Rebecca et al, I love you all, too, but now must return to my place of peace. Thanks for the generosity of your personal sharing. Personal sharing and story-telling are the quintessential way to fellowship and grow together. God seems to have made us this way and we should honor this! If my and Phil's exchanges are not replete with stories but colored with dry philosophy, I hope that a lot of that is due to the fact that we already know each others' stories after ... what is it ... it'll be 35 years this fall! It would not be prudent to publish much of it on the Internet though! LOL!

Take care, all.

Deep, deep peace
jb

ahhha, so your place of peace is not with us? hope to hear from you again, until the we are all one! deep,deep,peace also.rebecca

quote:

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

Derek, from that interview you provide, B. writes


As a Christian, I saw the no-self experience as the true nature of Christ's death, the movement beyond even is oneness with the divine, the movement from God to Godhead. Though not articulated in contemplative literature, Christ dramatized this experience on the cross for all ages to see and ponder. Where Buddha described the experience, Christ manifested it without words; yet they both make the same statement and reveal the same truth - that ultimately, eternal life is beyond self or consciousness. After one has seen it manifested or heard it said, the only thing left is to experience it.
--------------
Yeah, right, Buddha and Jesus reveal the same truth. Jesus merely manifested by His death what Buddha described...I dunno about you folks, but I�m calling that a lie�theological error, lack of semantic nuancing...?

Good night, John Boy.

Thank you for all the time, energy, thoughfulness that you poured into this discussion. I appreciate your teaching gift.

Christ's peace to you and your loved ones,
Shasha

Derek wrote: 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?

Shades of quietism, Derek. She even mentions somewhere that a mother superior or someone told her she was a quietist. That would lead to a Buddhist-like enlightenment state, which she obviously resonated with. I agree with Shasha that equivocating this with the crucifixion and eternal life is quite a stretch.

Rebecca, spell-check is usually provided on one's computer, usually (in this case) a plugin on the web browser (Firefox, Internet Explorer, etc.). If you can't get that to work, then what some do is write the post on their word-processor and spell-check it there, then cut/paste to post here. This forum doesn't require precise grammar or spelling, however; informal expression is welcomed.

The transformative experience you shared above is a good example of a blessing in the Spirit. I also agree that we cut to the chase if we let love and its directions guide our ways, praying for guidance from the Spirit as we do so. We believe that God IS love, so we know we're in God and God in us if love is what we're about.

JB, keep checking in on this one when you have time. I'm certain there's no other discussion about BR, nonduality, etc. like this on the web, and our little group here is doing some good sharing and reflecting on this topic.

wow phil! all this AND online computer training!LOL. thanks,rebecca

quote:

Originally posted by Phil:
[qb] OK, I know that's a caricature, but, as I noted above, this is the underlying "story line" that offends Christian faith. And rightly so, I believe. [/qb]

It has been said that we know more than we can tell. And this is true in many ways. Think of kinesthetic intelligence and athletic prowess. Some excellent musicians never learned music theory but can just play, often at very early ages. We can navigate our way around this town or that, but couldn't give directions. There are multiple "intelligences." The same is true for our somatic experience; doctors and nurses use a simple number scale to try to crudely gauge our pain levels. Cardinal Newman described what he called our illative sense. Jung and Maritain addressed our intuitive knowledge. There are parts of our brain that process our phenomenal experience that have few or no linkages with other parts that govern our linguistic faculties. And so on and so forth.

The converse is also manifestly true: We can tell more than we know.. And we see people do this in a thousand mundane ways. Sometimes tentatively. Sometimes dogmatically. And when they traffic in falsifiable claims, sometimes they get caught. But when they traffic in nonfalsifiable claims, often they get away with it.

The only way we can attempt to adjudicate conflicting nonfalsifiable claims is to evaluate them from a pragmatic perspective, cashing out their value in terms of practical significance: If I believe this and act on this, what are the implications? If there are none, then such claims are likely harmless and useless.

