The dialogue between myself and Jim Marion can now be found at http://shalomplace.com/res/psr-marion.pdf

Oh well, you win some you lose some. Hopefully you both took something from the debate. He seems awefully dismissive of you, which is sort of silly. My comments on Paul were experimental, btw. I wanted to see how mad I could make WC...:-)

quote:

Originally posted by Phil:
[qb][QUOTE] Originally posted by Phil:
[qb]
What follows is a key quote from The Death of the Mythic God that can serve as an example of the kind of issue we will be focusing on:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What is true of a person with Christ Consciousness is also true of everybody else--except that everybody else doesn't realize who they are. We think we need to be saved. We don't. We are already sons and daughters of God in exactly the same sense that Jesus was--except that he knew who he was and we don't know who we are. When one realizes the Christ consciousness and "sees" one's union with God, then one sees this truth as clearly as one hears a ringing bell. It becomes obvious. One sees that one is freed from sin or "saved" (and has always been so). One sees one was never under sin's dominion in the first place. May we all come to that wondrous realization, for that is the truth about which the scripture is speaking in saying that the truth will forever set us free. (p. 148)[/qb]

Dear Phil & Jim,

Thank you for your generosity in sharing this dialogue.

I resonate with the anagogical thrust of Jim's hermeneutic. In fact, I believe in a nuanced apokatastasis, or universal salvation. I sing with Julian of Norwich with deep joy. I run many of the same "ethical and practical" risks that Jim articulated in teaching my children this, although he was talking about "innate divinity."

To the extent we share many of the same ultimate concerns, I believe we share faith. And many of these concerns are essentially evaluative in a nonprudential way. This is to say that we would not try to dispossess one another of our respective concerns via pragmatic, moral, rational or empirical appeals inasmuch as they do not lend themselves to formal de/construction.

In a nuanced sort of way, I concede a certain amount of privilege to such hermeneutical perspectives vis a vis these nonprudential evaluative concerns and I am talking about concerns like all being well , already being God's children, and other "wondrous realizations."

It seems to me that your dialogue has focused on what it means to be a Christian and what are the dogmatic formulations of the faith we call catholic and Catholic. And there seems to be an important consensus about the pressing need for re-inculturated theologies.

The primary issue, then, in my view, requires us to ask:

If our existential orientations are largely evaluative, in a nonprudential way, is our mystagogy merely anagogical even when creedally formulated and allegorically communicated?

Or, rather, might our creedal formulations also influence our moral and pragmatic prudential evaluations and even our philosophical and metaphysical foci of concern, too?

This is to ask whether or not dogma conveys a) an implicit epistemology and b) an implicit phenomenological context setting forth relationship modalities between creatures and Creator. [see note below]

In short, I think it does.

If it does, then, is Jim's account of dogma orthodox or heterodox?

In short, it is heterodox.

It is heterodox because it employs a different epistemology than that implied in essential Christian dogma. A gnostic extrarationality is incompatible with the Christian faith. One can scroll down to the bottom of this web page for my explication of some different extrarationalities.

It is also heterodox because it explicitly denies the relationship modalities that are implied in essential Christian dogma. In this essay, which I called hegemonism, I discuss some of what I think is going on, among other things, with Wilberian thought. I think some agnostic buddhists better articulate metaphysical truth than either gnostic Christians or advaitans, whether Eastern or Western.

Things are rather backwards it seems in these heterodox accounts. Epistemologically, the hermeneutical enjoys a primacy over the practical, rational and empirical, which is not how we are wired. Stanley Jaki has well chronicled the history of science and how it was stillborn in some cultures that denied the implicit philosopical positions of Christianity.

Although it is possible to claim a panentheisitic perspective and to properly invoke univocities and analogies with appropriate predications and suitable nuance, Jim gets this backwards, too. He invokes an equivocal predication between us and Jesus by locating our ontological differences in our shared humanity. In short, he restricts our ontological difference to the nonfantastic and trivial claim that we are different people, this Jesus and me. Then, he invokes a univocal predication between us and Jesus by locating our ontological identity in our shared divinity. We are the same, the Christ and me.

This does strike me as a peculiar and inverted panentheism. However, dogma predicates our humanity univocally between us and Jesus and locates our ontological difference in His divinity, speaking equivocally when describing our deification. Our deification is a God-analogue and not a metaphysical realization.

There is another thing I'd like to say and it is that, even for those who do not bust this heterodox move after energy upheavals and nondual experiences (or even permanent nondual shifts), and even for many others, we must draw a distinction between, on one hand, our proleptic and eschatological realizations, and, otoh, our temporally bounded existential milieu. In other words, my friend, Maya, if all seems to be decidedly not well, then, trust me, you are not delusional. This past Sunday's Office of Readings, in the Liturgy of the Hours, did have a reading that affirmed our ability to enter the vestibule of the Kingdom even in this life, and perhaps even a few on the Unitive Way have even remained there. Vestibules are vestibules, however.

