“The aspect of God that is beyond ‘being’ is the aspect of God that we should not speak of. Because that’s what it is, that’s what it is not.”~Jonathan Pageau ☕️
I am so glad to see this video. I talked about this with my friend a few days ago. Ever since I first heard about the communal ontology from you, I thought, if all of creation is interdependent and dependent on God, then it is functionally One, so perhaps this could demonstrate some sort of underlying unity which transcends dualism precisely through the dualism of distinction. However, I was hesitant to share this idea because of the associations non-dualism has with eastern mysticism. I am glad to hear people like you and Pageau agree
9:08 “As soon as people try to make [the duality of being and nothingness] too manifest, try to declare it too strongly, then you get- (groans), then you get some ridiculous tantric figure eating rotten fish.” I hear you Pageau, I hear you. But *on the other hand,* when you get spiritual authorities trying to hide and suppress the non-dual aspects of spirituality, behaving as if it wasn’t there while acknowledging it for themselves, we can become obliged to believe absurdities like, idk… an ontologically fundamental soteriological predestination of a tragically small group of people? When becoming complacent with an attitude of ‘non-duality for me but not for thee,’ people easily get to justify whatever the hell they want with the aphorism that even duality (for your mandatory beliefs) has its place in the potentiality of non-dual “reality” (where I’m allowed to be more flexible). Which I guess gets back to his original point anyway, we should be careful when we talk about it, explicitly or implicitly.
@@darposdesign4479 He is concerned that virtue (and the orderliness in pursuing that) and depravity (an orientation towards nothingness) will be presented on equal footing for the sake of non-duality. To an extent I'd agree, there are some pretty outlandish Hindu mythologies where virtue (a holy monk, a god, wtv...) is juxtaposed with it's utter betrayal (the monk going forth to debauch his desires, sensless murder and whatnot) for the sake of "balance" or whatever. But making dualities like the division between God and creation so rigid and fear-enforced is equally problematic imo. The West has developed a psychology of total separation from their natural environment and community as a result.
@@333_studios this is only a problem when you see virtue-depravity/good-evil as a duality, I prefer to see good as communal harmony, and evil, not as some abstract opposite of good, but merely as the lack of harmony. The non-dual reality is inherently harmonious because there can be no discord within its unity. So God's transcendence into the non-dual ground is just pure goodness, and you access that through partaking in goodness. Problem solved, you get non-dualism AND moral decency
“What we talk about” is another way of saying ‘doctrine’. The Easterners have been saying all along that all doctrine, even doctrine which claims to be exclusive, such as normative Christianity, as Pageau demonstrates here, is just fingers pointing at the moon, and to say that there can only be ‘one finger’ pointing at the moon, is to confuse the finger with the moon. To say that the Absolute and the Infinite can only be symbolized by one symbol or form, is to limit the Absolute and Infinite. It’s a metaphysical impossibility.
@@joshuaparsons887This is what makes Christianity unique. Christ is both the signifier and the signified.Perennialism demotes Christ to just another signifier.
@@joshuaparsons887 he both is and is the infinite. If he were the infinite without any qualification whatsoever, we wouldn’t be able to say ‘this is Christ and this isn’t’. But we can.
Might i dare to say that while Christ is the only one who managed to join the two together, we can also participate in that very same mystery through the sacraments of baptism and the holy eucharist. "I live, yet not I, but Christ liveth in me."
Pageau expresses this eloquently and firmly. I think when we speculate about things we can never understand and God has told us we never will understand, we invite the demonic to fill it with their imaginations. If you ponder a question and one of the answers is “I think I’ll be evil sometimes”, then you have to have the wisdom to recognize where that really came from. Spiritual warfare doesn’t stop once you enter the philosophical. Far far far from it. You should have such love for God that such inquiry makes you feel gross. Not worth it.
Wow.This is great.As a ex bhuddist coming to catholic can I bring up my idea of non dual marian.I always thought there was a meeting ground.Ive found some stuff on non dual christianity but its rare.Im seeking a confluence of beleifs.
I'm on the same boat, brother. While I ultimately left Buddhism, I still owe a lot to it in my present understanding of Christianity. Richard Rohr is also a proponent of nondual Christianity/Catholicism if you want to check him out.
Thanks for posting this thoughtful discussion. After many years I have come to see non-dualism as a view, or doctrine, that doesn't really fit Western approaches very well. Indian Non-Dualism has centuries of thought and practice behind it and I think this context matters. This context is not shared in the West. And I think that because of this adopting doctrines like Non-Dualism leads to confusion and the kind of misunderstandings that Pageau refers to. For example, Shankara was an ascetic and set up locations for ascetic practice that survive today. But I don't see any Western Non-Dualists arguing for ascetic practice as a necessary component of the Non-Dual approach. // Non-Dualism has a certain status in the West these days and it is rarely questioned. But perhaps it is possible to see Non-Dualism as a way of talking, and therefore simply a tool that can be effectively used in certain contexts rather than the pinnacle of the spiritual ascent. Non-Dualism has its inherent weaknesses, which Pageau touches on, but it seems difficult to highlight those shortcomings. // Thanks again for the video.
