Greetings, Barbara. Welcome to the discussion.

I was coming to post on this thread a note that Berenadette Roberts' response to Jim Arraj is no longer posted on her blog, but has been incorporated into another document, which can be purchased there. I think we've quoted the relevant parts of it, however, so we'll leave this thread open.

Barbara, I can understand how you and others would perceive this discussion and the one about centering prayer to be "intellectual." Some parts of it are, for sure. In the end, however, it pretty much boils down to Bernadette saying, "once I had a self, but now I don't," and us asking, "who/what is 'aware' of this before/after situation if not a self?" The discussion occasioned a variety of related concerns, such as what stays or goes in the afterlife.

It sounds like you're finding good fruit from the practice of Centering Prayer. I know many people who are. The critique offered on this site isn't meant to discourage people from practicing CP so much as to understand its place in the life of Christian prayer as well as some of the phenomena usually associated with it (e.g., unloading of the unconscious).

I hope we hear more from you. It sounds like you have a simple but full life.

Dear Phil,
Thanks for your quick reply. I feel that the unloading of the unconscious happens whenver we are on a path of surrender to God, I feel this purification, transformation, as been happening since i became a Christian nearly 30 years ago, and is part of my hidden life in Christ. It accelerated with CP, and that is a good thing. It may also have a bit to do with the liberation that is part of menopause! I am immensely happy to have a way of prayer that feels like prayer, but I still pray with words, and images, and Scripture, too.
I don't think Bernadette is at a higher level of spirituality than Teresa of Avila's prayer of divine union, by the way, I think she is having an experience which can not be explained well in Christianity, and that she shouldn't try. I wish her well, but I have learned that not every thing is meant for me, and it is a kind of gluttony to think I have to "eat" everything offered.
I think the contemplative life is quite different than our cultural norms, and the shalom place offers a good way to connect with people on more or less the same path. Thanks!

I saw an interview with Dr.Jill Boulton-Taylor
today. Her book is called "My Stroke of Insight".

I have not read her book yet. But it sounded like she may have expressed no self. It is
different from BR understanding of it.
Although Dr. Taylor experienced this due to a stroke not spiritual practices. Fascinating.

Has anyone read her book? What's your understanding?

I hadn't heard of her, but I Googled her, and my goodness there's a book, videos, a website, and even a company called "My Stroke of Insight, Inc." Sorry, Ajoy, but that level of commercialization puts me off right away.

Your post did remind me, though, of Father Bede talking about the spiritual effects of his stroke in the early 90s:

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=wOAlyl7u2dw

Hi Derek

Thanks for the piece on Father Bede.Much appreciated.

quote:

Originally posted by


Derek:
[qb]

Your post did remind me, though, of Father Bede talking about the spiritual effects of his stroke in the early 90s:

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=wOAlyl7u2dw [/qb]

quote:

I hadn't heard of her, but I Googled her, and my goodness there's a book, videos, a website, and even a company called "My Stroke of Insight, Inc." Sorry, Ajoy, but that level of commercialization puts me off right away.

Hi Derek,
I get your point, but in this case I don�t have the impression it�s about commerce. This woman feels she has a message to spread. You can watch thisfree Video. To me she seems good-willing and with integrity.

Very interesting lady, Ms. Taylor. I appreciate her willingness to be so open about her profound, life-changing experience.

I'm left a little uneasy though with a number of her points and conclusions.

here's one issue from:
http://westallen.typepad.com/i...some-critical-t.html

...
Also I'm not sure why she misleads viewers about the interconnections between the cerebral hemispheres, which are multiply connected, most notably through the brain stem and massa intermedia in addition to the corpus callosum. The problem is that that sort of professional blundering discredits the rest of what she says for those who do know brain physiology. And that is unfortunate because of the rich layers of experiences that she has during her near-death experience.
-------------------------

I do apologize as i see my original comments were unclear about what i was getting at.
I am commenting on just what is the experience of this state of no mind.

To me it was Jill BoultonTaylor's experience during the stroke & healing process that i found fascinating. And still do. This is the only area i was addressing when i wrote to the forum.

If memory recalls correctly she could not understand language or numbers, could not speak, read, write, and was in a state of continuos bliss, unaware of others unless they got her attention in some way. This is what i see as no mind.

