tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20670916.post115046056848424881..comments2023-11-17T00:21:43.022-08:00Comments on The Broken Yogi Samyama: Ken Wilber's Grand Developmental Theory and Non-Dual RealizationBroken Yogihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02257804418740860542noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20670916.post-1150584476868784222006-06-17T15:47:00.000-07:002006-06-17T15:47:00.000-07:00Kang,I like what you said about explanations and m...Kang,<BR/><BR/>I like what you said about explanations and measurement as maya. Perhaps put the two together? People create systems and levels and so forth as an expression of maya, the urge to "measure" experience. It's the same impulse that reduces the infinite to a hollow shell of a bodu-mind. No wonder it doesn't get anyone anywhere. It's an instance of its own problem. <BR/><BR/>Anyway, I must confess to you the same problem with reading Wilber. I actually broke down a year or two ago and bought a copy of Sex, Ecology, and Spirituality, which was billed as his magnum opus, and decided to force myself to read the guy. It was like doing drudge homework for a class in mindforms. I kept expecting, any page now, that he was going to say something brilliant and insightful and mind-blowing, I guess because of his reputation, and it never happened, never even came close, and became obvious it never would. What a disappointment. As I say, he's clearly a second-order thinker, not first rate by any means, and I just don't get what all the fuss is about. As for his blog piece, I have to say that I'm not against his spewing out some frustration, but I've seen some really good flames before, and this wasn't one of them. It's second-order flaming to boot. I just don't think the guy has the chops any way you splice it. But he does have huge energy and drive and ambition, and a feel for what the world wants in a "thinker" these days. He's very talented in marketing himself also, and that counts for more than substance these days.Broken Yogihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02257804418740860542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20670916.post-1150571665585603252006-06-17T12:14:00.000-07:002006-06-17T12:14:00.000-07:00You know, I never read Wilber, never have, never w...You know, I never read Wilber, never have, never will. The stink of his oeuvre stands out several feet from the dust jacket of his books. But I read some of the rants you mentioned in your blog entry, and if they are not the product of a demented, adolescent moron then there is no such thing. A clever moron, to be sure, but gad, what a putz.<BR/><BR/>If this interests people, and apparently it does, including its many variant systems, cosmologies, and bullshit fundamentalist inerrant texts full of useless ranting, what can ya do?<BR/><BR/>It's a thick, dense layer of fog separating those people from reality (even though it has no real substance to it at all). What can anyone do except warn against having anything at all to do with such pseudo-scholastic tripe and its pompous, puffed-up beyond all reason purveyors.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20670916.post-1150557200231124952006-06-17T08:13:00.000-07:002006-06-17T08:13:00.000-07:00Hi BY. You said:How on earth anyone imagines they ...Hi BY. You said:<BR/><BR/><I>How on earth anyone imagines they can create a "system" of levels and progress towards that is quite befuddling. And yet so many do, there must be some good explanation for it.</I><BR/><BR/>Well, that may be exactly the trap of maya, no? An explanation!!! My kingdom for an explanation!<BR/><BR/>We could respond several ways, such as -- <BR/><BR/>Actually, there are many, many explanations, including Wilber's. Some explanations are good (sattvic) in that they point toward a freedom from explanations/dogma, others not so good in that they reinforce the ignorant sense of egoic substance. <BR/><BR/>But explanations themselves just sit there in their own place, like skin on pudding. Nothing more than an insecure place to plant the ego.<BR/><BR/>I love that Niz quote you wrote just above. Is there a difference between "knowledge," which turns out to be false, and explanations of all this phenomena? I wouldn't say so.<BR/><BR/>I like the sense of maya as "measurement." And how does measurement come to be? We have to arbitrarily establish some standard by which to measure things. It's like picking one stick to measure another stick. Then we can say, "That stick is three sticks long." Could it be anything more than that? It's the way of egotism, no?