Over at Buddhist Geeks, we were very lucky to have interviewed one of our favorite philosophers a few weeks ago, Ken Wilber. Today, the 1st part of our discussion with him is live on Buddhist Geeks. It’s entitled “The Meditative Maps: Happy Mornings and Dark Nights.”
In all honesty, I think this is one of the best interviews we’ve done on Buddhist Geeks as we had a very clear idea of the questions we wanted to ask, and Ken’s answers were extremely lucid. He gave an overview (as is his style) of the various maps that one find’s in the Buddhist tradition, including the one’s from the Visuddhimagga, the 10 Zen oxherding pictures, and the Annutarayoga Tantra. The descriptions were great, as were the connections he made between the maps. Finally we discussed the Dark Night(s), which I think is one of the most important, and under-discussed, elements of the spiritual path. He shared two meanings of the Dark Night, one having to do with being plunged into new territory that is amazing and new, and then having that territory disappear. The other had to do with dis-identifying with an entire level of experience, and having to loosen one’s grasping and clinging to the experiences of that realm as they acclimate to a new baseline level of experience (ex. from gross to subtle).
All in all, I found his understand of this subject matter to be without match. It’s clear that he is both a brilliant thinker and synthesizer, as well as a very realized practitioner. The combination is definitely worth checking out.
Popularity: 50% [?]
October 21st, 2008 at 6:13 am
Oooh, you lucky bugger! I’m definitely giving this a listen tonight…
Sorry, I just can’t wait: did he say anything about the theravada model and how it relates to those maps? I was quite disappointed with Integral Spirituality as he seemed to fail to grasp the difference between the vipassana jhanas and shamatha jhanas, despite all his talk of state-stages. He also seems to include nerodhi as a necessary step in the process (something I’m toying with at the moment).
Also, any more ‘insight participation’?
October 21st, 2008 at 6:16 am
Oh yes – the Visuddhimagga is of course theravada. Ahem.
October 22nd, 2008 at 9:45 am
Hey Alan,
He did mention it a little bit and did relate some of it to the other maps. Overall, I think you’re right, that he doesn’t have a super-good grasp on the Theravada model. That being said he didn’t seem to confuse shamatha jhanas and vipassana jhanas. Instead, he outlined the progression in the Vishudimagga, from a basis in ethics, to concentration with support, to concentration without support, to progressing through the insight stages. In that sense, he understands the progression in the Vishuddhimagga just fine.
The things I wondered about are: Why did he equate Nirodha (both in our interview and in books like One Taste) with the final goal of the Theravada. Sure it comes at the very end of the Vishuddhimagga, but that doesn’t mean it is the final attainment of the path (which is what seems to be his reasoning here). Instead, and it’s pretty clear in the Vishuddhimagga, it’s an concentration-like attainment that an anagami or above can have, but which isn’t necessary to realizing arhantship. I honestly don’t think he gets that, and for some reason he ends up thinking the Theravada stops short at this attainment as it’s final goal. Even reading the Vishuddhimagga one can see that simply isn’t true.
October 24th, 2008 at 1:06 am
Ken Wilber seems to believe as he said in the interview that emptiness which is empty of emptinesS (Dharmakaya-beyond the 4 extremes) is what all the other religious traditions are also referring to when they refere to there highest attainment. This is not true, as most of the othere religous traditions are of a creationist view. They are not able to cognize the emptiness (inexpresable-beyong the 4 extremes-being,not being, not both, not either) that the Buddha showed because they belive that emptiness has a creator. It is wrong of Ken Wilber to miss lead so many people in this way. Buddhahood is not comparable to the view of creationism. Gods are cut but not Buddhas.
October 29th, 2008 at 10:29 am
Hello Vince,
Great work with both podcasts! Any vibes down the phone line?
I’ve written up a few comments on the DhO.
October 29th, 2008 at 11:33 am
Hi Alan,
Nope, no vibes down the phoneline! Ha Ha Ha. The only times I’ve ever gotten any vibes from Ken were when I was in the A&P / Dark Night territory. Looking back it’s difficult for me to sort out what was what.
