Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Mlw]

There are philosophical and spiritual traditions that either deny the existence of an ontic subject or propose alternative views on the nature of the self. These traditions often challenge the idea of a fixed, enduring self and suggest that the self is either an illusion or a dynamic, interconnected phenomenon. [...]

Yes, but according to Christianity, which is true faith, Jesus Christ is the only permanent and unchanging self. All others are fallen selves, shadowy replicas of the Cosmic Man, the Homo Maximus, which is Christ. By participation in Christ, we undergo reparation and acquire the only true selfhood. Paul says: "I am crucified with Christ, nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me. And the life which I now live in the flesh, I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me" (Gal. 2:20).

Christianity is rooted in a Platonic worldview of participation, unknown in the East. Luckily, most people in the East have not fallen for the religion of "no self", or else they would have gone under.

[Stoppelmann]

Yes, but according to Christianity, which is true faith, Jesus Christ is the only permanent and unchanging self. All others are fallen selves, shadowy replicas of the Cosmic Man, the Homo Maximus, which is Christ. By participation in Christ, we undergo reparation and acquire the only true selfhood. Paul says: "I am crucified with Christ, nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me. And the life which I now live in the flesh, I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me" (Gal. 2:20).

Christianity is rooted in a Platonic worldview of participation, unknown in the East. Luckily, most people in the East have not fallen for the religion of "no self", or else they would have gone under.

In non-dualism, the crucifixion can be seen as a symbolic representation of the ego, or the illusory sense of a separate self being dissolved or transcended. The idea here is that the individual self (the ego) is united with the universal consciousness (Christ), and the ego's identification with a separate identity is relinquished. It is recognized that the true essence of the individual self is inseparable from the divine or universal consciousness.

From a non-dual perspective, "the life which I now live in the flesh" is seen as an expression of the divine consciousness manifesting through the individual form. The phrase "I live by the faith of the Son of God" can be understood as living with trust and surrender to the higher power or universal consciousness that resides within and beyond the individual self. This faith represents a recognition of the interconnectedness and unity of all existence.

So, a non-dualist like me would interpret this text as an expression of the realization that the individual self is not separate from the divine or universal consciousness (Christ) but rather an expression of it. The apparent duality between the individual and the divine is transcended, and the text emphasizes the underlying unity and interconnectedness of all existence.

[Mlw]

[...] It is recognized that the true essence of the individual self is inseparable from the divine or universal consciousness. [...]

In Christian theology, on the other hand, humanity is fallen, which means that we have become separated from the divine or universal consciousness. Thus, we are like inferior "simulations" of true self and true mind, a simulation performed by the brain neurons. However, by imitation (participation) we can come closer to God in a relative sense. This corresponds to the Neoplatonist Iamblichus' model. He argued, contrary to Plotinus, that our mind does not abide in the divine Nous, but is entirely earth-bound (vid. Remes, Neoplatonism, 2008). Thus, in Iamblichus, the "horizontal striving" after wholeness becomes identified with the vertical striving (the Plotinian ideal). We can only perform horizontally, not vertically, as there is no "umbilical cord" that connects us with divine mind. The doctrine of the Fall makes the whole difference.

[Stoppelmann]

In Christian theology, on the other hand, humanity is fallen, which means that we have become separated from the divine or universal consciousness. Thus, we are like inferior "simulations" of true self and true mind, a simulation performed by the brain neurons. However, by imitation (participation) we can come closer to God in a relative sense. This corresponds to the Neoplatonist Iamblichus' model. He argued, contrary to Plotinus, that our mind does not abide in the divine Nous, but is entirely earth-bound (vid. Remes, Neoplatonism, 2008). Thus, in Iamblichus, the "horizontal striving" after wholeness becomes identified with the vertical striving (the Plotinian ideal). We can only perform horizontally, not vertically, as there is no "umbilical cord" that connects us with divine mind. The doctrine of the Fall makes the whole difference.

Yes, your doctrines are important for an authoritarian religion. But consider a different perspective.

