Rig-Veda and not Nagarjuna

[This is therefore a thoroughly post-metaphysical, post-Kantian spirituality. It shuns ontological levels of reality for postmodern levels of consciousness (which are real as phenomenological occasions ultimately revealed as Spirit's potential for transcendence and known directly by a good broad science). This type of post-metaphysical spirituality was most clearly announced in the East by the Buddhist genius Nagarjuna, who used a transcendental dialectic similar to Kant's (although Nagarjuna discovered it fifteen hundred years before Kant) to demolish belief structures and radically deconstruct myths in order to make way for direct experiential evidence (or science in the broad sense). Thus, where myth and dogma are the material of metaphysical, pre-Kantian spirituality, direct experience and deep science are the material of post-metaphysical spirituality. As I stated in the introduction to SES: "If metaphysics means thought without evidence, there is not a metaphysical sentence in this entire book."

Hence, Habermas states that "there is no alternative to postmetaphysical thinking," I agree entirely. But what Habermas does not yet appear to realize is that this is exactly the foundationless foundation for a postmetaphysical spirituality of direct spiritual experience disclosed in postrational waves of consciousness development investigated by a good, deep science of those who have demonstrated developmental competence in those dimensions and confirmed by a reconstructive science of the entire range of human lifespan development. On the Nature of a Post-Metaphysical Spirituality Response to Habermas and Weis Ken Wilber]

Almost seems like a paraphrase of what Sri Aurobindo writes except for the fact that he would hark back to the Rig-Veda and not Nagarjuna. And the notion of Post-Metaphysical so rhetorical here! [TNM]