Peace everyone,

I was mulling of this gem from step 26, On Discernment, from St. Climacus' Ladder (p.244-245 Paullst Press, Classics of Western Spirituality translation). I would like to hear the interpretation of those who are a bit more experienced in the ways of spiritual warfare than I:

Thanks!
(apologies for any typos I didn't catch in sending up this lengthy quote)

Dear Friend,

Whenever those with more spiritual experience get around to commenting here, I too will be interested in reading what they have to say!

This passage affirms two important precepts of the spiritual life at once: abandonment of one's will and its evil inclinations AND the discernment of God's Will to which we must submit ourselves.

To abandon one's will is no mean feat and we must pray and do ascesis to purify our souls and be open to the Grace to conquer our pride and passions.

We should submit to the counsel of our spiritual Father(s) who truly do speak in the Name of Christ.

Persistence in prayer and self-emptying will ultimately make us more attuned to the Voice of God that is always speaking to us, but the hearing of which we have dulled through vice and spiritual sloth.

This chapter issues to us the challenge to be spiritually alive and attuned to the Voice of God in our lives!

Alex

Orthodox Catholic wrote:
Thank-you Alex,

This would seem to tie into the first paragraph from St. Climacus that I quoted originally. Am I correct in thinking that here St. John of the Ladder suggests this is the best and most humble way of discernment? The remaining paragraphs to me, St. Climacus seems to point out that it's more dangerous to go it alone.

Yet, in this day and age it seems to be extremely difficult to find those willing and able to be spiritual fathers. Well, that's at least my experience in the RCC, is it any better in the Eastern Catholic Churches?

Failing to have a trusted Spiritual Father, has anyone used the guidelines St. John of the Ladder mentions in my original post when attempting to discern God's will in some aspect of their life?

Peace

Dear Chance,

In fact, the danger of relying on oneself is a theme repeated by spiritual writers, including Thomas A Kempis in his "Imitation of Christ."

I've found that nomatter how much I can read and pray to discern God's Will, it is always a "plus" to confide in someone we trust for their spiritual erudition.

I have found that my wife has given me excellent advice lately, making points that I've overlooked and so I confide and obey her now in ALL things!

I don't kiss her hand, or bow with my face to the ground before addressing her, however . . .

At least not yet . . .

Alex

Orthodox Catholic wrote:
Lol, well that would certainly make things easier...

Dear Chance,

So if you don't already have a wife, you just might have to settle for a Spiritual Director/Father.

Try to find one with as much erudition as a wife would have!

Wives will always tell you the truth about our moral state - and tell you and tell you and tell you . . .

Alex

Give me a bit of time and I will explain it to you. In the mean time keep in mind the monastic setting in which this was written (for monks within a monastic community) and any appilcation of it within your own life circumstances will be much diffrent.

Context is very important - one must also keep in mind who the directly intended read was. This was not written for - us (you are not a Greek nor are you living 1500 years ago, nor do you know the Greek the author is using, nor have you the same monastic expereince, etc..).

What he is saying is true (when understood properly) but it is not true across the board for every one at all times.

see you soon.

-ray

Dear Chance…

We are touching upon a subject which is widely misunderstood, misused, seldom put into proper context, and misguided thoughts about it are held tightly like gold for them who hold them.

But that has seldom stopped me.

First off … (Step 26) the most important item to take with you from this chapter is these…

Te Greek word for 'wind' and for 'spirit' is the same word so there is a play on words here that echos our Lord's own usuue of the play.

Now ...with these two ... Climacus said it all in a nut shell. Anything further is ancillary (something that is added but not essential).

If you want to knows God’s Will about any circumstance or situation you may be in - look into your own conscience.

“I myself will write my law ... with my own finger! Upon their hearts.“ That is a paraphrase from the OT speaking about the “day” of the Lord. The time of Chritianity.

Well… the Lord came. So divination (used in OT days) and Pharisee and Deuteromic like adherence to the Law - is passé.

