I've recently read a translation of a book by Laurence Freeman, "Jesus: the Teacher Within" which was first published in year 2000.

The book is nicely read, a bit personal, as well as attempting to present Jesus from different perspectives, give a whole picture of him. At least that's my impression.

I couldn't help thinking, though, that I'd be delighted and moved by this book 4 or 5 years ago, when I was still a "non-dual" Christian, trying to make sense of different, often contradictory experiences of God, as well as of different concepts and ideas about God, Jesus and the Church. The framework of this book would help me to bring my "Eastern" experience of kundalini and Zen towards the tradition of the Church and Christianity. I would be able to combine a passionate love for Jesus with more non-personal states of awareness I experienced in meditation and - through meditation - in daily life.

Freeman uses terms like "guru", "karma", "illusion", "nirvana" and others, taken from the Hindu or Buddhist tradition, to speak about Jesus and personal experience of him. In the book there's practically no traditional Christian language. It's a new language. For a Christian that has never been in contact with "Eastern" jargon, it might be strange - at least, I imagine that. For someone who started with Eastern spirituality (or should I say - Western version of Eastern spirituality?) it might be comforting: you don't have to negate most that you believe and you can still believe in Christianity. You can love Jesus and pursue enlightenment.

That's what I'd probably feel and think 5 years ago. Now I read this book easily and quickly, without anger, disappointment or resentment. But I wasn't nourished by it. I don't feel now the need to use a notion of karma or guru to think about spirituality and religion. "Teacher" works for me better than "guru". I don't need "illusion" to explain what sin and it's outcomes are for me. I try to remember, why I needed it so badly.

The one thing that irritated me a bit was the word "ego" used by Freeman throughout this book. After some years of talking to people engaged in Eastern meditation I realized that "ego" meant for them "everything that I don't like about myself and want to get rid of". "My ego makes me do it. My nasty ego wants to have spiritual consolations. My ego wants to be separate from reality." And so on, and so on.
Now, after few years of psychology and therapeutic training I use that word in a Western, psychological sense which is complete different that Buddhist or New Agey. Perhaps "false self" would sound better for me. Anyway, we should always define what we mean by "ego", and Freeman doesn't, at least explicitly he doesn't.

What I like about Freeman is that he says clearly that Christianity and Buddhism cannot be combined into one thing. He quotes Dalai Lama, his friend, who insists on keeping the differences between traditions. Freeman talks a lot about Resurrection - something no other religion understands or believes in, as the most important aspect of our faith. But I have the impression that Freeman still has pluralistic tendencies, like Dalai Lama himself.

Freeman writes that we should present Jesus as more accessible to other religions and atheists, and minorities etc. Sounds a bit like Panikkar. I suppose Freeman is trying to get rid of what he calls "colonial, imperial" Christianity, that is to be liberal, open, tolerant and so on. Of course, we need to be all that, if it means not to judge, to be in dialogue, to be compassionate etc. But the language is too leftist for me. Freeman is too political to my taste, but, of course, it's not a theological error . Poland is very different from America in that area - most of people still find it obvious that God and universal values exist. Even if they don't approve the whole of the Church's teaching, an atheist is still something rare, it's not a standard. Perhaps, Western culture need a different approach. But I think Freeman goes really far in adjusting the image of Jesus to the postmodern world.

For example, "Jesus is not the Church" he says. You can love and follow Jesus, you don't have to be a part of the institution. I can judge this sentence benevolently and understand it to mean something like: "Jesus Christ works also beyond the visible aspects of the Catholic Church, the grace has no limits, the Spirit is present in all humanity". But someone might be not so eager to make that interpretation. Anyway, Jesus identified himself with the Church and said that it's his Body. And it's not so easy to relate to someone, and at the same time discount his body as irrelevant or not belonging to him.
Freeman gives and example of Simone Weil who didn't want to be baptized, despite of her ardent love for Christ and many mystical graces she apparently received.

The Kingdom of God from the Gospel is equated with Buddhist nirvana, which for me is not only wrong, but makes me wonder if Freeman ultimately wants to equal all Christian experiences with the Buddhist ones? Budda said that nirvana is for a human being like an extinction of a flame - the person is nowhere to be found. Jesus never said anything remotely resembling that. I don't take "pray that they all be one" to mean the extinction of personhood. Nirvana is not exactly what Jesus prays for, although nirvana might be a part of Christian experiences. It's, of course, a topic of many discussions here...