Personally i am not addressing how she
interpreted her state to be as far as right brain, left brain, or what her message is. It is more this state of no language, no speech, not being aware of others on her own ect., that is curious to me.

My whole point to this is that if some one is living in this state, not due to brain injury, i don't see how they could function in the world. When one begins to use language ect. again they are no longer in no mind, as i understand this state to be. This is not the definition BR is using as no mind.

quote:

Originally posted by Ajoy:
[qb] But it sounded like she may have expressed no self. It is
different from BR understanding of it.
Although Dr. Taylor experienced this due to a stroke not spiritual practices.
.... [/qb]

It seems that apologies are again needed here. No wonder the confusion.
I am referring to what BR is calling No Self, not No Mind.


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ajoy:
[QB]
I am commenting on just what is the experience of this state of no mind.

quote:

Originally posted by Ajoy:
[qb]
...
Personally i am not addressing how she
interpreted her state to be as far as right brain, left brain, or what her message is. It is more this state of no language, no speech, not being aware of others on her own ect., that is curious to me.

My whole point to this is that if some one is living in this state, not due to brain injury, i don't see how they could function in the world. When one begins to use language ect. again they are no longer in no mind, as i understand this state to be. This is not the definition BR is using as no mind...

[/qb]

[/QB][/QUOTE]

Hi Ajoy,

Yes, I see your point and your post is relevant here. My post is really tangential and I'm the one who should apologize for throwing things off here...

If I wanted to pursue Dr.Taylor's work, I'd need to start a new thread because my 'issues' with her deviate from this thread topic. Your point about the no-self commonality between BR and Dr. Taylor is clear. I wonder if those two women know of each other and how they might understand each other's experiences?

My take on Bernadette Robert's "Path to No-Self" comes from a non-theistic perspective. To me it is a psychological/spiritual journey only, and religious explanations are merely an overlay.

The journey is a shift in consciousness from the ego oriented (cognitive) to the sensory oriented (spiritual). As some readers here may have noticed, Dr. Jill Taylor's video talks about the right-brain as the seat of spirituality. The shift can also be looked at as movement from left-brain dominance (ego, self, cognitive) to right-brain dominance. The ego, self-oriented life is one where boundaries are defined by concepts - where concepts define our self-image and ego. The shift to the sensory is one where the boundaries disappear, where there is a sense of the infinite. This psychological state has been variously described as a sense of the divine, Christ Consciousness, cosmic consciousness, etc.

In Bernadette Roberts, "What is Self?: A Study of the Spiritual Journey in Terms of Consciousness," she describes the no-self state as primarily sensory. She also describes the journey starting with the self sensing another consciousness within (sense of the divine) and over time that other consciousness grows and crowds out the self/ego consciousness. In time, this sense of the divine becomes primary and the self consciousness disappears. This final event (the no-self event) sets the sensory way in place.

The problem with going through such a journey is that the world operates on the left-brain, self oriented mode. The end result is that such an individual runs on a totally different track from the rest of the world.

A few afterthoughts: I am using left-brain/right-brain more as a metaphor for two types of consciousness than as a literal description. As far as a brain explanation goes, the facts do not yet support it.

Greetings, Larry, and welcome to the forum.

That's an insightful reflection you post and it does resonate with much of what B has described. I wouldn't say that self is primarily a left-brain phenomenon, however, as your post seems to suggest. Even with the sensory consciousness that B describes, there is a conscious agent who reports on the experience and even attempts to situate it in a theological context -- resurrection, as she sees it. She is present-to her sensory consciousness in a way unlike the animals; she is conscious of her sensory consciousness. Does this not imply a self, or "I" -- a subjective agent that is personal, intelligent, and free? Granted, Dr. Taylor seems to be referring more to what I call the mental-conceptual ego, but clearly there is more to self than that.

I disagree with Dr. Taylor's implication that spirituality is primarily right-brain. I believe it is whole-brain. Left-brain reasoning demonstrates spiritual consciousness in its ability to conceptualize and comprehend reality several removes from the raw data of the senses. Animals don't do algebra, calculus, philosophy, etc., and not because they don't have a left brain, but because their left brains aren't powered by a higher, spiritual consciousness. To my thinking, any spirituality that seeks to diminish or marginalize the importance of the left brain unto comprehending reality and truth is seriously deficient. Otoh, it is certain true that an overly intellectual spirituality is problemmatic. But I would view left and right-brain consciousness as two aspects of our one, human spiritual consciousness, which is not divine, but created.

