Religion of Love

Speeches » 2007 » 11 Ken Wilber  (Previous | Next)

November 2007 (About Ken Wilber)


[529] I refer to his book "Integral Spirituality". Wilber presents a classification system that is to help to fan out knowledge and spirituality. At this, different scientific approaches are incorporated. Reclusively, the diversity of approaches makes a preoccupation with the integral approach worthwhile. [530] Wilber avoids for example to consider certain forms of religion as insufficient, but wants to lift them by including further quadrants, steps, zones, levels, lines, states and types to higher levels. Thus, the religions can move to each other and science will be integrated. The disadvantage of a classification as a drawer system is accepted at this. [531] This is not to object to, if one realises the intended finiteness of this approach, and is ready for the expansion and correction. It is to aspire to to integrate as many classification items without resorting to schematism. It is interesting that certain approaches came first in our world as time goes on: that emphasises an inevitably limited validity of the word of L. [532] Wilber also stresses the importance of devotion and dedication in Buddhism. He emphasises the importance of intersubjectivity. He sees religion as a great conveyor belt for humanity and its stages of development. Everyone must pass successively certain levels of development to develop. A skipping is not possible. [533] This is a further blow to Hawkins levels of awareness, which only can change marginally in life. Wilber also comes out in favour of transrationality as an important task of religion. He regards the fully enlightened, always present divine awareness as inevitable. Religion is institutionalised spirituality. Enlightenment is understood as "the realisation of oneness with all states and structures that exist at a given time." [534] The question is whether this is ever possible, respectively desirable. I maintain that both is not true. As finite beings, we cannot be linked to more than what makes us up. About that also the subjective completeness sense cannot belie. [535] Enlightenment is not desirable because on the one hand it would enrich us, but also would sober: If one has to leave this state of enlightenment, one has seen all what there is. This state becomes, if it continues, normality and therefore boring and unbearable. To leave it compulsorily is unbearable. Here only L can help.

© 2007 by Boris Haase

Valid XHTML 1.0 • Disclaimer • imprint • • pdf-version • questionnaire • bibliography • subjects • definitions • php-code • sitemap • rss-feed • top