How Nonsectarian is 'Nonsectarian'?

[Balder]

Sean recently shared with me an essay titled, "How Nonsectarian is 'Nonsectarian'?: Jorge Ferrer's Pluralist Alternative to Tibetan Buddhist Inclusivism." 

Here is the abstract, and the essay is attached below.

"This paper queries the logic of the structure of hierarchical philosophical
systems. Following the Indian tradition of siddhānta, Tibetan Buddhist
traditions articulate a hierarchy of philosophical views. The ‘Middle Way’
philosophy or Madhyamaka—the view that holds that the ultimate truth is
emptiness—is, in general, held to be the highest view in the systematic
depictions of philosophies in Tibet, and is contrasted with realist schools of
thought, Buddhist and non-Buddhist. But why should an antirealist or nominalist
position be said to be ‘better’ than a realist position? What is the criterion
for this claim and is it, or can it, be more than a criterion that is traditionspecific
for only Tibetan Buddhists? In this paper, I will look at the criteria to
evaluate Buddhist philosophical traditions, particularly as articulated in what
came to be referred as the ‘nonsectarian’ (ris med) tradition. I draw from the
recent work of Jorge Ferrer to query the assumptions of the hierarchical
structures of ‘nonsectarian’ traditions and attempt to articulate an evaluative
criteria for a nonsectarian stance that are not based solely on metaphysical or
tradition-specific claims."

[Edward theurj Berge]

On p. 9 of G matter is not the lowest rung on the great chain but is the exterior of every level. Hence even the highest levels of consciousness are not meta-physical. Each one has a 'body.' As gross form complexifies (human brain) there are corresponding subtle energy bodies (18). However on 19 he still uses traditional Vedanta to interpret these subtle bodies. But they are still tied to the complexification of the brain: "These subtle fields cannot be reduced to matter, but neither are they ontologically disconnected from matter altogether" (20). Figure 7 shows this relationship to brain structure (21). Psychic (mental) energy emerges with triune brains (24). Causal and nondual are related to the overmind and supermind (28).

On 36 though he goes back to the traditional Vedanta-Vajrayana interpretation of these bodies. See table 2 on 37. He here brings in waking, dreaming and deep sleep to correspond with gross, subtle and causal bodies. And also the difference between states and stages. He admits though that "I have incorporated those aspects, virtually unchanged, in my own model of Integral Psychology" (40). And therein lies the problem. I've recontextualized this system keeping the notion that each level must have a body without keeping the "virtually unchanged" metaphysical tenets inherent to this paradigm. See for example the "states, stages" thread and the "postmeta definition of states" thread.

The whole thing completely derails in the discussion of reincarnation starting on 42, where we can now separate the gross body from the subtle and causal bodies. This is how he maintains that a 'body' is still required, just not a gross-material body. I obviously don't accept this. He mentions that for Varela and Thompson this is not possible, and they are 'Buddhists' (43). Agreed. I have a thread on Thompson here where he has been doing neurological tests on advanced Buddhist practitioners for a long time. His findings are consonant with my notions. E.g. from this post:

"But whereas the Advaitin takes this minimal selfhood to be a transcendental witness consciousness, I think itʼs open to us to maintain that it is my embodied self or bodily subjectivity, or what phenomenologists would call my pre-personal lived body. In this way, I think we can remove the Advaita conception of dreamless sleep from its native metaphysical framework and graft it onto a naturalist conception of the embodied mind."

[Edward theurj Berge]

Also see this post quoting Thompson:

"I describe a dialogue on this question I had with the Dalai Lama at his refugee home in Dharamsal
a, India, and I explain the basis in Buddhist philosophy for the Dalai Lama’s view that consciousness transcends the brain. I argue, however, that there’s no scientific evidence to support this view. All the evidence available to us indicates that consciousness, including pure awareness, is contingent on the brain. Nevertheless, my viewpoint isn’t a materialist one" (33).

The post following expands on this.

[Edward theurj Berge]

Also recall Levin's bodies, which also go into subtle and causal bodies but defined postmetaphysically.

[andrew]

Thanks for the reply mm, i appreciate that! 

I ripped the talking monkey thang from another Hollywood disinformation movie ( does hollywierd do any thing but), anyway, good movies ( sort of) but the lead angel in the movie played by Christopher Walken calls humans talking monkeys and i've always found that funny. 

For what it's worth, I  agree with a lot of the things that you're saying here. If there were any thing to what you are proposing and to what i am alluding to, then, in my opinion, these things will be revealed.

But, i also concede what theurj and Julian and Kenny and others say, that is entirely probably, too. I just ask that we treat honest searchers for truth who have no disposition toward mammon whatsoever, to be respectful to each other.

[andrew]

Obviously, humour- and in my case irreverence- should be part of that dialogue; especially given the nature of the seriousness of the topics here.

