Ken sees nonduality as the integration of the absolute and relative realms. But it’s in how Ken frames the absolute and relative wherein I think Nagarjuna might differ. Ken sees the absolute causal realm as an ultimate and unchanging, whereas the relative realm is the realm of change and flux. Nagarjuna’s two truths doctrine though doesn’t seem to see it this way. For example the following excerpt shows their identity, not their distinction. Their distinction arises from a causal theory of a fixed nature which reifies their dualistic differences. Nagarjuna clarifies how a fixed causal is erroneous within his notions of emptiness and dependent arising.ÂÂ
From the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy: http://www.iep.utm.edu/n/nagarjun.htmÂÂ
ÂÂ
In his revolutionary tract of The Fundamental Verses on the Middle Way, Nagarjuna abjectly throws this elementary distinction between samsara and nirvana out the door, and does so in the very name of the Buddha. “There is not the slightest distinction,” he declares in the work, “between samsara and nirvana. The limit of the one is the limit of the other.” Now how can such a thing be posited, that is, the identity of samsara and nirvana, without totally undermining the theoretical basis and practical goals of Buddhism as such? For if there is no difference between the world of suffering and the attainment of peace, then what sort of work is a Buddhist to do as one who seeks to end suffering? Nagarjuna counters by reminding the Buddhist philosophers that, just as Gautama Sakyamuni had rejected both metaphysical and empirical substantialism through the teaching of “no-soul” (anatman) and causal interdependence (pratityasamputpada), so Scholastic Buddhism had to remain faithful to this non-substantialist stance through a rejection of the causal theories which necessitated notions of fixed nature (svabhava), theories which metaphysically reified the difference between samsara and nirvana. This later rejection could be based on Nagarjuna’s newly coined notion of the “emptiness,” “zeroness” or “voidness” (sunyata) of all things.”ÂÂ
ÂÂ
Another article also explores these 3 elements in Nagarjuna and how they relate. Here the two truths doctrine is not about an ultimate, unchanging and absolute truth in distinction to a changing relative realm. The “higher” truth is again about the reification of an ultimate essense, as in a “causal realm” formulation. Thus the nondual of Nagarjuna is not about integrating an ultimate with a relative but about undoing an ultimate in the first place. In Ken’s terms it is postmetaphysical in undermining the metaphysical assumption of an ultimate. And Ken is still making such assumptions with his intepretation of an unchanging causal realm.ÂÂ
 ÂÂ
From “The Zen Teachings of Nagarjuna” by Vladimir K. at http://www.thezensite.com/zen%20essays/zenteachingsofnagarjuna.pdfÂÂ
ÂÂ
The two truths doctrine is based on the view that there are two realities: conventional reality and the truth about this reality (a “lower truthâ€Â), and ultimate reality and its truth (a “higher truthâ€Â). In the final analysis, however, Nagarjuna rejects this duality and teaches that both realities are one and the same. It is our so-called ‘common sense’ understanding of the world that causes the problem because we tend to see the world as a collection of discrete entities interacting with each other and with the self. In the Buddhist view, this is called ignorance and leads to suffering (dukha). The two truths doctrine is based on the practicality of teaching (upaya) rather than dogma. From a conventional viewpoint, we can say that things are causally produced and are impermanent but from a higher viewpoint, causal production and impermanence (or permanence) cannot be established and dualistic thinking must be rejected. (Cheng, 1991:45)ÂÂ
ÂÂ
Ultimate truth for Nagarjuna is the truth of an enlightened clarity which does not mistake the conventional for something essential (reification). This is where emptiness comes in as Nagarjuna teaches that all things are empty and the understanding of this emptiness leads to a greater truth of the way things really are. Of course, fundamentally, there is no real difference between the two realities as this “truth of the highest meaning†posits that “individual existence cannot be grounded outside the context of everyday experience,†(Huntington, 1989:48) thereby linking the two realities into one. In other words, a ‘higher’ truth is based only on conventional reality, not on a metaphysics.
Hi Ray, you said:
“I would suggest that if there were ‘planes’ as opposed to ‘illusions of planes’ then we would have a greater consistency between metaphysical systems, but there is great variation; how many planes and what these planes are like. This suggests great plasticity and the likelihood that the mind fills the gaps or ‘narratizes’ what it cannot fully comprehend.”
The perennial philosphy movement left us with the legacy that these planes from the different metaphysical systems are basicly the same and I think that is a mistake. You are right, there are many differences and variations. But to take that as a pointer to them being illusions is one step to fast. Wouldn’t you think the Creative Principle of the Kosmos is able to create a big variation of metaphysical planes, since it can do that with animals, languages etc. as well? This means all kinds of people can choose from a big variety of spiritual paths and find one that overlaps there own development as much as possible.