To sum up,
- the book tends towards "non-dual" and pluralistic Christianity, although doesn't try to make some sort of Christian-Hindu-Buddhist amalgam.
- personal relationship with Resurrected Jesus is presented as crucial to Christian spirituality, but the way to it is apophatic meditation of John Main. Other, traditional practices, apart from the Eucharist, are not mentioned. There's a tendency to equal Eastern non-dual experiences with the traditional Christian ones.
- language and concepts are mostly from Eastern philosophy and from liberal, leftist political thought.

I think the book can be helpful to people who try to make a transition from Eastern spiritualities to the Church. Like Thomas Keating's books. But I doubt it can be interesting and understandable for people who have a traditional spirituality, no meditative experiences etc.

Thanks for the review, Mt. I have that book. It's a few years since I read it, and the most memorable parts for me were the travel vignettes Fr. Laurence includes at the start of each chapter. For those who haven't read the book, they're about his time making a semi-retreat on Bere Island, off the coast of Ireland. He tells you a little bit about life on the island. I'll have to take another look at the book after reading your review, since I don't remember much apart from the travel parts!

Thanks for taking the time to write this review, Mt. I read a book by Freeman on Christian Meditation years ago and found it to be mostly resonating with apophatic Christian practice; there wasn't much theological or political reflection in the book. It did leave me wondering if we can transplant a mantraic practice such as that used in Christian Meditation (note alternative name to TM) into Christian spiritual practice as the method seems intrinsically oriented toward a different kind of mystical experience. Jim Arraj takes up this issue at length in a dialouge with Fr. Tom Ryan (really good guy and a CM practitioner) in our book, Critical Issues in Christian Contemplative Practice. Tom pretty much says that it is Christian faith and living that "consecrates" the practice, but Jim isn't too convinced.

quote:

Anyway, Jesus identified himself with the Church and said that it's his Body. And it's not so easy to relate to someone, and at the same time discount his body as irrelevant or not belonging to him.

That's quite a zinger, there, Mt. Nicely put, and quite relevant to the Pannikar discussion.

quote:

The Kingdom of God from the Gospel is equated with Buddhist nirvana, which for me is not only wrong, but makes me wonder if Freeman ultimately wants to equal all Christian experiences with the Buddhist ones? Budda said that nirvana is for a human being like an extinction of a flame - the person is nowhere to be found. Jesus never said anything remotely resembling that. I don't take "pray that they all be one" to mean the extinction of personhood.

For the life of my I just can't understand why so many people can't just let different kinds of experiences be what they are! From whence comes this tendency to lump things together or blur distinctions, even at the level of experience? It's surely "in the wind" these days.

quote:

Originally posted by Mt:
...The Kingdom of God from the Gospel is equated with Buddhist nirvana, which for me is not only wrong, but makes me wonder if Freeman ultimately wants to equal all Christian experiences with the Buddhist ones? Budda said that nirvana is for a human being like an extinction of a flame - the person is nowhere to be found. Jesus never said anything remotely resembling that. I don't take "pray that they all be one" to mean the extinction of personhood. Nirvana is not exactly what Jesus prays for, although nirvana might be a part of Christian ...

Yes, exactly! In John 17, Jesus is NOT praying that we come to enlightenment or nirvana, but a mystical Love union with Him and the Father! It just feels good to say that--again!

I took a retreat with Freeman a number of years ago at a Jesuit Retreat Center. I was surprised to see a Christian who did not preach anything substantially different than Buddhism. It was very disappointing! I was looking for a way to integrate meditation with Christ because at that time I hadn't yet received the revelation that the Father called me to pray, not meditate.

Freeman was very much teaching enlightenment to the group of us. In my own journey, I was just coming to realize that the Love of Christ is very different than anything offered in samadhi. And Freeman was preaching the same ole New Age mish-mash I had bought into: that reality is an illusion, evil does not really exist, you just need to detach yourself from your 'ego' and everything will be OK, repeat the mantra MA-RA-NA-THA but without any attention to the meaning, just bland repetitive syllables, evenly spaced. This way you'll be set free of all those painful connections to your ego.

