This topic has come up in various ways on a number of threads, so I thought it might be helpful to detail the concerns more directly. I'm seeing at least two sides to the discussion, roughly speaking: experential and philosophical.

So here, for starters, is how I hold the distinctions, and why:

We know it is likely that quantum dynamics are involved in the operations of consciousness, especially as we consider the research supporting parapsychological findings. Dean Radin's latest book "Entangled Minds" is the latest discussion I've seen over the interface of these two research areas. Rupert Sheldrake has several similar explorations published.

What stands out in these lay-friendly descriptions is the quandary over the limits of quantum dynmamics as a model accounting for creation out of nothing, or the Big Bang. So far the Big Bang Theory holds up fairly well as new tests are made and quantum dynamics are better understood. I guess the huge accelerator in France, should it ever get up and running, will reveal much more (if it doesn't create a black hole and cause us to slip into the experiment ourselves!). Radin notes in his book how the notion of quantum mechanics as the causal basis of the universe is questioned. While consciousness impacts subtle physical reality at the level of photons/particles of light (bodily energy and another person's awareness included), the mind's power of observation doesn't seem to externally alter the physical world itself. There is, iow, a difference between influence and physical creation.

Radin notes (pp. 219-220):

"After reviewing this problem, Columbia University physicist Brian Greene concluded: "After more than seven decades, no one understands how or even whether the collapse of a probability wave (the mind's impact in making an observation) really happens. Many physicists, like Rosenblum and Kuttner, question the role of the mind in literally affecting the physical world:

"The measurement problem arising from the quantum experiment does not necessarily imply that something "from the mind of the observer" affects the external physical world. The measurement problem does, however, hint that there is more to say about the physical world than quantum theory says."

So while parapsychological experiments in fact suggest the power of consciousness to even influence physical organisms at a distance, this influence isn't considered the causal basis of the universe. And so we are left with the difference between influence and creation, if in the conversation we are considering the relationship between quantum dynamics, consciousness and the existence of the universe.

It's my impression from experience that consciousness is powerful, but limited. While we interact and affect each other physically and mentally and spiritually over distances, we do not create out of nothing, nor do we overcome death, display ominiscience, omnipresence or omnibenevolence.


These are obvious distinctions, but seem to somehow get lost when dialogue is occuring between Theists and Buddhists, for instance. Just as some physicists doubt the power of a quantum dynamic model to account for creation out of nothing (the Big Bang), seeing quantum affects as arising with the universe (rather than causing it), so too can we consider consciousness an aspect of the creation; otherwise its powers, as causal to the creation of the universe, would be unlimited. Just as quantum dynamics do not account causally for the physical universe, it shouldn't be surprising to find the quantum nature of consciousness a limited, phenomenal power.

This is important for more than theoretical purposes, since we're talking about the difference between participation and creation, which reflects not only our limited role in the universe and our mortality, but to what degree humans are actually capable of creating a just society. There is so much talk, seen on other threads, about a world evolving via an expanding consciousness. But from a Theistic pov, this is rather suspect.

Just try the simple experiment of stopping all thought processes for two minutes.


Everyone knows it is impossible to achieve this, and that holding one's intention in a stable, compassionate form only lasts about as long. Our internal dialogue runs itself, and even where rare enlightenment unifies much of the polarized energy, there is still no ability to create out of nothing or exert omniniscient or omnibenevolent affects.


This distinction, as labored as it is, is right near the heart of the conversation on the BR thread, where some posited non-duality as a higher form of awakening than union with the Divine via grace. How can one say this of enlightenment when Divinity is defined by powers we are unable to know except indirectly, by participation?

The experiential distinctions, for myself, boil down to simply knowing the difference between nondual states, or the wondrous present moment in which all created things reside, and contemplative grace, or the Eternal beyond consciousness that must be given in order to be known as it knows Itself. Consciousness cannot know the latter throught its own operations, however enlightened. It is the difference between the creature in deep, limited participation and the unlimited Creator giving His/Her own unoriginated knowledge which consciousness is metaphysically unable to acquire.

Very good distinction above, w.c. And from your opening post:

quote:

Our internal dialogue runs itself, and even where rare enlightenment unifies much of the polarized energy, there is still no ability to create out of nothing or exert omniniscient or omnibenevolent affects.

Right. That distinction implies a "western" concept of God, however. For many, such a conception is negated in favor of, well . . . consciousness. So for them to say that consciousness is the absolute is to discount understandings and experiences that go beyond their somewhat impersonal, "force-like" idea.

Phil:

In a narrower personal frame, I have to wonder if those who insist on equating englightened consciousness with the Divine are even speaking from a fully experiential pov. While my experience of nonduality lasts only for hours at a time, and is rich and alive and full of wonder for the immediacy of ongoing creation, the Spirit of God touching me is so essentially different that to not know this as a clear distinction implies one of two things:

Either I'm not experiencing non-duality as others describe it i.e, lacking depth;


Those equating the two haven't yet become simple enough to allow Grace to touch them.


