This discussion began on another thread, so I decided to continue it here. The question was asked whether Christians could be taught to seek enlightenment as understood in traditions like Zen, and some of the positive and negative aspects were mentioned.

I do believe this is possible, as did Jim Arraj, but one must know what one is doing and avoid in every way conflating the divine presence with one's own non-reflecting consciousness.
- see https://shalomplace.org/eve/for...72410135/m/241106781

- - -

A local Mennonite pastor has become very enamored of the possibility of a Christian enlightenment experience and has developed a meditative process to help people get in touch with their human, spiritual non-reflective consciousness. It's based on Assagioli's psychosynthesis approach and goes like this:

1. Begin with 2-3 minutes of meditation on the breath.
2. Slowly recite the following to yourself. Try to realize as visidly as possible the import of each statement (repeat several times).

a. I have a body, but I am not my body. I can see and feel my body, and what can be seen and felt is not the true Seer. My body may be tired or excited, sick or healthy, heavy or light, but that has nothing to do with my inner Self or Spirit. I have a body, but I am not my body.
b. I have desires, but I am not my desires. I can know my desires, and what can be known is not the true Knower. Desires come and go, floating through my awareness, but they do not affect my inner Self or Spirit. I have desires, but I am not desires.
c. I have emotions, but I am not my emotions. I can feel and sense my emotions, and what can be felt and sensed is not the true Feeler. Emotions pass through me, but they do not affect my inner Self or Spirit. I have emotions, but I am not emotions.
d. I have thoughts, but I am not my thoughts. I can know and intuit my thoughts, and what can be known is not the true Knower. Thoughts come to me and thoughts leave me, but they do not affect my inner Self or Spirit. I have thoughts, but I am not my thoughts.

3. Affirm. I am what remains, a center of awareness, a self or spirit that witnesses to these thoughts, emotions, feelings and desires.

------

Anyone can do this and benefit from the exercise in many ways. Just so one understands that this "center of awareness" that remains is one's own self and not God, there should be no problem. Of course, it also needs be said that we do have a reflecting consciousness that thinks, feels, desires and acts; these activities of consciousness belong to us as well and we are responsible for them and how we work with them. That's all vitally important in the spiritual life.

quote:

2. Slowly recite the following to yourself. Try to realize as visidly as possible the import of each statement (repeat several times).
[LIST]a. I have a body, but I am not my body. I can see and feel my body, and what can be seen and felt is not the true Seer. My body may be tired or excited, sick or healthy, heavy or light, but that has nothing to do with my inner Self or Spirit. I have a body, but I am not my body.

I didn't know you had Mennonite communities out in Kansas, Phil.

I have a question/comment on the "I am not my body..." part. In the sort of non-reflecting consciousness I'm used to for about ten years now, I seem to do much better if I sort of let my awareness permeate more fully through my whole body, to my skin and whatever I'm in contact with through my skin---the chair I'm sitting on, the sculpture I'm working on and my tools, my feet on the floor, etc.; while thinking "I have a body, but I am am not my body..." leaves me pulled back up into my head or even my heart, but still a bit out of touch with myself and others. I have been prone since childhood to a degree of what might be dissociation at times, and I wonder if that's why "I have a body, but..." is counter-productive for me, non-reflecting consciousness-wise.

Yes, I understand, Ariel. What you're doing is much more incarnational and less dissociative and detached. The exercise aims for a more purely spiritual experience of "I," but after one is in touch with that, re-connecting with the body as you describe is a good idea.

- - -

Here's an entry from Jim Arraj that has relevance to this discussion, especially the questions he poses. Also on this page is an experience that I share.
- http://www.innerexplorations.com/ewtext/chen.htm

Yes, this type of meditation can be very helpful and Wilber uses it a lot, so I practiced it very often in the past. But in Zen tradition I was encouraged to feel the body and to be the body, just like you say you do, Ariel, and it always used to bring about a powerful kundalini movement and intensity.

