What if reality is fundamentally united, and we just can't see it?

[The Great Open Dance]

Unity-in-Difference: The Case for Pluralistic Nondualism

As we have noted in a previous blog, “nondual” is the English translation of the Sanskrit terms advaita or advaya, which literally mean “not-two.” Some schools of Hinduism interpret “not-two” to mean “only one.” They then propound monism, the belief that everything is just one thing, a pure unity, such that all differentiation is illusion. For example, the Ashtavakra Gita states, “I am always one / without two.” The poem also declares:

Two from one!
This is the root of suffering.
Only perceive
That I am one without two,
Pure awareness, pure joy,
And all the world is false.
There is no other remedy! …

The world with all its wonders
Is nothing.
When you know this,
Desire melts away.
For you are awareness itself.
When you know in your heart
That there is nothing,
You are still.

The Ashtavakra Gita is a monistic text that rejects belief in a personal God. Monism teaches that everything is really one thing. In this case, the Ashtavakra Gita teaches that all reality is Brahman: pure being, pure bliss, and pure consciousness. Only Brahman is real; everything else is illusion. The poem grants everyday life a certain provisional reality, like that of a dream. But in the end, salvation is the recognition of one’s own identity with Brahman.

“Identity” is more than “unity.” If only Brahman exists, then your self is false, and the universe in which you live is an illusion. If Brahman is everything, then in truth, you are identical with Brahman; you are Brahman.

But nondualism, as we are interpreting it, is not monism; it is harmonious pluralism. In our view, nondualism means indivisibly united yet internally distinguished. Pluralistic nondualism discerns the unity in difference that underlies all things. For this-worldly examples, we may think of the light and heat of a fire, which are distinguishable but inseparable, both one and two. Physicists may think of space and time, which they call space-time. Psychologists may think of memory, intelligence, emotions, and will, those various aspects that constitute one mind.

Pluralistic nondualism is not atomism or separatism.

Pluralistic nondualism charges the cosmos with dynamic reciprocity, such that we can never determine where one thing stops and another starts. All transitions are gradual, as the river flows into the sea, the grassland transitions into the forest, or the plains meet the hills. The universe is one expansive continuum, without demarcation. And if reality is a continuum without demarcation, if all boundaries are arbitrary and artificial, then difference does not oppose, and difference certainly doesn’t annihilate. Instead, difference generates energy. For fullness of life, safety needs danger, warmth needs cold, day needs night, and light needs darkness.

We call the far shore of a river the “opposite bank,” but it opposes nothing. Instead, it cooperates with the near shore to grant the river its being and direction. We call the front and back of a coin “opposite sides,” but which could exist without the other? If we take away the front, the back ceases to be, and vice versa. They do not oppose; they co-originate. So thorough is this universal interdependence that, as Barbara Holmes observes, “The light . . . pierces but does not castigate the darkness.”

Nondualism is not a perennial philosophy.

Some scholars of religion believe that all religions are fundamentally the same. In their view, differences between religions are accidents of history, geography, and culture, while similarities result from their shared sacred source. So, we should put away our differences and instead act together on our shared values, to make the world a better place. These scholars frequently gather quotes from the mystical traditions of various religions, and these quotes do share a certain resonance. Since the scholars find these quotes in different times and places, they deem their collective teaching to be the “perennial philosophy,” the recurring, universal truth. And for these scholars, the perennial philosophy is the eternal heart of all religion.

There are several problems with this belief. Religions tend to be vast, long lasting, and literate. They produce vast amounts of writing, which makes it easy to find similar quotes in different traditions. By way of analogy, we can find similar rocks in each of the seven continents, even though the continents themselves are quite different geologically. Moreover, the endeavor of the perennial philosophers is basically evaluative: “If we take the world’s enduring religions at their best, we discover the distilled wisdom of the human race,” argues Huston Smith. Perennialists go to each religion, find that part within the religion that is most attractive to them, lift it out of context, and declare it to be the core truth. But this process simply reveals their own religious preference, to which they ascribe transcendent authority. Anyone could do this in the way that pleases them most. The perennial philosophers tend to be mystics, but legalists could just as easily select legalistic passages from multiple traditions and declare legalism the perennial philosophy. Or, more dangerously, militants could select militant passages from different religions and declare militancy to be the perennial philosophy. The choice is that of the selector.

Even worse, from our perspective, the perennial philosophy erases difference. If all religions are basically the same, then differences in thought, feeling, and practice are irrelevant. Pluralistic nondualism, by contrast, finds wealth in difference. Their ritual practice (that of other religions), and the transformation that it offers, stimulates our ritual practice to reform. Their ethics give us a unique perspective and new insight into our own. Their thought worlds and lifeways open new perspectives onto our own. If all religions were the same, then no religion could challenge another. Religions frequently advocate transformation, and the engines of transformation are difference, disagreement, and debate. Sameness is impotent.

Pluralistic nondualism offers hope.