Which leads to another point: those meditating in the effortless tradition of non-duality, whether Zen, or Advaita Vedanta or Tibetan, may not realize they are actually far from the effortless that is possible when Divine Grace puts the faculties at rest/absorbs them/raises them to Himself via His own knowing.

I was sure, about 10 years ago, that my friend who is a Christian monk was just lacking a significant kundalini-based nondual experience, until I accepted his invitation to a gestalt exercise: allowing Christ to come to me in an empty chair. Part of me still was bemused, to say the least, even embarrassed, at what was happening as He touched me so sweetly. But oops, I was the one missing the "experience."

WC:

I understand your point of view.


Peace

And when I say there are those who haven't let Him touch them, I'm not meaning we aren't all continually upheld by Him. It seems a matter of recognition and allowance of the will where He is invited to reveal His profoundly and intimately personal Nature as Father/Mother. This is one of those "chicken and egg" distinctions, like origination and participation. Those who haven't yet opened to Him within the heart for His personal Presence are likely to assume His cosmic, impersonal presence is the ultimate state of being. And since this impersonal presence is more like non-dual awareness in ourselves, one then assumes any personal manifestation of the Divine is a secondary feature that can be bypassed. The personal aspect of God, as His ultimate bestowal of Grace to us as completely Other yet completely intimately Father, also is more likely to awaken wounds in the heart; whereas the impersonal immanent manifestation needn't awaken the heart that deeply.

If we think of these two mysteries - God as Eternal vast uncreated Being, and God as Father -knowing each to be true simultaneously, which seems the grander revelation? We only have to look at a clear night sky, or a mountain range, to glean God as Uncreated, majestic Being. But to experience that majesty and vastness as pure personal intimacy seems the most profound revelation of the two; for one can imagine our personal sense of God breaking down into impersonality, since much of our own personal kindness is a facade, or easily threatened. But our minds can only barely suggest His vastness when we glimpse it in a moment of reverie, and even less so for that vastness to take up residence in our hearts as Abba, Daddy.

And so we miss "Daddy" in the grandeur of creation, with all its cataclysms and shadows. Only He can infuse Himself in us as Father while maintaining His terrible vastness. Then the measure of his incomprensible nature becomes the measure of his infinite, tender love. We cannot imagine this, or even wish it upon ourselves, as our own knowing, and capacity for love, couldn't tolerate one or both. And so to know God as terribly loving is the greater mystery - the one we'd least expect.

Looking into the vastness of uncreated Being, given our very limited perceptions of it, and being able to only glean partially Its nature through the immense chaos and design of creation, isn't it little wonder that non-dual awareness would fail to perceive "Daddy?"

It would be interesting to know if the non-dualists ever describe dilation of the heart. My acquaintence with them, and partial experience of that state of awareness, suggests that the heart is only minimally involved, at least when compared with graced mystical reveries. John of the Cross' apophatic contemplative wisdom still stongly supports interiority, or God's indwelling beyond the grasp of the faculties.

As for the heart, it's my guess that anyone knowing the sweetness which comes from its being pierced would likely not take nonduality without such dilation as the highest form of human awareness.

I'd like to comment on one thing. Consciousness in Buddhism is not equated with the Buddha Nature, since it is one of the skandhas, the elements that make a human being and it is empty. Of course, in mahayana and vajrayana there is the concept of the Mind which consciousness is only a manifestation of, and we could take it to mean "consciousness" to, since in Tibetan Buddhism the Mind has two features - emptiness (impossible to grasp as an object) and lucidity (it is knowing, it's not unintelligent). So I think you w.c. when you say "consciousness" you mean something like "lucidity of the mind" here. In my experience also consciousness or awareness have a form (a form of consciousness), they are limited, can be known as an object, although very subtle one. Sometimes I was aware of my consciousness (without thinking). I was wondering if this is just my "I" as a luminous space of all experiences, or is it maybe God as Light - Karl Rahner describes God as "bright space of thought", meaning a condition of knowledge and experience. In any case this "condition", as I see it, is deeper than what I used to call "consciousness". So this is first point I wanna make. Probably BR equates self with consciousness in this limited meaning, because she must have this "space" for experience, since she experiences stuff, obviously.
The second point is that the Church Fathers emphasized that God is a mind, just like we are minds. Augustine and Gregory of Nyssa, and probably other Greek Fathers considered the mind as the self (Augustine's "mens est ego" - "the mind is the I") and thought of the human mind as similar and an image of God's mind. What was the difference for them? Human mind is changing, God's mind is unchanging - that was the main difference for Augustine, and for Gregory, also.
So my point is that perhaps it is not that God is something different from consciousness - he is just a different sort of consciousness (different "nature" in Cappadocian language). And we cannot access this consciousness because consciousness or awareness as such is not an object of experience (see Gregory of Nyssa, De anima et resurrectione - a mind is "akataleptos", ungraspable to itself by nature). But we can know God in luminous dark, when he absorbs us and we participate in His consciousness - we can look through His eyes. But is this metaphysical or relational experience? I suppose there is metaphysical looking through God's eye - impersonal experience as such, but there is also a relational experience of participating in the Holy Spirit, a different one, like w.c. said.
So my point is that we can know God's consciousness in two ways, as Phil repeats, first is seeing in a mirror of our own consciousness (seeing a sun in a particle of glass - Gregory of Nyssa, again), a non-dual experience, perhaps. Another way is by God's grace we can know Him personally, by His presence - but then it is more than just reflecting the sun in a mirror of our soul, because this reflecting is natural for every mind. These two can intermingle, I suppose.
This would be my contribution in the discussion, for now. What do you think about that?
Ah, yeah, God is beyond our consciousness in the sense that He cannot be grasped by the consciousness, while is the ground of it. And he is beyond it, because as the Ground He remains hidden, as long as He doesn't wish to reveal His qualities and presence to a soul, right?

