My Amazon Reviews of Ken Wilber’s Books

[I have reviewed three of Ken Wilber’s books at Amazon.com – “The Fourth Turning: Imagining the Evolution of an Integral Buddhism,” “Integral Psychology: Consciousness, Spirit, Psychology, Therapy,” and “Up from Eden.” These reviews, which follow, make clear my thinking on Wilber.]

The Fourth Turning: Imagining the Evolution of an Integral Buddhism

[My two-star Amazon review of this book is entitled “Two Stars with a Caveat.”]

The second I was notified this ebook was available, I immediately downloaded it and read it. This book is right up my alley, and I wouldn't be surprised if Ken Wilber got the idea for this book from my writings, wherein I talk about the need for another Turning of the Wheel--but more on that a little later in my review. I'm going to divide my review into three parts, which will mirror the book's three-part format (Past, Present, and Future). Hence, the first part of my review will focus on the past, the second on the present, and the third on the future. Before I begin the actual review, I want to say that I first read Wilber more than thirty years ago, and that I've written Amazon reviews of two of his other books-- "Integral Psychology" (3 stars) and "A Brief History of Everything" (3 stars). I'm a student of sociopolitics and an expert in multiple schools of mysticism, including the principal schools of Buddhism (check out my 35 reviews of Buddhism books), and I look forward to comments from anyone who disagrees with my critique of Wilber's Buddhism and thesis.

In the book's Introduction, Wilber informs us that the world's religions "need to get serious about updating their fundamental dogmas." He says that the core ideas can be maintained, but that these new discoveries about spiritual experiences, spiritual intelligence, and spiritual development during the past thousand years need to be integrated into an Integral framework that includes and transcends the central teachings of the traditions. I agree with Wilber's goal but disagree with some of his ideas about the "upgrade," and I'll detail my disagreements in my review. Most importantly, I think Wilber misses the essence of what a new Turning of the Wheel should be about.

In Part 1 of "The Fourth Turning," Wilber presents a brief history of Buddhism, its essential past, meaning the Three (or Four) Turnings of the Wheel. According to Wilber, the First Turning, by the Buddha, represented "renunciation,"the Second, by Madhyamika, was about "transformation," and the Third, by Yogacara (and Vajrayana), introduced "transmutation." As Wilber points out, Vajrayana can also be viewed independently as the Fourth Turning of the Wheel.

In my opinion, Wilber doesn't grok what these Turnings are really about because he doesn't deeply understand Buddhism or mysticism. I'll summarize what the Turnings are really about, then deconstruct Wilber's Buddhism and mysticism.

I maintain that there have been Four Turnings of the Wheel in Buddhism: 1) The Buddha's original Dharma, 2) Madhyamika's emptiness Dharma, 3) Yogacara's Mind-only (or Buddha-nature) Dharma, and 4) Vajrayana's tantra Dharma. And in contrast to Wilber, who only envisions spicing up Buddhadharma with elements of his Integral theory (mainly transpersonal developmental psychology and a socio-psychology of religion), I say that the Fifth Turning of the Wheel is fundamentally about a new school of Buddhism that demystifies the previous Turnings and incorporates their respective essences into a truly holistic new Buddhadharma. I call this new school of Buddhism "Electrical Buddhism," and I do so because, as I'll explain, each of the Turnings after the Buddha's represents one-third of Ohm's Law.

The First Turning of the Wheel, by the Buddha himself, set the Wheel in motion; the second, by Madhyamika, emphasized emptiness (Absence, or "Ohms reduction"); the third, by Yogacara, accentuated Mind (Presence, or "Voltage"); and the fourth, by Vajrayana, focused on Energy (Power, or "Current"). The Fifth Turning will not only unify Buddhism, but also integrate it with Christianity; and I elaborate on this theme in my book "Electrical Christianity."

I call the paradigm that integrates Ohm's Law with Christianity and Buddhism the Electrical Spiritual Paradigm (ESP), and I contend that this paradigm radically demystifies spiritual En-Light-enment. Because this is just a book review and not a book, I cannot fully elaborate the paradigm here, but I will provide a brief summary of it relative to the Three Turnings that followed Gautama's.