I'm so glad this video popped up, because I've been seeing (interesting) things from this channel and Jonathan Pageau's for a while now, and I have been also wrestling in the shadow of the cross-my own cross and that of Christ, if you follow my meaning-for a few years, never fully taking the plunge and never fully stepping out either (I am the lukewarm one that God would have to spit out). Now, there are some things that I find very vexing about Christianity and all these people claiming it to be a non-dual tradition, and, forgive me if this is an elementary mistake, a kind of ignorance based off exposure to superstitious, paranoiac, exaggerated and exoteric forms of Christianity (go figure, I am an American and raised on American pop culture), but I have a question about Christian ontology, aesthetics, and ethics, if you will, and it's this: if Christianity is non-dual, then why all this focus on evil, and fear over Satan and the occult? I've always taken this pre-occupation with the "dark forces" to be basically the definition of dualism, I mean we're talking light vs. dark here, good vs. evil and all that. Again, maybe I'm just ignorant here, but my understanding of non-duality is more informed by something like Greek paganism than Christianity, because the Greeks understood that, while there are "dark" forces (I'm thinking of Dionysus here, or just Chthonic gods and spirits in general), they are not "evil" per se, since they are just as much threads in the fabric of God's creation and need to be reckoned with, understood, and even appreciated, instead of ignored or, rejected, or outright hated. The Greeks gave a kind of ritual space to the "irrational" and the "excessive" aspects of life, perhaps because they understood their power and feared they would overwhelm them (something we have forgotten, and to our peril, I think). When I read something like Ovid's Metamorphoses, yes, my modern and post-Christian sensibilities are frequently repulsed by the frequently graphic and sensuous descriptions of arbitrary violence, cruelty, and chaos, but I remind myself that the work is just far more representative of a kind of "Old World" view of nature and the divine than what I was raised on, a view that Nietzsche seemed to have understood, that gloried in not just the world's infinite possibility for great beauty but also for its terror and its extremity (because it was non-dual). Anyway, I guess my point is, if Christianity is non-dual, then why the need for Satan and evil? If it was truly non-dual, wouldn't the character, the symbol, the archetype of Satan be a respected, even beloved figure, since all things and all beings are works of God's infinite love?
It's very interesting to hear what he's trying to communicate because if he knew at the time that nonduality is beyond good and evil then he would understand that duality cannot "create" nonduality. Also what is evil is only described as such by the traditions, culture, and language that makes that classifications of "evil" evil and "good" good. The positive and negative. The yin and yang. As long as whatever it is comes from love and is pure without distortions or illusions it is "good". Nature is amoral and shows no mercy. There's no good in a tornado or earthquake, but there's no evil either. Nature takes no pleasure out of the suffering of it's children. It does so because of it's purpose. To be strong and beyond all animals and humans living. With hopes that we may be humbled and listen and learn from it and the effects it brings.
Whatever people want to think about the exclusivism of Christianity when it comes to non-dualism, I implore you to think of it this way instead: While there may be other eastern religions that share a non-dual ontology, the journey of actually living into that truth with those religions typically involves the self-annihilation of subject and identity. In contrast, Christianity has an ethos of preserving and embracing the particular despite one’s surrender to the universal. Forget for a moment about convincing someone that Christianity is more foundational in regards to the ever nebulous ultimate and universal truth. (And heavens, don’t guilt trip them for an ontology they probably took reluctantly) Instead, just ask them if they’d like to transform or annihilate their personality, because that essentially is the difference between the Christian and Buddhist esoteric paths.
ask me that a few years ago and I'd have said annihilation 100%, and it's precisely why I rejected Christ in my heart for years and years. Please don't go around asking people that. The real difference is, do you accept that there is a God that is good or do you believe you are "God?" because if you are God, and you don't like who and how you are, then annihilation is logical. If there is a God who is good, then you want to annihilate all of you that ISN'T GOOD
"the meaning is: there is no meaning. escape or you'll always be a flawed, suffering, temporal creature" vs "be purified into an eternal icon of God's glory, united with HIm in the transfigurated, timeless world which is the kingdom of heaven"
@@da-p6814 Then I guess you shouldn't have a problem with the Buddhist path of self-extinguishment. The Christian path differs primarily because it wants to affirm that you were created with an original design that was deemed good. If you want to an alternative ontology where humans are not created, then fine. But the Christian path involves a corrupted identity needing a return to it's perfect Eden-like state, not an inherently flawed one that must be erased. (Otherwise, what is it God created when he created a person? A demon?) Yes, purification can be a destructive process but is ultimately reconstructive. If we are just erasing personhood here, how are we saving people and not just replacing them?
