Jul 232013
 

A Non-Dualist Foundation

Those familiar with my previous writings know that I am most drawn to a non-dual perspective as the starting point for my theological and moral thoughts. Non-dualism is not anti-dualist in the sense that it attempts to ignore duality or entirely escape from it. Rather, it holds that duality is itself subsumed by a greater reality, that of interconnectedness, oneness, unity. In order to address the subject of this blog post from that greater perspective, let’s begin by considering how it can be consistent with scripture. While I am very cautious about taking any scripture at face value, there are some that I gravitate to as strong hints, if not simple and direct statements, of non-dualism expressed in theistic terms.

I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things. Isaiah 45:7

In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.John 1:1-13

Once, on being asked by the Pharisees when the Kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, “The coming of the Kingdom of God is not something that can be observed, nor will people say, ‘Here it is,’ or ‘There it is,’ because the Kingdom of God is in your midst.” Luke 17:20-21

“The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’ … ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’Matthew 25:40, 45

[Jesus prayed] “I am praying not only for these disciples but also for all who will ever believe in me through their message. I pray that they will all be one, just as you and I are one—as you are in me, Father, and I am in you. And may they be in us so that the world will believe you sent me.

“I have given them the glory you gave me, so they may be one as we are one. I am in them and you are in me. May they experience such perfect unity that the world will know that you sent me and that you love them as much as you love me.”John 17:20-23

For in Him we live and move and have our being.Acts 17:28a

There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to one hope when you were called; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.Ephesians 4:4-6

‘I am the Alpha and the Omega, beginning and end,’ saith the Lord, ‘who is, and who was, and who is coming — the Almighty.’ Revelation 1:8

So, as I now understand such passages, while we perceive a world of dualistic oppositions – like light and darkness, peace and evil, spirit and flesh, or life and death – all of it is nonetheless united in God’s oneness. I don’t want to engage in mere prooftexting, so I acknowledge other passages that appear to declare something is rejected by God, or not of God.  Still, I think such statements are clearly made from the perspective of dualism, and thus speak to how something seems to oppose the things we prefer to identify with God, such as light, peace, and life. Furthermore, I suspect that even the most inspired writers of scripture could move back and forth between these two perspectives just as we do today.   In any case, the common scripturally based theological assertion is that God is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent, and so nothing within the realm of duality can be outside God’s mind, power, and presence.

Non-dualism is right there in the midst of ordinary Christian theology, if we only have eyes to see and ears to hear.  The Logos, the Kingdom, and the King are always here, in everything. We just fail to realize it because we are so captivated by our dualistic perspectives, and so desperately trying to achieve an either/or type of certainty through the judgments we make. In making such judgments, no matter how well intended they are, we nonetheless mentally cut something off from the whole, and thus we reinforce the illusion of separation from God and each other in some way. In short, we have made our own dualistic reasoning and concepts into a false god to which we bow rather than embrace the Mysterious One and All.

Realizing Unity

We are all already united with God because God is both in and around all. All of our experiences must therefore be experiences of God, which might seem to challenge the notion of a mystical path, a way of seeking union with God. What seeking is necessary?! It’s already happening! One response to this challenge is that what we are actually seeking is not a union with God that has yet to happen, but greater realization of the unity that already exists, always has, and always will.By ‘realization,’ I mean to experience something with awareness and understanding, and to express such awareness and understanding through our actions. For example, people who have fallen in love know that sometimes it isn’t realized until after the fact. Suddenly, there is simply the awakening of “Oh! I’m in love!”, followed by changes in behavior intended to more fully act upon it, to experience and express a more complete manifestation of its possibilities. Each of these elements – experience, awareness, understanding, and expression – is necessary to make something more fully real in our lives, to real-ize it rather than leave our consciousness of it within the realm of speculations, hopes, and potentialities. Thus, the actual aim of mysticism is neither to make union with God happen nor to wait for union to happen (although we often fall back on wording of either sort), but to let go of the illusion of separation and more fully realize the ever-present fact of unity.

