I am truly benefiting from perusing these threads. I had a non-dual awakening experience about six months ago through kundalini meditation. OK Maybe not the brightest idea. I didn't expect it to shake up my world as much as it has. The effects on my personality, relationships, creativity and sense of connection to God and creation has been positive for the most part. I have also had to wrestle with some pretty deep fears and psychic experiences. I am a seminary student and have tried to not be quick to interpret my experience too quickly. I have been bothered by the lack of clear mystical Christian teaching that is not completely gnostic. So I am interested in the process of reconciling the non-dual experience to exoteric Christian dogma. I would appreciate any suggestions.

Thanks

Welcome aboard, ekearney. Several of us here have had mystical experiences and are asking the same questions you do. One thing I can say for certain: there is no consensus answer! Bernadette Roberts offers some views in her books, which you may have read. And Hans Urs von Balthasar wrote a little essay ("The Unknown God," Elucidations, pp. 34-44) that's always seemed to me to be very important. And finally, in a blog post I wrote a while back, I offer my own take: Did Jesus Teach Nondualism?

Greetings, ekearney. I second Derek's welcome.

We had an extensive discussion on this topic sometime back:
- https://shalomplace.org/eve/for...5110765/m/6144087118

This thread also offers some clarifications.

My own opinion is that people refer to several different types of experiences as nondual. These all share a few common features, but some retain an inter-subjective sense moreso than others. So Johnboy's distinction between inra-objective and inter-subjective experiences on the thread linked to above is helpful; of course, some people experience different types at different times.

It's all complicated more by the fact that people seem to mean different things by "duality." For some, this seems to refer to a split between subject/object, with nondual experiences overcoming this split at the level of perception so that one experiences connection with other things in a deeper matrix -- God, the Ground of Being, etc. Sometimes, too, people seem to immply that there aren't really different things out there: that such is an illusion of some kind. Obviously, the latter is as much interpretation as perception, so I favor the first sense of duality -- that it is a kind of exaggeration of distinction that tends to create a sense of isolation and alienation -- separateness. Nondual (contemplative) experience overcomes this sense of existential separation without denying the reality of other, distinct beings.

Ed,

You wrote:

*****************************
“I have been bothered by the lack of clear mystical Christian teaching that is not completely gnostic. So I am interested in the process of reconciling the non-dual experience to exoteric Christian dogma. I would appreciate any suggestions.”
*****************************

My dibs in response to your post (fwiw) -- Protection from the completely Gnostic is afforded by steeping oneself in the humanity of Christ. One accomplishes such steeping by becoming yourself a scribe through a reading and prayerful rereading and continued reading of the Gospels in particular.

Focus on the emotions and responses of Christ in various situations: his joy, his sorrow, his fear and trembling, his anger, his stance before doubters or before those who tried to trip him up, his impatience and frustration, his discouragement, his astonishment at the faith of some, his delight in a true Israelite, his behavior when he walked proud and defiant through a crowd and at other times when he ran from a crowd. Consider his stance before men of different types, his knowing the hearts of men, and his stance before the Father. Consider his response to his mother’s interceding. Consider his fidelity to scripture (the words given Him by the Father). Consider his prayer life. Consider the various means in which he healed. Consider his obedience, his humiliations, his suffering, his resignation.

Non-dual or dual, with or without kundalini sensations, enlightened or not, we Christians are called to be HIS disciples and obedient to HIM. Those who have seen HIM have seen the Father. Those who have been baptized in HIS name and members of HIS body are to be guided by faith -- faith in HIM, in HIS revealed truths, by faith and reason not just reason.

Protection from the completely Gnostic is afforded by not abandoning one’s own dedication to scripture and one’s own reading of it. Methinks, many these days treat Divine Revelation, wondrous gift that it is, as having been just a placeholder that the Christian churches were to use pending the evolution and arrival of contemporary psychology. Many embrace a spirituality they believe is Christian despite abandoning and/or betraying the wisdom given us in Divine Revelation and the worship of Christ that is required of any who would be a disciple. “The Father is looking for worshipers, those who will worship Him in spirit and truth” -- not just the enlightened or those healed of their dysfunctional addictions.

