Shalom Place CommunityNondual Christianity - what could THAT possibly entail?

This topic can be found at:http://shalomplace.org/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/15110765/m/6144087118

25 December 2011, 02:59 PMjohnboy.philotheaNondual Christianity - what could THAT possibly entail?From Santa Claus to Derek and pop-pop:

Barnhart's two axes of identity and relationship wellcorrespond to what I am calling our phenomenal experiences ofintra-objective identity and inter-subjective intimacy. Forhim, contemplation and love are nondual modalitiescomplemented by purity of heart, which is the doorway tonondual consciousness (of which faith, itself, is an aspect),which well fits into my category of methodology orepistemology.

By heart, Barnhart means an integral unity of body, soul, mindand spirit (and not really the will as distinguished frommemory and understanding vis a vis, for example, Ignatianformulations or even Scotistic versus Thomistic distinctionsas resolved by Bonaventure as discussed previouslyhereinabove, indeed, per what Barnhart, himself, calls thesapiental). It entails our beyond but not without integralism.For him, the nondual self is a corollary to his axes ofidentity and relationship and well corresponds to what I havecalled our phenomenal experience of intra-subjectiveintegrity.

What Barnhart calls the unitive Absolute corresponds to ourphenomenal experience of inter-objective indeterminacy. A lotof what I have read in various attempts to reconcile East andWest, including Barnhart, reads much like a poetic Hegeliandialectic of thesis, antithesis and synthesis of polarrealities. Reality is not that simple, however. There areother ways that we engage paradox which I'll discuss later,perhaps.

Cynthia Bourgeault has taught with Bruno Barnhart, ThomasKeating and Richard Rohr, who are all pretty much resonatingwith one another, all well-fitting into both my glossary andmeta-critique. In that Thomas Keating quote, he is discussinga state, a phenomenal experience of no-self, which woulddevelopmentally follow even a standing-outside-of-self inecstasy. Barnhart, for his part, distinguishes between anonduality of the beginning (Asian) and a nonduality of theend (think Incarnation) and this would be a vague theologicalreference to his axis of identity, which has ontologicalimplications. This fits, then, Keating's characterization of astate of union explained as the grace of the Ascension, aneven more intense communication of the divine than even thatof the transforming union of a bridal mysticism.

1

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

We mustn't confuse, however, a phenomenal state of mind orstate of awareness, especially a lack thereof, with anontological fact of existence. Fr. Keating refers to aphenomenal state or experience of no-self (no reflection ofself) and not an ontological status of NO-SELF. Most of whatFr. Rohr teaches involves neither these phenomenal experiencesnor their ontological contexts but, instead, methodological orepistemological approaches or stances, specifically, regardingnondual consciousness, all within the context of mattersregarding intra-subjective integrity. His accounts of nondualconsciousness and contemplation resonate with Barnhart's;among the dozens of contemporary spiritual teachers regardingnonduality, he most highly recommends Thomas Keating, CynthiaBourgealt and Bruno Barnhart.

Regarding St Bernard's spousal love, it IS dual,ontologically, inter-subjectively, which is a teleologicallydeeper reality than any nondual intra-objective realization.Methodologically, though, the nondual approach augments ourinter-subjective value-realizations and the merely dualisticwould indeed be impoverished, which is not to at all deny thatit can realize real value for, as I said before, in this life,it is both necessary and sufficient to realize abundant valuein our relationships with both our Creator and fellowcreatures. 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 thisalready? several times now? Confused At any rate, I welcomethe opportunity to parse and disambiguate others' works withmy glossary and meta-critical categories. Smiler

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

Finally, while I understand and appreciate what appears to meto be a lot of people's preoccupation with experiences andmetaphysical speculation, methodological approaches havealways had more traction with me.26 December 2011, 01:52 PMDerekVery interesting. Now I'm going to have to read Bourgeault.

2

I've spent a fortune on Kindle books since I bought that thing(to save money Roll Eyes ).26 December 2011, 10:02 PMPhil

quote:We certainly need a modicum of intra-subjective integrity

vis a vis human authenticity to enjoy beatitude but, in theend, how much we grow or how holy we get is very much God'saffair . Beyond that, in my view, both now and forever, theexperience of the inter-subjective , both vis a vis ourprimary beatitude of being happy with God and our secondarybeatitude of being happy with our fellow creatures, is ourhighest good and to be most highly valued. Our experience ofunitary being vis a vis a realization of our intra-objectiveidentity will certainly round out and enhance our otherexperiences integrally and holistically and can even protectus from certain errors (overly dialectical imagination, deism,rationalism, pietism, etc).