Practicing Unity

How might we go about letting go of that illusion and realizing unity? There are many possible varieties of unitive experience. Let us again refer to the analogy of lovers. Think of all the ways lovers can experience and express their connection with each other; it can be sensed with the body, felt with the emotions, understood with the mind, and deeply intuited in silence. When lovers look upon each other, there is union in sight. When they hear each other, there is union in sound. Likewise, there is union in touch, smell, and taste. When they share attraction and affection, there is union in emotion. When their thoughts are focused on each other, and especially in those moments when they know each other’s thoughts, there is union in mind. And, of course, the most complete realization of their union occurs when they are consciously experiencing and expressing all of it. We may realize union with God in much the same way, with all our heart, soul, and mind.

As the scriptures teach, God is over all, in all, and through all, and so we are constantly surrounded and interpenetrated by opportunities to realize union with God. Thus, a practice with significant transformative potential is to regard all of existence, including oneself, as a work of art in which God is at once the inspiration, the artist, the medium, the tools, the actions, the product, and the audience. Everything we experience is a combination of divine forces formed in limited and particular expressions of God’s infinite potential for creation.

Jesus said, “It is I who am the light which is above them all. It is I who am the All. From Me did the All come forth, and unto Me did the All extend. Split a piece of wood, and I am there. Lift up the stone, and you will find Me there.”Thomas 77

Feel the warmth of the sun, and recognize that it is but an infinitesimal speck of God’s power. Gaze upon a fluttering leaf, and there is God’s hand waving to all within sight. Listen to thunder roll, and hear God drumming for all with ears to hear. Smell the decay of death, and so inhale God’s slow sigh. Feel the mysterious rise of tears when listening to a hymn, and feel the unspeakable beauty of God. Discern the mathematics of a circle, and there is a thought from the infinity of God’s mind.Feel closeness of spirit in the company of others with like minds, and sense God’s arms reaching for you and through you toward others. Enfold yourself with a lover, and welcome communion with God. Experience the pain of grief, and there is God letting the present flow into the past.  Empty yourself completely into stillness and silence, and there is God’s unfathomable fullness beyond space and time, ever annihilating and renewing all within the field of space and time.

That last sentence refers to the most valued practice in contemplative Christianity, and to what may be called the mystical experience, which is to say the quintessential or most transcendent mystical experience.  Prior to this event, all the anthropomorphic metaphors we project onto God, even in an attempt to more fully unite with God, continue to raise the veils of dualism and thus some degree of the illusion of separation. The great mystics, like St. John of the Cross, Teresa of Avila, the Blessed Jan van Ruysbroek, and many others, have tried to point beyond these veils toward a realization of union that is free of all doubt, all hope, and all speculation. Robert Forman calls it the Pure Consciousness Event. Yet, as these other mystics do in their own ways, Forman also notes that we re-emerge from the complete unity of the Pure Consciousness Event. We always come back into duality to some degree, but sometimes with an awareness, a “memory” if you will, and a greater realization of the unity that subsumes duality and expresses itself through duality. Forman refers to this development as the Dualistic Mystical State, a concept similar to that of the unitive state or unitive way in traditional Christian theology.

Prior to the Pure Consciousness Event, we can approximate the Dualistic Mystical State through the practice of regarding all other forms of experience as limited encounters with God. Such a practice can help us prepare for the ultimate experience, and might even facilitate it. It is certainly a valid attempt to more fully realize the union with God that we intuit, hypothesize, hope for, or sense in some way, but do not yet actually know. But, once the mystical experience has come there is no more need to “regard” other experiences as connections with God, for then we know it just as surely as a lucid dreamer recognizes a dream for what it is while it is actually happening.

Practicing Unity is Love

Whether regarding all of existence as in and of God, or knowing it is so and being engaged in further realizing it, we are loving God more fully. We are opening our souls, our minds, our hearts, and our arms and hands to welcome the Divine in the light and the darkness, in peace and evil, in the flesh (incarnate) and the spirit, in life and death. In this context, we may find even greater depth in Jesus’ teaching to love everyone, even our enemies. While an enemy might be another human being, in any given moment it might also be an idea, a desire in one’s own soul, a machine, or a natural event such as a flood. To love even these enemies is the unconditional love that isn’t caught in dualistic oppositions with hate, fear, or apathy. It is a transcendent love that acknowledges and accepts everything and all just as it is, appreciates the inextricable interconnectedness of everything and all, and rejoices and participates in the never ending transformation and renewal of everything and all.

