I can't believe that I am blogging...a lot of Christmas activity is happening around me, but this is so beckoning to me,oh,well...I agree that Mother Teresa wasn't clinically depressed, she certainly didn't look that way, and you can't shine that on. I just hope that she didn't suffer needlessly because she was useful to the Church as she was. I agree with you about St. Teresa of Liseaux, I find her next to impossible to read, her melodramatic Victorian piety is hard to relate to. I can understand when people are harsh with others who aren't willing to do the work (maybe the way I feel in a book group where most haven't read the book, but want to know what it says so they can have an opinion on it), but aren't we all to encourage each other to persevere in love and good will? "Nice" can be a cover, and signify nothing, but courtesy and carefulness with others is a spiritual discipline. It is hard to understand, but it seems as if some people achieve spiritual maturity without emotional maturity, Thomas Keating says this can happen especially in a monastery. It is hard to know the difference sometimes between longing and trying, I guess. It seems violent to try to be empty, or full of intention, it seems better to state my intention to be available to Christ, and let Him work out the details. That is how I do Centering Prayer, at any rate. It is all a great mystery, and this site is great, but we all don't know much.
I wonder if Mother Teresa would have been as helpful as she was to the very poor if she hadn't been so suffering in spirit. There is so much suffering in life as it is, we all have our traumas, and betrayals, and besetting sins, it is hard to understand why people would want more pain. Jesus said to drink of His cup, and although we do drink in His suffering, we also drink of His joy. whether that is felt or not. I am writing off the top of my head, a lot of Christmas is happening, and I better get engaged in it. I really appreciate what you write about BR, you don't sound disrespectful.

"It is hard to understand, but it seems as if some people achieve spiritual maturity without emotional maturity, Thomas Keating says this can happen especially in a monastery."


Well, it's not the first time I've disagreed with Keating.

Derek,

yeah, I watched some videos on youtube where tv journalists went excited about Mother Teresa "being an atheist"... ridiculous, of course.
Thank you for your link to John Cassian - I read him a lot when I started to know Christian mystical tradition.
I don't have an exact quote from MT, but she does say something about the concepts of "God", "heaven", "soul" being meaningless to her. There are of course doubts on the level of conceptual thinking, but I think it may have been caused by what Zen calls "the emptiness of concepts". Of course, it was in a context of Christianity, no doubt about it. I can relate to this kind of "meaninglessness", perhaps, because I had a period in which my intellect was paralysed and I remember I couldn't think about God, because all theological notions seemed completely nonsensical to me. But I can hardly imagine living like that for years.
I'm sure she wasn't clinically depressed, because part of it is lack of energy, and, well, Mother Teresa and lack of energy...? She seemed to radiate love to people around her, but she didn't feel it herself, so she was an unconscious transmitter, so to speak.
She was in touch with several spiritual directors and they diagnosed her state as dark night of the spirit, no need for psychotherapy. I think they were right.

w.c.,

it's interesting what you write about saints and their accounts. On the one hand, I agree with you. Especially, because I think that different saints had different experiences. For example, the early Christian spirituality was deeply permeated by Neoplatonic thought and practice. It was due to Origen (who was a Platonist), and, though he also mentioned relational experience (his Commentary on the Song of Songs), he had predominantly a metaphysical insight. I suppose that Eastern monastic tradition, along with John Cassian, was rooted in a metaphysical experience of God - the idea of purity of heart in the 3rd and 4th century was, it seems, mainly about freeing consciousness from attachement to thoughts and emotions that are experienced. Gregory of Nyssa writes beautifully about relational presence of God (Commentary on the Song of Songs), but in his other works (Commentary on 8 Beatitudes, Life of Moses) there is mainly account of luminous darkness, in which God is unknown but present and about purity of heart which makes the image of God that is already there shining through. Danielou emphasizes the role of grace in Gregory of Nyssa's mysticism, but the texts can be sometimes read both ways. And in Dionysius Areopagite who influenced later mysticism greatly, there is hardly anything about relation (just one saying about "the man Jesus"...).
So my point is that platonizing mysticism of the Fathers of the Church seems to be quite different from the mysticism of Middle-Ages. And Rhineland mystics in comparison to Fransciscans or Cistercians? Finally, we have the great Carmelites and they are the Doctors of the Church.
So on the one hand, I think that Catholic mystical tradition is not coherent at all. On the other hand, St. John of the Cross was appointed a mystical Doctor, so his account of contemplation seems to be a point of reference for Catholics. And, actually, if I understand correctly, Phil's and James Arraj's position in the discussion with other Christian contemplatives is based on a certain reading of John of the Cross.
Perhaps you know the critical voices about Christian mysticism being really "a Greek invention" and not Christian at all - Hans Urs von Balthasar called Evagrius Ponticus "a Buddhist" (I can understand why, by the way) and the whole metaphysical component of some part of Christian mysticism can generate many discussions. I don't know if Gregory of Nyssa or even Augustine would understand the notion of "infused contemplation" vs. "natural contemplation". Augustine's own mystical experiences described in the Confessions and On the Trinity seem to me very much Neoplatonic, while some of his more pastoral texts refer to what we could call relational mysticism. There is a debate among scholars in terms of Augustine's mysticism and I can't see any solution to that.
I'm not a specialist in mediaeval mysticism, but I suppose there can be similar problems. E.g. St. Bonaventure whom I was briefly mentioning some time ago is clear about the fact that in order to "enter yourself" and know yourself you need God's special grace, so there can be hardly any "natural" way to self-knowledge. I don't think that St. Bonaventure would agree with St. Thomas on the possibility of the intuition of being without God's special grace. But maybe I'm wrong about this.