And yes of course in all of these metaphysical systems there will be much room for the mind to fill in gaps or put its own filter over the metaphysical experience. And it will be very hard (or impossible) to proof the difference. That’s where your own assessment of the quality of your experience will play a role. Is it mind or is it being?
Hi Marko,
Yeah, but that’s speculation, guesswork. How can you draw a map of a shifting landscape?
To talk of a big variety of spiritual paths is to dismiss the great significance of the message of The Mother and Sri Aurobindo. Democratic and pluralistic political correctness should not blind us to innovation in spiritual evolution. Sri Aurobindo said something which was not said before him and with enough elaboration. Instead of accepting the new formulation, there is unending discussion about old and sectarian methods.
Teilhard, Gebser, and Wilber occupy the centre stage but not Sri Aurobindo. All kinds of pulp are being read but not The Life Divine. This kind of bias is not in keeping with the spirit of Habermas’ dialogue.
Hi Ray,
As long as the mind (and its personal and cultural history) is used as a lens or filter to know ontology the landscape would be shifting, yes. This is why the traditions talk about direct knowing (gnosis, jnana, etc.) which is defined as knowing by being or knowing which is inherent to being, without the interference of the mind. To know ontology directly is not a shifting experience but stable and precise.
I only wanted to confirm that this kind of knowing will not be accepted by modern science or post modernity, what you call speculation. Wilber 5 acknowledges that and has thrown gnosis out of the window, but at the same time he wants to keep ontology in his system, fixed to an epistomology that is only based in the mind. This means that there will be no way anymore in his system to differentiate ontology from mind and sure that will be a shifting landscape that cannot be mapped accurately.
Tusar said:
“To talk of a big variety of spiritual paths is to dismiss the great significance of the message of The Mother and Sri Aurobindo. Democratic and pluralistic political correctness should not blind us to innovation in spiritual evolution.”
Hi Tusar,
I don’t think the advantage of the big variety of spiritual paths has anything to do with political correctness, but more with the Creative Principle creating an possibility for all different types of people to have a suitable, fitting spiritual path according to there type and development so that there is more chance for results. In that sense it is more an alignment with the evolutionary force giving many possibilties to evolve then a case of pluralistic political correctness.
And another reason seems to come out of the nature of evolution. The innovation of spiritual evolution of which I agree Aurobindo is a part, is not limited to one movement, nor will it ever be. From the viewpoint of evolution one can see that more possible routes for innovation are usely taken of which some fail and some succeed into stable development.
Hi everyone
I’d like to speak strongly and openly here
Marko said:
“Wilber 5 acknowledges that and has thrown gnosis out of the window, but at the same time he wants to keep ontology in his system, fixed to an epistemology that is only based in the mind. This means that there will be no way anymore in his system to differentiate ontology from mind and sure that will be a shifting landscape that cannot be mapped accurately. ”
In my current essay the first part of which should appear on IW soon, I argue that Wilberian integral theory is exoteric, not esoteric. This ties in with what you are saying here Marko
“I don’t think the advantage of the big variety of spiritual paths has anything to do with political correctness, but more with the Creative Principle creating an possibility for all different types of people to have a suitable, fitting spiritual path according to there type and development so that there is more chance for results. ”
On the ultimate level this is certainly how it works, because everything is an aspect of the unfolding of the Supreme, and there is nothing that is not of the Supreme. On the relative level it is more arbitrarary. That is, all these different paths arise through a specific revelation, and each case the revelation is distorted by specific individual and cultural factors. So some people will gravitate to one type of revelation working through one socio-cultural set of biases, another person to another. The classic example is Christianity that arose through a mix of normative (e.g. the teachings of Hillel) and apocalyptic (the Kingdom of God is at hand, a lot like the New Age Mayan Calender myth today) Judaism, and Hellenistic dualism and apotheosising (St Paul and his school, and later Augustine). This created a thoughtform which was fed through centuries of belief and worship, hence Christianity. The same with all religions.
Ray said:
“Yeah, but that’s speculation, guesswork. How can you draw a map of a shifting landscape?”
This is on the level of the exoteric, the outer consciousness. And on that level you are exactly right Ray. But the Reality still exists independent of these shifting and distorting factors. e.g. in the case of religion, or a philosophy or anything else, there is a thoughtform, which is objectively real (the esoteric and occult reality) even if its form various according to the subconscious, the beliefs, etc of the believer (the exoteric and surface reality – Wilber’s epistemology-bound ontology). I call this latter the “mental bubble”. Wilberian theory cannot go beyond the mental bubble. In some cases the bubble becomes so elaborate and reinforced it becomes a fortress, hence, the mental fortress (see part 2 of my previous essay).
