Another attempt at concretization of these abstract concepts, oversimplified and exaggerated (but sufficiently nuanced above, I hope, to prevent any facile caricatures):

When I say nondual or contemplative, I am talking about the way I interact with my granddaughter when she knocks on my door. My heart leaps and we delight in each other’s presence. When I say dualistic, I think of doing my taxes. Talking about a putative ultimate reality (God, for most of us)a nondual inter-subjective intimacy would be like that between spouses, parent and child, or, like in my example, grandparent and grandchild. That’s one way we aspire to interact with God in the West. If, however, we interact with God like He’s a policeman or judge, that would be dualistic in a moral problem-solving sense. St. Bernard spoke of a “love of God for sake of self.” In catechism we learned imperfect contrition or sorrow for the consequences our sins have on us. CS Lewis spoke of eros or the “what’s in it for me” dynamic of relationships. All of those would be examples of practical dualistic problem-solving. Those who spend a lot of time on
metaphysical proofs and the apologetics of natural theology in philosophy internet forums are engaging God in a rational dualistic problem-solving. This is another way we interact with God in the West, which is okay, but we miss the deeper invitation to intimacy (unitive living) if we don’t go beyond it to the nondual.

A nondual intra-objective integrity refers primarily to Enlightenment experiences of the East, where folks experientially realize, beyond all concepts, the grand unity of all reality, how everything is related to everything else (unitary being). This is not a metaphysical insight such that one would come away a pantheist (God is merely the whole that is greater than the sum of His parts) or materialist monist (the philosophical naturalism of an atheist). Rather, it is a profound existential realization of our radical solidarity with all being and the experience blossoms into a profound compassion, sometimes for all sentient beings. The Western experience of
love moves us to compassion, also, but more so from having experienced being so well loved. This does have practical metaphysical implications that some Christians have resolved as a pan-en-theism, which more so suggests God indwelling in all rather than be comprised of all (pan-theism). The Enlightenment experience is nondual. There is no problem-solving going on, just an ineffable … well, we cannot tell untellable stories. Elaborating a panentheist approach on paper is a rational dualistic problem-solving, which is great but not the same as an existential realization.

Intrasubjective integrity speaks to our growth within each of us as subject. Think of Kohlberg’s stages of moral development; Fowler’s stages of faith development; Piaget’s stages of cognitive developmet; or Lonergan’s conversions – intellectual, affective, moral, sociopolitical and religious. Religious conversion is a two-step dance. Having been loved unqualifiedly, we start loving, more & more through time, in the same way, gifting others in return by cooperating with
that gift of divine love, which is nothing less than the activity (mission) of the Holy Spirit. The more we cooperate with that gift, which was given freely, apart from anything we have ever known (or been educated to) or ever done (whether an ascetical practice or moral deed), the stronger our own unqualified loving & the more evident our cooperation with the Holy Spirit vis a vis beatitudes, corporal & spiritual works of mercy, charismatic gifts, gifts of the Spirit, fruits of the Spirit, theological & cardinal virtues. Our intra-subjective growth has dualistic and nondual moments, also. Our intellectual, moral, social and political growth is primarily dualistic problem-solving (that we would not want to proceed without!). Our affective (emotional) and religious development has both but realize their unitive summit in the nondual, when our other neediness is quieted.

Interobjective indeterminacy speaks to the unspeakable. It is really just a placeholder for the possibility of realities that are wholly beyond us, like some aspects of God.

We also interact with fellow creatures in the above-listed ways but that takes us into arcane metaphysics with all sorts of root metaphors like substance, process, experience and so on.

So, we want to affirm that our dualistic approach is good and necessary, just not sufficient to realize the value offered us in the Good News — that God wants an intimate relationship with us via a more nondual engagement — as St. Bernard would say, a love of God for sake of God. Our dualistic approach is, however, both necessary and sufficient to nevertheless live a life of abundance under, for example, the Old Covenant because all God really expects of us is an enlightened self-interest. Like any good parent, who wants what is best for a child and will settle for them being safe, healthy, happy and moral even if they do not fully reciprocate our deep, deep love of them – God’s cool with our erotic love of Him (what’s in it for us) and imperfect contrition. The nondual and dualistic are not over-against is what I am trying to say. The dualistic is an invitation to a wedding shower; the nondual is an invitation to the bridal chamber.

For those familiar with the teachings of Merton on false self and true self, true self realization is the paragon of the nondual approach vis a vis intra-subjective (within oneself) integrity or human authenticity. For those who grew up Roman Catholic, the birth control fiasco came from an overemphasis on the biologistic and physicalistic and rationalistic problem-solving approach and an underemphasis on the nondual unitive value of conjugal love. In homiletics, an overemphasis on fire and brimstone, church disciplines and other matters is primarily dualistic, all true-enough, perhaps, but missing the deeper invitation to contemplative prayer.

