Tentang pengalaman ‘no self’ Bernadette Roberts

[Berikut ini adalah pertanyaan dari David dan Bernardus Aan tentang pengalaman ‘no self’ Bernadette Roberts]

Pertanyaan:

David:

Bu Ingrid, saya menemukan tentang Bernadette Roberts yang sedikit mengguncang iman saya, apakah anda bisa membantu dengan apa yang dikatakan oleh dia ? Mengingat dia adalah orang Katolik yang sama seperti saya

Interview with Bernadette Roberts Reprinted from the book Timeless Visions, Healing Voices, copyright 1991 by Stephan Bodian (www.stephanbodian.org). In this exclusive interview with Stephan Bodian, (published in the Nov/Dec 1986 issue of YOGA JOURNAL), author Bernadette Roberts describes the path of the Christian contemplative after the experience of oneness with God.

Bernadette Roberts is the author of two extraordinary books on the Christian contemplative journey, The Experience of No-Self (Shambhala, 1982) and The Path to No-Self (Shambala, 1985). A cloistered nun for nine years, Roberts reports that she returned to the world after experiencing the “unitive state”, the state of oneness with God, in order to share what she had learned and to take on the problems and experience of others. In the years that followed she completed a graduate degree in education, married, raised four children, and taught at the pre-school, high school, and junior college levels; at the same time she continued her contemplative practice. Then, quite unexpectedly, some 20 years after leaving the convent, Roberts reportedly experienced the dropping away of the unitive state itself and came upon what she calls “the experience of no-self” – an experience for which the Christian literature, she says, gave her no clear road maps or guideposts. Her books, which combine fascinating chronicles of her own experiences with detailed maps of the contemplative terrain, are her attempt to provide such guideposts for those who might follow after her.

Now 55, and once again living in Los Angeles, where she was born and raised, Roberts characterizes herself as a “bag lady” whose sister and brother in law are “keeping her off the streets.” “I came into this world with nothing,” she writes, “and I leave with nothing. But in between I lived fully – had all the experiences, stretched the limits, and took one too many chances.” When I approached her for an interview, Roberts was reluctant at first, protesting that others who had tried had distorted her meaning, and that nothing had come of it in the end. Instead of a live interview, she suggested, why not send her a list of questions to which she would respond in writing, thereby eliminating all possibility for misunderstanding. As a result, I never got to meet Bernadette Roberts face to face – but her answers to my questions, which are as carefully crafted and as deeply considered as her books, are a remarkable testament to the power of contemplation.

Stephan: Could you talk briefly about the first three stages of the Christian contemplative life as you experienced them – in particular, what you (and others) have called the unitive state?

Bernadette: Strictly speaking, the terms “purgative”, “illuminative”, and “unitive” (often used of the contemplative path) do not refer to discrete stages, but to a way of travel where “letting go”, “insight”, and “union”, define the major experiences of the journey. To illustrate the continuum, authors come up with various stages, depending on the criteria they are using. St. Teresa, for example, divided the path into seven stages or “mansions”. But I don’t think we should get locked into any stage theory: it is always someone else’s retrospective view of his or her own journey, which may not include our own experiences or insights. Our obligation is to be true to our own insights, our own inner light.

My view of what some authors call the “unitive stage”is that it begins with the Dark Night of the Spirit, or the onset of the transformational process – when the larva enters the cocoon, so to speak. Up to this point, we are actively reforming ourselves, doing what we can to bring about an abiding union with the divine. But at a certain point, when we have done all we can, the divine steps in and takes over. The transforming process is a divine undoing and redoing that culminates in what is called the state of “transforming union” or “mystical marriage”, considered to be the definitive state for the Christian contemplative. In experience, the onset of this process is the descent of the cloud of unknowing, which, because his former light had gone out and left him in darkness, the contemplative initially interprets as the divine gone into hiding. In modern terms, the descent of the cloud is actually the falling away of the ego-center, which leaves us looking into a dark hole, a void or empty space in ourselves. Without the veil of the ego-center, we do not recognize the divine; it is not as we thought it should be. Seeing the divine, eye to eye is a reality that shatters our expectations of light and bliss. From here on we must feel our way in the dark, and the special eye that allows us to see in the dark opens up at this time.

So here begins our journey to the true center, the bottom-most, innermost “point” in ourselves where our life and being runs into divine life and being – the point at which all existence comes together. This center can be compared to a coin: on the near side is our self, on the far side is the divine. One side is not the other side, yet we cannot separate the two sides. If we tried to do so, we would either end up with another side, or the whole coin would collapse, leaving no center at all – no self and no divine. We call this a state of oneness or union because the single center has two sides, without which there would be nothing to be one, united, or non-dual. Such, at least, is the experiential reality of the state of transforming union, the state of oneness.

Stephan: How did you discover the further stage, which you call the experience of no-self?

Bernadette: That occurred unexpectedly some 25 years after the transforming process. The divine center – the coin, or “true self” – suddenly disappeared, and without center or circumference there is no self, and no divine. Our subjective life of experience is over – the passage is finished. I had never heard of such a possibility or happening. Obviously there is far more to the elusive experience we call self than just the ego. The paradox of our passage is that we really do not know what self or consciousness is, so long as we are living it, or are it. The true nature of self can only be fully disclosed when it is gone, when there is no self.

