Skip to main content

Lectio Divina

"Lectio Divina, literally meaning "divine reading," is an ancient practice of praying the Scriptures. During Lectio Divina, the practitioner listens to the text of the Bible with the "ear of the heart," as if he or she is in conversation with God, and God is suggesting the topics for discussion. The method of Lectio Divina includes moments of reading (lectio), reflecting on (meditatio), responding to (oratio) and resting in (contemplatio) the Word of God with the aim of nourishing and deepening one's relationship with the Divine."

From the website: Contemplative Outreach

My practice of Lectio Divina is aligned more with the ancient monastic practice rather than the scholastic approach. See below, also from the Contemplative Outreach website:

"The scholastic form was developed in the Middle Ages and divides the process of Lectio Divina into four hierarchical, consecutive steps:  reading, reflecting, responding and resting. The monastic form of Lectio Divina is a more ancient method in which reading, reflecting, responding and resting are experienced as moments rather than steps in a process. In this form, the interaction among the moments is dynamic and the movement through the moments follows the spontaneous prompting of the Holy Spirit. To allow for this spontaneity, Lectio Divina was originally practiced in private."

My intent in publishing my thoughts through the Waystead Watch blog, is to share my moments of reflection without attachment to any particular purpose. It's always been my habit to write down my reflections, and part of the 'response' moment in my practice of Lectio Divina took the form of an inner prompt to share them with others.

So here we are.

Popular posts from this blog

Temple Mysticism and the Eucharist

(I originally wrote this in November 2015, after reading a book on understanding Jesus's teachings in the light of first century Jewish Temple mysticism. I had been struggling with the cannibalistic implications in the Eucharist of "eating Jesus's body and drinking his blood." It was such a relief to discover this interpretation which connects neatly with the way his disciples would likely have understood the language Jesus was using.)
Eucharist A little bit of research on the internet produced a description of Jewish ritual sacrifice in the time of Jesus. A person, say a woman named Sarah, offers a goat. She buys it and takes it to the priest at the Temple. He examines it to see if it is “perfect,” i.e. healthy and unblemished. He then takes it and slits its throat with the ritual words, “This is Sarah’s blood.” The meaning should obviously be, that this is the blood belonging to Sarah and offered on her behalf. The blood would then be poured out at the base of the …

Zen, Social Activism, and Suffering

I almost always have a feeling of discontent (dukkha) when I encounter a way of looking at the world that exhorts me to define suffering as victimization. This way leads people to become social activists, fighting “injustice,” “poverty,” “violence,” and causes them to want to change “society” to make it a 'better' place. This way of thinking seems to me to miss the point. I call it "bootstrapping,” because it makes me think of the old saying that describes a certain kind of futility by the phrase, “trying to pull yourself up by your own bootstraps.” It can't be done. It seems to me that people often perceive concepts like "injustice" as entities in their own right, with a kind of inimical but impersonal life of their own. This leads to the belief that ideas can do battle in the arena of social activism and when righteousness is the victor, then "society" will change for the better. I see this as a form of delusion, and exactly the sort of error tha…

Thought Tantrums

I've been thinking a bit about emotional states and reactions, trying to figure out if what I personally experience is at all relevant to what other people experience. I've come to believe that it doesn't matter. I know I do a thing that everyone else also seems to do, and that is to think about everything only in reference to myself. I've learned over and over that doing so doesn't improve a thing, and I've even come up with a name for it: "bootstrapping." As in 'trying to pull yourself up by your own bootstraps.' Here's what I've provisionally understood: Attempting to evaluate or make judgments about a thing, or a state, or a condition, based on nothing more than a set of ideas that I have about it (especially any ideas that include the concept of "should") is utterly deluded.
If the condition is entirely internal, and my ideas about it also have no outside referents, then any attempt to change the situation by thinking ab…