An Esoteric Integral theory is required to replace the current Exoteric Integral theory. Otherwise Integral theory (if limited to the exoteric level of understanding) is just (from a SPIRITUAL point of view) a waste of time; ultimately mental masturbation, the mind turning around and around with its own endless arguments and analyses, always chasing its own tail, never arriving at any insight, other than the false belief that there is no universal insight (because in its shifting world it cannot see a Truth, it thinks there is no Truth). Or else the rational mind will fix on just one theory, one worldview, and decide that THAT is the Truth, and that all other things are lesser truths or even completely false.
I’m certainly not saying that Exoteric integral theory (Wilberian etc) is completely useless, because people are at all levels of development; many are at the esoteric, a few are at the esoteric (ok this is a huge generalisation but you get the idea) . So for those at the exoteric level this is good and useful. But for those who Understand more (as Marko said with reference to Gnosis, Jnana, etc) it is like playing with kindergarten blocks, it has nothing to do with Realit7y (capital “R”) and never will.
That is why imho Wilber-V, and any methodology using Wilber-V as a starting point, will never be a path to the Truth (capital “T” = Gnosis, Enlightenment). For authentic spirituality you need to forget KW and go to the real Masters. KW is a brilliant (if very dogmatic and intolerant and self-contradictory) intellectual theorist, and many people have found his writings of great value, and that is excellent. But i see absolute nothing spiritual in his work. The true Spiritual element is the Gnosis of the Heart. In all the thousands and thousands of pages of Wilber’s books, you will never find one reference to that. It’s all head head head.
Tusar said
“Teilhard, Gebser, and Wilber occupy the centre stage but not Sri Aurobindo. All kinds of pulp are being read but not The Life Divine.”
I wouldn’t call Teilhard pulp. He is no Sri Aurobindo, but he is an important visionary and true integral thinker, and there are a few fascinating common themes between his work and Srti Aurobindo’s, as Zaehner, Sethna and others have pointed out. Gebser I have not read so cannot comment on, but if William Irwin Thompson is any guide he is a lot more insightful than KW. As for Wilber himself i have already made my views known
But to get back to your question, why is pulp read, and not Sri Aurobindo? There are several reasons. Firstly the teachings of The Mother and Sri Aurobindo are so revolutionary, so new, so contrary to everything that has gone before (unlike Wilber who is very derivative, and hence easy to understand), that there is very little “thoughtform” there. Without a thoughtform, people have difficulty understanding them intellectually, or having any intellectual interest in their teachings whatsoever. Actually this is good, because it avoids being side-tracked. In order to understand The Mother and Sri Aurobindo you have to read them with the Heart, and approach their words through the Soul. How many people can do that? How many people can approach any Master, whether it be The Mother and Sri Aurobindo, or Meher Baba or Ramana Maharshi or Nityananda or A. H. Almaas or Rudolf Steiner or anyone else, in this manner? Is it any wonder that the exoteric intellectual and exoteric religious teachings are so popular, while the true esoteric paths are so rarely trodden?
Hi Alan,
I have great sympathy for the revelation of the Heart and we could wax lyrical about the Heart as THE organ of realization, in Sufism, Kashmir Shaivism, etc. The difficulty I have is that in the end nothing can be said about the opening of the Heart, other than tell one’s own tale. And that is the ‘heart’ of the problem, the tales are individual descriptions of an internal journey.
I’ve mentioned it before but it’s worth mentioning again, and that’s the concept of ta’wil, found in Shia philosophy and elaborated by Ibn Arabi and that is that the Divine reveals itself to individual in a unique hermeneutic. The problem with any system is that it can dull the individual’s own unique understanding. A key event in Ibn Arabi’s life was the meeting of a young girl called Nizam, which he understood to be a visitation of Sophia. Ta’wil, being individual, means that this experience was unique and it certainly fits with my own experience. In my case it was a beautiful Italian/Brazilian girl I’ll call Gulabi. The goddess appeared through her and I had an overwhelming experience of the goddess through her that no one else, not even Gulabi, could understand. (Gulabi had a different experience).
It may be possible to create a more definitive map but it will be difficult. I believe much more needs to be done in the field of comparative mysticism amongst genuine mystics freed from any need to defend a particular map.
I’m writing this at the same time as I’m revisting the various Platonic variations in the Abrahamic traditions, Sohrawardi, Ibn Arabi, Gnosticism (several variations thereof) etc.
Hi Ray
I was very touched / inspired by your reply / comments. What you say rings very true indeed! Thank you!
alan
The head and heart dichotomy is not all that insurmountable as it seems and The Mother and Sri Aurobindo have precisely attempted to do that in their Integral Yoga. But the question is whether we should stride ahead or move back in time; collaborate with the Supramental Consciousness which is operating in the earth atmosphere or oppose it by clinging to nostalgia.
