Ken Wilber and the 4th Turning
karasti
BreathingMinnesota Moderator
Has anyone been following Ken Wilber's work with integral psychology and Buddhism together? He is considering that bringing the 2 together is/will be the Fourth Turning of Buddhism-Buddhism in the West. Any thoughts? He has a big book coming out next year, but he put out a short introduction to that book on ebook last month, it's maybe 120 pages or so and I thin it's $3 on Amazon. I'm reading through it now. Now sure what i think. Not sure we need to combine psychology as we understand it, with Buddhism and not so sure Wilber gets to declare what the 4th turning is before (if) it happens. Seems to me in the past it happened first and then was labeled as the next turning of Buddhism. Our Sangha leader is going to a conference in CO on this topic with Wilber this weekend, so we'll see what he learns. But I was curious if anyone was following this work of his (I know some of his other stuff has come up here, but it's been a few years).
Comments
Yep. Only a Samyaksambuddha such as Shakyamuni can turn the Wheel of Dharma.
Is Ken Wilbur such a Buddha?
I thought the point was to not turn the wheel.
I think he might be a kind of 'noble one' as Shakyamuni would identify but what do I know? Is Wilber turning the Wheel of Dharma or simply pointing out that it is being turned?
I 'discovered' Ken Wilber back in my late 20's, in his book Up From Eden. I still have my giant hardbound copy of Sex, Ecology and Spirituality from then and a couple others, The Atman Project and his book about his wife who passed away from breast cancer. He totally blew my mind, everything he said made perfect sense (to me, anyway). Then I put him and the whole spirituality thing aside for about ten years. I picked it back up last year when I began to meditate and practice buddhism. It's very amazing and a little creepy at the same time, how deeply Wilber influenced my basic relationship to 'spirituality'. I downloaded an audiobook interview of him a couple of weeks ago and for the first time contemplated "Ken Wilber" after about fifteen years. It felt like I had merely stepped away for a moment or two. He really impacted me from the roots, and as usual, I am always the last to know.
Interesting to 'see' Wilber making a kind of come back or is that just my perception?
I have not read any of his stuff until now, so I can't really say what my opinion is. I'm not even done with the ebook yet, so I can't say which view he is taking. I don't think something like "turning the wheel" is something that one individual can really force though. One might be able to try, but I don't think one person can entirely on his own put it into motion with the idea of forcing the turning (if that makes sense). I know the ideas behind the other turnings came from individuals, but it wasn't as if they went about it saying "I have this new idea and I'm going to change Buddhism." I think Buddhism changes itself as people come on board. But this is all pretty new stuff to me, so I'm sure what I think will change some as I go through his book. I find some of his language to be a little confusing,states and structures and so on are different than how I've heard such things previously described, so it'll take some time to really understand what he is saying.
I read a Wilber book some years ago about reconciling religion and science. I thought it was quite good.
My take-away from Wilber is he would refuse, if given the opportunity, to step up and volunteer to turn the Wheel of Dharma. I guess I too see it as a group effort, something that 'happened' in that forever marching forward recent past lol, without a single instigator.
But if the Buddha actually claimed to have turned it in his lifetime, then it's true and possible for it to be turned by a single awakened instigator now or in the future. That's taking on faith that the Buddha cannot be even slightly 'wrong' in his perception of reality.
If I recall though, Wilber is interpreting certain teachers/authors of this or that age as having turned the Wheel, and this may not line up with what other scholars or practitioners see. Wilber is out there in the front and there is a huge gap between him and the people behind him. Not to say that means he's going in the RIGHT direction, if there is one, but his ideas were WAY ahead of his time IMO, in that 20 years ago he was the only one parsing and integrating psychology, Dharma, ecology, philosophy etc in quite the way he managed to do.
I'll have to check out the little ebook you mention, thanks for that.
I am saddened that he has 'learned' from Deepak Chopra, Andrew Cohen and Adi Das and others, describing them as having reached 'integral awareness'. Pleeeze . . these are part of the guru circus. The problem is Ken Wilburs ideas are mighty, the results unworthy of even the most gullible beginner.
This is not uncommon. I like his ideas. I find much of value in his modern Vedanta, I would suggest the need to create a Western Dharma will be influenced by his ideas. So I certainly will be looking further into his ideas and those with genuine integral awareness who have made use of them. I sincerely hope there are some . . .
It is very important to keep our wits about us when dealing with smart and intellectually manipulative or plausible self promoters.
http://markmanson.net/ken-wilber
OK Mr Cushion is calling . . .
