Phil, you continue to take judge Hawkins work based on heresay. Your credibility is non-existent until you read one of the books. Hawkins got a PhD for this work. Are you saying you are more informed than the 10 person advisary board at Columbia you have to go through to get a PhD? Suck it up buddy, read. You keep knocking A Course in Miracles too, ever done the course?

You acknowledge the existence of Satan, who is an accuser, but who can only reside in the mind. Hmmm . . if Satan exists, then he is outside the mind, no?. And you seem, here, to be denigrating the role of mind to help us see the truth. Are you writing to minds? Are you a temptor? And why, dear Ashtar, should there be such a thing as ignorance? Where did that come from? Why?
(Note: you can't use your mind to answer these questions. )

The accuser part of the human mind that has been called Satan was formed as a result of an action depicted in the story of Genesis. Human beings doubted God. We decided that we would eat the fruit that allowed us to judge good and evil. God is the good that has no opposite. God is so good that if something inside It desires to believe in something that doesn't exist, it will be allowed. We allowed ourselves an opposite to the Good That Is, namely, 'evil', an we've been stuck with it for a long time.

From a certain level of consciousness, a certain context, all evil disappears because it is seen for what it is, ignorance. This is especially true from the all-encompassing consciousness of the Creator of all things, the Being from which all Universes come and go.

I am writing to what lies beyond the mind. I am writing to the infinite aspect of What You Are. I am writing out of compassion for the quagmire you�ve gotten into by becoming obsessed with the content of your mind. You�ve become so delusional you call that mind �me� and �mine�. You are the living child of All That Is and you will not Know this for the Truth that it is if you keep believing the English speaking voice in your head that assumes it �knows� evil. The Mind of God is silent and still and the only way to Know this is to make your mind silent and still.

Mine is not a temptation, mine is a call Home.

MM, let's briefly examine another way of calibrating religious value normatively using Gelpi's model built on Lonergan, namely that of orthopraxis authenticates orthodoxy . One cannot use a linguistic analysis, however simple or sophisticated, to integrally and holistically capture the reality of human existence and to describe the process of theosis. As has been said by Someone with more authority than jb, even the demons can quote Scripture and with no small amount of trembling.

It is neither ortho-doxy (true doctrine or right thinking) nor ortho-praxis (true practice or right doing), alone, that makes for ortho-doxology (true glory). In rejecting this disjunction, which is the equivalent of the old faith versus works controversy, we are not to reject either orthodoxy or orthopraxis, as is done by the gnostics in the former instance and by radical protestantism in the latter.

Rather, we affirm both orthodoxy and orthopraxis and then guage their mutually informing efficacies on fostering intellectual conversion, affective conversion, moral conversion, sociopolitical conversion and religious conversion, while helping us to overcome any sinful resistance to same.

I don't know if everyone has access to the Holy Spirit Conference materials, so I will post my opening contribution below to explicate this conversion dynamic:

quote:

I hope to discover that area of my life most in need of conversion. Don Gelpi, S.J. has expanded on the teaching of Bernard Lonergan in suggesting five areas for conversion: 1) intellectual 2) affective 3) moral 4) socio-political and 5) religious. He points out that we don't usually experience conversion in all five areas when experiencing conversion in any one of the areas, although our experience of conversion in any given area of life profoundly influences (Gelpi says transvalues) our experiences of conversion in all of the other areas. In other words, these experiences mutually condition and inform one another.

Father Tom Carroll, S.J. writes:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most of us find that some areas of our lives are more �converted� than other areas, and that some areas of our lives fall short of both the awareness and the authenticity we are able to establish and maintain in other areas.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fr. Carroll goes on to point out that, with increased awareness and authenticity in any area of our life, we can experience greater freedom.

In a nutshell, then, for Gelpi, initial conversion is the passage from childish responsibility to the assumption of adult responsibility for some realm of experience , again, intellectually, affectively, morally, socio-politically and religiously. It must be accompanied by ongoing conversion , which is the practical acceptance of the consequences of the initial transition from irresponsible to responsible behavior.

We might ask, then, have I a) taken responsibility, b) accepted the consequences, c) increased my authenticity, d) enhanced my awareness and e) experienced a greater freedom in the 1) intellectual 2) affective 3) moral 4) socio-political and 5) religious realms of my life experience? In which areas am I more converted? In which have I fallen short? In which areas do I need to overcome a sinful resistance to conversion?

Stacey Christine Wendlinder gives us some examples of sinful resistance to conversion. I'll modify them below, somewhat:

Sinful resistance to 1) intellectual conversion might involve our acceptance of conventional understandings at the expense of deeper or more profound knowledge ; 2) affective conversion comes when one has an inflated sense of one's mastery of self, self-reliance, and self-control. When this illusion is challenged, one needs to experience forgiveness to bring healing to one's unconscious destructive forces. 3) Immoral, selfish (or even righteous, selfless) behavior motivated by egocentricity is a sign of resistance to moral conversion. 4) Finding security in "worldly" things is a sign of resistance to sociopolitical conversion . 5) Succumbing to "minimum Christianity"--doing the bare minimum or compartmentalizing faith to one area of life--reveals resistance to religious conversion .

