Non-Dualist Fundamentalism
by Brian Emmett
Fundamentalists
in Our Midst
You could be forgiven for expecting
that in the world of Non-Dualism, Monism, Transcendentalism, Advaitism,
Buddhism, and Jed McKenna supporters, you might encounter an absence of fundamentalism. Identified with the grandest of Truths, you
might expect Non-Dualists to demonstrate a dramatically more graceful and
nuanced relationship, not only to Truth and its expressions, but
to their fellow man. Although you can be forgiven for
such a presumption, you would be quite wrong.
Perhaps even more surprising, is that the temperament of
these high-dharma fundamentalists is nearly identical to the more violent
players in the broader culture, although admittedly without the bombs and
bullets. Operating a blog has given me an opportunity
to witness firsthand, many ‘comment’ submissions (that I usually ditch) that
bear all the hallmarks of fundamentalism, yet are not tied to the doctrines of
conventional religious beliefs. Instead, they presume to be tied
to the high dharmas of non-dualism.
A
Quick Definition of Non-Dualism for the Uninitiated
The
essential realization, intuition or perspective of
Non-Dualism is that the nature and substance of everything, both within and prior
to Creation, is made from one thing and one being, however divergent and
complex its manifestations become, or how convincing the illusion of
separateness may appear. This differs from traditional Theistic systems of the
West, for instance, that insist that there exists an
ultimate separation between God and his creatures that can only be lessened,
and that by a proper relationship to that God.
Furthermore,
many Non-Dualists
contend that anything one does in attempting to return to an ‘experience’ of that
unity is founded on separative consciousness and is doomed to failure for that
reason. How does one then manage to ‘achieve that sublime Reunion? Grace or
luck or divine bestowal, or gift from a guru, they would contend. Anyway, that
is not the point of this essay so I will leave off of
that discussion. For a more comprehensive discussion,
you may wish to sample this entry on Wikipedia.org ->
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nondualism#Nondualism_versus_monism
My Intention
What I intend to do in this essay is to define, describe and
analyze the malady of fundamentalism as it appears in Non-Dual Spiritual
circles, and offer a few modest suggestions on how to handle it when it appears
in your life.
And, as I said above, having to
administer a Web Blog that manages to attract not a few fundamentalists, I have
something I want to say to these good folk.
So rather than assume the unrewarding task of challenging
them one at a time as they roll in, or else supporting their comments by publishing
them, I’ve decided to organize my thoughts and observations into one simple piece
and refer any suitable candidates to it whenever necessary. And
if I can be of service to others needing to deal with this phenomenon, that
would also be nice.
Also, I have been moved to articulate
these ideas after spending several decades with a lovely group of good hearted people,
most of whom were, like me, Fundamentalists, Idealists and Cultists. Although
aware as they were of their vulnerability to this problem, and try as they may have to exceed its limitations, few could
actually perceive the depth of the dynamic in their own selves, and actually
had very few effective tools at their disposal to help them in this regard. For
the rare few of these who are interested, the insights offered in this essay
may prove somewhat useful.
What
Exactly Is Fundamentalism
Merriam Webster defines fundamentalism “as a movement or
attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles”.
Samples include not only religious fundamentalism and political fundamentalism;
you can also add economic fundamentalism such as capitalism and ‘communism’.
You may also add scientism while you are at it.
That is fine in itself, but although it describes
Fundamentalism, it doesn’t explain anything about the
phenomenon, and it doesn’t speak to the (internal or external) dynamics that
may distinguish it from garden variety belief systems. And
it says nothing about the psychological dimensions that motivate its adherents.
My study of the subject, both in myself in others, leads me
to conclude that Fundamentalism can be understood as one component of a
dysfunctional, unholy, and probably indivisible trinity, along with Cultism, and
Narcissistic Idealism, that are all symptoms of a spiritual disease that we
might call “Spiritual Sclerosis,” (the hardening of the spirit).
Fundamentalism is the intellectual, Cultism is the social,
and Idealism is the personal and internal aspect of this magnificent malady. (I
don’t know if there is a physical dimension to this disease, although it would
not surprise me, -> clenched teeth, powerful anuses, staring bug eyes?).