We live in an age of metaphysical divorce, an age in which corrupt worldviews and philosophies fracture that which is naturally united. Nondualism asserts that all reality is inherently related. Nothing is separable from anything else, and no one is separable from anyone else. Thus, nondualism offers intellectual resistance to the false divisions that cause our suffering, implicitly condemning sexism, racism, classism, nationalism, co-religionism, neoliberalism, and every other divisive worldview. Many movements assert our fundamental relatedness and countless groups are working to make the world a better place. Humanists work to improve the human condition, because they believe that humans are inseparable from one another. Ecologists work to protect nature because they believe that we are part of it. Religious leaders help people recognize their embeddedness in the sacred. All assert connectedness: humanists call it humanism, naturalists call it ecologism, religious leaders call it God. Nondualism, as an umbrella concept, can help unite these different groups to act together for a better world. (adapted from Jon Paul Sydnor, The Great Open Dance, pages 15–19)

*****

For further reading:

Byrom, Thomas. The Heart of Awareness: A Translation of the Ashtavakra Gita. Boston: Shambhala, 1990.

Clooney, Francis Xavier. Seeing Through Texts: Doing Theology Among the Śrīvaiṣṇavas of South India. New York: State University of New York Press, 1996.

Habito, Ruben L. F. Living Zen, Loving God. Boston: Wisdom Publications, 1995.

Holmes, Barbara. Joy Unspeakable: Contemplative Practices of the Black Church. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2004.

Huxley, Aldous. The Perennial Philosophy. New York: Harper and Row, 1944.

Smith, Huston. Bill Moyers: The Wisdom of Faith with Huston Smith (WNET: 1996).

[walkingman]

1. "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God"

[The Great Open Dance]

5. Exactly

An unexpected yet apropos connection--to see our connectedness is to see God.

[al bupp]

2. I think that there are solid scientific reasons for non-duality

The very components of our existence are constantly being shared and mixed, both particles and vibrations, most completely undetectable to normal consciousness. Moreover, the apparent distinctions between things is most certainly a product of our minds.

I think this non-duality (non-multiplicity?) also applies to all either/or concepts, including the supposed conundrum of choosing between it and pluralism. The choice itself is also a limitation the mind imposes as we often find it difficult to hold seemingly contradictory ideas together at once.

You've provided a lovely synopsis of unity in difference, thank you.

[The Great Open Dance]

6. Thank you!

And yes, I agree. I have a natural tendency to logicist, either/or, binary thinking, but have found much more potential in open, both/and thinking. The practice of flexible thinking is a constant challenge and process for me.

[al bupp]

9. I dare say it's a challenge for almost all of us

[Doodley]

3. Belief in pluralistic nondualism, or even in the possibility, is a good starting point for folks to understand

Democratic values!

[The Great Open Dance]

7. Exactly

so later on in my book, and in later blogs, I will make the connection between pluralistic nondualism and democratic multiculturalism. E pluribus unum!

[usonian]

4. I recommend Christian mystic Meister Eckhart.

All opinions below are my own and are meant to be as non-dual as possible and to help enrich understanding.

I found Eckhart via Mysticism, Christian and Buddhist by D. T. Suzuki.

This book is available on the internet.
https://terebess.hu/zen/mesterek/d-t-suzuki-mysticism-christian-and-buddhist.pdf (PDF)

Here are some "spoiler" articles. YMMV.
https://cac.org/daily-meditations/meister-eckhart-part-ii-western-nonduality-2015-07-16/
https://tomajjavidtash.com/2022/09/23/the-ground-of-the-soul-in-meister-eckharts-theology/

What Eckhart calls the ground, is comparable to the Mystic Law in Buddhism.

And interestingly enough, Eckhart was roughly contemporary with Buddhist philosopher Nichiren, a votary of the Lotus Sutra, and the mystic law in the sutra's name and nutshell Nam Myoho Renge Kyo, which expresses nonduality in terms of transience and the "center point" (you might say ground) between opposites, cause and effect, and interdependence and interpenetration of all beings and phenomena. It also expresses the intersection of the infinite "unchanging" and the temporal.

The fabric of our lives is comprised of both a fundamental and enduring truth as well as the busy reality of our daily existence with its uniqueness and variety. (SGI-USA). The Lotus Sutra expresses this in the innumerable meanings chapter. A Christian interpretation might be that God experiences the universe through the uniqueness and variety of our experiences, creating meaning; the more diverse the experiences, the more meaning we create.

And, as with the writings of Thich Nhat Hanh, comparisons are just that, not equivalences.

As I read Eckhart, I thought that his mysticism, however Buddhist it may seem, could make one a better Christian.

At "times", I'll pause in my walk, and contemplate "Get Beyond Time", the title of one of Eckhart's chapters in Discourses.

I am familiar with Blakney's book
Meister Eckhart : A modern translation (1941) It's available at the Internet Archive, which unfortunately is recovering from an attack. Hopefully, it will be back soon.
https://archive.org/details/meistereckhartmo0000eckh

Its index is here: http://web.flu.cas.cz/scan/323549398.pdf (as PDF, three pages)
Of course, one can always buy it ...


I am familiar with the above, so the following is thorough but harder for me to navigate. Still fascinating.

The Complete Works of Meister Eckhart is/are available here
https://german.yale.edu/sites/default/files/meister-eckhart-maurice-o-c-walshe-bernard-mcginn-the-complete-mystical-works-of-meister-eckhart-the-crossroad-publishing-company-2009.pdf (PDF)

[The Great Open Dance]

8. Yes

I am in complete agreement. My book is actually a progressive Christian theology, reinterpreting Christianity through the lens of Hindu and Buddhist nondualism. I also draw on the mystics, but am sadly unfamiliar with Eckhart, for which I apologize. Instead, my sources are the Trinitarian, mystical theologians--Moltmann, Boff, Lacugna, Zizioulas, et al. Thank you for reading.