So, intellectual conversion involves taking responsibility for what we accept as truth. Affective, emotional conversion involves using the information provided by our feelings to make life-enhancing and not life-detracting, relationship-enhancing and not relationship-detracting, responses to our environment and other people. For example, anger, guilt or fear can be either existential (life-enhancing) or neurotic (life-detracting), depending on our responses. Moral conversion and authenticity affirms both a primacy of conscience and a deference to moral authority, not accepting, uncritically, what is offered by legitimate authorities or reinventing the wheel on ethical decision-making, and rejects either complete moral autonomy from or moral dependence on external authorities. Sociopolitical conversion involves the taking of responsibility for discerning of our proper place in establishing and maintaining the common good. When it comes to discernment, I would suggest that the term communal discernment is a redundancy.

It is important to note that these first four of these conversion processes are secular processes. The question that emerges, then, is what difference does the Holy Spirit make? From a Catholic perspective, we could ask how the Sacraments of Initiation effect initial conversion? How do all of the sacraments advance ongoing conversion? What are the concrete differences in the conversion experiences that come about through a) normal developmental growth processes cognitively, affectively, morally (for instance, following the developmental psychologies of Piaget, Erikson, Gardner, Kohlberg, Fowler et al) b) the experience of the Spirit in implicit faith and the salvific efficacies of other traditions and c) the experience of the Spirit in the explicit faith traditions of Christianity, where we are able to journey toward our salvation more quickly and unhindered?

When it comes to our outlook of the Spirit at work in the world, how do we avoid either an extreme pessimism that views the world as radically devoid of grace or an extreme optimism that breeds religious indifferentism, facile syncretisms and false irenicism between the religious and secular realms or between different religions? What does a true incarnational outlook look like as nature interacts with grace?

So, on one level, I hope to open my docility to the Spirit, overcoming sinful resistance to conversion in whichever area emerges as my greatest present need and challenge, looking to see how my experience of sacramental and community life can best mediate my growth in the Spirit, in particular. On another level, I look forward to incorporating the lessons and the personal sharing of all here toward a better understanding of the ongoing journey of conversion in general and the role the Spirit plays in both invoking and convoking us all.

with the Holy Breath,
jboy

When it comes to intellectual conversion as mutually informing affective conversion, we are resisting over-emphases on either the kataphatic or apophatic, on either the speculative or the affective.

Over-emphasis on 1) the apophatic and speculative is encratism and, to me, speaks to the issue of gnosticism 2) the apophatic and affective is quietism and, to me, these two overemphases speak directly to the issue of radical apophaticism.

There is also the over-emphasis on 1) the kataphatic and speculative, which is rationalism, which in essence is what we are being accused of when theologizing, here, our spirituality being facilely and cursorily mischaracterized with no knowledge of our other life experiences, like our participation in community and love and bike-riding, chopping our wood and carrying our water; 2) the kataphatic and affective, which is pietism, the typical charge leveled at fundamentalistic, emotionally-charged evangelicals.

When it comes to moral conversion, to some extent, we can guage not only how well we meet the criteria set out in my quote, above, but also how well we navigate the polynomic value system based on our authentic experience of true numinosity -- the holy, the mysterium tremendum et fascinans. I will quote liberally from Kelley Ross to demonstrate same (and, again, you may wish to focus on the bold ) :

quote:

For religion the holy is precisely how the positive aspects of value are connected.

An important bit of evidence about the polynomic independence of religious from the other forms of value, and about the role of numinosity in answering the problem of evil, occurs in the conflict of "faith versus works" in several religions. By the time of Augustine, it is firmly established in Christianity that salvation is due to divine grace, not our own efforts, and that our efforts to be morally good are doomed anyway. As hopeless sinners, we can only be redeemed from our sin by the sacrifice of Christ in the Crucifixion, and our actual salvation, therefore, is independent of our ability to be good. Mediaeval Catholicism tried to balance the requirements of morality with the requirements of salvation by holding that salvation can be achieved even through repentance in articulo mortis, at the moment of death, but that the stain of sin must be worked off in Purgatory. The repentant sinner thus did not receive a free ride to heaven. This compromise was actually rejected by Martin Luther, who took Christ's expiation of sin so seriously that sincere repentance truly did wash one free of sin. Such "salvation by faith alone" even seems to turn up in the third part of the Star Wars trilogy, The Return of the Jedi, when the vicious tyrant, sorcerer, and mass murderer Darth Vader is redeemed and transfigured at death into the moral equal of the heroes Obi-wan Kenobi and Yoda.

