posted
That's very interesting, w.c., and I like the way you've written about the limitations of perception between lower and higher beings. As you noted, however, there are problems with the Kabbalists' view of how God creates -- at least from the Christian perspective. Still, it's a noble effort, and does allow for a rather comprehensive explanation of the relationship between God and creatures. Without the grace of Revelation, though, we're just basically conjecturing.
Although Revelation doesn't tell us anything, really, on how, precisely, we get from God to creatures, the dynamic of "spoken word" is given to us as a kind of hint, from Genesis to John. On another thread, I shared in the opening post a pdf file with reflection on the relationship between Speaker and what is spoken. It's a short journey from "word" to "form" and, well . . . we're in the good company of Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas after that. Still, neither one of them (to my knowledge, at least) did much writing on what we might call the "interface" between Speaker and word, or Existence and Essence. Surely there must be such an interface, or at least some "zone" of transition, and conscious creatures ought to be able to "tune in," as it were, to that zone. That's about as far as we can go, however, as the Speaker, Form-given, Source of Existence lies beyond this zone, in a dimension that we cannot penetrate with our limited knowing.
-------------------- "The Light shines on in darkness . . ." - John 1: 3 - Posts: 7539 | From: Wichita, KS | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I really enjoy your musings, w.c. Thank you for all that you share so generously of yourself at Shalom Place.
It is incredible to consider that a blind-spot would exist in enlightenment--what a paradox, eh?
It is interesting that in that sudden shift into a kind of enlightenment, but limited to a visual/knowing perspective, I saw that everything was made of love. The splendor of this love-stuff was so intense, that it overwhelmed my other faculties, couldn't move, couldn't talk, couldn't imagine functioning. But it is understandable scripturally in that we are told that "all things were created" in and by and for Christ. Fascinating...and this omnipresence idea of Christ has led some to stop at panthiesm.
However, there is a deeper love that I've experienced a few times in Mystical Union. It is more extraordinary than the Cosmic Christ, Essence/Beingness.. In such a consumate embrace with God, I feel as though I could happily place my head on a chopping block for Jesus, that I am moved to such sacrifice, such surrender, desire for obedience, a total offering of myself at any cost. You just don't get that anywhere else but Grace.
Posts: 352 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
mateusz
unregistered
posted
I can relate to what you write, Shasha, since I remember I had some glimpses of "everything made of love". But I also think it's a different kind of experience than uncreated Love descending from heaven. But some people don't even experience that, seemingly having sort of "cold and indifferent" enlightenment. But, as I said in a different thread, I heard and met Zen masters speaking much of love, but without relationship to God. It also resonates with the Big Heart experience, somehow.
I think the first experience is sort of "love IS" or "all is love", while in the second, in the heavenly Love, there is "He loves me" and "I am invited to share the Love of those Three Persons". This sometimes feels just too much for a human being... this love could passionately kill, separate soul from body and destroy our nature so easily, if it lifted the veil and showed Her Face... but in Her tenderness and delicacy she gives only as much as we can receive at the moment...
IP: Logged |
mateusz
unregistered
posted
I like your interpretation of cosmic love as the presence of the cosmic Christ. I also thought about another interpretation - I mentioned few times the concept of Gregory of Nyssa - the mind as the mirror reflecting qualities of the divine, uncreated Nature in a limited, created form. GN following Genesis maintains that if we are images of God, we have to possess all qualities of God's Nature. If you see someone's face reflected in a mirror, everything looks just like it: there are two eyes, the coulor is the same, the shape of nose and mouth - no quality is omitted. So if our mind is a mirror of God, it has to possess all those qualities, but in a created degree. The beautiful metaphor of GN is that even the smallest particle of glass reflects the whole sun, the color, shape and brightness, but according to its own smallness.
So GN says that our mind must be "ungraspable", impossible to know, because God's nature is ungraspable (this approach is prevailing in the Orthodox tradition, in the Western - not to such a degree). So the fact that we cannot know the essence of our mind - recognized by Zen masters very profoundly (Bodhidharma asked by the emperor "Who am I talking to?" answered "I don't know this man") - reflects the God's unknowability and enables us to contemplate this unknowability via our own one. Our mind must be also immortal and indestructible, because God is such, but we have beginning, God doesn't, and God could destroy us, if he wanted to. Our mind's essence is beyond time/space, open to the absolute present, because God is eternal and beyond time/space. But - as W.C. writes - the "eternity" of metaphysical, cosmic mysticism is not exactly God's eternal life. But it's a "reflection" of it. And so on, and so forth - beauty, reality, truth, transparence, energy, freedom, immateriality, boundlessness, emptiness, lucidity, qualified omnipresence, apatheia, witnessing, intelligence, memory/presence - all those qualities of our minds are God's qualities reflected in a created human nature.
