37

ORIGINAL BLESSING: THE GIFT OF THE T R U E SELF

By W I L L I A M H. SHANNON N INTUITION SHARED by m a n y of the high religions is the belief that the happiness which all w o m e n and m e n now seek is actually a reality w h i c h t h e y possessed in the beginning'. It was the original blessing given to h u m a n i t y : the blessing of self-awareness of the experience of one's own identity. To put it in terms of the topic of this article, the original blessing was the gift of the true self or, as the Zen Buddhists would express it, the experience of ' y o u r original face before you were born'. There is also in most of the high religions a realization that it is not this true self that we ordinarily experience. The m y t h of the 'fall' suggests the puzzling and unexplainable fact that we are alienated from that true self. A seeming abyss separates us f r o m our true self. Indeed, a false self seems to take over the direction of our lives. T h e way to salvation (not just 'in the b e y o n d ' , but in the here and now) is to discover our true self. This discovery is actually a 'recovery', since the true self is always there. It is simply that we have not been attentive to it. We have not been aware that it is there. Hence we have to be awakened to its presence. T h a t awakening which makes us attentive to and aware of the presence of the true self is what T h o m a s M e r t o n would call contemplation. T h o m a s M e r t o n wrote a great deal about the true self and the false self; and what he had to say about these two terms has been the subject of m u c h writing by others as well as by myself. 1 In this relatively short article it is clearly not possible to deal with the m a n y passages throughout the M e r t o n corpus that deal with these elusive 'entities'. I should like to approach M e r t o n ' s thoughts on this m a t t e r by using a quotation from one of his letters as a kind of centrepiece for what I w a n t to say. The quotation is from a letter M e r t o n wrote to A m i y a C h a k r a v a r t y and the students of Smith College in N o r t h a m p t o n , Massachusetts.

38

ORIGINAL BLESSING

T h e b a c k g r o u n d of the letter is helpful in u n d e r s t a n d i n g M e r t o n ' s words. In the spring t e r m of 1967, A m i y a C h a k r a v a r t y , a H i n d u scholar and a friend of M e r t o n , was teaching at Smith College. O n e of the projects he set for himself was to organize a M e r t o n evening for students and faculty. It was held on M a r c h 28, 1967 and involved readings and discussions of some of M e r t o n ' s writings. T h e day following this brief symposium, D r C h a k r a v a r t y wrote to Merton: We were immersed in the silence and eloquence of your thoughts and writings . . . The young scholars here realize that the absolute rootedness of your faith makes you free to understand other faiths. 2 Several of the ' y o u n g scholars' also wrote to M e r t o n telling him how pleased they had been with that evening's experience. O n April 13 M e r t o n replied to D r C h a k r a v a r t y and the students. N o t h i n g can be m o r e r e w a r d i n g to a writer, he told them, t h a n to be u n d e r s t o o d and appreciated. H e expressed his belief that they had indeed u n d e r s t o o d what he had written. But more than that they had come to see something most p r e c i o u s - - a n d most available too: namely, 'the reality that is present to us and in us'. While we m a y give different n a m e s to that reality (Being, Atman, Pneuma, Silence), still, h o w e v e r we n a m e it, the simple fact is that, by being attentive, by learning to listen (or recovering the natural capacity to listen which cannot be learned any more than breathing), we can find ourselves engulfed in such happiness that it cannot be explained; the happiness of being at one with everything in that hidden ground of Love for which there can be no explanations. 3 This brief statement is of decisive i m p o r t a n c e in grasping M e r t o n ' s u n d e r s t a n d i n g of reality. H e is speaking about 'happiness' and makes clear his conviction that this sum of h u m a n blessings can be f o u n d only by going b e y o n d the dualities of life: an e n o r m o u s l y difficult u n d e r t a k i n g , because these dualities seem so real to us. M e r t o n locates true happiness in 'being at one' with everything. A n d that oneness is no pantheistic or impersonal melange, for it springs f r o m a 'hidden g r o u n d ' ; and that ' G r o u n d ' is personal, for it is the ' G r o u n d of L o v e ' . T h i s happiness cannot be explained; n o r can the h i d d e n G ~ o n n d of Love in which it is to be found. But it can be achieved by