What I really wish to convey here is that the major categories of our explicit faith include 1) eschatology (where are we headed? orienting us), 2) theology (to whom are we dedicated?
sanctifying us), 3) ecclesiology (how are we a people? empowering us), 4) sacramentology (how are we sustained & nourished? healing us) and 5) soteriology (what’s wrong and
what can we do about it? saving us). EVEN in our otherwise secular culture, EVEN among nonbelievers, the SPIRIT is the One coaxing humankind along, always and everywhere, already 1)
orienting us through our shared history 2) sanctifying us through our cultures 3) empowering us through our social institutions 4) sustaining and healing us through our economies 5) saving us and freeing us through our politics! THERE IS NO COMPARTMENTALIZATION FOR THE HOLY SPIRIT BETWEEN
THE SECULAR AND THE SACRED.

Of course, for reasons due to poor formation or even deformation or developmental inadequacies we encounter different degrees of manifestation of God-presence as various people(s) fail or even refuse to cooperate with the Spirit. Thing is, we must discern when and where it is we see failures to cooperate but we can never know which failures result from inabilities (as above-listed) or refusals (sin), because we are not in a position to judge.

Once we employ a more robustly nondual view of human realities, we’ll see the Spirit at work in both Republicans and Democrats.

So, when a people’s history is explicitly eschatological (knowing where we’re headed per the Good News), when a people’s culture is explicitly theological (even if pluralistically so), when a people’s society is explicitly ecclesiological (church-going), when a people’s economy is explicitly sacramental and when a people’s politics is explicitly salvific and liberating, we can rejoice that the Kingdom which is to come is at least being more fully realized in part. When it is not explicitly so — but merely historical, cultural, social, economic and political, we can STILL REJOICE knowing it is the same Holy Spirit providing all good gifts! They are being received, however, according to the mode of the receivers.

JB,

Not to be argumentative. (Really.) But rather to express the ‘mode of this receiver’ anyway, I offer my dibs (though I realize you didn't ask for them):

I don’t know… the way you want to define the term nondual (and you have included fine examples per what you are intending) is nevertheless atypical of how it is often conceptualized in other forums (beyond SP). Therefore you will be leading us into confusion.

We will be understanding everything in the JB reference system but having to convert or adjust our understanding when we read other sources or discuss these concepts with others speaking and thinking per a non-JB reference system.

*******

The restriction of ‘dual’ to ‘putative’ is artificially narrow. Love between persons is dual. I don’t see how love can be conceived as anything but dual.

The H.S. is interpersonal love. In a real way He is the evidentiary testament of the duality of the Father and the Son – a duality evidencing a substantial distinctness in the form of love (termed the H.S.) … Divine Love termed the H.S. not human love termed the H.S. (though an image of it).

*******
.
“radical solidarity with all being”. Sounds nice. A typically sweet jargon – but cloys (imo). To me, per my mode of receiving anyway, it is artificial.

Christ knew the hearts of men, and what He knew was not a testament to radical solidarity. Quite the contrary.

Solidarity is a ‘heart thing’ not a ‘biological human’ thing.

********

I like St. Bernard as well, and his sermon distinguishing servant, son and spousal love s delightful. Dynamite stuff. But I don’t think nondual terminology does it justice.

Hoping we are in radical solidarity despite my dibs,(and respectfully),
Pop-pop

p.s. Have I belched a good belch?

quote:

Originally posted by pop-pop: I don’t know… the way you want to define the term nondual (and you have included fine examples per what you are intending) is nevertheless atypical of how it is often conceptualized in other forums (beyond SP). Therefore you will be leading us into confusion.

I have discussed manifold and varied ways that nondual has been employed, precisely because there is no typical way it has been used. People move back and forth between epistemology, axiology, phenomenology, ontology, metaphysics, theology, practices and conclusions and I am parsing and disambiguating those usages precisely to bring more clarity to the reigning confusion. People will continue to talk past one another as long as what we call category errors persist.

This is precisely the reason Amos Yong and I published my contemplative phenomenology for interreligious dialogue . It is philosophically grounded in the work of Charles Sanders Peirce and largely theologically grounded in the work of Robert Cummings Neville (mentor of Yong), who's one of the world's foremost authorities on global theology.

