Dear Ken, Thanks a lot for appreciation of my essay. Yes, this is quoted to have been said by Mahatma Buddh. Ken, my current thoughts are focused on seeing what & how monotheism led to great things like - written objective sciences & knowledge dissemination but also to communism and ignorance of the subjective and the experiential vis-v-vis experiential schools of thought which are prevalent in the East. There is/was no intent/desire to 'compare' the Abrahamic religions. I also realize one cannot be parsimonious on such complex subject. So for the rest I look forward to your critique. TY DL On 11/23/2020 7:51 PM, Ken Freeland wrote: > Hi Deepak, > Thanks for this very thoughtful essay. I shall shortly take issue with > parts of it, but first I want to express my appreciation for your > concise reiteration of the rational principle regarding matters > metaphysical: > > /"Don't believe, don't believe only because you have been told, or it > has been transmitted to you by tradition, or you have thought on your > own and adopted it. Don't believe what your Guru (teacher) has told > you because you hold him in high esteem. Examine it, adequately > analyze it, and when you discover a thought beneficial to all, good > for the majority, in welfare of all living beings, believe in it, > adopt it. Such thought will be path revealing, because that belief > will be self-made and hence resolute."/ > // > You have put this excellent summary in quotes. Do I correctly > understand you are quoting Buddha, or is it from another source? > > Now, as regards the" Abrahamic" religions, you characterize all of > them as forcibly seeking world conformity to their belief systems. I > would like to point out a crucial difference between Christianity and > the other two: Judaism prescribed the use of military force to > expropriate the land of Canaan very early in its development. Mohammed > countenanced the use of military force to combat those who stood in > the way of the practice of Islam. It is indeed a slippery slope from > such beginnings to the forcible imposition of one's religious beliefs > on the rest of the world. In stark contrast, the Founder of > Christianity eschewed the use of force and explicitly forbade it to > his followers. Until the time of Constantine, this stricture was taken > extremely seriously by Christians, as demonstrated by its early > martyrs. It is true that Christians sought and continue to seek the > conversion of the world to the Gospel, but the only licit means to do > so is rational persuasion (preaching), never by coercion, which is > thus in total conformity to the excellent mantra you cited above. That > institutional Christianity has had recourse to armed violence it would > be senseless to deny, but equally senseless to deny that any of it > this was licit according to its own Founder's admonitions to the > contrary. > > You would surely agree that, absent recourse to violence and coercion, > "uniformity" is impossible to impose. Legitimate Christianity is thus > contradistinct from the other two "Abrahamic" religions in precisely > this, that it rejects external coercion to induce uniformity, but > relies instead on a voluntary change of heart (metanoia) leading to a > shared commitment to an ideal social order (the Kingdom of Heaven). > This is the proper context to understand Communism. Marx himself > explicitly expressed frustration with Christianity's slow progress, > and essentially his Communism promises to deliver this social ideal by > imposing it by force. Christians know that this is impossible, but the > lure of such a shortcut "deceives many, even some of the elect." > There we have it. That's my story and I'm sticking to it 😊. > > ✌️ Ken Freeland > > > On Mon, Nov 23, 2020, 5:11 AM Deepak Loomba <[log in to unmask] > <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote: > > Colleagues, > > Saw the entire Ken & Wilber interview <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__youtu.be_mL8aL7fhyPI&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=lrhkXDGTnRD742rFHYh-OpF8EHw727w02rmnCHZ4_vM&s=GonlDQTHFzxnwqbp3D3aROEVHLa5drC92fzyH2hE2yE&e= >. > Let me state the background of what I write below. I have studied > texts of Keno, Mandukya, Tattirya Upanishads - the source of much > that Wilber describes (incl. but not limited to Turiya). Secondly, > I have put together a whole chapter on consciousness in Indian > philosophy in my book which I have fondly titled *"Awareness and > Consciousness - Discovery, Distinction and Evolution. The New > _Upanishad_."