First, for those who are unfamiliar with Ohm's Law, it states that "the strength or intensity of an unvarying electric current is directly proportional to the electromotive force and inversely proportional to the resistance in a circuit." Ohm's Law--where V = voltage (electromotive force), I = amperage (intensity of current), and R = ohms (units of resistance)--can be summarized in three formulas:

V = IR; I = V/R; R = V/I

(Note: Any form of the Ohm's Law equation can be derived from the other two via simple algebra.)

Madhyamika, the first of the three Turnings that followed Gautama's, emphasized emptiness, which equates to self-emptying, or Ohms (or resistance) reduction. Then Yogacara, the subsequent Turning, emphasized Mind, or Conscious Presence, which generates Consciousness-Force or Pressure, which is akin to Voltage (electromotive force). In electricity, electrical energy, or Amperge, is directly proportional to Voltage and inversely proportional to Ohms reduction; and Vajrayana Buddhism, which turned the Wheel after Yogacara, emphasized spiritual Energy, which is akin to Amperage. In short, each of the three Turnings after Gautama's represents one-third of the fundamental Law of Electricity--Ohm's' Law. Interestingly enough, some scientists argue that electromagnetism is the only fundamental force in the universe. Wilber talks about integrating modern science with Buddhadharma, and to my mind, where this integration should begin is by considering the Turnings of the Wheel within the context of electrical energy, specifically Ohm's Law.

Many Integralists imagine that Ken Wilber is an all-time great spiritual teacher. For example, Jim Marion, author of "Putting on the Mind of Christ," describes Wilber as "one of the greatest and most brilliant spiritual teachers of all time." In contrast to Marion, I contend that Wilber is hardly the brilliant spiritual teacher or philosopher that many imagine him to be, and I'll be glad to elaborate on this in response to comments. What I'll do now, however, is just point out some of the flaws in Wilber's understanding of Buddhadharma and Hinduism.

First off, Wilber doesn't understand Emptiness, which he incessantly emphasizes in his exegesis of Madhyamika and Yogacara. He conflates Emptiness with ultimate Reality, which he also conflates with Nothingness. If he'd actually read and understand Ayn Rand's Objectivist epistemology, he'd realize that he's guilty of the reification of zero, attributing ontological status to a non-Existent. Nothingness does not exist, so form, or existents, cannot derive from it. Emptiness is likewise a non-Existent; it is simply a term to describe the absence of existents. Emptiness is a derivative, not the Great Ontological Primary. There must be Something that can be empty, and that Something is Mind, or Consciousness. Unbeknownst to Wilber, Mind is empty, or formless, but it is not Emptiness; it is Consciousness. Emptiness is really about self-emptying, or self-nullification, which allows Consciousness-Force (Voltage) to transmute into a Light-energy current (Amperage).

Wilber, in goose step with the Heart Sutra, tells us that form is not different from emptiness, and that emptiness is not different from form. If the two aren't different, then where is the need for an Emptiness doctrine? Among the Great Spiritual Traditions, only certain schools of Buddhism apotheosize the Void. If Emptiness were ultimate Reality, then Christianity and Hinduism would also apotheosize the Void; but they don't. Moreover, Wilber tells us that Emptiness is a synonym for Suchness, or Thusness, or Isness. The Hindus, properly, laugh at this. According to them, Isness, or Being (Sat) = Consciousness (Siva)-Spirit (Shakti). But Wilber doesn't understand Being, reducing it to just Spirit, which he conflates with Emptiness. Spirit is not emptiness; it is the en-Light-ening Action, or Energy, of Being. Being is Consciousness-Spirit, or Consciousness-Energy. Spirit, Clear-Light Energy, the Sambhogakaya, is the "objective" half of Being, while Consciousness, or Mind, is the "subjective" half.