As for exoteric Christian dogma and Christian mysticism, the works of SJOC, STA are great sources for study. Fr. Tom Dubay’s: ‘Fire Within’ and ‘Authenticity’ are inspiring and insightful. The Carmelite doctors did not use non-dual terminology nor the terminology of enlightenment, but their mysticism was Christian and safeguarded its readers from Gnostic wobbling.

Anyway, dems me dibs. I do not claim to be a guyru nor a fully awakened kundalini master – just an opinionated geezer (scripturally opinionated – and hoping you will be as well in your days ahead).

Pop-pop

All,

Methinks St. John of the Cross would counsel that one should not allow kundalini sensation to go to one’s head as kundalini sensation goes to one’s head ……………………………… or genitals for that matter.

I base this on a reading of his counsel given in The Ascent of Mt. Carmel: Bk II, Chapter 11 in its entirety. He doesn’t use the term kundalini, but addresses felt sensations in general.

This is exoteric – I like this word Ed has introduced me to..

You can check it out and see if you agree. I don’t see that he denies it having a possible origin in the divine, but cautions us in contrary regards concerning origin and in misapplication and/or distortions when indeed from God.

Pop-pop

Pop Pop,

Thanks for your thoughtful response. I need reminders that I have no obligation to interpret my experience quickly or sign up for an existing tradition. I am in a degree program and can't really spend as much time studying these things as I would like. That is also probably good since It seems easy to obsess about these kind of experiences that don't fit into simple definitions. Having input from others helps keep me balanced and is much appreciated.

Speaking of studying... I better get on it.

Thanks again,

Peace,

Ed

quote:

Methinks St. John of the Cross would counsel that one should not allow kundalini sensation to go to one’s head as kundalini sensation goes to one’s head ……………………………… or genitals for that matter.

I base this on a reading of his counsel given in The Ascent of Mt. Carmel: Bk II, Chapter 11 in its entirety. He doesn’t use the term kundalini, but addresses felt sensations in general.

Pop, are you speaking about what goes on during prayer, or the rest of life?

During a time of prayer, I think it best to treat k phenomena as one would any kind of thought or distraction. We notice it and then turn our attention back to God. "Not-allowing" energy to go here or there would itself constitute a distraction, and a turn toward self rather than God; it's no improvement than trying to direct energy here or there. So if, in the context of attending to God, energy goes to the head, heart, or seemingly nowhere at all, then so be it. This kind of prayerful attending to God needs to continue outside of prayer, of course. But I think SJC is most concerned, here, about during prayer.

Not sure here Phil, but i think Pop-pop was addressing the issue of letting felt sensations, kundalini or otherwise, become an ego trip i.e. "not allow kundalini sensation to go to one's head" even while the energy itself is actually moving into one's head (or genitals, as suggested).

At least that is my reading...
what say thee Pop pop?

Me too, Jacques. I heard Pops comment as being a metaphor--as in allowing sensations to gain undue significance spiritually.

Ed,

I second Pops recommendation to read "Fire Within." I know you have a lot to study now, and it's good to devote yourself to what God has called you to, as you know. And it would be a subtle scheme of old Screwtape to get you sidetracked and "bothered" by what is lacking in Christianity!

But an occasional and even brief dipping into St. John of the Cross or St. Theresa of Avila (nicely summarized in this book) will deeply satisfy any mystical longings that are stirred up.

And by the way, there is nothing lacking in Christianity. The Father will directly give you what you need for the Holy Spirit leads us into all the truth required for our sanctification and worldly labor. The "deep fears" that your kundalini experiences have brought up can only be combatted by learning to love as Christ loves.

Peace and God's Love be with you!

Shasha and Jacques, he did say kundalini sensations, and as the head is usually the goal of such movements, I took it literally -- especially as he mentioned genitals as well. It would be typical of SJC to mean it either way, though he was rather stern about not getting too attached to "phenomena" that arise during prayer.

Phil,

Your question is a good one.

I think the issue is not what I am speaking about but rather what SJOC is speaking of in the passage from ASC II:11 that I referred to. Do I correctly understand what the mystical doctor has written there – that’s the question perhaps.

