Christian Mysticism: an interview with Christian contemplative Bernadette Roberts
08-20-2013
, 09:01 PM
That's some pretty good stuff ...
The classic depiction of Shakyamuni is him touching the ground. Mara confronted Shakyamuni and asked him who was the witness to his enlightenment - Buddha reached down, touched the earth and said the earth was his witness.
Quote:
What is unlimited are the various masks or roles self is tempted to play in the state of oneness - savior, prophet, healer, martyr, Mother Earth, you name it. They are all temptations to seize power for ourselves, to think ourselves to be whatever the mask or role may be. In the state of oneness, both Christ and Buddha were tempted in this manner, but they held to the "ground" that they knew to be devoid of all such energies. This ground is a "stillpoint", not a moving energy-point. Unmasking these energies, seeing them as ruses of the self, is the particular task to be accomplished or hurdle to be overcome in the state of oneness. We cannot come to the ending of self until we have finally seen through these archetypes and can no longer be moved by any of them. So the path from oneness to no-oneness is a life that is choicelessly devoid of ego-satisfaction; a life of unmasking the energies of self and all the divine roles it is tempted to play. It is hard to call this life a "path", yet it is the only way to get to the end of our journey.
08-21-2013
, 02:46 PM
08-21-2013
, 05:16 PM
"After all, each person's passage is his or her own; there is no such thing as a collective passage."
Read the interview but this affected me most at the very end, last sentence above.
Each passage is indeed his own, which denies the previous in her interview in which there appears to be denial of the "Ego" or "I". To enter into the realm of the spiritual the "Ego" is to be suppressed, but not denied, but still lives and is effected within this movement. In this the "Ego" acts within a selfless activity but in no way is not active.
The "Ego" is that in which a man can enter into the throes of "good and evil" and consequential renews the being of man. It is possible for the "Ego" to enter into each of these realms,"good and evil".
The biggest difficulty is that she denies a "collective passage" which explicitly or implicitly denies the movement of the entire human race into these realms. This, she represents , the activity of the "mysteries" from Old India to Persia to Egypto- Chaldean and Grecian times which were "individual" and not for the populace. Human beings in this respect brought their findings to the common man and in this cultures thrived.
The "New" is indeed collective with the movement of the entire human race into these realms or "Kingdom of God" through the advent of the event on Golgotha, the collective that of the Christ Being in earthly activity.
How is this manifested into the future? We are in the spiritual groupings of nation, race, clan, etc... Archangelic beings are the spiritual leaders of particular nations, within the mystery centers as an earthly/national manifestation.For example, the Archangelic leaders of the English, French, Italian, nations are loosening their effect with the entire human race being grouped in the future, and now, within the Christ, the Spirit of the Earth. This, the collective movement (for want of a better word) is what she denies.
Reading what is offered in the interview it is apparent that her path is indeed not for me or you or others, except in special cases, but in any case it is "individual" and exclusive to her. There are no instructions nor consideration that a man should obtain this insight "within self consciousness" as apposed to a particular trance state which was the method of the old mysteries. Again i can't tell whether she is in a 'trance" but doi8ng this with clear consciousness is the future. In Anthroposophy this is called "Spiritual Science" but it is not a term exclusive to Anthroposophy; literally a "Science of the Spirit".
Read the interview but this affected me most at the very end, last sentence above.
Each passage is indeed his own, which denies the previous in her interview in which there appears to be denial of the "Ego" or "I". To enter into the realm of the spiritual the "Ego" is to be suppressed, but not denied, but still lives and is effected within this movement. In this the "Ego" acts within a selfless activity but in no way is not active.
The "Ego" is that in which a man can enter into the throes of "good and evil" and consequential renews the being of man. It is possible for the "Ego" to enter into each of these realms,"good and evil".
The biggest difficulty is that she denies a "collective passage" which explicitly or implicitly denies the movement of the entire human race into these realms. This, she represents , the activity of the "mysteries" from Old India to Persia to Egypto- Chaldean and Grecian times which were "individual" and not for the populace. Human beings in this respect brought their findings to the common man and in this cultures thrived.