In addition to his ignorance relative to Emptiness, Suchness, and Spirit, Wilber also does not grok the Buddhist Trikaya (Dharmakaya, Sambhogakaya, Nirmanakaya), which I say is the same thing as the Christian Trinity (Father, Holy Spirit, Son). Wilber tells us that the Dharmakaya, which is unborn Mind, or timeless Awareness, is synonymous with the Hindu Causal Body. This is wrong, and if Wilber had studied Advaita Vedanta, he'd know that the Anandamaya Kosha, the Bliss Sheath, the fifth of the five sheaths that cover the Soul, or Self, or Buddha-nature, is the Causal Body. The Anandamaya Kosha, or Bliss Sheath, is the same Body, or Dimension, as the Buddhist Bliss (or Light-energy) Body, the Sambhogakaya, which, when contemplated dualistically rather than nondualistically, functions as a sheath, and thus prevents Self-realization. But Wilber, ignorantly, tells us that the Sambhogakaya is analogous to the Subtle Body. Unbeknownst to Wilber, the Subtle Body is analogous to the Pranayama Sheath, the cosmic energy body. The Sambhogakaya is uncreated Clear-Light Energy, and thus is acosmic in nature.

Just as Wilber doesn't grok the Emptiness doctrine, the Trikaya, or the Causal and Subtle Bodies, he likewise doesn't really understand the Lankavatara Sutra and Yogacara. Anyone who wants to understand the Lankavatara Sutra and Yogacara should refer to my two-star Amazon review of "The Lankavatara Sutra," by Red Pine, and compare my exegesis of the subject to Wilber's in "The Fourth Turning."

In short, anyone who writes a book audaciously titled "The Fourth Turning" should be able to upgrade Buddhadharma, but Wilber, a philosophically challenged mystic, is not up to the task.

In Part 2 of "The Fourth Turning," Wilber focuses on integrating his Integral philosophy with Buddhadharma and mysticism in general. In other words, Wilber's vision of the Fourth Turning is a marriage between Buddhadharma and his Integral philosophy. With this in mind, Wilber presents 7 central ideas to buttress his thesis--1) structures and structure-stages of development, 2) states and vantage points, 3) shadow and shadow work, 4) quadrants (four perspectives and dimensions that all phenomena possess), 5) typologies, 6) the miracle of "we," 7) the impact of interior thinking.

Because I can't write an entire book here, I will severely limit my critique of these central ideas. Hence, I'll just focus on a few of these ideas, which are nothing new to anyone already familiar with Wilber's Integral philosophy.

Structure-stages, the first of Wilber's central ideas, are the evolutionary philosophical "windows," or vantage points, through which people view and filter their life experiences, including what Wilber identifies as the four major states of humans: gross, subtle, causal, nondual. From the lowest to the highest, these structures-stages, according to Wilber, are: archaic, magic, mythic, rational, pluralistic, integral, and super-integral. Humans can experience any of the four states from the vantage point of any of these stage-structures. According to Wilber, "structures are how we grow up and states are how we wake up."

I think that structure-stages provide a useful tool for understanding the various cultural mindsets throughout history and how they have evolved while the states have remained the same. But just as Wilber doesn't understand the four major states very well, he likewise goes awry with his structure-stages hierarchy. Placing irrational "pluralistic," a euphemistic term for liberal-fascist, above "rational" in his hierarchy bespeaks of libtardism; and the fact that Wilber is an Obama supporter explains his neo-Marxist, or collectivist, sentiments. Just as Wilber is mystically challenged, he is likewise sociopolitically challenged. He ignorantly equates "individual freedom" with "representative democracy," when the latter is a synonym for majority mob rule, which cavalierly and egregiously violates putatively inviolable (or constitutionally-mandated) individual rights, which include property rights.

Wilber is not only mystically and sociopolitically challenged, he is also epistemologically challenged. If he'd bothered to study Ayn Rand's Objectivist Epistemology instead of hanging his hat on Charles Peirce's Sign Theory, or Semiotic, he'd understand that describing the core of his Integral theory, his Four Quadrant Model (central idea No. 4) as "the four perspectives and dimensions that all phenomena possess" is utter nonsense. Human minds possess perspectives, phenomena don't.

