any ken wilber fans here?

[Sahaj Nath]

almost 6 months since i've been around here. looks as if not a whole lot has changed. many of the same questions, the same answers, and the same old challenges.

 

but in this time i know that *i* have certainly changed quite a bit. i've missed the community a bit, but i had some growing to do before i could return.

 

 

my apologies to those of you to whom i never responded. i hope you all will forgive me.

 

 

i was mid-conversation with Trunk when i just sort of fell off the face of the earth. in our last conversation he told me that what i was expressing was part of the non-dual school, something about which i knew nothing at the time. so i began my inquiry and wound up coming upon the Integral Spirituality of Ken Wilber.

 

i have to say, i'm a big fan of his now.

 

i just want to know what folks here think about him and about Integral Spirituality.

[Buddy]

I like his work. Apparently he's a total egomaniac who slays anyone who dares confront his person. I've only read "Up From Eden" which I enjoyed a great deal. I love the whole evolution of consciousness thing.

[bindo]

almost 6 months since i've been around here. looks as if not a whole lot has changed. many of the same questions, the same answers, and the same old challenges.

 

 

 

i just want to know what folks here think about him and about Integral Spirituality.

Hey Hundun,

Welcome back. I kinda dropped out myself. Got too annoyed by a few of the posters here.

 

I've never read Ken's material, but I study the work of Sri Aurobindo, the Guru's Guru, as Sai Baba put it.

 

The Synthesis Of Yoga (my favorite) and The Life Divine are two books that every person on a spiritual path should read/study. Check out the reviews at Amazon.

 

I hope your teaching and healing practice is going well.

 

Gordon

(Novato)

[mantis]

hey hundun,

 

you popped into my head a few days ago, nice for you to drop by again

[松永道]

Ken Wilber is very intelligent. And I mean that in the worst possible way. Har har. Remember the sage is simple. That said, I respect the man as an philosopher and academic. But these are aspects of a developed 5th and 6th chakra; enlightenment blossoms from the 7th.

 

Weaving evolution and spirituality into an integrated philosophy is a great idea. Evolution is a natural pattern. As above, so below. However, he, Andrew Cohen, Peter Ragnar, and that whole cadre of enlightenment entrepreneurs just... well... don't seem entirely suited to answer "What is Enlightenment?" (the name of their publication). Though they are all very clever.

[sheng zhen]

Ken Wilber dosent have a brain, he prooved it himself:

 

His therories are genious. I use them a lot.

 

I got an overview of them from Joseph Dillard who has integrated them into a dreamwork method he calls Dream Yoga, also called Deep Listening or Integral Dreamwork (so its not confused with Tibetian Dream Yoga), explaining the AQAL and how it relates to dreams.

 

But it seems everything is supposed to be "integral" these days.

[Sahaj Nath]

I like his work. Apparently he's a total egomaniac who slays anyone who dares confront his person. I've only read "Up From Eden" which I enjoyed a great deal. I love the whole evolution of consciousness thing.

 

 

yeah, i've been on that concept for some time, and his works have really helped me to flesh it out. i don't know about the 'egomaniac' thing or what you mean by 'slay'. of all the things one might say about him, i don't it can be said that he's overly critical or harsh. he tends to be extremely empathetic. i've watched quite a few of his videos and even own a few now. he's brilliant and sometimes exhibits the kind of humor and wit you'd expect from a progressive in the ivory towers, but those types tend to be my kind of people, so his character works for me.

 

Hey Hundun,

Welcome back. I kinda dropped out myself. Got too annoyed by a few of the posters here.

 

I've never read Ken's material, but I study the work of Sri Aurobindo, the Guru's Guru, as Sai Baba put it.

 

The Synthesis Of Yoga (my favorite) and The Life Divine are two books that every person on a spiritual path should read/study. Check out the reviews at Amazon.

 

I hope your teaching and healing practice is going well.

 

Gordon

(Novato)

 

 

hey bindo,

 

things are great. thanks.

 

is there a connection between wilber and aurobindo? the 'synthesis' idea lends itself to integral.

 

Ken Wilber is very intelligent. And I mean that in the worst possible way. Har har. Remember the sage is simple. That said, I respect the man as an philosopher and academic. But these are aspects of a developed 5th and 6th chakra; enlightenment blossoms from the 7th.

 

Weaving evolution and spirituality into an integrated philosophy is a great idea. Evolution is a natural pattern. As above, so below. However, he, Andrew Cohen, Peter Ragnar, and that whole cadre of enlightenment entrepreneurs just... well... don't seem entirely suited to answer "What is Enlightenment?" (the name of their publication). Though they are all very clever.

