Shalom Place Community Shalom Place Discussion Groups General Discussion Forums Christian Spirituality Issues Nonduality, once againGo | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply | |
| Nonduality, once again | Login/Join |
Right, I was referring to cacradicalgrace.org | ||||
|
JB, Rohr could benefit from having you write footnotes to his writings, imo.  I don't have access to your library of his works, but what I've seen of him on videos and read in his books isn't as disciplined or precise as you're describing. That article on Tolle I cited above is an example, where one definitely gets a sense of what he's meaning to say, only he does it so badly.And I have been searching for a better way of saying what it is I advocate and what I hear Rohr saying, too. I think a better term, for what I know we all advocate, might be whole brain approach. That's pretty good. It also seems to be exactly what many classical spiritual writers meant by attentiveness, or simple awareness. Lonergan's first stage of consciousness -- being attentive -- is exactly the kind of pre-reflective awareness that Rohr and the Easterners are describing, only the Easterners seem to put all their marbles in that basket while Christendom hasn't felt the need to say that reflective awareness (stages 2, 3 and 4) are somehow inherently delusional. Rohr gives this impression as well in a DVD I saw of him recently. But, as we know, "thinking" need not be in the service of false-dichotomies, and any 8th grader worth his/her salt already knows something of both/and thinking. I mean, come on: all this big fuss about "nonduality" is to offer an antedote to "false dichotomies"? For that we need Eckhart Tolle and Eastern practices? Critical thinking skills will also do the trick handily. I don't think it's about that at all. More to the point, it's about cultivating enlightenment spirituality, which is fine, provided Christian theology, metaphysics and mysticism don't get stood on their head in the process. BTW, I ran this chapter by Keating by my spiritual director, who is a Lonergan scholar and an accomplished theologian. It's problematic for several reasons, the main one being that it seems to leave nothing of the human Jesus intact after his death. The language is also sloppy -- e.g., speaking of the "separate self" as something of a bad thing. It's also wrong to say that "the source of all sin is the sense of a separate self" -- as though a 2 year old, who is developing this sense, is being drawn into a sinful state of being. The way "separate" is used is too misleading; it is too easily conflated with "distinct" (which would be very wrong), especially if even deified selves or true selves are are problem because "it is still a self." Besides, I'm not willing to concede that Keating nor anyone else knows what the hell happens to our "selves" with death. Too much Eastern/Bernadette Roberts influence in that chapter. Jesus and the Father are One, all right, but in their common possession of the divine nature. The distinction between these Persons is not lost. Keating's account of the Trinity, however, suggests that there is something of God beyond the Persons of the Trinity -- namely That Which Is. Why a "Who" should be inferior to a "That" is beyond me, and I don't think Dionysius has the answer, either.  | ||||
|
Phil, I have represented to you, in good faith, that I have extensive exposure to the Rohr oeuvre --- audio, video, articles and books --- which includes biographical info and an exhaustive inventory of references cited. I am not "assuming" anything. I am holding him accountable for what he has written and said in front of thousands of people. He DOES have a deep knowledge of these folks. I'm all for holding him accountable for what he writes. And ambiguities are construed against an author, intially. But one cannot continue to impose one's own definitions and categories on another's writings after they've been properly disambiguated and suitably reframed. Maybe I have not done so? Of course, I may have misinterpreted him, in some places, but we are dealing in the realm of probabilities. That you apparently assign such a low probability to my interpretations, disambiguations and reframings is your prerogative. But I am quite confident and comfortable in leaving this all here for the judgment of whomever may be interested. | ||||
|
Not real good, true, UNLESS you nuance it in the next sentence:
| ||||
|
If he corrected the references to infused contemplation to be supernatural rather than natural, then what would remain problematic? He is not going pantheistic. He is not abandoning relationality. He is not equating nondual thinking with nondualism. He's coming from a contemplative prayer tradition (per his report, Merton as model) that does not draw distinctions in kind between natural, acquired and infused contemplation, so, what's the practical upshot, from his perspective, of any failure on his part to describe the distinctions in degree properly? As Merton writes: Merton sounds like John of the Cross, Teresa of Avila and Ignatius vis a vis consolations. What's the practical upshot, from others' perspectives, of any failure on anyone's part to describe the distinctions in degree properly? re: acquired vs infused, as Merton says: However, Larkin, re: acquired and infused, says: Larkin concludes:
| ||||
|
Goodness, I hope I haven't so caricaturized this all (actually, I know I haven't). Again, look at this inventory of nondualia. Again, look at all the components and spin-offs: Louisiana's 8th graders lag the nation seriously, but you folks in Kansas must be somewhere over the rainbow if your 8th graders grasp this.  Again, this ALL serves the contemplative outlook: Yes, it is all ordered toward enlightenment spirituality, or using a whole brain approach. In Rohr, then, specifically, what theological error? what metaphysical error? what error re: mysticism with what practical upshots? Specific practices aren't universally normative or necessary, of course, our spiritualities being accidentals, but the East comes bearing gifts. And those can serve a whole brain approach. They can complement and supplement other ways of awareness-enhancing and consciousness-expanding. The whole brain approach is badly needed as an antidote to fundamentalism, just for example. I'm open to all the help we can get. | ||||
|
For starters, it is a mistake to read into the word beyond also the notion of without. That solves a myriad of misunderstandings (and rids us of a common false dichotomy) . Also, we must distinguish the epistemic experience from any metaphysical propositions. I'm certain that the CAC Radical Grace site will be linking to this thread any day now. And adding my footnotes to future editions of many publications. Or, just maybe, they simply press on with the Franciscan charism of understanding rather than being fully understood, especially not worried about what are occasionally pretty obvious gaffes.  And, as I wrote elsewhere: And this wholly consistent with what Dionysius wrote, as well as this teaching: http://oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Heaven Remember, mysteries are incomprehensible but not impenetrable. We DO know what the heaven is going to happen and in such a measure as has profound existential import and great practical significance. | ||||
|
Perhaps the better term would be separated self. That's the Christian nuancing of this ontological reality, and it's distinct, too, from notions of alienation (just for example, mortal sin), which is yet another aspect of our radical relationality. | ||||
|
One dynamic that has interested me is how many of our growth paradigms in psychology and spirituality have a sequential trajectory, an emergent dynamic, that lends itself to being characterized in terms of higher and lower. For example, some speak in terms of lower and higher chakras lower and higher levels of consciousness (in Yoga or in Wilber's Integral Theory) purgative, illuminative and unitive ways developmental psychology and Lonerganian conversion: intellectual, affective, moral, sociopolitical, religious personality development Jungian individuation and self-realization Enneagram directionality Maslovian hierarchy Initiation and Rites of Passage Stage Theories of Cognitive & Moral & Faith Development Spiral Dynamics Prayer Ladder or Steps in Lectio Divina Bernardian Love Ascent of Mt. Carmel and so on and so forth. While there are general tendencies that can be observed cross-culturally, individual development remains a rather uneven affair, which is to recognize that it is not always clearly linear or sequential, and sometimes it exhibits modularity, which is to recognize some amount of independence between one type of development or another. Overall, then, to use Wilber's description: "Thus, there is nothing linear about overall development. It is a wildly individual and idiosyncratic affair (even though many of the developmental lines themselves unfold sequentially)." Even, then, it would be silly to deny that, in spirituality, there is clearly a stage-like dynamic in play, for, as Wilber recognizes: Much genuine confusion sets in when we conflate descriptions of phenomenal states and stages of development and structures of consciousness, so Wilber's grid approach does seem to better recognize how such things do not lend themselves to facile mapping exercises. Perhaps a singularly important message we might come away with is the old philosophical distinction between necessary and sufficient. This is captured in Wilber's AQAL paradigm or in what I am calling a whole brain approach. When it comes to a consideration of salvific efficacy, living the good life is both necessary and sufficient. However, when it comes to ad majorem Dei gloriam, giving God the greatest possible glory, as it pertains to Bernardian Love or Ignatian Degrees of Humility or such, in some sense, then, our ongoing transformation or theosis or deificiation or humanization will, for the most part, remain always a work in progress. I mention all of this within the context of recognizing the natural human tendency and curiosity regarding where we are on the journey, how we fit into this stage model or growth paradigm, and especially our tendency, sometimes, to try to shoehorn or pigeonhole our experiences in an