I suppose the witnessing is an aspect of awareness, but at some point the consciousness starts to express itself in the body and other experiences, as if "disappearing" into those things which are experienced. Then it doesn't make sense to detach from the body. I can see it as two movements - in one we realize that we are more than the body (this is for me the Christian meaning of "I'm not the body"), in the other we realize that our spirit expresses itself fully in our body. Sometimes we can feel the one, sometimes the other more.

Apropos enlightenment:

James Arraj pointed out - and I agree with him - that in the West the knowledge of Being has been almost always achieved through discursive, conceptual thinking. The philosophical way, the dialectic makes us able to "go up and down" the ladder of consciousness, which means that we can go back to concepts and we can still use them, although we see that Being is known immediately without a need for discourse.

On the other hand, we have Zen and Taoist, and advaitist practices which lead us up, but disable us to go down and use concepts again. For a Zen master concepts are an obstacle to enlightenment, discourse is a "head-trip", propositions are "dualistic" and so on. An adept of Zen is trained in avoiding concepts to a degree that s/he is convinced that they have no metaphysical meaning, only practical.

That is why - as Arraj explains - Christians practising Eastern spirituality have so much difficulties with going back to their tradition without deforming it. That's why they insist on God being "beyond concepts" - they don't like concepts, because they are trained to avoid them in order to get to the non-reflecting consciousness. But perhaps there's another way to Enlightenment, a way that enables us to relativize conceptual thinking but still keep intact the ability to see the Truth through concepts.

The question is whether what Plato, Plotinus and Aquinas write about is actually the same enlightenment that Dogen and Bankei describe. Zen people will say it's "imperfect" because there's still conceptual thinking. But it doesn't matter, be it imperfect. The loss of the ability to think about God and ourselves in concepts is a price that Christians cannot pay for any enlightenment, because it's extremely difficult to relate to God if we can't think.

I have no idea how to achieve enlightenment through discursive meditation, although sometimes when I read Western philosophers I experience enlightenment by means of their discourse. I think we have to invent a middle way for Christian enlightenment, between traditional dialectic (which isn't a living tradition anymore) and Zen-type meditation. Available practices:

- Assagioli
- sitting in silence, following the breath, 20 minutes a day
- contemplation of Nature or religious art/architecture
- repeating "Jesus prayer"

Being attentive is, of course, the key. All those provide an experience of inner quietude, which is very good, even if the person never attains to full enlightenment.

At the same time, this person should be conscious that it's not a prayer, natural or supernatural, but a different, non-relational practice. This practice should be done with an intention to overcome sin, serve God better, open to his grace etc. If experiences of non-dual consciousness come, the person should know that it's not a mystical knowledge of the Trinity, but oneness with everything that exists in the Existent One. One should thank God for this experience, but recognize it is of the natural order.

Maybe we would need a language to speak about such experiences, that is less dependent on writers like Wilber, Tolle or others with mainly Buddhist framework. For example, we shouldn't use B. Roberts' notion of "no-self" or her strange idea that the Trinity is the oneness of the seer, the seen and the seeing itself, but some of her terminology is fine with me - like "That Which Is" or knowledge "that God IS everywhere".

Those who feel attracted to such practice should be very careful not to neglect the eucharist and confession, lectio divina or some other active prayer. And not think that lectio is a lesser practice than sitting in silence, because we use concepts or images, or affects. However, proportions are an individual matter. There might be times when a call to silence is more powerful and more time will be spent in it. A balance should be maintained.

I suppose the minority of Christians would be interested in that. Not everyone is inclined to sit in silence, some people just don't seem carved for this. But it'd not be easy to get to those Christians, to compete with so many spiritual authors that are influenced by Buddhism or Hinduism, sometimes powerful personalities. And leaders like Keating, Freeman, Rohr, Barnhardt are already not clear about what is enlightenment in Christian spirituality.