A Fundamentalist is a spiritual ideologue who holds rigidly
onto a particular ‘truth’ in a bid for deliverance from that which haunts him,
which is a fear of loss of self. Idealism upholds to a positive self-image and
self-sense, for fear of being overwhelmed by his own psychological
‘shadow’, and Cultism, properly understood, pathologically binds its member exclusively
to a group of like-minded people for affirmation and reassurance, regardless of
any violence or depersonalization, and the inevitable isolation that the group routinely
imposes on its members.
In my view, dedicated
fundamentalists are people who usually fail to comprehend the complexity and
subtleties of the very subject of which they champion, and who can’t consider,
or maybe even tolerate, a perspective that appears to challenge, however
innocently or gently, their chosen dogma.
The Fundamentalist is obsessed
by the notion of right versus wrong, with himself situated in the right, of
course. This simplistic dichotomy allows him to frame everyone else as ‘wrong,’
and consequently a direct threat to the good and the right and the holy. At its
extreme, that polarization seems to offer him the moral authority to destroy
those whom he opposes.
Fundamentalists are often abusive and
sometimes violent towards others, wanting to dominate or destroy those with
different ideas in order to secure a safe ideological place for their ego to
hide in. Ironically, they unwittingly do this so they
may remain invulnerable and unaccountable to a fuller and realer understanding
of (even) their own preferred truth. Tragically, it is often the case that they
will abandon important aspects of their own humanity in order to become
wrathful talking godheads of truth.
In other words, a blinding belief and
a commitment to a part of the whole truth or reality of a situation, regardless
of glaring contradictions, contradictory evidence, or failed experiences.
Besides for root motivation of fear that spawns this illness,
a key construct to understanding this complex malady of Fundamentalism,
Idealism, and Cultism
can be found in the psychological concept of ‘differentiation’. Simply stated, differentiation
refers to the core developmental task that all humans face, of movement from
fusion with the mother and family, (the child state), through
and beyond the breakaway independence movement of adolescence, and into a capacity
for a mature adult interdependence.
These people are afraid to individuate from the herd, look at
what is dark in themselves, and rationally examine the
broad and wide truth of existence in a honest way.
Admittedly, one of the symptoms or possibilities of a soul’s descent,
or, if you like ‘Fall’, into separateness and unenlightenment, is the option to
live a life fused to our local ‘unit’, whether it be the mother or family or
tribe, or nation, or religion. Indeed it is a logical response,
insofar as it provides a person with a ‘union substitution’ for having (apparently)
divorced ourselves from divine unity.
My Personal Involvement in
Fundamentalism
So how do I know the Fundies so intimately?
Well, I was one! I spent many years thumping the
Fundamentalist screed at whoever would listen (mostly myself).
Simultaneously, I was also an Idealist and a Cultist. I also belonged to a community, the charming members of
which wanted very badly to be above such nonsense, but were, in the end, relatively
powerless to resist its lures.
Having examined Fundamentalism in my
own case, as well as in others, I have come to understand that it is a disposition
that is animated when we resort to a weak and defensive child-space in one’s
personality.
And so Fundamentalism is simply one symptom
a person’s resort to an (immature) developmental state, and it uses a great ideology
or a leader or a group as a parental substitute. Once so parented, safety may appear
to be restored.
For one who is chronically locked into that regressive or
wounded developmental state, it cannot be blithely bypassed or outgrown, even when
attended to with ‘proper care or instruction’. My
experience is that it takes years to fully exceed the limits involved in this
condition.
That is why no amount of artful dialog with the sufferer is
likely to shift him beyond his current state, and why he holds on to his dogma
‘like a squirrel grasping his last acorn in winter.’ You cannot shift him
anymore than you can get a 8 year old boy to grasp the
splendor of women. It’s just not time for him to come
to that realization.
Like most of us I have been impacted by fundamentalists
for my entire life, and it is only an effort of self-transcendence in some
instances, or recognition of the futility of that reaction in other instances, that
frees me from attempting to do to them, what they routinely do to everyone,
worldwide.
Is
this Essay
Another Example of Fundamentalism?
An interesting question put to me
about this consideration was: could this essay be an example of (Counter)
Fundamentalism itself? I would argue that it is, only
to the degree that I have abandoned my own humanity and attempt to demonize and
destroy the Fundies in the process.