One outcome, then, of the no-self experience is the disclosure of the true nature of self or consciousness. As it turns out, self is the entire system of consciousness, from the unconscious to God-consciousness, the entire dimension of human knowledge and feeling-experience. Because the terms “self” and “consciousness” express the same experiences (nothing can be said of one that cannot be said of the other), they are only definable in the terms of “experience”. Every other definition is conjecture and speculation. No-self, then, means no-consciousness. If this is shocking to some people, it is only because they do not know the true nature of consciousness. Sometimes we get so caught up in the content of consciousness, we forget that consciousness is also a somatic function of the physical body, and, like every such function, it is not eternal. Perhaps we would do better searching for the divine in our bodies than amid the content and experience of consciousness.

Stephan: How does one move from “transforming union” to the experience of no-self? What is the path like?

Bernadette: We can only see a path in retrospect. Once we come to the state of oneness, we can go no further with the inward journey. The divine center is the innermost “point”, beyond which we cannot go at this time. Having reached this point, the movement of our journey turns around and begins to move outward – the center is expanding outward. To see how this works, imagine self, or consciousness, as a circular piece of paper. The initial center is the ego, the particular energy we call “will” or volitional faculty, which can either be turned outward, toward itself, or inward, toward the divine ground, which underlies the center of the paper. When, from our side of consciousness, we can do no more to reach this ground, the divine takes the initiative and breaks through the center, shattering the ego like an arrow shot through the center of being. The result is a dark hole in ourselves and the feeling of terrible void and emptiness. This breakthrough demands a restructuring or change of consciousness, and this change is the true nature of the transforming process. Although this transformation culminates in true human maturity, it is not man’s final state. The whole purpose of oneness is to move us on to a more final state.

To understand what happens next, we have to keep cutting larger holes in the paper, expanding the center until only the barest rim or circumference remains. One more expansion of the divine center, and the boundaries of consciousness or self fall away. From this illustration we can see how the ultimate fulfillment of consciousness, or self, is no-consciousness, or no-self. The path from oneness to no-oneness is an egoless one and is therefore devoid of ego-satisfaction. Despite the unchanging center of peace and joy, the events of life may not be peaceful or joyful at all. With no ego-gratification at the center and no divine joy on the surface, this part of the journey is not easy. Heroic acts of selflessness are required to come to the end of self, acts comparable to cutting ever-larger holes in the paper – acts, that is, that bring no return to the self whatsoever.

The major temptation to be overcome in this period is the temptation to fall for one of the subtle but powerful archetypes of the collective consciousness. As I see it, in the transforming process we only come to terms with the archetypes of the personal unconscious; the archetypes of the collective consciousness are reserved for individuals in the state of oneness, because those archetypes are powers or energies of that state. Jung felt that these archetypes were unlimited; but in fact, there is only one true archetype, and that archtype is self. 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.

Stephan: In The Experience of No-Self you talk at great length about your experience of the dropping away or loss of self. Could you briefly describe this experience and the events that led up to it? I was particularly struck by your statement “I realized I no longer had a ‘within’ at all.” For so many of us, the spiritual life is experienced as an “inner life” – yet the great saints and sages have talked about going beyond any sense of inwardness.

Bernadette: Your observation strikes me as particularly astute; most people miss the point. You have actually put your finger on the key factor that distinguishes between the state of oneness and the state of no-oneness, between self and no-self. So long as self remains, there will always be a “center”. Few people realize that not only is the center responsible for their interior experiences of energy, emotion, and feeling, but also, underlying these, the center is our continuous, mysterious experience of “life”and “being”. Because this experience is more pervasive than our other experiences, we may not think of “life” and “being” as an interior experience. Even in the state of oneness, we tend to forget that our experience of “being” originates in the divine center, where it is one with divine life and being. We have become so used to living from this center that we feel no need to remember it, to mentally focus on it, look within, or even think about it. Despite this fact, however, the center remains; it is the epicenter of our experience of life and being, which gives rise to our experiential energies and various feelings.

If this center suddenly dissolves and disappears, the experiences of life, being, energy, feeling and so on come to an end, because there is no “within” any more. And without a “within”, there is no subjective, psychological, or spiritual life remaining – no experience of life at all. Our subjecive life is over and done with. But now, without center and circumference, where is the divine? To get hold of this situation, imagine consciousness as a balloon filled with, and suspended in divine air. The balloon experiences the divine as immanent, “in” itself, as well as transcendent, beyond or outside itself. This is the experience of the divine in ourselves and ourselves in the divine; in the state of oneness, Christ is often seen as the balloon (ourselves), completing this trinitarian experience. But what makes this whole experience possible – the divine as both immanent and transcendent – is obviously the balloon, i.e. consciousness or self. Consciousness sets up the divisions of within and without, spirit and matter, body and soul, immanent and transcendent; in fact, consciousness is responsible for every division we know of. But what if we pop the balloon – or better, cause it to vanish like a bubble that leaves no residue. All that remains is divine air. There is no divine in anything, there is no divine transcendence or beyond anything, nor is the divine anything. We cannot point to anything or anyone and say, “This or that is divine”. So the divine is all – all but consciousness or self, which created the division in the first place. As long as consciousness remains however, it does not hide the divine, nor is it ever separated from it. In Christian terms, the divine known to consciousness and experienced by it as immanent and transcendent is called God; the divine as it exists prior to consciousness and after consciousness is gone is called Godhead. Obviously, what accounts for the difference between God and Godhead is the balloon or bubble – self or consciousness. As long as any subjective self remains, a center remains; and so, too, does the sense of interiority.

