miércoles, 20 de septiembre de 2017

Evidences of Case Wilber (part 1)

Case 31-2017: Ken Wilber

By Master Yan Maitri-Shi, Prosecutor

After Legitimating and Validating Evidences and Charges by Master Maitreya, President and Spiritual Judge of IBEC-BTHR, it is addressed the case against the accused party Ken Wilber. This investigation was initiated from the implications of the Universal Declaration on Buddhism as Cultural Heritage of Humanity.
The Charges by which the Buddhist Tribunal on Human Rights is accusing Ken Wilber are enumerated below:
·       Academic dishonesty
·       Spiritual scam and False Buddhism
·       Violations of the Buddhist Law
·       Crime against Buddhist Cultural Heritage
·       Violation of Human Rights

Therefore, it is detailed a series of EVIDENCES that support the Charges referred so that the Jury members decide about the possible "Responsibility", "Innocence" or "Insanity" of the accused. Such evidence come from graphic and audiovisual media that have been gathered, sorted and confirmed in their order and context as Means of Proof in order to know, establish, dictate and determine the Responsibility of the Accused for committing the aforementioned Charges.
The procedure established in the Statute of INTERNATIONAL BUDDHIST ETHICS  COMMITTEE & BUDDHIST TRIBUNAL ON HUMAN RIGHTS provides both bodies the ostentation to enjoy independence and liberty from state and national regulation and control, besides having the legality and acting as a Buddhist People in order to assert its customs, traditions, practices, procedures, judgments and rights as well as acting in pursuit of the development of Spirituality, of Buddhist Ethics, and of the defense of International Human Rights. This procedure has the particularity, singularity and distinction of having "Special Jurisdiction of the Tribal Law" and "Universal Jurisdiction of the International Law", thus having the Character, Juridical validity, Legal Powers, infrastructure, Training and Capability necessary to be Actor, Administrator and Executor of Justice in this realm and exercise, by judging of the Accused by means of an Ethical Judgment whose Purpose is Truth, Reconciliation and Learning.-

The case against Ken Wilber has been carried out from his appropriation of the Integral Buddhism (Purna) that has been being taught by Master Maitreya since 2005. The first part of the Case consists of evidences that support this argument along with testimonies that show the international legal implications entailed by such fraudulent actions. The second part of the Case is developed from the following question: In the possible event that Ken Wilber has not committed theft, Is there a possibility that his past behavior may be evidence proving definitively the charges by which he is accused? For this reason, the second part of the Case is about an analysis of the character, behavior and teachings of Ken Wilber, analyzing if they are illegitimate from the perspective of Buddhist Law.

International Buddhist Ethics Committee: In 2012, the former Maitreya Buddhist University and the Shangri-La Buddhist Temple created the World Association of Buddhism with the mission of bringing together Buddhists from all the traditions of the world under one banner, teaching the vision of Integral Buddhism (Purna Buddhism). This is because Maitreya Buddhist University, led by His Eminence Master Maitreya Samyaksambuddha, taught Integral Buddhism since 2005 throughout both Latin America and Iberoamerica, articulating Buddhist Psychology, Buddhist Philosophy and Buddhist Politics (This is duly registered on copyrights). In 2012 the Shangri-La Buddhist Temple was created as the first Buddhist temple in the world that was totally dedicated to the transmission of Integral Buddhism, even teaching 3 types of meditation that are characteristic traits of this School. But in creating the World Association of Buddhism there was a social engagement to establish bonds with all the Buddhists of the world by bringing them together in unity. For this reason, during the first months of the World Association of Buddhism it was publicly stated that a "Seventh Buddhist Council" was to be held and that a "new turn in the Dharma wheel" was being proposed with the spiritual style of Integral Buddhism defended by the World Association of Buddhism. In fact, an internal Department was created called "Future of Buddhism". All of this was well received by different Buddhist traditions, such as Theravada Buddhism, Zen Buddhism, Pure Land Buddhism and Nichiren Buddhism, all of which during 2013 signed documents publicly acknowledging the President of the World Association of Buddhism as the creator of Integral Buddhism, also known as Maitriyana or Reconciling Buddhism. For having great humility, in the first months of 2013 the World Association of Buddhism created an academic project that consisted of awarding transpersonal thinkers, Buddhists and philosophers around the world. These awards were honorary PhDs delivered by Maitreya Buddhist University, which successfully granted PhDs to thinkers such as Stanislav Grof, Michael Washburn, Mark Epstein, David Brazier, Edgar Morin, Jin Park and Juan Arnau, all of whom accept their awards. Other awards were also offered to other transpersonal thinkers such as Fritjof Capra, Rupert Sheldrake and Ken Wilber, among others. The answer of the Integral Institute was that Mr. Wilber was going to analyze the Maitreya Buddhist University’s website (where it was publicly announced Integrative Buddhism and the projects of the World Association of Buddhism). But a year later, in 2014, the Maitriyana Community was informed by a Buddhist monk that Mr. Wilber was creating "Integral Buddhism", performing a "fourth turning of the Dharma wheel" and that he was about to publish a book on "The future of Buddhism". In the face of this unprecedented dishonorable act in the history of world philosophy, the Maitriyana Community communicated with Frank Visser in order to try to understand what was happening in Mr. Wilber's mind, for this seemed a psychopathological behavior. As an empathetic educational organization, Maitreya Buddhist University shared this fact with its students and it was agreed not to take legal actions, hoping that Mr. Ken Wilber would simply abandon his illegal action. In addition, it was considered that the goal of Mr. Wilber's work indirectly revalidated the Integral Buddhism created by Master Maitreya. Furthermore, during 2014 the "Seventh Buddhist Council" was held with about one thousand Buddhists from around the world, in a historic event in which it was agreed to incorporate the model of "Purna (Integral) Buddhism" created by His Eminence Master Maitreya Samyaksambuddha into the official Buddhist Canon. In said "Seventh Buddhist Council" it was also created the International Buddhist Ethics Committee & Buddhist Tribunal on Human Rights. However, by re-usurping the Buddhist cultural heritage, in 2017 Ken Wilber wrote another book on "Integral Buddhism" without recognizing who are the legitimate creators and masters of the movement, thus continuing with the deception that he is the genuine creator of Integral Buddhism.
Amitabha Buddhist Society (India): “Participating in the event of ´Gautama Peace Prize´, our vote for ´Gautama Peace Prize´ goes to our Master, "Maitreya Buddha", for His dedicating life for Buddhism, i.e. Path of Peace. He is the inventor of Third Yana, the Reconciliatory Buddhism with respect to Modern science. His contribution for Buddhism is Extraordinary. He gives us a profound path for Eastern and Western Philosophy and making a bond between Mahayana and Hinayana.”
Richard Hunn Association for Chan Study: (In 2013) “Please be advised that the Richard Hunn Association for Ch'an Stud acknowledges the Maitreya Buddha, and accepts him as the Buddhist Master and Spiritual Leader of the World Association of Buddhism, and that he is the creator of Integral Buddhism (Maitriyana), a Third Way that integrates Hinayana with Mahayana traditions. We also acknowledge that this ‘Reconciliatory Buddhism’ not only gathers all schools of Buddhism together, but also has a profound dialectical relationship with Psychoanalysis, Existentialism, Relativism and Socialism.”
World Association of Theravada: WAT spiritually validates to Mahayana, Vajrayana, Navayana and Maitriyana, considering them as a Second, Third, Fourth and Fifth Way as valid as the first Way of Buddhism.
Master Maitreya Samyaksambuddha (creator of the Theory of Purna Buddhism or Integral Buddhism): “The division amongst Hinayana, Mahayana and Vajrayana is academic, incorrect, commercial and superficial, since the differences between these supposed three movements are intellectual constructions very different from the true practices. Therefore, any model that is positioned as a Fourth Way regarding these three is undoubtedly false, for it ignores the depth of all the Buddhist Pathways. On the traditional schemes about Purna Buddhism (Purnayana or Integral Buddhism) it is demonstrated that Maitriyana can be considered respectively as a Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Ninth or even as a Twelfth Way.”
Ken Wilber: “The First Turning was represented by Gautama Buddha himself, the founder of the religion. (…)Tantra particularly flourished at the great Nalanda University in India from the 8th to the 11th centuries CE. So profound were these developments that they have sometimes been referred to as a “Fourth Turning of the Wheel.” This is not as widespread an understanding as are the first three Turnings, but they were indeed profound nondual teachings. If we do count them as the Fourth Turning, then this simple introduction would be called “Toward a Fifth Turning,” (…) But whatever meta-theory one adopts, it is clear that any religion of the future will have to have, as part of its dharma, dogma, gospel, or teachings a formal statement on the relation of science and spirituality, and thus a meta-theory of one sort or another would be a likely item in any new Turning.  (…) Other items, such as other typologies, specific connections with all of the different human disciplines (e.g., Buddhism and law, Buddhism and medicine, Buddhism and business, Buddhism and leadership) will become increasingly demanding of any religion of the future, and ought to be encouraged starting now.  Those are some of the items that any new Turning of the Wheel of Dharma might want to seriously consider.”[1]

UNIVERSAL DECLARATION ON THE RIGHTS OF BUDDHIST PEOPLES AND SPIRITUAL COMMUNITIES: “Article 28: Buddhist Peoples and Spiritual Communities have the right to maintain, control, protect and develop intellectual property of their cultural heritage, traditional knowledge, artistic cultural expressions and scientific discoveries. (… )Article 42: Buddhist Peoples and Spiritual Communities have the right to practice and revitalize their cultural movement, by maintaining, protecting and developing the manifestations of past, present and future, which include the right to manage its archaeological and historical sites as well as its objects, ceremonies, visual arts and literature. States have the duty to provide effective mechanisms for redress and restitution of cultural, intellectual and spiritual heritage of Buddhist Peoples and Spiritual Communities when they had been deprived of them without informed, prior and free consent and or when their laws, traditions and customs have been violated.”
Universal Declaration on Buddhism as Cultural Heritage of Humanity: “Being aware that the UNESCO Constitution is committed to assist the conservation, progress and dissemination of knowledge, having the duty to preserve and protect the universal cultural heritage of humankind; Noting that the cultural heritage traditions of Buddhist Peoples and Spiritual Communities are threaten to be banalized, deteriorated or destroyed by contemporary societies obsessed with economic development and mass media; (…) Declaring that the deterioration or destruction of the Buddhist Cultural Heritage constitutes a spiritual impoverishment of the heritage of all the peoples and nations worldwide; (…) Recognizing that globalization has brought political and economic advances although it has also created cultural and environmental dangers, such as the deterioration and destruction of tangible and intangible cultural heritage; (…)Recalling that the cases carried out by the International Buddhist Ethics Committee have the purpose of safeguarding the integrity of the intangible cultural heritage of Buddhism, in particular the ethical teachings of spiritual masters; (…) Calling for the adoption of measures to protect cultural expressions of Buddhist Peoples, especially spiritual traditions that may suffer the dangers of destruction, deterioration, contempt or plagiarism; (…)Consolidating the vitality of the Cultural Heritage of spiritual communities and tribal peoples, which have the right to create, disseminate and protect their traditional cultural expressions; (…) Persuaded that the activities and services of Buddhism are a Cultural Heritage that renews the identity and the values of the people, so they should not be manipulated for commercial purposes; (…) Perceiving that globalization processes have developed technologies and media, although at the same time it has impoverished and manipulated spiritual traditions, allowing people outside a culture to profit from the values or knowledge of those traditions; Noting that every individual has the right to participate in the cultural tradition of Buddhism, provided that he or she does not violate the integrity of the tradition or violates the rights of others who participate in said cultural heritage, especially the rights of the creators of such knowledge and practices; Providing certainty that intercultural and interreligious dialogue is fundamental, so that every individual can be linked to any cultural tradition as long as he or she respects this heritage and does not copy it without authorization; (…) Observing compliance and protection of the intellectual property rights of spiritual communities that creatively contribute to the Cultural Heritage of Humanity; (…)Demonstrating that the creation of the spiritual framework of Maitriyana, which gave birth to the United Buddhist Nations Organization, ensures a proper process for the integration and reconciliation of all the cultural traditions of history, posing Buddhism as the Supreme Cultural Heritage of the entire humankind; (…) Article 17 – Buddhism has the right that its Cultural Heritage is safeguarded by means of effective measures such as identification, documentation, research, preservation, protection, promotion, valuation, transmission and revitalization of all its traditional aspects. (…)Article 24 – Buddhism has the right that its Cultural Heritage can be fully defended through the sovereignty and self-determination of spiritual communities, before which States of the international community should cooperate. Article 25 – Buddhism has the right that its Cultural Heritage shall not be damaged or manipulated by direct or indirect measures of individuals, groups or States. (…) Article 27 – Buddhism has the right that the International Buddhist Ethics Committee is in charge of defending its Cultural Heritage, having the duty to carry out trials in cases of violations of the integrity of Buddhist traditions. (…) Article 40 – Buddhism has the right that its Cultural Heritage is safeguarded by the participation of individuals, institutions and communities that create, maintain and transmit its heritage, especially by spiritual masters. Article 41 – Buddhism has the right to recognition of its Cultural Heritage that is composed of the works of Buddhist sages and spiritual masters, even if it involves oral or written teachings, contributing to its rescue, registration, study, diffusion and safeguarding as supreme intangible cultural heritage of the entire humanity. (…) Article 48 – Buddhism has the right to let its Cultural Heritage to be saved by the international community, which should successfully protect this material and immaterial cultural heritage, assuming the responsibility to preserve these cultural expressions of exceptional importance in the face of threats of destruction, manipulation or plagiarism. (…) Article 59 – Buddhism has the right to recognition of its Cultural Heritage for therapeutically benefiting the health of individuals, so that its ancient techniques have potentialities and capabilities that should be taught and used in all contemporary societies, but at the same time by protecting the rights of intellectual property. (…) Article 65 – Buddhism has the right that its Cultural Heritage is considered as jurisdiction of the spiritual commune (Sangha), which has cultural sovereignty over its traditions. (…) Article 82 – Buddhism has the right that its Cultural Heritage, composed of the sacred texts and also of the spiritual relationship between masters and apprentices, is respected, preserved and cared for in schools, universities, communities and the media, having the duty to document, teach and disseminate its teachings in an appropriate way and with the supervision of the Buddhist Peoples.”
Karima Bennoune (United Nations Special Rapporteur in the field of cultural rights): (The destruction of cultural heritage is a violation of human rights) “It is impossible to separate a people’s cultural heritage from the people itself and their Rights (…). Clearly, we must now understand that when cultural heritage is under attack, it is also the people and their fundamental human rights that are under attack (…)  In particular we must protect cultural heritage professionals on the frontlines of the struggle against destruction and ensure their safety and security, provide them with the conditions necessary to complete their Work (…). Moreover, we must also pay tribute to ordinary people who step forward to defend cultural heritage, like those in Northern Mali who reportedly hid manuscripts beneath the floorboards of their homes to protect them or those in Libya who tried to peacefully protest destruction of Sufi sites”[2]   “Cultural heritage is significant in the present, both as a message from the past and as a pathway to the future. Viewed from a human rights perspective, it is important not only in itself, but also in relation to its human dimensión (…) The right of access to and enjoyment of cultural heritage is a human right guaranteed by international law, and it must be taken seriously. As stressed by the Human Rights Council in its recent Resolution 33/20(2016) on cultural rights and the protection of cultural heritage, the destruction of or damage to cultural heritage may have a detrimental and irreversible impact on the enjoyment of cultural rights.  In addition, cultural heritage is a fundamental resource for other human rights, including the rights to freedom of expression, freedom of thought, conscience and religion, as well as the economic rights of the many people who earn a living through tourism related to such heritage. It is crucial to understand that tangible and intangible heritage are closely interlinked and that attacks on one are usually accompanied by assaults on the other. In addition, while specific aspects of heritage may have particular connections to particular human groups, all of humanity has a link to such objects, which represent the cultural heritage of all humankind, in all its diversity. This is reflected in UNESCO’s Culture Conventions and standard setting instruments aimed at protecting cultural diversity and heritage. In the UNESCO Declaration concerning the Intentional Destruction of Cultural Heritage adopted in 2003, the international community reaffirms its commitment to fight against the intentional destruction of cultural heritage in any form so that it may be transmitted to the succeeding generations. Intentional destruction is defined as an act intended to destroy in whole or in part cultural heritage, thus compromising its integrity, in a manner which constitutes a violation of international law or an unjustifiable offence to the principles of humanity and dictates of public conscience. (…) Importantly, individual criminal responsibility arises from serious offences against cultural heritage. I welcomed the decision of the Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court to charge the destruction of cultural and religious sites as a stand-alone war crime for the first time in the case of Ahmad Al Faqi Al Mahdi, which has recently resulted in a guilty verdict. (…) As stressed in the preamble of the 2003 UNESCO Declaration cultural heritage is an important component of cultural identity and of social cohesion, so that its intentional destruction may have adverse consequences on human dignity and human rights. Acts of deliberate destruction are often accompanied by other grave assaults on human dignity and human rights. They have to be addressed in the context of holistic strategies for the promotion of human rights and peacebuilding. (…) We must care about the destruction of heritage in conjunction with our grave concern for the destruction of the lives of populations.  Acts of intentional destruction harm all, and often disproportionately affect persons belonging to minorities. They contribute to intolerance, and deprive all humanity of the rich diversity of cultural heritage. (…) I recall the grievous history of destruction of diverse forms of indigenous cultural heritage in many parts of the world as a systematic part of, inter alia, colonialism or nationalist policies in post-colonial States, and I note that the totality of these acts have had long-lasting effects on the human rights of many indigenous peoples in diverse geographical contexts. (…)When cultural heritage is destroyed, this bears important consequences for a wide range of human rights for current generations and those to come. Cultural heritage is a record of the genius of human beings, that which we leave behind for the next generations to mark our path through this world, and quite simply irreplaceable even in a digital era. Let us come together with urgency and thoughtfulness to protect it.[3]
UNESCO Declaration concerning the Intentional Destruction of Cultural Heritage: “Recalling  the tragic destruction of the Buddhas of Bamiyan that affected the international community as a whole, (…) Referring to Article I(2)(c) of the Constitution of UNESCO that entrusts UNESCO with the task of maintaining, increasing and diffusing knowledge by assuring the conservation and protection of the world’s inheritance of books, works of art and monuments of history and science, and recommending to the nations concerned the necessary international conventions, (…) Mindful that cultural heritage is an important component of the cultural identity of communities, groups and individuals, and of social cohesion, so that its intentional destruction may have adverse consequences on human dignity and human rights, Reiterating one of the fundamental principles of the Preamble of the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict providing that damage to cultural property belonging to any people whatsoever means damage to the cultural heritage of all mankind, since each people makes its contribution to the culture of the world, (…) Mindful of the development of rules of customary international law as also affirmed by the relevant case-law, related to the protection of cultural heritage in peacetime as well as in the event of armed conflict; Also recalling Articles 8(2)(b)(ix) and 8(2)(e)(iv) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, and, as appropriate, Article 3(d) of the Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, related to the intentional destruction of cultural heritage, (…) The international community recognizes the importance of the protection of cultural heritage and reaffirms its commitment to fight against its intentional destruction in any form so that such cultural heritage may be transmitted to the succeeding generations. (…) intentional destruction means an act intended to destroy in whole or in part cultural heritage, thus compromising its integrity, in a manner which constitutes a violation of international law or an unjustifiable offence to the principles of humanity and dictates of public conscience (…). States should take all appropriate measures to prevent, avoid, stop and suppress acts of intentional destruction of cultural heritage, wherever such heritage is located. (…)When conducting peacetime activities, States should take all appropriate measures to conduct them in such a manner as to protect cultural heritage (…) States should take all appropriate measures, in accordance with international law, to establish jurisdiction over, and provide effective criminal sanctions against, those persons who commit, or order to be committed, acts of intentional destruction of cultural heritage of great importance for humanity, whether or not it is inscribed on a list maintained by UNESCO or another international organization.”[4]
UNESCO Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage: “Recognizing  that the processes of globalization and social transformation, alongside the conditions they create for renewed dialogue among communities, also give rise, as does the phenomenon of intolerance, to grave threats of deterioration, disappearance and destruction of the intangible cultural heritage, in particular owing to a lack of resources for safeguarding such heritage; (…) Considering the invaluable role of the intangible cultural heritage as a factor in bringing human beings closer together and ensuring exchange and understanding among them, (…) The intangible cultural heritage means the practices, representations, expressions, knowledge, skills – as well as the instruments, objects, artefacts and cultural spaces associated therewith – that communities, groups and, in some cases, individuals recognize as part of their cultural heritage. This intangible cultural heritage, transmitted from generation to generation, is constantly recreated by communities and groups in response to their environment, their interaction with nature and their history, and provides them with a sense of identity and continuity, thus promoting respect for cultural diversity and human creativity. For the purposes of this Convention, consideration will be given solely to such intangible cultural heritage as is compatible with existing international human rights instruments, as well as with the requirements of mutual respect among communities, groups and individuals, and of sustainable development. (…) Safeguarding means measures aimed at ensuring the viability of the intangible cultural heritage, including the identification, documentation, research, preservation, protection, promotion, enhancement, transmission, particularly through formal and non-formal education, as well as the revitalization of the various aspects of such heritage. (…) Each State Party shall endeavour, by all appropriate means, to: ensure recognition of, respect for, and enhancement of the intangible cultural heritage in society, in particular through: (…) non-formal means of transmitting knowledge; (…) Within the framework of its safeguarding activities of the intangible cultural heritage, each State Party shall endeavour to ensure the widest possible participation of communities, groups and, where appropriate, individuals that create, maintain and transmit such heritage, and to involve them actively in its management.”[5]
UNESCO Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions:Recognizing the importance of traditional knowledge as a source of intangible and material wealth, and in particular the knowledge systems of indigenous peoples, and its positive contribution to sustainable development, as well as the need for its adequate protection and promotion, (…) Taking into account the importance of the vitality of cultures, including for persons belonging to minorities and indigenous peoples, as manifested in their freedom to create, disseminate and distribute their traditional cultural expressions and to have access thereto, so as to benefit them for their own development, (…) Recognizing the importance of intellectual property rights in sustaining those involved in cultural creativity; Being convinced that cultural activities, goods and services have both an economic and a cultural nature, because they convey identities, values and meanings, and must therefore not be treated as solely having commercial value”[6]
UNESCO Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity: "Cultural heritage in all its forms must be preserved, enhanced and handed on to future generations as a record of human experience and aspirations, so as to foster creativity in all its diversity and to inspire genuine dialogue among cultures (...) In the face of present-day economic and technological change, opening up vast prospects for creation and innovation, particular attention must be paid to the diversity of the supply of creative work, to due recognition of the rights of authors and artists and to the specificity of cultural goods and services which, as vectors of identity, values and meaning, must not be treated as mere commodities or consumer goods. (...) Respecting and protecting traditional knowledge, in particular that of indigenous peoples; recognizing the contribution of traditional knowledge (...) Ensuring protection of copyright and related rights in the interest of the development of contemporary creativity and fair remuneration for creative work"
UNESCO Recommendation on the Safeguarding of Traditional Culture and Folklore: "Preservation is concerned with protection of folk traditions and those who are the transmitters, having regard to the fact that each people has a right to its own culture and that its adherence to that culture is often eroded by the impact of the industrialized culture purveyed by the mass media. (...) It is essential for the items that make up this cultural heritage to be widely disseminated so that the value of folklore and the need to preserve it can be recognized. However, distortion during dissemination should be avoided so that the integrity of the traditions can be safeguarded. (...) In so far as folklore constitues manifestations of intellectual creativity whether it be individual or collective, it deserves to be protected in a manner inspired by the protection provided for intellectual productions. Such protection of folklore has become indispensable as a means of promoting further development, maintenance and dissemination of those expressions,- both within and outside the country, without prejudice to related legitimate interests."
UNESCO Recommendation concerning the Preservation of Cultural Property Endangered by Public or Private works: "Considering that contemporary civilization and its future evolution rest upon, among other elements, the cultural traditions of the peoples of the world, their creative force and their social and economic development; Considering that cultural property is the product and witness of the different traditions and of the spiritual achievements of the past and thus is an essential element in the personality of the peoples of the world; Considering that it is indispensable to preserve it as much as possible, according to its historical and artistic importance, so that the significance and message of cultural property become a part of the spirit of peoples who thereby may gain consciousness of their own dignity;  Considering that preserving cultural property and rendering it accessible constitute, in the spirit of the Declaration of the Principles of International Cultural Cooperation adopted on 4 November 1966 in the course of its fourteenth session, means of encouraging mutual understanding among peoples and thereby serve the cause of peace; Considering also that the well-being of all peoples depends, inter alia, upon the existence of a favourable and stimulating environment and that the preservation of cultural property of all periods of history contributes directly to such an Environment; (...) Considering, however, that the prehistoric, protohistoric and historic monuments and remains, as well as numerous recent structures having artistic, historic or scientific importance are increasingly threatened by public and private works resulting from industrial development and urbanization; (...) Considering equally that adequate preservation and accessibility of cultural property constitute a major contribution to the social and economic development of countries and regions which possess such treasures of mankind by means of promoting national and international tourism; (...) Member States should take steps to ensure that offences, through intent or negligence, against the preservation or salvage of cultural property endangered by public or private works are severely punished by their Penal Code, which should provide for fines or imprisonment or both. (...) Member States should encourage individuals, associations and municipalities to take part in programmes for the preservation or salvage of cultural property endangered by public or private works. (...) Educational institutions, historical and cultural associations, public bodies concerned with the tourist industry and associations for popular education should have programmes to publicize the dangers to cultural property arising from short-sighted public or private works, and to underline the fact that projects to preserve cultural property contribute to international understanding."
Council of Europe Framework Convention on the Value of Cultural Heritage for Society: "Emphasising the value and potential of cultural heritage wisely used as a resource for sustainable development and quality of life in a constantly evolving society; Recognising that every person has a right to engage with the cultural heritage of their choice, while respecting the rights and freedoms of others, (...) The Parties to this Convention agree to (...) recognise individual and collective responsibility towards cultural heritage; (...) cultural heritage is a group of resources inherited from the past which people identify, independently of ownership, as a reflection and expression of their constantly evolving values, beliefs, knowledge and traditions. It includes all aspects of the environment resulting from the interaction between people and places through time; a heritage community consists of people who value specific aspects of cultural heritage which they wish, within the framework of public action, to sustain and transmit to future generations. (...) everyone, alone or collectively, has the responsibility to respect the cultural heritage of others as much as their own heritage, (...) Exercise of the right to cultural heritage may be subject only to those restrictions which are necessary in a democratic society for the protection of the public interest and the rights and freedoms of others. (...) enhance the value of the cultural heritage through its identification, study, interpretation, protection, conservation and presentation; (...) promote cultural heritage protection as a central factor in the mutually supporting objectives of sustainable development, cultural diversity and contemporary creativity; (...) encourage reflection on the ethics and methods of presentation of the cultural heritage, as well as respect for diversity of interpretations; establish processes for conciliation to deal equitably with situations where contradictory values are placed on the same cultural heritage by different communities; develop knowledge of cultural heritage as a resource to facilitate peaceful co-existence by promoting trust and mutual understanding with a view to resolution and prevention of conflicts; (...) To sustain the cultural heritage, the Parties undertake to: a promote respect for the integrity of the cultural heritage by ensuring that decisions about change include an understanding of the cultural values involved; (...) ensure that these policies respect the integrity of the cultural heritage without compromising its inherent values. (...) encourage non-governmental organisations concerned with heritage conservation to act in the public interest. (...) encourage everyone to participate in: – the process of identification, study, interpretation, protection, conservation and presentation of the cultural heritage; – public reflection and debate on the opportunities and challenges which the cultural heritage represents; (...) seeking to resolve obstacles to access to information relating to cultural heritage, particularly for educational purposes, whilst protecting intellectual property rights; recognising that the creation of digital contents related to the heritage should not prejudice the conservation of the existing heritage."
United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples: “Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain, control, protect and develop their cultural heritage, traditional knowledge and traditional cultural expressions, as well as the manifestations of their sciences, technologies and cultures, including human and genetic resources, seeds, medicines, knowledge of the properties of fauna and flora, oral traditions, literatures, designs, sports and Traditional games and visual and performing arts. They also have the right to maintain, control, protect and develop their intellectual Property over such cultural heritage, traditional knowledge, and Traditional cultural expressions. (…) Indigenous peoples have the right to promote, develop and maintain their institutional structures and their distinctive customs, spirituality, traditions, procedures, practices and, in the cases where they exist, juridical systems or customs, in accordance with international human rights standards.  Indigenous peoples have the right to determine the responsibilities of individuals to their communities. (…) Indigenous peoples have the right to access to and prompt decisión through just and fair procedures for the resolution of conflicts and disputes with States or other parties, as well as to effective remedies for all infringements of their individual and collective rights. Such a decision shall give due consideration to the customs, traditions, rules and legal systems of the indigenous peoples concerned and international human rights.”

EVIDENCE 3: Violation of the Buddhist Precepts
Ven. S. Dhammika (´Good question, good answer´): "The Five Precepts are the basis of Buddhist morality. The first precept is to avoid killing or harming living beings. The second is to avoid stealing, the third is to avoid sexual misconduct, the fourth is to avoid lying and the fifth is to avoid alcohol and other intoxicating drugs.”
Geoffrey D. Falk:Wilber’s second wife, Treya, suffered her first bout with breast cancer in the mid-1980s. During and following that period, their unspoken resentments toward each other, deriving from that stress, caused their relationship, and Wilber’s own life in general, to deteriorate to the point where he was consuming alcohol to the tune of over twenty drinks a day, every day. He was further doing little else but lethargically watching television; and feeling depressed, not caring whether or not he ever wrote another book. At the lowest point of that spite, he actually went out gun-shopping, intending to end his own life.[7] (…) To his mindset at that time, however, there was obviously simply no way out for him from his misery. Rather, suicide evidently looked easier to him than either attempting to fix the problem or simply walking away from that prison, from which there was apparently no escape. (…) Wilber did later leave for San Francisco, with or without his wife, but only after having regretfully hit her in response to an argument they were having.[8]
Ken Wilber: “I will walk into Andy’s Sporting Goods, on Park Street in South Lake Tahoe, to buy a gun meant to vaporize this entire state of affairs. Because, as they always say, I can simply stand it no longer.”[9]
Geoffrey D. Falk:As one relevant example of such covert evaluation and subsequent going along with the group, consider the reaction of the guest reporting Ken Wilber’s alleged public miming of masturbation and frequent, sophomoric requests there for blowjobs[10]
Ken Wilber: “I simply cannot stand this simple criticism of simply anything, let alone “simply,” so simply suck my dick”[11]
Ken Wilber (blog):lunatic and cacophonous ... so deranged as to be laughable ... suck my dick ... level of scholarship is so mediocre ... worthless ... you morons ... lame criticism ... painfully sluggish critics, dragging their bloated bellies across the ground at a snail’s pace of gray dreariness, can frankly just eat my dust and bite my ass ... nonsensical ... neither true nor false but empty ... criticism so deranged you just stare at it wide-eyed and dumbfounded ... criticism so absolutely loopy you just stare in disbelief for minutes, pie-eyed, slack-jawed, say whaaaaaat? ... numb-nut young Turks and no-nut old Turks, many of whom have studied [my] work for up to 3 full hours....