Now, this work of the theological guild does not predominate internet discussion forums, other than on academic listservs, but that is one of the reasons I returned here --- to begin to make this stuff more accessible. By fielding questions and translating jargon in a context of dialogue with cyber-passers-by, this very labor intensive process can slowly unfold. I still haven't fully committed to the task, yet, because it is so painstaking and time-consuming and one needs to be temperamentally disposed and pedagogically equipped to do this well (and, quite frankly, I have discerned from prior interactions in this and other forums that I am neither). But there are people who have both the disposition and charism to popularize this type of material. Both Yong and Neville are professors by trade and their students are slowly making their way into preaching and teaching professions. Richard Rohr and Brian McLaren are authors and conference speakers by trade and their material is even more quickly being disseminated in an accessible manner. I have corresponded with both Fr. Richard and Brian and both have read Amos and my article and we are all reading from the same sheet of music vis a vis our outlook on nondual realities. I have also corresponded with Jerry Katz of nonduality.com (and reviewed his book); Jerry runs the forum Nonduality Salon and he has well received my nuances.

Therefore, just for starters, one can Google the following syntaxes: 1) +"Richard Rohr" +nondual 2) +"Brian McLaren +nondual 3)+"Robert Cummings Neville" +nondual 4)+"Amos Yong" +nondual 5)+"Shalem Institute" +nondual 6) +"Boulder Integral" +nondual 7) +"Charles Peirce" +nondual

As Fr. Richard cautions though:

quote:

A rediscovery of non-dual thinking, acting, reconciling, boundary crossing, and bridge building--based on inner experience of God. “Second Axial Age?” Yes, some is immature, some is syncretistic, some is ungrounded, some not integrated, but the steps toward maturity are always and necessarily immature.

quote:

Originally posted by pop-pop:We will be understanding everything in the JB reference system but having to convert or adjust our understanding when we read other sources or discuss these concepts with others speaking and thinking per a non-JB reference system.

I hope I have conveyed that the JB reference system is precisely a meta-critique that places other sources in context. It is not some idiosyncratic, atypical usage but a GLOSSARY whereby one can decipher all of the other uses of the term. This meta-critique is academically rigorous and builds on other peer-reviewed work. It is peer-reviewed itself in an international setting.

quote:

Originally posted by pop-pop: Love between persons is dual. I don’t see how love can be conceived as anything but dual.

The H.S. is interpersonal love. In a real way He is the evidentiary testament of the duality of the Father and the Son – a duality evidencing a substantial distinctness in the form of love (termed the H.S.) … Divine Love termed the H.S. not human love termed the H.S. (though an image of it).

Let me leave my work unfinished, for now. Perhaps in the New Year, I will explicate what us Peirceans call the irreducibly triadic nature of all semiotic reality. Think Holy Trinity

quote:

Originally posted by pop-pop: “radical solidarity with all being”. Sounds nice. A typically sweet jargon – but cloys (imo). To me, per my mode of receiving anyway, it is artificial.

Christ knew the hearts of men, and what He knew was not a testament to radical solidarity. Quite the contrary.

Solidarity is a ‘heart thing’ not a ‘biological human’ thing.


I like St. Bernard as well, and his sermon distinguishing servant, son and spousal love s delightful. Dynamite stuff. But I don’t think nondual terminology does it justice.

Hoping we are in radical solidarity despite my dibs,(and respectfully),
Pop-pop

p.s. Have I belched a good belch?

re: this last bit of yours, being neither descriptive nor normative but evaluative, I defer and demur

Merry Christmas, pop-pop
jb

p.s. Google this syntax for some good forum stuff elsewhere: +johnboy +nondual

JB, I'm not surprised there's confusion here. Fr. Rohr uses the term "nondual" (or "non-dual") in a decidedly oddball sense. A much more mainstream definition comes from Fr. Keating's article on THE PARADOX OF NON-DUALITY: "It refers to the death of the false self or ego and the diminishment or extinction of the separate self sense, along with the abiding sense of unity with Ultimate Reality." (Source article archived here.) The book I'm reading by Fr. Barnhart also uses the word in its mainstream sense.

JB,

I’m sorry to have frazzled you, especially so close to Christmas. I realize you have spent a good bit of time trying to be clear. I also realize all this might be over my head. I thank you for your patience.

******************************************************

*When I say nondual or contemplative, I am talking about the way I interact with my granddaughter when she knocks on my door. My heart leaps and we delight in each other’s presence. When I say dualistic, I think of doing my taxes. Talking about a putative ultimate reality (God, for most of us) a nondual inter-subjective intimacy would be like that between spouses, parent and child, or, like in my example, grandparent and grandchild. That’s one way we aspire to interact with God in the West. If, however, we interact with God like He’s a policeman or judge, that would be dualistic

we miss the deeper invitation to intimacy (unitive living) if we don’t go beyond it to the nondual.*

**********************************************

What I was trying to get at, JB, is that it seems to me that you give dual a bad rap from the get-go, sort of by definition. You define away all possibility that one can perceive God and relate to God in a dual way that can have real value. Why should not I consider St. Bernard’s spousal love as dual? I don’t see that it need be considered non-dual.