An example from my story:

Towards the end of 2006 I experienced a loss of old self-sense which put me in a state in which it seemed to me that God disappeared. I described it somewhere on SP. I wasn't able to use conceptual thinking. I could utter words of prayer, but it seemed that the concepts were completely empty, devoid of any metaphysical meaning. I wasn't able to relate to God as "Thou" anymore. It was after a period of contemplative graces, when this happened, so I was desperate, felt "robbed" of God, and I wanted to believe that enlightenment is, after all, some kind of union with God, because otherwise I would feel completely alone in the shining darkness. After several months a sense of self came back, but a different one (I can't put a finger on the difference), and slowly an ability to think in concepts and pray. Contemplative graces were also sometimes given.

Then, two years from this horrible loss of conceptual thinking and the sense of self, I was given again many mystical experiences, I wrote to Phil, and joined SP, so the rest of the story is available here. Now I'm perfectly able to use concepts and describe to some degree my experiences in Christian framework. Have I regressed? Am I "lower" now than four years ago? It doesn't feel like it. I no longer practice Zen, and I don't know how it would be assessed by a Zen master, but I don't care.

I don't know what else will happen to me and my consciousness, but at this point it seems that with God help I managed somehow to avoid "getting enlightened" in an non-Christian way. Even though I cannot feel what I am or who I am anymore, or find a "self" inside me, my faith is strong enough to make me pray comfortably in words and relate to God most of the time.

I tell this story, because I'm quite sure that my experience of the emptiness of concepts from 2006 would've been less excruciating if I understood the nature of this experience in a Christian context. I was thinking that this non-dual light was a higher degree of contemplation, like Father Keating and others taught, but I felt cheated and angry, because there was no Jesus and no God in this "higher contemplation". What I did wrong? - I was asking myself. I did nothing wrong, but I couldn't use advice at this time, because my mind was so conditioned by non-dual ideas (what a paradox...) that I couldn't even read James Arraj "God, Zen and the Intuition of Being" without irritation and headache (the headache was more from kundalini, too much conceptual thinking).

I have a Zen friend who had an enlightenment experience about the same time, a Catholic person, who never agreed with non-dual Christian writers. For him it was a very difficult time, too, but he had a good intellectual framework and a good Christian formation, that I didn't. I can't say for him, but it might've been easier for him, without the intellectual conflict that was tearing me apart. This friend, as far as I know, wasn't given any contemplative graces, so it'd be a case for my project, if he didn't practiced intense Zen for years.

quote:

Originally posted by Mt:
Available practices:

- Assagioli
- sitting in silence, following the breath, 20 minutes a day
- contemplation of Nature or religious art/architecture
- repeating "Jesus prayer"

Being attentive is, of course, the key. All those provide an experience of inner quietude, which is very good, even if the person never attains to full enlightenment.

At the same time, this person should be conscious that it's not a prayer, natural or supernatural, but a different, non-relational practice. This practice should be done with an intention to overcome sin, serve God better, open to his grace etc. If experiences of non-dual consciousness come, the person should know that it's not a mystical knowledge of the Trinity, but oneness with everything that exists in the Existent One. One should thank God for this experience, but recognize it is of the natural order.

That's a very good article from Jim Arraj, and the above is well said, Mt, IMO. I see a real need for Christians to offer their experiences and perspective on "Christian enlightenment" for several reasons.

As one reason, my "home base" sort of experience of inner silence and awareness, though it's ordinary and nothing spectactular, has been very valuable to me in a number of ways, and it's better than what I knew earlier in my Christian life.

And, for another reason, as has been noted here a good many times, I'm seeing a huge need for clarity of teaching and testifying- from experience- on the reality that theosis and enlightenment must not be confused with each other. So many people are mistaken about this.

Two very fine posts, Mt. Thank you. I think in the first one you lay out some practical counsels that could be used by Christians seeking enlightenment. And in the second, you illustrate from experience how difficult it can be to reconcile deep experiences of nonduality with Christian spirituality. I've had some of the same struggles, at times, with nondual states catalyzed by kundalini, and even experienced the Arraj-headaches you described. Talking to him on the phone or visiting him in the mountains worked much better.

