Shalom Place Community Shalom Place Discussion Groups General Discussion Forums Christian Spirituality Issues More thoughts on nondual consciousnessGo | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply | |
| More thoughts on nondual consciousness | Login/Join |
Hey Derek,
Ok I see what you did there. Read the blog post. The whole 1e,2e,3e controversies, semantics, etc. Still later on you go on about the commands that also point to possible ego death, which was going to be my next point. Also wanted to taper the following post quote:
with the following verse: Mathew 5:8 "Blessed are the pure of heart, for they shall see God" Coincidentally, in the nondual state, there is no 'I' there, to see God, in a sense. I know Phil talks about, who is that is witnessing and experiencing the no 'I' state. That gets a little tricky further on, and the only thing I can find is Buddhist, Taoist, & Bernadette Roberts referencing all of that also falling away. However, being that I am not there yet, I feel at odds to discuss albeit in a theoretical manner.
Ha!!! I will pray for your success on that one. Although it seems necessary to link the two for more Christians to be able to know about these things. The problems being the whole of "Christianity" being seen as a separate entity from everything else, when Jesus seems so Universal in his message. One of my main reason I ever investigated outside of Christianity was because I no longer wanted to sin, to be a slave of bodily lusts, and anger, hatred etc. Yet everyone around me, soon as sunday service was over, was right back to the Adamic/Egoic mind frame. The cycles of sinning, repenting and justifying the cycle in perpetuity, "because we can always repent" seemed as madness and stupidity to me. What I found in Nonduality is this detachment & freedom from the very cause of all of my sins, the ego mind. The observer state, makes it easier to let go of the causes of Sin. It may be that ego itself is original sin in some sort of psychological sense. Still that seems to be the problem is that Nonduality and Christianity are viewed as these two separate entities. Yet my own awakening was from reading a sentence that itself was just a perfectly observable everyday fact devoid of having to be pigeonholed into "nonduality". The resulting awakening experience, also, was just the natural by product that is supposed to happen when One realizes that they are not the mind identity. This is SOOOOO key to include in Christianity as it resolves so much suffering and psychological issues within the church. The resulting openness and freedom that is felt naturally and instinctively brings with it a sense of rest and surrender, which for me then leads to the Union experience. Back to Christian identity itself though. It begs the question did Jesus intend for another religion to be formed? Originally followers of Christ were know as followers of "the Way". The term "Christians" was given to them by all the other surrounding groups and from this spring up another religion. In his days, the religions of the days hated him and eventually crucified him. I found that in my own experiencing having under gone mystical experiences, initially a decade ago, and sharing within the Church, got me kicked out of, hated by, and called a heretic by that Church. Even after that to still have Love for them I think says something. I see what your doing though. To wrap it all up, justifiably, in Christian packaging, and present it back to Christians is a tough task. I have been thinking about writing something on the matter myself and would like to add that even C.S. Lewis (a literature Hero in the Church) himself was a bug fan of Nondualist Douglas Harding and his Headless Way teaching. If we look at it all as a macrocosm, we have to see the importance of direct experience, The mystics/monks/hermits/saints and all of their testimony, including that of nondual states, Jesus himself teaching what seems like ego death, and the reference to go within, and our own direct experiences of said things along with countless others on this board and many others. There is just wayyyyyy too much evidence pointing at ego death, and with ego death logically comes a nondual state, or state devoid of ego. What is your take then on the meaning of Jesus saying, "I and the Father are One", and "So that they may be One, as we are One"? | ||||
|
Our paths have been so similar! I'm also intrigued by the fact that it wasn't until Acts 11:26 that the word "Christian" was invented. Before that it would have been impossible to create a "Christian" identity for oneself and hence impossible to turn Jesus' Way into an ego-perpetuation project. And I also noticed that sin is an action of the ego. In fact, I wondered at one point if we could go so far as to say that all actions of the ego are sinful. In other words, we would come to the ultimate definition of sin: the ego in action! I didn't know C.S. Lewis was a fan of Douglas Harding. Interesting. As for "Jesus'" sayings "I and the Father are one" and "So that they may be one, as we are one" I have serious doubts that Jesus actually uttered these words. I take them simply to be expressions of Johannine Christology. On the latter, Urban von Wahlde's explanation makes sense to me -- it is a prayer for corporate unity at a time of divisions in the Johannine church. | ||||
|
 |
Wow! I have a very different understanding of what the Ego is than you guys. - see https://shalomplace.org/eve/for...10625/m/10910695/p/1 You still have an Ego even though it's not identified with self-image. In fact, I'd venture to say that it's quite likely that we will always have an Ego, even in heaven, though it will be profoundly integrated with Self and God. Ego as reflecting consciousness is not sinful per se -- not to my understanding, at least. Ego as reflecting consciousness perpetuating a mask is probably inauthentic, to some degree. But sinful? I guess that depends on the degree of delusion one has about what one is doing and why. One could certainly be "missing the mark" in terms of identity, but this is not the fault of Ego so much as its conditioning. To my understanding, Ego is not equivalent to its conditioning; you can have an Ego that is relatively non-attached to its cultural conditioning, and hopefully the spiritual life enables one to realize this to some degree. If so, then Ego can more easily discover its deeper roots in Self and can even let go of its conscious intentionality to sink into the non dual ground of being and the God-Self interplay.
