Introducing Contemplative Studies PDF
Document Details
Uploaded by Deleted User
University of San Diego
2018
Louis Komjathy
Tags
Summary
This book, Introducing Contemplative Studies (2018), by Louis Komjathy from the University of San Diego, offers a first-hand introduction to the emerging interdisciplinary field of Contemplative Studies. It examines contemplative practice, experience, and traditions, featuring contemplative pedagogy, as well as critical analyses of the different approaches taken within the field.
Full Transcript
Introducing Contemplative Studies Introducing Contemplative Studies Louis Komjathy This edition first published 2018 © 2018 John Wiley & Sons Ltd All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any me...
Introducing Contemplative Studies Introducing Contemplative Studies Louis Komjathy This edition first published 2018 © 2018 John Wiley & Sons Ltd All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, except as permitted by law. Advice on how to obtain permission to reuse material from this title is available at http://www.wiley.com/go/permissions. The right of Louis Komjathy to be identified as the author of this work has been asserted in accordance with law. Registered Office(s) John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030, USA John Wiley & Sons Ltd, The Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 8SQ, UK Editorial Office 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford, OX4 2DQ, UK For details of our global editorial offices, customer services, and more information about Wiley products visit us at www.wiley.com. Wiley also publishes its books in a variety of electronic formats and by print‐on‐demand. Some content that appears in standard print versions of this book may not be available in other formats. Limit of Liability/Disclaimer of Warranty While the publisher and authors have used their best efforts in preparing this work, they make no representations or warranties with respect to the accuracy or completeness of the contents of this work and specifically disclaim all warranties, including without limitation any implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. No warranty may be created or extended by sales representatives, written sales materials or promotional statements for this work. The fact that an organization, website, or product is referred to in this work as a citation and/or potential source of further information does not mean that the publisher and authors endorse the information or services the organization, website, or product may provide or recommendations it may make. This work is sold with the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering professional services. The advice and strategies contained herein may not be suitable for your situation. You should consult with a specialist where appropriate. Further, readers should be aware that websites listed in this work may have changed or disappeared between when this work was written and when it is read. Neither the publisher nor authors shall be liable for any loss of profit or any other commercial damages, including but not limited to special, incidental, consequential, or other damages. Library of Congress Cataloging‐in‐Publication Data Name: Komjathy, Louis, 1971– author. Title: Introducing contemplative studies / by Louis Komjathy, University of San Diego. Description: First Edition. | Hoboken : Wiley, 2018. | Includes bibliographical references and index. | Identifiers: LCCN 2017015388 (print) | LCCN 2017034379 (ebook) | ISBN 9781119156697 (cloth) | ISBN 9781119156703 (pbk.) | ISBN 9781119156710 (pdf) | ISBN 9781119156727 (epub) Subjects: LCSH: Contemplation. Classification: LCC BL627 (ebook) | LCC BL627.K66 2017 (print) | DDC 204/.3–dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2017015388 Cover image: “Photograph of river-stone pathway” by Naoki Baba. Japan Country Living: Spirit Tradition Style (Tuttle Publishing, 1993) by Amy Sylvester Katoh. Used with permission. Cover design by Wiley Set in 10.5/13pt Minion by SPi Global, Pondicherry, India 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 “Each day I examine myself in three ways: In doing things for others, have I been disloyal? In interactions with friends, have I been untrustworthy? Have I failed to practice what has been transmitted?” –Zengzi (Master Zeng; ca. 505–435 bce) “The third point is to demand an account of my soul from the moment of rising to that of the present examination, hour by hour or period by period. One’s thoughts should be examined first, then one’s words, and finally one’s actions.” –Ignacio de Loyola (1491–1556) “The purpose of training is to tighten up the slack, toughen the body, and polish the spirit.” –Morihei Ueshiba (1883–1969) “The aim is a person that is organized to move with minimum effort and maximum efficiency, not through muscular strength, but through increased consciousness of how movement works.” –Moshé Feldenkrais (1904–1984) Contents Prefaceix Acknowledgmentsxi List of Figures and Tables xv Abbreviationsxvii Introduction1 1 Contemplative Studies 13 2 Contemplative Practice 51 3 Contemplative Experience 87 4 Contemplative Traditions 123 5 Contemplative Pedagogy 159 6 Interpretive Approaches 201 7 Current Trends 237 8 Future Prospects 275 Glossary311 Bibliography321 Index355 Preface This is the first book‐length introduction to Contemplative Studies. Contemplative Studies is an emerging interdisciplinary field dedicated to research and education on contemplative practice and contemplative expe- rience, including the possible relevance and application to a wide variety of undertakings. It may employ first‐person, second‐person, and third‐person approaches, although “critical first‐person discourse” is a defining characteristic. This exciting, controversial, and potentially subversive field also includes contemplative pedagogy. Contemplative pedagogy is a new experimental and experiential approach to teaching and learning informed by and perhaps expressed as contemplative practice. At once comprehen- sive overview, critical reflection, and visionary proposal, Introducing Contemplative Studies contains eight chapters that cover Contemplative Studies, contemplative practice, contemplative experience, contemplative traditions, contemplative pedagogy, interpretive approaches, current trends, and future prospects. The book not only examines various emerging approaches and related theoretical issues, but also addresses unrecognized problems and potential research trajectories. Along the way, readers will gain a comprehensive and sophisticated understanding of Contemplative Studies and receive encouragement to find their own place in what is increasingly becoming a widespread movement, with contemplative research being conducted from various disciplinary perspectives and con- templative pedagogy being used throughout every level of the American educational system and beyond. Acknowledgments Contemplative Studies inspires reflection on one’s life. It asks one to consider the ways in which commitments are embodied, views enacted, and theories practiced. In fact, it reveals these as interconnected and inseparable. Contemplative Studies explores the diverse and complex expressions of con- templative practice and contemplative experience, including through contemplative inquiry, contemplative consciousness, and contemplative being. It makes space for embodied, lived, and participatory approaches. Such a “way” has always appealed to me, even though I did not have a name for it. Embodied practice, a life beyond mere theory, has informed my life and my work. For me, Contemplative Studies has provided an alternative discourse community, a contemplative space if you will. It has offered and continues to offer a sanctuary from much of academic life that is at odds with my own values, commitments, and deeper interests. I have found myself constantly standing at the proverbial crossroads between contemplative seclusion, the mountain hermitage or monastic community, and contemplative engage- ment, the academy or radical (re)education. As the poet Rainer Maria Rilke tells us, “Sometimes a man stands up during supper/and walks outdoors, and keeps on walking,/because of a church that stands somewhere in the East.” I often wonder whether I am walking away or towards. So, first and foremost, I am grateful to the pioneers of the field and others with similar affinities for opening and tending to such a site. This is a place where actual contemplation, inquiry, interiority, and transforma- tion are possible. Contemplative Studies has allowed me to continue to be in Daoist Studies, without being of Daoist Studies. The latter is small in every sense of the word, and in ways that fail to actually engage Daoism as such. Contemplative Studies has enabled me to share my sustained research on the varieties of Daoist meditation, in both historical and lived expressions, in settings where individuals are actually interested in Daoism. xii Acknowledgments In terms of Religious Studies, it has also provided a venue for exploring my interests in contemplative practice and mystical experience from a comparative and cross‐cultural perspective, but in collaboration and dia- logue with a wider community of individuals. Through interdisciplinarity, deeper and more sophisticated understanding is possible. Contemplative Studies also consists of a community that recognizes the unique contribu- tions of “scholar‐practitioners” and that explores the possibility of a more integrated and holistic way of life. I wish to thank my colleagues and friends in Contemplative Studies, especially members of the Contemplative Studies Group of the American Academy of Religion. They include Thomas Coburn, Andrew Fort, Fran Grace, Anne Klein, Harold Roth, and Judith Simmer‐Brown. I am also appreciative of opportunities to present my approach to and vision for Contemplative Studies in a variety of academic contexts, specifically through formal public lectures and workshops. I am particularly grateful to Harold Roth, the Department of Religious Studies, and the Contemplative Studies Initiative at Brown University, Fran Grace and the Department of Religious Studies at the University of Redlands, and Andrew Fort and Mark Dennis, the Department of Religion at Texas Christian University (TCU), and members of the southwest region of the American Academy of Religion. Like my edited volume Contemplative Literature (2015), the TCU workshop was supported by a grant from the Wabash Center for Teaching and Learning in Theology and Religious Studies as well as a grant from the American Academy of Religion. The present book has also benefited from and been informed by the Conference on Contemplative Studies (2014), which was organized by me and held at the University of San Diego. I am thankful for the support of the Center for Educational Excellence, Center for Inclusion and Diversity, Center for Christian Spirituality, Department of Theology and Religious Studies (THRS), Office of the Dean, and Office of the Provost. Like the TCU workshop, this conference was partially funded by the American Academy of Religion. I am also grateful to my THRS colleagues for their assistance with organization and support of the conference itself. Additionally, I have benefited and received encouragement from other colleagues and friends outside of Contemplative Studies per se. They include Douglas Christie, Mary Frohlich, Aaron Gross, Jeffrey Kripal, Gerard Mannion, and Alberto López Pulido. I also wish to express my gratitude to those who have opposed, disparaged, dismissed, and marginalized my work. While it was difficult