Wilber's Integral Philosophy Discussed and Critiqued

Discussion of Wilber's Integral Philosophy and Psychology and E... http://www.integralworld.net/capriles2.
html
EPIC RAP BATTLE OF INTEGRAL: KEN WILBER TAKES ON FRANK VISSER
INTEGRAL WORLD: EXPLORING THEORIES OF EVERYTHING

An independent forum for a critical discussion of the integral philosophy of Ken Wilber
Like Share Sign Up to see what your friends like.
From 1993 to 2003 Elías-Manuel Capriles-Arias filled the Chair of Eastern Studies at the Faculty of
Humanities and Education, University of The Andes, Mérida, Venezuela (originally ascribed to the
Dean's Office and then to the Department of Philosophy). Thereafter he has been ascribed to the Center
of Studies on Africa and Asia, School of History, same Faculty and University, where he teaches Philosophy and
elective subjects on the problems of globalization, Buddhism, Asian Religions and Eastern Arts. Besides
teaching at the University, Capriles is an instructor of Buddhism and Dzogchen certified by the Tibetan Master of
these disciplines, Chögyal Namkhai Norbu; in this field, he has taught in Venezuela, Peru, Spain and Costa Rica.
This essay is APPENDIX I of "Beyond Mind, Part III", published with permission of the author. See his personal
website here.
Wilber’s Integral Philosophy and Psychology

and the Ascender/Descender Debate
Excerpt from TRANSPERSONAL AND METATRANSPERSONAL
THEORY
Elias Capriles
THE GRADATION OF BEING
A group of Wisdom-traditions that seem to have originated from a common root in the area of their revered
mountain, Kailāśā, in Western Tibet, and which include the Bön of the Perfect Mind[1] (the Dzogchen found in
the native spiritual traditions of the Himalayas), Indian Śaivism, Persian Zurvanism, the Path of Transformation
of Vajrayāna Buddhism (to which the holy mountain is the seat of the Tantric meditation deity[i]
Cakrasaṃvara,[2] and is connected with Padmasambhava as well), Buddhist Dzogchen,[ii] and the Ismaili
tradition in Shia Islam (though Chinese Daoism is not known to venerate Kailāśā, in Capriles [2009] I offered
compelling evidence that suggests it may share the same origin),[iii] picture human life as the hide-and-seek
game of nondual primordial awareness with itself that the Śaiva tradition refers to by the Sanskrit word lila,
meaning play or game—though the term is in general rendered into Western languages as “the cosmic game.” In
fact, the traditions in question assert that we humans are unaware of the true condition of nondual primordial
awareness—which is our true condition, as well as that of the whole universe—and that, moreover, we
experience ourselves as being what we are not—namely, as separate experiencer-thinker-doers “thrown” in an
alien universe of self-existing multiplicity.[iv] In Dzogchen terms, this is due to the fact that we are affected by
the first aspect of the basic human delusion that Śākyamuni called avidyā and that I equate with that which
Heraclitus called lethe,[3][v] which, as noted in the preceding chapter, consists in unawareness of our true
condition, and by its second and third aspects (in both Dzogchen taxonomies), which compound into the illusion
that consciousness is a separate, immaterial experiencer-thinker-doer facing an alien material universe of self-
existing multiplicity, rather than a function of primordial Gnitiveness. This constitutes the “hiding” aspect of the
game—the “seeking” and “finding” aspects manifesting only in those who tread a Path of Awakening.
1 of 93 04.06.20, 21:58
Discussion of Wilber's Integral Philosophy and Psychology and E... http://www.integralworld.net/capriles2.html
The above vision of individual human life is concomitant with a degenerative view of spiritual and social human
evolution and human history that is explicitly shared by the same, Kailāśā originated, Kailāśā revering, traditions:
Bön, Vajrayāna Buddhism (including Buddhist Dzogchen), the Śaiva tradition (and through its influence some
non-Śaiva Indian spiritual traditions and even treatises like the Laws of Manu[4]), Zurvanism, and Ismailism[vi]
(the latter having influenced a number of Western authors and seeming to be the source of various Western
traditions).[vii] The degenerative view is also shared by Daoism;[5] through the influence of Ismailism and other
sources that seem to include Oddiyana Buddhism,[viii] by Sufism or at least some Sufi traditions[ix] (Sufism
being the direct source of a great deal of Jewish and Christian mysticism[x]); and, through its Śaiva roots, by the
Greek Dionysian tradition (which derived from the Indian Śaiva tradition, as presently acknowledge by the Greek
Academia and as substantiated by Alain Daniélou [1984]), as well as some of the Greek philosophers influenced
by the tradition in question,[xi] such as Heraclitus, the Cynics and the Stoics (Stoicism not being purely
Dionysian because its founder, Zenon of Citium, placed the Dionysian doctrines he received from Cynic
philosopher Crates in a rationalist context as a consequence of the drift that led him to embrace logician Stilpo
the Megarian). Finally, if Daniélou’s claim that also the Egypcian cult of Osiris derived from the Śaiva tradition
were correct, this tradition might have shared the same view.
According to the view in question, the basic human delusion called avidyā develops progressively, and at some
point it reaches a degree at which it begins to make us produce effects contrary to those we intend to produce
—thereby revealing itself as a delusion (as illustrated by the example of the person who intends to go in a
direction and then finds out she or he is going in the opposite direction). Near the term of its development this
delusion reaches the degree at which, on the individual level, functioning in terms of delusion may be impaired,
and at the level of the species we produce the ecological crisis that is near the verge of destroying our species.
This means that it has gone beyond the threshold at which it proves not to be viable, achieving its reductio ad
absurdum—as a result of which it is finally possible for it to disconnect itself: on the personal level, practice on
the Path of Awakening leads it to dissolve spontaneously in the unveiling of the Base that is the true nature of all
reality, initially for limited periods while on the Path, and then irreversibly as the Fruit; on the level of the
species, the possibility of dissolution of delusion becomes available to the bulk of our species, making it possible
for the last era of one cycle—the one called Black Age, Age of Darkness, Age of Degeneration or Iron Age—to
come to an end and for the first era of the next cycle— the one called Perfect Age, Age of Truth or Golden
Age—to start. According to the prophesies in the Kālacakratantra and Ismaili sources, now we are in the final
time cycle of our world system, and hence the transition in question, rather than initiating the first era of the next
cycle, would inaugurate an equally perfect, concluding Millennium—as predicted in John the Godspeller’s
Apocalypse and in various other Apocalypses as well.
The teachings of Dzogchen Atiyoga and in general of the Ancient or Nyingmapa tradition of Tibetan Buddhism
represent the cosmic cycle or eon (Skt. kalpa; Tib. kalpa[6]) as beginning in the condition that an oral tradition
associated with the Kālacakratantra calls Total Space-Time-Awareness[xii] (which as such corresponds to the
Zurvan of Zurvanism and the Mahākāla or “total time” aspect of Śiva in the Śaiva tradition), in which space and
time do not yet seem to be separate dimensions (which means there is no feeling of temporal or spatial finitude,
or of the passing of time), and in which there is no knowledge as such, for the delusory valuation-absolutization
of thought has not become active and hence the subject-object duality—responsible for the disruption of
spacetime that gives rise to space and time as separate dimensions[xiii]—has not arisen. When the vibratory
activity that seems to emanate from, or be concentrated in, the center of the body at the level of the heart, and
which was discussed in the preceding chapter and in other works by this author (Capriles, 1986, 1989, 1994,
2000a, 2000c, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2007a), activates itself, it does so only for limited periods—each and every time
dissolving into Total Space-Time-Awareness. However, whenever it activates itself, the delusory valuation-
absolutization of thought that is at the root of avidyā in the second of the three senses the term has in the
classification adopted here gives rise to the subject-object schism that is the condition of possibility of both
knowledge and the concomitant, seeming disruption of Total Space-Time-Awareness that gives rise to the
experience of space and time as separate dimensions, as well as of temporal and spatial finitude—by the same
token generating the phenomenon of being which is the most fundamental samsaric phenomenon, and which
causes us to experience phenomena as being (in the twofold sense of having actuality, and of involving both self-
being and inherent value and importance[xiv]) or not being (for example, as no longer being, as not yet being, as
having never been—or, what is most relevant here, in the case of dualistic, conceptual varieties of the experience
of what higher forms of Buddhism call svabhāva śūnyatā or emptiness of self-being, as not involving self-
being[xv]).
2 of 93 04.06.20, 21:58
At a certain point, a thereshold is crossed at which it becomes hardly possible for delusion to spontaneously
dissolve in the condition of Total Space-Time-Awareness, and as the cycle continues to unfold, the frequency and
strength of the vibratory activity at the root of the delusory valuation-absolutization of thought progressively
increase, causing the pace of lived time and the fragmentation of lived space, together with the phenomenon of
being, to gradually become more pronounced. When the phenomenon of being and all that had developed
interdependently with it reach the point at which the naked experience of the being of the human individual has
become too unpleasant to bear, and at which conscious awareness of certain contents would be a source of
distress (the latter as a result of the birth of repression as a means to make children adapt to social conventions,
which may have taken two successive leaps with the arising of urbanism and then of civilization), elusion or bad
faith (Sartre’s [1980] term for self-deceit) becomes necessary for he or she to lead a smoother life and for putting
the lid on those of his or her reactions which would catalyze the positive feedback loop resulting in the runaway
of the degree of being, the velocity of lived time and so on, to the threshold at which saṃsāra’s loops might
spontaneously deactivate themselves. In fact, we have seen that being unable to elude the fact that there is
nothing substantial to grasp, being unable to elude the naked experience of the being of the human individual that
is anguish, being unable to elude the naked experience of becoming the entity that others perceive as our self
which Sartre [1980] inaccurately referred to as shame (Capriles, [1977, 1986, 1997b, 2007a]), being unable to
elude ego-dystonic contents, and so on, would give rise to reactions likely to activate the positive feedback loop
at the root of the system’s runaway. It is in order to prevent this and make life bearable that the mechanisms of
elusion—the self-deceit that Sartre called bad faith—must turn anguish into residual anxiety, try to turn into pride
the experience of becoming the entity that others perceive as our self, and keep ego-dystonic contents from
entering conscious awareness. In fact, at any given stage in the development of the cosmic cycle, the degree of
effectiveness of elusion / bad faith will determine how high an individual will ascend in saṃsāra, for one climbs
through the realms of saṃsāra to the extent to which elusion dilutes the conscious experience of being—that is,
to the extent to which one gains control over the mechanisms that contain the reactions that would activate the
positive feedback loops at the root of the system’s runaways. Since vibratory frequencies are lowest in the “peak
of experience”[xvi] that is the summit of saṃsāra, at any moment in spiritual / social degenerative evolution, the
state with the least degree of being may be the peak in question.[xvii] This is why it is the “creation of a
deficiency in the mechanisms that sustain birth and death” (i.e., a deficiency in bad faith and whichever spiritual
techniques we may apply in order to perfect elusion / bad faith) that makes the runaway of the system toward the
threshold level possible—and this also applies to the meditative experience of the eon or kalpa, as the dynamics
of the realm of form achieves this. Thus both at the level of the species (at least once delusion has developed to a
certain extent) and at the individual level, the degrees of being are directly related to the modification by means
of elusion / bad faith (whether or not boosted by spiritual techniques) of the experience of being.
At any rate, as the degree of being (i.e., the degree of delusion) gradually increases, a gradation of being arises in
which the degrees of being become higher or lower in a way that is inverted with regard to the expectations of
those who, like Ken Wilber (1981, 1995, 2000a) uphold the modern view of spiritual / social evolution as
constant improvement and perfecting, thus contradicting the traditional view of human spiritual and social
evolution shared by the spiritual systems listed above (which, in Wilber’s case, he wrongly claims to follow);
identify being with truth, as does common sense and as did Parmenides, Plato, Heidegger and so many other
deluded Western thinkers; and view spiritual development as a gradual increase of being. In fact, though those
who hold the latter beliefs are right in viewing the degree of being as increasing with the passing of time,
contrarily to the beliefs in question this increase amounts to an intensification of the degree of delusion and its
unwholesome, unpleasant effects, rather than to an increase of truth and its wholesome, desirable effects[xviii]—
just as, contrarily to the view of Heaven as being straight over us, the Divine Comedy rightly shows the way to
the Empyrean to go through the underworld.
The vibrations at the root of the delusory valuation-absolutization of thought are spasmodic contractions
occurring in the heart cakra[7] (pron. chakra) or focal point, which could be graphically compared to repetitive
handclaps trying to produce the illusion that someone concrete and substantial holds something concrete and
substantial. In the initial stage of the cosmic cycle, the strengthening and the increase in frequency of the
vibratory activity, and hence the intensification of all that results from it—including the need to obtain the
illusion that someone concrete and substantial holds something concrete and substantial, which grows
proportionally to the increase of the activity in question—occurs in an extremely slow, imperceptible way. As
noted above, at a later stage, when the activity becomes more noticeable, the elusion of distress and of all that is
distressing delays the ocurrence of the positive feedback loops that would give rise to a runaway of vibratory
3 of 93 04.06.20, 21:58
frequencies—and hence these frequencies continue to increase quite slowly, causing the phenomenon of being to
slowly intensitify itself, the cleavage separating the mental subject from the continuum of what appears as object
to slowly grow deeper, the appearance of self-being and ultimate importance to slowly gain in strength, the
experience of space to slowly become narrower and more fragmented, and the velocity of the passing of lived
time to increase slowly. However, after a threshold, in the proportion in which the appearance of self-existence
and ultimate importance increases, it becomes even more apparent that there is nothing solid or substantial—and
the more evident the fact that there is nothing solid or substantial becomes, the more the vibratory activity under
discussion increases its pace and strength in an attempt to find proof of the solidity and substantiality of subject
and object, in a typical manifestation of the Thanatic positive feedback loops[xix] which are at the root of the
processes and experiences I have expressed in terms of the symbolism of the Divine Comedy and so on.
Thus as the cycle approaches its term, the intensification of the pace and strength of the vibratory activity and the
concomitant acceleration of the pace of lived time becomes so rapid as to make itself perceptible, by the same
token turning contradiction into conflict. Then, at the term of the cycle, conflict attains the level of “total
conflagration,” just as the vibratory frequencies reach a threshold beyond which the vibratory activity simply
cannot go on and has to collapse (which I have compared with a dog falling flat after trying to bite its own tail at
an ever-increasing pace), causing lived time to instantly come to a halt (Padmasambhāva, 1997). As lived time
dissolves, the phenomenon of being, ek-sistence,[xx] space, time, becoming, the cleavage separating the mental
subject from the continuum of what appears as object, the illusion of ultimate importance—and in general all that
had been developing along with the basic human delusion, which has attained its culmination—instantly
dissolves, bringing saṃsāra to an end. Therefore, a new Golden Age, Age of Perfection or Age of Truth
begins—or, in the case of the final period of this world-system, we enter the equivalent final Millennium
prophesized in the Kālacakratantra, in Ismaili literature, in the various Apocalypses and so on.
Thus it is clear that there is a partial analogy between the degenerative evolution in human phylogenesis and the
individually lived processes I have represented in terms of the Divine Comedy. In fact, the cosmic time cycle is
also a meditative experience undergone by the human individual (Padmasambhāva, 1997) in the realm of
form,[8] in which wayward patterns develop toward the threshold at which delusion may spontaneously crumble
and Dzogchen-qua-Base (i.e., the true condition of all reality) may unconceal itself, making its total plenitude
and perfection fully patent. What the Divine Comedy represents as passing through the hole at the bottom of
Hell—namely the initial manifestation of Dzogchen-qua-Path—corresponds to this quite precisely. As noted in
the preceding chapter and other of my works, henceforth the process may involve the repeated manifestation of
Dzogchen-qua-Path, which each and every time would go along with the spontaneous liberation of the basic
human delusion that progressively neutralizes the latter—so that the process ideally concludes with the
establishment of Dzogchen-qua-Fruit.[xxi]
To sum up, the more vibratory rates increase and the more powerful and developed the phenomenon of being
becomes, the higher the degree of being. Therefore, in terms of the development of the cosmic cycle, eon or
kalpa, the degree of being was lowest at the beginning of the cycle, when the phenomenon of being barely arose
in human beings and, if the necessary conditions—including the transmission of teachings such as Dzogchen
—concurred, it liberated itself spontaneously at some point, resulting in Communion beyond the delusory
valuation-absolutization of thought (the term “Communion” was and will continue to be capitalized to make it
clear that it is used in a sense different from Gilligan’s [1982], Tannen’s [1990] and Wilber’s [1995, 1998]: it
refers to the dissolution of the illusory boundaries separating us from each other and from the rest of nature, in
the unveiling of Dzogchen-qua-Base—which I believe may have been the original sense of the term). Then the
phenomenon in question progressively intensifies itself throughout the cycle, and despite the above-noted fact
that we develop bad faith / elusion in order to bear the painful experience of being, it gradually intensifies until a
threshold at which a runaway occurs that causes it to reach its maximum degree at the end of the cycle—after
which it crumbles and a new cycle can begin in the condition of Total Space-Time-Awareness.
On the other hand, in terms of the psychological state of an individual at any given point of the evolution of the
cycle, the higher he or she climbs in saṃsāra, the lesser the degree of his or her being, and the lower she or he
descends in saṃsāra, the higher the degree of her or his being. However, contrarily to what, generally speaking,
happens with the development of being through the time cycle, in this case the degree of being may from a
certain standpoint be said to be inversely proportional to the level of delusion, for the degree to which we
manage to elude the bare experience of being corresponds to the degree of delusion in the third sense of avidyā in
the Dzogchen teachings: in that of the inability to realize delusion as such.[xxii] This is the main reason why
4 of 93 04.06.20, 21:58
ascending in saṃsāra may make it more difficult to surpass the phenomenon of being.
At any rate, also the Path of Awakening may be explained in terms of a gradation of being: whether we explain it
in terms of descending through Hell and, passing through the hole at the bottom, continuing in the same direction
in an ascent through Purgatory and later on through the Heavens toward the Empyrean, or whether we explain it
in terms of the meditative experience of the eon or kalpa, what we are speaking of is a runaway of the
phenomenon of being triggered by a deficiency in the mechanisms of elusion or bad faith, which allows us to
fully experience the conflict inherent in the basic contradiction at the root of saṃsāra, and which offers us a
springboard from which to plunge into nirvāṇa (i.e., into Dzogchen-qua-Path). It is because of awareness of this
universal principle, that I have never structured my explanations of the Path in terms of a vertical progression
from the states of greater conflict located at the bottom, up through ever less conflicting states, to perfect
irreversible Awakening or Enlightenment at the summit. It is thus clear that the structure of Dante’s Divine
Comedy (according to which the Awake condition, rather than being reached by phenomenologically and
existentially ascending, is attained through a metaphenomenological and metaexistential descent) and the
structure of the eon or kalpa, are somehow analogous—being most relevant with regard to human psycho-
cosmology.
Ken Wilber's Inverted Gradation of Being and Inaccurate “Holarchies” in General
Ken Wilber has produced a series of hierarchic classifications of consciousness and experience (which at some
point, softening and cloaking their rigid stratification, he began to call “holarchies”), which, as briefly noted in
the previous section, have been structured contrarily to the Divine Comedy, for they represent each of the
successive levels on the Path as lying above the preceding one and place the Awake condition at the top, as
though it were to be reached by a process of gradual ascension. In 1977, Wilber (1993a) posited the initial, single
stratification of three basic levels, which I reviewed in “Beyond Mind” (Capriles, 2000c). These levels were: (1)
“of the ego,” which is at the base of the hierarchy; (2) “existential,” located in the middle of the hierarchy; and
(3) “mental,” at the top of the hierarchy. He defined these as follows (Wilber, 1993a, p. 8):
Now the Ego Level is that band of consciousness that comprises our role, our picture of ourself, our
self-image, with both its conscious and unconscious aspects, as well as the analytical and
discriminatory nature of the intellect, of our “mind.” The second major level, the Existential Level,
involves our total organism, our soma as well as our psyche, and thus comprises our basic sense of
existence, of being, along with our cultural premises that in many ways mold this basic sensation of
existence. Among other things, the Existential Level forms the sensory reference of our self-image:
it’s what you feel when you mentally evoke the symbol of your self-image. It forms, in short, the
persistent and irreducible source of separate I-awareness. The third basic level, here called Mind, is
commonly termed mystical consciousness, and it entails the sensation that you are fundamentally
one with the universe. So where the Ego Level includes the mind, and the Existential Level includes
both the mind and the body, the Level of Mind includes the mind and the body and the rest of the
universe.
Giving continuity to Maslow’s initial overestimation of peak experiences (Maslow, 1970),[xxiii] at the time of
writing the above Wilber presented as the aim of all spiritual Paths the attainment of the “sensation of being
fundamentally one with the universe”—a wording that responds quite precisely to the experience of the lowest of
the formless realms that, according to Buddhism, constitute the summit of saṃsāra, in which there is a mental
subject that knows as object a seeming infinitude of space that embraces the whole of the sensory field and that
identifies with this infinitude, but which does not apply to nirvāṇa, where there is no apparently separate mental
subject who may feel either one with anything or different from anything.[xxiv] Moreover, he explained
individual liberation (Skt. mokṣa or mukti) to consist in the “comprehension of the mental level” (Wilber, 1993a,
p. 9)—which, if taken literally, would consist in the intellectual understanding of the level wherein one “has the
sensation” of cosmic oneness.
In fact, levels belong to what Buddhism calls “conventional truth,” the Sanskrit term for which, as noted in the
preceding chapter, has the etymological meaning of “deluded [pseudo]truth,” and as such are confined to the
Ferris wheel-like gloomy-go-round called saṃsāra: the vicious circle of experience that involves climbing to
higher states and then falling into lower, gloomier ones, and which features a summit (the “highest” of the four
formless absorptions[9] and corresponding realms,[10] in which a pseudototality manifests that is beyond
5 of 93 04.06.20, 21:58
perception and absence of perception[xxv]) and a bottom (consisting in the lowest level of the sphere of
sensuality,[11] which is the bottommost subsection of the naraka or purgatories [non-eternal hells]: the avīci
naraka or “uninterrupted purgatory,” in which the experience of separation and division reaches its ceiling). On
the other hand, according to the higher Buddhist teachings, nirvāṇa is the condition of absolute equality in which
there is no “I” that may either ascend or descend, and which is attained by Seeing through the conditioned
experience of saṃsāra into the unconditioned primordial reality that was concealed by that conditioned
experience. As noted in the Introduction, that which is specifically Dzogchen is the explicit consideration of the
neutral base-of-all or kunzhi lungmaten[12] in which neither nirvāṇa nor saṃsāra is active—though Chán / Zen
Buddhism emphasizes a roughly analogous concept.[xxvi]
With the passing of time, the number of levels in Wilber’s hierarchic classifications of consciousness and
experience multiplied, yet for a long time he did not discriminate among different types of stratification. By 1982
(Wilber, 1982), the levels were: (1) the physical; (2) the biological; (3) the mental (no longer intended to
correspond to Awakening, for now the term indicates the “level of ego, logic and thought”); (4) the subtle (of
non-Jungian archetypes, transindividual, intuitive); (5) the causal (formless brilliancy or luminosity, perfect
transcendence), and (6) the absolute (consciousness as such, which would be the source of all other levels). Note
that the description of the “causal level” Wilber offers at this point perfectly responds to the state known as base-
of-all or kunzhi, wherein neither saṃsāra nor nirvāṇa are active, as manifest when one does neither react with
aversion to the inner luminosity of dang[13] energy known as tingsel[14][xxvii] nor reGnize this luminosity in
the manifestation of dharmakāya,[xxviii] but remains cozily fused in it,[xxix] or in some nirvikalpa experiences
of the samten bardo[15][xxx] or bardo of meditative absorption (i.e., to some forms of what is called nirvikalpa
samādhi)—and may also correspond to the vaguely defined turiya-ānanda (or turīya-avasthā) of both the
Māṇḍūkya and Taittirīya Upaniṣads. Finally, Wilber tells us that the sixth and last is, more than a level, the true
condition of all levels; that it is the unconditioned foundation that is hidden by countless conditioning mental
constructions and that the Dzogchen teachings refer to as Dzogchen-qua-Base—but which Wilber somehow
turned into the Summit of his hierarchy of spiritual states (in this regard it is this level that is analogous to turiya-
ānanda or turīya-avasthā as explained in the texts just mentioned).[xxxi]
So far as I know, Wilber has not ceased offering his readers the hierarchical schemas he has lately called
holarchies.[xxxii] By 1995 (Wilber, 1995, 1996b), the levels were organized in different systems: one involving
the three groups of levels described by Ervin Laszlo (Laszlo, 1987, p. 55); two involving five levels each; another
one involving nine “basic structures of consciousness;” a twofold one involving twelve levels (“the great
holarchy in Plotinus and Aurobindo”); and the one involving four series of thirteen levels each that Wilber calls
“the four quadrants.”[xxxiii] Among these systems, the first one, involving three groups of levels, responds to the
need to distinguish degrees of complexity in reality so that science and technology will not trample on the dignity
of human existents, instrumentally manipulating the latter (which I have acknowledged in various works
[Capriles & Hočevar, 1991, 1992; Capriles, 1994, in press 1], but which does not justify us to instrumentally
manipulate the nonhuman reality).[xxxiv] However, the one that posits nine “basic structures of consciousness”
or “fulcra,” plus a tenth category that, according to Wilber, “is not so much a fulcrum or separate level, but is
rather the very Essence of all levels, of all states, of all conditions” (and which as such also seems to correspond
to Dzogchen-qua-Base but which is presented as Dzogchen-qua-Summit[xxxv]), is another hierarchical
(“holarchical”) division of states of consciousness of the type criticized above, as well as in other of my works
(Capriles, 1999a, 2000a, 2000c). (The other ones I will not discuss, as they are not relevant to our present
purposes.)
In fact, though each of Wilber’s subsequent conceptions was intended to introduce an improvement with regard
to the immediately preceding one, two basic inaccuracies of Wilber’s 1977 hierarchy of states of consciousness
persisted in all following ones—and, furthermore, some of these introduced new inaccuracies. The two
inaccuracies dating from 1977 that persisted in posterior hierarchies or “holarchies” lay in:
(1) Wilber’s failure to discriminate between: (a) samsaric transpersonal, holotropic conditions (and in particular
the formless absorptions and the corresponding realms, which were listed and discussed in note 319 to this
chapter), in which bondage is far subtler and hence far more difficult to undo than in samsaric personal
conditions; (b) the transpersonal, quasi-holistic condition of the neutral base-of-all, in which, as repeatedly noted,
neither saṃsāra nor nirvāṇa are active, and in which the precious human birth is squandered, and (c) the
transpersonal, holistic conditions of nirvāṇa in which true release and true sanity lie.
6 of 93 04.06.20, 21:58
(2) His hierarchical (“holarchical”) classifications of saṃsāra and nirvāṇa which—like the classifications
featured in the Upaniṣads—present Awakening or Enlightenment as being attained by ascending through
progressive levels until a plane lying above all other planes, and his insistence on presenting these classifications
as though they applied to all Paths, including all Buddhist Paths—despite the fact that the sequences of
realization in the different spiritual systems are far from coinciding with each other, that the latest versions of
such classifications that Wilber produced outright contradict the sequences of realization posited in all Buddhist
gradual Paths and vehicles, and that among Buddhist Paths some are nongradual and as such do not involve any
previsible sequence of realization. Furthermore, Wilber overlooks the fact that in the metaphenomenological,
ontological sense,[xxxvi] the Path to Awakening consists in Seeing through the multiple layers of conditioned
experiences that make up saṃsāra, into the unconditioned Dzogchen-qua-Base that those experiences conceal—
so as to discover the unconditioned condition of absolute equality in which there can be no hierarchy or holarchy
whatsoever, and thus put an end to the delusory valuation-absolutization of levels and to the illusion of an “I”
that may either ascend or descend.[xxxvii] Therefore, the inadvertent reader may be caused to remain unaware of
the fact that the Path consists in undoing conditioning—both innate and acquired in the process of ontogenesis—
and is likely to conclude that Awakening is attained by building successive states (which, being built, would be
conditioned and as such impermanent and marked by suffering, and, moreover, would make it impossible for the
individual to benefit others), each of these above the preceding one.
Among the “fulcra” Wilber (1995, 1996b) posited in 1995, the sixth (the centaur or existential level) is defined as
involving: (a) the integration of mind and body; (b) the authenticity of not eluding basic anguish (which,
according to Heidegger [1996], is inherent in human being-for-death, and which, according to Sartre [1980], is
inherent in the being of the human individual), and (c) what Jean Gebser (1986) called “aperspectival freedom,”
deriving from the fact that one no longer privileges any point of view over the plethora of other viewpoints at
one’s disposal. Then the transpersonal levels begin: in the seventh fulcrum, which Wilber calls “psychic level,”
the sensation of a separate identity dissolves momentarily (e.g., when, in the contemplation of nature, according
to one explanation the illusion of someone separate from nature who is perceiving it disappears, and according to
another the subject identifies with the object). In the eighth, which he refers to as “subtle level,” the individual
contacts non-ordinary strata of perception and subtle non-Jungian archetypes. Finally, Wilber characterizes the
ninth fulcrum as nondual—which implies that it must be beyond the cause-effect relation, the subject-object
duality and so on—and yet he paradoxically refers to it as the “causal level.”
In none of the genuine Paths I am familiar with, does the practitioner have to go through the fulcra posited by
Wilber, and to do so in the order he establishes. The first level of realization may in fact be preceded by the
relative authenticity Wilber associates to the sixth fulcrum, which consists in developing to some degree a
capacity not to elude the experiences Kierkegaard (1968, 1970) referred to as despair, Angst, “fear and
trembling,” etc., or the experience of Angst as manifest in what Heidegger (1996) called “being toward the end,”
or what Sartre (1980) called angoise, nausée and so on—and which may be somehow related to the stage of
paranoia posited by David Cooper (1971). However, the bare experience of the being of the human individual
that consists in basic anguish, does not in any sense involve the integration of mind and body which, according to
Wilber, is also inherent in the sixth fulcrum; quite on the contrary, this experience arises when the contradiction
inherent in the delusion called avidyā or marigpa initially becomes evident and hence turns into conflict—and
one of the aspects of the contradiction that turns into conflict is precisely the illusory mind-body schism.
Moreover, the most advanced practices of Dzogchen, which are to be applied when there is already a great degree
of body-mind integration, in a stage that is subsequent to the realization of voidness, to the realization of absolute
truth and to the whole of the stages posited by Wilber (but which comprises the manifestation of visions of rölpa
energy, which seem to be the ones Wilber associated with the eighth fulcrum), are based on experiencing in its
bareness the anguish and distress inherent in the being of the human individual. We have also seen that according
to Wilber the sixth fulcrum, which in his system is supposed to precede the realization of voidness, involves what
Jean Gebser called “aperspectival freedom,” deriving from the fact that one no longer privileges any point of
view over the plethora of other viewpoints at one’s disposal. However, in higher Buddhist Paths this is a
consequence of the nonconceptual[16] realization of absolute truth beyond the subject-duality (which makes the
ultimate sense of voidness and the dharmatā or true condition of phenomena patent) and, as clearly shown in
Capriles (2005), it can only derive from this realization.
Furthermore, though Wilber has studied Dzogchen,[xxxviii] he is positing a progression of realization beginning
at the seventh fulcrum that he wrongly takes for the nirmāṇakāya (but which does not match any of the levels of
7 of 93 04.06.20, 21:58
realization that obtain in the genuine Paths I am familiar with), followed by the eighth fulcrum that he mistakenly
identifies with the sambhogakāya (but which does not match any of the levels of realization that obtain in the
genuine Paths I know well), then followed by the ninth fulcrum, which he takes for the dharmakāya (but which
does not match any of the levels of realization that obtain in the genuine Paths I am familiar with), and
concluding at the tenth fulcrum, which he takes for the svabhāvikāya (but which I have been unable to identify as
any of the levels of realization that obtain in the genuine Paths I know well). Not only does he mistake for the
four kāyas experiences that are not these kāyas, but he also posits a sequence of the kāyas opposite to the one that
is characteristic of the Dzogchen teachings and in particular of the Upadeśavarga or Menngagde series of
teachings—which begins with the realization of the dharmakāya, continues with the realization of the
sambhogakāya and concludes with the realization of the nirmāṇakāya.[xxxix]
A sequence of realization beginning with the nirmāṇakāya, continuing with the sambhogakāya and then with the
dharmakāya, and concluding with the svabhāvikāya that consists in the indivisibility of the first three kāyas, is
posited in the Buddhist Tantras that make up Path of Transformation—including the Anuttarayogatantras of the
Sarmapa[17] and the Mahāyogatantras and Anuyogatantras of the Nyingmapa[18]. As shown in previous works
of mine (Capriles, 2000a, 2003, 2007a vol. I), this inversion of the sequence of realization of the kāyas
characteristic of Dzogchen Atiyoga—which, in the Samten Migdrön,[19] Nubchen Sangye Yeshe[20] called the
“universal ancestor of all vehicles”—by the Tantras of the Path of Transformation is related to the fact that,
though in both systems the names of the kāyas are the same, what the names indicate is not exactly the same
reality—which is evidenced by the fact that, as noted in Capriles (2000a, 2003, 2004, 2007a vol. I), the final
realization of the Inner Tantras of the Path of Transformation, which these Tantras call svabhāvikāya and deem to
be the fourth and last kāya that is attained on the Path, corresponds to the state of Direct Introduction to
Dzogchen that is the precondition of genuine Dzogchen practice and that, in the Menngagde or Upadeśavarga
series of teachings, is prior both to the practice of Tekchö[21] that establishes the dharmakāya and to the
subsequent practice of Thögel[22] that establishes the sambhogakāya and that at the end results in the
nirmāṇakāya. Therefore the levels of realization that Dzogchen Ati calls sambhogakāya and nirmāṇakāya go far
beyond the final level of realization of the inner Tantras of Transformation and by no means can be attained
through the methods of these Tantras.
In fact, in the Menngagde series of Dzogchen Atiyoga, the dharmakāya consists in the correct apprehension of
the dang[23] mode of manifestation of energy, which is the basic constituent of thought, as it takes place in the
practice of Tekchö; the sambhogakāya is the correct apprehension of the rölpa[24] mode of manifestation of
energy, basic constituent of the immaterial self-luminous visions experienced in the second stage of the
intermediate state between death and rebirth—the intermediate state of the true condition of phenomena[25]—as
it manifests in the practice of Thögel; and the nirmāṇakāya is the correct apprehension of the tsel[26] mode of
manifestation of energy, basic constituent of what we experience as a substantial, external, material universe,
which obtains as the result of carrying the practice of Thögel beyond a given threshold. This is the reason why
the Dzogchen teachings place so much emphasis on these forms of manifestation of energy, which are not
mentioned in the teachings of any of the other Buddhist vehicles—including the Tantras that make up the Path of
Transformation.[xl] In fact, as noted repeatedly, in Tekchö practice one deals mainly with the primordial purity
or katak[27] aspect of the Base, which is voidness, and with dang energy—the dharmakāya, which here is the
first aspect of Awakening, manifesting each and every time the true condition of this energy is reGnized. In
Thögel practice one works principally with the spontaneous perfection or lhundrub[28] aspect of the Base that
involves the uncontrived and unrestrained spontaneity of our Gnitiveness (including the self-arising of visions
and the spontaneous occurrence of the positive feedback loops that make up the Thánatos), entering the
intermediate state of the true condition of phenomena in order to deal with rölpa[29] energy—the sambhogakāya,
which here is the first aspect of Awakening,manifesting each and every time the true condition of this energy is
reGnized and, as the result of this, the mental subject that seemed to be at a distance from the visions disappears.
Finally, the nirmāṇakāya manifests in a stable manner once repeated integration with the self-luminous visions of
rölpa energy in the practice of Thögel has neutralized the tendency to experience phenomena as external,
substantial, material objects, and so we no longer feel separate from the phenomena of the “material” world made
up of tsel[30] energy: it may be said that the rölpa and tsel forms of manifestation of energy have overlapped or
fused, and that hence there is no longer anything that may interrupt the condition of indivisibility or jerme[31]
that constitutes the nirmāṇakāya (cf. Capriles, 2003; for a more in depth account, cf. work in progress 1). Since
at this point tsel energy has acquired the characteristics of rölpa energy, which defies everyday, mundane
dimensionality, the wisdoms of quality and quantity, inherent in the sambhogakāya, manifest in the nirmāṇakāya
as well, and thus laymen perceive the person as “having a capacity of miracles.”[xli]
8 of 93 04.06.20, 21:58
As noted above, the fact that the sequence of realization of the kāyas on the Path of Transformation seems to
coincide with the one Wilber posited in the 1996 work we are discussing does not mean the “holarchy” we are
assessing coincides with the sequence of realization on the Path in question. To begin with, in the aforementioned
work, Wilber (1996b) equated the nirmāṇakāya with what he called “psychic level,” but his description of this
level was ambiguous enough as to apply equally to transpersonal samsaric states, to neither-samsaric-nor-
nirvanic transpersonal states, and if we are not too strict perhaps even to some nirvanic states—though apparently
not so to the nirmāṇakāya as understood in any Buddhist system (Wilber, 1996b, p. 202):
... a person might temporarily dissolve the separate-self sense[xlii] (the ego or centaur) and find an
identity with the entire gross or sensorimotor world—so-called nature mysticism. You’re on a nice
nature walk, relaxed and expansive in your awareness, and wham!—suddenly there is no looker, just
the mountain—and you are the mountain. You are not in here looking at the mountain out there.
There is just the mountain, and it seems to see itself, or you seem to be seeing it from within. The
mountain is closer to you than your own skin.
I assume that what Wilber means by identifying with is what Sartre (1980) called becoming and contrasted with
identifying with (for an explanation of this difference cf. Capriles, 2007a, vol. I and II). Whatever the case, if we
identify with or become the world qua totality, the subject-object duality must be still present, for it is the mental
subject that identifies with or becomes the object qua totality—and in such a case what has taken place is a
samsaric experience of the formless realms.[xliii] However, immediately after speaking of identification, Wilber
uses the expression disappearance of the observer, which implies that there is no mental subject that may identify
with or become this or that—in which case we would not be speaking of an experience of the formless realms,
which like all samsaric conditions involves the subject-object duality. Conversely, both in nirvāṇa and the neutral
condition of the base-of-all or kunzhi lungmaten[32] wherein neither saṃsāra nor nirvāṇa are active, the mental
subject / observer does not manifest. However, in individuals who are not intensively training in a genuine Path
of Awakening it is hardly possible that an initial manifestation of nirvāṇa may take place fortuitously while
“taking a walk through nature, relaxed and open,” and hence we can be almost certain that if the mental subject /
observer actually disappeared in such circumstances, that occurrence would be an instance of the neutral
condition of the base-of-all. Now, since instances of the neutral base-of-all cannot be reflexively remembered
because they do not involve awareness (of) consciousness of object,[xliv] what we reflexively remember must
necessarily be the instance of the samsaric formless realms that takes place when, immediately after the
occurrence of the neutral condition of the base-of-all, the subject-object duality reestablishes itself and therefore
the undivided sensory continuum is taken as object—the mental subject / observer becoming this pseudo-totality
and having the feeling of being what is perceived rather than feeling to be inherently different from it. The fact
that in the same paragraph Wilber contradictory speaks of disappearance of the observer and of identifying with
the physical world qua totality (which I understand in the sense of Sartre’s becoming), just as the fact that he
contradictory asserts the observer to disappear in this fulcrum and the first glimpses of the pure “witness” or
sākṣin (which, as illustrated below with a quotation from Bina Gupta, is different from the known object) to occur
in it (Rothberg, 1998a, p. 9), suggests that Wilber is referring to an instance of the neutral condition of the base-
of-all immediately followed by the arising of the mental subject / observer in an experience of the formless
sphere. In fact, since in the latter—which is that which one reflexively remembers—there is a mental subject /
observer that becomes or identifies with the pseudo-totality appearing as object and thus comprises the sensation
of being that object rather than that of being the observer of that object, yet in the immediately preceding
moment, which reflexive memory confuses with it, there was no observer, the ambiguity of Wilber’s expression
is fully justified. At any rate, what the Inner Tantras of the Path of Transformation call nirmāṇakāya does not
manifest in the fortuitous manner in which, according to Wilber, the event he identifies as belonging to the
seventh fulcrum comes about, nor does it consist in feeling one with the phenomena of the natural world.
Moreover, the Vajrayāna Buddhist traditions that posit a sequence of realization nirmāṇakāya – sambhogakāya –
dharmakāya – svabhāvikāya have never claimed that the observer disappears in the manifestation of the
nirmāṇakāya and then is reestablished in that of the svabhāvikāya, as Wilber implies by asserting the observer to
disappear in the seventh fulcrum and yet, as shown below in this section, asserting the supposedly nondual
realization of the tenth fulcrumless fulcrum to involve the subject-object duality—a claim that, beside being self-
contradictory in that it asserts the nondual to involve the duality of subject and object, will be refuted below with
numerous cites from canonical scriptures and authoritative commentaries and treatises. At any rate, elsewhere
Wilber has produced a far more outrageous misconception of the nirmāṇakāya, which is the one Sean Kelly
9 of 93 04.06.20, 21:58
(1998a, p. 121) resumes as follows:
The Nirmanakaya is alternately described by Wilber as the “psychic” (or “astral-psychic”) or “low
subtle” realm, and includes such things as “out-of-body experiences, certain occult knowledge, the
auras, true magic, ‘astral travel,’ ... [and] what we would call ‘psi’ phenomena: ESP, precognition,
clairvoyance, psychokinesis, and so on” (Wilber 1980, 67). It is here that “consciousness starts to go
transpersonal” (1980, 66).
If this description applies to the nirmāṇakāya, then the description of a bus applies to the Buddhas of the three
times. That it does not apply to the nirmāṇakāya as understood in the Mahāyāna or as comprehended in
Dzogchen is clear enough, for in the first of these vehicles the nirmāṇakāya is the bodily manifestation of a
Buddha, whereas in the second—and in particular in the Upadeśavarga or Menngagde series of teachings—it
consists in the realization of the true condition of tsel energy, in which the latter is not experienced as an external
dimension. However, the sequence of realization nirmāṇakāya – sambhogakāya – dharmakāya – svabhāvikāya is
proper to the Inner Tantras of Transformation, and hence it is with these Tantras that we must be concerned in
this case. One interpretation of the kāyas in these Tantras is that the nirmāṇakāya is impure vision (i.e., the
perception of the individual and the world as grossly material), the sambhogakāya is pure vision (i.e., the
perception of the individual and the world as an immaterial dimension of pure light), and the dharmakāya is the
true condition of the former two. Another interpretation of the kāyas proper to the Tantras of the path of
Transformation, which is shared by Dzogchen Ati, is that the dharmakāya is the voidness aspect of primordial
awareness (which may be viewed qua Base, qua Path and qua Fruit[xlv]); the sambhogakāya is the natural
luminous clarity of the awareness in question (which may also be viewed qua Base, qua Path and qua
Fruit[xlvi]); and the nirmāṇakāya is this awareness’ unobstructed, unceasing manifestation (which, once more,
may be viewed qua Base, qua Path and qua Fruit[xlvii]). The latter is the meaning of the nirmāṇakāya in the
context of the sequence of realization proper to the inner Tantras of the Path of Transformation, in which it
consists in a nonconceptual, nondual realization of the unimpededness of primordial awareness in manifesting an
infinite variety of images and cognizing them, and in manifesting countless natural impulses and activities (this
being the reason why it can be realized in erotic arousal, or in the spontaneous, effortless exertion hat occurs in
erotic relations, or in any other activity coming naturally by itself). Though there are other interpretations of the
terms as well, as noted above, in no Buddhist path or vehicle whatsoever have I seen anything suggesting an
interpretation of the nirmāṇakāya as the mental subject’s sensation of identity with the phenomena of the natural
world—or, far less, as characterized by the occurrence of events such as “out-of-body experiences, certain occult
knowledge, the auras, true magic, ‘astral travel,’ ... [and] what we would call ‘psi’ phenomena: ESP,
precognition, clairvoyance, psychokinesis, and so on”!!![xlviii]
Then comes the eighth fulcrum, which Wilber calls the “subtle level,” asserting that in it one contacts non-
ordinary strata of perception and subtle non-Jungian archetypes. It must be remarked that per se the
manifestation of “non-ordinary strata of perception” and “subtle non-Jungian archetypes” does not constitute a
level of realization—and, in fact, such experiences may take place in psychosis or as the effect of ingesting a
hallucinogen. Realization does not at all depend on what is it that manifests, but on how does it manifest:
Dzogchen-qua-Path must necessarily involve reGnition of the nondual awareness in which, as in a mirror,
experiences manifest, and the concomitant, instant spontaneous liberation of conceptuality and hence of dualistic
perception. Since Wilber identifies this fulcrum as the sambhogakāya and depicts it as involving intangible, self-
luminous visions of non-Jungian archetypes, it is essential to note that such visions will only be the
sambhogakāya if they are apprehended in a nonconceptual, nondual way. In particular, in the Upadeśavarga or
Menngagde series of Dzogchen teachings the realization of the sambhogakāya depends on the manifestation of
the intermediate state of dharmatā (i.e., the chönyi bardo) with its luminous visions (which in the practices of
Thögel and the Yangthik is induced while the organism is alive), and it occurs when the reGnition of the nondual
awareness in which those visions manifest instantly results in the spontaneous liberation of conceptuality, of the
illusion that the vision is an object appearing to a subject, and of the illusion that the vision is manifest in an
external dimension—yet does not result in the dissolution of the vision, which persists in spite of its not being
perceived dualistically. If visions occur but there is no such reGnition and hence no spontaneous liberation of
conceptuality and so on, what we have is a vulgar illusory experience or nyam[33] of clarity—initially, as an
instance of the consciousness of the base-of-all, but immediately, as soon as it is perceived as an external object
and recognized in terms of a subtle thought, as a samsaric experience of the sphere of form[34]. Wilber’s
assertion that at the summit of the subtle realm, and by implication of the sambhogakāya, one may experience
union with the intangible, self-luminous visions, implies both the absurd claim that an ample range of the
10 of 93 04.06.20, 21:58
sambhogakāya involves the duality between a separate observer and visions, and the error of mistaking the union
of the mental subject with an object for nonduality qua Path—which consists in the dissolution of the subject-
object duality rather than in the identification of one side of this duality with the other.
Furthermore, we have seen that what the Dzogchen teachings call sambhogakāya manifests as a result of the
application of the most advanced practices of the highest and most direct Buddhist Path—the Thögel[35] practice
of the Menngagde or Upadeśavarga series of Dzogchen teachings, or the Yangthik[36] associated to the
Nyingthik[37]—which may only be undertaken by yogis who are proficient in the preceding practice of the same
teachings—that of Tekchö[38], or that of the Nyingthik, respectively—and who, therefore, can no longer
experience the dread of voidness I call panic. Overlooking the fact that only humans of lower capacities
experience panic,[xlix] and that in general they do so in the earlier stages of the Path, before the initial
occurrence of Dzogchen-qua-Path (and by no means can do so in the greately advanced stage at which the
sambhogakāya is realized, which is close to the consolidation of Dzogchen-qua-Fruit, and in which the clinging
to the ego at the root of panic has been neutralized to a great extent), Wilber makes the absurd claim that the fear
in question occurs at the stage at which the sambhogakāya is realized, which he fancies to be his made-up
fulcrum-8. The fact that only humans of lower capacities experience panic is clearly expressed in
Prajñāpāramitā and Mādhyamika literature, which note that dread of voidness is proper to śrāvakas, and that it
is this dread that distinguishes them from the individuals of Mahāyāna capacities—the reason why Śākyamuni
abstained from teaching the Prajñāpāramitā Sūtras to his direct disciples and decided to entrust them to the King
of the nagas for him to bestow them on Nāgārjuna, being that the former were śrāvakas and hence these
teachings would have inspired panic in them, scaring them away from the dharma. Moreover, the second of the
five paths in the gradual Sūtrayāna vehicles is that of preparation,[39] which in the gradual Mahāyāna has four
stages, the third of which is called “forbearance of the unborn” because in it practitioners become increasingly
familiar with the emptiness that previously inspired terror in them, until the point at which they totally overcome
the terror in question: the name “path of preparation” is due to the fact that it prepares practitioners for the
transition to the first supramundane path, which is called the “path of Seeing”[40] and which in the gradual
Mahāyāna involves the initial realization of absolute truth, in which voidness and the true condition of
phenomena[41] are realized beyond conceptuality and the subject-object duality.[l] If terror of emptiness can no
longer manifest in the last level of the path of preparation of the gradual Mahāyāna, which is a rather early stage
of a rather lower Path, far less likely is it to occur in what is nearly the most advanced stage of the supreme and
most direct Path—the one at which the sambhogakāya is realized. (Dread can be felt in advanced practices, as it
often does in the practice of Chö[42] that often boosts the practice of Tekchö or of the Nyingthik, in which
dharmakāya manifests again and again. However, this dread, rather than panic, is terror before what is believed
to cause injury and death—and, at any rate, it no longer manifests in those who have successfully practiced
Tekchö or the Nyingthik to the point of being prepared for approaching the practices of Thögel or the Yangthik:
if they face fear in the latter practices, this means that they are not ready to approach them, and thus it would be
wise for them to boost their Tekchö / Nyingthik by practicing Chö in the traditional way.[li])
We have seen that Wilber related the bare experience of the being of the human individual in Angst, angoise and
so on, to the stage he referred to as the sixth fulcrum. However, the being of the human individual continues to
manifest in post-Contemplation so long as Dzogchen-qua-Fruit (irreversible Buddhahood) has not been attained,
and the supreme practices of the Upadeśavarga series of Dzogchen teachings—such as those of Thögel and the
Yangthik, which are catalyzed by the wrathful maṇḍalas (cf. the preceding chapter of this book, as well as
Capriles, 1990a, 2000a, 2000c, 2003, 2007a, work in progress 1) and which are the ones in which the visions
Wilber associated with the eighth fulcrum arise—are meant to make us experience in its bareness the anguish
inherent in the being of the human individual each and every time this mode of being manifests, so that we may
use the associated feeling as an alarm reminding us to apply the pith instructions—or, if we are most advanced
practitioners, so that delusion liberates itself spontaneously the moment it arises without any action on our part.
Though at this stage we have achieved the high degree of mind-body integration that Wilber attributes to his
sixth fulcrum, unlike the latter this phase is not previous to the realization of voidness or of absolute truth. On the
contrary, it is far posterior to that realization, for as we have seen it is this phase that brings about the transition
from the Path to the Fruit of Dzogchen, in which delusion and relative truth no longer arise, awareness has totally
integrated with the body and with the whole of physical reality, and if we develop the fourth vision of Thögel /
the Yangthik—called chöze londe[43]— death occurs in the mode called “self-consuming like a fire”—or, if we
develop to its limit the vision in question, simply does not occur.[lii]
According to Wilber, it is in the ninth fulcrum that what Mahāyāna Buddhism calls “voidness” or
11 of 93 04.06.20, 21:58
“emptiness”[44] is realized. In order to place this fulcrum in perspective, we must begin by distinguishing
voidness qua nyam[45] or illusory experience, from the instances of Dzogchen-qua-Path in which the
dharmakāya is realized and in which the aspect of the Base that is most conspicuous is its voidness (i.e., its
essence or ngowo[46] aspect). The Dzogchen teachings compare nyam or illusory experiences of voidness
—which comprise the various types of experiences of nonconceptuality, lack of characteristics, mental calm and
so on, as well as the intuitive conceptual realization that phenomena are empty of self-being[47][liii]—unto
reflections in a mirror that stands for the nondual primordial awareness of Dzogchen-qua-Base, and contrast them
with the dharmakāya, which they explain as the realization of the aspect of primordial awareness (i.e., of what
the mirror represents) that they call katak[48] or primordial purity (in the twofold classification) and ngowo[49]
or essence (in the threefold division), which is voidness. Albeit voidness qua illusory experience is not the
dharmakāya, if we use it for reGnizing the essence aspect of the awareness in which it manifests and which is
compared to a mirror, it will be the door to the realization of the dharmakāya that makes the all-liberating,
nondual single gnosis patent and functional, and that therefore results in the instant spontaneous liberation of
delusorily valued thoughts.[liv] (As we have seen, in the Upadeśavarga / Menngagde series of teachings, the
dharmakāya has an even more specific meaning, as it consists in the realization of the true condition of the
dang[50] form of manifestation of energy—a realization that in the practice of Tekchö recurs each and every time
the true condition of thought is reGnized in a gnosis free from the illusory subject-object duality, and thought
liberates itself spontaneously.[lv])
It must be noted that the grounds on which Wilber asserts this fulcrum-9 to be different from fulcrum-7 are not at
all clear, for if the latter were, as he seems to believe, an instance of nirvāṇa involving the dissolution of the
observer before a natural phenomenon, it would involve the realization, beyond conceptuality and the subject-
object duality, of the voidness inherent in the absolute truth of the Mahāyāna.[lvi] At any rate, the way in which
the author in question asserts this fulcrum to manifest is most relevant for making patent his misconception of the
Path. He writes (Wilber, 1996b, p. 220):
You pursue the observing Self, the Witness, to its very source in pure emptiness, [and] then no
objects arise in consciousness at all. This is a discrete, identifiable state of awareness—namely,
unmanifest absorption or cessation, variously known as nirvikalpa samadhi ... nirodh, classical
nirvana. This is the causal state, a discrete state, which is often likened to the state of deep dreamless
sleep, except in that this state is not a mere blank but rather an utter fullness, and it is experienced as
such... Because it can never be seen as an object, this pure Self is pure Emptiness.
The emptiness that according to Wilber (1996b, p. 227) manifests in this “discrete, identifiable state of
awareness” is, in his view, the first of two meanings of emptiness:
Emptiness has two meanings... On the one hand... it is a discrete, identifiable state of awareness
—namely, unmanifest absorption of cessation (nirvikalpa samadhi, jñana samadhi, ayin, vergezzen,
nirodh, classical nirvana). This is the causal state, a discrete state.
The second meaning of emptiness in Wilber’s conception will be discussed below, in the consideration of
fulcrum-10, to which Wilber associates it. What we are concerned with at this point is that our author’s
identification of the dharmakāya with unmanifest absorption suggests he wrongly believes the former to be an
experience of either pure light or pure darkness in which no forms are perceived—which is not at all the case, for
most instances of the dharmakāya do not involve the absence of sensory forms (certainly in the recurring
reGnition of the true condition of the dang form of manifestation of energy that is the stuff of which thoughts are
made, which is the essence of the practice of Tekchö in the Dzogchen Menngagde, thoughts liberate themselves
spontaneously without this involving the dissolution of the forms manifesting through the five senses that are
oriented to what in saṃsāra seems to be an external dimension), and, conversely, the shining forth of the clear
light both after physical death and after falling asleep, is only realized as the dharmakāya if the dang energy of
which it is made is reGnized(if unreGnized, it manifests as a variety of the neutral base-of-all—of which other
varieties are the blankness of utter unconsciousness, the unmanifest absorptions the Yoga and Sāṃkhya darśanas
take for ultimate realization, etc.). In fact, the dharmakāya is said to be formless because it is the realization of
the true condition of dang[51] energy, which as we have seen does not exhibit either color-form (which is
exhibited by both the rölpa[52] and tsel[53] energies) or tangibility (which is a quality exclusive to tsel energy),
rather than being said to be formless because it is realized in an unmanifest absorption—which is definitively not
the case. Moreover, most unmanifest absorptions are instances of the neutral base-of-all rather than nirvāṇa—
12 of 93 04.06.20, 21:58
and, in fact, as shown below, the terms nirvikalpa samādhi, jñāna samādhi, ayin,[lvii] vergezzen,[lviii] nirodhaḥ,
and classical nirvāṇa, do not at all refer to one and the same condition.
Finally, it is worth noting that the term causal level places Wilber’s view of the dharmakāya within the ambit of
the cause-effect relation—and hence of the subject-object duality and so on (as in human individuals there can be
no causality in the absence of the subject-object duality, which is the reason why Awakening is beyond karma)—
and as such within the sphere of the relative (which Buddhism refers to by the Sanskrit term samvriti satya that,
as Gendün Chöphel [2005] remarked and as noted in Capriles [2004, 2007a vol. I], etymologically means
“obscuration to correctness” or “thoroughly confused”[lix]), and of the caused / produced,[54] the born,[55] and
the compounded / conditioned / constructed / made / contrived / fabricated[56]—and hence of avidyā and
impermanence.
The Yoga darśana of Patañjali, which in the traditional classification of the six orthodox Brahmanic darśanas or
philosophical systems is coupled with Kapila’s Sāṃkhya darśana, is universally acknowledged to be dualistic
because it affirms the existence of a plethora of souls, on the one hand—the male Puruṣas that it defines as being
inherently different and separate from the objects of knowledge—and of the female Prakṛti, which corresponds
to nature, on the other. In this system, the disinterested witness or sākṣin is the freedom of Puruṣa from the hold
of the naturally active Prakṛti, to be achieved by standing aloof from the latter’s movements in a samādhi that
resembles sleep because sense data do not manifest, yet is different from it insofar as one is simultaneously fully
awake—and thus becoming unaffected by those movements. Hence in this system the sākṣin is the witness of the
samādhi that allows Puruṣa to regain its naturally passive condition.[lx] On the other hand, in the Upaniṣads, the
Vedānta Sūtra, Gauḍapāda’s Māyāvāda (which was influenced by the Cittamātra school of Buddhist philosophy)
and the Advaita Vedānta philosophy of Śaṅkarācārya[57] (which incorporated from the Mādhyamaka school of
Buddhist philosophy all it could assimilate without coming to contradict the basic tenets of Brahmanism)—all of
which claim to be nondualistic, though each understands nonduality in a different way—the disinterested witness
or sākṣin seems to correspond to what Kant called pure apperception and viewed as the condition of possibility
of the empirical apperception that consists in awareness that one is perceiving. Bina Gupta (1998; the italics are
my own) defines as follows the conception of the sākṣin in the allegedly nondual tradition beginning with the
Upaniṣads:
1. The witness-consciousness, in spite of being the base of all knowledge, is different from the known object.
It is the ultimate subject; it can never become an object of knowledge.
2. It is the element of pure awareness in all knowledge. It is an immutable, indivisible reality.
3. It shines with its own light; it is self-luminous.
4. It is different from the empirical individual [jīvā], who knows and enjoys. In other words, it is different
from the empirical individual trapped in the threefold state of wakefulness, dreaming and dreamless sleep.
Thus in all traditions the sākṣin is a consciousness that, in spite of being a subject and of excluding all objects,
does not get involved with these objects. Though the Advaita Vedānta philosophy of Śaṅkarācārya proclaims
itself to be nondual (advaita), it incurs in a dualism by positing a subject that it characterizes as “absolute” and
which cannot and must not be eradicated, but which it defines as separate and different from its object—and that,
as such, strictly speaking cannot be truly absolute, for it must be relative to the object. In fact, in the context of
Idealism, Western philosophers raised the famous objection according to which an absolute could not be an
absolute of knowledge because the object and the subject that are the poles of knowledge are relative to each
other,[lxi] and Dzogchen and Vajrayāna Masters, as well as the founders of the Mādhyamaka school and, later
on, the Mādhyamika Prāsaṅgikas,[lxii] raised the same objection many centuries earlier. This is why the
Dzogchen teachings—which rather than mere logical constructions offer descriptions of what is realized in
Contemplation and in Awakening, as well as of the implications of this, the instructions for the practice that
achieves this, and so on—make it crystal clear that the absence of the subject-object duality implies the absence
of a witness that notices what is happening. In the words of the simplified Trungpa translation of Jigme Lingpa’s
The Lion’s Roar (in Trungpa, 1972):
Some individuals will be able to use both thoughts and the absence of thought as meditation, but it
should be born in mind that that which notes what is happening is the tight grip of Ego.
13 of 93 04.06.20, 21:58
Of course, we cannot discard beforehand the possibility that the sākṣin or witness-consciousness as conceived in
the Brahmanic traditions that define themselves as nondual, may be the nondual awareness inherent in Dzogchen-
qua-Base, for both have in common that they cannot be turned into an object of knowledge, that they are the
element of pure awareness in all knowledge, and that they are self-luminous. However, if this were the case,
these Brahmanic traditions would have erred in asserting it to be different from the known object, for as
Longchenpa noted (corresponding yet not identical translation in Longchen Rabjam, 1998, p. 84-87):
“Although phenomena appear to the mind the way they do,

