The two masters are God and Satan. This has nothing to do with Jesus being part of the Godhead.Unless there was no other master, like in this case.
How do you define nondual?
That sounds good.For me non duality is a healthy practice as part of mindfulness by not continually projecting my biases on everything all the time. I just experience the moment without a lot of expended emotional energy.
Sounds great! Let us know how it goes.That sounds good.
I have been dealing with some unusual emotional energy lately. And somehow St John of The Cross's Dark Night of the Soul Came to mind. I am revisiting especially book 2 and trying to integrate his insights into a mindful practice.
Oh wow, this is like everyone in the body of Christ share a bond so that we are all within each other, as "the body" - yet do not lose our status as a "person."Thanks for your opinions.
How do you interpret:
John 17:20-23
I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who will believe in Me through their word; that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me. And the glory which You gave Me I have given them, that they may be one just as We are one: I in them, and You in Me; that they may be made perfect in one, and that the world may know that You have sent Me, and have loved them as You have loved Me.
Many of the religious thinkers and philosophers of non-dualism maintained their independence and individuality while writing/teaching Advaita and still do, along with the countless other Householders who live normal lives while holding a full understanding of it. Not all wandered around royal gardens oblivious to the fact that the King just chopped off their arm for being in his garden.<snip>
Nondualism is incompatible with independence and individuality.
<snip>
In my experience of the word duality in more recent years, (the opposite of dualism) usually means "I am you, and you are me" and in the sense of the divine, it would amount to saying "I am God" Which definition are we using for this conversation?
Many of the religious thinkers and philosophers of non-dualism maintained their independence and individuality while writing/teaching Advaita and still do, along with the countless other Householders who live normal lives while holding a full understanding of it. Not all wandered around royal gardens oblivious to the fact that the King just chopped off their arm for being in his garden.
Devout Christians, also, have developed Christ-consciousness within or otherwise resigned themselves to helping others before helping themselves, and they have not lost sight of who they are in this life on this Earth.
Christian or Hindu, surely it is possible to be one with God and still be John Smith.
If someone thinks there is an ontological distinction (duality) between themselves and God, then they are not non-dualists in the sense being discussed here.
If an Advaitist claimed that there was no duality while acting as if there was, then they were acting in a way that was inconsistent with their claims. They were being irrational. I will be the first to testify that humans are capable of irrationality.
Anyone else lean this way?
My interest started about 1976 with my interest in meditation and feeling a sense of connection. Then I discovered Thomas Merton, Pierre Teilhard De Chardin and Bede Griffiths and realized that such a view is not necessarily incompatible with Christianity.
"In Eastern Orthodox Christianity, it’s carried principally in the tradition of hesychasm, a prayer with unflagging emphasis on “putting the mind in the heart.” In the Western tradition, Meister Eckhart, the Rhineland mystics, and, in our own times, Bernadette Roberts come immediately to mind. I also see it strongly in the 14th century classic The Cloud of Unknowing."
"Richard Rohr talks about nonduality being at the center of the Christian tradition, as articulated through the belief that Jesus was both fully human and fully divine."
Cynthia Bourgeault on Christian Nonduality | The Garrison Institute.
[the WWMC sub-forum is for liberal Christians and non-liberal Christian members are not allowed to debate in this forum.]
Anyone else lean this way?
My interest started about 1976 with my interest in meditation and feeling a sense of connection. Then I discovered Thomas Merton, Pierre Teilhard De Chardin and Bede Griffiths and realized that such a view is not necessarily incompatible with Christianity.
"In Eastern Orthodox Christianity, it’s carried principally in the tradition of hesychasm, a prayer with unflagging emphasis on “putting the mind in the heart.” In the Western tradition, Meister Eckhart, the Rhineland mystics, and, in our own times, Bernadette Roberts come immediately to mind. I also see it strongly in the 14th century classic The Cloud of Unknowing."
"Richard Rohr talks about nonduality being at the center of the Christian tradition, as articulated through the belief that Jesus was both fully human and fully divine."
Cynthia Bourgeault on Christian Nonduality | The Garrison Institute.
[the WWMC sub-forum is for liberal Christians and non-liberal Christian members are not allowed to debate in this forum.]
Alright. There are versions of progressive Christianity that take this approach--Marcus Borg's panentheism comes to mind, but Jesus would not really be a unique case if he merely fully realized and understood his divine nature. Any number of Hindu gurus could be said to have reached the same state and not still be enmeshed in an egoistic delusion.
You're also going to have trouble getting around the fact that Jesus doesn't really teach nondualism. There are hints of having a divine understanding of his own mission (though even there, he distinguishes between himself and the Father in a way that would be very odd for a nondualist), but there's nowhere in his teachings where he's telling people that they have to just recognize their own divine nature and realize that they too are God. That's pure Hinduism.
And Hinduism is great. If you think nondualism is true, then Hinduism is really the closest thing you're going to get to a true religion, but I don't think you can import it back into Christianity without going full deconstructionist and making the texts say a bunch of stuff that they really don't.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?