Posted by Diana on September 27, 19100 at 17:13:37:
In Reply to: Re: True Self, False Self. . . Bernadette Roberts posted by Philip St. Romain on September 27, 19100 at 17:12:28:
: : Are you saying that Bernadette has re-interpreted
: : Christian mystical tradition to suit her own needs? And, in an inaccurate fashion? Am I also to believe that you are saying her work is not credible? Fun, but not credible?
: Yes. That's what I'm saying! There are some very sound parts of her writings, but others which just don't hold up. To make matters worse, she is incapable of dialoguing about this, and of hearing the objections.
Thank you. I just wanted to be clear about what I was hearing.
: : would realizing our Christ self involve having perfect psychological integration? There have been some pretty sick saints!
: No. But that depends on what you mean by Christ self. It's not necessarily the same thing that people mean by Enlightenment, which definitely doesn't require much psychological intetration.
Oh, I see our Christ self as something very different from enlightenment. Our Christ self
involves consciously realizing our divinity. I wasn't trying to equate the two.
: There are at least three journeys: psychological, metaphysical, and mystical. What's confusing is that people use the word Self as the fulfillment of them all.
: : A butterfly doesn't act like a caterpiller.
: Not unless it's still got caterpillar conditioning.
No Phil :) Not even with caterpillar conditioning. :) The equipment's been changed.
: : The reason I am belaboring this point is because I have also had intutions similar to this during
: : periods of meditation. I think there is much to this idea that you are simply misinterpreting and
: : dismissing. I also think a lot of it has to do with how one defines sin.
: Not sure what I'm misunderstanding. Not sure, either, why it's so difficult to understand what sin is. It's simply the human will out of alignment with the Divine will, acting to reinforce its sense of separateness and self-sufficiency. Missing the Mark is another way of putting it, as long as the Mark is considered conformity with the divine will.
I see sin in these two ways:
1. Some people refer to transgressions of moral
or ethical codes as sin. For example, I disobeyed my parents, I lied, etc. This is one way of seeing sin. The 'Bless me Father for I have sinned' variety....
2. Another way to see sin is that of missing the mark but the mark being the state of Christ consciousness. In other words, living in a
land of consciousness where one thinks one is separate from God. This is the sin that Christ ended when we talk about him ending sin and death.
We don't live separate from God. This is the Garden of Eden. In this way, sin no longer exists for us.
We can still trangress moral codes but once we
realize the oneness, there is no longer sin
in that sense of the word. Do you see where I'm coming from now?
These two definitions are very different.
You didn't understand because you seemed to think I was looking for a way to escape personal responsibility. I'm not.
Is that better?
Thank you Phil....especially since you're on retreat!
Love,
Diana