they are neither mind nor something other than mind.
Given their illusory nature qua clearly apparent yet inconceivable, void manifestations,
moment by moment they are beyond description, imagination or expression.
For this reason know all phenomena that appear to the mind
to be inconceivable, ineffable and empty even as they manifest.
“The apparent phenomena that manifest as the five kinds of sense objects (visual forms and so forth),
and the phenomena of the universe that seem to exist in their own right, manifest to the mind and are
[in fact] nothing other than [appearances experienced by the mind]. Even though they appear to be
something other [than the mind], like dreams and illusions they are by nature empty, and, [being
inconceivable and ineffable, they] have never been anything other [than mind] and have never been
mind [either]. In accordance with the eight traditional metaphors for illusoriness, an examination of
phenomena as forms of emptiness, clearly apparent yet inconceivable, ineffable and void—whether
considered to be composed of reducible or irreducible particles—determines their equalness in
having no identity. One knows the basic space of unchanging emptiness through these natural
manifestations of the nature of mind...”[lxiii]
Thus the sākṣin or witness-consciousness, as defined by those that posit it, is not the primordial, nondual
awareness inherent in Dzogchen-qua-Base. In particular, Wilber’s (1996b, p. 220) reference to the sākṣin or
witness-consciousness as “the observing self” in the passage quoted above, does not apply to the nondual
awareness in question, which does not seem to be a self, nor does it seem to observe. The only mental
phenomenon that seems to be a self and that seems to observe, is the empirical mental subject that is relative to
the objects and cannot exist without them, as it arises co-emergently with the latter as a result of the delusory
valuation-absolutization of the supersubtle threefold thought structure[59] when active saṃsāra arises from the
neutral condition of the base-of-all, and as such is one of the poles of the dualistic structure that is the pivot of the
second sense of avidyā in the classification favored by Longchenpa and a central element of the second sense of
avidyā in the classification adopted in this book—and therefore it is a produced / conditioned non-Kantian
phenomenon pertaining to saṃsāra. Though this could lead us to conclude that what Wilber refers to by the name
is the subject in question, this must be discarded, for the latter, which is a phenomenon that manifests in the
awareness in question when saṃsāra is active, is not the element of pure awareness in all knowledge, nor is it
self-luminous. Since other than primordial nondual awareness and the mental subject, which have both been
discarded, there is no principle or reality that could be mistaken for an observing self, the sākṣin does not seem to
have a referent.
The above cited assertion by Bina Gupta (1998) that “in spite of being the base of all knowledge, [the sākṣin or
witness-consciousness] is different from the known object,” seems to refer to the mental subject that, as noted
above, is a central aspect of avidyā that manifests only in saṃsāra, for other than that subject cannot find
anything that at the same time, (a) seems to be the principle at the base of all knowledge, and (b) appears to be
different and separate from the observed (or, even less so, that is actually separate from the observed). However,
Gupta also asserted the sākṣin or witness-consciousness to be different from the empirical individual (jīvā) who
knows and enjoys—the jīvā or jīvātman being what dualistic Indian traditions regard as a substantial soul, but
which traditions defining themselves as nondual do not hold to be a substance (Shaivism asserts the jīvā to be in
truth Śiva, whereas Advaita Vedānta asserts the jīvātman to be in truth the paramātman—Śiva and paramātman
being what they deem to be the single, ultimately true, universal Self). Since what is regarded as a soul is the
conditioned, empirical mental subject which René Descartes took for a substantial soul and christened res
cogitans, and which is the core of Kant’s empirical consciousness, Gupta’s assertion that the sākṣin is different
from the empirical jīvā evidences the fact that the Indian traditions that posit the sākṣin do not equate the latter
with the empirical mental subject that arises co-emergently with its objects. Yet above it was shown that the
14 of 93 04.06.20, 21:58
sākṣin, since it is defined as different and separate from all phenomena appearing as object, cannot be the
nondual awareness that is neither one with the phenomena that manifest through it, nor different and separate
from them. Thus we come to the same conclusion again: because, other than primordial nondual awareness and
the mental subject—which have both been discarded—there is no principle or reality that could be taken to be the
base of all knowledge, the sākṣin does not seem to have a referent.
In fact, in the Dzogchen analogy of the mirror and the one reflected, “the mirror” stands for the primordial,
nondual awareness that is the true condition of all phenomena, whereas “the one reflected,” which is the
empirical mental subject that is the core of the delusion called avidyā, is a baseless appearance that manifests in
that awareness as part of the play of the latter’s energy or thukje[60] aspect—so that the nondual awareness in
question is the true source of all of the knowledge and action seemingly carried out by the mental subject. In the
words of Heraclitus (fr. 2 DK):
Though the λóγος (lógos) is common, each individual believes he or she has a separate, particular
and private intellect.[lxiv]
Apart from the absolute reality represented by the mirror—the true, single principle of Gnitiveness and motility
behind all cognitions and actions that Heraclitus called lógos—and the delusive phenomenon represented by the
one reflected, which wrongly seems to be a separate, autonomous center of cognition and action (in Heraclitus’
words, “a separate, particular and private intellect”), there is no other reality or appearance that may be taken for
a principle of cognition and action (or, even less so, that is actually a principle of action and cognition). And
apart from the delusive phenomenon represented by the one reflected there is nothing that may be taken for an
“observing self.”
Kant posited a knowing principle different from the empirical consciousness having the mental subject as its
core: the transcendental consciousness that, not being in any way knowable, was nonphenomenal, and which he
deemed to precede all experience.[lxv] Hegel posited a Geist—Spirit, as a rule rendered into English as Mind—
that was the substance of both the phenomena that appear as object, and the alienated spirit or mind
corresponding to the dualistic consciousness which in his view was unaware of the fact that its objects are
(projections of) the Spirit or Mind that is its true identity. Sartre posited a non-thetic, non-positional awareness
(conscience non-thétique, non-positionelle) that was non-reflexive as well, and that was nondualistically aware
(of) the dualistic consciousness [of objects]. And other Western philosophers also put forward knowing
principles that they have viewed as being other than the empirical subject or consciousness. Since the respective
definitions of the hypothetical knowing principles posited by the philosophers in question do not apply to the
nondual awareness that we have been discussing, we could view them as hypothetic “third principles” supposedly
different from both the empirical consciousness and nondual awareness (however, Sartre’s non-thetic, non-
positional, non-reflexive awareness shares many key features of the nondual awareness in question, and,
moreover, for his own system to make sense, it would have to be understood as being this nondual awareness:
this is the reason why, after modifying Sartre’s definitions of his term, I have used it to refer to the nondual
awareness in question [Capriles, 2007a vol. I, in press 1]). Nonetheless, none of these supposed “third principles”
could correspond to the witness-consciousness or sākṣin, for none of them was defined as the self-luminous
element of pure awareness in all knowledge.
Wilber (1996b, p. 220) asserts Hīnayāna Buddhism to also consider nirvāṇa to be a condition of nirodhaḥ or
cessation, and Roger Walsh (1998, p. 41), in his presentation of Wilber’s conception of fulcrum-9 (in a piece of
writing that Wilber [1998] himself asserts to be one of the best expositions of his own ideas so far) notes that in
Wilber’s view:
At the causal level (fulcrum-9) all form and experiences drop away leaving only pure consciousness,
such as the Buddhist’s nirodhasamapatti, the Vedantist’s nirvikalpa samadhi, the Gnostic’s abyss.
It is well known that the Third Noble Truth, which is the cessation of suffering or, more precisely, of duḥkha, is
referred to by the Pāḷi term dukkha-nirodha-ariya-sacca,[61] and that this is the goal of the Hīnayāna, achieved
by arhats.[62] And it is equally well known that the vehicle in question, and the Theravāda School that is its only
surviving representative, hold nirodhasamāpatti (cessation of thought and perception) to be an actual experience
of nirvāṇa[63] that is attained while the body is physically alive.[lxvi] Furthermore, all philosophical schools of
the Hīnayāna view deep absorptions[64] of nirodhaḥ in which all Gnitive activity is arrested as unconditioned /
15 of 93 04.06.20, 21:58
uncompounded[65] phenomena. However, unlike those Brahmanic spiritual systems that identify indefinite, ill-
defined states of nirodhaḥ involving the arrest of Gnitive activity in absorptions excluding all data of the six
senses, as mokṣa or “release from the grip of māyā (illusion)”, Hīnayāna schools only attribute supreme value to
those absorptions involving nirodhaḥ that are the outcome of discrimination.[lxvii] In fact, it is clear that if the
aim of the Theravāda tradition were the same as that of the Yoga darśana of Patañjali and the associated Sāṃkhya
darśana of Kapila, and these non-Buddhist systems were effective for achieving this aim, rather than teaching a
wholly new spiritual system in the first “promulgation of the doctrine”[66] (basis of the Hīnayāna), Śākyamuni
would have referred his śrāvaka followers to the Yogasūtras of Patañjali and the Sāṁkhyakārikā and other
Sāṃkhya works; however, on the contrary, he rejected the tenets of all Brahmanic traditions, denouncing the
pseudo-realizations sought by many of these by making it clear that absorptions of the two higher spheres of
conditioned experience (those of formlessness[67] and form,[68] respectively) were within saṃsāra, and in his
Hīnayāna teachings he did not even teach any form of physical Yoga.
However, most important to us is the fact that the conceptions of the dharmakāya in the higher Buddhist
vehicles, including the Mahāyāna, the Vajrayāna vehicles of the path of Transformation, and the Atiyoga path of
Spontaneous Liberation—which are the ones that posit the three kāyas of Buddhahood and use the terms
dharmakāya, sambhogakāya and nirmāṇakāya—are in sharp contrast with Wilber’s. To begin with, it has been
noted that in no Buddhist system is realization of the dharmakāya said to involve the dissolution of the sensory
continuum into pure light or darkness, and that in the practice of Tekchö—first of the two stages of the
Menngagde or Upadeśavarga series of Dzogchen teachings—the realization of the dharmakāya consists in the
reGnition of the stuff of which the thought present at a given time is made, which instantly results in the
spontaneous liberation of all thoughts without this obliterating the sensory continuum. Likewise, the only
instances of realization of the dharmakāya in which only indistinct light is manifest, are the reGnition of the true
condition of the clear light in the first of the intermediate states between death and rebirth (bardos), and the
reGnition of the true condition of the second clear light that shines forth after falling asleep. And it has also been
noted that the higher Buddhist paths, vehicles and schools—including the Mādhyamika schools of the Mahāyāna,
the inner Tantras of the path of Transformation and Dzogchen Atiyoga—do neither pursue states of nirodhaḥ nor
attribute special value to these.[lxviii] At this point it would be wise to add that no Buddhist teaching whatsoever
identifies the dharmakāya with the nirodhasamāpatti that, as Walsh (1998, p. 41) has noted, Wilber associates to
fulcrum-9—to which, as it has been shown, Wilber associates the dharmakāya—and which is a state of sustained
deep mental absorption that follows the attainment of nirodhaḥ in the sense of the temporary cessation of the
four mental skandhas. Quite on the contrary, as the words of Śākyamuni Buddha (trans. from the Chinese, K. C.
Oon; undated; some additions were made so that the reader could make up the sense without reading the previous
passages of the Sūtra) in the following excerpt from the Vajrasamādhisūtra of the Mahāyāna make it clear, the
Greater Vehicle views nirodhasamāpatti as a deviation from the Path of Awakening leading to the highest of the
realms of formlessness, which is the one involving neither perception nor lack of it[69] and which is the peak of
saṃsāra:[70][lxix]
So it is. Followers of the two [dualistic, lesser] vehicles [which are the Śrāvakayānaand the
Pratyekabudhhayāna] are attached to mental absorption (samādhi) [as a means] to gain the samādhi-
body [through the trance of cessation (Skt. nirodhasamāpatti), whereby they attain the samsaric
formless absorption of neither perception nor non-perception]. As far as the Single-bhūmi[of
Buddhahood] or the sea of [the Absolute] void is concerned, they are like alcoholics who are drunk
and unable to sober up, [and hence] continuing through countless tests, they are unable to attain
Awakening (...) until the liquor has dissipated off, [and so] they [can] finally wake up. They will then
be able to cultivate the practices [spoken of in this Sūtra], eventually attaining the body (kāya) of
Buddhahood. When a person abandons the [status of] icchantika (which is that of a person blocked
from attaining Awakening), he will be able to access the six practices. Along the path of practice, his
mind is purified [by awareness of tathatā] and he definitely [comes to] Know. The power of his
diamond-like wisdom renders him [not subject to spiritual retrogression]. He ferries sentient beings
across to liberation with boundless mercy and compassion.
In fact, nirodhasamâpatti is an instance of the neutral condition of the base-of-all, and as shown elsewhere
in this volume, when subsequently to the occurrence of the base-of-all the delusory valuation-
absolutization of the threefold thought structure gives rise to the subject-object duality, the subject takes
the ensuing pseudo-totality as object, giving rise to a samsaric formless absorption. Outside the Hînayâna,
the only Buddhist school that posits states of nirodha? as unconditioned, uncompounded phenomena is the
16 of 93 04.06.20, 21:58
Cittamâtra philosophical School of the Mahâyâna; however, the realization this school pursues does not at
all consist in any deep absorption excluding sense data—which is not surprising, as this school is based on
Mahâyâna Sûtras (specifically, those of the Third Promulgation), according to which Awakening involves a
complete, panoramic, nondual awareness (of) the senses, as well as what is generally translated as
“omniscience” (Capriles, 2004). Moreover, in the Mahâyâna, Third Promulgation literature, in particular,
places a special emphasis on the fact that dwelling in absorptions in which one is cut from the senses is a
major pitfall: this is the reason why in the Vimalakîrtinirdeúasûtra various male bodhisattvas strive to
awaken a young female bodhisattva from absorption, until finally a young and handsome though as yet
inexpert male bodhisattva succeeds in so doing (Luk, 1972), and why the Samâdhirâjasûtra repeatedly
warns against dwelling in absorptions in general. As the following passages of the Sûtra of Hui Neng show,
the same is the case with Chán / Zen Buddhism (Wong-Mou-Lam, 1969, pp. 43-45):
People under delusion believe obstinately in dharmalakṣaṇa (entities / collections of characteristics)

and so they are stubborn in having their own way of interpreting the “samādhi of specific mode,”
which they define as “sitting quietly and continuously without letting any idea arise in the mind.”
Such an interpretation would rank us with inanimate objects, and is a stumbling block to the right
Path, which must be kept open. Should we free our mind from attachment to all “things,” the Path
[would] become clear; otherwise, we put ourselves under restraint. If that interpretation, “sitting
quietly and continuously, etc.” were correct, [what would be the reason] why [as told in the
Vimalakīrtinirdeśasūtra] on one occasion Śāripūtra was reprimanded by Vimalakīrti for sitting
quietly in the woods?
Learned audience, some teachers of meditation instruct their disciples to keep a watch on their mind
for tranquility, so that it will cease from activity. Henceforth the disciples give up all exertion of
mind. Ignorant persons become insane from having too much confidence in such instruction. Such
cases are not rare, and it is a great mistake to teach others to do this...
To keep our mind free from defilement under all circumstances is called wúniàn[75] (non-
conceptuality). Our mind should stand aloof from circumstances, and on no account should we allow
them to influence the function of our mind. But it is a great mistake to suppress our mind from all
thinking; for even if we succeed in getting rid of all thoughts, and die immediately thereafter, still we
shall be reincarnated elsewhere. Mark this, treaders of the Path. It is bad enough for a man to commit
blunders from not knowing the meaning of the dharma, but how much worse would it be to
encourage others to follow suit? Being deluded, he Sees not, and in addition he blasphemes the
Buddhist Canon. Therefore we take wúniàn(non-conceptuality) as our object.
If we ponder on Wilber’s fulcra in the context of the variety of the ten oxherding pictures of Chán or Zen
Buddhism in which the eighth is “person and ox both forgotten” (vergezzen), it will be apparent that Wilber
believes his ninth fulcrum to correspond to the eighth picture.[lxxiii] We have seen that in the Inner Tantras of
the Path of Transformation the series of realization is said to start with the nirmāṇakāya, continue with the
sambhogakāya, go on with the dharmakāya, and finally result in the svabhāvikāya that corresponds to full
Awakening—and that Wilber asserts his ninth fulcrum to be the dharmakāya. Thus in terms of both Chán / Zen
and the Tantras of the path of Transformation, Wilber’s series of fulcra requires at least one more fulcrum after
the ninth. However, by defining his fulcrum-10 as not being really a separate fulcrum or level, but the reality of
all states or Suchness[76] of all states, Wilber is implying that, just as his fulcrum-6 in the 1982 levels, his
fulcrum-10 in more recent works corresponds to that which the Dzogchen teachings call Dzogchen-qua-Base—
yet he presents it as Dzogchen-qua-Summit.[lxxiv] Nevertheless, Wilber claims that in this fulcrum one has
disidentified with the second and third phases of fulcrum-9, and therefore—again as in the case of fulcrum 6 in
the 1982 classification—it must necessarily be a specific, discrete state rather than the true condition of all states.
One could believe this contradiction to lie in the description only, and conclude that the fulcrum in question is
one in which the true condition of all states is directly realized, but this simply could not be the case, as the direct
realization in question necessarily involves the collapse of the subject-object duality that is the second of the
veils that conceal this condition, whereas, as will be shown below, Wilber claims that in this fulcrum the duality
in question continues to manifest. Furthermore, Wilber (1996b, p. 227) says of this, supposedly fulcrumless
fulcrum:
…the “experience” of this nondual Suchness is similar to the nature unity experience we earlier
17 of 93 04.06.20, 21:58
discussed, except now this unity is experienced not just with gross Form out there, but also with the
subtle Forms in here.[lxxv] In Buddhist terms, this is not just the Nirmanakaya—gross or nature
mysticism; and not just the Sambhogakaya—subtle or deity mysticism; and not just the Dharmakaya
—causal or formless mysticism. It is the Svabhavikaya—the integration of all three of them. It is
beyond nature mysticism, beyond deity mysticism, and beyond formless mysticism—it is the reality
or the Suchness of each, and thus integrates each in its embrace. It embraces the entire spectrum of
consciousness—transcends all, includes all.
In the above passage, Wilber divides form mysticism into the nirmāṇakāya (gross form) and the sambhogakāya
(subtle form), failing to distinguish these kāyas from higher, mystic yet samsaric states of the form realm—or of
that of sensuality[lxxvi]—and subsumes formless mysticism under dharmakāya, failing to distinguish this kāya
both from mystic samsaric conditions of the formless realm, and from mystic formless conditions of the neutral
base-of-all wherein neither nirvāṇa nor saṃsāra are active. At any rate, Wilber wrongly views the fruit of what
he calls nondual mysticism as consisting in his fulcrum-10, and what he calls dualistic mysticism as reaching to
his fulcrum-9 only and thus having this fulcrum-9 as its fruit—thus reducing to only two possibilities the fruits of
a wide spectrum of very different paths, one of which is a contradictory mixture of a discrete state with the true
condition of all states, and the other a compound of different states. When Wilber defines the “second meaning of
emptiness” that he attributes to his fulcrum-10 (in contrast with the first meaning, which in opinion is realized in
his so-called “causal” fulcrum-9) and describes what in his view are the respective fruits of nondual and dualistic
mysticism, he writes (Wilber, 1996b, pp. 227 and 236-237; the first paragraph is from p. 227; the order of the
following paragraphs in the quotation is inverted, for the last two paragraphs in my citation correspond to the first
paragraph and the beginning of the second paragraph of Wilber’s reply in the section “Enlightenment” in p. 236
of his book, whereas paragraphs three to six in my quotation are posterior in Wilber’s book and appear in
sequence in pp. 236-237):
The second meaning is that Emptiness is not merely a particular state among other states, but rather
the reality or suchness or condition of all states. Not a particular state apart from other states, but the
reality or condition of all states, high or low, sacred or profane, ordinary or extraordinary...
There are two rather different schools about this “Enlightened” state, corresponding to the two rather
different meanings of “Emptiness” that we discussed.
The first takes as its paradigm the causal or unmanifest state of absorption (nirvikalpa, nirodh). That
is a very distinct, very discrete, very identifiable state. And so if you equate Enlightenment with that
state of cessation, then you can very distinctly say whether a person is “fully Enlightened” or not.
Generally, as in the Theravadin Buddhist tradition and in the Samkhya yogic schools, whenever you
enter this state of unmanifest absorption, it burns certain lingering afflictions and sources of
ignorance. Each time you fully enter this state, more of these afflictions are burned away. And after a
certain number and type of these entrances—often four—you have burned away everything there is
to burn, and so you can enter this state at will, and remain there permanently. You can enter nirvana
permanently, and samsara ceases to arise in your case. The entire world of Form ceases to arise.
But the Nondual traditions do not have that as their goal. They will often use that state, and often
master it. But more important, these schools—such as Vedanta Hinduism and Mahayana and
Vajrayana Buddhism—are more interested in pointing out the Nondual state of Suchness, which is
not a discrete state of awareness but the ground or empty condition of all states. So they are not so
much interested in finding an Emptiness divorced from the world of Form (or samsara), but rather an
Emptiness that embraces all Form even as Form continues to arise. For them, nirvana and samsara,
Emptiness and Form, are not two...
Here it is imperative to interrupt Wilber in order to note that he is identifying saṃsāra with the world of form,
which is a mistake, for all Buddhist schools accept the canonical division of saṃsāra into three spheres, which
are that of sensuality, that of form and that of formlessness—so that formlessness may as well be within saṃsāra
(though we must keep in mind that in this case the term refers to the absence of a figure-ground division)—and
higher Buddhist systems, in particular, contrast Awakening to saṃsāra yet make it clear that realization of the
dharmakāya does not need involve the dissolution of the sensory continuum. Wilber continues:
18 of 93 04.06.20, 21:58
...dualisms—between subject and object, inside and outside, Left and Right—will still arise, and are
supposed to arise. Those dualities are the very mechanisms of manifestation. Spirit—the pure
immediate Suchness of reality—manifests as a subject and an object, and in both singular and plural
forms—in other words, Spirit manifests as all four quadrants. And we aren’t supposed to simply
evaporate those quadrants—they are the radiant glory of Spirit’s manifestation.
But we are supposed to see through them to their Source, their Suchness. And a quick glimpse won’t
do it. This One Taste has to permeate all levels, all quadrants, all manifestation.
Thus Wilber reduces the wide spectrum of spiritual traditions to only two of them: (1) ones which he defines as
dualistic and which regard the Fruit of the Path as a state of nirodhaḥ or cessation free from the subject-object
duality, and (2) other ones which he categorizes as nondualistic, among which he lists Mahāyāna and Vajrayāna
Buddhism (the latter, we may assume, including the Path of Transformation and the Path of Spontaneous
Liberation of Dzogchen Atiyoga), which seek a supposedly Awake condition in which the subject-object duality
continues to arise, but in which the dualistic experience in question seems to be somehow impregnated by the
single taste of the true essence of all reality.
However, Wilber also asserts the primordial state that is fully realized in fulcrum-10—full, irreversible
Awakening, corresponding to the svabhāvikāya—to be a condition in which there is neither subject nor object,
neither interior nor exterior, neither left nor right, which is prior to the arising of the subject and the object, and
which continues to be the ultimate reality in spite of their arising. Whereas on the one hand Wilber (1996b, p.
228) writes that in this fulcrum the sense that one is a sort of seer or witness or self vanishes altogether, precisely
because awareness is no longer split into a seeing subject and a seen object out there, on the other hand he says
that the nondual condition is pointed out from the dualistic condition, so that we become familiar with it. This
need not be a problem, for we could assume he meant that when the original nondual condition is pointed out
from the dualistic condition, the latter dissolves, so that the sense that one is a sort of seer or witness or self
vanishes altogether. The problem is that Wilber claims that in this fulcrum the subject-object and other dualities
will always continue to arise (Wilber’s italics)… only that they are relative truths, not absolute or primordial
truth itself (Ibidem, pp. 231-232). He claims that the problem of dualism, rather than solved, is dissolved in the
primordial state, which otherwise leaves the dualisms just as they are, possessing a certain conventional or
relative reality, real enough in their own domains, but not absolute (Ibidem, p. 232).
The above outright contradicts Wilber’s claim that in fulcrum-10, “the sense that one is a sort of seer, witness or
self vanishes altogether, for awareness is no longer split into a seeing subject and a seen object out there.”
Furthermore, also in ordinary saṃsāra the subject-object and the rest of the dualities that, according to Wilber, in
fulcrum-10 continue to arise, manifest as relative truths rather than being the absolute or primordial truth; since
Wilber is giving to understand that the supposed svabhāvikāya of his fulcrum-10 is different from the ordinary
adult human samsaric condition, we must interpret his words as meaning that although the mental subject and the
object (and all other dualities) continue to arise, at this point they are realized to be relative and conventional
rather than absolute—so that the third sense of avidyā or marigpa in the threefold Dzogchen classification
adopted here has dissolved, but not so the other two senses of the terms.[lxxvii]
As we have seen, in the Tantras of the path of Transformation the svabhāvikāya is the fourth and final stage in the
sequence of realization having the nirmāṇakāya as its first stage, having the sambhogakāya as its second stage,
and having the dharmakāya as its third stage. Yet the above has demonstrated the “fulcrum-10” Wilber views as
full Awakening and identifies as the svabhāvikāya, not even to reach the condition the gradual Mahāyāna views
as the eleventh level (bhūmi or sa) / fifth path, in which the dualism of subject and object is supposed to no
longer arise, for, as shown below, only nondual gnoses manifest—a condition that is simply out of the question in
Wilber’s system. In fact, as will be shown below, the way Wilber describes the svabhāvikāya / full Awakening
seems to match the gradual Mahāyāna’s view of the post-Contemplation state[77] as it manifests in the fourth
path until the tenth level, thus falling short of the full Awakening of the gradual Mahāyāna. This is evidenced by
the description of fulcrum-10 Roger Walsh (1998, pp. 41-42) presented in a piece of writing that Wilber (1998)
himself asserts to be one of the best expositions of his own ideas so far:
Finally, at the nondual culmination (fulcrum-10), phenomena reappear but are immediately and
spontaneously recognized as projections, expressions, or manifestations of consciousness and as
19 of 93 04.06.20, 21:58
none other than consciousness. This is the Hindu sahaj-samadhi and the Mahayana Buddhist’s “form
is emptiness.”
Needless to say, these advanced contemplative experiences can be very hard for most of us to
conceive. To my mind the best metaphor for sahaj-samadhi is lucid dreaming, dreaming in which we
know we are dreaming. Such lucidity has been described by yogis for millennia, denied by
psychologists for decades,[lxxviii] but now is well validated by laboratory studies. Here what
initially appeared to be an objective, solid, independent world impinging on a physical body on
which one’s life depends is recognized as a subjective, dependent projection of mind. And with that
recognition the dreamer becomes lucid, the apparent victim of experience becomes its creator, and
the suffering and anxiety that seemed so overwhelming are recognized as illusory. Such is said to be
the mind-boggling central recognition of both lucid dreaming and awakening to the nondual.
We have seen that, in the realization of the dharmakāya, phenomena manifesting through the senses do not
disappear, and hence it is absurd to claim that they reappear in the realization of the svabhāvikāya. We have also
seen that direct awareness of phenomena as conventional, relative, apparition-like, insubstantial expressions or
manifestations of the absolute or ultimate truth—or, in Dzogchen terms, of primordial, nondual awareness—is
the distinguishing feature of the post-Contemplation state of superior bodhisattvas in which relative reality has
been reestablished after having dissolved in the direct realization of the absolute condition beyond the subject-
object duality, whereas in the final stage of the Path, which is Buddhahood, the relative—and hence the subject-
object duality—arises no more and only the absolute remains. (That in the post-Contemplation of superior
bodhisattvas relative reality is reestablished does not mean that sensory manifestation had come to a halt in the
realization of absolute truth and later on it reactivates itself: what the Mahāyāna calls relative reality is not
sensory manifestation—which occurs in both saṃsāra and nirvāṇa, relative and absolute truth—but experience
in terms of delusorily valued concepts that are relative to each other, and in terms of the subject-object duality
resulting from the delusory valuation-absolutization of the supersubtle thought called “threefold thought
structure.” In the same way, that in Buddhahood only the absolute remains does not mean either that the sensa
we usually interpret as giving us a self-existent, objective world cease to manifest, or that one does not respond
to the sufferings of beings; on the contrary, in that condition healing actionless activities arise spontaneously as
the natural function of nonreferential compassion, and hence the meaning of the assertion is that, since Buddhas
have overcome the delusory valuation-absolutization of the threefold thought-structure[78] [and therefore the
subject-object duality], whatever they do is an instance of what is called “action and fruit [of action] devoid of
the concept of the three spheres”:[79] from their own standpoint Buddhas are beyond activity, for they perceive
no beings, conceive no intention to help them, and do not consciously perform any action, and yet their bodies
spontaneously move in what may be seen as countless activities carried out on their behalf.)
In fact, we have seen that, even in the gradual Mahāyāna, the realization of the absolute truth is beyond the
subject-object duality, yet is not at all a condition of nirodhaḥ or cessation like the nirodhasamāpatti of the
Hīnayāna or, far less, like the samādhi of the Yoga darśana, which the Dzogchen teachings rightly identify as
instances of the neutral condition of the base-of-all in which neither saṃsāra nor nirvāṇa is active, and as such
simply do not neutralize to any degree our karma for saṃsāra and do not at all help us to become established in
nirvāṇa. The absolute truth initially manifests at the moment of attaining the third path,[80] called the “path of
Seeing”,[81] and the corresponding first level,[82] called the “joyous level”,[83] and henceforth continues to
manifest in the Contemplation state[84] throughout the fourth path, which is called “path of Contemplation”[85]
and which comprises levels two through ten. As already shown, in these Paths and levels, the realization in
question is always followed by the re-installation of samsaric delusion and therefore of the subject-object duality,
which gives rise to a “post-Contemplation state,”[86] in which delusion does not fully involve avidyā in the third
sense the term has in the Dzogchen classification adopted here, and thus there is some degree of awareness of the
relativity and delusoriness of all that pertains to relative truth and of the apparitional character of all phenomena.
This awareness of relativity and apparitionality results from the filtering down, into the dualistic post-
Contemplation state, of the realization of the true nature of all phenomena by nondual awareness while in the
Contemplation state, which progressively impregnates the dualistic state of post-Contemplation with the “taste”
of the single essence of reality. Therefore it is clear that the awareness in question can only derive from the
manifestation, over and over again, of the Contemplation state in which there is no subject-object duality, and by
no means could it result from pointing out nondual Suchness from the state in which this nondual Suchness is
totally concealed by the subject-object duality: the duality in question has to dissolve, for so long as there is a
frog at the bottom of a deep well, no matter how much you point to him or her the limitless sky, he or she will
20 of 93 04.06.20, 21:58
continue to take it for a small luminous blue circle. Then, when the condition of absolute truth involving all-
embracing, absolutely free awareness beyond the subject-object duality, consolidates to the point at which the
delusive subject-object duality never manifests again, and hence there is no post-Contemplation state—which
means that a frog to whom the limitless, all-embracing sky may be concealed, or a well to conceal it, can no
longer arise, and therefore freedom can no longer be restricted—the fifth path, called “path of no-more-
learning”,[87] which in Tibetan Buddhism is as a rule identified with the eleventh level (called “all-pervading
light”[88]), has been attained.
To take the post-Contemplation state of those bodhisattvas in the third and fourth Mahāyāna paths for final
Buddhahood—i.e., for the fifth path / eleventh level which are the final realization of the Mahāyāna—would
block the way to the realization in question. Furthermore, the experience of post-Contemplation in the third and
fourth paths, which as we have seen lies within the relative realm, may not be said to be “the very Essence of all
levels, of all states, of all conditions”—which, as we have seen, is how Wilber defines fulcrum-10, which he
misnames “nondual.” As to the illustration of this last fulcrum with the experience of lucid dreaming, it must be
noted that the latter is not even an element of the Dzogchen Path, in which the practice for sleep is that of the
natural light, which consists in reGnizing the true condition of the second of the clear lights that shines forth after
falling asleep, so that the dharmakāya manifests, and then continuing in this luminous realization without
dreaming. In Dzogchen Atiyoga, lucid dreaming is a secondary practice borrowed from the Inner Tantras of the
Path of Transformation, to be applied when one does not manage to reGnize the shining forth of the clear light
and hence is unable to apply the practice of natural light, or when, having reGnized it, one does no manage to
remain in the ensuing condition and begins to dream. This is so because the reGnition of the clear light, being the
dharmakāya, is—just like the Contemplation state of superior bodhisattvas and full Buddhahood, and unlike the
post-Contemplation state of superior bodhisattvas and lucid dreaming—nondual in the qua-Path and qua-Fruit
sense of being utterly free from the illusory subject-object duality (this, in its turn, being so because the reGnition
in question dissolves avidyā in all of the senses the term has in the Dzogchen teachings). (Though Je
Tsongkhapa, like the rest of the Masters of Mahāyāna and Vajrayāna Buddhism, respected the concensus
regarding the fact that in the Contemplation state of superior bodhisattvas it was nondual primordial gnosis,[89]
rather than dualistic consciousness,[90] that nonconceptually realized the ultimate truth, there is an ongoing
debate as to whether or not he inadvertently implied that dualistic consciousness was the realizer of this truth.
[lxxix] However, Wilber is not a follower of Tsongkhapa; so far as it is publicly known, he has studied and
supposedly practiced Zen and Dzogchen, rather than the teachings of the Gelug tradition of Tibetan Buddhism.)
The point is that, on the Buddhist Path of Renunciation, all of the canonical sources of the Second and Third
Promulgations (which are the two Mahāyāna Promulgations) are truly nondualistic (a fact that, in the case of the
sūtras of the Third Promulgation, is more clearly appreciated in the the Laṅkāvatāra than in the principal source
of the Cittamātra School, which is the Saṃdhinirmocana). As regards the Vajrayāna, both the Tantras of the Inner
Path of Transformation and those of the Path of Spontaneous Liberation of Dzogchen Ati are truly nondualistic—
and even more perfectly so than Mahāyāna texts, for they show no traces of either antisomatism or moral dualism
(both of which, as will be shown in the Appendix on Wilber’s philosophical tradition, imply an ontological and
an epistemological dualism).
Back to the Mahāyāna, all canonical sources and schools agree that in the Fruit of Buddhahood no dualistic
consciousness manifest, as only nondual primordial gnosis,[91] not involving either a mental subject or an
object, is operative (once more, the ambiguous position in this regard being that of Je Tsongkhapa)[lxxx]—which
outright contradicts Wilber’s conception of the Fruit of nondual systems. And, in fact, that the manifestations of
nirvāṇa on the Path and as the Fruit are free from the subject-object duality should be evident, as the duality in
question results from the delusory valuation-absolutization of the supersubtle thought called “threefold thought-
structure”—and, as we have seen, the delusory valuation-absolutization of thought occurs only in saṃsāra. In
fact, subject and object being mutually relative, absolute truth (which by definition cannot be relative) could not
be the object of any mind or conventional attention, and therefore has to manifest in the bare patency of
primordial gnosis beyond the subject-object duality.
At this point it is vital to substantiate the assertion that the canonical sources and philosophical schools
mentioned above assert all instances of what the Mahāyāna and the Vajrayāna Path of Transformation call
absolute truth and what the Dzogchen teachings call Awake Awareness (Tib. rig pa)—whether provisional /
transient on the Path or definitive / irreversible as the Fruit—to be free from the subject-object duality. The
Laṅkāvatāra of the Third Promulgation reads (corresponding yet not identical translation in Suzuki, reprint 2003,
21 of 93 04.06.20, 21:58
p. 136, ¶2; in Dudjom Rinpoche, 1991, Vol. I, pp. 180-181; etc.):[lxxxi]
…Mahāmati, that which is (…) produced by the threefold thought-structure[92] (that conceives a
subject, an object and their interaction) is consciousness, whereas (…) the essential nature that is
not so produced is primordial gnosis. Then again, Mahāmati, that which is characterized as not to be
attained is primordial gnosis, since in each of us sublime primordial gnosis does not emerge as a
perceptual object of realization, but is manifest [nondualistically] in the manner of the moon’s
reflection in water, [which is not and does not seem to be at a distance from the water in which it is
reflected, yet is not the water].
As to the philosophical schools of the Mahāyāna, the most clearly nondualistic ones are the Mādhyamaka School
as originally created by Nāgārjuna and Āryadeva, and at least two of the subsequently established branches of
this school: the subtle, inner Mādhyamaka[93] (including Mahāmādhyamaka and Uma Zhentongpa[94]) and the
Mādhyamaka-Prāsaṅgika—all of which are based on the sūtras of the Second Promulgation, though the subtle,
inner Mādhyamaka is also, and mainly, based on the higher sūtras of the Third Promulgation.[lxxxii] However,
even the Cittamātra School, which is the lowest of the schools of tenets based on the sūtras of the Third
Promulgation and which is regarded as the lowest of all schools of the Mahāyāna, asserts the appearance that
there are perceived objects, on the one hand, and a perceiving mental subject,[95] on the other, and dualistic
appearances in general,[96] not to manifest either in the Contemplation state of superior bodhisattvas or in the
final state of Buddhahood. Khongtrul wrote (corresponding yet not identical translation in Khongtrul 2003, p.
180):
The consummate or perfect nature[97] is that which is unconditioned and empty of imagined
characteristics, [for it does not involve] the [merely] imputedly existent objects [that in Buddhism
are to be] negated. It is consummate or perfect in that it is nothing other than the nonconceptual,
[nondual] Gnition[98] [that is] empty of the duality of percept and perceiver…
In fact, on the basis of Third Promulgation sūtras, this school posits three natures, which are the dependent[99]
(which includes and all that appears as the perceived aspects[100] and that which appears as the perceiving
aspects,[101] and which is said to arise from the stream carrier of propensities,[102] but which does not involve
a subject-object duality), the imaginary[103] (that which is superimposed[104] by the “consciousness of mental
phenomena”[105] and which is the basis for designations, including the idea that there is an independent self-
nature[106] in persons and phenomena, I and mine, names, reasons and so forth) and the consummate or
perfect[107] (the absolute truth, described in the above cite). Well, even this relatively lowly school asserts the
appearance of a dualism of perceived objects and a perceiving mental subject, and dualistic appearance in
general, to be functions of the imaginary nature,[lxxxiii] which is not manifest in the Contemplation state of
superior bodhisattvas or in Buddhas—in which only the “unerring consummate or perfect”[108] are utterly
devoid of the subject-object duality manifests.
As to the Prajñāpāramitā Sūtras that make up Second Promulgation, they classify the “wisdom[109] that leads
beyond [saṃsāra]”[110] which they posit, into relative and absolute—the latter being free from he subject-object
duality. It is the absolute wisdom that is beyond [saṃsāra][111] which is at work in superior bodhisattvas, yogis
and so on during their state of Contemplation, and uninterruptedly in Buddhas—this absolute wisdom being the
one the following passage of the Akṣayamatinirdeśasūtra[112] refers to (corresponding yet not identical
translation in Driessens, 1996, p. 262):
The wisdom that leads beyond[113] is free from sixteen factors. Which are these sixteen? It is like
this: it is free from delusion,[114] and, in the same way, from repetitive formations,[115] from
dualistic consciousnesses[116]…
Hence it was to be expected that the founding fathers of the Mādhyamaka School, based on the Second
Promulgation Sūtras, would express the above fact clearly—which is what verse XIV.25 of Āryadeva’s
Chatuhishatakaśāstrakarika does (corresponding yet not identical translation in Capriles, 2005 and Napper,
2003):[lxxxiv]
The core of cyclic existence (sa?sâra) is a [dualistic] consciousness; objects are its sphere of activity.
In its turn, verse IX.2 of Śāntideva’s Bodhicharyavatara expresses the Prāsaṅgika interpretation of Mādhyamaka
22 of 93 04.06.20, 21:58
in this regard (Capriles, 2005):
The relative and the absolute are what is known as the two truths;
the absolute is not an object of knowledge to the mind,
for the mind [with all of its objects are what] is called the 'relative'.
In fact, according to the original Mādhyamaka Prāsaṅgika School, in the gradual Path of the Mahāyāna, absolute
truth, both as it manifests on the Path and as it manifests as the Fruit, consists in the realization, utterly beyond
the subject-object duality, of the true nature of phenomena,[117] which makes the voidness[118] of those
phenomena become patent. The great Dzogchen Master Longchen Rabjampa, also named Drime Öser
(corresponding yet not identical translation in Longchen Rabjam, 2007, p. 112), expressed this as follows:
The following is the position held by Candrakīrti (the most excellent interpreter of the master
Nāgārjuna), who upheld the ultimate and definitive view, and by his followers: In the state of
Contemplation of one who has attained a spiritual level,[119] [just as] on the level of Buddhahood,
no dualistic manifestation whatsoever of the knowable can be established—no dualism of object and
perceiver of the object [occurs].
Jamgön Khongtrul makes the same point with regard to Buddhas (corresponding yet not identical translation in
Khongtrul, 2007, p. 247):
[Prāsaṅgikas] say that, since [in the continuum of a Buddha] all appearances [involving] a
consciousness and knowable objects have subsided, Buddhas are simply appearances for others.
However, the fact that, as Longhenpa noted, the realization beyond the subject-object duality of the true nature of
phenomena[120] makes the voidness[121] of those phenomena become patent, does not imply that the realization
in question involves negation: it does not involve either what logicians call nonimplicative, nonaffirming or
absolute negation,[122][lxxxvi] or what they call implicative, affirming or relative negation,[123][lxxxvii] for it
(is) utterly free from the delusory valuation of thought and as such it is completely unelaborated.[124]
Longchenpa also wrote (corresponding yet not identical translation in Longchen Rabjam, 2007, p. 171):
Given that absolute truth is basic space,[125] when the nature of basic space is directly [(i.e.,
nonconceptually and therefore nondually)] apprehended, it is said that “absolute truth is
apprehended.” Absolute truth is not emptiness in the sense of a void! Concepts such as the
nonexistence of identity are taught as antidotes to the fixation on identity experienced by ordinary
beings, who are spiritually immature, and by beginning practitioners. [In fact,] in actuality one
should understand basic space to be utterly lucid, uncompounded and spontaneously manifest. The
[Commentary to the Surpassing Continuum[126]] states:
“This Buddha-nature of the accomplished Conquerors who have gone beyond [saṃsāra] is not
within the scope of those who err by regarding the perishable aggregates as real, who take great
delight in erroneous ideas, or whose minds are totally distracted by emptiness.”
In fact, according to many Nyingma teachings, reducing the absolute truth to a mere absence would be an
instance of nihilism, for such an absence could not account either for the manifestation of phenomena or for the
all-accomplishing primordial gnosis that is so actively at work in Awakening. Therefore they explain voidness as
lying in the recognition of the absence of mental constructs that is inherent in the essence of mind in which space
and awareness are indivisible, and in many cases define absolute truth as the indivisibility of emptiness and
appearances, or of emptiness and awareness. At any rate, what we are concerned with here is that the absence of
the subject-object duality in the Contemplation state of superior bodhisattvas is acknowledged by the whole of
Mādhyamaka.[lxxxviii] Dudjom Rinpoché (1991, vol. I, p. 206) writes:
During Contemplative absorption, when balanced in the expanse of [all] phenomena without
conditions to be clarified or established, both modes of Mādhyamaka (the Outer that includes
Prāsaṅgika and Svātantrika and the Inner that includes Mahāmādhyamaka) are not distinct [from
each other in what] regards the cessation of all (…) signs of the subject-object dichotomy therein.
And, as noted above, this applies to the whole of the Mahāyāna, for as the same author (Dudjom Rinpoché, 1991,
23 of 93 04.06.20, 21:58
vol. I, p. 215) put it:
Therefore, the inconceivable primordial gnosis that is the [ultimate] Truth is a great purity of natural
expression, transcending the range of the subject-object dichotomy.
The great twentieth century scholar-yogi also described Śākyamuni’s Awakening in similar terms (Dudjom
Rinpoché, 1991, vol. I, p. 421):
As he became a perfectly realized Buddha, the whole earth trembled and all the psychophysical
bases which were to be purified of the subject-object dichotomy awakened to the primordial gnosis
free of duality, in the impeccable mansion of the dharmakāya, which is the “middle way.”
Also on the Vajrayāna’s Path of Transformation—which in the Nyingma tradition consists of Mahāyogatantra
and Anuyogatantra, and in the Sarma traditions consists in the Anuttarayogatantra—the Contemplation state of
higher yogis, siddhas and so on, and the final state of Buddhahood, are both acknowledged to be utterly free from
the subject-object duality (though the two conditions are acknowledged to differ in that the Contemplation state,
just as is the case on the Mahāyāna, alternates with a post-Contemplation state where subject and object manifest
again, whereas final Buddhahood no longer alternates with any other state and involves an unhindered,
consummate capacity to deal with apperances and unfathomable skillful means). In the Gyütrul Gyamtso
Gyü,[127] a Tantra of Mahayoga, we read (quoted in Dudjom Rinpoché, 1991, vol. I, p. 276; the italics are my
own):
In the manner of a clear reflection in the ocean [that is not and does not seem to be at a distance from
the ocean], without making an echo in the mind, the spontaneous nondual self-awareness of direct
realization that has no object as referent [becomes patent] ... [It is this that] concludes the view of
study, reflection and Contemplation.
Finally, it is on the Path of Spontaneous Liberation of Dzogchen Atiyoga that the dissolution of the subject-object
duality is most abrupt, and therefore most clear. As we have seen, in the Upadeśavarga series of teachings, the
practice of Tekchö consists in the reGnition of the true condition of thoughts, which is the dharmakāya, and the
instant this occurs all types of thought instantly liberate themselves spontaneously, thus putting an end to the
subject-object duality that results from the delusory valuation-absolutization of the threefold thought-structure.
Dudjom Rinpoché (1991, vol. I, p. 309; the italics are my own) writes:
[The term] Dzogchen thus refers to the sublime truth that is to be realized through the primordial
gnosis of individual spontaneous nondual self-awareness, free from the subject-object dichotomy,
and which is described under various names...
Since there are subject and object only while the delusory valuation-absolutization of thought is active, so long as
they are manifest, the subject grasps at the object—which is why the term grasper is a synonym of subject and
the term grasped is a synonym of object. Dudjom Rinpoché (corresponding yet not identical translation in
Dudjom Rinpoché 1979, p. 22; 2005, p. 51; 1978, p. 12) writes:
The two deadly enemies which have bound us to saṃsāra since beginningless time are the grasper
and the grasped (i.e., the subject and the object).[lxxxix] Now that by the grace of the guru we have
been introduced to the dharmakāya nature inherent in ourselves, these two are burnt like feathers,
leaving neither trace nor residue. Isn’t that delectable!
As shown above, once the practice of Tekchö has been developed to a high degree, it must be boosted by the
practice of Thögel, which activates the dynamics of spontaneous liberation established in the practice of Tekchö
as soon as the dualism of subject and object begins to arise, so that this spurious dualism, together with the
illusory divide between an internal dimension and an external dimension, instantly liberates itself spontaneously.
Due to the extremely elevated energetic-volume-determining-the-scope-of-awareness and the natural dynamics
inherent in rölpa energy, this burns away in record time the propensity for the dualities in question to manifest,
and so what here I am calling Dzogchen-qua-Fruit, in which the spurious subject-object duality and the illusory
divide between an inner and an outer dimension arise no more, can consolidate far more rapidly than on any
other Path. We read in Śrī Siṃha’s[128] Cittatālaka (corresponding yet not identical translation in Dudjom
Rinpoché, 1991, vol. I, p. 357):
24 of 93 04.06.20, 21:58
Having purified the five propensities of the subject-object dichotomy, and, by the expressive powers
of the five primordial gnoses, having overpowered the level[129] of Bounteous Array[130] [which is
the ultimate realization of Mahāyoga], the result gathering the five Awake families is obtained.
The subject-object duality and the concomitant dualistic, thetic, positional reflexive consciousness arise in the
nondual primordial awareness that, as noted repeatedly, may be said to be in itelf nonthetic, nonpositional and
nonreflexive, as part of the play of the energy of the awareness in question and in particular as a result of the
delusory valuation-absolutization of the super-subtle thought-structure. Thus the Kunje Gyalpo,[131] essential
Tantra of the Semde[132] series of Dzogchen teachings, tells us (corresponding yet not identical translation in
Longchen Rabjam 2001b, pp. 42-43):
Ah!
Listen, great courageous being!
What is called “primordial gnosis[133] ... (is) nondual Awake awareness[134] that (is) always
manifest [independently of whether its true condition is patent in nirvāṇa or concealed in saṃsāra].
“Spontaneously, [unconditionedly] manifesting primordial gnosis,[135] [in its turn], is nondual
Awake awareness that (is) always [patent and unhindered in its natural and unconditioned nature, as
occurs in nirvāṇa].
As for “primordial gnosis that cognizes sense objects,” [which is the core of saṃsāra,]
it is not spontaneously [in the sense of unconditionedly] manifesting[136] [insofar as] it depends on
those objects...
Therefore, spontaneously, [unconditionedly] manifesting primordial gnosis
(is) primordial gnosis that it (is) always [patent and unhindered as such].
[These are the three main senses of] “primordial gnosis.”