I also recommend: Religious Plurality and the Christological Debate by Jacques Dupuis and Christianity in the Crucible of East-West Dialogue by Jim Arraj

Thanks again, fellows.

Deep Peace,
jb

Note: When I wrote: This is to ask whether or not dogma conveys a) an implicit epistemology and b) an implicit phenomenological context setting forth relationship modalities between creatures and Creator.

1) This might seem to beg the question of how the evaluative might then somehow violate the primacy of the rational and empirical foci of concerns. The answer is that they certainly remain otherwise methodologically autonomous but that any hermeneutical focus necessarily carries some implicit philosophical "pre-dispositions" that inform our ultimate concerns and give them their distinct alignments with reality. After all, that's what "orientation" entails, when we speak of existential orientation, unless one is speaking only anagogically. If one has a confident assurance in one's orientation, then one is not otherwise concerned that it will get out of alignment with reality and is not threatened by the prospect of getting dispossessed of one's hermeneutic because of new empirical observations and revised rational demonstrations in metaphysics.

2) If someone rejects these fundamental premises, then they can consistently maintain that Church dogmatic formulations have always been essentially anagogical and that it only remains for us to figure out practically, rationally and empirically how all those hopes to which we aspire, per our hermeneutic, will be realized. In other words, I suppose it would be fair to say that one might be claiming to be Catholic and orthodox by virtue of sharing the substance of our anagogical dogmatic formulations and denying that our mystagogy otherwise has an implicit epistemology and an implicit phenomenological context re: relational modalities. This would be consonant with a pluralistic theocentrism that subscribes to a normative Christology, albeit a Low Christology, and maybe even a normative Catholicism, albeit a "Low" Catholicism.

So, the question then becomes why does he do all this�

Probably because of the belief that a lot of dogma is arbitrary or the result of accidents, power plays, or just how things randomly evolved. And if so, I�m not unsympathetic because I believe that is true to some extent. And I too perhaps sense larger issues that aren�t being addressed by what sometimes seem our rather narrow dogmas. My own gut instinct is that there is an expansiveness needed, both in our religions and in ourselves, to better address the ongoing questions of reality. One might see the efforts of postermodernists (if that describes Jim�s approach) to be an intutive leap toward this, even if reason often gets left behind in what seems a pique of willfulness.

I think views such as Jim�s represent a dissatisfaction with the status quo, and what comes across as perhaps dishonesty may partially be so, but I think rather than deception it is indicative of a pragmatic (and quite willful) attempt to reshuffle the cards of Christianity rather than to start over, for to start over is to start from outside of Christianity and is thus to be inherently illegitimate. But if one can take over the existing mechanisms (a la the left having taken over and radicalized much of higher education), legitimacy is established, possession being 9/10�s of the law and such.

Again, I haven�t read the book, but I think postmodernist or revisionist views, when dissected, are often readily enough exposed as deeply flawed. But if one views these movements or yearnings as the leading edge of a legitimate discontent due to real problems, then one might see where something might possibly be in need of change. And perhaps we shouldn�t harden our positions and take some kind of comfort that our positions are proved more correct because one particular opposition can be proven to be so obviously wrong.

Brad, the dogmatic teachings about Jesus' human/divine nature could hardly be construed as "arbitrary or the result of accidents, power plays, or just how things randomly evolved." That badly misconstrues the development of that teaching, which seems to be rooted in statements that go back to Jesus himself. I'll grant the need for a more expansive pedagogy, but, as I noted in the dialogue with Jim, that's been happening as well. You've even been reading one of the better authors on post-modern Christian spirituality: Ronald Roldheiser. Nouwen is another good one! But there's no doubt that, if questioned about what the Church teaches concerning Jesus, these men would be found to be in complete agreement with the dogmatic teachings about Christ's nature.

What really stands out in all of this is what Marion himself noted was an impossibility from his discussions, or references to, Hindu yogis: <br /><br />The fullness of the Godhead actually incarnating as a human being. <br /><br />For a Hindu, this would amount to Brahman becoming human, and is a metaphysical impossibility for them. As such, Krishna is an embodiment of a lesser aspect of Brahman. <br /><br />In short, this is really the only teaching of Christianity: God became man. <br /><br />Jesus' passion on the cross couldn't have included all human suffering unless He was this fullness of the Godhead, the second person of the Trinity "through whom all things were made," as the apostle John states so clearly in the first words of his gospel. <br /><br />All other religions have a different trajectory: man becoming divinized, or realizing some divine nature, yet never able to overcome death.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: w.c.,

To be fair, here, about the question of "why" re. dogma, those who've read the dialogue thread will note that I raised this question there as well, and Jim replied that it is because, believe it or not, I have profound respect for the Church, its tradition, its Scriptures, its Conciliar formulations, and the writings of the great saints. I would not have attempted a book on spirituality and mysticism otherwise.