effort to present them in the best possible light to others. And this has everything to do, then, with our remaining attached to our False Self, our persona, confusing its quite natural construction and maintenance, which involves humanization and socialization processes, with our realization of our True Self, which involves transformational processes. What I am suggesting, then, is that Merton's teachings on our False and True Self, and the Christian paradigm of transformation, tends to cut to the chase vis a vis any considerations of who is where in this or that ascent or level or stage and, more especially, serves to give credit where credit is due, to place the glory where it truly belongs, to dismantle any silly meritocracies, to discredit any facile imperialist notions, whether of the nondual variety or the exclusivistic variety of fundamentalistic Christians. I say all of this to provide the backdrop for next examining, more precisely, what is going on in different quarters regarding nondual consciousness, which is to say that I am asking who is getting it right or properly situated and who is getting it wrong and to what degree. | ||||
|
JB, stop for a moment and think about what's going on here in this discussion, especially the reflections on Rohr's teachings. As you know, I'm very much open to making use of Eastern methods of prayer by Christians, especially if they keep things in proper context. I also don't go out of my way to pick on people like Rohr and Keating, as I recognize the incredible good they've done through their writings and teachings. With regard to the issues we've been discussing, however, I've sensed problems that needed to be addressed. You've replied, but not always convincingly. I think you'd agree that, minimally, what we're dealing with here is careless expression -- maybe worse, however. E.g. Rohr really does seem to give the impression that God, Consciousness and Reality are all the same thing. Well, maybe . . . but that takes a lot more explaining, especially if we're using Eckhart Tolle's idea of consciousness. It's quite a stretch to imply that Tolle's ideas on consciousness are equivalent to Christianity's understanding of God. Rohr seems to take the position with Tolle that "anyone who is not against us, is for us." Yet Tolle is on record as saying the gnostics got it right, and he views Jesus as just a great teacher and enlightened master. He's also got a bit of a chip on his shoulder toward institutional Christianity, even maintaining that the Church killed over 6 million women as witches. Rohr doesn't sound like he's promoting whole-brain spirituality. It's all about "seeing" and not-thinking. Whole brain spirituality has no quarrel with thinking. So, bottom line with Rohr: if he's going to so wholeheartedly recommend Eckhart Tolle's work (link on his home page; a new book on the same theme, with Tolle no doubt quoted extensively), he has an equal responsibility to show where Tolle is at odds with Christianity. You can't say (as Rohr does) that Tolle is all about process and not content. Links like this one and many others could have been posted as cautions. Rohr has a reponsibility to do so, imo, if he is going to so enthusiastically recommend Tolle. As for the Keating quote, I'm not seeing any place where he affirms the continuing existence of the human Jesus. Neither did my theologian mentor. Neither does Arraj, who finds the passage misleading. I'm not seeing Dionysian perspective. And the Persons of the Trinity giving way to a deeper experience of God as That Which Is? I don't think that's what we believe. Now, if someone like me, who's well-read on these topics and is open to Eastern disciplines, has the kinds of misgivings I've expressed above, and if it takes the kind of Herculean effort you've been giving to show how they might be otherwise understood, don't you think we have a problem, here? | ||||
|
I generally like Wilber's AQAL approach and Integral account or psychological model when it is taken as a heuristic device. It matches the intuitions I have regarding a genuinely whole brain approach to reality and how I conceive epistemology, in general. I even like his description of mystical states and his discussion of the hard problem of consciousness, from a vaguely phenomenological perspective and as heuristic devices. Where I part company with Wilber however is when he makes the moves from the merely heuristical and vaguely phenomenological to the clearly explanatory and robustly metaphysical. Unless I am misunderstanding him, in his Stages of Spiritual Unfolding? and in his The Hard Problem , he is precisely busting these moves. In a nutshell, Wilber confounds knowledge with experience, conflates epistemology with ontology, and, to me, most ironically, fractures the integral whole brain approach or full spectrum account into discrete ways of knowing reality --- not only by overinvesting knowledge in the different structures of human consciousness, one apart from the other, but --- by conflating data with "means" of knowing, which I suppose is symptomatic of anyone who, essentially, denies the distinction between ontology and epistemology, between