Shalom Place Community Shalom Place Discussion Groups General Discussion Forums Christian Spirituality Issues Bernadette Roberts responds to Jim Arraj Topic ClosedGo | New | Find | Notify | Tools |
| Bernadette Roberts responds to Jim Arraj | Login/Join |
I am also enjoying our dialog, Phil. There is no alternative to naming �self� as the agent of choice. I guess the best way to put it is that the quality of self may change over time. On the nature of self: My view is that the thought processes of the pre-spiritual individual differs from the spiritually oriented person. The typical adult goes through a conditioning process starting in childhood whereby thought-based life is made supreme. But the spiritual breakthrough places another type of awareness within. We now have a sense of the infinite/divine within which often guides our life. We start to listen to our inner wisdom as cognitive dominance (and the ego) recede. There is often a sense of all-encompassing love which validates this path as correct. The �knowing mind� still works but is less in charge as the spiritual realm grows. The no-self event is a defining event of completion in that cognitive dominance gives up completely. What remains is a sensory mode that I have mentioned earlier. So, the dominance shifts 180 degrees. The middle portion (the union) is experienced as spiritual, the no-self portion is not experienced at all; it is just a sense of �stream of consciousness� where everything is as it is. The knowing mind is still intact, and engages as needed. The agent of choice (self) is still the knowing mind, which becomes a tool of consciousness rather than a master. I realize that I am repeating myself somewhat from previous posts, but the psychological aspects need to be looked at from various angles. I think that anyone following or identifying with a spiritual tradition will recognize certain markers that tell them where they are. For BR, she identified the Christian stages up to Union and then had to explain the �no-self� event on her own. Given that everything up to that point was consistent with Christian spirituality, there was no reason to explain the final chapter as anything but Christian in nature. I am being logical in my thinking. It wouldn�t make sense to follow a Christian path to a point and then say it concluded with a Hindu or Buddhist event. I doubt there will ever be consensus on her explanations but her descriptions are valuable and it is those that cross ideological barriers. | ||||
|
Larry, I follow, but in many ways, your descriptions make use of the same idiosyncratic terminology that BR does. E.g., "knowing mind" . . . what the heck is that? To my understanding, what you and BR call the "knowing mind" is the higher, intuitive aspect of the intellect. I completely agree, however, that "self" operates in and through this faculty, and also through the will and, really, the whole of our human nature. We are, fundamentally, essentially, a self. Also . . . "consciousness." BR uses this term as a synonym for self, and here you use it as pretty much a synonym for the divine. But, again, I know what you're saying, and so long as one is still acknowledging the reality of human consciousness in some manner, I can live with the terminology. It's as though choice is still there, but the fundamental disposition is to choose as the divine chooses and to delight in the divine's choosing. "Thy will be done," as the Lord Jesus taught us. What I would deny, however, is that this process is perfected in this life to such a degree that one is completely sinless, or that this state somehow absolves one from personal responsibility ("the divine made me do it!"). Agreed with your last sentence, but she does state in The Experience of No Self that her journey resonates strongly with Buddhist and Hindu experiences. Those who latch on to BR's story as somehow paradigmatic for the human race err if they believe that she possessed a complete and thorough grasp of the Christian journey. Even her reading of John of the Cross and Teresa of Avila is biased by her peculiar understandings of Ego and Self; she reads them through the lenses of her own metaphysics, in other words. Nowhere in her three volume work will one find reference to the soul and its faculties, and how this relates to her understanding of consciousness and transformation. Neither does she seem to consult with theologians or accomplished spiritual directors who might give her helpful feedback. Instead, she shares account after account of how this monk or this priest had their mind blown when she shared her experience, how even the zen monks couldn't make sense of her, etc. There's nothing in her writings about the beatific vision or Orthodox Christianity's notion of theosis/deification -- how even in this life we are transformed to know and love with God's own knowing and loving. Has she gone beyond this? Clearly, no! No one has. There's no "beyond" such a state. I could go on, but, hopefully you and others who have followed this discussion get my drift. What irks me most in all this is the readiness of so many to believe BR when she tells us that she has gone beyond what Christianity can account for (it's merely beyond what her understanding could account for). This has led many to conclude that Eastern pathways offer a deeper, more intense union with the divine, especially when she herself suggests as much in her experience book. She has distanced herself from such a conclusion now, which also goes to show that she is interpreting as she goes, and not merely reporting on objective reality. | ||||
