Home
You continue to express a keen interest in “levels” and “landmarks” in the spiritual Path, and you write to ask me (not for the first time) about specific “exercises” analogous to the yogic and Sufic “techniques” you have read about in books—exercises a Christian might use in moving from (1) Apatheia to (2) Nepsis to (3) Hesychia to (4) Agape to (5) Theologia to (6) Theosis. “Maybe,” you write, recalling one of my earlier criticisms of this line of thinking, “my mind is too attached to the image of a ladder,” and yet there must surely be some sense—you protest—in which we are to see ourselves as progressing or advancing spiritually, or else there would be no point in “following” an Orthodox “Path”. And if there is advancement, does it not follow—this seems to be the heart of your message—that one may look at certain “states” as being “signs” of movement along that Path, signs that more and more subtle or refined or exacting techniques are in order?
As I have told you before, FS strongly dissuaded those who came to him for spiritual direction from concerning themselves with the pranayamic and other psychosomatic exercises you seem to have in mind. And regarding the various signs or landmarks you mention, he said to me once very forcefully—and with an accentuating flourish of his hand—”I have absolutely no interest in ‘states of consciousness’!” The point of so uncompromising a dismissal should be clear to you by now: namely, that for someone who is endeavoring to follow a Mantrayana or Way of the Name such states can very easily become mere distractions from the “one thing needful”, and in giving them our attention—in however peripheral or occasional a way—we cannot but sacrifice a portion of the mindful focus that the Name, and thus the Named, deserve.
I have recently had occasion to reread a number of Schuon’s letters, and with your query in mind I was struck by several passages that speak to this issue precisely. The following three observations seem especially worthy of your careful reflection:
The entire emphasis must be placed on the Invocation, and other practices must be reduced to a minimum. For the Invocation contains everything, and it is sufficiently demanding and exacting to allow us to simplify our religious practice. The great argument of Japa and Jōdo is that in maintaining other practices alongside the Invocation one comes to doubt the efficacy of the invocatory practice itself and hence the divine Mercy; now faith is one of the conditions sine qua non of the invocatory Path (Letter of 9 July 1981).
You allude to a form of concentration that—in becoming more and more inward—would pierce through to the “determining causes of the inner phenomena” of man. But in fact in order to reach these causes it is enough to concentrate on the Divine Name that one is invoking. There is much discussion about concentration today, but efforts to concentrate are undertaken in a manner that is extra-traditional, hence in a purely profane and exclusively psychological way. These kinds of pseudo-yogas lead to nothing, if only because nothing can be done without Grace, and this Grace acts only within methods that are intrinsically orthodox, that is, within the religions. In any case the quintessential Path is concentration by means of the Invocation of God; this path proceeds on the basis of the metaphysical discernment between the illusory and the Real, and it is carried on with the help of the virtues of patience and trust or with resignation and joy (Letter of 6 September 1970).
In the spiritual life one must simplify the means, not make them more complicated; one must always return to the fundamental elements, which alone matter: discernment between the Absolute and the contingent or relative; methodical practice of the Invocation; realization of the essential virtues. And no perfectionism: one must not force matters in order to be perfectly concentrated; this introduces into the Invocation a false and bitter element, which is worse than distraction pure and simple. Heaven does not ask perfection of us; it asks for sincerity, hence right intention. It is not a matter of torturing ourselves; it is a matter of practicing the Invocation with simplicity and perseverance; perseverance is everything. And one must absolutely avoid the expectation of results; “I love because I love,” Saint Bernard said. The expectation of results takes the beauty and purity out of the Path—even its grandeur, I will say—and ipso facto compromises its efficacy. The practice is our task; the results are God’s. We aspire intellectually to the Divine Reality and individually to salvation, and this without having to dot the “i’s”. What other methods do does not concern us; what matters is to know that our Method contains all that is necessary from the twofold human and metaphysical viewpoint (Letter of 26 January 1983).