@@333_studios If purification erased ones entire personhood, you could say that's what it means to "not make it to Heaven." And so one cultivates aspects of ones self that are "worth preserving." And again, this only makes sense - and is only worthwhile in my view - if there is a source of meaning that is completely beyond yourself. That is, God. Regarding "The Christian path differs primarily because it wants to affirm that you were created with an original design that was deemed good," I totally agree with that. Again this goes back to my point that it requires believing there is God and that God isn't you, because I certainly didn't create myself purposely and with some grand plan. If I think that on some level I'm God (to the extent that the idea of God is relevant in this framework), then clearly this was an accident or a fluke or just an inevitable but deeply unfortunate pattern. and in that case the only hope, if any, would be self annihilation.
@@333_studios Essentially, my problem with the Buddhist path of self extinguishment is that it's Buddhist. by which I mean to say that it's part of entirely different framework within which there is no reason not to consider extinguishment the "good ending." I feel that the original question "if they’d like to transform or annihilate their personality" implicitly offers that Buddhist framework as a viable alternative - rather than the truth, which is that if Christianity is real then the Buddhist framework is (at very best) obsolete.
Absolutely agree with Johnathan. But....In eastern thought, we live quite happily with the paradox because we talk about it all time, because we know wecare living it out, non duality has been taught for centuries, andcl we have some very rare examples of non duality manifesting itself in human form, just like Jesus did. This discussion has to be seen rightfully in its western context only and not as a fixed position...although Johnsthans warnings about the possibility of crazy spinoffs is universal, that doesnt mean we should turn away from the GOOD when it comes to us. Youvwill know it always by its sacrifice and absolute compassion foe all creatures.
How can Christianity be non-dual when it's taught that there's an infinite gap between God and the cosmos? That's duality, plain and simple. Non-dual Christianity says that there is no separation between God and the cosmos - between the immanent and the transcendent, the finite and the infinite, the temporal and the eternal, the manifest and the unmanifest, etc.
@@dieselphiend If God is all good then God could only create good things. Evil has no substance, it is not a created thing. The only things of substance (rather than a lack of substance) are good. So there is only one kind of substantive thing, good things.
@@145pajamas " So there is only one kind of substantive thing, good things." I do agree with that. There is no up without down, no left without right, wrong without right, black without white, no good without evil. Disparity is a product of consciousness.
even the way he talks about one interpretation being the light way and one interpretation being a "monster eating the world" is dualistic. which is it? non dual or dual? lol.
If god was unifying in a an all encompassing type way where love and hate bottom and low we’re equal under his love then the apple would have been a paradox. Unity creates non dualism in humans so to tell them no is the same as he’s making the apple inevitable
Here is why I believe in non duality and why we are all one in Christ' consciousness. It is found in Jeremiah Chapter one. "The word of the Lord came to me, saying, Before I formed you (body) in the womb I knew you (consciousness)." And then God told Jeremiah, "You (consciousness) must go to everyone I send you to (body) and you will speak whatever I command you (Christ consciousness)." -Jeremiah 1-7 In verse nine Jeremiah went on to say, "The Lord reached out his hand and touched my mouth and said to me, “I have put my words in your mouth." -Jeremiah 1-9 This describes unity and shared consciousness. Smile you are the creator:) "Be not afraid of their faces: for I am with thee to deliver thee, saith the Lord." The creator is the game. This is exactly what the Hindu have believed for thousands of years. A tech minded person could see a virtual reality. One of endless being and eternal consciousness. The creator is everyone and everything. In Hindu this concept is described as brahman. VR is tricking the senses. In the ancient Hindu religion this tricking of the senses is called "maya." Maya is described as "the veil of the illusion of this world." "Multiplicity is only apparent, in truth there is only one mind." -Erwin Schrodinger "We must assume there exists a conscious and intelligent mind and that this mind is the matrix of all matter." -Max Planck Science has proven that there is instantaneous communication between any two particles no matter where those two particles are located in the universe. This is settled science. Quantum entanglement shows that all matter acts as one. Also there is the quantum observer effect where experiments performed for over a century indicate that intention and attention (prayer) affect matter and outcome (reality) This is the quantum observer effect. There is no difference between science and God. They are one and the same.
nothing is evil is simply the quote from god itself in genesis so to say, everything he created was good, end. MAN fall into dual thinking so to say in partacing of the knowldge of right and wrong(hebrew knows no word evil there..), so only because man expiriences life in a dual way doesnt mean it is this way, so how can one say there is evil and on the other hand say everything goes according to gods plan??? This would include that god creates evil which is not comparible with genesis again. All we do and all what god gives us is to free us from the illusion of seperatness and dual expirience, which is only possible in a renewle of the mind(in hebrew the heart) what jesus calls to be born again(right here and now), which is only possible in following gods will not "our" will which is simply the forces of nature/body, we have gods spirit within already from birth, but its completely veiled through biology and wrong society behaviour, the whole story of the tanach is the story of the evolution(internal) of the human being which without god is only an intelectual animal lead by its lusts, this is the symbol of being a slave in egypt, moses is the moral nature of man deliver us out of pure carnal minds(still way away from being a son of god, guess why moses never saw the promised land, which is no literal place, because a miserable animal isnt in peace anywhere)
I was thinking more like only good exist, and evil is simply the lack of good, not a actual substance. Basically meaning God created good, and evil(the name we give to the lack of good) only exist when we stray from God’s path, which is the path of actual substance and transformation.