w.c.,

I'm moved by your posts. I'm at the point where I was confronted with the difference between these two ways of knowing God, confronted with clarity that I lacked before. After a Zen sesshin in November I had a non-stable but powerful experience of the Present Moment in which there was no boundary, no subject-object, no-thing, "just-this" and great, impersonal, electric energy of life. Yet, I didn't find my Jesus there (nor "myself", for that matter). I was wondering if this is an experience I should go deeper into, when, at the beginning of December, I was given again infused love and intimacy with Jesus. Just about that time, "incidentally" I came across this website and e-mailed Phil. Then I felt that God gives me a choice - to delve into non-dual Zen experience with under the guidance of my Zen master (and remain a Christian, not without certain tensions) or to surrender to the sweet experience of Jesus' love - which I can't control, which no sesshins can enforce or make stable, and which I don't have a master to lead me towards. I really experienced that I have a choice, and that God will love me whatever I choose and give me Himself in whichever way. And I chose the sweet flow of living waters within me. The moment I made a decision the experience of this loving sweetness became overpowering and now I feel held by it most of the time, with different degrees in power, without my control of the experience. So I decided to give up Zen for few months and to see what happens. I pray by surrendering to this sweetness inside me, sometimes starting with some lectio or spontaneous verbal prayer, which seems to give me better contact with it. I noticed two things - first, that this experience of being loved, and held, and caressed is so much better than emptiness; second, that for now my experience of the Witness and the Present Moment are somewhat more vague, they seem to be somehow "turned down" by what I think is episodes of the prayer of quiet.

W.C., I imagine you might have a partially similar spiritual journey, so I'd like to ask you if this resonates with your experience?
I also feel a bit ashamed that for few years I considered non-dual experience to be higher than the experience of love. Because I experienced infused contemplation for some periods and I delighted in it, but I was always suspicious about it not being as "high" as the emptiness experience, probably because I relied on father Keating for so long. Now, I feel like I was not accepting fully Jesus' invitation and a bit of shame comes up... but then I sense the Beloved in my heart and the shame is gone...

mateusz:

Yes, you are right about that distinction. And I think we are saying similar things differently. Buddhism's unborn awareness, or our being immersed continually in the aliveness of the present moment (whether we know it or not), is what I mean to be the limit of human knowing and being known without an infusion of supernatural grace. I like your way of describing this larger sense of awareness as the I being "a luminous space of all experience."

But I would say another reason we cannot grasp the mind, even as we conceive of God in this way, is because we lack the power in ourselves to know Him as He knows himself. We can, to a limited degree, know empathetically an intimate friend or spouse or lover, or even read their thoughts from time to time; this is one of the powers of participation which we humans have: psychic knowing without omniscience. But with God we cannot read His mind unless He infuses us with his knowing - supernatural knowing. So He is, as you say, a very different kind of consciousness, or mind. His love and knowing and power are all unified, which is certainly not the case for His creatures, although we still participate: our greatest knowledge comes from our deepest love. And so we are in His image, participating in His powers, but in very limited ways. We don't create out of nothing, but we can co-create wisely. We can't overcome death, but we can extend life. We can love, but we're never omnibenevolent.

So in non-dual awareness we are in deep participation with these powers, so much so that the knower, the mind, is saturated with its own created luminosity. The internal dialogue has been alchemized energetically, where polarized energies have entered the central channel, revealing silence that is ever present. Yet, even for all this, we cannot orginate power. We are still participators however englightened we become. We die, and that simply wouldn't happen if we could create out of nothing. We'd be forever renewed as creators of our own being.

Moreover, when the mind is full of its own luminosity, there may not be room for infused, supernatual knowing/being known. God's knowing is different because He is a different Being than we are. As you noted, His nature, being uncreated, is different. With the presence of God reflected through the creation filling the mind, the ability to be apprehended directly by Him may fall away. All seems to be self, but self has been so saturated with its own luminosity that this is all it sees. This also may be why non-dualists aren't necessarily the most virtuous characters, as the heart's relational nature has been limited within creaturely power.

