Great piece. For those wanting a deep dive into the Russian hesychast tradition, may I recommend Live Without Hypocrisy, an anthology of spiritual counsels by the elders of the Optina Monastery that were so influential in 19thC Russia. The St Herman brotherhood is issuing volumes on each elder. There are eight so far.
Thank you very much Paul for this book-tip, I was fascinated all the way through. What jumped out for me was: is it 'legitimate' (socially acceptable, etc.) to so much want to be alone? To so much want to spend all your time on your own spiritual path? YES, of course it is. I got to know the Jesus prayer only a short while ago, when you wrote about The Saint on the Mountain (was that the title? by an American Greek), wonderful book. Since then I often prayed for my client when I was massaging him or her: ..'have mercy on them'... but now after reading The Way of the Pilgrim I understand that I must pray for my own soul. That is better for other people as well. I am not quite sure why but I do believe this.
I agree, Lisette. We stand alone before Our Lord Jesus the moment we breathe our last. There will be no pop quiz on how much we know, or who we can quote. Are we laden with virtue? That’s the password.
I am learning a lot and enjoy this reading club, however here in Australia it is quite difficult to get non mainstream books, I fortunately was able to buy Way of a Pilgrim off the shelf at a church store however everyday saints is a lot harder and I have ordered from USA with delivery 15th August a very long wait, so my question is please can we have notice a couple of books in advance so we can order/source way ahead of time and then just maybe get them in time to read, just a thought,
Very interesting book, I didn't know much about Russian Orthodoxy, apart from glimpses reading Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky, but in this book, there was a Father Zosima somewhere in just about every chapter!
The book also reminded me of Kipling's masterpiece ‘’Kim’’...you can just imagine a Sadhu ascetic reciting his ‘’Jesus Prayer’’ (Mantra) on the Grand Trunk Road to bring him inner peace.
But this leads to the question of if the ‘’Jesus Prayer’’ has a lot in common with saying a mantra in Hinduism and Buddhism, how do we reconcile this with Jesus clear teaching on how we should pray?
‘’But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.’’ Matt: 6-7
And I am not expressing this view only as a ‘’Sola Scriptura’’ Protestant; it seems there was also this view in the Orthodox community when the book was written, as evidenced by the comment of the Polish estate manger who had heard of the ‘dangers of the Eastern religion aspects in the Philokalia’ in his discussion in the book with the pilgrim.
Thanks for this. I don't know that Buddhists say mantras - that would be Hindus. Zen Buddhists do use koans, but that's quite a different matter. I don't know much about mantras, but the Jesus Prayer is essentially a simple thing: you are calling on the name of God. We know that a version of this prayer can be found in the very early days of the faith. There are also similar short prayers in the Western tradition (it was common in medieval England, for example, simply to recite the name of Jesus again and again.)
It has been said that the prayer has two elements. The first part - 'Lord Jesus Christ' - is an acknowledgement of Jesus's divinity. The second - 'have mercy on me, a sinner' - is an acknowledgement of our own weakness, and a plea for help.
When I read the passage about 'vain repetition' I imagine long, public temple prayers designed to be noticed. The Jesus Prayer on the other hand is very much the essence of 'going into your room and shutting the door and praying in secret', where the inner room is your own heart. Each repetition is not to be 'vain', but focused on God and the desire you have for his help on your path.
The 'eastern religious aspects in the Philokalia' referred to is not the prayer itself, but the teachings of some Fathers about sitting and breathing exercises to go with it, which was controversial among some people, and is mostly practiced I think only by monastics under careful instruction.
Sorry Paul but I asked the Machine (Google) this question-
Does Buddhism use mantras?
'Mantras play a vital role in Buddhist meditation, aiding in concentration, mindfulness, and inner transformation. By repeating a specific Buddha mantra, the practitioner can enter a state of focused awareness, transcending the chatter of the mind.'
As for the ‘long, public temple prayers designed to be noticed', this was mentioned by Jesus in the preceding verses and was referring to the Pharisees..
And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites. For they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men
But in verse 7, the target are the ‘Heathens’ or Pagans, so it seems to really finger a mantra type prayer. Comments from David who is familiar with Buddhism seems to confirm the similarity with the Jesus Prayer and aspects of Buddhism.
If we are meant to be children of God, wouldn't God what us to speak to Him with an intelligible prayer, not say the same phrase over and over again?..you know, like we would expect own children to speak to us?..hang on, I think he even gave us an example of how to pray-
9So then, this is how you should pray:
‘Our Father in heaven,
hallowed be Your name.
10Your kingdom come,
Your will be done,
on earth as it is in heaven.
11Give us this day our daily bread.
12And forgive us our debts,
as we also have forgiven our debtors.
13And lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from the evil one.’
And as for the breathing exercises, putting your ‘mind into your heart’ etc. that is much talked about in the Philokalia...there needs to be a warning label on the book to ‘not try this at home’!
No need to apologise to me. I'm not a Buddhist. When I was, it was the Zen/Chan school I was involved in, and they do not use mantras.
In any case, mantras have no relation to the Jesus Prayer, as the Fathers of the Church have exhaustively explained.
As you know, I am an Orthodox Christian. The Orthodox - ie, the original, undivided - Church has been praying the Jesus Prayer and variants for almost two millennia. As you also know, for the Church, tradition is vital, precisely so that we don't all pick bits out of the gospels to prove the point we want to make at the moment. One reason I am Orthodox is that I don't trust myself to be my own Pope, and I have seen the consequences of that more widely. I want to follow a tradition developed and practiced by saints.
The apology was for me using the hated Machine, so a misunderstanding there Paul!
This conversation about the Jesus Prayer (which I had never heard of until I read the book you recommended) reminds me of a conversation with a highly intelligent Jesuit priest I met in Thailand many years ago. It was a very cordial discussion about the celibacy of priests and Paul's very clear teaching against it in the book of Timothy. His very honest answer was that he had to obey the Church even though it went against scripture..in other words, the traditions of men superseded the inspired word of God.
Knowing that men are inherently corrupt, I think it is far safer to have the Bible as the final Authority rather than Church tradition (or a mix of the two)...Jesus spoke graciously to just about everyone in the Gospels apart from the Pharisees and one of His main ''gripes'' with them were their traditions of men. Which btw, he went out of His way to break like healing on the Sabbath!
You talk about 'following the traditions practiced and developed by saints', well there is no bigger saint than the Apostle Paul, founder of the Church to the gentiles and who told people to follow his example. This is what the writer of the book of Acts had to say about ''people being their own popes''-
'Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.' Acts 17:11
So a clear example of Paul`s teaching about Jesus being the ''Anointed One'' being checked against the scriptures in the Old Testament by the Jews in Berea and given as an example for us to follow.
As a ''dyed in the wool'' Protestant and you an Orthodox believer, we will probably never see eye to eye on doctrine but I will still enjoy your book of essays when it comes out!
Well, as you say, we're probably not going to agree here! I do understand the logic. And I think at the time of the Reformation, with so much odd teaching in the Roman Catholic Church, which doesn't seem to come from the early or Biblical tradition at all, the desire to strip it away is understandable. Actually, this is something that the Orthodox and some protestants might agree on. Certainly Luther and Calvin, in my limited understanding, taught things that the Orthodox Church would nod in agreement with. Though of course they would disagree on many other issues.
The obvious problem arises however when the authority to interpret the scripture is devolved to the individual level, the problem being endless different interpretations of particular passages. Hence the 10,000 protestant 'churches' that exist today in the US alone. If I did want to be a protestant, how would I know which one to listen to?!
And surely the wider problem comes from the reality that the 'inspired word of God' you speak of exists in a book - the Bible - which itself was selected and chosen by that same authority which has continued to interpret it - the Church. The Bible didn't drop from the sky. Those inherently corrupt people wrote it, then edited it, then compiled it and made it 'authoritative.' The very Bible you refer to is itself a product of tradition. For the first 300 years of Christianity, there was no Bible to be Biblical about!
And while it may be true that people are inherently corrupt, this sounds more like an argument for allowing a venerable tradition of saints and elders to use their wisdom to pass on our tradition, rather than allowing a much larger number of corrupt and in many cases not at all spiritual people to keep making up their own interpretations of it.
Jesus did say, didn't he, that not one jot or tittle of the law would pass away until the end. Sounds like an argument for tradition to me.
So for all those reasons, I'll be sticking with the Christian tradition as it has evolved and been passed down. It seems safer that way.
Interesting video Paul, Orthodoxy and Reformed theology do have some things in common!..I have been watching Jay Dyer ( a convert from Calvinism to Orthodoxy) lately and he gets into the ‘’weeds’’ of early Church history...one notable quote to sum it up is-
‘’The Bible: fallible collection of infallible books’’.
I agree that ‘’every man being his own pope’’ of the Protestant tradition has lead to the smorgasbord of denominations that we have...also it has led to in a roundabout wait BLM riots and all of the other crazy ‘’wokeness’’ of our age. Chesterton could see it in his day-
‘’The trouble with the modern world is that it is full of Christian virtues gone mad’’
I belong to (and is my preference) a non-denominational International Church in China, following the early Church tradition as outlined in the book of Acts. Which has a plurality of leaders, Elders and Deacons, with no paid positions. This is following the Apostle Paul's example of being a ‘’tent maker’’ to support himself in his ministry to the Gentiles.
In all of ‘’Christendom’’, including Orthodoxy, Catholicism, or Protestantism..I can only think of the Brethren Church who follow this original tradition to a certain extent...I wonder why?
I wrote a piece on "objections to Christian meditation"
Here is objection 3
Objection 3: The practice of using a mindless repetitive mantra to pray is not Biblical. Jesus himself condemned the use of a prayer word when he said, “… when you pray, do not use vain repetitions as the heathen do.” (Matt 6:7)
When Jesus condemns “heaping up empty phrases” he is not rejecting the use of a prayer word or mantra. Rather Jesus condemns the use of “many words” (Matt 6:7b) not “one word”. Jesus’ teaching on prayer rejects both the ‘babbling on’ of pagan prayers and the self-referential prayers of the Pharisees. The pagans falsely thought that many words would enhance their chances of being heard by their ‘god’ and Jesus rejected the long public prayers of the Pharisees as merely showing off. They may impress others with their piety, but God is not impressed (Lk 18:9-14). Jesus knew that God could not be manipulated by prayers of one word, let alone many because “your heavenly father knows what you need” (Matt 6:6).
Jesus taught that it is impossible to pray without the heart. He tells us to enter the ‘secret place’ of prayer (our heart) where we attend to God’s presence. God’s acceptance and care is waiting within our hearts. In Jesus’ teaching, the Holy Spirit, working with us in our ‘secret place’, is the only origin of true prayer. The ‘heart’ is the centre of all prayer because only the heart can trust that our Abba already knows our concerns and cares. Jesus obeyed his own instructions on prayer about the importance of private prayer. Mark tells us that he often arose early “and went to a place where he could be alone and pray” (Mark 1:35). We cannot imagine that his ‘all night’ prayer sessions were one, long monologue to God! Rather they also included long periods of silence in God’s presence. It seems Jesus himself used a pattern of prayer like Christian meditation to experience, and then live out of, his oneness with his Father. In prayer, Jesus offered this same oneness with the Father to his followers (John 17:11).
There are two other aspects of presence prayer or the prayer of the heart. Firstly, it adds ‘wordless prayer’ to the arsenal of the many other forms of prayer available to Jesus’ followers. Indeed, meditation transforms and makes other forms of prayer more real. Secondly, because continual verbal prayer is not possible, the use of a mantra or word, the early Christians also realised, enabled them to fulfil Paul’s command to “pray at all times” (1 Thess 5:17), including times when they were involved in daily activities. The mantra leads us to experience, at all times, Jesus praying within us.
