nonduality, advaita, buddhism, epistemology, monism

1. when we use foils and over-against approaches it helps us deepen both our
understanding of others as well as our own self-understanding BUT, if that is all
we do, we will miss the opportunity to describe a reality, or even ourselves, on
its/our own terms, which is a great aspiration for all sorts of reasons
nondual entered the english language b/c of translations of eastern literature
and got reinforced by philosophical positions over against cartesian subject-
object splits; buddhism, like, philosophy of mind talk, seems more
epistemological than ontological; advaita also focuses on epistemic reality but
gets more explicitly ontological, monistic BUT it's got that parsing of
transcendental, pragmatic and apparent, which DOES leave room for a personal
god & devotion
carefully disambiguated, at least on a vague level, i suspect that many eastern
and western traditions (which aren't monolithic but have many schools) would not
be wholly inconsistent with panentheism, albeit a pan- vs panen- parsing would
still be an indispensable distinction
otherwise, i think that nonduality has WAY more to do, east and west,
w/epistemology than ontology
ontologically, i prefer to say unitary vs unitive, intraobjective vs intersubjective
but, to the extent that epistemology models ontology, the trending approach,
east and west, is to interpret csc naturalistically and the soul along with it, so
nonduality does have ontological implications vis a vis the relationship of mind to
matter BUT that does not necessarily speak to the ontological distinction between
created and creator, it only asserts an ontological monism for all of created
reality not all of reality
when additional ontological realms are suggested for created reality, causal
disjunction questions beg re how the different realms would interact; of course
the same types of questions beg when drawing absolute ontological distinctions
between created and uncreated realities, hence, i eschew root metaphors and
embrace vagueness
what the nondual epistemic approach suggests, really, is nothing essentially
ontological, then, other than that reality is more dynamic than static, more process
than substance
the no self description and even maya make much more sense to me as
epistemological realities not ontological conclusions; our illusion is not absolute,
only partial; it would be more appropriate to simply say that our grasp of reality
is fallible; we do not deny, necessarily, the empirical and practical realities of
self, other realities, or even god but we do deny our ability to make wholly
successful descriptions of certain realities (not just god but self! as imago dei!) in
addition to what we know are, indeed, otherwise, very successful references to
such causes (again, self, god, other realities w/unfathomable depth dimensions
like sacraments, spiritual gifts) as can be inferred from their effects, effects which
are proper, in fact, to no other known or robustly describable causes hence
referenced via heuristic (still in negotiation) and dogmatic (non-negotiated)
concepts rather than semiotic (non-negotiable) and theoretic (negotiated)
concepts
1

2. rather than kicking against the lingo goad, i have found it more helpful to engage
the prevailing lexicon (grabbing the attention of interested parties, incl heresy
hunters) while introducing what i hope are helpful neologisms, like unitary and
intraobjective, ontologically; i also like rohr's epistemological distinction
between problem-solving and contemplative approaches to reality vis a vis
dualistic & nondual as it captures the subject-object cleavage vs subject-
object union more concretely
i'd imagine that a great many practical consequences ensue precisely from an
impoverished anthropology as results from the types of category errors that
ensue when epistemic virtue is lacking, something discernible in our positivistic
and philosophic horizons before we even make our interpretive leaps
metaphysically or theologically, hence the danger of kw's interdisciplinary
conflations
religions have been a strange admixture of faith, morals, metaphysics,
epistemology and anthropology but their essence, in my view, is a faith as takes
an existential stance toward ultimate reality, whether theistic, nontheistic or
atheistic - this should be the focal point of nonstablishment & free exercise vis a
vis the state
morals, metaphysics, epistemology and anthropology are all descriptive-
normative or positivistic-philosophic concerns, all transparent to human reason
w/o the benefit of special revelation and we can discern epistemic virtue of these
horizons
it's too problematical otherwise adjudicating the practical successes and failures
of what are essentially faith-related stances both b/c they have been so
intertwined w/positivistic and philosophic stances that are accidentals to the faith
and b/c, as chesterton cautions, like pxnty, how much has faith been truly tried
and found wanting vs not really tried at all? ergo, we best evaluate each faith's
saints and mystics and hagiography, those who've gone deeply and who've
married exoteric and esoteric, like the sufis, etc
2