It seems the Christian fear of asserting a monism is either theological (proper) in the sense of feeling the need to maintain a creator-creation distinction (that’s probably wider* than it needs to be, with a few related but not essential qualifiers in there), or also a kind of personal one, in the sense of wanting to avoid a dissolution of the self.
But, if I’m following correctly, asserting a (Christian) monism actually preserves the latter concern: the self (which is not defined principally as something independent of the One/All) is wholly instantiated and manifested (in the sense of its true, eternally created [ktisis] self) only in its perfected synergistic unity with the One.
Eg In Galatians, Paul speaks of (egō) no longer living but Christ living in him, and of Christ being born in us, etc. but the whole epistle still shows all the idiosyncrasies of Paul himself: his passion, his words, his reasoning, his relationships, etc. - which is the Paul whom Christ is.
This kind of monism still allows the “I-Thou” relationship that Ware speaks of (though qualified in the way you describe)?
Cheer!
*PS loved the Luke 16 reference at the end of the article.. hell as experiencing the deception of dualism.
I enjoyed your non-dualism piece. I'm curious if you've read McGuckin's article on the self: Classical and Byzantine Christian Notions of the Self and Their Significance Today.
I enjoyed the piece about non-dualism. However, I believe you are reading the Christian tradition through an impersonal bias when you say, for example, that the realization of one's own poverty as a creature brings one to "a still point of nothingness."
Then you say this: "Christian Tradition agrees with Advaita that God is the source of existence and awareness for all beings, and therefore that the idea of an absolute separation between God, world, and self is nothing other than an illusion arising from ignorance of the truth. And with Buddhism, Christian Tradition concurs that much of what we conventionally call the “self” is really a misidentification, that all such misidentifications are impermanent, not constitutive of either the soul’s endurance beyond death or of the future resurrection. The self’s fluidity and emptiness is exactly the possibility, in Christian hope, of theosis: the possibility of deification through our ever-greater unification with God—which God, from his own vantage, has always eternally known and willed."
I agree. But we should also point out that an absolute unity of self and God is far from what most or all Christians are willing to accept. And, not less importantly, that these two things - God as the *source* of all awareness, and the unsubstantiality of our *worldly* identity - are also a part of other traditions; namely, for example, Gaudiya Vaishnavism, which holds that God is incomprehensively one and not-one with His creation. This doctrine of acintya bhed-abhed is in fact much closer to Christianity than Advaita.
Lastly: I can see why dualism can be dangerous. Non-dualism, however, also has undeniable dangers, as it's clear from all the New Age pseudo-spirituality that holds that, since we are all ultimately God, then anything goes. It's of course a misrepresentation of Advaita, but it's very widespread and prevalent nowadays.
Hey David,
It seems the Christian fear of asserting a monism is either theological (proper) in the sense of feeling the need to maintain a creator-creation distinction (that’s probably wider* than it needs to be, with a few related but not essential qualifiers in there), or also a kind of personal one, in the sense of wanting to avoid a dissolution of the self.
But, if I’m following correctly, asserting a (Christian) monism actually preserves the latter concern: the self (which is not defined principally as something independent of the One/All) is wholly instantiated and manifested (in the sense of its true, eternally created [ktisis] self) only in its perfected synergistic unity with the One.
Eg In Galatians, Paul speaks of (egō) no longer living but Christ living in him, and of Christ being born in us, etc. but the whole epistle still shows all the idiosyncrasies of Paul himself: his passion, his words, his reasoning, his relationships, etc. - which is the Paul whom Christ is.
This kind of monism still allows the “I-Thou” relationship that Ware speaks of (though qualified in the way you describe)?
Cheer!
*PS loved the Luke 16 reference at the end of the article.. hell as experiencing the deception of dualism.
Hello David,
I enjoyed your non-dualism piece. I'm curious if you've read McGuckin's article on the self: Classical and Byzantine Christian Notions of the Self and Their Significance Today.
If so any thoughts?
What is it you're teaching these days, if that's not a secret? I remember before you said you were working at a Jewish school.
I enjoyed the piece about non-dualism. However, I believe you are reading the Christian tradition through an impersonal bias when you say, for example, that the realization of one's own poverty as a creature brings one to "a still point of nothingness."
Then you say this: "Christian Tradition agrees with Advaita that God is the source of existence and awareness for all beings, and therefore that the idea of an absolute separation between God, world, and self is nothing other than an illusion arising from ignorance of the truth. And with Buddhism, Christian Tradition concurs that much of what we conventionally call the “self” is really a misidentification, that all such misidentifications are impermanent, not constitutive of either the soul’s endurance beyond death or of the future resurrection. The self’s fluidity and emptiness is exactly the possibility, in Christian hope, of theosis: the possibility of deification through our ever-greater unification with God—which God, from his own vantage, has always eternally known and willed."
I agree. But we should also point out that an absolute unity of self and God is far from what most or all Christians are willing to accept. And, not less importantly, that these two things - God as the *source* of all awareness, and the unsubstantiality of our *worldly* identity - are also a part of other traditions; namely, for example, Gaudiya Vaishnavism, which holds that God is incomprehensively one and not-one with His creation. This doctrine of acintya bhed-abhed is in fact much closer to Christianity than Advaita.
Lastly: I can see why dualism can be dangerous. Non-dualism, however, also has undeniable dangers, as it's clear from all the New Age pseudo-spirituality that holds that, since we are all ultimately God, then anything goes. It's of course a misrepresentation of Advaita, but it's very widespread and prevalent nowadays.