|
Phil, I am appreciative of your understanding and patience during this brief discussion. I trust you can see how problematic it is to relate experience and observation when ideological issues are involved. It is difficult to find a common denominator that we can all relate to. I�ve been trying to give a sense of the no-self realm in different ways using mostly psychological language. Let me try expressing it in another way and then I think I should leave the discussion to others. I think for many, religion is mostly a set of beliefs and rituals. For others, they have a spiritual connection that makes their beliefs a living thing (a living spirit within). As you explained in an earlier post, for Christians, the union, the living Christ within, is the Christian journey and it remains so until physical death. This union binds the person to their religion. What happens with the no-self event is that the spiritual becomes all and beliefs are no longer needed - the union is dissolved. This is an event of liberation that is closer to the Buddhist idea of liberation (see Buddhist parable of the raft) whereby one is liberated from even from the religion that set you on the course to your liberation. The Christian journey (as I understand it) does not provide for one to go beyond this union while one is alive. The journey is not about liberation but about connection. Those that become liberated either due to a no-self event or another type, are no longer connected to their religion or any ideology. The linkage is forever broken. Clever arguments and explanations can be crafted and expressed, but they are far removed from everyday experience. Does "being" require a supporting ideology? If you want a spiritual life, you must unify your life. A life is either all spiritual or not at all. No man can serve two masters. Your life is shaped by the end you live for. You are made in the image of what you desire. Thomas Merton. Thoughts in Solitude (New York: Farrar Straus & Giroux, 1958): 56 | ||||
|
Larry, given Christianity's metaphysical framework which affirms a distinction between the Creator and the creature -- between being and Being, or God and the soul -- what would you say is going on with no-self? Surely we can't say that the soul's existence has been terminated, nor that its faculties (which notice the changes) are no longer intact. To say that the kind of liberation brought by no-self or similar experiences is trans-conceptual/ideological makes sense to me. I also agree that no-self as described by BR is more a Buddhist-like experience than a Christian one. What I've never understood, however, is this tendency to say that the Buddhist experience is beyond what the Christian unitive state describes. Why not simply say that it's a different kind of mystical experience? To my thinking, one could easily make the case that the Christian experience of God as personal, loving presence and the intersubjective union between Creator and creature is a higher state than the Buddhist inasmuch as relationship is a higher activity than "being." Also, having a self would seemingly be a higher state than not having one, no? This "deeper-than" business easily leads to "better-than" thinking, which is unfortunate but also unavoidable. Again, I'd much prefer to say that we are dealing with different kinds of mystical experiences, and to respect both for what they give witness to. | ||||
|
| <bdb> |
I am still confused about BR, but I am beginning to see a bit more clearly...is what she is saying that she has no inner observer? That seems impossible, except for experiences of deep prayer. Is she in a state of unity with God all the time, in ways that is true for all of us, God is in us, working in us, especially in the most hidden ways, away from our inner observer, witness. But, she experiences this state without an experiencer. There is something here that really bothers me, I think that if this was a step in contemplative prayer, as she seems to say it is, than Teresa of Avila or St. John of the Cross would have mentioned it. I get the feeling that she thinks quite highly of her spirituality, her mystical state, and that seems pretty concerning. Humility is all, I think St. Teresa says. But maybe the problem is that I don't understand her, and maybe I don't need to. I guess the interesting question is why do I care, and why did I find her books so irritating? | ||
|
| <mateusz> |
I think Phil got it right that even if there's no EXPERIENCE of the observer/witness, he/she/it can be deduced conceptually from the fact that someone is telling the story. I supposed that's the case with BR. I've only had a fleeting states of absolute no-self (with senses operating normally), and I remember that something in me cried pretty loudly afterwards "no consciousness, no objects, no things, no self, there is absolutely nothing and no-one!" Yet this state happened in this body and to me, even if "me" wasn't there. Of course, I don't know what it feels like when you live in this for a long periods of time. And I guess no-self experience is not exactly the same as the ultimate Zen state of unity. Even great master Joshu said about himself: "the old monk is not always in this clarity". I don't suppose BR is always in this clarity. But I'm beginning to be eager to read BR, since her writing gives impulse to such interesting discussions...  About St.Teresa. I remember well her saying in the 7th mansion of the Inner Castle that "it seems to me as if my soul does not exists at all" (I'm quoting from memory). Maybe this is no-self, but notice "as if" she puts there and she doesn't make this the center of her account of the mansion. | ||