system and method, between doctrine and practice, proposition and process. The ultimate test for a good metaphysic is in the laboratory of reality. The claim of explanatory adequacy over and above mere heuristic utility comes in the ability of a model to predict and falsify events, to reconcile gravity and quantum mechanics, to predict psychic phenomena and psychological behavior. True cartography and mapping can guide one from one place to another. To characterize what Wilber is about, then, as any type of spiritual or psychological or metaphysical cartography, is an unwarranted and exaggerated use of the term. When Rohr speaks of Tolle, then, that "he is teaching process not doctrine or dogma. He is teaching how to see and be present, not what you should see when you are present," and when he provides his inventory of what Tolle is and is not doing, he is precisely drawing the distinctions that are necessary to avoid these Wilberian pitfalls. The same is true of Keating when he speaks, for example, in terms of intimacy and not rather identity. And this has been the ongoing leit motif in my contextualizing of the Rohr and Keating interface with the Wilberian hermeneutic; this is how we must parse and nuance, in other words; what is asserted in an epistemic mode and what is being affirmed metaphysically (where there is a good bit of wiggle room) and theologically (where there is less wiggle room); what is practice and method and what is doctrine and system (and can they, indeed, be successfully extricated, because not all can). Now, certainly, on some level, in certain instances, Rohr may be glossing over what Tolle really is or really is not doing, and providing him an orthodox grounding and a hetrodox defense that is not wholly warranted. And, by parallel, maybe, on some level, in certain instances, johnboy may be glossing over what Rohr and Keating have said and are saying and have been doing or not doing, and providing them an orthodox grounding and a heterodox defense that is not wholly warranted, and maybe I did that, even, to a lessor extent with Bernadette Roberts! I may be too generously construing their ambiguities in their favor and too charitably interpreting seeming contradictions to their credit. That is quite possible. I hope it is not too probable, at least most of the time! And I hope my counterarguments are received in the way they are being offered in a generous spirit of mutual inquiry, trying to provide more light than heat! These are the types of mea culpas I am willing to risk in the service of truth, beauty, goodness and unity. So, please, do not construe my contributions as being dismissive of what I do recognize as genuine concerns, even as I plead not to be similarly dismissed. | ||||
|
We cross-posted. I hope I have allayed your concerns. | ||||
|
I agree with the inartful expression and have said that already. And it might be worse, indeed, but nothing that is going to take these fellows off the heterodox deep-end. | ||||
|
That's right, Phil, MAYBE because he said not ALL bad. The glass IS half-empty here ole buddy. | ||||
|
This is okay. We can honestly disagree without thinking anyone is being disingenuous. I am fully convinced of my interpretations on a substantive level. I think you have already recognized that these gentlemen would find my interpretations and nuancing as acceptable, maybe even as improvements. | ||||
|
Rohr advocates over and over and over not to absolutize when it is uncalled for, not to think in all or nothing terms about such things, especially about other people. Again, false dichotomy. That's all he is saying. | ||||
|
I do NOT gather this whatsoever when I am interpreting Rohr. He is merely drawing the simple philosophical distinction between what is necessary and what is sufficient. It is NOT "all" about "seeing" and not thinking; rather, it is about "seeing" in addition to thinking. It is about tasting and seeing the goodness of the Lord with the psalmist and Ignatius. It is about going beyond the logical and empirical and practical to the relational. Again, beyond but not without. Both-and. No false dichotomy. Phil, YOUR interpretation, here, does not withstand scrutiny, is not convincing. | ||||
|
Rohr DOES show where Tolle is at odds with Christianity in a compare and contrast. Perhaps you mean to suggest, rather, that he should do so more extensively? Rohr writes: We COULD critically hear what is helpful in his message. | ||||
|
