1. being-in-love and being beloved as indispensable realizations for our
journey to authenticity ... yes ... the consummation of lonergan's series of
imperatives
while buddhists are not w/o such realizations vis a vis their mutual
encounter of one another (yes, as unique personal identities even though
dynamic, fluid & processive rather than static, essentialistic & substantival),
one can see the efficacy, in pxnty, of similarly relating to ultimate reality (
one way to measure this efficacy might be as a relational value that is
augmented precisely in terms of an enhanced ego-self axis alignment as
realized by virtue of an amplified numinous encounter, amplified, that is,
by being intersubjective as well as intraobjective)
such self-axis alignment value augmentations via numinous experience
amplifications are not likely wholly lost (maybe not even overly
diminished) on eastern traditions, however, due to their prominent
devotional practices & objects, which include buddha(s), devas,
boddhisatvas and sangha, all in a rather extensive iconographic &
hagiographic context that expresses gratitude and aspires to virtuous
emulation
again, i think we can risk overstating the practical implications of these
inter-faith conceptual distinctions vis a vis our comparative formative
spiritualitues and various individuation paradigms
a glossary might be helpful in better mapping concepts across traditions
namaste,
jb
the empirical self is not denied only a metaphysical self; empirical
personal identity is not in jeopardy only the essentialistic, substantival
version; soul is okay phenomenologically just needn't be metaphysical,
could be construed, for example, physicalistically, w/no violence done to
essential pxn dogma; i think you imagine the buddhists to be denying the
empirical self but the no-self description is adjectival not ontological, iow,
they affirm continuity of identity but deny that it is static rather than
dynamic; if you don't parse and disambiguate this properly you will
engage a caricature (e.g. that no-self denies csc)
as far as predicating the personal of God, i was affirming the apophatic and
kataphatic and differentiating between the univocal, equivocal, analogical
and metaphorical - some of those predications are the same between pxnty
& buddhism but obviously not all
hope this helps
pax!
1

2. jb
the practical takeaway from the neither self nor no-self a/c of such as
buddhism(s) & deacon's peircean semiotic emergent a/c, then, is that we
don't have a metaphysical self; but the empirical self in our
phenomenological a/c suffices for all practical purposes
one needn't go as far as either buddhism or physicalism (i still remain
metaphysically agnostic but provisionally close as a nonreductive
physicalist)
and this applies to all the traditions, which, like pxnty, should remain in
search of a metaphysic, need have no root metaphor, can function quite
well with common sense understandings and phenomenology of essential
dogma w/o overexplaining them w/systems talk, which eventually &
inevitably collapses in incommensurabilities and self-contradictions
we don't want to conflate pxnty w/robustly metaphysical concepts b/c
when the ontology is found wanting the doctrines get called into question &
they needn't be b/c they are immune to such critique methodologically
iow, buddhism, for all of its metaphysical reticence and silence re primal
ontological realities, abandons its own counsel when it comes to teleological
realities
pxnty advances resurrection as an essentially theological doctrine but
buddhism, b/c it is nontheistic, necessarily must be making what are
essentially metaphysical assertions re our personal afterlife destiny?
as a buddhist, then, kw is predisposed (stuck really) w/his methodological
conflations, saying more than we could possibly know positivistically &
philosophically (cf helminiak)
pxnty asserts more, too, but we recognize our leap past positivist &
philosophic horizons, beyond the descriptive and normative to the
interpretive, beyond the certain and probable to the plausible
if kw is a self-described panentheist, he obviously wouldn't parse it as an
indwelling but as the whole (One) being > sum of its parts (the Many) or
as a pan-entheism vs our panen-theism
getting the ego-self axis better aligned via numinous experience and/or
spiritual practices is a topic we can engage (describe and norm)
empirically via neuroscience and psychology and then interpret
metaphysically and/or theologically; here the dialogue between buddhist
and western psychology comes to bear (and jung engaged buddhism as a
theosophical caricature, unfortunately) ... i have read some comparisons
between psychotherapy and buddhist psychology but not much more ...
exactly how we should treat ego consciousness (e.g. to what extent
buddhists discourage it, as you suggest) on the way to transcendence,
2