Stephan: You mention that, with the loss of the personal self, the personal God drops away as well. Is the personal God, then, a transitional figure in our search for ultimate loss of self?

Bernadette: Sometimes we forget that we cannot put our finger on any thing or any experience that is not transitional. Since consciousness, self, or subject is the human faculty for experiencing the divine, every such experience is personally subjective; thus in my view, “personal God” is any subjective experience of the divine. Without a personal, subjective self, we could not even speak of an impersonal, non-subjective God; one is just relative to the other. Before consciousness or self existed, however, the divine was neither personal nor impersonal, subjective nor non-subjective – and so the divine remains when self or consciousness has dropped away. Consciousness by its very nature tends to make the divine into its own image and likeness; the only problem is, the divine has no image or likeness. Hence consciousness, of itself, cannot truly apprehend the divine.

Christians (Catholics especially) are often blamed for being the great image makers, yet their images are so obviously naive and easy to see through, we often miss the more subtle, formless images by which consciousness fashions the divine. For example, because the divine is a subjective experience, we think the divine is a subject; because we experience the divine through the faculties of consciousness, will, and intellect, we think the divine is equally consciousness, will and intellect; because we experience ourselves as a being or entity, we experience the divine as a being or entity; because we judge others, we think the divine judges others; and so on. Carrying a holy card in our pockets is tame compared to the formless notions we carry around in our minds; it is easy to let go of an image, but almost impossible to uproot our intellectual convictions based on the experiences of consciousness.

Still, if we actually knew the unbridgeable chasm that lies between the true nature of consciousness or self and the true nature of the divine, we would despair of ever making the journey. So consciousness is the marvelous divine invention by which human beings make the journey in subjective companionship with the divine; and, like every divine invention, it works. Consciousness both hides the chasm and bridges it – and when we have crossed over, of course, we do not need the bridge any more. So it doesn’t matter that we start out on our journey with our holy cards, gongs and bells, sacred books and religious feelings. All of it should lead to growth and transformation, the ultimate surrender of our images and concepts, and a life of selfless giving. When there is nothing left to surrender, nothing left to give, only then can we come to the end of the passage – the ending of consciousness and its personally subjective God. One glimpse of the Godhead, and no one would want God back.

Stephan: How does the path to no-self in the Christian contemplative tradition differ from the path as laid out in the Hindu and Buddhist traditions?

Bernadette: I think it may be too late for me to ever have a good understanding of how other religions make this passage. If you are not surrendering your whole being, your very consciousness, to a loved and trusted personal God, then what are you surrendering it to? Or why surrender it at all? Loss of ego, loss of self, is just a by-product of this surrender; it is not the true goal, not an end in itself. Perhaps this is also the view of Mahayana Buddhism, where the goal is to save all sentient beings from suffering, and where loss of ego, loss of self, is seen as a means to a greater end. This view is very much in keeping with the Christian desire to save all souls. As I see it, without a personal God, the Buddhist must have a much stronger faith in the “unconditioned and unbegotten” than is required of the Christian contemplative, who experiences the passage as a divine doing, and in no way a self-doing.

Actually, I met up with Buddhism only at the end of my journey, after the no-self experience. Since I knew that this experience was not articulated in our contemplative literature, I went to the library to see if it could be found in the Eastern Religions. It did not take me long to realize that I would not find it in the Hindu tradition, where, as I see it, the final state is equivalent to the Christian experience of oneness or transforming union. If a Hindu had what I call the no-self experience, it would be the sudden, unexpected disappearance of the Atman-Brahman, the divine Self in the “cave of the heart”, and the disappearance of the cave as well. It would be the ending of God-consciousness, or transcendental consciousness – that seemingly bottomless experience of “being”, “consciousness”, and “bliss” that articulates the state of oneness. To regard this ending as the falling away of the ego is a grave error; ego must fall away before the state of oneness can be realized. The no-self experience is the falling away of this previously realized transcendent state.

Initially, when I looked into Buddhism, I did not find the experience of no-self there either; yet I intuited that it had to be there. The falling away of the ego is common to both Hinduism and Buddhism. Therefore, it would not account for the fact that Buddhism became a separate religion, nor would it account for the Buddhist’s insistence on no eternal Self – be it divine, individual or the two in one. I felt that the key difference between these two religions was the no-self experience, the falling away of the true Self, Atman-Brahman. Unfortunately, what most Buddhist authors define as the no-self experience is actually the no-ego experience. The cessation of clinging, craving, desire, the passions, etc., and the ensuing state of imperturbable peace and joy articulates the egoless state of oneness; it does not, however, articulate the no-self experience or the dimension beyond. Unless we clearly distinguish between these two very different experiences, we only confuse them, with the inevitable result that the true no-self experience becomes lost. If we think the falling away of the ego, with its ensuing transformation and oneness, is the no-self experience, then what shall we call the much further experience when this egoless oneness falls away? In actual experience there is only one thing to call it, the “no-self experience”; it lends itself to no other possible articulation.

Initially, I gave up looking for this experience in the Buddhist literature. Four years later, however, I came across two lines attributed to Buddha describing his enlightenment experience. Referring to self as a house, he said, “All thy rafters are broken now, the ridgepole is destroyed.” And there it was – the disappearance of the center, the ridgepole; without it, there can be no house, no self. When I read these lines, it was as if an arrow launched at the beginning of time had suddenly hit a bulls-eye. It was a remarkable find. These lines are not a piece of philosophy, but an experiential account, and without the experiential account we really have nothing to go on. In the same verse he says, “Again a house thou shall not build,” clearly distinguishing this experience from the falling away of the ego-center, after which a new, transformed self is built around a “true center,” a sturdy, balanced ridgepole.

