Most Helpful Customer Reviews
|
|
3 of 3 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Enlightenment Now, 11 Jan 2009
This book represents a scholarly but readable account of non-duality as represented in the Buddhist and Vedanta traditions and to a lesser extent in Taoism. It generally succeeds in it aim to show the commonality of `non-dual experience' that is the essence of these forms. The author tackles the many paradoxical expressions of these religions throwing light on these pointers which point to the same no-thing. I particularly found helpful the discussions and deconstructions regarding time and causality. The book pulls together many loose strings that on the surface appears to divide the different teachings (or non-teachings).
It could be criticised that the book fails to take into account the many current non-dual teachers but that isn't really its remit. Insofar as it brings together Buddhism, Hinduism & Taoism and Western Philosophy it may stand as a landmark work and stand the test of time. The reader most benefited will probably already have some knowledge of Buddhist and Advaita literature and terminology. I give it five stars as it has moved my understanding to a deeper level.
|
|
|
2 of 6 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars
A disappointing account, 23 Nov 2008
This is a book which reveals great scholarship and a deep and wide knowledge of the Eastern literature, and which also shows a knowledge of Western philosophers such as Heidegger and Derrida.
However, it has one great flaw which spoilt it for me. It reveals a huge unawareness of one of the key insights which have illuminated the whole field in recent times. I refer to the work of Ken Wilber, who has spelt out in great detail the notion of evolutionary levels in the field of mysticism. In other words, Loy has no awareness of the Wilber categories of Magic, Mythic, Mental Ego, Centaur, Subtle, Causal and Nondual. This means that when he has to find some context for the Nondual, instead of a series of contrasting levels, he is forced to make do with a dualistic opposition between the Nondual and just one contrasting category, which has to stand in for all that complexity. And here he makes a very weird choice. Many writers in this field talk about the ego, the gross, the everyday, as the Other to the Nondual. Loy, strangely and perversely, chooses what he calls the savikalpa, most often contraposing it to the nirvikalpa. Due to the appalling inadequacy of the index, the extent of his reliance on this crude opposition is not clear: but I have found references to this great contrast on pages 50, 52, 55, 56, 59, 60, 62, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 71, 87, 88, 90, 91, 93, 115, 134, 179, 181 and 196: there may be others. He writes as if the savikalpa were the level of ordinary dualistic consciousness, the everyday consciousness with which we are all familiar. But the Savikalpa is a form of samadhi, a form of mysticism, a mystical level with a great reliance on images, symbols, deity figures and so forth, but a real connection with the ultimate, the divine, the holy. To contrast it with the Nondual as if it were ordinary and everyday is ridiculous.
Wilber brought out his first book in 1979. It was instantly recognised as important, and indeed soon after that the Association for Transpersonal Psychology gave Wilber a special award to recognise the magnitude of his achievement. To be so ignorant of it as not even to mention it in passing is unforgivable in 1988. It is true that Loy's book was conceived in 1983, but even that is long enough after the event to have heard the rumbles.
This means that Loy misses the paradox, that the Nondual is on the one hand exactly the same down the ages: the emptiness is just as empty in 500 BCE as it is today - but on the other hand the fullness is different today from what it was in times gone by. The Formless is the same, but the Form is quite different. Wilber is quite clear about this in Appendix 2 of his 2006 book. Loy cannot see this because he does not have a notion of steps or stages, no conception of levels of consciousness corresponding to historical development.
|
|
|
|