quote:

Originally posted by Phil:
[qb] Fair enough, only I question your point about orthopraxis and orthodoxy. Lots of loving people out there who are theologically ill-informed, and lots of sharp theologians who aren't especially loving. [/qb]

When Gelpi and others say that orthopraxis authenticates orthodoxy, it is meant as a weak form of abductive inference, drawing, in fact, on the same type of distinction I have made between, on one hand, to correlate, and on the other, to indicate. For example, it is like saying that everything that is true is useful, so, if it is useful, absent other available evidence, then it is more likely to be true. But this does not mean that it necessarily is true, which would follow only from a deductive inference. So, yes, your point is well made. My point is that one cannot argue substantively with someone who inhabits a gnostic tautology. One has to test what they are suggesting in the practical realm, if it is even possible, to see if it works somehow. So, orthopraxis authenticates orthodoxy is a pragmatic approach, properly considered. As you know, there is an improper way to do pragmatism and that would be to assert the converse statement, which is that everything that is useful is true. And, of course, I wasn't saying that, although your response was geared toward defeating that type of notion.

quote:

Originally posted by Phil:
[qb] As for Richard Rohr, I agree that he's done some nice work. I don't think this is his area of expertise, however. I've also heard him give some social critiques ... [/qb]

Maybe my own political sensibilities are more in line with his, since my impression over the years is that he has been fairly even-handed, an equal-opportunity critic of positions all across the political spectrum.

quote:

Originally posted by Phil:
[qb] And Keating . . . you give him the benefit of the doubt based on your wider reading of his works. That ought not be required of a reader, however. I mean, come on, JB! The man comes right out and says nondual experience is a stage beyond Transforming Union. Bam! There it is. Black-and-white. No disambiguation required. That's what he said, and he even alluded to Bernadette's "grace of the Ascension." So that's a problem, and I see that he and Rohr are doing contemplative workshops together . . . that Rohr's next book is entitled The Third Eye. Keep a wary eye out. Rohr wouldn't be the first one to go loony over nondual teaching.[/qb]

Phil, in my heart of hearts, I just don't think you are going to see Keating and Rohr get into theological trouble with any type of gnosticism, arationalism or radical apophaticism. It is clear that relationality is essential to their understanding of the life of prayer and journey of transformation. Rohr even acknowledged that heresy is often the absolutizing of partial truth and, in my view, characterized even contemplative experience, itself, in just those terms, as but a partial truth.

To say that nondual experience is a stage beyond Transforming Union is, on its face, incorrect. I agree. One cannot read the rest of that article, however, and come away with the notion that Keating meant it ontologically rather than merely epistemologically. One cannot come away with that notion from even reading that sentence, alone, because it is sufficiently nuanced with the word experience. My problem with it, then, is that it does not explicitly draw the distinction between indicating and correlating, precisely because the word stage is being applied to what I consider to be, instead, a state.

quote:

Originally posted by Phil:
[qb] Btw, anyone else feel free to jump in about any part of what JB and I have been discussing, or anything from the exchange between B and Arraj (and our earlier comments). [/qb]

Phil, I wonder if you have any observations regarding my response to Rebecca's earlier inquiry re: No Self, since misunderstandings about just what it entails seem to be central to our discussions. I suspect you would approach it the same way but might use more of a Jungian prism as distinct from what I was doing with Lonergan's conversion, for example.

Also, in Jungian terms, perhaps, or even using Arraj's framework drawing on Maritain, what would you or Jim make of BR's distinction between what she is calling No Self (in her later works) and the Eastern conceptualizations for emptiness and so on.

Also, when BR speaks of having experienced a Unitive State and then the falling away of even that, which I take to indicate a falling away of even the experience of relationality, is she drawing a distinction between an ephemeral experience of transforming union versus being on the Unitive Way (classically understood), following the purgative and illuminative, so to speak? Finally, with regard to this post-transforming union experience, is she talking about that in the same vein, which is to ask whether or not she experienced it as an ephemeral state or takes it to indicate (rather than correlate) some type of level. In other words, in her telling, she is clearly drawing distinctions between glimpses and perduring experiences? What perdures for her? And what was ephemeral? What does she mean by way of experience, epistemically, and how does she contrast that with an ontological realization? From what I have gathered, she has extrapolated her experiences, however fleeting, however perduring, into ontological conclusions regarding the creature-Creator relationship. Why wouldn't the part and parcel of it all be fully reconcilable with a sufficiently nuanced panentheism vis a vis what I have referenced as the Divine Matrix (Joe Bracken's concept)?