-Vince
October 29th, 2008 at 6:47 pm
Once again he made the point (Pt.2) that the Emptiness that the Buddha spoke of is the same as the experience of a creationist.
This is not true, when a being thinks they have a creator, there need for dualism (good/bad) is to strong. As Ken nows dualism a hinderence, its a bit strange.
Thanks for Buddhist Geeks.
October 30th, 2008 at 11:35 pm
“when a being thinks they have a creator, there need for dualism (good/bad) is to strong.”
Is this true? There are nuances like emanation, immanence and pantheism you simply have not considered.
“Creationism” refers to a now-political movement in the United States of What-the-Fuck-Happened to America that proposes that we teach children that five thousand years ago a deva named “Yahweh” or devas named “Elohim” made the earth out of mud that was underneath a puddle, and that a character only later identified as “Satan” buried fake dinosaur bones in the soil to fool us into believing otherwise. perhaps if the political milleau were otherwise this would not be an issue. The word you mean to use is “Theism”.
Anyway, I liked Part II better, though the way Wilber uses “states” and “stages” and some of the other Integral Jargon is difficult to follow at times. E.g., a “state” is a state of consciousness sometimes, then a stage of meditative practice, but you can’t tell if it’s ever a concentration state though in Part I he refered to textbook insight-preceded-by-concentration. Etc. Anyway his theory that moral or even psychological development is a separate continuum from contemplative development is as always helpful
February 18th, 2009 at 7:28 pm
I ran across your astute discussion of the difference between theism and buddhism as students of human spiritual experience, I think you may find the below words intriguing.
An Experience:
Years ago I had a life changing experience. I was spending a weekend at a Trappist monastery. A friend and I entered the church for the first time, We suddenly and simultaneously each had a marked spiritual experience. We stared at each other in shock and surprise. It was the presence of the Holy Spirit, fiery and enlivening. It lasted but a moment. What shocked me most was not the mere fact of experiencing “spirit” (I was used to that in my new age and eastern religious exposure) it was that it simply wasn’t the same spirit as I had encountered in those arenas. I had been taught the cardinal principle that God or Spirit or the Absolute in every religion, despite different approaches and words, was the same in essence and taste. I could no longer think that, based on my experience and what I was reading in the Bible. I was undone. Unless I reinterpreted and redefined the words of the Bible in the light of systems alien to the Bible – making it say things it doesn’t. – I could no longer blend Christ and Hinduism/Buddhism. I still had a way to go but eventually I left eastern and new age thought behind and became a Trinitarian/Nicene creed type as that understanding had the best fit to scripture and my own experience of the Three Persons of the Godhead.
A Parable:
The coast of Namibia is the only place in Africa where elephants swim in the ocean. Two gnats went out to sea. One landed on an elephant; the other on a whale. Both returned to land and shared their experiences. While their respective accounts had differences both said something like this: “It was huge beyond belief, wet, gray, and above all, alive!” Many gnat theologians decided the two gnats had experienced the same thing, while others disagreed. The discussion continues.
Obviously the whale is Yahweh. Consider an alternative to boring, generic contemplative orthodoxy – The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit!
What is the experience of the elephant? I think the “elephant” is deifying and absolutizing via “spiritual” practices and teachings your inward awareness which is created in God’s image. Your inner awareness and self is Godlike by being created in God’s image and through proper training and continued programming you can expand it into an experience and perception of “absolute reality”. From the Christian perspective this is embracing the primal lie of Genesis that you can be as God! and is the root of eastern religions. When we trust in Jesus we become one spirit with him according to the Bible and his I Amness is now inward not merely outward. Anyway this is the conclusion I’ve come to in this area. I know this is offensive to sincere and well intentioned followers of eastern spiritualities, but Jesus Christ is termed the rock of offense and the stumbling stone. I know I barked my shins against him and it was painful, but in the end I trusted in him.