* > > The first imp. thing to remember is the context of these > philosophies - most are complilation from various sources with > unknown authors. Most of it probably written between 9th century > BC and 1st Century AD because lot of these discussions are part of > writings by Adi Shankaracharya > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wikipedia.org_wiki_Adi-5FShankara&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=lrhkXDGTnRD742rFHYh-OpF8EHw727w02rmnCHZ4_vM&s=E4FFjSXtdIa7Slslm5EKaKVU5VNKF-jnH6Wkvq9oZpg&e= > around 1st AD. Lot of > this thinking rises in the period of Buddhism's primacy and > prevalence in India. Indeed, there were 3-4 centuries after > Mahatma Buddh when materialism (in context of primacy of sensory > inputs) and atheism (Both Buddhism and Jainism > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wikipedia.org_wiki_Mahavira&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=lrhkXDGTnRD742rFHYh-OpF8EHw727w02rmnCHZ4_vM&s=LHlZSWlq1JMlmpoSXJ3N_0DT-4sCGu80fgIZH1dLLWc&e= >are atheistic) were at its > peak in India and the predominant philosophy of India/Indians. > Both Buddha's teachings and Jainism are atheistic religions. > > Lack of any outside God (in Buddhism & Jainism) led to a major > focus on the inside capabilities of humans and their exploitation. > Once informed that there is no divinity outside of human body, the > only other place to look for it is inside. Mahatma (means great > soul) Buddh and Mahavir (the brave) Jain were contemporaries & > both developed the art of meditation. Jain indeed developed > innumerable experiments with human body through pain-pleasure, > hunger-satiation paradigms to which Buddha did not subscribe, and > gave the world the middle path. > > The reasons for providing the aforementioned background are > > A) it is important to understand that these were outcomes of > exceptionally deep thinking cuddled in materialistic and atheistic > backgrounds. And an outcome of implosion of ideas rather than > explosion - vector of research - pointing inside one's body & > brain rather than outside. This is the period of great inventions > and discoveries. The time of Sushrata > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wikipedia.org_wiki_Sushruta&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=lrhkXDGTnRD742rFHYh-OpF8EHw727w02rmnCHZ4_vM&s=IMXv-Ks_cs6JJljrrhz0kvm2A6B3q-52PNvnV942vvM&e= > (the first known > surgeon/physician to humankind) and many other like him. > > B) it is the peak of development of experiential versus the myths. > The concept of third party objectivity did not exist at all. So > the comparison could/should be made only between the then two > predominant schools of thought - mythical and the experiential > (though subjective). It is important to note that this is the > *'pre-faith'* era (hence myths not faith ruled). In India this was > the age of peaking of experiential sciences - creation of methods > that could enable individuals to practice and experience > heuristically, that which is propounded or projected to be > achieved. There is no guarantee that the nothingness (say in > meditation) of highest form of meditational experiences by one was > same as that experienced by other. But that both experienced > something that they usually do not (hence transcendental) and > decided to title it 'nothingness' was much better than > experiencing nothing and just chanting something foolish and false > one was told (myths). The experiential, therefore was a major > progress over irrational & false myths. > > Now with this background, concepts of non-duality developed then > were completely disengaged thought. Disengaged from the then > existing reality. It was a few millenia in advance. Quite like > teachings of Buddh. For all subscribing to rationalism, this one > statement by Buddh encompasses truth, morality and most other > things. At the cost of reiteration... > > /"Don't believe, don't believe only because you have been told, or > it has been transmitted to you by tradition, or you have thought > on your own and adopted it. Don't believe what your Guru (teacher) > has told you because you hold him in high esteem. Examine it, > adequately analyze it, and when you discover a thought beneficial > to all, good for the majority, in welfare of all living beings, > believe in it, adopt it. Such thought will be path revealing, > because that belief will be self-made and hence resolute."/ > > Non-duality is a great hypothesis, but it is not yet objective in > its structure. It is at best a conjecture. As described in > Upanishads, it is not just subjective but is experiential in > nature. I think it is up to us to discuss, probe, experiment & > prove it right or wrong with methodologies that are modern. I > think neurocognitive sciences with physics in its core, will prove > or disapprove non-duality subsequently, till then it is one of the > greatest and brightest conjectures humankind ever made. It has to > be noted that at best, non-duality is not the absolute truth but > the representation of it. Quite like a sphere is a representation > of a complex plane. The Complex plane does not exist, it is a > mathematical abstraction for representing a sphere > (mathematically) on a Descartes plane. It is very important to > underline that the capability of an abstraction to solve certain > physical problem does not make the abstraction real. It is just an > information-manipulative, discovered reason for a physical truth > for which a real reason is not found or is not easy to be found > and in some rare cases a real reason might not exist (this happens > in case of informational truths, which have no physical existence > at all). A good example was Medeleev's table, which was (on basis > of a deduced