Outline of The Experience of No-Self

Bernadette Roberts and The Loss of Self

Bernadette's Friends Blog - the tone is that Roberts feels her work has been force-fit into the teaching of nonduality, so this is an important contribution to consider.

Discussion of Bernadette Roberts in the Nonduality Salon, June 15 to June 20, 2008. Begins with this post.

Google search results of "Bernadette Roberts"

Comments on the Outline of The Experience of No-Self, from members of the Nonduality Salon:

I was pondering Bernadette's perspective on the Eucharistic Christ. I
dont know how the other contemplatives understand the Eucharist or how
conservative Christians understand it- From my Childhood and from the
occasion I hear Christians talk of it, the Eucharist is the piece of
bread they have in communion which goes through transubstantiation
(going from ordinary bread to the body of Christ).

I recall being about 10 or 11 years old in the Roman Catholic Church of
my family- I use to talk to the one of the young priests before the
Mass. I recall him telling me that he saw Christ at the tabernacle. The
way he said it, I knew he wasnt talking metaphorically- yet I didnt
really understand what he was talking about. I guess since the
tabernacle is what holds the host, he was reffering to the Christ
present in the host- but I'm not sure

The conventional approach to the Eucharist would seem to isolate Christ
to the Bread and wine- the transubstantiation is considered a literal
truth but it is cut off from the symbolic aspect which would place
Christ in omnipresents- beyond confining him to any localized space-time
reference point.

If it was only understood through the symbolic aspect contact with the
underlying reality would be watered down into a purely intellectual
level.

If I understand this correctly Bernadette's view is like a middle path
between a symbolic and literal view of The Eucharist.


Can anyone tell me a little more about how the Eucharist - as the
ritual- came into being. I recall that in the last supper Jesus
presented this revelation(it always reminded me a little of the time the
Buddha held up the flower to the group of monks and only one stood up
and smiled having understood the teaching)

But here is the part that confuses me- If I recall correctly, Jesus
presented this Eucharistic message before not after the crucifixion. If
this is the case then the Eucharistic Christ is not the same as the
Divine Manifest which is later revealed (in Bernadette's perspective) in
the ascension. To re-state this - if the Eucharistic message was
presented before the point when Jesus asks "father, why have you
forsaken me?" then the revelation it presents is very different from the
revelation embodied in the act of the ascension. In the first, the
complete loss of self (divine or otherwise) hadn't yet occured, in the
later, the act would point toward the Divine Manifest revelation.

So it would seem that the Eucharistic Christ is not the revelation of
eternal form- as was the ascension. It would seem that it was to serve
as a magnet toward living/seeing/being at the condition of deepest
union. The revelation of the underlying reality was coming from (or is
coming from) this particular point of being or view- that of the deepest
possible experience* of the divine. (the still-point or non-dual view)

If I am understanding this Eucharistic revelation correctly then it does
have common ground with the Buddha's flower teaching (perhaps?)

But if so, the Eucharistic Christ is shed on the cross. It would seem
the Euchararist would be over- as a revelation- when the self is
completely gone and the acclimation to the purely sensory (and
non-reflective, non-experiencial) mode of existence occurs. At this
later point, Bernadette identifies Christ as eternal form or divine
manifest itself. At this point she makes the statement that Christ is
what is knowable about God- "knowable" in this new way, that is. In this
new pure sensory (non-experiencial, non-reflective) mode the only
"knowing" that is left is a purely non-relative knowing which sees only
eternal form- or Christ

Here she make the final distinction or dichotomy between Christ and God.
She says God is that which remains unknowable while Christ is now seen
everywhere as the only knownable left- a knowable that only a
pure-sensory condition can know.

Here she equates Christ with the eternal Manifest and God with the
eternal Unmanifest.

In the later book, "What is Self?" Bernadette reveals a further
revelation- as if she hadnt gone far enough ;-) She encounters the
act of ascension- her body. After this she gains a further understanding
which equate God or the divine unmanifest with the heavenly condition.

wondered what everyone's thoughts are regarding the following
question:

Keeping in mind Bernadette Roberts revelation of Christ as Manifest
eternal form itself- and therefore the very clay of all creation

How did Christ's presence to us change (if it did at all) from how it
was pre-incarnation to after ascension?

and how does this relate the the Eucharist presence that he revealed in
the last supper?

Question:If God is eternal,timeless,how can God be said to take
different attitudes to,or perform different operations on,the soul
before and after Communion?
Question:If God is truly infinite and universally active,how can God be
siad to be more incarnate in Jesus than in anyone else?
--
Wishing you Health,Happiness,Peace,Love and Bliss,
now and always.