For reference, here is the part of BR's response I am asking questions about:

quote:

The point I want to make, however, is that in the Unitive State there are further experiences; noteworthy among them are passing experiences of No-Self (I used to think of this as �sink-in and sink out�). John of the Cross and others speak of these experiences�see my quote from St. Bernard in my essay �Mystical Theology and No-Self.� It is because we do not see how it would be possible to remain in such a selfless state and still get around in this world, that we regard these passing experiences as a touch of heaven, a state that awaits us on the other shore. These passing experiences, however, not only alert us to the fact man�s final estate is beyond his earthly Unitive State, but alerts us that in this heavenly estate there is no self-awareness at all�as St. Bernard put it: we cease to be aware of our own existence. John of the Cross calls this a �Beatific Transformation��beyond the Unitive State, that is. The point is: the Unitive State is not man�s ultimate state; rather it is the Unitive State that leads to and ends in the ultimate heavenly estate. And let me add, No-Self is also not the ultimate heavenly estate. No-Self is not even meant for this world, it is not the condition in which God intended man to live, which condition is the Unitive State.

quote:

Originally posted by Phil:
[qb]

[QUOTE]What happens to Christian spirituality when non-dual consciousness is placed above the experience of Transforming Union as described by the Christian mystical doctors? As this is the goal toward which many Eastern practices are oriented, then why not simply dispense with lectio divina, the sacraments, church-going, scripture study and other Christian practices if, say, Buddhist practice will take one further? And what of the notion of Jesus as Lord, Savior, the One who connects our humanity with the Transcendent God? Buddhists get by without these affirmations; are they still important?

...
As you can see, I am deeply concerned about how this growing interest in non-duality is being discussed and taught by prominent and respected Christian teachers. QUOTE] [/qb]

Well said, Phil. Amen.

Does anybody else smell the FATHER OF LIES here?

Who else would have us believe that our highest
call is the experience of non-dual consciousness ?

Who else would have you downplay the Christian mystical union...?

It just doesn't add up that non-dual would be the highest state, stage, feeling, intuition, or experience. You can get non-dual from the right combination of street drugs! You don't need any religion.

As I've suggested before, on the Tolle thread, I wonder if these writers, as holy inspired as they are, have received a Baptism of the Holy Spriit, in the Pentacostal/Charismatic sense?

Without this Baptism, it may not be possible to receive the fullest experience, revelation, and knowledge of Christ.

Without the Baptism of the Holy Spirit, imo, the journey of the contemplative Christian could leave one vulnerable to some powerful illusions of metaphysical / supernatural realities.

(to nuance the word "experience," JB, I mean it in either of your definitions).

--------------

Anybody want to join me in prayer about this issue?

Father, we pray that you anoint and equip your teachers and leaders with great discernment.

Pour out your Holy Spirit, the Baptism of fire and water, the Promise, the Power, the Wind of your Spirit. Grant them full knowledge, wisdom, and revelation of You, Holy Father. Protect all those teachers of non-duality from the spirits of the anti-Christ, internal or external demons who hate the Light, who pull away from You in subtle and insidious ways and are beautifully disguised as truth.

We pray this in the Name of Jesus, whom we know as the Christ and the Son of Man.

BR writes:

quote:

These passing experiences, however, not only alert us to the fact man�s final estate is beyond his earthly Unitive State, but alerts us that in this heavenly estate there is no self-awareness at all�as St. Bernard put it: we cease to be aware of our own existence. John of the Cross calls this a �Beatific Transformation��beyond the Unitive State, that is.

Certainly, it is the nature of the ecstatic experience for the self to journey beyond self-awareness, but this is not the same as to deny its otherwise perduring ontological integrity, which St. Bernard does not do.

continuing with BR:

quote:

"You should be in this for love of God only and not for something you can get for yourself."