The idea of Israel being a chosen people has its roots in the Abrahamic religion, Judaism. From a non-dual perspective, the concept of a chosen people may be seen in different ways, for example this perspective encourages inclusivity and recognizes the interconnectedness of all beings. While the concept of a chosen people might be traditionally used to imply exclusivity or a privileged status, a non-dualist could reinterpret it to emphasize that all people, regardless of their cultural or religious backgrounds, are equally interconnected and part of the divine consciousness.

The spread of the Christian faith to the Gojim, can be seen to universalize the teachings or messages originally associated with the chosen people. Rather than seeing these teachings as limited to a specific group, we might view them as universal truths applicable to all individuals, transcending religious or cultural boundaries, which challenges dualistic thinking, which often separates things into categories like chosen vs. unchosen, good vs. bad, or insider vs. outsider. I, as a non-dualist, question the notion of exclusivity associated with the chosen people and instead emphasize the underlying unity of all humanity.

From my perspective, religious narratives and symbols can be seen (and often are) as symbolic representations of deeper truths rather than literal truths. The idea of Israel as a chosen people I see as a symbolic representation of the divine choosing to reveal itself through certain individuals or communities while still being present in all. From my perspective, sin can be seen as an expression of the belief in the separate self, leading to actions or behaviours that harm others or create disharmony in the world. The root of sin, then, lies in the mistaken identification with a limited and separate self, rather than recognizing the inherent interconnectedness of all beings. Sin, from a non-dual perspective, is a lack of awareness or understanding of the underlying unity of all existence.

Christ encouraged a compassionate and understanding approach toward oneself and others. Rather than condemning individuals for their actions, his perspective leads to greater empathy and a recognition of the interconnectedness that binds all of humanity. Instead of viewing sin as a fixed state or inherent flaw, non-dualism might encourage individuals to work towards self-realization and a deeper understanding of their true nature. This process of awakening to one's inherent divinity can lead to a natural alignment with higher moral values and a compassionate way of living.

The teachings of Christ about being one with the Father and his call for his followers to be one with him can be interpreted as indications of a non-dual perspective. The concept of oneness with the Father and oneness with Christ has profound non-dual implications that emphasize the unity of all existence and the dissolution of dualistic boundaries, suggesting a profound unity between the individual and the divine. The concept of kenosis, which is derived from the Greek word "kenoō" meaning "to empty," is often associated with the self-emptying or self-sacrifice of Jesus Christ to obey God's will. It is an essential aspect of Christian theology, particularly in understanding the incarnation and the nature of Christ.

Kenosis involves Jesus emptying or relinquishing aspects of his personal will and egoic identity to fully align with God's will. This act of self-emptying aligns with non-dualism, which emphasizes the transcendence of the ego and the realization of a deeper, unifying essence, and emphasizes Jesus' complete surrender to God's will, reflecting a recognition of the underlying unity and interconnectedness with the divine. From a non-dual perspective, surrendering the individual will to the higher cosmic order is seen as a path to realizing the oneness with the divine.

The ultimate purpose of kenosis in Christian theology is to achieve unity with God. In a non-dual perspective, this union reflects the core principle of recognizing the inherent oneness between the individual and the divine, which transcends apparent duality. The self-emptying nature of kenosis is often associated with sacrificial love and compassionate service towards others. This aspect resonates with non-dualism, which emphasizes the interconnectedness and compassionate attitude toward all beings. In kenosis, Jesus is both fully human and fully divine, embodying the immanence of God within human form while transcending conventional human limitations. This dual nature reflects the non-dual perspective, which recognizes the simultaneous immanence and transcendence of the divine in all aspects of existence.

[sgodblacknet]

Questioning Christianity and its complexities, from God's existence to biblical narratives, is a thought-provoking journey. Exploring Gnosticism and Grail Tradition adds depth, but the debate between idealism and materialism continues

[Mlw]

Yes, your doctrines are important for an authoritarian religion. But consider a different perspective. [...]