You seem to be saying – let’s associate putative, imperfect, impoverished loving and concepts like doing taxes, God as judge and cop as dualistic (i.e. let’s consider as dualistic that which has a negative valence – essentially don’t look while I give it a negative spin) and let’s associate intimacy, unitive living, rich love such as one has for their granddaughter as nondual (i.e let’s consider.nondual as having a positive valence -- see I give it positive spin by definition).

Given one buys into such associations from the outset then nondual trumps dual – kind of like going first and occupying the center square in playing tic-tac-toe. You’ve made nondual a winner by definition. And the jargon and concepts of the guild go along for the downhill ride and add buzz.

BUT I will endeavor to read your work that you have linked me to and better understand what you have been trying to make clear to us.

Don’t bother with Trinity stuff in the New Year for my sake, JB. LOL. I am not a guild wannabe and perhaps shouldn’t have made any posting on this thread in the first place. And I am not a Rohr or Wilber wannabe either. Nor would I want to partake of his Chrysallis agenda.

Enjoy your granddaughter in the Christmas Season ahead. They are like candles. They light everyone up and brighten our lives.

May the Lord’s love pervade your holidays – despite any momentary frustration I may have caused you.

Pop-pop

From Santa Claus to Derek and pop-pop:

Barnhart's two axes of identity and relationship well correspond to what I am calling our phenomenal experiences of intra-objective identity and inter-subjective intimacy. For him, contemplation and love are nondual modalities complemented by purity of heart, which is the doorway to nondual consciousness (of which faith, itself, is an aspect), which well fits into my category of methodology or epistemology.

By heart, Barnhart means an integral unity of body, soul, mind and spirit (and not really the will as distinguished from memory and understanding vis a vis, for example, Ignatian formulations or even Scotistic versus Thomistic distinctions as resolved by Bonaventure as discussed previously hereinabove, indeed, per what Barnhart, himself, calls the sapiental). It entails our beyond but not without integralism. For him, the nondual self is a corollary to his axes of identity and relationship and well corresponds to what I have called our phenomenal experience of intra-subjective integrity.

What Barnhart calls the unitive Absolute corresponds to our phenomenal experience of inter-objective indeterminacy. A lot of what I have read in various attempts to reconcile East and West, including Barnhart, reads much like a poetic Hegelian dialectic of thesis, antithesis and synthesis of polar realities. Reality is not that simple, however. There are other ways that we engage paradox which I'll discuss later, perhaps.

Cynthia Bourgeault has taught with Bruno Barnhart, Thomas Keating and Richard Rohr, who are all pretty much resonating with one another, all well-fitting into both my glossary and meta-critique. In that Thomas Keating quote, he is discussing a state, a phenomenal experience of no-self, which would developmentally follow even a standing-outside-of-self in ecstasy. Barnhart, for his part, distinguishes between a nonduality of the beginning (Asian) and a nonduality of the end (think Incarnation) and this would be a vague theological reference to his axis of identity, which has ontological implications. This fits, then, Keating's characterization of a state of union explained as the grace of the Ascension, an even more intense communication of the divine than even that of the transforming union of a bridal mysticism.

Now, in Christian formative spirituality, there is no death of the false self, only a realization of the true self. Living as we do, to use Keating's words, an "active life of immersion in the ups and downs of ordinary experience," our false self, which judges reality and solves problems, is indispensable! We need our empirical, logical, moral and practical problem-solving dualistic mind to navigate reality as we get our temporal needs met. What might it be like to have all of those needs met, though? To require no problem-solving? No eye has seen nor ear heard nor the heart of wo/man conceived! Reportedly, a few have tasted some heavenly delights but, as Fr. Keating says, God is beyond all of our categories.

We mustn't confuse, however, a phenomenal state of mind or state of awareness, especially a lack thereof, with an ontological fact of existence. Fr. Keating refers to a phenomenal state or experience of no-self (no reflection of self) and not an ontological status of NO-SELF. Most of what Fr. Rohr teaches involves neither these phenomenal experiences nor their ontological contexts but, instead, methodological or epistemological approaches or stances, specifically, regarding nondual consciousness, all within the context of matters regarding intra-subjective integrity. His accounts of nondual consciousness and contemplation resonate with Barnhart's; among the dozens of contemporary spiritual teachers regarding nonduality, he most highly recommends Thomas Keating, Cynthia Bourgealt and Bruno Barnhart.

