This contribution to the cartography of spiritual inquiry explores its grounding in three interdepedent kinds of inquiry – personal, collaborative and cultural – and makes a brief evaluation of the relevance of the perennial philosophy. It then outlines a dipolar theology of the divine as the manifest and the spiritual, the manifest in terms of the phenomenal and the subtle, and the spiritual in terms of its three modes the situational, the immanent and the transcendent. It considers the validity of spiritual insights, the nature of human mediation between the divine poles, explores the nature of spiritual inquiry as a form of collaborative action research – the divine-human process of co-creative inquiry here in this place where we are. It culminates in describing a broad range of practices of engagement, enlivenment and enlightenment which inquire, respectively, into spirit as situational, immanent and transcendent. It concludes with an overview of the presuppositions of spiritual inquiry. The participatory fruits of spiritual inquiry explored in this paper are an enacted set of working principles and practices, grounded in three kinds of inquiry which are interdependent and mutually involved in each other. First, they are co-created in a personal participatory relation with being, a relation which is rooted in the human capacity for feeling the presence of what there is. This radical capacity I explore in depth in Feeling and Personhood (Heron, 1992). Ferrer gives a related account of participatory knowing as presential, enactive and transformative (Ferrer, 2002: 122-3). Second, they are generated in a context of a variety of collaborative spiritual inquiries, including an ongoing relationship inquiry (Langton and Heron, 2003), a current long-term co-operative inquiry now (2006) into its twelfth year (Heron and Lahood, forthcoming), and over twenty short-term co-operative inquiries since 1978 several of which are reported in Sacred Science (Heron, 1998). Third, they are influenced by acquaintance with, reflection on, and discussions within, the wider personal, cultural and historical context, including the great legacy of religious beliefs and experiential data from spiritual schools ancient and modern, western and eastern. These three kinds of inquiry provide a qualified warrant for my text. On the one hand it present ideas that are clarified and critically refined in personal and interpersonal enactions of what there is, and are thus one modestly valid perspective on, and revelation of, the mystery of being. On the other hand Participatory Fruits of Spiritual Inquiry 2 they are relative to the cultural and historical contexts within which they are framed, and thus are fallible and non-perennial, an invitation to dialogue and further inquiry. To say that a theological vision is co-created in a personal and an interpersonal participative relation with being, and in the qualifying contexts stated, means neither that it is universally absolute, nor that it is an entirely relativistic construction. It means that it is one relative perspective brought forth with what is universal, and calls for other diverse perspectives, grounded in inquiry, to honour the fullness of the mystery. I will make a few points here about the role of past spiritual traditions in making contemporary spiritual distinctions. They have an important secondary and contributory role, via their massive heritage of spiritual lore. This lore is the indispensable loam which nourishes present growth. However, the primary role is for the contemporary voice of innovative divine becoming, surfacing now through the constraints of what is today outmoded in this great inheritance from the aspirations of our forbears. The idea that there is a perennial (lasting-forever) philosophy which can be extracted from past religions and which lays down the basic structure of spiritual practice far off into the distant future, seems to me as fanciful as the idea of a perennial natural science. To restrict postmodern spirituality by principles derived from premodern spirituality is like constraining the future of chemistry by the precepts of alchemy. Perennial philosophy prescriptions strike me as a rearguard action to defend established centres of spiritual authority from having to deal with radical change. See Sacred Science (Heron, 1998: 43-46). Past belief-systems and practices reflect past contexts. Current contexts call both for respect for past traditions and for a radical revisionary overhaul of some of their most fundamental beliefs, attitudes and behaviours.
Read full abstract