 

 

'What Is Enlightenment' is Andrew Cohen's publication. they are not a collective. and, to be honest, i don't really get the relationship between those two guys. Andrew IS a bit of a jerk and not nearly as clear, genuine, or intelligent as Ken, by my estimation. however, Andrew Cohen's character flaws are quite common among high-level teachers, so i can't just assume he's not what he claims.

 

but i'm left wondering if you've actually looked into ken's work, as your criticism seems incredibly general and vague. he IS a bit arrogant in his confidence in his ideas, and he admits that himself. but his confidence is in the ideas, not his own greatness. what he did what study all the major traditions (as well as some obscure ones) East and West, and created a model that's inclusive of all of their truths in addition to psychology, sociology, science, politics, the whole bag. he's confident that he's done more homework than others, and i think that confidence is fairly warranted. tibetan monks spend half their day engaged in debate as a means of mental fitness. intellect isn't inherently a problem. in fact, i'd say it's far more likely for the unrefined intellect to be a problem.

 

Ken Wilber dosent have a brain, he prooved it himself:

 

His therories are genious. I use them a lot.

 

I got an overview of them from Joseph Dillard who has integrated them into a dreamwork method he calls Dream Yoga, also called Deep Listening or Integral Dreamwork (so its not confused with Tibetian Dream Yoga), explaining the AQAL and how it relates to dreams.

 

But it seems everything is supposed to be "integral" these days.

 

his brain wave manipulation was rather impressive. his constant delta patterns were inspiring.

 

we may have to chat about him some time.

 

=)

[Pero]

Didn't he go nuts or something a short while ago? ...

[sheng zhen]

is there a connection between wilber and aurobindo? the 'synthesis' idea lends itself to integral.

Im not so shure about the connection between the two, but developement through the levels are seen in almost every school of spirituality, and if I remember correctly Aurobindo has also mapped out the higher levels, so has Gurudas and a lot of other teachers. They are just calling the levels different names. The way they are presented in Spiral Dynamics, which Ken Wilbers uses, is nothing new.

 

Im not shure if Ken Wilber presents anything new at all, he just has a wonderful way, and the intellect needed, to integrate all the different points of view. And all that without denying anything, just integrating.

 

'What Is Enlightenment' is Andrew Cohen's publication. they are not a collective. and, to be honest, i don't really get the relationship between those two guys. Andrew IS a bit of a jerk and not nearly as clear, genuine, or intelligent as Ken, by my estimation. however, Andrew Cohen's character flaws are quite common among high-level teachers, so i can't just assume he's not what he claims.

I read in a book critizising Andrew Cohens methods that his connection to Ken Wilber is a part of Cohens marketing plan. Its a nice trick. I guess Cohen gets a lot of people to look into his own stuff just because they see his name in relation to Ken Wilber. I did it too, but couldnt see anything special.

 

his brain wave manipulation was rather impressive. his constant delta patterns were inspiring.

Yea, its proof of the pudding.

[松永道]

 

'What Is Enlightenment' is Andrew Cohen's publication. they are not a collective. and, to be honest, i don't really get the relationship between those two guys. Andrew IS a bit of a jerk and not nearly as clear, genuine, or intelligent as Ken, by my estimation. however, Andrew Cohen's character flaws are quite common among high-level teachers, so i can't just assume he's not what he claims.

 

but i'm left wondering if you've actually looked into ken's work, as your criticism seems incredibly general and vague. he IS a bit arrogant in his confidence in his ideas, and he admits that himself. but his confidence is in the ideas, not his own greatness. what he did what study all the major traditions (as well as some obscure ones) East and West, and created a model that's inclusive of all of their truths in addition to psychology, sociology, science, politics, the whole bag. he's confident that he's done more homework than others, and i think that confidence is fairly warranted. tibetan monks spend half their day engaged in debate as a means of mental fitness. intellect isn't inherently a problem. in fact, i'd say it's far more likely for the unrefined intellect to be a problem.

 

 

Admittedly I've got limited access. Aside from WIE, what I've found on the internet, and what I read of his before I moved to China, I haven't read much. And I haven't had the chance to read a single book of his in it's entirety. I'm open though. Like I said, my impression is he is a real smart guy. And perhaps I've unfairly lumped him with Andrew Cohen & Co. If you can recommend anything that's strait Wilber please don't hesitate.