Upfront, realize that I am not a third order Carmelite nor do I have personal contacts or acquaintances with such folk, nor do I know any folk who have advanced to experiencing fifth mansion levels of advanced prayer or the mansions beyond. I have read and reread SJOC and STA many times in an effort to understand their teachings. I realize that a certain experiential knowledge aids the reader and that over the years as my prayer life has continued I have better understood their thought. Of course, I am far from owning it all.

That said, my reading of that chapter is that SJOC is talking of the totality of one’s advancing spiritual life and growth more so than what goes on during one’s prayer time and of the issues of distractions in prayer or energy in prayer.

Here are some extractions from that chapter that I base my understanding on (this chapter deals with other affects experienced in the bodily senses -- sight, hearing, smell, taste and touch -- but I focus here on touch since that is the most applicable to what we have oft been terming kundalini sensations):

“And concerning touch they (spiritual persons) feel extreme delight, at times so intense that all the bones and marrow rejoice, flourish, and bathe in it. This delight is usually termed spiritual unction, because in pure souls it passes from the spirit to the senses, and it is common with spiritual persons. It is an overflow from the affection and devotion of the sensible spirit which each person receives in his own way.”

“ Even though some spiritual nourishment results from these corporal communications – which is always the case when they have a divine origin – it is far less than when the communications are more spiritual and interior. As a result they are a ready occasion for the breeding of error, presumption and vanity. Palpable, tangible, and material as they are, they strongly affect the senses so that in one’s judgment they seem more worthwhile. A man then, forsaking faith, will follow after these communications believing that their light is the guide and means to his goal, which is union with God. But the more importance he gives to these communications the further he strays from faith, the way and the means.”

“Furthermore, a person receiving these apprehensions (here SJOC is referring to all apprehensions of the bodily senses, you understand, but touch/ feeling sensations are a subset) often develops secretly a rather fine opinion of himself – that now he is someone in God’s eyes. Such a view is contrary to humility.”

“The spiritual person ought to deny all the apprehensions and temporal delights of the exterior senses… One should not desire to clutch sensory communications nor suffer encumbrance from them, since they are what most derogates faith.”

This chapter is only five pages long and it would be best for those interested, to read it themselves. I have merely found and extracted text that support my belief that SJOC considers this counsel of his to be applicable to one’s spiritual life and growth and not to distractions in prayer per se and how to deal with them during one’s prayer times.

SJOC in his prolog to the Ascent, states that he is presenting instruction valuable to both beginners and proficients alike.

Anyway, I hope that explains my earlier posts and answers your question.

Jacques, You read me quite well. Perfecto!

Shasha you too, milady.

Pop-pop

That all makes sense, Pop. Ego-inflation is real possibility, especially early on the spiritual journey. After awhile, we've had the crap beaten out of us so many times that we know better than to brag about anything.

Thanks for al of your input. I will track down the SJOC material. I was thinking this morning about Paul's reference to the thorn in the flesh and how that takes on a whole new meaning when I read it now. I can't compare the content of my experience with Paul's but it is nevertheless included mystical revelation that carries with it the potential to give me ego-itis (inflammation of the ego?). I guess I can regard the negative parts of my experience as kind of a soul barometer making me aware of the pitfalls.

I met a gnostic priest last week whose advice was actually quite similar concerning kundalini manifestations. Keep the focus on love for God and neighbor. I'm not wanting to be a gnostic but I am finding that talking to people that I was taught as an Evangelical to "Be afraid, be very afraid" of gives me better information and tears down stereotypes at the same time. I am not ready to see scripture as only a repository for metaphor and secret knowledge. I am interested in knowing more about this idea of "initiation into mysteries" that I have found referenced by church fathers.

Here is a quote from St Basil..When the instruction is over, if any catechumen tries to get out of you what your teachers told you, tell nothing, for he is outside the mystery that we have delivered to you, with its hope of the age to come. Guard the mystery for his sake from whom you look for reward. Never let anyone persuade you, saying "What harm is it that I should know as well?" . . . Already you stand on the frontier of mystery. I adjure you to smuggle no word out. Ed. by W. Telfer, Cyril of Jerusalem and Nemesius of Emesa.