He went so far as to say smth like, "Well, when Jesus says in scripture that the only way to the Father is through Me,' we should interpret 'Me' quite loosly...ya know, the 'Me' as in this state of consciousness-type-thingy wherein you have no ego, see?"

I couldn't take it. I stood up and reported that I had come to discover, after my Eastern meditation practices and guru-initiations, that the promises of Christ are NOT the same as enlightenment. Well, Freeman's 'ego' was alive and kicking as he definitely gave me an energetic slap in the face when I made that announcement! I had upset his apple cart by not following the protocol of being a fan of this stuff.

He retorted with something like, "Well we can't have a bunch of 'Jesus cults' split up here and there, we need to honor all paths as divine..."

Anyway, I totally forgive him! He's a nice guy.

Is he a false teacher? I certainly think so.

Shasha, that's interesting. I didn't suppose that in "closed" seminars he would be even more like that. But it makes sense - after all, the book is something open for public discussion, a seminar isn't. Perhaps, others Christian teachers become more "bold" in their fascination with enlightenment, metaphysical spirituality than they appear in their books?

Freeman comes to Poland sometimes for retreats, he has also public conferences in churches, he was officially supported and invited by our bishop. I don't think that the bishop or anyone else see anything not-OK in his vision of Christianity. After all, the World Community of Christian Meditation is a big thing. But the book I reviewed is only a second of his books translated and published here, so it may change. I don't feel inclined to go to holy war against him, because his organization attracts to the Church many Christians who aren't (yet) comfortable with a traditional language and practice. But in private conversations with meditators I'll certainly say what I think about CM.

False? Probably, but both him, and Panikkar, are on the edges. Freeman supports the eucharist, reading the Bible and doesn't reject any dogmas - that's good in comparison to what Willigis Jaeger does in Germany, in his spirituality center, where I spent two monthly retreats few years ago. Jaeger teaches a type of Gnostic Christianity, and doesn't seem to care much about the Bible, Eucharist and dogmas. Ratzinger forbade him from teachings and giving sacraments, probably because he's German and R is interested what goes on in Germany. In America there are plenty of cases like that - Bernadette Roberts - and the Congregation of Faith doesn't even know.

I'd never heard of Fr. Jaeger until you mentioned him. He has a few videos up on Youtube, but they're all in German. There are some English translations of his books on Amazon. Maybe I'll order one in my next round of purchases. I'm also interested in the Holy Father's newest book, LIGHT OF THE WORLD, but everywhere is sold out of it. Right now I'm reading KUNDALINI RISING, which is a collection of papers by a couple of dozen authors that was published in 2009.

I noticed that Jaeger is not popular in America. He is a benedictin who spent several years in Japan, practised Zen in Sanbo-Kyodan school in Kamakura, and received the inka from Yamada Roshi who was a disciple of Yasutani Roshi. He basically thinks that Christianity is all about enlightenment, and that Christianity and Buddhism are to ways of speaking symbolically about the same experience of oneness of all reality. He thinks that sacraments, the Bible, prayer etc. are only for beginners, because silent samadhi is the fullfilment of every religion, its "transdenominational" dimension.

I worked with him during Zen sesshins and he has a very powerful inner presence and wakefulness, which I was able to feel as a field of energy. He's very austere, serious, simple, manly. I talked to him several times - he doesn't seem to understand what kind of problem Ratzinger has with him. Jaeger told me that his books are an interpretation of the Gospel in a contemporary language, and he sees it as perfectly normal thing to do. It was really amazing to talk to this man who is not a theologian or philosopher, and who honestly thinks there's some sort of misunderstanding between him and the Congregation of Faith. He never said a word against Ratzinger, only sometimes he speaks about his situation as if it was exactly the same as with Meister Eckhart. Of course, Eckhart was willing to correct anything that was considered wrong in this teachings and wanted to discuss things with the Inquisition. Jaeger doesn't do that.