Normally, in our unenlightened mode we don't experience fully the glory of our own nature as a mirror of God, because we are turned outwards and addicted to the sensible world and our passions. When we purify our minds and hearts, it's possible that we see the pure mirror and in that mirror we see Divine Nature, we see ourselves as manifesting divine qualities. But these are not OUR qualities, as non-dualists maintain, they are God's qualities which in our case are created, limited, much weaker. But through those qualities we somehow see God, God as manifested in us, not as He is in His transcendent Essence.
So if God is Love, our mind reflects that as well or should. For St. Augustine it is in the mutual interpenetration of presence/intelligence/love we can see God's image in us, but he thought we are much more distorted than optimistic Gregory believed. Even for Augustine mind is love. Non-dual guru Adyashanti (I mentioned him somewhere else) - he's very sweet and I like his teaching - says that the essence of mind is lucidity, emptiness and love. So I guess we can contemplate God's love as it is reflected in our created consciousness. And if we don't know transcendent Love, we might think it's as much as we can get from God.
Augustine says that we cannot grasp the Trinity through our minds, because presence/understanding/love are aspects of our mind, not distinct persons. But we can get some kind of glimpse. So I think we might understand the experience of cosmic luminosity, oneness and love as experiences of the created consciousness which becomes so pure (or is essentially pure deep down, we just don't have access to it) that we can see not only THAT God is (I refer here to Phil's Lent talk about Trinity), but even indirectly WHAT God is. We cannot see by ourselves WHO God is, because we also are free to reveal ourselves to others or not, as we wish. When God wants to reveal Himself, He gives us another experience which is different than basic mirror-experience. We not only know God's divine qualities, but we know that He loves us personally, calls our name and offers every one of us transformation which will enable us to live a completely different life, eternal life which is experiencing the Son and the One Who Sent Him.
This is how I understand the difference between seeing that God is love - and that my mind and all creation is love-like, and seeing that God as Love loves me and enables me to love Him back in the Family of the Trinity.
Sometimes I wonder at the paradox of the mirror experience - it's somehow seeing ourselves and God at the same time, just like when I see the reflection of someone's face in a mirror, I see THIS PERSON but in fact I don't see HIM but I see only THE MIRROR. The metaphor is amazingly precise, though it's only a metaphor, as Thomas Merton stressed. In contemplation it's like the face reflected in the mirror starts to speak and share about his/her life with me, speaking DIRECTLY TO ME. But even if it doesn't speak, I can see the smile on the face and know that we're all loved - this would be natural experience of God's love - that all that exists is loved and sustained by love.
I stop here. This is a positive side of this experience. W.C. and Shasha speak much about the negative side, that is, that looking in the mirror without faith might lead to a mirror saying: "Wow, I'm so great, I'm so luminous, calm, infinite, loving, I'm the Sun, I'm THAT". We can imagine all the rest. But - in my own experience - the faith makes a huge difference. If you believe that you're not God, even after a powerful experience that looks like YOU are so great, you turn to God and thank Him, because you know that it is HE that is great, not you. But what if you don't believe in God? And you have narcissistic structure of personality? And people tell you how great a guru you are?
I think that the "blindspot" W.C. describes might be also expressed, using the Gregorian metaphor, as the lack of recognition that there is a real sun besides the sun reflected in me as me, and that the mirror is not self-caused, self-sustaining reality, but dependent on the Sun in its existence.
IP: Logged |
w.c.
unregistered
posted
mateusz:
Yes, that to me is a very good exploration of the topic, and good nuancing of it. One thing that occured to me last night was how "personhood" is obvious among human beings (although the depth of this often not seen experientially, but assumed in terms of conscience, natural law, etc), while our energetic nature (chakras, etc) are hidden; whereas with God, His cosmic powers are more obvious, but His personhood is only bestowed to us through grace. When we meditate on our internal state, we might of course deepen our sense of personhood, especially if the heart wakes up, but it is also possible, and maybe more likely if naricissism is strong, that the energetic intensity unfolds without a sense of one's personhood. Of course, that doesn't account for those Buddhists and Hindus who are otherwise not plagued with such psychopathology, in which case your description aboved is a generous and welcome fit. I suspect that Buddhists and Hindus who describe a falling away of self are still deeply immersed in the reality of personhood, but without a theological or psychological emphasis on it.
