quote:

Originally posted by mateusz:
[qb] Derek, "the kingdom" always seemed a bit vague idea for me...[/qb]

For me too. But Abba Moses, as interviewed by John Cassian, has a way to make it much more concrete. He says we should aim for "purity of heart." That is our way of knowing if we are on track or not. Abba Moses compares this with an archer who must be able to see his target in order to hit it.

There's a lot of wisdom in Cassian's Conferences. The whole thing is online (in an older translation) if you're interested:

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaf...f211.iv.iv.ii.v.html

quote:

Originally posted by bdb:
[qb] ... 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. ...[/qb]

I can relate to your dissatisfaction here, bdb. Even a spiritual autobiography should tie together one's personal and family life. After all, even the mundane aspects of our lives are purposed for our spiritual maturation, aren't they? Ignoring family responsibilities and the struggle to be ordinary, loving human beings in favor of pursuing higher spiritual/metaphysical knowledge and/or experiences is a terrible temptation, imo.

Of course, I don't know if this is the case with BR, but one hears of folks who retreat from the world of relationship responsibility in favor of loftier spiritual experiences--which are used (even vigorously promoted) defensively to justify unloving choices.

Dear mateusz:

Hope I don't interrupt the flow you've got with Phil and others. I was wondering if you notice a difference between Zen and your devotional practice in terms of the heart.

It's my experience that the pure observer, dissolving into nondual states, tends to generate more energy in the brow chakra; this may involve a strong kundalini response leading to "siddhis." Derek pointed out some time ago on this thread that BR, in one of her books, is rather dichotomous, regarding energies "below the neck," distinct from those above it/in the head, and seems to have shunned those below the neck (probably not the exact wording of either Derek or BR).

In the just sitting, doing nothing practice, where you describe it as devotional, or just loving God . . . is there a sense of the heart being activated which has you describing it as devotional even though you say it isn't relational?

There is also only so much the human faculties can absorb of the Divine . . . and therefore also limited in being absorbed by the Divine before consciousness merges beyond its self-reflective capacities. Once this chief function of consciousness is saturated beyond itself, one could see how the distinction is lost, psychologically, between consciousness and the Divine. In my experience, the nondual state seems almost like "backing in" to the immanence of the world as upheld/infused by the Divine; whereas relational devotion is receiving Him within/above directly and on His own terms, or as He is in Himself (when it is infused contemplation and not merely prayer of quiet). In nondual states, there is still a subtle intent to become "one," (however slight . . . consciousness seems unable to relinquish all effort), or let go of disntinctions and achieve an experience, even though all effort has ostensibly been dropped. The surrender is to something more like consciousness than the Divine, Holy Other who isn't creaturely. The nondual state, as wondrous and rich as it is, still is creaturely/immanent to me, with little difference between consciousenss and the larger field of presence of the 'alive' world except in terms of intensity and texture; whereas supernatural presence is being known by a pure and Holy Love which feels nothing at all like a creaturely presence or subtle extension of consciousness.


And these distinctions seem clarified by the metaphysical limits of consciousness i.e, unable to create out of nothing, overcome death, be omnipresent, omniscient, omnibenevolent. There is participation in these powers/graces, but not origination on the part of consciousness.

Eckhart Tolle (another thread!!) alludes to the transcendental in his own experience, and also to the heart and being drawn inward and told "resist nothing." I'll look for his quotes, but I recall him referring to Presence as something more than consciousness.

Re: Saint Teresa of Avila's apparent description of loss of self, the context of that passage within the seventh mansion description doesn't hold together in a way that suggests a loss of self as interpersonal reality, which seems to be the case at least in BR's descriptions.

Within that same chapter(III) Teresa writes:

"Their conception of glory is in being in some way to help the Crucified, especially when they see how often people offend Him and how few there are who really care about His honor and are detached from everything else."

"True, they sometimes forget this, turn to tender longing to the thought of enjoying God, and desire to escape from this exile, especially when they see how little they are doing to serve Him. But then they turn back and look within themselves and remember that they have Him with them continually; and they are content with this and offer His Majesty their will as the mostly costly oblation they can give Him."