The biggest problem in all this that I see and which you and Arraj put your finger on is that Christians who seek enlightenment outside a Christian context and then come to experience it to some degree generally have a great deal of difficulty feeling connected with the Christian tradition. Christian faith itself seems to suffer, it seems, often leading one to feel that a choice must be made between "dualistic" Christianity or enlightenment spirituality. Sometimes silly theologies are proposed, like Jesus' saying "the Father and I are One" being some kind of reference to enlightenment. And the sad thing is that it does seem that some forms of enlightenment do negate the ability to think critically. Even the operations of the intellect are sometimes considered an obstacle to enlightenment.

All that said, I have absolutely no hesitation in encouraging Christians to:
- live attentively;
- be here now;
- let go of useless attachments that keep the mind needlessly over-stimulated;
- make use of meditative breathing exercises that help to quiet the mind.
Anyone can benefit from these.

While recognizing that "God is not a concept" (d'oh!) and "I am not my feelings," etc., we need to also be open to the fact that grace can and often does move us through our thoughts, feelings, desires, intuitions, dreams, imagination, etc. The radical apophatism of most enlightenment spiritualities do not acknowledge this as they are so focused on experiencing God in silence.

- - -

In putting together Daily Spiritual Seed weekend edition for this week, I came upon a good web page that I'm recommending. There are a few points made there that have implications for this discussion.

- http://www.spirithome.com/innrvoic.html

Thank you all for taking the time to share in this wonderful discussion. I really like you guys!!

Phil--That is a good website, from what I've seen so far. The author comes across as down-to-earth as well as gifted.

I like this point he makes here:

2. You won't get in so deep that you're too deep for the Devil. The Anti-Spirit operates quite well at any depth of spirit. There's no place inside of you that is safe from temptation or torment. There's no protected place to hide. The Accuser is not bested by fleeing, hiding, or fighting, but by trusting in God.
-----------------------------------------

My worry is that some folks who seek enlightenment states may be doing so as a defense against the painful reality of their mundane world (inner and/or outer).

Satan is happy to support the fantasy that one can be anesthesized by altered states of consciousness--especially in the guise of finding God.

Well, we like you, too, Shasha. And that is a good point made by the author of that web page, for sure.

- - -

My good friend, Johnboy, who has been known to post here at times, has teased out an interesting approach to sorting out different kinds of growth/spiritual experiences. In a recent email, he noted:

quote:

Intersubjective intimacy speaks to, for example, such relationships as between God & ego, other & ego.

Intraobjective identity might roughly correspond to God & self, nature & self, God & nature, creatio continua and so on.

Intrasubjective integrity speaks to the ego-self relationship and such realities as individuation, affective conversion and so on.

Interobjective indeterminacy would refer to realities that remain either epistemically indeterminate or ontologically vague, for whatever reason. This might include such as God's indeterminate nature or even the initial, boundary & limit conditions of various primal realities or any other realities that present with what we might refer to as unfathomable depth dimensions, you know, like Homo sapien females.

(Sorry ladies . . . his words, not mine. )

Enlightenment a la Zen, he would say, is an experience of "interobjective indeterminacy," and he says a bit about it. I think that's part of the "witness" experience described above as well, though I would not have thought to put it like that.

In a recent email, he elaborates:

quote:

Using my categories, Enlightenment would involve experiences of intraobjective reality. Such experiences are distinct both from any intuition of same and from any philosophical approach to same. In these experiences, Lonergan's imperative to "Be attentive!" operates in our will and the experiences impart a knowledge that works through connaturality in conformity to undifferentiable reality. In the traditions of both East and West, devotional pathways involve experiences of intersubjective realities, which also operate in our will and impart a knowledge through connaturality but in conformity to differentiated reality. Neither Enlightenment nor devotional experiences begin with the problem-solving dualistic mindset, both nondual in that regard, both nonconceptual when working through connaturality. One's experience of intrasubjective integrity would be marked by ongoing conversions (Lonergan), which grow one's authenticity.