ORIGINAL

BLESSING

39

attentiveness, by listening. For most of us, M e r t o n seems to be suggesting, 'listening', which should be as natural to us as breathing, is in fact something we have to discover in ourselves or, rather, recover (for it is always there). T h e attentiveness of which M e r t o n speaks (and he often uses as s y n o n y m s 'awareness' or 'awakedness') is not so m u c h something we do but something we are. Attentiveness is not the same thing as thinking. T h i n k i n g tends to divide: it implies a subject thinking and an object that is t h o u g h t about. Attentiveness or awareness, on the other hand, is a v e r y different experience: it reduces the distance between me and what I am aware of. A deep sense of attentive awareness closes the gap between me and that of which I a m aware. It brings together and unites. In fact, in a deep experience of attentive awareness, the subject-object d i c h o t o m y disappears. I am not aware of something. I a m simply aware. T h u s , the reader should note that M e r t o n does not tell us that we achieve happiness b y being attentive to the ' h i d d e n g r o u n d of L o v e ' , as if 'It' were the object of o u r attention. R a t h e r he says that t h r o u g h simple attentiveness, pure awareness, we find ourselves 'at one with e v e r y t h i n g in that h i d d e n g r o u n d of L o v e ' . T o put this m o r e explicitly: if we say, in a Christian context, that by the ' h i d d e n g r o u n d o f L o v e ' we m e a n G o d , then M e r t o n is m a k i n g clear that we are not subjects who discover G o d as an object. It is r a t h e r that o u r subjectivity becomes one with the subjectivity of God. In that oneness, we find ourselves 'at one with everything'. I would v e n t u r e a step further and say that this simple attentiveness, this pure awareness where there is no object, is what T h o m a s M e r t o n m e a n s b y contemplation. W r i t i n g in New seeds of contemplation, he says: [I]n the depths of contemplative prayer there seems to be no division between subject and object and there is no reason to make any statement about God or about oneself. H E IS and this reality absorbs everything else. 4 This attentiveness, in which we discover o u r oneness with G o d and in him with all reality, m a y be t h o u g h t of 'in at least two different ways. T h e r e is, in the first place, the most f u n d a m e n t a l type of attentiveness or awareness: an awareness built into us so to speak. It is part of the package of being a creature. It is of the very necessity of o u r existence that we be in God; for apart from

40

ORIGINAL BLESSING

the Source and G r o u n d of m y being, I am nothing. This deep awareness is b u r i e d within us. M a n y people do not know it is there. It belongs to the unconscious or superconscious level of o u r being; and m a n y people n e v e r get in touch with that level of their being. A n d it really is a pity that we do not. As M e r t o n wrote to a friend in England: 'All that is best in us is either unconscious or superconscious'. 5 T h e r e is a delightful sUfi story t h a t can perhaps concretize our u n d e r s t a n d i n g of this deep awareness of G o d b u r i e d in the deepest recesses of our being. According to the story, before he created the world, G o d said to A d a m , ' A m I not y o u r G o d who created you?' A d a m answered, 'Yes'. E v e r after, according to the Sufi tale, there has been i n e v e r y w o m a n and m a n this question: ' A m I not y o u r G o d who created y o u ? ' T h i s is the silent question that is 'built into' all of us: a question that calls us to acknowledge o u r c r e a t u r e h o o d , o u r emptiness, our nothingness. T h e question is a prod to attentive awareness. G o d is there. H e / S h e is o u r Creator: the Source of our being. A n d G o d goes on creating: he/she is, therefore, that ever present (though hidden) G r o u n d that makes it possible for us to continue in being. T h a t is w h y this question is created into me: ' A m I not y o u r G o d who created y o u ? ' But we are created, not only with this question, but also with the answer: 'Yes!' O u r a c k n o w l e d g e m e n t that he/she created us is not so m u c h a 'Yes' that we speak, but a 'Yes' that we are. It too is 'built into' us, w h e t h e r we are aware of it or not. It is the speech of our deepest silence. This ontological awareness of G o d (this contemplative dimension of o u r being, if you will), which is 'built into' us, is present even if we n e v e r advert to it. It lies asleep in us, as it were, until it is awakened and we arrive at a second kind of awareness: conscious awareness. This is the m e a n i n g of contemplative prayer: to bring to the surface of o u r lives this f u n d a m e n t a l awareness that is an essential element of o u r being. In m o m e n t s of silent, quiet, e m p t y ing prayer, this awareness m a y surface in m y life and I experience this awareness of G o d - - w h i c h is at the same time an awareness of myself and all things else in God. Again, I must repeat, it is not an awareness of any Object or objects. It is simply pure awareness. This, I think, is w h a t M e r t o n h a d in m i n d w h e n he wrote in