EVIDENCE 4: Misunderstanding of Buddhism
Ken Wilber:'Enlightenment is the realization of oneness with all states and structures that are in existence at any given time' (…)'A person's realization today is not Freer than Buddha's (Emptiness is Emptiness), but it is Fuller than Buddha's (and will be even fuller down the road)”
Ken Wilber: “What I've actually said is that Gautama Buddha was only half as enlightened as a modern sage has the potential to be. And to understand why that is, we have to look at a couple of facts. First, we have to understand that reality consists of two fundamental dimensions: the realm of emptiness and the realm of form. Emptiness is the timeless, unmanifest ground of being, and realizing that primordial emptiness has traditionally been what spiritual enlightenment is all about. That's what the Buddha called nirvana. It means nothing is arising. It's a state of consciousness essentially similar to deep dreamless sleep in that there's no pain, no self, no suffering, no desire—none of that. It's a place of peace, stillness and freedom beyond the turmoil of manifest existence. And discovering that unmanifest emptiness has always been seen as one way to find liberation from samsara. (…) Now, Gautama Buddha realized emptiness perfectly, so from the point of view of that traditional understanding, he was enlightened. He experienced a perfect oneness in consciousness that transcended the multiplicity of manifestation, time, and form. But about eight hundred years after the time of Gautama, an extraordinary gentleman by the name of Nagarjuna came along and pointed out that if you're serious about finding ultimate oneness, then you can't just be looking for nirvana divorced from samsara, because that's still dualistic. You have to be looking, instead, for the union of nirvana and samsara, the union of emptiness and form, the union of the unmanifest and the manifest, which Nagarjuna called non-duality. (…) So that's the first point—the Buddha realized emptiness, but as far as we can tell, he didn't realize the fullness of non-duality, or becoming one with all form. The second point is that while emptiness is timeless and unchanging, the world of form is not. We now realize that the world of form is continuously changing, evolving and becoming.” [12]
DUANE ELGIN:Ken Wilber declared that one of history's most important spiritual teachers, the Buddha, was half-enlightened because he realized only the experience of cessation and not the full, non-dual experience of integrating emptiness and form. This article examines the evidence for this assertion and concludes that the Buddha was fully awakened as his experience joined the un-manifest generative ground with the realm of form in a singular flow of interdependent co-arising. Importantly, when the Buddha's awakening experience is considered along with the world's wisdom traditions, it provides insight into a second axial age around which the world can pivot into a more sustainable and promising pathway into the future. A huge area of untapped potential awaits development if Integral theory recognizes the Buddha's awakening as interdependent co-arising. This article explores untapped potentials for Integral theory that can emerge from recognizing the original nature of the Buddha's awakening. (…) To begin, it is important to recognize the limited view of the Buddha's awakening described by Ken Wilber specifically and Integral theorists more generally. In one of his regular dialogues with the teacher, Andrew Cohen, the Integral theorist, Wilber, made the assertion, published in EnlightenNext magazine, that the Buddha was only half enlightened.[13] (…) Wilber seems to be saying that although the Buddha realized emptiness, he did not realize that form itself is emptiness. (…)Summarizing, Wilber states that the Buddha awakened to unchanging emptiness and the cessation of arising in the world of form (the first half of enlightenment in his view). The second half of enlightenment is realized when we recognize the world of form is continuously changing.  Although Wilber's description is clear from an intellectual perspective, when we consider the Buddha's description of his awakening experience, a different understanding emerges. (…) The Buddha's description of his awakening experience (termed paticca samuppada in Pali Canon and pratityasamutpada in Sanskrit), is generally translated as interdependent origination or dependent co-arising. (…)This was the extraordinary insight that distinguished his teaching from others, so it is said, whoever sees interdependent origination sees the dharma [the truth], whoever sees the dharma sees the Buddha. (Fremantle, 2003)  In contrast to Wilber's description of the Buddha's awakening as unmanifest emptiness and stillness where nothing is arising, interdependent co-arising joins the unmanifest generative ground with the realm of form in a singular flow of ever-renewing co-origination. This is not a dualistic experience divorced from the world of form; instead, it is the experience of being fully immersed in the world of form and the generative ground as the world of form arises as a unified, ever-renewing manifestation. The assertion that the Buddha's awakening was the experience of unchanging cessation where nothing is arising is not in accord with the description the earliest Buddhist traditions have recorded as the Buddha's account of his own experience. (…) I conclude that the Buddha moved beyond cessation and was fully awakened. (…)Importantly, both the Buddha and Nagarjuna viewed all phenomena as without independent existence and dependently co-arising. (…)Looking beyond Wilber's assertion that the Buddha was only half-enlightened, how do he and other Integral theorists view the Buddha's foundational insight of interdependent co-arising? To my surprise, after carefully reviewing over 3,000 pages of writing by Wilber in his various books, I have found only a few, suggestive descriptions of the insight of the universe arising and none of these are offered in the context of the Buddha's awakening to interdependent co-arising. (…)This foundational insight is also largely absent from the writing of other, leading Integral theorists as well. For example, I have carefully explored the nearly 800 page book by Sean Esbjorn-Hargens and Michael Zimmerman, Integral Ecology: Uniting Multiple Perspectives on the Natural World, and have found no clear references to a co-arising universe as described by the Buddha. (Esbjorn-Hargens & Zimmerman, 2009) Because Integral theory generally overlooks the co-arising nature of reality, an insight with great evolutionary potential is being neglected. (…) the complete dynamism of an interdependent co-arising existence is foundational to the Buddha's awakening. To say that the Buddha's awakening was an experience of immersion in the formless realm with complete cessation where nothing is arising is inaccurate and misleading. In contrast, it may be beneficial to consider that the full depth and meaning of the Buddha's awakening is still being discovered after more than two thousand years. (…)Contrary to Wilber's assertion, historical evidence indicates the Buddha awakened beyond cessation to the insight of the interdependent co-arising. Although the Buddha's teachings have evolved through at three major transitions or turnings over the past several thousand years, that does not diminish the depth of his original awakening and deep insight into the interdependent co-arising of existence. ”[14]
Ken Wilber: “And so goes the strange antagonism between Dharma and dollars. (…) We still see an extraordinary ambivalence, and guilt, and disgust, with the idea that Dharma and money should ever cross paths at all. And this is profoundly muddleheaded. (…)Spiritual realization therefore involves the extinction of manifestation (samsara) in the unmanifest, unborn, uncreate (nirvana)—and everything in the manifest world that is tempting, is therefore “sin” (however conceived). And this meant, without exception, that the great sins were gold (money) and sex (women). Food was often tossed into this unholy trinity, the idea being that if you were really obsessed with or hungry for food, you were hungry for samsara and its suffering. Money, food, sex. The great no-no’s in the purely Ascending, agrarian, male-oriented wisdom traditions. It is no accident that the Buddha’s second noble truth—the cause of suffering is desire—specifically meant sexual desire; and that meant, of course, women. “Eve” (by whatever her name) was everywhere the great temptress, even the great source, of evil.  Money was no less problematic. Christ driving the money changers from the Temple was probably itself a good idea: but more than that, it was emblematic of the whole Ascending tone of the first great Dharma systems: manifestation is dirty, manifestation is evil, and the Ascending Male simply should not traffic in money, food, sex. It all, uh, robs him of his vital juices and power: the power to get off the wheel, out of the game, and rest in extinction in the unmanifest, uncreate, unborn.  The agrarian societies universally supported the Ascending male, and the wandering monks, yogis, sanyasins, mendicants, were all supported solely by the alms and donations of the faithful. The Dharma was pure; the Dharma was clean; the Dharma would not touch samsara, would not touch (or at least, would not enjoy) money, food, sex (or women). (..) And thus without exception these early Dharma traditions, East and West, were (and still are) stamped with a disdain of money, of food, of sex, and of women; and the ethics of these agrarian and Ascending systems were all designed, one way or another, to avoid and altogether renounce these evils. (All of which, we may charitably suppose, was pretty much unavoidable under the circumstances of the agrarian social organization.) And all of which would change dramatically with two rather extraordinary developments. (…) the second was industrialization (in the West, but with far-reaching global implications). (…)The Ascending Eros of God has to be united with Descending Agape of the Goddess (…)Now, as much as the Nondual traditions brought a revolution in the relation to samsara (to sex, food, money, body, earth, and women), nonetheless these traditions still arose on an agrarian base, and they remained, in many respects, steeped in the ethics and morals of what still amounted, in many ways, to an old boys club. The decisive revolution for women would occur, not in the East, but in the West, and it would depend not upon a certain idealism, but upon the steam engine. (…) No known agrarian society has anything even vaguely resembling women’s rights. (…)Here, then, was a revolution (and a series of liberation movements) that the still-agrarian East did not participate in—and it certainly did not participate in the woman’s movement and actual female political liberation. (…)To unite East and West at this point in history thus means, more than anything else, to unite the extraordinary breakthrough represented by the Nondual orientation (…) to unite this orientation with a techno-economic base (benign industrial and especially post-industrial), (…)And all of this means a thorough-going friendliness with money, food, sex, and women, none of which are significantly present in the merely Ascending Paths. (…)A thorough-going friendliness with samsara, as the perfect expression of an all-pervading Spirit: this is the Nondual revolution; and to situate it in a techno-economic base that allows it to manifest: this is the great project of postmodernity. This union did not (and could not) happen prior to industrialization; (…)That Dharma is “above all that,” that Dharma shouldn’t sully itself with dirty bucks. In other words, that Dharma ought to present itself as thoroughly disgusted with the gross realm. So that Dharma’s “purity” is beyond all that.  But that is pure agrarian, ascending, anti-this-world nonsense. In its claim to purity, it hides a disgust with manifestation. In its claim to freedom, it conceals an enslavement to an other world that touches not the basic realities of existence in this world. (…)With eyes reverted ever upward, let us transcend only: let us not enter, with care and compassion, the relational exchanges that define this world: relations of food, and of sex, and of money.  And let us point, for our ideals, to the agrarian sages that refused monetary exchange (and, indeed, condemned it). We are using the ethical standards appropriate to the agrarian structure for a postmodern world where they don’t even vaguely apply. The entire agrarian structure supported yogis and mendicants with alms and donations—they didn’t have to worry about money, a place to live, how to pay taxes—and it’s very easy to condemn something you are freely given anyway. All this does, in the postmodern world, is create and enforce a vicious hypocrisy. Since individuals and teachers must raise money in order to survive, but since money is evil, then with guilt-torn conscience let us raise money but call it something else (“free” donations). Let us keep pointing out that Ramana didn’t accept money (he was supported by devotees, of course); the Dalai Lama doesn’t accept money (he just has an entire small country supporting him). (…)And worse: the message that goes out from the Dharma is not how to be responsible for appropriate money, but how to avoid that responsibility. (…)My own view, in fact, is even personally stronger. I believe that this hippie dharma (filthy lucre) actually cheapens the Dharma. It sends out the message that the Dharma hasn’t a clue as to how to make it in the real world. It sends out the ages-old ascending nonsense that Dharma equals puritanical, dead from the neck down. It sends out the message that Dharma cannot touch money without sullying itself. And that is the cheapest of the cheap. (…) the notion that Dharma should not be paid at all (is) pathetic, retarded, regressive, and obscene. And a Dharma disgusted with the gross domain: That is not free Dharma, that is cheap Dharma, crippled by its incapacity to embrace the gross domain with care and concern and intelligence.  Money is the power of relational exchange in the gross domain. It is the entirely appropriate mode of allowing goods and services to move in the gross realm. And a Dharma that includes (and not despises) the gross domain, is a Dharma that operates with appropriate bucks, and thus a Dharma that moves into the modern and postmodern world, without this insane eulogizing of agrarian, sexist, ascending, puritanical, anti-earth, anti-body, anti-women stance: and believe me, it’s a package deal. (…) Dharma and dollars should ever cross paths (of course they should), (…)There is absolutely nothing special about the Dharma in this regard. (…) It sends out the message that Dharma assumes no mature responsibility for gross relational exchange, and that you, too, can become totally irresponsible if you apply yourself diligently. It sends out the unmistakable message that “liberation” and “gross incompetence” are identical.  And worst of all, it sets up a pervasive atmosphere of hypocrisy: because gross relational exchange is in fact unavoidable in any case, then money must be raised from other sources and called by other names: a constant kissing up to rich patrons; groveling handouts for a “pure” Dharma that won’t sully itself with filthy lucre; degrading the teachers and the teaching for a “purity” that hides its face in shame from the demands of the real world; turns its back in humilation from the rigors of financial straightforwardness: and calls all this dissembling “free” and “pure.” (…)This is not transcendence, this is pitiful, guilt-ridden puritanism. Emptiness will not relieve you or me or anybody else of the need for appropriate relational exchange in the manifest world. Becoming less attached to money does not simple-mindedly mean having less money: less attached does not mean don’t touch. It means gracefully touch and don’t squeeze to death. It means touch with open hands, it doesn’t mean cut off your hands.  I myself have been poor most of my adult life (…), until my books started making money (…) so now I don’t have to worry too much about money. (…): dollars and Dharma are not only not incompatible, monetary exchange is an altogether appropriate, functional manifestation of the Divine in everyday life, just like appropriate food and appropriate sexuality. (…)  And we will drag the Dharma, kicking and screaming, into the modern and postmodern world only when every single one of those “anti” stances (money, food, sex, body, earth, woman) is attacked simultaneously: they stand or fall together.  It is time to have done with this Dharma on the cheap; (…)time to cease this spritual child abuse.[15]
ELLIOT BENJAMIN: “A few days ago Integral Life sent me a promotional video of Ken Wilber's Fourth Turning of Buddhism (meaning integral Buddhism) (…) Wilber (say that) Evolution is “spirit's” way of accomplishing what it had “in mind” to begin with. Wilber is careful to state that his use of the language “what spirit had in mind” was somewhat anthropocentric and basically poetic, (…) that spirit had “me” and all other human beings “in mind” from the very beginning—which for me means “before” the Big Bang. (…) But in our current state of scientific knowledge I think this is a matter of faith, not science”[16]
Ken Wilber:Where would modern psychiatry be without Freud and his slavishly cultic disciples? Or on the religious side: Christ and his cult of disciples, Buddha and his cult of monks[17]
Geoffrey D. Falk:  “(The actor Steven) Seagal was formally recognized as the reincarnation of Chungdrag Dorje—the founder of the Nyingma school of Tibetan Buddhism—by Penor Rinpoche. (…)In any case, the aforementioned Penor Rinpoche is the same one who has expressed deep appreciation for Andrew Cohen’s work. It is also the same Penor Rinpoche—now head of the Nyingma lineage—of whom Ken Wilber himself (2000a) has spoken approvingly”[18]
Ken Wilber: “Although I have been meditating for around twenty-five years—and have tried dozens of different spiritual practices —most of those that I do at this time were received at the Longchen Nyingthig given by His Holiness Pema Norbu (Penor) Rinpoche.”[19]
Geoffrey D. Falk:  “(Further, this is also the very same Penor Rinpoche who, in 1986, recognized one Catharine Burroughs as the first female American tulku, saying that the very fabric of her mind was the Dharma (Sherrill, 2000). (…)  Burroughs herself renamed as Jetsunma (…). The great, recognized female tulku had reportedly earlier claimed to be the reincarnation of one of Jesus’ female disciples, entrusted in those earlier times with the passing-down of Gnostic texts. She had further apparently told her future third husband, in channeled sessions, that the two of them had ruled ancient, unrecorded civilizations on Earth. They had also supposedly governed galaxies in previous lifetimes together (Sherrill, 2000). (…)  The future of Dharma in the West is riding on us, she told her students (Sherrill, 2000). (…)At the time when she first met Rinpoche, well prior to the formal recognition, she and her husband apparently almost didn’t even know what Buddhism was (Sherrill, 2000). (…)  Jetsunma and many of her followers moved in the late ’90s from coastal Maryland to higher ground in Arizona. That was done in anticipation of the fulfillment of apocalyptic Hopi prophecies—her new boyfriend at the time was an American Indian shaman— that earthquakes, floods and famine would strike the United States in 1999 (…) After all that, Penor Rinpoche could reasonably be feeling somewhat burned by his experiences with Jetsunma and Steven Seagal—the latter of whose purported divinity was not welcomed by many Buddhists. Indeed, in an interview with Martha Sherrill in 1997, Penor declared that he would not be recognizing any more Americans as tulkus.[20]
Roshi Saito: “All (Wilber) thought is insignificant from the perspective of Zen Buddhism, something that is evident because in almost the entire work of Wilber it is talked about the reality of the soul, giving importance to ideas such as the "Atman", which are heretical for Buddhists. This reminds me that the Great Zen Master Dogen himself, nearly a millennium ago, refuted the eternalist thinking of the monk Senika as heretical, which is notably similar to that of Wilber's. I think the entire new age work of Wilber is nothing but a new return of the "heresy of Senika (sennigedo)".  (…) I think Wilber wants to do a superficial and commercial version of Maitriyana Buddhism, not merely to sell books and activities but also to try to buy some spiritual prestige since, during the last years, he has been questioned for behaving as the leader of a sect. But what he really is proposing is a poor quality copy of Maitriyana, (…) In completely opposite line to Maitriyana, Wilber does not want to transform the "integral thinking" into Buddhist, but rather in reverse. He believes that the "Future of Buddhism" is his own movement of "integral thinking". Is it so difficult for Mr. Wilber to recognize that the approach of Maitriyana is something going beyond his own theories? What is happening is that it is easier to steal ideas. There is much Ego in the field of New Age, whose liberal political vision will never outperform the spiritual revolution led by genuine Buddhist masters. [21]
Frank Visser: “I think it is quite obvious that talking about mind, soul and spirit, as Wilber does in many of his writings, is a heresy to the no-self type of Buddhists. That said, Spirit often features as Emptiness for Wilber. Nevertheless, Buddhist responses to Wilber are relevant, otherwise Wilber can get away with anything.”[22]
Conrad Goehausen: “Here, we are subject to brute material reality and its laws, and that has to be accepted and understood as offering us no metaphysical hope for satisfaction. The Buddha made that clear with his Four Noble Truths. Ironically, by offering us no metaphysical satisfaction, the physical universe becomes our greatest teacher, pointing us beyond all manifestation to the underlying truth that is neither born nor come to death. But that is an understanding of non-dualism that Wilber himself rebels against, in the hope of creating a metaphysically satisfying life within the dualistic domain, that simply isn't possible. (…)Wilber seems to ignore or even purposely reject the basic Buddhist metaphysical view of the world as being an endless wheel of desire and craving, with no particular evolutionary goal in mind, just endless birth, change, growth and development alternating with chaos, dissipation, degradation, and death. Our true metaphysical need is not for some great inclusion of these things, but for a quenching of that very desire, a nirvana that ends the metaphysical craving altogether, and which gets us off the wheel of endlessly looking for one within a realm that never provides any such thing. There is no sense in which one will find some erotic drive for unity in nature itself, or even within our own minds.”[23]
Ken Wilber: “Humanity is headed, one more time, into a staggeringly monumental and wrenching transformation, this time from NO GOD ANYWHERE to another type of GOD IS EVERYWHERE. (…) the experimental and injunctive proof of Spirit's existence by following paradigms, practices, and exemplars, from contemplation to highest yoga —this is not God taken on faith but based on direct personal experience, a "science of the interior," which, in every major culture the world over, has a practice leading to a "satori" or "Self-realization" that discloses a direct experience of Spirit itself, by whatever name.”[24]
JOSEPH DILLARD: "Equating “emptiness,” “sunyata” or “nirvana” with God are embarrassing disclosures of profound ignorance of Buddhism."[25]
Ken Wilber: … development is evolution; evolution is transcendence…; and transcendence has as its final goal Atman, or ultimate Unity Consciousness in only God. All drives are a subset of that Drive, all wants a subset of that Want, all pushes a subset of that Pull – and that whole movement is what we call the Atman-project: the drive of God towards God, Buddha towards Buddha, Brahman towards Brahman.[26]
Ken Wilber:Many teachers have been saying the same thing [about Wilber’s Integral Buddhism] for a number of years now; this is one version, a version that has already demonstrated its usefulness and versatility.(…) Starting with the 6th Head-Founder, Hui Neng, the Diamond Sutra —a treatise solely devoted to pure Emptiness—displaced the Lankavatara, and in many ways Zen lost the philosophical and psychological sophistication of the Lankavatara system and focused almost exclusively on nonconceptual Awareness. Zen Masters were often depicted tearing up sutras, which really amounted to a rejection of the 2 Truths doctrine. This was unfortunate, in my opinion, because in doing so, Zen became less than a complete system, refusing to elaborate conventional maps and models. Zen became weak in relative truths, although it brilliantly succeeded in elaborating and practicing ultimate Truth. (…) [As] G. K. Chesterton once quipped, All religions are the same, especially Buddhism. (…) Meditation can loosen the repression barrier and make shadow access easier. But this isn’t always a good thing, and in some cases makes them worse. (…) But much psychopathology stems from a premature or overdone detachment or dissociation or dis-owning of specific thoughts or feelings. Anger, for example, can be dissociated or dis-owned, frequently causing feelings of sadness or depression. In meditation, if I am dis-identifying with whatever arises, I will simply further dis-own this anger, making my depression worse. The only advice the meditation teacher has for me is Intensify your efforts! which really makes it worse.  Regrettably, it’s still the case in many religions that if you have an emotional problem or shadow issue, you are simply thought not to be practicing the religion hard enough. You either aren’t practicing enough vipassana, or you don’t believe fervently enough in Jesus, or you haven’t found the right relation to Torah, and so on. (…) Being one with everything that arises moment to moment, there is literally nothing outside of us that we could want or desire, nor anything outside us that we could smash into—thus no fear, no anxiety, no angst. As the Upanishads say, “Wherever there is other, there is fear”—but when we are one with All, there is no Other that is not our own True Self, and thus we are liberated, enlightened, free from torment and suffering and Awakened to the ultimate Goodness, Truth, Reality, and Beauty—unborn and undying, unbounded and unlimited, fiercely free and alive, joyously One and blissfully All, radiantly infinite and timelessly eternal—a state known variously as Enlightenment, Awakening, moksha (or liberated), metanoia (or transformed), wu (or transparently Open, Free, and Full). (…) [The following developments are taken by Wilber from Evelyn Underhill’s stages toward permanent realization] subtle illumination, where one is introduced to all the subtler dimensions, luminosities, and higher emotions of the soul; (…) and finally a nondual unity consciousness, where soul and God disappear into ultimate Godhead. (…)To give a final, postmodern example, we have the American adept Adi Da, who maintains, To Realize Most Perfect Divine Enlightenment, the ego must be transcended through three distinct phases—first at the [gross] physical level (the level of ‘money, food, and sex’), then at the subtle level (the level of internal visions, auditions, and all kinds of mystical experience), and finally at the causal level (the root-level of conscious existence, wherein the sense of ‘I’ and ‘other,’ or the subject-object dichotomy, seems to arise in Consciousness). The fourth phase for Adi Da is the Realization of Always-Already Truth, the ever-present Goal, Ground, and Condition of all existence, high or low, sacred or profane, manifest or unmanifest—thus, gross, subtle, causal (implicit root witnessing), nondual. (…) in many cases, if the teacher is at, say, a Pluralistic View, and is interpreting each stage of meditation from a Pluralistic View, then individuals at different Views will have their meditation experience interpreted in ways that often make little sense to them. Often their experience of a particular meditative state-stage will actually be correct for the particular structure-rung they are at, but the meditation teacher will announce it is being incorrectly seen and understood, when in fact it could be being experienced from an even higher structure than the teacher has—say, an Integral or Super-Integral stage. This will severely damage the student’s spiritual development, and profoundly misinterpret the higher reaches of Buddhism itself. This happens much more often than is realized. (And—as we’ll explore later—it is particularly common with many Eastern teachers, who arrive with a very highly developed state axis—causal or nondual—but a rather poorly developed structure axis, often reflecting the Mythic structure View of the culture they just came from. And when they interact with their students, the majority of whom are often from the higher structure of the Pluralistic View, the results are often severely confusing. The teachers’ advice when it comes to states is often brilliant; their advice when it comes from their structure View is often embarrassing, being homophobic, xenophobic, patriarchal, sexist, highly authoritarian, and rigidly hierarchical. Until both structures and states are taken into account, students will be left in these types of utterly confusing situations, and spiritual development itself will often be dysfunctional.) (…) Killing nonbelievers is not a sin; it’s a promotion, a religious promotion. There is a strong desire to understand God’s truth, which is often believed to be contained in one book (the Bible, Koran, Pure Land Sutra, Mao’s Little Red Book) (…) Any Integral Spirituality would include its fundamental tenets as interpreted in the language of each of the major Views. There would be a Magic teaching, a Magic-Mythic teaching, a Mythic teaching, a Rational teaching, a Pluralistic teaching, an Integral teaching, and a Super-Integral teaching. The point, for any overall faith, is to start early childhood with a Magical teaching—where a hero (a saint, sage, or adept) of the tradition is treated as a superman or superhero, much like any superhero of any children’s Saturday morning cartoon show, which reflects the Magic view perfectly—they can fly, walk on water, see through walls, raise the dead. (This is not to send the message that, in adulthood, this religion will make you Superman, only that the practice of religion brings many powerful benefits, and will help you with many of Life’s most difficult problems.) (…) And so the structure/state discrepancies went, causing enormous problems and heartaches on both sides. I know two fully transmitted American Zen Masters who faced a particularly difficult version of this, and finally decided the only way to get through their training was to swallow the whole fish—fully accept the retarded structural advice along with the advanced state advice. They have both subsequently surrendered their mantels of orthodox authority, and have very ambivalent memories of their training. And that points to exactly why an Integral Buddhism—and Fourth Turning of the Wheel—is so important for today’s Buddhism. (…) [S]omeone at, say, the Mythic View, who takes up Buddhist meditation and eventually moves their state center of gravity all the way to nondual Suchness, will still have the mental tools to interpret this state limited to ethnocentric modes, with a correlative belief in a chosen people or a chosen path—the belief that their path alone can deliver a true Liberation (we already saw actual schools of Buddhism believing all of this). Even though they have taken the bodhisattva vow to liberate all beings, they can’t help just having a hard time fully accepting a Muslim, or a Christian, even those with mystically nondual beliefs. (…) [M]editation won’t cure shadow issues and often inflames them. We all know meditation teachers who are often superb state teachers but structurally are shadow-ridden neurotic nuts, to put it as politely as I can. (…)These 4 major dimension-perspectives [Wilber’s four quadrants] are often reduced to 3, collapsing the 2 exterior realms to one objective or 3rd-person realm (or it), with you/we being 2nd person and I being 1st person, giving us the Big 3 of I, we, and it (or self, culture, and nature; or Buddha, Sangha, and Dharma). (…) Spirit in 2nd person is that dimension of Spirit that can be approached in a personal, living relationship, an I-Thou relationship (when a spiritual teacher is considered a living embodiment of Spirit, as in guru yoga, then that teacher, as a you, is also Spirit in 2nd person). Conversations with God are possible whenever the Heart opens to the Voice of the Ultimate, consents to the Presence of the Lord, and listens in all humility and openness. (…) God in 2nd person simply reminds us that Spirit can be found in every relationship we humans have, and that every conversation we have is the sincerest form of worship. (…) —this is Spirit in 1st person, Spirit as your one and only True Self, the same and only Spirit looking out from the eyes of every sentient being alive—the same True Self (there is only one in the entire Kosmos) beating in the Heart and riding the breath of every being in existence. The very sense in you of I AMness is the same Before Abraham was, I AM, the same I AMness prior even to the Big Bang, the I AMness that never enters the stream of time, and thus is found only in the timeless Now, and hence is Unborn and Undying, Uncreated and Unmade, Unformed and Unfashioned, the same I AMness that is the Spirit and Self of the entire Kosmos, even until the ends of the worlds. And may I introduce you? This is your Real Self. You can find this Real Self very simply: right now, simply be aware of what you feel is your self—your typical, ordinary, everyday self, simply be aware of it. But as you do so, notice there are actually 2 selves involved. There is the self you are aware of—you’re this tall, you weigh this much, you have this job, you’re in this relationship, and so on. But then there is the Self actually aware of all those objects—there is the Observing Self, the Witness, the Seer, the Looker. And the Seer cannot itself be seen. If you see anything, that’s just another object, it’s not a true subject, not the Real Self, not the true Seer. This Observing Self or Real Seer can never be seen as an object. As you look for the Real Seer, the true Witnessing Self realizing it’s neti, netinot this, not that—not any object that can be seen but the Seer itself—all you will find is a sense of Freedom, of Release, of Liberation—liberation from an identity with any bunch of small finite objects. This small objective self, which can be seen and felt, isn’t even a real Self, a real Subject, but just a bunch of objects that you have mistakenly identified with. It is this case of mistaken identity—identity with the skinencapsulated ego, the separate-self sense, the self-contraction, instead of our open, infinite, free, liberated, empty Self-Awareness—that is the ultimate cause of all suffering, fear, angst, torment, turmoil, torture, terror, tears. (…)There is a common saying: The next Buddha will be the Sangha (the group of Buddhist practitioners as a whole). In some ways, this is nothing but a mouthing of a green platitude (inasmuch as, for green, individuality itself is close to a sin, and only group, team, and collective activities are endorsed and actively engaged in). (…) Andrew Cohen recommended a type of intersubjective yoga (Lower Left quadrant) where the individual lets go of self-identity and instead identifies with awareness itself (and the ground of being) and especially the evolutionary impulse itself and its urgency, and then lets this evolutionary intelligence speak through every group member. When done correctly, this is often reported as feeling like a group enlightenment. (…) Studies show, for example, that if you take a group of meditators and divide them into those doing just meditation and those doing meditation combined with weight-lifting (the overall number of practice hours the same in each group), that according to scoring by the meditation teachers themselves those doing both meditation and weight-lifting progressed more rapidly and to a greater extent in meditation than those doing meditation alone. Cross-training seems to accelerate both dimensions. (…)There’s not only a new and higher I or Buddha (at higher structure-rungs of existence) and a new and higher It or Dharma (or Truth that includes the truth disclosed not just by states but also by structures), there is also a new and higher We or Sangha (with an extraordinarily more inclusive nature and vibrant group intelligence). (…) Buddhism, which throughout its history has shown strong interests in evolutionary and integrated and systemic ways of thinking, along with a panoply of profound practices for awakening, is ready for yet another profound unfolding, retaining all the essentials of its previous Turnings and adding the new elements that have unfolded as Spirit-in-action has continued its unrelenting evolution. (…) Most terrorism, in fact, for the last 30 years, has been religiously driven, not politically. Going back 30 or 40 years ago, almost any time terrorism was committed, it was by groups such as the Red Army Faction, the Baader-Meinhof Gang, or the Palestine Liberation Army. Starting about that time, the organizations committing terrorism were more often religious fundamentalists—including groups like Hamas and al Qaeda as well as members of virtually every major religion: Southern Baptists bombing abortion clinics; Buddhists putting sarin gas in the Tokyo subway system (…) Buddhism (along with other religions) tends to identify the Dharma with its present View, unknowingly—which, in most cases in the West, as we were saying, means Dharma is equated with the Pluralistic View (while conventional Western religion is identified even lower, with its Mythic View). And this, truly, is a disaster for Buddhism (not to mention typical conventional religion), because Dharma then becomes interpreted exclusively through the Pluralistic lens. (…)Dharma thus inherits not only the positive truths of the Pluralistic View (its sensitivity, care, interest in civil rights, environmentalism, feminism, and sustainability), but also its negatives and limitations: it is a 1st-tier View, and thus fragmented; it is anti-all hierarchies and not just anti-dominator hierarchies, and hence is reluctant to acknowledge any growth or actualization holarchies, and hence tends to deny any developmental maps, in structures or states (despite the abundance in all schools of Buddhism of state-stage maps); because of its strong allegiance to the Pluralistic View, it thinks pluralistic truths are the only possible truths there are, and thus often equates pluralistic views not only with relative truths, but with ultimate Truth itself (and thus, e.g., will equate Emptiness with nonhierarchies, whereas Emptiness is neither hierarchical, nor not hierarchical, nor both, nor neither); because of its attachment to Pluralistic views, it fails to use universal integrating visionlogic (of 2nd tier), whereas most of the geniuses of Buddhism made abundant use of vision-logic (from the aforementioned Lankavatara Sutra to Longchenpa to Tsongkapa to Fa-tsang, to mention only a few). This lack of integrative knowledge further acts to keep Dharma locked in its 1st-tier prison (along with the pluralistic correlatives of 1st-tier arrogance, antihierarchicalism, anti-intellectualism, antiauthoritarianism, anticonceptualism, and other merely stage-specific partial Views that deeply cripple Buddhadharma and its chance of evolving into the post-postmodern world). Before his untimely death, Traleg Rinpoche and I were working on a book, Integral Buddhism, which addressed these serious limitations of Buddhism as generally practiced in the West (and East), hoping to thereby help students and teachers alike move out of this Pluralistically identified View and into more 2nd-tier, genuinely holistic and Integral Views, thus keeping pace with the evolution of Buddhanature and Spirit itself. The hope, then, as far as it goes with structures and states, is that Buddhism begins to complement its strong understanding of state-realms with structure-rungs and their Views. After all, as we have seen, everything from individual students and teachers to entire schools of Buddhism already exist at Magic, Mythic, Rational, Pluralistic, and Integral stages of structural View. This is already occurring, and thus the hope is that, instead of doing this blindly and unconsciously, as now happens, it is done explicitly and consciously (…) [Science] still tends to deny interiors—and thus deny the ‘I’-space that is Buddhism’s specialty (…) Already brain technologies such as binaural beats and transcranial stimulation can generate alpha, theta, and delta states, which are Upper Right correlates of Upper Left gross, subtle, and causal consciousness states, respectively. We can already, in a matter of minutes, put a person into theta/subtle states and delta/causal states, which sometimes takes meditators many months to accomplish. (…) And these types of discoveries are going to continue. Long-term Tibetan monks, practicing forms of compassion meditation, have already been determined to produce significantly more gamma brain waves than others— yet another important meditative state that can now be produced in a matter of minutes instead of months or years.  I have no doubt that neurotransmitter profiles of different meditative states (savikalpa samadhi, nirvikalpa samadhi, jnana samadhi, sahaja samadhi, and so on) will soon be determined as well, giving yet another brain state access to corresponding consciousness states. (…) Any Buddhism of a Fourth Turning (and any complete spirituality in general) will also need to include at least a brief overview of the shadow and techniques for addressing it (or, alternatively, a formal relationship with an established psychotherapeutic professional individual or group to which students who have shadow issues can be referred). Roger Walsh, MD, PhD, is both a psychiatrist and an Integral Buddhist teacher. He estimates that perhaps 80% of the questions that come to him in private student-teacher consultations during meditation retreats are best handled by therapeutic techniques, not meditative techniques. I think that’s generally valid, and if so, that means that 80% of the advice being given to students by meditation teachers is less-than-optimal (not to mention the previously discussed disaster that the majority of advice is also coming from the Pluralistic View, no matter what View the student presently holds). That is a catastrophe in itself, and can only be remedied as Buddhism becomes Integral Buddhism and includes structure-rungs and their developing Views in its overall teaching—which is, of course, one of the main recommendations for any Fourth Turning Dharma. (…) Enlightenment, in other words, is being one with both the highest state and the highest structure to emerge at a given time in history. (…) Today’s sage, on the other hand, realizing the same nondual Emptiness, is no Freer than the early sage, but is definitely Fuller, having included in his Supreme Identity at least 3 higher ontologically real levels of the Kosmos. The Emptiness of both confers the same Freedom, but the greater and more complex Form of the latter gives the modern sage a significantly greater Fullness, or more Being. (…) and therefore the very identity of our modern sage is Fuller— actually contains in his or her being up to 3 or 4 greater levels of Reality, and a correspondingly greater, Fuller degree of Being. (…) But by defining Enlightenment as being one with all states and all structures that have emerged and evolved at a given point in history, the evolved sage of today would be no Freer, but significantly Fuller, then yesterday’s sage. (…) And since Enlightenment involves a oneness with the entire universe, Enlightenment itself becomes richer and richer, what Whitehead called (in contrast to the Primordial Nature of God, or unchanging Emptiness) the Consequent Nature of God, which becomes Fuller and Fuller, and hence so does a oneness (or nottwoness) with that God (while the Freedom with the Primordial Nature of God remains unchanging). By including structure-rungs and their Views, the Fullness of Buddhanature (and not just its Freedom) becomes able to be tracked, thus increasing the Depth of our Enlightenment and the Degree of our Awakening, one of the primary goals of Buddhism from its very inception.”[27]
H. H. XIV Dalai Lama:On the philosophical level, both Buddhism and modern science share a deep suspicion of any notion of absolutes, whether conceptualized as a transcendent being, as an eternal, unchanging principle such as soul, or as a fundamental substratum of reality. Both Buddhism and science prefer to account for the evolution and emergence of the cosmos and life in terms of the complex interrelations of the natural laws of cause and effect.”
ELÍAS CAPRILES: “This is an instance of what here I will call the transreligious fallacy, which lies in ascribing views, practices and other elements of one spiritual tradition, to other traditions in which they simply do not fit. In this particular case, the instance of the fallacy in question in which Wilber incurs is one discussed in Beyond Mind II (Capriles, 2006a), consisting in believing levels of the kind posited by some Upanishads to apply to all spiritual systems, and taking some of them to be types of Buddhist realization (if the views of the Upanishads were compatible with those of Buddhism, the Buddha Shakyamuni, rather than preaching his own system, would have referred his followers to the sacred texts in question). (…)Therefore, to speak of levels in the sense in which Wilber does so is utterly irrelevant to spiritual development, with regard to which what is relevant is whether we are having a samsaric experience, an instance of the neutral base-of-all, or a clear instance of nirvana. (…)This implies as well that in Wilber’s [1980] view of the “cosmic cycle,” not only his conception of the spiritual and social evolution of our species as a process of gradual perfecting is wrong, but also his view of the preceding involution of consciousness is both mistaken and antisomatic (as is to be expected in a system of apparent Orphic roots, as below I show Wilber’s to be), for the intermediate state or bardo between death and rebirth is not a process of involution from dharmakaya to sambhogakaya to nirmanakaya to incarnation: the dang manifestation of the energy of thukje aspect of Dzogchen-qua-Base includes both the manifestation of the clear light in the chikhai bardo (’chi kha’i bar do) and that of ordinary thoughts in this life, and the latter may not be seen as an involution of the former, for both of them may either be delusively perceived (…). By the way, also Stan Grof’s (1998, p. 90) critique of Wilber’s view of this involution is wrong, for his objection is that Wilber’s explanation of this involution is “culture-specific” insofar as he uses a Tibetan view to explain a universal process. However, what if a universal process is correctly interpreted by a tradition located in a particular area and incorrectly interpreted by traditions located in other areas? (…) Postmodern thinking will not allow either generalization; however, it could as well be that Postmodern thinking will have to face that some culture-specific views are universal—at least as rough maps that cannot perfectly coincide with the territory, which is how the Dzogchen teachings have always seen their own maps. (…)Buddhism in general and the Dzogchen teachings in particular, which do not posit immaterial realities, outright reject the supposed existence of an eternal individual soul (which may have grasped or not grasped anything before birth); therefore, in terms of Buddhism and Dzogchen the noein posited by both Parmenides and Plato must necessarily be a perception in terms of delusorily valued subtle and supersubtle thoughts, and as such a manifestation of avidya or marigpa in all three senses these terms have in the teachings in question. (…)Positing and asserting the existence of a transcendent spirit is so crucial to Wilber that he disqualifies deep ecologists for supposedly failing to postulate it, and he is ready to close his eyes to the above-demonstrated subtle dualism of Plotinus just because he likes so much the idea that the One is transcendent (so that he can see it as spirit) and that the world is the radiance / manifestation of the One—even though this is not truly so insofar as in Plotinus’ view matter, which is the basic constituent of all entities, is alien to the soul and is the limit at which the radiance of the One has been exhausted. Contrarily to Wilber’s preferences, the Buddhist teachings, both in their original form and in all their presently existing forms, keep the [meta]phenomenological epoche, asking us to suspend judgment and abstain from speculating about the existence or nonexistence of something prior and / or posterior to manifestation and as such transcendent. To begin with, the Pali Canon, containing the reconstruction of Shakyamuni’s discourses, asserts the origin of the world to be unconjecturable, and warn that conjecturing about it brings about madness and vexation (…).  Buddhism not only acknowledges such questions to go beyond the sphere of valid human knowledge, hence shunning metaphysical speculation about them, but views them as distracting people from the fundamental aim of Buddhism, which is that of quenching suffering. This applies to the Mahayana as well, which beside shunning speculation concerning the origin of the world, views Buddhist systems that may seem suspicious of positing an everlasting universal spirit, a personal soul and so on, as instances of the extreme view that Buddhist philosophy calls eternalism and regards as a deviation from the Middle Way: both the Nirvana School of the Mahayana in China and the Jonangpa School of the Vajrayana in Tibet were accused of heresy because their opponents read in their tenets what they saw as eternalist, substantitalist or theist elements. (…)Buddhism has always discarded all myths of creation as instances of these extremes. Therefore, none of the following would be admissible to Buddhism: (a) that of creation of the universe by a God that is and remains foreign to it (like the one in orthodox Judeo-Christian-Muslim belief); (b) that of creation of the universe as the manifestation of a transcendent spirit that is in no way separate from the latter (as in Wilber’s understanding of Plotinus); and (c) that of the infusion of forms in matter by the demiurge on the model of the eternal eidos (as in Plato). In the Vajrayana we find cosmogonies and cosmologies, but none of them posits an everlasting transcendent universal spirit or a personal soul. For example, the Kalachakra Tantra lays out a theory of the formation of reality, yet it does so without any reference to a transcendent spirit, a creator, etc. (Kongtrul Lodrö Tayé, 1995). Also the Dzogchen teachings have a cosmogony, but rather than positing the manifestation of the universe out of a transcendent spirit, it explains the Base (i.e., what I am calling Dzogchen-qua-Base)—which may not be viewed either as transcendent or as immanent insofar as it is the true condition of all reality that as such has neither genus proximum nor differentia specifica, thus being beyond conceptual extremes and as such being unthinkable—to be beyond time and hence not subject to creation or destruction, (…) It is thus clear that none of the elements of this cosmogony is a transcendent spirit: all is the play of Dzogchen-qua-Base, which from its own perspective is beyond time and therefore beyond creation and destruction, and which being beyond conceptual extremes is beyond transcendence and immanence. (…)however, whether there are such things from the relative perspective is something that—as may be inferred from Shakyamuni’s negation to discuss the origin of the world and so on, both in the Pali Canon and in the Sanskrit Mahayana Canon—Sutric Buddhism would refuse to answer. (…)    All of the above demonstrates that by disqualifying those who fail to postulate a transcendent spirit, Wilber unwittingly disqualified the Buddha and all Buddhist Masters—as well as the founding fathers of Taoism, who did not posit such transcendent spirit either. Wilber may think the dharmakaya posited by the Mahayana and the other higher forms of Buddhism to be transcendent, but as we have seen the Dzogchen teachings make it crystal clear that the dharmakaya, rather than a transcendent reality, is the realization of the true condition of dang energy, which is the basic constituent of thought and of the luminosity the Dzogchen teachings call tingsel (gting gsal), among other events in our experience. (…) Wilber’s system sows confusion with regard to the structure and function of the Path (…); now it has been shown that the system in question also falls into what Buddhism views as the error of positing metaphysical theories asserting the transcendence or immanence of a “spirit,” which can hardly have a function different from that of keeping us in the prison of delusorily valued-absolutized thought. Buddhism refers to those who assert the existence of transcendent realities astirthika (Tib. Mutegpa [mu stegs pa]), and those who assert the material to be the only reality and/or deny the law of cause and effect, Awakening and so on ascharvaka or lokayata (Tib. Gyangphenpa [rgyang ’phen pa]) —which are two of the extreme views refuted by philosophers representing the Buddhist Middle Way.   At any rate, it is clear that Wilber incurred in a transphilosophical / transmystical fallacy when he mentioned Plato and Plotinus as examples of dharmakaya mystics: he was unwittingly implying the kaya in question to be equally realized by Seeing through the contents of thoughts into the latter’s true condition (as occurs in the Tekchö practice of Dzogchen), and by remembering, in terms of delusorily valued-absolutized noein / subtle thoughts, the supposed vision of immaterial Forms that according to Plato potential philosophers had previously to birth. If the dharmakaya is the direct realization of the true condition of the dang energy that is the constituent of thought and if this realization instantly results in the spontaneous liberation of thought, then it could not be the reminiscence, in terms of thoughts, of some supposed extrasensory, immaterial reality that was supposedly perceived before birth by some would-be philosophers. (…)  (It would take too much space to discuss or even list the other thinkers Wilber sees as having achieved one or another type of realization, but whom I view as having achieved something quite different from Buddhist realizations that is often noxious rather than healing.)  Thus there seems to be no doubt that, as suggested above, Wilber’s descriptions and classifications resulted from mixing the accounts different traditions provide regarding the sequence of their respective paths and/or the essence of their respective views. However, some Paths lead to nirvana, others lead to higher realms of samsara, still others may allow us to establish ourselves for longer or shorter periods in the cessation (nirodha) constituted by the neutral condition of the base-of-all—and others, like Plato’s, by the same token sustain delusorily valued-absolutized knowledge and reinforce antisomatism, both of which are at the root of ecological crisis. Among Buddhist Paths, some lead to the realization of a shravaka, others lead to the realization of a pratyekabuddha, others lead to the realization of a bodhisattva, and still others may lead to the realization of a yogi, to that of a siddha, to that of amahasiddha or to that of a Buddha. Besides, in Buddhism there are gradual Paths and nongradual Paths. How could a single map be drawn that would apply to all of these paths? Only someone who has successfully trodden a given Path can produce an accurate description of it, and such description will apply to the Path on the basis of which the description was drawn, and at best to other Paths based on the same principle, but not to Paths based on utterly different principles and leading to totally different fruits. Therefore, it would be absurd to try to derive a universal map of the Path from one’s experience of the Path one has followed, and it would be even more absurd to fabricate such universal map by piecing together accounts belonging to different traditions: if we put together the trunk of a mammoth, the teeth of a saber-toothed tiger, and the body of a dinosaur, what we obtain is a monster existing solely in our own fantasy. Such concoctions, rather than expressions of aperspectival freedom understood as the capacity to view phenomena and events from different, mutually contradictory perspectives with awareness of what each and every perspective responds to and may apply to (…), are monstrosities springing from confusion and lack of perspective (thus being aperspectival only in the sense in which at night all cows are black).   At any rate, it is a fact that Wilber’s descriptions and classifications fail to provide a clear criterion for distinguishing samsara from nirvana, and both of these from the base-of-all, such as the criterion found in the Dzogchen teachings.[28]
ELIAS CAPRILES: “The repeated, overwhelming tsunamis of criticism Wilber has received from a series of theorists denouncing what they view as a mistaken perspective or as major errors, might well be among the reasons that led him to undertake, in the first decade of the twenty-first century, an ongoing, radical reshaping of his theories that is giving rise to that which he (e.g. Wilber, 2010) himself has agreed to label Wilber V. (…)However, he retains and further develops his and Don Back’s version of spiral dynamics as a paradigm of human evolution, (…) and as a twelfth, in place of the nondual, the one he now calls the supermind (a term probably drawn from Śrī Aurobindo). (…)Thus it is clear that, even though now Wilber admits there may be a somehow freer transit between lower and higher levels, and that development along one line does not need to strictly depend on development along the other lines, he still adheres to a rigid schema of hierarchical structures of the kind denounced throughout this book, which as such, just like those in his previous elaborations, does not correspond to any ancient, traditional system—Buddhist or non-Buddhist—and that he continues to mistakenly identify some of the rungs in at least one of the lines with stages of spiritual development posited and charted by higher Buddhist and other traditional systems, even though, as shown above in this chapter, they do not correspond to any Buddhist schema, and no Buddhist system has ever posited all-embracing evolutionary schemas. Moreover, he continues to posit a correspondence among the rungs in the various lines, viewing them as stages in an overall, integral type of development—which, furthermore, he now presents as development from lower to higher focal points (cakra) that he associates to different colors in a schema which, as M. Alan Kazlev (undated) notes, is not found in any traditional system. (…)Even though the fact that he carried out this radical reshaping of his system amounts to acknowledging that he was altogether wrong in so much of what he formerly asserted, in one of the Integral Life Newsletters of the last months of 2010 Wilber wrote that in spite of it he has always been right! (…) Śākyamuni Buddha was right when he compared fully fledged avidyā to an illness, and that Candrakīrti hit the mark when he compared this fully fledged avidyā to insanity, for it gives rise to a severe structural discrepancy between our reactions to the world and what is actually going on in the world (…) the highest systems of Buddhist philosophy—Mahāmādhyamaka, and Mahāyāna and Vajrayāna Mādhyamaka Prāsagika—and the Dzogchen teachings are totally free from metaphysical assumptions and thus need not undergo either deconstruction or reconstruction. As I see it, these systems are by the same token antecedents, and keys to the production, of an ontology free from the metaphysical assumptions of phenomenology that would perfectly respond to the needs of our time. (…)In fact, the root and essence of modernity is the myth of evolutionary progress, which, together with many of the metaphysical illusions and mistaken assumptions proper to mainstream Western philosophy, continues to underlie a great deal of so-called postmodern thought—including most works that, some times on the basis of Heidegger-inspired hermeneutics, have attempted “postmodern” reconstructions of the deconstructed. This is the case with Wilber V, who claimed to have produced a post-metaphysical reconstruction of primordial traditions that in his view can salvage the latter’s essence while shedding their ontological baggage, yet continues to be under the spell of the modern myth of progress and of a great deal of his former metaphysical assumptions (…).Moreover, the task the latest Wilber undertook could hardly be more pointless and futile, for as show above, millennia ago the higher forms of Buddhist philosophy and the highest Buddhist Path deconstructed whatever needed to be deconstructed—unlike Derrida, including not only identity and difference, but the condition of possibility of difference as well. If there remained anything to do in our time, it would be to express the viewless viewpoint of the systems of Buddhist philosophy and the Buddhist Path in question in an actualized, reelaborated way, as a result of confronting them with the concepts and views of Western philosophy”[29]
Elias Caprilles interviewed by Vladimir Maykov on Ken Wilber's distortion of Buddhism and Dzogchen: (In this interview, Capriles explains how Wilber misinterprets Buddhism. Also, Capriles explains that Wilber's visions are politically “right-wing”, explaining that his view of tribal peoples is "fascist") https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9sIxcduwg4I
BARCLAY POWERS: “There are a number of significant problems with the current models of the evolution of spirituality as described by Integral Theory. There are major differences between Tantric non-duality and the conventional Integral definitions of the evolution of consciousness. (…) The contemplative traditions, which Integral Theory accepts as evolutionary, are all based on a story of enlightened origin. (…)This means that the progression of the evolution of consciousness within the contemplative traditions requires a return to origin that is incompatible with both Integral and scientific evolutionary worldviews in their current form. (…)non-dual consciousness evolution that has been inadequately addressed by Integral Theory. (…)Often essential conflicts between Eastern and Western definitions of consciousness evolution and enlightenment become confused and further distorted by incomplete Integral definitions of higher stages. (…)This is why it is so incredibly dishonest to tell the Integral audience that the Godhead becomes real at the non-dual stage. No Buddha in the last 3,000 years would explain enlightenment from a theistic Vedic perspective. (…)Even more importantly, Sri Aurobindo, Ramana Maharshi, Gebser and Wilber have all excluded the Coniunctio, the union of solar and lunar subtle bodies from their descriptions of the evolution of consciousness because they are unaware of its historical significance. The current model of Integral spirituality has not understood the union of the three bodies. It doesn’t even know the Dharmakaya or Original Face is the solar subtle body/golden embryo. The Integral elite omits Gnosis, the Golden Flower and the Hermetic Androgyne from its confused Vedic model of non-duality although they are fully explained by Tantric Buddhahood. (…)Unfortunately, confusing the causal body with the Dharmakaya and describing them as merely emptiness omits the entire alchemical firing process of the Coniunctio that results in golden non-duality. (…) Chinese medical model of enlightenment is accurate and that Tantric Buddhahood represents real Integral non-duality. (…)Real enlightened non-duality can only be experienced after the Trikaya is achieved. Just talking about non-duality doesn’t make it happen because you already are a Buddha. You actually have to unite the three bodies through the Coniunctio for the Trikaya to instantly evolve from fiction to fact. (…)It is this evolution from human to Buddhafield, which represents a new revolution in Integral Theory. (…)A new Integral definition of enlightened non-duality is inevitable because conventional descriptions of the evolution of consciousness are incomplete according to Tantric alchemical theory.”[30]
BARCLAY POWERS: “The process in which the West discovered Buddhism, mistranslated it, and created a radically distorted commercial version based on a middle class psychological quest for spiritual authenticity forms an interesting narrative. The Mindfulness industry, which excludes the essential Buddhist hypothesis of the complete liberation of consciousness, now has the backing of both science and the high tech corporate elite (…) the commercial Buddhist establishment (…) commercial Buddhism uses deception and omission to justify its own dishonesty. Unfortunately, (Wilber) Integral models of Buddhism, which are unable to explain the complete evolution of consciousness, and completely falsely claim that meditation reveals the presence of God within evolution, are among the most corrupt examples of the malignant narcissistic psychology of commercial American pseudo-spirituality.  (…) Buddhism in its Western version has become a tool of slavery and an engine of repression. The spiritual marketplace is free from the self-criticism of science and social conscience. This is why the scandals of abuse in both Buddhist and yoga circles have done nothing to deter the eager audience from the influence of false spiritual teachers. (…) The Integral audience will accept any distortion of Buddhism or Eastern mysticism (…). The (Wilber) Integral model of Buddhism makes the problem much worse by misunderstanding liberation and confusing it with a romantic, theistic spiritual narcissistic personality disorder. (…)The problem with almost all forms of Western Buddhism is that the modern narcissistic cultural fantasy assumptions of middle class life prevent any understanding of the radical implications of the Trikaya. Both Chinese and Dzogchen models of meditation see the completion stage of meditation as a natural evolutionary process, which spontaneously reveals the true nature of the individual. (…)American Buddhism is so firmly rooted in the dishonesty of its own spiritual narcissistic incompetence that it replaces the necessary vitalist subtle body theory and practice with commercial Mindfulness psychology, which furthers the corporate agenda of mental slavery and dominance in the guise of personal freedom and pseudo-happiness. Immune to criticism by virtue of narcissistic middle class romantic spiritual superiority the response to an accurate translation of returning the true self to void is awakening is ineffable. (…)The problem with the Integral understanding of mysticism is that it has missed the entire concept and framework of the Golden Elixir/Embryonic Enlightenment. (…)Meditation research is dominated by Mindfulness, which is largely an American commercial endeavor, which prevents genuine liberation much like Integral Theory. A writer like Yang Jwing-Ming does a vastly superior translation of Buddhist meditation theory than Wilber, Wallace, Thurman or Batchelor but remains unknown relatively because Western Buddhists prefer Shangri-La to reality as Donald Lopez does a good job of pointing out. (…) The Integral approach is one of the ugliest aspects of commercial corporate Buddhism, which resorts to theistic Advaita Vedanta to justify a complete mistranslation of the Alaya storehouse consciousness, the Tathagatagarbha/Dharmakaya Embryo of Enlightenment. Theistic verbal masturbation is combined with malignant spiritual narcissism to convince the audience that theistic and nontheistic mysticism is magically textually and experientially identical with no mention of the Golden Elixir tradition, which represents an authentic worldwide tradition of inner yogic alchemy. As usual the purpose of omission is deception, and is based on a complete ignorance of the actual completion stage of meditation – Embryonic Enlightenment.  To understand the massive scale of confusion in the West regarding the theory, practice and result of meditation, it is necessary to use the classical Chinese medical definition of enlightenment (…). Just check Yang Jwing-Ming's explanation of the goal of meditation, qi gong and enlightenment against Ken Wilber's and the extreme romantic confusion of the American model becomes readily apparent. (…)American Buddhist teachers as a whole are well meaning, but are so heavily invested in their own spiritual status and leadership that both their viewpoints and perspectives are questionable. The whole question of what is real Buddhism and the final goal of meditation has not been answered successfully by the Western romantic mysticism, which dominates the conventional Buddhist landscape. (…)The fact that Integral Theory describes the story of evolution as spiritual while being completely unaware of the Embryonic Enlightenment theory of meditation is remarkable. This also holds true for Western Buddhism as a whole because there have been good translations of Chinese inner alchemical texts since the 70's, which do not differentiate between Buddhist and Taoist meditation theory in practice. The fact that the Grandmaster level of tai chi and qi gong is based on the genuine completion stage of meditation Embryonic Enlightenment, has somehow been ignored by the major spiritual 'experts' who control the commercial and now increasingly corporate dialog regarding human potential and the evolution of consciousness. (…) The living treasure that the Tathagatagarbha sutras describe vividly is considered the classical goal of meditation, medicine, martial arts, Taoism, Confucianism, and Buddhism in China. It is virtually unknown and completely mistranslated in the West. The current narrative is clarified by the fact that Taoist meditation theory and practice explains the original vision of Buddhism much more accurately than current (Wilber) Western Integral, secular and scientific models. (…) Mindfulness is simply a commercial corporate endeavor much like Integral Theory, which prevents any form of genuine liberation from negating the omnipresent amnesia of mental slavery, which characterizes the human condition and prevents the individual and collective actualization of the Bodhisattva vision.”[31]
International Buddhist Ethics Committee: In the book "One Taste", Ken Wilber states that his talks and books do not encourage the advancement of consciousness, whereas the real contemplative disciplines would do it. According to Wilber, if someone already has the Buddhist teachings then he would have no reason to read his books. In the book "Integral Spirituality", Ken Wilber states that the Dalai Lama believes that homosexuality and anal sex are sins, that oral sex is bad karma, but everyone knows that bad karma is bad oral sex. That's a mythic amber belief. Meditation does not allow us to see these structures-stages (amber, orange, green, turquoise) and fills the Buddhadharma in the West with invisible pathologies, using Buddhism to promote and encourage the narcissism of feelings. For Wilber, to understand the moment when the spiritual would be used to encourage Ego and consolidate the contraction of oneself is something that is inaccessible to the tools of Buddhism. According to Wilber, This invisible pathology has infected Buddhism which simply lacks the tools to detect it, because its operating system has been infected by a silent virus that may be collapsing the whole system.
Ken Wilber: “In the Buddha’s time, for example, people –including the Buddha– really did think that the earth was flat. (…) For example, Buddhism can be –and today actually is (as we will see) – interpreted as Magic, Mythic, Rational, Pluralistic and Integral levels. I’ll give real and specific examples of Buddhist thinkers and entire schools that are each coming from one of these different levels. (…) How many [mystics or meditation teachers] do you know who perhaps might be xenophobic, patriarchal, sexist, imperialist, authoritarian (and rigidly hierarchical), racist, homophobic, or who even advocate war and homicide? If you think Enlightened teachers are incapable of this, just read Zen at War (…) A note to Buddhists on the use of the world soul: the soul in the subtle realm, like the ego in the gross realm, or the True Self in the causal, is not an ultimate reality; it is only a conventional, relative reality. But as a conventional entity, it has a relative realness, as Nagarjuna explained. (…) Zen says, Show me your Original Face, the face you had ‘before your parents were born.’ Before your parents were born? Zen means that very seriously. There is a real, literal, definite answer to that question –before your parents were born, I AM. (…) And thus, Before Abraham was, IAM. Literally! Before my parents were born, I AM. (…) Thus, I AM says, I see objects –mountains, trees, cars, buildings- but I am not those objects; I have sensations, but I am not those sensations; I have feelings, but I am not those feelings (…) Even, I have a body, but I am not that body; I have a mind, but I am not that mind; I have a soul, but I am not that soul. (…) [I]t’s almost impossible to change the mind of fundamentalist mystics about their view of God. (…) This, incidentally, is essentially the same reason why schizophrenics (…) will ‘not’ surrender the belief in the experience (…) So the psychiatrist tries to burn it out of the schizophrenic’s brain with electroshock or drug it to death, which is essentially the same way you’d have to handle a fundamentalist mystic (…) [Buddhist Schools] such as Zen and Theravada, virtually never mention subtle energies at all. The great Zen Master Hakuin (…) tells of an event that he endured that was severely disturbing –namely, during meditation, he began to develop intense headaches, which eventually became so severe that they completely disrupted his meditation. His description of these headaches make it almost certain that they were caused by a subtle-energy (kundalini) dysfunction generated, possibly, by the intensity of his meditation, which he performed without a proper knowledge of how to handle the subtle energy that it was releasing (since in Zen, as noted, there is literally nothing about subtle energies (…) Solving koans –or discovering God– is often so difficult not because the task itself is so hard but because it’s so simple. (…) [Comparing Buddha-nature with the Nature of God] the fullness of Buddha-nature (the Consequent Nature of God, the increasingly Evolving Fullness of the Total Painting) becomes able to be tracked”[32]
Sankalp Khobragade: “On Ken Wilber’s book The Fourth Turning Imaging (…) After reading this book I have find many other aspect which has no relevance with  Buddhism or what Buddha’s gospel spoke about such as: 1- GOD and SOUL. Ken Wilber have superbly explained the four quadrants and various rungs of spirituality and science in his best capacity but fails to relate it with Buddhism. Gautam Buddha the supremely enlightened (…) denied of existence of SOUL like thing. His main purpose was to free man from the mental slavery of Ignorance and Avidya thereby to believe what is rational and according  the laws of nature. (…) Buddha’s Dhamma is nothing but amalgamation of science and spirituality. 2. But it has to serve some to the complete humanity that is to uproot the Dukkha from life and achieve NIBBANA in this very life. KEN WILBER often compares Buddha and other religious leaders (…). For the matter of fact Buddha Dhamma is not a religion such as Christian, Muslim, Brahmanism. It’s a rich way of life whose end goal is PEACE and Happiness. It allows it disciple to change old ways to new ways according to the situation and environmental conditions. (…). Ken Wilber should study these aspect of Buddhism too before comparing Buddha with other religious leaders.  3. Dhamma should be understandable by a person who has got no schooling. Ken Wilber has a very high level of stuff. Which is hard to understand and practice by a beginner. But if this is a high level of insight you have it means you are also elevated yourself in wisdom but still you believe in traditional approach of GOD and SOUL which was successfully  uprooted by Buddha before 2500 years. This questions his wisdom, for me it is not Righteous Wisdom. He may have vast knowledge of worlds religions and theories but he seems to fail to comprehend and do critical analyses of this insight.   All this means one way or other he is harming Buddhism. (…) Ken Wilber’s book not doubt speaks of new dimensions as his insight hunched him. But I must say that this is not new knowledge to Eastern Buddhism Practices. Kindly refer to BUDDHA And HIS DHAMMA by Dr. B. R. Ambedkar.  To say about Dr. Ambedkar, we Indians regard him as modern Buddha who changed the Indian History forever. He, after the great emperor SAMRAT ASHOKA, revitalized BUDDHISM in India which was lost for more than 1500 years from the land of Buddha. And because of him the wheel of Dhamma could rolled down after the great conversion of Budhism in 1956 with 5 million brethren in Nagpur. (…) Any book we read on Buddhism we compare with this book. So is the case with Ken Wilbers “ The Forth Turning Imaging”. (…) Wilber’s  book is nothing but the metaphor to “ old wine in new bottle”. We the student of Buddhist philosophy are striving to get mastery over Samma Ditthi which means see truth as truth and removal of ignorance. 7. Some knowledge or theories  may be new to this generation people but when we study Buddhism in real sense Buddhist literature is eternal and as fresh  as nature. In my opinion Ken Wilber should review his thoughts and comparisons of Buddha, Buddha mind and his Dhamma. He should feel the responsibility and power  of  literature or writings. On and all we must not promote what is not Truth just because all people like it pleasing to them….. that’s not Righteous Contemplation.”[33]
Ajay Dhoke: “Why is Mr Ken Wilber teaching a False Buddhism?  The author of the book The fourth turning, Mr Ken Wilber has a big identity crisis and is probably suffering from Narcissism, pursuit of gratification from vanity or egotistic admiration of one's own attributes. The author is also going through motivated ignorance, as his goal is leading him to avoid learning potentially valuable information, the information about the basics of the Buddhism. There are several such examples of this motivated ignorance in the preface of the book and the contents of the book. But the main thing where he is showing his ignorance is the fact that Buddha's teachings were very scientific and always supported the empiricism and critically analysing, testing and if proved and liked then adopting. But the author took his teachings towards various distorted facts like rebirth, karma, enlightenment, self-liberating Spirit, samsara and nirvana, Form and Emptiness,  God, Godhead etc or their distorted concepts in Buddhism. (…) Further he also questioned Buddha along with several sages as to how they knew about psychological concepts. He also interpreted Buddhism at magic levels, mythic levels, rational levels, pluralistic levels, and integral levels, which is actually wrong. There was no place for mythic concepts in Buddhism. He also mentioned that there were few shadow elements and by adding modern therapeutic techniques to meditation, such shadow elements can be removed. (…) are best handled by therapeutic techniques, not meditative techniques. This is also a great distortion. Such distortion he made in his book regarding the Buddhist principles which seems that he is purposely ignored those. Third and most important reason for such distorted teachings about Buddhism is that he wants to gain attention of the world by presenting his concept of Integral Buddhism as Fourth Turning Wheel but at the cost of denigrating the status of Buddhist School. He also want to project himself that he has given a radical thing, equally important to that of Buddha, Nagarjun and Tibetan Monks of Middle Era. Fourth, his own ignorance about Buddhism has led him to associate many concepts of Buddhism with that of other religion, specifically Hinduism. While analysing Buddhism he hasn't been able to dissociate or detach from the concepts learned before going deeply into the concepts of Buddhism. His earlier learning is acting like anterograde amnesia, while learning Buddhism.  Fifth, the prejudice against the Buddhism has led him to accept one part of Buddhism, convenient to him and rejected the other parts or principles of Buddhism which don't support his attitude. Thus he purposely neglected the scientific attitude and critical analysis  of Buddha, internal locus of control, human centred approach of Buddhism. (…)  Because of all those reasons mentioned above, Mr.  Ken Wilber is teaching false Buddhism.”[34]
Anil Yadavrao Gaikwad: “Ken Wilber does not appear to be the authority to comments on Buddhism as his views on Buddhism are not matching with the basic tenet of the Buddhism. (…) While referring to the Integral Spirituality (Wilber) has stated that God tries to reach us, touch us, speak to us, awaken us. He further states that an integral spirituality demands that we spiritually approach matter, body, mind soul and Spirit in self, culture and nature nothing less. Buddha in his teaching never talked about God. The statement made in reference to Integral Spirituality is against the basic philosophy of Buddha. The author again refers to god on page 59 and stated that God itself is slowing our evolution is contradicting the Buddha basic teaching. (Wilber) also states that most of the religions are stuck at some form of mythic view; while the other intelligences are free to move into rational, pluralistic, holistic and integral views. This is again a misguiding statement about Buddha’s Dhamma. (…) (Wilber) appears to have misinterpreted the meditation and he is trying to create the doubt in the minds of the readers about the meditation. This can be concluded from the statement of the author is a deliberate attempt in order to harm Buddhism. (Wilber) again makes a statement that “Conversations with God are possible whenever the Heart opens to the Voice of Ultimate consents to the presence of Lord and listen to all humility and openness” (page no. 75).  This is again a statement, which is insisting to prove the presence of the God in the minds of the reader. This contradicts the Buddha’s teaching. (…) Based on the various arguments and misleading statements by Mr. Ken Wilber, readers will be misinterpreting Buddha’s teaching and it is harmful to the Buddhism. Spreading the wrong interpretation of Buddha’s teaching and philosophy cannot be considered as Fourth Turning. The United Buddhist Nations Organization (UBNO) should ensure that the final edition of the book to be published by Mr. Ken Wilber should not be propagating the ideas/concepts/philosophy which is not correct as per as Buddha’s teaching is a concern. The efforts of Mr. Ken Wilber about spreading/preaching the wrong philosophy of Buddha appear to be his objective.” [35]