Christianity does not deny a role for eros in our relationship to God and others. A proper understanding of this, in fact, can be had from Merton's teachings on Bernardian love.

quote:

It seems any Christian who talks about man�s final estate entailing the loss of individuality is going to get thrown out, condemned, or mercifully ignored.

Again, there is no distinction being drawn between ecstatic journeying, which there is no a priori reason to deny vis a vis the beatific vision, and ontological extinction, which BR seems to clearly imply:

quote:

While we cannot have more or less of God (our Divine Center), we can certainly have more or less of self; and what gradually consumes this peripheral self is the Divine Center, the ever burning Flame of Love. Only when It has consumed all self, does It�s Flame go out, as Christ put it, God left him, it is finished�Self�s personal life with God is over and a different life begins.

Consider, however, how Peter Kreeft would counter:

quote:

What love-work will we do in Heaven, then?

We will complete the very love-works we are meant to do on Earth. There are only six things that never get boring on Earth, six things that never come to an end: knowing and loving yourself, your neighbor, and God. Since persons are subjects and not objects, they are not exhaustible; they are like magic cows that give fresh milk forever.

Just as Jesus on Earth loved each person differently and specially�he did not love John as he loved Peter, because John was not Peter�so we are designed to love people specially. There is no reason why this specialness should be removed, rather than added to, in eternity. Our family and special friends will always be our family and special friends.

Now, to be clear, BR says this:

quote:

And let me add, No-Self is also not the ultimate heavenly estate. No-Self is not even meant for this world, it is not the condition in which God intended man to live, which condition is the Unitive State.

Whatever the No Self experience has been for her, she is placing it, it seems, somewhere between the Unitive State and our Heavenly Estate, as a passing experience?

quote:

In the Unitive State one is automatically as aware of God as they are of themselves, thus I knew that with no self-awareness there would also be no awareness of God�my �Other half�.

That makes some sense to me.

quote:

"Hell -- You have to believe in it, but you don't have to believe there is anyone there!"

That, too, is doctrinally sound.

quote:

"The Nicene Creed shouldn't be as it's worded anyway. There never was a time when there wasn't a Logos or Holy Spirit. The creed seems to say otherwise."

See this thread where I wrote:

quote:

To amplify a bit, I have recently been contemplating this panentheist approach with an aim toward reconciling it with that of Gregory Palamas and the hesychasts. It does not seem to me to be a major stumbling block for Christian unity, no more than the filioque?

I think the filoque is what she seems to be talking about. I don't take serious issue with what she said here.

quote:

Thus we have to be careful not to assume we are all talking about the same event or experience.

She is right on here.

quote:

"I have no use for a non-personal God. It has to be a God that is personal and cares for us. The essence of the Trinity is relationship. It you didn't have a personal relationship with God, then why would you keep going? If God is utterly transcendent, then what does it matter? You might as well be agnostic."

She seems to clearly affirm relationality and a personalist perspective here, which seems to cast her narrative in an epistemic sense, at least for the earthly portion of our sojourn. But this doesn't square with the manner in which she describes our otherwise heavenly estate, per the beginning of this post? I wonder how she reconciles this. I wonder if she is victim of her own inartful expression, lacking a sound philosophical lingua franca and metaphysical understanding, yielding the theological faux pas here and there? I remain a member of that particular club myself.

quote:

Originally posted by Shasha:
[qb] Does anybody else smell the FATHER OF LIES here? [/qb]

I am not willing to participate in such a conversation. I think we can safely proceed with the premise that mistakes are being made with philosophical and metaphysical categories that emerge in erroneous theological assertions. And I think I have provided some categories and distinctions that can accomodate these various experiences, East and West and Bernadette (poet and don't know it), to some time-honored psychological, philosophical, metaphysical and theological approaches to formative spirituality. We can see how, in good faith, such mistakes are made and how, with due care, they might be easily overcome. That people will get defensive and go ad hominem when they feel straw-manned, one by the other, misrepresnted because misunderstood, is understandable. So, I welcome your spirit of prayer and reconciliation even as I am not comfortable whatsoever with ascribing demonic influences.

