Approaches to Nondual Prayer
For many people, particularly within the Christian tradition, prayer is understood to be a fundamental act of communication, a dialogue between the human self and a distinct, personal God. This perspective is rooted in a clear subject-object relationship: the individual subject addresses the divine object,* a being often perceived as both transcendent, dwelling beyond the cosmos, and immanent, present within it. Prayer in this context involves a range of expressions from praise to thanksgiving, from heartfelt petitions and earnest confessions to active listening for divine guidance. It is, at its core, a relational act.
The nondual perspective emphasizes the immanence of the divine not just in creation, but as the very ground of reality. If ultimate being, the divine source, is not fundamentally separate from us but rather our essential nature, then the traditional model of communicating with a separate other becomes conceptually problematic. So prayer becomes less about sending messages from here to there and more about realizing the absence of distance between the two. Trying to bridge the gap between a perceived self and God is the activity of a mind operating under the assumption of a fundamental split within the nature of consciousness. But there cannot be two realities.
How to pray, then?
By Shifting from Communication to Realization
The primary aim is no longer to talk to God, but to realize the divine nature that is already inherent as our true self. It is a movement from seeking connection with an external deity to recognizing our essential identity with the immanent absolute.
By Resting in Being
Here, the practice becomes less about speaking or actively petitioning and more about simply resting in the awareness of this nondual reality. This often finds expression in contemplative practices like silent meditation, where attention is turned away from the activity of the mind, which constructs and reinforces the sense of a separate self. With the understanding that awareness is our essence, not the ever-changing states of mind, we can relax into a simple abidance as aware presence, the silent witness to the activities of the mind.
Through Self-Inquiry
Another form of prayer is self-inquiry, often framed as the question, “Who or what is it that knows my experience?” This is not an intellectual exercise to arrive at a conceptual answer, but a direct pointing of awareness towards the subject, the “I” that perceives. By investigating the nature of this perceiver, one may realize that the individual ego is not the ultimate reality, but a temporary emanation within the divine source. In this sense, prayer becomes the realization of one's true nature.
Through Surrender
While the concept of talking to a separate entity loosens, there can still be a sense of aligning the seemingly individual flow of life with the greater flow or nature of reality. This is often experienced as surrender, not giving up to an external power, but releasing the ego's grip on separate intention and control. It is to allow the deeper truth of reality to operate through one's life.
Through Natural Outpourings of Gratitude and Awe
Even without an external recipient, gratitude can arise spontaneously from the recognition of the sheer wonder, fullness, and unity of being. Similarly, awe becomes a natural response to the mysterious beauty and intelligence of this unified reality manifesting as the world of form. These prayers are not directed towards God but are experienced within, directly.
Through Life Itself
As the realization of nonduality deepens, the artificial distinction between sacred time, like prayer, and secular time, like work, dissolves. Every action performed with aware presence, every moment of simply being present, can become a recognition and expression of the divine reality. When there is a ceaseless affirmation of the nondual truth, life itself becomes the prayer.
Prayer, then, is not something we do to connect with the divine; it is an activity of the divine itself, both in its diversity of forms and in its formless essence. It is being recognizing itself and consciously living itself as itself. ⬚
*It is forbidden in some religious cultures to portray God as an icon or an object—to do so is to betray the ultimate truth by making the only true subject there is into an object.
Grace: Gift from Above or the Recognition of Reality?
The concept of grace exists in both Christian theology and in the nondual tradition, but the understanding and implications differ. While Christianity typically views grace as a personal gift bestowed by a distinct God, the nondual understanding sees grace as a sudden, spontaneous recognition of one’s true nature.
In traditional Christianity, grace is predominantly defined as unmerited divine favor. It is perceived as a gratuitous gift from God, a personal being who is understood to be both transcendent (existing beyond the created order) and immanent (present within it). The necessity of this grace stems from the Christian doctrine of sin, which posits a fundamental separation between a holy God and humanity. This gulf, according to Christian belief, cannot be bridged by human effort or merit alone. Therefore, God's grace, expressed through the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, is the means by which salvation, forgiveness of sins, and the power to live a transformed life are made possible. It is a concept deeply intertwined with God's limitless love, His sovereign will, and the personal relationship He initiates with individuals. The dynamic is inherently relational, featuring a distinct Giver and a specific recipient.