<BR/><BR/>So this actually happens, and seemingly wondrous things get built up in that way, but they all fall apart, too, as you have said. Maya is real in that way, but self-created by an inherent process. The standards of measurement are not immortal absolutes. The absolute (Reality) is said to be such because it is immeasurable, inherent, Self, nondual, eh, eh???!!!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20670916.post-1150540053323169652006-06-17T03:27:00.000-07:002006-06-17T03:27:00.000-07:00Kang,Yes, you are right, I was trying to go a bit ...Kang,<BR/><BR/>Yes, you are right, I was trying to go a bit easy on Wilber, in part because I like the guy, and he's having a hard time it would appear. No need to pile on. <BR/><BR/>Your comments on organization are right on. That old joke definitely applies, not just externally, but internally as well. Wilber's whole philosophy could be said to be an example of someone seeing a little bit of truth, and trying to "organize it", meaning, systematize it. Having seen where that led Da, I don't have great hopes for Wilber seeing through himself any time soon. That whole loka of teaching styles, Da, Wilber, Deida, Bonder, Cohen, etc., all seem to be examples of the same primary error, of wanting to organize and personalize truth, rather than simply losing oneself in truth. <BR/><BR/>As for eevelopment, non-dual teachings are about That which does not develop, does not change, is not born, and cannot die. How on earth anyone imagines they can create a "system" of levels and progress towards that is quite befuddling. And yet so many do, there must be some good explanation for it.Broken Yogihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02257804418740860542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20670916.post-1150539590947107862006-06-17T03:19:00.000-07:002006-06-17T03:19:00.000-07:00JesseM makes some excellent points, but I disagree...JesseM makes some excellent points, but I disagree with some:<BR/><BR/><I>First of all, isn't it a bit dualistic to say the cosmos is a "dream" or an "illusion"? That doesn't sound quite like the "nirvana and samsara are one" message that I've heard from many proponents of non-dualism. </I><BR/><BR/>It isn't dualistic to point out to someone that they are living in a dream, if it is true. The dictim “nirvana and samsara are one” does not apply to those living in a dream. To them, nirvana and samsara are definitely not the same. The non-dual realizers say that upon realization, it is clear that nirvana and samsara are the same, but not before. So they don't advocate that people take the attitude that nirvana and samsara are the same, and imagine that developing their samsaric life is the same as developing nirvanic enlightenment. They take exactly the opposite view, which is that it is absolutely important to eschew samsara and affirm only nirvana.<BR/><BR/><I>But second, and more relevant to my point about developmentalism and non-dualism, isn't the idea of striving for an immediate "awakening" just as dualistic in its own way as striving to develop through various stages into Wilber's "non-dualistic stage"? As long as you're striving for anything, as if you want to obtain something (say, 'Awakening') you don't already have, isn't there a kind of misunderstanding of what non-dualist proponents are teaching? Whatever "it" is, isn't it something we've had all along?</I><BR/><BR/>No, it's not something we've had all along. It's what we are. The problem with living in the dream is that you don't know who you are. You are dreaming another life. Developing that dream life doesn't help you awaken from the dream. The striving you refer to is not so easy to define, however. If one is striving to create a better dream, yes, striving will lead nowhere. If one is striving to awaken, yes, even the striving leads to various illusions, but within that striving is the seed of awakening beginning to recognize what we truly need. All striving, in some basic sense, is striving for awakening, but it doesn't recognize it as such, it imagines that we are striving for some object or attainment. As that proves endlessly frustrating, we begin to understand that we are really striving for awakening. A little further along, we recognize that striving for awakening is self-defeating, and we cease even that. You could call that a kind of “developmental process” in relation to awakening, but really its just a breaking down of consciousness, of ego, of striving. It's a falling apart, not a building up. <BR/><BR/><I>I think of non-dualist "realization" as more of a shaking off of confusion created by the mind--it's as if someone was denying they were conscious, and really believed that they had good arguments in support of this proposition, but then suddenly they realized that their own awareness of the thought proved this was impossible. In getting rid of the confusion, you're just noticing something that was always true.