Maitriyana Buddhist University: “Wilber is claiming that both Eastern and Western meditation are incomplete and flawed due to its incapacity to grow.  He said that none of the Western development models have states of waking up, and the Eastern models lack the stages of growing up, so he claims that humanity remains unable to become fully whole. Wilber even said that the evolution of a sage from the past is incomplete in the present. Wilber said that Eastern meditation, including Buddhism, needs his Integral model to achieve the highest level of human evolution. Therefore, he sees himself as a savior, implying that the world needs the Wilber integral model to evolve. Wilber claims that if a person engages in meditation without the Wilber technique, then the person will remain unfulfilled without realizing his True Self. Buddhist Meditation is against the Wilber model, because the meditative view of Wilber is hierarchical, dualistic, cumulative and focused on intellectual cognitive consciousness. Moreover, Wilber claims that his Integral meditative model is the only comprehensive form of contemplation, arguing that it is a way of fulfillment and wholeness of humanity. All this is a deep violation of Buddhist Spirituality.”
JIM ANDREWS: “The purpose of this essay is to evaluate the quality and integrity of KEN WILBER 's advocacy of meditation, not to evaluate the efficacy of meditation. (…) KEN WILBER REGULARLY CLAIMS that meditation accelerates the development of human consciousness. However, as this essay argues, his key claims are unsubstantiated. Here are the nine Concerns to be discussed in this critique: KEN WILBER asserts that meditation accelerates the development of human consciousness, yet he typically provides no supporting evidence; KEN WILBER suggests that 20 to 25 years of meditation can yield full enlightenment, yet he admits that he has not achieved this state nor met anyone who has; KEN WILBER states that only meditation has been demonstrated to accelerate the development of human consciousness, yet he also recommends other spiritual practices; KEN WILBER praises the research of Skip Alexander and his colleagues, yet he also acknowledges that their studies are subject to "valid criticisms"; KEN WILBER claims that meditators can advance two levels in only three or four years, yet the cited study is subject to "valid criticisms"; KEN WILBER reports that 38% of meditators advanced to the highest levels on Jane Loevinger's scale of ego development, yet the cited study is subject to "valid criticisms"; KEN WILBER advocates the use of meditation and community verification to establish spiritual truths, yet this recommendation is not "good science"; KEN WILBER asserts that even skeptics acknowledge that "the Maharishi effect" is authentic, yet skeptics have repeatedly rejected "the Maharishi effect"; KEN WILBER is aware that meditation can have "negative effects on practitioners," yet he provides only a very few warnings of the potential hazards”[36]
Ken Wilber: “People think that being awakened means you understand everything, but it really means the opposite. It means you don't understand anything. It is, all of it, a total Mystery, a baffling babbling of unending nonsense.” “Meditation speeds up evolution. It accelerates the remembering and the re-discovery of the Spirit that you eternally are. Meditation quickens the rate that acorns grow into oaks, that humans grow into God."  [37]
Ken Wilber: "Truly, adopting a new holistic philosophy, believing in Gaia, or even thinking in integral terms—however important those might be, they are the least important when it comes to spiritual transformation. Finding out who believes in all those things: There is the doorway to God.”[38]
Ken Wilber: "I suspect that in several significant developmental lines, including the developmental line of cognition, and the developmental line of self, and the developmental line of moral development, that it is conceivable you could get the equivalent of enlightenment in this lifetime. [...] Let's just use the same simple 7-stage model that we have. That if you start at Stage 4 and you meditate conscientiously for 20 or more years, you could conceivably end up more or less at Stage 7 which is, again, not the highest in all time, but the highest for this era. And that would be the equivalent of a permanent, ever-present, nondual awareness." (…) But if you have a precious human body, and a favorable circumstance [that is conducive to growth], and all those factors sort of fall into place, it's quite conceivable that 25 years of meditation would move you right to the top of whatever line you're looking at. (…)  My sense is that, in my own case, and I'm not claiming a full enlightenment, I think that 11-day period [of constant, 24 hour per day Witness and nondual awareness] was as full an experience as one can have. But I think that has to continue unbroken, is my own opinion, and it did not in my case. Although I get into that, in a sense, I mean, the actual physiology of it. So there are times when I remain aware 24 hours a day during waking, dreaming, and deep sleep, and then times when I won't. But I never forget that state; I mean that state is ever-present with me. But that actual current is not always ever-present...." () "I think that some of [the people who have claimed an absolute enlightenment] have a great deal of this current going, but I don't think it's permanent, as far as I can tell, 24 hours per day, unending. (…) "You really have to find small communities or sanghas or gatherings of people who are practicing techniques to bring in these higher states and stages of being. That's generally where meditation, contemplation, yoga, integral psychotherapy comes into play." (…) "But the simplest, shortest answer is: whatever your stage of development on the self line, by practicing meditation, or shamanic voyaging, or altered states, or non-ordinary states, or centering prayer, you going to move up and accelerate your development through that line, moving several stages over a period of just a few years actually." () "I believe, I absolutely believe that (prayer could move you up two levels in a similar way as meditation)" () "Meditation moves an adult human being an average of two full stages on any of these scales. [...] I mean you can take the Jane Loevinger scale, 8 levels on that one, and if somebody's at stage four and they meditate for three or four years, they'll be at stage six. It's really, really impressive actually. (…) "if you take people that are doing what you just said [raising kids and making money], and they meditate about an hour a day, then about four years later, they're two stages higher on any scale we give them. Meditation is the only thing that's been empirically demonstrated to vertically move people to that degree."[39]
Ken Wilber: "The laboratory is your own mind, the experiment is meditation. You yourself try it, and compare your test results with others who have also performed the experiment. Out of this consensually validated pool of experiential knowledge, you arrive at certain laws of the spirit—at certain 'profound truths,' if you will. And the first is: God is."[40]
JIM ANDREWS:Grace and Grit (Wilber book) indicates that meditators will discover that "God is." Which God is this: a theistic, deistic, pantheistic, or panentheistic deity? An Abrahamic monotheistic deity, e.g. Yahweh or Allah? Or a fundamentalist Christian Risen and Living Jesus?[41]
Ken Wilber: “I absolutely believe that (prayer could move you up two levels in a similar way as meditation) .... [Transcendental Meditation] has one advantage in that it’s such a lineage practice, so to speak, there’s a morpho-genic field around it, if you will, it’s so well developed, that when people take up that practice, it has almost immediate effects. Other practices are harder to get into, they’re more sort of difficult. Zen is very difficult to do right; you have to practice it really for months, or even years, to really get into it. But TM, really within the first couple of sessions, you’re really kind of getting the hang of it [so] it’s an ideal type of meditation for research, because there’s a similarity in peo-ple that practice it ... you can actually learn something by looking at people who do it. And people who do it for a very long time get into some of these very profound states, includ-ing twenty-four-hour-a-day subtle constant consciousness.”[42]
J. Horgan: “Not even the Dalai Lama can sustain nondual awareness through deep sleep, Wilber informed me, as he can (…).  After attaining this ability in 1995, Wilber sustained it until about a year ago, when a nasty staph infection left him bedridden for six months. I lost a great deal of access to it, he said, but it’s slowly coming back  (…).  [Wilber] excoriates the suggestion of some New Age authors that we can overcome any disease or hardship if our faith in our own minds is strong enough; this claim, Wilber points out, implies that it is our fault if we cannot cure our own cancer”[43]
Ken Wilber: “Your ever-present, already functioning, spontaneous mind is 100 percent of the Enlightened mind –right now! Not 95 percent of it, but 100 percent of it.  Practice this everyday nonduality, this background all-encompassing Awareness, with any particular object or phenomenon arising in your Awareness. Take any big desire or wish that you have –a desire to love your mate, to get that promotion, to achieve a great accomplishment, to be fabulously rich, outrageously famous, inordinately adored– and then hold that desire along with its negative and destroying opposite. (…) Feel one; then feel the other; then hold them both in your Awareness (…) Do this with at least a half-dozen major and important areas, values, goals, or desires in your life. (…) In each case, rest in the resultant equanimity of the Opening, or Clearing, free of the pairs, and feel a nondual Spirit saturate your being. I AMness is neti, neti –not this opposite, not that opposite, but the ever-present, All-Pervading, All-embracing, All-Encompassing Presence–”[44]