I made a related comment regarding Eastern spirituality. I did not mention the passage you mention here regarding the "dangers of Eastern religion aspects in the Philokalia," but it is very relevant to the questions I posed.
In that passage, the pilgrim's companion states, with respect to the Philokalia:
"However, I heard that the book describes tricks and strange formulas for prayer and that it was written by Greek monks; that the methods of prayer which it advocates are similar to those practiced in India and Bukhara, where the enthusiasts for prayer try to achieve a tickling of the heart by means of breathing. They foolishly consider this a natural form of prayer revealed to them by God. I think that we should pray simply and the goal of our prayer should be to pay our debts to God."
Our pilgrim responds:
"My dear sir, do not say such things about this holy book. It was not written by ordinary Greek monks but by the ancient holy men whom even your Church recognizes, such as Anthony the Great, Macarius the Great, St. Mark the Ascetic, St. John Chrysostom, and others. My late elder told me that the Indian and Bukharan monks took this method of interior prayer and distorted and ruined it; but all the directives about interior prayer found in the Philokalia have their source in the word of God. In the Holy Bible, where Christ Jesus directed us to pray the Our Father, He also commanded the prayer of the heart: 'You must love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind' (Matt. 22:38)."
This is, of course, historically inaccurate. The Buddha, and his teachings on meditation, preceded Christ by some 500 years, and preceded the Holy Fathers he mentions by even more. And the Buddha tapped into and expanded upon existing meditative practices that existed in India for centuries or millennia before his time. The Indians did not "take" meditative practices from the Holy Fathers and distort or ruin them.
But aside from the historical issue, we still have the substantive question of our pilgrim's elder's objection to Eastern meditative practices, which are not elaborated on in our book beyond the objection that they do not "have their source in the word of God." Also relevant to this discussion is the quote from the Bible you include here:
‘’But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.’’ Matt: 6-7
As I discuss in my other comment below, the use of mantras in the tradition with which I'm most familiar, the Thai Forest Tradition, could be described as "vain repetition" in the sense that the meaning of the mantra, "Bhuddo," is not of particular importance. It does have a meaning that is relevant to the practice - "the one who knows" - but the meaning is really secondary. The purpose is to keep the mind from wandering through repetition, which thereby cuts off mental proliferation (papanca, in Pali).
For our pilgrim, on the other hand, the meaning of the Jesus prayer is of utmost importance to his practice as he would describe it. But to what extent is this accurate? To what extent is the peace and equanimity he describes as the fruit of his practice attributable to the meaning of the prayer (and God answering the prayer with his blessing and mercy) versus the practice of training the mind with the repetition of a phrase?
For instance, our pilgrim tells us that the Holy Fathers "encourage us to think as much as possible about such a blessed state of the soul and to read about it in the writings of the Fathers, who reassure us how easy it is to attain the joys of interior prayer and how wonderful they are. The sweetness of the heart, warmth and light, unspeakable rapture, joy, ease, profound peace, blessedness, and love of life are all the result of prayer of the heart." He also speaks of the "interior light."
These descriptions are nearly identical to descriptions of blissful states one can find in Buddhism. The "unspeakable rapture" of which he speaks is referred to as "piti" in Pali and it is generally accompanied by an "interior light." This is literal. An actual bright light comes from within you and is accompanied by rapture or piti when one begins to enter deep meditation. Frankly, I can attest from personal experience that this is a real thing and that it does not require any particular magic words. Just extended periods of retreat.
When you have this blissful feeling emanating from within, it greatly increases your love of your neighbor, as it is a sort of bliss that does not depend on the world. When you develop an inner happiness that does not depend on the world, your compassion expands profoundly. Though aside from the case of a saint or an enlightened individual, this experience is transient.
So how then is our pilgrim's experience on earth different from that of a wandering Buddhist monk? Other than the narrative lens through which the experience is interpreted, there doesn't appear to be much in the way of substantive differences. Having read and listened to many Buddhist forest monks, the experience they describe is strikingly similar to that described by our pilgrim. And reading The Way of a Pilgrim similarly resonated with my own, albeit fleeting, experiences with renunciation and meditation.
So how important then is the narrative lens, really? If the practices of the Orthodox pilgrim and the Buddhist forest monk are basically the same, and the same subjective experiences arise as a result of those practices, and the same feelings of equanimity towards worldly affairs and love (metta, in Pali) of one's neighbor arise, how can we condemn one as a (demonic?) distortion and the other as pure and ordained by God?
I put this out there not to advance a particular thesis or to antagonize Christians. I put this out there because these are issues I wrestle with. I personally have in recent years become a theist, I recite the Jesus prayer regularly, I listen to various Orthodox believers, I continue to practice Eastern spirituality, and I put a lot of stock in the work of people like John Vervaeke who weave these various traditions, philosophies, religions, and practices together. For me, the Way of A Pilgrim reinforced my Perennialism/Eclecticism, as I see our pilgrim as basically arriving upon the same practices and accompanying realizations and transformations one sees in the Eastern traditions with which I'm more familiar. To me, that confluence points to profound, deeper, truths over which no one tradition has a monopoly.
Hi David, I have finally had a chance to reply to your very interesting comment, you said-
''For our pilgrim, on the other hand, the meaning of the Jesus prayer is of utmost importance to his practice as he would describe it.''
But two examples given of the power of the ''Jesus Prayer'' given in the book contradict the Pilgrims assertation about the prayer.
Remember the hyper active boy who was thrashed by his father to make him say the prayer until he calmed down...I am sure the words had no meaning to the boy but the ''technique'' of the prayer was what had the calming influence.
Also the ''bandit'' who said the ''Jesus Prayer'' to strengthen his resolve to commit a crime..this was a mockery of the meaning of the words.
So maybe this is the ''Eastern Mysticism'' which is talked about with the Orthodox religion and it does have parts borrowed from Hinduism and Buddhism?..that is why the book about the Pilgrim, reminded me so much of Kipling's ''Kim''.
My favorite writer (C.S Lewis) had a similar journey to you, he was an atheist, then theist and finally Christian. If you want to really get to grips with what Christianity is about, read his book ''Mere Christainaty''..in my view, the best book written on this subject.
He writes about how the pagans had some of the truth and how a lot of their beliefs pointed to the final Truth in Christ.
Thank you for your comment, Tom. C.S. Lewis is one of my favorite writers as well. I would put his entire Ransom Trilogy right near the top of my list of all time favorite novels. I have also read Mere Christianity and agree that he presents a compelling case. Probably the most compelling case I have encountered.
But ultimately, I don't see myself ending up where he ends up. My reasons for this are complex. Fortunately for me, John Carter just posted a lengthy essay which crystalizes many of my thoughts on this subject, and which I largely endorse: https://barsoom.substack.com/p/the-reenchantment-of-the-world.
What I call eclecticism or perennialism, he calls syncretism. In a nutshell, like John, I believe myths are true and important, and revitalizing the mythos, or right brain hemisphere, is key to pulling humanity out of its current malaise and suicidal path. The Bible contains many powerful truths about reality and the human experience, and as such has an important role to play in this project.
But I have no basis for accepting it to the exclusion of all other myths. As John states in his essay:
"At this point Christians will be insisting that the Biblical stories are all of these things, that the answer is the Church, but it seems to me that a true Reenchantment must be broader and deeper than a simple Christian revival, both because it must draw on the richest possible array of myth that it can, and because the old demands of faith, of ‘just trust me, bro’ simply don’t fly in our age. But just because Christianity alone cannot be the answer, that does not mean that the baby Jesus should be thrown out with the bathwater."
Like for John, Jesus takes a prominent place in my pantheon. I know that is heresy of the worst kind for Christians, but I will most likely always be a heretic because I cannot adopt a mindset wherein the Christian myth is the one true myth to the exclusion of all others. That is not a story I can live. Instead, my religious belief system is remarkably close to what John describes in his section entitled "The God of the Infinite Question."
But my intent here is not to debate this issue. I am just stating my beliefs. A world with more people living the Christian story is a better world than the one we have today. If you were to invite me to a church service, I would gladly accept. I hold the Christian faith and Christian followers in high regard. In the spiritual and worldly battle between the Machine and the Church, I'm firmly on the side of the Church. I'm just simply too rational, cosmopolitan, open, curious, and modern to fully step into that story.
But the reason I so appreciated The Way of a Pilgrim is that it emphasizes spiritual practice over mere belief. Our pilgrim brings himself in harmony with the world, and closer to God, not just by believing a particular story about the universe, but by training his mind to take the world as it comes through repetition of the Jesus prayer, constant reflection on his own sins, study of the Philokalia, and dialogue with those he meets. For me, spiritual practices leading to greater equanimity, compassion, and peace are more important than any particular story one occupies. A world with more equanimity, compassion, and peace, is a better world.
For all my eclecticism, one thing I have come to firmly believe is that a person brings oneself closer to ultimate reality and God through the sorts of practices illustrated in the Way of a Pilgrim, and becomes an objectively better human being in the process. Our pilgrim describes a way of living the Christian story that goes far deeper than mere identification with one particular tribe and rote, mechanical engagement in specific rituals. I think he's pointing to something very important there.
I concur about the Ransom Trilogy, esp. ‘’That Hideous Strength’’..in my view a much more prescient book than either ‘’1984’’ or ‘’Brave New World’’.
Paul (Kingsnorth) was channeling this book in one of his essays on the Machine but funny enough he has never read it!..he said that ‘’he has the trilogy on his bookshelf but has never read them’’ in an interview I heard awhile ago.
I read the essay by John Carter, man he doesn't suffer from writers block! I fully agreed with the opening paragraphs about the state of science in the world now but I am not sure if it is redeemable?..Lewis's book ‘’The Abolition of Man’’ talked about the dark origins of science which really opened my eyes too why it is such a mess now...no regard to the ‘’Tao’’.
I also enjoyed the section on Spengler and I think we are not far from his predicted ‘’Caesarism’’ in the West. This lines up with prophecies in Daniel and elsewhere about the final World Empire coming out of the Roman Empire, with a ‘’Man of Peace’’ who will be a political/religious figure like Caesar was. Even the ‘’Mark of the Beast’’ system from Revelation 13 has overtures to the Caesar worship system, where you needed to get a certificate from the temple to participate in society.(Covid passports a little taste of what is coming?)
John Carter speculated on what religion will come out of the mess that the West is in in now?...just look to the inter faith meetings that the Vatican is holding, what is coming is a global religion where you can have any beliefs you want but will have to also worship the ‘’Man of Peace’’ (Antichrist), Caesar worship all over again.
Chesterton said: ‘’if you will not worship something outside the World, you will worship the strongest thing in the World’’..this is so true, I live in China and you still see ‘’shrines’’ to Mao here.
As a Christian, I also believe in "The God of the Infinite Question,..as Paul says in his letter to the Corinthians:
‘’ For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known. ‘’
But I look forward to a few more answers in the future!
C.S Lewis was like you and didn't want to give up his Myths but Tolkien saying to him that Christianity was a ‘’true myth’’ was very instrumental in his conversion..but as Lewis wrote, Christ will not allow Himself to be in your ‘’pantheon’’:
''Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God, but let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about his being a great human teacher.''
But David,.. you are not alone in taking offence at His exclusivity.