I believe i am being kind to Kenny adding him to the list of those who are not affected by mammon; but i see his cozying up to it being problematic in light of events in the last 30 years. His view, in my opinion, is simply enabling the condition that Moyers was pointing out in his interview with Klugman.

We now have neoliberal soft fascism running the whole world and that is not something we should be dismissive of.

[Layman Pascal]

1. 

Any consistent integral-level approach has got to deal with the all-too-common naivete in people's colloquial treatment of "levels" -- in which, say, groups are simply "bigger" than individuals and matter is "lower" than organisms.

Some Wilber-ish move is necessary in which matter is a signifier which conceals at least two signfieds:

(a) external objective embodiment at any level

(b) the concept of geological and proto-geological physics.

2.

Any integrative model, in order to be consistent, has to define "gross, subtle, causal and nondual" in their most generic philosophical sense and then unpack them as multiples within each quadrant.

The casual contemporary notion of "body" (i.e. the tangibly resistant mass-bearing aspect of external phenomena) is as limited as the casual traditional association of "consciousness" with deep sleep. What we need is a very broad notion of embodiment. Something like a plane of immanent coherence of dynamics which relatively hangs together through certain sets of interactions. That will allow us to talk about embodiment in all quadrants and relative to all states.

It also suggests, obviously, that different bodies can be considered from among the same phenomena. One of the most ridiculous ideas about reincarnation is that there is simply "a soul" which goes to "a place" after death. The physical body follows its demise by many different processes which move material into different domains. Even an unproven supposition about the afterlife ought to keep clearly in mind multiple types of soul-bits may flow for different reasons into different regions. One of the great black marks against against subtle body theorists is traditionally their childish notion that the subtle ought to be less complex than the gross. Easily graspable with a few notions and identities!

3.

Pure Consciousness obvious has at least three referents. Therefore it is somewhat of a bad term. We need to name:

(1) the mindful witnessing quality of conscious personal wakefulness.

(2) the pre-personal lived body which lurks as the existential background and "deep formless" intuitive sense of individuated being

(3) the awareness-like or ubiquitous quasi-cognitive potential which must be presumed as universal in order that interactions (detections) of any sophistication are possible.

Once we have those clear in mind we can start to ask really interesting questions like: 

When someone says "Atman is Brahman" do they mean that (3) is available, in an amplified intensity, via (2)... or that they metaphysically presume that (2) IS (3)? etc.

[13w6cecaz7s7h]

maybe you should explain your "knowledge" to this man here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eben_Alexander_%28author%29

i guess you haven´t read his book about his near death experience and subsequent coma.

although i do not agree with his reframings since i  got better info on that , still , his experience proves enough.especialy with his neurosurgeoon background and the fact that he had his own brain data later to study since he was in the coma in his own neuro clinic. beat that for evidence!

you are talking ("All the evidence available to us indicates that consciousness, including pure awareness, is contingent on the brain.")

a scientific  outdated model. or are you also a neurosurgeon ?? hmm?

mm

theurj said:

Also see this post quoting Thompson:

"I describe a dialogue on this question I had with the Dalai Lama at his refugee home in Dharamsal
a, India, and I explain the basis in Buddhist philosophy for the Dalai Lama’s view that consciousness transcends the brain. I argue, however, that there’s no scientific evidence to support this view. All the evidence available to us indicates that consciousness, including pure awareness, is contingent on the brain. Nevertheless, my viewpoint isn’t a materialist one" (33).

The post following expands on this.

[Edward theurj Berge]

If that is what passes as science for you I can see why you believe as you do.

[andrew]

I followed that debate on Sam's blog, and frankly, found it pointless.

[13w6cecaz7s7h]

well if you think that neurosurgery  and neurology IS not part of science then i really wonder what you think science actually IS .a neurosurgeon is a highly trained practioner of a branch of western science ,or do you think he picked his skills up at bible school  ? and IF such a person has an experience that is not possible according to his scientific knowledge, that he "knew" to be true all his life and by which he healed many patients  , then if he is a real scientist he rethinks his science despite his previous sureness , and does not just dismiss hi s experience because what cant be ,cant be : that would be medieaval so in this case you apply a very tight medieval premodern attitude ! no no, a scienist goes with the evidence and not with the belief ! as he saw that hos brain was too dead to have any experiences at all , pickled in puss according to the hard data , and yet he had vivid experiences at the same time the only answer to this is that experiences do not depend on an active brain. thats science .thats how einstein worked and all the other real scientist, the push the envelope and not just stay inside their own little science beliefs. but there are many who do just that: just read what "scientists" said about the possibility of planes  and humans flying , hey even trains "scientist" of the day thought to be far to fast for human health . seems that you fall into such a category of scientist !

