative or egoic self to identity stabilized at the level of witnessing presence, or “permeably boundaried” selfhood.
  8. Our most important teachers and teachings are Jesus, St. Benedict, the canonical and Wisdom gospels, The Cloud of Unknowing, the greater Christian mystical and visionary tradition (including Eckhart, Boehme, Thomas Merton, Thomas Keating, Ladislaus Boros, Bernadette Roberts), the Desert and Hesychastic traditions, Bede Griffiths and the Christian Advaitic traditions (including Raimon Panikkar, Henri LeSaux/Abishiktananda and Bruno Barnhart), Rumi, Sufism, G.I. Gurdjieff, and Pierre Teilhard de Chardin. And, of course, my own teacher, Br. Raphael Robin.

Please know that this list is intended to start a conversation, not end it. In the upcoming months I hope to unpack each of these points more fully in a format yet to be determined (blog posts? video? on-the-ground teaching retreat?). I invite others in our Wisdom network to do likewise, both in your larger organizations (The Contemplative Society, Northeast Wisdom, Wisdom Southwest, Wisdom Way of Knowing, etc.) and in your smaller practice circles. Collectively, let’s see what we can discover about our lineage, as we midwifed it through a first generation and now transmit through a second.

Blessings, Cynthia

64 replies
  1. Craig
    Craig says:

    I realise the the immediate rebuttal (that is if dialog was part of you system of belief) is that “we’re not talking about Buddhism” but that is so obviously a cop out. You’re talking about something other than Christianity and then claiming you’re Christian. The following quote is simply a clarification (one of innumerable if you were inclined to seek the truth) in regards to the shallow re-interpretation of other religions under the umbrella of Buddhism, one of which (the primary) you clearly seek a supposed unification of all…

    “To the Buddhists was given a conception of God of extraordinary intellectual purity; but in growing familiar with the featureless splendour, they have lost their heads; they babble; they say that everything is nothing and nothing is everything, that black is white because white is black. We fancy that the frightful universal negatives at which they have at last arrived, are really little more than the final mental collapse of men trying always to find an abstraction big enough for all things. “I have said what I understood not, things too great for me that I know not. I will put my hand upon my mouth.” Job was a wise man.
    Buddhism stands for a simplification of the mind and a reliance on the most indestructible ideas; Christianity stands for a simplification of the heart and a reliance on the most indestructible sentiments. The greater Christian insistence upon personal deity and immortality is not, we fancy, the cause so much as the effect of this essential trend towards an ancient passion and pathos as the power that most nearly rends the veil from the nature of things. Both creeds grope after the same secret sun, but Buddhism dreams of its light and Christianity of its heat. Buddhism seeks after God with the largest conception it can find, the all-producing and all-absorbing One; Christianity seeks after God with the most elementary passion it can find—the craving for a father, the hunger that is as old as the hills. It turns the whole cry of a lost universe into the cry of a lost child.” G.K. Chesterton

    Reply
    • Craig
      Craig says:

      Or better yet… I’d ask why Mrs Besant hasn’t been acknowledged but as I’ve said these weren’t new ideas in her time either…

      “A short time ago Mrs. Besant, in an interesting essay, announced that there was only one religion in the world, that all faiths were only versions or perversions of it, and that she was quite prepared to say what it was. According to Mrs. Besant this universal Church is simply the universal self. It is the doctrine that we are really all one person; that there are no real walls of individuality between man and man. If I may put it so, she does not tell us to love our neighbours; she tells us to be our neighbours. That is Mrs. Besant’s thoughtful and suggestive description of the religion in which all men must find themselves in agreement. And I never heard of any suggestion in my life with which I more violently disagree. I want to love my neighbour not because he is I, but precisely because he is not I. I want to adore the world, not as one likes a looking-glass, because it is one’s self, but as one loves a woman, because she is entirely different. If souls are separate love is possible. If souls are united love is obviously impossible. A man may be said loosely to love himself, but he can hardly fall in love with himself, or, if he does, it must be a monotonous courtship. If the world is full of real selves, they can be really unselfish selves. But upon Mrs. Besant’s principle the whole cosmos is only one enormously selfish person.

      It is just here that Buddhism is on the side of modern pantheism and immanence. And it is just here that Christianity is on the side of humanity and liberty and love. Love desires personality; therefore love desires division. It is the instinct of Christianity to be glad that God has broken the universe into little pieces, because they are living pieces. It is her instinct to say “little children love one another” rather than to tell one large person to love himself. This is the intellectual abyss between Buddhism and Christianity; that for the Buddhist or Theosophist personality is the fall of man, for the Christian it is the purpose of God, the whole point of his cosmic idea. The world-soul of the Theosophists asks man to love it only in order that man may throw himself into it. But the divine centre of Christianity actually threw man out of it in order that he might love it. The oriental deity is like a giant who should have lost his leg or hand and be always seeking to find it; but the Christian power is like some giant who in a strange generosity should cut off his right hand, so that it might of its own accord shake hands with him. We come back to the same tireless note touching the nature of Christianity; all modern philosophies are chains which connect and fetter; Christianity is a sword which separates and sets free. No other philosophy makes God actually rejoice in the separation of the universe into living souls. But according to orthodox Christianity this separation between God and man is sacred, because this is eternal. That a man may love God it is necessary that there should be not only a God to be loved, but a man to love him. All those vague theosophical minds for whom the universe is an immense melting-pot are exactly the minds which shrink instinctively from that earthquake saying of our Gospels, which declare that the Son of God came not with peace but with a sundering sword. The saying rings entirely true even considered as what it obviously is; the statement that any man who preaches real love is bound to beget hate. It is as true of democratic fraternity as a divine love; sham love ends in compromise and common philosophy; but real love has always ended in bloodshed. Yet there is another and yet more awful truth behind the obvious meaning of this utterance of our Lord. According to Himself the Son was a sword separating brother and brother that they should for an aeon hate each other. But the Father also was a sword, which in the black beginning separated brother and brother, so that they should love each other at last.” G.K. Chesterton

      Reply
      • Administrator
        Administrator says:

        Thank you for your comments, Craig. It sounds like you wish to be heard, and we hope you know that you are. We apologise that our limited resources prevent us from replying to all comments on this blog, but we keep comments open so that readers may support each other in their journeys as peers. Cynthia reads these comments but is not able to respond to them personally; they do, however, inform her thinking and work. We encourage everyone to continue engaging in thoughtful and respectful dialogue with each other.

        As to your recent theme, you may find this blog post a worthy introduction to the similar thinking of Teilhard de Chardin: http://www.contemplative.org/love-is-the-answer-what-is-the-question/ We think you will find common ground in his ideas which run counter to the notion of Oneness as a “melting pot”, but rather as a celebration of our diversity and the unity underlying it, and how Christianity is a path to loving “my neighbour not because he is I, but precisely because he is not I” as you quoted above.

