Descartes: Reviving the West's Greatest Modern Vedantist

[alifeofreason]

SPINOZA was a CARTESIAN??? HAHAHAHA! COMPLETELY FALSE! Obviously Wilber has never read Spinoza...

[Ston3dPhilosoph3r]

@alifeofreason

This is important to point out, so good on you.

However, I've heard it argued that Spinoza WAS actually Cartesian; however, only in the sense that he postulated that he allowed there to be multiple distinct (non-material) modes of substance.

So, Cartesian in the sense that there are distinct substances.

Not Cartesian in the sense that Spinoza thought that the substanceS was actually one, unified, substance.

[alifeofreason]

ZZZZZZZZ! (And I'm writing my thesis on Descartes)

[ushojedi]

As edward abbey says: if anyone says the world is illusory throw a rock at his head. If he ducks he's a liar. Philosophers are very cunning, beware of them.

[xpaderom]

I think this is a fascinating take on Descartes, and I look forward to revisiting his Meditations with Wilber's perspective in mind.

[TikiKid]

Reality is what you make it.

Reality is yours only and it's here for your examination and genuine manipulation.

We earthlings are here to find love and procreate instinctively like the rest of the earthly organisms. We are also here to fear , to be angry and sad (it's a seemingly very raw and unforgiving universe to be a part of but its meant to be analyzed and made better by it's own energy,, the energy of conscious life,,, US )

The universe isn't merely Around us but Within us.

[endgammer]

My large penis isn't an illusion to my girlfriend.

[beanabadger]

@endgammer Would that be your illusionary girlfriend?

[endgammer]

@beanabadger Yes, in fact.

[iareace]

@beanabadger lol. you got him. he receded to "satiric" acknowledgment.

[bigdave1231]

Thank you.I believe We are shapless,formless ,eternal one with God and all Creation.

That is how God created us as( Pure Love) and what God did not create is not Real.

We have only to shift our awareness to Love

A course in miracles -Abraham-Hicks-Buddhists-there are many who are Teaching this Truth.

Love and Blessings to all

[guitaoist]

I agree with nietzsche when he called him "superficial", because he was a founding father finding his feet, but i do believe his quadruple conjunction of Sun-Uranus-Jupiter & Pluto has great archetypal necessity.

This world is NOT illusion, the pineal gland is not an illusion of an illusion, but illustrates the primal nature of the cosmos Requiring illusion.

nietzsche said it best, "This world is ENOUGH..."

Just because the senses aren't ALWAYS accurate doesn't mean they are NEVER accurate..

[shadowmongoose]

@guitaoist the world is relatively real, but not absolutely real. that's generally what we mean by "the world is illusory." the only "thing" that is absolutely real is Nonduality.

[Cashify]

Best part 1:16-1:26

[CloudshadowMan1]

The world is illusion.

Brahman alone is Real.

Brahman is the world.

Realizing this is a good evening's work.

It's interesting that pure awareness seems most subtle but it is what we can most firmly believe in.

Peace and contentment to all beings.

[Deco70Dias]

The World is Illusion

Brahman is Illusion

The Real is illusion

Illusion is Illusion

Pure awareness illusion

Most firmly Beliefs = Bullshit...

it all comes down to the glasses you're wearing....

[nostalgiafortruth]

No, it doesn't come down to glasses.

Who's wearing the glasses?

[Cashify]

People who have not experienced what remains in the absense of conception, belief and imagination have not completed step ONE. Without completing step one in the most radical and extreme way. step two cannot be completed, nor three until two is done.

Using later steps to justify ignoring the first injunction is the essence of WHAT EGO DOES to justify its hatreds.

[JAYDUBYAH29]

the conversation about form/emptiness, nonduality, the witness etc is dubious outside of the context of meditation practice. "timeles, eternal spirit" then becomes literalized and used as a reference point...odd!

i think the attempt to try and fit things like environmentalism into vedantic and vajrayanic philosophy seems a bit sophomoric to me... and we start to get into this integral orthodoxy that i find somewhat stagnant...

[MaBu888]

Indeed. Fortunately this has at least something to do with meditation and its... revelations LOL.

[JAYDUBYAH29]

what if we are comfortable with consciousness as an emergent property of evolution - arising way after the big bang and that the notion of something that never enters the stream of time/suffering etc is perhaps a meaningless dissociative fantasy?

nowadays i see this as just another metaphysical tap-dance around death and pain.

