Both Emptiness and Form are each absolute and relative mixed

joe perez Says: December 22nd, 2006 at 3:03 pm But then you here paraphrase KW as “Ken’s definition of nondual as having two components, absolute emptiness and relative form, it’s presuming a “given” that there is indeed an “absolute” that is beyond form. It’s true KW talks about “pure perception” as the unity of “perception” and “perspective,” so perhaps the view you are criticizing is that there is anything like pure perception? And perhaps you would also fault KW’s notion of Emptiness as a freedom from all perspectives and Form as finding the Fullness of perspectives, because such notions are impossible. If that is indeed your claim, that would be better stated than claiming KW argues for “components” to nondual, one “absolute” and the other “relative,” I think.

Instead, I see KW as saying that both Emptiness and Form are each absolute and relative mixed and that there is no full separation of either, but with a nondual realization the possibility of a “unity” of “perception” and “perspective”. In other words, nonduality as the overcoming of the relativistic pluralist’s dilemma of being trapped forever in perspectives and perceptions that never meet.

If I’ve pegged your argument correctly that there is no pure perception (i.e., no nondual realization), then I would say your proposal for a more “open definition” of nondual realization that is not “hegemonic” needs some fleshing out. Open in what way? How do you expect to avoid all criticicisms of hegemony?

I think what you’ve said so far is that you don’t like KW’s description of nondual because he says there’s perception “as such” and that “one can speak for it.” To back this up, show me where KW claims he is speaking FOR God, Spirit, or nondual. Show me where KW claims that his point of view is so superior to others that it demands hegemony. If you stick to KW’s actual words, taken in the context of the general thrust of his writings on Spirit, I think the best you can show is that KW claims to be describing nondual realization as he knows it and offering that there must be room in any comprehensive theory of reality for such experience.

On the other hand, if you stick to bad KW interpretations and misreadings offered by people with axes to grind, then sure you’re going to be able to succeed at claiming KW as some sort of megalomaniacial theorist. But remember as you put together your own views on Spirit that you should expect others to treat your own words with no more generosity and accuracy than you are giving to KW.

joe perez Says: December 22nd, 2006 at 3:13 pm Oops - in last paragraph, “stick to” is overstated. I should have said “offer”. While I do think your reading of KW is somewhat off in this case, I don’t think your interpretations of KW are “bad” and wouldn’t want that implied.

Honestly though, while I didn’t direct the “people with axes to grind” comment directly at you, generally with the “non-Wilberian integralists” that’s how I perceive them as coming across. I say this because some of the most vocal ones will latch onto any and every KW careless phrase, I-I misstep, and pile on. Then they’ll generously point to any and every KW critic from ANY point of view as their new hero. That’s the sound of one axe grinding.

Edward Berge Says: December 22nd, 2006 at 5:37 pm If you can’t tell the difference between the sound of an ax grinding and the sound of a scalpel cutting then perhaps there’s AQALiscious Wax* build-up? *AQALiscious Wax is a trademarked product of Integral Instiloot available only through authorized 2nd-tier coaches and metaprogrammers. List price is only $3,000 per 1 oz. tin. “If it doesn’t say AQALiscious it isn’t integral.” TM

Tusar N. Mohapatra Says: December 22nd, 2006 at 5:54 pm Being from the “axes” camp, this conversation between EB and JP is grist for the mill. JP has formally studied philosophy but EB, I presume, has not. JP used to be a very reasoned voice but somewhere down the line lost his cool. EB’s sincerity and zeal is beyond reproach and his is the child’s approach to have discovered that the emperor is naked.

JP understands that this is the end of the road and tries to browbeat EB for his “misreading.” But EB’s questions are absolutely valid and the truth is that no one in the whole history of human thought has been able to solve this riddle except Sri Aurobindo (in his The Life Divine). So why task Ken for something which is beyond his ken?

Tusar N. Mohapatra Says: December 22nd, 2006 at 6:44 pm If JP really needs help he has to empty his cup first, albeit partially. Leave aside authority, The Life Divine is available online in black and white. As for RH, a fact is a fact; so why fight shy of facing it?