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 |
 |
From Mt.
Very good little exercise, there, Mt. Another response from theology would be to consider the divine attributes of eternity and immutability. God lives outside of (but not separate from) space and time, so God does not come into existence nor "evolve" like creatures do. Hence, God's eternal existence implies immutability -- that God is not subject to change, at least not in the divine nature per se (there is obviously "movement" in the divine action, but this, too, is known by God in eternity). Philosophically, that which is personal (endowed with conscious intelligence and will) is of a higher order of being than the impersonal (which would be, presumably, unconscious and blind in its actions). I've never understood the reasoning behind those who maintain that a spirituality oriented toward an impersonal God leads to a deeper experience than that oriented to a personal God. My sense is that they really mean that apophatic mystical experiences are deeper than kataphatic, but even this isn't necessarily the case, and it certainly doesn't imply an impersonal nature for God. It does make sense that those who seek impersonal union would de-value the personal aspects of our human nature, especially the activities of the intellect. | |||
|
Well, I think that self/personhood problem is at core here... I wonder if anyone really delved deeply into that, or our little exchanges on SP are the only source...  I mean that "self" is surrounded by such amount of ideas, preconceptions, discourse etc. in contemporary spirituality, that it's impossible to determine what is really meant by the term. Generally, though, "self", and "separate self" (horrible!) are VERY BAD, and this is taken for granted. "Self" or "ego" is seen as a source of our evil deeds. Self that has boundaries is somewhat wrong. From that point there's really quick passage to the assesment of spiritual experiences. Those experiences in which we are conscious of our self, or we experience boundaries, we are somehow delineated, are lower than states without self or when self is somehow relativized/transcended etc. So, I guess, when people think about "personal God" they mean "God with a self", that means God with boundaries, determined, belittled, God like us. In Buddhism there are two ideas that sneak into Christian non-duality: 1. subject co-arises with an object, that means that if I see God as a person, I'm stuck with my small self, or when I'm stuck with my small self, I'll see God as a distinct object. 2. Formless/empty is prior to relative forms. If we say something positive of God (e.g. that he has some intentions or that he is in relationship to us), than we experience God as a form, and that's why he cannot be the absolute, formless. So personhood is equated with "self", and "self" with some limiting form that is less than infinity/the whole etc. Ergo, God has no form, no self, no personality. If we're able to bring into spiritual discourse the true understanding of personhood, which has nothing to do with what people mean by "self", maybe we'll make a change. Personhood is freedom, and freedom needs awareness and intelligence to make choices. Personhood is always in relationships. But God's Persons are infinite, so we cannot really imagine Them. And even our own deep personhood is "infinite" in its potential and openness, beyond our grasp or knowledge, free as an image of God. | ||||
|
|
All very good, Mt, and I think you're right that "self/personhood" is the core issue, here. Although these terms are often used as synonyms, I see a distinction, and the case of BR makes the point most clearly. Granting/conceding her experience of losing self (as she defines it, which is in quite broad terms), it's obvious that an individual person is still alive and well, making use of the faculties -- choosing, analyzing, writing, revising, etc. That's evidence of individual personhood by any standards, and as I've noted before, its metaphysical grounding is the soul itself, which is a created, individual spirit/form, albeit embodied. There's just no getting around any of that, at least in Catholicism. If we're able to bring into spiritual discourse the true understanding of personhood, which has nothing to do with what people mean by "self", maybe we'll make a change. Personhood is freedom, and freedom needs awareness and intelligence to make choices. Personhood is always in relationships. But God's Persons are infinite, so we cannot really imagine Them. Yes indeed! - see http://www.christendom-awake.o.../may/humanperson.htm - http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a1.htm - http://afterall.net/papers/490580 (thomistic viewpoint -- a summary below)
The essay goes on to clarify the meaning of person as individual, and the attributes of a person. Many of these discussions pertain to the abortion debates, but they are relevant to our discussion, here, as well. And here's Thomas in the Summa clarifying the meaning of Person (not easy reading): - http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1029.htm Now for Rahner, in his and Vorgrimler's Dictionary of Theology
Rahner offers no entry on "Self" in his Dictionary, so perhaps he would consider it a synonym with person? Here's a line from his entry on the intellect:
His "self" in "self-actualization" refers less to a psychological self than to the operation of our human spiritual consciousness. As you noted above, will cannot exist without awareness and intelligence. Now Rahner on "will".