        Reply
        • Craig
          Craig says:

          Cheers. Yeah I’ve read it and within it’s own context, I like it. I’m a fan of Teilhard and it was that kind of commentary that first got me interested in Bourgeault and associates. It’s the greater context I have issue with. There seems to be a lot of contradictory thinking, many other comments made that say the opposite to that article… Perhaps (likely) I’m simply picking fights with people way above my intellect and understanding. But hey, I’m not on social media and am not in a position to do courses so I do this when I can. My philosophy is that “you always want to play someone better than you”, “call it as you see it” and “follow the crumbs”. I figure nobody comments anyway and you’re obviously not a snowflake who can’t see the harmlessness of it otherwise you wouldn’t post my comments. So I pick fights, say what’s on my mind and couldn’t give a rats arse if at the end of the day I’m just making a fool of myself. Like I’ve said, I’m a happy nobody in pursuit of the truth (the best I can grasp it) and there’s always the possibility of having a bone thrown my way every now and then. In the mean time, I may make more arguments just because it’s helpful for me and probably be on my way again… then possibly back 🙂

          Reply
        • Craig
          Craig says:

          Actually, the more I think about it the more that article isn’t saying what you’re suggesting. It twists the concept of which Chesterton speaks. There’s a coldness and indifference that, like a lot of Bourgeault’s articles, paints a poetic picture that seems to be agreeing with orthodox Christianity on the surface but upon deeper reflection (in many cases not that deep) is deliberately missing the point.
          Underscoring the writings of people like Chesterton, Lewis, Tolkein, etc. is the reality of the Personal as the culmination of the evolution of the Universe, the essential substance represented in the symbol of material reality that infuses it all with magic. In their writing they see and point to where material reality points and know well that where it points is best expressed through Fairy Tale for Fairy Tale is rooted deeply in the Personal (which is far more real than what scientism makes out to be real, which is the problem of pantheism (or panentheism if you prefer)). Bourgeault points in the opposite direction by doing everything possible to keep it from entering into the truth and magic of the Personal, the realm of the Fairy Tale. Love is not a force though it is represented by force, symbolised in material reality. It is willing the good of the other as other. Chesterton sees the the difference between the symbol of material reality and the thing itself. Bourgeault does not.

          Reply
        • Craig
          Craig says:

          C.S. Lewis actually predicted this whole thing in the last book of his cosmic trilogy. What Bourgeault, Delio, Wilber, Rohr and the like are trying to do is bridge the gap between what has previously (and still is in orthodox Christianity) been understood as two separate realities (the physical and the spiritual) with consciousness (a term people throw around as if they have the slightest idea what they’re talking about). It’s not new. It may seem new in the blinding light of humanity’s ultra-enlightenment today, so new in fact that the term pantheism has been replaced with the term “panentheism”. Yet both present exactly the same problem, that of mistaking the symbol for the thing it symbolises. When that happens it is a very quick fall into the reductionism of science or simply put scientism, where the “why” really isn’t important anymore. The fact that it is dismissed so arbitrarily in that article speaks to that.

          When love is redefined as a form of energy on the “outside” and on the “inside” as compassion, intimacy and generativity as if they are just two forms of the same thing rather than seeing energy as symbolic of compassion, intimacy and generativity, you’re pulling those very terms out of their orbit. It’s like trying to glue a bird to a painting of it.

          Reply
  2. Bruce Schuman
    Bruce Schuman says:

    Dear Cynthia – dear All. I have a question regarding centering prayer. I want to explore its possible meaning in a “collective” sense — how centering prayer can move in the collective space — the “WE space” — perhaps in the spirit of the Teal meme. And could this collective approach help empower or guide a much-needed spirit-led political activism?

    By way of introduction, I have a long background in interspirituality, know Kurt Johnson and Ed Bastian, and heard you speak at an Ed Bastian event at La Casa de Maria. My own “lineage” began with Yogananda, then moved to Church Universal and Triumphant (Ascended Masters, Theosophy, a particular take on interfaith), expanded in many ways through the insights of Conscious Evolution (Barbara Marx Hubbard), passed through many versions of the Sophia Perennis, then generally became strictly interfaith and interspiritual. I have built many spirit-related web sites, including one that emerged just before the “Dawn of Interspirituality” conference, where I met Kurt in person. That site is http:/interspirit.net Plus I have regularly attended the centering prayer ritual at La Casa de Maria, as led by Sr.Jeanette Love.

    A collective approach to Centering Prayer in a context of high diversity would enter into the real or experience of co-creativity — as the participants sought to somehow fuse their understanding in a common bond of mutual respect and sacred creativity. I am reminded of a potent quote from Teilhard, where he says (from Writings in Time of War):

    “Precisely because there exists in all beings a common centre, scattered and separable though they are in appearance, they meet together at a deeper level. The more they perfect themselves naturally and sanctify themselves in grace, the more they come together and fuse into one, within the single, unifying Centre to which they aspire: and we may call that Centre equally well the point upon which they converge, or the ambiance in which they float. All these reachings-out that draw beings together and unify them constitute the axis of all individual and collective life.”

    I associate this common center with the Axis Mundi and see it as a profound guiding force for collective alignment in a context of high social diversity. When I experience “Quaker Circle”, I think I am seeing something like this process, as a substantial group of people (their congregation) undertake to form a common decision under the spirit of the Quaker teaching and endeavor to find a common center — a common understanding — guided by God.

    I cannot help but feel today that our fractious and turbulent and less-than-virtuous politics might be most beneficially influenced by this kind of contemplative approach. And perhaps this process could conceivably tend to “converge towards a common center” if we understand and follow Teilhard’s quote on “common center”. Maybe separate convergent centering prayer circles could possibly be said to “all have the same center” in some highest sense. That might be a wonderful and most blessed force for creating an inspired unity in culture.

    This page from the Interspirit Alliance reviews this thought, and shows Father Keating and Barbara Marx Hubbard standing in this alignment as I understand it:

    http://interspirit.net/alliance/center.cfm

    Any thoughts you might have on this subject would be most appreciated.

    – Bruce Schuman, Santa Barbara

    Reply
    • Craig
      Craig says:

      It’s quite incredible how criticism is automatically lumped in the “hate speech” box these days. You only need to bat an eyelid and people scream bloody murder. We’re living in an era of popularism where “safe places”, “trigger warnings” and basic science itself is being redefined in light of supposed minority rights and the inept social sciences (inclusive of many “spiritual teachers”) who have somehow forgotten (or simply choose to bury their heads in the sand) to the horrors of the 20th century’s pursuit of the same marxist socialism that dissolved the personal individual in the idealistic acid bath of the collective. They all think they’re saying something new 😉 The kind of “spiritualism”, scientism and group identity politics being promoted on this site is precisely the kind of drivel promoted by the precursive intellectuals responsible for the radical transformation of entire societies in the lead up and during the many wars of the last one hundred years. There are other sites and supposed teachers associated with this one, a group of people working together to redefine the Christian message in light of their own bias, praise of leftist elitists living in ivory towers and book sales to those looking for spiritual worldview that has lost all its salt and offends nobody.