at the time, in the end it has become a source of liberation, one in which writing projects like the present one are undertaken Acknowledgments xiii without concern for “critical reception,” “professional repercussions,” and the oft‐stated threat of “professional suicide.” Perhaps Contemplative Studies is one antidote to the trials and tribulations of academic life. Like the great Peng bird in the Zhuangzi (Chuang‐tzu; Book of Master Zhuang), it perhaps offers the possibility of “carefree wandering” and “seeing all things as equal.” The book has also benefited from a life rooted in dedicated contempla- tive practice and involvement with various contemplative communities. This has included attempts to apply a “contemplative approach” to every undertaking, including “dialogic exchange” and “right livelihood.” I would like to thank the many participants who attended the Daoist retreats offered through the Daoist Foundation and other communities. They have listened with attentiveness, inquired with sincerity, and practiced with dedication. I am grateful for a communal space where I may speak freely about Daoist practice from a committed and lived perspective. I am thankful for the moments to simply be who I am. In particular, I wish to thank the Plaza family (Steve, Cheryl, Evan, and Elliott) for helping to establish and main- tain the Gallagher Cove Daoist Association in Olympia, Washington. I am also grateful to community members of the Floating Bridge Daoist Association and Red Bird Lodge. In addition, I have benefited from various “conversations with contem- platives,” from relationships with individuals who have dedicated their lives to following a contemplative path. In particular, I wish to acknowledge an ongoing “inter‐contemplative dialogue” with Beverly Lanzetta of the Community of a New Monastic Way and William Meninger of St. Benedict’s Monastery. As readers will see, this book is rooted in ecumenical, interreli- gious, and even inter‐monastic dialogue. I have also shared many meals and espresso conversations about various dimensions of this book with Frank Biancalana and Susan Cox, and I am grateful to Susan for offering the image that graces the cover of this book. Along these lines, I wish to thank Rebecca Harkin, my editor at Wiley‐ Blackwell, for encouraging this book project, as well as the anonymous readers for their support and helpful suggestions. The book also was improved based on critical comments from Douglas Christie, Andrew Fort, and Harold Roth. Finally, though not last, Kate Townsend, my wife and life partner, has shared many insights and contributed in various undocumented ways. Both personally and professionally, I have benefited from her lifelong prac- tice of meditation and involvement in complementary alternative medicine and movement studies. There’s a science to walking through windows and a light that will never go out. Let’s not try to figure out everything at once. List of Figures and Tables Figures 0.1 Mountain path 10 1.1 Contemplative Studies as interdisciplinary field 20 1.2 Cultural influences on the emergence of Contemplative Studies 25 1.3 Contemplative Studies as expressed by the Center for Contemplative Mind in Society and the Mind & Life Institute 34 2.1 The Tree of Contemplative Practices 62 2.2 Dimensions of praxis 63 2.3 Kōdō Sawaki (1880–1965) practicing Zazen 68 2.4 Examples of religiously committed contemplative practices 74 2.5 Primary decontextualized and reconceptualized practices in Contemplative Studies 76 2.6 Major secular and ecumenical practices in Contemplative Studies 77 3.1 (a) Aikido throw; (b) Moshé Feldenkrais practicing functional integration106 4.1 Novices entering the Carthusian Order at Grande Chartreuse (Saint-Pierre-de-Chartreuse, France) 129 4.2 Simonopetra Monastery (Mount Athos, Greece) 131 4.3 Shinto misogi ritual at Tsubaki Grand Shrine of America (Granite Falls, Washington) 139 5.1 Children meditating at the Instilling Goodness Elementary School (Ukiah, California) 171 5.2 Examples of contemplative exercises utilized in contemplative higher education 186 5.3 Everything (2004) by Guillermo Kuitca (b.1961) 187 5.4 Detail of Everything188 5.5 Floating Rocks by John Daido Loori (1931–2009) 188 xvi List of Figures and Tables 6.1 Detail of Mengxian caotang tu (Dreaming of Immortality in a Thatched Hut) by Tang Yin (1470–1523) 208 6.2 Contemplative Studies as interdisciplinary field 210 6.3 Cover image from the program book for Conference on Contemplative Studies 213 6.4 Four aspects of the study of religion 216 6.5 Laban Movement Analysis 220 7.1 Self-immolation of Thich Quang Duc, 1963 240 7.2 Statistical analysis of International Symposium for Contemplative Studies 2012 242 7.3 Mindfulness journal publications by year, 1980–2015 246 7.4 Tibetan Buddhist monk engaging in technological meditation 251 8.1 Reconsidering critical subjectivity 291 8.2 Chicano Park Takeover (Logan Heights, San Diego) 292 8.3 “Tank Man” near Tiananmen Square (Beijing, China), 1989 298 8.4 Monkey in captivity 304 Tables 2.1 Major types of contemplative practice 56 3.1 Comparative table of contemplative states and stages 103 Abbreviations AAR American Academy of Religion abbrev. abbreviated ACMHE Association for Contemplative Mind in Higher Education Arb. Arabic b. born bce Before the Common Era ca. circa CAD critical adherent discourse ce Common Era Chn. Chinese CMind Center for Contemplative Mind in Society CS Contemplative Studies. Also abbreviated as COST CSI Contemplative Studies Initiative of Brown University CSG Contemplative Studies Group of the American Academy of Religion CSW Contemplative Studies Website dat. dated d.u. dates unknown est. established Ger. German Gk. Greek Heb. Hebrew ICD inter‐contemplative dialogue ICS Introducing Contemplative Studies ISCS International Symposium for Contemplative Studies Jpn. Japanese Lat. Latin MLI Mind & Life Institute xviii Abbreviations n.d. no date pers. comm. personal communication pl. plural PLC Professional Learning Community Skt. Sanskrit Tib. Tibetan trans. translated Introduction Here is the first book‐length introduction to Contemplative Studies (CS; COST), which is an emerging interdisciplinary field dedicated to research and education on contemplative practice and contemplative experience, including the possible relevance and application to a wide variety of under takings. Contemplative practice, especially meditation, in a modern context has become embraced by people of every possible persuasion and social loca tion. There are now contemplatives and contemplative communities that are both rooted in and independent of more encompassing religious traditions. Contemplative Studies aims to study and understand these and related phenomena. Contemplative research is now being conducted from various disciplinary perspectives, and contemplative pedagogy is being used throughout every level of the American educational system and beyond. Given the recent pedigree of Contemplative Studies, which formally emerged in the early 2000s and only became fully established in the last five years or so, this book may be seen as a strange and complex undertaking. It attempts to describe a field that, in a certain sense, only exists in a nascent form and approximate expressions. So, it could be argued that I am creating a field, rather than describing one. While I do not believe this, it is a legiti mate concern, and perhaps a viable criticism. My decision to write the present book involved a great amount of reflection, not to mention wide‐ranging research, and it was not undertaken lightly. My intention is rooted in both a strong conviction in the importance of the field, including its transformative potential in various areas of inquiry, and an aspira tion to move the field forward. It might be seen as a contemplative exercise in itself, both in terms of its expression and its engagement. It offers opportunities Introducing Contemplative Studies, First Edition. Louis Komjathy. © 2018 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Published 2018 by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. 2 Introduction for reflection and challenges for clarification, and perhaps even inspiration for participation and adaptation. My own process of writing resulted in some serious reservations and identification of areas requiring revision. Initially, I had imagined a book that might be comparable to Francis X. Clooney’s Comparative Theology (2010a), also published by Wiley‐Blackwell as an introduction to the associated field. However, these areas of inquiry are radically different, including in terms of origins, development, interests, and expressions. Clooney had, moreover, been a founding figure and primary exponent of the field for almost 20 years when he wrote that book. He had even witnessed the emergence of the “next generation” of compara tive theologians, some of whom were trained by Clooney himself. In the present case, representatives of Contemplative Studies are still establishing the parameters of the field, discussing definitional issues, developing criti cal lexicons, exploring interpretive approaches, and working to create viable models and programs. Generally speaking, we have yet to see more critical engagements and “meta” reflections, ones attentive to various unquestioned assumptions, ingrained opinions, and unrecognized biases. Thus, the pre sent book is at once comprehensive overview, critical reflection, and visionary proposal, with the latter dimension being particularly proble matic. In a field that is only emerging, and still requiring reflective revision, how can one offer a “new vision”? One answer is that involvement with the field and thinking through its current expressions and underdeveloped possibilities opens up new vistas, if only vaguely perceived at the present moment. Nonetheless, other CS representatives probably would have written different accounts, and this presentation may be unrecognizable to some. In fact, I am aware that parts of my account will no doubt be disturb ing, and may disturb the apparent “stability” of the field. While it contains critical reflections, it is primarily intended to establish a more viable and convincing, more sophisticated and integrated field. This is one in which the foundations are solid and may endure. The book is informed by my involvement as a participating member in the field for about eight years. During this time, I helped to establish the Contemplative Studies Group of the American Academy of Religion (2010), of which I am the founding co‐chair. I have also been working to create an interdisciplinary program and center of Contemplative Studies. This work has involved a variety of on‐campus public lectures on contemplative educa tion, collaborative relationships with colleagues, as well as participation in the Contemplative Pedagogy Professional Learning Community (PLC) at the University of San Diego. It has also raised questions about Contemplative Introduction 3 Studies undertaken at a religiously affiliated (“sectarian” or “church‐based”) university, specifically one with Roman Catholic commitments. I see this as a unique institutional location in the larger field, one in which religious practice, religious values, and theological inquiry are acceptable and com patible.1 As mentioned in the acknowledgments, I have also had the good fortune to present my views and approach at various universities and in the associated CS programs. The opportunity to discuss the field with faculty, students, and participants over informal meals and coffee/tea meetings has clarified my perspective. Along these lines, I have benefited from various “colleagues” who expressed reservations and constantly pointed out the “problematic,” even “dangerous,” nature of the field, all the while avoiding reflection on their own biases.2 More importantly, this account has been informed by my participation in the Cultural Histories of Meditation conference (2010) through the University of Oslo, the first International Symposium for Contemplative Studies (2012) through the Mind & Life Institute, and the Ninth Annual Summer Session on Contemplative Pedagogy (2013) through the Association for Contemplative Mind in Higher Education of the Center for Contemplative Mind in Society. In short, I have had at least some experience with most of the major CS gatherings. This is not to mention attendance of many public lectures by key CS representa tives. However, I attended not simply as a participant, but also as an ethnog rapher, as a “participant-observer.” Readers will, in turn, find various “field observations” in my account. Such a “meta” approach was partially encour aged by Clifford Saron of the University of California, Davis, who himself has expressed reservations about the popular construction of “mindfulness” and invocation of the supposed “scientific benefits of meditation.” In his own words, “Science is inherently contemplative. But discussions of the ‘neuro science of meditation’ often obscure the profundity of both neuroscience and meditation” (pers. comm.). Finally, this book draws upon my role as the principal organizer of the Conference on Contemplative Studies (2014), which was held at the University of San Diego. As discussed in subsequent chapters, this conference was my attempt to foster a truly interdisciplinary approach and ideally to provide a model for further collaboration. Like the present book, it aspired to encourage greater engagement and integration. Herein I have worked hard to present a relatively descriptive, inclusive, and neutral account. I have attempted to recognize and honor the contribu tions of various expressions of the field, among individuals, organizations, programs, and other activities. That is, I have endeavored to avoid privileging any specific expression, including my own. I also am not endorsing any 4 Introduction individuals, organizations, programs, approaches, or practices. Individuals must follow their own affinities and discernment, and ideally formal training, in determining what is appropriate. While one finds self‐serving and self‐justifying narratives in certain recent publications, ones in which the associated project is framed as “authoritative” or “representative,” the field of Contemplative Studies is diverse, decentralized, and experimental. There is no single or dominant model or authority, although there are some influential expressions, recurring patterns, and emerging trends. Thus, any attempt to discuss the field requires attentiveness and may prove problematic, if not wholly flawed. We are, nonetheless, in need of a comprehensive, repre sentative, and integrated discussion of the field, including a “generous reading” and “critical evaluation” of the contributions and limitations of its various expressions. This is what Introducing Contemplative Studies (ICS) aspires to do. While I have endeavored to be relatively neutral, especially in my initial presentation of a given articulation, I am not neutral with respect to my own positionality and participation. Thus I should be clear about my own interests and commitments, ones that have at least partially influenced my presentation. Perhaps in a manner paralleling the confessional method ology utilized by certain theologians, one in which “self‐contextualization” is involved, some reference to my own location and views is in order. This may be seen as an expression of the “critical subjectivity” that Contemplative Studies explores and often advocates. I am a teacher‐scholar of Daoist Studies and Religious Studies. As such, I am concerned about the privileging of Buddhism and the lack of attention to “underrepresented contemplative traditions” in Contemplative Studies. I envi sion a “non‐Buddhocentric field.” I am also primarily interested in what I refer to as “religiously committed” and “tradition‐based” contemplative practice, including attentiveness to dedicated and prolonged as well as holistic and integrated contemplative practice. This includes recognition of soteriological and theological dimensions. Such a comparative and cross‐cultural approach is more fully expressed in my edited volume Contemplative Literature: A Comparative Sourcebook on Meditation and Contemplative Prayer (2015),3 which might also be engaged as a companion to the present introduction. In addition to a comparative Religious Studies approach, that work utilizes a his torical contextualist and textual methodology, including literary translation. In contrast, the present book aspires to be rooted in the interdisciplinary field of Contemplative Studies beyond my location in Religious Studies. Nonetheless, I am disturbed by certain tendencies in the larger field, including cognitive imperialism and spiritual colonialism (see Roth 2008; Komjathy 2015). I am Introduction 5 also concerned about the banalization, commodification, and corporatization of contemplative practice, patterns that fail to engage the radical challenges and insights of contemplative t raditions. Along these lines, in addition to rec ognizing secular and spiritualist engagements, we need scholars to research such “new religious movements,” including the Mindfulness Movement. From these comments, readers can probably gather that I believe that Religious Studies has unique contributions to make, and it is telling that so few scholars are consulted, included, or highlighted at major CS gatherings. They/we might help to explain why the field is being constructed in the ways that it is. One major issue here involves the assumptions and misconceptions of indi viduals outside of Religious Studies, which is also sometimes referred to as the History of Religion or Religionswissenschaft (Science of Religion). Religious Studies designates the academic study of religion. It is generally characterized by a comparative, descriptive, interdisciplinary, non‐normative, objective, and theoretical approach. That is, in contrast to common misrepresenta tions, Religious Studies is not catechetical (religious education). Generally speaking, Religious Studies contrasts with, and emerged as a response to, the discipline of Theology (Christian Theology), which tends to involve adherent/insider discourse. That is, Religious Studies tends to be about religion, while Theology tends to be of or from religion. In the larger field of Contemplative Studies, one often finds not only rudimentary under standing of religious traditions, but also problematic views of “religion.” The latter is especially associated with dogmatism, evangelism, sectari anism, and similar tendencies. Thus, paralleling major trends in the larger American society, “religion” is often seen as the “root problem” for peace and progress. One might, in turn, analyze Contemplative Studies in terms of (different) patterns of adherence. We will return to the critical engage ment with religion, specifically the relationship between contemplative practice and religious adherence/commitment, in the pages that follow. Throughout the present book, observant readers will also note a strong emphasis on “contextualization,” that is, the process of locating people, texts, movements, and other phenomena in their corresponding historical, cultural, social, and political circumstances. From my perspective, this involves contextualizing not only “data‐sets,” but also the field itself and its various expressions. That said, while I am a “contextualist” with respect to interpreta tion, I am not a “constructivist,” at least not in a strong sense, with respect to consciousness. I bring attention to this interpretive approach and commit ment because the two are often conflated, and my work has sometimes been misunderstood. Contextualism simply recognizes various influences on 6 Introduction a given phenomenon, including one’s life. Constructivism usually utilizes a specific view of consciousness and suggests that mediation is always involved. It is often presented as a form of “postmodern” and “deconstructionist” discourse, rooted in hyper‐relativism, in which human consciousness is thoroughly conditioned and limited, in which every insight and experience is completely constructed. From a contemplative perspective, contextualism reveals the embedded and relational nature of contemplative practice, while constructivism suggests that human being is inherently limited and overdetermined. Unlike constructivism, contextualism does not neces sarily preclude the possibility of “liberation,” or even the possibility that context‐specific (e.g., community‐specific and tradition‐specific) contem plative practice could be a source of liberation. It is not mere conditioning and enculturation; de‐automatization and deconditioning are possible. This relates to contemplative practices as rooted in and expressions of distinct soteriological systems, ones in which emphasis is placed on actual ization, liberation, perfection, realization, salvation, or some other ultimate purpose of human existence. In short, I accept that there is a “possibility of being” and “psychology of realization” at work in contemplative systems. Here I should also add that I am a comparativist, particularist, and pluralist. I am not a perennialist. The latter position, common throughout Contemplative Studies, claims that contemplative practice has a shared set of characteristics and aspirations, or at least that experientially it is “about the same thing.” There is an imagined singular goal. As a view of religion, and of contemplative experience by extension, perennialism utilizes an assumed monotheistic or monistic theology. It believes that reality is singular in nature. In contrast, I place emphasis on diversity and difference. In fact, I believe that deep and sophisticated engagement with contemplative traditions reveals mutually exclusive, equally convincing accounts of “reality.” Contemplatives and contemplative communities, and members of any culture more generally, inhabit different worlds, at least cognitively speaking. In theological terms, one is confronted with diversity and plurality. It is possible that different contemplative practices derive from, orient one toward, and/or lead to expe riences of different realities. That is, reality may be plural rather than singular, multiple rather than unified. A contemplative approach to being and living might thus be expressed as a deeper commitment to comparative theology and interreligious dialogue, as an acceptance of multiculturalism and reli gious pluralism that is both committed and open (see Simmer‐Brown 1999; Komjathy 2015). While exclusivism perhaps manifests in opposition and violence, in a drive toward subjugation and extermination of other, and while Introduction 7 inclusivism perhaps manifests in collaboration and harmony but perhaps through domestication, homogenization, and convergence, pluralism views diversity and actual difference as beneficial. In place of the potential mono culture of exclusivism and inclusivism, pluralism accepts a world character ized by wildness, biodiversity, and symbiotic relationships. The comparative engagement with contemplative practice and contemplative experience thus need not require cognitive annihilation or transcendence of difference. It may, rather, require complete acceptance of difference. Returning to my own identity, I am also a Daoist (Taoist) scholar‐practi tioner and an ordained Daoist priest, specifically of the Huashan (Mount Hua) lineage of Quanzhen (Complete Perfection) Daoism.4 In terms of personal practice, I have engaged in holistic and integrated Daoist training for over 20 years, including consistent meditation practice. For the last 10 years, I have taught Daoist practices in a variety of contexts, including formal community retreats, personal spiritual direction, and ecumenical venues. Thus, I believe that consideration of religiously committed and tradition‐based practice is important not only from an “academic” perspective, but also from an embodied, lived, and participatory perspective. It relates to my own commit ments. I believe that scholar‐practitioners like myself have unique contribu tions to make. Specifically, they/we offer perspectives in which practice informs theory, and vice versa. At times, this involves “theorizing from the inside out.” The present work is rooted in such postcolonial and postmodern views, although autobiography is perhaps underutilized. The latter inhibition is partially informed by the Daoist values of anonymity, circumspection, deference, and discretion. It is rooted in the Daoist emphasis on “abiding in obscurity” and “remaining hidden,” although I have clearly faltered. Not to worry—there are many other deficiencies as well. In terms of Daoist adher ence, I in turn have major reservations about secular and spiritualist engagements with so‐called “Eastern religions” and “wisdom traditions.” These frequently disempower, exclude, and marginalize actual adherents and representatives of the source-traditions, with the latter seen as “resources.” They frequently create what I refer to as “surrogates of tradition.” Such critical views are based upon my own observations of popular Western constructions of Daoism. They parallel similar “engagements” with respect to Buddhism in general and Tibetan and Zen Buddhism in particular, though there seems to be more adherent and academic complicity there. Colonialist, missionary, and Orientalist legacies are involved. Stated positively, religious adherents and religious communities, especially contemplative ones utilizing what I refer to as “critical adherent discourse” (CAD), may offer radical insights and radical 8 Introduction challenges. I see these as extending to questions about aesthetics, community, embodiment, geography, and so forth. As someone with neo‐Luddite ten dencies, I am also interested in the possibility of contemplative‐being‐in‐the‐ world as an alternative and potential remedy to digital identity, technological mediation, and virtual reality, with their accompanying dislocations, mass dis traction, and ecological distortions/disruptions. I see so‐called social media as a death knell for actual, lived community and a major contributing factor in the loss of humanity. Contemplative systems and contemplative traditions point toward the transformative potential of contemplative practice. I would thus like to see greater inclusion of religiously committed and tradition‐based contemplatives in the field. Then, perhaps, Contemplative Studies may actually be Contemplative Studies, a field not only interested in contemplative practice, but also informed by contemplative practice. Thus, if I had written this book from my disciplinary and committed perspective, it would have been a very different work. Instead, I have aspired to write a book about the field and for the field. This means that Religious Studies is only one disciplinary approach, that Daoism is only one contem plative tradition, and that religiously committed meditation, including Daoist meditation, is only type or style of contemplative practice. I have endeavored to map the field in an ecumenical, interdisciplinary, multi‐ perspectival, and pluralistic manner. I have endeavored to envision the field in its fullest p ossible expression, including the contributions and limita tions of different approaches. I have worked to understand the field in a comprehensive and integrated way, a way that includes marginalized and underrepresented viewpoints. Perhaps the book may be seen as a contem plative inquiry, pointing toward the possibility of contemplative being and a more contemplative field. The book consists of eight chapters, which cover Contemplative Studies, contemplative practice, contemplative experience, contemplative traditions, contemplative pedagogy, interpretive approaches, current trends, and future prospects. Chapter 1 explores Contemplative Studies as an emerging interdis ciplinary field, provides a preliminary history of the field, examines programs, organizations, and venues, and discusses critical issues in the field. Chapter 2 covers contemplative practice in terms of terminology and characteristics, types of contemplative practice, dimensions of contemplative practice, and prominent methods. In Chapter 3, I focus on contemplative experience through attention to the meaning of “experience,” varieties of c ontemplative experience, the possibility of being and psychologies of realization, and dark nights and spiritual emergencies. Chapter 4 considers contemplative traditions by exploring the notions of tradition, traditioning, and traditionalization, Introduction 9 contemplative traditions themselves, contemplative strains of religious traditions, and “emerging traditions.” Chapter 5 investigates contemplative pedagogy by considering teaching and learning, contemplative pedagogy itself, approaches and courses, and actual contemplative exercises. In Chapter 6, I examine interpretive approaches with particular attention to contextualization and identity, interdisciplinarity and multidisciplinarity, approaches to contemplative practice, and approaches to contemplative expe rience. Chapter 7 covers current trends in terms of power, prestige, and privilege, “therapeutic meditation” and “contemplative science,” meditation as a new religious movement, and cognitive imperialism and spiritual colo nialism. The final chapter explores future prospects by considering “the depth dimension,” the meaning and potential meaning of “contemplative” in Contemplative Studies, autoethnography, alterity, and intersubjectivity, and contemplative resistance and contemplative engagement. Each chapter also contains a variety of aids for increasing engagement and understanding, including charts, images, and text boxes. The book also includes a glossary of key basic terms for Contemplative Studies. A more complete glossary appears in my edited volume Contemplative Literature (2015). Both of these are intended to assist members of the field in developing a “critical lexicon.” The book is intended for anyone interested in understanding Contemplative Studies, whether from a participant, sympathetic, or even critical perspective. I imagine that CS educators, scholars, and students will find a variety of opportunities for clarification and reflection. I also hope that, in addition to being read individually and communally, the book will become a textbook for introductions to and gateway courses in CS programs. With this in mind, I wish to apologize for moments that might appear to be self‐promotional. At times I use my own work and experiences as examples of critical subjectivity and in hopes of advancing the field. I also point toward alternative models along the way. I would, moreover, ask for forgiveness from those whose lives and work are not recognized, or with which I am not familiar. I also welcome direct communications about omissions or inaccuracies. In a book like this, there are bound to be deficiencies, misrepresentations, and oversights. This is indeed a risk. Given the complexity and diversity of the field of Contemplative Studies, the writing of this book has been a humbling experience. I have dis covered just how much more there is to know and to be done, and the book will no doubt require future editions. In transitioning to explore the landscape of Contemplative Studies, perhaps we might benefit from understanding the inquiry as following a mountain path (see Figure 0.1). In addition to finding fellow travelers as well as unexpected flora, fauna, and vistas, we may welcome chance encounters 10 Introduction Figure 0.1 Mountain path. This is a photograph of Morskie Oko, a lake located high in the Tatra Mountains of Poland. Photograph by Sara Filipa Delić (National Geographic). Source: Reproduced with kind permission of Sara Filipa Delić. with contemplatives and contemplative communities who share their insights. These may, perhaps, remind us that contemplative practice is often rooted in interiority, seclusion, and a sense of place. It is often rooted in an orientation and aspiration toward something more. Perhaps we may benefit from engagement with actual contemplatives and mountain hermits living in seclusion from the world of mundane concerns. As expressed by the Chinese poet Hanshan (Cold Mountain; fl. ninth century ce), whose name refers to his mountain residence and his own contemplative distance, I climb the road to Cold Mountain, The road to Cold Mountain that never ends. The valleys are long and strewn with stones; The stream broad and banked with thick grass. Moss is slippery, though no rain has fallen; Pines sigh, but it isn’t the wind. Who can break from the snares of the world And sit with me among the white clouds? (Translated by Burton Watson) Introduction 11 Notes 1 At the same time, as discussed more fully in Chapter 5 and paralleling other CS program originators and coordinators, I have also met with various forms of resistance. This has included Catholic Christian anti‐ecumenical, exclusivist, and supremacist backlash. Such patterns stand in contrast to more common ones, which are rooted in secular materialism and social constructivism. 2 Here it should also be mentioned that various senior members of the field, who will remain unnamed, were offered the opportunity to read and comment on this book. They declined on a variety of grounds. Thus, my commitment to collaboration and dialogic exchange included invitations for critical feedback. 3 This edited volume is the first theoretically informed and historically accurate cross‐cultural anthology of primary texts on meditation and contemplative prayer. It includes chapters on a wide variety of contemplative practices and contemplative traditions written by international experts. Thus, although I often cite it as “Komjathy 2015,” readers should recognize the collaborative and multivocal nature of the publication. 4 See Komjathy (2011a, 2011b, 2016a, 2017b); also Palmer and Siegler (2017). Both “Daoism” and “Taoism” refer to the same indigenous Chinese and now global religion. Dao, Daoist, Daoism derive from the Pinyin Romanization system, while Tao, Taoist, Taoism derive from the Wade‐Giles Romanization system. For introductions to the Daoist tradition, see Komjathy (2013b, 2014a). On Quanzhen Daoism, see Komjathy (2007, 2013a). 