Clearly, though, as we discussed previously, our images of God, our beliefs about the Father almighty, the Creator of heaven and earth, Jesus Christ, His Son, our Lord, the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic church, and the communion of saints and forgiveness of sins and the resurrection of the body and life everlasting, the efficacy of sacraments, the exegetical approach to scripture, the contemplative tradition and on and on --- all have tremendous existential import and profound practical implications. How do we pray? To Whom can we go? What can I know? What can I hope for? What must I do?

Because we are dealing with deep mysteries, which we can penetrate but not grasp, which we can partially apprehend but never fully comprehend, much of church dogma is articulated with clear references to but not robust descriptions of these sacred mysteries, which with Mary, we must ponder in our hearts, the essence of contemplation. Our descriptions necessarily remain vague. Earlier on our journeys, our faith is clear but tentative. Later on our transformative paths, universally, the church doctors and mystics report that our faith becomes obscure but certain.

So, we have two criteria for evaluating claims: 1) practical implications for the life of faith and 2) proper articulation of sacred mysteries. And those, in a nutshell, describe what this thread has been about. We have discussed theological claims against time-honored doctrine and related traditions. We have discussed implications for the life of prayer and our walk with the Lord. And, yes, we have approached it with high-fallooting categories and terms, which is helpful in one way, but acknowledge, too, that good old common sense can be even more helpful in many other ways.

This much I know to be true. There is SO much in physics that we have not settled. There is WAY too much in philosophy of mind that remains unanswered. How MUCH MORE, then, metaphysically, regarding consciousness and reality's other givens in terms of primitives, forces and boundaries we simply do not yet know! Ergo, HOW woefully ignorant we are regarding things theological, where our language of the realm is vaguely descriptive even if otherwise robustly referential and relational!!!!! Anyone who supposes they really have consciousness figured out, along with the Great Chain of Being, let me know, and I will forward your theory to those who are busy trying to reconcile gravity and quantum mechanics!

If you hear anyone telling this untellable story, then I suggest you pay no heed. Jesus already issued this injunctive regarding Last Days and such. Who needs mine?

If anyone comes back from an ineffable encounter and effables in clearly descriptive terms, then, by definition, they are telling more than they can tell. Now, I am not saying that the cure for gnosticism is agnosticism. Neither is it the cure for dogmatism. The human epistemic approach is, rather, fallibilist. We move forward in fits and starts as a community of inquiry, a community of believers.

There is no sense in doubting people's experiences or in denying their descriptions of same. There is MUCH to be learned from this wheat of our lives. This is the storytelling that we do at table, eucharistically, when we take and eat such wheat. There is so much that has been added to our fund of spiritual and psychological knowledge from modern day contemplatives and practitioners of various ascetic disciplines.

We simply must not confuse the wheat of these experiences from what can be the chaff of different interpretations of same. Those interpretations are subject to critique. And people are entitled to their own opinions but they are not entitled to their own facts -- not empirically, not scientifically, not normatively and philosophically, not metaphysically and not theologically, this last category which must appropriate its analogues and metaphors from the preceding ones. And there is another criterion: if you hear anyone speaking literally about that which can only be referred to analogically, pay no heed. Literal descriptions are logically invalid in orthodox God-talk, except when predicated negatively, which is the whole point of apophatic theology.

Finally, the fruits of the Spirit: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Watch for these criteria.

quote:

Originally posted by REBECCA:
[qb] ahhha, so your place of peace is not with us? hope to hear from you again, until the we are all one! deep,deep,peace also.rebecca [/qb]

I said that inartfully. It has more to do with energy than peace. I enjoy creative flourishes, then ... poof ... nothing there.

quote:

Originally posted by REBECCA:
[qb] wow phil! all this AND online computer training!LOL. thanks,rebecca [/qb]

He uses a MAC. Doesn't THAT tell you something? If I were you, I'd get my computer training elsewhere

quote:

Originally posted by Shasha:
[qb] Good night, John Boy.[/qb]

Good night, Mary Ellen.

quote:

Originally posted by Phil:
[qb] JB, keep checking in on this one when you have time. I'm certain there's no other discussion about BR, nonduality, etc. like this on the web, and our little group here is doing some good sharing and reflecting on this topic. [/qb]

It seemed to be winding down. I'll keep a weather-eye out.