It has always seemed very fitting to me, what Jesus answered to the Samaritan women. Here he and she were - at a time in which the OT church was split in schism (the Samaritan-Israel split from Judah-Jerusalem). It has always reminded me of the arguments of theology between the current divisions of His new churches… each had a temple and each thought themselves more orthodox than the other … and so she asked Him…

“Upon which mountain should we worship?” - the mount upon which the temple of Jerusalem stood - or the mountain upon which the temple of the Samaritans stood?

Which - church - is the true church? Which church is the more orthodox?

To which Jesus answered “The time is coming when those who are really worshiping God - will worship him in - spirit.” Of course that 'time' was initiated with his crucifixtion and resurrection. We are still - in that - time.

Now did that not ? put to rest the question “… which church?”

Let us now clear up the definition os a word. Spirit = mind and heart. The word ‘spirit’ is the Greek word psychic ... which we all know to mean - mind.

Something of the spirit - is an experience of - the mind and not an expeience of the body. Nothing more compilated than that.

And the part of the mind by which we know - what God knows… is called … Conscience.

Con (together) and science (knowledge).

You and God knowing the same thing together.

These things are rather simple but through out the history of Christian spirituality you will find that those (writers and such) who are not really that close to a true spirituality - make it all very cerebral and difficult and complex and complicated - or - through a false piety - make it all seem mysterious and entirely to do with mysterious graces that we can not fully understand (as if the Lord had not already explained all this stuff already). This reminds me of the Exodus where they preferred the complex and spicy food of Egypt to the pure and simple taste of manna.

Climacus is very good. Some think that the writings of any early father are - good and valuable. Not all are. Some of the early writings are nothing more than vain publications of honey like piousness - meant to win the admiration of the population. Poetic manipulation of fine words that go in circles and really says nothing at all - even as well (piously and elegant) as it was all said. If you wish to have people admire you as intelligent of holy - dazzel them to befuddlement.

And so beware - of placing too much value in the writings of just - any - early fathers. Keep in mind that it was proliferation of just such opinions and writings (masquerading as the holy mind of the church) that caused so many early Councils to have been nessesary! to be held and - settle matters. Even if the majority of fathers held one such type of opinion - that was some times over-turned in Council. And so a majority consensus was nothing more than a majority consensus and the true mind of the church (Council result) may be something very different.

I am sure you know all that and I had no need to say it. It is just that reading the early fathers can be as difficult to make real sense out of as reading the bible without knowing the history if Israel, its culture, and traditions.

Climacus - was an abbot. I believe he was abbot of mount Athos - for a time. In any event (no matter where) his writings are from an experienced abbot - directed to - monks. Mostly to his own monks … especially novice ... but it would do future abbots well to read also.

And so his audience is monks (priests and brothers). Abbots (like Climacus) were not necessarily priests. Someone correct me but I do not think Climacus was a priest. So when he says “in confidence to the fathers or even the brothers “ you should understand that ‘fathers’ here means elders or the more experienced monks in the monastery. And so we also know by this that he is speaking to novices.

And so the newbie who has become troublesomely perplexed about something should seek advise from and elder of the community (that is preferred) and if that is not available then seek advise from a brother (the same as you).

Notice that above quoted - Climacus is now drawing into the picture - Providence. An immediate Providence.

Now to better understand what he is saying - let me mention a way of doing this - today.

Let us example that you have some very personal problem. It is clouding your conscience. You are upset and can not think well. You feel sure that you need confession - or maybe not?? You are in a spiritual (mental) tizzy. Now say for example that this personal matter - is very embarrassing… and you would not like to tell a friend about it - or any priest that you know well. Now - is that pride?? Or is it true that they (your friend of your well known priest) are still human and such a thing spoken could change their friendship through their own human weakness?? A real - quandary!!

For something like this I would suggest that you go to a church of which you have never meet the priest (easier for a Catholic to do) and say to yourself “Jesus - here I am. I will lay this whole thing out to this priest. I will listen to his advise.. And I WILL do it.” and making that vow to God … go ahead and walk into the church and speak with the priest very openly. And then DO as he says. Even if you do not like what he says.

God is not unjust - he will not slam the door shut on someone who humbly knocks.

Now - notice that I give you the same preference that Climacus does.

