Nikolai's Practice notes, Phase .2.

This is part of summary of what Bernadette Roberts wrote about in the link to her book Owen posted above. I posted the link to the entire summary of the book above as well: Thoughts?

START OF QUOTE: "Based upon her personal discovery, Roberts asserts that self includes
the affective system of willing, feeling, emotion, as these are
expressed along a spectrum of energy ranging from the subtle and
unconscious, to the obvious outbursts of passion. This system is
separate from the cognitive system, but it so greatly infiltrates the
mind (cognitive system) and the entire mental apparatus, that these
energies of the affective system cannot be separated from the cognitive
faculties until the no-self is experienced.

Roberts states that the extent of infiltration by the affective system
is hardly known, as we tend to believe we can be objective about it.

She looks further into the nature of the affective system. She says that
a child feels before it thinks, and in time discovers the separation
between seer and seen, and becomes self-conscious. At this point,
Roberts says, feelings become fused with knowing.

There is more to the understanding of self, she says, than being aware
of self. There must be a sense of personal feeling behind it, which
says, "this is me," "I am myself." This personal energy becomes a core
feeling, or that which makes us human. And it claims all psychic and
physical energy for its own. But it is only self, Roberts says, and "man
is more than self, more than consciousness."

So when the reflexive mechanism, or self-consciousness, closes down or
ceases to exist, the experience of psychic and physical energy goes as
well; or at least they are not experienced as before. This results in a
sense of weightlessness, of being detached from action, and this sense
continues as long as one notices or chooses to remember life prior to
the disappearance of self-consciousness, or the abilities of mind to
bend upon itself. In time, Roberts says, she acclimated to the lack of
feeling any energy.

Summarizing, Roberts says, "In the history of the self, then, physical
energy comes first, the reflexive mechanism comes next and regards this
energy as its own being. With this recognition a division is created
between physical energy and what we will now call 'self-energy', will,
mental or psychic energy, which some people believe is beyond the
physical realm."

So now instead of only the energy of the body, there arises energy of
the mind, "which resulted when the sense of personal energy infiltrated
the cognitive system to energize its thoughts and acts."

Self, then, is not merely the thinking process; it is the doer, the
experience of energy. Considering that self is the intimacy of
connection between the reflexive mechanism (knowing-self) and the
experience of energy (feeling-self), and that this intimacy is necessary
for life, it is not conceivable, Roberts says, that self can bring about
its demise.

"To think...self can get rid of itself is a contradiction," she says.
"...when the time is ripe," there is no need of self. Self seems to
outgrow its usefulness. This does not mark a falling back to an
infantile form of life, but a leap forward, a seeing of what lies beyond
the self, beyond the fulfilled human potential.

But because self cannot bring about its own demise, intervention by an
outside agent is required. This intervention ideally occurs when one
reaches the limit of human potential, for it is then when one may be
able to live without a self.

Roberts concludes that self is the "way" by which one moves to a higher
life. "Obviously, then," she says, "the purpose of having a self is to
eventually go beyond it." END OF SUMMARY

"To think...self can get rid of itself is a contradiction," she says.
"...when the time is ripe," there is no need of self. Self seems to
outgrow its usefulness. " FROM THE SUMMARY

NICK: Via the PCE, seeing that with the absence of self, Nick functions fine, thus self outgrows it's usefulness? Hmmm. Again thinking out loud. My experience makes me tend to agree with her. But more exploration needed.

More from the summary:

"This sense of life, she (Bernadette Roberts) says, constitutes the feeling-self, which is subtle energy located at the center of consciousness or center of being, and whose existence depends upon the knowing-self, even as a planet
depends upon gravitational force for its placement.

It is these two divisions, the knowing self and feeling self, which form the whole of consciousness.

With the disappearance of self and God, the entire affective system of feeling and emotion disappeared, for it could not be kept in place any longer." END OF QUOTE

Interesting, huh?