Derek, what do you mean: "Jesus' Way into an Ego-perpetuation project?" Because they now have a label, "Christian" that they can attach to and project? Words are a two-edged sword. On the one hand, it's inevitable that we name our reality and communicate about it on the basis of words. This is an important way in which we develop our human consciousness and a good thing. Adam named the creatures in the Garden and God was just fine with that; this "conceptualizing" is not what ruptured his relationship with the divine. Judgments are another matter, however, and so things get tricky with adjectives. But this, too, is inevitable, and not at all sinful per se. Before the situation in Acts 11:26, most "Christians" considered themselves to be Jews. Eventually, it was recognized by other Jews and even Gentiles that this was a very different kind of Judaism, and when they started getting booted from the synagogues, well . . . what to call them? Thousands were killed because they were identified with the label, Christian. Not much Ego gratification there, it seems. It's possible to accept a label like "Christian" and hold it as a descriptor rather than a basis for projection. | |||
|
|
Dominicus asked (Derek): What is your take then on the meaning of Jesus saying, "I and the Father are One", and "So that they may be One, as we are One"? I will share that I understand this to mean that Jesus as the Incarnate Word is one in Being with the Father in the Trinity. That's a profound nonduality: the ultimate "sharing all things in common." I understand "that they may be one" to probably refer to a number of levels of oneness: - one with Jesus and the Father in the Spirit - one in mind and purpose - one in witness to the world In John 17:24-25, Jesus states his deepest hope:
Seems to be a one-ness rooted in God's love! It strikes me that in the ultimate nonduality -- the Godhead -- there is still a distinction between the Persons of the Trinity. Christ, who is One-in-Being with the Father, also prays to the Father as an-Other. It's not surprising that we experience the same: times of oneness, and times of distinction and reflectivity. Both the One and the many are real. C'est la vie, et c'est bon!  | |||
|
I mean that people use "I am a Christian" as a way of strengthening their fictitious identity, their belief in the illusion of separateness. | ||||
|
|
Derek, it's possible that some people use the term, "Christian," as you say. But as I pointed out above, a label or concept can also be in the interest of description and communication rather than self-definition. As such, it's an indispensable means to communication, and also to developing our consciousness. The issue of labels and self-definition is huge, imo. It seems our memory very naturally formulates a self-image or self-concept to organize and make sense of our experiences. Self-image, as such, is not a bad thing, though we do eventually need to realize that it's not really our true self. The labels, roles and self-judgments, etc. that comprise self-image give us an inner sense of who we are -- a kind of inner compass. As I describe in my kundalini book, part of my own process was the realization that I have a self-image but I am not my self-image. Some kind of attachment to self-image was broken, and quite suddenly. I could still recite the usual self-defining statements, but they didn't "stick" any more. It wasn't that they weren't true: I was still a husband, father, Cajun, Catholic, LSU football fan, a poor golfer, etc. -- it's just that those kinds of things no longer resonated with a deeper, more mysterious identity that was emerging. The bond between Ego and self-image was broken, but Ego was still there, all right; I still had a reflective consciousness, free-will, my memories, etc. But who I really was was indefinable, even to myself. In time, I because OK with this, and still am. I'm quite comfortable saying "I am a Christian," for, in truth, I am a follower of Christ. But I do not feel that saying this reinforces a fictitious identity. It's simply a statement of fact, along with a lot of other statements I can make about myself. All that said, I don't think that an identity based on self-image is necessarily fictitious; I don't consider it a false self, only a "mind self," or mental-ego. False self is something else -- more a perpetuation of a persona designed to gain approval from others. One can have a fairly authentic and even holy mental ego, being honest about one's strengths and weaknesses, even poor in spirit. I'd be hesitant to say that people who identify themselves as Christians are perpetuating some kind of illusion. During the years I lived out of that kind of structure of consciousness, I was aware that my identity was rooted in God. The Holy Spirit can join us to God in Christ even in a mental ego stage of development, bless us with spiritual gifts, and gradually open us to deeper levels of mystery. So . . . that's my long answer to your short response. (And I really, really, really need to take some time off to re-write God, Self and Ego.) | |||
|
Phil. In my case its rather interesting, as while in the 3 year Dark Night, I clearly remembered myself has having pre-existed prior to the body. I was shown "Earth" and asked to be "Born" here. The memory itself was not from the mind, but from some really deep part of myself within and it was clear as day that it really was a real remembering of "me" pre-existing. I was just Awareness itself in my pre-existing state. A unit of Awareness. There was no need for any thought at all in that state, no reference to 'I' or any mind chatter. There were 3 others whom I was communicating with in the prior existence, and all our communication was like downloads or a perspective Gun. For example if I wanted to tell you that I want you to be born on earth, I would send this request directly to you, and it would unravel within you so you can directly see what I am referencing. Being here on Earth, since I was a child, all of this didn't seem right. Intuitively my parents didn't seem my parents and there was already disgust with this world and existence. Later in life, since teenage years, I've always hated myself for some reason, & when I awoke to find the ego to not be I, it was seen that the hatred was for this artificial ego that isn't me. So when there was a detachment from it, there was joy, freedom, Love, peace.
