Shalom Place Community Shalom Place Discussion Groups General Discussion Forums Christian Spirituality Issues Enlightenment and Christian SpiritualityGo | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply | |
| Enlightenment and Christian Spirituality | Login/Join |
Mys_Dhayana, "This is what can happen to the intellect. Without the will to keep citta calm, it gets so befuddled by the lower mind that it forgets the large framework of it's actions. All too often it ends up pursuing the wrong goals. As a professor in India, I had always looked up to certain well-known authors, statesmen, and scientists whom the world lionized. But as meditation deepened, I began asking simply if they had made a beneficial contribution of their lives. Never mind if their work was brilliant; was the world a better place for their having lived? Objectivity often compelled a surprising conclusion. Many of the figures in my personal Hall of Fame climbed down from their pedestals and said with some embarrassment, "Let us out. There must have been some mistake; we don't really belong here." And a few came in shyly whom I had overlooked: men and women whose lives had been motivated by the desire to improve not their own lot in life, but the lots of others. "It is the purpose of the intellect to give us a detached view of life, against which we can assess our desires objectively. "What does this really accomplish? For whose benefit is it? At whose expense?" Unfortunately, however, we seldom train the intellect for its purpose. We never teach it to give direction to our desires, or strengthen the will to be its ally. Instead we usually cultivate the intellect for its own sake, without any regard for consequences. We bring the intellect to graduate school and tell it, "Don't worry about what to work on. Just bring your little chain saw every day and saw things up into categories for a few years." We get caught up in what we like, and the intellect goes to work. Whether anybody benefits from that work does not even enter the picture. "If this sounds strong, please remember that the world of education is very dear to me. It is because I place a high value on what education can and should do to enable people to live wiser, richer and more loving lives that I am so distressed by what is does instead. Look at some of the subjects the well-educated intellect chooses to study for a dissertation. "Is there a Relationship Between Ambient Temperature and Dating Preference in Urban Teenagers?" I do not deny that subjects like this can be fascinating. But on the other hand, where is their pressing urgency? Ironically, their researchers will probably be invited all over the world to give lectures, even in countries where problems like violence or starvation cry out for attention from those who are intellectually trained or highly skilled. In Yama's terms, real "higher education" should teach us how to choose, how to master desires and strengthen the will, how to make the mind proof against insecurity and the body proof against all the ailments of stress. Instead, as the president of a major university in this country remarked recently, young people still leave our colleges and universities essentially the same as when they first arrived from Battle Creek or Pinole-- the will no stronger, vision no clearer, and no better idea of how to transform anger into compassion or hatred into love." -Eknath Easwaran "Where there is no vision, the people perish." -Proverbs 29:18 When I see a thousand people at someone's funeral, and all that they did for 40 years was to go around to the prisons and gather anyone who could listen, and some who could not, into a program of recovery, and teach them to see and to hear and to crawl and to walk and perhaps to run themselves, in the general direction of light, however hopeless it may have seemed or how dismal the prospects, however rough the going or sparse the reward, then I would call that person enlightened. When I see a society put half of its scientists into weapons manufacture, I would call that society unenlightened. Shalom, | ||||
|
Spooonboy, we're obviously not on the same page. I hear you though. Love, dhyana | ||||
|
I'm close to being in full agreement, only I think there are also some who come to enlightenment (as I understand it) without K activation. It seems to be the human spirit awake to itself and creation prior to any acts of reflection -- a radically simplified awareness that apprehends reality directly. This consciousness is always available to us -- it's really the first movement of the human spirit, a la Longergan's teachings. So when reflection/conceptualization/evaluating, etc. is diminished, the enlightenment/awareness state become more avalable. In some, K activation is concommitant, or even precedes the enlightenment experience. K seems to be the way all the levels of our being are attuned to accommodate the consciousness of the higher chakras. Hence, it enables a more holistic type of enlightenment. There is lots about this on the kundalini forum; see one of the threads at the top on K and the Holy Spirit, which, as you noted, can be received with or without K activation and leads one to union with God in Christ. Peace. Phil | ||||
|
Thank you so much for your response, Phil. I'm trying to reach a balance in this so that I don't feel like its tearing me in two. Its much more than an intellectual exercise. Yes, I can see where some can experience enlightenment without a K activation. I think what I needed to know is that it IS the consciousness of the higher chakras. And that that consciousness doesn't nullify the reality of Christ and the Christian path...which is what others were trying to sell me. I wouldn't buy it. That's where your book really helped me.  I will definitely tune into the kundalini forum next. Thank you so much. Love, dhyana | ||||