I was not meaning to question the issue of "respect for the Church," as one can presume its existence in non-Christians as well. Also, there are lots of authors writing books on "spirituality and mysticism" who respect the Church, but who do not present their teaching as though it were orthodox.

Brad's point above about people experiencing dissatisfaction with the status quo is very valid, in my view. Jim does a good job in "Mythic Christian" pointing out some of the shortcomings of pre-modern Christian formulations, such as are still promulgated throughout Christendom. There are many who have been "burned" by these teachings and the authorities promoting them. Many left, or distanced themselves from the Church, and later found something meaningful outside -- let's say in some New Age or Eastern movement. They saw resonances with some aspects of Christianity (especially its mystical tradition) and wondered if there might be a way to understand their experiences in the context of Christian teaching? As these people probably never lost their regard for Christ, it's easy to see how they would be attracted to a teaching that integrated certain aspects of Christian teaching with these Eastern and New Age streams. That all makes sense, and I even applaud these efforts. Only, the synthesis cannot really violate the essential meanings of these different traditions, or else it is little more than a religious teaching fashioned to suit one's own spirituality.

What really stands out in all of this is what Marion himself noted was an impossibility from his discussions, or references to, Hindu yogis:

The fullness of the Godhead actually incarnating as a human being.

For a Hindu, this would amount to Brahman becoming human, and is a metaphysical impossibility for them. As such, Krishna is an embodiment of a lesser aspect of Brahman.

That's a good point, w.c. Jim even quoted Yogananda to the effect that it would be metaphysical error to think that the fullness of the Divine Logos could ever become incarnate in a single human being, that the energy would literally explode the vehicle, being way too much for any human body, nervous system, or personality to enclose. All of which goes to show that Hindus don't really believe their avatars to be incarnations of God in the same sense that Christians believe Jesus to be (a point I was alluding to in my closing post in the dialogue).

Christian teachings have maintained that the Logos incarnate did not overshadow the human consiousness of Jesus, but existed in perfect harmony with his humanity. Just as the human spiritual soul lives in harmony with our lower mammalian psyche/soul, so too the Logos and Jesus' human soul. From his conception on, Jesus was the Logos incarnate (he incarnated/manifested the Logos as fully as was possible for him to do in his human nature), but the full integetration between the human Jesus and the Logos came through Jesus' death, resurrection, and ascension. This understanding can be found in the ancient Christian hymn Paul alludes to in Col. 1: 15-20. Where the Logos is, so is Jesus. The spiritual and metaphysical implications of this understanding are quite different from what Hinduism affirms.

quote:

Originally posted by johnboy:
[QB] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Phil:
[qb]However, nondual awareness gifts one with neither ontological nor epistemological insight. The experience of nonduality is not a cognitive event that yields propositional beliefs subject to empirical observation, rational demonstration or prudential evaluative judgment (pragmatic or moral). It is not a philosophical contemplation or a metaphysical intuition of being. It is moreso a knowledge through connaturality, which is not discursive, conceptual, rational.

This is not true to my experience of non-duality. In fact, non-duality, the gift of seeing the emptiness of self, preceeds surrender to the loving, benign God who I am in relation with. You isolate what you perceive as non-relational from the relational when they are one continuum. The God who decends down from above with the force to "crush bones" as Saint John aptly puts it, is not apart from the non-dual. Although the non-dual is not situated in ontology, or epistemology, it does not preclude these. After the non-dual event, ONE begins to understand one READING of what Christ meant by poverty. One no longer trusts oneself as the source of knowing - one can only wait for this continuum to decend. By continuum, I mean that non-dual eventually connects back to epistemology and ontology. I dislike Merton's notion that it is simply a "metaphysical intuition of being." In fact it is the transpersonal Womb in which one sees the false reflections of the pre personal "I." These shadows in the sky (as opposed to the dancing shadows on the wall of a cave) have to be seen, and they are seen through the non-dual event, which clears the clouds so that one can establish right relationship to God. The non-dual is not God. But it is the eye by which one can open oneself to God in loving surrender. In that sense I can see why so much importance is placed on it. This takes practice, I would guess. I suppose I dislike your categories because they don't see the encounter with the divine in a way that is organic. But I think, to be fair, that you make some key distinctions. One problem with this quote is that the non-dual becomes something to be feared. It is not to be feared. In another section in "Seeds," Merton calls the Void NADA (thus, connecting it with Our Lady? Why this apparent contradiction?) Why can't such a devotional approach to the Non-Dual be developed? The non-dual and the dual, the dual and the non dual as a Continuum, made possible by the saving Grace of Christ Jesus who mediates between being and non-being?

If one isolates catagories, one seems to miss the beauty of how each piece fits together...and in seeing non-dual as a gift of God, I recognize that it allows one to begin a process of reorienting the entire being in faith and surrender - not in quietism. So yes, I see how these distinctions have to be made clear - but not in the way that you do so.