3. individuation and or lonerganian conversion is something that's pivotal and
worthy of some good compare & contrast analyses ... good point
it is unfortunate that the phraseology of false self was ever employed or that
dualist and nondualist approaches were ever presented in an over against
way or that any of the furnishings of our epistemic suite were differentiated
in a normative and/or evaluative hierarchy rather than affirmed holistically
& integrally as indispensable gifts fr a generously donative reality
the questions in my 1st paragraph were posed to probe what you thought
buddhism was saying re: same and not what you thought
BUT your response delivered some useful clarifications re your own
approach
have you given any thought to treating the relationships of self and ego to
world and other? may provide useful foils to further elucidate distinctions
between ego-self and ego-God and so on (we discussed this in prior
correspondence if you can find it)
you will likely find several references to terry deacon in my old splace
contributions; my own approach is consonant w/his work, which would see
our sense of self as a language-dependent phenomenon = symbolic selfreference, which is an emergent reality that i suspect is physical not
metaphysical but that's not a sticking point if we deal with ego, self and
other phenomenologically
the sense of self in our nonreductive physicalism is pretty much consonant
w/buddhist thinking in that self is not essentialist or substantial or soulderived but merely an intellectual construct (yet still an empirical reality),
a useful fiction, so to speak, but this does not entail, in either buddhism or
in the physicalist account (both nondual), the goal of dissolving the ego,
rather, per both jungian and buddhist accounts, our ego-centric
orientation can be transcended by our encounters with the numinous,
which then better aligns the functioning of ego with self in a more
robust ego-self axis, a transcendence, so to speak
there are different takes w/in buddhism but generally the interpretation
would be the typical 'neither self nor no-self' revealing, very crudely, that
the buddha eschewed substance but embraced process metaphysics (that's
uniquely MY hyperbole)
we're talking fluid and dynamic but not static and essentialistic, not so fluid,
however, that identity or agency get sacrificed
also, the buddha is not atheistic but nontheistic, eschewing talk of origins not only of God but also the nature of a person's being
the buddhist focus is practical and soteriological and not speculative and
3

4. ontological
kw's chain of being resonates with this 'chutes and ladders' approach to
reality but he departs fr buddhism proper when he gets robustly
metaphysical (buddhism is much more vaguely metaphysical and open, in
fact, to amendment, more hypothetical than systematic, hence the dalai
lama's openness to science and evolution)
but the practical takeaway for you is its optimism, an all shall be wellness
that incl personal identity just not a personal God - but even in pxnty God
is neither a person nor not a person
explain what you mean by that deeper metaphysical identity or soul self?
for example, would loved ones recognize each other in successive or afterlifes?
pax, later
jb
yeah, i'm metaphysically agnostic re soul but suspect we are resurrected at
death (discussed on splace previously & cited kung)
i'll send a couple of articles re no self
i'd be pleased to provide appendix material but maybe you could edit
some of what i've already written or you could help me redevelop it
dialogically; i have difficulty writing nowadays except when spurred on by
concrete situations or prompted by others' inquiries
pax, later
jb
ken wilber & monist implications
d'accord re kw's epistemology, which i describe as arational rather than
truly transrational
what happens is, as you say, interdisciplinary lines then blur
the way i say it is that he is being merely inclusive not truly integral
those disciplines have distinct methods so are methodologically
autonomous w/each necessary but none, alone, sufficient to optimally
realize human values, hence they are methodologically autonomous but
axiologically integral
for kw, though, they are each methodologically autonomous AND
axiologically autonomous, iow, yielding WHATEVER
4

5. re nondual stuff - epistemic approach, ontological outlook & phenomenal
realization/experience
for most westerners who 'go there' the nd would be developmentally
ultimate not necessarily axiologically ultimate, meaning it comes last
temporally but that's not the same as being the most highly valued
the unitive intuition perhaps gifts us with HOW we interrelate
(interpersonally) while the unitary speaks to HOW MUCH (intimately) is
the way i like to put it in my vague panSEMIOentheism ... they don't
compete axiologically to me, only complete our theo-ontological
perspectives complementarily
pxns already know about both the interpersonal and intimate nature of our
interrelating fr divine revelation
i don't view buddhism pessimistically
no-self does not entail no personal identity but only no immortal soul (a view
to which i'm inclined)
its not unlike hartshorne's nonstrict identity (i'm also thus inclined)
there's much room, indeed an imperative, for personal development and
salvation (blissful even) for that personal identity, only it is not synchronic
(think static & essentialistic) & substantival but rather diachronic (fluid thru
time) and processive
now, ultimate reality is impersonal but 'friendly' and karma, in part, serves
to impart a type of continuity to personal identity
the buddha is really treating the nature of ultimate reality & persons as
having unfathomable depth dimensions
buddhists are happy & peaceful when authentically practicing, even per
neuroscientific accounts, and don't share your affective disposition toward
monist reality - would not recognize themselves in your account
we can and do appeal to interdisciplinary findings in making our
theological tautologies more taut BUT those are really theologies of nature
and not natural theologies, poetic and not philosophic ventures
those who imagine that those are robustly truth-conducive rather than
merely weakly truth-indicative are kidding themselves, proving too much
BUT they do have some epistemic warrant and are existentially actionable
even when not positivistically conclusive
so, in the end, kw is offering a system but the only way we can profit from it
is as a heuristic device and foil
Sent from my iPhone
5