The root of sin, according to Augustine, is pride, the striving to become like God. People wish to be gods rather than creaturely beings. The redemption comes with the incarnation, because it demonstrates that Jesus Christ is the only one equal to the Father. All others must in all humility accept their roles as earth-bound creaturely beings. By participation in Christ through faith, we are redeemed from sin, and thus we come to accept our humble natures. We then continue on a "horizontal" path in life, rather than trying to pull ourselves up by the bootstraps.

Many among the Eastern contemplatives have made this realization, too. Zen master Bankei (1622-1693) dissuaded his pupils from following the austere Zen practices: "The Unborn, he told them, is not something to be reached for or attained by discipline; it is not a condition of mind or religious ecstasy; it is right where you stand, perfect just as it is" (Besserman & Steger, Crazy Clouds: Zen Radicals, Rebels, and Reformers, 1991, p. 100).

"Univocity of being" is rejected in Christian classical theology, in Augustine, Bonaventura, Aquinas, etc. There is no inherent oneness of the individual and the divine. God truly transcends the human mind and the world, and cannot be attained by any discipline. Our path in life is right where we stand, and it is perfect just as it is. This is the path of participation, in all humility to "imitate" the divine, in whichever way. Thus, a copy of Christ takes form in our soul, and we acquire "the mind of Christ", as Paul says. Plato was right all along.

The anti-Platonic non-dualist theology of univocity of being has caused enormous harm to society and to the individual lives of people. Arbogast Schmitt accounts for its tragic consequences in Modernity and Plato: two paradigms of rationality (2012).

[Stoppelmann]

The anti-Platonic non-dualist theology of univocity of being has caused enormous harm to society and to the individual lives of people. Arbogast Schmitt accounts for its tragic consequences in Modernity and Plato: two paradigms of rationality (2012).

Arbogast Schmitt's book "Modernity and Plato: Two Paradigms of Rationality" from what I have been able to find out, compares the rationality of modernity with that of Plato's philosophy. He argues that modernity's emphasis on empirical observation has led to significant advances in science and technology but has also resulted in a reductionist view of the world that neglects the importance of values and meaning. In contrast, Plato's philosophy emphasizes the importance of values and meaning, but can be criticized for being overly abstract and disconnected from empirical reality. So, there we have the damaging aspect on both sides.

Schmitt suggests that a more balanced approach to rationality is needed, one that incorporates both empirical observation and reason, which one can hardly disagree with. We must combat the overemphasis on binary thinking in modern society, which can lead to polarized views and oversimplification of complex issues. A more balanced approach to rationality acknowledges the shades of grey between extreme positions and encourages nuanced and flexible thinking. Materialist thinking reduces everything, including consciousness and mental phenomena, to the physical processes of the brain and the external world, and is a form of reductionism in itself.

Materialist thinking seems to prioritize reductionist analysis and isolated parts over understanding the broader context and interconnectedness of phenomena and is also adopted by the church. Plato may have held a view that is fundamentally opposed to materialism, but he also held a dualistic view of human nature, distinguishing between the material body and the immaterial soul. According to Plato, the soul is immortal and pre-exists before birth, while the body is merely a temporary vessel for the soul during life, a mind-body dualism that aligns more closely with materialism.

In comparison, a non-dual approach solves the "hard problem of consciousness," which questions how subjective experiences and consciousness arise from physical processes and brain activity within a materialist framework. Rather than seeing the body as a temporary vessel, it is the manifestation of a local consciousness, the Atman in other traditions. That is why, despite the ultimate reunion with the unity, we are a body, rather than having one. This is a subject that St. Paul touched upon in one of his letters.

In discussing how the brain copes with the non-duality of reality in his book, Iain McGilchrist writes:

‘All is One’ and ‘All is Many’ to the left hemisphere demands an either/or resolution. For the right hemisphere it is a differently structured problem, since, for it, what one might call differentiated wholes – not created by an effort of cognition, so much as by one of recognition – are all that there is. Precisely because the left hemisphere sees what amount to geometric abstractions, and categories, that are snatched from time and embodiment, its analytic bent leads to an abstract, eternally unchanging unity of perfect forms: all uniqueness lost. By contrast, the right hemisphere sees a fractal or holographic world, a multitude of individually unique wholes, or Gestalten, that themselves form part of an ever greater Gestalt, which is filled with implicit differentiation, not just unitary.
McGilchrist, Iain. The Matter With Things: Our Brains, Our Delusions and the Unmaking of the World (pp. 1333-1334). Perspectiva Press. Kindle Edition.