|
| <mateusz> |
I checked in my Teresa and here is the passage (I'm translating from the Polish translation of the Spanish one, so there might be some confusion): Mansion 7, chapter 3.2. "First of all, self-forgetfulness so complete, as if the soul did not exist any more. For, as I have already said, her whole being is formed in such a way that she does not know herself anymore, nor she thinks for herself about heaven, life or anything anymore (...). She does not care about herself, no matter what could happen to her, and she lives in such an absolute self-forgetfulness AS IF SHE WAS NOT THERE AT ALL." Then she writes about normal functioning, eating, sleeping etc. Of course, all of this is accompanied by devotion to God via will, imagination and so on. Do you think it is a Christian no-self experience? | ||
|
How does this discussion fit with what Paul experienced: Galatians 2:20 "I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me." Maybe Paul's "I" was relocated by the Holy Spirit from being centered on the ego to being centered on his spirit where Christ dwells and with Christ... so all he experienced was the leading of Jesus Christ and no longer the leading of the ego ... I dunno, what u youse guys say 'bout dis?  Caneman | ||||
|
Hi mateusz. Welcome to the forum, and thank you for your contributions. That's a good find in Teresa's writings, and it sure sounds like no-self. There's the same lack of reflexive consciousness, total immersion in the now, and yet life goes on as before. Eventually, she's able to write about it, and even describe how she experienced life in that state, so it's not like sleep or a trance, which don't always register in the memory. I've mentioned Lonergan's approach a number of times in this discussion, but it's worth noting again what he calls pre-reflective consciousness -- that the first movement of our human consciousness is simply to be attentive. If one were to do so to the exclusion of the later movements -- what he calls being intelligent, reasonable and responsible -- one can predict precisely the kind of subjectivity and cosmic sense that BR describes (I've known this at times as well, and can tune into it at will, now -- just a "sinking back" to "just-look"). There's definitely a witness/observer, but not reflectively so, and if one's ordinary sense of self is reflective, than the cessation of reflectivity because of some kind of contemplative grace, kundalini rising, etc. can rivet one in pre-reflective attentiveness. This is simply to speak of the structure of one's consciousness, however, without reference to whether or not contemplative graces are experienced. bdb wrote: I guess the interesting question is why do I care, and why did I find her books so irritating? LOL! Let us know when you have the answer. But to your point, is what she is saying that she has no inner observer? That seems impossible, except for experiences of deep prayer. I agree with you. Those experiences of deep prayer are called mystical ecstacies, and they don't leave an imprint on the memory (except as a kind of blank space) precisely because there is no conscious inner observer/recipient. It makes little sense to say there is no such observer and then to share from memory what went on, what things were like before and after, descriptions of the state, etc. Clearly, there is a metaphysical "I" or self present through all these states, for if it were not so, there could be no reporting of them, as mateusz has also noted. To attribute this "I" to some kind of brain functioning makes little sense -- as though the brain is the "I" that continues when the usual sense of self shifts. | ||||
|
Hi Caneman, we cross-posted. What you reference from Paul is what BR would call the "unitive state," which she claims to have moved beyond. Why? Because of the reference to Christ living "in me," which suggests an interior I-Christ union. - - - Let's try this: three images that I use in some of the teaching that I do on spiritual development: 1. Four quadrants for human growth/development (adapted from Wilber). http://shalomplace.com/images/four-quadrants.005.jpg (what we're discussing, here, belongs primarily in the "Personal Spirituality" quadrant. 2. Three developmental pathways in Personal Spirituality: I-Self, I-God, and between (metaphysical) http://shalomplace.com/images/three-ways.029.jpg (those are pure lines; one's growth can encompass all three, of course) 3. Graph plotting metaphysical vs. relational/mystical. http://shalomplace.com/images/growth-graph.011.jpg (you might think of the green line as Jesus; the red as someone like Teresa of Avila; brown as a young saint/mystic; on could also plot an I-Self line going all the way to Spiritual but not in Unitive. | ||||
|