On many occasions I have found
myself unwittingly slipping back into a Fundamentalist mindset. Even whilst I write an article like this one, specifically focused on
criticizing Fundamentalists for their Fundamentalism, I can catch myself reverting
at times.
But I believe that my own reactions to fundamentalists would
not amount to a new incident of fundamentalism simply by virtue of the content
of the arguments I present throughout this piece, or even my own anger at the
threat they often seem to pose to me/us, for anger is not fundamentalism. Anger
is simply the force designed to make and keep appropriate boundaries.
As I see it, for this essay to be yet
another example of fundamentalism, it would require me to not only be intent
upon destroying fundamentalists for their contrary views, but it would depend
upon me actually believing and being identified with, and clinging to some doctrine
or belief, or Path or School that they had challenged and which I needed to
defend.
But I believe that that is not the case
for me. Elsewhere I speak comprehensively about a phase of life and a process
that I and others have toppled into, that I call
‘Post-Spirituality.’ It is a phase where, although obviously unfinished and
unenlightened, we have abandoned every type of spirituality and path, for what
we have found to be a greater occupation. It is a phase characterized by exquisite
ordeals, overwhelmingly focused in the extraordinary pleasures and pains of selfhood,
and not caring about deities, and not working on ‘getting Enlightened’.
And in general, not needing very much from the outside
world.
This phase is not of self-as-mind, or self-as-emotion, or self-as-desires,
or even self-as-god, but simple, un-projected and
un-protected self itself. At its most
pleasant, it is saturated with a lightheartedness and
detachment that makes lesser satisfactions seem trite. At its worst it bequeaths an aloneness that makes me shutter and my
heart call out in agony every time I experience it. Consequently, I really have little personal use these days for all the wonderful
Dualist and Non-Dualist Schools, other than as cultural reference points that
often are useful in conversation with others. For me these non-dualist schools
are ancient and useful markers which are helpful at
times in the midst of a conversations with a friend. They are not systems I
identify with very deeply anymore, and I certainly don’t
subscribe to their dogmas or methods or personages. Not that
they are bad. On the contrary, I believe that
they can be useful instruments to open people up to higher dimensions of
existence. Nothing wrong with that! But
as far as I can tell, I am done with them, and can’t get terribly excised about
defending them or their adherents.
From an entirely different perspective, I can also foolishly
pretend to myself that Fundamentalism and Dualism aren’t
two of the grand featured toys of this Creation. Fundamentalism is, no doubt, a
wonderful plaything of separation. I admit that I routinely
live an unenlightened dualistic existence. Great adventures are
granted those tempted by its luscious fruits! Who am I
to decry its existence! Viva la difference!
It has also been suggested by someone that in writing this
piece about unfriendly Non-Dualists, that I am
engaging in a dualistic endeavor. That is entirely true. I don’t
object to that critique, and I accept it in this light: any argument, any
thought, or any philosophy or even any preference, is always and inherently dualistic.
See below for why that is necessarily so
-- The Craft Involved in Talking ABOUT Reality
Two Types of Fundamentalists:
1- Idealists (New Age Populists) – “Everyone
and everything is already enlightened, - look at me as I mime the doctrine of
great Sages… because I comprehend these concepts and maybe have had a taste of
these gems, I know that I am already free, so please just KNOW that you too are
already liberated. Now go… go everyone…go in peace!”
2- Righteous Realists (Traditional
Elitists)- “What kind of fool are you to be speaking
about the great unspeakable Truths – don’t you know that that exercise is categorically
dualistic! Doesn’t the Tao say he who speaks doesn’t
know…? “
Samples
of Jargon from Non-Dual Fundamentalists
· “He who
knows, doesn’t speak”… and since you have spoken, therefore you are a fool.
· Everyone and everything is already
enlightened, so relax and chill out, brother!
· Our Way is the only true and complete
way.
The Behaviors of Fundamentalists
Behaviorally, fundamentalists routinely attempt to:
The
Psychology of Fundamentalists
Emotional limitations
of fundamentalists:
Fundamentalists are often characterized
by a childish or slavish allegiance to a father figure “who really knew’ i.e.