@@charles21137 i speak now in absolute terms not relative, so if there would be something as lack or absence of good or if we would say god is only there were good is, than this would mean there is god plus x, or something outside of god, if we go into the direction of there is anything outside of god than we jump into a dual state, so in absolute terms everything also the most disgusting things we can imagine are gods plan/will/being/in god, must be. Same as if we go into literal god as some being he looses already all the mighty features, if we take creation literal than there is god and creation, means two again, so modern religious organizations and their dogmas always end up in dualism no matter how hard they try to defend. I know we always strive for a better world and wanna see god as some nice magician healing some people, but this is always dualist farry thinking.
@@Georgeos777 that’s it, actually, there is nothing outside of God for he is true substance. I still believe God is everywhere, but sin is simply the lack of God spiritually(I should of specified that I didn’t think God was physically distant)
@@Georgeos777 I would also like to specific that not all religions are absolutely dualistic (like how in Taoism there is only one things that is the Tao)
@@charles21137 after my study most religions, sects and philosophies are all nearly the same, its mostly what was made later out of certain teachings which seperated people because of to much dogma, spiritual pride and self delusion, i dont say all are the same and they also dont teach the same in many ways, but i also dont like the constant fights and "we are the right nes and better than you", i understand that even these fights come from love/agape because people wanna often rescue others from false ways so to say, but why not look what we have in common and peacefully live together instead of murder and insult each other constant. We dont have to agree with others, dont merge all religions together forecefully for false peace, simply look more into our own work what we have to do, more looking after our own wood in the eye instead of constant showing other their failure, iam guilty of that too, but i know christ is fully right on constant self contemplation.
Non Duality and Creatio Ex Deo is Hinduism. Christianity is duality and Creatio Ex Nihilo. God created the cosmos seperate from him , there is a creator/creature distinction.
This is not really accurate. Vishtadvaita vedanta would have lots of commonalities with the best of the Christian metaphysical tradition. You have a caricature of "Abrahamism" as a totalizing generality in your mind which does not correspond to reality. This caricature would not even apply to Islam monolithically (see Ibn Arabi)! Or Judaism (see Kabbalism)! Let alone Christianity which views God as incarnate.@@st.mephisto8564
There's nothing wrong with "weird tantrics" eating raw fish. Those practices are very advanced and are not recommended to anybody. Only maybe 1% of Hindus are even allowed to enter that path and it's not possible to go there without proving your abilities in the more milquetoast spiritual practices to an elevated guru. Many lose their minds and lose themselves but those who succeed are powerful beyond your wildest imagination
@@telosbound nothing done here is antithetical to what christ taught. you have your own way of connecting with god and we have ours. let the arrogance go
@@telosbound you said just trust in christ now you're saying i dont have anything to do with him? i said nothing here is opposed to him. for us shiva is god and we have our own ways of connecting with him so stop this sneering at something you dont understand. abrahamics are exhausting in their arrogant delusions, critiquing another (vastly superior) philosophy and siprituality
@@telosbound he said i am the way not the one way. also i have a brain and i can understand things without having to be a part of the whole ecosystem. jonathan pageau isnt a shaivite yet he's talking about "weird tantrics" isn't he. i'm saying when you look at the path that christ illuminated, nothing done here is contradicting that, so there is no need to have this animosity towards hindus and "weird tantrics"
![Noob To Max With DRAGON REWORK In Blox Fruits [FULL MOVIE]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/LnBMOinoOvA/mqdefault.jpg)
“The aspect of God that is beyond ‘being’ is the aspect of God that we should not speak of. Because that’s what it is, that’s what it is not.”~Jonathan Pageau ☕️
When he put it that way it made so much sense.
Sounds like zen talk.I agree.
Jonathan 'pseudo-dionysius' Pageau
I am so glad to see this video. I talked about this with my friend a few days ago. Ever since I first heard about the communal ontology from you, I thought, if all of creation is interdependent and dependent on God, then it is functionally One, so perhaps this could demonstrate some sort of underlying unity which transcends dualism precisely through the dualism of distinction. However, I was hesitant to share this idea because of the associations non-dualism has with eastern mysticism. I am glad to hear people like you and Pageau agree
"Keep My Wife's Name Out Of Your Fking Mouth!"
9:08 “As soon as people try to make [the duality of being and nothingness] too manifest, try to declare it too strongly, then you get- (groans), then you get some ridiculous tantric figure eating rotten fish.”
I hear you Pageau, I hear you. But *on the other hand,* when you get spiritual authorities trying to hide and suppress the non-dual aspects of spirituality, behaving as if it wasn’t there while acknowledging it for themselves, we can become obliged to believe absurdities like, idk… an ontologically fundamental soteriological predestination of a tragically small group of people?