* Paul Tifford : ptiffor1@elp.rr.com

I was raised a Christian and for about 20 years was intensely devout
and studious about that religion. Now however any discussion of
Christian symbolism leaves me cold or bewildered.

Christianity brought me to an impasse, a bridge that I could only
cross alone and without any more religious baggage. I turned to Zen
literature and Krishnamurti to try to find the resolution. It was
mostly J. Krishnamurti that helped to free me of the emotional bondage
of Christian symbolism, for which I am deeply grateful.

When I consider the teaching of nonduality as it comes through Ramana
Maharshi and Nisargadatta Maharaj, there is something about it:
clarity, simplicity, directness. I have never felt any inner
compulsion to "become a Hindu" or anything like that. All that really
matters is the question "Who or what am I?"

But I have also come to terms with Jesus -- with Jesus the simple
Galilean sage and prophet, rather than with the Christ of the
quasi-mystery religion called Christianity. What Jesus taught is
vastly more important than what all Christian "authorities" have
taught about Christ.

"Before Abraham was, I am." He invited others to share in his
realization and make it their own. A child of God is not a slave to
anything, and is not even necessarily a "believer".

I have nothing against Christians themselves or against Bernadette
Roberts, but I sense in what I have gathered a need to make sense of
Church dogma, and that is a need I do not share any longer.

This is just two pennies worth of a minor quibble with recent threads
on this list.

I suppose I used to spend too much time studying theology. It seems
that every credible spokesperson for Christian teaching has emphasized
the irreducible "otherness" of the Divine. What that amounts to in
practical terms is dualism, and the general assumption that all beings
are Newtonian separate objects divided by conditions of space and
time.

I am a self and you are a self and God is *the* Self, and the division
between our selves can only be bridged by a divine intervention which
is called Grace but is really juridical in nature. That is, God says
that we can be reconciled, and that makes it so, but we are *by
nature* separate and will ever be separate because Grace and nature
also constitute a duality.

The major monotheisms of the Middle East and the West are very
centered in language and the sacredness of "the Word" whether the Word
is scriptural or said to be incarnate in Christ. Judaism and
Christianity and Islam are all very verbose religions, as they once
decided that "graven images" were idolotrous.

In Islam they once burned Al-Hallaj at the stake because he said
something like "I am Truth." The Popes silenced Meister Eckhart for
teaching that he himself -- and by implication all the faithful -- was
born in God's utterance of the incarnate Word. The Islamic and
Christian authorities were only upholding what they honestly believed
was right.

In Al-Hallaj's case, the word (or law) embodied in Shariah prohibited
one from identifying with Allah or one of His attributes. In
Eckhart's, it had to do with the assumed separateness of nature and
Grace. In both cases it was a conflict over language, between
official language and mystical language.

I am convinced it is possible to reconcile nonduality with
Christianity, and I'm not knocking Bernadette Roberts at all. I'm
just not convinced it is possible to do so without being virtually
ostracized from the social mainstream of the religion.

Dear Tomas and Jerry..

You both have written about this so intelligently that I hesitate a bit
to enter here.. but my heart is moved to do so.

Tomas.. I listened to your questions.. I read your words slowly and
intuitively.. and arrived, I believe, at perhaps an aspect of the
genesis of your question. What do we mean when we say Eucharist.. to
which state of consciousness does it refer? Is it ok that it might have
a plethora of understandings. Is this word Eucharist a euphemism for
That which fuels our experience of Life and Love while on this plane..
and might, as so much else, it mean different things at different levels
of understanding? I agree that Bernadette Roberts offers a bit of a
middle or bridged understanding. Bridging personal, symbolic and
transpersonal.. allowing for a fuller understanding.

After your request, I copied pages from a comparative Encyclopedia of
Religion and thought perhaps I'd extract aspects of the history as
understood about what Eucharist is or has been understood to be.

But it simply felt too dry to pursue... then suddenly as life would have
it, three times in the past three days.. I have encountered a very real
human expression of what Eucharist means to individuals who are walking
with us here now.. including from a wonderful collection of essays by
Andres Dubus who speaks of his daily encounter with the Eucharist as
that which keeps him from the descent into madness he might otherwise
engage in after having lost his leg, his wife and his lifestyle.
Somehow, the listening to the very real Presence of what this "Holy
Communion" means as a beacon Light and LifeForce we can ingest and allow
to act as guiding force, feels of more significance for me.

So, I thank you deeply for your questions and for the response which
seems to arise from the intelligence in Jerry's heart and I join you
both in deep reflective listening here.

Jerry.. I don't know if these books will specifically answer the
Eucharist question but they each work in their own way with Christianity
and aspects of the larger whole as integrated with more of an Eastern
worldview.