      When you’re no longer permitted to make an argument due to even the slight possibility of causing offence then all communication and freedom of thought has come to an end… history is very clear about what comes next…

      Reply
    • Craig
      Craig says:

      Oh and by the way. In reference to nobody replying on this site. Immoderate liberals are so good at redefining reality (it’s their bread and butter) that I have absolutely no doubt that they’ve redefined the cowardice of not responding to criticism as a kind of pious moral enlightenment lol. It’s why Richard Rohr doesn’t even have a blog. He knows that if he were challenged on his stance in regards to the teachings this blog (and associated blogs) he wouldn’t be long in the catholic church. And why Cynthia Bourgault has “Ask Cynthia” (not once has she met criticism on her blogs) Oh and just on a side note, have a look at the documentary “Wild Wild Country” on Netflix… see if you can’t spot any correlations 😉

      Reply
    • Craig
      Craig says:

      Here’s a little exercise. Go and read the academics at the beginning of the 1900s. It’s almost identical to the kind of ideas western society is being promulgated with today but on a much, much more grandiose though subtle scale (this site’s a perfect example on the spiritual front). In essence it is a radical departure from the metanarrative of the Christian story (which is not rooted in theory or scientific/social re-interpretation but in a real people, with a real history, declaring the existence of a Personal God who has created separate, though dependent, eternal personal beings in His/Her image). The departure from this foundation at the beginning of the 1900s was rooted in the growth in power (along with intellectual arrogance) humanity was beginning to experience with its accumulation over the previous 150 to 200 years of technological advancement. Compare that advancement to what we’ve seen in the last 25 years and the growth is incomparable. Did you know that almost all your conversations around smart phones (among a growing list of other everyday tools) are recorded and stored? These very comments are recorded and stored. How I use this computer, where I travel, who I visit, what stores I go to and products I purchase… all recorded and stored. This isn’t conspiracy stuff. It’s actually occurring and has been for some time. All your emails are read, stored and “relevant information” shared and it’s all being pushed upon society at such a rate that we essentially have no choice if we want to continue participating in it. Hell, a lot of people are oblivious to it. And that’s not even the “crazy” stuff…

      If you don’t think this has much relevance to our immediate lives apart from being bombarded with advertising you’re badly mistaken. Not only does the Trump election (not the only political party to use it btw and Facebook is just the tip of the iceberg) speak clearly of the manipulative and controlling power of such a reality but more and more police stations actually have what’s called a threat level attached to your personal information (who interprets the information?). Again, this used to be the kind of talk associated with conspiracy nuts. But that is no longer the case. It’s common knowledge… which is the point. Like frogs cooking in water slowly being brought to boiling point, western society is being conditioned for something on a scale the world has never known. The human condition is clearly expressed in the Christian metanarative and the last century clearly verified it…

      Extreme liberalism is no longer extreme. The rights of the human individual are being eroded. Laws introduced to bind people’s words and thoughts. If a person from 20 years ago could be time-traveled to today, he/she’d think we’d lost our minds (because to a large extent, we have and are). Whatever is thought of republicans and conservatives I guarantee you this is their fundamental argument. It’s why they’re against gun control. It’s why they’re against abortion. It’s why they’re against teachers whose teaching produces more and more dependence of the “student” upon the “teacher” and who promote the collective above the individual. It’s why they’re against laws that control what you say.. America (along with a lot of western society) was great because it saw, promoted and protected the reality, significance and rights of the personal individual because their experience had been refreshed by the fire of what they’d seen and fought against, the dangers of socialistic idealism, group identity politics and mere intellectual liberalism.

      None of what is being taught on this site is the least bit new. Boutgeault wasn’t the first to come up with the “law of three” (that’s embarrassingly deluded) or promote the idea that Jesus’ significance was primarily that of a wisdom teacher or that we’re just the particular expressions of the One Great Consciousness and all the great religions are essentially saying the same thing. Wilber/Beck weren’t the first to discover the evolution of consciousness. Gurdjieff isn’t radical beyond his application of egotism and pressure to spirituality. If there were websites at the beginning of the 1900s I guarantee you, someone else would have been promoting these very ideas. In fact, they’ve been promoted at many times throughout recorded history… almost always before the fall of a society.

      We are individual separate, though utterly dependent, images of the Word. It’s why freedom of speech, expression and debate of ideas made the western world great. I suspect many here have been convinced to give that up for inclusion into the “inner circle”.

      I don’t expect to convince anyone of anything on this site. I comment because out of all the teachers I’ve discovered thus far, this one epitomises what’s going on in more and more of our society. I’m a happy nobody in this world. My significance and meaning are rooted in something beyond it. And as I’ve said before, at least they have the integrity to post criticism… though at times I wonder if the purpose of this particular one of three sites isn’t to do just that while ignoring them on the other two… but hey it doesn’t really matter if it is. Like I said it’s not my purpose. Not having a debate with anyone can be more rewarding than debating those who don’t know how 😉

      Reply
  3. Catherine (Kitsy) Stratton
    Catherine (Kitsy) Stratton says:

    It isn’t appropriate for me to continue here because this is not ‘My’ Wisdom Lineage. I did not get where I am in my spiritual development by way of any established Wisdom School nor by the teachings of the those mentioned. The ‘school’ I am currently ‘attending’ has had a dynamic curriculum, specially compiled just for me. My contemplative life has not been built around a practice of centering prayer…or much of any prayer; my contemplation has mostly been a question, “Why is my life so damned hard?” coupled with a watchful eye, looking for clues toward survival. It is only in looking back over my life that I see the plot laid out and markers of a well-thought out journey. My life has included 40 years in spiritual wilderness; being swallowed up and taken back so I can obey the second time; reasons for why all of my efforts…my own agenda…failed. I have had no ‘lineage’ exactly; what I have had is a first half of life, building skills, experiences, and a vocabulary…all materials I now use in my second half of life: doing whatever I am given to do. Blessings and God’s peace.

    Reply
  4. Craig
    Craig says:

    In other words…
    1. We work and pray
    2. We pray in silence, think God speaks to us in that silence and make a point of avoiding thinking contentiously about it.
    3. We follow the teachings of G.I. Gurdjieff, an egotistical non-Christian with a lot of critics who promoted a self-perpetuating refusal to question anything pertaining to esoteric knowledge supported by the teacher… kinda like what cults do.
    4. We agree with Christian scripture insofar as it supports any esoteric knowledge we may have received via teaching or praying in silence without contentious thinking.
    5. We’re unashamedly up ourselves because we think we’re the only ones who understand the Trinity, incarnation and that evolution is real.
    6. Again, in line with the arrogance of the teaching we follow, thanks evolution for your part but we’ll take over now 😉 oh and unlike all those morons who didn’t really know what contemplation is, we’ll sort that out too 😉
    7. The “personal individual” is bullshit. You and the life you think you’re living isn’t real… but again, we’ll sort that because we’re at the top of Ken Wilber’s spiral dynamics and realise that how to do socialism right.
    8. And just to back up that we’re still “Christian”… we like these guys 😉

    Some profound stuff 😉 You’re certainly right about one thing… you’re students of Gurdjieff

    Reply
    • Catherine Stratton
      Catherine Stratton says:

      With a bit of reluctance I must say I do hear a bit of a cheer rising up from the masses…particularly when we are found to be “up ourselves.” Perhaps a little freshening of the bath water is in order while being careful not to lose the soapy Christ child in the process.