All very good, methinks.

I suggest reading up on Almaas, and his Diamond Approach. He has an interesting take on enlightenment and awakening from a western perspective with influences from the eastern dimension.
What he teaches is that if you follow your experience, or inquire into it as it flows, Being will manifest what you need as you need it. So the so called enlightenment will manifest as it will.
He teaches a method of inquiry which uses the mind in a way of experiential questioning so that a practitioners' experience deepens. A person contacts a deeper wisdom that the discriminating mind is trying to imitate. He calls it Diamond Guidance. I feel that this would be the Holy Spirit. I see the Holy Spirit as a guiding force.
I wish more people were exposed to his method. It kind of makes the whole enlightenment thing seem obsolete.

Hi iconoclast. Welcome to Shalom Place.

I have been looking at the Almaas website here and there. He certainly seems very gifted with some good training in developmental psychology. Very sensitive and wise. Have you been to his school and used the Diamond Approach yourself with much benefit?

If you feel like it, feel free to share more about the personal awakening you alluded to on the other thread.

About your comment above on Diamond Guidance and the Holy Spirit, certainly the HS is understood in Christianity as a guide. However, the HS is so much more than that in Christian theology. I'd recommend Phil's teaching on the Holy Spirit, which you can find under the Premium Groups section just below these discussion threads.

I have not been able to go to a DA school, but I would like to. I've read the majority of his books.
I think what sets him apart is that he dares question the effectiveness of traditional spiritual/meditative approaches. Especially their practicality for modern man.
I was just reading today about how some schools focus on inner development and realization, while others work towards transcendence and liberation. He said that his approach accomplishes both simultaneously.
Every soul has its own path of awakening. It is not effective to go towards a state that a master says you should manifest. I've been realizing from Almaas, in Christian terms, that only the Holy Spirit knows what is right for our soul's unfoldment.

I'll post something about my experience.

Good evening.

Very interesting that Almaas' approach attempts to merge both developmental and spiritual 'tracks' into one movement toward wholeness.

Jesus told us that He would send us the Holy Spirit to lead us into 'all truth.' So I agree with you that only the HS, as the Third Person of the Trinity, can teach and lead on our spiritual journey. I'm not sure why you'd go to Almaas, however, if you're after the Holy Spirit's guidance. I don't mean to sound confrontational, just curious how you reconcile the rift. In Almaas' glossary of terms, the Holy Spirit doesn't even show up. Moreover, the definitions he provides for "Son of God" and the "Devil," for instance, are totally inconsistent with the teachings of the Church, and resemble the same old 'new age' philosophy--from what I can tell.

Just like Ken Wilber, it is entirely unfair to group him with "new age." I may not be right for this site. I'm really don't care about the teachings of the Church. I'm not Catholic. The Christian side of me is both a Quaker or a theologically liberal Lutheran/Episcopal. When it comes to the teachings of man's religion or my direct experience, I follow my experience, and look deeper in religion. I'm not the type of person to be obedient toward any external ideology.
See, when I first had my awakening, I read up on Alan Watts. He tended to be a universalist and see Christianity as trying to articulate what the east taught in a much more crude and mythological way. I thought of the western religions this way. Until I encountered Almaas. He was able to articulate mysticism from a somewhat more monotheistic approach. And opened my eyes to the truths of the revealed traditions.
He is also a critic of the traditional spiritual paths. Not of religion.
His version of enlightenment is much more western and organic than eastern enlightenment.
Maybe I'm not Christian enough for this site. I did enjoy Phil's book on Kundalini. It's a great progression of man, to recognize these energy systems, but have the wisdom to know that it is unwise to artificially bring them out through practices. Only the spirit knows what is correct for the soul.

Iconclast,

I don’t know that you have to be “Christian enough” for this website. We don’t feel a need to agree with one other, even the most “conservative” amongst us, just a basic respect for our unique journeys. It helps if one can tolerate differences without undue defensiveness and while holding onto a good bit of humility.