As for primordial gnosis as “the teacher of the retinue,”
that primordial gnosis which [by giving rise to a mind] cognizes sense objects,
[by means of this mind] is cognizant of each and every sense object;
it is “primordial gnosis functioning as co-gnition.”
Sense objects that are co-gnized [by mind] come from Awake Mind,[137]
and so they [are manifestations of] Awake Mind, which [itself does] not take [anything as] object.
Since [spontaneously, unconditionedly manifesting] primordial gnosis becomes patent in a
spontaneous [and unconditioned way],
it is not [something achieved or] cultivated in meditative absorption.
Since it is not [something] cultivated, [it does] not [involve a] meditative absorption that may
reinforce habitual patterns.
The true nature of phenomena, entailing no habitual patterns,
is [rightly] said to be the Wisdom Gnosis[138] of the Buddhas of the three times.
This Wisdom Gnosis of all Buddhas of the three times
does not entail conceiving of sense objects:
it abides timelessly in a state of equalness.
Longchenpa comments on the above (corresponding yet not identical translation in Longchen Rabjam, 2001b, p.
43):
In spontaneously occurring primordial gnosis,[139] which does not conceive of sense objects,
spontaneously abiding Contemplative stability is spontaneously manifest without deliberately being
made to happen. This is the Contemplative stability of a yogin. [On the other hand], any [absorption]
integrating calm abiding[140] with profound insight[141] that involves concentrating one-pointedly
on an object, is a mundane contemplative stability [proper to those] who are spiritually undeveloped.
The difference [between the one and the other] lies in whether or not habitual patterns continue to be
reinforced. Spontaneously abiding nondual Awake awareness has as its essence Awake Mind,[142]
[and hence] it is called the “Awake gnosis (of) the true nature of phenomena.” [Conversely],
consciousness that arises with respect to sense objects, called “the mind of saṃsāra,” always
25 of 93 04.06.20, 21:58
involves subject-object perception. Once you have identified [what] these [terms refer to] and
learned how to [remain absolutely] relaxed [beyond action in spontaneously, unconditionedly
manifesting primordial gnosis], the naturally occurring projective[143] energy subsides into the
Base, and therefore Awake gnosis arises as the true nature of phenomena. The difference between
these two kinds of meditative stability is so crucial that it bears repeating.
The above passages also clarify the fact that (1) the Contemplation state of superior bodhisattvas, yogis and so
on, and (2) the state of Buddhahood—and even more clearly the roughly equivalent conditions of (1) Dzogchen-
qua-Path and (2) Dzogchen-qua-Fruit—are free from intention and deliberate action (as the subject-object
duality is the condition of possibility of these), and makes the point that the states in question do not entail
habitual patterns. Longchenpa quotes once more from the Kunje Gyalpo (corresponding yet not identical
translation in Longchen Rabjam, 2001b, pp. 43-44):
Ah! Listen, great and courageous one!

Because there are no concepts
it is spontaneously occurring primordial gnosis—
the Buddhic awareness[144] of the Buddhas of the three times.
The Awake gnosis of Buddhas is not deliberate
[as] it is free of objects of thought.
If any yogins of ati, whoever they may be,
abide in [this] nonconceptual[145] state,
they ensure the Awake gnosis of Buddhahood.
Since spontaneously occurring primordial gnosis does not conceive of sense objects,
it is not sullied by habitual thought patterns.
Elsewhere,[146] Longchen Rabjampa wrote (corresponding yet not identical translation in Tulku Thöndup, 1996,
p. 224):
Pure Contemplation is [as follows]: although it is an absorption [involving] the skillful means of
compassion and the wisdom free from extremes, in it there is no [delusorily valued-absolutized]
conceptualization [giving rise to the illusion] of subject and object and [hence] there is no meditation
[that may be] designated [as consisting] in this [or that] state. So it [makes evident] the
inconceivable nature. Although in this Contemplation one achieves joy, bliss, miracles, and
foreknowledge, [there being no conceptualization and hence no subject-object duality] there will be
no attachment to the pleasure of it, nor will these [desirable qualities] be apprehended in [terms of]
form [having] characteristics.
The above quotations from the Kunje Gyalpo and from Longchen Rabjampa clarify the meaning of nonduality in
truly nondual traditions, preventing confusions like the ones in which Wilber incurs. In order to better understand
their import, it is important to explain the meaning of nonduality with regard to the already discussed concepts of
Dzogchen-qua-Base, Dzogchen-qua-Path and Dzogchen-qua-Fruit. Since Dzogchen-qua-Base is in itself free
from duality or plurality, from its standpoint—which is that of the true condition of all reality—all realms of
experience and all experiences are nondual. However, when avidyā manifests in the first meaning the term has in
the two main Dzogchen classifications, the neutral condition of the base-of-all manifests, making us unaware of
our true condition. Then, when avidyā or marigpa manifests in the second and third meaning the terms have in
the two main Dzogchen classifications, the illusion of duality and plurality conceals the nonduality and
nonplurality of the true condition of phenomena. This gives rise to the need to tread the Path in order to eradicate
both that unawareness of our true condition and this illusion of duality and plurality in the realization of the
nondual, nonplural Dzogchen-qua-Base. Since Dzogchen-qua-Path is the unconcealment of the nondual,
nonplural Dzogchen-qua-Base, and in all Dzogchen divisions of avidyā the unawareness of our true condition
that is manifest in the neutral base-of-all and hence in conditions of cognitive nirodhaḥ and that underlies the
whole of active saṃsāra, is the first layer of the three-tiered veil that is to fall in this unconcealment, Dzogchen-
qua-Path excludes all conditions of nirodhaḥ and, as we have seen, involves full responsiveness regarding
occurrences in the sensory continuum and the utter freedom and unhindered motility of primordial, nondual
Awareness. Since in the classification of avidyā favored by Longchen Rabjam the illusory subject-object duality
is the second layer of the three-tiered veil that is to fall in this unconcealment (and in the division adopted in this
book it is a pivotal element of the second layer), Dzogchen-qua-Path involves a temporary dissolution of the
26 of 93 04.06.20, 21:58
duality in question. Finally, Dzogchen-qua-Fruit is the condition in which the unawareness of our true condition
that characterizes the states of nirodhaḥ discussed throughout this book and that underlies all samsaric states, and
the illusory subject-object duality that is the pivot of active saṃsāra, no longer arise to conceal nondual
Dzogchen-qua-Base and hinder its perfect functionality: the patency of the Base’s nonduality and nonplurality is
now uninterrupted, responsiveness with regard to the occurrences in the sensory continuum is now consummate,
and the perfect, unhindered freedom of Awareness can no longer be arrested. The different types of gnose
Longchen Rabjampa discussed in the passages cited above must be understood in the context of this explanation
of Dzogchen-qua-Base, Dzogchen-qua-Path and Dzogchen-qua-Fruit.
The above is directly related to the fact that, as the Dzogchen teachings make it perfectly clear, Dzogchen-qua-
Base is not a mere voidness: although primordial purity or katak,[147] which is voidness, is one of its aspects,
the other aspect is self-accomplishment, spontaneous perfection or lhundrub,[148] involving a myriad self-
accomplished manifestations and a consummate functionality.[xc] Since Dzogchen-qua-Path and Dzogchen-qua-
Fruit are no more than the patency of Dzogchen-qua-Base, it is not surprising that these teachings are so explicit
in emphasizing that in Dzogchen-qua-Path and Dzogchen-qua-Fruit, rather than there being unawareness of
sensa or an arresting of Gnitiveness, as in plain states of nirodhaḥ, due to the absence of the veil and
straightjacket of delusorily valued-absolutized thought that makes our true condition be perfectly patent, there
manifest a total freedom of awareness, and an unlimited awareness (of) and a perfect responsiveness (with regard
to) occurrences in the sensory continuum. However, this does not mean that the subject-object duality manifests
in these conditions; on the contrary, the subject-object duality begets self-impediment, and it is precisely because
it does not manifest in these conditions that they involve a consummate functionality. Finally, since Dzogchen-
qua-Path and Dzogchen-qua-Fruit are not produced or achieved, nor are they cultivated in meditative absorption,
unlike states of plain nirodhaḥ or cessation (which can only manifest for noticeable periods as a result of
production / achievement / cultivation) they are genuinely uncaused, unproduced, unconditioned and unborn, and
as such do not reinforce habitual patterns.
Thus there can be no doubt that the canonical sources of both the Second and Third Promulgations and all of the
Mahāyāna philosophical schools interpreting these sources—the Yogācāra, the Mādhyamaka philosophical
school as originally expressed in the works of Nāgārjuna and Āryadeva, and the subsequently risen Prāsaṅgika
and Subtle, Inner[149] branches of Mādhyamaka—just as the Inner Tantras of the Path of Transformation of the
Vajrayānaand the Tantras of the Dzogchen Atiyoga Path of Spontaneous Liberation (also in the bossom of
Vajrayāna), explicitly assert the pointing out the empty, nondual substrate of all conditions, when successful in
fulfilling its function, to entail the dissolution of the subject-object duality, yet not to induce a condition of
nirodhaḥ or cessation,[xci] and equally assert their respective Fruits to be utterly free of the duality in question
and yet not to be a condition of nirodhaḥ or cessation—thus directly contradicting Wilber’s view. In fact, it
happens that the subject-object duality is the manifestation of what in the taxonomy favored by Longchen
Rabjampa is the second layer (and in the classification adopted in this book is a core element of the second layer)
of the three-tiered avidyā which conceals the nondual, nonplural, empty and spontaneously perfect Dzogchen-
qua-Base that above Wilber called empty substratum, and which makes us perceive falsities in lieu of the true
condition of reality: this is why the Dzogchen-qua-Base as such cannot become an object, and thus must be
realized in the patency of the spontaneously, unconditionedly manifesting primordial gnosis[150] in which the
subject-object duality does not occur. Now, as stated throughout this book, the second layer of avidyā in the
classification favored by Longchenpa and the subject-object duality that is its manifestation are a function of the
obstacle of knowledge. The great Maitreya (Ajita)[151] wrote in the Madhyantāntavibhaṅga[152]
(corresponding yet not identical translation in Longchen Rabjam, 2007, p. 200):
It is shown that there are two [obstacles]:

that of passions and that of knowledge.
In these lie all obstacles [to Awakening];
When they are exhausted, this is held to be freedom.
The same author writes in the noted Uttaratantra[153] (radically different translation in Longchen Rabjam, 2007,
p. 200):
Any concepts of avarice and so forth

Are considered to make up the obstacle of passions.
Any concepts that involve the threefold thought structure
27 of 93 04.06.20, 21:58
Are deemed to make up the obstacle of knowledge.
Longchenpa comments on the above cite from the Uttaratantra (radically different translation in
Longchen Rabjam, 2007, p. 200):
To elaborate, avarice and other afflictive states are essentially either negative (causing great disturbance to one’s
mind) or neutral (merely obscuring); these make up the obstacle of passions. Dualistic thought patters, which
involve objects and the subjective aspect perceiving them, are essentially either positive yet corruptible (that is,
never free of investing the threefold thought structure[157] with [an illusion of] self-existence) or unobscuring
yet neutral; these make up the obstacle of knowledge.
In the gradual Mahāyāna the obstacle of passions is said to be totally uprooted on the transition from the seventh
to the eighth level, whereas the obstacle of knowledge is said to temporarily cease to produce its characteristic
effects in the Contemplation state of superior bodhisattvas of all levels,[xcii] and to be finally eradicated when
the transition from the tenth to the eleventh level that marks the attainment of Buddhahood occurs. Since, as
noted by Maitreya, the subject-object duality is a function of the obstacle of knowledge, it simply could not
manifest either in the Contemplation state of higher bodhisattvas, yogis, siddhas and so on, or in definitive
Buddhahood.[xciii] With this concludes the discussion of whether or not all higher Buddhist systems agree that
the Contemplation state of higher bodhisattvas, yogis and so on—or, in Dzogchen Atiyoga, the condition of
Dzogchen-qua-Path—and the condition of Buddhahood—or, in the Atiyoga, the condition of Dzogchen-qua-
Fruit—are utterly free from the subject-object duality, and whether, in the Mahāyāna and the Vajrayāna
(including Dzogchen Atiyoga), the Path has the long-term function of irreversibly consolidating the
spontaneously, unconditionedly occurring primordial gnosis free from the subject-object duality. (Further
evidence that, according to canonical sources of both the Second and Third Promulgations and the schools
interpreting them—including the Yogācāra and Mādhyamaka schools, and within the latter the original
elaboration by the founding fathers and the interpretation of the latter’s works by the Mādhyamaka Prāsaṅgika
and the subtle, inner Mādhyamaka—all genuine realizations of the Mahāyāna involve the dissolution of the
subject-object duality, is provided in the exhaustive discussion of this subject in two recent works of mine
[Capriles, 2004, 2005].)
Now let us go back to Wilber’s assertion that nondual traditions, (1) point out the empty, nondual substrate of all
states, and (2) posit the nonduality of saṃsāra and nirvāṇa. With regard to (1), the above has proven that the
Mahāyāna[xciv] and the Vajrayāna—the latter including Dzogchen Ati—agree that the pointing in question
would be utterly ineffectual if it did not entail the dissolution of the subject-object duality, for in that case fully
fledged avidyā would continue to conceal the empty, nondual substrate in question and thus what would obtain
would be at best a false idea or a spurious experience of that substrate—and yet the dissolution in question, in
order to be valuable on the Path, could not give rise to a state of nirodhaḥ involving cessation of gnitive activity,
for all such states (including the nirodhasamāpatti of the Hīnayāna and the passive samādhi or absorption that
Patañjali’s Yoga darśana posits as the fruit of its path) involve what the two main threefold Dzogchen
classifications of avidyā or marigpa view as the first layer of the delusion in question.
With regard to (2) Wilber’s assertion that nondual traditions posit the nonduality of saṃsāra and nirvāṇa, though
this is actually the case, the whole of the above proved our author to be wrong in claiming that the absence of the
duality in question implies that the subject-object duality continues to manifest in Awakening: the most
fundamental duality, foundation of all other dualities, is that of subject and object, which is the core of saṃsāra
and which, as proved in the preceding paragraphs, all authentically nondual traditions are intent on eradicating—
for when this duality is not manifesting, no duality between saṃsāra and nirvāṇa, and no other duality, for that
matter, is perceived—and do actually manage to eradicate it, temporarily in the Contemplation state of higher
bodhisattvas and so on, and definitively as the Fruit of Buddhahood. It is true that beings on the Path cannot
assert the condition that is manifest at a given moment to be the absolute truth of higher vehicles, for even if, in
the immediately preceding moment, that truth had been manifest, the delusorily valued-absolutized judgment
identifying it as such would have put an end to it. However, this does not contradict the fact that the most striking
contrast possible is the one between the nirvanic conditions free from all types of conceptualization and hence
from the subject-object duality that in Mahāyāna and Vajrayāna Buddhism are said to constitute the absolute
truth, and the actively samsaric conditions involving conceptualization and hence the subject-object duality that
are said to constitute the relative or conventional truth. Founder of Uma Zhentongpa[158] as a separate school of
Mādhyamaka philosophy, Dolpopa, wrote (corresponding yet not identical version in Thakchoe, 2007, p.
28 of 93 04.06.20, 21:58
25[159]):[xcv]
The defining characteristic of relative truth is that it is an object of consciousness that in its
fundamental nature is itself essentially empty of true abiding, whereas the defining trait of absolute
truth is that is is apprehended by authentic, sublime [nondual] primordial gnosis that in its
fundamental nature is itself essentially not empty of true abiding…
Because the relative does not exist in truth, it is empty of self-existence, and appears to [dualistic,
deceived] consciousness but not to primordial gnosis. Because the absolute truly abides, it is not
empty of self-abiding, but (is) empty of [susbtances] other [than itself], and is evident to primordial
gnosis but never at all to [dualistic, deceived] consciousness.
Therefore, those who are childish, according to their dispositions, perceive inauthentical
characteristics and not so authentic thatness; in the same way, to the [superior] bodhisattvas [in their
Contemplation state], according to their dispositions, only the authentic manifests, [and hence] what
is inauthentic does not appear.
Thus the negation of any truth to the duality between saṃsāra and nirvāṇa by the Prajñāpāramitāsūtras and
other texts, rather than meaning that both saṃsāra and nirvāṇa involve threefold avidyā and hence comprehend
the subject-object duality and the rest of the deceptive appearances of saṃsāra, is made as skillful means
intended for facilitating the transition from saṃsāra to nirvāṇa. If we have not listened to the teachings of a Path
of Awakening, we are not aware that we are in saṃsāra and that all the hindrances, problems and sufferings of
human existence are the drawbacks of saṃsāra, or that there is a nirvāṇa that represents the solution to these
drawbacks; therefore, if we are to have a possibility of surpassing saṃsāra together with the drawbacks inherent
in it, we need to learn about these two conditions, so that we may aspire to nirvāṇa and work towards it.
However, this gives rise to a strong thirst for nirvāṇa (the vibhavātṛṣna that is third type of tṛṣna taught in the
explanation of the Four Noble Truths) and aversion to saṃsāra which, insofar as they result from the delusory
valuation-absolutization of the concepts of saṃsāra and nirvāṇa and of the conceptualization of the difference
between the conditions these concepts stand for, and insofar as they involve samsaric emotionality and dualism,
sustain saṃsāra and block the way to nirvāṇa. Thus when higher Buddhist texts in general and the
Prajñāpāramitāsūtras in particular assert the nonduality of saṃsāra and nirvāṇa, they are expressing in terms of
relative truth the perspective of the nondual absolute truth that is realized in nirvāṇa, in which no duality of
saṃsāra and nirvāṇa is perceived, as a skillful means for helping the transition from the former to the latter
condition; therefore, this does not imply that, as Wilber asserts, Awakening is a condition involving the illusory
subject-object duality—which would imply that it is not a condition radically different from saṃsāra that we
must strive to attain.
In fact, if for nirvāṇa to be nondual it would have to involve all that is involved in saṃsāra, then it would be
saṃsāra rather than nirvāṇa and there would be no point in treading the Path of Awakening. It would be most
unfortunate if one took the skillful means intended to dissolve avidyā and the subject-object duality inherent in it,
and thereby put an end to saṃsāra, to mean that we must maintain avidyā, including the subject-object duality,
and thus remain in saṃsāra while believing this to constitute the realization achieved by the truly nondual
traditions. What we would achieve by these means would be the illusion of having attained nonduality and of
having thereby become better than everybody else—which would not only prevent us from realizing that we are
in saṃsāra and hence from aspiring to nirvāṇa, but also would fill us with conceit, self-satisfaction and other of
the worst samsaric vices, greatly worsening our saṃsāra. (A specious argument of this kind was used by a
Wikipedist to object to my insistence on the need for transpersonal theory to distinguish among those
transpersonal and holotropic conditions that pertain to saṃsāra, those that pertain to nirvāṇa, and those in which
neither nirvāṇa nor active saṃsāra is manifest.[xcvi])
All of the above shows that it would be absurd to posit (as Wilber does) the same stages or fulcra for the Paths
that lead to nondual Awakening and those that lead to plain cessation / nirodhaḥ, reducing the difference between
them to the existence of a further stage or fulcrum in those leading to nondual Awakening: these two types of
path are so radically different that the structure and function of one of them can have hardly anything in common
with that of the other. Furthermore, in the nondual Buddhist traditions we have been considering—which regard
plain nirodhaḥ as a serious deviation to be avoided yet assert the need to realize the true, nondual condition of all
entities in a Gnosis free from the subject-object duality—it does not suffice with realizing this condition a small
29 of 93 04.06.20, 21:58
number of times for one to be able to dwell in it uninterruptedly. In fact, the gradual Mahāyāna claims one has to
spend countless years and lifetimes alternating between the Contemplation state that is beyond the subject-object
and inside-outside dualities, and the post-Contemplation state that involves these dualities, before finally
attaining Buddhahood—which according to some texts occurs after three immeasurable eons.[160] Though in the
Upadeśavarga series of Dzogchen teachings the most thorough Awakening possible may be attained in a single
lifetime, in order to achieve this aim one has to practice Tekchö for years, and then one has to practice Thögel for
a further period: the subject-object duality and delusion in general have to liberate themselves spontaneously
countless times in optimal conditions for the propensities for delusion to manifest to be neutralized or burned out,
so that no matter what forms may manifest, the subject-object duality arises no more and the nonduality of the
Base is no longer concealed. As we have seen, this is the Fruit of the practices of Thögel and the Yangthik, in
which the subject arises and liberates itself spontaneously again and again while the forms of rölpa energy are
manifest and without the latter disappearing, until the propensity for the former to manifest and for the latter to
be taken as object is totally neutralized or burned out.
To sum up, Wilber intended his seventh, eighth, ninth and tenth fulcra to be a progression of levels of realization
following the sequence the inner Buddhist Tantras of the Path of Transformation posit for the successive
realization of the kāyas, in which the first to be realized is the nirmāṇakāya, the second is the sambhogakāya, the
third is the dharmakāya, and the fourth is the svabhāvikāya. However, as shown above, his fulcra do not
correspond to what these Tantras refer to by these names, for: (1) His seventh fulcrum is a spontaneous
experience of oneness with nature, which may consist in a manifestation of the neutral condition of the base-of-
all followed by an experience of the formless realms located at the top of saṃsāra, but which in terms of these
Tantras simply could not be a manifestation of the nirmāṇakāya. (2) He reduced his eighth fulcrum to the
occurrence of non-ordinary strata of perception and subtle non-Jungian archetypes, without making it clear that
for manifestations of the intangible, self-luminous visions of the intermediate state of dharmatā or chönyi bardo
to be instances of the sambhogakāya, the true condition of the rölpa[161] energy of which they are
manifestations has to be reGnized, as a result of which the mental subject that seems to be at a distance from
them instantly disappears and the visions remain in the condition the Dzogchen teachings refer to as the
“condition of the mirror.” (3) His ninth fulcrum is described both as a variety of the neutral condition of the base-
of-all involving nirodhaḥ, and as a samsaric formless realm, thus being a result of the confusion that arises when
the former is immediately followed by the latter. (4) Finally, his tenth fulcrum is a condition in which the subject-
object duality, thought and knowledge continue to arise, but rather than being taken for absolutes, they are
realized to be merely relative or conventional—as occurs in the post-Contemplation state of higher bodhisattvas,
yogis and so on, but not in Buddhahood, in which the subject-object duality arises no more, and only nondual
gnosis is at work.
Finally, as we have seen, in the Upadeśavarga or Menngagde series of Ati Dzogpa Chenpo—which, as noted
above, Wilber has studied with at least one of the most important Masters of our time—the three kāyas are
realized in a sequence that is contrary to the one Wilber posits, and they simply do not correspond to what the
inner Tantras of the Path of Transformation call by the same names.
It seems clear to me that the main problem with Wilber’s views and schemas is that he tries to unify traditions
that cannot be unified, for they do not go through the same stages and do not lead to the same fruits. For example,
his belief that both the structure of reality and the levels of realization are to be understood in terms of
hierarchical (“holarchical”) schemas seems to me to have been inspired by the Upaniṣads. The Taittirīya
Upaniṣad tells the story of a father who, by refuting each of his son’s successive replies to the question of the
identity of Brahman, guides him toward the discovery of the true nature of all reality: (1) matter is to be rejected
because it does not account for vegetable growth; (2) prana or the vital principle is to be rejected because it does
not account for the conscious phenomena of animal life; (3) manas or mind in a wide sense is to be rejected
because it does not account for human intellectual phenomena; (4) vijñāna qua self-consciousness is to be
rejected insofar as it is subject to discord and imperfection, dualism and externality. Thus the son is led to the
discovery that Brahman is realized in and as (5) turīya-ānanda. In its turn, the Chāndogya Upaniṣad contains a
dialogue between Prajāpati and Indra in which the latter is led through similar stages to the discovery of the self
that cannot be affected by experience, and which makes him draw similar consequences: (1) the corporeal is
evidently affected by experience and thus must be rejected; (2) the empirical, which corresponds to the dream
30 of 93 04.06.20, 21:58
state, is also affected by its experiences; (3) the so-called “transcendental,” corresponding to dreamless deep
sleep, is rejected because it involves no consciousness or awareness. Finally, (4) the absolute is found, which is
ekaṁ sat. These four levels seem to have correlates in the Māṇḍūkya Upaniṣad, which distinguishes between: (1)
awake experience; (2) dreams; (3) dreamless, deep sleep, and (4) the state of turīya-ānanda.
However, the way turiya-ananda and ekaṁ sat are referred to in the Upaniṣads does not seem to aptly describe
what here I am calling Dzogchen-qua-Path or Dzogchen-qua-Fruit. In particular, at first sight the states posited in
the Māṇḍūkhya Upaniṣad seem to correspond to four of the intermediate states[162] that are posited in Tibetan
Buddhism, none of which is Dzogchen-qua-Path or Dzogchen-qua-Fruit, for all of them are like reflections in the
“mirror” of spontaneous awareness, rather than the reGnition (of) this awareness. In fact, from lower to higher,
according to the hierarchy put forward in the Māṇḍūkhya Upaniṣad, the four states posited by this lofty sacred
text seem to correspond to: (1) awake experience, which is called the “intermediate state of birth” and which
corresponds to the intermediate state between birth and death;[163] (2) the dream state, called the intermediate
state of dream;[164] (3) the state of dreamless deep sleep, which might correspond either to the intermediate state
immediately following the moment of falling asleep, which is the same as the intermediate state immediately
following the moment of death—the chikhai bardo[165]—or, more likely, to the subsequent state of
unconsciousness; (4) non-conceptual absorptions, which might well correspond to the intermediate state of
meditative absorption (samādhi),[166] which includes specific instances of what various Hindu traditions call
nirvikalpa samādhi. If this were correct, the state of turiya-ananda would not (be) and could by no means (be)
Awakening or nirvāṇa, for these do not at all correspond to the intermediate state of meditative absorption or to
any other intermediate state; contrariwise, Awakening and nirvāṇa correspond to the reGnition of the
spontaneous awareness in which, as in a mirror, the experiences of all bardos manifest—which results in the
instant spontaneous liberation of the experience of whichever bardo may be manifest at the moment.
As noted above, Wilber’s descriptions and classifications seem to be the result of unifying the accounts different
traditions provide regarding the sequence of their respective paths and/or the essence of their respective views.
However, some Paths lead to nirvāṇa, others lead to higher realms of saṃsāra, and still others may allow us to
establish ourselves for some periods in the cessation or nirodhaḥ represented by neutral condition of the base-of-
all. Among the Buddhist Paths leading to nirvāṇa, some lead to the realization of a śrāvaka, others lead to the
realization of a pratyekabuddha, others lead to the realization of a bodhisattva, and still others may lead to the
realization of a yogi, to that of a siddha, to that of a mahāsiddha or to that of a Buddha. Besides, there are gradual
Paths and nongradual Paths. How could a single map be drawn that would be valid for all paths? An accurate
description of a Path can only be achieved by one who has successfully trodden it, on the basis of his or her own
experience, and such description will only apply to the Path from which the description was drawn, and at best to
other Paths based on the same principle. Therefore, it would be absurd to try to derive a “universal map of the
Path” from one’s experience of the Path one has followed,[xcvii] and it would be even more absurd to fabricate
such “universal map” by piecing together accounts from different traditions, for if we put together the trunk of a
mammoth, the teeth of a saber-toothed tiger, and the body of a dinosaur, what we obtain is a monster existing
solely in our own fantasy. Such a concoction, rather than being a manifestation of “aperspectival freedom”
(which as we have seen according to Wilber manifests in the sixth fulcrum, but which in truth is a consequence
of the realization of the absolute truth of the Mahāyāna, or of the condition of Dzogchen, etc.), which necessarily
involves understanding what each and every perspective responds to and may apply to, would in contrast spring
from confusion and lack of perspective.
At any rate, it is a fact that Wilber’s descriptions and classifications fail to provide a clear criterion, such as the
one found in the Dzogchen teachings, for distinguishing saṃsāra from nirvāṇa, and both of these from the base-
of-all.
The “Pre/Trans Fallacy,” the “Ascender/Descender Debate,” and the Structural-Hierarchical and
Dynamic-Dialectical Paradigms
This section is devoted to the evaluation of what Ken Wilber called the Pre/Trans Fallacy and the
Ascender/Descender Debate—the latter having corresponded in the 1990s to the confrontation between the
paradigms that Washburn called “structural-hierarchical” and “dynamic-dialectical.” Originally, the alleged
fallacy, the debate and the paradigms under consideration were discussed partly in the final section of Capriles
(2006a) and partly in the initial section of Capriles (2010a); since in a book it would be incongruous to present
31 of 93 04.06.20, 21:58
part of the discussion of a subject in the final section of one chapter and the other part in the initial segment of the
next, the arguments were synthesized into this final section of Chapter II, eliminating most of the resulting
repetitions and including some new ideas and arguments that turned up in the process of carrying out this
synthesis.
It is common knowledge in transpersonal circles that Ken Wilber (1993c) imputed to Stan Grof and Michael
Washburn what he calls the “pre/trans fallacy”, which is directly related to what he referred to as the
“ascender/descender debate” (Wilber, 1995), and which he defined as “mistaking early, prepersonal life
experiences for transpersonal experiences of higher consciousness.”[xcviii] It is also common knowledge that
both Grof (1985, 2000) and Washburn (1995) deny the existence of that supposed fallacy, and that the former
defends the standing that Wilber criticized, asserting early, prenatal life experiences to be legitimate sources of
transpersonal experience that may validly be interpreted as instances of deeper consciousness. With regard to the
ascending/descending debate, in particular, I think most transpersonalists, upon hearing the word descenders, will
think of those who, like Grof and Washburn, put forward a so-called “descent to deeper consciousness” (which in
some cases may involve a regression) as the means to reintegrate what we expelled from consciousness in
infancy and childhood as an effect of socialization, and thus recover a more whole and harmonic pre-existing
condition. Likewise, I think that most likely when people hear of ascenders they will think of those who, like
Wilber, claim that the way to follow in order to achieve a genuinely whole condition, rather than going
backwards or downwards, goes forward or upward, and that this ascension involves the production of successive
structures each of which can only be produced on the basis of previously established structures.
However, the ascending/descending metaphor being polysemic, it would be coarse and simplistic to reduce it to
the perspective from which only the above two alternatives are contemplated. Below I list what I deem to be
some of the most relevant perspectives from which the metaphor has been interpreted, placing the ontogenetic
interpretation first, and positioning last the understandings I call metaphenomenological and metaexistential:
(1) Wilber has regularly presented it as the disjunctive between (a) furthering ontogenetic development in a way
that involves progress and gain, and (b) undergoing a process of regression.
(2) Wilber has also viewed it as the disjunctive, which is closely related to the preceding one, and which is an
instance of the one listed below as (5), between (a) his view of spiritual development as a process of producing
successive structures (each of which is founded on the preceding one and cannot arise before the preceding one
has been firmly established), and (b) the contending view of the same process as a dissolution of ego structures
and so on.
(3) Wilber and some other theorists have also understood it as a disjunctive between (a) a spirituality that views
and seeks the sacred or the spiritual in a “beyond” to which it is oriented, and (b) a worldview that favors
immanency and values nature, including the body and, often, its natural impulses—some varieties of which see
the latter as sacred and as means for achieving spiritual realization, seeking to eradicate consciousness’s
alienation from the body and its feelings and impulses. However, Wilber (e.g. 1996b pp. 10-11[xcix]), by
generalizing on the basis of Plotinus’ seeming acosmism (which, as shown in Appendix I to this book, in reality
is a concealed dualism rather than an acosmism), conveys the mistaken belief that transcendent spirituality posits
inherent oneness and immanentist spirituality posits self-existing plurality, when in reality most otherworldly
religions see the universe as separate from their supposedly transcendent divinity and as consisting of a plurality
of substances, whereas many thisworldly believers regard the universe as a single substance—often using
theories of the new physics for validating this view—and assert the unconcealment of this single substance to be
the remedy for ecological crisis and most other evils of our time (for Wilber’s view of Plotinus cf. 1995, Book
Two, pp. 331-344 and following chapters; for a contrasting interpretation cf. Appendix I to this book).
(4) Another way in which some of the same theorists have understood it, which is intimately related to the third,
is as the disjunctive between (a) an après moi le déluge[c] spirituality bent on achieving individual liberation
from suffering while disregarding ecological, social, economic, political, gender, generational, cultural and
related issues, and (b) another one that is deeply concerned and engaged with the latter.
(5) It may as well be understood phylogenetically, as the disjunctive between (a) a view of human spiritual and
social evolution that is ascending in the sense of regarding the process in question as one of progressive
improvement and perfecting, and (b) another one that is descending in the sense of seeing the evolution in
32 of 93 04.06.20, 21:58
question as a process of gradual degeneration starting in a condition of plenitude and perfection.
(6) I myself use the image in two senses. The first is that of the disjunctive between (a) a phenomenologically
ascending spirituality which pretends to be the royal, direct way to Awakening but which, insofar as its method
consists in producing or building structures, experiences and states that, since they are produced or built, are
spurious, conditioned and impermanent, instead of leading to its avowed destination takes followers to what
Buddhism calls higher samsaric realms, and (b) a metaphenomenologically descending spirituality that is based
on Seeing through all produced, conditioned states, experiences and structures, into their unproduced, uncaused
and unconditioned true nature[ci]—on the occasion of which spurious experiences, states and structures
spontaneously dissolve in the way the Dzogchen teachings call spontaneous liberation. As shown in the
preceding chapter, on the Dzogchen Path, which is paradigmatic of the metaphenomenologically descending
Path, each and every time the spontaneous liberation of spurious, delusive states and experiences occurs,
conditioning and delusive propensities are neutralized to some extent, and therefore the constant repetition of this
liberation gradually undoes conditioning and delusion (thus undoing the serial simulations Laing [1961]
illustrated with the diagram of a spiral of pretences,[cii] which are the secondary process elements in the
construction of delusive self-identity and in the implementation of the unauthentic project of ascension to higher
levels of saṃsāra, and the corresponding primary process structures) until Dzogchen-qua-Base—i.e., the true
condition of all reality—is never again concealed and hence Dzogchen-qua-Fruit—i.e., the supreme nirvāṇa
constituting full Awakening—is attained.
(7) The second of the senses in which I use the image is that of the disjunctive between (a) an existentially
ascending spirituality intent on eluding the duḥkha inherent in the delusion called avidyā, and in particular the
conflict and suffering inherent in the bare experience of the basic human contradiction constituted by the second
and third senses of avidyā in the Dzogchen teachings, by ascending to higher samsaric states or realms through
phenomenological training and construction, or by whichever other means may be available to that end
(including chemical ones that induce short lived ascensions), and (b) the metaexistentially descending one, which
consists in creating the conditions for the basic human contradiction that is the delusion called avidyā to turn into
conflict, so that we may no longer cling to the experiences and states based on that contradiction / delusion, and,
on the contrary, are compelled to apply the pith instructions that facilitate Seeing through them into their
unconditioned true condition—and which, if this Seeing takes place, will instantly result in their spontaneous
liberation. Thus metaexistential descent would be useless independently of metaphenomenological descent.
(1) As early as the Introduction, the point was made that true Paths of Awakening are not descending in sense (1)
of those listed above—that of undergoing regression—as in the case of ordinary individuals no instance of Seeing
into our unconditioned true condition has ever occurred in the past. This sense will be discussed in greater detail
in the course of the discussion of senses (5), (6) and (7) of those listed above, after pondering over the two
paradigms to which Michael Washburn (1995) reduced the ascending / descending disjunctive, as these directly
have to do with sense (1) of the disjunctive in question.
(2) However, as evidenced in the discussion of the last three senses of the ascending / descending disjunctive,
true Paths of Awakening are descending in sense (2)—that of the dissolution of ego structures and so on—
because, rather than lying in producing successive structures, each of which would be founded on the preceding
one and could not arise until the preceding one has been firmly established, their essence lies in Seeing through
the conditioned, constructed egoic and in general samsaric structures that conceal the true, unconditioned
condition of reality, into the latter—so that all conditioned, constructed samsaric structures spontaneously
liberate themselves, and constant repetition of this may in the long run dissolve them definitively. Thus it is clear
that sense (2) is an instance of sense (6): the one I call metaphenomenological. However, sense (2) was defined
by Wilber, who insisted that genuine Paths of Awakening are ascending in this sense—claiming that they consist
in producing successive structures (each of which is founded on the preceding one and cannot arise before the
preceding one has been firmly established)—whereas it was the present writer who defined sense (6), and did so
in order to show a key sense in which ascension is characteristic of unauthentic paths leading to higher samsaric
realms and the neutral condition of the base-of-all. Therefore, I had to initially present (2) and (6) as two
different senses of ascension and descent, so as to then show sense (2) to be an instance of sense (6) and prove
Wilber to be positing an unauthentic path leading to higher samsaric realms and the neutral condition of the base-
of-all—or, which is the same, to be one of those theorists with regard to which Longchen Rabjampa
(corresponding yet not identical translation in Longchenpa, 1994, p. 212) declared:[167]
33 of 93 04.06.20, 21:58
Though they deal with the limitless, they profess a view that is no more than the peak of worldly
experience. Whatever they do, they are trapped in their system, and will never have the slightest
insight into the natural primordial gnosis.
All of the above makes it clear that we are not yet in a position to assess sense (2), and that therefore we must
evaluate it below, in the course of the discussion of senses (6) and (7).
(3) As to sense (3), the Atiyoga Path of Spontaneous Liberation and its combination with practices of the Tantric
Path of Transformation are descending in this sense as well, for their worldview favors immanency and values
nature, including the body and its natural impulses, and hence rather than being antisomatic, the Path and
combination of Paths in question view the body and its impulses as sacred, using them as as central elements of
powerful skillful means for attaining spiritual realization, and thereby gradually eradicating consciousness’s
alienation from the body and its feelings and impulses—this being another of the grounds on which these Paths
may be said to be more genuinely nondual than other Paths. In order to clarify the reasons why, in order to be
perfectly nondual, a system has to be descending in sense (3), first of all we must further elucidate the meaning of
nonduality, which many wrongly believe to consist in asserting the oneness of everything and rejecting the belief
in a duality or a plurality of substances. The latter involves a logical error, for it was already shown that, as
Nāgārjuna and later Mādhyamikas noted, the true condition of everything cannot be contained in any concept, as
concepts are traditionally defined by proximate genus[168] (the immediately wider genus in which they are
included) and specific difference[169] (that which distinguishes them from other classes within the same genus),
and hence they are inherently dualistic and by nature must exclude something—a limitation that applies to the
concept of oneness as well, for it excludes duality and plurality, and to any other concept we may wrongly
believe suitable for comprehending this condition. In fact, since the the true condition of everything does not
exclude anything, there is nothing with which it may contrast—hence having no specific difference—and no
class wider than itself in which it may be included—hence having no proximate genus—and thus it can only be
realized in the patency of the nondual primordial gnosis that is free from conceptual interpretations. Furthermore,
the experience of the given in terms of concepts and therefore of dualisms, insofar as it involves the conjunction
of the factors of experience (including the subtle / intuitive concepts involved in recognition), is born / produced /
conditioned—and the same applies to reflecting about experience in terms of coarse / discursive thoughts.
Therefore, no experience or reflection in terms of thoughts can fit the unborn, unproduced, uncompounded,
unconditioned true condition of everything, which is unconcealed only in the bare patency of the nondual gnosis
that (is) free from conceptual interpretations, which dissolves the born / produced / conditioned, including all
conceptual interpretations and dualisms. This signifies that taking an understanding in term of concepts and
therefore of duality, or a concept-tinged and as such dualistic experience, to give us the true condition of all
entities, is a delusion, and that really nondual Paths must necessarily be descending in the metaphenomenological
sense of the term.
Now we are in a position to understand why the criterion for distinguishing between ascending and descending
paths above classed as (3) is crucial for determining whether a tradition is dualistic or nondualistic, and
concomitant with the metaphenomenological one. Firstly, viewing mater as separate from the divine or from
what is held to be ultimately true, as did the Orphic ideologies discussed in Appendix I (on Wilber’s
“philosophical tradition”), involves a coarse ontological dualism—which, as shown in that Appendix, in Plotinus
is disguised as a monism. Secondly, regarding the body’s impulses and feelings as evil or as running against the
highest human aims, rather than realizing them to be sacred impulses to be put into play in the quest for the
realization of the ultimate truth, involves a coarse moral dualism based on an experiential ontological dualism—
the latter because, in order to condemn the impulses and feelings in question, consciousness has to experience
them as other than and different from itself, and thus has to be under the sway of the illusion of a substantial,
ontological dualism between mind and body, spirit and nature (which, as shown in the aforementioned Appendix,
Plotinus posits theoretically as well).[ciii] Thus for a system to be really nondualistic and perfectly
metaphenomenological, rather than debase the corporeal, it must revere the body, with its feelings and impulses,
and the totality of the natural world. In fact, since Buddhism defines the compounded / conditioned / constructed
/ made / contrived / fabricated[170] as whatever originates from interdependent arisings or from the conjunction
of causes and conditions, and since the Mādhyamikas explain interdependence in terms of the co-emergent
arising of the conceptual opposites, in higher Buddhist views all that is dualistic is conditioned and all that is
conditioned is dualistic. And since the systems here called metaphenomenological are those that allow us to See
through all that is conditioned into the unconditioned and thus instantly switch from saṃsāra to nirvāṇa (for it is
34 of 93 04.06.20, 21:58
only the constant repetition of this that gradually eradicates saṃsāra), in order to be perfectly
metaphenomenological a spiritual system has to be based on Seeing through and gradually uprooting all that is
dualistic. Moreover, since one of the most pernicious of conditioned dualisms is the body/mind, spirit/nature rift,
a perfectly metaphenomenological spiritual system must be most effective for healing consciousness’s alienation
from the body and the latter’s feelings and impulses—which implies that, rather than being antisomatic, it must
revere nature and the corporeal, and, in order to See through the conditioned and dualistic into its unconditioned
true condition, it must not eschew those methods that put into play the body’s feelings and impulses, which are
most valuable, sacred means for the realization of the unconditioned, ultimately true condition of reality.
The above is one crucial reason why the Dzogchen Path of Spontaneous Liberation and the Tantric Path of
Transformation are the most genuinely metaphenomenological and nondual Buddhist Paths. However, it is the
former that is perfectly metaphenomenological and nondual: whereas the latter requires the practitioner to
phenomenologically construct by means of visualization a conditioned reality different from the ordinary one, in
order to then See through this newly constructed reality into its unconditioned true condition—which implies a
subtle debasement of ordinary human experience—the former Sees into the unborn and unconditioned true
condition immediately, through whatever is manifest in ordinary reality, which as such is acknowledge to have
supreme value. Moreover, since the Dzogchen Path, beside revering nature and destroying antisomatism, is the
most effective one for uprooting the avidyā that, as shown in the first chapter of this book and illustrated with the
Buddhist fable of the men with the elephant and other examples, is the ultimate root of the current ecological
crisis, it has supreme ecological value.
(4) Though, as we have seen, especially in gradual Buddhist Paths, we may speak of ascension in some specific
senses, we can never do so either in (3) the sense of movement to the otherworldly, or in (4) that of unconcern
with ecological, social, political, economic, gender and other issues of common interest to our species as a whole.
Furthermore, the various Buddhist Paths are descending in sense (4), for they have always been profoundly
concerned with the issues in question, and many of their adherents have been engaged social and ecological
activists (even though some heterodox schools do not share this concern). Buddhist writer Joanna Macy (1988, p.
204) writes:
In the Aggañña Sutta the institution of private property is presented as the occasion for the arising of
theft, mendacity and violence…
In the Buddha’s teachings, economic sharing was held out as an ideal for the relations between lay
persons as well as bhikkhus (monks), and as a prerequisite for a healthy society.