I see how we use rational thought (logic/reason) to live through the world and that rationality itself is a slave to the passions. Soon as a vice kicks in, say lust, all rationality goes out the window, we lose control, self justify, then proceed to satisfy lust, or whatever other vice kicks in. If we look at all the rapes, murders, wars, and all other atrocities, we see that it is due to a false understanding through the lens of the ego which can only operate in separatist thinking. On another note, yes we need it to distinguish between red/green light, hot/cold, etc. The ego also is what concludes that life/world is BS and to investigate God/Religion. Surprisingly, it also cooperates in investigating the possibility of its own demise. SO we can say it has both a positive aspect & negative aspect. However coming from a place where I remember myself to be a pure Unit of Awareness..... Awareness itself has a higher degree of intelligence and operates with Love & Divine will can be tapped into. All of the aforementioned can function prior to thought. For example doing something out of Love. The mind says "Why should we care, they are not us, we dont know them, etc" But the heart, after being developed spiritually, becomes selfless & direct."
Agreed. Ego in a sense cooperates to its own demise.
I wanted to give an example of that. My former Bible study teacher replaced is former non-Christian ego, w/ a Christian one, getting angry, judging, separating, etc. When I went through my experiences, he plainly said "Your no longer one of us, so leave from here." For myself, I got to a state where I just Loved, and it didnt matter who you are. But I saw in him that instead of ego death, in him was created an egoic pharisee or Sadducee, holier than thou etc.
I agree to as much as labels are neccessary for communication and so forth. Had someone put a gun to my head to deny Christ or Christianity, well then give me death, as my whole fiber of my being resonates with the Divine. But the problem is, that the identity as Christian, in a sense, can keep one from further progress. When I went through the Dark Night, it was like I was not anything, neither Christian, human, not my name, not my gender. Perhaps to be a Christian means to not have any identities except Union w/ the Absolute, Love, & Spirit. Though most Christians hold the label as a projection rather than descriptor and that causes problems, separatist thinking, and further issues. It is a double edge sword, because I have for a decade, and in a sense still do identify myself as a Christian. More applicable now is a Christian Mystic Nondualist. However knowing that the real me is not a label, thought, identity makes it quite interesting to say the least. Interesting stuff. | ||||
|
|
Very interesting, Dominicus. That "unit of Awareness" resonates well with what I mean by our non-reflecting spiritual consciousness. In some manner, we exist in the mind/plan of God for all eternity, and it could be that God was helping you to see that who you really are is the being that comes from Him.
You are describing our disease, here. Yes, the Ego is way out of balance and has been given the impossible task of trying to heal an inner woundedness that only God can heal. This woundedness encompasses our intellect and will as well, leaving us with strong biases, judgments, passions, etc. The problem is not that we have an Ego, however, but that we are so wounded, and so ignorant of how to deal with our illness, and how we even contribute to it (seeing this can leave one feeling worse!). But . . .