Although such a dispute may be thought of as peculiarly Christian, it is not. Isl�m in its early days had to deal with the claims of the Kh�rijites that anyone guilty of a grave sin was no longer a Moslem. The Orthodox answer came to be that only the sin of polytheism, which would hardly seem to indicate Isl�mic religious sentiment anyway, was inconsistent with being a Moslem. Everyone else was actually saved, although God might punish them for a while prior to admitting them to heaven. Thus, in properly polynomic fashion, moral goodness varied independently with the means of salvation. Even more interesting, however, is the case of the J�do Shin, the "True Pure Land," Sect of Buddhism in Japan. Shinran (1174-1268) founded J�do Shin in 1224 and taught that rebirth in the Pure Land of the Buddha Amida could be achieved by no efforts of our own, but only through absolute reliance of the power of the Vow of Amida. This teaching, together with J�do Shin insistence on our own sinfulness and worthlessness, persuaded later Jesuit missionaries to Japan that Satan had taught the same heresy to Shinran than he later taught to Martin Luther.

The problem of faith versus works often creates the same uneasiness as other manifestations of the polynomic nature of value. The aesthetic independence of art is bad enough, but many people, or the entire religion of Zoroastrianism, find it hard to credit that God, or the Buddha Amida, would reward people with Salvation for anything other than moral goodness. At the same time, such a teaching addresses an important aspect of the human condition: people often mean well but do the wrong thing, or feel helpless and worthless in relation to their own desires and temptations. Some people commit major crimes but then seriously repent of them. Even if they are willing to face secular retribution for such crimes, they desperately desire an avenue out of eternal punishment. The promise of salvation by faith alone is that a genuine change of heart, and a proper attitude now, can put things right with Eternity, whether that is thought of as God or the Dharma. Catholicism and Orthodox Isl�m thus would seem to represent a certain sophistication, neither denying salvation nor trivializing moral wrongs. Luther and Shinran, one might think, represent an overwhelming insight into the polynomic independence of salvation, but an insight that is so overwhelming as to create a moral distortion, like the artist who thinks that moral wrongs are simply excused by the production of good art. This seems strongly contrary to Otto's convenient view that Protestantism is the most morally advanced form of religion.

Another orthopraxis analysis can be done by Rudolf Otto, about whom Kelley Ross writes: "Using Jakob Fries's epistemological scheme of Wissen, Glaube, and Ahndung, "Understanding, Belief, and Aesthetic Sense," (to use Kent Richter's translation), Ruldolf Otto expands the meaning of Ahndung beyond the merely aesthetic by introducing the category of numinosity, which is the quality of sacred or holy objects, persons, or experiences in religion."

The words you wanted to get from that quote are aesthetic and numinosity. Even Otto, himself, was limited by rationalism, as Ross continues: "Otto therefore regarded religions as more developed, not just in the sense that they embodied refined moral conceptions, but in so far as they were associated with the concept of God and the retributions or rewards of an afterlife. Since religions like Buddhism did not have a God, and religions like Isl�m did not have a sufficiently, for Otto, moralized God, they were developmentally inferior to Christianity."

Otto can be critiqued, then, such as by Ross: "If reason is not regarded as naturally and [b]necessarily productive of Christian theological concepts[/b] , then nothing prevents Otto from properly recognizing the common elements of all world religions. There is no doubt, indeed, that the Buddha, as the "Blessed One," is a supremely numinous person , whatever his ontological status with respect to ultimate reality. The tendency to personalize the object of religion can thus be acknowledged, without requiring the metaphysics of a Supreme Being. Similarly, the element of arbitrariness in the Will of God in Isl�m is no more than a reflection of the polynomic independence of numinosity and morality."

Still, note the affirmation of the personalization of the object of religion remains a valid criterion.

Finally, consider this schema:



Ross writes:

quote:

The modes of religious knowledge laid out by al-Ghaz�l� are later regularized in Catholic theology. Reasoning from the given Revelation of the religion is theologia dogmatica -- dogmatics. Reasoning in terms of what is given to reason alone is theologia naturalis -- natural theology. St. Thomas Aquinas believed that natural theology made it possible to reconcile "Jerusalem and Athens," i.e. the revelation of Biblical religion with the rational knowledge of Greeks philosophers like Aristotle. Going beyond this to direct experience of God is theologia mystica Theologia mystica can settle one's own doubts but cannot, of course, settle the doubts of others. The immediacy and cognitive force of experience is lost when related to other people. or, in the words of St. Thomas, cognitio Dei experimentalis, the "experimental" knowledge of God.

The mystic waxing eloquent of his vision may as well be Moses, who certainly claimed to see God also, but whose own revelation must merely be accepted dogmatically by others. Then there is the awkward circumstance that the experience of al-Ghaz�l� vindicated the Qur'�n and that of Shankara the Vedas, while St. Teresa of �liva saw a God who, I am sure, was not very positive about either the Qur'�n or the Vedas. Thus, in Hume's terms, the evidence adduced for each religion, whether cognitive or miraculous, tends to refute and cancel out that of the others. Mystical experience, as examined elsewhere, therefore does not contribute positive objective knowledge of the transcendent or of the doctrine of any particular religion.