 

Nothing at all wrong with a great intellect.. as long as you're in control of it. A strong and focused mind that can be turned on and off at will is an aim of my spiritual practice.

[Pero]

In blog post a purile rant, Wilber tells people to suck his dick (then says if that offends you you belong to the green meme, this being Wilber's generic label for all his imagined enemies), rages against critics, launches an unprovoked personal attack on a colleague and former friend Frank Visser, and tries once again to enforce his own cultic in-group where questioning and freedom of thought are not allowed. It's all the end of what illusion remained of Wilber as any sort of respectable scholar.

 

Wilber's rant, and responses

Edited May 7, 2008 by Pero

[Buddy]

Exactly.

[gendao]

Im not shure if Ken Wilber presents anything new at all, he just has a wonderful way, and the intellect needed, to integrate all the different points of view. And all that without denying anything, just integrating.

I read in a book critizising Andrew Cohens methods that his connection to Ken Wilber is a part of Cohens marketing plan. Its a nice trick. I guess Cohen gets a lot of people to look into his own stuff just because they see his name in relation to Ken Wilber. I did it too, but couldnt see anything special.

Yea, its proof of the pudding.

Can Wilber do anything in meatspace besides the brainwave control - which did seem pretty impressive (although I don't really know how hard it really is?)?

 

Personally, I think his work is valuable - but the academic, scholarly approach has its definite limits.

 

I've also been listening to some WIE audios lately but frankly, find them a little too political and not enough spiritual. Most of them seem to be Jewish/Judeo-Christian intellectuals debating how to integrate (typically) Eastern spirituality into their liberal ideology (or vice-versa). Nothing wrong with that per se, but their focus just seems to be more on sociology than...enlightenment.

 

I mean, I'm personally not that interested in seeing the development of "feminist-American-revisionist-Judeo-Buddhism." In fact, I think we have to be careful about mixing politics with spiritual practices in order to maintain their purity and universal humanity. I think we've seen with the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, jihads, etc what can happen when spirituality gets too politicized.

Edited May 7, 2008 by vortex

[bindo]

Sri Aurobindo calls his method of yoga, Integral Yoga. (also called purna/poorna yoga). And from what I've read, Ken Wilber borrows heavily from Sri Aurobindo's work, but has been criticed for misinterpreting it.

 

Apparently, Ken refers to SA quite a bit in some of his books.

[Sahaj Nath]

Wilber's rant, and responses

 

whoever wrote that page obviously has WAY too much of an ax to grind. does his interpretation strike you as credible?

 

i went directly to the original post. defending himself whilst talking shit. blowing off steam. it seems quite in line with his character, and i don't see that as a bad thing. of course, trying to examine it in a vacuum will lead to claims of all sorts of crap. but he's not a guru and never claims to be, though he IS pretty much the top dog in his field.

 

and the guy makes it sound as if ken lost it because of innocent peer reviews that simply (oops! i used the S-word) took a contrary view.

 

this is the kind of spin used to discredit politicians. no one takes a good look, and then the public sentiment gets shaped by the mere repetition of inaccurate claims.

 

 

Can Wilber do anything in meatspace besides the brainwave control - which did seem pretty impressive (although I don't really know how hard it really is?)?

 

Personally, I think his work is valuable - but the academic, scholarly approach has its definite limits.

 

I've also been listening to some WIE audios lately but frankly, find them a little too political and not enough spiritual. Most of them seem to be Jewish/Judeo-Christian intellectuals debating how to integrate (typically) Eastern spirituality into their liberal ideology (or vice-versa). Nothing wrong with that per se, but their focus just seems to be more on sociology than...enlightenment.

 

I mean, I'm personally not that interested in seeing the development of "feminist-American-revisionist-Judeo-Buddhism." In fact, I think we have to be careful about mixing politics with spiritual practices in order to maintain their purity and universal humanity. I think we've seen with the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, jihads, etc what can happen when spirituality gets too politicized.

 

there's good stuff in the magazine from time to time. it's made me rethink some assumptions. but for the most part i'm not a big fan of WIE. i don't lay that at ken's feet, though. that's andrew cohen's deal.

 

purity and universal humanity sounds good, but i don't think there has ever been a time in history when that has been the case. ever. maybe it's time to move in new direction. religious institutions have always been political. the distillation of spiritual practice as a means of evolving consciousness might be just what we need to create a universal humanity. spiritual eclecticism with a scholar's sensibility just might produce an internal map that is self-aware of its own dogmatic shortcomings and therefore always open to growth. a worthwhile endeavor, i think.