'Interesting'-- yeah, you could say that, in an abstract, comparative-religion sort of way. But to come from a theistic + late modern Western psychology philosophical base and then to arrive at something that sounds vaguely like Buddhist descriptions of reality, requires buying into that lot of assumptions. Not everyone has any interest in such an enterprise.

Perhaps only those who are, in fact, AT that 'base' will be interested. And objectively, you'd have to say, it is FAR distant from any teachings of the Buddha. Before Bernadette Roberts-- or John Lennon, either-- he was saying, '... no self; no God.'

Hi Nick,

Can you edit the quote from the Roberts book, adding quotation marks, attributions, and links? It's not clear to me how much of your post is from the book and how much of it is your commentary (they seem to be interwoven), or whether the quotes are from Roberts herself or from someone else.

Thanks!

Kenneth

Sorry Kenneth,

I thought I had. They are from a summary of her book that I posted above which is a summary by someone else of the book that Owen posted a link of even further above. I would have quoted her directly if I had access to the book. It's all I've got. Sorry for the confusion. By the way, I'm just exploring stuff. No absolutes. Sorry if anyone is offended by what I've written. Just exploring

Thanks, Nick. The extra formatting helps a lot.

Bruno, I appreciate you taking the time to reply in such detail, and I am not at all offended (nor do I want to start a flame war!) I'll respond in detail in a moment. But first, I wanted to ask something about Bernadette Roberts. Since she's coming from Christian Contemplative background, I imagine she must be very much invested in the 2nd person perspective of the divine (ie: "god"), can we fairly use her as source material without being able to take the idea of the godhood or the holy "you" into account? I'm just curious what people's thoughts are on that and how that perspective on the divine might fit in with the way we practice here.

Also, has anyone ever been on a retreat with her? I would love to hear what her response is to the PCE and DM. It looks like she's giving a retreat this coming February, if anyone is interested in signing up:

bernadettesfriends.blogspot.com/2006/08/...ticism-august-3.html

Bruno:
1) I see the attention wave adding layers to my perception. I'm not convinced this tarnishes reality. Who am I to say that these layers always harm my perception of reality? The layers too came from reality and can add to the present moment if not taken seriously. For me the goal is active awareness of the distortion taking place, not removing it entirely. I can say harmful things, but I don't believe I would be better off silent. Though I fully admit I am not as accomplished a yogi as others here. Only time and practice will make this clearer to me.

2) I am aware that boredom arises in me and is not inherent in the situation. It's information arsing in my physical/mental system that a certain process in my awareness dislikes this communication. Looking into my experience, I find that this dislike arises not because "This person's writing doesn't appeal to my emotions" but because of the arrogance/condescension I find in the communication, the subtle pointing out of the other person's failure to communicate, the lack of desire to attempt to meet the other person where they are.

If I were to cut off my emotions I feel I would be depriving myself of this feedback that allows a deeper understanding of the processes are going on in me. Perhaps at 4th Path everything will become transparent and the feedback system can be dropped. I somewhat doubt this, but I only know that I don't fully understand yet.

3) To me "Do you see this in your own experience?" is preferable to "won't you find that it only really happens inside yourself?" The 1st makes assumptions, the 2nd asks a question. The 2nd allows space for my reaction to arise, while the 1st creates a mold into which my reaction must either fit or not. I find your follow up much more considerate, and for the record, I didn't click "no".

I agree that we differ on the last paragraph. Another analogy: muscles are made to tense and relax. In realizing my habitually tension, I don't want to make the mistake of habitual relaxation. At some point, I hope to fully know that "I" never made the movement happen, "movement" has always happened on its own. But I don't want to stop the movement.

"Hi Chris,
Could you elaborate on what you have to pay close attention to?
Nick"

What I am paying close attention to in this regard Nick is the fact that at one time Kenneth and Daniel held a strong fixed position regarding these issues and have now seemingly done a 180, and seem to have a strong fixed position in the other direction. The only thing that hasn't seemed to change is the fact that dissent is greeted with dismissal and condescension.