1) prefer above all to seek advise from someone who has some solid spiritual experience. And I am not talking about … just intellectual knowledge.

2) failing that availability - speak with a good friend and both of you use some reasoning about the matter.

3) failing the availability of the first two - make your vow to Providence and strike out to speak with a humble parish priest. He does not have to be smart - nor very learned. In fact steer clear of priests who have a reputation for great intelligence or pious or popular. God has a much more difficult time working trough such people. Pick a very humble and low profile church and common priest. Speak with him. Be very open as if this were Jesus you were talking to. Listen intently. And then go out. If what the priest had told you is not against your conscience - DO IT - as if it were Jesus himself who told you what to do.

This is the ‘secret’ of Providence. But this third way should be a rare occasion. God much prefers the first and second ways (someone with experience or some friend with a good heart and good intentions).

Do you want me to explain the rest of your quote of Climacus?


Keep in mind that for Climacus - 1) Providence is alive 2) there is a real and recognizable progress to the spiritual life and that has stages and steps within the subconscious mind 3) discernment - means - knowing what your own conscience has to say about things.

Peace be to your and your church.

-ray

Dear Ray,

When you say "Which church is the true church?" - St John Climacus would have NEVER intended to mean that!

For him, as for the Church in his day especially, there was no question that there was one orthodox and catholic Church - and everything outside of it was heretical.

He would know which church is the true Church, even though today we would argue about that.

He is, instead, speaking to the manner and spiritual grounding of true worship (which would have presupposed adherence to orthodox doctrine).

Alex

To mean - (that!) … what?? I have no idea what you are saying Alex.

Are you saying that he would not have agreed with Jesus??

What is it that you think I was saying in my in my last post… ?

-ray

... anyway...

Dear Chance...

when Climacus talks about discernment he specifically means discernment by way of conscience. We discern by way of the light of our conscience.

Jesus himself makes this very clear in his parable regarding the light that should not be hidden (under the couch) but should be placed upon a table to light the entire room. It is the light by which we should see every thing and make all our judgments.

Again, Climacus makes this very clear in his opening to this section…

This is gained by ascetics and examination of conscience. “I do that which I do not want to do” says Paul. And the reason given is the ‘law of the members’ which was Paul’s way of saying the body. This is equal to our modern term of the subconscious. The seat of desires and passions and so forth. The subconscious levels of mind (spirit) which operate with a will of their own (for what ever reasons and causes).

That now brings us to the subject of “die to self” and dying to own ‘will‘. For this is exactly the ‘will’ that Paul is talking about.

“The law of the members leads to the law of sin” (St. Paul)
“The law of the spirit (mind) leads to the Law of Christ” (St. Paul)

And so the beginner should know something about the way these ‘laws’ work. He needs to know something about how his own subconscious mind influences his motivations and such. How it is that a man can be divided in himself so that he does not do the good he intends to do but rather does the sin that he does not intend to do.

And right here (dead on) is the role of ascetic practices. Self-knowledge. And here is also where the ability of ascetics - ends. For ascetics itself in practice - changes no man. To change a mans behavior … does not change a man’s heart.

And so what ‘will’ is it that we should mortify??

It is THAT … will … (the law of the members - our subconscious movements and motivations) that should be mortified. It is these ‘stirrings of the soul’ that both Climacus and Jesus are talking about when they say that we must die to self. And the will which we should become is the will expressed by our … conscience.

Those who claim that we need to die to our own will - in a way which makes us mindless robots. Have no clue what they are talking about. They are lost in a labyrinth. It is these who often argue details of doctrines and ‘which church?’ is the true church among the catholic churches… etc… Accusations of ‘heretic’ come easy from them. They are not at the least concerned with good conscience - they are instead all concerned with ‘correct’ - laws - arguments of doctrine - wrongness done to them - etc…

And Climacus goes on to say (about discernment)…

This of course only cements them into their own spirit and beliefs. Which divides the churches.

Now you should see that what the desert fathers were doing was battle within themselves. “Our battle is in spiritual places” (in the mind and heart). In what we today call - the subconscious.

And our cooperation with our conscience … is the only thing that can put everything back into place and into balance.

