It is one thing, then, to realize this internal representation for what it is, existentially, such as through a consciousness shift, quite another to understand it, conceptually, such as through science.

I have often wondered, though, if some of our awakened ones ever get past the need to reify at least some type of virtual realm of experience by a see-er, disembodied or whatever. Put simply, they can positively shake-off the notion of any discrete disembodied virtual entity but they cannot shake off the notion, whether conscious or subconscious, of a disembodied virtual entity altogether, projecting it elsewhere, such as on to the Absolute, who is aware through them. This, then, would explain some folks' lack of angst, some folks' identification with the Absolute. But, again, this requires a leap from phenomenal experience to metaphysics that is wholly unwarranted. Science tells us otherwise. We're badly in need of a resurrection, if you ask me.

OK, but "figment of the imagination" implies that the kind of self-presence awakened by thought is an illusion, and I don't think that's so. Granted, that this kind of experience of self is not encountered before a thought arises and is recognized. But does this not demonstrate the revelatory nature of thought? Thought sign-i-fies some-thing, and it does so to some-one. That someone is also present in non-reflecting (apophatic) consciousness, but as a more passive, receptive subject-of-attention (still a "whom," not an "it"), and it is none other than this subject who is present-to and, in a sense, revealed-by the contents of consciousness. All of which is to say that you cannot really separate human non-reflecting and reflecting consciousness (as though one is real, the other an illusion) without doing violence to the fundamental nature of the human spirit. The false self Ego construct is another matter altogether, of course, and is indeed an ephemeral "I."

Going back to:

quote:

Check out this dialogue, which is what I had in mind as I critiqued those who extrapolate from enlightenment experiences to philosophy of mind metaphysics:

Yes, you'd posted a link to that sometime back, JB. One hopes they're just goofing around and not being serious, or else that all implies a pathetic image of the divine. How different from Christianity's doctrine of the Trinity, where there is no loneliness, but a superabundance of love and creativity that overflows to creation!

I wonder if they're not simply creating God in their own image and likeless? Always a danger!

Ha! The cross-posters are at it again!

Btw, all, this discussion has helped me to appreciate something my spiritual director (a Lonerganian) has mentioned several times: namely, how our capacity for thought is a sharing in the power of the Word, Who is the revelation of God. Iow, the Word is the revelation/manifestation of the unmanifest Father, and the Spirit is the active power by means of which the Word becomes expressed . Similarly, non-reflecting consciousness is akin to the Father, and reflecting consciousness (being intellegent/reasonable) to the Word, and will/action (being responsible) to the Spirit. Because we have become crippled by sin in our human spirit, God has intervened, enabling us to participate directly in the life of the Trinity. So our reflecting/acting potential is healed and strengthened by Word and Spirit, enabling our non-reflecting awareness to abide in the Light of the Father!

I just love this way of understanding the journey!

Most Christians are quite at home with beginning the spiritual journey by focusing on the Word and surrendering to the guidance of the Spirit. Jesus also told us that he would show us the Father, and it may very well be that the "awareness state" can be an opening to this -- that we come to participate in the "see-ing" of the Father. We could distinguish this kind of see-ing from "ordinary" non-reflecting consciousness in its recognition of the presence Word and Spirit at work in all things. This is very high mysticism, to which I feel strongly attracted, but the realization of which I have a very long ways to go.

quote:

Originally posted by Phil:
OK, but "figment of the imagination" implies that the kind of self-presence awakened by thought is an illusion, and I don't think that's so. Granted, that this kind of experience of self is not encountered before a thought arises and is recognized. But does this not demonstrate the revelatory nature of thought? Thought sign-i-fies some-thing, and it does so to some-one. That someone is also present in non-reflecting (apophatic) consciousness, but as a more passive, receptive subject-of-attention (still a "whom," not an "it"), and it is none other than this subject who is present-to and, in a sense, revealed-by the contents of consciousness. All of which is to say that you cannot really separate human non-reflecting and reflecting consciousness (as though one is real, the other an illusion) without doing violence to the fundamental nature of the human spirit. The false self Ego construct is another matter altogether, of course, and is indeed an ephemeral "I."

Right, the practical take away is not that there is no human agent in every sense of that word, even if only quasi-autonomous from absolute reality, but that there is no disembodied self or observer, no dualistic, cartesian ghost in the machine. The irony in some versions of nonduality is that some folks say there are no ghostS but that there is, instead, ONE BIG GHOST inhabiting all of us human 'soft machines.' That's nondual in one sense, epistemologically, but it is an ontological dualism which depreciates, even denies, materiality with its idealist monism.

quote:

Originally posted by Phil:
OK, but "figment of the imagination" implies that the kind of self-presence awakened by thought is an illusion, and I don't think that's so. Granted, that this kind of experience of self is not encountered before a thought arises and is recognized. But does this not demonstrate the revelatory nature of thought? Thought sign-i-fies some-thing, and it does so to some-one. That someone is also present in non-reflecting (apophatic) consciousness, but as a more passive, receptive subject-of-attention (still a "whom," not an "it"), and it is none other than this subject who is present-to and, in a sense, revealed-by the contents of consciousness. All of which is to say that you cannot really separate human non-reflecting and reflecting consciousness (as though one is real, the other an illusion) without doing violence to the fundamental nature of the human spirit. ...

