Posted by johnboy on September 22, 19100 at 10:21:18:
In Reply to: Re: Levels of consciousness posted by Diana on September 21, 19100 at 18:44:28:
: Marion quotes Roberts as saying that on the nondual level, "there is now no difference between God's will and our own will. Our human will is now seen as one with the will of God." (p. 205)
Diana,
I'm not schooled in these matters as others here are but rely on erudition, experience, intuition and feedback in forums like this.
The way I have resolved these issues (and I am always seeking refinement and exhortation) is by eschewing an inflexible literal interpretation and too casual application of such static concepts as states, levels, stages, etc We discussed this before in other contexts but it is a recurring theme, I believe, because it is foundational.
This whole consideration is VERY intertwined with classical moral theology (and I intend to post something about that separately). At least in our Catholic tradition, we tended to focus on moral codes and manualism (the types of manuals which were used in confessionals, not so very long ago mid-20th Century even, which someone on another of our discussion boards rather unenlightenedly and unkindly referred to recently). As we know, from the very existence of Shalomplace, for instance, formative spirituality has a much more positive thrust to it nowadays. We grow as individuals and as a pilgrim Church, too.
Anyway, discussing "states" of grace or of sin seems to miss the mark regarding the reality of being human and these discussions, even in classical moral theology, are usually so highly nuanced that, if you read the fine print, you might conclude universal exculpability for all of us sinners; you might conclude that there are far more mistakes being made than sins being committed. I really appreciate the concept of fundamental option or fundamental orientation and I even understand the Vatican's caution regarding the need to very highly nuance fundamental option theory. What I like to do is to take William Johnston's approach (actually juandelacruz said this?) and consider Mystical Theology as the "Science of Love". If we use Mystical Theology as the overarching systematic theological concept under which we subsume Moral Theology and Spirituality, I think we'll get closer to the truth. For too long, these have been separate considerations and the emphasis in seminaries was on Moral Theology and not Spirituality (in the modern sense of resurrected disciplines of spiritual direction and formative spirituality). The Moral Theology was, in the past, in a word, impoverished, no doubt about it (that's why, whoever Emma Freud is, well ...).
So, anyway, let's agree that what we are here studying is the Science of Love. If you further agree with me that human beings, while we do grow and develop, cognitively, affectively, personality-wise, morally, faith-wise, spiritually --as explicated by Piaget, Kohlberg, Erikson, Fowler and other developmental psychologists, as understood within the discipline of spiritual direction, as set forth in classical mystical theology (maybe especially teresian and sanjuanist)---still, like our considerations using the Inner Child paradigm, SELDOM would I think that any of us PERDURE in Charity, in Love. Few humans, I believe, have ever attained consummate glorification in this life, have ever enjoyed a sinless existence. It is okay to think of states and stages and levels but it is misguided, I think, to suggest that we ever perdure in a psychic "place" of pure love and unbounded charity constrained as we are by concupisence and then human milieu, still glorious even in its imperfections, maybe moreso? Psychological science reveals that we don't always operate out of the hightest "levels" we've attained. For instance, I find my self-actualization and peak experiencing not to be an attainment but an occasional event. The Science of Love reveals the same thing about our transfigurations. We are more like electrons which, according to transient energy states, are found orbiting away from the nucleus, now here, now there. The emergent understanding of chemistry when I was in school, as regards electrons, was that they existed in "clouds", clouds of probability. I think this metaphor holds for spiritual stages, states, levels, etc We likely can make good probability statements regarding how a human being will behave according to their formation, nurture/nature, current milieu (which is broad and deep and long and mysterious). We can expect Love to show up here and there and don't expect to see it present elsewhere. We can intuit cooperation with grace or not in another and, using the science of love, I can predict that you will NOT "likely" come across in your lifetime, a person who will always use their freedom to love (we wouldn't be in a position to know this anyway, for only God can know this). I can also predict, I think safely, that when you aren't encountering love that it is more likely that what you are witnessing is a lack of authentic freedom. We are always traveling, never arriving. We remain pilgrims, individually and ecclesially. We remain sick and sinners in need of grace and renewal and semper reformanda.
Additional confusion can arise from mixing up statements which are metaphorical, anagogical, unitive, etc
Even more confusion arises, I believe, from not distinguishing between natural and supernatural processes. We don't collapse dual-nondual "states" for instance, as if there were some Hegelian dialectic/synthesis going on. We say not two-not one. As Catholics we say both/and. We experience the apophatic and nurture it kataphatically and then return and do it again, crossing and recrossing liminal thresholds.
Sure, people, especially B. Roberts, do perdure in mystical states, dualistic or mystical. You can see vividly, however, where much confusion, such as in this thread, can come about from confusing natural mystical states with supernatural states of grace and perduring charity. So much of my thread regarding consciousness had to do with making this point. Do people perdure in unitive mystical states? Positively. Do they perdure in dualistic mystical states? Positively. Do they perdure in Charity? For the most part, I'm sure fundamental orientations can get VERY well grounded in Love. Do all human behaviors derive from core fundamental orientations? No, some come from the peripheral and not so very well grounded in love parts of our being and some of these behaviors are mistakes but assuredly some of them are rejections of Love and lack of cooperation with grace.
I'll excerpt below from an older musing of mine.
i have often pondered how we move from image to likeness. i have pondered such from many different angles. it seems to go full circle back to a friends' question regarding "if the goal of spiritual growth and development was to become deified or humanized? Or are they the same in a sense?"
i believe that the answer to such will involve paradox, will be "yes and no" (in a sense) and that the question comes from a confrontation with Mystery.
