Schopenhauer’s naive wonder, and profundity
Comment on Default Philosophic Enlightenment
26.11.09 at 3:35 pm ·
“Students of meditation may justifiably critique default philosophic enlightenment as too simple. Perhaps. But it can help to orient oneself in a field of New Age confusions that is almost without end.”
Actually, I think that is the best thing for most people. There are too many idiots like Wilber and Goswami (I think the Self-Aware Universe is one of the worst books I have ever read) trying to support their ideas with mystical claptrap. They unwittingly reveal the dangers of amateurs trying to interpret these traditions.
Schopenhauer was a funny surprise: out of the blue, and before the flood of gurus arrives to confuse everyone, he produces the clearest spiritual psychology of them all. It’s funny, he doesn’t quite grasp the notion of enlightenment, and doesn’t refer to it, instead getting specific about the overcoming the will!
Priceless. The point is that his system of transcendental idealism makes the best foundation for a spiritual psychology. All these pandits and gurus are incapable of it at this point. Look at the labored futility of junk produced by Wilber and Andrew Cohen.
I am suspicious: it is very profitable to keep people confused.