1. From Santa Claus to Derek and pop-pop:
Barnhart's two axes of identity and relationship well
correspond to what I am calling our phenomenal experiences of
intra-objective identity and inter-subjective intimacy. For
him, contemplation and love are nondual modalities
complemented by purity of heart, which is the doorway to
nondual consciousness (of which faith, itself, is an aspect),
which well fits into my category of methodology or
epistemology.
By heart, Barnhart means an integral unity of body, soul, mind
and spirit (and not really the will as distinguished from
memory and understanding vis a vis, for example, Ignatian
formulations or even Scotistic versus Thomistic distinctions
as resolved by Bonaventure as discussed previously
hereinabove, indeed, per what Barnhart, himself, calls the
sapiental). It entails our beyond but not without integralism.
For him, the nondual self is a corollary to his axes of
identity and relationship and well corresponds to what I have
called our phenomenal experience of intra-subjective
integrity.
What Barnhart calls the unitive Absolute corresponds to our
phenomenal experience of inter-objective indeterminacy. A lot
of what I have read in various attempts to reconcile East and
West, including Barnhart, reads much like a poetic Hegelian
dialectic of thesis, antithesis and synthesis of polar
realities. Reality is not that simple, however. There are
other ways that we engage paradox which I'll discuss later,
perhaps.
Cynthia Bourgeault has taught with Bruno Barnhart, Thomas
Keating and Richard Rohr, who are all pretty much resonating
with one another, all well-fitting into both my glossary and
meta-critique. In that Thomas Keating quote, he is discussing
a state, a phenomenal experience of no-self, which would
developmentally follow even a standing-outside-of-self in
ecstasy. Barnhart, for his part, distinguishes between a
nonduality of the beginning (Asian) and a nonduality of the
end (think Incarnation) and this would be a vague theological
reference to his axis of identity, which has ontological
implications. This fits, then, Keating's characterization of a
state of union explained as the grace of the Ascension, an
even more intense communication of the divine than even that
of the transforming union of a bridal mysticism.
Now, in Christian formative spirituality, there is no death of
the false self, only a realization of the true self. Living as
we do, to use Keating's words, an "active life of immersion in
the ups and downs of ordinary experience," our false self,
which judges reality and solves problems, is indispensable! We
need our empirical, logical, moral and practical problemsolving dualistic mind to navigate reality as we get our
temporal needs met. What might it be like to have all of those
needs met, though? To require no problem-solving? No eye has
seen nor ear heard nor the heart of wo/man conceived!
1

2. Reportedly, a few have tasted some heavenly delights but, as
Fr. Keating says, God is beyond all of our categories.
We mustn't confuse, however, a phenomenal state of mind or
state of awareness, especially a lack thereof, with an
ontological fact of existence. Fr. Keating refers to a
phenomenal state or experience of no-self (no reflection of
self) and not an ontological status of NO-SELF. Most of what
Fr. Rohr teaches involves neither these phenomenal experiences
nor their ontological contexts but, instead, methodological or
epistemological approaches or stances, specifically, regarding
nondual consciousness, all within the context of matters
regarding intra-subjective integrity. His accounts of nondual
consciousness and contemplation resonate with Barnhart's;
among the dozens of contemporary spiritual teachers regarding
nonduality, he most highly recommends Thomas Keating, Cynthia
Bourgealt and Bruno Barnhart.
Regarding St Bernard's spousal love, it IS dual,
ontologically, inter-subjectively, which is a teleologically
deeper reality than any nondual intra-objective realization.
Methodologically, though, the nondual approach augments our
inter-subjective value-realizations and the merely dualistic
would indeed be impoverished, which is not to at all deny that
it can realize real value for, as I said before, in this life,
it is both necessary and sufficient to realize abundant value
in our relationships with both our Creator and fellow
creatures. So, the dualistic does not have a negative valence.
In fact, it is an indispensable moment in our human valuerealization movements. BUT --- I have said much of this
already? several times now? Confused At any rate, I welcome
the opportunity to parse and disambiguate others' works with
my glossary and meta-critical categories. Smiler
Again, the practical take-away is that nondual and dual can
refer to anthropology, phenomenology, ontology, metaphysics
(ontology with a capital "O"), axiology, epistemology or
theology. And not just from author to author or tradition to
tradition but within any given author's discussions!
Finally, while I understand and appreciate what appears to me
to be a lot of people's preoccupation with experiences and
metaphysical speculation, methodological approaches have
always had more traction with me.
2