www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Imagination in Prayer for the Catholics & Orthodox

No. The first quotation in this thread, which was taken from the writings of St. Gregory of Sinai, seems to indicate that those who are in the early stages of the spiritual life should avoid the use of mental images:

"Thus, if we want to realize and know the truth and not to be led astray, let us seek to possess only the heart-engrafted energy in a way that is totally without shape or form, not trying to contemplate in our imagination what we take to be the figure or similitude of things holy or to see any colors or lights. For in the nature of things the spirit of delusion deceives the intellect through such spurious fantasies, especially at the early stages, in those who are still inexperienced."

The way to avoid such things is through spiritual discipline, i.e., through the constant shunning of mental images during prayer, because as St. Gregory of Sinai said:

". . . if you are rightly cultivating stillness and aspiring to be with God, and you see something either sensory or noetic, within or without, be it even an image of Christ or of an angel or of some saint, or you imagine you see a light in your intellect and give it a specific form, you should never entertain it. For the intellect itself naturally possesses an imaginative power and in those who do not keep a strict watch over it it can easily produce, to its own hurt, whatever forms and images it wants to. In this way the recollection of things good or evil can suddenly imprint images on the intellect's perceptive faculty and so induce it to entertain fantasies, thus making whoever this happens to a daydreamer rather than a hesychast."

Todd,

These are good and interesting quotes.

But I guess my question is: if this power has been given to the soul, why can it not be used somehow in the service of prayer?

Just as in the example above (the reference to the feast of Holy Transfiguration) one cannot refer to anything without an image of it coming to mind.

If I say "dog" for instance, my mind moves to an image of a dog, perhaps a dog I owned at some point. If I hear "Holy Transfiguration" my mind goes to an image of the event itself, usually one of my icons. I find the same when I am reading the Gospels or the Old Testament. I often "think" iconographically about spiritual matters. Perhaps this is a fault according to the hesychasts, I am unsure. If I take the Book of Revelation as a guide to the heights of contemplation, very clearly imagery is a key element. Such imagery, however, was not of course self-induced.

I also recall the words of a holy Bulgarian Orthodox monastic who counseled me to say the Jesus Prayer before an icon of the Mother of God, bringing my thoughts from my mind into my heart as I say the prayer. He said that my eyes should return to the icon as a "root" (ironically he was saying this before an image of the Root Icon of Kursk) if I become distracted. This remains my practice to this day. When I am away from an icon physically, I do return to it mentally as a "root", at least at the beginning of prayer. Am I to see this as violating the practice of hesychasm?

It seems that St. Gregory is referring to an image that may appear involuntarily in prayer, much like the private revelations we read about from time to time. I don't know that he is referencing the presence of (physically or in memory) a canonical icon per se. His reference to shunning something seen "within or without" if applied to icons would certainly be problematic for an Eastern Christian. Otherwise, how can icons be an aid to prayer if we are not permitted to move interiorly from the earthly image to the heavenly prototype? Clearly our veneration of them must be more than just external or physical.

In ICXC,

Gordo

Gordo,

I don't know what I think about all of this personally, but here is another possible perspective. The imagination is the vehicle of fiction and because it is tied to sensuality, it naturally is predisposed toward error. Deification involves the purification of all of our faculties. Because our faculties are bound up with the passions and the ego, they should be distrusted until we have made sufficient progress. Then, we will begin to see clearly. It seems to me that this is what iconography is about. The icon is universal. It is passionless and austere, intentionally I think. The transfigured Christian is a Christian completely immersed in the pure, uncreated light. We become icons of God. There is no room for individual creativity.

Indeed, I think that it is no accident that iconographers do not sign their icons. Also, it is no accident that artistic diversity and perspectivalism are valued in the modern European west but not in the Orthodox east. I used to be very influenced by 19th century Romanticism. But, I've come to a change of mind I think. I think that the passionate, the subjective, the perspective-filled, diverse viewpoint is, perhaps the problem. The problem with artistic genius and western art is that it exhalts the artist. Certainly, it can exhalt God as well. However, the tangible artist will always get more praise than the intangible deity. I am beginning to see why the early Christians, on the whole, did not have much use for theatre and for the poets. I don't know. These are just some random thoughts of mine; things running through my mind. I just throw them out here for comment and discussion.

Joe

Gordo,

You are certainly free to use your imagination in your personal prayer life, but the hesychastic approach to the spiritual life -- at least based upon everything that I have read to date -- rejects the use of the imagination because it is seen as a form of self-deception, which opens a man to demonic influence.