I have a personal problem with people, any people, who get rich off information in this way. They write some books and talk about stuff they've thought about, and then they charge people HUGE fees to have access to this information. It makes me sad that people fall for that kind of thing to that level, because the truth is accessible by all of us and we don't need to pay hundreds of dollars to Chopra's Center for Wellbeing to learn it. Any retreats or teachings I've attended, have never been about making anyone rich. They are simply travel and living expenses of the person who teaches for free, dependent on donations. And you aren't even required to pay. It's just suggested. There are always those who pay extra to cover those who cannot afford the full price. It all just works out. It's not so with these types of people, and it bothers me because people seeking information buy into it. My mother is one of them. She is a huge Tony Robbins fan (not saying anything bad about the man, I don't know him) and she's spent way more money than anyone should ever spend trying to learn about herself when the information is always there. Some of these life teachers/life coaches charge thousands of dollars just to consult with them via phone or email. So ridiculous
Problem is, if something comes for free, people think it has little value. Charge a lot of money, and people will think even rubbish has great worth.
Come on, lob, is that jealousy I sense? Are you jealous that they are living like kings while you aren't? It is okay - lay people often envy the rich and famous.
No it is shame. I am ashamed for their shallowness. I am very happy that people are rich and famous, if it makes them happy.
Recently people here wrote about their sailing boats and sports cars. I loved those threads because they are rich with genuine pleasure. My toys are technology, recently a HP laptop. I consider myself enriched by voluntary simplicity and avoiding the infamy of fame. That is my choice.
Without the supporting rich social structure we would not have Buddhist centres and Sanghas.
You also have to remember that people like Deepfried Chakra are populists. They introduce people to ideas at a superficial level, which for some is sufficient. So in this way they provide an important function and are paid for it.
Getting back to Ken and Barbie intellectuals, it is very seductive, similar to modern philosophy BUT is it a path to liberation? I agree with @karasti, the dharma is priceless and often given away for peanuts, to even the richly undeserving . . . such as me . . .
How wonderful that so many dharma books, online resources, centres and teachers exist to inspire and push us towards our genuine potential. We live in a rich environment.
I feel distrustful of someone who has a ton of charisma and drawing power. I think the distrust is about how much power they have, just that all by itself. It's that other people give them power, tons of it, which is about the same thing as already having it. And if their heart and mind are not in a wholesome place, there will be destruction. I don't know if Chopra has outright caused anyone destruction, but his charisma has amassed him quite a bit of power, in that he is considered a "noble one" in modern times. Maybe people like Chopra are needed to drag up the heaviest by offering the 'lite version' of whatever his wisdom tradition is. He could be a helluva lot worse!
I too get a squeegie feeling when I read that someone I deeply respect owes their thanks to Adyashanti or Adi Da or whatever he calls himself now, Chopra included. I am biased against the showy folks too. Then I think 'well, you work to make your money, they run their mouths to make theirs, do you begrudge them their garage full of collector's hot rods made off the generousity of their followers? Yeah, I sure as hell do.
That's the honest truth, but I don't need to take it further out and join in exposing their ugly human underbellies. They are just stoopid human beings like me but with a gift for communication and a lot of charisma. I'm biased because I believe a really spiritual person won't be showy, won't be arrogant or waving his/her arms around in the air clamoring for everyone's attention. But if it weren't for the big mouths and arrogant, charismatic controllers, the message would have died a long time ago.
Christianity was a ragged bunch until Constantine made it mandatory in Rome, and Buddhism probably has similar stories in it's history. It took megalomaniacs to spread the world's great religions, and I would bet my next paycheck there are millions of people who know Vedanta and Buddhism et al from their arsehole beCAUSE of Deepak Chopra and Adi Duh and Adyashanti, the show offs.
We live in a world where many people 'believe' the more you pay the more you get, and the more you 'have' . . . well, the more you have. That is not true, even Chopra has to take stool softeners if he gets constipated. Adyashanti has to get his colonoscopies, too, I'll bet his polyps and diverticuli look just like mine. They don't have any more than I have, or any of the rest of us, where the rubber hits the road
All fine, but even they'd need money to survive in this world.
Lob, my dear, look at it this way. If Chopra were to come on this forum, everybody here (even those complaining) would pay attention. In fact, they'd be flattered that he's condescended to come here, of all places. Why?
This is why. Will a dog listen if you don't toss in a few bones first?