[JAYDUBYAH29]

love ken and his work so much - but i now have profound misgivings about the attempt to make everything fit into the metaphysics of "transcendent spirit." what if we don't take maharshi as any kind of authority on anything but a certain kind of meditation?

the big problem with descartes is the mind-body/spirit-flesh dualism that is still so prevalent and is as present in the east as the west..

[imyourboy]

what i find fundamentally disconcerting about " Kens" ramblings is his quintessential (good guy) attempt to say something profound.

While staying just "vague" enough to seem perspicacious. His dizzying loop of light & shadows gives his ramblings the illusion of substance.

[Guedingen]

Many thanks

[jobbythehutt]

Rousseau and Schopenhauer - the way forward.

[buecoo]

I think descartes had a second tier vision. He could grab it all and put it under a new light. Articulate knowledge under reason, he went further than any other philosopher. Its amazing how he finds out the way the heart works!

[kaspan5]

Ah, the swagger of a college kid. Well, I'll give you credit for knowing as much as you do at your age(you are off to a good start) but keep in mind that knowledge and learning is like painting a fence. Once the fence is painted it takes time to dry-just like it takes knowledge time to be fully comprehended and understood.

[mwalke27utk]

I did feel really young rushing out such an impulsive comment about the vid. So I appreciate the fence analogy Kaspan.

The guy just pisses me off sometimes with his smugness of thinking he has Absolute understanding of the universe. His blind listeners need a backbone. *i'm talking about the blind ones.

Oddly enough my anger towards him has lead me to look into him more deeply and respect him more. Still too smug though!

[mwalke27utk]

This guy's an idiot. Descartes was one of the the worst thinga to happen to the human spirit and to western philosophy - forever separating subject/object and mind/body - the same rehashed plato nonsense.

This man needs to read some heidegger and some ZenMaster Dogen.

[kaspan5]

Did you even watch the video?

Who the idiot is is proven with your post.

[mwalke27utk]

Yeah, i know i proved wilbur an "idiot" in my post. bwhahaha. But i'll watch the entire vid, instead of the first 3 minutes, to fully confirm this.

I just went through a semester on descartes. The last thing I need is a 9 min vid of Wilbur worshiping his feet, so if you're wrong "Kaspan"...

[mwalke27utk]

Nope - still an idiot! haha

I enjoyed watching the vid, but Descartes and Zen themes do not mix (especially the way wilbur tried with the heart sutra), and neither do Heidegger and descartes. Heidegger wrote a lot of his philosophy in reaction to Descartes' fundamental error of identifying the "Self" as being encapsulated and cut off from external reality.

Enjoyed the video though.

[buecoo]

Descartes knowledge was partial. He had a tremendous (yet partial) illumination.

[SushiBand]

that dosent seem very zen to me dude.

[koele1]

I had an awakening ...and All is One. "Source" Is All creation and directs all evolution. It is all around us and within each of us - alive as the energy of the universe. Consciousness is the "observer" beyond the "I" - and it is eternal as it returns to source after death. We chose to be here to enjoy physical form. Life on earth is a gift that ego spoils/wastes. Ego is the cause of suffering as it has a misunderstanding of form and purpose. Live and enjoy every moment and find enlightenment.

[eydos]

koele do you really believe in that mumbo-jumbo? be realist, there is no plan in evolution, there is no meaning to our lives in universal terms. get a grip on reality!

[koele1]

No big deal. I'm not attached to any of the words (mumbo jumbo). But the obvious "plan" of evolution is survival and expansion, is it not? Mutations and selection that bring about increasing complexity to the various systems of life. And *pop* here we are. The most conscious creation on this planet struggling to see (or choosing not to see) the bigger picture through this cloud of Me and Mine. The universe becomes increasingly self-aware through us. Hurray for progress! and we both like cats ;)

[eydos]

Cats rulez:)

I would rather say that survival is the result of certain processes, not the aim for the sake of which proesses engage into action.

[koele1]

I agree. Processes like creation. Gravity and star formation. Stars from which matter spills forth into the universe. Planets form. Life evolves. And energy manifests all. God is pure energy & formless awareness... and consciousness (or spirit) is a piece of that. We come from and return to God. Our bodies are recycled energy consuming energy, perpetuating life.