Finally, Rahner on "soul":
OK, that ought to keep us busy.  But for those who do read all this and have read BR, please consider the implications.This message has been edited. Last edited by: Phil, | |||
|
Phil, I am sorry, but the implications with BR are not clear to me. The concept of personhood is clear.I feel my personality,my authentic self,not the ego's attempts to model me off someone to please, has grown with prayer.I am not at all clear what this has to do with self or no self."It is not I who live, but Christ Jesus within me"says Paul, and this "self"that receives life from Christ is a person, it is like He gives us our personhood, as we grow with the paradoxes of loving,the complexity of learning how to be fully ourselves.Where is BR's "self or no self "in this?Isn't this growth into personhood part of sanctification? I don't see why it matters if some are able to pray into the abyss of an unknowable God the Father or into the Beloved Son, form or no form--what matters is to allow God, as He choses to reveal Himself, access to our hearts and minds (and bodies, as I am learning with Pilates). I am confused, I admit it, but I think you could clear my confusion up quite easily, at least I hope so.(And of course, being able to give access to God is a grace of the HS.) | ||||
|
|
bdb, Mt and I are exploring the connection(s) between self and personhood/individuality. In terms of BR, the point is to say that the loss of self (as she describes it) doesn't mean the loss of individuality. Each of us is, and forever will be, an individual person. | |||
|
Yes,but what does it mean to lose"self"?I understand losing my ego,my "false self", as I grow in Christ, but I don't think that is what BR means.Maybe,I should just let this go.Using Tim F.'s analogy, BR serves him well navigating the coastlands of North Carolina, and I appear to be somewhere in the Great Plains. | ||||
|
Phil, I think what deserves to be mention is that personhood is not a part of human being, it's the whole human being. My body is so much my person, as my soul. At least, Thomistic philosophy emphasizes that we can make distinctions in our human being (intellect, will, emotions, body etc.), but we are the whole, not some part of it. Yet the problem arises because philosophia perennis suggests that "the self", the "I", is only a part of ourselves - in hinduism, buddhism, neoplatonism we find the same exercise which Plotinus prescribes (and those who know hindu and buddhist practice will see the similarities): "[we must] know soul, and the most divine part of soul. This could happen also in this way, if you first of all separated the body from man (and, obviously, from yourself), and thenthe soul which forms it, and very thoroughly, sense-perception and desires, and passions and all the rest of such fooleries..." (Enn. V.3.9) You see how different is that approach! Here "person" or "soul" is only "the most divine part", which is not the body, not sense-perceptions, not passions etc. This "witnessing" exericise leads us to the experience of our spirit, but spirit in its transcendence. This experience of our "spirituality" is so powerful, that we construct easily a metaphysical idea that this formless Witness is an entity separated from the rest of us (the ego etc.), and you know the rest... For me the "no-self" experience and the further experience of That Which Is, that BR describes, is reaching this aspect of human being - pure spirit in its "presence", "awareness". In that state there is no sense of separate self or "seer", because the spirit, as Rahner points out, is infinitely open to know and love That Which Is. But Spirit is also embodied, which means that its directed towards particulars, not only the Whole. Anyway, "the self" that we lose is only a part of ourselves, so it's not our "person" in Thomistic view. It's some type of cognition, I suppose. But if we identify our "person" with this "self", than we may think we lose individuality. By the way, the matter is called principium individuationis, which means, that what makes us persons is also our body which we hopefully don't "lose" in our spiritual growth. So, bdb, I think what is important here, is that we should think of the "self" as a facet of our present, embodied experience, which can come and go, be present or absent, but it doesn't have to do anything with us being persons. We're persons because we have bodies, we choose, we love, we understand etc. even if our experience of "we" is profoundly