Wilber's Message to Japan

[Balder]

Recently, Wilber posted the following message to Japan in response to the tsunami and the subsequent tragic events there. Has anyone here seen it?  I have held back from critically commenting on it because I recognize and respect the positive intention behind it, and I also agree with and honor parts of his message, but there is something about the overall way he has framed it that bothers me, encouraging (as it seems to me) an "ultimate identification" that preserves a massive split in the world (and renders "world," a la the old perennial traditions, as mere "surface").

 

We've talked about this before, this dualism that still seems to inform Wilber's metaphysics (and his message seems metaphysical, not post-).  I guess I keep hoping not to see it preserved, and keep being disappointed.

 

Here's the message:

 

"Hello to my friends in Japan,

As one attempts to live an Integral Life, there are always ups and downs in the process. To have an Integral awareness means that you have a higher, wider, deeper awareness, with more perspectives and more care and more concern and more love. So even when difficult times arise, it's important to keep the heart and mind open and wide and embracing.

This goes for the troubles in Fukushima prefecture. The potentially devastating nature of these problems has a tendency to make one close one's eyes, narrow one's awareness, push the whole thing out of mind. But that's exactly what we shouldn't do. Instead of closing down, we need to open up, to keep heart and mind wide open even under these frightening circumstances. A steady, calm Witnessing in the midst of turmoil keeps one directly related to Spirit, as Spirit, and anchors one in what really matters and what is ultimately Real. That way, the surface phenomena can continue to simply come and go as they will, but you remain anchored in the unchanging Source and Ground and real Self of it all.

Do whatever you can to help with the surface phenomena, but remain anchored in their Witness, so that day-to-day realities "hurt you more, but bother you less." "Hurt more," because you are more sensitive, more aware of them and let them all in, you don't turn away or hide from them. But "bother you less" because you have ceased to identify with them, remaining "neti, neti," or "not this, not that" but the impartial Witness of them all.

My thoughts and prayers are with you all during these difficult times. May you rest in the real and integral Self and move forward as best you can!

Sending much love and light, Ken Wilber"

 

~*~

 

Maybe I'm quibbling unnecessarily -- I agree with his call to open to experience, to expand the embrace of heart and mind and the scope of our perspectives; and I accept the heuristic (and transformative,liberative) value of emptiness; and I also see the wisdom of simultaneously holding both "self" and "non-self" perspectives -- but something about the way he has put them all together doesn't sit well with me.  I think it's because his neti, neti doesn't touch the Witness and so seems to encourage a dissociative sort of identification, a Real vs Unreal splitting that (I thought) was a mark of premodern traditions a post-metaphysical approach is intended to leave behind.

 

What do you think?

[Balder]

Yes, I understand; that's what I was referring to when I mentioned sleep yoga (milam) practice, sleep yoga being a causal state practice.  But I am wondering, why frame this letter from the causal?  Also, I think it is pure (and problematic) metaphysics to designate the causal as the Ultimately Real Ground and as What Really Matters.  Maybe I'm wrong about this, but that's where I stand right now.

[Balder]

I should add that there is no such thing as "the view" from the causal; there are multiple interpretations of causal state experience possible, and as I argued on the old "Status of States" threads, I think Wilber's view of the causal has consistently been metaphysical (even, it seems, in Wilber-5). 

[Irmeli Mattsson]

Words are very  limited in their capacity to help the Japanese in the situation they are in.

I’m happy no one expects from me a message  to the Japanese.

Have people here become prisoners of a postmethaphysical ideology, expecting that everything Wilber says must come out of a place of their idealistic notions of a postmethaphysical space?

Freedom of thought means also being allowed to express whatever authentically arises inside oneself irrespective of which level it arises from as long as it obeys certain basic standards.

Wilber is not a omniscient God. Leave him space to express whatever spontaneously arises in his mind. It is always a perspective from some place. If it does not fully satisfy you, express yourself a view, that you feel is more accurate or appropriate. Together these views form a fuller picture of the landscape.

Taking the role of a thoughtpolice certainly does not come from a high altitude.

 

Irmeli

[Balder]

There's no 'policing' going on here, Irmeli.  Just the expression of a difference of opinion.  You aren't wanting to stop me from expressing that, are you?

[Edward theurj Berge]

You completely miss the point Irmeli.

[Mary W.]

In response to Xibalba's point about KW's message appealing and speaking more to those in a Buddhist culture: Perhaps that is true.

But here's an example of a message to Japan from a non-Western Buddhist, Thich Nhat Hanh (I found it posted on his Facebook page). It embraces impermanence and wabi-sabi, and yet does not sound dissociated:

 

"Dear friends in Japan,

As we contemplate the great number of people who have died in this tragedy, we may feel very strongly that we ourselves, in some part or manner, also have died.

The pain of one part of humankind is the pain of the whole of humankind. And the human species and the planet Earth are one body. What happens to one part of the body happens to the whole body.

An event such as this reminds us of the impermanent nature of our lives. It helps us remember that what's most important is to love each other, to be there for each other, and to treasure each moment we have that we are alive. This is the best that we can do for those who have died: we can live in such a way that they continue, beautifully, in us.

Here in France and at our practice centers all over the world, our brothers and sisters will continue to chant for you, sending you the energy of peace, healing and protection. Our prayers are with you."

--Thich Nhat Hanh

 

It's not my intention to engage in a compare-and-contrast analysis (my "guilt" speaks again). Just wondering about things, and making an observation.