When becoming complacent with an attitude of ‘non-duality for me but not for thee,’ people easily get to justify whatever the hell they want with the aphorism that even duality (for your mandatory beliefs) has its place in the potentiality of non-dual “reality” (where I’m allowed to be more flexible).
Which I guess gets back to his original point anyway, we should be careful when we talk about it, explicitly or implicitly.
I am still sort of confused about what he meant by that part, could you perhaps elucidate?
@@darposdesign4479 He is concerned that virtue (and the orderliness in pursuing that) and depravity (an orientation towards nothingness) will be presented on equal footing for the sake of non-duality. To an extent I'd agree, there are some pretty outlandish Hindu mythologies where virtue (a holy monk, a god, wtv...) is juxtaposed with it's utter betrayal (the monk going forth to debauch his desires, sensless murder and whatnot) for the sake of "balance" or whatever. But making dualities like the division between God and creation so rigid and fear-enforced is equally problematic imo. The West has developed a psychology of total separation from their natural environment and community as a result.
@@333_studios this is only a problem when you see virtue-depravity/good-evil as a duality, I prefer to see good as communal harmony, and evil, not as some abstract opposite of good, but merely as the lack of harmony. The non-dual reality is inherently harmonious because there can be no discord within its unity. So God's transcendence into the non-dual ground is just pure goodness, and you access that through partaking in goodness. Problem solved, you get non-dualism AND moral decency
By naming it, you destroy what it is, the unnamed. You can't name that which is nameless, for then it ceases to be nameless.
"the nondual looks like a king on a cross" that's extremely profound. wow.
I know, right? Perfectly put.
“What we talk about” is another way of saying ‘doctrine’. The Easterners have been saying all along that all doctrine, even doctrine which claims to be exclusive, such as normative Christianity, as Pageau demonstrates here, is just fingers pointing at the moon, and to say that there can only be ‘one finger’ pointing at the moon, is to confuse the finger with the moon.
To say that the Absolute and the Infinite can only be symbolized by one symbol or form, is to limit the Absolute and Infinite. It’s a metaphysical impossibility.
Christ doesn't merely symbolise the infinite, he is the infinite. "Nobody comes to the Father except through me."
@@joshuaparsons887This is what makes Christianity unique. Christ is both the signifier and the signified.Perennialism demotes Christ to just another signifier.
could this analogy be apllied to explain why there are so many denominations in christianity?😅
@@tennisracket-bk8eh yes exactly. The same phenomenon occurs fractally within the microcosm of Christianity just as in the macrocosm of the world.
@@joshuaparsons887 he both is and is the infinite. If he were the infinite without any qualification whatsoever, we wouldn’t be able to say ‘this is Christ and this isn’t’. But we can.
Might i dare to say that while Christ is the only one who managed to join the two together, we can also participate in that very same mystery through the sacraments of baptism and the holy eucharist. "I live, yet not I, but Christ liveth in me."
Does the divine manifest itself through mystery?
Never heard it expressed so clearly. Thank you.
Duality - a single thing processing its own division.
Pageau expresses this eloquently and firmly. I think when we speculate about things we can never understand and God has told us we never will understand, we invite the demonic to fill it with their imaginations.
If you ponder a question and one of the answers is “I think I’ll be evil sometimes”, then you have to have the wisdom to recognize where that really came from. Spiritual warfare doesn’t stop once you enter the philosophical. Far far far from it.
You should have such love for God that such inquiry makes you feel gross. Not worth it.
Wow.This is great.As a ex bhuddist coming to catholic can I bring up my idea of non dual marian.I always thought there was a meeting ground.Ive found some stuff on non dual christianity but its rare.Im seeking a confluence of beleifs.
I'm on the same boat, brother. While I ultimately left Buddhism, I still owe a lot to it in my present understanding of Christianity. Richard Rohr is also a proponent of nondual Christianity/Catholicism if you want to check him out.
Thanks for posting this thoughtful discussion. After many years I have come to see non-dualism as a view, or doctrine, that doesn't really fit Western approaches very well. Indian Non-Dualism has centuries of thought and practice behind it and I think this context matters. This context is not shared in the West. And I think that because of this adopting doctrines like Non-Dualism leads to confusion and the kind of misunderstandings that Pageau refers to. For example, Shankara was an ascetic and set up locations for ascetic practice that survive today. But I don't see any Western Non-Dualists arguing for ascetic practice as a necessary component of the Non-Dual approach. // Non-Dualism has a certain status in the West these days and it is rarely questioned. But perhaps it is possible to see Non-Dualism as a way of talking, and therefore simply a tool that can be effectively used in certain contexts rather than the pinnacle of the spiritual ascent. Non-Dualism has its inherent weaknesses, which Pageau touches on, but it seems difficult to highlight those shortcomings. // Thanks again for the video.