Galations 2:20 is the verse St. Teresa quotes from immediately before the passage cited by mateusz. There is an old, public domain English translation at the CCEL site: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/teresa/castle2.xi.iii.html That is indeed a good find, mateusz. I wonder if BR has ever noticed that passage. | ||||
|
Awesome!!! What do you think of this: the old man = the I centered on the ego, the "worm", the old creation before the new birth in Christ the new man = the new creation, what is born new, the I centered on Christ within, the butterfly that emerges from the cocoon The butterfly, after coming out of the cocoon, is looking for itself as a worm but can't recognize itself so it thinks it doesn't exist any longer... all it knows now is the new reality of being centered on Christ within and living from this existence...  I love all of the abstract and intellectual discussions here, and appreciate them, but I really need to tie it to scripture to validate it... Caneman | ||||
|
It could be read like that. But we have to observe that the context is a rebuttal of the Judaizers, particularly Kephas, who wanted to "compel the Gentiles to live like Jews" (Gal. 2:14). St. Paul equates the death of the old way of following "the law" with the death of the ego. He has "died to the law," he tells us, so that he can "live for God" (Gal. 2:19). That dichotomy wouldn't apply in the same way to people who were never Jewish in the first place. | ||||
|
| <mateusz> |
It's funny that you have 6 hours earlier than I in Poland, e.g. now I have 10 p.m. ... Coming back to Teresa, she was not a theologian, so her accounts might be more "phenomenological" than the ones of John. For example, her description of the union - a drop of water falling into the river or a river flowing into the ocean - they really sound like hindu advaitic stuff when taken out of context, don't you think? How can there be a loving relationship between a river and the ocean when the first sinks into the latter? John's image of a glass window - invisible but still very much there - is theologically more refined. In fact, Thomas Keating in his "Intimacy with God" had to add another step - probably under the unfluence of BR - when the glass is shattered and there is only an empty hole: I take it epistemically, not ontologically, of course. But notice that even Teresa's images are very "non-dual", to use the dirty word I suppose that she experienced relational union and there's more about it in her writings, but, at the same, she was given the metaphysical union without distinctions. What puzzles me, is how did she manage to integrate those so freely?! When there's no-self it is very hard to relate to God - at least this is my experience - when I first experienced no-self I was sure that any relation to God was utterly impossible for me! maybe further stages of growth allow one to move freely between metaphysical and bridal unions? Certainly I do wonder what is the meaning of the union phase dissolving into metaphysical unity... one answer is that it wasn't really a contemplative love-union, another, that is was somehow "lost" by dwelling in the metaphysical... To complicate things a bit more - St. Bonaventure in his "The Mind's Road to God" distinguishes three contemplative steps - (5)God as "being", impersonal (6) God as "good" - trinitarian, relationship and (7) utterly transcendent Sabbath. So (5) seems to be clearly metaphysical and (6) relational. Unfortunately, the 7th step is very opaque to me, since Bonaventura uses mostly images from the Scripture (Caneman, you will be happy with it ). Take a look at this:"when, on the sixth level we have come to the point of beholding in the first and highest principle and the Mediator of God and men, Jesus Christ, those things of which the likeness cannot in any wise be found in creatures and which exceed all the insight of the human intellect, there remains that by looking upon these things it [the mind] rise on high and pass beyond not only this sensible world but itself also." is this no-self? There's an old Augustinian phrase about "pouring oneself above oneself". Passing beyong the self could be no-self BR describes, but could be not, as well. The image Bonaventure employs here is being in the tomb with Christ, dead (!) and at the same time hearing the words "today you shall be with me in paradise" (foretaste of beatific vision). What d'you think? And, Phil, how does this relate to the idea of two lines (metaphysical and religious-mystical)? | ||
|
I don't think the eastern experience of "a drop of water dissolving into the ocean" is a good analogy for the experience of being one with Christ... to me it is more like a sponge being filled with water to overflowing, and drops of water spilling out wherever you go... (I think I read this analogy on this forum?) Caneman | ||||
|
| <mateusz> |