So, relying on mystics and saints can be a very shaky ground, but, w.c., what is the alternative? Coming back to Jesus and St. Paul in a protestant manner? We need a testimony of people who walked the path before us, even though different people may have walked different paths. After all, "purgative, illuminative and unitive" is not in the New Testament - it comes from Plato and the other Platonists and, even if the concept has changed greatly in St. John of the Cross, at the beginning it was primarily about purifying awareness from attachment to objects - later the focus was on purifying the will from choosing sin.

I'd like to discuss with you a passage from Karl Rahner (the whole text: http://www.religion-online.org...sp?title=2079&C=1966. "God is not a scientific formula")

"If a man who has experienced this [the Mystery in his own transcendence] trusts that this incomprehensibility, ineffably close, communicates itself protectingly and forgivingly, he can hardly be called a mere "theist" any more. For such a man has already experienced the "personal" God, if he understands his "formula" correctly and does not imagine that God again becomes merely a "good" man. For what this truly and blessedly means is that God cannot be less than man, endowed with personality, freedom und love, and that the mystery itself is free protective love, not an "objective order" which one can, after all, possess (at least in principle), and against which one could ensure oneself. Such a man has already understood and actually accepted what Christians call divine grace. The primeval event of Christianity has already taken place in the centre of existence, namely the direct presence of God in man In the "Holy Spirit". However, much must happen before this man will become a Christian in the full, authentic sense of the word, namely the encounter of this primeval Christian event with its own historical appearance in Jesus Christ, in whom the ineffable God is present to us also in history, in the word, in the sacrament, and in the confessing community which we call the Church. But this necessary and holy institutional Christianity only has a meaning and is not ultimately a sublime idolatry if it really introduces man to the trusting, loving surrender to the holy and nameless mystery."

Ok, so what this is about, Phil?
It is a description of someone who experienced the Ground of Being, but in such a way that Rahner sees in it an "implicit faith" or supernatural grace operating. The Ground of Being is not Emptiness experienced without any qualities or distinctions, but it is loving presence. But, notice that Rahner writes: "he trusts that this incomprehensibility, ineffably close, communicates itself protectingly and forgivingly" - so it is not an experience of protection and forgiveness, but a faith that the Ground is forgiving and protective? And yet Rahner refers to an experience, since this hypothetical person doesn't know about Christianity, he experienced the depths of his being and found it to be loving, protective, forgiving, and not an "objective order".
It is not a relational experience in its genuine, Christian form, it's not an infused contemplation, but it is not Zen enlightenment nor advaitan Atman=Brahman either.
As I wrote to Phil, it seems to me that Rahner leaves some place for an experience of loving Presence, which is not purely metaphysical (but close to it), not purely contemplative.
Phil, you wrote that it is unimaginable to feel loved without an (implicit at least) concept of the Other.
But here this Other is defined by Rahner in very apophatic terms, somewhere in between I-to-I and simple oneness.
It seems that Rahner was a metaphysical mystic, he had an intuition of being, but he also emphasizes the fact of being love by the Ground by virtue of the Indwelling. It refers to yours and James Arraj's questions to Keating - can we equate the Indwelling with contemplation? You say: no. But Rahner is suggesting that there is a sort of contact with loving God which is already there (so it is not contemplation), but nonetheless it is loving God, and not the Ground as such. Rahner emphasizes strongly the unknowability of God - he defines this contact with God as the experience of the "incomprehensibility". Not very John of the Cross, is it?
So would you place it in the metaphysical horizon totally? Is there any place for a third sort of experience, which John of the Cross wrote nothing about?
I also suggested that at least some Zen people and other enlightened masters refer to the experience of being loved, although avoid speaking in relational terms lest they be considered "dualistic".
My examples:

1.A Zen Master Ezra Bayda: "we may have the momentary understanding that all is one, or the equally powerful undestanding that all is love". All is love? Is it Zen?

2. a German protestant pastor and Zen master whom I asked what about Jesus in my practice, told me "Jesus is nothing!" I replied "So I love nothing, and nothing loves me." She was puzzled for a moment and then she said "when you love, Jesus loves. But you cannot make love happen in you".
She was a very loving person, by the way.

3. Adyashanti:
in one of youtube videos says that the Reality is emptiness, awareness and love.

But some Zen masters don't talk about such stuff.
I'm interested in your thoughts about this.

Lots of great exchanges, here. The issue of how one's psycho-social development influences spiritual experience is especially significant, I believe. On the one hand, it seems that just nothing is beyond the reach of God's love -- that our inner wounds can provide special places for God's indwelling. But our wounds also influence our manner of relating and our receptivity to grace, which, in turn, deeply colors one's spirituality. A most extreme example would be dissociative disorders, which could be construed as a withdrawal of attention from the lower chakras and their powers up into the third eye, or witnessing consciousness. Also, there's little pain to be found if one is immersed in 7th chakra and its sense of cosmic unity; not much of a sense of self, either. So a spirituality focusing on consciousness/energy "above the neck" would be a logical pursuit for one whose social environment is emotionally and/or physically abusive. Such people might need to "grow down" in their development, at some point, learning to re-connect with the lower energy centers and the earlier stages of development they represent.