1 Contemplative Studies Contemplative Studies (CS; COST) is an emerging interdisciplinary field dedicated to research and education on contemplative practice and con- templative experience, including the possible relevance and application to a wide variety of undertakings. As it is still in its formative moments, being expressed in various ways, the parameters of the field invite explo- ration and are open to debate. In the present chapter, I begin with an overview of the field in which emphasis is placed on defining characteris- tics. This is followed by a “meta‐history” of the field, including critical reflection on cultural influences and emerging trends. Next, I discuss important programs, organizations, and venues. Here I highlight some examples as models and opportunities for reflection. The chapter con- cludes with reflection on critical issues in the field as currently expressed. An Emerging Interdisciplinary Field Contemplative Studies is an emerging interdisciplinary field dedicated to research and education on contemplative practice and contemplative experience,1 including the possible relevance and application to a wide variety of undertakings. It may employ first‐person, second‐person, and third‐person approaches, although “critical first‐person discourse” is a defining characteristic. In short, Contemplative Studies represents a paradigm shift, a new model for research and education. There are some parallels and overlapping concerns with other fields of inquiry, such as consciousness studies, mysticism studies, neuroscience, psychology, Religious Studies, and so forth. Individuals familiar Introducing Contemplative Studies, First Edition. Louis Komjathy. © 2018 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Published 2018 by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. 14 Contemplative Studies with or located within religious traditions, especially the contemplative expres- sions of Christianity, might think that “Contemplative Studies” refers to the study and practice of contemplation, but the name is increasingly being used to designate the emerging field, the “contemplative movement.” Contemplative practice and contemplative experience are the primary focus and shared interest. As explored more fully in subsequent chapters, “contemplative prac- tice” is a larger umbrella category; it encompasses approaches and practices more commonly referred to as “meditation,” “prayer,” and cognate disciplines. Contemplative practice refers to various approaches, disciplines, and methods for developing attentiveness, awareness, compassion, concentration, presence, wisdom, and the like. Possible connective strands or family resemblances include attentiveness, awareness, interiority, presence, silence, transformation, and a deepened sense of meaning and purpose (see Komjathy 2015). Such prac- tices include not only religiously committed and tradition‐based methods, but also ecumenical, spiritualist, and secular ones. Recognizing but even going beyond modern movement awareness practices, members of Contemplative Studies tend to understand “contemplative practice” in terms of a specific approach, an approach that may be applied to and expressed in almost any activity. This includes art, dance, writing, photography, research, teaching, theatre, walking, and so forth.2 That is, as discussed below, the “interdisciplinary” or “multidisciplinary,” even “transdisciplinary,” dimension of Contemplative Studies may include almost any undertaking, area of interest, or field of inquiry. Along these lines, Contemplative Studies concerns itself with “contemplative experience,” or experiences that occur within the context of contemplative prac- tice, are associated with particular contemplative practices, and/or are deemed significant by contemplatives and related communities. The field is also closely connected with “contemplative pedagogy,” or teaching and learning informed by and perhaps expressed as contemplative practice. While these are sometimes conflated, Contemplative Studies, in my way of thinking, encompasses contem- plative pedagogy; contemplative pedagogy is one expression of Contemplative Studies, perhaps, albeit, an essential one. Although the parameters of this exciting, controversial, and potentially subversive field are still being established, we may identify a specific esprit de corps (“spirit of body”), gestalt (“shape”/“form”), and zeitgeist (“spirit of the age”). It also involves a “paradigm shift” (see Kuhn 1996). One key characteristic and generally shared commitment is contemplative practice. Contemplative Studies involves, perhaps requires, practice. We may refer to this dimension of Contemplative Studies as “practice commitment.” For this type of inquiry to be fully successful, individuals need to have direct Contemplative Studies 15 experience with personal contemplative practice. One critically investigates one’s personal experience, whether psychological or somatic, in the context of one’s own actual practice. This includes recognition of embodied, lived, sociopolitical, and other layers of practice and experience. We may refer to this second key characteristic as “critical subjectivity,” or “critical first‐ person discourse” (Roth 2006, 2008). As first described by the Dutch psy- chologist Han de Wit in his influential Contemplative Psychology (1991), Psychology of religion, “of ” being used in the conventional sense of “about,” is a form of what is nowadays called third‐person psychology. Psychology in the third‐person is about other people, about “him” or “her” or “them”; it has other people as its object of study … Contemplative psychology, however, focuses rather strongly on personal experience as it occurs to me or us. While also accepting the approach of a third‐person psychology, contemplative psy- chology comprises a first‐person psychology and methodology that includes subjectivity or “private experience.” (31–32, italics in original) We will return to psychological approaches to Contemplative Studies and the concept of “experience” later. For the moment, we may note that this line of inquiry is not just knowledge about, but knowledge of and from (see also Forman 1993, 1998; Komjathy 2016a, 2016b, 2017a). The practical and expe- riential dimension of the field is one area of discomfort for more conserva- tive individuals, including some educators and scholars. Rightfully so. In addition to practice commitment and critical subjectivity, members of the field generally recognize and emphasize the beneficial and transformative effects of contemplative practice. These extend from positive psychosomatic changes to forms of sociopolitical engagement and application, including action directed toward increased peace and social justice. The latter may involve concern for the alleviation of suffering, even extended to animal wel- fare. That is, there is an ethical and social, or at least an existential and psychological, dimension. We may refer to this third characteristic of Contemplative Studies as “character development.”3 Given such commit- ments, it is legitimate to question the informing motivations, rationales, agendas, and the like. As discussed below, these are often sources of concern for potential critics, though the latter’s discomfort may increase considerably when the gaze is reversed to illuminate their own unrecognized biases as well as larger social forces and institutional structures, including issues of access, discrimination, power, privilege, and so forth (see Chapter 7). In any case, some generally shared values of members of the field include awareness, empathy, interiority, presence, reflection, silence, wisdom, and of course 16 Contemplative Studies appreciation of the beneficial and transformative influences of contempla- tive practice itself (see Chapter 3). Individuals familiar with ancient Hellenistic culture and the monastic foundations of the university may hear echoes here (see, e.g., Hadot 1995; Ferzoco and Muessig 2000), but compar- ative Religious Studies reveals some important cross‐cultural parallels with respect to contemplative practice and contemplative experience (see, e.g., Komjathy 2015). In this way, there is overlap with Spirituality as an Academic Discipline (see, e.g., Frohlich 2001; Dreyer and Burrows 2005; Sherman 2014a)4 and even the “new monasticism” movement (see, e.g., McEntee and Bucko 2015). That is, from a certain perspective, there might be some con- nections with critical adherence, lived religion, interreligious dialogue, and even comparative theology. However, many, perhaps most, members of the field generally conceive of it or wish to conceive of it as a “secular,” “objective,” and/or “scientific” undertaking, as explicitly “not religious.” This is partially a protective strategy, rooted in fear of potential opposition to perceived sectar- ianism and (covert) proselytization. I will critically investigate these various claims and views in the pages that follow. For the moment, we may say that practice commitment, critical subjectivity, and character development are three essential features of the emerging field. While alternative and comple- mentary approaches (e.g., historicism, neuroscience) are possible, the field would not be what it is and what it may be without these characteristics. As mentioned, the field of Contemplative Studies is still in its formative phase, even though certain trends and social expressions have been established. Although there is some coherence as well as shared interests and values, Contemplative Studies as a field is diverse, disparate, and decentralized. There is no single or dominant model or authority. In fact, as the history of the field reveals (see below), it may be that egalitarianism and anti‐authoritarianism are implicit values. Given the recent pedigree, radicalness, and diversity of the field, there is thus great potential for exploration, collaboration, and innovation. That is, individuals and com- munities with affinities for contemplative practice and associated applica- tions have an opportunity to participate here. In terms of my own involvement, I have found that acceptance and experimentation are the norm. We do not really know what we are doing or what is possible. I do not say this as support for critique and dismissal, as though participating individuals are unconscious and uncritical. While there clearly are blind spots, areas of denial and resistance, and tendencies requiring deeper reflection, the field evidences a high degree of critical awareness and inten- tional development. However, there is no single approach or mandated Contemplative Studies 17 structure for participation, even if some patterns are becoming more entrenched. Perhaps this is analogous to the Indian parable of blind men trying to describe an elephant, with each understanding a certain part that they have touched. Ultimately, Contemplative Studies represents an open field (no pun intended) for interested individuals. In its current and emerging expression, it has a vaguely recognizable form with a spacious- ness capable of encompassing diverse interests, approaches, and articula- tions. It invites and encourages personal inquiry, reflection, and perhaps application. This even extends to informed and thoughtful critics. From my perspective, the contemplative in Contemplative Studies presupposes such characteristics, including a commitment to meta‐reflection. The lat- ter involves the investigation of unquestioned assumptions and the over- coming of ingrained opinions, both within and beyond the field. It involves asking to what extent the field’s members and diverse expres- sions are actually contemplative. Given the recent emergence of Contemplative Studies, there have been few explicit discussions on a conceptual and theoretical level. One of the earliest attempts to describe the field was written by Harold Roth (2006), director of the interdisciplinary Contemplative Studies Initiative at Brown University: Prospects for a New Field A new field of academic endeavor devoted to the critical study of contemplative states of experience is developing in North America. It focuses on the many ways human beings have found, across cultures and across time, to concentrate, broaden and deepen conscious awareness. Contemplative studies is the rubric under which this research and teaching can be organized. In the field of contemplative studies we attempt to: 1. Identify the varieties of contemplative experiences of which human beings are capable; 2. Find meaningful scientific explanations for them; 3. Cultivate first‐person knowledge of them; 4. Critically access their nature and significance. 