Survival is INSTINCT. A biological impulse - meaning it comes from the energy within you. The energy that IS you. All is One.

[eydos]

Ahhh:((( I am not religious and do not believe in nothing of that sort, well maybe I believe in intellectual honesty and the validity of logical truths. When evolution is extended into some new age direction, the word "energy" taken out of context to mean something spiritual, I just become sad. Another human succumbing to desire and wishful thinking rather than critical and honest way to grasp things. Occam please be with me!:)

[koele1]

Haha. How can something that is everything have a specific context? You used energy to type that sentence.

I have no religion specifically, but I've become spiritual through science. Science led me to deeper inquiry into philosophy and religion. Two prime influences are Buddhism (an atheistic religion) and R.W. Emerson.

You and I live in the same reality, I just chose to use Occam's razor to call it God. The word doesn't change what it is... it only changes your experience within it.

[eydos]

The word "energy" is used in physics with certain denotations. Energy is always a kind of energy (heat, electromagnetism, gravity, atomic, and kinetic), physicists never speak about a "general energy". But "energy" sounds good and certain pseudo-sciences and theosophies use it instead to mean some "spiritual power" of a unifying sort, which besides being scientificaly unsound is also unplausible philosophically.

[koele1]

A very Newtonian assessment. But I believe Einstein would be first to point out that, "It's all relative!" In e=mc2, energy refers to the total energy of a body - whether that be thermodynamic, chemical, etc.

Also, all energy becomes unified as scale is reduced... and at the planck scale, all is one.

No words change objective reality. Separation is a subjective choice.

[eydos]

Yes it always need a body to relate to. Theoretical forms should be careful not to thread on fields of pure speculation. Energy in Einsteins equation refers to the energy generated by mass and acceleration which of course are not free from being a certain kind of energy. Anyways, energy certainly needs matter, and vica versa. The energy of the ONE instead is a useless extrapolation, forgive me.

[eydos]

Oh, and excuse me again, certain "separations" are not arbitrary wordplays or means of classification, but are describing real relations or differences between existing types of things, the criteria of which are posessed by the things themselves.

[koele1]

It's all illusion. The veil of maya. Reduce separation to atoms. Then to pure energy. Then to the void from which all arises.

Energy and matter are interchangeable. Matter is energy seeking expression in form. Photons, electrons... these are just waves of potential that are expressed as particles when consciousness observes them.

Energy does not need matter. Less than 5% of the universe is matter that can be observed. The rest is mostly Dark Energy. I wonder what that turns out to be? :D

[koele1]

Don't get me wrong though. Of course I look around and see the same separation and classification that you do. I'm only saying to look beyond that to a more fundamental reality. That is a primary key to spiritual freedom. Separate or One - these are just different layers of truth. "All is Both" is a better description for a practical livelihood.

[eydos]

There is no "beyond" you can grasp, but there is certainly a wish for beyond. Logic and real experience is all what we posess to ascertain and grasp things in our world, if one exceeds the limits of these capacities in the broad longing of imagination what she gets is only delusions, illusion and allusions. Where everything is possible, the term possibility loses its meaning. Please see that your "ONE" is parmenidisian or german idealistic concept highly speculative.

[koele1]

*sigh* Do you use a microwave and computer? These are the result of research in quantum mechanics. Can you observe the quantum world with the naked eye? No. Yet, it makes up everything around you.

That is all I meant by "beyond". I'm talking about reality here. Not fantasy.

There are different layers to "truth". You are a person. You are also physically made up of cells, then molecules, then atoms, then quantum energy - the fundamental reality of the universe.

[koele1]

I never said everything is possible. That is God's realm, not ours. We have a subjective experience within objective reality.

Thanks for dropping Parmenides's name. I'm going to check him out. I see a borrowing from eastern thought. The only german I know to hold a similar view is Karl Krause, who coined the term Panentheism to describe God, intuitively known by conscience, as not a personality (implies limitations), but an all-inclusive essence, which contains the universe within itself.

[eydos]

Indeed your vision is somewhat pantheistic. As far as I know Baruch Sinoza in his work named Ethic formulated the most complete form of pantheism at the end of the 16-th century. A worthy reading indeed. Of course you are also right that pantheism is intrinsic to eastern ways of thinking. In conclusion, what you said is ok, if it taken as scientifically motivated phylosophy or metaphysics. Cheers:)

[koele1]

Crap, I think one of my posts didn't come through.