And I think the Holy Spirit brought you here to learn about God and to assist you on your journey of healing and intimacy with God.

I asked you about your awakening experience precisely because I do value the subjective, personal revelations and experiences of God. I don’t think there’s a valid dichotomy of your “direct experience” vs. “the teachings of man’s religions.” The two do converge, after all.

I should have not been so terse in my comment about Almaas being New Age. What I meant about referring to Almaas as New Age-ish is his equating the human spirit with the Divine. (As I said before, I appreciate Almaas’ approach because he sees the complexity of attending simultaneously to the psychological and spiritual dimension. As a Christian psychologist, I approach people in much the same way).

We humans have a spirit, a human spirit created in God’s image, imbued with God’s intelligence, which can and does prompt us to higher consciousness, higher morality, greater integration of our lower nature, etc. although these operations are themselves 'broken' by the Fall. The human spirit is CREATED. The Holy Spirit is UNCREATED. To some extent, this human spiritual growth can operate quite apart from God’s Holy Spirit. But the true Holy Spirit cannot be separated from Jesus. And since New Agers deny that Jesus is God, well, there’s a problem there because all are one--God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit--and they act in one accord and have one glorious mission.

That’s all for now...

God’s peace,
Shasha

quote:

I'm really don't care about the teachings of the Church. I'm not Catholic. The Christian side of me is both a Quaker or a theologically liberal Lutheran/Episcopal. When it comes to the teachings of man's religion or my direct experience, I follow my experience, and look deeper in religion. I'm not the type of person to be obedient toward any external ideology.

I hear you, iconoclast, but you err when you imply that a religious tradition is about being "obedient toward any external ideology." Christian doctrine is simply a way of articulating core beliefs that have come to clarity in the light of lived experience and extensive dialogue. We believe the Spirit is at work through this process and that the doctrinal tradition provides a "compass," of sorts, to help us keep our bearings. Individual experience needs to be in dialogue with others in some manner, or else we can drift into a number of unhealthy extremes.

I do agree that Wilber is not "new age," but seems to be more out of Hinduism's advaitan spirituality. I don't know enough about Alamas to evaluate where he's coming from, but Shasha's point about him conflating the human and divine spirit deserves more consideration. Do you think he does that?

Here are some quotes from Almaas' website. Though they are taken out of context, for those who have studied and pursued nondual enlightenment, you will recognize the 'same wine' --equating consciousness with God, God (which he also calls Presence, Being, and Spirit) with our true nature/identity.

The spiritual dimension of the self is its ontological Presence, its essential nature....this Presence is ultimately nondual and forms the ground of our wholeness... (The Point of Existence, pg 498)

...we recognize ourselves as Presence, and apprehend that this Presence is nothing but the ontological reality of consciousness.  ... Self-realization connects the person to his true identity, which is his Being...

In the third mode, Truth and identity are completely coemergent, absolutely nondual. If we express the second mode of experiencing Truth we will say: “There is only Truth,” while if we express the third way, we will say: “I am the Truth.” (The Point of Existence)

 In the deeper stages of self-realization, and especially in the experience of primordial nondual Presence, the flow of Presence is completely coemergent with action. Action flows out completely inseparable from Presence, for the body and mind are inseparable manifestations of Presence. ... the notion of Presence as the center of initiative and action breaks down on this level of experience, for the center is completely inseparable from, and in fact totally coemergent with, the totality of the self. (The Point of Existence, pg 511)

So to clarify my point, Almaas erroneously equates consciousness with the Divine, exactly like Wilber, Hawkins, and a whole bunch of other brilliant and scintillating personalities.

Reading Almaas is taking me back to my ashram days.

Another way of seeing this [consciousness] fact is the direct perception that everything is made out of Love. The body, the walls, the air, the space, the atoms, all seem to be made out of the same continuum, which is this Cosmic Consciousness. There is unity and oneness, although there is variety and difference. (The Pearl Beyond Price, pg 437

I had this direct experience too. In fact, I recall describing it exactly like that: seeing that everything is made of Love. Real mind-blower. (It's very much like that scene from the movie "The Matrix" where the hero sees the computer 'code' behind the manifest reality.) From my pov, however, the realization of Cosmic Consciousness, by itself, amounts to nothing...