1) (Ian) "I see the attention wave adding layers to my perception. I'm not convinced this tarnishes reality. Who am I to say that these layers always harm my perception of reality?"
--- Well, it's a matter of personal taste of course But I do think that if there is any one person who can "say that these layers always harm [your] perception of reality," then that's you

(Ian) "The layers too came from reality and can add to the present moment if not taken seriously."
--- You're absolutely right, they can add stuff to perception --- have you noticed that they can also remove? In fact the process is constantly, 24-minus-sleep-hours a day non-stop, editing in and editing out stuff from perception. And indeed one shouldn't "take it seriously," particularly since "feeling serious" about something is just one of those layers being edited in

Ian I hope you get whichever goal you find best for yourself

2) (Ian) "I am aware that boredom arises in me and is not inherent in the situation. It's information [arising] in my physical/mental system that a certain process in my awareness dislikes this communication."
--- That's exactly what happens! Boredom might be "information," but it is only information about "itself." The fact that you are bored only tells you that you are bored, i.e., that "a certain process in [your] awareness dislikes [something]" --- that process is boredom itself'¦ isn't it?!

(contd.)

My first contact with AF-robot-speak (hihi I find the name really funny ) was in the thread "Is emptiness = space?" that I started on DhO. I didn't even know of AF then, but I was amazed at how Tarin's argumentation was relentless, and missed no details. Check it out if you like: dharmaoverground.org/web/guest/discussio...oards/message/422501

(Ian) "if I were to cut off my emotions I feel I would be depriving myself of this feedback that allows a deeper understanding of the processes are going on in me. Perhaps at 4th Path everything will become transparent and the feedback system can be dropped. I somewhat doubt this, but I only know that I don't fully understand yet."

You see I will just repeat my point as a question: Do emotions give you feedback that allows a deeper understanding of any process going on in you other than emotions themselves?

3) (Ian) '''To me "Do you see this in your own experience?" is preferable to "won't you find that it only really happens inside yourself?"''''
--- I think I understand why and I will adopt that as a way of asking stuff (first describe what I see, and then ask if the interlocutor sees the same); thanks

But if you weren't bored, or annoyed, or anything like that, then there would be no "process in your awareness that would dislike anything," and thus there would be nothing you needed to be informed of I am yet to find an instance where emotion gives me information other than "this emotion is happening in me" (i.e. I'm convinced that the emotional process is redundant, reality-interpreting-wise, since we have the much more sophisticated and accurate process of reason).

However, what is really easy to find, are instances where emotion distorts my perception to the point that I actually fail to understand the situation properly. I could recount numerous episodes, one of them right here in this thread, when I was replying to chris and came to unfounded interpretations of what he said based on my beliefs, my emotionally-charged memories, and my zeal in making a point (quite amusingly, a point about emotions).

(Ian) "Looking into my experience, I find that this dislike [with AF-robot-speak] arises not because 'This person's writing doesn't appeal to my emotions' but because of the arrogance/condescension I find in the communication, the subtle pointing out of the other person's failure to communicate, the lack of desire to attempt to meet the other person where they are."
--- Hmm, I personally never found any of these dudes arrogant or condescending. I did find them very confident in their own judgement, but in all instances I found their judgement correct, or simply a matter of taste. Which is really impressive for me. Also, I did find unwillingness to "meet the other person where they are," for instance, by pointing out (not at all subtly) other person's imprecisions or imaginations. But maybe that's just because they do not wish to be patronizing ("treat with an apparent kindness that betrays a feeling of superiority").

contd! sorry

"(...) at one time Kenneth and Daniel held a strong fixed position regarding these issues and have now seemingly done a 180, and seem to have a strong fixed position in the other direction. The only thing that hasn't seemed to change is the fact that dissent is greeted with dismissal and condescension. "

Well, in their defense, I will put forward the following: Indeed Daniel uses strict-language to dismiss the "emotional perfection model" as something that "fails reality testing," and which might be called harsh (to those who buy the model).