Hi Alan,
Interesting that you bring that difference between integral exoterism and integral esoterism. I haven’t read your article on IW yet, and I am curious. What I see though is that to really understand an esoteric teaching, which means experientially understand it, you have to dive into it and be immersed in it for at least 3-5 years. You have to break the code and then the experiences wil unfold and reveal. Only then will you have some overview of the esoteric inner dimension of the teaching.
So true, Ken hasn’t done that for all the teachings that he has tied up to each other and that means an exoteric theory, yes. I cannot blame him though, because that is a hellofajob and I don’t see anybody do it and create a teaching out of it.
Instead of the difference between esoteric and exoteric I tend to look at it through the difference between integralism and synthesis. I define the difference between those two as integralism is putting all the pieces of the puzzle together into one coherent picture and synthesis is discovering a pattern on a higher level which already includes all the different pieces that integralism puts together. The difference being that with integralism the pieces are put together and in synthsis they are a part of a coherent picture that is already existing.
Differently put, integralism is the human mind making a whole out of parts and synthesis is discovering an already existing whole with the parts being recognizable in it, which only after that is translated into concepts by the human mind.
So if we, for instance, look at the teachings of Aurobindo and Almaas. Those teachings were revealed to them and after they conceptualized them it appeared that they were a synthesis of many different teachings and fields. In the case of Aurobindo it was, among others, all the different main forms of yoga, evolutionary theory etc. And with Almaas it is sufism, buddhism, advaita, developmental psychology and object relation psychology, among others. What I know from Almaas is that he did not set out to create a teaching like that. It was revealed to him and he found the similarities in those fields and theories and used those for conceptualization. I wouldn’t be suprised if it was the same with Aurobindo.
(Another interesting similarity is that they both formed a team with a woman to manifest these teachings. Very interesting to look at the interplay of Shiva and Shakti and its connection to the Creative Force there, but lets leave that for another discussion).
So, as I said before on this forum, an important difference then is that integralism is a theory and synthesis can be a spiritual teaching and praxis when you align yourself with the inner dimension of it. It will then “unpack” itself and reveal its experiential side.
Perhaps in the future a synthesis will be revealed that includes even more fields and theories. I see that as a very important part of the evolutionary process.
Now for me this doesn’t mean that integralism is not useful. Both synthesis and integralism has it’s pros and cons. Likewise with esoteric and exoteric. Integralism can go very wide and inclusive in a much faster and easier way then synthesis. Also it will be much easier accepted by mainstream culture, which is a good thing. The important thing though is to not confuse the two which I see happening a lot and try to inform people about. It seems that I have found a partner in you here.
Cheers,
Marko
Since you bring up Almaas here’s what he has to say about the two truths:
From http://www.ahalmaas.com/essence/diamond_approach.htm
“The Diamond Approach views true nature to be both unmanifest and manifest. The unmanifest is totally nondifferentiated and without qualities, a mysterious darkness and emptiness in which consciousness is annihilated as it approaches. Yet this nonmanifest absolute truth holds in virtuality all potential. By manifesting it creates the world with all its forms and transformations, which becomes the appearance of reality; but it also manifests its own inherent perfections and characteristics, which become the inner truth of reality.”
So what you are calling esoteric is what I, Habermas, Derrida, Nagarjuna and the Dalai Lama are calling metaphysical. And because we call it metaphysical we are by your definition exoteric, since we don’t agree with this dichotomy. Unfortunately we do see interiors and insides, just not in the same way, so we’re not technically scientific materialists, nor is it a version of what Alan calls “the creation story that is scientism.” There’s just no other way for esoterists to intepret it, given the lack of including an intersubjective framework and the nondualism of madhyamika.
Hi Edward,
I know I am posting here under your subject of the two truths but actually I was not referring to that subject in my post at all. And I also don’t know how you come to such a conclusion because clearly my post was on the difference between what I called synthesis and integralism.
“So what you are calling esoteric is what I, Habermas, Derrida, Nagarjuna and the Dalai Lama are calling metaphysical. And because we call it metaphysical we are by your definition exoteric, since we don’t agree with this dichotomy.”
No, not at all. Esoteric comes from the Greek language and it means inner, just like exoteric means outside. It refers to the fact that transmission or deeper knowledge of the teaching are usually only for people who are immersed or initiated into the inner group. So you can have non-metaphysical schools which are very much esoteric. I for instance see some of the (Tibetan) Buddhist schools as very much esoteric with transmissions within inner circles, which includes the Dalai Lama.
