quote:

Somewhere on those CDs, Adyashanti suggests that going into the sense of "I am" leads to an encounter with the divine within us.

That's not so different from Teresa's statement, "The Lord puts the soul in this dwelling of His, which is the center of the soul itself" (Interior Castle, VII.2.9).

Derek, glad you found the chapter helpful; the whole book is extremely important, imo -- though not an easy read, I'll admit.

It could be that getting in touch with one's own non-reflecting awareness brings with it an experience of God, but not necessarily so. I don't have as much experience with Adyashanti as you do, only a few minutes of youtubes and skimming some writings. I've not come across anything so far that could not be understood in terms of human non-reflecting consciousness -- the simple awareness of the human spirit that is foundational for all acts of cognition and choice. This awareness, as Helminiak explains, does feel a sense of deep connection with everything, and it is "always there" as the "witness" of our lives. To be in touch with this is liberating in the sense that we know ourselves to be spiritual beings.

St. Teresa, like so many other Christian mystics, refers to the divine indwelling in the "center of the soul," but the revelation and experience of the indwelling divine is a gift of grace. We do not know it as a consequence of simplifying our awareness; indeed, it is usually grasped when one is in a reflecting/intentional state -- everyday awareness, if you will. By grace, here, I'm not meaning a gratuitous shift in consciousness so much as an unmistakeable sense of being loved by an-Other.

A problem one finds with teachers like Adyashanti, Tolle, etc. is that they use terminology like "encounter the divine within us" but I'm not sure what they mean. Just because they use the term "divine" doesn't mean that they intend it as God in a Christian sense of the term. Generally, this "divine consciousness" is contrasted with Ego consciousness (reflecting human consciousness . . . me-states) and so it could very well mean the "I" or non-reflecting consciousness, which is spiritual and is foundational to "me." See what I mean? You have to see how they talk about the "divine," and generally it's in an impersonal sense, and in such manner that one gets the idea that the "divine" needs "me" to help grow in awareness. This is precisely the need of Self for Ego, but we wouldn't speak of the divine that way -- not in Christianity. So all in all, it could be that his teaching is a most lucid expression by his Ego self of his discovery of "I," and in a very pure sense. This is drastically different from Ego's embrace by the Holy Spirit, as what we always find with the Spirit is love for God, worship, a desire to build community, a desire to renew the earth, etc. -- God's creativity and passion coming through. For those interested in this topic see my doctoral dissertation on "God, Self and Ego."
- http://shalomplace.com/view/godselfego.html
Scroll down to the Summary

Let us know how you find the CD set.

quote:

Originally posted by Phil:
Let us know how you find the CD set.

I have listened again to CD #2, which is the one which covers this subject, and where I got lost first time through.

quote:

Originally posted by Phil:
It could be that getting in touch with one's own non-reflecting awareness brings with it an experience of God, but not necessarily so.

He would probably agree with you to some extent. He says that meditation that leads only to the enjoyment of the peacefulness of non-reflecting awareness engenders passivity and disengagement. It is not enough in itself.

To counteract this passivity, he recommends actively engaging our intelligence and curiosity. This is what he means by "inquiry" (in this context).

The two combined (meditation plus inquiry) lead to "revelation."

But you can't make this revelation or flash of insight happen. It happens spontaneously by itself. All we can do is cultivate the conditions in which it can happen.

In particular, it is not something that is the result of a thought process. "The mind cannot understand this," he says. (That certainly applied to me when I listened to CD #2 the first time through!)

quote:

Originally posted by Phil:
By grace, here, I'm not meaning a gratuitous shift in consciousness so much as an unmistakeable sense of being loved by an-Other.

Here there is a definite difference. Adyashanti nowhere mentions that this "revelation" involves an outside "Other" who is somehow separate.

quote:

Originally posted by Phil:
This awareness, as Helminiak explains, does feel a sense of deep connection with everything, and it is "always there" as the "witness" of our lives. To be in touch with this is liberating in the sense that we know ourselves to be spiritual beings.

Adyashanti says many similar things.

However, toward the end of CD #2, he goes on to say that this liberating knowledge or awareness is not the end but rather the beginning of the true "spiritual journey," which consists of living from this realization -- a whole new way of life.

quote:

Originally posted by Phil:
A problem one finds with teachers like Adyashanti, Tolle, etc. is that they use terminology like "encounter the divine within us" but I'm not sure what they mean. Just because they use the term "divine" doesn't mean that they intend it as God in a Christian sense of the term.

Adyashanti uses this as an example of a question for inquiry. However, he says that "What is God?" is still too much of a question concerned with the outside. Rather, the question that should be asked is, "Who am I that is seeking God?"

quote:

For me non-reflecting is the same as non-thinking. Does Helminiak mean "to reflect" in the mirroring sense?

Mt, it really means acting on the contents of consciousness -- thinking, remembering, imagining, etc. It can even include dreaming, as some processing is going on there as well. Interestingly, a dream also includes nonreflecting awareness in that there is a see-er of the dream.

-----

Derek, thanks for the report on CD #2 and your response to some of my remarks. The more I hear, the more this sounds like enlightenment (realizational) spirituality. It's not surprising, then, that he's more interested in "Who am I that is seeking God?" than "What is God?" or (from an Abrahamic pov) "Who is God?" Ramana Maharishi would say the same. No one in the Bible seems particularly interested in that question, however, as the premise is that knowledge of God (via covenant) is what brings true self-knowledge.

The value, then, of someone like Adyashanti, Tolle, etc. is in helping one to shed false-self attitudes and behaviors, and practice mindfulness, detachment and authentic living. All very good! This can help to cultivate good soil in the heart, that seeds of divine grace might sprout and grow.

Non-dualists sometimes talk about personal God or the divine Other that gives us enlightenment as a grace. Maybe it's their response for Christianity and other theistic traditions.
Even some of them seem to have authentic relationship with personal God, they ultimately don't have theological framework to talk about God and human beings.

Their epistemology is grounded in their awareness, not intellect, since intellect is silenced. Pure awareness doesn't perceive boundaries, enlightenment means "not-two" (Shin Jin Mei, VI century A.D.), so there can be any reasonable discussion of transcendental God. That's why I gave up Zen - I felt I cannot feel the otherness of God - I was able to understand it by my intellect, but I was afraid that will be gone too, if I go too far.
Theoretically, yes.

That's why I would ask Adyashanti or Tolle if they personally think that there is a distinct God that is not the same as human spirit or - if there are distinct human spirits. I wonder what he'd tell me. Perhaps - that it's not important for the realization of enlightenment or that I should first discover "who I am".

For them theological discourse is superfluous. They insist on "experience" (pure awareness). And in that "experience" there is no You, no Other. There is only THAT WHICH IS.

I think that it's possible to believe in the Other while in the non-dual state - like Phil testifies. But even Phil says there's a strong disinclination to think and make act of will in that state. What if someone doesn't have this kind of solid Catholic formation? "Divine Other" can be easily replaced by "the Divine" that is everything that exists, and manifests in all phenomena arising in our mind.

I don't think enlightenment leads to the loss of faith or disables us to believe, but it's a challenge. It shouldn't be pursued outside of the context of religious faith, community, guidance etc.