Sources used in this document:

Wilber adds that different persons are at different levels of understanding of this truth. "Although a person at any structure or stage of development can have a profound peak experience the ways in which individuals experience and interpret these higher states and realms will depend largely on the level (or structure) of their own development" (Wilber, 2000, p.3). In other words, a person within a religious tradition may interpret a personal experience as mystical, while a scientist might interpret even his or her own experience as a product of biology. Wilber then shifts to a discussion of brain quadrant. He states that science has proven the neurological existence of altered states, such as religious states in the upper right quadrant (Wilber, 2000, p.5). Hence, both the scientist and the religious person are only half-right in their incomplete, single-minded definition.

Wilber's analysis is often confused when he confers scientific-sounding names to his theories, such as the "pure consciousness event' (PCE), which is a state of formless consciousness with no thoughts, objects, or perceptions; the 'dual mystical state' (DMS), where formless consciousness is present... And the 'unitive mystical state' (UMS), where subject and object are one or nondual" (Wilber, 2000, p.6) the conclusion he draws from this is that "from the absolute perspective, an integral model suggests that the final answer to this problem is actually discovered only with satori, or the personal awakening to the nondual itself. The reason that the hard problem remains hard is the same reason that absolute truth cannot be stated in relative words: the nondual can only be known by a change of consciousness, not a change of words or maps or theories" (Wilber, 20006, p.7). In short, it is necessary to experience an awakening of mind, and the knowledge one has both a brain and a mind and both are one.

But the real lesson from this article is that merely because something 'sounds' scientific does not mean that it is grounded in hard science. There are some valid claims, like the fact that the mind/body debate has been an important one in both Western and Eastern philosophy, although both traditions have offered radically different solutions. The audacious idea that Wilber alone has discovered proof positive of the existence of 'mind' that is both separate from yet integrated into the brain's neurology, and that he can awaken it through his transpersonal therapy is not simply an unsubstantiated claim, but a dangerous one, given the zeal and single-mindedness with which he advocates it, and his confidence in the truth of what he writes -- to the point of citing his own articles and research as the ultimate authorities on the subject.