But you can easily understand that this was written in reference to mushroom-culture buddhism, where, instead of practicing, people talked about "divine love" and other similar things that -> actually do fail reality testing <--.

A perusal of guruphiliac.blogspot.com/ will show that enlightened dudes who proclaim divine love and heaven-on-earth will often behave in the most hellish ways.

Also very interesting, take a look at the review of "Zen at war" for a bit of the history of the entanglement between Japaneze Zen and WWII ( actualfreedom.com.au/library/links/zenatwar.htm ). An excerpt:

""" Soen [(one of the main Zen teachers at the time)] used the phrases '˜just war' and '˜holy war.' Japan was engaged in a '˜war of compassion' fought by bodhisattva soldiers against the enemies of Buddha. As Rinzai Zen Master Nantembo (1839 '“ 1925) preached, there was '˜no bodhisattva practice superior to the compassionate taking of life.' (Soen considered any opposition to war as '˜a product of egotism.') """

----

I think that with what they knew at the time, their position (which we now obviously see wasn't fixed at all) was reasonable and justified. I also don't remember Daniel or Kenneth acting either dismissively or condescendingly...

Bruno, we do indeed differ in our opinions, and I think the crux of the matter might be whether reason always trumps emotion (which I take to be your view) or whether reason and emotions are parallel systems that can interact and compliment each other (my view). And I doubt that's something we can resolve through further discussion!

Thank you for taking the time to present you position so clearly, and to respond to each of my points. It helps me understand this thing a whole lot better.

I have been looking a little bit into Bernadette Roberts since she is getting mentioned quite a bit here as the exemplar that most fits direct path. I am actually planning to order an unpublished book she wrote on Christian Contemplative stuff, maybe to use it for a class.

However, like everything else, it looks like her view might be much more complex than what has been referred to here. Looking at the Amazon site, there is a pretty persuasive post written by someone who knows her saying that she is pretty badly misunderstood from multiple sides, by both Buddhists/Advaitans and Christians. She is a Christian, he argues, not by "conditioning" but by "revelation" and teaches in that vein. That she is "patently Trinitarian." I would have to guess that no one here investigating PCE would calls themselves a Christian.

I'm not saying this negates the idea that her journey represents a structural analogue or important exemplar. Just that the easy importation of that view into the experience people are having might be simplistic--I mean, I don't think anybody is having a PCE and experiencing the Trinity. And perhaps you can't have it both ways--if she has lost all "self" (literally), she should have lost all "conditioning" and not be an anything, let alone a Christian.

More to the point, it might go to the problems that come along here when traditional 3rd gear models haven't been explored quite enough. Something has to fill the gap. The Amazon review in the next post.

P.S. The largest question here: Is there one, ultimate desirable end goal for all that one can finally place oneself at or call others to? Maybe not. And maybe one's conditioning matters in this regard. This is a trap I see in a lot of Buddhists; they have a lot of conditioning about not having conditioning.

"Again, in her essay, "Nondualism," she writes: "It is unfortunate that those who aspire to a nondual state will never reach it-- because it doesn't exist. In truth it is just another illusion to be dispelled. With or without self, there is no state in the journey truly 'nondual,' neither in our earthly journey nor in heaven" (Roberts, "Essays on the Christian Contemplative Journey," self-published, 2007, p. 71.)

In sum: many admirers of her work, and critics of her work, simply misunderstand it. Additional clarifications of her views on these matters can be found on the site, "Bernadette's Friends."

Joseph Conti, Ph.D.

FROM AMAZON, REVIEW OF NO-SELF

"This is simply one of the most significant books on the spiritual journey written in our time-- indeed, one of the most important books of all time.