Yes, but I would say "liberation" rather than "demise." What fades and eventually goes is the false self conditioning and emotional illness that inflicts and biases the Ego. What remains is a purified Ego open to the deeper inner potentialities of Self and God's Spirit. The reason the Ego is motivated to study, practice, sacrifice, etc. is the liberation it feels drawn to. And that's what those Dark Nights you've mentioned were about: cleaning up the muck, purifying your thinking, disidentifying from false identities, etc. One way to look at Christianity is that it, among all the world religions, is the champion of the Ego. I know some cringe to read this, but they need to think more about what they mean by Ego, and how they have bought into a very narrow view and untenable view of this. Ego (as I understand it) is necessary to develop and manifest our uniqueness and individuality -- to become the person God created each of us to be. Don't leave home without one.  | |||
|
| http://www.scribd.com/johnboy_philothea |
Rahner, himself, noted that the term anonymous Christian was intended for internal consumption not interfaith dialogue; it is helpful in dogmatic theology. The larger issue, perhaps, is that it emerges from a transcendental Thomism (same school as Lonergan) and, while it stimulates some great theological intuitions, its Kantian influence makes its anthropology a tad too optimistic, which is why Don Gelpi substituted his theory of grace as transmuted experience in the place of the Thomists' thematic grace (terms and names searchable on Shalomplace forums from older threads). More to the point of this thread, however, why be surprised when others consider their path extraordinary and others' ordinary (Kung's descriptors, again, for internal use)? | |||
|
| http://www.scribd.com/johnboy_philothea |
Just cyber-relocated and friended all my emergent contacts on the olde facial network. Old reflections, including the blog are archived here http://johnboy.philothea.net/ and new musings are posted on 7 mirrored sites (listed on the bottom of the above-referenced url). Perhaps I should drop Ken a line so he could update his urls His descriptions were spot on with respect to the nouns (persons, places and things with whom I associate) and so were his adjectives (blasphemous and disgusting), from within his faith perspective, which is none of my business  | |||
|
| http://www.scribd.com/johnboy_philothea |
Great discussions, everyone, generous in personal sharing, depthful in reflection, helpful in teasing out the distinctions re: self and ego (I resonate with Phil's explications). Now, I must say that I do not resonate with such distinctions as would suggest that the Holy Spirit necessarily did this but not that, was here but not there. Calling the Holy Breath by name in explicit faith is good but re-spiring the Holy Breath whenever empowered, oriented, saved & healed will sanctify one whose will increasingly surrenders to love as freedom is birthed via improved mental & emotional hygiene and advanced moral development, certainly through manifold and varied practices and experiences with their affective and interpersonal attunements. We are the tuning-forks and the Holy Spirit provides our frequencies and harmonies, along a continuum and across various epistemic-axiological spectra. | |||
|
| http://www.scribd.com/johnboy_philothea |
I think of American Transcendentalism here; the best part of it. There is some peril in thus generalizing but much value to be realized from noticing such patterns, especially if balanced from a self-critical stance. Phil's comments sound right-headed and match my own intuitions. What I would say is that the West has well emphasized the gifts to be mined from exteriority, the inter-engagements, vis a vis the axes of ego-other and ego-cosmos (intersubjective & interobjective), while the East has well emphasized the gifts to be mined from interiority, the intra-engagements vis a vis the axes of ego-self and ego-ground (intrasubjective & intraobjective). This is not to say that both East & West do not engage each aspect of reality, only to note differences in emphases (informed also by a polydoxic perspective). I won't flesh this out but will leave it here to develop later, if no one else can crack my jargonistic code. As with any strengths, these can be practiced to a fault. So, East & West may also be expected to display certain historical weaknesses along with their respective soteriological and healing trajectories, which display some unique giftedness. The alignment of the axis of ground-self-ego-other-cosmos is not only modeled, but indeed effected, Christologically, as revealed in the 5-fold Lukan Christology (Luke) where Jesus orients, saves, sanctifies, heals and empowers us, carried on by the Spirit in the 5-fold Lukan pneumatology (Acts). A pan-entheism sees God indwelling in ground, other & cosmos, distinct from the self-ego axis but as its primal ground, origin, cause, support, meaning and destiny. Advaita engages this primal ground. An essential Buddhism engages the self-ego axis in relation to others and the cosmos with a respectful silence toward ground & orgin and takes account of the self-ego's relational, dynamical, processive (nonessentialist, nonsubstantialist) nature (when no-self is properly, not literally, conceived). Christianity's emphasis has been on the self-ego-other axis with a stewardship model toward the cosmos, which is not as green a stance as the pantheists, panen-theists and absolute monists but does have its pan-entheists and Francsican sensibilities, which can move us beyond a wholly instrumentalistic stance to a less dualistic outlook. | |||
|
|
Nice contributions to the discussion, Johnboy. Thanks. Re. the exchange about Rahner and "Anonymous Christians," that's a good point that he wasn't proposing it as a means for advancing inter-religious dialogue, but as part of an in-house discussion. That's pretty much how I view this present discussion on nondual consciousness, which I why I brought it up. Those four possible explanations I offered earlier were with Christian theology and spirituality in mind as well. We might note that other religions make similar statements -- that we all possess buddha-nature, for example, or That are thou applying to everyone (indeed, Hinduism has a way of situating almost every religious system within its framework -- sort of like our buddy, Wilber. ) | |||
|
| http://www.scribd.com/johnboy_philothea |