I'm so glad this video popped up, because I've been seeing (interesting) things from this channel and Jonathan Pageau's for a while now, and I have been also wrestling in the shadow of the cross-my own cross and that of Christ, if you follow my meaning-for a few years, never fully taking the plunge and never fully stepping out either (I am the lukewarm one that God would have to spit out). Now, there are some things that I find very vexing about Christianity and all these people claiming it to be a non-dual tradition, and, forgive me if this is an elementary mistake, a kind of ignorance based off exposure to superstitious, paranoiac, exaggerated and exoteric forms of Christianity (go figure, I am an American and raised on American pop culture), but I have a question about Christian ontology, aesthetics, and ethics, if you will, and it's this: if Christianity is non-dual, then why all this focus on evil, and fear over Satan and the occult? I've always taken this pre-occupation with the "dark forces" to be basically the definition of dualism, I mean we're talking light vs. dark here, good vs. evil and all that.
Again, maybe I'm just ignorant here, but my understanding of non-duality is more informed by something like Greek paganism than Christianity, because the Greeks understood that, while there are "dark" forces (I'm thinking of Dionysus here, or just Chthonic gods and spirits in general), they are not "evil" per se, since they are just as much threads in the fabric of God's creation and need to be reckoned with, understood, and even appreciated, instead of ignored or, rejected, or outright hated. The Greeks gave a kind of ritual space to the "irrational" and the "excessive" aspects of life, perhaps because they understood their power and feared they would overwhelm them (something we have forgotten, and to our peril, I think). When I read something like Ovid's Metamorphoses, yes, my modern and post-Christian sensibilities are frequently repulsed by the frequently graphic and sensuous descriptions of arbitrary violence, cruelty, and chaos, but I remind myself that the work is just far more representative of a kind of "Old World" view of nature and the divine than what I was raised on, a view that Nietzsche seemed to have understood, that gloried in not just the world's infinite possibility for great beauty but also for its terror and its extremity (because it was non-dual).
Anyway, I guess my point is, if Christianity is non-dual, then why the need for Satan and evil? If it was truly non-dual, wouldn't the character, the symbol, the archetype of Satan be a respected, even beloved figure, since all things and all beings are works of God's infinite love?
What’d you say at 6:59? Bon driona?
0 to 1 to 2 -----> 10000 things.
well said Jonathan.
Woah. That was quite a trip!
5:27 bookmark
It's very interesting to hear what he's trying to communicate because if he knew at the time that nonduality is beyond good and evil then he would understand that duality cannot "create" nonduality. Also what is evil is only described as such by the traditions, culture, and language that makes that classifications of "evil" evil and "good" good. The positive and negative. The yin and yang. As long as whatever it is comes from love and is pure without distortions or illusions it is "good". Nature is amoral and shows no mercy. There's no good in a tornado or earthquake, but there's no evil either. Nature takes no pleasure out of the suffering of it's children. It does so because of it's purpose. To be strong and beyond all animals and humans living. With hopes that we may be humbled and listen and learn from it and the effects it brings.
Whatever people want to think about the exclusivism of Christianity when it comes to non-dualism, I implore you to think of it this way instead:
While there may be other eastern religions that share a non-dual ontology, the journey of actually living into that truth with those religions typically involves the self-annihilation of subject and identity. In contrast, Christianity has an ethos of preserving and embracing the particular despite one’s surrender to the universal.
Forget for a moment about convincing someone that Christianity is more foundational in regards to the ever nebulous ultimate and universal truth. (And heavens, don’t guilt trip them for an ontology they probably took reluctantly) Instead, just ask them if they’d like to transform or annihilate their personality, because that essentially is the difference between the Christian and Buddhist esoteric paths.
ask me that a few years ago and I'd have said annihilation 100%, and it's precisely why I rejected Christ in my heart for years and years. Please don't go around asking people that. The real difference is, do you accept that there is a God that is good or do you believe you are "God?" because if you are God, and you don't like who and how you are, then annihilation is logical. If there is a God who is good, then you want to annihilate all of you that ISN'T GOOD
"the meaning is: there is no meaning. escape or you'll always be a flawed, suffering, temporal creature" vs "be purified into an eternal icon of God's glory, united with HIm in the transfigurated, timeless world which is the kingdom of heaven"
@@da-p6814 Then I guess you shouldn't have a problem with the Buddhist path of self-extinguishment. The Christian path differs primarily because it wants to affirm that you were created with an original design that was deemed good. If you want to an alternative ontology where humans are not created, then fine. But the Christian path involves a corrupted identity needing a return to it's perfect Eden-like state, not an inherently flawed one that must be erased. (Otherwise, what is it God created when he created a person? A demon?) Yes, purification can be a destructive process but is ultimately reconstructive. If we are just erasing personhood here, how are we saving people and not just replacing them?
@@333_studios If purification erased ones entire personhood, you could say that's what it means to "not make it to Heaven." And so one cultivates aspects of ones self that are "worth preserving." And again, this only makes sense - and is only worthwhile in my view - if there is a source of meaning that is completely beyond yourself. That is, God.