That said, I am more than willing to change my present views on the matter if texts from the hesychasts are provided, which show that they do in fact encourage the use of the imagination in prayer.

God bless,
Todd

It should be borne in mind that an icon, like the icon of St. Gregory Palamas that my friends from Franciscan University gave me, is not a mental image. I do not imagine that St. Gregory is present through the icon; instead, he is in fact, really and personally, present through it by divine grace.

Moreover, when I pray I do not sit and focus upon St. Gregory's icon trying to imagine him present in my mind, but instead I try to calm my mind and open myself to the divine energy that is manifest through the icon. It goes without saying that I am not imagining any of this activity (energeia) when I pray before my icon of St. Gregory Palamas.

God bless,
Todd

Joe,

As always, your thoughts are appreciated.

My response is: I wholeheartedly agree! The distinction I am making is between the memory of an icon (an image that makes an impression on the memory that can be recalled through imagination) and the practice of fantasizing about something that has no reference to a canonical image or a text of the Gospel. It would seem to me that the prayer of the Church encourages the former but discourages the latter. I understand that Todd is saying that St. Gregory wants hesychasts to exercise self-discipline to keep the images out of prayer, but to me it would seem to be an effort on par with disincarnating myself if I were to say that no mental image has a place in prayer. Again, I think he is warning against something more akin to "private revelation".

Your reference to poets is interesting, but as a devotee of St. Ephrem the Syrian, the Harp of the Holy Spirit, I'm not sure I agree completely. His imagery and poetry is amazing and uplifting. Perhaps that is not what you are referring to, though.

I saw an icon with an e-mail address on it once. Apart from the general "tackyness" of such a thing, are we now to assume that "hotmail" has entered the eternal realms of the heavenly kingdom?!?

Gordo

Todd,

I agree with the objective sacramental reality of the icon. It is not merely a tool to create a subjective experience in my imagination, but rather a grace-filled means of personal encounter.


Beautifully said. But take my example of being on the plane, for instance. In the process of recollecting myself after a usually hectic schedule that begins at 4:00am, I sometimes root my mind on the image in my home, recalling the icons of the Mother of God or the Crucifixion that I have on my wall. At other times I may remember a passage or event from the Gospel. I see this as an aid to move into prayer, especially when all I see around me are the backs of heads and seat cushions. Afterwards I move into the Jesus Prayer. I fail to see how something like that is potentially spiritually harmful to the soul. Again, I also wonder whether you might be misinterpreting St. Gregory for the reasons I mentioned above (his reference to "within and without" particularly when applied to prayer with icons).

I think it would be helpful to hear from monastics here who practice this type of prayer.

In ICXC,

Gordo

Gordo,

The problem as I see (a problem which you have not so far addressed) is that the holy hesychasts never encourage the use of the imagination in prayer, and even more importantly they actively warn against its use.

Now, as I said earlier, if you can show that many of the hesychastic saints encouraged the use of the imagination in prayer, that would go a long way toward overcoming the gap between Eastern and Western mysticism.

God bless,
Todd

Todd,

Setting aside my own experience (which I acknowledge to be the standard for nothing really) what of my questioning of your interpretation of St. Gregory in this case? What if what is excluded from hesychast practices are images created in the imagination (and not memories per se) or even images that appear apart from any volition whatsoever (as is the case in private revelation)? It seems that that is a possible interpretation.

Take for instance the creative work of the iconographer. It is generally regarded that the act of "writing" the image is itself a form of prayer, immersed in prayer, and the inspired fruit of a holy encounter between the saint and the artist in the context of the Church. In many ways he is translating the memory of the Church onto the board, but the individual shapes and colors may only exist in his mind. At some point, the image itself must exist in the mind of the iconographer as a mental image, informed as he might be by the writings of the saint, earlier images, liturgical writings, etc etc. Is he or she thus in violation of hesychastic practice by not shunning these images, but instead even causing it to materialize in the visible form of the icon to be venerated by others for generations? I think that this especially applies with the writing of an icon of a new saint where no canonical iconographical tradition exists for that particular saint.

Again, I am not talking about "inventing" something in one's mind that did not exist already in the memory of the Church.

In ICXC,

Gordo

Consider the following quote from the begining of the same work that begins this thread:


Because we are in a fallen state we have to approach our imagination with care. The hesycast spirituality seeks to bring about the purification, which allows spiritual intelligence to blossom. It can not be reconcilled with a spirituality that focuses on immagination, nor should any attempt be made to do so.