When the clash of ideas devolves into a clash between persons, people, perhaps, need to step back and do some introspection to see what lessons their emotions are teaching them about their own internal milieu, both psychologically and spiritually, and commit others' formation, reformation and transformation to the hands of God. If such conversations as this bring on emotional turmoil, then perhaps one is not being asked to take on such a burden as confronting this or that error, especially if such turmoil seems to interfere with one's freedom of response and peace of mind. Or, it could be a sign that God is calling one in such a direction (since our emotions also can yield info about our external environment) but that a cooling off period is required and the counsel of others might be sought, for seldom is such a battle ours, alone, to fight.

Let us pray.

quote:

Originally posted by Shasha:
[qb] Who else would have us believe that our highest call is the experience of non-dual consciousness ?

Who else would have you downplay the Christian mystical union...? [/qb]

Consider what Fr. Keating wrote, for example:

quote:

Non-duality is clearly a state beyond what is called in the Christian contemplative tradition �Transforming Union.� The Cistercians, Franciscans, Carmelites, and other religious groups have described this state as �bridal mysticism.� It involves the union of love with God in which the will and intellect are united to God, whether in interior trials such as the feeling of God�s absence or the delights of mature, apophatic contemplation. The unifying force of divine love draws and unites the soul into ineffable experiences of union with the Beloved and forgetfulness of self.

Metaphorically, the way I have received this all is that, this nondual self-forgetfulness is an ecstatic journey on which we venture and from which we return, again and again and again. This bridal mysticism is nothing less than Divine intercourse of those otherwise already joined in Mystical Union. To be metaphorically explicit, it is the difference between Marriage and the Marriage Bed. As with Bernardian love, we go beyond but not without self. There is, then, no need to conceive of this as a downplay of any sorts.

quote:

Originally posted by johnboy:
So, I welcome your spirit of prayer and reconciliation even as I am not comfortable whatsoever with ascribing demonic influences.

...
Let us pray. [/QB]

I think of the 'demonic' as anything that pulls away from Christ, what He wants to teach, how He would have us grow. Demonic influences support false teachings, confusion, etc. even as they are done in good faith and loving intentions...

I agree with you there's a desperate need for clarification and nuancing of terms on this issue...there's also the reality of supernatural forces that uphold confusion and the promotion of lies.

I include myself in that prayer as one needing God's Spirit to understand and talk about this stuff.

And, in fact, I did seek the counsel from my spiritual director yesterday about this issue ...she advised me to cool down too, in so many words... I think I'm cooled down today and it was from a place of peace and freedom that I prayed above.

quote:

Originally posted by Shasha:
[qb]

quote:

Originally posted by johnboy:
So, I welcome your spirit of prayer and reconciliation even as I am not comfortable whatsoever with ascribing demonic influences.

...
Let us pray. [/qb]

I think of the 'demonic' as anything that pulls away from Christ, what He wants to teach, how He would have us grow. Demonic influences support false teachings, confusion, etc. even as they are done in good faith and loving intentions...

I agree with you there's a desperate need for clarification and nuancing of terms on this issue...there's also the reality of supernatural forces that uphold confusion and the promotion of lies.

I include myself in that prayer as one needing God's Spirit to understand and talk about this stuff.

And, in fact, I did seek the counsel from my spiritual director yesterday about this issue ...she advised me to cool down too, in so many words... I think I'm cooled down today and it was from a place of peace and freedom that I prayed above. [/QB]

Very good, Shasha! I'll pray for your peace and shalom.

While there are supernatural realities, we cannot discount the influences of the world and the flesh, as they say. When people seemingly fail to cooperate with grace, we cannot attribute same to sin versus error, much less the devil. In addition to formative and reformative and transformative influences, there are manifold and multiform deformative influences. Spiritual discernment is difficult enough in our own spiritual direction. It is not to be facilely engaged from a distance regarding others' life influences.

Where to begin . . .