Sincerely, Jeff
February 20th, 2009 at 9:34 pm
Hi Jeff, Monotheism is not the same path as Buddhism. As Monotheisms view of reality is that there is a supreme cause or supreme uncause. From a Buddhist perspective monotheists are just channelling higher form realms (God realms) or formless realms.If a monotheist does have an experience of emptiness-inexpresible (not existing, not not existing, niether, either) they unfortunatly label it incorrectly and say it was god, holy spirit or Jesus, allah atc.. This is because unfortunatly most westerners are so brainwashed by Jesus’s cult.
Jeff Jesus was just a human being as was Mary and all of the other followers of his cult.
The problem with labeling the experience incorrectly, is that one forms a deluded map and one cannot help beings in the God realms and formless realms not to mention themselves.
Unfortunatly because of the strength of jesus cult Buddhism is going to find a very hard time trying to explain to all of santas presents that they were not made.
Sorry if im not being pc Vince.
Brendan
Brendan
February 20th, 2009 at 9:42 pm
Hi Jeff, Just another point it is said that beings in God realms are very peacful and cute and one of there charcteristics, is that they all believe that they were made or created. Thats why it feels so good to humans when they feel that they were made or created.
February 20th, 2009 at 9:51 pm
Hi Jeff, Sorry to bother you again. You mentioned the three persons of the godhead. This is just a god realm repersentation of the 3 kayas Dharmakaya, Sombokaya and Nirmanakaya.
(gods are cute but not as free as a Buddha)
hope you are well.
Brendan
February 24th, 2009 at 2:06 pm
Hi, Brendan,
We could talk past each other all day long, each sure we’re speaking from the larger perspective, analyzing and interpreting the other’s experience and viewpoint from his personal world view.
There is much historical and anthropological evidence that the human primal religious experience is that of a creator God. Is that evidence of an accurate gut response by humankind or evidence of delusion? Take your pick. By the way in your understanding what is the ultimate origin of ignorance/delusion (we call it sin, I don’t know what terminology you would use). I don’t know if you hold to the concept of a perfect compasssionate buddha nature, if so how did what we call suffering and ignorance and so on originate in your opinion.Is “bad” just a trough in the rolling waves of samsara and “good” a crest? Just contrasts like purple and orange? Speaking of not being pc – I thought believing in the Bible, Jesus and so on fell into that category! Show’s the different subculture I belong to I guess. In any case I freely admit our explanation for evil – the initial sin of humanity and our continued choice in that direction and the influence of evil spiritual forces is not acceptable to the many minds.
Such huge topics to discuss!
Jeff
February 24th, 2009 at 5:58 pm
From a Buddhist perspective there is no origin. Ignorance (not understanding emptiness) is beginningless, so there is no origin. Unfortunatly this very hard for most beings to understand because most beings are so conditioned in dualism (start/end).Your understanding of Buddha Nature is not correct, Buddha Nature is not compassion it is emptiness. Dont forget to help you god.
hope you are well.
Brendan
February 25th, 2009 at 11:48 am
Brendan
This will be my last comment, you can have the last word in response if you like.
A while back I was reading about exalted Buddhist states of awareness. I asked myself, “What is the equivalent of this in Christianity?” I then had a deep experience of the Father loving me. What Buddhism was offering then seemed like lonely and austere sublime silliness. I chuckle at the absurdity of thinking God the Father and his love is a delusion to be transcended.
If you want to continue the conversation we can do so via email jeffrey555@sbcglobal.net
Best regards, Jeff
February 25th, 2009 at 10:00 pm
Hi Jeff, Like most beings you think Buddhism is cold and lonely because most beings think emptiness is nhilism. Emptiness is not nhilism because emptiness is empty of emptiness, in other words it is inexpresible. Emptiness dosnt have a start or an end, it wasnt born or created and can not die or be finished.
Like all gods, Abrahams gods needs beings to be good and hurts beings who are bad. Hopefully over time westerners will learn more about emptiness and interdependent origination and we will have to stop being good and serving there god.
All thr best,
Brendan