Finally, I'm guessing that most pms of my generation will turn to teaching like Jims because they are more to interpretation, and not because of his claims that they are orthodox. As for Phil's claim that an apophatic approach is dangerous without necessary formative kataphatic ground work, I agree in part. I would also point out that God works in a soul in his own way and to force the soul into a relational approach when God is pulling it another direction, is counter productive to the action of grace. One eventually emerges out of the non-dual with a deeper appreciation (and an enhanced capacity) to commune with God on a relational level.

I guess I will never be a Christian because I don't believe that any one can be the Son of God. This doesn't mean that I cannot commune with Christ, or be in relationship with Him apart from the dogmas of the Church. Nor could I believe that Christianity is higher than other religions.

Yes, you will be right to suggest that previous phrase is typical green meme. But it is a green meme soul informed by the atrocities which such a theology produce. One may believe that their way is higher, but why does the Church and orthodoxy proclaim this as a dogma? Openness creates fludity and interconnection whereas the Orthodox position leads to self-righteousness. One can quietly feel that their way is higher - there is something devotional to this approach. However, this is a devotional "truth."

Hence, I also distrust Jim's lack of faith in this dogma. Because when one feels Christ one knows that He is the Son of God! But this is still only devotional truth. If one is a Christian perhaps one believes in these truths because it brings one closer to the mystery of faith. But to proclaim them, or to write them into dogma...

FWIW, I like some of what you're saying, Asher, although I'd pull-up short in assuming the non-dual event, or process, is essential for loving surrender to God. You might check out the long quote of Ruusbroec I put on the thread re: nonduality and Christian contemplative mystical traditions. He seems to show that the non-dual becomes something different in the grace-based devotional context. I'll be quoting more or Ruusbroec on that thread, as he develops his view more thoroughly, which bears upon this relationship between human faculties and their origin outside of time and space.

Brad, the dogmatic teachings about Jesus' human/divine nature could hardly be construed as "arbitrary or the result of accidents, power plays, or just how things randomly evolved." That badly misconstrues the development of that teaching, which seems to be rooted in statements that go back to Jesus himself.

Phil, where did I specifically say the above? I didn�t. I was clearly speaking in general terms to answer what I thought was your general question: Why does someone go around saying "Two and two is five" when it is, within reason, demonstrable that two and two is four? As to the specific issue of Jesus� human divine nature, I haven�t a clue nor is that an area that I�m concerned with.

quote:

Originally posted by Phil:
[qb] To be fair, here, about the question of "why" re. dogma, those who've read the dialogue thread will note that I raised this question there as well, and Jim replied that it is because, believe it or not, I have profound respect for the Church, its tradition, its Scriptures, its Conciliar formulations, and the writings of the great saints. I would not have attempted a book on spirituality and mysticism otherwise.

I was not meaning to question the issue of "respect for the Church," as one can presume its existence in non-Christians as well. Also, there are lots of authors writing books on "spirituality and mysticism" who respect the Church, but who do not present their teaching as though it were orthodox. [/qb]

See A Crisis of Faith by Jim Arraj, NOT to suggest that this answers anyone's questions re: Marion's motivations, which I am sure I will find inscrutable even after I've read the two books coming from Amazon. It does represent an hypothesis of just one of many possible dynamisms going on in the world today with many believers, who are struggling in their response to modernity and postmodernity as well as to their own unique upbringings.

Here are excerpts from Arraj's hypothesis:

quote:

What is Really Going on in this Doctrinal Crisis?

Here is my hypothesis of one of the dynamisms that appears to be driving the doctrinal crisis that we are facing.

1. The process starts with a poor or childish faith commitment. We are born and grow up in the Church, join priestly or religious life at a young age, never get adequate theological formation as lay people, and so forth. Thus, it is understandable that we could have immature notions about what our faith is, and uncritically accept very human and defective ways in which it has been formulated.

2. This human state of affairs is compounded by poor theological formation. The institutional Church often does an inadequate job of instructing us.

3. We begin to grow up and go out into the world ...

[jb's note: and this continues thru 9 steps and concludes as below]

What does all this amount to? We need to carefully distinguish between deficient faith formulations and the faith, itself. Otherwise we will reject the faith on the strength of our childish notions of it, and fail to embark on the road, however arduous, that leads to genuine adult faith and a theology and spirituality built upon it.

jb back ---

If one takes the position that nonduality trumps all other approaches to reality, then one might be led to adopt a theocentric pluralism, in place of a Christocentric inclusivism, yet still hold to a normative Christology and do so in a philosophically consistent manner, all the while noting that the Church has been on an ascendancy in self-realization as it has transisted from
1) an exclusivistic ecclesiocentrism - no salvation outside the church to
2) a Christocentric inclusivism - there is salvation for nonbelievers but it is mediated by Christ to
3) a theocentric pluralism with a normative Christology - Catholic Christianity is how I experience MY salvation and your religion is how you realize your salvation to
4) a theocentric pluralism w/o a normative Christology, which is mere mytho-poetic form.