Anyhow, I am Pan-EN-theistic. Not pantheistic. All is part of god, but god is more than the some of all things.

My deal is that basically only two things exist: Energy and Consciousness.

Both come from/are God.

[davidtitterington]

"All is Both" thats good. I's add that all is both and neither. and both of that....Nagarjuna was a crazy man..

good ideas.

[eydos]

A little correction: dark matter, not dark energy. No one in physics really do physics to support ideas which you presented. Alas it is used like it for most people do not understand those concepts anyway and they can be solt to them as explanations to sought religious convictions. No, I disagree once again: what you say is just too far fetched and bulid on misunderstanding of basic concepts of physics and philosophy. Sorry, let us end this stale discusson.

[koele1]

Your physics knowledge is dated. Dark Energy is about 73%, Dark Matter is less than 23%, and matter is only about 4% of the universe. Check it out for yourself.

[eydos]

Koele you were first motivated to be "spiritual" and then used science to serve that end, which is everything but not scientific. It is called "wishful thinking" which is a logical fallacy. I also studied, in fact majored from philosophy, and I know from where you come from.

Occam razor certainly is not a tool for deliberate ends, but it is a measure of rational thinking. You can not just "use" it for whatever you want, in fact it uses you to meet thinking`s requirement.

[koele1]

Hmm, anyone that knows me would strongly disagree. I was an atheist growing up. Always very rational/logical. My college studies began with a degree in computer science.

I, like others before me, found spirituality (transcendentalism, buddhism, panentheism) through and because of science. It wasn't desire. I had an 'experience'.

Science isn't just math. Great discoveries often came through intuition - which led to a passionate pursuit backed by faith that one was "really on to something".

[koele1]

With evolution, it takes someone who is either not paying attention or someone who is in deep denial to be able to use the words "random" and "natural selection" to explain things. It's like, ok, which is it guys? Is it selection or is it random? Who's making the selection? Are you looking at the trees or the forest? Because very few seem to be looking at both and realizing they are one in the same.

[eydos]

I would rather call life a curse:)

[koele1]

It's all good. Our thoughts become our experience in this life. We lie in the beds we make.

[koele1]

You feel this way because you are probably wholly identified with thought. You think you are only that. Yet you are beyond that. Be, not thought, but the witness of thought. Meditate with the purpose of noticing your inner commentary, watching it, and then letting it fall away. No past. No future. Only this moment. You'll 'see' that you are not brain or body. Consciousness is the non-physical inhabitor of flesh. Our brains should be used to solve problems in life, not create them in our heads.

[eydos]

You see you have awakenings instead of tiresome thinking hours with honest socratic ends. I do not have enlightenments, nor do I state that I know how the universe functions. But I am thinking tirelessly and with cruel honestity, I am always ready to say goodby to my dearest illusions if they turn out to be false. Truth sometimes hurt,you know. But all your "truths" are just elevating you in godlike realms, sweet dreams, which emerges from fears of finitudes.

[koele1]

Ah, maybe we can finally come to a draw now as I see the circle of this discussion becoming ever more apparent.

Implying that I fear separation or finitude is like me implying that you ultimately fear unity and the eternal. It doesn't work, does it? Believe me, it sounds just as silly to me as it probably just did to you.

Again, I'm not religious. So, I have no dogma or righteousness. My only "God" is science itself. I'm willing to alter my beliefs with each discovery just like you. Cheers

[eydos]

Ok, this assessment is ok with me. Cheers as well.

Ps> I just dont know why should I fear such positive outcomes you formulated. Anyway it was interesting to "debate" on youtube:) meaybe we should find an appropiate place to really see to a resolve.

[rosario508]

The sound quality SUX!!!

[mazorblock]

Descartes refined. "I think"

[GoatmanAvatar]

after thinking of my previous comment i realised such a pursuit may be possible..... to separate ones self from ones self may lead to the creation of a new existence with ...... "ones self" as the "god" ( or base intelligence energy from which all shall be born. Think about this idea and offer critique and compliments

[GoatmanAvatar]

perfection, once achieved, causes the creation of new problems. Satisfaction is never satisfied for long.

The "soul" does not think ?? The soul DOES think, but the soul is not made of WHAT it thinks.