Teresa is also saying that the Divine Presence is no longer being known through the faculties, but is a directly given knowledge by the Source of Love which is always characterized as It's own Life in her.

BR describes this interior center as eventually falling away. But I don't think she ever, throughout her three books, refers to dilation of the heart. It seems her passage refering to abdication of the "energies below the neck" may symbolize a state that can no longer register His presence as Himself. Without heart dilation of the sort Teresa is describing through each mansion, it may be impossible for the faculties to retain a sense of Him beyond consciousness. IOW, for Teresa, collapse of self is still registering Him as Himself, although no longer self as self, since consciousness is absorbed through supernatural heart dilation instead of through the effects of the Uncreated. Non dual awareness seems to be an absorption into the effects of the Divine, rather than a transmutation of the faculties through the slower process of relational devotion.

Ramakrishna had this experience, finding the nondual state not to be a deepening of virute or Divine presence. He even laughed at his supposedly fully enlightened non-dual mentor for reacting harshly to a mundane situation. It seems the nondual state for RK was really no big deal in light of his intimacy with God as Mother; this intimacy continued after the nondual state was well established in Him, at least according to my reading of his biography.

w.c.! I was just wondering last night, "Now where is w.c.? Why isn't he joining in on this discussion?..." Praise God! Wish granted. Thanks for showing up.

Ramakrishna and other gurus of enlightenment who worship their dieties are a whole 'nuther story. They certainly experience intimacy with a supernatural being. RK worshipped Kali, who claims she's the creator Goddess, but I don't think it's with the God of Israel, the Abba Father of Lord Jesus. We've talked about this before, and maybe it's too far off this thread topic, so I'll stop now...

I think the non-dualists just shoot for the end-point and miss the the intervening aspects of union and infused love. It is not just a matter of sitting and clearing the mind and hoping for permanency. The journey provides much more, and even a non-theist like myself can see that.

There is another interesting aspect to BR's journey to no-self. Up until the no-self event, the journey is inwardly experienced (there is an interesting graphic in one of her books where she shows a black circle (the self) with a white center indicating the divine, and then showing this center expanding until the self and divine disappear). When the divine center grows and the inner experience reaches its peak, it all dissolves in an ecstatic experience. When BR remarks that the sensory takes over, it means that the focus has shifted externally (that is where the senses point). The inner is no longer the focus of life and becomes a place of silence, but also a place where insight and understanding spring forth. From my observation, the experience of the divine is gone; the spiritual life is over. One is tempted to say that one is now part of the ALL, but it may be more accurate to say that the exterior focus points towards the world and all that is contains. As I mentioned previously, the self that meets the world is a function of one's cognitive faculties, so to call that faculty the knowing self or the thinking self would mean the same thing.

I had some correspondence with another who went through a similar journey and their remark was that they no longer felt like a mystic. No matter how one characterizes the no-self experience, it is no longer an experience of the spiritual life that brought one to that point.

In reading BR, E. Tolle, and Byron Katie (and hearing or seeing videos of the ET and BK), all in some way claiming to be fully enlightened, it is interesting to see not only the personality differences, but to view those differences in terms of how they account for their transformation.

ET and BK both describe a long period of depression verging on suicidal despair, with what Phil calls the "affective ego," collapsing in a profound moment of lucidness - an aliveness that is coextensive of themselves and the world. ET speaks of being drawn within his heart, and told by some presence "don't resist."

Of the three, ET has developed the most affective oriented approach to encouraging nondual awareness in the seeker. He speaks of bringing presence to the "pain body," which would be Phil's affective ego, or the tendency to contract one's sense of identity within trauma-bound, or even emotionally laden, memories. Here are a few quotes taken from his book "The Power of Now":

"I heard the words 'resist nothing,' as if spoken inside my chest."

" . . . indescribable bliss and sacredness"

" . . . glimpsed the realm of the sacred, the infinite vastness."

"Neither God nor Being nor any other word can define or explain the ineffable reality behind the word . . . Does it point beyond itself to that transcendental reality?"

"The presence is essentially you and at the same time inconceivably greater than you."

"It wasn't through the mind, through thinking, that the miracle that is life on earth or your body were created and are being sustained."