Since, hesycastic prayer does not have as its end result a written icon, the arguenment for imagination from the production of icons does not follow. It is indeed interesting that icons co-exist with a spiriutality that warns firmly aginst the use of imagination. However,icons themselves are not the product of mere imagination and do not merely represent an image of someone, but render that person truely present, which is why when you pray you go beyond the image in the icon.

The reason that use of imagination and images are forbidden in prayer is because images may mislead you, because the source of images can be demonic rather than divine. The beginer is more easily mislead, and that is why they must be purified. Part of this purification process is removing the intrusions of the imagination in prayer.

Rosemary

Rosemary, well said. John Calvin called the mind an "idol factory." I think that on this point he was in touch with the fathers. There is even warning against making mental images in St. Teresa of Avila and St. John of the Cross. I've heard that among western spiritualities, the Carmelite is the closest to the byzantine. I would think that the Ignatian (of Loyola) might be about the furthest.

Joe

Gordo, you are right that I wasn't thinking of St. Ephrem's poetry at all, nor of the Liturgy. I was thinking of the pagan poets. And while some of the classically educated church fathers appreciated the pagan poets, they generally discouraged people from reading them, at least until they were sufficiently instructed. I also think that the image in iconography is not something that is conjured by the creative imagination. The iconographer takes pains to make the icon on non-subjective as possible. The idea is that there should be no distinction among iconographers. One shouldn't compare the work of one iconographer vs. another and compare the artists.

Joe

[quote=JSMelkiteOrthodoxy
Rosemary, well said. John Calvin called the mind an "idol factory." I think that on this point he was in touch with the fathers. There is even warning against making mental images in St. Teresa of Avila and St. John of the Cross. I've heard that among western spiritualities, the Carmelite is the closest to the byzantine. I would think that the Ignatian (of Loyola) might be about the furthest.

Joe [/quote]

St. John of the Cross also said something to the effect, that if Mary appears to you, you should ignore her. If it is really Mary, she will understand.

It is an imporant reminder that the hesycasts alone do not warn against images. Thanks Joe.

Rosemary

Rosemary and Joe,

Thank you for your comments.

Joe, I agree with your point about the effort of the iconographer to make his work as non-subjective as possible. And Rosemary I agree with your point that the source or inspiration of the image is not the iconographer's imagination. Hence my earlier point that his effort is to convey in one sense the memory of the Church vis-a-vis the saint or the event.

That being said, the image must somehow be formed in the mind of the iconographer (from multiple sources - Church teaching, writings of the saint, the Church's prayer, previous icons, etc) before it makes its way to the board. And iconography is in fact a form of prayer canonized by the Church. Are we to assume that the form of prayer is in opposition to hesychasm? Does a monastic, for instance, who is an iconographer suddenly shed his practice of hesychasm in order to write an icon? That certainly would seem incongruous.

I would even go so far as to say that all prayer is in fact iconographical in the sense that we are made in the image and likeness of God. God continually fathers and forms us, healing the image and perfecting the likeness. (I have spoken with iconographers who sense God fathering them through the icon as they write it. Amazing!)

The bottom line is that I still believe the issue is not the memory of the image (formed by the Word of God in Scripture-Tradition or in an Icon) but rather the creative fantasizing that is a temptation in early stages of prayer. This is also in keeping with the method of spiritual exegesis where we move from earthly, visible realities to heavenly/spiritual ones. All contemplation, by virtue of the incarnation, must begin with and be rooted in the visible, not the invisible. (Hence Teresa of Avila's warning not to attempt to contemplate the Word prior to the incarnation.) This is also the basis of our sacramental theology.

In ICXC,

Gordo

Gordo,

St. Gregory of Sinai is not talking about some type of "private revelation"; in fact, that concept does not arise at all in the text that I have quoted (which I reread in its entirety this morning). Instead, he is referring to the rise of conceptual images (i.e., imaginings) within a man's intellect, which -- he clearly holds -- must be shunned entirely, even if the image formed is of Christ incarnate. In other words, for St. Gregory the stirrings of the imagination frustrate the noetic stillness that is the focus of hesychastic prayer.

In the Eastern tradition the vision of God is not an intellective act; instead, it is beyond intellect, because God Himself is beyond form and beyond being, which means that He is beyond any epinoetic concept that can arise in a man's mind. The imaginative concepts that the human mind creates, as far as the hesychast is concerned, are self-deceptive and ultimately prevent the union of God and man that is made possible only through the gift of the divine energies in perfect mental stillness.

God bless,
Todd