Phil: I've seen you use that term "non-reflecting consciousness" before, but now I think I understand for the first time what you mean. It is "non-reflecting" in the sense that it doesn't "reflect" some object in the outside world -- correct? Rather, it is awareness of oneself as a perceiving subject.

I went out and bought a 3-CD set on meditation by Adyashanti, and here he talks about how this pure awareness ("non-reflecting consciousness") is prior to awareness of anything in particular. The book you mention makes the same point on page 62.

Somewhere on those CDs, Adyashanti suggests that going into the sense of "I am" leads to an encounter with the divine within us.

That's not so different from Teresa's statement, "The Lord puts the soul in this dwelling of His, which is the center of the soul itself" (Interior Castle, VII.2.9).

The 3-CD set on meditation:

http://true-small-caps.blogspo...true-meditation.html

For me non-reflecting is the same as non-thinking. Does Helminiak mean "to reflect" in the mirroring sense?

Derek, that is true that the deepest center of our soul ("I am") is a space where God touches the soul in contemplative graces, and the part of ourselves that is metaphysically one-with-God as with the Source. But the encounter Teresa describes is a gift from God, not a natural outcome of entering one's deepest self. Non-dualists don't accept a situation where one enters fully into one's own metaphysical depths but still isn't experiencing loving union with God. But it's happening all the time for Buddhist, Hindu and New Age masters.

Phil - following Maritain and Arraj - says that when we enter our true self there is a "contact with the Absolute", but it's not a relational, personal contact that we're given to feel in contemplative graces.
I must say that - in my limited experience, at least - it feels quite differently.

Today I noticed that if I'm intensely oriented towards God as Thou I lose contact with my non-reflecting, witnessing "I", but if God is not present contemplatively, the witnessing "I" comes back with its clarity and stillness.
So "I am" isn't necessarily the gate to the Trinity - the door opens from the other side, as father Keating used to say.

quote:

Somewhere on those CDs, Adyashanti suggests that going into the sense of "I am" leads to an encounter with the divine within us.

That's not so different from Teresa's statement, "The Lord puts the soul in this dwelling of His, which is the center of the soul itself" (Interior Castle, VII.2.9).

Derek, glad you found the chapter helpful; the whole book is extremely important, imo -- though not an easy read, I'll admit.

It could be that getting in touch with one's own non-reflecting awareness brings with it an experience of God, but not necessarily so. I don't have as much experience with Adyashanti as you do, only a few minutes of youtubes and skimming some writings. I've not come across anything so far that could not be understood in terms of human non-reflecting consciousness -- the simple awareness of the human spirit that is foundational for all acts of cognition and choice. This awareness, as Helminiak explains, does feel a sense of deep connection with everything, and it is "always there" as the "witness" of our lives. To be in touch with this is liberating in the sense that we know ourselves to be spiritual beings.

St. Teresa, like so many other Christian mystics, refers to the divine indwelling in the "center of the soul," but the revelation and experience of the indwelling divine is a gift of grace. We do not know it as a consequence of simplifying our awareness; indeed, it is usually grasped when one is in a reflecting/intentional state -- everyday awareness, if you will. By grace, here, I'm not meaning a gratuitous shift in consciousness so much as an unmistakeable sense of being loved by an-Other.

A problem one finds with teachers like Adyashanti, Tolle, etc. is that they use terminology like "encounter the divine within us" but I'm not sure what they mean. Just because they use the term "divine" doesn't mean that they intend it as God in a Christian sense of the term. Generally, this "divine consciousness" is contrasted with Ego consciousness (reflecting human consciousness . . . me-states) and so it could very well mean the "I" or non-reflecting consciousness, which is spiritual and is foundational to "me." See what I mean? You have to see how they talk about the "divine," and generally it's in an impersonal sense, and in such manner that one gets the idea that the "divine" needs "me" to help grow in awareness. This is precisely the need of Self for Ego, but we wouldn't speak of the divine that way -- not in Christianity. So all in all, it could be that his teaching is a most lucid expression by his Ego self of his discovery of "I," and in a very pure sense. This is drastically different from Ego's embrace by the Holy Spirit, as what we always find with the Spirit is love for God, worship, a desire to build community, a desire to renew the earth, etc. -- God's creativity and passion coming through. For those interested in this topic see my doctoral dissertation on "God, Self and Ego."
- http://shalomplace.com/view/godselfego.html
Scroll down to the Summary

Let us know how you find the CD set.

quote:

Originally posted by Phil:
Let us know how you find the CD set.

