A Brief Critique of Ken Wilber's Integralism

Here's a letter I wrote to Frank Visser, who is both a believer and a critic of Integralism:

Hi Frank,

I saw your video, and I wanted to describe what I see as three fundamental problems with Integralism.

1) Ken said that he began by gathering all the fields of knowledge and seeing how they related to each other. So he seems to believe that all the fields are somewhat valuable and contain some truth. If so, he appears to have begun with a "green" assumption ("green" in Integral Theory is partly the idea that all viewpoints have value - see HERE). Thus, I believe his whole endeavour is contaminated with green. His criticism of green doesn't negate that. His approach is to transcend and include, but that is also green. After all, what value would inclusion have if it somehow turned out that all the world's knowledge is false? That leads to the second point.

2) If we consider the possibility that we are in a literal Matrix, we would then be inclined to approach the world's knowledge from the opposite end. That is, instead of including all the world's knowledge, we would begin by rejecting or negating all the world's knowledge. In fact, I believe we are in a literal matrix. That matrix is based on the idea that we are inadequate and therefore need material, spiritual, moral, intellectual, and physical improvement, which creates all the institutions of society (i.e. a literal matrix). This causes us to forget the innate happiness of being and to become dependent on the matrix for happiness, which can never work. This leads to the third point.

3) Instead of searching for the truth, we could begin by focusing on our motivations. After all, why did Ken care about the world's various forms and categories of knowledge? Did he ever question his motivations? And why do we care about Integralism? If our motivation is wrong - and it is wrong because it is either supplied by the matrix or is a reaction to a part of the matrix and therefore limited - then all our findings might be contaminated by our wrong motivation. And this is exactly what has happened, in my opinion.

Of course, Ken would categorise my negation approach as transcendent spirituality and therefore incomplete. That idea comes from the matrix - it is the assumption that we are inadequate and need various forms of development to complete us. However, I can clearly see the cause of such things as the Andrew Cohen disaster, whereas Ken fully encouraged Cohen with the Rude Boy promotion. Also, believe it or not, I have clear answers to problems such as the environment and the Middle East. So it might be possible that I’m onto something. Ken and his followers would need to give what I say a sympathetic hearing, but they are too busy - there’s an infinite amount of knowledge to absorb and to create, so who has time for considering anything else, especially if it can be categorised away so easily?

Note: I agree that Integralism has merit, but only as an optional extra or as a method for improving details of the world, not as a complete system of how to live. Also, what I have written here are just headline summaries. I could go into far more detail regarding each issue, but it amounts to taking on the whole matrix, which is arduous since all the words have been created by the matrix, and a swarm of “commonsense” criticisms of my approach are easily supplied by the matrix. Furthermore, experience has taught me that it is a waste of time for multiple reasons. I am only writing to you to suggest a completely different approach to that of Integralism, especially since you said that you like Integralism.

Regards,

Martin Gifford. 

Untangling the Guru-Disciple Relationship with Andrew Cohen

Andrew Cohen is an American guru who has a magazine called EnlightenNext (previously called What is Enlightenment?). He strongly advocates for the guru-disciple relationship, and he is hailed by Ken Wilber as a great example of a “rude guru”.

However, Andrew has many detractors who have written books and articles criticising him for slapping disciples, dunking disciples in cold lakes, putting disciples through humiliation rituals, etc. The detractors’ books are American Guru by William Yenner and Enlightenment Blues by Andre van der Braak, and the detractors’ articles are on this website: http://www.whatenlightenment.net.

In response to these books and articles, Cohen’s supporters have written many articles of their own to defend him, and these are located at Guru Talk, and in the Reviews section of Yenner’s book at Amazon. The writers of these articles admit to the slappings, etc., but they claim that the context justified Cohen’s actions.

What I find most interesting is that a revealing pattern has emerged in the guru-talk.com articles. These articles describe the writers’ own experiences with Cohen in an attempt to convey the profundity of the context so that the reader will accept that the slappings, etc., were justified. Here are the common steps in their stories followed by my comments:

1. The writer begins by stating that they have done much spiritual seeking.

This is fine.

2. The writer goes on to explain how they came to attend an Andrew Cohen meeting.

This is also fine.

3. Next, the writer has a big spiritual experience during the meeting.

This is great!

4. Then, the writer suddenly KNOWS that Andrew is basically perfect and is their destined guru.

This is a classic spiritual beginner’s mistake and it’s very dangerous. Thoughts we have during spiritual experiences do not translate into the world of relativity. For example, in the throes of a spiritual experience many people have thought that they are God, yet they haven’t created any universes since then, which proves the thought “I am God” needs a few provisos attached, at least. Jumping to conclusions is a common and natural mistake due to the overwhelming intensity of such experiences. The onus is on the facilitator of these experiences to point out to the seeker that while the spiritual experience is real, the thoughts they had during and after the experience are not true. Thoughts are small and so they can never describe reality. As Andrew himself says, people shouldn’t become addicted to intensity.

