Nondual Teachings of Christ

[Nowayout]

Originally Posted by Iamit

The nondual point being made is that there are no such reservations or exceptions to Oneness being all there is.

Devotion to Christ whilst excluding what you dont like in the manifestation would be a contradiction in terms.

What I don't like is shadowy, The Christ still remains "perfected in love" transcending our personal rational lights..

Nonduality is pointing towards personal lights?

[Nowayout]

Originally Posted by Jyotir

Hi Nowayout,

Just a quick comment by way of definition:

What you describe in your above quoted is usually referred to as:
'qualified non-dualism'.

And btw, regardless of religious tradition and including most of the major ones,
that particular orientation is held by an overwhelming majority of people at the present time.

~ J

There are many traditions, and they are all a mosaic of the divine spark? I don't know what qualified non-dualism is in essence, but it matters not.

The spirit I can.. feel.. in the love of the Christ is real. For me, but dogma is not my path.

What does nondualism point towards, that I am God?

Who has the power to hold that space.

And better yet, how do you hold it.

Thinking about it, or "becoming love" as the Christ presented in life.

My devotion is grounded in love, what is nonduality grounded in, the mind?

Is nonduality not a devotion to God within?

It could also pass as another devotion, but love is eternal ground.

Hence the Christ was with us without the need for devotion and dogma.

Rather understanding...

[Still_Waters]

Originally Posted by The Necromancer

My favourite quote from The Bible:

"Before Abraham was, I AM" - cannot get any more non-dual than that.

That is one of my favorites as well.

Another favorite is: "I and the Father are one and the same" with the addendum that "The Father is greater than I".

[Iamit]

Originally Posted by Nowayout

What I don't like is shadowy, The Christ still remains "perfected in love" transcending our personal rational lights..

Nonduality is pointing towards personal lights?

Nonduality means no possibility if disconnection from Oneness no matter what state one may be in, Christian or what may be regarded as shadowy.

[Jyotir]

Originally Posted by Nowayout

There are many traditions, and they are all a mosaic of the divine spark? I don't know what qualified non-dualism is in essence, but it matters not.

The spirit I can.. feel.. in the love of the Christ is real. For me, but dogma is not my path.

What does nondualism point towards, that I am God?

Who has the power to hold that space.

And better yet, how do you hold it.

Thinking about it, or "becoming love" as the Christ presented in life.

My devotion is grounded in love, what is nonduality grounded in, the mind?

Is nonduality not a devotion to God within?

It could also pass as another devotion, but love is eternal ground.

Hence the Christ was with us without the need for devotion and dogma.

Rather understanding…

Hi Nowayout,

There are many traditions, and they are all a mosaic of the divine spark?

Yes, of course…they would have to be so….because there is no essential difference between the spark and the mosaic. Of course, there may be functional variations of cognition in that regard ;-) which is the differential origin of the appearance of a ‘mosaic’…. and why…

I don't know what qualified non-dualism is in essence, but it matters not.

It does matter, precisely because of your aforementioned mosaic. And you do know what qualified non-dualism is, because the original comment of yours that I responded to was a definition of sorts:

“Perhaps God is outside of creation but also within it.”

That’s the classic qualified non-dualism.

Again, it matters, because in human culture at this time, that is the overwhelmingly predominant orientation of people throughout the world regardless of their religious tradition or practice. So, even though there is a ‘mosaic’ of sorts, it is comprised of a prevalent size and color of ‘tile’. In other words, there is a very significant commonality in terms of cognition/conceptualization of reality and consequently how life is approached in spiritual terms, which significantly is common to adherents of varying traditions and different religions regardless. Therefore, even if on the surface the conventional wisdom indicates, ‘this’ is a different religion from ‘that’, etc., the orientation to reality within that ‘different religion’, in terms of what constitutes the broader metaphysical basis, is still similar.

In terms of qualified non-dualism, what that means is that Immanence is considered ‘more so’, e.g., more immanent ‘outside’ of the Created/Creation, i.e. ‘ground’, but also, simultaneously available secondarily within it (derivative of ground). This is usually assumed, because of all the ‘sinning’, pain and suffering, ignorance and imperfection so blatantly obvious within the Creation, e.g., even if God/ the Highest is in all of that, He/It can’t really BE all That, because God is perfect, etc., and therefore God really must somehow be intrinsically limited within the Creation.

This is the direct result of a perceived-as-concrete ‘maya’, false surface appearance, ignorant objective cognition, etc. vs. a deeper subjective cognition of True Self, True Identity, i.e., true Monism, One God, One Self - regardless of apparent form.