Regarding St Bernard's spousal love, it IS dual, ontologically, inter-subjectively, which is a teleologically deeper reality than any nondual intra-objective realization. Methodologically, though, the nondual approach augments our inter-subjective value-realizations and the merely dualistic would indeed be impoverished, which is not to at all deny that it can realize real value for, as I said before, in this life, it is both necessary and sufficient to realize abundant value in our relationships with both our Creator and fellow creatures. So, the dualistic does not have a negative valence. In fact, it is an indispensable moment in our human value-realization movements. BUT --- I have said much of this already? several times now? At any rate, I welcome the opportunity to parse and disambiguate others' works with my glossary and meta-critical categories.

Again, the practical take-away is that nondual and dual can refer to anthropology, phenomenology, ontology, metaphysics (ontology with a capital "O"), axiology, epistemology or theology. And not just from author to author or tradition to tradition but within any given author's discussions!

Finally, while I understand and appreciate what appears to me to be a lot of people's preoccupation with experiences and metaphysical speculation, methodological approaches have always had more traction with me.

Very interesting. Now I'm going to have to read Bourgeault. I've spent a fortune on Kindle books since I bought that thing (to save money ).

quote:

We certainly need a modicum of intra-subjective integrity vis a vis human authenticity to enjoy beatitude but, in the end, how much we grow or how holy we get is very much God's affair . Beyond that, in my view, both now and forever, the experience of the inter-subjective , both vis a vis our primary beatitude of being happy with God and our secondary beatitude of being happy with our fellow creatures, is our highest good and to be most highly valued. Our experience of unitary being vis a vis a realization of our intra-objective identity will certainly round out and enhance our other experiences integrally and holistically and can even protect us from certain errors (overly dialectical imagination, deism, rationalism, pietism, etc).

Pop, in addition to what JB has just posted, there is this quote above, which he posted earlier and which I commented on as well. He has been strongly affirming of traditional Christian spirituality and its love mysticism, which (I agree with you) is indeed dualistic in that it involves two who nonetheless can come to enjoy union. His use of "dualism" re. taxes is less a comment about ontology than a subject/object split that is a consequence of analytical activity.

I will probably have to pass on going much into some of Richard Rohr's, Thomas Keating's and Cynthia Bourrgeault's writings, as we've already been around the bush numerous times about some of this on other threads. E.g., Keating's reference to experiencing the grace of Ascension is from Bernadette Roberts' book, What is Self?, where she understands the Ascension of Christ as a stage through which she has passed, existing now as a Eucharistic presence like Jesus does as well. Needlessly to say, this is a highly controversial assessment of her situation, unparalleled in Christian mystical theology, as is the notion that one moves beyond the unitive state. Jim Arraj never bought it and I don't either. I'm not as familiar with Cynthia's present writings, but we did have a correspondence years ago and even got to spend several days together when I was presenting workshops in the northeast. She's a gracious, gifted woman, but, at that time, she was also clearly enamored of BR's books and had been something of an assistant to Fr. Keating in Snowmass during that time when he, too, was endorsing her works and also using Wilber's stages to re-present Teresa's stages of Interior Castle (see 1992 edition of Invitation to Love). A directee recently bought a CD with some of Cynthia's chants for me to listen to, and the first was was "God is all there is . . ." chanted again and again. Well, not exactly. There is also creation.

What I have read in some of the Amazon book samples along with what I've heard in some of Rohr's recent videos has not resonated well with my faith and the theotic paradigm that I believe is central to Christian theology and spirituality. I'm also increasingly skeptical about your point that intra-objective mysticism can complement our traditional inter-subjective approach. Maybe, theoretically . . . Far too often it seems that it undercuts inter-subjective approaches, as I believe I have already noted. When/if intra-objective mystical experiences come during the course of the Christian journey, that is another matter. That seems to be quite rare, however--especially the articulation of it in intr-objective language.

First things first! Anyone see Monday Night Football?

To further explicate the use of the term nondual, whether as an epistemic approach or phenomenal experience, it does not represent an etymological shoe- horning (tic-tac-toe cheating as per pop-pop) of everything that is of deeper value over against dualistic problem-solving. It derives first from our psychological categories as reinforced by modern neuroscience that can image which parts of our brain just so happen to be doing what when we are doing thus and such. Just like contemplation has been somewhat democratized (as some of us see it, anyway), nondual consciousness is, itself, ubiquitous. All have engaged reality with it even if not all have pressed that engagement to the same extent in any given setting or practice. As Phil points out, there can be real inefficacies that attend to the shadow side of such epistemic methods and/or phenomenal experiences.

It has not been my primary purpose thus far in this thread to set forth norms for all of these categories; I'm trying to describe them theoretically with the intent of norming them practically later on. I have hinted, however, using a symphony as a metaphor, that not every note is going to deserve a whole measure of crescendo; some will best be sounded as but a quater-note in pianissimo.