In fact, the Sutta in question challenges the Vedic conconctions about the origin of the casts of Brahmanism, as
well as various of the assumptions justifying unequal societies, and the Buddhist teachings in general emphasize
sharing and communal living. Theravāda Buddhist monk Walpola Rahula (1988, pp. 104-105) from Shri Lanka,
for his part, tells us that:
The Cakkavattisīhanādasutta [civ] of the Dīghanikāya clearly states that poverty (dāḷiddiya) is the
cause of immorality and crimes such as theft, falsehood, violence, hatred, cruelty, etc. Kings in
ancient times, like governments today, tried to suppress crime through punishment. The
Kūṭadantasutta of the same Nikāya explains how futile this is. It says that this method can never be
successful. Instead the Buddha suggests that, in order to eradicate crime, the economic condition of
the people should be improved: grain and other facilities for agriculture should be provided for
farmers and cultivators; capital should be provided for traders and those who are engaged in
business; adequate wages should be paid to those who are employed. When people are thus provided
with opportunities for earning a sufficient income, they will be contented, will have no fear or
anxiety, and consequently the country will be peaceful and free from crime.
Of course things are not so simple nowadays, as we have developed the dynamics of the shadow to an
unprecedented degree, and have become vicious and violent to a degree unknown in the India of Śākyamuni
Buddha. However, what we are concerned with here is that the above passage shows the so-called Hīnayāna to be
descending in sense (4). As to the Mahāyāna, likely around the second century AD, in the
Rājaparikathāratnavalī, the great Mahāyāna teacher Nāgārjuna advocated that which Buddhist scholar-monk
35 of 93 04.06.20, 21:58
Robert Thurman (1988, p. 128; the phrases within brackets are my own addition) referred to as a “compassionate
socialism” adapted to the conditions of his time and place and based on a “psychology of abundance.” He wrote:
The fourth principle of Buddhist activism, compassionate socialism, concerns the economic and
legal administration of society. Here Nāgārjuna describes the welfare state, astoundingly, millennia
ahead of its time, a rule of compassionate socialism based on a psychology of abundance, achieved
by generosity. “To dispel the suffering of children, the elderly and the sick, please fix farm revenues
for doctors and barbers throughout the land.” This is a concise description of a socially-supported
universal health care delivery system. “Please have a kind intelligence and set up hostels, parks,
canals, irrigation ponds, rest houses, wells, beds, food, grass [for the beasts] and firewood [for
cooking and warming].” A policy of total care of all citizens is plainly recommended, including care
for travelers, even strangers passing through, and special shelters for beggars and cripples, and
wandering ascetics. “It is not right to eat yourself until you have given seasonal food, drink,
vegetables, grains, and fruits to mendicants and beggars.” Nāgārjuna spares no details of how these
outsiders should be cared for: “Please establish rest houses in all temples, towns, and cities, and
provide water fountains on arid roadway. (...) At the fountains, place shoes, umbrellas, water filters,
tweezers for removing thorns, needles, thread, and fans. Within the vessels place the three medicinal
fruits, the three fever medicines, butter, honey, eye-salve, antidotes to poison, written charms, and
prescriptions. (…) Place body-salves, foot-salves, head-salves, cloth, stools, gruel, jars, pots, axes,
and so forth. Please have small containers kept in shade filled with sesame, rice, grains, foods,
molasses and cool water.”
Mune Tsenpo,[171] short-lived King of Tibet (circa 797-799), intent on applying the social doctrines received
from his Buddhist teachers, on three consecutive occasions tried to redistribute the wealth of his country, giving
rise to ever more irate and violent reactions on the part of the nobility, which finally got queen Tsepongza[172] to
poison him.[cv] In Bhutan, at the turn of the 20th century the Tongsa Penlop—a descendant of the great
tertön[cvi] Pema Lingpa[173]—rebelled against the established political system, setting up a dynasty that later on
put a ceiling of 30 acres to both private and monastic ownership of arable land, set up an egalitarian social
system where the King could not be told from the commoner on account of his clothes or riches, while
introducing technology did its best to preserve the ecosystem, and currently proposes replacing the concept of
Gross National Product with that of Gross National Happiness.[cvii] In India, Dr. Bimrao Ambedkar, the leader
of the dalits or oppressed (the term by which the outcasts that Brahmanic orthodoxy calls untouchable[174]
presently call themselves) in the struggle for independence from Britain, in order to liberate his human group
from the debased, appallingly oppressed condition to which Brahmanic orthodoxy condemned them, in 1956
converted to Buddhism together with some 400,000 of his followers, associating to this egalitarian religion their
openly non-Marxist movement for social equality (Capriles, 2010b).[cviii] The socio-economic system that
prevailed in Burma (presently Myanmar) in the 1960s, in its turn, was quoted by E. F. Schumacher (1973) as a
source of inspiration for the “Buddhist economics” he propounded. In ancient China, Chán monasteries made a
point of being self-sustaining in order to avoid being a charge for lay people (the Master Bǎizhàng Huáihái[175]
declared, “One day without work, one day without food;” for some of Bǎizhàng’s sayings and deeds, cf. Cleary,
1978). In Japan, within Pure Land Buddhism,[176] the layman Shinran (1173–1262), founder of the Jōdo
Shinshū tradition, ideated and created a socially engaged, horizontally structured Buddhist community outside
the traditional Japanese Buddhist monastic orders (however, with the passing of time his descendants
transformed the horizontal structures he set up into vertical ones [Ogi, 2007]). And in twentieth century
Tibet,[cix] in the commune founded by tertön Changchub Dorje—made up of lay people, yet including monks
and nuns as well—the fruits of its members’ work was equitably shared, and free meals for the poor in
neighboring areas were provided; when the Chinese authorities visited the commune in question in order to
implement the so-called Great Democratic Revolution, they found nothing to change, for “it was already
organized as a cooperative” (Namkhai Norbu, 1986[cx]).
The second half of the twentieth century saw the emergence of a movement intent on applying Buddhism’s social
outlook, which calls itself “engaged Buddhism.” The label was coined by Vietnamese Thien[177] Buddhist
Master Thich Nhat Hanh, in whose country the movement in question has been extremely influential through the
activism of the Unified Buddhist Church of Vietnam. In Shri Lanka it has had an enormous influence through the
Sarvodaya movement initiated by A. T. Ariyaratne. In Thailand, it has gained visibility through the work of S.
Sivaraksa. In Korea, it has involved the regular mass activism of Seon[178] monks. Among Tibetans, the present
Dalai Lama and other high Tibetan Lamas have contributed pieces of writing to the movement’s books.
36 of 93 04.06.20, 21:58
Moreover, when the noted Tibetan leader-in-exile visited Chile, Venezuela and other Latin American countries in
1992, in the first country’s capital he defined himself as a “humanistic socialist or humanistic Marxist” (EFE,
2002). Moreover, consider the following (Dalai Lama XIV, undated):
Q: You have often stated that you would like to achieve a synthesis between Buddhism and
Marxism. What is the appeal of Marxism for you?
A: Of all the modern economic theories, the economic system of Marxism is founded on moral
principles, while capitalism is concerned only with gain and profitability. Marxism is concerned with
the distribution of wealth on an equal basis and the equitable utilization of the means of production.
It is also concerned with the fate of the working classes—that is, the majority—as well as with the
fate of those who are underprivileged and in need, and Marxism cares about the victims of minority-
imposed exploitation. For those reasons the system appeals to me, and it seems fair. I just recently
read an article in a paper where His Holiness the Pope also pointed out some positive aspects of
Marxism.
As for the failure of the Marxist regimes, first of all I do not consider the former USSR, or China, or
even Vietnam, to have been true Marxist regimes, for they were far more concerned with their
narrow national interests than with the Workers’ International; this is why there were conflicts, for
example, between China and the USSR, or between China and Vietnam. If those three regimes had
truly been based upon Marxist principles, those conflicts would never have occurred.
I think the major flaw of the Marxist regimes is that they have placed too much emphasis on the need
to destroy the ruling class, on class struggle, and this causes them to encourage hatred and to neglect
compassion. Although their initial aim might have been to serve the cause of the majority, when they
try to implement it all their energy is deflected into destructive activities. Once the revolution is over
and the ruling class is destroyed, there is nor much left to offer the people; at this point the entire
country is impoverished and unfortunately it is almost as if the initial aim were to become poor. I
think that this is due to the lack of human solidarity and compassion. The principal disadvantage of
such a regime is the insistence placed on hatred to the detriment of compassion.
The failure of the regime in the former Soviet Union was, for me, not the failure of Marxism but the
failure of totalitarianism. For this reason I still think of myself as half-Marxist, half-Buddhist.
In my works on political and socioeconomic philosophy and philosophy of history, which include both books
(Capriles, 1994, 2007a vol. III, in press 1) and shorter pieces of writing (Capriles, 1986 ch. 2, 1997a, 2006b,
2007b, 2007c, 2007d, 2008, 2010b)—to none of which I have ever applied labels such as Marxism or
Buddhism—I outline an alternative to Marxism intended to respond to the needs of our time. However, in it I
incorporate key concepts of Marxism, reformulating them from a Buddhism and Dzogchen-based, Green
perspective that posits the need to establish an increasingly direct democracy (rather than a “dictatorship of the
proletariat” as the term is understood by Leninism[cxi])—and so I think I fully understand the reasons why the
revered, venerable pacifist Tibetan Buddhist leader-in-exile declared himself half-Marxist, and I believe his
declaration to Time Magazine (1988), reproduced below, will make all readers understand those reasons:
...Buddhism can show Marxism how to develop a genuine socialist ideal “not through force, but
through reason, through a very gentle training of the mind, through the development of altruism.”
Since the basic human delusion Śākyamuni called avidyā is the ultimate cause of ecological crisis, the survival of
our species depends mainly on eradicating the delusion in question—for which Buddhism in general and
Dzogchen in particular possess some of the most effective means available. And since human survival depends,
among other things, on a significant reduction of economic, social and political inequalities and a drastic
reduction of our appetites for consumption (“since the cake can no longer be enlarged, our future depends on the
way we share it”), engaged Buddhism has a crucial role in showing the way to a bright and durable future in the
present crossroads of our species.
At any rate, in the works where I have outlined a blueprint for the transformation on which the survival of our
species and the establishing of a fulfilling and harmonic social, economic, political and cultural order depends, I
insist that the basic delusion called avidyā, which is the primary human contradiction, as well as all of the
37 of 93 04.06.20, 21:58
secondary contradictions that arose and developed as a consequence of the growth and exacerbation of the
delusion in question along the cosmic time cycle, achieved their reductio ad absurdum on having produced the
current ecological crisis, which has exposed delusion for what it is and proved all that derived from its
development not to be viable, and by the same token has made the materialization of formerly utopian human
aspirations possible. They also emphasize the fact that the only effective way to reduce to a viable scale the
Gargantuan appetites that are making us consume the world, is by progressively dissolving the illusion of being a
mental subject at a distance of the physical universe, for the apparent fracture of totality introduced by this
illusion is at the root of our severe feeling of lack of totality, and the illusion of being at a distance of the
continuum of plenitude that according to contemporary physics is the universe[cxii] generates our severe lack of
plenitude—and these lacks, exacerbated by advertising through the mass media and the prevailing way of life,
are what we blindly try to fill by means of the compulsive consumption that is destroying the ecosystem. They
also make the point that human attempts to transform society, unless they go along with the transformation of the
psyche brought about by progress on a genuine Path of Awakening, would be counterproductive, for unless the
ego-delusion at the root of egotism, the vertical and oppressive relationships that structure our psyche, the
Jungian shadow and so on are dissolved,[cxiii] they will cause those of us who work toward that transformation
to give rise to a state of affairs at least as destructive, unfair, vicious and self-frustrating as the one which prevails
today—and, moreover, we would be likely to project our shadows on the ruling class and try to punish and
destroy the former by punishing and destroying the latter. And they also make it clear that, just as
metaexistential, metaphenomenological descent need not involve regression to prepersonal states (even though in
some unripe individuals it may derail into some kind of regression), the descent in senses (3) and (4) that I
propound, in combination with descent in sense (6), rather than resulting in a “return to nature” in the Luddite
sense of destroying technology, is supposed to transform technology in a way not unlike the one Marcuse (1972,
p. 61) contemplated—though they may result in a “return to physis” in the sense in which so-called Sophists,
Cynics and Stoics used this term: as the opposite of nomos.[cxiv] Finally, since this is not the place to discuss in
extenso either engaged Buddhism or my political and social theories, the reader is directed to the above offered
list of the works where I develop them, and the bibliography on engaged Buddhism appended past the Reference
section.
(5) As to sense (5), Tantric Buddhism and Buddhist Dzogchen share with many of the genuine Awakening
traditions having their source in Mount Kailāśā, and with some of the traditions the latter influenced, a
conception of human spiritual and social phylogenesis that I classify as descending because, as noted in the
Introduction and evidenced by the discussion of the eon in a previous section of this chapter, it depicts our
spiritual and social evolution as a gradual going down—i.e., a gradual Fall—of the spiritual and social quality of
our species, which begins in an initial condition of plenitude and perfection. As stated in the Introduction and
reiterated above, I have explained this gradual degeneration as being driven by the gradual development of the
basic human delusion called avidyā (which in its turn I have explained as resulting from the paradoxical
interaction of the two hemispheres of the human brain [Capriles, 1986, 1994, 2007a vol. III, in press 1]).
Moreover, I claim that it is the very process of degeneration that will make it possible to eradicate delusion and
recover a condition analogous to the one that marked the beginning of the cycle, for the current ecological crisis
is the reductio ad absurdum of delusion—insofar as it proves it to be a delusion and as such not to be viable—
that makes the eradication of delusion possible, both because it will activate a mass impulse to both eradicate
delusion and radically change the prevailing social, economic, political, technological, cultural and religious
order, and because it taking our species beyond the threshold at which, in each of its members, the eradication of
delusion becomes possible.
Among the traditions originating in Mount Kailāśā and the systems they influenced that share this outlook, let me
list Bön (the native spiritual traditions of the Himalayas), Daoism, Shaivism (and through its influence some non-
Śaiva Indian spiritual traditions and nonspiritual texts), Zurvanism, Ismailism, Sufism or at least some Sufi
traditions, and the Dionysian tradition of Greece (as well as philosophical traditions deriving from the latter such
as the Cynics and the Stoics—Stoicism not being fully Dionysian because its founder, Zeno of Citium, reframed
the Dionysian doctrines he received from the Cynic Crates in the context of a rationalism avant la lettre as a
result of the drift that caused him to open himself to the influence of Stilpo the Megarian).[cxv]
Even the Pāḷi Canon and the forms of Buddhism based on this Canon—of which the only independently school
subsisting in our time is the Theravāda—uphold a degenerative view of human evolution, which is outlined in the
first two of the Suttas to which reference was made in the discussion of point (4): the Aggaññasutta explains how
this degenerative evolution resulted in the development of passions, which in its turn resulted in the birth of
38 of 93 04.06.20, 21:58
private property, which in its rurn gave rise to the vices of stealing and lying—which in their turn begot the need
for rulers. The Cakkavattisīhanādasutta in its turn contemplates a further spiritual and social degeneration of our
species, which in its turn would cause the gradual decline of human health and the concomitant diminution of life
expectancy until the point at which the average human life-span has reached a minimum—a time when all
nourishing and good tasting foodsuffs would have disappeared from the planet and what nowadays is deemed to
be the poorest coarse food would be seen as a delicacy. (Thus the Pāḷi Canon posits a close link between the
quality of human spirituality and behavior, and the availability of natural resources.)
(1-5 in Wilber) At this point it is imperative to halt the evaluation of various forms of Buddhism and other of the
Awakening traditions I deem authentic, so as to briefly assess Wilber’s position in terms of the senses of
ascension and descent discussed so far in the evaluation of those traditions. To begin with, since Wilber openly
asserts his own standing to be ascending in senses (1) and (2) of those outlined above, for the time being there is
nothing to say about his position in these senses. With regard to sense (3), in which Wilber claims to hold a
Middle Way view between ascending and descending, his model in this regard is Plotinus, who, as shown in
Appendix I, held matter to lie beyond the reach of the radiation of the One and as such to be lack of Good (which
for the Greeks meant Evil) and lack of Beauty (which for the Greeks meant Ugliness), and though he viewed the
desire for a beautiful body with the aim to procreate as licit, he betrayed his Orphic roots by holding all that is
made of matter to be an agent extraneous to the soul that perverts it, overpowering it and degenerating it,
corrupting it and inducing it to all kinds of perversion and impurity—whereby it abjures its very essence and
falls into the body and matter (for the sources, cf. Appendix I). Furthermore, he incomprehensibly asserts
Plato—who, as will be shown in Appendix I, offered Greek philosophy its first ontological, substantialistic
dualism—to be a beacon of the nondual tradition from whom the torch of nonduality, the integrative vision, still
intact, passed most notably to Plotinus, in whom Plato lived again (Wilber, 1995, p. 331[cxvi]). It is equally
significant that Wilber’s most rabid criticisms and attacks are aimed at descenders in this sense: he deprecates
ecologists, ecofeminists and erotic polymorphists, and accuses all trends and theorists of Deep Ecology of being
caught in profound flatland orientations (Wilber, 1995, Book Two). Hence he is a radical ascender in this sense
as well.
With regard to sense (4), Wilber advocates a descent like the one Plato prescribes in Republic VII 540B for those
philosophers who, having at age 50 directed their sight to the being that illumines all, come to the point at which
they are obliged to descend from the contemplation of supramundane eidos in order to take on official posts and
serve the polis. Wilber also presents as a descent the manifestation of the all-embracing compassion that,
according to Mahāyāna Buddhism, is inherent in Awakening: identifying the latter—which, as shown in the
preceding section, he understands in a way that does not correspond to the way it is described in Mahāyāna
Buddhism—as the end-term of evolution, and referring to it as above, he writes that compassion embraces from
above. However, none of this makes of Wilber a descender in sense (4). In fact, as stated right after the
exposition of engaged Buddhism, in the succinct discussion of the views expressed in my works on philosophy
of history and political philosophy, the current ecological crisis, which is so grave that it may be viewed as a
nearly terminal illness of our species, requires that in the immediate future we carry out the transformation in all
planes (social, economic, political, cultural, scientific, technological and so on) that alone can give us a
possibility of survival, and that by the same token could give rise to an enlightened, fulfilling, harmonic society.
And for this transformation to be successful, it must go hand in hand with the generalization of the state of
Communion that consists in the unconcealment of Dzogchen-qua-Base, which seems to be about to become
possible (at least in part of the world) as a result of the completion of the reductio ad absurdum of delusion in the
current ecological crisis. Wilber’s system forestall the transformation in question, for it negates the extreme
gravity of ecological crisis and the life-or-death need for this transformation, ridiculing those who promote it, and
taking for granted that going without it the human species will continue to thrive and gradually evolve over a
long time until the point, which he places far away in the future, at which it would finally achieve the mutation
that would make so-called “higher states of consciousness” widely available. This is fully congruent with the fact
that Wilber (2000b, Introduction), rather than advocating Green politics, engaged Buddhism and so on, argues for
a “Third Way” uniting the best of conservative and liberal trends (the latter, in the US sense of the term)—in
which he places, respectively, G. W. Bush’s euphemistically called Compassionate Conservatism and Bill
Clinton’s “Vital Center”—thus positioning himself somewhere between an ecologically destructive, militaristic,
overimperialistic US extreme right and the also destructive, militaristic, imperialistic, so-called political center,
which seem to be the only two standings he deems worthy of consideration. Therefore, Wilber’s view not only is
ascending in sense (4) as well, but is a recipe for the short-term extinction of our species. (Recently Wilber
[2009] published excerpts of an interview in which for the first time he proposes what he deems to be solutions to
39 of 93 04.06.20, 21:58
concrete world problems; however, his political proposals are impracticable and fail to offer a genuine answer to
our present predicament.[cxvii])
With regard to sense (5), despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, Wilber’s view of primal humans is
roughly as these are caricatured in comic strips and TV series—and, moreover, he asserts their level of
consciousness to precisely correspond to that of his ontogenetic fulcra 2 or 3, presenting them as being in just the
same state of pre-egoic fusion as infants (for the aforementioned “evidence to the contrary” cf. Capriles, in press
1, and Taylor, 2003, 2005—the latter works containing, side by side with most pertinent and well-founded
“evidence,” the findings of anthropological and ethnological research into tribal peoples of the last three
centuries, which may not be legitimately extrapolated to humans living many thousands of years ago[cxviii]).
However, as Steve Taylor (2003) rightly objected, had our ancestors been just like infants, they would have been
unable to manage reality—which was not the case, for our species survived, and the “evidence” to which allusion
was made in this paragraph suggests that, rather than having been unable to effectively manage reality, human
beings in the Primordial Age dealt with it far more effectively than humans of our time do. For example, though
beginning some millennia ago they occasioned a few ecocides, for the most they were so successfully integrated
with the rest of the ecosphere, that they furthered biodiversity (the ethnoecological “findings” presented in
Descola, 1996, shows Amazonian Indians to have dramatically done so[cxix]), whereas civilizations in most
cases destroyed themselves due to their deleterious effects on their “environment” (Dale & Carter, 1955).
Furthermore, primal humans seem to have exhibited virtues similar to those that are presently obtained from
effective spiritual practice of the kind taught by genuine Awakening traditions, which in ordinary humans of our
times have been replaced by the vices that constitute their opposites (one illustration of this being the absence of
violence—and in particular mass violence—between humans suggested by paleopathological research
[Lochouarn, 1993; van der Dennen, 1995; DeMeo, 1998; Taylor, 2005; etc.]).
Wilber places paleolithic hunter-gatherers in what he refers to as the typhonic evolutionary stage, which he
pictures as being characterized by magical thinking, and as involving voodoo, taboos, and an animistic
worldview. He places the farmers of the Neolithic—which began around 10,000 BCE—in the mythic stage,
claiming that in that period people began to realize that magic does not work, and thus conceived elaborate
systems of gods, demons, and other forces. He further claims that at around 2,500 BCE the solar ego stage
began, with the low egoic phase lasting until 500 BCE, when the current high ego began and humans became
capable of rationality and hypothetico-deductive reasoning. Moreover, he maintains that it was in the latter phase
that human beings became capable of experiencing higher transpersonal levels, including nirvikalpa samādhi
(which, as we have seen, in many paradigmatic cases, rather than being the dharmakāya, as Wilber claims, may
have been an instance of the neutral condition of the base-of-all that as such is to be avoided on genuine Paths of
Awakening). Wilber notes, however, that the levels of consciousness he associates to his stages are those of
average people, but that some gifted individuals would be able to “jump” from the average level to higher ones.
Nevertheless, since the average level was relatively low, earlier human beings could not leap the full height of the
spectrum: even during the mythic stage individuals could only “peak” at the psychic level, which they attained
through shamanic rituals and trances (Wilber, 1981, 1995). As Taylor (2003) notes, subsequently Wilber (2000a,
p. 146) modified his position, claiming that “a truly developed shaman in a magical culture, having evolved
various postconventional capacities, would be able to authentically experience the transpersonal realms (mostly
the psychic, but also, on occasion, subtle and perhaps causal)” (Taylor’s italics). However, even after this change
of views, our author deemed it impossible for humans of previous ages to attain fulcrum 10, which is the one that
he—wrongly, as shown in the preceding section—regards as the Awakening of the Mahāyāna and other higher
Buddhist vehicles.
The above outright contradicts the Dzogchen teachings, which Wilber studied with the late Penor Rinpoché and
to which he repeatedly refers in his writings, for according to the Rigpa Rangshar Tantra[179][cxx] of the
Upadeśavarga[180] series of Dzogchen teachings, the first of the twelve primordial revealers[181] of Dzogchen
teachings in our world during the present time cycle, the perfect Master Khyeu Nangwa Tampa Samgyi
Mikhyappa, lived during the cycle’s earliest, primeval stage, when Space-Time-Awareness was Total and
therefore the span of a human lifetime was experienced as being unlimited, and after his full Awakening he
transmitted to his perfect entourage of disciples[cxxi] the main Tantra of the Menngagde series, which is said to
be the foundation of all Dzogchen teachings: the Drataljur Chenpo Gyü.[182][cxxii] Thereafter, other eleven
Primordial Revealers[183] manifested successively: the second flourished when the lived span of a human
lifetime was of ten million years (which means that in that period, lived time flowed extremely slowly)—and so
on, until the epoch of the Buddha Śākyamuni and the Primordial Revealer Garab Dorje,[cxxiii] when the lived
40 of 93 04.06.20, 21:58
span of a lifetime was of one hundred years. This succession of Primordial Revealers was necessary because each
and every time circumstances associated with the passing of time caused a type of teaching to disappear or
become incomplete, a new Primordial Revealer had to manifest in orer to reintroduce it in the human world.
[cxxiv] Wilber implicitly rejects all of this, for in terms of his schema the teachings leading to Awakening arose
after 500 BCE, and quite likely were improved thereafter by the successive generations of Masters—probably
attaining perfection when he inverted the vision of spiritual and social evolution proper to the Dzogchen
teachings and implicitly denied the existence of Primordial Masters previous to Śākyamuni. If one who views
Dzogchen as the highest or one of the highest teachings rejects its degenerative view of evolution, the reason is
not that we are now on a higher stage of rationality, and that this allowed that person to amend an error in the
conception of evolution and history that plagued the Dzogchen teachings reintroduced by Primordial
Masters[184] Shenrab Miwoche and Garab Dorje and taught by great spiritual Masters such as Padmasambhāva,
Vimalamitra, Jetsun Senge Wangchuk, Longchen Rabjampa, Jigme Lingpa and so on. It means that, under the
power of threefold avidyā and intoxicated by the inverted vision of modernity, that person distorted and
corrupted the teachings.
(6 and 7) The rest of this section will be devoted to the discussion of the last two among the seven senses of the
ascending/descending disjunctive listed above, in which all true Paths of Awakening are decidedly descending,
and which are the ones that require the lengthiest treatment, as they are the most directly relevant ones to the
subject of this book. Among the Paths that are descending in these senses, suffice to mention: all authentically
Buddhist Paths (i.e., the Buddhist Paths having one of the kāyas of Buddhahood as their source and maintaining a
living line of transmission from that source to Masters living in our time[cxxv]); the original Daoism that Herrlee
Creel (1970) called contemplative Daoism and that in my discussion of the origin and development of Daoism I
(Capriles, 2010a) call Daoism of Unorigination (the type of Daoism common to Lǎozǐ,[185] Zhuāngzǐ,[186]
Lièzĭ[187] and the Huáinán[188] Masters, and to which Complete Reality[189] Daoism seems to have given
continuity until our time[cxxvi]); the genuine, most ancient, nondual forms of Shaivism; and various of the main
Sufi traditions.[cxxvii] As done above with senses (3) and (4), the claim that all Buddhist Paths are descending in
these senses must be further substantiated before pondering on the views of transpersonal theorists—which in
this case, rather than being confined to Wilber’s, will include those of Washburn and Grof as well, which were
not considered with regard to senses (3) and (4) because these authors do not directly deal with these senses. And
along this discussion, senses (6) and (7) will be related to senses (1) and (2).
In the Introduction it was shown that the Path of Awakening is a process of (6) what I call metaphenomenological
descent, for its essence lies in Seeing through all experiences, states and phenomena, whether personal or
transpersonal, which are arisen / produced / caused,[190] born[191] and compounded / conditioned / made /
constructed / intentionally contrived / fabricated,[192] into their unproduced / unbecome / uncaused,[193]
unborn[194] and unconditioned / unmade / uncompounded / unproduced / uncontrived[195] true condition,
which is Dzogchen-qua-Base.[cxxviii] It was also shown that (characteristically on the Dzogchen Path) each and
every time this Seeing takes place, the conditioned states, experiences and phenomena in question liberate
themselves spontaneously, and conditioning is undone to some extent—which, from the standpoint of secondary
process, may roughly be said to, in the long run, undo the serial simulations described by R. D. Laing’s diagram
of a spiral of pretences (Capriles, 1977, 1986, 2000a, 2000c, 2007a).
Likewise, it was shown that the Path of Awakening is a process of (7) what I call metaexistential descent, for it
involves facing the distress, discomfort and conflict (duḥkha) inherent in the basic contradiction which is the
basic human delusion called avidyā—which is achieved by “creating a deficiency” in the mechanisms whereby
we elude duḥkha and preclude contradiction from turning into conflict. As noted repeatedly in the preceding
chapter, Buddhist teacher Śāntideva compared the suffering of saṃsāra unto a hair, the individuals whose
mechanisms of elusion work efficiently unto the palm of the hand, and bodhisattvas—in whom the mechanisms
of elusion have been impaired to some extent—unto the globe of the eye: whereas on the palm of the hand,
where the hair is not felt, it can remain indefinitely, in the globe of the eye, the sting it produces constantly
reminds us to do whatever may be necessary to remove it. As the explanations of the Dzogchen Path in terms of
the maṇḍala, the Divine Comedy and so on in the preceding chapter made it clear, this principle is brought to its
last consequences on the Path in question, which is thus the paradigm of metaphenomenologically /
metaexistentially descending Paths, for its most essential practices—and in particular those that deal with
rölpa[196] energy—cause delusion to turn into extreme conflict the instant it arises, under conditions in which it
will immediately liberate itself spontaneously in the manifestation of total bliss. (As to the Divine Comedy,
though the Tuscan classic only depicts as a descent the journey through Hell to the hole at its bottom—the
41 of 93 04.06.20, 21:58
following stages of the journey being shown as an ascension—in [6] the metaphenomenological and [7] the
metaexistential senses, the journey upwards through Purgatory—and, though more subtly so, the ascension
through Heaven as well—is also a descent, insofar as the principle at play is also, [7] the transformation of
contradiction into conflict the moment it manifests, and [6] immediately Seeing through the conditioned into the
unconditioned so that the conditioned spontaneously liberates itself—the repetition of which, in the long run,
results in effective, progressive deconditioning.)
The above should not be taken to mean, however, that in all cases ascension is to be systematically shunned. If
we take into consideration all possible senses of the ascension / descent disjunctive, we must conclude that
Buddhism is the Middle Way, not only between hedonism and asceticism, and between existence and
nonexistence together with all other conceptual extremes, but also between descending and ascending. To begin
with, though all genuinely Buddhist Paths are as a whole descending in the metaphenomenological and
metaexistential senses of the term, they involve practices that induce one or another kind of ascension. For
example, invariably on gradual Paths, and almost invariably on nongradual Paths,[cxxix] before setting out to
practice insight meditation,[197] one has to develop mental pacification[198]—whereby experiences of the
formless absorptions and/or of the neutral base-of-all are likely to obtain. Likewise, on higher Tantric Paths,
practices are applied that induce experiences of emptiness, clarity and total pleasure which, if clung to, may
result in birth in the realm of formlessness, in that of form, or in that of the gods of sensuality, respectively. In
these and similar cases, the teachings and the teachers let practitioners know that the experiences in question
must not be taken as ends in themselves. In fact, mental pacification is to be practiced because it slows down
mental processes, allowing us to observe these processes and avoid being overpowered by thought; because it
endows us with the aplomb necessary for questioning experience; and because it produces experiences that offer
a propitious opportunity for reGnizing the primordial, nonconceptual, nondual, unconditioned awareness in
which—like images in a mirror—all experiences arise, and which is the ultimately true condition of all
experiences. Similarly, on the Tantric Path of Transformation, experiences of emptiness, clarity and total pleasure
are induced because, on the one hand, as images in the “mirror” of primordial awareness they are far more
intense than those resulting from the practice of mental pacification, and on the other hand, they involve a sizably
higher energetic-volume-determining-the-scope-of-awareness—and therefore when they occur the reGnition of
primordial awareness can take place much more easily and naturally than in the case of experiences resulting
from the practice of mental pacification.
Thus there are two cases in which ascension is a valid element of Buddhist Paths: (1) when what is represented as
ascension is a descent in the metaphenomenological sense, as in the above mentioned case of the ascension
through purgatory and heaven depicted in the Divine Comedy, and (2) when metaphenomenological ascension
must set the conditions for a subsequent metaphenomenological descent, as in the cases reviewed in the
preceding paragraph. Other instances of ascension are as a rule flights from authenticity leading upwards through
the levels of saṃsāra to its summit, and beyond, into the absorptions of the neutral condition of the base-of-all in
which neither saṃsāra nor nirvāṇa are active.
Moreover, as noted in the Introduction and in the above outline of the seven senses in which transpersonal
authors have interpreted the ascending / descending disjunctive, and as will be shown in greater detail below, all
Buddhist teachings take for granted that the Path involves going forward rather than backward, and that this
going forward will give rise to spiritual progress—and thus Buddhist Paths may be said to be ascending in the
ontogenetic sense. In fact, in the initial stages of ontogenetic development, going forward involves progress
insofar as we develop ever-greater skills, yet it produces loss insofar as we do so at the expense of the greater
wholeness proper to infancy: the phenomenological, existential and ontogenetic ascension that consists in
developing both a self-identity and the skills necessary for surviving and living in society involves a descent into
fragmentation.[cxxx] However, if at a later stage in life we set foot on a higher Buddhist Path, even though in
some passages of the process of Awakening we may be encumbered by self-consciousness and torn by conflict,
metaphenomenological, metaexistential descent gives rise to an overall ascension in both wholeness and skills
that culminates in the attainment of the absolute wholeness and consummate skillfulness of Awakening (the
skillfulness in question being related to the concept expressed by the Sanskrit term bala and Tibetan term tob
[stobs]). This shows Buddhist Paths to be ontogenetically ascending in the sense of producing overall progress
and improvement, rather than in the sense of involving no conflict or pain. And since on gradual Buddhist Paths
each stage or level of realization depends on the achievement of the former, at first sight one could get the
impression that Wilber’s view of development on the Path of Awakening respond to the structure and function of
Buddhist Paths. However, this would be an utterly wrong impression, for as shown further down, Wilber portrays
42 of 93 04.06.20, 21:58
the Path as the construction of successive structures and therefore as involving phenomenological ascension, thus
contradicting the crucial fact that in all senses other than the ontogenetic one, Buddhist Paths are manifestly
descending—and, at any rate, as clearly shown in the preceding section of this chapter, in no Buddhist vehicle
does spiritual development follow the schema Wilber put forward.
The above is reflected by some of the Buddhist schemas of development along the Path, which “verticalize” the
division into saṃsāra and nirvāṇa, placing nirvāṇa in a superior plane and saṃsāra in a lower one—thus
spurring seekers on the Path and by the same token instilling respect for the Buddhas, higher bodhisattvas and so
on. In particular, as we have seen, gradual vehicles such as the Śrāvakayāna and the Bodhisattvayāna or gradual
Mahāyāna depict the gradual Path of Awakening as a progressive ascent through five successive paths, each of
which is more advanced—in the sense of being less deluded and thus involving greater truth—than the
preceding. Furthermore, as we have also seen, the Bodhisattvayāna or gradual Mahāyāna explains the last three
of its five successive paths in terms of the ascension through eleven levels.[199] Thus it is clear that if we take
into account all different senses of the ascension / descent disjunctive, we must conclude that Buddhist Paths are
Middle Ways between ascending and descending rather than solely descending or exclusively ascending Paths,
and that it is only from some specific perspectives that in all Buddhist Paths spiritual development is always a
process of descent. However, in order to preclude deviations into unauthentic pursuits I deem it most important to
emphasize the latter perspectives, and in particular the metaphenomenological one from which all of them must
be categorized as descending in that in all of them we See through all that is conditioned into their unconditioned
true nature, and the metaexistential one from which all of them are descending in that in all of them we face the
distress, discomfort and conflict (duḥkha or unhappy consciousness) that derive from avidyā, our mortality and
so on.
The gradual vehicles in question arose through the skillful means of a Buddha, who, without using the terms,
made it clear that the true Path is descending in the senses I call metaphenomenological and metaexistential. That
this applies even to the Śrāvakayāna, which Tibetan traditions view as the lowest vehicle, is evidenced by the fact
that its sources make it crystal clear that all that is produced, created or conditioned is impermanent and pertains
to saṃsāra—and is most clearly reflected by the passage of the Atthasālinī quoted in the preceding chapter of
this book, which illustrates the spurious ascending path with the example of the man who builds a wall ten cubits
high, and the authentic descending Path with the man who tears the wall down and demolishes it as it is built up.
That the Sufi view in this regard corresponds to that of Buddhism, is in its turn evidenced by the fable of the
contest between the Chinese painters and the Greek painters, which represents the true Path as a process of
removing all that is made and that as such conceals our true, unmade, original condition—which the fable, like
the teachings of the Dzogchen Semde,[200] illustrates with a mirror—and the spurious path as creating
something new that further conceals the condition in question. Furthermore, William Blake’s description of the
true Path as based on “the infernal method,” which “by corrosives, which in Hell are salutary and medicinal,
melts apparent surfaces away, and displays the infinite that was hid,” is reminiscent of the Sufi parable. However,
as noted in the chapter in question, though the Atthasālinī makes it clear that the point is not to actively demolish
something, but to bring about a deficiency in those conditions that tend to produce birth and death so that the
process of building and that which is built thereby spontaneously crumble, insofar as the Hīnayāna Buddhist and
the Sufi examples depict the Path as an active struggle, they may be taken to suggest that it consists in producing
effects by means of action—just as the maps of the Path in terms of ascending stages in gradual systems may blur
the fact that it consists in a metaexistential, metaphenomenological descent.
Beside the gradual Paths of the Sūtrayāna, Śākyamuni bequeathed us Paths that are not gradual, such as the
Pratyekabudhhayāna and the so-called Sudden Mahāyāna —Chán or Zen Buddhism—and Garab Dorje handed
down to us Dzogchen Atiyoga.[cxxxi] In none of these systems is there progress along successive stages, and
Dzogchen and Chán or Zen, in particular, leave no room for the image of an ascending progression, as the
methods of both traditions are based on the recurrence of the sudden, instant unconcealment of our original, true
condition of total equality involving no high or low, no up or down, which is unborn, unproduced / unbecome /
uncaused, and uncontrived / unconditioned / uncompounded / unmade.[cxxxii] It is a fact that the Dzogchen
teachings sometimes follow the model of the gradual Mahāyāna and posit a sequence of levels,[201] which are
then sixteen (a higher number than in the rest of Buddhist vehicles, as on the Dzogchen Path realization can be
taken farther than on any other Path). However, their characteristic presentation of the Path is as a single
level,[202] and thus as having neither bottom nor top. In fact, as a practitioner proceeds along the Dzogchen
Path, the unconcealment of Dzogchen-qua-Base comprehends further dimensions, yet that which is unconcealed
is not a higher level to be attained by climbing from a Base to a Summit, but our original condition of absolute
43 of 93 04.06.20, 21:58
equality—and, in fact, as we have seen repeatedly, rather than referring to this condition as “the Summit” or as
“Dzogchen-qua-Summit,” the Dzogchen teachings call it the Base or Dzogchen-qua-Base.
The fact that, according to all forms of Buddhism, the true Path is the one based on the realization of what is
unborn, nonarisen / unproduced / uncaused, and uncompounded / unconditioned / unmade / uncontrived /
unfabricated, has been sufficiently substantiated. As already noted, whereas the Pāḷi Canon and the Theravāda
claims that these adjectives apply to nirvāṇa only, the Mahāyāna applies them to the true condition of ourselves
and the whole of reality as well, which the Essence-Sūtras of the Third Promulgation call the Buddha-nature[203]
and which Mādhyamika philosophy (based on the Second Promulgation) refers to as the true condition of
phenomena[204] and so on. And as also noted, a distinctive characteristic of the higher Buddhist Paths that are
not gradual is that, beside asserting the Buddha-nature to be unborn, nonarisen / unproduced / uncaused, and
unconditioned / unmade / uncompounded / unfabricated / uncontrived, they assert the disclosure of the Buddha-
nature to have these same characteristics and therefore to be beyond cause and effect—and, indeed, were the
unconcealment of the Buddha-nature produced, it would necessarily be spurious and impermanent, and therefore
genuine, irreversible Awakening would be impossible. It is an indubitable fact that Awakening cannot be attained
by means of action, for action asserts the existence of the apparently separate, seemingly autonomous mental
subject, thereby maintaining it. This is the point many Chán and Zen stories make, among which in the preceding
chapter and in other works (Capriles, 1977, 1986, 2000a, 2003, 2007a) I recounted the dialogue between Mǎzǔ
Dàoyī[205] and Nányuè Huáiràng,[206] and the poetry contest between Wei-lang and his rival, Shénxiù.[207]
For his part, the first Buddhist Dzogchen Master, Tönpa Garab Dorje, emphasized the fact that the methods
applied on the Dzogchen Path are based on the principle of spontaneous perfection[208] rather than on the cause-
effect relation—which is one of the reasons why this Path is far more effective and more thoroughly nondual
than the other Buddhist Paths—by declaring the Path in question to be beyond cause and effect. In fact,
Dzogchen is the supreme Path because it possesses the most powerful methods for forcing all that involves
avidyā and all that is conditioned to spontaneously liberate itself, and for nirvāṇa to concomitantly manifest in a
spontaneous, unintentional, uncontrived manner—which is the only way authentic nirvāṇa can manifest. As
shown in the preceding chapter and in several of my previous books and papers, this gives rise to a process that is
aptly illustrated by the symbolism of the Divine Comedy—which, as noted above, shows it to be the paradigm of
metaexistentially descending Paths. (It is thus clear that my recurring references to the spontaneous liberation of
delusion on the metaphenomenologically, metaexistentially descending Path, alludes to the Dzogchen Path of
Spontaneous Liberation, which is the one based on this principle. Rather than meaning that other Buddhist Paths
are not metaphenomenologically, metaexistentially descending, this means that I have taken as the model of
Paths that are descending in these senses, the one that most perfectly embodies their characteristic principle.)
As shown in the next chapter, Washburn contrasts two paradigms in transpersonal theory: (1) the one developed
by Wilber, which Washburn calls structural-hierarchical, and which combines evolutionary theories in the fields
of psychology and theory of human social and spiritual evolution, with a hierarchical, stratified classification of
psychological states to a considerable degree founded on the Upaniṣads and Vedānta but that Washburn, taking
Wilber’s word for it, wrongly asserts to be equally based on Buddhism, and (2) the one Washburn calls dynamic-
dialectical, the origin of which he attributes to C. G. Jung (1928, 1964, 1972, 1975),[cxxxiii] which has Assagioli
(1965) as one of its exponents, and which presently includes the systems of Stan Grof, David M. Levin[cxxxiv]
and his own (Washburn, 1995, Introduction and ch. 1). Washburn, in particular, posits an original dynamic,
creative, spontaneous source out of which the ego emerges, from which the ego then becomes estranged, to
which, during the stages of ego transcendence, the ego supposedly returns, and with which, in his view, in some
cases the ego may become definitively integrated. At first sight this may sound similar to Dzogchen Atiyoga,
insofar as the Semde[209] series of Dzogchen teachings refer to Dzogchen-qua-Base by the name Supreme
Source and asserts avidyā to be produced by the play of the energy of this Source or Base, which is thereby
ignored by the conscious mind—and, moreover, as we have seen, the Dzogchen Path lies in repeatedly,
constantly Seeing into this Source or Base through whatever is covering and concealing it, so that the latter may
liberate itself spontaneously and, in the long run, this may dissolve all that conceals the Source or Base in
question. It is because of this apparent similarity that, if Washburn’s system were taken as the archetype of the
paradigm he calls dynamic-dialectical, the inadvertent reader could get the wrong impression that the view and
Path of Dzogchen Atiyoga—and hence the views presented in this book—are instances of the paradigm in
question. This impression would be wrong because, as shown in the next chapter, Washburn misconceives the
dynamic, creative, spontaneous source he posits—and he does the same with regard to the condition proper to
infants, to the descending process of rediscovery of the source in question, to the result of this rediscovery, etc.
44 of 93 04.06.20, 21:58
In fact, among many other differences between Washburn’s system and Dzogchen discussed in the following
chapter, at this point let me mention the following: (1) Dzogchen makes it clear that the original dynamic,
creative, spontaneous source from which the ego emerges and then becomes estranged, which the Semde series
of Dzogchen teachings calls the Supreme Source / Dzogchen-qua-Base, is the trikāya-of-Buddhahood-qua-Base.
(2) In spite of the fact that, as emphasized in the Zhuāngzǐ[210] and in some Dzogchen texts (e.g., in the book by
Dudjom Rinpoché quoted below), the condition of the child exhibits some similarities with Awakening, in its
essence it is radically different from the latter, for it involves avidyā in the sense listed first in all Dzogchen
classifications, which precludes the reGnition (of) the trikāya-qua-Base; it involves incipient avidyā in the sense
that is listed second in the classification adopted in this book and hence in senses two and three in the taxonomy
favored by Longchenpa, and the disposition to fully develop this or these type(s) of avidyā; and it lacks the
capacity to deal with reality effectively. (3) Though the ego emerges from the Supreme Source, for the reasons
adduced in (2), as a rule the latter is not and cannot be reGnized in infancy, and among the few who nowadays
obtain this reGnition nearly all do so as adults. (4) Despite the fact that realization may metaphorically be said to
lie in going back to the Source, this going back, rather than being an ontogenetic regression to a “Pre” condition
in which the Supreme Source / Dzogchen-qua-Base could hardly be reGnized (such as infancy), is a
metaphenomenological descent that as such consists in the reGnition of the Base or Source—which in ordinarily
born, deluded, samsaric beings is an unprecedented, wholly new occurrence. (5) The reGnition of the Base or
Source is initially the dharmakāya qua Path; in the more advanced Dzogchen practices that deal with rölpa[211]
energy, it is the sambhogakāya qua Path; and in the most advanced stages of the latter practices, once tsel[212]
energy and rölpa energy have overlapped, it is the nirmāṇakāya qua Path. (6) When the nirmāṇakāya qua Path
becomes stable, the trikāya qua Fruit is obtained.
The Dzogchen Path, as in general all metaphenomenological, metaexistential Paths, involves undoing the process
whereby the Base that is the trikāya of Buddhahood and that the Semde teachings refer to as the Supreme Source,
in a phenomenological rather than in a diachronic sense, since beginningless time, in ordinary individuals
“became” concealed by avidyā in the first of the senses the term has in all Dzogchen classifications, and
“remained” so concealed in the intermediate states between death and rebirth, in which the neutral base-of-all in
which neither nirvāṇa nor saṃsāra are active seems to predominate—out of which saṃsāra crops up, causing
the trikāya-qua-Base to be experienced in a somehow “inverted” way, for the phenomena manifested by the
Base’s energy[213] aspect (which in a sense is the nirmāṇakāya-qua-Base) are experienced as though they were
self-existent and hence as though they were inherently different and separate from the Base’s essence[214] aspect
(which in a sense is the dharmakāya-qua-Base), which is the Base’s inherent voidness and which implies the
voidness / absence of the self-existence we wrongly perceive in the phenomena manifested by the Base’s energy
or thukje[215] aspect (though above it was noted that this process occurs in a phenomenological rather than a
diachronic sense, the process whereby active saṃsāra arises from the base-of-all also takes place diachronically
in the experience of superior bodhisattvas, yogis and so on as they move from the nirvanic Contemplation state to
the mitigatedly samsaric state of post-Contemplation.) Since the process being dealt with is phenomenological
rather than diqachronic, this does not mean that these Paths may be reduced to the undoing of the illusory
divisions and wayward habits that the process of socialization establishes on the basis of inborn propensities, so
as to discover a supposedly pre-existing condition that at some point they would have concealed—for Awakening
simply does not consist in returning to a condition that, like that of infants, involves the first type of avidyā and
therefore excludes the patency of the trikāya-qua-Base, and that comprises underdeveloped saṃsāra together
with the disposition to develop it. This fact is one that can never be emphasized too much.
Therefore, just as ascending in the metaphenomenological and the metaexistential senses can only occur in
saṃsāra and is a process leading farther from the Source, merely descending to “deeper” consciousness will not
result in genuine liberation—or, which is the same, will not give rise to nirvāṇa, which is the only liberation
possible. In fact, as noted above, infants are born with avidyā in the first of the senses the term has in the two
Dzogchen classifications reproduced in the Introduction, with incipient, underdeveloped avidyā in the second of
the senses it has in the classification adopted in this book, and with the propensities for developing avidyā in the
third of such senses and for further developing avidyā in the second sense. Thus the experience of the newborn is
to be characterized in terms of Buddhist adjectives such as born, arisen / produced / caused, and compounded /
conditioned / constructed / made / intentionally contrived / fabricated. Thereafter the infant is subject to a
process of conditioning that establishes countless illusory divisions, giving rise to an even more deluded
condition of the kind that Buddhism characterizes in terms of the adjectives just mentioned. If, beginning in this
condition, the individual engages in a process of regression / ontogenetic descent, she or he could relive the more
45 of 93 04.06.20, 21:58
wholesome (or alternatively most traumatic) states experienced in infancy previously to the development of the
aforementioned illusory divisions and wayward habits, to relive intrauterine states, and perhaps even to relive the
experiences and states that occurred in the intermediate state or intermediate state between death and rebirth…
and possibly go so far as to relive those experienced in “previous lives.” Furthermore, if the descent to “deeper
consciousness” or regression were undertaken under ideal conditions, it could possibly be valuable for facing the
Jungian shadow (which, as noted in Chapter I of this book, is an unconscious phantasy resulting from
ontogenesis in civilized societies [Capriles, 2007a]), reintegrating projections and undoing pathological illusory
divisions and wayward habits. However, merely undoing the illusory divisions and wayward habits established in
the process of socialization will neither give rise to Dzogchen-qua-Path nor result in Dzogchen-qua-Fruit—
which, as shown repeatedly, depend on seeing through all that is born, arisen / produced / caused, and made /
compounded / conditioned / constructed / intentionally contrived / fabricated, and by the same token reGnizing
the Supreme Source which is the trikāya-of-Buddhahood-qua-Base and which is unborn, unproduced / unbecome
/ uncaused, and unconditioned / unmade / uncompounded / uncontrived. And the same applies to going further
back into perinatal conditions, into the intermediate state (Skt. antarābhava; Tib. bar do) between death and
rebirth, or into “previous lifetimes,” for avidyā in the first of the senses the term has in all Dzogchen
classifications pervades all such conditions and avidyā in the second and third of the senses in question pervades
most of them (the only possible exception to this being those highly accomplished Dzogchen practitioners or
their equivalents in other traditions who reGnized the true condition of the bardos and/or had realization in
“previous lives”). Thus it is clear that, as shown below and in Appendix I, in ordinary, deluded individuals
Awake awareness qua Path and/or qua Fruit does not manifest either in perinatal conditions, in the bardo or in
“previous lifetimes.”
In fact, if at the time when the clear light shines forth in the chikhai bardo (’chi kha’i bar do) or intermediate
state immediately following death, there is no reGnition of the primordial, nondual awareness in which—as
though in a mirror or a LCD screen—the light in question appears, that light may be experienced through avidyā
in the first of the senses established by the Dzogchen teachings, giving rise to an instance of the neutral condition
of the base-of-all in which neither saṃsāra nor nirvāṇa are active. Only if the awareness in question had been
reGnized when the clear light shone forth after the moment of death, or in subsequent stages of the bardo (or in
“previous lives,” for that matter), could there be grounds for claiming that rigpa-qua-Path is found by retroceding
and undoing. However, since the reGnition of rigpa is beyond memory, and remembrance is a manifestation of
mind or sem (sems)—which in Dzogchen terminology is what conceals the true condition of primordial
awareness—even if Dzogchen-qua-Base were reGnized in this undoing and retroceding, this reGnition would be
a wholly new event normally requiring the application of a specific instruction in the present (which, by the way,
is hardly possible to do in a state of regression). Therefore, merely by retroceding and undoing, nirvāṇa and
Awakening may not be achieved—which, however, does not contradict the fact that on the abrupt varieties of the
Path some people might relive all kinds of “repressed” (so to speak) experiences. In conclusion, even though
from the metaexistential and metaphenomenological standpoints the Path is definitively descending, the same is
not at all the case from the ontogenetic perspective.
Thus what Washburn proposes, just like what Grof suggests, is outright different from the Dzogchen method of
repeatedly Seeing, in a nondual and nonconceptual[216] way, through conditioned experiences into the
unconditioned Supreme Source / Dzogchen-qua-Base, so that those conditioned experiences instantly liberate
themselves of their own accord. In fact, to my knowledge neither Grof nor Washburn—nor Jung, nor Assagioli,
nor any of the antipsychiatrists in the wide sense of the term—has ever emphasized the need to reGnize
Dzogchen-qua-Base, or described or tried to describe the means whereby this may be accomplished.
Contrariwise, like the bulk of transpersonalists and antipsychiatrists, Grof and Washburn have failed to
distinguish nirvanic transpersonal states—those in which the reGnition in question takes place—from samsaric
ones and from instances of the neutral base-of-all. Furthermore, as shown in the next chapter, Grof seems to take
occurrences that fall into the last two categories for instances of the first, and Washburn seems to incur in the
same error, though perhaps to a lesser degree. (However, Washburn seems to implicitly share the view of being
and value as subjective experiences rather than as the true condition of reality that, on the basis of higher
Buddhist teachings, I have expounded here and in Capriles [1994, 2000b, 2003, 2006a], and in far greater detail
in Capriles [2007a vol. I], for he speaks of the means whereby we “conquer being and value” at different stages
of life [Washburn, 1995, ch. 4, The Mental Ego, pp. 97-118. Spanish Ed. pp. 147-178].)
The above ratifies the assertion that for Buddhist Paths to be properly viewed as a process of undoing and
descending, these terms must be understood in the metaexistential and the metaphenomenological, ontological
46 of 93 04.06.20, 21:58
sense, rather than as referring to the recovery of a condition experienced in the past. The Fruits of the Paths in
question are not “Pre” conditions, for they do not lie in the recovery of the greater wholeness of prepersonal
stages in early infancy, in reliving the conditioned, relative, samsaric liberation of the moment of birth in a
BPM4, or in cozily resting in a samādhi obtained through the stabilization of a BPM1 (i.e., of an experience of
oneness like those that take place in intrauterine life) or of an instance of the neutral condition of the base-of-all
such as those that may obtain when luminosity shines forth in the intermediate state of the moment of death
(chikhai bardo [’chi kha’i bar do]). The Dzogchen Path, in particular, is no more than the recurrent reGnition of
Dzogchen-qua-Base, which each and every time is a wholly new occurrence, and the Fruit is no more than the
irreversible stabilization of this reGnition.
Therefore, the Dzogchen Path, in particular, may not be characterized in terms of the spurious dichotomies
Wilber posited in his discussion of what he called the “Pre / Trans Fallacy” (Wilber, 1993c) and the “Ascender /
Descender Debate” (Wilber, 1995). In fact, from the standpoint of Dzogchen, both factions of the current debate
are equally off the mark. Wilber is wrong in positing a “higher self” and a process of gradual ascension to it that
results in Awakening, for the process of Awakening is no other than the progressive discovery of the Base that is
the foundation and prima materia of all of the conditioned constructions that in saṃsāra conceal that Base, rather
than consisting in ascending—which can only take place in saṃsāra and which leads to higher samsaric realms
—toward a hypothetic “higher self.” Furthermore, in the preceding section it was shown that Wilber’s description
of the successive levels or fulcra to be attained is definitely mistaken (at least in what regards the higher forms of
Buddhism with which it pretends to correspond), that he continues to take for instances of nirvāṇa what are no
more than higher samsaric states or instances of the neutral condition of the base-of-all, and that he misrepresents
Awakening as involving the subject-object duality. For their part, Grof and Washburn are mistaken in believing
the aim of genuine spiritual Paths to be the mere undoing of the constructions established in the process of
ontogenetic evolution in order to discover a “deeper self.” For his part Wilber, when he objects that Washburn
(1995) and Grof (1985, 2000) confuse early, prepersonal life experiences with what he vaguely calls
“transpersonal experiences,” he is failing to see that some prepersonal experiences of infancy and prenatal life
manifesting in regressive processes might be analogous, or even identical, to many of the non-nirvanic
transpersonal experiences he mistakes for realizations. For their part, Washburn and Grof fail to see that
liberation cannot result from going back to a deeper consciousness or to a “deeper self,” or from having
nonspecific transpersonal experiences that are not instances of nirvāṇa: both fail to realize that Awakening,
which alone is truly liberating, rather than being a dualistic aftereffect of recovering early transpersonal
conditions and experiences, consists in the stabilization of the reGnition of the true condition of whichever states
and experiences manifest that makes the latter liberate themselves spontaneously as they arise. Furthermore, as
repeated throughout this book, Wilber, Grof, Washburn and the rest of transpersonal and “integral” psychologists,
as well as the whole of antipsychiatrists in the wide sense of the term, fail to make the key distinction between:
(1) nirvāṇa, in which liberation and true harmony lie; (2) the base-of-all or kunzhi in which neither nirvāṇa nor
saṃsāra are active, which is no more than an oasis on the Path that will become a jail if taken for the final
destination; and (3) higher samsaric experiences such as those of the formless realms, the form realms and the
higher regions of the realm of sensuality, which are no more than relatively pleasant instances of delusion that
will sooner or later give way to more unpleasant deluded states.
The dispute seems to stem from the fact that both sides are based on seemingly contrary errors, which may have
ensued from the methods each employs. Grof has based himself in his observation of psychedelic experiences
(whether or not drug-induced), which he interprets as involving a regression from personal states to perinatal
states that, despite their condition as prepersonal states, often may constitute transpersonal states; furthermore, he
claims the latter states—some of which are beyond birth on the way back followed by the process of
regression—to affect subsequent experience in such a way as to give rise to what he views as true sanity (which,
as will be shown in the next chapter, rather than being what Buddhist calls Awakening, seems to be analogous to
the post-Contemplation state of higher bodhisattvas, yogis and so on). Washburn seems to base his conclusions
on his own process of regression, which allegedly had a deep healing effect on his mental continuum. Both share
an approach of seeming “descent into chaos” that suggests the symbolism of a regression from the ego and from
the concomitant inhibition / repression / bad faith, which allows entrance into the sphere Freud called the id, as a
precondition for reintegration and sanity (Daniels, 2004). I tend to believe that Wilber, on the other hand, initially
might have had holotropic psychedelic experiences, but subsequently favored meditation as the core of a
progressive ascension to transpersonal states, which as such involves developing the ego (in the sense of the
second Freudian topic in which the term encompasses the mechanisms at the root of self-identity) far beyond the
degree it reaches in normal adults—and therefore he views the Fruit as being far beyond the normal condition of
47 of 93 04.06.20, 21:58
adulthood in a process of progression. Though an author claimed that also through this approach it is possible to
stop repression, the difference being that repressed contents are supposed to gradually enter the spheres of ego
and consciousness (Daniels, 2004), for this to occur and be a valid aspect of a true Path to Awakening, it would
necessarily have to occur in the context of the practices of an authentic Awakening tradition and under the direct
guidance of a truly realized Master holding a genuinely nirvanic lineage.
As we have seen, though the transpersonal states achieved through the methods of the three authors under
discussion are genuinely transpersonal, all of them are utterly wrong in positing vaguely defined (or, in the case
of the late works by Ken Wilber, misdefined) transpersonal states as effective means for achieving definitive true
sanity, which in truth can only be attained through the practice of the methods of authentic Wisdom traditions
that result in the reGnition of the Base or true condition of whichever states or experiences may manifest, no
matter to what realm they may belong (personal, prepersonal, postpersonal, transpersonal, perinatal or whatever).
Furthermore, Wilber and Grof are wrong in positing a dualistic experience that has been impregnated by the
“single taste” of the true condition of reality (in Wilber’s case) or that is no longer taken to be absolutely real and
important (in Grof’s case) as the highest and final spiritual achievement possible, whereas Washburn is wrong in
asserting the dichotomy between the id and the superego-ego complex to persist in the highest, final spiritual
achievement possible.
If Wilber’s views really derived from the practice of meditation, the methods on which he based himself would
be of the same general kind as those of Buddhist Paths in general. However, in genuine Buddhist Paths, the
higher states of the three samsaric realms attained by these means are only deemed useful if used for the specific
purposes for which they are traditionally used in Buddhist Paths, and if there is awareness that these states are
within saṃsāra. In their turn, the approaches of Grof and Washburn would correspond to that of Dzogchen Ati
and other Buddhist Paths (and therefore to what is expressed in this book as well) if, rather than descending in
the ontogenetic sense in order to experience a condition previous to the “act of primordial repression”
(Washburn) or some specific BPMs (Grof), which are wrongly taken to have the potential to affect subsequent
experience so as to give rise to the highest and final spiritual achievement possible (which both of them have
misconceived, as explained above), we descended in the metaexistential sense in order to turn contradiction into
conflict and thus facilitate the reGnition (of) the true condition of all concepts and concept-tinged experiences—
thus achieving metaphenomenological descent. Thus there can be no doubt that the dispute arises from the fact
that neither of the parts is firmly rooted in a genuine Wisdom tradition—and since neither of the parts has had the
realizations that are the essence of the Path in genuine Wisdom traditions, both are wide off the mark.
In the Dzogchen teachings, the highest and supreme realization possible is the one attained through the practices
of Thögel and/or the Yangthik, which are carried out in the second of the intermediate states or bardos between
death and rebirth, which is the chönyi (chos nyid; Skt. dharmatā) bardo (bar do; Skt. antarābhava). Though the
bardo in question may equally be seen as lying in the past, which is the direction in which according to most
interpretations Grof and Washburn place realization, or as lying in the future, which is the direction in which
according to Wilber realization lies, in order to undertake these practices one need neither undergo a process of
regression in order to go back into the bardo that preceded our present life, nor die in the physical/clinical sense
of the term in order to enter the bardo that will follow our present life. In fact, the practice is carried out in the
present, in an instance of the chönyi bardo that does not correspond either to the one preceding this life or to the
one that will follow this life, and that occurs while the physical body is alive. And its point is to deal with the
experiences of the chönyi bardo in the Dzogchen way, so that all that manifests liberates itself spontaneously and
in this way the propensities for delusion may be progressively neutralized, until they no longer have any hold on
the practitioner. Moreover, Awakening is neither the summit of a pyramid nor the bottom of an ocean, but a
condition of absolute equality in which there is neither high nor low, neither upwards nor downwards, and in
which the experiences of summit, bottom and middle spontaneously liberate themselves.
In the exposition, toward the beginning of this section, of the seven principal senses in which the
ascension/descent disjunctive has been understood, the sense listed as (2) was that of the disjunctive that Wilber
perceived between his view of spiritual development as a process of producing successive structures, each of
which is founded on the preceding one and cannot arise before the preceding one has been firmly established, and
the contending view of the same process as a dissolution of ego structures and so on. Since according to
Buddhism all that is produced is impermanent and spurious, and cannot pertain to nirvāṇa, it is clear that
ascension in sense (2) amounts to ascension in sense (6): phenomenological ascension, which, as we have seen,
rather than leading to nirvāṇa, leads to higher samsaric realms (which, insofar as they are attained by ascending,
48 of 93 04.06.20, 21:58
are subject to the law of gravity according to which whatever ascends sooner or latter will fall) and instances of
the neutral condition of the base-of-all, and as such is a relatively sophisticated type of unauthentic spirituality.
Though the fact that the successive structures that in Wilber’s view must arise one after the other, are produced,
is sufficient proof of the fact that his views reflect spurious spirituality, in order to leave no room for doubts in
this regard it may be useful to specify both the Buddhist criterion for determining whether or not something is
produced, conditioned and so on, and Wilber’s view of the structures in question.
What Buddhism characterizes as born, arisen / produced / caused, and conditioned / made / compounded /
constructed / contrived / fabricated, is whatever originates from the conjunction of causes and conditions, or
from interdependent arisings.[cxxxv] As noted above, Wilber views spiritual growth as the production of
successive structures, each of which is founded on the preceding one and cannot come into being before the
preceding one has been established. He classifies these structures into, (a) basic structures—which result from a
multidimensional learning process and which are maintained when development proceeds to a higher psychic
level, being integrated into the subsequent basic structures—and (b) transitional or replacement structures
—which are defined as “ways in which the world is experienced through the basic structures of a psychic level”
and which, unlike the former, are not preserved when development proceeds to a higher psychic level (Wilber,
1990). Therefore, there can be no doubt that each structure arises from the conjunction of causes and conditions,
and that as such is by definition produced and conditioned—which means that it pertains to saṃsāra. Beside
these structures Wilber posits the “self,”[cxxxvi] which in his view identifies with the successive basic structures,
producing what he refers to as fulcra; since the identification at the root of these fulcra involves the conjunction
of the subject that identifies and that with which it identifies, there can be no doubt that they are produced and
conditioned and as such also pertain to saṃsāra —and, at any rate, as substantiated in the preceding section of
this chapter, the subject-object duality that is the condition of possibility of the identification at the root of
Wilber’s fulcra is the very core of saṃsāra and manifests only in saṃsāra. Moreover, this identification gives
rise to a sense-of-self, which in Buddhist terms is necessarily false, for senses-of-self are by definition spurious
and delusive. Therefore, there can be no doubt whatsoever that from a Buddhist perspective Wilber’s view of
spiritual development may apply to spurious paths leading to higher samsaric realms, but in no way can it apply
to genuine Paths of Awakening.
Thus the problem with the spiritual progress Wilber posits is not that he presents it as a process of gradual
ascension to Awakening, or that he requires the fruit of this progress to be stable, for as shown above gradual
Buddhist Paths sometimes present progress toward Awakening as a gradual process of ascension to a summit—
and, furthermore, the only absolutely stable Fruit of spiritual Paths is nirvāṇa (and particularly so the nirvāṇa of
the higher Buddhist vehicles, which involves active sarvākārajñatā—a term regularly yet inexactly rendered as
“omniscience”—rather than being the result of an induced arrest of the natural freedom of awareness) precisely
because it is the only one that is unproduced, unborn, unmade, unconditioned and so on. The problem is that
Wilber depicts this process as consisting in the production of successive structures—which as such are born,
produced, conditioned, made and so on—and therefore, though its fruit may seem stable, it is impermanent:
absorptions of the formless realms and the base-of-all—stable instances of which can only be the result of a
process that is gradual in that it requires a systematic practice of mental pacification over a very long period, and
that is ascending because the formless realms are the summit of saṃsāra —can last for periods subjectively
experienced as eons, yet unlike Awakening at some point they come to an end, upon which the meditator falls
into lower realms.
The view of the Awakening process as a successive, ladder-like production of structures, each of which requires
the preceding one as a support, is what Wilber (1995) refers to as the “front-door entry into the transpersonal”
and contrasts with a “back-door entry,” which Grof (1998c) interpreted as lying in access to the transpersonal
through so-called “nonordinary states of consciousness” (NOSC)—an interpretation Wilber (1998, pp. 319-327)
did not explicitly reject in his reply to Grof. The latter (Grof, 1998c, pp. 106-114) is quite right in commenting
that if this were understood to mean that authentic spiritual development must exclude “NOSC” and that major
breakthroughs must occur outside the context of “NOSC,” then most of the mystics with whom Wilber illustrates
his higher fulcra would be fakes rather than authentic mystics. Whether or not Grof’s interpretation of Wilber is
correct, it is a fact that Śākyamuni Buddha attained Awakening after a NOSC involving visions of the apsaras
seducing him and of demons attacking him; that Jesus was tempted in the desert; that Milarepa had his initial
reGnition of Dzogchen-qua-Base after being attacked by the female guardian Tserinma—and that as a rule great
mystics went through experiences of the kind, which provided the setting for the initial occurrence of a major
spiritual opening. Likewise—and what is even more significant—the most direct, and in this sense “highest”
49 of 93 04.06.20, 21:58
Buddhist practices, such as that of Chö (gcod) and the upper practices of the supreme series of Dzogchen
teachings—those of Thögel (thod rgal) and the Yangthik (yang thig)—are based on NOSC, which they induce by
means that are among the most powerful and direct to this aim.[cxxxvii] Since Wilber has studied Dzogchen and
regularly uses the Dzogchen terms rigpa (nondual Awake awareness) and Great Perfection to refer to the true
condition, if his dichotomy between a “front door” and a “back door” spirituality were understood to mean that
true spiritual development must exclude NOSC and that major spiritual breakthroughs must occur outside the
context of NOSC, we would be facing a paramount contradiction. At any rate, Stan Grof (1998c, p. 109) is quite
right when he notes that:
If [Wilber’s front-door entrance] is something resembling William James’s “educational variety” of

