1. Shalom Place Community
Nondual Christianity - what could THAT possibly entail?
This topic can be found at:
http://shalomplace.org/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/15110765/m/614408711
8
18 December 2011, 04:17 PM
johnboy.philothea
Nondual Christianity - what could THAT possibly entail?
quote:
Originally posted by Phil:
Finally, there is another approach you did not mention:
subject-to-object. E.g., I have a relationship with many
objects, like my iMac, which I dearly love. Smiler But it is
obviously just an object and cannot enter into an inter-
subjective relationship with me. I do feel connection with it,
however, as I do the birds that come to my feeder, the sky,
trees, etc. This is not the kind of intrapersonal resonance
with reality you mentioned above. My Ego is still quite
intact, and yet there I am reaching out with my consciousness
to apprehend and appreciate other "objects." See what I mean?
What would this be called. Inter-sub/objectivity?
If you look at my graphic, you'll see that the intra-
objective, intra-subjective and inter-subjective are aspects
of phenomenology. For the most part, when humans "accomplish"
subject-object cleavage, that's the very essence of
epistemology and is primarily how we go about problem-solving
: describing, evaluating, norming and interpreting reality.
This subject-object cleavage is the hallmark of dualistic
thinking and where it gets its name as we divide the whole and
distinguish its parts.
Our dualistic approach is MERE problem-solving and our nondual
approach is problem-solving PLUS . The nondual sleight of
hand, here, whether we are talking anthropology,
phenomenology, axiology, epistemology or theology, involves
our use of a mediating thirdness. In this sense, our nondual
tripartite anthropology , triadic phenomenology, trialectical
axiology, trialogical epistemology and trinitarian theology do
all represent a higher value realization across the board,
existentially, as, in each case, we go beyond but not without
or transcend but include.
Unfortunately, this is not what many nondual teachers
advocate. Their mistake is rather straightforward: even though
they may say they are transrational, what they are doing is
(ironically, dualistically) according the nondual both an
axiological primacy and an axiological autonomy, which, as I
see it, makes their approach arational . What we are saying,
rather, is that, while the nondual does, indeed, enjoy an
axiological primacy (being the most valuable moment in our
various hermeneutical cycles, epistemically), it is also
1

2. axiologically integral (does not realize its value apart from
the other approaches, being autonomous only in a
methodological sense).
That's straightforward but not simple. Put another way, the
nondual moment is a necessary but not sufficient element of
our nondual approach. Unless properly integrated with our
problem-solving, dualistic approach, our distinctly human
values will not be realized. The nondual moment is but one
note in our nondual epistemic symphony. (Cf. Phil's discussion
above re: Lonergan)
18 December 2011, 04:22 PM
johnboy.philothea
re: the intra-subjective integrity
I equate that with Lonergan's conversions as expanded by Don
Gelpi: intellectual, affective, moral, socio-political and
religious. Think, here, of Fowler's faith development,
Kohlberg's moral development, Erikson's personality
development, Maslow's hierarchy and other stage and
development theories. Think classical formative spirituality:
purgative, illuminative and unitive paths.
Keep in mind that I am not setting forth a systematic approach
only a heuristic account, providing some conceptual
placeholders, disambiguating some terms, mapping some
concepts, categorizing reality, introducing some alternative
language, stimulating some conversations, hopefully.
18 December 2011, 04:50 PM
pop-pop
Per Johnboy, a few posts back:
“What is more so at stake, rather, is our possible realization
of superabundance , which is to suggest that the onus is on
various religious practitioners to demonstrate that they can
journey toward transformation (human authenticity) much more
swiftly and with much less hindrance precisely because of
their formative spiritualities.”
Statements like that typically send me into desolation; which
then, for me anyway, once again required a saddling up and
some time on the Ponderosa – and it was cold out there.
I hates that desolation stuff, let me tell you – even more
than the cold. It was the onus that created the onus. Kind of
like the proverbial ‘putting a burr under my saddle’ (though I
hadn’t even saddled up).
So I’m loping along and asking myself: Is the journey toward
transformation (human authenticity) really the highest goal?
Or is the journey toward union with God? Is the journey – like
the US Army advertises – being all that one can be? Is the
journey about me realizing me in all my fullness? Or is God
somehow in play? Is not the goal being with God, being in God,
with His sap in me, my obedience in Him?
Perhaps we can be there (in God) more swiftly and with less
2