I have a question to Phil about the pre-reflective awareness. I'm not familiar with this theory. Does he suggests that this pure witnessing is temporally prior to discursive thinking and making decisions? Because, personally, I don't embrace the idea of Washburn, that as infants we enjoy union with the Self, which we then repress. To me it seems that infant is in the lowest possible form of awareness (animal), without any spiritual content, and only through the development of the ego we are able to open ourselves up fully for the metaphysical union. I would agree with pre-reflexive in the sense that it is a witness of every state of mind. I try to compare this to the Neoplatonic tradition and they describe a kind of watchfulness which is not very spiritual but non-discursive - it is the "sixth sense" which means to be aware of one's sensory experience without thinking about it. And then they describe non-discursive intuition of being - "nous", intuitive mind or intellect. Plotinus says that children have very little access to "nous". The problem for me is crucial - what is this pure looking without thinking - is this something which he have before we start to think and then we lose contact with it , or is it something which is ever-present, but can be fully experienced when one has an ego and conceptual thinking? (I incline to the second interpretation). | ||
|
Wow, this discussion has really picked up, after the thread had basically died for a few months. Thanks to LarryD for getting us going again. mateusz queried: But notice that even Teresa's images are very "non-dual", to use the dirty word [Wink] I suppose that she experienced relational union and there's more about it in her writings, but, at the same, she was given the metaphysical union without distinctions. What puzzles me, is how did she manage to integrate those so freely?! When there's no-self it is very hard to relate to God - at least this is my experience . . . I think it's the manner of one's faith that configures our receptivity to the divine. Hence, for Teresa, it would have been inconceivable to think that her non-dualish experiences brought new revelations about human nature or the Christian journey. The basic structure of Christian faith is such that even during non-dual experiences, we are still held in a relational, covenantal paradigm. If God and/or self seem absent, then so be it; faith remains, open to the next movements and re-integrations effected by the Spirit. Eventually, this happens to BR as well, who comes to understand her journey in terms of participation in Christ's death, resurrection and even ascension. She's quite clear about this in What is Self?, where she contrasts her experience with that of Hinduism, Buddhism and even Jungian psychology. Of course, this is at odds with some of what she shared in her first volume, The Experience of No-Self, which just goes to show that, in time, even experiences like no-self are transitory and re-integrations do take place unto increasing participation in the divine. - - - Ditto your second interpretation. Awareness is prior to reflection in that we have to simply perceive before we evaluate what is perceived. That's what Lonergan is referring to as being attentive, and which Daniel Helminiak (a student of Lonergan) in The Human Core of Spirituality calls non-reflecting consciousness. It is there in a very simple state in babies and develops in tandem with cognitive/affective maturation. Still, we can learn to tune into this simple attentiveness using disciplines similar to those taught in the East (and, to be fair, in Western traditions as well). In the East, however, living from this non-reflecting awareness seems to be the goal in some traditions, so much so that reflecting intelligence is discouraged as an obstacle to its realization. The Lonergan folks don't go down this road, however, noting that awareness remains present during reflective processes as well, which is what enables us to step back from even our own reflections to examine them anew. For those unfamiliar with Lonergan's approach, you can find a lot about him on the Internet. For a good introduction to his work, Helminiak's book mentioned above is a good on. So is his Meditations Without Myth: What I Wish They'd Taught Me in Church About Prayer, Meditation, and the Quest for Peace. If you look that one up on Amazon.com, you'll see that I have a review of it posted. - - - On a related note, some of you might be interested in Helminiak's critique of Wilber, part of which is published at http://www.visionsofdaniel.net/R&HSch4.htm A teaser: and . . . We also have an extensive discussion of Wilber here. | ||||
|
| <mateusz> |
Thanks, Phil! I'm gonna read Helminiak, since I've been a Wilber's fan for 6 years, and now I'm beginning to rethink his ideas anew. Once I had this idea that really non-dual kensho of Zen is the hardest night of spirit for Christians. Now I think it might be. I suppose that some people lose their relationship with God when they realize Emptiness. Perhaps, Willigis Jaeger, Bernadette Roberts and others that I don't know about. Thomas Keating describes his night of spirit as well but he managed to reorganize his faith on a higher level, although there is an inclination towards BR in his interpretation. This is quite fascinating and puzzling, because it seems that enlightenment can be at the same time a great opening to God and a danger of losing faith. Why God made it that way? Or maybe we made it that way, because the Church does not provide an intepretation framework for non-dual insight so people face an alternative (1) I stick to relational experience which in Zen is the realm of "the relative" (even "illusion") or (2) I sink into oneness, which is "the absolute". Some people, perhaps, out of honesty choose the absolute because at the time it seems "more God" than relationship. There's