As a Christian, I saw the no-self experience as the true nature of Christ’s death, the movement beyond even is oneness with the divine, the movement from God to Godhead. Though not articulated in contemplative literature, Christ dramatized this experience on the cross for all ages to see and ponder. Where Buddha described the experience, Christ manifested it without words; yet they both make the same statement and reveal the same truth – that ultimately, eternal life is beyond self or consciousness. After one has seen it manifested or heard it said, the only thing left is to experience it.

Stephan: You mention in The Path to No-Self that the unitive state is the “true state in which God intended every person to live his mature years.” Yet so few of us ever achieve this unitive state. What is it about the way we live right now that prevents us from doing so? Do you think it is our preoccupation with material success, technology, and personal accomplishment?

Bernadette: First of all, I think there are more people in the state of oneness than we realize. For everyone we hear about there are thousands we will never hear about. Believing this state to be a rare achievement can be an impediment in itself. Unfortunately, those who write about it have a way of making it sound more extraordinary and blissful that it commonly is, and so false expectations are another impediment – we keep waiting and looking for an experience or state that never comes. But if I had to put my finger on the primary obstacle, I would say it is having wrong views of the journey.

Paradoxical though it may seem, the passage through consciousness or self moves contrary to self, rubs it the wrong way – and in the end, will even rub it out. Because this passage goes against the grain of self, it is, therefore, a path of suffering. Both Christ and Buddha saw the passage as one of suffering, and basically found identical ways out. What they discovered and revealed to us was that each of us has within himself or herself a “stillpoint” – comparable, perhaps to the eye of a cyclone, a spot or center of calm, imperturbability, and non-movement. Buddha articulated this central eye in negative terms as “emptiness” or “void”, a refuge from the swirling cyclone of endless suffering. Christ articulated the eye in more positive terms as the “Kingdom of God” or the “Spirit within”, a place of refuge and salvation from a suffering self.

For both of them, the easy out was first to find that stillpoint and then, by attaching ourselves to it, by becoming one with it, to find a stabilizing, balanced anchor in our lives. After that, the cyclone is gradually drawn into the eye, and the suffering self comes to an end. And when there is no longer a cyclone, there is also no longer an eye. So the storms, crises, and sufferings of life are a way of finding the eye. When everything is going our way, we do not see the eye, and we feel no need to find it. But when everything is going against us, then we find the eye. So the avoidance of suffering and the desire to have everything go our own way runs contrary to the whole movement of our journey; it is all a wrong view. With the right view, however, one should be able to come to the state of oneness in six or seven years – years not merely of suffering, but years of enlightenment, for right suffering is the essence of enlightenment. Because self is everyone’s experience underlying all culture. I do not regard cultural wrong views as an excuse for not searching out right views. After all, each person’s passage is his or her own; there is no such thing as a collective passage.

Bernardus Aan:

Syalom Bu Ingrid,

Apakah anda sudah membaca keseluruhan dari buku “The Experience Of No-Self” ?