spiritual development, where one would gradually open to the mystical dimension over a long period
of time, in the way in which one learns to speak or develops an ego,[cxxxviii] it does not seem to be
the mechanism driving the spiritual evolution of humanity... the spiritual opening of most famous
mystics involved dramatic episodes of NOSC.
However, as shown in the discussion of Grof in the next chapter, the Czech-born psychiatrist failed to realize
NOSC to be supremely useful only if used as an opportunity for applying one or another of the pith instructions
that are a condition of possibility of the reGnition of Dzogchen-qua-Base. Otherwise they are most unlikely to
result in instances of nirvāṇa, and may either be inconsequential, have relatively good consequences, or, most
likely, have seriously bad ones: though they may result in an episode of spiritual openness—which in some
extraordinary cases could be an instance of Dzogchen-qua-Path (i.e., a reGnition of Dzogchen-qua-Base while
on the Path), but which in the great majority of cases remains within the bounds of relativity and delusion—it is
far more likely that they trigger a “psychotomimetic experience”[cxxxix] or a psychosis, which because of the
widespread ignorance and disorientation with regard to these processes and experiences, most probably will be
ravaging.
Wilber’s ascending, stratified vision is not limited to his conception of the process of Awakening, for as we have
seen he views the whole process of ontogenesis, as well as the process of phylogenesis that in his view is
analogous to the former, in an extremely stratified way. The Wilber that he himself (e.g. 1998) calls “Wilber III”
posited ten basic structures of consciousness as a type of central skeletal frame, incorporating to his previous
system the thesis that through these structures at least a dozen distinct developmental lines move which, beside
going through these enduring structures, involve as well the above considered “transitional structures”—and until
a rather late period he did not consider the possibility that “genuine transpersonal experiences” (whatever this
means, for as noted repeatedly, so far he has failed to distinguish between instances of nirvāṇa, transpersonal
states within saṃsāra and instances of the neutral condition of the base-of-all) and key spiritual breakthroughs
having a decisive repercussion on spiritual development could occur while progress on developmental lines other
than the spiritual is incipient. However, the so-called “Wilber IV” then asserted these lines of development to be
quasi-independent, being loosely held together by the “self-system,” and admitted that often “the self is all over
the place.” Wilber (1998, p. 329, quoting Donald Rothberg’s [1998] characterization of Wilber’s stance)
explained this as follows:
…development doesn’t somehow proceed in some simple way through a series of a few
comprehensive stages which unify all aspects of growth …. The developmental lines may in fact be
in tension with each other at times. Furthermore some lines do not typically show evidence …. of
coherent stages … There might be a high level of development cognitively, a medium level
interpersonally or morally, and a low level emotionally… These disparities of development seem
especially conditioned by general cultural values and styles.
However, the idea of all-encompassing basic structures or fulcra implies that higher levels of spirituality can only
be attained in a stable way and gone through, after significant advancement has been reached along all
developmental lines. And, in fact, this implication has been stated explicitly throughout Wilber’s writings; for a
sample, consider the following passage by Wilber IV (1998, p. 308):
…each time the self identifies with a developmentally-unfolding basic structure, that exclusive
identification generates (or is the support of) the corresponding set of transitional structures. Thus,
for example, when the self identifies with preoperational thought (symbols and concepts), this
supports a preconventional moral stance (Kohlberg), a set of safety needs (Maslow), and a protective
50 of 93 04.06.20, 21:58
self-sense (Loevinger). When higher basic structures emerge (say, concrete operations rules), then
the self (barring arrest) will eventually switch its central identity to this higher and wider
organization, and this will generate a new moral stance (conventional), a new set of self-needs
(belongingness), and a new self-sense (conformist persona)—and so forth.
Viewing the spiritual as the culminating stages of all lines of development, or as one of the twelve or so
developmental lines that would be defined in terms of “trans-” or of “higher than,” would amount to the same, for
as Wilber remarked in the same renowned response, in both cases it would be available only to those having
attained a rather high stage of overall ontogenetic development and thus having reached higher domains
(Wilber, 1998, p. 331). Whereas the reason for the latter is self-evident in the context of Wilber’s system, the
reason for the former is that, if we define the spiritual as “higher than” this or that, or as “trans-” this or that,
then clearly this or that must have developed before this “higher than” or this “trans-.” In Wilber’s words
(Wilber, 1998, p. 330):
If... we define spiritual specifically as transmental, then clearly the transmental cannot stably emerge
until the mental has in some rudimentary sense solidified. Likewise, if we define spiritual as
transverbal, or as transegoic, or as specifically transpersonal, then the spiritual domain cannot stably
emerge until there is a verbal, mental, egoic self to transcend in the first place.
Although the conclusion that transpersonal realms are open (at least in a stable way) only to those who have
become established on higher domains is consistent with Wilber’s view of spiritual development as an
“ascending” process occurring in terms of rather rigid stages, defining the spiritual as corresponding to the higher
stages of various developmental lines would cause it not to be a line of development like the other ones he posits,
which are supposed to extend along the whole process of ontogenesis. In order to make the spiritual be like the
rest of the lines of development he posits, and by the same token maintain his evolutionist schema of spiritual
development as occurring in terms of a succession of rather rigid states, he opted for a conception of the spiritual
as a separate line of development defined in terms borrowed from theologian Paul Tillich: as consisting in an
individual’s ultimate concern at each stage of her or his life, on each of the “transitional structures” Wilber posits
(among which, as it is widely known, some of the most important ones are: worldviews, self-needs, self-identity,
and moral stages [Wilber, Engler & Brown, 1986; Wilber, 1996a, 1996c, 1998]). This ultimate concern (Wilber,
1998, p. 331):
…unfolds through the general expanding spheres of consciousness, from preconventional concern
(egocentric), to conventional concern (sociocentric), to postconventional concern (worldcentric), to
post-postconventional concern (bodhisattvic). Or again, in more detail, using the names of the
associated worldviews: archaic concern to magical concern to mythic concern to mental concern to
psychic concern to subtle concern to causal concern.
In the preceding section and in Capriles (2006a, 2007a vol. II) I showed the fulcra Wilber calls psychic, subtle
and causal not to correspond to the higher levels of realization on gradual Buddhist Paths. With regard to the
concerns Wilber associates to his fulcra, it is true that nowadays as a rule egocentric concern prevails in the very
first stages of life and the concern Wilber calls bodhisattvic can only prevail at a later stage. However, as shown
in Taylor (2003, 2005) and Capriles (2007a vol. III), the same cannot be said with regard to human phylogenesis,
in which development does not go right through the same stages as in ontogenesis. Furthermore, with regard to
ontogenesis, the rigid succession of concerns Wilber posits does not occur even in gradual Paths. In fact, in all
systems involving bodhisattvic concern the latter begins to develop at a rather early stage of the Path: (a) in the
gradual Mahāyāna, which belongs to the Hetuyana or causal vehicle, it is held that the rūpakāya aspect of
Buddhahood (nirmāṇakāya plus sambhogakāya) will result from the accumulation of merits and the dharmakāya
aspect will result from the accumulation of wisdom, and hence we must set out to develop the qualities of the
bodhisattva from the onset of the Path; (b) on the Dzogchen Path, which is beyond cause and effect and in which
the qualities of bodhisattvas need not be cultivated, the latter begin to arise spontaneously the moment we enter
the Path in the real sense of the term (i.e., when Dzogchen-qua-Path manifests for the first time).
To finish with the consideration of Wilber’s amplified lamrim model, let us ponder on Sean Kelly’s brilliant
denunciation of some of its contradictions. Wilber claimed that human experiences of the transpersonal domain
could not occur before what he calls the magical-typhonic phase of consciousness in the process of phylogenesis,
and that the first such experiences occurred in some special “typhonic” individuals. Kelly objects (Kelly, 1998a,
51 of 93 04.06.20, 21:58
pp. 212-122):
Apart from throwing into question the whole notion of the prepersonal, the fact that “the first true
psychics [i.e., individuals at the first transpersonal stage] … emerge[d] in the magic period” [a so-
called prepersonal collective stage] (Wilber 1995, 322) also renders highly problematic the general
principle of linear continuity ([according to which] levels/stages cannot be bypassed) implied in the
metaphor of the Great Chain of Being. For if it is possible for typhonic individuals to experience a
transpersonal epiphany or “influx” (i.e., the psychic or low subtle realm) prior to the emergence of
the mental ego, then it clearly makes no sense to conceive of the transpersonal as following the
mental egoic (Wilber’s “personal” consciousness) in the same manner that the mental egoic follows
the membership and typhonic. Again, to do so would require an explanation of how it is possible for
a supposedly holarchically “higher” structure—in this case the psychic—to transcend as it includes a
lower structure—in this case the mental-egoic—that had not yet emerged. Wilber himself recognizes
that “at any of its stages of stable growth and development, the self has access to temporary
experiences (‘influxes’ or ‘infusions’ or ‘transfusions’) from the transpersonal domains (1995, 743).
But if all levels of the Great Chain manifest the same principles of holarchical integration, why is it
possible for transpersonal influxes to occur at virtually any lower level of organization (even if they
don’t attain to enduring traits), whereas it is impossible for someone at, say, cognitive stage 2
(preop) to experience, again however fleetingly, an influx from cognitive stage 4 (formop)? Clearly,
the transpersonal “levels” as a whole are of a completely different order than the ones that “precede”
them.
Also Washburn’s (1998) highlighting of crucial contradictions in Wilber’s system is very much to the point;
however, since Washburn’s discussion is too long to be reproduced here, I direct the reader to his text. At any
rate, as noted above the problem with Wilber’s system is not his lamrim model, for lamrim Paths are perfectly
legitimate so long as there is awareness that they are defined in contrast with nongradual Paths, that development
along the former is radically different from development along the latter, and that the former are “lower” than the
latter. The problem with Wilber in this regard is fourfold: (1) as noted above, he views Awakening as the result of
the production of successive structures that, being produced, are spurious, impermanent and samsaric; (2) as
shown in the preceding section and as repeated above, his schema of stages (fulcra) outright contradicts that of
the gradual Mahāyāna and those of higher Buddhist Paths, with which he explicitly claims agreement; (3) he
carries stratification much farther than traditional lamrim outlooks; and (4) he gives to understand that his views
express universal truths that as such apply to Dzogchen—which, as we have seen, he studied with the late Penor
Rinpoché—and other Paths that may not be characterized as gradual, whereas in fact the views he expresses
negate the very essence of such Paths.
Problems (1), (2) and (3) of those listed in the preceding paragraph evidence the fact that Wilber’s extreme
lamrim (lam rim), ladder-like model of the Path—according to which spiritual progress unfolds through
successive, mutually corresponding concerns and worldviews, understood as transitional stages that build upon
previous competences and that as such can neither be bypassed nor jumped over—even in watered down versions
such as Wilber IV, in which the stages are said to be so in a “soft” sense and the self is said to be often “all over
the place,” fails to correspond even to gradual (lamrim) Buddhist Paths. Far less could it then correspond to a
Path such as Dzogchen, which, as so many teachings and testimonies attest, does not involve rigid stages of
development.[cxl] Wilber should be aware of this insofar as he has studied Dzogchen and Zen, and since he has
carried out research on different gradual traditions as well, he should also be aware that there is no universal map
that may apply to all Paths. Yet he views his model as a universal map applying to all Paths, whether gradual,
nongradual or neither-gradual-nor-nongradual.
No doubt, most of those who enter the spiritual Path in the truest sense of the term, which is that of the initial
occurrence of Dzogchen-qua-Path, do so as adults; however, it is not rare for true tulkus to enter the Path in this
sense during infancy or adolescence. Among the very many examples of this found throughout Tibetan history,
let me quote just the following: (1) our contemporary, the late high Master, Urgyen Tulku (2005), told Marcia
Schmidt that his meditation as a child was not different from what manifested in his mental continuum upon
being introduced to the state of rigpa. (2) The same Master told the same lady that Ngaktrin of Argong (ngag
phrin [ngag dbang phrin las] from… ar gong?), of whom his own root Master, Samten Gyamtso (bsam gtan rgya
mtsho), was recognized as the immediately following emanation, at the age of eight realized the nature of mind
when a gönla (mgon la: monk in charge of the chants for the guardians) who was doing his job while Ngaktrin
52 of 93 04.06.20, 21:58
and other kids played boisterously around him, upbraided the child for his misbehavior, telling him, “Don’t let
your mind wander.” The child asked, “How does one not wander?” Whereupon the monk told him, “Look at your
own mind!” It was as he automatically applied this unintended instruction that Dzogchen-qua-Path manifested in
his continuum (Urgyen Tulku, 2005). (This example is so much to the point because the child not only was eight
years old, but also was behaving—in the words of the monk scolding him—as a “spoiled brat.”) (3) The previous
examples do not conclusively refute Wilber IV, for we do not know whether or not the realizations of the Masters
involved were stabilized at an early age. The case of treasure-revealer (tertön) Namchö Mingyur Dorje (nam chos
mi ’gyur rdo rje) is wholly different in this regard, for it is well-known that his realization soared in such a way
between the age of ten and his death at the age of twenty-one, that from the age of eleven through thirteen he
dictated thirteen volumes of treasure-teachings or termas (gter ma) of the extraordinary kind called “appeared in
space” or namchö (nam chos: nam mkha’i chos: Namkhai Norbu, unpublished ms.[cxli]), which only manifest
through supreme revealers who are firmly established in the state of rigpa—a feat that conclusively demonstrates
that he achieved a stable realization at a very early age, possibly while being still a playful, perhaps boisterous
child.
In fact, what is characteristic of nongradual Paths is that individuals can enter them in the true sense at any stage
of their life, independently of their development in one or another field. Then the repeated occurrence of
Dzogchen-qua-Path bears a strong influence on all areas of their life, inducing a spontaneous, swift yet gradual
transformation in all of them, so that the virtues proper to bodhisattvas spontaneously arise without the individual
applying the relative practices the gradual Mahāyāna employs to this end, intelligence often soars to unforeseen
heights, all-encompassing learning sometimes arises spontaneously in people who have not carried out
systematic studies (as in the astonishing case of the “all-knowing” Jigme Lingpa[cxlii]), and skills become
consummate. Were it necessary to wait until structures and skills that can only arise late in life have developed, in
order to enter the Path to Awakening in the true sense in which this entrance is marked by an initial occurrence of
Dzogchen-qua-Path, it would hardly be possible to attain Buddhahood in a single lifetime, and the Dzogchen
realizations resulting in special modes of death or even in deathlessness would be simply out of the question.
[cxliii]
We have seen that it is Dzogchen Ati—the Path Tönpa Garab Dorje bequeathed us, which is neither gradual nor
sudden—that embodies most perfectly the principle of the Path as Seeing through all conditioned phenomena and
states manifesting in our experience, into the unconditioned Dzogchen-qua-Base (Capriles, 1977, 1986, 1989,
1994a, 2000a, 2000b, 2000c, 2003, work in progress 1). The fact that in the vehicle in question Awakening does
not depend on a process of maturation whereby we would develop successive Kohlbergian moral stances,
Maslowian sets of safety needs, Loevingerian self-senses, skills and so on, is evidenced by the passage of The
Heart Mirror of Vajrasattva—a Dzogchen Tantra of the Upadeśavarga or Menngagde series of teachings—cited
in the Introduction to this book (corresponding translation available in Cornu, translator and commentator, 1995,
p. 135):
Kye! Friends! The Fruit of authentic, perfect Buddhahood does not depend on maturity or
immaturity.
Furthermore, the late Dudjom Rinpoché made it clear that in the vehicle in question there is no clear sequence of
stages of realization, as realization may arise beyond stages, or without any particular order of stages
(corresponding yet not identical translation available in Dudjom Rinpoché, 1979, p. 28 and 2005, p. 53 [this
quotation is repeated]):
(In the practice of the Dzogchen Menngagde [man ngag sde or man ngag gyi sde; Skt.
Upadeśavarga]) the stages of experience and realization may appear either progressively, or without
any particular order, or all at once, according to the capacities of the different individuals. However,
at the time of the Fruit there are no differences.
This explains why, though the Dzogchen teachings, in order to make the point that they lead beyond the
realizations of other vehicles and show exactly the way and the sense in which they do so, occasionally posit a
sequence of sixteen levels (Skt. bhūmi; Tib. sa), what is characteristic of Dzogchen Atiyoga is the presentation of
the Path as a single level (Skt. ekabhūmi; Tib. sa chik [sa gcig]) and therefore as having neither bottom nor
summit. In fact, as previously noted, both Dzogchen and Chán or Zen stress the fact that realization does not
involve an ascending progression, for it consists in the instant unconcealment of the true, original, unconditioned
53 of 93 04.06.20, 21:58
condition of absolute equality that has no high or low, no up or down, and that the Dzogchen teachings call
Dzogchen-qua-Base. The Dzogchen Path is symbolized by the garuda bird that breaks out of the egg fully
developed and capable of flying, because Dzogchen-qua-Path is not basically different from Dzogchen-qua-Fruit,
as both of them consist in the disclosure of Dzogchen-qua-Base—the crucial difference between them being that
the duration of occurrences of the former is limited because the propensities for avidyā to arise have not yet been
purged, and hence at some point delusion will again conceal Dzogchen-qua-Base. Although on the Path of the
Upadeśavarga or Menngagde series of Dzogchen teachings realization follows a sequence that begins with the
dharmakāya, continues with the sambhogakāya, and concludes with the nirmāṇakāya, these successive kāyas,
rather than being progressively higher rungs in a ladder or peaks in a mountain range, consist in the correct
apprehension of different forms of manifestation of the energy or thukje (thugs rje) aspect of the unproduced,
unconditioned, unborn trikāya-qua-Base characterized by absolute equality rather than by hierarchies or
holarchies—each of which further expands and consolidates the direct realization of this trikāya.[cxliv] When the
nirmāṇakāya consolidates, Dzogchen-qua-Fruit has been attained and the full patency of the trikāya-qua-Base is
never interrupted again.
Finally, those of us who do not posit basic structures of consciousness as a skeletal frame and manifold
developmental lines involving both enduring and transitional structures, need not define the spiritual as a
Wilberian line of development—which at any rate would be too wide a category including many types of needs
and endeavors (shamans healing with elemental spirits, witches doing black magic against enemies, common
folks hoping to avoid hell and enter heaven, old ladies interceding before god or the saints on behalf of their
grandsons, nuns spiritually married to Jesus, soccer fans praying for their team to win a contest, Indian fakirs
standing on one leg for years, hatha yogis practicing asanas, adwaita vendantists applying jñāna yoga, Buddhist
monks keeping vows, Tantrics uniting with consorts, Chö [gcod] practitioners offering their bodies in terrifying
charnel grounds, yogis in dark rooms practicing the Yangthik, etc.). What we need to define is supreme
spirituality, and do so in such a way as to prevent the confusion of what Buddhism views as genuine spiritual
development, with the bewildered induction of transpersonal, holotropic states either pertaining to saṃsāra or
being instances of the neutral base-of-all. And to do so in such a way that our definition will equally apply to
gradual Paths, to nongradual ones, and to Paths that, like Dzogchen, are neither gradual nor sudden. I believe a
definition of supreme spirituality as “all that is involved in the transition from saṃsāra to nirvāṇa” would
achieve this.
Sean Kelly (Kelly, 1998, p. 128; also in Daniels, 2004, p. 76) wrote: “an essential task for transpersonal theory
will be to set Wilber’s paradigm in dialogue with those of Grof (1975, 1985, 1987, 1996, 2000) and Washburn
(1995), currently the two most substantial alternatives to Wilber’s paradigm.” Though I think Grof’s view of the
genesis and character of COEX systems may need to be completed and set in perspective, I believe the concept
of such systems might well be incorporated into future synthetic systems of metatranspersonal psychology.
Likewise, the classification of “pathologies” in terms of the three realms Grof posits—biographic, perinatal,
transpersonal—might be an important element in the system in question (so long as it were acknowledged that, as
suggested by the double-bind hypothesis of Bateson, Jackson, Haley and Weakland [in Bateson, 1972], by
Laing’s [1961] concept of being placed in an “untenable position,” etc., transpersonal pathologies may have roots
in the biographic realm—and perhaps, as Grof has suggested, in the perinatal realm as well). In the same way, the
Grofs’ Spiritual Emergency Network (SEN) could help individuals who unwillingly and unknowingly face
psychotomimetic experiences or set out on psychotic journeys of the classes antipsychiatry in the wide sense of
the term views as potentially self-healing processes—for although, as emphasized in the preceding chapter, in
themselves such journeys are not Paths leading to Awakening, in the right setting and with the right guidance
they can have a deeply healing function, as seemingly was the case in Paleo-Siberian Shamanism (so that what
Washburn called “regression in the service of transcendence” would actually be “regression in the service of a
more balanced ego open to transpersonal realms”). However, the Grofs may have given rise to a great danger as
well, for as noted in the following chapter, they included in the class “spiritual emergency” incongruous types of
experience that, rather than being potentially therapeutic, are likely to be outright, unambiguously harmful.
I think that for his part Wilber is correct when he suggests that the states occurring in processes of descent like
those Washburn and Grof are concerned with, may be mistaken for the realms of highest aspiration, and hence
people may become content with them and forsake the quest for true Awakening. However, exactly the same is
bound to occur with the states Wilber posits in his maps of spiritual ascension, which, as shown in the preceding
section, in Buddhist terms are not instances of nirvāṇa. And, even worse, there will be no way to attain
Awakening if the subject-object duality and the illusion of self-existence are maintained, as according to both
54 of 93 04.06.20, 21:58
Wilber and Grof occurs in the highest spiritual attainment they envisage—and the same would happen if the
dichotomy between the id and the ego-superego complex persisted, as Washburn believes occurs in the final
spiritual attainment.
Furthermore, I believe that for the dialogue in question to be fruitful, it should include Jungian psychology,
antipsychiatry (in the amplest sense of the term in which it also includes Bateson, Laing, Perry, Basaglia and
many others), Freudian psychoanalysis, some trends of British psychoanalysis,[cxlv] existential psychoanalysis
(and in particular a reinterpretation of Sartre’s theory of bad faith like the one I put forward in Capriles, 2007a)
and other relevant systems. At any rate, for such a dialogue not to be dry speculation begetting wrong views, it
must be undertaken in the context of a genuine understanding of Awakening or nirvāṇa and of the means wisdom
traditions have always used to achieve this condition, on the basis of personal practice of at least one such
tradition. This is what I have attempted in the papers that served as the basis for this book, and in a far ampler
way in vol. II of Capriles (2007a).
Translations
[1] yang dag pa’i sems bon: an archaic form of Dzogchen called Dzogpa Chenpo Zhang-Zhung Nyengyü (rdzogs
pa chen po zhang zhung snyan brgyud).
[2] Tib. Khorlo Demchok (’khor lo bde mchog) or Khorlo Dompa (’khor lo sdom pa).
[3] λήθη.
[4] Manusmṛti, also called Mānava-Dharmaśāstra.
[5] In the Wade-Giles transliteration, Taoism.
[6] kal pa or bskal pa.
[7] Tib. khorlo (’khor lo).
[8] Skt. Rūpadhātu or rūpaloka; Tib. zugkham (gzugs khams).
[9] Skt. caturdhyānārūpyāḥ; Pāḷi: catuḥarūpajhāna; Tib. gzugs med khams kyi bsam gtan bzhi or gzugs med kyi
bsam gten bzhi.
[10] Skt. caturārūpaloka or caturārūpyadhātu; Tib. sugmé khampai nezhi (gzugs med khams pa’i gnas bzhi).
[11] Skt. kāmaloka or kāmadhātu; Tib. dod pa’i khams.
[12] kun gzhi lung ma bstan.
[13] gdangs.
[14] gting gsal.
[15] bsam gtan bar do; Skt. samādhi antarābhava.
[16] Skt. niṣprapañca; Tib. tödräl (spros bral).
[17] gsar ma pa.
[18] rnying ma pa.
[19] bsam gtan mig sgron.
[20] gnubs chen sangs rgyas ye shes.
[21] khregs chod.
55 of 93 04.06.20, 21:58
[22] thod rgal.
[23] gdangs.
[24] rol pa.
[25] dharmatāantarābhava or chönyi bardo (chos nyid bar do).
[26] rtsal.
[27] ka dag.
[28] lhun grub.
[29] rol pa.
[30] rtsal.
[31] dbyer med.
[32] kun gzhi lung ma bstan.
[33] nyams.
[34] Skt. rūpadhātu or rūpaloka Tib. zugkham (gzugs khams).
[35] thod rgal.
[36] yang thig.
[37] snying thig.
[38] khregs chod.
[39] Skt. prayoga mārgaḥ; Tib. jorwe lam (sbyor ba’i lam).
[40] Skt. darśana mārgaḥ; Tib. thong lam (mthong lam).
[41] Skt. dharmatā; Tib. chönyi (chos nyid).
[42] gcod.
[43] chos zad blo ’das.
[44] Skt. śūnyatā; Tib. tongpanyi (stong pa nyid); Chin. 空 / Hànyǔ Pīnyīn, kòng / Wade-Giles, k’ung; Jap. Ku.
[45] nyams.
[46] ngo bo; Skt. svābhāva.
[47] Skt. svabhāva śūnya; Tib. rangzhinggyi tongpa / rang bzhing gyis stong pa.
[48] ka dag.
[49] ngo bo.
[50] gdangs.
[51] gdangs.
[52] rol pa.
56 of 93 04.06.20, 21:58
[53] rtsal.
[54] Pāḷi, bhūta; Skt. nutpada or nutpatti; Tib. kyepa (skyes pa).
[55] Pāḷi and Skt. jata; Tib. kyepa (skyes pa).
[56] Pāḷi, saṅkhata; Skt. saṃskṛta; Tib. düjai (’dus byas).
[57] Classically, Śaṁkarācārya.
[58] Skt. acintya; Tib. samgyi mikhyabpa (bsam gyis mi khyab pa).
[59] Skt. trimaṇḍala; Tib. khorsum (’khor gsum).
[60] thugs rje.
[61] Skt. duḥkha-nirodhaḥ-ārya-satya.
[62] Skt. arhat; arhan; Pāḷi: arahant; arahā: realized individuals of the Hīnayāna.
[63] Pāḷi, nibbana.
[64] Skt. samādhi; Tib. tingngedzin (ting nge ’dzin).
[65] Pāḷi, asaṅkhata; Skt. asaṃskṛta.
[66] Skt. dharmacakrapravartana.
[67] Skt. arūpyadhātu; Tib. zugme khampa (gzugs med khams pa).
[68] Skt. rūpadhātu; Tib. zugkham (gzugs khams).
[69] naivasaṃjñānāsaṃjñāyatana; Tib. dushe me dushe memin kyeche (’du shes med ’du shes med min skye
mched).
[70] Skt. bhavāgra; Tib. sidtse (srid rtse) or sidpai tsemo (srid pa’i rtse mo).
[71] Skt. asaṃskṛta; Tib. gogpa (’gog pa).
[72] Skt. samādhi; Tib. tinggnedzin (ting nge ’dzin).
[73] Skt. sarvākārajñatā; Tib. nampa tamche khyenpa (rnam pa thams chad mkhyen pa).
[74] Skt. samādhi; Tib. tinggnedzin (ting nge ’dzin).
[75] 無念; hànyǔ pīnyīn, wúniàn; Wade-Giles wu-nien.
[76] Skt. tathatā; Tib. dezhinnyi (de bzhin nyid); Chin. 眞如 (hànyǔ pīnyīn, zhēnrú; Wade-Giles, chen-ju) or 如
是 (hànyǔ pīnyīn, rúshì; Wade-Giles, ju-shih); Jap. shinnyo.
[77] Skt. pṛṣṭhalabdha; Tib. jethob (rjes thob).
[79] Tib. khorsum nampar mitokpai le dang drebu (’khor gsum rnam par mi rtog pa’i las dang ’bras bu).
[80] Skt. mārgaḥ; Tib. lam.
[81] Skt. darśanamārgaḥ; Tib. thong lam (mthong lam).
57 of 93 04.06.20, 21:58
[82] Skt. bhūmi; Tib. sa.
[83] Skt. pramuditābhūmi; Tib. rabtu gawa sa (rab tu dga’ ba sa).
[84] Skt. samāhita; Tib. nyamzhak (mnyam bzhag).
[85] Skt. bhāvanāmārgaḥ; Tib. gomlam (sgom lam) or gompai lam (sgom pa’i lam).
[86] Skt. pṛṣṭhalabdha; Tib. jethob (rjes thob).
[87] Skt. aśaikṣāmārgaḥ; Tib. milobpai lam (mi slob pa’i lam) or tharpingpai lam (thar phyin pa’i lam).
[88] Skt. samantaprabhābhūmi; Tib. kuntu ö sa (kun tu ’od sa).
[89] Skt. jñāna; Tib. yeshe (ye shes).
[90] Skt. vijñāna; Tib. namshe (rnam shes) or nampar shepa (rnam par shes pa).
[93] Tib. Nang trawai uma (nang phra ba’i dbu ma).
[94] dbu ma gzhan stong pa; though this name is Tibetan, it might possibly be rendered into Sanskrit as
Mādhyamaka Paraśūnyavāda.
[95] Tib. zungdzin nyinang (gzung ’dzin gnyis snang).
[96] Tib. nyinang (gnyis snang): all dualities, rather than only that of subject and object.
[97] Skt. pariniṣpanna; Tib. yongdrub (yongs grub).
[98] Tib. shepa (shes pa).
[99] Skt. paratantra; Tib. zhenwang (gzhan dbang).
[100] Tib. zungchai nampa (zung cha’i rnam pa).
[101] Tib. dzinchai nampa (’dzin cha’i rnam pa).
[102] Skt. ālayavijñāna; Tib. kunzhi namshe (kun gzhi rnam shes) or kunzhi nampar shepa (kun gzhi rnam par
shes pa).
[103] Skt. parikalpita; Tib. kuntag (kun brtags).
[104] Skt. samāropa; Tib. dro tagpa (sgro btags pa).
[105] Skt. manovijñāna; Tib.
[106] Skt. ātman; Tib. dag (bdag).
[107] Skt. pariniṣpanna; Tib. yongdrub (yongs grub).
[108] Skt. aviparyāsapariniṣpanna; Tib. chinchi malogpai yongdrub (phyin ci ma log pa’i yongs grub).
[109] Skt. prajñā; Tib. sherab (shes rab).
[110] Skt. prajñāpāramitā; Tib. sherab parpin (shes rab phar phyin).
[111] Skt. prajñāvarapāramitāya.
58 of 93 04.06.20, 21:58
[112] Tib. Lodrö Mizapai Tampa Do (blo gros mi zad pas bstam pa mdo).
[113] Skt. prajñāpāramitā; Tib. sherab parpin (shes rab phar phyin). This term refers both to the relative wisdom
that leads beyond [saṃsāra] and to the absolute wisdom tht is beyond [saṃsāra].
[114] Skt. avidyā; Tib. marigpa (ma rig pa).
[115] Skt. saṃskāra; Tib.
[116] Skt. vijñāna; Tib. namshé (rnam shes) or nampar shepa (rnam par shes pa).
[118] Skt. śūnyatā; Tib. tönpanyi (stong pa nyid).
[121] Skt. śūnyatā; Tib. tönpanyi (stong pa nyid).
[122] Skt. prasājyapratiṣeda: Tib. megag (med dgag).
[123] Skt. paryudāsapratriṣedha; Tib. mayingag (ma yin dgag).
[124] Skt. niṣprapañca; Tib. tödräl (spros bral) or thöme (spros med).
[125] Tib. jing (dbyings).
[126] Skt. Uttaratantraśāstra; Tib. Gyü Lama (rgyud bla ma).
[127] sgyu ’phrul rgya mtsho rgyud.
[128] Tib. Palgyi Senge (dpal gyi senge).
[130] Skt. ghanavyūha; Tib. rignga tugpo köpai sa (rigs lnga stug po bkod pa’i sa).
[131] Skt. Kulayarājatantra; the original of this Tantra is in the languge of Oddiyana.
[132] sems sde.
[134] Tib. rig pa; Skt. vidyā or svasaṃvedana in the Dzogchen sense of the term.
[135] Tib. ranjung yeshe (rang byung ye shes); Skt. svayaṃbhūjñāna.
[136] Tib. rangjung (rang byung); Skt. svayaṃbhū.
[137] Tib. changchubkyi sem (byang chub kyi sems) = changchub sem (byang chub sems); Skt. bodhicitta.
[138] Tib. gongpa (dgongs pa).
[139] Tib. ranjung yeshe (rang byung ye shes); Skt. svayaṃbhūjñāna.
[140] Tib. zhinai (zhi gnas); Skt. śamatha.
[141] Tib. lhantong (lhag mthong); Skt. vipaśyanā.
59 of 93 04.06.20, 21:58
[142] Tib. changchubkyi sem (byang chub kyi sems); Skt. bodhicitta.
[143] Tib. tsel (rtsal).
[144] Tib. t’ug (thugs).
[146] Dzogpa Chenpo Semnyi Ngelsoi Drelwa Shingta Chenpo ( dri med ’od zer [Longchen Rabjam], rdzogs pa
chen po sems nyid ngal gso’i ’grel ba shing rta chen po), Vol. I, 85b/5.
[147] ka dag.
[148] lhun grub; Skt. anābogha or nirābogha.
[149] Tib. nang trawai [uma] (nang phra ba’i [dbu ma]).
[150] Tib. rangjung yeshe (rang byung ye shes); Skt. svayaṃbhūjñāna.
[151] The great Master that some Buddhologists call Maitreyanātha, teacher of Asaṅga (Asaṃga).
[152] Tib. Üta namjé (dbus mtha’ rnam ’byed).
[153] Tib. Gyü Lama (rgyud bla ma). Name in full: Mahāyānottaratantraśāstra; also called Ratnagotravibhāga.
[154] Skt. kleśāvaraṇa or nyöndrib (nyon sgrib).
[156] Skt. jñeyāvaraṇa; Tib. shedrib (shes sgrib).
[158] dbu ma gzhan stong pa; though this name is Tibetan, it might possibly be rendered into Sanskrit as
Mādhyamaka Paraśūnyavāda.
[159] The passage is from Dölpopa Sherab Gyaltsen’s (dol po pa shes rab rgyal mtshan) Dengyi Salwai Nyima
(bden gyis gsal ba’i nyi ma), from Dolpopa, vol. 5 (series vol. VII), pp. 812-815.
[160] Skt. kalpa; Tib. kalpa (kal pa or bskal pa).
[161] rol pa.
[162] Skt. antarābhava; Tib. bar do.
[163] Tib. kyené bardo (skyes gnas bar do) or rangzhin bardo (rang bzhin bar do).
[164] Tib. milam bardo (rmi lam bar do).
[165] Tib. chikhai bardo (’chi kha’i bar do).
[166] Tib. samten bardo (bsam gtan bar do).
[167] Rangdröl Khorsum (rang grol khor gsum), text I of the first series.
[168] Lat. genus proximum.
[169] Lat. differentia specifica.
60 of 93 04.06.20, 21:58
[171] mu ne btsan po.
[172] ts’e spong bza.
[173] gter ston pad ma gling pa.
[174] Skt. acūta (pronounce: achuut).
[175] 百丈懷海; hànyǔ pīnyīn, Bǎizhàng Huáihái; Wade-Giles, Pai-chang Huai-hai; Japanese: Hyakujo Ekai.
[176] 浄⼟教; hànyǔ pīnyīn, Jìngtǔzōng; Wade-Giles, Ching-t’u; Jap. Jōdokyō; Korean: Ko-Hang (정토종).
[177] This is the Vietnamese; Chin. 禪; hànyǔ pīnyīn, Chán; Wade-Giles, Ch’an; Kor. Seon; Jap. Zen.
[178] This is the Korean; Chin. 禪; hànyǔ pīnyīn, Chán; Wade-Giles, Ch’an; Jap. Zen; Viet. Thien.
[179] rig pa rang shar chen po’i rgyud, cited in Namkhai Norbu & Clemente, 1999, pp. 22-26 and p. 265, n. 23
(in the Italian version, pp. 23-27 and p. 23, n. 13).
[180] Tib. Menngagdé (man ngag sde) or Menngagyidé (man ngag gyi sde).
[181] Tib. tönpa chunyi (ston pa bcu gnyis).
[182] sgra thal ’gyur chen po’i rgyud.
[183] tönpa (ston pa).
[184] Tönpas (ston pa).
[185] ⽼⼦; hànyǔ pīnyīn, Lǎozǐ; Wade-Giles, Lao-tzu.
[186] 莊⼦; hànyǔ pīnyīn, Zhuāngzǐ; Wade-Giles, Chuang-tzu.
[187] 列⼦; hànyǔ pīnyīn, Lièzĭ; Wade-Giles, Lieh-tzu.
[188] 淮南; hànyǔ pīnyīn, Huáinán; Wade-Giles, Huai-nan.
[189] 全眞: hànyǔ pīnyīn, Quánzhēn; Wade-Giles, Chuan-chen.
[190] Pāḷi bhūta; Skt. nutpada or nutpatti; Tib. kyepa (skyes pa).
[191] Pāḷi and Skt. jata; Tib. kyepa (skyes pa).
[193] Pāḷi abhūta; Skt. anutpāda, anutpatti; Tib. makyepa (ma skyes pa).
[194] Pāḷi and Skt. ajāta; Tib. makyepa (ma skyes pa).
[195] Pāḷi, asaṅkhata; Skt. asaṃskṛta; Tib. dümajai (’dus ma byas).
[196] rol pa.
[197] Skt. vipaśyanā; Tib. lhantong (lhag mthong).
[198] Skt. śamatha; Tib. zhinai (zhi gnas).
61 of 93 04.06.20, 21:58
[200] sems sde.
[202] Skt. ekabhūmi; Tib. sa chik (sa gcig).
[203] Skt. tathāgatagarbha, sugatagarbha, buddhatā, buddhatva, bhūtatathatā.
[205] ⾺祖道⼀; Wade-Giles, Ma-tsu Tao-yi; Jap. Baso Dōitsu.
[206] 南嶽懷讓; Wade-Giles, Nan-yüeh Huai-jang; Jap. Nangaku Ejō.
[207] 神秀; Wade-Giles, Shen-hsiu; Jap. Jinshū.
[208] Skt. anābogha or nirābogha; Tib. lhundrub (lhun grub).
[209] sems sde.
[210] 莊⼦; Wade-Giles, Chuang Tzu.
[211] rol pa.
[212] rtsal.
[213] Tib. thukje (thugs rje); Skt. karuṇā.
[214] Tib. ngowo(ngo bo); Skt. svābhāva.
[215] Skt. karuṇā.
notes
[i] A meditation deity is not a self-existing god, but a form practitioners visualize in order to achieve specific results,
particularly in the Path of Transformation of the Vajrayāna.
[ii] Buddhist Dzogchen is part of Vajrayāna Buddhism. However, I enumerated it separately because it does not pertain to
the Path of Transformation, as it constitutes the Path of Spontaneous Liberation, which does not employ deities, as its main
practice does involve transforming oneself into a deity or transforming the world into the deity’s maṇḍala. Therefore, it is
not the Dzogchen teachings that asociate Mount Kailāśā to meditation deity Cakrasaṃvara—which, moreover, is a main
meditation deity in the New (Sarmapa [gsar ma pa]) Traditions, in which it is the central figure in one of the main Tantras
(the Cakrasaṃvaratantra, which both Sakyapas and Kagyupas regard as a Mother Tantra—only the Gelugpa viewing it as
a Father Tantra). Furthermore, in the Ancient (Nyingmapa [rnying ma pa]) Tradition, to which the Dzogchen teachings
originally belonged, Cakrasaṃvara is not one of the main meditation deities, as it appears only under a form described in
the Mahāyogatantra called Sangye Nyamjor (sang rgyas mnyam sbyor).
[iii] As stated in a previous note, in Daniélou (1992) a great deal of evidence is provided that substantiates the identity of
Indian Shaivism, the Greek Dionysian tradition and the Egyptian cult of Osiris. It is universally known that the Śaiva see
Mount Kailāśā as the abode of the Lord Śiva, and it was at the foot of Mount Kailāśā and near the lake of Manasarovar that
the Tönpa (ston pa) or Primordial Revealer Shenrab Miwoche (gshen rab mi bo che) taught the Dzogchen teachings of the
pre-Buddhist Himalayan Bön (bon) tradition known as Dzogpa Chenpo Zhang-Zhung Nyengyü (rdzogs pa chen po zhang
zhung snyan brgyud), as well as a host of other teachings, seemingly including some forms of Tantrism. In Tucci (1980) the
author discusses the coincidences between the terminology used in Shaivism and that employed in the Dzogchen teachings,
and reports on spiritual groups that consistently made pilgrimages to Mount Kailāśā, and which viewed this mountain as
their most sacred place—among which he mentions, beside Tibetan Bönpos and Buddhists, the Indian Śaivas, and
followers of two Persian systems: the Zurvanists (followers of the pre-Zoroastric Persian religion, the deity of which seems
to be the same as Śiva: like Śiva Mahākāla, Zurvan is total time [and total space], and like the Ardhanārīśvara form of Śiva,
Zurvan is a hermaphrodite deity), and in Islamic times, the Ismailis (which have a “mystic of light” [Belaval, 1981, pp.
120-121]—just like the ancient Bön tradition—and share the degenerative view of human spiritual and social evolution
62 of 93 04.06.20, 21:58
[Corbin, 1983] upheld by all traditions deriving themselves from Kailāśā). In Capriles (2009), I pointed out some of the
striking coincidences in the symbolism, views and, seemingly, practices of Daoism and Dzogchen; discussed the
development of original Daoism into different, diverging systems, underlining the similarities of some of these with the
Dzogchen teachings; and provided a bibliography of works that assert the identity and common roots of Daoism and Bön
(many Daoists have asserted the unity of their own tradition with that of ancient Bön—which I have substantiated with the
fact that Lǎozǐ gave the Dàodéjīng to an officer of the Sino-Tibetan border upon leaving China for Tibet, and with a series
of coincidences in the imagery—for example, that of the snake that sheds its skin)—views and practices of both traditions
[cf. Capriles, 2003 and other works]). The ancient Bönpo sources cited in Namkhai Norbu (1997, 2004), suggest that Bön,
Shaivism and all of the traditions listed in this note had their roots in these teachings, for among Shenrab’s disciples there
were sages from India, China, Persia and other nearby regions that brought their Masters’ teachings to their own countries,
establishing them there: Primordial Master Shenrab Miwoche, who taught Dzogchen in the area of Mount Kailāśā around
1,800 BC, had among his disciples the great sages Mutsa Trahe of Tazig (Persia or Tadzhikstan), Hulu Baleg of Sumba (in
what is today Pakistani Kashmir), Lhadag Nagdro of India, Legtang Mangpo from China, and Serthog Chejam of Throm
(also in what is today Pakistani Kashmir)—all of whom translated into their respective languages and spread in their native
lands the teachings of Shenrab. This will be discussed at greater length in Capriles (work in progress 3); in the meantime cf.
the notes to Capriles (2000a, 2000b, 2003, 2007a vol. I).
[iv] This feeling develops to become that which Heidegger (1996) called thrownness (German, Geworfenheit) or state of
being thrown (German, Geworfen).
[v] Heraclitus, who in my view (which I amply substantiate in Capriles [work in progress 3]) was a representative of the
Dionysian tradition, expressed the myth of lila in Fragment 123 DK, in which he tells us that the physis—the unconditioned
Totality of nature and the true condition of all of the entities that manifest in our conditioned experience—“likes to hide
(kruptesthai).” If what hides in the concealment that Heraclitus called lethe is the physis, then aletheia—the “unveiling of
the true”—must necessarily consist in the patency of the physis that is the true condition of all entities. In fact, Fr. 50 DK
tells us that those who listen, not to the ‘I’, but to the lógos (another name for the physis, which Heraclitus used when he
intended to emphasize its Gnitive or spiritual aspect), wisely acknowledge that all is one (which does not mean that
Heraclitus fell into the error of positing the concept of oneness as the absolute: in a bid to help its readers go beyond the
delusory valuation of concepts, his book repeatedly affirms contradictory concepts—as evident, e.g., in Fr. DK 206). The
idea is that the illusion of separation in space and time inherent in the human existent (and therefore also the multiplicity of
such existents), as well as the seeming multiplicity of entities that appear solely as object, are conditioned, fragmentary,
illusory appearances that veil the unconditioned, unfragmented physis, and which pertain to the veil that must fall in
aletheia. In fact, as expressed in Fr. 2 DK, though the lógos is common, each individual believes he or she has a separate,
particular and private intellect: the Gnitive principle that functions as the awareness and intelligence of each and every
individual is the (universal) lógos that constitutes the Gnitive or spiritual aspect of the physis and that, being common to all,
could not be limited in space and time—the illusory, apparently separate intellect that is the nucleus of the human existent
thus being but a false appearance that deluded humans mistakenly take for their true, innermost self. In its turn, Fr. 89 DK
tells us that, though for the Awake Ones there is one single and common world, each and every one of the asleep ones goes
astray toward his or her particular [dream-]world: these “particular [dream-]worlds” are conditioned, fragmented products
of the delusory valuation of thought, and as such they imply the concealment (lethe) of the unconditioned and
unfragmented physis / lógos that we all (are) in truth. Thus lethe is the basic concealment that is the essence of the myth of
lila, and aletheia consists in Awakening from the dream of apparently absolute separateness and multiplicity that has as its
core the human individual’s illusion of being a human existent limited in space and time. Furthermore, Heraclitus makes
clear the intimate relation between the myth of lila and the traditional cyclic, degenerative view of time, evolution and
history, when in Fr. B 52 DK he tells us that aion (the cosmic time cycle: Skt. kalpa) is the checkers-playing child to whom
[real] kingship belongs. (Heraclitus seems to compare the aion with a child to whom kingship belongs for the same reasons
why the Tantra of the Semde series of Dzogchen teachings called Kunje Gyälpo [Kun byed rgyal po] or the “All-creating
King” refers to the nature of mind as All-creating King: because all that appears may be said to be part of the “play” of this
nature.)
For their part, the Stoics, who claimed to be giving continuity to the views of Heraclitus (though actually they developed a
rationalism that would have caused the illustrious Ephesian to frown), laid a very strong emphasis on the degenerative view
of human evolution and history, which they expressed in terms of the Persian and Greek symbolism of the four successive
metals, each less precious than the former (in Greece this tradition was Dionysian and in Persia it was Zurvanist; after
having being lost in Greece, Hesiod re-imported it from Persia). In the view of the Stoics, just as in that of the Bönpos of
the Himalayas (cf., for example, Reynolds, 1989), in the original Golden Age there was neither state nor government,
neither property nor social divisions, and no individual family; in the terminology of the Stoics, human beings were “ruled”
by the spontaneity of the lógos.
[vi]Ismailism—which as noted in the regular text, is one of the traditions having its source in Mount Kailāśā, and which as
shown in note before last,according to Giuseppe Tucci (1980) was one of the traditions that used to carry out regular
pilgrimages to Mount Kailāśā, and as noted in Belaval (1981, pp. 120-121), has a “mystic of light” (which can be shown to
correspond in this sense to that of the ancient Bön)—shared the degenerative view of human spiritual and social evolution
(cf., for example, Corbin, 1983).
[vii] The Knights Templar allegedly received their mystical doctrines from Ismaili chief Hassan Ibn el-Sabbah in el
Alamud, and that they are said to have been the source of various esoterical orders in the West, including the Rosacrucians,
the Francmasons, the Carbonieri and so on (Shah, 1964 [also 1970]). Alan Butler (2000) believes that the most important
63 of 93 04.06.20, 21:58
figure in Templarism may have been Saint Bernard of Clairvaux—who produced a wonderful mystic theology of
communion strikingly similar to the philosophy of the mystical traditions having their roots in Kailāśā, and who established
the guidelines for building gothic cathedrals—noting that past researchers generally failed to credit St Bernard with the
pivotal role he played in the planning, formation and promotion of the infant Templar Order, and casting doubts as to
whether there may have been an “intention” to create an Order of the Templar prior to the life of St Bernard himself. André
de Montbard, one of the first Templar Knights, was his maternal uncle, and he may also have been related to the Counts of
Champagne, who themselves appear to have been pivotal in the formation of the Templar Order. At any rate, it was St
Bernard who wrote the first Rules of the Order in question.
[viii] Sufi traditions allegedly absorbed ancient doctrines and practices originated in the area of Mount Kailāśā from the
Buddhism of Oddiyana and neighboring regions through Sufi Master Jabbir el-Hajjam, who received the spiritual traditions
of the so-called Barmecides (Shah [1975], p. 197), who descended from the so-called Barmakis who presided over the
Buddhist temple in Balkh that was supposedly called Nova Bihara and miscalled “Temple of Fire” (Under the Direction of
Brice Parain [1972], p. 244).
[ix] Ismailism markedly influenced different Sufi traditions—such as for example the Khajagan or Naqshbandi, the
Mevlevis (insofar as Shams-i-Tabriz, Rumi’s teacher, is said to have been the grandson of a lieutenant of Hassan ibn-el-
Sabbah; cf. Iqbal, 1964), Iranian Sufism (Belaval, 1981, pp. 120-121; Parain, 2000), and many others (for example, the
great Sufi and martir El-Hallaj or Hussein was reportedly a Carmatian Ismaili). With regard to Iranian Sufism, in Belaval
(1981), p. 120, we read: “Under the cloak (the hirqa) of Sufism, Ismailism survived in Iran after the destruction of [the
fortress of] Alamut, and henceforth there has always been an ambiguity in the very literature of Sufism. The great poem of
Mahmud al-Sabistari shows Ismaili reminiscences and there is a partial Ismaili commentary to the Rose Garden of Mystery.
Thus, it is frequent that the Nizari literature of the tradition of Alamut carries on in the form of treatises in verse. Al-
Quhistani (dead circa 720/1320) seems to have been the first to use Sufi terminology for expressing Ismaili doctrines...”
(Following this, we are given a long list of Sufi works expressing Alamut Ismaili philosophy.)
However, the only books on Sufism I know that emphasize the degenerative view in question are those of members of the
Traditionalist Movement such as Martin Lings (Abu Bakr Siraj Ed Din, 1974), successor to René Guénon as Sufi sheik in
Egypt. With regard to the movement in question, which was founded by René Guénon (who at some point espoused Islam
and then became the heir to an Egypcian Sufi teacher), it must be noted that in the West the few authors who, outside the
Tibetan Tantric and Dzogchen traditions, have disseminated the degenerative view of evolution and history, have been
members of the movement in question, which was joined by many authors, including Julius Evola and the great theorist of
Asian art and aesthetics Ananda Coomaraswamy, and, at a later stage, Frithjof Schuon, Martin Lings (“Abu-Bakr Siraj-ud-
din”), Jean Biès, Ellemire Zola and Grazia Marchianò, among others. Members of this movement reject the thesis that a
condition without gods, political and social divisions and so on will soon be restored, and that helping restore it is the
essential task of human beings of our time, on which survival depends. On the contrary, most such authors call for the
restoration of a Middle Age-like theocratic, repressive socio-political system, condemn those who reject the creationist
hypothesis, and espouse ideals proper to the extreme right. In fact, the infamous Julius Evola, toward the end of World War
II, visited runaway Mussolini at the Führer’s headquarters, and his only objection to Nazi ideology was that in his view the
cultivation of the “spiritual race” should take precedence over the selection of the “somatic race” determined by the laws of
genetics, with which the Nazis were obsessed (when Evola was hit by a bomb in an air raid, René Guénon wrote to him
suggesting that his misfortune may have been induced by a curse or magical spell cast by some powerful enemy [Evola,
Julius, Guido Stucco, Trans., 1994]). Frithjof Schuon (1984) wrote an apology of imperialism in which he called for the
restoration of a Caliphate-like theocracy. Jean Biès (1985) claimed that in the Age of Perfection the Brahmin caste
prevailed, rather than acknowledging it to be free of social divisions and political power. And so on.
[x] Among the individual Jewish mystics influenced by Sufism, the most renouned are Abraham Maimonides, Solomon Ibn
Gabirol, Moses de Leon (1250-1305: the Spanish Jew who authored the Zohar, of the most important Kabbalistic treatises
of the Middle Ages, and who put his words into the mouth of Rabbi Simeon ben Yohai), Judah Halevi and other lesser
known mystics that include Abraham Ibn Ezra, Bahya Ibn Pakuda and many others. For example, according to the Jewish
Encyclopedia, “Solomon ibn Gabirol's doctrines influenced the development of the Cabala more than any other
philosophical system; and his views on the will of God and on the intermediate beings between God and the creation were
especially weighty.” Moreover, according to the same source, the Kabbalah and Sufism either derive from the same source
or are analogous, truly paralel systems (Vol. XI, pgs. 579 et seq.; assertion reproduced by Sufi Master Idries Shah [1970]).
Likewise, it claims that the Yudghanites also derived from Sufi influences. And according to the same source also
Hasidism, which it asserts to be the tradition where “the real continuation of the Cabala is to be found,” resembles Sufism
(and if the Kabbalah has the same source as Sufism, then the same should be the case with Hasidism). However, most of
these individuals and systems did not teach the degenerative view of spiritual and social human evolution. (It must be noted
that it also seems likely that Jewish esoteric traditions such as the Essenes and Therapeuts may have derived from the same
sources as Sufism.)
Among the many individual Christian mystics and founders of religious orders who received Sufi influences, Francis of
Assis, John of the Cross, Raymond Lully, Therese of Avila, Roger Bacon, Turmeda, Pascal and so on. Cf. Asin (1931,
1941, 1961, 1992, 2007) and Shah (1964, 1970), among various others, are listed. However, as in the case of the Jewish
mystics, most of these did not teach the degenerative view of spiritual and social human evolution.
[xi] As will be shown in the Appendix on Wilber’s philosophical tradition, in my view also so-called sophists such as
Cratylus, Gorgias and Protagoras, the various skeptical schools (including the Pyrrhonics, the Neo-Academics and the
64 of 93 04.06.20, 21:58
eclectics or independents)
[xii] Tarthang Tulku (1977a) calls it great time, space and knowledge; the term total space-time-awareness was coined in
Capriles (2000a) and used in (2000b, in press 1, work in progress 1, work in progress 2).
[xiii] The reason for this is explained in Capriles (2000a, 2003, 2007a Vol. I).
[xiv] Mādhyamikaphilosophy distinguishes between:
(1) Existence in the sense of an entity’s capacity to produce effects or actuality (Skt., arthakriyashakti; Tib.,
dönche nüpa [don byed nus pa]), corresponding to the German Wirlichkeit—or, which is the same, in the sense of
not being a mere illusion such as a mirage, an optican illusion, a hallucination, etc., and
(2) Existence in the sense of “self-being,” which is the meaning of the Sanskrit term svabhāva and the Tibetan
noun rangzhin (rang bzhin), and which has no true referent insofar as no entity whatsoever is self-existent. In
fact, the term’s referent is the delusive phenomenon that, according to the explanation I am applying, is generated
by the delusory valuation-absolutization (a) of the concept of being (or existence, etc.), and (b) of the concept in
terms of which the entity is normally perceived.
The Sanskrit term bhava and the Tibetan term ngöpo (dngos po)—both translated as “thing,” “existence,” “becoming” and
so on, according to the context—could always be understood in either sense. However, in ordinary people, the condition of
possibility of perceiving (1) being-qua-actuality is that (2) the illusion of self-being is active, for it is the delusive
phenomenon of being that allows us to perceive phenomena as (1) either being or not being in the sense of having or not
having actuality. This is one of the main arguments Gendün Chöphel (1995; Capriles, 1995) used against Je Tsongkhapa’s
interpretation of Mādhyamika Prāsaṅgika philosophy.
In fact, the condition of possibility of all perceptions of nonbeing—including the perception of phenomena as no longer
being, as not yet being, as having never been, or in the case of dualistic, conceptual varieties of the experience of what
higher forms of Buddhism call svabhāva śūnyatā or emptiness of self-being, as not involving self-being—is that the
experience being-qua-self-being is working. This is why, in Capriles (2007a vol. I), it was stated, in agreement with
Heidegger (whose general views are nonetheless refuted in the same work), that nothingness pertains to being.
Likewise, though in the regular text it was said that the delusory valuation-absolutization of thought makes us perceive
entities as having inherent value and importance, in the case of those entities with regard to which we are indifferent it may
cause us to perceive them as lacking value and importance.
For an in-depth discussion of the Mādhyamika distinctions under consideration, cf. Capriles (2004, 2005). For an in-depth
discussion the conceps of being and nonbeing in Western philosophy from the stantpoint of a Nyingmapa interpretation of
Mādhyamaka philosophy, cf. Capriles (2007a vol. I).
[xv] These types of nothingness or nonbeing are all based on the phenomenon of being that is the basis of all forms of
being-qua-self-being. For an elemental outline of this matter f. the preceding note; for an in-depth discussion of it, cf.
Capriles (2007a vol. I).
[xvi] As we have seen, the “peak of experience” (Skt. bhavāgra; Tib. sidtse [srid rtse] or sidpai tsemo [srid pa’i rtse mo]) is
the fourth and highest of the formless realms or arūpalokas. It is called “the dominion in which there is neither perception
nor absence of perception” (Skt. naivasaṃjñānāsaṃjñāsamāpatti; Tib. dushemé dushé memin gyi nyomjug [’du shes med
’du shes med min gyi snyoms ’jug]), for in it gross discrimination is left behind and there is only the subtlest of
discriminations.
[xvii] One could conclude from this that the gradation of being may be roughly represented by the symbolism of the hat of
the vajra Master (Skt. vajrācārya; Tib. dorje lopön [rdo rje slob dpon]) in Vajrayāna Buddhism, which represents the realm
of sensuality at the top (it is represented by the feather, which is worn as an adornment, for sensuality is not something to be
ashame of or to repress), the realm of form in the middle (represented by the crown), and the realm of formlessness at the
bottom (represented by the brim)—which is logical since the Path of Transformation works with the emotions and, in
particular, with the erotic impulse. However, this is not necessarily the case, for the realm of form involves the amplest
range of vibratory rates, from the very low to the highest—this being the reason why it is the key to the experience of the
eon (kalpa) and hence to the practices of Thögel (thod rgal) and the Yangthik (yang thig).
[xviii] In Capriles (1994), the accentuation of the delusory valuation of thought and of the ensuing phenomenon of being,
dualisms and so on in the process of the degenerative evolution of humankind was explained as the development of
contradiction, both (1) insofar as we experience contradiction only if the terms of what we are to experience as a
contradiction are sustained by the delusory valuation of thought and therefore by the phenomenon of being, and (2) insofar
as the situations we perceive as contradictions within human beings, between human beings, between human groups, and
between humankind and the rest of the ecosphere, result from degenerative evolution.
Regarding (1), it must be noted that when being disappears in Dzogchen-qua-Path or Dzogchen-qua-Fruit, we do not
65 of 93 04.06.20, 21:58
experience contradiction even if we are faced with situations that otherwise would be seen as sheer contradictions. It is well
known that the Zen Buddhist method that the Japanese call koan (Chin.: kung an) study, consists in confronting students
with what they perceive as an unsolvable contradiction and requiring that they resolve it. So long as they are under
delusion, the students will strive day and night to solve the koan. However, at some point their effort to understand in terms
of delusorily valued-absolutized thoughts will collapse and the students will no longer perceive a contradiction in what they
were trying to solve. Then, for a longer or shorter period, they will be in a state of unlimited freedom, beyond the yoke of
the delusory valuation of concepts and, therefore, beyond all limits. Similarly, that which Gregory Bateson (1972, Part III)
called pathogenic doubly-bind will produce a pathological effect on the child with corresponding predispositions, but will
not produce the same effect in a normal adult and will not produce any effect whatsoever in the individual who has become
free from delusory valuation. (For the two types of double-bind Bateson posited and the extra one I posited, see the relevant
note to Chapter I of this book as well as Capriles [1994, 2000c, 2007a].)
Higher bodhisattvas perceive contradictions as such in their post-Contemplation state (though they do so with lesser force
than ordinary individuals), and insofar as they perceive a contradiction they work toward its resolution. For their part, the
Buddhas do not perceive any contradictions at any moment whatsoever, yet they spontaneously (do) whatever is needed in
order to solve what ordinary beings may validly perceive as contradictions.
[xix] It is well-known that Freud developed the concept of Thánatos in the context of the explanation of the neurosis of
repetition; Bateson (1971) widened its scope and made the concept clearer by identifying it with the positive feedback loop
at the root of many psychoses. I myself have used it, in Bateson’s wider sense, to explain the mechanisms of the
degenerative evolution of humankind through the time cycle (Capriles, 1994, 2007a vol. III, in press 1), as well as the
dynamics of some of the higher Dzogchen practices (Capriles, 1977, 1986, 2000a, 2003, 2007a, work in progress 1).
[xx] This is Heidegger’s term (Heidegger, 1996 and throughout his works; cf. Capriles, 2007a), which inverting the
traditional usage refers to the human mode of being, which somehow implies being outside oneself.
[xxi] Passing through the hole at the bottom of Hell leads to Purgatory because henceforth those going through this process
will know from their own experience that the process is not a dead-end eternal Hell, but a temporary passage on the Path to
Awakening. In Purgatory conflict arises, rapidly exacerbates itself and liberates itself spontaneously again and again. And
finally in Heaven the recurrent spontaneous liberation of subtler delusions completes the process of neutralization of all
delusive propensities, until the individual can establish him or herself in the Empyrean, corresponding to the Akaniṣṭha
Pure Land (Tib. ’og min stug po bkod pa’i zhing)—the pure dimension of Awakening, the natural expression of the Awake
condition, the dharmadhātu garden of the Primordial Buddha, which insofar as it was not created or produced, will not
dissolve or be destroyed.
In fact, Dzogchen-qua-Fruit represents liberation with regard to all experiences characterized and conditioned by delusion,
including, (1) the spurious paradises of the three spheres of the god realm (of sensuality, of form and or formlessness), (2)
the limbo of normality, and (3) the conflictive, pain-ridden hells and other “lower realms.” It constitutes the surpassing of
the dualism between hells and paradises and, in general, of all dualisms.
[xxii] These three senses were explained in the Introduction to this book. The third type of avidyā is necessary for the
second to maintain itself.
[xxiii] Maslow (1979) showed wisdom in warning that for such “peak experiences” to be truly valuable they would have to
arise in the context of the application of a self-consistent method; I would add that only ancient Wisdom traditions have
truly self-consistent methods making it possible to use experiences in order to move from saṃsāra to Awakening: the
experience must be used as an impressive reflection in a mirror, which allows discovery of the reflecting nature of the
mirror.
Furthermore, upon learning that many of his readers we resorting to all kinds of means for obtaining “peak experiences”
outside the context of a self-consistent method, Maslow switched the emphasis from the concept in question to that of
“plateau experiences,” which was also used by the Indian author U. A. Asrani, and which Maslow illustrated with the
image of “a mother seeing a child play” (quite similar to the Dzogchen image of old man seeing children play). In Cleary &
Shapiro (1996), we read (p. 218):
“Indeed, his journals (Maslow, 1979) reveal that by 1969, Maslow became convinced that the emotionality and excitability
inherent in peak experiences may have been overvalued. He went on to say that having a glimpse of transcendent states
through a peak experience was not the only way or even the best way to acquire and sustain higher transcendent
experiences (Maslow, 1970; Krippner, 1972). Although he believed these glimpses might occasionally be useful, Maslow
also arrived at the conclusion that an inordinate emphasis on such glimpses was a hindrance (Maslow, 1971, 1979)...
[Furthermore, he] expressed considerable ire in several of his journal entries (Maslow, 1979) that his concept of peak
experience had been misused to justify indulging in experientialism for its own sake... Maslow came to feel that
appreciation of ordinary experience was not only an essential component of, but that it served as a trigger to, higher states
of consciousness such as the plateau experience (Maslow, 1970; Krippner, 1972).”
Though the concept of “plateau experience” may to some extent serve as an antidote to overvaluation of peak experiences
and attachment to the emotionality and excitability that typify the samsaric varieties of these experiences, it does not solve
the root problem I see in the concept of peak experience, which is that it comprises experiences of saṃsāra, absorptions of
66 of 93 04.06.20, 21:58
the neutral base-of-all, and instances of nirvāṇa of the kind that I have been referring to as the Dzogchen-qua-Path,
preventing discrimination among these extremely different conditions. The main advantage of switching the emphasis from
the concept of “peak experiences” to that of “plateau experiences”—even though this term still conveys the idea of a “high”
—seems to be that it would discourage the avid search for explosive instants that characterized the hippies in the 1960s and
which produced many unwanted effects, and might in some cases be conducive to a discovery of the Tao / Buddha-nature
(or however we call the ultimate) in ordinary experience. However, this would be possible only in those who have had
access to the meta-experience of nirvāṇa that I am calling the Dzogchen-qua-Path, which is the very kernel of the Path, and
which the practice of Dzogchen must stabilize.
[xxiv] The mental subject is a datum of the sixth sense posited by Buddhism, which unlike the rest involves phenomena of
dang (gdangs) energy rather than phenomena of tsel (rtsal) energy, and yet it is excluded from the pseudo-infinitude that is
the object of knowledge.
[xxv] The four formless absorptions (ārūpyasamāpatti or ārūpa-samādhi) are: (1) the dominion of the infinitude
of space (Skt. ākāśānantya samāpatti; Tib. namkha tayé nyomjug (nam mkha’ mtha’ yas snyoms ’jug); (2) the
dominion of the infinitude of consciousness (Skt. vijñānantya samāpatti; Tib. namshé thayé nyomjug (rnam shes
mtha’ yas snyoms ’jug); (3) the dominion where there are no “whats” (Skt. ākiñcanyasamāpatti; Tib. chiyang
mepai nyomjug [ci yang med pa’i snyoms ’jug]); (4) the dominion in which there is neither perception nor
absence of perception (Skt. naivasaṃjñānāsaṃjñāsamāpatti; Tib. dushemé dushé memin gyi nyomjug [’du shes
med ’du shes med min gyi snyoms ’jug]), for gross discrimination is left behind and there is only the subtlest of
discriminations.
By firmly establishing oneself in one of the above absorptions, one takes birth in the corresponding dominion
among the four formless realms (Skt. caturarūpaloka), which correspond to the four sections of the formless
sphere (Skt. caturarūpyadhātu; Tib. gzugs med khams pa’i gnas bzhi), and which are: (1) the activity field of the
infinitude of space (Skt. ākāśānantyāyatana; Tib. namkha thayé kyemché[Tib. nam mkha’ mtha’ yas skye
mched]); (2) the activity field of the infinitude of consciousness (Skt. vijñānānantyāyatana; Tib. namshe thaye
kyemche [rnam shes mtha ’yas skye mched]); (3) the activity field where there are no “whats” (Skt,
ākiñcaniyāyatana; Tib. chiyang medpai skyemché [Tib. ci yang med pa’i skye mched]); and (4) the activity field
in which there is neither perception nor its absence (Skt. naivasaṃjñānāsaṃjñāyatana; Tib. dushe me dushe
memin kyemche [’du shes med ’du shes med min skye mched])—this highest of all samsaric realms being also
called “Peak of Experience” (Skt. bhavāgra; Tib. sidtse [srid rtse] or sidpai tsemo [srid pa’i rtse mo]).
[xxvi] As we have seen, all Buddhist systems warn that the transpersonal experiences of the summit of the sensual realm
(Skt. kāmadhātu or kāma loka; Tib. dod pa’i khams), of the form realm (Skt. rūpadhātu or rūpaloka; Tib. gzugs khams) or
of any of the four formless realms (Skt. arūpyadhātu or arūpaloka; Tib. gzugs med kyi khams) are within saṃsāra and
constitute spurious achievements that, if mistaken for Awakening, will result in an exacerbation of delusion in an expanded
ego experience (in fact, Śākyamuni left his two successive teachers and set out to seek for Awakening without external
guides because he realized they did not go beyond samsaric realms, and yet posited their relative, conditioned obtainments
as the highest realization). For their part, Dzogchen and Chán or Zen go even beyond, for they further warn against
mistaking for nirvāṇa or Awakening the transpersonal state the Dzogchen teachings call kunzhi, which may involve deep
nirodhaḥ absorptions or samādhis in which neither saṃsāra nor nirvāṇa are active (but which, as noted in the Introduction,
technically belongs to saṃsāra). Moreover, the Dzogchen teachings warn that dwelling in this condition is like cutting
one’s own neck.
[xxvii] This tingsel may manifest in some specific meditative absorptions; it may also manifest in the chikhai bardo (’chi
kha’i bar do), which is the first bardo to arise after death; and it may manifest when luminosity shines after falling asleep.
(The bardos are not states of realization; an explanation of the term “bardo” is provided in a subsequent note.)
[xxviii] There are different manifestations of luminosity; for a brief explanation of these, see Capriles (2000a, 2003, and in
particular 2007a). However, they are manifestations of realization only if and when their true condition is reGnized.
[xxix] It is difficult that, if luminosity is too intense, one may remain cozily fused in it, for one will tend to be disturbed by
it and react with aversion (Skt. dveṣa; Tib. zhedang [zhe sdang]); this is far more likely to occur when luminosity is
dimmer. However, even when one reacts to luminosity with aversion, before one does so there has been a moment of the
base-of-all or kunzhi (kun gzhi).
[xxx] The bardos (bar do) are the six (or four) intermediate states samsaric beings transit through (even thought some of
them are either states in which neither saṃsāra nor nirvāṇa are manifest, or comprise such states). No bardo whatsoever
may correspond to nirvāṇa; for nirvāṇa to manifest the experiences that manifest in any of the six (or four) bardos have to
be reGnized.
[xxxi] As we have seen, what the Dzogchen teachings call the Base is the true condition of the whole of saṃsāra, nirvāṇa
and the neutral condition of the base-of-all or kunzhi (kun gzhi); therefore, the summit of saṃsāra, just as all other possible
67 of 93 04.06.20, 21:58
states that may manifest as a result of the aforementioned three possible functionings, is in truth the Base—which therefore
cannot be contrasted to that summit. However, the point is that the Base is not called “the Summit,” but “the Base,” and that
there are most precise reasons for this—which are betrayed when the Base is represented as the Summit of a hierarchy,
holarchy or however we may like to call our hierarchical classifications.
However, the above imprecision was not created by Wilber; it already existed in the Māṇḍūkya Upaniṣad’s definition of
turīya avasthā as the substratum of the three other states it describes. Paradoxically, the text in question retains this
imprecision in spite of the Buddhist influences it exhibits (for example, in its categorization of the state in question as
atyanta-śūnyatā or absolute emptiness (Nakamura, 2004, p. 285).
[xxxii] He did so at least until very recently; though I believe he has continued to do so, I must acknowledge I have not read
all that Wilber has written.
[xxxiii] In Wilber (1996b, pp. 72-73), we are told:
“At first I thought [the holarchical] maps [from different traditions, times and places] were all referring to the same
territory, so to speak. I thought they were all different versions of an essentially similar holarchy. There were just too many
similarities and overlaps in all of them. So by comparing and contrasting them all, I though I might be able to find the
single and basic holarchy that they were all trying to represent in their own ways.
“The more I tried this, the more it became obvious that it wouldn’t work. These various holarchies had some undeniable
similarities, but they differed in certain profound ways, and the exact nature of these differences was not obvious at all. And
most confusing of all, in some of these holarchical maps, the holons got bigger as development progressed, and in others,
they became smaller (I didn’t yet understand that evolution produces greater depth, less span). It was a real mess, and at
several points I decided to just chuck it, forget it, because nothing was coming out of this research.
“But the more I looked at these various holarchies, the more it dawned on me that there were actually four very different
types of holarchies, four very different types of holistic sequences. As you say, I don’t think this had been spotted before
—perhaps because it was so stupidly simple; at any event it was news to me. But once 1 put all of these holarchies into
these four groups—and they instantly fell into place at that point—then it was very obvious that each holarchy in each
group was indeed dealing with the same territory, but overall we had four different territories, so to speak.”
Of all hierarchical schemas, the only one I accept is the one discussed in the immediately following note.
[xxxiv] However, the only way to respect human existents is by respecting all natural phenomena: the dynamics of the
relationship between secondary and primary process causes instrumental relationships, once they arise, to extend
themselves to all areas—and, besides, disrespecting nonhuman natural phenomena is at the root of ecological crisis and
must come to an end it our species is to survive (Capriles, 1994, 2007b, 2007c, 2007d, 2008a, 2008b in press 1).
Besides, I have shown why the intellectual constructs of the sciences cannot correspond exactly to what they interpret, and
why all scientific interpretations of reality, insofar as they are posited as the exact, objective description of a self-existent,