So I relate with non-dual awareness as opening to the powers of creaturely presence based upon implicitly being upheld by God beyond our own doing and knowing. Whereas the supernatural infusion of His presence, which is being known by Him from His own pov, is always an instance of our unknowing. We don't really know how He knows us, but are given to know Him by Him. If consciousness were Divine, we wouldn't experience this unknowing. Our knowing would be unified with our loving and with the nature of our being as everlasting. God knows Himself within the Trinity outside of time, and within his creation in ways it is unaware. This knowing=upholding His creation in ways it is unaware is, I believe, the luminosity of the enligthened mind. It isn't really the mind's own nature, or the mind would be totally unified with the body in a deathless sort of way. But being saturated, it can only know itself from its own pov.

Yes, I can certainly relate with how you describe your experience, and some of the struggle re: discerning what to do, where to place our attention.

Have you seen Phil's description of his own non-dual awakening? Each person's is unique to their own individuality, but Phil's came about as a side-effect of devotional prayer, never eclipsing the latter.

You might ask him to post the link for this article he wrote, if you haven't already read it.


"Then I felt that God gives me a choice - to delve into non-dual Zen experience with under the guidance of my Zen master (and remain a Christian, not without certain tensions) or to surrender to the sweet experience of Jesus' love - which I can't control, which no sesshins can enforce or make stable, and which I don't have a master to lead me towards. I really experienced that I have a choice, and that God will love me whatever I choose and give me Himself in whichever way. And I chose the sweet flow of living waters within me. The moment I made a decision the experience of this loving sweetness became overpowering and now I feel held by it most of the time, with different degrees in power, without my control of the experience. So I decided to give up Zen for few months and to see what happens. I pray by surrendering to this sweetness inside me, sometimes starting with some lectio or spontaneous verbal prayer, which seems to give me better contact with it. I noticed two things - first, that this experience of being loved, and held, and caressed is so much better than emptiness; second, that for now my experience of the Witness and the Present Moment are somewhat more vague, they seem to be somehow "turned down" by what I think is episodes of the prayer of quiet."


Wonderful!! I can relate with this. His sweetness, and how He awakens my heart's own sweetness for Him and other people . . . . what a relief to trust this and know our hearts can respond in this way. You may be further along in this than I am. That sweetness was first noticed about 10 years ago, and occured maybe once a year for a few years, and has become more common as the years have passed. Nowdays it is almost daily. I only have to slow down, look within and as you say, surrender to the sweetness. I do Liturgy of the Hours, in a Lectio Divina sort of way. But I find myself resisting how deeply He might take me. The sweetness seems to have a creaturely aspect, and something much deeper. It was probably 9 years ago now that I saw this very clearly. I was resting on the floor, and this sweetness was flowing, and I surrendered to it. The sweetness was like a trickle leading to a river, and this opened inside-out. My heart was dilated from the inside, and all of a sudden I'm standing on what seemed the edge of the Heavenly City. It was made of a living, pure light, and I couldn't move. I was on the outskirts, in awe, and also feeling how limited my virtue was. Going nearer couldn't happen without a deepening of virture.

And I think this deepening of virtue can get lost in non-dual practices where expanded consciousness becomes the goal. Who can resist exploiting the siddhis unless he/she is deeply open to God above all things? That is scary - to become addicted to these powers which would be almost impossible to resist. Interestingly, the gurus, sages, saints, that seem the most loving are the ones that shun the siddhis for their own sake.

Dear mateusz, I can very much relate to your "fork in the road" decision. I remember the very last time I sat to meditate. (Sorry to those who've heard my story, but I gotta repeat it here.)

I had just been baptized in the Holy Spirit but was still curious about whether the HS was the same as Kundalini and whether enlightenment was God's Kingdom, etc. I was a natural at meditation and had had luminous, expansive, non-dual consciousness states just come to me all the time on and off for years, even as a little girl. But on this day as I sat cross-legged, back straight ready to glide into bliss, I literally felt the power of God come down on me, almost knocked me over. In a flash I 'saw' the truth of where my intentions behind meditation would take me. It was a horrific sight! A dead, empty trap. I felt such a surge of shame at my desires for stablizing expanded consciousness. I could 'see' that I was deeply called to pray, pray, and pray. It's been about 3 years and I see more and more the beauty of Christ's Love and the character/ virtue He wants to build in all of us. And I see how seductive and deceitful was my previous path...and for me, there was no mingling the two. Jesus went from being my primary Lord to my exclusive Lord.