Phil, I did not attribute to Keating's quote all of the specific affirmations of what we encounter in the beatific vision. What I suggested, rather, is that he is addressing one aspect while not explicitly denying the manifold others. I simply cannot imagine that Keating would deny all of the other aspects of the beatific vision that our tradition affirms even as he addresses one aspect that must certainly be more richly nuanced. I don't know. Maybe my imagination is failing here? It would be a great question to put directly to Keating: Do you affirm your account of the beatific vision as being consistent with what johnboy suggests? Or are you actually saying what Arraj, St. Romain and his spiritual director think you are saying? Sincerely, how do you think he would answer that? I impute orthodoxy to people unless they have clearly and unequivocally declared their own heterodoxy. And I feel warranted in this default position especially when aware of their other teachings and practice and standing in the church and how an individual statement must be situated in that overall context. It is called the benefit of the doubt and a resistance to rush to judgment, or presumed innocence in the common parlance. And I think we need to recognize that these fellows are audience-aware, which is to sugest that the people buying their books and attending their conferences are not casual seekers, not mere initiates in the spiritual life. They tend to be more capable than the average person to see and hear nuance and to properly contextualize otherwise isolated statements. This is not to deny that many misunderstand and misconstrue this stuff but they are the ones misunderstanding and misconstruing conventional Catholicism, too, stuck in false-self approaches to everything else, too. And this is to draw another rather simple distinction, which is that between a partial account and an exhaustive account. Why assume that Keating's beatific vision account was intended as exhaustive, especially when, if it was, it would so clearly fly in the face of tradition? I did not suggest that you should be able to see the Dionysian or traditional perspective. I was merely suggesting that you have insufficient warrant to a priori rule it out. | ||||
|
Phil, based on my own long-standing immersion in Rohr and Merton, my interpretations of him do not require any Herculean effort. I am absolutely confident that he would affirm my interpretations as accurate and right on the mark. I am also confident that both he and Keating would humbly own up to some inartful expression and sloppiness. At the same time, it is quite clear from your various characterizations of certain of Rohr's political positions, DVD presentations and writings (both in the Radical Grace periodical and on the Radical Grace website, and maybe elsewhere?) that your misgivings go far beyond any that I entertain? Dispossessing you of those might indeed require a Herculean effort, but that is a problem that might lie between you and Rohr and not at all between you and me, and I don't feel called to exert an effort on that front because I so implicitly trust and believe in the two of you that I cannot imagine it would take much effort at all for y'all to reconcile your own differences. | ||||
|
For sure. Maybe I have been a little too critical of Rohr, especially. But geez, when someone of his caliber calls infused contemplation "natural mysticism" and lists God and Consciousness (especially with reference to Tolle's view of such) something of synonyms, then I really DO wonder where he's coming from and going. I haven't been meaning to imply heterodoxy so much as a very careless use of terminology and a basically uncritical endorsement of Tolle, the contrasts you present above (from his website) notwithstanding. If he wants people to receive what Tolle has to offer us as gifts, then he'll need to do a lot more to point out the specific aspects of Tolle's writings that ARE in conflict with Christianity. JB, I have no idea what he'd say. I'm just going on what he wrote, and the message communicated. He seems to be going well out of his way to say that nothing of an individual self survives death -- not even Jesus' deified self -- and in the absence of specific affirmation for some kind of individual resurrection, the account is deficient. If one is going to speak about the snuffing out of self with death, then go on to reference the rest of the journey in passing, don't you think something affirmative should have been said about individual resurrection? Somehow it all gets lost along the way; that's how I read it, as did the other references mentioned above. I do not mean to go beyond this specific criticism about a specific chapter in a book in my concern, so I am not about saying, here, that Keating is a heretic or anything like that. I do know that there was a period when Wilber's writings influenced him deeply, so much so that he used Wilber's states to explain the Christian journey. He was also deeply influenced by Bernadette Roberts' writings on her own experience of what she calls the death of self, then resurrection and ascension. I can certainly grant your charitable and thoughtful parsings of the text in question (and Rohr's as well), but I do think my reading of it and concern has validity as well. Maybe we can move on from the Rohr/Keating stuff? | ||||
|
For sure. At some level, you must envision me tugging on Rohr's sleeve and whispering the distinctions between natural, acquired and infused contemplations into his ear after his obvious gaffe. It really could make one wonder I suppose. I mean, unless, of course, you already really knew someone's general history and overall approach very, very well.  | ||||
|
