The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly

October 23, 2018

[This is my just-posted two star Amazon review of Seyyed Hossein Nasr's "Knowledge and the Sacred."]

Seyyed Hossein Nasr, now 85 is an Iranian professor emeritus of Islamic studies at George Washington University. Nasr’s educational background is impressive--BS in physics and MS in geology and geophysics from MIT, and a Ph.D in the history of science and learning from Harvard. Nasr, who has authored over fifty books, specializes in elaborating Traditionalist school’s ideas on metaphysics, Islamic science, religion and the environment, Sufism, and Islamic philosophy.

Per Wikipedia, “The Traditionalist School is a group of 20th- and 21st-century thinkers concerned with what they consider to be the demise of traditional forms of knowledge, both aesthetic and spiritual, within Western society. The principal thinkers in this tradition are René Guénon, Ananda Coomaraswamy and Frithjof Schuon. Other important thinkers in this tradition include Titus Burckhardt, Martin Lings, Jean-Louis Michon, Marco Pallis, Huston Smith, Hossein Nasr, DragoÅ¡ Kalajić, Jean Borella, and Julius Evola.… Read the full article

The Trikaya in Zen

October 11, 2018

[This is a raw, unedited excerpt from my forthcoming book on Zen.]

A major difference between Zen and Dzogchen is their respective understanding of and attitude toward the Trikaya, the Buddhist Triple Body (Dharmakaya, Sambhogakaya, Nirmanakaya). Whereas Zen deemphasizes the Trikaya, often to the point of ignoring it, Dzogchen emphasizes it, using it to explain Enlightenment. Because Zen is a sutra-based tradition, built upon the Prajnaparamita Sutras, Nagarjuna’s Madhyamika, and Yogacara, it reduces everything to emptiness and/or Mind, which it conflates with the Dharmakaya. Hence, it has little use for the Sambhogakaya and the Nirmanakaya, which it considers superfluous to the Enlightenment project. Dzogchen, on the other hand, incorporates tantric concepts and practices that involve Energy, which, sans the Trikaya doctrine, cannot be properly explained and integrated.

Because Zen all but ignores the Energetic dimension of Enlightenment, Zennists have no real understanding of the Trikaya. I’ve read dozens of Zen texts in the past five decades, and not a single one satisfactorily explicates the Trikaya.… Read the full article

Mysticism is Not a Philosophy

October 7, 2018
True mysticism, meaning communion with transcendental Reality, is not a philosophy, but a direct, immediate experiencing of Divine power and presence. This experiencing is trans-psychological and not a product of one’s beliefs, emotions, or feeling—though spontaneous feelings of bliss and love can arise in the context of one’s mystical experiencing.

Mystics often create a philosophy, or theosophy, to explain mystical experiencing and its relation to phenomenal reality, but this does not reduce mysticism to a doctrine. It simply provides a framework for mentally understanding mystical en-Light-enment.
… Read the full article

Buddhist Illogic

July 4, 2018

[Philosophy professor Avi Sion is one of my allies in combating philosophical sophistry that seeks to undermine rational thinking (which is epitomized by Aristotle's Laws of Thought). In this excerpt from his book "Buddhist Ilogic," he exposes the flaws of the tetralemma, which iconic Buddhist Madhyamikan Nagarjuna employs in his arguments for his sunyata (emptiness) doctrine.Although I'm a mystic and Sion isn't (which is why I gave his book "Zen Judaism" two stars in my Amazon review), we share a common disdain for Nagarjuna and Immanuel Kant. I'm especially grateful to him for his deconstruction of Nagarjuna's "illogic," because it saved me from having to do the same work, which I couldn't have done on the level that he has.]

The Tetralemma

Western philosophical and scientific thought is based on Aristotelian logic, whose founding principles are the three “Laws of Thought”. These can be briefly stated as “A is A” (Identity), “Nothing is both A and non-A” (Non-contradiction) and “Nothing is neither A nor non-A” (Exclusion of the Middle).… Read the full article

The Tantric Woo-Woo of Christopher Wallis, Part 2

June 26, 2018

In Part 1 of this article, I focused on countering the arguments that Tantric scholar Dr. Christopher Wallis makes pertaining to quantum mechanics and idealist monism as they apply to nondual Tantric Shaivism. Wallis articulates these arguments in his book “The Recognition Sutras: Illuminating a 1000-Year-old Spiritual Masterpiece,” and because I find these arguments flawed and incongruent with Tantric Shaivism as I understand it, I responded with my counter-arguments.

In Part 2, I shift my focus to critiquing Wallis’s spiritual exegesis and elaboration of “The Recognition Sutras” (which is a translation and explanation of Ksemaraja’s “Pratyabhijnahrdayam”). As my critique makes clear, I have little regard for Wallis’s spiritual hermeneutics, which I find superficial, imprecise, and, at times, misleading. Because this is just a brief article and not a book, I cannot identify all the “problems” I have with his explanations, nor can I go into extensive detail in my criticisms of the ones that I identify. Nonetheless, I believe that I present sufficient evidence to expose the lack of depth and descriptive accuracy in his book. … Read the full article

← Previous Entries

Next Entries →