3. hindrance than our realization of transformation and human
authenticity. Perhaps we can be there by our mere desiring –
even before the realizing of the fullness of our human
transformation, even whilst realizing quite deeply the reality
of our profound dysfunction and our inability to eliminate it.
Perhaps many, nay most, of our forbears had never realized
full human authenticity and human liberation, yet were by
their obedient surrender and grafting into and remaining in
the vine growing heavenward powered by a supernatural kind of
sap…. somehow …already there (at the goal, truly) -- despite
not at the highest level of human psychological growth as
psychologists would term is the goal.
Perhaps our forbears and indeed even we ourselves can be
‘there’ kind of by a miraculous grace, one might viably say.
Hey, perhaps that’s -- the GOOD NEWS.
Perhaps it’s that serpent again: saying, “Did God really say
that?” (Is being in, and remaining in the vine is what
glorifies the Father?)
Does John 15 speak about human authenticity per se? “He who
brings himself to naught for Me discovers who he is” Jesus
said.
Perhaps many martyrs even had not advanced all that far along
on their journey toward transformation (in terms of human
authenticity) and yet were quite far along in the journey that
pleases God.
Certainly, as the saint says: “The glory of God is man fully
alive”. I believe that with all my heart. But I hate onus and
its attendant accusatory and sulphurous fragrance -- despite
being somewhat of a feist myself (as the Old English and their
epistemological groupies might say).
I like much of what Johnboy has posted, but I react to onus
stuff. A Christian need not have to ‘demonstrate’ anything to
anyone -- swiftness or otherwise.
‘Remain in Me’, the Lord says. That works for Him…...that
should work for us.
Pop-pop
18 December 2011, 06:34 PM
johnboy.philothea
quote:
Originally posted by pop-pop:
Per Johnboy, a few posts back:
“What is more so at stake, rather, is our possible
realization of superabundance , which is to suggest that the
onus is on various religious practitioners to demonstrate that
they can journey toward transformation (human authenticity)
much more swiftly and with much less hindrance precisely
because of their formative spiritualities.”
3

4. Statements like that typically send me into desolation;
which then, for me anyway, once again required a saddling up
and some time on the Ponderosa – and it was cold out there.
I hates that desolation stuff, let me tell you – even more
than the cold. It was the onus that created the onus. Kind of
like the proverbial ‘putting a burr under my saddle’ (though I
hadn’t even saddled up).
Listen, I can hear Willie Nelson: ♫♪ Why do I have to choose?
See everybody lose! Walk 'round and sing the blues? Well,
darlin', I refuse! ♬
quote:
Originally posted by pop-pop:
So I’m loping along and asking myself: Is the journey
toward transformation (human authenticity) really the highest
goal? Or is the journey toward union with God? Is the journey
– like the US Army advertises – being all that one can be? Is
the journey about me realizing me in all my fullness? Or is
God somehow in play? Is not the goal being with God, being in
God, with His sap in me, my obedience in Him?
For those of us who imagine that humanization IS divinization,
we're talking 'bout one and the same cattle drive!
quote:
Originally posted by pop-pop: Perhaps our forbears and
indeed even we ourselves can be ‘there’ kind of by a
miraculous grace, one might viably say. Hey, perhaps that’s --
the GOOD NEWS.
Indeed, the journey up Mt. Carmel is an Assumption and not an
Ascension!
quote:
Originally posted by pop-pop: I like much of what Johnboy
has posted, but I react to onus stuff. A Christian need not
have to ‘demonstrate’ anything to anyone -- swiftness or
otherwise.
For all practical purposes, I am a universalist for whom any
onus would be moronic (of the oxy- variety)!
Yet, the question remains begging - n'est pas? - as to what in
the world I was saying, then!
4