Yang cukup mengagetkan saya adalah pada halaman 99 :
“Di dalam gerak yang sekarang ini, Kristus boleh dibilang meledak di dalam suatu krisis yang akan menghapuskannya secara total, tetapi pada saat bersamaan mengungkapkannya dengan cara yang baru dan berbeda. Satu per satu Trinitas menghilang. Mula-mula terjadi hilangnya diri, wadah dan perantara–Kristus; lalu hilangnya Tuhan di-dalam atau titik-hening–Roh Kudus; dan akhirnya hilangnya Tuhan di-luar–Bapa transenden atau Mata yang melihat Dirinya. Tetapi bersama setiap kehilangan muncul pencerahan yang menggantikannya. Bersama hilangnya diri, Kristus larut ke dalam titik-hening, keduanya adalah Satu, dan satu-satunya yang tinggal dari pengalaman manusiawi ini. Lalu tiba-tiba ini pun lenyap atau larut ke dalam Tuhan yang Satu yang terlihat di mana-mana. Tetapi setelah sembilan bulan, Keesaan ini pun lenyap dan yang tinggal hanyalah kekosongan yang mengerikan. Kekosongan ini dapat dibandingkan dengan matinya Tuhan, suatu penyaliban yang tidak dikenal oleh standar-standar psikologis kita. Itu adalah keadaan tak-tahu selengkapnya (non-relatif), oleh karena tidak ada apa pun yang diketahui yang terhadapnya itu dapat dibandingkan. Singkatnya, kekosongan ini bukan hanya melampaui keadaan tahu, tetapi juga mengatasi keadaan tak-tahu.
Saya menamakan kekosongan besar dan keadaan tak-tahu ini sebagai “Lorong”. Pada waktu inilah, ketika berupaya sebaik-baiknya untuk menyesuaikan dan membiasakan diri terhadap keadaan yang sulit ini, sebuah suara dari kejauhan memecah keheningan. Saya tengah berjalan di sebuah jalan yang terasing dan berhenti untuk memandang sahabat-sahabat lama saya–bukit-bukit, pepohonan, dan rumput liar, yang sekarang begitu kosong dan hampa; pandangan yang sama sekali tak dapat dipercaya. Betapa saya bisa dikelabui, ditipu–sepanjang hidup saya lagi! Tidak mungkin … namun, memang begitu, tidak ada apa-apa di situ. Maka, di atas pepohonan saya mendengar sebuah suara di kejauhan bertanya kepada bapanya mengapa bapanya meninggalkannya; dan dengan itu, pintu pemahaman saya mulai terbuka.
Saya tidak pernah menghubungkan Malam-Malam Gelap dengan kematian Kristus. Runtuhnya pusat-ego (Malam Pasif dari Roh) tidak pernah menyadarkan saya akan hakekat sejati dari kematian Kristus. Sekalipun pengungkapan “diri sejati” yang terjadi kemudian sebagai hasilnya, diri yang tersembunyi dan menyatu dengan Tuhan di dalam pusat ilahi, tampak seperti kebangkitan kembali, saya tidak pernah melihatnya sebagai hakekat sejati dari kebangkitan kembali Kristus. Bagi saya, ini tidak pernah memecahkan misteri Kristus. Tetapi di sini, di tengah-tengah kekosongan ini–di atas diri, di atas penyatuan, dan di atas sebuah pusat ilahi–saya memahami orang ini dan tahu persis apa yang dimaksudkannya. Tidak pernah terjadi
99
dalam sejarah ada seorang suci atau orang arif dari agama apa pun, yang pergi meninggalkan dunia ini dengan pertanyaan seperti itu menghiasi bibirnya, atau mengakhiri hidupnya dengan catatan seperti itu. Inilah sesungguhnya kematian Tuhan, dan tanda kontradiksi sampai pada saat terakhir. Tanpa-diri adalah suatu keadaan tanpa makna, tetapi tanpa-Tuhan adalah kondisi yang tak dapat dimengerti, namun dengan kondisi itu sekarang saya dapat mengindentifikasikan dan memahami sepenuhnya.
Bahwa ia juga sampai kepada akhir seperti ini, ketiadaan yang mengatasi segala sesuatu yang dapat kita namakan diri, memberikan rasa nyaman yang aneh. Di sini kami berada, berteman di dalam kekeliruan mahabesar, bersekutu bahkan di dalam kekosongan. Saya senang bahwa saya telah berjalan sejauh yang telah dilaluinya, dan tidak menyalahkan dia karena membawa saya sampai pada akhir ini. Saya ingin melihat kebenaran yang sama yang telah dilihatnya, dan jika memang begitu–jika tidak ada Tuhan–maka inilah akhir dari jalan. Tidak ada penyesalan.
Kristus mengharapkan kebangkitan kembali, seperti saya mengharapkan untuk “melihat”, tetapi jelas itu tidak terjadi. Alih-alih kemuliaan, kami tidak melihat apa-apa; tiada apa-apa, kecuali kesia-siaan dari kehidupan kami dan ketanpamaknaan dari kematian kami. Namun, berkat perjumpaan yang tak terduga dengan dia di Lorong ini, saya memahami kesamaan yang lebih dekat dengan dia di dalam kekeliruan, dibandingkan dengan apa yang saya ketahui selama bertahun-tahun ketika saya mengira bahwa ia benar. Kini saya memahami tragedi sepenuhnya–tragedinya dan tragedi saya sendiri. Itu adalah tragedi dari semua orang yang telah percaya kepadanya, tetapi tidak berjalan cukup jauh sampai ke sini dan tidak pernah memahami seperti ini. ”

Kalau tidak salah, saya merangkum atas semua yang saya dapat bahwa bersatu dengan Tuhan itu masih belum cukup, karena masih ada ‘aku’ di dalam Tuhan. Tapi kita harus lebih menyatu lagi sehingga yang ada adalah aku ‘ditelan’ seutuhnya oleh Tuhan, sehingga yang aku lihat adalah apa yang Tuhan lihat dan yang kulihat adalah Tuhan itu sendiri. Fiuh, perjalanan 140 halaman luar biasa yang melelahkan. Dan masalahnya dia menunjukkan ayat – ayat alkitab yang mendukung. Saya jadi curiga bahwa apakah kesaksian Bernadette ini juga sesuai dengan persatuan Yesus dengan Tuhan di surga ? Karena materi Bernadette ini digunakan oleh salah seorang teman saya yang beragama Budha bahwa ajaran kristiani itu sebenarnya sudah diajarkan oleh Budha & Budhalah yang benar. Sungguh bingung saya ini, mungkin bisa dijelaskan. Terima kasih. Kalaupun belum punya file-nya, saya bisa memberikan ke bu Ingrid lewat email.

Tuhan memberkati
Bernardus Aan

Jawaban:

Shalom David dan Bernardus Aan,

Pertama- tama harus diakui terlebih dahulu, bahwa apa yang dituliskan oleh Bernadette Roberts adalah pengalaman pribadinya, dan kita tidak dapat menjadikannya sebagai patokan kebenaran, atau mensejajarkannya dengan Kitab Suci. Oleh karena itu, tidak perlu iman kita terguncang karena membaca tulisannya. Gereja Katolik mempunyai banyak tulisan- tulisan tentang pengalaman rohani para kudus, dan semua itu tidak otomatis dapat kita jadikan patokan. Namun demikian, kita dapat mengambil manfaat dari apa yang dituliskan, sepanjang itu sejalan dengan pengajaran Magisterium Gereja Katolik.