Perhaps the operative word in the Matthew quote is “vain,” which indicates conceit, pride, and raising oneself up before someone else. But the words of the Jesus Prayer are the antonym of anything vain, they are about lowering oneself, acknowledging oneself’s sinfulness, and a seeking after humility.
Additionally the Jesus Prayer’s actions in us aren’t vain. They invoke St Paul’s directive for Christians to “pray without ceasing.” Said another way, I offer an analogy. Christians say they want to go to heaven…at some future point, at the end of their worldly lives. What do we think heaven is, ultimately? What are we waiting for? It’s not the size of our retirement accounts, nor how fancy our houses are. It’s not siding with political power. It certainly has nothing to do with the icons and temples pictured on our money, “in God we trust,” spending 50 hours a week of our lives pursuing them. (Imagine, rather, spending 50 hours a week in prayer). What is Heaven then? And does the humbling of ourselves in the Jesus Prayer, which is only the very beginning of unceasing prayer, in its higher actions, and only by the grace of God, show us that the words are not about much speaking at all? There is obviously much more to be said about this, but this is a good stopping point.
In regards, the “dangers of the eastern religion aspects of the Philokalia”, that was put to bed in the 14th century Constantinople synod debate between Barlaam and St Gregory Palamas. It continues to this day in lesser intensities via Western Scholasticism which centers religion in the head (or intellect), and Eastern Christians who lower their minds into their hearts. St Sophrony tells us we learn to pray, and know God, by praying, not by reading intellectual treatises. The Gospels are quite clear really. Do we seek new intellectual interpretations, or reiterate old ones (rather than spending that time in prayer), because the Gospels are not clear, or because we don’t like what they say and want to soften them and make them more comfortable and palatable? I can’t imagine how many millions of pages of new biblical and spiritual interpretation there are over the past say 100 years trying to find new paths and new interpretations that are better or more erudite than what the Fathers of the church have already taught. Much speaking indeed…
The only warning I've heard about the Philokalia is that novices or new converts should probably try to stay away from reading too deeply into it at first, and only with the spiritual guidance of one steeped in the "Fathers". We should be careful about getting too far ahead in our spiritual development. Milk first, then meat. I, of course, disregarded the caution. Spiritual pride and all that. I can see the wisdom now. The Jesus Prayer is a great place to begin.
If I remember correctly the Greek word translated as "vain" in the KJV doesn't have to do with pride or conceit but rather means "empty" or "meaningless." Therefore what Jesus is warning against is the heathen practice of endless repetition of empty words -- and thinking you will be heard by virtue of how many times you repeat them.
Christian prayers, therefore, cannot serve as mantras or anything mantra-like. The prayers being repeated have to have content. The Jews themselves, after all, prayed using repetition, but they were repeating words from the Psalter.
Let me leave it at this, by one of the great theologians of Christianity (and advocates of the Jesus Prayer for Christians), and which I can only understand the words, not the experience.
“I weep bitterly over myself and at the same time I rejoice over the vision given me to behold. My mourning is inconsolable, but the presence of the living God is constantly with me. I am torn within: I depend on the world for my survival, but, attracted towards the heavenly, I cannot remain among the worldly vanities which lay waste my soul. I am still utterly untried, but the fever burning in my heart compels me to seek new conditions of life. And then a wondrous thing happens: to my mind has come the recollection of a special class of people
- monks and nuns. To join them becomes my urgent need. I value and even love everything in the world; I look with delight upon the beauty of everything; but nevertheless nothing any longer satisfies me. In an inexplicable way my mind sees my inner hell, my filth, my darkness. And yet my burning heart augurs eternity. My mind cannot break away from dwelling in my praying heart; it withdraws from the visible. Even my passions have fallen silent; in a strange way I am wholly changed under the effect of this state, which I have never experienced before; prayer has mastered me with invincible strength.” St Sophrony
I've just bought The Way of a Pilgrim & the accompanying book, so the two will be my summer reading. What you say above about the two makes me want to read them. I have always been the type of RC who has wondered about what is fiction and what is reality in the Christian tradition and whether there is a real, historical Jesus. As I've grown older it's occurred to me that perhaps whether Jesus was a real person is not as important as meditating on what Christianity, or any other religion, can reveal about the essential humanity in all of us. Thank for your writing on matters religious, Paul. I absolutely look forward to readings all your postings on the matter.
Sorry to be didactic, but, "And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith." Please allow me to suggest setting aside a time that you can sit down and read the
Book of Matthew from beginning to end without stopping. Christianity without Christ is nothingness.
But I didn't say that I believe in Christianity without Christ. My thinking is more along the lines of the teachings of Christ are important, not so muc whether he actually lived or not. Matthew, like the other Gospels, was written some 100 years or more after the birth of Jesus - that is an historical fact. The fact that we, as yet, cannot 'prove' that Jesus actually existed doesn't torment me as much these days ad it did when I was younger. I also believe there is a difference between 'believing in a particularr religion' and believing in the sanctity of all live, human and non-human. And I think, too, that all religions, Western and non-Western, add to mankind's understanding of the Holy.
If Jesus never existed his teaching is meaningless, at least in terms of the Christian religion. What you have left are some wise sayings and some wonderful wisdom, but you can find that everywhere.
There are scholars who believe that the Gospels (except Mark, which pretty much everyone believes was written prior to A.D. 70) were written late in the 1st century, but there are just as many who would place them much earlier. These things aren't "historical facts" but are matters of scholarly opinion, as there is no way to really "know" when they were written.
But one must needs ask, whence comes the Holy? Can we agree that it comes from God? But, you ask, which god, what god, whose god? That was the same dilemma the Athenians faced, living in a city full of idols, with a nod on an altar "TO THE UNKNOWN GOD", just in case. The Apostle Paul took that ball and ran with it, "...the One whom you worship without knowing, Him I proclaim to you..." Of course there is more in Acts 17, but the responses were varied: Some mocked, and some said, "We will hear you again on this matter" but they were wrong because Paul had said all that was needed already and was soon gone. However, some believed. Three responses, then and now: disbelief, think it over, belief. I guess you’re in the middle.
From your background as a Catholic, I can sympathize with your skepticism, the bread and the wine, for example have been mischaracterized for some 500 years. And history has shown that the pope is far from infallible. But the Bible? You can question it until the cows come home, but you will be wasting your time. You have the free will to believe it or not. I have chosen to believe it without reservation. The question that Pontius Pilate raised was ironic indeed, because he was looking at Truth in the face, unawares. The question about whether Jesus literally existed or not is, please forgive me, a bit silly. One can question the virgin birth. I don’t. One can question the literal reserection. I don’t. Why? Because I believe the Holy Bible is the Word of God. In your search for truth, you have to start somewhere. Do I exist? Is the universe an illusion? What if there is no God? All valid questions, actually. However, if the Creator God exists, does it not make sense that He would have communicated with His creation? People have tried to prove the existence of God for a long time. Good luck with that. Better to listen to the example of Abraham in Genesis who did not ask for proof but simply believed and obeyed. And he was also recognized in Romans, “He did not waver at the promise of God through unbelief, but was strengthened in faith, giving glory to God.” You could do much worse than to follow his example.
Lots of scholarly works argue for the existence of Jesus, you only have to look - just this morning I listened to Daily Dose of Wisdom Youtube channel "Fact checking Bill Mahr on Jesus, the Bible and history - fact checked by Inspiring Philosophy whose output is always exceptional! I warmly recommend him to anybody who likes facts+ solid faith together!
I finished reading the book about three weeks ago and have been waiting for the day of your opening review to arrive. I, too, am on a journey to discover what my faith is and should be. And to work out whether I can actually justify calling myself a Christian. I wrote in a previous post that I found the book irritating. The reason won’t surprise you. If everyone were that pilgrim, then where would be the rich men able to provide the food and shelter he needs, as he makes his way wherever he is going. Literally his can’t be the only way. But that’s a very obvious reaction. I imagine many readers will have had it too.
I understood your lesson about being “dead” to the world. But the pilgrim seemed to be demanding so much more. That one make prayer the only thing in one’s life. I’m not sure if I even like the idea of prayer. It seems so inward focussed and, the way he writes about it, almost like an addiction. I equate it with the modern preference for meditation. A shutting out of the world, when I think belief is all about how we accept and cope with the horrendous challenges and imperfections of that world., which we are lucky enough to have been given a brief chance to inhabit. We need to face into it, not away from it.
The key experience in my “pilgrimage” so far was a weekend on a course run by your friend Martin Shaw, during which he told the tale of Dairmud and Grainne. It’s the tale of a love triangle that goes on for the whole adult lives of the characters, starting with the woman, Grainne, rejecting and humiliating the older suitor (Finn) in favour of a younger man,(Dairmud) who was like a son to Finn. In the middle of this story is an incident of random, completely pointless cruelty, where Grainne (otherwise the heroine of the story) deliberately flaunts her physical relationship with Dairmud in front of Finn. Mayhem results. Dairmud dies. At the end of long lives riven with conflict, jealousy, egotism and violence - Finn and Grainne finally finish up together in old age, forgiving and forgetting everything that has been done by both of them. Had Grainne made a different choice, this peaceful and happy life with Finn is the existence she could have enjoyed all along. But life being what it is, she was never going to make that different choice.
The lesson I took from this was profound. And fairly obvious. Life is imperfect-able. There is not and never will be a utopia, because human nature is what it is. The world isn’t divided into good people and bad people. Even the best people do stupid, hurtful, terrible things. The only thing each individual can do is learn to survive them. By being, as you said, “dead” to the world. One cannot live a good life, unless one is able to rise above setbacks and cruelties and disappointments. But we can’t. So all we can ever do is keep trying.
Coming back to my own spiritual journey. I guess what I recognise about Christianity is the liturgy that begins with a recognition of ones own sins and shortcomings. I like saying the same things every week or every time we are in church, because those things will always be true. We will have “sinned” “through weakness, through negligence, through our own deliberate fault”, as others will have sinned against us. And we will have to pray for forgiveness of “our trespasses, as we forgive them that trespass against us.” We just have to pick ourselves up, be truly sorry and start all over again. That process will never end.
The other thing - the real motivation for my journey and the point of this reaction to the book - is the only two commandments Christ ever gave us. Matthew 22: 37-39 "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: Love your neighbour as yourself.'
What I take from that is that we need to accept life as it is with all its flaws and imperfections and disappointments and hurts and suffering, because I kind of equate God with life. And that we must feel love towards our fellow humans no matter what. We are commanded something impossible, but we are also commanded to keep trying, no matter what.
To me Christianity is outward not inward oriented. How do you manage to keep loving what is out there? I don’t see where prayer of the kind the pilgrim describes helps that, since it seems like a turning away from that imperfect world, which is also turning away from God. I would love to hear what you think about that.
Finally I must stress, I don’t mean any of this as a criticism of you or what you have written. On the contrary, I often sit in church thinking that I am there for the people who sat in those pews before me, not for the church as it is today, which seems full of utter nonsense. If it were not for this group and your writing (and that of a small band of people like Martin S) I would be making no progress at all with my faith. I take a huge amount of comfort and direction from your work and I thank you profoundly for that.
'Pilgrim' is written from the Russian Orthodox tradition. I'm also Orthodox, so it's possible I take some things for granted in this book that might not be obvious to others. Certainly reading it again now, it made a lot more sense to me than when I read it earlier in my journey.
Reading what you're saying above, I don't myself see - other than the quote from Matthew - what is especially Christian about this worldview. If we are to focus on the world, try hard to love people, accept life as it is and define 'God' as 'life'' - well, that might be fine, but is it Christian? This sounds like a kind of stoicism, perhaps, or just a kind of secular charitable vision.