“In Buddhism,” wrote Jane Hirshfield 1998, “non-duality is not the negation of multiplicity in favour of some idea of the absolute; it is also not the nihilism so many Westerners think Buddhism to be.” Non-duality, or "advaita" in Sanskrit, refers to the idea that ultimate reality is not characterized by dualities or divisions, such as subject and object, self and other, or good and bad. Instead, it emphasizes the interconnectedness and inseparability of all phenomena. Our left-brain hemisphere tends to struggle with this concept, and Christianity, especially fundamentalists, seem to be especially confined to the restrictions that it causes. Non-duality doesn’t deny the value or significance of life and existence; it offers a different perspective on the nature of reality.

[Sy Borg]

Christianity is based on is a myth, one of many developed around the world throughout history. Many modern people believe ancient myths to be the literal truth, thus they misunderstand them.

[JackDaydream]

Christianity is based on is a myth, one of many developed around the world throughout history. Many modern people believe ancient myths to be the literal truth, thus they misunderstand them.

The main reason why I am interested in Gnostic ideas and the Grail legend is to understand and disentangle the mythic structure of the Christian tradition. There is the question of the mythical vs the historic Jesus.

It also comes down to how the idea of 'myth' is understood. The idea of myth as simply 'made up' may as concrete as the literalistic interpretations. Some of myth may be based on handed down ideas and most of the major spiritual teachers, including Jesus, the Buddha and Socrates didn't write books, so accounts of their ideas and lives are based on reconstructed narratives.

Part of the issue of myths may be cross cultural weaving and narratives. The ideas of the Egyptians and Greeks come into it. There are also some universal or archetypal mythic structures, such as those spoken about by James Campbell. Thinking about the mythical aspects of the Christian story it may be important to think what lies behind stories, such as the idea of the Virgin birth or even Rudolf Steiner's concept of the 'Cosmic Christ'. There are even many alternative 'mythic' accounts, such as of Jesus spending time studying in India prior to his mission. At one point, there was the 'mystery' of the Turin Shroud but that is now understood to be fake, but that doesn't mean that every myth about Christ was fake entirely. There is the question of miracles and even more recently the claims about healings at Lourdes.

[Mlw]

Arbogast Schmitt's book "Modernity and Plato: Two Paradigms of Rationality" from what I have been able to find out, compares the rationality of modernity with that of Plato's philosophy. He argues that modernity's emphasis on empirical observation has led to significant advances in science and technology but has also resulted in a reductionist view of the world that neglects the importance of values and meaning. In contrast, Plato's philosophy emphasizes the importance of values and meaning, but can be criticized for being overly abstract and disconnected from empirical reality. So, there we have the damaging aspect on both sides.

Schmitt suggests that a more balanced approach to rationality is needed, one that incorporates both empirical observation and reason, which one can hardly disagree with. We must combat the overemphasis on binary thinking in modern society, which can lead to polarized views and oversimplification of complex issues. A more balanced approach to rationality acknowledges the shades of grey between extreme positions and encourages nuanced and flexible thinking. Materialist thinking reduces everything, including consciousness and mental phenomena, to the physical processes of the brain and the external world, and is a form of reductionism in itself.

Materialist thinking seems to prioritize reductionist analysis and isolated parts over understanding the broader context and interconnectedness of phenomena and is also adopted by the church. Plato may have held a view that is fundamentally opposed to materialism, but he also held a dualistic view of human nature, distinguishing between the material body and the immaterial soul. According to Plato, the soul is immortal and pre-exists before birth, while the body is merely a temporary vessel for the soul during life, a mind-body dualism that aligns more closely with materialism.

In comparison, a non-dual approach solves the "hard problem of consciousness," which questions how subjective experiences and consciousness arise from physical processes and brain activity within a materialist framework. Rather than seeing the body as a temporary vessel, it is the manifestation of a local consciousness, the Atman in other traditions. That is why, despite the ultimate reunion with the unity, we are a body, rather than having one. This is a subject that St. Paul touched upon in one of his letters.