6. in short, the practical implications of the monist account, in general, and
even buddhist account, in particular, needn't be considered that different
from a phenomenal experience perspective
in fact, the buddha really honors the unfathomable depth dimension of both
ultimate reality & of our personhood, maintaining a respectful silence re
much of their character even though affirming unitary being
authentic buddhist practitioners are some of the happiest and most
peaceful humans alive (consistent w/many neuroscientific studies)
the nd has epistemic and ontological meanings but also refers to
phenomenal experiences, which, as 'realizations,' don't necessarily entail
metaphysical conclusions but rather convey sensibilities of deep solidarity
leading to profound compassion
Sent from my iPhone
practical existential hermeneutic
speculative evidential metaphysic
i used caricature in the sense of purposeful misconstruction via advancing
a strawman as a rhetorical strategy but of course dishonesty is nothing we
could know as you say
but there is another sense whereby, for all practical purposes, his
misinterpretation of any given topic results in his presentation of a mere
caricature and it would be fair to say that he, for example, engages
caricatures of evolution, christology snd such
does that sound reasonable?
as for the unitary vs unitive conceptions of the journey, it is notable that
among billions of practitioners of each approach over thousands of years,
so many, who go deeply, will inevitably share a sense of solidarity coupled
with a response of compassion
while only an insidious indifferentism would suggest that ad majorem dei
gloriam would not be at stake in getting our approaches as true, as good
and as beautiful as practicable, i don't think we risk that vice in observing
that the practical differences between some paths are often way overstated
efficacies of right relationship to self, other, world & god (even if not
conceptually competent) are realized from right practices
orthocommunio results moreso fr orthopathy & orthopraxy and less fr
orthodoxy, such realizations are likely much more implicit than explicit, the
spirit's presence & influence being so generous & profuse, so radically
incarnational
don't need to understand the metaphysics & theology of eucharist or other
6

7. sacraments in order for their celebration to be efficacious, same is true
with energy healing, same is true for a 20 minute sitting
reality IS like the unitary interpretation but also like. the unitive
interpretation, it IS a successful reference though not a successful
description
there IS more to be said literally through apophatic predication but there is
no limit on what can be metaphorically affirmed through kataphatic
affirmation
the western dualistic mindset gets caught up in a zen conundrum re then
there is no mountain b/c it doesn't finish the trialectic w/then there is,
which returns one to the practical plane
the unitary interpretation is but part of the truth but it refers to a LARGE
reality w/enormous existential impetus
the unitive interpretation is the most successful reference to our
intersubjective reality while the unitary refers to our intraobjective
realizations, the former suggesting the essential nature or HOW (intimacy)
of our relationship, the latter suggesting the degree or HOW MUCH
(infinite)
the unitive w/o the unitary leads to deism, while the unitary w/o the unitive
tends to quietism, held in creative tension they refer to created co-creators
Sent from my iPhone
as for the unitary vs unitive conceptions of the journey, it is notable that
among billions of practitioners of each approach over thousands of years
so many, who go deeply, will inevitably share a sense of solidarity coupled
with a response of compassion
while an insidious indifferentism would suggest that ad majorem dei
gloriam would not be at stake in getting our approaches as true, as good
and as beautiful as practicable, i don't think we risk that vice in observing
that the practical differences between some paths are often way overstated
Sent from my iPhone
different of my friends get angry about how others' writings/behaviors
close MANY fr considering the core pxtn msg
some are very angry about various traditionalistic & reactionary catholics
who chase people away - not just nonbelivers, but - incl their coreligionists,
while others focus their anger on various fundamentalistic & evangelical
protestants
i've come to believe that such anger may sometimes precisely reveal a
7