What the pilgrim in the book is doing is attempting to die to the world so that he can awaken to God. You say that you don't like the idea of prayer, but it's impossible, surely, for a Christian to believe that? Prayer is the heart of the matter, because prayer, far from being inward looking, is a conversation with God himself. The pilgrim is not seeking to 'go inward' through praying, but the opposite. He is seeking to lose himself and find Christ instead. To destroy his will, so that he can do the will of God. This is what Orthodoxy teaches, and it is the function of the Jesus Prayer. The 'inner stillness' of hesychasm, which the pilgrim seeks, is the stillness of someone who has stripped away will, ego and the passions.
Into this clean vessel, then, the Holy spirit can enter. And when he is filled with the spirit he will be able to fulfill that commandment: to love God and his neighbour. This can't be fulfilled without help. None of us can will ourselves to love anyone! We can do nothing at all by ourselves. We need, through prayer, to ask for help, and to seek to align ourselves with what God wants for us. Once we are vessels for the Holy Spirit, we will be vessels for that love too. The Jesus Prayer in particular is supposed to take us there.
So, that's the story, as I understand it. It is a particularly Orthodox story, but the Western tradition is not entirely alien to it either.
I agree that Christians should have an outward orientation in general (Light of the world),but there was this debate in the book and the answer given for a hermit type Christianity (for some who are called to this) was quite convincing...it was that leaders etc. can go to hermit type sages for wisdom...it reminded me of the Old Testament prophets who quite often led acetic lifestyles and played this role.
It did more than that. It suggested the pilgrims way was possible and desirable for all of us. That was the source of my problem. I’m now reading and enjoying Paul’s second recommended book. I hope some female perspective may come into this process down the line. These are worlds women cannot enter. This isn’t some feminist complaint. I simply wonder if the orientation for women is different in that we are designed to be givers of new life. Isn’t our orientation perforce external?
I guess it depends on what you mean by ''pilgrims way''?...I think very few people are called by God to lead the pilgrims life, the same as the wondering pilgrim in the book, but we are on a type of journey or pilgrimage if we are Christians.
I think of the pilgrim in the story, if his wife hadn`t died and he had a family as is the usual pattern, then his life ''pilgrimage'' would have been very different!
I deeply value Paul’s writings and your comment also deeply resonates JaneH. I wonder if in its simplest form there is no either /or: the inner journey simply precedes the outer journey - ie it a necessary prerequisite. And once the inward journey is initiated, the two journeys are mirrored - the deeper your inward journey through life grows, the stronger, more expansive is the outer journey in the world and the more visible your light.
Thank you for your thoughts on this book, which I also loved. I think I'll read it again. I find I say that about most Orthodox books. I need a constant drip. Your next book choice was my first book about Orthodoxy and eventually contributed to my conversion 3 years ago. Thank you!
The Way of a Pilgrim is a very powerful book. I find myself, a Catholic, reciting the Jesus Prayer daily and some days continuously. I go for daily runs and during many of these runs (8km-10km) I’m reciting the Jesus Prayer without stop. This book has brought me a joy I had not expected. The simplicity of the Pilgrim’s life, his humility, the depth found in every page of this story… are all beautiful and rich. I hope to reread it again soon. Thanks Paul for bringing this book forth to us.
Yes, the world of this book is fascinating and deeply appealing. Living in a setting where faith is woven into routine interactions, is a default setting of a culture, seems almost fantastical, but an image worth keeping in mind and orienting with in my own haphazard pilgrimmage though our secular world. I can admire a milleu in which being a wandering spiritual seeker, living on charity, seems a perfectly respectable occupation. At how many homes today could the Pilgrim knock, ask for bread, and meet with a response like "Praise God! My wife just took some out of the oven."? More likely the conversation would take place though an intercom, with the Pilgrim sent packing and a suspicious individual warning sent up and down the street through Nextdoor, with accompanying ominous Ring camera photos of a man who'd clearly been sleeping rough.
The book makes that wandering life look as attractive as its setting, its occasional perils notwithstanding. I think the Pilgrim's equanimity through all of those contributes to that appeal just as much as the deep forests and humble villages he traverses. That perhaps is the part of his existence that might best translate to that of most contemporary readers. I don't think I'm cut out for a life of bread-and-water itinerancy (more power to you if you are) but that seeking of peace should be a part of everyone's vocation, and the prayer can be part of everone's practice. The most intractable illusion is that we are not on a pilgrimmage to eternity, and reading this book was a useful reminder to me not only of the importance of keeping a pilgrim mindset but of the beauty that mindset can have. Once years ago I had an astonishing experience with the Jesus prayer and TWOAP made me wonder, as I have often, why I didn't just lean into it ever since.
What struck me most about The Way of a Pilgrim was its resonance with the teachings of the Thai Forest Tradition, particularly the Ajahn Chah lineage. Until relatively recently, I was unaware that such practices and teachings existed to any real extent in the Christian tradition, which is a big part of why I was drawn from a young age towards Eastern spiritual practices and traditions rather than Christianity. Christianity to me, as an American growing up in the twentieth century, was a bunch of deeply uninspiring tyrannical scolds and hypocrites who put off a vibe that could not be more different from what we encounter in The Way of a Pilgrim.
Paul writes:
"Either way, what we have in The Way of a Pilgrim is two intertwined narratives, each powering the other. One is about a spiritual pilgrim searching for the secret of prayer. The other is about a literal pilgrim seeking to strip away everything unnecessary from his life, and to move through the world unencumbered, meeting it as it is."
The same can broadly be said of reflections on the tudong, dhutaṅga, or ธุดงค์ practices of the Thai forest monks, described here: https://www.abhayagiri.org/reflections/815-tudong. Through this practice, the monks put themselves at the mercy of the world and its inhabitants and endeavor to approach whatever arises with equanimity. Extensive descriptions of what this entails can be found in Stillness Flowing, the Life and Teachings of Ajahn Chah. https://www.abhayagiri.org/media/books/stillness-flowing%20-%202018-08-31.pdf
The key difference between the two approaches is, of course, God. Whereas the tudong monk seeks eradication of defilements (sin, basically) and thereby Enlightenment, our pilgrim here seeks union or communion with God. Whereas the tudong monk uses the mantra "Buddho" to keep his mind from wandering, our pilgrim recites the Jesus prayer, asking for mercy and confessing his sins. Many Buddhist teachers will tell practitioners that really any mantra will do. "Buddho" - "the one who knows" - is just a convention. Something like "Let Go" or even "Jesus" for that matter will do perfectly fine. But for our pilgrim here, the meaning of the prayer is of utmost importance.
The outward practices, the wandering, the equanimity to whatever arises, the dependence on the kindness of others, the use of a mantra to focus the mind, are strikingly similar. But the orientation -- the story one tells oneself about the nature of reality and one's place in it -- is different. Elaborating on the significance (or insignificance?) of this difference would require a book-length post that I do not have the time or energy (or perhaps insight) for here.
Rather off-topic, but while re-reading your last essay referenced as daylight had broken, I saw an owl in the tree in the yard across the street. I went out and walked toward him and he looked at me, daylight remember. I told him I saw him while looking him in the eye and while walking closer told him again. Then he flew off. Then later, he showed up on the grass. We don't let our cats out at night because of the owls, and I wanted Bella to see for herself what she would be up against, so I picked her up and walked toward the owl, but she didn't cooperate and missed the point, with attitude, no less. How does this relate to dying to self? Only that I have no worries that a bird will make a nest in my outstretched hands, sadly.
Greatly enjoyed this book...having heard about many yrs ago but not read. The pace of it felt very human scale like walking is..you notice more as you walk.
Also liked the passage about not confessing the sins we have already confessed . This interested me maybe because we tend to do this? The big omissions like not loving our fellow man not even occuring to us..and so much harder to do!
I loved this book and appreciate the recommendation. The word “Unencumbered” jumped out to me as I read your review this morning because it highlights a tension that I grappled with during my reading. In our modern age where worldly powers seem hellbent on atomizing and unmooring everything, “old fashioned” attachments to place, community, and family seem radical and vital. Becoming unencumbered without becoming unmoored, letting go of our attachments while leaning in to our relatedness…. That is truly a narrow path.
When you suggested the TWOTP initially, it drew my mind immediately to the English equivalent, Pilgrim's Progress, a book that I have long loved, but always had misgiving.s over. I hope you don't mind if I point out the differences between the two, and why I think TWOTP is a better and truer spiritual guide for today.
PP, is like TWOTP a journey, but it's one like a Snakes and Ladders version of life, Christian needs to ascend to the Holy City and enroute swerve the pitfalls of life, like a Hollywood road trip. There's lots of clever and intellectual character identification, and lots of fun to be had by trying to imagine contemporary equivalents (Mr Worldly Wise to me is Jeremy Paxman). Lots happens, right up to the end, and there's a sense that Christian gets into the Heavenly City by the skin of his teeth and in the nick of time. I sense this narrative today under so many stories, hazards to the right and left of us, life as a constant scramble to avoid the abyss and get to Heaven, a drumbeat of urgency because the clock is ticking.
In contrast nothing much happens in TWOTP, the Pilgrim isn't on a timetable, stuff happens in no particular order, the journey has no direction. There's no narrative momentum or even arc. The only character development occurs in the relationship between the Pilgrim and God, the Pilgrim himself is opaque. There's no elevator pitch for a Hollywood script.
And maybe that's why I love it. Because perhaps that is really the point. To sink deeper into life and our relationship with God in the situations we find ourselves, to widen our capacity to hear His Voice, to love our neighbours where they are, not as waypoints in our personal development laundry list. It reminds me of Nan Shepherd's book The Mountain, which is about knowing the landscape intimately and on it's own terms, and allowing it to shape you in return, not as part of some summit glory quest.
And the explanation of the Jesus prayer is exquisite, gradually uncovered and delicately unveiled, as I imagine our relationship to God should be, carefully, slowly and fully. Maybe that's what is needed in these trying times, less Save The World quests and more Save Yourself and The World Will Look After Itself. Hope this makes sense.....
Just a quick addendum. Growing up in rural Galway in the seventies, there were what were called 'Knights of the Road', older homeless men who would do the rounds of the local area often doing farmwork in return for a meal and sleeping in the haybarn for a night or two.
So perhaps the Pilgrim is the Russian equivalent of a Knight of the Road.....
I read the book about six months ago and was very impressed by it, I have been waiting anxiously for your review. This essay has made me intend to go back and read it again immediately.
I completely agree with your point about the naïveté of the writer. This is perhaps the simplest expression of profound religious experience ever attempted. It makes spiritual perfection, or at least the pursuit of it seem accessible, possible. Though the writer has stripped himself of everything and the reader remains encumbered by possessions and attachments, still the way seems clear, if we could only begin…
Everyday Saints is a marvelous next choice although I am sure there will be objections to the Russian perspective. The book made me want to join a Russian nunnery, to experience the privilege of listening to such wisdom. It is an amazing book, and that such a firm grasp on sanctity exists in our own time is encouraging.
Great piece. For those wanting a deep dive into the Russian hesychast tradition, may I recommend Live Without Hypocrisy, an anthology of spiritual counsels by the elders of the Optina Monastery that were so influential in 19thC Russia. The St Herman brotherhood is issuing volumes on each elder. There are eight so far.