Good discussion. Let's keep it going.

Phil,

The left-brain / right-brain metaphor may be too simplistic. I�ll try to spell it out as best as I can. The way I see it, there are two ways of being in the world: the ego / self-oriented consciousness and the spiritual consciousness. It is not an either/or proposition but more that one has a home-base on one side or the other. The ego orientation comes about as a result of our cultural and familial conditioning. It requires cognitive dominance in order to maintain this conditioning. The spiritual journey is that individual path to let go of the ego orientation and conditioning to find the spiritual way. As BR points out, once we have a sense of the spiritual consciousness it can grow until it becomes ALL. The endpoint of the process shifts our home-base so that our resting place becomes spiritual, and cognition becomes a tool rather than a way of life. I believe that to be the normal human condition.

When BR says �no-self� I see it to mean that endpoint where we have made the change in orientation to the spiritual mode. This mode is largely sensory until cognitive skills are needed to function in the larger world.

When you remarked that there is a conscious agent or "I" aware of the sensory consciousness, there is another possible explanation. Some refer to a super-consciousness whereby we are aware of being aware. This super-agent may just be a function of the brain itself � a sensory aspect of the brain as it looks at its own activity.

Hi Phil,

quote:

Animals don't do algebra, calculus, philosophy, etc., and not because they don't have a left brain, but because their left brains aren't powered by a higher, spiritual consciousness.

Animals are wired differently anatomically seen. While in humans about 90% of the nerves go from one brain-side to the opposite side of the body and only 10% to the same side, it�s about 50-50 for animals (at least mammals, don�t know for sure about the others). They don�t have this laterality. It�s specifically human. There might well be a reason for this having to do with the question at stake.
Irene

Using the analogy of a computer, I think of the brain and nervous system as our hardware and the soul as the operator. What we see going on in the brain, then (at least in higher brain functions) has more to do with the movements of the human spirit. While the anatomy and physiology of the brain certainly constrain our soul consciousness in countless ways, it nonetheless seems as though the complexity of the brain enables the human spirit to manifest bodily in space and time.

quote:

When you remarked that there is a conscious agent or "I" aware of the sensory consciousness, there is another possible explanation. Some refer to a super-consciousness whereby we are aware of being aware. This super-agent may just be a function of the brain itself � a sensory aspect of the brain as it looks at its own activity.

Larry, the way I understand the body-mind issue -- as summarized above -- it wouldn't make sense to ascribe to the brain itself this kind of awareness. I understand "awareness of awareness" to indicate the essence of the spiritual nature of human consciousness itself -- call it the non-reflecting aspect of our human consciousness, or witnessing consciousness, as others note; it is this which enable us to be present to ourselves through a wide array of experiences. This witnessing awareness is our human subjectivity, "I", or self. (Obviously, BR still has this.) When one rests or abides in the place, with minimal reflection or thinking, a profound sense of oneness with all that you mention and which BR and so many others describe becomes more accessible. That's what I understand "enlightenment" to be. But where is God in that experience? Hidden, it seems, as the Ground of Being, or Existence Itself. That's a marvelous thing, to be sure, but it's also different from the inter-subjective personal union described by Christian and other mystics in which our "I" knows itself to be held in love by an-Other. Does that make sense? In either case, there's no real loss of the human "I". If there were, then there would be no telling of the tale.

Re. the animals, then -- I don't think they have an "I" of the sort we're describing, here. This is not to say that they can't learn, or that they don't experience emotion and even give evidence of possessing temperaments. They are conscious, some much moreso than others. But they are not present to themselves as humans are -- perhaps because their brains are not sufficiently complex, or that they have a differnt kind of soul, or both/and (chicken/egg situation).