</I> <BR/><BR/>Yes, but the primary illusion shaken off is the mind itself, and the very notion that “I” am the mind, a self separate from other selves, an awareness separate from other awarenesses, a being in a world, separate from other beings in this and other worlds. So when all confusion is shaken off, the world is gone, you are gone, and what remains? Nirvana. That is not really a developmental process, except in the negative sense. Rather than growth, it is decrease, the renunciation of anything at all that might “develop”.<BR/><BR/><I>But if you understand the nature of the "realization" in this way, there could still be room for a developmental view of the shaking off of confusion--perhaps the confusion pervades all aspects of your mind, conscious and unconsious, so even if you temporarily lose your confusion on a conscious level, many habits of thinking based on this confusion will remain, and even the conscious clearing of the confusion may only be temporary, you may fall back into the old dualistic perspective. </I><BR/><BR/>Yes, I think this is true enough. One could certainly look at a realizer, and see how their practice developed over time into realization. Nisargadatta has given accounts of his own practice and how it developed. But it didn't go through anything like the stages described by Wilber. It was astonishingly simple and to the point. It took him a few years from start to finish, and there was definitely what you might call “progress” during the process, but again, not a progress in positive terms. It was a “losing” process. Here's Nisargadatta describing it in his own words:<BR/><BR/><B>The mind ceased producing events. The ancient and ceaseless search stopped – I wanted nothing, expected nothing – accepted nothing as my own. There was no 'me' left to strive for. Even the bare 'I am” faded away. The other thing I noticed was that I lost all my habitual certainties. Earlier I was sure of so many things, now I am sure of nothing. But I feel that I have lost nothing by not knowing, because all my knowledge was false. My not knowing was in itself knowledge of the fact that all knowledge is ignorance, that 'I do not know' is the only true statement the mind can make.</B><BR/><BR/>So yes, there's a “development” there, but really, in any sense that we can speak of the term, it's the opposite of development, certainly in the sense that Wilber uses it. What does Wilber promise but greater and greater certainty, greater and greater knowledge of precisely how the universe works, all of which is what Nisargadatta lost in his “developmental process”. Who seems better qualified to speak about the real spiritual process, Wilber or Nisargadatta? Me, I'll place my wagers on Nisargadatta.<BR/><BR/>I'm not saying that the non-dual process is anti-developmental, only that it's a negative process in and of itself that is simply not developmental in nature. In relation to the human developmental process, however, it's not negative at all. It would appear that following this negative process actually helped Nisargadatta grow as an individual in his capacities and human qualities. He acknowledged this, and explained that Grace moves in and brings clarity, integrity, energy, vitality, strength, and love to the individual undergoing this process. What I sense in Wilber is that he is aware of this side-effect of the non-dual process, and that's what his primary interest in it is – he notices that doing even a little bit of non-dual practice actually does strengthen the individual, and he wants to exploit it only for that purpose, rather than making it the primary focus, and not caring about the developmental effects non-dual practice has on the individual's bodily life. <BR/><BR/><I>The developmental process could then be a long process of rooting out the confusion on all levels, losing more and more of the habits born from this confusion, and so forth. But it could also be true that the best way to actually develop in this direction would be focusing on your consciousness in the present moment, not on goals for the future. </I><BR/><BR/>Well that is the practice these people advocate in a nutshell. Not trying to develop themselves, but simply investigating the nature of their own consciousness directly, with no goal in mind other than getting to the bottom of it. Yes, that process develops over time, and there may be some stages to it, and even some types of approach (surrender or self-enquiry), but they aren't anything like what Wilber describes at all, nor does what Wilber describe intersect with this approach, even though he likes to think it does. He's just confusing effects with the primary practice, and going for the effects. I recall something Da once said, defining tragedy as “making primary a principle that is purely secondary,” and I think Wilber's approach is just such a tragic setup for a fall.Broken Yogihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02257804418740860542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20670916.post-1150523001149755272006-06-16T22:43:00.000-07:002006-06-16T22:43:00.000-07:00Nice post. Just checked back here after a long whi...Nice post. Just checked back here after a long while and a new post. Good.