To know the exact details of what we are and how it works is an impossible task. To see something in its entirety is also to separate yourself from the object desired to be known.

when the object desired to be known is the basis of I AM'ness is to separate one'self from one'self.........

[blunklaura]

souls do not think, so are they really beings, or what are they?

[billyjo1881]

perfection is purely created from nothing. it is an epistomology that one creates and knows as it being perfect.the evidence follows.

[davidtitterington]

I disagree Doug. I believe "perfection" a very real kind, is Identified in satori, and then Emptiness is understood clearly as manifesting continually the "Great Perfection" or pure form. (the perfection and numinous shimmering of mind in all things).

[douginamerica]

I don't follow. Please provide an instance, proof or argument how the mind can conceive or percieve perfection?

[davidtitterington]

If you want to know what "the Great Perfection" means, you'll have to do the experiment of meditation.technically, you need the signified in order to know the corresponding referent of the particular signifier). take up a similar injunction used by the authors to produce or induce that referent or shared experience. It's like Galileo makes a claim about moons. Then he says look through the telescope. That's the injunction. You look, and now have a better idea of what "the moons of Jupiter" mean.

[douginamerica]

So what is the injunction to know perfection? You are using terms that mean very little. I am asking for an argument for the mind to know perfection.

[Glass2007]

david is talking about Satori, ie non-dual realization. Identifying with the "one taste" of being, "I-amness". A state of being in which no comparison can be made, because it is outside of duality... this is a very hard concept to express to someone who has not seen it directly. The only injunction I can tell you is to meditate on form and formlessness, until you have a non-dual experience. That is a poor answer to your question, but it is all that I can think to tell you.

[weefeatures]

i wank therefore i am

[Intangible88]

This is BRILLIANT! Thank you so much for posting this!

[mayombe2001]

this guy is weird looking...he seems to be popular with aging yuppies here in the Twin Cities, they like him cuz they think he really has something to say. Read Vivekananda or OSHO. Better yet, recite the Hare Krishna mantra for 2 hours a day for 6 months and then write about your own experiences. You probably learn more!

[bulldog7861]

Hey Mayombe.... I like your boneheaded review of someone who you obviously know nothing about. You should keep your mouth shut and you'd probably learn more! ;)

[Tinfoilhatproduction]

lol...still laughing

[RussellsParadox]

The world is illusory. Brahman alone is real. Brahman is the world.

...

Therefore, Brahman is illusory, the world alone is real, and the world is Brahman, right?

...what an imbecile.

[davidtitterington]

i don't get it. why "imbecile?"

[RussellsParadox]

...because he contradicts himself...

...imbecile.

[davidtitterington]

examples?

[RussellsParadox]

*facepalm*

Since "Brahman" and "The World" are identical, if one is "illusory" (a.k.a. NOT REAL) and the other is "real," then they are each both real and not real simultaneously.

...k?

[davidtitterington]

You are right, but Brahman and the world are identical only within a nondual realization, which is Pure Consciousness. The Maharshi quote is describing the progressive stages along the path to greater modes of awareness. First, we see that the world is a dream and Emptiness is the only real. Then, we discover that the world is a reflection of that pure Emptiness or pure consciousness. It's only paradoxical if you aren't grounding it in non-duality (which includes all duality).

[RussellsParadox]

Um... not sure I understand you. Lets establish a couple things, first:

1. a is a

2. a isn't non-a

...agreed?

[douginamerica]

No. Brahman and the world are not identical. Despite what is taught. What manifests from Brahaman is not Brahaman. The air you breathe is not the same as you. The skin that flakes off your body is not exactly you. It is an aspect.

[davidtitterington]

And yet, in non-duality, there are they same. Both/and.

[douginamerica]

In non-duality? What sense do you apply it? The Supreme Brahaman, I mean the unknowable being? If you apply it to the world and Brahaman then you will fall into illusion not because of Brahaman but because of Indra's net. In a clearer sense, you are an imperfect being given to false perception.

[davidtitterington]

and yet all those words- "imperfect" "being" "clearor sense"-only have meaning and only exist because of their opposites. If you are aware of time, there is a timeless; being brings forth non-bing; a child brings forth a parent. cant have one without the other.

Indra's net is a great image of how holographic every point in the universe it. Every point reflects the whole, while also maintaining its individual integrity.

[douginamerica]

1. No one is aware of time. I do not mean time in every day living. Not like a watch. What is time? Is it inifinite? if it is then how can we put any marking on it?