Lao Tzu, Ramana, Jed McKenna, Adi Da, Buddha, Jesus etc., or else aligned to a doctrine or Tradition in
the same manner.
However mature or
successful at life a Fundamentalist may otherwise appear to be, in relationship
to spirituality there often remains an addiction to a childish emotional state that
requires the Fundamentalist to avoid or abandon or neglect his sovereignty, and
any sense of self-mastery, when confronted by a teaching or teacher who appears
to him as the direct representative of the divine. The person is thereby reduced to a obsequious
or sycophantic state as he abandons himself to his idol in the hopes that he
will, in return, be granted direct access to the promises of the ‘higher life,’
either while living, or in the afterlife. This effect is relatively benign in
most cases (witness the vast majority of religious and spiritual people around
the world) but if linked to a malicious leader, or a wounded and angry ego-self,
the results can be dreadful.
Energetic limitations of fundamentalists:
They attempt to dominate and suppress
‘opponents’ in order to make the World safe for their chosen idolatry. If you
challenge their worldview you are, in essence, threatening
their very lives. This is because if you dismantle their ideology they will be reduced to a state of existential confusion and despair
that is quite overwhelming. They may anticipate or experience such an incident
as a death event.
Social limitations of fundamentalists:
Fundamentalists have a strong need to
flock together for support against a seemingly threatening world. They cling
together and eschew the company and conversation of outsiders. They enforce
their member’s allegiance by shunning deviants, and rewarding fellow travelers
with acceptance. Or, others may seclude themselves
from others, safe in their Tower of Solitude.
The Intellectual Limitations of Fundamentalists:
Non-Dual Fundamentalists often suffer
from an odd confusion about anyone (except themselves) talking ABOUT Truth. What
they do have right is to affirm that there is an essential difference between
talking and realizing.
What they have wrong is the attempt
to overwhelm any contrary assertions with salvos of simplistic fragments of
truth drawn from their favorite faith or allegiance.
Non-Dual Fundamentalists will attempt
to dismiss any discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of a particular
expression or communication ABOUT the Truth, by their favorite Master or
tradition or sacred text. They are quick to assert that it was OK for a Master
to have done the undoable in talking about Truth (finger pointing at the Moon).
However, in their mind, anyone else must not have
understood that talking ABOUT the Truth is not the Truth itself. It’s a funny kind of tunnel vision they suffer from. Logical enough, but misguided.
All fundamentalists have a limited
capacity for paradox, ambiguity, or irony. They can’t
tolerate the fact that everything in existence is framed in paradox, muddied by
ambiguities, and twisted by ironies. They can’t
appreciate the reality that- everything - is & isn’t, yes & no, black
& white, good & bad, yin & yang, Shiva & Shakti, the Manifest
& Unmanifest. Consideration of such complexity threatens to devastate their
worldview.
If intellectually engaged,
fundamentalists will often defend their dogma with a form of circular logic
that is impenetrable, and that appears patently absurd to the eyes of an
outsider. I have tried to create a few abstract
samples below to give a small taste of the thought process involved in this
mindset: For instance, they might argue:
“X is enlightened.”
How do you know that he is enlightened?
“Because he says he is!” (the premise and the
conclusion are the same)
“X says Y is the truth. Z must therefore be untrue because X says Y is true.”
“Y is the truth,”
How do you know that?
“Because X says Y is the truth.”
So what if X says Y is the truth?
“Y must be true, because X says he is enlightened and therefore he can’t be
wrong about that”.
Non-Dualism Fundamentalists often
dress and mask their comments in argumentation that appears to be founded in the greatest truths and teachings of the ages.
Yet at their core, most of these Fundamentalists are people
who are psychologically defensive because they are unconsciously afraid that
their prized intuitions and experiences of non-duality appear threatened by
statements that seem to undermine a relatively simplistic grasp of their chosen
teaching or understanding. They fear that they will subsequently drown in an ego’s
sea of terrifying ambiguity.
They are usually very big on
grandiose rhetoric that is frequently drawn directly
from a GREAT TRUTH. But there is often very little
clear thinking or discernment going on with them. The truths that these
Non-Dual Fundamentalists actually spout are, in actuality, High-Dogma.
Additionally, their points are often married to nothing more noble or
substantial than sarcasm, ridicule, guilt by
association, red herrings and name dropping, and every kind of ad hominem
attack.