Exactly. This post, by the way, I presented as a 5th possibility. Hinduism IS the most pluralist of all the Great Traditions. Ken Wilber articulates a Theory of Everything and conflates it with his Advaitoid stance. As for Ken Silva and fundamentalistic evangelicals ... well, let me not blaspheme. The take-away is that other believers are not necessarily being arrogant or militant or demonic when subjugating other faith-outlooks but may not be very dialogical either if leading with certain terms and categories in inter-faith discussions. Hence, Christians in interreligious dialogue will often [bracket] Christology and lead with pneumatology, which is what Amos Yong and I would suggest. | |||
|
| http://www.scribd.com/johnboy_philothea |
The alignment of the axis of ground-self-ego-other-cosmos vis a vis intraobjective, intrasubjective, intersubjective and interobjective phenomenal categories brings us full circle back to some ideas we were exploring in private correspondence last year, Phil. What is going on, putatively, might be brought out in sharper relief by engaging Advaita, Christianity and Zen as foils through a polydoxic lens that distinguishes between their unique soteriological-healing trajectories without denying their salvific efficacies. Of course, these are not monolithic traditions and different schools and cohorts often emerge and will variously participate, some more, some less, some not at all, in their authentic orthopathic, orthopraxic and polydoxic dynamics. Those are instructive, too, and this all has practical significance for the life of prayer, transformation and the fruits of love. | |||
|
|
Re. Ken Silva and his ilk: people have sent me links to websites that have misrepresented my own writings as well, JB. One guy was accusing me of promoting something called "soaking prayer." I swear I had never heard that term until I read about it. Merton was promoting this, too, so I felt I was in good company. I like your 5th possibility, and I do recall our earlier email exchanges from last year (and the year before, and the one before that, and before . . .). Seems we've been exploring this topic for a long time, including visits with Jim Arraj and many email exchanges with him as well. What I'm hoping to do is to create a few resource threads that I can just point people to so I don't have to keep re-writing the same things again and again and again and again and again, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc. . . . | |||
|
|
Something Dominicus wrote on April 16th.
This is too over-simplified (rationalists vs. mystics), Dominicus. There's a broad range of faith/spiritual engagements besides these. I completely agree that there is a "knowing" and satisfaction to be found in mystical spirituality that is unknown in the more conventional examples of Christianity. Still, I think there are limits to what nondual or other kinds of mystical experiences can establish as truth. Nondual consciousness cannot establish as truth . . . - whether Jesus was the incarnate Son of God; - whether God is Trinity; - whether Jesus is truly present in the Eucharist; - the future of the body in the plan of God; - who is saved, and who is damned; - whether the Gospel of Thomas is a legitimate teaching of Jesus or not; - whether woman ought to be ordained; - whether "the kindgom of heaven is within you" is a more accurate translation than "the kingdom of heaven is among you"; - which writings ought to be included in the New Testament, and which not; - whether Christ came to found a Church or just give us a "way" to live; - how to organize ourselves in Christian community; - the meaning of "the Father and I are One;" - whether abortion is a morally acceptable way to deal with an unwanted pregnancy; and many more questions. These are all important questions, some moreso than others, and the Christian community has had to clarify their meaning(s) on many occasions. In almost every case, nondual insight has had very little contribution to make to the outcome. One extreme conclusion to draw would be that, because nondual knowing does not/cannot resolve these issues, then they are thus unimportant, irrelevant, "dualistic" in concern, and, hence, a distraction to the true goal of Christ's message, which is nondual mysticism. That seems to be a position I hear articulated in one way or another by various writers today. What do you all think of this? I'll leave that question hanging, and will reflect on this with you in the days ahead, but I do invite your response to this position. | |||
|
| http://www.scribd.com/johnboy_philothea |
I agree with Phil, Dominicus. Perhaps you mean nondual insight as narrowly defined as an extraordinary enlightenment-like experience, but I interpret that experience as differing in degree, not kind, from other more ordinary nondual experiences (per Andy Newberg's research and reflections). Under any circumstances, nondual approaches, which are nonpropostional, would not be expected to contribute creedal propositions, which are supra-rational (super-reasonable), but such nonrational approaches are, nevertheless, indispensable axiologically as affective attunements, which turn our attention to that (Whom, or even womb) which ultimately concerns us, shaping the end(s) we live for, making us in the image of Whom (or what) we desire. We don't want to buy into Wilber's category error and respond to his alleged hege- monism by countering that the dualistic appproach is, itself, necessary and sufficient. Rather, we dismiss the false dichotomy and embrace an authentic integralism, which recognizes that both contribute distinct aspects to every human value-realization, as we are embodied pre-rationally, non-rationally, rationally and supra-rationally (faith). In fact, in arriving at creedal and doctrinal formulations, the community first engaged in post-experiential reflection ensuing from practices (liturgical, devotional, communal and moral), whereby their desires were thus formed in community, whereupon certain behaviors were found to conform, normatively, in realizing the associated values. Nondual approaches thus, typically, lead the way, as there is a mystical core to organized religions. From primary encounters with truth, creed is then articulated toward the end of sharing it. From primary encounters with beauty, rituals are then cultivated toward the end of celebrating it. From primary encounters with goodness, codes are then elaborated toward the end of preserving it. From primary encounters with love, community is formed toward the end of sustaining it.
