quote:

I�m going to end this by giving Mr. Arraj�s orthodox mind something to think about, which is a piece of ancient orthodoxy. The Logos� Incarnation was Its union not with any individual person (Christ you know was not a human person) but rather, the Logos� union was with the basic human nature all humans share in common PRIOR to anything that makes for their differences. Thus Christ�s Hypostatic Union is devoid of any human individuality or self, devoid of personality and all that makes one person different than another. Now if the ultimate Christian goal or end is to be transformed into Christ, this means we too must ultimately go beyond all that makes for differences � beyond all individuality (self), personality and all the rest. We are not transformed into the historical Christ or man Jesus, but into the living, heavenly Christ which IS the Logos� eternal oneness with man. There is no other Way to eternal life, and this is exactly what No-Self is about�it�s right on the Way.

quote:

Just what Bernadette Roberts' experience of Christian mysticism was like is not a large part of this book, but it is striking that her no-self experiences began very young and it is possible they colored her practice of the Christian contemplative life. While she recognizes the differences between these two journeys, she regards "the second movement as a continuation and completion of the first." (p. 106) And she sees a possible progress of spiritual development starting "with the Christian experience of self's union with God... But when the self disappears forever into this Great Silence, we come upon the Buddhist discovery of no-self..." (p. 109) "Then finally, we come upon the peak of Hindu discovery, namely: "that" which remains when there is no self is identical with "that" which Is, the one Existent that is all that Is." (p. 109)

quote:

While the term �no-self� has been used by many people to articulate their experiences, I have never found anyone who means by �No-Self� what I mean by it. Thus we have to be careful not to assume we are all talking about the same event or experience. Unfortunately Mr. Arraj has made this mistake. He thinks what I mean by No-Self is no different than what the Buddhists mean by their an-atman doctrine, which is not even close.

quote:

Had John of the Cross and others talked about this we�d never have heard of them. Obviously, they knew when to quit. But this is exactly why you will not find No-Self (or what I mean by this) in the works of Christian mystics.

quote:

But before going further, I have to say I find Mr. Arraj� agenda of reserving God�s supernatural grace for Christians only, totally out of line, un-Christian, absolutely false. Who dares to tell us God is not free to give His divine grace and supernatural help to whoever He pleases?

quote:

The historical Christ cured and enlightened many a gentile, but never met a Christian.

quote:

. . .man�s final estate is beyond his earthly Unitive State, but alerts us that in this heavenly estate there is no self-awareness at all�as St. Bernard put it: we cease to be aware of our own existence.

quote:

I have to add, however, there is no self in the Godhead and thus what �personal� (and �Person�) means in the Trinity has no human resemblance�not what we think of as a person or personal How all this works in the Trinity is totally different. I don�t know if this allays Mr. Arraj�s fears on this score, but it�s the Truth, which is all that matters.

quote:

While Mr. Arraj has other comments that testify to his inability to grasp No-Self, it is important to point out that his understanding of it relies solely on a few carefully selected quotes from an out-of-print copy of my first book�a book never intended to be published in the first place�and quotes one might not find today.

quote:

To base what he knows about No-Self on a few sayings, however, is exactly what the Inquisitors did to Meister Eckhart: pick out a few sentences, declare them heretical and hand him the Papal Bull. While the Inquisition may be defunct, Mr. Arraj is proof that the Inquisitors, at least, live on.

quote:

Originally posted by Phil:
[qb] Derek, I agree that B's main beef is usually that she's "misunderstood" or misrepresented. It doesn't help matters, however, that she implies ill-will on the part of those she interprets as doing so, nor that she takes no responsibility for what she said that contributes to the misunderstanding.[/qb]

quote:

Originally posted by Phil:
[qb] she takes no responsibility for what she said that contributes to the misunderstanding. [/qb]

quote:

Initially, I gave up looking for this experience in the Buddhist literature. Four years later, however, I came across two lines attributed to Buddha describing his enlightenment experience. Referring to self as a house, he said, "All thy rafters are broken now, the ridgepole is destroyed." And there it was - the disappearance of the center, the ridgepole; without it, there can be no house, no self. When I read these lines, it was as if an arrow launched at the beginning of time had suddenly hit a bulls-eye. It was a remarkable find. These lines are not a piece of philosophy, but an experiential account.

quote:

Originally posted by Phil:
[qb] A few more quotes:

quote:

The historical Christ cured and enlightened many a gentile, but never met a Christian.

