The Nature of Spiritual Development - Paragraphs 1 and 2
We move now from Robert’s subsection on Revelation to her thoughts on the Nature of Spiritual Development.
“The Nature of Spiritual Development
The key to spiritual development is neither biological, intellectual or psychological. Rather, the key to spiritual development is the encounter with revelation, in particular, the central revelation of our major religions. It is the break-through of these revelations into soul and psyche that is responsible for authentic spiritual change and transformation. Without this supernatural intervention, man’s development goes no further than his limited resources.
Today there is a tendency to mistake the natural development of the psyche or consciousness for the true nature of man’s spiritual journey. People have not only made the case that the spiritual journey depends upon one’s psychological maturation, but even made it synonymous with it. Yet there is nothing particularly spiritual about consciousness or its natural development, and no study of psychological development has disclosed this fact. So there is nothing to back up the claim there is anything autonomous or developmentally natural about the spiritual journey. Thus Freud’s deepest probing of consciousness revealed little more than a bundle of sexual drives and survival instincts hardly different from animals. Though Jung was more optimistic, his collective unconscious revealed a myriad of biologically inherited mythical archetypes man could neither control nor transcend. No, the study of man’s psychological development has never yielded an inspiring picture of man, much less assured him of any transcendent destiny or reality.”
Robert’s text here feels rigid. This is unexpected as I have not felt this rigidity with her previous texts. I am not sure what to make of it, is it my reading of her or is it truly rigid? Something to ponder, nevertheless let us continue on. While I do not necessarily disagree with her statement that spiritual development “is neither biological, intellectual or psychological” I also do not agree with the rigidity in which she expresses her distaste for psychology or its place in the spiritual development of people. My simple (perhaps naive) view is that if everything is ultimately one, and even Roberts agrees with such a concept because elsewhere she states that matter equals spirit and spirit equals matter, then somehow a person’s psyche or consciousness is intrinsically tied up with the spiritual journey. There is only one thing happening to us, namely Love, on all levels of our being.
Another criticism is her fast and loose use of the words “psyche” and “consciousness.” This glossing over terms is surprising. We have seen over the course of this essay that she has painstakingly taken the time to define her terms and definitions, yet now she casually dismisses these important two terms as something less than. Less important than any previous terms she wished to make us aware of. In fact, it is unclear if she is collapsing these terms into one category, i.e., psyche and consciousness are the same thing, or if she realizes they may and can represent two different categories of meaning within respective areas of research, areas she sees unrelated to the spiritual journey. I am disappointed with what feels like a cavalier dismissal of the created being we call human.
Putting that aside, what is my understanding or experience of Robert’s text? It is twofold, first and foremost is that in my personal experience concerning any revelation or new knowing of God requires a period of integration into this human body, which includes my psyche and consciousness. I would not be able to speak of it if it were not integrated into my mind. In fact, now that I think about it, my experience actually includes my biology as I learn to relax and surrender into the present moment, my intellect as I explore how to love appropriately and in line with what has been revealed, and my psychology as I discard those beliefs and stories that do not serve Love. Perhaps I do not agree with Roberts after all, at least not in these two short paragraphs. This disagreement is a very interesting conundrum as she is, in some respects, my hero.
The other understanding I gain from this text is a cautionary one. How often do I approach someone or something with a rigidity of mind? The answer is often. I often take the time to define what it is I am saying or trying to say but dismiss the other person’s point-of-view. I do not explore their understanding of words and terms being used in a conversation. I can sense in myself how often I feel I am right. Frankly there are many times I don’t want to take the time to fully consider the other. What a blunder of heart, both to mine and the other. When I consider the scripture from I Cor. 13 from a mystical perspective, meaning look what Love has done and is doing to me, then my actions should be long-suffering, kind, not puffed up or easily provoked, baring, believing, and enduring all things. It says Love never fails.
Oh to live in and from such a state, I do believe it is possible. There is much in me that needs to be pruned. These days we call it transformed. There is a certain sadness in knowing that “I” can never measure up and that it is only through a radical surrender of myself to the Mystery that this work can continue in me. Perhaps this is what she means by a need for “supernatural intervention,” something that is beyond myself to kick start the process? It seems at the end of the day Roberts has extended a generous invitation to me, which is to continue working out my salvation. Despite our disagreement around psyche, consciousness and psychology it seems that we desire the same thing; a spiritual journey that leads us all the way home.