According to the nondual understanding, grace is not a favor bestowed by a separate entity upon another. Instead, grace is the recognition of the essence of reality itself. Grace is less about receiving something from a transcendent being and more about the sudden, spontaneous realization of one's own true nature—the inseparable essence of the ultimate source. So grace occurs when the deeply ingrained illusion of being separate from external reality dissolves and the unified nature of awareness is known.*
Nondual grace, therefore, is not bestowed but realized. It is the inherent nature that is revealed when the dualities within perception are understood to arise within a single, indivisible reality. While spiritual practices might prepare the ground by quieting the mind or challenging the ego, the moment of realization itself is often a sudden, effortless recognition of what is already the case.
So in essence, Christian grace is deeply relational and operates within a dualistic understanding of reality, highlighting God's personal, unmerited action towards a separate humanity. Nondual grace, on the other hand, is experiential and inherent, a revelation of a non-dual reality where the Giver and the receiver not just share the same reality but are the same reality. ⬚
*Thinking divides awareness into this and that, but the substance of awareness is indivisible.
Reconciling Mind and Matter with Dual-Aspect Monism
We live in a world of duality, of apparent separation between our inner world of thoughts and feelings and the external world of objects and lifeforms. From this divide the question arises: how can two seemingly different substances possibly interact, and in what larger context?
From a nondual perspective this fundamental split is seen not as a fundamental truth but as a limitation of the mind. [Spoiler: all separation that occurs in the mind is an appearance within a single indivisible reality.] But how can philosophy articulate this perspective without denying the obvious differences in how we experience mind and matter?
One philosophical framework that resonates with the nondual view, particularly when it identifies the fundamental, unifying substance, is dual-aspect monism. This position proposes that there is only one reality (monism), but this fundamental reality can be experienced in two ways, as two different aspects: mental and physical.
Dual-aspect monism becomes insightful when this single, underlying substance is identified as consciousness. From the vantage point of the consciousness-only model, mental and physical aspects are not separate realms made of different substances somehow interacting. Instead, they are different experiences within consciousness.
When we look out across the ocean from the shore we see the waves, the rhythm, the distance. These are the objective forms that appear in consciousness. If we were to swim out into the ocean, we could experience its wetness, its temperature, its current. This is analogous to the subjective experience within consciousness. So it is all one substance, experienced in different ways.
In terms of the mind-body relationship from this nondual-aligned dual-aspect monist perspective, the brain is not a thing made of matter that produces consciousness. The brain is the physical representation of consciousness whose mental aspect is the subjective experiences of thought, feeling, and self-awareness. In other words, consciousness is not produced by the brain; the brain is an appearance within consciousness.*
The objective, physical universe is not separate from the perceiving consciousness. Both are ways in which experience is known. The body is not a physical container for consciousness. The body is the physical aspect of the consciousness that is aware. In the same way, the physical world is an aspect of the consciousness by which it is perceived.
Dual-aspect monism, when grounded in the primacy of consciousness, provides a philosophical bridge between the empirical reality of mind and matter and the nondual realization of unity. It affirms that duality is real as an appearance, but not as a fundamental reality. The fundamental reality is the aware ground of subjectivity from which both aspects, mind and matter, arise.
Other dual-aspect monists explored on this website are Baruch Spinoza, Arthur Schopenhauer, Carl Jung, David Bohm, and David Chalmers. ⬚
*For more on this, see Bernardo Kastrup’s Analytic Idealism.
Spinoza's Dual-Aspect Monism Compared to the Nondual Perspective
The relationship between our inner experience and the external world has long been a central question in philosophy. How can the subjective realm of thoughts and feelings relate to the objective realm of physical matter? While philosophical dualism makes the argument for two fundamentally different kinds of stuff, both Spinoza's philosophical framework and the nondual understanding converge on a monistic answer: ultimately, reality is one.
Baruch Spinoza, the 17th-century Dutch philosopher, is often cited as the first modern presenter of dual-aspect monism. Spinoza proposed that there is only one absolute, infinite, self-caused substance, which he identifies as God or Nature. This substance is the entirety of reality, possessing an infinite number of attributes that are its essential properties or essences. Of these infinite attributes, human beings can only apprehend two: thought, the realm of mind, and what he called extension, the realm of the body and the world.