objective reality, are ideological constructs. Likewise, I have sided with Desiderius Erasmus (1984) and Herbert Marcuse
(1964, ch. 6), among others of those—modern or ancient—who view the prevailing scientific approach as being in itself
pernicious, and have insisted that at the root of science lie an objectifying and fragmentary type of perception and a
utilitarian type of intentionality that automatically lead to the development of technology and of mechanistic views. While I
have insisted that this does not imply that we should do away with the sciences, I have also insisted that our problems will
not be solved (as some of the advocates of the famed “New Paradigm” preached in the eighties and nineties) merely by
replacing the mechanistic outlook of the sciences for a holistic one while keeping the current mentality (Capriles, 1994,
2004, 2007a). In fact, my view is that for survival to be perhaps possible a revolution in the human psyche must radically
change the perception and the intentionality behind both science and technology, so as to radically transform their nature,
making them collaborate with the ecosystem rather than devastate it and destroy it (which is roughly in agreement with
Marcuse’s [1972] view).
I fully agree with Wilber that if we are to apply “scientific models” to different systems in the universe—such as physical,
biological, human, social and so on—it is most important to switch models according to the level of complexity and the
structure and function of the level we are dealing with. I also noted that Wilber (1982, 1996a) criticized the so-called “new
paradigm” precisely for failing to do so.
In fact, as shown in Capriles, 1994, it would be erroneous, dehumanizing and pernicious to understand those phenomena
involving human consciousness in terms of models and concepts that apply to, say, the physical level, or the biological
level, etc., and try to produce a scientific universal theory for explaining indistinctly the phenomena of all different “levels.”
(In the original note I argued for this view using quotations from Feyerabend [1984/1987, p. 11], Ervin Laszlo [1974, pp.
29-31], and Walter Buckley [1970/1993, pp. 13-14]. I used De Sousa Santos [1987/1988, p. 37] to illustrate the error in
question, commenting that the reductionism involved could go as far as in John Lilly [1987]; then I made reference to the
polemic between T. H. Huxley [1887] and Piotr Alekseyevich Kropotkin [1976] concerning the motor of evolution—and,
finally, I pointed out that Niklas Luhmann’s systemic, autopoietic theory of society, which was criticized in Capriles &
Hočevar [1991, 1992] and whose aims I compared to those of B. F. Skinner’s [1975], show that the application of systems
theories based on the concept of self-organization will not be helpful unless the revolution of the psyche referred to above is
68 of 93 04.06.20, 21:58
achieved.)
[xxxv] All that was expressed in note 27 applies here again.
[xxxvi] I am not referring to phenomenology in the narrow twentieth century European sense of the term, but to
what I have referred to as a “metaphenomenology,” which is not limited to analyzing samsaric ontological structures
while keeping the phenomenological epoché, but which also involves the analysis of nirvāṇa, which is beyond
appearances (phenomena) and ontological structures, and of the relationship between saṃsāra and nirvāṇa.
When I say “ontological,” I am referring to what I have referred to as a “metaontology,” which is the correct
ontology developed by those who have undergone the dissolution in nirvāṇa of the phenomenon of being, and who
therefore have a correct understanding that being is a most basic delusive phenomenon of saṃsāra.
[xxxvii] However, we should not think that all conditioned experience should be placed on the same footing. For example,
according to the Dzogchen teachings, the perception of one’s body (and ideally of the whole universe) as a magical illusion,
an apparition, a phantom or a hologram, as achieved in the Tantric practice of the illusory body, despite being conditioned,
is more correct than the one featuring the perception of one’s body and the universe as concrete, self-existing realities.
Similarly, the experience of the post-Contemplation stage of the arya bodhisattva of the Mahāyāna in the path of Seeing
and the path of Contemplation (the third and fourth paths in the career of the bodhisattva), wherein the relative is perceived
(to a greater or lesser degree) as being on the same status as an illusion or a mirage, despite being conditioned is more
correct than the perception characteristic of deluded beings who have not entered the Path.
Nonetheless, since the above states are still conditioned by delusion, they are not in the same footing as what the Dzogchen
teachings call Dzogchen-qua-Path and Dzogchen-qua-Fruit.
[xxxviii] In fact, Wilber has studied the Atiyoga-Dzogchen under Penor (Pad nor: Pad ma Nor bu) Rinpoché, the current
head of the Nyingmapa School of Tibetan Buddhism.
[xxxix] In each of these levels of realization all three kāyas are realized. For example, the first level of realization is the
realization of the dharmakāya because it is the realization, in the practice of Tekchö (khregs chod), of the true condition of
the dang (gdangs) form of manifestation of energy, which in the Upadeśavarga or Menngagde series of Dzogchen
teachings is the dharmakāya, and which illustrates the essence or ngowo (ngo bo) aspect of the Base or zhi (gzhi)—which
from another standpoint (which, however, is also adopted by the Dzogchen teachings), insofar as it is the voidness aspect of
the Base, is also identified as the dharmakāya. However, in this level we realize the emptiness of dang energy
simultaneously with its clarity and with its unceasing manifestation, and therefore in the sense in which realization of the
Base’s emptiness (its essence or ngowo aspect) is realization of the dharmakāya, realization of the Base’s clarity (its nature
or rangzhin / rang bzhin aspect) is realization of the sambhogakāya, and realization of the Base’s unceasing manifestation
(its energy or thukje / thugs rje aspect) is the nirmāṇakāya, the realization of the three kāyas is complete in the realization
of the true condition of dang energy that, in the special sense proper to the Upadeśavarga or Menngagde (man ngag sde)
series of Dzogchen teachings being considered, is the dharmakāya.
Likewise, the second level of realization is the realization of the sambhogakāya because it is the realization, in the practice
of Thögel (thod rgal), of the true condition of the rölpa (rol pa) form of manifestation of energy, which in the
Upadeśavarga or Menngagde series of Dzogchen teachings is the sambhogakāya, and which illustrates the nature or
rangzhin (rang bzhin) aspect of the Base or zhi (gzhi)—which from another standpoint (which, however, is also adopted by
the Dzogchen teachings), insofar as it is the clarity aspect of the Base is also identified as the sambhogakāya. However, in
this level we realize the emptiness of rölpa energy simultaneously with its clarity and with its unceasing manifestation, and
hence in the sense in which realization of the Base’s emptiness (its essence or ngowo aspect) is realization of the
dharmakāya, realization of the Base’s clarity (its nature or rangzhin aspect) is realization of the sambhogakāya, and
realization of the Base’s unceasing manifestation (its energy or thukje aspect) is realization of the nirmāṇakāya, the
realization of the three kāyas is complete in the realization of the true condition of rölpa energy that, in the special sense
proper to the Upadeśavarga or Menngagde series of Dzogchen teachings being considered, is the sambhogakāya.
Similarly, the third level of realization is the realization of the nirmāṇakāya because it is the correct apprehension, as a
result of advanced Thögel realization, of the tsel (rtsal) form of manifestation of energy—a realization that in the
Upadeśavarga or Menngagde series of Dzogchen teachings is the nirmāṇakāya. It is also the nirmāṇakāya because this
realization illustrates the energy or thukje aspect of the Base or zhi, which from another standpoint (which, however, is also
adopted by the Dzogchen teachings), insofar as it is the unceasing manifestation aspect of the Base, is also identified as the
nirmāṇakāya. However, here we realize the emptiness of tsel energy simultaneously with its clarity and with its unceasing
manifestation, and hence in the sense in which realization of the Base’s emptiness (its essence or ngowo aspect) is
realization of the dharmakāya, realization of the Base’s clarity (its nature or rangzhin aspect) is realization of the
sambhogakāya, and realization of the Base’s unceasing manifestation (its energy or thukje aspect) is the nirmāṇakāya, the
realization of the three kāyas is complete in the realization of the true condition of tsel energy that, in the special sense
proper to the Upadeśavarga or Menngagde series of Dzogchen teachings being considered, is the nirmāṇakāya.
Thus we could say that in the Upadeśavarga or Menngagde series of Dzogchen teachings the realization of the true
condition of dang energy is the dharmakāya, but that this dharmakāya has a dharmakāya, a sambhogakāya and a
nirmāṇakāya aspect in a sense that is not limited to the Dzogchen teachings. Likewise, we could say that in the
69 of 93 04.06.20, 21:58
Upadeśavarga or Menngagde series of Dzogchen teachings the realization of the true condition of rölpa energy is the
sambhogakāya, but that this sambhogakāya has a dharmakāya, a sambhogakāya and a nirmāṇakāya aspect in a sense that
is not limited to the Dzogchen teachings. And we could say that in the Upadeśavarga or Menngagde series of Dzogchen
teachings the realization of the true condition of tsel energy is the nirmāṇakāya, but that this nirmāṇakāya has a
dharmakāya, a sambhogakāya and a nirmāṇakāya aspect in a sense that is not limited to the Dzogchen teachings.
Independently of the above, I want to note that in Capriles (1977), I presented the diagram of a “spiral of spirals,” which
was an elaboration on Ronald D. Laing’s diagram of the “spiral of pretences.” In it, it seemed that from the level wherein
the anguish that is the being of the human individual is fully experienced (which in this sense would seem to correspond to
Wilber’s six fulcrum), one proceeded to the realization of the nirmāṇakāya, and then from it to the successive realizations
of the sambhogakāya and the dharmakāya. Therefore, an error could be appreciated that was partly similar to the one I am
criticizing in Wilber; however, in my diagram this level was represented as the very bottom of saṃsāra, and was not said to
involve the “integration of body and mind” Wilber posits in relation to it.
[xl] However, from all this we must not infer that in order to undertake the practice of Dzogchen Atiyoga it is first necessary
to practice the Inner Vajrayāna Tantras of the Path of Transformation until we attain its highest level of realization of this
vehicle: Dzogchen Ati is a self-contained Path featuring most powerful methods of Awakening, all of which are based on
the principle of spontaneous liberation rather than on that of transformation, and many of which allow the individual to
obtain Direct Introduction [roughly equivalent to a first satori] without having to spend years practicing the stages of
creation and completion or perfection.
Furthermore, in each of these levels of realization all three kāyas are realized. For example, the first level of realization is
the realization of the dharmakāya because it is the realization of the true condition of the dang (gdangs) form of
manifestation of energy, which is the dharmakāya and which illustrates the essence or ngowo (ngo bo) aspect of the Base or
zhi (gzhi), which from another standpoint (which, however, is also adopted by the Dzogchen teachings), insofar as it is the
voidness aspect of the Base, is also identified with the dharmakāya. However, in this level we realize the emptiness of dang
energy simultaneously with its clarity and with it unceasing manifestation, and therefore in the sense in which realization of
the Base’s emptiness (its essence or ngowo aspect) is realization of the dharmakāya, realization of the Base’s clarity (its
nature or rangzhin aspect) is realization of the sambhogakāya, and realization of the Base’s unceasing manifestation (its
energy or thukje aspect) is the nirmāṇakāya, the realization of the three kāyas is complete in the realization of the true
condition of dang energy that, in the special sense proper to the Upadeśavarga or Menngagde (man nagag sde) series of
Dzogchen teachings being considered, is the dharmakāya.
Likewise, the second level of realization is the realization of the sambhogakāya because it is the realization of the true
condition of the rölpa (rol pa) form of manifestation of energy, which is the sambhogakāya, and which illustrates the nature
or rangzhin (rang bzhin) aspect of the Base or zhi (gzhi), which from another standpoint (which, however, is also adopted
by the Dzogchen teachings), insofar as it is the clarity aspect of the Base is also identified with the sambhogakāya.
However, in this level we realize the emptiness of rölpa energy simultaneously with its clarity and with it unceasing
manifestation, and hence in the sense in which realization of the Base’s emptiness (its essence or ngowo aspect) is
realization of the dharmakāya, realization of the Base’s clarity (its nature or rangzhin aspect) is realization of the
sambhogakāya, and realization of the Base’s unceasing manifestation (its energy or thukje aspect) is the nirmāṇakāya, the
realization of the three kāyas is complete in the realization of the true condition of rölpa energy that, in a special sense
proper to the Upadeśavarga or Menngagde (man nagag sde) series of Dzogchen teachings being considered, is the
sambhogakāya.
Similarly, the third level of realization is the realization of the nirmāṇakāya because it is the realization of the true
condition of the tsel (rtsal) form of manifestation of energy, which is the nirmāṇakāya, and which illustrates the energy or
thukje (thugs rje) aspect of the Base or zhi (gzhi), which from another standpoint (which, however, is also adopted by the
Dzogchen teachings), insofar as it is the unceasing manifestation aspect of the Base, is also identified with the
nirmāṇakāya. However, in this level we realize the emptiness of tsel energy simultaneously with its clarity and with it
unceasing manifestation, complete in the realization of the true condition of tsel energy, and hence in the sense in which
realization of the Base’s emptiness (its essence or ngowo aspect) is realization of the dharmakāya, realization of the Base’s
clarity (its nature or rangzhin aspect) is realization of the sambhogakāya, and realization of the Base’s unceasing
manifestation (its energy or thukje aspect) is the nirmāṇakāya, the realization of the three kāyas is complete in the
realization of the true condition of tsel energy that, in a special sense proper to the Upadeśavarga or Menngagde (man
nagag sde) series of Dzogchen teachings being considered, is the nirmāṇakāya.
Thus we could say that in a specific Dzogchen sense realization of the true condition of dang energy is the dharmakāya, but
that this dharmakāya has a dharmakāya, a sambhogakāya and a nirmāṇakāya aspect in a wider sense that is not limited to
the Dzogchen teachings. Likewise, we could say that in a specific Dzogchen sense realization of the true condition of rölpa
energy is the sambhogakāya, but that this sambhogakāya has a dharmakāya, a sambhogakāya and a nirmāṇakāya aspect in
a wider sense that is not limited to the Dzogchen teachings. And we could say that in a specific Dzogchen sense realization
of the true condition of tsel energy is the nirmāṇakāya, but that this nirmāṇakāya has a dharmakāya, a sambhogakāya and a
nirmāṇakāya aspect in a wider sense that is not limited to the Dzogchen teachings.
[xli] This was what happened in those two “miracles” people perceived Milarepa as performing, with which Chögyal
Namkhai Norbu (unpublished ms.) illustrated the wisdoms of quality and quantity, and which were described in a previous
note (the manifestation of the wisdom of quality in the nirmāṇakāya dimension is illustrated by the story of Milarepa
70 of 93 04.06.20, 21:58
finding shelter in an empty yak horn without reducing his own body and without increasing the horn’s size; the
manifestation of the wisdom of quantity in the nirmāṇakāya dimension is illustrated by the story of Milarepa’s funerals,
which according to tradition took place in three different places, even though there was a single corpse).
[xlii] Concerning Wilber’s wording at this point, it seems relevant to note that the dissolution of the “separate-self sense” is
not something that a person can do but something that happens, for all actions affirm and sustain the illusory mental
subject.
[xliii] The four formless absorptions (caturdhyānārūpyāḥ) were listed and explained in a previous note to this chapter.
[xliv] In Pramāṇasamuccaya 1:11d Acharya Dignāga stated that whenever we have a memory of the aspect of
blue, we also have the memory of having been conscious of this aspect—from which it has been inferred that,
when the perception of the aspect of blue that we remember took place, it was accompanied by an awareness (of)
being conscious of seeing this aspect. This is precisely the thesis of Dignāga’s main direct disciple, Dharmakīrti:
that for perception to be possible there has to be awareness (of) the fact that one is perceiving. In fact, as I have
noted elsewhere (Capriles, 2004, 2007a vol. II), the condition of possibility of self-conscious remembrance is that
a reflexive mnemonic imprint is established (which depends on the cerebral cortex, organ of reflexiveness, and
which may be contrasted with unselfconscious forms of memory such as that of lower organisms that lack a
cerebral cortex, that of fetuses whose cerebral cortex is not fully formed, and that of neonates whose cerebral
cortex is not completely mielitized), and this can only occur when there is a delusorily valued perception, thought
or action—which, insofar as it goes along with the delusory valuation-absolutization of the underlying threefold
thought structure, involves nondual, nonthetic, nonpositional awareness (of) a dual, thetic, positional
consciousness of an object that is understood in terms of a concept (for a discussion of memory in Buddhahood,
cf. Capriles, 2007a vol. II). When the base-of-all or kunzhi (kun gzhi; Skt. ālaya) manifests as a neutral condition
(lungmaten [kun gzhi lung ma bstan]), there is unconsciousness, not in the sense of lack of awareness, but in that
of manifestation of a stunned condition involving the first type of avidyā / marigpa posited in the Dzogchen
classification adopted in this book and lacking reflexive awareness (of) being conscious of something and hence
involving no knowledge—in which therefore no reflexive mnemonic imprints are established. This condition
manifests for a very brief instant between each coarse thought of the discursive kind and the next, and although it
may be said to be unconscious in the sense just defined, its occurrence, rather than making us lose track of the
relationship between the thoughts in question and fall into a stunned condition, has the twofold function of
separating each thought from the preceding one (according to how long it manifests, in writing it will be
represented by a comma, a semicolon or a period), and of establishing the connection between thoughts that
makes mental discourse possible. Therefore, what the Dzogchen teachings call the neutral condition of the base-
of-all, which is an immediate phenomenal reality, may be regarded as the phenomenal unconscious that performs
the functions that the Cittamātras ascribe to the metaphysical abstraction they call ālayavijñāna (Tib. kunzhi
namshe [kun gzhi rnam shes]) and that the modern West often attributes to the partly analogous metaphysical
abstraction called “the unconscious”—such as that of establishing connections of which we are not consciously
aware, which I have illustrated by the case of the object of infatuation or worry spontaneously presenting itself
after we come out of a swoon or awaken from sleep (for an exhaustive discussion of the function awareness [of]
consciousness of object has in memory, and of the function the base-of-all that does not involve this awareness
has both in self-deceit and in the connection of thoughts and experiences, cf. Capriles, 2007a vol. II).
[xlv] Qua Base, this awareness is empty whether or not deluded mind is functioning, and hence the emptiness in question
includes the emptiness aspect of deluded mind; qua Path and qua Fruit, it consists in the nonconceptual, nondual
realization, while in the state of rigpa, of this emptiness.
[xlvi] Qua Base, this clarity is the sambhogakāya whether or not deluded mind is functioning; qua Path and qua Fruit, the
sambhogakāya consists in the nonconceptual, nondual realization, while in the state of rigpa, of this natural luminous
clarity.
[xlvii] Qua Base, this is so whether or not deluded mind is functioning; qua Path and qua Fruit, it consists in the
nonconceptual, nondual realization, while in the state of rigpa, of this unobstructed, unceasing manifestation.
[xlviii] Of course, in the Upadeśavarga or Menngagde (man ngag sde) series of Dzogchen teachings, in which the
nirmāṇakāya is the final level in the sequence of realization, this kāya involves the manifestation of the sambhogakāya’s
wisdoms of quality and quantity at the level of tsel (rtsal) energy; however, in this case we are not speaking of a level at
which “consciousness starts to go transpersonal,” for as we have seen in this series of teachings the nirmāṇakāya is the last
level of attainment on the Path and, if the Path is carried to its ultimate possibilities, results in the nirmāṇakāya’s
manifestation as a body of light.
[xlix] According to the Mahamudra tradition of the Kagyupas, on the occasion of listening for the first time to teachings
71 of 93 04.06.20, 21:58
concerning emptiness, beings of higher capacities experience great joy, to the point that all their down and hair may go on
end; beings of middle capacities have no extreme reactions, and beings of lower capacities experience terror. The same may
occur the first time the energetic-volume-determining-the-scope-of-awareness increases to a level at which the
panoramification of the focus of conscious awareness and the permeabilization of its limits causes us to glimpse the
voidness of all entities: beings of higher capacities may experience great joy, whereas those of lower capacities may
experience dread—this being the reason why Lama Anagarika Govinda (1973) wrote that he increase of the energetic-
volume-determining-the-scope-of-awareness (Skt. kundalinī; Tib. thig le) can induce experiences of terror in beings who
are not rightly prepared.
[l] It is the MādhyamakaPrāsaṅgika school and the schools of the Inner Mādhyamaka that emphasize the fact that the
absolute truth is disclosed in a gnosis beyond the subject-object duality that makes patent the true nature of phenomena
(Skt. dharmatā; Tib. chos nyid), showing phenomena to be utterly void of self-nature (and, according to the Inner
Mādhyamaka, showing this gnosis to be void of anything extraneous to itself). The Inner Mādhyamaka explains the
absolute truth as the indivisibility of appearances and voidness (this is the Mahāmādhyamika definition), and identifies it
with the Buddha-nature. See the upcoming revised version of Capriles (2004).
[li] It must be clear by now that the basic experience of the anguish inherent in the being of the human individual
has nothing to do with what I call panic and which Wilber associates with the manifestation of the intangible
self-luminous visions of the intermediate state of dharmatā or chönyi bardo—even though in the West
Kierkegaard (1968, 1970) seems to have placed in the same footing the fear that may be inspired by awareness of
one’s own nothingness (which seems to be an instance of what I call panic), and all modes of despair, Angst, etc.
[lii] As shown in a previous note to this volume, the realizations involving a special mode of death are: (1) the rainbow
body or jalü (’ja’ lus) in the Dzogchen Longde (klong sde) series of teachings; (2) the body of atoms or lüdül threndu deng
(lus rdul phran du dengs) in the Tekchö (khregs chod) level of the Menngagde (man ngag sde) or Upadeśavarga series, and
(3) the body of light—ökyiku or öphung—(’od kyi sku or ’od phung) in the Thögel (thod rgal) or Yangthik (yang thig)
practice of the Menngagde or Upadeśavarga series. In another note it was stated that the realization involving deathlessness
is the total transference or phowa chenpo (’pho ba chen po), which is the highest possible realization of the practice of
Thögel or the Yangthik and which results from developing to its limit the fourth vision of the practice of Thögel or the
Yangthik, and which involves the mode of putting an end to life called “invisible like space,” which occurs when all
Buddha-activities have been completed and thus there is no longer a cause of life (so to say).
[liii] The latter includes those experiences of voidness that some lower Mahāyāna systems wrongly posit as absolute truth,
such as the presence of the absence of the mode of existence we had wrongly projected on an entity, as it is supposed to
manifest in the realization of the practice of insight meditation (Pāḷi, vipassanā; Skt. vipaśyanā; Tib. lhantong [lhag
mthong]) taught in the Saṃdhinirmocanasūtra, the Śrāvakabhūmi chapter of Asanga’s Yogācārabhūmi[śāstra], the
Bhāvanākrama by Śāntarakṣita and Kamalaśīla, and Je Tsongkhapa’s Lamrim works (which, however, reword the
explanations of the previously cited books and attribute this realization to the MādhyamakaPrāsaṅgika school)—for, as I
have noted elsewhere (Capriles [2004, 2005]), insofar as it manifests as object to a mental subject and therefore involves
the subject-object duality and the dualistic negation of the mode of existence that samsaric beings wrongly project on
entities, such a voidness is dual, relative and samsaric.
The original realization of absolute truth of the MādhyamakaPrāsaṅgika was “the ultimate meaning without distinctions,”
“the ultimate meaning which is not conventional,” “the inexpressible ultimate,” or “the true absolute that is nonconceptual
(Tib. namdrang minpai döndam [rnam grangs min pa’i don dam]):” the direct realization without elaborations (Tib. thödrel
[spros bral]) of the dharmatā or true condition of all phenomena that can only take place beyond the subject-object duality
and in general beyond all concepts “when the conceptual carpet is pulled under the mind’s feet,” and in which, therefore,
there is no one who may abide anywhere or on anything—which is the reason why in ancient times the Mādhyamika-
Prāsaṅgikas were referred to by the label “Thoroughly Nonabiding Mādhyamikas” (Skt. sarvadharmāpratiṣṭhānavādin;
Tib. rabtu minepar mawa [rab tu mi gnas par smra ba]). Je Tsongkhapa disparaged this label together with the original
Prāsaṅgika view and posited as the absolute truth of Mādhyamaka Prāsaṅgika the voidness that manifests as object in the
practice described in the texts listed in the above paragraph, by simply redefining this voidness in terms he deemed to
correspond to the Mādhyamaka-Prāsaṅgika (Capriles [2005]); therefore, Je Tsongkhapa’s voidness is also included among
the “experiences that some lower Mahāyāna systems wrongly posit as absolute truth” referred to above.
[liv] All such experiences may have value on the Path, in particular if used as an occasion for applying the instructions that
may permit the reGnition of the true condition of the awareness represented by the mirror. In fact, realization in Dzogchen
consists in the naked patency of the true condition of the primordial awareness that is compared with the mirror, rather than
consisting in any of the “reflections” (i.e. experiences) that may manifest in the mirror—whether these be ordinary
experiences of saṃsāra such as that of phenomena as existing, or experiences of the practice such as the illusory
experiences or nyam [nyams] of voidness, clarity or pleasure. In fact, the essential difference between transpersonal
systems and what I call metatranspersonal ones is that whereas the former take the production of transpersonal
experiences to be an end in itself, the latter use these experiences in order to apply the instructions that may result in the
reGnition of the true condition of what is represented by the mirror.
In the primordial, nondual awareness in question, appearances and voidness are indivisible, for neither side is or may be
privileged. In the Dzogchen teachings, when this nondual awareness is manifest as Dzogchen-qua-Path or Dzogchen-qua-
72 of 93 04.06.20, 21:58
Fruit, it is called “all-liberating single gnosis” or chikshe kundröl (gcig shes kun grol), for whichever concepts manifest in
it—whether of “existent phenomena” or of “nonexistence”—spontaneously liberate themselves.
[lv] In the practice of Tekchö (khregs chod) of the Menngagde (man ngag sde or man ngag gyi sde) or Upadeśavarga series
of Dzogchen teachings, the voidness that, as seen in the Preamble to / first chapter of Capriles (2007a vol. I), is the
ngowo aspect of the Base, is realized on the occasion of the reGnition of the true condition of the dang mode of
manifestation of energy, which is the basic constituent of thoughts. That very moment whichever delusorily valued thought
may be manifest liberates itself spontaneously; since this applies also to the super-subtle thought known as the “threefold
thought-structure,” the delusory valuation-absolutization of which gives rise to the illusory subject-object duality, the
duality of subject and object instantly dissolves. This is why in the practice of Atiyoga-Dzogchen (and in particular in the
practice of the Tekchö of the Dzogchen Menngagde) the realization of voidness in the manifestation of rigpa necessarily
implies the dissolution of the illusory subject-object duality. (In subsequent levels of realization voidness is evident as well,
yet is not the most outstanding aspect of realization.)
Moreover, as I showed in Capriles (2005) and as will be seen below in the regular text of this chapter, the original
Mādhyamaka agreed with the Dzogchen teachings in asserting that the realization of voidness in the manifestation of
absolute truth is beyond the illusory subject-object duality—which some have related to the already allegation by Pawo
Tsuglag Threngwa (dpa’ bo gtsug lag phreng ba [1504-1566]) in Feast for the Erudite: A History of the Dharma or
Chöjung Khepai Gatön (Chos ’byung mkhas pa’s dga’ ston) according to which both Nāgārjuna and Āryadeva were
accomplished Dzogchen Masters, but which need not be related to this fact, for true realization is always beyond the
subject-object duality. At any rate, it is most important to distinguish the realization of voidness upon the reGnition of the
Base that privileges its ngowo (ngo bo) or “essence” aspect and the dang (gdangs) mode of manifestation of energy, from
the mere experiences of voidness that manifest on the Path, and which are instances of true realization only when they
coincide with the reGnition of the Base.
[lvi] The dissolution of the observer shows that the observer was void: that it was but an appearance that can dissolve
without this affecting our Gnitiveness or the appearance of the myriad forms that manifest through the senses.
[lvii] In the Kabbalah, the term ayin sof ohr refers to the eternal light that surrounds the void, or to infinite light (like
Amitabha). To identify this with the dharmakāyainvolves mistaking the luminosity or clear light of the void with the
dharmakāya, failing to acknowledge the fact that the dharmakāya is the reGnition of the true condition of dang (gdangs)
energy (the luminosity called tingsel [gting gsal] in Tibetan being one of the manifestations of dang energy that, when
reGnized, manifests as the dharmakāya
[lviii] Middle German for vergessen, meaning, “to forget.” Various commentators on Zen (Chán) Buddhism, beginning with
D. T. Suzuki, have identified Meister Eckhart’s usage of vergezzen (for example, in the sentence Hie muoz komen in ein
vergezzen und in ein nihtwizzen) with the Buddhist śūnya or śūnyatā.
[lix] Gendün Chöphel (2005) wrote:
“‘Relative’ is the word ancient scholars used for translating the Sanskrit samvriti, which means ‘obscuration to correctness’
or ‘thoroughly confused’. Because one is ‘deluded about the meaning’, we must also understand ‘relative truth’ as ‘deluded
[pseudo-]truth’.”
[lx] This duality, however, is not to be taken too far. In the Sāṃkhya darśana of Kapila, which as we have seen is coupled
with the Yoga darśana of Patañjali, on the one hand it is the cosmic spirit (mahat), which contains the potentiality for both
Puruṣa and Prakṛti to manifest, that gives rise to the plurality of individual subjects (ahamkara) and individual objects
(tanmatrani). On the other hand, everything contains Puruṣa (in some level or development: it is less developed in
minerals, more so in plants, even more so in animals, and far more so in human beings) and Prakṛti, which remain
different, yet are never totally apart from each other. Furthermore, though all objects are reduced to a single Prakṛti,
whereas each subject is regarded as a different Puruṣa, ultimately all Puruṣas may also be reduced to a single universal
spirit, which in the empirical individuals of the world has to contend with the manifold impediments of matter.
Furthermore, the salvation of the Puruṣas, which lies in the aloofness of the sākṣin before the movements of Prakṛti, can
only manifest thanks to the intervention of some specific mechanisms of Prakṛti—and in general the wonderful ways in
which the Puruṣas and Prakṛti help each other show that the opposites fall within a whole. As the fact that the ahamkaras
and the tanmatrani are somehow creations of the single mahat show, duality hangs from some higher unity placed above
itself.
Furthermore, on the basis of a verse from the Mahabharata (12. 11419), Vijñānabhikshu asserted that the ever-changing
Prakṛti is avidyā, whereas the unchanging Puruṣa is vidya, and for their part others have associated vidya with being and
avidyā with nonbeing, for in their view wisdom realizes what is, whereas ignorance or delusion perceive what is not and
nonetheless takes it as being—which the Sāṃkhya deny, for they claim that a false entity cannot give rise to true bondage.
(Of course, if bondage were truly existent, all entities of saṃsāra would be truly existent, and release from saṃsāra in
nirvāṇa would be impossible—and, if for some reason it were possible, this release would also be truly existent, which is
something that the higher forms of Buddhism deny: in fact, the Sāṃkhya insist that the opposition between being and
nonbeing is truly existent and their identity is unreal.) However, no matter how much the Sāṃkhya deny the interpretation
in question, Prakṛti is the negative of Puruṣa, the not-self of the self, and the witnessing of the not-self by the self is the
affirmation by the self of the nonself of Prakṛti, which is what gives Prakṛti all the existence it has. The self-conscious
73 of 93 04.06.20, 21:58
spirit that goes along with mahat is not one particular jīvā (individual soul), for it continues to force Prakṛti into activity no
matter how many Puruṣas attain liberation.
It is the Yoga darśana that is concerned with the attainment of liberation, which this system calls kaivalya or absolute
independence, and explains as not being a mere negation, but the eternal life of the Puruṣa when it is released from the
fetters of Prakṛti, whereby it manifests in his true form (svarūpa). Desire and reactions to the movements of Prakṛti are a
function of avidyā, which is removed by discriminative knowledge or vivekakhyati, which removes all false notions, so that
the self is purified and remains untouched by the conditions of citta: it manifests as the disinterested witness or sākṣin. And
this condition is incompatible with all human relationships of family life, society and so on (however, since society is not to
be destroyed, and in particular since Brahmanism is androcentric and interested in preserving the caste system, only after a
certain age at which it is assumed that all men have fulfilled their worldly duties, and only if one is a male belonging to one
of the higher castes, may one abandon the world to devote oneself to the quest for liberation). Those who don’t have the
capacity to achieve this result should practice the Yoga of action (kriyayoga), consisting of austerities (tapas), study
(swadhyaya) and devotion to God (Ishwarapranidhana).
However, the Sāṃkhya and Yoga darśanas are extremely complex systems, and therefore the lay reader should not think
that the summary of some key points of both systems provided in this note exhausts the systems in question: in order to
fully understand these two darśanas, intensive and extensive study of their respective texts is necessary.
[lxi] German romantic poets such as Hölderlin and Novalis were among those who claimed that the absolute transcends
subjectivity and that it is impossible to conceptualize it in a philosophical system. In Capriles (2005), I wrote:
“In relation to and in the context of Idealism, Western philosophers raised the famous objection according to which an
absolute could not be an absolute of knowledge, for the object of knowledge and the subject of knowledge are relative to
each other (arguments of this kind are found, among other authors, in Bradley [1846-1924], who insisted [Bradley, 1978]
that the absolute necessarily had to be nonrelational and free from the subject-object duality... Furthermore, knowledge is
an understanding in terms of concepts, and concepts are defined by genus proximum or proximate gender (the immediately
wider gender in which the class is included) and differentia specifica or specific difference (that which sets the class apart
from other members of the same gender); for example, if we accepted the well-known definition of ‘human being’ as a
‘rational animal’, ‘animal’ would be the genus proximum and ‘rational’ the differentia specifica. Therefore, all concepts are
relative to those that make up their proximate genus and those that make up their specific difference, and insofar as these
for their part are relative to other concepts that are relative to other concepts, all concepts are relative to the whole galaxy of
concepts. The concept of ‘absolute’, in particular, is defined by differentia specifica (i.e. in contrast) with that of ‘relative’,
so that, in tautological terms, ‘absolute’ may be defined precisely as ‘that which is not relative’ (this is the sense in which
the term ‘absolute’ is used in Mādhyamaka philosophy and in F. H. Bradley [1978]; in common language, the term has also
other acceptations; e.g. “absolute” alcohol is 100% alcohol). This implies that the true absolute cannot be the concept of
absolute that is relative to the concept of relative—or any other concept, for that matter—but must be the utterly
nonconceptual true nature of all reality, which can only be realized in a nonconceptual gnosis beyond the subject-object
duality. This is the reason why voidness, understood as the presence of the absence of the mode of existence that deluded
beings wrongly project on an entity and in terms of which they wrongly perceive it, could not be the absolute truth of
Consequentialist or Prāsaṅgika Mādhyamikas: voidness thus understood is relative, not only to the perceiving mind, but
also to the entity of which it is supposed to be the voidness, to the mode of existence we had wrongly projected on that
entity... and to all other entities and the mode of existence we had wrongly projected on them. How could the relative be the
absolute truth?”
[lxii] Though Je Tsongkhapa declared himself a Prāsaṅgika, he excluded this doctrine from his reinterpretation of the
system in question.
[lxiii] Although the Dzogchen teachings posit a nondual awareness inherent in Dzogchen-qua-Base, and although some
terms used in the Semde series of Dzogchen teachings are similar to those in the Sūtras of the Third Promulgation, on the
basis of which the Cittamātra School developed, Dzogchen does not posit a “mind only” view like the one expressed by the
Sanskrit term Cittamātra and its Tibetan equivalent, Semtsam (sems tsam). However, this should not be understood as
implying that the Dzogchen teachings agree with Brahmanic views that posit a sākṣin that is different and separate from all
objects. That Dzogchen avoids both extremes is patent in the following quotation from a text on the Tekchö (khregs chod)
of the Dzogchen Upadeśavarga revealed by the great tertön (gter ston: treasure revealer: the highly realized practitioners
who reveal the Spiritual Treasures called terma [gter ma]) Dudjom Lingpa (bdud ’joms gling pa: 1835-1904) (Dudjom
Lingpa [1994], p. 103):
“Some people hold apparent phenomena to be mind. They might wonder whether all external apparent phenomena are
actually [delusorily valued] thoughts and therefore [whether they are] their own minds, but such is not the case. This is
demonstrated by the fact that while apparent phenomena change from the very moment they manifest, ceasing and passing
away in a succession of later moments following former ones, ordinary mind does not take on the nature of these passing
phenomena, [for if it did so it would] become itself nonexistent qua mind [the very moment it took on the nature of these
phenomena].
“Through the usual progression of apparent phenomena manifesting in this manner to the eight aggregates of
consciousness, cyclic existence emerges in its entirety. By tracing the process back to consciousness as the ground of all
ordinary experience, one is still left stranded at the very pinnacle of conditioned existence.
74 of 93 04.06.20, 21:58
“Thus the world of all possible appearances, the whole of saṃsāra and nirvāṇa, is none other than the Base itself and is of
one taste with that Base. To give an example, although myriad reflections of the planets and stars appear in the ocean, in
actuality they are of one taste with the water itself. Understand that things are like this. This demonstration that all apparent
phenomena are inherently self-manifesting appearances is the direct transmission instruction of Vajradhara.”
According to the above argument, it is not permissible to assert that the apparent phenomena perceived by the mind are the
mind, for if they were the mind, when the latter perceived a yellow phenomenon it would become itself yellow, and such
yellow mind would forever be unable to perceive apparent phenomena of other colors; furthermore, as noted in the above
quote, if the mind became the phenomena it perceives, the very moment it did so it would cease being a mind. For their
part, if apparent phenomena were the mind, insentient phenomena should be able to feel, experience and know, just as the
mind does; likewise, when a phenomenon ceased to be, the mind itself would cease to be, and henceforth it could no longer
perceive further phenomena. This is why the Dzogchen teachings make it clear that, just as the images projected in the
movies are not the process of projecting them, nangyül (snang yul)—i.e. “the seen,” “the presented,” or “what is
experienced”—is not nangwa (snang ba)—i.e. vision or sensory presentation. And nonetheless all phenomena are of one
taste with the nature-of-mind or Base-awareness in which they manifest, as in a mirror: bodhicitta is like the mirror, and the
energy or thukje of bodhicitta, consisting of the plethora of phenomena, is like the reflections that arise in the mirror, which
are not the mirror, but are not at a distance from the mirror’s reflexive capacity and therefore are not external to the mirror.
This is the reason why, when we realize this nature-of-mind or Base-awareness in the manifestation of rigpa, the whole of
phenomena have a single taste for us—and, contrariwise, if the whole of phenomena do not have a single taste for us, we
are not in the state of rigpa.
All of the above is directly related to the reasons why, unlike the Cittamātra School, the Semde series of Dzogchen
teachings assert that vision, sensory presentation or apparent phenomena (Tib. nangwa), whether in saṃsāra or in nirvāṇa,
are always the play (Skt. lila; Tib. rölpa [rol pa]) or ornament (Tib. gyen [rgyan]) of primordial bodhicitta (i.e. of the Base
of both saṃsāra and nirvāṇa). And it is also directly related to the fact that the Semde series of Dzogchen teachings
explains the samsaric perception of a seemingly external world as resulting from dividing the given into an apparently
internal dimension or jing (dbyings) and an apparently external dimension or jing (dbyings), and then projecting (Tib. tsel
[rtsal]) a great deal of the appearances manifesting as the energy (Tib. thukje [thugs rje]) of bodhicitta into the dimension
that appears to be external, so that the phenomena of tsel energy appear to manifest outside the mirror. (Lipman
[1983/1986], p. 20.)
The above is closely related to the excerpt from Longchenpa to which the reference mark for this note was
appended, which I cite in full below (Longchen Rabjam [1998], pp. 84-87; the language was adapted to the
terminology used in this book):
“Although phenomena appear as they do to the mind,
they are not mind nor anything other than mind.
Given their illusory nature as clearly apparent yet inconceivable, void manifestations,
moment by moment they are beyond description, imagination or expression.
For this reason know that all phenomena that appear to the mind
are inconceivable, ineffable and empty even as they manifest.
“The apparent phenomena that manifest as the five kinds of sense objects [visual forms and so forth], and the
phenomena of the universe that seem to appear in their own right, manifest to the mind and [in fact] are nothing
other than [manifestations appearing to the mind]. Even though they appear to be something other [than the
mind], like dreams and illusions they are by nature empty, and, [being inconceivable and ineffable, they] have
never been anything other [than mind] and have never been mind [either]. In accordance with the eight traditional
metaphors for illusoriness, an examination of phenomena as forms of emptiness, clearly apparent yet
inconceivable, ineffable and void—whether considered to be composed of reducible or irreducible particles
—determines their equalness in having no identity. One knows the basic space of unchanging emptiness through
these natural manifestations of the nature of mind...
“‘Well’, you might ask, ‘aren’t you asserting everything to be mind?’ Let me clearly outline the distinction [between Mind-
only and Dzogchen]. In general, when the world of appearances and possibilities, whether [as] saṃsāra or nirvāṇa, is
explained to be Awake awareness, what is meant is that phenomena are alike [in that they do not waver from the single
awareness] and manifest naturally as the display, projective energy and adornment of that awareness. [On the basis of this,
phenomena have been said] to be mind, just as one uses the name ‘sun’ to refer to the rays of the sun when one says, ‘Sit in
the midday sun’.
“There are two ways to refute the assertion [that “phenomena are mind”]. According to logical reasoning, this would
require that mind exhibit color and other distinctive features, because apparent phenomena have color and such features...”
75 of 93 04.06.20, 21:58
However, if mind had color and other distinctive features, it could manifest only its own color and its other distinctive
features, and hence it could not manifest successively the countless colors and distinctive features of the variegated
phenomena. This is obviously not the case, for awareness manifests innumerable phenomena one after the other as its
display, projective energy and adornment—all of which manifest successively to the human mind. Longchen Rabjam goes
on to say (1998, pp. 85-87):
“It would also require that mind be external or that apparent phenomena be internal, and so their actual relationship would
be thrown into chaos. And it would require that when one died the universe would collapse at the same time. In these and
other ways, the assertion is disproved by its logical absurdity [as corresponds to the method of prasanga or reductio ad
absurdum].
“The [confusion of the view of Mind-only with that of Dzogchen] can also be disproved by scriptural authority. [The
Atiyoga Tantra] Kuntuzangpo thugkyi melong (Kun tu bzang po thugs kyi me long [the extensive title of this Tantra is Kun
tu bzang po thugs kyi me long gi rgyud ces bya ba thams cad ston pa’i rgyud]) states:
“‘To hold that apparent phenomena are mind is to stray from me.”
“...And the [Atiyoga Tantra] Ngedön düpai gyü (Nges don ’dus pa’i rgyud) states:
“‘Fools who do not perceive the ultimate meaning
claim that apparent phenomena are one’s own mind.
This is like taking brass to be gold.’
“In this regard, these days some who arrogantly assume that they understand the Dzogchen approach, or who follow
ordinary spiritual approaches, hold apparent phenomena to be one’s own mind. They speak without defining the issues
involved and so commit an extremely serious error, for ordinary mind and primordial awareness are not at all the same.
‘Ordinary mind’ refers to the eight modes of consciousness and their associated mental events, which together constitute
the adventitious distortions affecting beings in the three spheres [of saṃsāra]. ‘Primordial awareness’ refers to the naturally
occurring primordial gnosis having no substance or characteristics [that is] the basic space of saṃsāra and nirvāṇa... While
that which manifests as saṃsāra and nirvāṇa is understood to be the projective energy of awareness, one should further
understand that awareness itself is an unceasing ground for the arising of things, although it has never existed as anything,
whether of saṃsāra or nirvāṇa.
“Apparent objects are understood to be clearly apparent yet inconceivable and ineffable, and never to have been mind or
anything other than mind, [for they are] empty and yet clearly apparent, groundless, and timelessly pure. When freedom
occurs, the projective energy and display [of awareness], in being [realized to be] groundless, are [realized to be] naturally
pure—which is like awakening from a dream. Thus one should understand that the [Awake] awareness that is
[nondualistically] aware of itself [as well as of sense-data and so on], without ever having wavered from the unchanging
dharmakāya [that is] its original state of natural rest, is uncontaminated by any substance or characteristics, [as these have
never existed in truth and thus have been timelessly void, or, which is the same, pure]...
“In this regard, tsel (rtsal) energy’ is the creative potential of awareness and accounts for the fact that saṃsāra and nirvāṇa
arise differently, just as the very same ray of sunlight causes a lotus blossom to open and a night lily to close.”
As suggested above, saṃsāra arises on the basis of the projection of tsel (rtsal) energy that gives rise to an apparently
external dimension or jing (dbyings); as soon as this occurs, dang (gdangs) energy, which is beyond dualism and beyond
the division into internal and external, appears to be an internal dimension or jing, and most phenomena of this mode of
manifestation of energy (namely thoughts) appear to be objects separate and different from the mental subject—which itself
is also a phenomenon of this mode of manifestation of energy. Thus there arise the subject-object and the interior-exterior
schisms, which are key features of saṃsāra. Conversely, nirvāṇa implies the nonduality of a single, indivisible dimension
beyond the subject-object schism. However, both saṃsāra and nirvāṇa arise equally by the power and as the play (rölpa
[rol pa]) of the energy aspect of the Base, which in terms of the above may be compared to the same ray of sunlight.
Longchenpa goes on (Longchen Rabjam [1998], p. 87):
“‘Display’ is used in the sense of the radiance of awareness displaying itself, like a lamp displaying itself as light or the
sun displaying itself as sunbeams. ‘Adornment’ refers to the fact that naturally manifest phenomena, appearing in full array,
arise of themselves as adornment in light of awareness. This is similar to rainbows, the sun and moon, stars and planets
being adornments of the sky.”
All of the above is most relevant with regard to Wilber’s usage of the Brahmanic concept of the sākṣin, which he seems to
have attempted to unify with radically incompatible Buddhist concepts. In particular, in the electronic bulletin of the
Association of Transpersonal Psychology, he once gave what he referred to as an instance of “what Buddhists call pointing
out instructions,” but in which he pretended to introduce the sākṣin (rather than the primordial awareness featuring the three
kāyas, which is what Buddhist “pointing out instructions” traditionally introduce), and which expressed views of Vedānta
that are incompatible with Buddhism and with the manner in which the latter system presents its pith instructions—which
means that the instructions Wilber was providing, rather than coming from an existing lineage, were but his own
concoction. (Wilber says he does not assume the guru role because he is a pandita, and this is wise, for in order to be a guru
76 of 93 04.06.20, 21:58
one has to be officially appointed by one’s guru as his or her successor, and the same must have happened with one’s guru,
and with one’s guru’s guru, and so on until the very source of the lineage, which must lie in a tönpa [ston pa] or Primordial
Revealer. Hence it seems contradictory that he may pretend to give “pointing out instructions,” which are traditionally
given by gurus and not so by panditas, and that the instructions he gives are his own creation rather than the teachings of a
tönpa.) His instructions read (Wilber, 1999):
“So Who Are You?
“The witnessing of awareness can persist through waking, dreaming and deep sleep. The Witness is fully available in any
state, including your own present state of awareness right now.
“So I’m going to talk you into this state, or try to, using what are known in Buddhism as ‘pointing out instructions’.
“I am not going to try to get you into a different state of consciousness, or an altered state of consciousness, or a non-
ordinary state. I am going to simply point out something that is already occurring in your own present, ordinary, natural
state.
“So let’s start by just being aware of the world around us. Look out there at the sky, and just relax your mind; let your mind
and the sky mingle. Notice the clouds floating by. Notice that this takes no effort on your part. Your present awareness, in
which these clouds are floating, is very simple, very easy, effortless, spontaneous. You simply notice that there is an
effortless awareness of the clouds.
“The same is true of those trees, and those birds, and those rocks. You simply and effortlessly witness them. Look now at
the sensations in your own body. You can be aware of whichever bodily feelings are present—perhaps pressure where you
are sitting, perhaps warmth in your tummy, maybe tightness in your neck. But even if these feelings are tight and tense, you
can easily be aware of them. These feelings arise in your present awareness, and that awareness is very simple, easy,
effortless, spontaneous.
“You simply and effortlessly witness them. Look at the thoughts arising in your mind. You might notice various images,
symbols, concepts, desires, hopes and fears, all spontaneously arising in your awareness. They arise, stay a bit, and pass.
These thoughts and feelings arise in your present awareness, and that awareness is very simple, effortless, spontaneous. You
simply and effortlessly witness them. So notice: you can see the clouds float by because you are not those clouds—you are
the witness of those clouds.
“You can feel bodily feelings because you are not those feelings—you are the witness of those feelings. You can see
thoughts float by because you are not those thoughts—you are the witness of those thoughts. Spontaneously and naturally,
these things all arise, on their own, in your present, effortless awareness.
“So who are you? You are not objects out there, you are not feelings, you are not thoughts—you are effortlessly aware of
all those, so you are not those. Who or what are you? Say it this way to yourself: I have feelings, but I am not those
feelings. Who am I? I have thoughts, but I am not those thoughts. Who am I? I have desires, but I am not those desires.
Who am I?
“So you push back into the source of your own awareness. You push back into the Witness, and you rest in the Witness. I
am not objects, not feelings, not desires, not thoughts. But then people usually make a big mistake. They think that if they
rest in the Witness, they are going to see something or feel something—something really neat and special. But you won’t
see anything.
“If you see something, that is just another object—another feeling, another thought, another sensation, another image. But
those are all objects; those are what you are not. Now, as you rest in the Witness—realizing, I am not objects, I am not
feelings, I am not thoughts—all you will notice is a sense of freedom, a sense of liberation, a sense of release—release from
the terrible constriction of identifying with these puny little finite objects, your little body and little mind and little ego, all
of which are objects that can be seen, and thus are not the true Seer, the real Self, the pure Witness, which is what you
really are.
“So you won’t see anything in particular. Whatever is arising is fine. Clouds float by in the sky, feelings float by in the
body, thoughts float by in the mind—and you can effortlessly witness all of them. They all spontaneously arise in your own
present, easy, effortless awareness.
“And this witnessing awareness is not itself anything specific you can see. It is just a vast, background sense of freedom—
or pure emptiness—and in that pure emptiness, which you are, the entire manifest world arises. You are that freedom,
openness, emptiness—and not any itty-bitty thing that arises in it. Resting in that empty, free, easy, effortless witnessing,
notice that the clouds are arising in the vast space of your awareness. The clouds are arising within you—so much so, you
can taste the clouds, you are one with the clouds. It is as if they are on this side of your skin, they are so close. The sky and
your awareness have become one, and all things in the sky are floating effortlessly through your own awareness. You can
kiss the sun, swallow the mountain, they are that close. Zen says ‘Swallow the Pacific Ocean in a single gulp’, and that’s the
easiest thing in the world, when inside and outside are no longer two, when subject and object are nondual, when the looker
and looked at are One Taste. You see?”
77 of 93 04.06.20, 21:58
We have seen that voidness can be: (1) an “illusory experience” or nyam (nyams), such as the experiences of
absence of thought, of lack of concreteness, etc. that manifest in the meditation practice of calming the mind
(Skt. śamatha; Tib. zhinai [zhi gnas]); (2) the fact that entities do not exist in the way in which they appear to
exist, which manifests as an object to the mental subject (and hence is within saṃsāra) in the practice of insight
meditation (Skt. vipaśyanā; Tib. lhantong [lhag mthong]) taught in the Saṃdhinirmocanasūtra, in the
Śrāvakabhūmi chapter of Asanga’s Yogācārabhūmi[śāstra], in the three Bhāvanākramas by Śāntarakṣita and the
three Bhavanakramas by Kamalaśīla, and in Tsongkhapa’s Lamrim works; (3) an aspect of the realization of the
absolute truth of Mahāyāna (which the Mahāmādhyamaka School defines as indivisibility of voidness and
appearances and which the Uma Zhentongpa [dbu ma gzhan stong pa] School defines as indivisibility of
voidness and awareness) that takes place in a gnosis beyond the subject-object duality; and (4) the dharmakāya
—which qua Base is the essence or ngowo (ngo bo) aspect of the Base and the dang (gdangs) mode of
manifestation of energy—which is the most prominent aspect of the Buddha-nature as realized in the Dzogchen
practice of Tekchö (khregs chod). (In the second of these four meanings of voidness, the definition of the concept
varies according to the school: for the Cittamātra school, for which the Saṃdhinirmocanasūtra is the foremost
canonical source, voidness is the fact that the object of analysis does not exist separately or independently from
mind; according to the Bhāvanākrama by Śāntarakṣita and Kamalaśīla, belonging to the lower form of
Mādhyamaka-Svātantrika-Yogācāra, it is the fact that the object does not exist independently or truly; for
Tsongkhapa, it is the fact that the object does not exist inherently—i.e. that it lacks self-existence.)
Voidness qua illusory experience and voidness qua the perception of the fact that entities do not exist in the way in which
they appear to exist could by no means be the same as the sākṣin or witness of Vedānta, which is the awareness that is
aware of the illusory experience, or that is aware of the fact that entities do not exist in the way in which they appear to
exist: this type of voidness is an object, and from the standpoint of Vedānta, to claim that voidness thus understood is the
witness, would be an error of the same kind as asserting any other object of our perception to be the witness. For their part,
voidness qua aspect of the direct realization of the absolute truth of the Mahāyāna that takes place beyond the subject-
object duality, and voidness qua the most prominent aspect of the gnosis in which, in the practice of Tekchö, the
dharmakāya is realized, could not be the sākṣin or disinterested witness, because in these realizations there is no witness
that may appear to be different from, or at a distance from, that which is realized utterly beyond the subject-object duality.
Furthermore, Wilber says that this does not imply any extraordinary occurrence, but the reGnition (of) primordial
awareness that instantly puts an end to the subject-object duality and that instantly results in the spontaneous liberation of
whichever thought may be manifest is a most extraordinary occurrence indeed: it is the revolution whereby experience is
replaced by nondual realization. (The reasons why in itself and by itself voidness is neither the absolute truth of the
Mahāyāna nor the condition of Dzogchen were considered elsewhere in this book; for a more extensive and thorough
discussion of these reasons, cf. the upcoming definitive version in print of Capriles [2004], and also Capriles [2005].)
At any rate, the sākṣin or Witness could not be the same as the primordial awareness introduced in the Dzogchen
teachings and discussed in the Mahāmādhyamaka and Uma Zhentongpa philosophical schools of the Mahāyāna,
for the sākṣin or disinterested witness is defined as being different from feelings, thoughts, sensations and
images, which as shown in the quotations included above in this note is not the case with primordial awareness:
they make it perfectly clear that apparent phenomena are neither mind nor awareness, and yet may not be said to
be other than, or different or separate from, mind or awareness. Feelings, thoughts, sensations and images arise in
primordial awareness just as reflections in a mirror, and thus their relation to that awareness is like that of
reflections to the mirror in which they are reflected: they cannot be said to be awareness (since awareness has no
end in time, if they were awareness they would not have an end in time; since awareness has no shape or color, if
they were awareness they would have no shape or color); however, they cannot be said to be other than
awareness, for they are not made of a substance other than awareness, and they cannot be said to be separate
from awareness, for they cannot exist separately from it. As Longchenpa tells us (Longchen Rabjam [1998], p.
84), all apparent phenomena that seem to exist in their own right, are appearances manifesting to the mind and in
fact are nothing other than manifestations appearing to the mind; though they appear to be other than the mind,
like dreams, illusions and so forth, they are by nature empty, and, being inconceivable and ineffable, they have
never been anything other than mind, nor have they ever been mind either: they are empty and yet clearly
apparent, groundless, and timelessly pure.
The sākṣin is supposed not to be any of the apparent phenomena it witnesses, but to be different from these, and thus it
could not be the primordial awareness featuring the three kāyas that is introduced by Buddhist pith instructions, which may
not be said to be different from the phenomena it manifests: it will have to be the illusion of a separate knower that,
according to the teachings of Dzogchen Atiyoga and to those of the Inner Tantras of the Path of Transformation, arises as a
result of the delusory valuation-absolutization of the threefold projection. Furthermore, from the standpoint of the
Dzogchen teachings, to tell oneself, “I am not objects, I am not feelings, I am not thoughts” (as Wilber asks us to do) and to
believe from the heart that these thoughts express a truth, would be a manifestation of the delusory valuation-absolutization
of thought—and if we are actually experiencing that we are at a distance from objects, feelings and thoughts this proves
78 of 93 04.06.20, 21:58
that we are taking ourselves to be the illusory mental subject that appears to be separate from its objects and which is one of
the poles of the dualistic, intentional structure of knowledge that arises as a result of the delusory valuation-absolutization
of the supersubtle thought structure called the threefold projection.
In its turn, the realization of rigpa may not be described as “a sense of freedom, a sense of liberation, a sense of release
from the terrible constriction of identifying with these puny little finite objects, your little body and little mind and little
ego, all of which are objects that can be seen,” for such experiences can only arise as a result of the delusory valuation-
absolutization of concepts. Rigpa is the all-liberating single gnosis or chikshe kundröl (gcik shes kun grol) beyond the
subject-object duality, and since in rigpa there is no subject or looker and therefore there is no object or looked at, it is
incorrect to say that subject and object are nondual or that the looker and the looked at are one taste: if there is noticing, this
is not rigpa. In the words of the Trungpa translation of Jigme Lingpa’s The Lion’s Roar (in Trungpa [1972]) that were
quoted in the regular text:
“Some individuals will be able to use both thoughts and the absence of thought as meditation, but it should be born in mind
that that which notes (i.e. notices) what is happening is the tight grip of Ego.”
If we are noticing that there is as “a sense of freedom, a sense of liberation, a sense of release from the terrible constriction
of identifying with these puny little finite objects, your little body and little mind and little ego, all of which are objects that
can be seen,” then this is a manifestation of the “tight grip of delusion” rather than rigpa, which (is) a gnosis utterly free
from the subject-object duality, characterized by the spontaneous liberation of whatever arises. Becoming aware that we are
not objects, feelings or thoughts, and as a result of this becoming aware of a sense of freedom and so on, are manifestations
of delusion, all of which would liberate themselves spontaneously upon arising if rigpa manifested, for in the state of rigpa,
whatever manifests is like a drawing on water. Rigpa (is) the absolutely free condition of nirvāṇa that cannot be described;
what can be described is the spontaneous liberation of all that arises when rigpa is manifest, as well as the whole of the
experiences that are not rigpa.
Vedānta tells us that what we really are is the true Seer, the real Self, the pure Witness. A seer is one who sees, and a
witness is one who witness; however, the state of rigpa, though the whole of the sensory continuum is manifest, there is no
seeing, witnessing or noticing, for neither that continuum or anything that may be singled out within it is taken as object
and perceived (and if such delusory perceptions arise, they liberate themselves spontaneously upon arising). If there were
seeing or witnessing, this would be “the tight grip of ego,” rather than the condition of rigpa beyond the subject-object
duality in which whatever manifests liberates itself spontaneously upon arising, like a drawing on water.
To conclude, in the Upaniṣads, in the Vedānta Sūtra, in Gauḍapāda’s Māyāvāda philosophy and in the Advaita Vedānta
philosophy of Śaṅkarācārya, the concept of sākṣin may seem to partly correspond to that which Kant called “pure
apperception,” which according to the philosopher from Königsberg is the condition of possibility of “empirical
apperception” or awareness that one is perceiving, and which as such may partly correspond to my understanding of
Sartre’s definition of the Soi or Self as non-thetic, non-positional awareness (of) consciousness—i.e. to a non-thetic, non-
positional awareness (of) there being a consciousness that is aware of an object different and separate from itself. In the last
chapter of Capriles (2007a vol. I) I explained in great detail how Sartre’s Soi or Self, thus understood, referred to the
dualistic delusion inherent in saṃsāra and as such radically contrasted with the nirvanic conditions that I am calling
Dzogchen-qua-Path and Dzogchen-qua-Fruit. If Śaṅkarācārya’s sākṣin were the same as Sartre’s Soi or Self as I have
understood it, the distinctions I made between the latter and what here I am calling the Self (which the Dzogchen teachings
call Dzogchen) would be the differences between Śaṅkarācārya’s sākṣin and what here I am calling the Self and which the
Dzogchen teachings call Dzogchen... whether qua Base, qua Path or qua Fruit.
[lxiv] What Heraclitus was saying is that the awareness, intelligence, creativity and motility of the individual, rather than
being functions of an inherently separate, autonomous psyche or soul, in truth are functions of the (universal) lógos that
constitutes the Gnitive (or “spiritual”) aspect of the physis and that is common to all—the illusory, apparently separate
intellect in question thus (being) but a false appearance that deluded humans mistakenly take for the core of their selves,
and, in many cases, for an “immortal” soul. Thus, as Georg Christoph Lichtenberg—the idiosyncratic German reader of
David Hume—made it clear, we are not the thinkers of thought (adapted from Lichtenberg, 1995, section “Causes,” p. 214,
and Koyré, 1973, p. 17):
“[It would be better to use an impersonal formula and, rather than saying I think,] to say ‘there is thinking,’ just as one says
‘there is lightening’.”
Mexican poet Octavio Paz was even more eloquent in this regard:
“The thoughts that think me as they are thought
I am the shadow projected by my words.”
[lxv] He contrasted what he called transcendental consciousness with the empirical consciousness that, insofar as its unity
depends on the syntheses carried out through the intuitions of space and time, in his view belongs to the phenomenal world.
And he asserted the former to be a necessary reality, for in his view it was the condition of possibility of the unification of
any empirical consciousness and thus of the latter’s identity—the identity of persons being a transcendental rather than an
empirical matter. However, there being no consciousness other than the empirical one that has as its core the mental subject
79 of 93 04.06.20, 21:58
the Dzogchen teachings liken to a reflection in a mirror, this supposedly “third principle” must thus be, either a merely
theoretical, and as such imaginary, formal condition, or the propensity for the supersubtle threefold thought structure to
manifest in experience and thus give rise to the empirical mental subject. Though Kant asserts it to be more than a mere
formal condition, some of his assertions with regard to it do not seem to leave room for the second interpretation. However,
Kant is not the object of the discussion in this book, and hence I will not go further into this matter.
[lxvi] At any rate, all Hīnayānaschools agree that in fully Awake Buddhas suffering and duḥkha in general are totally
eradicated, so that Buddhahood involves the cessation of duḥkha, yet does not involve the coming to a halt of Gnitive
activity in a deep absorption (Skt. samādhi; Tib. tingngedzin [ting nge ’dzin]).
[lxvii] The Vaibhashikas, for example, posit two types of nirodhaḥ or cessation: nonperception of phenomena due to the
absence of pratyaya or contributory conditions and resulting from concentration rather than discrimination
(apratisamkhyanirodhaḥ), and supreme wisdom of cessation deriving from discrimination (pratisamkhyanirodhaḥ). The
second comprises the cessation of all modalities of tṛṣṇathat takes place in nirvāṇa.
[lxviii] As stated in previous notes, Buddhahood involves nirodhaḥ in another sense: the one referred to by the Pāḷi
termdukkha-nirodha-ariya-sacca and the Sanskrit term duḥkha-nirodhaḥ-ārya-satya—the cessation of the duḥkha that is
the First Noble Truth (which depends on the total neutralization of the avidyā that is the Second Noble Truth). Likewise, the
Contemplation state of superior bodhisattvas, yogis, siddhas and so on involves a temporary cessation of duḥkha by virtue
of a temporary dissolution of avidyā. This must be kept in mind throughout the whole book, whenever it is asserted that the
realizations of the higher Buddhist Paths and vehicles do not involve nirodhaḥ: it is in the sense defined in previous
paragraphs of this note and in the regular text that they do not involve nirodhaḥ.
[lxix] As stated I a previous note, according to Robert Buswell (1989) this Sūtra, which he acknowledges to have been of
great importance in the development of East Asian Buddhism, including Chán, is apocryphal—a suspicion that was already
harbored by Mizuno Kōgen and Walter Liebenthal. However, this allegation has not been proved, and it is a fact that Chán
and the rest of East Asian Buddhists continue to regard it as a genuine sermon of Śākyamuni Buddha—and they are right to
do so, since the Sūtra is in full agreement with the principles of Mahāyāna Buddhism.
[lxx] As shown elsewhere in this volume, the arising of the mental subject cleaves the undivided experiential totality that
the base-of-all is, and though the ensuing object, being undivided, still seems to be a totality, it is no longer totality insofar
as it excludes the mental subject.
[lxxi] The Cittamātra school posits three types of nirodhaḥ or cessation: (1) pratisamkhyanirodhaḥ or cessation (nirodhaḥ)
of the passions (klesha) by the power of perfect discrimination; (2) apratisamkhyanirodhaḥ or cessation of the passions or
kleshas without the intervention of perfect discrimination; and (3) samjñavedananirodhaḥ, which is a state wherein samjña
or recognition in terms of concepts and vedana or mental sensation are inactive.
[lxxii] See the note to the term sarvākārajñatā the first time it was used.
