Seeking Fundamentalist Response

[dlamberth]

I've flirted pretty seriously with the fullblown nondualism that shows up both in Vedanta and Neoplatonism, but I think I've decisively rejected it at this point.

How about the very non-fundamentalist notion of non-dualism that some claim shows up in the Bible? Have you played in that arena at all? Where do you stand with that trajectory?

 

[Silmarien]

How about the very non-fundamentalist notion of non-dualism that some claim shows up in the Bible? Have you played in that arena at all? Where do you stand with that trajectory?

You would need to be more specific.

My concern is specifically with the type of theology which identifies the self directly with God and then rejects any sense of individuality as illusory. Reality seems to be characterized by both unity and diversity, so to stress one at the expense of the other seems to ignore half the story.

I think there's a paradox at the heart of reality: the self, immanent and yet transcendent, determined and yet free. God may be that in which we live and move and have our being, but we are embodied individuals. We are not indistinguishable from the rest of reality--it is not just one limitless expanse of divinity, into eternity.

My problem here isn't the nondualist picture of God. It's what it has to say about the visible world. Monism tends to be overly simplistic. (Granted, if someone really wants to Occam's Razor everything, Advaita Vedanta wins...)

 

[dlamberth]

My problem here isn't the nondualist picture of God. It's what it has to say about the visible world.

I think the nondualist picture of God is about with how a person experiences all of this, both the visible AND nonvisable. That and followed up with how a person than brings that experience to this physical world. I'm looking from the perspective that if it's only theology a person looks at, they are missing the mystery. And that (the mystery) I'm pretty sure can best be known via a nondualistic way of experiencing. So when God is brought into the picture, wouldn't it be the same?

 

[Silmarien]

I think the nondualist picture of God is about with how a person experiences all of this, both the visible AND nonvisable. That and followed up with how a person than brings that experience to this physical world. I'm looking from the perspective that if it's only theology a person looks at, they are missing the mystery. And that (the mystery) I'm pretty sure can best be known via a nondualistic way of experiencing. So when God is brought into the picture, wouldn't it be the same?

Not necessarily. I am not a materialist, but we don't really know enough about the brain to know to what degree mystical experiences are a matter of brain chemistry. If the mystical union and sense of unity with all of existence that a mystic experiences is an altered mental state, it's impossible to say to what extent it matches up to reality. Even if it is veridical, does the subjective sense of nondualism actually entail genuine ontological nondualism?

Another interesting idea I've run across is the possibility of De Se knowledge: that an aspect of omniscience is omnisubjectivity (see here), and that God can provide a person with access to the Divine Mind, allowing them to have all of his knowledge as their own, without God and the self ultimately being identified with each other.

 

[dlamberth]

Not necessarily. I am not a materialist, but we don't really know enough about the brain to know to what degree mystical experiences are a matter of brain chemistry. If the mystical union and sense of unity with all of existence that a mystic experiences is an altered mental state, it's impossible to say to what extent it matches up to reality. Even if it is veridical, does the subjective sense of nondualism actually entail genuine ontological nondualism?

I’m back to a basic question I have, how does that work when working with things like the mystery of the resurrection? Thinking about it and actually going through it with Christ brings different knowings and wisdom along with it. I can read about how to fly an airplane. But to actually fly one takes on a whole different level of knowing.

Another interesting idea I've run across is the possibility of De Se knowledge: that an aspect of omniscience is omnisubjectivity (see here), and that God can provide a person with access to the Divine Mind, allowing them to have all of his knowledge as their own, without God and the self ultimately being identified with each other.

Interesting, yes, but I don’t buy that argument. The mystery is alive and vibrant in a cosmic wide reach and can be experienced, lived and brought into ones Heart and Soul. But that's hard to understand until a person actually goes through the process. I’m unable to see how having “access” reaches the wisdom gained that a nondulity experience can bring into a person.

 

[ubicaritas]

You would need to be more specific.

My concern is specifically with the type of theology which identifies the self directly with God and then rejects any sense of individuality as illusory. Reality seems to be characterized by both unity and diversity, so to stress one at the expense of the other seems to ignore half the story.

I think there's a paradox at the heart of reality: the self, immanent and yet transcendent, determined and yet free. God may be that in which we live and move and have our being, but we are embodied individuals. We are not indistinguishable from the rest of reality--it is not just one limitless expanse of divinity, into eternity.