I'd like to explore further how heart awakening tends to bridge these two perceptions, where we are deepened in our sense of relational presence, while partaking of some aspect of the nond-dual state. Of course, the source of heart awakening would probably shape the perception considerably. I've been experiencing increasing meltings in my heart during prayer and throughout the day, which several times a month seems to lead to the fermenting/oozing of nectar dripping down my breastbone. I never know when this will happen, and it often occurs during daily activities. So delicious, and deeply relational: increased gratitude, ripened conscience, dissolving of judgementalness, healing of passions, etc, and there seems to be an opening to a domain of devotional life quite beyond my own. I wonder how this arises among Buddhists and if it generates a more devotional sense of things like that found among Tibetans.
It might quite helpful for this thread to explore such topics as the devotional/relational nature of the heart, and the enduring reality of personhood in the midst of nondual awareness. A distinction for me would be how an infant embodies personness from the very beginning, and probably gestationally, but lacks a developed sense of self. Personness seems to defy all reductionism when it comes to human psychology, as I see this daily even among the most ravaged Alzheimer's patients; it may submerge, but reemerges during episodes of near death lucidity, often accompanied by increased non-local psychic abilities that contradict notions like brain-dervied hallucinations, etc.
The indestructible quality of personness may be the permanent imprint of the Trinity within the soul.
Personness seems primary to human life, perhaps the basis for being able to say "I," but even more fundamental as it appears prior to the brain development necessary for such congnitive constructs. I can't think of an example where it is lost, or lacking, whereas "self" is more easily reducible.
In mysticism a tulpa is the concept of a being or object which is created through sheer willpower alone. It is a materialized thought that has taken physical form and is usually regarded as synonymous to a thoughtform.[6]
The term comes from the works of Alexandra David-Neel, who claimed to have created a tulpa in the image of a jolly, Friar Tuck-like monk which later developed a life of its own and had to be destroyed.
quote:Originally posted by w.c.: cut It's my impression from experience that consciousness is powerful, but limited. While we interact and affect each other physically and mentally and spiritually over distances, we do not create out of nothing, nor do we overcome death, display ominiscience, omnipresence or omnibenevolence. cut
First, I'm familiar with the notion from having been a Tibetan Buddhist many years ago. Tulpas are not seriously considered living physical entities, but psychic projections with life mainly in the subjective realm, used in black and white magic for various ends, evil or good. But as for creating out of nothing, there is really little resemblance. The ability to sustain psychic projection in a group seance-like setting is not unknown, but the materialization of objects is simply legend. Those Tibetan lamas are a lot more human than their reputation and ritualized appearance suggest. Even the great ones, like Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche and Kalu Rinpoche, are dead; they were not able to regenerate their bodies, dissolve and resolidify, or even obtain the legendary "Rainbow Body." And these two lamas were considered fully awakened (10th bhumi), living Buddhas, and of the tradition which would have embraced such so-called supernatural activities, at least within their innermost circles. Based on what I've read (and in one case a personal contact with a disciple), I have little doubt these lamas were highly virtuous, although Kalu Rinpoche has been accused of a sexual affair with one of his female disciples.
To create out of nothing, authentically, one would have to create an entirely new energetic template within the ground of being, such that the creation wouldn't simply be the replication of an existing life form, but something entirely new, like a horse with a lion's head. But even replicating is legendary, although it should be easy-enough to accomplish by an experienced meditator were supernatual power inherent in human nature. One should be able to replicate food, for instance, for famished regions of the world. Just send some experienced meditators to the sticken area and let them do their charity work. If this were possible, the New Age media coverage would be front page news.
But my sarcasm is to make a point:
If consciousness had this power, we'd see the results throughout the world. It wouldn't be a rare power, but common to us all. And those experienced meditators would be materializing dakinis and other visualizations for all to see. It isn't happening.
I guess the most obvious example of this imaginary schema is how none of us, regardless of the strength of our sexual fantasies, produce anything remarkable beyond our subjective impressions. Not that we don't generate some impression psychically with the person we might fantasize about, but if the power to create out of nothing were part of the psychic ability, we'd be populating our bedrooms from time to time with some strange bed fellows!
So if we were really essentially the same as the One who created the universe, we'd all be creating out of nothing, in fits and starts, as the power was recovered through various degrees of enlightenment. It wouldn't be that big of a deal if it were truly our nature.
Although we can't create out of nothing, as you've noted, I think human creativity is nontheless remarkable. We have been given to share in the work of what Teilhard de Chardin called "building the earth," and we are amazingly gifted to do so, provided our minds and wills aren't corrupted by sin. That, alas, is too often the case, making of us something akin to cancer cells on the planet. The distinction between divinity and consciousness is painfully obvious in such situations.