Hege-monism and imperialist dualism are two peas in the same false dichotomy pod, which, when planted, makes for a bad epistemic weed.
Jim Arraj wrote: "In an intentional nonduality, I don't have the same nature as God, but I can become like God through knowledge and love. Therefore, the way is open for me to try to know and love as much as possible." Here he was distinguishing between an ontological and intentional nonduality. But he went further: "No matter how 'metaphysical' much of Buddhist and Hindu literature appears to be, I don't think they are talking in the same ontological way [as Thomas Aquinas]." And that, also, sounds very right-headed to me, for their focus often seems to be much more soteriological , much less ontological (only with vague implications not robust metaphysics). I discussed above how a polydoxic perspective suggests that different soteriological (let's say, healing ) trajectories might vary as one primarily engages God as ground, contingency (and/) or relation. This is also to suggest that we should not, therefore, facilely conflate our conceptions of hindu karuna, christian agape and buddhist bodhicitta , for they would likely be differently textured, affectively, thus performed and enfleshed, variously (to borrow John Thatamanil 's phraseology and insights). Notwithstanding these important distinctions, the nondual approach does seem to afford one, East or West, an affective attunement, which certainly transvalues our interpersonal attunements. The approach, itself, and the intensity of its ensuing experiences are engaged along a broad spectrum of experiences and deep continuum of intensities. Few, East or West, engage what neuroscientists have metabolically mapped as thoroughgoing experiences of absolute unitary being (whether Enlightenment or mystical contemplation), but most experience some level of affective attunement and practice, to some extent, karuna, agape or bodhicitta (even if not in the so-called unitive way, many not even in the illuminative way, for that matter). Both East and West, though, engage what are essentially nondual approaches, which, along with dualistic approaches, are integral to human value-realizations. Neither approach, alone, is sufficient; both are necessary. Dualistic approaches primarily engage positions , while nondual approaches primarily engage dispositions . Dualistic approaches primarily engage being intelligent, reasonable & responsible, while nondual approaches primarily engage being attentive & in love. Dualistic approaches primarily engage problem-solving realities, while nondual approaches primarily engage relational realities. In our encounter of other believers, initially, our discussion will necessarily involve a consideration of methods, practices and experiences and not, rather, belief systems, conclusions and propositions. What emerges, then, will not always be in the form of arguments (creeds, for example) in the strict sense. Instead, we are discovering a convergence that is more so of nonpropositional nature. This is to say that this convergence does not articulate, for example, a new narrative arch of a distinctly descriptive, normative or speculative nature, which would be a cosmological enterprise. Rather, this convergence has an axiological trajectory, which is to say that it fosters a harmonic resonance of an evaluative, interpretive or existential nature. Interpretively, we are coming away with a deepened sense of solidarity. Evaluatively, we share a profound sense of compassion. Our conversation, at first, will be less about positions and more about dispositions, about being disposed to a Deep Awareness, Deep Solidarity, Deep Compassion, Deep Humility, Deep Worship, Deep Justice, Deep Ecology and Deep Community. That these realities will play out in our lives we are confidently assured. How they will play out is something we explore in humility and civility with all people of goodwill. At first, ours will foremost be shared axiology, interpretively and evaluatively, of what we deeply desire and deeply value. We can share practices that shape, form, cultivate and celebrate these desires and values. We believe that, one day, this will lead also to a shared cosmology, descriptively and normatively, consistent with the best science and best philosophy.
| |||
|
|
Hege-monism! I love it!