ET also speaks of the pain body as the "little me," rather than the entirety of self awareness.

_______________________________________

My bias here is that since our intimate sense of self and other arises from within the heart space (awakened or not), the degree to which the enlightenment experience involves this center of awareness, or is oriented from within it, will influence one's understanding of the paradox of nonduality.

BR is, in a sense, far removed from ET, BK somewhere in-between, as far as my impressions go. If you've read BR, most will have noticed her aversion to the energies "below the neck."

"Although the feeling of sentiment and emotionality also arise "below the neck," I exclude these as authentic receptors of the supernatural; in every case, they denote spiritual immaturity and give evidence of a grasping self. Not only are the emotions the antithesis of pure spirit but, if clung to and not relinquished, they will abort the contemplative journey altogether. Supernatural infusions we call "love," "peace," and "joy" do not arise from the emotions, but bypass them as inadequate receptors of grace. If the emotions try to enter into an experience, they will only disspate it, because they try to drag down to a lower plane that which can be received only on a higher plan. The nature of grace is to lift us out and above these lower levels of being, and since emotionality, but its very nature, is self-centered and not God-centered, it has no place in the unitive life."

________________________

Now most of us probably know the difference between routine emotions and the presence of Divine love. BR does note that these experiences of Divine love arise as responses below the neck, but it is curious, to me, she wouldn't mention the heart, especially since she speaks of below and above the neck as inherently dichotomous.

Here is another excerpt from "The Path To No Self"

"The interior flame rose up to become a burning torch, a great love wherein the last vestige of self-awareness was but a flickering match. But when the flame rose up, other unknown powers and energies rose with it, which gave rise to certain extraordinary experiences - as if I were about to be used as medium. Because this role of medium was unfamiliar, incongruous with past and personality, it was judged unacceptable, but I finally knew it was worthless because it was obviously mixed with self - a self that could no longer deceive or entice. The denial of those energies was the unwitting denial of the deepest roots of selfhood - the same self which is one with God. This denial is difficult, but once done, the energies disappear and in their place is a blessed, divine stillness."

_______________________

I'm probably overstating my view, but it really does seem to me, by report of others at BR's retreats, and per her narration of experience and lack of reference to the heart as central to the transformative process, that she is presenting something unique to her own subjectivity, however much she may deny the observer self's existence.

Hey there Shasha. I just got my computer back from the repair shop. Phil had told me about the thread being re-visited. It still looks like a helpful discussion.

Thank you, all of you who have blogged about BR. I learned how to dissociate early in life, and had physically intense surges of energy, which were expressed in jerky movements which I couldn't control. Becoming a Christian when I was 27, that is almost 30 years ago, was a watershed, to put it mildly. I have had no surges of energy for almost 20 years. I practice silent contemplative prayer at least 40 minutes a day, for about 6 years now. Although God knows i have all sorts of childhood trauma that keep on surfacing, and I haven't transcended affective ego, I feel sane, and whole, and associated.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: w.c.,

w.c., I don't think you're contributions were a "damper." Excellent observations and reflections! Most likely, just a lot of Christmas stuff going on. That's been the case with me today, at least.

I was, well I still am, really offended by BR. But, because of w.c., in particular, I feel more empathy for her. I have several friends who were hoping that she would bridge some gaps between Christian and Buddhist thinking and help them make their paths more congruent. But I don't get the sense that she is really interested in anything but proving that she has advanced to a higher spiritual state than the rest of us.
I was troubled by the same things w.c. mentions, along with her lack of care with language; she reminds me of a high school teacher I had who was always right, no matter how confused we were. I still feel irritated by her, only now the irritation is more rational.

Dear w.c.