Something to think about, meditatively: Nondual consciousness seems to be often associated with our receptive mode wherein (in Teresian terms) we are gaining the strength to serve (Martha) via consolations (Mary) as we variously dispose ourselves to charisms and gifts, while our dualistic, problem-solving consciousness is often associated with works of mercy as we variously enjoy fruits and virtues. Avodah is a transliteration for the Hebrew word for worship and work. Might it be a good bridging concept? There are so many agapic moments in life that are remarkably dualistically engaged, requiring, in fact, a love of self for sake of others. Can you describe any?

I'm open to engaging and parsing the work of any writers, including Bourgeault, Rohr, Keating and others. But, following what Phil said, I would encourage folks to first Google some items with the syntax +Shalomplace to check out what may already be there on the old message boards so we don't rehash stuff unnecessarily. Also, I am not inclined to respond to summary dismissals of individuals based on their isolated quotes as taken out of larger contexts or to general characterizations like "oddball" (Derek) without specific citations, again within context. For example, how is one to know whether Bourgeault's chant (Phil) was essentially affective (think mad, glad and sad psalms) in both tone and tenor rather than theologically descriptive? One could chant "Jesus, my all" and that should not invite a cursory retort like - "Well, no, what about your spouse and children?". Any given moment of spirituality is necessarily a matter of emphasis which does not set it up in a discursive over against other emphases such as, for example, knowledge of God versus love of God, apophasis versus kataphasis, affective vs speculative, our will vs our memory vs our understanding, erotic vs agapic, dual vs nondual. More is left unsaid than said when chanting psalms as that is the genre of that artform; to wit: "My God, my God, why have You forsaken me?" Any given spiritual lifestyle (think religious order) is similarly a matter of emphasis (think eremitic vs monastic vs apostolic).

recapping intra-objective identity, our realization of unitary being:

My category of phenomenal experience is much more broadly conceived than that which we would more narrowly categorized as intra-objective mysticism. Again, it includes the methodological naturalism of science, philosophical naturalism of materialist monism, various root metaphors of metaphysics and natural theology, as well as some of the aha moments that may be associated with philosophical contemplation, the intuition of being and metaphysical insights of Zen. In theologies of nature, it features prominently in different pantheisms and panentheisms. By intra-objective mysticism, we mean any nonconceptual natural mysticism or mysticism of the self.

The values to be mined from intraobjective insights can be realized either/both intellectually or/and existentially and in varying degrees. This is true for the other phenomenal categories, too.

In various and sundry ways, any and all of these conceptions (as well as their epistemic corollary, nondual consciousness) might shed some light on the different experiences of the practitioners of the great traditions of the East, including those schools with and without prominent devotional elements. These practitioners have comprised a giganormous swath of humanity through time and we want to validate and honor their experiences and to continue in earnest dialogue with them, both to deepen our own self-understanding by engaging them as a foil as well as to gain whatever wisdom they may offer, especially vis a vis their practices but not at all excluding many of their conclusions. Thus we seek to earnestly inventory and exchange our manifold and varied virtues, fruits and gifts.

The soteriological exclusivism that our traditions have only fairly recently eschewed certainly precludes any pneumatological exclusivism. This is to say that we certainly do not believe that practitioners of other traditions merely gain salvation through an exculpability grounded in ignorance but that they actually have something meaningful to contribute to how we might move much more swiftly and with much less hindrance along this journey that we call life on this path that we call faith.

Now, avoiding any facile syncretism, insidious indifferentism or false irenicism is no easy chore. Developing and articulating norms for appropriating practices (or not) across traditions is no easy task. What I suggest is that any given criterion one offers should be received as taking its place among other criteria as something that we would weigh in the balance without it, alone, necessarily tipping any scales. For example, while the history of Christian mystical theology, its authoritative spiritual writings and prevailing theotic paradigms certainly well speak to these issues, they certainly do not comprise all there is to meaningfully and substantively say about them, especially given new understandings from modern psychology and evolutionary anthropology. We are not talking about central tenets of the faith, creedal essentials or core teachings but about spiritualities that are much more dynamic than static and which, by their very nature, evolve and change emphases as the Spirit leads and new circumstances of God's people emerge (and substantive interfaith engagement is clearly an emergent reality) . Thus religious orders have come and gone or reformed or morphed.

This is all to further suggest that truth- indicative realities like authority and tradition are dispositive but not exhaustive as we take up formative spirituality, which is better served by approaches like heuristics that are suggestive and tentative than by those like systematics that are definitive and dogmatic. Arraj used a great tennis analogy to describe various syncretisms - theology without a net . Such a net more so applies to the realm of dogmatic theology, however, less so to mystical and ascetic theology, in my view.