INTERNATIONAL BUDDHIST ETHICS COMMITTEE: In 1980, Ken Wilber wrote a flattering foreword for the Adi Da’s work called “Scientific Proof of the Existence of God Will Soon Be Announced by the White House”. Below, there are some quotes proving Wilber’s spiritual endorsement to Adi Da. But, as it can be seen later, Wilber even went so far as to say Adi Da came to understand Buddhism, Christian Mysticism, Taoism, etc. better than Gautama Buddha or Jesus respectively. Such a statement only comes from huge ignorance but also it brazenly disrespects the Great Sages of all times. Moreover, Ken Wilber gives Adi Da the rank of an enlightened Spiritual Master, which is something that only can be recognized by another enlightened being, that is to say that Mr. Wilber even dares to position himself as an enlightened being:
Ken Wilber:I will soon argue, Da Free John is a Hero — a quite extraordinary Hero at that. (…) Oh, we all would like to think that we could recognize one such as Christ if he returned. But the sad historical fact is just the opposite: We — you and I — have from the start rejected our true spiritual Heroes when they walked among us, and, if history is any guide, we would probably do the same thing today. It seems that, while they are alive, real Spiritual Masters are met with benign neglect (or worse). The fact is that Christ (or Buddha or Moses) might already have returned and been summarily rejected. (…) And we you and I will simply have to try to decide who is a Divinely empowered Master, and who is a fraud, or, at best, whose realization is incomplete. (…) And so: Da Free John [Adi Da Samraj] is a Hero and Da Free John is surrounded by devotees. What, then, are we to make of this spiritual Hero? Realize that we cannot reject him simply because he is viewed as a Hero. And realize that we cannot reject him simply because he has dedicated followers. Rather, we must look to his teaching, look to his life, look to his example, look to his message. We would not deny such "due process" even to a common criminal, so let us not deprive our potential Heroes of at least equal courtesy.(…) [M]y opinion is that we have, in the person of Da Free John, a Spiritual Master and religious genius of the ultimate degree. I assure you I do not mean that lightly. I am not tossing out high-powered phrases to "hype" the works of Da Free John. I am simply offering to you my own considered opinion: Da Free John's teaching is, I believe, unsurpassed by that of any other spiritual Hero, of any period, of any place, of any time, of any persuasion. (…) If you survey carefully the world's great and enduring religions, you tend to understand that, taken as a whole, the great spiritual paths announce four or five major themes. Islam is based on the truth of only-God; Christianity, on the truth of only-Love; Buddhism is based on the truth of no-self and no-seeking; Judaism, on the truth of the Divine as formless and imageless Creative Power and Mystery; Hinduism, on the truth of formless absorption in the unmanifest; Christian mysticism centers on the descent or reception of the Holy Spirit; and Taoism grounds itself in Eternal Flux.  From a slightly different angle, the great world religions can be divided into three major classes. The first is the path of yogis (…) The second is the path of saints (…) The third is the path of sages (…) And here is my point: The teaching of Da Free John includes, even down to the minutest of details, every one of those five major themes and every step of those three major paths. I personally have found that not one significant item of any of the great religions is left out of Da Free John's teachings. Not one. And it is not just that these points are all included in his teaching: They are discussed by Da Free John with such brilliance that one can only conclude that he understands them better than their originators. (…)The last thing I would say is this: Perhaps your approach to Da Free John will not be that of a pure devotee; perhaps it will not even be that of a helpful "friend" of his work. But it is becoming quite obvious that no one in the fields of psychology, religion, philosophy, or sociology can afford not to be at least a student of Da Free John. At least confront the teaching; at least study what he has to say; at least consider his argument. Since he is indeed a true Hero — an authentic and supremely enlightened Spiritual Master —[45]
Ken Wilber: “Whatever else might be initially said, the event of Bubba Free John [Adi Da] is an occasion for rejoicing, because — without any doubt whatsoever — he is destined to be recognized as the first Western-born Avatar (World Teacher) to appear in the history of the world. For the other great avatars — Christ, Gautama, Krishna — all have been Asian. But here, for the first time, is a Western-born Spiritual Master of the ultimate degree. . . .  Whereas the ordinary person continually abandons this Divine Mystery, in order to contract into knowledge and sensation, the Awakened One has perfectly and radically fallen into the condition of Divine Ignorance itself, and thus is perfectly aligned to the utterly spontaneous and unknowable play of the Divine. . . .  Founded as the ultimate Condition of which all arising is but modification, Bubba Free John stands as simple Presence for all who would have recourse to him. The times at which such Enlightened Ones have appeared are very rare; please make use of the works and presence of Bubba Free John to whatever degree you are capable.”[46]
Ken Wilber: “The event of Heart-Master Da is an occasion for rejoicing, for, without any doubt whatsoever, he is the first Western Avatar to appear in the history of the world.... His Teaching contains the most concentrated wealth of transcendent wisdom found anywhere, I believe, in the spiritual literature of the world, modern or ancient, Eastern or Western.”[47]
Geoffrey D. Falk: “Note that, in the above quote, Wilber is evidently considering himself fit not merely to pronounce on the degree of enlightenment of others, but even to confirm their avatar status, without any doubt whatsoever. (…) Again, note the oracular nature of the statement, as no mere expression of opinion, but rather as a without-doubt, categorical evaluation of another person’s spiritual enlightenment—as if Wilber himself were able to see into others’ minds, or clairvoyantly discern their degree of conscious evolution.  Others, however, have reasonably questioned the possibility, even in principle, of anyone executing such over-the-top insight (…)  No one should ever turn a blind eye to secular crimes of forgery, incest, rape or the like. Much less should those same crimes be so readily excused or forgiven when they are alleged to occur in spiritual contexts. (...) To say nothing in the face of evil, after all, is to implicitly condone it. Or equally, as the saying goes, For evil to triumph in this world, it is only necessary for good people to do nothing.”[48]
Ken Wilber [talking about Adi Da’s work The Dawn Horse Testament]: “This is not merely my personal opinion; this is a perfectly obvious fact, available to anyone of intelligence, sensitivity, and integrity: The Dawn Horse Testament is the most ecstatic, most profound, most complete, most radical, and most comprehensive single spiritual text ever to be penned and confessed by the Human Transcendental Spirit. That seems an objective fact; here is my own personal and humbler opinion. I am honored (even awed) to be allowed in its Presence, to listen to and Hear the Potent Message of the Heart-Master Da. How can the soul not bow down to such a Message? . . .”[49] “The Teaching itself is, in its scope, its eloquence, its simplicity, and its ecstatic fund of transcendent insight, probably unparalleled in the entire field of spiritual literature. More extraordinarily, the Teaching itself, like a very few other truly brilliant spiritual works, carries the graceful ability to liberate and awaken simply through hearing the argument.”   “I mention Master Da (along with Christ, Krishna) as being the Divine Person as World Event.”[50] "Master Da is the single strongest influence on my own work at this time, and has been for the past several years, and will continue to be so. . . . I still absolutely agree that Master Da is the Primal Adept."[51]  “The works of Bubba Free John are unsurpassed.”[52]  “When I read [Adi Da’s work] The Knee of Listening I just fell apart. It was stunning. Probably had as big an impact on me as any single book… along with, of course, everybody's most influential beloved guy, Ramana Maharshi. But the original version of The Knee of Listening was stunning, I mean, it changed me profoundly.[53]
Jim Chamberlain:The only way Ken Wilbers’ calling Da’s Dawn Horse Testament the most ecstatic, most profound, most complete, most radical, most comprehensive single spiritual text ever to be penned and confessed by the Human Transcendental Spirit, is if when reading it you substitue a word like God, Tao, or All, for every Me. What Ken Wilber unfortunately ignored when he elected to allow his influential voice to be used to endorse Da’s megalomania is that Da readily mixes the language of the absolute with the language of the relative. This is one of Da’s unique literary devices. When he says Me, he is referring in the same breath to the Me that is the Self of everyone and everything, and to the me who can say, Come into the bedroom with Me, Miss September. (…) In any case, Ken Wilber has admittedly been profoundly influenced by Da, and has referred to Da’s written teachings in every book Wilber has written. Da has long used and continues to use Ken Wilber’s enthusiastic exclamations about the greatness of Da and his teachings as endorsements for his books. The new, 1996 edition of The Heart’s Shout has a Ken Wilber endorsement right on the front cover; this at a time when Ken Wilber’s star is on the rise with ads for A Brief History of Everything appearing nationally in many publications. (…)[Quoting Georg Feuerstein] (Wilber) has also expressed his concern about the cultic developmnents around this teacher... Ken Wilber has expressed these reservations rather quietly, because his apparent endoresment of Da continues.[54]
Timothy Conway:The tale of Franklin Jones (b. Nov. 3, 1939, Jamaica, New York) is a comic-tragic one, starting off rather promisingly but later degenerating into abuse of himself and of others. After a few years studying with the American renunciate Swami Rudrananda in NY beginning in 1965, Franklin made a few trips to see Rudi's guru Baba Muktananda in India (1968-9) and to experience the potent Shaktipat energy that Muktananda channeled from his guru, Bhagavan Nityananda. Franklin then underwent some Christian seminary training and assorted inner experiences, as well as a year of studying and working for the dysfunctional, exploitative cult group, Scientology (1968-9). He claims to have then enjoyed in 1970 a final awakening to the Goddess and infinite Beyond in the Los Angeles Vedanta Temple. He began publicly teaching out of a bookstore in Los Angeles in 1972 and gathering students, before moving within a couple of years to Northern California with his growing entourage of close associates and devotees. (…) Showing promise of becoming a great spiritual adept and brilliant teacher of self-inquiry and Self-realization (with a strong emphasis on grounding this realization in heartfelt relationship and enlightenment of the whole body), very quickly, within less than two years of public work, all evidence indicates that Franklin Jones / Da Free John fell deeply and dangerously into monstrous ego-inflation, abusively toxic relationships towards his disciples and wife/wives, and heavy addictions to personal power, sexual debauchery, drugs, and extravagant material possessions. We have here the sad story of a gifted and highly educated young man endeavoring for spiritual mastery who became, instead, an unknowing egocentric slave to aspects of a very needy, sick, shadow part of the psyche. He then exploited his trusting disciples and turned them into his own serfs in a slavish cult--often descending into a nightmare--that pretended to create a heavenly scene around the Incarnate God, Adi Da. (…) Much of Da's language and schemas have greatly influenced pundit Ken Wilber, as Wilber himself has acknowledged. It is bizarre that Wilber still remains a big fan of Adi Da, along with another abusive bad-boy teacher, Andrew Cohen (who has been exposed by several formerly-close disciples for repeatedly abusive behavior and finally in 2013 resigned from his teacher position).  But this webpage will indicate why many of us do not find Da a commendable figure. (…) But be here forewarned about becoming personally involved with Da's seductive cult. As stated in 1996 by Jim Chamberlain (a devotee of Da for eight years from the mid-1970s to early 1980s): "Many of those familiar with his 'crazy wisdom' teaching style and personal behavior have concluded that he is as dangerous as he is brilliant....[55]
Robert Augustus Masters:Everything he did was presented as though it only arose in the context of spiritual awakening; if he, for example, took another man’s wife to have sex with him, that was, of course, for that man’s benefit, giving him the gift of an in-your-face lesson about attachment. Etcetera, etcetera. (…) Along the way, he gathered some heady praise, especially from Ken Wilber, and seemed to be taking his place among many as a legitimate, even exemplary, spiritual realizer, a great adept.[56]
Tom Veitch (alias Elias), former Adi Da’s Student and devotee: “Adi Da's agenda is simple, and ultimately life-denying-- he draws all value to himself, and he leaves his victims feeling utterly worthless and hollowed out.... To justify this vampirism, Frank accuses his followers of an interminable sin of 'ego'--a mysterious unhealing disease which he also finds afflicted Jesus, Gautama Buddha, Ramana Maharshi, and every other spiritual teacher since the beginning of time. In other words, Frank finds all human lives, except his own, to be unredeemed, and utterly without value. ('The five billion slugs' he called us.) If you want to heal, if you want to be redeemed, all you have to do is fall down and worship 'Adi Da,' the embodiment of all value and all possible perfection.... It is a terribly seductive message to the weak-minded and to those who are given to project all value upon the expectation of a great messiah who will surely come to lead us out of this world of interminable suffering.[57]
Adi Da to his followers: “Do you see the way I Am? You see My Manner, My Disposition, My Humor, My sometimes Sympathetic Sorrow, My Quickness, My Disposition to Intervene, My Gentleness, My Hardness, My Power-Foot, My Beauty-Foot? You see all these Qualities. These Are the Qualities of My Omni-Presence also, My Eternal Presence. So I am Exhibiting My Eternal Personality to you, by Showing It, in some basic terms, in your likeness, through a human Form. . . . I Am Who I Am, the Very Person. Therefore, by All I Do, by All My Appearance here, I Am Showing you the Qualities of the Divine Person. . . . And they will continue after My physical Lifetime. I will Be Present exactly as I Am now.”[58]
Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj:The true guru will never humiliate you, nor will he estrange you from yourself. He will constantly bring you back to the fact of your inherent perfection and encourage you to seek within. He knows you need nothing, not even him, and is never tired of reminding you. But the self-appointed guru is more concerned with himself than with his disciples.[59]
David Lane:Adi Da's own students were the ones who came out criticizing him for his abusive behavior. (…) [M]y original article on Adi Da, The Paradox of Da Free John, was directly vetted for months to the Adi Da community and each and every rejoinder by Georg Feuerstein (who was officially representing his group's interests at the time) were published within the article itself. Only later did Feuerstein come clean about his own misgivings about his guru's life and work.  Should we now dismiss Georg Feuestein's critique of Adi Da? No, nor should we ignore those ex-students of Adi Da who have a contrarian view of their ex-guru.  (…) Just because a specific lawsuit didn't win or was settled out of court doesn't then mean that the person in question is completely innocent, as anyone conversant with the law (and O.J. Simpson, to give just one graphic example) knows too well. Sorry, but Adi Da certainly did use his spiritual authority in bedding certain women, since some of these women have readily confessed that they slept with their guru precisely because he was in such a high place. (…) [T]he fact remains that according to some women (I am not saying all) felt manipulated by Adi Da because of his exalted status. They even had the temerity of going public with their respective charges. And, yes, some of these ex-disciples do feel that they suffered irreparable harm.[60]
International Buddhist Ethics Committee: The following information has been quoted from lawsuits against Adi Da. For example, the first quotation is from Case Mark Miller against Adi Da in 1986 for the charges of INTENTIONAL MISREPRESENTATION, SUPPRESSION OF FACT, PROMISE MADE WITHOUT ANY INTENTION TO PERFORM, NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION, UNDUE INFLUENCE (IMPOSITION OF CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST), INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS, NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS. Then, as will be seen in next quotations, several former members of Adi Da’s organization also sued him and his close circle of followers for diverse charges:
Ford Greene (Attorney at Law), Mark Miller's 1986 Lawsuit Against Adi Da for Fraud and Infliction of Emotional Distress:[D]efendant MASTER DA held himself out to be the living, human embodiment of "God" and a perfectly enlightened Master. Defendant MASTER DA ascribed to himself the ability to cause spiritual development in a disciple by special psychic and transcendental forces emanating from the person of MASTER DA, the intensity of which could be controlled by the will of MASTER DA. (…) [When enrolling the community] plaintiff was advised that he would (…) to stare at a picture of MASTER DA for one or more hours each day while repeating the word God constantly with every breath; (e) participate in the study of the writings of MASTER DA every day; and (f) to donate time, labor and money to MASTER DA.  (…) In August 1976 two representatives of JDC and disciples of defendant MASTER DA, David Smith and Jeff Polson, visited plaintiff MILLER and his girlfriend, Julie Anderson, in Los Angeles in order to speak to MILLER and Anderson about MASTER DA and his community of disciples. (…) During the course of said visit (…) plaintiff described to and discussed with them his perceptions of the hallucinatory delusions, bulimia and suicidal tendencies of his girlfriend, Julie Anderson. Plaintiff MILLER further expressed to Smith and Polson his deep concern for the welfare of Julie Anderson as well as his concerns for her safety. (…) Smith advised plaintiff MILLER that his girlfriend was possessed by demonic entities and that defendant MASTER DA possessed the psychic ability to perform exorcisms and had banished demons and other discarnate, malevolent entities from disciples in the past. Smith led plaintiff MILLER to believe that defendant MASTER DA would exorcise such demons from Julie Anderson if plaintiff MILLER and his girlfriend, Anderson, entered into discipleship to MASTER DA. (…) On or about September 2, 1976, the then 20 year old plaintiff MILLER and Julie Anderson were advised by a disciple of MASTER DA that MASTER DA expected the young couple to visit him at his home (…) When the young couple arrived (…) they were met by Craig Lesser who advised the couple that MASTER DA wanted to see them immediately, however not before Lesser had an opportunity to talk with them.  (…)Lesser thereupon advised plaintiff MILLER and his girlfriend, Julie Anderson, that the disciplines and teachings propounded in the writings of MASTER DA were meant only for the public and that MASTER DA was using drugs and alcohol and was currently requiring the use of drugs and alcohol by close disciples as a means of obtaining spiritual enlightenment.  Upon being advised by Lesser that MASTER DA himself used alcohol and drugs and that he required the use of drugs and alcohol by his disciples, plaintiff MILLER and Anderson both strongly objected. Additionally, plaintiff MILLER advised Lesser that MILLER had experienced violent physical reactions to marijuana manifested by repeated vomiting and hallucinations on the few occasions that MILLER had experimented with marijuana some years before. MILLER also advised Lesser that Julie Anderson had experienced strong adverse psychological reactions to the use of marijuana in the past. (…) Immediately following the conversation (…), plaintiff MILLER and his girlfriend, Julie Anderson, were escorted by Lesser to meet for the first time defendant MASTER DA whose real name is FRANKLIN JONES.  During this initial meeting with defendant MASTER DA on or about September 2, 1976 and while under the personal observation and supervision of defendant MASTER DA, Lesser, Peter Roberts and others administered copious quantities of drugs and alcohol to the minors, plaintiff MILLER and Julie Anderson. (…) [F]orcibly removed plaintiff MILLER from the group of people that had gathered (…) By means of the physical force used to remove plaintiff MILLER from the living room of the Sanctuary, (…) MILLER suffered from great intoxication and disorientation manifested by repeated vomiting, dizziness, fear and confusion. (…) As a result of the foregoing coercion, pressure, alcohol and drug intoxication and resultant sickness, plaintiff was unable to sleep the night of September 2, 1976, his first night at the Sanctuary.  On the second night, on or about September 3, 1976 plaintiff MILLER and Julie Anderson were again brought to defendant MASTER DA who personally supervised the administration of copious quantities of alcohol and drugs.  Again, as a result of said administration of alcohol and drugs plaintiff MILLER suffered serious illness with repeated vomiting, dizziness and hallucinations in conjunction with extreme confusion and disorientation.  Late the second night, on or about September 3, 1976, while within the sphere of the personal presence of defendant MASTER DA, and while being verbally demeaned, plaintiff MILLER was forcibly removed from MASTER DA's living room at the Sanctuary by an upper level disciple and told that although plaintiff's girlfriend, Julie Anderson, would be kept in the house with defendant MASTER DA, plaintiff MILLER would not be allowed back inside the house.  Due to the aforementioned confusion, disorientation, and sickness from alcohol, drugs, and other factors, plaintiff MILLER was unable to obtain any rest or sleep at any time during the second night with defendant MASTER DA which took place on or about September 3, 1976.  By means of manipulation of plaintiff's idealistic desire to attain the Truth and frustration at being unable to find Truth in the society around him, deception, administration of copious quantities of alcohol and drugs resulting in extreme intoxication and vomiting, isolation and separation from his girlfriend, intimidation, degradation, abuse, emotional stress and physical threats from MASTER DA, Lesser, and DOES 53 through 55, inclusive, said persons perpetrated the undermining, breakdown, and destruction of plaintiff MILLER's capacity for independent thought, ability to reason, perceive and comprehend the events occurring around him so that by the advent of the third morning at the Sanctuary arising on or about September 4, 1976, MILLER's capacity for independent thought or exercise of volition was destroyed.  On or about the morning of September 4, 1976, plaintiff MILLER was advised by Julie Anderson, whom plaintiff is informed and believes and alleges thereon was extremely drugged after again spending the entire night at the Sanctuary and home of MASTER DA,  that her highest function in life was to become the ninth wife of MASTER DA. During this same conversation plaintiff was advised by Julie Anderson that MASTER DA wanted her to deliver to plaintiff the message that plaintiff's spiritual obligation as a disciple of MASTER DA was to pass this test of sincerity by surrendering the woman he loved to defendant MASTER DA along with all and any negativity and adverse reactions to said surrender as an element of plaintiff's spiritual purification. (…)During the course of said indoctrination session plaintiff was further advised and shown JDC literature by Lesser and DOES 56 through 59, inclusive, indicating that in order for plaintiff to reach spiritual enlightenment, it was necessary, among other things, for him to be tricked and tortured by defendant MASTER DA in order to see and understand that MASTER DA was God. Plaintiff was advised that the greatest sin a man could commit was to consider or judge the guru, MASTER DA, as an ordinary man. Plaintiff was also told that he must perfectly surrender his mind, body and soul to defendant MASTER DA in order to receive the spiritual influence emanating from MASTER DA. Plaintiff was told that since MASTER DA had perfectly transcended his own ego, every single act committed by MASTER DA was done solely for the sake of helping the spiritual development of his disciples. (…) Concomitantly, plaintiff MILLER was brainwashed into believing and as a result of such brainwashing did believe that each and every one of his own feelings, thoughts and reactions were a product of his unenlightened ego and should be ignored or transcended; i.e., suppressed, in order to attain spiritual development. The successful brainwashing of plaintiff MILLER into accepting the validity of two major concepts; that MASTER DA is God and that he product of MILLER's own mentation was inferior, unenlightened and bad; and resulted in the total undermining, breakdown and destruction of plaintiff's capacity for independent thought and ability to reason and the advent of plaintiff's total submission and obedience to the commands of God as manifested in defendant MASTER DA whose real name is FRANKLIN JONES. (…) On or about September 4, 1976, shortly after the indoctrination session described above, plaintiff was removed from the Sanctuary by Lesser and driven to San Francisco. During the course of the ride plaintiff was further indoctrinated and ordered not to discuss any of what had occurred the previous three days at the Sanctuary with anybody else, most particularly plaintiff's former friends, family or the family of Julie Anderson. Plaintiff was further ordered by Lesser not to have any communication with his former friends, family or the family of Julie Anderson for an indefinite period of time.  In the weeks that followed during the months of September and October 1976 Lesser and DOES 60 through 150, inclusive, continued to constantly impose and apply techniques of thought reform, which included the administration of copious amounts of alcohol and drugs to plaintiff MILLER. (…)On or about 1978 or 1979, plaintiff was required by MASTER DA, or by and through his employees and/or agents, to donate blood plasma up to twice per week while eating a vegetarian diet. Plaintiff has information in which he believes, and alleges thereon that the agents and employees of MASTER DA arranged to take the money thus earned directly from the plasma center into JDC'S bank account. Notwithstanding the suffering by plaintiff of adverse physical effects from so often giving blood and plaintiff's notice of such fact to the agents and/or employees of MASTER DA, plaintiff was told by the JDC medical staff to ingest large quantities of expensive vitamin supplements and to cheat on his medical exams so the plasma center would continue to allow plaintiff to provide blood. (…) From the Spring of 1976 through October 11, 1984, plaintiff was under the incapacitating influence of thought reform and coercion by defendants in the manner described in the foregoing paragraphs of the herein complaint. As a direct and proximate result for said period of time plaintiff was unable and incapable of understanding, evaluating, or discovering the true nature of the acts of defendants described herein.  On or about October 10, 1984, plaintiff was advised by JDC member Julia Knox who advised plaintiff that while in Fiji, MASTER DA had beaten up and snapped the neck of one of his nine wives, Bonnie Bevin. This disclosure deeply affected plaintiff and reawakened in him the intellectual capacity for independent thought, reasoning, evaluation, and judgment such that plaintiff could perceive the abusive nature of the acts of defendants imposed upon plaintiff and the nature of the fraudulent scheme underlying defendants' behavior. (…) At all times mentioned herein, the conduct of defendants, and each of them, was negligent, malicious, in bad faith, wanton, willful and reckless and in conscious disregard of plaintiff's rights and justify an award of punitive and exemplary damages against defendant and in favor of plaintiff. WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays judgment against defendants, and each of them, as follows: 1) General damages according to proof; 2) Special damages according to proof; 3) Punitive damages in the amount of $20,000,000; 4) Interest on judgment pursuant to CC section 3288; 5) Cost of the suit herein incurred, including reasonable attorney's fees as determined by the court; 6) For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.”[61]
Declaration of Patricia Masters [Former follower and member of the Johannine Daist Community (JDC)]:I was a member of the Johannine Daist Communion ("JDC") continuously from approximately 1974 until November, 1984 when I left JDC.  Prior to February, 1985, I was married to Dennis Duff, a member of JDC and head of a division of JDC known as Renunciate Order Services.  The primary purpose of Renunciate Order Services was to provide money, property and services for Franklin Jones, aka Da Free John and the entourage surrounding him living in the Fiji Islands.  During the period of February, 1984 to November, 1984  I was the person within JDC charged with responsibility for, among other things, the raising of funds for and purchase of jewelry, clothing, food, including caviar and imported champagne for Franklin Jones and his immediate entourage living with him in Fiji. (…) I observed beginning in approximately 1978 that Franklin Jones was attempting to disassociate himself from the activities of JDC so as not to be held responsible for any actions taken against JDC.  These efforts, included among other things, the following: A) The rewriting of the minutes of the board of directors of JDC. B)  Concealment of all records and references to the personal habits of Franklin Jones including particularly his participation in unusual and bizarre sexual activities and use of drugs. C)  An attempt to form a secret and separate corporation for Franklin Jones' benefit for which separate funds would be solicited independent of the solicitations for the general purposes of JDC. D)  The destruction of all notes, records, and memoranda that would tend to indicate that Franklin Jones was in control of the affairs of JDC.  This effort also included the erasure of audio tapes recordings of Jones, transcripts of directions by Jones and the purchase and use of a shredder for the destruction of the aforementioned.  In addition, I was told to change references to direction by Jones to read as directions by Elizabeth Brown, a member of his household and generally referred to as one of his wives. [62]
David L. Cunningham Attorney for Beverly Jacobs O’Mahony, former disciple of Adi Da: [COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES: UNDUE INFLUENCE; INTENTIONAL MISREPRESENTATION; FRAUD; DECEIT; NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION; INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS; NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS; FALSE IMPRISONMENT; CORPORATION ALTER EGO OF FRANKLIN JONES; ASSAULT, ASSAULT AND BATTERY; BREACH OF DIRECTOR'S DUTY; MALPRACTICE OF CLERGY; AND INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE] “Plaintiff met and subsequently married Defendant, BRIAN O'MAHONY, who was, at the time of initial contact, the Financial Coordinator of the JOHANNINE DAIST COMMUNION. (…) Immediately following the wedding, Plaintiff was beaten regularly by the Defendant, BRIAN O'MAHONY, with the support and backing of the remaining members of the commune. The woman's status in the commune, and under the teachings proclaimed by Defendant, FRANKLIN JONES [Adi Da], was that of servant, or slave, compelled to follow the opinions or decisions of the men, and any punishment determined by the men for disobedience was considered appropriate and encouraged by FRANKLIN JONES.  All money, goods or belongings received by Plaintiff was immediately taken and confiscated with the majority of the funds going to the JOHANNINE DAIST COMMUNION, and a small portion retained for the use of the commune. (…) Plaintiff was assaulted and physically abused for any deviation of the rules, and dictated by Defendant, FRANKLIN JONES. Plaintiff sustained bruises, abrasions and broken bones at the hands of Defendant, BRIAN O'MAHONY, at the command and direction of Defendant, FRANKLIN JONES, for any slight deviations from the rules as set forth by Defendant, FRANKLIN JONES. (…) When Plaintiff became pregnant with her first child, strict dietary restrictions were enforced, as well as severe working conditions. Plaintiff became so ill that she was confined to bed rest for the last trimester of her pregnancy.  Plaintiff's first child was born with serious physical impairments, causing Plaintiff to suffer from anxiety and emotional distress. Plaintiff's impoverished situation required her to seek assistance from her father in the form of baby clothes and other articles other than money, as any monies would be taken by the JOHANNINE DAIST COMMUNION. (…)Plaintiff became pregnant for a second time, as a result of a rape by Defendant, BRIAN O'MAHONY (…) Defendant, JOHANNINE DAIST COMMUNION, has been organized and set up as a Non-Profit Religious Corporation in the State of California; however, said Defendant is merely an alter-ego of Defendant, FRANKLIN JONES, as an extremely large percentage of the funds are used by said individual for his personal wants and desires. In 1982, Defendant, JOHANNINE DAIST COMMUNION, acquired Translation Island in Fiji for approximately Two and One-Half Million Dollars ($2,500,000.00), and set up a community comprised of the "inside followers" of Defendant, FRANKLIN JONES. (…)Defendant, BRIAN O'MAHONY, who was now Chief Executive Officer of the JOHANNINE DAIST COMMUNION, was required to spend a good deal of his time in Fiji. During the latter part of 1983, Plaintiff was forced and coerced to join her husband in Fiji, and subsequently, left her three children in Marin County and went to Fiji. Once in Fiji, Plaintiff was continually and persistently ridiculed and humiliated by all the named Defendants. She was forced to consume alcohol which had never been allowed, according to the teachings and dictates of Defendant, FRANKLIN JONES, and was required to partake in various sexual acts commanded by the Master, Defendant FRANKLIN JONES. (…) Plaintiff suffered humiliation, mental anguish, and emotional and physical distress and has been injured in mind and body (…) During the latter part of February 1984, and through March 6, 1984, Defendants FRANKLIN JONES, BRIAN O'MAHONY, WILLIAM TSIKNAS, PATRICIA TSIKNAS, LYNN CLOSSER, and DOES 50-60, and each of them, formed a common plan and scheme to unlawfully hold and imprison Plaintiff (…) After arriving at the Church community, which is located on Translation Island in Fiji, pursuant to the common plan or scheme to falsely imprison Plaintiff, Defendants FRANKLIN JONES and BRIAN O'MAHONY left Plaintiff on the island "in the care of" certain women followers of the Church (…)For a period of approximately eight (8) days, Plaintiff was a prisoner on the island, as there were no means whatsoever by which Plaintiff could escape, although she repeatedly requested to do so. Plaintiff was under the full control and custody of the aforementioned Defendants, and each of them, and was held against her will by the use of threats, coercion, and the remoteness of the location where she was held. (…) By reason of the wrongful and malicious acts of Defendants and each of them, and of the fright caused Plaintiff, Plaintiff has suffered extreme and severe mental anguish and physical pain, and has been injured in mind and body, all to Plaintiff's damage in an amount that has not been ascertained, and Plaintiff prays leave to amend her Complaint when such amount has been determined, or according to proof at trial. (…) once initial interest has been shown by a party attracted to the alleged "religious teachings" of Defendant, FRANKLIN JONES, the trap is sprung and ideological remodeling or thought reform begins to take place. The new "follower" is basically isolated from his or her environment and all manners of communication are controlled by Defendant FRANKLIN JONES, under the guise of his leadership of the JOHANNINE DAIST COMMUNION. As part of the indoctrination, the stimulation of uncertainty, fear and confusion is gradually applied with certain rewards being given for surrendering oneself to the group. Peer pressure is applied, resulting in extreme feelings of guilt. In conjunction with the aforementioned, monotonous tasks and repetitive activities are required. (…) Defendant, FRANKLIN JONES, is fully aware that the purpose of the aforementioned acts are to brainwash potential "followers" and relieve them of any self defenses they may have with regard to said Defendant's wishes and demands. As punishment for not behaving as set forth by the Master (Defendant, FRANKLIN JONES), followers are publicly denounced within the Church or are shunned by members of the congregation. (…) Defendant, FRANKLIN JONES, in his position as leader of the JOHANNINE DAIST COMMUNION, has on numerous occasions demanded that his followers commit deviant sexual acts, administer beatings or apply a form of house arrest to other followers who have deviated from the path as set forth by said Defendant. (…)Within the last year, Plaintiff was able to break the mental and psychological bounds that held her to the JOHANNINE DAIST COMMUNION, finally realizing that the initial "religious teachings" and "doctrines" espoused by Defendant FRANKLIN JONES, were a sham and a travesty, and that Defendant, FRANKLIN JONES, was only concerned with having as many obedient "followers" under his control as possible.  The conduct of Defendant, FRANKLIN JONES, was in wanton disregard for the rights and well-being of Plaintiff, and was intentional and malicious, done for the purpose of causing Plaintiff to lose her free will and to suffer humiliation and mental anguish. (…)The acts of Defendants, and each of them, as herein alleged, were willful, wanton, malicious and oppressive, and justify the awarding of punitive and exemplary damages in the amount of Five Million Dollars ($5,000,000.00).[63]
Jim Chamberlain (alias JC), former Adi Da’s disciple:I was a student and devotee of Adi Da from the mid-seventies to the early eighties, and the process of assimilating his comprehensive teachings, integrating his powerful transmission of spiritual force, and differentiating between the guru, his teachings, and his “crazy wise” methods remains an ongoing part of my work on myself. (…)When I read Jones’ next book, Garbage and the Goddess, (…)it is an all too revealing look at some of Bubba’s early experiments with his community, which included orgiastic wild parties that included all of the spiritually taboo “accesories” of alcohol, junk food, tobacco, and desire-driven sex. It also included dramatic accounts of Bubba’s ability to initiate mystical experiences in his devotees, what in Hindu tradition is called shaktipat, the transmission of spiritual force from a guru. (…)Phase I members of the community tithed, meaning they donated 10% of their incomes. Phase II members gave everything, getting housing, food, and $7.00 a month walk-around money in return. (…) One day I got a call at the Center instructing me to meet another devotee at a nearby supermarket to do some shopping for Da, who was going to be staying for a few days at a house in Mill Valley just across the Golden Gate Bridge. The woman I met at the supermarket told me that we were going to shop for party food, and we proceeded to spend a couple of hundred dollars on candy, soda, potato chips, and all sorts of other junk food.  I drove with the groceries to the Mill Valley house, and while carrying bags of groceries in one of Da’s wives came up to me wearing nothing but panties and a vest and acting very friendly. She asked me my name, and then asked me if I’d like some pot [marihuana] to take with me. I did a double take. This was the first I’d heard that Da’s infamous parties included pot. We’ve got bags full of pot! she said, confirming what Leo had told me about what that $4000 was earmarked for. I’ll get some for you. (…) A woman with whom I worked at the Center named Francine told me that once at one of Da’s parties he asked her to lift her dress, remove her panties, and sit on a table with her legs spread in full view of all the other partygoers. She did as he asked, at which point he told a man whom had earlier expressed a dislike of Francine, to, Eat her out!, which, she told me, he proceeded to do, however reluctantly, in front of the now cheering partygoers. An outgoing, exhibitionistic sort of gal, Francine seemed to have enjoyed the attention she got out as a result of this incident. (…) A woman in one of the households I lived in told my wife that during a party at Da’s house he took her into his bedroom and tried to make her perform oral sex on him. But she couldn’t, because she’d been sexually abused as a child and had a fear of taking a penis into her mouth. She told Da this and he set about to cure her right then and there. He asked several men to come into the room, line up, and drop their pants. Then he told this woman to take the penis of each man into her mouth. After she did this Da proceeded to have intercourse with her. (…) One of Da’s nine wives was Annie Rogers, who frequently was exiled from the sanctuary by Da, at which times she often ended up staying in the household in which I was living. (…) Once, for a period of a couple of weeks, I had to chauffeur Annie to and from the sanctuary so she could party with Da by night, and work as a mild mannered secretary in downtown San Francisco by day. The sanctuary was three hours from S.F., Da’s parties lasted from dusk till dawn, and God only knows what they were doing at those parties, and so by the time I picked Annie up in the mornings she looked like Kali on a bad hair day.  She said that she told her office co-workers that her husband had been in a car crash in Lake County, was in a hospital there, and that she went to visit him every night and was of course distraught, which explained why she looked like she’d been up partying all night with a psychotic guru.  Annie’s not one of Da’s wives anymore, (he seems to trade them in when they're in their 30’s) (…) During one party period a woman in the household I lived in was invited to one of Da’s private parties, to return behaving as if she’d been coronated as Queen. She’d been intimate with Da, much to the chagrin of her husband, Bob. Brenda continued to be invited to private parties over the next several weeks during which time she became more and more inflated while Bob became increasingly depressed. (…)A few days after announcing he felt suicidal Bob told us that he had gone to the house that Da sometimes stayed at in Mill Valley to do some carpentry work, and came face to face with Da. He told Da that he loved him, but was really suffering because of what was going on. He said that Da hugged him and said, Just cut through it. (…)He did leave the community a few months later though, and Brenda went on to get pregnant by Da and to abort her pregnancy at his instructions, (…) One day I was sent from the Center to a medical supply store to pick up an apparatus used to dispense oxygen and gas for an elderly gentleman named Albert Smith who lived on Buena Vista Drive in San Francisco. There was no Albert Smith at the address I gave, which was a house rented by the community (…) Albert Smith was an alias for Da, (Franklin Albert Jones), and the apparatus was for dispensing nitrous oxide aka laughing gas at Da’s parties at the sanctuary. The gas was supplied by a dentist who was in the community. (…) After the Jonestown Massacre the community was gathered together at the sanctuary and we were told that we’d be having an open house for the locals who lived near the sanctuary, to reassure them that there was nothing like Jonestown going on there. We were to dress conservatively, act real polite, avoid referring to “Bubba” as God or a guru or anything but a spiritual teacher. Then we were told that if Bubba ever did anything as ridiculous as asking us to commit suicide, of course we wouldn’t! We wouldn’t have to, I thought, the scary guys would do all the killing if necessary!  About two weeks before the open house Da had given a talk during which he laughed his maniacal laugh while announcing that he wanted us to be “fanatics!” And when devotees did not respond the way he wanted during the previous “guru day, a traditional Hindu celebration which Da wanted us to take very seriously, he threw a fit. I think this is the day he tore out some of his first wife Nina’s hair, (an incident referred to in the appendix). I remember seeing her shaking and crying that day, and I heard a rumor that Da had hit her and pulled a chunk of her hair out. This same day Da told some devotees that it was a shame he had to teach in a time and place where the laws of the land prevented him from killing devotees if that’s what it took to wake them up! (…) Da initiated a community wide plasma drive to raise money so he could create a new sanctuary in Hawaii. This meant that everyone was to report once or twice a week to a blood center in one of the seediest neighborhoods in San Francisco, near Mission and Seventh Streets, where winos and junkies lived in run down hotels amidst porn shops and filth. (…)I was turned down the first time I went to give plasma because I was a little anemic, so I took iron supplements and ate beets according to community instructions and was accepted the next week. (…)In the original, abridged version of The Knee of Listening, Da makes a couple of references to a year he spent involved with Scientology while living in New York. He also mentions that it was in Scientology where he met Patricia Morley, who came to live with he and Nina, (and was his devotee for many years).  In the second and third supposedly “complete” editions of The Knee of Listening all references to Scientology have been omitted.  Scientology similarly attempted to distance itself from Charles Manson who reportedly studied Scientology while in prison and reached a high level of awareness called clear before he became a hippie cult leader. One may surmise that whatever skills Manson learned from Scientology were of use to him in gaining and maintaining power over others, and I assume the same is true to some degree of Da. L. Ron Hubbard, the infamous founder of Scientology who was posthumously accused of being a brutalizing, manipulator by his son, has a few similarities to Da. Hubbard, like Da, was a prolific writer. Like Da he was accused of abusing followers. Like Da he built an empire with himself at its head, basically by creating a money making tax exempt church. Years before he founded Scientology Hubbard was quoted as saying, If you want to get rich, start a religion. Like Da, Hubbard was accountable to no one. (…) Da’s focus on the Oedipal complex is interesting when considered this way: Oedipus fucked his mother, killed his father, and then blinded himself. Da fucks as many women as he can, bragged about “fucking the Goddess’ brains loose,” symbolically kills all male authority figures in his wholesale demotion of all other teachers to a status below his, and in his alpha-dog relationship to all of the men in his community, and he has effectively blinded himself by isolating himself from feedback and perception of all that he chooses not to perceive. (…) [The following are some of the qualities with which Adi Da taught or communicated:] critical thinking, a generally negative attitude towards the entire historical/psychological/religious adventure of humankind, a tendency to avoid the society of those whom he feels are unenlightened, pride, an absence of shame and humility, forthrightness, rebelliousness, irreverence, etc. (…) In the mid-eighties he [Da] cut back to four [wives], and he now calls them Kanyas, and they are supposed to be in a higher stage of consciousness than anyone else in Da’s community.  They are said to be in what Da calls the sixth stage of consciousness, only one level below the seventh, where he is. This puts these gals at the same level at which Da places Jesus, [and] the Buddha[64]
Georg Feuerstein: “Da Love-Ananda tells [his disciples] that he can do no wrong, and they, in all seriousness, see in him God incarnate.”[65]
Adi Da (Franklin Jones): “I felt the Divine Shakti appear in Person, Pressed against my own natural body, and, altogether, against my Infinitely Expanded, and even formless, Form. She Embraced me, Openly and Utterly, and we Combined with One Another in Divine (and Motionless, and spontaneously Yogic) Sexual Union.[66] (…) [Referring to the same experience he also said] The Goddess used to say, Yield to me, and I fucked her brains loose.[67]
Geoffrey D. Falk: “(…) Free John declared himself to be the Divine Lord in human Form.[68] (…)  In 1993, Adi Da Revealed that Ramakrishna and his principal disciple, Swami Vivekananda, are the deeper-personality vehicle of His bodily human Incarnation. (…) In later years, a married couple of Da Party Animal’s followers were apparently invited over to his house, only to find the guru in bed, drinking beer and surrounded by cigarette smoke.  In short order, the wife was allegedly prepared by other followers, to be taken sexually by the guru. And so she was.  Suppressing his irrational feelings into numbness, however, the husband soon found a suitable rationalization for that, convincing himself that the guru was simply teaching him to not be emotionally attached to his wife.”[69]
International Buddhist Ethics Committee: After feeling under attack because of his support to Adi Da, Ken Wilber publicly (but not in reality) changed his mind and started to separate himself from being associated to a controversial Guru. This change of tune was because his endorsement to Adi Da was affecting his reputation, his status and his book sales, for this guru was compared to Jim Jones who became famous after the sad event of mass suicide at Jonestown, a cult-like community settled in Guyana. However, few months later, after Wilber’s public distance from Da and his community, he gave again his spiritual support to Adi Da, thus contradicting himself and showing his spiritual position has no validity or truthfulness at all.
Ken Wilber: [Referring to Adi Da] “Read this Man, Listen to this Man, Hear this Man, then See Him.”[70]  “The last positive statement I made about Da's work was in 1985, when I wrote a very strong endorsement for his major book, The Dawn Horse Testament. This is one of the very greatest spiritual treatises, comparable in scope and depth to any of the truly classic religious texts. I still believe that, and I challenge anybody to argue that specific assessment.  The teaching is one thing, the teacher, quite another. By this time (around 1985), things were starting to become very problematic for Da, his personal life, his community, and his teaching in the world. In ways that we are just beginning to understand, some types of spiritual development can run way ahead of moral, social, interpersonal, and wisdom development in general. Da is capable of some truly exquisite insights, but in other areas, he has fared less well, and this has increasingly verged on the catastrophic.  It is always sad to see such promise run aground on the rocks of personality problems. As this was becoming increasingly obvious to even his most appreciative students, including me, I did an interview with Yoga Journal (September/October 1987). In that interview, I made my very last public statement about Da. For the next decade, I would publicly say nothing about him whatsoever (until now). Thus, for the last ten years, here has been my official stance. These are the last sentences of that statement:  [Da] makes a lot of mistakes. These are immediately reinterpreted as great teaching events, which is silly. And then he gets mad and frustrated and goes into sort of a divine pout ...…. Because of these and other difficulties, he has holed up in Fiji, become very isolated and cut off, which I think could be disastrous, for him and for the community. The entire situation has become very problematic. It's real hard to get happy about what's going onProblematic was the euphemism that sociologists at that time were using for Jonestown. Although few think Da will slide that far, nonetheless, his entire teaching work has indeed become problematic. The great difficulty is that, no matter how enlightened you might be, it takes a certain amount of practical wisdom to gauge the effects of your teaching work on the world at large. Crazy wisdom might (or might not) be fine for a few very close and longtime devotees. But it is disastrous when done as a large scale social experiment, which Da did, especially during the Garbage and the Goddess period. Anybody who could not see how that experiment would be perceived by the world is simply a damn fool. And an enlightened damn fool is even more culpable.  Those events sealed Da's fate in today's world. His teaching work is effectively ended for all but a small handful. And he will never be able to teach in this country, or virtually anywhere else, either, because his past will follow him. It is altogether sad, then, to see him continue to announce that he is the World Teacher. He won't even venture out into the world! He hides in Fiji, away from the glare, away from the world, away from the truth at large. And he calls us to his little island kingdom, there to save the world. This verges on the grotesque.  Is there any chance that Da can rehabilitate himself? His claim, of course, is that he is the most enlightened person in the history of the planet. Just for argument, let us agree. But then what would the most enlightened World Teacher in history actually do in the world? Hide? Avoid? Run? Or would that teacher engage the world, step into the arena of dialogue, meet with other religious teachers and adepts, attempt to start a universal dialogue that would test his truths in the fire of the circle of those who could usefully challenge him. At the very least, a person who claims to be the World Teacher needs to get out in the world, no? (…) [H]e would at the very least find ways to directly engage or at least meet! — some of the prominent leaders in the fields of religion, politics, science, and administration. As it is, he won't even meet with other leaders, such as the Dalai Lama, unless they become practicing members of his church! Hello?  To step out in that fashion requires moral courage. It requires a willingness to engage and respond. It demands a brave heart to stand forth and shine, not just to a few hundred in Fiji, but to an unbelieving world.  Until this happens, I can recommend to no one that they take up the isolationist practices of the Daist community.  At the same time, this should not prevent us from taking advantage of that part of Da which isn't broken, namely, his clear (if isolated) spiritual writings and insights. If nothing else, his written texts are still an extraordinary source of material. Even if you do nothing but disagree with them, you will at least see a stunning number of ideas and insights and methods, which you can check for yourself and see if they actually work or not. Nor should his personal problems negate these insights. Even if Einstein was a complete psychotic, E still equals mc2. Let us not deny the latter because of the former.  We await, then, the day that the World Teacher consents to enter the World. Until that time, it is perhaps best to watch from a safe distance, while availing yourself of those written texts that still manage to shine with a light of their own.[71]
Adidawilber.com: “The public denunciation of his Sat-Guru succeeded in covering Wilber's reputation. He would then go on to write a letter to the Adidam community which he obviously had intended to be private (until it somehow found its way into the public spotlight not too long after he sent it). I say obviously, because the contradictions with his public letter stand out glaringly. Only a rather naive reader would miss how much Wilber has to stretch to try to make his denunciation of Adi Da look like something other than a denunciation. But it just doesn't work. It is painfully obvious that he is speaking out of both sides of his mouth. In the denunciation, he insults Adi Da Samraj (...) Obviously he wanted to save his career, but also not jeopardize his receiving Adi Da Samraj's Blessing, so he tries to play it both ways. He even pleads with the community not to use his endorsements, because he has received so much grief for publicly acknowledging his own love and devotion to the living Sat-Guru.”[72]
Ken Wilber:I have been asked, on numerous occasions, to clarify the comments that I made about Master Da, posted on the Shambhala website. The critical aspect of those comments was obvious enough, but I think it led many people to misinterpret my overall stance towards Master Adi Da. I have not, and have never, renounced Da as Realizer, nor have I in any way abandoned my love and devotion for Him. The thrust of the criticism — meant as much for His devotees and advocates — was that the status of World Teacher carries the burden of opening to, and meeting, the World; and that, therefore, an even more aggressive outreach program needs to be taken seriously by the community. I understand full well the necessity to shield Master Da from the toxic shock of merely skeptical and cynical nonbelievers, as well as the completely appropriate preparatory stages requisite to receiving the Grace of His Company. Nevertheless, this does not relieve the Community from a more graceful outreach than has been demonstrated in the past. Truly, the insularity of the community has resulted in an extremely negative public image, quite beyond that which would be expected from a generally nonspiritual world toward a truly realized Adept. The general consensus, believe me, is that the Community and its final Authority have demonstrated a genius for negative public relations. As a longtime and devoted friend of the Community, and as a devoted student of the Master, it is my obligation to point this out. Which I did. And I did so in a way that I thought would rattle the Community out of a certain complacency, which apparently it did. But that's the extent of those comments.  Do I believe that Master Adi Da is the greatest Realizer of all time? I certainly believe He is the greatest living Realizer. Anything beyond that is sheer speculation. How could any of us judge? Who among us has met Gautama Buddha? Who has experienced Satsang with Sri Ramana Maharshi? Who has lived in the company of Padmasambhava? I have sat in satsang with Master Adi Da, and with numerous other great Adepts, and my own opinion is that Master Adi Da is the living Sat-Guru. Beyond that, how could I say with any personal authority?  If Da is the living Sat-Guru, then why did I say that I can no longer automatically recommend people to his Church? Only because, in this culture — where the guru principle is mightily feared and resisted, and where strategic legal and political forces are dedicated to its eradication — I cannot, as a blanket and public statement, recommend to people that they pursue that noble Path without also informing them of what a culturally and personally hazardous course it is indeed.  Many people have made their way to Master Da because of my own writings. I am completely happy about that, and I hope I can continue that positive influence. At the same time, I have received an enormous amount of grief, from personal and professional quarters, for my endorsements. I do not regret those endorsements, nor do I retract them. But blanket, public statements of endorsement are simply no longer a diplomatic, intelligent, skillful way to steer people to Da. And therefore I have requested that the Community be selective and thoughtful in how they use my endorsementsI affirm my own love and devotion to the living Sat-Guru, and I hope my work will continue to bring students to the Way of the Heart. I hope, as well, that the Community on the whole will take seriously a more gracious and graceful outreach program, and thus begin to reverse the powerfully negative images of the Master and His Community, images much more negative than they need to be, even in these God-forsaken times.  I send my best wishes and love to the Community, and a deep bow to Master Adi Da. I hope to be able to get out to the Mountain of Attention in the near future and say hello, again, to many of you in person.[73]
Adidawilber.com: “His [Wilber's] private communication to the Adidam community leaked out to the public, and now he came across looking worse than ever to his public: as someone who was completely two-faced, and with neither loyalty nor integrity.  You would think that, at this point, Wilber would have no place to go, no way to write himself out of his quandary. But he has built his trade on his clever writing. How did he next defend himself to his public? By trying to suggest that it was Adi Da Samraj who was contradictory! So obviously he had to be contradictory if he was to faithfully reflect Adi Da Samraj in his writings.  And if you believe all that, we have a bridge we'd like to sell you.  He also tries to account for his own contradictory writings by saying Adi Da Samraj is a very strong personality. I suppose this is meant to suggest that the flip-flopping in his own writing is due to his own relative weakness of character, and that he is trying to portray himself as having being overpowered by, victimized by, and forced into writing contradictory statements by such a strong personality.  That's rather lame, don't you think?  He says here, I accept my faults and admit them. That feels disingenuous to us. When it comes to his writing about Adi Da Samraj, Wilber's main fault is that he has been afraid to be associated in public with Adi Da Samraj, and has equivocated in his communications about Adi Da on that basis. We can't find Wilber's acknowledgement of that fault anywhere.”[74]
Ken Wilber [In response to his leaked private letter to Adi Da’s Community]: Over the years I have made numerous very strong and sometimes contradictory statements about Adi Da, mostly because he is a very strong and sometimes contradictory personality. In the Foreword I was asked to write to his book Scientific Proof of the Existence of God Will Soon Be Announced by the White House!, I stated my opinion that Da was one of the greatest spiritual Realizers of all time, unparalleled in his grasp of many profound spiritual issues. Yet in The Strange Case of Adi Da, I called attention to the fact that, even though Da might be highly spiritually realized, he seemed to have several problematic, perhaps even pathological, aspects to his personality and the way he was running his community. Yet again, in an open letter to his community (which was posted on the KEN WILBER Forum), I again affirmed my belief in Da’s great spiritual realization. Contradictory? Perhaps, but only because Da is contradictory. Contradictory and problematic — deeply problematic.  This is why, as a blanket statement, I can no longer — and do no longer — recommend Da’s community for the typical spiritual aspirant, and I have asked his community to cease using my name in this regard. Nonetheless, for those individuals who realize full well the extremely risky nature of the adventure, but who feel a strong pull toward complete and total surrender of their lives to a spiritual Master, I can certainly recommend Adi Da — with all the caveats of which I have written.  The real difficulty of the strange case of Adi Da is that the guru principle is neither understood nor accepted by our culture, and therefore anybody entering into Guru Theater does so at great, great risk. Added to this is the fact that — as I mentioned in The Strange Case of Adi Da (and explained at length in The Eye of Spirit) — individuals can be at a relatively high level in their spiritual development but at relatively low levels in other lines of their development, and this mixture can be very problematic. This is true for many, perhaps most, people, and I believe it is so with Adi Da as well.  When I point this out, the typical response of members of Da’s community has been to point to faults in my own character — as if that had anything to do with the faults in Da. I accept my faults and admit them. Let us hear Da and his community do the same for Da.   In the meantime, I affirm all of the extremes of my statements about Da: he is one of the greatest spiritual Realizers of all time, in my opinion, and yet other aspects of his personality lag far behind those extraordinary heights. By all means look to him for utterly profound revelations, unequalled in many ways; yet step into his community at your own risk.[75]
Geoffrey D. Falk: “To summarize its contents: Wilber states that he neither regrets nor retracts his past endorsements of Adi Da; that it is only for cultural and legal considerations that he can no longer publicly give a blanket recommendation for people to follow Da; that he is pleased that his own writings have brought people to Da Avatar and hopes that they will continue to have that effect in the future; and that he still recommends that students who are ready become disciples/devotees of Da. A month and a half after distributing the above nuggets of wisdom to the Adi Da community, Wilber (1998b) reconfirmed his position in another open letter, posted as of this writing on his website. There, he states—with rarely encountered opacity—that the real difficulty of ‘the strange case of Adi Da’ is that the guru principle is neither understood nor accepted by our culture. (…) I can certainly recommend Adi Da.... [H]e is one of the greatest spiritual Realizers of all time, in my opinion (said Wilber). Note further that the related title, The Strange Case of Franklin Jones, was used in 1996 by David Lane and Scott Lowe, in their exposés of Da/Jones and his ashram environment. Unless that was a common phrase going around in the mid-’90s, then, it would seem that Wilber was likely aware of their earlier, insightful critique of the dynamics reportedly going on within Adi Da’s community. Rather than properly absorbing the information in that, however, he has evidently simply seen fit to give his own, purportedly more valuable version of the same—even though looking on merely from a safe distance, not as a first-hand, residential participant. That is sad, since Lowe and Lane have offered real insight into the situation, while Wilber has consistently failed miserably to do the same. (…) Of course, unless one is inclined to take the visions of astral moon cannibal slaves on the part of Da greatest living Realizer seriously, one arrives at serious concerns as to Adi Da’s mental stability. (…)  Over the years, Adi Da has taken credit for numerous miracles, such as a brilliant corona that stood around the sun for a full day (in Free John, 1974). No scientist or skeptic, though, would ever accept such anecdotal claims as evidence of a miraculous control over nature. And with good reason, particularly given Lowe’s (1996) eye-witness testimony of the same miraculous event (…) There might even have been some (natural) coronal effect visible to some members of the community. And they, being desperate for confirmation of their Master’s divinity, [may have] exaggerated the significance of minor synchronisms, atmospheric irregularities, and the like. That, however, would still hardly qualify as a miracle. It would further do nothing to ease one’s concern about the members of the community, like Lowe, who didn’t see that authenticated miracle, reportedly being quickly demoted to positions of lower status for not going along with the group version of that reality. (…)And if, as Lowe hints, the miracle itself never happened, Da of all people would have known that from the beginning. Why then would he have proceeded with allowing it into print? To publish something like that in the hope of decreasing cult-like following would have been an interesting approach indeed, since it could only have had exactly the opposite effect. Further, since Wilber had read that book prior to writing the above 1980 and 1985 forewords—it is listed in the bibliography for his (1977) Spectrum of Consciousness—one must ask: Does this mean that he was accepting that apparently non-existent miracle as being valid? One cannot help but assume so, since the alternative would be to say that Wilber regarded Da as not accurately presenting his spiritual accomplishments, but still chose to pen his gushing forewords. (…) [A]sk yourself how, in the face of all that easily accessible information, anyone of sound mind and body could still recommend that others surrender completely to someone like Adi Da. (…) The late Da spent much of the 1980s and ’90s living in Fiji, on an estate formerly owned by Raymond Burr. He was reportedly kept company there by thirty long-time devotees, and by his nine (9) wives.[76]
Sri Bob: “I find it absurd that Wilber seems to attach more importance to criticizing Da’s failure to appear in public forums than he does to examining the very serious abuses of trust and misuse of power that have been perpetrated by Da under the guise of spiritual teaching. In light of the well-documented problems that Da has created in his own life and his follower’s lives, it is completely irrelevant to any evaluation of Da whether or not he accepts Ken’s challenge to go out into the world at large. Who cares! Why would anyone want to see Da broaden his influence by speaking to a larger audience?”[77]
D. Lane: “In private correspondence with me (and in person), Wilber has admitted that Da is a fuck-up (his words, not mine)”[78]
G. Falk: “Notwithstanding all that, as late as 1998 Wilber was again still publicly defending Adi Da, even after having reportedly given the more negative evaluations in private at least two years earlier. Most likely, what he then means is that Da is a “fuck-up” along moral lines or the like, but is still the greatest living Realizer along spiritual lines of development. As little chance as there is of the latter idea being true, it would at least partially avoid charges of hypocrisy against Ken Wilber, for saying one thing publicly but another privately.”[79]