Duality only works if you are seperate from Brahaman. If you are not seperate then there is only substance of Spinoza.

2. We can not understand perfection. So we have no reference for perfection. While we can understand negation of light, darkness.

[stillanego]

I'd have more respect for this room full of people if they sat around in a great big circle and actually scratched each other's back.

They'd achieve more that way also.

[muychingon23]

If death doesn't end in heaven.

Then life won't be remembered

It will be like it never happened

[SOIDOG45]

Descartes was also responsible for the idea that animals were machine like and without consciousness therefore he concluded animals could not feel pain, ie. not sentient. The suffering that came from this false belief is immeasurable. I wouldnt get to excited about Cartesian ontology.

[stillanego]

He truly is the Master. He is the greatest Master of 'Parroting' there ever was. Amazing really how he speaks.

As Adi Da once said "you can say 'apple, apple, apple' , all day long, it will never be an apple".

All I hear from Ken is 'apple, apple, apple'.

[spazquesters]

This guy's a flamer

[stillanego]

I don't know whether to be offended or not by your comment, can you help me please by explaining what you mean :)

[spazquesters]

Don't mind....I was just projecting.

[FartheadOgre]

It's called new age pseudo philosophy. It has a great marketability to those insecure bit sized mentalities of today.

[davidtitterington]

pseudo philosophy? do you even know who this guy is?

[davidtitterington]

It's called Integral philosophy, and you'd be surprised what is covers and includes. I think you are greatly mistaken. This is not new age.

[3rdWorldCrusader]

I really don't appreciate Ken Wilber applying cheap new age labels like "Modern Vedantist" to a great rationalist thinker of the renaissance era.

[oliness]

But a lot of people don't think he was very great. They blame him for an enormous amount of bad things. Ken is trying to explain what Descartes was really saying and show its similarity to Vedantic philosophy.

[sonata1992]

I certainly don't. I don't particularly care about the ethical issues that arose from his philosophy; the ethics of the church that dominated before him weren't exactly lovely. (natural law of god anyone?) People are responsible for their ethics anyway.

I hate Descartes because all he does is play logical tic-tac-toe with reality. It's just an intellectual exercise that goes back to his original beliefs to buff them up with "absolute certainty." The ass.

[romanpolansky]

(4) BTW, Scientifically proven in clinical research, at the time of death the body loses weight. - go figure.

[sonata1992]

So you're implying the soul has physical weight? Wow. Isn't that the most interesting paradox...

[romanpolansky]

(3)Go to a nursing home and just Talk with the ppl there for a few weekends. Walk up to a stranger on the street and tell them that they are beautiful and unique. IF you want to be the best possible you, then you have to be willing to share yourself with everyone else - that's,... well, that's enough.

[romanpolansky]

(2)I'll say one thing - from experience, the ONLYthing that matters and the ONLY thing which needs to be changed ( increased) is our positive emotion which we have for one another as a species. Do something good for another person and see how it makes YOU feel.

[davidtitterington]

beautiful. thank you.

[romanpolansky]

"there's so much vice in the world instead of the Huxleyesque "If I may be so bold to quote you (again) out of content...My reply would be because BNW is just a book whereas so much vise in the real world is because it IS the real world. Perhpas our vise comes from ones expression oflivinglifetothefullest."What­'s it matter, it's only a game"

[romanpolansky]

Shakanunu, No god (argh) what then? life2death. why should we bother with life?

Why work? let's all go to a big commune in MT and live and screw and just 'do our own thing"

???

[douginamerica]

I don't understand why white people would convert to Hinduism. They are inherently not accepted by the faith.

[davidtitterington]

why?

[douginamerica]

That depends on which view we take on the religon of Bharat (India). If we take a Western view, that is an idea that the religon is a mix of different cults, then it is a long answer. The short answer is that Hinduism is not a religon of conversion. You are born into a sphere or social class. The original Vedas which I am trying to aquire I am not sure of. The Upanisads, to my recollection, seperate social classes.

[richidpraah]

but can't we westerners still masturbate to their metaphysics?

[douginamerica]

No. You will be taken in by death and be used as fertilizer. The unformed form, the unknowable Godhead that pervades the universe will destroy the Western Semitic ethos. Or not. Just depends on how you look at it.