Of course, there are no too few who've precisely made mistakes vis a vis essential dogma as they clumsily try to articulate the theological implications of their spiritual experiences. Some rather explicitly and systematically depart from core teachings, to be sure. Others may occasionally misspeak or poorly articulate a theological concept, from time to time, but their real meaning can be more clearly discerned within the contexts of both their bodies of work and practices of faith.

We can expect that the steps toward East-West maturity are going to be necessarily immature. We should not be shy in speaking the truth but we should be gentle with others and give them the benefit of the doubt, sorting through the wheat and chaff, not categorically dismissing them but affirming what we can, correcting what we must and remaining open always to what it is we might learn from them - even when --- and maybe especially when --- they are giving us grief! (There's so much the Falcons can take away from last night's whuppin' that they might could use in a playoff rematch with Breesus and the Saints!)

What we want to manifestly embrace is a spirit of authentic and charitable dialogue. What we want to positively eschew is any approach that reinforces any meritocracy, any winners and losers, any who's in and who's out, any who's with us or against us or any having of all the answers.

quote:

Originally posted by johnboy.philothea:
First things first! Anyone see Monday Night Football?

YES!!! What a season for Brees and the Saints, so far. Let's hope it continues.

- - -

I appreciate the careful work you're doing and are sharing with us, JB. It's fascinating to get a peek into some of the kind of dialogue you've been involved in on the listserves you frequent. Bridging between that level of discussion and the parlance of "ordinary" spiritual seekers is indeed a challenge, but I think your four approaches is helpful, especially when experiential connections can be made.

quote:

What we want to manifestly embrace is a spirit of authentic and charitable dialogue. What we want to positively eschew is any approach that reinforces any meritocracy, any winners and losers, any who's in and who's out, any who's with us or against us or any having of all the answers.

Well, of course. And good reminder that we can't judge a person's work without depthfully engaging them. I believe I have done so with BR, TK and CB, though I do need to read her most recent book.

My engagement with various teachers and writers is more from the perspective of a Christian spiritual director, which does not preclude a scholarly reflection on their works, of course. Theology and spirituality go hand in hand. What my antennae are attuned to are questions like:
- does this teaching lead one to a deeper love of God, creation and others?
- does it lead to a flowering of the gifts of the Spirit?
- does the embracing of this teaching give rise to the fruits of the Spirit?
- does it support development unto authenticity, especially concerning Ego-Self integration?
- how does it resonate with Christianity's dogmatic teachings -- e.g., creation, the fall, redemption, resurrection, and Lordship of Jesus?
- does it affirm the Church as Christ's mystical body?
- how does it resonate with a theotic view of transformation?

Sometimes it can take awhile to get a sense of where a teaching is coming from and where it leads. We certainly don't want to be closed to any new gifts or possibilities that God is bringing to our attention, and that includes gifts from the East, the arts, the sciences, etc. But, in the end, the questions listed above are what help me to determine the value of a teaching in terms of its benefit to Christian growth. Here the possibilities seem to be three:
a. beneficial
b. neutral
c. damaging
Granted, these are not objective evaluations. What's beneficial to one person might be neutral in value to another, and same with beneficial/damaging and neutral/damaging. Often it depends on where a person is on the spiritual journey; something damaging of their faith at one time might become beneficial at another. So there are no pat answers.

Nevertheless, the questions above are helpful unto discernment, and it's easier to engage in those about dogma, ecclesiology and theosis than the others. Teachings that clash with established Christian doctrines are red flags that need to be very carefully examined and discerned. Those that denigrate the whole issue of doctrine as being somehow an enemy of spiritual growth are probably more damaging of Christian faith than helpful.

When it comes to nondual Christianity (our discussion topic), I think it's helpful to recognize the four approaches to nondual experiences you sketch, and also the markers for discernment.

C'est bon?

quote:

Originally posted by Phil:
My engagement with various teachers and writers is more from the perspective of a Christian spiritual director, which does not preclude a scholarly reflection on their works, of course.

Phil -- I'm not up to producing a truly scholarly reflection, but I am in the process of composing a blog post that moves somewhat in this direction.

JB -- Since I'm now working on turning my initial take on this question into prose, I'm not going to be reading additional material at this stage. You are of course free to respond or not respond to my blog (when it eventually goes up) as you prefer.

Derek, please post a link to your blog page when its ready for public consumption.

Here you go:

Did Jesus Teach Nondualism?