I agree, though I'd say instead that faith experience leads the way instead of "nondual approaches, thus, typically, lead the way. . ." There are a wide range of faith experiences, some very kataphatic, but nonetheless authentic. E.g., the sense of God's presence that comes from worship, or lectio divina, spiritual reading, or even spiritual conversation (as on the road to Emmaus). Still, the point you're making is the main one I had in mind: that Christian truth is more accurately discerned by consulting the sensus fidelium (sense of the faithful) than from any individual's mystical intuitions (which can, indeed, contribute to the process). To accept this, however, one needs to take seriously the reality of the church as Christ's mystical body, and not consider it to be some kind of mistake or merely man-made. St. Paul, in particular, drives home this identification between Christ and the church again and again in his epistles, as it was the core message of his own conversion ("Saul, Saul, why do you persecute Me?) There's also Joan of Arc's About Jesus Christ and the Church, I simply know they're just one thing, and we shouldn't complicate the matter. Church, here, means "People of God," as the Second Vatican Council noted; it is a living mode of Christ's presence in this world. Within the church, people blessed with charisms of knowledge, wisdom and prophecy play a special role in helping the community clarify its beliefs. Roman Catholics also believe that Magisterial leadership plays a critical role in discernment in the interest of Christian unity.
LOL! That was inspired, JB. There is so much ground in between these extremes, however. I just hate it when things are laid out as though those are the only options. Talk about a straw man! I think the distinctions Arraj lays out are sound, as are the elaborations you offer. | |||
|
| http://www.scribd.com/johnboy_philothea |
indeed, the sensus fidelium is most salient; well put the nondual vs dualistic epistemic distinction, as i broadly conceive it, differs from the apophatic vs kataphatic distinction the former distinction describes ego-self axis dynamics, which, re nondual approaches, might include not only self-negations but also transcendence, ecstasy, forgetting, quieting, affectivity, personal interrelating, all which can vary in degree, while the latter describes negations & affirmations, which are often intellectual & discursive, both sharing the valence of increasing descriptive accuracy faith experience implies, for me, a holistic engagement most begin their faith, i'd say, in media res, which is to suggest it's not a linear progression of one epistemic capacity to the next; for some, a rational consideration of philosophical preambles can lead the way to suprarational faith but, for many, belonging is gifted, such as thru infant baptism the affective & relational enjoy a formative primacy for most, including vis a vis liturgical engagements, which convey or make present the primary encounter via our participatory imagination with any conceptual-mapmaking to follow later, if ever in some cases; such devotion is kataphatic, nondual epistemically-axiologically and, of course, ontologically, intersubjectively dualistic from the standpoint of salvific efficacy-soteriology, we could say that the great traditions do have what's necessary & sufficient, even if only implicitly; iow, they enjoy and provide an abundance; at the same time, why take one path vs another unless one believed, as we do, that a particular explicit faith enjoys & provides a superabundance, ortho-doxically, even from an otherwise poly-doxic, poly-praxic and/or poly-pathic stance | |||
|
|
Vintage Johnboy! Iow, Jesus is Lord? | |||
|
| http://www.scribd.com/johnboy_philothea |
if i wasn't typing on my i-phone with two thumbs, i would've better said: why take one path vs another unless one believed, as we do, that a particular explicit faith enjoys & provides a superabundance, ortho-doxically ( suggesting we believe that there is a master cosmic metanarrative, even if we fallibly apprehend it and don't fully comprehend it ), even from an otherwise poly-doxic ( each tradition perhaps better emphasizes one aspect of the God-encounter, which is multi-form ), poly-praxic ( many different practices, in many traditions, efficaciously orient, sanctify, empower, heal/nurture & save us ) and/or poly-pathic ( manifold & multiform affective attunements efficaciously align our self-ego axes with ground, other-people/God & cosmos ) stance, which is put more simply as, while many approaches participate in salvific efficacies, imparting what is both necessary & sufficient for salvation (temporally, proleptically & eschatologically), some help us move more swiftly and with less hindrance along the way (although it makes little sense for any of us to insist on this a priori vis a vis our chosen stance and it is otherwise incumbent on us to not just see the path ahead but to get underway and manifest our claims that others may validate them a posteriori) nondual and dualistic approaches are part & parcel of all the traditions and they mostly entail epistemic stances, or practical/methodological approaches, not ontological conclusions those who do speak of the nondual, ontologically, are typically treating consciousness as a primitive, as some primal reality of which we are all ultimately constituted, and this sounds wrong-headed to me anthropologically, which is to suggest that such a stance is not some theological tautology immune to critique but, even if a philosophy of mind/metaphysical position, has some scientific/positivistic significance, which means it is subject to probabilistic falsification; the preponderance of the evidence is that consciousness is an emergent, not a primal, reality; and that it is not