Wilber’s sliding scale of consciousness

[AION]

I agree with Wilber on this one. Sliding Scale means you can be genuinely enlightened in your own era without having to know about developmental stages that haven’t been discovered yet.

For example:

•  The Buddha didn’t need to include “integral turquoise” thinking in his enlightenment, because that stage of consciousness hadn’t emerged yet in humanity.

•  Someone today who reaches the same depth of realization would need to include it.

It solves a really annoying paradox: it lets ancient masters like the Buddha, Jesus, or Padmasambhava be fully enlightened, while still allowing modern practitioners to go further than they could.

It’s basically Wilber’s way of saying enlightenment is real, but it’s not a fixed finish line, it grows as humanity grows.

So one should always be aware of the cardinal sin of (spiritual) pride. 

[Leo Gura]

Enlightenment is simply independent of development.

A chimpanzee could have an enlightenment.

Awakening and development simply need to be treated as independent variables, orthogonal axes.

Edited 1 hour ago by Leo Gura

[Mellowmarsh]

1 hour ago, AION said:

It’s basically Wilber’s way of saying enlightenment is real, but it’s not a fixed finish line, it grows as humanity grows.

Enlightenment can be just another word for Infinity. It’s a fixed concept known, but this known is an illusory knowledge because of the measurement problem. Infinity cannot be measured to have a fixed finish line because the line would go on infinitely impossible to be measured. Infinities start every time it is conceptualised as an idea, but the idea is illusory. 
What is an idea? I have no idea.

Infinity is a concept, not a reality. It’s an idea, born out of the human mind. Looking out I see everything. Looking in I see nothing. The external is a projection of the inner. Nothing appearing to be Something. 

Edited 24 minutes ago by Mellowmarsh