In the case of Mother Teresa and others who've experienced extreme aridity, a number of questions arise that I've addressed elsewhere on this forum. One must inquire into issues of recreation, play, diet, exercise and even sexuality. It could well be that contemplative graces account for the bulk of MT's experience, but there could also be deficiencies in the areas I've mentioned, which could significantly influence one's affective experience. We are body, psyche and spirit -- not just spirit: to neglect the body and psyche in the pursuit of "spirituality" will lead to distortions of all kinds. Hard to say how much that accounted for MT and even BR's experiences, of course, but it's something to consider -- especially as we look to our own development.

quote:

Originally posted by mateusz:
[qb] So, relying on mystics and saints can be a very shaky ground, but, w.c., what is the alternative? Coming back to Jesus and St. Paul in a protestant manner? [/qb]

Your cite some good evidence, mateusz. But I wouldn't say we are on shaky ground. Rather, I would say that, among mystics, the boundaries between the Christian and the non-Christian are less clear-cut than they are among rationalists. Moreover, mystics -- even if we confine ourselves to Christian mystics -- are each unique. Even St. Teresa of Avila, with her visions and locutions, has a different quality to her mysticism than St. John of the Cross.

So I think a quest for a "pure" Christian mysticism, drawing only on the New Testament, unsullied by other influences, and producing a model that applies consistently to all Christian mystics, will inevitably lead nowhere, attractive though the idea seems.

from mateusz: Phil, you wrote that it is unimaginable to feel loved without an (implicit at least) concept of the Other.
But here this Other is defined by Rahner in very apophatic terms, somewhere in between I-to-I and simple oneness.

Sure, that's how it's experienced sometimes, including Christian mystics. And so long as the intellect makes no inquiries into the matter, it's satisfying enough to simply abide, rest, and not be concerned about "who's who." But as soon as one reflects on the fact that one has been the recipient of a love that one did not create, then it follows that one must posit a Giver of such love. Nevertheless, one can come to rest in this love without going through an intersubjective dialogue, as seems to be the case with most advanced contemplatives. That's not what we mean by metaphysical mysticism, however, which is characterized more by an impersonal sense of connectedness with all things.

From Rahner: The primeval event of Christianity has already taken place in the centre of existence, namely the direct presence of God in man In the "Holy Spirit". However, much must happen before this man will become a Christian in the full, authentic sense of the word . . .

That's very well-said, I think, and he indicates nicely the beginnings of a movement from what we've been calling implicit faith to explicit faith. But the question is whether Zen and other meditative methods that emphasize what we might call "mindfulness" approaches come upon this kind of encounter -- at least that's part of what I hear you asking. And it may very well be that they do (how could they not, at times?), only the practice itself and teachings that generally go along with it discourage movement toward explicit Christian faith. That's what I meant earlier when I wrote that there's a reason zen monks aren't doing lectio divina or any other practices that relate to the Absolute in a personal, relational manner. The experience to which their practice orients them is of a different type and quality. What can the Holy Spirit do if we say, "no thanks, I don't want the gifts You bring, but prefer the experience of oneness/unity of all things?" We can "grieve the Holy Spirit," as Paul notes, and in many ways, the most basic being our refusal of the leadings of the Spirit.

The whole idea of implicit Christian faith flows from the old teaching on "baptism of desire," which holds that certain people would gladly receive Christian baptism if given an opportunity -- that they are, in a sense, "anonymous Christians," as Rahner put it. But what if Christian faith and baptism are available to them and they do not pursue the opportunity? Can one really say, then, that they had "baptism of desire," or a kind of implicit Christian faith that would seek explicit development? I don't see how, unless one does the usual p.c. thing by blaming Christianity itself for people rejecting its message. That ignores the persuasive force of God's grace, however -- that God draws us into the Church in spite of its hypocrites and manifold shortcomings. Buddhism hasn't exactly "collapsed" into Christianity, has it? Neither have the other world religions. Otoh, Christianity has no problem accepting the core Buddhist teachings on detachment, nor the Jewish teachings on God, nor, even much of what Hinduism, Islam and the other religions teach, if properly understood. None of these, in turn, can accept the core Christian message nor assent to the truths professed in the Creed. This is not to deny that the Holy Spirit is working in all the world religions, only to say that the whole idea of anonymous Christians/baptism of desire shouldn't be too broadly construed.

Hope that all helps.

"But our wounds also influence our manner of relating and our receptivity to grace, which, in turn, deeply colors one's spirituality."


This for me is essential in importance. Not only do these wounds shape receptivity, but they also, in my experience, retain an intimate knowing about the inherently good longing to give and receive love at their core. Tuning into the wound, trusting it to unfold according to this longing, rather than simply fearing its distortions, is a way of prayer for me.

But I also sense the degree of self acceptance God calls me to is greater than what fits into my picture of faith. There are parts of me that have been healing to the extent that I allow them just as they are - in all their darkness. Not acting them out, but almost. Letting them live inside my body, rather than exiling them with subtle gestures of shame. There are so many thin layers of this shame that keep God from touching the wound.


"A most extreme example would be dissociative disorders, which could be construed as a withdrawal of attention from the lower chakras and their powers up into the third eye, or witnessing consciousness. Also, there's little pain to be found if one is immersed in 7th chakra and its sense of cosmic unity; not much of a sense of self, either. So a spirituality focusing on consciousness/energy "above the neck" would be a logical pursuit for one whose social environment is emotionally and/or physically abusive. Such people might need to "grow down" in their development, at some point, learning to re-connect with the lower energy centers and the earlier stages of development they represent."