rule) propounded much before real elements were > discovered. > > The aforementioned is also a cause of endless confusions, when the > quantum non-duality is confused with the Turiya and so on. > Non-duality, non-locality, entanglement, superposition, causality > & retrocausality, co-occurrence are very different in quantum > mechanics & theory of fields that they way these terms get used in > philosophy. And philosophers pick a physics idea operational under > very specific conditions and apply it somewhere, where it is not > applicable and makes little sense. It is important to note that > phenomena existing in quantum states do not scale to millimetres. > They remain restricted to the quantum world & are a truth of that > world, which in some cases is beyond our observation and even > causality as we experience it. Non-duality or non-locality in the > QM and Upanishads is completely different and not applicable, when > exchanged in position. > > _*Gregg, to bring my thought (that we terminated for lack of time > through our conversation yesterday) to expression, I see that a > quiet push to experiential sciences is happening today through > advanced IT, AI quatum computing etc. It will lead to resolution > of non-duality, as a spin off. *__* > *_ > > The kernel of objective science lay in Abrahamic religions that > created the society as the centre of experience. Taking the > experiential centre out from inside a human to a point outside & > common to all striping it of subjectivity to the extent possible. > These are salient features that are absorbed by a toddler as he > grows. I call it the social-subconcious - that we teach & children > learn without either us being consciously aware of teaching & > children of learning. It led to termination of experiential (which > would go no to be considered Devilish, puritanical, pagan, prudish > and worse case - witchcarft) in west. This led to a need of > socially acceptable knowledge rather than personally experienced > one. Subsequently, leading to rapid development of technology as > objective knowledge could be easily & quickly disseminated through > reproduced writing, the need of tutoring was reduced > substantially. Indeed monotheism implied that the internal in all > humans has to be concurred to one external (hence universal > morality & one God). This brought in the need for uniformity - > hence wars to convert the world to Christianity, then Islam. The > subjective & experiential was considered chaotic. Which in some > sense is true, because handling plurality needs a very advanced > culture. I see Communism was actually the epitomy of Abrahamic > thought when uniformity was taken one step further than the > spiritual (religious) to the fields of sociology and even > linguistically. All 15 Republics of USSR were made to speak > Russian and social equality became a norm. But this required a > major social differential to be settled - Resources (Economics). > Communism went ahead and made it uniform too. > > Capitalism in that sense is a less developed or less than optimal > aspect of Abrahmic thought. Communism took externalization and > uniformity to its true peak. The capitalist west in some sense was > standing 100metres below Everest, the Germans (Engels & Marx) even > devised the last lap gameplan, but the Russians snatched the plan > and acted on it taking western monotheistic thought to its logical > end - to communism the Everest of Abrahamic thought. Once the > absolute truth is taken from inside of a human brain to a point > outside, and everyone is asked to match his internal state to the > agreed or anointed outside point, the next logical thing is to > ensure that the milieu of existence is also brought to uniformity, > which was the undercurrent of communism (It merits mention that I > am in awe of certain amazing features of Soviet Communism - like > patronage of sciences, social equality, etc. as I am personally a > witness of it all. And I feel immensely pained to see that > Russians in the process of aping the west, threw the baby with the > bath!) > > Capitalism (economics) ran contradictory to the professed social > uniformity as it allowed exploration of subjectivity & the > experiential as it made Corporations explore that which a consumer > likes (likeability being internal & experiential in nature) and > not that which is supplied. Consumerism & Abrahamic thought is > dichotomous. Fact is communism really was a bid to execute > equality and uniformity as desired by Abrahamic religions > (Judaism, Christianity & Islam). > > The dawn of the objective (adjective) subjective (noun) is > approaching fast. Thanks to Google, Facebook, AI and Information > Technology, it is today possible to handle plurality much easier. > Thus, there is a major push to enable objective (statistical) > understanding of the experiential. This will lead to development > of the Experiential & Stoichiometric Sciences. And will one fine > day lead to proving or disproving of non-duality. > > Will appreciate queries, if any. I hope I am clear in my expression. > > TY > Deepak Loomba > > > On Sun, 22 Nov 2020 23:13 Nicholas Lattanzio, <[log in to