The doubter then, who is not vouchsafed a mystical vision, may not come to rest. Many can rest with some sense of what discursive reason can demonstrate , whether this is a bleak Existential world or one of the impersonal philosophical worlds in which immanent and secular meanings are taken to valorize life. The latter may motivate a sense of meaning in good works. The Existential world may become unbearable, however, and the philosophical worlds may collapse into scepticism.

And the consideration, above, just scratches the surface of what an integral and holistic system of calibration of religious value might entail. I encourage everyone to read: Faith, Works, and Knowledge by Kelley Ross. Like FOX News, it is fair, balanced and unafraid

This is how I would BEGIN to critique Hawkins' work, although, at first blush, it is pretty easy to spot some radical apophaticism. I already set forth the criteria for experimental design and for extensive clinical trials such as funded by the NIH on so many areas of energy medicine in the complementary and alternative medicine field (actually encouraging some benefit of the doubt Hawkins' way, as with Ian Stevenson, Gary Schwartz, the Princeton Global Consciousness Project, etc, some folks with whom he has shared the podium at the same conferences). I haven't examined his work for all those criteria and really don't plan to for lack of interest and time is all.

As with anything or anyone, a critique does not entail, necessarily, a wholesale rejection, neither of one's works nor of one's extrapolations, which for all I know may have been seriously mischaracterized in this thread. I haven't read the books, to be sure, but don't intend to. Take the criteria for critique I have offered here, please, moreso as generic and not specific to his case. Those of you more interested and acquainted with him may wish to employ my criteria or not. Caveat emptor with both Hawkins and jb.

peace, my friends
jb

p.s. MM, I wrote offlist to PSR, not long ago, how remarkable the quality of conversation was at SPlace these days and didn't mention many names but I did so single you out (at least that is my recollection, however foggy, which PSR can confirm or deny). Carry on, by all means, in the now and awareness, love and benevolence, honesty and in truth, for the water is for the flowers and we do not so much occupy ourselves in prayer or study or labor so much so as to gain consolations but rather to gain the strength to serve in compassion (to liberally paraphrase Teresa of Jesus). You have misread me entirely if you sensed I was in any way put-off at any time or about anything, but such is the limitation of this medium with its lack of nonverbal gestures. Come here. Let me give you a big hug: ((((( mm <*)))))>< )))))

If I am to believe Hawkins book, which calibrates at 980 (only 20 points lower than Jesus),and accept all this as Truth, then I have to cast aside most of my cherished assumtions about the scripture

Hallelulia! If your cherished assumtions cannot stand scrutiny, drop them! But don't just try to 'believe' Hawkins book on an intellectual level, go to a place where your mind is still and the premises presented in the book will be seen clearer than day. It will be a non-verbal Knowing that supercedes anything your mind can comprehend.

Hawkins said that ib Buddha's time the level of human consciousness was only at 100, and 500 years later only calibrated at 150 in Jesus' day. If that is true, how is it that we cannot explain the pyramids or the stone drawings which can only be seen from high altitudes over Peru?

ALL of human consciousness AVERAGED 100 at the time of Christ. There were people who, like Christ, were obviously over the average. It only takes one person with a level of 400 to tell 2000 people with a level of 75 how to build a pyramid.

Hee hee!

That's good to know, Michael.

(Sheesh, I see now that I'm about 5 posts behind.)

You folks ever heard of the pre-trans fallacy? Here we go again.

love,
jb

Here we are thoroughly thrashing discursive mental activity, paradoxically though, because what is being thrashed and trashed is everyone else's discursive mental activity. [Don't read that Bible and all of your theologia dogmatica, Phil, read Hawkins, and then your mind won't be muddled!] What sets Hawkins apart or absolves him from taking his own counsel?

This is too very reminiscent of John Heron's critique of Wilber, to wit:

quote:

In other words, is it stated by a real finite self that is deluded about its separateness, because it is misapplying a real intuition about Spirit? Is the theory itself an example of a self confusing the finite with the infinite? If it is, then to theorize that we make this confusion is itself to make the confusion; and we are in big trouble. If the self that formulates the theory is itself intrinsically deluded, both theory and self have a problem, however real that self.

So the theory can only be stated, and properly understood, by a finite self that doesn�t confuse the finite with the infinite, that is, by a reality-oriented connected-self appropriately applying a real intuition. You�ve got to have a self outside the grip of the Atman-project to grasp the theory of it. But then the theory is inaccurate since it makes no reference to the necessary condition of its utterance, which is that it is stated and grasped by this sort of self.

To put it quite simply: to understand the theory is to disprove it. If Wilber were to allow a self (or has already in some book allowed a self), well this side of Atman-realization, that is sufficiently project-free and nonseparate that it can grasp the whole sweep of the way the project works, the entire theory tumbles to bits. If our real intuitions can be so fully and properly applied, outside the reach of the misapplied intuitions of divine self-forgetting, as to grasp what the divine self-forgetting is up to, then that�s pretty much the end of the whole nonsense .

