I saw that stab at sweet sleep in the astral plane, ephemeral, effervescent
Awake O Sleeper

Yes. I have certainly learned, or increased my sense of wonder (and at times the uncertainty that often goes with it), through reading B's books, and others like it. And I can't help but consider how lonely it might be for her. As you noted I believe, she wouldn't wish her own state on others; yet, she's holding out that this is inevitable for everyone, come now or later post death. There's only so much of a story like hers that one can integrate, and it doesn't appear she was seeking for this to occur, at least not consciously, although Phil states she mentions in one of the books of being reprimanded for Quietism when cloistered. Her life-long aversion to Jesus also makes me wonder how isolated she may have been even within that monastic environment. And she entered at age 15, I believe.

I can embrace much of St. Teresa of Avila's teachings rather viscerally, but there's a point at which I experience my own resistance as Jesus is described as seeking us with consummate intentions. "Love me Lord, but don't dismantle my self-project." And then there's the grief of loving Him for His consolations and not as much for Him as a Person seeking to restore us to His own Life. But He works deftly and tenderly with all of this as well.

So it seems to me BR would want to encourage more orthodox spiritual teachings to those who can't partake of her own experience, as her own state is so very rare and difficult to relate to even intellectually. If she isn't doing this, then I'm left wondering what she thinks of the tradition itself. She believes John of the Cross didn't tell all, and that some of what is involved in the mystical path of transformation is, in a way, a misnomer, or delusion based upon a kind of hard-wired experience of self that the rest of us can't see around. But in any case, even if her own state is as inevitable as she claims, there's no getting there, or even wishing to get there. So if all is, as she says, filtered through self, or really self in disguise, with the Divine only accessible in her own state of being, then why write books and give retreats? Loneliness? Who knows, but the audience can't be listening the way she's thinking, can they?

"I saw that stab at sweet sleep in the astral plane, ephemeral, effervescent"
Awake O Sleeper


Yes, old w.c. behavior attempting to recycle itself.

quote:

Originally posted by johnboy:
[qb] [QUOTE]. . . I DID have the time to dwell in my fiveness until I had found ALL the answers. So, what do you want to know? [/qb]

Hmm . . . when's this *%#!!@ stock market going to quit dropping? I'm trying to save some money for retirement!

"Analysis paralysis!" I like that. There was a time when I was somewhat immobilized by such, but eventually came to a place where I was reasonably satisfied with the understanding I'd come to. I'm certainly open to ongoing revision, but, happily, living life has come to mean more to me than explanation about everything.

quote:

Originally posted by Ajoy:
[qb] Something Phil has been trying to get through to
me for how long now, 2 yrs almost, has finally
sunk in. Don't mix practices from other
traditions with Christianity. May seem very
common sense to some but i couldn't seem to connect
with potential difficulties till this thread.[/qb]

I don't really have a problem with people using certain Eastern practices, Ajoy, if they know their faith tradition and are grounded in it. I've quoted Merton before on this: "Know what you're doing." It's when people think Zen is the same as Christian contemplation or that all religions are saying the same thing, for example, that confusion can set in.

Glad you're benefiting from the discussion.

From w.c.: So if all is, as she says, filtered through self, or really self in disguise, with the Divine only accessible in her own state of being, then why write books and give retreats? Loneliness? Who knows, but the audience can't be listening the way she's thinking, can they?

w.c., she acknowledges that the divine can and is experienced through the medium of human consciousness. That's how she understands the unitive stage. What she claims to be witnessing to is the experience of the divine beyond self/consciousness, which turns out to be the divine's experience, or, rather, the experience of the divine from the vantage point of the Logos. Can't say what her motive is to teach and write, except that she says in several places it's to give testimony to Truth.

Have you read What is Self? and her description of the resurrection? It's all about Void and Form, the former she understands to be God-unmanifest (The Father) and the latter God-manifest (The Son). Not much mention of the Holy Spirit, though one can assume this would be some bond or connection between Void and Form. Anyway, with all the talk of Form and Void in relation to the Trinity, you can see why some would wonder if a Buddhist experience of some kind underlies her perspective.

quote:

Originally posted by w.c.:
[qb] Who knows, but the audience can't be listening the way she's thinking, can they? [/qb]

I thus strongly empathize with her.

quote:

Originally posted by w.c.:
[qb] So I just finished re-reading the chapter "Steps in My Christian Passage." [/qb]

Hello, w.c., I am new here, though you may have seen my name earlier on in this thread.