5. Because churches institutionalize Lonergan's conversions
(human authenticity), we might, in theory, try to gauge how
successful they are in that regard because that might help us
adjudicate between some of the competing claims of different
traditions. The way the theological guild says this is that
orthopraxis authenticates orthodoxy. So, that's a suggested
ecclesiological norm for fallibly discerning the fruits of the
Spirit (or lack thereof) from one believing community to the
next and not, rather, an obligation of any given believer. At
the same time, to the extent one aspires to engage in
apologetics of any sort, proselytizing others, one's implicit
demonstration of ongoing conversion might emerge as a self-
imposed onus?
And this is why I also wrote, though you may not have gotten
that far in the thread yet:
quote:
Originally posted by johnboy: We certainly need a modicum
of intra-subjective integrity vis a vis human authenticity to
enjoy beatitude but, in the end, how much we grow or how holy
we get is very much God's affair . Beyond that, in my view,
both now and forever, the experience of the inter-subjective ,
both vis a vis our primary beatitude of being happy with God
and our secondary beatitude of being happy with our fellow
creatures, is our highest good and to be most highly valued.
Our experience of unitary being vis a vis a realization of our
intra-objective identity will certainly round out and enhance
our other experiences integrally and holistically and can even
protect us from certain errors (overly dialectical
imagination, deism, rationalism, pietism, etc).
So, neither Lonerganian conversions/human authenticity (intra-
subjective integrity) nor Enlightenment (intra-objective
identity) are our summum bonum or highest good, which is the
unitive life (inter-subjective intimacy), a free gift.
That we may move in superabundance, more swiftly and with less
hindrance, or even grow in authenticity or even experience
Enlightenment is no necessary spiritual aspiration (cf. Litany
of Humility - That others may become holier than I, provided
that I may become as holy as I should… ), in and of itself,
but instead might entail, among other aspirations, a surrender
to divine providence, a cooperation with the holy Spirit, out
of compassion for those who may otherwise have to suffer our
unconverted, unenlightened selves (as Teresa suggested: Let us
desire and occupy ourselves in prayer - not so much for the
consolations we may receive, but - to gain the strength to
serve. - or something like that, which was my paraphrase of
her sentiment that The water is for the flowers. )
Meanwhile, ♫♪ the shadows sway and seem to say tonight we pray
for water, cool water. And way up there He'll hear our prayer
and show us where there's water, cool water. ♬
5

6. Thanks for the spirited engagement, pop-pop.
pax,
jb
This message has been edited. Last edited by:
johnboy.philothea, 19 December 2011 12:40 PM
19 December 2011, 12:52 AM
johnboy.philothea
More on Lonergan's Conversions
The authenticity is reached by conversion which in turn is
reached by self-transcendence in an ongoing process. As
mentioned previously, one is responding (transcending self) to
having first been loved (divinely). So, this religious
conversion is a two-step dance. Having been loved
unqualifiedly, I start loving, more and more through time, in
the same way.
Thus gifted, I begin to gift others in return by cooperating
with that gifting, which is nothing less than the activity
(mission) of the Holy Spirit.
The more we cooperate with that gift which was given freely,
apart from anything we have ever known (or been educated to)
or ever done (whether an ascetical practice or moral deed),
the stronger our own unqualified loving and the more evident
our cooperation with the Holy Spirit vis a vis beatitudes
(Matthew 5), corporal works of mercy (Matthew 25), spiritual
works of mercy (throughout the 4 Gospels), charismatic gifts
for community (Romans 12 & 1 Corinthians 12), gifts of the
Spirit for personal sanctification (wisdom, understanding,
counsel, fortitude, knowledge, reverence, wonder & awe),
fruits of the Spirit (love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness,
goodness, faithfulness, gentleness & self-control -Galatians
5), theological virtues (faith, hope & love - 1 Corinthians
13) and cardinal virtues (justice, prudence, fortitude &
temperance).
To the extent, then, that conversion has been successfully
institutionalized (not only via an explicitly Christian
anthropology, theology, pneumatology, ecclesiology,
sacramentology, soteriology & eschatology but anywhere, in
anyone and in whatever manner) in a community or realized in
individuals, of course to varying degrees, all of this gifting
will manifest (the greatest of such gifting being love, which
is patient, kind, neither envious nor boastful nor self-
seeking nor easily angered but rejoicing always with the
truth, always protecting, trusting, hoping and persevering).
And all of this gifting will foster ongoing intellectual,
affective, moral, socio-political and religious conversions
via what Gelpi called grace as transmuted experience.
From this less than causal observer, these processes are
rather, in a word, messy! These conversions don't present
symmetrically, which is to recognize that growth in one area
will not necessarily indicate growth in other areas but, at
6