(I'm only replying to your first post, but when I have more time, I'll gladly think about another threads which are very interesting - happy to be in such a great forum )

your questions stirred in me some insights about my practice, so thank you very much
when I started to experience what I called my "song of songs" with Christ (I don't know if it was/is contemplative prayer or natural devotion), it definitely was mostly centered in the heart chakra. I experienced many phenomena, one of which was a sort of piercing of the heart, as if a blade was cutting through my heart and someone twisted it all the time. It was a bit painful, mostly because I couldn't breath, a lot of tension in the chest, but also very sweet and at times it was unbearably sweet and blissful. Later on my heart seemed to be more open, because the pressure and tension was gone, but sweetness remained. This sweetness had also longing in it,and hunger, so it was in a way hard to bear too, yet not physically. I couldn't and can't control this happening nor make it come, but it tends to come in the context of sacraments, church, lectio divina. So whenever I feel penetrated by Christ's love it's usual felt in the heart, but sometimes in the whole body as well, or even - more recently - felt also outside the body. It might be connected to the fact that I feel myself to be also in the so called "outside" world, so sometimes love comes in and pierces me outside of me. But the heart is crucial and thank you for turning my attention to it. It's interesting what BR writes about it, since I'd never think about the heart as a lesser energy (oh, God, please, give me more of this lesser thing!!). But I must admit that I had a tendency to think that this piercing in the heart at one point should stop, because my interpretation of the Carmelites was that the pure self-giving of God takes place completely beyond spiritual senses, so one doesn't feel it at all. But Phil certainly described it as a feeling in the depths of the soul, so maybe I was wrong. But even if I rationally might have considered the piercing of the heart something lower than non-dual awareness (now I don't think that anymore), when I experienced this love cutting through my heart, and taking me in power completely... I knew experientially that there's nothing better that this Good.
I experienced chakras along the way, but as a good Zen student I tried not to think about them and disregard them. But I remember that at a certain point, in one of a very intense love-periods I felt the heart and the third eye energized equally, and also the throat. In meditation I had a certain image of Christ kissing me in the heart, in the mouth and in the third eye, so I think the three of them were active.
When I had my breakthrough in Zen 2.5 years ago, I felt all the energy, that was active in some places, flowing through my whole body. And now I don't feel any work in particular chakras [but I don't think that any kundalini process is complete in me - having read Phil's book about it I'm sure that the kundalini transformation has hardly started in me ]. Before the experience of emptiness I felt for some time that the energy was trying to push to the 7th chakra but it couldn't. I experienced pain in the neck and in the head. And one day it finally broke the barrier and came into the 7th which released tensions and brought about a "silence in sahasrara" - this I called it then. But it wasn't the experience of emptiness. This is puzzling because you describe the Witness as connected with the 6th chakra. I certainly remember that when energy was active in the 6th chakra it was a kind of metaphysical silence indeed, without feeling of love, and the same in the 7th initially. For me even the feeling of the energy at the top of the head and above it didn't bring the realization of emptiness. On the contrary, the realization of emptiness lessened the feeling in the chakras. What is your experience?
Today I tried to observe what is happening energetically in my body during sitting. Normally, I go into some kind of state in which it's hard for me to shift my attention to different places, because it's a sort of not-knowing anything. But today I noticed that there's a subtle tingling at the top of my head and above, and the energies "above the neck" are very delicate. But I felt also the heart, unfortunately, there was no love-piercing today for me, but a feeling of openness like my heart was breathing gently.
But when I experience love in church or in prayer the heart seems to be active - recently it was like a gigantic triangle coming down on me, with its one tip pointing in my heart, and love was coming down in the form of this triangle. Sounds quite ridiculous but it didn't feel like this.
I tried to spot something I call "the place of touching" - it is a place in my consciousness where I feel touched by God in love encounters. I think it's not in the heart, because it's in a depth of a sort, outside of the physical and energetical body. I don't know, I remember very vaguely my past experiences and, of course, I can't make this happening right now .
So, to sum up, I'm not on the level of BR, but I don't feel that the heart is lower than the 6th and the 7th. On the contrary those are more "metaphysical", and the heart is "relational" in my experience. Is your experience similar? And the same question to other people here.
Discussions with you and with Phil made me see more clearly the two dimensions of my experience - metaphysical/relational. Sometimes they intermingle, but I can see when it's only no-self, or Zen, or emptiness (it's far from being stable in me), and when there's a "song of songs" going on...