I just wanted to let you know, if you are interested, that B has self-published a more complete account of her childhood to the age of 17. It is titled Contemplative and is available from her friends' website. This 200-page spiral-bound manuscript can be yours for just $45.

Thank you Derek.

Remaining open -- while true to yourself
----------------------------------------------------

quote:

Originally posted by Phil:
I don't really have a problem with people using certain Eastern practices, Ajoy, if they know their faith tradition and are grounded in it. I've quoted Merton before on this: "Know what you're doing."

Excellent points, Phil!
And entirely in accordance with what I�ve experienced during my own travels and stays in European monasteries, be they Catholic or Orthodox (Athos).

The Brothers at a Benedictine monastery in Bretagne, France, told me about their own regular exchanges and cooperation with a Zen Budhist monastery in Japan. Yet both parties were adamant in remaining true to their beliefs. Thus the cooperation took a deep and profoundly respectful form.

Just one example if I may: the Zen abbot led the Christian brothers in contemplation, posing the "simple" question: What do you mean when you cross yourself?"

Hi everyone. I attended one of BR's retreats, and I must say that in person nothing about her is confrontational. Much tone is lost with the written word. She is funny, sweet, very present, and absolutely matter of fact. Just reading the words of her reply to Arraj it is entirely possible to feel it is aggressive in nature. However, after spending time with her, I can attest to the fact that nothing about her is personal, not even strong words. It is a distinction that even now, a year later, I find very difficult to define.

I would say that she does not 'live' her life. It is somehow lived through her. Again, I have no words to truly describe what I mean. Anyone who shares the same space with her for five minutes might relate.

Thank you for a wonderful forum. I have been keeping up with it when I can, and feel I 'know' you all.

Best to all,
Caitie

quote:

Originally posted by johnboy:
[qb]

quote:

Originally posted by Stephen:
[qb]All highly subjective, I know, but such experiences confirm for me the persistance of will, emotion, memory after death. [/qb]

That was a powerful sharing, Stephen. From your own subjective experiences, you might better empathize with Bernadette and how her experiences similarly confirmed for her what also appear to be extrapolations in the order of metaphysical knowledge. [/qb]

Point well made,jb, and well taken . The rebel in me wants to flee orthodoxy and conventional thinking, and has done in the past(and still does to some degree), but that just lands you in hot water most of the time, unless you keep your opinions to yourself, or unless you proffer them with a cheeky smile. I certainly can admire someone who's gone out on a limb. OTOH there is that joy in the truth of certain orthodox teaching which I mentioned earlier.

quote:

Originally posted by Stephen:
[qb]

quote:

Originally posted by johnboy:
[qb]

quote:

Originally posted by Stephen:
[qb]All highly subjective, I know, but such experiences confirm for me the persistance of will, emotion, memory after death. [/qb]

That was a powerful sharing, Stephen. From your own subjective experiences, you might better empathize with Bernadette and how her experiences similarly confirmed for her what also appear to be extrapolations in the order of metaphysical knowledge. [/qb]

Point well made,jb, and well taken . The rebel in me wants to flee orthodoxy and conventional thinking, and has done in the past(and still does to some degree), but that just lands you in hot water most of the time, unless you keep your opinions to yourself, or unless you proffer them with a cheeky smile. I certainly can admire someone who's gone out on a limb. OTOH there is that joy in the truth of certain orthodox teaching which I mentioned earlier. [/qb]

What's "the" truth for you Stephen, in terms of orthodoxy? Are you Anglican? I note your UK address. I resonate very much with the Anglican approach to orthodoxy, especially on church doctrines and disciplines and traditions that are not explicitly tied to creedal elements of dogma and the sacraments! When an Anglican flees orthodoxy, which is much more narrowly conceived than in the Roman church, one may indeed be flirting with heterodoxy on essential matters. Our Romanesque hierarchy and some of the traditionalist elements in the Roman church conceive orthodoxy much more broadly. And that means the orthodoxy police will throw hot water on you for so-called heterodoxy on all manner of deviation from accidentals, too! They have a word for one form of this conflation of essentials and accidentals: creeping infallibilism. It's creepy alright!

quote:

Originally posted by johnboy:
[qb] I note your UK address. [/qb]

I assumed it wasn't the University of Kansas!

quote:

Originally posted by Caitie:
[qb]I would say that she does not 'live' her life. It is somehow lived through her. Again, I have no words to truly describe what I mean. Anyone who shares the same space with her for five minutes might relate.

