tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20670916.post115066471374789849..comments2023-11-17T00:21:43.022-08:00Comments on The Broken Yogi Samyama: Even Astrolgy Beats Wilber's AQAL systemBroken Yogihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02257804418740860542noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20670916.post-1152890786971857972006-07-14T08:26:00.000-07:002006-07-14T08:26:00.000-07:00Hi Conrad,I enjoy your take on this. It provides m...Hi Conrad,<BR/><BR/>I enjoy your take on this. It provides me with some real food for thought. I am a Wilber fan, to be sure, but I am not particularly skilled in debating his work in any great detail. I am not gifted with that sort of intellectual kung fu, so please bear with me.<BR/><BR/>But I do feel compelled to "represent" on some level. Ken's work is based on research, as you know. Lots of it. From empiricists. It's not a pet theory, but rather the reasoned results of decades of working with tensions among various worldviews, research results, testimony of adepts, etc. I think you somewhat misrepresent this basis, kind of tacitly implying that Ken is making stuff up.<BR/><BR/>I think a more accurate way of summarizing where Ken is coming from would be along the lines of saying "development is a Kosmic habit" or something along those lines. Denying development would include denying that we grow from infants, to toddlers, to children, to teenagers, to adults, etc. No? This "Kosmic habit" of individual growth is also apparent in human history. And realizing this and working with it is not equivalent to believing this is the end all-be all. It does not discount the fact that there could be much more massive kalpas, eons, and other huge cycles of time and growth.<BR/><BR/>And (to Kang's question about SDi) Ken doesn't limit himself to spirals. He talks of spirals, circles, mandalas, waves, and all sorts of patterns and ways that systems and people develop. SDi is just a nice, easy-to-understand way of introducing people to these ideas. Those very familiar with SDi are becoming more aware of its pitfalls and shortcomings, even in light of its overall usefulness.<BR/><BR/>Ken is always making comments in the context of his simplifications that its way more dynamic, convoluted, and mutlidimensional than we can easily express, but for the sake of discourse, we need to work with simpler concepts. People often gloss over these caveats when they criticize. <BR/><BR/>You say:<BR/><BR/>"Wilber doesn't seem to have gotten to that point, and part of the reason is that his system is masking the real nature of conditional life, which is cycles of repetition rather than ongoing development in ever higher stages and levels."<BR/><BR/>To me, it would be more accurate to say that Ken's system (AQAL) represents the real nature of conditional life, and includes in its framework cycles of repetition AND ongoing development in ever higher (and deeper) stages and levels (across lines, and including states and types).<BR/><BR/>If its just "cycles of repetition" that make up condition existence, why don't we see old men becoming 6 year olds? Why don't we see society suddenly becoming medieval again? Because there *is* development and its completely obvious. And Ken's work is just an attempt to make as complete a map as possible of this conditional, developing world full of conditioned, developing beings. All the while keeping in mind that its essentially unreal and empty of permanent nature.<BR/><BR/>Cheers,<BR/>MichaelAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20670916.post-1150727379821595402006-06-19T07:29:00.000-07:002006-06-19T07:29:00.000-07:00There is a blogger named Mushin who asked some int...There is a blogger named Mushin who asked some interesting questions from a practitioner's perspective:<BR/><BR/>Whether there's something in Wilber's material that may actually lead its practitioners to disengage from or deny difficult situations rather than equipping them to engage more deeply. Though Mushin doesnt say so, an entire community that does this would have greater difficuly recognizing and then correcting a guru's escalating abuse of power.