transformed. And, sth else. I think "false self" about which Father Keating writes, has little to do with the "self" that BR has lost. "False self" are rather our patterns of behavior, which are indeed often tied to our mental self-image. But I can imagine that we "lose self", and in the "no-self" state we still act on the "false self system". And we can be freed from "false self", but still be identified with our small "self" - think of so many saints which are not enlightened and never have experienced sth like what BR describes. We have three different things here, so far: 1. "Self" as personhood, the whole human person about which we can say "I" (like "I" wrote this post - not Phil, not Jesus who lives in me, not my brain or my hands: "me", "I" did it with my whole being) 2. "Self" as an aspect of our experience, a feeling of being subject against objects, of having boundaries, of being distinct-from (when I was writing this I didn't feel anything in me that I'd call a separate self sense - all my experience was unified in the "doing" - but at other times there is a feeling of being a subject "in here" in relation to objects "out there") 3. "Self" as an organized whole made by our needs, desires, patterns of reacting, beliefs. This can be a self organized around satisfying the needs of Mt only, not respectful of others, driven by sin. This self is created by us - in childhood and even now we change and our "self" changes, in therapy, meditation, prayer. We want to change this sinful self into holy self - holy desires, emotions, beliefs etc. (If I wrote this post out of need/desire/intention to know and understand the truth, to help others understand it, to share with you my thoughts and experiences in dialogue, eventually - to create a loving community of people searching for ultimate fulfillment etc., then I can say that it wasn't my "false self" that wrote this post, but, I can only hope , my Christ-self, inspired by the HS, used my faculties to do that. But e.g. yesterday I said sth to X from my "false self", and it was a sin, also made by my-self etc.)All those three and I think more of "selves" are in spiritual discussions, books, talks and dialogues. And sometimes I don't even understand which meaning is used. But you can easily see that all mess when you hear a psychologist talking to an adept of New Age or Buddhism. The latter wants to "live without the ego", and the first thinks he met a crazy person: "Without the ego? But without the ego you won't be able to delay gratification - how can you grow spiritually without your ego that says "no" to your instincts and desires?!" All that said, I must admit that there's some reason in all this "no-self" terminology, since when I began to experience the no-self state I used to talk to myself: "I'm not there! I don't exist! I can't find myself! The "I" and the world are not real!" But then I'd already read too much about it, unlike BR... | ||||
|
Thank you,Mt and Phil.I have had times of sensing that there is no "she", which I guess is the way BR lives.I still felt connected to the whole of me,it was not distressing to have no "me".I have a lot to think about, and I am so grateful for this forum.Thank you so much,Mt. | ||||
|
|
From Mt
Yes. And isn't it interesting that Thomistic (Aristotelian) metaphysics still turns out to be extremely relevant in such discussions as this and on others like abortion. It lost favor after Vatican II, but there's nothing equivalent that's replaced it. Fetuses and even infants don't have a self or ego, and neither do elderly people with dementia or many who are mentally handicapped. There can be no doubting the presence of an individual human being inhabiting a body, however -- a person. w.c. alluded to this earlier. You can't "prove" such a thing, of course, but you can surely sense it and account for it metaphysically. In my discussions/debates about this topic with pro-choicers, it's become clear that they don't really have another way of affirming individuality or personhood that doesn't exclude even born infants, mentally handicapped and elderly people from the human race.
Agreed. And we have bodies because we have souls; DNA alone cannot account for the totality of the human, not even our individuality. Identical twins have the same DNA but each has an individual soul, which is why they are different persons. So the body is an integral part of our personhood. When Jesus rises from the dead, his body rises with him, and he still possesses it in heaven.