w.c., I enjoy your writings on this subject. I agree with you about the irresistable siddhis that come with kundalini rising and aligning ourselves with the energies/intentions of powerful teachers. As I've mentioned before, I suspect there are different kinds of enlightenment that cause one to feel more or less like one IS GOD. There is a kundalini guru with a huge temple in India who has literally sold out to kundalini and manipulating the powers of creation. I took a week long course with him. One day he spoke tenderly of Jesus and how the teachings of Jesus were exactly like those of Ramakrishna. The next day his voice was dripping with contempt as he told a joke about how Lazarus was angry with Jesus for bringing him back from death! I see now what he was doing was rationalizing his rejection of what Christ had to offer. I literally experienced the state this guru lived in and must say that in his state you literally have no need to bow to anything, no need to humble yourself to anything. The ecstacy is a blistering, non-stop influx of energy that feels fully tied to the universe. In this state, you have no need for anything! Certainly, it seems that nothing exists that is apart from this power. But I discovered that it is a lie, a gigantic illusion, that while this man believes he's one with the universe, he's really trapped in a cosmic bubble.

Once I started my journey of praying and worshipping Jesus, I began to become more humble and could receive instruction from the Lord. The Lord spoke to me one morning. He said, "I want you to be a woman of integrity." And I could see the subtle ways in which I needed to be transformed in this way.

Another day as I was praying, the Lord stepped into the room. BAM, I instantly had to put my head to the floor. I remember being so blasted by His Glory that, without thinking of what I was doing, I found myself trying to press my head down lower into the carpet. I just couldn't get down low enough! In His Presence, one realizes that there is absolutely *nothing* Divine inside oneself. I don't suffer from low self-esteem or inadequacy or shame, etc. That's not the sense in which I felt 'low.' When you see the King of Glory, you realize how ridiculous it is to believe that Divinity is inside you somehow and all you have to do is alter your consciousness, lose your ego. NONSENSE.

With the Lord in front of you, external to you, you see what it means to be a "sinner"--not so much a 'bad' person as falling radically short of God's perfect Glory, the New Creation that is underway in the Baptized believer.

My journey through enlightenment and home to Christ has taught me that I must forego all ecstacies, pleasures, escape routes, short cuts, everything is tossed out in favor of growing in holiness and doing His Will. Following Christ is much harder than the Eastern path of enlightenment, but the only one that will bring lasting peace. And I mean peace in the sense of "Shalom," the Peace of Christ, not the kind of peace that is a stillness of mind or empty space.

These are marvelous exchanges and sharings. Thank you, w.c., mateusz and Shasha for your postings. You all might find some of Rahner's reflections on the soul's experience at death (scroll up a little to begin) to resonate with what people describe as non-dual states. It seems that some meditative experiences give us a glimpse of this by loosening the body-soul connection, at least for a short time.

Another thought I've had about how/why a deep experience of the present moment is unstable and difficult to sustain is that, in addition to the disorders in our being caused by sin, there is the natural dynamism of the human spirit itself, which seeks not only to be aware, but to know and understand. Lonergan has described this process better than anyone else -- in short, that the spiritual part of our nature is awareness and intelligence and freedom. These all naturally flow one into the other, although we can shift the emphasis from one to the other, or toward one while excluding the others. . . only for a short time, however. As the spirit is one, indivisible whole, it's just not possible to have awareness to the complete exclusion of the operations of intelligence and freedom. Sooner or later one is moved to understand what is experienced, and what ought to be done about it.

Incidentally, these three operations are the basis for the traditional view that beauty, truth and goodness are the highest virtues, and Jesus' own claim to be the way the truth and the life:
a. Awareness opens us to wonder and the beauty of what is.
b. Intelligence to truth, understanding, wisdom.
c. Freedom to love and goodness.
It would seem, then, that an integral spirituality ought to emphasize all three of these pathways, and not place one above or beneath the other, much less an obstacle to the others.

Phil:

Yes, and another way of summarizing this inherently unstable present moment experience is to consider knowing and understanding as the yearning to know God as He is in Himself, and for Him in some way (beauty, truth and goodness), which of course is inaccessible to us short of the Beatific Vision. This would differentiate the present moment from the eternal, which Buddhists often equate.

Shasha:

Yes, the two are so very different. Thanks for sharing your story. When you say "the power of God coming down," this is often how I experience the Holy Spirit: a sweet, Holy mist that descends from above, enfolding me, and sometimes descending further into my heart where I'm drawn inward. But I never really know what will happen. Sometimes it is clear I'm not simple enough and have prestaged God with some expectation, rather than letting Him lead in prayer. What I discover over and over again is how unsimplified I am. When the creator of the universe wants to pray with us/in us, there ain't much for us creatures to do but surrender.