One of his disciples gave him a piece of land and built there few houses - there is an enormous zendo their, guest-rooms, beautiful garden, fountains - it's a great place, amidst the woods and villages. I used to stay there for a month in silence, working 4 hours a day in the garden, basically sitting in meditation 6 to 8 hours a day. There are various retreats there - Zen, "Christian contemplation" - Jaeger's own thing, Sufism, Aikido, Ikebana, Yoga and other stuff. I had a chance to work with 5 or 6 different Zen teachers there - it was interesting to experience how different those teachers were.

I have very good memories from the house, staying there was always a time of transformation for me, but the last time I couldn't accept the idea of Christianity which was proposed there. I remember when Jaeger - even though he couldn't do sacraments anymore - did some kind of "baptism" for a child, which he described as a symbolic initiation into Christian wisdom. He said that what the Gospel says about Jesus - that the heavens opened and the voice of God said "He's my beloved Son" - happens in the same way to all children that are baptized, because all human beings are sons and daughters of God, just as Jesus was, we just don't realize that. He also organized "agape" - we gathered on Sundays, sang songs, shared bread and wine, Jaeger gave a spiritual talk. The sharing of bread and wine, according to him, was a symbol of the unity of all phenomena in God which are like waves in the ocean.

I remember that he asked me once: "I wonder why Thomas Keating has no enemies?! His experience of reality is very profound" - Jaeger considers Keating being enlightened and he was astonished that Keating's teachings don't meet the criticism his own teachings face. He didn't realize that Keating never goes beyond Christian dogmas, while Jaeger does that all the time.

I also met there a great Zen master, a woman, and I worked with her on several koans. She was a Lutheran pastor. I remember that during one dokusan (a private meeting with a teacher) I asked her if I can practice repeating the name of Jesus instead of repeating the koan MU, because I love Jesus so much, and MU doesn't mean anything to me. She responded: "Of course, you can say: Jesus, Jesus, Jesus... it doesn't matter what you say, you can say bla, bla, bla... but you have to be focused on that". I said that for me Jesus' name is holy and it is not the same as "bla, bla, bla", because I love Jesus. She responded: "Jesus is nothing". I said: "Then I love nothing and I gave my whole life to nothing?" She was thinking for a moment and said: "When you love, Jesus loves. You cannot create this love in you by your effort. It comes to you". Then she said: "Thank you, for your practice". I said: "Don't thank me. I'm filled with gratefulness towards God, and it hurts me that I can't thank Him for giving me what I experienced". She said: "There is nothing to thank for. There is no-one to be grateful to. You cannot thank. There is no thanking at all." There was a powerful energy and communication of enlightenment between us during this talk, but I felt that in the dimension of faith she didn't understand me at all.

So those are some of my stories from my old, Zen times... (well, not so old, it was 4 or 5 years ago) Jaeger's just brought it to my mind.

Thanks for the write-up, Mt. Very informative description of interesting times. I keep coming back to that essay by Hans Urs von Balthasar "The Unknown God," which I've already mentioned several times before on SP. I don't have it handy to quote from verbatim, but his basic point is that no one has yet explained the relationship between the kataphatic and the apophatic. The temptation is either to make the kataphatic into everything, or to make it into nothing by throwing it away altogether. Neither extreme is satisfactory.

Another expression of this:

"The mystical dimension of the concept of God, which the Asian religions bring with them as a challenge to us, must clearly be decisive for our thinking, too, and for our faith. God has become quite concrete in Christ, but in this way the mystery has also become still greater. God is always infinitely greater than all our concepts and all our images and names."

-- Pope Benedict XVI, writing as Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, in the 2000 preface to the new edition of Introduction to Christianity.

Yes, thanks for the sharing about Jaeger, Mt. I do know a couple of priests who've studied under him, but you're right: he's not well-known in the U.S. I wonder how the Lutheran woman pastor you mentioned reconciles Jaeger's teaching with Luther's?

Jim Arraj has a critique of his teaching at http://www.innerexplorations.com/catew/cru1.htm You have to scroll down a bit to find it, but it's worth your while (the whole chapter is good). An excerpt:

quote:

Later we are told that Christian dogma is based on an outmoded model of the universe in which "God is the creator of the universe, and the center of the universe is the earth."20 But since the cosmology is wrong, then the dogma must be wrong, as well, and we ought to replace it with a philosophia perennis which is that highest level of insight to be found in both East and West. Once again, the assumption that Christian dogma is intrinsically dependent on the cosmology of the time in which it was written is not really examined, still less demonstrated. What we have, in essence, is a kind of sleight of hand in which Christianity as it has been traditionally understood vanishes, and then reappears, made over into Eastern categories.