      Reply
      • Craig
        Craig says:

        Honestly, (and this response is for the Administrator also) I’m quite done with all this stuff. I came here because I’m still on the emailing list (which would probably be best for everyone if I were simply taken off) read it and couldn’t help but comment. I’m all for free speech and having people think whatever they choose to think but I’m fed up with stuff like this being called Christian when it is so clearly and easily proven not to be. I personally think you’re a cult who has hijacked and misinterpreted the Christian mystics in an effort to espouse a perennial tradition that is as popular as sugar, has lost all its salt and created a cultish dependency on a its teachers (just like one of the traits Gurdjieff was criticised for). I realise there’s no point debating. The only response I’ve ever received is nothing at all or “You just don’t get it,” which is as helpful as blowing raspberries and is exactly what cults say. So yeah, I’m happy to just be left off the emailing list and leave you all to it.

        Reply
        • Catherine Stratton
          Catherine Stratton says:

          I agree with most of what you say….and have removed myself from thd lists a few times. I remain in hopes of learning all I can grom those who are adept at gathering in one place, teachings I’ve not been exlosed to before. I also remain because I bring with me a commitment to remind others that it really is about Christ and there ought to be a bit of a nod in the direction of Jesus. But, alas, I am not a card-carrying member; I have never been spoken to directly either; and was told to go read the books.

          However, Craig, it appears you and I…while existing at the fringes (the margins of which I wrote)… seem to be the only ones ‘in conversation’ (something Cynthia asked for) and seem to care more about the intent, integrity, and values of the whateveritis we are pouring our hearts into.

          I am asking you to stick around if only to dampen the echo in this chamber and keep me company.

          Reply
        • Catherine Stratton
          Catherine Stratton says:

          I should add my motivation. Cynthia has a huge following of people who intend a Christian journey, sometimes have difficulty translating from a more traditional Christian upbringing, and get lost and frustrated with all the esoteric obfustication. If Cynthia does not mind losing these people along the way (if not actually jettisoning them because they hope to heal some spiritual wounds and grow in their own awarenees through kenosis, etc.) she should say so and be clear about it.

          If these tenets are the backbone of an effort to do nothing toward serving our fellow man but rather to contemplate evolution into existence, then I don’t give it a snowball’s chance because to be 3rd force, one must interface with forces 1 and 2 and the only way to do that is to be engaged in the world…and that means people, their struggles, and their personal growth. Anything else is avoidance of the messy.

          Reply
        • Catherine Stratton
          Catherine Stratton says:

          I’m so slow, Craig; the reference, “teal, not green,” indicates this “Our Wisdom Lineage,” (hereafter fondly, the “OWL group”) is intended to be elite. Those who are still ‘green’ (somebody’s levels of consciousness) would not be able to understand what they are talking about.

          Not sure I qualify.

          Reply
          • Craig
            Craig says:

            Hey Catherine,

            I’ve been reading and listening to the likes of Richard Rohr, Cynthia Bourgault, Thomas Keating, Ken Wilber/Don Beck and Ilia Delio among others for several years. I pursued their teaching with genuine interest for some time. I’ve found Richard Rohr to be a very good teacher in the areas of personality and some very basic psychology along with an alternative view to the atonement theory of Christianity (which is essentially the reason for his popularity among evangelicals though isn’t really written about in a very scholarly fashion by Rohr. There’s much criticism). I’ve found Thomas Keating’s teaching on Centring Prayer to be outstanding though it really only reinforced my understanding of prayer as presented by Andrew Murray, “Man’s (sic) chief care, his (sic) highest virtue and his (sic) only happiness now and for all eternity is to present himself (sic) to God as an empty vessel in which God may dwell and manifest His power and goodness.” Don Beck is responsible for Spiral Dynamics, which is an outstanding framework used by diplomats around the world for understanding and applying Jung’s psychology and teachings on collective consciousness (I misspoke when I said “Ken Wilber’s Spiral Dynamics”. Wilber is responsible for Integral Theory, which Rohr and Bourgeault use in their pursuit of the perennial tradition, but has been largely ignored within academia). Ilia Delio is a brilliant scholar from whom I’ve learned a great deal though her view and understanding of evolution and therefore relationship to spirituality is only one of varying perspectives within that community of experts.

            In a way I’m quite grateful for Cynthia’s part. She is essentially where the rubber meets the road as far as all these people (certainly excluding Don Beck and perhaps Keating) are converging together in the pursuit of establishing the perennial tradition, which at first offers a very attractive view of spirituality, under the umbrella of Christianity. The problem is… it’s just not true. And it is starkly obvious in Cynthia’s views of reality and especially her understanding of the person of Jesus Christ.

            While there are several universal truths shared by the great religions of the world, science and psychology, it is willful blindness to suggest that this proves the perennial perspective. The foundational false premise of the entire thing is that we understand what reality is, which is the very powerful illusion the western world lives within as a result of its wealth and mastery of technology. But the truth is, we don’t. C.S. Lewis put it this way, “Miracles are the retelling in small letters of the very same story written across the entire universe in letters too big for most of us to see.” I would suggest that this “not seeing” is at the heart of their teaching and the platform from which they view actual orthodox Christianity as being naïve, simplistic and fundamentalist (in the derogatory sense). There are huge differences between the great religions and especially Christianity but they simply ignore them.

            As far as Christianity is concerned there are far more skillful teachers to build your worldview and spiritual practice upon. N.T. Wright, William Lane Craig, C.S. Lewis, G.K. Chesterton among many, many others. And as far as Cynthia and Richard Rohr having a “massive following” is concerned, I wouldn’t be so sure of that. The internet is a deceptive thing when it comes to popularity especially among groups of people who really don’t read or learn outside of a handful of teachers that espouse the dominant narrative of that group.

            Reply
          • Craig
            Craig says:

            I will say, however, that I am impressed that Cynthia does have a blog and posts criticism like mine but I’m also curious as to how long that will last given that there really hasn’t been anyone criticising her views as yet. I suspect this is largely due to the reality that she doesn’t have as big a following as you might think. Richard Rohr for instance does not have a blog though there are any number of well-written critiques of his work to be found on the Internet. Although he seems to enjoy telling people that he has as yet not been classified as a heretic by the Catholic Church, this seems to be true only because, one, he doesn’t seem to be taken too seriously as a scholarly Christian writer and, two, he is a master at being vague on some very key points.

            Reply
          • Craig
            Craig says:

            Sorry, one last thing in regards to your last comment about levels of consciousness. This is precisely why Ken Wilber ‘s Integral Theory is not highly regarded within academic circles unlike Don Beck’s Spiral Dynamics. Integral Theory’s entire foundation is based on the assumption that the perennial tradition is true. Don Beck is a huge critic of Ken Wilber’s Integral Theory precisely because it uses Spiral Dynamics to promote esotericism. In other words, people who use Integral Theory use it to defend ideas without actually defending them at all by simply saying, “You can’t understand what we’re talking about because you’re not at our level.” Be very wary of such teaching. There has not been a cult in history that hasn’t been built on that very logic and why very intelligent people get caught up in them.