Thank you for a wonderful forum. I have been keeping up with it when I can, and feel I 'know' you all.

Best to all,
Caitie [/qb]

Good to hear from you Caitie, and thank you for your sharing. I did attend a week-long workshop with Bernadette years ago and found her to be much as you say. Nevertheless, some of what she says can be quite off-putting, as evidenced from the retreat cited by Derek where 1/3 of the people left the first night.

To say that life is "lived through" one is what the contemplative life is about -- "I live, not I, but Christ lives in me." As you can see from this discussion, however, what she says and writes goes much farther than that: basically, that there is no longer an individual human through whom life is being lived. This naturally leads one to wonder if we're supposed to believe that everything coming from her mouth or pen is to be understood as God speaking.

Glad to hear you've enjoyed the discussions, here.

quote:

Originally posted by Derek:
[qb] [QUOTE]Originally posted by w.c.:
[qb]
I just wanted to let you know, if you are interested, that B has self-published a more complete account of her childhood to the age of 17. It is titled Contemplative and is available from her friends' website. This 200-page spiral-bound manuscript can be yours for just $45. [/qb]

I saw that on her site and was quite surprised as it leaves me wondering why she is doing so. She's says her reason for writing the "Self" books was to give testimony to her experiences and her understanding of them, largely because she believes them to be unreported before (at least in Christendom). But why her early life? I'm sure it's edifying; I've never doubted that BR held nothing back from God. It's almost as though she wants to be known, or understood. But that would mean . . .

Throughout our consideration of this NoSelf notion and how it contrasts and compares with nonduality, variously conceived, I have had these musings on nonduality in mind, especially regarding the Divine Matrix concept of a panentheist approach.

quote:

... viewing creation and creatures as quasi-autonomous realities that exist in God with both the Creator and the created order operating in and through a Divine matrix of interrelated causes and effects ...

And very much at the fore of this all has been a theme of kenosis, the idea of God shrinking back and making ontological room for Creation, in general, and shrinking back even more for us as Created Co-creators, in particular, our memory, understanding and will corresponding Imago Dei-like to the Trinity.

For me, Reality starts off radically nondual and only gets quasi-nondual with the moments of Creation. As individuals we are not only not separated from God vis a vis some creatio continua, as He holds us in existence after creatio ex nihilo (even when we're in mortal sin as St. John of the Cross noted), but we are radically and inextricably intertwined within this Divine matrix of interrelated causes and effects, which is what makes us quasi-autonomous.

Through theosis, as we empty ourselves of all that does not conform to the Imago Dei, we might conceive of this in terms of our own kenotic shrinking of self, gifting it back as a Reverse Creatio moment. Paradoxically, however, this movement increases our facultative autonomy for, becoming more Like God, we are less quasi, more autonomous.

There is much debate in modern theology about the loci of Divine Activity in our otherwise physical world, but examples are replete in a nonreductive physicalist paradigm of top-down causation. And with the Divine Matrix, we needn't bother with directionality issues (top-down, bottom-up) but need only realize that God's interactivity with us can be both utterly efficacious and ineluctably unobtrusive at the same time. (A lot of folks have abandoned the concept physicalist for naturalist, honoring the fact that we may not have identified all of the universe's primitives. For example, will consciousness somehow take its place alongside space, time, mass and energy? Too early to tell. Ayn Rand thought so.) At any rate, the distinction between natural and supernatural can get very blurry, however one conceives things.

When it comes to conceiving the soul, the more rigorously one deals with the issue philosophically, the more the dualist and nondualist conceptions resemble one another, really to the point where distinctions are quite academic. We have seen this with substance and process metaphysics, as the aristotelian thomists reconceive formal causation as deep and dynamic formal fields of activity, as the process thinkers recognize bounded realities. A holistic dualist conception more and more resembles the nonreductive nondualist conceptions. Only the radically dualistic and radically reductionistic approaches are theologically untenable, but this is not foremost due to anything properly theological but, primarily, because they are philosophically incoherent.