I don't know if this is appropriate, the place for this, but I want to share my experience of Christ and prayer. In centering prayer, Christ is my intention. I have not had experiences with Eastern religion, although I think I was taught how to pray as a very little girl by a Buddhist monk. He was a very important person for me when I was still pretty nonverbal. It is part of my belief system that the Holy Spirit could have used that devout and holy old man to anchor me to God. Or I could be a "natural". At any rate, contemplative prayer is a deep way for me to pray, and I find it restful.
I started saying yes to God almost 30 years ago when I was in a lot of emotional pain during a divorce that I did not seek or want. As I sought God's Will in crazy, difficult times, I felt surrounded by Presence. As the emotional crises ebbed, and my life made more sense, God was no longer a strong Presence. I wanted to remember God's goodness, and to acknowledge what He had done for me, and to make my "yes" more full. I ended up living alone for a couple of months (the first time ever, I come from a large family). I worked full time, and God was not part of my thoughts during the day, but as soon as the working day was done, I was home, prostrated on the floor, surrendering to a God, who was somehow hidden, not Someone experienced, and utterly different, removed, from me. I felt obsessed.I wanted to be a Christian, which seemed pretty difficult as I could not see how a utterly mysterious God could be human. I just followed the longing of my heart. I felt my life was getting drier and drier, there was not much consolation, except that I felt this came from God, and that God loved me, and that this was a way to God. There were no words, and no prayer, except that of prostration and trying to let God have complete control of my life, from money to sex to career ambitions.
I was finally given the grace to accept that Jesus is the Son of God, and to let Him do with me as He willed. And I was able to admit my utter spiritual poverty, and Christ blessed me. After about 15 minutes or so of dialogue I guess you could call it, I was in a deep prayer state for about 4 hours. I remember learning that my life was hidden in Him. That evening I rolled on the floor in ecstasy, utterly out of my mind in love. I had been invited months ago to dinner at a friend's house, (it was sort of difficult to cancel, I had the sense that would not be God's will) and she kindly moved the coffee table out of the way. She said she had learned about this after 12 years of Catholic school.
So, now when I meditate in the morning and in the evening, I want God to do with me as He wills. If the experience is "dry", that means He is talking, if I have lots of thoughts, feelings, hurts and chatter, that becomes part of the prayer, and if there is a deep, felt, heart connection, that is lovely and true, too. I am not "higher"or "lower" in consciousness, I am praying, and this kind of prayer, without words or images, suits me, I guess.

"I remember learning that my life was hidden in Him."

"If the experience is dry, that means He is talking."


Yes. How can we possibly know what He does? And thank God we can't know, or we'd interfere more than we already do. We can't even know what is good versus bad prayer, if we're evaluating it based simply upon our own experience. Dry prayer, the saints tell us, is much closer to Him tranforming us where we can't make changes ourselves.

Thank you guys, for your sharing! It really helps me on the way to know that you experienced it and you followed Jesus in a relational manner. W.C., I recognize and feel many similarities, even when I read your beautiful expressions, like "Holy Mist" - it seems I know exactly what you mean... I'd say "sweet fire", "delicate fragrant breath", "blissful touch" etc.
Yes, for me also this sweetness used to come and go. When I skimmed through my journals recently, I noticed that it was about a month of intense experience, and then about a month of dryness, which made me feel very, very bad. But after my no-self awakening two years ago the sweetness was coming more rarely, for some unknown reason... even if it did come, I was a bit suspicious, because I was afraid that it'd soon be gone. But that's my psycho problem, mingled with spiritual life, have to work on trust in intimacy. But it seems like deepening non-dual awareness might indeed be a certain "obstacle" (although, there are no obstacles to God's grace, of course) for receiving this kind of experience. would you agree?
yet, now it really got to me, this time, and there is a certain continuity of it, and on my part, a fear that Christ will withdraw His loving presence.

Yes, W.C., I also feel the connection between virtue and this state. I didn't notice such connection in the case of the Witness state per se, but here I really feel that this presence "asks" me to avoid sin, while respecting my freedom.
I'd like to share my experience of what I called "heaven" at the time. It was two days ago in March, as a matter of fact, I was in Ann Arbor then. I was sitting and meditating with MU (brrr... Zen again...), but I tried to make that sound an expression of my love for Christ, and suddenly I ceased to see the room, to feel my body, perhaps only a subtle energy of it, and I was surrounded by beautiful light and sweet love, I felt so loved, and safe. It lasted about 20-30 minutes, I guess, and then normal consciousness came back. I thought it was a foretaste of heaven, where angels live. If THAT was only a glimpse of heaven, I really look forward to being there... A month or so later I had a first powerful Zen kensho, where there was no self, no God, no world, only power and the present moment. When I told my Zen master about those two experiences, he asked my which I think was "higher". And then I did something I regret - I lied. I said that kensho was "more real", because I imagined he expected this kind of answer of me. But my heart preferred of course the "heaven" experience, although it was a "makyo" from the Zen pov. By the way, the "heaven" experience never repeated itself again in such a powerful manner. But I'll never forget it. So I think I can relate to what you W.C. described as New Jerusalem, or the threshold of it.
By the way, I read Phil's description, thanks.