If these mystery teachings weren't gnostic what do they refer to and did they ever get recorded or are they still orally transmitted by groups within Christianity today?

Addressing no point or person, in particular, some ideas for consideration:

Until the second half of the 20th Century, where the concept nonduality is concerned, there has been a general lack of Western inculturation. It is important that we not confuse a lack of inculturation with a lack of orthodoxy, the culturally-dependent vehicles of concepts and even phenomenal experiences with
the transcendent essence of special revelation, itself, which they may help convey.

We also must not confuse revelation, itself, with the witnesses to revelation.

It is through inculturation processes that we thus place nonduality in a Christian context and through mutual inter-culturation we may even deepen --- not only our understandings of others, including others as witnesses to revelation, but also --- our own self-understandings , birthing ever new forms of witness to revelation.

There are many witnesses to revelation, in general, and to Christian revelation, in particular..

As for orthodoxy, like inculuration and inter-culturation, it, too, is an ongoing dialogic process. Orthopraxy will thus carry us far beyond any mere cognitive assent, propositionally, as we then remain always immersed in that dialogic process, existentially.

Ed,

That quote of Basil’s is definitely thought provoking. You have found a plum to set before us.

I wouldn’t have thought the early fathers would have been keepers of secrets as are the gurus of other faiths. It doesn’t seem right that the early Christians would operate as a secret society might. Mystery teachings? It seems contrary to the generosity of God and the tradition of the church as I have ever heard. It seems more appropriate to the DaVinvi Code swill.

Others may have an answer for you.

Pop-pop

not enough context on that church fathers quote for exegesis but maybe there's a pedagogical angle in play from a catechetical perspective and formative spirituality outlook regarding what is or is not developmentally-appropriate

at worst, we sometimes deal with pearls and swine, and, at best, pablum might be called for

early on journey, we enforce certain disciplines as obligational, which, later on journey, we discover are merely aspirational, but we might not disclose that to youngsters

certain truths for those unable to process them for manifold reasons become lies even, for all practical purposes (think jack nicholson: you can't handle the truth!)

basil might have been articulating the nicholson principle?

such is the nature of exoteric vs esoteric, which is not occulted, in principle, just for all practical purposes as called for in the service of truth

I believe that the mystery being referred to is the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. This mystery was kept for the baptized only and not revealed even to catechumens.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Jacques,

Very cool link, JB. Thanks.

We need note here, too, that the gnostics had no monopoly on mystical experience. There's been plenty of that in "orthodox Christianity" from the beginning.

What's curious about the comment from St. Basil is that the context is of safeguarding the mystery from curious catechumens, who are at least formally learning about the faith. I wonder who he's talking to? Could it be that he's referring to those who've just been baptized and are in the mystagogia process? Maybe he's cautioning them about saying too much so these catechumens don't try to get too much ahead of the process?

Jacques,

To me…to me your response makes the best sense…. rings true. And the link provided by JB seems to nail it with precision.

Basil and the early Christians likely had a fuller appreciation for what we have long since taken for granted and thereby haven’t taken at all – i.e. haven’t appropriated. Kind of in the sense that ‘familiarity breeds contempt’ as they say. We have taken no or limited advantage of our inheritance; have squandered opportunities for absorbing grace; have not allowed the Real Presence a real presence in our lives. Aiyee. Nothing stopping us from God’s point of view. (Ball is in our court. Has been. See it over there on the ground in the very corner near the fence? Heck, with all the texting and TV the team is doing, how many even realize anymore that they are even on the court and wearing the uniform of the baptized)?

If one believes that God is truly present in the Eucharistic host being consumed and/or adored, then one would be foolish to fail to maximize their consumption of the host and time spent in the field of its radiance – of that radiated Real Presence.

Basil and his acquaintances understood the import of the sacred mystery of Christ’s presence in the Eucharist and they availed themselves of it! They availed themselves of it! Living in that manner, they were able to harness the fruits of sanctifying grace and appreciate the supernatural reality afforded mankind by the Eucharist. In these times discussion of such realities is taken by some as yada-yada-yada (having heard it so often but not dealt it a chance – having gotten fast-caught by the cares, glamour and technology of the world) or by others as a pietistic nonsense for simpletons incapable of rational maturity beyond superstition and myth (the unsophisticated and non intellectual).