It's sad to me, because so much of the richness of the teachings some of these people claim to teach, is lost. The foundation isn't there, the history isn't there. It's simplified in a manner that removes the uncomfortable parts to make it easier. It's just another magic bullet to all the problems people face and until they understand that the solutions are only within them, they won't make progress. They'll only waste their money. If that is what they want to do, then it's none of my business. I just wish they'd realize that you can't get what they are after without putting work into it. Can't just through money at it. The discomfort is there for a reason. But it's almost as if the kind of people who prefer that manner of "learning" have not had their path even cross with the foundations that those teachings are built on. So perhaps they are not cut out for it in this lifetime, or just yet. Hopefully, they can move towards something that'll be more helpful. Perhaps they are rich in this life so they can get a handle on some sort of teaching to build on later.
When I was about 19, I read Chopra's 7 Spiritual Laws for Success. And a couple years later I read the parenting version when my son was born. At the time, I found the information useful. I needed something, because I had left Christianity years before and hadn't found anything else. I felt the need for some sort of spiritual grounding when I embarked on my parenting adventure, but that was also mostly because others told me I needed it. It served a purpose at the time, and I thought it was so amazing. Now that I have access to better information, it's not as amazing as I once thought it was, but still has it's use for some, I'm sure.
Coming from you, Lob .........
Ken Wilber took the rather obvious idea that people are both individuals and part of a social network and that creates both conflicts and confusion in our minds, and turned it into a wonderful house of cards. Add it to the many other theories of the mind that run into the remarkable chaos that is human existence and see if, in a hundred year's time, the world has changed one bit.
I think this and many other marvelous insights always runs into the "So what now?" dilemma. So Ken Wilber has mapped out one tiny part of what it means to be human. So what now? A few people read his books, teach his theories, gather for discussions in an institute or two. So how does that change the world? There's a man who stands on a street corner I pass most days to and from work, holding a cardboard sign, rain or snow or sun. What does Ken Wilber have to offer him?
Not that we should ignore or attack the Ken Wilbers of the world. It's just too easy to get excited at an idea and imagine it's going to make much of a difference.
The Dharma wheel turns, but not at the hands of intellectuals. It turns from the force of a million people doing what people do best: living and loving and hurting and struggling and somewhere in there, being more than base animals.
Just my opinion, for what it's worth.
Well said.
This is why platitudes, dharma that we cannot assimulate or profound theories that God has relatives that will save us, philosophies without yield, are comfort blankets at best.
Some ideas have emotional, social or other value. That is fine.
Dharma and Buddhist practice works. If you know of something better, we want to hear of it . . .
I do feel that moving beyond our animal base is the aim of most spiritual and some political and social movements. How we improve things for ourself and others, is a worthwhile endeavour as far as I know. My impression is Ken Wilburs is a quite sincere and able theoretician.
A western spirituality is going to emerge with a huge range of influences. Those popularists, those setting up institutions etc are part of this process. They are on the right track. That is good.
Recently we talked about how due to diversity even the notion of what constitutes Buddhism was hard to express.
Early days. There is a place for intellectuals dharma even . . .
I've seen warnings and discussions of Ken Wilbur on anti-cult forums, along with Andrew Cohen.
I am not at all familiar with Cohen, though I see that he refers to himself as a guru, and calls himself awakened/enlightened while admitting his ego is alive and well. That's...interesting. I guess that begs the question, what makes a person a guru. As has been explained to me, a teacher is not the same as a guru. A guru is more a person you maintain a close relationship with and from whom you receive teachings transmitted directly from teacher to student. It is a far different relationship than most people have with their teachers (like I said, that's how I've understood it). So is he, and Wilber maybe too since they work some together, claiming to be able to transmit teachings to students in that same way? Or are they just loosely using the term "guru" ? Or perhaps my understanding of the term is wrong.
At some point any teacher who gathers a following gets accused of being a "cult leader".
These days a "cult" is just some organization that goes against somebody's status quo.
In these parts, Wilbur is pretty highly thought of. I'm not that familiar with what he teaches, but from what I hear, it doesn't interest me much.
"Guru" translated from sanskrit means "teacher" or "master".
In tibetan traditions, where the term is most commonly found in a Buddhist context, the guru is the person you get pointing out instruction and other vajrayana empowerments from.
In a more common parlance, guru is another word for "expert".
So it can mean, teacher, master, expert or even cult leader.
Thanks for the clarification, @Chaz
You make a good point about cults. Anyone whose ideas are different and has a following are often seen as cults. From what little I have read, Cohen doesn't treat people very well, berating and screaming at them and then refusing to talk to them when they point out his behavior but still claims his enlightenment. Wilber gets lumped in because he has done work with Cohen and hitches his wagon to Cohen's, in a manner. Cohen left a message on his blog that he was taking off last summer to try to figure out his problems. I guess we'll see if he surfaces again. It'll be interesting to see what our Sangha leader thinks of Wilber after the conference this past weekend. I have not talked to him yet.