His disciples said to him, “When will you be visible to us, and when shall we behold you?”

He said, “When you strip naked without being ashamed, and take your garments and put them under your feet like little children and tread upon them, then you will see the child of the Living, and you will not be afraid.”Thomas 37

Even if only for one brief and yet eternal moment, let’s strip off the layers of dualistic clothing on consciousness to directly know the One that is Its own Father, Mother, and Child, and thus more fully realize That which is living, dying, and being reborn in, around, and through all of us and everything else in every moment.

Maranatha

Agape

  32 Responses to “Varieties of Unitive Experience”

  1. Hi Chuck,
    Thank you for posting this, I love your perception of the unity of all things in God, and the diversity of God in all things. Truly the Father is the ” all in all” I Cor. 15:28

    • “Panentheism as a way of thinking about God affirms both the transcendence of God and the immanence of God. For panentheism, God is not a being ‘out there.”…. Rather, God is more than everything, even as God is present everywhere. God is all around us and within us, and we are within God.” The God We Never Knew, Marcus Borg

  2. It is late here where I live and I am ready for bed. I have just read this beautiful, beautiful blog and my eyes are moist with tears. I cannot think of any words to express how I feel. It is Knowing; it is Oneness; it is Love.

    Chuck, you knew this would resonate with me. Yes, every single, beautifully written word.

  3. I am greatful I understand the unity you speak of … coming out of Christianity afforded me this opportunity! Thamk you for sharing this today!

  4. Hi Chuck:

    It really renewed my spiritual pond and even overflowed, remembering the beautiful Unity messages that our Master Jesus Christ has shown us. Thanks for so well that you collect them for everyone.

    Peace.

    Ulises.

  5. Hi Chuck,

    Great job on this…as usual! Since we at first apprehend, then conceptualize virtually everything we encounter within reality, I think duality comes very naturally to us. Much of this is innate, and what is not is learned. So, abstractions such as good/evil, right/wrong, beautiful/ugly, are learned at an early age and are very hard for us to overcome. But, they are also helpful to us in so far as conventional reality is concerned.

    When pondering all of this, I’m not sure I accept the idea of “unity” or “oneness”, as in a permanent, unifying principle underlying the reality we apprehend. I’m more inclined to think in terms of absolute reality as a finite amount of elemental material (for lack of a better phrase) which is inter-related. I guess that I reject, on a rational basis, a permanent, immutable underlying principle in favor of a changing and impermanent “absolute”, the nature of which is hidden from our conceptualizing cognition. “Mystical” experience then, becomes a non-conceptual cognition, or “realization” of the supramundane, which is neither unity nor not-unity, and neither duality, nor non-duality.

    Then of course, I haven’t experienced this for myself, so it’s quite possible I’m totally off!

    Peace.
    Steve

    • Hi Steve,

      Thanks for the kind words and the insightful comments. I suspect that when we try to talk about the nature of reality beyond the veils of perception, we can’t help but speak in lies. Well intended lies, perhaps, but falsities we know to be false, yet nonetheless must use in order to point toward the Ineffable Truth.

      You wrote:

      I’m not sure I accept the idea of “unity” or “oneness”, as in a permanent, unifying principle underlying the reality we apprehend. I’m more inclined to think in terms of absolute reality as a finite amount of elemental material (for lack of a better phrase) which is inter-related.

      How do you conceive of a finiteness without an infinity to go along with it? I am personally persuaded they go hand in hand by the fact that irrational (and thus infinite) constants are required in order to make mathematical sense of our finite perceptions. Also, I’m having some trouble wrapping my mind around how everything being ‘inter-related’ is significantly different from what I mean by ‘oneness.’ Not to put words in your.. finger, but is the difference that you conceive of multiple elements/energies, each distinct and un-reducible to some universal quintessence, like “spirit” for lack of a better term? What about the idea of the Unified Field Theory in physics? We keep getting closer. Perhaps we are in for an infinite regression there too! LOL

      You wrote:

      I guess that I reject, on a rational basis, a permanent, immutable underlying principle in favor of a changing and impermanent “absolute”, the nature of which is hidden from our conceptualizing cognition.