Thank you, Phil, for explaining your view of the �non-reflecting aspect of our human consciousness�. I am aware of that aspect of my own consciousness but never conceptualized it in that manner. Obviously something remains after the �no-self� event that is able to relate to the world. I�m not certain that a self structure is needed to do that. Let me rethink this aloud. The ego-self/true-self and the divine self need to work out their issues over time. The self begins to diminish as the divine nature expands. The self �experiences� the divine nature within. When the self dissolves, the �experiencer� also dissolves. So, what remains is that non-reflexive awareness along with ordinary sensory experience. Absent an experiencer, the bliss and ecstasy of the spiritual realm also disappears. This non-reflexive awareness is just a witness to one�s life process, powerless to intervene - the essence of 'being'. But the ability to relate to others is a function of the intellect; one has to figure out the relationships �out there� and act accordingly. It is a practical skill rather than a self-oriented skill.

I can see the difficulty BR has in presenting her position. Beyond the psychological aspects, she has added the complexity of a religious overlay. I recall a few letters from her back in 1992 that went into some detail about the Trinitarian aspect of the no-self journey. As a non-Christian I had a hard time relating to it, although her psychological explanations made perfect sense.

Larry, I hear where you're coming from. Check out the little schematic I present at http://shalomplace.com/res/ground.html

I also share my thoughts on God, Self and Ego at http://shalomplace.com/view/godselfego.html (scroll down to the Summary).

I have difficulty affirming pure sensory consciousness as any kind of spiritual progress, as this is little different from the consciousness of animals. It seems to me that human freedom and intelligence must also be in play in any kind of higher spiritual development. They certainly do seem to be alive and well in BR, fwiw. In Christianity, at least, we understand our union with the divine to be a matter of participation, not displacement. Even in heaven, where we behold the face of God, our human nature with its faculties and capacities remains intact.

I understand what you conveyed in your "Ego and the Dynamic Ground" schematic. I think we have a similar understanding separated by terminology more than anything.

As an aside: the authors of early Christian mysticism such as St. John of the Cross, and the author of "The Cloud of Unknowing," et.al. were of great help to me in my own journey. Add to that a smattering of Buddhism, Hinduism and Krishnamurti. I had to pick up guidance wherever I could find it.

I have a lot of appreciation for the Christian Mystical Path - it is what Christ truly wanted for humanity.

A few more comments: Your schematic stops at the True Self. As BR puts it, it may take 20 or more years in the "marketplace of life" before the no-self event happens. I hope to see your schematic updated at that time

The sensory aspect of the journey will not make sense until you arrive at the no-self state. The True Self is guided by different forces such as love and other inner states and may take many years to mature to fruition.

Larry, I agree that semantics are part of what makes this kind of discussion difficult, which is why it's important to try to listen to the experiences people describe and how they define their terms. I do know what you mean by sensory consciousness; that's what I call the non-reflecting aspect of our human spirit (maybe pre-reflective would be better). I also know that we can learn to rest in that consciousness, and that the Christian journey enables one to do so (as do other spiritual traditions, no doubt).

What makes no sense to me, however, is for someone to say that this the the only kind of consciousness they live in -- while writing a three-volume set to describe the process of coming to this state, then engaging in deep, intellectual descriptions of how it relates to the Christian mysteries. There's something more than simple awareness going on, here, and if you've ever managed to disagree with BR on anything, you'll discover that her intellect is alive and well -- even a bit combative (btw, I think that's kind of healthy -- intellectual life being part of our spiritual consciousness). I see that she's now got posted on her site a rebuttal of Arraj's work, along with Jim Marion's. Check these out, if you haven't already, and you'll see what I mean.

Phil,

I saw that rebuttal when it was posted in its entirety; now one has to purchase it. Her prickly nature is well-known and she presents a spiritual paradox. I have an idea what it going on and I hope my explanation will make sense.

You may recall that BR warns against the traps that one may encounter during the unitive phase which she compared to the Jungian archetypes. Basically, that spiritual pride may cause one to think they have all the answers. There are also traps in the no-self state. One particular trap that I have noted has to do with what I call a pseudo-ego. An important part of the spiritual journey is surrender or �letting go�. We let go of attachments, pain, etc. to find the spiritual life at the core of our being and continue to surrender throughout the journey. At the no-self level there is no self structure for feelings and thoughts to attach to � everything just passes through. But, it is possible for feelings and thoughts to still attach for that moment in time they are focused on. It is further possible for this linkage to be repeated frequently. So, what would normally be let go can be made to persist over time. This persistence is what I call the pseudo-ego. It is not a same structure as was the immature ego, but is one maintained by effort. I suspect that a similar occurrence has taken place within BR.