BR doesn't speak of "false self," but her treatment of "ego" is close to Keating's idea, though not so psychological. For her, ego is more our "willful self" than what psychology usually calls Ego. In her schema, then, self cannot be lost without ego first having been lost, and this happens on the spiritual journey, establishing one in the unitive stage. When even the "unitive self" is lost, then it would seem there's no possibility of sin, as there's no one around to act in defiance of God. Taking the broader view of personhood, however, we can say that even if whatever we might mean by self is lost, there is still the possibility of choosing wrongly out of prior conditioning and indulging some aspect of social sin; even personal sin is still possible, as one can still have some kind of buttons pushed and act defensively and harmfully. Persons must always take responsibility for their behavior, and if they are followers of Christ, must seek forgiveness and reconciliation when wrongs are done, whether willfully or not. I liked your 3 examples of how "Self" is used and your point: All those three and I think more of "selves" are in spiritual discussions, books, talks and dialogues. And sometimes I don't even understand which meaning is used . . . Yes, you have to factor in context. Same with words like "love" or "life" and a lot more. Would that we had different words for each of these nuances like the Eskimos do for different kinds of snow. | |||
|
Yes, and notice the variance among the responses people have had to the no-self state. BR reacts and understand it one way. You react another way. Phil yet another way. It seems our individual personhood is reflected in our reaction to the no-self state. Our individuality is alive and well, yes, even as we are experiencing the same phenomena of consciousness?! I reported on my "blow out" experience of losing sense of self on the Tolle thread, I believe. When you look across these descriptions (and many more published elsewhere), we see that the descriptions are just about exactly the same; we use many of the same words to describe it; we show astonishment, puzzlment, amusement; there is often fear, even terror by some accounts. And eventually, we all integrate those experiences/ altered state of consciousness uniquely--evidence of our more profound personhood beyond our sense of self/no-self. We can over-value no-self, promote it as a preferable way of life, write books on it, etc.Something just ain't right if the personhood is denied throughout any of the non-dual, no-self experiences. I like that quote Phil sent out long ago by STA I believe it was. She said something about how all visions, locutions, mystical experiences are nothing compared to seeking and doing God's will no matter how bitter. Of course, all the eloquence of that quote is left out owing to my poor writing and memory.  I was at a charismatic Catholic gathering a while back. A deacon was sitting at my lunch table. We were talking about life from our death bed perspective. We agreed we didn't want to have any lingering regrets for how we lived our lives. Then he added shyly that he was really in love with his telephone gadgets and really wanted some new iphone thingy but was afriad God would not want him to get it! I was slightly taken aback by his genuine commitment to doing this little thing with God's approval, but this is how he organized his life, wanting to do God's will in every matter.This message has been edited. Last edited by: Shasha, | ||||
|
|
Right, Shasha. . . and even while we're in the process of integrating them, that "profound personhood" is "there." Even when we sleep, we are persons (though without a "self" manifesting -- think about that one: most of the definitions of "self" exclude the consciousness of deep sleep, so who/what would we be, then, if "self" were the basis for individuality?). That all seems so obvious and basic, doesn't it, yet it's amazing that personhood/individuality has become so difficult to affirm. I think the double-whammy of abortion-rights apologists and advaitan-like Eastern mysticism is behind much of this confusion. | |||
|
Mt, Sorry my response took so long. To clarify what I mean concerning "that we become possessed by him and there's nothing left of us" is that my will by increasing purity would become so aligned with God that my choice would be God’s will, not that I wouldn’t have free will, but that my will would be his. I think it is necessary to know both the impersonal and personal aspect of God so that we can appreciate his fullness. And, I don’t think one aspect is superior over the other. Like you, I value my personal relationship with Jesus and in my process of purification he was so tender with me at times not wanting his infusions of the HS to be more than I could bare. He was giving me a choice. I think our needs as a human being will be satisfied without our having to think much about it. What needs to be done will not come though the rational mind, but through our intuition. Our freedom to choose will be surrendered to God. It seems to me that God will act through us, but since we have a body, mind, soul while still on this earth, God acting through us will come across to others as a personality, but to us it will seem like it’s all him. We will love others with his love. Others will appear as not separate from us. Love will be all embracing, not between two individuals. Our choice will be surrendering into him loving through us. Imagine eternal love as all encompassing out to infinity. All individuals are inside that all encompassing love of God. God’s love is in us, then, and all around us so the love no longer flows from us to God. He has been swallowed up in our love. And we have been swallowed up in his love. I hope this makes some kind of sense. That’s the beauty of the inward life, we can know all persons of Trinity including the Father. Jesus took time out to be with him and I think he wants everyone to do the same. I don’t really know the answer to your question on what would be the source of the impulse to manifest. Scientists would say it is a force like the other side of a black hole, the big bang. The Hindu answer is that