 

Peace,

Mary

[kelamuni]

hi x,

hi xibalba,

i welcome your point concerning buddhistic cultures and also the one about grieving italian women at funerals. point taken.

but i don't think the buddhistic point necessarily holds water. first, i'm not so sure that the japanese are necessarily a buddhistic culture. i see them, along with the chinese and koreans, as more confucian in nature. second, even if we concede that they are buddhistic, then the sri lankans will be just as "buddhistic" in nature. and yet as several anthropologists have noted, after their tsunami, the sri lankans reacted very differently to their loss than the japanese have in the present case. differences in culture may indeed be involved but i'm not at all sure that one or the other being "buddhistic" really gets to the heart of the difference.

i also realize that my analogy concerning the badly raised child was not rigourous, but i did not really intend it to be. my point in using it, and i bring up the image often, was merely to indicate how flakey and trite new-age, Oprahesque advice about "remaining in one's centre" can sound in the face of actual tragedy, calamity, and loss, and how ridiculous and pretentious it can sound when monk-like advice about "detachment" is offered to people who are not cenobites. i simply find it out of place, no matter what the culture.

i also personally find the use of that kind of prescriptive language to in very poor taste. and indeed, in the case of the japanese, where cordiality, mutual respect, and non-offensive language is held in such high esteem, such language may be seen as particularly offensive. i teach several korean students, and though they have a tradition of listening to and honouring the teacher, i still have to be very careful, and sensitive, with my language when i offer correction and advice.

so my point is more or less, that ken's choice of words was rather vulgar and showed a certain lack of understanding. at the same time i'd like to know what an average group of japanese on the street thought about ken's remarks, and i'd be open to being wrong.

cheers.

[kelamuni]

Yes, while Thick Fat Hand's letter approaches the use of prescriptive language (personal loss "reminds" us of impermanence), he does not specifically make use of the kind of injunctiive language that Wilber uses and his comments are oriented toward the shared experience of sym-pathy and com-passion. I still don't like it though when teachers use such occasions to profess "the teaching." It's kinda like people who say, "I told ya so."

These letters strike me as interesting though. Apparently, Ken has assumed, or been conferred with, the role of "Padre." That is, he is expected by his "bretheren" to write just such a letter as he did. So, whether or not we like this new role of Integral guru, there it is. Apparently is has been necessitated.

[Irmeli Mattsson]

I'm just expressing my naturally arising differing opinion. When I wrote my comment, I knew this is not the politically right thing to say here. I hope views that differ from the official right canon of this place are permitted here.

Balder said:

There's no 'policing' going on here, Irmeli.  Just the expression of a difference of opinion.  You aren't wanting to stop me from expressing that, are you?

[Irmeli Mattsson]

I certainly missed and still miss your point. But I did not miss the point that comes from a voice deep inside, and is a voice authentically mine reflecting my genuine intuition and feeling beyond thought.

 

What are you referring to with THE POINT? Your point of view, or some absolutely and always correct point irrespective of what I am seeing from the place from where I am looking at the issue?

 

Irmeli

theurj said:

You completely miss the point Irmeli.

[Lol]

Dear Mary,

Thank you hugely for posting this. There are perspectives and perspectives -- this one I feel actually nourishes me.

"This is the best that we can do for those who have died: we can live in such a way that they continue, beautifully, in us."

I'll reflect on this as my thought for the day.

Lol

Mary W. said:

In response to Xibalba's point about KW's message appealing and speaking more to those in a Buddhist culture: Perhaps that is true.

But here's an example of a message to Japan from a non-Western Buddhist, Thich Nhat Hanh (I found it posted on his Facebook page). It embraces impermanence and wabi-sabi, and yet does not sound dissociated:

 

"Dear friends in Japan,

As we contemplate the great number of people who have died in this tragedy, we may feel very strongly that we ourselves, in some part or manner, also have died.

The pain of one part of humankind is the pain of the whole of humankind. And the human species and the planet Earth are one body. What happens to one part of the body happens to the whole body.

An event such as this reminds us of the impermanent nature of our lives. It helps us remember that what's most important is to love each other, to be there for each other, and to treasure each moment we have that we are alive. This is the best that we can do for those who have died: we can live in such a way that they continue, beautifully, in us.

Here in France and at our practice centers all over the world, our brothers and sisters will continue to chant for you, sending you the energy of peace, healing and protection. Our prayers are with you."

--Thich Nhat Hanh

 

It's not my intention to engage in a compare-and-contrast analysis (my "guilt" speaks again). Just wondering about things, and making an observation.

 

Peace,

Mary

[Balder]

I'm just expressing my naturally arising differing opinion. When I wrote my comment, I knew this is not the politically right thing to say here. I hope views that differ from the official right canon of this place are permitted here.

 

Of course, Irmeli.  Your views are welcome here, whether they are contrary to prevailing opinion or not.  If you noticed, X also voiced a contrary opinion and no one attacked him or policed him.

 

In any event, I'm noting that it seems to take a more controversial thread to lure other valued, but often silent, members out of the woodworks and to begin posting again.  If I'm not careful, that could turn into a reinforcing feedback loop! :-) 

 

Regarding your observation, or feeling, that a thread such as this is intended to "police" Wilber's thinking or to stop him from voicing his opinions, metaphysical or not, that is definitely not my intent.  I have no desire to stop him from communicating, in whatever way he likes.  But while this forum is inspired by his work, if he says something I disagree with, I will sometimes bring that up for discussion -- for me, in the interest of exploring and developing the themes and ideas to which this forum is dedicated (which go beyond Wilber's particular take on things).  I hear your warning, though, about falling into a rigid form of thinking, a "postmetaphysical orthodoxy," and will listen to that.  Perhaps it's because only a few voices reguarly speak up here, and that can sometimes lead (for me) into a kind of a rut of sameness in my communications here.

 

Best wishes,

 

B.