Pop, in addition to what JB has just posted, there is thisquote above, which he posted earlier and which I commented onas well. He has been strongly affirming of traditionalChristian spirituality and its love mysticism, which (I agreewith you) is indeed dualistic in that it involves two whononetheless can come to enjoy union. His use of "dualism" re.taxes is less a comment about ontology than a subject/objectsplit that is a consequence of analytical activity.

I will probably have to pass on going much into some ofRichard Rohr's, Thomas Keating's and Cynthia Bourrgeault'swritings, as we've already been around the bush numerous timesabout some of this on other threads. E.g., Keating's referenceto experiencing the grace of Ascension is from BernadetteRoberts' book, What is Self?, where she understands theAscension of Christ as a stage through which she has passed,existing now as a Eucharistic presence like Jesus does aswell. Needlessly to say, this is a highly controversialassessment of her situation, unparalleled in Christianmystical theology, as is the notion that one moves beyond theunitive state. Jim Arraj never bought it and I don't either.I'm not as familiar with Cynthia's present writings, but wedid have a correspondence years ago and even got to spendseveral days together when I was presenting workshops in thenortheast. She's a gracious, gifted woman, but, at that time,she was also clearly enamored of BR's books and had beensomething of an assistant to Fr. Keating in Snowmass duringthat time when he, too, was endorsing her works and also usingWilber's stages to re-present Teresa's stages of InteriorCastle (see 1992 edition of Invitation to Love). A directeerecently bought a CD with some of Cynthia's chants for me tolisten to, and the first was was "God is all there is . . ."chanted again and again. Well, not exactly. There is alsocreation.

3

What I have read in some of the Amazon book samples along withwhat I've heard in some of Rohr's recent videos has notresonated well with my faith and the theotic paradigm that Ibelieve is central to Christian theology and spirituality. I'malso increasingly skeptical about your point that intra-objective mysticism can complement our traditional inter-subjective approach. Maybe, theoretically . . . Far too oftenit seems that it undercuts inter-subjective approaches, as Ibelieve I have already noted. When/if intra-objective mysticalexperiences 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.27 December 2011, 08:40 AMjohnboy.philotheaFirst things first! Anyone see Monday Night Football?27 December 2011, 01:07 PMjohnboy.philotheaTo further explicate the use of the term nondual, whether asan epistemic approach or phenomenal experience, it does notrepresent an etymological shoe- horning (tic-tac-toe cheatingas per pop-pop) of everything that is of deeper value overagainst dualistic problem-solving. It derives first from ourpsychological categories as reinforced by modern neurosciencethat can image which parts of our brain just so happen to bedoing what when we are doing thus and such. Just likecontemplation has been somewhat democratized (as some of ussee it, anyway), nondual consciousness is, itself, ubiquitous.All have engaged reality with it even if not all have pressedthat engagement to the same extent in any given setting orpractice. As Phil points out, there can be real inefficaciesthat attend to the shadow side of such epistemic methodsand/or phenomenal experiences.

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

Something to think about, meditatively: Nondual consciousnessseems 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 disposeourselves to charisms and gifts, while our dualistic, problem-solving consciousness is often associated with works of mercyas we variously enjoy fruits and virtues. Avodah is atransliteration for the Hebrew word for worship and work.Might it be a good bridging concept? There are so many agapicmoments in life that are remarkably dualistically engaged,requiring, in fact, a love of self for sake of others. Can youdescribe any?27 December 2011, 01:08 PMjohnboy.philotheaI'm open to engaging and parsing the work of any writers,including Bourgeault, Rohr, Keating and others. But, following