You intrigued me by ET, Ramakrishna, and other people. I didn't like Eckhart Tolle, do you think he has a relational experience? I don't like him as a person, as he appears on DVD's for instance, to be honest... And about "enlightened people" being harsh or not nice... there's my another post coming, because I think it's human not to be nice... That's it for now, thanks for exchange, I'm hoping for more.

mateusz:

Well, so much of what you describe is similar to my own experiece, i.e, heart piercings, visitations, silences, chakra activity. It is easy to become enamoured with all of these "touches," "ecstacies," "consolations," especially if we suffered from emotional/attachment pain/betrayal during our childhoods. I've noticed that wanting consolations tends to relate directly to childhood wounds, i.e, the need to be special, or just loved. However, very young children need parents who can be rather patient and understanding as limits are gently set on their narcissistic entitlements so they can grieve the loss of false power and a real, relational self can emerge(power that was a real need in infancy becomes a debilitating want into the second year). And so we need to trust Christ to wean us from the sweet milk as a good parent would. And in this I have noticed a fear of aridity, as it can seem like abandonment. But we must trust Him to know our wounds and needs and to generate just the right process so we can be sanctified.

Several things are important for me to remember:

1. Attend good spiritual direction and the Mass, and psychotherapy if needed.
2. Consolations are only as good as the virtue they nurture.
3. Risk trusting myself and Christ without too much dependence even upon Masters like St. John of the Cross and St. Teresa of Avila.
4. The will's consent to humility in the heart is essential (not self-abasement or self-condemning scrupulosity).
5. Good supportive friends, especially one or two on the path.
6. Attend to the wounded places with compassion, especially after falling into sin; this is important because my childhood was quite painful. This for me is part of repentence. The longings are distorted, not bad, and the more I can allow them into relationship with Him and others, the more they will heal.

w.c.,

I resonate strongly with what you say about emotional problems that become manifest in spiritual journey. Psychotherapy helped me a lot in seeing into some of the dynamics that is present also in my prayer. I agree that the fear of aridity ("He's gone!") can be quite connected to the relationship with mom and dad in our childhood. For some people it's the unconscious hunger for the beloved presence to fulfill their needs, for some it is drive towards symbiotic relation ("I don't exist without you"), for some it's more narcissistic ("Will you love if I become a saint? Look how good I am!"). But all of this is a part of our transformation, I think. I've just come back from the holy mass, and I thought about what Keating said, namely, that in the relation with God there is transference like in every relation can be. But God can give us "correcting emotional experience" (I don't know the English term for this phenomenon in therapy).
I also resonate to "trusting myself and Christ" - first of all, I think that self-love is crucial. Being good to yourself. And trusting in Christ, that all process is in His hands, but listening to subtle signs - like people, books, situations in life - that give us direction.

And some of my reflections about transformation and sin:

I was convinced some time ago by Wilber that what is missing in most of enlightened masters is psychotherapeutic work or an insight into the shadow. For a moment I think only about metaphysical mystics, like Buddhists or Hindus, but you can certainly notice that Bernadette Roberts was quite angry with James Arraj remarks. I think that many "wrong" things that they do (sinful or simply silly) is because they act out of deep, unconscious needs, feelings, patterns of behavior (I'm close to psychodynamic scheme or "insight therapies" at least). I think that therapy can really be a wonderful transformation and do things that enlightenment can't. But - and it's something that Wilber doesn't recognize - is that enlightenment and therapy don't make you a person who doesn't sin. You still are free, but I think that it is EASIER to choose good if we have access to metaphysical presence of God and access to self-knowledge. Yet, ultimately, it is our choice what we do.
And here comes contemplative prayer and love union with God. It's described in the tradition as transforming in such a way that one doesn't sin gravely - John of the Cross writes that there's even no impulse to do the wrong thing (at the level of "first movements" of the soul). Our will is supposedly so united to God's will that we can't do anything against Love. It may happen without therapy and even without enlightenment in some saints, but, of course, I think we should do what we can to support our goodness - so therapy, meditation etc.
This is quite clear, but I think that even being united to God doesn't mean that we are nice to everyone. I don't think it's possible to go through life without hurting people, especially, because usually they hurt themselves, and our behavior is only a part of their game of being hurt. That's an example. So I think in a person who is in accord with the Holy Spirit there's no intent of hurting, but their behavior can still appear as "not nice". I'm alergic to people saying: "He can't be enlightened because he wasn't nice to me when I talked to him" (that's a real quote). Well... Of course, not being nice is not a deadly sin, so even a saint can be harsh because his dad was harsh to him etc. Yet, I think that being a saint is something more than making everyone happy.
What I say here may be obvious and banal to you, but I suppose it's good to reflect on that as well. We tend to judge other people's behavior, and Jesus says that there are fruits which can be signs for us. But he also says that we don't know the heart of a person, so we really can't judge properly. And there is something like a canonization process where being not nice isn't very helpful, is it?