7. the same time, will generally tend to foster and mutually
support growth in other areas of one's spiritual life.
Charismatic gifts tend to be spread among different members of
a community, not all being gifted to one person and so on.
May the Spirit abide with you in great shalom!
jb
19 December 2011, 01:36 PM
Brad
Congratulations on your new site, Phil. Make that a “non-dual”
congrats. And you should know that Johnboy is a superb
publicist. I don't know if this thread is a part of that, but
just wanted to make mention.
19 December 2011, 02:40 PM
Phil
Hi Brad. Yes, the forums in this category are now an
extension, of sorts, of philothea.net. JB has a subdomain
worth checking out. I hope you will drop in here and on the
blog to gift us with your insights.
19 December 2011, 02:56 PM
Phil
quote:
We certainly need a modicum of intra-subjective integrity
vis a vis human authenticity to enjoy beatitude but, in the
end, how much we grow or how holy we get is very much God's
affair . Beyond that, in my view, both now and forever, the
experience of the inter-subjective , both vis a vis our
primary beatitude of being happy with God and our secondary
beatitude of being happy with our fellow creatures, is our
highest good and to be most highly valued. Our experience of
unitary being vis a vis a realization of our intra-objective
identity will certainly round out and enhance our other
experiences integrally and holistically and can even protect
us from certain errors (overly dialectical imagination, deism,
rationalism, pietism, etc).
JB, that was certainly worth repeating, and I completely
agree. I would add that intra-subjective integrity seems to go
hand-in-hand with intersubjective spirituality/mysticism --
that you can't really have one without the other. So many
times it seems that intra-subjective work enables a deeper
relationship with God, and vice versa.
Re. the intra-objective, I still have mixed feelings. It
might, as you noted, help to guard against certain errors, but
it also opens the door to others, especially if it is
emphasized too strongly. We've already noted the possibility
of a certain anti-intellectualism and the discouragement of
(dualistic) intersubjective spirituality. It can even bring
psychological damage if the Ego is denigrated, and it can
surely negate the value of kataphatic approaches as means for
a real encounter with God. So while the isms you mention above
along with others like moralism and dogmatism have been and
still are a problem in "the West" with its strong inter-
7

8. subjective emphases, there is likewise a shadow side to
approaches that are overly intra-objective (e.g., quietism,
premature kundalini arousal/awakening, psychological
imbalances, disaffectivity, radical apophaticism). Indeed,
there's little about intra-objective spirituality that seems
naturally suited to the ordinary functioning of our
consciousness, and I wonder if it's not a seeking after an
experience that is not good for us. It's certainly difficult
to earnestly pursue this kind of spirituality alongside the
other approaches you mention, as it seems to have the effect
of undercutting them in some ways.
19 December 2011, 08:27 PM
johnboy.philothea
What we have going on in that diagram with the super-
categories of people, relationships, values, methods and
hermeneutics is what I would like to call an axiological
spiral , which is analogous to the notion of a hermeneutical
spiral , such as we have within the category of methods where
the normative mediates between the descriptive and
interpretive to effect the evaluative. Or, one might say that
the philosophic mediates between the positivist and the
theistic to effect the theotic (thinking here of Helminiak's
approach to Lonergan).
There are different versions of a hermeneutical spiral that
are at work in Biblical exegesis vis a vis the senses of
Scripture. One could look at Pope Benedict's analysis of the
tension between a Thomist knowledge and a Scotist praxis and
say, with Bonaventure, that Wisdom mediates between knowledge
and practice to effect Love. We could say that, often, not
always, orthopathy or cult mediates between orthodoxy or creed
and orthopraxy or code to effect orthocommunio or community
The examples are endless, really.
In our axiological spiral , methods mediate between persons
and hermeneutics to realize values in relationships. There are
creative tensions that exist in each moment of these value-
realization movements.
To use a music analogy, we might say that each moment
(methods, persons, hermeneutics, values & relationships) is a
different note on the scale forming part of a symphonic
axiological movement. Some are high notes; others are low
notes. Some are quarter notes; others are half notes. Some
increase in loud crescendo while others contribute in soft
pianissimo. Now, this axiological spiral is in play for the
value-realizations that are to be derived in each type of
relationship during this symphony, each contributing
integrally to the whole, all necessary and none, alone,
sufficient. None of this is to suggest, however, that the
prescribed amount of emphasis required in order to avoid
either an over- or under-emphasis will necessarily and a
priori be the same for each moment! To achieve harmonic
balance and symphonic excellence, we manifestly would not make
every note a quarter note! To change metaphors, when we
suggest that each ingredient in a given recipe is
indispensable, we are not at all suggesting they be stirred
8