Gnostically speaking, then, there is the implicit notion that, progressively, we are separating the essentialistic dogmatic wheat from the accidental dogmatic chaff, and all are being invited to join in this ascendancy, wherein, as far as our creedal formulations are concerned:
a) you needn't worry about being stripped of your anagogical formulations and what you hope for, and
b) you definitely needn't worry about moral formulations, which are accessible sans revelation anyway, and
c) you can still cultivate the beauty of ritual and worship and sacramental economy, which does mediate sacred encounters but which doesn't enjoy a dispensational monopoly on same.

And this is really all there is to being a Catholic Christian and other previous assertions, especially the Christological formulations are myth, which, even if not literally true, nevertheless, evoke an appropriate response to ultimate reality regarding our ultimate concerns.

And, that is what myth does.

So, there we have it, advaitan Catholicism.

Marion's teaching IS orthodox in a proleptic sense, just like our realization of salvation and the eschatological unfolding of the Kingdom. But you cannot grasp this with a mytho-poetic consciousness.

You'll get there one day and if not you, likely your grandchildren. It's a spiraling dynamic ain't it?

pax!
jb

p.s. The post would be too long if I included my self-rebuttal.

quote:

Originally posted by Asher:

If one isolates catagories, one seems to miss the beauty of how each piece fits together...and in seeing non-dual as a gift of God, I recognize that it allows one to begin a process of reorienting the entire being in faith and surrender - not in quietism. So yes, I see how these distinctions have to be made clear - but not in the way that you do so.

Actually, I see these all as "moments" in the integral act of human knowing and thus see it much like you do. You took my quote out of context and set up a false dichotomy, which caricaturizes my epistemology, which has been exhaustively set forth here. And I appreciate how you are reading Merton, but I give him and Maritain a pass because they were encumbered by metaphysical systems that aren't quite as versatile as the robust reformulations we see nowadays. At some level, I really applaud Merton's descriptions of his encounters with Zen and I believe he really "gets it."

Excellent thoughts, Asher.

pax!
jb

quote:

Originally posted by Brad:
[qb] As to the specific issue of Jesus� human divine nature, I haven�t a clue nor is that an area that I�m concerned with. [/qb]

Sorry if it seems I put words in your mouth, Brad, but the topic of Jesus' divine nature has been a pivotal theme in this discussion, so I was just making that connection in my response. That dogma isn't merely arbitrary; it's what makes Christianity Christianity.

Marion's teaching IS orthodox in a proleptic sense . . .

JB, could you say more about this? I'm not sure what that really means.

So your stressing the importance of expansiveness, while true in some ways regarding the way the church sometimes teaches, shouldn't be taken to suggest that the church's theology has left Marion's concerns unaddressed, or that the notion of non-duality is avoided, since it was treated as the heresy "Quietism."

My expansiveness, WC, is accommodated by not belonging to any church. Perhaps if Jim wants to be involved in Christianity then he should just accept the main tenets as they are and find his expansiveness in the nuancing that can be done that doesn�t upset orthodoxy. Me, I just cannot conceive of coming to truths unless heterodoxy is being constantly bounced off orthodoxy to see what is just old, crusty relics and what is solid bone.

Marion is not going to be able to "reshuffle" the cards of orthodoxy

Probably not, but generations of people have taken on the postmodern mindset and institutions will change as people change. I had someone from another place, and with a straight face, mind you, tell me that Jesus never existed. Well, we can certainly debate his supposed divine nature, but it seems a little batty to seriously believe that he never existed. But the postmodern deconstructionist mindset instantly can give one ultimate power over the complexity of life by standing athwart history and shouting "naughta!" [Apologies to WFB.]

This discussion in particular has been clarifying and I thank Jim, Phil, JB, and WC especially. The distictions you're all making make me want to return to Islam and read the Koran and see if my understanding can fit into Islamic theology and the traditions. So, a long sabbatical and hopefully I won't return as a fun-da-men-talist;-)

Thanks again for allowing me to participate at Shalom!

That means I'll have to quit drinking...

damn!

One eventually emerges out of the non-dual with a deeper appreciation (and an enhanced capacity) to commune with God on a relational level.

One would hope . . . But, Asher, have you not also seen umpteen examples of people coming to the non-dual and assuming they've reached the pinnacle of all spiritual experiences? How many teachers place this at the top of a pyramid or grid of some kind? That's seems to be more the case, especially if the non-dual came after they had been experiencing a more inter-personal spirituality.

I guess I will never be a Christian because I don't believe that any one can be the Son of God.

That really is a mind-blowing affirmation, to be sure! Would it help any to say why Christians believe this of Jesus? As you might guess, I wouldn't mind elaborating.