International Buddhist Ethics Committee: As did with Adi Da, Ken Wilber used flattering words when wrote Cohen’s foreword for a book of Cohen called Living Enlightenment
Ken Wilber: “[Rude Boys] live as Compassion—real compassion, not idiot compassion—and real compassion uses a sword more often than a sweet. They deeply offend the ego (and the greater the offense, the bigger the ego)....  Andrew Cohen is a Rude Boy. He is not here to offer comfort; he is here to tear you into approximately a thousand pieces ... so that Infinity can reassemble you....  Every deeply enlightened teacher I have known has been a Rude Boy or Nasty Girl. The original Rude Boys were, of course, the great Zen masters, who, when faced with yet another ego claiming to want Enlightenment, would get a huge stick and whack the aspirant right between the eyes.... Rude Boys are on your case in the worst way, they breathe fire, eat hot coals, will roast your ass in a screaming second and fry your ego before you knew what hit it....  I have often heard it said that Andrew is difficult, of-fending, edgy, and I think, Thank God. In fact, virtually every criticism I have ever heard of Andrew is a variation on, He’s very rude, don’t you think?[80] “I promise you, find yourself a Rude Boy or a Nasty Girl, the ones who make you uncomfortable in their presence, who scare you witless, who will turn on you in a second and hold you up for ridicule, who will make you wish you were never born, who will offer you not sweet comfort but abject terror, not saccharine solace but scorching angst, for then, just then, you might very well be on the path to your own Original Face.” “Andrew Cohen is a Rude Boy. He is not here to offer comfort; he is here to tear you into approximately a thousand pieces.”[81]
G. Falk: “Beyond that, the whole disturbingly violent whack between the eyes thing is a rather absurdly romanticized view of Zen. Indeed, one cannot help but wonder: Has Wilber himself ever re-ceived such a beneficial, hard blow between the eyes with a huge stick, or literally had the crap beaten out of him? Was that what brought on any of his early, “verified” satoris, or his nondual One Taste realization? If not, he has no business recommending such treatment to others. (…) Wilber’s own writings give no indication that he has ever been spiritually disciplined over an extended period of time in a “crazy wisdom” environment. (By “an extended period of time” is meant a minimum of six continuous months. At one point, he was considering [1991] taking a three-year meditation retreat at an ashram run by Kalu Rinpoche, but evidently never actually did so.) He has attended satsanga at the feet of Adi Da on the Mountain of Attention. But surely even he must realize that there is a huge difference between spending a few days or weeks as a guest in such an environment, versus being trapped there for months or years. (…) To put it more flippantly: You may spend a couple of weeks in India, but that doesn’t make you an East Indian. (…)  After being burned once with Da, however, Wilber has inex-cusably gone back for more with Andrew Cohen. That is, he has gone back there via safely endorsing Cohen from a distance, as he did with Adi Da, without actually living under their respective disciplines. (Cohen proudly put his own grandiosity into print—offer-ing glaring warning signs, for anyone who wished to see them—as early as 1992. Has Wilber still not read those early books, even while endorsing the more recent ones? Or, if he has read them, how could he imagine that Cohen’s near-messianic view of himself would not find its way into his reported treatment of his disciples?) To make that same gross mistake twice is, quite frankly, an indication that the same celebrated “rude” behavior is latently pre-sent within one’s own psychology, and is simply looking for a vi-carious outlet.  In any case, none of that lamentable behavior on Wilber’s part could do anything to lower the regard given him by his friends and followers, or even touted by himself for himself”[82]
Ken Wilber: “Andrew’s magazine ... is the only [one] I know that is ... asking the hard questions, slaughtering (…) the sacred cows, and dealing with the Truth no matter what the consequences.”[83]
Geoffrey D. Falk: “The real compassion of which Wilber speaks with such certainty then allegedly manifests through Cohen in this manner: I don’t give a damn about your personal evolution anymore. I just want to be able to use you for my community (in van der Braak, 2003).  Of course, not everyone reacts positively to such compassionate, Rude Boy discipline. Indeed, the reported experiences of one particularly unfortunate disciple of Cohen, who lived in a state of chronic panic and allegedly ultimately ended up under a psychiatrist’s care, thoroughly sedated (Tarlo, 1997), would reveal as much. (…) As Pavlov himself again discovered in having animals try to distinguish between flattened circles and fairly round ellipses, initially excitable dogs could easily feel constant panic, in not knowing how to please their master, when pleasing the master, however little he may have merited that respect, is all that matters. Obviously then, when spiritual disciples are driven to such literal panic and madness, that breakdown has nothing whatsoever to do with their own alleged psychological immaturity. (…) And what was Cohen’s reported non-idiot compassion-based response to all of that? Enlightenment and madness are very close. Then he laughed, and added, spookily, It could happen to any one of you (Tarlo, 1997). (…) For, it has never been the Self-realized meditation masters of this world who have stood at the front line of any battles, environmental or otherwise. Rather, it has always been the looked-down-upon and less spiritually advanced activists who have taken the risks and effected those changes. (…) Still, both Aitken and Cohen are arguably doing better than the enlightened Wilber himself, if one considers his black leather furniture[84] and Thanksgiving turkey dinners [Wilber, 2000a] from an animal rights perspective. One need not even agree with that often-judgmental alternative view in order to see that Wilber is in absolutely no position to lecture ecologists or the like on how to create a better world by becoming more like him.) (…) Cohen (1992) wrote that it was only the hypocrisy and self-deception of others in the face of his truth that caused them to be afraid of him. More recently, following the publication of Tarlo’s exposé of her claimed experiences in Cohen’s spiritual community, significant concerns were publicly raised about the health of that environment. In response, Andrew (1999) gave his explanation as to the origin of the controversies then swirling around him, as being the product only of his own uncompromising integrity. Unfortunately, integrity enforced from within the context of an allegedly fiercely controlling perspective, coupled with absolute authority in that same position, is still a chilling concept, bound to result in disaster. (…)  That same contempt is, of course, part of the same Rude Boy attitude which Wilber so inexcusably celebrates in Cohen.” (…)  If one is using one’s good name in any field to give credibility to others, one has a grave responsibility to ensure that the latter are actually some semblance of what they claim to be. Yet, one struggles to find any comprehension of that fact among Wilber and the rest of these “experts.” For, if they had understood that principle at all, they would be very humbled to realize the irreparable damage they have done in indefensibly encouraging others to throw their lives away in “surrendering completely” to the likes of Da and Cohen. [85]
International Buddhist Ethics Committee: “Andrew Cohen has self-proclaimed an Enlightened One. He said his Guru, known as Hari Wench Lal (H. W. L.) Poonja, who at the same time claimed he was an Enlightened being as well and that he was a disciple of Ramana Maharshi -even though Maharshi had no lineage-, recognized Cohen’s enlightened eyes.
Andrew Cohen:Poonjaji told me that I had the same look in my eyes as his Guru Ramana Maharshi did. He said that he had seen these eyes only three times in his life: in his Guru’s, in his own and in mine. (…) [Poonja] read a list of the names of all the Buddhas that had come into this world. When he got to the end of the list he read out my name and then looked at me and smiled (…) The twentieth century is lucky to have seen the Perfect Buddha reborn to live with them to Free [sic] them from the miserable samsara.[86]
Geoffrey D. Falk: “Andrew Cohen, whose own Jewish mother has regarded his closed authoritarian spiritual community as embodying a fascist mind-set, with its members behaving like Gestapo agents. (Such closed communities are of homogeneous beliefs, have little exchange of ideas with the outside world, and possess no option of questioning the leader while still remaining a member in good standing. Further, to leave the community is typically claimed to be to throw away one’s only chance in this lifetime for enlightenment [van der Braak, 2003].) She has further rejected Cohen’s claims of enlightenment, comparing him instead to the cult leaders Jim Jones and David Koresh, and even to Adolf Hitler (...) Ken Wilber, the Einstein of consciousness studies, who has at times spoken with unbridled enthusiasm for the effects of discipline under both Adi Da and Cohen.”[87]
Andrew Cohen: “[V]ery few people like me exist in the world. I can destroy a person’s karma.... If you trust me, I have the power to completely destroy your past.  Anyone who loves me ... is guaranteed enlightenment.   You know, Luna [Luna Tarlo is Cohen’s mother], sometimes I feel like a god.”[88]
International Buddhist Ethics Committee: It appears that Andrew Cohen has rude behavior, demands his followers to sleep 5 or less hours per day, requires hundred thousands of dollars annually in order his disciples can live at his community or he even encourages successful artists to stop creating their artworks because they are an extension of ego, among other exigencies.
Geoffrey D. Falk: “It is easy to show, via the same contextual comparison method which we have utilized for previous “crazy wisdom” practitioners, that Cohen’s reported rude behavior, like Adi Da’s and Trungpa’s, apparently lacks any wise or noble basis.”[89]
Luna Tarlo [Andrew Cohen’s mother]: “It just seems to me that [Andrew] is as duped by his own propaganda as were all those other brother-gurus in the marketplace who promised deliverance from suffering—from Hitler to David Koresh.”[90]
Geoffrey D. Falk: “Note that that wholly negative, Hitler-comparing evaluation comes from Cohen’s own Jewish mother and former disciple.”[91]
J. Horgan: “Cohen describes enlightenment as a form of not-knowing. And yet his guruhood, his entire life, revolves around his belief in—his knowledge of—his own unsurpassed perfection. To borrow a phrase, Cohen is a super-egomaniac. His casual contempt for us ordinary, egotistical humans is frightening, as is his belief that, as an enlightened being who has transcended good and evil, he can do no harm. Cohen may not be a monster, as his mother claims, but he has the capacity to become one”[92]
Be Scofield: “Luna Tarlo spent over three years living with her guru Andrew Cohen (founder of What is Enlightenment? magazine now called EnlightenNext) in India and the United States. After she experienced extreme forms of public condemnation and humiliation she broke from him and wrote a book depicting Cohen as an arrogant, power-hungry, dangerous figure who practices mind control over adherents. She is, however, different than the hundreds of other disciples who followed him. Luna Tarlo is Andrew Cohen’s mother. In an interview with the Boston Globe in 1998 she stated, Cohen requires total surrender to him. You have to obey everything he says and trust him 100 percent, and anybody who disagrees is subject to derision and verbal abuse. In tragic fashion she ended what had previously been a healthy and loving relationship, I know my life with him is over, and it’s very sad. I love him a lot. (…)Twelve years after Tarlo’s The Mother of God (1997) was published, William Yenner a follower of Cohen’s for over 13 years and insider of his Foxhollow ashram has released a scathing book which chronicles the abuse that Cohen’s mother spoke of. American Guru: A Story of Love, Betrayal and Healing – former students of Andrew Cohen speak out (2009) is an insider’s look at how this self-proclaimed rude boy manipulated, abused, pressured and controlled his followers. The accounts given (an excerpt from the book is below) are very disturbing. (…) And as I note below Cohen’s contemporaries have an ethical responsibility to speak out. Yenner was certainly in a position to know about these abuses as he was a central player in Cohen’s operation. He explains his role, I was a member of the ‘inner circle’ of Cohen’s students; in fact, I lived in his personal residence for several years, was a member of the EnlightenNext Board of Directors, and was the real estate scout who located and helped arrange the purchase of the 220 acre, nearly three-million-dollar, EnlightenNext ‘World Headquarters’ at Foxhollow, as well as the EnlightenNext Centre in London. And like many others in the group Yenner had donated a very large amount of money ($80,000) to Cohen. These large sums of money were part of Cohen’s plan. Yenner writes, (…)Survivors of Jonestown speak similarly about how once they gave their money, assets and signed over their homes to Jim Jones and the church it was the final step in the loss of their identities. I don't mean to suggest that Cohen is comparable to Jim Jones or that his followers are about to commit mass suicide. But rather I am merely highlighting the similarity in these actions to illustrate how the giving over of yourself includes money, property and belongings. And furthermore this loss of property is directly linked to the increasing loss of the ability to remain an autonomous agent within the group.  (…) Luna Tarlo and William Yenner’s books are not the only criticisms of Cohen to surface. Prior to the release of Yenner’s book some of Cohen’s former followers had set up a website, What Enlightenment?, in 2004 that chronicled his abusive and controlling methods with advice on cult recovery. Yenner’s book also contains the passages from other former Foxhollow members. In 2003 former What Is Enlightenment? editor Andre van der Braak published Enlightenment Blues: My Years with an American Guru. An eleven year disciple of Cohen’s, van der Braak chronicled the abuse and manipulation he witnessed and experienced as part of the Foxhollow community. He reports that one of the more mild but still disturbing elements of daily life in the community consisted of 600 daily prostrations while repeating the required mantra, To know nothing, to have nothing, to be no one. (…) Despite years of allegations, two books and numerous followers who have broken from him to tell their stories Andrew Cohen still has his supporters. These people, many of them well known psychologists, therapists and spiritual teachers have an ethical responsibility to speak out against the abuse that Cohen was responsible for. His longtime friends, supporters and anyone who shares a stage with him or interviews him has a duty to confront him on these abuses if they know about them. Otherwise they simply provide legitimacy for him and support the culture of denial that surrounds these kinds of personality cults. (…)It isn’t surprising that Andrew Cohen’s best friend Ken Wilber continues to be a supporter as well. There is probably no more of a featured figure than Wilber in Cohen’s EnlightenNext (formerly What is Enlightenment?) magazine. Wilber, the leading figure in the integral movement is another subject entirely but his support for Cohen his uncompromising. This isn’t surprising because Wilber believes in the same sort of authoritarian teaching style as Cohen (and employs it himself in many ways). (…) Wilber has received attention for the abusive way he treats critics and the insular nature of his Integral project. (…) Craig Hamilton works closely with Terry Patten another Bay Area Integral teacher who is also a senior trainer in Wilber’s Integral Institute seminars and contributor to Cohen’s EnlightenNext magazine. Patten and Wilber share another common theme: they were both students of the controversial spiritual teacher Adi Da also known as Adi Da, Da Free John and Bubba Free John (birth name Franklin Jones). The followers of Adi Da believed he was an ‘adept,’ a person who came into this world already enlightened with eternal truth. The sect’s publications also call Jesus an ‘adept,’ but make it clear that Jones is considered more important. (…)His defenders repeatedly claim that he as done nothing illegal, and ask us to believe that Gafni is the victim of a widespread attack up on him. All of the women (over ten) exaggerated, distorted and lied about what really happened. (…)I have heard people defend Marc Gafni by stating that Andrew Cohen and Ken Wilber support him. But it actually is a silly game they all play because they all defend and support each other. It goes something like this. Patten, Hamilton, Gafni and Wilber support Cohen. Cohen, Wilber, Hamilton and Patten support Gafni. Cohen, Gafni, Hamilton and Patten support Wilber. Wilber and Cohen support Patten and Hamilton. Wilber and Patten support Adi Da….etc. And they all appear on each others integral programs, websites, conferences, book chapters, magazines and platforms. Among the various offerings is Integral Life Practice, Integral Naked, Integral Institute, Integral Spiritual Center, Integral Enlightenment, EnlightenNext magazine…etc. And as Yenner notes above, they seem to employ the same tactic: surrounding themselves with other luminaries, celebrities, and public faces who agree with them and provide much needed support. If all of these amazing people support Cohen he must be ok, right? Nowadays it seems all you have to do is add the word integral in front of something to boost its credibility. Add the word integral and you have a sexy and attractive product ready to be sold to eager spiritual seekers who are hungry for idealism and more purpose in life. The whole thing equates to a very large money making machine.”[93]
William Yenner (Former follower and member of Cohen’s closest circle): “Andrew let it be understood that his good favor could also be had for a price, establishing a practice that was morally reprehensible, legally questionable and indicative of a degree of corruption that had warped his ideals and would eventually stain the fabric of his entire organization. It is a testament to the faith that so many of us had in Andrew that, despite the questionable nature of these new financial arrangements, we complied – some of us taking on enormous and ill-advised debt. Though it may be difficult for outsiders to comprehend, our desire to please our guru was so great that we were prepared to mortgage our futures in order to do so.  (…) Some years ago at Foxhollow, a student named Jeff, a very good writer, was having a great deal of trouble with a writing project he had been assigned to do. He was supposed to write an introduction to a book Andrew was publishing, but he was having no success. Feeling terrible guilt about this, he wrote in a desperate letter to Andrew, “If I don’t come through, I will cut my finger off.” Andrew seemed to like this idea. When Jeff still did not succeed at his writing, Andrew called for Mikaela, [who was a] physician, to come see him…. Andrew told Mikaela to go to see Jeff, and to bring her medical kit. She was instructed to tell Jeff that Andrew was taking him up on his offer to sacrifice a finger. She should take out her scalpel, her mask, her gloves, a sponge – everything she would need for such an operation – and lay them all out. She was told to carry through the charade up to the very last minute, and then stop. When Mikaela visited Jeff, he had barely slept in about a week. He was in a desperate state…. Mikaela [later] confirmed…that she had followed Andrew’s instructions precisely. Jeff was severely and obviously shaken by the incident. He left Andrew and Foxhollow a few weeks later. (…)Face slapping and name-calling, while they were uncalled for and may have been damaging, were mild in comparison to other questionable manifestations of crazy wisdom that occurred at Foxhollow. One such incident involved a student (Mikaela) who was responsible for the marketing of Andrew’s publications and who had fallen out of favor by reminding him that something he had criticized her for doing had been his idea in the first place. He decried her as evil and ordered that the walls, floor and ceiling of her office (which had been relocated to an unfinished basement room) be painted red to signify the spilled blood of her guru. She was ordered to spend hours there contemplating the implications of her transgression, with the additional aid of a large cartoon on the wall depicting her as a vampire and the word traitor written in large letters next to it.  Andrew often employed red paint in this fashion to create environments designed to induce shame and guilt in students that he felt had questioned his judgment or disobeyed him. Another female student who had displeased Andrew and, after leaving the community, had returned to help out on a weekend painting project, was summoned to another basement room. There she was met by four female students who, having guided her onto a plastic sheet on the floor, each poured a bucket of paint over her head as a message of gratitude from Andrew. She left the property traumatized and fell ill in subsequent days (during which she was harassed by phone calls from another student who, at Cohen’s instigation, repeatedly called her a coward) and never again returned to Foxhollow. Crazy wisdom is the most charitable possible explanation for these often traumatic and disturbing incidents (…)As Daniel Shaw has observed, It would be wonderful to see…honesty and courage demonstrated by…leaders of the New Age movement. Instead of rationalizing and minimizing the extent of [Cohen's] abuses, instead of ignoring and dismissing the experiences of former followers, wouldn’t it be wonderful if people like Ken Wilber, Genpo Roshi, Rupert Sheldrake, Deepak Chopra, Bernie Glassman, etc., could have the courage and the integrity to pay attention, to take up the cause of Cohen’s former members, and confront Cohen publicly?[94]
David Lane: “In the same missive, it even goes on to allege that one the catalysts for why Andrew Cohen eventually apologized was due to experiences he had when partaking of Ayahuasca, which gives one pause for why it would take a drug session for this so-called enlightened guru to wake up to how abusive he had been for decades. (…) Sadly, Cohen is still under the delusion that he is enlightened and that his previous actions should not prevent him from teaching in the future, despite the overwhelming evidence that he caused much more harm than good. (...) But instead of a deep and sincere mea culpa (and recusing himself permanently from assuming such a position again), Andrew Cohen believes he still should be regarded as an enlightened master. Others, who felt the full brunt of his misconduct, argue that Cohen should be in jail and spend the rest of his life earning money to pay back his debt to those he emotionally and financially ripped off for years.”[95]
Tomer Persico: “Complaints about the high-handedness and exploitation of Cohen's leadership began surfacing as early as fifteen years ago. In 1997 Cohen's mother published a critical book titled Mother of God about her experiences as his pupil. Another book [Enlightenment Blues] by a disillusioned follower appeared in 2003, and a third book [American Guru] in 2011. This last one included testimonies by some former leading students, who described a saga of degradation and abuse inflicted by Cohen upon his followers, painting the mustachioed guru as a power and expensive-gift craving egomaniac. According to the book Cohen would extort massive donations from his students, send them on pointless missions to instill humility in them, punish them for every violation of his rules and make up all sorts of tricks to keep them moving forward on the path to enlightenment. He would never admit error, and on the other hand take credit for any and all positive developments within his community. (…) It is worthwhile to reflect for a moment on Cohen's attempts to react to these disclosures. At first he denied the whole matter, dismissing it as rumors spread by ill-wishers. Upon accumulation of the testimonies—and, it should be stressed, the growth of the Internet—Cohen realized he couldn't just wave his hands and create a magical forgetfulness effect. He thus began to admit, and even take pride, in being a tough teacher and rude. With time the claim was made that his entire behavior can be explained away by that marvelous concept of Crazy Wisdom.  To those unversed in the lore of spiritual excuse-making du-jour, this concept comes from Tibetan Buddhism, where it describes the boundary, law and custom-shattering wisdom of those who have utterly rid themselves of any ego or illusion. These sages are allegedly incapable of error, since they are in full resonance with the workings of the universe. In the context of New Age as practiced lucratively in the West this concept has undergone an insidious mutation, and is interpreted as license for the teacher to cause his students physical pain or emotional crisis in order to waken them from their blindness. The problematic nature of this arrangement is clear: Since the teacher is enlightened and crazy-wise, then as much as his actions may seem ludicrous or even evil to mere human eyes, it is a-priori impossible that he is in error. Therefore, any abuse of the student is affirmed as legitimate, and even praised as a radical attempt to free him or her of all their troubles. (…)What we see here is the magnification of the well-known problem of contemporary spirituality. Alongside the freedom to take different ideas and practices from various traditions and mold the spiritual path best suited to the individual, and alongside the personal discipline which spiritual seeking without a set tradition requires, there are the drawbacks deriving from inexperience and a lack of boundaries.”[96]
Luna Tarlo: “There was an inappropriate sadistic flavor to these [verbal] attacks on Sarah [as the house scapegoat].”[97]
Andrew Cohen’s public statement: "In the spring of 2013, my worst nightmare came true. Everything that I and my closest friends had spent the previous three decades building came crashing down around us. The entire international body of students and centers, 27 years of tireless work and commitment, disappeared almost overnight (...), and it happened mainly because I was unwilling to face my pride something in my role as a spiritual teacher I had compelled countless others to do.  The last 40 years is replete with stories of gurus and spiritual teachers falling from grace. As a younger teacher myself, I had boldly but naively declared how disillusioning it was when proclaimed spiritual masters had feet of clay, and most importantly, proved to have moral failings. To my shock, humiliation and horror, I now found myself in the very same position.  My life as a controversial teacher has been a story of unending paradoxes and contradictions. Over the last 30 years, I have been both revered and despised, hated and adored. I have been respected for my contributions and condemned for my mistakes. For most of my adult life, I lived in a context in which I had unchecked power and authority. As a result, it is undoubtedly true that too many suffered. It’s also true that many experienced extraordinary breakthroughs and developed in the most beautiful and profound ways.  The truth is, as crazy as it sounds, I believed I was infallible. And for a very long time, the majority of my students believed it too. In the end, I lost everything and caused untold suffering to many people only because of an irrational refusal to admit the simple truth: like most human beings I am deeply flawed. (...) My fall from grace has shaken me to the core. It has compelled me to wrestle with my demons in ways I never would otherwise have done. I have experienced depths of darkness in myself. I have wrestled with shame. I have doubted everything I have ever stood for.  For a very long time I didn’t know how I would find the resources in myself to face the enormity of my hypocrisy and betrayal. (...) I know for some this will seem like an unforgivable offense. How dare I contemplate such a thing after falling so far? And yet I feel I have no choice. The easiest thing for me to do would be to disappear—and to be honest, in my weakest moments, that’s all I want to do. But the greatest challenge is to return to the work, not only in spite of my failings, but because of them. (...) The most challenging thing is to be able to carry this forward in the context of what I have learned can go so badly wrong. EnlightenNext failed primarily because of my own issues."
David Lane: “I always had a suspicion that Andrew Cohen, given his some 30 years as a self-proclaimed enlightened master and his recalcitrant narcissism, wasn't quite ready to give up the guru gig. (...) From a skeptical perspective (and one that I am sure many will share, particularly those who were most burned by Andrew Cohen's unnecessarily authoritative and systematic abuse), this latest apologetic from Cohen is anything but. Rather, it is a strategic piece of justifying why he feels he can still be a spiritual teacher and still redeem his Evolutionary Enlightenment movement. (...) Although Cohen speaks of now accepting his Jungian shadow (quoting Wilber yet again with, Enlightenment does not inherently remove shadow), he doesn't seem to realize how disingenuous he can be in wanting to move forward when he still hasn't come to grips with his real problem: egomania. (...) Notice how in several sweeping self-proclamations Andrew Cohen once again bypasses his students wishes only to uphold his own. Cohen is blind to his most obvious flaw. He shouldn't be a guru. He was shoddy at it and in the end caused much more harm than good. (…) You were lucky Andrew that you got off so easily. Many of your disciples feel you should be in jail. If an elementary school teacher did just 1/10th of what you did he or she would be forever banned from the classroom. Perhaps you should listen more carefully to your ex-students and stay retired”[98]
Martin Erdmann: "The most comprehensive record of misdeeds committed by Andrew Cohen was given on July 18, 2013 by Hal Blacker in THE A LIST OF ANDREW COHEN: A Catalog of Trauma and Abuse. The accusations made include tyrannical conduct, financial and mental, but not sexual abuse of his followers, with a long list of minor and major offenses to follow. As a matter of fact it is fifty allegations altogether, which Hal Blacker in his article brings up against Andrew Cohen. (...) The charges, which Cohen had to face, finally lead to his decision to resign from his illustrious position as a guru. He also apologized to his students for the wrongs he had done them in the past. In short: he admitted that... he does have an ego after all. (...)After all the public pressure exerted on him, Cohen discovered that he does have an ego after all, which he did not realize in the past. Thus his discovery implies a recovery from his past illusion of being absolutely good. This means that - in his own version of being either absolutely good or crazy - Cohen has recovered from being crazy. (...)There exists, however, a consensus on what enlightenment and ego mean in a negative sense. Enlightenment, so goes the general agreement, is what the ego is not and vice versa. Someone who is enlightened has transcended the ego. Someone who is still immersed in his ego, is not enlightened. It is as easy as that, not so for Andrew Cohen though. He continues to hold on to the status of an enlightened being while at the same time confessing to have an ego. Now the very title of Cohen's book Living Enlightenment, A Call for Evolution beyond Ego (2002: XIII - XVIII) indicates that you have to go beyond ego for enlightenment to occur. This means that in the past also for Cohen enlightenment and ego were mutually exclusive. (...)So [as can be seen in the quote below] for Wilber enlightenment amounts to God realization, waking up to Spirit, which is the realm of the Good and the True and The Beautiful. As long as man holds on to his egoic fortification God cannot be realized. Thus the ego, which is the separate self, has to be slaughtered. So we see that enlightenment does not go with an ego you hold on to. So also for Wilber enlightenment and ego are mutually exclusive.  Now Andrew Cohen revealed that he has an ego after all. This is an assertion, which Ken Wilber must acknowledge. You can believe to be without an ego while you still have one. You cannot believe to have an ego while you have none. So there is no way to dis-affirm Cohen's affirmation. In the past Wilber took it for granted that Cohen was an enlightened being beyond ego. Now he must acknowledge that Cohen, who got stuck with this ego, is not enlightened after all. (...) So Wilber was aware of the trembling, the trepidation and the fright Cohen spread among his students. (...) Wilber did not ignore Cohen's rude behavior. Andrew Cohen is a Rude Boy, he deliberately declared. He is here to tear you into approximately a thousand pieces. So Wilber was aware of the trembling, the trepidation and the fright Cohen spread among his students. He wholeheartedly supported Cohen's actions, with the intent of seeing his own ego-theory realized in the spiritual practice undertaken by guru Cohen. While applauding Cohen Wilber applauded himself, with his idea of an ego that must be slaughtered. (...) The ego always wants to have something for its own gratification, like the state of enlightenment it holds on to. For the liberated state to light up the very desire for enlightenment must be abandoned. The Zen master's blow with a stick between the eyes, to which Wilber refers, is designed to deliver a shock. It is devised to convey a sudden and disturbing effect on the emotions of the student, to shake him out of an enlightenment, which he tries to grasp, which he wants to indulge in for his own gratification. The Zen Master loosens the egoic chains while Wilber & Cohen in their misguided approach fasten the shackles ever more closely. In Hal Blacker's Catalog of Trauma and Abuse we find Andrew Cohen (...) Telling students that there were no valid spiritual teachers other than Cohen or valid spiritual paths other than his, and that if they left him their lives would be meaningless and hellish. (...) Repeatedly telling students, that if they left the community, it would be the equivalent of 'literally committing spiritual suicide', and that they 'can never escape me' as 'I am their direct connection to the Absolute.'  (...) Now Andrew states that none can come to the Absolute except through him. So leaving Andrew Cohen amounts to spiritual death, to a life, which is meaningless and hellish. (…) Zen is designed to free the student from all concepts, from all notions of enlightenment, of a Buddha or a guru. Cohen's practice had been devised to firmly impress on the student's mind the idea of an enlightenment, which can only be had through guru Cohen and his Sangha. (…) Human individuality, which flourishes in a healthy Zen practice, is destroyed in Andrew's misguided practice, which was built on Wilber's ego-theory[99]
Martin Erdmann: “Andrew Cohen's misguided spiritual practice found its support in Ken Wilber's faulty ego theory as presented in his forword in Cohen's Living Enlightenment. There are other ego-theories born from Wilber's imagination, which point in a different direction. In Sex, Ecology, Spirituality, for example, Wilber speaks of a divine egoism (1995: 463), which means an ego to be enhanced, to be worshipped. So we have an ego here, which stands in stark contrast to the ego of Living Enlightenment, which is to be annihilated. In Wilber's writing we find quite a few ego-theories, which are incompatible with each other. (...) Andrew Cohen had his spiritual practice built on Wilber's spiritual teaching, which considers the ego, the separate self, to be an enemy standing in the way of blissful enlightenment. That demands, says Wilber, a brutal, shocking death: a literal death of your separate self, which can only be executed by a Rude Boy like Andrew, who acts with uncompromising integrity that shows compassion to your real Self and a very big stick to your ego, which Wilber, so we heard in Part I, equated with the huge stick employed by the great Zen masters. So Wilber applauds Andrew for using this big stick to whack the ego mercilessly, to hit, slap the ego, until it has been firmly crushed, until nothing of the ego remains. This is the lofty goal pursued by Andrew now, who fatefully followed Ken Wilber in his egosteps. (…) Wilber' s ego-theory in Living Enlightenment is not the only ego-theory embraced by Ken Wilber. There are different classifications of an ego, with changing notions of an ego to be found in Wilber's oeuvre. In his Journals, running under the title of One Taste, Ken Wilber elaborates on the great yogis, saints, and sages -from Moses to Christ to Padmasambhava, who rattled the world on its own terms, who shook the world to its very foundations … These great movers and shakers were not small egos; they were, in the very best sense of the term, big egos (1999: 298/299), says Ken Wilber.”[100]
Fred Stanton: “Andrew (Cohen) creates addicts. It’s like giving people heroin”