Well. . . um . . . ahem . . .[/qb]

quote:

Although No-Self is more orthodox than the orthodox, all people really need know is that they will be transformed into Christ. This knowledge is both sufficient and the Truth. (When they get there they�ll see how wondrously it all works).

quote:

. . .here's what I notice, with varying degrees of experiential awareness. There really isn't much of a doer for most of the bodily and mental processes that occur. I'm speaking for myself here, but I'll just write in a generalizing sort of way to see if this finds any agreement with others. Now, I can intentionally start and stop actions, but not so with thoughts (or not for minutes on end), and certainly not�the thousands of bodily processes that seem quite functional without a sense of self. One could say the larger, or vaster dimension of the kundalini runs this organic show well below the surface of conscious awareness. But when this kundalini becomes increasingly conscious, to a high degree, I can see where �self,� in the way we normally identify it, disappears from within the view of such an extremely dilated awareness. The speaker continues to frame language in a common self-other orientation, but the bodily processes that were without self-identity prior to consciousness are now, still, without it as consciousness. As such, the margin, or threshold, between self as deliberating agent, and the more powerful bodily processes acting on their own without need of �self� direction, collapse; this leaves self feeling rather feeble indeed as heretofore unconscious bodily processes become the primary awareness process. The self is seen for actually doing very little that is vital for survival.

Perhaps this is what Bernadette Roberts, Eckhart Tolle and�Suzanne Segal, are describing, more or less. They obviously are agent-oriented in terms of language, and exhibit distinctive personality characteristics, but the bodily organism's intelligence has taken over the space of awareness to such a degree that what seemed to be under self direction is now known, experientially, to have never been the case.

But what also stands out in this transformation is the limited capacity of the awakened organism. BR isn't capable of creating out of nothing, overcoming death, fully knowing the inner life of another, being omni-present, etc . . . . Her fully (?) awakened organism still is a creature in limited participation with the Infinite power that creates and sustains�her being out of nothing. So as eclipsing as her experience was in terms of realizing an inherently marginal function of self, there is still the �problem� of her existing at all. This isn't a problem for BR, of course, who has her own way of framing the experience theologically. But it seems that what comes through for both BR and SS is, perhaps,�God's manifest powers of creation�to the extent the highly evolved�human organism can�manage to remain conscious as "self" in His presence; whereas in the Unitive Stage the organism isn't primarily being called upon to metaphysically translate the�manifest Divine�powers into human perceptual ability. So the difference in these stages might be more metaphysical than spiritually developmental.

quote:

Originally posted by Phil:
[qb] w.c. (who is opting out of direct participation for various reasons) sends the following observations:

quote:

They obviously are agent-oriented in terms of language, and exhibit distinctive personality characteristics, but the bodily organism's intelligence has taken over the space of awareness to such a degree that what seemed to be under self direction is now known, experientially, to have never been the case.

[/qb]

quote:

Originally posted by Phil:
[qb]In short, the closer one draws to God, the more one becomes "oneself," or the person God created one to be.[/qb]

quote:

Originally posted by Phil:
[qb] ... Most telling in this regard was a comment she made on her retreat (from your second link above):
"I never liked the man Jesus or had a special devotion to him. To me the big mystery was Christ."

Horrors! I've always suspected as much, but there she comes right out and says it. [/qb]

quote:

I do not see anything wrong with viewing creation and creatures as quasi-autonomous realities that exist in God with both the Creator and the created order operating in and through a Divine matrix of interrelated causes and effects.

quote:

I cannot report a loss of affect as much as I can discern, rather, a tendency for feelings to follow me into action rather than leading me into action.

St. Thomas described how our love of God increases in proportion to our knowledge of God. And this is true.

St. Bernard described how our knowledge of God increases in proportion to our love of God. This, too, is true.

The knowledge of God that St. Bernard describes, however, surpasses that which St. Thomas was speaking and writing about. St. Thomas was talking about that knowledge of God that comes from both natural and supernatural revelation, a discursive knowing that increases through our study of philosophy, metaphysics, theology and such, such a knowing as could never attain to God's essential nature even as it might infinitely advance toward same.