God as consciousness (they believe the impersonal God does have awareness or consciousness) wants to know himself so he comes out of himself and looks back upon himself and this creates the Trinity. God can only know himself through the creation because in his unmanifest form he can be aware of his existence, pure awareness, but cannot know himself until he looks upon himself as the Trinity. What I mean by Jesus not appearing to me in form anymore, is that I use to have visions of him in a bodily form, and He also showed me how he use to look when he walked the earth, not as I have seen him in any pictures of Jesus. I no longer have these visions, but I do still have relationship with him. I see him now as spirit, not form. My experience of him falling into me where there was no separation was a temporary experience. I still have both types of experiences. At first I missed the visions, but now I see they have served their purpose in cementing my relationship with him. | ||||
|
Phil, "Those are all beliefs that go beyond what your personal experiences can verify, and they all seem to derive from misunderstandings you have about what Christians believe about God's nature, the incarnation, original sin, the indwelling Spirit, etc. You also seem to sidestep any duty to "update" your understanding by studying, say, the Catholic catechism: There are so many varying interpretations and beliefs in both religions that lately I have a tendency to go by the revelations and experiences I have received . . . With all due respect, Christian core beliefs are hardly a "muddle," only I'm not sure you know what these are nor why they are held. Additionally: I once had a revelation that the word in written form has lost some of its relevancy, freshness, and it picks up the imperfections of the writer of the interpreter, and every time a new version comes out it looses some of its essence. A revelation that moves you to disregard the relevancy of scripture: what makes you think that one came from the Spirit? The general theological perspective and spirituality you're describing is much closer to Christian gnosticism or Hinduism (which does regard Jesus as an avatar) than to the apostolic tradition that brought us the New Testament and the Christian church. If that's where you want to be, fine with me, really, and your participation here is welcomed, whatever the case. I hope you're willing to re-examine some of these convictions as I do think there's a congruence between orthodoxy and orthopraxis. As you obviously value the latter, then I hope you'll come to see the connection. Are you willing to dialogue about all this?" It's true I don't receive all my belief's from just my personal experience. I'm hardly at the point where I know everything, so scripture is all that I have other than revelation. I'm just saying that I don't believe scripture is flawless and I would hope that at some point we will all be able to access directly from God and not just through the written word. This is the only way that we will know which religious scripture is the truth or that none of it is totally accurate. Yes, I interpret the bible differently then most Christians and some of it I just am unable to accept as the truth. The many denominations of Christianity do not have the same core beliefs so even within Christianity it has always been confusing to me which church I should go to. So I decided to go to a Pentecostal church because I like how they worship (very lively) but have to keep many of my beliefs private so as not to upset them. The revelation about scripture I believe is of the HS. Remember, even Jesus didn't completely follow Jewish scripture. He wasn't bound by it. As you have said, my beliefs don't really follow those of Christians and since this is a Christian forum, it's probably best that I discontinue my participation. I do appreciate that fact that you have invited me to stay, and I have enjoyed dialoging with you all. I find it interesting that Christians are now having to come to terms with the phenomena of kundalini that is not clearly brought out by the bible. If it hadn't been for your experience of it, you would never have accepted this well known Hindu experience. Am I right? So scripture isn't everything. I do applaud you for being more open minded then most Christians. As an after thought. I'm curious to know how BR relates to her children. She says she doesn't see them as no selfs. So how does she see them? Let's hope she can better integrate her experience of the impersonal God with the personal one. | ||||
|
Jasalerno, first of all, I want don't want you to "discontinue" your participation. I like your presence here - just to let you know. Discussion with people who have different views helps to understand our own views better. Sharing without trying to convince. How do you feel about doing that? You write that Jesus wasn't bound by the Jewish law. He said that not one iota will be changed of it. He changed cultural understanding of Judaism, not the Scripture. He said he came to fulfill the Law. You also write that the impulse to manifest could be explained by scientist/BigBang/Black Hole. For me it just seems impossible that Someone like God, with so much power and dignity as the Trinity, could "come to be" by accident or physical causes. I guess it's just a different image of God we might have. The same with God needing the universe to know himself - I believe that God is perfect from all eternity, so he doesn't need anything at all, not to know himself, not for any other reason. I also noticed that we disagree with regard to how we understand love. You write that there won't be love between individuals, because we'll all swim in infinite love of God. For me love is a decision of will, so there must be always two persons for love to exist. We can "swim" in our feeling of love, and in this feeling we can lose our sense of individuality: amen to that! To quote St. Bernard: "a droplet of water in the great amount wine, iron aflame, air permeated by light" - this happens in heaven, but it's about our experience, our feeling of love and God's love are one feeling of love. So we have different idea of love. For me love