In Spinoza's view, thought and extension are not separate substances that interact. They are two distinct, parallel, and equally real ways in which the one substance exists and is apprehended. Our individual mind is a mode of the attribute of thought, and our body is a mode of the attribute of extension. Mind and body do not cause each other; they are simply different expressions of the same underlying reality. This is a quintessential example of dual-aspect monism where the mental and the physical are two sides of the same coin.
The nondual understanding, found in various traditions such as Advaita Vedanta, Zen Buddhism, and Christian mysticism, also asserts the ultimate unity of reality. However, here the understanding goes further by identifying this single, absolute reality as consciousness or awareness, a reality that transcends conceptual descriptions entirely, for a finite mind cannot know the infinite. From this perspective, the apparent diversity and separation of the world, including the perceived distinction between mind and body, or subject and object, are not ultimately real. The separations are considered appearances, manifestations, or forms arising within or as consciousness. The appearance of reality is often described as an illusion, not in the sense of being non-existent, but as lacking a discrete, stand-alone existence. The nondual understanding emphasizes the primacy of this formless consciousness as the ground of all being. The world of form, including the physical body and the conceptual mind, is seen as dependent upon and arising within this consciousness, rather than being an equally fundamental attribute of it. The goal of the nondual understanding, then, is the direct, non-conceptual recognition or realization of this ultimate unity. To see one's true nature as identical with consciousness is to transcend the illusion of the separate self and the dualities of perception.
Similarities between Spinoza’s framework and the nondual understanding:
Both views firmly reject the idea that mind and matter are two fundamentally different kinds of independent substances. Both agree that reality, ultimately, is not divided into separate subjects and objects. Reality is a unified whole.
Both systems propose that this single reality presents itself in different ways that correspond to our experience of the mental and the physical.
And some differences:
For Spinoza, the one reality is Substance with infinite attributes, including thought and extension as fundamental essences. The nondual understanding identifies the one reality as consciousness itself, which is formless and prior to attributes or distinctions.
In Spinoza's dual-aspect monism, thought and extension are equally real. They are not less real than Substance itself, just different ways of apprehending it. In the nondual understanding, the mental and physical realms (mind, body, world) are seen as appearances, forms, or manifestations within consciousness. Their reality is considered relative or dependent upon consciousness, and therefore ultimately less real than consciousness itself.
Spinoza's path to liberation involves intellectual understanding leading to the “intellectual love of God.” The nondual path typically emphasizes the direct, experiential, non-conceptual realization that the ground of being, awareness, is whatever is reading these words in this moment.
Spinoza's dual-aspect monism and the nondual understanding share the insight that reality is a unified whole, that there is no fundamental split between mind and matter. Spinoza offers a rational, philosophical framework where mind and body are equally real attributes of one Substance—God or Nature. The nondual understanding, while embracing monism, identifies the one reality as consciousness, and views the mental and physical realms as dependent appearances within the consciousness rather than equally fundamental attributes of this sole reality. ⬚
Jung's Unified Field: Psyche and Matter as Dual Aspects of Reality
Substance dualism, which separates the conscious, subjective realm of the psyche from the apparently objective, measurable realm of matter, has significantly influenced Western scientific, philosophical, and theological thinking.
Carl Jung, the pioneering Swiss psychiatrist and psychoanalyst, was also deeply engaged with the relationship between mind and matter. And while he did not explicitly employ the term dual-aspect monism, an examination of his later work, particularly his exploration of synchronicity and the Unus Mundus (The One World), reveals a conceptual framework consistent with this philosophical position.
Jung's clinical experience and extensive studies in mythology and comparative religion led him to question this fundamental divide. He observed phenomena that seemed to defy a purely causal, materialist explanation which treats the psyche as an epiphenomenon of the brain. How, for instance, could an intense inner psychic state coincide meaningfully with an external physical event without a discernible causal link?
Jung's quest for a more comprehensive understanding led him towards a model where psyche and matter were not seen as independent substances interacting, but as expressions or manifestations of a unified, underlying reality.
Several key Jungian concepts point towards this implicitly monistic, dual-aspect view:
Psychoid Archetypes: Jung saw the archetypes of the collective unconscious* not just as purely mental structures, but as having a “psychoid” aspect, existing at the threshold of psychological and the physiological. Psychoid archetypes can manifest as psychic phenomenon at the convergence of the psyche and the body or the psyche and the world, suggesting a common root that transcends the mind-matter split.