The love of which both Thomas and Bernard spoke of, however, can indeed communicate with God's essential nature, leading one to a mysterious type of knowledge that certainly informs our normative sciences (of logic, aesthetics and ethics) and descriptive sciences (for instance, natural science) but which also far surpasses them, a knowledge difficult to describe or articulate. Such a love, I believe, is experienced on the threshold of contemplation.

Such is the love which casts out all fear. And here is the link to the loss of the affective ego that I'd like to explore. The perfect love that casts out all fear is a love that has grown in dependency on God, has learned to trust God, that knows that, however bad the situation or dire the circumstances, in the final analysis, all will be well. It is the mystical love of Julian that sings all may, can, will and shall be well and is the realization of the promise that you will know that all manner of things will be well. Here, then, is the distinction we draw between existential fear and neurotic fear, existential guilt and neurotic guilt, existential anger and neurotic anger, the existential always in service of life and love and relationship, the neurotic invariably life-detracting, love-detracting, relationship-destroying. We are not dealing only with neuroses that are overcome in the process of individuation but also those sinful resistances to conversion that are overcome on our journey of transformation, distinct but intertwined realities.

So, I would describe the loss of the affective ego as an energy inversion whereby the emotions and feelings and affective life don't so much energize our behaviors by initiating them but rather energize our behaviors by reinforcing them. It seems that this state could be effected all of a sudden through some precipitating event or could arise through time and a habit of virtue.

I will stop here as my thoughts are fogging up, but there is a dynamic of love and surrender that seems to be involved and either a sudden metanoia or a force of habit where this dynamic is concerned?

Love, eminently reasonable, needs no reason, inasmuch as it is sufficient unto itself. Happiness, finally, cannot be pursued but must ensue. So, too, with good feelings. They aren't needed but will often ensue, which is to say, follow, love.

Merton noted that often, when we are in pain and conflict and contradiction, we incorrectly associate same with old wounds, with old injuries that truly have been resolved and healed already. During such times, Merton encourages us to consider the very real possibility that we are, rather, being invited to open ourselves to a new level of being through such pain and conflict and contradiction. In other words, if we are not properly attentive, then we run the risk of stagnation, desolation and aridity, sometimes for months or years, dwelling on the wrong integrative and transformative issues, missing the invitation to move to another level, a level that could be attained in a day even.

One of the chief obstacles to advancing in the spiritual life, then, is to gain a certain clarity of vision regarding the route to sanctity or to psychological integration (routes that are much intertwined) and then acting as if the vision itself is the attainment when, in fact, it is not the mapping of the journey that marks our growth but the walking of the road, which is to say that, if you are on the illuminative or unitive way, then get on with it, and so on. Further, the mapping never involves the entire journey but entails, rather, our next good step, a step which is the spiritual equivalent of taking the entire journey Thus it is that the entire road is traversed, one step at a time in faith with the trust that that step is truly what is required for now, for today. We can get caught up with seeing the road and then fail to walk it, is our constant peril.

Two lessons here: Sometimes one has to quit beating one's head against the wall just because it feels good when you stop. Sometimes one has to quit circling the same developmental block on the journey just because some of the signs look the same, which is to say that emotional memories can get in the way by misleading us into thinking that our pain is rooted in old unresolved issues when it is moreso about leading us in a new direction entirely (with a genesis in new issues), inviting us to another level entirely. Then, once we see this new direction, it is of the essence to WALK it and not merely content ourselves in the consolation of SEEING it!

Well, this is a very loose rendering of the meaning I gathered from Merton and any misconstructions are my own. I will leave it to the forum to sort through how the integration/transformation of the affective ego fits in, for that may be a better way of describing what I think is going on in what is being called the loss of the affective ego. Point is that old emotional memories can get improperly associated with new spiritual emergence issues and that we can misdiagnose the reason for our present pain, conflict and contradiction.

I believe it was in that very same lecture that Merton noted that the spiritual path and the path of scientific breakthroughs is analogous. Specifically, the steps are: 1) We find an issue, sort through it and set about to solve it. 2) We grapple and grapple with it until we realize that it is virtually irresolute, unsolvable, beyond us, too difficult. 3) We let go and move on. 4) Sometimes, years later, the solution comes to us in an instant, in a flash.