      First, would you agree that all our evidence for change/impermanence is based on ordinary human perception of this relativistic world? If so, then we might be making an unwarranted generalization about what lies beyond ordinary perception. In any case, if we posit that the nature of this ever-changing world is hidden from our conceptualizing cognition, then this statement in itself suggests that change/impermanence may be an expression of something even more fundamental. Finally, even we if insist that change or impermanence is fundamental to whatever the Absolute is, then that ironically, maybe even paradoxically, sounds like an “immutable underlying principle” to me. 🙂

      For me, all of this begs the question – Is it possible that the Absolute can be changing/unchanging, finite/infinite, one/many all at the same time/not-time? If one answers ‘yes,’ then understand that this possibility is what I am pointing toward with terms like ‘non-dual,’ ‘unity,’ and ‘oneness.’ In either case, ‘yes’ or ‘no’, we can still talk about love! 🙂

      Thanks again, Steve! I look forward to your further reflections. 🙂

      Agape,
      Chuck

  6. In regards to your quote about pantheism, I think its interesting that the scripture Ephesians 4:6..”One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.” did not include the word “you”, in the original Greek, but it was added into the English King James to avoid the passage at being interpreted as pantheistic.

    Its amazing what a single added word can do, but for those who study the older texts, there is much evidence within the bible to support the notion that the original Christian church viewed God as being “above all, through all and in all”.

    • Hi David,

      Thanks for your continuing reflections.

      Yes, there are times in both the Hebrew Testament and the New Testament when it seems, even in the original language, that oneness is something only available to a particular group. The letters attributed to Paul frequently speak in terms like that. The question for a Christian is whether or not the face value of such words is as harmonious with the teachings of Jesus and the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. I don’t think they are. To me, it’s plain that Jesus wanted us to embrace an ever more inclusive idea of who our neighbor, or brother or sister, is. Furthermore, when the Gospel of John uses the word Logos in connection with Christ, we have to take stock of the fact that this word is borrowed from Greek philosophy, in which it was understood that everything that exists does so by the presence of the Logos (the Divine Reason which is an emanation of, and thus one with, God) immanent within it. For example, the Jewish Neoplatonic philosopher, Philo of Alexandria (20 BC to 50 AD) wrote, “the Logos of the living God is the bond of everything, holding all things together and binding all the parts, and prevents them from being dissolved and separated.”

      So, I strongly suspect that every attempt to argue for an “in crowd” that has an exclusive claim to oneness in and of God is ultimately based on an egoic desire to be special, to feel elevated above some “them” onto which we can project and condemn the things about ourselves that we fear or hate in some way. To me, it seems clear that Jesus suggested we stop doing that. 🙂

      Agape,
      Chuck

  7. Hi Chuck,
    All of your points are well taken. As I trust you can tell, I’m merely speculating about all of these things. To speak of these issues I think it’s necessary to leave our prior concepts, doctrinal beliefs, etc. at the door. I’m going to go against the grain a little on this one.

    When we talk about finite/infinite, we can’t help but refer these notions to ourselves, the world and the universe. Since science cannot say anything about pre-Big Bang physics, I’m going to take it upon myself to assume that nothing existed before that. We can always speculate, but I’m not sure that’s helpful. As I understand it, there are at least two prevailing theories about the “end times” of the physical universe. One is that the universe will continue to expand until such time as all of the energy from the Big Bang is spent. After several hundred billion years, the universe will, again, not exist. The other theory is that after the universe expands, it will eventually contract until it experiences the “Big Crunch”, in which case there will also be no existence. I’m sure there are, by now, new and improved versions, but those are the ones most physicists seem to talk about. So what exactly is infinity, except a construct? Does infinity happen independently of existence? And, does it really matter if it does?

    As far as change and impermanence in concerned, I don’t understand why “absolute” reality would be fundamentally different in its nature than how we perceive our reality now. In any case, I can’t imagine a being, entity, or existent particle that is permanent and immutable. If we think about it, it makes absolutely no sense. What would a thing like that look like? It would have always existed, frozen in time. There is no reason to posit a permanent, immutable reality underlying relative reality. Is it not possible that change and impermanence is beginning-less and endless, given the parameters of what we define as “infinite”?