I've been in and out of BR related discussions for over 20 years, and here's what it comes down to:

a. She's wonderful when describing her relationship with God and how she has experienced this along the way. Few have written with such depth, clarity and even beauty as she has, which is why I've re-read her books again and again.

b. She doesn't really address metaphysical/philosophical issues concerning human nature and individuality, but her descriptions of her experiences often sound as though she's making claims or drawing implications on that level. On an Amazon review of "The Experience of No-Self," I wrote:

quote:

Still, to me, what is sorely lacking in Bernadette's account is a philosophical/metaphysical understanding of human nature. It's fine to describe self as reflexive consciousness and to describe how this diminishes and, finally, is lost on the contemplative journey. What is missing, however, is further consideration of the soul and its faculties, which obviously perdure. There is still thinking, reasoning, choosing, etc. going on as well as learning and growing, only without the constant internal referencing that happens in reflexive consciousness. And yet some kind of subjective human entity remains and I see no reason why this cannot be called a metaphysical self (soul self, soul consciousness, etc.).

The lack of necessary attention to this issue naturally leads to the view that what she's describing is what the Hindus call Advaita and the Buddhist "enlightenment," and it hasn't helped matters that she, herself, has seemed to suggest as much in her own writings. This philosophical lacunae has also distressed some who've read her works, as it seemed she was saying that our individual life will be lost in God. Rebecca's sharing has hinted at this, as has this Amazon.com reviewer.

quote:

Deo Caritas est - For Bernadette Roberts union with God seems to be an eternal deadening void. No Thanks! Try dancing one night or swimming in the ocean or loving a child... ! I may not achieve enlightenment, but I do experience joy. I think Ms. Roberts is completely without joy - depressed, mentally disturbed. And of course she admits to not being there anymore, but instead with the ONE. How does one write books when they are no longer a separate being. I thought God would be a better writer - funnier, more loving, more clear.

c. She draws theological implications from her experience that are questionable:
- my note on the Logos and Incarnation in the opening post;
- "I don't believe in original sin. It's ridiculous. We're born without sin but not perfect."
- "God doesn't know who he is!" (who says?)
- a comment she made at a workshop I attended to the effect that there's no longer an individual human "Jesus" post-Ascension.
Maybe some of these could be cleared up with dialogue, but that doesn't go very well, believe me.

Concerns:

d. Her influence on people like Keating and Wilber:

quote:

Ms. Roberts' experiential approach clarifies several important points that have remained obscure in the writings of Christian mystics of the past. Primary among these is her powerful affirmation that the state of Transforming Union is a preparation for a further stage of divine transformation which, for lack of any classical Christian expression, she calls the experience of no-self. (Thomas Keating, from the back cover of The Path to No-Self

Sure sounds like he's endorsing her "clarification," no?

Wilber has also enthusiastically endorsed her work, I guess because he sees it leading to the advaitan experience he prizes as the ultimate.
Given the current hullabaloo about nonduality as promoted by Eckhart Tolle, Deepak Chopra, Ken Wilber, Andrew Cohen, and a host of New Age writers who view these men as top-level gurus, B's work is significant in that it is often cited as a Christian example of advaita. The irony is that she's not in agreement with them at all, as evidenced in this response by her to Jim Marion's works. She has only herself to blame for leaving herself open to being misunderstood, however -- this due largely to her lack of a metaphysical accounting for the soul. It's not like she hasn't been invited to do so, however.

----

You inquired about my own view of non-duality, JB, and I've elaborated extensively on the Eckhart Tolle thread and elsewhere. In short, I think this is naught but a deep experience of Longergan's first stage of conscious experience, "Being Attentive." What follows -- being intelligent, reasonable, and responsible -- pretty much implies reflectivity. The more such are quieted, the more available our natural, pre-reflective awareness emerges, and the more direct and intimate a sense of connection with other creatures. This is how I understand "natural mysticism," the soul awake to itself and creation prior to acts of reflection on what is perceived. Depending on one's manner of faith-formation, God will be present in different ways, and one's spiritual intuition will be attuned differently. This simplifying of attention is part of what goes on in the Christian contemplative journey, and I suspect that a great deal of B's experiences can be explained along such lines.

quote:

Originally posted by Phil:
[qb] You inquired about my own view of non-duality, JB, and I've elaborated extensively on the Eckhart Tolle thread and elsewhere. In short, I think this is naught but a deep experience of Longergan's first stage of conscious experience, "Being Attentive." What follows -- being intelligent, reasonable, and responsible -- pretty much implies reflectivity. The more such are quieted, the more available our natural, pre-reflective awareness emerges, and the more direct and intimate a sense of connection with other creatures. This is how I understand "natural mysticism," the soul awake to itself and creation prior to acts of reflection on what is perceived. Depending on one's manner of faith-formation, God will be present in different ways, and one's spiritual intuition will be attuned differently. This simplifying of attention is part of what goes on in the Christian contemplative journey, and I suspect that a great deal of B's experiences can be explained along such lines. [/qb]

Very well said! I have always seen a giftedness in the East vis a vis the epistemic step between human sensation and abstraction. And in the West vis a vis the step between abstraction and judgment. And then there is Love ... where to begin, indeed ...

quote:

Originally posted by Phil:
[qb]

quote:

Ms. Roberts' experiential approach clarifies several important points that have remained obscure in the writings of Christian mystics of the past. Primary among these is her powerful affirmation that the state of Transforming Union is a preparation for a further stage of divine transformation which, for lack of any classical Christian expression, she calls the experience of no-self. (Thomas Keating, from the back cover of The Path to No-Self

Sure sounds like he's endorsing her "clarification," no? [/qb]

In a compare and contrast exercise, I would not think his is a wholesale endorsement. I'd bet that he and Rohr would agree moreso, in the final analysis, with my "clarifications." (Alas, I am but a low-level guru whose thoughts won't get entertained in such high-level circles). Again, he uses the word "experience." Although, again, there is equivocation between states and stages, the failure to explicitly distinguish between ordinary correlations and necessary indications. I still think there is an experiential distinction between unitive states and ecstatic journeying that may be in play here and that intuition is bolstered by my numinous experiences of yesteryear with which you are well acquainted. Does that fit your paradigm, notwithstanding that others may be either retelling their narratives inartfully or may be in clear error, philosophically, metaphysically and hence, theologically? Maybe I am imputing too much of my vision thru my prism to that of others' vis a vis the benefit of the doubt?

quote:

Originally posted by Phil:
[qb] Maybe some of these could be cleared up with dialogue, but that doesn't go very well, believe me. [/qb]

LOL! I believe you ole buddy. I REALLY do!

SHALOM!
jb

JB, one more point re. Keating, and that is his reliance upon Wilber in articulating stages of spiritual growth. If you ever get your hands on a copy of Invitation to Love, check out Appendix III, where Keating relates the Christian spiritual journey to the evolutionary model (chain of being, a la Wilber) as follows:

Evolutionary Model - - - Christian levels of relating to God.

1. Reptilian

2. Typhonic

3. Mythic membership

4. Mental Egoic - - - Lectio Divina

----------------- - - Night of the Senses

5. Intuitive - - - Teresa's stages of prayer

----------------- - - Night of the Spirit

6. Unitive - - - Transforming Union

7. Unity - - - Unity

The last stage, Unity, is a nondual state a la advaita, only the Christian comes to it after having passed through the Christian formation process.

My own take on how these levels interact is different, as I view the classical Christian stages (purgative, illuminative, unitive) pertaining to the level of relationship with God (plot on vertical axis of graph) and the evolutionary stages (a la chakras) corresponding to levels of consciousness development (horizontal axis):

Like so:



Following Jean Gesber's approach, I use the terms Integral and Spiritual where Keating/Wilber uses Intuitive and Unitive. The various lines indicate developmental possibilities.
Green = Jesus
Red = someone like Teresa of Avila
Brown = perhaps some young Saint
Black = a somewhat evolved person who hasn't surrended much to God.

I think what's missing from Wilber's AQAL is this dimension of verticality, but, then, he's never talking about a relationship with God. I also think it was a mistake for Keating to relate the traditional stages of Christian growth to Wilber's model.