Nothing very profound here. We've all used this apporach in balancing our checkbooks, eh? But the point is that that is how our human natures are constructed and that that is how our unconscious and conscious minds and spirits seem to interface.

Seeing after not before is axiomatic for the spiritual mapping of the journey. Others' journeys, even those of the great mystical doctors, let's say the Carmelites like John of the Cross and Teresa of Jesus, can give us touchpoints for the journey, indications that we are on the road, but they have no predictive value. The same is true with Ignatian and sanjuanian discernment such as re: consolation and desolation, maybe even such as regarding loss of affect, depression, acedia, beginnings of contemplation -- where we are moreso discerning retrospectively and not so much being guided prospectively.

Finally, BINGO re: this wisdom as not being a property of the mind even though it works very much in concert with the mind. The contemplative gaze in love transcends our cognitive and discursive faculties and penetrates through to the Divine Essence, actually communicating and relating to God's essential nature, a nature that is, in principle, incomprehensible.

We must be careful, however, in confusing incomprehensible with unintelligible. If these experiences were unintelligible and God was unintelligible, this forum wouldn't be possible, huh?
Another Mertonesque thought: We are moving toward an existential realization of how critical to our spiritual survival prayer really is. This realization is attained when we feel our need for prayer as acutely as we would feel the need for a breath when underwater.

That is my crude rendering from memory. I think this has something to say to us all whether we are called to discursive mediation, lectio, meditatio, oratio, contemplatio, operatio or what have ya. Whatever our prayer gift as led by the Spirit, it is to be engaged with the sense of critical and acute and urgent need that affirms our radical dependence and perennial state of existential crisis.

Now, don't get Merton wrong. This is all dialectical. One moves into crisis to lose crisis. One loses self to gain self. First, there is a mountain. Then, there is no mountain. Then, there is. One recognzies one's radical dependency to move to place of radical trust. One experiences one's emptiness and abject poverty to realize one's utter fullness. One moves into paradox and pain and contradiction to realize that, whatdaya know, all is well.

This is something re: the loss of self that is affirmed by the Sufi (Islamic)and the Hasidic (Jewish) mystics and that Merton, building on Buber as well as the Sufis, so well understood.

So, too, with human affects and desires. John of the Cross speaks of disordered appetites and Ignatius speaks of inordinate desires. It is not the appetite or desire we seek to eradicate, ultimately, but through proper ascticism and renunciation, we lose our emotional energy that intitiates so many of our behaviors (both virtue and vice) only to regain it to reinforce our virtues. Think of Ignatian discernment re: consolation and desolation, for example, and of how the different spirits console or afflict us, variously, as we either cooperate with Grace or backslide.

This dialectic is working, I believe, with the affective ego. Now, there may be something very deeply analogous going on with spiritual consolations and desolations and psychological affects that is not completely identical. This could account for how psychologically developmentally deformative influences might intefere/interact with spiritually transformative processes. This is no easy nut to crack and might profoundly influence with what facility one moves through an existential crisis to the experience of no-crisis-after-all. IOW, a spiritual emergence issue that gets foisted upon someone may not achieve its dialectical goal of teaching one to breathe underwater but could, for all practical purposes, drown a person.

When He knew for certain only drowning men could see Him, He said all men shall be sailors, then, until the sea shall free them.

continuing with Merton

Merton speaks of a Sufi scholar, who draws many parallels to psychoanalysis, which is to say who sees the therapy process as analogous to the spiritual journey.

If in therapy our primary concern is the resolution of unresolved subconscious conflicts, then Sufism might be thought of in the same way, only on a deeper level.

In therapy and normal individuation, we are resolving certain conflicts, the resolutions of which 1) take us from an infantile level, take us from the merely instinctual animal to a human type of being where our cognitive and affective development is concerned 2) then further take us and adapt us to successful social and cultural beings.

Many struggle at the first level, such as with an Oedipus complex, by way of example, staying Momma's boys their entire life, but most get through it to the second level of struggle, some falling prey to escapes from the difficult realities of social-cultural life. AA is an example of a good way to deal with such evasions, helping primarily by providing motives to change, wise to the fact that one has to want to change in order to change and no one can do it for us. This is pretty much where conventional therapy stops, helping one deal with one's neurotic evasions of social responsibility.