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

I've recently reread this whole thread and am reminded of an excellent point Mt made above. Here he is referring to the practice of sitting in meditation unto enlightenment.

quote:

This practice should be done with an intention to overcome sin, serve God better, open to his grace etc. If experiences of non-dual consciousness come, the person should know that it's not a mystical knowledge of the Trinity, but oneness with everything that exists in the Existent One. One should thank God for this experience, but recognize it is of the natural order.

quote:

Originally posted by Mt:
Maybe we would need a language to speak about such experiences, that is less dependent on writers like Wilber, Tolle or others with mainly Buddhist framework.

There is St. Teresa's vocabulary of the seven mansions, if that's any help to you.

For those of you who have 3'40" to spare, here's a video I made summarizing her description of mansion #5:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mrjT3a8lZ_8

Derek,

Your video is WONDERFUL! Thank you so much for sharing it. I've not read Castle yet, but in my Carmelite formation class, we're covering "The Way of Perfection," which is a book she wrote for her sisters about the laying down of the virtues required for deep prayer.

That quote of Mt's is one that struck me yesterday too as I was re-reading this thread. Language does fail us, doesn't it, in describing mystical states. It's tempting and easy to lump all union, love, oneness experiences into the same category. It's also easy to attribute real differences to semantic differences based on one's culture, religious bias, etc.

I know Phil and many here at SP have endeavored with admirable integrity to discern and articulate the differences between the Christian mystical graces that God gives and the enlightenment/ nondual experiences that man can achieve.

Thank you for loving us enough to share yourself here, Derek. Do you have other videos on this subject? I'd love to see them.

Thank you, Shasha. I have no other videos on St. Teresa. My other two videos that are up on Youtube were attempts to synthesize a whole bunch of books I'd been reading at the time. Even I don't find my syntheses wholly satisfactory LOL.

If there is a Christian equivalent of enlightenment, it would have to be St. Teresa's mansion #7, which she also calls the "spiritual marriage."

In contrast to mansion #5, the spiritual marriage is a permanent state. Here "the soul always remains in its center with its God" (Interior Castle, 7.2.5, my bolding).

I believe that life from the point of spiritual marriage onward is called "the unitive life" in mystical theology. From the old Catholic Encyclopedia at http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14254a.htm

quote:

The unitive way is the way of those who are in the state of the perfect, that is, those who have their minds so drawn away from all temporal things that they enjoy great peace, who are neither agitated by various desires nor moved by any great extent by passion, and who have their minds chiefly fixed on God and their attention turned, either always or very frequently, to Him. It is the union with God by love and the actual experience and exercise of that love.

I've often wondered whether this is the same thing as the "kingdom" that Jesus talks about. I find particularly interesting one passage where Jesus tells a scribe, "You are not far from the kingdom of God" (Mark 12:34). What did Jesus mean by that? Interestingly, too, the scribe who was close to the kingdom was not even Christian -- firstly because the word "Christian" hadn't been invented yet (Acts 11:26), and secondly because he had only just met Jesus and therefore couldn't have been one of his followers.

Yes, nicely done, Derek. St. Teresa's writings still speak to us today. One wonders what she would think about the many kinds of mystical experiences people are reporting these days.

Those quotes are helpful, Shasha. Still, it's not clear to me that what Alamas describes is merely the human soul's deepest awareness of its connection to everything. I do think that's a possibility, but somewhere in all of this the Incarnate Word has joined His consciousness with ours in such manner that it's often difficult to separate one from the other (e.g., "I live, not I, but Christ."). Those distinctions are rather easy to make at the level of Ego, but when one presses further, it does seem that some of what's being described could well be the experience of Christ in his cosmic aspect (rather than personal, relational presence to us). If that were the case, then one would also be drawn to him in a personal sense as well, it would seem, and not be so negative toward Christianity, Christian teaching, the Church, etc., as the same Christ is present to us through those modes as well.