I second Wilber's fifth central idea, that of typologies--but he misses the boat with the typologies he designates as important in the creation of an Integral Buddhism. In my opinion, there can be no Integral psychology and no Integral Buddhism without astrology, a nonpareil tool for understanding self, others, and relationships on a deep karmic level. But Wilber, partially buried in the very zeitgeist "flatland" he heavily criticizes, fails to acknowledge astrology as a valid tool for self- and other- understanding. However, he buys into the Enneagram (a ninefold typology of personality types), which unbeknownst to him, derives from astrology, which subsumes and transcends it as a system of human classification and understanding. Wilber also acknowledges Myers-Briggs personality types as a means to self-understanding. The four fundamental personality types in Myers-Briggs--feeling, sensation, intuition, thinking - correlate almost exactly with the four astrological-elemental types --water, earth, fire, and air--and a professional astrologer, which I was for a number of years, can assess the "elemental" constitution of individuals far better than the Myers-Briggs test.

Part 3 of Wilber's book, The Future, is simply a superfluous regurgitation, or summary, of Part Two. And speaking of summaries, here is mine of this book: It is simply Wilber's Integral Theory plastered on top of Buddhadharma. If you are already familiar with Wilber's Integral theory, you won't find much, if anything, new here. And Wilber is one of the last writers I'd recommend for anyone wanting to learn what Buddhadharma and mysticism are really about. Wilber is worth a read, because his Integral theory, though flawed, is interesting and breaks new ground. Hence, for those unfamiliar with Wilber's writings, I'd say this is a three-star book, but for those already intimate with Integral theory, I rate it two stars.

 

Integral Psychology: Consciousness, Spirit, Psychology, Therapy

[My three-star Amazon review of this book is entitled “Up from Eden, Down from Integral.]

I am a spiritual teacher-author, and even though I am not a fan of Ken Wilber's Integralism, I recommend his writings to my students. I suggest they begin their foray into "Wilber World" with "A Brief History of Everything," and if they find it to their liking, move on to "Sex, Ecology and Spirituality." Unless a student is interested in the history of psychology and psychological theories, I usually don't recommend "Integral Psychology," which offers little other new material, and, in my opinion, is not an enjoyable read because of its jargonized, quasi-academic style of writing.

I find Wilber a mixed bag, and because I disagree with much of what he writes, I see the bag as full of holes. Nonetheless, he's worth reading because he does uncover fertile new ground. But unfortunately, he doesn't dig very deep into the soil, and the non-cognoscenti, unable to perceive this, mistake him for an "Einstein of consciousness" when, to my mind, he's merely a pontificating Pandit lost in a superficial, liberal-progressive vision of spiritual and social reality.

I have written a book deconstructing Eckhart Tolle's teachings, and I could write a similar-type book deconstructing Wilber's. But since this is just a review, I'll limit my critique of "Integral Psychology" to just several paragraphs.

I'll begin with Wilber's vertical, or hierarchical, model of the evolutionary development of human consciousness, the Great Nest of Being, a nested hierarchy which consists of progressive levels of wholeness--matter-physics, biology-life, psychology-mind, theology-soul (subtle), and mysticism-spirit (causal). And, as Wilber states, "[In the Great Nest of Being], Spirit is both the highest level (causal) and the nondual Ground of all levels."

I actually like Wilber's Great Nest of Being as a general model, with the subtle and causal levels gleaned from Hindu Advaita Vedanta. But Wilber doesn't understand the Vedanta causal level, or body, mistakenly conflating it with the Buddhist Dharmakaya (the omnipresent Truth "body" of transcendental Awareness). In reality, the causal body is the Anandamaya kosha (or Bliss "sheath") in Advaita Vedanta, which is the same divine Light-energy as the Buddhist Sambhogakaya (or Bliss body), Hindu Shakti, and the Christian Holy Spirit. The separation of an individual's soul (or consciousness) from the Bliss body, or Shakti, or Holy Spirit, or divine Light-energy, "causes" one's un-en-Light-enment; hence the Bliss body functions as a "sheath" which veils the Divine Self (or Buddha-nature), and thus is termed the "causal" body.

I'm an expert in mysticism, and I laugh at those, such as Jim Marion, author of "Putting on the Mind of Christ," who think Wilber is "one of the greatest and most brilliant spiritual teachers of all time." Wilber not only doesn't grok the Buddhist Trikaya, he also, mistakenly, conflates Spirit with emptiness. If Wilber grokked Hindu Sat-Chit-Ananda and Ayn Rand's Objectivist epistemology, he'd understand that emptiness, unlike Spirit, is not an Ontological Primary. Rather, it is an ontological zero, merely an epistemological term to describe Spirit's nature as formless.