|
In light of all of this, do you think it may give new meaning to the words "we'll cast our crowns before Him..."???  Love, dhyana | ||||
|
dhyana, monistic systems such as we so often find in the East and New Age often confound spirit and Spirit, consciousness and Christ, the soul and God. I can go along with spiritual awareness as the way our human spiritual consciousness manifests in the higher chakras, and that this need not be accompanied by K awakening. And no, this isn't what Christians mean by Christ consciousness nor the Holy Spirit. I consider these chakras and K to be part of what you might call our metaphysical anatomy and physiology -- how body, mind and spirit are "knit together," if you will. Peace. Phil | ||||
|
Thank you, dear Phil. I am beginning to feel much more at peace about it all now. Hug. Love, dhyana | ||||
|
- post deleted by Phil as it was also posted on the Christian Spirituality Issues forum under the thread, "A Christian understanding of energy systems." -This message has been edited. Last edited by: Phil, | ||||
|
 |
Hi Mary Sue. Good to see you posting out here again. I'm pretty much in agreement with what you've written. If the differences between the world religions were simply a matter of semantics, then that would have become well-established in interreligious dialogue. There are fundamental differences, however, which is why we have these separate religions in the first place. We might all be relating to the One God, but we are going about that in different ways which have various consequences. E.g., if you relate to God as an impersonal Absolute -- "suchness" or "ground of being" or something like that -- you're not really open to developing an interpersonal relationship with God and might even tune out or reject any offers from the divine to do so. So, ultimately, a religious tradition does configure our manner of receptivity and openness, and that's a huge issue. It's not all the same thing, and we actually do a disservice to the various world religions by homogenizing them into a syncretism of some kind -- usually a Hinduish flavor. | |||
|
That’s a fascinating statement! I believe that culture structures our awareness -- and religious traditions even more so. That, of course, does not change the underlying reality. Perhaps a key question that we need to ask ourselves is this one, which was the central question posed by one the lecturers (in Native American Studies) at my university: "How do you relate to your awarenesses of yourself?" | ||||
|
Hi Mary Sue, I think I know what you mean. There does seem to be specific energies behind different religions and beliefs that are carried by people's words/intentions. I wouldn't want somebody praying over me unless I felt their heart was in line with my view of God. You seem to have done the right thing to say no to prayers that were not comfortable to you. Nobody is entitled to pray with us just because they want to. Imo, it's a boundary violation to pray for somebody out loud in their presence unless you are quite sure they will be comfortable with your prayers. | ||||
|
| ||||
|
|
Shasha et al, see http://www.onenessmovementflor..._Oneness_Process.htm for Mike's story. I'm not sure how similar this all is to what you described above, Shasha, as he was already quite familiar with Christian spirituality, centering prayer, charismatic renewal, the sacraments, etc. To his thinking, this is a gift of grace that is communicated through Sri Amma and Bhagavan. There is the theme of eliminating suffering that you describe above, and, so far with him, that seems to have been the case. Anyway, check it out and see what you think. Does this all sound familiar to you? I know Michael and think he might be interested in this discussion if we have additional comment on it. Personally, I resort to the old discernment model of an experience being: a. helpful and of God, or b. helpful and of nature, or c. harmful and of nature, or d. harmful and of evil spirit. That all nuances things and even allows for some combinations thereof. About the only way I can understand these oneness experiences in terms of a. would be that they are graced perspectives from the vantage point of the cosmic Christ, Who is the one through whom the universe was created, and who holds all things together. In terms of b., we're back to our old chestnut of invoking the non-reflecting consciousness of our own human spirit, which also has a cosmic breadth in that the soul, as spiritual, embraces all of the material universe (won't that be a hoot to experience after death?). This might account for some kinds of enlightenment experiences, but I don't think it does for what Michael relates. As for c and d, those should be easy enough to discern through the fruits and consequences of the experience. You're very clear about that in your case, Shasha, and I thank you for your generous sharing about this. What to make of all these others, like Michael, who find in this a very positive experience? | |||
|