There were some mischaracterizations of Jim's stance that I wanted to take a second look at. I may be back with a comment in that vein.

I THANK GOD for you JB and PHIL! what a dynamic duo!( or should i say double trouble) well... ANYWAY, that was a great and clear resolve.i love your advice on things of the finality of time. it is comforting to realize that jesus came and KNEW more than HE TOLD, and i just ask SWEET JESUS to help me to not ever TELL MORE THAN I KNOW. peace, rebecca

quote:

Originally posted by Phil:
[qb] ... Basically, it means that she has experienced crucifixion, resurrection and ascension as Christ has, though while living in her body. .. [/qb]

Thanks for your summary of the big picture, as you see it. It is very disturbing to me that B. would equate her state precisely with that of Christ Jesus. Seems to me, the teaching of the saints is that we are in a process of sanctification. In Ralph Martin's book, The Fulfillment of All Desire, based on the journey of several of the early saints, he ends with a chapter called There's Always More. He writes:

"The saints make it clear that although the spiritual marriage, or the "third stage" or unitive way, is the highest mode of union possible in this life, it is nevertheless not a static union. It continues to be a place of growth..." p. 415.

He goes on to relay a piece from St. Catherine that was spoken to her by the Father:

For the soul is never so perfect in this life tht she cannot become yet more perfect in love. My beloved Son, your head, was the only one who could not grow in any sort of perfection, because he was one with me and I with him...but you, his pilgrim members, can always grow in greater perfection...you can make that union grow in whatever kind of perfection you choose with the help of my grace.
------------------------

Phil, I've heard and experienced a number of guru's accounts of different states of being, supernatural worlds, dimensions of reality, and now with B.'s unusual claims adding to the pile, plus my own encounters with the VOID, unity consciousness, leaving my body, etc., I'm pretty much convinced that Jesus says it best-- "In my Father's house, there are many mansions."

To me, these mansions may be these varied, weird, paradoxical dimensions of reality/self that we creatures apparently can live in. The Father gives us free will. Feels to me that these realities are all-consuming, seductive, grandiose, and can eclipse or rob us of our unique call to bear fruit for humanity. They may even uphold what is warned in the Bible concerning false leaders/teachings.

Peace to you, dear friends.

quote:

Originally posted by Phil:
[qb] Shades of quietism, Derek. She even mentions somewhere that a mother superior or someone told her she was a quietist. [/qb]

Thanks to the magic of Google Books and the kindness of the publisher, we can look up these references fairly easily. It happened when B was 18 and in the convent. It was a novice mistress who told her:

quote:

My prayer was nothing more than a "natural" silence, and therefore not from God; it was a form of quietism--a heresy in the Church.

The Path to No-Self, SUNY, 1991, p. 57.

In another incident--which may have been about the same time (it's not clear from the book)--she says that she herself observed:

quote:

But increasingly it occurred to me that it was all too natural--as if it were part and parcel of my own being and not all from God. Eventually this gave rise to the idea that I was nothing more than a quietist since there was nothing in this silence, only silence itself.

The Experience of No-Self, SUNY, 1993, p. 103.

I've always found "quietism," in my mind at least, to be an ill-defined beast. Certainly, quiet by itself IS part of the tradition. We have that reference to St. John of the Cross that I mentioned earlier in this thread, and then numerous references to the "prayer of quiet" in St. Teresa of Avila (e.g., mansion #4 in the Interior Castle and chapters 14-15 in the Life).

quote:

Originally posted by Phil:
[qb]I'm certain there's no other discussion about BR, nonduality, etc. like this on the web [/qb]

Agreed! Where else on the web would you find a thoughtful discussion like this!

quote:

Originally posted by Shasha:
[qb]Yeah, right, Buddha and Jesus reveal the same truth. Jesus merely manifested by His death what Buddha described...I dunno about you folks, but I�m calling that a lie�theological error, lack of semantic nuancing...? [/qb]

I'll go with "lack of semantic nuancing" LOL. Proper comparative studies are great, but these "Jesus=Buddha" books are all looking decidedly dated nowadays. Wonder if my bell-bottoms still fit.