Regarding "The Christian path differs primarily because it wants to affirm that you were created with an original design that was deemed good," I totally agree with that. Again this goes back to my point that it requires believing there is God and that God isn't you, because I certainly didn't create myself purposely and with some grand plan. If I think that on some level I'm God (to the extent that the idea of God is relevant in this framework), then clearly this was an accident or a fluke or just an inevitable but deeply unfortunate pattern. and in that case the only hope, if any, would be self annihilation.
@@333_studios Essentially, my problem with the Buddhist path of self extinguishment is that it's Buddhist. by which I mean to say that it's part of entirely different framework within which there is no reason not to consider extinguishment the "good ending." I feel that the original question "if they’d like to transform or annihilate their personality" implicitly offers that Buddhist framework as a viable alternative - rather than the truth, which is that if Christianity is real then the Buddhist framework is (at very best) obsolete.
Absolutely agree with Johnathan. But....In eastern thought, we live quite happily with the paradox because we talk about it all time, because we know wecare living it out, non duality has been taught for centuries, andcl we have some very rare examples of non duality manifesting itself in human form, just like Jesus did.
This discussion has to be seen rightfully in its western context only and not as a fixed position...although Johnsthans warnings about the possibility of crazy spinoffs is universal, that doesnt mean we should turn away from the GOOD when it comes to us. Youvwill know it always by its sacrifice and absolute compassion foe all creatures.
How can Christianity be non-dual when it's taught that there's an infinite gap between God and the cosmos? That's duality, plain and simple.
Non-dual Christianity says that there is no separation between God and the cosmos - between the immanent and the transcendent, the finite and the infinite, the temporal and the eternal, the manifest and the unmanifest, etc.
I don't quite understand it either. "Good", and "evil" are the ultimate duality.
@@dieselphiend If God is all good then God could only create good things. Evil has no substance, it is not a created thing. The only things of substance (rather than a lack of substance) are good. So there is only one kind of substantive thing, good things.
@@145pajamas How could empty space be "bad", when it is a necessary condition for occupation?
@@145pajamas " So there is only one kind of substantive thing, good things." I do agree with that. There is no up without down, no left without right, wrong without right, black without white, no good without evil. Disparity is a product of consciousness.
Yeah if you want to think it’s dualism, go right ahead. Shouldn’t be discussed
Potential is not nothing, it's being.
In concept it’s non tangible never being/present. It’s the opposite of present moment
I don't know how to be comfortable with the unknown.
Do your best, give Jesus the rest
Comfort stunts growth.
@@bsdnfraje What are we to become that we don't already have?
@@dieselphiend development and possession are separate categories, aren't they? I'm sorry, but I can't make a lick of sense out of your question.
@@bsdnfraje What are we to "grow" into that we can't simply be right now?
even the way he talks about one interpretation being the light way and one interpretation being a "monster eating the world" is dualistic.
which is it? non dual or dual? lol.
Idk why, but this trying of non-dualism manifest seems similar to when Jews wanted Jesus to prophesy, when he was put on trial with Barabbas
If god was unifying in a an all encompassing type way where love and hate bottom and low we’re equal under his love then the apple would have been a paradox. Unity creates non dualism in humans so to tell them no is the same as he’s making the apple inevitable
Here is why I believe in non duality and why we are all one in Christ' consciousness. It is found in Jeremiah Chapter one.
"The word of the Lord came to me, saying,
Before I formed you (body) in the womb I knew you (consciousness)."
And then God told Jeremiah,
"You (consciousness) must go to everyone I send you to (body) and you will speak whatever I command you (Christ consciousness)."
-Jeremiah 1-7
In verse nine Jeremiah went on to say, "The Lord reached out his hand and touched my mouth and said to me, “I have put my words in your mouth."
-Jeremiah 1-9 This describes unity and shared consciousness. Smile you are the creator:)
"Be not afraid of their faces: for I am with thee to deliver thee, saith the Lord."
The creator is the game. This is exactly what the Hindu have believed for thousands of years.
A tech minded person could see a virtual reality. One of endless being and eternal consciousness. The creator is everyone and everything. In Hindu this concept is described as brahman. VR is tricking the senses. In the ancient Hindu religion this tricking of the senses is called "maya." Maya is described as "the veil of the illusion of this world."
