Faith and Reality
The always inspiring Father Thomas Keating speaks in this excerpt from a discussion with Ken Wilber. Father Thomas addresses the issues of Faith, necessity of religion, the false self, love as motivation, spiritual and psychological maturity etc. Ken Wilber then replies with several important points on states and stages. And then Father Thomas returns, quote, "The contemplative practices, of themselves, I think, make one vulnerable to the unconscious..." Have a look and enjoy.
Labels: psychology, religion, spirituality
6 Comments:
Hey Hokai. I got into your blog after listening to your Buddhist Geeks episode with Dan Ingram--I figured I should repay you with a comment or two, since you put up some really useful stuff here (and it's nice to know that SOMEONE reads it, right?)The Thomas Keating talk was nice; I was beginning to think sane Christianity died with Merton.
As for Ken Wilber, though, I have some serious reservations. I was leery about his "Integral Theory of Everything" (or AQAL, or whatever) from the start, and research has led me to conclude it's just another well-intentioned messianic project coated in a shallow gloss of "science words"(there are several very substantial critiques of his work around...Google "Norman Einstein" for starters). Leaving aside the nasty possibilities inherent in his system of thought--which explicitly divides the human race into heirarchies based on "levels of consciousness" (please)--the most troubling thing for me is his (your?) uncritical endorsement of Andrew Cohen. Just hit up the "What Enlightenment??!" blog and do some reading if you want to be thoroughly troubled.
I'm not trying to criticize you or the Integral community--hell, I was way into Osho Rajneesh before I looked him up (and was very embarrassed privately for some time afterward)--I'm just trying to point out that doing background checks on spiritual leaders is very important, since well-meaning twits like Wilber, or genuinely frightening people like Cohen, can keep people from discovering authentic spirituality. I know a few grown adults (I'm a college sophomore) who still do Transcendental Meditation...God, what a tragedy! Anyway, keep up the good work. I'll be reading.
Hi, David. Thanks for stopping by. Yeah, I'm aware of negative critiques and even animosities, and I've also read the vitriolic work by Geoffrey Falk and other people who seem to have invested huge amounts of time and passion not into doing something good with themselves but with protecting the world from Ken Wilber. If it wasn't for them, Wilber could ruin our youth with funny ideas like higher adult development and authentic spirituality.:-) Fortunately, though, reputation (not PR) has a life of its own and denigration gets back to whoever started it, eating away at their heart and soul, or what's left of it. None excluded. So let's each of us do what we do best and see where it gets us. Life's too short.
So you don't approve of stages of develpment in biological growth, psychological maturity, motivation, cognition, economy, medicine, psychology, spirituality etc.? Well, too bad because all these are aspects of development, and develpoment proceeds in stages producing levels of complexity, i.e. what went on before is included and surpassed in further stages. There's not just a one-step one-direction move from illusion into reality or vice versa, from slumber to awakening or vice versa. The "nasty possibilities" of developmental levels are NOT Wilbers invention. Everyone in their right mind uses some levels of consciousness, depending on the developmental line they work with, from secular education (try teaching university material to pre-teens) to spirituality.
BTW, I know grown adults, quite a few, who won't read Wilber because it threatens their status or knowledge or insecurities, though they say they "don't like him" (???). But then they invest a whole lot of their time into discrediting Wilber, as if it won't show what they're up to. Well, good luck to them.
Why won't they write juicy, critical stuff on boring, uninventive, uncreative authors and teachers - there are many of them out there, doing their good work - who keep rehashing the same outdated interpretation of spirit and vision of human nature over and over again? Those that make you feel better about yourself and so you feel obliged to return the favor, why not go after them? Have these critics actually done their homework?
Also, it'd be great to hear of authors who have addressed and solved the many problems tackled by KW's Integral theory and therefore offered better solutions to these very real issues, such as pre-trans fallacy, the single boundary fallacy, the relationship of philogenetic and ontogenetic development, various quadrant or level or line absolutisms, effective "marriage" of exterior and interior approaches, inclusion of modern and postmodern findings in spiritual discourse and practice etc., all very real and very important issues. Every pioneer is vehemently attacked and denied.
Godspeed, Hokai
Thanks for the feedback. I guess I still haven't lost the "I'm a teenager, therefore I know everything" habit, but I'm working on it. Perhaps "twit" is too strident these days?:) Whatever else Wilber may be, he certainly isn't boring or conventional, as you pointed out. And he is taking a good crack at all the very real questions you mentioned, so I can respect that. I wasn't objecting to the very idea of levels of development--of course those exist--I was just trying to say something about how putting everyone into these categories could lead to an excessively insular, judgmental attitude ("We're coral, you're green, therefore we don't need to listen to you," etc). Isn't there a point at which clinging to the sort of worldview Wilber is developing could hinder one's spiritual practice? I guess I'm just inclined to see the potential negatives of the Integral outlook more readily than the present positives (and there are many positives) for whatever reason. It's okay, you don't have to abandon anything on my account:)
Yeah, "twit" is rather strident, even from a sophomore... Is "clinging" the ultimate sin where you come from? What does it actually mean? Don't you need a good view to even start answering that question?
Wow.
I don't know what to say, really, except thank you--I don't think anyone's been that honest with me in a long time. I do tend to get a swelled head in my writing, like I said before; I guess it gets out of hand when no one calls you on it (all you had to do to impress my high school teachers was structure a sentence correctly!) Indeed I shouldn't have called Wilber anything, and I knew it as I wrote the words, if you can believe it--I just couldn't stop with my stupid posturing, which is supposed to be what I'm looking out for in the first place, right?
As for "clinging," I didn't mean it in a theological sense or anthing...I could've sworn I was trying to be helpful, but I'll probably just shoot myself in the foot again attempting to explain. Really, I'm just barely a beginner in this stuff. Thanks for reminding me.
You're welcome, David. Thank you for this exchange, and I really appreciate your taking my remarks in a positive way. Godspeed, Hokai
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home