In discussing how the brain copes with the non-duality of reality in his book, Iain McGilchrist writes:

‘All is One’ and ‘All is Many’ to the left hemisphere demands an either/or resolution. For the right hemisphere it is a differently structured problem, since, for it, what one might call differentiated wholes – not created by an effort of cognition, so much as by one of recognition – are all that there is. Precisely because the left hemisphere sees what amount to geometric abstractions, and categories, that are snatched from time and embodiment, its analytic bent leads to an abstract, eternally unchanging unity of perfect forms: all uniqueness lost. By contrast, the right hemisphere sees a fractal or holographic world, a multitude of individually unique wholes, or Gestalten, that themselves form part of an ever greater Gestalt, which is filled with implicit differentiation, not just unitary.
McGilchrist, Iain. The Matter With Things: Our Brains, Our Delusions and the Unmaking of the World (pp. 1333-1334). Perspectiva Press. Kindle Edition.

“In Buddhism,” wrote Jane Hirshfield 1998, “non-duality is not the negation of multiplicity in favour of some idea of the absolute; it is also not the nihilism so many Westerners think Buddhism to be.” Non-duality, or "advaita" in Sanskrit, refers to the idea that ultimate reality is not characterized by dualities or divisions, such as subject and object, self and other, or good and bad. Instead, it emphasizes the interconnectedness and inseparability of all phenomena. Our left-brain hemisphere tends to struggle with this concept, and Christianity, especially fundamentalists, seem to be especially confined to the restrictions that it causes. Non-duality doesn’t deny the value or significance of life and existence; it offers a different perspective on the nature of reality.

In fact, Arbogast Schmitt defends the Platonic worldview. The book is about the rejection of the epistemology of Plato and Aristotle and the Platonic doctrine of the reality of ideas, which began with the emergence of nominalism in the late Middle Ages. On this view, God is similar to a worldly 'object', in keeping with the doctrine of univocity of being. The individual object is seen as a given, already intellectually determined in itself. Thus, it need not be determined by the Intellect in the act of perception. Among its many tragic consequences, the individual has become sufficient to himself, as he need no longer participate in the transcendental Form of the Individual, which is Jesus Christ. On the contrary, being curved into oneself fulfills the value of the individual, on the grounds that he is understood as an instance of himself. It has resulted in growing egotism among people.

A non-dual approach does not solve the "hard problem of consciousness". To relocate the problem of self-consciousness to the mind of Brahman can hardly be called a scientific solution.

[Belindi]

Christian beliefs include the mythic story as told by various priests and denominations . This great mythic story is centred on the Resurrection event which distinguishes it from other mythic stories.

Christian believers also include those belonging to a congregation of people who at least superficially believe in the Resurrection event and the moral code as purported to have Jesus Christ as its author, although Judaism is also given due credit.

Christian believers, together with other religionists and atheists, also believe in what is now widely believe to be the moral code that forms the base of modern civilisation. Many support this moral code while disbelieving in the supernatural mythic story.

[Pattern-chaser]

Christian beliefs include the mythic story as told by various priests and denominations . This great mythic story is centred on the Resurrection event which distinguishes it from other mythic stories.

Christian believers also include those belonging to a congregation of people who at least superficially believe in the Resurrection event and the moral code as purported to have Jesus Christ as its author, although Judaism is also given due credit.

Christian believers, together with other religionists and atheists, also believe in what is now widely believe to be the moral code that forms the base of modern civilisation. Many support this moral code while disbelieving in the supernatural mythic story.

Simplistically, we have history, (supposedly) factual, legends, a mixture of fact and fiction, and myths, that are wholly fiction. I suppose that's why we so often see "myths and legends" together?

It's a bit of a shame that we refer to Christianity as a "myth", when it seems to be a legend — referring to historical periods, including people who probably or definitely existed in actuality. I'm not quibbling about the words used, but only lamenting that myths and legends are so poorly thought-of these days.