also non-dual imperialism. I also had a period of anxiety, because I was afraid that I'll move backwards spiritually if I continue stick to Christ as a Form. One of my colleagues even said: "Why do you hang on to this (faith), let it go, be free, it is a beautiful dream...". It was irony, since he was having similar problems. So I suppose our duty and the purpose of discussions like this is to give people security that they don't have to choose either/or - metaphysical/relational - but they can grow in both of these, having faith that God will take care of the whole process. But I see that often people who are familiar with relational are dislike metaphysical, non-dual, and people who are familiar with non-dual look down to relational. Any ideas how to change it? After all, there's some development even in Wilber - he admits there are 3 faces of God - "I", "Thou" and "It", and "Thou" is repressed by Buddhism and Advaita. It's a good start, but then he makes a leap backwards, when he says that 3 faces are equal but the "I" is more equal than the others... | ||
|
mateusz, I know what you mean by non-dual imperialism, and it's good to see you acknowledging BR's and Wilber's influence on Keating. I think you'd like Helminiak very much. My sense is that if contemplative-oriented Christians come upon non-dual states, they will simply rest in them without losing their faith perspective on what's going on. Once, for example, I asked an elderly nun what she thought was going on during those times in prayer when things just sort of went blank, and you didn't know you'd been there until you came out of it (and had no memory of what had gone on.). "Oh," she said, with a twinkle in her eye, "that's when He's absorbing you." I took that to mean that there are times when the divine effects deep spiritual surgery that requires anaesthesia -- as with surgery to the body. You don't necessarily want to be awake for some of what goes on, and so maybe it's a good and merciful thing that we are "no-selfed" for awhile from time to time. Of course, this is all a little more complicated for someone like yourself who experiences nonduality as a consequence of zen practice rather than as ecstatic experience in the context of Christian contemplative spirituality. Zen, as I see it, operates out of a different kind of faith that configures one's receptivity to the divine differently. There's a reason why Zen monks don't practice lectio divina, and it's because they're not going after that kind of engagement with the divine. So the struggle for Christians practicing zen is, in part, living with the tension brought about from simultaneously pursuing two different faiths. I did that for a couple of years then gave up all things zen. Knowing Christ in his cosmic aspect is but one mode of his presence, the others being his historical/personal, communal/ecclesial, and sacramental modes. I saw no great advantage of knowing him in one to the exclusion of the others, and Christianity does allow for all four. | ||||
|
| <mateusz> |
Yeah, I suppose you're right saying that Zen practice has a strong "no-concepts" component. I was wondering about my Zen... my teacher is very open (after all, a Catholic monk) and he allows me to do Christian practices (lectio divina, rosary, liturgy) on the condition I'm doing Zen when I'm doing Zen. But I do shikantaza which is really doing nothing. So I sit on my cushion, I cross myself and I turn myself to God in love. So my shikantaza is placed in Christian context. During sitting I do not experience an observer or any kind of action on my part. It's pure passivity, and often I don't remember at all what is going on during that. So it isn't very much "Zen" in form, and most of the time it's not relational - this comes more often when I pray in the Church or when I do lectio divina, or during the day. So I have moments that I feel that I am cheating a bit, because shikantaza for me is a pretext to pray without words. Now I also study koans, so this is "real Zen", and I don't like it. E.g. I'm doing "What is your birthplace in karma?" And I ask my teacher what is this karma, because reincarnation and karma means nothing to me. He says: "It is the world of space-time." Ok. As long as my teacher says my practice is going ok, I guess, there's nothing to worry about, but really what I do is trying to make Zen as little Zen as possible. Otherwise, I feel that I'm losing contact with the Beloved. Of course, sometimes it happens, that I go so Zen that I am afraid. So I felt envie when I read in your "Kundalini", that you stopped worrying if what you do was Christian or not, and you just surrendered to the process. I'm not quite ok with that, not yet, since the perspective that I could go in a place like BR is unacceptable for me. I'd been there shortly for 2 months and it really sucked. Sorry, but my ego is attached to Christ and my love is a bit selfish. I suppose it will be purified by Him, but I don't want it, at least not in my ego-part. | ||
|
| <bdb> |