I have listened again to CD #2, which is the one which covers this subject, and where I got lost first time through.

quote:

Originally posted by Phil:
It could be that getting in touch with one's own non-reflecting awareness brings with it an experience of God, but not necessarily so.

He would probably agree with you to some extent. He says that meditation that leads only to the enjoyment of the peacefulness of non-reflecting awareness engenders passivity and disengagement. It is not enough in itself.

To counteract this passivity, he recommends actively engaging our intelligence and curiosity. This is what he means by "inquiry" (in this context).

The two combined (meditation plus inquiry) lead to "revelation."

But you can't make this revelation or flash of insight happen. It happens spontaneously by itself. All we can do is cultivate the conditions in which it can happen.

In particular, it is not something that is the result of a thought process. "The mind cannot understand this," he says. (That certainly applied to me when I listened to CD #2 the first time through!)

quote:

Originally posted by Phil:
By grace, here, I'm not meaning a gratuitous shift in consciousness so much as an unmistakeable sense of being loved by an-Other.

Here there is a definite difference. Adyashanti nowhere mentions that this "revelation" involves an outside "Other" who is somehow separate.

quote:

Originally posted by Phil:
This awareness, as Helminiak explains, does feel a sense of deep connection with everything, and it is "always there" as the "witness" of our lives. To be in touch with this is liberating in the sense that we know ourselves to be spiritual beings.

Adyashanti says many similar things.

However, toward the end of CD #2, he goes on to say that this liberating knowledge or awareness is not the end but rather the beginning of the true "spiritual journey," which consists of living from this realization -- a whole new way of life.

quote:

Originally posted by Phil:
A problem one finds with teachers like Adyashanti, Tolle, etc. is that they use terminology like "encounter the divine within us" but I'm not sure what they mean. Just because they use the term "divine" doesn't mean that they intend it as God in a Christian sense of the term.

Adyashanti uses this as an example of a question for inquiry. However, he says that "What is God?" is still too much of a question concerned with the outside. Rather, the question that should be asked is, "Who am I that is seeking God?"

quote:

For me non-reflecting is the same as non-thinking. Does Helminiak mean "to reflect" in the mirroring sense?

Mt, it really means acting on the contents of consciousness -- thinking, remembering, imagining, etc. It can even include dreaming, as some processing is going on there as well. Interestingly, a dream also includes nonreflecting awareness in that there is a see-er of the dream.

-----

Derek, thanks for the report on CD #2 and your response to some of my remarks. The more I hear, the more this sounds like enlightenment (realizational) spirituality. It's not surprising, then, that he's more interested in "Who am I that is seeking God?" than "What is God?" or (from an Abrahamic pov) "Who is God?" Ramana Maharishi would say the same. No one in the Bible seems particularly interested in that question, however, as the premise is that knowledge of God (via covenant) is what brings true self-knowledge.

The value, then, of someone like Adyashanti, Tolle, etc. is in helping one to shed false-self attitudes and behaviors, and practice mindfulness, detachment and authentic living. All very good! This can help to cultivate good soil in the heart, that seeds of divine grace might sprout and grow.

Non-dualists sometimes talk about personal God or the divine Other that gives us enlightenment as a grace. Maybe it's their response for Christianity and other theistic traditions.
Even some of them seem to have authentic relationship with personal God, they ultimately don't have theological framework to talk about God and human beings.