----

Great discussion, gang! You all grace this board in many ways.

quote:

Originally posted by Asher:
[qb]

That means I'll have to quit drinking...

damn! [/qb]

You could always say that Islmaic teaching doesn't really mean to be saying that you have to.

Sorry if it seems I put words in your mouth, Brad, but the topic of Jesus' divine nature has been a pivotal theme in this discussion, so I was just making that connection in my response. That dogma isn't merely arbitrary; it's what makes Christianity Christianity.

Okay, thanks, Phil. I gotcha. And I do understand the absolutely pivotal role of Jesus� divine nature. After all, there aren�t many choices left if he wasn�t divine, not all of which are necessarily deal-breakers:

1) The apostles did not accurately record the story of Jesus and/or embellished it so radically as to turn it into no better than a fairly tale

2) Jesus was a lunatic, delusional, or a harmless crank who thought he was god

3) We are all divine, it�s just that Jesus was a "purer" form of it or came to "actualize" his divine nature

Granted, #3 may be saying nothing or it may be saying everything. There are real differences in states of things or we are all just on a continuum. But such distinctions to me are totally beyond my ability to understand or experience�at least on this earth. My existential standpoint is that if a god thinks it absolutely necessary that I be sure of something, She is going to make this fact absolutely plain. This is neither here nor there in terms of this discussion, but it�s just a passing thought.

It�s too difficult for me to make such leaps of faith � it feels dangerous, uncertain, and open to manipulation if I do. And if one looks at some of the "new church" stuff that�s floating out and about, one might see that others are having this trouble as well. Not talking about Jim here, but surely you�re run into people who have no problem at all being a Christian (or perhaps being a minister) and believing that Jesus was just a very wise man who didn�t rise from the dead. We�ve all become so untrusting of things�sometimes with good reason. At bottom, this surely must have something to do with all this.

quote:

Originally posted by Phil:
[qb]

quote:

Originally posted by Asher:
[qb]

That means I'll have to quit drinking...

damn! [/qb]

You could always say that Islmaic teaching doesn't really mean to be saying that you have to. [/qb]

Rofl. I think it will take time:-)

Any way, this is a most lovely prayer which begins my return to Islam:

http://www.ibnarabisociety.org...les/jalalwajamal.pdf

*

�La ilaha illa Allah, Muhammadur rasoolu Allah,� one converts to Islam and becomes a Muslim. This saying means �There is no true god (deity) but God (Allah),1 and Muhammad is the Messenger (Prophet) of God.� The first part, �There is no true god but God,� means that none has the right to be worshipped but God alone, and that God has neither partner nor son." This is the cardinal tenet or doctrine of Islam.

*

So that's where/why I depart from Christianity.

*

Which doesn't mean to say that I can't love Christ:-)

quote:

Originally posted by Phil:
[qb] Marion's teaching IS orthodox in a proleptic sense . . .

JB, could you say more about this? I'm not sure what that really means. [/qb]

That statement and everything above that up to jb back was my speaking as a gnostic, my best interpretation of what Marion might even agree with in articulating a defense of his position as orthodox. It is my attempt to say to Jim, is this what I hear you saying because this is what I think I hear you saying and I want to make sure I understand you before proceeding with the wrong notion of what I think I hear you saying when in fact I am proceeding with .... and so on and so forth.

I didn't introduce it that way because, some of this is kind of tedious, and I wanted to be a rascal just for sport

pax!
jb

So, to recapitulate and parse and then resolve some of the dangling participles ...

Let's just assume that the Arrajian psychological account is correct, at least in some measure, for argument's sake ... and

Let's assume that I got my articulation of a defense of Marion's orthodoxy at least somewhere in the neighborhood of his true position ... and

Let's assume that a gnostic, extrarational epistemology is the approach he employs to interpreting Church dogma ... and

Let's recognize, again, that we are not merely dealing, any of us, with the theological content of our faith but moreso a practical living out of a deeply ingrained existential orientation with many psychodynamics, often largely unconscious, at work ... and

Let's hold to the view, as I think most of us here feel, and Asher so well articulated as organic, that nonduality is a moment in the integral act of knowing and not, rather, as I explicated metaphorically, a coprocessor providing esoteric knowledge beyond and without the other moments ... and

Let's say we have isolated our impasse, not just theologically and philosophically but truly hermeneutically, whereby a worldview is being informed not only by a different way of thinking about but a different way of even seeing and experiencing reality ... and

Let's just say that there can be something distinctly Catholic in Marion's approach to reality, both anagogically and morally, and even in the cultivation of beauty in ritual and sacrament, albeit the unitive, to which these acts of worship aspire, is being interpeted more literally, in fact, than analogically ... and

Let's just suggest then that, in Marion's approach to dogma in Scripture & Tradition & Magisterium, we have isolated where we must diverge as not necessarily in the anagogical, not necessarily in the moral, but in how it is we interpet his allegorical extrapolations in relation to the literal sense of Scripture ... and

Let's recognize that, in gnosticism, this is usually the juncture where the orthodox morphs into the heterodox and ...