5. Next, Andrew, says something like, “It’s your ability to respond that counts.”

So, by implication, Andrew agrees with the writer’s conclusions about him and their spiritual experience. The problem is clear. Since they now believe Andrew is a perfect person, his self-image, worldview, and instructions must also be perfect, and so blind obedience to him becomes necessary. This obedience is reinforced whenever his speeches and instructions relate to their ideals and to the other thoughts they had during their spiritual experience.

6. Next, the writer submits to Andrew’s “absolute rule” (Rick Asherson’s phrase at guru-talk.com), hoping that discipleship will complete her or his enlightenment and/or begin a new leap in human consciousness, which is Andrew’s stated main goal.

Once you submit to someone’s “absolute rule” you are automatically in the position of an unenlightened person. You cannot act in an enlightened way from that position. So everything you do will fall short. Even if the guru tells you to be yourself or be a light unto yourself, you will still be obeying. All human progress comes from understanding, which is lacking in this particular situation. It seems to me that Andrew is taking advantage of their vulnerability (even if his intentions are good), rather than aiding their understanding by pointing out their mistaken assumptions, which is the essence of the guru’s job description.

7. Next, Andrew puts the writer through all kinds of ordeals - including slappings, cold lake dunkings, and humiliation rituals - in order to defeat their “evil” ego. In the article, both Andrew and the writer are presented as heroes and the stakes are presented as “unimaginably high” (Debbie Wilson’s phrase at guru-talk.com).

Firstly, having an ego is necessary unless you live in a cave or are surrounded by bodyguards. Secondly, creating these ordeals appears to be a manifestation of Andrew’s punitive perfectionist ego. It seems to me that Andrew wants to erase all traces of his disciples’ behaviour that don’t fit his personal egoic ideals. Of course, this causes a defensive response in the disciples, whereupon Andrew begins punishing. In other words, Andrew creates the whole drama in the belief that it is necessary for human evolution, but really it’s only to satisfy Andrew’s unexamined psychological needs. (For more information about Andrew Cohen’s perfectionist ego, see: http://www.enneagraminstitute.com/TypeOne.asp. Alternatively, you can listen to this audio clip, which is only 5 minutes long: http://www.enneagraminstitute.com/books/audio/audio.asp?audiofile=file1)

8. Next, the writer describes how he or she learnt a lot of things over the years and may have even experienced “intersubjective enlightenment”. (Intersubjective enlightenment is where groups of people experience oneness and love.)

This is great!

9. After 10-15 years, the writer quits their discipleship with Andrew because they think they aren’t cut out for final enlightenment or they aren’t ready for it yet.

This shows the person is trapped in seeing themselves in terms of Andrew Cohen’s worldview rather than seeing themselves in relationship to whole naked reality. After all, how far away from reality are you? No distance. The choice is between looking at reality or looking at illusion. Why would anyone knowingly choose to focus on illusion?

10. Next, the writer expresses gratitude to Andrew and unquestioningly reaffirms their faith in his perfection or near perfection.

This is good in that it shows humility and goodwill, but it is bad in that it shows a stubborn attachment to their beliefs about Andrew.

11. Next, the writer judges Andrew’s detractors as losers, liars, etc.

This is a redoubled effort of the writer to prop up his or her unnecessary and false beliefs about Andrew and his worldview. While it is true that the detractors left out details, they did so in order to focus on the faults in Andrew that he and his disciples stubbornly refuse to face.

12. Lastly, the writer affirms that he or she is still a seeker.

Here we see the writers are failing to acknowledge that Andrew’s methods didn’t work and that they have accepted much counterproductive baggage about gurus, disciples, spiritual experiences, goals, etc, in the process. In other words, along with taking forward steps, they took backward steps.

So do the numerous negatives I point out above mean that the guru-disciple relationship is always bad? No. Actually, I believe others are normally needed for us to progress, and that even having someone you formally call your guru can accelerate our progress. However, there is a problem when the disciple believes the guru is perfect and then becomes afraid to see the guru’s imperfection, and that problem is exacerbated when the guru stubbornly resists feedback regarding his or her imperfection since he or she has become an authority figure for the disciple.

What’s the solution in this particular case? All that needs to happen is for both Andrew and his supporters to fully acknowledge his ego, and therefore his shadow. It’s a simple, obvious, and necessary step for progress to be made. However, for some strange reason, Andrew and his supporters are attached to the belief that he is perfect or nearly perfect. It’s blind love. If instead Andrew acknowledged his faults, and his supporters acknowledged their errors, then the illusions that caused the negatives mentioned above would all dissolve, and so the negatives themselves would all dissolve because their foundations would be gone. At some point the guru needs to learn something about himself from the disciples. It can’t always be a one-way street.

—

Note: I have emailed the guru-talk.com people and Andrew Cohen inviting them to respond in the comments section. (They do not publish posts like this in the comments sections of their websites.) I hope they do respond here. I think it would help to move this issue, and human evolution, forward.