Thank you very much Paul for this book-tip, I was fascinated all the way through. What jumped out for me was: is it 'legitimate' (socially acceptable, etc.) to so much want to be alone? To so much want to spend all your time on your own spiritual path? YES, of course it is. I got to know the Jesus prayer only a short while ago, when you wrote about The Saint on the Mountain (was that the title? by an American Greek), wonderful book. Since then I often prayed for my client when I was massaging him or her: ..'have mercy on them'... but now after reading The Way of the Pilgrim I understand that I must pray for my own soul. That is better for other people as well. I am not quite sure why but I do believe this.
I agree, Lisette. We stand alone before Our Lord Jesus the moment we breathe our last. There will be no pop quiz on how much we know, or who we can quote. Are we laden with virtue? That’s the password.
I am learning a lot and enjoy this reading club, however here in Australia it is quite difficult to get non mainstream books, I fortunately was able to buy Way of a Pilgrim off the shelf at a church store however everyday saints is a lot harder and I have ordered from USA with delivery 15th August a very long wait, so my question is please can we have notice a couple of books in advance so we can order/source way ahead of time and then just maybe get them in time to read, just a thought,
For the sake of expediency, possibly the electronic books such as offered through Amazon?
Everyday Saints is available on Kindle
"Light In The Darkness" by Sergei Fudel
Very interesting book, I didn't know much about Russian Orthodoxy, apart from glimpses reading Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky, but in this book, there was a Father Zosima somewhere in just about every chapter!
The book also reminded me of Kipling's masterpiece ‘’Kim’’...you can just imagine a Sadhu ascetic reciting his ‘’Jesus Prayer’’ (Mantra) on the Grand Trunk Road to bring him inner peace.
But this leads to the question of if the ‘’Jesus Prayer’’ has a lot in common with saying a mantra in Hinduism and Buddhism, how do we reconcile this with Jesus clear teaching on how we should pray?
‘’But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.’’ Matt: 6-7
And I am not expressing this view only as a ‘’Sola Scriptura’’ Protestant; it seems there was also this view in the Orthodox community when the book was written, as evidenced by the comment of the Polish estate manger who had heard of the ‘dangers of the Eastern religion aspects in the Philokalia’ in his discussion in the book with the pilgrim.
Thanks for this. I don't know that Buddhists say mantras - that would be Hindus. Zen Buddhists do use koans, but that's quite a different matter. I don't know much about mantras, but the Jesus Prayer is essentially a simple thing: you are calling on the name of God. We know that a version of this prayer can be found in the very early days of the faith. There are also similar short prayers in the Western tradition (it was common in medieval England, for example, simply to recite the name of Jesus again and again.)
It has been said that the prayer has two elements. The first part - 'Lord Jesus Christ' - is an acknowledgement of Jesus's divinity. The second - 'have mercy on me, a sinner' - is an acknowledgement of our own weakness, and a plea for help.
When I read the passage about 'vain repetition' I imagine long, public temple prayers designed to be noticed. The Jesus Prayer on the other hand is very much the essence of 'going into your room and shutting the door and praying in secret', where the inner room is your own heart. Each repetition is not to be 'vain', but focused on God and the desire you have for his help on your path.
The 'eastern religious aspects in the Philokalia' referred to is not the prayer itself, but the teachings of some Fathers about sitting and breathing exercises to go with it, which was controversial among some people, and is mostly practiced I think only by monastics under careful instruction.
Sorry Paul but I asked the Machine (Google) this question-
Does Buddhism use mantras?
'Mantras play a vital role in Buddhist meditation, aiding in concentration, mindfulness, and inner transformation. By repeating a specific Buddha mantra, the practitioner can enter a state of focused awareness, transcending the chatter of the mind.'
As for the ‘long, public temple prayers designed to be noticed', this was mentioned by Jesus in the preceding verses and was referring to the Pharisees..
And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites. For they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men
But in verse 7, the target are the ‘Heathens’ or Pagans, so it seems to really finger a mantra type prayer. Comments from David who is familiar with Buddhism seems to confirm the similarity with the Jesus Prayer and aspects of Buddhism.
If we are meant to be children of God, wouldn't God what us to speak to Him with an intelligible prayer, not say the same phrase over and over again?..you know, like we would expect own children to speak to us?..hang on, I think he even gave us an example of how to pray-
9So then, this is how you should pray:
‘Our Father in heaven,
hallowed be Your name.
10Your kingdom come,
Your will be done,
on earth as it is in heaven.
11Give us this day our daily bread.
12And forgive us our debts,
as we also have forgiven our debtors.
13And lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from the evil one.’
And as for the breathing exercises, putting your ‘mind into your heart’ etc. that is much talked about in the Philokalia...there needs to be a warning label on the book to ‘not try this at home’!
No need to apologise to me. I'm not a Buddhist. When I was, it was the Zen/Chan school I was involved in, and they do not use mantras.
In any case, mantras have no relation to the Jesus Prayer, as the Fathers of the Church have exhaustively explained.
As you know, I am an Orthodox Christian. The Orthodox - ie, the original, undivided - Church has been praying the Jesus Prayer and variants for almost two millennia. As you also know, for the Church, tradition is vital, precisely so that we don't all pick bits out of the gospels to prove the point we want to make at the moment. One reason I am Orthodox is that I don't trust myself to be my own Pope, and I have seen the consequences of that more widely. I want to follow a tradition developed and practiced by saints.
The apology was for me using the hated Machine, so a misunderstanding there Paul!
This conversation about the Jesus Prayer (which I had never heard of until I read the book you recommended) reminds me of a conversation with a highly intelligent Jesuit priest I met in Thailand many years ago. It was a very cordial discussion about the celibacy of priests and Paul's very clear teaching against it in the book of Timothy. His very honest answer was that he had to obey the Church even though it went against scripture..in other words, the traditions of men superseded the inspired word of God.
Knowing that men are inherently corrupt, I think it is far safer to have the Bible as the final Authority rather than Church tradition (or a mix of the two)...Jesus spoke graciously to just about everyone in the Gospels apart from the Pharisees and one of His main ''gripes'' with them were their traditions of men. Which btw, he went out of His way to break like healing on the Sabbath!
You talk about 'following the traditions practiced and developed by saints', well there is no bigger saint than the Apostle Paul, founder of the Church to the gentiles and who told people to follow his example. This is what the writer of the book of Acts had to say about ''people being their own popes''-
'Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.' Acts 17:11
So a clear example of Paul`s teaching about Jesus being the ''Anointed One'' being checked against the scriptures in the Old Testament by the Jews in Berea and given as an example for us to follow.
As a ''dyed in the wool'' Protestant and you an Orthodox believer, we will probably never see eye to eye on doctrine but I will still enjoy your book of essays when it comes out!
Well, as you say, we're probably not going to agree here! I do understand the logic. And I think at the time of the Reformation, with so much odd teaching in the Roman Catholic Church, which doesn't seem to come from the early or Biblical tradition at all, the desire to strip it away is understandable. Actually, this is something that the Orthodox and some protestants might agree on. Certainly Luther and Calvin, in my limited understanding, taught things that the Orthodox Church would nod in agreement with. Though of course they would disagree on many other issues.
(I was in fact recently watching a short Paul Vanderklay film about this very issues recently: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7s_pa_M2Q1M)
The obvious problem arises however when the authority to interpret the scripture is devolved to the individual level, the problem being endless different interpretations of particular passages. Hence the 10,000 protestant 'churches' that exist today in the US alone. If I did want to be a protestant, how would I know which one to listen to?!
And surely the wider problem comes from the reality that the 'inspired word of God' you speak of exists in a book - the Bible - which itself was selected and chosen by that same authority which has continued to interpret it - the Church. The Bible didn't drop from the sky. Those inherently corrupt people wrote it, then edited it, then compiled it and made it 'authoritative.' The very Bible you refer to is itself a product of tradition. For the first 300 years of Christianity, there was no Bible to be Biblical about!
And while it may be true that people are inherently corrupt, this sounds more like an argument for allowing a venerable tradition of saints and elders to use their wisdom to pass on our tradition, rather than allowing a much larger number of corrupt and in many cases not at all spiritual people to keep making up their own interpretations of it.
Jesus did say, didn't he, that not one jot or tittle of the law would pass away until the end. Sounds like an argument for tradition to me.
So for all those reasons, I'll be sticking with the Christian tradition as it has evolved and been passed down. It seems safer that way.
Interesting video Paul, Orthodoxy and Reformed theology do have some things in common!..I have been watching Jay Dyer ( a convert from Calvinism to Orthodoxy) lately and he gets into the ‘’weeds’’ of early Church history...one notable quote to sum it up is-
‘’The Bible: fallible collection of infallible books’’.
I agree that ‘’every man being his own pope’’ of the Protestant tradition has lead to the smorgasbord of denominations that we have...also it has led to in a roundabout wait BLM riots and all of the other crazy ‘’wokeness’’ of our age. Chesterton could see it in his day-
‘’The trouble with the modern world is that it is full of Christian virtues gone mad’’
I belong to (and is my preference) a non-denominational International Church in China, following the early Church tradition as outlined in the book of Acts. Which has a plurality of leaders, Elders and Deacons, with no paid positions. This is following the Apostle Paul's example of being a ‘’tent maker’’ to support himself in his ministry to the Gentiles.
In all of ‘’Christendom’’, including Orthodoxy, Catholicism, or Protestantism..I can only think of the Brethren Church who follow this original tradition to a certain extent...I wonder why?
Hi Paul,
What do you mean when you say, “…I don’t trust myself to be my own Pope…” Thank you.
I wrote a piece on "objections to Christian meditation"
Here is objection 3
Objection 3: The practice of using a mindless repetitive mantra to pray is not Biblical. Jesus himself condemned the use of a prayer word when he said, “… when you pray, do not use vain repetitions as the heathen do.” (Matt 6:7)
When Jesus condemns “heaping up empty phrases” he is not rejecting the use of a prayer word or mantra. Rather Jesus condemns the use of “many words” (Matt 6:7b) not “one word”. Jesus’ teaching on prayer rejects both the ‘babbling on’ of pagan prayers and the self-referential prayers of the Pharisees. The pagans falsely thought that many words would enhance their chances of being heard by their ‘god’ and Jesus rejected the long public prayers of the Pharisees as merely showing off. They may impress others with their piety, but God is not impressed (Lk 18:9-14). Jesus knew that God could not be manipulated by prayers of one word, let alone many because “your heavenly father knows what you need” (Matt 6:6).
Jesus taught that it is impossible to pray without the heart. He tells us to enter the ‘secret place’ of prayer (our heart) where we attend to God’s presence. God’s acceptance and care is waiting within our hearts. In Jesus’ teaching, the Holy Spirit, working with us in our ‘secret place’, is the only origin of true prayer. The ‘heart’ is the centre of all prayer because only the heart can trust that our Abba already knows our concerns and cares. Jesus obeyed his own instructions on prayer about the importance of private prayer. Mark tells us that he often arose early “and went to a place where he could be alone and pray” (Mark 1:35). We cannot imagine that his ‘all night’ prayer sessions were one, long monologue to God! Rather they also included long periods of silence in God’s presence. It seems Jesus himself used a pattern of prayer like Christian meditation to experience, and then live out of, his oneness with his Father. In prayer, Jesus offered this same oneness with the Father to his followers (John 17:11).
There are two other aspects of presence prayer or the prayer of the heart. Firstly, it adds ‘wordless prayer’ to the arsenal of the many other forms of prayer available to Jesus’ followers. Indeed, meditation transforms and makes other forms of prayer more real. Secondly, because continual verbal prayer is not possible, the use of a mantra or word, the early Christians also realised, enabled them to fulfil Paul’s command to “pray at all times” (1 Thess 5:17), including times when they were involved in daily activities. The mantra leads us to experience, at all times, Jesus praying within us.