Phil:

It seems this could be applied to even the saints. Perhaps it is something like what bdp was referring to about Keating's comment on saints with spiritual maturity but delayed psychological maturity. God will work only within the inner terrain we allow. And so, for instance, we might even find St. John of the Cross averse to sexual passions but largely enabled, through grace and devotion, to "advert" to God with longings for Him, the Bridegroom, while the strength of sexual feelings for creatures diminishes. None of us, even the saints, are 100% open in all areas of the psyche, and God doesn't seem to need total consent of being in order to transform us. Who can surrender 100% anyway?

Here is one of my favorite passages of SJ of the Cross relating to this issue of woundedness:


"The love of one's Spouse is not the only requisite for conquering the strength of the sensitive appetites; an enkindling with longings of love is also necessary. For the sensory appetites are moved and attracted toward sensory objects with such cravings that if the spiritual part of the soul is not fired with other more urgent longings for spiritual things, the soul will neither be able to overcome the yoke of nature nor enter into the night of sense; nor will it have the courage to live in the darkness of all things by denying its appetites for them."


I can't say I've ever met a monastic, or lay contemplative, who fully embraces this advice of John's (advice presumably for beginners, although John seems to defer somewhat to Teresa for this). Teresa of Avila, while speaking of vipers as obstacles to entering more deeply into the Interior Castle, might not have encountered the Night of Sense in the way John describes. Carmelites have commented on this distinction between the two saints. Her affective orientation, which John seems to have provided a sobering influence for, is thought by some to allow for a different i.e, less arid, experience of that Night. She, in turn, may have softened John's asceticism.

But then notice John in another place (I'm not sure which commentary the first passage comes from, but the one below comes from Spiritual Cantice):

"What more do you want, o soul? And what else do you search for outside, when within yourself you possess your riches, delights, satisfaction and kingdom - your beloved whom you desire and seek? Desire him there, adore him there. Do not go in pursuit of him outside yourself. You will only become distracted and you wont find him, or enjoy him more than by seeking him within you."


Of course, these words may not have been meant exactly for beginners, but if one is to "advert" passions to God, and God is both within and without, then interiority involves the will brushing up closely to these rather intense feelings for creatures at times.

Since few contemplatives I've met account for their night of sense as a single passage, and tend to relate to their passions with less asceticism, isn't it permissable to question John in terms of his own limited perspective where the individual seems best served? I cringe as I hear myself questioning John, but honestly, as I've said, there are few, it seems, that have such ease with his degree of mortification.

In keeping with this thread, notice what BR says about John and Teresa:


"I have always held that St. Teresa was a mystic who had a few contemplative experiences, and that St. John of the Cross was a contemplative who had a few mystical experiences, because the difference between these two saints is so great that, without a shared doctrinal basis, their paths might never have crossed. Though any experience of grace may be called "mystical," the mystics of history were largely noted for the phenomenal character of their experiences, i.e., visions, voices, etc., which are not common among ordinary contemplatives."

Bernadette Roberts, The path to no self, SUNY, 1991, pp. 19-20.


"Some authors, however, would have us believe that the ultimate contemplative union is some type of affective, or emotional union of love, an idea which is patently false, and nowhere to be found in St. John of the Cross. The saint tells us time and again that union cannot be grounded in, or properly experienced by, the emotions; such a lower faculty is incapable of entering into union, and any overflow experienced is a sign of weakness, a soul not perfectly purified or conformed.

The few references the saint makes to an "affective love" should be understood in the Thomistic sense of rational psychology, where the term "affective" refers to the will, not to the emotions, or "passions" as the saint calls them. There is a link, of course, between will and emotions; in fact, the will stands in a unique position as mediator between mind and emotions. Yet the emotions belong always and forever to the self, while the will has the capacity of belonging equally to God and the self, as a kind of shared faculty. The union of wills abandons the self's feelings of its own love, in order to enter into God's own love -- love beyond all emotionality.

I can find no place in St. John of the Cross where he affirms that God and the soul are in a process of becoming one, or that union is in the making; rather, he affirms that the whole of the contemplative movement is the process of realizing our oneness with God on ever-deepening levels. As he says, man has numerous centers and unions, all of which must be passed through and left behind in order to reach the deepest, centermost union, which is the same union, but realized at its deepest level."

Quoted from p. 39 of the book.


"The few references the saint makes to an "affective love" should be understood in the Thomistic sense of rational psychology, where the term "affective" refers to the will, not to the emotions, or "passions" as the saint calls them."


Not to say his adoration of God isn't rational, but lacking in affectivity?

" . . . such a lower faculty is incapable of entering into union, and any overflow experienced is a sign of weakness, a soul not perfectly purified or conformed."


_________________________

I mean, she's right to a point, but to exclude a lower faculty in this way is to say God shuns an aspect of His creation. Where does John say that the lower faculties of the soul are excluded from transformation? In transforming union I would guess the lower faculties have little tendency left of craving and aversion. Now, if BR means the affective ego, then yes, but one wouldn't say that the ego itself as witnessing capacity, therefore, is incapable of sanctification. John's passage from the Canticle,(the one prior to these excerpts from BR's writings), would leave room for much feeling awareness.