New seeds of contemplation:

ORIGINAL BLESSING

41

It is as if in creating us God asked a question, and in awakening us to contemplation he answered the question, so that the contemplative is at the same time the question and the answerfi C o n t e m p l a t i o n is the silent h e a r i n g of this question, ' A m I not y o u r G o d who created y o u ? ' a n d the silent a n s w e r i n g , ' Y e s ' , b u t with the acute awareness that t h e question a n d the ' Y e s ' m u s t be u n d e r s t o o d , not as s o m e t h i n g we h e a r and say, b u t something we are. T h e question a n d the a n s w e r p u t m e squarely in G o d . A p a r t f r o m h i m / h e r I a m not an answer; I a m not even a question. I a m nothing. I r e a d recently a b r i e f news i t e m a b o u t a t o w n in A r i z o n a , a place of less t h a n one h u n d r e d inhabitants. W i t h self-effacing m o d e s t y these people h a d n a m e d their t o w n ' N o t h i n g ' . O n e d a y a fire c o m p l e t e l y destroyed the town. T h e news headline read: ' N o t h i n g is left of " N o t h i n g ' " . I f we were to be a p a r t f r o m G o d even for an instant, that would be o u r story: ' n o t h i n g would be left of n o t h i n g ' . T h i s is w h y I w a n t to stress the point that attentive awareness of G o d in no sense m e a n s that I, as a separate subject, a m a w a r e of G o d as an object. F o r I as a separate subject s i m p l y do not exist. N o r can G o d ever be conceived of as an object, e v e n as an object of t h o u g h t a n d reflection. As soon as we try to grasp h i m / h e r in o u r t h o u g h t a n d reflection, he/she disappears; w h a t r e m a i n s is the construct of o u r t h o u g h t s a n d words. T h u s , it would be w r o n g to t h i n k of G o d as one existent a m o n g other existents. H e / She is rather, as M e r t o n says in o u r text, the G r o u n d of all that exists. H e / S h e is the Source whence all reality comes. H e / S h e is the G r o u n d in which they continue to be. G o d is in all a n d all exist because of h i m . T h a t is w h y a w a r e n e s s of G o d is not awareness of an Object. It is p u r e awareness, simple attentiveness. M e r t o n writes in New seeds of contemplation: There is 'no such thing' as God because God is neither a 'what' nor a 'thing' but a pure 'Who'. He is the ' T h o u ' before whom our inmost ' I ' springs into awareness [and love. He is the living God, Yahweh, 'I A M ' , who calls us into being out of nothingness, so that we stand before H i m made in His image and reflecting His infinite being in our littleness and reply: 'I am'. And so with St. Paul we awaken to the paradox that beyond our natural being we have a higher being 'in Christ' which makes us as if we were