Terus terang saja, saya memang belum membaca keseluruhan tulisan Bernadette Roberts, namun hanya beberapa cuplikannya yang tersaji di internet, di antaranya seperti yang anda berikan kepada saya. Maka komentar berikut ini saya berikan hanya berdasarkan atas informasi yang saya baca -bukan atas keseluruhan tulisannya- yang saya bandingkan dengan prinsip dasar ajaran Gereja Katolik, yang tertulis dalam Kitab Suci, Katekismus, dan ajaran para orang kudus, secara khusus St. Teresa dari Avila dan St. Yohanes Salib, keduanya adalah mistik (mystic) yang telah diakui oleh Gereja.

1. Analogi koin dan analogi balon

Bernadette Roberts menjelaskan ‘persatuan dengan Tuhan’ sebagai analogi koin: satu sisinya adalah Tuhan, sedang satu sisinya adalah kita; di mana kita sudah diubah menjadi serupa dengan Tuhan.

Sebenarnya analogi koin ini mirip dengan yang diajarkan oleh St. Yohanes Salib yang mengajarkan bahwa dalam proses transformasi spiritual, kita dan Tuhan menjadi kesatuan, tidak dapat dipisahkan, namun juga tidak saling menelan dan meniadakan. Menurut St. Yohanes, dalam keadaan ini sepertinya kita menjadi seperti balok kayu yang terbakar. Kelembaban dan ketidakmurnian yang ada pada balok itu harus dihilangkan terlebih dahulu sebelum balok tersebut dapat menyala. Penyalaan jiwa kita di dalam kasih Tuhan akan menyebabkan rasa sakit di jiwa sebelum jiwa dapat benar- benar menyala. (lih. DN 2.10.1-7). Pada akhirnya, walaupun dalam persatuan sempurna tersebut, api tetaplah api, dan balok kayu tetaplah balok kayu yang membara, walaupun keduanya sudah menyatu dengan sempurna.

Kesulitan timbul ketika Bernadette Roberts mengatakan bahwa sesudah unitive stage/ prayer of union (persatuan dengan Tuhan) terdapat satu tahap lagi, yaitu ‘tidak ada diri sendiri (no self)’ dan bahkan ‘tidak ada Tuhan’ (no divine). Bahkan dalam teks terjemahan tersebut dikatakan ‘satu persatu Trinitas menghilang’, yang tinggal hanya kekosongan yang mengerikan: kosong dan hampa, yang disebutnya sebagai ‘Lorong’. Bernadette mengumpamakannya sebagai persatuan antara balon dengan udara di dalamnya: balon tersebut adalah kesadaran kita akan keberadaan kita, dan udara di dalamnya adalah Tuhan. Namun kemudian balon ini dipecahkan (yaitu ketika tidak ada lagi kesadaran), sehingga tidak ada lagi udara yang di dalam balon maupun di luar, adanya hanya udara yang ada di mana- mana. Inilah yang dikatakannya sebagai analogi pengalaman ‘tidak ada Tuhan’. Nampaknya harus dibedakan di sini, antara pengalaman pribadinya bahwa ia tidak dapat merasakan kehadiran Tuhan, dengan kenyataan sesungguhnya tentang keberadaan Tuhan yang tidak identik dengan perasaan manusia tentangnya.

2. Kesimpulan makna analogi tersebut: problematik

Terus terang saya juga terkejut membaca kesimpulan Bernadette Roberts ini. Memang yang disampaikan hanya analogi dan kita semua tahu analogi tidak mewakili secara sempurna apa yang hendak disampaikan. Mungkin saja pengalamannya memang demikian, namun kesimpulan analogi/ interpretasi pengalamannya yang mengatakan pada akhirnya tidak ada Tuhan (no divine), ini problematik. Sebab kita mengetahui, walaupun balon sudah tidak ada lagi -karena sudah meletus- udara yang tadinya di dalam balon yang kemudian menyatu dengan udara yang di luar balon, itu tetaplah udara; dan kita tidak dapat mengatakannya bahwa karena balonnya meletus lalu tidak ada udara lagi. Mungkin udara di luar dan di dalam tidak dapat dibedakan karena pembatasnya tidak ada lagi, tetapi udara-nya tetap ada. Allah tidak pernah menjadi tidak ada. Bukankah Firman Tuhan mengatakan bahwa Ia tetap sama, baik kemarin maupun hari ini dan sampai selama- lamanya (lih. Ibr 13:8). Karena itu Allah yang selalu ada sejak awal mula, tidak mungkin menjadi tidak ada. Jika Allah menjadi tidak ada, maka Ia menyangkal Diri-Nya sendiri, dan ini adalah sesuatu yang tidak mungkin terjadi, sebab Firman-Nya mengatakan, “… Dia [Tuhan] tidak dapat menyangkal diri-Nya” (2 Tim 2:13). Jika Firman Tuhan mengatakan bahwa Allah tetap hidup dan bertahta selama-lamanya (lih. Rat 5:19; Tob 13:2) maka kita percaya dan yakin bahwa ya, dan amin, akan demikian adanya. Maka jika Bernadette Roberts menyimpulkan bahwa pada akhirnya tidak ada Tuhan atau ada saat-saat di mana tidak ada Tuhan, nampaknya ia harus menjelaskan bagaimana ia mengartikan firman Tuhan ini.