is not an infinite reality that doesn't need persons to exist (that's perhaps something like karuna in Buddhism), for me it's a decision of a person to give him/herself totally to another person. And about form of Jesus. When I said "form" I meant anything that Buddhists would call "form". Not only visual appearences, but also any sensations, feelings of love, any idea that Jesus is distinct from you, any feeling of flow from him to you etc. I wondered if this all is gone for you, replaced by Oneness without distinctions, or there's still feeling of being in relationship with him. In my own history, in December I was given a choice - to deepen my experience of oneness, of no-self, or to cultivate the sense of relationship with Jesus, in which I was distinct from Jesus. I knew I could have chosen either/or. And I chose relationship, because even the vague sense of relating to Jesus was for me more important than powerful non-dual states. | ||||
|
This enduring sense of personness seems so much more intimately related to the soul than the construction of self. We can see how self is dependent upon interaction within relationships by the way infants develop this sensibility; but they are persons to us long before that. So I think it follows what you all are saying that these nondual adepts, after apparently having their self-sense saturated with cosmic presence, would still live on in unique ways as personalities. Of course, I've heard Tony Parsons respond to this question as his personness being merely programming, or conditioning, but I think that is more descriptive of self's development than this unique spirit which indwells each person, and which we call personhood. You can hold two babies, and gaze into their eyes, even two identical twins, and each is a unique person without self identity. One's heart knows this to be true even though the mind flounders to understand or penetrate the mystery. And so the notion of God becoming a person via manifestation seems backwards to me. I'm aware of this notion through Kabbalah, but we are attributing so much from human perception that we're likely to be wrong in some ways with either pov. But since the deeper and more enduring mystery in human psychology is persons, something that intuitively doesn't seem reducible to nervous system development, I'd guess that God as persons, Trinity, is more likely preceding manifestation, in a similar way to personness preceding self-awareness in humans. As Mt relates, what would prompt manifestation but love? which is hardly needing to know Himself, since love is complete at all times or it isn't absolute, Divine love. Rather, to create out of love without need generates creatures who can receive without conditions, and this touches upon the mystery of personness we see in infants. We love them without reasons or conditions, as nearly as humans can do this, and they delight us in mysterious ways as they give so much just in receiving. This is the realm of personhood, not of self identity. We can't put our finger on the boundaries of personness, although each person is distinct, yet inviolable, and that seems a rough intimation of the Trinity. And so for God, as Jasalerno describes, to be aware of His existence, is, for me, his own loving nature, moreso than pure awareness, since the two must be the same in Him where love is absolute. To say He cannot know Himself before time is created is to imply He is limited in this love, even though infants, before self emerges, can certainly give and receive love. And as Mt describes love as more related to will than self development, I'd point out that much of our will is beyond conscious awareness. Benjamin Libet made this fairly clear in his research. The will is primarily beneath the surface of conscious awareness, and I'd say the same is true of personhood; hence the two are rather much deeper dynamics than self is. As such, losing self in an enlightenment experience is not much more profound than sadly seeing it somewhat obscure personness in a young child whose parents lose touch with his or her wonderous spirit or personhood which is the source of relational love in the soul (love always being relational, implying relationships, even as it may absorb us beyond self-other identifications as Mt points out), which leads to what we'd call "false" self. Interesting that, at least linguistically, we'd never think of calling a person a "false" person. The person remains an enduring spirit in the most hardened criminal, which is the tragedy beyond the henious crime, and why we still hold the "person," responsible i.e, conscience is more intimately related to personnness than to self, although it takes a self to act out the distortions within the heart. This is probably why taking delight in the happiness of others for their own sake requires the perfection of the Holy Spirit in the soul. When we can actually allow this to happen, through grace, we are even more happy in our self than when trying to modify our vulnerability through self-other-based interactions. To enjoy the unique spirit of the other is to dwell in our own shared mystery, received beyond self awareness. And since it is this spirit of the person which is perfected, it follows, however mysteriously, that personness is more closely the nature of that grace than nond-dual awareness. I'd also point out from hospice work that there is little evidence of nonduality being the culmination of the dying process; rather, it is the enduring personness of the soul, even after the ravages of Alzheimer's, that meets the presence of known persons already dead. | ||||
|
|
jasalerno, Christianity doesn't teach that the written word is the only way to access God. The church was alive and well for decades before the New Testament was written. The rest of your post reveals other misconceptions and misinformation as well. If you're open to dialoguing about some of this, we could do so on another thread, say the one on Why Christianity? in the theology forum. It doesn't seem that you are interested in doing so, however (Mt and I have tried several times) and I'm wondering why that is? It really would be a waste of our time and yours if you're not.
