Page 1

I think I provided my reader's digest version of my nondual approach using KW's advaita as a foil on one of those hereinabove (in the OP) linked shalomplace threads. My critique therein and over the years has primarily been epistemological. As far as states or levels or stages of consciousness go (vis a vis phenomenal experiences), as long as the adjective higher is interpreted quantitatively (e.g. temporally later) and not qualitatively, there can be suitable anthropological and theological work-arounds. Let me suggest polydoxy as a foil to KW's thought. Do you think he would pejoratively dismiss it as an example of MGM (mean green meme) boomeritis? Also, would his version of an integral buddhism square with how we envision theosis? Christianity celebrates pluralism in many ways; think: I Corinthians 12, catholicity or even trinitarian. In what I call our intrasubjective integrity, which I employ as a vague category for individuation, development and conversion processes, our axiological trajectory is ordered toward augmented value-realizations, in terms of our ongoing embodiment of truth, beauty and goodness, with an erotic aspect realized as beatitude and an agapic aspect realized as AMDG (ad majorem Dei gloriam). Normatively, we surrender our will and cooperate with the Spirit toward an integrity that entails recognizing and becoming ever more fully who we are, which does not at all entail the full realization of some idealized person, who's passed through every conceivable type of developmental stage or maxed out on every Lonerganian conversion. Like the Navajo rug, which is purposefuly woven with at least one imperfection, we do not deem equality with an over-idealized integrality as anything to be grasped at but, per the beautiful litany of humility, we pray, rather, that others may become holier than I, provided that I may become as holy as I should. Beatitude remains a gift bestowed freely by God and, as a value, it is realized both intrinsically and absolutely at every level of development for each human person, whose own intrinsic and absolute value does not increase or decrease under any circumstances - not even because of ongoing integration or transformation (or even disintegration or deformation), realities with which we cooperate as prompted by the Spirit. Whether the unitary follows the unitive, as far as phenomenal experiences go, is of no consequence. The unitary probably are later in both East and West for most people (and those numbers aren't really that high either East or West). Because all stages realize beatitude and AMDG, because all levels are assimilated and carried forward without being subjugated, and because all persons are absolutely valued, while the order in which various stages and levels emerge may be interesting, empirically, they are not quite as interesting, to me, axiologically, especially because each member of the Body with its requisite gifts gives God the greater glory by becoming as holy and as converted (intellectually, affectively, morally, socially and religiously) as it should, though there will always be others, even eschatologically, who are holier and wholly-er. 1

In a nutshell, neither holiness nor wholly-ness are realized by an individual through the realization of a thoroughgoing wilberian integrality; both are realized by integration into the Mystical Body, which is what theosis nurtures ... just as we are ... without one plea.


Theosis does not entail full integrality