I read somewhere in Helmeniak the helpful metaphor that reflecting and non-reflecting consciousness is like the shoot and the root of a plant, respectively.

IOW, the shoot of a plant is the focussed, reflective consciousness or awareness that we can easily see in ordinary, waking states of consciousness. The non-reflecting consciousness, the IS-ness of our BEing-ness, is the ROOT of the plant, which is less apparent, but always there supplying the shoot with life.

They cannot be separated. One is no more real or important than the other, right? What I believe happens in the 'awakening' shift is a reorganization of the focus of attention/consciousness and hence a reorganization of sense of 'self.' When one has the 'blow-out' of their sense of self through some of these awakening or enlightenment shifts/experiences, it's like the consciousness energy which upheld the shoot of the plant suddently plummets into the root.

These folks 'feel' like they've disappeared. They call their friends on the phone and tell them that they want you to call them things like, "The energy of the universe that is manifest to you as 'Shasha,' for instance. Or "the Self as channeled through this entity called 'Derek'."

Shasha or Derek don't disappear in these blow-outs, but our sense of self gets reorganized as the shoot now gives way to the thriving root. Sort-of-ish.

quote:

Originally posted by Phil:
Going back to:

quote:

Check out this dialogue, which is what I had in mind as I critiqued those who extrapolate from enlightenment experiences to philosophy of mind metaphysics:

Yes, you'd posted a link to that sometime back, JB. One hopes they're just goofing around and not being serious, or else that all implies a pathetic image of the divine. How different from Christianity's doctrine of the Trinity, where there is no loneliness, but a superabundance of love and creativity that overflows to creation!

I wonder if they're not simply creating God in their own image and likeless? Always a danger!

Yes, JB. We touched on that very video clip back in March, page 4 of the "Teachings of Ken Wilber" thread. I don't think Wilber was kidding one bit but came across rather confident of his assertions and used statements like "All the world mystics agree."

Some Christian Saints bodies have been known not to decay & turn to dust after death. Does anyone
know if this is the same situation in non dual
traditions?

Gosh Folks
You are speaking away out of my league. But Jesus Christ ressurrection from the dead was in the flesh proving to the World that spiritually He is God. Nothing comes even close to that. But hopefully if I keep reading your stuff long enough I will begin to understand some of it.

God Bless
Margaret

quote:

Originally posted by Mary Sue:
Some Christian Saints bodies have been known not to decay & turn to dust after death

The word i was looking for is Incorruptibility
I continue to look into this. I still struggle
with some of the things i was told about Christianity in a non dual type system.


When I recently remembered about how some
Christian Saints deceased bodies were not decaying the incredible purity of
there bodies and minds and relationship with
God flooded my being.

Anyways this seems a way for me to start to
sort some of this stuff out.

Concrete Poetry & Nonduality
Thought you guys might like a glimpse of nonduality, poetically speaking. Poem & essay.

Most enjoyable, Stephen. I can imagine how difficult it must have been trying to adjust mobile phone settings in such a state.

Mary Sue, I don't think there's necessarily a correlation between nondual consciousness and incorruptible bodies. But who knows? That would certainly make for an interesting study.

quote:

Originally posted by Phil:
Mary Sue, I don't think there's necessarily a correlation between nondual consciousness and incorruptible bodies. But who knows? That would certainly make for an interesting study.

I once heard that the reason the church quit allowing incorruptibility as a sainthood criterion is because some known corrupt scoundrels were also found incorrupt, when exhumed for forensic purposes. I would suspect that the number of incorrupt bodies one discovers will vary in direct proportion to the number of bodies one exhumes, other things being equal, like burial conditions. The Roman Catholic relic industry (I say that matter of factly, not pejoratively) once accounted for a great deal of exhumations. Other churches, not so much. The Church thus passes along such facts but doesn't impose any interpretations; should a particular case defy other explanations, the faithful are free to believe a miracle has taken place (and not unreasonably so). The absence of explanations in this case may, however, result from a lack of scientific rigor applied to the phenomenon, although there is some degree of informed speculation.

quote:

Originally posted by Phil:
Mary Sue, I don't think there's necessarily a correlation between nondual consciousness and incorruptible bodies. But who knows? That would certainly make for an interesting study.

