[image source]
Back in the early years of integral theory, Wilber used to talk about states and stages differently than he does now. He used to suggest that a state experience was good, but that it needed to be solidified into one's daily functioning to be become a stage of development. Now he suggests that the states and developmental stages, while appearing similar, are not the same thing.
Here is a dharma quote from Snow Lion Press that we can use as an example:
Dharma Quote of the WeekIn this passage, the author suggests that a state experience (emptiness) is not sufficient for enlightenment. He contends that we must be able to hold that state for the majority of the time for it to be considered enlightenment. If we can do this, the experience of emptiness itself will burn away any imperfections (shadow stuff) in the psyche.
It is important to recognize the difference between an enlightened experience and the state of enlightenment. To penetrate the veil is to see the nature of reality for the first time. This enlightened experience in the Zen tradition might be called a satori. This is a powerful shift of insight that shakes our reality. No longer can we live with the delusion we may have once held. Our solidly held concepts about reality begin to crumble. Samsara shakes, as Lama Yeshe once put it. This experience may not be comfortable. To come so close to this existential threshold challenges our secure sense of identity and can be frightening. Indeed, as a Tibetan lama once said, this fear is a sign that we are close to the edge. We are beginning to recognize the lack of substance of our ego-identity. Our "wisdom eye" has opened to a new truth--an ultimate truth, as opposed to relative truth.
When we penetrate the veil, however, the work is not yet done. We may have had an enlightened experience, but there is further to travel. As Gen Jhampa Wangdu once said while I was in retreat, it is not difficult to experience emptiness; the problem is holding it. For this insight to have its full effect, the mind needs to be able to sustain awareness for prolonged periods of time. Tibetan teachers will sometimes say we may hit the nail, but only with a quality of focused attention can we repeatedly do so. With the development of tranquil abiding, the veil can be cleared completely in the way the red ring of fire created by the incense burn[ing] slowly expands and consumes the entire film of tissue paper. The mind is gradually cleansed of the emotional turmoil and confusion that is generated by the misconceptions we have about reality.
--from The Wisdom of Imperfection: The Challenge of Individuation in Buddhist Life by Rob Preece, published by Snow Lion Publications
But does holding emptiness constitute enlightenment in the new model of Integral Spirituality?
Not according to Wilber. A permanent state is still only a state. For integral enlightenment to occur, we need to continue growing through all the stages of development, along all the lines, in each of the quadrants. Enlightenment is a whole lot harder than it used to be.
Of course, we have to keep in mind that this is context dependent. One can only attain the highest level of development that has been realized during one's life span. Buddha or Jesus may have attained the highest possible level of development during their lifetimes and by those standards were enlightened -- but they would not be enlightened by our standards.
Wilber has made the concept of enlightenment a lot more complex, but I think this is good. People like Andrew Cohen claim enlightened status, but developmentally they are still children in many ways. How Wilber is going to reconcile this fact with his friendships with questionable gurus remains to be seen.
Technorati Tags: Buddhism, Integral Spirituality, Ken Wilber, Enlightenment, States and stages
4 comments:
Bill, I don't think Wilber CAN reconcile his view of enlightenment with the professed enlightenment of his guru friend
Cohen. I think the only way he and Cohen can deal with the the disparity and remain friends is to largely pretend that it isn't there.
Namaste
I fear we are seeing in Integral roughly what happen in conservative Christianity: We are not seeing Truth (if I may call it that) being brought into greater focus; we are seeing the movement taken over by 'political' needs/desires.
Of course, I see Christianity as having rot in its foundation that Integral doesn't have. [The Bible, e.g., is a 'political' construction from the getgo.] But Christianity has loft and grandeur when its followers are endeavoring to understand the heart of God and Jesus, and are open to changes within themselves rather than attempting to frame their fixed political and wealth-accumulation ambitions in biblical terms.
It seems to me that Wilber now has fixed and quite ordinary ambitions and he is re-framing spiritual matters to narrowly fit his own ends.
Likely, he has just gotten dog tired of ordinary people with all their mess and bother. That having happened, he has lost his way, big time.
Maybe I'm very much in the dark here, and I certainly am not enlightened, but I must say, I don't understand, why it might be necessary for Wilber to "reconcile" the "fact" that, for example, his friend, Andrew Cohen, is not as far along all the developmental lines, as he may be along some of them. Is it some kind of expectation, that he reconcile that? If there is a disparity, does that mean they are not supposed to be friends? Why would that be so?
As I have said before, thank you for all the work you devote to this excellent blog. I appreciate it.
Mark Benson
The issue with Wilber and Cohen is that Cohen passes himself off as "enlightened," claiming to have had all the requisite state experiences to hold such status. By associating with him and appearing in his magazine, Wilber confers a kind of approval on Cohen that few outside his inner circle think is warranted.
There is a whole website devoted to former students of Cohen who detail his emotional and spiritual abuses. Even his mother wrote a book about him.
Here are two sites to look at:
What Enlightenment?
Stripping the Gurus: Andrew Cohen
Of course, there are some good teachings in Cohen's body of work, and he probably did have the state experiences he claims, but his developmental level seems to be so low as to make those experiences somewhat dangerous in his hands.
As Wilber points out repeatedly, anyone can have a nondual state experience, but it will be filtered through the average developmental level of the person who has it. And if that person has pathologies, say in the egocentric realm (as Cohen appears to), the ego inflation that higher state experiences can confer is quite dangerous -- thus the parade of former students claiming abuses.
Just like in the Marc Gafni case, Wilber is associating with someone who is destined to go down in flames. He really should make better choices in this regard.
Peace,
Bill
Post a Comment