Once again, the tide of struggle between philosophic materialism and philosophic idealism is turning; towards the latter, this time. We’re just on the dwell of the tide right now, cross-currents and swirls everywhere, but the tidal stream is beginning to set towards idealism again. Pam Ho’s essay - with handy science-vid inset - surveys what’s happening, and how to act within this new/old current:
1 Like
Thanks for sharing @RhisiartGwilym, I thought I was a subscriber to Pam Ho but didn’t seem to get an email. This essay certainly covers a lot… to be honest it reads to me as a little scattered but I shall re-read (and watch the video).
I thought she could have profitably explored the notions of implicate/explicate order vis-a-vis consciousness as one essay. And explore the other topics in individual pieces too. To some extent, I’m not surprised: Bohm is… tricky.
I know at least one senior Theravadan who has read Bohm and who has spoken of the links between his ideas and those of Gautama. By immense good fortune, I am attending a retreat in Northumberland at the end of the month, and he is the leader. So I will try to remember to ask him.
Pam alludes to samādhi as the highest level of consciousness possible in this realm in the yogic tradition. Correct, as far as I’m aware, but she is wrong to equate it with nibbāna/nirvana which is the ‘blowing out’ of all suffering. Samādhi is the same in Buddhism (also Jainism and other practices from the same ayurvedic [?] roots). It’s the eighth part of the Noble Eightfold Path: samma-samādhi = right concentration (understanding things as they really are). These ideas are wholly distinct.
I was surprised she did not make the link between enlightenment and Lucifer, but understand why. I am of the opinion that many Enlightenment ideas are proving to be Luciferian, in fact. If the Enlightenment was a rebellion against established (religious) thought, then there is a kinship with Lucifer right there: he was a highly capable and clever archangel but was expelled, as I understand the stories, for his disobedience.
We can observe that the thoughts we experience are not caused by our own control. We don’t do anything to create thoughts. Thoughts simply appear in our mind without any seeming cause. We have no idea how to cause or create thoughts, or how to stop them. Try to explain how to create thoughts or find memory. You can’t. Scientists are also unable. People believe we control or create thoughts and memory because we don’t see or experience what is actually causing them. So we believe it must be us. But we have no idea how to create thoughts or find memories — because we don’t, in truth thoughts and memory simply appear in our mind…
Pam goes on to say that this is because ‘mind’ and ‘universe’ are one, both being uncontrollable. And she may be right. I tend to agree. Some thoughts may have an alternative source: a serpent, an egregore, or . . . ? . . .
As you say Rhys: cross-currents and swirls everywhere. Thanks again.
2 Likes