4:2

ORIGINAL

BLESSING

not and as if He alone were in us . . .]7 (The section in brackets was added by Merton to the French text.) 8 Speaking to a group of contemplative nuns in D e c e m b e r of 1967, M e r t o n said: We should have an immanent approach to prayer. God is not an Object . . . God is Subject, a deeper 'I'. He is the Ground of my subjectivity. God wants to know Himself in us. 9 W h e n at that same conference the question was put to him: ' H o w can we best help people to attain u n i o n with G o d ? ' , his answer was very clear. W e must, he says, tell t h e m that they are already united with God. C o n t e m p l a t i v e p r a y e r is n o t h i n g other than 'the c o m i n g into consciousness' of what is already there. W e must, M e r t o n tells us, 'love G o d as our other self, that is, o u r t r u e r and d e e p e r self'. T h e true self, then, whether in hiddenness or in conscious awareness, is always there: m y being springing out of G o d who is Being. I am distinct f r o m G o d (I am obviously not God), yet I am not separate from h i m / h e r (for how could a being be separate from its v e r y G r o u n d ? ) . T h e happiness of the true self is 'the happiness of being at one with e v e r y t h i n g ' . T h a t 'at-oneness' with e v e r y t h i n g is experienced not statically, but dynamically, in the intercourse of love that flows t h r o u g h everything: the love which rises out of that hidden G r o u n d which is All in all. At this point I am quite r e a d y to admit that all I have said thus far must seem r e m o t e indeed from our actual experience of daily living. Seldom, if ever, do we experience this oneness in love. All too frequently what we experience is separateness, alienation. W e see people being used and m a n i p u l a t e d by others. W e see injustice, exploitation and division. W h y is it that what we actually experience is so different f r o m what it would seem we ought to be experiencing? If we look for the villain in the story, that r o l e - - a c c o r d i n g to M e r t o n ' s t h i n k i n g - would be played b y the false self. At this point I need to warn the u n w a r y reader that this term, as M e r t o n uses it, is somewhat elusive and difficult to u n d e r s t a n d . I confess to struggling with it for a long time and finding myself still a bit diffident about offering m y present view of w h a t it means. It surely is a t e r m that can easily be misinterpreted. T h u s one could easily make the mistake

ORIGINAL

BLESSING

4:3

of reading it in a moral sense, in which case, one would be inclined to think of the 'false self' as being untruthful, sinful, immoral. Now there is no doubt that it can, perhaps often does, m e a n that. But, as I see it, such a m e a n i n g is derivative and does not catch the p r i m a r y sense in which M e r t o n uses the term 'false self'. In speaking of the false self, Merton, if I u n d e r s t a n d him correctly, is thinking primarily in ontological terms. By this I m e a n that the adjective 'false' conveys the notion of unsubstantiality, of lacking in any fullness of being. T h e 'false self' is, one might say, deficient in being: deficient especially in the sense that it is i m p e r m a n e n t , not enduring. It cannot survive death. T h a t 'false self' has primarily this ontological m e a n i n g for M e r t o n is borne out, I think, by reflection on other adjectives he often uses as substitutes for 'false', for example, 'external', 'superficial', 'empirical', 'outward', 'contingent', 'private', 'shadow', 'illusory', 'fictitious', 'smoke', 'feeble', 'petty', etc. All these adjectives suggest, in different ways, that we are dealing with a self that is real, but only at a very limited level of reality. T h e false self keeps us on the surface of reality: both its fears and its joys are superficial. It is limited by time and space and to time and space: it has a biography and a history, both of which we write by the actions we perform and the roles we play and both of which are destined to cease with death. T h a t is why M e r t o n calls it 'the evanescent self' or the 'smoke self' that w i l l d i s a p p e a r like smoke up a chimney. Its well-being needs constantly to be fed by accomplishments and by the admiration of others. It is the egoself, the self as object or, in M e r t o n ' s words: the self which we observe as it goes about its biological business, the machine which we regulate and tune up and feed with all kinds of stimulants and sedatives, constantly trying to make it run more and more smoothly, to fit the patterns prescribed by the salesman of pleasure-giving and anxiety-laden commodities.t W h a t must we do to move beyond this empirical ego, which alienates us from our true being, and recover that true and substantial self which is beyond and above the level of mere empirical individuality with its superficial enjoyments and fears? The Christian answer (and there are similar answers in other religions) is that there must be death and rebirth. To quote M e r t o n again:

44

ORIGINAL BLESSING [I]n order to become one's true self, the false self must die. In order for the inner self to appear the outer self must disappear: or at least become secondary, unimportant . . . True Christianity is growth in the life of the Spirit, a deepening of the new life, a continuous rebirth, in which the exterior and superficial life of the ego-self is discarded like an old snake skin and the mysterious invisible self of the Spirit becomes more present and more active.ll

This growth involves an on-going transformation, w h e r e b y we are liberated from selfishness and grow in love so that, in some sense, we b e c o m e love or, in the words of o u r basic text, we are 'at one with e v e r y t h i n g in that hidden g r o u n d of love', which we can only experience but n e v e r explain. W e die to selfishness and come alive in love. H o w is this blessing achieved, w h e r e b y we are able finally to transcend the empirical self and discover, once and for all, o u r true self?. T h o m a s M e r t o n ' s answer, I believe, would be that this c o n s u m m a t i o n occurs either in death or in contemplation, which is to say that it is either an eschatological experience or an indepth p r a y e r experience that transforms m y consciousness. Most people, he would say, arrive at this full awakening of the true self only in death. For death is better u n d e r s t o o d , not as the separation of the soul f r o m the body, but as the disappearance of the false self and the e m e r g e n c e of the true self. Seen not as a passion (namely, something that happens to a person), b u t as an action (i.e. something that a person does) death is the m o m e n t of the fullest h u m a n freedom. In that .moment, a person, freed from the limitations of space and time, is able to cast aside the illusions that once were so captivating and, in an emptiness hitherto u n e x p e r i e n c e d , is enabled at last to affirm his/her true identity. A person dies into God. H e / S h e discovers in death what was always true, but not adverted to, that we are in God. D e a t h is being in the h i d d e n g r o u n d of Love in full attentive awareness. This is eternal happiness. This side of that eschatological awakening, it is possible to realize one's true self only in the experience of contemplation. C o n t e m p l a t i o n is the highest form of the 'spiritual life'. It means that one is totally e m p t y (i.e. of all separateness) and at the same time totally full (i.e. at one with all that is and with the Source and G r o u n d of al~). ~n contemplation, 'the infmite~7 " f o n t a l " (source-like) creativity of our being in Being is somehow attained