unmask] > <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote: > > *CAUTION: *This email originated from outside of JMU. Do not > click links or open attachments unless you recognize the > sender and know the content is safe. > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > I actually just caught this email and watched the interview. > Like you Andre, I was following their conversation in great > depth and can't say I learned much, but still a great > interview (Ken doesn't tend to look so lively since he broke > his legs, but he looked good in this). > > I believe you and I have a difference of opinion when it comes > to our ontologies, as I almost always concede to a nondual > reality in discussions and my own logic. > > I definitely agree Wilber loses many people with his sort of > cockiness. In his defense he mainly lives in his ILP world > wherein he is pretty much worshipped, I can't imagine how hard > it would be to be extroverted and have that kind of following > without coming off as he does. > > As a fan of Wilber, I'd like to think that is the truest > explanation. But while I'm sure it contributes I think the man > is really just that sure of himself, a certainty that's been > wielded by far worse hands. > > > Regards, > > Nicholas G. Lattanzio, Psy.D. > > On Sun, Nov 22, 2020, 10:18 AM Marquis, Andre > <[log in to unmask] > <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote: > > *CAUTION: *This email originated from outside of JMU. Do > not click links or open attachments unless you recognize > the sender and know the content is safe. > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Hey friend, > > I watched about the first 25 minutes. I am very familiar > with what they were talking about but I still don’t like > what comes off to me as a smug certainty about REALITY > > What was your experience of the interview? > > dre > > *From: *tree of knowledge system discussion > <[log in to unmask] > <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> on behalf of > "Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx" <[log in to unmask] > <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> > *Reply-To: *tree of knowledge system discussion > <[log in to unmask] > <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> > *Date: *Friday, November 20, 2020 at 4:37 PM > *To: *"[log in to unmask] > <mailto:[log in to unmask]>" > <[log in to unmask] > <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> > *Subject: *[EXT] wilber freke > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.youtube.com_watch-3Fv-3DmL8aL7fhyPI&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=lrhkXDGTnRD742rFHYh-OpF8EHw727w02rmnCHZ4_vM&s=BYaunSR9IgNrx9VPYrlrNtQ-gXyDOe5fCSKorxbU31k&e= > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.youtube.com_watch-3Fv-3DmL8aL7fhyPI&d=DwMGaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=4nIBBNRljdIDKQ9Xxvfd4qmyiBJ-muo9FfswWnVb_4U&s=I-TSsk-HYH97gbBCbNYZknwY2fOeaEOfjPdhojm7z5o&e=> > > ___________________________________________ > > Gregg Henriques, Ph.D. > Professor > Department of Graduate Psychology > 216 Johnston Hall > MSC 7401 > James Madison University > Harrisonburg, VA 22807 > (540) 568-7857 (phone) > (540) 568-4747 (fax) > > > /Be that which enhances dignity and well-being with > integrity./ > > Check out the Unified Theory Of Knowledge homepage at: > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.unifiedtheoryofknowledge.org_&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=lrhkXDGTnRD742rFHYh-OpF8EHw727w02rmnCHZ4_vM&s=yooPifSUIoE72qqlcCZgsxm-j-eXJZaqKsgQqsRucPU&e= > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.unifiedtheoryofknowledge.org_&d=DwMFAg&c=kbmfwr1Yojg42sGEpaQh5ofMHBeTl9EI2eaqQZhHbOU&r=fAX9xBiqC7Jpwi5bcf42BpKio-w7hhMYFN9VxTHChls&m=BYw4xZ3wkoWbQiFuI5_NJYVTQeVz9FqymAA8E7avdh4&s=2Q7NsgEafOH4VSq8h2oPDwS02yykNtPUZdL0tO8-TlM&e=> > > ############################ > > To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: > mailto:[log in to unmask] > <mailto:mailto:[log in to unmask]> > or click the following link: > http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1 > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__listserv.jmu.edu_cgi-2Dbin_wa-3FSUBED1-3DTOK-2DSOCIETY-2DL-26A-3D1&d=DwMFAg&c=kbmfwr1Yojg42sGEpaQh5ofMHBeTl9EI2eaqQZhHbOU&r=fAX9xBiqC7Jpwi5bcf42BpKio-w7hhMYFN9VxTHChls&m=BYw4xZ3wkoWbQiFuI5_NJYVTQeVz9FqymAA8E7avdh4&s=gMc71EJwr6MzY406jUO9TDyIh3paUAXwcYDwJBTpuz0&e=> > > > ############################ > > To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: > mailto:[log in to unmask] > <mailto:mailto:[log in to unmask]> > or click the following link: > http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1 > <http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1> > > ############################ > > To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: > mailto:[log in to unmask] > <mailto:mailto:[log in to unmask]> > or click the following link: > http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1 > <http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1> > -- ############################ To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1