            Reply
          • Catherine (Kitsy) Stratton
            Catherine (Kitsy) Stratton says:

            Craig, for some reason, your comments are not open for reply…which makes me wonder if I am the only one seeing your comments. Regardless, I did not come to any of this by way of any of these tracks. My ‘wisdom’ path has been more along the lines of the original blazing of the Saluda Gap and the Green River Gorge…by myself. January 2017, I went in search of a centering prayer group and found Cynthia’s blog on her second take on the election. I had not read any of her books. Come to find out most had been on my bookshelf for years…but that’s another story. In reading The Wisdom Way of Knowing, I realized that I had been living a wisdom path of contemplation and ‘knowing’ but had never known it was a thing.

            By this point in my life, I had accomplished the bulk of my kenotic work, without knowing there was a name for it. I was practicing a modified form of Brother Richard’s “presence” but also by this point I was getting responses. In the Spring of 2017, I participated in the “Becoming Fully Human” eCourse on Gurdjieff. The value of that course was primarily in the building of the relationships with the other participants and especially during the 2nd review where it was totally peer participation. We branched out to read together Jim Marion’s Putting on the Mind of Christ, Cynthia’s Wisdom Jesus, Meaning of Mary Magdalene, and others. Some brought in Almaas, Nicholl, and Yogananda. I brought some Swedenborg, Eckhart, and Emmett Fox. It was marvelous, rich, and full of affirmation and inclusion. The reading facilitated rapid growth for me and huge breakthroughs in awareness.

            But…..and this is important…whenever I got dizzy on this playground, not knowing who to follow, what to listen to, and where to go next, I shut it all down and I asked the One who has been guiding me for a while. I always got an answer. He was speaking to me before I read Bourgeault and He speaks to me still. I find all of this consciousness stuff fascinating and it helps in reaching out to others through my blogging and through the groups, but I am not concerned about which school of thought follows which teachers when I can ask, “Are they right?” and He tells me what to read instead.

            There is much layered and hidden guidance in scripture, and much is continuing to be revealed to us through meditation and contemplation real-time, as we are capable of understanding it, but the ‘face value’ messages of Jesus are still true…love, compassion, justice. For me personally, this is my life of service. If I am to teal-out with the OWL group to help facilitate the next great thing, so be it, but if I am to tend to the often way-below-green people of my world, it doesn’t matter to me what the teal do; I found my way following bread crumbs and now my next stepping stone appears before my foot hits the ground. I’m where I am meant to be and it doesn’t have a color. I just saw some holes in the tenets and thought I’d point them out.

            Reply
            • Administrator
              Administrator says:

              Craig, for some reason, your comments are not open for reply…which makes me wonder if I am the only one seeing your comments.

              Apologies, Catherine. Our website’s settings were only allowing comment threads to be five levels deep. I have changed that to the maximum which is ten levels deep. Rest assured, we do not censor comments as long as they are deemed in the spirit of respectful dialogue. We moderate our blog’s comments primarily to ensure spam is not getting through. All comments deemed respectful and not spam are visible to everyone.

              Reply
          • Catherine (Kitsy) Stratton
            Catherine (Kitsy) Stratton says:

            One other thing, time spent deliberating over who is in and who is out, which model is right and which model is wrong, sounds remarkably like determining angels on the head of a pin. Remember the holographic concept? If I am given a small piece of the film, I can see the whole thing but it is still only from the direction of my small piece….and all of the pieces are legit. The important thing to remember is that all of the pieces matter and when put together they reveal the whole of the thing desired. It takes all of our vantage points and our vantage points are defined by our respective ‘wisdom lineages.’ Any lineage can work. What matters is that we be following it, be grateful for it, and use it in some way.

            I was told recently to keep moving forward and to not worry about ‘them,’ them being fellow travelers who are stuck and refuse to do their own work. So, I must (somewhat reluctantly) agree with tenet 7, but I am reminded of how “the 1%” are investing in settlements on Mars; they have apparently given up on this home. The rest of us will inherit the earth.

            Defining where we are from is interesting but no more than that. What matters is how well we are here…and what we do going forward. Forward is nebulous and will be determined by how present, open, and prepared we are. And while being prepared is important, through which school is not. What matters is that we remain enrolled and active.

            Reply
            • Craig
              Craig says:

              Wow. That’s sounds like a very interesting journey, Catherine. Fair enough to all of it. I’m 100% for freedom of thought, freedom of speech and freedom of experience. I too have enjoyed my own personal journey into a number of different perspectives. My main issue has been with the melting pot presented via these teachings that not simply includes Christianity but is seeking to redefine it.

              Simply put, and like I’ve mentioned, I’m happy to simply leave this site and allow for everyone to believe and think what they want. But as far as I’m concerned I strongly disagree with the definition of Christianity being portrayed (among a growing list of other things).

              Christianity is about the Messiah Jesus Christ. He is the unique Son of God and the one true representative of humanity. It is by accepting the truth of who He is and what he came to accomplish, that no human being on this planet can live in true relationship with the Holy God apart from being wrapped in the righteousness of Jesus Christ who took our place. We’re not accepted on any other basis than this. Now you and any number of people on this site may very well disagree with that but that IS Christianity. If the standard for acceptance required by God were to be represented by the distance between the earth and moon then it matters not if one person is able to jump 50 feet towards the moon and another 1 foot (you can do all the “work” you please, it makes no comparative difference). All are separated from God. That is precisely why God sent His Son to be our representative. It is He and He alone that measures up and nobody comes to the Father apart from faith in His free gift of Jesus Christ. That’s Christianity. What I find absolutely horrifying is that these people are literally teaching a different Gospel. They’re not simply disagreeing with Christianity. They’re trying to redefine it.

              Reply
              • Catherine (Kitsy) Stratton
                Catherine (Kitsy) Stratton says:

                Craig, I am a convinced believer in…and a dedicated, committed follower of…Jesus. It is my whole life now. May I point out that Jesus never said to defend or protect Christianity. He never said to defend or protect Him. He said to love God, to love neighbor (and our neighbor is everyone else…everyone else… even “them”), and to follow Him. He also said to worship the Father in spirit and in truth. In fact, Jesus never said for us to worship Him (Jesus)… even after He was resurrected.

                We are to follow Jesus through His path of self-less service; this includes elements of justice, but for the poor, hungry, and enslaved. Jesus railed against those who defended the religious institutions. I commend your energy and persistence but suggest you direct it toward the defenseless or at least the defense and protection of Jesus’ teaching…His mission, not the institution of Christianity. In fact, I have difficulty finding Jesus anywhere in most contemporary Christianity. That is where your energy would be most valuable.

                Jesus came to change the rules. I explain what I mean by this in a recent blog post
                https://holysmokeonthewater.com/2018/03/12/how-does-gods-garden-grow/
                In this piece, I present what I believe about how things have changed in our relationship with God since creation and especially when Jesus was born. The relationship between God and man continues to change and it is only reasonable to allow the religion that is all about this relationship to change too.