Back to theosis. One might reconceive the final act of self-emptying, death, as a holistically-conceived act of creaturely creation, as a kenotic moment of radical deliverance of our memory, understanding and will -- consciousness or self -- back into the Divine Now of the Matrix, where it is objectively "experienced" by God, Who then re-creates us in yet another kenotic-creative act of His own, mediating this now-divinized objective reality of our memory, understanding and will back into a human but newly ordered body, whether thru a singular resurrective event or thru some dynamic process, eternally of course, not temporally, or some combination uniquely suited to our particular needs.

And we Rise less quasi, more autonomous, freedom being the hallmark of love. The more freedom we experience in life, now, the more authentic our love, the more fully human we have become and the more God-like. And the more deeply intimate our relationship with the Divine Matrix, in more solidarity with God and others and even self in a manner that no eye has seen nor ear heard nor the heart of wo/man ever imagined. There is no reason that this process cannot go on forever, as we progress through kenotic exchanges, Lover and Beloved, gifting and re-gifting, creating and recreating.

Morning has broken, like the first morning
Blackbird has spoken
I must go birding in God's recreation of the new day
jb

I'm being confirmed in the Scottish Episcopal Church later this year, jb. I'm really referring to a kind of cross denominational orthodoxy of essentials, based on the creeds - Trinity, Incarnation, Crucifixion, Resurrection etc. How one defines these "realities" is the problem, I suppose. The sacramental approach is new to me (having been brought up Plymouth Brethern, then independent evangelical), but I'm beginning to appreciate it, and I love the Eucharist. I feel I'm really encountering Christ there - on the cross, in new life, in Glory, and so am able to speak of these aspects of orthodox truth in a living, life giving way. My experiences with K have taught me to juggle certain hetereodox ideas, such as reincarnation, nondual mind etc in a way which doesn't threaten orthodoxy (at least in my mind). The Anglican community allows me to do this(although there are certain opinions and experiences which I wouldn't throw around the church hall willy-nilly) and enables me to speak of "truth" because I feel liberated, able to embrace dogma, doctrine in a living way, not just conceptually (with reference, of course to the scripture:"the truth shall set you free.")

quote:

Originally posted by Stephen:
[qb] I'm being confirmed in the Scottish Episcopal Church later this year, jb.[/qb]

WELCOME to the Catholic Church, brother Stephen! Interestingly, the ECUSA has some apostolic roots in the Scottish tradition. After the war, when it wouldn't be kosher to pledge loyalty to the British monarch at the same time a bishop was being ordained, for example, at Westminster, the American Anglicans did an end-around and sought orders to the episcopacy from the church in Scotland (who had little problem not requiring an oath to the monarch LOL!). They highly valued apostolic succession, which I do, too, although I might more broadly conceive what is entailed beyond such as papal succession . Am I retelling the ECUSA history as you might know it vis a vis the Scottish church? Where does it have locations?

quote:

Originally posted by Stephen:
[qb] My experiences with K have taught me to juggle certain hetereodox ideas, such as reincarnation, nondual mind etc in a way which doesn't threaten orthodoxy (at least in my mind). [/qb]

In a nutshell, what I think happens is that folks extrapolate nondual realizations ontologically, which is not a wholly unwarranted move. One of the very first things a westerner might intuit from such a realization is perhaps how a radically reductionistic materialist monism is just untenable. It is, in fact, the atheist credo.

Never mind that some of us realize this through either common sense or philosophical contemplation, because it has real problems with leaving questions of infinite regress begging, which is why science was largely stillborn in such "cyclical" traditions. So, one can see where this reincarnational intuition came from also.

So, over against any modernist Enlightenment fundamentalism, with its hallmark ontology of materialist monism, some postmodernist fundamentalists assert what they conceive to be a more robust ontology of idealist monism, which is, in fact, the pantheist credo. And some do this through philosophical musing and some through existential realizations. The problem is, however, that the infinite regress question still begs. (Another problem with these monistic accounts, they aspire to completeness but, necessarily, end up inconsistent and filled with unnecessary paradox. Godel's Theorem speaks to this analogously, as even Hawking came to recognize [after jb] , and as Hawking says, when choosing between completeness and consistency, the good bets are on an incomplete system. Hence, our theistic and panentheistic accounts do not aspire to completeness and mystery perdures, penetrable but incomprehensible.)

Furthermore, this tautology is not taut enough vis a vis our empirical encounters of reality, which is to charge that it is a partial but incomplete truth and equally reductionistic. It does not square, empirically, with self-realization. Nondual realization is not untrue, but is a partial truth. Same for self-realization. How can we marry them? is our charge.

