Struggling Reading Ken Wilber

[BlessedLion]

Hi guys

 

id love to hear your thoughts on this. I’ve been systematically finishing every book on the reading list and just got to Ken Wilber’s tomb “Religion of Tomorrow” 

For the most part, it makes sense, but he seems kinda all over the place, he brings in concepts that he hasn’t really defined or explained, and I find a low amount examples and real life references. For example, he talks about the subtle state and casual state but doesn’t define how this shows up in waking reality. The examples are very few, “you see beings of light” 

So I don’t understand how someone creates their center of gravity at Integral- Casual for example and what that actually looks and feels like. 
 

I don’t think it’s an issue of my ability to read and understand. I graduated from a top university. I’ve read Ralston and have no problems with the other books on the list. 
 

Is this just me or does anyone else run into this issue with Wilber’s work? 

[Thought Art]

@BlessedLion Possibly a reason why I don’t read him much as of yet. 
 

You are reading a book that may be built on his earlier works as well.

May be worth doing some research to see which books are foundational. Or have you read his other books?

Edited January 26 by Thought Art

[Schizophonia]

KB is super easy to read.

[Spiritual Warrior]

I struggle to read him as well

I intuit this means I'm not mature enough yet

I will come back to his teachings when the time is right.

Edited January 26 by Spiritual Warrior

[BlessedLion]

I don’t know if it’s maturity though, I have no problem reading other high level, complex books. 
But that’s possible, I’m open to it. 

This is my first book by him and it’s very recent so maybe there is that issue of foundation with his work. I’ll keep going and read his other stuff, I’m sure at some point it’ll all tie together 

[UnbornTao]

Probably because it is highly intellectual, abstract and based on a complex system of implicit assumptions.

Edited January 28 by UnbornTao

[Schizophonia]

8 minutes ago, UnbornTao said:

Probably cause it's highly intellectual and based on a bunch of assumptions.

Nietzsche, Evola, Kant and many others are much more difficult to read.

[Leo Gura]

I spoil you guys with examples. Most teachers do not.

[Falco]

How are you doing, dear Leo?

I really miss your Youtube video's... 

❤️

[Yimpa]

3 minutes ago, Falco said:

How are you doing, dear Leo?

I really miss your Youtube video's... 

❤️

Bet you haven’t seen all of them. Now’s your chance to ketchup.

[Francis777]

52 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

I spoil you guys with examples. Most teachers do not.

If you cant give examples your mostly likely full of shit.

[rachMiel]

You may try enlisting the help of a good AI. It will know the book and know Wilber's views and help clarify them. 

[Leo Gura]

4 minutes ago, Francis777 said:

If you cant give examples your mostly likely full of shit.

Or just out of touch as a teacher.

[Thought Art]

You may need to use his book along with a common place book, google and chat GPT to generate examples, as you build your spiritual dictionary/ vocabulary.

Edited January 26 by Thought Art

[Leo Gura]

Ken Wilber knows what he's talking about. He's not a bullshitter.

Edited January 27 by Leo Gura

[UnbornTao]

@Leo Gura Is he enlightened? Why the emphasis on mapping, models, stages? What is he trying to measure?

It can be good, even brilliant, work, although it seems to be conceptually-based. It is putting the cart before the horse when it comes to enlightenment. Even with profound consciousness, I seriously doubt mapping consciousness is necessary or possible at all.

As a sidenote, Ken was influenced, among others, by Adi Da and Franklin Merrell-Wolff, which is interesting.

Edited January 27 by UnbornTao

[BlessedLion]

4 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

I spoil you guys with examples. Most teachers do not.

For this I’ve ever grateful. 
 

I just feel that Ralston, Hawkins, and others are easier to read. Like it flows better. With Wilber it just seems bumpy and very ungrounded/practical in actual reality. 

[Leo Gura]

@UnbornTao I didn't say anything about his degree of awakening. That's besides the point here.

[Brivido]

9 hours ago, BlessedLion said:

I don’t think it’s an issue of my ability to read and understand.

I feel exactly the same, his writing style is unnecessary convoluted. In order to fully understand what he means I have to spend hours on a chapter and be fully focused. 

On the other hand, there are some chapters that are amazing, for instance the chapter on Plotinus in “The religion of tomorrow”. 

The only exception I’ve found is his book “No boundary”, it was extremely easy to read.

The irony is that I heard Ken saying in one of his interviews that when he was young he spent weeks transcribing Alan Watts’s books in order to absorb Alan’s clear writing style.

I guess that didn’t work out, lol

[Schizophonia]

9 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Ken Wilber knows what he's talking about. He's not a bullshitter.

He sometimes makes mistakes, like when he says that testosterone makes you "want to fuck and kill" in A-Brief-History-of-Everything.

6 hours ago, UnbornTao said:

@Leo Gura

 

@Leo Gura He enlightened?

Why the emphasis on mapping, models, stages? What is he measuring? Consciousness? Experience?

Not saying it can't be great, even brilliant, work, but seems like putting the cart before the horse. Even with profound enlightenment, I seriously doubt this mapping consciousness business is necessary or the best approach. Ultimately it seems to be conceptually-based. I'm talking in the context of enlightenment, not familiar with other aspects of his work.

He is still cool to read, I can feel and imbibe his light "green" energy, it is felt in his concepts and his paradigm in general.

Edited January 27 by Schizophonia