Why that matters, is because as a result of that implicit (presumed) orientation, most human beings regard the ‘really real’ God to be external to the Created/Creation, and therefore external to themselves, although ‘somewhat’ and ‘somehow’ available - - indirectly - - within it.

As a result, and importantly so, they don’t see their own lives and the evolution of consciousness AS their lives, directly to be that same God, since the main qualification of ‘qualified non-dualism’ is that very distinction of elevated status outside of the Creation, but not direct identity within the Creation…regardless of status in becoming.

Your own philosophical position as indicated herein, in your own words, apparently derives from that orientation. That’s how pervasive it is, how implicitly exclusive, and at the same time as a result, perhaps naively claiming it is ‘not dogmatic’. And I’ll use your own words to explain…

The spirit I can.. feel.. in the love of the Christ is real.

Good for you....

For me, but dogma is not my path.

Admirable if true.
However (and even though this thread is about the Christ, but here we have also split into a discussion on qualified non-dualism, which your words imply), unless and until one can authentically feel the same with, in, and from the Buddha, Krishna, etc. as well - that ‘love’ is perhaps more arbitrarily exclusive than one might personally recognize, and therefore implicitly more dogmatic than one might publicly acknowledge. Therefore…

“…dogma is not my path.” is not a credible boast. Or, it’s simply credible in its limiting dogmatism…by a subtle prejudice.

On the other hand…..

What does nondualism point towards, that I am God?

Yes.

Who has the power to hold that space.

(Assuming that sentence represents a poorly punctuated question….)

Uhhhh…the answer would be…… God.

Who or What else could?

And better yet, how do you hold it.

(Again, assuming that’s actually a question…..)

Thinking about it, or "becoming love" as the Christ presented in life.

(another question?)

How do I hold it?
How do you hold it?
Why does anyone need to ‘hold it‘, objectively…when you ARE it?

That’s the crucial non-dual proposition as distinct from the qualified non-dual position.

Since in non-dualism all Identity is One, the capacity to do so, to “hold it” would be commensurate with the native capacity of an All-conscious omnipresent One Being….God. Therefore God is simply the same Identity in any another form, status, poise, aspect, etc., as the individuated being experiencing God- awareness in and through that being (or becoming)… as Being. It’s still-and-all the same God. So if there is any ‘holding’, God is the holder, the holding, and the held, One and all. Or, one can only become love if one already is Love.

After all, all-consciousness is all-power.
What God Visions or Wills is certainly within God’s capacity, by virtue of that omnipotence. It only appears as deficient or partial in a Universe where this innate power and perfection is apparently limited, veiled and emergent - or - becoming/realizing what it essentially already is in Being, and therefore appears to be partial and incomplete, and importantly therefore: conditional, or….qualified.

It’s just different forms of the same essential One Self, as compassionate dispensation and example (presentation) - of giving - but also as the same Self emerging from ignorance in distress, in need of that compassion - receiving. Becoming is the other side of the coin of Being; they are essentially the SAME. However….

Love in the physical is easier to understand in terms of a qualified dynamic of giver and receiver, suffering and compassion, need and dispensation, etc., and therein is the ‘qualification’, the modified orientation as distinct from a purely subjective static Being in which that Love is a Self-amorous Delight, which is perhaps too far removed, too abstract, and seen as unfathomable and unattainable accordingly. But the example of a God-man dispensing Love is so approachable. That’s why…

My devotion is grounded in love,

... in the qualified conception, where ‘ground’ is assumed superior to what issues from it or what is serves.

what is nonduality grounded in, the mind?

Non-duality by definition has to be grounded in the same ground, because it is the ground, and whatever issues from it.

Devotion is inherently dualistic since there must be an implied ‘separation’ between the lover and the Beloved, or the need and fulfillment, or the ignorant suffering and the compassionate blessing, or the chosen Ideal and the dedicated aspirant, etc.

If anything, bhakti (devotion) is functionally dualistic, even if that doesn’t require the mind, which is exclusively dualistic. That is why non-dualism (when authentic, and by definition) cannot be derived from mind, but has to be grounded by in and through the same ‘ground’ that it inherently IS, which includes mind. All instrumental forms are in fact the same essence in a different variant status - not simply derivative of ‘ground’ (which is the qualified view).

Is nonduality not a devotion to God within?

It is an experiential awareness of God within and God without as the one and same One Being. . So in that sense, non-duality could be the basis of devotion to God ‘without’, through service to the divine in and through the Creation (such as with karma yoga).