Look at this Wilberian rendition of nondual mind:

quote:

According to the nondual traditions, as this nondual Spirit or Mind "steps down" into the relative, manifest plane, each individual mind or subject remains nonlocally and immediately in touch with other minds or subjects (all the way down), which is why, among other things, knowledge of other minds is possible. Once on the manifest or relative dimension, then the relative forms of intersubjectivity arise (three of which were outlined by de Quincey, and four or five of which I outlined). But all of them can exist primarily because of the nondual ultimate nature of consciousness itself, which is "a singular the plural of which is unknown." This is the final and radical meaning of intersubjectivity (namely, grounded in nondual Spirit), and this is likewise the fourth and ultimate meaning of the mind-body problem and its "solution" (namely, awaking to the one Mind or nondual Spirit, which is "not-two, not-one"). My simple suggestion is that all four or five of these meanings and their solutions ought charitably to be included in any integral approach to these important issues.

Now, juxtapose this with what I wrote earlier:

quote:

And very much at the fore of this all has been a theme of kenosis, the idea of God shrinking back and making ontological room for Creation, in general, and shrinking back even more for us as Created Co-creators, in particular, our memory, understanding and will corresponding Imago Dei-like to the Trinity.

For me, Reality starts off radically nondual and only gets quasi-nondual with the moments of Creation. As individuals we are not only not separated from God vis a vis some creatio continua, as He holds us in existence after creatio ex nihilo (even when we're in mortal sin as St. John of the Cross noted), but we are radically and inextricably intertwined within this Divine matrix of interrelated causes and effects, which is what makes us quasi-autonomous.

One might reconceive the final act of self-emptying, death, as a holistically-conceived act of creaturely creation, as a kenotic moment of radical deliverance of our memory, understanding and will -- consciousness or self -- back into the Divine Now of the Matrix, where it is objectively "experienced" by God, Who then re-creates us in yet another kenotic-creative act of His own, mediating this now-divinized objective reality of our memory, understanding and will back into a human but newly ordered body, whether thru a singular resurrective event or thru some dynamic process, eternally of course, not temporally, or some combination uniquely suited to our particular needs.

We are saying the same things, analogously, except that Wilber has robustly described the ultimate nature as subjectivity and I only vaguely refer to it as a nexus of interrelated causes and effects. I refer to God's shrinking back and Wilber speaks of Nondual mind stepping down. What he describes as the manifest or relative dimension, where the relative forms of intersubjectivity arise, I speak of how we Rise less quasi, more autonomous, freedom being the hallmark of love.

Most interestingly, I had never heard of the phrase nondual mind before reading your post, but I discovered the Wilberian rendition thru a Googling exercise. Whatever else may be going on, putatively, the idealist monism of the Nondual Mind account is incomplete because it does not sufficiently account for, you guessed it, self, or the attribute I have emphasized as autonomy.

The Wilberian account addresses the quasi vis a vis radical intersubjectivity and I have problems with this move because it is saying more than we can possibly know, telling an untellable story, even though I can see why it wants to reasonably assert same. This ultimate reality is incomprehensible and can only be apprehended in part, which is to say, once again, vaguely referred to but not robustly described.

I also have problems with this move because it is leaving out an account of the self, which, contrastingly, we can describe pretty well from our empirical experiences and rational demonstrations, although some aspects remain immersed in mystery and can only be referred to (such as thru heuristic devices like holistic dualist conceptions of the soul, or nonreductive physicalist accounts of the self). Thus it is that the philosophical remedy for such a pantheist account is a properly nuanced panentheist perspective.

The reason, therefore, that a nondual mind approach is heterodox is grounded in natural theology, more specifically, natural philosophy, and not because of special revelation. It is a simple matter of definitions. If it quacks, it's not a gander.

This all has practical implications, such as what Nancey Murphy set forth. As we speak in terms of autonomy, from a moral theology perspective, where would we draw the lines, for example, between limited dominion and no dominion for this quasiautonomous human created co-creator? in matters of life and death? in matters of health and reproduction? in our social lives? How does this all speak to our theological anthropologies and formative spiritualities? And the methodologies we need to employ beyond simple natural law conceptions to personalist and relationality-responsibility approaches?

Thanks for that nondual mind reference!

And, again, and mostly, welcome to catholicism.

pax,
jb

[/QUOTE]I don't really have a problem with people using certain Eastern practices, Ajoy, if they know their faith tradition and are grounded in it. I've quoted Merton before on this: "Know what you're doing." It's when people think Zen is the same as Christian contemplation or that all religions are saying the same thing, for example, that confusion can set in.