I went through a no-self event around 16 years ago and it was very similar to how BR describes it in that ecstasy was a bridge to a place of finality and contentment (a sensory oriented consciousness that I mentioned earlier). Anyway, I�ve had to deal with a number of issues and this particular one was troublesome. The remedy is to let this inner persistence dissolve and pass through.

Another aside: I wrote a novelette describing a secular path to no-self. It�s a free download in its entirety at http://the-outsiders.org/osblog/the-story-2/. I tried to contact BR to discuss my secular journey, but I never got a reply. I don�t think she would even consider the possibility that a non-Christian could follow a similar path.

Larry, what you describe above makes sense -- at least I understand what you're saying, experientially. I've resonated strongly with much of what BR describes as well and wrote about it in a couple of my books, most notably Kundalini Energy and Christian Spirituality and The Logic of Happiness. It is clear that one's consciousness does undergo several major overhauls during the course of spiritual growth, and what BR describes is definitely one such. I do understand what she's saying, and what you're describing as well. That one's perceptions are no longer filtered through self-image/concept . . . that self-image is no longer automatically referenced . . . that's a huge shift, and it can apparently happen in an instant, leaving one confused about who or even what they are. At the end of the day, however, if one does inventory, one discovers:
- memory - check
- reasoning ability - check
- freedom/decision-making - check
- emotional experience - check (present moment oriented)
- sensory experience - absolutely
- imagination - when needed
- moral values - they're still there, too
- subjective agent of awareness -- "I" am still here
- self-image, or "me-consciousness" -- dead as a doornail!

When I put it like that, what stands out is that the human soul and its subjective personal consciousness is still very much present, and able to respond to life's circumstances . . . even to plan ahead, when that is the "work" of the present moment. There is an "I" but not a "me" (except in a descriptive or linguistic sense, not in an experiential sense), however, and, hence, a shift in how one experiences subject-object relations. Other people and things are no longer objects-to-me, but they are nonetheless still other, not-I, distinct, and yet, simultaneously, present more directly. Metaphysical boundaries remain, but these are known in the context of the profound unity and interconnectedness of all things in the underlying Ground of all Being, which now forms something of a backdrop to one's consciousness.

For me, it is the "I" that is self, and this is never lost, for it is the essence of one's spiritual soul. "I" is the subject of attention, the living witness of one's life. If this is not present, then there is no observer-of-one's-life . . . no one to tell the tale, as I noted earlier. Furthermore, the "I" is not-God, although it receives existence directly from God, moment-by-moment. One can rest in that immediacy and feel as sense of one's innate connection with God (Eastern pathways). One can also relate I-to-I with other humans, and with God, who is also Personal (western pathways). That, in a nutshell, is how I've come to see things.

What's lacking most in BRs account is a wider metaphysical context in which to situate and account for her experiences. Her definitions/descriptions of Ego and Self are highly psychological and idiosyncratic, but one definitely gets a sense of what she's referring to experientially. What about the soul, however, which is ultimately the source of one's psychological experiences. What about its faculties, which obviously still function in no-self and beyond? What about the observer who is present through all these transformative periods, and who tells the tale in several books? BR does not speak of these matters, except obliquely, and in a manner that leaves the impression that when Ego and Self are gone, it is God who lives and acts through a body. That's an inadequate metaphysical accounting, however, and it's where I've taken issue most with what she's written.

Hope that all makes sense.

----

Thanks for the link to your book. I'll get into it when things slow down here a bit.

Phil, Our brief interchange has highlighted a few interesting points. When it comes to direct experience, we are all human beings and can relate to other�s experiences. BR�s account of her journey resonates with Christians and non-Christians alike. That tells me that there is a commonality of experience in the spiritual journey that transcends ideology. For me, direct experience always trumps ideology. What happens in the moment is always true and undeniable and the addition of meaning or ideology cannot change that.

What BR fails to understand is that ideology is based on consensus. And she represents a tradition of one person. The adaptation of new truths into existing tradition is based on factors that may have nothing to do with truth itself. While many resonate with BR�s experience, her explanations (rather than her descriptions) are open to much scrutiny. Although I am not a Christian, I do not expect the Church to embrace her view that there is an undiscovered aspect of Christian spirituality that they have overlooked all these centuries.

