Tuesday, March 27, 2007

Is it really an integration or a mish-mosh?

Edward Berge Says: March 26th, 2007 at 5:40 pm Let me state at the outset that I do not have the answers. I have questions that lead to tentative hypotheses that often have to be modified if not discarded outright with further inquiry. For me the process of group inquiry is essential to my understanding; I cannot do this by myself. There’s a lot I don’t understand here. For example, where did you get the material on embedded perceptions and could you expand on that? I’m not quite getting it.
I get the notion of the top wave being a part of the ocean, etc. Holons, all the way up and down. And Ken even said per above that “Spirit is not found as the upper limit of finite things but as their ever-present Ground, and therefore there is no final destination upward.” So in that sense the ocean is not the “final destination,” or a metaphor for the infinite, as it cannot be finally determined.
However, in the meantime, we go ahead and try to name it anyway, calling it Spirit, the All, the Whole, nondual, whatever. And that will look differently per above: “the intrinsic features themselves are not pregiven but are simply the products of the highest level of consciousness making the claim….but intrinsic features of a turquoise worldspace (which will, of course, be largely rejected by indigo, whose own intrinsic features will be rejected by violet, and so on).”
So one of my points is that we have at least 2 types of ways to interpret these “intepretively intrinsic features” nondually: 1) the causal, differentiated nondual and 2) the monist nondual, as per Ken’s own words. And per Ken these are distinguished by “the level of consciousness” perceiving/interpreting them. And also per above, turquoise will be largely rejected by indigo, and then by violet, and so on. Note Ken did not say “integrated” here. So one question for me is when Ken mixes and matches the types of nondual language is it really an integration or a mish-mosh?
I provided some research by kela and if one has time they can explore this same topic in the Lightmind forum. But kela notes there that “Ken may be influenced by Tibetan Buddhist conceptions of consciouness here, which are based on the conception of consciousness in Yogachara thought. These conceptions of consciousness are fundamentally at odds with Shankara’s.” Are we to suppose that Ken has found a way to reconcile them when Shankara and other luminaries have not? Maybe, but highly doubtful. There is much more to ponder here but I’ve run out of time and have other commitments to attend to. To be continued…

No comments:

Post a Comment