Because of the profound existential import and immediate (as well as ultimate) practical significance of all things having to do with heaven, moreso out of pastoral sensitivity than theological precision, I would tend to want to go out of my way to affirm those heavenly realities that I know are of utmost concern to most people. I know I mindfully take this approach with my children, for instance, in order to properly form their hopes and aspirations and shape their outlooks and provide them the deep consolations that are so desperately needed in a reality that can be so apparently contradictory, paradoxical, ambiguous. Now, there are times when I might crowd their psychological threshold to lead them into paradox and thereby broaden their perception and deepen their understandigs of certain mysteries, like the Easter realities, and I might do so by precisely providing them a partial truth, as I hope Keating is doing, but I would not leave them hanging long and would certainly amplify my account either in the next chapter, or in a footnote, or what have you. To be clear, then, my answer to your question is yes. And it applies without qualifications such as age-appropriateness and audience-awareness. | ||||
|
Keating wrote: If I recall correctly, that chapter must have been heavily excerpted in the recent Radical Grace article by Keating re: nonduality. At any rate, as passing note: when I first read that, it struck me as containing a rather incoherent redundancy. The term "transpersonal God" means the same thing to me as "the Ultimate Reality beyond all personal and impersonal categories." In other words, "transpersonal" is a word that, itself, entails what is "beyond personal categories." It seems to be a distinction without a difference? | ||||
|
Well, thank you very much. And I will close by introducing one last distinction, which is that between the striving for mere logical validity and the aspiring for logical soundness, a distinction that falls in the category of being necessary but not sufficient. And, yes, I'll grant that your concerns were valid, too, and, happily, I am reckoning, differed from my own not in kind but rather in degree (analogous to the distinctions drawn between different contemplative prayer forms by the transcendental thomists). Which brings me to my one lingering question, which drives more to the substance of your concern and less to the style of Rohr's writing. I put this forward earlier, in a string of a gigazillion other electrons I know, but, what do you take to be the practical import of confusing the otherwise theoretic distinctions between natural, acquired and infused contemplative prayer forms: I was guessing that your concern mostly matched Larkin's concern vis a vis being a matter very pertinent to spiritual direction? I was also supposing that Merton's dismissal of this concern, on the practical level, was due to the fact that his experience addressed monastic religious, who enjoy a robust lectio divina and an environs more generally conducive to acquired contemplation (or simplified prayer, which we're of course recognizing as distinct from exercises that are moreso emptying). Acquired or active or masked contemplation does not quite capture the significant nuances that are needed to describe the manifold and multiform approaches to prayer in what are not otherwise described in, for example, Zen, natural mysticism, infused contemplation. In otherwords, we have the Eastern and we have the classical Western (contemplation sui generis, so to speak), and we have the tertium quid contemplative forms. Because so many of the "third way" prayer forms in modern Christianity might be Zen-informed, or vipassana-informed, for example, and, for another example, because some emphasize, let's say, presence and others emptiness, all using these as gateways to fullness (even the abyss, paradoxically, as the way to the ground), it would seem that these different types of emphases are going to make direction a tad more problematical than what Merton either experienced or imagined. Where Merton was concerned, that prayer form, for many of his monks, was already, in his words, "simple and contemplative in a general way." In other words, Merton's invitation to contemplative prayer to us anawim opened up quite the pandora's box of surprises and maybe he'd have a few revisions for his spiritual direction book. So, also from the history of this bulletin board and the lessons drawn in your and Arraj's rather extensive cautionary note-taking, you would amplify what Larkin's general spiritual concerns are to include, also, significant psychological concerns, such as were thrust on Keating's awareness by early CP practitioners? such as you experienced personally? Have y'all gotten a better sense of just how prevalent "problems" are vis a vis spiritual emergence (emergencies) and how available knowledgeable help is nowadays, through time? So, in essence, I am probing exactly what type and how much of a difference it makes if we fail to successfully or precisely draw distinctions in degrees of fullness of prayer. Beyond, but not without. | ||||
|
| Powered by Social Strata | Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
"Of course, his very point is that you cannot think of it at all, you can only realize it." (point #4).[/qb]