[richidpraah]

alright doug, good looking out! i'm not a wilber fan but i still glean a lot from hinduism sans the caste system, and would contrast it against continental thought any second. i enjoy heinrich zimmer, ananda coomaraswamy, sri aurobindo, mircea eliade, rené guénon, joseph campbell, huston smith, alain danielou, alan watts, ramana maharshi, adi shankara and so on, have my own insights and blind spots about atman/brahman and the indian gallery of gods, and by all means look at it differently!

[douginamerica]

Gallery of gods? That is accurate. Although sometimes I get the feeling they are spirits. I prefer the Shiva puranas. I prefer the Vedas from what little I can glean. Please tell us your insights.

[DustTown]

Hope this talk may be an incentive for you to seek your inner most self. (a msg to me too)

[annefranksdiarrhoea]

yes, form and emptiness mutually coexist, but that doesn't mean one is the other. heads and tails exist mutually as a coin, but that doesn't mean heads is tails and tails is heads. a husband cannot exist without a wife and vica versa, but it doesn't follow that husband is wife and wife is husband. am i alone in not seeing the value of semantic masturbation?

[Dajida]

shakanunu, your knowledge quest is not complete, not integral, if you don't follow the experiment: some people who claim to have God experiences also claim that several/many years of meditation/contemplation facilitated the experience. You are ignoring half of the possible data by discounting these claims without performing the experiment.

[SolidGear430]

The reason I say skeptical is because some modern skeptics(not by definition)tend to think nothing is true they cant see using theyre sopposably "rational though" that they know nothing about. lol

[zerodeout]

Wilber is right: it is NOT "I think therefore I am", it is "I AM, THEREFORE I THINK".

Who is "I AM"?

The Bible has God saying that He is "I AM". The I AM cannot be the thinker (the one who you identify with). It must be something higher that can see the thoughts. In fact, there is NO thinker, just thoughts. The "I AM" is the Witness, the Observer, God (if you will-- though this term has been associated too much with just manifestation and not True Consciousness).

[shakanunu]

(Continued) Talking about this thinker stuff is as bad as talking about that ridiculous "tree falling in the forest question" now that we have satellites, cameras, video, and innumerable recording devices. When will philosophy catch up with reality? I'm not even talking Wilbur, who is a joke. Philosophy is still crammed with ridiculous, esoteric, useless bull. It needs some serious lipo and a facelift.

[shakanunu]

Here we go with God again, argh....anyhow :(. "I AM" is the individual's consciousness. The individual comes first (baby born, brain development etc., voila! an entity with the ability to think), then the thinking. No person/animal=no thinking. And why MUST there be something "higher" that can "see" the thoughts? Humans are still just not capable of answering the "first cause" question at this point, and we may never understand or discover it. "It" may not exist anyhow. (continued)

[SolidGear430]

Its hard to be skeptical when nothing seems to make any sense through are senses. But its even harder to be honest with ourselves. There are materialistic dogmaticists and there are spiritual dogmaticists I find that the materialistics are most dogmatic. creation myths are hard to believe but magic is even harder to believe. an entire universe forced into existence by unconscience forces... kinda like magic. Something coming from nothing.

[shakanunu]

(continued) My point was that First Cause is a question that we're still unable to answer b/c we are too limited in a way(tools/tech?)to make possible the knowledge of whats/whys/hows/wheres of basic existence.(It's materialist,by the way[no -ic]).

[shakanunu]

What's that mean,"nothing seems to make any sense thru the senses"? This isn't true in everyday life. Reality is only "sensible" through the senses. If one doesn't use the senses, you're screwed or may be psychotic. As I referred to in an earlier posting- try walking straight into a busy intersection and find out how dispensible our senses are.

[SolidGear430]

What I meant was not that aour senses have no connection with actual reality lol but that when confronted with questions like is there a god? or what actually is life? or was there a first cause? We have to use more than our senses. They alone cannot explain things and when all we trust in to answer questions like that is our senses it doasnt make sense. Without them we'd be doomed in everyday life though.

[shakanunu]

(continued) hence the need to believe in magic or an "extra/supernatural so-called reality (it's actually human imagination) beyond what we know to be existence. Everyday reality is IT. Fin. Enjoy it while you can. Cheers.