    Personally, I think we probably do initially apprehend reality just as it is, using “absolute” as the word to define this. We are perhaps deceived by the overlay we ourselves create on top of it. Everything we perceive and cognize is a result of conceptualization agreed upon consensually. In a very real sense, we create our own reality and our own existence. How are we to ever know the true nature of reality that we refer to as “absolute” reality, when we can’t see what is right in front of us?

    As I mentioned earlier, I have removed the doctrinal boundaries from my discussion, not out of disrespect to anyone, but simply because I desire to explore some other possibilities unencumbered. Clearly, “God”, or the “Absolute” is said to be permanent and immutable. But, I have to ask myself why that would be, except out of the very human need to find security and foundation in a clearly insecure universe, without any foundation whatsoever. There isn’t even an up, down, or sideways here. Maybe someone could think of a God more amenable to how we thoughtful humans actually experience existence, and how we speculate on such things unhindered by beliefs.

    Peace.
    Steve

    • Hi Steve,

      Thanks again for your wonderful reflections. I don’t think we’re very far apart on these things, and at least some of it is semantic. The only other thing for me to do right now is once again reference the analogy of lucid dreaming. Everything about the dream seems to have its own independent existence before that moment of awakening, but once it has happened the dreamer simply knows otherwise. Everything in the dream is of one essence – dream-stuff, mind-stuff. The forms it takes are certainly impermanent and mutable, but the dreaming mind remains, even through periods of dreamlessness. Of course, there are limitations to this analogy, not the least of which is that one can argue that mind is just a manifestation of brain activity. But then, what if all that brain matter is just another form of another kind of dream-stuff?

      Oh well, the funniest and most poignant thing about all of this to me is that, in any case, here we are in this relativistic world. What are we going to do with our time here? 🙂

      Agape,
      Chuck

    • Hi again, Steve!

      I apologize for not doing justice to your reply last night. You said some things that warranted a more thoughtful response, and this morning I am in a better state to do so. 😛

      First, with regard to the removal of doctrinal boundaries, I am right there with you. I may at times appear to be appealing to doctrine, but I do my best not to rely on doctrine. I agree that these matters deserve reasoned attention that allows the truth to be what it is while we do our best to understand it free of assumptions and superstitions. I do, however, understand that some doctrines have their basis in very deep and profound rational insight about a full range of human experience, including the transcendental or mystical. Even so, I would never advocate an uncritical adherence to them.

      Second, this:

      So what exactly is infinity, except a construct? Does infinity happen independently of existence? And, does it really matter if it does?

      Well, here is an essential problem. What isn’t a construct? Science has never been able to make an unassailable argument about anything that exists outside of or independent of the consciousness that perceives it, and this is a huge part of why I keep going back to the analogy of dreaming. Even for a hard core materialist, our most basic sensations can only be mental representations of a ‘something’ believed or theorized to be external to consciousness. From there, whatever understandings we have of what we ‘sense,’ from our most instinctive perceptions to our most carefully reasoned theories, and all of the evidence for those theories, are all developments in consciousness of consciousness. This rational foundation for what we know, or think we know, has been the basis of a number of Buddhist philosophers argument that no transcendental experience is necessary for acknowledging the oneness of reality. Even Descartes had to resort to the somewhat ironic concept of a “clear and distinct” idea as evidence for the reality of something outside his own mind.

      From this vantage point, the significance of the infinity of irrational constants is that they point directly to the irrationality of our perceptions. We cannot mathematically, and thus scientifically, validate the supposed finiteness of our sensations or perceptions of anything without resorting to the infinite. In short, being deeply rational about what we experience requires that we embrace the irrational. As to the infinite having an independent existence, I want to make clear that I am not making such a claim. One of my points is that we cannot know either without the other, and that, logically speaking, the finite must be within the ‘set’ of the infinite. Yet, there is no way to experience or conceptualize that set and its contents except through consciousness, which thus further points to consciousness as the unifying factor of all.