Wilber understands that true spirituality, divine yoga, is about uniting the individual soul with universal Spirit, but surprisingly, he has very little to say about the human soul in this book. He doesn't mention Plato's canonical description of the soul - cognition, conation, affection - and he ignores yoga philosophy, failing to describe the soul as a collection of samskaras, or psychical seed tendencies, which sprout from the heart-region of the body and crystallize as thoughts in the brain. The human soul-matrix is the astral, or "star," body, which is reflected as one's etheric body, but Wilber, not a true esotericist, fails to venture into "deep soul" territory and consider the "root-structure" of the mind and its correlate etheric energy field.

In my opinion, there can be no Integral psychology without astrology, a nonpareil tool for understanding self, others, and relationships. But Wilber, partially buried in the very zeitgeist "flatland" he heavily criticizes, fails to acknowledge astrology as a valid tool for deciphering the root psychical tendencies, or "blueprint," of one's soul. But he buys into the enneagram (a ninefold typology of personality types), which unbeknownst to him, derives from astrology, which subsumes and transcends it as a system of human classification and understanding. Wilber also acknowledges Myers-Briggs personality types as a means to self-understanding. The four fundamental personality types in Myers-Briggs - feeling, sensation, intuition, thinking - correlate almost exactly with the four astrological-elemental types - water, earth, fire, and air - and a professional astrologer, which I was for a number of years, can assess the "elemental" constitution of individuals far better than the Myers-Briggs test. Finally, Wilber mentions the "ontological levels of the sefirot of Kabbalah," but he fails to mention the fact that each of the sefirots correlates with a planet, from which it derives its unique ontological qualities. In my book "Electrical Christianity: A Revolutionary Guide to Jesus' Teachings and Spiritual Enlightenment," I present an embryonic vision of Integral Psychology that differs markedly from Wilber's.

Wilber doesn't limit himself to psychology in "Integral Psychology"; he also pontificates on sociopolitics, using one of his favorite hierarchies - Don Beck's (eight-level) Spiral Dynamics - to explain the stages of human sociopolitical development. Levels seven and eight of Beck's (eight-level) Spiral Dynamics "evolutionary" political hierarchy are a complete joke - totally vague and nebulous New Age mumbo jumbo, inchoate crap not even worth deconstructing. Second, Wilber and Spiral Dynamics display their strong left-wing bias in level six. This level includes "postmodernism, egalitarianism, multiculturalism, subjective thinking, and decision-making through consensus." Postmodernism is utter drivel. The fact that Wilber gives any credence to this anti-philosophy is a black mark on his work. The placement of some of the other philosophies and/or orientations I've listed from level six bespeaks of a collectivist, or liberal-fascist, mindset. For example, "egalitarianism" and "multiculturalism" exemplify reductionism rather than integralism, because instead of emphasizing equal individual rights and opportunity for all citizens, they focus attention on special-interest groups rather than on the whole - the organic "melting pot" that a truly free America would naturally be. Finally, the core description of level six - "Sacrifice self-interest now in order to gain acceptance and group harmony" - could be the mantra for any communist or fascist state. I'm sure Hitler's Nazi party would have merrily chanted it, because my late father, a German Jew who escaped from Germany in 1936, told me as much. In sum, it is farcical to place the various spiral dynamics "sixth-level" philosophies and orientations above Rand's "fifth-level" Objectivism. Wilber makes it clear that he is a Kantian-influenced Statist when he recommends "exercising educational, poltical and civic duties to family, town, state, nation, world" "Duty" is a dirty word to rational Objectivists; and the fact that Wilber and most of his acolytes are Obama supporters informs us that his "Progressivism" is of the liberal-fascist variety.

Wilber's emphasis on individual allegiance to "higher social orders" doubtless stems from his allegiance to to nested hierarchies, or "holarchies." Wilber writes: "A holon is a a whole that is part of other wholes. For example, a whole atom is part of a whole molecule, a whole molecule is part of a whole cell, a whole cell is part of a whole organism, and so on. As we will see throughout this volume, the universe is fundamentally composed of holons, wholes that are parts of other wholes. Letters are parts of words which are parts of sentences which parts of entire languages. A person is part of a family which is part of a community which is part of a nation which is part of the globe, and so on."