Everything that's new is old again.
jb in pax

I will be out of state a couple of days. Not astrally mind you, although I may subtly merge with Olivia Newton-John at her concert in Biloxi tonight!

Eat your heart out, PSR!

It is my day of at-one-ment,
and that of our brothers and sisters, too
pax,
jb

Phil, you continue to take judge Hawkins work based on heresay. Your credibility is non-existent until you read one of the books. Hawkins got a PhD for this work. Are you saying you are more informed than the 10 person advisary board at Columbia you have to go through to get a PhD? Suck it up buddy, read. You keep knocking A Course in Miracles too, ever done the course?

Ashtar, you should learn more about fallacies on your planet.
1. We are not evaluating Hawkins' qualifications for his PhD. I have a doctorate myself, fwiw, and don't think it's relevant to this discussion.
2. I haven't used crack cocaine, but I can safely say that the research pointing to its dangers is valid, despite my lack of personal experience with the drug.

See?

The accuser part of the human mind that has been called Satan was formed as a result of an action depicted in the story of Genesis.

Right, and that action was disobedience, which was an act of rebellion involving both mind and will. The devil is also considered a fallen angel in Scripture -- an ontological entity outside he human, who tempts/accuses humans (in addition to what we do ourselves). Jesus spoke of the devil and the Church considers diaboligical evil spirit a reality to contend with. You cannot and do not know that such things do not exist. A little humility before such mysteries is in order, imo . . .

. . I am writing out of compassion for the quagmire you�ve gotten into by becoming obsessed with the content of your mind. You�ve become so delusional you call that mind �me� and �mine�.

Actually, I have no confusion concerning a distinction between mind-self and spiritual self. . . but you don't really know me anyway. You just make assumptions that everyone is somehow ignorant or spiritually inferior if they disagree with you, and because they are using language and reason to express their disagreements, they must be trapped in mental delusions. Those are just arrogant, judgmental projections on your part, which belie the high spirituality in which you claim to abide.

. . . The Mind of God is silent and still and the only way to Know this is to make your mind silent and still.

That's true, but not the whole truth. There is a whole realm of spirituality/encounter with God through the medium of symbol, word, creation and relationships that is also very valid. Disagree if you wish, but it is certain that your opinions on these matters are not normative or definitive.

And now, dear Ashtar, I bid you adieu. Others may wish to dialogue with you, but I do not as it's a complete waste of my time. Nevertheless, I trust the exchanges have been instructive in some manner.

To put it quite simply: to understand the theory is to disprove it.

Exactly! To understand the mechanics of the mind that is asking the questions, puts an end to the mind asking questions. It is to see that the error in a 'need' for theories has it's foundation in an inherent flaw with the tool asking the question.

A map is only of use until you arrive at the destination, then you set it down.

You can prove this to yourself by letting go of your attachment to the mind as 'you' and instead be the witness to the mind and its happenings. All its happenings are arising out of the stillness that you Truly are. Let go of ALL beliefs, not only cherished ones, you are more than any combination of beliefs.

Those who have ears to hear, let them hear...

Peace out.

www.individualwithacause.com

Tbiscuit,

Ken Wilber was asked back in 96 if the Noosphere
could be extended to the internet. He said no since at that time 95% of internet users were male and agressive male psychology looks at everything and decides right away if we want to f*** it or kill it.

By Wilbur's thinking, shalomplace should not even exist on the internet. We do tend toward aggression and religion and politics are perhaps the most emotionally loaded topics one could delve into. I'd like to see more women showing up in here so that our collective right brain might develop.

Sometimes you have to give in a little, and sometimes alot to get down the path to where you want to go. I have the greatest admiration and respect for these fellows and consider myself very fortunate that they will even take the time to talk to me. I respect their development and the work it takes to reach such heights.

If you cannot accept this at the present time,
I suggest you see some old freinds of mine at

http://www.christianmystics.com

I got booted out of there for my refusal to grow fast enough to keep up with them. They might be more along the lines of thought which work for you. In any case, good luck and God bless.

Johnboy,

Have fun at the concert! Sometimes I'd like to fix Olivia Newton's john or Farah's faucet, but definitely not Elton's john. Thanks for the hug and I am warmly appreciative and great-full, but as Clint Eastwood said in Heartbreak Ridge, this doesn't mean we'll be swapping spit in the shower

That faith, works and knowledge schema works very well for me and sorts out a great deal of my inner confusion. The inside of my head looks like that and I could sort out my bookcase with that chart. Thanks!

caritas,

mm <*)))))><

Let me draw a distinction I learned in an online discussion with Gene Bianchi.

Gene had said, in a conversation re: eucharist, that most DO need to better cultivate the mystical, saying there DOES need to be more emphasis on practice, on finding God in all things (reminds me of Ignatius), saying that she is not more in churches than in trees (caveat - this is out of context, so, don't run too far with it).