I appreciate all you guys have to say, and I am feeling a bit less irritated with BR. I think the main reason I felt so bothered is that I could sense no need in her to connect us with her real world of family and job commitments, I don't need to know what these are exactly, it is the sense of connection that I need. She seems to be a lot in her head. I was brought up in a good "secular humanist" house, and so maybe I didn't have so many images and ideas of who Christ is, and the sense of emptiness and the void that I think BR is talking about, was not all frightening, but, in the end, sustaining. All these categories, it spins my head, I am sure BR is adamant that she is way beyond a dark night of the soul, but I think God does with us as He wills, and as we need, and it isn't exactly a linear progression. I feel I am in a religion of surrender. I think that if your ego is attached to Christ, and you are open to Him as He choses to manifest Himself, then you can't go wrong. | ||
|
mateusz wrote: It sounds like you're seriously questioning your reasons for pursuing Zen, and that's a good thing. One ought to question their Christian practice as well -- what am I doing? why? etc. A clarification about my kundalini experience, however. I never practiced kundalini yoga or did anything to intentionally try to stir up this process. It seemed to be concomitant to deepening contemplative union, which is what enabled me to accept it and let it do its own mysterious work. I figured that if it arose in the context of Christian prayer, then it was probably "doing something" to support growth in the Spirit. If I had been pursuing kundalini yoga, however, I would have probably stopped, as it seems k conduces toward impersonal nondual states and I would have wondered if that was a good thing. from bdb: I feel I am in a religion of surrender. I think that if your ego is attached to Christ, and you are open to Him as He choses to manifest Himself, then you can't go wrong. That seems to be a good approach to take. It seems that maybe you've been looking to BR's story as something of a paradigm for all, but finding it difficult to connect. In fairness to her, however, what she's written is primarily a spiritual autobiography that does leave out the kinds of information about family, work, hobbies, etc. that you'd expect in a more conventional work. - - - from caneman: I love all of the abstract and intellectual discussions here, and appreciate them, but I really need to tie it to scripture to validate it... Here are a few scriptures with relevant metaphysical implications: Gen. 1: 27 -- So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. Acts 17: 28 - for in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain even of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring. Phil. 2: 13 - For it is God Himself whose power creates within you the desire to do His gracious will and also brings about the accomplishment of the desire. 1 Cor. 13: 12 - Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known. 1 Jn. 3: 2 - Dear friends, now we are children of God, and what we will be has not yet been made known. But we know that when he appears,[a]we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is. Jn. 15: 5 - I am the vine, you are the branches: he who is in me at all times as I am in him, gives much fruit, because without me you are able to do nothing. 1 Cor. 2: 11, 12, 16 - For who has knowledge of the things of a man but the spirit of the man which is in him? in the same way, no one has knowledge of the things of God but the Spirit of God. But we have not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit which comes from God, so that we may have knowledge of the things which are freely given to us by God. . . . For who has knowledge of the mind of the Lord, so as to be his teacher? But we have the mind of Christ. | ||||
|
I was reading John Cassian's First Conference the other day, and I was struck by how clear the desert monks were about their purpose. They knew without a shadow of a doubt that the goal of all their prayer and fasting was the kingdom. It seems that the "why" of the Christian life is rarely expressed so explicitly. | ||||
|
| <mateusz> |
Derek, "the kingdom" always seemed a bit vague idea for me... Today I also was thinking about "why's"... The most general "why" of the Gospel and of Jesus' life is to do God's will... I remember Eckhart's treatise on good will, where he says that the true love is to accept one's place in God's plan, whether high or low. There is a question how we come to know what He wills for our particular lives. He also gives us a space for our choice in a very loving way. Sometimes I feel that there is something like a "film" unfolding in my life. This "film" is His idea of my life, in which I'm an active co-creator. When I feel deeply loved by Him, I'm not afraid of choosing, because I know that all shall be well. And our destinies are unique. So there are billions of "why's", even though it is always saying "yes" to God, which is our ultimate fulfillment and nature. Do you know your particular "why's"? I'm still examining my own... | ||
|
| Powered by Social Strata | Page 1 ... 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 18 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
Topic Closed Shalom Place Community Shalom Place Discussion Groups General Discussion Forums Christian Spirituality Issues Bernadette Roberts responds to Jim Arraj | View $GS_USERNAME's Public Profile |
| Add $GS_USERNAME to my Buddies |
| Add $GS_USERNAME to my Ignore List |
| Invite $GS_USERNAME to a Private Topic |
| View Recent Posts by $GS_USERNAME |
| Notify me of New Posts by $GS_USERNAME |