'secular' monks of today and the 'inner monk'

This brings me to the topic I am most interested in at present, because I'm exploring it in my own life right now.  What does it mean to be monk-like in a secular sense today?  By this I mean, where can we see people who, like the monks of Ladakh, live in society, working and following their daily spiritual practice?  Can their spiritual practice be an appreciation or an awareness of the present moment? [For example, the old orders of Catholic monks appreciate the 'Hours' (and thus the quotidian) in their daily routine of chanting and prayer, read out of their 'ordinaries.']  Can we see these appreciators of the present moment all around us?  Do they have to have taken vows publically, or can the vows be taken in their hearts?    How do they stay honest to those vows?  Do they have to be religious, or not?  Maybe I'm so interested in this because I'd like to move out of my familiar religious moorings into the vast ocean of the world, and experience the spiritual life in that context.  Is it possible?  I think it is.

One of the people I'm studying with this end in mind is the poet, Wallace Stevens.  He loved nature, sought to experience it in the way that humans only can: through the senses, but inevitably interpreted and embroidered upon by the creative human imagination (the mind, called in the Hindu tradtion, 'the sugar-cane bow of the mind'.)  To support this supposition, I'd like to quote Meng-Han of the Hermitary, who writes that "simplicity [a monastic virtue] carves out a psychological dimension that is removed from the artificial world and placed squarely within the natural world, as much as this can be. In an urban environment, simplicity has a personal touch, perhaps an intellectual or creative cast, or an engagement with objects and people that comes from an authentic core of selflessness."  (This is to be found in his May 2005 archives) I see this kind of simplicity in Stevens, and also in other observant reflective artists, right here on these blogs, such as Paula of 'Paula's House of Toast,' or Abdul-Walid of Acerbia.  Stevens gives us a wonderful record of his monastic struggles in his letters and in his poetry.  Monks struggle, no doubt about that.  All their journals attest to that.  See the Philokalia for example.

The word 'monk' derives from a Greek adjective, 'monos' meaning 'solitary, alone.'  My view is that we all have an 'inner monk' and that inner monk may take up more of our psychic space or less, depending.  Everyone connects at times to that part of himself or herself that feels alone, sole, and sometimes, lonely. The aim of the monastic life, however, is to not feel 'lonely' in our solitude - eventually - but rather to feel our vast 'connectedness' in the grounding of our solitude.  (Perhaps we can explore this more in another post.)

Some of the other characteristics we associate with monastics include: attention, contemplation, simplicity, humility, industry, prayer, hospitality, silence, service, study, awareness - would anyone like to name a few more?  Joy, compassion, and how about appreciation of beauty?  Julian of Norwich had an appreciation of the beauty and wonder of the ordinary things of life, the 'hoarded ordinaries:'  "Also in this He shewed me a little thing, the quantity of an hazel-nut, in the palm of my hand; and it was as round as a ball. I looked thereupon with the eye of my understanding, and thought: What may this be? And it was answered generally thus: It is all that is made."  She goes on to realize that 'all that is made' lasts in time because it is loved by God.  It does seem to me as though saints (in the ordinary sense) and artists share this kind of loving along with 'God.'

Is celibacy required to fulfill the definition of 'monos?'  I don't think so, just because, in my view, the purpose of celibacy in monastic life is to conserve energy for awareness and perception.  Romantic and sexual relationships can really be disruptive and drain our energy, OR they can feed the soul.  Actually, in the end, both kinds can play a major role in forming the shape of our spiritual life.  But we definitely don't want to waste our (creative) energy.  We can still feel our sense of 'monos' even when we're living in relationship.  Monks all do that.

In my own life, I see all those monastic characteristics being cultivated by my husband and myself.  (By the way, we're not celibate.  As I read over the last post, I saw it could be read as if I were saying that.  Not.  I meant rather, that we'd made our own vows relating to our spiritual aspirations, and that because of that we fit in well with the folks at the Franciscan School.)  I also saw this in many of the people around me when I was growing up in Philadelphia, many of whom had grown up within a generation or two of living in the many spiritual communities of Pennsylvania.  I certainly see some of these qualities in Stevens, too, even though he enjoyed gourmet food, liked to be inebriated (and later, probably had to be), but no one ever said monks are perfect. 

And this brings me to another question of interest to me: is it possible to be a dedicated secular monk without having had a prior spiritual formation in the context of some spiritual community?  Wallace Stevens had at least some upbringing in 'church,' enough to miss it when he'd evolved away from it intellectually, and to have possibly sublimated it into his poetry and romantic life.  Most of us have had some degree of spiritual formation that acts as a sort of 'base' or grounding for our further evolution.  I'd like to hear from someone who feels they haven't had this, and yet have still evolved a monk-like approach to life, and about what is the shape of that experience.