Full text here https://open.substack.com/pub/rodneym/p/is-christian-meditation-biblical?r=19njly&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=true
I made a related comment regarding Eastern spirituality. I did not mention the passage you mention here regarding the "dangers of Eastern religion aspects in the Philokalia," but it is very relevant to the questions I posed.
In that passage, the pilgrim's companion states, with respect to the Philokalia:
"However, I heard that the book describes tricks and strange formulas for prayer and that it was written by Greek monks; that the methods of prayer which it advocates are similar to those practiced in India and Bukhara, where the enthusiasts for prayer try to achieve a tickling of the heart by means of breathing. They foolishly consider this a natural form of prayer revealed to them by God. I think that we should pray simply and the goal of our prayer should be to pay our debts to God."
Our pilgrim responds:
"My dear sir, do not say such things about this holy book. It was not written by ordinary Greek monks but by the ancient holy men whom even your Church recognizes, such as Anthony the Great, Macarius the Great, St. Mark the Ascetic, St. John Chrysostom, and others. My late elder told me that the Indian and Bukharan monks took this method of interior prayer and distorted and ruined it; but all the directives about interior prayer found in the Philokalia have their source in the word of God. In the Holy Bible, where Christ Jesus directed us to pray the Our Father, He also commanded the prayer of the heart: 'You must love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind' (Matt. 22:38)."
This is, of course, historically inaccurate. The Buddha, and his teachings on meditation, preceded Christ by some 500 years, and preceded the Holy Fathers he mentions by even more. And the Buddha tapped into and expanded upon existing meditative practices that existed in India for centuries or millennia before his time. The Indians did not "take" meditative practices from the Holy Fathers and distort or ruin them.
But aside from the historical issue, we still have the substantive question of our pilgrim's elder's objection to Eastern meditative practices, which are not elaborated on in our book beyond the objection that they do not "have their source in the word of God." Also relevant to this discussion is the quote from the Bible you include here:
‘’But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.’’ Matt: 6-7
As I discuss in my other comment below, the use of mantras in the tradition with which I'm most familiar, the Thai Forest Tradition, could be described as "vain repetition" in the sense that the meaning of the mantra, "Bhuddo," is not of particular importance. It does have a meaning that is relevant to the practice - "the one who knows" - but the meaning is really secondary. The purpose is to keep the mind from wandering through repetition, which thereby cuts off mental proliferation (papanca, in Pali).
For our pilgrim, on the other hand, the meaning of the Jesus prayer is of utmost importance to his practice as he would describe it. But to what extent is this accurate? To what extent is the peace and equanimity he describes as the fruit of his practice attributable to the meaning of the prayer (and God answering the prayer with his blessing and mercy) versus the practice of training the mind with the repetition of a phrase?
For instance, our pilgrim tells us that the Holy Fathers "encourage us to think as much as possible about such a blessed state of the soul and to read about it in the writings of the Fathers, who reassure us how easy it is to attain the joys of interior prayer and how wonderful they are. The sweetness of the heart, warmth and light, unspeakable rapture, joy, ease, profound peace, blessedness, and love of life are all the result of prayer of the heart." He also speaks of the "interior light."
These descriptions are nearly identical to descriptions of blissful states one can find in Buddhism. The "unspeakable rapture" of which he speaks is referred to as "piti" in Pali and it is generally accompanied by an "interior light." This is literal. An actual bright light comes from within you and is accompanied by rapture or piti when one begins to enter deep meditation. Frankly, I can attest from personal experience that this is a real thing and that it does not require any particular magic words. Just extended periods of retreat.
When you have this blissful feeling emanating from within, it greatly increases your love of your neighbor, as it is a sort of bliss that does not depend on the world. When you develop an inner happiness that does not depend on the world, your compassion expands profoundly. Though aside from the case of a saint or an enlightened individual, this experience is transient.
So how then is our pilgrim's experience on earth different from that of a wandering Buddhist monk? Other than the narrative lens through which the experience is interpreted, there doesn't appear to be much in the way of substantive differences. Having read and listened to many Buddhist forest monks, the experience they describe is strikingly similar to that described by our pilgrim. And reading The Way of a Pilgrim similarly resonated with my own, albeit fleeting, experiences with renunciation and meditation.
So how important then is the narrative lens, really? If the practices of the Orthodox pilgrim and the Buddhist forest monk are basically the same, and the same subjective experiences arise as a result of those practices, and the same feelings of equanimity towards worldly affairs and love (metta, in Pali) of one's neighbor arise, how can we condemn one as a (demonic?) distortion and the other as pure and ordained by God?
I put this out there not to advance a particular thesis or to antagonize Christians. I put this out there because these are issues I wrestle with. I personally have in recent years become a theist, I recite the Jesus prayer regularly, I listen to various Orthodox believers, I continue to practice Eastern spirituality, and I put a lot of stock in the work of people like John Vervaeke who weave these various traditions, philosophies, religions, and practices together. For me, the Way of A Pilgrim reinforced my Perennialism/Eclecticism, as I see our pilgrim as basically arriving upon the same practices and accompanying realizations and transformations one sees in the Eastern traditions with which I'm more familiar. To me, that confluence points to profound, deeper, truths over which no one tradition has a monopoly.
Sorry for the ramble. Thoughts?
Hi David, I have finally had a chance to reply to your very interesting comment, you said-
''For our pilgrim, on the other hand, the meaning of the Jesus prayer is of utmost importance to his practice as he would describe it.''
But two examples given of the power of the ''Jesus Prayer'' given in the book contradict the Pilgrims assertation about the prayer.
Remember the hyper active boy who was thrashed by his father to make him say the prayer until he calmed down...I am sure the words had no meaning to the boy but the ''technique'' of the prayer was what had the calming influence.
Also the ''bandit'' who said the ''Jesus Prayer'' to strengthen his resolve to commit a crime..this was a mockery of the meaning of the words.
So maybe this is the ''Eastern Mysticism'' which is talked about with the Orthodox religion and it does have parts borrowed from Hinduism and Buddhism?..that is why the book about the Pilgrim, reminded me so much of Kipling's ''Kim''.
My favorite writer (C.S Lewis) had a similar journey to you, he was an atheist, then theist and finally Christian. If you want to really get to grips with what Christianity is about, read his book ''Mere Christainaty''..in my view, the best book written on this subject.
He writes about how the pagans had some of the truth and how a lot of their beliefs pointed to the final Truth in Christ.
Thank you for your comment, Tom. C.S. Lewis is one of my favorite writers as well. I would put his entire Ransom Trilogy right near the top of my list of all time favorite novels. I have also read Mere Christianity and agree that he presents a compelling case. Probably the most compelling case I have encountered.
But ultimately, I don't see myself ending up where he ends up. My reasons for this are complex. Fortunately for me, John Carter just posted a lengthy essay which crystalizes many of my thoughts on this subject, and which I largely endorse: https://barsoom.substack.com/p/the-reenchantment-of-the-world.
What I call eclecticism or perennialism, he calls syncretism. In a nutshell, like John, I believe myths are true and important, and revitalizing the mythos, or right brain hemisphere, is key to pulling humanity out of its current malaise and suicidal path. The Bible contains many powerful truths about reality and the human experience, and as such has an important role to play in this project.
But I have no basis for accepting it to the exclusion of all other myths. As John states in his essay:
"At this point Christians will be insisting that the Biblical stories are all of these things, that the answer is the Church, but it seems to me that a true Reenchantment must be broader and deeper than a simple Christian revival, both because it must draw on the richest possible array of myth that it can, and because the old demands of faith, of ‘just trust me, bro’ simply don’t fly in our age. But just because Christianity alone cannot be the answer, that does not mean that the baby Jesus should be thrown out with the bathwater."
Like for John, Jesus takes a prominent place in my pantheon. I know that is heresy of the worst kind for Christians, but I will most likely always be a heretic because I cannot adopt a mindset wherein the Christian myth is the one true myth to the exclusion of all others. That is not a story I can live. Instead, my religious belief system is remarkably close to what John describes in his section entitled "The God of the Infinite Question."
But my intent here is not to debate this issue. I am just stating my beliefs. A world with more people living the Christian story is a better world than the one we have today. If you were to invite me to a church service, I would gladly accept. I hold the Christian faith and Christian followers in high regard. In the spiritual and worldly battle between the Machine and the Church, I'm firmly on the side of the Church. I'm just simply too rational, cosmopolitan, open, curious, and modern to fully step into that story.
But the reason I so appreciated The Way of a Pilgrim is that it emphasizes spiritual practice over mere belief. Our pilgrim brings himself in harmony with the world, and closer to God, not just by believing a particular story about the universe, but by training his mind to take the world as it comes through repetition of the Jesus prayer, constant reflection on his own sins, study of the Philokalia, and dialogue with those he meets. For me, spiritual practices leading to greater equanimity, compassion, and peace are more important than any particular story one occupies. A world with more equanimity, compassion, and peace, is a better world.
For all my eclecticism, one thing I have come to firmly believe is that a person brings oneself closer to ultimate reality and God through the sorts of practices illustrated in the Way of a Pilgrim, and becomes an objectively better human being in the process. Our pilgrim describes a way of living the Christian story that goes far deeper than mere identification with one particular tribe and rote, mechanical engagement in specific rituals. I think he's pointing to something very important there.
Hi David,
I concur about the Ransom Trilogy, esp. ‘’That Hideous Strength’’..in my view a much more prescient book than either ‘’1984’’ or ‘’Brave New World’’.
Paul (Kingsnorth) was channeling this book in one of his essays on the Machine but funny enough he has never read it!..he said that ‘’he has the trilogy on his bookshelf but has never read them’’ in an interview I heard awhile ago.
I read the essay by John Carter, man he doesn't suffer from writers block! I fully agreed with the opening paragraphs about the state of science in the world now but I am not sure if it is redeemable?..Lewis's book ‘’The Abolition of Man’’ talked about the dark origins of science which really opened my eyes too why it is such a mess now...no regard to the ‘’Tao’’.
I also enjoyed the section on Spengler and I think we are not far from his predicted ‘’Caesarism’’ in the West. This lines up with prophecies in Daniel and elsewhere about the final World Empire coming out of the Roman Empire, with a ‘’Man of Peace’’ who will be a political/religious figure like Caesar was. Even the ‘’Mark of the Beast’’ system from Revelation 13 has overtures to the Caesar worship system, where you needed to get a certificate from the temple to participate in society.(Covid passports a little taste of what is coming?)
John Carter speculated on what religion will come out of the mess that the West is in in now?...just look to the inter faith meetings that the Vatican is holding, what is coming is a global religion where you can have any beliefs you want but will have to also worship the ‘’Man of Peace’’ (Antichrist), Caesar worship all over again.
Chesterton said: ‘’if you will not worship something outside the World, you will worship the strongest thing in the World’’..this is so true, I live in China and you still see ‘’shrines’’ to Mao here.
As a Christian, I also believe in "The God of the Infinite Question,..as Paul says in his letter to the Corinthians:
‘’ For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known. ‘’
But I look forward to a few more answers in the future!
C.S Lewis was like you and didn't want to give up his Myths but Tolkien saying to him that Christianity was a ‘’true myth’’ was very instrumental in his conversion..but as Lewis wrote, Christ will not allow Himself to be in your ‘’pantheon’’:
''Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God, but let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about his being a great human teacher.''