Shasha, thank you for your post, but I'd not judge the non-dual experience so harshly. I feel a temptation to do so, but in my experience it didn't seem like a "dead end of natural mysticism". I think God is present there, but in a mirror of our own spirit, so many gurus think they are God, because when there is the sun in a mirror, we don't see a mirror, we are stunned by the beauty of the sun. So my impression after reading you zealous and passionate post was that I don't have such a resentment towards this non-dual path, although I see it's dangers and limitations. But maybe it's just your way of saying things . But I must add that I'd not like to end in this luminosity without a relation with Christ. That's why I chose to give up Zen.

BDB, I understand what you mean about your prayer. I know that it's possible to pray to God beyond concepts, words, feelings, just "offering our being" to Him. I just would like to share something I found out. If you experience a witnessing state (you feel that your thoughts, emotions, sensations float through the space of your mind without touching or contaminating it) there is always a choice if you want to relate to a thought or let it go etc. I think when I got deeper into this state, I used to "let go" many sweet feelings of God's presence, or just, to put it more harshly, "ignore" it, because I thought "they are not God!". But the sweetness can be a way of God's communication and now I don't "witness" them, I let them possess me. It's different. I imagine that I could think of my fiance while she's touching me "the bliss I feel is not really her, it's my feeling, so I'll ignore it" and it seems kind of stupid and certainly not helping to build up relationship of love So now I let go of letting go. Maybe it has nothing do to with your way of prayer, but maybe you will take something from what I said here.

Phil, thanks for the link. And I like Lonergan's idea, since it is really and adaptation of what Augustine said in the "On the Trinity" book XI about presence(memory), understanding and love as three aspects of the mind. I had a similar idea some time ago, that maybe Buddism is just overemphasizing the experience of "memoria", while understanding is preserved only in its intuitive form and love only towards sentient beings, but not towards God himself.

ok, I gotta go.
thanks again for wonderful exchanges.

I read the Hick's exposition of Rahner's ideas about death. I like it very much, I mean Rahner, not Hick.
There seems to be a certain similarity between an "omnipresence" of a sort that our spirit experiences in enlightenment (in my understanding of Neoplatonism, every soul is omnipresent, since it is not corporeal, because being uncorporeal has no boundaries, is not limited to nor by a place in space) and omnipresence after death (or perhaps "in death", since there is no after when time stops). But in this life we're limited to the physical body and our omnipresence is "potential", in the sense that when I look at a church here, in Poznan, I feel myself to be "in the church" as I see it, but I don't experience myself to be in the Statue of Liberty, since I'm not seeing it right now. But when I go to NY, I will. Rahner seems to think that after death we won't be actually omnipresent, like God, but our potentiality will be enhanced (we won't need a plane to get to NY? Cool!! ). I like the idea of soul's relation to the material aspect of the cosmos, since I think that angels also have it, because they are ordering the cosmos according to God's will, so they have to have an experience of it, don't they?
Also, Rahner's idea of purgatory leaves a nice place for reincarnation, of course, not in its exact Buddhist or Hindu formulation, but maybe this universal intuition of a pig-like man becoming a pig to understand his/her sins is partially true? Maybe purgatory can be even experiencing different natural forms of life to cleanse our attachments and habits? I don't know.
I also remember that after my "heaven" experience I was very sure that this "place" I'd been is not another world, but another side of this world, like another side of a coin, or something. That it is very close to us every moment. So I like the idea of cosmos having simply two dimensions - material and spiritual, not one beneath the other but interpenetrating but separate. But maybe it's my Neoplatonism coming in.
I read my previous post and I'm sorry for spelling and other mistakes - I was in Ann Arbor not "two days ago", but "two years ago",and in fact, it was three years ago... I was in a hurry, writing.

What is the difference between a resurrected soul of Christ and His Self as the Wisdom and Power of God? Can we relate to those two natures as separate, distinct? I guess the humanity (including soul) of Christ is understandable, or more accessible to us than the infinity of the Wisdom/Power? He is the Mediator after all. As far as I remember christ's humanity was transformed into a kind of infinity through Resurrection and Ascension, so He's not limited to humanity as we conceive of it.

I think when we are "in God" as opposed to being in ego, then it is harsh and violent to wrench ourselves away from His beauty and truth for the ego's idea of what is a pure state of prayer.I think that even if I make a mistake and think I am in God, but am in ego, that God will work it out for His glory. I think that our egos can be so hungry and needy, that there is a danger of manipulating our minds, and having an experience that is not of God. I think that is what St. John of the Cross and Thomas Keating are concerned about.But there also seems a danger of being so analytical and cognitive, that anything sensory seems unspiritual, and God's sweetness and comfort will be seen as a distraction. I think that is what BR is doing. And it can be hard to persevere in dryness, although that can yield the sweetest fruits.
I really don't believe discursive meditation is higher or lower, and I don't think St. Teresa did either. I may have this more contemplative period in my life, followed by a time rich in lectio and liturgy and verbal prayer.I hope you didn't feel I was argueing with you, Shasha, I am moved by your story, and I find your blogs helpful. I want to grow in Christ, and I find you all fellow pilgrims on that path.

quote:

Originally posted by bdb:
[qb] I don't know if this is appropriate, the place for this, but I want to share my experience of Christ and prayer. ... [/qb]

Thank you so much for sharing part of your beautiful journey with us...It's wonderful to have fellow pilgrims along, isn't it!