"Multiplicity is only apparent, in truth there is only one mind." -Erwin Schrodinger
"We must assume there exists a conscious and intelligent mind and that this mind is the matrix of all matter." -Max Planck
Science has proven that there is instantaneous communication between any two particles no matter where those two particles are located in the universe. This is settled science. Quantum entanglement shows that all matter acts as one. Also there is the quantum observer effect where experiments performed for over a century indicate that intention and attention (prayer) affect matter and outcome (reality) This is the quantum observer effect. There is no difference between science and God. They are one and the same.
nothing is evil is simply the quote from god itself in genesis so to say, everything he created was good, end. MAN fall into dual thinking so to say in partacing of the knowldge of right and wrong(hebrew knows no word evil there..), so only because man expiriences life in a dual way doesnt mean it is this way, so how can one say there is evil and on the other hand say everything goes according to gods plan??? This would include that god creates evil which is not comparible with genesis again. All we do and all what god gives us is to free us from the illusion of seperatness and dual expirience, which is only possible in a renewle of the mind(in hebrew the heart) what jesus calls to be born again(right here and now), which is only possible in following gods will not "our" will which is simply the forces of nature/body, we have gods spirit within already from birth, but its completely veiled through biology and wrong society behaviour, the whole story of the tanach is the story of the evolution(internal) of the human being which without god is only an intelectual animal lead by its lusts, this is the symbol of being a slave in egypt, moses is the moral nature of man deliver us out of pure carnal minds(still way away from being a son of god, guess why moses never saw the promised land, which is no literal place, because a miserable animal isnt in peace anywhere)
I was thinking more like only good exist, and evil is simply the lack of good, not a actual substance. Basically meaning God created good, and evil(the name we give to the lack of good) only exist when we stray from God’s path, which is the path of actual substance and transformation.
@@charles21137 i speak now in absolute terms not relative, so if there would be something as lack or absence of good or if we would say god is only there were good is, than this would mean there is god plus x, or something outside of god, if we go into the direction of there is anything outside of god than we jump into a dual state, so in absolute terms everything also the most disgusting things we can imagine are gods plan/will/being/in god, must be. Same as if we go into literal god as some being he looses already all the mighty features, if we take creation literal than there is god and creation, means two again, so modern religious organizations and their dogmas always end up in dualism no matter how hard they try to defend. I know we always strive for a better world and wanna see god as some nice magician healing some people, but this is always dualist farry thinking.
@@Georgeos777 that’s it, actually, there is nothing outside of God for he is true substance. I still believe God is everywhere, but sin is simply the lack of God spiritually(I should of specified that I didn’t think God was physically distant)
@@Georgeos777 I would also like to specific that not all religions are absolutely dualistic (like how in Taoism there is only one things that is the Tao)
@@charles21137 after my study most religions, sects and philosophies are all nearly the same, its mostly what was made later out of certain teachings which seperated people because of to much dogma, spiritual pride and self delusion, i dont say all are the same and they also dont teach the same in many ways, but i also dont like the constant fights and "we are the right nes and better than you", i understand that even these fights come from love/agape because people wanna often rescue others from false ways so to say, but why not look what we have in common and peacefully live together instead of murder and insult each other constant. We dont have to agree with others, dont merge all religions together forecefully for false peace, simply look more into our own work what we have to do, more looking after our own wood in the eye instead of constant showing other their failure, iam guilty of that too, but i know christ is fully right on constant self contemplation.
❤
Non Duality and Creatio Ex Deo is Hinduism.
Christianity is duality and Creatio Ex Nihilo. God created the cosmos seperate from him , there is a creator/creature distinction.
Is the material world completely separate from God?
@@spherinder5793 In the Abrahamic tradition, it is.
@@st.mephisto8564 Was Christ in the material world?
The incarnation: Christ is creator in created form.
This is not really accurate. Vishtadvaita vedanta would have lots of commonalities with the best of the Christian metaphysical tradition. You have a caricature of "Abrahamism" as a totalizing generality in your mind which does not correspond to reality. This caricature would not even apply to Islam monolithically (see Ibn Arabi)! Or Judaism (see Kabbalism)! Let alone Christianity which views God as incarnate.@@st.mephisto8564
Jonathan 'pseudo dionysius' Pageau
The Aghoris?
There's nothing wrong with "weird tantrics" eating raw fish. Those practices are very advanced and are not recommended to anybody. Only maybe 1% of Hindus are even allowed to enter that path and it's not possible to go there without proving your abilities in the more milquetoast spiritual practices to an elevated guru. Many lose their minds and lose themselves but those who succeed are powerful beyond your wildest imagination
@@telosbound nothing done here is antithetical to what christ taught. you have your own way of connecting with god and we have ours. let the arrogance go
@@telosbound you said just trust in christ now you're saying i dont have anything to do with him? i said nothing here is opposed to him. for us shiva is god and we have our own ways of connecting with him so stop this sneering at something you dont understand. abrahamics are exhausting in their arrogant delusions, critiquing another (vastly superior) philosophy and siprituality
@@telosbound he said i am the way not the one way. also i have a brain and i can understand things without having to be a part of the whole ecosystem. jonathan pageau isnt a shaivite yet he's talking about "weird tantrics" isn't he. i'm saying when you look at the path that christ illuminated, nothing done here is contradicting that, so there is no need to have this animosity towards hindus and "weird tantrics"
I agree Christianity is non dualistic but Jesus Teaching are.
Was that Keiji Nishitani mentioned by Orthobros? 🫨 I read his Self Overcoming of Nihilism like a year or two ago.
Yes sir, it was.