“Unfortunately we do see interiors and insides, just not in the same way, so we’re not technically scientific materialists, nor is it a version of what Alan calls “the creation story that is scientism.â€Â
The words ‘unfortunately’ and ‘we’ suggests that I was attacking you on this point which I wasn’t. As I explained before exoterism does not mean you don’t see interiors and insides, that’s very much suggesting something I never said.
“There’s just no other way for esoterists to intepret it, given the lack of including an intersubjective framework and the nondualism of madhyamika.”
I will read metaphysics here for esoterists. And yes metaphysics will not, as far as I can see, include madhymika. But to say they will not include an intersubjective framework is not true for all metaphysics, certainly not for Almaas. In the work of Almaas ontology is perceived as being seen through a filter that was/is created by the intersubjective framework one is part of. The difference is that after deconstruction of this filter Almaas thinks ontology can in some cases still be left, while the post modernist and buddhists think nothing is left.
In my experience there certainly is an atman and a brahman which is not created by the mind, so I go for that side, instead of the no-atman and no-brahman road of the buddhists, but I am and was not attacking you for taking the other road.
I was not referring specifically to you Marko but the whole gist of the conversation between you, Alan, Tusar and Ray. I can see your clarications and agree that there is an esoteric side even to postmetaphysical systems, like the DL and even Derrida. I don’t think Alan and Tusar meant it that way though, instead seeing a postmetaphysical stance as being itself exoteric because it denies an absolute. But I could be wrong.
And as a point of clarification Marko, the madhyamika and Derrida don’t think “nothing” is left after deconstruction; “emptiness” is left. It is not a nothing but it is also not a something. It’s when one makes it into a definite something wherein the “problem” arises. At least as I see it.
Yes, Edward, I was putting it down to simply in that phrase. It should be emptiness. And actually Almaas would also say that emptiness remains after deconstruction, but he differs in that he says emptiness is at the same time an openness in which being/ontology sometimes can arise. He wrote a book about it called the Void.
Edward said:
“I don’t think Alan and Tusar meant it that way though, instead seeing a postmetaphysical stance as being itself exoteric because it denies an absolute.”
Hi Edward. It is true i consider postmetaphysics exoteric. But not for a different reason to the one you give. For me the exoteric perspective is one that is based on our outer rational, affective- and sense-based consciousness, and limited to the sphere of the personal and to what in integral theory is called the intersubjective (LL), i.e. the contextual, the constructivist, etc. I call these thoughtforms, they are our beliefs and opinions and construction of the world. Also the deconstruction of these thoughtforms is also exoteric, if it goes no further than simply deconstructing. (In my understanding, thoughtforms themselves exist objectively on an occult level, but they manifest subjectively or intersubjectively)
The esoteric perspective uses either personal revelation or, much more often, the personal revelation and associated thoughtforms of a Teacher who has gone at least to the level of the Intermediate zone, much more rarely beyond that to genuine enlightenment/liberation, much more rarely again beyond that to transenlightenemnt and integral realisation. By means of this revelation one transcends the personal for the transpersonal (the subtle, causal, transcendent, intermediate zone and beyond). So the Esoteric perspective is based on this realisation, and on the recognition that these experienced realities are Real, they are not just socio-cultural contextual constructions.
Esoteric realities provide a very different understanding of Reality than exoteric scientism and religionism. Of course, esotericists may disagree among themselves, according to their own preferred thoughtform and the Revelation and Transmission of Teaching they are (not “have”, but are)chosen to follow. But all agree on the transcendence of the personal intersubjective dimension and the limitations of a reductionistic and sceptical worldview
As Marko and I have each pointed out, it takes years, or even a lifetime, to absorb an esoteric teaching to the extent that one can use that revelation as a doorway for the Heart or Soul to go beyond the surface consciousness.
I can only speak with authority of the Revelation that I have been chosen to follow, which is the same Revelation that Tusar has been chosen to follow. Marko’s path is a different Revelation. But even so, and whilst we may disagree with each other in many points of detail, Marko and I can discuss things with a common understanding and a common Light.
While Ray in his very perceptive post spoke of the uniqueness of personal experience of the Divine. I understood what he said, without needing words to explain or cheapen it. Or maybe I only understood my own revelation, which isn’t Ray’s revelation. Whatever, there is a sense of appreciation, a resonance. This is what comes from beyond the personal, beyond the interpersonal and intersubjective, beyond the contextual, and beyond the deconstructivist.
This understanding, which is the Light of the Soul, is gnosis, the essence of the esoteric
The fact that Ray thinks that esoteric maps are problematic, and I think that they are not, is irrelevant, it is just a mental disagreement, which pertains to the surface being, not the inner (esoteric) being.