It does seem that nondual consciousness is all the rage, these days, with even esteemed Catholic teachers like Richard Rohr and Thomas Keating helping to promote it.

Phil-- What you're saying above is like this piece from your essay in Arraj's "Christian Enlightenment?" (which you you posted earlier on this thread)
--------
That I could eventually tune into it [enlightenment] at will distinguished it from mystical contemplation, whose comings and goings I could not control, even though I desired it greatly. It was, to me, an experience of the "natural" order. ... To say that it is natural, for example, does not in any way imply that it is not also an experience of God. The identity of the "observer" is a great mystery. It is clearly not the intentional Ego, and yet it is very familiar. That it leaves no impression in the personal, affective memory also makes me suspect a transpersonal origin; so does the experience of the observer looking out from all of creation. It is difficult to attribute this to any kind of individual self, and so increasingly, I tend to think of it as Christ, who has bound himself to me through his incarnation, death, resurrection and ascension so that my life and all of creation now unfolds in him.
----------

So you are saying, again, you believe that enlightenment conciousness is the Cosmic Christ. That since the ascension of Christ, He has now become infused into all of humanity, some collective human soul? That is what non-dual consciousness is, however one finds it and on whatever path, because the natural order is infused with Christ? Food for thought, certainly.

I do resonate with your description of "the observer looking out from all of creation." I have the same experience, especially looking into somebody's eyes. I feel that "I" am looking back at me. There is no difference between us--at some 'level' of our Being. But what is that 'level'?

All those "I"s out there...it can be overwhelming...could it be You, Lord Jesus, in each face? (Mother Theresa felt this way). Are we seeing the face of Christ in everyone waiting to be re-born first and then glorified on the Last Day?

Was enlightenment different before Jesus ascended?

Or do we see ourselves in others and in creation because God cannot make anything other than His own likeness, reflected in every pair of eyes because He is indivisible Love?

quote:

So you are saying, again, you believe that enlightenment conciousness is the Cosmic Christ. That since the ascension of Christ, He has now become infused into all of humanity, some collective human soul? That is what non-dual consciousness is, however one finds it and on whatever path, because the natural order is infused with Christ?

Shasha, I don't think there's a collective human soul, only individual souls. We are all together part of a species who share a common form, but that's philosophical language. We are individuals, of course, and yet we are humans who share a common consciousness. Nevertheless, I would not and do not say that the "I" per se is Christ; I was quite clear about that in God, Self and Ego. The "I" is Self, which is human consciousness, manifesting in each person as Ego. It may well be that there is but one Self (I've sensed that at times) and it is at this deep level that Christ has bound himself to the human race. Nevertheless, it remains for Ego to consent to Christ's work through the Holy Spirit, and as we have discussed so many times, that's where implicit and explicit faith come in.

But, now, suppose one could somehow set the Ego aside for awhile through ascetical practices, or grace. What would be left? Self, at least, and, depending on how one came to set the Ego aside, perhaps some kind of experience of God as well. So it's become clear to me why so many want to dispense with Ego and live in Self; that's not natural, however, as Self wants to become actualized as individual humans, and it is the Ego's job to work that out. It might seem a silly thing to say, but Jesus came to save the Ego -- to enable us to become the individuals we were created to be, in union with him at the levels of both Self and Ego.

There's a lot of sound biblical theology to support this notion that we are joined with God in and through the Word. This does not make for a pantheistic ontology, as it is possible to speak of the attributes of the "I", human consciousness, human spirit, etc. as distinct from the Word. Nevertheless, it seems that the Word has made his home in our consciousness while remaining completely distinct from us and eternally sovereign. There's no dilution of one by the other, but there is/can be union: a being-with, seeing-with, loving-with, acting-with, etc. the Spirit while remaining totally and completely ourselves, human.

So much mystery in all of this! And I ramble . . .