Spiritual limitations of fundamentalists
The spiritual flaw is
typically based on genuine appreciation but incomplete realization of a great
Truth; and subsequently, a clinging to that attainment for fear of losing it to
any apparently opposite truth still hidden from the person. The spiritual
fundamentalist has had to expend an enormous amount of psychic capital in order
to break free of the suffering of his previous worldview and associations,
before ‘true religion’ or ‘the Truth’ came his way. But
so far, he has a relatively superficial grasp of his new truth. He certainly
does not want to hear a lot of crap that may destabilize his relationship with
his new ‘savior’. That confrontation could be annihilating. That is why he is
so fierce.
He is also characterized by a kind of
spiritual exceptionalism or elitism wherein he
believes that only his preferred truth, path, way, master, teaching, tradition,
sect, technique or religion is capable of liberating an individual, all others
are lesser or flawed or false.
Personal limitations of fundamentalists:
Finally, the Non-Dual Fundamentalist doesn’t really bring much of himself to a discussion, and rarely
a whiff of humility. This is mainly because he has lost himself inside greatness
of the chosen Idol he now champions, and which he derives his identity from. He
doesn’t bring much substance or experience or humanity
to the table to be sanely considered with others. He is too weak for such a
showing.
Yet he is never in doubt! He knows!
He has the truth in his hip pocket and the hell with you if you can’t see it his way.
The
Craft Involved in Talking ABOUT Reality
The practical reality that our
beloved Non-Dual Fundamentalist folk do not seem to grasp is that the Truth of
existence may well indeed be Singular and Unitary, but discussions ABOUT that
truth are based on language and the human mind, and as such, sadly, must be
based upon building blocks that are logical and linear and conditional, or else
metaphorical, poetic or allegorical. The best that can be achieved in communicating about Truth
is an artful synthesis that builds a temporary edifice made from ideas, words and images that the listener may happen to find a
little bit liberating, or at least amusing, insomuch as it neutralizes and
dismantles previously held ideas of a lesser and more restricted variety.
Our fundamentalists apparently can’t
understand the difference between someone’s talking about a formulation of the
truth that some luminary has proffered, and presuming to supplant or supersede
the truth with one’s own ramblings.
Our beloved Fundamentalists have very little
appreciation for the unavoidable complexity or paradox involved in the act of
human communication. When they contact me it is often
in the form of paraphrasing the words of Lao Tzu - “The Tao that can be told is
not the eternal Tao”. Yet Lao Tzu goes on to talk about the Eternal Tao in
‘non-eternal’ ways for about 6500 words.
Or, “The name that can be named is not
the eternal Name...The unnamable is the eternally real…This source is called
darkness.” Lao Tzu says that the real Tao can’t be
named, but then goes on to name the ‘not-so-real’ Tao as “Darkness
within darkness”.
We all understand what Lao Tzu is trying to say, and we
appreciate that he is not only doing the best that can be done under the
circumstances, but that in spite of that limitation, he is doing a great
service to us all, regardless.
Or Lao Tzu
could have utilized the affirmative rather than the negative. He
might just as well have proclaimed “Before the Father
was, I Am!” But that statement would have had as many
logic and paradox issues as what he did say.
Lao Tzu tried to not only live The Way, but also to suggest
the Way using language, to point at the Moon, in order to undo false ideas and
limited doctrines that had accumulated in many human heads. So
Non-Dual Fundamentalists seem to ignore the most obvious fact that Lao Tzu is
indeed speaking about the truth himself! He may well be coming from a
realization of Truth, but what you are getting from him is his formulation
ABOUT the Truth.
To make a powerful impact on a listener, a teacher, aside
from his/her personal presence or transmission abilities, has to use the
imperfect logic and inadequate device of language in order to communicate
anything with clout to the misinformed. In other words, he must often use the
decrepit tools of logic and rhetoric, tossed into a blender made of paradox,
seasoned with nuance, and served at right angles to the prevailing cultural
paradigms of the listener, in order to have an impact on the student at all.