Okay, I've dug the book out now. I've been a practitioner of John Main's Christian Meditation for four years now, and this was the book that first introduced me to it. I was only vaguely aware of CM before that.

quote:

Originally posted by Mt:
Freeman uses terms like "guru", "karma", "illusion", "nirvana" and others, taken from the Hindu or Buddhist tradition, to speak about Jesus and personal experience of him.

Just leafing through the book, most of the references are to Christian writers and theologians. The material was, after all, originally delivered as a seminar "On Jesus." It's true that there are some references to Asian spirituality. But, without counting words, I get the idea they're very much in the minority. Just opening pages at random, I spotted references to Charlie Brown, Shakespeare, and Bach, along with more obviously religion writers such as St. Augustine and others. So I think zooming in on occasional mentions of "guru", "karma", "illusion", or "nirvana" gives a misleading impression of the book as a whole.

quote:

Originally posted by Mt:
The one thing that irritated me a bit was the word "ego" used by Freeman throughout this book.

"Ego" seems to me to be a neutral term that's not associated with any particular religion. Just yesterday I was looking at the start of Philippians 2, where St. Paul says, "Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility regard others as better than yourselves" (Philippians 2:3). I would call "selfish ambition or conceit" actions of the ego -- no?

Perhaps, I'm just conditioned by my therapeutic training, and this is a source of my irritation Psychologically, I would call all our conscious actions "actions of the ego", because I prefer to use the term "false self" than "ego" for the selfish part of personality. In psychoanalysis "ego" is the part of personality that enables us to have contact with reality - its functions are thinking, memory, perception, controling impulses, reality testing and creating coherent identity. So the stronger ego you have, the more you are in touch with reality, the more able to act consciously and freely. "Ego" cannot be experienced, it's hypothetical inner structure. That's why I think that in the state of enlightenment the ego is actualized fully and very powerful, although the person subjectively feels that there's no "self".

I'm aware, of course, that spiritual writers use "the ego" as "false self" or "separate self". It sometimes leads to misunderstandings, because when a psychoanalytic hears about "loss of the ego", he understands it to be simply a case of psychosis. Because psychology and spirituality are in a dialogue, I think it would be good to use the term "false self" instead of "the ego" (even though "false self" is also a psychoanalytic term coined by Donald Winnicott), as Thomas Merton did.
But, perhaps, that's not a solution, since even psychologists are not in agreement as to what "the self" really is, there are dozens of different definitions.

Phil, in his "God, Self and Ego", uses the term "Ego" in yet different sense (as it seems to me) - a Jungian one, which is neither the ego of orthodox psychoanalysis, nor the ego of New Age writers. Jung was aware that the lack of the ego is a state of psychosis, when personality is flooded with archetypes and loses contact with reality. But he defined the ego simply as that part of ourselves we are aware of in opposition to the unconscious psyche, so it's more experiential and subjective understanding of it. He also defined it as "a complex" organizing our conscious experience, which is still slightly different thing.

I can see the value of the concept of "false self/ego" in spirituality, but sometimes I think we could explain most of spiritual life without it. Is "false self" really a "thing" that we have in ourselves, like a subpersonality? Helminiak writes that there's only one "self" - it's the totality of who we are, the whole human person.

I agree that false self is not a real self so much as it is a system of conditioning we develop to compensate for growing up in a world where we are loved and accepted conditionally. As such, however, it has a strong influence on the Ego, which, as Jung also noted, is the responsible center of the psyche, and so is vitally connected with our reasoning powers.

To my understanding, then, we are never without an Ego, though the manner of Egoic functioning changes drastically through the years. In short, I understand self to be consciousness itself, which is much more broad than ego (encompassing the unconscious realm), while ego is "the red hot center of consciousness," as one author put it. How ego is "structured" and how it "leans" into our enormous potentiality is a whole other topic, however.

quote:

Originally posted by Mt:
...Phil, in his "God, Self and Ego", uses the term "Ego" in yet different sense (as it seems to me) - a Jungian one, which is neither the ego of orthodox psychoanalysis, nor the ego of New Age writers. ....