                For 22 years I worked for the Federal Government as a programmer in the field of Climate Science. I wrote programs to digitize and quality control weather data. In the late 1980’s, the weather stations were beginning to be equipped with technology that recorded things like cloud ceiling heights and lightning. Observers were no longer required and the data became more standardized and consistent. However, definitions had to change: Whereas before, a thunderstorm was defined as “thunder heard within 15 minutes of the observation time,” the definition now was based on “lightning detected within 15 minutes of the observation time.” The storms didn’t change but the definition had to because our awareness of the defining principles had changed. (Statistics on implied changes in the frequency of storms became a bit shaky but it’s all working itself out.) My point is this: as we become more aware of how deeply infused our lives are with God and how dynamic our relationships with God can be, our definitions of man’s relationship with God does change. Any new definitions aren’t saying God has changed; the new definitions are saying what we now understand has changed…what we understand and are aware of about our relationship with God. Our understanding of Christ is changing because our ABILITY to perceive Christ is changing. And our ability is increased only as much as were are able to handle it. The volume control is still in God’s hands.

                Reply
                • Craig
                  Craig says:

                  Firstly, I said nothing of worshiping Jesus. I simply laid out the Gospel of orthodox Christianity and Jesus didn’t say to defend Christianity because Christianity didn’t exist at that time though it’s not at all difficult to present several biblical passages in regards to dire warnings for anyone preaching another Gospel than the one I just presented. As far as worship goes I choose to reverence my Lord Jesus Christ for who He is and what He has done for me and the world in order that I may have a relationship with God and consequently my fellow human beings. I don’t do it because I have to or because someone hasn’t told me to.

                  Secondly, I’ve spent the majority of my life working with people on the fringe, people from horrific backgrounds at Drug and Alcohol centres and with people with disabilities. But thanks for the tip on where to spend my energy 😉 As for not finding Jesus anywhere in contemporary Christianity I would suggest looking a bit harder, perhaps on the fringes. In my experience that is where the Gospel shines most brightly. But then I see very little of that with Bourgeault or Rohr.

                  Thirdly, as far as changing definitions and adapting to new information and knowledge I’m all for that. That has occurred over and over within orthodox Christianity. But to change the fundamental message of Christianity is called heresy for a reason. Your storm example is fine as far as it goes but that is not what is happening in Bourgeault’s teaching. It’s more akin to refusing to acknowledge the storm even exists or painting. I think you’ll find all the people I’ve listed are very open to a variety of different views but also hold to the fundamental structure of the Gospel message. Evolution, contemplative prayer, mystical experience, miracles, quantum physics and much more of what i being used to change the Gospel is ALL completely at home within the real Gospel. The teaching of Cynthia Bourgeault on the other hand (I’ll leave Rohr out of this simply because he’s so deliberately ambiguous on any number of key points and is why he’s not taken very seriously in the academic world) is seeking to redefine Christianity at its core.

                  But like I said, I’m happy to leave you all to it. Ask Cynthia who she thinks Jesus is and see what response you get (good luck with that ;))

                  Reply
                • Craig
                  Craig says:

                  Just as an example of what I’m talking about lets look at just one aspect of Cynthia’s foundation. In the light the evolution of the human ego, that is that the human being is essentially the universe become conscious of itself, it would seem as if (if the Biblical story of the Fall is representative of that evolution) that process was somehow inevitable, part of God’s plan for the creation of self-conscious beings. You could even go so far as replacing the apple with some kind of psychedelic substance that enhanced the animal brain to become self-conscious. That’s certainly a valid argument about adapting one’s understanding due to acquired knowledge. However, it is also a massive, and I mean gargantuan, leap. Our understanding of evolution is nowhere near able to support such an idea. To suggest that the human being evolved in the naturalist sense (without supernatural intervention) or even with the Teilhardian sense (panentheism) is pure conjecture, as much as some would wish it not so. Progressive evolution is far more likely based on what we do know, that is, that God periodically supernaturally intervenes in the evolutionary process. which completely fits with orthodox Christianity. My point is the kind of knowledge required to redefine the Gospel in the way that Bourgault is suggesting is not in the least bit anywhere near and I mean it is light years from being able to support such redefinition. It is the very definition of hubris.

                  However, let me go on. Under that line of argument based on that massive leap in logic, it could be deduced that Jesus was like Cynthia Bourgeault is suggesting, a first fruit of the next stage of evolution (though not unique), an example of what we are all capable of achieving (and of what others apart from Jesus have achieved), which is transcendence of the ego self. One of the problems in regards to Cynthia however is this is not even what she is suggesting at all. She is suggesting that there is no afterlife, that the human individual is naught but a temporary expression of the Oneness from which it came and will be dissolved back up into that Consciousness, of which we are but small random particularities, once our particular “job” is done. She is far more Hindu than Christian in that respect. She actually goes backwards in her logic. This is why the bible is so adamant that people do not preach a different Gospel. Cynthia’s entire view is based on conjecture after conjecture, being taught as fact and being defended by Wilber’s “You don’t see because you’re not at my level” defence. It’s unreal.

                  Reply
            • Craig
              Craig says:

              One other thing, it may be quite confronting to hear the true Gospel. There may be any number of objections and questions. That’s utterly fair enough. Billions and billions of people have wrestled with those objections and questions. But don’t think for a minute that by changing the Gospel (which makes it no Gospel at all) to make it more palatable and “politically correct” you’ll be doing yourself or anyone else any favours. There is a kind of wisdom that comes and only comes via the humility required to accept that you need God’s Son Jesus Christ, that you don’t measure up, that He is the way, the truth and the life… And then there’s the kind of wisdom this site presents. I dread to think what awaits such arrogant teachers that think they’re at the forefront of “finally understanding how things really are.”

              Reply
              • Craig
                Craig says:

                One last thing, I just wanted to state once again. There’s Don Beck’s Spiral Dynamics which is highly useful in understanding levels of consciousness and then there’s Ken Wilber’s Integral Theory which is just a spiritualised version of Spiral Dynamics that assumes from the start that Jesus’ unique claims and stance of orthodox Christianity is false and used primarily as a cop out. I’ve heard Rohr’s take on this in regards to understanding atonement theory (which is by far the dominant narrative of the Bible). Rohr is very popular but he’s not all that highly regarded as a theologian or philosopher in academic circles and resorts to the cop out defence often. I would highly recommend N.T. Wright (a recognised Biblical Scholar) when deciding whether to actually do some investigative work on the issue or simply accept the old “You’re seeing it that way because you’re not at our level of consciousness”.

                Reply
                • Catherine (Kitsy) Stratton
                  Catherine (Kitsy) Stratton says:

                  Craig, I completely understand and have repeatedly experienced the cruelty of being told, “you’re not at our level.” I was raised Presbyterian and heard every Sunday that, “some of us are chosen and some of you are not.” Based on what my parents thought of me, I was clearly ‘not.’ Fine. I proceeded to establish my own club of one that had it’s own ‘back channel’ to the Holy. I talked with God on the regular and when I started reading the Bible for myself, I prayed fervently for the Wisdom so highly praised in scripture. Fast forward, now He talks back.

                  Models are just that: models…not the real thing. Spiral Dynamics and Integral Theory are theories which are an attempt to define the parameters in order to predict outcomes and a theory holds up as long as it doesn’t fail. When an outcome falls outside what was expected (within acceptable limits) the theory is changed accordingly (or completely thrown out if it fails badly enough.) Ken Wilbur and Don Beck are trying to build models so they can have an idea of what might come next. That’s okay and what many people need because many people need someone else to do this kind of analysis for them.