The "New" is indeed collective with the movement of the entire human race into these realms or "Kingdom of God" through the advent of the event on Golgotha, the collective that of the Christ Being in earthly activity.
How is this manifested into the future? We are in the spiritual groupings of nation, race, clan, etc... Archangelic beings are the spiritual leaders of particular nations, within the mystery centers as an earthly/national manifestation.For example, the Archangelic leaders of the English, French, Italian, nations are loosening their effect with the entire human race being grouped in the future, and now, within the Christ, the Spirit of the Earth. This, the collective movement (for want of a better word) is what she denies.
Reading what is offered in the interview it is apparent that her path is indeed not for me or you or others, except in special cases, but in any case it is "individual" and exclusive to her. There are no instructions nor consideration that a man should obtain this insight "within self consciousness" as apposed to a particular trance state which was the method of the old mysteries. Again i can't tell whether she is in a 'trance" but doi8ng this with clear consciousness is the future. In Anthroposophy this is called "Spiritual Science" but it is not a term exclusive to Anthroposophy; literally a "Science of the Spirit".
08-22-2013
, 09:53 AM
Quote:
I am not sure.... I am sure for some, I guess it comes down to what is meant by faith. You hear a lot about intelligent faith v. Blind faith in Mahayana and Vajrayana, the former being what is developed.
I didn't get that at all - essentially what I understood is that in the end it is everyone's responsibility... There is no sitting back and waiting for some critical mass that will drag you along to enlightenment in its wake. Everyone has to do the work.
How do you see that statement as barring the entire human race from progressing?
I didn't get that at all - essentially what I understood is that in the end it is everyone's responsibility... There is no sitting back and waiting for some critical mass that will drag you along to enlightenment in its wake. Everyone has to do the work.
How do you see that statement as barring the entire human race from progressing?
I am hopelessly afloat so I'll go back to her statement which states THERE is no collective approach. What should have been said is that this is my(her) way, which is individual but have no right to deny the collective which is indeed is the Christ Way which is all about individuals.
After all, she is purported to be a CHRISTIAN MYSTIC but at the same time only sees the individual in her work which is all about her. Pedantic, yes, but it has some point which I am not presenting well or to my satisfaction.
08-22-2013
, 11:04 AM
08-22-2013
, 05:38 PM
Quote:
Yes, I actually came back to answer Dufee and glad you responded. I think I'm somewhat pedantic in my observation of her statement but the perspective I hoped to present is that in the movement of the human race to redemption and refurbishment it is Christ Way, Truth and Light. All men, whether separated by geography, race, religion (including Christianity) are within the work as individuals.
I am hopelessly afloat so I'll go back to her statement which states THERE is no collective approach. What should have been said is that this is my(her) way, which is individual but have no right to deny the collective which is indeed is the Christ Way which is all about individuals.
After all, she is purported to be a CHRISTIAN MYSTIC but at the same time only sees the individual in her work which is all about her. Pedantic, yes, but it has some point which I am not presenting well or to my satisfaction.
I am hopelessly afloat so I'll go back to her statement which states THERE is no collective approach. What should have been said is that this is my(her) way, which is individual but have no right to deny the collective which is indeed is the Christ Way which is all about individuals.
After all, she is purported to be a CHRISTIAN MYSTIC but at the same time only sees the individual in her work which is all about her. Pedantic, yes, but it has some point which I am not presenting well or to my satisfaction.
The Incarnation was the Logos creating Its own human nature, creating man’s one common human nature eternally one with Itself, and this oneness of God’s divine nature and man’s human nature we know and call “Christ”. The term, word, or title “Christ” is not the name of any human being, but refers solely to God’s eternal oneness with Man. The Incarnation was not God uniting Itself to any particular human being or person. Christ is not the oneness of two persons, two individuals or two beings, nor is Christ a divine being or a human being, rather, Christ is the eternal oneness of two natures, divine and human. Thus the Incarnation was the revelation of Man (Universal Man) and God’s Plan for all mankind, and this Truth, this revelation, is everything we know and call “Christ”.