My problem here isn't the nondualist picture of God. It's what it has to say about the visible world. Monism tends to be overly simplistic. (Granted, if someone really wants to Occam's Razor everything, Advaita Vedanta wins...)

Not to mention that nondualism is often lifted out of its historical context by westerners in the New Age to create a religion of the self no different from the surrounding culture's consumerism.

 

[Silmarien]

I’m back to a basic question I have, how does that work when working with things like the mystery of the resurrection? Thinking about it and actually going through it with Christ brings different knowings and wisdom along with it. I can read about how to fly an airplane. But to actually fly one takes on a whole different level of knowing.

But are you actually going through the mystery of the Resurrection with Christ or are you have subjective, chemically induced mystical experiences that borrow Christian symbolism? What you take away from Christianity is different than what a Catholic or Orthodox mystic would take from it, which is different again than what a Pentecostal might. If you all have very specific special knowledge derived from direct divine revelation, and all that knowledge is mutually exclusive, then there is a problem.

Interesting, yes, but I don’t buy that argument. The mystery is alive and vibrant in a cosmic wide reach and can be experienced, lived and brought into ones Heart and Soul. But that's hard to understand until a person actually goes through the process. I’m unable to see how having “access” reaches the wisdom gained that a nondulity experience can bring into a person.

We may be defining "nondualism" differently. You seem to be sweeping the entirety of mysticism under that label, and I am referring specifically to the identification of the self with God and rejection of individuality as illusory. You do not need to be a nondualist to have mystical experiences.

Not to mention that nondualism is often lifted out of its historical context by westerners in the New Age to create a religion of the self no different from the surrounding culture's consumerism.

Oh, yes. I don't think this is a strike against Advaita Vedanta, which is definitely interesting in its own right, but our culture is getting really Gnostic, pulling things in from various different sources and mashing them together with a dash of esotericism. It's intriguingly 4th century.

 

[dlamberth]

But are you actually going through the mystery of the Resurrection with Christ or are you have subjective, chemically induced mystical experiences that borrow Christian symbolism? What you take away from Christianity is different than what a Catholic or Orthodox mystic would take from it, which is different again than what a Pentecostal might. If you all have very specific special knowledge derived from direct divine revelation, and all that knowledge is mutually exclusive, then there is a problem.

The trick for nonduality is to take away all of that stuff...every single bit of it, and than dive in. Nonduality is not at all about symbolism or even knowledge. What's gained is wisdom. But I also think your spot on that if wisdom gained in a mystical experience is exclusive, than there is a pretty big problem there.

...... I am referring specifically to the identification of the self with God and rejection of individuality as illusory.

I've read about people like that. But they are very rare. I'm finishing up the last pages of Papa Ramdas's book "In the Vision of God". It's been a great read. I've learned a lot from it. I guess one could say Ramdas fits your description of a person that you imaged, but even he understood the individual.

When seeing your comment, the question that rises for me is what "is" the individual? My ego? My soul? My skin? God? ...Anymore I lean heavenly towards "Consciousness".

In my spiritual world I know hundreds and hundreds of people who work from the perspective of nonduality. Not a single one fits your description. The common thinking among us is that we perceive all of this physical world as an illusion, but it's a Real Illusion that we live in, dance with, sing to, celebrate and is Sacred. We all work with the awareness that in Unity there is also Division. And that Division is what makes Unity Whole and One.

The Human Being is capable of knowing both the finite and infinite. Those rare people your focused on sink into the infinite. And when I come across them, I find that I learn a great deal from them. But I also find myself in this world with them.

You do not need to be a nondualist to have mystical experiences.

True, but I'd argue that all mystical experiences ARE nondualist in nature. Otherwise we are talking about something other than mysticism.

... but our culture is getting really Gnostic, pulling things in from various different sources and mashing them together with a dash of esotericism. It's intriguingly 4th century.

I think that getting into gnosticism is a huge plus for our society and absolutely needs to be incorporated into our culture even more so. I welcome it with arms wide! Things like empathy and compassion and concern for the Earth would bubble up a lot more if that were to happen.

 

[Silmarien]

I've read about people like that. But they are very rare. I'm finishing up the last pages of Papa Ramdas's book "In the Vision of God". It's been a great read. I've learned a lot from it. I guess one could say Ramdas fits your description of a person that you imaged, but even he understood the individual.