Dear All,

I am so, so , so loving these discussions, but unavailable to contribute at this time.

Thank you all. I shall re-read them carefully when the busyness of Christmas has ceased.

Beannacht

PS

WC your words find a home in my heart.

Phil,

Thank you for your post - it helped me to see some things more clearly, although I'd rather agree with Rahner that even if Christianity is "thematically" rejected, Christ can be silently accepted. It's risky to say that, of course. In my examinations of Zen practice and philosophy it is helpful what you say that Zen per se doesn't give a proper environment to fully accept and understand the experience of God's love. I see it clearly. Now I try to understand what exactly God wants me to in my Zen practice, since I find a relationship with him only in Christianity, in the Bible, the sacraments, or in the prayer states which from Zen perspectives are "makyo", illusions of the mind. That's a tough one, and I don't want to hurry.

W.C.,

thanks for your posts too. I was particularly moved by the idea of praying to God through our wounds - I usually try to cure them, regarding them as obstacles to being a good person.
What you say about emotions with regard to John and Teresa sounds very reasonable, and I agree. Emotions are for me part of the body, so if body gets resurrected, why not emotions?
I also like the way you add the psychological perspective to John and Teresa, in a gentle way, but still. I suppose that our unconscious, emotional background colors and shapes our experience of the dark night, so John's descriptions can be partially viewed as his private journey, not a universal model. I like to compare St. Augustine with St. Gregory of Nyssa who lived about the same time. Augustine's stuggles with sexuality and the experience of sin, which influenced the Western tradition probably too much, are nowhere to be found in Gregory's generally optimistic writings, where the dignity of the primal image of God is so much emphasized. Where Augustine shows desperate struggle (in a very spicy manner), Gregory pictures a stable evolution towards ever greater purity of heart. Such important differences can be found also in other saints and mystics, and I appreciate your comparison of John and Teresa.

from mateusz: Thank you for your post - it helped me to see some things more clearly, although I'd rather agree with Rahner that even if Christianity is "thematically" rejected, Christ can be silently accepted.

Yes, of course. As Jim Arraj says, God can sort out who the anonymous Christians really are, and are not. I don't presume to judge any individuals who decide to remain Buddhist when the opportunity to become a Christian is presented to them (nor those who've left Christianity for zen). Prayers and best wishes for your ongoing discernment about zen practice.

w.c., thank you for your recent reflections, which are quite clarifying. I think we need to remember that, for most of the world, it's not so hot being a self, which is why reincarnation is generally viewed as something of a punishment. Disciplines that withdraw energy and attention from the lower chakras into the higher make more sense when considered in that light. The sanctification of the whole of our humanity does entail transformation of all the levels of our being, including the physical and etheric systems (the work done by kundalini), but that is not easy to do, and, traditionally, there haven't been the kinds of therapeutic modalities such as are available today to assist and support with this.

Phil

Returning to Church is coming into question for me presently. And this thread is bringing up something i have been wondering about.
I have done some research in the Church's
history and there were definite decisions of the direction that the majority wished to go. But not everyone agreed with these decisions from what i can tell.

Phil " That ignores the persuasive force of God's grace, however -- that God draws us into the Church in spite of its hypocrites and manifold shortcomings." ..........
"The issue of how one's psycho-social development influences spiritual experience is especially significant, I believe. On the one hand, it seems that just nothing is beyond the reach of God's love -- that our inner wounds can provide special places for God's indwelling. But our wounds also influence our manner of relating and our receptivity to grace, which, in turn, deeply colors one's spirituality."....


Is there any reason why this couldn't be said about the development of the Church itself? What checks & balances does the Church use to make sure they are on the right track because even the psychological health of Saints is coming into question now. And personally i don't agree with the Church's position about woman in the Church.

Phil, if you find these questions inappropriate for the forum then please delete them.

Peace
Ajoy

I wish you all very peaceful and loving Christ's Nativity. Among preparations for the Christmas Eve's Supper (the most important part in Poland) I think of you and pray for you. Thank you for your presence at the forum, those who write and those who read.

Yes, merry Christmas to all . . . What an amazing event we celebrate?

- - -

Ajoy, you ask good questions. Would you mind re-posting them as another topic as they seem to open an entirely new subject area.

I'd like to share with you a simple insight I had during this Christmas. It was when I was at the midnight mass on the 24th. I asked myself about the meaning of the Incarnation in our spiritual practice, and I suddenly realized that "the man Jesus" and the infinite Mystery are one and the same Person, the Ultimate Reality which so many people seek ardently in non-dual experience is the very Person that is "the man Jesus". So my love relation with Jesus is my relation with the infinite Mystery. I don't understand the complexity of Jesus Christ - I mean: the human nature, the divine nature, united not mixed, two wills, one person etc. but I still keep in my heart this glimpse of understanding that Jesus=God (in a personal, not only metaphysical way). I remember Bernadette R. had a realization "Jesus=God", but as far as I remember she meant it metaphysically, no? Now, when I'm writing this, I see that my insight was no more than understanding of what we say in the Creed and what makes us Christians, our faith - but the experience was meaningful for me and it is definitely what Christmas is about, isn't it?

mateusz wrote: So my love relation with Jesus is my relation with the infinite Mystery. . .