(btw,I also lost my husband to a divorce I didn't want. It felt like being ripped apart alive, limb by limb; and despite some healing, it still feels like a permanent, deep structural break, like I'll never walk quite straight again. And like you, I was forced to run to God for help like never before.)

quote:

Originally posted by mateusz:
[QB] ...

Shasha, thank you for your post, but I'd not judge the non-dual experience so harshly. I feel a temptation to do so, but in my experience it didn't seem like a "dead end of natural mysticism". I think God is present there, but in a mirror of our own spirit, so many gurus think they are God, because when there is the sun in a mirror, we don't see a mirror, we are stunned by the beauty of the sun. So my impression after reading you zealous and passionate post was that I don't have such a resentment towards this non-dual path, although I see it's dangers and limitations. But maybe it's just your way of saying things . But I must add that I'd not like to end in this luminosity without a relation with Christ. That's why I chose to give up Zen.

.../QB]

I don't have resentment towards the non-dual path, those gurus, or followers. And feeling judmental, in a contemptuous, mean-spirited way, towards folks on this path is not one of my temptations. I do thank you for pointing out that my words may come across that way, however. And, of course, there's the interaction of the reader and how they hear things.

In that moment, God revealed to me that I, personally, was on a dead-end path, that my intentions to pursue enlightenment would lead to a kind of horrific death that words cannot explain. Others, like you, who are more awake to knowing God's Will for their lives, perhaps, seem not to need such powerful rebukes. (That's what it was, not a gentle mist coming down, but more like a bolt of lightening). Your natural mysticism is already mingled in with a relationship with God, perhaps. Mine wasn't, not in the way the Lord made me to go.

Come to think of it, I appreciate that I experience a version of non-dual awareness in my everyday life. I see the world as one mass of consciousness, that I (at some level of who "I" am) am equally distributed everywhere I look. This level of unity consciousness is the back-drop of my reality. Problem is, unity consciousness doesn't teach me one bit about how to be a good person or how to relate to these other fellow creatures. That's the part I wasn't getting...

w.c., The angels who sing "Holy, Holy, Holy..." are not singing about us...no matter our state of consciousness.

Shasha:

When I spoke of the Holy Spirit as a mist, I was describing how the HS felt to me, not my own internal state, which is probably why at times HS feels to be above me - a definite Holy Other, yet delectably loving in spite of my sinfulness.

quote:

Originally posted by bdb:
[qb] I think when we are "in God" as opposed to being in ego, then it is harsh and violent to wrench ourselves away from His beauty and truth for the ego's idea of what is a pure state of prayer.I think that even if I make a mistake and think I am in God, but am in ego, that God will work it out for His glory. I think that our egos can be so hungry and needy, that there is a danger of manipulating our minds, and having an experience that is not of God. ...I hope you didn't feel I was argueing with you, Shasha, ... [/qb]

Whoops, I missed that last piece earlier when I read your post...I gotta slow down in my reading! No, I certainly did not feel you were arguing at all! I'm not even sure I know what part you feel is disagreeing with me in your writings...that's how it is with this kind of communication...and I tend to contribute to the problem with my not so careful reading and lack of more thoughtful articulation many times.

Let's hang in there, dear friends, as it's clear to me we have such richness of experience and character to offer one another.

quote:

Originally posted by w.c.:
[qb] Shasha:

When I spoke of the Holy Spirit as a mist, I was describing how the HS felt to me, not my own internal state, which is probably why at times HS feels to be above me - a definite Holy Other, yet delectably loving in spite of my sinfulness. [/qb]

Hi w.c. I do experience the HS as an other and coming down upon me or around me. At times, it's like a cloud and that cloud sometimes 'carries' knowledge/revelation, and often deep Shalom peace...simple comfort.

Other times, when I'm praying for deliverance for somebody who is in front of me, I experience a crashing of extraordinary power. Again from above, coming down, definitely not kundalini energy inside me or the person but from a Holy Other. A few times, I've been so 'hit' with waves of God's dunamis power that a stream of praising/astonisthment comes rushing out of my mouth--I am 'forced' to pray in tongues. One time, the power came down as I prayed against early signs of MS in a person. I didn't expect anything to happen but I stood up from where I was kneeling before her, felt moved to clap my hands over her head, and BAM! A fierce column of power fell on us. At the same time, I could 'see/feel' the Glory of God, just a tiny glimpse, and instantly I had to cover my face with both hands and turn my body away as it was unbearable! I simply could not look at His Glory...it seems impossible. Who can??

That's another difference I experience between Divinity and consciousness/kundalini.