Christian Nonduality

Rather than treat these so-called energies, specifically, for there is much written elsewhere, let me raise another issue from a wider perspective. Much of the thrust of the epistemological approach advocated throughout this website has been directed at the need to prescind from robustly metaphysical accounts of reality to more vaguely phenomenological perspectives, precisely to avoid saying more than we know, to refrain from telling untellable stories --- or, quite simply, to avoid certain dogmatisms and gnosticisms (as well as a host of other insidious -isms or epistemic vices).

Generically, then,  to assert any type of energy paradigm apart from science would involve gnosticism or superstition. In my view, it is not helpful to interpret our life experiences in such paradigms while asserting metaphysical reality to such phenomena.

The wider perspective asks whether or not various Eastern techniques --- practices, rituals and exercises --- might not be abstracted from their classical metaphysical (or even, sometimes, robustly theological) accounts and interpreted from a more vague phenomenological perspective, especially when they are associated with certain therapeutic efficacies realized in genuine life experiences, some of these efficacies yet to be fully described scientifically regarding their precise mechanisms of action, in which case it is best left to such entities as the National Institute of Health (http://nccam.nih.gov/) to sort out. 

In my view, when we reappropriate such "technologies" to situate them in a Christian perspective, while they will no longer be classically metaphysical and, just perhaps, not even authentically Eastern, there should be no a priori dismissal of their efficacies, especially when legitimate research remains underway due to the global ubiquity of this or that technology; such a dismissal would, itself, be gnostic!

In any case, practitioners should be more clear, in their employment of related terminology, like chakras and ki and kundalini, that these words are being employed as general concepts corresponding to real life experiences (various constellations of experiences and symptoms in association with specific practices that recur in noticable patterns that merit investigation) of millions of people that are to best be understood as vague phenomena, which are still being researched by science, and not rather as specific terms, which are heavily invested in gnostic metaphysics. Such a distinction is easy enough to make and quite valid. References to energy paradigms should not be taken literally but claims regarding these patterns of experience deserve to be taken seriously.

Gosh knows, Christianity's had its own problems with gnostic metaphysics, for example, interpreting life, gender and sexual realities in rationalistic categories little resembling, and thus not well corresponding to, the lived experiences of the faithful. Some of its teachers would  do well to take their own counsel and guidelines (http://www.usccb.org/dpp/Evaluation_Guidelines_finaltext_2009-03.pdf).

All of our deontologies should be as modest as our ontologies are tentative, both East and West. And, if one's ontology is not tentative, then, one is way out in front of science, themselves.

To be more clear in the practical implications of my view: a redacted excerpt from recent (April 2009) correspondence with a friend who's a Reiki practitioner:

The way I like to approach this is to say that we can appropriate reiki, like so many other wonderful spiritual technologies of the East, as a practice, as an exercise, as a ritual. This is true of other meditative practices, yogic exercises and so on, all of which are being actively researched by the NIH-CAM precisely because of the efficacies reported by MILLIONS. Science does not have to fully understand what is going on with, for example, acupuncture, in order for it to be efficacious. Gosh knows, this is true for most psychoactive pharmaceuticals where we can only speculate about the precise mechanisms of action. So, my position is to continue to prayerfully minister and practice all of these time-honored Eastern technologies and to situate them within one's Christian worldview while refraining from characterizing them in precise physical and/or metaphysical terms. We do not need to know HOW something works in order to discover THAT it works. It is enough to say that science does not fully understand; we do not need to offer any physical or metaphysical hypotheses along with our treatments; only our loving intentionality.

When I speak of kundalini or reiki (both of which I have experienced), I consider them realities yet to be explained. I have experienced phenomena associated with certain "practices." I don't feel a need to label these metaphysically even as I cannot account for them scientifically. So, I actually agree with the bishops that it would be gnostic or superstitious to make definitive metaphysical assertions about the putative reality of chakras, life forces or subtle energies. I adamantly disagree and am saddened that they do not avail themselves of such distinctions as I've proposed, whereby we can successfully abstract spiritual technologies -- useful rituals, devotionals, practices and exercises -- from their classical metaphysical accounts and enjoy the many efficacies that flow therefrom, as attested by you and so many other people of large intelligence and profound goodwill and actual experience, which they ignored.