@Cinorjer said:
This is precisely why I put Wilber and many others aside years ago. I wasn't thinking about the man holding a cardboard sign twenty years ago, I was wondering 'what about ME?'
I ran into wondering if it weren't all this massive intellectual masturbation (I did and continue to struggle with extremes lol).
It was easy for me to get caught up in the extraordinary airiness of such beautiful ideas, but these ideas are not worth much because I live on the ground.
Twenty years later, I'm contemplating the last half or third of my life, and I am not so much a 'being of the ground' as I was, so these beautiful maps mean something a little different, they seem a little more accessible . . . but that's about it. I 'feel' closer to them in some weird spatial way, because I now have twenty more years of life experience AND have developed skills that can manipulate beautiful ideas along with the obvious and mundane in life.
I guess I'm still waiting for 'more' from Wilber. Even Eckhart Tolle comes down to earth and discusses a young lady's addiction to french fries and red wine (I watched the Oprah and Tolle video, loved it), which is FAR more helpful than Wilber's wonderful maps.
I have only just recently discovered Ken Wilber's work. People seem to have high praise for his book Sex, Ecology, Spirituality. I plan to read it soon. There also has been a lot of criticism about Wilber, especially as the years went on and he (and his Integral movement) became more powerful and influential.
This is a response to criticism, written by Wilber, that (understandably) left lots of people scratching their heads:
http://www.kenwilber.com/blog/show/46
Here is some interesting criticism of Wilber:
http://markmanson.net/ken-wilber
Let us know how you get on.
Study for many of us is one of the gates. We require an understanding to motivate our change. Clarity can come from the contemplation of ideas, whether good or deluded. In other words a critical or impartial assessment can provide insight.
I remember listening to an audio recording at a monastic library. It was of Andrew Cohen espousing 'expertly' on 'what is enlightenment'. My impression was he had no idea whatsoever and the radio interviewer was far more enlightened [shrug].
I later found out that Cohen, Chopra and Co are very defensive and abusive when they are attacked. Not a sign of emptying but of full of it? Too harsh? Ah well, Lobster fails again, my cushion will be informed.
Ideas are to be explored. Teachers and gurus are accountable for their actions and behaviour.
My approach like others here is pragmatic, almost Hinyanic. All about me. How will it lessen suffering/dukkha . . .
time for a musical break . . .
http://www.songfacts.com/detail.php?id=134
well on the way. head in a cloud. a man of a thousand voices talking perfectly loud.
The Buddha was wise. He appointed no one to be his successor knowing that in the end his teachings could be altered little by little until the original gets distorted.
I guess I figure if Wilber, Cohen and others want to have their version of enlightenment and the process to get there, then more power to them. But I don't see why they have to attach their crazy train to Buddhism. As if Buddhism isn't good enough the way it is, some seem to believe that they will be the ones to move it to the next step, and that just doesn't seem possible to me. Buddhism has changed over the ages as it has worked through the customs and cultures of other countries and peoples. It, no doubt, will continue to change some as it continues to work through and find it's place in the West. But I don't see it taking on some new turning because so much of the Western world is a conglomeration of peoples and cultures and beliefs. Buddhism cannot take on a flavor of the West like it took on a flavor of SE Asia, or Tibet, because the Western world doesn't have one basic culture or belief set.
Even so, whatever conglomeration culture/belief set we have in the west will affect the 'flavor' of Buddhism, maybe the label won't be given for a hundred years or so by historians of the future. We are wandering around in the trees of the present, but the future guys and gals will have some perspective I'd LOVE to have right now lol!
One thing about Buddhism is that it is not really a 'thing' or object in the way other religious movements are. It doesn't seem to have certain qualities or characteristics as does Islam or Judaism, which includes a big ethnic component. Even Christianity has an ethnic component, the newest ethnic component is a kind of American subculture most notable for their voting preferences
An ethnic component is not the only 'thing' Buddhism does not seem to have that gives it the same solidity as other traditions, it's only one example of many.
I totally see what you are getting at, and yet I wonder why it doesn't seem 'wrong' (to ME anyway) that Buddhism is being crunched up or integrated or syncretized with some major philosophy of Everything. This too is a product of 'my view', of course. I'm extremely biased in that "Buddhism" is simply to me a 'way' that can go anywhere and be a part of anything, it is simply a process of truth (crappy words fail what I am trying to say).
One of Wilber's genius announcements was that when we evolve, we 'transcend and include' rather than dismantle or destroy the previous step. Buddhism as a religion is INCLUDED, in its entirety, not torn apart and salvaged. It's not like a broken pot glued back together looking kinda like but not quite it's former self with all these extra doohickeys added on to make it 'more complete'.