Because I consider esoteric maps to be valid (which does not mean they should be accepted as dogmatic literal truths, that is fundamentalism), I have no problem with the ontologies found in such teachings as Neoplatonism, Kashmir Shaivism, Lurianic Kabbalah, Sant Mat, Theosophy, Gurdjieff/Ouspensky, Sri Aurobindo and the Mother’s teachings, and so on. So I refer to these as “esoteric cosmology”. But I appreciate that another esotericist may have a different take on all this. So what I say pertains to my personal understanding at this present point in time (which may or may not change in the future), and is not intended as dogmatic truth.
When I look at KW’s teachings, i see nothing esoteric there. It is all very much in the world of Ken’s head. That is why i say that Wilberian theory is exoteric.
Edward I’m not sure if this answers your question.
Tusar you said:
“The head and heart dichotomy is not all that insurmountable as it seems and The Mother and Sri Aurobindo have precisely attempted to do that in their Integral Yoga.”
I totally agree, they unify head and heart, and the physical body as well. All aspects of the being are offered up for the Transformation. That is why i consider their Integral Yoga to be the paradigmatic integral path.
Many intellectuals try to approach Sri Aurobindo through reading his books on the intellectual level only; in doing so they totally miss the esoteric (inner) aspect of his Revelation. The teachings of The Mother and Sri Aurobindo are absolutely esoteric teachings, but that is why they can only be appreciated by reading them with the heart. Then the head knowledge comes as well, in service of the Heart (or the Psychic Being which the Heart relates to).
“But the question is whether we should stride ahead or move back in time; collaborate with the Supramental Consciousness which is operating in the earth atmosphere or oppose it by clinging to nostalgia. ”
To appreciate and to understand even at a superficial level what you say regarding the central imporatnce of the Supramental activity in the current terrestrial evolution requires that one already in some small way partakes of the Aurobindonian Revelation. Because I do, I can appreciate and resonate with what you are saying, and aspire for the very same goal you do, the Supramental Transformation of the world, and do what I can in my small and halting way to help bring it about.
But Sri Aurobindo himself also said that his yoga is not for everyone.
This being so, why then do I spend so much time writing these long essays for Integral World? I guess because for me everything Wilber says a la the Integral, Sri Aurobindo has already said it first (after all, where did Wilber get the concept of “integral” in the first place?), and said it better, and more profoundly, as a true Divine Revelation. Because Wilber’s teachings are at the exoteric level, any Wilberian or post-wilberian Integral theory would also be exoteric. I want to give those attracted to the wider integral way (not just the Wilberian mainstream) the option of a more profound teaching, but only if that is what they feel a resonance with.
Nor should esoteric alternatives to exoteric wilberism within the Integral movement be limited only to the Aurobindonian tradition. Marko refers to A. H. Almaas as an integral and esoteric teacher, so there is another alternative, which I would love to see elaborated upon on Integral World (even Wilber says there are many forms of Integral). I am sure there other alternatives too, it is just a matter of people coming foward and doing a write-up. If integralites are not interested in these teachings, if Wilberism is their path, well, that is good too! They are following the path they should be, and there is no blame.
oops, i meant to say (at the start of that last post)
“It is true i consider postmetaphysics exoteric. But for a different reason to the one you give”.
(changed the original sentence but forgot to proof-read)
Alan,
I’ll repeat what I’ve said here and in the new PT blog: there is something beyond perspective called emptiness, beyond mental constructions, beyond intersubjectivity.* But that emptiness is also indeterminate. When one calls it Absolute or Real and then CONSTRUCTS metaphysical systems based on that unnameable source, then THAT is the problem. The emptiness is all potential and fluid, but what you’re calling the esotericists don’t perceive this emptiness directly and merely report on what is there: they construct all that you’re calling the Real. At least that’s how I see it.
*Also note I’m suggesting that emptiness is without mental constructs or perspectives because it is PRE-rational, the original and fundamental being-existence. And yes, it is tetra-enacted, or intra-physical, as you say. It is postmetaphysical in both ways: not surpra-physical and not metaphysical as in postulating what that emptiness IS.
And I recognize that by even calling emptiness prerational, “fundamental being-existence” is effing the ineffable. That is the challenge in trying to discuss it within perspectives. I can only say that it there might be better or closer approximations of perspectival descriptions of emptiness. Which is of course open to debate.
hi Edward
Interesting discussion this!
I hope this reply doesn’t come across as overly critical. I would like to say here that I have the greatest respect for you as an integral philosopher and a strong voice in the post-wilberian tradition. You’ve done a great job here raising all these issues on this forum, digging up links and quotations, and discussing all these things. That I disagree with and critique your argument in no way diminishes my appreciation of your work here!
ok, you said
“there is something beyond perspective called emptiness, beyond mental constructions, beyond intersubjectivity.* ”
ok, so far so good!