The purpose of the Incarnation was not to reveal the man Jesus – give us another god for the pantheon – but to reveal Man, God’s eternal plan for his eternal oneness with God. Prior to the Incarnation, Christ did not exist, nor did the man Jesus exist, only the divine Logos, God, eternally existed. Thus neither as a human being or a human person was the man Jesus, divine, or even Christ. It is solely the oneness of the divine Logos with Its own human nature that is Christ, and it is this mystery of God’s indivisible oneness with the essence of mankind we call the “Real Christ”.
Since there is only one common human nature – not many, different kinds, or particular human natures, one can count heads, but not human natures. As the “instrument” of revealing Christ, the singular man born into this world was given the common Jewish name “Jesus”. It was not this individual person or particular man, however, that was Christ, rather, Christ is solely God’s own human nature and not the human nature of any particular human being or person. So where the term “Christ” is a reference to the indivisible oneness of two natures, the name “Jesus” is solely a reference to a particular human being or person.
08-22-2013
, 08:47 PM
Quote:
I found this quote (here) from Roberts:
The Incarnation was the Logos creating Its own human nature, creating man’s one common human nature eternally one with Itself, and this oneness of God’s divine nature and man’s human nature we know and call “Christ”. The term, word, or title “Christ” is not the name of any human being, but refers solely to God’s eternal oneness with Man. The Incarnation was not God uniting Itself to any particular human being or person. Christ is not the oneness of two persons, two individuals or two beings, nor is Christ a divine being or a human being, rather, Christ is the eternal oneness of two natures, divine and human. Thus the Incarnation was the revelation of Man (Universal Man) and God’s Plan for all mankind, and this Truth, this revelation, is everything we know and call “Christ”.
The purpose of the Incarnation was not to reveal the man Jesus – give us another god for the pantheon – but to reveal Man, God’s eternal plan for his eternal oneness with God. Prior to the Incarnation, Christ did not exist, nor did the man Jesus exist, only the divine Logos, God, eternally existed. Thus neither as a human being or a human person was the man Jesus, divine, or even Christ. It is solely the oneness of the divine Logos with Its own human nature that is Christ, and it is this mystery of God’s indivisible oneness with the essence of mankind we call the “Real Christ”.
Since there is only one common human nature – not many, different kinds, or particular human natures, one can count heads, but not human natures. As the “instrument” of revealing Christ, the singular man born into this world was given the common Jewish name “Jesus”. It was not this individual person or particular man, however, that was Christ, rather, Christ is solely God’s own human nature and not the human nature of any particular human being or person. So where the term “Christ” is a reference to the indivisible oneness of two natures, the name “Jesus” is solely a reference to a particular human being or person.
In my studies the beginning of the John Gospel should read "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was A God." Please note the difference and this goes along with the scholarship of Aquinas and in effect the theology/philosophy of the Roman Catholic Church. Please note the "A" above. whew!!
Not debating but bringing to light others especially the Roman Church Fathers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christology
08-23-2013
, 12:47 AM
Quote:
As I'm sure you know it gets really complicated and so I'll reference Wikipedia which speaks to Christ having pre existed prior to the incarnation and in Paul the notion of the Cosmic Christ. this all leads to the Trinity but I'll leave it up to you and whomever wishes to read the reference. the short is that Christ had existence prior to the incarnation at which time the man Jesus of Nazareth would be referred to as Christ Jesus. Also the gospel of John relate Christ as the "Word" or "Honover".
In my studies the beginning of the John Gospel should read "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was A God." Please note the difference and this goes along with the scholarship of Aquinas and in effect the theology/philosophy of the Roman Catholic Church. Please note the "A" above. whew!!
Not debating but bringing to light others especially the Roman Church Fathers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christology
In my studies the beginning of the John Gospel should read "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was A God." Please note the difference and this goes along with the scholarship of Aquinas and in effect the theology/philosophy of the Roman Catholic Church. Please note the "A" above. whew!!
Not debating but bringing to light others especially the Roman Church Fathers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christology