 |
| - Nah, the black stork from Poland couldn´t make it, so the Brotherhood decided to use me as their symbol instead! What´s your prob, dude? Never seen a black swan before??? |
I just realized that I never linked to this. It´s M Alan Kazlev´s classical critique of Ken Wilber, published at Frank Visser´s website Integral World. It´s undated (as far as I can see), but no footnote is more recent than 2006 (again, as far as I can see). The bizarre "Wyatt Earp" fracas, which took place that year, is treated as a recent event. Kazlev could perhaps best be described as an independent esotericist. At least at the time, he saw himself as a follower of Sri Aurobindo and The Mother (Mirra Alfassa).
I´m not sure if anyone cares about Ken Wilber anymore, but since Visser´s site is still up, I suppose *somebody* must do so. Wilber´s peak popularity as a spiritual teacher seems to have been circa 1995-2010. I must have discovered him around the time Kazlev wrote his critical essays.
Wilber´s "Integral Theory" is a grand and eclectic Theory of Everything. Since Wilber believes in cosmic evolution, there is a family likeness with Theosophy and New Age. Transpersonal psychology and Tibetan Buddhism are other sources of inspiration, the latter mediated through the controversial Franklin Jones (Adi Da Samraj). Wilber also claims an affinity with Aurobindo. Indeed, the term "Integral" seems to come from this particular Indian guru. Since Kazlev is/was a follower of Aurobindo, much of his criticism revolves around Wilber´s attempts to integrate (or should we say integralize?) Aurobindo´s teachings with Wilber´s own.
The essays are hard to read unless you have a working knowledge of the Integral and Wilberite scenes. The author argues that Aurobindo´s Integral Yoga is incompatible with Wilber´s Integral Theory. In many ways, the two approaches are exactly opposite. At least if you think Wilber´s goal is similar to Tibetan Buddhism or Advaita Vedanta (not the same thing - I know). But in 2017, Wilber actually wrote a book ("Trump and a Post-truth World") in which the stated end-goal of human-societal-cosmic evolution sounded pretty Aurobindonean!
My impression of Integral Theory is that there have always been a tension between a this-worldly perspective (which sometimes sounds rather political) and a more other-worldly one in which liberation can only come by a radical break with samsara. Kazlev seems to assume that radical transcendence is the ultimate goal of Wilber´s teachings, either by merging with the Brahman (compare Advaita) or by "realizing" that samsara is really nirvana (compare Vajrayana or Zen). Both approaches imply that the world as we see it is an illusion. By contrast, Aurobindo had a realist metaphysic and strived for "supramentalization" and the divinization of matter (all matter in the universe), a perspective similar to the resurrection of the body and the new heavens/new earth of Christianity, but probably connected to tikkum olam and derived from Lurianic Kabbala by way of Max Théon. But I´m digressing...
One important point in Kazlev´s critique is that Wilber´s spiritual teachings are strangely "physicalist" in the sense that spiritual experiences seem to take place "in" matter rather than "above" or "beyond" it. It´s almost as if spirituality and mysticism (while objectively real) must nevertheless have a material correlate (compare Wilber´s holonic quadrant). To Kazlev, this is a compromise with modern scientism and materialism. Another important point is that Wilber´s de facto gurus Franklin Jones and Andrew Cohen can´t be truly enlightened beings. Rather, they are stuck in what Aurobindo called the Intermediate Zone and what other occultists would probably call the astral or lower astral. This explains both their often dangerous charisma, their half-truths and their abusive behavior.
In hindsight, it´s also obvious (and kind of funny) that Kazlev himself often falls into the behavior he accuses Wilber of having. This despite the fact that Kazlev often charges Wilber and the Wilberians of projecting their short-comings onto others! Over-intellectualization? Check. Claiming that your critics simply can´t understand your teachings, since they are at a lower spiritual elevation? Check. Claiming that even abusive gurus might do *some* good? Check. It´s possible that Kazlev realized these shortcomings later. Thus, there is a later essay in which the author says that he no longer takes over-intellectualized metaphysical diagrams seriously and admits that he used to indulge in them himself! Bingo.
Again: these essays are very niche, but if Ken Wilber and/or Aurobindo is the goal of your holonic striving, then I suppose they could be of some interest.
No comments:
Post a Comment