 |
| Another Robert Bolton |
This is an extremely difficult book, not so much due
to its subject-matter, but rather to the extremely tedious writing-style of the
author. I've tried to read it three times, and never managed to finish it
completely. I offer this review for all its worth. Robert Bolton is a Christian
Platonist who, at least to some extent, identifies with Traditionalism.
However, he has major disagreements with Guénon and Schuon, two important
Traditionalist writers. Bolton is an explicit theist, and therefore strongly
critical of Guénon's and Schuon's impersonal view of the divine, derived from
Shankara and Advaita Vedanta. "The One and the Many" contains
Bolton's arguments against what he calls Monism and Non-Dualism. The book incorporates
an extended exchange of opinions between the author and Charles Upton, a
Traditionalist who defends Advaita Vedanta. According to Upton, Advaita sees
the divine as transpersonal, not impersonal. Bolton remains unconvinced.
Bolton's main argument against impersonalism is a kind of Augustinian-Cartesian cogito. The only thing we can't really doubt is the self-reflective power of our own conscious minds. Thus, personality or personhood (in a strong, metaphysical sense) is the most fundamental fact of our existence. Concepts such as "the impersonal" or "the transpersonal" can only be grasped in relation to the personal, once again showing its primacy. Our personal power of self-reflection can never be sublated. Even mystics retain their personal identity. How else can they be able to experience anything at all during their mystical raptures? How can they come back and attempt to explain their experiences to the rest of us? This all implies that their personhood isn't completely, ontologically merged with God. Bolton further states that consciousness cannot be divine, since it cannot explain itself. Yet, being limited, consciousness must have an explanation. Therefore, it must be explicable in terms of something else: God.
Judging by an on-line interview, Bolton places a strong emphasis on philosophical arguments, which implies that he doesn't base his theism on empirical facts (say, intelligent design), nor on mystical experiences. He does accept revelation, however, and even claims to have an esoteric message, although it's not clear what this esotericism might entail. Indeed, Bolton criticizes Upton and other Traditionalists for elitism, for having a complex message only a small minority of intellectuals can understand, while Islam and Christianity are open to the broad masses. But if so, what is the point of esotericism? Bolton seems aware of this problem, but doesn't really solve it. Curiously, Bolton also concedes that God ultimately reconciles all opposites in an all-embracing unity (here, he sounds like our old friend Huston Smith!), but regards this activity as so far above our heads, that we shouldn't bother with it. To us humans, there are opposites and stark choices to be made, for instance between good and evil, or between the moral and the ontological. But isn't the whole point of esotericism precisely to disclose what is beyond the ordinary comprehension of most humans?
Bolton believes that Monism and Non-Dualism are attractive to modern man because of their affinities with modern materialism and nihilism. He even accuses Monism of implicit Communism. Monism leads to idolatry of consciousness. Since Bolton sees consciousness as necessarily tied to a person, this means that part of our fallen humanity is turned into a god. Non-Dualism leads to an idolatrous worship of the created world, since everything is Brahman. (It's not entirely clear what the author means by Non-Dualism as distinctive from Monism, but presumably something like Ken Wilber's ultimate goal.)
A less decisive argument, which is nevertheless repeated often enough in the book, is that Guénon and Schuon consciously distorted Hindu traditions, claiming that Vedanta was identical to Shankara's monist Advaita Vedanta. In reality, much of Hinduism is theist. Bolton points to Ramanuja's Vishishtadvaita Vedanta and Madhva's "Madhva Vedanta" (presumably Dvaita Vedanta). He is particularly enamoured of the latter. Another less decisive argument is Bolton's claim that Guénon wasn't really that different from Madame Blavatsky and her Theosophy!
As already mentioned, the debate between the author and Upton didn't lead anywhere, although I personally feel that Upton "won" it, mostly because he is a better writer. As an outsider to the debate, I feel that Bolton's positions can be criticized by both "impersonalists" and more main-line Christians. The latter might wonder why he places such emphasis on philosophy, rather than the Bible or Church tradition? Doesn't the resurrection of Jesus prove once and for all that God is personal and wants to redeem our bodies? Bolton comes close to arguing this at one point (why did Jesus say that the communion bread is his "body", if the body is a mayavic illusion?), but he somehow feels that one must nevertheless start with a philosophical cogito. From the impersonalist-transpersonalist side, two obvious lines of attack suggest themselves. First, some mystics *do* disappear - or so it is said - into the divine void, thereby suggesting that our self-reflective minds are possible to "sublate", after all. Second, many mystics believe that consciousness is everywhere, or that all is consciousness, thereby negating Bolton's argument that consciousness can only be tied to a person, else it is a meaningless concept. At bottom, the conflict seems to be between philosophy and a kind of "empirical" mysticism, which once again makes me wonder why the author doesn't appeal to "empirical" revelation to even the scores?
Of course, it may be impossible to argue with a Advaita-inspired Traditionalist in the long run, since the very idea of The Divine reconciling opposites can be used to simultaneously affirm both impersonalism and personalism, both personhood and its sublation, etc. The esoteric tack of the Traditionalists can likewise be used to reinterpret all religious traditions in the light of Advaita, "sublating" all revelations or mystical experiences that suggests otherwise. This is presumably why Bolton insists on anchoring his spiritual worldview on a small number of philosophical propositions that can't be gainsaid without contradiction. When push comes to shove, the listener would have to decide between logical consistency and contradiction, as nobody else can do it for him. However, Bolton in effect undermines his chosen position by importing a contradiction of his own, the previously mentioned idea that God *ultimately* reconciles all oppositions. This makes the choice much less stark than the author perhaps wants it to be.
With these reflections, I close my review of "The One and the Many" by Robert Bolton.
No comments:
Post a Comment