Friday, as I entered the adoration chapel, I found myself saying to the Lord: ‘Well, you know why I am here. I am here because of my belief that I cannot not be affected by spending time in your radiance. Stream into me then.’ And then I prayed my favorite fragments of the Angelus: ‘Pour forth O Lord your grace into our hearts that we to whom the Incarnation of Christ thy son was made known by the message of an angel, may be FILLED with every heavenly grace and blessing through Christ our Lord. Amen’. (Oops, btw, I don’t know that there exists any formal catechesis on the radiance concept I’ve mentioned here. That’s what I believe and I suspect many others do as well – though I have never heard or read anything doctrinally formal on it - as far as I can clearly recall as I write just now.)

The Real Presence of Christ in the host is distinctly a matter of faith. It is mystery for sure. Growth in the theological virtues of faith and hope (recall that virtue relates to a practice, a habit that becomes a trait of our character) comes about by exercising our faith. Exercising one’s faith means one acts on a belief, on a thing unseen.

Exercising one’s faith necessarily involves acting on a supernatural reality unseen to our natural intelligence – which means unseen by our natural intellect and reason. It means acting in some way on a belief not rationally provable, despite moderns’ desire for everything to be rational and demonstrable. (Lol, so one can sue somebody and win, if for some reason the three cherries of our desires don’t appear when and if we pull the handle of the slot machine we might be considering investing something in).

St. John of the Cross loves to use the term ‘dark’. The supernatural effects of grace that are realized by such activity are ‘dark’ to our understanding because our understanding can merely take in natural things. We are unable to comprehend mystery, to comprehend supernatural things. Yet the way we avail ourselves to the supernatural is by actions taken or made in faith – in faith based on the Divine Revelation given us by Christ. (That btw, means things beyond what psychology, the science of natural human behavior, can make known by clinical statistics based upon evidential data and study.)

SJOC celebrates the darkness that supernatural mystery entails because without it (darkness of natural understanding) one cannot grow in faith and come to the understanding of supernatural things. Lol. Pretty neat, huh? If you have understanding then you act on evidence not mystery and thereby you do not act in faith. You don’t rub up against mystery. Natural men act on understanding; spiritual men act on faith. Christians are both natural and supernatural and act on both (born once and ‘born again’). One does so via faith and reason, not by reason alone. One must rub up against mystery to experience the supernatural. Without rubbing up against the Christmas evergreen, without handling it, one does not find one’s hands sticky and fragrant with the sap that is present there within.

So those of us looking for a sign (as Christ bemoaned) or evidence or proof – well those are dead in the water (in a certain sense -- from the git-go, as they say on the Ponderosa). I forget which meme color is the one so vulnerable, via their rationalist worldview, to being dead in the water. The faith of little children (the faith Christ recommended we have) is not so rationalist after all. It is based on the word of their father – on who he is. It is based on who they trust; whose word they take, in whom they believe. It is not based on scientific data nor logical proofs shown them before they will consent to act or believe; nor the searches they make into ancient history and languages.

When a Christian acts to introduce into his/her life the reception of Real Presence via attendance at mass and reception of communion (and attending to the necessary sanctity for its reception) or acts to take time to pray in the presence of Real Presence, then he/she is acting in faith – is exercising faith and thereby is growing in the theological virtue of faith. If one does that daily, one is growing daily. Of course, it is also true that whenever one acts to pray (whether or not one does so in the presence of the Real Presence) one is exercising one’s faith and thereby growing in the theological virtue of faith.

I do not intend to in any way dismiss nor deprecate prayer and other acts that promote spiritual life (almsgiving, spiritual reading, penance, acts of mercy (corporal & spiritual) etc. I do not intend to in any way dismiss nor deprecate the prayer and beliefs of folk of other Christian faiths who do not have a similar understanding of the RP. (Hate dem snowballs; fear dem rotten tomatoes).