                  I’m more of a Taoist-type; Taoists learn about life and the world through observation. “Life works this way because I’ve seen it work this way, over and over.” Wilbur and Beck started this way but then decided to capture their observations and encapsulate all of them into a model. Most models (mathematical, psychological, physical,…) come with parameters or limits. (“The physical model works only at temperatures below….”) If Don Beck’s model works better for you than Ken Wilbur’s, then use it. Wilbur’s may work better in certain circumstances such as for people who have had different life experiences than you have had. Neither one has to be discarded or discredited.

                  Neither one has to be used, either.

                  Remember all the predicted hurricane tracks depicted in colorful traces on a map? Each one is from a different model. All models are used because each one has it’s strengths and weaknesses determined by the defining principles…the same way Wilbur and Beck models are.

                  But here’s the thing…and this is important…many people, particularly the old people who have lived on barrier islands for generations, don’t care about hurricane track models because 1) they are prepared to survive the worst, 2) they trust in reading the ‘signs’ themselves, 3) they trust that regardless of what happens (damage, destruction, death) they are okay with it. They take life at face value as it comes.

                  Some people need to define, encapsulate, and name everything. Some people simply Be.

                  Reply
                  • Craig
                    Craig says:

                    I think you missed my point on that one. Yes, I agree in regards to what you’ve said about models. My point was that Wilber’s model IS Beck’s model. Beck’s model is certainly built on observation. It can be understood, discussed and learned. But Wilber’s model is built on the assumption that the perennial tradition is true. Applying Beck’s model to the realm of the spiritual distorts it. Hence why Wilber’s model (which is really Beck’s) is used as a cop out, as a “You can’t see because you’re not at my level”.

                    Reply
                  • Petrus
                    Petrus says:

                    “Some people simply Be.”

                    Thanks for your comments, Catherine, which I’ve enjoyed reading. As I’m someone who seems to have had more of an investment in “being” rather than in “doing” (in this life, anyway), I am wondering what your Taoist discernments might be regarding any distinctions between the two… Thanks again.

                    Reply
                    • Catherine Stratton
                      Catherine Stratton says:

                      I am not a practicing Taoist; I’m borrowing the term (and apparently shouldn’t have) to state that what I know of life and of spiritual journeys, I have primarily learned while navigating life, myself.

                      If you are asking how a Taoist distinguishes between ‘being’ and ‘doing,’ you may have brought up an interesting aspect of Taoism … one that makes sense but I’m not a Taoist.

                      For me, the difference is a matter of agendas, accomplishments, attachments to outcome, etc. Being has more of an open stance.

                  • Craig
                    Craig says:

                    Just a heads up, Catherine. I’ve reached the end of any use for this site. Although I appreciate your willingness to engage in dialogue there’s really no point furthering the discussion here, which is I’m sure a relief for everyone else, and will be for me too. I’ve checked out your far less precocious blog and will read some more of your stuff and may comment there. But I have dusted my feet and I am on my way. In the mean time. All the best. I enjoyed your interaction 😉

                    Reply
  5. Rita Marsh
    Rita Marsh says:

    Brilliantly expressed as always, Cynthia. Took me into the basement of Aspen Chapel – your words and laughter holding spell bound.
    Martin Buber’s I and Thou came to mind. Blessed Be.

    Reply
  6. Ainslie
    Ainslie says:

    I’ve appreciated your writings since the day I ran across your statement in the introduction to The Wisdom Way of Knowing about 7 or 8 years back – that you at some point realized you’d been on a search for “the headwaters of all religions” – BINGO! Large seemingly unrelated chunks of my life came together in an instant. Now that I knew what I was about, I could do it more deliberately, with more focus and clarity, and more responsibility. Thank you! As to this post (and I’m presently in the midst of The Hly Trinity and the Law of Three), I find myself asking Why is it valuable to define a subset of people, an “us”, in this way? What is the purpose of carving out a little subset of Reality and tethering a rather tiny group of people to it…? I rather like Richard’s commentary above. I’m aware that tracing lineages of transmission is (has been?) useful in spiritual evolvement, but I’m not sure of its value here-now. I can choose a particular vehicle to drive into the world of Form (as I am in beginning the path into the Diaconate), but it is not an effort to distinguish my beliefs (tenets) out from all others, but rather is a form I’m deliberately choosing to employ for its ability to channel an intention to walk, as much as possible for this life-stream, as Jesus did in this world.

    Reply
  7. Liz Day
    Liz Day says:

    Thank you Cynthia, this is an extremely helpful honing down of guiding principles and borders. I will reflect on it all further, in the meantime there is just one thing I’d like to clarify, or question. In your list of guiding teachers, I wonder about the omission of Fr Richard Rohr. The work of Fr Richard and the CAC, and particularly your collaboration with Fr Richard and James Finley with the Living School, seems to me to be of great prophetic and practical significance for the recapitulation of the Christian contemplative tradition and the nurturing and formation of an evolutionary movement of transformed hearts and minds. Fr Richard is definitely one of my core teachers, and I take a lot of inspiration and guidance from his teachings and ministry. Is the omission something to do with Fr Richard being somewhat more contemporary than those you have listed? I hope it’s a helpful question to raise.

    Reply
    • Catherine (Kitsy) Stratton
      Catherine (Kitsy) Stratton says:

      I have wondered the same about the omission of Fr. Rohr. Part of what I recognize in recent evidence of evolution is how wisdom’s message is becoming more available. In tenet 6 you point out how the wisdom path is “moving steadily in the direction of revisioning contemplation no longer in terms of monastic, otherworldly models …” and Richard, especially in the past year through his online meditations, has been moving away from using the rather obscure ‘churchy’ language to speaking directly and clearly about what’s what in the world. (I believe that there will always be the truth that one must have the ears to hear but we don’t have to keep the message hidden behind obscurity. Those who are not ready to hear will not hear the clear direct messages either.)

      This is what I was referring to in my post: who are the contemporary voices? What mechanisms are used to listen out for them? And how will you know them when you hear them? Years ago, the Brussat’s kept their ears and eyes open to the voices of wisdom found in film, music, and literature. I think perhaps a SETI Institute-type component to this effort is called for to help discern where this wisdom lineage is headed for. Up until now, it seems, the lineage has been defined by looking back at where it has been. That is a useful tactic in sailing and is useful here. But the evolution of consciousness is accelerating and that means of navigation does not work as well in a speed boat.

      Reply
  8. Carole
    Carole says:

    This set of reflections found me in a place that I sort of knew implicitly but had not articulated. With Cynthia’s brilliant points of light here I see I have a home I never realized – an integral, messy, asymmetric one.

    Click ! ! !

    Feels a lot more like Easter now . . . .