      When we speak of consciousness in this way, it’s possible to make the mistake that we are talking about ordinary consciousness, the band or range of awareness we commonly call ‘waking consciousness.’ There are other kinds of consciousness outside that band, or other realms of mind. A common experience that demonstrates this fact is the occurrence of unexpected events in dreams and deep meditation. For example, characters speak and act in ways that we did not ‘consciously’ direct. Even careful attention to the workings of one’s ordinary waking consciousness reveals that we all have thoughts and feelings coming into awareness from, and disappearing out of awareness to, parts of the mind outside our direct apprehension and control. So, when I speak of consciousness as the unifying factor of all, I am talking about all of that and more. So much more, if fact, that it warrants a capital C. Consciousness!

      Finally, perhaps the greatest significance to me of everything being in and of Consciousness is the depth of interconnectedness it reveals, and thus the potential for reality (the manifest contents of Consciousness) to actually be or become what we, individually and collectively, will for it to be. This would be my segue into prose and poetry about love, but I’ll leave that for you and anyone else who happens to read this far. 😛

      Agape,
      Chuck

  8. Hi again Chuck,

    I agree that we are probably pretty much in alignment on most of these issues. Differences in semantics have a tricky way of obscuring mutual understanding. You are absolutely right when you ask about the essential difference between inter-relatedness and unity – same thing. I certainly believe that there is continuity to existence. Most turn to a particular religious doctrine to account for whatever that might be.

    As you say, what we do in the meantime is of much more importance. You have always pointed to “Love” as the antidote for all things, and I couldn’t agree more. I once met a Benedictine monk, of whom it was said had meditated for seven years on “compassion”, while carrying out compassionate acts. Just looking at this man I was aware that he was “realized”. He literally emanated love, peace and joy. My own time would be much better spent following his example.

    Peace.
    Steve

  9. What an uplifting post, Chuck!

    In some additional place at this site, Chuck, it would be a delight for you to copy and paste this lovely paragraph as an expression of the simplicity of Christian Mysticism:

    “Feel the warmth of the sun, and recognize that it is but an infinitesimal speck of God’s power. Gaze upon a fluttering leaf, and there is God’s hand waving to all within sight. Listen to thunder roll, and hear God drumming for all with ears to hear. Smell the decay of death, and so inhale God’s slow sigh. Feel the mysterious rise of tears when listening to a hymn, and feel the unspeakable beauty of God. Discern the mathematics of a circle, and there is a thought from the infinity of God’s mind. Feel closeness of spirit in the company of others with like minds, and sense God’s arms reaching for you and through you toward others. Enfold yourself with a lover, and welcome communion with God. Experience the pain of grief, and there is God letting the present flow into the past. Empty yourself completely into stillness and silence, and there is God’s unfathomable fullness beyond space and time, ever annihilating and renewing all within the field of space and time.”

    For that paragraph alone, your blog post is a treasure.

    I like your emphasis of the “real” in “real-ize” to express our part in “real-izing unity.” Your connection to falling in love and our response to discovering this special experience is a great analogy too.

    I’ve tended to think of the paradigm of unity and harmony as “transcending dualism,” but your distinction between “non-dualism” and “anti-dualism” helps to show the positive nature of dualism, as it has its purpose and is necessary within the human experience.

    Much more could be commented on, but it seems you have no dearth of thoughtful replies, and I think I’ll just soak in the loveliness of your expressions. =)

    Thank you,
    Karina

  10. Hi all.

    Let me point out just two quotes to start:

    Steve quote: “Since we at first apprehend, then conceptualize virtually everything we encounter within reality, I think duality comes very naturally to us. Much of this is innate, and what is not is learned. So, abstractions such as good/evil, right/wrong, beautiful/ugly, are learned at an early age and are very hard for us to overcome. But, they are also helpful to us in so far as conventional reality is concerned.”

    Chuck quote: “For me, all of this begs the question – Is it possible that the Absolute can be changing/unchanging, finite/infinite, one/many all at the same time/not-time? If one answers ‘yes,’ then understand that this possibility is what I am pointing toward with terms like ‘non-dual,’ ‘unity,’ and ‘oneness.’ In either case, ‘yes’ or ‘no’, we can still talk about love!”