I don't agree with Wilber that "Buddhism" is swallowed whole or transcended because the Buddha's message IS transcendent, to my knowledge it hasn't been taken to it's full potential except by individuals. The Buddha's message is still an outstanding goal, and it can't be 'transcended and included' YET.
You can put ketchup on french fries, and it might very well revolutionize how we eat french fries. But ketchup is still ketchup, and french fries are still french fries, and neither is changed by the combination, except in that one meal.
Buddhism might evolve/change/improve, but I think any changes are more likely to be lasting improvements based on the merits of the ideas, not based on the force of personality of the putative wheel turner, he of ample ego it seems.
Honestly, I think it is a little over the top for Wilber to think he is in a position to "turn the wheel", his positions amount to a Vedanta position and he doesn't understand Buddhist salvation or its notion of non-duality. He seems to think that enlightenment entails the union of opposites and the recognition of sameness while the duality persists in some respect, which is completely wrong and non-buddhist.
Read the 'Beyond mind papers', there are 4 volumes written by Elias Capriles, he directly challenges Wilber and completely destroys his position. Elias has been trained by Dzogchen masters and is one of the few that has been in serious multi-year retreat.
Wow @atiyana, you continue to amaze me with your assertions of your belief and understanding of your academic knowledge of buddhism...
Chill out and enjoy the sense of humour we are supposed to have as buddhists, or are you a NAZI buddhist?
Like others here, I want to engage with other interested parties and experience buddhism for myself, that is what I understood buddha taught; sure give me some of your insight, but not in toxic doses; I've got forever!
Have you just received a chair in buddhist studies or something or a just got a 1st from Cambridge or Harvard. Either way, you are alienating yourself IMHO.
Either you become part of a community, but don't try to be a dictator.
Humility is as much a part of buddhism as academic knowledge and prowess!
Mettha
Not all aspects of Buddhism cover non-duality and Dzogchen teachings. If that is what you follow, nothing wrong with that of course, but remember not everyone shares those beliefs and Buddhism isn't only Dzogchen.
Jackson Peterson is supposed to be a sort of Dzogchen teacher/master (of his own declaration, I have not researched his credentials at this point) but he totally comes across as arrogant to me. Different teachers and different traditions work for different students. Some people who follow Jackson just adore him. I can hardly stand to have a facebook conversation with the man. I'm supposed to go to a retreat with him in August that is being hosted here in my home town by my Sangha, but I have such averse feelings towards him I'm not sure I want to go, he's kind of turning me off to Dzogchen all together, so I need to let go of that. Sorry, didn't mean to go off on a tangent about him, just saying, what works for one person may not work for another.
I do appreciate the information on the Beyond the Mind papers, and I will look them up. Thanks!
I have not had much time to talk with my Sangha leader about his thoughts of the conference with Wilber. A few days after he returned from CO he left for a multi-week trip to Vietnam, lucky duck! He mentioned that Wilber was extremely personable, kind, and illuminating. He (the group leader) still is unsure that Wilber's ideas are the best way to start to label Western Buddhism. As I have not read anything else of Wilber's, I struggle with his terminology and find getting through it difficult. Mostly because my interest isn't sustained long enough to make it worth my while to make sure I understand all his vocabulary. We'll see if I can slog through his ebook introduction. I don't think I could read close to 1000 pages of his writing, myself (I think his sexuality book is close to that).
This is simply untrue. Implicitly, all of Buddhism covers non-duality, it entails the very realization of it. To say there are fundamentally two polar opposites which come to a union of sorts, meaning they recognize that both have a single taste despite their separation, is exactly non-buddhist and strays into Vendetta. Wilber is not teaching Buddhism. His version of "enlightenment" strays far from the goal of Buddhahood or nirvana. It really is that simple. A grasp of emptiness necessarily requires this to be the case, as there cannot be the case of fundamentally two polar opposites as it would entail a sort of svabhava, the kind of which all Buddhism rejects. The two truths are themselves provisional, attachment to them and asserting that they are fundamental or that they persist in enlightenment entails a duality having svabhava.
The Zen masters would go out of their way to be like this, because shaking up the ego and revealing its projections and reactions is useful. I know nothing of the man you speak of, but even if he isn't trying, he is serving as a mirror for you.
Lastly, if my first statement wasn't clear enough, basically Wilber's conception of a self is of an Atman, and that Atman persists in enlightenment, which is contrary to the Buddha's teachings.
Frankly though, as I mentioned prior, the fact that Wilber thinks he will be turning the 4th wheel smacks of extreme egotism and self-grandiosity.