So, w.c. and others, what do you think about this?

Have you read the private letters of Mother Teresa? It's been only recently published in Poland, so that's quite a new thing here, incurring discussions and arguments.
I wonder if she experienced something like BR's no-self experience. She writes some place that she finds hard looking for the souls for Jesus, because the word "soul" doesn't mean anything to her and she can't find the soul in her as well. It sounds suspiciously like no-self to me... And she didn't experienced any presence of God after an early period of bridal union. But at the same time she all the time relates to Jesus, talks about Him and loves Him, even if she doesn't feel the love. I see here signs of the night of spirit (abandonment, rejection, God's not present, love is not "felt", emptiness inside, inability to relate etc.) but I also think that no-self could be a part of Mother Teresa experience. And it was going on for years and years, as she describes it, she didn't experience the loving presence of God decades. And we don't know if it changed before she died. Yet, it's interesting how different she writes about it in comparison to BR. There is no attempt to interpret her experience in a new way, it was painful, whereas for BR it's joyous, I guess. Mother Teresa didn't want to let go of the relationship to Christ - I didn't read the whole BR's story, so I don't know what about her, but her words about "not liking the man Jesus" I personally don't like at all.
There's also a story of "Camille C." - published in Belgium, I don't know if it's translated into English - it's a story of a woman who wrote to a priest before she died and told him about her prayer life. A beatiful history, but she was experiencing the dark night of spirit for 20 years, and only 6 years before she died "her love came back to her" but without a feeling that it is "her" love anymore.
So I think about these two women who didn't feel God's presence at all for decades, and they also didn't mention any metaphysical stuff, like union with objects of awareness, "being all" or any stuff like that. It somehow reminds me of Ruth Burrows' idea of "light off" mysticism, but I didn't read her books either, so I don't really know about that. But it's not a complete light off, because of initial few years light was on, and then for almost the rest of life of those two women light was definitely off.
The idea of 20years or more without any feeling of God present seems like a horror or a hell which by the way is exactly what they called this experience: hell - God's not present.
If you read any of this, please, write what you think.

quote:

Originally posted by mateusz:
[qb] Have you read the private letters of Mother Teresa? It's been only recently published in Poland, so that's quite a new thing here, incurring discussions and arguments. I wonder if she experienced something like BR's no-self experience. [/qb]

It came out in English last year and created a big stir. Obviously the full text is not freely available on the internet, but here is a news story that quotes from the book:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/t...h/article2321124.ece

From the few quotes there, it seems she was expressing dark doubts rather than making any positive propositions about no-Self:

"What do I labour for? If there be no God, there can be no soul. If there be no soul then, Jesus, You also are not true."

In the book I am reading, Jim Marion identifies Mother Teresa as a nondualist, though that would have been written a long time before Blessed Mother Teresa's letters were published.

I haven't read a lot of St. Teresa of Liseaux, but it seems she entered a similar experience of no sense of relationship with God from the moment she entered the convent, but was growing into Love in a way that made sense to her (ie,it wasn't hell). I haven't read the letters of Mother Teresa, but i wondered if she may have been depressed, and that a good therapist and/or spiritual director may have helped to lighten her load. It seemed that she was made a saint in her lifetime, and such perceived weakness as depression was incompatible with enlightenment/sainthood.
I am reading a book by Mary Margaret Funk called Thoughts Matter, and she says that the final renunciation is to let go of our cherished beliefs and images of God, so that we can love God as God. I hope that is what BR is doing when she says she dislikes the man Jesus. I think it is harder to do that when you come out of a strong belief system since early childhood; BR's father was a devout Catholic, I think, who wished, in part, that he had been a Jesuit, I may have that wrong.

bdb:<br /><br />One of my concerns about letting go of cherished images of God is that we really may not be able to let them go until God takes them away Himself. Trying to be arid, or empty, is the problem for me with Zen, and with Centering Prayer. Part of our falleness is that we are always trying to let go, or trying to let go of letting go, etc . . . when it takes supernatural grace for this to occur. Effort to do what only God can do shows fear and a lack of trust, usually as I see it in myself.