But David,.. you are not alone in taking offence at His exclusivity.
Enough of my ranting...
Perhaps the operative word in the Matthew quote is “vain,” which indicates conceit, pride, and raising oneself up before someone else. But the words of the Jesus Prayer are the antonym of anything vain, they are about lowering oneself, acknowledging oneself’s sinfulness, and a seeking after humility.
Additionally the Jesus Prayer’s actions in us aren’t vain. They invoke St Paul’s directive for Christians to “pray without ceasing.” Said another way, I offer an analogy. Christians say they want to go to heaven…at some future point, at the end of their worldly lives. What do we think heaven is, ultimately? What are we waiting for? It’s not the size of our retirement accounts, nor how fancy our houses are. It’s not siding with political power. It certainly has nothing to do with the icons and temples pictured on our money, “in God we trust,” spending 50 hours a week of our lives pursuing them. (Imagine, rather, spending 50 hours a week in prayer). What is Heaven then? And does the humbling of ourselves in the Jesus Prayer, which is only the very beginning of unceasing prayer, in its higher actions, and only by the grace of God, show us that the words are not about much speaking at all? There is obviously much more to be said about this, but this is a good stopping point.
In regards, the “dangers of the eastern religion aspects of the Philokalia”, that was put to bed in the 14th century Constantinople synod debate between Barlaam and St Gregory Palamas. It continues to this day in lesser intensities via Western Scholasticism which centers religion in the head (or intellect), and Eastern Christians who lower their minds into their hearts. St Sophrony tells us we learn to pray, and know God, by praying, not by reading intellectual treatises. The Gospels are quite clear really. Do we seek new intellectual interpretations, or reiterate old ones (rather than spending that time in prayer), because the Gospels are not clear, or because we don’t like what they say and want to soften them and make them more comfortable and palatable? I can’t imagine how many millions of pages of new biblical and spiritual interpretation there are over the past say 100 years trying to find new paths and new interpretations that are better or more erudite than what the Fathers of the church have already taught. Much speaking indeed…
The only warning I've heard about the Philokalia is that novices or new converts should probably try to stay away from reading too deeply into it at first, and only with the spiritual guidance of one steeped in the "Fathers". We should be careful about getting too far ahead in our spiritual development. Milk first, then meat. I, of course, disregarded the caution. Spiritual pride and all that. I can see the wisdom now. The Jesus Prayer is a great place to begin.
If I remember correctly the Greek word translated as "vain" in the KJV doesn't have to do with pride or conceit but rather means "empty" or "meaningless." Therefore what Jesus is warning against is the heathen practice of endless repetition of empty words -- and thinking you will be heard by virtue of how many times you repeat them.
Christian prayers, therefore, cannot serve as mantras or anything mantra-like. The prayers being repeated have to have content. The Jews themselves, after all, prayed using repetition, but they were repeating words from the Psalter.
Let me leave it at this, by one of the great theologians of Christianity (and advocates of the Jesus Prayer for Christians), and which I can only understand the words, not the experience.
“I weep bitterly over myself and at the same time I rejoice over the vision given me to behold. My mourning is inconsolable, but the presence of the living God is constantly with me. I am torn within: I depend on the world for my survival, but, attracted towards the heavenly, I cannot remain among the worldly vanities which lay waste my soul. I am still utterly untried, but the fever burning in my heart compels me to seek new conditions of life. And then a wondrous thing happens: to my mind has come the recollection of a special class of people
- monks and nuns. To join them becomes my urgent need. I value and even love everything in the world; I look with delight upon the beauty of everything; but nevertheless nothing any longer satisfies me. In an inexplicable way my mind sees my inner hell, my filth, my darkness. And yet my burning heart augurs eternity. My mind cannot break away from dwelling in my praying heart; it withdraws from the visible. Even my passions have fallen silent; in a strange way I am wholly changed under the effect of this state, which I have never experienced before; prayer has mastered me with invincible strength.” St Sophrony
I've just bought The Way of a Pilgrim & the accompanying book, so the two will be my summer reading. What you say above about the two makes me want to read them. I have always been the type of RC who has wondered about what is fiction and what is reality in the Christian tradition and whether there is a real, historical Jesus. As I've grown older it's occurred to me that perhaps whether Jesus was a real person is not as important as meditating on what Christianity, or any other religion, can reveal about the essential humanity in all of us. Thank for your writing on matters religious, Paul. I absolutely look forward to readings all your postings on the matter.
Sorry to be didactic, but, "And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith." Please allow me to suggest setting aside a time that you can sit down and read the
Book of Matthew from beginning to end without stopping. Christianity without Christ is nothingness.
But I didn't say that I believe in Christianity without Christ. My thinking is more along the lines of the teachings of Christ are important, not so muc whether he actually lived or not. Matthew, like the other Gospels, was written some 100 years or more after the birth of Jesus - that is an historical fact. The fact that we, as yet, cannot 'prove' that Jesus actually existed doesn't torment me as much these days ad it did when I was younger. I also believe there is a difference between 'believing in a particularr religion' and believing in the sanctity of all live, human and non-human. And I think, too, that all religions, Western and non-Western, add to mankind's understanding of the Holy.
If Jesus never existed his teaching is meaningless, at least in terms of the Christian religion. What you have left are some wise sayings and some wonderful wisdom, but you can find that everywhere.
There are scholars who believe that the Gospels (except Mark, which pretty much everyone believes was written prior to A.D. 70) were written late in the 1st century, but there are just as many who would place them much earlier. These things aren't "historical facts" but are matters of scholarly opinion, as there is no way to really "know" when they were written.
But one must needs ask, whence comes the Holy? Can we agree that it comes from God? But, you ask, which god, what god, whose god? That was the same dilemma the Athenians faced, living in a city full of idols, with a nod on an altar "TO THE UNKNOWN GOD", just in case. The Apostle Paul took that ball and ran with it, "...the One whom you worship without knowing, Him I proclaim to you..." Of course there is more in Acts 17, but the responses were varied: Some mocked, and some said, "We will hear you again on this matter" but they were wrong because Paul had said all that was needed already and was soon gone. However, some believed. Three responses, then and now: disbelief, think it over, belief. I guess you’re in the middle.
From your background as a Catholic, I can sympathize with your skepticism, the bread and the wine, for example have been mischaracterized for some 500 years. And history has shown that the pope is far from infallible. But the Bible? You can question it until the cows come home, but you will be wasting your time. You have the free will to believe it or not. I have chosen to believe it without reservation. The question that Pontius Pilate raised was ironic indeed, because he was looking at Truth in the face, unawares. The question about whether Jesus literally existed or not is, please forgive me, a bit silly. One can question the virgin birth. I don’t. One can question the literal reserection. I don’t. Why? Because I believe the Holy Bible is the Word of God. In your search for truth, you have to start somewhere. Do I exist? Is the universe an illusion? What if there is no God? All valid questions, actually. However, if the Creator God exists, does it not make sense that He would have communicated with His creation? People have tried to prove the existence of God for a long time. Good luck with that. Better to listen to the example of Abraham in Genesis who did not ask for proof but simply believed and obeyed. And he was also recognized in Romans, “He did not waver at the promise of God through unbelief, but was strengthened in faith, giving glory to God.” You could do much worse than to follow his example.
Lots of scholarly works argue for the existence of Jesus, you only have to look - just this morning I listened to Daily Dose of Wisdom Youtube channel "Fact checking Bill Mahr on Jesus, the Bible and history - fact checked by Inspiring Philosophy whose output is always exceptional! I warmly recommend him to anybody who likes facts+ solid faith together!
Thank you, Paul.
I finished reading the book about three weeks ago and have been waiting for the day of your opening review to arrive. I, too, am on a journey to discover what my faith is and should be. And to work out whether I can actually justify calling myself a Christian. I wrote in a previous post that I found the book irritating. The reason won’t surprise you. If everyone were that pilgrim, then where would be the rich men able to provide the food and shelter he needs, as he makes his way wherever he is going. Literally his can’t be the only way. But that’s a very obvious reaction. I imagine many readers will have had it too.
I understood your lesson about being “dead” to the world. But the pilgrim seemed to be demanding so much more. That one make prayer the only thing in one’s life. I’m not sure if I even like the idea of prayer. It seems so inward focussed and, the way he writes about it, almost like an addiction. I equate it with the modern preference for meditation. A shutting out of the world, when I think belief is all about how we accept and cope with the horrendous challenges and imperfections of that world., which we are lucky enough to have been given a brief chance to inhabit. We need to face into it, not away from it.
The key experience in my “pilgrimage” so far was a weekend on a course run by your friend Martin Shaw, during which he told the tale of Dairmud and Grainne. It’s the tale of a love triangle that goes on for the whole adult lives of the characters, starting with the woman, Grainne, rejecting and humiliating the older suitor (Finn) in favour of a younger man,(Dairmud) who was like a son to Finn. In the middle of this story is an incident of random, completely pointless cruelty, where Grainne (otherwise the heroine of the story) deliberately flaunts her physical relationship with Dairmud in front of Finn. Mayhem results. Dairmud dies. At the end of long lives riven with conflict, jealousy, egotism and violence - Finn and Grainne finally finish up together in old age, forgiving and forgetting everything that has been done by both of them. Had Grainne made a different choice, this peaceful and happy life with Finn is the existence she could have enjoyed all along. But life being what it is, she was never going to make that different choice.
The lesson I took from this was profound. And fairly obvious. Life is imperfect-able. There is not and never will be a utopia, because human nature is what it is. The world isn’t divided into good people and bad people. Even the best people do stupid, hurtful, terrible things. The only thing each individual can do is learn to survive them. By being, as you said, “dead” to the world. One cannot live a good life, unless one is able to rise above setbacks and cruelties and disappointments. But we can’t. So all we can ever do is keep trying.
Coming back to my own spiritual journey. I guess what I recognise about Christianity is the liturgy that begins with a recognition of ones own sins and shortcomings. I like saying the same things every week or every time we are in church, because those things will always be true. We will have “sinned” “through weakness, through negligence, through our own deliberate fault”, as others will have sinned against us. And we will have to pray for forgiveness of “our trespasses, as we forgive them that trespass against us.” We just have to pick ourselves up, be truly sorry and start all over again. That process will never end.
The other thing - the real motivation for my journey and the point of this reaction to the book - is the only two commandments Christ ever gave us. Matthew 22: 37-39 "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: Love your neighbour as yourself.'
What I take from that is that we need to accept life as it is with all its flaws and imperfections and disappointments and hurts and suffering, because I kind of equate God with life. And that we must feel love towards our fellow humans no matter what. We are commanded something impossible, but we are also commanded to keep trying, no matter what.
To me Christianity is outward not inward oriented. How do you manage to keep loving what is out there? I don’t see where prayer of the kind the pilgrim describes helps that, since it seems like a turning away from that imperfect world, which is also turning away from God. I would love to hear what you think about that.
Finally I must stress, I don’t mean any of this as a criticism of you or what you have written. On the contrary, I often sit in church thinking that I am there for the people who sat in those pews before me, not for the church as it is today, which seems full of utter nonsense. If it were not for this group and your writing (and that of a small band of people like Martin S) I would be making no progress at all with my faith. I take a huge amount of comfort and direction from your work and I thank you profoundly for that.
Thanks for this comment and reflection.
'Pilgrim' is written from the Russian Orthodox tradition. I'm also Orthodox, so it's possible I take some things for granted in this book that might not be obvious to others. Certainly reading it again now, it made a lot more sense to me than when I read it earlier in my journey.
