Non-Dual Christianity

[Strivax]

In true Christianity, there is no room for that kind of meditation. The only kind of meditation that is useful in Christianity is to study the bible and be in prayer, which is to ask the Holy Spirit to fill you with His influence.

The kind of meditation being spoken of here would be to attempt to serve two masters.

And who are you to say what is 'true' Christianity, and how others should and should not express their faith? God, maybe?

Best wishes, Strivax.

 

[The Liturgist]

Good question as definitions can certainly vary. From a Christian perspective I think Bede Griffiths is a good source to start with.


"For Griffiths, advaita is a mystical intuition of being one with the divine reality; his experience of non-duality in his encounter with God is equivalent to the experience of the soul in its very centre, beyond images and concepts. Hindus and Buddhists may express this non-dual reality differently, but Griffiths believed that their experience of the non-duality of the divine is fundamentally the same. Christians have a lot to learn from Hinduism and Buddhism in their quest for the Absolute. At the same time, Christians also have a lot to offer to Eastern religions in terms of refinement and reinterpretation of the advaitic experience. This involves seeing the Hindu notion of advaita in the light of the Christian understanding of creation, the notion of the person and the incarnation of Jesus Christ. Rejecting the monism of pure advaita, which affirms the absolute identity between Brahman and the soul, Griffiths describes a Christian advaita characterized by intuitive knowledge, love and an affirmation of the reality of the world. He believed that individuals do not lose their identity, even in deep communion with God. Relationship with God does not abolish the individuality of the soul. The relationship cannot be one of total identity or complete absorption.

Griffiths writes:
For the Hindu and the Buddhist … in the ultimate state there is an absolute identity. Man realizes his identity with the absolute and realizes that this identity is eternal and unchangeable. In the Christian view man remains distinct from God. He is a creature of God, and his being raised to a participation in the divine life is an act of God’s grace, a gratuitous act of infinite love, by which God descends to man in order to raise him to share in his own life and knowledge and love. In this union man truly shares in the divine mode of knowledge, he knows himself in an identity with God, but he remains distinct in his being. It is an identity, or rather a communion, by knowledge and love, not an identity of being.

https://www.theway.org.uk/back/551Mong.pdf

Bede Griffiths translated the Syriac Orthodox Shimo, or weekly Divine Office, in its entirety, something I greatly appreciate.

I am not sure if I agree with his interpretation of Advaita; I have a certain distaste for certain aspects of Hinduism and Buddhism.

 

[The Liturgist]

In true Christianity, there is no room for that kind of meditation. The only kind of meditation that is useful in Christianity is to study the bible and be in prayer, which is to ask the Holy Spirit to fill you with His influence.

The kind of meditation being spoken of here would be to attempt to serve two masters.

Just out of curiosity what meditation are you speaking of? Presumably not Hesychasm, which is literally just being in prayer, in the fullest possible way.

 

[Strivax]

The kind of meditation being spoken of here would be to attempt to serve two masters.

By the way, if you check out the passage in Matthew 6:19-25 KJV where Jesus discusses serving two masters, you will find He is not talking about spiritual practices at all, but material goods such as food and drink and clothing, and by extension, the money it takes to secure them. I think that is what He meant by Mammon. As usual, context is important when construing the Gospels.

Best wishes, Strivax.

 

[The Liturgist]

By the way, if you check out the passage in Matthew 6 where Jesus discusses serving two masters, you will find He is not talking about spiritual practices, but material goods such as food and clothing, and by extension, the money it takes to secure them. I think that is what He meant by Mammon. As usual, context is important when construing the Gospels.

Best wishes, Strivax.

Indeed. That being said I do think we should endeavor to avoid syncretism. For example, the liturgy of St. Gregory of Nyssa Episcopal Church in San Francisco makes me uncomfortable due to certain syncretic elements in their worship, for example, some Shinto aspects to their funeral service.

 

[Strivax]

Indeed. That being said I do think we should endeavor to avoid syncretism. For example, the liturgy of St. Gregory of Nyssa Episcopal Church in San Francisco makes me uncomfortable due to certain syncretic elements in their worship, for example, some Shinto aspects to their funeral service.

There speaks the traditional liturgist! Coming from an Anglican background, which was largely designed specifically to amalgamate Catholic and Protestant traditions, I am perhaps a little more relaxed about syncretism, which in our globalised, multi-cultural world, I anticipate will become an increasingly common phenomenon.

Best wishes, Strivax.

 

[The Liturgist]

There speaks the traditional liturgist! Coming from an Anglican background, which was largely designed specifically to amalgamate Catholic and Protestant traditions, I am perhaps a little more relaxed about syncretism, which in our globalised, multi-cultural world, I anticipate will become an increasingly common phenomenon.

Best wishes, Strivax.

I myself also come, in part, from an Anglican background, indeed in many respects I am probably closer to Anglicanism than anything else. The 1979 Book of Common Prayer does include a faculty whereby the Eucharist can be celebrated at times other than the main Sunday service using a different liturgy, and using this option, known as Rite III, I have seen Episcopal Churches serve the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom and other beautiful liturgies otherwise unacceptable to them. The real problem with St. Gregory of Nyssa Episcopal Church is that, aside from their liturgies being unauthorized, many Christians, liberal and conservative alike, find some aspects of their worship offensive. For example, there is the Anaphora of Cain, dedicated to the proto-murderer, and an icon on the ceiling of the Kangxi Emperor, who drove the Catholic missionaries out of China and launched a brutal persecution.