I've given this some more thought. You are
probably correct. I may do a bit of a study about
this but have found no overall answer. If i
remember correctly Yogananda's body was incorruptible for 18 days. Thanks for the comments Phil.

JB: "I once heard that the reason the church quit allowing incorruptibility as a sainthood criterion is because some known corrupt scoundrels were also found incorrupt, when exhumed for forensic purposes. "



I hadn't known this at first and then heard of a nun who had made a packed with the devil. She is in among the ircorruptitibiles.

cut JB:
"The Church thus passes along such facts but doesn't impose any interpretations; should a particular case defy other explanations, the faithful are free to believe a miracle has taken place (and not unreasonably so). The absence of explanations in this case may, however, result from a lack of scientific rigor applied to the phenomenon, although there is some degree of informed speculation. "

When I looked at the pictures of 10 of the incorruptible bodies
some were quite remarkable & quite a mystery for me.
Thanks for the feedback JB.

quote:

Christian experience always has a special modality, due to the fact that it is inseparable from the mystery of Christ and the collective life of the Church, the Body of Christ. . . . In other words, this experience must always be in some way reducible to a theological form that can be shared by the rest of the Church or that shows that it is a sharing of what the rest of the Church experiences."
- Thomas Merton, "Zen and the Birds of Appetite"

I suppose this ought to apply to nondual experiences as well, especially if they have some kind of reference to Christ.

Hi,

Recently, I've watched this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-Q9ql0Pqo0

(if the link doesn't work, you can find it as "thomas keating summary of beliefs" on youtube)

I've always liked father Keating and, like many others, before I came to shalomplace I was reading his books all the time . I was glad that he never questioned Catholic truths and sacraments. But I really think that he shouldn't speak like that. First of all, it is, of course, Bernadette Roberts' "theology": first you want to be united to God, but then you "realize" that there is no God and no you, just oneness, which is the peak of Christian journey. But it really seems that Keating's metaphysical mysticism deepens, but I don't know about his faith experience or interpersonal mystical experience, if he ever had one (I used to presume that he did). What he says can't be shared with the rest of the Church and is not a part of Catholic or Christian tradition, mystical or not. The only Christian mystic that could possible agree with that is Meister Eckhart.

I guess I'm a bit sad when I think about it. Metaphysical experience of God is beautiful and should have its rightful place in the Church's experience, but not in the place of a personal relationship with God.

Yes, we've talked about this somewhere earlier and had the same kinds of reservations you express. What I just heard that I hadn't noticed before is him saying (go to 2.45 on the movie):

quote:

the consciousness of our consciousness, which is God within is, remains forever.

To my understanding, this "witness consciousness" is our own human, created, spiritual awareness and not the divine, so I would disagree with him on this and consider it the same kind of conflation that Wilber and others make between spirit and Spirit. Of course, I'm ever-ready to give this fine man the benefit of the doubt and presume that what he means by consciousness might be different from what I mean (a la Lonergan, mostly).

Ok, let me pose my questions here, although they were really asked in the context of this thread and in response to Shasha's penultimate post:

https://shalomplace.org/eve/for...604008328#3604008328

The questions might be better nuanced using the word 'separation' instead of duality, but I've left them as they were:

If God is so keen on duality, why would he create such profound interconnection in the world and the potential for such blissful oneness as part of the human experience?

Secondly, if duality is such a key element of scripture, and interconnection is the way the manifest world essentially unfolds, is there a contradiction between God's revelation in scripture and His creativity in the world?

My concern is with balancing a heavy duality biased interpretation of scripture and a view of nature/human consciousness which sees deep interconnectedness and non duality.

In the Celtic Christian tradition, we have what's known as the Great Book and the Little Book, nature and scripture, and the two must be understood in harmony. My own view of scripture has to be through the lens of the natural world, including scientific understanding, experiences of non dual consciousness etc, rather than through any dogmatic church position (I say this at the risk of pop-pop charging in on his fiery steed).

Of Phil's four points, I like 3, the Cosmic Christ mysticism. I'm inclined to identify oneness with the Cosmic Christ and see scripture in its light.

Stephen, why not both/and? God creates beings who are indeed distinctly "themselves" and endows them with the ability to realize their potential (or not, in the case of sin). This also sets up the opportunity for a truly relational paradigm, which is at the heart of Scripture and its emphasis on covenant. At the same time, the beings that God creates exist in-God and with profound interconnectedness. That's biblical, too! These two emphases are not in conflict philosophically, theologically and even in terms of spiritual practice.

That "heavy duality biased interpretation of scripture" you allude to is understandable given our human sinfulness and the consequent sense of isolation and alienation. God-as-relational-Partner calls us in love to a return to union: with God, one another and creation. The unitive experience you describe is the fruit of this journey, but I'm not hearing any denial of (ontological) duality in what you share. You are still Stephen, and God is still God, right?