It is really all very simple and any sane man already knows how much trouble any other life style brings - except one live by his conscience where God speaks to him at any moment. This (conscience) is where all discernment should come from.

Peace to you and your church.
-ray

RayK (You're not the Stephen K. Ray, on who's own forum I've spent too much time yammering instead of praying, are you? BTW, I own and enjoyed Upon this Rock if you are he.)

And so beware - of placing too much value in the writings of just - any - early fathers.

I don't think I mentioned any other desert fathers. However, since you brought it up, are there any desert fathers in the Philokalia, you take issue with?

It will take me a bit to mull over your thorough reply. Thank-you kindly for taking the time to write it.

Peace

No... I do not know who Stephen K is.

You didn't mention any other writings… I just mentioned it because it seemed to me that you are new to reading the early fathers. Just a guess o n my part.

I have read much (but not all) of the Philokalia. I was especially interested in On Watchfullness and Holiness and Hesychios. It is very mush like the Catholic … “Practice of the Presence of God“. The Buddhists have a similar practice and they too call it 'Watchfulness'.

I whole heartedly recommend such books as you are now reading (John Climacus and Philokalis). May I also recommend Pseudo-Dionysius, Gregory of Nyssa, and Symeon the New Theologian. And of course Origen … who almost single handedly laid the foundation of all Christian mystical theology that we have today. Did I mention The Conferences of John Cassian? Cassian was the bridge between the Eastern desert fathers and the later Western church mystical traditions - such as St. John of The Cross.

May I recommend that you stick to the desert fathers as they had no care for the politics of bishops and such and arguments of doctrine - they went right to the ‘nut’ and went head-first into their own spirit (mind and heart) and ‘fought’ the spiritual battles. Men of holinenss and not men of church politics.

You must do a little ‘translation’. It is mostly … psychology. They did not have the terms we use today. But you will get the hang of it all… in time. What they are talking about is inside - you - however we call these things by different terms today. The terms (as words) hardly make a difference as long as you recognize the ‘thing’ or experience - that the words point to.

Good luck to you. May the Good Lord guide you. He already (apparently) has you looking in the right place.

-ray

RayK wrote:
No... I do not know who Stephen K is.

Stephen is a former Protestant minister turned big time Catholic apologist. He also hosts an outstanding Catholic forum on the web. See:
http://forums.catholic-convert.com/

Thank-you for your kind words of encouragement. I will continue to mull over your responses.

Peace

Dear Chance,

However, we shouldn't be into Origen or Gregory of Nyssa without solid Orthodox/Catholic commentary and guidance . . .

Alex

Dear Chance...

I had said...

>The Buddhists have a similar practice and
>they too call it 'Watchfulness'.

They call it 'Mindfullness' but it is the same ascetic practice.

You see...

The subconscious mind (or shall we say the automatic mind) is continually at work. Without it we would always be as fresh to the world as a new born baby. It is an assistant to the conscious mind. But its own intelligence is less than the conscious mind and it has not the capacity and capability to know anything about God. It’s purpose (in our design) is to run the functions of soma (body or as St. Paul sez: ‘the members’) so that we need not constantly have to consciously direct such functions as heart rate, breathing, body temperature, physical responses, etc… or those things which directly concern the operations of our animal nature.

One of its most important functions is to pre-process the data of our perceptions (senses) through a mechanism of comparison (contents of memory) with past experiences. In this way the automatic mind (for example) receives some perception / does a lightening fast comparison / and then presents to our conscious mind that it believes that what we are seeing is (for example) a circle - or a dog - or a car - a tree - etc… As I said, without this automatic function at the un-concious level of our spirit (mind) we would always and at every moment be as helpless as a new born baby who is experiencing the things of the world for the very first time.

When the conscious mind does things in a repetitive way… the subconscious mind sez “Here - let me do that for you” and a habit - is created - a habit of the subconscious mind. Now can you imagine just how difficult it would be if any time we drove a car we had to conciously be aware of the gas pedel, the steering, the brake, the roaod, etc.. no... these things become a interactive function of the subconsious mind ... with only a little conscious guidance needed.