That's right, Mt. There are these three (at least) different definitions of the word 'ego' that make discussions quite confusing. (I've not heard Donald Winnicot mentioned in years! Don't you love the Object Relations therapists?)

Phil, by your summary in the last post, it sounds like you'd say:

1) 'false self' functions as a maladaptive thing inside the Ego (the arena of most psychotherapies)

2) the Ego is located within the Self

3) Self is consciousness itself and encommpasses the unconscious realm (of Ego or all Egos?)

4) the Ego cannot be lost (contrary to New Age teaching)

so, Ego and Self are inextricably tied? the human soul?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mt:
...I talked to him several times - he doesn't seem to understand what kind of problem Ratzinger has with him. ...

It was really amazing to talk to this man who is not a theologian or philosopher, and who honestly thinks there's some sort of misunderstanding between him and the Congregation of Faith. He never said a word against Ratzinger, only sometimes he speaks about his situation as if it was exactly the same as with Meister Eckhart. Of course, Eckhart was willing to correct anything that was considered wrong in this teachings and wanted to discuss things with the Inquisition. Jaeger doesn't do that.

...I remember that he asked me once: "I wonder why Thomas Keating has no enemies?! His experience of reality is very profound" - Jaeger considers Keating being enlightened and he was astonished that Keating's teachings don't meet the criticism his own teachings face. He didn't realize that Keating never goes beyond Christian dogmas, while Jaeger does that all the time.
...QUOTE]

Mt,

Your description of Jaeger makes me wonder what is wrong with his thinking/perceiving of reality? He's clearly not lacking in intellect.

So why is it that he seems to not comprehend what the problem is in regards to how he is viewed by the Church. This is the irony about some of these folks who claim to be enlightened! What good does this state of consciousness do you if you're not in touch with reality?

And in terms of his morals? Does he really CARE about having enemies while lamenting that Keating doesn't? What is being gratified in his actions while he denies the reality effects of his teachings?

Just my own wonderings; no need to respond, but do you see what I mean?

quote:

so, Ego and Self are inextricably tied? the human soul?

Shasha, that was a pretty good summary of my Thomistic-Jungian perspective on things.

Here's from the summary of my book, God, Self and Ego: Discerning "Who's Who" on the Spiritual Journey.

quote:

So, what is Self and Ego?

Put simply, it is “I”.

But this ineffable experience we know to be “I” has two aspects: potentiality and actuality. The “I” of potentiality is the larger, more universal aspect; the individual actualization of this potential is more unique and personal. Hence, Self can be considered the subject of the unconscious, and Ego the subject of desire, intellectual activity, and conscious experience. These are not two different subjects, but they are two different experiences of “I”. Self is “I” as the human spirit, who is present in desire and all manner of experiences, while Ego is the conscious and active dimension of “I” in this embodied state. When one consciously realizes this connection between Self and Ego, then the Ego loses its sense of alienation and isolation and begins to experience the social, cosmic, transcendent and holistic qualities of Self.

Because of our false self conditioning, however, our awareness of this connection between Self in Ego can be so terribly distorted that the Egoic “I” does not know from whence it comes, and so it attaches to all manner of things within and without the person in an attempt to complete itself. “I” can then become lost in the convoluted activities of the mind and emotions, becoming, instead, a “me,” or object of my own mental activity. In such cases (and they are legion), then “I” am not merely shaped by my experiences, but determined by them. They are not “mine,” but “me.” Excessive self-definition and judgmentalism follow from the creation of this mind-self, which is not-"I".

And what of God? Is God “I”?

No, God is not “I”. Rather, God is the “Am” in which “I” affirm the fact of my existence: “I Am.” This “Am”, or pure Being, is utterly distinct from “I”, for “I” cannot, of its own accord, know anything more about It than the fact that “It Is.” And yet Being is also the source of “I”; apart from It, “I” has no existence, no “Am.” Something of Existence must therefore be present within “I”, for It is the means by which “I” has its own being. “I” cannot extract Existence from itself, however, so “I” can never know what it is apart from Existence. Through the “I” in every person, then, something of the glory and numinosity of Existence Itself shines forth. Those who are awake to their own “I” know this truth, but those who have lost themselves in the disordered mental activity stirred up by the false self are asleep to the wonder of Existence.