I am just concurring in Jacques’ statement that Basil was probably referring to the mystery of the Eucharist; and am trying to explain what that mystery is all about.

In Basil’s day [a time prior to the Reformation and the attendant fire hose of diversity of doctrinal understanding that came to exist, and still even now comes into existence – like pro-choice thought, homosexual priesthood, contemporary concepts of Christ as a wisdom figure for the western world only, etc.] in Basil’s day when catechumens received instruction in the Christian faith they received instruction in the Catholic understanding of the Eucharist, which entails Real Presence – RC/OC-style. So Jacques’ dib in response to Ed’s inquiry make sense to me. And JB’s tossed link adds great confirmatory strength to Jacques’ dib.

Pop-pop

p.s. yada yada yada I know, but I had already worked so long on this before having seen JB’s link that I didn’t want to omit posting it.

I've just come across another Christian awakening to non-duality. Francis Bennett was a Trappist monk until "he experienced a profound perceptual shift in which he realized the ever-present presence of pure Awareness. I haven't had a chance to watch the interview with him yet, but here's a link to more info:

http://batgap.com/francis-bennett

The essential nature of this Awareness that we always already are, is pure bliss. It is none other than what I have, for most of my life called, "the presence of God"! ... One "metaphor" for this is that we are all the "beloved children of God", infinitely loved by God. God is, in reality, the simple "Presence" that is always, already present, no matter where we appear to "go" or what we appear to "do". In fact, it is probably a little more accurate to say, "You are Infinite Love itself!"

--From Bennett's Facebook.

What concerns me about his testimony here, and which we've been through 100 times at SP, is his equating divinity with spirituality, or an expanded consciousness. My view and experience with "pure bliss" consciousness is that it's a metaphysical phenomena and is not the same as what the Christian mystics described as the spiritual marriage or contemplative graces of union with God. And I am quite convinced that the "pure bliss" consciousness is not what Jesus was referring to in John 14 and 17 when He prayed that we would be one, like He is one, with the Father. But I could be wrong (added for good measure, not because I really gut-level believe it )

Also, is it not misleading to suggest that"no matter where we appear to go or what we appear to do," God's Presence is there? Yes, one can attain to a spiritual awakening to the "ground of being" wherein one sees/feels that God, in a pantheistic way, is everywhere, no matter what. He made us, not of some foreign substance outside of Himself, but of His Own Self (in some mysterious way flowing from His Own Being). So, yes, wherever you go and whatever you do, there He is! He is always generating us, keeping us alive by His Power. That is an amazing 'sight,' or aspect of God's beingness. But where I may depart from others on this subject is in suggesting this unity consciousness can also be the fertile grounds for an illusion of divinity. As in the comment: You are infinite Love itself. This metaphysical interconnectedness can create the illusion that you are God or you have attained to the highest union with God.

I had a similar (not necessarily the same) realization years ago when I was eating breakfast in some strange hotel, some strange city. I could 'see' that no matter where I was, there was this exact same "presence." It's so amazing, you are led to conclude: only God could do such a splendid thing!! There is nowhere you can 'go' where this spiritual reality of God's presence is not. It's a huge WOW-WEE in the beginning stages of the journey perhaps, but later it recedes to the background as the Father places His purifying trials before you (at least this is my experience), for the sake of you and His Glorious Church. You have to painfully engage your will to love in a way that the "presence" or "ground of being" can't help much.

Our essential free will is still up for grabs. The issue is more about how we respond to that dimension of reality. How do we respond to this metaphysical reality of God? He is waiting on us to decide..."Will you spend one hour with me?"

Experiencing the reality of the unity of all things doesn't mean we have encountered or surrendered to a personal God. I'm more in agreement with the teachings of the Saints who say the highest attainment of God is the union of wills between Creator and creature, which may or may not include an expanded consciousness.

And furthermore, some more, the other issue is the risk of diverting the call to holiness in some (all of us?) onto the track of spiritual enlightenment. I realize they can and do co-exist too.