"Kundalini Energy and Christian Spirituality" by Philip St.Romain

"Christ the Yogi: A Hindu Reflections on the Gospel of John" by Ravi
Ravindra

and one I just discovered and think you'd like is..

"The Alchemy of Love: A Pilgrimage of Sacred Discovery" by Robert
Boldman (who has known many energies and states since childhood.. he
shares his journey through Kundalini, Vedanta.. eventually needing to
empty through Zen and then being reawakened to an integration of all in
Love through a rather simple and awesome awareness given him by a
retired Priest).

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ..oo00oo.. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I also experience the "Body of Christ" being embodied in these such
fellowships..

Practicing the Presence with you,
Christiana

Jerry M. Katz wrote:
>
> Gary Zukav, in The Dancing Wu Li Masters, says, "...all eastern
> religions (psychologies) are compatible in a very fundamental way with
> Bohm's physics and philosophy. All of them are based upon the experience
> of a pure, undifferentiated reality which is that-which-is." (page 312)

Hi Jerry,

Yes, and no wonder: we are part and parcel of the universe, not just
observers. Wether we look within ourselves (the spiritual way) or study
the universe (the scientific way) we should come to the same conclusion:
our Real nature is also the nature of the Universe.
I see the Universe as a process where 'That which Is' first Involves as
Matter and then Evolves back to Itself. Physics, in a sense, goes back
up the Involutionary ladder and arrives at 'That which Is' whereas a
spiritual person goes up the evolutionary ladder and realizes 'That
which Is'. In the beginning: Light, in the end: Enlightenment!

> Well, so is Christianity, isn't it?, when Roberts' contribution is
> understood. Does anyone know of references to nondual Christianity, or
> the Trinity, perhaps, to quantum mechanics and the field of 'new
> physics'? No doubt, the work has been done.

To 'find' non-dual 'Christianity', I think we have to look to the
Christian mystics i.s.o. official Christianity. Personally, I went from
official Christianity to the East and later came back to learn that
Christian mystics said the same thing as Eastern sages. We just were
never told! A mistake that is often made is comparing popular
Christianity with the spiritual giants of the East, whereas we should
compare spiritual giants of both East and West, and popular religion of
the West with popular religion in the East.

As for the Eucharist, my ideas fit in with what I called the Cosmic
Process. The ordinary human being believes that he is a separate
'entity', not only from 'others' but especially from the Divine (That
which Is). He identifies himself with a body/mind, being ignorant of his
Real Nature. However, intuitively he senses that, to be whole, he should
be divine or, at least, have the divine within him. Seeing himself (and
others, including Jesus) as a physical body, the only way he can get
'Jesus within' is by eating Him. (I love you so much, I could eat you!
says the same thing).
As for transubstantiation, as everything is 'That which Is' nothing
really changes. It is, again, man's superficial 'looking' (seeing shapes
and forms i.s.o. Essence) that is the problem.
The Eucharist is, simultaneously, a very primitive rite (it is much
older than Christianity) and a very profound experience.
Just my ideas.

I have put some of what I see as 'The Cosmic Process' on the Web. It is
far from finished as my time is limited. Also details may be inaccurate.
The URL is http://www3.sk.sympatico.ca/wispj/

---Jelke Wispelwey

We, I, every one of us, are
the living recapitulation of the entire Cosmos.

By this I mean that the entire unfoldment of the drama of birth, life, and
death is embodied as _me_ and as you.

This is not a small thing to say. To say this is to say that I have, in at
least a potential or possible way, the entire past and future history of
all that has been and will ever be, 'within' myself.

Bernadette Roberts had no choice in that matter; she had to allow the
conscious replaying of the entire record of the Cosmos. In this experience,
she found herself as 'no-self', IE, as the 'record-player'. She, the
'personal identity of Bernadette', was then experienced as being played on
that record, and simultaneously, as 'no-self', the record itself. It is
extremely odd to have this experience of both 'Being and not-Being' at the
same time; indeed, it is seeing one's identity as that of 'puppet' and also
as 'puppetmaster'.

I propose that none of us have the choice to avoid or to particpate in this
unfoldment; we do have the choice of attitude through which to have the
experience, however. Surrender and abiding allow the process to proceed
with minimal pain and fear. If I am not mistaken, this is what we are
talking about here in the NDS.