John of the Cross said that God is with us even in mortal sin and he said this in the context of emphasizing God's Immanence, of getting across the notion that as primal ground, primal support and primal being, should God "forget" us for a microsecond, we'd cease to even exist (much less exist and "enjoy" a breach of relationship with Him).
God's Immanent Presence gives us existence and informs the manner of this existence (i'm not a Plato scholar or Aristotle adherent, so just take this in the "for what it is worth coming from a banker" genre). In this existential and ontological sense, as we become most fully what we can "humanly", we will discover all manner of resourcefulness (full of resources and yes, gifted in various measures) physically, emotionally, mentally, musically, kinesthetically, psychically and all other manners of guaging human resourcefulness in those who awaken such resources.
I think much can take place, in the way of growth, in the "merely" natural order of things and sometimes we can confuse the natural with the supernatural because we witness, so rarely, people taking full advantage of innate psychic giftedness and human potentiality. A full "awakening" of "human" potentialities might in fact be a morally neutral phenomenom, still a tabula rasa or template yet to be informed by the faculty of the will with a valence, so to speak, in the direction of Truth, Beauty, Justice and Love or of their "counterparts" in evil or merely of the self.
what i have described above might describe the purely existential-ontological aspect which is profoundly affected by, and which actively takes part in, the transformative processes of the theological-personal aspect, that aspect whereby we are, in a phrase, being deified.
God's Transcendent Presence initiates us into a new mode of existence. In this theological and personal sense, as we become most fully what we can "divinely", we will discover all manner of spiritual resourcefulness, more appropriately "giftedness" . Again, much can take place, in the way of growth, in this "supernatural" order of things, when "trustful surrender and abadonment to Divine Providence" takes place. A full "awakening" of our "divine" potentialities is fully informed by the faculty of the will with a valence, so to speak, in the direction of Truth, Beauty, Justice and Love, of God, however He or She is, explicitly or implicitly, conceived by the Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, whomever.
i will venture out and suggest that all spiritual transformative processes (which may include what some call enlightenment) involve an "awakening" of existential and ontological human potentialities. however, i believe there can be pronounced "awakenings" of our human potentialities, existentially and ontologically (which may include what some erroneously call enlightenment), which do not involve spiritual transformative processes (transcendently, theologically, personally).
the "superhuman", existentially and ontologically, with fully potentialized humanity, is no doubt on the very threshold of the supernatural. on this threshold, the "superhuman" may nonetheless be poised for "spiritual union" with either supreme Goodness or ultimate evil. it is when we cross the threshold of intellect to faith, memory to hope and will to love that our human potentialities take on a valence, a direction. when we resist crossing this spiritual rubicon, we are in jeopardy of turning to a world of magic, of sorcery, of the occult as we order our intellect, memory, will and other faculties toward self and power, prestige, pride, possessions, pleasure and subtle forms of spiritual ambition.
our rituals can become magic; our prayer can approach sorcery and this is true for both roman catholics and buddhists and all other "practitioners". this is why Ignatius elaborated discernment processes for consolations and desolations. this is why juan de la cruz elaborated great caveats regarding same. this is why we are admonished to kill the Buddha. spiritual experiences are epiphenomena of contact with spirits, but with WHICH spirit? hence, Ignatius speaks of the "Contemplation to Attain Love" and Teresa says: "The Water is for the Flowers" and Francis says "It is in Giving that we Receive". as Teresa counsels: "Let us desire and be occupied in prayer, not so much for the consolations we receive, but so as to gain the strength to serve."
there is indeed a mysterious nexus between the human and the divine, but our relationship to the divine is connatural in the metaphysical sense but not necessarily consanguinal, not a metaphysical bloodline. how can i better say this? we are co-heirs through adoption (hence no pantheism). probably through a good Christology, Christians will get a better grasp of who we are as individuals and a People by looking to Jesus, even academically; Christians and nonChristians alike, who, in the manner of our living and through our surrender to the Good, can realize existentially who we are via our trust relationship to Ultimate Reality.
our aspirations and desires in the yuppie world of yada, yada, yada contribute to and draw from a pseudo-unitive-consciousness that is subtly devoted to the world or the self or the devil and our contact with this false ultimacy and our inauthentic relationship to creatures can spark ecstasies and bliss and psychic-euphoric phenomena.
our aspirations and desires in the world of nada, nada, nada, mu, mu, mu contribute and draw from a untive-consciousness that is manifestly devoted to another world and our proper relationship of the self to The Other. our contact with The Ultimate and our authentic, sacramental relationship to creatures can spark ecstasies and bliss and psychic-euphoric phenomena.
I guess i burned a lot of bandwidth to suggest that there are "onenesses" and there is the ONENESS. people from manifold religions, traditions, paths can and do experience both on their earthly sojourns.
In closing, I wrote this several years ago, and after reading _Ways In Mystery_, I still believe my perspective mostly hits the mark.
I DO BELIEVE, like the Dominicans, in Life-Long Learning (do I have the right order here?). I also believe that all things are possible with God and that She raises up saints, East and West, throughout history. I am not educated enough to comment on what avatars might truly be but I acknowledge a debt to the Hindu tradition and all other major religions. My faith teaches, however, that Jesus is THE Christ and that I am a co-heir through adoption and not ontologically. He is pure love and I am not. My participation in Love is NOW and my fuller participation is an eschatological event. Thus, metaphorically, the Kingdom/Christ Consciousness in me is NOW; anagogically, the Kingdom/Christ Consciousness in me is TO COME; unitively, NEITHER of those statements is who I AM. Your first sign of gnosticism is when MYSTERY disappears from someone's explanations.
Mystery perdures. Love perdures. Mystical "States" perdure.
The mystery of how love might perdure in perduring mystical states perdures.
Love (best I can),
jboy