Their epistemology is grounded in their awareness, not intellect, since intellect is silenced. Pure awareness doesn't perceive boundaries, enlightenment means "not-two" (Shin Jin Mei, VI century A.D.), so there can be any reasonable discussion of transcendental God. That's why I gave up Zen - I felt I cannot feel the otherness of God - I was able to understand it by my intellect, but I was afraid that will be gone too, if I go too far.
Theoretically, yes.

That's why I would ask Adyashanti or Tolle if they personally think that there is a distinct God that is not the same as human spirit or - if there are distinct human spirits. I wonder what he'd tell me. Perhaps - that it's not important for the realization of enlightenment or that I should first discover "who I am".

For them theological discourse is superfluous. They insist on "experience" (pure awareness). And in that "experience" there is no You, no Other. There is only THAT WHICH IS.

I think that it's possible to believe in the Other while in the non-dual state - like Phil testifies. But even Phil says there's a strong disinclination to think and make act of will in that state. What if someone doesn't have this kind of solid Catholic formation? "Divine Other" can be easily replaced by "the Divine" that is everything that exists, and manifests in all phenomena arising in our mind.

I don't think enlightenment leads to the loss of faith or disables us to believe, but it's a challenge. It shouldn't be pursued outside of the context of religious faith, community, guidance etc.

I wonder if the loss of one's sense of God as Other is partly an expression of fallenness. In spite of the oneness of all things, or how every aspect of creation is upheld in the same way with the same cosmic force, there is no equating consciousness with the Divine powers i.e, omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, omni-benevolence. And yet how one fails to see this must be based upon the blind-spots of enlightenment. Cosmic energies don't lead to their Source through awareness if awareness is deployed to itself as the one source of those same energies. The source of cosmic energies must lead back to awareness when awareness is the starting point, unlike the starting point of knowledge infused by God into the soul.

I think the distinction between will and awareness is really helpful, as it is so close to the experiential description for me. In my prayer life there is also what Mt describes as a loss of witnessing presence, and its return in simple abiding in the present moment. But one cannot witness God; rather, I'd describe the awareness aspect of graced contemplation as "behold." I'm guessing there is better nuancing of this word in other languages than english, and I don't know off-hand what the biblical Greek might yield. But to see being seen by God, which is pure grace, or infused supernatural knowledge which I can't produce within consciousness, is beholding the Source of myself as a person (which has much to do with the will's dispostion). Whereas the present moment, without the grace of the Eternal made known to us, yields only the creaturely unity of the energies which govern the rhythms of the universe.

Because we don't uphold ourselves metaphysicially, the pre-reflective state is relatively impersonal. Only God who upholds all creation beyond its awareness (result of the Fall), and being the only pure Existent (Aquinas?), can be fully present as the Source of Personness, i.e, Love, within the tapestry of those energies. So perhaps in the pre-fallen state cosmic energies were just as transparent to His sovereignty as is evident via the grace of contempation, where the two weren't separate.

Mt, I believe somewhere on the Tolle thread you described something of this, or how God as Love would be first a mystery of persons, and secondly an intimate yet impersonal force upholding the creation. And perhaps the lack of His presence as Love, or Personness, is an expression of the Fall. We can be aware of cosmic presence from within creation, and this does intimate something like the transcendental, but He Himself isn't available to be manipulated in this way. "I am That" isn't too unlike equating oneself as God, although it is the cosmic forces one is aware of. Not that those undertaking the nondual path mean to steep themselves in this subtle pride, but from the perspective of Grace, it is a withdrawal of one's will from God. And so perhaps the lack of primary focus on the will in non-dual systems comes from its being maintained as an aspect of self-awareness, rather than surrendered through Grace to the mystery of Persons. We know, for instance, that awareness of how He touches us, and who He is from His own pov, is inaccessible unless given also. And so awareness, obviously limited in terms of omniscience, omnipresence and so on, is maintained in the non-dual system as a way of not having to surrender, or keeping onself and the creation as the Source of itself. And since we can't even surrender without infused Grace, the idea of surrender beyond awareness remains unknown.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: w.c.,