I'm still playing "catch-up" from the holidays, but wanted to comment on this, as I think it's a good way of "resolving" the tensions that often arise between kataphatic and apophatic Christian spiritualities. These are two ways of knowing God in/through Christ:
a. kataphatically - personal/historical, ecclesial and Sacramental modes of presence
b. apophatically - cosmic; mystery; emptiness
To know Christ in all these modes is the ideal, but this is generally realized through time, rather than all in a single day or week. We might have long stretches where we are drawn to Him through one particular mode, even to the exclusion of the others.

The Ultimate Reality which so many people seek ardently in non-dual experience is the very Person that is "the man Jesus".

That may well be, only, as you note, they seek, primarily, a "metaphysical" connection with him. That would roughly correspond with the apophatic, cosmic sense I mentioned above, only, for those who know Christ kataphatically (personally) as well, the apophatic retains a relational context. So to seek him apophatically to the exclusion of his kataphatic manifestations is to limit the relationship to a non-dual, impersonal, metaphysical union. Just why this is considered higher than a kataphatic/apophatic spirituality by so many is incomprehensible to me (as though knowing "that" my wife is would be a higher experience than knowing "who" she is and relating to her thus).

Thanks Phil, for your comments,
I've been in an awkward position for few years, since although in my heart I felt that my relation with the Beloved (which I experienced also as intense infusion of love, particularly during lectio divina and in connection to sacraments) is the most precious thing in my life, I intellectually considered it to be a "lower stage" of development which has to be replaced by perfect oneness with God (but I hoped that my faith won't be gone).
Now, when I was reading through the forum and your books I began to see the preconceptions I had all the time. Now, it seems kinda crazy to me that I would officially prefer oneness to relation, but when oneness actually came to me for a period of time, and I didn't feel the presence of Jesus, I was so unhappy. I'd like to honor my metaphysical experience, but I feel drawn in the direction of relation and love with Jesus, the Beloved. I learnt to notice the clear difference between those two experiences in my life, not as "stages", but as parallel aspects. I give myself few months for discerning what I want to do and what God wants me to do, but I feel that there's a major shift in my spiritual life already. But probably it's another thread, although related to BR's experience.
Phil, do you think that BR had a contemplative experience of Christ which was later replaced by metaphysical one, which was "lost" in a way? What was the "unitive phase" she describes in terms of John of the Cross?

I’ve been reading the posts written in response to Bernadette’s quote to Mr. Arraj. I can’t presume to know what she is thinking because I don’t like to second-guess anyone, but this is what came to me about what she said. I don’t think most humans are representative of the perfect image of the Father. So when she speaks of the basic human nature, it seems maybe she is speaking of the state of humanity before the fall, actually even before that. I think there is more than one union. There is the union, which is described by the marriage of the bride with Jesus. The second union occurs when duality is transcended, no subject (self) and no object (God). In terms of duality you can’t have one without the other, but in terms of unity there is only One. You can call the One, God, but since Christians always talk in terms of God as object then this One is not God as object.

Man can be imperfect and be united with Jesus in the first union, but to be united with the Logos, all dross must be eliminated which she calls (go beyond all that makes for differences  beyond all individuality (self), personality and all the rest.) It would seem that a resurrection would need to take place for a human to be thus united, if indeed resurrection means perfection.

So if unity with the Logos can only occur when we have gained total victory over our fallen human self and then go even further and realize that in that victory we become the immaculate conception or perfect concept (which is not the normal human anymore, but the perfect image of God manifest. The perfect image is one image, not individual human beings. We were created in His image, not His images. Although, when the perfect image becomes manifest as the immaculate concept, then it appears as many individuals, but it really is not many in its spiritual aspect. We are all one.

Whether Bernadette lives in union with the Logos, we don’t know. Whether her reply to Mr. Arraj is the Logos speaking? We don’t know. I do believe it is possible to walk around in a physical body but spiritually be totally governed by the will of God. Since she still has a human body, she still speaks with her human voice, has to use her brain and body to function, she’s not going to speak like Jesus, because she doesn’t have his brain or body. Hindus call it laysha videya (I may not be spelling it right) where the union isn’t absolutely total because of the physical body.

As far as Jesus possessing a human consciousness, I think he had both capacities. I think he was able to fully experience the human condition never forgetting who he was, the Son of God, I am before Abraham was. And yes, the I am is more important than the son of man part.

What strikes me about Bernadette is that she speaks like a Hindu even though she says her experience is different from theirs. I find this amazing since she came from a Christian background.

The thought comes to me that Bernadette is experiencing the Father aspect of the Trinity in her no-self experience. Through the Christ we know the Father. At one point, she is looking at the void. Is this like God on the face of the deep, the gap between nothingness and creation? I’ve had an experience like this in my contemplation time where I was looking into the void and it seemed all-inclusive, omnipresent, but I was not totally consumed by it. On two occasions, not in contemplation, I was suddenly immersed, or should say, consumed by the void. It was total, mind, body and soul. The first time was through Jesus. I had wanted this experience, so he gave it too me. It was almost too much to bear, but I surrendered into it. The second time I had no warning and I knew it wasn’t Jesus, I think it was Maharishi, the guru of the TM movement. I cried out to Jesus before being totally consumed. This experience was more shocking and terrifying, but I think if I had been able to surrender it would have been ok. I think it was the same experience I had with Jesus. I’ve read that some Hindus have an experience where they can’t function because they are so overtaken for long periods of time.