in fact there is amble evidence by another real scientist who researched claims of remembrance by children of past lifes and he did a very thourough study and the evidence is clear : it proves reincarnation as fact. but its ignored by thoses scientist as you are evidently one of. usually thoses are the mainstream scintist , thoses people who like to have it save , everything , a nice cosy carrer etc truth matters to them only secondarily , cosyness beats it all .they belief what the manistream hold to be truth whatever the mainstream belief is truth , thats their truth !so if that is pigs can fly or no consciousness without brainactivity , hey who the fuck they care they need to be on the right side of the fence for their nice little lifes. if humankind would listen to you guys we would still be on trees ! are you like that theurj? seems increasingly the case. the mainstream that matters nowadays is pomo or even popomo. we see what this does in germany were unlike america pomo rules everything. there we have many examples like you seem to be as well  . they belief things like multiculti is good , and no matter how mucgh evidence to the contrary is presented they will not butch. same for the nuclear energy and gender studies and of course i forgot the brain: yeah we are talking monkeys , the mainstream says so and so it is. : )))

maybe in hick america this looks like avantgarde but in europe this looks more and more as quite dated.

hatschii und

gesundheit

mm

theurj said:

If that is what passes as science for you I can see why you believe as you do.

[13w6cecaz7s7h]

its really quite funny to see people (westerners) who really never had any concept or knowledge of dza lung

tigle , or channels chakras and kundalini or such historically 

like....

now try to explain to those who discovered them..and mastered them,...

what they "really" mean and how it is : hahahahahahaha is all one can say,  rolf, to such ...well,..

anybody who ever has done some work with them experts knows that this is a very complex field

and certainly flat head westerners who never moved out of their country generally, just like some magpies looking only for some shiny things to steal , as usually , just looking for  a quick buck ,or fame or both,

wont grok it  any time soon. this knowledge is ...protected : )

especially since they seem to think that those who discovered and work with these systems are somehow

....too stupid to see whats up, hahahahaha, thats really  the biggest joke of all.....

in any case these things cannot be learned by ripping it out of a book, : )), its an oral tradition , and its secret , and for good reasons. those who run around in the west , pretending to sell something  ,work shopping etc. are renegades , out for the quick buck and that means there information is ....useless.

and very misleading and down right dangerous, if you start messing with your energy system without real knowledge , without correct preparation and without supervision by those who know ....you will only created serious problems for yourself, physical and well as mental : ) so beware,   all you fools.

the western arrogance and the sheers stupidity is always amazing , really.

the real knowledge will definitely not be able to be " wilberized " any time soon .

thats another of those books that are "90% finished" ,........... for the next 30 years. : ))

mm

theurj said:

On p. 9 of G matter is not the lowest rung on the great chain but is the exterior of every level. Hence even the highest levels of consciousness are not meta-physical. Each one has a 'body.' As gross form complexifies (human brain) there are corresponding subtle energy bodies (18). However on 19 he still uses traditional Vedanta to interpret these subtle bodies. But they are still tied to the complexification of the brain: "These subtle fields cannot be reduced to matter, but neither are they ontologically disconnected from matter altogether" (20). Figure 7 shows this relationship to brain structure (21). Psychic (mental) energy emerges with triune brains (24). Causal and nondual are related to the overmind and supermind (28).

On 36 though he goes back to the traditional Vedanta-Vajrayana interpretation of these bodies. See table 2 on 37. He here brings in waking, dreaming and deep sleep to correspond with gross, subtle and causal bodies. And also the difference between states and stages. He admits though that "I have incorporated those aspects, virtually unchanged, in my own model of Integral Psychology" (40). And therein lies the problem. I've recontextualized this system keeping the notion that each level must have a body without keeping the "virtually unchanged" metaphysical tenets inherent to this paradigm. See for example the "states, stages" thread and the "postmeta definition of states" thread.

The whole thing completely derails in the discussion of reincarnation starting on 42, where we can now separate the gross body from the subtle and causal bodies. This is how he maintains that a 'body' is still required, just not a gross-material body. I obviously don't accept this. He mentions that for Varela and Thompson this is not possible, and they are 'Buddhists' (43). Agreed. I have a thread on Thompson here where he has been doing neurological tests on advanced Buddhist practitioners for a long time. His findings are consonant with my notions. E.g. from this post:

"But whereas the Advaitin takes this minimal selfhood to be a transcendental witness consciousness, I think itʼs open to us to maintain that it is my embodied self or bodily subjectivity, or what phenomenologists would call my pre-personal lived body. In this way, I think we can remove the Advaita conception of dreamless sleep from its native metaphysical framework and graft it onto a naturalist conception of the embodied mind."

[Edward theurj Berge]

Thanks for the amusement max. I have no need though to take candy from a baby. Perhaps you should stick to what you're good at, like making rainbow bodies, since you're obviously not so good at making arguments.