Where Wilber goes wrong with his holonic paradigm is in failing to differentiate between the metaphysically given and the man-made. Whereas whole cells, for example, have no choice about being "cogs" in the "machine of organisms, humans have free will and can separate themselves from family, community, and country. But the fact that Wilber uses the term "democracy" (a euphemistic term for "mob rule") rather than "republic" to describe the Enlightenment informs us of his collectivist sentiments. He is a New World Order Globalist - and it will be interesting to see what he says when the Powers that Be start implanting RFID chips into humans.

Wilber's Four-Quadrant "horizontal" model - the four quadrants of "the interior and exterior of the individual and the collective" - which complements his "vertical" Great Nest of Being model, is a useful paradigm for considering sociocultural reality from both an individual and collective perspective; but I don't view it as a seminal model that redefines the term "integral." Forty years ago, my first spiritual teacher, John Logan, criticized me for trying to "put everything into boxes." I can only imagine what his reaction would be to Ken Wilber's "boxing fetish."

Eventually, I'll write my own book on "Integral Psychology," and it will go beyond Wilber's "orienting generalizations" and fetishistic boxing and systematization. Until then, people can read the Pandit's dissertation on psychology and determine for themselves just how "Integral" it really is.

 

A Brief History of Everything

[My three-star Amazon review of this book is entitled “Bald Ambition, Mixed Results.”]

Just as the late, brilliant guru Adi Da attempted to "privatize" God-realization ("I am the first, last, and only fully en-lightened 7th stage master"), Ken Wilber, who derives much of his spiritual material from Da, attempts, in his writings, to annex "integral life," declaring in effect that his four-quadrant framework and the various matrices and hierarchical schemas he has identified/concocted, or subscribes to, represent the true vision and maps of "integral life," I would argue to the contrary. In my opinion, they merely, for the most part, represent the subjective vision and maps of his hyperintellectual mind.

In A Brief History of Everything, Wilber uses cosmic and human history to support his integral vision of life, and one should at least applaud his effort, if not his success. A Brief History of Everything is actually my favorite Wilber text and the one I recommend to my students and those new to Wilber. In this book, unlike some of his others, he does not overdo the charts and mapping, and the result is an easy, amenable read. Despite his faults, I consider Wilber worth reading. He is an avant-garde thinker who unearths fertile new ground; however, he doesn't dig very deep into the soil, and in this sense he embodies the very "flatness" he criticizes.

Just as those familiar with modern evolutionary theory have reamed Wilber for his superficiality in that area, being an expert in both mystical and sociopolitical philosophy, I'll take a couple of "brief" potshots, from my fields, at the "Pandit." First, mysticism. It is ridiculous to conflate emptiness with spirit as Wilber does.(The Great Spiritual Traditions don't do it. Point me to a Hindu yoga teaching that does.) Spirit is the dynamic Energy of timeless Awareness. Emptiness is simply the non-presence of objects (or content) within a "container" (or context). Wilber is clueless regarding the Buddhist Trikaya (Triple Body). He says the "Dharmakaya of Spirit gives rise to the Sambhogakaya of mind which gives rise to the Nirmanakaya of body and form and nature." The fact is, the Dharmakaya of timeless Awareness gives rise to the Sambhogakaya of uncreated Spirit (Blissing, or Blessing, Light-energy) which gives rise to the Nirmankaya of created existence. Regarding politics, Wilber is a "Progressive," euphemistic term for a liberal-fascist, a Big Government globalist. His left-wing leanings are made clear in his statement: "Spirit as great Freedom is one thing; spirit actually manifested as political democracies is another." Anybody who has studied Rand or Rothbard knows that "democracy" is a synonym for "mob rule" (unlimited majority control), and should not be conflated with the term "freedom." If you're interested in real freedom, you stomp for a constitutional republic (which guarantees inviolable individual rights), not for a Wilber-type global "integral democracy."

In sum, this book merits a read, but if you're a sharp tool rather than a dull Wilber acolyte, my guess is that you'll realize Ken for what he is--an overrated but interesting philosopher. Three stars for bald ambition and mixed results.