Thx, the key ingredient in your (and mine, and Cahn's, and anybody elses.....is "IMO". ). You may change your opinion after reading Cahn's "Book of Mysteries". No mention of the Unified Field there. It's all dualistic, not Advaitic. The early Apologists for what ultimately became the current "mainstream" Christian positions where hashed out in the early centuries prior to the major Councils of Bishops which game us the Athanasian and Nicene Creeds. Nothing about the Unified Field in those dogmatic pronouncements. Obviously, the Gnostics and Neo-Platonists lost out in the battle for Biblical interpretations and which Books were to be included in the Bible. There are 3 major questions in Biblical exegesis: a. What does the Bible say is the truth? b. What do you believe is "the truth" and c. What do we "want" to believe is the Truth. It's obvious that your emphasis is on the third approach - some bizarre and quite unsuccessful to fuse and render compatible Biblical teachings as they are (and not twisted into what we "want" is the truth), with MMY's version of what he calls Advaita Vedanta. It will be left to Empty Bill for discernment on the question of whether MMY's teachings are in accord with Shankara, or not . My conclusion is that as a whole, Biblical Judaeo-Christianity is dualistic with a big emphasis on Christian Love.....but not the Transcendent. If can find few passages in the Bible that are remotely connected or point to the Transcendental Absolute (purusha). Statements like "The Kingdom of Heaven is within you" are too vague to be useful, and can't by any stretch of the imagination be supportive of the notion that the Bible is about Gnosis (Self or Transcendental knowledge). Any important battle between the "Early Church Fathers" and the Gnostics such as Marcion, Valentinus, etc; ensued before the mainstream concepts were codified, and the Gnostics lost and were forced underground. There were valid reasons for why they lost the battle and books like the "Gospel of Thomas" were not in accepted list of Biblical Books. However, I do commend you for a worthy stance on stating: what might have been, or perhaps what the early Church Father should have taught.; but unfortunately they didn't. They taught dualistic themes for the most part incompatible with non-dualism. In addition, regardliess of one's belief, (and in spite of it), one can be devoted to Jesus in any manner of loving devotion on the basis of heart-chakra experience, with no particular adherence to a set of beliefs. But this would be anathema to Protestantism since salvation by faith requires belief. Beliefs are a big part of the Bible. Thank God for George Fox who set us on the right course of action! . ..