Of course, Bernadette is able to live in the no self. At one point I think she felt like she was on the brink of total annihilation. Was that like the experience I had? Was that almost falling into God before the creation, before the Trinity was even imagined by God? After the creation, the Father is part of the Trinity, but before creation it is only God, but since there is nothing to compare God to, he cannot be an object, he is all-inclusive.

Jasalerno,

Theologically, there's no God apart from the Father, the Son, and the HS, just as there's no "Human" apart from human persons (but some platonic-oriented theologists, and Eckhart among them, could turn this direction). So There's Father, Son, and HS and they are God, but without the Three, there's no God. That's how I understand the teaching of the Church from the 4th century.

When BR writes about Oneness, as if the Father, the Holy Spirit, and the Son of God who is the Son of Man, were somehow less than the One, I don't think it's a traditional Christian understanding of God.
I'm writing about this because it took me some time and a lot of grace to change my preconceptions about God - I was so used to think about Him in terms of non-duality, oneness, simplicity, emptiness, ineffability, that now I'm a bit suspicious when the Trinity is bypassed. After all for Teresa of Avila (and many others, like Ignatius Loyola, Catherine of Siena) the highest point is the intellectual vision of the Trinity in it's distinctions, not a non-dual vision of the One. Notice that the non-dual absorbtion that STA describes in the Inner Castle is placed in the 5th mansion as a special grace given to bring about spiritual death and closer union with God, but in the 7th mansion she experienced imaginitive vision of Christ's humanity and then the vision of the Trinity, all of this right before the spiritual marriage.

In other threads I described my visions of the Trinity (I guess it's in the Kundalini and Holy Spirit, a couple of weeks ago). At first, when I "saw" (but it was purely in intellect, not in imagination) the dark abyss, which I later identified with the Father I had a sense that somehow it's similar to my earlier experiences of the ineffable Nothingness during my Zen times. But quickly I realized a big difference. The abyss was so tender, so good, so "warm"... And from that darkness were flowing the streams of living water or a living flame was generated in the night. There was this movement in the Abyss, which isn't there in the case of Emptiness - Emptiness is energetic, alive, vivid, creative, generative etc. but it's different. I think Love makes this difference. So the Abyss revealed Itself as Him-self, and as Love - and Love needs Persons who love and are loved.

Since that time I've experienced the darkness of the Father in my heart, but I always feel that this is the Father Infinitely Good, and not only the dark Mystery, the One. When I try to "look into" this darkness, I see nothing and can grasp nothing, but somehow I "know" that I'm loved and cared for, and healed by His presence. I'm wondering what is the meaning of your experience of "being consumed".

The first one, as you write, was good and came through Jesus - it could be the "absorbtion" that STA describes - what did you feel after this ? (STA discerns it by examining the immediate fruits of it). Second, you say you were terrified... in my experience, at least, I've never been terrified by God (holy fear, of course, but in the holy fear there's no fear, so to speak, because you know that you're safe).

What you describe sounds a bit like the experience of facing the Emptiness - Phil writes in his book about being sucked by a "dark hole" at some point. Now I remember that I experienced a kind of absorption week or two ago, when for a moment everything disappeared but the abyss of the Father. It was short, and it wasn't scary - it was gentle, warm, and tender experience, at least, when I regained my consciousness after it. So my hypothesis is that we can be scared when we face Nothingess of Being, because our sense of self is confronted and threatened, but when we face the Nothingness that opens to us as Love, there's no fear, because our personhood is affirmed, even though the "self" may be suspended. The sense of self is not the sense of our personhood (another important thing I learnt in contemplation).

The experiences of the Trinity I'm referring to are now in:
http://shalomplace.com/res/Kun...ndtheHolySpirit2.pdf

quote:

Whether Bernadette lives in union with the Logos, we don’t know. Whether her reply to Mr. Arraj is the Logos speaking? We don’t know. I do believe it is possible to walk around in a physical body but spiritually be totally governed by the will of God. Since she still has a human body, she still speaks with her human voice, has to use her brain and body to function, she’s not going to speak like Jesus, because she doesn’t have his brain or body. Hindus call it laysha videya (I may not be spelling it right) where the union isn’t absolutely total because of the physical body.

Jasalerno, I see that Mt. has replied to some of your depthful reflections. Thank you for contributing to this discussion. Mt's point about there being no God apart from the Persons is well-taken; God is from all eternity Father, Son and Spirit. Of course, one may approach God as simply God, as we are dealing with one divine nature and one Being, and most religions come to the intuition and experience of God as such. The revelation of the Trinity is unique to Christianity, although something of a "type" or reflection thereof can be found in Hinduism's trinity.

Your points above are well-taken, and it is indeed difficult to categorize mystical experiences as complex as those described by B.R. Still, what we have to go on are her words, of which she has shared many, in an attempt to say something to indicate what she perceives to be the distinctive nature of some aspects of her experiences. My problem with her writings all along (as evidenced from my own "many words" on this thread) is not so much what she says as what she doesn't -- especially concerning her own human nature. For B.R., there is God, ego and self, with the latter two having little correspondence with what psychology describes as such. So we begin with idiosyncratic descriptions, and are left wondering what to make of the soul's innate subjectivity, not to mention B.R.'s personhood, which is obviously alive and well, with all of her faculties intact. So whatever one wants to make of B.R.'s "no-self" state (which she considers transitional), it is clear that this is not a no-soul or no-person state.

The experiences of absorption you describe sound like "ecstatic union." See this description from "Fire Within" to see if that fits. Maybe Mt and others would like to comment as well.