Myths (and legends too) often have use or value, if only because they carry a worthwhile message, made-up or not. I think we should value stories — be they historical, legendary or mythical — more, instead of decrying and demeaning them. Stories are memorable, and they have value. IMO.

[Stoppelmann]

Simplistically, we have history, (supposedly) factual, legends, a mixture of fact and fiction, and myths, that are wholly fiction. I suppose that's why we so often see "myths and legends" together?

It's a bit of a shame that we refer to Christianity as a "myth", when it seems to be a legend — referring to historical periods, including people who probably or definitely existed in actuality. I'm not quibbling about the words used, but only lamenting that myths and legends are so poorly thought-of these days.

Myths (and legends too) often have use or value, if only because they carry a worthwhile message, made-up or not. I think we should value stories — be they historical, legendary or mythical — more, instead of decrying and demeaning them. Stories are memorable, and they have value. IMO.

The potential role of non-dualism in relation to the deconstruction of Christianity is as an interpretive lens to approach certain aspects of Christian theology and teachings. Non-dualism could offer insights into the interconnected nature of God, creation, and humanity, potentially challenging dualistic interpretations. The dualistic tendencies within Christianity, such as rigid distinctions between sacred and secular, body, and spirit, or divine and human have been damaging throughout history. I would encourage a more holistic understanding that emphasizes the divine presence in all aspects of life, which doesn't take anything away from those stories, just reinterprets them.

Above all the mystical traditions of Christianity and non-dualism that have that emphasize direct experiential encounters with the divine can bridge or integrate these traditions to explore profound spiritual experiences and insights and contribute to interfaith dialogue between Christian and non-Christian perspectives. Engaging in dialogue can lead to a deeper understanding of both traditions and encourage shared exploration of spiritual truths. Some individuals might, like I have, find resonance between non-dualistic ideas and their own spiritual experiences within a Christian context.

I find this as a way to correct the authoritarian dominion of Christian thought and related ideas in the world. Postmodernism does have a point about the claim to provide ultimate truths and challenges the hidden assumptions and power dynamics present in texts, whilst appreciating the mystical and experiential aspects of Christianity. Postmodernism is not inherently hostile to Christianity, and while some aspects of postmodern thought may challenge certain traditional Christian claims, other aspects may resonate with the emphasis on humility, empathy, and respect for differing viewpoints.

[Mlw]

[...] Non-dualism could offer insights into the interconnected nature of God, creation, and humanity, potentially challenging dualistic interpretations. [...]

Even physicists reason in dualistic terms. There are transcendental laws of physics and, on the other hand, a material reality. There is the transcendental quantum wave as complementary opposite of the quantum particle. We can't fare without dualistic thinking. Without opposites our thought process isn't even possible. That's why Indian sadhus stop thinking and only meditate.

[Belindi]

Christian beliefs include the mythic story as told by various priests and denominations . This great mythic story is centred on the Resurrection event which distinguishes it from other mythic stories.

Christian believers also include those belonging to a congregation of people who at least superficially believe in the Resurrection event and the moral code as purported to have Jesus Christ as its author, although Judaism is also given due credit.

Christian believers, together with other religionists and atheists, also believe in what is now widely believe to be the moral code that forms the base of modern civilisation. Many support this moral code while disbelieving in the supernatural mythic story.

Simplistically, we have history, (supposedly) factual, legends, a mixture of fact and fiction, and myths, that are wholly fiction. I suppose that's why we so often see "myths and legends" together?

It's a bit of a shame that we refer to Christianity as a "myth", when it seems to be a legend — referring to historical periods, including people who probably or definitely existed in actuality. I'm not quibbling about the words used, but only lamenting that myths and legends are so poorly thought-of these days.

Myths (and legends too) often have use or value, if only because they carry a worthwhile message, made-up or not. I think we should value stories — be they historical, legendary or mythical — more, instead of decrying and demeaning them. Stories are memorable, and they have value. IMO.

I doubt if any moral code would be of more than passing interest unless it were backed by a foundation myth. I too regret that important myths are so often scorned; stories are how humans explain ideas.