The nondual perspective is to me, the voluntary adoption of the attitude
which allows surrender of personal identity. This is stated to be 'not a
loss, but a gain'. Yes, such a shift of attitude may be 'inflicted' via
Kundalini or Shaktipat or 'Grace', and that is in my opinion, a blessed
event; but such 'affliction' of Grace is potentially a complete disruption
of social normalcy and thus the loss of the view into the mirror which
confers social identity. Anyone who undergoes this shift to 'blindness' may
have the experience of terror, yet this very experience is what is
described in the Tibetan Book of the Dead as the awakening of the 'dead' in
the realm of the 'Bardos'. One who is blind, cannot be faulted for
hallucinating gods and/or monsters. It is further seen that even the
sighted, hallucinate in that way.

The 'other' has made a lot of noise, which I have heard; I can choose to
make sense of it if I want to. The 'others' of the 'past' have said certain
things, have provided what is judged to be guidance and caution and
encouragent; yet, I persist in having to experience all of this on my own.
No-one has a 'solution' for _me_; yet, 'others' persist in casting about
for 'answers', when in fact, 'clues' are all that are provided. It is my
own willingness to continue on in life, to keep on living, that allows me
to actually mature; in this process of maturing, of moving from 'larval' to
'post-larval', certain things are 'revealed' to me. But I say that it is
none of my work which has made this 'seeing' possible; I am guilty of no
'mystical attainment'. It is the process of living and maturing which is
the natural unfoldment of my Being-nature, which is the revealing of the
'vision' which I can now speak of. If I have accomplished anything that has
helped me, it is the learning of the value of patience. I have learned that
by _abiding_, by being nonreactive, that I can know. By ceasing to stir the
sediment into the broth, the media clarifies, revealing the confines of the
pot.

The story of Bernadette, as recently related by Jerry, seeks to tell this
significant tale, but for reasons unknown to me, fails to do so. The simple
fact of the matter is that we are all destined to relive every moment of
what is seen as the classical unfoldment of the drama of creation, from the
first moment to the last. Every one of 'us' embodies every iota of the
richness of this Universe; Cosmic Consciousness allows this vision to be
had. The effort to attain a clear 'nondual perspective' is the effort to
'have' Cosmic Consciousness, and thus to be in the clear as to our actual
relationship with 'God' and all of 'creation'.

All of this is to lead to the banishment of amnesia.

It is futile, it seems, to caution against becoming bogged down in the
myriad details which comprise the experience of 'other'. The vocabulary,
syntax, traditions, etc, can become a veritable bog of quicksand, which if
swallowed, may become incorporated as personal belief or criteria. The
holding of personal 'opinion' as 'faith' leads, as we have abundantly seen,
to conflicts of personal and global scale. To avoid these conflicts is
difficult, without simply dismissing the entire array of traditions and
pronouncements as mere chaff blowing in the wind of Being itself.
Nonduality has the possibility of doing this very thing, in a way that does
not rankle the ire of any 'organized religion' or of the adherants of such.

Comments on the Outline of Bernadette Roberts', The Experience of No Self

Gene Poole's Home Page

I have recently
finished re-reading "What is Self?" and I have some further questions
and commentaries about the material.

I've focused more on her perspective on the Eucharistic Christ. There is
also a slim possibility I might procure Bernadette's E-mail address some
time in the near future.

It seems to me, what she is expressing with the Eucharistic Christ is
something very closely related to the Holy Spirit- It seems like a
unique groove has been made by the Incarnation and Ascension. The groove
of coming into the unitive state was already established before the
incarnation and continues to be worn in as a fold in the fabric of
grace.

The Eucharistic Christ is a new fold in the fabric of grace that
supercedes the previous grooves, deeping them but surpassing them.

The end goal of this groove, or this new universal attractor in the
fabric of grace, is, ultimately,the revelation of the relationship or
bridge between the created and uncreated- specificaly between the
Eternal Unmanifest divine to the Eternal Manifest divine. She expresses
that no previous revelation has established this relationship or this
bridge.

She goes on to comment that in Hinduism, the created is a dream in the
mind of Brahman- and hence no bridge is revealed
and
that in Judaism, the divine stands seperate from man and creation-
hence no brige


She also says something I've never heard articulated before (earlier in
the book)- that both Identity (I am that..etc) and relationship
(I-thou)- represent limitations on the divine manifest. I've noted
Nisigardatta say something to that effect when he speaks of beyond the I
am or witness.

So the Eucharistic Christ is the divine groove left by the ascension-

I was thinking, how similarly, saints, sages and realizers have left
behind their own contributive groove or deepening of grooves. Some
grooves may be particular to arriving at a certain point such as
breakthroughs into the unitive..etc

This maybe why saints play an important role in catholisism- they each
offer their own contribution to the groove- so some folks pray to them.
Similarly with Mary, mother of Jesus. ---Tomas Diaz de Villegas

Interrupted Revolution

Gene Poole's Home Page