EVIDENCE 8: Spiritual Endorsement to Insane Gurus
International Buddhist Ethics Committee: Aurobindo used to be accompanied by a Spiritual Force who allegedly was reincarnated into a woman, a sort of goddess, to whom he called the Mother, whose earthly name was Mirra Afassa. He even came to use this alleged divine force for ensuring the loyalty of his followers and devotees, so that they have a reason to stay in the Ashram. He made use of the Mother’s powers to justify every daily event in his life or even historic events such as Hitler’s invasion to Russia, since, as Aurobindo believed, the Nazi leader’s idea to attack Russia was an advise this Force gave him in order that the Allies win the World War II. This clearly demonstrates the behavior of a mutual psychotic structure on the part of both Aurobindo and Mirra Afassa. They even reinforced mutually their delusional affirmations, as for example, they claimed, in a past life, they were Leonardo Da Vinci and the Mona Lisa respectively.
Ken Wilber:When it was also understood in the East that the Great Chain [or ontological hierarchy of Being, manifesting through causal, astral and physical realms] did indeed un-fold or evolve over time, the great Aurobindo expounded the notion with an unequalled genius[101]  “(Aurobindo was) the world’s greatest philosopher-sage.[102]  “Sri Aurobindo Ghose was India’s greatest modern philosopher-sage.[103]  “(Aurobindo was India’s) greatest modern philosopher-sage.[104]  "I am not alone in this overall view. Sri Aurobindo, India's greatest modern sage, has written on just this viewpoint – Brahman getting lost in involution and then evolving back – from matter to prana to mind to over-mind to super-mind and Atman, and he sees it occurring cosmologically as well as psychologically.” [105]
International Buddhist Ethics Committee: Swami Nityananda, also known as Bhagawan Nityananda, was an individual who usually was seen eating cow dung or besmeared himself with human feces. This kind of conduct demonstrates that this individual had a psychotic mind structure. Such kind of person is admired and acknowledged by Wilber as nothing less than a saint. In addition, Mr. Wilber mentioned Swami Muktananda (Nityananda’s disciple) as a master of the subtle realm when, actually, Muktananda was accused of violating one of his female followers in 1978, he also apparently discriminated against homosexuals, and some people said he used to be violent and committed abuses and harassment.
Ken Wilber:I think one of the reasons is that Da Free John himself has tested, and passed through, all of the major paths as we discussed briefly above. Although born natively predisposed as the Ultimate Transcendental Consciousness, he himself underwent years of discipline in and re-adaptation to perfect Ecstasy in God, an evolutionary discipline that, because of its completeness, seems destined to be revolutionary as well. He spent years in the disciplines of the path of the yogis, under the acknowledged teacher known as Rudi (Albert Rudolph or Swami Rudrananda). He spent years in the path of the saints, meeting and then surpassing the well-known Master of the subtle realm named Swami Muktananda. Beyond those stages, he met, saw, absolutely acknowledged, and gracefully bowed to such transcendentally awakened saints and sages as Swami Nityananda and Sri Ramana Maharshi. At the summit of those paths, he seemed then to stand complete, possessed of a teaching and pointing a way that included and transcended all through which he has himself passed. [106]
Georg Feuerstein: “[W]hen in his twenties, he would hide behind trees, patiently waiting for a cow to come his way. The moment the animal stood to drop a cowpat, he would rush forward, scoop up the dropping in midair, and then swallow it (…) On another occasion, he besmeared himself from head to toe [i.e., including his lips] with [human] excrement. He sat near the lavatories, with large heaps of excrement piled in front of him. Each time a devotee passed him, he would call out, Bombay halwa [sweets]—very tasty—want to eat? Can weigh and give you some.[107]
Ken Wilber: Talks [with Ramana Maharshi] is the living voice of the greatest sage of the twentieth century."[108]
JOHN HERON: “(Wilber) especially chooses to ignore the fact that a recent mystic in this tradition, Ramana Maharshi, whom he cites as modern hero of the causal and nondual stages (1995: 301-10), continuously subjected his body to pathological abuse and neglect and had no glimmering of what body-mind integration might mean.” [109]
International Buddhist Ethics Committee: In Ramana Maharshi’s Ashram (a place where both masters and disciples live together to practice, meditate, and learn from Hindu religion and culture), as quoted by Geoffrey Falk, food was always prepared by Brahmins so that it should remain uncontaminated by contact with lower castes and foreigners... This is an evidence of discrimination on the part of Maharshi, since in Hinduism there is a social division into different castes where the Brahmins are at the highest place, which clearly demonstrates that the caste system racially segregates in a sort of Apartheid, something that in the eyes of International Law constitutes a Crime against Humanity.

EVIDENCE 9: Spiritual Endorsement to Corrupt Religious Teachers
Ken Wilber:Mother Teresa was much closer to that divine ray, and practiced it more diligently, and without the glamour. She was less a person than an opening of Kosmic compassion—unrelenting, fiercely devoted, frighteningly dedicated.[110]
Geoffrey Falk: “Such opinions, sadly, are again exactly par for the course with Wilber, in his consistent vouching for other people’s high degrees of enlightenment. For here too he obviously, if utterly wrongly, considers himself to be in a position to intuitively and intelligently separate the reality from the PR, even without having minimally familiarized himself with the long-extant, relevant research materials. (…)  “such is the power” of those with good public rela-tions machines and the ability to bury their indiscretions and prejudices. For, they shall be taken as saints and gods, even in the midst of cruel homophobia, bizarre sexual hang-ups, association with known criminals and the receiving of stolen goods. (Mother Teresa accepted over a million dollars in donations from Savings-and-Loan fraudster Charles Keating, and wrote a naïve letter in his defense during his trial. Following his conviction and imprisonment, the deputy district attorney of Los Angeles County contacted Teresa, encouraging her to return those “stolen” funds. He received no reply from the “great saint”” [111]
Aroup Chatterjee: “[Mother Teresa] has been quoted as saying that suffering is a means of attaining Christ; to suffer along with the suffering helps one come closer to God. In other words the poor and dying are to her only a means of attaining salvation for herself. Their suffering, which is a replay of the suffering of Christ, gives her spiritual succor. Hence the tremendous funds at her disposal have never been used to set up a state of the art hospital where much of the suffering could be alleviated or pre-empted; to establish schools which would rescue generations from poverty; to renew the slums of Calcutta and eliminate disease and crime. For, she has a vested interest in the perpetuation of poverty and sickness and death. (…) She inflated her operations and activities manifold in her speeches to journalists and supporters. Often her statements would have no connection with reality whatsoever. Many times she had been captured on television while telling very tall tales about her work. She prevaricated even in her Nobel Prize acceptance speech....  [W]hen it comes to social issues, even the present pope is much more liberal than Mother Teresa....  Mother was confronted on the issue of pedophile priests by the Irish journalist Kathy Ward. She replied, “Pray, pray and make sacrifices for those who are going through such terrible temptations.””[112]

Christopher Hitchens: “[S]he once told an interviewer that, if faced with a choice be-tween Galileo and the authority of the Inquisition, she would have sided with the Church authorities.... She also touched on AIDS, saying she did not want to label it a scourge of God but that it did seem like a just retribution for improper [e.g., homosexual or promiscuous] sexual conduct.”[113]

Stanislav Grof: "Where Wilber outlined what an integral theory of everything should look like, Laszlo actually created one."
International Buddhist Ethics Committee: The term "Integral" used by Wilber for "Integral Spirituality" really comes from Aurobindo and his "Integral Yoga" or "Purna Yoga". Aurobindo was inspired by the model of Patanjali, who in turn copied the model of 8 yogic pathways from the Noble Eightfold Path created by Siddhartha Gautama. In addition, Gautama was the genuine creator of Integral Spirituality, even proposing a pathway of Integral Buddhism called "Ekayana" (Unitary Way). Obviously, the Maitriyana has created the model of Purna (Integral) Buddhism in the contemporary world, but after its public announcement Wilber decided to steal the concept of "Purna (Integral) Buddhism", showing a pathological behavior, using the concept of "Integral Buddhism" to raise non-Buddhist ideas.
Imre Von Soos: “The subtitle of Frank Visser's essay gave me a hope that the concept of integral thinking will be discussed in it without any reference to Wilber, turning the title into: If You Meet Wilber on the Road, Ignore Him. Unfortunately, the word "integral", but not its true concept, has been so powerfully monopolised by him with the help of the popular media, that not even his ex-followers and ardent critics can separate any more the two; (…) The collection of Wilber's theories became "The Integral Theory" and "Integralism" became "Wilberism": whatever is not "Wilber", is not "Integral";  (…) The word "integral" has been used, but not exploited, centuries, if not millennia, before Wilber. (…) An essay, Integralism Is My Philosophy, published in the nineteen fifties, and written by Pitirim A. Sorokin, founder (1949) and first director of the Harvard Research Centre in Creative Altruism, starts thus:  Integralism is its name. It views the total reality as the infinite X of numberless qualities and quantities: spiritual and material, momentary and eternal, ever-changing and unchangeable, personal and super-personal, temporal and timeless, spatial and spaceless, one and many, the littlest than the little and the greatest than the great. In this sense it is the veritable mysterium tremenndum et fascinosum and the coincidentia oppositorum (reconciliation of the opposites). Its highest centre is the infinite creative X that passes all human understanding… Of its innumerable modes of being, three forms of differentiations appear to be most important: (1) empirical-sensory, (2) rational-mindful, and (3) supersensory-superrational. … The truth obtained through integral use of all three channels of cognition – senses, reason and intuition – is a fuller and more valid truth than that received only through the channel of either sensory perception, or of logico-mathematical reasoning, or of intuition. I want to draw attention to the fact that belief and emotion are missing from the list, and would be interested in any rational proof of any truth ever having been obtained through these two channels; channels through which Wilber is mostly operating and gaining, no doubt, most of his followers. In fact, these are the two channels through which all political and religious systems were always operating and raising their enormous numbers of blind followers. (…) (According to Bela Banathy) The pioneers shared and articulated a common conviction: the unified nature of reality… They developed a trans-disciplinary perspective that emphasised the intrinsic order and interdependence of the world in all its manifestations. (…) Consequently, it is a very erroneous statement, that is misleading the general public, that After all, [Wilber] is the most influential integral author of this moment in time. He most certainly is not in academic and especially not in higher academic circles, where he is hardly being heard of, if at all. And being influential, he is even less so, at least not in Europe, Australia and South America of what I know, and it is my reasonable guess that neither is he in Asia or Africa. As I have stated in another comment published on Integral World, Wilber's theories are "integral" only by label but not by substance. They contain no "integral", universal thinking, no integrating into a whole, but (…) differentiated and categorised into colours and quadrants without any pragmatic sense or value. They represent rather a belief-system instead of a knowledge-system. The interior underlying principles are approached on a religious, dualistic basis, as some extrinsic realities that "interact" with the physical manifestations, without even approaching the questions of what it is and why and how it does that."  Another misleading statement I have read on the Integral World website is that "A core concept in Wilber's philosophy is the concept of the holon, which he borrowed from Arthur Koestler." He borrowed the word coined by Koestler all right, but not the concept. Anybody who has read Koestler's exposé at the Beyond Reductionism Symposium at Alpbach, 1968, will know that Wilber has only confused it beyond recognition.  Wilber's holon-concept that considers summa Homo sapiens, collectivised as "humanity", as a bona fide holon – a harmonious life-unit of the holistic chain of the universe – when no nations, societies and not even today's families can be considered harmonious life-units, just adds to the confusion in the general picture presented. It treats the rest of this living planet as "the environment in which we humans live", ignoring the fact that the only true social holons are the ecological and major ecological communities, without the harmonious, symbiotic coexistence of which no member, individually or collectively – very much including Homo sapiens – could survive longer than he can keep his breath. (…) One should realize that Wilber is not a researcher himself, he deals with theories, not facts, and selects theories whenever they fit his larger integral frame of reference. There is nothing extraordinary in this approach”[114]
Scott Parker: Frank Visser identifies at least twelve definitions of integral.[1] Among them, ten are of the form of an integration of disparate, and often contrasting, concepts in a higher synthesis. His final definition is that integral is the integration of all integrations: the ultimate meta-theory of all theories: a theory of everything. (…) Jeff Meyerhoff has convincingly argued that Wilber's orienting generalizations are flawed, not only in execution, but methodologically. (…) Ervin Laszlo has made the criticism of Wilber's work that for his theory to be really integral it must offer an explanation of everything, not just a description (…) as Jeffery Meyerhoff has argued, Wilber cannot get outside of his perspective to determine which parts of the other theories should be integrated into his meta-theory. The project, as Wilber conceives it, is flawed. (…) If we ask the question, Is Wilber's Integral integral?, in objective terms we have to demur. Seen in the light of Laszlo's argument and the second criterion above, Wilber's theory is not integral. It is a description of reality, a wide-ranging catalogue at that. But without answering the question of what underlies this relationship between interiors and exteriors, it evades the heart of the issue. And without answering the underlying question, Wilber is left to craft his meta-theory ad hoc according to his personal tastes, leaving himself susceptible to the many flaws that have been identified in his work (characterizations, simplifications, manipulations, inaccuracies) (…) We should keep in mind that Wilber is not only not offering a true integral theory in these terms, he's not attempting to either. Remember the quote from Sex, Ecology, Spirituality. He offers a narrative; to many a memetically effective one, but not a theory. Even if his narrative were found to be objectively accurate, it remains a description. Until it is grounded in an underlying cause with explanatory power, it won't do for philosophy or science.  (…) Wilber's idealism, while conceivably true in some metaphysical sense, is not philosophically satisfying. (…) Even now, a theory that attempts to answer the Hard Problem of Consciousness stands a chance of being the foundation of a truly integral theory, in a way that Wilber's work does not.”[115]
Michel Bauwens: “the integrative, integral impulse does not belong in any way to Mr. Ken Wilber; it is a general feature of contemporary consciousness (one trend battling the fragmentation of postmodernity), with many different pioneers and alternatives to Wilber. Thus a first thing to do is to liberate yourself to a univocal adhesion to Wilber's form of it.”[116]
KENNETH SØRENSEN: “This article will investigate the question: Is Psychosynthesis an Integral Psychology? (…) Owing to its inclusive comprehensive developmental approach it may be argued that Integral Psychology resembles the approach of Psycho­synthesis. (…) I will take the five basic concepts one by one, define them and research into how well Psychosynthesis theory embodies the Integral features and how it can improve Psycho­syn­the­sis Psychotherapy. (…)I will demonstrate that I have found several new aspects related to the nature of Psychosynthesis when I applied the Integral model. The most relevant new discoveries are found when we compare Assagioli’s and Firman/Gila’s writings. My conclusions so far are as follows: (…) Assagioli’s version is a height psychological and hierarchical stage model where the self develops through higher and higher levels of consciousness. (…) Assagioli’s version of Psychosynthesis includes all the five Integral elements in more or less degree, modern Psychosynthesis is only partly Integral (…) Assagioli is well aware of what Wilber calls the Pre/Trans Fallacy, the confusion of higher and lower consciousness.(…) Psychosynthesis is a broad and synthetic philosophical and psychological theory. Jean Hardy (1996: 95) argues that Psychosynthesis draws on inspiration from the Eastern as well as the Western spiritual and scientific traditions and in this way it resembles Wilber’s approach. (…) Assagioli (1975: 17) does so through his model of the psyche known as the Egg Diagram. Even though Assagioli prefers the metaphor of synthesis instead of “Integral”, I will argue that he actually points to many of the same philosophical concepts as Wilber does, when he uses the word “Integral.” Assagioli (1967a: 6) states: “The position assumed by Psychosynthesis is a “synthetic” one. It thus appreciates and weighs the merits of all therapies, all methods and techniques of treatment, without preconceived preferences.” We also find that Assagioli (1975: 20, 30, 66, 196) frequently writes about an “Integral vision”, “Integral education”, and the “Integral conception of the treatment.”  (…)This could be the first suggestion, that at least Assagioli may fulfil some of the criteria of the Integral Map. (…) It seems that Assagioli and Wilber both defend the hierarchical construct of reality even though it is unpopular, but Assagioli does more than that: he very explicitly refers to levels of consciousness (…), throughout his writings repeatedly refers in general to the Great Chain of Being when he talks about the different psychological “levels”, realms” and “regions of consciousness.” (…) Here Assagioli is aligned with Wilber and the perennial philosophy in his cosmological conception of the inner levels of consciousness and The Great Chain of Being. (…) a. Higher levels are higher frequencies of energies that interpenetrate the lower levels (Assagioli, 1975: 199-200) b. Higher levels transcend but include the lower (Assagioli, 1993: 197) (…) e. Within each level there exist higher and lower frequencies of energies (Assagioli, 1993: 92, 2002: 98-99) (…) Wilber’s first book was called The Spectrum of Consciousness; a term Assagioli (1993: 93) also used to describe the inner levels (…). I have also suggested a preliminary compari­son between Wilber’s 10 basic levels and those of Assagioli. In the introduction we touched on Wilber’s concept of the higher levels always including the lower. Assagioli (1993: 197) comes to exactly the same conclusion that “these ever wider spheres of spiritual life do not cancel or exclude the preceding ones, indeed they assume them.” (…)According to my research, Assagioli’s cosmological concept of creation, involution and evolution is fully aligned with Wilber’s version. (…)  (Assagioli) believes with his own words in an: “emanatistic theory of the soul, descending, becoming one with matter, and then returning to its “home”, the heavenly homeland.” (…) let me demonstrate how Assagioli’s and Wilber’s definition of the Self is very similar. (…) According to Wilber (and Assagioli) every human being possesses three major or basic selves. We have a gross self, or ego, a subtle self or soul and a causal formless self or atman Self. The atman Self is the ultimate Self and the transcendental witness and resembles Assagioli’s Universal Self. We are of course not necessary awakened to them but during peak experiences the two higher selves can temporarily enter the prevailing stage of consciousness. According to Assagioli and Wilber, Self-realisation is a process whereby the personal ‘I’ is making an ascent to its higher source through the superconscious area and the higher levels of consciousness. This is a crucial element in any Integral Approach and Assagioli is aligned with that. (…) Assagioli (1993: 102) and Wilber (2000a: 467) also talk about a lost “Eden” or union with the divine source, but this “loss” happens before birth as part of the soul’s involution into matter. (…)For Wilber, and for Assagioli, it is the Self – the seat of identity and awareness. What Assagioli calls the personal self, the center of pure consciousness and will (1975: 119), becomes in Wilber’s terminology to the “Proximate Self” or the observing self (2000c: 33). They share the same basic understanding of what evolves in man, (…)Maslow’s hierarchy of needs has been an influential inspiration for Wilber, and Assagioli also uses it to clarify his own position on human development. (…)From the above we can assume that Assagioli has a conception of lines of development. In this respect Assagioli’s version of Psychosynthesis becomes Integral. (…)Another important concept in Wilber’s Integral Approach is states of consciousness. In Integral Psychology (Wilber, 2002, p.13-14) he defines four states of consciousness that are available to all human beings as temporary state experiences. (…) Assagioli’s Egg Diagram gives a general presentation of the four above states. The lower and middle levels are related to the waking ego state. The higher unconscious to the dream or soul state. The Higher Self and above to the causal or deep dream state, and the totality of the Egg Diagram including the Universal Self is associated with the non-dual state. (…)From the above it seems reasonable to assume that Assagioli’s version of Psychosynthesis is Integral when it comes to the concept of states. (…)Assagioli seems to be the only writer who has used Maslow’s findings to create a model of human development, which is a lot more dynamic, than his very static Egg Diagram offers. (…)Is Psychosynthesis an Integral Psychology? (…) It seems to me that there is sufficient evidence to assume that Assagioli’s version to a greater or lesser degree implements all the five Integral concepts. He is the only psychosynthesist who implements the Great Chain of Being and involution. He is very cautious on this matter, but when comparing the quotes with his philosophical background in Gnosticism, Neo-Platonism and Theosophy, I think there is sufficient reason to believe that he shares this conception with Wilber and the perennial philosophy. Assagioli several times addresses the confusion of levels, so we also have reason to assume that he pays attention to the Pre/Trans Fallacy and that his developmental theory is a hierarchical ‘growth-to-goodness’ model, because of his close association with Maslow’s model. The development of the weak psychological functions and the hierarchical nature of them suggest that he also works with lines of development. I also think that the structure of his Egg Diagram confirms that he works with the same four states as Wilber does, and the quotes offered suggest that he was aware of the important transformation of states to stages. Assagioli’s use of differential psychology and psychological types has also been confirmed. (…) My overall assessment is that Assagioli’s version of Psychosynthesis shows enough clear and identifiable traits to be considered an Integral Approach. (…)  Assagioli’s ideal model technique is very relevant here as a tool to development. (…) The Integral Approach has much to offer Psychosynthesis and in many ways it seems to be a new and promising update of Assagioli’s original vision.”[117]
Aurobindo: The integral Knowledge is something that is already there in the integral Reality: it is not a new or still non-existent thing that has to be created, acquired, learned, invented, or built up by the mind; it must rather be discovered or uncovered, it is a Truth that is self-revealed to a spiritual endeavor: for it is there veiled in our deeper and greater self; it is the very stuff of our own spiritual consciousness, and it is by awaking to it even in our surface self that we have to possess it. There is an integral self-knowledge that we have to recover and, because the world-self also is our self, an integral world-knowledge. A knowledge that can be learned or constructed by the mind exists and has its value, but that is not what is meant when we speak of the Knowledge. …An integral spiritual consciousness carries in it a knowledge of all the terms of being; it links the highest to the lowest through all the mediating terms and achieves an indivisible whole. …An integral knowledge presupposes an integral Reality; for it is the power of a Truth-consciousness which is itself the consciousness of the Reality."[118]
Rod Hemsell: “Wilber has done an outstanding job of incorporating Sri Aurobindo's ideas in a way that makes them accessible to a very large audience. For Wilber is widely read in America today, and Sri Aurobindo's books are not even published in this country. But it is rather extraordinary at the same time, that in all those thousands of pages, there is hardly a page all together of direct quotes from Sri Aurobindo, very little that is direct commentary on his work, and the references are usually to a list of names, among which Sri Aurobindo is included. (…) The general idea of psychological development, the way that it has been drawn from a variety of sources, and, most importantly, his inclusion of the higher mental and spiritual ranges, roughly in accordance with Sri Aurobindo's system, are made sufficiently clear. (…)The question here is whether Wilber has succeeded in providing his theory of psychological development with the foundation it needs, by his application of the theory of evolution drawn from Sri Aurobindo. (…)I have followed out this quotation at some length in order to show the depth and scope of the ideas of involution and evolution in Sri Aurobindo's thought, from which Wilber seems to have drawn only a portion of his understanding. (…)According to Sri Aurobindo, the so called "structures of consciousness" or levels of the Great Chain of Being, in Wilber's system, are inherent aspects of Conscious Being, enfolded and unfolded, by the creative Will-Force inherent in them. (…)But the point of view of involution and evolution expressed by Wilber always seems to convey the idea of polar opposites and separation from the source. Involution is always only a movement backward and downward, evolution a very halting and painful movement forward and upward. And if the source is, as he has suggested, the playful spirit of Brahman losing himself in unconsciousness, where does the journey back lead? (…)The second problem, then, is that for Wilber the embrace of God occurs only in the final return from this difficult process and liberation from the cycle of involution and evolution, while for Sri Aurobindo the Divine Embrace is the involution and evolution itself, this whole process of enfolding and unfolding is the Self embracing Existence. (…)How then does this form of integralism compare with that of Sri Aurobindo? Is the problem of consciousness/matter, mind/body dualism handled in any significantly different way by Sri Aurobindo? And does the higher, transrational, nondual level of consciousness defined and predicted by Wilber differ appreciably from Sri Aurobindo's conception of the spiritual consciousness to be realized in the next stages of evolution? The answer to each of these questions will depend, in fact, upon what we might call the metaphysics of consciousness, which is of course the subject of The Life Divine. In that treatise, Sri Aurobindo demonstrates with a variety of arguments based on intuition, reason, and Vedanta, that Existence is Consciousness, Consciousness is Energy, and the so-called Great Chain of Being, at every level – matter, life, mind, soul, spirit – is an expression of Conscious Being. (…) In one of the later chapters of The Life Divine, titled "Reality and the Integral Knowledge," Sri Aurobindo makes explicit what his form of "integralism" means, makes clear the point of view which justifies the philosopher Haridas Chaudhuri labelling this philosophy "integral non-dualism," and outlines the project of his Yoga Philosophy to heal the division, not only of Mind but of Existence, through a return to and a descent of Supermind. (…) it seems obvious that such a map of the territory does not lead necessarily to what Sri Aurobindo describes as an integral consciousness, and to what Wilber identifies as a second-tier or transpersonal consciousness. An integral consciousness might be able to understand or represent the world in terms of such a map, but the map doesn't even indicate the possibility of such an integral consciousness. (…) This conclusion regarding the nature of spiritual development is perhaps the reason why Wilber's fundamental paradigm of development tops out at the vision-logic level. It seems that after touching the low subtle or psychic plane he drops back to a mental plane and translates, to use the Atman-project terminology, his own urge to higher development into the only level of consciousness and form that still appears to him to have a sufficient engagement with the substance of experience to make a difference. (…) It is at this point that the sharp contrast becomes most evident between what might be called the weak or intermediate form of integral nondualism put forward by Wilber, and the much stronger and more radical form of integral nondualism of Sri Aurobindo. For the latter, only the highest spiritual evolution of consciousness can bring about a substantial, lasting and integral transformation of the life of humanity on earth. And such an evolution is possible because that highest divine Supermind is also the basis of existence, the resolution of the Purusha/Prakriti enigma, and can not only be reached through the process of a spiritual ascent of consciousness, but also can then descend through a higher spiritualized mind into life and matter to transform every aspect of existence. It is evident that Wilber has not accepted this principle or integrated it into his theory of the evolution of consciousness and, therefore, that the theory remains inadequate with respect to both the metaphysics of Conscious-Being and the possibility of a further, supramental evolution of that consciousness on earth as envisioned by Sri Aurobindo. (…) It also appears that (Wilber) theory of psychological development is borne out to a considerable extent by Sri Aurobindo and the Mother as exemplars of superconscious evolution, the premise with which The Atman Project began. But, let us note, Sri Aurobindo is as yet the only spiritual visionary to have outlined in detail the nature of a divine consciousness, life, and society to be realized as the result of the descent of the Supermind, and to have developed a Yoga for hastening that descent. (…)It appears that the work of Ken Wilber and of Sri Aurobindo diverges along fairly traditional lines of psychological and spiritual development: the one ending in "liberation" and the other in "transformation." This is a distinction that has been emphasized throughout his writings by Sri Aurobindo and constitutes the most prominent contrast between his and Wilber's work. Intrinsic to Sri Aurobindo's philosophy of the Brahman, with Supermind as the Conscious Force of the Brahman, and therefore both the creative energy and the immortal self of all creation, is the principle of involution.”[119]
Matthew Dallman: “Because Wilber either directly or indirectly orchestrates his online presentation, or is sympathetic for political purposes, my conclusion applies to him, as well — Wilber, I'm sorry to say, is hopelessly new age. Integral is more than that. Integral is an archetype, with semiotics that go far deeper than quadrants, levels, lines, states, or types. It is not born of a philosopher, just like pluralism didn't come from a philosopher, nor rationalism, mythicism, magicism, or survivalism. Integral is already out there in the world, (…)Anyone who can learn from any source is learning integrally. Anyone who makes things that works on various planes of meaning and response is making things integrally. Anyone who perceives in the world several ways of looking at something is perceiving integrally. (…)He draws from both New Age as well as academic crowds. (…) (Wilber) aims include being a special kind of contemporary guru: all the comforts, none of the responsibility. Many things over the years that he said he was NOT going to do he has done: from creating a Hegel-like system, to becoming a de facto guru, to coordinating an outfit equivalent to EST or Landmark Education Forum. I believe for his next trick, he will for all practical intents and purposes attempt to create a new religion. (…)It is therefore ironic that both are entirely against the grain of his obsession for self-promotion (never to be underestimated), and his team of marketeers who push his stuff like crack for the disillusioned creative class. His "integralnaked" website was consciously marketed to early 20s men; it's early communications were soft porn. (…)Wilber is New Age to the core, hopelessly so in my view. In other words, everything is tainted by its analytical failings. New Age is that unfortunate mix of romanticism (self-dissociation from the world by thinking you are a genius, misunderstood by everyone) with eclecticism (the impulse to reconcile surface features of the world's religious, faith, and scientific systems) and narcissism (the hubristic self-absorption that, ultimately, results from the bombardment of global media consciousness of the last 100 years). (…)Any real teacher is someone abundant in their help; in my experience, and according to accounts of several long-time associates, Wilber helps no one unless it serves to help him and his reputation. I want to rescue 'integral' from permanent association with him. I propose that his work no longer be called "integral theory", but rather "Wilberian philosophy". Let's also end the practice of capitalizing the word 'integral', unless it begins a sentence. Wilber's is one voice among many, (…)'Integral' predates Wilber and has been abused by him in order to develop a brand appropriate to his market. Furthermore, it never was supposed to mean what he has implied it must. The foundation of his theory is integral with the meaning of "inclusive of all known truths from all major fields" but he has demonstrably failed, and the entire aim frankly quixotic. (…) I am officially interested in a "post-Wilber integral", or even a "non-Wilber integral";”[120]
Thomas J. McFarlane: “It is worthwhile in conclusion to briefly note that any model will necessarily have its limitations. But what is most disturbing about the four quadrant model (AQAL) is that Wilber presents it as “A Theory of Everything” and an integral model for the “whole Kosmos”. In fact, the four quadrant model is not integral since it excludes very significant dimensions of reality. The effect is that a partial vision is presented as being a complete vision of the whole”[121]
Alan Kazlev:[The schema in question] is not much more that about thirty years old; the earliest reference I know of is Christopher Hills’ (1977) Nuclear Evolution; an elaborate Integral theory that predates Wilber’s AQAL by several decades… Hills’ book seems to have had little or no influence on the wider world, so Wilber’s rainbow chakras are probably based on pop-Osho New Age websites.”
Adrian J. Ivakhiv: “Wilber’s framework should not be seen as the “integral” culmination of knowledge gathered safely from so many paradigmatically settled fields of knowledge. (…) The field of “integral studies” — integral theory, integral philosophy, integral ecology, integral politics, integral spirituality, integral business, integral strategies (?), and so on — is certainly not confined to the work of Ken Wilber. Both Wilber’s closest associates and his detractors have on numerous occasions spoken of an integral theory that is “beyond Wilber,” and that, I think, is where integral theory must head as it grows.”[122]