    Reply
  9. Lawrie Okurowski
    Lawrie Okurowski says:

    Thank you, Cynthia. I find my self resonating strongly with element 7. Perhaps this is because I have experienced a version of what you so beautifully explained to another student in Is sacred reality really real? In almost 20 years it has never left me, and quietly, almost unnoticeably informs my life. Until now I have never found any description or even a mention of this mystery that I had seemingly stumbled upon and knew to be real, without any understanding of how or why. For anyone who may read this, I would say there was no fear whatsoever because the “me” that might be afraid was not present. Also, there were no thoughts. I was an observer of a deep vastness that seemed to be its own source with an internal visibility.

    Reply
  10. Sheila Spremulli
    Sheila Spremulli says:

    Hi Cynthia. Your Wisdom Lineage description resonates with my understanding of trinitarian dynamics except my approach to the wisdom is based in the Goethean phenomonlogy and science of embryogenesis. I appreciate scripture less than the innate Wisdom of the body and the process of coming into form.

    Reply
  11. Don MacGregor
    Don MacGregor says:

    Here in the UK, CANA (Christians Awakening to New Awareness) is gradually putting together a body of material called ‘Towards Universal Spirituality – Journeying with Christianity’ part of which is an annual Wisdom School run along the ‘Bourgeault’ lines. We are coming from much the same place, drawing on the same spiritual teachers in the Wisdom lineage.

    Reply
  12. Hank Tabeling
    Hank Tabeling says:

    Jesuit trained dualist here heading slowly toward your teaching. St Ignatious was a lot more than I realized, same with St Francis.

    Reply
  13. Richard
    Richard says:

    Dear Cynthia,

    When I think of tenets, defining characteristics or defining elements, my attention reaches for a statement that does not depend on references to other traditions, to literature and sources, but is free-standing. Then everything can be added, often with a personal slant or insight, but in a way that enhances the basic shared ground.

    Such core statements are notoriously hard to create. They tend to be very short, stripped back and simple without qualifications, parentheses or references all of which come later, but each phrase containing everything essential to allow these things to be developed or adduced. The Lord’s Prayer comes to mind – not a wasted word.

    This may not be what you intended; and even if it were, I hesitate indeed to step towards exemplifying what I have just said. However, having come this far, my first go at the essential elements would be something like:
    1. Christ is our source

    2. We seek to know Christ’s presence through silent contemplation [and prayer]

    3. The universe is an evolutionary expression of Christ in which we have an active part to play

    4. We recognise the goal of this evolutionary process as unity within a realised Christ

    5. We support this process through work on ourselves towards non-identification and conscious awakening

    6. We seek to live Jesus’ presence by embracing a unitary view in a trinitarian world.

    Once stated, if they are clear, all the references to literature and relativities to other teachings have a context against which to be placed.

    With best wishes,
    Richard

    Reply
    • Catherine (Kitsy) Stratton
      Catherine (Kitsy) Stratton says:

      I, too, see the value in leaving out references to other traditions, to literature and sources, and intending to be free-standing. You have defined the source, the means, the goal. What I am missing, I think, is an intention…some statement of will and corresponding action. Do ‘we’ seek to actively participate in (if not promote) the process of evolution? and how? Is there an intended ‘labora?’

      Reply
  14. Patty Kay
    Patty Kay says:

    Just to let you know, Teacher, you have fully engaged me and I want to participate in the transition to “higher collectivity, the next evolutionary unfolding.” I just pray to even catch up to you!

    Reply
  15. Catherine (Kitsy) Stratton
    Catherine (Kitsy) Stratton says:

    You have covered well the framework: “We are founded…” “We are rooted…” who the teachers are, etc.

    Perhaps there should be something of a mission statement or a statement of intention, even a statement of scope or where you will look to for voices, indications of which directions to face. What separates this work from other Christian endeavors is the ready inclusion of wisdom from non-Christian voices and even ‘secular’ or ‘non-religious’ visions.

    Reply
      • Catherine (Kitsy) Stratton
        Catherine (Kitsy) Stratton says:

        I will ramble a bit more. My favorite football team puts as much energy into recruiting for future years as it does in preparing for the current or upcoming season. The coaching staff have well-defined criteria by which they evaluate candidates for recruitment. These criteria have served the program well. Many ‘outstanding’ potential players have not been recruited because the student didn’t meet all of the criteria.

        Who are the contemporary teachers? the promising voices? and how will you know them when you hear them?

        Reply
  16. Paul
    Paul says:

    An interesting survey you have laid out, to one such as myself who is still a bit new to your way of cultivation. I suppose that I should be able to discern enough from your list of teachers (in no. 8) to have some overall sense of direction being offered. Nonetheless, I can’t help wonder what opinion you might have of theosophical teachers such as Alice Bailey, or even Rudolf Steiner, who seemed convinced that anthroposophy would be the “Christian path” most appropriate for the modern seeker in the 20th century.

    Reply
    • Paul
      Paul says:

      Cynthia Bourgeault seems to like relying on Ken Wilber now and then for a somewhat dubious vision of human evolution. In my other comment in this thread, it was my intention to ask about where someone like Rudolf Steiner fit into her scheme of things. He also spoke about spiritual evolution (like Wilber), and about a cosmic Christ (like Teilhard), but found that the reliance on early prayer techniques, such as those which hark back to the desert fathers, were no longer appropriate for advancing the level the “consciousness soul” finds itself in at this time… was he wrong?

      Now, I am not an anthroposophical acolyte, but I sometimes wonder: was Steiner wrong or “off” somehow, and if so, in what ways? No mention of him shows up at all in her books, and from someone who has been very adroit at contextualizing every thing or person in its proper place, the omission is unusual. Or in the end, is it just that some choose Steiner, others choose Tomberg or Gurdjieff… some Freud, others Jung… some Wilber, Gebser, or Teilhard, and others Rene Guenon, Wolfgang Smith (or anyone else from the Traditionalists)?

      Reply
  17. Bobbie
    Bobbie says:

    Hi–Thank you so much for this post and the invitation to dialog! Have been introduced to this work primarily via nonduality circles–listening to Cynthia’s presentations from SAND events (and cheering on the blending of nondual & Christian mystical teachings), as well as experiencing relational practices of a few SF Bay area teachers. There can be powerful & awesome beauty in the mystical unfolding that comes about with certain forms of mutual practice, both with a partner and in larger groups. I wonder if it might be similar to what Cynthia experienced with her beloved teacher Rafe. This mutual relating feels tender and rich and loving, opening the shared space up to a deepening Presence. Could this be seen as another potential meditative gateway?

    Reply
  18. William Thiele
    William Thiele says:

    Your heart-mind giftedness for integrating contemplative experience into conceptual language without the limits of concepts, defining without enclosing, guiding us forward and calling us toward our evolving purpose without controlling, is a unique expression of God’s image which invites me away from words into union. Few people can use words for the Wordless like you Cynthia. Lead on!

    Reply
  19. Craig
    Craig says:

    In your view, was the historical Jesus of Nazareth physically resurrected from the dead on the third day after his death?

    Reply
  20. Bev
    Bev says:

    “Sufism” may have to be defined to a greater specificity as the lineages can be quite different: e.g. Chisti, Naqshbandi, Mevlevi. Or, word it as “various Sufi traditions”? (I know you have at least a couple of people you can run this idea by!
    Otherwise, this is sounding good.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.