But then you say:
“But that emptiness is also indeterminate. When one calls it Absolute or Real and then CONSTRUCTS metaphysical systems based on that unnameable source, then THAT is the problem. ”
Why are you afraid to call it “real”? Do you advocate a radical ontological nihilism, in which nothing is real. Or an epistemological nihilism in which nothing can be known.
But nihilism itself is a “metaphysical” stance, because it assumes that reality is of such a nature that it cannot be known.
You cannot deny reality, because you exist. And you say shunyata is unknowable. But in doing so you are giving it an attribute, i.e.saying that there is THIS which is unknowable. Hence you are making a dogmatic statement about shunya, one that Nagarjuna would never have made.
So one is left either with Kantian despair, in which there is an absolute but it cannot be known, or else absolute Relativism and nihilism, something that every spiritual teacher and enlightened being in human history has denied.
I would suggest that this popularity of nihilism and relativism in the present day secular West is due to the belief in scientism and the materialistic flight from transcendence.
Coming from a traditional Buddhist culture, Nagarjuna could not have been a nihilist, because that would contradict Buddhism. The whole purpose of his dialectic was to allow the rational mind to transcend itself “like a thorn used to pull out another thorn”
“The emptiness is all potential and fluid”
So now you are indicating that it is something that is real. Because you are giving it very specific attributes like potential and fluid. You are saying more about Emptiness then Kant says about noumena.
So you cannot say shunya isn’t real, because if it isn’t real it doesn’t exist, and if it doesn’t exist it doesn’t have attributes.
“but what you’re calling the esotericists-”
Don’t take my word for it – do a google search. Or look up “esotericism” on wikipedia
“don’t perceive this emptiness directly and merely report on what is there: they construct all that you’re calling the Real.”
“Construct” implies a mental formulation. I have already pointed out that gnosis is beyond concepts, contexts, and wilberian-style inter-subjectivity. In other words, Gnosis by its very nature is immediate, not constructed.
This is why i say the exoteric position is limited; it always judges everything by its own rational-cognitive standards. It cannot see things with the Heart, and allow the Truth to speak for itself.
*Also note I’m suggesting that emptiness is without mental constructs or perspectives
Sure
because it is PRE-rational,
Why should it PRE-rational??? Why give it some sort of developmental bias or wilberian cosmology? Not meaning to sound harsh, but you are doing exactly what you incorrectly said I was doing, you are adding layers of construction, mental interpretation, around a reality that transcends all these things.
the original and fundamental being-existence.
So how can you can criticise esotericists, when you are saying here exactly the same thing? The original and fundamental being-existence. Why criticise someone for saying what you say, claiming that they are saying something else when they are not? This is what Wilber does with his so-called post-metaphysics.
And yes, it is tetra-enacted,
Shunyata is tetra-enacted??? I’m sure any Mahayanist you ask will have a good chuckle at that!
or intra-physical, as you say.
I don’t; that’s Wilber’s term. This is not to deny that there are intra-physical realities, and that Wilber may indeed have intuited something, but imho intra-physical doesn’t deny supra-physical
It is postmetaphysical in both ways: not surpra-physical and not metaphysical as in postulating what that emptiness IS.
But you have already postulated what emptiness is, by putting all these mental constructions on Shunyata. It is post-metaphysical, it is pre-rational, it is tetra-enacted, it is not supra-physical… Notice how these Wilberian labels keep coming up? It is as if you are only looking at Shunyata through Wilberian filters.
“And I recognize that by even calling emptiness prerational, “fundamental being-existence†is effing the ineffable. ”
As an ontologist I have no problem with “fundamental being-existenceâ€Â, although I acknowledge that some Buddhists would. It is Wilberian developmental interpretaions like “prerational” that I feel are misleading and irrelevant to this topic.
And I appreciate your contributions as well Alan, but we’ve come to talking in circles with each other. We both have very definite views on the indefinite and they are in some ways similar and in many ways not. I don’t see that we’ll convince each other, although we have it seems helped each other to see another point of view. And you’re right, I have tried to eff the ineffable; it seems impossible not to if one is to open their mouth. And I cannot keep mine shut.
And yes, I find much useful in Ken’s work and will include it. It is part of my “heritage.” But my learning if far from over. If I can attribute one quality to emptiness it is openness. And I will try to remain open to other views and learn from them. As Derrida says, we need to understand the other before we can agree or disagree with them. Thanks for your considered responses that keep me working on it.
It really intrigues me, why can’t we just read a single book, The Life Divine and then resume this debate. No revelation, no esotericism, it’s pure philosophy in masterful English. All these questions have already been decisively dealt with. From Heraclitus to Habermas.