One of the things I especially like about America - now this is going a bit far afield - is that it has attempted (not so much currently) to be a secular society that maintains a moral standard.  But this 'secular society' is rooted in the Judeo-Christian culture (in its interplay with indigenous native american culture, it might be added.)  Anyway, I find it interesting to see how we've done this, and I don't much like the idea of undoing it. I feel we haven't fully explored the potential of our secular world-view with its ability to enjoy freedom of religion, and spiritual diversity.

To return to my topic, anyway, I just want to say that I'm seeing anyone who values their solitude and uses it to cultivate their awareness of the world around them, or of their own inner terrain, or to contemplate and cherish beauty, truth, humanity or nature as a kind of monk.

Comments

[Dave]

I like where you're going with this. I would only suggest that some scientists be considered for inclusion in this category. If I may be so so bold as to link to my own posts (not as conceited as it sounds - each consists mainly of quotes): The way of a naturalist, Part 1 http://neithernor.blogspot.com/2004/01/way-of-naturalist.html and Part 2: http://neithernor.blogspot.com/2004/01/way-of-naturalist-part-2.html

[dale]

I don't know. There's no theoretical reason why it can't be done, I think. Empirically, though -- I don't think many people can pull it off. All the world's taunts and blandishments pushing right up against all our weaknesses, and no cloister or wilderness to stand between -- well, certainly my own attempts have not been very successful.

[kasturi]

Hi Dave, I made the changes you suggested and the links work fine now. Great! I see we've both read 'Ancient Futures' on life in Ladakh. I remember feeling this should be required reading!

I agree with you that scientists should be included in this list, also some scholars, and I've even known mothers and fathers who raised their children as part of their awareness practice. I'm enjoying reading some of the articles on your site.

Dale, I agree that there must be 'support.' I think for urban, secular 'monkly types' FRIENDS provide that support. And of course, one's DAILY PRACTICE is a great support, and hopefully there is some modicum of spiritual community as well, even if it's just once a week. But of course there is going to be STRUGGLE. That is a very big part of being a monk.

Now, being a 'hermit' in an urban secular environment is a much taller order.

What I've found in my own life, is that you feel like you're 'running in place' (perhaps for decades) and tend to think 'it's not working, I'm not really doing it, or I'm not doing it well enough,' but mysteriously there is some change that comes on as gradually as the dawn. Perhaps there is something about that small constant effort - not that it's 'cause-and-effect' - not that it looks like what we thought, but the data comes in, the alchemical process works, ... eventually. I have that faith, and I wouldn't except that it does seem to be working - present, what, participle? - in my own experience, and in the people around me.

Anyway, when I visit your site, it looks to me like you're doing all right.

[Lawrence Walker]

Here it is May 2007, several years after this post. I just googled "secular monk in America" and this came up, and it is certainly relevant. I write a blog called "A Better Nation," and as my distance with the surrounding culture increases, I toy with calling myself a secular monk. I', 49. I chose as a teenager not to have children and to never own a television. I lead some bike tours now and then, but otherwise I barely work, have almost no income and do all sorts of things to tread lightly. My monkdom has nothing to do with religion or dieties. It does have to do with going on strike against modern American culture. I'd like to hear from others who have an interest in the idea of living simply.

[pamina]

There is a book with the title, "Ordinary people living as monks," or something like that. Some people interviewed in it felt that they almost have to apologize for their way of life to friends and family, for not living the "American Dream". The "American Dream" from its very inception was about independence -- of thought, religion, enterprise, and from external controls. When did it become about the house and dog and driveway? What is independent about keeping up with the Joneses? or the Japanese? or the competition? or the nuclear arms race? I think the rise of the corporation in the late nineteenth century fostered values that were un-American in the sense that I describe. It created a conformist coporate/consumerist culture that is more suited to the Japanese, a tendency towards monopoly and obliteration of business competition, a dependence on government and taxes for bailouts, patronage and special privileges; war-mongering for profit; and invasion and conquest of other nations, which is unconstitutional and/because philosophically hypocritical. Another book I'd like to mention is "Inner Revolution" by Robert Thurman, where he credits Siddhartha for creating a new class of citizens in Indian society -- people who neither ruled like the nobles nor worked like the merchants and laborers, nor taught like the educators, but devoted their time to meditation and study. The elevated energy they brought to the society was deemed valuable enough by the kings who funded their very existence. Changes in society were observed by the simple fact that there were a group of people in it who did not spend their energies earning a living and building families. For every person who is perplexed, disturbed or resentful of a person who does not worry about money or work, there is another who is relieved, gladdened and a little envious. Simple "being" is a reminder of the nature of Gd, of what we truly are and where we came from. As the Christ said, 'Be like the lilies, they do not work or spin but not even Solomon with all his riches was ever as beautifully clothed as they.'

[fred]

I too was extremely intrigued by "secular monasticism" so I joined a quasi secular monastery that is opening a brewery. It's an actual religion. actualreligion.org

[PreewDaf]

buy a designer bags china online shopping

[bumtooca]

buy a coach bags 2010 at my estore