BR wrote:

quote:

If anyone wonders why John of the Cross and other mystics never talked about No-Self they need only read what Mr. Arraj thinks about No-Self. John of the Cross would have been thrown to the Buddhists, labeled a �natural mystic�, denied God�s supernatural grace, in short, be regarded as un-Christian.

No, no, no, not at all!

Merton drew distinctions between East and West in terms of the natural and supernatural, apophatic and kataphatic, existential and theological, impersonal and personal, and immanent and transcendent. As Maritain always said about distinctions, we distinguish in order to unite!

From an incarnational perspective, these distinctions are not to be cashed out in terms of levels of virtue, especially once considering that we are talking about unmerited gifts, all which proceed from the same Giver of all good gifts!

Whether from East or West, as Arraj would put it, every person is in the same existential context called to the same supernatural destiny, but responds to this call in and through the concrete circumstances they find themselves in.

Furthermore, whether from East or West, every contemplative attains to God, whether through emptiness or through an experience of God�s presence!

Finally, whether from East or West, every soul is already elevated by grace, is supernatural and produces supernatural acts attaining to God, whether through apophasis or kataphasis. Arraj does not deny this!

All Jim is doing is articulating an old Thomistic distinction between substance and mode, which is to say that, when it comes to substance, my attainment of God through praying the Psalms and a Hindu experiencing God as led through Kundalini are both supernatural according to substance!

Neither would necessarily be supernatural according to mode, which is only to say they aren�t what we would call infused contemplation. No one is suggesting that infused contemplation is denied anyone by God for reasons of virtue, necessarily; rather, it may not be suitable for reasons of temperament or vocation. That�s all!

I could be wrong

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. Had John of the Cross and others talked about this we�d never have heard of them. Obviously, they knew when to quit. But this is exactly why you will not find No-Self (or what I mean by this) in the works of Christian mystics. Indeed, had I written this book in the Monastery it would never have seen the light of day. For some people in the Church, like Mr. Arraj, No-Self upsets their theological apple-carts. Although No-Self neither contradicts nor changes a single Christian dogma, there�s no denying it is not meant for public consumption. Although No-Self is more orthodox than the orthodox, all people really need know is that they will be transformed into Christ. This knowledge is both sufficient and the Truth. (When they get there they�ll see how wondrously it all works).

If such a loss of individuality is to be understood in terms of an ecstatic journeying to and from self-forgetfulness, analogous to ecstasy as it is ordinarily conceived and experienced, differing however in both quality and orders of magnitude, then I could accomodate what might be entailed by this spousal mysticism, which goes beyond, but not without, the unitive state. This would be an epistemic interpretation. And it begins to even put certain numinous experiences of my own in context, even if not perduring past a period of a few years, long ago now.

If this is to be otherwise interpreted ontologically, then someone is telling an untellable story. In the first place, we do not have the science of consciousness, the philosophy of mind or the metaphysics of emergent reality worked out yet, and, even if we did, such a transcendent state could not be spoken of literally, only metaphorically and with weak metaphors at that.

quote:

Mr. Arraj�s obvious agenda is to eliminate what I mean by No-Self from the Christian journey, even divorce it from Christianity itself. Thus he regards No-Self as purely a type of �Natural Mysticism� devoid of the �Supernatural��devoid of God and God�s own doing, that is. But nothing could be further from the Truth. That he even thinks such a thing indicates no understanding of what I mean by �No-Self�. If No-Self was a purely natural event�something we could bring about ourselves�then millions of people would know this condition, it would be par for the course. As it stands, however, the human mind cannot even think of No-Self or imagine any life without self; much less can self get rid of itself, only God can do this. Those who think otherwise are only fooling themselves. In Truth, nothing could be further from a �natural� event than God�s taking away Self�the whole Unitive State in fact.