<BR/><BR/>Frankly, I think you're too easy on Wilber. The old joke goes, "A guy picks up a piece of truth on the road. The devil is standing a ways off with someone, who says, 'That's bad for you, then.' The devil says, 'Oh, not at all. I'm going to let him organize it.' "<BR/><BR/>Clearly, as you suggest, the organizing faculty (buddhi? discrimination?) creates its own sphere. What's the fallacy? That the organization exists in objective independence apart from buddhi. But actually the organizing faculty and the realm that appears to be organized are mutually dependent. In that sense, exactly like a dream. The dream and the dreamer are one phenomenon, only considered to be separate in the waking state of presumed objectivity. Something is ignorant at the root of that presumption.<BR/><BR/>Then again, think of the assumptions implied by development. How does one know development has occurred? There had to be some kind of measurement of State A, a passage of time, some kind of measurement of State B, and a comparison of the two. Since measurement (including time) are the very definition of maya, it should be no surprise that no one ever gets anywhere (in the ultimate analysis) in the developmental mode. Not even Tony Frickin Robbins.<BR/><BR/>It takes something like ruthlessness to cut through all that crap, but really it's compassion.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20670916.post-1150519812413263132006-06-16T21:50:00.000-07:002006-06-16T21:50:00.000-07:00I agree with much of what you say, but I'm not sur...I agree with much of what you say, but I'm not sure that developmentalism and non-dualism are quite as opposed as you argue. You said:<BR/><BR/><I>Here's the problem Wilber faces. The great exponents of non-dualism argue, and quite persuasively I might add, that the entire cosmos is a dream, an illusion of mind, manufactured out of fear and desire, and nothing more. They do not advocate a developmental process within the dream that ends up at enlightenment. They advocate immediate awakening.</I><BR/><BR/>First of all, isn't it a bit dualistic to say the cosmos is a "dream" or an "illusion"? That doesn't sound quite like the "nirvana and samsara are one" message that I've heard from many proponents of non-dualism. But second, and more relevant to my point about developmentalism and non-dualism, isn't the idea of striving for an immediate "awakening" just as dualistic in its own way as striving to develop through various stages into Wilber's "non-dualistic stage"? As long as you're striving for anything, as if you want to obtain something (say, 'Awakening') you don't already have, isn't there a kind of misunderstanding of what non-dualist proponents are teaching? Whatever "it" is, isn't it something we've had all along?<BR/><BR/>I think of non-dualist "realization" as more of a shaking off of confusion created by the mind--it's as if someone was denying they were conscious, and really believed that they had good arguments in support of this proposition, but then suddenly they realized that their own awareness of the thought proved this was impossible. In getting rid of the confusion, you're just noticing something that was always true. But if you understand the nature of the "realization" in this way, there could still be room for a developmental view of the shaking off of confusion--perhaps the confusion pervades all aspects of your mind, conscious and unconsious, so even if you temporarily lose your confusion on a conscious level, many habits of thinking based on this confusion will remain, and even the conscious clearing of the confusion may only be temporary, you may fall back into the old dualistic perspective. The developmental process could then be a long process of rooting out the confusion on all levels, losing more and more of the habits born from this confusion, and so forth. But it could also be true that the best way to actually develop in this direction would be focusing on your consciousness in the present moment, not on goals for the future. Not that I really buy Wilber's neatly-labeled stages of spiritual development, but I wouldn't be too quick to throw out the idea of development entirely.JesseMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09993568347649474812noreply@blogger.com