<BR/><BR/>Mushin asks:<BR/><BR/>But it seems to be time to question the basic teachings where such behaviour comes from. As it looks to me these are the top 4 questions on my agenda:<BR/><BR/>1) What is the effect of the prolonged distancing of the observer (”I am not his body; I am not these feelings; I am not these thoughts; etc”), the prolonged ‘neutral witnessing’ of the phenomena inside/outside in a ‘mirror of pure consciousness’? <BR/><BR/>2)What is the effect of the ‘trans-ethical’ stance that regards all human values as merely relative, and only the Spirit as absolute? <BR/><BR/>3)Are so called higher levels of evolution (yellow, turquoise etc. in SDi language as used by Wilber and his adherents) right in using all kinds of violence to raise lower levels up to their standard? <BR/><BR/>4)Is the non-participatory nature of the ‘pure witness’ in situations and phenomena in ‘the world’ - which will eventually dissolve according to Wilber et al in non-dual One Taste - maybe a cause for the kind of abuse we have recently seen in the integral world of Ken Wilber? <BR/> <BR/>http://www.mushin.eu/en/blog/2006/06/15/abuse-in-spiritual-circles/Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20670916.post-1150684075728668642006-06-18T19:27:00.000-07:002006-06-18T19:27:00.000-07:00Yeah, went by a different handle (or several) but ...Yeah, went by a different handle (or several) but perhaps it's better to let that all go. "Kang" has no meaning except for the funny characters on the Simpsons.<BR/><BR/>Speaking of systems, it occurred to me reading your latest blog post, that, if we must have a system of some sort (just to function at the conceptual level), it doesn't make sense to me to go to all that trouble of making it extraordinarily complicated like Wilber does. Why waste the energy when it isn't going to do anything for you in the absolute sense anyway?<BR/><BR/>So the simpler the better, and what comes to mind as a symbolic, systematic representation is the Tai Chi symbol. One whole with two alternating, complementary qualities, yin and yang.<BR/><BR/>This is quite enough to make way, it seems to me, if way must be made.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20670916.post-1150681278141448282006-06-18T18:41:00.000-07:002006-06-18T18:41:00.000-07:00Thanks, Kang. Did you go by a different name over ...Thanks, Kang. Did you go by a different name over at the Daism Forum? I can't place you yet.<BR/><BR/>Yes, the spiral idea is kind of hokey and hopeful. Of course one goes over the same material again and again, but never quite in the same way. Sometimes that may form a spiral, but the effort required to keep the spiral outgoing eventually gives way to an inward spiral to match it. In the end, it's a zero sum game. One might postulate something like a conservation of mass/energy/momentum law, such that regardless of how many times one goes up or down or sideways, the sum total remains the same. Or, at least, short of infinity. The point is, no free lunch, no free cake. You pay for what you get, and it all dies anyway. <BR/><BR/>Again, it's hard to understand how Wilber thinks he's found a way around the laws of impermanence and change, given how much reading and studying and practicing he's done in Buddhism. My guess is that he feels that the impermanence view is simply one of many views, that it's true from its own perspective but not true from other perspectives, and that it's really just another form of confusing various levels to try to impose it across the board. But impermanence seems to me to be an inherent feature of all levels, all types, all developmental views. It's simply a unviersal truth. Wilber seems to deny that some basic truths are indeed universal, that there's a way to squeeze past them all, and get to the cake, then eat it without losing the cake, or without being eaten in the process. <BR/><BR/>Good talking with you too.Broken Yogihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02257804418740860542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20670916.post-1150678114906842442006-06-18T17:48:00.000-07:002006-06-18T17:48:00.000-07:00Yes, very nicely put.They try to deny (or prettify...Yes, very nicely put.<BR/><BR/>They try to deny (or prettify) the circular, repetitive nature of samsara by saying, "No, it's really a spiral." Which is just horsepucky. If some kind of advancement takes place on the vertical axis of a spiral, that very movement has its own reflection in a commensurate direction to the opposite. So it all ends up being circular once again.<BR/><BR/>In spite of all evidence and common sense to the contrary, they think they can maintain themselves at the pinnacle of a spiral, but that position is untenable. EVERYTHING changes.<BR/><BR/>Nevertheless, as you say very clearly, the great bond of maya involves not being able to let go of the idea that you can have your cake and eat it too.<BR/><BR/>I must say, it is refreshing to talk with a living entity who has the perspective you communicate. Thank God!<BR/><BR/>(By the way, we used to argue frequently over at that old forum re: that other guy. I find myself much appreciative of your current views.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com