EVIDENCE 11: Pseudo-Spirituality
Ken Wilber: “The Q-Link is a technology that amplifies and clarifies the body’s energies. By reducing the noise in any energy field, this technology strengthens and purifies the body’s own energies”
William Irwin Thompson: "We have so replaced [high] culture with psychology, psychotherapy, and simplistic workshops on how to fix the depressive flats of our lives that we prefer the compulsive mappings and textbook categorizations of a Ken Wilber to the poetic insights of a Jean Gebser. Wilber seeks to control the universe through mapping, and the dominant masculinist purpose of his abstract system is to shift power from the described to the describer. As an autodidact from the Midwest, Wilber wants to promote himself as "the Einstein of the consciousness movement"... This mode of scholarship is really a mode of psychic inflation and self-magnification; it is a grand pyramid of systems of abstract thought, with Wilber's kept on top."[123]
GEORGE ADAMS:As a starting point, we will accept the reality, validity, and value of the transpersonal religious experiences that are the foundation of Wilber's work. However, in subjecting his thought to a philosophical and theological analysis, we suggest that his positions are seriously flawed. Specifically, we identify an ambiguous and inconsistent definition of 'God'; a flawed epistemology that privileges non-dualism without adequate justification; and faulty and selective use of textual sources to support his positions. Secondary issues include contradictory positions regarding the presence of a personal element in the divine nature, de-valuation of the individual self, and inadequate emphasis on the moral component of spiritual development. (…) The purpose of this article is to offer an assessment of Wilber's thought from a philosophical and theistic-theological perspective. Therefore, this will be a critique from outside the transpersonalist community. (…) However, while acknowledging the reality of the internal experience that forms the basis of Wilber's work and of transpersonal psychology in general, we will argue that his interpretations of this experience are dramatically flawed. Specifically, we will argue that his theorizing about and interpretation of the transpersonal experience is characterized by illogical and philosophically invalid reasoning. That the experience occurs, we do not deny; that Wilber's interpretation of the experience is valid, we do deny. Given the reality of the experience, Wilber's various assertions about the meaning of the experience simply do not logically follow. While the critique will focus primarily on the errors in his philosophical reasoning, we will also explore as a secondary critique some of the criticisms that emerge from a theistic assessment of his thought. (…) Again, borrowing from Buddhism (in this case, the concept of Tathata or Suchness), Wilber suggests that in non-dual mysticism, there is nothing but the pure awareness of "the reality or Suchness of all levels, all states, all conditions" (Wilber, 1996: 227). Indeed, it is somewhat inaccurate to describe it as a level of consciousness, since consciousness presumes the presence of a conscious, perceiving subject and a perceived object that is in some sense different from the subject. In non-dual mysticism, the duality of subject and object is completely overcome and one participates in the pure awareness that is the Kosmos itself (…)  One can acknowledge that the modes of consciousness described by Wilber indeed exist, while simultaneously rejecting his interpretation of those experiences as representing the 'highest' type of religious experience or spirituality. More specifically, Wilber suggests that non-dual mysticism reveals an awareness of the ultimate nature of reality, which he equates with an experience of God, the All, Suchness, etc. Clearly, he sees this mode of consciousness as revealing the ultimate truth, in contrast to the lower levels on the spectrum which reveal only partial aspects of the truth. This ultimate truth consists of the unitive and spiritual nature of all that is or the Kosmos in its entirety. (…) Wilber's unwarranted leap of assuming that there can be no reality outside the realm of the non-dual Kosmos, which thereby allows him—quite falsely—to identify the non-dual experience as the highest form of religious awareness. Non-dualism can only represent the highest form of religious awareness, if there is no reality outside of or in addition to the non-dual Kosmos; Wilber cannot confirm the non-existence of such a reality beyond the non-dual Kosmos, and therefore, at best, he should confine himself to the position of a non-dual agnostic, taking no position regarding the existence or non-existence of a reality or Being to which he does not have access through any level of the spectrum of consciousness. (…) Ken Wilber experience the Kosmos as a non-dual reality may indeed be the case, but this has nothing to do with what theists assert when they profess belief in a God, who by definition stands outside that Kosmos. To a theist, the unity or non-duality of the created universe, including both material and spiritual dimensions, does by definition not encompass the transcendent God who is the object of theistic belief. Thus, Wilber's error is essentially one of over-extending his interpretation of the meaning of a certain kind of spiritual experience. What he might legitimately refer to as an experience of the non-dual nature of the Kosmos, he instead refers to as an experience of the Kosmos and God. (…) Granted that certain individuals have an experience which reveals awareness of the non-dual Kosmos, other individuals claim to have an experience of a being that exists outside that Kosmos, i.e. an experience of a transcendent God. Wilber reduces the latter experience to a partial, limited, and ultimately inferior type of spiritual experience that is superseded by the fuller and more complete non-dual experience. On what possible epistemological grounds can Wilber make such a judgment? On what basis can he affirm that the noetic content of the non-dual experience is somehow superior to the noetic content of the theistic awareness of a God that transcends the universe?  (…) In the Wilberian model, theism is relegated to the 'mythic' level in the spectrum of consciousness, several levels below the non-dual level. In typical fashion, Wilber is often vague and imprecise in clarifying what he means by mythic-level consciousness and spirituality, lumping together a diverse array of religious beliefs that, while theistic in the most general sense of including belief in a personal deity or deities, often differ in ways that are far more profound than their similarities. (…) Wilber pays little attention to more mature forms of theism which interpret the 'personal' with reference to the possession of the perfect form of the highest human qualities, such as wisdom, love, justice, etc. Comparing belief in Zeus to non-dualist spiritual experience may indeed present a contrast which can easily be weighted in favor of non-dualism; however, to compare non-dualism to the mature theism of the likes of Kierkegaard, Martin Buber, Ramanuja, or Teilhard de Chardin makes a comparison between theism and non-dualism much less obviously balanced in favor of non-dualism. When discussing theism, Wilber tends to avoid using examples of mature theism, which would undermine his agenda of demonstrating the supremacy of non-dualism. Even when he discusses the more developed modes of theism, he tends to present them in caricature and exaggerated form, which gives him an opportunity to present theism in a negative light when compared to non-dualism (…), reflect his tendency to employ oversimplified and consequently inaccurate presentations of the nature of theistic belief, often expressed in a tone that is both condescending and polemical. (…) Our point here is not to explore the details of Buber's rejection of non-dualism and embrace of theism, but rather to cite his spiritual development as an example in which a type of theism is chosen over non-dualism. Wilber does not even seem to consider the possibility that a person might experience both the theistic and non-dualist views of reality and choose to rank the theistic perspective higher than the non-dualist view. Buber's example demonstrates the somewhat arbitrary nature of Wilber's decision to place non-dualism at the pinnacle of the holarchy of modes of consciousness. The non-dual view may seem to Wilber to be somehow more spiritually complete than the theistic view, but he does not provide any sort of compelling argument as to why the supremacy of non-dualism should be seen as anything more than his personal preference. He fails to present criteria that can be used to establish that his positioning of non-dualism over theism reflects some sort of truth about the ways things really are, as opposed to merely the way he would like things to be. Buber not only situates theism as spiritually superior to non-dualism, but he also provides reasons for taking this position, thereby attempting to demonstrate that his assessment of theism is more than just his personal preference. (…) Indeed, in defending non-dualism Wilber repeatedly remarks that in any given epoch or culture, only a select few have achieved the level of spiritual development that affords access to the non-dual experience. Similarly, one could argue that rarer still are those who achieve the spiritual maturity to view existence from such two radically different perspectives as theism and non-dualism.While Buber may represent one example of a spiritual person who understands, but does not value non-dualism, Wilber tends to ignore not only Buber, but a whole host of individuals, scattered throughout many cultures over many centuries, who understood, but rejected the sort of pure non-dualism which he advocates. Wilber often supports his position by citing various 'sages' from different religious traditions and cultures (Wilber, 1997: 205), but his scholarship is rather selective in this area, citing those who support his position while ignoring the many who disagree. He frequently refers to Hindu Vedanta, as if all Vedantic theologians supported pure, non-theistic non-dualism. In reality, the non-dualism which Wilber advocates reflects the position of only one of the several chief Vedantic thinkers, that of Shankara. Wilber conveniently ignores Ramanuja, whose influence in Hindu thought is certainly comparable to that of Shankara. Ramanuja supported a 'qualified non-dualism' in which the personality of a theistic God and the eternal individuality of all souls is preserved, both features that are absent in the non-dualism of Wilber and Shankara. Reading Ramanuja, one sees that he had a clear understanding of Shankara's non-dualism; he was not someone who lacked the spiritual development necessary to achieve such a mode of awareness. Yet, fully aware of the nature of the non-dual experience, Ramanuja—like Buber—chose to interpret it as a less profound experience than the awareness of a personal Lord who eternally remains in some sense different from all of creation, including each individual soul. One could also point to the radically dualistic theology of Madhva (thirteenth century), who founded one of the major schools of Vedantic thought. Madhva, quite familiar with the mystical Upanishadic texts and meditative traditions, argued in favor of a view of God as utterly different from the created universe, a God of pure transcendence whose purity cannot be tainted by the corrupt nature of the world. (…) Both as a philosopher and as the founder of a school of theistic devotionalism, Madhva was a significant figure in Indian religion, yet nowhere does Wilber include him in his one-sided and biased listing of 'sages'—a list that appears to be reserved for those religious figures who share the Wilberian fondness for non-dualism. By excluding significant figures who did not adopt a non-dualist interpretation of the ultimate religious experience, Wilber conveys the false impression that no such creatures ever existed. Whether out of ignorance (…) or out of design, he portrays a false picture of mystical sages universally interpreting non-dual experience as the highest form of religious experience. (…) Wilber's typical characterization of Spirit in its complete fullness is that of a reality which, although all-encompassing and One, lacks any of the personal qualities that theists associate with God. (…) The limited significance with which Wilber views the individual self can also be connected to another aspect of his thought that is viewed critically from a theistic perspective, namely the tendency to assign a secondary role (at best) to ethics in the spiritual life. As with many other aspects of his thought, he seems to want to have it both ways regarding the importance of ethics in spiritual development: while occasionally asserting that the development of non-dual consciousness occurs only in the context of ethical behavior, his overall neglect of ethics and his peculiar separation of ethical development from spiritual development in his notion of 'lines' of development suggest that cultivation of ethical virtues is relegated to a position far below that of the cultivation of a particular mode of consciousness in his system. (…) Typical of most gnostic spiritualities (using 'gnostic' in the broad sense), Wilber's work identifies the acquisition of correct knowledge (awareness of the non-dual) as the highest goal of spiritual development, with ethical behavior relegated to no more than a secondary component of the spiritual path. (…)Wilber's model leads to a position that radically departs from what one finds in most religious traditions, whether theistic or otherwise. Specifically, by positing spirituality as a line of development that can be separated from the line of moral development, Wilber suggests that legitimate spiritual development can occur in the absence of comparable moral development. In this model, 'spiritual' is understood primarily in terms of acquisition of states of consciousness or levels of awareness of Spirit, the highest level being awareness of non-duality. Acquisition of a particular mode of knowing or type of consciousness is interpreted as a spiritual accomplishment, even if that accomplishment is not accompanied by moral maturity and ethical behavior. Thus, his model leaves room for the gurus of 'crazy wisdom' whose access to non-ordinary modes of awareness is accompanied by varieties of unethical behavior, without thereby losing the legitimacy of their position as 'spiritual' masters. This is reflected in Wilber's defense of the controversial figure Adi Da (also known as Bubba Free John), a contemporary American 'guru' who has been charged with numerous abusive practices by former followers. Even while acknowledging the charges of physical, emotional, and sexual abuse leveled against Da, Wilber persists in defending his status as a spiritual 'realizer', given his claims to achieving so-called 'higher' states of consciousness. (…) Students of world religions are likely to find this statement quite puzzling in that most religious traditions and especially theistic traditions quite explicitly posit an intimate connection between the lines of development and, in particular, between the moral and spiritual lines, so that acquisition of a non-ordinary mode of consciousness which is not accompanied by moral awareness and ethical behavior is not assessed as being 'spiritual' at all. Theisms of many varieties portray God, who is in some sense other than the Kosmos, as the source of moral law; establishing a right relationship with that God, which constitutes being 'spiritual', necessarily includes aligning one's inner disposition and external behavior with that divinely-originated moral law. Any 'spirituality' that lacks that moral element is a false spirituality. Wilber's strange and inaccurate remarks about the 'great traditions' which support his separation of the moral and spiritual lines clearly reflect his tendency to be highly selective in the sources from which he derives his data. While it may be true that there are various examples of self-proclaimed 'masters' who advocated freedom from moral restrictions as part of the higher spiritual path, these are clearly the exceptions to the norm in which the moral is seen as an inseparable part of the spiritual. Even in most Buddhist teachings, from which Wilber appears to derive many of his views, moral development is seen as a necessary pre-requisite to the development of the inner tranquillity that leads to enlightenment. There are, of course, exceptions in Buddhism, as seen in some aspects of Zen and even more so in tantric forms of Buddhism, but these also represent departures from the norm. In the early Pali sutras, which are more likely to represent the actual teaching of Gautama, morality, right views, and meditation are consistently closely linked as inseparable and indispensable components of the quest for enlightenment. Wilber's willingness to separate these traditionally linked elements is indicative of his affinity with other modern advocates of spirituality-as-altered-states thinking, in which the value of moral behavior is ignored or diminished, while private inner experiences are elevated to sacred status. (…) Wilber will need to respond to analysis and criticism that comes from sources other than his fellow transpersonalists. This article is an attempt to present just a few of the many issues that individuals from outside the transpersonalist movement might pose to Wilber for further discussion and clarification. (…) Wilber fails to defend the validity of his practice of interpreting these internal experiences as epistemologically sound means of gaining access to valid knowledge about the true nature of extra-pyschic reality. Similarly, he fails to provide convincing arguments to explain why his interpretation of those experiences should be considered more valid than the theist's quite different interpretations of the same internal experiences. Finally, he fails to demonstrate why the non-dualist religious experience should be considered superior to the religious experience of theists, an experience which asserts and values the otherness of God. From this epistemological issue, other issues follow: the de-valuation of the personal, the separation of the ethical and the spiritual, Wilber's selective, non-representative use of sources, and others. The future status of Wilber's work and the field of transpersonal psychology will in part be a product of how successfully Wilber responds to these and other challenges from non-transpersonalist commentators.”[124]
Brad Reynolds:I find Wilber fails miserably in addressing this important topic, i.e., cultivating a spiritual relationship with an Adept-Realizer to help guide us on the way to Enlightenment. Indeed, Wilber seems to suggest his integral philosophy is adequate to the task of gaining Enlightenment, but it is not. As the Sages have long warned, even brilliant pandits or philosophers do not necessarily know the Way, even if they appreciate it (like Wilber does); so even though they may support it (as Wilber does), we are still best served by listening to and following the Wisdom Teachings of the Adepts themselves. Such Adept-Realizers, or “Spiritual Masters” and genuine Gurus, don't simply provide a philosophy or “map” of reality, but they show us the way to transcend our ego-I so we may actually know or realize that Reality for ourselves. This is, ultimately, an esoteric process best activated by a Spiritual Baptism, or an energetic transmission and descent of spiritual force into the body-mind, a truth of genuine spirituality that goes beyond any philosophical argument or complex model or map of reality (such as Ken Wilber's AQAL Matrix).  Nor does Wilber emphasize the disciplines necessary for the psycho-physical ascent of kundalini to awaken consciousness to genuine spiritual subtle states; he acts as if subtle visions are as easy to generate as dreaming at night. But the fact is subtle “states” (or experiences of ascended kundalini) are extremely rare (for a person may only have a few, at best, in an entire lifetime). Yet, a relationship with a true Sat-Guru will initiate a person with spiritual force (shakti) beyond any mere philosophy or pointing-out instructions. Unfortunately, I have yet to find in these nearly 800-pages where Wilber adequately addresses these vital matters. It's as if he'd prefer we all “self-guru” ourselves (such as using Wilber's Way); granted, this is a popular notion in these postmodern times, but one inadequate to fulfill real spiritual living and Awakening. Consequently, I believe, we simply don't need the Integral Approach to save our archaic religions. Perhaps we need newer and more authentic spiritual visions, better and more effective practices and disciplines for Waking us UP to the truth of higher spirituality (and mysticism) and to the Divine Condition of our universe and consciousness. Perhaps we need to also expand our awareness about the true function of real Awakened Masters, outside of the failures of so many modern and false cultic “gurus.” Perhaps new and global Adepts will appear (or have already appeared) in recent (and upcoming) generations who will point us to a better Way than simply trying to fix what's broken.  (…)Yet, first, we must learn to speak in adequate appreciation of our leading-edge spiritual Teachers and Gurus, something I find sorely lacking in The Religion of Tomorrow  — indeed, without them there will only be the same old cultic religions, even if more “integral,” not methods of true spirituality. (…)cultivating a genuine spirituality that transcends the errors (and cultism) of our previous religious traditions! But this can only be done by engaging the evolution of consciousness into the Higher Stages of Life, in cultivating authentic spiritual awareness by practice and discipline, not by just talking about it and classifying everything into a multi-complex model or map. True, we need a good map to escape from prison, as Wilber notes, but perhaps its better not to go to prison in the first place. (…) Therefore, I tend to question whether our traditional religions are the best source for gaining (or recovering) this Truth, even if upgraded to an integral perspective with Wilber's Way. I believe, as many like me also believe, that the religions of yesterday (and today) have been huge failures in accomplishing this Awakening process.”[125]
Geoffrey D. Falk:Dr. Roger Walsh is another respected member of the JTP board. He is also on the Board of Editors of the Journal of Consciousness Studies. Plus, he is another founding member of the Integral Institute, who has compared Wilber’s (1995) Sex, Ecology, Spirituality to Hegel’s work in its scope. Walsh has recently stated, with an absurd degree of exaggeration: Ken Wilber is one of the greatest philosophers of this century and arguably the greatest theoretical psychologist of all time. (…)  Frances Vaughan, incidentally, is Roger Walsh’s wife. Both are close friends of Ken Wilber—and founding members of the Integral Institute—to the point of having introduced him to his second wife. Together, Walsh and Vaughan (1988) edited a book of selections from Helen Schucman’s A Course in Miracles (ACIM)—attempted pithy sermons which were purportedly channeled from Lord Jesus Christ in 1965.  Wilber, interestingly, had this to say (in Klimo, 1998) about the Course: I’m not saying that there was not some transcendental insight involved and that Helen probably felt that it was certainly beyond her day-to-day self. I think that’s true. (…)  The answer is obvious to anyone who isn’t desperately trying to find spirituality and paranormality in what can much more reasonably be viewed as simply one woman’s overactive imagination and inability to distinguish reality from her own fantasies. Or do you believe that Jesus Christ spoke directly to Helen Schuchman in the mid-’60s, dictating over a thousand pages of gar-den-variety New Age musings to her? Regardless, anyone who was actually impressed with ACIM to the point of compiling a “best of” from it that makes Andrew Cohen’s books look wise and insightful by comparison, should think more than twice before considering himself to be in a posi-tion to rank the world’s great philosophers. That applies, I think, even if the person in question is a peer reviewer amongst a field of comparably fine “scholars.” (…)Of that same uninspiring book, Ken Wilber blurbed: The field of spiritual books has been looking for its own Lewis Thomas or Carl Sagan, and I believe Roger Walsh may be that one. Sagan, however, was not merely a cogent popularizer of serious science, but also one of the world’s more prominent skeptics, who would not for a moment have taken ACIM seriously. Any “Carl Sagan of spir-ituality” would be one who would keep asking pointed questions and demanding properly conducted research ... at which point even the most hitherto-certain claims of the transpersonal/integral field crumble rapidly into a pile of fairy dust.” [126]
Rolf Sattler: “Ken Wilber (using Korzybski’s phrase) emphasized that a map is not the territory. Thus the AQAL map can at best represent various aspects of the Kosmos, not the Kosmos itself as it is. Representation is based on evidence and insight. As research progresses, new evidence may be obtained and new insights may be gained. If a map such as the AQAL map does not reflect these new insights and evidence, it may become fixated and dogmatic. (…) I want to focus on some of the most basic tenets of Ken Wilber’s AQAL map that appear to have hardened into what one might call dogma (…), just as church dogma closed the door to alternatives. Furthermore, (Wilber) insisting that holarchy is the only way to holism categorically denies and excludes other already existing holistic perspectives of viewing and understanding manifest reality such as holism in terms of undivided wholeness, continua, and networks (..). These other views show aspects of reality that are not revealed through the holarchical view. Thus, if we dogmatically insist that holarchy is the only way, we deprive ourselves of exploring other avenues: we enclose ourselves into a holarchic prison, and we lose the spirit of free enquiry. To my mind (using Ken Wilber’s AQAL terminology), such dogmatism does not represent the second tier stage of integral vision-logic, but rather a regression to conformist mythic intolerance. (…) (Wilber) seems to forget that his holarchical AQAL map is not the territory, which means that it is not the Kosmos. Similarly, when he wrote “the world of Form is AQAL” (Wilber 2006, p. 288), he also ignored that the world of form (manifest reality) is not his AQAL map, which at best can only capture aspects of the territory of the world of form. In general, Korzybski pointed out that whatever you might say something “is”, it is not. (Korzybski 1958, p. 409). (…)It seems inevitable that a map of such breadth and depth has limitations and shortcomings, which indeed have been pointed out by many critics. Wilber has made improvements to his map, but some of his most basic tenets appear to have hardened into what one might call dogmas that prevent him to consider and integrate alternatives. This renders his AQAL map less integral than intended. (…)  In his Integral Spirituality, Ken Wilber wrote, “in the manifest world, there are no perceptions, only perspectives” (Wilber 2006, p. 255). However, Ken Wilber’s “integral spirituality” with its fundamental notions of altitude and perspective implies holarchy. If, as I suggested, we could see holarchy also as a perspective, then it would not necessarily exclude other perspectives such as viewing manifest reality in terms of networks, continua, and undivided wholeness. As a result, we would avoid the dogmatic stance that the Kosmos is a holarchy (see also Sattler 2009: Ken Wilber, Holarchy and Beyond). I find it interesting that in a sense Ken Wilber undermines or deconstructs holarchy when he notes that the distinction of levels in the holarchy is somewhat arbitrary because “the way you divide and represent the actual territory is somewhat arbitrary” (Wilber 2007, p. 32). (…) Nonetheless, Wilber remains attached to levels and holarchy (…). I shall illustrate this through a comparison of infants and sages. According to Wilber, infants are at the lowest level of human development, whereas sages are at the highest. Assuming that infants resemble sages in any way, is, according to Wilber, a prime example of the pre/trans fallacy because infants live in “an unconscious Hell,” whereas sages have attained “conscious Heaven” (Wilber 1996, p. XII). The infant’s self “simply is a body-self, and as a body it looks at the world” (Wilber 2000c, p. 34). It is simply material, instinctual, and preoccupied with food and survival: “its God is all mouth” (Wilber 2001b, p. 368). Nonetheless, Wilber admits that to some extent infants and children may have access to higher states of consciousness, but he stresses that these experiences are through egocentric channels. With regard to childhood spirituality he wrote: “But in possibly being in touch with the deeper psychic (or soul) realm, infancy and childhood might evidence a connection with one type of spiritual dimension, even though, once again, it is of necessity interpreted and expressed through preconventional and egocentric channels, and thus is not spiritual in any pure sense” (Wilber 2000c, p. 142). (…) But since the child actually exhibits these higher spheres, I see them as an integral part of the child’s psychology. This means that the child shares these higher spheres with sages, and this contradicts the pre/trans fallacy: what according to this fallacy is confusion thus appears to be actually the case, that is, the child appears to partake at least to some extent of the heaven of the sage, although it may be unconscious in the child (see also Taylor 2009). Many authors have concluded that children may exhibit a kind of natural spirituality. Young children appear innocent and spontaneous. (…) (Wilber) claims that a child is “unable to take the role of other” and thus is “unable to genuinely care for the other” (Wilber 2000c, p. 264). (…) Furthermore, scientific evidence indicates that children can indeed care for each other, cooperate, show a sense of fairness, and behave altruistically (…). These findings contradict Ken Wilber’s claim that young children live in an egocentric, preconventional world. They show that young children may share at least some traits of higher stages in human development. As they grow older, they tend to pass through an egocentric phase until as adults eventually they may – or may not – more or less recapture or even surpass the infantile stage. In conclusion, I do not want to deny important differences between children and sages. (…) However, in view of empirical evidence, the validity of the pre/trans fallacy seems limited, and therefore a dogmatic defence of this fallacy does not appear useful because it obstructs the discovery of similarities between children and sages. After his rejection of what he calls the romantic view, according to which children live in an unconscious heaven, Ken Wilber veered to the other extreme of the pre/trans fallacy, according to which children live in an unconscious hell. I think that the available evidence points more to a middle way between these two extremes. This middle way applies not only to human development but also to human evolution. So-called primitive humans and their animal ancestors (the chimpanzees and bonobos) seem to share much more with us than what most of us, including Ken Wilber, have thought for a long time (…). Seeing our human and animal ancestors in a similar manner again makes progress and superiority of modern humans spectacular, more spectacular than if we would recognize “our inner ape” (De Waal 2005) that appears more highly evolved than Wilber admits.”[127]
Ken Wilber: “It is a completely valid argument for a developmentalist to point out . . . cross-level or paradigm-clash intractability. There is nothing that turquoise or indigo can ever say to green that will make it happy. Thus, the idea that, for example, turquoise is supposed to enter a “dialogue” with green is nonsensical, and nothing in that dialogue will change green's mind fundamentally (unless green transforms to turquoise). Turquoise can see green and its facts, but green cannot see turquoise and its facts, and thus this cross-level altitude problem jams any real dialogue in that capacity—and yet all that green does is scream for dialogue, dialogue, dialogue…. which in these cases are empty, empty, empty.” (Wyatt Earp blog)
Ken Wilber: “Supermind, at this point in evolution, seems to be the highest structure of consciousness yet to begin to emerge, and it is combined with the highest state of consciousness yet to emerge (nondual Suchness). The result is a seeing/feeling/witnessing/being interwoven stream of Whole after Whole after Whole after Whole, which instantaneously present themselves to the mind's eye, or nondual Awakened Awareness, in a spontaneous, effortless, dynamic fashion—while Supermind is also able to concentrate on individual particulars at any point, and to do so in the timeless Now, while also including the entire history of a holon all the way back to the Big Bang. All of this is a constant feature of Supermind consciousness—the entire Kosmos is aware of the entire Kosmos, in the Kosmos, through the Kosmos, as the Kosmos.” “The order of colors is important for the traditional psychologies, because each level is said to correspond to a subtle energy, which can also be found in nature, such as in a rainbow, so the order of the colors of levels of altitude, unlike those used by Spiral Dynamics, should match the order found in a rainbow.” [128]
Frank Visser: “In his latest book The Religion of Tomorrow (2017) Ken Wilber foresees a future, unavoidably and certainly so, in which spirituality will stage a stunning come-back. This time God will no longer be seen as the old-fashioned and proverbial Old Man in the Sky—or any fundamentalistic religious notion you prefer—but as a pervasive cosmic spiritual force (called "Eros" by Wilber) behind natural and cultural evolution. Even a rationalist person, he argues, will have reasons to believe in such a notion of spirituality. (…)As said, it will be a very different God from the one we were used to and this requires a whole new "God-talk" (…). However, the reasons given for both the old and the new ways of speaking about God might be very similar in that they both argue against a materialist-reductionistic view of the universe. It is only natural that Wilber has seen some creationist authors as natural allies in this respect. (…)According to Wilber, "there is abundant support to believe in a universal spiritual dimension to the Kosmos". That is, of course, quite a claim, and we will be interested in seeing the reasons he gives for this belief. According to his developmental model, human beings go through many stages, and each stage sees, so to speak, a different world. (…) It is an anti-science and anti-discovery stance to postulate a cosmic driving force such as Wilber's Eros, to throw light on these phenomena. It is not just that Wilber has meditated a lot and prefers to speak about these extraordinary experiences using some mystical poetry. No, he often uses these notions deliberately and specifically to "explain" natural phenomena—without ever specifying the details, of course. (…) Wilber's favorite topics: to see meditation as a form of "deep science" in its own right, and to claim that using these contemplative methods "Spirit" can directly be experienced. It is, however, one thing to respect the fact that throughout history human beings have reported extraordinary spiritual experiences, it is wholly something else to claim, as Wilber typically does, that these insights throw any meaningful light on the workings of the cosmos or of evolution at large. It is clear from The Religion of Tomorrow that Wilber claims to know the highest mystical experiences from personal experience (given the authoritative tone of his explanations). But is Wilber's notion of an "Eros in the Kosmos", a driving force behind evolution in nature and culture, even in the recent US elections, really a universal mystical conclusion, or only his idiosyncratic conviction? Does he claim to know Supermind, the "Mind of God" so speak, so he can claim deeper knowledge of what really makes the universe tick? (…) In the end, integralists are no better off than fundamentalists when they have to make a "leap of faith" after having weighed all the evidence. (…) It is a questionable assumption of both fundamentalism and integralism that, without some God or Spirit, life couldn't have started in the first place. Or that our own lives are somehow incomplete without such a spiritual dimension.”[129]
Ken Wilber: “As you get to green, all you are working on is how to get out of green. As soon as you get to teal all you talk about is how to get out of teal, and as soon as you get to turquoise, all you talk about is how you get out of turquoise. When are you going to live? Take a breath,” (…) “I always include in my sections: Practice, practice, practice, make this real… Let's say right now turquoise is a good enough arrival for at least the next five years. So what are you going to do for five years, learn how to be turquoise, nobody else knows, and there are no books on it.”   “Being at a higher level does not mean everything is 100 % right. In many cases being at a higher level means you screw up worse, because you are smarter.”  “All of those things are crucial, they are absolutely crucial, and if you think of the day, when the leading majority of the United States is at turquoise, what is the main action going to be, acting turquoise… enacting it, putting it into action, that is what you need to learn.” “You have to relearn everything from going to the grocery store, to brushing your teeth, to cooking, all of this is different, because you are at a higher level.”  “How do we say hi, how do we say hallo, how do we say good-bye, this is all incredibly important.” (…)  “At the same time it might be noted that second-tier thinking has to emerge in the face of much resistance from first-tier thinking (…). And yet without second-tier thinking, as Graves, Beck, and Cowan point out, humanity is destined to remain victims of a global 'auto-immune disease'”, curtailed by an “amber myth, conventional, conformist” behavior, crippled by a “red magic, self-protective” thinking (…)  All of the areas of human activity, and I mean all of the areas have to be learnt over completely, because it is coming from an entirely different altitude, an entirely different awareness, an entirely different viewpoint and the things you are used to doing is green and orange or amber, (…)  Acting turquoise…enacting it, putting it into action…that is what you need to learn… that is extremely important, that is a major, major, major issue that we all need to confront and keep in mind and take very, very seriously. It does not do any good to get to turquoise and then act in completely fucked up ways. (…)We have to really think now in turquoise…all of those things I said earlier, how do we meet each other, how do we greet each other…how do we say hi, how do we say hallo. (…)So when you get to turquoise and don't know what the translation rules are, that is something that has to be experimentally [tried out by] trial and error, thinking it out for the first time in history, so how should we meet each other…how should we care for each other, how should we embrace each other. (…)The theoretical is important, God knows, but I always include in my sections: Practice, practice, practice, make this real and getting the actual nitty, gritty of what to do, when you get to something like arriving, and let's say right now turquoise is a good enough arrival for at least the next five years. So what are you going to do for five years, learn how to be turquoise, nobody else knows, and there are no books on it. (…)When somebody at turquoise might say something like the earth is a single organism with one mind, indigo will say I am that organism. It shifts from an intellectual understanding, although there is a lot of feeling, and feeling and thought tend to be integrated for the first time. (…)Particularly those who are already at the integral level, at some point we want to stop talking about transformation and start talking about translation. So in other words if all you talk about is transformation, then as soon as you get to green, all you are working on is how to get out of green. As soon as you get to teal all you talk about is how to get out of teal, and as soon as you get to turquoise, all you talk about is how you get out of turquoise, when are you going to live? Take a breath. (…)The theoretical is important, God knows, but I always include in my sections: Practice, practice, practice…learn how to be turquoise.”
Adrian J. Ivakhiv: “Color-coded filing systems are, of course, very useful for getting around in a messy world, but they aren’t the best way to build an ontology, epistemology, and ethic that would be adequate to the full complexity of that world.”[130]
Martin Erdmann: “Ken Wilber does not release his followers from their social conditioning. He does not do so, because he has himself not seen through his own inbred social structures. So he takes these artificial rules very seriously. He does not merely abide by the social constructs set up in the society he lives in. Human life has been newly devised in line with his innovative integral path pursued by his followers. For this he engages in a singular approach, in which he replaces the existing social rules by his own green, teal, turquoise rules, by other governing colors located on his hierarchical scheme. Wrapped up in his own mental abstractions he does not realize that he has merely replaced existing artificial rules by his own cooked up rules and standards. He then sticks to his dreamt up rules more rigidly than the normal citizen abides by the artificial standards of the society he lives in. (…) Whether you shake hands or not, and how you shake hands, “all of those things are crucial”, for there is only one correct turquoise way of doing these things. So there is a specific handshake, which you must get right once you have arrived at turquoise.  (…) Wilber's cooked up turquoise rules do not leave any freedom of action. There is no leeway for the human being to express herself in her own body language, in her underlying personal inclinations. (…) In our regular society, outside the confining bounds of an integral turquoise community, each person has considerable free scope to express herself. With all the social standards to be observed a person is still recognized as an individual human being. So, within certain limits, each person is allowed his or her own body language. (…) Wilber quite rigorously holds on to his newly discovered turquoise rules, which contradicts his own theory. The more you move up on the stages of the colorful scheme the more you become emancipated from these social rules, affirms Wilber in his Integral Psychology Once you arrive at turquoise you will act “in a living, conscious fashion, not based on external rules (blue) [amber] or group bonds (green)”, he asserts. “With only 1 percent of the population at second tiers [teal and turquoise] thinking (and only 0,1 percent at turquoise), second-tiers consciousness is relatively rare because it is now the 'leading edge' of collective human evolution”, professes Wilber. (…) We see Wilber in his integral theory aspires to liberate men and women from the shackles of self-protective, conformist thought. In his practical instructions on the video, however, Wilber firmly holds on to his own rigidly constructed conformist rules. Instead of liberating his followers from repressing social conditioning he ties them up even more closely, now to his own constructed rules. For each consecutive stage there is a different binding rule to be followed. The social standards, which applied to the stages of first tiers, do not hold true any more for the stages of second tiers. (…) Wilber, so we hear, wishes his followers to be liberated from these restricting social conventions for the true Self to light up, which – in line with his integral theory – has integrated every sentient being. His rigidly set up rules though, on which he builds in the video, his directions of saying hi and hallo, of greeting each other are not apt to set us free from a confining social demeanor. On the contrary they reinforce a self-protective behavior, which hides behind a wall of rigidly conformist rules. In his practical instructions given on the video Wilber continues to introduce his own precepts, which are meant to replace an accepted social behavior. These are his newly devised turquoise rules, which, so he declares, are of outstanding importance. For Wilber, so we hear, there is a way of embracing each other, which must be observed, once you have arrived at turquoise. (…) This is different for the turquoise embrace as visualized by Ken Wilber. For him there is only one turquoise embrace, which is different from the one amber, one orange, one green embrace. This is turquoise now, which we must firmly keep in mind, says Ken Wilber. (…) After all there is growing number of people in the integral community who, so Wilber, have arrived at turquoise. Now this is a community which has come into existence only recently under Ken Wilber's tutelage. So this is an entirely new phenomenon now, which did not exist in the past. Thus an action, like the proper turquoise embrace, has, so Wilber, to be thought out for the first time in history. (…) This is, as seen from Wilber's perspective, one of the reasons why it will take about five years or so to get these turquoise rules right. With the proper literature on the subject, so Wilber implies, you will get there earlier. Here an integral follower, who is not yet totally persuaded of Wilber's eminence, may ask himself: Has Wilber himself accomplished the integral task? His greeting of an audience in the Integral Living Room does this display the turquoise skill, which we will have to master one day? Or does Wilber himself keep on practicing to perfect his greeting skill, his mannerism, like wiping the corners of his mouth, sniffing out of one nostril? (…) After the Wilberite has accomplished the turquoise practice, she can move on to indigo, which is the next higher stage after turquoise, Wilber explains (…). The turquoise embrace is a preliminary practice only to get ready for the higher indigo embrace, where feeling and thought become integrated for the first time. Looking at the matter in a clear light now one can see what Ken Wilber presents is a highly befogged theory. It does not integrate feeling and thought as Wilber believes. In Wilber's rigidly designed turquoise practice you become split off from your feeling. Your sensations, emotions are not allowed to flow freely from within to manifest themselves in your body language. The spontaneous inner expression is suppressed by a controlling turquoise rule. Wilber, who solemnly promises to heal the split between mind and body, enhances the rift between the two. So he rambles on, when in turquoise. (…) There is no amber, green or turquoise way of brushing your teeth. (…) Ken Wilber's speech does not make things less abstract. His turquoise tooth-brushing does not make the issue more embodied, more lived in the heart and soul of our experience (…). Now Wilber is not concerned with practical, down-to-earth questions of public safety, of obtaining a driver's license. What is at stake is his integral theory. For him driving a car is another skill, which must be learnt anew, to be perfected, accomplished the turquoise way. (…) What is required in turquoise is a new style of driving. So the formerly acquired driving skills must be learnt over completely. This again means practice, practice, for the next five years or so. After all this is not a simple first tiers driving. With turquoise you are high up in second tiers, where everything “is more complex”, affirms Wilber. (…) The Wilberite aspires to climb higher and higher on Wilber's ladder like scheme, somewhat mitigated by his later discovered waves. This does not help the Wilberite to live in the Here and Now. His gaze is always fixed on the next higher stage or wave to be attained. Never satisfied with the way things are, he always looks to the future. You cannot live in the future. You can only live in the Here and Now. So the Wilberite, who is always occupied with the future, never really lives. Wilber is aware of the fact that his followers, who always aspire to get to the next higher stage, do not really live. What he does not realize is the fact that his own theory is the cause of the dilemma. The different stages have been devised by Wilber as something one has to go through only to attain to the next higher level. If after five years or so you have not accessed the next higher stage, there is something wrong with you. You got stuck on a lower stage of evolution, which must by all means be avoided. So the true Wilberite keeps on struggling.  (…) The Wilberite, however, is not invited to live in the Here and Now. There is now a new task to be accomplished. (…) The Wilberites never live in the Here and Now. Split off in their minds from the present they are always occupied with a future attainment to be accomplished. So they never really live. Wilber's ascending integral scheme, as presented in the Boulder video, is achievement, is future oriented. This is at opposites with a genuine spiritual path, which is intended to guide the seeker into a blissful Here and Now. (…) Unknowingly Ken Wilber speaks of himself. He is a colorful example of the cases he alludes to. Being at a higher level he is smarter. So he screwed up worse, with his turquoise Wilberites, deemed to belong in the upper 0,1 % of the population, following in his multicolored footsteps.  In the Wilberites' world the practical acts of walking, cooking, yelling, greeting, embracing, brushing one's teeth have been blown up, raised to lofty cerebral abstractions devoid of all meaning. So they have become alienated from real life. What our Wilberites are engaged in is translating a cooked up vision-logic theory into a dreamt up turquoise life. So they aspire to eventually move up to indigo. (…) Now seriously, what we truly see is a singular mental aberration, which I do not want to label as a clusterfuck. I would like to call it a unique New Age joke. (…) In my essay Ken Wilber's Blind Spot I arrived at the conclusion that his tale, which signifies No-thing, does not signify the All. It signifies No-thing, which signifies no-thing at All. So just replace the by at, and you get it right.”[131] 
Martin Erdmann: “Here Wilber inspires you to “unleash the greatest possible version of yourself” in order to become a “superhuman” being. (…) When the absurdity of the Wilberian campaign, of a similar commercial crusade is seen one no longer falls prey to such a preposterous enterprise.”[132]
Ken Wilber: “Spirituality—Your own deepest I-I in this We of Mutual Awakening—embraces not only states and experiences, but stages and stations on life's way. And those stages—from archaic God to magic God to mythic God to rational God to pluralistic God to integral God and higher—are indeed the stages and stations of a conveyor belt from egocentric to ethnocentric to worldcentric to Kosmocentric, with religion being the only institution in all of humanity's endeavors that can do this.”[133]
JAAP SCHAVELING: “(Wilber) explain that the Integral (Spirituality) Approach is based on five elements: quadrants, levels or stages, developmental lines, states and types. (…) Integral spirituality is therefore neither defined nor described in any other manner during the outset of the book, and the term is being used interchangeably for concepts as consciousness and enlightenment. If the main topic of Integral Spirituality had not been about spirituality, I don't think this would have been a disaster, but the fact is that in this case it does represent the central theme of the book: you cannot leave its explanation until somewhere halfway through. The result is that it leaves the reader with the impression that this book is really no more than a further development of the four-quadrant model. What specific meaning Wilber's ideas have for spirituality is in any event not being made clear right from the beginning. (…) We shall see that his descriptions in this book of spirituality following this criterion represent a 'less-than-adequate approach'. Not that I would mind that all that much; my objection is that he doesn't live up to expectations he creates. (…) Although some parts of humanity are more advanced than before, are enlightened people of today more enlightened than the enlightened ones of yesterday because they have achieved a higher level? (…) , but if everything is evolving and I become enlightened today, won't then my enlightenment be only partial tomorrow? (…)  Wilber does not provide us with a lot of insight into the relations/correlations of the “we”-quadrant with spirituality, yet he does have the gumption to judge others on this failing (…) Wilber does not live up to this promise. (…) Wilber doesn't get around to applying knowledge of these areas to spirituality, which is one of the goals of this book. (..) I don't see Wilber making these kinds of connections. All he does is make a statement at a general conceptual level that such a connection would be necessary. This, to me does not seem to be much of an integral spiritual stance at the transpersonal level. Again Wilber does not live up to the challenge he had already formulated back in 1998 (…) In daily practice Wilber more or less forgets the other quadrants, the ones about which he constantly says how important they are for the individual's development. (…) Wilber does not even make the link to spirituality at all. (…) Well...precisely those people, also mentioned by Wilber, such as Maturana, Varela and Luhmann understand that connection quite well. It would seem that Wilber likes to be the only silhouette on the skyline. (…) The purpose of this book is to apply integrality to the theme of spirituality. That means that you will have to include data coming from the scientific areas in your descriptions. Wilber appears to be making the conscious choice not to do so: a lost opportunity I think, meaning that he ends up not giving us a truly integral approach to spirituality. (…)The biggest problem I have with the chapter on Integral Life Practice (living life on the basis of his AQAL-model) is that he makes an argument that in any event is unsound scientifically. (…)Wilber doesn't give us any research indications suggesting any kind of basis for these claims. I would have staked my claims with more circumspection. It almost seems as if a marketing machine is being rolled into position.  Wilber calls himself a Pandit, or a storyteller. (…) It is quite useful to keep on reminding yourself that Wilber's story is just that: a story. It is a pity that he seems to have lost the ability to keep that perspective himself, even though he frequently repeats the need for it in his books and DVDs. In fact, the ranting tone he sometimes strikes in his website these days reinforces his diminished perspective as well. (…)I would consider Wilber's use of language and his condemnations to be a little undiplomatic sometimes, to put it euphemistically; sometimes it's roundly offensive. He seems to be placing higher demands on others than on himself. Occasionally I have found his choice of words to be unnecessarily aggressive, (…) At the opening of chapter 9, for example, he goes on to say at least three times that the largest part of humanity is at the level of Nazis (…) Now, aside from the fact that Wilber cites no research evidence to support his claim, I consider these types of comparisons to be highly distasteful, undesirable. (…)Here is another example of improper condemnation. On page 258 he says, 'All those approaches that do not specify the Kosmic address (the perspective from which one observes; JS) of the referents of the signifiers of their assertions are caught in meaningless assertions and abstractions.' Well, now, that would mean that practically all of the literature upon which Wilber says that he bases himself would consist of meaningless assertions and abstractions. (…) In conclusion I think that Integral Spirituality is somewhat of a disappointment, in light of my expectations from reading the title.”[134]
JOHN HERON: “Wilberians seem resistant to the idea that there are radically serious problems with Wilber's intricate transpersonal theoretical framework. They admit to one or two difficulties, and then, with evasive justification, relapse back rather rapidly into the faith. There is presumably some strong unconscious spiritual projection going on. (…) This brief piece is dedicated to those Wilberians who are starting to feel that the time has come for liberation. Wilber is a modern apologist and proselytizer on grand scale for ancient oriental mysticism (1990: 284), basically Advaita Vedanta Hindusim and Madhyamika Buddhism, plus any other mystics of any time or place whom he chooses to regard as having similar views. (…) (Wilber works) has so many internal problems that I sometimes think it is more like an exercise (…).Instead of incompatibles being resolved in a higher synthesis, they are conflated and superimposed upon each other in a contradictory way, or lurk inside unnoticed implications, or otherwise lie around unresolved in an incoherent system. His apologetic project is starting to look like an heroic failure. My own guess is that, when the scale of this gradually dawns on people as they withdraw their projections, he will unwittingly have done more to undermine the ancient traditions he seeks to promote than any number of the misbehaving mystics they frequently produce (Lachs, 1994; Crook, 1996). (…) It is about alerting people to the problems of a transpersonal theory which, from my perspective and for those who share it, puts forward very large claims made on inauthentic grounds. (…) Wilber thus promotes a theory which, self-defined, discredits both himself and his writing. (…) The Atman project theory has a cynical consequence. Since a person is nothing but an illusory self busy avoiding God, the theory reduces authentic interpersonal love between persons to nothing more than collusion between illusory selves in their evasion of God. Such cynicism is defamatory of human agape. (…) Wilber, in fact, runs a contradiction between an implicit non-cynical concept of personhood and an explicit entirely cynical concept, and it is the latter which, in his dominant and dour Manichean mood, comes out on top. (…) We co-create our path with inner divine life impulse and the possibilities it proffers. This more coherent idea, incidentally, leads on to a theory of the valid diversity of spiritual paths, rather than to the assimilative totalitarianism of Wilber' system. (…) But for him the process of evolution is mapped out by Spirit in a linear series of predetermined stages and deep structures, which are known by Wilber, and his ancient mystic colleagues, to be the stages of involution in reverse order (1995: 337 passim). This makes evolution neither undetermined nor innovative, and hence not an emergent creative process at all. (…) If Wilber believes that his account of the stages of spiritual experience is derived from a simple verification procedure for such experience, why does he not tell us what stages he has so far verified and by what means? If he is a genuine transcendental inquirer who practises spiritual verification, why does he always give reports, never of his own experiences, but always about the reports of the experiences of other people, people who never even claim to be transcendental scientists? (…)He seems to go far beyond what his adoption of the enactive paradigm should allow. He doesn't seem really to have absorbed the full epistemological implications of this paradigm, which he has picked up and adapted from the work of others. (…)Wilber cheats by extracting only the immediacy component of experience to support the idea of universal validity, and by discarding the mediation component which makes truth always relative-universal - a wise provison of providence, perhaps, so that we need to listen to each other, rather than lecture each other. Thus he falls foul of a false dichotomy which offers an exclusive choice between universalist-absolutism on the one hand and pernicious self-refuting and nihilistic relativism on the other, and so cannot entertain the sort of authentic relativism required by the enactive paradigm which he has adopted (Ferrer, 1997). (…)This unqualified absolutism is, of course, oppressive. (…) His account of the spiritual path clearly seeks to be controlling, dominating, hegemonic, devouring (opponents are relished for breakfast), and is implicitly intolerant and dismissive of all religious beliefs and practices which cannot be assimilated into its absolutist framework (diZerega, 1996; Ferrer, 1997). Wilber writes with analytic scorn about the poor fools who cannot get his absolute point. (…)There is a strong element of hubris and inflation about all this which strikes me at times as an advanced and sophisticated kind of spiritual pathology which, at a subtle level, has got entirely out of hand. This is not very complimentary, although it may be kind in a confronting sort of way, but it least gives an explanation of how it is that Wilber cannot see the multitudinous flaws in his own constructions. (…)The more he goes along that prescribed path, the more his achievement on that path buries and represses the frustration engendered by the projection. He is thus driven, in his roundabout theoretical way, to take out his denied frustration by getting everyone else to go along the same path. (…) I have no respect, however, for the promotion of hegemonic claims”[135]
JORGE N. FERRER: “The issue is not that Wilber ignores (Indigenous) traditions, but that he regards their goals as 'lower' spiritual expressions in a single developmental sequence culminating in a monistically-based integral nondual realization. (…) Wilber (1995, 2006) offer universal maps of spiritual development — a highly discredited notion in contemporary scholarship (…) I suggest that instead of an 'Eastern bias,' it may be more accurate to talk about a 'monistic nondual bias' in Wilber's approach (see also Ferrer, 2002, pp.89-90). (…) (the) transpersonal community that has mostly broken free from Wilber's stranglehold. (…) Wilber's current formulation, however, retains a core problem and adds a new one. On the one hand, some traditions still rank lower than others since they aim at supposedly less advanced spiritual states and stages (e.g., theistic traditions rank lower than nondual ones, shamanic ones lower than theistic, etc.). (…) theistic and shamanic practitioners are told that they too can reach the most advanced spiritual stage, but only if they sacrifice the integrity of their own tradition's self-understanding by accepting Wilber's spiritual itinerary and nondual endpoint. (…) I strongly dispute the plausibility and legitimacy of Wilber's hierarchical rankings (…)(e.g., about the ideological nature of Wilber's map; its distortion of the God of the Semitic traditions, etc.). (…)Wilber often displays the disturbing scholarly habit of incorporating into his theorizing critical points made by others about his work — at times points he previously dismissed as misinformed or conveying less evolved levels of spiritual discernment — and presenting them as autonomous developments of his thinking. In this case, Wilber has assimilated aspects of the participatory approach into his integral vision; from a participatory perspective, however, many problems remain. (…)Wilber wants to confine such ontological multiplicity to his unilinear evolutionary sequence, but I believe it is both more accurate and more generous to envision cosmic and spiritual evolution as branching out in many different but potentially intermingled directions (or as an omnicentered rhizome propagating through offshoots and thickenings of its nodes; Deleuze & Guattari, 1987). If we accept this view, we can affirm the ontological nature of a plurality of Kosmic habits free from Wilberian dogmatic constraints. (…)As Daniels points out, however, Wilber's attempt to make such accessibility mandatory for the entire human species is misleading. (…)I have often been asked what I think about Wilber's post-metaphysical spirituality. My answer: It is not only unoriginal, but also arguably reductionist. I fail to see novelty in it because many contemplative traditions — such as Yogacara (Mind-Only) Buddhism or most Tibetan Buddhist schools — explicitly account for spiritual realms in terms of subtle dimensions of consciousness, not as external metaphysical levels of reality. Wilber seems to be reacting against a special brand of Neo-Platonic metaphysics (the Great Chain of Being), but his post-metaphysical formulation does not add anything to the way some other traditions have understood spiritual realities for centuries. I am somehow surprised each time Wilber borrows age-old notions and presents them as not only the newest spiritual vision, but one that supersedes all previous visions. (…)I am puzzled by Rowan's claim that Wilber 'invented the idea of these quadrants [AQAL model]' (Rowan et al., p.41). Put together Schumacher's (1977) 'four fields of knowledge' — interior/exterior of myself, interior/exterior of other beings and the world — or any pantheist's inner/outer dimensions (see Clarke, 2004), and Jantsch's (1980) micro/macro evolutions, then add a pinch of Koestler's (1976) holonic logic, and voilà, you have the basic AQAL framework. Wilber (1995) gives due acknowledgment to most of these influences in his elaboration of the AQAL model, except perhaps to Schumacher, whose own four-quadrant model is closest to Wilber's. (…) Conceptually speaking, therefore, much of what is valuable in the model is not new; unfortunately, what is new is arguably problematic (e.g., Wilber's developmental map and hierarchical spiritual gradations). (…) As I believe Wilber himself would admit, his particular genius manifests not in invention, but in the integration of others' ideas. (…)Several years before Wilber articulated his integral post-metaphysics, the participatory approach eschewed the dualism of appearance and reality, as well as endorsed modern and postmodern critiques of traditional metaphysics of presence (Ferrer, 2002). In contrast to Wilber, however, I believe that it is entirely possible to consistently drop the mentalist dualism of appearance and reality, and simultaneously entertain the plausibility of a deep and ample multidimensional cosmos in which the sensible world does not exhaust the possibilities of the Real. In this light, a major problem with Wilber's formulation becomes apparent: It creates a false dichotomy between pregiven ontological levels and his post-metaphysical account of spiritual worlds within the interior realms of the individual. This dichotomy is fallacious because, among other possibilities, it overlooks the possible presence of subtle dimensions of reality coexisting with our own and potentially housing spiritual worlds and indwelling nonphysical entities. (…) In any event, if we accept the plausibility of a multidimensional cosmos — as many shamanic, esoteric, and contemplative traditions affirm — Wilber's integral post-metaphysics is reductionist in its relegation of all spiritual realities to the inner depths of the individual. If he is also suggesting that all spiritual realities and entities are human cocreations, his proposal could also be charged with anthropocentrism. (…)  Wilber's account is monopolar insofar as it conceives enlightenment in terms of a realization in consciousness that overlooks the crucial role of immanent life for genuinely integral spiritual growth and creative spiritual breakthroughs. (…) As Kelly (1998) and Washburn (1998) point out, however, Wilber's holarchical logic cannot account for important aspects of human development. (…) Wilber regards the body and sexuality as sacred in the sense of having spiritual 'ground value' (i.e., they are expressions of absolute Spirit, emptiness, or God) and in that they can be sacralized in the nondual integral embrace; however, this account is very different from recognizing the centrality of intrinsically spiritual, immanent sources for holistic transpersonal development. (…)Openness to immanent spiritual life naturally engenders a richer plurality of creative spiritual realizations — often connected with transformative personal life choices — that cannot be reduced to the homogenous 'one taste' of Wilber's nondual realization. (…)Wilber currently recommends an Integral Life Practice (ILP) in which practitioners select ready-made practices from different modules corresponding to trainable human capacities, such as body, mind, spirit, sex, and relationships (…).Wilber (2006) and his associates particularly recommend what they consider 'gold star practices,' many of which involve acceptance and instruction in Wilber's system. For example, the 'gold star practice' for the mind is the 'Integral (AQAL) Framework' (or the 'downloading' in the practitioner's mind of the 'Integral Operating System'); for spirit, starred practices include 'Integral Inquiry' (i.e., a Wilberian synthesis of selected meditative practices) and 'The 1-2-3 of God' (Ibid. p.203). In addition to important doctrinal elements embedded in the system, Wilber's ILP can easily turn into a 'mentally' devised integral training in which the practitioner's mind decides what are the best practices or techniques to develop his or her body, sexuality, heart, and consciousness. The problem here is that insofar as they are always mentally or externally guided, these human dimensions cannot mature autonomously, and thus the need for their mental or external direction becomes permanently justified. What is needed to break this deeply-seated feedback loop, I believe, is to create spaces in which these human dimensions can mature according to their own developmental principles and dynamics, not according to the ones the mind considers most adequate (…).I want to add here that to elevate one's own spiritual choice as the universally superior one is a symptom of what I have called spiritual narcissism, which is unfortunately pandemic in the human approach to religious diversity (…).To conclude, from a participatory perspective, Wilber's nondual realization can be seen as one among many other spiritual enactions — one that it is not entirely holistic from any contemporary perspective recognizing the equal spiritual import of both consciousness and energy, both transcendent and immanent spiritual sources.”[136]