This subconscious process then - tints - our perceptions and our conscious thoughts. It is an aide to our perceptions of reality - or - a hindrance to our perceptions of reality. Depending.

These non-conscious - thoughts (the thoughts and logic processes of the non-conscious mind) run around all the time. And their job - is - not only to free the concious mind of so much work but also to occationally present themselves to the conscious mind. Most of the time their job is simply to operate the automatic machinery of the body and psychological mind... our animal nature - what St. Paul calls the law of the members.

Holiness or personal sanctification… takes place on the level of the subconscious. As the early spiritual fathers used to say … “in the memories”.

Now, a human mind, can not be without thoughts. It is - impossible - by very design. No more than a river can be without flow (else it is - not a river).

So when the desert fathers talk of contemplation and such as being ‘without thoughts‘… what they rather mean is that the attention (our awareness) is not bound up in the thoughts of the psychological mind.

Even if a man have a thought to be without thoughts - he has the thought - to be - without thoughts. Do you see the dichotomy? And so being ‘without thoughts’ should be understood to be not a literal thing but rather pointing to something.

Our part in holiness - is to not live within some of our habits which habits are totally bound to our animal nature. Now this is a simple way to say it but this posting space is much too small for elaborations.

The change of these habits is two fold. First - we need to disassociate from them (not live in them - pay no attention to them) and secondly reality itself (Providence) must rebuild them. And so it is for us to prepare the ground (ascetics) for the new planting (Providence).
John Cassian - Chapter XVI (A question on the changing charater of the thoughts).

To which the elder MOSES answers…

I have emphasized a few things here is display that it is impossible to be without - any - thoughts… and that it is ridiculous to blame all ‘bad thoughts’ on external causes.

And so what you see is that the desert man gives his subconscious mind - spiritual thoughts to chew on. Thus the habit (non-conscious mind) of constantly chewing on ‘earthly’ matters (things regarding living in the world of body) are given a rest.

The mind (our subconscious nature) has two sides. An analytical function and an awareness / attention function.

These two functions (faculties) are as if on a see-saw. That is to say that - to the degree we are at attention and awareness we are less at analytics. To the degree we are at mental analytics we can not be at attention and awareness. When one goes up the other goes down.

Now this is the princilple behind 'Watchfulness'. It is an attention and awarensss of (inside) our thoughts. And if the thoughts being presented to us by the subconcious mind are just idle chatter or the type of thoughts that we would rather be without... the very fact of our notice of them tends to lessen them (the old see-saw) or we can conciously replace them by giving our mind other thoughts to work with. Thus we are involved with the inner work of changing the habits of our mind (hearts). Knowing whch thoughts are good to entertain and which thoughts are not good to be involved with - is a function of discernment (conscience) and not so much a thing of logic, rules, and reasoning.

Do you see? Or shall I stop because this is of no real interest to you? It might be of interest because it goes to the very heart of the ascetics of desert spirituality.

-ray

Ray,

I'm not really interested in the Buddhist take on the Desert Fathers or a psychological explanation. Been there, done that in my martial arts studies and in my human potential days when I knocked off a M.S. in clinical psychology.

My kind thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts on the matter.

Peace

I wasn't giving you a Buddhist take. Nor was I reducing it to mere modern psychology... I am sorry that your expereinces soured you... but yes asetics does involve our psychological nature else so many spiritual fathers of the mystical life who wrote for our benefit ... wrote for ... nothing.

Good luck to you Chance.

Peace to you and your church.

-ray

Chance…

Last words...

If you did not know... John Cassian is not a Buddhist.

http://www.osb.org/lectio/cassian/

Bye and good luck.

-ray

You are very very right Alex. Doing any study in these early works requires a solid grounding in one's own theology (East or West) first. I often make the mistake of assuming that people are grounded well.

I should not be so quick to throw out answers which may be very confusing to some. After all, my answers are usually confusing to even well grounded people, and cause debate or just silence.

Thanks. I am humbled.

-ray

Dear Ray,

Not a problem, Big Guy.

Not all of us have your solid grounding and that could be a problem when reading something that could be controversial.