This, however, is insufficient for bringing about the general honesty required to go deeper and to become an authentic human who has faced life's fundamental challenges, life's BIGGER problems, gaining life's existential awareness.

What are these BIG PROBLEMS? 1) continuity vs discontinuity - death 2) creativity - having a life that is meaningful, a presence that makes a difference.

What are the mistakes that even analysts/therapists make here? What mistakes are made by us as individuals at this level? We treat these issues as if they were problems of social adaptation (that second level we talked about). IOW, if you are esteemed by your society or in a particular cultural milieu, then you've conquered these problems, your presence not only has made a difference but lives on, in a manner of speaking. WRONG! This "solution" leads people into a further evasion from a truly meaningful life. This blueprint is wrong and must be torn up and thrown away. [Think here of our affective reward system and not only what vices are reinforced by certain emotions but also by what so-called virtues are being reinforced by our range of emotions. There needs to be a rewiring.]

What is called for, rather, is a BREAKTHROUGH into existential awareness. IOW, we recognize that this social esteem and instinctual control we have gained is MEANINGLESS, not meaningless, to be sure, for our functioning in ordinary life, but certainly in terms of life's ultimate meaning. {Here Merton recommends Viktor Frankl.]

So, from this deeper level, our social success is meaningless. On one hand, though, it is great and necessary, but, otoh, it is TOTALLY NUTS!

How do we get in touch with what is needed on the deeper level? Through the Psalmist is one way, for the deeper level whether praying the mad, glad or sad psalms is always GOD.

The CROSS is the demonstration of this struggle, the realization of this conflict in Jesus, a conflict between the establishment of the religion, such as in society, on one hand, and the realization of authentic religion, such as in one's heart, otoh. It REJECTS the silly notion of "Keep the rules and there you've got all the answers," which Merton calls a wooden nickel. It similarly rejects: "Don't keep the rules," which is a stupid form of the same silly game.

The ultimate solution to our biggest subconscious unresolved conflicts, our existential questions, is experiencing our rootedness in God, God in our very hearts. Death loses its significance as an end because we are already finalities, already ends unto ourselves because of our being-in-God, being-in-love, which is sufficient unto itself with no further reason or justification. Our creativity is found in our issuing forth from the Creator and not in anything we do to gain social approval or cultural amenities. The obligational has become aspirational. One then studies and prays, fastening and binding one's spirit to God, clinging to God, after the manner I wrote about previously, needing prayer as badly as one who is under water needs a breath. Then, in all we see and experience, God is present, and we don't at all take seriously the self we have to be to operate in society, the role playing, the best things in life not being demanded by us but received a pure gift from God FOR ME, who lets God be Himself in me, when my false self has vanished.

The old emotional programming, that was even formative and not deformative, must be re-wired, in order to move on to the deeper level of a human being-in-love-with-God. Hence the dark Nights. Hence, the transformation of the affective ego as we move from a false to a true self.
re: The old emotional programming, that was even formative and not deformative, must be re-wired, in order to move on to the deeper level of a human being-in-love-with-God. Hence the dark Nights. Hence, the transformation of the affective ego as we move from a false to a true self.

continuing -

Hence, what Merton is describing is our social persona, which must die. True enough, our formation from the animal-instinctual to the social-cultural self is required, is necessary for the journey. In fact, we cannot surrender this self to the Cross, which is to say, to the existential crisis, until we have fully come into possession of same.

The existential crisis, then, involves a confrontation of the I with the not I , of the true self with the false self, and, when it is upon us, everything we see and observe and relate to in our existence is then seen through the lens of this crisis, of this Cross.

For society-at-large, then, the Gospel is this lens. The problem is that we have talked about the Cross so much, about the Gospel so much, that we have, in some sense, trivialized it and robbed it of its profound and radical significance for our individual lives and our lives in community. While in this crisis, however, we come to realize that the reason the world has so many huge problems -- socially, culturally, politically, economically -- is because of people, people like me who are living on a phony, superficial level of existence, out of contact with our true source, Who is God, alone.

The ultimate idolatry, then, is our self. So, we take this socially-formed self and crucify it and it is not like going to a movie or coming into an Internet discussion forum but is, rather, much more like walking into a fire.

