In his “Letter of Privy Counseling,” the anonymous 14th century author of the Cloud of Unknowing offers perhaps the most concise, direct, and discerning instructions for contemplative prayer anywhere in the Christian tradition. Likely the last of the Cloud author’s extant works, it stands squarely within the so-called “affective Dionysian” tradition of medieval mysticism. By emphasizing love over discriminating knowledge, and by interpreting the Pseudo-Dionysian corpus to emphasize the outstretching of affectivity beyond sense-perception and intellectual cognition in union with God, the Cloud author, along with his Victorine and Carthusian predecessors, represents an innovation in the tradition that would shape mystical theology in the West for centuries to come.
Among the distinctive features of Cloud author’s instruction in the “Letter” is the role of basic affect throughout process of contemplative transformation. The author’s approach to affectivity is not about special experiences, “mystical” or otherwise, but rather the felt sense of God discovered in the depths of one’s being – a sense that runs deeper than any emotional state or intellectual movement, and which is nearly always overlooked by us, indeed incapable of becoming a discrete object of experience. It is a non-objective, affectively resonant awareness, prior to intentionality, yet suffusing all intentional acts.
The subtlety with which the author approaches these instructions reflects novelty even within the “affective Dionysian” tradition. With its emphasis on “blind feeling” and “bare awareness,” the “Letter of Privy Counseling” represents a fresh approach: one that is less ascetic though still pragmatic; one that is less preoccupied with special states and more deeply grounded in bodily affect; one that is admirably clear about the releasing of all striving into the felt sense of God who gives us “to be.”
Grounded by a doctrine of creation that affirms God as the source and ground of all created reality, the instructions trace a two-fold pattern. The contemplative first descends into the “blind feeling” of her entire being, thus allowing the sheer fact of her existence to permeate consciousness. Having become established in this felt sense, the contemplative then releases all self-reference and background schemas of experience into “bare awareness” of God, there to rest. In some respects, this gathering and opening of oneself follows the basic pattern of interiority (enstasis) and self-transcendence (ekstasis) in many Christian spiritual traditions. What is new in the “Letter,” however, or at least more emphatically and perceptively articulated than perhaps anywhere else, is how consistently it directs the reader to the felt sense of one’s being for anchoring prayer as it opens up to an indiscriminate awareness of God.
To the adopt the language of phenomenology, we are referring to the immediate sense of bodily affectivity, the feeling of oneself, one’s basic aliveness – “auto-affection,” as Michel Henry puts it. This felt sense is pre-reflective and remains prior to our intentional acts. This is why the “Letter” so consistently refers to “blind feeling” or “bare awareness”: there is a relaxation of intentionality’s “outward” focus, along with its various objects, and a resting in the sheer presence of one’s own being. The author does not encourage the permanent abandonment of thought but only the opening of heart and mind in an utterly receptive, non-grasping awareness. Desire is not suppressed in such prayer but allowed to arise of its own accord, given pure pasture. There is also warmth here, a kind-hearted presence, compunction and compassion, and ultimately an indiscriminate feeling for one’s aliveness in God. This is the “work of love,” according to the author, namely the exchange of one’s whole being for the unconditioned being of God. There is no elision of the God-creature distinction, ontologically speaking, though there is growth in one’s felt sense of union with the God of Life.
With the “Letter’s” instructions in view, along with their doctrinal framing and phenomenological import, the paper anticipates subsequent panel discussion by drawing tentative connections with select Tibetan Buddhist practice traditions. Inspired by the works of Tsoknyi Rinpoche, John Welwood, and John Makransky, the paper considers how the Cloud author’s account of “blind feeling” and “bare awareness” exhibits strong correlations with primordial awareness (or rig pa) in Dzogchen. It also considers how the “Letter’s” encouragement of devotion to Christ, and devotion’s relation to bare awareness, show intriguing parallels with the cultivation of intensive affective states as pathways to nondual awareness in Dzogchen. While respecting the different doctrinal, liturgical, and cultural contexts, a phenomenological account can help facilitate mutual illumination, shared understanding, and perhaps even practical collaboration.
This paper engages the 14th century anonymous author of the Cloud of Unknowing, particularly his “Letter of Privy Counseling,” and explores the role of affectivity in Christian contemplative practice in comparative perspective. While contextualizing the Cloud author within the “affective Dionysian” tradition of medieval mysticism and outlining the doctrinal and devotional elements of the practice he commends, the paper draws upon phenomenological resources to highlight the role of affectivity (or “auto-affection”) in grounding and sustaining contemplative transformation. Using phenomenology as a bridge, the paper sketches key points of comparison with Tibetan Buddhist practice traditions, particularly where the role of basic affect is concerned. The work of Tsoknyi Rinpoche, John Welwood, and John Makransky are especially informative of this move.