9. into the pot in equal amounts! Sometimes, it's a cup of this,
a pinch of that or a dash of the other.
So, when we inventory all of the insidious ISM's - pietism,
encratism, quietism, radical apophaticism, rationalism,
arationalism, irrationalism, fideism, ritualism, legalism,
dogmatism and so on, we are not suggesting that they result
from such a lack of balance as would derive from not giving
every moment in a hermeneutical or axiological spiral movement
equal emphasis, equal time, equal say. Or to provide every
ingredient in equal amounts. I won't flesh out this metaphor
but will leave it as an imaginative tool for anyone who wants
to employ it.
quote:
Originally posted by Phil: I would add that intra-
subjective integrity seems to go hand-in-hand with
intersubjective spirituality/mysticism -- that you can't
really have one without the other. So many times it seems that
intra-subjective work enables a deeper relationship with God,
and vice versa.
That was my implication with the understanding that hand-in-
hand needs to be nuanced along the lines of what I discussed
above and in the context that was well-presented by pop-pop.
There are astounding asymmetries and exceptionalities that
present courtesy of what appears to us to often be a holy but
unruly Spirit! reminding us of Who is sovereign. Still,
normatively, that does seem to be the general rule and we do
have to rely on ordinary patterns of behavior as fallibly
truth-indicative in our communal discernment processes.
quote:
Originally posted by Phil: Re. the intra-objective, I
still have mixed feelings. It might, as you noted, help to
guard against certain errors, but it also opens the door to
others, especially if it is emphasized too strongly.
That is the general point regarding various over- and under-
emphases of ANY moment. An over-emphasis on 1) the inter-
objective results in a radical apophaticism 2) intra-
subjective - a narcissistic navel-gazing 3) subject-object
cleavage - scientism and positivism 4) intra-objective -
philosophical naturalism and quietism 5) inter-subjective -
pietism and fideism. Of course, these are broad over-
generalizations and rather facile characterizations of some
otherwise complex psycho-spiritual dynamics.
The radical apophaticism of a radically intra-objective over-
emphasis actually results from its ineffable encounter of the
indeterminate ground of being, unequipped as it is with its
lack of (or impoverished) analogical imagination, which
requires a robust engagement of our dualistic problem-solving
9