ORIGINAL

BLESSING

45

and becomes in its t u r n a source of action and creativity in the world a r o u n d us'. 12 H o w absurd, then, to t h i n k - - a s some people d o - - t h a t contemplation has to do with G o d to the exclusion of all else: as if G o d were an ' O b j e c t ' that must be preferred to 'all other objects'. In A vow of conversation M e r t o n reflects on the ' u n u t t e r a b l e confusion of those who think that G o d is a mental object and that to " l o v e G o d a l o n e " is to exclude all other objects and concentrate on this one. Fatal. Yet that is w h y so m a n y m i s u n d e r s t a n d the m e a n i n g of c o n t e m p l a t i o n . . .'13 T h e discovery of the true s e l f - - w h e t h e r in c o n t e m p l a t i o n or in d e a t h - - i s the t e r m i n a t i o n of the experience of duality. M o r e than that it is the end of dualistic speech. At this point it seems p r o p e r for m e to admit that the principal difficulty in reading this article, not to say in the writing of it, is that the language we speak rises out of the experience of duality. T h e language of n o n - d u a l i s m is silence: a c o m m u n i n g that is b e y o n d words and b e y o n d thoughts. O n e of the problems I have experienced in writing this article is that I have had to put words on silence. I have b e e n obliged to describe n o n - d u a l i s m with terms that are dualistic. Almost inevitably this means that I have given an impression that I do n o t intend to convey: namely, the notion that w h e n I talk a b o u t the ' t r u e self' and the 'false self' there is somehow a third p a r t y who has these 'two' selves and in w h o m ' t h e y ' battle to see who wins out. I will m e n t i o n just two examples of what I mean. Early in the article I said, 'we are alienated from o u r true self', and later, something similar: ' T h e false self keeps us on the surface of reality'. T h e obvious question that comes to a perceptive r e a d e r is: w h o m are we designating w h e n we speak of the 'alienated we' or the 'us kept on the surface of reality'? And, lest you think that it is I who am m u d d l i n g language, let m e cite yet a n o t h e r example of this dualistic writing, but this time f r o m one of M e r t o n ' s works. In his book The wisdom of the desert, he speaks of the spiritual j o u r n e y of the Fathers of the E g y p t i a n desert: an inner j o u r n e y m o r e i m p o r t a n t , he believes, than any flight into outer space. F o r M e r t o n asks, ' W h a t can we gain by sailing to the m o o n , if we are not able to cross the abyss that separates 'US from ourselves? '14 W h a t he is saying is that we have to cross the abyss that separates o u r surface consciousness from the deep and creative realm of the unconscious. O n l y when we cross over do we b e c o m e o u r true self. At this point, dualistic language simply breaks down. For if m y true self is on the other

46

ORIGINAL

BLESSING

side of the abyss, who is it that crosses over the abyss? I simply cannot give an answer to this koan-like question. There is no real crossing over. For the true self simply is. A n d that is it. As M e r t o n once expressed it: 'You have to experience duality for a long time until y o u see it's not there'. ~a M e a n w h i l e , by being attentive, we come to realize our inner potential and begin to 'find ourselves engulfed in such happiness that it cannot be explained: the happiness of being at one with everything in that hidden ground of Love for which there can be no explanations'.

NOTES 1 See, for example, Carr, Anne E.: A search for wisdom and spirit: Thomas Merton's theology of the se/f (Notre Dame, 1988); Thurston, Bonnie Bowman: 'Self and the world: two directions of the spiritual life', Cistercian Studies, vol 18 (1983), pp 149-155; Shannon, William H: ' T h o m a s Merton and the discovery of the real self', Cistercian Studies, vol 13 (1978), pp 298-308; Shannon, William H: ' T h o m a s Merton and the quest for self-identity', Cistercian Studies, vol 22 (1987), pp 172-189; Kilconrse, George: 'Personifications of the true self in Thomas Merton's poetry', Cistercian Studies, vol 24 (1989), pp 144-53. 2 Merton, Thomas: Thomas Merton letters: the hidden ground of love (New York, 1985), p 115. 3 Ibid. 4 Merton, Thomas: New seeds of contemplation (New York, 1962), p 167. 5 Hidden ground of love, p 341. 6 New seeds, p 3. 7 New seeds, p 13. Unpublished Letter to Marie Tadie, (Merton Center, Louisville, Kentucky): 22 November 1962. 9 Unpublished Notes (Merton Center, Louisville, Kentucky). 10 Merton, Thomas: Faith and violence (Notre Dame, 1968), p 112. i1 Merton, Thomas: Love and living (New York, 1979), p 199. 12 Faith and violence, p 115. 13 Merton, Thomas: A vow of conversation (New York, 1988), p 142. 14 Merton, Thomas: The wisdom of the desert (New York, 1960), p 11. 15 Steindl-Rast, David: 'Recollections of Thomas Merton's last days in the West' Monastic Studies (September 1969), pp 1-10.