On the other hand, one could always write you for advice!

(I've used a number of your brilliant explanations of scripture and tradition in my religion class to great effect, by the way!)

Alex

ha ha... as if my advise would be any eaiser to understand.

But on that note... if you tell me that you PM box is open (or send me email at rkaliss1@cox.net) I would love to tell you (tell someone who would understand) of something recent.

I had been wondering how - God gives each human - tailor made individual Providence. I mean... so here I am... one guy... and there are a billion people (near me and far away which I shall never meet) so how is it that God can give each man individual Providence - when - we so are connected (with people near us) in what we do??

I had forgotten all about this and was at work late in the evening (no one else around) and decided to jump into the indoor pool for a cool swim. Once I was in the pool (chin deep) I looked at the water and - there it was. Nothing mystical - just how the water bent the light. Now I will stop there because people would be right to think me crazy. But in what I saw with the bent light in the water - I understood it! Again.. I say this was nothing mystical. Or - was it?? No - it was just very coincidential. I will explain it to you if your PM box is open. Then - you must go jump in a swimming pool - chin deep - to see what I am talking about. Of course it is probable that you already understand this whole thing in a nice simple way and it is only I who needed show-time to understand it.

Yes. I am a dope. I just found a rare out of print book ($48) on the structure of the gospel of John. It may have been the very last copy availiable in the world. One book I have is so rare (I got it for $12.00) that it is now valued at $2K in used books. I assume other people do this too. (as if they did not have a life!). And tonight I am putting together a way to copy some books over into mp3 so I can listen to them at work.

anyways...

I must reflect - before I post and not automatically take things to the highest notch.

-ray

Dear Ray,

Actually, I'll have to disagree strongly.

You ain't no dope, Big Guy!

The Spirit has given you many important Gifts of His that you are rightly dividing for the benefit of the Body of Christ.

And I'm one of the recipients.

Alex

Dear Chance,

I noticed in another thread where you mentioned that you are a secular Carmelite, so I was thinking that you might be familiar with Father Thomas Dubay's book called "Fire and Light".

There's another one of his books called "Faith and Certitude" and it addresses your concerns here in a very thorough and systematic manner using Scripture, Science and Scholarship to examine the human heart and mind and put it in the perspective of real cases. His chapters on "Clarifying Our Concepts", "The Causes of Error", and "How We Attain Certitude" directly address the concerns you express here.

If or when you have a chance, get hold of that text and read it as you continue your explorations of the Fathers.

Eli

Eli wrote:
I noticed in another thread where you mentioned that you are a secular Carmelite, so I was thinking that you might be familiar with Father Thomas Dubay's book called "Fire and Light".

There's another one of his books called "Faith and Certitude" and it addresses your concerns here in a very thorough and systematic manner using Scripture, Science and Scholarship to examine the human heart and mind and put it in the perspective of real cases.

Yes, indeed--I wore out a whole pack of highligthers on "Fire and Light." It's perhaps one of the best study guides, if you can call 300+ pages a study guide, for the writings of Mother Teresa and Father John.

I have a number of Fr. Dubay's other works but not, "Faith and Certitude." I'll add it to the list.

I think in my original post and questions, I was also fishing to see how Byzantine Christians used St. Climacus' Ladder in their own spirituality. It's often compared to Kempis' Imitation of Christ as being one of the most popular spiritual writings to read after scripture.

Peace

Since you are not only interested but familiar then let me recommend also a companion volume called "Authenticity". That one is even more deeply rooted in Scripture and I've worn out several copies over the years. "Authenticity" takes several themes inherent in discernment what were introduced in "Faith and Certitude" and develops them even more proufoundly.

Set up a new topic and ask the more general question that you ask here: do you use holy father, Saint John; and if so, how do you use his text? is it good to use such a dense text without guidance? That sort of thing. If that is what is of interest to you of course. Keep probing away at it till you catch someone's interest.

St. John's text is so much more dense than the Imitation, and much harsher and more difficult to absorb rightly and use, without help and guidance of a spiritual elder or father.

Keep asking. You'll find many things along that way.

Eli