I've been enjoying the exchanges, Larry. Thanks for your participation.

Earlier, you wrote: But, it is possible for feelings and thoughts to still attach for that moment in time they are focused on. It is further possible for this linkage to be repeated frequently. So, what would normally be let go can be made to persist over time. This persistence is what I call the pseudo-ego. It is not a same structure as was the immature ego, but is one maintained by effort. I suspect that a similar occurrence has taken place within BR.

I think that's very insightful, and we shouldn't be surprised that it does so. An old saying has it that even the greatest saint sins at least seven times a day. Perfect purity and detachment is an unrealizable ideal, and even those who have been liberated from attachment to self-image can expect that the old wiring in the brain and old habitual reactions will still make trouble for some time -- probably until we die. It's also undeniable (at least in my experience) that there is a certain amount of decision-making involved in letting go of attachments when they kick in. The "letting go" that you describe is a choice, as would be the indulging of it, which, alas, also happens at times -- including with BR. It's tempting to try to account for this as old programming spinning out, but that takes relieves the individual of responsibility for his/her actions, and I'm not comfortable with that. Once again, it is clear that there is a "someone" or individual agent of choice-making WHO has to either let-go or indulge. If one doesn't call this a self, then what is it?

quote:

What BR fails to understand is that ideology is based on consensus. And she represents a tradition of one person. The adaptation of new truths into existing tradition is based on factors that may have nothing to do with truth itself. While many resonate with BR�s experience, her explanations (rather than her descriptions) are open to much scrutiny.

Yes, that's well-said. And when one considers that BR does attempt to situate her experience in a Christian framework, there's all the more need for a spirit of dialogue, openness to feedback, clarification of confusing points, etc. That's all hard work, but there's no getting around it.

quote:

Although I am not a Christian, I do not expect the Church to embrace her view that there is an undiscovered aspect of Christian spirituality that they have overlooked all these centuries.

I'm wondering how you would identify/explain that "undiscovered aspect." To my understanding, BR has done no such thing, as the highest fulfillment to which Christianity longs is what we call the beatific vision, whereby we come to know and love God with God's own knowing and loving. It is Christ (and only Christ) who makes this possible, for he alone, as the incarnate Second Person of the Trinity, can impart to human nature the divine's own knowing and loving. The Christian journey is a growth in this union, but its ultimate fulfillment comes with death -- and I do mean real death, not no-self. Even then, however, one remains a living human soul, whose human spirit, subjectivity, freedom and faculties remain intact, enabling us to marvel and adore the glorious Gift we have been blessed with.

Perhaps what BR has experienced is the early beginnings of the beatific vision? Maybe, however, it's more akin to the Eastern experience of enlightenment, which she herself has strongly identified with, and which Thomas Keating believes to be the case, with her. I tend to that interpretation as well -- though I acknowledge that there are parts of what she shares that resonate with beatific fulfillment.

Here is another, follow-up thought on how one might understand some of BR's strong "positions." While I am not sure that I've had the same kind of experience she has, the reflection I share three posts above indicates something of what has changed with me through the years -- especially the point about detachment from self-image. That being said, it does not follow that one has lost one's values, as I also indicated. There are values that seem to be attached to self-image -- especially its preservation and promotion -- and others that are more basic and foundational, which do not seem to be about self-image. It's not only possible, but likely that people like BR do, at times, become passionate about a topic or cause, not to perpetuate self-image, but because they believe it to be important. Hence, BR's response to Arraj could be understood in terms of her wanting to "set the record straight," or to respond to what she perceives to be a misunderstanding of her work. That she might even do so passionately doesn't imply a re-emergence of a phantom Ego; it could also be that she believes she is serving a higher Truth in her response.

It would be a mistake to think that union with God entails a kind of awareness that is dispassionate and prone to passivity. One need only look to the life of Jesus and the Saints to see that such is not the case. The Holy Spirit endows us with gifts that energize action in behalf of justice, mercy, truth, and other high values. While it is surely possible that residual false self tendencies can get mixed in with these, one need not attribute "Ego" to actions passionately undertaken in behalf of the reign of God.