In the case of B.R., the issue of quietist mysticism cannot be discounted either. She notes in her book that she was given such feedback at times through the years.
- http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12608c.htm

Yes, Phil, Jasalerno description seemed to me something like STA's ecstatic union. Below her own words from the 5th mansions (chapters 8-9):

"Let us now speak of the sign which proves the prayer of union to have been genuine. As you have seen, God then deprives the soul of all its senses that He may the better imprint in it true wisdom: it neither sees, hears, nor understands anything while this state lasts, which is never more than a very brief time; it appears to the soul to be much shorter than it really is. God visits the soul in a manner which prevents its doubting, on returning to itself, that it dwelt in Him and that He was within it, and so firmly is it convinced of this truth that, although years may pass before this favour recurs, the soul can never forget it nor doubt the fact, setting aside the effects left by this prayer, to which I will refer later on. The conviction felt by the soul is the main point.
But, you may ask, how can a person who is incapable of sight and hearing see or know these things? I do not say that she saw it at the time, but that she perceives it clearly afterwards, not by any vision but by a certitude which remains in the heart which God alone could give."

Yet, there are similar states, in which the senses are suspended, known in the Eastern traditions as nirbija samadhi or nirvikalpa samadhi, or others. It's difficult to compare two "nothingnesses", except for their fruits. My initial experience, which made me convert to a search for God, was like that. For 30 minutes I was absorbed into pure nothingness, like a deep sleep, but I wasn't asleep and I didn't feel that any time passed. Afterwards, I was a different man, I started to look for God and in a couple of weeks my life changed completely. Yet I cannot say it was an "ecstatic union". I wasn't sure that "I was in God", when the state was over, since I was an atheist! I didn't believe in God. Because this state had such a profound influence on my life, I tend to think of it as a special grace, maybe even union with God beyond body and senses. But it might be just an experience of my own spirit absorbed in itself. I'll never know. Yet the good fruits make me suspect that grace was surely involved here. Later I haven't experience such an absorbtion to such a degree for such a long time ever, even during intense meditation sessions.

Any thoughts about that? I'm sure that my atheism woulnd't be a great obstacle to God in giving me any grace, but I have my doubts about this first experience of mine... (but I usually have doubts about my experiences, so...)


What you, Jasalerno, experience sounds like a prayer of full union. I remember Shasha described here some states of immersion into nothingness, "blank" states of consciousness, but interpreted it as natural samadhis induced by kundalini activity, as far as I can recall.

Yes, all these apophatic experiences have similar characteristics, which is why the apophatic traditions of the world religions seem more similar than different. I guess one's manner of faith and whatever one is left with in the aftermath of experiences of deep absorption is where the differences emerge. Whatever the case, it's difficult to imagine one experiencing deep rest and absorption in one's own spirit for any prolonged period. As w.c. has pointed out, the faculties are too unstable and would bring about some kind of disturbance.

quote:

I'm sure that my atheism woulnd't be a great obstacle to God in giving me any grace, but I have my doubts about this first experience of mine... (but I usually have doubts about my experiences, so...)

Why sure, God can do whatever God wants (that's what it means to be God, right? ). God knows the deepest desires and longings of the heart, and it may well be that some atheists are more open to God at that level than "true believers." We might also consider that the ontological situation for atheists is no different from the rest of us -- they are created and held in existence by God, and the risen, ascended Christ is also joined to their human nature. One's atheism doesn't change that fact.

I realize this thread may have grown a little too ragged for most over time, but coming to it as I am so late in the weaving I will just add my little piece as is. I speak as someone who has found Bernadette Roberts writings crucial and fruitful in my own path since the early 80s. In conjunction of course with John of the Cross, I have not found anyone more lucid and relevant to my own experiences of the dark nights. I am presently in a phase of re-engaging with her (primarily through "What Is Self?" this time through), and so it was that I came upon this thread, which I have read with deep interest.

I have been able to find Jim Arraj's "The Case of Bernadette Roberts," one of the foundations of this thread, but unfortunately have been unable to locate a text of BR's reply, which seems to have been removed from the friendsofBR website. It is available to be purchased, which I may well end up doing, but for the moment I can only speak of that ostensible second aspect of this thread's premise from the various points along here where her reply to JA was quoted. On the whole, however, I feel grounded enough in the whole of her work (as well as an exchange of letters with her some six or so years ago) to at least make a few remarks here.

I think the strongest initial impression that comes to my mind is the perception throughout this thread, seldom disputed, that BR is less than realistically engaged with the energies "below the neck" . I think this is a misreading of Roberts' work, in the terms of her fundamental simplication of contemplative experience into "above the neck" and "below the neck." In The Path to No-Self, p. 16, she equates "above the neck" with "the experience of self-consciousness made possible by the reflexive mechanism of the mind" and "below the neck" with "a gut-level feeling of personal energy or power," and in which category she includes "the sense of presence, infusion of love, prayer-of-quiet, will-to-God, and living flame of love. Here too we encounter the true center of being, the stillpoint, and realize our union with God, along with varying levels and degrees of interior silence. From the center arises the peculiar pain of God's absence, the wound of love, and the peace which surpasses understanding. There are other delicate movements in this region, but, altogether, these experiences are responsible for a sense of deep interiority and spirituality, and because of these experiences we say God is 'personal.'"

These are hardly the words of someone who devalues the contemplative experience below the neck!