Swami Ramdas was apparently a visishtadvaitin, not a pure advaitin, so it would make sense that he viewed the individual as in some way important. I'm quite explicitly talking about Advaita Vedanta and genuine philosophical nondualism--this is obviously a prestigious and deeply influential tradition within Hinduism and not in any way some rare and obscure doctrine. I'm not sure how you're using the word "nondualism," but I'm using it in the context of Vedanta, where there is a debate between strict nondualism and alternatives.

When seeing your comment, the question that rises for me is what "is" the individual? My ego? My soul? My skin? God? ...Anymore I lean heavenly towards "Consciousness".

Yes, this is where I think Vedanta goes wrong. I would view consciousness as a partaking in the divine life, so to speak, and so veer close to nondualism, but I do not see consciousness as the self. I would consider the self something that we create day by day by virtue of embodied existence and engagement with the world, something that has more to do with action and choices and will than with mind or body or limitless awareness.

True, but I'd argue that all mystical experiences ARE nondualist in nature. Otherwise we are talking about something other than mysticism.

Which is why the concept of Knowledge De Se is interesting. A sense of union with God and the rest of reality does not actually mean that there is no ontological distinction between the self and the divine. A Palamist distinction between essence and energies would probably also be a way to account for nondual intuitions without erasing the distinction between God and Creation.

I think that getting into gnosticism is a huge plus for our society and absolutely needs to be incorporated into our culture even more so. I welcome it with arms wide! Things like empathy and compassion and concern for the Earth would bubble up a lot more if that were to happen.

I find it shallow and egocentric, and I honestly think it's the last thing we need (well, aside from the ugly side of fundamentalism). If people want to genuinely commit to Eastern philosophical paths, they should go find an actual guru and do it correctly, not pull whatever catches their attention out of context and jerry-rig their own religion.

Statistics also say that the spiritual but not religious community has higher levels of mental illness than the religious or atheistic ones, so I have some serious doubts concerning how healthy it really is.

 

[dlamberth]

I find it shallow and egocentric, and I honestly think it's the last thing we need (well, aside from the ugly side of fundamentalism). If people want to genuinely commit to Eastern philosophical paths, they should go find an actual guru and do it correctly, not pull whatever catches their attention out of context and jerry-rig their own religion.

I'm finding you very interesting. I'm not agreeing with you much, but I'm learning. So I thank you for this conversation. It's been helpful for me. Now something else that you brought up. I don't understand how gnosticism is an exclusive Eastern way. I know for myself I first learned gnosticism from Christians. Sufies call themselves "gnostics". American Indian spirituality has gnosticism deep within it. The Quero's of Peru is a basically gnostic tradition, so I'd assume the Inca's were as well. Gnosticsm runs deep in most all indigenous cultures. Gnosticm is a key approach for mystics world wide. But than we're back to nonduality?

And, I have no idea where the idea comes from that gnosticism is shallow and egocenntric. Maybe explain that? It's one of the ways that Human Beings learn things. Your the first I've come across that has expressed those feelings. Most just don't understand and think of Christian Gnosticism, which is something different.

Where I do agree with you in all of this is that no matter the spiritual trajectory, a teacher or spiritual guide is quite helpful when exploring the mystery.

 

[Silmarien]

And, I have no idea where the idea comes from that gnosticism is shallow and egocenntric. Maybe explain that? It's one of the ways that Human Beings learn things. Your the first I've come across that has expressed those feelings. Most just don't understand and think of Christian Gnosticism, which is something different.

When I use the word "gnosticism," I'm thinking specifically about the type of esoteric syncretism that showed up in the Greco-Roman world, borrowing wildly from Christianity, Platonism, and any number of eastern practices. And there are modern spiritual tendencies that are almost a carbon copy of this--a Course in Miracles comes to mind.

We suffer from an acute case of orientalism in the West. Anything that comes from the east fascinates us, and we seem to view it as a purer form of spirituality simply because it is Other. And so we flirt with Sufism, Buddhism, or Hinduism, dragging them out of their cultural context, wrapping them up nicely, putting them up for sale. I think there's something deeply egotistic about this, since the key aspect of any spiritual path is humility, and that isn't something you can develop if you're cutting corners, taking your spiritual practices out of the closet when it suits you and ignoring them when it doesn't. We commercialize, compartmentalize, and secularize.