Synchronicity: Jung's concept of synchronicity, the meaningful coincidence between a psychic state and a physical event where no causal connection exists, is perhaps the most compelling evidence for his move towards dual-aspect monism. He proposed that synchronicity points to an acausal ordering principle, a unifying factor operating beneath the surface of both inner and outer reality. This principle suggests that psyche and matter are not separate causal chains that occasionally happen to intersect, but rather two modes of expression of the same underlying unity.
The Unus Mundus: Drawing inspiration from alchemical traditions, Jung posited the concept of the Unus Mundus as the potential reality underlying the empirical world. This “One World” is a transcendent, unified field from which both psyche and matter emerge as different facets or aspects. It represents a state of being prior to the differentiation into the seemingly separate realms of mind and matter.
From a nondual perspective, Jung's exploration of the Unus Mundus and the relationship between psyche and matter within it aligns with the core assertion that the apparent separation and division in the world do not have stand-alone existence, but arise from a single, undivided reality which is identified as consciousness.
One could interpret the Unus Mundus as a level of reality where the distinction between mind and matter has not yet arisen. It is pure consciousness before any representation. A easy way to think about consciousness without representation is deep sleep.
Jung's work, through concepts like synchronicity and the Unus Mundus, provides a psychological and philosophical framework that strongly supports a dual-aspect monistic interpretation. It suggests that our experience of mind and body, inner and outer, are not reflections of a fundamental metaphysical divide, but rather different perspectives on a unified reality. ⬚
*Here, “unconscious” means phenomenal consciousness, or consciousness that hasn’t been re-represented through self-reflection. In the way that Jung uses the terms “unconscious” and “conscious,” it may be more helpful to think in terms of “conscious” for raw subjectivity, and “meta-conscious” for self-aware consciousness.
Schopenhauer, Dual-Aspect Monism and the Nondual Perspective
Arthur Schopenhauer, an influential figure among German philosophers in the late 19th century, presented a unique and compelling monistic system. While not explicitly labeled as such by him, strong elements of dual-aspect monism are present. As such, there are parallels with the nondual understanding.
Schopenhauer, like Spinoza before him, rejected the Cartesian dualism of mind and matter as fundamentally separate substances. He argued for a single, underlying reality which he termed the Will. This Will is not rational, personal, or self-reflexive. It is a blind, purposeless, ceaseless striving, a metaphysical force that is the true “thing-in-itself” behind appearances in the world.
Appearances in the world are called the World as Representation. This is how the Will appears when it becomes the object of a knowing subject. Our bodies are a key bridge between these two aspects: we apprehend our body objectively as a physical entity within the Representation, but we also experience it directly and immediately as our subjectivity—willing, striving, resisting and desiring. The body, therefore, serves as the intersection where Will is expressed in both its objective, spatial form and its subjective, self-reflexive form.
It is in this relationship between the Will and the Representation that Schopenhauer's system aligns with dual-aspect monism. The Will is the substance, and the Representation is the appearance, perceived simultaneously through the body as both a physical object in space/time and the subjectivity with which it is known.
From a nondual perspective, however, the ultimate reality is not a blind, striving Will but subjectivity itself, the Absolute, unmanifest potential, infinite fullness lacking nothing. Suffering and striving are experiences arising within subjectivity, but they do not color it. In just the same way, a movie doesn’t really discolor the screen.
But for Schopenhauer, striving is the Will. It is the inherent, inescapable nature of reality itself. The world is a manifestation of this striving, and suffering is its necessary consequence. Peace, then, according to Schopenhauer, can be found through the temporary or ascetic negation of the Will's activity.
Nondualism says that striving arises when consciousness localizes itself or appears to contract into the form of a finite mind. The necessary limitations result in an inner sense of being limited and seemingly separate from the rest of reality. Consciousness seeks to fill the void. The striving that follows, the desires, the careless or ceaseless activity, is, at the deepest level, misguided impulses of consciousness to rediscover its inherent, limitless freedom.
Schopenhauer described activities of experience—striving and suffering—and mistook them for the fundamental nature of reality itself, which is totally free of any ignorance about its true nature. ⬚