[Pero]

whoever wrote that page obviously has WAY too much of an ax to grind.

 

Possibly.

 

does his interpretation strike you as credible?

 

I don't know, but I've read other's people opinions and some are similar.

 

but he's not a guru and never claims to be, though he IS pretty much the top dog in his field.

 

I read that he claimed he was enlightened.

 

But in any case, if you find him useful that's great.

[Whitehawk]

Hi All,

 

I just wanted to weigh in here. I first read one of Wilber's books about 7 or 8 years ago, The Essential Ken Wilber, I believe it was. and to say the least, I was impressed. From that I've gone on to read pretty much everything of his I can get my hands on. I understand that some may have a negative view of Ken, but finding his writings was an important step in my spiritual growth.

 

His writings are intellectually strenuous at times, no doubt. But they can also be beautiful and inspiring. The last book I got was The Simple Feeling of Being, which is a collection of writings on various subjects. No joke, I often read passages from this book for meditation.

 

I find that he is able to communicate with a clarity that often lacking in spiritual writings. But thats just my opinion. To each their own.

 

Hundun, and other fans,

 

I have a question. Coming to recognize yourself as the Witness, which then dissolves into nondual awareness, do you think this is the end of meditation or the beginning?

 

Chris

Edited May 7, 2008 by Whitehawk

[Sahaj Nath]

Hi All,

 

I just wanted to weigh in here. I first read one of Wilber's books about 7 or 8 years ago, The Essential Ken Wilber, I believe it was. and to say the least, I was impressed. From that I've gone on to read pretty much everything of his I can get my hands on. I understand that some may have a negative view of Ken, but finding his writings was an important step in my spiritual growth.

 

His writings are intellectually strenuous at times, no doubt. But they can also be beautiful and inspiring. The last book I got was The Simple Feeling of Being, which is a collection of writings on various subjects. No joke, I often read passages from this book for meditation.

 

I find that he is able to communicate with a clarity that often lacking in spiritual writings. But thats just my opinion. To each their own.

 

Hundun, and other fans,

 

I have a question. Coming to recognize yourself as the Witness, which then dissolves into nondual awareness, do you think this is the end of meditation or the beginning?

 

Chris

 

 

hey chris,

 

i'm luvin' the jack burton quote in your signature! perhaps my favorite cheesy movie of all time!

 

 

as to your question:

 

i don't think the witness ever dissolves, although our realization of the witness deepens as we develop. and i don't think it's the beginning OR the end of meditation. we have vehicles that enable us to carry out our tasks, and that doesn't change until our vehicles die. until then, maintenance will continue to be a requirement.

 

if the vehicle is not fit to fulfill its spiritual mandate, i think we waste a golden opportunity to assist in the evolution of humanity. that maintenance includes meditation, exercise, cognition, moral fortitude, etc...

 

so i don't think it ends with a particular experience. but it doesn't begin there, either.

 

=)

 

 

 

BUT,

[Todd]

i don't think the witness ever dissolves, although our realization of the witness deepens as we develop. and i don't think it's the beginning OR the end of meditation. we have vehicles that enable us to carry out our tasks, and that doesn't change until our vehicles die. until then, maintenance will continue to be a requirement.

 

if the vehicle is not fit to fulfill its spiritual mandate, i think we waste a golden opportunity to assist in the evolution of humanity. that maintenance includes meditation, exercise, cognition, moral fortitude, etc...

 

so i don't think it ends with a particular experience. but it doesn't begin there, either.

 

=)

BUT,

 

A few questions:

 

What if the witness is an idea?

 

I admit that it is a very flexible idea, and it provides a pretty stable identity from which to interact with the world. But what if it is an idea?

 

What if there is something that is not an idea, and does not need effort to maintain? Perhaps all that is needed is a willingness to not engage in effort, and to be whatever is.

 

It may be true (and it certainly appears so) that effort is an aspect of what is, and that ideas will always be a part of this that is, but is that what we are? Is it necessary to identify with ideas, to try and make them better?

 

All sorts of neat ideas can come up. What is invested in their arising and passing?

 

How does it feel to be invested, and how does that investment tend to work out?

 

What does it feel like to step aside, and into nothing else?

[Sahaj Nath]

A few questions:

 

What if the witness is an idea?

 

I admit that it is a very flexible idea, and it provides a pretty stable identity from which to interact with the world. But what if it is an idea?

