Ken Wilber's Message to Japan

Hi Bruce,

Actually, the meditation instruction, "witnessing," struck me in that way as well in this context, as dissociative. It's just that I am sure he would see that as a misunderstanding of the dharma. In the past, several years ago, I did a lot of witnessing and such, and it may have had some benefit, but eventually it stopped making sense for me. If you do too much of it, as I have seen Andrew Cohen joke, you can start jerking your head backwards and such when you meet people. You can tell if someone has done too much witnessing or some kinds of vipassana by looking at them.  :)

But it works for some people, and it evidently has worked for Ken, so I doubt that it's inherently dissociative. Only if it became inauthentic and obsessive rather than authentically continual would it really be dissociative, but I had the same feeling reading it as well and "trying it on for size" in this context, imagining myself in that situation. I just know that he wouldn't mean it to be taken in that way, and not everyone would necessarily take it that way. Had I read it at a different time maybe I would have felt differently. It would have made more sense to me if he had just suggested witnessing for certain periods during the day and/or spontaneously, the latter of which is actually the way he talks about it in One Taste (as a "capping exercise," Friday, October 31).

In terms of values, I also think it's not quite right to conclude that he is saying that the world matters less than the Real in a behavioral way. So much of his work has been devoted to the opposite idea, that it's every bit as important. Open up virtually any guru-and-pandit discussion or book and you will find that idea. It's been a great emphasis of his work, so only if we take this piece out of context would it really seem that way.

With regard to calling family members and fellow citizens "surface phenomena" I think we want both: we want to see them as surface phenomena and we want to see them as what is most precious, both at the same time, held paradoxically. With that paradox we can engage with the process fully in a heartfelt manner and be free at the same time, which will in turn help us give more. Without one half of the paradox, seeing them as surface phenomena, we would just be reifying them and reifying ourselves, and be completely caught in--you're not going to like this!--samsara.  :) And then we wouldn't be so free to be of service.

I can't say I am established in turiya awareness, either, but I don't think being established there implies a thought that people are surface phenomena or necessarily colors our attitude toward them. I think it's just a kind of a pre- or post-conceptual recognition, which I know you have experienced as have I. I think one can likely be established there with great care and dedication to the world or not, and whether there were dedication would depend on structure, line, etc.

A steady, calm Witnessing in the midst of turmoil keeps one directly related to Spirit, as Spirit, and anchors one in what really matters and what is ultimately Real.

I think there's another possible reading of that than the one you've been giving. I think it's possible that by "what really matters" he meant the world, one's family members, the process, etc. I think he might have been giving both sides of the paradox in that statement and that it might have been clarified by italicizing the second "and":

A steady, calm Witnessing in the midst of turmoil keeps one directly related to Spirit, as Spirit, and anchors one in what really matters and what is ultimately Real.

Without that interpretation, he would have been speaking of Spirit as the Unmanifest three or four times in that sentence without any mention of the manifest, and that's not like him.  :) I mean, he always emphasizes the relative side of the street as well and tries to strike the right balance. Of course we'd have to ask him to be sure, but that interpretation would be consistent with all the rest of his work.

Also, with regard to "metaphysical," I think "the Witness" as he interprets "it" is metaphysical in the not-materialistic sense but not necessarily metaphysical in the post-metaphysical or integral-methodological-pluralism sense, because most zone-#1 realizers agree with his interpretation. It might turn out to be decisively not the case a few hundred years down the line, but we don't have the evidence to say that it is not true now (and of course it might come down decisively the other way as well). The interpretation that the Witness is free of the world and so forth has followed the three strands of deep science well enough in enough cultures for people to use it as an operating interpretation in a post-metaphysical worldspace if they like, though, as with all interpretations, it is open to further study.

With regard to the first tenet of Zen Peacemakers, I interpret it as another way of saying "witness" (though he and Bernie seem to use the word "witness" in slightly different ways here, Bernie in the second tenet). They are two ways of realizing the same state or "state." Witnessing is what is left when we let go of our fixed ideas.

Best,

David

  Lovely to hear from you David, Balder and Didjlyn(interesting name, I guess related to Didjeridoo/Yadaki). All responses I find useful and I trust when we don't agree (or seem not to), that there is 'usefulness' found there too. Most often i experience it thus. And wonderful too, it is to hear your agreeing appreciations, always encouragingly helpful.

  Didjlyn I appreciate your direct honesty, though I have to side with Balder and David.  My experience is that 'Integral' and what I've read and viewed on this website is not unduely burdened by the limitations of 'absolute' ideology or dogma. In fact such talk is perhaps much more likely to be 'picked-up' on in the 'integral' world, then anywhere else. So much so that it it may get 'picked-up' even when its not truely the case, as MAY or MAY NOT be happening here.

  This does not mean Integral will be free of it, in fact Integral, as I understand it, 'Integral' would wish not to exclude the 'absolute' view at all. But rather find the rightful place for this 'awareness IN consciousness' and thus this awareness can then be helpful not pathological.

  As this 'absolute' awareness is of a very high order, it is not always going to be black and white obvious as to when and where this is being helpfully applied or not. Grappling with this precise issue has been as David says, the source of much discussion shared by Ken and Andrew and I also would suggest listening to them if you have not.

  And yet David, I don't see that their grappling with this topic, as itself proof that they are free from it. Andrew particularly not in my eyes. Andrew has made this his signature issue, perhaps obsessionally and that fight against it may well reflect bondage to it. Certainly he doesn't feel (or sound) 'ultimately' free himself(to me), so for me its better that his talks with Ken are called 'pundit to pundit' sharings,  not himself as Guru. I respectfully understand you and others may disagree and I'm actually not to much interested in personalising this. Their talks as I said, do have great value and I do agree with much of it and applaud them gratefully for contributing important insights into this murky area.

  Ken (to me), does feel much more free with it, maybe totally free. Perhaps his lineage with DA  allows this more easily, as DA  would be quick to mock and ground someone getting to carried away with a mental revelation or any other breakthrough experience.                                                                                                         And ALSO the shear vastness of Kens awareness, I suggest allows him to not easily be bogged down.

  If I imagine like David what Ken might be thinking in writing this address (if Ken doesn't feel the need to correct it???). Its "That to NOT mention an 'absolute view' as part of an overall address to this extreme case of so much devastation and death would be remiss. Because if there is a place where this 'view' is relevant its here. Unavoidably so. That this is couched in so much compassionately human setting is not to be overlooked.  Those of lesser awareness and or particular hyper-sensitivity will just have to take the opportunity to evolve further, or not. But this is exactly when a 'Transformative' shout is required, not just only 'translational' comforting".

  If this be so. Then I would have more questions to ask about vertical and horizontal aspects of all this but perhaps that's just to much speculation for now, and anyhow its enough from me for now also.

  Loving appreciations to you all,

  David O.