I would not say that kundalini is a Hindu experience; it's a human experience that one branch of Hinduism has focused on for its propensity to "engineer" higher consciousness. Yes, they've done good work in that area, but Christianity is not without its wisdom in these matters. Our mystical tradition is filled with examples of kundalini activity, and there is great wisdom in dealing with this and other "concommitant phenomena," as it is called. Indeed, I am comfortable saying that knowledge of kundalini is not necessary for its integration; it might even be an obstacle, as one gets over-involved with it. Kundalini per se is useless (even dangerous) without a religious foundation, and even moreso when such foundation is an ecclectic mish-mash to accommodate the ego. I've never seen it go very well if one isn't firmly rooted in an authentic religious tradition. I would also put in a plug, here, for spiritual direction, to get some good honest feedback from another who has wisdom concerning spiritual growth.This message has been edited. Last edited by: Phil, | |||
|
| ||||
|
Hi Tarantella, Good to meet you. Welcome to Shalom Place. I finally got a chance to view that clip you've posted above. I used to be very much drawn to Ramana Maharshi. He seemed like an unusually peaceful person. What about his teachings, in particular, do you feel are related to the discussion on this thread? RM describes his abiding in the state of Self--the sense/ experience that one's source of being is manifest in the diversity of the created world. Do you have a particular interest in RM? or Bernadette Roberts? How do you see their experiences as related? Hope you enjoy your browsing Shalom Place. | ||||
|
Hi there Shasha (and Jasalerno) I pop to these forums occasionally and my link was a response to Phil's request for direction. To correct you, Ramana describes it as abiding in the Self (not the state of Self) which is oneself being manifest in the diversity. ie. the Self would view these forums as being in a monologue with itSelf (though with many names) as opposed to the traditional view of the self which reads comments as coming from other selves. In this respect it is the Self not Ganapati Muni who walks up the hill to give the Self a new name. This may make things seem a little impersonal but on the contrary it is the opposite and the experience of it overwhelms to the point where retreat from contact seems necessary. An alternative is for the peaceful silence to prevail. The Self is not solely bound up in the lives of human beings but from the little I have read from Bernadette Roberts her humanity shines through. | ||||
|
I am presently reading Bernadette Roberts book titled "The Experience of No-Self". Along with starting to read this thread again. Has The Vatican or Church Hierarchy said anything about what Bernadette is saying and writing. Has this already been addressed on this thread? I've been goggling this but not finding anything so far. Thank you | ||||
|
|
Hi Mary Sue. Good to see you posting here again. To my knowledge, the Vatican hasn't issued any statements on Bernadette Roberts' writings. Part of the reason is probably that she's not a teacher in a Catholic institution, and her books aren't exactly best-sellers, either, so her influence isn't that widespread. If her writings were examined, I think they'd probably find a few things to gripe about, much as some of us have been doing on this thread. | |||
|
The Experience of No-Self Bernadette Roberts. The Experience of No-Self: A Contemplative Journey. Revised edition. Albany, N.Y.: SUNY Press, 1993. Paperback. 213 pages. ISBN 9780791416945. $29.95. Reading this book for perhaps the third time, and having engaged in lengthy discussions on the subject, I still don’t know what to make of Bernadette Roberts. She is best classified as a contemporary Catholic mystic. At the age of eighteen she joined a Carmelite monastery, where she spent the next ten years. Having reached the unitive stage of the mystical life, she left the monastery, married, and had children. The first two thirds of the present book describe what happened next: the transition from the unitive stage to the no-self stage. This no-self stage is, she admits, not described in any of the extant literature on Christian mysticism. Though she advocates no explicit contemplative technique, Roberts’ practice was essentially the practice of inner silence. She had found various types of mental silence over the years. One, for example, she