|
But what of those who do not follow a devotional path? Those who follow a direct-knowing path end up at the same place as those who follow the Way of Love. There is only one Truth, after all.
A risk of the knowing path is one can shut off the heart, getting stuck in the head, as one in a devotional way can get stuck in feelings. Regarding this, Jean Klein, in Be Who You Are, writes:
It is important not to mistake the letting go of that passion which results from merging with the object, with the letting go of liberating love which is an illumination due to knowledge [direct knowing].
That is, in devotional spirituality, one can sense a merging with the Object - God, Beloved, Christ, the Friend ... - through a strongly-felt love for the object. Yet, to let go of this does not mean a vacuum of an absence of love. When one experiences, without the mediation of emotion and thought, the Beloved, or Truth, one spontaneously loves the Unseen and Unknown. This love is not the sentimental, passionate love often seen among those following the way of devotion; it is love nevertheless, a non-emotive affection.
* * *
In Truth, both ways, the way of Knowing and of Loving, are different ways in and to the same Grace. Both lead to resting in Love Itself. Here, one is in nonconceptual Contemplation, detached from either the need to understand what is present or to feel pleasure, for the Fire of Love-Knowledge leads one to relax in the Ineffable.
In Teresa's language, we rest in the downpour of Rain. We have become the Garden, no longer acting as the waterer of the Garden. We welcome the Light to flood us with Itself, by Itself. Loving feelings arise and leave, but Love remains. We know without comprehending, for the heart knows Love by Love in Love. We know Love, for Love shows us Itself, while It remains the absolute Mystery to the mind - It is known in unknowing and not-knowing.
* * *
(C) Brian K. Wilcox, 2020
Stage Theory: I see stage theory as based on a sense of a typical progression as observed over time and place. It is a guide founded on the wisdom of experience; yet, the sequence is not as neat as presented, and different theorists offer different models, some better than others, some more detailed, and some noting aspects others do not. I like Teresa's schema below, partly for its simplicity. Also, recall, while Teresa was a great mystic, she followed a devotional spirituality, one in which she and the Divine are not substantially one, but one-in-communion. I would place Teresa, in Eastern terms, among those who have taught qualified nonduality, one-but-two: I am one with the Absolute, I am not the Absolute. Teresa would never claim to be God, only a child of God; union for her is a union of love, not a sameness of identity. Teresa could have said, "I am in God, and God is in me," but not, "I AM THAT," the latter from Hinduism and an affirmation of absolute nonduality. Based on my readings over the last decades and experience in spiritual contemplation, I see Teresa's schema to fit well the path of felt-separation from to felt-union with the Divine. I use "felt," for separation never is, union has always been; yet, we experience separation and union, while only the latter is true. How can any creature be separate from, absent from, that which one arises out of (i.e., Creator)? How could Being create beings outside Itself, when It is the only self-subsistent Reality?
|