Well spoken post, Shasha. Phil, I read the first article in the link. I'm sleepy-minded and at the end of my day here and no expert on the brain at any time. But Michael's talk of frying his parietal lobes made me wonder if his amygdala may not be fried as well. From my limited understanding and very rusty remembrance from reading about animal behavior science years ago, I think our amygdala, if too much quieted along w/ "fried" parietal lobes, might leave a person in a state such as Michael describes? I'm really, really rusty on this stuff, though. I do know, though, that we need the amygdala--inasmuch as it's often over-active, it's still a good and necessary part of us as creatures. Here's a link with a fairly long but interesting article: http://www.cognitiveliberty.org/neuro/neuronewswk.htm Sorry I'm so sleepy...I probably shouldn't be posting when I'm like this! The link has a reductionistic (is that even a word?) tone and I don't subscribe to that, but it does end with "But it is likely they will never resolve the greatest question of all--namely, whether our brain wiring creates God, or whether God created our brain wiring. Which you believe is, in the end, a matter of faith." Anyway, whatever it may be that Michael is experiencing, that brand of "happiness" did not appeal to me, though I tend to be entranced by comfort and freedom from suffering. It just doesn't fit into my slowly growing understanding of what it means to accept and give real love. | ||||
|
An article on the "severe problems" with the Oneness Movement: http://www.enlightened-spiritu...deeksha_oneness.html I didn't have time to read the entire article at this point, but I did skim it...to me it looks like a scam ($7,000+ and other costs for the 21 day initiation course?). But I'll read more later. | ||||
|
Thanks for digging out that link, Ariel. When I read Michael's story at the link Phil posted, I thought it was amazing. But then I thought, wait a minute, I've heard these kind of stories before: the spirituality that trumps all other spiritualities, the guru in India, the transmissions, and so on. Skimming your link (I also haven't read all of it!) confirms my suspicion: it's just the same old story over again. | ||||
|
You're welcome, Derek. I finished the article, and it's worth reading for anyone drawn to the Oneness Movement. I hate to be a muck-raker, but even more I hate to see innocent, vulnerable and hurting people sucked in. So I guess there I'm saying I have little doubt that Sri Amma and Bhagavan are greedy con-artists who have set up what appears to be a sort of pyramid scheme. | ||||
|
I want to be clear, too, that I don't want to be judging Michael, who I don't know but who I thought was very likable and probably mostly innocently drawn into this. And regarding the first link (on neurotheology) I want to be clear that I believe God wired us in the first place--I don't reduce all experiences to mere events in the brain. I do wonder, though, that when someone sincerely claims sustained no-self experiences that don't jive with other aspects of reality, if perhaps they haven't physically--somewhat innocently, even--re-wired their brain in a way that feels good (or at least painless) but isn't actually a perception of reality, and isn't growth towards genuine love. | ||||
|
|
That was a good article, Ariel. Thanks. I've made Michael aware of it, and am anxious to hear what he has to say. There are quite a few other sites critical of Bhagavan and Amma. Sometime back we had a devotee of Amma posting on this forum; she went by Virya. I knew her from my days as a campus minister at LSU in the late 1970s, when she was active at the Catholic Student Center there. She apparently made the rounds between then and 2006, when she showed up on the forum, eager to put in a good word for TM and Amma, whom she regarded as another incarnation of God and saw no conflict between that and her Christian beliefs. As you'll see if you check out the thread, it's typical fuzzy-thinking, new-agey reasoning, which seems incapable of making the most elementary of distinctions. - see https://shalomplace.org/eve/for...10625/m/30910395/p/1 | |||
|
Hi dear friends, I'm on winter break with my boys in sunny LA, so I can't get too far into this discussion at the moment. Phil, about Michael's story...I don't know what to say...I certainly can't judge another's experience, but it is very disturbing to me. I will have to pray about it but confess that I feel a sinking sadness the more I read... BTW, the Amma of Oneness Movement is not the "hugging saint" Amma that you reference above in Virya's discussion. I'm pretty sure that's a different guru. Ariel, you are quite the detective. Thanks for that article...Derek is right on: same ole story , eh? Talk to you all later. I'm praying God's tender love be with you. Shasha | ||||
|
Pauline talked about both Amma the "hugging saint" and, in a thread I found by entering "Deeksha" in SP's "Find" function a couple of days ago, she talked at length about Bhagavan and this Amma. I'm trying not to be envious, Shasha, here in my present 34F degrees! | ||||
|
|