[1] Ken Wilber, Toward a Fourth Turning of Buddhism, January 1, 2017
[2] http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=17151&LangID=E
[3] http://en.unesco.org/news/karima-bennoune-cultural-heritage-human-rights-issue
[4] http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=17718&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html
[5] http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=17716&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html
[6] http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=31038&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html
[7] Ken Wilber (1991), Grace and Grit: Spirituality & Healing in the Life & Death of Treya Killam Wilber
[8] Geoffrey Falk, Stripping the Gurus: Sex, Violence, Abuse and Enlightenment
[9] K. Wilber, Grace and Grit: Spirituality & Healing in the Life & Death of Treya Killam Wilber
[10] Geoffrey Falk, Stripping the Gurus: Sex, Violence, Abuse and Enlightenment
[11] K. Wilber, What we are, That we see. Part I: Response to some recent criticism in a Wild West Fashion.
[12] Cohen, A., & Wilber, K. (2011). Eros, Buddha and the spectrum of love. EnlightenNext. Lenox, MA.
[13] Cohen, A., & Wilber, K. (2011). Eros, Buddha and the spectrum of love. EnlightenNext. Lenox, MA.
[15] Ken Wilber, Right Bucks: Money and Spirituality. November 23, 2016
[16] ELLIOT BENJAMIN, KEN WILBER'S LEAP OF FAITH: From Self-Organization to “Spirit in Action” in Wilber's Fourth Turning of Buddhism.
[17] Ken Wilber, On Heroes and Cults  http://www.adidawilber.com/on_heroes_and_cults/ 
[18] Geoffrey D. Falk, Stripping the Gurus: Sex, Violence, Abuse and Enlightenment
[19] Wilber, Ken (2000a), One Taste: The Journals of Ken Wilber (Boston, MA: Shambhala).
[20] Wilber, Ken (2000a), One Taste: The Journals of Ken Wilber (Boston, MA: Shambhala).
[21] Zen Master Taisen Saito, The Heresy of Ken Wilber
[22] Reply to the article of Zen Master Taisen Saito, The Heresy of Ken Wilber.
[23] Conrad Goehausen ,Reply to Wilber on Metaphysics of Evolution.
[24] Ken Wilber, The Religion of Tomorrow.
[26] Ken Wilber, The Atman Project
[27] Ken Wilber, The Fourth Turning
[28] ELÍAS CAPRILES, THE TRANSRELIGIOUS FALLACY IN WILBER’S WRITINGS And Its Relation With Wilber's “Philosophical Tradition" And Views "Beyond Mind", Part III, Appendix 1
[30] BARCLAY POWERS, TANTRIC BUDDHAHOOD AND THE EVOLUTION OF NON-DUALITY: Is Integral Evolutionary Enlightenment Theory Backwards?
[32] Ken Wilber, The Religion of Tomorrow
[33] Sankalp Khobragade, Why is Mr Ken Wilber teaching a False Buddhism?
[34] Anil Yadavrao Gaikwad, Why is Mr Ken Wilber teaching a False Buddhism?
[35] Ajay Dhoke, Why is Mr Ken Wilber teaching a False Buddhism?
[36] JIM ANDREWS, KEN WILBER ON MEDITATION: A Baffling Babbling of Unending Nonsense.
[37] Ken Wilber, One Taste.
[38] Ken Wilber, A Theory of Everything
[39] Ken Wilber, Kosmic Consciousness
[40] Ken Wilber, Grace and Grit
[41] JIM ANDREWS, KEN WILBER ON MEDITATION: A Baffling Babbling of Unending Nonsense.
[42] Ken Wilber, Kosmic Consciousness
[43] John Horgan, Rational Mysticism: Dispatches from the Border Between Science and Spirituality
[44] Ken Wilber, The Religion of Tomorrow
[45] Ken Wilber, On Heroes and Cults  http://www.adidawilber.com/on_heroes_and_cults/ 
[46] Ken Wilber, The One Who Was To Come Is Always Already Here" A Short Appreciation of the Teaching of Bubba Free John  http://www.adidawilber.com/writings.html
[47] Saniel Bonder, The Divine Emergence of the World-Teacher
[48] Geoffrey D. Falk, Stripping the Gurus: Sex, Violence, Abuse and Enlightenment
[50] Ken Wilber, Up From Eden  http://www.adidawilber.com/writings.html
[51] Ken Wilber, Letter to The Laughing Man magazine  http://www.adidawilber.com/writings.html
[52] Ken Wilber, A Theory of Everything: An Integral Vision for Business, Politics, Science and Spirituality
[53] Ken Wilber, Ken Wilber recorded interview, Bay Area Integral (BAI) with Terry Patten and Dustin DiPerna, January 2015, 19:53.
[54] Jim Chamberlain, Beware of the God  http://bewareofthegod.blogspot.com.ar/ 
[55] Timothy Conway, Adi Da and His Voracious, Abusive  Personality Cult  http://www.enlightened-spirituality.org/Da_and_his_cult.html
[56] Robert Augustus Masters, The Death of Adi Da  http://www.enlightened-spirituality.org/Da_and_his_cult.html
[57] Elias, 2001 Essay: The Forbidden Planet  http://www.enlightened-spirituality.org/Da_and_his_cult.html
[58] Adi Da, Love Is How I Got To Here  http://www.adidaupclose.org/FLO/index.html
[60] David Lane, The Myth of Adi Da Haters and Other Cultic Fables
[61] Ford Greene (Attorney at Law), Mark Miller's 1986 Lawsuit Against Adi Da for Fraud and Infliction of Emotional Distress  http://archive.is/lYa5Q#selection-213.8-213.96
[62] Patricia Masters (former member of Adi Da’s Community), Declaration of Patricia Masters Filed with Marin County Superior Court  http://archive.is/Itws7#selection-223.0-227.38
[63] David L. Cunningham (Attorney for Plaintiff Beverly Jacobs  O`Mahony), Complaint of Beverly O'Mahony  http://archive.is/60Tnz#selection-209.0-209.29
[64] Jim Chamberlain, Beware of the God  http://bewareofthegod.blogspot.com.ar/ 
[65] Georg Feuerstein, Holy Madness
[66] Adi Da (Bubba Free John), Garbage and the Goddess: The Last
Miracles and Final Spiritual Instructions of Bubba Free John
[67] Adi Da, The Knee of Listening: The Early-Life Ordeal and the Radical Spiritual Realization of the Divine World-Teacher
[68] Scott R. Gourley and Rosemary Edmiston, Adidam Comes to the Northcoast (Northcoast Journal Weekly)
[69] Geoffrey D. Falk, Stripping the Gurus: Sex, Violence, Abuse and Enlightenment
[71] Ken Wilber, The Strange Case of Adi Da  http://www.adidawilber.com/case_of_adi_da/index.html 
[72] http://www.adidawilber.com/letter_to_adidam_community/index.htmlPrivate Letter to Adidam Community by Ken Wilber
[73] Ken Wilber, Private Letter to the Adidam Community  http://www.adidawilber.com/letter_to_adidam_community/index.html
[75] Ken Wilber, An Update on the Case of Adi Da http://www.adidawilber.com/update_on_case_of_adi_da/index.html
[76] Geoffrey D. Falk, Stripping the Gurus: Sex, Violence, Abuse and Enlightenment
[77] Sri Bob, The Knee of Daism: Deconstructing Adi Da
[78] David Christopher Lane, Critique of Ken Wilber
[79] G.D. Falk, Norman Einstein The Disintegration Of Ken Wilber
[80] Ken Wilber in the foreword for Cohen’s work Living Enlightenment
[81] Ken Wilber quoted by Be Scofield, Integral Abuse: Andrew Cohen and the Culture of Evolutionary Enlightenment
[82] G.D. Falk, Norman Einstein The Disintegration Of Ken Wilber
[83] Ken Wilber about Cohen’s What is Enlightenment Magazine
[84] Horgan, John (2003a), Rational Mysticism: Dispatches from the Border Between Science and Spirituality
[85] Geoffrey D. Falk, Stripping the Gurus: Sex, Violence, Abuse and Enlightenment
[86] Andrew Cohen, Autobiography of an Awakening
[87] Geoffrey D. Falk, Stripping the Gurus: Sex, Violence, Abuse and Enlightenment
[88] Luna Tarlo, The Mother of God
[89] Geoffrey D. Falk, Stripping the Gurus: Sex, Violence, Abuse and Enlightenment
[90] Luna Tarlo, The Mother of God
[91] Geoffrey D. Falk, Stripping the Gurus: Sex, Violence, Abuse and Enlightenment
[92] Horgan, John (2003), The Myth of the Totally Enlightened Guru
[93] Be Scofield, Integral Abuse: Andrew Cohen and the Culture of Evolutionary Enlightenment http://www.integralworld.net/scofield1.html
[94] William Yenner, American Guru: A Story of Love, Betrayal and Healing –Former Students of Andrew Cohen Speak Out
[95] David Lane, The Narcissist Rises From The Ashes: Removing the Baby from the Bathwather, A critique of Andrew Cohen’s Latest Incarnation http://www.integralworld.net/lane122.html
[96] Tomer Persico, ANDREW COHEN AND THE DECLINE OF THE GURU INSTITUTION (Part I) http://www.integralworld.net/persico1.html
[97] Luna Tarlo, The Mother of God
[98] David Lane, THE GURU WHO WOULDN'T QUIT: Andrew Cohen Emerges from his Downfall

[99] Martin Erdmann, The Real Cause of Andrew Cohen’s Dilemma (Part I: Andrew Cohen following Fatefully in Ken Wilber's Egosteps)
[100] Martin Erdmann, The Real Cause of Andrew Cohen’s Dilemma (Part II: Ken Wilber's Ego-Theory Revealed as a True Breeding Ground of Self Destruction)
[101]  Ken Wilber, One Taste: The Journals of Ken Wilber
[102]  Ken Wilber, Boomeritis
[103]  Ken Wilber, Greater Psychology
[104]  Ken Wilber, Integral Psychology
[105]  Ken Wilber, Atman Project
[106] Ken Wilber, On Heroes and Cults  http://www.adidawilber.com/on_heroes_and_cults/ 
[107] Georg Feuerstein, Holy Madness
[108] Ken Wilber, Talks with Ramana Maharshi  (Foreword to the reissue of the work)
[110] K. Wilber, One Taste: The Journals of Ken Wilber
[111] Geoffrey Falk, Stripping the Gurus: Sex, Violence, Abuse and Enlightenment
[112] Aroup Chatterjee, Mother Teresa: The Final Verdict
[113] Christopher Hitchens, The Missionary Position: Mother Teresa in Theory and Practice.
[114] Imre Von Soos, A FRESH LOOK AT WILBER - Comment on Frank Visser's: "If You Meet Wilber on the Road, Kill Him"
[116] Michel Bauwens, The cult of Ken Wilber.
[117] KENNETH SØRENSEN, INTEGRAL PSYCHOSYNTHESIS: A comparison of Wilber and Assagioli
[118] Aurobindo, The Life Divine,
[120] Matthew Dallman, ON KEN WILBER: Hopelessly New Age, Hopeless for the Humanities
[121] Thomas J. McFarlane, A Critical Look at Ken Wilber’s Four Quadrant Model
[123] William Irwin Thompson, Coming Into Being
[124] GEORGE ADAMS, A Theistic Perspective on Ken Wilber's Transpersonal Psychology
[125] Brad Reynolds, The Spirituality of tomorrow: transcending (yet including) religions - Why Wilber`s Way Might Not work.
[126] Geoffrey Falk, Stripping the Gurus: Sex, Violence, Abuse and Enlightenment
[127] Rolf Sattler, Ken Wilber AQAL Dogma.
[128] Ken Wilber, The Religion of tomorrow
[129] F. Visser, Rational Reasons to believe in Spirit? Evaluating Ken Wilber`s Case for a Spiritual Worldview.
[131] Martin Erdmann, Poor Wilberites who are never allowed to live in the here and now.
[133] Ken Wilber, Integral Spirituality: A Startling New Role for Religion in the Modern and Postmodern World
[134] JAAP SCHAVELING, INTEGRAL SPIRITUALITY: A Summary and Some Critical Comments

No hay comentarios:

Publicar un comentario

Nota: solo los miembros de este blog pueden publicar comentarios.