8. charism of prophetic protest, a special calling to prayerfully &
constructively engage a person or topic, that such angry feelings may help
one discern a teaching ministry & fuel it w/passion BUT that the resulting
teaching should be delivered only after that passion transmutes into (a
peace-filled) com-passion for not only the misguided but the misguider
you can see why kung got angry about rahner's coinage of anonymous
pxn? people rightly resist having their beliefs appropriated on others'
terms
pxns can take their apophatic sensibilities & a panentheist theology of
nature and resonate in part w/advaita but strict monists are doctrinally
hamstrung, unable to fully reciprocate in principle
but kw does reach out to differently minded & hearted & believing people,
incl them in both practical & teaching aspects of his ministry making for an
authentically inter-faith environment? it is one thing to reinterpret another's
faith, which i do pneumatologically, myself, but that's not the same as
caricaturizing it, which would preclude dialogue; we don't expect our
dialogue partners to agree with us, only to respect us
a caricature misrepresents what others claim about their faith while an
interpretation appropriates elements of others' faith on one's own terms
i think wilber mis-interprets a lot of stuff (christology, evolution,
consciousness, healing arts, etc) but i don't feel like he's dishonestly
caricaturized others' positions (but i haven't looked into his stuff and others'
critiques enough to say so)
many have been led away from caricatures of pxnty b/c they were raised
on nothing but a caricature; that type of dis- belief is hygienic; if only they
could get introduced to the real mccoy! hopefully, that's us :)
pax,
jb
hey, i think i finished that last thought, but i'm not sure as the oven dinged
and i dropped a pepperoni pizza cheese-down on da flo
Sent from my iPhone
wilber's gift is breadth & synthesis not depth & analysis; he covers
SO much ground; he offers many citations b/c of this breadth but not
many references on each category, so it's not only christianity that
gets short shrift & you'll see, as u look further, that others similarly
complain that this or that religion or science is given short shrift
i sympathize w/ this type of 5ness but i label my grand syntheses as
vague heuristic devices (due to my contrite fallibilism) while he
considers his synthesis as THE grand metanarrative of the cosmos
8

9. he thus appropriates pxnty on his terms w/his categories not its own
even his buddhism is conflated w/his monist ontology and thus
imposes advaita - not only on pxnty, but - other buddhist sects &
eastern traditions, all of which, like pxnty, have no need of any
robust ontology as they are essentially practical existential
hermeneutics not speculative evidential metaphysics
Sent from my iPhone
one wilberian irony that has amused me the most is that, re subtle energy
healing claims 1) he recognizes some efficacies - good, so do i 2) he
denigrates the many half-baked physical & metaphysical explanations good, so do i BUT 3) only b/c they don't coincide w/his own half-baked
metaphysics where consciousness is a primitive (i suspect it is, rather,
emergent, but content to remain agnostic w/sneaking physicalist
suspicions)
kinda funny to me
Sent from my iPhone
yes, my and helminiak's critique is primarily epistemic; having better
developed my own axiological epistemology in more recent years, my
critique would now be more clear & concise; his trans-rational is a-rational
b/c his approach is not robustly integral just merely inclusive, hence aqal
needs to be aqalat where at = all the time, where t= kairos of a full valuerealization not chronos of temporality (i think i posted that already); quite
simple, really ... but rather consequential in that it restrains our
pronouncements (he's WAY TOO free-wheeling, a strength practiced to a
fault, as is our human enneagrammatic tendency)
folks like groothuis and even kreeft are offputting to me b/c they juxtapose
postmodernism w/an almost naive realism and they expect too much of
philosophy and metaphysics, theologically, making their apologetic far too
rationslistic BUT rationalism IS an improvement over arationalism
you know, wilber fits in well w/ID theorists re evolution, which isn't helpful
i don't mind csc lingo and subtle energy paradigms as heuristic devices
but too many gurus employ such literally, which isn't helpful ... but i offer
gentler corrections on such matters, nowadays, i hope
our weather is like kansas storms today, interesting but dangerous!
pax,
jb
remember this one? There was a little girl who had a little curl | Right in
9

10. the middle of her forehead | When she was good, she was very, very good
| And when she was bad she was horrid.
that describes wilber's work
that will continue til he makes the johnboysian corrections that will make
the a/rational truly trans/rational
i'd present helminiak's critique rather than groothuis though (can't fight
metaphysics with metaphysics)
enjoy the equinox, pax!
jb
10