18 Contemplative Studies That is, we study the underlying philosophy, psychology and phenom- enology of human contemplative experience through a combination of traditional third‐person approaches and more innovative, critical first‐ person approaches. In other words, we study contemplative experience from the following perspectives: 1. Science, particularly psychology, neuroscience, cognitive science and clinical medicine; 2. The humanities, exploring the contemplative dimensions of literature, philosophy and religion; 3. The creative arts, focusing on the study of the role of contemplation in both the creation and the appreciation of the visual and fine arts, creative writing and in the various performing arts of dance, drama and music. (Roth 2008: 19–20, italics in original; see also Roth 2006, especially 1794) While this is largely a description of the Brown program, what might be labeled the “Brown approach,” offered as a model for the larger field, it remains a foundational and helpful starting point. It remains viable and has influenced my own conceptions (see Komjathy 2015, 2016b). Roth emphasizes the importance of both third‐person and “critical first‐person” approaches. The former involves studying contemplative practice from the position of observer and outsider (“objective”; “they”), while the latter from that of participant and insider (subjective; “I”), at least to a certain extent. In technical language, these are etic and emic approaches, respectively. The critical first‐person approach has some parallels with Mary Frohlich’s notion of “critical interiority” (2007) and with the “participatory approach” advocated by Jorge Ferrer and his colleagues (Ferrer and Sherman 2008).5 As mentioned, Contemplative Studies is distinguished by what I have labeled above as “practice commitment” and “critical subjectivity,” although conceptually Roth emphasizes contemplative experience over contempla- tive practice. In addition to subjective investigation of meditation and cog- nate disciplines, Contemplative Studies also employs more familiar research methodologies, such as historical contextualization, literary analysis, philosophical reflection, and so forth. In my way of thinking, individuals may simply conduct research on contemplative practice and contemplative experience, without having any direct personal experience with lived and Contemplative Studies 19 living expressions. In addition, the field tends to aspire to be more “objective” and “scientific,” particularly through empirical and quantitative research. The latter includes various forms of psychological inventories, clinical applications, and neuroscientific studies. This approach is sometimes called “contemplative science” (see below; Chapters 6 and 7). In fact, Roth himself refers to the meditation sessions utilized in his courses as “labs” (see Roth 2008), in the sense of the human body as a locus of experimentation and discovery. Thus, the “critical” dimension of critical first‐person discourse involves systematic investigation of and reflection on one’s own psychoso- matic experience, including unquestioned assumptions and ingrained opinions. As discussed below, although recognizing the importance of sub- jectivity, members of Contemplative Studies resist the tendency to privilege one’s own “experience” and the danger of narcissism; that is, the “contem- plative approach” of Contemplative Studies is rooted in modern academic values of systematic, critical investigation and public examination. While Contemplative Studies empowers individuals, larger claims about contem- plative practice and contemplative experience are open to discussion and debate. Roth also helpfully outlines some interdisciplinary or multidisci- plinary trajectories, which he places in the categories of the creative arts, the humanities, and the sciences. Here one also thinks of the emphasis on STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) or the so‐called professional schools (e.g., business, law, medicine) in some programs and universities. I will return to the Brown program as well as complementary and competing models later in the present chapter and in Chapter 5. Developing Roth, and drawing upon conversations with other leaders in the field and my own experience at the University of San Diego and in the American Academy of Religion, I have presented and advocated a more inclusive vision for and expression of Contemplative Studies. Specifically, I imagine a field that is truly interdisciplinary, collaborative, and integrated. In such an expression, each approach and area of inquiry would be recog- nized for its unique contributions, and cross‐disciplinary exchange would result in a fuller understanding of contemplative practice and contempla- tive experience. No single approach would be privileged or given authorita- tive interpretive status. For the field of Contemplative Studies to realize its goal of comprehensive, sophisticated, and integrated understanding of con- templative practice and contemplative experience, a multidimensional and multi‐perspectival approach is required (see Figure 1.1). This vision is also well represented by the cover of this book, which depicts a detail of a walking path made from river stones (see also Komjathy 2015). Like 20 Contemplative Studies Humanities Creative Social Arts Sciences Peace Contemplative Religious Studies Studies Communities Hard Education Sciences Clinical Sciences Figure 1.1 Contemplative Studies as interdisciplinary field. such a path, Contemplative Studies is cobbled together by multiple hands with materials containing many different histories, textures, and characteristics. In this respect, we may recognize and embrace a more complex mapping of poten- tial approaches and areas of inquiry, with their own contributions. Specifically, while we find many individuals in various clinical, creative, humanistic, professional, and scientific disciplines engaging contemplative practice and contemplative experience,6 there is also great potential in the areas of compara- tive theology, education, ethnic studies, peace studies, Religious Studies, and so forth (see Chapters 6 and 8). In fact, a number of “centers of teaching” at differ- ent American universities are beginning to engage Contemplative Studies, and contemplative practice is beginning to be employed in every level of the American education system and beyond. There are also increasing numbers of publications on “critical pedagogy” and the “scholarship of teaching” that address and incorporate a contemplative approach, including the practical dimensions and transformative effects (see Chapter 5). One noteworthy, and perhaps radical, element of my model involves the inclusion of religious adherents and religious communities (“critical adherent discourse” [CAD]), which I have advocated within the field of Religious Studies as well (see, e.g., Komjathy 2015, 2016a). As discussed in Contemplative Studies 21 the pages that follow, there is a tendency in Contemplative Studies to exclude religious adherents, to emphasize “secular,” “non‐sectarian,” and perhaps “spiritual” approaches and techniques.7 This statement must be slightly qualified. A select and elite group of religious leaders, specifically individuals willing to “go with the program,” especially with respect to hybrid spiritualist appropriations as well as clinical and neuroscientific agendas, are included and given voice. However, “professional contempla- tives,” such as those associated with formal contemplative communities or particular monastic orders,8 are more often than not ignored, dis- missed, or excluded. In this respect, the perspectives of such religiously committed contemplatives may help to clarify and challenge certain ten- dencies and issues. More engagement with actual religious adherents, specifically individuals with a lifelong commitment to contemplative practice, will help to strengthen the field and deepen individuals’ personal practice and understanding. In terms of potential critics, this should include adherents who have reservations or actively object to the field’s project. In any case, Figure 1.1 intentionally depicts Contemplative Studies as the primary field, with each particular discipline or approach as independent, but potentially overlapping fields. This is done to suggest that the latter, the shaded areas, are relatively small. Only some associated individuals will be interested in Contemplative Studies, and only some dimensions of those fields may be applicable to Contemplative Studies. Ideally, however, mem- bers of Contemplative Studies will be open to the relevant perspectives and insights (see Chapter 6). As an alternative educational, scholarly, and per- haps personal and communal model, I would hope that Contemplative Studies would root itself in mutual respect and mutual support, in dialogue and collaboration. Finally, although personal contemplative practice and direct experience with such practice tend to be hallmarks of Contemplative Studies, I believe that this need not be the case for every participant and contributor. We of course need “scholar‐practitioners,” “insiders,” and “par- ticipants” for the field to develop and flourish.9 However, Contemplative Studies will also benefit from individuals who only utilize third‐person and their own discipline‐specific approaches to the study of contemplative practice and contemplative experience. Not everyone in the field needs to engage the various associated disciplines or research findings. For example, historians of religious traditions and textual scholars of contemplative liter- ature have made and could make significant contributions. The same is true with respect to clinical and neuroscientific approaches. One need not be a “contemplative” to participate in the field. 