This language is more philosophical than psychological or theological, and that was intentional as it enabled something of a perspective with which to compare different kinds of experiences. You might say that the last two sentences allude more to something like enlightenment, or an atmanic sense of self while Ego-God and Ego-Self-God would be a more relational engagement with God. I do consider Ego and Self to be aspects of the soul's subjective consciousness.

Phil,

I like your quotation very much! How do you explain this sense of "universality" of the Self, the "I"? It feels connected to other "I's", to Nature and to God, but remains individual center of knowledge and freedom. Is it - philosophically - because of it closeness to God-as-Existence?

Yes, Shasha, we love Object Relation therapists As I understand the "false self" in this area of psychoanalysis, it's basically a mental representation of who I am. A child creates internal, unconscious images of the significant persons and of himself in relation to them. But from psychoanalytic perspective, both "false" and "true" self isn't necessarily good or bad, loving or hateful. If, however, the difference between the false and the true image of who I am is enourmous, I have to use much energy and defenses to cover the difference, which makes it difficult to relate to other people. There are people whose "false self" is based on constant need to help others, please them, make them happy, serve them. They do a lot of good to others, although they tend to be depressed themselves. If they're well adapted, their false self is not something very wrong. It can be used for good, although it always remains something false, because it's based on some unconscious fears and needs.

But "false self" in spirituality for me is something else. Phil understands it as a "conditioning". I think - if it's the outcome of original sin - it's both my inner tendencies and responses from environment, which go against love. And here problems begin. Every infant doesn't care about others, is selfish, wants immediate gratification etc. Augustine thought it's original sin in an infant. But it's just how we are as infants. Then we grow and we learn to be more loving towards others, we acquire superego and ego, and we become able to live according to our values. In every human being there are those infantile tendencies - agressive or selfish - along with more grown-up abilities and tendencies. But is the desire for immediate gratification a "false self" thing? Is it natural? Or fallen nature in me? I suppose original sin is more active at the level of spiritual freedom which transcends our psyche (Helminiak's model). Even if I have good values, strong ego etc. I can still decide do indulge my desires against my values. And this decision is cause by Paul's "old man", by "false self", by original sin. My freedom lives between the inspirations of the Holy Spirit and my fallen nature. But I wouldn't say that the fallen nature is in a way my psychological background. It's something more subtle.

There's, however, a process in which my psyche changes, conforming with God's love, Christ-image etc. I tend to choose good more often and more easily, even my impulses and desires seem to become less strong. This is theosis - the grace changes also my natural structure, gained in childhood. But this structure, infantile and selfish as it is, doesn't need to be the "false self".

I don't know if it makes sense, I'm thinking while writing this. But I suppose one thing we agree on: there are tendencies in ourselves which make it difficult to love ourselves and others, and those tendencies seem to be somehow rooted in our personality, in our body, not only in our spirit. Those tendencies can be "healed" through theosis by grace of God (or by kundalini process). There seems to be a "system" active in ourselves that pushes us against God's will, and we could call it the "false self". But I wonder if this "system" isn't just our inner child, which is just a child - selfish, demanding, cheating, wounded, sometimes sweet and funny, joyfull, rebellious, proud etc.

There's much difference between the phantasy and desire in me to control all the people around me, and actual decision of will - based on that desire - to manipulate those around me. Is the desire a product of the false self? Or is it just a childish, even animalistic need for self-protection?

Mt, Phil and Sasha- Want to weigh in on the this excellent discussion, particularly the nature of the "false self" and how it relates to ego and how the "false self is perhaps the main road block in our journey to union with God. At least for me that has been the case.

Phil, with our many phone discussions and reading the excerpt here from you writing, I understand more clearly the necessity of the ego as Sasha said

and Phil, by your summary in the last post, it sounds like you'd say:

1) 'false self' functions as a maladaptive thing inside the Ego (the arena of most psychotherapies)

My idea of the false self has been shaped by my reading Keating, Richard Rohr's work and Finley's Merton's Palace of Nowhere Finley's Merton's Palace of Nowhere and more helpfully from a self-therapy healing perceptive, Ingeborg Bosch's http://www.pastrealityintegration.com/default.asp Past Reality Integration Therapy, in which she builds on the work of Alice Miller. Her idea of the false self is basically childhood consciousness that gets activated by symbols in our day-to-day experiences. Her self-therapy lays out a very precise process to feel, integrate, and cognitively re-frame experiences of the false self and thus live more consistently in the unburdened Adult Consciousness (True Self?). It is from here that the adult free will choices of adult Christian virtues and behaviors can flourish. Anyway, has been useful for me and my journey. Happy New Year to All.