In partial response to Alan I’d like to enclose an excerpt from wikipedia on madhyamika. It seems in the Svatantrika school one is allowed to use positive assertions about the unknowable without making metaphysical claims about it. That is, it is not necessarily a contradiction to do so. Which is not to say that I’ve achieved that in my attempts, but it is what I’m attempting to do.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madhyamika
According to Tibetan sources, Indian Madhyamaka schools were eventually divided into:
The SvÄÂtantrika Madhyamaka, who differed from the PrÄÂsaá¹…gika in that they believed conventional phenomena could exist for themselves without existing ultimately. Thus they felt that positive assertions in logical debate served a useful purpose, and did not restrict themselves to using only prasaá¹…ga methods.
The PrÄÂsaá¹…gika Madhyamaka, whose sole avowed technique is to show by prasaá¹…ga (or Reductio Ad Absurdum) that any positive assertion (such as “asti” or “nÄÂsti”, “it is”, or “it is not”) made about, or view proclaimed of, phenomena must be regarded as merely conventional (saṃvá¹›ti or lokavyavahÄÂra). Therefore there is no position that constitutes the ultimate truth (paramÄÂrtha), including the views and statements made by the PrÄÂsaá¹…gikas themselves, which are held to be solely for the purpose of defeating all views. The PrÄÂsaá¹…gikas also identify this to be the message of the Buddha who, as NÄÂgÄÂrjuna put it, taught the Dharma for the purpose of refuting all views.
The YogÄÂcÄÂra Madhyamaka, which asserts that all phenomena are nothing but the ‘play of mind’, and that mind, thus, is the basis of everything.
From a previous quote at wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prasangika
“The Prasangika rejection of the Svatantrika position was based on the belief that any Buddhist making positive assertions about the conventional world was committed to the existence of an illusion. The Svatantrika countered by arguing that there were different levels of existence, and that a conventional thing could self-exist, exist from its own side, and have inherent existence, but that it still would not exist absolutely, ultimately, or really.â€Â
Alan’s comments have prodded me to become clearer. Note that the Svatantrika view is that there are different levels of existence, even if not an absolute or ultimate existence. Existence of course can be interpreted as only being or ontology, but it could also be interpreted via this brand of Madhyamika as an epistemology/ontology, much like what Ken proposes.
Hence there are levels but no final or original level. So one can say a lot about levels of relative existence while maintaining there is no absolute existence. As the DL explains better:
“emptiness  is not independent of form, but rather is a characteristic of form; emptiness is form’s mode of being. One must understand form and its emptiness in unity; they are not two independent realities.â€Â
Here we have an affirmative statement using the relative term “being†about something that is not an absolute distinguished from a relative, So one can still refer to emptiness with qualitative attributions in a way that doesn’t make such attributions metaphysical. I will have to defer to the likes of the DL and Derrida for such language, as they are far better at it than I am.
As to my notion of a prerational, fundamental being-existence, I’d distinguish this from emptiness per above. The former I’d say is more of an early stage of sentient existence shared by all “higher†forms of life (with a brain). And consciously contacting this being-awareness via meditation appears to have those absolute qualities of something transcendent and absolute as separate from something relative.
I’m still not all that clear on all this. I find the process of dialogue helps me to become more so in the exchange of ideas. Thanks to all for providing that environment here.
Edward said:
“We both have very definite views on the indefinite and they are in some ways similar and in many ways not. I don’t see that we’ll convince each other,”
Very true! Edwrad you and I are like two stubborn goats with fixed points of view! Not that there is anything wrong in that! I think it is important to passionate in one’s belieefs, passionate in the revelation and thoughtform one has been guided to adopt.
Anyway, I’m going to drop out of this particular discussion. It is upto readers of this forum to read both of our povs (and others besides!) and come to their own conclusions!
Tusar said:
“It really intrigues me, why can’t we just read a single book, The Life Divine and then resume this debate. No revelation, no esotericism, it’s pure philosophy in masterful English. ”
You know Tusar, you are completely right! And that would shift the emphasis from Wilberocentric to Integrocentric, since we would then be including more than one primary reference.
To turn this back to the two truths, we saw various schools intepreted it in various ways, at times even in contradiction to each other. I think the “integral” tent can therefore accomodate various expressions, from Wilbercentric to Aurobindocentric to Derridacentric and beyond. And all are welcome here.
In the babalyon of voices and views perhaps we can come to understand each other’s and our own views more clearly. Don’t feel that there is one true view to which you must subscribe to participate here. I’ll present my own views, of course, and you all feel free to do the same. And thanks for participating, actively and/or as a reader.
Edward Berge said:
“we saw various schools intepreted it in various ways, at times even in contradiction to each other. I think the “integral†tent can therefore accomodate various expressions, from Wilbercentric to Aurobindocentric to Derridacentric and beyond. And all are welcome here. ”
Thank you Edward for your very enlightened comment! This is exactly my position too!