experienced while wholly absorbed in listening to music. Another occurred while she rested in the “still-point” within. Drawn to these silences, Roberts eventually found a stillness so deep that she never wholly emerged from it. This began a series of strange and sometimes disturbing experiences, culminating in the loss of her sense of a self. At times she felt as though her being was in the grip of “icy fingers”; at times she perceived there to be only a single oneness filling the entire universe; at other times this oneness gave way to nothingness. The final third of the book discusses the issues raised by her story: responses from friends, the question of where Christ is in all this, and the question of what the self is to begin with. This final question is explored in (much) greater detail in her later book, What is Self? The revised edition of the present work omits a foreword by Fr. Thomas Keating that was included in original edition. See also Phil's review and comments on Amazon | ||||
|
|
Derek, did you mean to post this to the Book and Movie Reviews forum? Even if not, you could post it there as well if you'd like. Good review. Thanks. | |||
|
Phil -- In these times of austerity, I was economizing on the number of new threads started! Here is the link to your review on Amazon. Clicking on Comments gives your thoughts added at a later date. http://www.amazon.com/Experien...ending#RJ8UFB50E940Y You were asking how thinking is possible without a cognitive self-representation. This is from pp. 94-95 of the revised edition of The Experience of No-Self: "The first thing to be asked is whether or not self-consciousness is necessary for thinking, or if thinking goes right on without a thinker. My answer is that thinking can only arise [to begin with] in a self-conscious mind -- which is why the infant mentality cannot survive in an adult world. But once the mind is patterned and conditioned, or brought to its full potential as a functioning mechanism, thinking can go right on without any need for a self-conscious mechanism. At the same time, however, it will be a different kind of thinking. Where before, thought had been a product of a reflecting, introspective, objectifying mechanism -- ever colored with personal feelings and biases -- now whatever is to be known is spontaneously there. Furthermore, the known arises in the now-moment, which is solely concerned with the immediate present, thus making it invariably practical." Then you remarked: "And yet some kind of subjective human entity remains and I see no reason why this cannot be called a metaphysical self." Adyashanti says about this: "There is obviously a personality. There is also a sense of self. Enlightened or not, you will have a sense of self. Otherwise consciousness couldn't work in a body. Otherwise someone would call your name, and you would never respond." -- Adyashanti, Emptiness Dancing, pp. 141-142. | ||||
|
I've been re-reading "The Experience of No-Self" lately. There's one thing I sort of don't believe is possible. BR says that after her "self" disappeared, there was - and still there is - no internal movement or reaction of any kind, no feeling, no emotion, no desire etc. I don't think it's possible - not to get angry when someone's stamped on your foot, or scared when speak in public, and other human reactions. Notice, that I choose emotional reactions to here-and-now, because I know there can be no reaction to past and future. My explanation is that she exaggerates - she means there is no self-invested reactions, based on the energies of self, as she calls it. Is it really possible for the human brain not to react emotionally? The limbic system totally inactive? I think it's important, when we talk about such stuff, to be precise, because it can give bad ideas about spiritual transformation. I don't think that God wants to annihilate our emotionality - which is an "animal" part of our soul. The other thing - I read the notes from her retreat in 2006, I guess Derek placed them right at the beginning of this discussion. I've never read them before. I'm totally astonished. I mean, what she was saying sounds so crazy! Things that make no sense at all, contradictory statements... I will never believe that those statements of her (you can refresh your memory, if you don't recall them) come from some "higher intelligence", human or divine. | ||||
|
| Powered by Social Strata | Page 1 ... 13 14 15 16 17 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