Tak kalah problematik adalah peniadaan diri/ “no self“. Bernadette mengatakan bahwa yang menjadi puncak pengalaman rohani adalah ketiadaan diri, ketiadaan pengalaman ‘hidup’ dan ‘keberadaan’ (experience of ‘life’ and ‘being’).  St. Teresa memang juga memakai kata ‘our nothingness‘ (ketiadaan diri kita), namun di saat yang sama ia menekankan tentang kebesaran Tuhan yang melingkupi jiwa, pada saat ia mengalami persatuan dengan Tuhan itu; sehingga fokusnya bukan kekosongan semata yang mengerikan, seperti yang dijabarkan oleh Bernadette Roberts. Selanjutnya perlu diuji, apakah buah rohani yang dihasilkan dalam pengalaman ‘no self‘/ kekosongan ini. Apakah damai sejahtera dan suka cita? Apakah pengalaman ‘no self‘ ini semakin membawa seseorang untuk semakin memahami misteri Kristus? Sebab bagi para kudus, puncak doa batin menghantar seseorang untuk semakin menjadi seperti Kristus, dan menampakkan buah- buah Roh Kudus.

3. Ajaran Gereja Katolik tentang ‘persatuan dengan Tuhan’ sebagai buah doa batin, dan pengalaman St. Teresa dari Avila

Mari kita mengacu kepada Katekismus tentang apa yang disebut sebagai persatuan dengan Tuhan yang menjadi tujuan dari pertumbuhan rohani:

KGK 2014    Kemajuan rohani mengusahakan suatu persatuan yang semakin erat dengan Kristus. Persatuan ini dinamakan “mistik”, karena mengambil bagian dalam misteri Kristus melalui Sakramen-sakramen – “misteri-misteri kudus” – dan di dalam Kristus mengambil bagian dalam Tritunggal Mahakudus. Allah memanggil kita semua untuk persatuan yang erat dengan Dia. Rahmat-rahmat khusus atau tanda-tanda yang luar biasa dari kehidupan mistik ini hanya diberikan kepada beberapa orang tertentu, supaya menyatakan rahmat yang diberikan kepada kita semua.

Maka persatuan dengan Tuhan di sini adalah persatuan yang erat dengan Kristus, dan melalui Kristus kita mengambil bagian dalam misteri Tritunggal Mahakudus. Maka persatuan dengan Tuhan ini tidak berakhir dalam ‘kekosongan’ dan kehampaan, namun kepada suka cita ilahi karena telah diperkenankan Allah untuk turut mengambil bagian dalam misteri penebusan Kristus. Jadi semua mati raga dan pengorbanan diri yang dialami sebelum mencapai tahap persatuan dengan Tuhan ini tidak mengarah kepada kekosongan, namun kepada damai dan suka cita seperti yang disebutkan dalam delapan Sabda Bahagia:

KGK 2015    Jalan menuju kesempurnaan melewati salib. Tidak ada kekudusan tanpa pengurbanan diri dan perjuangan rohani (Bdk. 2 Tim 4). Kemajuan rohani menuntut askese dan penyangkalan diri yang tahap demi tahap mengantar kita untuk hidup dalam damai dan dalam kegembiraan sabda bahagia….

KGK 2724     Doa batin adalah ungkapan sederhana tentang misteri doa. Ia memandang Yesus dengan penuh iman, mendengarkan sabda Allah, dan mencintai tanpa banyak kata. Ia [doa batin] mencapai persatuan yang nyata dengan doa Kristus, sejauh doa itu mengikutsertakan kita dalam misteri-Nya.

Jika kita membaca pengalaman St. Teresa dari Avila kita mengetahui bahwa tingkatan karunia ‘damai dan kegembiraan Sabda Bahagia’ ini, diperoleh sebanding dengan seberapa banyak kita mengambil bagian di dalam Salib Tuhan Yesus, dalam kisah sengsara-Nya. Dalam bukunya the Way of Perfection, St. Teresa mengatakan:

“Ia (Tuhan) memberikan sesuai dengan keberanian yang Ia lihat di dalam setiap kita dan kasih yang kita punyai bagi kebesaran-Nya. Ia akan melihat bahwa barangsiapa yang banyak mengasihi Dia, akan dapat menderita banyak hal bagi-Nya …. Jadi,… jika kamu mengasihi Dia, berjuanglah agar apa yang kamu katakan kepada Tuhan bukan hanya kata- kata yang sopan semata- mata; berjuanglah untuk menderita demi apa yang diinginkan oleh kebesaran-Nya….” (the Way of Perfection, bab 32, no.7)

Selanjutnya, menurut St. Teresa akhir dari doa persatuan dengan Tuhan mengarah kepada pemberian diri yang total kepada Tuhan:

“Semua yang telah saya anjurkan di dalam buku ini diarahkan kepada pemberian diri kita yang total kepada Allah Pencipta, penyerahan kehendak kita kepada-Nya dan ketidakterikatan kita dari segala ciptaan.” ( Ibid., bab 32, no.9)

Pengalaman doa persatuan dengan Tuhan ini (perfect contemplation) dilukiskannya sebagai berikut:

“Kita tidak mengusahakannya dengan keras atau bahkan tak mengusahakannya sama sekali, atau tak ada sesuatupun yang diperlukan, …. selain berkata, fiat voluntas tua: Terjadilah kehendak-Mu, Tuhan, terjadilah di dalamku dengan cara yang Engkau kehendaki, ya Tuhan.” (Ibid., bab 32, no.10)

Dalam keadaan ini maka yang diinginkan oleh jiwa itu adalah untuk membalas kasih Allah, namun tak bisa memberikan apapun kecuali apa yang telah diterimanya. Dinyalakan oleh kasih, jiwa tersebut ingin sekali melayani Tuhan, membalas kasih dengan kasih, tetapi akan semakin merasa ‘berhutang’ kasih. Hingga menurut St. Teresa yang dapat dilakukan adalah: “memberikan kehendak kita, dan memberikan keseluruhannya.” (Ibid., bab 32, no.13).