-------------------- "The Light shines on in darkness . . ." - John 1: 3 - Posts: 7539 | From: Wichita, KS | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
"To create out of nothing, authentically, one would have to create an entirely new energetic template within the ground of being, such that the creation wouldn't simply be the replication of an existing life form, but something entirely new," cut
quote:Originally posted by mateusz: ...This is how I understand the difference between seeing that God is love - and that my mind and all creation is love-like, and seeing that God as Love loves me and enables me to love Him back in the Family of the Trinity. ...
Thank you for sharing your thoughts here, Mateusz. I've enjoyed your contributions as I catch up reading across these several threads.
There is that scripture that says "all things are held together in Christ." Does that support our seeing creation as love-like or seeing everything made of love, I wonder.
posted
Meister Eckhart is sometimes accused of blurring the distinctions between Creator and creature, and some of his writings do give that impression. Here's a very clear indication of his metaphysics, however, found in his "Sermon #7," on "Outward and Inward Morality."
quote: Outward as well as inward morality helps to form the idea of true Christian freedom. We are right to lay stress on inwardness, but in this world there is no inwardness without an outward expression. If we regard the soul as the formative principle of the body, and God as the formative principle of the soul, we have a profounder principle of ethics than is found in Pantheism. The fundamental thought of this system is the real distinction between God and the world, together with their real inseparability, for only really distinct elements can interpenetrate each other.
Sounds pretty orthodox to me.
-------------------- "The Light shines on in darkness . . ." - John 1: 3 - Posts: 7539 | From: Wichita, KS | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here's another good one (putting Daily Seed together this week is yielding some real nuggets).
quote:As long as I am content to know that He is infinitely greater than I, and that I cannot know Him unless He shows Himself to me, I will have Peace, and He will be near me and in me, and I will rest in Him. - Thomas Merton
[ March 26, 2009, 03:21 PM: Message edited by: Phil ]
-------------------- "The Light shines on in darkness . . ." - John 1: 3 - Posts: 7539 | From: Wichita, KS | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
w.c.
unregistered
posted
Phil:
Yes to both of those. And don't you find it interesting that God's working outside of our awareness, and the nature of true humility, wherein others notice our maturity (or lack of it) more than we do, are related?
This whole issue of dicernment, not only between consciousness and the Divine, but for matters of spiritual growth, really does have its litmus test in those people who know us best. Hence the absolute importance of community life. Even the highly cloistered Carthusians, as far as I know, meet daily for Mass, and for regular confession.
How are we treating others day by day? How much tolerance do we exercise? How aware are we, as we interact with each other, of moments of jealousy, pride, lust, etc, and how these effect others and ourselves. When other people strike these painful cords, do we remember to let this open us to more honesty? Do we have a sense of humor for imperfections in these moments? If we think we're beyond the basics, then it is so easy to rationalize our behavior as some teaching device for those we feel just don't get it.
The few saints I think I've met, or known, didn't come across as mystical powerhouses. Just very real, down-to-earth people who didn't have much of an "ego," as in popular usage. They didn't seem all that impressed with their experiences, and didn't talk about this sort of thing very much, if it all.
posted
w.c., I agree. I think without the kind of accountability you've mentioned, and without a sense of God as an-Other to whom I am accountable, it's easy for ego-inflation to mask as a non-dual experience. After all, the absence of the experience of "other" doesn't necessarily connote union or realization of some innate divinity; it can also be accounted for by the amplification of "I" -- especially if reflectivity is suppressed. There's a very different sense about such a person: a subtle (or not-so-subtle) arrogance, condescension, and even grandiosity -- like they have nothing to learn from anyone. That's quite different from the kind of healthy self-acceptance one finds in spiritually healthy people.
[ March 26, 2009, 09:39 PM: Message edited by: Phil ]
-------------------- "The Light shines on in darkness . . ." - John 1: 3 - Posts: 7539 | From: Wichita, KS | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
w.c.
unregistered
posted
Yes, that is an interesting description of how inflation goes unchecked as "union," a kind of infantile narcissism re-packaged. Given the power and even survival urgency of pathologically-driven kundalini to numb us to emotional pain, and therefore to an aspect of conscience, one can see how reflectivity in a more basic way could be regarded as beneath the "enlightened." If everything is awash in such a mood-altering experience, what's all the fuss with those who seem to take exception?!
. Shalom Place
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