As for Mother Teresa of Calcutta being depressed, it doesn't seem to have been classic depression, since people around her, and new to her in person, always seemed touched by a deep compassion. True clinical depression would be felt by those in her presence. But we shouldn't rule it out as a consideration, imo, especially since our saints are often carries of our own false notions or ideals. She suffered deeply, and accounts for this as not receiving any consolation from God during a very protracted Dark Night of the Spirit. But this seemed to be her wish, or prayer - that she could relate deeply to the poorest of the poor, or those who feel completely forsaken.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: w.c.,

quote:

Originally posted by w.c.:
[qb] In reading BR, E. Tolle, and Byron Katie (and hearing or seeing videos of the ET and BK), all in some way claiming to be fully enlightened, it is interesting to see not only the personality differences, but to view those differences in terms of how they account for their transformation. ... [/qb]

This subject is fascinating to me; i've been wondering about it on and off for a long time--since I read about and hung out with a bunch of gurus.

I wonder if the personality differences are largely tangential and independent of a singular, objective state of enlightenment to which we're ultimately destined or are there as many enlightened, non-dual states as there are unique personalities? I tend to lean towards the latter...

mateusz:

Yes, those wounds seem to creep into almost anything - even apparent high levels of sanctity, it seems. I guess one way of considering this is to ask "Is the wound becoming an opening where more grace can flow through, leading to more compassion and humility," or is it being ignored and transfered into a kind of subtle pride?

mateusz:

I'm also getting to the point where, as much as I enjoy reading the saints, there is a tendency to lean too much on them. This can develop into a filter that might even impede God's hand. Each of us seems to have so many unique expressions of vulnerability, although the losses may be quite similar, even as patterns.

Prayer is much easier for me when I simplify, simplify, simplify.

Shasha:

Yes, I would tend toward the latter. One of the other things that really stands out among every guru I've met is how few if any of their followers really emerge as fully enlightened. There just isn't a method for this, although we all seem to want them to transmit their energy to us. So it seems we are left to painfully emerge on own, which is why enlightenment as a side-effect of sanctification seems so sane and genuine. Real sanctification keeps us humble and in relationship, whereas the hunt for enlightenment is so easily a garb of narcissism.

I'm so aware of how I dress up, ever so slightly, for God, before I pray. And this seems to leave Him unwilling, even unable, to touch certain places in my soul. And then I wonder why he can't, or won't, heal them. He would be violating free will otherwise. So can I dare to just be my fallen wounded self and include all those dark places in the relationship with Him? It is easier said than done, and I realize this as I actually let Him into shadowy areas that aren't supposed to be open to the sacred. Shame is a mighty powerful paralytic to the soul, especially when it begins in the womb! Even asking for healing can come out of shame, where we want to be rid of something rather than allow Him into the soul just as we are.

quote:

Originally posted by w.c.:
[qb] mateusz:

...I guess one way of considering this is to ask "Is the wound becoming an opening where more grace can flow through, leading to more compassion and humility," or is it being ignored and transfered into a kind of subtle pride. [/qb]

Great question, w.c. I suspect most folks don't know their resistance to embracing their brokenness is subtle pride, it's more an unconscious, entrenched pattern of relating to the world (as you know). The remedy, I think, is being immersed in community where people can tell you or react to you in ways that alert you to your own self-destructive tendencies. Even then, it seems more the exception that deeply narcissistic folks can ask of themselves, "Now what is the matter with ME...?

Phil commented above that BR's book was filled with one account after another of how this and that monk had their minds blown by her description of no-self.

Maybe we can see here how there is plain, old self-glorification and then another variant:

no-self glorification.