    In view of the above quotations and speech you have shown, I personally think, that the Bible can offer special terms to clarify this.

    Look at the first two verses of the Bible, in Genesis 1, 1-2. In them there is a duality: A positive force {(B)} and negative HEAVEN {… THE DEEP (C)} {UNITED BY A SUPERIOR INTELLIGENCE [GOD (A)} Who gives the initiative and {THAT DOMINATES through HIS own Holy Spirit (AA)}.

    Génesis1, 1″In the beginning {GOD (A)} {CREATED THE HEAVEN (B)} and the earth.
    2 And the earth was without form, and void; and {DARKNESS WAS UPON THE FACE OF THE DEEP (C)}. And {THE SPIRIT OF GOD (AA)} moved upon the face of the waters.”

    Here we find a presence duality propulsive, the heaven and the (darkness and the deep). The first constructive, the second with destructive tendencies, though curiously as I have pointed out, also in favor of life and evolution. Both have a propulsive force, initiative and initial. Beyond, by logic, would be first something constructive, which started it all, and in this, would it results the destructive. It could not be born first the destructive, to create the constructive, which is opposed by nature. But we also know that they are just opposite extremes of the same! Necessarily have to be both present from the beginning, as the initial dual propulsive force originated surely by God. And therefore, it would be more prominent the divine than the evil. Beyond that, as is said, there are things that not even the angels know. Only our dear Heavenly Father.

    So … necessarily have to be present two forces from the beginning, paradoxically as ONE (divine) dual initial propulsive force.

    Which would lead to many paradoxical situations, polarizing, extraordinary, simple, disastrous, loving, miraculous, normal, paranormal, etc. Within this vibrant and active initial trinity, where good and evil are mixed under the guidance of a higher intelligence, IN ORDER TO ALLOW THE CREATION.

    Since apparently without this trinity (I dare not write big T, because the factor hell is located here) of basic factors, some so opposed, the work of God would be impossible.

    Therefore, the variety of ways to reach many conclusions and God, are naturally variable in response to the infinite number of factors that can intervene (originated from these three unimaginable initial factors) in one individual will, to get his aspirations, whishes, jobs, or even his misdeeds.

    Just as it would be on the Unitive mystical practice or realization. Where the great initiates, prophets and especially, our master Jesus Christ, gives us important lessons to reach the Kingdom of God more clearly, in this jungle of possible situations that may be encountered and often confuse us naturally along the way.

    Peace.

    Ulises.

  11. “What you are looking for is what is looking”. Of course we have to consider the possibility that no one wrote this blog post and no one is reading it. In that event, no one is commenting on it either!

    • With your comment as the last one in almost three days, Seth, it brings an extra chuckle. Good to have you back, brother!

      Chuck, it’s only now that I “read this far” and found your comment to Steve: “Finally, perhaps the greatest significance to me of everything being in and of Consciousness is the depth of interconnectedness it reveals, and thus the potential for reality (the manifest contents of Consciousness) to actually be or become what we, individually and collectively, will for it to be.” Right on. When we are set free from the illusion of separation through a deep knowledge of our interconnectedness, then we can finally become the men and women God created us to be in His image. Blessings!

    • Hi Seth,

      Karina’s right, it is good to see you posting again. 🙂

      Agape,
      Chuck

  12. Seeing as how this topic has been rekindled once again, and because I find it interesting, I’ll just share a few last thoughts. Since it is Chuck’s blog, I will also try to do so respectfully.

    I am probably one of the few, if not the only, non-non-dualist on this forum. It seems to me that the term “non-dualism”, as it has been popularized in the West over the last few decades, is now acknowledged by some (including Christians) as a “higher teaching”. Any teaching that does not include metaphysical unity as its foundational philosophy is seen as deficient or provisional. Taking this as axiomatic, the non-dualists assume an underlying unifying principle within reality, and then look for passages in various scriptures to affirm their speculation.