Reading what you're saying above, I don't myself see - other than the quote from Matthew - what is especially Christian about this worldview. If we are to focus on the world, try hard to love people, accept life as it is and define 'God' as 'life'' - well, that might be fine, but is it Christian? This sounds like a kind of stoicism, perhaps, or just a kind of secular charitable vision.
What the pilgrim in the book is doing is attempting to die to the world so that he can awaken to God. You say that you don't like the idea of prayer, but it's impossible, surely, for a Christian to believe that? Prayer is the heart of the matter, because prayer, far from being inward looking, is a conversation with God himself. The pilgrim is not seeking to 'go inward' through praying, but the opposite. He is seeking to lose himself and find Christ instead. To destroy his will, so that he can do the will of God. This is what Orthodoxy teaches, and it is the function of the Jesus Prayer. The 'inner stillness' of hesychasm, which the pilgrim seeks, is the stillness of someone who has stripped away will, ego and the passions.
Into this clean vessel, then, the Holy spirit can enter. And when he is filled with the spirit he will be able to fulfill that commandment: to love God and his neighbour. This can't be fulfilled without help. None of us can will ourselves to love anyone! We can do nothing at all by ourselves. We need, through prayer, to ask for help, and to seek to align ourselves with what God wants for us. Once we are vessels for the Holy Spirit, we will be vessels for that love too. The Jesus Prayer in particular is supposed to take us there.
So, that's the story, as I understand it. It is a particularly Orthodox story, but the Western tradition is not entirely alien to it either.
I agree that Christians should have an outward orientation in general (Light of the world),but there was this debate in the book and the answer given for a hermit type Christianity (for some who are called to this) was quite convincing...it was that leaders etc. can go to hermit type sages for wisdom...it reminded me of the Old Testament prophets who quite often led acetic lifestyles and played this role.
It did more than that. It suggested the pilgrims way was possible and desirable for all of us. That was the source of my problem. I’m now reading and enjoying Paul’s second recommended book. I hope some female perspective may come into this process down the line. These are worlds women cannot enter. This isn’t some feminist complaint. I simply wonder if the orientation for women is different in that we are designed to be givers of new life. Isn’t our orientation perforce external?
I guess it depends on what you mean by ''pilgrims way''?...I think very few people are called by God to lead the pilgrims life, the same as the wondering pilgrim in the book, but we are on a type of journey or pilgrimage if we are Christians.
I think of the pilgrim in the story, if his wife hadn`t died and he had a family as is the usual pattern, then his life ''pilgrimage'' would have been very different!
I deeply value Paul’s writings and your comment also deeply resonates JaneH. I wonder if in its simplest form there is no either /or: the inner journey simply precedes the outer journey - ie it a necessary prerequisite. And once the inward journey is initiated, the two journeys are mirrored - the deeper your inward journey through life grows, the stronger, more expansive is the outer journey in the world and the more visible your light.
Thank you for your thoughts on this book, which I also loved. I think I'll read it again. I find I say that about most Orthodox books. I need a constant drip. Your next book choice was my first book about Orthodoxy and eventually contributed to my conversion 3 years ago. Thank you!
The Way of a Pilgrim is a very powerful book. I find myself, a Catholic, reciting the Jesus Prayer daily and some days continuously. I go for daily runs and during many of these runs (8km-10km) I’m reciting the Jesus Prayer without stop. This book has brought me a joy I had not expected. The simplicity of the Pilgrim’s life, his humility, the depth found in every page of this story… are all beautiful and rich. I hope to reread it again soon. Thanks Paul for bringing this book forth to us.
Yes, the world of this book is fascinating and deeply appealing. Living in a setting where faith is woven into routine interactions, is a default setting of a culture, seems almost fantastical, but an image worth keeping in mind and orienting with in my own haphazard pilgrimmage though our secular world. I can admire a milleu in which being a wandering spiritual seeker, living on charity, seems a perfectly respectable occupation. At how many homes today could the Pilgrim knock, ask for bread, and meet with a response like "Praise God! My wife just took some out of the oven."? More likely the conversation would take place though an intercom, with the Pilgrim sent packing and a suspicious individual warning sent up and down the street through Nextdoor, with accompanying ominous Ring camera photos of a man who'd clearly been sleeping rough.
The book makes that wandering life look as attractive as its setting, its occasional perils notwithstanding. I think the Pilgrim's equanimity through all of those contributes to that appeal just as much as the deep forests and humble villages he traverses. That perhaps is the part of his existence that might best translate to that of most contemporary readers. I don't think I'm cut out for a life of bread-and-water itinerancy (more power to you if you are) but that seeking of peace should be a part of everyone's vocation, and the prayer can be part of everone's practice. The most intractable illusion is that we are not on a pilgrimmage to eternity, and reading this book was a useful reminder to me not only of the importance of keeping a pilgrim mindset but of the beauty that mindset can have. Once years ago I had an astonishing experience with the Jesus prayer and TWOAP made me wonder, as I have often, why I didn't just lean into it ever since.
What struck me most about The Way of a Pilgrim was its resonance with the teachings of the Thai Forest Tradition, particularly the Ajahn Chah lineage. Until relatively recently, I was unaware that such practices and teachings existed to any real extent in the Christian tradition, which is a big part of why I was drawn from a young age towards Eastern spiritual practices and traditions rather than Christianity. Christianity to me, as an American growing up in the twentieth century, was a bunch of deeply uninspiring tyrannical scolds and hypocrites who put off a vibe that could not be more different from what we encounter in The Way of a Pilgrim.
Paul writes:
"Either way, what we have in The Way of a Pilgrim is two intertwined narratives, each powering the other. One is about a spiritual pilgrim searching for the secret of prayer. The other is about a literal pilgrim seeking to strip away everything unnecessary from his life, and to move through the world unencumbered, meeting it as it is."
The same can broadly be said of reflections on the tudong, dhutaṅga, or ธุดงค์ practices of the Thai forest monks, described here: https://www.abhayagiri.org/reflections/815-tudong. Through this practice, the monks put themselves at the mercy of the world and its inhabitants and endeavor to approach whatever arises with equanimity. Extensive descriptions of what this entails can be found in Stillness Flowing, the Life and Teachings of Ajahn Chah. https://www.abhayagiri.org/media/books/stillness-flowing%20-%202018-08-31.pdf
The key difference between the two approaches is, of course, God. Whereas the tudong monk seeks eradication of defilements (sin, basically) and thereby Enlightenment, our pilgrim here seeks union or communion with God. Whereas the tudong monk uses the mantra "Buddho" to keep his mind from wandering, our pilgrim recites the Jesus prayer, asking for mercy and confessing his sins. Many Buddhist teachers will tell practitioners that really any mantra will do. "Buddho" - "the one who knows" - is just a convention. Something like "Let Go" or even "Jesus" for that matter will do perfectly fine. But for our pilgrim here, the meaning of the prayer is of utmost importance.
The outward practices, the wandering, the equanimity to whatever arises, the dependence on the kindness of others, the use of a mantra to focus the mind, are strikingly similar. But the orientation -- the story one tells oneself about the nature of reality and one's place in it -- is different. Elaborating on the significance (or insignificance?) of this difference would require a book-length post that I do not have the time or energy (or perhaps insight) for here.
Rather off-topic, but while re-reading your last essay referenced as daylight had broken, I saw an owl in the tree in the yard across the street. I went out and walked toward him and he looked at me, daylight remember. I told him I saw him while looking him in the eye and while walking closer told him again. Then he flew off. Then later, he showed up on the grass. We don't let our cats out at night because of the owls, and I wanted Bella to see for herself what she would be up against, so I picked her up and walked toward the owl, but she didn't cooperate and missed the point, with attitude, no less. How does this relate to dying to self? Only that I have no worries that a bird will make a nest in my outstretched hands, sadly.
Greatly enjoyed this book...having heard about many yrs ago but not read. The pace of it felt very human scale like walking is..you notice more as you walk.
Also liked the passage about not confessing the sins we have already confessed . This interested me maybe because we tend to do this? The big omissions like not loving our fellow man not even occuring to us..and so much harder to do!
I loved this book and appreciate the recommendation. The word “Unencumbered” jumped out to me as I read your review this morning because it highlights a tension that I grappled with during my reading. In our modern age where worldly powers seem hellbent on atomizing and unmooring everything, “old fashioned” attachments to place, community, and family seem radical and vital. Becoming unencumbered without becoming unmoored, letting go of our attachments while leaning in to our relatedness…. That is truly a narrow path.
Great review. So much to think about.
When you suggested the TWOTP initially, it drew my mind immediately to the English equivalent, Pilgrim's Progress, a book that I have long loved, but always had misgiving.s over. I hope you don't mind if I point out the differences between the two, and why I think TWOTP is a better and truer spiritual guide for today.
PP, is like TWOTP a journey, but it's one like a Snakes and Ladders version of life, Christian needs to ascend to the Holy City and enroute swerve the pitfalls of life, like a Hollywood road trip. There's lots of clever and intellectual character identification, and lots of fun to be had by trying to imagine contemporary equivalents (Mr Worldly Wise to me is Jeremy Paxman). Lots happens, right up to the end, and there's a sense that Christian gets into the Heavenly City by the skin of his teeth and in the nick of time. I sense this narrative today under so many stories, hazards to the right and left of us, life as a constant scramble to avoid the abyss and get to Heaven, a drumbeat of urgency because the clock is ticking.
In contrast nothing much happens in TWOTP, the Pilgrim isn't on a timetable, stuff happens in no particular order, the journey has no direction. There's no narrative momentum or even arc. The only character development occurs in the relationship between the Pilgrim and God, the Pilgrim himself is opaque. There's no elevator pitch for a Hollywood script.
And maybe that's why I love it. Because perhaps that is really the point. To sink deeper into life and our relationship with God in the situations we find ourselves, to widen our capacity to hear His Voice, to love our neighbours where they are, not as waypoints in our personal development laundry list. It reminds me of Nan Shepherd's book The Mountain, which is about knowing the landscape intimately and on it's own terms, and allowing it to shape you in return, not as part of some summit glory quest.
And the explanation of the Jesus prayer is exquisite, gradually uncovered and delicately unveiled, as I imagine our relationship to God should be, carefully, slowly and fully. Maybe that's what is needed in these trying times, less Save The World quests and more Save Yourself and The World Will Look After Itself. Hope this makes sense.....
Just a quick addendum. Growing up in rural Galway in the seventies, there were what were called 'Knights of the Road', older homeless men who would do the rounds of the local area often doing farmwork in return for a meal and sleeping in the haybarn for a night or two.
So perhaps the Pilgrim is the Russian equivalent of a Knight of the Road.....
A heads up about next book, Everyday Saints and Other Stories. It can be downloaded for $6.34 from Orthodox Depot.
I read the book about six months ago and was very impressed by it, I have been waiting anxiously for your review. This essay has made me intend to go back and read it again immediately.
I completely agree with your point about the naïveté of the writer. This is perhaps the simplest expression of profound religious experience ever attempted. It makes spiritual perfection, or at least the pursuit of it seem accessible, possible. Though the writer has stripped himself of everything and the reader remains encumbered by possessions and attachments, still the way seems clear, if we could only begin…
Everyday Saints is a marvelous next choice although I am sure there will be objections to the Russian perspective. The book made me want to join a Russian nunnery, to experience the privilege of listening to such wisdom. It is an amazing book, and that such a firm grasp on sanctity exists in our own time is encouraging.
I find 'naïveté' a little condescending and prefer 'simplicity'.