Pengalaman tentang Tuhan yang diperoleh dari doa batin ini memberi kepada jiwa sebuah pengetahuan akan kebesaran Tuhan dan ketiadaan kita (our nothingness), yang menghasilkan kerendahan hati, yang adalah buah Roh Kudus, terutama merupakan buah dari hikmat kebijaksanaan: yaitu bahwa kita sungguh bukan siapa- siapa dan Tuhan adalah segalanya. Maka di tahap ini terjadi pemberian diri yang timbal balik antara jiwa manusia dengan Tuhan; dan sebagai akibatnya, kita dapat melihat buah- buah Roh Kudus dalam kehidupan orang tersebut.

4. Pernyataan- pernyataan lain yang juga problematik

Buah- buah Roh Kudus, inilah yang terus terang tidak kita ketahui dalam kehidupan Bernadette Roberts, setidaknya dari tulisan- tulisan yang saya baca. Saya tidak menangkap adanya relasi pribadi yang istimewa antara dia dengan Tuhan sebagai Pribadi yang mengasihi-Nya; tidak disebutkan adanya pengalaman penghayatan yang lebih mendalam tentang misteri kasih Kristus dan partisipasinya dalam pengorbanan Kristus; dan tidak ada penekanan akan adanya buah- buah Roh Kudus yang dapat diperoleh melalui pengalaman ‘no self‘ tersebut. Yang disebutkan hanya pengalaman ‘kekosongan jiwa’ seolah itulah yang menjadi puncaknya dan segala- galanya. Padahal jika saya membaca tulisan pengalaman St. Teresa dari Avila maupun St. Yohanes Salib, pengalaman kasih Tuhan itulah yang utama dan menjiwai semua tulisan- tulisan mereka. Saya tidak tahu, apakah ini disebabkan karena pertanyaan- pertanyaan Stephan Bodian yang ditujukan kepada Bernadette tidak mengarah ke sana, ataukah karena memang yang ingin ditonjolkan oleh Bernadette adalah pengalaman pribadinya tersebut.

Selanjutnya yang menurut saya janggal adalah, secara implisit Bernadette mensejajarkan Kristus dengan Buddha, dan kemudian, ia seolah mengatakan bahwa Allah sebagai Pribadi disejajarkan dengan pengalaman subjektif kita sebagai manusia. (Ia mengatakan: “personal God” is any subjective experience of the divine because the divine is a subjective experience, we think the divine is a subject; because we experience the divine through the faculties of consciousness, will, and intellect, we think the divine is equally consciousness, will and intellect; because we experience ourselves as a being or entity, we experience the divine as a being or entity; because we judge others, we think the divine judges others; and so on…) Ini memprihatinkan, sebab Kristus tidak pernah sejajar dengan Buddha, justru karena Kristus adalah Putera Allah sendiri yang menjelma sebagai manusia, yang kedatangan-Nya sudah dinubuatkan oleh para nabi. Selanjutnya, Allah kita adalah Pribadi, bukan karena pengalaman subyektif kita, tetapi karena Tuhan mewahyukan Diri-Nya demikian. Bukankah kita membaca dari keseluruhan Kitab Suci, bagaimana Allah menciptakan manusia, berdialog dengan manusia melalui para nabi, dan kemudian mengutus Kristus untuk menjelma menjadi seorang Pribadi? Maka iman Kristiani memang mengenal Allah yang adalah Pribadi, dan bukan hanya Sesuatu, apalagi Sesuatu yang kosong dan hampa. Terus terang saya belum menemukan dasarnya dari Kitab Suci, yang menggambarkan Allah dalam rupa ‘kekosongan’ ini atau ‘hilangnya’ Allah. Puncak kesempurnaan persatuan kita dengan Allah memang hanya akan terjadi di surga. Kitab Suci mengatakan, “Saudara-saudaraku yang kekasih, sekarang kita adalah anak-anak Allah, tetapi belum nyata apa keadaan kita kelak; akan tetapi kita tahu, bahwa apabila Kristus menyatakan diri-Nya, kita akan menjadi sama seperti Dia, sebab kita akan melihat Dia dalam keadaan-Nya yang sebenarnya.” (1 Yoh 3:2)

Akhirnya, David dan Bernardus, mari, janganlah cepat terpengaruh atas tulisan- tulisan yang seperti ini. Yang terpenting adalah kita mengetahui prinsip ajaran Gereja Katolik tentang doa batin/ doa persatuan dengan Tuhan (prayer of union) ini, agar kita tidak mudah dibingungkan oleh kisah pengalaman rohani pribadi atau wahyu- wahyu pribadi yang nampaknya ‘mencengangkan’. Tuhan hadir di dalam keseharian kita, dan di dalam Gereja, secara khusus dalam Ekaristi. Mari kita hayati makna Ekaristi ini, dan selanjutnya kita mohon pimpinan-Nya agar membimbing pertumbuhan rohani kita, asalkan kita juga setia dan bertekun dalam kehidupan doa kita. Semoga dengan sikap yang sederhana seperti ini, kita malah dapat semakin bertumbuh di dalam iman, pengharapan dan kasih.

Salam kasih dalam Kristus Tuhan,
Ingrid Listiati- katolisitas.org