Well, absolutely. The questions were an attempt to probe some of Shasha's statements in the last thread.

quote:

That "heavy duality biased interpretation of scripture" you allude to is understandable given our human sinfulness and the consequent sense of isolation and alienation.

Again, absolutely!

I'm totally convinced the relational angle leads into unity and back out again, and much of the scripture I'm drawn to explores this interpenetration of oneness and relationship, of us in God and God in us.

Ok, I should let big sister off the hook because I know we probably think similarly but are coming at the thing with different emphasis . The approach to oneness does differ however. I see New Life, the New Adam, all the stuff Paul preached as very much relating to oneness, the need to love one another because we are all unique aspects of the same thing. I'm also not convinced the Gospel has changed things as much as Shasha suggests and am really experiencing oneness as part of a global move on this planet, as both Derek and Christine allude to, which might change things in the world if we respond to it properly. Maybe I just don't see much of a difference between relational spirituality at a relative, everyday level and oneness as a potential at an absolute level.

BTW - editing messages, posting links, videos, quotes etc is a bit of nightmare on iPad. Could just be iPad is mince .

This message has been edited. Last edited by: samson,

When I read your post, Stephen, I started to think what really is "oneness" or "unity", which in contemporary spirituality it seems to be one of the most important issues. "Duality" sounds almost like some flaw...

When you talk about oneness as interconnectedness I think you mean such a oneness that, for example, exists in an organism whose parts exist and live together as a whole. Indeed, the Scripture is very fond of this kind of oneness, or such metaphors of unity. The vine and the branches or St. Paul's image of the Church as Christ's Body are examples of it. Is there a "separation" between the eye and the heart? Is there duality? Or maybe oneness? In what sense? Nowadays, we are encouraged to think about the whole planet Earth or the whole universe as one organism, but metaphysically the Earth or the Universe are less united than a plant, an animal or a human being, because they do not have one soul which is a source of such profound unity. But I believe that a unity of a lesser degree is also seen in the universe by the author of the Letter to Colossians, but this is a gift of grace, not a natural unity.

St. Thomas saw a lot of unity in the world. For example, all humans or all dogs are one, because they share the same nature. This is why Christ's incarnation affects all humans and all animals, plants and minerals too. In a bit similar way, everything which exists is a being, so everything is one being, so to speak.

So I do not think that Christianity or the Scripture is really about duality. But this word sounds so pejorative in non-dual thinkers' mouths, as if they were scandalized by the very fact that a frog and a flower are two distinct, separate things.

My understanding is that there is a confusion between unity, duality or multiplicity existing objectively in reality on the one hand, and unity, duality or multiplicity as a personal, spiritual experience. I suppose no-one wants to discuss the first. On the other hand, when it comes to experience, some people seem to think that to experience separateness or differences means that you are some sort of horrible Cartesian who experiences the world as a mass of blocks which are put together but are not linked to each other, while people are like isolated cells without windows.

There are experiences in which differences become irrelevant. Even though you can tell apart your body from the wall (thank God!), the experience feels like "there is no thing in the whole universe, not even a thing, but still something is there". Personally, I think that this experience is not about interconnectedness of things or living communion of people, but about the nature of our fundamental awareness. I do not think, however, that we should use this experience to expel "duality" from reality. We can expel it from our awareness, if we pursue this kind of experience, but reality is better off with its duality and multiplicity. Even God is Three Persons, not just one. Maybe he is not that fond of oneness, after all (I'm joking a bit)

Thanks for your reflections, Mt.

More and more I see the individual mind connecting with the group mind, which in turn connects with the species mind, the planetary mind, the universal mind etc in some kind of fluid, multi-layered matrix. Diversity within unity at different levels becomes a reality. It's not so much that there's no distinction between myself and the chair I sit in, or me and you, but that my self feeds into the collective mind of my family, my town, my country etc, and these group minds feed back into me. And so at different levels, as family, as countrymen, as human beings, we all connect with each other and with our immediate and distant environment. This is how I see unity and interconnectedness working. I don't quite know what philosophical or theological ideas can be drawn from this but it seems to be a metaphysical reality for me at least, and I'd argue that there is a growing awareness of this reality on the planet right now.

As such the universe could be said to have a mind which is composed of interpenetrating circles of mind which are in turn composed of smaller circles of mind and so forth, all of which connect and flow in and out of each other. This is oneness, unity, or rather the diversity and multiplicity of oneness.

Now is this God? Well, not in essence, but energetically it is a manifestation of the divine and expresses divine creativity and purpose.

So really when I talk about oneness, this is what I mean. Everything exists in profound relationship to everything else and love is the only way to nurture these connections. There is oneness, but there is also diversity. There is distinct individual existence, but also non duality within everything that is. Both are true. Awareness and respect for this reality seems like the only way forward for me.