 

What if there is something that is not an idea, and does not need effort to maintain? Perhaps all that is needed is a willingness to not engage in effort, and to be whatever is.

 

It may be true (and it certainly appears so) that effort is an aspect of what is, and that ideas will always be a part of this that is, but is that what we are? Is it necessary to identify with ideas, to try and make them better?

 

All sorts of neat ideas can come up. What is invested in their arising and passing?

 

How does it feel to be invested, and how does that investment tend to work out?

 

What does it feel like to step aside, and into nothing else?

 

hey todd!

 

=)

 

you're exactly right. of course, you probably already know that and are just being modest.

 

effort tends to be why people never wake up. like many a zen master have said:

 

"if you can simply understand that it is not 'attainable,' then you are enlightened.

 

the witness is just an imperfect name for that ever-present I Am-ness that has always been there. it's not an experience at all. and it takes no effort. we're all aware of it right now. it is WuJi. Supreme Emptiness.

 

 

PURE consciousness = nothingness.

 

 

however, there IS a world of phenomenon and effort and time and change. there's no sense denying that. but i think meditation is a form of communion with the timeless, effortless, and unchanging. what we experience is not the witness, but the response of our finite selves to that communion. the ego's temporary liberation from its burdens is what a lot of people mistake as as enlightenment.

 

words are cumbersome, but i think we agree.

[Whitehawk]

Hundun,

 

Big Trouble In Little China is one of my favorite movies. Probably because it is so cheesy.... and full of great quotes as well.

 

Thanks for responding to my question. I have been pondering this idea for a few years now, and I was trying to figure out how to word the question in a post that made some sort of sense. I hadn't been able to yet come up with a way, but, thanks to you, I saw the opportunity open and took it.

 

Do you think that what Wilber calls the Witness, The ever-present awareness, is the same realization that Taoist writings describe as "the center in the midst of conditions" or "the center of the compass" or the "valley spirit" or "the mysterious female" or what have you?

 

The weird thing is, it seems that for some schools, this realization of the witnessing awareness would come about as one of the fruits of meditation.

 

For other schools it is independent of meditation.

 

And then, from what I've read of the taoist literature, it seems that this realization is almost a pre-requisite, before one can work on things like immortality and such.

 

 

Chris

[Todd]

Hey Hundun,

 

 

We are using similar concepts, and when we look for ourselves, we find the same thing, but I am not really interested in agreement. I am interested in what needs no agreement, and in which all agreement occurs (or not). I am interested in expression, and what allows expression to occur.

 

And I don't have any answers. And I don't want any answers.

 

It is fun to share though, sometimes. If you are interested I can share what drew me to respond to your post, and you can tell me that I am barking up the wrong tree, and I can see that that is true, or who knows what?

 

But be honest about any lack of interest, because I don't want to bark up the wrong tree.

 

Its good to see you around again.

 

 

Todd

[Sahaj Nath]

Hundun,

 

Big Trouble In Little China is one of my favorite movies. Probably because it is so cheesy.... and full of great quotes as well.

 

Thanks for responding to my question. I have been pondering this idea for a few years now, and I was trying to figure out how to word the question in a post that made some sort of sense. I hadn't been able to yet come up with a way, but, thanks to you, I saw the opportunity open and took it.

 

Do you think that what Wilber calls the Witness, The ever-present awareness, is the same realization that Taoist writings describe as "the center in the midst of conditions" or "the center of the compass" or the "valley spirit" or "the mysterious female" or what have you?

 

The weird thing is, it seems that for some schools, this realization of the witnessing awareness would come about as one of the fruits of meditation.

 

For other schools it is independent of meditation.

 

And then, from what I've read of the taoist literature, it seems that this realization is almost a pre-requisite, before one can work on things like immortality and such.

Chris

 

 

hmm. i really don't know a whole lot about Taoism Proper, so i can't really have much of an opinion on the matter. perhaps you could ask that question openly in a separate thread. see what kind of responses you get.

 

Spirit Valley, at least as it relates to the Tao Te Ching, (according t Yang, Jwing-Ming) refers to the third eye. the valley is the space behind the third eye, between the two hemispheres of the brain.

 

i'm not sure that it even matters whether or not they're all talking about the same thing. it certainly doesn't matter enough to ponder for years. what matters is the perspective of the lineage you've chosen as your practice.

 

 

Hey Hundun,

 

 

We are using similar concepts, and when we look for ourselves, we find the same thing, but I am not really interested in agreement. I am interested in what needs no agreement, and in which all agreement occurs (or not). I am interested in expression, and what allows expression to occur.