In other words, although Reality is singular or unitary, the
attempt to socially / intellectually acknowledge or refer to that Singularity, must be expressed dualistically with partial
half-truths, made of bits of logic and concept and image. Those building blocks
are the scaffolding used to create, and then to stand on top of, and then exceed
the seen or unseen paradoxes of the great mysteries.
That mastery expressed sometimes has the power to explode the
frigid thinking, conceptual and perceptual minds we have become addicted to. All done in such a way as to penetrate
the armor and conceits of the particular listener’s ego. But such language and artistry are quite imperfect devices,
and that is indeed what is critique-able. Now I know that I am not a Master,
but if a Master can ‘disgrace’ himself by discussing the ineffable, then why shan’t we?
And that is my point – Truth-Speaking about
the Absolute is paradoxically a very arbitrary and relativistic endeavor – easily
misunderstood, and eventually, even more easily misapplied. Therefore, it is
well within the purview of ordinary men and women to critique
a sacred scripture for its (‘artistic’) weaknesses, and certainly for how it is
being misunderstood or even abused by current listeners. It is my observation
that it doesn’t take ‘Enlightenment’ to notice the frailties
in even the greatest spiritual literature.
Doubt it? Try communicating about “The Truth”
and not sounding like a simpleton or a platitudinous Sunday School
preacher. Whether you choose to talk about Reality using negatives such as ‘its
not and this, and it’s not that etc”. Or using
positive platitudes like ‘it’s all God,” “There is only God,” “It’s All One”
“The One” etc. It usually doesn’t amount to very much!
It’s a hard job to say something useful without
sounding vacuous or absurd, and of course, impossible to communicate that
Reality itself solely through language.
Alas, may I be accused of being
involved in perpetuating another Right versus Wrong conflict here? But tell me - how ingenuine and
self-devided do you become with yourself and others
to ignore something so devisive as fundamentalism? So, technically speaking, that is a true criticism, but
there is no way around it. No one is pure. No thought is whole. I have a life
as an ego in duality and I assuredly do prefer certain experiences over others. Perhaps I could write a better essay if I came
to it from a more enlightened space than I do, brimming with evermore good
cheer and humorous anecdotes as emblems of my virtue, but I don’t feel a great
need for perfection here today, and actually, it still would inevitably be a
dualistic comment. They all are.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
My Practical Experience with
the Online Fundamentalists
My (delightful) Blog critics usually
make two assertions- one is to assume that my writings on the blog have been my
attempts to present the Truth (that can't be told) when I have stated
repeatedly and on the front page of the blog that my interest is merely to
criticize the limitations I find in the writings or formulations of teachers
such as Jed McKenna, not to replace or supplant them, and certainly not to attempt
to ‘speak the Truth’ or offer the impression that talking about Truth has much
of anything to do with practice, process, or realization of same.
Additionally my critics seem to love
to dismiss me as a some type of heretic because I have the audacity to speak
about these teachers and their individual representations of Truth. Furthermore they would brand me, as my ex-teacher loved to call
us, a ‘dilettante’ and an ‘armchair practitioner,’ as if they know anything
about me. What Non-Dual Fundamentalists can't seem to
imagine is that a person can be involved in a living and genuine spiritual
process, but that their amusement- their intellectual
amusement - their entertainment, is simply to talk about these matters of truth
and philosophy. Perhaps the average fundamentalist hasn't
learned to walk and chew gum at the same time. Needless to
say, I regard these two diverse areas of process and entertainment, as
profoundly distinct elements of my life.
Responding
to Fundamentalists
Conclusion
So that is my rant with the Fundies. I’m sure that the vast majority of Non-Dual Fundamentalists
are a good lot, and have their hearts in the right place, but it does no one very
much good to just roll over and accept a lot of crap from them. Not just unhealthy for the receiver, but also very unhealthy
for the abuser. One way to look at these good folk is to see them as schoolyard
bullies. The best thing you can do for a bully is to stop his game! Don’t allow the abuse to continue ad nauseum. Give him an
opportunity to return to his humanity and stop trying to play god with other
people’s lives.
That is why I spent the time to
organize my thoughts in this essay. So that it will be easier in the future to
communicate with some power and clarity exactly what is ‘off’ about this type
of behavior, and to be able to do so in a measured way.
So, sorry for taking a crack at these my
wayward brothers, but sometimes, these things just need to be said. At least once.