I suspect they selected St. Gregory of Nyssa as their patron saint because he has a reputation of having been a universalist, although in fact he promoted the concept of Apokatastasis, which is slightly different. However, I can’t help but assume they were unaware of the fact that he is one of only a handful of early church fathers who expressly condemned homosexuality when they sought his patronage.

Needless to say I have some qualms about that parish. As an example of a liberal Episcopal parish which I actually like a great deal, I would cite St. Paul in the Desert, in the Diocese of San Diego.

 

[Strivax]

That's all interesting. Thanks for the info.

It does leave me wondering though, whether your issue is really with syncretism per se, or St Gregory of Nyssa and that particular Episcopal church?

Best wishes, Strivax.

 

[FireDragon76]

Good question as definitions can certainly vary. From a Christian perspective I think Bede Griffiths is a good source to start with.


"For Griffiths, advaita is a mystical intuition of being one with the divine reality; his experience of non-duality in his encounter with God is equivalent to the experience of the soul in its very centre, beyond images and concepts. Hindus and Buddhists may express this non-dual reality differently, but Griffiths believed that their experience of the non-duality of the divine is fundamentally the same. Christians have a lot to learn from Hinduism and Buddhism in their quest for the Absolute. At the same time, Christians also have a lot to offer to Eastern religions in terms of refinement and reinterpretation of the advaitic experience. This involves seeing the Hindu notion of advaita in the light of the Christian understanding of creation, the notion of the person and the incarnation of Jesus Christ. Rejecting the monism of pure advaita, which affirms the absolute identity between Brahman and the soul, Griffiths describes a Christian advaita characterized by intuitive knowledge, love and an affirmation of the reality of the world. He believed that individuals do not lose their identity, even in deep communion with God. Relationship with God does not abolish the individuality of the soul. The relationship cannot be one of total identity or complete absorption.

Griffiths writes:
For the Hindu and the Buddhist … in the ultimate state there is an absolute identity. Man realizes his identity with the absolute and realizes that this identity is eternal and unchangeable. In the Christian view man remains distinct from God. He is a creature of God, and his being raised to a participation in the divine life is an act of God’s grace, a gratuitous act of infinite love, by which God descends to man in order to raise him to share in his own life and knowledge and love. In this union man truly shares in the divine mode of knowledge, he knows himself in an identity with God, but he remains distinct in his being. It is an identity, or rather a communion, by knowledge and love, not an identity of being.

https://www.theway.org.uk/back/551Mong.pdf

If we don't share being with God, how do we exist at all? If we are contingent beings, and God is not, surely we also share in God's being?

I have been meaning to ask about the concept of diastema, and how far are we to take this notion of a "gap" between humanity and God. And how would such a "gap" fit in with the notion of divine immanence? Is God outside the universe? Is the universe merely a mechanism that God created, but now governs itself? All these are implied by a "gap" notion.

It seems to me modern metaphysics, such as Whitehead's conceptualization of God, do not suffer from these dilemmas.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

If we don't share being with God, how do we exist at all? If we are contingent beings, and God is not, surely we also share in God's being?

I have been meaning to ask about the concept of diastema, and how far are we to take this notion of a "gap" between humanity and God. And how would such a "gap" fit in with the notion of divine immanence? Is God outside the universe? Is the universe merely a mechanism that God created, but now governs itself? All these are implied by a "gap" notion.

It seems to me modern metaphysics, such as Whitehead's conceptualization of God, do not suffer from these dilemmas.

Some how we share in God's being, since only God is the source and sustainer of being and yet our share is tangential, limited, imperfect and damaged. It is through Christ that we grown into the full realization of what sharing in God's being can be.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Anyone else lean this way?

My interest started about 1976 with my interest in meditation and feeling a sense of connection. Then I discovered Thomas Merton, Pierre Teilhard De Chardin and Bede Griffiths and realized that such a view is not necessarily incompatible with Christianity.


"In Eastern Orthodox Christianity, it’s carried principally in the tradition of hesychasm, a prayer with unflagging emphasis on “putting the mind in the heart.” In the Western tradition, Meister Eckhart, the Rhineland mystics, and, in our own times, Bernadette Roberts come immediately to mind. I also see it strongly in the 14th century classic The Cloud of Unknowing."

"Richard Rohr talks about nonduality being at the center of the Christian tradition, as articulated through the belief that Jesus was both fully human and fully divine."
Cynthia Bourgeault on Christian Nonduality | The Garrison Institute.

[the WWMC sub-forum is for liberal Christians and non-liberal Christian members are not allowed to debate in this forum.]

Are you referring to this?

 

[Gregory Thompson]

I have experienced the diagram in my previous post, but found the following more liberating. Just trying to feel out what the invisible connections between people might look like in Non-Dual Christianity. I read the article, but it didn't paint a clear picture.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

I have experienced the diagram in my previous post, but found the following more liberating. Just trying to feel out what the invisible connections between people might look like in Non-Dual Christianity. I read the article, but it didn't paint a clear picture.
View attachment 332865

Our individuality is real. But it is also superficial. Deeper down we have a common center, Christ.