The reward system, the reinforcement mechanisms, the old emotional programs, which worked so well for those of us who made it through our formative years with more formation, reformation and information than deformation, must be transformed. This mirrors, in fact, how our loving knowledge of God no longer comes through our senses, no longer is accompanied by sensible consolations, but is a direct communication with the Divine Essence that is beyond our discursive faculties. All of this is a massive upheaval of the way things have been for us --- cognitively, affectively, morally even, for it is no longer a mere following of the rules that brings one closer to God, although that part of our formation was absolutely necessary. This is a huge project and undertaking, multilayered and multitextured and quite unique for each individual, although we have discussed the touchpoints and the mapping of this journey.

The soul now approaches the God, Who needn't approach, Who dwells within, and the heart remains restless that has not made God its all. Rooted in God in radical trust and surrender, a new reward and reinforcement system gets set in place, where Love of self for sake of self has been transcended by love of God for sake of self, which has been transcended by love of God for sake of God, 'til, finally, our true self emerges and we love that self for the sake of God. The dialectic takes us back into self-possession, paradoxically, by self-surrender. This has cognitive, affective and moral aspects.

This is why we are here.
What comes to mind with respect to adulterers and murderers like both King Herod and King David, is what, ultimately, makes the difference between our going Herod's route or that of David?

To a certain extent, all that society asks by way of reformation is that we be rehabilitated into a good social persona, that we function well in our interpersonal dealings -- politically, econmomically, socially and culturally. IOW, society asks that we follow the rules, that we obey the law. Adherence to the Law is what was required of these Old Testament persons, in accordance with the Old Covenant. David became a good man and a great king by meeting these standards. He became his true self, the psalmist, when he went deeper in his relationship to God.

So, in its very essence, the Old Covenant very much corresponds to that second level of development, that which pertains to our socialization, and, although there were certain prophecies and foreshadowings, the crosses borne by these peoples were not the same as THE CROSS. Certainly, there must have always been some opportunity for humans on earth to partake of the transformative process effected by Jesus for once and for all through his birth, life, passion, death and resurrection. Indeed, many did undergo such radical transformation, especially, one might suspect, someone like David, the Psalmist, who points the way to Jesus, to the Father, in the Spirit.

At the same time, the explicit announcement of the New Testament, the proclamation of the Good News, the living out of the Gospel, of the Kerygma, through the Cross, marked an existential crisis at a global level for ALL PEOPLES, and played itself out as, not a total renunciation but, as a total surpassing of the old way. This is directly analogous to the death to self that is called for on the journey of each individual but involved a type of death for the People of God as a whole, who were being called to a new level of intimacy.

Again, we invoke, as individuals, because we have been convoked, as an entire People of God. We are called as a People and respond, radically alone (in many respects), as individuals.

Another lesson that is taught about David by Louis Evely (whom Phil will fondly recalled) is That Man Is You , which is to say: what is wrong with the world is ME.

What happens as we make the turn and drop the persona, which, again, was formatively necessary, is that we seek enlightenment out of compassion for the world, which constantly suffers our unenlightened selves. No longer are we in search of consolation or sensible positive affect because Perfect Love is its own reward, is totally unconditional, entirely kenotic.

We lay down our false selves, not for our own benefit, not because we are tired of the pain it causes us, but because of the pain we are transmitting to our loved ones, to the world. Any pain that is not thusly transformed, however neurotic or psychotic or emotional or idiopathic, we transmit to others. We seek to be rid of this pain that we may desist from transmitting it to others. Perfect Love and Perfect Contrition are inextricably bound up. It is suffcient to enter the Kingdom, through the law, through the old gate, of following the rules and being sorry for the consequences to ourselves when we don't. That was the old way and it still works.

BUT, if we take up our cross, go through the existential crisis, and come to that breakthrough where we are moreso sorry for our sin because of the consequences to others and to God, then we crucify the Old Man and rise as a New Creation, seeking the contemplative gaze, as Teresa says, not so much for the consolations but, rather, in order to gain the strength to serve. We become Christs. We allow God to be God-in-us, our truest selves. This isn't a requirement, but it is an invitation. The most important one that any of us will RSVP or not.

Let me insert this here. Losing something like fear does not mean that we have come to any pollyannish conclusion that all of the bad things that could happen to us are not going to happen --- rather, it means that, we know full well they are even likely to happen but are nothing, ultimately, to fear. So, too, with guilt, anger ... We give up the neurotic version in exchange for the existential version, which is quite THE CROSS to arrive at the resurrected version, which is ALL IS WELL.