[lxxiii] Wilber’s ninth fulcrum does not correspond to the ninth oxherding picture, partly because the sequence in his own
series is arbitrary, partly because his fulcra begin at birth and embrace the whole process of ontogenesis, whereas the ten
oxherding pictures begin at the point when an individual begins to do spiritual practice with the aim of attaining
Awakening.
[lxxiv] All that was expressed in the note that is fourth before the present one applies here again.
[lxxv] This sentence seems to imply that in fulcrum-8 the experience of immaterial, self-luminous forms did not involve the
“unity” in question. However, this seems to be a sleight-of-hand, for as we have seen Wilber explicitly claims that in the
higher levels of the fulcrum in question such unity is experienced.
[lxxvi] If the subject becomes absorbed in the experience of a form as object, regardless of whether the form in question is
gross / tangible or subtle / intangible, the ensuing experience pertains to the realm of form. If the subject reacts emotionally
to it or derives sensual pleasure from it, the ensuing experience pertains to the realm of sensuality. However, it is very
common that experiences with subtle form take us to the realm of form (cf. the warnings by Kyeme Dechen [skye med bde
chen] and the first Karma Thinle [kar ma phrin las pa] against falling into the realm of form in the practice of visualization,
yet believing the experience to be an instance of the sambhogakāya, in Guenther, 1973) and experiences with gross form
take us to the realm of sensuality.
[lxxvii] In fact, the subject-object duality may be said to be the second of the senses the term avidyā has in the threefold
Dzogchen classification favored by Longchen Rabjam, and it is certainly a fundamental element in the second of the senses
the term has in the Dzogchen classification used in this book. As we have seen, the first of the senses of avidyā is the same
in both classifications, and in both of them avidyā cannot manifest in the second of the senses if it is not already manifest in
the first of the senses. Therefore, when the subject-object and other dualities are manifest, but not so the belief that these are
self-existent realities, avidyā in the first two senses of the term in both classifications (and in the third in the classification
favored by Longchen Rabjam) must necessarily be manifest.
[lxxviii] Also René Descartes denied this possibility.
80 of 93 04.06.20, 21:58
[lxxix] There is a debate as to whether or not Je Tsongkhapa deviated from this universally accepted view of all higher
Buddhist vehicles. In order to assess this debate on whether of not according to Tsongkhapa in the Contemplation
state in which the superior (ārya) bodhisattva directly realizes the ultimate truth the dualism of subject and object
arises or not, consider the explanation of the interpretation of Tsongkhapa’s thought by Gelugpa scholar Shamar
Tendzin, offered by Betsy Napper (2003, p, 435; transliterations were converted to the system used in this book),
with regard to the implicative or affirming negation that according to Tsongkhapa is one of the two types of ultimate
in the Svātantrika system of Kamalaśīla:
“Shamar Tendzin’s [zhwa dmar dge bdun bstan ’dzin rgya mtsho] resolution of this dilemma is to make the case,
which he says is corroborated by Kedrub [Gelegpal Zangpo’s] [mkhas sgrub dge legs dpal bzang po] Thousand
Dosages, that Tsongkhapa gave in his writings two different interpretations of those passages—one in his Ocean of
Reasoning, Explanation of (Nāgārjuna’s) ‘Treatise on the Middle Way” and the other in the Medium Exposition of
vipaśyanā—and that the one that is to be followed here is the former. Shamar Tendzin cites the Ocean of Reasoning
where Tsongkhapa, just after citation of the passage in question from Kamalaśīla, says:
“‘That emptiness which is an affirming negative, a negative of ultimate production and so forth I terms of the
aggregates and persons … appears dualistically to an awareness seeing it directly. Further, since it does not appear
free from dualistic appearance, it is an imputed ultimate but a fully qualified conventionality’.
“Thus, Shamar Tendzin concludes:
“‘Therefore, with respect to the meaning of the passages from the Ornament to the Middle Way and the Illumination
of the Middle Way, one needs to know that there are two modes of explanation:
“‘(1) the following, namely that the emptiness that is an illusion-like implicative or affirming negative—forms and so
forth which are empty of inherent existence—is concordant with the ultimate in terms of the factor of being a
negative of true establishment. However, it is not an actual ultimate because it appears to an awareness directly
realizing it accompanied by dualistic appearance. An actual ultimate has passed beyond all elaborations; it is the
object found by a non-contaminated superior primordial gnosis (ye shes), which seeing it directly, has pacified all
elaborations of dualistic appearance.
“‘(2) a mode of explanation as [is found] in the Middle Exposition of Stages of the Path’.”
What about Tsongkhapa’s own reinterpretation of Prāsaṅgika, in which the method of the Bhāvanākramas is applied by
what supposedly results from it is a non-implicative or non-affirming negation (even though what has changed is the
conceptual interpretation of the emptiness found and not the fact that what is found is the appearance to a mental subject of
the presence of an absence as object)? Tsongkhapa readily acknowledges that the ultimate truth must appear to a nondual
primordial gnosis, but claims that the latter manifests by applying mental pacification (Skt. śamatha: Tib, zhinai [zhi gnas])
to the presence of the object’s absence that appears at the end of the analysis. Elsewhere I wrote (Capriles, 2005, pp.
40-47)
“In particular, in regard to the fact that the absolute cannot manifest to a consciousness or mind, for the subject-
object duality manifests only in saṃsāra and is the core of delusion, we read in Āryadeva’s
Catuḥśatakaśāstrakārikā (verse XIV.25):
The seed of cyclic existence (saṃsāra) is a consciousness;
objects are its sphere of activity.
“All objects, including the manifestation of voidness as object, are the sphere of activity of the seed of saṃsāra,
and thus could by no means be what, from an epistemological standpoint, may be rightly said to be the absolute
truth that manifests in nirvāṇa (and which, as we have seen, [being] what is not at all relative, cannot be an object
of knowledge). By dwelling on an experience that belongs to the sphere of activity of the seed of cyclic
existence, we sustain this very seed, and therefore our method, rather than leading beyond saṃsāra, will sustain
saṃsāra. Prāsaṅgika or Consequentialist master Śāntideva wrote (Chapter IX, 2):
‘The relative and the absolute
are what is known as the two truths;
the absolute is not an object of knowledge to the mind,
for the mind [and all of its objects are what is] considered as the relative.’
“The presence of an absence that in his Lamrim works Tsongkhapa identified as voidness, being an object to the
81 of 93 04.06.20, 21:58
mind, could by no means and under no circumstances be the absolute truth of the Prāsaṅgika or Consequentialist
Mādhyamaka. Above we saw that it is within the sphere of activity of the seed of saṃsāra; being the recognition
of a specific absence (which in this case is supposed not to be that of the entity, but—in Tsongkhapa’s terms—of
the mode of existence we had attributed to it) in terms of a subtle or intuitive concept that is grasped at and taken
as object by deluded, dualistic mind, it is an instance of delusion / relative truth, rather than being the absolute
truth that puts an end to the delusion that is both the root and a key mark of saṃsāra.
“Since in his Lamrim works Tsongkhapa identified absolute truth with the emptinesses that, in the practice of the
method of insight taught in his Lamrim works, at the term of the analysis manifest as object to a subject, he had
to explicitly acknowledge that in his system absolute truths were objects of knowledge. Following the
Bhāvanākramas, he instructed practitioners to apply pacification (śamatha or zhi gnas) for concentrating on the
(‘mentally mute’) presence of an absence that manifests at the term of the analysis, inhibiting the discursive
enunciation of voidness (i.e., the mental pronunciation of a chain of words stating something like ‘the object is
empty of inherent existence’), and supposedly bringing the perception of voidness, which initially had been
conceptual, to a level of ‘nonconceptual direct perception’ (Skt., pratyakṣa; Tib., mngon sum), which according
to Tsongkhapa’s Lamrim works, was in this case ‘yogic direct perception’ (Skt., yogipratyakṣa; Tib., rnal ’byor
mngon sum): one of the four types of direct perception described by Dignāga and Dharmakīrti—which according
to Tsongkhapa, when ‘directed towards emptiness in a nondualistic cognition in which subject and object are
fused like water poured in water,’ was the true absolute truth, Tsongkhapa acknowledged that even at this stage
subject and object were distinct, and that the object was still the nonaffirming negation that he posited as the
voidness of the Prāsaṅgikas or Consequentialists: the same emptiness that had been the object of the initial,
conceptual perception of voidness. If, by applying meditative pacification after the absence of an entity’s
mistakenly imputed ‘mode of existence’ presents itself to the mental subject, there obtains a seemingly
nondualistic cognition in which the two poles of knowledge appear to be fused like water poured in water, but
which involves the distinction of subject and object and is directed towards emptiness, we are speaking of a
directional, conceptual, dualistic cognition that, as a result of meditative pacification, has been made to seem
nonconceptual and nondual. In fact, since the perception of a negation as object involves grasping at a subtle
concept, and since the distinction of subject and object results from the reification of the supersubtle conceptual
structure called ‘triple projection,’ by its very nature and by definition this cognition must be conceptual. And
since, being conceptual, it is subject to the relativity inherent in conceptuality and in the subject-object duality, by
no means could it be absolute truth. Holding unto the presence of an absence sustains the reification of
conceptuality and the concomitant subject-object duality, which are the core of relative truth and therefore of
delusion. If, through the application of mental pacification (Skt., śamatha; Tib., zhi gnas), the experience is made
to seem nonconceptual and caused to become pleasant, and if our reference system asserts this result to be
nonconceptual and posits it as the absolute truth, one will most likely develop a strong attachment to it and derive
strong pride from the belief that one has attained the absolute truth—which would reinforce delusion and prevent
the occurrence of the nondual, nonconceptual unveiling of the true absolute nature. Śāntideva noted in
Bodhicaryāvatāra IX.140:
“‘Therefore, in a dream, when a son dies, it is the projection ‘he does not exist’ that prevents the projection of his existence
from arising, but that is also false.’
“Ju Mipham noted that Śāntideva was saying that the presence of an absence that results from projecting a nonaffirming
negative (med dgag) is a conceptual apprehension (rnam grangs pa) that, insofar as it is conceptual, is delusory and
spurious, and that the presence of an absence that Tsongkhapa posited as ultimate or absolute truth, being a nonaffirming
negative like the one in Śāntideva’s example (no matter how much we may imply it is different by insisting that, rather than
negating existence, it negated ‘inherent existence’), was a conceptual apprehension as well, which as such was as delusory
and spurious as that which it negated. Mipham’s point was that this kind of emptiness is an instance of what the
Laṅkāvatārasūtra and the Samādhirājasūtra referred disparagingly as a ‘nyi tshe ba’s stong pa nyid:’ a conceptual voidness
that, when wrongly posited as the absolute truth, gives rise to a conceptual pseudo-absolute (rnam grangs pa’i don dam)
that, as such, is delusory and spurious—both insofar as the entities it negates are delusory and spurious, and insofar as
negation itself, being an instance of grasping at concepts, is by its very nature delusory and spurious—and that will have to
be abandoned if one is to realize the true absolute. (However, true to his use of Prāsaṅgika thought, Mipham did hold that
from the relative and conventional standpoints these negations are valid: they are as valid as the entities the fictitious
inherent existence of which they negate.) Thus, for Mipham the emptiness put forward by Tsongkhapa could not be a true
absolute, or, far less, the true absolute, which he called the ‘[true,] nonconceptual ultimate’ (rnam grangs min pa’i don
dam), and which in Tibetan Text 13 he explained as the bare patency of the true nature of all entities (chos nyid), which is
free from affirmations of existence, nonexistence and so on (yod med la sogs khas len bral), which has a meaning which is
strictly inutterable (brjod med don), and which unveils in and as the ‘gnosis that makes patent nondual spontaneous
awareness’ (so so rang rig pa’i ye shes tsam) that has a central role in Mahāmādhyamaka.
82 of 93 04.06.20, 21:58
“Mipham further asserted that, so long as this conceptual emptiness is manifest, one has not gone beyond conceptual
constructions (kun tu rtog), and therefore one cannot See directly and nondually into the true nature of all entities (chos
nyid) that is utterly free from verbal differentiations (spros bral). Dr Paul Williams (1998, pp. 200-1, note 8.) points out that
this is why Mipham does not use the expression true nature of all entities (chos nyid) in regard to the emptiness that, being
a mere negation—a mere absence of inherent existence—is not the highest, final emptiness—or, far less, the absolute truth.
The point is not that in discursively thinking about it a posteriori it has been conceptualized, but that this absence of
inherent existence is, from the moment it manifests, in its very nature, and by definition, a nonaffirming negation—and, as
Mipham knew from his own experience and as confirmed by Bodhicaryāvatāra IX.140, as such it is conceptual and
therefore relative to what it negates, which in this case is fictitious inherent existence. This is why the eighth Karmapa,
Mikyo Dorje, referred to Tsongkhapa’s voidness as a nyi thse ba’i rnam grangs stong pa nyid, where rnam grangs means
‘conceptual’ and nyi thse ba’i stong pa nyid is the term used in the Laṅkāvatārasūtra and the Samādhirājasūtra to refer to
the type of emptiness that, insofar as it is finally delusory, is to be abandoned. Gendün Chöphel writes:
“There is no similarity between the nonaffirming negative asserting that a pot does not exist and the nonaffirming
negative affirming that not only all phenomena lack existence, but that nonexistence itself does not exist. In the
former negation, there is no way to avoid the fault of ‘non-attributive negation,’ with the arising of thoughts such
as ‘Even though the pot does not exist, the location [where the pot appears to be] does exist.’ When somebody
believes that neither existence nor nonexistence exist, because in that mind or conventional attention the only two
possibilities are existence and nonexistence, and nothing else is possible, nothing can arise in it, and therefore it
will surely be a mind oriented towards peaceful liberation. Śāntideva (IX:34) said, ‘When conceptions of
existence and nonexistence do not dwell in the mind, there is nothing else there, so with no objects, the mind is
utterly tranquil.’
“…According to Prāsaṅgika or Consequentialist philosophy, it is the realization in one single moment, of the fact
that none of the four possibilities consisting in nonexistence, not-nonexistence, existence-and-nonexistence, and
neither-existence-nor-nonexistence applies, which is the ‘ultimate meaning without distinctions,’ the ‘ultimate
meaning which is not conventional’—in short, the realization of the ‘inexpressible ultimate.’
“In fact, what manifests at this point is the true nature of all entities (Skt., dharmatā; Tib., chos nyid), which is
the absolute truth of the Consequentialists or Prāsaṅgikas, and which, as the higher Mahāyāna sūtras of the
Second and Third Promulgations make it clear, is not in any way relative. An example of sūtras of the Second
Promulgation that make the point that absolute truth is beyond concepts and therefore beyond the mutual
relativity of these, is found in the following passage from the Vajracchedikāprajñāpāramitāsūtra, which asserts
that this truth is neither being nor nonbeing (voidness), for these two are relative to each other:
“‘…the Tathāgata has said that truth is uncontainable and inexpressible. It neither is nor is it not.’
“Quite similar assertions are found in sūtras such as the Kāśyapaparivarta and the Mahāratnakūṭa, among other
canonical sources. In fact, contrarily to Tsongkhapa’s reading, the negation by Śākyamuni, Nāgārjuna and
Āryadeva of the four positions regarding forms (that they are not existent, that they are not nonexistent, that they
are both existent and nonexistent, and that they are neither existent nor nonexistent) was not intended as a
philosophical position to be subject to logical analysis, but as a method for pulling the conceptual carpet under
the mind’s feet, so that the individual would have a chance to ‘fall’ into the realization of ultimate truth, utterly
beyond the subject-object duality, beyond concepts, and beyond the logic ruling the concatenation of concepts (in
fact, had they intended to posit a view of reality like the one Tsongkhapa had in mind, they would have asserted
the fourth extreme in Tsongkhapa-like terms, and say that all forms were ‘neither inherently existent nor utterly
nonexistent’). It is often upon facing the impossibility of understanding reality in terms of any of these four
alternatives—or of any other concept, for that matter—that the attempt to understand in terms of concepts
collapses—immediately after which absolute or ultimate truth may manifest in its nakedness, showing that none
of the four extremes, including the nonexistence that Tsongkhapa wrongly posited as the absolute or ultimate
truth of the Prāsaṅgika, may correspond exactly to any parcel of reality. It is the ineffable truth that manifests at
this point, which is not an object to a mind, as it involves the collapse of the subject-object duality and of all
conceptuality, that the Prāsaṅgikas or Consequentialists referred to as ‘the ultimate meaning without
distinctions,’ ‘the ultimate meaning which is not conventional,’ or ‘the inexpressible ultimate:’ the true absolute
that is nonconceptual (Tib., rnam grangs min pa’i don dam) and that as such cannot be an object to a mind. Now
the true meaning of the verse of the Bodhicaryāvatāra cited in the above excerpt from Gendün Chöphel’s text
will be self-evident:
“When neither entity nor nonentity remains before the mind, since there is no other [possible] mode of operation [for it],
[in] grasping no objects, tranquility obtains.
83 of 93 04.06.20, 21:58
“Realization, logic and scriptural authority make it clear that absolute truth is by definition and necessarily nonconceptual,
for all concepts are relative to other concepts and the absolute is what is not relative. Since the subject-object duality results
from the reification of the supersubtle thought structure known as the ‘threefold thought structure’ (Tib., ’khor-gsum), and
since, as we have seen again and again, subject and object are mutually relative, absolute truth cannot be the object of any
mind or conventional attention, but has to manifest in the patency of a primordial gnosis (Skt., jñāna; Tib., ye shes) beyond
the subject-object duality.”
[lxxx] According to Paul Williams (1998), Je Tsongkhapa’s reinterpretation of Prāsaṅgika, in spite of asserting the
subject-object duality to be in a sense manifest in the Contemplation state of the higher bodhisattva, agrees that in
the Fruit of Buddhahood rather than dualistic knowledge based on the subject-object duality what is at work is
nondual gnoses. However, in discussing Ju Mipham Ngawang Namgyal’s writings, John W. Pettit (1999, p. 129)
writes:
“Mipham also maintains that Buddhas have no dualistic perceptions, while Gelug commentators find this position to
be incompatible with buddhas’ omniscience, specifically, with their awareness of the experiences of sentient beings.”
Though I have not done a careful research of all of Tsongkhapa’s works in order to establish which of the
two Western scholars is right concerning Je Tsongkhapa’s position in this regard, the esence of the
problem is the following: Though Tsongkhapa claims that what obtains in the case of Buddhas is nondual
primordial gnoses, then he insists that the Buddha’s omniscience implies they must be aware of the dualistic
perceptions of sentient beings—from which he infers that in them the two truths are simultaneously manifest,
which implies that nondual primordial gnosis must manifest simultaneously with dualistic, deluded
consciousness. At any rate, Tsongkhapa’s reinterpretation of Prāsaṅgika is rejected by all schools of Tibetan
Buddhism except for his own school, the Gelugpa. For a thorough criticism of Tsongkhapa’s
reinterpretation of Prāsaṅgika, cf. Capriles (2005) and Chöphel (2005).
[lxxxi] Though the Gelugpa School associates this Sūtra with the Cittamātra School, which is based solely on the Third
Promulgation, the Nyingma School sees it as one of the most direct canonical sources of the Mahāmādhyamaka School,
which they view as the supreme philosophical school of the Mahāyāna and which is based both on the Second and Third
Promulgations. The italics are my own and the terminology was adapted to the one used in this book.
[lxxxii] Like many Nyingmapa and other Red Hat Schools Masters, I deem the Inner, Subtle Mādhyamaka, and in
particular Mahāmādhyamaka as I redefine it in my book dealing with the four philosophical schools taught in traditional
Tibetan curricula (Capriles, 2004), to the the highest philosophical school of the Mahāyāna.
It may be relevant to note that one of the weaknesses of the Mādhyamaka Prāsaṅgika Subschool lies in the fact that it does
not accept that the dualistic consciousness that is the core of saṃsāra manifests in the primordial nondual awareness the
Semde series of Dzogchen teachings compare with a mirror, as nondual awareness (of) consciousness of object. This,
however, may be due to the fact that in the Pramāṇavārttika (Tib. tshad ma rnam ’grel) Dharmakīrti failed to express
unambiguously the meaning of the svasaṃvittiḥ (i.e., svasaṃvedana) that he posited on the basis of the assertion by his
teacher, Acharya Dignāga, inPramāṇasamuccaya (Tib. tsad ma kun las btus pa) 1:11d, that whenever we have a memory of
the aspect of blue, we also have the memory of having been conscious of this aspect—from which, as remarked in a
previous note, it has been inferred that, when the perception of the aspect of blue that we remember took place, it was
accompanied by an awareness (of) being conscious of seeing this aspect.
[lxxxiii] Communication by Acharya Lama Tenpa Gyaltsen to Elizabeth M. Callahan; in Khongtrul, 2003, p. 353, n. 544.
[lxxxiv] Despite the fact that all Mādhyamaka Svātantrika subschools are supposed to be based on the original, generic
Mādhyamika texts by Nāgārjuna and Āryadeva, we have seen that some of the lower subschools comprised in this category
have meditations treatises that posit a realization of absolute truth involving the subject-object duality. However, as shown
by the verses by Prāsaṅgika Master Śāntideva quoted in a previous note and below in the regular text, the original
Mādhyamaka Prāsaṅgika subschool makes it clear that the realization of absolute truth cannot involve such duality. (We
have seen that Je Tsongkhapa, on the basis of the insight practice taught in the Bhāvanākramas of the lower Mādhyamaka-
Svātantrika-Yogācāra subschool, posited as the absolute truth of the Prāsaṅgika one involving the subject-object duality;
however, all Red-Hat Schools disagree that this is the absolute truth of the original Prāsaṅgikas, who are the Thoroughly
Nonabiding Mādhyamikas [cf. the corresponding note to this book]; furthermore, as noted elsewhere in this chapter, the
Gelugpas in general accept that the Fruit is characterized by a nondual gnosis utterly free from the subject-object schism,
and that equivalent gnoses manifest on the Path as well. In this regard, cf. Capriles [2005].)
[lxxxv] All objects, including the manifestation of voidness as object, are the sphere of activity of the seed of saṃsāra, and
thus could by no means be what, from an epistemological standpoint, may be rightly said to be the absolute truth that
manifests in nirvāṇa (and which, as we have seen, being what is not at all relative, cannot be an object of knowledge). By
dwelling on an experience that belongs to the sphere of activity of the seed of cyclic existence, we sustain this very seed,
and therefore our method, rather than leading beyond saṃsāra, will sustain saṃsāra.
[lxxxvi] Nonaffirming negation, nonimplicative negation or absolute negation (Skt. prasājyapratiṣeda: Tib. megag [med
84 of 93 04.06.20, 21:58
dgag]) is a negation which negates the object of negation without implying anything else, as in the statement “there are no
flowers in the sky” or “there are no falling hairs.” Jeffrey Hopkins (1983, p. 723) defines this type of negation as “a
negative which is such that the term expressing it does not suggest in place of the negation of its own object of negation
another, positive phenomenon which is its own object of negation.” This is the type of negation employed by a
Mādhyamika Rangtongpa (dbu ma rang stong pa) discursively negating an object’s supposed self-existence (Skt. svabhāva;
Tib rangzhin [rang bzhin]).
Whereas Je Tsongkhapa views the apprehension of ultimate truth in the Contemplation state of the superior bodhisattva as
involving nonaffirming negation or absolute negation, and views this type of negation as a distinguishing feature of
Prāsaṅgika, Ju Mipham (cf. Pettit, 1999, p. 109) sees it as a special emphasis of the Svātantrika system and notes that the
Prāsaṅgika ultimate is not the result of a negation of any kind. Pettit (Ibidem) writes:
“According to Mipham, absolute negation is a suitable way to conceptualize the ultimate for beginners, but because it is
still a conceptual formula, it does not represent the final significance of nonelaboration (Skt. niṣprapañca; Tib. thödrel
[spros bral]). It is a mere nonsubstantiality (Tib. dngos med), as opposed to substantial existence (Tib. ngos po). It
corresponds to the analytical wisdom (Skt. prajñā; Tib. sherab [shes rab]) of the post-meditative state and is adequate to
emptiness as an object of ... thought but not to the nonconceptual gnosis of sublime equipoise (Skt. āryajñāna; Tib. p’agpai
yeshe [’phags pa’i ye shes]).”
[lxxxvii] Affirming negation or implicative negation (Skt. paryudāsapratriṣedha; Tib. mayingag [ma yin dgag])
is a negation that upon negating its object of negation implies the assertion of some other facts, as in the
statement “this man is not a Brahmin (Brāhmaṇa),” which implies he is still a man even though not a Brahmin,
and that he either belongs to another of the Hindu casts, or has no cast whatsoever and thus is either a non-Indian,
an Indian dalit or “oppressed” (i.e., on of those that Brahmanism calls acūta [achuut] or “untouchable” and that
Gandhi referred to by the Ṛg-Veda-contradicting euphemism harijan), or an ādivāsi (“primal inhabitant:” an
aboriginal with a tribal way of life).
This is the type of negation applied in the Mahāmādhyamaka and Uma Zhentongpa (dbu ma gzhan stong pa) discursive
explanations of voidness, for all that is not the dharmakāya, or the Buddha-nature, or the dharmatā—i.e., the true condition
of reality—is negated, while leaving this condition unnegated.
[lxxxviii] As noted above, there is an ongoing discussion as to whether or not Je Tsongkhapa followed this rule. And the
same is the case concerning some Svātantrikas.
[lxxxix] In Dudjom Rinpoche, 2005, p. 405, note 35, the translator of this version of the text explains this reference to the
grasper and the grasped as follows:
“In Tibetan, the words for subject and object are zung-wa dzin-pa (gzung ba ’dzin pa). Zung-wa refers to that which is
grasped, the objet, and dzin-pa refers to that which grasps, the subject. They also have the connotations of that which is
perceived and that which perceives, respectively.
[xc] A more detailed definition of the terms katak (ka dag) and lhundrub (lhun grub), as well as a more complete
explanation of the reasons why Dzogchen-qua-Path and Dzogchen-qua-Fruit do not entail cessation or nirodhaḥ, are
provided in Capriles (2000a, 2003, 2004, 2007a vol. II and work in progress 1).
[xci] In Tibet, those traditions that place the strongest emphasis on the gradual Path and that at the same time privilege
monacal life and intellectual pursuits over the yogic way of life—which are the Sakyapa and the Gelugpa—originally
negated the possibility of a Direct Inroduction to the true condition of reality like the one emphasized in the Dzogchen
teachings (though later on the Sakyapas in general and some of the highest Gelugpa Lamas embraced the Dzogchen
teachings). However, these schools, in their Mahāyāna practices, taught methods intended to arrive at the apprehension of
the ultimate truth as they conceived it, which as such could be said to be pointing at the substratum referred to by Wilber. (It
must be noted that in the Sakyapa tradition the heads of the School, due to the hereditary character of their position, are
kept from taking monastic vows.)
[xcii] Also in the neutral condition of the base of all (kunzhi: kun gzhi) does the obstacle of knowledge (Skt. jñeyāvaraṇa;
Tib. shedrib [shes sgrib]) temporarily cease to produce its characteristic effects, yet the state in question has no value
because it does not make the true condition of ourselves and the whole of reality patent and hence cannot be taken as a Path
to realization and can not even instill genuine faith in treaders of the Path, does not neutralize any propensities for the
manifestation of saṃsāra, and does not involve the capacity to deal with reality or to benefit others—this being, as
previously noted in the regular text, the reason why dwelling in this state is compared to cutting one’s own head. As noted
repeatedly, this is due to the fact that in the base-of-all avidyā in the first sense the term has in all Dzogchen classifications
is manifest.
[xciii] The passions attributed to the obstacle of passions can only arise on the basis of the experience of oneself as a living
being and an objective reality external to the being in question, which depends on the obstacle of knowledge—the latter
being thus the condition of possibility of the obstacle of the passions. However, for the latter to manifest at least two more
elements are required: (1) the superimpositions on experience of contents of the consciousness of mental phenomena, and
85 of 93 04.06.20, 21:58
(2) a disposition of the vibratory activity that is at the root of the delusory valuation / absolutization of thought to intensify
itself that makes it possible for us to become emotionally involved with objects.
Therefore, that which canonic which texts of the Third Promulgation call the imaginary nature (parikalpita; Tib. kuntag
[kun brtags]) depends not only on (1) that which is superimposed by the consciousness of mental phenomena, but also on
(2) the occurrence of the appearances of the dependent nature (Skt. paratantra; Tib. zhenwang [gzhan dbang]) and (3) the
tendency of the vibratory activity responsible for the delusory valuation / absolutization of thought, to increase beyond a
given threshold—a concurrence of conditions that, in th context of the gradual Mahāyāna, cannot occur after the end of the
seventh level (Skt. bhūmi; Tib. sa).
[xciv] The only school of the Mahāyāna that has a pointing of the kind Wilber refers to, is the Chán or Zen school of the
Sudden Mahāyāna (the methods of which were absorbed by other Chinese Mahāyāna Schools). However, all Mahāyāna
Schools teach meditation methods that are purported to result in the realization of the ultimate truth, and thus my references
to the pointing in question, with regard to the schools having no such poniting, must be understood as applying to the
meditation methods in question.
[xcv] Though I endorse many of the points Dölpopa made, I also diverge from him in some key points. However, this is not
the place to discuss the points in question.
[xcvi] The Wikipedia entrance “Transpersonal Psychology” (at least from 2009 through 2010) reads:
“They (Elias Capriles and others) too misses the game ‘cause don’t they know what Nagarjuna among many buddhist
siddhas say ‘Where there is neither an addition of nirvana nor a removal of samsara; There, what samsara is discriminated
from what nirvana?’”
Of course there is no arising of nirvāṇa and end of saṃsāra, for arising and cessation pertain to relative truth, which in fact
is deluded untruth, and there is no saṃsāra and no nirvāṇa to be distinguished, because distinctions and their referents also
pertain to relative truth, which as just noted is in fact deluded untruth. However, speciously using this fact to justify the
error of taking samsaric states for nirvāṇa would cause one to abstain from doing anything to liberate the former and attain
the latter, and hence one would remain forever in saṃsāra, with its delusion (threefold avidyā) and ensuing unhappy
consciousness (duḥkha)—and, what is worse, while we do we would be believing that we have attained nirvāṇa.
[xcvii] If the Path one has followed is based on a single principle, and on the basis of one’s experience of that Path one tries
to understand other Paths which combine different principles including the principle on which the Path one followed is
based, one will correctly understand those aspects of the Paths in question that are based on the principle of the Path one
has followed, but not necessarily other aspects of those Paths. However, if one has obtained realization through the vehicle
that the Samten Migdrön (bSam gtan Mig sgron) calls the “primordial ancestor of all vehicles” (i.e., the Dzogchen Atiyoga),
one will understand the principles of all Paths and vehicles.
[xcviii] Wilber’s actual words are, “confusing early, prepersonal life experiences for transpersonal experiences of higher
consciousness.”
[xcix] Wilber (1996b, pp. 10-11) writes:
“The Ascending path is purely transcendental and otherworldly. It is usually puritanical, ascetic, yogic, and it tends to
devalue or even deny the body, the senses, sexuality, the Earth, the flesh. It seeks its salvation in a kingdom not of this
world; it sees manifestation or saṃsāra as evil or illusory; it seeks to get off the wheel entirely. And, in fact, for the
Ascenders, any sort of Descent tends to be viewed as illusory or even evil. The Ascending path glorifies the One, not the
Many; Emptiness, not Form; Heaven, not Earth.
“The Descending path counsels just the opposite. It is this-worldly to the core, and it glorifies the Many, not the One. It
celebrates the Earth, the body, and the senses, and often sexuality. It even identifies Spirit with the sensory world, with
Gaia, with manifestation, and sees in every sunrise, every moonrise, all the Spirit a person could ever want. It is purely
immanent and despises anything transcendental. In fact, for the Descenders, any form of Ascent is viewed as evil.”
This dichotomous classification of worldviews is extremely reductionistic; very few worldviews fit into one or the other of
these extremes, for most combine elements Wilber sees as belonging to one of them with elements Wilber sees as
pertaining to the other. In fact, Wilber’s classification of paths into “Ascending” and “Descending” makes very little sense.
However, the worst is that Wilber’s concept of nondual paths does not fit true nondual Paths, for as shown in Chapter II of
this book and in Capriles (2006a) he asserts nondual paths to point to the true condition of reality, without this pointing
resulting in the dissolution of the subject-object duality that, in terms of the threefold Dzogchen classification of avidyā /
marigpa favored by Longchen Rabjampa (cf. Longchenpa, 1976, p. 24, and Cornu, 2001, p. 62), constitutes the second
layer of the veil that prevents the realization of this true condition of reality. In fact, the nonduality of nondual Paths lies in
the fact that they lead to the nonconceptual realization of what Buddhism calls the unproduced / unconditioned, which is
the true condition of reality when not filtered-through / structured-in-terms-of the Procrustean bed of concepts (which are
all defined in contrast with the contraries); since the subject-object duality arises as the result of the delusory valuation-
absolutization of the supersubtle concept called the threefold thought-structure, it is part of the veil that has to fall for the
true condition of reality to be properly realized—and definitive, irreversible Awakening involves the irreversible fall of the
subject-object duality.
86 of 93 04.06.20, 21:58
[c] Expression attributed to Madame de Pompadour, or alternatively to French King Louis XV, meaning “after me the
Deluge” and indicating an attitude of total unconcern with whatever may happen after one’s own existence. By extension, it
may be applied to an attitude of unconcern with the fate of others, not only in the future, but in the present as well.
[ci] REPEATED NOTE: In Pāḷi literature, and in particular in the Udāna, nibbāna (nirvāṇa) is characterized as
ajāta, meaning unborn; abhūta, generally translated as unbecome; akata, usually rendered as unmade; and
asaṅkhata, as a rule translated as uncompounded or unconditioned: they were used mainly in the rejection of the
Hindu attribution of these qualities to the Self (Skt. ātman; Pāḷi, atta), as in early Buddhism it would have been
legitimate to predicate them only of nibbāna. In the Mahāyāna, the concept of abhūta was replaced by the one
expressed by the Sanskrit terms anutpāda and anutpatti, which, just as the term asaṃskṛta, which rendered the
Pāḷi asaṅkhata, in the Aṣṭasāhasrikāprajñāpāramitāsūtra (Sūtra Transcendence of Wisdom in Eight-Thousand
Lines) was predicated of the true condition of reality (Skt. tathatā)—and, in other, later Mahāyāna literature, of
all dharmas. The same applies to the Skt. ajāta, which like the same term in Pāḷi literally means “without birth,”
and to animitta (in both languages), which is rendered as as signless, but also as unconditioned, etc.: in the
Mahāyānaboth were predicated of tathatā and of all dharmas. (For a discussion of some of these points, cf. Xing,
2005.)
And the same applies to the opposites of the above terms as well—i.e., to the various terms expressing the
absence of cessation: they were also predicated of tathatā and of all dharmas. At any rate, in the Mahāyāna all of
these terms directly imply the concept of svabhāva śūnyatā.
[cii] Reproduced in Capriles (1977, 1986, 2000a, 2000c, 2007a vol. II).
[ciii] In fact, it is the mental subject that is experienced as different from the body and its impulses, which in their turn
appear as object—and the subject-object duality is the result of the delusory valuation-absolutization of the threefold
thought structure, which by the same token endows that duality with the illusion of self-existence, giving rise to the
ontological dualism that is the condition of possibility of all moral dualisms.
[civ] This Sūtra, as the Dīghanikāya to which it belongs, is part of the Pāḷi Canon; its name in Sanskrit would be
Cakravartinsiṃhanādasūtra.
[cv] According to Yeshe Tsogyal (1978, p. 655), the reason why she killed him was that Mune Tsenpo rebuked her. The
account that he unsuccessfully tried, on three consecutive occasions, to redistribute the wealth of Tibet, which I heard from
Tibetans, is confirmed by Tsepön Shakabpa (1967, p. 46). According to orally received accounts by Tibetans, it was his
own mother who complied to the wishes of the nobility because of the pathological jealousy she felt toward the rest of her
husband’s wives, whom, as was customary in Tibet, with the exception of his mother Mune Tsenpo had inherited upon his
father’s death.
[cvi] The essential nucleus of Guru Padmasambhāva’s terma tradition consists in the “transmission of the
cognitive mandate” or tergya (gtad rgya). It is said that the great Master concealed many teachings in the
continuum of primordial gnosis or awareness of his realized disciples through the power of the “transmission of
the cognitive mandate,” upon which both Master and disciple remained in the state of indivisibility of realization
and of the teaching thus hidden, and hence the teachings, the blessings and the corresponding attainments were
maintained intact in the disciple’s continuum of primordial gnosis or awareness. However, it is the fact that the
Master manifested the aspiration that the teaching be revealed at the appropriate moment for the benefit of
sentient beings, which makes it possible for the discovery of the teachings to effectively occur.
In connection with the above, Padmasambhāva, as well as his principal Tibetan consort, Yeshe Tsogyäl (ye shes
mtsho rgyal), and other “lords of the treasures” directly associated with them, hid teachings, papers with types of
symbolic writing, and complete texts, as well as “material treasures” or dzeter (rdzas gter, including images,
medicinal substances and ritual objects), in different places in the “physical” world, so that, when the propitious
moment arrived, a particular individual would reveal them.
There are six types of terma lineages and eighteen categories of terma, discussed in Capriles (2003), but the most
important classification is between sater (sa gter), or “earth treasures,” and gongter (dgongs gter) or “treasures of
Awake awareness.”
[cvii] I do not mean Bhutan to be the “perfect State,” for such thing does not exist. For example, it is well-known that
citizens of Nepalese ancestry do not share the same values and culture as the ethnic Bhutanese, and that they have
consequently been feared as a threat to the stability and continuity of the Himalayan Shangri-la and been subject to
restrictions and discrimination. These fears are not groundless, especially since, toward the end of the 1970s, India—which
since independence has had pretensions over Bhutan—introduced people of Indian and Nepalese origin into Sikkim in
87 of 93 04.06.20, 21:58
order to build the majority that voted for that formerly independent country to become part of India. At any rate, the
problem has given rise to a no win situation, for either the people of Nepalese descent are allowed to disrupt the Bhutanese
culture and all that makes the country special (as is already doing to some extent the influence of satellite TV) and put in
jeopardy the country’s independence, or discrimination against them makes Bhutan iniquous, turning it into a country like
the rest. (The Indian pretensions are due to the fact that, as the outcome of a military expedition into Bhutan, the British
forced the Bhutanese to sign a treaty whereby Britain would be entitled to control their foreign policy; when India gained
independence, the colonial power transferred the rights it had illegitimately obtained to the newly independent power.)
As to my sources, for the ceiling of 30 acres and the history of Bhutan, the source was lost when I had to abandon my book
in Nepal in 1983, and I have not managed to remember either the name of the book or that of the author, but I think it might
as well be Nirmala Das (1974). With regard to the concept of Gross National Happinness, cf. Muller, A. & Tashi Wangchuk
(2008); for bright denounciations of the concept of PNB cf. J. Lutzenberger (1978) and M. Max-Neef (1985).
[cviii] There are presently some 100 millions dalits in India, subject to unspeakable humiliations and harassment. Every
year some four or five hundred of them are killed, while thousands are raped, beaten or tortured, and/or have their homes
looted and burned. When the agrarian reform gives them land, cast people kill the men and rape the women, taking back the
land from them. In the few days I spent in Delhi in January 2008, I found in the newspaper various cases of male dalits
being killed or having their eyes punctured for having fallen in love with cast girls.
[cix] In Tibet, since the first half of the second millennium of the present era, monasteries began receiving land donations
from wealthy landowners, and thus the great majority of them ended up becoming feudal lords. Though serfdom and the
feudal system elicited active opposition from socially minded Buddhists, their repeated attempts to chage the system in
question were unsuccessful.
[cx] In the revised version of this book (Namkhai Norbu, 2000) the imprecisions introduced in the original version by the
editor were corrected, yet I was unable to locate the story of the visit of the Chinese and Tibetan communist authorities to
Changchub Dorje’s community, which appeared in the original version.
[cxi] Marx himself conceived the first stage of the workers’ rule on the model of the Paris Commune, which was quite near
that of direct democracy and far removed from that of s State dictatorship. Cf. Capriles (in press 1).
[cxii] I am not taking the theories of contemporary physics to be the territory of the given. In a series of works I have
expounded some of the reasons why the sciences cannot legitimately claim to arrive at indubitable truths. However, since
presently common sense takes the widely accepted scientific theories for the Truth, it is valid to use them as antidotes
against errors that are highly detrimental—as a nail may be used to take out another nail, yet if what we want is a nail-free
surface we must not be leave the new nail in situ.
[cxiii] Jung was wrong in assuming the shadow could not be eradicated, for in those who attain full, irreversible Awakening
it irreversibly, totally dissolves. Cf. Capriles (2007a vol. II).
[cxiv] This distinction—in which the term physis has a secondary sense, for nomos arises by virtue of physis and, since
there is nothing other than the latter, primarily remains physis—is proper to the Greek philosophical traditions that in my
view have a Dionysian origin.
[cxv] This rationalism avant la lettre disrupted the line of transmission that, according to the Stoics themselves, came down
to them from Heraclitus of Ephesus. Moreover, although Zeno defended Anthistenes, the alleged teacher of Diogenes of
Sinope, teacher of his tacher Crates, he was a slave-holder and at no point in his life he ceased being one.
[cxvi] Wilber is following the English author and Anglican priest who was professor of divinity at Cambridge
(UK), William Ralph Inge (1860 – 1954), nicknamed “The Gloomy Dean,” a specialist in Plotinus and the Neo-
Platonics whom we may expect to love Plato, main inspiration of his refered Plotinus. However, one would
expect transpersonal authors, like Wilber, not to be equally gloomy and dualistic as Inge.
[cxvii] Wilber puts forward the idea of a World Federation having laws based on Integral values, yet inhabited by people of
all levels of consciousness. To begin with, the idea of a World Federation that would include the USA, Iran, North Korea
and all other countries as they presently are, without changing the idiosyncracies of their respective governments and
peoples, is a fantasy that could hardly be farther away from reality—which Wilber surely knows, as he it speaking in
hypothetical terms. However, in the negated hypothesis that his proposal were realizable, it would not solve the problems
that we face, for as Lǎozǐ warned in the Tao Te King, and as substantiated in Capriles (1994, 2007a, work in progress I),
laws and regulations tend to produce the very opposite of what they are intended to achieve.
Furthermore, Wilber says that people like Saddam Hussein should not have been allowed to carry on with his mass murders
and his repression of his people, but that the invasion of Iraq should have been carried out by the World Federation rather
than the US. To begin with, a World Federation would include Iraq or else it would not be a World Federation, and
therefore in its bossom there could not be a Saddam Hussein to oppress his own people. And even if we obviated this fact, I
find it difficult to see how an invasion of Iraq by a World Federation would be substantively different from the UN-
sanctioned invasion by the US and allies. The only way a truly convivial world free from horrors such as Saddam Hussein’s
mass murders, the tortures of Abu Ghraib, the Gulag, the Holcaust, the desaparecidos of Latin America and so on, could
88 of 93 04.06.20, 21:58
ever become possible, would be through the generalization of Communion—which by the same token would open up the
possibility of human survival without which it would be useless to try to improve the world. And, in fact, as noted in the
regular text, the reductio ad absurdum of delusion by ecological crisis should make the generalization of Communion
possible, at least in part of the world—and, if it did not, our species would have no possibility of survival.
[cxviii] Some of the “evidence” Taylor (2003, 2005) cites is based on anthropological and ethnological observation of
“savage” peoples carried out during the last three centuries, overlooking the fact that, just as the rest of humankind, those
peoples have been degenerating, albeit in a different direction and at a different pace than those societies we call
“civilized.” In fact, Taylor seems to have ignored the warnings of André Leroi-Gourhan (1965, 1994), Annette Laming-
Emperaire (1962) and Theodore Roszak (1992). Furthermore, following James DeMeo (1998), Taylor claims the Fall
occurred because of environmental reasons, incurring in a clear geographical / ecological determinism.
[cxix] According to Descola (1996), the zones of the Amazon exhibiting the greatest biodiversity are those that have been
inhebited for longer time. And according to the same author, the same is the case in the North of North America.
[cxx] In the Italian version, pp. 23-27 and p. 23, n. 13. This Tantra, which is one of the seventeen principal Tantras of the
Upadeśavarga or Menngagde (man ngag sde), was transmitted by dGa’ rab rdo rje, the Primordial Revealer (tönpa [ston
pa]) who introduced Buddhist Dzogchen into our world. In the rnying ma’i rgyud bcu bdun, vol. I, pp. 389-855, Delhi 1989
(pp. 162 et seq.); published by Sangye Dorje (sangs rgyas rdo rje), New Delhi 1973.
[cxxi] His entourage featured one thousand and two Buddhas who shone with the brightest of lights—which meant that in
this propitious aon one thousand Buddhas and two supreme bodhisattvas would manifest.
[cxxii] Since at the time the human lifespan was experienced as limitless, one may assume that this Tantra was transmitted
so that people could avoid remaining in the neutral base-of-all and thus have a real possibility of attaining genuine
Awakenening. The reason for this is that the most confused samsaric states would not manifest at the time, and hence it
would have been useless to teach human beings how to liberate them.
[cxxiii] Garab Dorje (dga’ rab rdo rje), source of Buddhist Dzogchen, is said to be a manifestation Śākyamuni emanated in
order to transmit the Dzogchen teachings. Cf. Capriles (2003).
[cxxiv] Namkhai Norbu and A. Clemente (1999, p. 265) name a full series of texts later than the Rig pa rang shar, which
list the names of the Masters in question. Here I will mention only the Treasure of the Supreme Vehicle or Tegchog dzö
(theg mchog mdzod) by Longchen Rabjampa (klong chen rab ’byams pa); for the complete list, cf. the above-referred book
by Norbu and Clemente.
[cxxv] The Path of Renunciation of the Sūtrayāna or Hetuyāna has the nirmāṇakāyaŚākyamuni as its source; the Path of
Transformation of the Vajrayāna or Phalayāna has the sambhogakāya as its source; the Path of Spontaneous Liberation of
Dzogchen Atiyoga or Path beyond the hetu-phala or cause-fruit dychotomy has the dharmakāya as its source. Cf. Capriles
(2003).
Some late Buddhist schools were founded by ordinary people who had no realization of the kāyas, and among these some
schools of the Mahāyāna did away with practically all of the spiritual practices taught in the Sūtras and confined practice to
the recitation of a particular mantra or dharani found in a particular Sutra, together with the contemplation of a certain
sacred figure, etc.—and, among the latter, some sub-schools are mainly devoted to fulfilling worldly desires. One Vajrayāna
school arose in order to give continuity to the cult to a worldly deity that did great damage in the past, which for this very
reason had been forbidden by the present Dalai Lama, and thereafter it resorted to bloody ritual assasinations, successively
tried to assasinate the Dalai Lama, and gave rise to other horrors. Other schools have claimed to be Buddhist but in fact
were invented by psychotics in the twentieth century and committed hineous crimes. All such schools, which are not among
those that “arose from the kāyas of Buddhahood,” are the work of demons.
[cxxvi] Quánzhēn (全眞; Wade-Giles, Chuan Chen) Daoism (note the phonetic similarity and partial etymological
correspondence between the terms Quánzhēn and Dzogchen) traces its roots to Lǎozǐ (⽼⼦), Zhuāngzǐ (莊⼦), Lièzĭ (列⼦)
and the Huainan Masters, and like the Daoism of these great Masters and like the Dzogchen teachings, derides generative
methods and emphasizes the fact that only the realization of the uncreated, unborn true condition of all essents that Daoism
calls the Dào (道) (and that the Dzogchen teachings call Dzogchen qua Base) can put a definitive end to the “problem of
life.” In fact, Quánzhēn Daoism seems to be a set of methods for attaining this realization and making it stable and
irreversible, and hence for going beyond rejection of death and beyond death itself (insofar as those who have fully realized
their true nature to be the unborn, undying primordial condition, cannot be affected by death of the perishable), for it made
it clear that in their system “becoming an immortal” did not refer to the production of a new conditioned state or condition:
according to the eighteenth century commentator Liu Yiming (劉⼀明; Wade-Giles, Liu I-ming, 1988), the term referred to
the unveiling of the pure and perfect primordial (”pre-natal”) awareness that... “is not born and does not die.” In Quánzhēn
terminology, this primordial state is variously referred to as the “precious pearl,” the “pre-natal mind,” the “triplex unity of
essence, energy, and spirit” (which, one could speculate, might correspond the Dzogchen triad consisting of essence, nature
and energy) or simply the “Way” (Dào). Liu Yiming tells us that “awake or asleep, it is always there,” and that the same
applies to stillness and movement, which are the yīn (陰) and yáng (陽)—passive and creative, dark and light, empty and
full—facets of the ever-present primordial state, comparable to waves rising and falling on the sea, or wind stirring the air.
89 of 93 04.06.20, 21:58
Liu Yimingdescribes the realization of the primordial condition as “a stateless state… tranquil and unstirring, yet sensitive
and effective—call on it and it responds [with movement]; in quietude it is [perfectly] clear.” Since movement is an
indivisible aspect of the primordial state, in order to integrate it, Daoism has taiqiquàn (太極拳; Wade-Giles, tai chi
chuan), the eight pieces of brocade, and other moving qìgōng (氣功; Wade-Giles, chi-kung) forms. For a period, the
aspiring Quánzhēn adept retires from the world and goes into seclusion in the mountains in order to practice the teachings
and attain spontaneous perfection—a process known as xiūdào (修道; Wade-Giles, hsiou tao) or “cultivating the Way”).
Finally, when the “complete reality” of Dào has been realized, the adept “returns to the towns and markets” to apply the
Way “among ordinary people” in all the myriad activities of daily life. Despite the fact that, as noted above, Quánzhēn
Daoism referred to its own realized ones as shénxiān (神仙; Wade-Giles, shen-hsien), the contrast between this system and
that of Gěhóng (葛洪; Wade-Giles, Ko-hung) and other forgers is further evidenced by the following words by Liu Yiming:
“The Dào is a treasure… having nothing to do with material alchemy. It is utterly simple, utterly easy… It is completely
spiritual, true goodness. The ridiculous thing is that foolish people seek mysterious marvels, when they do not know
enough to preserve the mysterious marvel that is actually present.” (Quotes from Liu Yiming were taken from Reid
[2002/2003], who in his turn took them from Liu I-ming [1988].)
[cxxvii] In particular, those having their sources in Central Asia and deriving from the teachings Shenrab Miwoche gave in
Mount Kailāśā, and those deriving from Ismailism and thus ultimately having the same source—including the Khajagan or
Naqshbandi tradition, the traditions of Sanai, El Hallaj, Rumi and other Masters of the same sign, some traditions of Iranian
Sufism, and so on.
[cxxviii] As stated in a note to the preceding chapter, in Pāḷi literature (and in particular in the Udāna), terms
such as ajāta (unborn), abhūta (unbecome), akata (unmade) and asaṅkhata (uncompounded or unconditioned)
were used mainly in the rejection of the Hindu attribution of these qualities to the Self (Skt. atman; Pāḷi, atta), as
it would have been legitimate to predicate them only of nirvāṇa. In the Mahāyāna, the concept of abhūta was
replaced by the one expressed by the Sanskrit terms anutpāda and anutpatti, which, just as the terms asaṃskṛta
(Pāḷi, asaṅkhata), ajāta (without birth), and animitta (unconditioned), was predicated of all dharmas. And the
same applies to the various terms expressing the absence of cessation: they were also predicated of all dharmas.
The point is that, as stated in the note in question, in the Mahāyāna all of these terms directly imply the concept
of svabhāva śūnyatā or “voidness of self-existence.”
[cxxix] Calm abiding is always a precondition of insight. However, some extraordinary individuals develop calm abiding
without practicing pacifying meditation—not only in nongradual Paths, but in gradual Paths as well. For example, it is said
that the gradualist Je Tsongkhapa unintentionally developed calm abiding as he studied the dharma with intense
concentration. And some nongradualists having a very high capacity as a result of their practice in “previous lives” have
developed it unintentionally through other means as well.
However, in gradual Paths people are invariably instructed to practice calm abiding intensively before being allowed to
practice insight. And Tsongkhapa’s treatises on meditation are no exception to this rule—quite the opposite, they are most
strict in this regard.
[cxxx] In this case I use the term “descent” because wholeness is deemed to be “higher” than fragmentation, and hence
from this perspective the transition from a relative wholeness to a decisive fragmentation may be viewed as a descent.
[cxxxi] The Dzogchen teachings introduced by Garab Dorje are Buddhist teachings because they originated from the
dharmakāya of Buddhahood; because Garab Dorje is regarded as an emanation of Śākyamuni having the function of
introducing the teachings that, because of the conditions of his time and place, and of his status as a monk, Śākyamuni
could give personally; and because the future advent of Garab Dorje and the Dzogchen teachings was prophethized by
Śākyamuni. Cf. Capriles (2003).
[cxxxii] In the case of Japanese Zen, this is so in the Rinzai tradition, but not so obviously in the Soto, which asserts shikan
taza or “simply sitting” in meditation (za zen) to be “the very state of Buddha.” This is one of the reasons why, as Soto
Master (Roshi) Shunryu Daiosho Suzuki Roshi (1980) noted, in Japan, Rinzai Zen is called “the Path of the younger
brother”—younger brothers being deemed in that country to have a keener intellect and a higher capacity than elder
brothers.
[cxxxiii] In 1960, Jung wrote (1972b, Ed. Gerhard Adler, trans. R. F. C. Hull):
“I had to abandon the idea of the superordinate position of the ego... I saw that everything, all paths I had been following,
all steps I had taken, were leading back to a single point— namely, to the mid-point. It became increasingly plain to me that
the maṇḍala is the centre. It is the exponent of all paths. It is the path to the centre, to individuation.
“... I knew that in finding the maṇḍala as an expression of the self I had attained what was for me the ultimate.”
This point is also clearly made in Jung (1972, 1964, 1928). It is related to the difference between Self and ego, which Jung
dealt with in Jung (1975, 1964). Of course, Jung is not speaking of the ultimate in the Buddhist sense of the term.
90 of 93 04.06.20, 21:58
[cxxxiv] I decided not to discuss David M. Levin in this volume because the view of the Ground as Being at the core of
Levin (1985), which he took from Heidegger and from Herbert V. Guenther’s interpretation of Heidegger, was refuted in
vol. I of Capriles (2007a). In its turn, the prediction that a new paradigm going beyond ocularcentrism would characterize
our postmodern future (Levin 1993a, 1993b), is discussed in Capriles (in press 1) and in the draft of the future second
revised and updated edition of Capriles (1994), with regard to a proposal similar to Levin’s put forward by Ernesto Mayz-
Vallenilla (1990).
[cxxxv] General Buddhism explains interdependent origination in terms of temporality as the succession of the twelve
nidanas or links of the pratītyasamutpāda. However, Mādhyamika philosophy also explains them as the simultaneous
arising of the opposites that define themselves by mutual contrast—examples of this being the arising of subject and object,
of figure and ground and so on, and the arising of good and bad, pleasant and unpleasant, high and low, and so on.
[cxxxvi] Buddhism negates atman or self and asserts anatman (Pāḷi, anatta) or nonself. However, Wilber does not refer to a
truly existing self, but to a sense of self and the operations whereby this sense of self is produced and sustained.
[cxxxvii] The practice of Chö (gcod) depends on the arising of visions of fearsome demons and elementals attacking and
intending to devour the practitioner, and without these visions and the ensuing dread it would not yield its fruit. In fact, it is
when, terrorized by the visions and tortured by the excruciatingly painful mental sensation (Skt. vedana; Tib. tsorwa [tshor
ba]) in her or his own heart, the practitioner looks into his inner dimension to seek for the seemingly separate mental
subject who dreads the visions and, feeling separate from the mental sensation, deems it unbearable and rejects it, that the
illusion of duality and delusorily valued-absolutized thought in general spontaneously liberates itself in the manifestation of
Dzogchen-qua-Path (cf. Capriles, 2000a Part III, 2000c).
The practices of Thögel and the Yangthik depend on the occurrence of visions of luminous spheres (thig le), which in the
long run activate the propensities subsumed under the Tibetan term zhedang (zhe sdang), which transform the delusive
perception of the visions as objects lying in an external dimension into extreme conflict—which in its turn automatically
results in the spontaneous liberation of the illusory subject-object duality and delusorily valued-absolutized thought in
general (cf. Capriles, 2000a Part II, 2007a vol. II).
Thus what all of these practices have in common is that, on the one hand, they make it impossible for the illusions of
duality, of the self-existence of phenomena, and of the ultimate importance of the individual and her or his experiences, to
go on unnoticed, and on the other they create the condition in which they are more likely to liberate themselves
spontaneously and in which this spontaneous liberation has greater power for neutralizing karma. Therefore, they force the
spontaneous liberation of delusory experiences as soon as they manifest, each and every time they do so, and the continued
repetition of this while the energetic-volume-determining-the-scope-of-awareness is so high and conflict is so extreme, in
very short time neutralizes the propensities for the delusory valuation-absolutization of thought and hence for the illusion of
duality to manifest. This is why the practices in question are deemed to be the most direct, and in this sense the “highest”
Buddhist practices.
[cxxxviii] Wilber acknowledges that the spiritual process may involve some difficult passages, and in Wilber (1998) he
stresses the fact that in his model ever fulcrum possesses a signature death-rebirth struggle, which in his view is most
dramatic and characteristic in the centaur/existential level he posits. In Capriles (2006a, 2007a vol. II) I showed the greatest
and most dangerous crises on the spiritual Path to occur in passages that do not correspond to this level in Wilber’s system,
and in general showed how Wilber’s succession of fulcra contradict all Buddhist maps of the Path. At any rate, Wilber
nowhere emphasizes the importance of NOSC in the breakthroughs that are determinant on the Path.
[cxxxix] What is often called a “psychotomimetic experience” is an experience induced by so-called psychedelics that
exhibits the characteristic marks of a psychosis, but which comes to an end when the drug’s effect runs out. I prefer to
speak of a psychotic episode confined to the duration of the drug’s effect, which in some cases may extend itself beyond the
lapse in question, becoming a fully-fledged psychosis.
[cxl] I will not refer to cases like that of the Hopi girl discussed by R. Coles that was mentioned by Sean Kelly (1998a, p.
128, note 1; 1998b, p. 379), or to the rest of the evidence adduced by Kelly (1998a, p. 128, note 1), because although such
evidence may contradict Wilber’s views, it is quite possible that the cases will not fit my definition of supreme spirituality:
this is why I will limit myself to testimonies taken from the Dzogchen tradition. With regard to Wilber’s amplified lamrim
(lam rim) view, consider his words on the subject (Wilber, 1998, p. 333):
“The question then becomes: [Do] people have to pass through these stages (postconventional, centauric, integrated, etc.) in
order to make genuine spiritual progress?
“Once again, you see, it depends upon the meaning of spiritual. If we define spirituality as postformal and post-
postconventional, the answer is yes, definitively. But if we define spiritual as being a separate line of development, the
answer is no, definitely not. In this case, spiritual development is occurring alongside or behind or parallel to those other
lines of development, and thus it may race ahead of, of lag behind, those other lines.
“But that simply pushed the question back: Does stable postconventional spiritual development depend upon passing from
its preconventional wave to its conventional wave to its postconventional wave? And I believe the answer, backed by the
preponderance of evidence, is most definitively “yes.”
91 of 93 04.06.20, 21:58
“To say the same thing using other terms, the spiritual line moves from a prepersonal wave (archaic, food, safety,
preconventional) to a personal wave (from belonginess and conventional concern to postconventional/global) to a
transpersonal wave (post-postconventional, psychic, subtle, causal, bodhisattvic). In short, the spiritual stream runs through
subconscious to conscious to superconscious waves, by whichever name.
“These spiritual stages, I believe, are transitional stages (stages in the “soft” sense); of course, the self-system can still be
“all over the place.” This is not a rigid and mechanical clunk-and-grind view, as I said. At the same time, it does show, on
the long haul, a general unfolding through the expanding waves of consciousness, with developments in the spiritual stream
depending upon previously established competences in the stream itself.”
The absolute wrongness of this view becomes even more apparent in the context of phylogenesis, which is one that I have
not discussed in depth in this book, and which will be so discussed in the definitive version of Capriles (2007a vol. III); in
the meantime the reader may consult the provisional version of the work in question, as well as Taylor (2003, 2005).
However, in Chapter II of this book and in Capriles (2006a) it was made clear that according to the Dzogchen teachings the
root Tantra of the Dzogchen Menngagde (man ngag sde) or Upadeśavarga, the Drataljur Chenpoi Gyü or Drataljur Tsawai
Gyü (sgra thal ’gyur chen po’i rgyud / sgra thal ’gyur rtsa ba’i rgyud / rin po che a’byung bar byed pa sgra thal gyur chen
po’i rgyud Skt. Shabda mahā prasamga mula tantra), was taught in the primordial age corresponding to the very
beginning of our species, and that Dzogchen was very widespread at the time, when according to Wilber’s view humans
were unconscious and could by no means access the transpersonal realms in any stable way, let alone attain Awakening:
according to Wilber, at that stage the religion of people was food (Wilber, 1998, p. 336)—i.e., the ultimate concern of
human beings was procuring food!!!
[cxli] Chögyal Namkhai Norbu (unpublished ms.) tells us:
“Another very interesting story is that of tertön Mingyur Dorje (mi ’gyur rdo rje)... He was a true Tulku (sprul sku), even
though he was not recognized as such as an infant and had not been appointed as the abbot of a monastery. Let us briefly
consider his story.
“There was a very important Kagyupa Master called Araga Karma Chagmai (a ra ga kar ma chags med, or kar ma chags
med ra ga a sya [Karma Chagme Raga Asya]: 1613-1678), who was also a Dzogchen Master and a Tertön (gter ston) or
Treasure Revealer recognized as an emanation of Ma Rinchen Chok (rma rin chen mchog, one of the 25 direct disciples of
Guru Padmasambhāva), and who spent most of his life in mountain retreat (he was the author / compiler of a noted richö [ri
chos] or text on mountain retreat that the Karma Kagyu, Drikung Kagyu and Nyingma traditions classify among the
definitive texts on the subject). While in retreat, one night in a dream he had the indication that not far from his retreat place
a baby had been born to a simple family, who was the Tulku of a former Master of the Nyingmapa (rnying ma pa)
monastery of Khatok (kah thog) that despite not being so famous was a great practitioner who had achieved stable rigpa. A
few days afterwards Araga sent one of his disciples to find out whether a baby had actually been born in that family, and the
reply was in the affirmative. Since Araga was not one of the Masters who habitually recognize Tulkus, instead of making a
formal recognition he talked to the infant’s parents, asking them whether they agreed to send the child to him when he
arrived at the age of eight and he no longer needed to be near his mother. Since that family, like everyone else in that
region, had great faith in Araga, their reply was in the affirmative, and the Master helped them financially until the child
attained the age at which he would move with him.
The Master asked his disciples to take care of the child, teaching him how to read and transmitting to him the knowledge
deemed elementary in Tibet at the time. When he was eight or nine years old, the Master gave him teachings, transmissions
and initiations in order to Awaken him. And, in fact, when he was ten years old he Awakened and started recounting the
visions he began to have both while awake and in dreams, featuring Guru Padmasambhāva and many Awake Ones with
whom he had contact. Initially Araga had recognized the child, invited him and taught him, but now the child became his
teacher. Between the ages of eleven and thirteen, the child dictated thirteen volumes of namchö (nam chos: nam mkha’i
chos) terma (gter ma) teachings, which we have with all their transmissions. How could anyone doubt that the child was a
Tulku when he had manifested such impressive signs, which had marveled everyone? Tulkus must be like this; if someone
is the Tulku of a great Master, he or she must have this capacity to remember his or her previous learning and Awaken
easily.
[cxlii] The great tertön Jigme Lingpa (’jigs med gling pa: 1730-1798) is possibly the most famous example in the last
centuries of an individual who, without having done systematic or institutional studies, as a result of his supreme Dzogchen
practice achieved one of the highest levels of learning among Tibetan Masters of all times—to the extent of having been
granted the title kunkhyen (kun mkhyen) or “all-knowing.”
[cxliii] However, it would not be altogether impossible, as demonstrated by the case of Pang Gen Mipham
Gönpo, whom Vairotsana the translator met when Pang Mipham was eighty-five years old, after which he gave
him teachings on the Dorje Zampa (rdo rje zam pa) or “Vajra Bridge” of the Longde (klong sde) series of Dzogpa
Chenpo (rdzogs pa chen po)—so called because the practice was a bridge between the normal physical condition
and the rainbow body or jalü [’ja’ lus]). Because of Mipham Gönpo’s advanced age, he could not sit in
meditation posture, and so he used a meditation belt and support stick in order to sit up straight and remain
motionless. However, by applying the practice in question, the old man attained jalü (’ja’ lus), the rainbow body,
at the age of 110 years old. Of all of Vairotsana's many disciples, Mipham Gönpo, Yudra Nyingpo, Nyag
92 of 93 04.06.20, 21:58
Jñanakumara, and Sherab Dölma from Li, became his four chief disciples.
[cxliv] Each of them is a different dimension because the dharmakāya is the correct apprehension of the dang (gdangs)
form of manifestation of energy, the sambhogakāya is the correct apprehension of the rölpa (rol pa) form of manifestation
of energy, and the nirmāṇakāya is the correct apprehension of the tsel (rtsal) form of manifestation of energy. However,
each of these successive dimensions embraces the preceding ones, for in the realization of the sambhogakāya that of
dharmakāya is perfectly manifest, and in that of the nirmāṇakāya those of the sambhogakāya and dharmakāya are
included.
However, from a different perspective the dharmakāya is the realization of the essence or ngowo (ngo bo) aspect of the
Base, which is voidness; the sambhogakāya is the realization of the nature or rangzhin (rang bzhin) aspect of the Base,
which is clarity and which is realized in its inseparability from the essence or ngowo aspect; and the nirmāṇakāya is the
realization of the energy or thukje (thugs rje) aspect of the Base, which is the disposition to manifest and the continuous
process of manifestation, which is realized in its inseparability from the other two aspects. Thus from this perspective each
of these dimensions could be seen as a more thorough unconcealment of the trikāya-qua-Base, which concludes with the
patency of the trikaya as a whole.
[cxlv] I have in mind, in particular, the theories of Melanie Klein, Susan Isaacs and Donald W. Winnincott. Also some
discoveries and specifications by the Americans Harry Stack Sullivan and Otto Fenichel are worth incorporating to the
system in question.
93 of 93 04.06.20, 21:58

