Final Question 11

Houston Smith and Ken Wilber were both huge proponents of the perennial philosophy. While smith believes that science is an enemy to the perennialist cause, Wilber embraces science as an ally. Wilber thinks that science is a crucial addition to our society and its progression. Even though smith thought very highly of religion as opposed to science, he doubted the ability of reaching enlightenment or whether enlightenment even ever existed. Wilber on the other hand, “makes enlightenment the be-all and end-all of existence,” and claims to have achieved enlightenment. Smith defines enlightenment as “a quality of life” instead of how Wilber sees it as a state of mind. Also, Wilber is against the use of mind-expanding substances to achieve mystical experiences and doesn’t believe that they are able to produce a “stable, long-term spiritual growth.” Smith isn’t against the use, and uses(used) them himself, but has a similar standpoint saying “Entheogens (what he thinks is the more appropriate term for the drugs) alone do not constitute a spiritual path. [...] they cannot deliver you to that realm permanently.” So they both acknowledge the fact that the drugs can open a path or trigger a “genuine breakthrough”, but they’re not the correct tool to approach or achieve enlightenment.