As in (getting back to the OP), “I and the Father are One”. When Jesus Christ healed people or preached to them, did he do so condescendingly and arrogantly - or because he saw them humbly as God, and therefore part and parcel of Himself?

In the strict sense, or as usually considered in non-duality, it would not be ‘devotion’ per se, because of the previous comment - but these are just words. It would be primarily an awareness - knowing as Self, of Identity as unitary, One, regardless of superficial form appearance. And love or devotion might be similarly a dynamic aspect of That One Identity. But that means whether within or without, static or dynamic, that qualification would be rendered by an authentic awareness of said Identity as simply different aspects or statuses of the One Self. In other words, any devotion is so, precisely because all phenomenal forms are directly experienced as aspects of One Self, God.

It could also pass as another devotion, but love is eternal ground.

Then there is no conflict. One Being, One Love. In whatever status.
However, the very utilization of the term ‘ground’ implies the qualified non-dual orientation. Because there is an implied preference of ‘ground’ as distinct from what issues from it - - as derivative and not IDENTICAL.

Hence the Christ was with us without the need for devotion and dogma.

Hence the Christ - a preeminent exemplar of devotion - is still with us and never left us. But if only we knew that….functionally - as dynamic awareness on a permanent moment-to-moment basis. Then we wouldn’t describe it in the past tense, especially if it is ‘eternal’.

God as Love, as the ‘eternal ground’ also has a dynamic form in the qualified non-dual conception, whereby in the Creation there is need and dispensation which is characterized as love and devotion, or compassion, etc., seen in the Creation as issuing forth from that ‘ground’ - but not as essentially the same as the ground and its various phenomenal forms. Hence, as ‘qualified’, ground is somehow distinct from what issues from it. In true Monism, they are one and the same Identity.

As far as "dogma" goes, and for me it’s not very far - these dodgy references are a bit obscure and need some clarification as to what in this discussion constitutes that dogma and how it is relevant, if at all - but especially if that dogma is surreptitiously (and ironically) construed as some form of, “not dogmatic”.

~ J

[dazza095]

I'm a newbie, and somewhat computer illiterate. Am struggling to communicate on this site. Am still waiting for a reply from someone. I have a huge interest in nonduality. My shelves are littered with books on the subject. Not that I'm a know it all , I am open to new ideas. I've spent most my life meditating in search of my Self or the Seer. I've known for some time that the Seer and seen are one and the same thing with no dividing line between them.
Life is a big mystery , and I believe that the difficulty of it all lies in its obviousness. Most human beings are unaware of the obvious because it's obvious. When we watch a good film on tv we get lost in the contents and totally forget about the screen, even though the screen is the fundamental truth behind the whole process, we get involved with the pictures in ignorance of the screen. In life we get lost in the world in ignorance of the Self or Seer. I'm curious, is this post of any interest to anyone on this site? I'm sure you've heard it all before, but it could be the start of a interesting conversation.

[Moondance]

Originally Posted by dazza095

I'm a newbie, and somewhat computer illiterate. Am struggling to communicate on this site. Am still waiting for a reply from someone. I have a huge interest in nonduality. My shelves are littered with books on the subject. Not that I'm a know it all , I am open to new ideas. I've spent most my life meditating in search of my Self or the Seer. I've known for some time that the Seer and seen are one and the same thing with no dividing line between them.
Life is a big mystery , and I believe that the difficulty of it all lies in its obviousness. Most human beings are unaware of the obvious because it's obvious. When we watch a good film on tv we get lost in the contents and totally forget about the screen, even though the screen is the fundamental truth behind the whole process, we get involved with the pictures in ignorance of the screen. In life we get lost in the world in ignorance of the Self or Seer. I'm curious, is this post of any interest to anyone on this site? I'm sure you've heard it all before, but it could be the start of a interesting conversation.

Hello dazza095, welcome to the forum.

Yes, life is mysterious. And I agree that the obviousness of this (THIS) is overlooked. You say that the seer and the seen are one - but then talk of being in ignorance of the seer as if the seer is somehow a separate something that needs to be found. Is there really a seer (noun) as such?

BTW. Perhaps you might consider starting this conversation as a new thread since this one is still ongoing as a quite specific topic (nondual teachings of Christ.)

[Nowayout]

Hey Jyotir

Yes.. a question needs a question mark.

God is the question... am I the answer??

There, learning all about you as we go... the subtleties of life.. ?

[Nowayout]

A spark needs matter to burn
Fire and heat is like love
Love needs a heart
Burn on....

Heart of mine
With all that is divine!

No question mark there....

[Jyotir]

Maybe SF needs a bhakti forum?