It's the sort of disorganized, narcissistic quest for enlightenment and secret knowledge that characterized Christian Gnosticism that I see as a modern phenomenon as well. I'm not talking about things like American Indian spirituality.

 

[dlamberth]

And so we flirt with Sufism, Buddhism, or Hinduism, dragging them out of their cultural context, wrapping them up nicely, putting them up for sale.

Of these three, one that you mentioned is the main path I follow. The other two I also actively bring into my life as well. It's through the window of nonduality where I've been able to bring in the wisdom from each of them. For myself, I point out the trajectory of my spiritual goal by asking: "What does it mean to be a more human, Human Being". It's a path with out much ego, in fact ego gets into the way, and it can get really, really deep. It's pretty exciting actually. But I've been doing this for over 35 years. Anyway, at this point to me from what I've seen and experienced, in my life anyway, it seems to me that your being overly harsh in your perspective of gnosticism. But I don't know what life experiences your drawing from so maybe I'm being unfair.

 

[Silmarien]

Of these three, one that you mentioned is the main path I follow. The other two I also actively bring into my life as well. It's through the window of nonduality where I've been able to bring in the wisdom from each of them. For myself, I point out the trajectory of my spiritual goal by asking: "What does it mean to be a more human, Human Being". It's a path with out much ego, in fact ego gets into the way, and it can get really, really deep. It's pretty exciting actually. But I've been doing this for over 35 years. Anyway, at this point to me from what I've seen and experienced, in my life anyway, it seems to me that your being overly harsh in your perspective of gnosticism. But I don't know what life experiences your drawing from so maybe I'm being unfair.

My problem isn't with Sufism, Buddhism, or Hinduism. It's with the West's consumeristic obsession with these traditions.

My only issue with gnosticism in general is the insistence that subjective mystical experiences lead to authentic knowledge concerning the nature of reality itself. I think contemplative practices are healthy in moderation, but training your brain in a discipline doesn't ensure that your experiences will match up to objective reality.

 

[dlamberth]

My problem isn't with Sufism, Buddhism, or Hinduism. It's with the West's consumeristic obsession with these traditions.

I think my problem here with totally agreeing with you is that I'm looking from the inside of those traditions and seeing how the people within act. People who fit your descriptions don't stay long in those spiritual paths. That's because none of those religions them fit into a materialistic mind set. I used the word "materialistic" rather than "consumerism" because I see no difference. At the same time, I'm totally convinced that our society gains from the influenced by all of those spiritual traditions, even if there is some consumerism over flow. I'm laughing because I say that knowing that I'm a minimalist and believe that our consumer society is determinable to the Earth and everything on it. So there's a bit of irony there as I sit here laughing at myself.

My only issue with gnosticism in general is the insistence that subjective mystical experiences lead to authentic knowledge concerning the nature of reality itself. I think contemplative practices are healthy in moderation, but training your brain in a discipline doesn't ensure that your experiences will match up to objective reality.

It's my belief that Christ is best known via a gnostic experience of the "Heart of Christ". Does that experience fit any objective mode? Absolutely not. But it does have a way of opening a person to aspects of Christ that can come from no other manor. And that's important. So I see it in a different way than you. I have absolutely no problem with subjective experiences, even if a person insist their experience is the authentic reality. I don't live for them I've got my own thing going on. And is it ever subjective! You would have a heyday tearing it apart.

Love is the greatest of subjective examples and I have even less of a problem with the power of Love, even as subjective as it is. And then I ask, so what if a persons gnostic experiences do not match up with objective reality? If they get something out of it, more power to them. But than I'm up against the question of "what IS subjective reality? Over the years of my life reality has changed substantually for me. Sometimes solid, sometimes not so much, but ever changing.

 

[TheOldWays]

but training your brain in a discipline doesn't ensure that your experiences will match up to objective reality.

they can possibly allow you to view reality with less bias towards your held or once held (not so easy to leave those behind!) worldviews, which in the end helps destroy those bias and you can begin to see and except the world for what it is. It loosens the grip so to speak.

 

[TheOldWays]

My problem isn't with Sufism, Buddhism, or Hinduism. It's with the West's consumeristic obsession with these traditions.

every path that reaches the west is 'consumerized'. One just has to take what's useful from a path and leave the junk behind.