10. mind.
One very profitable engagement of our putative intra-objective
reality in humankind's history has been that of science's
methodological naturalism, which is epistemically dualistic
but ontologically monistic (for argument's sake). This
devolves into scientism and positivism, however, whenever an
intra-objective approach gets over-emphasized vis a vis a
philosophical naturalism, which is ontologically monistic ( a
priori and ideologically) .
Another profitable engagement of intra-objective reality has
been that of those Eastern tradition schools that nurture both
dialectical and analogical imaginations and therefore embrace
prominent devotional elements (with ipso facto inter-
subjective aspects, for all practical purposes).
The intra-objective identity experience of some type of
underlying oneness may, in part and in various ways, play some
role, too, in what Maritain as per Arraj discussed in such
phenomenal experiences as could be associated with
philosophical contemplation (thru concepts) and the intuition
of being, natural mysticism (w/o concepts) or mysticism of the
self, metaphysical insight (such as via Zen), all distinct
from mystical contemplation in that the latter is illuminated,
theological, personal and kataphatic while the former is
unilluminated, existential, impersonal and apophatic.
In our theologies of nature, the insights of intraobjectivity
and intersubjectivity have been blended creatively and
poetically into various panentheisms (my own is called pan-
semio-entheism to emphasize my semiotic perspective).
quote:
Originally posted by Phil: Indeed, there's little about
intra-objective spirituality that seems naturally suited to
the ordinary functioning of our consciousness, and I wonder if
it's not a seeking after an experience that is not good for
us. It's certainly difficult to earnestly pursue this kind of
spirituality alongside the other approaches you mention, as it
seems to have the effect of undercutting them in some ways.
To elaborate a solely intra-objective spirituality would, at
best, seem impoverished, at worst, lead to a litany of (even
perilous?!) maladies such as you inventoried vis a vis the
shadow side of a misappropriated intra-objective moment
(premature kundalini arousal/awakening, psychological
imbalances, disaffectivity).
quote:
Originally posted by Phil:We've already noted the
possibility of a certain anti-intellectualism and the
discouragement of (dualistic) intersubjective spirituality.
10

11. Point of info: While the term inter-subjective is
ontologically dualistic, I consider our spirituality,
optimally, to transcend epistemic dualism. But this brings up
a point I forgot to make earlier --- that epistemic dualism is
both necessary and sufficient to realize truth, beauty and
goodness in abundance (e.g. erotic love of God in Bernardian
love, imperfect contrition, Old Covenant, moral living and so
on).
SIGNIFICANT PROBLEMS present in the integration of experiences
of intra-objective identity and inter-subjective intimacy ---
not because the essential experiences are in any way
incompatible existentially, theologically, spiritually,
psychologically, axiologically, developmentally,
philosophically and so on and so forth. The theoretical
integration is past the rudimentary stages thanks to Merton,
Maritain, Arraj, Phil and others. These experiences have been
validated and deserve to be honored for the role they have and
can play in formative spirituality. The chief problem is that
the associated practices so often continue to make their way
into our culture without proper re-contextualization. In
short, they arrive with baggage (that is philosophically and
theologically flea-ridden). The practices are often fine but
the conclusions (metaphysical and theological) that accompany
them are too often heterodox and in a manner that has
practical implications --- not only for one's life of prayer,
but --- for one's emotional health and cognitive integrity.
What is often lacking is proper catechesis and, occasionally,
when it is offered, it is confused. Getting intra-objective
identity wrong manifests kataphatically as a fundamentalist
creationism and God of the gaps (obverse side of materialist
monism), philosophically as an ideological naturalism and
scientism, theologically as pantheism or radical apophaticism,
metaphysically as a rather kooky tautology or silly
manipulation of concepts (often found in nonduality internet
forums), soteriologically as a denial of evil and even
suffering and so on.
What to do or not? Chasing after experiences for their own
sake is folly. If one is really interested in cultivating
intraobjective experience, then I suggest one proceed first
through concepts like: 1) methodological naturalism and why we
use it in science 2) philosophical naturalism and why it is
anti-thetical to Christianity 3) pantheism and panentheism and
how are they different 4) connaturality and intuition of being
5) study the Eastern traditions that do have devotional
aspects (most do!) and see how nonduality is distinguished vis
a vis ultimate reality versus everyday practical reality and
phenomenal experience 6) read Merton and Maritain 7) visit
innerexplorations.com 8) Google "spiritual emergency" 9)
reconceive nonduality in terms of a mediated thirdness or even
fourthness and stay away from any monistic oneness gibberish
that does not define itself positively on its own terms but
more so as an argumentative over against dualism (which makes
such approaches, sadly and ironically, inherently dualistic)
10) read the Doctors of the Church, especially the Carmelites
11

12. like John of the Cross and Teresa of Avila and then, and only
then, take up an Eastern asceticism or Christian adaptations
thereof --- with a good spiritual director standing by as well
as the url to: shalomplace.com
This message has been edited. Last edited by:
johnboy.philothea, 20 December 2011 12:32 AM
12