22 Contemplative Studies Toward a (Meta) History of the Field Every discipline, field, and movement has a particular history. More conventional historiographies emphasize major events and influences, specifically origins and development. More comprehensive historiogra- phies also provide larger inventories, documenting frequently unrecog- nized tendencies and forces. That is, there is a straightforward history, often agreeable to participants, that resembles a linear series of related and connected moments; there is also a “meta” or critical history, often disagreeable to collaborators, that examines deeper structures and informing commitments, including cultural influences and social con- texts. A variety of historical accounts, with their own orientations, agendas, social locations, and possibly self‐justifying narratives, are thus possible (see, e.g., Benjamin 1968; Foucault 1972; Nietzsche 1980). In terms of Contemplative Studies, a straightforward history of the field would probably begin with events in the 2000s, while acknowledging pre- cursor developments in the 1990s and possibly even from the 1960s forward (see Komjathy 2015).10 However, this would not enable us to understand the larger historical momentum and cultural trends. A meta‐history is required if we wish to understand “why this, why now?” Although members of this emerging field often take it as a self‐evident given, observers and “outsiders” frequently express perplexity, dismay, and even resistance.11 Given the prob- lematic and potentially subversive characteristics of the contemplative movement, which are discussed in more detail below, we should attempt to investigate the deeper structures and cultural contexts. For this, we need to undertake an exercise in cultural studies and intellectual history. As I have suggested elsewhere (Komjathy 2007, 2015), contexualization (i.e., locating events, movements, people, texts, and so forth in their associated culture, society, and historical moments) is essential, including with respect to disci- plinary approaches and commitments themselves. Suffice it to say, a com- prehensive account, with the necessary details and analysis, is beyond the confines of the present chapter and would require an entire book on its own. Here I will simply provide a brief and preliminary sketch. Contemplative Studies is primarily an American movement, although some Europeans are also prominent and influential. In terms of demo- graphics, the vast majority of members are Euro‐Americans (“white people”), although there is increasing awareness of and concern over apparent homo- geneity and resultant engagement with ethnic studies and critical race theory (see below and Chapter 8). The field is also largely populated by scholars, Contemplative Studies 23 adherents, or sympathizers, knowingly or unknowingly, of Asian religions (“Eastern philosophy” and “wisdom traditions”), especially Buddhism. Thus, although one might begin the meta‐history of Contemplative Studies earlier, I would suggest that 1893 is a key moment, as it is for American religious and academic history more generally.12 That year corresponds to the World’s Parliament of Religions (WPR), which was held at the Chicago World’s Fair. Connected to earlier Western engagements with Asian religions, such as those of the American Transcendentalists (see Versluis 1993, 2014), Theosophical Society (see Lavoie 2012), and Max Müller’s Sacred Books of the East series (1879–1910, 50 vols.; see Stone 2002), the World’s Parliament of Religions was a watershed moment: it gathered together and provided a platform for major ethnic birthright representatives of various Asian reli- gions (see Seager and Eck 1993; Seager 2009; also Tweed and Prothero 1999).13 Some of these individuals subsequently became the earliest Asian missionary‐ teachers in the United States (e.g., Soyen Shaku [1860–1919], Vivekananda [1863–1902]). These teachers and their spiritual heirs also helped to establish some of the earliest Western organizations associated with Asian religions (e.g., Buddhist Churches of America, Self‐Realization Fellowship, Vedanta Society). For present purposes, such events are noteworthy for the introduc- tion and increasing opportunities for the study of “meditation” in the United States, specifically Asian techniques as practiced by Euro‐American (largely Protestant Christian) sympathizers and eventually convert adherents. These historical and cultural developments culminated in changes to US immigration law in 1965, which abolished earlier quota‐based restrictions on Asian immigration (see Tweed and Prothero 1999). Such modifications both reflected and influenced the larger cultural trends in 1960s America. They led to an influx of Asian immigrant teachers, to increasing numbers of religious communities associated with them and their spiritual successors, and to greater access to Asian meditation methods, especially those associ- ated with Buddhism and Hinduism. Such techniques included Transcendental Meditation, Vipassanā, and Zazen (see Chapters 2 and 4). These years also corresponded to the Second Vatican Council (1962–1965) in the Roman Catholic Church, the seminal Nostra Aetate (“In Our Time”) declaration, and the increasing call for ecumenism and interreligious dialogue. Simultaneously, the period witnessed an amplified presence and development of “spirituality,” that is, personal religious expressions unaffiliated with religious traditions and often rooted in an explicit critique of institutional religion. This “new religious movement” (NRM) is often referred to as the “New Age movement,” “unchurched spirituality,” “inter‐spirituality,” and 24 Contemplative Studies more critically “hybrid spirituality” (see below; also Komjathy 2015).14 It corresponds to the more recent “nones” and “spiritual, but not religious” (SBNR) phenomenon. There were thus accompanying demands on the part of Euro‐American consumers to “untether” practices from their source- cultures and source-traditions, with the latter often identified as “limitations” and even “trappings.” It is thus no coincidence that the first‐generation rep- resentatives and proponents of Contemplative Studies came of age during the 1960s and 1970s, with such contemporaneous countercultural values as anti‐ authoritarianism, egalitarianism, experimentation, freedom, independence, justice, peace, progress, and so forth (see Braunstein and Doyle 2001; Oppenheimer 2003). That is, the pioneers of the field are part of the “Baby Boomer generation” (see Roof 1999; cf. Beaudoin 1998; Wuthnow 2007), individuals who were born between the years 1946 and 1964.15 This is not to deny the authentic vocations of contemplative educators or their profound impact on their students. Rather, these details are meant to point toward key cultural influences and social patterns. Significantly, even Centering Prayer, an ecumenical Christian contemplative practice and movement, emerged under these same conditions (see Komjathy 2015). Other key cultural influences on the emergence of Contemplative Studies include Western Buddhism, meditation research, hybrid spirituality, and critical pedagogy (see Figure 1.2), often in complex combinations. Each of these is an intricate phenomenon in itself, but here we are primarily concerned with the elements that influenced and were incorporated into the emerging field. As mentioned, the 1960s saw the increased presence of Asian immigrant teachers of meditation, with the most prominent probably being Maharishi Mahesh (1918–2008) and his Transcendental Meditation™ (TM™) movement (see, e.g., Forsthoefel and Humes 2005; Williamson 2010; Gleig and Williamson 2013).16 The latter technique is a modified Hindu mantra practice. Maharishi Mahesh also was a pivotal influence on early scientific research on meditation, as he sought to validate claims about the unique benefits of TM (“Vedic science”). This early, often problematic research established a major precedent and inspiration for what would become the “neuroscientific study of meditation,” eventually referred to as “contemplative neuroscience” or “contemplative science” (see Chapters 6 and 7). Two other key early meditation teachers in the United States were the Japanese Zen Buddhist Shunryu Suzuki (1904–1971) and Tibetan Buddhist Chogyam Trungpa (1939–1987). These individuals may be thought of as placeholders for the increasing interest in and access to Zen and Tibetan Buddhist meditation. Simultaneously, the Vipassanā movement Contemplative Studies 25 1960s Counterculture Western Meditation Buddhism Research Contemplative Studies Hybrid Critical Spirituality Pedagogy Figure 1.2 Cultural influences on the emergence of Contemplative Studies. (see Chapters 2 and 4), also known as the Insight Meditation movement, represented by such individuals as Joseph Goldstein (b.1944), Jack Kornfield (b.1945), and Sharon Salzberg (b.1952),17 was becoming established. These developments eventually led to the creation of early forms of therapeutic meditation, such as Herbert Benson’s (b.1935) Relaxation Response and Jon Kabat‐Zinn’s (b.1944) Mindfulness‐based Stress Reduction (MBSR), including the establishment of Mind–Body Medicine (see Harrington 2008; Komjathy 2015). MBSR has become particularly influential among psychologists and clinicians, not to mention practitioners of “secular meditation.” Synthesizing these details, it becomes apparent that the fusion of interests in Western Buddhism, meditation, science, and therapeutic concerns, one of the most visible expressions of Contemplative Studies, has a particular history. We might refer to this as “Buddhocentric Contemplative Studies,” and more critically as “Buddho‐neuroscientific hegemony.” While early meditation research focused on Transcendental Meditation and Vipassanā, more recent expressions focus on Zazen and Tibetan Buddhist 26 Contemplative Studies methods (see Engel 1997b; Murphy, Donovan, and Taylor 1999; Andresen 2000; Lutz, Dunne, and Davidson 2007).18 As discussed below, early interest in neuroscience and Tibetan Buddhist meditation partially developed out of the collaboration of the 14th Dalai Lama (b.1935),19 the American entre- preneur R. Adam Engle (b.1942), and the Chilean neuroscientist Francisco Varela (1946–2001), and resulted in the establishment of the Mind & Life Institute in 1990. A key issue here is the relationship between Buddhism and science (see Lopez 2008; also McMahan 2008; Faure 2012). Specifically, one notices a conception of Buddhism as compatible with science, and even inherently scientific. Another key influence is hybrid spirituality (see Lewis and Melton 1992; Heelas 1996; Hanegraaff 1998; Taylor 1999; Barnard 2001; Goldman 2012; Schmidt 2012). This is not to say that all, or even most, members of Contemplative Studies are hybrid spiritualists. Rather, the ubiquity of hybrid spirituality in modern American society, with the associated secularized Protestant values of anti‐institutionalism, anti‐ clericalism, egalitarianism, individualism, and simplification, often frames and exerts influence over the field. There are, in turn, related patterns of appropriation and commodification (see below). Here we should note that the history of such categories as “meditation,” “contemplative practice,” and the like has yet to be written (see Engel 1997a; Gill 2005; Underwood 2005; Baier 2009; Komjathy 2015); this includes the emergence of “meditation,” and even “mindfulness,” as an independent practice and a new religious movement (see Chapters 2, 4, and 7). Finally, critical pedagogy, especially what has become known as “spirituality in education” (see Chapter 5), exerted influence on the emergence of Contemplative Studies. That is, as discussed below, many members of the field believe in values‐based educa- tion, transformative teaching and learning, and the necessity of educational reform. In this respect, it is noteworthy that one of the earliest models of contemplative education, in which formal meditation became part of the curriculum, developed at Naropa University, which is an accredited, private liberal arts, Buddhism‐informed college in Boulder, Colorado established by Chogyam Trungpa and his supporters in 1974. Moving from wide‐angle and telephoto lenses to macro ones, from panoramic and distant views to the immediate situation, the field of Contemplative Studies as such first emerged in the 2000s. It appears that Harold Roth of Brown University, a scholar of Daoism (Taoism) and a Zen Buddhist practitioner, was the first person to use the term “Contemplative Studies” (see Roth 2006, 2008), specifically in the context of the Brown Contemplative Studies Initiative. While this is most likely Contemplative Studies 27 the case, I would also point to various earlier publications, such as Seeds of Contemplation (1949) and Contemplative Prayer (1969) by the American Trappist Catholic monk Thomas Merton (1915–1968),20 and earlier inter- religious and inter‐monastic gatherings as indirect influences (see Komjathy 2015). In any case, during this time, “Contemplative Studies” also became used to identify programs at Emory University and Rice University, among others (see below). Members of the field collectively