That seems like a bad idea, in general, if it's not done carefully. I don't know Bennett to assume any such missteps about him, so I'm not casting any aspersions on his call, judgment, or character, to be sure. I'm sure his interview at Buddha at the Gas Pump website will tell us more about his life. From the little I've read, he seems quite compassionate and loving.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Shasha,

I'm OK with the affirmation of God as this simple presence that always is -- omnipresent, omniscient, all-loving, etc., as we affirm in our theology. All mystical experience is also some degree of graced participation in this reality, sometimes so much so that the boundary between self and God seems to disappear. We would never say that "I am God" in an ontological sense, but it can surely seem as though the one who peers through these eyes is non other than the one who is. It's as though the non-reflecting aspect of the human spirit (which is accessible to anyone without mystical grace) becomes an aperture through which the divine sees and expresses.

- - -

Increasingly, I am inclined to think of the human spirit as one consciousness that is endowed with awareness, intellect and will, these three being inseparable, but also different kinds of potentialities. We can "lean," as it were, into our intellectual ability and exert ourselves in that manner, if we choose. We can also get in touch with our freedom, desires, intentions, etc., and work with that. Finally, we can lean into our capacity to be present and "just-be," or just observe what goes on within and about us. In each example, the other two potentialities are in the background, to some extent, and in the life of prayer and the practice of spirituality, we can see these three different leanings yielding three spiritual superhighways, if you will.

The way to God via intellectual engagement focuses on truth, clarifying one's thinking, discernment, nuance, theological reflection, and, mystically, an intuitive grasp of the One who is the Source of all truth. Jesus referred to Himself as the Truth, so he was affirming of this way. In Christianity, there are many examples of this mystical pathway -- Thomas Aquinas, Karl Rahner, etc. In Hinduism, this would correspond to Jnana yoga.

The way to God via will and intent is clearly Love. As with the way of Truth, we could work with the process of loving, let go of attachments, learn to be loved by God, and discover God as the Source of all love. This pathway is so well known in Christianity that it needs no elaboration. Here we find Jesus as the way, the one who connects us to God's love in such manner that we can never be separated from the love of God if we stay with Jesus. The Hindu pathway of bhakti yoga is similar, in this emphasis on love; so does karma yoga.

Both the way of truth and love lead to a kind of "dualistic mysticism" in that distinctions between creature and Creator are preserved so there's no confusion about who's who, and no babbling statements that seem to conflate God and creature.

The way of Awareness is not as well known in Christianity, but we're not complete strangers to it. Here we work with awareness, and attempt to move our center of presence from the reflective Ego to the non-reflecting aspect of the human spirit, which arises moment-by-moment straight from God. The deeper we go, the closer we come to that Ground of Being where we receive our life and existence from God. With reflectivity de-emphasized, the intellect and will are in the background of consciousness, with "see-ing" directly and non-reflectively the primary practice. When this practice is graced in a special way by God, we come to "see" how it is that all things arise from God and how God is omnipresent in and through all things. The non-reflecting aspect of the human spirit participates in the divine's own seeing and realizes the blissful, joyful life that is God's very nature. Intellect and will are still in play, but they become increasingly disinclined to reflective and willful operations that distort mystical awareness. Contemplative practices such as Centering Prayer and Christian Meditation can help to prepare one for this kind of mystical experience. In Hinduism, we find raja yoga exploring this pathway.

One final possibility is that it may well be that a mystic travels along one of the three superhighways for awhile, then moves onto another, then, later, perhaps the third. I believe one predominates, but because grace cannot help but overflow into all these areas, we will experience them all, to some extent. It does seem that once one comes to the way of Awareness, the other two recede into the background. There's little interest in theological exploration of God as Truth when the divine is looking out of one's eyes. Maybe that's what happened to Thomas Aquinas at the end of his life?

quote:

Originally posted by Shasha:
Our essential free will is still up for grabs.

The thing is, there isn't really an individual self to possess free will. The appearance of a separate self is an illusion created in the mind.

There's something going on around this planet. More and more people are waking up. I think Dominicus, who used to post here, was another one, though he maybe didn't say so explicitly. I'm part of a Facebook group of around 300 people -- all ordinary people -- who've seen through the illusion of an independent, personal self. People are waking up!