Let's suggest that the departure results from a maneuver, about which Aquinas cautions, which is that a plural interpretation of Scripture can lead to deception and confusion if not governed by a rigorous exegetical methodology ... and

Let me get into progressively deeper waters, which is to say over my head a tad, not being a Scripture scholar, and suggest that we should take heed from Aquinas' caveats and recognize that there is nothing in an allegorical reading of Scripture that cannot also be found in its literal sense, and, in my view, this anchors our allegorical ship with the following moorings: 1) historical 2) etiological 3) metaphorical/parabolical and 4) analogical ...

And let me charitably interpret Marion's exegetical approach as being as scholarly as the next fellow's when it comes to a) being historical and not rather ahistorical (for gosh sakes, the Wilberian and Spiral Dynamic approach is not casual in this regard) b) being etiological (after all, why the authors wrote what they wrote and who actually said what and why has been exhaustively studied, academically, and among peer reviewed academics and just my reading of Marion's index on Amazon reveals his scholarship) and c) metaphorical (it isn't THAT problematical to recognize metaphors in Scripture is it?). Those who follow Wilber and who resonate with Spong and who pay earnest attention to the Jesus Seminar are not intellectual milquetoasts, and ...

Let's say we have now located, with even more precision, the juncture of our divergent views in the way we approach the analogical interpretation of Scripture and Tradition ... and

Let's not forget that we are not merely in the realm of the philosophical but also clearly in the realm of the psychological and the evaluative-hermeneutical, so we won't, necessarily, be trying to analyze this by solely using formal argumentation but moreso by authentically and dialogically engaging, as best we can walk in another's moccasins, what can be an unconsciously encoded ensemble of cognitive powers, affective dispositions, moral orientations and relational inclinations -- and this is not to suggest that Marion is at all unaware of what epistemological pieces are furnishing his epistemic suite ... and

Let us, finally, suggest that there just might be something going on precisely with someone's analogical imagination as it variously a) comes under the influence of nondual shifts, b) engages and tries to integrate alternate hermeneutics, c) plays into East meets West encounters ... and

Let me tell you what I think I have seen going on, both within myself, but also in others who've approached and even crossed some of these hermeneutical thresholds, when it comes to nonduality and analogical imaginations, which make one distinctly catholic.

That is not the longest run-on sentence in SP history, although I hold the other record ... (Like Phil, I, too, read all those Russian authors and was, in fact, taking Russian when we lived together ... unlike Phil, I write more War & Peace style ..)

Being an autodidact in natural theology (and plodding slowly as a result), I noticed that, when it comes to metaphysics, I have more in common with my Hindu friends, whose metaphysical speculations run rampant and, in my view, like Wilber, tend to overreach. As for my Protestant friends, with their dialectical imaginations, they often would positively eschew metaphysics. I resonated, too, with my Buddhist buddies, who chose, after nonduality, to maintain a respectful silence and agnosticism, who didn't see Zen as a departure point for doing ontology but moreso as a spiritual technology geared toward gifting one with nonduality. My Catholic friends, as you all know, are just plain weird.

Now, isn't it something that the dualistic West and the nondualistic East both have radically analogical and radically dialectical imaginations? And recall that one is bred and not rather argued into these orientations.

Here's the schema:

Some Buddhists - nondual awareness, dialectical imagination

Some Hindi - nondual awareness, analogical imagination

Protestantism - dualist with dialectical imagination

Catholicism - dualist with analogical imagination

What gives?

For one thing, if one's approach to reality employs what I call the different moments in an integral act of knowing nonintegrally, or in what I described as parallel processors, then, as far as the East is concerned, one can take from nonduality whatever evaluative inclination one will and, granting autonomy with no relationality to one's different moments in one's epistemic suite, can, in the case of some Buddhisms, let one's dialectical imagination work overtime, and, in the case of some Hindu approaches, let one's analogical imagination work overtime --- ungoverned by the checks and balances of the other moments in what should otherwise be an integral act of human knowing. In the case of the Buddhist, one gets a Page Not Found Error 404 and that's the end of that. In the case of the Hindu, one learns to press Ctrl Alt Del and Reboot and to program system algorithms that recursively run in Infinite Loop Errors. On one hand, no more Output. OTOH, too much (I know, pot calling the kettle black.)

In a Protestant Fideism, there is an overemphasis on the dialectical imagination and this results, in my view, from a fideistic extrarationality, which overemphasizes apophasis in speculative metaphysics, overemphasizes the kataphatic and affective in theological speculation and underemphasizes the speculative and kataphatic in both theology and metaphysics.

In Catholicism and some liberal Protestantisms, there is a distinctly analogical imagination at work that is tempered by holding the apophatic and kataphatic in creative tension and not seeking to resolve all tensions in dialectical synthesis. The dialectical imagination is given its due, as well as nonduality, in a grounded extrarationality that I consider to be truly transrational, moving always beyond but not without each moment in the integral act of human knowing.

