1. quote:
Originally posted by Phil:
quoting JB:
While Zen indeed gifts Christianity, it is true that Christian
contemplation and Zen enlightenment should not be facilely
equated; but neither should they be facilely differentiated in
terms of grace versus nature. Here I may depart from Jim's
paradigm - not necessarily by way of contradiction but by
employing different categories.
JB, I'll pick this part of a post above to reply to, as it's where I intended
to go next with my reflections. I want to take seriously the experience
of Oneness being described, even though the site is somewhat "pop"
in its tone and content. It certainly does give the impression that
nonduality is "procurable," but so do Wilber and Tolle in many of their
teachings. I want to take seriously this matter of an accessible nondual
experience and inquire as to what might be going on.
JB responds:
As I mentioned above, in my view, the spectrum of phenomenal
experiences, East and West, is richly variegated. That there may be an
accessible nondual experience among them sounds reasonable enough but
that description would not exhaust, as I see things, all manner of nondual
engagements with reality, proximate or ultimate, intraobjective identity
or interobjective indeterminacy. When I leap from positivistic science
and normative philosophy to an interpretive theology of nature, I only
employ vague categories. I don't aspire to interpret such things in a
robustly metaphysical manner. My chief concern with the pop-nondualists
is that many seem to consider consciousness a primitive alongside space,
time, mass and energy, or even as THE primitive that grounds reality, itself.
Human consciousness, in my view, is an emergent physicalist reality. In
other words, I reach my impasse with some of these folks long before I
engage them theologically. In my parlance, they seem to refer to an
intrasubjective identity, which, as you know, is NOT one of my
categories.
Does this make sense?
I understand what you are saying but I haven't gotten that determinate or
specific; I don't have a root metaphor, metaphysically (at least not yet) but
you seem to implicitly employ being in a Thomistic sense, which is
certainly one of the best heuristics around.
1

2. quote:
Originally posted by Phil:
It seems to be a given in these discussions that "duality" is a bad thing,
and that experiences of oneness are of a higher order.
JB responds:
Duality is a different thing, indispensable even. Nonduality, variously
presenting as phenomenal experience, ontological or metaphysical
intuition, epistemic approach, aspect of theo-ontology, and so on, does
seem to come later, developmentally, for most folks. Certain aspects of
nonduality are necessary for human value-realizations, but they are not,
alone, sufficient. It doesn't matter in what order certain furnishings of our
axiological suite arrive as long as they get assimilated and carried forward.
I see no reason to subjugate one to the other.
Now, it certainly can be a bad thing to engage an aspect of reality
dualistically when any given value-realization calls for a nondual approach.
Vice versa would be equally unhelpful.
quote:
Originally posted by Phil:
I have known of the oneness of creation and the interdependence of
creatures long before I learned to "tune in" to my nonreflecting
awareness (#2 above), or was given glimpses of cosmic Christic
graces (#3). I learned of this in ecology classes, for example, and my
mind got it! It's demonstrably undeniable that all things are connected,
and we can even tune in to a kind of affective, intimate sense of this as
we read Carl Sagan, for example, or Brian Swimme. The mind has its
own way of knowing and appreciating oneness, and I would submit
that its knowing is of a higher order than nonreflecting awareness.
Our entire epistemic suite is available to intraobjective identity. Recall
Jim's discussions of Maritain's distinctions regarding such as natural
mysticism, intuition of being, philosophical contemplation and so on. It is
helpful, too, to consider lines, states, levels, stages, quadrants and so on.
Also, intellectual, affective, moral, social and religious conversions.
Nondual experiences present across an axiological-epistemic spectrum as
well as along a continuum of intensity; empirical evidence is mounting that
correlates specific brain mechanisms with these experiences as they
present from the mildest aesthetic experience to the most existentially
profound experiences of absolute unitary being. It's a very complex
reality. Pitting the dualistic problem-solving and nondual non-reflective
2

3. awareness one against the other misses the whole point of integrality,
which esteems reasons of the heart and of the mind.
Too much focus on these phenomenal experiences misses an even larger
point, which is Lonergan's account of authenticity, self-transcendence
and conversion. As I mentioned yesterday, in an earlier post, the unitive
way is always marked by heroic virtue but many, maybe even most, of the
virtuous are neither mystics nor contemplatives, so theosis vis a vis
authenticity, self-transcendence and conversion is the chief criterion we
should employ in evaluating spiritual paths and praxes. What Lonergan
calls conversion is not mystical prayer, which may or may not even be
involved (neither that of East or West). And religious self-transcendence
has parallels in Christian, Hindu and Buddhist traditions (as well as many
others) not just in my polydoxic account but per Lonergan's account.
The more pertinent question, then, to ask of our traditions, and even of
their quasi- and -oidish pop-iterations, is less so what happens during your
20 minute sitting over a 20 year period and very much more so have you
fostered religious conversion? and religious love? which, universally, is
the mission and gift of the Holy Spirit in joy, in peace and a love of
neighbor, which is known by our fruits.
3