JB,

I imagine that where you will be going in your posts eventually will relate in some way to where you have now arrived in your spiritual life to date. You mentioned that you are essentially a ‘universalist’. I wasn’t aware of what that meant. It was a new term for me. I googled it and found information on universalists and Christian universalists and Unitarians etc. Where do you reside in all that? What are your beliefs and denomination?

You also (perhaps) indicated [I couldn’t say for sure what you intended] in the Willy Nelson lyrics regarding not having to choose. Were you pointing to a universality of religions and religious experiences that is exclusive in its excluding exclusivism – or something like that. One looses when one chooses or something along those lines – is that what you meant?

You’ve also mentioned global theology and its authority figures/ teachers. Can you give a quick summary of what global theology means or its central tenets? Is global theology just what exists in the world religions of our day – what is out there so to speak? Or is global theology the same thing as universalism or its subset Christian universalism?

And you’ve mentioned that you are a Peircean? What does that mean? Can you Dick & Jane me a few lines so I don’t have to wade through all his writings?

Pop-pop

Pop, you really like to mess with him just before a big holiday, don't you? I'm sure he'll reply, eventually, but I know JB to be a lifelong Catholic. We were college roommates in the 70s and have stayed in touch through the years, collaborating on a number of online projects.

- - -

Derek, I've just skimmed your blog essay but plan to give it a reading soon. I'll get back to you here. One thing I've gotten in touch with in myself is that I do have an aversion to using the term "non duality" in reference to Christian spirituality. I much prefer speaking of "union" as the goal, as it connotes something different from non-dual (not-two). Union connotes the connectedness of two and I think that's a more accurate description of both the ontological and experiential reality. Also, non-dual is a term more from the East and writers like Wilber. I don't know of any classical Christian writers who used the term, but I stand to be corrected on that one.

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

Hi, Phil, I can understand that you prefer the word "union," and I've certainly never come across the word "nondualism" in the context of Christianity, except in works dating from the 1990s onward. However what I was exploring was essentially a question in comparitive religion. To ask "Did Jesus Teach Union?" would be a different question (assuming you give a different definition for "union" than I've given for "nondualism").

Happy New Year!

Derek, I enjoyed reading your reflection more carefully and I like what you've written. As you probably know from my writing on "God, Self and Ego," I make a distinction between Ego and False Self conditioning, though the Ego is usually infested with this conditioning to the extent that it can become identified with its prerogatives. That kind of "Ego" needs to be lost, all right, and I think you're spot on in pointing out that Jesus' ethical teachings address this problem from several angles.

I also like that your comments about "The Father and I are one," which teachers on nonduality often point to as an example of Jesus teaching nonduality. Of course, many of these folks aren't Christians, or if they are, they're not getting the Trinitarian implications -- that Jesus and the Father are, ontologically, one in Being (but we are not, not even when we have enlightenment experiences). I know your focus, here, was Jesus' teaching, but it's helpful to note that neither Paul nor the early Fathers taught anything resembling the kind of nondual mysticism that's receiving so much attention these days -- what JB would call intra-objective and inter-objective nonduality. Jesus certainly taught no such thing as a goal of spirituality. Union, for him, was a consequence of love, which always implies "two."

Is there some way to "see" the entire thread at once? For example, on the old boards, the print format tool, if I recall correctly, would generate the whole thread rather than just the current page. At any rate, I would find it helpful if, when referring to something I wrote, correspondents would directly quote it or, at least, provide a link/url to it --- rather than merely saying I said "thus and such" and offering one's own characterization. I'll demonstrate why this matters in context as I move on to respond to some questions.

quote:

Originally posted by pop-pop:You also (perhaps) indicated [I couldn’t say for sure what you intended] in the Willy Nelson lyrics regarding not having to choose. Were you pointing to ... ... ???

quote:

pop-pop had previously asked: Is the journey toward transformation (human authenticity) really the highest goal? Or is the journey toward union with God?

The WNelson lyric was merely a poetic way of suggesting that pop-pop had presented a false dichotomy between those "two" journeys.

quote:

Originally posted by pop-pop: You mentioned that you are essentially a ‘universalist’.

quote:

JB wrote: for all practical purposes For all practical purposes, I am a universalist ...

Essentially, I take an orthodox stance re: who is saved. When I say for all practical purposes, I am expressing my doubt that anyone will ultimately avail themselves of this opportunity to not be saved.

quote:

Originally posted by pop-pop:
You’ve also mentioned global theology and its authority figures/ teachers. Can you give a quick summary of what global theology means or its central tenets? Is global theology just what exists in the world religions of our day – what is out there so to speak? Or is global theology the same thing as universalism or its subset Christian universalism?

The descriptor global refers to the context within which one chooses to do theology. It describes the geographic area one chooses to cover is all. For example, one could study European theology or Asian or what have you.