This, too, is dialectical, like the Kingdom. It is on its way. It has already arrived. Paradise is ours to inherit. It is already in our hearts. All is decidely NOT well, temporally, in this earthly tent wherein we dwell, BUT, in reality, ours is a robe of resplendent glory and, eternally (not at the end of time or for a long time, but outside of time where we have both origin and destiny), ALL is, indeed, well.

Another distinction from Merton.

Merton discusses two of the types of confessio, of confession, but I don't recall the latin terms for both. One was laude or praise. The other was re: the more familiar "It was me. I done it." that we know from the Rite of Reconciliation and from police shakedowns, or parental busts re: hands in cookie jars.

This distinction makes for rich reflection and meditation but I'll try to control my imagination and focus on the transformative process.

The confession of praise is the converse: "It was God. He done it."

The psalms are about 50:50 penitential supplication taking the form of "I done it" and of praise taking the form of adoration of "He done it."

Now, there comes a point where we pass through existential crisis or a series of crises and recognize that there is little meritorious effort on our behalf other than cooperation with grace and that all else is pure unmerited Grace. This is part of recognizing our radical dependence on God, Whom we can trust because, well, look around at What He Done!

My point pertaining to this thread, however, is that, prior to getting to that place of praise and He Done It, we must get both to the place of I Done It re: our abject sinfulness as well as It Isn't/Wasn't Me! re: our manifold blessings and very existence.

Part of the nondual experience, then, is the existential realization of It Isn't Me --- not this creation, not these feelings, not these thoughts, not any rule-following or goodness, iow, It Isn't Me cognitively, affectively or morally, that's responsible for starting all of this, holding it all together and taking it anywhere.

This can be quite liberating.

The famous singer-songwriter, James Taylor, once made a wisecrack about AA, saying that half of the people that are in it are trying to come to the realization that they are not God, while the other half had the job once and are desperately busy trying to tender their resignation.

Well, it isn't enough to stop with It Isn't Me, and that, I believe, is where an existential experience of the no-self can leave us. But this apophatic realization must be dialectically related to HE DID IT! IT'S HER! and this is the positive, kataphatic content that is truly fitting and proper, coming from a tongue that cannot confess same without the initiative of the Spirit's prompting.

So, the loss of the affective ego can occur, in any of the many ways we have conceived it and experienced it, I think, and particularly in a manner that Merton wisely discerned was apophatic, natural, impersonal, existential, but needing completion in the kataphatic, supernatural, personal and theological, these processes nurturing and mutually enriching and entailing one another. This is where Tony deMello went awry to some extent in some of his later work and it is where Bernadette likely errs, too.

Point is, the confession of It's Not Me is necessary but not sufficient.

quote:

Originally posted by Shasha:
[qb]The illusion of no-self must be held up by some pretty powerful resistance. At the risk of being "too psychoanalytical," I wonder if some of her arrogance and denial of an inviduality is a defense against the vulnerability that her 'owning' an individual self /soul would stimulate? She might have to say "I'm sorry...I was wrong...that was a hateful thing I said." [/qb]

quote:

Originally posted by Derek:
[qb] ...
I reckon she's completely cut herself off from large parts of what's happening with her on a gut level, and that she is totally, totally unaware of how aggressive her outbursts are. "No self awareness" leads eventually to "No Self"; the defense mechanism is raised to the level of a theological principle. [/qb]

quote:

Originally posted by Shasha:
[qb] For instance, I'm intrigued by your last sentence above about "where Bernadette likey errs," but don't see what your point is exactly.[/qb]

quote:

Originally posted by Shasha:
[qb] Also, I want to comment on your observation above concerning a misdiagnosis of an existential problem as a psychological one. I've noticed that the misdiagnosis can go both ways, as you know. We can attribute some of our needs for God's love and intimacy as needs for human love / the need to heal old wounds. Also, we can feel like it's God we need when the "itch" that needs scratching will only be found in the work of loving those human creatures on our path, doing the work of repentance, forgiveness, healing of relationship wounds, etc.

I'm not sure how this fits in with Bernadette's No-Self illusion (as I see it), but I'm sure you have an idea (or a few) ...


peace to you! [/qb]