adopted the term “contemplative practice,” rather than the narrower “meditation,” as an umbrella category in order to include a broader range of approaches and methods. As discussed in Chapter 2, while encompass- ing meditation, prayer, and cognate disciplines, “contemplative practice” may also include art, dance, literature, martial arts, movement studies (somatics), music, photography, theatre, and so forth.21 Related approaches and methods may also be applied to any discipline or undertaking. The collaboration of the directors of some of these programs led to the estab- lishment of the Contemplative Studies Group of the American Academy of Religion (AAR) in 2010. Anne Klein (Rice University) and I served as founding co‐chairs, while the steering committee consisted of Thomas Coburn (Naropa University; Brown University), Fran Grace (University of Redlands), Harold Roth (Brown University), and Judith Simmer‐Brown (Naropa University) (see Coburn et al. 2011). Significantly, with the exception of me, at the time every member was a tenured full professor. This provides some insights into the politics of the field, which I will address toward the end of this chapter. “Contemplative Studies” has increasingly become the preferred name for the field since the institution of the International Symposium for Contemplative Studies (ISCS; 2012, 2014, 2016), which is organized under the auspices of the Mind & Life Institute. While early deliberations centered on using the name “Contemplative Science,”22 the organizers eventually selected “Contemplative Studies” under the influence of Roth and support of Clifford Saron, who were serving on the steering committee, and of the AAR program unit (Harold Roth, Clifford Saron, pers. comm.). The existence of the latter helped to reveal that Contemplative Studies had become a larger academic field, beyond any one particular program or group of people. The MLI‐organized event now identifies itself as the “premier meeting for Contemplative Studies,” although for contemplative pedagogy that moniker probably applies most to the annual ACMHE Conference and Summer Session on Contemplative Pedagogy through the Center for Contemplative Mind in Society and for Religious Studies it 28 Contemplative Studies more clearly corresponds to the annual meeting of the Contemplative Studies Group of the American Academy of Religion. When scholars outside of Contemplative Studies, especially individuals associated with Religious Studies, engage the field, they frequently ask ques- tions equivalent to “why this, why now?” I have attempted to outline origins, developments, and contexts above, but this type of question also relates to rationales, motivations, and values. Interestingly, I have heard similar inquiries (and implicit critiques) from clergy, especially with respect to con- cerns over campus ministry and perceived relativization of their preferred form of religiosity. Given the diversity and complexity of the emerging field, a more complete answer would require extensive ethnographic research, interviews, and direct conversations. There are psychological and interper- sonal dimensions beyond the cultural influences and social contexts. In this way, involvement in Contemplative Studies possibly resembles contemplative practice itself: While the latter can be contextualized, such contextualization does not explain personal experiences with and the transformative effects of practice (see Chapter 3). This occurs in individual and social lives. In my experience and observations, members of Contemplative Studies generally believe in the beneficial and transformative effects of contemplative practice, especially dedicated and prolonged practice. This includes the importance of interiority and silence for human flourishing, whether personal or com- munal. Such individuals also tend to engage in deep reflection, reflection that recognizes potential contributions and that results in particular critiques and responses. Specifically, members of the field generally value holistic and integrated education, hallmarks, it should be mentioned, of a liberal arts and humanities‐based education. There is thus an accompanying critique of various dimensions of the American education system, and possibly the larger American culture. Some perceived deficiencies include careerism, competitiveness, corporatization, homogenization, hyper‐intellectualism, instrumentalism, opportunism, rankism, scientism (science as religion), technocracy, and so forth. As discussed in Chapters 6 and 7, the issue of scientistic and technocractic tendencies is somewhat complex in the field. In terms of daily academic life, one also might, unthinkably, point toward widespread dysfunction and social distortion. For caring and considerate individuals, modern academic life, with its emphasis on power, prestige, and privilege, often results in feelings of meaninglessness and dissatisfaction. That is, personal and perhaps collective contemplative practice may help one over- come what B. Alan Wallace of the Santa Barbara Institute for Consciousness Studies calls the “taboo of subjectivity” (2000). We do not need to accept alienation from ourselves, especially through conformity to demands for Contemplative Studies 29 isembodiment and aberrations of “objectivity” (see Zimbardo 2007; d Milgram 2009). In addition, as research suggests, many students are primarily interested in exploring existential and spiritual dimensions of human being (see, e.g., HERI 2005, 2006; Walvoord 2007). For individuals with such affinities, concerns, interests, and commitments, Contemplative Studies, especially as expressed in contemplative pedagogy (see Chapter 5), offers one potential methodology for addressing these and similar issues. Programs, Organizations, and Venues Contemplative Studies is currently expressed and being explored in a variety of academic programs, organizations, and venues. The most prominent academic programs include those of Brown University, California Institute of Integral Studies, Emory University, Naropa University, Rice University, University of Michigan, University of Redlands, and University of Virginia. Programs are also emerging at Centre College, Evergreen State College, New York University, Oregon State University, Ramapo College, Syracuse University, Texas Christian University, University of British Columbia, University of San Diego, University of Wisconsin, Madison, and Vanderbilt University, among others. Steps toward Developing a Contemplative Studies Program Phase 1 Personal inquiry Informal conversations Guest lectures Workshops/seminars Meditation group Phase 2 Discussion/reading group Professional Learning Community (PLC) Workshops/seminars Faculty lectures Course development 30 Contemplative Studies Phase 3 Living Learning Community (LLC) “Clusters” Campus events Additional courses Phase 4 Interdisciplinary minor/major Contemplative space/classroom Conferences Phase 5 Contemplative Studies program In addition to a more integrated and multidisciplinary curriculum, academic programs offer the possibility of formal, campus‐wide lectures, seminars, and events. Here it is important to recognize that most of the major programs are in private institutions of higher education, and, due to the legal separation of church and state, there may be particular challenges to utilizing a Contemplative Studies approach in public and governmentally funded institutions (see Chapters 2 and 5). This highlights the issue of locatedness, positionality, and participation (see below). Some of these pro- grams are more interdisciplinary and integrated than others. For example, there is increasing interest among psychologists, neuroscientists, and healthcare professionals, with their own discipline‐specific expressions. Some key organizations and research centers include the following: Benson‐ Henry Institute for Mind Body Medicine (BHI; Massachusetts General Hospital); Center for Contemplative Mind in Society (CMind; CCMIS)23 and its Association for Contemplative Mind in Higher Education (ACMHE); Center for Healthy Minds (CHM; University of Wisconsin, Madison); Center for Mind and Brain (CMB; University of California, Davis); Center for Mindfulness in Medicine, Healthcare, and Society (CFM; University of Massachusetts Medical School); Contemplative Sciences Center (University of Virginia); Contemplative Studies Group (CSG) of the American Academy of Religion; Fetzer Institute; Garrison Institute; Mind & Life Institute (MLI); Mindfulness in Education Network (MiEN); and Santa Barbara Institute for Consciousness Studies (SBI). It is not my intention here to review these various programs. Interested individuals may Contemplative Studies 31 peruse the associated websites or participate in the associated offerings.24 Rather, I will highlight some representative and influential examples, par- ticularly as models and opportunities for reflection. As mentioned above, one of the most developed and integrated programs is the Contemplative Studies Initiative (CSI) at Brown University, although readers would also benefit from consulting the programs at Naropa University and University of Virginia. As discussed in Chapter 5, these uni- versities have developed university‐ and curriculum‐wide courses and pro- grams. According to the Brown CSI website, The Contemplative Studies Initiative is a group of Brown faculty with diverse academic specializations who are united around a common interest in studying the underlying philosophy, psychology, and phenom- enology of contemplative experience, across time, cultures and traditions. Following the establishment of our Concentration, the Initiative continues to work to coordinate research and teaching across the diverse fields of Contemplative Studies at Brown, including Arts and Sciences, Medicine and Public Health. As of May 2014, Contemplative Studies is an official concentration at Brown! The concentration investigates the underlying philosophical, psychological, and scientific bases of human contemplative experience. Students pursue a “third‐person” academic approach drawn from the human- ities and sciences to analyze the cultural, historical, and scientific underpin- nings of contemplative experiences in religion, art, music, and literature. This is developed in combination with a “critical first‐person” approach based in practical experience of contemplative techniques and methods to provide an integrated understanding of the role of contemplative thought and experience in societies and on the individuals who constitute them. We also support independent and dual concentrations in the Contemplative Creative Arts. The Contemplative Studies Initiative also pursues an active program of contemplative scientific research through the Clinical and Affective Neuroscience Lab, the Translational Neuroscience Lab, and the Laboratory for Clinical and Perceptual Learning. Student lab members present their research in a bi‐annual research symposium, and publish scientific articles of their work. Here we find parallels with my earlier discussion of Roth’s vision for the field of Contemplative Studies. What is noteworthy for present purposes is the diverse, collaborative, and interdisciplinary nature of the program. The organizations associated with Contemplative Studies, broadly and inclusively conceived, are diverse. However, one generally shared characteristic 32 Contemplative Studies is social engagement—that is, the transformative power and application of contemplative practice to address various issues and problems. As discussed in Chapter 3, this challenges some of the assumptions about meditation as “navel gazing” a