Cyprian Consiglio is a Camaldolese monk, musician, and teacher, as well as a personal friend and confrere. After ten years at New Camaldoli Hermitage in Big Sur, CA, he has lived for nine years near Santa Cruz, CA, where he divides his time between solitude and extensive travel, performing and teaching around the world. He has been deeply involved in inter-religious dialogue for many years and is the author of Prayer in the Cave of the Heart: The Universal Call to Contemplation.
In our conversation, Cyprian distinguishes between what he sees as two forms of monasticism in the West: the familiar, institutionalized model and one arising from a more spontaneous, flexible contemplative impulse, manifesting across religious traditions in a variety of emergent forms. In this light, Cyprian discusses the sources that have inspired him in his own journey, from living as a monk in community to the less predetermined path of “hermit, preacher, and wanderer,” or Christian sannyasi, in the spirit of inter-religious pioneers Abhishiktananda (Henri Le Saux, OSB) and Bede Griffiths, OSB Cam.
In a significant contrast to Mary Ewing Stamps, who in an earlier interview identified the non-negotiables of monasticism as a leader, a rule, and a stable place (which is about as succinct a definition of the first form of [Benedictine] monasticism as you’ll likely find), Cyprian goes to the heart of the matter in identifying the primacy of the interior life and contemplative practice as the fundamental, nonnegotiable elements of monasticism, which in turn imbue the whole of a monk’s life and activity. With this more flexible definition in mind, Cyprian and I explore various forms of monastic community and itinerancy East and West, how to maintain a disciplined contemplative life on the move and without direct community support, and the critical necessity of daily practice, rootedness in tradition, and spiritual direction for the monk in the world.
While the distinction shouldn’t be drawn too starkly, I find Cyprian’s understanding of two forms of monasticism helpful and refreshing. Having myself been trained in the Camaldolese tradition, I tend to identify with a middle-ground, wherein the monastic institution meets, and ideally fosters, the kind of adaptability, spontaneity, and freedom of the second form. Hence, like Cyprian, I’ve also taken inspiration from the more flexible ascetical traditions of the Far East and the kinds of monastic or “lay monastic” communities they’ve established in the West (Cyprian speaks particularly of Tassajara Zen Mountain Monastery (see interview here) and Mount Madonna Yoga Center, of which I have visited only the former). As Cyprian affirms, this is not to say that one form is better than the other, but it does help to clarify important differences in, say, vocational dispositions.
Incidentally, this is the same Cyprian who performs the music I use in the podcast…
Into/Outro music “He Prabhu” by Fr. Cyprian Consiglio, OSB Cam., and John Pennington, from Compassionate and Wise.
I’m not sure I quite fit in either paradigm, because I tend more toward structure (including the need to look to other people for leadership) but also toward itinerancy. So I find myself resisting elements of both. But maybe for that reason I could stand to benefit from their complimentariness?
Yes, I appreciate the complementarity here. There’s no dichotomy involved. I find it interesting that what Cyprian names as necessary for the more free-form type of monasticism actually correlates well with Mary Stamps’ non-negotiables: spiritual direction correlates to a leader; regular practice correlates to a rule; and rootedness in tradition correlates to stability of place.
Interesting … would you say the mendicant orders combine some of both forms? Spiritually rooted, monastically structured yet geographically itinerant, or something like that?
I don’t think it’s a matter of mendicant vs. monastic. Mendicant orders would suffer from the same tension; that between spontaneity (I’m sure there’s a better word) and institution. Maybe a closer analog would be the difference between Saint Francis and his original band, and the later Franciscan Order. Francis was a one man revolution, untamed, radically innovative. And then an organization arose to contain and express that original impulse, an organization which he helped to establish. This evolution is necessary and can (and did) foster new creativity, but it’s a different animal–a domesticated animal, if you will–than what it was in its wily origins. As Ivan would say, though: “We need both.” Without organization, people can get pretty crazy and eccentric (as in fact some of the more zealous Franciscan ‘spirituals’ did); but the very process of institutionalization also has a way of obscuring the uncontained spark of inspiration at its source. How to strike the right balance to maintain a healthy social-spiritual organism? THAT’S the question.
I think different contexts can call for more of one form than the other. Francis’ time might be analogous to our own in terms of being one of radical social, cultural, and economic change; hence, something new was called for, and the mendicant orders arose in response to new needs and conditions. My conviction is that we are living in a similar, and likely more drastic, transition period wherein innovators are needed all the more. Still, like Francis, these innovations must be rooted in tradition, maintaining and carrying forward the wisdom of the past without being bound to specific forms of expression (just as Francis wasn’t bound to the monastic mold which had predominated up until his time).
I think what you’re speaking to now is the inevitable movement of movements (pardon the pun) toward institutionalization, even if they start out being counter-institutional – it’s either that or die out. I’m not as convinced as I would once have been that this is necessarily a bad thing, but I definitely agree with Ivan that it’s a both/and. Institutions and movements need each other.
Thanks, Julian. I was interested to hear about Cyprian’s life and work. Inspiring. Good to hear from you. Laurene
Enjoyed the interview, Julian. Still puzzling though over something we’ve talked about before concerning the vocation of the average Christian in the pews. I think Cyprian’s non-negotiables about practice fit that person, too; don’t they? I know you think there’s a specific vocation addressed to the person who takes the interior life more seriously and is engaged intentionally with daily practice but I can’t help still thinking that’s really the vocation of the Christian at large, in whatever degree, and so I wonder again: why is there less interest in revolutionizing church life and more in establishing and confirming ways for the laity to be monastic? It’s curious to me. Hope you’re well. Working on posting flyers today.
Hmmm. How did we resolve this the last time? My assumption is that you have a more egalitarian view of what it means to be church, while I have more of an appreciation for contrast, distinction, differentiation. Yes, Cyprian’s most general insights have universal application, but his own path according to the model of a Christian sannyasi is a distinctly unique vocation. I’ve never been a part of parish life (which is what comes to mind for me when you speak of “church life”). I came back to the church through the monastery and in essence never left. I agree with Ivan Kauffman that what’s needed are new structures that support non-celibate Christians to live a degree of intensity that is at least analogous to monasticism. I think of monasticism here as more of a point of departure for something new. But again this “new” will be its own kind of charism, or charisms, that will require their own unique structures, perhaps related to the parish but not the parish itself. Therefore, for those who are open to that kind of influence, these new forms would enrich parish life, as say the Oblate movement or Contemplative Outreach (Centering Prayer supporting organization) already are. But just as my own primary interest lies on the creative edges of the monastic tradition, so too am I more interested on what might touch the periphery of parish life rather than what’s happening within. Maybe it’s your vocation to revolutionize the church at the parish level?