    Since I do not consider myself one of the non-dualists, there is nothing for me to accept, other than the obvious fact that reality, as I apprehend it, is experientially concrete. It remains for the non-dualists to convince me of the “illusion of separateness”. Our separateness is not an illusion, or we would experience it as an illusion. Unity has never been the point; the answer to the question. The question has always been: “what is the nature of a thing”? What is the nature of separateness? What is the nature of diversity? What is the nature of being human, or divine? Our lives find their meaning within the dualities we encounter as we attempt to live in accordance with the universal principles they present to us. This is the “higher teaching”.

    To say that all of our experience of duality will be subsumed within the “One”, or that our experience of duality is actually an illusion, is simply contrary to the conclusions to be drawn from a mature reflection of reality, and is not helpful to the spiritual life.

    Of course, this is merely my opinion.

    Peace.
    Steve

    • Hi Steve,

      Thank you for your respectful comments, which are very well taken.

      “…merely my opinion.”

      Well, there are no shortages of opinions to go around, but I think “merely” isn’t a word I would attach in this case, if in any coming from you.

      “To say that all of our experience of duality will be subsumed within the ‘One’, or that our experience of duality is actually an illusion, is simply contrary to the conclusions to be drawn from a mature reflection of reality, and is not helpful to the spiritual life.”

      Now that is a plucky declaration, my friend! 🙂 It would seem to put you squarely at odds with Albert Einstein and Thich Nhat Hanh, two figures I would be very hesitant to suggest have an immature reflection on reality, and who are certainly not lacking for respectable company. Even so, I wouldn’t advocate anyone taking their words as simple doctrine that one must or should accept without the kind of well informed and profound processing that the phrase “mature reflection” beckons.

      I can also deeply appreciate your words as a warning against the somewhat cliche attitude in popular metaphysics (now that would be an interesting magazine!) that the “highest” expression of spirituality is to walk around in denial that any of this stuff happening in the realm of duality is meaningful or real. To the extent that non-dualist notions are used as excuses to not appreciate and engage in the diversity of life, then I want no part in it either!

      Agape,
      Chuck

    • Steve, you wrote ” our lives find their meaning within the dualities we encounter…” I wonder if you realize how profound this statement is, for without duality God could not have created meaning. “Meaning” is defined as, “that which is intended to be expressed”, so meaning cannot exist without two states of awareness, one to give the expression and the other to understand its meaning.

  13. In regards to whether the inherent nature of existence is dual or non-dual, water is great metaphor for both. One could look at the clouds, the ocean, the rain, the stream, the pond, the puddle, the droplet,… and say “look all of these are separate things” but another could say “look all of these are one and the same” and they would both be right.

  14. Dave, thanks for a useful analogy. 🙂

    Friends, one of the points I seem to not be making well is that the philosophy of non-dualism does not deny duality, it simply sees duality as existing within, and a manifestation of, a unity. Also, when I use the words “illusion of separateness,” I am not saying that duality has no reality. My points are (1) that the reality of things in duality is relative and impermanent, and (2) that the notion that anything is entirely disconnected from and independent of anything else is a false notion. Neither of these points denies the distinctness of any particular phenomenon. My forefinger is distinctly a forefinger, even if its whole nature cannot be understood without reference to my hand, arm, shoulder, brain, etc.

    Agape,
    Chuck

  15. Thanks Chuck, I understand what you mean by the interconnectedness of all things being more real than their separateness, because their interconnected nature is eternal while they separate nature is temporal. II Corinthians 4:18

    Consider the following passages of Scripture: I John 1:5 says “God is light, and in him is no darkness at all”, Gospel of Thomas 77 says, ” I am the light that is over all things, I am all: From me all has come forth, and to me all has reached.” and Ephesians 4:6 says, “One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all”. I could go on and one with these quotes about God being the source of light that forms all of existence, “the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning” James 1:17

    If you think of light as the fabric of existence and that it is really only light reflecting off of darkness that is forming all of creation in its many forms, than it is true, there is only One Light in eternity, but there are many different reflections through time.

    All of these reflections, being composed of the same light are interconnected together in the core of their being, so there is no separateness, only the illusion of separateness. And since through time reflections of creation morph from one image into another, they are but temporal illusions because they do not exist eternally like the true Light that is above all things and that never changes or becomes visible.

    Just some thoughts : )

 Leave a Reply

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

(required)

(required)