He related this to growing up spiritually.

He also quoted Richard Rohr on spiritual growth and people launching out on their own. Now, this launching out has very much to do with what takes place in conversion, which is to say that there IS a certain amount of autonomy we are to enjoy from shedding our exoskelatal protection of exoterica and appropriating our endoskeletal protection of esoterica. This transition has to be authentic, though. I think I have already spoken to what some of the manifold and diverse criteria might be.

Let me attempt to cut this baby in half for you using the distinction between paideia and sangha. Paideia is formation and, at some point, the learning curve gets VERY steep and certainly reaches a point of diminishing spiritual returns, where, in a word, enough is enough. [Here, one presumes, we are at the stage where we are being told to go to the next city and await instructions, or, we are riding down the road and get knocked off our horse, blinded by the light and sent to see what's his name.]This does not mean, however, that we forsake sangha, or spiritual community, an assembly, so to speak, of those who have practiced well. See this page: for a definition and, also, this additional nuancing.

To some extent, Phil is emphasizing the need for Sangha, even as others are emphasizing the cessation of Paideia. These are not mutually exclusive movements in the spiritual life.

Thomas Merton may have best captured the end of paideia and beginning of a new sangha in his famous prayer with which I am sure we can all resonate:

quote:

Dear God, I have no idea where I am going.
I do not see the road ahead of me.
I cannot know for certain where it will end.
Nor do I really know myself,
and the fact that I think that I am following Your will does not mean that I am actually doing so.
But I believe that the desire to please You does in fact please You.
And I hope I have that desire in all I am doing.
I hope that I never do anything apart from that desire.
And I know that if I do this You will lead me by the right road,
though I may know nothing about it.
Therefore, I will trust You always though I may seem to be lost in the shadow of death.
I will not fear, for You are ever with me,
and You will never leave me to face my perils alone.

This is not a radical apophaticism, especially when taken into the overall context of Merton's Oeuvre ?

At any rate, it is not my intent to introduce a false irenicism between each of your distinctive views, but it a distinction I offer by way of uniting our perspectives on Whom we love, including one another, however we conceive or misconceive ourselves.

great pax,
jb

Footnote: See this book review regarding Amos Yong's pneumatology , for it aslo has some good criteria to add to those of Otto and Lonergan-Gelpi and the Friesian critique of religious value by Kelley Ross.

A closing thought: Believing in a nuanced apokatastasis , or universal salvation, as I do, I do tend, at bottom, to deemphasize doctrinal truths, maybe even more than a tad, in that regard. At the same time, holding firmly to the Jesuit motto of AMDG, to God the greater glory -- in all things, even as Merton alludes to in his prayer, I then reemphasize doctrinal truth in that regard, connected as it is with Right Speech, necessary as it is for others still in early formation, paideia, intrinsically good as it is even if serving no instrumental good in this or that case.

This requires a LOT more nuancing but, in addition to the distinction between paideia and sangha, I thought the additional distinction between why and when we may emphasize or deemphasize doctrine would serve to re-unite us even further. This involves no indifferentism or syncretism, at bottom.

pax,
jb

Michael, why would anyone boot you from an Internet forum "for my refusal to grow fast enough to keep up with them"? That's unbelievable! I've only booted three or four people off this forum, and that was for trolling. I'll have to check out christianmystics.com; it's been awhile since I've visited them.

Lest there be any misunderstanding, my final comments to TBiscuit were not meant to indicate a banning. TBiscuit is welcomed to continue posting here.

JB, you make a helpful distinction between formation and community that I can relate to. After this attenuation of formation, however, the communal context remains, even in eremetic vocations. As you note, formation and community are not mutually exclusive; in fact, it's pretty much taken for granted in religious traditions that one remains in the formative community after shedding the need for external disciplines.

Aside from my objections to TBiscuits posts, which are more about his/her style, fallacies, and misinformation about Christianity, my concerns with what I'm learning about the spirituality taught by Hawkins are the same as I have for those in the Course in Miracles and New Age advaitan practices. While not wishing to minimize the good that can come from these practices, I find them:
- naive about the nature of evil;
- negative concerning the role of the intellect in discerning truth
- misusing science to justify their spirituality
- disinclined to become part of a spiritual community as they can have enlightenment without all that "man-made" stuff;
- lacking any holistic spirituality and theology to more deeply integrate their experiences;
- therefore: vulnerable to cultic dynamics from a teacher.

I've heard nothing yet on this thread that reassures me that my skepticism is unwarranted. Quite the contrary!

Good points, Phil, and although I haven't done the due diligence on Hawkins, I am inclined to trust that you have, in the same way that I trust Arraj's due diligence on so many in __Christianity in the Crucible__.

But, an aside ... not over or against anything shared here in this thread ---

In a very human way, whenever foks encounter an hierarchical sheme, a stage theory or a growth paradigm or a developmental theory, there seems to be an innate tendency for them to want to take out the ruler and measure up. This can be followed by a desire to want to be somebody , but not followed through with the work that is involved in order to become somebody.