Maybe that helps to clarify some of the questions you were asking about how I view states, stages, etc.

quote:

Originally posted by johnboy:
[qb] While there are supernatural realities, we cannot discount the influences of the world and the flesh, as they say. When people seemingly fail to cooperate with grace, we cannot attribute same to sin versus error, much less the devil.

[/qb]

I'm praying against evil /the devil as in Ephesians 6:12

For we are not wrestling with flesh and blood, but against the powers, against [the master spirits who are] the world rulers of this present darkness, against the spirit forces of wickedness in the heavenly (supernatural) sphere.

I'm not condeming anybody, JB, just praying for our protection against such forces.

quote:

Originally posted by Phil:
[qb] I also think it was a mistake for Keating to relate the traditional stages of Christian growth to Keating's model.

[/qb]

Phil, do you mean Wilber's model above?

Who is represented by the blue line in your graph?

quote:

Originally posted by Shasha:
[qb]

quote:

Originally posted by Phil:
[qb] I also think it was a mistake for Keating to relate the traditional stages of Christian growth to Keating's model.

[/qb]

Phil, do you mean Wilber's model above?

Who is represented by the blue line in your graph? [/qb]

Oops, yes. I've fixed it.

The blue line is Johnboy's profile. (actually, no one in particular; what kind of development does it suggest to you?)

quote:

Originally posted by Phil:
[qb] If you ever get your hands on a copy of Invitation to Love, check out Appendix III, where Keating relates the Christian spiritual journey to the evolutionary model (chain of being, a la Wilber) [/qb]

These diagrams are interesting, but B herself points out the limitations of applying one person's stage model to another person:

quote:

I don't think we should get locked into any stage theory: it is always someone else's retrospective view of his or her own journey, which may not include our own experiences or insights.

Quoted from the Yoga Journal interview reproduced at http://www.spiritualteachers.o...oberts_interview.htm

quote:

Originally posted by Phil:
[qb] Still, to me, what is sorely lacking in Bernadette's account is a philosophical/metaphysical understanding of human nature. It's fine to describe self as reflexive consciousness and to describe how this diminishes and, finally, is lost on the contemplative journey. What is missing, however, is further consideration of the soul and its faculties, which obviously perdure. There is still thinking, reasoning, choosing, etc. going on as well as learning and growing, only without the constant internal referencing that happens in reflexive consciousness. And yet some kind of subjective human entity remains and I see no reason why this cannot be called a metaphysical self (soul self, soul consciousness, etc.).[/qb]

That's an interesting suggestion -- that the soul is something different from the cognitive sense of self.

phil i think my personal profile on your graph would look like someone freaking out on a lie detectors graph! LOL, rebecca

quote:

Originally posted by Shasha:
[qb]I think of the 'demonic' as anything that pulls away from Christ, what He wants to teach, how He would have us grow. [/qb]

I'm thinking along different lines -- that what happened to B is a purely psychophysical effect resulting from an unusual practice.

Obviously, B's prayer life led her to experience a deep inner peace and stillness, and that peace is supported and encouraged in the tradition -- see, for example, Ascent of Mount Carmel, book two, chapter 13, para. 7.

What B then did that was different was to try to maintain this stillness in everyday life, no matter what was happening around her:

quote:

Then it occurred to me that patience, and perhaps all virtue, had a great deal to do with our nerves, and that the essence of virtue was to be completely unnerved--to have no nerves at all, that is. What could possibly try us if we had no nerves? Such a bodily condition would be near to a heavenly state; indeed, one could walk through fire, through death itself, unscathed and untouched.

That's from B's description of Phase IV, the marketplace phase, in The Path to No-Self (SUNY, 1991) pp. 139-140.