Wilber's Integral Philosophy Discussed and Critiqued

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Wilber's Integral Philosophy Discussed and Critiqued

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Discussion of Wilber's Integral Philosophy and Psychology and E... http://www.integralworld.net/capriles2.

EPIC RAP BATTLE OF INTEGRAL: KEN WILBER TAKES ON FRANK VISSER

INTEGRAL WORLD: EXPLORING THEORIES OF EVERYTHING

Like Share Sign Up to see what your friends like.

Wilber’s Integral Philosophy and Psychology

THE GRADATION OF BEING

Ken Wilber's Inverted Gradation of Being and Inaccurate “Holarchies” in General

(1998a, p. 121) resumes as follows:

2. It is the element of pure awareness in all knowledge. It is an immutable, indivisible reality.

3. It shines with its own light; it is self-luminous.

“Although phenomena appear to the mind the way they do,

People under delusion believe obstinately in dharmalakṣaṇa (entities / collections of characteristics)

p. 136, ¶2; in Dudjom Rinpoche, 1991, Vol. I, pp. 180-181; etc.):[lxxxi]

in this regard (Capriles, 2005):

vol. I, p. 215) put it:

[These are the three main senses of] “primordial gnosis.”

it is “primordial gnosis functioning as co-gnition.”

Ah! Listen, great and courageous one!

It is shown that there are two [obstacles]:

Any concepts of avarice and so forth

Are deemed to make up the obstacle of knowledge.

question as a process of gradual degeneration starting in a condition of plenitude and perfection.

If [Wilber’s front-door entrance] is something resembling William James’s “educational variety” of

[4] Manusmṛti, also called Mānava-Dharmaśāstra.

[5] In the Wade-Giles transliteration, Taoism.

[6] kal pa or bskal pa.

[7] Tib. khorlo (’khor lo).

[8] Skt. Rūpadhātu or rūpaloka; Tib. zugkham (gzugs khams).

[11] Skt. kāmaloka or kāmadhātu; Tib. dod pa’i khams.

[12] kun gzhi lung ma bstan.

[14] gting gsal.

[15] bsam gtan bar do; Skt. samādhi antarābhava.

[16] Skt. niṣprapañca; Tib. tödräl (spros bral).

[17] gsar ma pa.

[18] rnying ma pa.

[19] bsam gtan mig sgron.

[20] gnubs chen sangs rgyas ye shes.

[21] khregs chod.

[22] thod rgal.

[24] rol pa.

[25] dharmatāantarābhava or chönyi bardo (chos nyid bar do).

[28] lhun grub.

[29] rol pa.

[31] dbyer med.

[32] kun gzhi lung ma bstan.

[34] Skt. rūpadhātu or rūpaloka Tib. zugkham (gzugs khams).

[35] thod rgal.

[36] yang thig.

[37] snying thig.

[38] khregs chod.

[40] Skt. darśana mārgaḥ; Tib. thong lam (mthong lam).

[41] Skt. dharmatā; Tib. chönyi (chos nyid).

[43] chos zad blo ’das.

[46] ngo bo; Skt. svābhāva.

[49] ngo bo.

[52] rol pa.

[55] Pāḷi and Skt. jata; Tib. kyepa (skyes pa).

[56] Pāḷi, saṅkhata; Skt. saṃskṛta; Tib. düjai (’dus byas).

[57] Classically, Śaṁkarācārya.

[59] Skt. trimaṇḍala; Tib. khorsum (’khor gsum).

[60] thugs rje.

[61] Skt. duḥkha-nirodhaḥ-ārya-satya.

[63] Pāḷi, nibbana.