I encountered this in the workplace with folks who wanted promotions due to their tenure and the mere passage of time, this over against other folks who had less tenure. The distinction was that yes, John, you have thirty years of experience --- three years worth repeated ten times, but Mary has ten years of experience and, because she has availed herself of appreniceship programs, outside training and schooling and such, it is ten years versus your virtual three. Now, mind you, I never had this conversation ... but ...

Now, this is not to at all suggest that religion is about a meritocracy. It is decidely NOT. At the same time, it is VERY much about growth! At some point in the seeking of enlightenment or spiritual growth, or even infused contemplation, we better balance our agapic and erotic motives, which is to say what is in it for me as well as for others.

When Teresa siad let us desire and occupy ourselves in prayer not so much so as to gain consolations but rather so as to gain the strength to serve, she echoed really the notion that the truly enlightened have sought enlightenment, not out of the desire for gnosis or even nirvana, but, moreso out of compassion for one's fellow wo/man, who must suffer my unenlightened self.

But even these notions fall short of the summit of Bernardian love: love of self for sake of self; love of God for sake of self; love of God for sake of God; love of self for sake of God. We DO desire and occupy ourselves inprayer to gain the strength to serve and we DO seel enlightenment out of compassion for others BUT we also welcome the consolations and the enlightened state for their intrinsic good and not just because of these instrumental goods, iow, for love of God for sake of God and of self and of others --- as we are, after all, mysteriously the same ... and different.

At any rate, whenever we pull out the ruler to measure ourselves on the path versus others, even statistically aggregated others or biophysically calibrated others, we offend the virtue of humility and the vice of pride. Measuring ourselves and coming up short is not humility. Measuring ourselves and coming up short is not the absence of pride either. Picking up the ruler is the vice.

Spiritual direction has, in every major tradition, positively eschewed these self-calibrations and focused rather on our next good step. The spiritual cartography is not good for laying out the journey we are each in store for as unique beloveds of God. It is only useful for providing touchpoints for the way, affirming that others have been in this spot before and ... no big deal ... carry on: here is your next good step.

The bottomline issue with stage theories and developmental paradigms is that they are descriptive but not prescriptive. They have normative value for showing us the ideals but very little prescriptive content for telling us how to attain same. Humans need assistance in closing the essentialistic-existential gaps, between our ideals and their realizations, and this assistance is Both mediate and immediate, sacramental, incarnational and mystical. Immersed in this earthly milieu, mediated knowledge and love are indispensable.

Another big problem is that, in a very human way, there is another way to climb ladders or raise our self-estimations and that is when we succumb to Everybody's got to have somebody to look down on Someone doing something dirty decent folks can frown on ...

What happens here is we kick a good wo/man when s/he is down Just to make ourselves feel strong Tell it all brothers and sisters Tell it all

IOW, we can get supercilious and self-righteous and can go after cheap grace -- putting pro-life bumper stickers on our cars and signs in our yards but never donating to Catholic Charities or other foundations to help unwed mothers, or poverty-stricken neonates ... No, it is all about feeling good by scapegoating our defects on to other people ...

Now, how could becoming someone spiritually possibly matter in an apokatastatic/universal salvation paradigm wherein, via polynomic value theory, we are saved not by merit but by grace? Well, as we noted before ... we aspire to right speech to advance others' formation, their paideia, and to enliven our sangha. We aspire to same out of compassion for others and because Right Speech, Truth, is its own reward as an intrinsic good.

There is likely something to the heavenly hierarchy with its choirs of angels. If, as Hans Kung says, every beginning of a smile, every trace of human goodness will be eternalized, and if apokatastasis is right, then I can imagine Hitler as a small candle in the heavens and Mother Teresa as a blazing helios, all giving ad majorem Dei gloriam to their fullest capacity, a destiny worked out on their earthly sojourn. Doctrine matters.

I had another thought, but it presently escapes me.

pax,
jb

I'm gonna kneel and pray everyday
Lest I should become vain along the way
I'm just an old chunk of coal, now Lord
But I'm gonna be a diamond some day

I'm gonna learn the best way to walk
I'm gonna search and find a better way to talk
I'm gonna spit and polish my old rough-edged self
Til I get rid of every single flaw

I'm gonna be the World's best friend
I'm gonna go around shaking everybody's hand
Hey, I'm gonna be the cotton-pickin' Rage of the Age
I'm gonna be a diamond some day

Billy Joe Shaver -- ladies and gentlemen!

which is just to say ...caveat emptor re: counterfeit ice

there ain't no shortcuts

there is some correspondence, here, to what Kelley Ross spoke of re: Luther's overwhelming intuition into the polynomic nature of values that turned into a distortion that trivialized the moral order ... ... for the same can be done to the process of intellectual conversion; it can be marginalized and trivialized ... ergo, we are neither to deny the fact that heaven isn't a meritocracy nor the fact that theosis, ours and others', requires our conscious, intelligent cooperation, even as we surrender our memory, understanding, our entire will ... this surrender is unto transformation and not rather negation

pax,
jb

the invitation to nonduality
is extended with plurality
by story, song or poem
constructed as a koan

dualism thus is broken
not from exhortations being spoken
but from a guru who is smiling
nodding, winking, not beguiling

the wind is everywhere she'll claim
sitting in her cave
fanning herself

but why the fan?
disciples don't understand

the muse then grins
breathes in the wind
the disciples then rise
none more the wise
and return to their air-conditioned chambers

Love,
jb

I had another thought, but it presently escapes me.