This is where B deviated from anything I'm familiar with, and set off in an idiosyncratic direction. I've never heard of anyone trying to dissociate themselves from their feelings like that. If practiced consistently for a decade or more ... isn't it possible that this by itself led to her loss of self?

johnboy, and all,i just LOVE you people, but seriously...my brain hurts!this website for me is growing me( not only in vocabulary,i'v had to get FIVE dictionaries)but also helping me to clarify and clear my thoughts on where i am and where i want to go with God.there are many points JOHNBOY, that i want to respond to, but quickly(i hope)i want to share some of my background, so that all can know where i am coming from, in the hopes of your continuing knowlege and support.( which i DO appreciate!)mabe some of you can relate.many of my AHA moments do come "bubbling up from the unconscience(jung), i assume because of my childhood. yes i have a struggle with too much emotional energy and quieting the noise.this is perhaps why God often ( well, only four times in my life,...often!)contacts me when i am sleeping.you see, i was the oldest of seven children and from a DEVOUT irish catholic father and a mother who sufferred from mental illness( depression and personality disorders)and who was raised by an abusive southern baptist father.i was raised in the catholic schools in the 1950's and 60's.('nuff said!ha!)however, after having full responsibility for my siblings most of my childhood( my very sweet father was a charitable vollunteer)i ran away from home at the age of 15. i'm sure that my fathers prayers saved me from anything horrible happening to me. i also had an uncanny fearlessness, which could have only come from God.( my southern baptist maternal grandfather tried VERY hard to put the fear of 'the devil' in me at a young age )through all of my pain, there was also a blessing.( one blessing was my all consuming search for answers,which has led me to read hundreds and hundreds of books on philosophy, religions,east and west; self help; ect.,ect.)after some traumatic events during my marraige, i shook my fist at God one nite and was on the brink of suicide, and cried myself to sleep. i told God that i had truly searched for Him all my life and that he had NEVER shown Himself to me.at 5 o'clock that morning, i was awakened with a jolt! i was on fire with an indescribable powerful feeling of LOVE. words are insufficient.this WAS THE HOLY SPIRIT! one of the gifts i recieved was a HUGE weight of guilt lifted off my shoulders. i also no longer really cared about what other people think of me( to a point, i still wear blush LOL!)i continuously crave growth in my christian walk, but also try to live in TRUTH which is acceptance of myself as being a mere WORM, and of course laughing at that!raising my children and now grandchildren and dealing with the mental problems in my family has servred to catapult me toward full TRUST IN GOD!!!HE has truly led me,gently 'line be line, precept upon precept', and i have dealt DEREK, with the pain of the aloneness, with breathing exercises, therapy( enough is enough)twelve step, more reading( love this website)and of course,LOVE.the scriptures are always there for me and i read them often. my favorite is romans 12. however i am VERY eclectic in my reading( mostly non-fiction) and still have the complete collection of CARLOS CASTENEDA books from the 70's. JB, i understand what you mean by LONERGANS CONVERSION, his definition of religion fits me very well, but i run into the problem of not being able to talk with those who think of religion of just a fundamentalist thing. so i try to break everything i learn down to the simplest terms, because (as someone referred to on an earlier post, JB i think)Gods Truth MUST BE very simple in order to reach ALL men, even the simplest of them!(US) after all, jesus said, "...WE MUST BECOME LIKE LITTLE CHILDREN TO ENTER INTO THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN."", and also that "THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN IS WITHIN" . i also have another question about BR. why did she(at the end of her book"THE PATH TO NO SELF", state that is is extremely important to pay pay close attention " to intuitive movement and change, even the most subtle, because this is where it's at!" i am thinking that is is more important to TRUST GOD than to analyze every intuitive movement, since we don't really know always where the 'movement' is coming from.(i.e. the mind, body or soul) peace, rebeccap.s. so it is true... LOVE IS ALL THERE IS,... Love is all there is...love is all...love.

sorry about all the type o's. again,NO SPELL CHECK! apparently phils MAC does not compute to my HP. rebecca

i tend to agree with derek. i think that BR's life was very intense on so many levels that it became 'a work in progress' for her to get herself to a place of TRUE PEACE. this is just a guess, not to say that she was consciously 'trying' to attain a 'goal', but that the balance of her prayer life with her personal life was perhaps very stressful and to SEEK GOD was her saving GRACE. perhaps God took her to where she wanted to go? ( be careful what you pray for) i can relate to THAT! i have wondered MANY times how she dealt with her children and husband during her states of prayer and states of consciousness in the Spirit.an amazing accomplishment( or feat) in itself, let alone writing in such a detailed way about it. rebecca