Glad you're benefiting from the discussion. [/QB][/QUOTE]

Thank you for the clarification.

I've missed something in this thread. My understanding is that non-dual is an Eastern term. Used in religions who do not have beliefs in God as Christians understand the word. If indeed they even believe in God. It can even mean the union of mind & body in some traditions.

Paramahansa Yogananda uses many Christian terms when he wrote but they did not mean the same as the Christian definitions. So in exploring the term non-dual is there an exact equivalent thing within Christianity as in the Eastern religions to compare?

Good question, Ajoy, and I think that's part of the problem, as JB and I have remarked on. No only do people use terms like nondual and no-self to mean many things, they also seem to use "self, individual, person, personality, soul" to mean the same thing.

The closest thing in Christianity to the way I usually hear "nondual" being used is "union," which presupposes an intimacy between two-in-love. There's nothing in Christianity about the soul and God being one and the same thing. Of course, it would take extensive dialogue to know if that's what the Easterners intend to be saying, as, in some traditions like Buddhism, the terms soul and God aren't used (and it's a strain to find conceptual equivalents). Hinduism's Atman and Brahman are closer, but, in the end, these turn out to be one and the same. So, no -- Christianity's doctrine of creation is rather unique.

We should note, here, that BR doesn't use the term "nondual" and it's not what she means to be saying by no-self. For her, no-self signifies the extinguishing of human consciousness, which is a prelude to the discovery of what lies beyond.

quote:

Originally posted by Phil:
[qb] The closest thing in Christianity to the way I usually hear "nondual" being used is "union," which presupposes an intimacy between two-in-love. There's nothing in Christianity about the soul and God being one and the same thing. Of course, it would take extensive dialogue ... [/qb]

Defining everything that one might mean by nondual is like trying to nail jello to the wall.

When it comes to a theism properly conceived, which excludes atheism, pantheism and other nontheistic traditions, I think the big divide, theologically, precisely has to do with defining our relationship to ultimate reality.

It has always seemed to me that, when talking about God, some people equate our unitive striving in terms of a journey toward intimacy, or even more plainly put, as a transformation from what might start out as a merely functional relationship into a purely personal relationship. It has to do, then, with getting closer.

Others conceive of this unitive striving as a dance between relationship and identity, as a journey from intersubjectivity into absolute subjectivity. Some affirm this intersubjectivity and then strive to transform it into absolute subjectivity; others see this intersubjectivity as an illusion.

There is nothing in the Christian tradition that corresponds to this second type of unitive striving. Anyone who suggests this isn't so much being a heretic as they are just plain being silly.

Now, it is possible to conceive of God, philosophically, as mostly in a functional relationship with creation, so there are other ways to be theistic without relating to the Creator as Abba or as in bridal mysticism. This isn't an option for the Christian. If Jesus revealed anything, then He revealed an actively involved and deeply caring God, building on the Hebrew experience. (Of course, let's not forget the Song of Songs, either). Thus, He taught us to pray, Our Father ...

Aside from these distinctly theological concerns, nondual has different meanings that pertain to 1) psychological states: altered states of consciousness, ecstasy 2) epistemological states and structures: nondiscursive, preconceptual and transconceptual awareness; avoidance of subject-object cleavage; epistemic vagueness; nominalism & essentialism 3) linguistic and semiotic approaches: Dionysian logic, semantical vagueness, triadic semiotic grammar; deconstruction strategies 4) metaphysical & ontological theories: idealist and materialist monisms; aristotelian hylomorphism; ontological vagueness; modal ontology 5) philosophical: false dichotomies; binary logic; dualistic conceptions 6) ascetical practices & spiritual disciplines of all sorts, what we might call spiritual technology

It is not important to understand what each item in the above inventory means. It should demonstrate the difficulty in disambiguating the term. Beside, I wanted to make a little inventory like this for my own reference and your question evoked same.

Finally, there is nothing distinctly nondual, from the standpoint of natural or revealed theology, in Christianity. From the standpoint of ascetical and mystical theology, and formative spirituality, "the nondual" can pop up in any number of places and be successfully integrated. It also presents itself in various scientific, metaphysical, psychological and anthropological considerations and can be appropriated that way, although as Phil pointed out earlier, our theological commitments do make certain claims on these other foci of human concern, mostly at the axiomatic or presuppositional level.

