Beyond Mind III: Further Steps to a Metatranspersonal Philosophy and Psychology (Continuation of the Discussion on the Three Best Known Transpersonal Paradigms, with a Focus on Washburn and Grof )

Abstract

. Beyond mind III: Further steps to a metatranspersonal philosophy and psychology (Continuation of the discussion on the three best known transpersonal paradigms, with a focus on Washburn

A Reply to Abramson ’s Response to My “Beyond Mind” Papers and Some Reflections on Wilber V

“…Capriles offered a definition of supreme spirituality that would ostensibly include all authentic traditions and overcomes the problems presented in Wilber's model: "all that is involved in the transition from samsara to nirvana" ( [Capriles, 2009,] p. 15). I have argued that Wilber would see such a definition as partial.…”

“…Finally, I duly thank Mr. John Abramson for offering me the possibility to confine myself to precise themes of Wilber V, as well as for the tone of his valuable reply (which, I must acknowledge, is kinder and more T he first thing to note is that, although Wilber purportedly abandoned his former pantheistic emanationism, 4 he has still metaphysically posited a transcendent reality (which, as clearly shown in Appendix I to both Beyond Mind III [Capriles, 2009] and the above mentioned upcoming book [Capriles, in press], no Buddhist school or vehicle has ever posited)-insisting that it should flavor the immanent while at the same time being flavored by it. This is apparent in the following passage by Wilber (Wilber & Cohen, 2002, p. 2), which Abramson (2010) cited:…”

“…T he critique of Wilber's twentieth century works presented in my three Beyond Mind papers (Capriles, 2000(Capriles, , 2006(Capriles, , 2009 was written because, upon reading the works in question, I perceived in them misunderstandings of the theory and practice of the higher Buddhist teachings in general and of the Dzogchen teachings in particular that seemed so serious to me, as to arouse an urge to respond to them. As to subsequent Wilber works, I had no plans of addressing them, partly because I was not inclined to read further pieces of writing by the author in question (some of his subjects-e.g., developmental psychology-are foreign to my interests, as I do not find them relevant to spiritual and/or transpersonal development, and on the other hand I find his construal of Buddhism and many of his views on subjects of my interest rather troubling), partly because I did not foresee the turnabout that is currently giving rise to Wilber V, and partly because for a number of years now Venezuelan governmental policies have made it quite difficult for me to buy books in English-and hence I had to become selective and procure only those books that it was imperative for me to read in order to complete the various long works on subjects not directly related to Wilber that I have been preparing since the turn of the century.…”

“…Then, after the publication of the final paper in the series, author and webmaster of the website Integral World Frank Visser 2 cautioned me that the Beyond Mind papers (Capriles, 2000(Capriles, , 2006(Capriles, , 2009 and the books based on them could be dismissed for failing to address the current Wilber. In response, I prepared the preliminary discussion of Wilber V that Visser published on his website (Capriles, 2010c).…”

“…As to subsequent Wilber works, I had no plans of addressing them, partly because I was not inclined to read further pieces of writing by the author in question (some of his subjects-e.g., developmental psychology-are foreign to my interests, as I do not find them relevant to spiritual and/or transpersonal development, and on the other hand I find his construal of Buddhism and many of his views on subjects of my interest rather troubling), partly because I did not foresee the turnabout that is currently giving rise to Wilber V, and partly because for a number of years now Venezuelan governmental policies have made it quite difficult for me to buy books in English-and hence I had to become selective and procure only those books that it was imperative for me to read in order to complete the various long works on subjects not directly related to Wilber that I have been preparing since the turn of the century. 1 However, in the lapse between completion of the last paper in the Beyond Mind series and the email announcing that the paper was about to go through the final editing by IJTS staff for it to go to press, I went through a series of works by different authors-including two Wilber pieces published in 2000 and one published in 2009-which, upon receiving the news in question, made me partially update the latest of my Beyond Mind papers (Capriles, 2009), making additions and corrections. Even though I was aware that Wilber was undergoing a shift, I had not read most of the ensuing works, and I made no moves to overcome difficulties and procure them so as to be able to assess them, as I had no intention to intellectually persecute Wilber-and, even if I had been intent on critiquing all that he produced, to procure and read his relevant newer works (provided I could have managed to acquire them), and then carry out the required, major overhauling of the paper, would have been impossible in the short time at my disposal.…”