[shakanunu]

(continued) because that's not relevant to this discussion) /reality/concretes, whatever you want to call it. What else is there.....really and truly? The major problem is that humans often don't like a lot of what reality plainly is (suffering, accident, illness, loneliness, death);

[shakanunu]

Reality has proven to be explicable ONLY through our senses. It is evident through an examination of history that human progress (awareness/knowledge/control over our environment) intellectually and technologically has/can only occur thru use of our senses. "Magic" and "god" are only terms that people use to identify what has yet to be explained through better and better tools (technologies). Technology is founded on material/matter(please don't start talking quarks, okay :)

[shakanunu]

We all know the Grim Reaper's coming for us one day, and fairytales are damn lies!! Argh! You end up in a nursing home eating baby food and wearing diapers (if your lucky). Like I said: Enjoy it while you can!! Woohoo!

[shakanunu]

P.S. I think this magic/god vs. reality thing is fundamentally psychological in nature. We just can't face reality sometimes (sometimes! try never!), and it's a real problem. Ever wonder why there's so much vice in the world instead of the Huxleyesque "Brave New World"? It's the "D"- word.

[adrianwurstmann]

emilnold i think your ciritque of his interpretation is a missed because he explicatley states that the conditional conception of the cogito within descartes approach is exactly a misconsrewing of descartes very notion of being. .... no thats true that non of the here formentioned phils held the believe that reality is illusory however all these thinkers start from the subjective to reaason outwards much in cotrast to the analytics is it not?

[davidtitterington]

i agree. EmilNold is only correct when looking through one interpretation of Descartes. Wilber is also correct.

[EmilNoldSinclair]

None of the aforementioned philosophers held that 'reality is illusory' (again an overly simple, feeble-minded interpretation). Moreover, thinking is a much better translation of 'cogito'; consciousness is a highly anachronistic translation. Don't even get me started on his interpretation of Descartes...

[EmilNoldSinclair]

A naive and inattentive interpretation of Descartes. It is inaccurate to call Spinoza a Cartesian (he did not use the Cartesian method of doubt, denied dualism [in Descartes sense], and held there was only one true substance), overly simplistic to say that Husserl was influenced by Descartes, and just plain wrong to say that Heidegger took off from Cartesianism since the whole point of his notion of Dasein is a radical critique of the sort of dualism Descartes espoused!

[llerdy]

Consciousness becoming aware of itself.

[blahinhawaii]

Many materialists take an instant dislike to him, call him a BS artist, on an ego-trip etc. I think it is because they can't refute his assertion that believing matterial reality exists at the quantum level or super string level is delusional. So many people are so fearful and want SOMETHING they can know or hold onto. Form, matter, and human existence is illusion.

[shakanunu]

Talk is talk; if it doesn't make sense in action, what else would you call it but bullcrap. **Try the bus experiment and get back to me, okay? I'll fly out whereever you are and watch you repeat the experiment if it works the first time. Sound like a plan? (I don't want you to get hurt. I'm making a point and I'm totally serious, unlike the charlatan "intellectual" KW, the BSer).

shakanunu

[blahinhawaii]

Good point. I have been lucid while dreaming and during those times my dream world quickly reflected my imagination. At other times during dreams I notice that the forces and matter that confine my concrete "dream body" are very limiting. This power of mind to fear is profound. I have been free of this power for only brief moments in jagrat. But it was a direct experience profound enough to know that the waking state is as illusory as any dream. Walking into a bus seems like it would hurt.

[Guaguanco11]

Physicalism is the most popular view in contemporary analytic philosophy. However there are dualists and maybe even some idealists who are taken seriously. Wilber is not taken seriously and it has nothing to do with the position he is advocating! Crap arguments are crap arguments.

[blahinhawaii]

What we think we know changes as perspectives and paradigms shift. Shaka's point was interesting in that even if a group of philosphers were skilled enough to realize that nothing can be known...identification of oneself as a body, belief in sense perception as reality and fear of death will rule their daily choices. While these forces rule the suggestion that our consciousness is immortal and eternal seems like crap to most.

[blahinhawaii]

Those who refuse to look into the microscope and keep insisting that cells are imaginary seem like funny little cavemen who are afraid to investigate. Most people have investgated awareness so little they are unaware that it is not an object or that all other investigations are subject to it. Granted, long practice of meditation is more work than peering into a microscope.

[Stepper11]

Right up there with Joseph Campbell, IMHO.

[harveyilp]

test test

[davidtitterington]

brillian man.  i love listening to him talk.