Wise men among us can say all of this so much more succinctly:

quote:

We cultivate the intuition of being by pursuing our deepest inner aspirations that transcend metaphysics itself. The more we situate Zen in this ascent, the better able we will be to let it inspire both metaphysics and Christian mysticism, and be inspired by them in turn. Each is enamored by existence in its own way. The metaphysics of St. Thomas wants to understand it, and to do so, it uses concepts and pushes them to their ultimate limits where they display their innermost nature as reflections of existence. Zen wants to actively embrace existence so it resolutely puts aside all concepts, and in this emptiness finds the way to existence. Christian mysticism wants to be embraced by existence and see revealed in its depths its most intimate face, which is love. There is no reason except our own weakness that prevents all three from sharing with each other the riches they have found in the service of this one Existence, or Nothingness.

Chapter 8: Zen Catholicism? in _God, Zen and the Intuition of Being_ by Jim Arraj

One might look at the nonduality inventory above and ask just how BR's accounts square with it? What categories do her teachings attempt to address or otherwise ignore?

In closing, it seems that, when people are speaking about the nondual in strictly natural theological terms, they are describing ultimate reality in terms of Oneness. When people are speaking about the nondual in these other areas of human concern, nondual need not imply oneness or absoluteness or simplicity; rather, in overcoming two-ness or duality, other strategies present themselves. Think about what these might be before reading on. Use this as a Zen koan. Then, scroll down.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.


These other strategies include threeness, fourness, fiveness and so on. Mostly, though, we see people employing triadic and tetradic strategies. Charles Sanders Peirce built a whole philosophical method or grammar on the triadic, bordering on what some have called triadomania. Pseudo-Dionysius and other neo-platonic philosophers and mystics used a triadic grammar, too. Psychology and spirituality is full of tetradic approaches, largely due to our brain quadrants, although our brain functions are much more distributed than many ever thought possible. To be nondual in tiddly winks, all you have to do is to skip twosies! --- Wake up, w.c. --- that last one was just for you.

From JB:

quote:

Others conceive of this unitive striving as a dance between relationship and identity, as a journey from intersubjectivity into absolute subjectivity. Some affirm this intersubjectivity and then strive to transform it into absolute subjectivity; others see this intersubjectivity as an illusion.

There is nothing in the Christian tradition that corresponds to this second type of unitive striving. Anyone who suggests this isn't so much being a heretic as they are just plain being silly.

That's pretty close to what BR is saying, JB, complete with her testimony to "Pure Subjectivity" and "God is everything that exists, except the self."

BTW, this thread is now 162 pages long -- single-spaced! Not bad for a few days' work.

quote:

Aside from these distinctly theological concerns, nondual has different meanings that pertain to 1) psychological states: altered states of consciousness, ecstasy 2) epistemological states and structures: nondiscursive, preconceptual and transconceptual awareness; avoidance of subject-object cleavage; epistemic vagueness; nominalism & essentialism 3) linguistic and semiotic approaches: Dionysian logic, semantical vagueness, triadic semiotic grammar; deconstruction strategies 4) metaphysical & ontological theories: idealist and materialist monisms; aristotelian hylomorphism; ontological vagueness; modal ontology 5) philosophical: false dichotomies; binary logic; dualistic conceptions 6) ascetical practices & spiritual disciplines of all sorts, what we might call spiritual technology.

That's all way over the head of most who read this forum, but I'm grateful for these technical distinctions, as it demonstrates the complexity of the situation. Plus, as I've noted a couple of times, people often use words like self, individual, person, soul, etc. as synonyms. Makes for difficulties in dialogue, to say the least.

quote:

Originally posted by Phil:
[qb] From JB:

quote:

Others conceive of this unitive striving as a dance between relationship and identity, as a journey from intersubjectivity into absolute subjectivity. Some affirm this intersubjectivity and then strive to transform it into absolute subjectivity; others see this intersubjectivity as an illusion.

There is nothing in the Christian tradition that corresponds to this second type of unitive striving. Anyone who suggests this isn't so much being a heretic as they are just plain being silly.

That's pretty close to what BR is saying, JB, complete with her testimony to "Pure Subjectivity" and "God is everything that exists, except the self."
[/qb]

That's right, Phil. And unless and until BR clarifies what she has said, I am truly at a loss to explain it any other way.