Given the number of pretty good ones in that post I think it must have simply been a runt. We shan�t miss it.

quote:

Originally posted by TBiscuit76:
[qb] That which is real cannot be threatened, that which is not real does not exist. Therein lies the peace of God.

I know this statement to be true, therefore I pay no heed to parts of your psyche that may be offended by things I type. If 'you' get offended, that's exactly the part of 'you' you need to transcend in order to experience the Reality of the Living God who has no existence outside of Now.[/qb]

What??? Someone needs to tell those hostages being held by terrorists that they really aren't in any danger, I guess, unless you do happen to believe the prospect of getting your head sawed off is a threatening situation. And what about those children being verbally abused? Are you saying that's no problem and they should just transcend it into the present moment?

I see that Phil has already taken you to the woodshed for your "attitude" and naive views about evil and suffering. You seem to be signing off now. Too bad. You didn't make much use of the opportunity you had to dialogue and learn. I don't think you thought you were in a learning situation, though. Your loss.

- Mike

One believes that this could be summed up with a quote spoken a decade ago by a famous sales guru.

"It seems that after your best efforts to convince folks that the fruit will taste better, some still refuse to peel their banana's before they eat them."

The only further advice one could offer is TRY PEELING YOUR BANANAS (just one time), THEY REALLY WILL TASTE BETTER or let yourself out of your imaginary box, you will be amazed at what you can see/understand (you choose which applies to you).

Love,
I

I would tend to agree with the half dozen concerns Phil listed, as well as jb's mention of what happens when comparisons begin to be made and the temptations and sins relating to the "measuring
stick." Apostle Paul agrees with you.
I also got a little tired of being subjected to the Ramtha commercials during Hawkins' broadcasts and hearing someone with a New York accent pretending to be someone from India.
Linda Evans of Dynasty fame is promoting this channeled entity, "Don't worry, Ramtha School of Enlightenment is not a cult, there is no guru.
As far as Christian Mystics goes, if you remind them of basic Christian truth, they have a tendency to denounce people as "fundamentalists" and subject them to ridicule and abuse. My $0.02

caritas,

mm <*))))))><

This is a nice quote from Vernon Howard-

"A man doesn't live his particular kind of life because he likes it.

He lives as he does because he thinks there is nothing better.

Pause and consider this idea. A tremendous clue to lofty living is hidden within."

MM9, something that might interest you, Ramtha the person and founder of the school, calibrates in the low 30's,(calibration mine). If it is possible that calibration of consciousness is accurate, would this be a helpful tool?

Love,
I

The only further advice one could offer is TRY PEELING YOUR BANANAS (just one time), THEY REALLY WILL TASTE BETTER or let yourself out of your imaginary box, you will be amazed at what you can see/understand (you choose which applies to you).

"I," help me understand why you felt compelled to write something like this. Just what are you reading here that suggests people are in "imaginary boxes" or that we don't peel our own bananas or enjoy the taste of the ones we're eating?

- - -

From Michael: As far as Christian Mystics goes, if you remind them of basic Christian truth, they have a tendency to denounce people as "fundamentalists" and subject them to ridicule and abuse. My $0.02

Ahh . . OK. I've run into that a few times, even with some leaders in Contemplative Outreach, who told me that a teaching I gave on faith, spirituality and doctrine indicated that I was only at a mythico-emotional level of consciousness and that I had to let go of all that to move on. It was distressing to see how they used Keating's refinement of Wilber to categorize people in terms of levels of consciousness. They, of course, fancied themselves at the top of the mountain . . . a problem JB alluded to in a post above.

Something I've noticed in the spiritual groups of the healthy variety (I do have a copy of Toxic Christianity and Churches That Abuse and have visited Fundamentalists Anonymous) is that the idea of change being possible and desirable is encouraged and fostered and celebrated and nurtured and supported.
Scott Peck's best work (in his opinion and mine) and least popular is People of the Lie. The lie which promotes evil is that "change is not possible."

To the extent that Hawkins is suggesting that change is possible, that in itself is a desirable and worthy goal. Conservatives by nature desire to
leave unchanged those things believed to be beneficial and best left at the status quo. Hawkins actually comes out on the conservative side on many issues, much to the dismay of some of his audience.

I, where does shalomplace calibrate?

caritas,

mm <*))))><