4

what Phil said, I would encourage folks to first Google someitems with the syntax +Shalomplace to check out what mayalready be there on the old message boards so we don't rehashstuff unnecessarily. Also, I am not inclined to respond tosummary dismissals of individuals based on their isolatedquotes as taken out of larger contexts or to generalcharacterizations like "oddball" (Derek) without specificcitations, again within context. For example, how is one toknow whether Bourgeault's chant (Phil) was essentiallyaffective (think mad, glad and sad psalms) in both tone andtenor rather than theologically descriptive? One could chant"Jesus, my all" and that should not invite a cursory retortlike - "Well, no, what about your spouse and children?". Anygiven moment of spirituality is necessarily a matter ofemphasis which does not set it up in a discursive over againstother emphases such as, for example, knowledge of God versuslove of God, apophasis versus kataphasis, affective vsspeculative, our will vs our memory vs our understanding,erotic vs agapic, dual vs nondual. More is left unsaid thansaid when chanting psalms as that is the genre of thatartform; to wit: "My God, my God, why have You forsaken me?"Any given spiritual lifestyle (think religious order) issimilarly a matter of emphasis (think eremitic vs monastic vsapostolic).27 December 2011, 01:13 PMjohnboy.philothearecapping intra-objective identity, our realization of unitarybeing:

My category of phenomenal experience is much more broadlyconceived than that which we would more narrowly categorizedas intra-objective mysticism. Again, it includes themethodological naturalism of science, philosophical naturalismof materialist monism, various root metaphors of metaphysicsand natural theology, as well as some of the aha moments thatmay be associated with philosophical contemplation, theintuition of being and metaphysical insights of Zen. Intheologies of nature, it features prominently in differentpantheisms and panentheisms. By intra-objective mysticism, wemean any nonconceptual natural mysticism or mysticism of theself.

The values to be mined from intraobjective insights can berealized either/both intellectually or/and existentially andin varying degrees. This is true for the other phenomenalcategories, 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 thepractitioners of the great traditions of the East, includingthose schools with and without prominent devotional elements.These practitioners have comprised a giganormous swath ofhumanity through time and we want to validate and honor theirexperiences and to continue in earnest dialogue with them,both to deepen our own self-understanding by engaging them asa foil as well as to gain whatever wisdom they may offer,

5

especially vis a vis their practices but not at all excludingmany of their conclusions. Thus we seek to earnestly inventoryand exchange our manifold and varied virtues, fruits andgifts.

The soteriological exclusivism that our traditions have onlyfairly recently eschewed certainly precludes anypneumatological exclusivism. This is to say that we certainlydo not believe that practitioners of other traditions merelygain salvation through an exculpability grounded in ignorancebut that they actually have something meaningful to contributeto how we might move much more swiftly and with much lesshindrance along this journey that we call life on this paththat we call faith.

Now, avoiding any facile syncretism, insidious indifferentismor false irenicism is no easy chore. Developing andarticulating norms for appropriating practices (or not) acrosstraditions is no easy task. What I suggest is that any givencriterion one offers should be received as taking its placeamong other criteria as something that we would weigh in thebalance without it, alone, necessarily tipping any scales. Forexample, while the history of Christian mystical theology, itsauthoritative spiritual writings and prevailing theoticparadigms certainly well speak to these issues, they certainlydo not comprise all there is to meaningfully and substantivelysay about them, especially given new understandings frommodern psychology and evolutionary anthropology. We are nottalking about central tenets of the faith, creedal essentialsor core teachings but about spiritualities that are much moredynamic than static and which, by their very nature, evolveand change emphases as the Spirit leads and new circumstancesof God's people emerge (and substantive interfaith engagementis clearly an emergent reality) . Thus religious orders havecome and gone or reformed or morphed.

This is all to further suggest that truth- indicativerealities like authority and tradition are dispositive but notexhaustive as we take up formative spirituality, which isbetter served by approaches like heuristics that aresuggestive and tentative than by those like systematics thatare definitive and dogmatic. Arraj used a great tennis analogyto 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 mistakesvis a vis essential dogma as they clumsily try to articulatethe theological implications of their spiritual experiences.Some rather explicitly and systematically depart from coreteachings, to be sure. Others may occasionally misspeak orpoorly articulate a theological concept, from time to time,but their real meaning can be more clearly discerned withinthe contexts of both their bodies of work and practices offaith.

We can expect that the steps toward East-West maturity are

6

going to be necessarily immature. We should not be shy inspeaking the truth but we should be gentle with others andgive them the benefit of the doubt, sorting through the wheatand chaff, not categorically dismissing them but affirmingwhat we can, correcting what we must and remaining open alwaysto what it is we might learn from them - even when --- andmaybe especially when --- they are giving us grief! (There'sso much the Falcons can take away from last night's whuppin'that they might could use in a playoff rematch with Breesusand the Saints!)

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

7