emergent in the sense of being emancipated from physical constraints or illusions but in the sense of arising thermodynamically and morphodynamically as a physical reality but with teleodynamic (think downward causation) properties that are not reducible (fully explainable) in terms of those physical properties of which it is constituted and from which it emerged human value-realizations, then, are not optimized when the nondual is divorced from the dualistic but, instead, are effected when the nondual and dualistic are happily married ; they comprise, then, a kairos movement not a chronos moment, which is to say that a full hermeneutical spiral of pre-rational, non-rational, rational and supra-rational moments must be completed through time for an optimal value-realization movement to be afforded; in other words, we haven't properly taken care of our hermeneutical clothes until they've gone through rinse, wash and spin cycles (however they may be conceived, epistemically-axiologically, see these different ways of describing the spectra of human experience: http://www.scribd.com/doc/9054...d-Nondual-Approaches ) and also put outside on the line ( sensus fidelium) or in the dryer (community of inquiry) , prior to folding, hanging, shelving or wearing (expand the metaphor as you see fit)! | |||
|
| http://www.scribd.com/johnboy_philothea |
notwithstanding my anthropology of consciousness, when SO many others speak of a so-called shared consciousness or even a Christ consciousness, i accept those characterizations as vague heuristic devices and imagine - not a metaphysical reality, but - a semiotic reality, which is to suggest that life's shared meanings are mediated via signs as icons, indexes and symbols (think sacraments, for example, and other incarnational realities) any evolution toward higher consciousness, individually or collectively, thus involves interpretations and reinterpretations of signs, in and by communities , thereby realizing shared-meanings and shared-values and does not otherwise involve some arcane & occult metaphysical merging of a primal, ethereal consciousness as some singular (intra-)subjective reality evolves from the eventual dissolution of illusionary, individual selves, who awaken from some slumber induced by a fragmented consciousness now made whole via self-negation instead, higher consciousness is realized both intra-subjectively, by individuals, and inter-subjectively, by communities, when new ways of seeing (be attentive, descriptively), processing (be intelligent & reasonable, interpretively), judging (be responsible, normatively) and enjoying (be in love! evaluatively) reality are realized via semiotic exchanges by otherwise discrete, bounded, quasi-autonomous, semiotic realities (persons as self-ego axes) | |||
|
Phil, Indeed I liked your listing of non-dual limitations that you set down in your 21 Apr 12 10:28 AM post! I don’t know that all Christian non-duals have a sense of fidelity to Christ and to the church. I don’t hear much along those lines. Seems, based on my reading here, that Christ and the church get forgotten. Hopefully I’m wrong, but my impression is more what I’ve expressed, I must admit. Seems a decent sample of Christian nonduals have outgrown the church and/or Christ – the historical one. “I’ve never seen a moor and I’ve never seen the sea, Yet know I how the heather looks and what a wave must be.” -- Emily Dickinson Aside from a few mystical sprinklings (mere sunshowers not steady or drenching rains) I have little experiential knowledge of non-dual consciousness -- and experiential knowledge is the real thing -- nondually speaking. But somehow (lacking more experiential knowledge at this time, and going with all that I do have -- as Emily did in her poem -- and pending more experience) my thinking is this: An authentic nondual consciousness (for a Christian) would remain concentric with the Divine Revelation of Christ and devotionally focused on the Father while permeated by the love of Christ that is the Holy Spirit. Then, would ‘CHRIST now live in me.’ Anything shy of that is its own testament to being below par -- to its ‘missing the mark’. Any contradiction or omission relative to the truths of Divine Revelation would not bespeak Christ living in me, nor the Holy Spirit coursing through me. I don’t often hear n-d folk make much mention of Christ living in them. (Some I’m sure do). Nor do I often hear of the actions of Christ being generated for others by the host of n-d folk out there in the third millennium. (The duals seem to bear the brunt of servicing the corporal and spiritual works of mercy). Lots of n-d folk out there grooving, but few St. Pauls somehow. Hey, when Christ ‘now lived’ in Paul he was ablaze with testimony for Christ, and on fire to strengthen and grow Christ’s church, and a real terror towards false teachers and antichrists. (Not much political correctness from Paul). Wouldn’t you think there’d be at least some of that in evidence nowadays, considering all the n-d chatter that exists…. (a couple of tads anyway)? Just think how strong and healthy the church would be today if there were but one St. Paul for every n-d website or blog! Aiyee! You asked for our thoughts – those are mine. Pop-popThis message has been edited. Last edited by: pop-pop, | ||||
|
|
Pop et al, check out some of the short talks by Redemptorist Father Greg Mayers, who is a Zen Roshi. I think it will provide a sense of how some Christian Zen teachers attempt to connect these two traditions. - http://www.mercy-center.org/Re...GregMayersTalks.html | |||
|
| Powered by Social Strata | Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
Shalom Place Community Shalom Place Discussion Groups General Discussion Forums Christian Spirituality Issues More thoughts on nondual consciousness
.