Alan

Hi Alan. Good to see you contributing to this topic, and happy new year to you and everyone else as well.

Very perceptive post, Mt. There are obviously all sorts of ways that people use terms like "false self" and "true self." It hasn't really been part of the traditional Christian vocabulary on the spiritual life, but seems a more recent bow to our psychologically aware culture. In place of "false self," the traditional literature would speak of self, or self-will, carnal self, selfishness and even self-love. Those aren't all necessarily synonyms, but they do attest to a kind of identity attachment that is an obstacle to surrender to God. Even people who've had a healthy upbringing can be attached to their identity and be seeking to promote it (Jung's persona) in various ways -- and doing some good while at it, as Mt noted. But identity is still governed by self-will and that's the problem. We can see how this usually originates from experiences of conditional love or abuse, but the telling factor is the degree of commitment one has to maintaining and promoting a particular identity.

True self, then, would be, minimally, Ego-authenticity, ultimately deepening to Ego-authenticity-before-God. The best case scenario would be one where Ego would be the agent of self and Spirit with little investment in perpetuating one's persona. Such a situation would have identity rooted less in self-image with more peace in living without self-definition. An "I" would still be operating, of course, informed by one's values and the movement of the Spirit, but one would not be too terribly interested in nailing down who, precisely, this "I" is (a la self-image). "I simply am, here, now, willing to love" is sufficient, and very satisfying.

quote:

Originally posted by Mt:
In psychoanalysis "ego" is the part of personality that enables us to have contact with reality

Unfortunately, James Strachey chose to translate Freud's German "Ich" into English as "ego," a word that already had other connotations. Hence the confusion.

quote:

Originally posted by Mt:
"Ego" cannot be experienced, it's hypothetical inner structure.

Yes. Somewhat like the imaginary number, i, in mathematics. It doesn't really exist, but pretending that it does can be useful for certain purposes.

quote:

Originally posted by Phil:
There are obviously all sorts of ways that people use terms like "false self" and "true self." It hasn't really been part of the traditional Christian vocabulary on the spiritual life, but seems a more recent bow to our psychologically aware culture.

Is sin, then, precisely the same thing as the actions of the false self? Could an act of the true self ever be sinful?

I started a new topic "False self, sin and freedom" in Christian Spirituality Issues. Maybe we can continue our discussion their, since it goes far beyond Freeman's book?

quote:

Originally posted by Phil:
Jim Arraj has a critique of his teaching at http://www.innerexplorations.com/catew/cru1.htm You have to scroll down a bit to find it, but it's worth your while (the whole chapter is good).

Willigis Jäger's book Search for the Meaning of Life: Essays and Reflections on the Mystical Experience has arrived from Amazon, and I've started reading it. For those who haven't read it, it's a collection of lectures, of which "Search for the Meaning of Life" is only the first. The more general subject matter is the Christian mystical tradition and its relationship to both nonmystical Christianity and mysticism in non-Christian religions.

I'm enjoying the book, since it's thoughtful, though it does seem a little old-fashioned. It was published in English in 2003, based on a German original from 1995, and it discusses viewpoints popular in the 1980s. For example, Fr. Jäger draws on Ken Wilber's theories. Also, he keeps mentioning "Ultimate Reality," which amuses me somewhat, as no one today would use the expression "Ultimate Reality," except perhaps jocularly.

One thing that puzzles me is the view that petitionary prayer is an inferior form of prayer. (Of course, I've come across this point of view in other authors than Fr. Jäger.) Yet if we look at the teachings of Jesus on prayer, they address primarily petitionary prayer -- for example, the stories of the importunate widow or the friend who wanted bread at midnight. The Our Father and the high-priestly prayer of John 17 also have strong petitionary elements.