 

And I don't have any answers. And I don't want any answers.

 

It is fun to share though, sometimes. If you are interested I can share what drew me to respond to your post, and you can tell me that I am barking up the wrong tree, and I can see that that is true, or who knows what?

 

But be honest about any lack of interest, because I don't want to bark up the wrong tree.

 

Its good to see you around again.

Todd

 

c'mon! when you get all intriguing like that, OF COURE i'm interested!

 

so what drew you to respond.

[Todd]

I thought I noticed that you were letting ideas serve as place holders for truth.

 

It is not that what you were saying wasn't referring to aspects of reality, to things that we can notice when we get really simple, but it seemed to me that you might have been losing sight of the simplicity that allows the original vision.

 

Probably the most difficult thing to do is to be simple, especially for smart people (although it may be easier for us to access it in the first place).

 

It can be even more difficult after we have had the experience of true simplicity. We can take those experiences and create thoughts about them. Those thoughts can seem very profound and true, earth shattering even, with far reaching implications. We can find those thoughts reflected in the way that people have attempted to convey this experience to others in the past. Our thoughts might seem to match those of the gurus and holy men. This can be exciting, and intoxicating. It is pretty much to be expected, too, since to be simple is the most difficult thing to do.

 

I have found that no thought has ever been useful to me except in the moment that it arises (at least where truth is concerned). Thoughts that arise out of simplicity are appropriate to the moment, but when we build upon those thoughts without returning to simplicity (or staying in simplicity), then we are asking to be led astray.

 

So what is simplicity?

 

It is easier to speak of how simplicity is broken.

 

Simplicity is broken when we attempt to gain something from our thoughts (or from anything else for that matter, but we are dealing more with thoughts here). So, if we think, say, "There is nothing to do, no one to be, nowhere to go" as if this will be of some advantage to us, even if only to help us to see that there is no advantage to gained, then this is breaking simplicity. The same is true for "There is something to do, someone to be, and somewhere to go." We could think either of these things without breaking simplicity, however.

 

So what is simplicity?

 

For me, some of the ways that simplicity manifests are being willing to be confused, letting go of my "wisdom" based upon past experiences, noticing when I am attempting to skip ahead by referring to an imagined future, or to a remembered past, and then not skipping ahead, and encountering whatever is happening, however uncomfortable and without interpretation. This liberates a lot of energy, and it is an ongoing process.

 

Simplicity has a lot of implications. They just can't be explored well with the mind.

[Sahaj Nath]

I thought I noticed that you were letting ideas serve as place holders for truth.

 

...

 

Simplicity has a lot of implications. They just can't be explored well with the mind.

 

 

i am somewhat ambivalent toward your reply. or maybe i'm multivalent.

 

as a reminder to me, i appreciate it. it's something that has been lacking from my way of life. yesterday when i was with a student. i told him my new mantra for the time being is 'keep it simple, stupid.' so it's nice to get a reinforcement of some of the stuff i've been intuiting more deeply as of late.

 

reading your words woke me right back up at the moment that i read them.

 

surely you recognize your own contradictions in even attempting to put words to this. you didn't seem to acknowledge the necessity of contradiction when attempting to communicate to another, and hence why i said that words are cumbersome.

'

it was never my intent to transmit truth through words. words point, and vaguely so.

 

 

...We can take those experiences and create thoughts about them. Those thoughts can seem very profound and true, earth shattering even, with far reaching implications...

 

right-on. this is where i have a tendency to get off-track. as a teacher this is a very difficult thing for me to navigate. ideas and words matter, even if they are not 'That'. i am sure to continue to stumble with this for some time to come.

 

 

...Our thoughts might seem to match those of the gurus and holy men. This can be exciting, and intoxicating. It is pretty much to be expected, too, since to be simple is the most difficult thing to do...

 

not so much. i'm very much a scholar in my temperament, so i always expect the conveyance of my ideas to be on par (or sometimes even more clear) than "gurus and holy men," as you put it. i'm a skilled communicator. i analyze, critique, analogize, all that stuff. i've developed that capacity to a higher degree than a lot of spiritual masters, so i seldom look to there expressions as any standard because i seldom believe they express themselves very skillfully, at least for us westerners.

 

i find ken wilber and integral quite refreshing because of this.

 

 

 

if i missed your point, you're welcome to correct me.

 

 

'simplicity' is just an idea, and a highly nebulous one at that. but how do we have this discussion without the cumbersome medium of words?