Shasha, he's unquestionably one happy guy these days, and he regards the oneness blessing as something of a charism or spiritual gift communicated through Bhagavan and many others. I've no interest in pursuing such an experience and strongly caution others against it, so let me be clear about that. Here's an excerpt of an email I sent to Michael this morning. I think it's relevant to our discussion, here. A number of years ago I slipped into an advaitic state of sorts while taking a shower, and, since then, have been able to "tune in" to this state by shifting my awareness to a non-reflecting, non-judgmental, accepting stance -- just-looking, just-being, etc. More zennish than what you describe as the sense of oneness is more impersonal. I've come to understand this to be the non-reflecting aspect of my own human spiritual consciousness -- the deep, unmoved, observational self. as opposed to the intentional Ego. It's always "there" as the backdrop of all movements of consciousness, and can grasp things directly and non-conceptually. I tried living out of this state, but found it necessary to use my reflective, conceptual consciousness as well. Eventually, I found no conflict between the two -- that my reflective consciousness poses no obstacle to tuning in to the simple awareness state, and that they both essential to being human. I'm not sure the oneness you describe is the same as I've just mentioned; it sounds different in many ways -- almost an experience of the cosmic Word or Logos from the Word's perspective. Is this how you understand what's going on? It would seem that ongoing, intense experiences of this kind would at least implicitly de-emphasize the more "dualistic" approaches of relating to God as creature, loving the other as "other," Sacramental theology, and the human journey to individuate. In dialoguing with advaitans through the years on my discussion forum, these are tendencies I've seen again and again. Generally, they think they've moved beyond all that and have come upon the mother lode of all mystical experiences, so why bother with all that inferior stuff that reinforces "duality." They also have no use whatsoever for intellectual life and consider such knowing to have no relevance to understanding truth, serving only to reinforce the ego (a conviction which undermines any hope of self-critique, in my view). Inevitably, through dialogue, what finally gets exposed is a monstrous ego-inflation rather than a humble mysticism -- a conflation between personal subjectivity and that of the divine, which is projected everywhere! It's "I am God" all over again -- back to the snake in the Genesis garden. Maybe these folk just hadn't done their homework before coming upon the experience, but there was, eventually, no denying a nauseous arrogance and condescension once one got past the mystical fuzzies they blathered about. I think they were just immature in their integration of the experience, as mature advaitans aren't generally looking for discussion forums to use to ridicule Christians. I think Michael will agree with most of this, so we'll see. | |||
|
Michael's account suggests a dissolution of the sense of a separate self. That may be a marvelously liberating experience; what it doesn't warrant is the ontological conclusion that there is only one consciousness throughout the universe. I come back to the point I've made before: if that were really true, the consciousness would be aware of all minds simultaneously. | ||||
|
That's a good point, Derek. Phil, I appreciate your ability to be reasonable in your email to Michael, as I can't get past reacting to his articles with a gut-level sickness. I hope he's able to reply to you, or even discuss things here. (I will be respectful. And quiet...mostly.) I've tried to look at why I feel so sick about this, and I can honestly say I don't feel threatened or afraid for my beliefs--I do want to know the truth more than I want to be comfortable--but I feel sick for him. Things just don't add up. | ||||
|
Ariel, That is a fascinating article and relevant to what the Oneness/ enlightenment experience may well be about, not at all about the Divine, but an anatomically based alteration of consciousness.( I wonder how Michael understands his admission that his parietal lobes are "fried"?) The article reports that brain imaging research has identified a bundle of neurons in the superior parietal lobe, nicknamed "orientation association area," as involved in the no-self/unity consciousness experience. Research suggests that this area processes information about space and time, and the orientation of the body in space. Researcher Newberg writes that the orientation area: "determines where the body ends and the rest of the world begins. Specifically, the left orientation area creates the sensation of a physically delimited body; the right orientation area creates the sense of the physical space in which the body exists… SELF AND NOT-SELF The orientation area requires sensory input to do its calculus. "If you block sensory inputs to this region, as you do during the intense concentration of meditation, you prevent the brain from forming the distinction between self and not-self," says Newberg. With no information from the senses arriving, the left orientation area cannot find any boundary between the self and the world. As a result, the brain seems to have no choice but "to perceive the self as endless and intimately interwoven with everyone and everything," ------------------------ To the extent that this last statement is literally true, one can see why enlightenment folks insist that there is no subject/object divisions, all is ONE. This makes sense to me in terms of non-refective consciousness as it is mediated by tuning down this area of the brain in a more or less permament way in some people. And I suspect there must be something about kundalini in the brain that produces this brain change also. In terms of Michael's journey and Christ vs. enlightenment, more on that later... | ||||
|
| Powered by Social Strata | Page 1 ... 7 8 9 10 11 12 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
Shalom Place Community Shalom Place Discussion Groups General Discussion Forums Christian Spirituality Issues Enlightenment and Christian Spirituality