The practical upshot for this consideration of a so-called advaitan Catholicism is that when one then deploys one's analogical imagination in an analogical approach to dogma and Scripture, if one has given free reign to such analogical imagination in a parallel processor-type mode, then one has cut at least one of one's allegorical moorings (the authentically analogical) even if one otherwise can credibly and authentically maintain that the other three (historical, etiological and metaphorical) are tied with the best sailor's knots.

And Jesus was a sailor
When He walked up on the water
And He spent a long time watching
From a lonely wooden tower
And when He knew for certain
Only drowning men could see Him
He said all men shall be sailors, then
Until the sea shall free them ...
And He sank beneath their gnosis like a stone [my imperfect memory of lyrics of Suzanne by Leonard Cohen - gnosis substituted for wisdom]

I've got pictures and video of thousands of boats still partially tied to their moorings both during and post-Katrina. The video literally made me ill from motion sickness.

The most salient issue then is what happens to our Christology and I highly recommend Luke Timothy Johnson's answers to the Jesus Seminar and the issues raised there involve both overactive analogical and dialectical imaginations in all sorts of relationships, one to the other, not otherwise congruent with a distinctly Catholic, transrational hermeneutic, which employs a grounded extrarationality.

And I haven't forgotten the point that the literal and spiritual senses of Scripture and dogma are, analogously, also integral moments in the act of knowing Reality, and that, cutting ourselves from one mooring violates the integrity of our preparations for the storms of life.

I don't offer this as a criticism of Marion because, if I'm right, he may be largely self-consistent and self-aware and might even accept my account with the caveat that I have drawn, perhaps, in the end, a more or less trivial distinction, especially considering what we might share. Thing is, I also like theoretical physics and speculative metaphysics and the dialogue between religion and science and I'm with Stanley Jaki on what type of epistemology works and especially on its etiology in Christian practice, not just dogma.

pax!
jb

Asher, you wrote: Because when one feels Christ one knows that He is the Son of God! But this is still only devotional truth. If one is a Christian perhaps one believes in these truths because it brings one closer to the mystery of faith. But to proclaim them, or to write them into dogma...

Could you say some more about how you perceive the difference between devotional truth and dogmatic truth . . . how one can affirm Christ as Son of God in the former sense, but not the latter? You quoted the traditional Islamic tenet of God as One, and as a Christian, I understand that. But surely you know that (with Moslems) we Christians believe that the Godhead is One as well, (but unlike Moslems) manifesting as Three Persons This would be no different from saying that humanity is one, with many persons. So for us, it is not a contradition to affirm both Godhead and Trinity. Do Moslems view this as a contradition? Is that the problem in affirming any "son of God," or is the greater problem affirming the possibility of God incarnating? (I hope this inquiry makes sense . . . if you're even still around, that is.)

quote:

Originally posted by Asher:
[qb] This discussion in particular has been clarifying and I thank Jim, Phil, JB, and WC especially. The distictions you're all making make me want to return to Islam and read the Koran and see if my understanding can fit into Islamic theology and the traditions. So, a long sabbatical and hopefully I won't return as a fun-da-men-talist;-)

Thanks again for allowing me to participate at Shalom!

That means I'll have to quit drinking...

damn! [/qb]

If you are not pulling my leg or something, then I suspect you have precisely gathered, at least, my meaning, which is conveyed better below by Lewis S Mudge and James N. Poling:

quote:

The formative interaction between tradition and situation now takes place simultaneously in a host of contexts: of class, race, gender, geography, ethnicity, nationality, and so on. The East vies with the West, the Northern hemisphere with the Southern. Few human beings can rest content in their own group�s version of the faith without at least being aware of other versions. Moreover, there seems to be no center, no context of faith whose form is normative. Clearly, the first question to ask about any manifestation of Christian faith is not, What are these peoples� beliefs? but What, concretely, does their Christian faith mean to them as a form of life? In this context the question arises: What do these formations have in common? Despite family resemblances of language and liturgy, is this one faith or many; What is to be regarded as of its "essence"?

Perhaps an example from outside the sphere of Christianity will help make this phenomenon vivid. In his book Islam Observed, Clifford Geertz studies Islam as a cultural reality in two utterly different modern settings. In Morocco, Islam is legalistic, warlike, political. In Indonesia, it is relaxed, almost playful, intrinsic. To the outsider it is difficult to see that the same phenomenon is under study in the two places because the common factor between the two, the Qu�ran, is only the same book in the most abstract sense. What a book is is the tradition of its interpretation. Surely Christians, comparing the "Bible" of North American evangelicalism with the "Bible" of Latin American liberation theology would have to say the same.

Formation and Reflection, Fortress Press, Philadelphia, 1987

Thanks, Asher, for your kind words.

Namaste,
jb