The only reason Mr. Arraj keeps going over the fact No-Self is not the Unitive State is because, in his mind at least, it is the difference between the two that justifies his attempt to convince others No-Self is un-Christian, a purely �natural� event. But where�s the logic in this? If God can take away the ego (the Unitive state), how is it God cannot take away the rest of self (No-Self)? How does this make the first (Unitive State) �supernatural� and Christian, but make the second (No-Self) �natural� and un-Christian? Who can figure out the thinking here?

I think I may have already figured out the thinking here, in my prior post. It seems that once the clarifications I have provided in that post are accepted, then the above-discussion (and the following RANT, why so much incivil confrontation ) becomes mostly moot and based on premises grounded in a profound misunderstanding of Arraj.

Mr. Arraj is one of the humblest, kindest, gentlest and intelligent people I've ever met and I can assure you he has no such agenda. It may very well be that once BR's account of her experiences are properly distinguished from even the Eastern accounts, going beyond them in some ways, we will have gleaned invaluable info about how we are wired and exactly what the human, unimpeded, is meant to experience in the fullness of our humanity?

quote:

But before going further, I have to say I find Mr. Arraj� agenda of reserving God�s supernatural grace for Christians only, totally out of line, un-Christian, absolutely false. Who dares to tell us God is not free to give His divine grace and supernatural help to whoever He pleases? That God would deny sincere seekers His grace is unthinkable. The historical Christ cured and enlightened many a gentile, but never met a Christian. To think God�s supernatural grace is reserved only for Christians is too un-Godly for words. In my retreat, �The Essence of Christian Mysticism� I explain the Christian Sacraments (better known as �Christian Mysteries�) this way: nobody can tell us where God is not, or tell us where God�s grace is not, but God can (and has) told us where He is and where His grace is�in these Mysteries that is. Christ instituted this fountain of grace and made it available to all who would avail themselves of it. While this is certainly a Christian benefit, it in no way ties God�s hands from giving grace to whomsoever He pleases. Mr. Arraj�s thinking he can dictate to God can only be condemned.

This is a PROFOUND misreading of what Jim says or has been about! Above is described an old type of ecclesiocentric exclusivism, which stands in stark contrast to the Christocentric inclusivism that Jim articulates everywhere, in my view. Again, Jim was only talking about infused contemplation vis a vis supernatural modalities, not denying the all-pervasive supernatural substantiality of all incarnational reality, especially when it comes to the elevated souls of Homo sapiens!

BR wrote:

quote:

I�m going to end this by giving Mr. Arraj�s orthodox mind something to think about

Me, too.

I love you Jim & Tyra. Thanks for all you've been to johnboy!

I'm sorry you've been misunderstood but take consolation in knowing you do not seek that as much as to understand. Thanks for helping me understand this journey better thru all of your interviews, books, videos and web publications. Mostly, thanks for hosting me and teaching me to make bread. I hope I learn to eat it with half the reverence you have.

pax, amor et bonum,
jb

Forgive me if I misinterpreted your positions, too, in any way.

quote:

Originally posted by Derek:
[qb] Proper comparative studies are great, but these "Jesus=Buddha" books are all looking decidedly dated nowadays. Wonder if my bell-bottoms still fit. [/qb]

John Boy! Welcome back...we knew you couldn't resist...

and you have returned more dynamo, more down-to-earth, and clearer than ever..

See, God does answer my prayers...

Derek wrote: I've always found "quietism," in my mind at least, to be an ill-defined beast. Certainly, quiet by itself IS part of the tradition. We have that reference to St. John of the Cross that I mentioned earlier in this thread, and then numerous references to the "prayer of quiet" in St. Teresa of Avila (e.g., mansion #4 in the Interior Castle and chapters 14-15 in the Life).

I was referring to the 17th C movement (especially via Molinos) that basically torpedoed the enthusiasm for contemplative spirituality unleashed by John and Teresa for the next 400 years.
- http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12608c.htm

Good analyses, gang. I'll get back to you all later.

so...derek...DO they? i want the visual! rebecca

nevermind! that was inapropriate!