Mysticism is Not a Philosophy

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

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

Buddhist Illogic

July 4, 2018

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

The Tetralemma

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

The Tantric Woo-Woo of Christopher Wallis, Part 2

June 26, 2018

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

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

The Tantric Woo-Woo of Christopher Wallis, Part 1

June 23, 2018

This article is my response to Christopher Wallis’s 2017 book “The Recognition Sutras: Illuminating a 1000-Year-Old Spiritual Masterpiece.” This book, which is a translation and explanation of Tantric master Ksemaraja’s “The Essence of the Recognition Philosophy” (Pratyabhijna-hrdaya in Sanskrit), has, so far, received nothing but glowing five-star reviews at Amazon (but this will change when I post my review). According to the book’s description at Amazon: “Pratyabhijna-hrdaya is one of the primary sources for the study and practice of nondual Tantrik Yoga, and it has never been accurately translated or fully explained until now. Christopher Wallis, author of “Tantra Illuminated: The Philosophy, History, and Practice of a Timeless Tradition,” expounds the subtleties of this spiritual and philosophical classic.”

I’ve read two other versions of Pratyabhijna-hridaya, so I was already familiar with Ksemaraja’s work before reading Wallis’s translation/explanation.… Read the full article

Why I’m Not an Objectivist

June 15, 2018
[This is a raw, unedited article that I just finished writing. At some point in time, I’ll develop it further.]

Although I am a HUGE fan of Ayn Rand’s philosophy, Objectivism, and agree with most of its tenets, I don’t qualify as an Objectivists because I don’t embrace all its tenets—and Rand made it clear that to be an Objectivist, one must do so. Objectivism, according to Rand and her intellectual heir, Leonard Peikoff (who founded The Ayn Rand Institute in 1985), is a “closed system, “meaning that it is not subject to revision or expansion. When philosophy professor David Kelley, affiliated with Peikoff and the Ayn Rand Institute (ARI), argued for Objectivism as an “open system,” Peikoff rejected his argument, and Kelley left ARI, subsequently founding his own “Objectivist” institute, The Atlas Society.

Because I agree with Peikoff’s POV (that Objectivism is Ayn Rand’s philosophy) and reject Kelley’s (that Objectivism should not be delimited to Rand’s philosophy), I classify myself as a quasi-Objectivist, meaning that I have philosophic differences with Rand.… Read the full article

← Previous Entries

Next Entries →