Unfortunately, the book is often misrepresented by its admirers and critics alike. Some Christian critics of Roberts' paradigm fail to see its patently Trinitarian, Christian perspective. They dismiss her work as representing a Hindu or Buddhist advaitic ("nondualist") perspective-- which it manifestly does not.

On the other hand, many non-dualists (Advaitins, Buddhists, and otherwise) have promulgated the claim that "The Experience of No-Self" is a Christian analogue to their nondualism-- but often with the caveat that Roberts' work is unneccessarily freighted with "mythic" Christian ideas based on her "Catholic conditioning."

But this, too, is incorrect. Having attended many retreats given by Bernadette Roberts over a period of nearly twenty-five years, I know for certain that her paradigm is completely different from "nondualism"-- advaitic, Buddhist, or otherwise.

As to her alleged "conditioning": she is a Christian not by way of "conditioning," but by way of direct Trinitarian revelations that were part-and-parcel of her journey.

Indeed, she calls the nondualist misconception of her paradigm "forcing the fit," which she defines in a recent book as "redefining, clipping, pasting, twisting-- to make the original fit a dissonant paradigm" (Roberts, "Forcing-the-Fit" self-published, Foreword, 2008)."

REVIEW CONT NEXT POST....

Interestingly, there is also a post on the review by Phillip St. Romain, who has written one of the best books I've ever read on Kundalini stuff and had a very significant awakening He asks the obvious question: If she's got no self, whose reporting on the no-self experience? Can we really say what's what ontologically. I'll post his review below.

Again, perhaps there is no contradiction there, but it should caution one on concretizing the language a bit...

REVIEW OF NO-SELF BY PHILLIP ST. ROMAIN

"I read this book years ago, and have re-read sections many times since. I've also corresponded with Ms. Roberts, and have attended a workshop led by her.

There is certainly no doubting the fact that she has given all to God, and has been the recipient of an extaordinary experience. Doubtlessly, giving articulation to such is always nearly impossible, although we are to be grateful for those who do make the effort.

Through all of this, and a similar awakening in my own life as well, I am left with many unanswered questions. It is one thing to speak of the disappearance of the experience of self and divine union, etc. etc., but quite another to say that one has NO-SELF. I suppose it all depends on what we mean by self. Many times, in dialoguing with Ms. Roberts, the only conclusion I could reach was that self what that which she had not, or which she had lost.

But who was writing these words to me, talking to me, acting in the world? Can we really affirm the loss of self as an ontological reality? If so, then who is to take responsibility for the individual's actions? Are we to assume that everything said is by God?

Another problem arises when Ms. Roberts tries to relate her experience to the Catholic mystical tradition, and says she does not find it there, or that she has gone beyond John of the Cross, that John was only at the halfway point, etc. In such manner does she elevate her experience and the testimony she gives above the entire Catholic tradition, with the mystical doctor seeming to be only an immature spiritual apprentice of some kind.

So. . . reader beware! Listen to the experience and the possibilities it affirms for human transformation, but think long and hard before you buy into Ms. Roberts' intrepretation of its meaning"

BR's books make a fascinating read, especially the 1st 2, which are mostly practice diaries. I think they have a quality of honest, open experience that makes them really moving. Worth reading and getting one's own impression.

Meanwhile, life charges on and people are getting enlightened here. In the last week, one of our yogis appears to have gotten 2nd Path. Another appears to have gotten 4th. And there are more in the pipeline! As we perseverate about these important questions and wag our fingers at one another in disapproval, let's keep in mind the mission of the site: we are all here to wake up as best we can. And every moment we spend making love to ideas is a moment we could have been paying attention. Have you hugged your zafu today?

If you don't have the A&P yet, get busy! If you don't yet have stream entry, hurry up. If you have one or more paths, get to the next one. If you have 4 Paths, practice being present all day long. Life is so short and there is so much work to be done, I'd hate to think we let it go by without each of us waking up to his or her highest potential.

Respectfully yours,

Kenneth